Talk:Product certification

Talk

This article was updated on 29 Mar 2012, as much of the information was outdated and did not reference the international certification and accreditation communities. References to the ISO Guides and Standards are listed without certain paginations, as depending on where the actual document is purchased (i.e. ANSI vs. ISO webstores), the pages may change. There is still some potentially outdated and incorrect information towards the end of the article, but major updates were made to clarify the typical process from start through surveillance of product certification in accordance with International Standards documents.

Additionally, two of the "See Also" links no longer work (go to an error 404 page), so they were removed to keep the article concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzsaw5 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that the CASCO (Committee on Conformity Assessment) is in process of publishing ISO/IEC 17065, an updated normative International Standard which is intended to update the language from ISO/IEC Guide 65 to modern terminology, incorporate the items from the IAF Guidance Document GD5, and to reorganize the layout of the standard to be more in line with other conformity assessment standards of the 17000 series. This publication is anticipated in 3rd or 4th quarter, 2012, and this article will hopefully be updated to reflect the changes and requirements for certifying products in accordance with this international standard document.

Also note that many instances where building codes were referenced do not actually tie into a PRODUCT certification, but rather would apply more towards a PROCESS certification (for installation processes), or for the actual final installation inspection of the system (which is a whole separate matter, with its own international, national, and local standards and codes). The ISO 17065 document, if and when it is published, will incorporate the PROCESS certification side of this discussion topic. As a clarifier, upon review of the DIS (Draft International Standard, or draft version of 17065), this seems to only cover certifying that the actual documented process itself, not the results, will meet qualification criteria set in a certification scheme.

Examples of process certifications, using the previous iteration of this article, would be a certified installation practice, for instance of an electrical wiring system in a residential single family unit. Again, only the process would be certified - the end result, i.e. the wiring, fixtures, switches, and outlets which are ultimately installed, are not a part of the certified process. Those items may be certified PRODUCTS, meeting certain ASTM and UL requirements (in the U.S.). Verification that the process was followed correctly, and that the parts used in the process meet the requirements of the process, would fall under the purview of an Inspection Body (i.e. City Code Inspectors), which may assessed for conformance to the ISO/IEC 17020 international standard for Inspection Bodies.

USER: buzzsaw5 DATE OF UPDATE: 29 March 2012 SOURCE: professional work in international conformity assessment community, including ISO Guide 65 product certifications.

---

---

I did a large expansion of this article to go with other articles that link here. The reference to the nuclear industry in particular is this: http://www.geocities.com/astximw/endothermic.html

The rest is easily verified on through the links the article now contains.--216.221.81.97 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I refactored this from Certification and expanded. See talk there. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-12 10:29Z

Merger with Bounding

This is the next move in an unresolved tag-teaming attempt as chronicled right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-07-01_Bounding

What one does to get and keep a product certified is separate and apart from bounding, which is installation and maintenance in accordance with a certification listing. Bounding is a very sore topic with two groups as outlined right here: http://www.geocities.com/achim_hering/Articles/performance_based_building_codes.html. Those two groups both stand to gain:

• 1. fire protection engineers (because they do the risk analysis and are typically not retained to ensure proper bounding on site + some naivete and the fact that it's so cool to do all those calculations and models for a price), and
• 2. building owners and developers (because this is intended to reduce the cost of buildings by neglecting passive fire protection and instead having volumes of paperwork from the FPE trade)

There are plenty of examples. For instance, the CHUNNEL fire was quite different from all the models that were produced during the design phase. The construction phase neglected spray fireproofing of the tunnel lining and purpose-designed fire doors for the lorries. Also, "risk-informed", or "objective-based" or "performance-based" approaches (paperwork and cutting PFP) are routinely used these days. That does not mean it's any good. I personally know of cases where major fuel sources were ignored in models for the express purpose of being able to reduce fire-resistance ratings in nuke plants because they have no 3 hour fix for Thermo-lag 330-1. So, you need a solution for the 1 hour systems that just don't cut the mustard... What do you do? Why, massage the RISK factor until it all fits of course. And guess what trade does this for you in your design team? And who stands to gain? The short term financial goals of the owners of course.

The topic of bounding is highly uncomfortable for these two parties. What we are witnessing here is the tagteaming attempt at maintaining the statuis quo as looking good. Of course, people who have given themselves this task are also characterised by two main things:

• 1. Refusal to identify themselves.
• 2. Contribution records on Wikipedia that consists mainly of criticising other people's work but not really contributing articles or pictures of their own.

And if what I wrote here is really nonsense, well, then:

• 1. identify yourselves
• 2. actually answer the tough questions you are avoiding within the links you keep erasing from here.
• 3. actually contribute something rather than just question other people's work.

Of course, this takes some intestinal fortitude. Go ahead.--Achim 02:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This response is intended to maintain the continuity of the work on the proposed merger. I have been very busy lately, and will complete the merger within the next few weeks. I did not see these comments here, as they were not placed as identified on the Bounding talk page per the Merge notice, per WP policy. Your above comments are, as usual, not to point on the results of the mediation, resulting in "bounding" being a neologism. Please refrain from personal attacks. Fireproeng 21:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Reference tags

As my name was used without my permission by User:Ahering@cogeco.ca in reverting the recent unreferenced tag, I want to set the record straight. I agree this article is not properly referenced. However, an "Unreferenced" tag is not appropriate, as there are some references provided. I have added the appropriate "improve references" tag. Fireproeng (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)