Laboratories Working Group

Laboratories WG puts UKAS to the test

As an organisation, the AGS supports the principle of third party accreditation and encourages the use of UKAS accreditation.  However, as a trade association, in a low margin industry, commercial considerations are important.  The Laboratories Working Group had identified particular problems including a concern about increasing costs and about the length of time it takes to increase the scope of a laboratories accreditation.  

Members therefore welcomed the opportunity for discussion with Jane Beaumont, Director of Accreditation for Laboratories at UKAS and Mike Crossman, Accreditation Manager at a recent meeting of the Laboratories WG. 

Jane and Mike expressed their pleasure at being able to meet with the AGS and to opportunity it gave them to understand customer concerns and address problems together.  They explained that UKAS was now a private company and therefore must be commercially aware although, in the absence of shareholders, they are not commercially driven towards profits in that sense.  However they must be self financing and need to make a profit for re-investment in order to continue to grow.  A reasonable profit last year had allowed a substantial sum to be placed into the pension fund and into reserves.  It had also enabled charges to be held, and in some cases reduced, this year (although this might be obscured by cost increases due to changes in scope for many AGS members).

Time Taken to Approve Extensions to Scope

Members complained of the long delays that occur, apparently due to administrative procedures which can take 4 to 6 weeks after all information has been provided.  Jane Beaumont agreed that these normally take 4 weeks - but UKAS would do everything possible to meet a shorter deadline if greater urgency was needed. She suggested two possible approaches:-

• Flexible Scope:  This allows laboratories to bring in new pieces of equipment and new standards where there are no fundamental changes to normal procedures.  It is necessary to identify the people responsible, and the process, for implementing the change and the procedure can be approved as part of the regular UKAS assessment.  (Full details can be found in document LAB 39 which can be downloaded from the UKAS website.

Jane Beaumont cautioned that flexible scope would be withdrawn if significant non-conformities were found in the way it was being used.

• Timeline: These were introduced by UKAS 12 months ago, but are not universally used.  A timeline should specify when information is required and the deadlines for response. Laboratories should request a timeline at the start of the application process.
• It is important to make sure that UKAS is aware of any urgency or customer deadlines.  Additionally, it must be understood that if a Laboratory misses a deadline for the supply of data the knock on effect in UKAS administration might be greater than the original delay since all subsequent stages will have to be rescheduled.  
• It was also suggested that Laboratories should notify UKAS of forthcoming changes as early as possible (even before they are certain to submit an application) so that UKAS know that they will be submitting validation data and can take it into account in their advance planning. (Jane Beaumont is to check whether there is space on the application form to indicate a target date for approval).  

Jane Beaumont indicated that she was aware that the UKAS response time of 4 weeks is not meeting Industry needs and UKAS are constantly looking at ways to speed things up.  UKAS also monitor delays (via a 'schedule of corrective action') which records where delays have occurred and whether they were due to missed deadlines by the laboratory or by UKAS.  (Note to AGS Members:  the schedule available in the meeting appeared to indicate responsibility was roughly 50:50!).

Mike Crossman indicated the problem is due to the fact that, because of cost implications, Laboratories often want extensions done at the same time as a regular assessment.

He also stressed that poorly presented data can hinder the process.  He stressed the importance of good presentation, which shows clearly what the data is, and separates data for different assessors.   Electronic data management systems within UKAS are being looked at - but data is currently transmitted to Assessors by post.  

Members should also note that a new tracking system for applications for extensions of scope was introduced last year.  This is triggered by the receipt of the application form by UKAS.  It is therefore essential that the official application form is used and sent to Head Office (although a copy can also be sent to the Assessment Manager).   

UKAS Strategic Planning

The current 3 year plan identified three key priorities:-

• customer service
• improved financial viability
• staff and organisational development

 The next 3 year plan will begin in April 2007 and customer service is expected to remain at the top of the list.

Customer Feedback Survey

This is now in its second year.  Previously only a sample of Laboratories had been asked to participate but this year it has been extended to all customers (via an on-line questionnaire).  Results will be published on the UKAS website.  

Consultation

The AGS explained that failure to notify changes in advance and invite feedback often led to suspicion of UKAS motives and a misunderstanding of the implications of the new policy.  A particularly good example was changes to internal calibration requirements - which most AGS Members had interpreted as being a revenue raising exercise.  

Jane Beaumont explained that draft documents are now being put on the website for consultation and Laboratories should check the website regularly - or email UKAS and ask to be put on the list to receive regular updates via email.  

Ops Forum Meetings, which used to be held twice a year, had been suspended for a time because attendance had dropped and there appeared to be fewer issues to be dealt with, but these would be reinstated in the autumn and will focus on awareness.                                        

Internal Calibration

It was explained that UKAS had had to introduce new procedures when their own European Accreditation Body had notified non conformity in their procedures.  The AGS explained concerns that this would require an additional assessor (and extra expense). Jane Beaumont said that a different person may be required, but this would not mean an additional assessor and there should be no additional cost.  (One Member confirmed that this had been his experience, but some Members remained sceptical about the long term drawing on previous experience when analytical chemist assessors had been introduced.)

Consistency - Assessors

AGS Members highlighted two instances where serious inconsistencies had arisen between the requirements of different Assessors.  Jane Beaumont indicated that no one should be shy about raising such issues direct with UKAS or to ask UKAS for an explanation of any new requirements that appeared unreasonable, significantly different from the requirements of previous assessors, or out of step with industry requirements.  

UKAS addresses consistency by regular assessor meetings and monthly section meetings between Section Managers and their Assessment Managers.  Although the objective is always to have consistency, realistically complete uniformity is impossible, although outcomes should always be consistent.  

Consistency - Schedules

There are substantial variations in the descriptions used in schedules.  (This was illustrated by reference to the list of Laboratories accredited for plate load tests on the UKAS website.)  Jane Beaumont said that there had been attempts to standardise in the past but it is always necessary to balance UKAS desires with customers’ requirements.  There will be a further attempt to standardise this sector in the autumn. (In response to a specific question, it was confirmed that a Laboratory listing PAH in its schedule should be accredited for all PAHs.)  

The UKAS representatives expressed a willingness to meet the AGS on a regular basis to up date Members with changes and improvements that UKAS are trying to introduce, and to give the AGS an opportunity to explain industry frustrations.  AGS Members are invited to notify the AGS of any matters they would like to have raised in these meetings – and to participate in the Laboratories WG to ensure that the AGS is addressing their company needs.

 July 2006