There has been an interesting and helpful discussion taking place in the LinkedIn ASQ group. The topic is the difference between a corrective action and a preventive action in manufacturing quality—not specifically barcode-related but very applicable.

Regarding ISO compliance in barcode quality, the root issue is conformity and non-conformity. What exactly is a conforming barcode? What is a non-conforming barcode?  I often encounter people in this industry who don’t have a ready answer or understanding of these questions.

The ISO 9000 definition of a corrective action is one which fixes the non-conformity, whether it be a repair or a rebuild or whatever. But what is conformity or a non-conformity?

ISO Compliance is the basis for barcode verification

In the world of barcoding, ISO compliance is defined by a set of ISO specifications. For linear barcodes that specification is ISO 15416; for 2D symbols the specification is ISO 15415 to test the quality of a printed barcode or symbol image.  These specifications define how a compliant barcode or 2D symbol must perform in terms of a set of test criteria or parameters. For linear barcodes, this includes such things as symbol contrast, modulation, decodability and defects. For 2D symbols this includes such things as Axial Non-Uniformity, Grid Non-Uniformity, Unused Error Correction and Fixed Pattern Damage. These form the basis for the verification of the printed barcode or symbol.

Because a verifier is a test instrument, it is also necessary to ensure its accuracy as a gage. This is done by testing the verifier using a calibrated conformance test standard with known performance values to which the verifier must comply, within specified tolerances.

ISO Compliance is important for the barcode image and for the verifier

The verification report measures, evaluates and grades the symbol against the ISO compliance parameters. It does not explain why a particular parameter is downgraded or suggest how to improve it. This is often confusing and off-putting to a user who is looking for a simple solution.  Considering the numerous ways in which a symbol can be imaged, whether it be a flexographic, lithographic or letterpress process, a thermal or thermal transfer process, a screen printing process, a laser or chemical etching process, or some other reprographic process, the range of possible causes for imaging problems is enormous. A verifier can only point to an actual attribute of the image; it is assumed the operator can interpolate the verifier test results in terms of his own imaging process to decide on corrective actions.

ISO Compliance does not explain how to improve the reprographic process

These corrective actions should eliminate the non-conformity that the verifier has found and reported. Properly applied, this corrective action should eliminate the cause of the non-conformity and therefore also act as a preventive action.

While this might seem highly technical, it is the only way we have of “leveling the playing field” so that we have a common language and way of describing what is required and expected of the barcode, which is so ubiquitous and essential in the supply chain and elsewhere.

Recommended Posts

3db Barcode Testimonial

Our company (an advanced software company) recently worked with Barcode Test to source a barcode verifier.  Not long ago, we were awarded a contract requiring products to be marked with IUIDs in accordance with MIL-STD-130.  For that standard, marking labels must pass a verification test that evaluates many variables (contrast, size, clarity, syntax, modularity, and more).  After a thorough search, we reduced our options to a select few.

In our search for a verifier, the Axicon line caught our attention.  Barcode Test is our regional reseller for this product.   From the beginning, they were very prompt with their responses.  We ended up having a quick call with John Nachtrieb to go over our needs.  John was extremely easy to work with and provided a lot of great information.  He was very knowledgeable on the matter and was quick to offer up a demo unit (free of charge).

Upon receiving the demo verifier and testing it, a few questions arose.  John joined a call with us and answered all our questions.  Ultimately, the Axicon verifier wasn’t the best fit for us, so we shipped the demo back.  John was completely understanding.  A few weeks later, Barcode Test reached back out with another possible verifier for us to try.  While they didn’t sell that brand, they just wanted to help us find the best option that met our needs. They even offered to send us the unit that they have in-house to see if it worked to our liking. 

Barcode Test is truly a great company to work with.  Their service and willingness to help the customer are far beyond what you typically get from other companies.  They are experts in barcode quality assurance and seem willing to help in any way they can (even if that means not getting a sale and recommending another option that better fits the customer’s needs).  If anyone is in the market for barcode verification/scanning services or products, I would highly recommend giving Barcode Test a call.

Regards,

Production Manager