ASTM E2159-01(2008)

NOTICE: This standard has either been superseded and replaced by a new version or withdrawn.
Contact ASTM International (www.astm.org) for the latest information
Designation: E2159 − 01(Reapproved 2008) An American National Standard
Standard Guide for
Selection, Assignment, and Monitoring of Persons To Be
Utilized as Assessors/Auditors or Technical Experts
This standard is issued under the fixed designation E2159; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of
original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A
superscript epsilon (´) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval.
1. Scope 3. Significance and Use
1.1 This guide provides guidance to organizations that need 3.1 In a situation where an organization is performing an
to utilize persons to perform assessments/audits (assessing evaluation of another, either formally or informally, the single
bodies)ofotherorganizations(assessedbodies)forpurposesof most important element in the evaluation may well be the
recognition, accreditation or other type of approval to perform selection and assignment of a properly qualified assessor/
a function. assessment team to perform an on-site assessment.Therefore it
is imperative that the person(s) performing the assessment be
1.2 An assessing body should consider the contents of this
selected and assigned with care by the assessing organization.
guide and apply it according to its unique situation. The
Two basic types of individuals normally participate in an
elements of this guide should be applicable to the selection,
on-site assessment: assessors/auditors and technical experts;
assignment, and monitoring of assessors whether they are
each perform separate functions (see definitions).
contract or permanent staff members.
3.2 This guide focuses on providing guidance regarding the
2. Terminology
responsibilities and obligations of an assessing body in the
selection, training, assignment and monitoring of assessors/
2.1 Definitions:
auditors and technical experts to carry out their evaluation
2.1.1 The following definitions apply to the terms used in
functions.
this guide.
2.1.2 assessment team—a group of two or more persons
NOTE 1—In some cases, others may also participate in an assessment
consistingofacombinationofassessors,auditorsandtechnical
who are beyond the control of the assessing body: for example, govern-
ment regulatory personnel, or other observers specified by a client. Such
experts,asrequiredbythespecificassessmenttobeperformed.
participants are not covered by this guide.
2.1.3 assessor/auditor—an individual who has the skills
4. Quality System
necessary to perform a comprehensive assessment of another
body which includes assessment of the quality management
4.1 An assessing body should have in place a documented
system, policies and procedures, etc. An assessor/auditor
system describing how it fulfills the elements of its assessor/
should be fully qualified in the performance of a full
auditor, technical expert selection, training, assignment and
assessment/audit with the exception of evaluating specific
monitoring process.
technical areas. An assessor may also be qualified as a
4.2 Assessor Criteria—An assessing body should have writ-
technical expert and bring such additional skills to the
ten qualification criteria for the selection of required assessors/
assessment/audit.
auditors, and technical experts. These criteria should address
2.1.4 technical expert—a technical expert is an individual
such factors as the candidates education and experience,
who has extensive technical expertise in a specific area(s). The
assessment/audit participation, training, and any examina-
technical expert does not need to have the assessment skills of
tion(s) passed. Requirements for qualification renewal and if
an assessor. A person designated only as a technical expert
applicable, re-qualification. Technical experts should be quali-
should not be deemed qualified to conduct a full assessment,
fied based on their previous experience and demonstrated skill.
but qualified merely to assist in the evaluation of technical
4.2.1 An assessing body should have written evaluation
areas within the person’s scope of expertise.
criteria for assessors/auditors, and technical experts.
4.3 Continuous Interactions w/Staff-Other Assessors—An
assessing body may find it advantageous to periodically have
This guide is under the jurisdiction ofASTM Committee E36 on Accreditation
& Certification and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee E36.60 on
their assessors/auditors and technical experts have the oppor-
Accreditation Bodies.
tunity to meet with other similar persons to discuss their
Current edition approved May 1, 2008. Published October 2008. Originally
experiences and develop proposals to improve the evaluation
approved in 2001. Last previous edition approved in 2001 as E2159 – 01. DOI:
10.1520/E2159-01R08. process.
Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959. United States
E2159 − 01 (2008)
4.4 Rating/Categorization/Listing Systems—An assessing 6.1.1 On-the-Job Observation—Each assessor/auditor and
body should have a documented system to rate or classify, or technical expert should be evaluated for the ability to conduct
both, assessors according to its needs and situation. an adequate assessment. This can be accomplished in several
ways for example, being accompanied by an experienced
NOTE 2—Categories could be based on length of experience, demon-
assessororqualifiedassessingbodystaffperson,throughatrial
stratedcapabilityorratingotherfactors.Somesystemscurrentlyuseterms
assessment (pre-arranged conditions), or through observation
such as lead assessor, assessor, and assessor trainee, whereas others may
use designations such as senior and junior assessors.
by a person unknown to the assessor/auditor and technical
expert. A written appraisal should be prepared and filed with
4.5 Database—An assessing body should maintain a func-
the assessing organization by the evaluator.
tional database of all assessors/auditors as an effective way to
6.1.2 Staff Appraisal—The assessing body staff responsible
easily select persons for a particular assignment.
for training/monitoring should take care to observe and ap-
4.6 Records—An assessing body should maintain a com-
praise each candidate during training. A written appraisal
plete file of all assessors/auditors and technical experts who
should be prepared and filed.
perform assessments on its behalf. The file should, at a
6.1.2.1 Theresponsibleassessingbodystaffmanagershould
minimum, contain pertinent education and background
be familiar with the style, methods, personality, and/or other
material, dates and results of all pertinent training, appraisal
traits of each assessor/auditor and technical expert in their
reports, specific skill categories and any areas/situations which
charge.
may cause a conflict of interest and, if available, appraisal
6.1.3 Other Assessor Appraisal—During training or regular
forms from assessed bodies.
assessments, a more experienced or senior assessor(s) could be
4.6.1 Assessingbodiesmayfinditadvantageoustomaintain
usedtomakecarefulobservationofthetraineeassessor/auditor
a historical record of all assignments performed by each
or technical expert and, when appropriate, prepare a written
assessor/auditor and technical expert.
report of all observations and appraisals.
4.6.2 The qualification record should identify the date and
6.1.4 Feedback from Ass
...