Review of the Operation and Implementation of the CIPM MRA

Transcription

1 Review of the Operation and Implementation of the CIPM MRA 13 th and 14 th October 2015

2 Participation in the CIPM MRA today The BIPM in Member States 40 Associate States and Economies 100 CIPM MRA Signatories Signatories Number of S Int. Orgs Associates Member States 0 Oct 99 Jan 01 Jan 03 Jan 05 Jan 07 Jan 09 Jan 11 Jan 13 Jan institutes participate in the MRA today 98 NMIs from: 54 Member States, 40 Associates & Economies, 4 international organizations; 152 designated institutes Member participating in the CIPM MRA Associate participating in the CIPM MRA Members/Associates not yet signed the CIPM MRA 2

3 Growth of Comparisons in the KCDB Number of new comparisons per year Key comparisons Supplementary comparisons As of 5 October 2015, the KCDB covered 1356 comparisons 918 key and 438 supplementary 3

4 Growth of CMCs in the KCDB The KCDB includes CMCs in General Physics, 4026 in Ionizing Radiation, and 5887 in Chemistry Data extracted Sept Distribution among the RMOs: EURAMET APMP SIM COOMET AFRIMETS

5 The MRA by metrology area 250 Number of Comparisons in KCDB, by Metrology Area BIPM piloted comparisons included 8000 Number of CMCs by Area and Year 7000 Oct-09 Oct % RI(II) Mar-15 Key Comparison Number of comparisons Supplementary Comparison Number of CMCs AUV M L PR T TF EM IR QM Metrology Area 0 AUV M L PR T TF EM IR QM Metrology Area Electromagnetism, Ionising Radiation, and Chemistry Electromagnetism, Ionising Radiation, and Chemistry account for 54% of all Key Comparisons. account for 59% of all CMCs. 5

6 Incomplete comparisons started > 5 years ago By RMO or CIPM (CCs) Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs By metrology area Uncompleted comparisons > 5 yrs Number of com mparsions SCs KCs Number of com mparsions SCs KCs 0 AFRIMETS APMP COOMET EURAMET SIM CIPM 0 AUV EM L M PR QM RI T TF RMO or CIPM Metrology Area 6

7 Summary The MRA in 2015 The rate of growth of both comparisons and CMCs remains constant or is slightly decreasing Load for piloting KCs is not shared evenly among NMIs, although there are indications of improvement Chemistry, ionizing radiation, and electricity/magnetism account for 59 % of CMCs, and 54 % of all KCs Improvements have led to shorter times for CMC review and reductions in CMC numbers (in electricity and magnetism), and The KCDB must be renewed/replaced some proposals to be presented later. 7

8 Resolution of the 25 th CGPM Noting On the importance of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement that after fifteen years of successful operation of the CIPM MRA, there is a need to review its implementation and operation, the unique and distinct role of the Regional Metrology Organizations (RMOs) within the activities of the CIPM MRA, through the Joint Committee of the Regional Metrology Organizations and the BIPM (JCRB) and for the Associates of the CGPM, the improvements being made within the existing framework including the strategic planning of comparisons and ongoing streamlining of processes, a workshop planned for 2015 to engage in a broad discussion of the CIPM MRA, involving: Directors of National Metrology Institutes, Member States representatives, representatives of RMOs and other relevant stakeholders concerning the benefits of the CIPM MRA, as well as establishing views on what works well, and what needs to be improved regarding its implementation, Invites the CIPM to establish a working group under the chairmanship of its President, with membership to be determined at the 2015 workshop, to conduct a review of the implementation and operation of the CIPM MRA, 8

9 The NMIsand RMOspresentedmanyideas we have drafted a summary of the key points.. for discussion 9

10 Summary of key points from the MRA Review Meeting Overview general points The MRA should continue to maintain its high levels of quality and integrity so as not to undermine the effort invested over 15 years. The MRA should continue to be inclusive and be built on trust between the NMIs and between the RMOs. The MRA is an arrangement between NMI Directors, it is a tool to support the NMIs in their interactions with their users. The total effort required to operate all aspects of the MRA should not rise above the present levels, and steps should be taken to spread the load more widely. 10

11 Summary of key points from the MRA Review Meeting Overview general points (continued) The resources used in the KC/CMC processes should be tailored according to the risk and complexity of the issues being handled. New, modern IT tools should be developed. User experiences and expectations for the KCDB and CMCs in different fields of metrology may not be the same. A different definition of a CMC may be necessary for chemistry. MRA processes have evolved and CCs have progressively addressed short-comings and many changes and improvements have been implemented over time. 11

12 Summary of key points from the MRA Review Meeting Key Comparisons (KCs) The planning of KCs should be strategic (egpart of the strategic plan of each CC). Not all NMI services can be underpinned by a KC. Reducing the numbers of KCs is not an objective in its own right the planning should be strategic. The progress of KCs at each stage through to completion should be monitored actively, with appropriate interventions when necessary. 12

13 Summary of key points from the MRA Review Meeting Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs) Steps should be taken to increase the efficiency of the CMC review process Duplication in the process of reviewing CMCs should be minimised(or eliminated). The Key Comparison Database (KCDB) The KCDB provides the quality behind the product. It is not practical or affordable for it to provide all information needed by all customers in all sectors of world metrology. Mechanism should be considered to improve specific access to NMI services through the KCDB. 13

14 Specific Questions to be addressed by the MRA Review Working Group 1. How can the level of participation in KCs be managed more effectively? 2. How can the KCDB provide better visibility of the services supported by the CMCs? 3. How can the proliferation of CMCs be reduced (or contained)? 4. How can the processes of CMC review be made more efficient? 5. Are new and different mechanisms needed to support States with developing metrology systems participate in the MRA? How can they become more proactive in addressing their needs? 6. Are changes in the governance of the MRA through the JCRB or the CIPM required to ensure more effective and timely operationof the MRA and implementation of improvements from the review? 7. Should a new scope and process be developed for CMCs in chemistry (and ionising radiation? And new areas (eg biology)? 8. Should a new strategy be developed for KCs and CMCs in ionising radiation? 14

15 Thank you.

16 draft -Termsof Reference for the Working Group on The Implementation and Operation of the CIPM MRA 1. To collect and summarize key expectations for the MRA and for its future development o o Are the resources required maintained at a level that is in proportion to the benefits? How can the benefits to the end user community(ies) from the existing investment in the MRA be increased? 2. To capture the key strengths and weaknesses of the MRA and of its supporting documentation. o o Is the text of the MRA appropriate and are the requirements effectively enforced? Are the supporting documents appropriate and are they used effectively? 3. To formulate guiding principles for further improvements including to the overall hierarchy of key comparisons CMCs services. o o o Should CMCs represent real services or should CMCs underpin services more generically? Are different approaches necessary for applications in chemistry, biotechnology/biology, ionizing radiation/radionuclides compared to those in physical metrology? Are the scopes and timescales of KCs and CMC planned to address strategic priorities? 4. To consider whether there should be more top-down governance (by the CIPM or another group mandated to do so). to limit participation in KCs/SCs? to define the scopes of KCs/SCs and CMCs? 5. To review the role of the JCRB in the governance and operations of the MRA. 6. To consider whether processes for the review, approval and uptake of CMCs could be improved. How should the KCDB develop to use current IT/web technologies whilst also making best use of the global investment made in the existing data sets? Have best practices been shared between the CCs? 7. To fulfil, the following timetable Preparation by correspondence (October 2015 to March 2016) Meet at the BIPM on 14 th and 15 th March Provide a progress report to the CIPM by the end of May Provide a report (with recommendations for action) to the NMI Directors and the CIPM at meetings to be held in the week beginning 24 th October 2016.