A comapny doing business of providing products or services, for assuring its customers, takes third-party certification from a Certification Body (CB). Thereafter it interacts with the CB on regular basis. At no time in this process the company interacts with the Accreditation Body (AB).

The certification given by CB may be under accreditation of some AB or without any such accreditation. Does it make any difference in relation to value addition to the company's business? I BELIEVE ACCREDITATION DOES NOT ADD ANY VALUE TO COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND IT IS ONLY PAYING MORE CERTIFICAION FEE.

Comments are invited from learned members.

Like anything in life - you only get out of it, what you put into it.

Whatever you're paying for your certification I'll sell you a cheaper one through an Arkansas based corporation.

That's basically all you're doing, buying your cert.

Accreditation adds value and bears with it a guaranteed level of trust and integrity.

In the end the cheaper one may be more expensive.

A comapny doing business of providing products or services, for assuring its customers, takes third-party certification from a Certification Body (CB). Thereafter it interacts with the CB on regular basis. At no time in this process the company interacts with the Accreditation Body (AB).
The certification given by CB may be under accreditation of some AB or without any such accreditation. Does it make any difference in relation to value addition to the company's business? I BELIEVE ACCREDITATION DOES NOT ADD ANY VALUE TO COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND IT IS ONLY PAYING MORE CERTIFICAION FEE.
Comments are invited from learned members.You have to remember that certification to a Standard such as ISO 9001 is, probably, more relevant to the certified organization's customers than the certified organization themselves. Accreditation (BY A REPUTABLE AB) would, in principle, provide confidence to the organization's customers about that certificate. As I mentioned several times, most organizations are oblivious to the "pedigree" of their suppliers certs. Accreditation being one ignored issue. Actually, here in the US, there is a very well known CB, fully accredited, issuing a high percentage of their certs WITHOUT an accreditation mark.
As long as "customers" remain ignorant about the (potential) value of accreditation, we will have this concern.

Let me throw a spin into this not originally asked.....there are two basic types of accrediting bodies (lots of differences beyond the very basic).....

The IAF accrediting bodies and the ILAC accrediting bodies.....

ILAC and IAF are cooperating (using the term loosely).....

IAF bodies accredit 9K (and related) registrars.....ILAC bodies accredit laboratories and inspection bodies.....

In theory (I am unaware of any real examples however) an accredited inspection body could offer an ISO 9001 certificate since they are at the same heirarchal level as a registrar.

However, the real difference is.....in some fields of endeavour accreditation of laboratories is almost table stakes.....where appropriate officials look for the approved mark or report.....or the accreditation logo on calibration certificates.

Some examples in North America of the ILAC accrediting bodies include IAS, A2LA, SCC, and NVLAP.

Just pointing out that differences exist..........

Hershal

IAF bodies accredit 9K (and related) registrars.....ILAC bodies accredit laboratories and inspection bodies.....

In theory (I am unaware of any real examples however) an accredited inspection body could offer an ISO 9001 certificate since they are at the same heirarchal level as a registrar.

However, the real difference is.....Many IAF signatory AB's also accredit inspection bodies and testing and calibration labs. For example UKAS http://www.ukas.com/about_accreditation/accredited_bodies/inspection_body_schedules.asp
http://www.ukas.com/dotorgredirect.asp

In theory, ANYBODY can issue an ISO 9001 certificate, but in order to do it so, under an accredited scheme, you got go through the proper process.

In my view point, the real difference is semantics. Lab accreditation is really the basic same process as a management system certification. So, if we were to follow the ISO definition, lab accreditation should be really called lab certification.

In my view point, the real difference is semantics. Lab accreditation is really the basic same process as a management system certification. So, if we were to follow the ISO definition, lab accreditation should be really called lab certification.

Actually, that is not correct.....for a registrar to become accredited perhaps.....but having gone through numerous 9K audits at my previous employer, and now conducting accreditation assessments.....the two are significantly different.....

There is the QMS portion, and like 9K - in theory - anyone can learn that.....HOWEVER the difference is the technical side which does not exist in the same way for 9K and related.....for example, the background for a 9K manufacturing audit does not require someone with that specific background or training, but for test or cal labs and for inspection bodies it does.....

As an example, lots of folks here are great at what they do and could easily audit the QMS but would need significant training to assess the technical portion of say, a fire lab or wood lab or cal lab, under ISO/IEC 17025.....

You are right, numerous IAF bodies also accredit labs and inspection bodies, but almost without exception they are the National accrediting body and are ALSO recognized through ILAC and/or a region.....UKAS is a good example of that.

Hope this helps.

Hershal

This may be a spin on the "adds value" but our lab now brings in money for the tests performed. Additionally, it has become a true selling point for our company.

In theory, ANYBODY can issue an ISO 9001 certificate, but in order to do it so, under an accredited scheme, you got go through the proper process.


And as usual Sidney is correct...

So if you want a good, cheap, non-accredited certification to any scheme just check with Daily Safety Environmental & Quality, Inc, a legally licensed corporation in the State of Arkansas. Our promise is....If it breaks in half you get both parts.:lmao:

It is my sincere hope that nobody takes me seriously.............

for example, the background for a 9K manufacturing audit does not require someone with that specific background or training, but for test or cal labs and for inspection bodies it does.....

As an example, lots of folks here are great at what they do and could easily audit the QMS but would need significant training to assess the technical portion of say, a fire lab or wood lab or cal lab, under ISO/IEC 17025
Hershal Hershal, could you please describe (or post a link) the process concerning the "technical assessment" portion of a lab accreditation assessment and the requirement for one to become competent as such?
Thanks.

A comapny doing business of providing products or services, for assuring its customers, takes third-party certification from a Certification Body (CB). Thereafter it interacts with the CB on regular basis. At no time in this process the company interacts with the Accreditation Body (AB).

The certification given by CB may be under accreditation of some AB or without any such accreditation. Does it make any difference in relation to value addition to the company's business? I BELIEVE ACCREDITATION DOES NOT ADD ANY VALUE TO COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND IT IS ONLY PAYING MORE CERTIFICAION FEE.

Comments are invited from learned members.

I guess in our case and many others it adds value being certified to TS16949 and the AB being IATF and their mark on our certification. Since we are required by customers to be certified to TS16949, and we are, and we get to keep the business we have plus get new business. I would say it adds value.

Hershal, could you please describe (or post a link) the process concerning the "technical assessment" portion of a lab accreditation assessment and the requirement for one to become competent as such?
Thanks.

Under ISO/IEC 17011:2004, the document that laboratory accrediting bodies are assessed to, clause 6.1.1 requires the use of "competent" (means technically proficient) personnel, with the training, education, technical knowledge, skills, and experience necessary for the work. Clause 6.2.3 requires the accrediting body to identify the specific scope(s) in which the assessor has a demonstrated competence (Underline is mine).

The way the international community takes this (e.g. ILAC, APLAC) is that competent to assess some discipline (e.g. fire) requires someone who is already proficient as an expert, or a similar level of technical skill complemented with much training and observation.

The same standard is applied to accreditation under ISO/IEC 17020 as to 17025. Hence, inspection body assessors have the same criteria applied to them.

The technical assessment involves identification of some or all of a scope of accreditation or proposed scope to be demonstrated by the entity seeking accreditation or renewal. The technical assessor (as identified above for competence) observes the demonstration(s) and identifies any findings. The technical assessor typically will also review existing report(s) or certificate(s) for the previous two years (renewal) or some other specified time for initial accreditation. The technical portion is generally the bulk of the time spent during an assessment. For example, in a calibration lab with a large scope, that could take 10 days to assess, one can figure 8-9 of those days are technical demonstration.

Hope this helps.

Hershal

If it makes you money by increasing customer satisfaction or for that matter business then it adds value. We couldn't get contract from many of our customers without being accredited.

Under ISO/IEC 17011:2004, the document that laboratory accrediting bodies are assessed to, clause 6.1.1 requires the use of "competent" (means technically proficient) personnel, with the training, education, technical knowledge, skills, and experience necessary for the work. Clause 6.2.3 requires the accrediting body to identify the specific scope(s) in which the assessor has a demonstrated competence (Underline is mine).

The way the international community takes this (e.g. ILAC, APLAC) is that competent to assess some discipline (e.g. fire) requires someone who is already proficient as an expert, or a similar level of technical skill complemented with much training and observation.

The same standard is applied to accreditation under ISO/IEC 17020 as to 17025. Hence, inspection body assessors have the same criteria applied to them.

The technical assessment involves identification of some or all of a scope of accreditation or proposed scope to be demonstrated by the entity seeking accreditation or renewal. The technical assessor (as identified above for competence) observes the demonstration(s) and identifies any findings. The technical assessor typically will also review existing report(s) or certificate(s) for the previous two years (renewal) or some other specified time for initial accreditation. The technical portion is generally the bulk of the time spent during an assessment. For example, in a calibration lab with a large scope, that could take 10 days to assess, one can figure 8-9 of those days are technical demonstration.

Hope this helps.

HershalThank you for the explanation. What you described is not too different from ISO Guide 62 and the ISO 17021 upcoming document. I don't have a copy of ISO 17011, so, I don't know how the "assessment-days" are estimated for laboratory accreditation. But I would venture to guess that, due to competitive pressure and non-regulated activity, it is just a matter of time until the "accreditors" that are less stringent and not so "demanding" on the size of the sample to be assessed will start to gain market share.
It seems that the major difference between laboratory accreditation and management system certification is that the size of the market for the first is minuscule compared to the latter.

The assessor days are somewhat subjective. Under APLAC (Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation) rules, the entire scope must be seen during a four year period. There is some consideration of course for times where the same test or calibration may be covered by multiple documents.

As an example, some testing laboratories will perform essentially an identical test using ASTM Standards, Uniform Building Code (UBC) or International Building Code(IBC), and Acceptance Criteria from the International Code Council Evaluation Service (ICC ES). In such cases only one may actually be seen, as the others are identical or nearly so, even though all three may be listed in the scope of accreditation.

Calibration is a bit trickier and depends on the scope and experience of the assessor(s) in knowing what should be reviewed and estimating the time factor.

Your observation of accrediting bodies that are less stringent obtaining more market share may well occur and has to a degree in the U.S. Market. However, the international community may not see such an issue, since in most economies there is only one accrediting body for laboratories so they have all the market share. Those accrediting bodies are often MRA (Mutual Recognition Agreement) signatories. MRA organizations, like APLAC, assess the accrediting body that wants to become a signatory. Those bodies that have been less stringent in order to gain market share have been turned away quite often by MRA organizations.

As for the requirements themselves, they are actually getting tighter over the course of the years, both from ISO/IEC 17025 and from the MRA organizations.

It is not a perfect system but so far has proven very sound.

Hope this helps.

Hershal

I BELIEVE ACCREDITATION DOES NOT ADD ANY VALUE TO COMPANY'S BUSINESS AND IT IS ONLY PAYING MORE CERTIFICAION FEE.


Accreditation is the layer that tries to keep Certification Bodies honest and above board. The good ones would be anyway, and the shady ones are because the AB can revoke their accreditation.

In a way, the AB relationship to the CB, is similar to the CB's relationship to you.

You get the benefit of the AB, without having to deal with them.

In my opinion NO. Standards, describe the minimum process requirements, you should meet, to participe in business. As a minimum it does not add value. If you don't know what is your business environment, you are in, and you need a certification that you meet it, you will not be competitive on long therm. It is a "necesarry evill", requested by customer. Today everybody, is able to get a certificate. What you have in your process, above the standard requirements, that is value.
György

What you have in your process, above the standard requirements, that is value.
György

:applause: An excellent and concise commentary on the value of registration. But the discussion is about accreditation, which is a different subject. The question is, if a company decides to pursue registration, does the accreditation of the the CB add value. I think it does, but that doesn't mean that I think that registration adds value beyond satisfaction of a customer requirement.

Sorry for mistake, JSW05 !
I think that registration, and accreditation, adds value to the business environment you are in. Not walking in comletetly dark.
György

I guess this is too simple, but I believe a business sole purpose is to make money. Something adds value if it helps to make the company more money. Some accreditation may make the company money, some may not. And yes I am really bad at details I was using accreditation and registration synonymously. Registration made us money. Dell wanted us to go 18001 in order to extend a contract on product so we did it. It made us money, bottom line.

I remember working for HP we spent a lot of time mapping out our customers decision making process. Didn't add a bit to the bottom line and actually costed the company money because of all the people working on it. Now we are sending Field Engineers to stores to help understand our customers...good thing they are on salary.

I think getting into quality for some self realization above helping the company achieve profitability or to help it evade risk is just weird (for lack of a better term) and creates a holier than thou attitude.

I guess this is too simple, but I believe a business sole purpose is to make money. Something adds value if it helps to make the company more money. Some accreditation may make the company money, some may not. And yes I am really bad at details I was using accreditation and registration synonymously. Registration made us money. Dell wanted us to go 18001 in order to extend a contract on product so we did it. It made us money, bottom line.


Well stated:agree1:

If there was no money involved, nobody would do it. Nobody goes through the muss and fuss to get a warm fuzzy and I don't care what their "intention", "good will", "stewardship", or "just being a nice guy" attitude HS(:horse: ) is. Money (profit) is the primary driver of business, everything else is secondary.