Order Elec items for a 2 storey extn, + BS7671 imperfections

[EFLImpudence]

Doesn't this all boil down to the fact that those who do compile BS7671 aren't doing it very well?

Additional contributions are not the solution.

I presume the beloved OSG is written for us simpletons who cannot understand BS7671 but that only exacerbates the situation.

I think this is a problem in many areas in Britain.
It may have always been thus and may be the same elsewhere; I don't know.

 

[JohnW2]

I doubt that they would be interested in "free" reviewers. It's not just the cost, but the time involved for a) the reviewer to do his work, and b)the committee to consider the reviewer's comments.

That's a pity. (a) is surely not their problem, if the reviewer is prepared to offer his/her time (however much that may be) 'for nothing'. It could be argued that (b) is also a little silly, since the same individual could presumably submit just as many comments via the public consultation process (comments which the committee would 'have to' consider), even if they were not engaged as a 'FOC reviewer'? - or would they 'reject' (public consultation) comments if they got too many from the same person. Whatever, it sounds as it's not worth my volunteering

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

John, the lay person would be judged on the comments they'd submitted - I know a couple of committees that have invited people to join, based on the quality of the comments they'd made. I fact that's how I got into standards work.

OK - so it sounds as if we're back to the public consultation process as the (perhaps only?) way for a 'technically lay' person to 'get their foot in the door'?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

EFLI, that indeed seems to be the accusation levelled at the committee responsible for BS7671. They're doing the best they can though, considering the limitations on time, and constraints coming from documents written external to the UK. Remember also that most of them aren't in general paid authors, but have a 'day job' doing something else.
If there are inconsistencies or ambiguities in the standard then it's no good moaning about them here or in the bar, better to write down in a clear and succinct manner what you think is wrong, why, and what the solution should be, and send that to the committee. If you don't, then how are they to know what parts of the text aren't understood?

The OSG, and the GNs, are another matter altogether, written under a less democratic principle by paid IET staff, which is one of the reasons why they aren't part of BS7671 or any other BS standard. nevertheless, they can and have been amended on the basis of comments received from the public.

 

[JohnW2]

Doesn't this all boil down to the fact that those who do compile BS7671 aren't doing it very well?

IMO, yes - and I've all but offered my services to attempt to improve that situation - at least, to to try to identify areas which could probably benefit from improvement.

I presume the beloved OSG is written for us simpletons who cannot understand BS7671 but that only exacerbates the situation.

It often seems like that - but, of course, AFAIUI, the OSG is produced by the IET themselves, not those directly involved in creating BS7671 - so different people, and different processes.

I think this is a problem in many areas in Britain. It may have always been thus and may be the same elsewhere; I don't know.

No doubt about that, but in many fields the value of 'independent review' is recognised, implemenst and, in some situations, actually even mandatory. Over the years, I've quite often been involved with such 'review processes', albeit not usually with a 'technically lay' hat on.

Kind Regards, John

 

[bernardgreen]

Bernard, isn't that what BAS said?

IMO the problem is the regualtions have been written by people who have experience and/or expertise but they are often read by people who do not have experience or expertise.

The writers have not included many of the items that are needed. Much of the ommitted items are things that the experienced person learnt to do automatically and without thinking about. Unless the writers analyse every action an electrician does the writers may not be aware of much of what the electrician does.

those writing it know what theu want to say, but aren't always sure how to express themselves in a way understandable to others.

Very true, that is why I gave first drafts of the user manuals I wrote to people with no experience of the equipment. Watching them struggle and noting the questions put a lot of material into the manual. Material I had not realised was necessary.

In an ideal world perhaps that would be an argument for employing independent reviewers,

Essential.

 

[stillp]

I doubt that they would be interested in "free" reviewers. It's not just the cost, but the time involved for a) the reviewer to do his work, and b)the committee to consider the reviewer's comments.

That's a pity. (a) is surely not their problem, if the reviewer is prepared to offer his/her time (however much that may be) 'for nothing'. It could be argued that (b) is also a little silly, since the same individual could presumably submit just as many comments via the public consultation process (comments which the committee would 'have to' consider), even if they were not engaged as a 'FOC reviewer'? - or would they 'reject' (public consultation) comments if they got too many from the same person. Whatever, it sounds as it's not worth my volunteering

Kind Regards, John

It's not the time to review the comments that I was referring to, but the fact that independent review would introduce 2 more stages to the process; 1)reviewer reviews, and 2)committee responds. Given the day jobs of most of the committee members, that addition of two stages to a process that is already resource-limited could introduce intolerable delays.

 

[JohnW2]

If there are inconsistencies or ambiguities in the standard then it's no good moaning about them here or in the bar,...

You keep saying this but, to be fair, there are very rarely discussions here which are primarily reg-bashing in nature. Rather, comments and discussions about 'problems' with the regs usually arise in the course of attempts to answer a question on the basis of the regs - which is when uncertainties/ambiguities/lacks of clarity etc. often reveal themselves.

... better to write down in a clear and succinct manner what you think is wrong, why, and what the solution should be, and send that to the committee. If you don't, then how are they to know what parts of the text aren't understood?

That obviously makes sense. Since you've said it, do I take it that committees like JPEL/64 will accept such comments at any time, to be taken into consideration when the next revision of the Standard is being drafted, even though it is not in the context of (or within the time window of) a consultation process relating to a DPC?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

The writers have not included many of the items that are needed. Much of the ommitted items are things that the experienced person learnt to do automatically and without thinking about. Unless the writers analyse every action an electrician does the writers may not be aware of much of what the electrician does.

They are writing a standard, that is supposed to set objectives not prescribe solutions.
They aren't writing a recipe book, or a guide to electrical installation work. that's what the OSG is for. If you don't like that write to the authors and publishers of it, the IET, but don't just say you don't like it, tell them what you don't like, why, and what they should say instead.

 

[stillp]

there are very rarely discussions here which are primarily reg-bashing in nature.

Well, there's EFLI's first sentence at the top of the page, and your agreement a little later.

 

[JohnW2]

Very true, that is why I gave first drafts of the user manuals I wrote to people with no experience of the equipment. Watching them struggle and noting the questions put a lot of material into the manual. Material I had not realised was necessary.

In some areas in which I regularly work, there is a legislated requirement for such 'instruction' documents to be satisfactorily 'tested on' people with no experience of what they relate to before they can be put into use.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

... better to write down in a clear and succinct manner what you think is wrong, why, and what the solution should be, and send that to the committee. If you don't, then how are they to know what parts of the text aren't understood?

That obviously makes sense. Since you've said it, do I take it that committees like JPEL/64 will accept such comments at any time, to be taken into consideration when the next revision of the Standard is being drafted, even though it is not in the context of (or within the time window of) a consultation process relating to a DPC?

They usually will, and it could be argued that they have a duty to do so. It's all explained in the links I posted earlier.

 

[JohnW2]

It's not the time to review the comments that I was referring to, but the fact that independent review would introduce 2 more stages to the process; 1)reviewer reviews, and 2)committee responds. Given the day jobs of most of the committee members, that addition of two stages to a process that is already resource-limited could introduce intolerable delays.

OK - but I still think it's a pity. As I asked, what would happen if (sincethey wouldn't let me undertake a commissioned 'independent review') I submitted 'hundreds' of comments during or before a public consultation process - would they all be considered by the committee?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

Very true, that is why I gave first drafts of the user manuals I wrote to people with no experience of the equipment. Watching them struggle and noting the questions put a lot of material into the manual. Material I had not realised was necessary.

In some areas in which I regularly work, there is a legislated requirement for such 'instruction' documents to be satisfactorily 'tested on' people with no experience of what they relate to before they can be put into use.

Kind Regards, John

That's for instruction documents, and from what you've said in earlier posts I guess relates to consumer protection issues with medicines? That's surely very different from a technical standard.

 

[stillp]

It's not the time to review the comments that I was referring to, but the fact that independent review would introduce 2 more stages to the process; 1)reviewer reviews, and 2)committee responds. Given the day jobs of most of the committee members, that addition of two stages to a process that is already resource-limited could introduce intolerable delays.

OK - but I still think it's a pity. As I asked, what would happen if (sincethey wouldn't let me undertake a commissioned 'independent review') I submitted 'hundreds' of comments during or before a public consultation process - would they all be considered by the committee?

Kind Regards, John

Yes, provided they were sensible and well-presented comments. They have a duty to do so.