17020 consulting

The writer lives on… The problem of under reporting

One of the biggest problems of inspection is that from the final inspection report it is impossible to determine why an inspector eventually made the decision to either declare conformity or non-conformity for the item inspected. Often, inspection reports show little more than a ‘Yes’ or a ‘No’ (conform or not-conform). For the client of the inspection body this usually is not an issue. Especially when the client has passed the inspection; he can show the outside world he has passed and that is all that matters to him.

For the inspection body, the lack of information as to how the inspector has established his findings is however a big problem. This so called ‘under reporting’ makes it very difficult to monitor the inspection activities and weakens the position of the inspection body when questions arise about the outcome of the inspection.

To avoid problems it is advised to let the inspectors:

  • write down the exact size and content of sampling
  • write down relevant circumstances under which the inspection took place
  • write down the identification numbers of all used equipment
  • make sure the inspection report makes clear what item or object has been inspected

Paragraph 7.4.2 of ISO/IEC 17020 requires the inspection report to include the following:

a) identification of the issuing body;
b) unique identification and date of issue;
c) date(s) of inspection;
d) identification of the item(s) inspected;
e) signature or other indication of approval, by authorized personnel;
f) a statement of conformity where applicable;
g) the inspection results, except where detailed in accordance with 7.4.3.

Furthermore the inspection body should add as many of the options mentioned in Annex B to the inspection report. The inspection report should give a complete and clear picture of the inspection results and the way the inspection results where reached.

After all, the writer lives on…