ILAC-g8:03/2009 - Reporting Results with Measurement Uncertainty

DietCokeofEvil

Trusted Information Resource
#1
Anyone familar with this? We got hit with a big doozy for the beginning of 2012 involving reporting results with measurement uncertainty. I'm curious if anyone else is going through this.

Basically, from now on, we have to report a measurement uncertainty for each line item on our certifications. This isn't a problem- but what I don't like is that if your measurement result overlaps the limit, we are to state that it is impossible to state compliance or non-compliance. (IE- your initial result is within tolerance, but with the added measurement uncertainty- it goes over the upper or lower limit).

Any thoughts on this issue? We're trying to figure out how to explain this to the customers. Somehow, I don't think they're going to appreciate "We don't know" as an acceptable calibration result.

Thanks,
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Yes, you are correct about the customer perception. However, this is the very nature of uncertainty. This only seems to deal with statement of compliance to a specification however, so unless that is the requiement you should be able to simply report the measurement and the uncertainty. Make sure you become aware of ILAC P14, but note that it is going to hopefully have some work done on it this April.

If you have to state compliance to a specification, then paragraph 2.3 (c) provides the statement that you should likely use if the uncertainty exceeds the specification limit.
 

DietCokeofEvil

Trusted Information Resource
#3
My question- we've been 17025 for a while- these changes are coming from our accrediting body with ILAC documentation. Neither of our competitors have the ILAC logo on their website- they are both A2LA. Is A2LA doing this as well?
 
D

dv8shane

#4
Anyone familar with this? We got hit with a big doozy for the beginning of 2012 involving reporting results with measurement uncertainty. I'm curious if anyone else is going through this.

Basically, from now on, we have to report a measurement uncertainty for each line item on our certifications. This isn't a problem- but what I don't like is that if your measurement result overlaps the limit, we are to state that it is impossible to state compliance or non-compliance. (IE- your initial result is within tolerance, but with the added measurement uncertainty- it goes over the upper or lower limit).

Any thoughts on this issue? We're trying to figure out how to explain this to the customers. Somehow, I don't think they're going to appreciate "We don't know" as an acceptable calibration result.

Thanks,
If you employ guardbanding of the the specifications and the measurand falls within the guardbanded specifications you can still issue a conformance statement. Remember that your uncertainties are specified at a level of confidence of 95%% therefore by manipulating the specification (making it smaller as the TUR decreases http://assets.fluke.com/appnotes/calibration/ddncsl94.pdf) you can make the probability of false reject due to uncertainty fall within the necessary limits.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

dv8shane

#5
My question- we've been 17025 for a while- these changes are coming from our accrediting body with ILAC documentation. Neither of our competitors have the ILAC logo on their website- they are both A2LA. Is A2LA doing this as well?
A2LA is a "member" of ILAC so even though the competitors do not display the logo I would think they would have to comply
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Staff member
Super Moderator
#6
My question- we've been 17025 for a while- these changes are coming from our accrediting body with ILAC documentation. Neither of our competitors have the ILAC logo on their website- they are both A2LA. Is A2LA doing this as well?
A2LA will have to answer that one. The US based ABs do have to work with ILAC documents, but more emphasis may be placed on some documents such as P14 and perhaps a bit less on others like G8 unless there is a reason to concentrate on it like reference to specifications. Additionally, each of the six have a position on the Z540.3 standard, which may vary a bit.

ILAC and Regionals like APLAC, in accordance with ISO/IEC 17011, can allow a little flexibility to the ABs for their respective market environments, so long as the rigor and oversight is equivalent to other Signatory bodies.

As for the ILAC symbol, A2LA is including the logo on newer accreditation certificates, but the labs have the option whether they place it on their cal certs/test reports or their website.

All six of the US based ABs that accredit labs (not Police forensics labs), and several non-US based ABs, sit on the same Committees at NCSLI and other venues, and the discussions like this come up at times. There are efforts to standardize some things, like scope expression, so customers can compare A2LA to L-A-B to IAS and so forth so customers can compare apples to apples.

Hope this helps.
 

DietCokeofEvil

Trusted Information Resource
#7
Yes, you are correct about the customer perception. However, this is the very nature of uncertainty. This only seems to deal with statement of compliance to a specification however, so unless that is the requiement you should be able to simply report the measurement and the uncertainty. Make sure you become aware of ILAC P14, but note that it is going to hopefully have some work done on it this April.

If you have to state compliance to a specification, then paragraph 2.3 (c) provides the statement that you should likely use if the uncertainty exceeds the specification limit.


According to our accrediting body, we are required to state compliance, or our inability to state compliance. I have an email volley going back and forth between us and them where they do not even want us using the term "within uncertainty" as a calibration result because they find it to be misleading. In the 3 weeks since we have implemented this, we have lost customers because we are not able to tell them whether or not their gages are in tolerance. It is apparent to me that our competition is not following what we are being forced to follow.

We are not able to get a straight answer from our accrediting body about what their other calibration houses are doing to address the customer complaints regarding our new lack of reporting ability.

I'm not saying I disagree with this at all. I have always felt that more responsibility needed to be put on the customer to read their certifications and analyze the findings against their own acceptance criteria, but try explaining that to them.
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Staff member
Super Moderator
#8
Under ILAC and Regional rules, each AB must have procedures to resolve complaints. If you are not getting any action - one way or another - then you may consider lodging and complaint.

You may not agree with the final decision, that is a different question, but you should at least have a definite position.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Sidney Vianna ILAC & IAF 2009 meeting - 11 days long! ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 3
Sidney Vianna Informational IAF and ILAC Seek Contractor for Establishment of a Single International Organization for Accreditation ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 2
dinakim_zv CB report or ILAC-MRA report ISO 17025 related Discussions 11
Sidney Vianna Informational IAF and ILAC to merge. A Global Accreditation mammoth? ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 1
M ILAC Regulations - Expression of Units on the Calibration Certificate General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 6
Hershal ILAC is preparing to start the possible revision to ISO/IEC 17025 ISO 17025 related Discussions 2
4 Understanding ILAC policy P14:12/2010 6.3 part a) General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 28
S Peer Review using ILAC-G11 as Criteria ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 4
K Any Information on April ILAC 2012 meeting? Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 2
Jerry Eldred New ILAC Requirements Regarding Repeatability - Your thoughts on this please Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 11
M ILAC p14:12/2010 - Accredited Calibration Certificate Uncertainty General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 2
Hershal ILAC P14 and its implications General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
Sidney Vianna IAF and ILAC World Accreditation Day ASQ, ANAB, UKAS, IAF, IRCA, Exemplar Global and Related Organizations 0
C BMU=CMC for every Calibration? ILAC Policy Clarification Measurement Uncertainty (MU) 3
A ILAC explanation - IEC60601-1 testing certified by an A2LA laboratory IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 3
Hershal Congratulations L-A-B and PJLA - Signatory status - ILAC Resolution GA12.03 General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
Marc Definition ILAC - the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 0
Marc International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 0
D Accreditation Scheme:relationships between ANSI, NIST, NCSL, ILAC, APLAC, NCCLS, etc. General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
K Differences between EN ISO 11607-1:2009 vs. 2017 Other Medical Device Related Standards 1
Q Is EN 55011:2009+A1:2010 is expiring in early 2019? Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
B Is ISO 15254:2009 a requirement for China for ophthalmic products market? China Medical Device Regulations 1
B Is IEC TR 80002-1:2009 applicable to stand-alone medical device software? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 1
dubrizo Compliance with Customer Requirements - TS 16949:2009 Requirements IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
R Technical Files Sampling Rule defined in NBOG 2009-4 EU Medical Device Regulations 2
W Root Cause Analysis Requirements per TS 16949:2009 Problem Solving, Root Cause Fault and Failure Analysis 8
C Differences between IATF 16949:2016 vs ISO/TS 16949:2009 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 13
V Procedure to change the Company name in existing TS16949-2009 certificate ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
E Gap Analysis for VDA 6.3:2010 and ISO/TS16949:2009 VDA Standards - Germany's Automotive Standards 5
B Would compliance with ISO/TS 16949:2009 mean also compliance with ISO 9001:2015? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
J ISO/TS 16949:2009 Remote Support Provided By Sister Plants IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
M Control and Identification of ISO/TS 16949:2009 Documentation. ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
C EMC Test Report Requirements to IEC 60601-1-2:2009 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
S BSI's ISO 13485 certificate does not mention AC 2009 corrigendum Registrars and Notified Bodies 5
F Gap Analysis Matrix for AS9100 Rev C to TS16949:2009 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
R General ISO/TS16949:2009 Implementation Primer Needed IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
S Heat Map ISO/TS 16949:2009 Clauses IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
S TS 16949:2009 Specific Internal Auditor Training Requirements Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
S ASTM-1965-98 (Reapproved 2009) has contradictory requirements? Other Medical Device Related Standards 2
O Requirements for ISO/TS 16949:2009 Certification IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
S ISO 9001:2008 / ISO TS16949:2009 Comparison ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 6
A Does ISO/TS 16949:2009 require us to perform Final/Pre-dispatch Inspection? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
R ISO/TS 16949:2009 Questions related to Work Flow IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
D Gap Analysis for ISO 18113-1 thru -5 (ISO 18113:2009 to ISO 18113:2012) Other ISO and International Standards and European Regulations 1
A IEC/TR 80002-1:2009 vs. AAMI TIR32:2004 Other Medical Device Related Standards 3
BHobbs_Busche ISO/TS16949:2009 - MSA requirements for common gages IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
P AS9100:2009 compared to ISO 13485 AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 3
M ISO 14001:2009 Course Certificate ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 10
P ISO/TS 16949:2009 Compliance - Self Declaration Audit IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
M ISO/TS 16949:2009 Follow-up Audit Visits to create more Revenue IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 12

Similar threads

Top Bottom