The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  Measurement, Test and Calibration
  Guide 25 vs. ISO17025

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Guide 25 vs. ISO17025
Roger Eastin
Forum Wizard

Posts: 345
From:Greenville, SC
Registered:

posted 03 November 2000 08:52 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Roger Eastin   Click Here to Email Roger Eastin     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
With ISO17025 being the standard for labs in TS16949, our company is comparing Guide 25 with ISO17025 and finding that there are substantially more requirements in ISO17025 than in Guide 25. It's causing quite a stir here. Has anyone else found this as well? (I am not a lab expert!)

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 13 November 2000 07:35 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Roger, have you read through https://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum4/HTML/000035.html ?

I haven't done a comparison. Any specifics on what the 'significant' differences are per your evaluation? What is "...causing quite a stir..."?

IP: Logged

Graeme
Forum Contributor

Posts: 30
From:Lilburn, GA, USA
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 13 November 2000 04:07 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Graeme   Click Here to Email Graeme     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Roger Eastin:
With ISO17025 being the standard for labs in TS16949, our company is comparing Guide 25 with ISO17025 and finding that there are substantially more requirements in ISO17025 than in Guide 25. It's causing quite a stir here. Has anyone else found this as well? (I am not a lab expert!)

Roger,

From the foreword of ISO/IEC 17025:1999 --

quote:
this first edition of ISO/IEC 17025 cancels and replaces ISO/IEC Guide 25:1990.

17025 includes all of the requirements of ISO 9001:1994 that apply when you are acting as a supplier of testing or calibraton services. It also includes all of the competence requirements that were in Guide 25. So, it is more than either was before. This means you must have an effective quality management system and you must also prove your capability to do what you say you can do. One without the other is not sufficient.

IP: Logged

David Mullins
Forum Contributor

Posts: 248
From:Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 13 November 2000 05:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Mullins   Click Here to Email David Mullins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Remember, you've got until December 2002 to comply!

------------------

IP: Logged

Marc Smith
Cheech Wizard

Posts: 4119
From:West Chester, OH, USA
Registered:

posted 13 November 2000 06:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Marc Smith   Click Here to Email Marc Smith     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Mullins:

Remember, you've got until December 2002 to comply!


The election may be finished by then, to boot!

IP: Logged

jcham
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 1
From:Duluth, GA USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 14 November 2000 12:16 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jcham     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
I haven't done a comparison. Any specifics on what the 'significant' differences are per your evaluation? What is "...causing quite a stir..."?

One of the differences that is causing a stir is the requirement for the calibration
labs to document the data for each calibration under 17025. This is not required under G25 unless the customer requests it. Also under 17025 the UUT (unit under test) is not found "out of tolerance" by the service provider, the customer is provided with the data readings & the customer decides whether they want the unit adjusted or not, unless previously specified in their agreement with the Lab.
The amount of extra time & chances of confusion created by this will "create quite a stir".

ANyone else have any thoughts about this?

IP: Logged

J.R. Strickland
Forum Contributor

Posts: 24
From:Northbrook, IL, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 12 December 2000 05:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for J.R. Strickland     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
We have recently received an RFQ package from General Motors that requires labs used for testing be ISO 17025 CERTIFIED. They made no separation between internal labs or external, commercial test facilities. This requirement appeared in the reliability testing specification. We are still clarifying, but if what is printed in the spec is true, this clearly raises the bar for internal labs a ton. Compliance is one thing...certification is another thing altogether. Certification means I have to have yet another audit from a different assessment body. Oh...and it also adds cost at the same time purchasing is asking for price reductions. The madness continues.

IP: Logged

Ken K
Forum Contributor

Posts: 44
From:Wisconsin, USA
Registered: Jun 2000

posted 13 December 2000 10:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ken K     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
J.R.,we went through the same thing when we received updated test specifications from GM earlier this year. Fortunately, it's not as bad as it sounds.
Unless you do testing/calibrations for outside vendors/suppliers, your internal lab does not need to be certified to Guide 25 or ISO17025.
It's my understanding from talking to GM that the 17025 reference was included because GM is in the process of implementing more ISO test methods into their test specifications.

IP: Logged

barb butrym
Forum Contributor

Posts: 637
From:South Central Massachusetts
Registered:

posted 13 December 2000 12:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for barb butrym   Click Here to Email barb butrym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The ISO certification body I am working with offers the ISO 17025 assessment at the same time as the ISO audit..... Only a few select registrars have gone on to get approved for that, but its an excellent approach...all in one shot...and much less expensive...by thousands of $$$$

IP: Logged

David Mullins
Forum Contributor

Posts: 248
From:Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 14 December 2000 06:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Mullins   Click Here to Email David Mullins     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Further to my comment: "Remember, you've got until December 2002 to comply!", the main lab accreditation body in Australia stes that (provided you applied prior to June 30 2000) from January 1 2001 all assessments will be against ISO 17025 (but all ISO 17025 noncompliances will be classified minor), from September 1 2002 non-compliances raised against ISO 17025 must be closed out or they will be re-coded as "Conditions" (Major NCRs) and must be closed out within three months.

Therefore existing accredited labs have until 31 December 2002 (or their next assessment after that date) to close out ISO 17025 nonconformances identified at previous assessments.

If you aren't doing the ISO 9001 thing, or have a comprehensive management system of your own, then the jump from guide 25 to ISO 17025 is a quantum leap.

------------------

IP: Logged

Doreen Savoldi
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 2
From:Lafayette, IN
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 24 January 2001 04:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Doreen Savoldi   Click Here to Email Doreen Savoldi     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
"Remember, you've got until December 2002 to comply!"

Were do you get this time line. Where can I get more information on how fast I must require the labs I use (now guide 25) to get to ISO/IEC 17025.
My company is seeking ISO/TS16949 certification. There doesn't seem to be any disclaimers in it on when to be ISO/IEC 17025.

IP: Logged

Ryan Wilde
unregistered
posted 31 January 2001 09:29 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Doreen,

It is a requirement of the ISO/IEC 17025 Accrediting bodies that all ISO/IEC Guide 25 accredited labs must comply with all of the requirements of 17025 by the end of 2001. The statement you are referring to was not referenced from TS 16949.

Ryan

IP: Logged

Doreen Savoldi
Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 2
From:Lafayette, IN
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 13 February 2001 02:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Doreen Savoldi   Click Here to Email Doreen Savoldi     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have asked several sorces (registars,Labs,etc.)on when should I require my sub-contracted Labs to change to 17025.
These are my results:
Registars say change to ISO 17025 by Jan.1, 2002.
Quality Magazine Feb.2001 (page45) says: "based on ILAC's recommended implementation of ISO/IEC 17025, the successor to ISO /IEC Guide 25:1990. Laboratories accredited to Guide 25 must be operating under the new standard by the end of 2002."
Thank you for your responses.
Doreen

IP: Logged

Dan Larsen
Forum Contributor

Posts: 137
From:Sussex, WI
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 14 February 2001 09:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Larsen   Click Here to Email Dan Larsen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've reviewed ISO 17025 against ISO Guide 25 and really don't see significant differences. Most everything that was in Guide 25 is still in 17025, just organized differently. On first appearance, it looks like 17025 has much more because it moves all the management system requirements into a separate section. Most of the management system requirements are simply ISO 9001 restated in the context of a testing/calibration facility.

I think the biggest issue is that 17025 strengthens the language with respect to uncertainty and how the lab considers uncertainty in the work that is performed. In effect, if the uncertainty of a measurement or calibration could cause the raw data to be out of compliance, the lab must take this into consideration in making compliance statements.

To get a better handle on the differences, use the nominal cross-reference tables from both Guide 25 and 17025 (both show the relationship between the document and ISO 9001) to create a new cross-reference table showing the relationship between Guide 25 and 17025. I think you'll find that everything is still there but that the language is strengthened in some areas to eliminate some of the interpretation issues.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!


Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!