Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | BP - "Infarct a Laptop Daily" |
Date: | Thu, 20 Jan 2000 09:13:42 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Message text written by Leland to "BP - \"Infarct a Laptop Daily\""
>My experience with standards and guidelines at the government level, is
that the finished product is not worth the man-hours that went into it.
The
special interest groups which must be heard, and due process given the
loudest voice, and process for selection of those "experts" and
consultants,
all contribute to a watered down version of what really should be. When
you
throw together manufacturers, politicians and lobbyists you will certainly
have an interesting outcome.<
I have heard similar comments from others who have been actively involved
in this work. But look at those big fat books of ASTM Standards that we all
reference and use in our work all the time. Perfect? Nope. Confusing?
Frequently. Are they what they should be? Not hardly.
So why do we use them? Because they are better than nothing, and in their
absence all we would have are the sometimes wild and unsupportable
marketing claims of the guys with the most money or the best connections
for pushing their particular brand of proprietary goop. I have also seen
job situations where general distrust of the involved parties was kept in
check by implementing testing programs based on ASTM standard
specifications and methods. It took the emotions off the table and put the
issues back in a technical realm where they belonged. Sure, we can then
argue about the meaning of the results, but at least we start with a common
vocabulary.
I have also watched some of the standards which we use frequently undergo
multiple revisions over time. Maybe they get a little closer to reality
with each revision. Knowledge is a journey, not a destination.
Mike E.
|
|
|