Equipment Maintenance as Part of the Quality Control Program for Observations

Abstract

A frequent failure in the proper application of modern quality control may be attributed to human conservatism. Thus, it is difficult to define the obvious advantages of extending quality control to include maintenance, an advantage, for example, in the form of cash savings. Yet an adequate control of measuring instruments has a direct effect upon the reliability of the observations. It gives valuable information with respect to the purchase of new instruments or for developing better ones. Quality control also makes instrument maintenance systematic, which otherwise, as a secondary duty to regular observation work, may appear to be sporadic and inefficient.

Maintenance can be divided into two major categories: preventive measures (preventive maintenance) and measures caused by instrument failures (service). The most essential considerations are the general planning of maintenance and the training of personnel.

Maintenance of complicated electronic equipment should be organized on the basis of the manufacturer’s service contract, because those most likely to know the equipment are those who were involved in its manufacture, and it is not normally profitable to burden meteorological offices with duties quite outside the general know-how of their personnel. A great deal of attention must be paid to preventive measures, since undisturbed operation is best guaranteed in that way.

The manufacturer’s responsibility is not terminated on the day of delivery of a certain instrument. Legally, the responsibility ends after a fixed guarantee time. Good business practice stipulates, however, that the manufacturer should answer for his products as long as the product in question is not outmoded or unserviceable due to excessive wear. In order to be able to apply routine field experience to future equipment design and construction, the manufacturer also needs the operator’s quality reports. In this sense, both parties have a common interest. However, the cooperation usually works badly, because the two parties look at things from different viewpoints, and they may have different opinions of the same problem. Moreover, the difficulty, as seen from a general aspect, may often be underrated. Thus, the user will not take the trouble to make a report of minor quality considerations, although they have been clearly noted. A user’s complaint is often so “filtered” in the manufacturer’s offices that it is not considered worthy of any comment or action.

Cooperation is particularly desired in developing new measuring equipment. The user is best aware of what he has to measure, what errors can be tolerated, and in what kind of surroundings the equipment has to work. On the other hand, the manufacturer has the modern technology required for equipment development and design. Proper communication between the two is thus essential if time and money are not to be lost; quality control should be made a part of both the manufacturer’s and the user’s field of operation.