I think I just found another 'trigger'...

by Jim_TX 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Jim_TX

  Let me explain...

  Where I work - we are considered ISO-9000 for our processes. That means that we have a set of guidelines to adhere to - to make sure that our products met a set of standards - and quality.

  Okay. So - I have a question on one of the procedures that is documented. I am not questioning the documentation - but rather the implementation of this document.

  One particular paragraph makes a statement about how we generate an ECO (Engineering Change Order), and how it gets implemented into the system. I read just the paragraph, and see that we are supposed to create an ECO - prior to making any changes. In fact, the ECO authorizes the changes to be made - after which they are reviewed - and finally signed off and put into the system - as being 'controlled'.

  I approach our 'QA' guy with this - as one fella here consistently just creates a red-lined marked-up document - hands it to me - and leaves not only making changes to the controlled document - but generating the ECO - to me. In my opinion - this is incorrect - and told the QA fella just as much.

  I read to him what the paragraph says, and the first thing that he sez, is "I interpret this to read..." and proceeds to let me know that we're supposed to make changes to the controlled documents - first - then generate an ECO - to cover any changes made.

  I go off on him. In retrospect - I realize that it is his 'this is how I interpret that paragraph' that gets to me. I let him know that he isn't supposed to 'interpret' anything - but just read what the paragraph says.

  So - he does. In the middle of the paragraph, he adds the word 'complete' which isn't in the written procedure. I go off on him again. "You just ADDED a word to that paragraph!!" I tell him. "You aren't supposed to do that!"

  "It was implied." was his response.

  "No, it wasn't! If you want it to say that, you need to change the document - to read that - but don't 'insert' words that aren't written there!"

  .................

  I think being an ex-JW has made me very sensitive to folks who have tendencies to 'interpret' various writings - and adding words that are 'implied' to documents.

  GRRRRRRRRR!!!

  The irony is... he is a PHD with a degree in math. He is also a math instructor at one of the local colleges here.

  It's like me writing 1 + 1 = ............ on the marker board, and then writing '3' as the answer - after all... it's how I interpret it. Right?

  Regards,

  Jim TX
• 

  thomas15

  Time to issue an ECO to your ECO procedures.
• 

  journey-on

  ....and that's why there are Constitutional lawyers and the Supreme Court. It IS about interpretation to a large degree. Funny how your experience intertwines, however, with your JW experience.
• 

  Jim_TX

  "Time to issue an ECO to your ECO procedures."

  I already mentioned to him that if he wanted it to read the way he 'interpreted' it, he should change it to read that way. His reply?

  "I can't."

  Which is nonsense. The document is already at 'Rev. D' - which means that it has been changed at lest 3 times prior.

  Funny thing though... for a long time... I had on my marker board (it must've gotten erased recently), "I need to write an ECO to ECO the ECO."

  Oh. I also talked to my boss about how ECO's are supposed to be handled. His understanding is the same as mine. We write the ECO prior to actually changing anything. Evidently... he 'interprets' it the same as I do.

  Regards,

  Jim TX
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Ready... Aim... FIRE...

  FIRE... Ready... Aim

  I dunno, does the sequence really matter as long as you get all the steps in?
• 

  Jim_TX

  "I dunno, does the sequence really matter as long as you get all the steps in?"

  Well... perhaps I can put it into layman's terms...

  It might be like putting up the walls of a house - before you pour the concrete foundation. Sure... you poured the foundation... after you built the walls... does it matter which order you did it? You got the concrete foundation poured.

  I guess, since we're dealing with ISO-9000 - if you're not familiar with it... it doesn't mean anything to you.

  Sorry I bothered to post. I just found the 'I interpreted' to be a trigger to myself... perhaps going back to the JW days - when the JW leaders 'interpret' the bible (or others 'interpreting' things) to suit themselves.

  I guess it doesn't really matter how folks 'interpret' the bible either... after all... that's why there are so many religions.

  Regards,

  Jim TX
• 

  Billy the Ex-Bethelite

  Sorry Jim, I was trying to put it in layman's terms, too. The correct sequence is extremely important.

  In a duel, it is vital that one take aim before firing. If one fires before aiming, well, they don't get a second chance with a single-shot duelling pistol. Thus, the correct sequence is imperative... particularly where "triggers" are involved.
• 

  Heaven

  Jim_TX ... when the next ISO audit approaches, I suggest you get 'PHd Mathee' to take some vacation time so he's not an auditee candidate. Losing your ISO certification would suck!

  FIRE... Ready... Aim

  B the X ... LMAO!
• 

  Jim_TX

  "when the next ISO audit approaches, I suggest you get 'PHd Mathee' to take some vacation time so he's not an auditee candidate. Losing your ISO certification would suck!"

  Yes, it would. We just had the fella here for the ISO audit this past Monday. There was a company representative here from the Dallas office, too.

  As far as I know... we passed the audit 'with flying colors'.

  The 'PHD Mathee' is a 'yes man' - to the right people. (I'm not on that list.)

  Regards,

  Jim TX