Informational Re-engineering of the IAF Accreditation and the Management System Certification Processes

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Hershal, you keep trying to commingle two very distinct accreditation processes.
Even though the IAF and ILAC try to work in unison, laboratory accreditation is very different from Certification Body accreditation. The first is a for-profit, competitive market. The second is not supposed to be.

If regulating the accreditation activity is done in a way that enhances trust and confidence for the users of management system certificates, it would be a welcomed change.

One of the problems with the accredited certification process is that many players are willing to commit unethical, immoral, fraudulent acts, but they are not illegal. If such acts become illegal, due to market regulation, the consequences would be direr for the transgressors.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney,

Had the slides clearly restricted themselves only to IAF, I would not even have replied.....

Regulators however have a way of forgetting such distinctions when they simply use the term accreditation and then write laws such as what is proposed in the slides, hence my concerns.....

Hope this helps.....

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Oh, one other point.....ILAC recognized ABs that do Guide 65 accreditations may well be affected, as Guide 65 comes under IAF rather than ILAC.....

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Hershal said:

Had the slides clearly restricted themselves only to IAF, I would not even have replied.....

Click to expand...

Well, the slides were part of an IAF Industry Day.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

That is where they were PRESENTED, not what they said..........

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney..............

Can you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that regulators will not "blur" the ILAC/IAF differences?

If you can't, then you must admit I am OK in voicing my concerns.....

This beyond you and I, so there is no contest or wizzing contest here, in my opinion.....

Hershal

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Hershal said:

Can you ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEE that regulators will not "blur" the ILAC/IAF differences?

If you can't, then you must admit I am OK in voicing my concerns.....

Click to expand...

You can voice your concerns as much as you want. I just think they are misplaced in this thread.

The only common thing between accreditation of management system certification bodies and laboratory accreditation is the word accreditation. The processes are very distinct, with different concerns. All of the discussions presented during the IAF Industry Days have dealt with the IAF subordinated accreditation process.

As I have mentioned already, just the fact that laboratory accreditation is a competitive activity brings a totally different dynamic to your discussion. I don't think any sane mind would propose the establishment of a national monopoly for laboratory assessment services.

So, trying to inject a discussion over laboratory accreditation at this thread, is misguided, in my opinion. But you are certainly free to make your concerns known. You could consider, however, starting a specific thread on that subject.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney Vianna said:

The only common thing between accreditation of management system certification bodies and laboratory accreditation is the word accreditation. The processes are very distinct, with different concerns. All of the discussions presented during the IAF Industry Days have dealt with the IAF subordinated accreditation process.

As I have mentioned already, just the fact that laboratory accreditation is a competitive activity brings a totally different dynamic to your discussion. I don't think any sane mind would propose the establishment of a national monopoly for laboratory assessment services.

So, trying to inject a discussion over laboratory accreditation at this thread, is misguided, in my opinion. But you are certainly free to make your concerns known. You could consider, however, starting a specific thread on that subject.

Click to expand...

Sidney,

No matter how I phrase this it will sound bad.....but I am not trying to get a contest going, only to explain a few things.....

You are correct that lab and inspection agency AB accreditation is different than 9K AB accreditation.....

However, EA is well known to have supported a single-AB-per-economy approach for a long time; this has been the genesis of the cross-border requirements of questions from ILAC. And in fact, most economies have only one AB for labs and agencies.....

Regulators tend to not know the difference between the two kinds of accreditation, they see the single term and figure it is all the same.....unless the regulators you run across are different than most I have encountered.

Also, you have not addressed my comment regarding Guide 65 accreditation.....in North America, it is typical that the Guide 65 is done by ILAC ABs, except of course for ANSI, and even they have a component that is ILAC recognized. For those unaware, Guide 65 is product certification.

Oh, I am beginning to take exception to your comment that I am always injecting this.....that suggests a near-constant, on-going effort, which you may well be challenged to support. Your quote "Hershal, you keep trying to commingle..."

In a pure sense you are correct regarding the separation between ILAC and IAF, but that was until government officials got included.....

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Much as I hate to interject in a personal battle!

Hershal said:

You are correct that lab and inspection agency AB accreditation is different than 9K AB accreditation.....

Click to expand...

Here I have to disagree. Accreditation of CBs was invented (like all "good" initiatives over here ) and only recently was re-engineered .... to make it more like lab accreditation!

Previously CBs had a pretty broad scope and were assessed by ABs on their processes. Now ABs are pushing (using the competence argument and their ridiculous standards 17021 pts 1 & 2) for laboratory style accreditation with "competent" assessors for narrow technical areas (equivalent to the standards / methods of laboratories) and a higher level of "verifier" equivalent to the person that authorizes reports in the lab!

Hershal said:

However, EA is well known to have supported a single-AB-per-economy approach for a long time; this has been the genesis of the cross-border requirements of questions from ILAC. And in fact, most economies have only one AB for labs and agencies.....

Click to expand...

This doesn't make it right. There has been a de facto monopoly in accreditation in EU countries for a while now - you cannot get a quote from an AB other than the one in your country. All the EU is doing is enshrining it in law. :mg:

So, in essence what we have is a monopoly situation enshrined in community law - no matter how bad your AB you are stuck with them.

In the UK we have a Competiotions Commission to investigate monopolies but they are aligned with the people who appoint the AB. Perhaps we need more than one?

Hershal said:

Regulators tend to not know the difference between the two kinds of accreditation, they see the single term and figure it is all the same.....unless the regulators you run across are different than most I have encountered.

Click to expand...

The problem is the regulators listen to .... the ABs!

They have a limited understanding of the market approach to certification / accreditation and (like most regulators) believe more regulation is the answer. More legislation to enshrine the existing position, more standards to control CBs by weight of paperwork etc., etc.

The rest of the post seems to be relevant to US only so I have no comment.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul Simpson said:

So, in essence what we have is a monopoly situation enshrined in community law - no matter how bad your AB you are stuck with them.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Paul. In my viewpoint, this just strengthens my pledge that AB's need to be accountable to the users of accredited certificates, issued under their schemes. Until there is some formal mechanism to enforce accountability of the AB's to Society and Industry at large, the monopolistic approach to accreditation does not guarantee trust and confidence of the end product.