Motion, your questions seem to be rather broad and general in nature, so perhaps you guys are just "starting out" so to speak, and don't have a clear direction yet...?
I don't have any specific insights into the quality systems, although I've worked in a couple ISO9001 & TS16949 places. I understand the spirit of these programs is to improve traceability, accountability and repeatability. My own personal experience working in these environments however, is that they do not guarantee one iota, that your company will experience higher quality, more repeatable, trustable measurements at all. In my opinion, I think it actually lowers the standard of care given to accurate, repeatable measurements, as many things get taken for granted & never questioned...
Usually, these "quality" departments get handed over to someone with questionable measuring/inspection skills with priority given to following procedure to the letter. Regardless of how flawed that procedure is, and regardless of their actual skill in carrying out those procedures. Perhaps worst of all, these folks seldom ever question weather the procedure is good practice or not, and thus, blindly maintain the status quo.
As an example, one place mandated that micrometers be "calibrated" every 6 months, and were required to have signed inspection stickers. No machinist worth his salt would dare trust a set of mic's that were last calibrated 5 months ago, let alone by someone not particularly skilled in using them. But if that's what the procedure states, that's what must be adhered to.
So please understand that the certification will not actually improve the "accuracy" of your measuring at all, and may actually impede it.
(I'm sure you're aware of this, but this is totally inconceivable to far too many people, in far too many quality departments.)
If at all possible, try to allow for more direct-user control over the tools, calibrating procedures and intervals. This sounds counter-intuitive to the nature of these quality systems, but for precision measuring, it will allow your skilled machinists to have more control over the "quality" of
their work, rather than be hamstrung by some poorly written governing procedure. Build some checks & balances in there to insure the accountability, but allow your skilled guys to exercise their skill...
(I could give more "experience" related examples if you wanted...)
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Regarding the controlled room/environment - Roll-up doors with windows are really nice from a practical perspective, and I would highly recommend it over a set of double doors, which are commonly used. Even if the roll-up door is used infrequently, it does allow moving in larger parts/equipment, even using a forklift if needed. The downside is that it may require more time for the room to reach equilibrium after opening the roll-up door for any length of time. If the shop was already climate controlled, then isolating the "quality" room would require much less care, although I don't think you have that option currently.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Regarding CMM's - I think far too many people have the wrong idea about them. I think too many people blindly put their faith in these machines as being the be-all-end-all, last word of high precision measurements. The tool to use when you need the absolute highest accuracy measurements, regardless of how long it takes...
In truth, I think it's exactly the opposite. Granted, the machines themselves are capable of astounding precision.
(IF everything else is carefully thought out that is...)
I actually think of these as the quick, low-cost option to inspect high-mix parts & features where it doesn't make sense to invest in durable hard gages & inspection routines. If you don't need micron level accuracy of roundness & concentricity between two turned diameters of a 1-off part, then skip fiddling with the costly bench-center & indicators, and toss it on the CMM. It'll be quicker. Same for a rather lengthy inspection done on a surface plate. The CMM will be quicker on low quantities.
Have 500 to make? The hard-gages are far superior in many ways... In this scenario, the CMM is simply used to "sanity check" any strange results from the hard-gages.
My point about the CMM, is that they're far too often taken for granted and misunderstood. People rely too heavily on them, without questioning their own skills, procedures & good sense when inspecting features & parts.
"If the CMM said it, it must be so..."*** is often the mantra of CMM operators & supervisors. Similar to the old line,
"We made it on the CNC - it can't be wrong..."***
However, as many people on
this forum understand,
garbage in, garbage out...
Judging by your posts, I'm sure you & your company have more sense than is common, and are more apt to better understand the correct use & limitations of a CMM. Just be careful not to fall into the trap...
I hope these ramblings are at least somewhat helpful...
***EDIT: Put those ^ two guys in a room together, and watch sparks of ignorance fly...