Would the "chart" really just be for "up-to-date" equipment.
What I'm saying is, is seems a bit long winded to enter details/categories and evaluations for a piece of equipment you may have but is no longer supplied or readily available.
You could go into great length and extol the virtues of say eg. a Graseby MS2000 but in reality are there going to be many people who are still going to go out and purchase them.
For equipment being "marketed actively" by the O.E.M's I think it's a great idea, and as John said as long as it's done fairly, can only be of use to Biomeds wether they are involved in purchasing or not.
It may also make companies "take notice" that information they provide, or don't as the EBME web page has shown, is accurate, honest and consistent.
Honest appraisals are required, and yes sometimes that will mean "warts and all", and I'm sure some companies will not be happy. At the end of the day tho' if the outcome is better all round service, better cost effectiveness and even handed consistent approach to sales/service then I think most "ethical" companies who supply biomedical equipment have nothing to fear.
Gategories I think should be included are
Reliability
Manufacturer's support
Spare part availability
Quality of technical support
I'm sure there are lots, we will all have some ideas for inclusion.
The JD Powers survey of motor manufacturers seems to have given that industry a kick up the backside and been benefitial to the car purchaser, there is no reason why a similar survey for Medical Equipment manufacturers can't have a similar effect here
