Quality Assurance Update: May 2018

Results of the Quality Assurance Survey

We recently conducted a survey of companies with Lighting Global Quality Verified products to learn why they submit products for testing and what aspects of the program they find most valuable. We received responses from nearly half of the companies we contacted (29 of 60). Thank you! We were pleased to learn that these 29 companies were largely positive about the services they receive from the QA program.
We identified 16 aspects of the program and asked respondents how valuable each is to their company. All 16 aspects were rated somewhat or very valuable by a sizeable majority of respondents, as shown in the table below. The test report, benchmarking against similar products, and the product listing topped the list of most valuable services.

We also asked respondents to indicate all of the reasons why their companies submit products for quality verification. Results are shown in the table below. At the top of the list was “to meet the eligibility requirements of market stimulation programs such as bulk procurements and results-based financing schemes,” with more than half of respondents (18 of 29) giving this as a reason for seeking quality verification.

These results are useful as validation of the program’s value to companies and provide a jumping off point for further engagement on how to make the QA program even more valuable. For example, while many companies reportedly find Tech Notes and Eco Design Notes useful, others do not. We would like to explore with companies what we could do to make these documents a more broadly useful resource. Similarly, while most respondents reported that suggestions on how to improve individual products tested through the program are useful, some responded that these suggestions are not useful. As a result, we are planning to review our service offerings with a view toward offering some services to companies on a more tailored basis.
We welcome additional input, and will follow up with individual respondents.