The January issue of SAM contained an article that explored some of the implications of Quality Assurance — as understood in the context of the International Standards Organization (ISO) 9000 standards, and also in the context of the proposal before the Colorado Passenger Tramway Safety Board (CPTSB) to introduce some QA language into its lift code. The Editors invited comment on this important issue.
We would like to encourage the CPTSB to channel its work on QA through the ANSI B77 committee.
It always sounds like a good idea when someone proposes that international standards such as the ISO Standards for Quality Assurance be adopted in the U.S. What is easy to overlook is the difference in the cultures and in the legal climates of the U.S. and Europe.
Part of the goal of ISO standards is the free movement of products from country to country in Europe. Products meeting ISO standards would then be relieved of the necessity of proving that they meet each individual country’s standards. This arose from the recognition that Europe’s future economic health was dependent on reducing trade barriers. The ISO standard is international, but the geographic area covered is not much different in size from the U.S., which is only a single country. Because of this, we probably ought to consider American National Standards to have stature equal to ISO standards.
Standards in Europe may appear to be more developed or more comprehensive than ours, but this is a cultural context. We call it Product Liability in the U.S. At the present time, the legal system in Europe makes it difficult for individual citizens to successfully sue manufacturers for product liability. In such a situation the state has a greater obligation to protect the public, and European standards reflect this. Perhaps it is too easy to sue in the U.S., but this is a powerful motivation for manufacturers to make safer and more reliable products. The U.S. consumer is not under-protected; just protected in a different way.
Not all accidents can be prevented. It should be noted that even with supposedly better QA, lift accidents from component failure which cause fatal or serious injury occur in Europe also. The lesson seems clear: “Accidents happen even with the best Quality Assurance.” On the other hand, it should be remembered that U.S. lifts annually see over 500 million passenger miles, and most years this is done without a death or serious injury due to component failure. On those rare occasions where there have been serious accidents or potentially serious accidents, the manufacturers, operators, state authorities and B77 have been quick to respond in efforts to prevent such occurrences in the future.
If CPTSB decides to act unilaterally on the subject of QA, they will be going against the trend of the ISO standards by creating an individual state standard which amounts to a trade barrier. Worse, this trade barrier has the potential to favor European over U.S. manufacturers. If they can have the patience to work proposals through B77, then they will be helping move toward “world” standards, for it seems likely that B77 will be moving in that direction as it evolves.
