In order to comply with ISO/TS16949:2002 Section 7.6.3.1 (Internal Laboratory) and Section 7.6.2 (Calibration/Verification Records) ones Scope is to reference a relevant process standard when performing calibration/verification tasks internally. I was able to obtain a copy of a Rockwell Truck and Axle calibration procedure manual (CPM) that covers most common inspection devises, but not all gage used by my quality department is covered within this manual. I am generating internal calibration work instruction for each gage type based on this CPM, and used a similar methodical approach for gage not covered by this CPM.
Question # 1: Am I interpolating the TE16949 standard correctly? Or, am I putting too much into this?
Question # 2: Are there other CPM’s publication that I to reference to help me reduce external calibration cost by expanding our internal capabilities, and comply with the letter of the TS16949 law?
Question # 3: What is (would be) an external auditors expectation related to this area?
mkomarmy 4/11/2005
The acceptance limits for your measurement systems depend on what you will be using them for. If you are measuring parts to determine print conformance, you will want the total error or uncertainty to be as small as possible. The larger the errors, the grater the likelihood that you will either accept bad parts or reject good ones.
If the gauge will be used for process control, you may be able to accept more uncertainty. This is because the variances are additive. In other words, the sigma squared of the observed variation = the sigma squared of the gauge variation + the sigma squared of the process variation.
A good reference document for this is the AIAG QS-9000 MSA third edition guideline.