If I may,
I <think> Rick means if a customer is given the choice between
1. a product that does the job the customer requires WITHOUT approvals
or
2. a product that does the job the customer requires WITH approvals,
would the customer choose #2 and if so why?
Does the product in the case of #2 appear more "valuable" than #1?
Then, I <think> he wanted to know if you had no other requirements
but to make a product work for the cutomer, would you still go
through the approval process and why?
So, from this point of view, I think this is an extremely valid
question to ask, i.e. aside from laws, requirements, and money,
is this stuff we do necessary and valid IN ITS OWN RIGHT?
Now, I responded with a reply that went a little too overboard
in the cash flow area, but that's my reality unfortunately.
I have only considered Rick's question as I interpreted above
from the "good engineering practices" point of view.
So, again, I think this is an extremely valid question to ask.
That's if I'm interpreting your question correctly, Rick?
JIM WIESE wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm totally missing the point, but I think what Rick Towner initially
> might have been asking is;
>
> If the customer were given the choice of a product that costs $10.00
> without a CE mark or a product that costs $12.00 with the CE mark, which
> would he/she choose.
>
> Another way to put this is how much is it worth to the customer to reduce
> the risk that a hazard, that is addressed by CE marking, is mitigated.
>
> Maybe consumers would be better off letting the market place control what is
> safe and what is unsafe or what emits RF and what doesn't and what is immune
> to things and what is not. It would make for alot more interesting stories
> on Dateline and Prime Time Live, and their counterpart shows in Europe.
> Whatever happened to Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware)! Besides, we have to
> keep the undertakers from starving, they need the business from stupid,
> unknowing consumers who buy cheap, chinsy products that don't comply with
> the requirements for CE making.
>
> Got carried away standing on my soapbox with sick humor. Please excuse me.
>
> Oh, I hope my soapbox is CE marked so I don't fall on my butt! I knew I
> should have used a CE marked ladder instead.
>
> Strictly my opinions,
>
> Jim
>
> ----------
> From: treg-approval
> To: treg
> Subject: RE: CE MARK: Value-added?? Rephrased
> Date: Tuesday, April 08, 1997 8:54AM
>
> Some more waffle.
>
> A customer has a minimum right to expect that a product he/she purchases
> will
> a) be safe and b) will not interfere with (or be interfered by) other
> equipment he/she already owns. These are slight distortions of two of the
> philosophies behind a) the Low Voltage Directive and b) the EMC directive.
>
> No one in the position of purchasing products would argue with a), none of
> us
> would want to be harmed by our purchases. b) is slightly more esoteric but
> has validity given the increasingly crowded elecromagnetic enviroment as
> more
> and more intentional and unintentional transmitting gizmos are introduced.
>
> In addition, the idea behind CE marking is to remove barriers to trade
> within
> the European Union (and EEA). Many of you possibly do not have the history
> of
> dealing with national compliance requirements in each country and having to
> re-test to the same basic standards time and time again because there was no
>
> mutual recognition of test results. Now, generally, you only have to meet
> one
> set of standards, you can test your products anywhere you choose (or not
> test
> if you choose) and once confident in your product's compliance affix the CE
> mark and away you go. Sounds good so far?
>
> So does CE compliance add value. Well, I guess if you comply with all
> relevant directives and standards and you implement a compliance maintenance
>
> program which ensures that all products shipped remain compliant then you
> won't get slapped with a huge lawsuit due to your product killing someone,
> have your products withdrawn from the market, etc. This is probably worth
> something. To your customers it doesn't matter except for their
> reasonable
> expectation to get a product which is safe and does not interfere. No one
> is
> going to buy a product just because it has a CE mark because all products
> must
> carry CE marks. CE marking does not provide a product differentiator.
>
> Does CE compliance add cost? This is relative. Everybody has to comply
> with
> the same requirements so well designed, compliant products should be
> competively priced. Of course the price of producing a safe, unobtrusive
> product is probably a little higher than producing a lethal, noisy one but
> producing the latter is probably not good for repeat sales. Product
> compliance does give an opportunity for some competiveness. One thing to
> keep
> in mind is that not every company has the same access to competent design
> engineers (and/or standards) and the initial design is where value can be
> added to (or rather cost removed from) products. Designing compliance into
>
> products from the start is the thing to do. At that point solutions may
> cost
> cents rather than the dollars you expend when you get into retrofitting. A
>
> well designed product will sail through compliance testing saving re-test
> costs and most importantly time to market.
>
> The world of compliance engineering is constantly changing with much more
> responsibility being placed at the feet of the manufacturer and supplier.
> If
> we accept that there must be a minimum level of safety and EMC performance
> built into products then it could be argued that the compliance procedure
> doesn't get any better than the CE marking requirements. I would argue,
> proceduraly, that it is now much easier, for example, for US companies to
> deal
> with the European regulatory process than for European companies to deal
> with
> the US processes.
>
> There is a potential problem, however, related to the technical standards
> which we apply under the scope of the legislation. The European directives
>
> have opened the floodgates for the development of all manner of new
> technical
> standards. The EMC area in particular is subject to extensive
> over-standardisation, particularly with respect to product immunity.
> Having
> a lot of standards available covering a wide variety of interference
> phenomena
> is not a bad thing. Manufacturer's need all the reference material they can
>
> get. The problem is having immunity requirements for all of these phenomena
> applied as mandatory compliance criteria. If we think EMC testing and
> compliance is an onerous cost burden now, wait until 2001 or 2002 when some
> of
> these new requirements may have kicked in.
>
> Nick
--
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------------
The comments and opinions stated herein are mine alone,
and do not reflect those of my employer.
-------------------------------------------------------
************************************************************
