Despite the rapid growth and shining new applications, the field of standards developing in LED industry remains unclaimed, standards developing organizations from traditional lighting would not like to give up, and new organizations inside this industry have been fighting for every inch.
Deliveries not recognized
As the largest application market, China does not want to lose the influence on rules making in global LED industry even though the fact is they have been losing it as we speak. China’s leading LED industrial organization China SSL Alliance (CSA) pulled together its own Standardization committee, CSAS, last September, and started developing standards ever since.
After two months of establishment, five standards approved by CSAS in November, they are:
“Street lights and tunnel lights with self-cooling separated control device LED module ”;
“External constant current control device interface requirements for indoor LED lighting”;
“LED public lighting intelligent system interface application layer communication protocol”;
“General specifications of LED lighting products testing and measurement” and,
“LED accelerated lumen depreciation testing methods”
However, these deliveries have not received recognition, China’s MITT issued “Light Industry Standard ProjectSchedule” in April, in which SSL was listed under this category, which indicates its intention to declare all SSL standards developing should be under this category, and more importantly, under MITT’s lead and authority.
Five standards are also proposed to develop under this schedule:
“LED Bulb Performance Requirements’;
“The CRI of White LED Light Source”;
“Surface—emitting LED Lamp Technical Requirements”;
”LED Lamp Measurement Methods” and
“LED Lights-Accelerated lifespan evaluationmethod”
So we can see that there are two overlapping and conflicted topics of standards between CSA and MITT, and the earlier standards developed by CSAS was not recognized by MITT.
International LED standardization war: Zhaga vs. ISA TCS
As one of the fastest developing industry, the LED industry worldwide does realize they have to be better united and make rules instead of just making and selling stuff. Both Zhaga and ISA were founded in 2010, but with different focus. Zhaga was formed clearly focusing on standards developing and interchangeability, more specifically; ISA seems to be more comprehensively aimed and there is no description of its vision, this may somehow explained why it’s so lost, because they never had the idea of involving standardization until after one whole year of its establishment, the Technical Committee on Standardization (TCS) was established, not only lose the head start to Zhaga, but also missing the vision all along.
Zhaga has 278 members with at least more than 1 million US dollars revenue per year, has published 8 Books, certified 101 products, concluded agreements with 7 testing centers.
ISA TCS has held 2 meetings and decided 4 four focused topics to work on during the 2 years since its establishment.
Although the CSAS vs. MITT situation inside China is basically different from the Zhaga vs.ISA TCS situation globally, we can see surprisingly resemblance as one has been delivering results and making progress quickly, and the other has been claiming turf but no actual actions or deliveries.
Industry promotion vs. Government promotion
According China’s SAC (Standardization Administration of China), 48 LED related standards would be developed or modified, among which only 8 compulsory standards, which are still under governmental agencies’ authority to develop. However, some recommending or voluntary standards making opportunities have been granted to NGOs like CSAS. And judging from the facts, industry promotion like CSAS does show efficiency and delivery, which is good for the healthy development of this new emerging industry.
While globally, Zhaga’s success also proves the advantages and achievements of industry promotion. The confusing fact is that ISA TCS is also claiming to be an industry based non-governmental organization, while somehow it does not produce actual results like other non-governmental organizations in this industry, but just declaring turfs, which makes people can’t help thinking it’s so government style. The only problem is, it does not have government’s authority to make or deny other organizations’ standards developing activities. Maybe they should realize that in global context, authority has to be earned, by actions and deliveries, that’s also the essence of standardization, you cannot just requesting others should follow whatever you think is standard, you have to earn recognition and respect.