December 17, 2024 • 32 mins
Unlock the secrets of the AASHTO Accreditation Procedures Manual with us as we dissect Section 3.5. Navigate the critical responsibilities of accredited laboratories in reporting significant changes within 60 days, per section 3.5.1. We break down what constitutes a 'major change’ and highlight our role and the potential sanctions for non-compliance. Learn more as we go through the first half of Section 3.5, in part one of this two-part series.
Have questions, comments, or want to be a guest on an upcoming episode? Email podcast@aashtoresource.org.
Related information on this and other episodes can be found at aashtoresource.org.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kim Swanson (00:03):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:18):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Kim Swanson (00:22):
And I'm Kim Swanson and we are here to talk about
Section 3.5 on the AASHTOAccreditation Procedures Manual.
It sounds very exciting justthe name of that, doesn't it?
Brian Johnson (00:36):
Oh yeah, it sounds thrilling.
It sounds like we're going overlike an IRS schedule
instruction book.
But we are going to go overthis and I have to.
I have to mention I'm fightinga cold.
I well, I guess I'm not reallyfighting a cold.
It won, uh, by a lot and I amstill recovering from the
(00:56):
aftermath of being sick.
Um, so that's why my voicesounds like it is.
I don't know, maybe it doesn'tsound any different, but it does
.
To me, it sounds a littledifferent.
Kim Swanson (01:05):
A little different, a little bit.
Brian Johnson (01:07):
And I may have to clear my throat here and there,
but hopefully Kim edits thatout so you're not all subjected
to that.
Kim Swanson (01:14):
I hope so too.
Brian Johnson (01:20):
Yeah, but we are going to talk about is because
recently had a conversation witha customer that had some
concerns about some of therequirements in the procedures
manual, wondered you know howthese things come about and what
the process is for recommendingchanges, and there was a
(01:41):
question about transparency,about how we do things and what
we look for, and I felt like,well, this was also I'd
considered it to be a complaint,so I sent it.
So this is all part of the wholecontinual improvement process
which you have heard us talkabout before, improvement
(02:08):
process which you have heard ustalk about before.
But we I had had thisconversation and I had heard
some of the complaints comingfrom this particular customer,
so we sent them to our qualitymanager, tracy, and we said you
know what we need to takecorrective action here, because
not because this person didn'tlike the requirement, that's not
the corrective action, becausethat is what it is.
What the corrective action isabout is our staff didn't really
(02:32):
understand why these thingswere the way they were and could
not explain that to thecustomer, and I was also
concerned that our customersdon't really understand some of
these things as well.
So I think that there's someimprovement.
We can make, both ininstructing our staff and
(02:56):
instructing or gettinginformation out there publicly
to our customers and tospecifying agencies in the
spirit of transparency.
So I felt like there was somecorrective action to take on our
part.
So that's where we are.
So this is actually part of thecorrective action process, this
episode.
Kim Swanson (03:16):
So everyone here, everyone is now a part of the
corrective action process for us.
So thank you very much.
Now some background on just theapp procedures manual in
general.
And that's what we refer to itas the app procedures manual,
but it is the AASHTOaccreditation program procedures
manual.
But that's a mouthful so Iwon't be saying that again,
(03:36):
probably.
So that is, it's a documentthat is AASHTO resources and the
AASHTO accreditation programand that is part of the
requirements that AASHTOaccredited laboratories need to
follow.
So to be AASHTO accreditedlaboratories need to follow our
(03:58):
AASHTO R18 and the procedures ofannual for the accreditation
program and the proceduresmanual for the accreditation
program.
But let's go through how, likewho approves the changes or who
approves the content that's inthe procedures manual, not just
Section 3.5, but the wholemanual itself.
Brian Johnson (04:18):
This is an AASHTO product right.
This is an AASHTO service.
All the AASHTO technicalservices have some kind of
oversight committee that ismembers of AASHTO, which are the
State Department ofTransportation, In our case the
materials engineers.
So we have an oversightcommittee called the ATG and
(04:39):
that is our de factosubcommittee for handling
changes to the procedures manual.
So really anybody can suggest achange.
Particularly a member of compwould be an appropriate
committee on materials paymentswould be an appropriate person
to recommend a change to theprocedures manual.
But we would also takerecommendations from people you
(05:02):
know, other interested parties,and see what the ATG thinks of
those.
So that's our oversightcommittee again.
So anything that gets changedin here gets balloted through
the ATG before it can bepublished and then used by our
program.
So all of these things that arein, all these documented
(05:25):
policies and procedures that arein the app procedures manual
have gone through a ballotingprocess, review and approval and
probably some editingrecommended by members of comp.
So that's where this came from.
Kim Swanson (05:42):
So before you go further in that, that's the same
general process as an AASHTOstandard, right, Like it is
balloted, it is approved andedited and things like that, or
is it?
I know it is not an AASHTOstandard, but it's the kind of
the same approval process forthe most part.
Brian Johnson (06:01):
It is the same process I was thinking back to
when we had a big change, soback in might have been 2016,.
I made some major revisions tothe procedures manual and my
recollection is that it onlywent through the ATG, but I
started thinking about some ofthe negatives that I received
and it definitely went through afull comp ballot.
Kim Swanson (06:24):
Wasn't that 2018?
I feel like it was 2018.
Brian Johnson (06:27):
It may have been, I might have started in 2016.
Kim Swanson (06:30):
Oh, that's probably .
That sounds more like it.
Brian Johnson (06:32):
It was a big one, so it was not easy to get it
all through, but it was reallyin need of an update and here at
this point it's in need of anupdate once again.
We did add a lot of things backthen about refusal of service
and what we do withfalsification of records, and
I'm trying to think of some ofthe other things that we added,
(06:55):
but it was pretty extensive asfar as the revision is concerned
.
But one of the things that Ididn't do back then was
rearrange the document, becauseI didn't do back then was
rearrange the document because,frankly, it is a little
disjointed the way it's laid out.
So my attempt this time will beto consolidate the document and
(07:17):
try to get it to actually flowin the order in which people are
interested in the topics, ifthey are new to the program and
they're going through theprocess.
So instead of I, I think thereare like two different sections
on proficiency samples and twodifferent sections on
assessments and like why, whywould we do that?
Kim Swanson (07:37):
uh, so I think some of it's just general
requirements and then theprocess, but it should really
all be in one section yeah, yeah, yeah, and I'm assuming you
probably did that last time justbecause you didn't want to
change section numbers thatpeople were familiar with and
things like that.
Brian Johnson (07:52):
I'm assuming that is a big part of it.
I well, it was more because wehad so many updates to make,
because it was so out of datethat I didn't want to complicate
that with additional changes,because sometimes so this
happens and this is not acriticism of AASHTO COMP, it is
(08:13):
true in any standardsdevelopment organization
Sometimes when you have too manychanges, you will get negatives
from members of the committeesaying there are too many
changes, negatives from membersof the committee saying there
are too many changes.
They may not object to thecontent of the changes, but they
may feel that it's too much,too fast.
So you have to be kind ofcareful about how you approach
(08:34):
some of these bigger changes,especially if you are newish to
making changes, because theyoften will be quick to remind
you that you are new to this andmaybe need to get a little
seasoning before you startmaking some changes, which I
think it and now, being somebodywho has a little gray hair, uh,
(08:55):
I can I kind of understand that.
Uh, because sometimes peopledon't understand what those
ramifications are going to be,or unintended consequences, or
have you know, have seen thisparticular item being balloted
many times by many differentpeople and without success.
So there's just, you know, someconsiderations that need to be
(09:17):
made, and if I had to do it allover again, I probably would
have asked more questions earlyto avoid some complications.
But that just comes withexperience.
Kim Swanson (09:28):
So let's get into the meat of it.
Section 3.5 of the AASHTOAccreditation Program's
Procedure Manual is titledAdditional General Criteria,
which is super vague and givesyou really no idea what this
section is.
So why don't you tell us alittle bit about what this
section in the procedures manualreally is about and why it
(09:50):
exists?
Brian Johnson (09:52):
It has a lot of different stuff in it.
Some of it is good laboratorypractices, some of it is what I
would say falls under thecategory of just general
requirements of the program andsome of it is well, I guess it
(10:15):
should be really under personnelsome of it, and I think that
was one of the things that Itried to do in the later
revision.
I don't want to get too muchinto the later revision, but I
ended up trying to.
I totally blew this section upand some of this stuff just got
cut in the draft and some of itjust got consolidated under, you
(10:36):
know, personnel considerations,organizational considerations,
facility considerations.
So there's all kinds of stuffin here that we can talk about,
uh, but we're going to pickthrough here, uh, the best we
can and in in the fastest way wecan, which which for me it's
not very fast because I tend togo on, but Kim will cut me off,
right.
Kim Swanson (10:57):
Well, yes, and I do recommend listening to all of
our podcasts at a 1.25 speed orhigher.
So I just in general, that'show I listen to the podcast at
super speed.
So maybe this is an episode youshould try that on with.
I don't know.
Brian Johnson (11:13):
All right.
Now that's going to be in myhead and I'm going to be
thinking that I speak too slowly.
Kim Swanson (11:17):
No, just in general .
I do that for most things, soit's not just you.
Brian Johnson (11:22):
Okay, well, because you're editing too, so
you don't want to hear the samething at regular speed.
Kim Swanson (11:26):
Correct.
Brian Johnson (11:27):
That would really kill your productivity.
It really would that.
That being said, I did listento a draft of the last episode
we recorded and I don't knowwhat I I don't know if I was
already sick at that point, butI was speaking so slowly I don't
know what was going on.
But I'll try to avoid that thistime okay anyway.
(11:48):
Okay.
So section 3.5.1 this is justabout how an accredited
laboratory needs to notify usanytime they have any major
changes that might affect theiraccreditation within 60 days of
the change occurring.
That would be a change inownership, relocation, major
(12:10):
personnel changes, any otherfacilities or any other stuff
that might have affected whatthey can do.
Like, say, they all of a suddenlost a major piece of equipment
, went down, they don't performthat test anymore.
They should notify us within 60days so that we can keep the
directory up to date.
And if there are actions thatthey need to take that we're
(12:34):
aware of that they might not be,then we can say go ahead and do
that within the next 60 days.
That often happens with labrelocations.
I think that is the mostdominant item that comes into
play here.
But it can also be a change totheir technical director.
I think that happens a lot too.
Kim Swanson (12:54):
Yeah, another instance that I a lot too.
Yeah, another instance that Iwas thinking of as I'm kind of
skimming this as you're talkingabout it is if there was a
natural disaster and theirlaboratory just got like, you
know, a tornado came through ora hurricane or anything like
that comes through, then theyneed to let us know that they
(13:16):
are no longer operating andthings like that.
Correct.
Brian Johnson (13:21):
That's a great point and that happened recently
.
There was a really horribledisaster that happened in the
East Coast where there was ahurricane that rolled through in
mountainous regions of the EastCoast, particularly the
Asheville North Carolina area,some areas in Tennessee that got
absolutely devastated.
And you know, there are timeswhen there's news that we see
(13:47):
and we say, oh boy, you know, wehope that those people are okay
, maybe somebody should check inon them.
And a lot of times they'llreach out to us or we'll reach
out to them in those kind areokay, maybe somebody should
check in on them.
And a lot of times they'llreach out to us or we'll reach
out to them in those kinds ofsituations and then we have to
figure out okay, were theyaffected?
How badly were they affected?
What do we need to do in thissituation?
And we do try to be as lenientas we can when somebody is
(14:10):
dealing with a devastatingsituation like that, where we
wouldn't just say okay, sorrythat your building is gone and
that all your people who workthere were affected in such a
drastic way.
Here's a 60-day deadline.
If you don't get back to us,we're going to suspend your
accreditation.
It's not really like that whenthere's a disaster.
(14:32):
But even in the case wherethere's a relocation, sometimes
there are complications thatcan't be helped.
But we do work with people andwe expect them to do their best
to get back up and running.
Try to identify any changesthat took place that we need to
reflect on the directory and getit up to date so that when they
(14:53):
do bid on projects that it canbe accurate.
Kim Swanson (14:57):
So what are the ramifications?
I heard you say you know like,so we don't suspend.
You know like, in a disasterwe're not necessarily going to
suspend right away, but is thatthe ramifications for not
letting the AshevilleAccreditation Program know of
these major changes?
For any of these things thatwe're going to talk about today,
(15:19):
what are the ramifications?
Brian Johnson (15:22):
Yeah, and I don't want to give the idea that we
don't suspend at all.
I'm saying if there is a tragedy, we're not going to try to pile
on by also suspending youraccreditation while you're
trying to get back on your feet.
But, that being said, if youare just saying, ok, we don't
know when we're going to operate, we might put the accreditation
(15:42):
in suspension until you areoperating again, so that it
doesn't go Because our normalprocess is OK, you didn't comply
with this, you get suspended,and then you have 30 days and if
you don't do that, you getrevoked and you're starting over
.
Sometimes, when people are like, hey, listen, there's a
long-term thing.
Can you just leave us insuspension until we're ready to
start work again?
While we get all this figuredout and maybe it takes longer
(16:04):
than the normal amount of timethat can be okay, given that you
know communicate with us, letus know what's going on and
we'll work it out.
But yeah, if in normalsituations, if people don't
notify us about things, it couldlead to a suspension and then,
ultimately, revocation.
Kim Swanson (16:22):
Is there anything else on 3.5.1 that we want to
talk about?
Brian Johnson (16:28):
I think that's the biggest one.
I mean, there's a lot in there.
But the other thing is likeownership change.
So if one thing we've beenseeing is a consolidation of
some of these smaller companiesinto larger companies and we do
want to know about that as soonas possible, and you really want
to tell us as soon as possiblebecause business is still going
on Right.
(16:48):
So you may be applying for acontract or bidding on a
contract.
You may be applying for acontract or bidding on a
contract.
You just acquired this companyand in order to be awarded the
contract, they need to know whoyou are.
So we want to be able to helpyou by properly identifying your
company so that when thatspecifying agency looks on the
(17:10):
directory for you, they canactually find you.
So it's not just a matter ofconformance.
There's a good reason, a goodbusiness reason, for you telling
us this information and usgetting it right, gotcha.
So I think that's all I wantedto say about 351.
That's the biggest one, so it'snot going to be like this for
all of them, okay.
So next one we're going to talkabout is 352.
(17:33):
It just says that thelaboratory's functional
organization shall be consistentwith that reported by the
laboratory and appear to beadequate to support their
testing capabilities.
So there's a couple thingsthere.
Kim Swanson (17:45):
Okay.
Brian Johnson (17:46):
Laboratories.
A lot of times, you know, foran annual review, for example,
we ask the laboratory to send usan org chart showing you know
who works there and who theirtechnical director is.
And let's say, we perform anassessment there and we go and
none of those people are there,or the person who said that that
you know they listed this oneperson as a technical director.
They're not there anymore.
(18:08):
Okay, well, you need to updateyour org chart, so there's an
issue there.
The other thing is they may say, well, we have two field techs.
And you go there and you say,oh well, wow, you know, that
seems like not very many fieldtechnicians for the size of this
laboratory.
And then we find out that theyactually have 30 field
(18:34):
technicians, but they onlywanted to list two because they
were the only certified peopleand they were trying to hide
that.
So that happens too.
But we also want to make surethat the and this is a tricky
one Some of these things arethings that we're not going to
be able to adequately assess orevaluate, but they are
(18:54):
expectations, like thelaboratory, when they get
accredited, they need to say Iwill adhere to these right?
So, like we usually have them,agree to these terms in 3.5
before they like, when they'refilling out their initial
accreditation request form andduring the annual review,
because I'm not really going tobe able to tell if it's
appropriate or adequate tosupport their testing
(19:17):
capabilities.
I'm going to have an idea basedon how many samples are laying
around, but I don't know whattheir customers' expectations
are for turnaround.
I don't know if some of theseare just being retained in case
there's a problem later.
You could find out by askingquestions.
But really it's going to behard for somebody who's there
for two days once every two tothree years to judge properly
(19:38):
whether the staffing isappropriate.
That makes sense Makes senseyeah definitely makes sense.
All right.
In line with that 353,interviews with supervisory and
technical staff membersresponsible for performing tests
shall indicate that thedocumented practices for
training and assuring competencyare consistent with actual
(19:59):
laboratory practice.
What does that sound like toyou?
Are you following?
Kim Swanson (20:04):
I'm following you.
It sounds very similar to theone above it, but this is where
not just the it's what they say,like it's that they're saying
what they're doing and doingwhat they're saying, kind of
thing.
Brian Johnson (20:18):
That's right.
That's right.
And that's when it comes totraining stuff and evaluating
competency.
And this one actually isauditable.
Because if I am at, let's say,I'm the assessor, I'm at the
laboratory, I'm looking attraining records and I see that
everybody's been trained for thework that they're doing.
And then I watch somebody runthe test and they have no idea
(20:39):
what they're doing and I say,well, this doesn't seem right.
Kim Swanson (20:43):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (20:44):
Hey technician, when did you get trained on that
?
Oh, I've never been trained onthis.
This is the first time I'veever used this equipment.
And then I look at the recordand I say, boy, that's funny,
Because according to this, youwere trained last week on it and
it was like, well, I wouldn'tdo that to the technician
because that would probablyscare them.
Kim Swanson (21:03):
Yes.
Brian Johnson (21:03):
But I would be taking note of that.
That would probably scare them,but I would be taking note of
that and I'd go back to whoeversigned off on that and say can
you please explain what happenedthere?
Kim Swanson (21:13):
Question then would that result in the assessment
report being two separatenonconformities, one for the
actual issue that they weren'ttrained, but then another for
the app procedures manual, or no?
Can you not get a nonconformityon the app procedures manual?
Brian Johnson (21:32):
No, you can definitely get a nonconformity
on the app procedures manual.
This could be a couple ofdifferent things.
First of all, you definitelyget the nonconformities related
to the poor performance of thedemonstration of the test.
The next thing would depend onwhat the actual problem was.
So let's say I asked the personwho made up the record.
(21:52):
I say, hey, you know, you havethis record here that said that
you trained the technician lastweek.
What happened?
They said well, this is how wedo it.
We say on this day you're goingto read through all the
standards and we consider thatto be training.
I know you're making a face.
Kim Swanson (22:13):
For people who are not watching on YouTube.
I definitely made a face atthat.
Brian Johnson (22:17):
Yeah, you're making a face, but this happens.
This happens so a lot of times.
When people write a procedureabout how to train people, it
starts with have the technicianread the standard, but then it
it should.
Step two is show them.
Show them how to do it Right.
Kim Swanson (22:35):
Yes, I'm like that's a fine first step, but
there can't be the last stepunless it's a very simple
standard.
Brian Johnson (22:43):
Yeah, we've had people talk to us about you know
you really have to define whattraining is and I think, well,
that's kind of the dictionarydefinition of training, right?
Kim Swanson (22:51):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (22:51):
You're teaching somebody how to do something, so
people get creative as to howthey would like to define that
and I would say it's not veryeffective training to just say
read this and figure it out.
That's not real training.
But people do it becausethey're trying to go quickly and
they don't have time andthey're under stress.
(23:14):
So that's a different findingright.
Kim Swanson (23:16):
Yeah, yeah.
Brian Johnson (23:17):
That's a much different finding than you
completely made all theserecords up, gotcha Right, gotcha
Right.
So completely, completely maderecords up as falsification
could lead to revocation,refusal of service, all of these
severe consequences.
But did a bad job.
Training is just.
You need to make someimprovements here, like you have
(23:38):
to seriously train people.
Yeah.
Kim Swanson (23:41):
Well, I mean quickly I can see where, if you
have a really seasonedtechnician who has been doing it
for years, maybe training, justreading, it is enough.
But uh, but yeah, maybe not foreveryone.
Brian Johnson (23:53):
That's.
That's something that comes upthere's.
There is something in in the inR18 about training that says
you know, if somebody comes inwith prior experience, you can
just evaluate their competency.
Kim Swanson (24:05):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (24:06):
But that's still a thing.
That is still a thing you aredoing.
Yes, to ensure that that personknows what they're doing.
Now you're paying this personto perform the test according to
the standard.
Your company name is on there.
You're probably signing off onit.
You want to make sure they'redoing it correctly, right?
Kim Swanson (24:25):
Yeah, for sure.
Yeah, seems obvious.
Brian Johnson (24:26):
Yeah, seems obvious.
Kim Swanson (24:27):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (24:28):
So take the time to do it.
You don't have to spend foreveron it, but you need to do it.
Anyway, that was a tangent thatwas a tangent and I apologize I
contributed to that tangent andI apologize.
That's quite all right.
That's quite all right.
Okay, now let's move on to thenext one Laboratory Right,
that's quite all right.
Okay, now let's let's move onto the next one.
Laboratory operations shall notbe impaired by management
(24:48):
problems.
Wouldn't we all like to say weare not impaired by management
problems?
Right?
Everybody listening to thiswould like to say that, but we
can't all say that all the time.
Now, this is one that I wouldsay is very hard to include in a
report.
Yeah it would have to be apretty severe case yeah for us
(25:09):
to say, to conclude, after twodays or however long they're
there that they are somehowimpaired by management problems.
I have gotten, as when I was anassessor, I was very close to
writing this really a few places.
Yes, because they were clearlyimpaired by management problems,
but that wasn't all that theywere impaired by, so it would be
hard for me to isolate that tostrictly management.
Kim Swanson (25:32):
How are we defining management problems, like
impaired, like that seems verysubjective, like you were saying
it's totally subjective.
So how do we define that andhow do we make sure that
laboratories, laboratories whoagree to this, and you know are
meeting our intent of this is avery.
Brian Johnson (25:51):
This is a very difficult one and it I like it
being in there.
I always like things being inour back pocket in case we need
to, in case we need to use them.
Because if you, if you run intoa situation where we say, okay,
let's say I go to a laboratorywhere the management has totally
run this place into the groundand there is no doubt that
(26:13):
that's what's going on, what doI write the technician?
You know, I could.
I could just write thetechnician didn't do things the
right way, equipment wasn'tcalibrated doesn't really tell
the story.
Yeah, somehow there's some likemanagement has got to be called
out, somehow, I think yeah but.
Kim Swanson (26:30):
I see, I see your point, but then I also on the on
the other side of it.
If it's that impaired, it'sgoing to show up everywhere else
too, so that it does yeah, soit's not going to be the only
thing that, uh, you're going toget a non-conformity on.
Brian Johnson (26:42):
If that's the case, I'm assuming- and really
if, if you have an organizationthat cares, somebody above that
manager is going to be readingthese reports and say this can't
be normal right, yeah.
And they'll probably talk totheir friends in the industry
and say, is it normal to get 130nonconformities on your
(27:02):
assessment report?
And they'll say, no, that isnot normal.
We don't get anything like that.
Um, I, I do.
I don't want to get into detailson exactly what happened,
because whoever it is, ifthey're listening, will know
it's their lab.
But I was at a lab that wasdefinitely impaired by
management problems.
Uh, there was, there was a, aclear lack of care, uh, by
(27:24):
management, because when anytime and this happened several
times during the assessment thatthe technician or supervisor
went to management to askquestions or get help or say can
we please replace broken downequipment or make tiny changes
(27:44):
to make things better, theanswer was always no, no, no, no
.
And some of these we don't getinto safety, but some of them
were clearly safety issues andif it cost anything, the answer
was no.
So to me and otherwise, noengagement from said manager,
(28:10):
from said manager.
So I would say, in that case,while my again, I'm there for a
couple days over two to threeyears span.
Yeah, interviews with staffobservations indicated there was
a problem with management there.
Yeah, um, however, I don't knowall the extenuating
circumstances, so you, youdidn't end up writing it.
Kim Swanson (28:26):
I didn't end up writing it, I didn't I was very.
Brian Johnson (28:28):
That's the closest I ever got to it.
I don't think I ever actuallywrote that yeah so maybe it
doesn't need to be in there,because I, I was, I was on the
edge, yeah anyway, something tothink about future, future
improvement about it maybe maybe, maybe the ballot will have
something about that or it wouldbe worded differently.
Next one also touches onmanagement.
(28:49):
Laboratory asked thatmanagerial staff with the
authority and resources neededto discharge their duties.
That may have been a problem.
So let's say I wrote up theywere impaired by management
problem and manager says it'snot that.
I have problems, it's that Idon't have the resources or the
authority I need.
So then the problem goes up thechain or up the chain, and
(29:11):
maybe that person doesn't careeither.
I don't know.
See, this is where it getsdifficult.
It does it really?
Kim Swanson (29:16):
does when you're trying to.
Brian Johnson (29:22):
you really want to see people embrace continual
improvement, right.
But if they don't want to do it, it's very hard and eventually
you hope that they just kind ofeither improve or leave the
program because they reallyshouldn't be accredited if they
really don't want to get anybetter.
Other ones laboratory mischiefmaintain ratio supervisory to
non-supervisory personnel whichensures adequate supervision.
Very hard for anybody to tellif that's correct or not, even
(29:45):
if you see issues.
Hard to tell.
So that one I don't love, eventhough I mean I love the concept
, but very hard to enforce.
Another one laboratories shallprovide effective separation
between neighboring testingareas which are incompatible
which are incompatible.
Kim Swanson (30:05):
So for that, is that another laboratory like a
different business, or is itjust like I have my aggregate
testing in this room and myconcrete testing in that room,
or whatever?
Brian Johnson (30:19):
I made those up because I don't know, yeah, and
I don't really know what was inmind with that particular line.
I can think of a couplescenarios in which the one type
of testing could negativelyimpact the other type of testing
, like if there were temperaturecontrol issues, if there were
vibration issues.
Kim Swanson (30:39):
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.
Brian Johnson (30:45):
The Proctor hammer going and messing up a
balance or something.
I think that's the best exampleand messing up a balance or
something.
I think that's the best example.
So if I had a hydrometer a soilhydrometer on a bench top that
was getting vibrated by either amechanical shaker, a compaction
device of some kind, or everytime a compression machine would
(31:05):
break a cylinder, it rattlesthe whole laboratory and affects
the hydrometer readings.
Something like that might bewhat was intended there, but I
think that would be.
I don't know that anybody'sever written that one up.
Usually people know enough notto do that, but I guess
anything's possible.
I know anything's possiblebased on my experience.
Kim Swanson (31:30):
Well, I think this is going to have to be a
two-parter, brian, because Ifeel like this is so much stuff
and we are only at 3.5.7 orsomething right now, so I think
this might be a good time to endand we'll pick up the rest of
it in part two.
What do you think?
Brian Johnson (31:47):
I think that's good.
As usual, I've gone on too long.
Kim Swanson (31:51):
Well, I think I didn't help the matter at all
anyway, but before we go, I dowant to let people know about
the 2025 Actual ResourceTechnical Exchange happening
March 17th through the 20th inBellevue, washington, and, as of
the recording of this episode,we do have a draft agenda and
some registration information onour website and you can find
(32:14):
that at ashtoresourceorg slashevents.
Thanks for listening to AASHTOResource Q&A.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast atashtoresourceorg or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
(32:36):
Resources social media accountsor go to ashtoresourceorg.
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
We're taking time to discussconstruction materials, testing
and inspection with people inthe know.
From exploring testing problemsand solutions to laboratory
best practices and qualitymanagement, we're covering
topics important to you.
Brian Johnson (00:18):
Welcome to AASHTO Resource Q&A.
I'm Brian Johnson.
Kim Swanson (00:22):
And I'm Kim Swanson and we are here to talk about
Section 3.5 on the AASHTOAccreditation Procedures Manual.
It sounds very exciting justthe name of that, doesn't it?
Brian Johnson (00:36):
Oh yeah, it sounds thrilling.
It sounds like we're going overlike an IRS schedule
instruction book.
But we are going to go overthis and I have to.
I have to mention I'm fightinga cold.
I well, I guess I'm not reallyfighting a cold.
It won, uh, by a lot and I amstill recovering from the
(00:56):
aftermath of being sick.
Um, so that's why my voicesounds like it is.
I don't know, maybe it doesn'tsound any different, but it does
.
To me, it sounds a littledifferent.
Kim Swanson (01:05):
A little different, a little bit.
Brian Johnson (01:07):
And I may have to clear my throat here and there,
but hopefully Kim edits thatout so you're not all subjected
to that.
Kim Swanson (01:14):
I hope so too.
Brian Johnson (01:20):
Yeah, but we are going to talk about is because
recently had a conversation witha customer that had some
concerns about some of therequirements in the procedures
manual, wondered you know howthese things come about and what
the process is for recommendingchanges, and there was a
(01:41):
question about transparency,about how we do things and what
we look for, and I felt like,well, this was also I'd
considered it to be a complaint,so I sent it.
So this is all part of the wholecontinual improvement process
which you have heard us talkabout before, improvement
(02:08):
process which you have heard ustalk about before.
But we I had had thisconversation and I had heard
some of the complaints comingfrom this particular customer,
so we sent them to our qualitymanager, tracy, and we said you
know what we need to takecorrective action here, because
not because this person didn'tlike the requirement, that's not
the corrective action, becausethat is what it is.
What the corrective action isabout is our staff didn't really
(02:32):
understand why these thingswere the way they were and could
not explain that to thecustomer, and I was also
concerned that our customersdon't really understand some of
these things as well.
So I think that there's someimprovement.
We can make, both ininstructing our staff and
(02:56):
instructing or gettinginformation out there publicly
to our customers and tospecifying agencies in the
spirit of transparency.
So I felt like there was somecorrective action to take on our
part.
So that's where we are.
So this is actually part of thecorrective action process, this
episode.
Kim Swanson (03:16):
So everyone here, everyone is now a part of the
corrective action process for us.
So thank you very much.
Now some background on just theapp procedures manual in
general.
And that's what we refer to itas the app procedures manual,
but it is the AASHTOaccreditation program procedures
manual.
But that's a mouthful so Iwon't be saying that again,
(03:36):
probably.
So that is, it's a documentthat is AASHTO resources and the
AASHTO accreditation programand that is part of the
requirements that AASHTOaccredited laboratories need to
follow.
So to be AASHTO accreditedlaboratories need to follow our
(03:58):
AASHTO R18 and the procedures ofannual for the accreditation
program and the proceduresmanual for the accreditation
program.
But let's go through how, likewho approves the changes or who
approves the content that's inthe procedures manual, not just
Section 3.5, but the wholemanual itself.
Brian Johnson (04:18):
This is an AASHTO product right.
This is an AASHTO service.
All the AASHTO technicalservices have some kind of
oversight committee that ismembers of AASHTO, which are the
State Department ofTransportation, In our case the
materials engineers.
So we have an oversightcommittee called the ATG and
(04:39):
that is our de factosubcommittee for handling
changes to the procedures manual.
So really anybody can suggest achange.
Particularly a member of compwould be an appropriate
committee on materials paymentswould be an appropriate person
to recommend a change to theprocedures manual.
But we would also takerecommendations from people you
(05:02):
know, other interested parties,and see what the ATG thinks of
those.
So that's our oversightcommittee again.
So anything that gets changedin here gets balloted through
the ATG before it can bepublished and then used by our
program.
So all of these things that arein, all these documented
(05:25):
policies and procedures that arein the app procedures manual
have gone through a ballotingprocess, review and approval and
probably some editingrecommended by members of comp.
So that's where this came from.
Kim Swanson (05:42):
So before you go further in that, that's the same
general process as an AASHTOstandard, right, Like it is
balloted, it is approved andedited and things like that, or
is it?
I know it is not an AASHTOstandard, but it's the kind of
the same approval process forthe most part.
Brian Johnson (06:01):
It is the same process I was thinking back to
when we had a big change, soback in might have been 2016,.
I made some major revisions tothe procedures manual and my
recollection is that it onlywent through the ATG, but I
started thinking about some ofthe negatives that I received
and it definitely went through afull comp ballot.
Kim Swanson (06:24):
Wasn't that 2018?
I feel like it was 2018.
Brian Johnson (06:27):
It may have been, I might have started in 2016.
Kim Swanson (06:30):
Oh, that's probably .
That sounds more like it.
Brian Johnson (06:32):
It was a big one, so it was not easy to get it
all through, but it was reallyin need of an update and here at
this point it's in need of anupdate once again.
We did add a lot of things backthen about refusal of service
and what we do withfalsification of records, and
I'm trying to think of some ofthe other things that we added,
(06:55):
but it was pretty extensive asfar as the revision is concerned
.
But one of the things that Ididn't do back then was
rearrange the document, becauseI didn't do back then was
rearrange the document because,frankly, it is a little
disjointed the way it's laid out.
So my attempt this time will beto consolidate the document and
(07:17):
try to get it to actually flowin the order in which people are
interested in the topics, ifthey are new to the program and
they're going through theprocess.
So instead of I, I think thereare like two different sections
on proficiency samples and twodifferent sections on
assessments and like why, whywould we do that?
Kim Swanson (07:37):
uh, so I think some of it's just general
requirements and then theprocess, but it should really
all be in one section yeah, yeah, yeah, and I'm assuming you
probably did that last time justbecause you didn't want to
change section numbers thatpeople were familiar with and
things like that.
Brian Johnson (07:52):
I'm assuming that is a big part of it.
I well, it was more because wehad so many updates to make,
because it was so out of datethat I didn't want to complicate
that with additional changes,because sometimes so this
happens and this is not acriticism of AASHTO COMP, it is
(08:13):
true in any standardsdevelopment organization
Sometimes when you have too manychanges, you will get negatives
from members of the committeesaying there are too many
changes, negatives from membersof the committee saying there
are too many changes.
They may not object to thecontent of the changes, but they
may feel that it's too much,too fast.
So you have to be kind ofcareful about how you approach
(08:34):
some of these bigger changes,especially if you are newish to
making changes, because theyoften will be quick to remind
you that you are new to this andmaybe need to get a little
seasoning before you startmaking some changes, which I
think it and now, being somebodywho has a little gray hair, uh,
(08:55):
I can I kind of understand that.
Uh, because sometimes peopledon't understand what those
ramifications are going to be,or unintended consequences, or
have you know, have seen thisparticular item being balloted
many times by many differentpeople and without success.
So there's just, you know, someconsiderations that need to be
(09:17):
made, and if I had to do it allover again, I probably would
have asked more questions earlyto avoid some complications.
But that just comes withexperience.
Kim Swanson (09:28):
So let's get into the meat of it.
Section 3.5 of the AASHTOAccreditation Program's
Procedure Manual is titledAdditional General Criteria,
which is super vague and givesyou really no idea what this
section is.
So why don't you tell us alittle bit about what this
section in the procedures manualreally is about and why it
(09:50):
exists?
Brian Johnson (09:52):
It has a lot of different stuff in it.
Some of it is good laboratorypractices, some of it is what I
would say falls under thecategory of just general
requirements of the program andsome of it is well, I guess it
(10:15):
should be really under personnelsome of it, and I think that
was one of the things that Itried to do in the later
revision.
I don't want to get too muchinto the later revision, but I
ended up trying to.
I totally blew this section upand some of this stuff just got
cut in the draft and some of itjust got consolidated under, you
(10:36):
know, personnel considerations,organizational considerations,
facility considerations.
So there's all kinds of stuffin here that we can talk about,
uh, but we're going to pickthrough here, uh, the best we
can and in in the fastest way wecan, which which for me it's
not very fast because I tend togo on, but Kim will cut me off,
right.
Kim Swanson (10:57):
Well, yes, and I do recommend listening to all of
our podcasts at a 1.25 speed orhigher.
So I just in general, that'show I listen to the podcast at
super speed.
So maybe this is an episode youshould try that on with.
I don't know.
Brian Johnson (11:13):
All right.
Now that's going to be in myhead and I'm going to be
thinking that I speak too slowly.
Kim Swanson (11:17):
No, just in general .
I do that for most things, soit's not just you.
Brian Johnson (11:22):
Okay, well, because you're editing too, so
you don't want to hear the samething at regular speed.
Kim Swanson (11:26):
Correct.
Brian Johnson (11:27):
That would really kill your productivity.
It really would that.
That being said, I did listento a draft of the last episode
we recorded and I don't knowwhat I I don't know if I was
already sick at that point, butI was speaking so slowly I don't
know what was going on.
But I'll try to avoid that thistime okay anyway.
(11:48):
Okay.
So section 3.5.1 this is justabout how an accredited
laboratory needs to notify usanytime they have any major
changes that might affect theiraccreditation within 60 days of
the change occurring.
That would be a change inownership, relocation, major
(12:10):
personnel changes, any otherfacilities or any other stuff
that might have affected whatthey can do.
Like, say, they all of a suddenlost a major piece of equipment
, went down, they don't performthat test anymore.
They should notify us within 60days so that we can keep the
directory up to date.
And if there are actions thatthey need to take that we're
(12:34):
aware of that they might not be,then we can say go ahead and do
that within the next 60 days.
That often happens with labrelocations.
I think that is the mostdominant item that comes into
play here.
But it can also be a change totheir technical director.
I think that happens a lot too.
Kim Swanson (12:54):
Yeah, another instance that I a lot too.
Yeah, another instance that Iwas thinking of as I'm kind of
skimming this as you're talkingabout it is if there was a
natural disaster and theirlaboratory just got like, you
know, a tornado came through ora hurricane or anything like
that comes through, then theyneed to let us know that they
(13:16):
are no longer operating andthings like that.
Correct.
Brian Johnson (13:21):
That's a great point and that happened recently
.
There was a really horribledisaster that happened in the
East Coast where there was ahurricane that rolled through in
mountainous regions of the EastCoast, particularly the
Asheville North Carolina area,some areas in Tennessee that got
absolutely devastated.
And you know, there are timeswhen there's news that we see
(13:47):
and we say, oh boy, you know, wehope that those people are okay
, maybe somebody should check inon them.
And a lot of times they'llreach out to us or we'll reach
out to them in those kind areokay, maybe somebody should
check in on them.
And a lot of times they'llreach out to us or we'll reach
out to them in those kinds ofsituations and then we have to
figure out okay, were theyaffected?
How badly were they affected?
What do we need to do in thissituation?
And we do try to be as lenientas we can when somebody is
(14:10):
dealing with a devastatingsituation like that, where we
wouldn't just say okay, sorrythat your building is gone and
that all your people who workthere were affected in such a
drastic way.
Here's a 60-day deadline.
If you don't get back to us,we're going to suspend your
accreditation.
It's not really like that whenthere's a disaster.
(14:32):
But even in the case wherethere's a relocation, sometimes
there are complications thatcan't be helped.
But we do work with people andwe expect them to do their best
to get back up and running.
Try to identify any changesthat took place that we need to
reflect on the directory and getit up to date so that when they
(14:53):
do bid on projects that it canbe accurate.
Kim Swanson (14:57):
So what are the ramifications?
I heard you say you know like,so we don't suspend.
You know like, in a disasterwe're not necessarily going to
suspend right away, but is thatthe ramifications for not
letting the AshevilleAccreditation Program know of
these major changes?
For any of these things thatwe're going to talk about today,
(15:19):
what are the ramifications?
Brian Johnson (15:22):
Yeah, and I don't want to give the idea that we
don't suspend at all.
I'm saying if there is a tragedy, we're not going to try to pile
on by also suspending youraccreditation while you're
trying to get back on your feet.
But, that being said, if youare just saying, ok, we don't
know when we're going to operate, we might put the accreditation
(15:42):
in suspension until you areoperating again, so that it
doesn't go Because our normalprocess is OK, you didn't comply
with this, you get suspended,and then you have 30 days and if
you don't do that, you getrevoked and you're starting over
.
Sometimes, when people are like, hey, listen, there's a
long-term thing.
Can you just leave us insuspension until we're ready to
start work again?
While we get all this figuredout and maybe it takes longer
(16:04):
than the normal amount of timethat can be okay, given that you
know communicate with us, letus know what's going on and
we'll work it out.
But yeah, if in normalsituations, if people don't
notify us about things, it couldlead to a suspension and then,
ultimately, revocation.
Kim Swanson (16:22):
Is there anything else on 3.5.1 that we want to
talk about?
Brian Johnson (16:28):
I think that's the biggest one.
I mean, there's a lot in there.
But the other thing is likeownership change.
So if one thing we've beenseeing is a consolidation of
some of these smaller companiesinto larger companies and we do
want to know about that as soonas possible, and you really want
to tell us as soon as possiblebecause business is still going
on Right.
(16:48):
So you may be applying for acontract or bidding on a
contract.
You may be applying for acontract or bidding on a
contract.
You just acquired this companyand in order to be awarded the
contract, they need to know whoyou are.
So we want to be able to helpyou by properly identifying your
company so that when thatspecifying agency looks on the
(17:10):
directory for you, they canactually find you.
So it's not just a matter ofconformance.
There's a good reason, a goodbusiness reason, for you telling
us this information and usgetting it right, gotcha.
So I think that's all I wantedto say about 351.
That's the biggest one, so it'snot going to be like this for
all of them, okay.
So next one we're going to talkabout is 352.
(17:33):
It just says that thelaboratory's functional
organization shall be consistentwith that reported by the
laboratory and appear to beadequate to support their
testing capabilities.
So there's a couple thingsthere.
Kim Swanson (17:45):
Okay.
Brian Johnson (17:46):
Laboratories.
A lot of times, you know, foran annual review, for example,
we ask the laboratory to send usan org chart showing you know
who works there and who theirtechnical director is.
And let's say, we perform anassessment there and we go and
none of those people are there,or the person who said that that
you know they listed this oneperson as a technical director.
They're not there anymore.
(18:08):
Okay, well, you need to updateyour org chart, so there's an
issue there.
The other thing is they may say, well, we have two field techs.
And you go there and you say,oh well, wow, you know, that
seems like not very many fieldtechnicians for the size of this
laboratory.
And then we find out that theyactually have 30 field
(18:34):
technicians, but they onlywanted to list two because they
were the only certified peopleand they were trying to hide
that.
So that happens too.
But we also want to make surethat the and this is a tricky
one Some of these things arethings that we're not going to
be able to adequately assess orevaluate, but they are
(18:54):
expectations, like thelaboratory, when they get
accredited, they need to say Iwill adhere to these right?
So, like we usually have them,agree to these terms in 3.5
before they like, when they'refilling out their initial
accreditation request form andduring the annual review,
because I'm not really going tobe able to tell if it's
appropriate or adequate tosupport their testing
(19:17):
capabilities.
I'm going to have an idea basedon how many samples are laying
around, but I don't know whattheir customers' expectations
are for turnaround.
I don't know if some of theseare just being retained in case
there's a problem later.
You could find out by askingquestions.
But really it's going to behard for somebody who's there
for two days once every two tothree years to judge properly
(19:38):
whether the staffing isappropriate.
That makes sense Makes senseyeah definitely makes sense.
All right.
In line with that 353,interviews with supervisory and
technical staff membersresponsible for performing tests
shall indicate that thedocumented practices for
training and assuring competencyare consistent with actual
(19:59):
laboratory practice.
What does that sound like toyou?
Are you following?
Kim Swanson (20:04):
I'm following you.
It sounds very similar to theone above it, but this is where
not just the it's what they say,like it's that they're saying
what they're doing and doingwhat they're saying, kind of
thing.
Brian Johnson (20:18):
That's right.
That's right.
And that's when it comes totraining stuff and evaluating
competency.
And this one actually isauditable.
Because if I am at, let's say,I'm the assessor, I'm at the
laboratory, I'm looking attraining records and I see that
everybody's been trained for thework that they're doing.
And then I watch somebody runthe test and they have no idea
(20:39):
what they're doing and I say,well, this doesn't seem right.
Kim Swanson (20:43):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (20:44):
Hey technician, when did you get trained on that
?
Oh, I've never been trained onthis.
This is the first time I'veever used this equipment.
And then I look at the recordand I say, boy, that's funny,
Because according to this, youwere trained last week on it and
it was like, well, I wouldn'tdo that to the technician
because that would probablyscare them.
Kim Swanson (21:03):
Yes.
Brian Johnson (21:03):
But I would be taking note of that.
That would probably scare them,but I would be taking note of
that and I'd go back to whoeversigned off on that and say can
you please explain what happenedthere?
Kim Swanson (21:13):
Question then would that result in the assessment
report being two separatenonconformities, one for the
actual issue that they weren'ttrained, but then another for
the app procedures manual, or no?
Can you not get a nonconformityon the app procedures manual?
Brian Johnson (21:32):
No, you can definitely get a nonconformity
on the app procedures manual.
This could be a couple ofdifferent things.
First of all, you definitelyget the nonconformities related
to the poor performance of thedemonstration of the test.
The next thing would depend onwhat the actual problem was.
So let's say I asked the personwho made up the record.
(21:52):
I say, hey, you know, you havethis record here that said that
you trained the technician lastweek.
What happened?
They said well, this is how wedo it.
We say on this day you're goingto read through all the
standards and we consider thatto be training.
I know you're making a face.
Kim Swanson (22:13):
For people who are not watching on YouTube.
I definitely made a face atthat.
Brian Johnson (22:17):
Yeah, you're making a face, but this happens.
This happens so a lot of times.
When people write a procedureabout how to train people, it
starts with have the technicianread the standard, but then it
it should.
Step two is show them.
Show them how to do it Right.
Kim Swanson (22:35):
Yes, I'm like that's a fine first step, but
there can't be the last stepunless it's a very simple
standard.
Brian Johnson (22:43):
Yeah, we've had people talk to us about you know
you really have to define whattraining is and I think, well,
that's kind of the dictionarydefinition of training, right?
Kim Swanson (22:51):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (22:51):
You're teaching somebody how to do something, so
people get creative as to howthey would like to define that
and I would say it's not veryeffective training to just say
read this and figure it out.
That's not real training.
But people do it becausethey're trying to go quickly and
they don't have time andthey're under stress.
(23:14):
So that's a different findingright.
Kim Swanson (23:16):
Yeah, yeah.
Brian Johnson (23:17):
That's a much different finding than you
completely made all theserecords up, gotcha Right, gotcha
Right.
So completely, completely maderecords up as falsification
could lead to revocation,refusal of service, all of these
severe consequences.
But did a bad job.
Training is just.
You need to make someimprovements here, like you have
(23:38):
to seriously train people.
Yeah.
Kim Swanson (23:41):
Well, I mean quickly I can see where, if you
have a really seasonedtechnician who has been doing it
for years, maybe training, justreading, it is enough.
But uh, but yeah, maybe not foreveryone.
Brian Johnson (23:53):
That's.
That's something that comes upthere's.
There is something in in the inR18 about training that says
you know, if somebody comes inwith prior experience, you can
just evaluate their competency.
Kim Swanson (24:05):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (24:06):
But that's still a thing.
That is still a thing you aredoing.
Yes, to ensure that that personknows what they're doing.
Now you're paying this personto perform the test according to
the standard.
Your company name is on there.
You're probably signing off onit.
You want to make sure they'redoing it correctly, right?
Kim Swanson (24:25):
Yeah, for sure.
Yeah, seems obvious.
Brian Johnson (24:26):
Yeah, seems obvious.
Kim Swanson (24:27):
Yeah.
Brian Johnson (24:28):
So take the time to do it.
You don't have to spend foreveron it, but you need to do it.
Anyway, that was a tangent thatwas a tangent and I apologize I
contributed to that tangent andI apologize.
That's quite all right.
That's quite all right.
Okay, now let's move on to thenext one Laboratory Right,
that's quite all right.
Okay, now let's let's move onto the next one.
Laboratory operations shall notbe impaired by management
(24:48):
problems.
Wouldn't we all like to say weare not impaired by management
problems?
Right?
Everybody listening to thiswould like to say that, but we
can't all say that all the time.
Now, this is one that I wouldsay is very hard to include in a
report.
Yeah it would have to be apretty severe case yeah for us
(25:09):
to say, to conclude, after twodays or however long they're
there that they are somehowimpaired by management problems.
I have gotten, as when I was anassessor, I was very close to
writing this really a few places.
Yes, because they were clearlyimpaired by management problems,
but that wasn't all that theywere impaired by, so it would be
hard for me to isolate that tostrictly management.
Kim Swanson (25:32):
How are we defining management problems, like
impaired, like that seems verysubjective, like you were saying
it's totally subjective.
So how do we define that andhow do we make sure that
laboratories, laboratories whoagree to this, and you know are
meeting our intent of this is avery.
Brian Johnson (25:51):
This is a very difficult one and it I like it
being in there.
I always like things being inour back pocket in case we need
to, in case we need to use them.
Because if you, if you run intoa situation where we say, okay,
let's say I go to a laboratorywhere the management has totally
run this place into the groundand there is no doubt that
(26:13):
that's what's going on, what doI write the technician?
You know, I could.
I could just write thetechnician didn't do things the
right way, equipment wasn'tcalibrated doesn't really tell
the story.
Yeah, somehow there's some likemanagement has got to be called
out, somehow, I think yeah but.
Kim Swanson (26:30):
I see, I see your point, but then I also on the on
the other side of it.
If it's that impaired, it'sgoing to show up everywhere else
too, so that it does yeah, soit's not going to be the only
thing that, uh, you're going toget a non-conformity on.
Brian Johnson (26:42):
If that's the case, I'm assuming- and really
if, if you have an organizationthat cares, somebody above that
manager is going to be readingthese reports and say this can't
be normal right, yeah.
And they'll probably talk totheir friends in the industry
and say, is it normal to get 130nonconformities on your
(27:02):
assessment report?
And they'll say, no, that isnot normal.
We don't get anything like that.
Um, I, I do.
I don't want to get into detailson exactly what happened,
because whoever it is, ifthey're listening, will know
it's their lab.
But I was at a lab that wasdefinitely impaired by
management problems.
Uh, there was, there was a, aclear lack of care, uh, by
(27:24):
management, because when anytime and this happened several
times during the assessment thatthe technician or supervisor
went to management to askquestions or get help or say can
we please replace broken downequipment or make tiny changes
(27:44):
to make things better, theanswer was always no, no, no, no
.
And some of these we don't getinto safety, but some of them
were clearly safety issues andif it cost anything, the answer
was no.
So to me and otherwise, noengagement from said manager,
(28:10):
from said manager.
So I would say, in that case,while my again, I'm there for a
couple days over two to threeyears span.
Yeah, interviews with staffobservations indicated there was
a problem with management there.
Yeah, um, however, I don't knowall the extenuating
circumstances, so you, youdidn't end up writing it.
Kim Swanson (28:26):
I didn't end up writing it, I didn't I was very.
Brian Johnson (28:28):
That's the closest I ever got to it.
I don't think I ever actuallywrote that yeah so maybe it
doesn't need to be in there,because I, I was, I was on the
edge, yeah anyway, something tothink about future, future
improvement about it maybe maybe, maybe the ballot will have
something about that or it wouldbe worded differently.
Next one also touches onmanagement.
(28:49):
Laboratory asked thatmanagerial staff with the
authority and resources neededto discharge their duties.
That may have been a problem.
So let's say I wrote up theywere impaired by management
problem and manager says it'snot that.
I have problems, it's that Idon't have the resources or the
authority I need.
So then the problem goes up thechain or up the chain, and
(29:11):
maybe that person doesn't careeither.
I don't know.
See, this is where it getsdifficult.
It does it really?
Kim Swanson (29:16):
does when you're trying to.
Brian Johnson (29:22):
you really want to see people embrace continual
improvement, right.
But if they don't want to do it, it's very hard and eventually
you hope that they just kind ofeither improve or leave the
program because they reallyshouldn't be accredited if they
really don't want to get anybetter.
Other ones laboratory mischiefmaintain ratio supervisory to
non-supervisory personnel whichensures adequate supervision.
Very hard for anybody to tellif that's correct or not, even
(29:45):
if you see issues.
Hard to tell.
So that one I don't love, eventhough I mean I love the concept
, but very hard to enforce.
Another one laboratories shallprovide effective separation
between neighboring testingareas which are incompatible
which are incompatible.
Kim Swanson (30:05):
So for that, is that another laboratory like a
different business, or is itjust like I have my aggregate
testing in this room and myconcrete testing in that room,
or whatever?
Brian Johnson (30:19):
I made those up because I don't know, yeah, and
I don't really know what was inmind with that particular line.
I can think of a couplescenarios in which the one type
of testing could negativelyimpact the other type of testing
, like if there were temperaturecontrol issues, if there were
vibration issues.
Kim Swanson (30:39):
Yeah, that's what I was thinking of.
Brian Johnson (30:45):
The Proctor hammer going and messing up a
balance or something.
I think that's the best exampleand messing up a balance or
something.
I think that's the best example.
So if I had a hydrometer a soilhydrometer on a bench top that
was getting vibrated by either amechanical shaker, a compaction
device of some kind, or everytime a compression machine would
(31:05):
break a cylinder, it rattlesthe whole laboratory and affects
the hydrometer readings.
Something like that might bewhat was intended there, but I
think that would be.
I don't know that anybody'sever written that one up.
Usually people know enough notto do that, but I guess
anything's possible.
I know anything's possiblebased on my experience.
Kim Swanson (31:30):
Well, I think this is going to have to be a
two-parter, brian, because Ifeel like this is so much stuff
and we are only at 3.5.7 orsomething right now, so I think
this might be a good time to endand we'll pick up the rest of
it in part two.
What do you think?
Brian Johnson (31:47):
I think that's good.
As usual, I've gone on too long.
Kim Swanson (31:51):
Well, I think I didn't help the matter at all
anyway, but before we go, I dowant to let people know about
the 2025 Actual ResourceTechnical Exchange happening
March 17th through the 20th inBellevue, washington, and, as of
the recording of this episode,we do have a draft agenda and
some registration information onour website and you can find
(32:14):
that at ashtoresourceorg slashevents.
Thanks for listening to AASHTOResource Q&A.
If you'd like to be a guest orjust submit a question, send us
an email at podcast atashtoresourceorg or call Brian
at 240-436-4820.
For other news and relatedcontent, check out AASHTO
(32:36):
Resources social media accountsor go to ashtoresourceorg.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.