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’’ labora-

tories 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 sufficient or must one be

competent?

One is entitled to expect ‘‘real’’ competence from the

assessors, not just ‘‘designated’’ competence [1] or ‘‘con-

sidered’’ competence. If that is correct, the knowledge of

assessors must include, of necessity, understanding of key

concepts in measurement such as ‘‘measurand’’, ‘‘metro-

logical 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 measure-

ment. It seems reasonable that those who assess are capable

to explain to those being assessed, what they are assessing.

In meeting the criteria of ISO Standard 17025 in prac-

tice, 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 first place. And that

needs a clear answer to the question ‘‘what is traceability of

measurements?’’. The Standard only mentions ‘‘traceabil-

ity’’. 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 sufficiently chemical measurement so far,

how could accreditation of chemical measurement labora-

tories using a common vocabulary be done in the first

place?

Whereas numerous accreditation bodies worry about

‘‘how’’ (to do things as described above), i.e. checking

practice against an international Standard, very few asso-

ciations 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

P. De Bievre (&)

Kasterlee, Belgium

e-mail: paul.de.bievre@skynet.be

123

Accred Qual Assur (2008) 13:1–2

DOI 10.1007/s00769-007-0346-6

or ISO applying sound scientific and metrological knowl-

edge, described and agreed intercontinentally.

It is therefore to be welcomed that a revised ‘‘Interna-

tional Vocabulary of Metrology—Basic 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. ‘‘designa-

tion’’ of measurement competence, the need to link accreditation

to metrology. Fresenius J Anal Chem 368:567–573

2 Accred Qual Assur (2008) 13:1–2

123