Hi everyone! I've been ou for quite a while. We recentley had our first internal audit and planning to finally certify in November.

We are now having a little "theorical" discussion looking for the difference between Standard and "Norm" (I guess that is the right translation for Norma in Spanish).

My guess is that standard is actually the English translation for Norm, but we do have both words in Spanish and the 9001 (for example) fos as is a norm. Any ideas?

Thanks

Things like this can be confusing, but it sometimes helps to remember that ISO publishes documents in two of the official languages of the United Nations - French and English (the British variety). In many cases I have seen statements to the effect that in case of conflict or dispute, the French text is the authoritative one.

A document that describes requirements to be met, such as to establish an effective quality management system:
French: norme
English: standard

In another area of work --
A device, instrument or artifact that is used as a traceable reference for measurements in calibration:
French: etalon
English: standard

(And people wonder why English is such a difficult language to master ...)

Hi everyone! I've been ou for quite a while. We recentley had our first internal audit and planning to finally certify in November.

We are now having a little "theorical" discussion looking for the difference between Standard and "Norm" (I guess that is the right translation for Norma in Spanish).

My guess is that standard is actually the English translation for Norm, but we do have both words in Spanish and the 9001 (for example) fos as is a norm. Any ideas?

Thanks In a word, nada! There is no difference between what is refered to as a Norm and a Standard. "Norm" is usually used in Europe.



Main Entry: norm
Pronunciation: 'no(&)rm
Function: noun
: an established standard or average: as a : a set standard of development or achievement usually derived from the average or median achievement of a large group b : a pattern or trait taken to be typical in the behavior of a social group


Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/medical/aboutmwmed.html): Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


Norm

\Norm\, n. [L. norma a rule. See Normal (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=normal), a.] 1. A rule or authoritative standard; a model; a type.

2. (Biol.) A typical, structural unit; a type. --Agassiz.


[Free Trial - Merriam-Webster Unabridged. (http://dictionary.reference.com/go/http://www.merriam-webster.com/premium/dcom1/)]
Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=web1913): Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


Norm

n 1: a standard or model or pattern regarded as typical; "the current middle-class norm of two children per family" 2: a statistic describing the location of a distribution; "it set the norm for American homes" [syn: average (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=average)]


Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=wn): WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Al,
I appreciate the definitions provided. I however do believe there is a difference between a norm and a standard. A norm from my perspective is more of a trend or the typical and may or may not be equivalent to a standard. I believe a norm can and does usually move over time.
Where as a standard is an absolute measure as to what things should be. The standard does not change but you may choose a different standard.
I could be wrong but this is how I use those terms.

Al,
I appreciate the definitions provided. I however do believe there is a difference between a norm and a standard. A norm from my perspective is more of a trend or the typical and may or may not be equivalent to a standard. I believe a norm can and does usually move over time.
Where as a standard is an absolute measure as to what things should be. The standard does not change but you may choose a different standard.
I could be wrong but this is how I use those terms.
You are right that in one non-technical use of the word in English it describes a custom that may change over time.

Things change depending on the situation and context, though. In this situation, the person was asking about the English word "standard" and the Spanish word "norma" and the relationship between them in the specific context of international documentary standards. In that context, many words have very specific definitions that are (or should be) understood be all who work in that area. In such cases, the technical definitions must be the ones that are used. In this specific context, norma = norme = standard (document) with no exceptions.

Common grammar dictionaries are very useful tools in their place, but they are limited by two things. First and most important, the purpose of a dictionary is to document meanings of words as they are actually in common use by a population, and only in the language they are written for. Dictionaries do not codify the only possible meanings of words. Second, dictionaries have to be selective, which means that they do not include all of the less-frequently-used or technical meanings. (The unabridged OED is an exception, but you need about 2 metres of library shelf space for all of the volumes!)

(And people wonder why English is such a difficult language to master ...)
Or pronounce for that matter!
Tough (pronounced tuff) and Though (pronounced doe).

Though (pronounced doe).
Pronounced tho

There are only two official references for defintions of words used in the ISO 9000 series. 1. ISO 9000:2000 2. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

All general use words (words that are not defined in the text of an ISO document) have the defintion that is in the Oxford English Dictionary. If ISO does not go out of the way to define the word, then the default defintion is the OED.

OED:

Norm - the ususal, typical, or standard thing. a required or acceptable standard.

Standard - a level of quality or attainment. a required or agreed level of quality or attainment. something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations

Regards, Dirk

Dear Covers:

Here's my $0.01 to this standard versus norm. As I went through the thread, I found myself agreeing with both Markasmith and Graeme. Each point of view is a valid one.

However, to go a step further, definitions must be precise. There can be no room for any vagueness. By appealing to the French (as the "authoritative" version, or what might be called the "standard") as opposed to the English translation, one is still left, it appears, with the problem of choosing between the commonly accepted meanings of 'norm' and 'standard' in English.

So, I thought the following might help by providing a different perspective. Before Newton came along, the terms mass and force were certainly being used in the English language. A massive object means one that has a higher mass. A massive rally means a huge, or a very large, rally, say in the stock market. Newton gave a precise meaning to these two terms. Of course, Newton wrote in Latin and we are therefore relying on the English translation by Andrew Motte.

The following is from the opening paragraph of his Principia (can be found in most bookstores). Newton defines mass as the product of the density of the body times its volume. To quote, "Thus, air of double density, in a double space, is quadruple in quantity; in a triple space is sextuple in quantity. The same thing is to be understood of snow, and fine dust, or powders, that are condensed by compression or liquefaction; and aof all boides that are by any causes whatever differently condensed. I have no regards in this place to a medium, if any such there is, that freely pervades the interstices between the parts of bodies. It is this quantity that I mean hereafter everywhere under the name of body or mass. And the same is known by the weight of each body; for its is proportional to the weight, as I have found by experiments on pendulums, very accurately made, which shall be shown hereafter."

This is a remarkable definition. Newton tells us exactly what he means by the term mass. His definition includes many different types of bodies, including porous bodies. He also tells us how to measure mass. This is done by the process of weighing (using a simple balance, I presume) which humans had been using long before Newton. He also tells us that he is no arm chair theoretician. He has verified his statements by actual experiments with pendulums.

Later, Newton defines what he means by force and enunciates his three force laws. It is also of interest to note that Newton does not talk about the "work" done by a force. This idea was conceived by James Watt, as noted in another thread. (Technology and the Olympic Gold, see also One Ton of a Man and the post Walking and Losing Weight).

My point? Nothing was lost in the translation from Latin to English. Mass is still density times the volume. There is no vagueness. This is indeed a physics lesson, like someone said in a response to the thread Technology and the Olympic Gold. :mg:

If I am permitted to continue, yes, I think, we must understand the meaning of "work" in a much broader context. Not, how "work" as defined in physics can be related to "work" as done by computers, or robots, but how all this ultimately relates to "money". This is what James Watt and his business partner Matthew Boulton were trying to do. They tried to compare the work done by a steam engine with the work done by a horse. What they were really interested in was understanding how much money can be saved by replacing the horse by the steam engine. This was the marketing strategy. The switch from horses to steam engines, in the 18th century, was motivated by the desire to increase profits. Of course, many new applications for steam engines, not imagined by James Watt and his partner, followed soon after.

This also, ultimately, and in my humble opinion, is what can be gained by appealing to the idea of a "work function" as conceived by Einstein, when he developed his photoelectricity law. Einstein takes the idea of "work", or what is the same as "energy" in physics, for granted. The idea of work and energy eluded the genius of men like Galileo and Newton (page 531, in Physics, Volume 1, by David Halliday and Robert Resnick, 1966 edition). These ideas could be developed only after James Watt's steam engine came along and vigorous studies on the nature of heat began. Following Watt, Sadi Carnot and Clausius made notable contributions in the first half of the 19th century. Carnot's analysis of heat engines was only motivated by economic considerations. Carnot was trying to determine the maximum amount of "work" (now given clear meaning by Watt) that could be done by an engine with the minimum expenditure of energy in the form of heat (produced by burning coal, which costs money). Finally, Joule's experiments (and other related findings, in the 1850s) established the law of conservation of energy. Einstein invokes this law to formulate the idea of a work function W, as described in the simple statement, K = hf - W. More generally, y = hx - W.

Charmed :)

P. S. I was hoping to discuss the work function idea with some more examples soon, from the business world. The recent Google IPO provides an opportunity, as does some recent data on Toyota Motor Company (WSJ front page article, August 4, 2004). If there is a receptive audience, I would be happy to post them in the new Forum, Philosophy, Gurus, Controversy, etc. that Marc has created.

There are only two official references for defintions of words used in the ISO 9000 series. 1. ISO 9000:2000 2. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

All general use words (words that are not defined in the text of an ISO document) have the defintion that is in the Oxford English Dictionary. If ISO does not go out of the way to define the word, then the default defintion is the OED.

Dirk,

Thank you for this information! I think most of us know of ISO 9000:2000, but I (at least) did not know about any specified dictionary to use. That leads to one question:
Where can I find the reference that officially documents the use of the OED?
The answer to this will be very useful because questions about word definitions are not at all unusual, and neither are situations where the organization sees a word one way and an auditor sees it another way.

Even within the English language there are important differences, such as those between "American" and "British" English. My sister (who lives in Germany) tells me that the schools there have different language classes for "English" and "American". An example of a difference is the name of a "beach music" dance form popular in the US South - in the UK that same word means something quite different! (Hint: it is the title of a movie from the late 1980's - in England it was retitled The American Movie.)

I made more than one mistake in my English-centric posting.

A. My posting is only about English defintions. I do not know what the official definition references are for other languages.

B. The official dictionary for English words is the Concise Oxford English Dictionary. I just bought a used copy via Amazon for about $25 (US).

C. There are four definition references:

1. ISO 9000:2000 Quality management systems - Fundamentals and Vocabulary

2. ISO Guide 2:1996 Standardization and related activities – General vocabulary

3. ISO/IEC Directives Part 3:1997 Rules for the Structure and drafting of International Standards

4. Concise Oxford English Dictionary

A number of guidance modules have been published to help users of the ISO 9000 series. There is a module on terminology and it contains all of this information and more defintions. All modules and a lot of other great information is availabe at: http://isotc176sc2.elysium-ltd.net/

This website is by far the best source of information on ISO 9000 series. Everyone should have this website book marked in their web browser and we all should read everything available on this website.

Regards, Dirk