May 2002 

Laboratory Management Review 

(For Laboratory Directors and Supervisors) 

By: Georgia Harris 

Introduction 

A frequent comment from weights and measures directors and laboratory supervisors is 

that they would like to have a better understanding of the responsibilities, activities, and 

operation of the weights and measures laboratory. Each year NIST requests that each 

State laboratory wishing Recognition from OWM submit material for our review. A key 

part of each submission is the review by the laboratory's management review of the 

information and materials that are being submitted to NIST to better understand and 

provide input to the process on laboratory operation. Since a management review is a 

good practice to ensure ongoing communications with your laboratory staff, it is also a 

requirement of the quality standards published in NIST Handbook 143, Program 

Handbook. 

We encourage metrologists to provide information to their laboratory management on an 

ongoing basis throughout the year and to review the entire program with their 

management at least once a year (as required in the program handbook). Monthly 

updates (via e-mail or short meetings) from the metrologist to the laboratory director 

provide an opportunity for periodic communications to ensure that your program is 

operating effectively to meet programmatic needs. 

 Metrologists are required to conduct periodic internal audits to evaluate their entire 

quality system and technical capabilities. At the 2002 Regional Measurement Assurance 

Program meetings, NIST is providing additional training for the laboratory staff on what 

constitutes a good "quality assessment" of the laboratory. This training addresses the 

internal auditing process and the laboratory management review. 

A good time to perform the annual review is prior to the annual submission process of 

laboratory information to OWM (required between October 1 to November 15 each 

year). Another good time to discuss the laboratory operations is immediately after a 

metrologist attends OQWM training and after attendance at the regional metrology 

(RMAP) meetings where training is provided and the results of the round robins are 

discussed. If you aren't getting periodic updates from your staff, please schedule them! 

Two of the RMAP meetings have already been held this year. 

What to Ask About 

We often hear from directors that they aren't sure what to ask their metrologists. The 

suggested management review document in Handbook 143, Appendix C, Part 1, provides 

"an outline" for topics you can discuss. The purpose of this review is to make sure 

everyone is aware when progress is made or when great things have happened in the 
laboratory program, and to identify those areas where progress and improvement are 

needed. For example, when standards need to be recalibrated, it is important that 

metrologists identify this need well in advance of the budget cycle. 

The new laboratory quality system (which we will be incorporated into Handbook 143 

this summer) contains the following list of topics for you to review: 

1. The suitability of policies and procedures; 

2. reports from managerial and supervisory personnel; 

3. the outcome of recent internal audits; 

4. corrective and preventive actions; 

5. assessments by external bodies; 

6. the results of interlaboratory comparisons or proficiency tests; 

7. changes in the volume and type of work; 

8. client feedback; 

9. complaints; and 

10. other relevant factors, such as quality control activities, resources and staff 

training. 

At the RMAP meetings this year, OWM is conducting additional training on 

Atraceability@ and on Auncertainties.@ One of the exercises provides individual laboratory 

feedback on the traceability hierarchy charts that were submitted during the last annual 

OWM review cycle. Results of the latest interlaboratory comparisons are also discussed. 

If your regional metrology meeting has already been held, these would be wonderful 

topics for management and metrologists to discuss. 

Most Common Deficiencies 

Based on evaluation and feedback on management reviews submitted in the past, many of 

them are simply used as checklists without a substantive review or detailed evaluation. 

Many have missing dates and signatures. Appendix C, Part 1 is considered an Aoutline 

only@ and not a Aform@ to be completed. A complete review with corrective action, 

planned activities, and progress should be detailed for your laboratory records as well as 

for NIST=s annual review. During the 2002 submission cycle, NIST requested detailed 

information regarding the measurement traceability hierarchy of your measurement 

standards. After all of the RMAP meetings are completed this year, letters will be sent to 

each program regarding specific measurement traceability concerns. During the 2003 

submission cycle, we OWM will be requesting much more detailed management reviews. 

For More Information

The Asia Pacific Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (APLAC) has a very good 

summary document called Management Review for Laboratories, TC 003. It is available 

on-line at the following Internet site: 

http://www.ianz.govt.nz/aplac/documents/web_docs/APLACTC003.pdf

Other publications of interest may be found here as well: 

http://www.ianz.govt.nz/aplac/documents/published.htm