Andre,

I don't think I ever said anything of the sort. My point was 
validation also covers work products/components and not just the end 
product, and customer includes work product customers/users and not 
just the end customers/users.

Regards,
Rob L.
--- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Andre Heijstek 
<andre.heijstek@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Rob,
> 
> I think your interpretation of VAL corresponds to what Pat has 
just 
> called "small v" validation.
> A form which he, and I, would NEVER accept as the full solution, 
> leading to a ML3 rating.
> That does not mean to say, small v validation is a bad thing to 
do. 
> But, big V validation is still needed as well.
> 
> Regards, andre.
> 
> On 18 nov 2008, at 00:18, Rob Leinen wrote:
> 
> > Andrea,
> >
> > Please see Pat's and David's responses. They both are saying the
> > same thing (I doubt I could explain it any better), and Pat gives 
an
> > excellent example.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rob L.
> > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Andre Heijstek
> > <andre.heijstek@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Rob,
> > >
> > > Factually you are probably right. But I still don't like it, 
which
> > > means I might issue a CR towards the CMMI.
> > >
> > > Given your interpretation of the model, what is really the
> > difference
> > > between VER and VAL?
> > > E.g. reviewing a design spec by programmers could be interpreted
> > as
> > > VAL: the programmers are the users of the spec, and the 
environment
> > is
> > > the desk of the programmers.
> > > But, you could also see this review as pure VER SG2. It should 
be
> > a
> > > main rule for everyone to get the stakeholders involved in a
> > review,
> > > and programmers are stakeholders of designs.
> > >
> > > If we would take my definition, this review would only qualify 
as
> > VAL
> > > when "real" customers would participate in the review (next to
> > > programmers and others). The customers would review the design
> > spec
> > > with completely other intentions than the programmers. 
Programmers
> > > will look for clarity: "does this spec allow me to do a good
> > > programming job, does it delineate the modules well from each
> > other,
> > > etc.". The customers would look for compliance with their 
intended
> > > requirements.
> > >
> > > In my view, having these customers participate in the review,
> > offers a
> > > tremendous advantage over 'just' involving the programmers. And
> > that
> > > is not to say that reviewing designs by programmers is a bad 
idea.
> > Not
> > > at all, it is great VER, but it shouldn't quality for VAL.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > André Heijstek
> > > andre.heijstek@
> > > www.improvementfocus.com
> > > Mobile: +31 648 476 451
> > > Marga Klompéstraat 23
> > > 2805 CZ Gouda
> > > The Netherlands
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 14 nov 2008, at 22:55, Rob Leinen wrote:
> > >
> > > > Actually Andre,
> > > >
> > > > CMMI states that validation should be performed with the "end
> > users"
> > > > and "relevant stakeholders" of a product (or product 
component);
> > it
> > > > does not use the term "customer". In my response customer is
> > > > synonymous with end user and relevant stakeholder, customer is
> > what
> > > > the Juran Quality Handbook refers to product/work product 
users
> > as.
> > > >
> > > > The problem as I see it, is that too many interpret 
validation as
> > > > only involving the paying customer or the end users of the 
final
> > > > product and forget there are many other users of the products
> > > > (including work product) that depend on their goodness.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Rob L.
> > > > --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, Andre 
Heijstek
> > > > <andre.heijstek@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Rob,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Interesting thought to take a wide interpretation
> > of 'customer',
> > > > but
> > > > > > it is not according to my understanding of the model.
> > > > > > If I read the definition of customer in the glossary, it
> > states:
> > > > > > The party (individual, project, or organization) 
responsible
> > > > > > for accepting the product or for authorizing payment. The
> > > > > > customer is external to the project (except possibly when
> > > > > > integrated teams are used, as in IPPD), but not 
necessarily
> > > > > > external to the organization. The customer may be a higher
> > > > > > level project. Customers are a subset of stakeholders. 
(See
> > > > > > also "stakeholder.")
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This clearly defines customers as people outside the 
project,
> > > > and
> > > > > > people authorising payment.
> > > > > > It would also violate the core intent of VAL: "making sure
> > that
> > > > the
> > > > > > customer gets what he intended to get, but was not able to
> > > > specify
> > > > > > correctly".
> > > > > > (That definition is not in the glossary, it carries my
> > > > copyright ;-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards, Andre.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 14 nov 2008, at 14:50, Rob Leinen wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> Ali,
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> First, designs can be validated through prototyping and
> > > > simulation.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Beyond that, you also need to ask yourself who are the
> > consumers
> > > > (aka
> > > > > >> clients) of the design outputs. Your validation 
activities of
> > > > these
> > > > > >> artifacts should also focus on how well it meets the
> > consumers
> > > > > >> needs. In the case of design, are they written in a way 
that
> > the
> > > > > >> development team can write their coding specifications 
and
> > build
> > > > the
> > > > > >> solution, and are they written to where a test team can
> > create
> > > > test
> > > > > >> cases? If not the goodness-of-fit criteria for these
> > artifacts
> > > > is not
> > > > > >> met, as they do not satisfy their expected needs when 
placed
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > >> envionment for which they will be used.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> For validation, the customer can be any consumer of the
> > > > product/work
> > > > > >> product and not just the end client/user.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Regards,
> > > > > >> Rob L.
> > > > > >> --- In cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com, zubair 
Ali
> > > > > >> <zubhh@> wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Pat, you are making validation sound like a PMC that is
> > applied
> > > > > >> througout the project life cycle. For example there is
> > planning
> > > > > >> phase, req analysis , design, build(coding), testing,
> > Deployment
> > > > and
> > > > > >> UAT.
> > > > > >> > Thats most typical life cycle. How can u get ur design
> > > > validated
> > > > > >> by the client if it's totally internal engineering 
process.
> > Then
> > > > > >> comes the coding phase (unless a client has asked
> > particularly
> > > > for
> > > > > >> the review of design and coding). How about the planning
> > phase. I
> > > > > >> think a validation can be of schedule, project plan as 
it is
> > > > shared
> > > > > >> with the client.
> > > > > >> > May be its a matter of internal process how the 
validation
> > is
> > > > > >> applied and differs from company to company.
> > > > > >> > Can u pls clarify how it is applied thoughout the life
> > cycle?
> > > > and
> > > > > >> how would u cover the coding and the design phase for
> > validation
> > > > ( if
> > > > > >> the its internal and doesnt requie client review or
> > involvement)
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --- On Wed, 11/12/08, Patrick OToole <PACT.otoole@> 
wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > From: Patrick OToole <PACT.otoole@>
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: A query on
> > > > VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > To: cmmi_process_improvement@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > >> > Date: Wednesday, November 12, 2008, 3:07 AM
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > 
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> > The active involvement of the client in the 
establishment
> > and
> > > > > >> validation of the requirements sounds like a good 
practice
> > that
> > > > is
> > > > > >> meeting your need, and one that certainly supports the
> > assertion
> > > > that
> > > > > >> the RD practices have been implemented.
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> > I'm a bit concerned that, after the customer finally 
signs
> > off
> > > > on
> > > > > >> the requirements, the next time they are involved is 
UAT.Â
> > Given
> > > > > >> that I have limited insight into your overall process (as
> > > > indicated
> > > > > >> by my lack of insight into the very active customer
> > involvement
> > > > in
> > > > > >> establishing the requirements) , it is likely that there 
are
> > > > > >> additional validation activities throughout your 
development
> > > > process,
> > > > > >> but the way you stated it in your post, there is no
> > indication of
> > > > > >> that.
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> > The bottom line is that Validation is expected to be
> > performed
> > > > > >> throughout the life cycle. If you have questions about 
the
> > > > adequacy
> > > > > >> of your implementation, you might be well-served to have 
an
> > > > > >> authorized lead appraiser evaluate your implementation 
and
> > > > provide
> > > > > >> insightful feedback regarding how well it meets the 
model's
> > > > intent.
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> > Regards,
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> > Pat
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> > Â
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> > From: zubair Ali
> > > > > >> > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:56 PM
> > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: A query on
> > > > VALIDATION
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > I think what i was trying to relay has been 
misunderstood.
> > > > > >> > Well the issue resolution process we go through for RS 
and
> > FS
> > > > are
> > > > > >> just not document review.First the clients are fully
> > involved in
> > > > it.
> > > > > >> The draft is being worked on with the client until all 
the
> > > > issues are
> > > > > >> resolved. Whats being assumed here is that its just a
> > document
> > > > > >> review. Thats not the case.To clarify requirement as u
> > said "to
> > > > get
> > > > > >> into the customers head" is very true and we make sure 
that
> > > > happens.
> > > > > >> They are result of requirements workshops, accessing the
> > client
> > > > > >> application for further clarifiction but still working 
on the
> > > > > >> document and updating it when req become clear.
> > > > > >> > RD is fully applied in that sense.
> > > > > >> > In the end you have to get the custsomer to formally 
agree
> > to
> > > > a set
> > > > > >> of requirements (mutually worked upon) otherwise changes
> > would be
> > > > > >> nightmare from scope creep perspective
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > Plus in the UAT phase clients gets he access to
> > application for
> > > > > >> full testing for their satisfaction.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > --- On Sat, 11/8/08, Patrick OToole <PACT.otoole@ 
att.net>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >> > > From: Patrick OToole <PACT.otoole@ att.net>
> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: A query 
on
> > > > VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > > Date: Saturday, November 8, 2008, 1:00 PM
> > > > > >> > > Zubair (and also responding to Pankajakshan' s most
> > > > > >> > > recent question directed to me):
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > It's a bit hard for me to swallow that simply having
> > > > > >> > > the client review and approve the requirement spec
> > should be
> > > > > >> > > considered validation - and if it is, it should be
> > > > > >> > > considered a very light version thereof.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > RD SG3 has 5 practices, so it's hard to say that the
> > > > > >> > > "customer review and approval of requirements"
> > > > > >> > > addresses all 5 practices. One other thing to 
consider -
> > > > > >> > > according to the RD Introductory Notes, RD SG3 is
> > intended
> > > > > >> > > to be performed concurrently with both RD SG1 (that 
is,
> > > > > >> > > customer requirements are validated) and with RD SG2
> > (that
> > > > > >> > > is, product requirements are also validated).
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > One of the characteristics of the ML3 process areas, 
and
> > > > > >> > > therefore a characteristic of ML3 organizations, is
> > > > > >> > > proactivity. Validation should be a proactive and
> > > > > >> > > interactive exploration of the mutual understanding 
of
> > the
> > > > > >> > > customers wants, needs, expectations, and constraints
> > > > > >> > > throughout the life cycle so that we increase the
> > > > > >> > > probability of hitting the mark with the end product.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The trick is to "get inside the customer's
> > > > > >> > > head" to extract that which provides a more robust
> > > > > >> > > understanding of what they are really looking for in 
the
> > > > > >> > > product. Scenario based discussions (i.e., use cases 
and
> > > > > >> > > such) often reveal subtleties that might otherwise be
> > > > > >> > > overlooked. Prototypes and simulations can have a 
similar
> > > > > >> > > result.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Just having the customer read and sign-off on the
> > > > > >> > > requirements is better than nothing, but it feels way
> > light
> > > > > >> > > to me.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Regards,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Pat
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> > > From: zubair Ali
> > > > > >> > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2008 2:19 AM
> > > > > >> > > Subject: RE: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: A query 
on
> > > > > >> > > VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Hi All,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > It's an interesting topic. Validation has to be
> > > > > >> > > taken for the whole project life cycle or SDLC (100%
> > > > > >> > > agreement wth PAT )whenever there is something to be
> > > > > >> > > validated from the customer side(Iterations are
> > included).
> > > > > >> > > Examples are as follows:
> > > > > >> > > Requirment Specifictaions( High Level Requirements)
> > > > > >> > > have to be signed off by the client or agreed upon 
by the
> > > > > >> > > customer. That's Validation on RS.
> > > > > >> > > Functional Specification and other requiments for
> > > > > >> > > the project which need customer's approval.
> > > > > >> > > Then the last one is the built product(Product plus
> > > > > >> > > its environment) to be validated and accepted or 
signed
> > off
> > > > > >> > > by the customer/actual user)
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > If the customer does not approve in the
> > > > > >> > > Requirments/ funtonal specifcations then its a 
defect in
> > the
> > > > > >> > > product(work product which leads to the ultimate 
product)
> > > > > >> > > because the business logic is not right from the very
> > > > > >> > > beginning.( hence validation has already started).
> > > > > >> > > For our projects we go through the issue resolution
> > > > > >> > > process with open and closed items for our requirment
> > > > > >> > > analysis phase.It's very similar to finding a defect 
but
> > > > > >> > > at a very inital stage when the cost would be far 
less to
> > > > > >> > > remove it before starting to build it.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Regards
> > > > > >> > > Zubair
> > > > > >> > > --- On Fri, 11/7/08, Heather Oppenheimer
> > > > > >> > > <heather@oppenpartne rs.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > From: Heather Oppenheimer
> > > > > >> > > <heather@oppenpartne rs.com>
> > > > > >> > > Subject: RE: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: A
> > > > > >> > > query on VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > > Date: Friday, November 7, 2008, 9:46 PM
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Hi - Actually, check the introductory notes at
> > > > > >> > > the beginning of the VAL process area: It says "The
> > > > > >> > > methods employed to accomplish valiataion can be 
applied
> > to
> > > > > >> > > work products as well as to the product and product
> > > > > >> > > components.. . The work products (e.g. requirements,
> > > > > >> > > designs, and prototypes) should be selected on the 
basis
> > of
> > > > > >> > > which will satisfy user needs and this validation is
> > > > > >> > > performed early and incrementally throughout the 
product
> > > > > >> > > lifecyle."
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > It may be easiest to understand validation in the
> > > > > >> > > context of the final end product being executed in a 
test
> > > > > >> > > environment that reproduces the actual environment 
(or
> > even
> > > > > >> > > the environment itself), but validation can and 
should be
> > > > > >> > > done as early as possible throughout the lifecycle. 
In
> > many
> > > > > >> > > cases, it's prohibitively expensive (and/or 
dangerous,
> > > > > >> > > as Pat is implying below!) to wait until the end to 
make
> > > > > >> > > sure the product/service will work as intended once 
it is
> > > > > >> > > deployed.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Heather Oppenheimer
> > > > > >> > > www.oppenpartners. com
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
----
> > ----
> > > > - -
> > > > > >> > > From: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups.
> > > > > >> > > com [mailto:cmmi_ process_improvem ent@yahoogroups. 
com]
> > On
> > > > > >> > > Behalf Of Nanda Kishore Panakanti
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:09 PM
> > > > > >> > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > > Subject: {Disarmed} RE: [CMMi Process
> > > > > >> > > Improvement] Re: A query on VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I think we are deviating from basics and
> > > > > >> > > getting into - who, what, when and where - performs
> > > > > >> > > Validation or Verification…
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > We need to look at how verification or
> > > > > >> > > validation is applied on application under test â€" 
its
> > > > > >> > > application… CMMi material states verification is
> > against
> > > > > >> > > work products and validation is against end 
product…
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Thank you,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Nanda
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
----
> > ----
> > > > - -
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > From: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > > [mailto: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. 
com ] On
> > > > > >> > > Behalf Of Patrick OToole
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 4:01 AM
> > > > > >> > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: A
> > > > > >> > > query on VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Orhan,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > So how do companies working on the Space Shuttle
> > > > > >> > > validate their product components? Or people working 
on
> > > > > >> > > nuclear weapons?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > How do offshore developers who are working on
> > > > > >> > > products to be used by customers thousands of miles 
away
> > > > > >> > > validate their products?
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > I think your perspective is a bit too
> > > > > >> > > restrictive.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Regards,
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Pat
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > From: Orhan Kalayci
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > To: cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups. com
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 2:16 PM
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Subject: [CMMi Process Improvement] Re: A query
> > > > > >> > > on VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > For me:
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Involvement of customer is one thing.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > The other important thing is the where it takes
> > > > > >> > > place. If it does not
> > > > > >> > > take place in the customer environment i.e.
> > > > > >> > > real environment where the
> > > > > >> > > product or service will actually be used.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > If these two are not exist together at the same
> > > > > >> > > time then it is not a
> > > > > >> > > validation for me.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > How to prevent burn outs:
> > > > > >> > > Well, one can replace customer with customer
> > > > > >> > > representatives, sales
> > > > > >> > > people, etc. And the real environment can be
> > > > > >> > > replaced by simulated ones.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Bottom line:
> > > > > >> > > If it is performed by (real) customer in the
> > > > > >> > > (real) environment then
> > > > > >> > > it is a validation.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Q: How a validation can be performed in early
> > > > > >> > > phases of life cycle?
> > > > > >> > > A: See iterative development.
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Peace,
> > > > > >> > > Orhan
> > > > > >> > > Toronto
> > > > > >> > > http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/SPIRITofCM MI/
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > --- In cmmi_process_ improvement@ yahoogroups.
> > > > > >> > > com, "Pankajakshan Nair R
> > > > > >> > > (Quality Operations), Chennai"
> > > > > >> > > <PankajakshanR@ ...> wrote:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Dear All,
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > This is my first posting to this group.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > I have a query on VALIDATION as used in
> > > > > >> > > CMMI.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > The difference between VERIFICATION &
> > > > > >> > > VALIDATION (Please correct me if I
> > > > > >> > > > my understanding is wrong) is involvement
> > > > > >> > > of the end-users in validating
> > > > > >> > > > requirements which happens in VALIDATION
> > > > > >> > > and not in VERIFICATION.
> > > > > >> > > > Different activities that could be
> > > > > >> > > considered as VALIDATION activities
> > > > > >> > > > are -
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > * POC or Prototypes or Simulations that
> > > > > >> > > are validated by the
> > > > > >> > > > customer
> > > > > >> > > > * Joint reviews and/or walkthrough of work
> > > > > >> > > products with the
> > > > > >> > > > customer.
> > > > > >> > > > * Testing the product or product component
> > > > > >> > > in the intended
> > > > > >> > > > environment of use.
> > > > > >> > > > * Acceptance Testing, where customer also
> > > > > >> > > participates.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > The purpose of VALIDATION is to ensure
> > > > > >> > > right product is built,
> > > > > >> > > > customer's need is met and it fulfills
> > > > > >> > > its intended use. Given this
> > > > > >> > > > scenario, can we also include offline
> > > > > >> > > review of work products by
> > > > > >> > > > customer as a VALIDATION activity? Are the
> > > > > >> > > activities mentioned above
> > > > > >> > > > part of VALIDATION? Is there anything else
> > > > > >> > > that can be considered as
> > > > > >> > > > VALIDATION? Request your views and help.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Quality starts with me - I am responsible
> > > > > >> > > for quality in deliveries.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Thanks and Regards
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Pankajakshan Nair R
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Quality Operations
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > HCL Technologies Ltd.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > ODC-500, 5th Floor, Sterling Technopolis,
> > > > > >> > > 4/293 Rajiv Gandhi Road ,
> > > > > >> > > > Kandanchavadi, Chennai - 600096 ( India )
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Tel: +91-44-24546600 Extn. (5165)
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Direct: +91-44-43957665
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Mob: +91-9790 96 8601
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > www.hcl.in <http://www.hcl. in>
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > PConsider the environment - please
> > > > > >> > > don't print this E-Mail unless you
> > > > > >> > > > really need to - let us be eco-friendly.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > Disclaimer: This message and any
> > > > > >> > > attachment(s) contained here are
> > > > > >> > > > information that is confidential,
> > > > > >> > > proprietary to HCL Technologies and
> > > > > >> > > > its customers. Contents may be privileged
> > > > > >> > > or otherwise protected by law.
> > > > > >> > > > The information is solely intended for the
> > > > > >> > > individual or the entity it
> > > > > >> > > > is addressed to. If you are not the
> > > > > >> > > intended recipient of this message,
> > > > > >> > > > you are not authorized to read, forward,
> > > > > >> > > print, retain, copy or
> > > > > >> > > > disseminate this message or any part of
> > > > > >> > > it. If you have received this
> > > > > >> > > > e-mail in error, please notify the sender
> > > > > >> > > immediately by return e-mail
> > > > > >> > > > and delete it from your computer.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > DISCLAIMER:
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---------
> > > > > >> > > --------- --------- -
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > > The contents of this e-mail and any
> > > > > >> > > attachment(s) are confidential
> > > > > >> > > and intended for the named recipient(s) only.
> > > > > >> > > > It shall not attach any liability on the
> > > > > >> > > originator or HCL or its
> > > > > >> > > affiliates. Any views or opinions presented in
> > > > > >> > > > this email are solely those of the author
> > > > > >> > > and may not necessarily
> > > > > >> > > reflect the opinions of HCL or its affiliates.
> > > > > >> > > > Any form of reproduction, dissemination,
> > > > > >> > > copying, disclosure,
> > > > > >> > > modification, distribution and / or publication
> > > > > >> > > of
> > > > > >> > > > this message without the prior written
> > > > > >> > > consent of the author of this
> > > > > >> > > e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have
> > > > > >> > > > received this email in error please delete
> > > > > >> > > it and notify the sender
> > > > > >> > > immediately. Before opening any mail and
> > > > > >> > > > attachments please check them for viruses
> > > > > >> > > and defect.
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > > ------------ --------- --------- ---------
> > > > > >> > > --------- --------- -
> > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > >> > >
> > > > > >> > > Disclaimer:
> > > > > >> > > This email and any files attached hereto are
> > > > > >> > > confidential and intended for the sole use of the
> > individual
> > > > > >> > > or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader 
of
> > this
> > > > > >> > > message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> > > > > >> > > notified that any unauthorized disclosure, 
dissemination,
> > > > > >> > > distribution, copying or the taking of any action in
> > > > > >> > > reliance on the information herein is strictly
> > prohibited.
> > > > > >> > > If you are not the intended recipient, please 
contact the
> > > > > >> > > sender and delete all copies.
> > > > > >> >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> Groet,
> Gruß,
> Regards,
> André Heijstek
> andre.heijstek@...
> www.improvementfocus.com
> Mobile: +31 648 476 451
> Marga Klompéstraat 23
> 2805 CZ Gouda
> The Netherlands
>