The European co-operation for Accreditation (EA) is recognized by the European Commission as the European Accreditation Infrastructure and one of its tasks is to operate the peer evaluation system according to Regulation (EC) No 765/2008 on accreditation.

To perform these peer evaluations (PE), EA mandates peer evaluators, highly qualified and experienced NAB staff members.

One of these EA peer evaluators is Mrs Tuija Sinervo, Head of Assessment Unit for the Finnish National Accreditation Body (NAB) FINAS.

 

Tuija Sinervo, you have been a peer evaluator of EA for 13 years. Would you say that the peer evaluation work and EA’s approach to PE have changed over the years?

I think that the biggest change to EA’s approach is right now. Due to COVID-19, the EA MLA Council (MAC) is talking about making PEs remotely, which is a major change. We know how to make assessments remotely and now is the time to use this knowledge for PEs. Another change is the risk-based approach in accreditation. Even though earlier peer evaluations were planned to cover different accreditation fields (levels 2 and 3) of NAB and to take into account also results of earlier peer evaluations, the more systematic risk-based approach supports the planning of peer evaluations in a better way. The challenge as a Team Member (TM) is to have enough time for file review versus time spent in witnessing. The risk-based approach also gives more tools for planning the file review and witnessing.

In my first PE in 2007, I was TM and our team was small, only a Team Leader (TL) and I as TM. It was an easy way to start PEs, but I learned more in the following PEs, when there were bigger teams and the possibility to learn from more experienced TMs.

Another change is the size of PE teams. Nowadays there are more accreditation fields to evaluate like Proficiency Testing Providers (PTP) accreditation and Reference Material Producers (RMP) accreditation, which means that there are about 10 members in the team and normally also one or two TM trainees. This causes real challenges to arrange PEs especially in smaller NABs. In the future there will be even more accreditation fields like Biobanking and there is a need to discuss how to deal with these constantly growing PE teams.

Also reporting has evolved during these past 13 years. In my earliest PEs, the reporting format was different and based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) versus reporting, which is now in use and based on standard ISO/IEC 17011 requirements. The new report template helps to cover all requirements of the standard, but the template could be more user-friendly.

How did the PE system adapt to the changes in the NABs over the past 10 years?

I think that the biggest challenge is the increasing number of NABs’ accreditation fields, hence the need to have bigger peer evaluation teams but also the increasing number of accredited Conformity Assessment Bodies (CABs). It can be sometimes challenging to get a representative sample of CABs for file review, to witness them properly during PE, and to share the tasks within PE team.

In PE teams, sometimes Team Members evaluate an accreditation field with only a few CABs and in other fields, it could be one hundred CABs.

A good planning of PE can help better apprehend these specificities, but it’s still not always easy. I believe that in the near future, changes will be necessary concerning the organisation of PEs, and it has been a key issue for the EA MAC for quite some time.

How do you see your role as a TL for EA?

I see my role as a coordinator and a leader of PE team and also as a TM to evaluate NAB’s operation from the management point of view.

As TL, I take care of basic planning and then, together with the team, make final plans for PE. My task as TL is to ensure seamless evaluation process and help my team to do their tasks.

For example, this means that I make sure with the NAB, that all the arrangements during PE are in place.

My responsibility to EA is to take care of collecting all findings and reporting to EA without delay, allowing EA MLA decisions to be made in time. The TL work is facilitated by the great support of the MAC Secretary, Daniela Ionescu, which I’m very thankful for.

What is a typical workday like, as a TL?

Even though I have done EA PEs for already 13 years, my career as TL is not so long.

My first Peer Evaluations as a Team Leader were in small teams with only two evaluators: one Team Member and I. Each time, I was with very experienced TMs, which made my new role a lot easier.

Now I have experience also to act as TL in bigger teams. What helps a lot with the task of TL is experienced Team Members, who contribute actively in evaluation.

During peer evaluation week, I spend my time with NAB’s management, quality manager and responsible persons of different tasks. In the evenings I collect the findings from other TMs and already start to formulate the summary and list of findings. The last evening of the PE, the PE team transfers all the findings to the finding list and on the last day, we formulate the final summary and finding list, and TMs check the last open issues during the morning. At the end of PE, the TL presents, on behalf of the whole team, the summary and findings to NAB. After that is usually time to relax together with team and NAB personnel and have a nice dinner together.

But my work is not done after the on-site PE week. I complete the self-assessment report of NAB with our comments. I also collect the corrective actions from NAB and comments from TMs. When all non- conformities, concerns and comments are closed, I finalize the report and send it to MAC Secretariat.

An anecdote on a past peer evaluation you would like to share

In my last two PEs, we evaluated for the first time according to the new version of ISO/IEC 17011:2017 – Conformity assessment — Requirements for accreditation bodies accrediting conformity assessment bodies, and it was interesting to see how NABs had implemented the new and changed requirements. Peer evaluations are a great place to learn, even for Team Members, and share experience and knowledge within the team.

What I would like to share are those nice memories of my colleagues in my previous teams.

We had a lot of laugh and jokes in the evenings, which helped go pleasantly through the whole long week.

I have also nice memories of those lovely dinners after many of those evaluations, where I have been either TM or TL. I have enjoyed very much the work of TM and TL, and I can warmly recommend the task.

 

You can find further information on the peer evaluation process on the following page https://european-accreditation.org/mutual-recognition/peer-evaluation/