TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Scott wrote:
"Yeah, they met their own low standards."
Couldn't have said it better, Scott. This is exactly the point that Andrew
and I have been trying to make about ISO 900X, it is not and never will be a
guarantee of quality workmanship. It is simply a labor-intensive "standard"
that requires you to follow your written processes, IF you have them.
ISO has become a moving target (better opportunity to employ more auditors)
by trying to change the standard from the 900X series to a 1400X "catchall"
series. The more you keep the target moving, the longer it takes for people
to find out that the target maker doesn't have a clue.
Each of us defines quality differently. When I do a lousy job of
documenting something because I felt lazy, I know I did a lousy job. When
someone else defines a standard for me, if that standard is below the level
I set for myself, I can meet it without any trouble, but I know I am not
producing work that is up to my best level. ISO, in essence, gives us
permission to achieve their standard level and ignore a higher standard
level we might set for ourselves.
Regards,
Pete Sanborn
-----Original Message-----
From: bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
[mailto:bounce-techwr-l-81537 -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com]On Behalf Of
quills -at- airmail -dot- net
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2001 12:23 AM
To: TECHWR-L
Subject: RE: Style guides - doc standards vs processes
At 7:46 PM -0600 11/5/01, Earl Cooley wrote:
>Pete Sanborn wrote:
>> Steve Hudson wrote:
>>> "ISO9001 was the end-result of a large number of large companies
>>> seeking to improve their processes through consistant application
>>> of solid principles."
>>
>> Sorry, Steve, I have to jump in on this one. ISO, if you carefully
>> read their standards, is not and never has been, nor will it ever be
>> a guarantee of quality products (or documentation). Boiled down to
>> bare bones, ISO simply states that IF you have a process, you must
>> follow it. Too many folks got on the bandwagon early and proclaimed
>> that ISO 900X would save the world from shoddy workmanship and crappy
>> products. In my experience, ISO doesn't even guarantee that you have
>> to follow your process if you have an escape clause for every process
>> that allows a supervisor or SME to sign a waiver for the process.
>
>I was shocked to discover that the tire manufacturing plant that was
>in the news a while back as responsible for the numerous car crashes
>turned out to be ISO 900x certified. <shudder>
>
>--
Yeah, they met their own low standards.
Scott
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Be a published author! iUniverse gives you: a high-quality paperback, a
custom cover design, and distribution to 25,00 retailers. Join our almost
10,000 published authors today. http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr
Your monthly sponsorship message here reaches more than
5000 technical writers, providing 2,500,000+ monthly impressions.
Contact Eric (ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com) for details and availability.
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.
