- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 10:08:06 -0500
- To: 'Joe Gregorio' <joe.gregorio@gmail.com>
- Cc: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, www-tag@w3.org
Yep. Design principles inform designers. They are not in and of themselves, designs or architectures. I don't object to the principles. It was the politics of the referenced article. One doesn't need 70 gallons of mud to finish the wall. BTW with respect to CTQ: the customer wants it all, now, and for nothing. It takes testing to determine if the wall stands up to the kids, but anyone knows not to uncover the electrical outlets in the bedroom of two-year olds. The customer may have to pay for features they don't know they need yet. That is standardization at its best. Worse isn't better here. We could make these exchanges the work of this week. Again, my objection was to the politics of the article, not the principles. len From: Joe Gregorio [mailto:joe.gregorio@gmail.com] Engineers, at least the good engineers, also understand CTQ. "CTQs (Critical to Quality) are the key measurable characteristics of a product or process whose performance standards or specification limits must be met in order to satisfy the customer. They align improvement or design efforts with customer requirements."[1] [1] http://www.isixsigma.com/dictionary/Critical_To_Quality_-_CTQ-216.htm Over-engineering is just as much of a problem as under-engineering. When I am putting up sheetrock, I don't measure it to the 32nd of an inch. You could, but it doesn't add to the quality, you're just going to tape and mud those seams anyway.
Received on Wednesday, 3 August 2005 15:08:19 UTC