I buy my standards (to the maximum extent possible) in electronic format using my corporate purchasing card. No purchase orders, no dealing with purchasing, no signatures needed in advance at all. Much more efficient. On-line reconciliation of charges, get a statement after the first of the month, attach receipts, sign and send to manager. He signs and it goes off to the bean counters. That simple, that easy. And, as you can tell from my e-mail address, I don't work for a small company, either.
My beef with the IEC web site is that you can only purchase the most recent version of a standard (and its amendments) without having to contact them. Unfortunately, this does not meet real world needs. If you look, for example, at CISPR 24, you will find dated references to the IEC 61000-4-x series of documents. Those dated references refer in many cases to versions that are out of date, if you only care about the latest version. Thus, if you are starting up a document library, you have to contact the IEC Central Office to get the older versions that are still very much in use. The use of dated references was a deliberate decision, one that has continued, at least in CISPR SC I, so that we can control our product family standards and not have them changed by a different committee without our agreement. I have had people insist that we use the latest version of a 61000-4-x document because it is the latest, but I just refer them back to the standard that calls it out and suggest that they wait until that standard is changed and adopted. Are we having fun yet? BTW, if you really want a deluge of documents clogging up your hard drive, join the standards writing organizations. Then you will have all the documents that are circulated in the process of writing a new standard, or an amendment to an existing one. Ghery From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:52 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re:RE: Making Standards Free Twice I paid $50US for an EN standard (I thought that was a good deal at the time), but when I received it all I got was one page that says the EN version is the same as the IEC version. What a waste of time and money. I have paid hundreds of dollars for a "Consolidation" release of a standard to make things a bit neater in the lab only to find that the standard comes with a "Corrigendum", which was two pages of corrections to the standard. Again, I'm cutting-and-pasting. There are endless stories like this currently and I think the powers-to-be are people who would consider making changes to improve this situation. I started this thread talking about making standards free, but my intent goes beyond the cost of the standard itself. Instant availabilty of the latest information is now becoming the way of doing business in the world. The current system is old and outdated and needs reform. The cost for a company to keep their standards libraries up to date is tremendous. Just ordering standards is a long and costly process for most companies (create a PR, get management approval, purchasing approval, generate a PO, order the standard, accounts payable has to pay for the standard, when it arrives Receiving must sign off on the order, interoffice mail the standard to the Compliance Department, the standard is reviewed for changes, internal procedures are changed, personnel is trained in the changes, and finally, the standard is placed in the Engineering library. (It speeds things up if you buy your standards in electronic formats which I now do). Most every standard in our library gets an ammendment or update, or series number change, or a consolodation release every few years. But in most cases, all we are told is that there is an update. And to be able to test to the latest standards you have to buy the standard and have it in your library. So we all are forced to update each standard every few years even though most of the changes do not affect the way we test or the products we test. This is a major burden especially on small companies and labs. All standards authorities could make the standards available on-line in real time without affecting their bottom line. Distrabuting standards is more of a service than profit maker. On-line standards would always be up-to-date. Corrections can be made immediately. Amendments could be incorporated in the standard without the 'cut-and-paste' thing we currently have to do. Most standards refer to other standards. A hyper link could be placed right in the standard so all you have to do it "CLICK" and you are sent to the other standard. There is no need for a paper standards library anymore because the on-line standards library would be available 24/7. This is not science fiction. The technology is here to do this. Other industries have been doing something like this for years. And my question regarding this subject was to make those who could make this happen at least consider it. Almost everything in our lab these days is paper-less and available either from the internet or our INTRAnet. Test reports, procedures, DOCs, manuals, prints, assembly drawings, BOMs, schematics, process sheets, data sheets, etc. is available electronically. If standards were made available on-line, it would not only improve access to the compliance lab but also to numerous engineers who is trying to design products to meet the requirements. Its a good idea and should be considered. If a reasonable fee for access to such information was absolutely necessary I don't think there would be many complaints. Thanks, Brian ____________________Reply Separator____________________ Subject: RE: Making Standards Free Author: [email protected] List-Post: [email protected] Date: 1/11/2006 8:58 AM I think what's missing is a middle ground. I think that what frustrates people most are the following issues: 1. Classifying their product (i.e. trying to find the right standard) 2. Having to buy the whole standard, when they may just need to answer a specific question. 3. Having to buy the whole standard and then having to bear the responsibility of making sure that their standards "library" stays up to date. 4. The clarity of standards. I paid $800 for a copy of IEC 1010-1 with amendments a few years ago. The standard came to me as the original document with amendments shipped separately, I had to spend about eight hours cutting and pasting the amendments in. The next time we pay $800 for a standard, it had better come complete. I think that the price of standards would be less of an issue if people got more help determining what standard applies and if people had a way to access standards on a pay-as-you go basis. That way, they would only get and pay for the information that they need; and it would be up to date. My humble opinion, and not necessarily my employer's. Chris Maxwell From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dward ATCB Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 4:28 PM To: 'Derek Walton'; 'Anchondo, Dan' Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Making Standards Free These are all interesting points of view, but I think a point is being missed. IF we remember back to the mid 80'2 to late 90's you remember that the FCC did not have a reliable tes methodology for part 15 devices. Their MP's were free, but did not cover a standardized uniform test method (i.e. maximized cables, running cables along side monitors and any other peripheral that might generate noise to get a maximized reading). By allowing an industry produced standardized test methodology (ANSI C63.4) the FCC took a giant leap to uniform and consistent test data. Granted, we can all still make a more worse case by tweaking each individual cable and device, but uniformity in the industry is, in my opinion, more important. So - what do we want? Do we want to pay for a few standards and test methods, or d we want to go back to the days of infinite cable adjustments only to find the FCC, VDE or other acronym has other ways to fail a device. Consequently, while it may be 'expensive' to purchase a few standards, it is still much much much less expensive than spending uncounted days on an test site to find the 'worse case'. Dennis Ward Evaluation Engineer American TCB Certification Resource for the Wireless Industry www.atcb.com 703-847-4700 fax 703-847-6888 direct - 703-880-4841 cell - 209-769-8316 NOTICE: This E-Mail message and any attachment may contain privileged or company proprietary information. If you received this message in error, please return to the sender. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Derek Walton Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 10:30 AM To: Anchondo, Dan Cc: [email protected] Subject: RE: Making Standards Free Hmm.. not a good analogy. If you are legally obligated to meet a requirement e.g. FCC, CE, then it is reasonable to assume the requirements you have to meet are free. So in the USA, the FCC REQUIREMENTS are free. CFR 47 is on the web. The technical path describing how to do it is not: ANSI C63.4 The desparity is in the EU, where I believe that you pay for both. While the EMC Directive is free ( and worth every penny ), product standards defining REQUIREMENTS are not. The technical path on how to demonstrate compliance e.g. EN 61000-* also costs money. Therefore, I would propose that we DON't pay for requirements, but as a compromise, we pay for methodology. Thoughts? Derek Walton PS, MIL STD 461 is still one of the best EMC documents around, and it's free... Anchondo, Dan wrote on 1/10/2006, 11:50 AM: > All > I would like a standard to be free but as with any other profession you > have to pay for your tools. Ill be shopping for antennas and spectrum > analyzers in the near future and I don't expect to get them for free so > standards are just another cost of doing business. > Regards > Dan Anchondo > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of John > Woodgate > Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Making Standards Free > > In message > <[email protected]>, dated > Tue, 10 Jan 2006, Scott Drysdale <[email protected]> writes > >I agree with Ed. The concept that a 'rule' depends on, references, or > >is copyrighted material is debatable. In a legal sense, the copyright > >holder can have too much control over the distribution of their > >intellectual property. > > Yes, and in the past that has happened. I think the trend to 'open > government' and 'freedom of information' makes it less likely to happen > in the future. All national and international standards are, of course, > available for purchase, and I know of no case where a standard is > 'priced beyond reach'. > -- > OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk > 2006 is YMMVI- Your mileage may vary immoderately. > > John Woodgate > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Scott Douglas [email protected] > Mike Cantwell [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > David Heald: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > > - > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society > emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ > > To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] > > Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html > > List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html > > For help, send mail to the list administrators: > > Scott Douglas [email protected] > Mike Cantwell [email protected] > > For policy questions, send mail to: > > Jim Bacher: [email protected] > David Heald: [email protected] > > All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: > > http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc > -- Cheers, Derek Walton L F Research Poplar Grove, IL 61065, USA - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc - This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to [email protected] Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas [email protected] Mike Cantwell [email protected] For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: [email protected] David Heald: [email protected] All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc
