Re: CE compliance testing in the UK
From: keith (krw_at_att.bizzzz)
Date: 02/13/05
- Next message: martin griffith: "Re: Was: CuCl etching"
- Previous message: Kevin: "Recommend 32.768KHz crystal for use with 16LF88 Timer1?"
- In reply to: Clarence_A: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Next in thread: nospam: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: nospam: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: Clarence_A: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:00:43 -0500
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 17:58:52 +0000, Clarence_A wrote:
>
> "keith" wrote
>> Rich Grise wrote:
>> > John Woodgate wrote:
> <snip>
>
>> It's government mandated stuff. Of course it's fluff.
>>
>> > I'm ISO9000 compliant, right now.
>>
>> I doubt it. DO you have the little certification sticker?
>
> Perhaps I should send him one! NBD!
>
>> > So, probably, are most of you.
>>
>> I am, but the way you talk here, I seriously doubt you are.
>>
>> > Certification is another matter - that's for the big-bucks
> anal-retentive
>> > bureaucrats.
>>
>> If you're not certified then you're not ISO 9K compliant. End
> of story.
>>
>> > Do what you say, say what you do, and meet the customer spec.
>>
>> Nope. You'd better study some more.
>>
>> > That's pretty much it.
>>
>> Nope. There is much more fluff to it than simply meeting the
> customer's
>> spec. In fact that's not even a part of it.
>> --
>> Keith
>
>
> I have been an ISO900 Auditor, and Rich has it right except for
> the need to pay the high fees for a certificate.
Nope. When ISO first came out I was involved in getting the processes
documentation set up. In fact we were the first site certified (first
company too, I believe) and my processes were the ones used in the
certification audit. The result of the processes didn't have high quality
though, since the project had been canceled before the audit, but audit it
we did.
> (And the regular
> audits.) But you are not going to get any recognition for doing
> it right, the credit only comes from jumping through hoops for a
> price. The entire ISO program is a waste of time and money.
> I have also written the documents for several companies, It is not
> at all difficult, just apply the common sense which is so rare
> now- days!
That's where he's wrong. I agree, it has nothing to do with quality,
rather setting up hoops and jumping through them. Sure, the ISO 9000
proces *can* be used to improve quality, but there is nothing inherent in
it that *does* produce product that is "defect free".
> Follow a few sound rules, be honest and as Rich says:
Proper quoting would be *so* much easier to read.
> "I did a not inconsiderable amount of research into this "ISO9000" stuff
> not too long ago. It turns out, it's primarily bureaucratic fluff. I'm
> ISO9000 compliant, right now. So, probably, are most of you.
> Certification is another matter - that's for the big-bucks
> anal-retentive bureaucrats. Do what you say, say what you do, and meet
> the customer spec. That's pretty much it."
>
> If you disagree, publish the ISO Requirement Documents which show what
> you are disputing! (I have read the requirements, except for the
> payment of fees, it isn't in there!)
GMAFB! The documents are all online for anyone who wants a tranqilizer.
Don't pull that "cite" crap. You can easily find it yourself.
Back to Rich; If he's not certified he's not "ISO 9000 compliant". End of
story.
Add to that the fact that ISO has nothing to do with delivering the
customer what they want or need, or the quality of the deliverables, in
fact. All that's needed is a documented process, documentation to show
that the process is followed, and a measurement system that is used to
refine the process (and a pule of money to pay for the certificate). ISO
is about processes, not quality. You can make 100% crap and be ISO
certified in good standing. The auditors are tickled pink as long as
the crap process is followed (and they get their cut).
The bottom line is that Rich is all wrong about ISO 9000. Well, except
the "fluff" part.
-- Keith
- Next message: martin griffith: "Re: Was: CuCl etching"
- Previous message: Kevin: "Recommend 32.768KHz crystal for use with 16LF88 Timer1?"
- In reply to: Clarence_A: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Next in thread: nospam: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: nospam: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Reply: Clarence_A: "Re: CE compliance testing in the UK"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
