🚀 go-pugleaf

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 20 Aug 98 12:11:43 EDT
From: ChuckLandis@eaton.com
Subject: re: QS9000, Chapter 4.11 Dilemma

John,
        If your employee's use the steel rulers to determine if the product
"conforms to requirements" then there is no way to come up with a "work
around."  Further, why would you want to? If you are using an uncablibrated
gage to determine product conformance to requirements, how do you know that
the product in fact is good?  How do you intend to calibrate the steel
rulers of your supervisors and leadmen, at what frequency, how will you do
R&R studies, etc?

What I have seen done in an ISO9001 compliant system when steel rulers were
used, but only to check the approximate size of the part, not actually
inspect the part, was a statement in 4.11 procedures that says only gages
able to discriminate less than 0.020"  were to be used to inspect product.
Any other measurement device, such as a steel ruler, was only used as a
reference tool. The operators could use a steel rule to check say the OD of
a bar to make sure it was the right size, but after machining a more
precise gage had to be used.  Of course, most of the product that was being
made there had tolerances less than 0.010", so it was easy to get by with
this.

Applying this experience to your situation might be possible unless your
employees are able to use a steel rule to measure a characteristic within
the tolerance required.  If they are, as you imply, then there is no way
that I can see to get around the requirement to place all of you steel
rulers under your gage calibration and recall procedures.  To give them 2
tools that could be used to check for conformance, 1 calibrated and 1 not
is inviting diaster.  All the auditors have to see is one operator using
the uncalibrated tool to "inspect" product and he will cite you for a major
nonconformance.

Chuck Landis, Manager
Quality and Continuous Improvement
Eaton-Forge Division
South Bend, IN.
CLandis@quality.org
ChuckLandis@eaton.com