Re: Quality docs (was Re value etc)

Subject: Re: Quality docs (was Re value etc)
From: edunn -at- transport -dot- bombardier -dot- com
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:18:30 -0500

>>Basically he said that most people didn't understand the issue. He
>>said there were standards for hardness of steel etc but that ISO9000
>>(the thing everyone had to have!) wasn't about quality at all but was a
>>Management System that dealt with consistency.

And consistency is the point of most (all) processes.
If a company is ISO9000 you can be certain that if you order 10,000 parts from
them all will be of the same quality as the 100 or so that you bothered to
inspect. Otherwise, the few FAI (first article inspection) products may have
been flukes or forgeries. Or if after FAI you start receiving junk from your
supplier they should be able to document why those examples were defective.
Also, in order to improve one's product, producing crap consistently gives you a
base from which to improve. Producing a percentage of high quality products
without being able to document the differences between the good and the bad just
leads to waste and the continued production of junk (or percentage of junk).
I think another supporting argument is that sometimes it's not as important to
see that the bit of paper was signed by a certain QA inspector than it is to
findout that the part is defective because it skipped that step in the process.

Eric L. Dunn

Develop HTML-based Help with Macromedia Dreamweaver! (STC Discount.)
**NEW DATE/LOCATION!** January 16-17, 2001, New York, NY. or 800-646-9989.

Sponsored by SOLUTIONS, Conferences and Seminars for Communicators
Publications Management Clinic, TECH*COMM 2001 Conference, and more or 800-448-4230

You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Previous by Author: Re: "Chapter" vs "Appendix"
Next by Author: RE: Word up
Previous by Thread: Re: Quality docs (was Re value etc)
Next by Thread: Summary of UK Style Guides

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads