28th September 2007, 09:21 AM
now your hurting my head... 
standard: 1. Guideline documentation that reflects agreements on products, practices, or operations by nationally or internationally recognized industrial, professional, trade associations or governmental bodies. Note: This concept applies to formal, approved standards, as contrasted to de facto standards and proprietary standards, which are exceptions to this concept. 2. An exact value, a physical entity, or an abstract concept, established and defined by authority, custom, or common consent to serve as a reference, model, or rule in measuring quantities or qualities, establishing practices or procedures, or evaluating results. A fixed quantity or quality.
Quality assurance (QA) is the activity of providing evidence needed to establish confidence among all concerned, that quality-related activities are being performed effectively. All those planned or systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a product or service will satisfy given requirements for quality.
They do seem heavily interlinked.. both defining what is and is not 'acceptable' I could argue that the IFA documents are not Standards.. but guidelines... as Standards by definition have to be agreed by all parties.. and although there may be general acceptance.. they are not in any legal definition a 'Standard' the Dutch Document is however a document agreed at govermental level (I think) Surely a standard is something that quality assurance must check... so to have a quality assurance scheme you must have a standard to check against?
Sorry for getting confused on this... but I am concerned that - good as they are - the IFA documents are seen as Standards ... when they are Guidance. A Point that Tim Howard made ... and even the DOcument from Holland starts with the abigious "Standards and Guidance."
To be blunt... as a non RAO.. could you as a curator enforce IFA "standards" if I have not agreed to them?
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
standard: 1. Guideline documentation that reflects agreements on products, practices, or operations by nationally or internationally recognized industrial, professional, trade associations or governmental bodies. Note: This concept applies to formal, approved standards, as contrasted to de facto standards and proprietary standards, which are exceptions to this concept. 2. An exact value, a physical entity, or an abstract concept, established and defined by authority, custom, or common consent to serve as a reference, model, or rule in measuring quantities or qualities, establishing practices or procedures, or evaluating results. A fixed quantity or quality.
Quality assurance (QA) is the activity of providing evidence needed to establish confidence among all concerned, that quality-related activities are being performed effectively. All those planned or systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a product or service will satisfy given requirements for quality.
They do seem heavily interlinked.. both defining what is and is not 'acceptable' I could argue that the IFA documents are not Standards.. but guidelines... as Standards by definition have to be agreed by all parties.. and although there may be general acceptance.. they are not in any legal definition a 'Standard' the Dutch Document is however a document agreed at govermental level (I think) Surely a standard is something that quality assurance must check... so to have a quality assurance scheme you must have a standard to check against?
Sorry for getting confused on this... but I am concerned that - good as they are - the IFA documents are seen as Standards ... when they are Guidance. A Point that Tim Howard made ... and even the DOcument from Holland starts with the abigious "Standards and Guidance."
To be blunt... as a non RAO.. could you as a curator enforce IFA "standards" if I have not agreed to them?
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu