Q

Why has there been the addition of a “Review” process?

A

It was considered essential that a review process be completed prior to commencing any maintenance work, as in some cases, amendments and revisions of publications were being initiated without adequately evaluating if a publication was being “used”, whether there were sufficient resources available and finally whether maintenance could not wait until a later date as it would have very little impact on the “use” of the publication.

Q

What are the reasons for changing “maintenance cycle” to “stability period” when there are still some experts who are not completely familiar with the current terminology?

A

During the review of the maintenance procedures completed by the IEC DMT under the SMB mandate, it was considered that the focus should be on the stability of publications and not on maintenance which implies modifying a publication either by amending or revising.

Q

How is information obtained on the list of indicators given in the review clause in the IEC Supplement?

A

Information on national adoptions can be obtained from IEC NCs or from the IEC CO Technical Officer responsible for the TC/SC.

IEC CO sales statistics can be obtained from the IEC CO Technical Officer. Noting that the IEC CO sales statistics are NOT a consolidation of all the IEC NCs’ sales.

Further information can of course be obtained from the TC/SC P-members by the circulation of a DC document.

Q

What indicators should be used in the review process?

A

Each committee will have to define the most appropriate indicators to be used in the review process.

Q

What is the recommended procedure for reviewing an IEC publication?

A

As the majority of TC/SCs have meeting frequencies of 12-18 months, then the procedures currently used are also applicable to the new review and maintenance procedures. Circulate a DC document in advance of the meeting requesting P-members’ comments on usage of publications up for review, technical comments, recommendations for withdrawal, confirmation or maintenance. This information should be compiled and circulated as an INF document. A recommendation from the WG/MT responsible for the publication should be made at the meeting leading to a decision by the P-members. When the decision is to confirm, then there is no need to issue the FormRR as the information will be minuted in the RM document. If the decision is to withdraw, then it is recommended always to issue the FormRR as other TC/SCs could be effected by the eventual withdrawal of a publication.

Otherwise decisions will have to be made by correspondence.

How does one define “acceptable usage” in the review process?

This is evidently rather subjective however it should be based on a combination of information from the indicators given in the review clause in the IEC Supplement and feed-back from the P-members and WG/MT experts.

What has been the fundamental change in the new FormRR from the previously used FormMCR?

A questionnaire was issued as the first step in the IEC DMT’s review of the maintenance procedures and one of the issues raised was the ambiguity over the content of the FormMCR. The small print at the bottom of the FormMCR indicated that it was a recommendation from the MT and if there were no P-member objections within 2 months then it would taken as being approved. Whereas in many cases, the information contained in the FormMCR had previously been approved during a committee meeting.

Consequently, the FormRR only gives information on a committee decision.

Who decides on the review date?

The committee depending on the type of publication. The “old rule” is still valid as the majority of maintenance work can be completed within 2-3 years.

Why isn’t the time interval between the review date and stability date defined?

This depends on the complexity and size of the publication. As the average development time for IEC publications is in the order of 30 months, it is recommended that the review date should be 24-36 months prior to the stability date.

Why has the minimum stability period been increased from 2 to 3 years?

t was considered that in general the stability periods of IEC publications are too short. As the new procedures allow, when there is an urgent need, committees to decide themselves on advancing the review/ stability dates without further SMB approval, then this should incite them to opt for longer stability periods.

Where on the IEC web site are the stability and review dates given?

The stability dates are on the IEC website - TC/SC’s home page. These can either be consulted directly or there is also the possibility to download the information in an Excel spread sheet format.

Currently review dates cannot be registered in the IEC CO project data base, however this will be possible in future when the migration to the new project data base has been completed.

What are the criteria for judging if there are insufficient resources?

This is left up to the committee’s judgement. There are no minimum requirements on the number of experts in MTs. This will have to be assessed by the committee depending on the work to be accomplished and the resources available.

How many maintenance teams?

It is recommended that there is a minimum number of MTs grouping a maximum number of publications in each MT, which can be handled efficiently by the same experts.

How can a TC/SC advance the review date/ stability date in the case there is an urgent need to maintain a publication?

The committee, that is to say the P-members, have to approve either by correspondence i.e. circulation of questionnaire – Q document, or at a meeting that there is an urgent need for maintaining a publication necessitating the advancement of the review/ stability date.

What is the meaning of “a new maintenance project may only be started when the present project is at the enquiry stage”?

To ensure that publications are not undergoing continuous maintenance, the earliest that a new maintenance project can start is when the current project e.g. 1st edition or an amendment/ revised edition, is at the enquiry stage that is to say the circulation of the CDV.

If there is a decision to withdraw a publication, when is the publication withdrawn?

At the end of the stability period that is to say at the stability date.

What is the origin of the “fragmented CDV process”?

This derogation from the ISO/IEC Directives was accepted some years ago by the SMB. There are a limited number of TC/SCs using it. When it is considered that one part of a CDV project is contentious and could potentially lead to the rejection of the CDV, then the fragmented CDV process can be adopted. However it should be noted that the project must advance for those approved fragments and in no way be delayed waiting for the eventual approval of any rejected fragments.

Why has the definition of DC document (document for comment) been deleted from the new review and maintenance procedures?

DC documents are not specific to the review and maintenance procedures. They are generic documents used by committees to get feed-back from their P-members on any subject.