Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Zeitschriftenartikel (8) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (8)
Referierte Publikation
- ja (8)
Schlagworte
- Accreditation (8) (entfernen)
Organisationseinheit der BAM
Peer evaluation is used by the international accreditation organisations IAF and ILAC as a tool to harmonise the results of accreditation of conformity assessment bodies and as a control mechanism to ensure constantly competent services according to harmonized standards. Upon positive evaluation outcome, the accreditation body may join an Arrangement (MLA/MRA) between accreditation bodies, confirming systematic reliability and competence to the market. The objective of these Arrangements is that they will cover all accreditation bodies in all countries in the world, thus eliminating the need for suppliers of products or services to be certified in each country where they sell their products or services. This article is to aid single accreditation bodies wishing to sign these Arrangements in the future, and, furthermore, to communicate the procedure and the relevance of evaluation to the public in order to build up confidence in such Arrangements.
The peer evaluation of single accreditation bodies in order to sign an Arrangement for Recognition of the international accreditation organizations International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF) and International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), whether performed by Regional Accreditation Groups or directly by IAF and/or ILAC, is standard practice. The fundamental requirements for such evaluations are well specified in documents. However, the careful evaluation of all their Arrangement members poses an enormous logistic task for IAF and ILAC, and the signatories can be evaluated more thoroughly within their Regional Groups. Hence, IAF and ILAC typically evaluate only the Regional Accreditation Groups and accept all signatories of a Regional Accreditation Group once successfully evaluated by their respective Regional Group. However, the requirements for the evaluation of a Regional Group are extensive, and the evaluation procedure is highly complicated and must be conducted very carefully in order to assure that the results of accreditation can be trusted. This article describes the evaluation procedure used by IAF and/or ILAC for Regional Groups wishing to sign the IAF/ILAC Arrangement. We wish to inform and to aid these Regional Groups setting out for evaluation, and also to build confidence in the IAF/ILAC Arrangements.
Quality assurance is an essential requirement in many areas of soil testing. Soil sampling plays an important role in soil investigation. One important quality assurance measure is evidence of the competence of institutions offering sampling services (testing laboratories) to carry out appropriate sampling. A special quality assurance procedure has been developed in the course of the investigation and assessment of suspected and contaminated sites on federal property. Testing laboratories are granted official recognition by an independent competent institution, based on well-defined criteria with regard to testing methodology and the qualifications held by the personnel. A prerequisite for such recognition is an effective accreditation procedure. Currently only testing laboratories with recognised status are commissioned for work on contaminated sites on federal property.
Accreditation is one of the pillars of a national Quality Infrastructure, as the competence of conformity assessment bodies is assured through accreditation performed by accreditation bodies. To compare the operation of accreditation bodies in Europe and to identify best practices, a management tool, the Process Maturity Benchmarking Tool, was developed and validated by applying it to European accreditation bodies. The benchmarking project comprised two major phases: In the first phase, the processes of accreditation bodies were systematically analyzed. A process map was developed, and processes of special relevance were identified and underpinned by indicators. In the second phase, the practical applicability of the theoretical model was demonstrated by analyzing the processes of eight European accreditation bodies. The results of this comparative assessment were subsequently discussed in a workshop with experts from those accreditation bodies, giving the opportunity to identify best practices.
This article has a twofold objective. First, to present a method to benchmark European accreditation bodies, based on the European Foundation for Quality Management excellence model. The successful application of the Process Maturity Benchmarking Tool gives evidence that it is a suitable and capable management tool to assess the processes of the European accreditation bodies and to benchmark them. Second, the article presents the results of the first adaption of the Process Maturity Benchmarking Tool. A general trend of process maturity was identified: While processes based on stakeholder involvement tend to have an overall lower maturity on average, internal processes are more mature.
Since October 1998 the European Commission has financed a concerted action on Information System and Qualifying Criteria for Proficiency Testing Schemes within the 4th framework program. As a major result of this project EPTIS, the European Information System on Proficiency Testing Schemes which is available on the Internet since March 2000, is presented in this paper. Today EPTIS contains comprehensive information on approximately 640 proficiency testing schemes from 16 European countries providing information on the state of the art in proficiency testing in Europe. Finally some possible approaches for interlinkages and recognition of proficiency testing schemes are discussed.