posted 02 September 1999 03:25 PM               

quote:

---

"a list of methods and standards to which it performs the above." (tests)

---

See http://Elsmar.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000159.html

posted 19 March 2000 04:00 PM               

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000 00:05:58 EST
From: DEPilgrim@aol.com
To: iso25@fasor.com
Subject: Laboratory Scope

Was wondering if anyone could shed light on laboratory scope. I have written some per the Glossary definition in QS-9000, but have not written one for Guide 25 Accreditation. If we go with A2LA, they have forms to fill out that would appear to make up the laboratory scope. Is that all that is needed, or do we need a stand-alone document too!?

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 14:31:40 -0500
From: Steven R Stahley Steven.R.Stahley@Cummins.com
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: Re: Laboratory Scope

As the chairman of the AIAG Cal Lab Work Group I can not tell you what your QS auditor will want to see as I have seen a very broad range of interpretations for lab scope. I would recommend you try to adopt the ILAC model as closely as it makes sense, refer to the ILAC document on lab scope on their web site www.ilac.org, as this will be the direction I believe you will need to go in the future.

posted 19 March 2000 04:16 PM               

Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:32:05 +0100
From: Viggo Munck vm@efs.dk
To: Greg Gogates iso25@fasor.com
Subject: SV: ISO 17025 Documents and Experts RE8

Dear sirs,

Defining the scope of accreditation is very difficult. The easiest way to do it is to list all the methods and group them. And group the groups. Then the scope natually follows. In Denmark we accredit according to the list of methods, and we do therefore not have any problems in formulating the scopes. The scope can fill up to half a page and not just a few lines. (It must fit in on the accreditation document) Some problems might arise if the accreditation body want you to use fixed wordings and groups. Instead of trying to put things into fixed boxes one should set frames around the real matter. We have been working with flexibility in the scope and I can assure you that this is much more difficult to formulate.

Yours

Viggo Munck
DANAK
Danish Accreditation

-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
Fra: Greg Gogates [mailto:iso25@fasor.com]
Sendt: 15. februar 2000 00:22
Til: iso25@quality.org
Emne: ISO 17025 Documents and Experts RE8

Moderator Note:

I now understand what you are trying to acheive and will keep my eyes open for other related docs and forward them to you.

Maybe you can get some buy-in from http://www.european-accreditation.org/ where I got the prevoisly sent links.

As an assessor , I agree on the need to try and sort out scopes.

Cheers,
Greg

Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:17:22 -0500
From: "James D. Jenkins"
To: Greg Gogates
Subject: RE: ISO 17025 Documents and Experts RE1

Greg,

Thank you for the links to some existing documents which address requirements of Laboratory Scopes. You can be rest assured that we are not out to re-invent the wheel in this matter. Our objective at NCSL is to review and update our existing document "RP-9". One of our objectives is to review other similar existing documents in order to ensure that we do not provide any "conflicting information" and achieve technical correctness and acceptance of our "Recommended Practice" as a guide consistent with the requirements of accepted International Standards. Although all of the other existing documents I have reviewed thus far,(including those listed below), seem to be somewhat vague in the practical application aspect of the given requirements. In the format of a "Recommended Practice" we intend to provide guidance in this area. As a consultant for Laboratory Accreditation and an Instructor in measurement uncertainty I find a large number of Laboratories have difficulty in formulating their Scope of Laboratory Capability, as this is one of the most frequent areas of which I receive questions and requests for guidance. Being dedicated to the Laboratory Accreditation effort, I wish to assist the NCSL in developing documents which will assist those in the accreditation process and spend my professional time at Quametec assisting, teaching and consulting in areas which require more than a simple instructional explanatory document.

For the International Standardization effort to succeed, it will require accepted standards, consistent interpretations, and guidance where required. Unfortunately, it seems that for a document to be accepted as a standard it must have a certain amount of vagueness to it in order to satisfy the varying interpretations people wish to give it. Case in point, I had heard (RUMOR)that one country was going to vote against ISO17025 unless they could get one more "as applicable" added in an area of concern. It would be nice if the people writing proposed standards would define where these "as applicable"s are applicable. If they could do that, then maybe we wouldn't need all these other interpretive guidance type documents. Which occasionally also give unintended "conflicting information".

NOTE 1: If Lynne Neumann, Jarl Forsten and/or Peter van de Leemput (17025 Drafting Group) read this, let me say that I think your document is an excellent document of which you should all be proud of and I understand the politics of writing standards leaves you little choice in using some undefined "as applicable"s. NOTE 2: "NOTE 1" demonstrates my abilities in politics. Although I sincerely commend them on a job well done.

Keep up the good work Greg, your efforts are commendable and appreciated. I enjoy reading all the threads you relay and recommend your discussion group to all of my customers involved with measurements.

Sincerely,
James D. Jenkins
mailto:Jenkins@quametec.com