Should QS/TS certified internal test/calibration labs be required to be ISO17025

Should QS/TS certified internal test/calibration labs be required to be ISO17025 accr

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 4 66.7%
  • Depends on which products they supply

    Votes: 2 33.3%
  • Other opinion - Let\'s hear it

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    6
K

Ken K

#1
Just wondering how you all feel about this. Especially looking for replies from auto suppliers.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
D

D.Scott

#2
I see no reason why an internal lab shouldn't be 17025 compliant, but registration carries it too far. We ran into all sorts of problems when we were both A2LA and QS-9000. There are 2 seperate audits with 2 sets of opinions on how they want to interpret the standard. QS-9000 even states that 17025 would not satisfy all the requirements of QS-9000 requirements for a lab. This sets up the old "2 book system" we lived by before QS (I still don't think it is dead yet).

Just my opinion.

Dave
 
R

Ryan Wilde

#3
Hi all,

I'm of the 'other opinion'. I've been in internal QS labs that did exceptional work, with the added bonus of being able to tailor their calibrations and testing to their company's needs. I've also been in QS labs where the lead person was a machinist that got a 'promotion to this cushy job'. The problem is that I've met a number of QS auditors, and the majority that I've met know very little about the operations of a laboratory on a technical level, and these labs pass audits.

Herein lies my problem with the whole thing. QS9000 registration is not enough for a laboratory unless more auditors are drawn from a technical background, and that isn't going to happen.

Do I think that internal labs should be required to be 17025 accredited? Not in the least. From a metrologist point of view, it is a great idea, but from a business stance, it is pure folly. Companies are expected to do more with less, cut costs, improve quality, and dropping $100k (112.4k EUROs as of this morning) to improve quality while reducing unit prices is not a good way to stay in business.

I've seen '17025 compliant' labs, and usually, they are anything BUT 17025 compliant. If they were, they might as well spend the extra $5k and be accredited and be done with it, after all, to be compliant means that you could pass muster on an accreditation assessment. BUT, many make great measurements, which leads to great quality, even though 17025 compliance isn't met.

So what needs to be done? Something in between accreditation and QS9000 needs to be done. 17025 has a lot of measurement assurances, but also a lot of extra things that may not be necessary to ensure quality product. Internal labs need to understand and adhere to the measurement assurances that are practical (a rare term in ISO/QS lingo) and apply to their process. Such things as technically valid procedures (many aren't), uncertainty calculations (I've now seen an MSA study and I could shoot them so full of holes it is pitiful), and proficiency tests to prove a lab's abilities are necessary parts of the metrology world. The rest of 17025 is probably over the top for an internal lab, because the scope of an internal lab is much more focused. The problem is that so far, anything short of a true 17025 assessor doesn't seem to work. The assessor needs to understand the technical aspects of the lab, and be able to assess their abilities to make quality measurements. QS9000 doesn't provide that, and 17025 provides that, but also provides a lot of out-of-scope hassles.

So who wants to form a committee that can write a practical standard for internal labs?

Just some thoughts,
Ryan
 
R

Ryan Wilde

#6
barb butrym said:

I agree with Roger and Dave........

where did the $5K figure come from for registration cost? I see a heavier hit.
The actual ACCREDITATION cost is about $5k. That pays for the assessment and accreditation body paperwork, nothing more. What I was saying is that if a lab claims that they are fully compliant with 17025, then the only cost they should have left is the accreditation body fee. What I've seen, however, is that most of the actual work involved in accreditation that adds to cost has not been done by labs claiming compliance. Time for validation of procedures and software, time and resources for uncertainty studies, interlaboratory comparisons, and check standards for in-process checks are the major costs of accreditation. In order to be truely compliant with ISO 17025, all of these things must be done, and done regularly.

What I meant was that all of those things may (or are) not necessary for an internal laboratory. You may not need true interlaboratory comparisons because of the tolerance the test equipment is used to measure (proving that a lab can calibrate a micrometer with an uncertainty of 2 µm makes no sense when your company makes products that have a dimensional tolerance of ±50 µm). Uncertainties may be able to be calculated with less detailed studies for the same reason. These are major costs that have no return on investment, and make no difference to product quality in such cases. Somewhere there needs to be a common sense approach, one that ensures quality without going over the top.

At this time, there is no common sense approach to laboratory quality. ISO 17025 is great for those of us that are strictly calibration and testing suppliers because we do not have a set group of measurements to temper what needs to be done. We have to be ready for everything from low accuracy and resolution needs to high-end laboratory standards. On the other hand, ISO and QS 9000 do absolutely nothing to ensure laboratory data validity or competence. What is in between? Nothing, nada, zilch. Do we need something? Yes, but it needs to be more tailored to application than ISO 17025, which is very minute in its requirements, regardless of application.

Ryan
 
K

Ken K

#7
When I originally started this, my vote was going to be a resounding NO. But, I changed to the 3rd choice mainly because if I was an OEM and receiving parts with tight tolerances and critical applications, I would want to make sure they absolutely meet the specification as measured by a competent lab.

However, being a supplier of acoustical and interior flooring applications, our company is really having a hard time finding a justification for being required to be ISO17025 accredited.
Most of our test specifications only require us to meet a minimum for physical properties with weight and thickness having a tolerance of +/- 10%. Rocket science it is not.

After all, I have never, ever read about someone being injured or killed because the carpeting in their vehicle failed causing them to lose control. :bonk:
 
M

metrologyguy

#8
I feel the cost of managing an accredited lab in a manufacturing enviornment would add more to the cost of the product than the benifit received, unless you are gage manufacture.

With OSHA, EPA, Taxes, and worst of all the Lawyers, American manufactures have a tough enough time trying to compete with other Countries that have little or none of the above.

At one time we allmost had ISO 10012 become the standard to have internal labs work to. In most companies this would be more than adaquate.
 
R

Randy Stewart

#9
Where's the Payback?

We just went through a surveillance and were hit on 4.10.6.1 because we didn't have our "scope" as a controlled document. Once again, we are a prototype shop, we have a very large tolerance that our CMM's can easily maintain. We don't have to be concerned with "soak time", our facility is not environmentally controlled, our equipment is calibrated by the OEM and each facility has a set of gage blocks that are calibrated by a certified lab. There is no added value to being certified to another standard and it would be a great expense to be bring our inspection area into compliance. Since we have never had an issue with the customer due to tolerances, we follow the MSA and our equipment is able to measure way above what is required by the customer standards, where would the company or the customer see benefit????
As for the non-conformance; we will generate a quality record showing that we understand the limitations of our equipment (we already have the personnel trained, equipment listed and the processes documented) that will only be used for audits. Totally Useless!!:bonk: :frust:
 
J
#10
Competent = Accredited?

Ken K said:

When I originally started this, my vote was going to be a resounding NO. But, I changed to the 3rd choice mainly because if I was an OEM and receiving parts with tight tolerances and critical applications, I would want to make sure they absolutely meet the specification as measured by a competent lab.

Ken,
I agree wholeheartedly. Where in a situation with critical tolerances I want my lab to be competent to make the measurments. But the origional question was not about competance or compliance, but accreditation.
If we take the time and expense to set up a competent lab, and we have no complaints from customers re: measurements what is the point of getting certified?
Before being forced to become certified to QS, we had a system in place based (somewhat loosely) on ISO-9000. In the preamble of the Quality Manual I stated that the system is ....."Designed to comply with the intent of ISO 9000....."
This both indicated a what we were shooting for and an out for anything we felt was superfluous. This system was just fine with our customers.
It strikes me that a similar statement in regards your internal lab should be sufficient.

James
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
R Should internal auditors be compulsorily certified as internal auditors ? Internal Auditing 11
I Imaging Services - Which standard should we be certified to? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
L Should I wait to get certified to ISO 9001:2015 ? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 11
G AS9120 - What should we be expecting once we set forth into becoming certified? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11
A What should be strategy plan to develop R&D and what we should do to certified that IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
Q Should distributors be also certified to IS0 9001? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 16
W Should I invest in ISO standards for the CBA (Certified Biomedical Auditor) exam? Other Medical Device Regulations World-Wide 18
Adriane Am I overthinking this or... Should my Registrar be ISO9001 certified Registrars and Notified Bodies 46
G Why a CQE certification? Who should become an ASQ Certified Quality Engineer? Professional Certifications and Degrees 2
C Certified Quality Manager - Do you think the Certification name should be changed Professional Certifications and Degrees 45
I Should our company be ISO 9001 certified or QS-9000 certified? QS-9000 - American Automotive Manufacturers Standard 6
E Manufacturers should develop a testing device for covid19 Service Industry Specific Topics 0
T 510(k) submission - Which name should I use in the submission? Other US Medical Device Regulations 3
N ISO 19011:2018 - 5.4.2 "...audit program should engage in appropriate continual development..." Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 4
G Should I perform Gage R&R only at the beginning of a new project? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 6
DuncanGibbons Should the requirements FAA/EASA Part 21 be addressed within the QMS and AS9100D quality manual? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 5
M Should 510(k) Predicates be Actively Listed Devices? Other US Medical Device Regulations 12
B Why the Greek god Hephaestus should have done a design FMEA (DFMEA) on his giant robot APQP and PPAP 1
J On PFMEA for danger labels - Label always should be assigned severity 10 ? FMEA and Control Plans 3
H Who should be listed as the manufacturer/distributor on the box? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 15
M MDR, RED and LVD - Should our device comply with them? EU Medical Device Regulations 2
BeaBea How Many Processes should be created for each Department? Process Maps, Process Mapping and Turtle Diagrams 5
M Should volume of sales be factored into risk probability assessments? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 33
MrTetris Should potential bugs be considered in software risk analysis? ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 5
S Should safety checks be included in the Control Plan? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 5
M Which incubation condition should be selected to recover both bacteria and fungus effectively Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 3
D Is there a specific location for PPE such as safety glass holders and glove dispensers should be mounted Occupational Health & Safety Management Standards 10
Robert Stanley Which Registrar Should I Choose for ISO 9001:2015 registration? Registrars and Notified Bodies 10
M Who should receive the bills from suppliers and vendors, account payable or procurement? Consultants and Consulting 4
V IATF 16949 8.4.1 Control of externally provided processes, products and services - Should the CB be on our Approved Supplier List? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
A We are ISO 13485:2016 should we be audited to ISO 14971 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 16
E Received a Major finding during IATF Surveillance audit for loss of BIQS Level 3 (more than 6 SPPS in 6 months)...how should we address SYSTEMIC CA? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 11
J Organization merger. Should we keep two separate ISO 13485 certificates? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
S Companies that maintain your machine should be in ASL? AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 2
S Use of "Shall" versus "Should" in Procedures ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 21
D Class II medical device - When should a complaint be closed? Customer Complaints 6
Sidney Vianna IATF 16949 News Presentations from the latest IATF Stakeholder Event - Expectation that IATF 16949 certification should equate with product quality. Misguided? IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 7
L Clause 0.4 of ISO 9001 and EHS - Where should I stop the inclusion of EHS in my QMS ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Ed Panek Part 11 Self Certify Memo - What else should it cover? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 5
H Should I mention machine/Equipment password In SOP? Qualification and Validation (including 21 CFR Part 11) 4
D How long should we keep the spare parts available for our medical device, after we have stopped the production? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 0
H Statistical Techniques Procedure - What should be included Document Control Systems, Procedures, Forms and Templates 4
Q How should I analyze measurement correlation between me and customer? Gage R&R (GR&R) and MSA (Measurement Systems Analysis) 12
Sidney Vianna Interesting Discussion ISO 9001:2024 - What should be changed in the next Edition of ISO 9001? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 82
N Should it even be on the hazard analysis (software)? FMEA and Control Plans 2
V Which batches should or could be considered for design validation and design verification? 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 0
L A Taiwan company want to sell Class I medical device (510(k) exempt) on Amazon, should we register with FDA? US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 4
M Routine testing of medical electrical systems - What specific electrical safety tests should be performed? IEC 60601 - Medical Electrical Equipment Safety Standards Series 5
G ISO 17025:2017 7.1.2 - Should I produce a document for the customer? ISO 17025 related Discussions 8
F Quality Objectives - Where in the QMS Quality Objectives should be located ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8

Similar threads

Top Bottom