2023 | Volume 2, Issue 1Based on this increased capacity, the assessmentmust consist of a valid logical and socio-technicalanalysis of the management system and, consistentwith the criteria of risk-based thinking, carefullyexamine the objective reasons for organizationaldecisions before their implementation. The keyquestion of the assessor must be: “Why?” Onlyafter having obtained objectively valid answers on alogical and technical level will the assessor be ableto proceed with the search for evidence of a regularand effective application of decisions.This “leap in complexity” will make the performanceof the assessment less feasible through theaccurate application of pre-established protocols,thereby increasing the possibility that its essentialobjective (providing a valid measure of the state ofthe management system) may not be reached. Inother words, with the new “performance” approachand with the pressure of crisis scenarios, the“uncertainty” associated with the outcome of theassessment could grow.To reduce this uncertainty and the associated riskthat the assessment itself will not generate “value”or worse, produce misleading information (similar tomanagement systems that must apply the logic ofrisk), we should deal with the increased danger thatthe result of the assessment does not correspond tothe actual state of conformity of the “measurand.”3To this end, the components of this uncertainty willbe identified, as for any measurement process, andthe right countermeasures for its containment withinacceptable limits will be implemented. Among them,the assessment process will need to be based ongreater “evaluative intelligence” (meaning, amongother things, the ability of the assessors to usetheir logical-deductive skills in understanding thecomplexity of the organization and its context, andin the assessment of decision-making processes,from the strategic to the operative level); and greatertechnical-managerial competence of the assessorsSince the need for higher performance on the part ofthe assessment team is less easily met by drawingon the knowledge of only one or a few assessors,a more frequent and broader involvement ofspecialists and interested parties in support of theteam should be taken into consideration.This should be part of a more interdisciplinary,dynamic, and inclusive approach to the entire3 Ref. International Vocabulary of Metrology — Basic and generalconcepts and associated terms (VIM). Third Edition 2008: 2.3 (2.6)measurand: quantity intended to be measured.31management of the assessment program, as a basisfor a conformity assessment that is itself adaptiveand always responsive to the increasing complexityof its object tasks.Figure 1 (below) summarizes and aims to detail theassessment scenario, highlighting the needs forchange deriving from the context according to: anincreasing order of complexity; the correspondingqualities that an “adaptive” organization must haveto satisfy these needs; the results deriving from theapplication of these skills; and the list (simplifiedand not exhaustive) of the corresponding areasof focus of the assessment. It should be notedthat this is a broad outline scheme, presented withthe aim of illustrating more clearly the functionalrelationship between some of the main conceptsdescribed up to now.Figure 1. Relations between context needs, organizationalanswers and focus areas of the assessmentAuthor BiographyNicola Gigante holds degrees in architecture andsociology (respectively from Polytechnic of Turin andUniversity of Urbino). He is assessor of Accredia, ItalianAccreditation Body, with more than 1,600 assessmentsprovided by the CABs and the certified organizations.Nicola is also assessor for CEN-CENELEC, andconvenor and member of many ISO TechnicalCommittees and Technical Groups.
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
