| 1 |
On Sunday 24 May 2015 12:32:40 Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 24 May 2015 11:45:50 Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 24 May 2015 11:11:34 Mick wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > What I'm saying is that in today's world of mass marketing and el-cheapo |
| 5 |
> > > manufacturing, where shaving a penny is a strategy applied not only on |
| 6 |
> > > the workers' wages but also on the materials and manufacturing process, |
| 7 |
> > > we are left doing QA ourselves or keeping both pieces of whatever |
| 8 |
> > > breaks. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Permit me a little quibble: we're not doing QA but QC (control). Not at |
| 11 |
> > all |
| 12 |
> > the same thing. QA is defined in the ISO9000 series of international |
| 13 |
> > standards. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> You're absolutely right of course: I meant, but didn't express it so, that |
| 16 |
> we have to compensate for lack of adequate QA and poor QC. However, |
| 17 |
> thinking about it, I am probably wrong altogether. Said manufacturers may |
| 18 |
> have both processes in place, but implemented with comparatively low |
| 19 |
> acceptance thresholds for what we expect. Ahh! The joys of globalisation. |
| 20 |
> :-( |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Oh, well - thanks for not taking offence! |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Rgds |
| 26 |
Peter |
Archives