Improving guidelines for standard test methods - a case study from the field of building materials
I come across exciting studies all the time, and while there are not so many chances to share them in person, why not share them virtually and try to kick off a discussion.
Long story short: I'm thinking about a newsletter, LinkedIn posts, a podcast, or whatever medium that suits us to share interesting studies in the field of QA.
So this article is kind of a pilot.
You all know there is a standard or guideline for almost everything serving as a step-by-step guide on how to perform specific measurements.
However, no guideline survives contact with everyday lab work (I'm a bit drastic here). That's why I found Rémy Lequesnes et al. interlaboratory study on the ASTM standard method for testing multiwire steel prestressing strand quite interesting.
Rémy is an Associate Professor of civil, environmental, and architectural engineering at the University of Kansas and was happy to answer a few questions:
The study was conducted to establish a precision statement for the ASTM test standard for the multiwire steel prestressing strand (ASTM A1061). Most standards have such a statement, and this standard did not.
As a result of the study, the authors proposed several changes for ASTM A1061 to clarify its requirements, improve test precision and decrease the amount of improperly conducted tests.
Several of the changes were applied, but not with the same wording as proposed. Rémy is not directly involved in the corresponding ASTM committee work, so he's not certain if the proposed remaining changes will eventually be adopted.
The study results were published in the Journal of the Precast/Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) - the full paper can be found here.
Rémy also pointed out where to find the full report.
What's your experience with studies that aim at proposing changes to improve the methodology for standard methods?
And feel free to leave any feedback on what you think about the idea behind this LinkedIn post.