Ambiguous requirements

It should be noted that the name trichloromethylsilane is the correct CAS name for the framed structure that provides legal status to some ambiguous names. A more complex example of ambiguity introduced by missing parentheses is shown in Figure 3.9. In this case the recognition of ambiguity requires support of a specific nomenclature procedure functional modification of trivial acid names. 

Requirements, if appropriate, can be developed, approved, and released incrementally, but care should be taken that interactions and interfaces between software (and hardware) requirements are properly reviewed, analyzed, and controlled. While incomplete or ambiguous requirements present an opportunity to proactively manage future clarification of requirements, more often than not they hinder effective design. Sam Clark, a former FDA investigator, cited an example of a poor requirement ... 

Resolution of this ambiguity requires additional experiments. The processes and reactions hypothesized for a given model can suggest experiments to support or reject the underlying hypothesis. For example, the proposed formation of PtO is consistent with a... 

After a new edition of a Subject Test is first administered, examinees responses to each test question are analyzed in a variety of ways to determine whether each question functioned as expected. These analyses may reveal that a question is ambiguous, requires knowledge beyond the scope of the test, or is inappropriate for the total group or a particular subgroup of examinees taking the test. Answers to such questions are not used in computing scores. 

Item 2 is the only ambiguous requirement. Most commercially sold chemicals provide this sort of information on the label in a number of ways, such as ... 

Streamlines USEPA administrative enforcement, increases civil penalties, clarifies enforceability of the lead ban and other previously ambiguous requirements, allows enforcement to be suspended in some cases to encourage system consolidation or restructuring, requires states to have administrative penalty authority, and clarifies provisions for judicial review of final USEPA actions. 

The total change d.S can be detennined, as has been seen, by driving the subsystem a back to its initial state, but the separation into dj.S and dj S is sometimes ambiguous. Any statistical mechanical interpretation of the second law requires that, at least for any volume element of macroscopic size, dj.S > 0. However, the total... 

These ambiguities eventuady led the Federal Trade Commission to take action ia the case of cedular plastics and to restrict the use of such terminology (3). This action, ia addition to the prohibition placed on the use of certain terminology, requires the use of a caveat whenever the results of burning tests are cited. Much of the older Hterature, however, as wed as some of the more recent pubHcations, use this restricted terminology. 

Energy Requirements. The energy requirements of several sodium manufacturiag processes are compared ia Table 7 (76). The data contain some ambiguities because of the allocation of energy to the coproduction of chlorine. An iadependent calculation shows a somewhat lower energy consumption for the Downs process (92). 

Historically, the problems studied and the approaches followed in scientific investigations are strongly constrained by the loading methods and diagnostics available to a particular investigator. Hence, the complete scientific description of shock-compressed matter often requires the interpretation of experiments from a number of independent directions that are often not consistent with each other and may contain significant ambiguities. 

The supplementary requirement in clause 4.1.1.1 for goals to deploy the quality policy creates an ambiguity because it is unclear as to whether these goals are the same organizational goals referred to in clause 4.1.1 or some other goals. For clarity, goals are addressed separately under Quality objectives in this chapter. 

The supplementary requirements provide a welcome addition to this somewhat inadequately specified clause of ISO 9001. However the reference to clause 4.1.1.2 with respect to objectives specified in the quality policy is somewhat ambiguous. Clause 4.1.1.2 does not require objectives to be included in the policy this is required in clause 4.1.1.1. As stated previously, system effectiveness is judged by how well the system enables implementation of policy and achievement of objectives. Therefore, requiring records that contain evidence of this is a logical interpretation. Such records need to identify the matters reviewed, the results, the actions, and the decisions taken, together with the names of those responsible and the date by which actions are to be completed. The records should also contain the data used to conduct the review as the basis upon which the decisions have been made and so that comparisons can be made at later... 

In some respects this requirement is ambiguous as there are no equivalent requirements for when the APQP approach is used. The APQP manual merely offers guidance. With the APQP approach the equivalent of the project manager is the project team leader and the equivalent of the project team is the product quality planning team. 

This requirement should have been unnecessary since clause 4.2.1 requires the quality system to be maintained. However, what it does do is overcome any ambiguity by defining the occasions when the control plan has to be updated. 

This requirement illustrates some ambiguity over terminology. Clause 4.1.1.4 mentions improvement in quality which implies improvement in product and process characteristics, thereby making this additional requirement superfluous. Little more is needed than was given in Part 2 Chapter 1 except to state that when setting priorities for improvement you need to focus on the special characteristics first. 

Although ISO 8402 defines quality as the totality of characteristics of an entity that bears on its ability to satisfy a stated or implied need, ISO 9001 does not require the required characteristics to be specified. Note 2 of clause 4.3.4 defines a contract and accepted order as agreed requirements but not specified requirements as used elsewhere in the standard. It would have made for less ambiguity if the term customer requirements had been used throughout and then there would be no doubt as to what requirements and to whose requirements these clauses refer. 

There is a slight conflict in this clause as it requires that before acceptance of an order, you need to ensure that any differences between your tender and the accepted order requirements are resolved. Clearly if you have not accepted the order you don t need any accepted order requirement. But this small ambiguity doesn t detract from the essence of the requirement. 

The standard requires that incomplete, ambiguous, or conflicting requirements be resolved with those responsible for drawing up these requirements. 

---