IA Corner
IA Corner takes an in-depth look at some of the questions and issues that Inspection Agencies (IAs) typically address in the course of their work. This column is designed to keep members better informed on the inner workings of the certification process by offering a “behind the curtain” look at the evolving role IAs play. Each column is guest written by one of NFRC's IAs. This issue features input from WDMA/AMS.
It is almost an understatement to say that this year has been as challenging a year as we have seen in our lifetimes, at least for those involved with the window, door, and skylight industry. NFRC program participants in the building industry (and more specifically the window and door industry) have had to scrutinize and evaluate every operational level of the design, from the manufacturing to the distribution of their respective product lines. They don’t want to go over capacity, but at the same time they want to make sure they don’t miss a market.
The NFRC process involves many interest groups and, with this, complexity is inevitable. This complexity, however, is the root cause of much of the difficulty and resulting frustration experienced on the path to certification. Ultimately, involvement is the only way to change the process and to be part of the solution and not the problem. There are continual opportunities to get involved, such as voting on the ballots (available three times per year) and participating in upcoming meetings (when all members are able to vote in a process).
Given these points of discussion, it seems appropriate to present
what we are calling the...
Top Five Steps That Can Delay Certification – and How to Engage in Solutions!
1. Incomplete delivery of information to the IA needed to conduct a technical review of a product line a manufacturer is seeking to certify.
How this happens:
The report package submitted to the IA by a laboratory fails to include an up-to-date upload spreadsheet, a complete stamped drawing package, the applicable THERM 5 and WINDOW 5 files, an up-to-date report, and ALL of the options the manufacturer wants to certify.
Solution:
The manufacturer should take great care to fully communicate its needs to the laboratory, regarding the information on the product line to be certified. The complete information should be delivered to the laboratory in a timely manner, eliminating the need for a laboratory to revise completed work several times. This type of revised work proves costly to all parties, in the form of valuable labor-hours lost. The laboratory should then deliver the complete package in its entirety to the IA for review.
2. Administrative errors observed when processing information during the review process.
How this happens:
Includes poorly conducted proofreading, at the laboratory and client level, for simple errors such as incorrect report numbers, and proper options being included in a report before it is released from a laboratory to the IA, resulting in disorder and confusion, as the reports have to be recalled and replaced by corrected reports.
Solution:
Ultimately, this is an issue of training. The manufacturer should assume due responsibility, however they should also hold the laboratory accountable for releasing an incorrect report.
3. Delays due to the amount of time it takes to get a response back regarding issues found in the information required to conduct a review.
How this happens:
The laboratories have to balance their workloads between incoming, outgoing, corrections, and inquiries. When reports or materials need clarification they have to make time for this as well.
Solution:
All parties with interest should expeditiously follow up, in a reasonable time frame, with the responsible party to ensure that all corrections are made in a timely manner.
4. Poor coordination of the release of materials specific to the certification of a product line.
How this happens:
- The approved release of the simulation reports and matching test reports from the laboratories varies from several days to several weeks.
- Reports have been released to a manufacturer but not the IA due to the manufacturer not ensuring proper authorization for the release of the reports.
- This can also result in reports being submitted to the IA but not being uploaded to the Certified Products Directory (CPD) for approval.
Solution:
All responsible parties should avoid the temptation of complacency, and avoid acting on the perceived expediency of bypassing the necessary steps of communication, which are outlined in the various NFRC documents. This would ensure the complete and timely delivery of all applicable information to the intended IA.
5. The challenge of balancing the workload.
How this happens:
IA’s have a backlog due to:
- The implementation of the new CPD, which requires laboratories to submit data in accordance with NFRC certification business rules.
- Revisions and/or addendums to existing product lines in response to the stimulus package.
- New certifications.
Solution:
We would expect this issue to ease with time. In the short term, it would be greatly beneficial if all involved parties would exercise patience and understanding while trying to attain their daily goals.
NFRC Insider thanks John McFee, of the Window & Door Manufacturers Association, and Stewart Nicholas, of Accreditation Management Services, for contributing this article.
Back to Home Page >>>
Chair's Message >>>
InnerView >>>
IA Corner >>>
ENERGY STAR® Updates Partner Requirements for Fenestration Manufacturers >>>
NFRC Membership to be Busy in Baltimore >>>
Experts Discuss Complex Fenestration Systems >>>
What Happens in Vegas –
Is NFRC Education! >>>
IRS Issues Guidance on Federal Tax Credit for Efficient Fenestration Products >>>
NFRC Manufacturer Members Invited to Participate in R-5 Windows Program >>>
SPOTLIGHT ON: WINDOW 6/THERM 6 Approval Task Group >>>
SPOTLIGHT ON: Members >>>
NFRC Insider | Vol. 3, Issue 4 - July 2009