Guideline to follow when a product can be given more than one EV in a given alphanumeric feature

Last comment 25/09/2018 09:31 by Roberto
· Mark as unread
Roberto Ortega 4 years ago created

I have a general question regarding how to treat situations where a product can be given more than one EV in a certain alphanumeric feature.

For example, I have a EC000382 (UPS), and for the feature EF006977 (Type of interface), my product has both EV001552 (RS-232) and EV004045 (USB).

There's 3 possibilities:

1. If one of the EVs is considered the "standard" in comparison to the other, then I can classify it as having the more standard EV.
2. Give it the value EV000154 (Others). However, by choosing this it could be interpreted that I don't have neither USB or RS-232, but others.
3. Leave this feature blank, with no information. I'm not giving a wrong answer, but I'm giving no information at all...

All of these options are imperfect, but I think that "least imperfect" one would be number 1.

What do you think?

Thanks very much,

Nico Schmid 4 years ago created
Interesting question.

Which one is more commonly used?
Which one is the better USP?
What does the product manager prefer if he has the choice?

Simultaneously, you could raise an RFC to improve the standard such that it can cope with multiple values for that feature.


Marc Habets 4 years ago created
Hi Roberto,

The only proper solution is to split this feature into multiple logical features, thus allowing all possible combinations. Then use EF007312: With communication interface RS-232 (true/false) or if there could be multiple ports per type you could use numeric features like EF003021: Number of HW-interfaces RS-232. Example of the logical solution see EC002758, for the numeric variant EC001596. 

For now, I agree with Nico his assesment, I would not choose other but the one with the better USP. And advice your customer to contact his local ETIM office to ask for a request for change, but please be advised that this is for members only!
Roberto Ortega 4 years ago created

Thanks very much for both of your messages! I will choose the connection that is a better USP, that's the best solution for now, and will inform the customer about the way to request changes to features for future ETIM releases so that it suits their needs.


Join the conversation
You have to be a registered user to join the conversation.
Topic started 21 September 2018 at 11:05
Reader count 11
Comment count 4