This article was originally published in March 2005 and has been revamped and re-published here.
As weights and measures jurisdictions grapple with finding the right balance in allocating their limited resources, program administrators must carefully consider their choices to ensure they select a sound alternative that does not sacrifice quality and effectiveness for expediency. This article highlights some observations that are based on core weights and measures inspection principles about the impact of reducing inspections to a simple “check” of device accuracy.
Years ago, an administrator for whom I worked proclaimed all weights and measures field officials could be separated into one of two distinct groups, “inspectors and checkers.” He bestowed the title “inspector” upon those individuals he believed demonstrated individual work habits that were necessary to properly satisfy the requirements of the position. “Checkers,” on the other hand, performed below his standards of expected performance for individuals who held the position.
Inspectors are trained professionals who performed thorough inspections and always followed established test procedures to verify that devices or packages are accurate and ultimately ensure marketplace equity. However, they also understand that specifications and user requirements are just as important as performance requirements and, therefore, enforced them equally. They realize that a critically important aspect of being able to perform a thorough inspection was knowing not only which requirements applied to the equipment or packages they are inspecting but why those requirements were developed in the first place. That is, they know the history supporting each and every requirement in NIST Handbooks 44, quantity versus quality inspections taking shortcuts
