Sounds crazy to have so many marks and certifications for the same things. Some of you already know about the new mark QualMark and TUV Product Service are offering, Qht Certification. Given the current climate against more bumper stickers, I just wanted to give you guys a heads up on how Qht differs from these other safety and compliance marks.
The Qht Mark has 5 category levels designed to show a product's level of design ruggedization using the HALT technology. When consumer or commercial buyers want to determine which products are more rugged (i.e. phones, laptops, cameras, modems, medical equipment, avionics parts, whatever...) this new mark will show that through independent third party certification. The marketing people in these companies can use and have used Qht certification in their advertisements, press releases, sales proposals and presentations. If they are able to secure one deal, based on having the Qht mark as a differentiator, then they will have made their money back and more. Our customers realize that Qht is a voluntary mark and consider it for its return on investment (ROI). I welcome your comments. Your group has often been a good sounding board for us and I didn't want anyone to misunderstand what the Qht mark is for. Laurie Lee Mead National Director of Certification Programs QualMark Corporation website: http://www.qualmark.com/core.html voice: 888-425-8669 x 243 email: lm...@qualmark.com facsimile: 303-254-4002 Qht info: http://www.qualmark.com/qht.html ---------- > From: UMBDENSTOCK, DON <umbdenst...@sensormatic.com> > To: 'emc-pstc' <emc-p...@ieee.org>; 'Dan Mitchell' <dmitch...@eoscorp.com> > Subject: RE: Are all these agencies really necessary? > Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 7:28 AM > > Another slant -- it may be your company's marketing strategy. > > For some of our products our compliance engineering group has determined > that the CE mark is sufficient for European markets; however, for marketing > reasons (read: "our customers like to see . . . ") we also obtain TUV > approval. So some of our expense is strictly marketing related. If the > payback is there, go for it! > > Don Umbdenstock > Sensormatic > > > ---------- > > From: Dan Mitchell[SMTP:dmitch...@eoscorp.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:26 PM > > To: 'emc-pstc' > > Subject: Are all these agencies really necessary? > > > > The company I work for routinely requests that I get certifications > > through > > the following safety agencies: > > UL, VDE, SEMKO, DEMKO, NEMKO, FIMKO, EZU, QAS, GOST and > > ad nausium. > > > > My question is this; Are all these agencies necessary? If you get a base > > > > safety certification from say, UL, coupled with a CB Report/Cert and a > > third party EMC/EMI report to FCC ClassB, and EN50022, why is it necessary > > > > to get the safety agency for every country you want to sell in? > > Why can't this industry come up with an all encompassing mark, lets call > > it > > the OM (for Overall Mark) that is granted to your product after you get > > the > > following: > > 1. Base safety cert (from your agency of choice) > > 2. CB Report/Cert > > 3. FCC/Cispr22 cert > > THe mark would allow you to sell your product in any country in the world. > > > > It makes alot more sense than the way it is done now. I can spend up to > > 3 > > months waiting for a certification to come back from China. > > The cost is outragous also. If we spend $30,000 on the certification > > process, we count ourself lucky. I believe that alot of these new > > agencies > > that have been appearing on the scene over the last couple of years are in > > > > it strictly to make a buck. All they have to do is block your product > > from > > their market unless you pay their extortion money. > > > > I know that this is opening up a can of worms, but I would like to know if > > > > there are other disgruntled safety persons out there that feel the same > > way. > > > > This view is strictly my own. > > Daniel W. Mitchell > > Product Safety > > EOS Corp. > > > > --------- > > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com > > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list > > administrators). > > > > --------- > This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. > To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com > with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the > quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, > ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list > administrators). --------- This message is coming from the emc-pstc discussion list. To cancel your subscription, send mail to majord...@ieee.com with the single line: "unsubscribe emc-pstc" (without the quotes). For help, send mail to ed.pr...@cubic.com, ri...@sdd.hp.com, or roger.volgst...@compaq.co (the list administrators).
