excellent point for reproducability. It is crisis currently in
science right now... (see below). Hopefully, test method will keep
its well known reputation (rooted in Bellcore days with IBM,
Motorola, etc contribution) not become a equipment vendor's marketing
scheme (not mind some of them if they are good, but sometimes, it is
something else... just like the foot print of components... off topic
here).
Good luck.
jk
New complimentary webinar from Science:
Reproducibility in crisis: Sample quality and the importance of early
and ongoing analysis
You are invited to hear our panel of experts on March 14, 2018, in
this live, online educational seminar. For more information and
complimentary registration visit: webinar.sciencemag.org
Date: Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Time: 12 noon Eastern, 9 a.m. Pacific, 4 p.m. UK, 5 p.m. Central Europe
Duration: 1 hour

About This Webinar
There is a reproducibility crisis occurring in the life sciences that
impacts all researchers, influencing the collection, analysis, and
interpretation of their data. Recent surveys have shown that more
than half of researchers struggle to reproduce not only the results
of their fellow scientists, but their own experimental data as well.
Irreproducible or questionable data can result in time-consuming,
costly repetition of studies and, in some cases, misinterpreted or
incorrect conclusions. One root cause of irreproducible results is a
lack of understanding of the importance of sample quality. Running
proper controls for sample quality is a necessary step in reducing
questionable results, but this is often overlooked because of limited
test material, lack of a convenient, comprehensive test, or pressure
to meet rigorous deadlines. In this presentation, two experts will
discuss the importance of understanding and monitoring sample
quality, and how this can result in higher quality and more
efficient, cost-effective research.
During the webinar, viewers will learn about:
• The impact of the reproducibility crisis on the scientific
community and other vested parties
• Technologies that can easily be implemented into protein
purification or characterization workflows to quickly analyze sample
quality
• The use of high-resolution crystallography methods to decipher
protein structure and regulatory functions
• The need to identify criteria and standards required to improve
drug development and reduce the number of failed experiments.
Viewers can submit their questions to the panel during the live
broadcast!
Participants:
John P.A. Ioannidis, M.D., D.Sc.
Stanford University
Stanford, CA
Gregor Witte, Ph.D.
Ludwig Maximillian Universität
Munich, Germany
On Mar 8, 2018, at 8:49 PM, Joe Russeau wrote:
> Richard,
>
> You are correct that there are some methods in the TM-650 that
> contain N/A. I should have said "most" of the methods have an
> Originating Task Group (OTG). 7-11 went through the methods manual
> about six years ago to clean it up and to determine what methods
> still had active task groups and who owned what method. The
> purpose was to place all methods on a 5 year review cycle. Many of
> the methods were from the 70's, 80's and 90's and had not been
> reviewed for several decades. Some of the methods were orphaned,
> which meant that the OTG was no longer active. In those instances
> we tried to find task groups to adopt them whose activities were
> closely aligned with the orphaned method. Some methods were
> archived because we couldn't find any group to take them on and
> they were not called out in any IPC spec. Some methods were
> cancelled because they were no longer being used by industry and
> weren't called out in any IPC spec.
>
> Anyway, that is probably more information than most of you are
> wanting to know but since the methods are used frequently
> throughout the entire industry, it's probably not a bad update for
> everyone. Thank you for keeping me straight Richard!
>
> On a different note, I want to do a plug for 7-11 to encourage all
> of you to join the task group. As of this APEX we finished our 5
> year review of what we call the Method Development Packet (MDP).
> Five years ago we decided to take IPC methods to a higher level by
> requiring any group that submitted a quantitative method to go
> through a Gauge R&R to validate that the method met its intended
> purpose. We have been able to implement the MDP on a few occasions
> and one of the major lessons in doing that is that 7-11 doesn't
> always have the appropriate expertise to review all the variety of
> methods we receive. So we need a wider base of experts to help us
> address when methods come to us that we don't have folks on hand
> that understand its use or intent. That all said, if you would be
> interested in joining 7-11 to help us do data and method review, it
> would be greatly appreciated. This means you Richard.... You
> would be a good one with your wide ranging experience and your
> attention to detail. In fact, there are several good ones on
> TechNet that would be great for helping 7-11.
>
> Getting good data is critical as you all know and you can't get
> good data with poor methods. I hope all of you will consider this
> opportunity to engage in an area that could use your help,
> experience and knowledge.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Joe Russeau
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Stadem, Richard D
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 11:59 AM
> To: [log in to unmask] ; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>
> Thanks, Joe, for that information, but "Each of the methods have an
> originating task group defined in the upper right hand corner of
> the method" is not quite true!
> Within the TMs themselves the originating task group on most of
> them is described as "N/A".
> Therein lies the problem, and thus the reason I stated to direct
> any questions to the "gatekeeper".
> Each TM should have SOME task group defined, in order to direct
> questions such as Victor's to the correct task group.
> Very few of the TMs actually have anything other than "N/A".
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask]
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:34 AM
> To: Stadem, Richard D; [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>
> As I am the chair of the 7-11 Test Methods SC, let me state for the
> record that our group is merely the gatekeeper for the TM-650
> methods manual.
> Methods are submitted by various task groups for our review and
> subsequent adoption into the methods manual. Each of the methods
> have an originating task group defined in the upper right hand
> corner of the method. Whoever is defined in that section is the
> owner of a given method.
>
> If I understand Victors question, he wants to know why the methods
> don't reference a particular standard. The test methods only
> define a procedure for how to conduct a specific test. Sometimes
> methods are called out or are referenced by a standard, but not
> always. There are a lot of test methods that aren't called out in
> IPC standards, but are still relevant for evaluating different
> aspects of printed board and assembly production.
> Methods themselves are not standards and therefore do not call out
> specific pass / fail criteria. Usually such criteria, assuming a
> method is called out in a spec, can only be found in the spec.
>
> As to your specific method references below, you can find them here:
> http://www.ipc.org/test-methods.aspx
>
> 2.1.1 is owned by 7-12 Microsectioning SC, the current chair of
> this group is Russ Shepherd, NTS Anaheim
>
> 2.1.1.2A is a cancelled method because it either is no longer
> called in a spec or the Originating Task Group requested it be
> cancelled. D-33a owns this method.
>
> 2.6.8 is owned by D-33a Rigid Printed Board Performance TG,
> currently co-chaired by Randy Reed, Reed Consultancy, LLC and Mark
> Buechner, BAE Systems
>
> I would encourage you to contact these gents if you have specific
> questions / concerns about the methods you reference. I know the
> men listed and they're all good eggs and knowledgeable on the
> subject matter.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Joe Russeau
> Process Analyst
>
> Precision Analytical Laboratory, Inc.
> 329 E. Firmin Street
> Kokomo, IN 46902
>
> P: (765) 252-3970
> F: (765) 252-3971
> C: (765) 210-0953
> E: [log in to unmask]
>
> Visit us on the web at www.precisionanalysts.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stadem, Richard D
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 10:23 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>
> Yes. On all standards, there is a committee listed. In the
> introduction.
> For TM650, that group is identified as the Test Methods Subcommittee.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 8:50 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]; Stadem, Richard D
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: RE: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>
> Dell - Internal Use - Confidential
>
> Richard,
>
> Any idea who owns/responsible for TMs?
>
> Victor,
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Stadem, Richard D
> Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2018 8:31 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>
> There is a form on the next to last page of every single IPC
> standard........
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Douglas Pauls
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2018 7:53 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [TN] TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>
> Well Victor, if Technet cannot answer your question, your next step
> would be to pose the question to IPC Staff, such as John Perry, who
> is very involved with the IPC-6012 and associated board efforts.
> He can then direct your questions to the Leadership of A-600 for a
> response. That's what this old dinosaur would do....
>
>
> Doug Pauls
> Principal Materials and Process Engineer Rockwell Collins
>
> On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 7:49 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Fellow TechNetters:
>>
>> I did not receive responses to my initial inquiry. Therefore,
>> I post
>> once again. IMHO, Industry Standards are so convoluted that it
>> takes a
>> dinosaurs to interpret the documents much less draw correlation
>> between the documents.
>>
>> Victor,
>>
>> From: Hernandez, Victor G
>> Sent: Monday, March 5, 2018 12:37 PM
>> To: 'TechNet E-Mail Forum' <[log in to unmask]>
>> Cc: Hernandez, Victor G <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: TM-650-2.1.1; 2.1.1.2 & 2.6.8
>>
>> Fellow TechNetters:
>>
>> What is the purpose of IPC-A-600 (J) if this standard document is
>> not stated/mentioned/referenced in the above TMs.
>> 2.1.1 section 5.4.3 Quality Observations,
>> etc..............
>> 2.1.1.2 section 5.2.3 Evaluation, etc..........
>> 2.6.8 section 5.7.2 Examine for compliance,
>> etc.......
>>
>> Is there a separate document for NEW Laminate Qualification.
>>
>> Victor,
>>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
|
