Bernie, Gene, Vic, Self- is marketing, but adding the hyphen to self-certification changes the meaning of self. I agree with Vic's assement of the German meaning and the meaning of the English translation. A lot has been lost in the translation. To me the current meaning of self in U.S. English has several connotations and using a literal translation doesn't work. I much prefer "Declaration of Conformity or Declared Certification.
The emaiI from Bernie has given me a different beanie perspective. Regards, Duane ___________________________________ On Mon, 5 May 1997, Gene Panger wrote: > From: NAME: BERNARD MCEWEN > FUNC: 10687 Eng Product Certification > TEL: 613-274-6500 <BMCEWEN@A1@K> > To: NAME: MX%"[email protected]" > <MX%"[email protected]"@MRGATE@K@WPC> > > Just as "value added" is a beanie buzzword, 'self-' is a > marketing > prefix used as a punter-friendly alternative to admitting that > whatever follows is not provided. E.g. you have to pump your own > petrol in a self-service filling-station, or clear the previous > diner's mess in a self-clearing restaurant. > > 'Self-certified' is no more an oxymoron than 'not certified' is, > because the word 'self' on its own, doesn't imply 'certified'. > > And as for 'self-declaration'; that is plain nonsense. What is > the > difference between a declaration and a self-declaration? > > Regards, Bernie. > > Hello All > > Hello Everyone. > > A range of interesting events has delayed my response to this original > thread. It is not my intention to re-open this discussion but rather to > simply close it from my original contirbutions. First, Vic, thanks for the > IEC document number (IEC 2). By drawing out the definition of certification > I was refering to, and its parties, you affirmed that 'self-certification' > is indeed an oxymoron rather than a marketing ploy as Bernie opined. But he > made a very clear point regarding 'self declaration' versus a simple > 'declaration'. No difference between them and 'self declaration' simply > adds confusion. > > Vic caught this as well and clarified the terminology quite well when he > referred to the Suppliers Declaration though he indicated it as a procedure > when it is really a document. However, the procedure to which a Supplier > Declaration is normally attributed when discussing things from a European > perspective is known as the Internal Production Control module (Module A > among the conformity modules also referred to by Vic.) > > Both Vic and Bernie are doing this community a favor when they indicates > that the term self-declaration should not be used, and in using it, I > contributed to the decline of the overall dialogue. I apologize. (See below > for my penalty.) > > Having said that, recognize that as the European approach has been unfurled, > the two ideas dealt with here have been the very two that have been > obscured by the largest number of people. The term "self-declaration" arose > as the terminology manufacturers began using when they digested the > Internal Production Control module. Many conformity assessment > organizations joined in this as well perhaps because the European's, in > their zeal to show they were not adding unnecessary burdens, wanted to show > how manufacturer friendly they were when the New Approach legislation was > created. Thus, instead of a default to the use of third parties--often a > source of confusion when market access and market success issues were > mistakenly fused---manufacturers were attracted to the 'own your own > destiny' elements within the directives; hence the term 'self' in advance > of declaration. Thus the concept of 'self' was promulgated both as means to > speed understanding and as a balm for the aching third-party blues. > > Vic pointed out another aspect of that which contributed to the confusion: > the misuse of the term 'certificate' in many of the directives. This > confusion led to the term self-certification which was originally > mistakenly used by the German's to refer to a process that was in fact a > suppliers declaration approach. I agree with Vic that something was lost in > the translation since the Germans understand that certification issues > well. However, we have since been stuck with the term self-certification > which simply took the whole discussion further off course. (I still find > remarkably adept conformity professionals using this term.) To derail this > concept, conformity providers often use self-declaration since it provides > map to which most people can quickly jump when starting from 'self > certification.' It is still one step removed from the real issues as Vic > clearly pointed out. > > And of course, it certainly did not help that EU legislators referred to CE > marking as the CE Mark thereby infering that certification was involved in > CE marking which was where all of this began. > > Sorry to bore you all, but felt an obligation to clarify these points and > agree with Vic that the usage of self-declaration should also be > eliminated. A supplier's declaration is, in the end, the document of which > we speak, and from a EU perspective, this document is generated under all > directives though in those that call out the Internal Production Control > procedure (Module A), it is the only summary document required. (Of course > this presumes your technical documentation file exists, but that is an > adjacent but separate discussion.) > > I have signed up for 50 lashings with a wet, draft Mutual Recognition > Agreement between any two large trading partners and expect to carry out > this self declared penalty by the end of the month. > Regards, > Gene > TUV Product Service > > > ------------- > Original Text > From: "Victor L. Boersma" <[email protected]>, on 4-11-97 11:55 AM: > To: INTERNET:[email protected] <[email protected]> > > Comments on Gene Panger's: > > ISO/IEC Guide 2 (my copy is 1991) defines "certification" as a procedure by > which "a third party" gives written assurance that a product, process or > service > conforms to specified requirements. > > Hence, certification, by international agreement is something a 3rd party > does > and there is > no such thing as "self certification". > > In this business there is: > > First party = the supplier > Second party = the purchaser > Third party = body or person recognized as being independent from the 1st > and > 2nd parties. > > What this is all about, is > > Assurance of conformity = procedure resulting in a statement giving > confidence > that a > product or service fulfils specified requirements. > > There are many ways of doing this, as is recognized in the EC Module > Decision, > which > gives a choice of some 8 possibilities. > > One of them is > > Suppliers Declaration = procedure by which a supplier gives written > assurance > that a product > or service conforms to specified requirements > > There is a note attched to that statement to the effect that > > - In order to avoid any confusion, the expression "self-declaration" should > not > be used. > > The CE-marking, as I understand it, only means to indicate that somebody > has > done an > investigation and has produced a written declaration of conformity. It is > not > intended to > convey anything to the user, only a tool to refer authorities having > jurisdiction to whomsoever did the decalration of conformity. > > Unfortunately, some of the EC Directives confuse the issue by referring to > the > Declaration > of Conformity as a "Certificate". I've got to get myself a copy of those > documents in a language other than English, to see whether we're once again > dealing with English that would > never be approved in North America (where the real English is spoken). > > I also understand that there will be a meeting April 15, where a decision > will > be reached on the ENEC mark, which will be pan-European and will give users > a > degree of comfort that a > 3rd party has been involved in the evaluation of the product. > > All in all, what we're talking about is "giving confidence". Personally, > rightly or wrongly, I trust certain suppliers, usually the BIG names, to do > the > right things or fix it, if they made a mistake. They usually did in the > past. > Hence, a suppliers declaration from one of these BIG names, gives me as > much > confidene as a 3rd party certification. In the end, if something goes > wrong, > the big name firm will fix what went wrong, not the certification > organization. > > I also have confidence in the very tiny firm that build my computers. He > has > fixed whatever went wrong, but some of his competitors are no longer in > business. Some of the 3rd party certification houses are no longer in > business. > Some of the BIG name firms are disappearing. > > What constitutes "giving confidence". I don't know. I do know that in the > final analysis it becomes more of a touchy-feely thing than something you > can > hang your hat on. Ask me > next why I love and trust my wife. (Is 40 years of living together > sufficient > evidence ?) > > > Ciao, > > > Vic >
