Requirements for parameter based testing scope of accreditation

[Hanr3]

Looking for information on requirements for parameter based testing scope of accreditation?

Most of the testing conducted is not standard, as in there is no Industry Standard. Most tests are unique and listing 200 testing methods that we may or may not run every year is not practical. We want to go to a parameter based scope of accreditation (ISO 17025). However we need some more information on the requirements to define the parameter.

I hesitate to list a parameter because I don't want this converstaion turned into a calibration discussion. For conversations sake, assume we are after a pressure parameter, assume hydraulic pressure. Pressure is on 80% of the tests. In other words what are the requirements we need to meet to establish a parameter based scope of accreditation?

Instrumentation set-up configuration chain?
MUA of chain?
Options on capturing proficency?
Define the Instrumentation set-up configuration.

 

[Hanr3]

Is it safe to assume that this is new ground for most? I see 65 viewed the post, however there are no responses. I didn't think we were setting a precedent. Any input is greatly appreciated. Thoughts?

 

[Hanr3]

114 views and no responses.
Maybe we are setting a precedent.
Thanks for the lack of feedback, can provide just as much information as 100 comments.

 

[Hershal]

I have worked with this when I was with an AB as senior staff. The real question for parameter-based accreditation does not center on the equipment. It centers on how the scope is to be documented.

Having said that, the equipment must be considered. For example, if the parameter is pressure, and the maximum pressure capability is 10,000 psi, then it could be documented as an up to or not to exceed. So, the parameters are the key, the equipment simply provides limits.

Hopefully this is not sought as a flexible scope. Those are available from a few ABs but have their own set of issues.

One break normally given to test labs that cal labs do not get, uncertainty is not included on scopes. However, the lab still should do one to prove they have the ability, because a customer can request it.

If the testing is non-standard, and there are no industry standards for it, then PT/ILC is unlikely. That will need to be documented, and one of the other options in Clause 5.9.1 must be used.

 

[Hanr3]

I have worked with this when I was with an AB as senior staff. The real question for parameter-based accreditation does not center on the equipment. It centers on how the scope is to be documented.

Having said that, the equipment must be considered. For example, if the parameter is pressure, and the maximum pressure capability is 10,000 psi, then it could be documented as an up to or not to exceed. So, the parameters are the key, the equipment simply provides limits.

Hopefully this is not sought as a flexible scope. Those are available from a few ABs but have their own set of issues.

One break normally given to test labs that cal labs do not get, uncertainty is not included on scopes. However, the lab still should do one to prove they have the ability, because a customer can request it.

If the testing is non-standard, and there are no industry standards for it, then PT/ILC is unlikely. That will need to be documented, and one of the other options in Clause 5.9.1 must be used.

That is our planned scope. Scope based on equipment limits. Pressure up to 10,000 psi is a good example. Do we need to identify a test method that achieves the maximum equipment capability? How will the CAB validate our capabilities?

yes, we have an MUA budget, and can populate it with test equipment to calculate the MUA for the test in question.

Correct, 5.9.1 has been a challenge for several reasons. Transporting our Device Under Test is not cheap or realistic. There are maybe one or two other test facilities in the world that can handle testing our DUT. We have to ensure the process works properly, about all we can do. Simple quality checks are done before data is gathered. Records are maintained.

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like we are on the right path.