Yes, 20% is an over-estimate for committees with more than five members.
My view (and I think it might even begin to be believed) is that it can
be accepted that standards should not allow, or even encourage, the
shipment of non-compliant product. The manufacturer alone must decide
how to cope with this requirement. One way might be to apply an X/Y
rule, where X or Y or both are larger than 80, so that the probability
of a failure under an 80/80-based surveillance is extremely low.
But statistical variations do occur, undeniably, and may change from the
instant of shipment to the instant of assessment by a surveillance
authority. So the **surveillance authority** should make allowance for
these variations, by applying the 80/80 rule, or some other algorithm
that can be justified.
Best wishes
John Woodgate OOO-Own Opinions Only
J M Woodgate and Associates www.woodjohn.uk
Rayleigh, Essex UK
On 2019-11-18 20:57, John Allen wrote:
John W
Is not the “80/20 rule” simply the “inverse” of the “80/80 rule”?J.
BTW: those 20% of the committees that actually do the work (with
which, from experience as a BSI committee secretary some years ago, I
more than agree – although in many instances it was far less than
20%!!) are but an infinitesimal %age of the numbers of people who
blithely have to accept the deliberations thereof (some of which were
overly influenced by the “status” of, and pressure from, the Chairmen
- at least that was the situation “quite a few years ago”, but it is
hopefully much better controlled nowadays!).
OTOH, in the context of EMC standards (etc.), what other “rule” might
one reasonably choose when attempting to prepare a standard for
“general consumption”?:
e.g.
-“Absolute/100% compliance”? - Obviously impossible in practice for
practical and economic reasons /(except in exceptional and highly
critical situations)./
-“At the discretion of the assessor?” – we probably all know where
that would lead /(“How much money/work/…… do you want?”)/
-“Who the hell cares”!” – one sample passed /(very marginally – seen
that = 0.5 dBV on an OATS/!) so that’ll be good enough! J
-- Some “other” criteria?? – /and thus??/
Actually, that last “question” is quite a “serious” one – so what
_other _/criteria /could be used?
John E Allen
W. London, UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
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://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
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]>
