TC/37/02

Unconfirmed Minutes of IAF Technical Committee Meeting

Held on 18-19 September 2002 in Berlin

1.  Welcomes, Apologies

Mr Brockway welcomed the participants. (attendance list attached)

Apologies had been received from Ms Breitenberg (ANSI/RAB), Mr Keeling (JAS/ANZ), Ms McEnri (INAB), Mr Mowry (ANSI), Ms Saveant (COFRAC), Mr Thendrup (NA)

2. Agenda (TC/19/02 rev 1)

This was agreed.

3. Minutes of 15-17 May 2002 Meeting (TC/18/02)

These were confirmed.

4.  Matters Arising from the Minutes

It was confirmed that the actions were either on the agenda or had been carried out. The exception was the action for Mr Brockway to seek confirmation from ISO about the continuing use of ISO 9001/2:1994 in relation to QS 9000. It was agreed that it was now not necessary to pursue this.

4.1  Questionnaire on QMS in CASCO standards (TC/20/02)

The responses to the questionnaire were noted as evidence that there is no consensus on how to proceed with this aspect of the drafting of ISO/IEC 17021 or the rest of the family of CASCO standards for conformity assessment bodies.

It was confirmed that the customer of a CRB according to the ISO 9000 definition is the whole range of stakeholders, not just the certified organisation.

5.  QMS CRB Competence

Draft Guidance on Clause 2.1 of Guide 62 (TC/02/02 rev1)

Mr Nash introduced the draft text which now included most of the input to the original text made at the Denver meeting.

Ms Brough-Kerrebyn pointed out that the Guidance started with guidance on auditors which was not consistent with the standard or with the intent of the work item to provide guidance on the competence of all certification body personnel. Members agreed that it would be useful to reorder the Guidance and rethink some of its presentation to reflect this intent.

Discussion then took place on whether IAF should try to underpin the guidance by providing detailed expectations of the competencies needed in particular sectors or areas of activity. Some members suggested that without such benchmarking, the Guidance constituted no more than words. Reference was made to the specific requirements for auditor qualifications in various sector schemes.

Mr Nash reminded members that it had been agreed not to attempt such a benchmarking exercise and that the basis for IAF assessment of competence across the whole range of activities cannot be the same as what can be specified for particular schemes.

Members rehearsed the understanding that the IAF approach was to focus on risk assessment and control mechanisms. Accreditation bodies assess how CRBs analyse the criticality of their processes, and evaluate the effectiveness of this. It was not appropriate for IAF to try to be prescriptive on auditor competence issues. A danger in prescription here was that CRBs might do what was required without understanding. It was not IAF’s job to provide management for incompetent CRBs.

Nevertheless, the point was made that accreditation bodies appeared to spend more time looking at the qualifications of CRB auditors than on investigating their competence. It was agreed to further explore this under item 8.

In the meantime, it was agreed that it was desirable to finalise the proposed Guidance on clauses 2.2.1 to 2.2.11 of ISO/IEC Guide 62 using the material presented by Mr Nash sooner rather than later.

It was therefore agreed that Mr Nash and Mr Brockway would review the draft text in the light of the discussion, modify it and present it to the Committee for thirty-day comment with a view to finalising it for formal approval thereafter (along with seeking approval for updating the Guidance documents to include ISO 19011).

(Action: Mr Nash and Mr Brockway)

6.  Guidance on Guide 65 (Product Certification) (TC/32/02)

Mr Egner reported on progress in his group which would meet again following the Technical Committee meeting. He hoped that this meeting would complete the initial review of Guide 65 enabling a small drafting group to develop text for subsequent consideration by the whole Committee.

The need for liaison with IEC, ILAC and the IAF/ILAC Inspection Committee was underlined. The draft would be submitted for consultation to all of these with a view to developing dialogue as the basis for future cooperation.

(Action: Mr Egner)

In particular, liaison with the inspection work should aim to achieve a common approach to the questions of subcontracting and accreditation scopes.

7. Guidance on ISO/IEC 17024 (Certification Schemes for Persons) (TC/21/02)

Mr Kronvall advised that the FDIS for this standard would be available in October with the expectation that the International Standard would be published in January. The Committee therefore endorsed the IAF work item to review the standard to determine the need for Guidance, and if appropriate to develop IAF Guidance on it.

The Committee endorsed Mr Kronvall to chair the Technical Committee Task Force to do this work. The following members volunteered to participate:

SWEDAC, TGA, UKAS, RvA, SAC, JAB, ANSI, KAB (?), COFRAC (?), ABCB.

It was agreed that more user input should be sought. Representatives from CEOC and IATCA attending the meeting volunteered participation, and were welcomed to be part of the group. It was also agreed that attention should be made to involve industry user groups. The first line of investigation would be membership of ISO/CASCO WG17.

(Action: Mr Kronvall)

Note: the first meeting of the TF will take place at the SWEDAC office in Stockholm on 6-7 February 2003.

If the TF decides that Guidance will be useful, they will attempt to prepare a text for consideration by the time of the IAF September 2003 meeting.

8. IAF Guidance on the application of ISO/IEC Guide 66 – G.4.2.9 Competence Analysis.

Mr Keeling had asked the Committee to consider this Guidance in the IAF Guidance on Guide 66. He maintained that his experience as a peer evaluator had suggested that IAF member ABs were not looking for evidence that accredited CRBs were performing competence analysis of the areas in which they operate as specified in the Guidance.

Mr Brockway reminded members that the inclusion of this part of the Guidance on Guide 66 had been considered important by the original EMS Task Force. It provided the basis on which accreditation scopes should be granted to CRBs.

Members supported retention of the material and the importance of doing it right. If there is evidence that ABs are not investigating this aspect, it may suggest lack of competence on the part of AB assessment staff to do this.

Since this aspect was seen as fundamental to the proposed new Guidance for QMS arising from the work on CRB competence (future Guidance on clause 2.1 of Guide 62), members recommended that IAF ABs share experience in the implementation of this aspect of the assessment of competence, whether for EMS or QMS, as a contribution to developing and sharing best practice.

In response to a suggestion from Mr Brockway, it was agreed that one day of the proposed three-day meeting of the Technical Committee in February be devoted to a workshop on this aspect of the assessment of CB competence.

(Action: Mr Brockway)

Discussion took place on data that could be usefully collected in advance. It was agreed that no specific survey would be made, but that IAF Technical Committee members were expected to bring their experience of the assessment of CRB competence, including the basis for issuing nonconformities, to the workshop. An outcome could be further guidance on Guide 61 with respect to AB assessor competence.

Note: the ISO 9001 Advisory Committee subsequently asked that IAF, in conjunction with the other stakeholders represented on the Committee, should develop consensus on best practices for auditing of management systems, recognising the need for innovation following the introduction of ISO 9001:2000 and ISO 19011. The proposed workshop will contribute, inter alia, to this objective.

9. Guidance on AB Witnessing of CRB Audits and WA Reports (TC/22/02)

Mr Dougherty introduced the paper. The objective was to develop further guidance on witness assessing and a common report format that would enable ABs to share witness assessment reports. The paper proposed additional guidance and outlined essentials to be covered in reports on witness assessing that would provide a second accreditation body with useable information.

A number of comments were made on the difficulty in pursuing this project in isolation. Witness assessments were used for extension of scopes, but also as routine parts of surveillance and reassessment.

The financial aspect also needed consideration. Was one AB effectively ‘buying’ a report from another? In some cases the translation costs would be a major factor in whether this was worth doing.

Members agreed that there would be considerable variability in how the transfer of this information would take place and be used between different ABs. At this stage, the project should focus on the information that one AB could provide to another. The procedure under which ABs might accept this material needed separate attention.

Discussion led to agreement that this work item was one part of a much wider picture, and that a ‘road map’ needed to be developed as the basis for agreement on what that wider picture was, and how IAF was proposing to get there.

In undertaking this work item, IAF was proposing work that would be part of an agenda that would lead to reduction in duplicate assessment work. This agenda was not yet reconciled within IAF with the ultimate IAF agenda of ensuring that a single accreditation should meet all market needs and be accepted globally as such. The Technical Committee had no mandate to change IAF’s strategy, and it was therefore recommended that the IAF Board/Executive be invited to provide wider orientation for the proposed ‘road map’

(Action: Mr Brockway)

In the meantime, members did not feel that the Technical Committee should delay in progressing work items that contribute to a more effective operation of the network of IAF accreditation bodies, and the reduction of duplicate work. Members therefore agreed to consider the proposed Guidance in TC/22/02 even though the wider context was unlikely to be agreed in the near future.

Members agreed to send comments on the paper to Mr Dougherty without waiting for the broader context to be agreed.

(Action: members by 31 October)

Mr Buser drew attention to the fact that some ABs do not respond positively to questions from the market whether the work of other MLA ABs should be accepted, although to provide such confirmation is an IAF MLA commitment. It was agreed that this would be raised for re endorsement by IAF members at the formal Annual Meeting.

(Action: Mr Brockway)

IAAR Statement: AB Issuance of Scopes (TC/28/02)

Mr Sallé presented the paper. Given the variety of approaches by ABs to the granting of accreditation scopes, he requested IAF to endorse an approach under which ABs would grant CRBs scopes on the evidence of understanding the sector, not seeking to witness assess until the CRB had a customer.

Members recognised that this approach was consistent with the IAF expectations relating to competence analysis contained in the Guidance on Guide 66, and proposed for the Guidance on Guide 62. It was an approach adopted by some accreditation bodies. However, accreditation bodies had different expectations about the treatment of sensitive scopes.

It was agreed to set up a work item to examine the proposal and to develop Guidance on the granting of accreditation scopes with reference to the 39 scopes in Annex 1of the Guidance on Guide 62. In particular, the new work item should focus on what is necessary for the granting of an accreditation scope

and the stage at which witnessing might be necessary.

Mr Sallé agreed to lead the team consisting of Mr Mediratta, Mr Saelzle, Mr Craven, Ms Brough-Kerrebyn, Mr Borzek, Mr Hansa and Mr Brockway.

The team would make proposals for the next meeting.

(Action: Mr Sallé)

10.  Assessment of Transnational Branch Offices and Franchise Arrangements of CRBs (TC/23/02 and TC/07/02 rev1)

Mr Brockway introduced the paper. It aimed to establish how a foreign accreditation body should conduct its assessment of Branch Offices of CRBs in other countries. It built on the paper discussed in Denver, and was designed in the hope that it could be implemented quickly.

Members pointed out that much of the document could apply where the branch office was also accredited by the local body, and that the situation where there is more than one foreign accreditation body should also be addressed.

It was agreed that IAF needed a suite of papers to address all aspects of the subject. This would be a major part of the work programme to implement the ‘road map’ discussed under item 5 above.

In the meantime, this paper was designed to implement one aspect of the proposed IAF Cross-Frontier Policy (see paper TC/33/02). The essential starting point was encouragement to CRBs to seek local accreditation and IAF recognition that such single accreditation is adequate for the whole global market.

This paper addressed this specific situation where a foreign accreditation body, for whatever reason, does provide the accreditation of a branch office of a CRB in another country.

A number of points were made about the text. In particular, concern was expressed at the suggestion in paragraph ten that a visit every four years would be normal. It was stressed that the intention was that this would be the ‘normal minimum’. Members pointed out that volume of business and independence from head office control would often make an annual visit the correct result.