CMC Submission and Reviewing Process 2016 APMP TCL Meeting CMC Submission and Reviewing Process 15 November 2016 Chu-Shik Kang cskang@kriss.re.kr

Calibration and Measurement Capability (CMC) A “CMC” is: a Calibration and Measurement Capability available to customers under normal conditions: (a) as published in the BIPM key comparison database (KCDB) of the CIPM MRA; or (b) as described in the laboratory’s scope of accreditation granted by a signatory to the ILAC Arrangement.

Drawing up a CMCs file Use “template” Excel file For the very first time: Use “Basic CMC template” from the JCRB website at: http://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcrb/Basic_CMC_Template.xls Don’t search on web for template. Different CCs may have modified versions. Modifying CMCs or Adding CMCs: Use your original CMC table submitted lastly It can be downloadable from JCRB CMC website: http://www.bipm.org/JCRBCMCs/PublishedCMC.jsp?METAREA=L Login: tcguest, PW: tcontact Unfortunately, the worksheet is separated by branches Use a single worksheet to list the CMCs for all branches (‘laser’ and ‘dimensional metrology’)

Entries in the CMC Table quantity/class instrument or artifact instrument type or method range (min. max. unit) measurement condition (parameter, specification) expanded uncertainty (value, unit, coverage factor, level of confidence, is it a relative one?) reference standard used in calibration (standard, source of traceability) list of comparisons to support the CMC comments (to be published via the web page) NMI service identifier service category NMI

Basic CMC Template

Comparison of CMC templates Basic template Template with uncertainty matrix: No Service Category!

Classification of Services: DimVIM Use the most recent list of services for choosing the service numbers This list can be downloaded from the KCDB website English: Multilingual: http://kcdb.bipm.org/AppendixC/L/L_services.pdf http://www.bipm.org/en/committees/cc/ccl/dimvim.html

Review of claimed CMC intra-RMO review Review by experts in APMP Approved by APMP TCL inter-RMO review Review by experts in TCL of other RMOs Approved by CCL through sub Working Group for CMC (sWG-CMC) under Working Group for MRA (WG-MRA) Submitted CMCs are approved only if they pass both reviews

Things to submit CMC Excel file Supporting evidences Based on “basic CMC template” APMP Quality System Questionnaire APMP QS1 Quality system information document (filled by QS people) http://www.apmpweb.org/liveproc/board/download.php?f_index=MTU0 Supporting evidences KC/SC reports Peer review report Scientific papers Uncertainty budget Etc.

Criteria for acceptance of CMCs JCRB requires: CMC table RMO report indicating that: the local TC/WG has approved the range and uncertainty of said CMCs each one of them is supported by a fully implemented Quality System reviewed and approved by the local RMO. Range, uncertainty of the CMCs be consistent with information from: Results of KC, SC, or past comparisons Knowledge of technical activities by other NMIs (publications) On-site peer-assessment reports Active participation in RMO projects Other available knowledge and experience

Modification of existing CMCs Reasons: material or editorial errors and improvements to the explanatory text for a quantity, instrument, method etc. increase of the uncertainty or reduction in scope, decided by the NMI or following a comparison result; change of the method of measurement or reduction of the uncertainty or increase in scope. a: No review needed (NMI → TC Chair → KCDB manager) b: No review needed (NMI → TC Chair → KCDB manager) c: Needs full procedure of intra- and inter-RMO review as if they were new CMCs

Modification of existing CMCs (2) Modification color code: Bold Red characters: for corrections to be brought to a published CMC and for presenting a new CMC not yet published a CMC that should be deleted the words “to be deleted from the KCDB” must also be placed in the “comments” column of the CMC Highlighting with a Light Pink Background:

APMP TCL CMC Review Procedure NMI submits documents (Excel file, QS Questionnaire, Peer Review Report, other supporting evidences) to TCL, TCQS, APMP secretariat TCL chooses reviewing NMI(s) based on “TCL CMC review board” information. Preferably 1 NMI is chose if possible. TCL sends documents to the contact person(s) of the reviewing NMI(s) The contact person distributes the Excel file to expert peers in the NMI. Direct communication between the reviewing and submitted NMIs with cc to TCL Chair. When consensus is made, the final Excel file is sent to TCL TCL submits the CMC file and the QS report reviewed by TCQS together with evidences to the JCRB CMC review site Experts from other RMOs take review (and communicate with APMP NMI through TCL chair if needed) Following the result of the vote by other RMOs, the CMCs are approved and published to KCDB (or disapproved) .

Reviewing the CMCs (1) Check if The correct (basic) Excel template is used “Quantity/Class”, “Instrument or artifact” are acording to DimVIM The form of uncertainty is correct KC/SC identifiers are correct Claimed uncertainty is consistent with supporting evidence NMI service identifier is filled There is any typo or format error

Reviewing the CMCs (2) Fill in the comment column: The name of the reviewer The supporting evidence by which the CMC has been approved (Don’t simply say “OK”) Results of KC/SC Documented results of past comparisons (including bilateral) Knowledge of technical activities by other NMIs, including publications On-site peer-assessment report Active participation in RMO projects Other available knowledge and experience, uncertainty budget Comments if the reviewer finds anything not in order

Thank you for your attention!