[thelist] Re: Why code for standards

[Bev Corwin]

Dear Bill,

I agree in the concept of standards.  I certainly believe in quality
assurance and best business practices.  I do not, however, have any trust
that the current standards organizations have any concern or interests in
the small business, educational organizations or professional contractors.
In fact,  most of the current standards organizations are seated with only
members from larger corporations.  To me,  this is a serious conflict of
interest,  since of course, it creates an environment that is exclusive to
anyone not a member of these corporations.  Basically,  I'm opposed to
exclusive practices,  not to standards.  I have been studying standards
organizations closely for four years now,  and have yet to see one that
impresses me with anything but extensions of self serving corporate
interests.

Sincerely,
Bev


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Haenel" <bill at webmarketingworx.com>
To: <thelist at lists.evolt.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [thelist] Re: Why code for standards


> > The fact that small businesses are excluded from standards groups by the
> > mere fact that the way the standards groups are organized and the
> > price for
> > membership is so high,  not to mention the prudish attitudes of
> > many of the
> > standards group leaders......makes a lot of the "standards" information,
> > especially during the standards development process, unavailable to the
> > smaller, independent, non - corporate sector professional groups.
> >
> > Bev
>
> The last company I worked for had 32 employees and just completed
obtaining
> their ISO reg when I left. Getting that registration is most expensive
when
> you're talking about converting a company that is not in compliance to one
> that is. This is a major undertaking because usually it involves
converting
> hundreds or thousands (even for a small company) of established
> non-compliant, non-documented procedures into compliant ones.
>
> In short, if you want to be registered and you're already in compliance,
> it's no as bad. If not, it's kind of like rebuilding an engine. That's one
> really big reason why we should all start now, when it's NOT required.
This
> will happen eventually, it's inevitable. A website is an intrinsic part of
a
> company's communication process, and as such will ultimately be covered
> under the ISO umbrella.
>
> One more key point: If you're a small business and can't get registered,
you
> don't have to. Many big corporations that are ISO reg'd are supplied by
> smaller ones that aren't. Ford for example requires that all of their
> suppliers have a documented quality control system in place, i.e., vaguely
> meet ISO specs. They make you fill out a form documenting you compliance
and
> how you maintain it. What they don't do is require that you are ISO
> REGISTERED. They ask you to say if you are or not, but only because their
> quality control system mandates that they have that info documented.
>
> The result is that it behooves a small company to follow standards and
more
> importantly have a quality control system in place. It also behooves the
> entire industry to have those standards and comply with them. For us as
> webdevers, that means perhaps we will all have the benefit of being able
to
> speak the same language of quality and standards, but not all of us will
> need to pay financially for it. I can't wait until NN and IE have to meet
> that same standards or lose their ISO reg. Then, maybe we'll be able to
> concentrate on doing quality work instead of doing quality that works.
>
> BH
>
> --
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of thelist go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !
>
>