Test Houses into '97

It is almost a year since the introduction and implementation of the European regulations which requires that all marketed electrical and electronic products shall be electromagnetically compatible. One would anticipate that the initial demand placed upon the test houses would have decreased. It would also be reasonable to expect that manufacturers and suppliers would have become familiar with design techniques peculiar to EMC and would have acquired a fair appreciation of the appropriate test procedures.

With this in mind the EMC Journal decided that it would be interesting to embark upon a survey of the test houses, in an attempt to gain an appreciation of how the level of understanding in the market may have grown. Also to canvass opinions on ways in which the customer base may have changed since the period just prior to the legislation.

A conspectus of the results and opinions thus solicited is included in the following digest.

It will present few surprises to learn that the peak demand for testing, witnessed during the latter half of 1995 and at the lead in to this year, has now moderated and that lead times have come down significantly. A year ago many test houses were quoting up to six months lead time with some almost working around the clock to achieve even that. Today 85% of the houses polled were offering between four and six weeks for attended and witnessed testing. 20% could provide immediate facilities for unattended testing and for smaller items. It is suspected that at the height of the demand a number of prospects were in the habit of engaging more than one test house and subsequently accepting the most favourable booking. This tended, to some extent, to falsify the real demand and will have accounted for many of the cancellations reported in the early part of the year.

The costs for test house occupancy do not appear to have changed significantly. The prices currently being quoted fall within a bracket of £550 to £1,200 per day, with 50% quoting £1000 per day. Some houses offered a scale of charges geared to the level of sophistication, diagnostic measurements being at the higher end. Many were prepared to break their fees down to the nearest hour.

Even after many years of testing most test houses are reporting a very high first time failure rate. The figures returned to this Journal indicate that on average over 80% of the equipment being submitted for the test fails in some way. Frequently the remedial work is quite trivial involving additional decoupling or simple filtering and in very many cases can be accomplished on site. It would also appear that most of the products which do pass first time have been presented by customers with previous test experience but many go to a test house seeking a minimum cost fix rather than with a real expectation to pass.

The indications are that, with only a few exceptions, the test houses have evolved an established clientele which represents the greater part of the business. The impression given is that only between 15% and 20% of the test requirement is for new customers. There is also a body of opinion which suggests that much of the market is either still uninformed about the requirements or is choosing to risk ignoring them. A few examples of non-complying products being unscrupulously CE marked have been cited. It has, furthermore, been suggested that some suppliers are simply retro-fitting EMC components, a filtered connector for example, in the pious hope that if challenged they would be able to show due diligence.

The established and reputable practitioners have an increasing awareness of the implications of the legislation as evidenced by a growing demand for training. Among these the benefits of a conceptual design for compatibility are becoming increasingly appreciated. Many companies are now insisting upon training at all levels including drawing office, mechanical and electrical design, estimating etc.

Finally competitive analysis is viewed by many as an essential part of marketing. Most major companies would be expected to maintain a team of experts dedicated to this practice. In areas where competitive pressures are great, the personal computer market for example, one would expect to find some real evidence of companies who were submitting their competitors products for EMC evaluation. The Trading Standards Office also will most certainly be taking an interest in a few product samples. Surprisingly then, with only two exceptions, none of the many test houses polled were aware of having tested for competitive analysis. Most, however, were quite aware that this was happening. Could it be that such activity is mostly conducted behind closed doors? One exception was a test manager who reported that his customer literally cheered when the product failed. He considered that this was sufficient reason to suspect that he had tested a competitive sample.

The EMC Journal would like to express its gratitude to the following test houses for their willing participation and helpful co-operation with this survey. We appreciate the sensitivity of some of the material which has been provided and are consciously aware of the negative impact that some other publications may have had on business. All of the information provided has been treated in the strictest confidence and no individual opinions have been, or will be, revealed.

• Assessment Services Ltd, Fareham
• Assessment Services Ltd, Stratford upon Avon
• British Aerospace Dynamics Ltd, Bristol
• BSI Testing, Hemel Hempstead
• Cranage EMC Technology, Market Drayton
• Design to Distribution, Stoke on Trent
• Electronic Services, North Livingston
• Electromagnetic Testing Services, Dunmow
• EMC Test Centre, Donibristile
• ERA Technology, Leatherhead
• GEC Alsthom, Leicester
• GPT EMC & Climatic Test Centre, Coventry
• IBM (UK) Ltd, Winchester
• J.E.T. Ltd, Hull
• Matra Marconi Space (UK) Ltd, Portsmouth
• MIRA, Nuneaton
• National Weights & Measures Ltd, Teddington
• Radio Frequency Investigation, Basingstoke
• RN Electronics, Mountnessing
• York EMC Services Ltd, York