|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 Measurement, Test and Calibration
 Guide 25 vs. ISO17025
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Guide 25 vs. ISO17025 |
|
Roger Eastin Forum Wizard Posts: 345 |
posted 03 November 2000 08:52 AM
   
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 |
posted 13 November 2000 07:35 AM
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 |
posted 13 November 2000 04:07 PM
quote: Roger, From the foreword of ISO/IEC 17025:1999 -- quote: 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 |
posted 13 November 2000 05:52 PM
Remember, you've got until December 2002 to comply! ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 13 November 2000 06:04 PM
quote:The election may be finished by then, to boot! IP: Logged |
|
jcham Lurker (<10 Posts) Posts: 1 |
posted 14 November 2000 12:16 PM
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 ANyone else have any thoughts about this? IP: Logged |
|
J.R. Strickland Forum Contributor Posts: 24 |
posted 12 December 2000 05:33 PM
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 |
posted 13 December 2000 10:02 AM
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 |
posted 13 December 2000 12:01 PM
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 |
posted 14 December 2000 06:28 PM
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 |
posted 24 January 2001 04:45 PM
"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. IP: Logged |
|
Ryan Wilde unregistered |
posted 31 January 2001 09:29 AM
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 |
posted 13 February 2001 02:45 PM
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 |
posted 14 February 2001 09:04 AM
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 |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
