Doug, My understanding is that TL-9000 is not an international effort but more of a U.S. effort. How or why it originated, I don't know. All I know is that Bell Atlantic is threatening that it will require companies that supply equipment to them to comply with TL-9000. Other RBOCs, I believe, are not pushing it; however, they may conveniently adopt a "me too" strategy. This is a customer/marketing issue rather than a true regulatory compliance issue.
Tania Grant, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Lucent Technologies, Intelligent Network Unit Messaging Solutions Group ---------- From: Doug [SMTP:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, July 17, 2000 12:04 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: TL-9000 I suppose this is a good time to vent as any. One of the other hats I wear is ... I've been involved with ISO 9001 for about 5 years now. I've been involved with two registration efforts from the ground up. I'm trained as a lead auditor. I thought that since my primary job is compliance, this ISO thing would also be good to get a glimpse into how a company works. Well, it is. I'm currently involved with paring down an existing registration which has become a speed bump. I gotta say that as soon as everyone got through the gauntlet with 9001, they come along with "TL" 9001 that's "specific" for "telecommunications". As if to say ISO 9001 isn't enough. We have to go beyond with a TL 9001 that gets into auditing metrics. <shudder> And, as if to say, those telecommunication companies already ISO 9001 certified don't get into reliability estimates, costing, software development, life-cycle management and a host of other requirements already. I mean jeez guys ... Have no idea if this is sanctioned on an international level with ISO or what. I mean it seems to be headed up by the ASQ which "sports" an international membership. But so what? Instead of being headed up by a group of countries on an international level, this is being headed up by a professional society of quality people? What's the implications of this and where does this mean the future of other standards which greatly impact companies who actually do the work going to go? an international organization isn't enough. No ... You have to be a member of a special society now. What's this saying? ISO itself isn't good enough? I'm not sure what the British have to say about this. I mean they are the ones who turned everyone onto ISO. Like it or not, that is fact. And of all the registrars to deal with, if you were telecommunications, you went with BSI (at one point. not sure if that's true anymore). <conspriacy hat on now> What is this then, an end around attempt to push BSI out of the ISO telecommunications business? Or, does BSI embrace this? It's getting to be that as soon as everyone gets evened out (or bankrupt) with TL 9001, some committee somewhere will decide that TL isn't enough for "datacommunications"! No siree. We need a "DL" 9001 now ... Rant stopped. Sorry for the length ... - Doug ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Jim Bacher: [email protected] Michael Garretson: [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected]
