Mechanical Testing Field Update - March 2012
Issued: March 2012
Technical Control, Staff Competencies and
Authorisations
© Copyright National Association of Testing Authorities, Australia 2012
This publication is protected by copyright under the Commonwealth of Australia
Copyright Act 1968.
NATA’s accredited facilities or facilities seeking accreditation may use or copy this
publication or print or email this publication internally for accreditation purposes.
Individuals may store a copy of this publication for private non-commercial use or
copy a reasonable portion of this publication in accordance with the fair dealing
provisions in Part III Division 3 of the Copyright Act 1968.
You must include this copyright notice in its complete form if you make a copy of this
publication.
Apart from these permitted uses, you must not modify, copy, reproduce, republish,
frame, upload to a third party, store in a retrieval system, post, transmit or distribute
this content in any way or any form or by any means without express written authority
from NATA.
Technical Control, Staff Competencies and Authorisations
Technical Control, Staff Competencies and
Authorisations
With the recent elimination of NATA’s requirement for accredited facilities to have a NATA
approved signatory, or signatories, assessors will be asked to participate in assessments
where facilities have implemented internal procedures for their authorisation of staff to issue
test results. So how does this change the way in which assessments are conducted?
In no way does this reduce the extent to which NATA assesses a facility’s technical
competence, for which assessing the competence with which individual laboratory personnel
carry out and report testing activities remains fundamental. Therefore, assessments will still
cover the performance of tests by laboratory personnel, still require a combination of
performance and discussion of testing, still include critical assessment of the laboratory
personnel’s understanding of the results, what an unusual result looks like and what should
be considered when something goes wrong. However, as well as evaluating the
competence with which individuals carry out and report testing activities, the assessment
must also include an evaluation of the technical capability of the personnel with responsibility
for authorizing those personnel to both carry out and report the results of testing. Similarly,
in a more direct way than before, any deficiencies in individual competency must be
considered, not just in the light of that individual’s work, but also in terms of the facility’s
processes for establishing the competence of their staff. Where deficiencies are found,
working through the implications of this will involve the whole assessment team since there
will typically be both system and technical aspects to review in order to determine the source
of the failures leading to the unsatisfactory outcome.
All assessments are sampling exercises and not every combination of staff
member/test/equipment can be covered in the time available but, in respect of personnel
approved to release results, effort should be made to review the output of as many such staff
as possible covering as many tests for which each person is approved as possible.
It will be up to the lead assessor, and ultimately the review processes within NATA, to
determine what action will be required in cases where deficiencies with respect to
compliance with the NATA requirements are identified. This may range from a condition
relating to delivery of further training to a staff member in one aspect of a method, to
requiring a review of all testing performed or supervised or authorised by that staff member,
to withdrawal of test reports or suspension of the accreditation. While it is never enjoyable to
witness poor practice and you should be aware of these eventualities, remember it is the
lead assessor’s role to draft the Report on Assessment and recommend the follow-up action
warranted. Being as clear as possible as to the nature and consequence of the nonconformances identified will be most appreciated by the Lead Assessor in these situations.
While technical assessments may now be a little different, the fundamentals really do remain
the same. To provide a focus on the areas where there are some changes, an
implementation checklist is included below.
March 2012
Page 3 of 5
Technical Control, Staff Competencies and Authorisations
FACILTY NAME:
ACCREDITATION NO:
CONFIRM THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES
OBSERVATIONS
SATISFACTORY
Y/N
Technical control and competency assessment
Technical capability of the listed individuals having responsibility for determining the
competency of testing staff within the company is to be reviewed.
- is there adequate technical capability covering all the areas of testing?
- is the responsibility for assigning competence restricted, where applicable, to reflect
each individual’s technical capability?
Review records that support the competency assessment of a given staff member for a
given test, for example, if a quiz or audit checklist is used then review a completed one
and confirm that it covers all relevant technical areas.
Testing activities
Review an activity and discuss with staff involved how a determination of satisfactory
performance is made for a given test.
- does the person have an adequate understanding of criteria for this determination?
During the day, give consideration to the competency of observed testing staff to help
evaluate whether those staff who are determining staff competency are adequately
performing their role.
During the day, ask staff how technical issues that arise during testing are addressed to
help evaluate the adequacy of technical supervision.
March 2012
Page 4 of 5
Technical Control, Staff Competencies and Authorisations
CONFIRM THE INDIVIDUAL(S) RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES
OBSERVATIONS
SATISFACTORY
Y/N
Technical control and authorisation to issue test reports
The technical capability of individuals approved to issue test reports is to be reviewed.
- does the process for granting such approval have sufficient technical rigour?
- is the responsibility for issuing reports restricted, where applicable, to reflect each
individual’s technical capability?
Reporting activities
A selection of reports, ideally covering output of all personnel approved to issue reports
across the full range of their approved tests, is to be reviewed
- are the reports adequate?
- based on evidence available, is the process for approving staff to issue reports
adequate?
Providing supervision of assistants, technicians testing under supervision, trainees
Ask how supervision of ‘entry level’ staff is being exercised. This includes staff who have a
limited testing role, notwithstanding their length of service in the facility, e.g. staff
performing routine testing or measurement. Based on the available evidence, is
appropriate supervision being exercised over these staff?
“Entry level” staff may occasionally perform testing that is not under ‘direct supervision’ e.g.
using a portable test bench to perform proof tests on lifting gear in the field. In such cases,
signatories should explain how they gain assurance that the testing has been carried out in
a competent manner, sufficient to allow them to approve release of the results.
Note: Witnessing examples of such testing by the assessor should be considered if this can be arranged.
March 2012
Page 5 of 5