Posting for Jack Crawford

There are several issues related to the use of any standard.

1. Do all the users understand the requirements in the same way? 2. Do
all the users view the workpiece in the same way and separate the =
critical elements as they relate to the particular product and end-use =
environment?

Regarding issue 1; IPC staff by policy is not permitted to interpret the
= requirements of a standard or referee disputes on application of a =
standard. We regularly help users find the appropriate standard and =
specific clause and help them read the words, guiding them to reach
their = own understanding. When it just isn't possible to reach
agreement between = users, the issue is deferred to the leader of the
specific task group or = committee that developed the standard for
official interpretation of the = committees intent.

Sometimes the leader is willing to offer recommendation on whether =
something is acceptable or not, but it's important to remember that
these = leaders are your peers in the industry, maybe even your
competitors. There = are a number of consultants that will defend a
position (for a fee), based = on experience and technical understanding
of issues. Most of these = consultants require a signed release from
liability in the event of = subsequent failure and/or loss. That
protects them in the chance that they = were provided incomplete or
incorrect information to make their decision/re= commendation.

Regarding issue 2; this is an ongoing problem; fairly well understood. =
Numerous "tests" have been done where the same workpiece was reviewed to
= the same standard by a number of different inspectors and the
resultant = assessments are truly amazing in the variances they see. The
term "inspect = to accept" is widely used; when a potential/real anomaly
is identified, = the user and supplier have to relate that to the
end-use environment in = determining disposition. That would include an
assessment of reliability = impact through rework/repair operations,
cost of doing such repairs, and = criticality of failure.

The IPC Consultant's Council is a good source for arbitration support
and = process improvement. You can see a matrix to help you locate
support at = http://www.ipc.org/html/consultants.htm=20 

Let me know OFFLINE [log in to unmask] if you have further questions.

Cordially
Jack

APEX 2003 - the industry's premier trade show in Electronics
Manufacturing, March 31-April 2, 2003, Anaheim, California. More
information on website www.goapex.org 
--------
Jack Crawford, IPC Director of Assembly Standards and Technology 2215
Sanders Road, Northbrook IL  60062-6135 [log in to unmask] 
847-790-5393
fax 847-504-2393

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DesignerCouncil Mail List provided as a free service by IPC using LISTSERV 1.8d
To unsubscribe, send a message to [log in to unmask] with following text in
the BODY (NOT the subject field): SIGNOFF DesignerCouncil.
To set a vacation stop for delivery of DesignerCouncil send: SET DesignerCouncil NOMAIL
Search previous postings at: www.ipc.org > On-Line Resources & Databases > E-mail Archives
Please visit IPC web site http://www.ipc.org/html/forum.htm for additional
information, or contact Keach Sasamori at [log in to unmask] or 847-509-9700 ext.5315
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------