ISO9000 certification only means that you have documented your
quality assurance process.

There is no requirement that your documentation pertains to
or results in a quality product.

One of the Danish ISO9K consultants used to bring a ISO9000
certification case along to explain this to companies:  It was
basically the entire ISO9000 process for a small company written
on one page of paper and the essence was "We don't gove a hoot about

The information that company X is "iso9000 certified" only conveys
one bit of information:  The company has a quality policy.

You still need to read their quality policy to know what it is,
and on average, the ISO9000 certified ones contain less usable
or even readable information, than the other kind.

>And the proponents of a change to the UTC standard are undoubtedly
>going to assemble a number of such phantasmogorical reports in
>"support" of their position.  Why bother to change an international
>standard for the naive and cynical perceived benefit of commercial
>interests when those interests can't even be bothered to implement
>the standard in the first place?

Because the standard is badly thought out, hard to implement correct
and impossible to test comprehensively in practice ?

Just because it is an agreed international standard doesn't mean
that it is the best solution to the problem, technically correct,
technically optimal or even a good thing to begin with.

Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
[EMAIL PROTECTED]         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Reply via email to