Fall Newsletter 2020 - web version - Flipbook - Page 11
IAS Newsletter | Fall 2020
Trust but Verify
In the conformity
assessment industry,
specifically for
management systems certification,
the certification
decision review is
the one time any
other certification
body personnel,
besides the auditor, can make a technical
determination regarding effectiveness of
a management system. That being the
case, the certification decision is the last
firewall protecting certification bodies from
malpractice, ambiguity and liability when it
comes to their certified customers.
The Devil is in the Details
One of the most commonly overlooked
requirements related to the certification
decision section within the ISO/IEC 170211 standard is clause 9.5.1.4 (ISO Staff,
2016):
“The certification body shall record each
certification decision including any additional information or clarification sought
from the audit team or other sources”
Sure, certification bodies almost always
record the certification decision, this is a
no-brainer; but what about the second part
of the clause?
From personal experience conducting
technical reviews of reports, I have observed that in a high percentage of cases,
clarification is needed from the team (or
other sources) regarding a statement
or observation made during the audit/
assessment. Let’s face it, humans aren’t
always the best communicators which can
lead to different interpretations of what a
sentence really means within a conversation, not to mention an audit/assessment
report. When this issue comes up, it is up
to the certification decision reviewer to
clarify with the auditors (or other sources) and determine what was meant by
what has been written. Assuming you, the
reader, work in a certification body, how
many times have you seen such clarification requested? How many times have you
seen it recorded?
10
The 40th president of the USA, Mr. Ronald
Reagan, was known for his signature
phrase, (adopted from a Russian proverb; “Doveryáy, no proveryáy”) “Trust but
verify”; this is the attitude that persons
charged with certification decision review
should adopt (Porzucki, 2014). You are
trusting the competence of your auditors
but verifying the details and results of the
audit. You are trusting that the statements
included in the report are factual but verifying that your understanding is correct. You
are trusting your system but verifying its
effectiveness.
Another great way to relate this concept
is by considering the Plan, Do, Check,
Act concept. A certification body (and/
or its auditors) plan an audit, the auditors
conduct (do) the audit, the certification
decision reviewer(s) check the audit, and
the corrective action process is used if any
action is necessary. I challenge readers to
present a situation in which the details included in an audit report are clear beyond
a shadow of a doubt. The reality is, with all
forms of communication, a certain level
of uncertainty is expected. Ever played a
game of telephone? Our mandate, as conformity assessment professionals, especially as certification decision reviewers, is
to find these points of ambiguity and clear
them up before we assume the liability and
responsibility for an organization’s system
certification.
Additionally, your auditors will thank you
for conducting a thorough review of the
statements made in assessment/audit reports. Not only do you protect the interests
of the certification body with a detailed
review, but you can also provide your
auditors with input regarding continuous
improvement and professional development. Not to mention in-part fulfilling the
requirements in clause 7.2.10 of the standard. This is not to say that certification decision reviewers should be hunting through
each line of the audit report looking for
typos or misspellings; not only is this an
impractical waste of time, but you also run
the risk of alienating subject matter expert
auditors just because their typing skills
aren’t word perfect. However, responsible
reviewers should certainly take the time to
read into the details of the report and ask
themselves, from a third-party perspective,
‘what does this really mean’?
From a Certain Point of View
Another reason that an in-depth technical
review should be conducted, and the clarifications sought resulting from that technical review be recorded is that different
viewpoints notice different aspects. If we
all read something and walked away with
the exact same understanding, not only
would this article be pointless, but philosophy wouldn’t be taught in institutions
worldwide. Why? Philosophy is the study
of viewpoints. Different individuals have
different experiences which leads them to
develop distinct points of view. Something
that is extremely clear for one person, may
invoke hundreds of questions in another.
The same goes for auditors. One auditor
may observe a process or situation and
come up with one determination of its
effectiveness or conformity; while another auditor observing the same process
or situation would have entirely different
conclusions. The role of the technical
reviewer is to ensure that the viewpoints
expressed in an assessment/audit report
are understandable and unambiguous to
the greatest number of people.
References:
Porzucki, N. (2014, March 7). Suzanne
Massie taught President Ronald Reagan
this important Russian phrase: ‘Trust but
verify’.
ISO Staff. (2016, December 1). ISO/IEC
17021-1:2015. Retrieved November 4,
2019, from https://www.iso.org/standard/61651.html.
In depth technical reviews, recording the
results of those technical reviews, and acting upon the information gleaned from the
reviews is one of the most effective ways
to improve your certification process and
can have far-flung positive effects on the
other parts of your management system.
Author Bio:
Patrick McCullen is Senior Accreditation Officer at IAS and co-manages the
Management Systems Certification Body
program. He has been active in the accreditation industry for the past five years
conducting assessments, reviewing technical reports, and creating, reviewing and
revising policy and procedure documents.
Patrick has a bachelor’s degree in English
and an MBA in Engineering Management.
Non-destructive testing — Building code
requirements and IAS AC472 accreditation
by Lee Shoemaker, Sandi McCracken
Dr. Lee Shoemaker, P.E,. is
the director of research and
engineering for the Metal
Building Manufacturers
Association.
Why Does it all Matter?
Not only does an in-depth technical review
process increase your own confidence
in your certification process, it also gives
third party assessors/auditors confidence
in the overall system. From a customer
relations perspective, detailed technical reviews can also serve to calibrate auditors,
resulting in greater customer satisfaction
and a reduction in hearing “the previous
auditor said this, while this auditor said the
opposite”. This not only reduces the prevalence of appeals, complaints, and general
dissent from your customers, but empowers them to know that someone from the
home office of their certification body is
paying attention and won’t stand for auditors auditing their personal interpretation
of compliance to a requirement, but the
compliance to the requirement itself.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed by the
author in this article are not necessarily
representative of International Accreditation Service Inc. policy or interpretation
and should be taken as informative commentary on the subjects contained within.
To help determine non-destructive testing requirements of the applicable building code and to establish minimum practices and procedures for maintaining
AC472 accreditation, the International Accreditation Service (IAS) and the Metal
Building Manufacturers Association (MBMA) provide the following information
and answers to frequently asked questions. Readers are encouraged to review
reference sections cited in the codes/standards to verify that the summary provided herein is applicable to a specific situation.
Introduction
Sandi McCracken is the
director of construction
and industrial relations
for the International
Accreditation Service.
Sandi can be reached at
SMcCracken@iasonline.org
The applicable building code edition referenced in the contract documents
determines the required edition of the referenced material design specifications,
[American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) 360, AISC 341 etc.]. For the purposes of this paper, discussion focuses on the requirements in the most recent
and widely adopted model building code – the 2018 International Building Code
(IBC), and therefore AISC 360-16 and AISC 341-16.
The best way to control weld quality is by controlling the process, not by performing NDT after the fact. Even so, inspections related to quality control (QC)
are routinely carried out by the metal building manufacturer that include visual
examinations of welds and may also include nondestructive testing (NDT) of
welds. Inspections related to quality assurance (QA) are traditionally carried out by others (third party inspection) and these QA inspections are referred to as “special inspections” in the building code. However, as discussed below, a metal building manufacturer may not
only be exempt from specific special inspections required by the IBC, but also may be able to carry out special inspections and NDT
using their own certified personnel.
Read the full article
Patrick McCullen
Senior Accreditation Officer, IAS
IAS Fall 2020 Newsletter
www.iasonline.org
11