Elsmar Cove Quality DiscussionsThe Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
UL - Underwriters Laboratories - Health Sciences

Elsmar XML RSS Feed
Elsmar Cove Forum RSS Feed

Monitor the Elsmar Forum
Sponsor Links

Courtesy Quick Links

Links Elsmar Cove visitors will find useful in the quest for knowledge and support:

Jennifer Kirley's
Conway Business Services

International Quality Services

Marcelo Antunes'
SQR Consulting, and
Medical Devices Expert Forum

Bob Doering
Bob Doering's Blogs and,
Correct SPC - Precision Machining

Ajit Basrur
Claritas Consulting, LLC

International Standards Bodies - World Wide Standards Bodies

AIAG - Automotive Industry Action Group

ASQ - American Society for Quality

International Organization for Standardization - ISO Standards and Information

NIST's Engineering Statistics Handbook

IRCA - International Register of Certified Auditors

SAE - Society of Automotive Engineers

Quality Digest

IEST - Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology

Single Post View
Old 19th March 1999, 09:59 AM
John C

Total Posts: n/a
You now agree that Preventive action “can” include detection. Well in 4.14.3 it says that it “shall”, which is totally different from “can”. If we were allowed to replace “shall” with “can”, wherever it occurs in the Standard, then the document would be worthless. We can’t go around making up our own “interpretations”. Even more important, we can’t go round saying that the standard says things that it clearly does not and calling it ‘interpretation’.
Interpretations are not in the interests of industry. They are the tools of self interest.
They are also a nonsense. They cannot clarify the message, only confuse it. If, as you say, there are several interpretations for this section, then there will soon be hundreds. But I don’t believe there are any. The words are simple. They mean what they say and are available, officially translated, into most people’s native language. Instead of continually going on about the need for interpretation, I would like someone to show me one case from 4.14.3 where there is any ambiguity. I doubt I’ll hear from anyone with an example. It’s only about 60 words. Try it.
I hope I don’t hear from anyone with ideas about how the clauses are met. For example; deciding what is ‘appropriate’, is not interpretation. There are many opinions as to what is appropriate, but only one meaning for the adjective ‘appropriate’.
Our first responsibility is to give engineers and managers good information, from which base they can go ahead and design their process. If we give them bad information and muddy the water for them, then we do them a disservice and take their money for doing so.
If we tell them there are three interpretations of a clause, then we leave them vulnerable to the next chancer who comes along with a fourth one.
If we tell them, there are lots of chancers out there who would like to use various interpretations as leverage for their own ends, and that they should read the standard and stick to what they see, then we have done them a service and not left them in the dark.
I’m on the side of industry. I support free trade.

Sponsored Links

The time now is 12:00 AM. All times are GMT -4.
Your time zone can be changed in your UserCP --> Options.

Misc. Internal Links

NOTE: This forum uses "Cookies"

The Elsmar Cove is currently owned by the Marc Smith Retirement Trust and operated by Law-Nutz Wyoming©2018