Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISEAL External Evaluation - Compliance With ISO/IEC 17011 Summary Report
ISEAL External Evaluation - Compliance With ISO/IEC 17011 Summary Report
Evaluation findings
Reference to accreditation and use of symbols (8.3.1): The ASI mark used by the CABs (as an accreditation symbol)
is the same as the ASI mark that identifies ASI itself i.e. the accreditation symbol does not indicate the activity.
Evaluation findings
Quality policy (5.2.1): ASI did not define and document measurable objectives related with the quality policy.
Evaluation findings
Records (5.4): ASI´s procedures for identification, collection, indexing, accessing, filing storage, maintenance and
disposal of its records did not cover all relevant records, referring only to ¨main records¨.
Evaluation findings
Internal audits (5.7): Actions related with the findings of internal audits were not always taken in a timely manner.
Evaluation findings
Management review (5.8.2): The procedure for management review did not include: i) Feedback from defined
interested parties, just a set of them; ii) Fulfilment of the objectives (related with the quality policy); iii) as output
defining or redefining goals and objectives related with the quality policy.
Evaluation findings
Accreditation Process (7.2): The application form did not require i) details of human and technical resources; ii)
details of relationships within a larger corporate entity.
Evaluation findings
Document and record review (7.6): The MSC/ASC scheme did not document a full review of all relevant CB
documents to determine conformity with relevant standards and accreditation procedures.
Evaluation findings
Onsite assessment (7.7.2): The ASI assessor did not raise a non-conformity on the CAB regarding incomplete
inputs to the CB management review as required.
Evaluation findings
Decision-making and granting accreditation (7.9.4): The ASI certificate format did not indicate the
standards/normative documents to which the products were certified and all premises from which key activities
take place were not indicated.
Evaluation findings
Reassessment and surveillance (7.11.5): ASI’s own deadlines for resolution of major (3 months) and minor (12
months) NCs issued to CABs were not always respected. It was noted that this has been identified as an issue in
ASI’s internal audit.
Evaluation findings
Responsibilities of the accreditation body and the CAB (8.2.1.b). Though certificates indicated date of expiry the
information made public on the web site did not.