Richard C. Towner wrote:
<major snippage>
> Question (rhetorical): If you didn't have to do this
> regulatory compliance stuff, would you?
All this regulatory stuff started because way back when there
was none and businesses took full advantage of it. In *most*
of the cases I've dealt with, something as S/N can be
significantly reduced using proper board construction
techniques intended for EMC. I acutally have had the
oppurtunity of doing this for a designer. He was having a
hell of a time trying to reduce S/N and was at a loss.
I happened along, sat down with him, discussed his board
layout, made some suggestions that required a new board spin,
and holding his breath did it. Significant improvement.
These were techniques that I use specifically for EMC
compliance.
So my answer is YES.
I have done it where it was not necessary.
> Question (rhetorical): If a change makes a product better,
> faster, prettier, lighter, less expensive, more competetive,
> would you make it?
LESS expensive AND more competitive? Absolutely.
> Question: If you're totally redesigning your product, or
> significantly redesigning it to comply with harmonized
> standards, is your compliance program cost-effective?
I have also been in this situation. A major redesign to the
tune of $350K for ONE product. Now, "cost-effective" I'm not
sure what you mean. I'm not trying to goof this discussion up
by arguing semantics. I proposed the most cost-effective
(least expensive) way to accomplish the redesign if that's
what you mean. It had to be done in stages with each stage
of the project being a redesign of one specific area of the
product. It was a shelf that held 21 modules. The proposal
I gave was to start with the cheapest parts (the modules),
see what the effect was, move onto the shelf (mechanical
and parts considerations) see what the effect was, then
finally the backplane.
> It is understood that the regulatory compliance process
> IS COST-ADDED. The question is, is it VALUE-ADDED?
Again, Rick, I'm trying to stay away from a semantic debate.
But, "cost-added" and "value-added" are bean counter terms.
To them (bottom line stuff now) they mean the same
thing. "Been there, seen it, done it..."
I think I understand that you mean "perceived" value being
simply the customer(?) thinks its a better product after
all this crap you've been through.
See, here the question would be, "who is doing the value
adding to your product - your company or your customer?"
If it's your company, better be careful.
If it's the customer, better be right.
Good discussion.
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************
