Standards...

[Martin Rid]

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> Wrote in message:r
> I received a request, from a colleague, for some \"standards\"that he could use as models for a new client of his.In digging through my collection, I find standards for allsorts of things:- documentation- specifications- conformance test- validation/certification- randomness of RNGs- coding- safety- wiring- packagingetc.It\'s amusing how many companies \"roll their own\" instead ofcoming up with industry standards (like GMPs). This probably mostcommon when it comes to documentation and \"software\".Noticeably absent are standards governing hardware design.E.g., how component typ and min/max values are tolerated in adesign, shake-and-bake, component derating, etc.DRCs are relatively common -- and largely standardized. But,so many other issues seem to just rely on the individual designer\'snotion of \"good design practices\"; rarely anything actuallycodified in a document!Is this a common experience? Or, do you just rely on ISO 9000-ishguidance?

Isnt iso 9000 a manufacturing standard?
There is no detailed eng requirement other than just document what
you do.
I suppose most Eng requirements are empirically defined in your
industry. Making consumer microwave ovens? There\'s a ul spec for
that, done over with.
If you over engineered it, did you really need to? Maybe it\'s an
industrial microwave oven.
It\'s pretty hard to lock an industry to present rules and expect
it to work out.

Cheers
--


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html

 

[Don Y]

On 11/22/2022 12:15 PM, Martin Rid wrote:

Isnt iso 9000 a manufacturing standard?
There is no detailed eng requirement other than just document what
you do.

ISO9k just wants you to have a process and COMPLY with that process.
There are other industries that similarly just want you to have codified
YOUR practices -- but, then want to be able to AUDIT you to ensure
that you are complying with them (and not just using them as a checkoff
item)

I suppose most Eng requirements are empirically defined in your
industry. Making consumer microwave ovens? There\'s a ul spec for
that, done over with.

Those only address issues that directly are visible to the end-user.
(safety). It doesn\'t dictate how much you derate components in
the design, whether you select \"long life\" or \"high temp\" caps,
etc.

Those issues are only visible to the end user \"down the road\"
(in terms of failures out of warranty, etc.)

If you over engineered it, did you really need to? Maybe it\'s an
industrial microwave oven.

Or, maybe you\'ve decided that the cost of a repair (in or out of
warranty) is too high for your market to tolerate. I designed a
product for a firm that *cost* $300. A \"service call\" was $600+
(assuming the destination was \"local\"). Obviously, saving a service
call (regardless of who immediately pays for it) is worth a lot!

[Drop shipping replacement units also has costs and convenience
issues; will the customer want to live without the use of the
device for the hours or days it takes for a replacement to arrive?
Will THEIR internal procedures make it difficult for them to put
the replacement into use IMMEDIATELY? etc.]

It\'s pretty hard to lock an industry to present rules and expect
it to work out.

A firm can always revise THEIR standards, based on how well they
are addressing the issues that THEY consider important to THEM.
E.g., do you shake-n-bake all product before it goes out the door
to catch infant mortalities? Or, do you save that cost and just
expect a greater number of in-warranty replairs? Do you REPAIR
or REPLACE? Can I mix-and-match imperial and metric fasteners in
a single design? All decisions that can vary from one firm to the
next.

Things like UL tend to be more objective: can the user get
electrocuted by this device? will a device failure cause a fire?
etc.

 

[legg]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:51:03 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 11/22/2022 8:04 AM, Rich S wrote:
On Monday, November 21, 2022 at 7:28:25 PM UTC, Don Y wrote:
On 11/21/2022 8:19 AM, legg wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 21:08:59 -0700, Don Y
blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 11/20/2022 1:57 PM, legg wrote:
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 02:13:10 -0700, Don Y
blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

I received a request, from a colleague, for some \"standards\"
that he could use as models for a new client of his.

In digging through my collection, I find standards for all
sorts of things:
- documentation
- specifications
- conformance test
- validation/certification
- randomness of RNGs
- coding
- safety
- wiring
- packaging
etc.
[snip]

Oh you want very-specific low -level
part specifications and work practices

I don\'t really know what he wants (i.e., what his *client*
wants/needs). I suspect he is just looking for some
examples to inspire his client to start thinking in those
terms.

[We tend to work with lots of small companies, startups,
pre-VC stuff, etc. so there\'s often no established
\"engineering department\" to drive that end of the business]

of course there are the MIL
standards and HDBK (US DoD, Army,
Navy, USAF) all downloadable for
free. Might be overwhelming unless you know
where to find what you need.
I\'ve been out of that game for a few decades.

Re circuitry design, (non-Gov\'t)
there are some industry (IEEE
and ISO/IPC) standards, I recall.
SED folk will know these better than I.

But ultimately its the competition and
business survival that usually drives the
need, and specifics. (Hopefully that will also
motivate employees too, I hope they want
to keep the business afloat). IOW, what is your
competition doing & (claiming to) adhere to?

That\'s not always obvious. Many of these people are
in niche markets that haven\'t yet been developed. If
you\'re the only guy selling a Fussbucket3000, then it\'s
kinda hard to see what your competition is up to!

So, others will copy *their* actions -- possibly *better*.

What do you need to offer customers that will
be better than the competition?
\"courage\", Don. = RS

The real issue is that these sorts of \"developing companies\"
often skimp on things in the beginning, thinking they don\'t
have the resources to put a good framework in place.

But, they somehow think they will have the resources and
*TIME* to do so later! (Um, if your product is a success
and you are the lone supplier in the market, you\'re going to
be busy staffing up to meet demand -- not *retrofitting*
policies and procedures into your current business model)

\"We don\'t have time to do it right -- BUT, we\'ll have time
to do it OVER!\"

Easy enough to bring in exoerience, if only for design
review. . . . as early as is practical.

Design review? Wots that?

RL

 

[legg]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 11:51:03 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 11/22/2022 8:04 AM, Rich S wrote:
snip
The real issue is that these sorts of \"developing companies\"
often skimp on things in the beginning, thinking they don\'t
have the resources to put a good framework in place.

But, they somehow think they will have the resources and
*TIME* to do so later! (Um, if your product is a success
and you are the lone supplier in the market, you\'re going to
be busy staffing up to meet demand -- not *retrofitting*
policies and procedures into your current business model)

\"We don\'t have time to do it right -- BUT, we\'ll have time
to do it OVER!\"

It\'s like, problematic, like; yeah. ?

RL

 

[Don Y]

On 11/23/2022 5:31 AM, legg wrote:

The real issue is that these sorts of \"developing companies\"
often skimp on things in the beginning, thinking they don\'t
have the resources to put a good framework in place.

But, they somehow think they will have the resources and
*TIME* to do so later! (Um, if your product is a success
and you are the lone supplier in the market, you\'re going to
be busy staffing up to meet demand -- not *retrofitting*
policies and procedures into your current business model)

\"We don\'t have time to do it right -- BUT, we\'ll have time
to do it OVER!\"

Easy enough to bring in exoerience, if only for design
review. . . . as early as is practical.

Design review? Wots that?

Without some sense of standards, how do you resolve differences
of opinion (!) in the design review? Who/what is the arbiter?

We ordered a major appliance, the other day. The receipt we were given
had someone else\'s name on it. Apparently, someone who had done business
with the store, previously, and had our phone number at that time.
So, despite manually typing MY name, delivery address and credit card
information into the system, the receipt indicated this other individual
residing in a state some 1500 miles from here.

No doubt, the idiot who designed the user interface thought he would
be clever and automatically retrieve the customer name, address, etc.
based on the phone number. That\'s fine *if* you can be assured that
ALL customers will keep your records current. Someone who *stops*
shopping at your store will likely not bother to update their phone
number on record WITH YOU when/if they eventually change it!

Of course, the correct way to do this is to OFFER the customer
information up as a SUGGESTION and allow the sales clerk to
override it thus giving you efficiency AND flexibility. But,
assuming that there is a 1:1 between these data is just stupidity.

I think a lot of them have a false sense of \"what they THINK they know\"
(from their past experiences) being applicable to what they are NOW
trying to do. A form of Dunning-Kruger: \"We\'ve been designing
widgets for decades; ELECTRONIC widgets can\'t be much different...?\"

Car makers are notoriously inept at addressing technology.

E.g., SWMBO supports multiple keyfobs -- so, multiple *drivers*.
Vehicle is smart enough to remember the settings of the mirrors,
seat positions, entertainment system (i.e., radio stations,
music sources, etc.), GPS destinations, etc.

But, always leaves the entertainment system set as it was for the
*previous* driver -- regardless of whether it was THIS driver, or not.

Why would they think I would want a completely different set
of radio presets than her -- yet, leave *her* choice in place
just because she was the last one to drive the car? (This
causes some interesting anomalies for the code as the
displayed station may not exist in *my* set of presets)

If you\'re going to move the seat and mirrors into \"my\" positions,
AND, update the CHOICES that are available for my use of
the infotainment system, wouldn\'t you think you should also
restore the selection (\"state\") that was in effect when *I*
last was The Driver??

It\'s not hard to find other examples if you start looking for
them...

 

[John Larkin]

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 06:45:14 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

On 11/23/2022 5:31 AM, legg wrote:

The real issue is that these sorts of \"developing companies\"
often skimp on things in the beginning, thinking they don\'t
have the resources to put a good framework in place.

But, they somehow think they will have the resources and
*TIME* to do so later! (Um, if your product is a success
and you are the lone supplier in the market, you\'re going to
be busy staffing up to meet demand -- not *retrofitting*
policies and procedures into your current business model)

\"We don\'t have time to do it right -- BUT, we\'ll have time
to do it OVER!\"

Easy enough to bring in exoerience, if only for design
review. . . . as early as is practical.

Design review? Wots that?

We have three formal reviews per board: prelim, critical, pcb. And
lots of informal sessions between. And we have standards for keeping
design notes and Spice models.

Without some sense of standards, how do you resolve differences
of opinion (!) in the design review? Who/what is the arbiter?

The senior EE present, which is usually the principal project engineer
or in extremes, me.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 14:15:28 -0500 (EST), Martin Rid
<martin_riddle@verison.net> wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> Wrote in message:r
I received a request, from a colleague, for some \"standards\"that he could use as models for a new client of his.In digging through my collection, I find standards for allsorts of things:- documentation- specifications- conformance test- validation/certification- randomness of RNGs- coding- safety- wiring- packagingetc.It\'s amusing how many companies \"roll their own\" instead ofcoming up with industry standards (like GMPs). This probably mostcommon when it comes to documentation and \"software\".Noticeably absent are standards governing hardware design.E.g., how component typ and min/max values are tolerated in adesign, shake-and-bake, component derating, etc.DRCs are relatively common -- and largely standardized. But,so many other issues seem to just rely on the individual designer\'snotion of \"good design practices\"; rarely anything actuallycodified in a document!Is this a common experience? Or, do you just rely on ISO 9000-ishguidance?

Isnt iso 9000 a manufacturing standard?

No, it\'s a consulting industry.