IJCA - Volume 2 - Flipbook - Page 31
2023 | Volume 2, Issue 1
Based on this increased capacity, the assessment
must consist of a valid logical and socio-technical
analysis of the management system and, consistent
with the criteria of risk-based thinking, carefully
examine the objective reasons for organizational
decisions before their implementation. The key
question of the assessor must be: “Why?” Only
after having obtained objectively valid answers on a
logical and technical level will the assessor be able
to proceed with the search for evidence of a regular
and effective application of decisions.
This “leap in complexity” will make the performance
of the assessment less feasible through the
accurate application of pre-established protocols,
thereby increasing the possibility that its essential
objective (providing a valid measure of the state of
the management system) may not be reached. In
other words, with the new “performance” approach
and with the pressure of crisis scenarios, the
“uncertainty” associated with the outcome of the
assessment could grow.
To reduce this uncertainty and the associated risk
that the assessment itself will not generate “value”
or worse, produce misleading information (similar to
management systems that must apply the logic of
risk), we should deal with the increased danger that
the result of the assessment does not correspond to
the actual state of conformity of the “measurand.”3
To this end, the components of this uncertainty will
be identified, as for any measurement process, and
the right countermeasures for its containment within
acceptable limits will be implemented. Among them,
the assessment process will need to be based on
greater “evaluative intelligence” (meaning, among
other things, the ability of the assessors to use
their logical-deductive skills in understanding the
complexity of the organization and its context, and
in the assessment of decision-making processes,
from the strategic to the operative level); and greater
technical-managerial competence of the assessors
Since the need for higher performance on the part of
the assessment team is less easily met by drawing
on the knowledge of only one or a few assessors,
a more frequent and broader involvement of
specialists and interested parties in support of the
team should be taken into consideration.
This should be part of a more interdisciplinary,
dynamic, and inclusive approach to the entire
3 Ref. International Vocabulary of Metrology — Basic and general
concepts and associated terms (VIM). Third Edition 2008: 2.3 (2.6)
measurand: quantity intended to be measured.
31
management of the assessment program, as a basis
for a conformity assessment that is itself adaptive
and always responsive to the increasing complexity
of its object tasks.
Figure 1 (below) summarizes and aims to detail the
assessment scenario, highlighting the needs for
change deriving from the context according to: an
increasing order of complexity; the corresponding
qualities that an “adaptive” organization must have
to satisfy these needs; the results deriving from the
application of these skills; and the list (simplified
and not exhaustive) of the corresponding areas
of focus of the assessment. It should be noted
that this is a broad outline scheme, presented with
the aim of illustrating more clearly the functional
relationship between some of the main concepts
described up to now.
Figure 1. Relations between context needs, organizational
answers and focus areas of the assessment
Author Biography
Nicola Gigante holds degrees in architecture and
sociology (respectively from Polytechnic of Turin and
University of Urbino). He is assessor of Accredia, Italian
Accreditation Body, with more than 1,600 assessments
provided by the CABs and the certified organizations.
Nicola is also assessor for CEN-CENELEC, and
convenor and member of many ISO Technical
Committees and Technical Groups.
