| Comments and Documents |
| Date/Time |
Commenter |
Comments |
Supporting Document |
| 12/06/2017 5:19PM |
Ian Coyle |
looks acceptable |
|
| 12/07/2017 8:04AM |
Grant Slocombe |
Clarification on clause 4.1.2.1 - ANAB shall evaluate the CB’s full system audit process during at least one annual witnessed audit (stages 1 and 2 certification audit or recertification).
Does this mean every year a stage one, two or recert must be witnessed?
Previous Rule (4.1.2) stated "During the four-year accreditation cycle"..... |
|
| 12/07/2017 8:25AM |
Grant Slocombe |
Having already gone through the implementation of IAF MD 17 with another Accreditation Body, it resulted in major issues and problems including a proposed large increase in witnessed assessments to the point that the whole business had to be analysed as accreditation costs would have increased significantly. There didn't appear to be any consideration of certificate numbers, number of auditors, previous HQ and witness results etc. I think all ANAB accredited CBs operating in the ISO 9001 scheme would appreciate advanced notice of any planned changes (significant) to the witness assessment programme that IAF MD 17 and this accreditation rule create. |
|
| 12/10/2017 5:39PM |
Steve Barfoot |
Agree with Grant's comment on control of costs. Witnessing doesn't add value to competent CB's. Perhaps an approach of tailoring witness audits based on results would be of more value. That would allow ANAB witnessing assessors to concentrate on under performing CB's and reward higher performing CBs much like industries supplier rating programs. Suggest IAF MD 17 be tabled and a more effective approach be developed. |
|
| 01/03/2018 3:56AM |
Xiaowei (Rita) Zhang |
Would it be possible to adopt the witness results of the accreditation body which has signed the IAF Multilateral Recognition Agrement? |
|