Committee Interview talking about ISO/IEC 17025
If you couldn’t attend the annual NCSLI conference in Orlando in July, then you missed the luncheon plenary session regarding the
(potential) new revision of ISO/IEC 17025:2005, which was led by Steve Sidney, Director, National Laboratory Association South Africa (NLA) and Jeff Gust, NCSL International’s Representative to the ILAC Laboratory Committee. Their slides can be downloaded from
the NCSLI Standards Writing Group (ASC Z540) Committee webpage.
However, the key takeaway points from their presentation are:
- ILAC members voted over 80% in favor to recommend that ISO/IEC 17025:2005 be revisited for appropriate changes since
the standard was first published, i.e., not simply be extended (renewed) another five years.
- Of course, ISO/IEC 17025:2005 is officially owned by ISO CASCO (Committee on Conformity Assessment Standards), so
any new revision would have to come from them.
- ISO CASCO members have 90 days to vote/respond to a June 15 ballot initiative to revise the standard.
- If the ISO CASCO ballot passes, then a CASCO working group will be convened to begin work.
Metrologist: I understand the plenary session created quite a buzz at the Orlando conference. I have three
committee chairs who have graciously agreed to comment on what their committee members are saying:
Welcome, Bob, Jim, Ryan
NCSLI 174 Standards Writing Committee, Keysight Technologies
NCSLI 171 Calibration System Resources Committee, APT
Research, NASA MetCal Program Office
NCSLI 146 Accreditation Resources Committee, Laboratory
Metrologist: Before we dive in, I understand that your
three NCSLI committees work closely together on a
range of topics. Can you comment on that?
Bob: Sure, I’ll start. Folks come to the 174 committee to get early
news/warning of new standards for testing and calibration. Our
members generally prefer international standards, but we are ANSI
accredited so are able to develop ANSI/NCSL standards with board
approval as appropriate.
Jim: The 171 committee develops handbooks and recommended
practices to provide guidance for the standards developed or
adopted by the 174 committee. These guidance documents
provide application guidance for their corresponding standards
and are useful for seasoned professionals or newcomers looking to
comply with the standards.
Ryan: When it comes time to assess a given testing lab or
calibration lab for compliance to ISO/IEC 17025:2005 or other
standards like Z540.x, then the 146 committee works to ensure
consistent assessments to those standards. RP-21, “The Assessment
of ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 Sub-clause 5.3,” is an example of a
recent work product from our team.
Bob: Or, in short: the 174 for “what are the rules?”, 171 for “how
do I comply?”, and 146 for “how are the rules enforced?”
Metrologist: I understand that some people regularly attend
all three committee meetings.
Ryan: (Laughs). Certainly some people do attend all three.
Nevertheless, the audience is different in each of our committees,
and we all work well together. Our committees are very diverse so
that no one interest group dominates.
Metrologist: Are there any common objectives of the
members of your committees?
Bob: Yes. Our members are passionate about the need to make
accurate measurements in general. And specifically to comply
with international and/or national standards with a minimum of
extra work, as assured by uniform outside assessment.
Metrologist: Jim, we understand that your committee is
presently working on a handbook for the application of
ANS/ISO/IEC 17025:2005. Is that correct?
Jim: Yes, the request came from the 174 committee over five years
ago and was approved by the NCSLI Board of Directors. The project
has lost momentum a couple of times, but Working Group 2
is currently holding weekly telecoms to refine and edit the draft
Metrologist: But Jim, wouldn’t it be best to wait until ISO
revises the standard before developing the handbook?
Jim: We’ve discussed this topic with NCSLI leadership and the
plan is to proceed with the handbook. We really have no idea what
the timeline is for revision; I think it’s conceivable that the current
version of the standard could be in place for another three to five
years. So, I believe a handbook for the current revision of ISO/IEC
17025:2005 is needed, and I think is will be a very useful tool for
anyone seeking to comply with the standard.
Metrologist: Bob, your Standards Writing Committee is,
in fact, accredited by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI). How do you respond to those who say
your committee focus lacks an international viewpoint?
Bob: I’m really glad you asked that question! Turns out I heard
this (criticism) second hand in Orlando just after our committee
meeting had ended. While I couldn’t explore it in open committee,
I was able to approach many of the committee folks. I think it
is important to note that the committee membership is not
restricted to US members. Further, organizations represented on
the committee include those with interests outside of the US and
those viewpoints are represented in everything the committee does.
Most members, even those with no international affiliation, prefer
to reference standards that are not only nationally recognized, but
also internationally recognized.
Metrologist: What suggestions would your committees
offer to a CASCO working group that is convened to
revise ISO/IEC 17025:2005?”
Ryan: Accreditation assessments always start with compliance
to ISO/IEC 17025:2005. Then additional requirements such as
ILAC-G8, ILAC-P14, or ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 are assessed.
Today, the industries are confused with guidance being treated as
requirements, and requirements not assessed consistently. The
fewer standards needed to conduct an assessment, the better!
Bob: To paraphrase George Orwell from the novel Animal Farm,
“All paragraphs are equal; Some paragraphs are more equal than
others!” Jeff Gust sent out a questionnaire to all NCSLI members
in January regarding issues/challenges/confusion meeting various
paragraphs of ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and the perceived urgency
to make changes now 14 years after the original standard was
published. Our members would like to engage in discussions
about real world use cases, problems and confusion with the
current standard, and suggestions to avoid future confusion
on key paragraphs of ISO/IEC 17025:2005. Why our members?
Because they are the experts, within their respective organizations,
that spend the most time and energy focusing on meeting the
requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2005.
Jim: We all know there are certain paragraphs in ISO/IEC
17025:2005 that cause confusion and are most in need of
revision. I believe Jeff’s questionnaire clearly identified many of
those paragraphs and a byproduct of our work on the ISO/IEC
17025:2005 handbook will hopefully be recommendations for
revisions to those “heartburn” paragraphs.
Metrologist: Okay guys. Let’s follow that thread. If you
could target a single area for revision what would it be?
Bob: For 174 members, that’s an easy one. ISO/IEC 17025:2005
paragraph 126.96.36.199 states “When statements of compliance are
made, measurement uncertainty shall be taken into account.” Yet,
there is no further guidance on how to do that! We know that
this topic was controversial back in the 90’s when this standard
was first drafted. Fourteen years later, everyone now recognizes
that any measurement is only valid to the extent the associated
accuracy is known. In our arcane metrology world, accuracy is
measurement uncertainty (per JCGM 100:2008). There is no
such thing as a perfect measurement with zero measurement
uncertainty. So, when a measuring instrument/device has a
specification and you measure very close to that limit, what
is a test lab or cal lab supposed to report? Consumer risk of
incorrect Pass/Fail decisions is now well understood. In fact, this,
more than any other reason, drove, the creation of ANSI/NCSL
Z540.3-2006 and the <2% PFA requirement (probability of false
acceptance). So we’d like to see specific guidance in the revision
for addressing consumer risk.
Ryan: Certainly there are multiple, ISO/IEC 17025:2005
paragraphs our 146 members would like to see written more
clearly, but on the topic of paragraph 188.8.131.52 I would like to
say that confusion regarding that paragraph leads to different
interpretations across ABs and across geographic regions. In
Europe, most ABs insists on compliance to ILAC-G8:03/2009
(Guidelines on the Reporting of Compliance with Specification)
to meet 184.108.40.206, but in North America there has always been
concern that ILAC-G8 is a “guideline,” not a policy. Remember,
we are looking for clear instructions on how to meet ISO/IEC
17025:2005 with a minimum of references to further documents,
and preferably not “guidelines.”
Jim: Just to add to what Ryan and Bob have said regarding
paragraph 220.127.116.11, I would like to see ISO/IEC 17025:2005 provide
a more-specific requirement for taking uncertainty into account
when making conformance decisions. It’s clear that this paragraph
is vague enough to generate confusion and to necessitate ILAC
guidance. A specific risk-based requirement would serve to
standardize the implementation of this requirement.
Metrologist: Suppose that a new revision of ISO/IEC
17025:2005 did address requirements that are now
covered in ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006. Would we still need
Bob: We haven’t had any open committee discussions about
this. I can say that I have had some interesting conversations
with a number of 174 members, Ryan, Jim and NCSLI board
members. The thinking is this à if overall compliance to standards
could be made simpler; many of our members are willing to
consider changes to ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006. My personal
knowledge mainly covers testing or calibration laboratories,
so I also defer to Jim and Ryan for their broader perspective.
Jim: The two standards have different scopes. ISO/IEC 17025:2005
provides requirements for the competency of testing and
calibration laboratories, while ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 provides requirements for controlling the accuracy of measuring and
test equipment used to ensure an organization’s products and
services comply with prescribed requirements. Calibration
competency (sub-clause 5.3) is an element of ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-
2006 but the standard includes additional requirements for
maintaining the accuracy of the equipment throughout its use
cycle within the organization. Think of ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006
as a standard for organizations that use measuring and test
equipment to provide products and services to an end customer.
However, I would say that any future inclusion of elements
ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 sub-clause 5.3 in ISO/IEC 17025:2005,
the probability of false acceptance requirement for example,
would reduce the difference between ISO/IEC 17025:2005 and the
ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 calibration competency requirements.
Ryan: We assess the national and international standards
required by the laboratory customers, regulators and specifiers.
As long as the consumers of the laboratory services require the
standards, we will provide the resources necessary to complete a
Metrologist: As we come to a close, is there anything you
would like to say to our Metrologist Magazine readers?
Jim: We welcome participation in the 171 committee from
anyone who would like to contribute to the development of
handbooks and recommended practices. Contact me at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Ryan: I’d like to echo Jim’s thought for 146 committee
participation – while our core members belong to accreditation
bodies, we absolutely welcome anyone interested in furthering the
goal of uniform assessments.
Contact me at: Rfischer@L-A-B.com
Bob: I too, invite anyone to be on the Standards Writing committee.
We have some international regulars, but we’d love to have more.
Even if you can’t be at our meetings, please visit our committee
website at: http://www.ncsli.org/I/i/c/sp/s/c/Committees/170/174-
Contact me at: email@example.com