Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 23, Issue 2, pp 87–96 | Cite as

Quality system implementation in the National Metrology Institute of Montenegro

  • Vanja Asanovic
  • Milena Raonic
  • Naina Cuturic-Knezevic
  • Goran Vukoslavovic
  • Milena Popovic
  • Vladan Jestrovic
Practitioner's Report
  • 90 Downloads

Abstract

Accreditation of calibration laboratories is a means for achieving competence recognition and assuring customers that their calibration services are accurate and reliable. Moreover, it is a powerful tool for a National Metrology Institute (NMI), enabling the formal acceptance of its measurement results. It could be especially useful when calibration activities are performed in well-developed laboratories, which have participated successfully in interlaboratory comparisons but have been awaiting the publication of Calibration and Measurement Capabilities in the BIPM Key comparison database. This paper describes establishment and implementation of a quality management system in the NMI of Montenegro called Bureau of Metrology (MBM) that complies with ISO/IEC 17025. We have presented the results of the first audit evaluation, corrective actions, preparation of quality management documentation, measurement traceability, as well as advantages of being accredited. Our experience of implementing ISO/IEC 17025 for the accreditation of national calibration laboratories established within the MBM shows that strategic planning, establishment of long-term objectives, as well as the commitment to fulfilling standard requirements are the basis for acceptable calibration results. International acceptance of confidence and reliability of calibration services and measurement results provided by the MBM laboratories represents a useful marketing tool for promoting the image of the institution.

Keywords

Metrology Accreditation ISO/IEC 17025 QMS Calibration Traceability 

References

  1. 1.
    Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (2011) Joint BIPM, OIML, ILAC and ISO declaration on metrological traceability. http://www.bipm.org/en/worldwide-metrology/bipm-oiml-ilac-iso_joint_declaration.html. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
  2. 2.
    CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement-CIPM MRA (1999, rev. 2003) Mutual recognition of national measurement standards and of calibration and measurement certificates issued by national metrology institutes. http://www.bipm.org/en/cipm-mra/cipm-mra-text/. Accessed 17 Feb 2017
  3. 3.
    International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation-ILAC (2015) The ILAC Mutual Recognition Arrangement. http://ilac.org/publications-and-resources/ilac-promotional-brochures/. Accessed 19 Feb 2017
  4. 4.
    De Nadai F et al (2006) Quality system implementation in a Brazilian university laboratory. Accred Qual Assur 10:594–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zapata-García D, Llauradó M, Rauret G (2007) Experience of implementing ISO 17025 for the accreditation of a university testing laboratory. Accred Qual Assur 12:317–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grochau IH et al (2010) Implementation of a quality management system in university test laboratories: a brief review and new proposals. Accred Qual Assur 15:681–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grochau IH, ten Caten CS (2012) A process approach to ISO/IEC 17025 in the implementation of a quality management system in testing laboratories. Accred Qual Assur 17:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iacob E (2016) Experience of accreditation in a surface science laboratory. Accred Qual Assur 21:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biasini V (2012) Implementation of a quality management system in a public research centre. Accred Qual Assur 17:621–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lopes I et al (2014) Implementation of the quality management system at the Laboratory of Radiological Protection and Safety (LPSR) in Portugal. Accred Qual Assur 19:355–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO, IEC 17025 (2005) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    David FR (2011) Strategic management: concepts and cases. Prentice Hall, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schermerhorn JR Jr (2012) Exploring management. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Steindl et al (2012) Final Report on EURAMET key comparison (EURAMET.M.M-K4.2 and EURAMET.M.M-K2.2) of 1 kg and submultiples of the kilogram standards in stainless steel (project code: EURAMET 1120). Metrologia 49:07005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vámossy C et al (2015) Final Report on EURAMET key comparison (EURAMET.M.M-K.2.5) of 10 kg mass standards in stainless steel (project code: EURAMET 1222). Metrologia 52:07001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    EURAMET (2013) EURAMET project 1265: Peer review of quality management system of Montenegrin Bureau of Metrology. https://www.euramet.org/technical-committees/tc-q/tc-q-projects/. Accessed 11 Mar 2017
  17. 17.
    ISO/IEC Guide 98–3 (2008) Uncertainty of measurement—part 3: guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement (GUM:1995). International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    EA 4/02 M rev01 (2013) Evaluation of the uncertainty of measurement in calibration. European Co-operation for Accreditation, ParisGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Metallurgy and TechnologyUniversity of MontenegroPodgoricaMontenegro
  2. 2.Bureau of MetrologyPodgoricaMontenegro

Personalised recommendations