Tire life

You're American aren't you ?

I'm sure you're right - I was thinking of the later Ford Exploder thing.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

In automotive, it's pretty much "the law". However, you may be correct, it may not be dictated by QS9000 per-se.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Agreed.

On reproducibility, what I meant was that the purpose (of ISO 9000) is to effect reproducibility.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Exactly. And you would have a good ISO 9000 quality system if you got the same result every time. I certainly haven't claimed anything else. Those who do misunderstand the purpose of the system.

I think the allegation of protectionism is simplistic.

Especially when you see the shoddy machinery produced in the USA... Sorry, that's gross exaggeration but in my field (pharma) I can tell you that the standards considered acceptable in NA are a bit lower that in Europe. I am not sure what all the reasons are, but one put forward is actually the US FDA, which has higher demands on foreign manufacturers because they can't watch them all the time, i.e. FDA inspectors go abroad relatively rarely to inspect those approved for the US.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Porbably the first time in two years on this ng that someone used "effect" as a verb and used it correctly.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Except I mis-spelled "probably". Sheesh.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

That is the point. ISO certification does nothing to increase the quality of the machinery, it just forces manufacturers to spend money to document their existing process. It does nothing to improve that process. That is a waste of money and serves only as a barrier to selling to the European market.

If ISO actually had requirements that increased the quality of the product, then I might agree with you that ISO serves other than as a bureaucratic, protectionist barrier.

Matt

Oddly, one of the very few times I can think of ever seeing a sentence in which "effect" and "affect" would both have been correct...

I thought that they used very carefully made bias-ply tires that cost

It's just that the treadwear ratings have increased a lot, lot more than the tread warranties, which were originally 30,000-40,000 miles for radials and are now up to 80,000.

Very perceptive.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

This is the bit which I consider simplistic and with which I do not agree. There is no EU legal requirement to comply with ISO 9000, nor are EU-based manufacturers exempt.

Nobody can force quality 'increase' since it is entirely subjective (already commented upon in this NG several times). Only economics can have that effect.

However, if a system, a documentation system, can ensure, or help to bring about, consistency, then this is a very good thing. Anyone who complies with ISO 9000 has a better chance of this. If manufacturers do not use the system properly then it is at their own risk. This is an internationally-recognised system for product consistency and is an opportunity, rather than trying to do it your own way. Why re-invent the wheel?

ISO 9000 is like QA (quality assurance): more a state of mind.

In my and a related industry I am aware of the consequential costs of not producing consistent quality.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

Consistency isn't always a good thing. Consistently bad is a bad thing. And sometimes processes stay bad because updating the documentation is more work than it is worth. You may think this isn't true, but ask any airplane manufacturer how much paperwork is required with the FAA in order to make any significant upgrade to an airplane or engine. Many airplanes still use archaic designs because of this barrier. It isn't that much different at many ISO certified companies. A process improvement requires that all affected documents be updated. If the improvement isn't of great value, it may not be worth the effort. This, in my opinion, is not a good thing.

However, it does make life easier for the start-ups who aren't bound by their legacy documentation! :-)

Matt

Well, while we are persnicketing, perhaps one could say that either would be acceptable in the sentence: but preferably not both! :-)

Brian W

Regarding your attempt at introducing an unknown verb version of a known adjective (courtesy of an US dictionary in deference to this NG) this is laudable but whilst I agree that both "affect" and "effect" could work in my sentence, it is EFFECT I meant...

:-) DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

You called it a trade barrier. As you see, it isn't.

As I said before, 'bad' quality is a matter for management and economics/the market. Nothing in ISO 9000 to stop anyone changing the quality.

If the documentation inhibits development, review the documentation. There is no absolutely set way to do docs under ISO 9000.

The FAA is not ISO 9000. Same as the US FDA (or any regulatory authority) is not ISO 9000. Different constraints

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

You tell 'em, Dori!! :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')