If you knew ten people with experience of ISO accreditation you could conduct a straw poll now.
See if nine out of ten really think what was reported to UKAS in their customer satisfaction survey. Or do they fail to respond to UKAS’s solicitations and use foul language to your own questions?
What would happen if the next ISO revision compelled the accredited to respond to UKAS customer satisfaction surveys to retain their accreditation?
Nah, silly idea. It’ll never happen.
UKAS Customer Satisfaction Survey – Q1 2016-17
◾86% were satisfied or very satisfied with UKAS’ overall service over the last year.
◾99% were satisfied or very satisfied that the UKAS assessment team had the right skills and knowledge.
◾94% were satisfied or very satisfied that the assessment team had the right attitude.
◾90% were satisfied or very satisfied that UKAS generally responded to your needs in a timely manner.
Unsurprisingly, when you click through to the full report, there is no mention of the total number invited to respond or the number that did. Only percentages. And certainly no uncertainty of measurement indicators like they impose so strongly on laboratories.
Alright for ISO 9001 but proof that accrediting science is not done scientifically?
The simple graphs show a less impressive picture than the percentages in the text, but it’s still much better than you might guess from asking victims face to face.
It seems like a good show overall. “Delivering confidence”, as they say themselves.
So ask ten accreditation victims yourself. They might change your world.