The Hidden Expense of Staying Quiet About Fit-for-Use 

Most calibration problems do not begin in the lab. They begin in the silence before it. 

In many regulated environments, calibration is handled as a transaction rather than a conversation. Instruments are shipped out, certificates are filed and the process stops there. What is often missing is a simple question: How are these tools actually used? 

Without that context, labs apply default tolerances that may have little relevance to the process itself. The result is predictable. There are irrelevant out-of-tolerance findings, extra paperwork, shortened calibration intervals and mounting administrative costs. 

An OOT notice sets off a chain of work. When a device is calibrated to stricter requirements than is necessary for the intended use, some of this work might have been avoided.  

Each finding requires investigation, reverse traceability, documentation and management sign-off. Even when the device never affected production quality, the organization still pays for the hours lost proving it. 

Silence drives compliance activity that looks rigorous on paper but adds no real value to the operation. Silence can quickly become expensive. 

When Silence Becomes Expensive 

An out-of-tolerance notice is not always a sign of failure to meet process requirements. Only that it did not meet the expected acceptance values. Yet each one triggers a full review cycle, including investigation, reverse traceability, documentation and sign-off.  

The intent is good, to confirm that no prior measurements were compromised, but the workload often outweighs the risk. 

Teams must trace every reading taken since the device’s last known good calibration. In a digital system, the search may take minutes. In paper-based or partially digital systems, it can take days. The cost adds up fast.  

Each OOT event can consume thousands of dollars in labor and administrative time, even when the device never affects production results. 

Silence magnifies the cost.  

When fit-for-use expectations are never discussed, labs test to manufacturer specifications by default. Those limits may be far stricter than the process requires. This creates OOTs that look critical on paper but may carry no real impact.  

In response, many organizations shorten calibration intervals. They recalibrate more often and spend more to chase the same false alarms. 

Communication prevents that spiral.  

Talking about how equipment is used, like its range, direction and tolerance of error, reduces unnecessary investigations. This keeps calibration schedules aligned with actual operational needs. 

The Communication Gap 

Every calibration depends on measurement, but it also depends on mutual understanding. 

ISO/IEC 17025 outlines the requirement for laboratories to consider decision risk, yet it does not define how those discussions should take place.  

Many labs hesitate to initiate them for fear of overstepping. Customers assume their provider already knows what matters most. The result is a silence that costs both sides time and accuracy. 

Effective calibration requires context.  

Without it, laboratories default to manufacturer specifications that may not reflect real production requirements. A tolerance that looks appropriate on paper may be unnecessary or even misleading when applied to the process itself. 

Open communication changes that. Clarifying how instruments are used, such as their measurement ranges, acceptable error limits and operational direction, ensures testing reflects true process requirements.  

Communication prevents the accumulation of data that looks precise but lacks relevance to the work being done. 

When expectations are defined early, calibration supports the process instead of interrupting it. 

A Case in Point: The Torque Wrench That Changed the Conversation 

A manufacturer once questioned why so many of its torque wrenches were reported as out of tolerance. The wrenches were rated to a tolerance of ±4 percent and often returned with readings just outside that limit. On paper, every variance appeared critical. 

When the calibration team reviewed how those wrenches were actually used, the picture changed.  

The company’s process allowed for a 20 percent variation without affecting product quality. The tools were only used in the clockwise direction, yet they were being tested both ways and to unnecessarily strict tolerances. 

After the discussion, the calibration parameters were adjusted to reflect the tool’s real application.  

Measurements were limited to the single direction of use, and the tolerance was expanded to ±5 percent, which was well within process requirements. The number of OOT findings dropped sharply, and every subsequent report carried greater meaning because it represented a genuine risk. 

This single change demonstrated that precision is not achieved by narrowing tolerances. It is achieved by aligning them with purpose. 

Acceptance Requirements Should Always Be Defined 

When acceptance requirements are left undefined, laboratories must rely on the manufacturer’s specifications, regardless of the customer’s intended purpose. Those specifications are often broader or narrower than the process requires.    

When tolerances are discussed and agreed upon before testing, customers can have more confidence that each OOT finding becomes meaningful. Teams can separate what matters from what does not. 

The absence of that discussion turns calibration into a reactive cycle: 

• Labs over-test.  

• Customers over-correct.  

• Resources are diverted from production quality to document management.  

Silence multiplies effort without improving confidence. 

Fit-for-use alignment ensures that every test, interval and report reflects the true conditions of production and the level of precision the process actually demands. 

Communication in calibration is not an extra step. It is a control measure that protects accuracy, compliance and cost efficiency. Each stage of the process offers an opportunity to prevent unnecessary work and improve data confidence. 

Best Practices for Better Calibration Communication 

1. Start Before Calibration
   Define each instrument’s intended purpose, measurementrange and acceptable uncertainty before it enters the lab. Establish expectations early to ensure the right standards and procedures are applied. 
2. Document Decisions
   Record agreed tolerances, usagelimits and rationale in the quality system. Documentation provides a defensible trail for auditors and creates clarity for future calibrations. 
3. Review Trends
   Track recurring OOT findings by model,department or application. Repeated patterns may indicate that tolerances, ranges or intervals no longer align with real operating conditions. 
4. Collaborate, Do Not Assume
   Treat the calibration provider as a technical partner rather than a service vendor. Collaboration supports process improvements and enables faster, moreaccurate resolution of potential risks. 
5. Expect Proactive Dialogue
   A mature calibration program includes periodic reviews of intervals, tolerancelimits and usage patterns. Providers who initiate these discussions help prevent rework and keep calibration meaningful to the process it supports. 

When communication becomes part of the calibration plan, organizations move from reactive investigation to proactive control. That shift saves time, protects compliance and strengthens confidence in every measurement. 

In Summary 

Silence can create extra work that might not be value added.  

It produces OOT findings that may not not reflect real performance and consumes time verifying risks that were never present. Every unasked question adds effort, expense and uncertainty. 

The solution is simple and measurable.  

• Talk early.  

• Define the intended purpose.  

• Confirm acceptance values/tolerances that match the process, not the assumption.  

A calibration performed in isolation may be more stringent than meet operational needs. 

When dialogue becomes part of the process, calibration shifts from a recurring obligation to an essential element of quality control. Silence may appear efficient, but communication is what keeps calibration relevant, reliable, defensible and worth the investment. 

SIMCO programs are designed around this distinction, creating tailored programs that meet companies’ specific needs. Reach out today for a quote and to learn more! 

FAQ 

What does “fit for use” mean in calibration?
Fit for use refers to ensuring a measurement device meets the specific requirements of the process it supports, not just manufacturer specifications. It defines how precise the device must be for the work it performs. 

Why should calibration communication happen before testing?
Discussing usage, tolerances and acceptable uncertainty before calibration prevents unnecessary OOT findings and short calibration intervals. Once an OOT is generated, it must be processed. So, prevention is the key goal. 

How does proactive dialogue reduce cost?
Clear communication can: reduce overly stringent testing, limit reverse traceability reviews and helps organizations maintain compliance without excess administrative effort. 

Reach out today for a quote and to learn more!