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

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Sidney Vianna said:

When the Accreditation process was devised, it became a natural expectation that it should be a self-sustaining activity, ...

Click to expand...

My memory of when it started in the UK was that a few CBs started it as a means of keeping the cowboys out of the market (apologies to all genuine cowboys out there! ). When the organisation started in BSI it worked up to the point when its impartiality might be questioned (hoo boy is that a joke now! ) so it was floated off and HM Government didn't want to pay for it - there is a bit of blurb (broken link removed).

Sidney Vianna said:

.... because nobody wanted to see tax-payer monies being diverted in to that type of business and the creation of another governmental bureaucracy.

Click to expand...

Kind of makes you wonder what would have happened if it had been governmental all along!

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul Simpson said:

Kind of makes you wonder what would have happened if it had been governmental all along!

Click to expand...

Hi Paul

Do you have any update on this? I mean, European regulation of the accreditation activity? Has any regulation been enforced to date?

Anyone else (especially from Europe) have any update on this?

TIA

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Reg_Morrison, are you referring to IAF or ILAC accreditations? From all I have seen, they appear to be significantly different. Not suggesting theory, but suggesting reality.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

I am only interested in the IAF related accreditation process.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Thanks Reg_Morrison,

So, ISO 17065, please provide your thoughts on products that do not meet specs.

How might you fix things, given proper authority?

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Reg Morrison said:

Hi Paul

Do you have any update on this? I mean, European regulation of the accreditation activity? Has any regulation been enforced to date?

Anyone else (especially from Europe) have any update on this?

TIA

Click to expand...

This post ((broken link removed)) provided several links, including the The Blue Guide - Implementation EU Product Rules - 2014. Section 6 of this document talks at length about the Accreditation Process and, it seems that in Europe, Accreditation will be regulated, and will make the life of non-accredited or quasi accredited registrars more difficult.

It will be also interesting to see what will happen to countries outside of the EU/EEA/EFTA in terms of accreditation because some european stakeholders might not recognize accredited certificates from some countries. For example, would ANAB's accreditation be considered equivalent to UKAS, RvA's etc? We might go back to the days that a registrant would have to have multiple accreditations in their QMS certificate.

Irrespective of all that, accreditation bodies should have their competence assurance improved significantly. There are some people working in those bodies that are not competent for the function they perform. Peer assessment is NOT working.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Hi, Reg. I guess the invitation is still open! The status of accreditation in the EU is clearer now. The EU directive has been implemented and there is some good information on the UKAS web site - here: https://www.ukas.com/technical-info.../New-EU-legal-framework-for-accreditation.asp

Reg Morrison said:

This post ((broken link removed)) provided several links, including the The Blue Guide - Implementation EU Product Rules - 2014. Section 6 of this document talks at length about the Accreditation Process and, it seems that in Europe, Accreditation will be regulated, and will make the life of non-accredited or quasi accredited registrars more difficult.

Click to expand...

As above the regulations are in place. Unfortunately for a range of reasons that we can go into later it is not yet having the intended impact. There are many unaccredited CBs out there still and there is no obligation for them to obtain accreditation. Some choose to advertise themselves as accredited - but by a body that is not recognised under National legislation. In the UK the single AB is UKAS but there are others operating and I guess we have to wait for some legal process to take place to stop these 'bodies' operating or move them offshore - something that has already been seen. I'm not sure how much will there is to sweep the ABs aside and leave the unaccredited CBs standing on their own.

Reg Morrison said:

It will be also interesting to see what will happen to countries outside of the EU/EEA/EFTA in terms of accreditation because some european stakeholders might not recognize accredited certificates from some countries. For example, would ANAB's accreditation be considered equivalent to UKAS, RvA's etc? We might go back to the days that a registrant would have to have multiple accreditations in their QMS certificate.

Click to expand...

The IAF system is intended to provide equivalence across the globe and the ABs of many countries are recognised as offering similar levels of oversight. I'll leave it to Covers to decide the level. There are some schemes such as Notified Body work that allows government departments to use a limited range of ABs as the basis for approval of the Notified Body - another thread again.

Reg Morrison said:

Irrespective of all that, accreditation bodies should have their competence assurance improved significantly. There are some people working in those bodies that are not competent for the function they perform. Peer assessment is NOT working.

Click to expand...

I'd be interested in your experience here.

What can I say PUBLICLY about the competence of AB personnel? Some are very competent while some others are useless or, even worse, dangerously incompetent. But who monitors AB adherence to 17011? They themselves via peer review. Where are the results of the peer reviews? The ABs should be accountable to industry at large. Are they? How could we tell? It is the layer with the least amount of oversight in the system.

Re: Re-engineering of the Accreditation and Certification processes

Paul Simpson said:

Hi, Reg. I guess the invitation is still open! The status of accreditation in the EU is clearer now. The EU directive has been implemented and there is some good information on the UKAS web site - here: https://www.ukas.com/technical-info.../New-EU-legal-framework-for-accreditation.asp
As above the regulations are in place. Unfortunately for a range of reasons that we can go into later it is not yet having the intended impact. There are many unaccredited CBs out there still and there is no obligation for them to obtain accreditation. Some choose to advertise themselves as accredited - but by a body that is not recognised under National legislation. In the UK the single AB is UKAS but there are others operating and I guess we have to wait for some legal process to take place to stop these 'bodies' operating or move them offshore - something that has already been seen. I'm not sure how much will there is to sweep the ABs aside and leave the unaccredited CBs standing on their own.

The IAF system is intended to provide equivalence across the globe and the ABs of many countries are recognised as offering similar levels of oversight. I'll leave it to Covers to decide the level. There are some schemes such as Notified Body work that allows government departments to use a limited range of ABs as the basis for approval of the Notified Body - another thread again.

I'd be interested in your experience here.

Click to expand...

UKAS and other valid CBs can advertise the names of the counterfeiters as being "not-accredited" which would inform the companies that were considering registering with them.

Well, Paul, I would have thought that with the REGULATION (EC) No 765/2008 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL in place, the Accreditation process would have more teeth and clean up the market from the charlatans operating, but, apparently, nobody really wants to confer "official" powers to the accreditors of CAB's. In the meantime, the market cant distinguish right from wrong and virtue-less virtual certification programs gain market share.