This section introduces quality management as it applies to the management, practice, and delivery of forensic science. Its purpose is to ensure that all readers have a common understanding of the following: what forensic science is; what a forensic scientist does; the fundamental concepts and terms of quality management and metrology; and, in addition, to recognize the existence and potential effects of cognitive bias. Key terms such as “quality,” “standard,” and “science” are defined and explained, and the requirement for competence and validity are discussed.

In this section, the standards that constitute the quality standards framework that supports the management, delivery, and practice of forensic science is specified and described. A hierarchical model is proposed with International Standards at the highest level and procedural standards at the lowest. The scope, interpretation, and application of each standard are described and the structure set out. Strengths, weaknesses, and relationships are identified and discussed. The quality standards landscape is found to be crowded with consequent redundancy and unnecessary complexity, which puts at risk the quality of forensic science provided. Nevertheless, a model quality standards framework work is suggested.

In this section, organizations exercising responsibility for quality management in forensic science are cataloged according to function: standards development, accreditation, regulation, and networking. Their aims, objectives, governance, funding, interrelationships, and relevance to quality management are explored.

In this section, the genesis of quality management in forensic science is discussed and development charted. Events that directly led to the adoption of quality standards and eventual conformance with the international standard ISO/IEC 17025 “General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” from the late 1990's onward and more recently ISO/IEC 17020 “Requirements for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection” are described. In Europe, quality control and quality assurance were established in forensic science laboratories in the early 1990s in compliance with national standards based on ISO/IEC Guide 25 “General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories”. In the United States, discipline-specific working groups began to contribute to quality standards' development from the late 1980s onward. However, it was a combination of miscarriages of justice, poor performance, and the advent of DNA-based evidence that identified the need for quality standards and contributed to the development of the quality management systems in place today. This section examines each of those contributory factors and the response of forensic science stakeholders and charts the development and introduction of the major quality standards, particularly ISO/IEC 17025.

In this section quality management as it applies to the practice of the disciplines that collectively constitute forensic science is discussed. Standards applying to all of the major and some of minor disciplines are introduced. The section also introduces and develops some key concepts of forensic science as a method of enquiry such as categorical opinions and cognitive bias. The disciplines are divided as follows: DNA typing and other feature-comparison disciplines, forensic chemistry, forensic biology, and crime scene examination. In addition to being considered by discipline the standards are considered by region: Australasia, Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The quality standards framework varies considerably by discipline, region, and in extent. It is concluded that the variation observed works against the twin objectives of standardization and harmonization. Furthermore, variation increases the difficulty of conformity assessment with the consequent risk to quality.

This section catalogues and discusses current issues that are the challenges and risks to the quality of forensic science. The issues are classified as external and internal. Among the external issues are the impact of politics and economics and the use of Bayesian reasoning in the practice of forensic science. Among the internal issues is the risk to independence by the relationship between providers and certain stakeholders. Fragmentation in quality standards frameworks, the impact of scientific and technological developments, transparency, and streamlined forensic reporting are also discussed.

This section aims to accurately describe how quality management in forensic science currently [December 2017] operates in practice. The application of ISO/IEC 17020 and ISO/IEC 17020 to the management, practice, and delivery of forensic science, introduced in Section 3, is explored in more detail. The structure and some detail of a documented quality management system are presented, together with a structure for methods and procedures. The route to accreditation is described. Flexible scope accreditation, as a means of addressing the issue of novel evidential materials, is introduced and its limits discussed. Finally, an example of the impact of quality failures is described.