TECHNET Archives

January 2002

TechNet@IPC.ORG

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Earl Moon <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
TechNet E-Mail Forum.
Date:
Tue, 1 Jan 2002 06:36:38 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
Brian and Edward,

I really appreciate your points of view. This is exactly the kind of
discussion for which I hoped as a primer for more technical type talks. I am
not taking a stance here or in my book - but to offer options to improve
product quality within an organization dedicated to DFM/CE, based on a
standard like ISO and the wisdom it offers some. There always will be
different interpretations and opinions as to how a valuable tool, or not,
should be used, how well it will be used, and the extent of its use.

While respecting your view points, I must say that in no way does ISO, much
as did MIL-STD-2000, tell an organization how something SHALL be done. It
simply says it SHALL be done. Therefore, an organization must say and do
that which is DEMANDED, or not be registered. I does leave the "creative"
process up to the organization and those CLEARLY responsible for its
success, from first registration through all continuous process improvement
phases. No where does any ISO requirement say, as an example, you SHALL hang
SPC paper over each wall in your organization. It does say, based on NEED,
say what you do and do what you say.

My thesis in all this is simple. There always are better ways to do a job. I
believe it to be foolish if a good tool, or guideline, is supplied for
process and product improvement, and it is not recognized as such and put to
good use.

What I'm really looking for are some success or failure stories concerning
ISO 9000 as clear examples of what works or doesn't for whomever.
Specifically, I'm looking for these stories as they pertain to section 7.3
and its clearly stated requirements as the 20 or so shall statements. Again,
I'm not taking sides in a debate. I'm just trying to get the facts men,
women, and any other interested beings. Brian and Ed, I'm sure you have such
stories - beyond classic, or not literature - though I happen to be a
Shakespeare fan with a much more limited vocabulary. I think that's apparent.

Thanks again guys and, as always, appreciate your very valuable input to the
forum,

Earl

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technet 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 Technet
To temporarily halt delivery of Technet send the following message: SET Technet 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2