Fire/Arson Investigations : Fire/Arson Investigations
A place to ask questions and add to probative and informative discussions associated with the various aspects of the field of fire investigation. -- FORUM RULES---BE CIVIL AND NO NAME CALLING, NO BELITTLING, NO BERATING, NO DENIGRATING others. Postings in violation of these rules can be removed or editted to remove the offending remarks at the discretion of the moderators and/or site administrator.
Re: Fire Investigation Unit Standard
Posted by: Sir Gary (IP Logged)
Date: March 02, 2018 04:55AM
So ISO 17025 is for inside testing labs, we need something for the fieldwork.
The more generic this is (e.g. ISO 17020), the less applicable it would be for any specific field
(e.g. fire investigation, clandestine meth labs, footprints),
but it would provide the organizational backbone upon which field-specific checklists etc. can be hung.
Bit like what the (generic) Scientific Method is for Fire Investigation,
ISO 17020 could be the (generic) Organizational Method for Fire Investigation outfits.
I've been through the Accreditation mill before:
Initially everybody kicks against it
("I know what I'm doing, been doing it for years, don't need to paper to tell me how"),
it's a hell of an effort and paper chase,
but you know what? - after the dust has settled, everybody (if somewhat reluctantly) agrees that it pulls the organization into shape.
Even if you don't get accredited, it's a worthwhile exercise as a management tool to assess the organisation, formalize procedures and identify shortcomings.
The more generic this is (e.g. ISO 17020), the less applicable it would be for any specific field
(e.g. fire investigation, clandestine meth labs, footprints),
but it would provide the organizational backbone upon which field-specific checklists etc. can be hung.
Bit like what the (generic) Scientific Method is for Fire Investigation,
ISO 17020 could be the (generic) Organizational Method for Fire Investigation outfits.
I've been through the Accreditation mill before:
Initially everybody kicks against it
("I know what I'm doing, been doing it for years, don't need to paper to tell me how"),
it's a hell of an effort and paper chase,
but you know what? - after the dust has settled, everybody (if somewhat reluctantly) agrees that it pulls the organization into shape.
Even if you don't get accredited, it's a worthwhile exercise as a management tool to assess the organisation, formalize procedures and identify shortcomings.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.