Lead peer evaluator’s experience leading an APAC remote peer evaluation in 2020

The APAC remote peer evaluation I just completed had 11 people and we took two weeks with most team members doing two 4-6 hour sessions and me and the deputy TL doing 4 such sessions to cover the QMS of the AB and our assigned accreditation schemes. However, we had many records sent to us in advance so we had spent hours preparing and reviewing records that you would normally review on-site. That allowed our remote session to be very efficient during the video sessions. We also had issues with AB staff being available for all the evaluators because the same staff covered different schemes so they could not be in two places at the same time and we had to spread the evaluation over two weeks.

We setup a WhatsApp group for the evaluation team and the Deputy TL and I had been in constant email contact with the evaluation team members discussing their findings and any potential issues of investigation after each session. We did not have team meeting every day, only when it seemed necessary to discuss findings. I had an opening meeting the beginning of week 1 and had a closing meeting the last day in the afternoon. The Deputy TL and I spent about two hours the night before and the day of the closing meeting wrapping up any loose ends and writing the finding report.

I provided the AB with a list of preliminary findings at the beginning of week 2 from the first week and then a final list of findings 3 hours prior to the closing meeting and had a meeting with their team 1.5 hours before the closing meeting to discuss any concerns they had. This allowed us to address any questions or concerns on findings prior to the closing meeting so that the closing meeting was very brief and efficient. The evaluation team came up with several findings, all of which were accepted by the AB with very little questions or discussions. Not that findings are an indication of a thorough evaluation but I think it does show that the team was able to do a rather thorough evaluation with this approach.

I have heard of other APAC evaluations that took place in the normal week but with 8 hour sessions each day as the AB didn’t provide records in advance of the peer evaluation. I personally preferred our approach because it required a lot less on camera time and I also had to deal with translation issues with the records. Since they provided them well in advance I could use translation software and not waste time having them translate for me on camera.

This is the problem right now, there are so many different variables and approaches to take when setting the schedule and we’re all learning together. It will take the cooperation of the AB and the AB team to make this work and I hope both parties understand this is new territory and will take some extra cooperation and patience. We are all trying to do our best to ensure the integrity of the peer evaluation process and there will be improvement opportunities as we learn from this first round of evaluations. We are all just trying to do our best and each evaluation is going to be slightly different depending on the circumstances of the AB and their ability to support a remote evaluation.

Rob Knake
IAAC MLAC Vice-Chair, IAAC and APAC lead peer evaluator
November 30, 2020