Following on from my previous message in support of standardization, I cannot understand why each phase and sub-phase of the lifecycle deserves its own data/documentation format. The way I see it, each and every ‘regulated technical element’ needs to be explicitly (i) identified, (ii) specified and (iii) supported by a test procedure for the phase in question. End of story - almost. While the content and timing of each of the three aspects can certainly vary from item to item (depending on class, risk etc.), there is no justification for the degree of ‘format variability’ that exists across phases, disciplines & projects. I am also arguing for absolute connectivity between successive stages, with specification being treated as a logical extension of itemization, and testing a further extension of specification. This is a classic example of continuous processing, in my view. This message invites discussion and feedback in regard to ‘frugality of formats’ as a constituent of Self-Evident Engineering (SEE).
Write a comment