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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------