[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] Lost leading 'dit' - summary

To: cq-contest@contesting.com
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] Lost leading 'dit' - summary
From: Bill Tippett <btippett@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 07:07:08 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
Hi Mike,

You wrote:
>Their "process" might not include taking customer
feedback and improving their product.  So, continuous
process improvement does not necessarily mean
continuous product improvement.

        I agree with you about ISO9000 which is a complete
joke, but that is not the definition of TQC according to
Deming.  His definition includes the design process as
well as the manufacturing process and "quality" is
defined as meeting customer expectations and "fitness
for use".  A radio that clicks badly and must be fixed
at the customer's expense definitely does not meet my
expectations.  The contrast of Elecraft and Ten-Tec versus
Yaesu is very striking, and quite surprising given Japan's
almost religious fervor about quality.

        A narrow definition of quality like ISO9000 which does
not include feedback and corrective action in the design
process is one which simply allows someone to create junk
faster!  I was originally going to posting this privately
because on the surface it doesn't seem have too much to do
with contesting.  After thinking about that, it actually
does in the sense of learning from past mistakes and then
taking action to improve our "process" for the next contest.

73, Bill W4ZV

   The world's top contesters battle it out in Finland!
THE OFFICIAL FILM of WRTC 2002 now on professional DVD and VHS!

CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>