Okay, okay... The questions were a bit ambiguous. But they still stand. I would appreciate any further responses, and I'll add the following assumptions for clarification...
1/1/95 Machines which had been operating in Europe placidly for years, didn't suddenly become unsafe. Position: Operational conditions didn't change, the legal environment and requirements for safety due-diligence did. 1/1/96 Manufacturers didn't start getting calls from their installed base of customers and clients in Europe that products were suddenly not operating as intended in their intended end-use environments and were causing undue interference. Position: The laws of electromagnetics didn't suddenly change. The legal requirements to show that products operate as intended and not interfere in their INTENDED END-USE ENVIRONMENTS did. 1/1/97 Products which have been operated safely for years didn't suddenly start killing people. Position: The requirements of safe operations of equipment and the safe construction of equipment didn't change. The legal documentation requirements to show that products were constructed according to good engineering practice changed. Question (rhetorical): If you didn't have to do this regulatory compliance stuff, would you? Question (rhetorical): If a change makes a product better, faster, prettier, lighter, less expensive, more competetive, would you make it? FACT: The CE mark does make you more marketable in Europe, because without it you're not. Question: If you're totally redesigning your product, or significantly redesigning it to comply with harmonized standards, is your compliance program cost-effective? It is understood that the regulatory compliance process IS COST-ADDED. The question is, is it VALUE-ADDED? I HAVE just answered my own question. But I came to that conclusion in a relative vaccum. I'm looking for responses as to whether positioning regulatory compliance as value-added in any sense of the term would be a productive use of time, or whether positioning it as NON value-added, and approaching solutions from that perspective is more effective. FYI, I think the latter. I welcome your brief input. And thank you for your lengthy attention. Rick
