 
| Received: |
by ipchq.com (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0sQFpb-0000GnC; Mon, 26 Jun 95 10:12 CDT |
| Content-Type: |
TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII |
| Old-Return-Path: |
<dammth> |
| Date: |
Mon, 26 Jun 1995 10:12:05 -0500 (CDT) |
| Precedence: |
list |
| Resent-From: |
|
| Message-ID: |
<Pine.3.89.9506261039.B43764-0100000@ipc> |
| MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
|
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"_NwIa3.0.4u9.9vixl"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| From [log in to unmask] Sat Apr 27 14: |
19:43 1996 |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Can anyone help with this request forwarded to us from NECAonline?
--------------------------------------------------------
I'm looking for information on what various companies are doing in terms of
SPC. Some of the things we are looking into are:
-software: canned vs. custom
-level of sophistication
-operator involvement and training
We have a group of engineers looking into standardizing an SPC format. What
approach are other companies taking? Gary
|
|
|
