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