ISO 9000-3 Digest Monday, 3 February 1997 Volume 01 : Number 036
In this issue:
Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
RE: Employed versus Unemployed.
Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
unsubscribe
Re[2]: QEs Out of Work -- Hah!!
Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
Q: iso 9000-3 next version status
Q: ISO SPICE status
BOUNCE iso9000-3@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Arnold Miller ] (fwd)
BOUNCE iso9000-3@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Arnold Miller ] (fwd)
Help in project. (fwd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Paquin, Sherolyn A."
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 13:22:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
>> If that is the case you should fire you quality engineers now, for
they
>> are not doing their job!
> Your point escapes me.
> Not to spawn a digression of a digression, but could you clarify?
Quality engineers should be working themselves out of a job. They should
be teaching the practitioners quality practices and helping to instill
quality practices into the culture. Once quality practices become
institutionalized, they are invisible because they are part of the normal
way business is done. Once this happens there is no further need for
quality engineers.
Sherry
WHEN QUALITY IS INVISIBLE, WE WILL HAVE WON!
************************************************************************
Sherry Paquin SAP01@MHS.Sperry-Marine.COM
Sperry Marine w: 804-974-2078
1070 Seminole Trail f: 804-974-2480
Charlottesville, VA 22901-2891
************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: quality@sedona.net (Lew Levenson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:23:15 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
Sherry's point about invisible quality might be clearer to alles das
qualitimensch if she had stated explicitly as *invisible to the customer.*
Quality engineers would then be assured that they would need to continue to
jobs, that they are in fact productive and worthwhile, and quality
discussions can return to discussions of how the misunderstood elements can
be smoked out and addressed. Even in Russia, or Japan, or USA, or ...
If that is not what she meant, I would like to get clarification as well.
Lew ...
>From: KSIZER@danriver.com
>
>
>
>
> > If that is the case you should fire you quality engineers now, for they
> > are not doing their job!
>
> Sherry,
>
> Your point escapes me.
> Not to spawn a digression of a digression, but could you clarify?
>
> --Ken
>
> // Kenneth B. Sizer, II
> // Software Engineer
> // Dan River, Inc.
>
>
>To remove yourself from this list, address a
>
------------------------------
From: quality@sedona.net (Lew Levenson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 12:41:00 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
[snip-]
>>> If you were paying attention on previous arguments you would understand why
>>> this new group arguments have lead in this direction. First I stated in
>>> Japan inefficiency has made this economy strong, which in direct conflict to
>>> what most ISO consultants would have you to believe. Inefficiency driving a
>>> growing economy; a wierd idea, but true.
>>[snip]
>>
Inefficiency is in the eye of the beholder. And is valid only in the
context of the culture. Parking lot attendants in one culture may be
inefficient, but in another it avoids the inefficiency of unemployment
compensation or social security.
>>
>>Inefficiency driving a growing economy makes perfectly good sense
>>to me, and well fits in with my sense of Japan is all about (you
>>have just stated it at last in a form that is really *clear and to the
>>point*).
>>
>>But I have one question: Are you claiming that Japanese do not
>>care about *quality* in the product?
>
>What they care about is the, bottom line, the all powerful ichi man en(Yen).
>Quality is on the list though; somewhere above pinching the secretaries ass
>daily.
>
[snip] everybody has their own bottom line, and it changes from situation to
situation. Even Midas (King Midas, that is) realized some qualities should
take precedence over some not-to-be-challenged bottom line.
>>
>>Further, whatever the Japanese do or don't do
>>(or some do and some don't),
>>are you asserting that socially productive inefficiency is
>>*incompatible* with producing *quality* products? I would think
>>that Japan is an example of the opposite: *both* socially
>>productive inefficiency *and* quality (ineed, the former
>>fostering the latter by applying more workers to a given task).
>
>If everyone was socially productively inefficient and produced *quality*
>products then this social inefficiency would make sense, but since the US
>doesn't have this social inefficiency then one of your questions comes back
>to haunt me, "Why didn't we do better after WWII?". Then this question
>leads to the question why aren't we doing better now? We are doing OK
>actually but if Japan is so inefficent with its workforce then why aren't we
>clobbering them in the global market?
>Dave grummer
Anybody done any objective and supportable studies that can isolate the
effect of higher quality as opposed to lower quality relative to the clobbering?
Regards,
Lew ...
------------------------------
From: Don Wagner
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 15:06:39 -0600
Subject: RE: Employed versus Unemployed.
>We are doing OK
>actually but if Japan is so inefficient with its workforce then why aren't we
>clobbering them in the global market?
>Dave grummer
It is easier to answer this question if you ever worked for a large (>
50,000 employees) American manufacturing company (I did for almost 20
years). The Japanese may be inefficient (I can't say); however. from my
own experience, I can say that the "Toyotas" of America are both
inefficient and ineffective. You can get away with being inefficient if
you are effective, but not the other way around.
Don E. Wagner
donw@4cs.com
(309) 755-0199 Ext 140
(309) 755-3099 FAX
http://www.4cs.com
A small advance every day
will eventually total
much less than a big advance every
day.
>
------------------------------
From: quality@sedona.net (Lew Levenson)
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 14:20:00 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
>From: "Paquin, Sherolyn A."
>
>>> If that is the case you should fire you quality engineers now, for
>they
>>> are not doing their job!
>
>> Your point escapes me.
>> Not to spawn a digression of a digression, but could you clarify?
>
>Quality engineers should be working themselves out of a job. They should
>be teaching the practitioners quality practices and helping to instill
>quality practices into the culture. Once quality practices become
>institutionalized, they are invisible because they are part of the normal
>way business is done. Once this happens there is no further need for
>quality engineers.
>
>Sherry
>
> WHEN QUALITY IS INVISIBLE, WE WILL HAVE WON!
It's a bit much to hope for that quality practices will infect that portion
of any society that lives off the weaknesses and inadequacies of others,
that the excitement of youth that encourages learning the lessons of
history, that the new quality-infused culture implicit above will ensure
that there are no unwanted pregnancies, that no child is ever abused, that
no one *different* is abused, that the new president taking over the company
is fully qualified, not just in their daddy's eyes, that drugs, alcohol,
greed, do not cloud decisions, ... and all this could last for just the one
moment in time that may yet come to pass to prove our human society is
capable of reaching that goal!!
In the meantime there is a lot of work for us to focus on to get us closer
to that or any other dream.
Is 9000-3 really helpful to practitioners??
Lew
>
>************************************************************************
> Sherry Paquin SAP01@MHS.Sperry-Marine.COM
> Sperry Marine w: 804-974-2078
> 1070 Seminole Trail f: 804-974-2480
> Charlottesville, VA 22901-2891
>************************************************************************
>
>To remove yourself from this list, address a
>
------------------------------
From: Peter Lambert <100665.2143@CompuServe.COM>
Date: 30 Jan 97 09:57:37 EST
Subject: unsubscribe
unsubscribe
------------------------------
From:
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 17:05 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re[2]: QEs Out of Work -- Hah!!
Folks, please let us not be naiive -- some customers are rotten or
hemmed-in by their bureaucracy period -- you give them a good job -- they
look to stick you. Yor put together a good bid, they want the high class
approach for the junkyard price.
Anyone dealing with these folks know they'd rather pay to fix something
than understand a proper front-end analysis. They get in their positions
by slinging some aphorisms about cutting percentages, etc. Part of their
excellence in their craft is knowing when to leave (before the sticky stuf
hits the fan). Remember the Chicago flood -- it was not the contractors
problem.
Poor quality can also follow stampedes and fads as well as hide under
entrenched bearucracy -- so, the leprichons are out, NASA finds a platinum
asteroid or thecost of living will go into long slide, human nature will
frequently believe the grass is greener and someone has invented a cheap,
good Scotch.
(enough econosophistry)
------------------------------
From: Dave Grummer
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 12:18:34 +0900 (JST)
Subject: Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
How can quality ever be invisible if you have quality engineers? Quality
should be an integral part of development and not a seperate entity( with
other entities within the quality entity i.e quality engineer). The trend
recently is to make quality a seperate division in an organization(if it is
there at all). If this trend will become the norm then again quality will
never be invisible. So we come back to the point is your statement "WHEN
QUALITY IS INVISIBLE, WE WILL HAVE WON!" an idealization or do you think it
will happen?
Dave Grummer
At 08:51 AM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>From: "Paquin, Sherolyn A."
>>By the way when quality is invisible we will know that we are producing
>bad
>>quality products ignorantly!!
>>Dave Grummer
>
>If that is the case you should fire you quality engineers now, for they
>are not doing their job!
>
>Sherry
>
> WHEN QUALITY IS INVISIBLE, WE WILL HAVE WON!
>
>************************************************************************
> Sherry Paquin SAP01@MHS.Sperry-Marine.COM
> Sperry Marine w: 804-974-2078
> 1070 Seminole Trail f: 804-974-2480
> Charlottesville, VA 22901-2891
>************************************************************************
>
>To remove yourself from this list, address a
>
>
Fusion Systems Japan,Inc.
No.2 Toshin Aobadai Bldg,9th Fl,
Aobadai,3-17-18 Meguro-ku,
Tokyo 153,Japan.
Tel : 011-81-3-5456-7561
Fax : 011-81-3-5458-4422
grummerd@fsj.co.jp
http://www.fsj.co.jp
------------------------------
From: "Paquin, Sherolyn A."
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 8:10:27 -0500
Subject: Re: Employed versus Unemployed.
From: Dave Grummer
How can quality ever be invisible if you have quality engineers?
Quality should be an integral part of development and not a separate
entity( with
other entities within the quality entity i.e quality engineer).
- --I agree with you here, which is why quality engineers should be working
themselves out of a job!
***
The trend recently is to make quality a separate division in an
organization(if it is
there at all). If this trend will become the norm then again quality
will
never be invisible. So we come back to the point is your statement "WHEN
QUALITY IS INVISIBLE, WE WILL HAVE WON!" an idealization or do you think
it
will happen?
- --For me it is more of a goal. I believe it will happen in organizations
that achieve CMM level 5.
*************************************
At 08:51 AM 1/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>From: "Paquin, Sherolyn A."
>>By the way when quality is invisible we will know that we are producing
>bad quality products ignorantly!!
>>Dave Grummer
>
>If that is the case you should fire you quality engineers now, for they
>are not doing their job!
>
>Sherry
>
> WHEN QUALITY IS INVISIBLE, WE WILL HAVE WON!
>
Fusion Systems Japan,Inc.
No.2 Toshin Aobadai Bldg,9th Fl,
Aobadai,3-17-18 Meguro-ku,
Tokyo 153,Japan.
Tel : 011-81-3-5456-7561
Fax : 011-81-3-5458-4422
grummerd@fsj.co.jp
http://www.fsj.co.jp
------------------------------
From: Arnold Miller
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:06:37 -0700
Subject: Q: iso 9000-3 next version status
I was wonder what is the status of the next version of ISO 9000-3.
Last year, I received e-mail from various list-servers that ISO 9000-3:1991
was under review and that there are two completing formats and various
updated and changes for the 1998 version.
What is the status of these changes and will ISO 9000-3
follow the ISO 9001 format or have a cross matrix table ?
- ---- Arnold Miller (miller@SignalSoftCorp.com) 303-443-7006 x 19
------------------------------
From: Arnold Miller
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 09:14:51 -0700
Subject: Q: ISO SPICE status
In studying for the ASQC's Certified Software Quality Engineer Exam (CSQE),
there is mention of ISO SPICE (Software Process Improvement for Capability
dEtermination). The SPICE standards are to harmonize the various efforts to
manage the Software process. According to the study guide a draft of ISO SPICE
was sent to ISO standard body in June 1995.
What is the current status of ISO SPICE ? ( 18 months after being sent to the
ISO Body).
If ISO SPICE is approved, where and when can I get a copy.
- --- Arnold Miller (miller@SignalSoftCorp.com) 303-443-7006 x 19
------------------------------
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:43:35 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: BOUNCE iso9000-3@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Arnold Miller ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:14:41 -0500
From: Arnold Miller
To: "'iso9000-3@quality.org'"
Subject: Q: iso 9000-3 next version status
I was wonder what is the status of the next version of ISO 9000-3.
Last year, I received e-mail from various list-servers that ISO 9000-3:1991
was under review and that there are two completing formats and various
updated and changes for the 1998 version.
What is the status of these changes and will ISO 9000-3
follow the ISO 9001 format or have a cross matrix table ?
- ---- Arnold Miller (miller@SignalSoftCorp.com) 303-443-7006 x 19
------------------------------
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:44:26 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: BOUNCE iso9000-3@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Arnold Miller ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 11:22:28 -0500
From: Arnold Miller
To: "'iso9000-3@quality.org'"
Subject: Q: ISO SPICE status
In studying for the ASQC's Certified Software Quality Engineer Exam (CSQE),
there is mention of ISO SPICE (Software Process Improvement for Capability
dEtermination). The SPICE standards are to harmonize the various efforts to
manage the Software process. According to the study guide a draft of ISO SPICE
was sent to ISO standard body in June 1995.
What is the current status of ISO SPICE ? ( 18 months after being sent to the
ISO Body).
If ISO SPICE is approved, where and when can I get a copy.
- --- Arnold Miller (miller@SignalSoftCorp.com) 303-443-7006 x 19
------------------------------
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 1997 20:46:57 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: Help in project. (fwd)
NOTE: Respond to the inquirer's address (below the dotted line), not to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 1997 12:34:11 -0500 (EST)
From: shantanu
Subject: Help in project.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am student of University of Toledo. I am looking for the list of Software
companies who are ISO 9000-3 certified, as a part of the completion of my
project. Can You privide me any source of information regarding that?
You can reach me through sdev@pop3.utoledo.edu
Thank You in advance.
Yours sincerely,
Shantanu Kumar Dev
------------------------------
End of ISO 9000-3 Digest V1 #36
*******************************
To remove yourself from this list, address a