ISO 9000-3 Digest Wednesday, 2 April 1997 Volume 01 : Number 044
In this issue:
U.S. 9000-3 Listing
BOUNCE iso9000-3@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Erich ] (fwd)
A serial mini-Survey (No.11)
A serial mini-survey (No.12)
European MDD Classification
A serial mini-survey (No.14)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Erich
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 14:06:25 -0500
Subject: U.S. 9000-3 Listing
I am interested to review a listing of U.S. companies who have achieved
9000-3 registration or, are in the process of achieving 9000-3 status.
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (Moderator)"
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 12:46:27 -0500 (GMT-0500)
Subject: BOUNCE iso9000-3@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Erich ] (fwd)
NOTE:
Quality Digest has a FREE, searchable online database of
ISO/QS9000-registered North American companies at:
http://www.qualitydigest.com/html/iso9000.html
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 1997 16:13:36 -0500
From: Erich
To: iso9000-3@quality.org
Subject: U.S. 9000-3 Listing
I am interested to review a listing of U.S. companies who have achieved
9000-3 registration or, are in the process of achieving 9000-3 status.
Thanks.
------------------------------
From: Yingxu Wang
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 1997 10:47:10 -0800
Subject: A serial mini-Survey (No.11)
Dear colleagues,
- - A Survey of Base Process Activities Towards Software Process Excellency
Thank you very much for your response! Attached please find the
mini-survey No.11.
Best regards,
Yingxu Wang
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Centre for Systems Engineering | Email:wang_s@solent.ac.uk or
Southampton Institute | yingxu.wang@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Southampton SO14 0YN, UK | Tel: +44 1703 319773
In collaboration with IVF, IBM, and ESI | Fax: +44 1703 334441
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
***********************************************************************
Questionnaire 3: Base process activities on management processes (1/12)
***********************************************************************
3. Management processes
3.1 Software quality assurance (SQA)
3.1.1 SQA procedure definition
197. (3.1.1.1) Define SQA procedure
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
198. (3.1.1.2) Define project software engineering standards
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
199. (3.1.1.3) Document SQA system
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
200. (3.1.1.4) Issue quality manual
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
201. (3.1.1.5) Distribute quality policy
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
202. (3.1.1.6) Report SQA results
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
203. (3.1.1.7) Assess process quality
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
204. (3.1.1.8) Take correct actions
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
205. (3.1.1.9) Assign independent reviewers
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
206. (3.1.1.10) Define extent of inspection
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
207. (3.1.1.11) Conduct SQA for each process
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
208. (3.1.1.12) Assign qualified person(s) to special process
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
209. (3.1.1.13) Document quality records
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
210. (3.1.1.14) Review SQA system suitability
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
211. (3.1.1.15) Decisional role of SQA in processes
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
212. (3.1.1.16) Decisional role of SQA in final products
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
213. (3.1.1.17) Adopt SQA tools
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
------------------------------
From: Yingxu Wang
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 1997 09:50:49 -0800
Subject: A serial mini-survey (No.12)
Dear colleagues,
- - A Survey of Base Process Activities Towards
Software Process Excellency
Thank you very much for your response! Attached please find
the mini-survey No.12.
Best regards,
Yingxu Wang
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Centre for Systems Engineering | Email:wang_s@solent.ac.uk or
Southampton Institute | yingxu.wang@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Southampton SO14 0YN, UK | Tel: +44 1703 319773
In collaboration with IVF, IBM, and ESI | Fax: +44 1703 334441
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
***********************************************************************
Questionnaire 3: Base process activities on management processes (2/12)
***********************************************************************
3.1.2 Requirements review
214. (3.1.2.1) Specification verification
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
215. (3.1.2.2) Formal review requirements
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
216. (3.1.2.3) Review statutory requirements
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
217. (3.1.2.4) Customer accepts specifications
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
218. (3.1.2.5) Adopt specification verification tools
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
3.1.3 Design review
219. (3.1.3.1) Define design review procedure
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
220. (3.1.3.2) Document design review
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
221. (3.1.3.3) verify prototypes
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
222. (3.1.3.4) Measure design review coverage
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
3.1.4 Code review
223. (3.1.4.1) Conduct code walk-through
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
224. (3.1.4.2) Conduct code review
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
225. (3.1.4.3) Measure code review coverage
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
3.1.5 Module and Integration testing
226. (3.1.5.1) Measure test coverage
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
227. (3.1.5.2) Estimate remaining error distribution
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
228. (3.1.5.3) Review test results
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
229. (3.1.5.4) Static/dynamic module test analysis
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
230. (3.1.5.5) Static/dynamic acceptance test analysis
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
------------------------------
From: Thomas Miller
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:10:16 -0600
Subject: European MDD Classification
I'm working through classifying our software product according to the EC
Medical Device Directive, and I'd like to look up the classification of a
predicate device. Does anyone have a reference for such information?
Frinstance, FDA publishes US classification on medical devices. I'm hoping
there is something like that available for Europe.
Also, if someone knows of a better newsgroup for this question, or any
other source, please pass that on.
Thanks!
_____________________________________________________________
Thomas R. Miller 505 N. 4th St.
Director of Quality Engineering Fairfield, IA 52556
Vital Images, Inc. (515)472 7726 VOX
miller@vitalimages.com (515)472 1661 FAX
www.vitalimages.com
------------------------------
From: Yingxu Wang
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 1997 10:42:27 -0800
Subject: A serial mini-survey (No.14)
Dear colleagues,
- - A Survey of Base Process Activities Towards
Software Process Excellency
Thank you very much for your response! Attached please find
the mini-survey No.14.
Best regards,
Yingxu Wang
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Centre for Systems Engineering | Email:wang_s@solent.ac.uk or
Southampton Institute | yingxu.wang@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Southampton SO14 0YN, UK | Tel: +44 1703 319773
In collaboration with IVF, IBM, and ESI | Fax: +44 1703 334441
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
***********************************************************************
Questionnaire 3: Base process activities on management processes (4/12)
***********************************************************************
3.1.9 Peer reviews
250. (3.1.9.1) Plan peer reviews
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
251. (3.1.9.2) Select work products
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
252. (3.1.9.3) Identify review standards
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
253. (3.1.9.4) Establish completion criteria
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
254. (3.1.9.5) Establish re-review criteria
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
255. (3.1.9.6) Distribute review materials
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
256. (3.1.9.7) Conduct peer review
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
257. (3.1.9.8) Document review results
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
258. (3.1.9.9) Take actions for review results
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
259. (3.1.9.10) Track actions for review results
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
3.1.10 Defect control
260. (3.1.10.1) Plan defect prevention
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
261. (3.1.10.2) Defect reporting and record
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
262. (3.1.10.3) Defect causal analysis
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
263. (3.1.10.4) Propose process change for defect prevention
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
264. (3.1.10.5) Track problem report
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
265. (3.1.10.6) Prioritise problems
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
266. (3.1.10.7) Determine resolutions
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
267. (3.1.10.8) Correct defects
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
268. (3.1.10.9) Review defect corrections
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
269. (3.1.10.10) Distribute correction results
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
3.1.11 Subcontractor's quality control
270. (3.1.11.1) Subcontractor's quantitative quality goals
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
271. (3.1.11.2) Assess/test quality of subcontractor's product
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
272. (3.1.11.3) Acceptance test for subcontractor's software
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
273. (3.1.11.4) Safeguard customer-supplied products
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
274. (3.1.11.5) Record customer-supplied products
Importance in process: (least) [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] (most)
Experience: Practised [ ] Not practised [ ]
Effectiveness: Yes [ ] No [ ]
Comments (if any): ..............................................
------------------------------
End of ISO 9000-3 Digest V1 #44
*******************************
To remove yourself from this list, address a message to:
MAJORDOMO@QUALITY.ORG with only the words "unsubscribe iso9000-3-digest"
(without the quotes) in the BODY of your message.