Nothing is foolproof, and anything can be subverted by dishonesty, but the MIL-STD-461 measurement system integrity checks, done properly, go a long way towards proving the measurement test set-up is working properly. That’s only part of the overall picture, and people find any number of ways to do them improperly, but done properly they are a confidence builder that the measurement was performed correctly. Ken Javor
Phone: (256) 650-5261 ________________________________ From: Dennis Ward <[email protected]> Reply-To: <[email protected]> List-Post: [email protected] Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2011 11:43:26 -0800 To: 'Derek Walton' <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Cc: <[email protected]> Subject: RE: my last lab audit I agree with your assessment Derek. It is truly amazing the number of self generated and not test generated numbers that can occur in test reports. Sometimes I wonder if CYA is the goal and not actual data obtained. I have seen for example, test reports that when questioned, have supposedly technical people simply go in and ‘rearrange’ numbers to look like retesting was done. And that possibly by the same ”prestigious, multi-national corporation” But not knowing who that corporation is I cannot say for sure – just guess. I think many of us know who these ‘questionable’ servers of data are, and we try to make sure that at least on our watch, we force some sort of ‘believability’ from them before any ‘stamp of approval’ is considered. While we all make mistakes, and while I probably make more than most, some seem to be more mistake oriented than others. Dennis Ward Director of Engineering American Certification Body Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry http://www.acbcert.com 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 direct - 703-880-4841 From: Derek Walton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 9:39 AM To: Dennis Ward; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: my last lab audit Hi Dennis, I wasn't just implying integrity, but knowledge too. Some labs just do not have the technical ability in their labs... BUT, they honestly generate silly numbers :-) Cheers, Derek. -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Ward <[email protected]> To: 'Derek Walton' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 10:48 am Subject: RE: my last lab audit Well, you are correct that accreditation does not mean quality. But it does show that effort went into making the foundation for quality. And you are correct that true quality can only be done at the individual level. But it does show that the lab has in place the process to implement quality at that individual level. Which just means that you are getting to the core of the issue. Not quality but integrity. All the documentation in the world means nothing if integrity is not there. And I am not speaking of the façade of integrity in business, I am speaking of actual integrity, honesty and truthfulness in business. When the bottom line of any business, be it a lab or manufacturer, is money only, then you can pretty much bet that, not only quality, but integrity, honesty and forthrightness of business is on a lower rung of that business ladder; regardless of what that business is. So, since you cannot force quality or integrity, why accreditation? Accreditors and governments cannot force any business to be honest and forthright in their actions; that is left to the customer base. However, in order to do business with others, primarily other governments etc, you can force the foundation of quality to which the customer, or even a government can turn or reject the service, product or enterprise. And even if the money only business is forced to do something, because they ‘spend money’ getting it and more money keeping it, the effort, albeit a possible façade, will implement it at some level and thus giving some level of quality. Naïve I know, but that at least is the intent of all this stuff. Dennis Ward From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?> <mailto:[email protected]?> ] On Behalf Of Derek Walton Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2011 8:07 AM To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: my last lab audit Hi Ed, I have long said that accreditation only guarantees two things: First, you pay more, second, someone has visited the lab. I am in total disagreement with those that say accreditation guarantees quality: quality is down to the individuals, both technical and management, within a lab. The only way to be sure you are getting quality, is to visit the lab and satisfy yourself they know what they are doing. Accreditation is a political tool designed to simplify international trade. It may not be politically correct to say so, but not all assessing bodies, assessments or assessors are equal: Shock, Horror! In defense of the lab you were in, they don't HAVE to have a manual, but you certainly came across a case where they needed one. I hope they were able to figure their problem out for you! Cheers, Derek Walton L F Research -----Original Message----- From: Price, Edward <[email protected]> To: Derek Walton <[email protected]>; Bob Richards <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Sent: Tue, Feb 1, 2011 9:27 am Subject: RE: my last lab audit So where’s an auditor when you need one? Follow this scenario: You are patronizing a test lab operated by a huge, big-name, prestigious, multi-national corporation. The tech is having trouble getting the custom in-house software to control the test equipment. The tech supervisor then becomes involved. Much watching as the tech keeps entering the control data while the equipment doesn’t quite respond. I ask if I could look at the software operation manual while they are trouble-shooting the setup. The tech supervisor replies “It’s in my head.” Ed Price [email protected] WB6WSN NARTE Certified EMC Engineer Electromagnetic Compatibility Lab Cubic Defense Applications San Diego, CA USA 858-505-2780 Military & Avionics EMC Is Our Specialty From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]?> <mailto:[email protected]?> ] On Behalf Of Derek Walton Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 7:26 PM To: Bob Richards Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: my last lab audit Hi Folks, I have to take issue with a few things here, because, well, that's what I do.... So, first, an assessor is quite within "his" rights to ask for evidence that software was verified as correctly functioning before being employed in a laboratory. A response such as "Yea, I've done that" doesn't meet MY expectations.... It is generally accepted that the functions of COTS software like excel, or TILE! are exempt from being proven. HOWEVER, user spreadsheets, or test sequences built with such software, is not. If you don't document your verification process, shame on you. Second, An auditors job is not to check every line of code you write, if you have one that is capable of doing that you're lucky. "His" job is to VERIFY that YOU have done what YOU are supposed to do. It's only if you do not follow the published standards paths does an assessor typically dig in deep. Third, I'm not aware of any fellow assessors that are on "POWER TRIPS", quite the contrary. Consider that an assessor has but a short window to learn YOUR way of doing things and ensure you meet the requirements. An assessors opinions and preferences are immaterial ( look at an assessors lip to see how often it's been bitten! ), all that matters, technically, is that you comply. Having assessed over a hindered labs, I am frequently humbled by the talent, intellect, creativity and work ethic of people that I'm to evaluate ( OK, I also admit the opposite is true too ). On many occasion I have left a laboratory thinking.... Wow! Being a lab assessor is a privileged position. Few other people are "welcomed" into a laboratory and allowed to probe the details of their operation. I would hope, and I believe this is the case, that my fellow assessors feel their activities in a laboratory increases the proficiency of the laboratory. This isn't a power trip, it's giving back. Fourth, assessors are not infallible. I believe labs are encouraged to provide feedback on assessors. I reiterate you need to do that: if you don't, you are condoning shoddy work. Fifth, and finally for now, I have often said that everyone in a lab should "play auditor" now and again. It's amazing how much more sympathetic you get when you have walked in the others shoes... I hope someones copying Dilbert, I'd love to see his take on this... Shalom, Derek Walton On 1/24/2011 8:38 PM, Bob Richards wrote: - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]> - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher <[email protected]> David Heald <[email protected]>
