×

You are using an outdated browser that does not fully support the intranda viewer.
As a result, some pages may not be displayed correctly.

We recommend you use one of the following browsers:

Full text

Title
Proceedings of the Symposium on Progress in Data Processing and Analysis

392
PROCUREMENT PACKET
Tables of Manufacturers of Analytical.lastrumantg
Originally, the working group produced a catalog of
analytical instruments comprising brochures published by
the manufacturers. The catalog proved to be impractical
because it was a loose-leaf notebook that was relatively
expensive to produce, update, and mail. To defray some of
the expenses, a nominal charge had to be levied so the
demand was small. Additionally, the brochures became
outdated almost as scon as they were placed in the
notebook .
After the first update, it was decided to replace the
catalog with a set of tables listing manufacturers in
alphabetical order, their analytical instruments, and the
salient features of each instrument. These tables are
produced and updated with a wordprocessor, and they will be
mailed to users free, Before they are released, each
manufacturer will be given a chance to review them for
accuracy.
Standards and Specifications for Analytical instruments
Producing standards and specifications for analytical
instruments was a working group objective for several years
before a beginning was made. While generally most users and
a few manufacturers favor standards and specifications,
many oppose it for various reasons.
The first document produced was a guide on preparing
specifications for procurement. It was intended as a
starting point for expansion, and the present working group
is upgrading and expanding this document. The work is to be
completed before the present term of Working Group Il/l
expires in 1992.
Anajyt fça.l.. S.te^^oplpttei.. S.vaJLuati,on..gtt.iag
The first version cf the evaluation guide was produced
under the 1976-80 tenure of Dr. B. Makarovic, and it has
needed revising only once. This was done during the 1984-88
tenure of the Working Group by Mr. Daniel Andrews of the
Tennessee Valley Authority. It has been reviewed by the
present Working Group II/l and judged sufficiently
up-to-date.
The evaluation guide is designed so that analytical
stereoplotters are evaluated in an hierarchical, tree-like
structure with each category of features being broken down
into groups and subgroups. Features are weighted according
to their importance and for each feature each instrument is
assigned a numerical rating according to the degree to
which it fulfills the feature. Both the weights and the
numerical ratings are entered into the formula used to
compute a numerical evaluation for each instrument. In the