I'm not sure where to put this, and the title might be a bit misleading (I intentionally named it that so it would be read). But here goes…

I was teaching an internal auditor class and, like always, I mentioned the Cove. One of the attendees visits the Cove from time to time, but had a complaint. The complaint is that often someone asks a question and the response is to read the Standard, or the responder just quotes the Standard. It tends to make some folks feel somewhat intimidated; after all, if they could understand what the Standard is saying, they probably would not have asked the question. They often don't push the issue because they feel like they should know what the Standard means, so their real question doesn't get answered.

I realize that I am guilty of responding to requests this way as well.

Now, I doubt that this person is the only one who feels this way. When we quote the Standard, it would probably be beneficial for us to unpack the quote a bit. Undoubtedly, the person who is asking the question really wants an interpretation of what the Standard says, not just someone quoting something they already can read.

Just thought I would bring this up.

I have to agree.

I have often asked for clarification from MIOSHA, EPA or what ever only to receive a specific quote to the exact area my question came from. I know where I got my question from, I just want answers to my questions!

If I had understood the specific quote to begin with, I would not have asked for clarification.......... :bonk:

I may not have experienced that here, but I am sure it is experienced.

I just realized that that may be why I never respond with element numbers or verbatim quotes from the standards.

Very good point db.

I certainly see what you are saying but in defense of some of my replies, we don't always know that they have read the standard. I think if a statement is made like "I don't understand QS-9000 4.1.2a", it would prompt some sort of narative interpretation. If the post states "Does QS say we need to prevent the occurance of nonconformities?" I would imagine the reply would be a quote of the standard.

I am not meaning to put extra burden on those asking the question but I think the burden is on the asker to clarify what sort of answer they are looking for.

Another way to look at the complaint would be your student is saying the ANSWER to his querry is "Read the Standard". That would be just plain rude and I don't think any of us would do that (well ...).

The final point I would make is if someone doesn't get the answer they needed, they should push it. If a Cove member sees a question has been answered and the asker has dropped it, it is generally felt they got the information they needed. Like everything else in the quality field, don't just accept something. Keep digging until you find the answers to the real questions.

Just my opinion.

Dave

I also have to agree that sometimes the response by some is a little curt. Some people who know the standard, not all, forget that not all of us are as knowledgable as they think they are. :vfunny: But, I can assure you that anybody calling anybody "stupid" here would get some flak and not just from moderators. I also do not like to see the cut and paste answers, unless as Dave said, they are looking for a specific section of the standard to address a particular situation. Having said that, it is the responsibility of the person seeking a response to continue posting until they are satisfied and not be intimidated by those demonstrate little tolerance for what they consider basic questions. I've seen it in the past, but not lately. The atmosphere here has changed slightly and there are great responses from many members eager to help. Tell those students not to be stupid :eek: and join the Cove. ;)

I really gotta agree with D here, I see someone ask, someone answer and then no further dialogue from the "asker" I figure they got what they wanted and I may not add anything. Yes, sometimes we do just rattle off the standard, but I haven't seen too much of that lately since the "big shake-up". Take care!

OK....I'll confess....I've done it :o Most of the time though my intent is to encourage folks to "READ", meaning to digest or look into, and not "read", meaning just going thru the motion of looking at the words.

Nobody particular, Bud. :agree: I have also used the "do a search" first, then come back if you still need answers. That can be considered crude, if someone wants to be taken by the hand. Oh no, did I just say that? :vfunny: :agree:

I have also used the "do a search" first, then come back if you still need answers.

I think that is different (although it too can be done in a rough manner). And although the student did not use the word "stupid", I've seen times where that tone was implied.



I'll confess....I've done it. Most of the time though my intent is to encourage folks to "READ", meaning to digest or look into, and not "read", meaning just going thru the motion of looking at the words.

So have I, but I can also see where it could stop someone, who is not nearly as brash as a few of us, from asking deeper questions. Rather than "look stupid", they just sit quietly, with their question unanswered.

Very good thread. To sum it up: We all quote the standard every once in a while. At least I know I do :o . However, this can't be all bad:

Surely I'm not the only one who have been looking for that elusive line in the standard, knowing full well it's there but temporarliy being quite unable to find it?

Sometimes a quote can be used to make a point, or better still, in combination with added comments or explanations.

db makes a very good point though, and I think the "tone of voice" in the reply is the most important aspect when a reply is posted. That is even more important when newbies ask their first questions.

/Claes

Also, let's not forget that we can all read. We just don't see the same thing. Look at the disagreements between auditors and other Q Professionals. Hence, the need for a forum such as this. :cool:

I would agree with everything said, however I would add that not only is the implied response to read the standard, it may in fact also be an attempt to engage in a dialog that might lead to help others. The more two way (or more way) communication that is taking place on a topic, the more info presented, the more it can help everyone. It definitely gives alternate views and methods to accomplish the same thing. JMO. :)

You people are fast! I go to lunch, check the Cove, and there's dozens of replies :vfunny: - all of which I agree with I might add!

I will add two things however:

1) Sometimes, the person asking the question assumes everyone else's business, and local jargon, is just like theirs and ask the question in that framework; very often vague as well (e.g. "what does the standard say about justifying widget control diameters? Can I use an SDP form or not?"). It behooves us all to ask for clarification and not make assumptions.

2) We should, as Claes points out, combine an excerpt from the standard with an example or explanation of how it is applied. However, we should also make the disclaimer (especially if we are not familiar with their specific industry) that this is just one way to look at it - get more information if possible. The controversy over "interpreting" the standard is a whole 'nother discussion.

By the way, I believe most of the Cove contributors do all of these things very well!

I too have quoted the Standard in response to some requests, and maybe there are a few instances where a quoting of the Standard would provide sufficient information (such as when the request is for, "Does ISO say that we have to maintain a forms master list?). But as Claes pointed out, even then we should probably include some interpretation or real life example to help the one posing the question better understand where we're coming from.

Besides I enjoy storytelling, so this could be a forum where I could put that passion to use. Just think about it, I could respond to every request with a lengthy narrative or recapitulation of personal experiences that could ultimately be gathered together and bound to form my memoirs. Over twenty years of quality experience could be recorded for posterity right here in this forum. Why I could ramble on for years. :biglaugh:

After over 8 years of questions, I'm answered out. I agree with all of you, essentially. I feel I've answered every question at least twice if not 10 times.

Many times I believe it is important to quote the 'standard'. This is because I have for years argued that in large part 'ISO9K' (all 'standards' for that matter) is about interpretations with respect to your company, your processes, your product(s), etc.
What Part Do I Play?
(or Who has Control of the Tiller?)
See http://Elsmar.com/obsolete/tis_me.html#lawyer

I will say that a large problem in saying "Read the standard" presumes quite a lot. I think the most important part is how much information has a person given.

What is your company size?
What are your end product(s) Commercial - Medical - Military - Consumer - Distributor - Services?
What are your basic processes?
Multiple intra-country sites?
Multi-national?
Significant Processes?
Etc.

You know the drill. My 'sig' here - One Size does NOT fit all!

I believe a good idea would be to start a new thread - so it is fresh - after we discuss here, in this thread, what specifics we would want/need - which gives a *minimum*. That way when someone has a question where we KNOW we need more details to be able to reasonably respond, we can refer them to the 'sticky' thread and basically say: "Go read this. We need these specifics if you want a 'good' answer to your question."

If there is one thing I can say, I am thankful that my introduction to 'quality' was in a military manufacturing environment. To me, it really was less 'quality' than it was reliability. Right down to manufacturing costs and dealing with 'bean counters'. Most of the folks coming to the forums and asking 'uninformed' questions do so because they don't have the background. Many Google and end up here - often with little or no formal 'quality' background.

I see so many threads started where if the person did a search they'd probably find the answer. Since the first vB version 3 beta release in June-July 2003 there has even been a 'related threads' listing at the bottom of each thread. It's relative, but none the less - typically there are some 'hints'.

Often I even get personal e-mails with the most basic of questions. Many times I feel like replying - and I admit a few times I have - Do Your Own Research. I do know that my 'feelings' at that specific moment guide how I answer. Sometimes I'm in a more 'charitable' mood than at other times and do a search or two and post the links to threads I find. I see a number of moderators do this and I have no problem with such a response. I often do it.

We all have. I've been fixing links in posts in threads for a while now. I'm seeing posts going back to 1998. I see someone at one point goes out of their way to help but in another thread they say "If you would only do a search....". And I understand - I do the same from time to time.

To all of you I extend my thanks that you are even addressing the issue. I appreciate that you care. I think there is a lot of good info here in the forums and that everyone does a very good 'job' in helping others.

So - I hope everyone continues on the same course that I believe we've followed, for the most part, for a numner of years. If you're in a good mood, put in your 2 cents. If you're in a bad mood, wait a day to respond (Yes - I know I'm one of the worst offenders...).

So - I suggest we come up with a "We Need these Details" list so that we can better respond.

You folks come up with the list - I'll post it as a 'Sticky'.

Your thoughts?

Just a few questions to get a list started. I would keep them to a minimum so as not to discourage newbees.

What is your Title and/or responsibility?
What is your main product/service? Electrical-mechanical-automotive-medical, etc.
How many employees in your company?
QMS in place? Model?
Have you tried a search of the Forums for the topic of your post?
How did you find the Cove?

Your suggested list is a good one. Personally, I 'd recommend accenting the "search" function, with an example such as "Document Control" to show the information already available. Keep the list small so as not to discourage participation. JMO ;)

Your suggested list is a good one... ...Keep the list small so as not to discourage participation.
I agree. Let's not complicate things...

/Claes

Marc:

Is there a way to make a template of these questions so that a new person could copy them, and just add their answers?

Craig

I like the idea of establishing some basic background info on the requests. It would help in threads were the topic tends to change in the middle because the original poster did not give this detail upfront and it causes assumptions to be made. I would also like to say that there have been times were "Read the Standard..." was a very appropriate response. In fact it has prompted me to go back and look again to find out for myself what the original poster was looking for. I think that the Guru's on this site (which I do not pretend to be one of) do a great job at answering questions and giving advice and examples. Sometimes you guys and gals make it too easy.

I think it is sometimes pretty easy to find posts that are asking others to do the work; compared to posts that ask for assistance and ideas.

While the idea of a list for basic information is a great one, I think by engaging the poster in a conversation it can lead to more dialog and more users that can contribute. It can be a stress challange if you have to ask for details everytime you open a new thread. However if I was getting the response to read the standard, I would not take offense to it. That is good sound advice sometimes.

As always; you all make this site a great resource and an enjoyable place to come and talk shop. Picking your brains over the years has become an enjoyable experience; I only hope that I can contribute in a similar fashion from time to time. If not, I at least hope I can make some of you laugh from time to time. :bigwave:

I only hope that I can contribute in a similar fashion from time to time. If not, I at least hope I can make some of you laugh from time to time.
Being overly modest today, are we? ;) You contribute with a lot more than laughs, man... Not that I mind a good laugh every now and then. It keeps me as sane as circumstances will allow. :vfunny:

/Claes

Marc:

Is there a way to make a template of these questions so that a new person could copy them, and just add their answers?

CraigI have a hunch the situation really only arises when newbies, buried or overwhelmed by a quality question in their operating arena, turn to the Cove as some miraculous Saviour and so create a new thread, but don't have enough experience to phrase the question for the best response.

Craig's suggestion would be ideal if the template would be behind a button prominently displayed on the "new thread" page with a label like "new thread guidelines/template."

If this is technically feasible, then Marc could solicit suggestions from the experienced Covers for a comprehensive guideline or template.

Yes - newbies and students with a report due tomorrow...

I visit a lot of forums as you might guess. Where guidelines are important, I typically see a 'Sticky' thread' or similar. An example is:

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=70117

Wes & Craig, I will look at putting in a link to a template or such. I haven't seen it done, but shouldn't be hard. I might even be able to come up with a type of submission forum, but that's a stretch. I'm learning a lot, but off hand I'm not sure how I would tie a form into a php input to a new vB thread. At the very least I can make a 'Sticky' thread which someone can be referred to. For example, in the link above, I see people read that, copy it and put their answerrs in and then post it. I expect people do this offline, as in this case it's a lot of details, but that's less of an issue. Nor do think we would need a 5 page set of questions.

However, first would be to come up with a basic list.

I will say that my experience tells me that this will always be a 'problem' and is the nature of a forum on the internet. I don't believe I've ever seen a forum of any size where the same questions do not arise over and over. On the other hand, if the question was asked in 2000, the answer in 2004 may quite well be different.

I, and others, have even gone so far as to do searches and then posting the links we found after doing the search, to help folks out. On the other hand, as happened over the weekend, someone (this was a 'student') who in no uncertain terms (my interpretation) asked people to do his/her research and e-mail them the information. I was quite curt. And I cut out the part asking people to e-mail him/her the info because I'm nasty and figured if s/he wanted the info they should get it here. To me the whole idea is to accumulate the info here so everyone can see rather than people sending just one person an e-mail with the requested info. Claes subsequently responded quite nicely making up for my curtness (Thanks, Claes).

Anyway, there are some very good thoughts in this thread on how to approach the issue.

An example: When I first discovered the Cove, I searched for why everyone used the terms Level/Tier 1, 2, 3 for documents. I finally got up the nerve to post it. There were all kinds of answers and justifications for doing so. I kept on asking for "evidence". I finally received the answer I was looking for. There was none. It caught on and everybody started using it. There was no requirement to do so. I don't want to start it up again, PLEASE!!! But, we can't allow ourselves to be intimidated by those that profess to have the answers unless they have the proof. To me, it was common sense to do the search before posting. Even after what I considered a thorough search, someone would post a thread where my question could be found. Just a matter of using the right search words. I guess what bothers me the most is someone thinking they are the first person to ask a question, as if only they thought of it, without trying to do the search first. :p

Craig's suggestion would be ideal if the template would be behind a button prominently displayed on the "new thread" page with a label like "new thread guidelines/template."
I'm looking into this.

Suggestions for the list, folks? What basic information do you often need to be able to answer someone's question 'in context' of their particular scenario?

Starter List:
Have you tried a search of the Forums for the topic of your post?
QMS in place? Model?
Company Sector (Electrical-mechanical-automotive-medical, etc.)
What is your company size (employees)?
Multiple intra-country sites?
Multi-national?
What are your main end product(s)? (Assemblies, Components, etc.)
Who are your main customers? (Commercial - Medical - Military - Consumer - Distributor - Services?)
What are your basic processes?
Significant processes?

1) Sometimes, the person asking the question assumes everyone else's business, and local jargon, is just like theirs and ask the question in that framework; very often vague as well (e.g. "what does the standard say about justifying widget control diameters? Can I use an SDP form or not?"). It behooves us all to ask for clarification and not make assumptions.

2) We should, as Claes points out, combine an excerpt from the standard with an example or explanation of how it is applied. However, we should also make the disclaimer (especially if we are not familiar with their specific industry) that this is just one way to look at it - get more information if possible. The controversy over "interpreting" the standard is a whole 'nother discussion.
Good points!

2) We should, as Claes points out, combine an excerpt from the standard with an example or explanation of how it is applied. However, we should also make the disclaimer (especially if we are not familiar with their specific industry) that this is just one way to look at it - get more information if possible. The controversy over "interpreting" the standard is a whole 'nother discussion.

By the way, I believe most of the Cove contributors do all of these things very well!

I welcome the cut and paste of the standard where it has not been previously introduced to the thread. But, I've seen more cut and pasting of the standard to rebut the original cut and paster :vfunny: Use of the large colored fonts, bold and underlined functions were also employed. :eek: Before you knew it, you needed a Law Degree to understand them. :rolleyes: If someones has the time to answer a question and cut from an electronic version of the Standard, the applicable paragraph, go for it. I'm here a lot and I don't have time for that. Of course, not having an electronic version of the standard might have something to do with it. :vfunny: ;)

Starter List:
Have you tried a search of the Forums for the topic of your post?
QMS in place? Model?
Company Sector (Electrical-mechanical-automotive-medical, etc.)
What is your company size (employees)?
Multiple intra-country sites?
Multi-national?
What are your main end product(s)? (Assemblies, Components, etc.)
Who are your main customers? (Commercial - Medical - Military - Consumer - Distributor - Services?)
What are your basic processes?
Significant processes?

Are you using a consultant?

Starter List:
Have you tried a search of the Forums for the topic of your post?
QMS in place? Model?
Company Sector (Electrical-mechanical-automotive-medical, etc.)
What is your company size (employees)?
Multiple intra-country sites?
Multi-national?
What are your main end product(s)? (Assemblies, Components, etc.)
Who are your main customers? (Commercial - Medical - Military - Consumer - Distributor - Services?)
What are your basic processes?
Significant processes?

Marc,

Perhaps, for those of us in the "service" sectors, you could change one of your examples in "What are your main end product(s)?" to Service (e.g. Assemblies, Service, etc.). Just food for thought. :bigwave:

Let's just say it's OUR list. Your suggestion works for me!

Let's just say it's OUR list. Your suggestion works for me!Lists posted so far seem comprehensive to me.
Are there more suggestions for a comment on simply "adding as much information as may be necessary to answer the query"?

It seems to me most original thread starters (especially newbies) primarily ask questions which ask for:

factual information (what Standard?, web site?, etc.)
experience information (what did you do in similar situation?)
opinion (if you were in my shoes, what would you do?)
The problem for the rest of us in dictating a format is those newbies aren't sure whether they are asking for facts or opinions and thus muddle the question. (Of course, some of us confuse the two in our answers.;) )

I think the list is taking shape very well. Is this process going to be optional for the experienced posters and only asked for by new visitors or new covers? It might get long haired to try to have every new thread start with this info? This might have been concidered already but I thought I would chime in. :bonk:

I think the list is taking shape very well. Is this process going to be optional for the experienced posters and only asked for by new visitors or new covers? It might get long haired to try to have every new thread start with this info? This might have been concidered already but I thought I would chime in. :bonk:


Tom:

I do share some of your concern about it being mandatory for new threads. Would it be possible for us to "strongly urge" the use of the template? I can certainly see where the answers would help us give the thread started better, faster, answers fairly often. I see the list as a tool that should help the "asker" better phrase the question. That said, why have to answer the questions if I am posting a thread about frozen New Englanders (I really feel for y'all, keep warm), for instance?

Craig

Tom:

That said, why have to answer the questions if I am posting a thread about frozen New Englanders (I really feel for y'all, keep warm), for instance?

Craig

Your example is as another member coined the term, Dogtrot! The "New Englanders" post was not a thread starter and was in the "Weather" thread already underway. Try not to muddy the waters. :p

Scrolling back up to the beginning. The intent is to save 'the insulting' answers.
So it makes perfect sense to me to introduce with "If your looking for help on an ISO related issue - please provide as much of the following information as possible or relevant to your concern. This will help the 'experts' provide appropriate answers."

Making something mandatory sounds too much like a standard! What will we do....write a N/C if a field on the form is left blank? :vfunny:

Scrolling back up to the beginning. The intent is to save 'the insulting' answers.
So it makes perfect sense to me to introduce with "If your looking for help on an ISO related issue - please provide as much of the following information as possible or relevant to your concern. This will help the 'experts' provide appropriate answers."
I know that amongst other things it is sure that few will be filled out completely if we have a form, but at times if someone really wants an answer they'll put in as much info as they can. And we all know (I hope) that the idea is NOT to take every question and say "Please fill out this form first". The idea is, I believe, to have a basic list that can, either by form or copy and paste, be filled out and pasted in a thread or some such mechanism, if someone wants a specific answer.

If someone wants to answer a question but needs more info, they can easily paste the link or, if I figure out how to put a link in the navbar, refer them to the link there.

The way I envision it now is to have a 'sticky' thread which basically explains that:

"If you really want an answer which is more than general, you chould copy the text below and paste it in your word processor or text editor. Complete and much as you can and then copy and paste it in your post. That way those of us who are reading through questions people have can better answer your question with respect to your specific situation."

Or something like that. I am looking into a form. I can do that. The problem is how to get that into a post in a thread. I can put a link in the 'navbit' bar to the thread with the list.

Is this process going to be optional for the experienced posters and only asked for by new visitors or new covers?
Can't be mandatory - that wouldn't work. Just 'as needed'.

It sure would be unweildy to have it mandatory. I look at the list of questions as a tool that is offered to make it easier for a poster to formulate their question in a way that will give them an optimal answer.

Just a thought from a pain in the neck newbie.

I have been lurking around this site for months now and have only posted three times. I've never really needed to post a question. I always do a search and 95% of the time I find the answer without needing to post.

Maybe individual profiles could have a "newbie" section with a list of these questions. I know it would take time for Mark to set this up, however it would prevent the need for this "template" on every new thread.

If you run into a newbie like me asking a stupid question just tell us to fill out that section of our profile. Just a thought for what it's worth.

Thanks to all for this site and its wealth of info!

Thanks to all for this site and its wealth of info!
From all of us, "You're quite welcome!"

The list so far:

Have you tried a search of the Forums for the topic of your post?
QMS in place? Model?
Company Sector (Electrical-mechanical-automotive-medical, etc.)
What is your company size (employees)?
Multiple intra-country sites?
Multi-national?
What are your main end product(s)? (Assemblies, Components, Services, etc.)
Who are your main customers? (Commercial - Medical - Military - Consumer - Distributor - Services?)
What are your basic processes?
Significant processes?
We already use a 'form' in a number of threads, such as:

http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3331

Any other comments on list contents?

I had not really read this thread before but I think that for most covers the very general question presents us all with a problem.

IMO
it is impossible to answer a question like
Hi there, I was on the Elsmar Cove site that's where I got your email address. I need help I work in HR in an automotive company we are now starting to implement TS16949. I am having a hard time getting started. I'm responsible for training (competence, awareness etc) section. Iam also in charge of employee motivation. If you have anything that will help me get started pls. email it to me. I am looking for any forms, flowcharts work instruction (training on the job), training procedure. I know it will help me to get started. Thanks a million.
with out some information.
Whilst we all want to learn, and help is a very good way of learning, this seems to me to be a situation where someone should have read a little bit first to try and define the question.

I answered:
First of all, welcome.
What is your company's situation, are you ISO 9001 registered, if so the the only main difference is that of motivation and on the job training.
I am sure that OTJ exists it is only a matter of organising it in a recordable form.
Employee motivation exists as well, think about how you do it.
In a search for Motivation in these forums I found 126 threads. I think that the best way to work is to try and define what you have, what you do and what you want. Then ask more specific questions.
I don't mean to be hard on you but I think that in this way you will prepare yourself and understand better the various ways of implementing rather that just a cry for help.

I apologise again for my manner but this is really meant to help and not to hinder.
We will be happy to help but try to define more specifically what you want, I am sure that you are not starting from zero.

I was not trying to be rude rather to help to focus the questioner.

Marc maybe with registration you could add some form of guidlines.or add something to the FAQ.

Howard:

I agree with the guideline idea. Marc, is there a way to do this?

Craig

Go with a guideline, it will help both the poster and forum transfer applicable information without getting too detailed up-front. We all want to help but we are only human and need direction ourselves.

As an aside, I had a boss who wanted to use "Word" and asked me to write him an instruction manual. I ended up buying him a copy of "Word For Dummies" which got me out of a month long project with the boss and a boss who felt he could use the book as he was learning by himself.

Of course his secretary was mad at me for 2 months!!!!!

Al...

I'm looking at ways to do a 'guideline'.