AI and the Revised ISO/IEC 17024: What Certification Bodies Need to Know

This session highlights the key areas where AI may affect certification activities, including scheme development, assessment, remote proctoring, and complaints and appeals handling. Each of these touchpoints carries its own considerations under the updated standard, and certification bodies will want to understand where their current practices align and where they fall short.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping how certification programs design exams, manage candidate interactions, support assessment delivery, and make operational decisions. The revised ISO/IEC 17024 responds to this changing landscape with new requirements for the use and oversight of AI in personnel certification.

Attendees will learn what the ISO/IEC 17024 revision expects, where AI creates risks and opportunities across personnel certification, and how certification bodies can begin preparing for responsible implementation. The goal is practical readiness, not theory, so you leave with a clear sense of your next steps.

Presenter

Vijay Krishna, ANAB’s Vice President, Credentialing Programs

Vijay Krishna has served as an international consultant for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization and taught graduate-level courses at The George Washington University.

Who Should Attend

  • Certification and accreditation body staff
  • Scheme owners
  • Psychometricians
  • Exam developers
  • Testing service providers

Audience Questions

At the end of the webinar, questions were asked by the webinar’s attendees. These included:

  • Would we see one AI tool for each of these requirements or some combination of AIs?
  • You noted that this is the first ISO 17000 series stnadard to address AI. Are other ISO 17000 standard working groups formulating similar requirements? If so, is there a general timeline that these changes are anticiapted to roll out?
  • With AI being performed on cloud based systems, how can you ensure confidential data and or checklists are protected when using AI for auditing workflows?
  • How should certification bodies document evidence for the human oversight and monitoring?
  • How long is the course? Is each session one hour, for example?
  • When it comes to disclosing the use of AI, is it enough to refer generally to “AI” or is it better disclose something more specific? (i.e., what tool(s) were used?)
  • Would it be a good idea/ok for a CB to develop P&Ps to address AI use even if the CB doesn’t currently use AI … in this case the CB wouldn’t have “evidence” of implementing these P&Ps. I’m thinking ahead!
  • Regarding documented review, will it be required that a red line review of each item be needed or a general note in minutes or the item metadata that the item was reviewed by SME’s?
  • Thank you for presenting specifically AI. Can we create a foundational workflow diagram evidence for a schematic use of AI in certification?
  • Are commercial types of AI tools prohibited since the CB is not involved in how the model is trained and developed over time. If commercial AI tools are ok in some instances, any guidance on how CBs can still meet the standards when they are not involved in the building and training of the tool?
  • I might have missed the answer to this question, if you could please summarize the response I missed: How should certification bodies document evidence for the human oversight and monitoring?
  • What use it in Supplier audit?

EXPLORE MORE