Maybe but on the other hand ...
TeeTV said:
What is the demand of Pre-written/ready-to-use calibration procedures, including uncertainty calculation template for that particular calibration?
I'm sure the initial thought of most people, especially in small calibration labs, is that it would be a good idea. (Me, too!) But I see at least one practical problem.
A calibration procedure is a process for verifying the performance of the unit under test. They can be written to be fairly generic, especially if NCSL RP-4 is followed. That is, the procedure for calibrating a specific UUT model (or a group of different models with substantially identical performance attributes) can be written in terms that identify the measurement standards only by generic nomenclature and required performance specifications.
As I understand laboratory accreditation and similar requirements, the measurement uncertainty is based on the
individual laboratory performing measurements
with a specific suite of standards. This means, for example, that the uncertainty in
my lab is different from the uncertainty in
your lab
even if we are using the same calibration procedure to calibrate the same UUT model with identical measurement standards. We are in different locations with different environments and have different people, for starters.
I can see a possible market for canned calibration procedures in terms of being a
defined and validated calibration method. That would be useful and may even be accepted by the AB's. The procedures could even include a range of expected uncertainties. But I don't believe those uncertainties could be used as-is by any lab for accreditation. At most, they would be a benchmark for evaluating their own uncertainty when it is determined.
(
Hershal - there is an announcement about the book in the Book Reviews forum; Marc let me do that several weeks ago. And it has been shipping for a week now - my boss has his already.

)