SLIDE 1
Seite 2
Review of the MRA PTBs view Directors Workshop, BIPM, 13/14 October - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Review of the MRA PTBs view Directors Workshop, BIPM, 13/14 October - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Review of the MRA PTBs view Directors Workshop, BIPM, 13/14 October 2015 Jrn Stenger, PTB Participation in key comparisons Germany USA UK France Japan Korea China Russia Australia Italy Seite 2 Observations The MRA is a
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
Seite 3
Observations
The MRA is a great success, however
- The resources needed to maintain the MRA has reached limits
- There is no mechanism to limit the number of CMC’s and comparisons.
It is up to the individual NMI and DI to decides about its participation
- The number of NMI is limited to one per country, but there is no
mechanism to limit the number of DI’s
- There are no built-in mechanisms to stabilize the MRA
- There are rules and CIPM recommendations, but no enforcement tools
- Possible tension: open-access infrastructure vs. commercial interest of
service provision
SLIDE 4
Seite 4
Guiding considerations for future developments
KC CMC‘s Services
Key comparisons − are matter of NMI‘s and DI‘s on highest, primary level; deliver reference values for regional comparisons − comparisons on international or regional level underpin CMC‘s generically CMC‘s − address capabilities under international review and recognition − underpin a larger number of services generically Services − are matter of each institute − are not subject to international review − are covered by the QM system, which is reviewed by RMO
multiplication multiplication
SLIDE 5
Seite 5
Long-term success of the MRA is:
- Quality more than quantity
- The highest-level metrology backbone requires
the highest level of integrity
- Reliability, robustness, availability
- Use multiplication for dissemination
- Provide additional support for emerging labs
Guiding considerations for future developments
SLIDE 6
Seite 6
Key suggestions and proposals
- MRA core text does not need modification
- Freedom of choice between the equivalent options of self-declaration and
accreditation must be maintained
- Enforcement of MRA requirements
−Quality thresholds for participation in international KC’s −Secondary standards shall be excluded from international KC’s; comparisons within RMO’s for proof of competences of NMI’s and DI’s holding secondary standards −Acceptance of all DI’s (not only supranational bodies) shall require CIPM approval, based on recommendations of the RMO’s; the CIPM shall have the right to withdraw approval
- Introduce a top-down element for setting the scope of CMC’s and
comparisons and participation in KC, e.g. an NMI director’s platform
SLIDE 7
Seite 7
Further specific suggestions and proposals
- CMC’s may be not maintained without real, associated customers services
after a given period of time
- CMC entries on the basis of a validation report to be presented to the
relevant TC/CC, if there are no partners for KC’s
- Chemical, biological and bio-technological quantities need a different
approach, revision of technical guides is necessary.
SLIDE 8
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig und Berlin Bundesallee 100 38116 Braunschweig
- Dr. Jörn Stenger
Member of the Presidential Board Telefon: 0531 592-3000 E-Mail: joern.stenger@ptb.de www.ptb.de October 2015