International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF)

International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF)

Revision of IAF Guidance to ISO/IEC Guide 62 to include modified criteria for reassessment and surveillance audits, (formerly referred to as “WDI”) and the use of Computer-Aided Auditing Techniques (“CAAT”).

Convenors’ Report

1. Background

At the IAF Technical Committee meeting in Bratislava in September 2003, members voted to not publish the balloted (and narrowly approved) document “Method for Maintaining Certification/Registration of Well Developed and Implemented Management Systems” (“WDI”), but set up a new working group led by Nigel Croft and Tetsuro Kawaberi to develop IAF Guidance on this subject, either by incorporation into IAF Guidance to ISO/IEC Guide 62 / 66, or as a stand-alone document. It was also agreed that during the development period, the current document on the Alternative Method (IAF 98/020) will remain in force. All of these recommended actions were reported to and approved by the subsequent Bratislava IAF Annual Meeting (ref IAF Resolution 2003-15).

On the basis of the Terms of Reference (ToR) circulated to the TC, volunteers from the TC membership were invited to participate in the WG, which met in Vancouver in February 2004 to discuss the major conceptsand the initial draft guidance. Based on these discussions, the WG then progressively revised the working drafts and continued exchanging views by electronic communication

2. Conceptual basis for the guidance

• No separate “Alternative Method” or “WDI” document

This is in line with the ToR in that the relevant parts ofthese two documents should be included in mainstream IAF guidance (IAF GD2 and GD6). Note that the idea of building into the mainstream guidance was originated by the TC during discussions at its Berlin meeting in 2002.

• Performance-based approach

This is also consistent with the ToR, addressing the need for “the assessment of management systems whose owners (i.e. certified organizations) have a proven good track record of maintaining them under accredited certification.”

• Addressing the use of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques (CAAT)
• Introduction of new G.3.6.8 to IAF GD2 (key guidance notes)

- Partial (but not total) reliance on the organization’s own internal audits;

- Requirement for performance indicators;

- Requirement for the organization to be consistently meeting performance targets;

- Need to demonstrate that the organization is consistently providing conforming product;

- Possibility for the CRB to communicate directly with the sources of customer satisfaction data, for verification/validation;

- Internal audit process to meet ISO 19011 with particular reference to auditor competence;

- Possibility to decrease or increase audit intensity depending on the organization’s performance.

3. Major issues noted in the WG discussion

In circulating this draft to the IAF membership for a 60-day comment period, it is important for us to emphasize that the draft does not have the full consensus of the Croft/Kawaberi Working Group. As Convenors, we have made the decision to circulate the current 4th Working Draft“as-is”, in order to seek a wider range of comments from the IAF membership as a whole, and to provide direction to the WG on the best way forward. In preparingyour comments, therefore, we request you to address the two issues that are raised below, in addition to your specific comments on the draft text.

The two main reasons for the lack of full consensus (together with our proposals) are as follows:

1)Concerns regarding the terminology employed in the clauses related to CAAT -e.g. “workflow” in G.3.2.4 and “Change Control Management” in G.3.6.8 j). We were unable to achieve an acceptable balance between

(a) “high-tech” terminology that is used in the IT industry, but which may not be readily understandable to the majority of current users of the IAF Guidance, and

(b) More “user-friendly” terminology that is likely to be understood by current users of the guidance, but that may not be sufficiently precise to avoid mis-interpretations.

Proposed solution: As Convenors, we have made the decision to circulate the draft based on option 1 (b) above, despite a lack of consensus from the industry members of the group. In parallel, we are working within the Croft/Kawaberi WG to achieve a compromise solution by developing a glossary of the technical terms relevant to CAAT, to be included in the final document if preference for option 1 (a) prevails.

2)Disagreement from twoAssociation Members (certification/registration body association category) about the need for this guidance, based on concerns that it can undermine the credibility of the third-party certification process. The two members concerned expresseda wishnot to proceed with the current draft. Our opinion as Convenors is that these concerns are related to the WG’s ToR, and should be addressed at the TC, not the WG level. Apparently thesame concerns exist regarding the existing “Alternative Methods” document (IAF-98-020).

Proposed solution: In addition to any specific comments you may have on the draft guidance, (and even if you do not have specific comments)we request you to state your preference for the options that are available to us, in order to establish a clear mandate for the WG:

a)Continue with the development of this draft guidance, to replace the current IAF-98-020 “Alternative Methods” guidance.

b)Maintain the current IAF-98-020 “Alternative Methods” as-is, with no need for new guidance (This means the cancellation of the project being undertaken by the WG).

c)Withdraw IAF-98-020 “Alternative Methods”, and develop no new guidance to replace it.

It is important to note that this is nota formal IAF ballot. Collecting broader input on how to proceed is vital to enable the WG to deliver an output that meets IAF members’ expectations.

The WG plans to meet again in Capetown in October 2004, with the objective of addressing any outstanding concerns. Depending on the degree of consensus achieved, the resulting draft will either be circulated for ballot, or re-circulated for another 60-day comment period.

We also wish to point out that we have concentrated our initial efforts on the IAF Guidance to ISO/IEC Guide 62. Once we have achieved consensus on this document, we plan to adopt a similar approach for the IAF Guidance to ISO/IEC Guide 66.

NIGEL CROFT TETSURO KAWABERI

June 2004