IJCA - Volume 2 - Flipbook - Page 17
2023 | Volume 2, Issue 1
17
Assessment Techniques
Accreditation
Requirements (7.1)
& Publicly available
information (8.2)
Applicant
CAB
Application
(7.2)
IAF MD23
Risks
Resource
Review
(7.3)
•onsite assessment;
•remote assessment;
•witnessing;
•document review;
•file review;
•measurement audits;
Preparation for
Assessment
(7.4)
Team
Competency
/Technical
Areas
Review of
Documented
Information
(7.5)
•review of performance
in PT/ILC;
•validation audits;
•unannounced visits;
•interviewing.
Assessment
(7.6)
Decision
Making
(7.7)
Accreditation
Information
(7.8)
Accredited
CAB
Maintenance (7.9, 7.10 & 7.11)
Risk
Figure 03: Assessment techniques and risks in the relation accreditation process
The risk associated with the acceptance of
applications from foreign countries would be
minimized by working very closely with local
accreditation bodies in the accreditation process.
This is achieved by means of conducting joint
assessments, the appointment of observers/
technical assessors/team leaders from the local
AB, and other collaborations. Cooperation with local
ABs benefits the foreign AB in terms of managing
the cultural differences, local regulations as well as
any possible misleading behaviors of the conformity
assessment body.
Failure to gather information on branch officers,
accredited scopes by other ABs, franchises, and the
geographical locations where the Certification Body
(CB) operates, etc., with the accreditation application
of certification bodies with multiple locations (e.g.,
franchises in other countries with accreditation
from other ABs), represents a higher risk. Thus,
ABs accrediting certification bodies should design
their application to gather information as well as
make terms, conditions, rules, and procedures for
governing certification bodies operating in other
countries. In this scenario, due attention to the
following IAF mandatory documents (MDs) given in
Table 04 is required to prevent or minimize the risks
towards accreditation bodies.
Preparation for assessment processes with
effective resources to review the accreditation
body to ensure the availability of competencies
required to undertake an assessment in a timely
manner also prevents any uncertainties in relation
to the accreditation process. A proper review of the
application and scope of CAB to identify required
competencies and assessment durations and
assessment techniques are the most vital steps in
the accreditation procedures.
Team selection is based on the scope of
accreditation to ensure team competency to
undertake the assessment. The use of assessment
techniques while applying the knowledge and
experience of risk-based assessment principles
plays a remarkable role in the accreditation provision
undertaking.
An overall summary of risks associated with each
step of the accreditation process and assessment
techniques with reference to process requirements
of ISO/IEC 17011:2017 is shown in Figure 03.
Selection and use of assessment techniques
themselves pose a risk because if we missed out
on an important technique during the assessment,
we may not reach the expected outcome of
the assessment. For example, in a laboratory
assessment stage, failure to witness tests or
calibrations will result in the assessment team not
being able to give their recommendations on the
performance based on accurate analysis of test/
calibration methods. The use of remote assessment
techniques to observe the branch officers will give
added value to the assessment outcome.
