Accred Qual Assur (2008) 13:12 DOI 10.

1007/s00769-007-0346-6

EDITORIAL

Does accreditation ensure competence in measurement?

` Paul De Bievre

Published online: 8 January 2008 Springer-Verlag 2008

An accreditation wave is going over the world: get accredited or perish. It is meant to identify technically competent laboratories because accredited laboratories are considered to be competent. Since accreditation is against an ISO Standard (most recent one ISO 17025), it seems that accreditation (and conformity assessment as well) is about checking whether the measurement laboratory operates as described (in the Standard), then the accreditation body through its assessors, declares the measurement laboratory formally competent (or not) and an attestation to that effect is delivered. But does that ensure real competence? Or just formal competence? In other words, the question is whether to be considered to be competent is sufcient or must one be competent? One is entitled to expect real competence from the assessors, not just designated competence [1] or considered competence. If that is correct, the knowledge of assessors must include, of necessity, understanding of key concepts in measurement such as measurand, metrological traceability and measurement uncertainty. And there are more such concepts: measurement function, calibration, comparability of measurement results, compatibility of measurement results, etc., all essential to measurement. Real and demonstrated rather than designated competence in all these concepts in measurement is needed if assessment of others is at stake in matters of measurement. It seems reasonable that those who assess are capable to explain to those being assessed, what they are assessing.
` P. De Bievre (&) Kasterlee, Belgium e-mail: paul.de.bievre@skynet.be

In meeting the criteria of ISO Standard 17025 in practice, it seems that accreditation is more about how presumed intercontinentally agreed concepts are assessed and not so much about what these concepts and associated terminology are. For instance: ISO Standard 17025 requires traceability. Said traceability must therefore be assessed by the assessor. But sound application of that requirement implies that parties concerned have a common understanding of traceability in the rst place. And that needs a clear answer to the question what is traceability of measurements?. The Standard only mentions traceability. It does not explain it. In measurement we use the concept metrological traceability, not just traceability and it is a property of a measurement result. It is a real key concept in any measurement, and measurement uncertainty crucially depends on it. Is then a commonly understood and agreed meaning of that concept not a prerequisite to good accreditation? And since there was no common vocabulary which covered sufciently chemical measurement so far, how could accreditation of chemical measurement laboratories using a common vocabulary be done in the rst place? Whereas numerous accreditation bodies worry about how (to do things as described above), i.e. checking practice against an international Standard, very few associations worry about consistent answers to the question what (is contained in these Standards), i.e. it raises the question on which fundamental concepts we agreed. There is a pervasive need for all of us to have a common understanding of the concepts we use. More precisely, both measurement laboratories and accreditation bodies must have such a common understanding of basic concepts in chemical measurement. Formulating this common understanding is the task of professional and independent associations such as IUPAC

123

Accred Qual Assur (2008) 13:12

or ISO applying sound scientic and metrological knowledge, described and agreed intercontinentally. It is therefore to be welcomed that a revised International Vocabulary of MetrologyBasic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM) is now offered on the Website by ISO, both in hard copy or as download (since 14 December 2007). Free access to this vocabulary, or free downloading is announced to become possible from the BIPM Website (being hyperlinked to ISO) for January/ February 2008. It is equally appropriate that IUPAC has put out draft Recommendations for Metrological Traceability of Measurement Results in Chemistry on its worldwide accessible website at http://www.iupac.org/reports/

provisional/abstract07/fajgelj_290208.html for public scrutiny from 1 October, 2007 to 29 February, 2008.

` Paul De Bievre Editor-in-Chief

Reference
` 1. De Bievre P, Taylor PDP (2000) Demonstration vs. designation of measurement competence, the need to link accreditation to metrology. Fresenius J Anal Chem 368:567573

123