RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes

Subject: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
From: "Pete Sanborn" <psanborn2 -at- earthlink -dot- net>
To: "TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 09:44:56 -0500

Scott wrote:
"Yeah, they met their own low standards."

Couldn't have said it better, Scott. This is exactly the point that Andrew
and I have been trying to make about ISO 900X, it is not and never will be a
guarantee of quality workmanship. It is simply a labor-intensive "standard"
that requires you to follow your written processes, IF you have them.

ISO has become a moving target (better opportunity to employ more auditors)
by trying to change the standard from the 900X series to a 1400X "catchall"
series. The more you keep the target moving, the longer it takes for people
to find out that the target maker doesn't have a clue.

Each of us defines quality differently. When I do a lousy job of
documenting something because I felt lazy, I know I did a lousy job. When
someone else defines a standard for me, if that standard is below the level
I set for myself, I can meet it without any trouble, but I know I am not
producing work that is up to my best level. ISO, in essence, gives us
permission to achieve their standard level and ignore a higher standard
level we might set for ourselves.

Regards,
Pete Sanborn

-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
[mailto:bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com]On Behalf Of
quills -at- airmail -dot- net
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:23 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes


At 7:46 PM -0600 11/5/01, Earl Cooley wrote:
>Pete Sanborn wrote:
>> Steve Hudson wrote:
>>> "ISO9001 was the end-result of a large number of large companies
>>> seeking to improve their processes through consistant application
>>> of solid principles."
>>
>> Sorry, Steve, I have to jump in on this one. ISO, if you carefully
>> read their standards, is not and never has been, nor will it ever be
>> a guarantee of quality products (or documentation). Boiled down to
>> bare bones, ISO simply states that IF you have a process, you must
>> follow it. Too many folks got on the bandwagon early and proclaimed
>> that ISO 900X would save the world from shoddy workmanship and crappy
>> products. In my experience, ISO doesn't even guarantee that you have
>> to follow your process if you have an escape clause for every process
>> that allows a supervisor or SME to sign a waiver for the process.
>
>I was shocked to discover that the tire manufacturing plant that was
>in the news a while back as responsible for the numerous car crashes
>turned out to be ISO 900x certified. <shudder>
>
>--


Yeah, they met their own low standards.

Scott



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,00 retailers. Join our almost
10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.

---
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
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.



References:
RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes: From: quills

Previous by Author: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
Next by Author: RE: POLL: A question of rhetoric (not a rhetorical question)
Previous by Thread: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
Next by Thread: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes


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


Sponsored Ads