ISO 17025 and ISO/TS-16949 Clause 7.6.3.1 Requirements - In-House Laboratory

[TownDawg]

"Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025 may be used to demonstrate the organization's in-house laboratory conformity to this (section 7.6.3.1 of TS-16949) requirement but is not mandatory."

Ok. $83 for the ISO/IEC 17025, $600 for application fee, $1200 annual fee. Help me out here. If my boss says this is WAY too much money to be spending, what are my alternatives?

I'm assuming if i can show comnformance to the requirement, but purchasing the standard, studying it, making sure we align with all the requirements, but even if we don't actually go the application route -- this is acceptable?

 

[Hershal]

Based on the initial quote, it appears that compliance to ISO/IEC 17025 will be sufficient for you. The down side is that it may leave the door open for the TS auditor to go audit your internal cal lab, and that auditor may/may not know what s/he is doing. The cost/benefit analysis then becomes the potential for that TS auditor going into the lab, versus an accreditation.

As for pricing, the fees quoted (not sure which AB) are the obvious costs. The assessment time is where most of the cost comes in. I always suggest comparing several ABs in terms of initial and annual fees, and estimated number of assessor days (based on your scope), and of course, assessor day cost. The AB should be able to provide a quote up front, based on scope, that will get you close to a true total.

Hope this helps.

Hershal

 

[TownDawg]

Thanks for the help! I had not considered some of those elements when figuring in my equation of cost vs benefit.

I got another question. Measurement Uncertainty. I am trying to wrap my arms around exactly what it means, and exactly how to evaluate -- without needing to drag out my stats books..

Can you talk to this concept in elementary English? Or point me to a good link?

From this link --> https://www.ukas.com/information_centre/technical/technical_uncertain.asp

"What is uncertainty?: I used to be uncertain - now I'm not so sure. In ordinary use the word 'uncertainty' does not inspire confidence. However, when used in a technical sense as in 'measurement uncertainty' or 'uncertainty of a test result' it carries a specific meaning. It is a parameter, associated with the result of a measurement (eg a calibration or test) that defines the range of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measured quantity. When uncertainty is evaluated and reported in a specified way it indicates the level of confidence that the value actually lies within the range defined by the uncertainty interval. "

The following link (https://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/tutorials/uncertain/) sounds a lot more of how I have always considered this term: " Each instrument has an inherent amount of uncertainty in its measurement. Even the most precise measuring device cannot give the actual value because to do so would require an infinitely precise instrument. A measure of the precision of an instrument is given by its uncertainty. As a good rule of thumb, the uncertainty of a measuring device is 20% of the least count. Recall that the least count is the smallest subdivision given on the measuring device. The uncertainty of the measurement should be given with the actual measurement, for example, 41.64 ± 0.02cm."