Talk:Quality control/Archives/2010

quality control vs. quality assurance
I am deeply concerned that Quality Assurance directs to the Quality Control page. Most people don't know that there is a difference, but there is:

From www.faqs.org's testing-faq The ANSI/IEEE definitions...boil down to:
 * TESTING means "quality control"
 * QUALITY CONTROL measures the quality of a product
 * QUALITY ASSURANCE measures the quality of processes used to create a quality product.

IEEE Standard 12207 defines QA this way: "The quality assurance process is a process for providing adequate assurance that the software products and processes in the product life cycle conform to their specific requirements and adhere to their established plans."

The Software Capability Maturity Model (SW CMM) version 1.1 states it this way: "The purpose of Software Quality Assurance is to provide management with appropriate visibility into the process being used by the software project and of the products being built".

you can also see softwareqatest.com's FAQ1.1 and softwareqatest.com's FAQ1.2 for additional information.

Now if a wiki gnome could please unlink these two terms, I'd be ever so pleased. --Walter Görlitz 20:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Walter, I'm also interesting in quality. Have been ever since I read Robert Pirsig's Zen novel. I do software development and have been with Wikipedia nearly 4 years, focusing on the Quality of the articles, and on processes geared toward improving their quality. How can I help here? Can we work together? Uncle Ed 13:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Precision and specifications
Cut from article:


 * For instance, the four sides of the Great Pyramid of Giza are perpendicular to within 3.5 arcseconds.

How is this an example of a specification? Did the ancient Egyptians leave any writings about how perpendicular they wanted the pyramid to be? By the way, I assume the sentence above referred to the base - not the sides.

I hardly think a civil engineer would even mention the angles of the base of a great structure. More likely, he'd talk about the tolerance of the length of the sides. BEWARE HERE: You can have all four lengths being equal and still not have a square, but a parallelogram, so specifying angle tolerance does make sense.

Also, the sentence seems aimed more at praising the splendour of ancient engineering techniques than explaining anything about quality control.

I spend so much time talking about this one sentence, because it's indicative of the poor level of writing quality found in ALL the Wikipedia articles related to quality.

By the way, is their a Category:Quality so I can find all the similar articles? Uncle Ed 13:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Why does Quality Assurance redirect to Quality Control?
Why does Quality Assurance redirect to Quality Control? Is not QC different from QA? Quality control is a process of verification that comes of use at the end of a process; quality assurance is a strategy that kicks in at the product conception stage itself. For example, http://www.lisa.org/arle/archives/2004/12/what_is_quality.html makes it clear that the distinction is forgotten by even those who should know better. Doesn't it make more sense to create a new document under Quality Assurance, even if a stub, with a See Also for 'Quality Control'. The present situation gives rise to a lot of confustion to those who have no way of knowing the distinction. Perhaps someone could start with the article please!

(Er...someone seems to have pipped me to this query. Sorry to have repeated) Priyatu 12:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There used to be a separate QA article but according to edit history it was merged to QC. To find the old QA article:
 * Search for "quality assurance" on Wikipedia.
 * You are redirected to the QC page.
 * The top of the QC page has a link: "redirected from Quality assurance". Click it.
 * You can then view the history of the QA page and bring back the last non-redirecting version if you wish. Edit it to make the difference between QA and QC clear so that nobody merges them again. I'd also suggest first asking the editor who did the merge/redirect if he has opinions about it. As you seem to know about the subject at hand the "someone" who should start the article is you :-) :-) &mdash; Weregerbil 13:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * UPDATE Quality Assurance is now a separate article. Folajimi 14:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The person that defined QC as “a process of verification that comes of use at the end of a process” is wrong. You may control at the beginning, middle or end, thus the word CONTROL. You seem to be confused with INSPECTION. Your comparison towards QA is valuable, but kindly be careful with offending a method by coming so short of its value. 205.250.231.106 05:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)Cristal G. Duque

because using quality assurance approach the quality can also be controlled whenever it is necessary.......(sara) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.182.18 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Quality control/ Quality Assurance issues in High Tech Management
I wanted to add some commentary that adds more dimension to this subject. The weakness I saw was an overall focus on consumer products, and some of the sunshine schools of management which are long on pop psychology terms, and short on practical methods for achieving measurable improvements in the product development cycle.

Coming from a software engineering background in consumer computer products, I have very high regard for the engineering methodology used at JPL. Their protocols for insuring quality are as amazing as the devices they produce. The intricacy of these protocols is understandable because they determine success or failure- where you only have one shot, you are doing something that has never been done before, and where even the most minute error can produce catastrophe, the huge pressure is on management. It's why they have detailed specifications about how 4 people are used to tighten a single bolt. That's stunning- using 4 highly trained engineers being used solely in a role to closely observe and record that such a minute activity was performed correctly. Their testing is equally important- when the realized that their landing bags were failing, or their parachute would not work properly (a chief suspect in the failure of the UK Mars Lander).

It goes on and on- why did Genesis hard land, threatening the total loss of a quarter billion dollar project? According to the [[Genesis_(spacecraft)#Mishap_Investigation_Board|MIB investigation, because Lockeed Martin thought they had a proven design that didn't need a complicated and expensive g-force test. In fact the design was slightly altered- repacking of a greater number of motors required repositioning of the g force sensors.

The idea of fatalism about Murphy's law and high tech is nonsense. With Discovery, with Challenger, with Genesis, with recent scandals in the pharmeceutical industry it is always what- a manager doing something like blocking a request from engineers to get imaging on the shuttle wing. Deliberate blocking of testing. Just stunning. It's not that these were bad people- QA procedures can reduce the progress of a project to near zero. After all the most extreme consideration of all possible points of failure is an open set- so the process can be interminable.

Anyway- I just think people should appreciate that friction.

The problem is that it retards engineering innovation because proven (old) designs are favored over the innovative (inherantly unproven) designs. So one approach is to work on the other side of the problem- to reduce the consequences of failure.

Unmanned craft can be much more innovative, and the lower the cost of the mission, the more risks that can be taken in the design.

Unfortunately, the recent initiative to focus Nasa attention on a manned mission to Mars runs totally counter to these principles that guarantee greater success and greater techological risk taking.

Ok- I am glad I got that off my chest. Writing NPOV, it built up a lot of pressures and I partly needed to vent, but also I think people should realize some of the fundamental forces at work in high tech development. QA really is at the core of some very dramatic events of recent history.

-Mak Thorpe 08:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was a little shocked to see QA and QC merged as they have been. But I was pleased to see that I am not the first to be shocked in this way.  I would be happy to contribute to new articles in each matter - there is plenty of existing, well-written material on both subjects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.220.111 (talk • contribs) March 30 2006  (UTC)
 * Please let me know if you need a hand in having the split implemented; I will be more than happy to help. Folajimi 09:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Update. The section on Quality assurance has been moved to its own page. --Folajimi 14:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit
The following text was added to the opening paragraph of the article; I have moved it here since it looks more like an attempt to pospose an edit as opposed to actual content. Kuru talk  12:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * THIS EDIT OF “QA” SUBMITTED TO WIKIPEDIA.ORG 6-13-2006


 * Add the following to the QA aspects already defined at Wikipedia.


 * QA SIMPLIFIED


 * Summary
 * Quality assurance (QA) focuses resources on those activities that  MUST happen to ensure success.  The manager of each administrative unit determines what MUST happen.


 * Essential
 * Distinguish “MUSTS” and “wants” for each task, project, or other important activity. MUSTS shall be achieved as prescribed, or the work repeated until each MUST fully meets your specification.


 * When MUSTS have been distinguished from wants, the balance of QA effort is applied  to improve and complete the process.


 * One person in the organization has overall QA responsibility; managers are key QA personnel.


 * Details
 * Start QA planning with the “essential” above.  Add other dimensions of QA described here at Wikipedia if you need to supplement the essential.  Test the MUSTS by asking “If this MUST is not achieved with the first effort, will I expend whatever resources are necessary to achieve it, and discard all non-conforming items or efforts?”  If the answer is NO!, then it is a “want”, not a MUST.


 * Background
 * For a specific task, a “wiki” visitor (client) may wish to defer other dimensions found at Wikipedia under “quality assurance,” and apply the simple, straightforward, and effective essential.


 * If this is what the client is looking for, the above time-tested QA essential starts the process. For  reference, call QA Simplified, the RAB (6-7-2006) approach to quality assurance.


 * Submitted by RAB
 * Email address 

Counterparts in other languages.
According to the history logs for Quality assurance, the de:Qualitätssicherung was included in this article as the result of a merge.

Which of these articles should be considered the proper translation in the German version of this project? --Folajimi 14:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Response to Kuru's 13 June 2006
7-3-2006 Response to KURU's 13 June 2006 RE: RABQA's contribution of text-- "QA" to wikipedia.org 6-13-2006

What is next in the wiki process of accepting my contributed text?

I plan to adjust my text to conform with wiki formatting protocol without substantive change.

The following explains my submittal of text as an introduction to the wikipedia section on quality assurance. The submittal was not an edit of pre-existing content.

The information submitted as "edit" is intended to be text to introduce the subject of quality assurance to wiki visitors. It is important that quality assurance practice be simple and straightforward for all users to encourage many to practice QA in their daily work. The concept "essential" distills more than 25 years applying quality assurance to critical activities (including nuclear).

Those who wish to make use of quality assurance discipline in their important endeavors should begin by first applying the two-line "essential" of QA Simplified; then adopt the other dimensions of QA (so well defined in wikipedia), if needed to make their QA practice more effective. Most everyday applications will need only the "essential."

The text submitted (6-13-2006) is not intended to change any of the good words that already appear at wikipedia under quality assurance. I used the word "edit" because I did not know that wiki distinguishes "edit" from proposed additional content.

File RABQA(7-3-2006)Rabqa1 02:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * RAB, Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia. When you edit an article, your submission will immediately become part of that article, and it will be what readers see when they visit the article. For some important guidelines on Wikipedia editting, please see Five pillars. In particular, since you are apparently a professional in the Quality field, please be especially careful of the principle of Neutral point of view. For example, statements such as "For reference, call QA Simplified, the RAB (6-7-2006) approach to quality assurance" are inappropriate for the main article. Also, processes or guidelines that are part of a particular approach to Quality (such as the "RAB approach") should be identified as such, rather than presented as if they are general principles of quality control. -- The Photon 03:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Put Simply:

Quality Assurance = The assurance that quality is achieved

Quality Control = Set of techniques and associated activities used for monitoring a process or checking the product

Both parts of the holistics of Quality; but different from one another!

85.159.128.118 09:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Guy Williams

Meeting Wikipedia Quality Standards
The tags that are on this article indicate that the article does not appear to an interested outsider to meet current Wikipedia standards. The lack of references problem is clear. If someone can provide the information for citations from an authoritative source, then I'm sure that we can find someone to properly insert them. The NPOV problem that I noted was in the History section, which has a severe no-reference/no-citation problem too. DCDuring 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

this article will create big confusion, it should be reedited correctly and there is also a mix, cut and paste from QA/QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by H.meligy@ieee.org (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Definition QA and QC
Quality Control. A management function that is intended to control or regulate the process in order to prevent defective products from being made.

Quality Assurance. A planned systematic action to provide adequate confidence that a product will conform to requirements.

Broadly, quality control has to do with making quality what it should be, and quality assurance has to do with making sure quality is what it should be.

Source: CQT Primer - by Quality Council of Indiana - 2003 Print - Bill Wortman

Quality Control. The operational techniques and the activities that sustain a quality of product or service that will satisfy given needs; also the use of such techniques and activities.

Quality Assurance. All the planned or systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a product or service will satisfy given needs.

Source: Certified Quality Technician Handbook - Benbow, Elshennawy, Walker - ASQ Quality Press

Quality Assurance. An activity based on business objectives to ensure that a work product is developed according to agreed-upon standards or processes. It is applicable to all phases (planning to release) of the life cycle of a work product.

Quality Control. A verification (testing) activity that is executed on a work product that is considered final by its author (checked-in code, project plan, etc.). It is applicable to the testing phase of the life cycle of a work product. --Northenpal (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quality Control is the process of monitoring and recording results of executing the quality activities to assess performance and recommend necessary changes.

Quality Assurance is the process of auditing the quality requirements and the results from quality control measurements to ensure appropriate quality standards and operational definitions are used.

Source: A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Fourth Edition, Project Management Institute, 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.68.83 (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge Quality control and genetic algorithms here
I would like to ptopose to merge the Quality control and genetic algorithms here, because that combined article seems to fail notablity. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hard copies of the journals in the article....
with red links need to be confirmed--222.64.29.15 (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please do not bully reverting of my writing.
It's better to make comments instead, OK?--222.64.29.15 (talk) 01:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)