That need to prove a negative (which, contrary to what low-end science teachers will tell you, is not impossible) actually proves to be a problem when trying to assure the validation of some systems.
What you end up doing is relying on the tautological validation of the subsystems that your system uses.
Because you know that all of your subsystems only do what you request, you only need to validate that your system requests what you required.
Of course, in some cases you can't predict the exceptions in your subsystems. If your cat-fur supplier gets sold a load of panda fur, and you're not doing incoming inspection, the astronauts are going to blame you for the overpowering smell of bamboo on spacewalks. But in general you won't inspect for that at all, and will add the procedure only after the first time someone discovers by accident, or, more likely, the first time after that that it hurts you.
So what does "best workmanship practices of the trade" mean? To me, a lay person, it sounds like you are talking about being the best there is. I suspect the meaning is really open to interpretation and is only given meaning as argued in court. Unless there is a written standard for such a broad term, how could the court be capable of giving this term meaning across the various trades?
I am not suggesting that you offer some proof of the validity of this phrase having a specific meaning, after all, this is just an Internet discussion. But please don't expect me to believe this unless such proof is available.
That sounds like an urban myth. Do you have evidence that it actually happened? If not, I suggest doing as I do, which is to preface such stories with "I haven't verified that this is true, but I heard a story that..."
In my opinion as someone who is quite familiar with costing of plush toys, the above is almost certainly not true because the production cost would be higher (even with an unlimited supply of free cats) than present manufacturing methods. The same argument is used for the urban myth that McDonalds makes burgers out of earthworms; a pound of earthworms costs so much more than a pound of beef, and it would be cheaper for McDonalds to grind up fillet mignon.
This being the Internet, the preferred practice is to spend a minimum of two minutes doing a web search before asking someone to prove something. This saves time and effort for everyone involved. In this case, my first try (searching on Google for "best workmanship practice" [
formatting link
] ) showed as the very first result a reference to The NASA Workmanship Technical Committee (NWTC) at [
formatting link
] and as the second result showed the NASA Assurance Technical Center at [
formatting link
], which states:
"The information in this reference guide is derived from a variety of sources. Much of it comes from existing NASA workmanship standards, but there is a lot of helpful information that fills gaps left open in the NASA standards. This second grouping of information is described throughout the document using the term "Best Workmanship Practice." This refers to procedures, practices, or processes that have been demonstrated, through use and experience, to be robust and reliable. The sources for these "Best Workmanship Practices" include other U.S. Government standards, the IPC, the European Space Agency, and lessons NASA has learned from previous experiences.
"Unless otherwise specified, this document falls in order of precedence behind the contract, approved drawings, and any standards imposed on the program. Other than requirements identified directly from NASA Technical Standards, the requirements and recommendations in this document are not binding and are not to be construed as implied requirements to be imposed on a program. Nor are they to be used if they conflict with any contractual or program-specific requirements."
So, to summarize:
There are gaps left open in the NASA standards
"Best workmanship practices" does have a specific meaning when fulfilling a NASA contract -- they are information that serves to fill those gaps.
NASA is quite specific in saying that best workmanship practices "are not binding" and "are not to be construed as implied requirements" and are "not to be used if they conflict with any requirements."
They are just one more example of things which are important but which are not required or tested for. They reflect a fundamental reality that contractors don't just want to meet the requirements, but rather very much want to meet the requirements in such a way that makes the customer happy and the final product a sucess.
Quite true. Contract terms are regularly determined by the courts when the terms are not 100% clear. The resulting decisions form the basis for case law as practiced in the U.S.
They struggle their way through the job. They don't always get it correct, but there are appeals.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.