I read in !emc-pstc that Dan Teninty <[email protected]> wrote (in <[email protected]>) about 'Quality Assurance and Product Approvals', on Tue, 27 Nov 2001: > >Rich, > >Dell Computers, as well as a few other major players, take a proactive >approach to compliance and actually have a VP position for compliance. With >a little investigation into the benefits of having a first rate compliance >department with the ability to design for compliance, test to relevant >standards, compile reports, participate on standards committees, and deal >directly with world wide agencies I would think that most companies that >have global markets would see both the short term and long term benefits to >the bottom line. I would tend to include PC's into the ordinary products >pile, wouldn't you? > This is indeed the enlightened view. I started advocating this 30 years ago. It's been a long struggle.....
>Companies that choose to take the adversarial approach to compliance by >cutting corners or only doing the minimum to comply, save dollars in the >short term, but pay later in lost customers, or worse, lawsuits. One of our >clients, had a management team that took this denial/avoidance approach to >NEBS. When the Telecom downturn came, they were left in a position where >there was lots less demand and what demand there was, was for NEBS compliant >products. Most of the management team that made those decisions have either >left the company in recent right-sizing exercises, or are working in lesser >positions. Compliance with standards is now a regular customer demand, sometimes carried to excess, usually through lazily or ignorantly attempting to over-simplify the subject, e.g. 'All equipment used shall comply with all British, European and International standards'. > >It seems that hindsight is always able to find a goat. When I explain the >benefits of compliance to management teams, I try to focus on the bottom >line benefits of having a product that is marketable everywhere. The costs >for compliance, when compared to the total development cost for a new >product tend to be in the noise. If these costs are amortized over >reasonable quantities, then the unit cost for compliance tends to be a >bargain. I regard the cost of compliance as part of the costs of being present in the market, not as part of the cost of making a product that works. Seriously non-compliant product can still work. That way, you get to compare the cost of compliance with, for example, the cost of advertising or even the cost of participating in exhibitions. > >Its not hard to dig up a few good case studies in Product Liability to drive >home the point. > Indeed, and however circumspect everyone is, there is always a finite probability... -- Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only. http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk After swimming across the Hellespont, I felt like a Hero. ------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE EMC Society Product Safety Technical Committee emc-pstc discussion list. Visit our web site at: http://www.ewh.ieee.org/soc/emcs/pstc/ To cancel your subscription, send mail to: [email protected] with the single line: unsubscribe emc-pstc For help, send mail to the list administrators: Michael Garretson: [email protected] Dave Heald [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Richard Nute: [email protected] Jim Bacher: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: No longer online until our new server is brought online and the old messages are imported into the new server.
