60 second interview:
Tim Inman, Chief Executive of ABCB

The Association of British Certification Bodies (ABCB) has been battling for its members since 1984 when the Department of Trade and Industry, now known as the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, proposed that certification bodies should associate together to provide a collective input to the National Accreditation Council. 

In 1992 the Association adopted its current title and was incorporated as a company limited by guarantee in 1996.  It is recognised by government, the United Kingdom Accreditation Service, UKAS, and a wide range of organisations as the lead UK trade association for third party certification bodies accredited by UKAS. 

What have been the major campaigns and projects for the ABCB so far this year?

Tim Inman: The ACBC does two things: we react to the individual issues raised by our members and we also take up what I’d call ‘corporate issues’, where we might tackle issues that might arise for our members.

There are two main campaigns at the moment – the main issue is the new accreditation standard, ISO/IEC 17021, which is due to be finally implemented by the 15 September this year. With the accreditation bodies we are working towards creating a proper understanding between the accreditation bodies and my members on the requirements of that particular standard.

What are the possible implications of ISO/IEC 17021?

Tim Inman: Depending on how it is applied by the accreditation bodies the implications are possibly the significantly increased cost of certifications and also problems with meeting the extreme auditor competence requirements which are currently being required by accreditation bodies such as UKAS.

What do you mean by extreme?

Tim Inman: They require each auditor to become a technical expert in the field they're auditing. Forget about a competence in auditing, they’ll require an auditor to have a depth of knowledge with regards to the actual practice or organisation that he or she is auditing, which is really quite unreasonable and unnecessary.

Don’t you see any merit in the approach? Why do you think UKAS are calling for such requirements?

Tim Inman: Actually it's their interpretation. They’re interpreting the standard in such a way and we disagree with their interpretation. Letters have been flying to and fro between the two organisations. At the International Accreditation Forum last October, UKAS sought support from the International Accreditation Forum in Sydney Australia and they didn’t get that support – the discussions and argument has been going on ever since.

Do you think that British government has been doing enough to promote accredited certification?

Tim Inman: That’s a very good question. Possibly they never do enough. UKAS is working on the promotion of accreditation certification with the support of government, but I think one of the problems is this constant reorganisation within what used to be known as the Department of Trade and Industry; it’s now the Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), and I’m not entirely convinced that they are completely up to speed on what accredited certification is all about. However, again, we are working on that, because it’s important that government are fully aboard.

In what ways are you working with them?

Tim Inman: It’s really about organising face-to-face meetings. I’ve got a meeting shortly in fact, I’ve been trying to agree a date today with one of the heads of department concerned with accredited certification in DIUS. It’s essentially a matter of spreading the word within government, because there have been so many changes. Our previous high level liaison in the old DTI has just now moved on and he’s disappeared without trace, so one has to start all over again to a certain extent.

What do you see the ABCB heading in the future?

Tim Inman: Well, we are very active within Europe and further afield, and I’m chairman of the European Federation of Associations of Certification Bodies. ABCB is active through them and through them we’re active globally as well.

I think there are many peripheral issues which crop up on a routine basis, but I think the main issue at the moment is the new accreditation standard, and following fast on its heels will be a sister standard dealing with auditor competence and requirements. And again, some alarm bells are ringing with us about the interpretation of that particular standard, which is still in development.

What is setting off the alarm bells?

Tim Inman: What one requires is really a competent auditor who is knowledgeable in what they need to do in order to conduct a decent quality audit.

An auditor doesn’t need to be an expert in every field that they’re auditing. The example we’re using at the moment is that we might have an auditor who’s proficient to audit a bakery, but the current requirements as some accreditation bodies seem to be interpreting them, is that that auditor needs to be an expert in bread making.

That’s absurd because it will increase the cost of accredited certification out of all recognition without any benefit at all.

Have an issue with accreditation you want to raise? Tell us now in the Online Forums.