Confused: Accreditation / Certification?

[db]

In Reply to Parent Post by Hershal

The other labs in the scenario may also be accredited and be able to put the cert and scope on the table, but then it is a matter of incorrect terminology on their part.

Which gets back to my point. To accredit means to certify. We tend to place more emphasis on the term accreditation for 17025, because of the exactness of the lab environment. In manufacturing, we might be dealing with .001, but in a lab, we could very well be dealing with .00001.
However, if my organization is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, and I say we are certified, I might be using the wrong terminology, but it doesn't mean I am not accredited.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by db

However, if my organization is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, and I say we are certified, I might be using the wrong terminology, but it doesn't mean I am not accredited.

True, but what's so tough about using the right term? If you saw a car driving down the road and said - that's a nice Cadillac, when the badge on it clearly showed it was a Buick, most folks would think there was something up! It's not like mixing up one model Caddy for another (some look pretty similar)

So why not call the thing by its correct name, it's not semantics after all, since they aren't different models of 'certification'.........

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by db

Which gets back to my point. To accredit means to certify. We tend to place more emphasis on the term accreditation for 17025, because of the exactness of the lab environment. In manufacturing, we might be dealing with .001, but in a lab, we could very well be dealing with .00001.
However, if my organization is accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, and I say we are certified, I might be using the wrong terminology, but it doesn't mean I am not accredited.

Didn't we just go through all this?

[Jim Wynne]

In Reply to Parent Post by AndyN

So why not call the thing by its correct name, it's not semantics after all...

Calling a thing by its correct name is semantics.

[AndyN]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

Calling a thing by its correct name is semantics.

I missed the 'not' Jim - getting into a 'knot' over a simple issue, in my haste to post!

[JaneB]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jim Wynne

Calling a thing by its correct name is semantics.

Yes indeedy. And a good idea.