Complex Language Used In Standards?

Semantics:

'The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form: We're basically agreed; let's not quibble over semantics.'

But when you're involved with Standards unfortunately you have to…and we do…a lot!

Most of our jobs involve reading, interpreting and understanding the requirements laid out in various standards so that we can implement them into our own organisations or help others to implement them into theirs.

One of the functions of this and other 'quality management' forums is to provide a platform where open debate can take place on the meaning of this, that, or the other word, sentence, paragraph or clause contained in a particular Standard. In fact that's exactly why the SDF was conceived in the first place.

But should it be us who provide clarity? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the technical committees who write the Standards to make every effort to ensure they are written in plain and simple language, language that even a layman could understand. Shouldn't clarity be one of the Standards writer's key performance indicators?

Sure technical standards by their very nature have to be ‘technical' (to an extent) but I think this is a bit of a cop out. Sometimes I think the boffins who write Standards must take some sort of pleasure in weaving their legalistic technical jargon into a tapestry of expert tosh.

Perhaps there should be a Standard for writing Standards, there probably is…there is!

http://isotc.iso.ch/...11/sds_base.htm

I've had a quick scan but couldn't find anything on ‘clarity' or the use of ‘plain language'…although I could be wrong. Even so its glaringly obvious the guidelines are not as effective as they could be.

So what can be done to improve things?

Has anyone heard of or seen the crystal mark logo (see attached). It's awarded by The Plain English Campaign, an independent pressure group fighting for public information to be written in plain English. You may have seen the logo along side the small print on some insurance documents, loans etc.

http://www.plainenglish.co.uk

The Plain English Campaign define plain English as:

'Something that the intended audience can read, understand and act upon the first time they read it. Plain English takes into account design and layout as well as language.'

A document is awarded the ‘crystal mark' when it has successfully passed through 35 technical tests as well as tests of ordinary people's understanding of the document.

I'm sure there will be similar approvals in other countries.

It sounds like a good idea to me. What do you think? Is it possible for technical Standards to be written in plain(er) English?

Regards,
Simon

As a friend of mine was recently asked on holiday in Texas......

'What language do you speak in England?'

Perhaps it is not surprising a clear text is not available.

Any way, you trying to do us out of jobs???

Seriously, it would be nice to have a clearer text, if just to sell the concepts to our 'superiors'.

It sounds like a good idea to me. What do you think?  Is it possible for technical Standards to be written in plain(er) English?

Hi all,

surely a wonderful idea

What about consultant's job ?

Most of the folks I know will soon run out of money

Even when a standard is written in plain English they can be open to a vast range of interpetation.

e.g. in the IFS it states " The metal or foreign body detector shall incorporate both an alarm, and where, applicable an automatic rejection device......."

What do you think an alarm is?

What do you think an alarm is?

Hi Yorky,

following Oxford dictionary's definitions for alarm.

1. a loud noise or a signal that warns people of danger or of a problem;
2. a device that warns people of a particular danger.
Which one is it 1. or 2. ?
Moreover, is it the same if it's a loud noise or a signal ?
My opinion is NO: my experience is that a LOUD NOISE is effective , a flashing lamp is not

So, what shall we do ? IMHO effectiveness is the driving force, so let's check whether the device is effective

One of the items that gets to me is the bloody automotive industry.

The latest standard is TS16949:2002 and based on the 9K2K model + the automotive bulshit.

The standard in fact is reasonably straightforward, but then there are a set of 'guidance notes' that are required for you to implement the standard correcrly.

And it is easier to change the guidance notes that the standard

Even when a standard is written in plain English they can be open to a vast range of interpetation.

True. Perhaps we should continue this thread as a rogues gallery for the poor / complex English found in Standards.

Feel free to add your clause.

Regards,
Simon

I'm not sure if these qualify, Simon - but they sure mystify me.

Both from ISO 9001:

7.2.1 The organization shall determine ... any additional requirements determined by the organization

Eh? We need to determine them twice?


8.4 ... to evaluate where continual improvement of the effectiveness of the quality management system can be made

Gotta be continual improvement? What about an ordinary improvement?

rgds Jim

I'm not sure if these qualify, Simon - but they sure mystify me.

Hi Jim,

You know they qualify, they're from ISO 9001 aren't they? I doubt they'd trouble the crystal mark judge.

I think this one could run and run...

Regards,
Simon

Is it possible for technical Standards to be written in plain(er) English?

I know most of you guys are English speaking folks and are able to recognise and deal with some of the terminologies, double negatives, unclear statements, verbosity and so forth used in some of these ISO standards and guidelines but for those where English is a second language, understanding the fundamentals can be some what challenging let alone striving for continual improvements.

I do sometimes wonder if some of the orgnanisations in my country that are certified to specific ISO series truly understand what it is. (Where I come from,English is a second language)

Creating a certain measure of uncertainty and ambiguity is I guess necessary and that allows the "Institution" to dictate any disputed events/situations that warrants exercising that "discretionary power" to "clear" the air, so to speak. Undoubtedly and sadly, the negative side of ambiguity favours rogue consultants and generally,hinders progress.

Cheers

Charles Chew

Excellently put Charles. It's a good job that intelligent, multilingual and articulate fellows like you exist. I don't know how you do it.

Regards,
Simon

One of the joys of 14001 is in the definitions.

3.3 Environmental Aspect
Element of an organization's activities, products or services that can interact with the environment.

Note - A significant environmental aspect is an environmental aspect that has or can have a significant environmental impact.


Errrrrr, stating the obvious

Verbose, bombastic, circumlocutory, diffuse, flowery, fustian, gabby, garrulous, grandiloquent, involved, long-winded, loquacious, magniloquent, palaverous, periphrastic, pleonastic, prolix, redundant, repeating, repetitious, repetitive, rhetorical, talkative, talky, tautological, tautologous, tedious, tortuous, windy, yacking...

Oh! Hi Puzzle. :D

Simon

Swallowed a dictionary again??