The following is a letter from Mike Konrad of Aqueous Technologies regarding Editor Steve Gold's article "Is it Time to Create Real Awards For Our Industry?" Steve's reply follows.

Steve,

I must admit, after reading your commentary regarding the need for a "real" awards program for our industry, that I am disappointed. I am not sure if you are misinformed or cynical.

As a recipient of 32 industry awards, I can understand the basis for your comments. Indeed, many companies seem to win awards year after year, leading one to embrace two alternate theories: Either these companies are their industry's innovators or, alternatively, the awards programs (all five programs from all five publications) are rigged. While I cannot speak for other recipients, I can clarify some facts.

Concerning your comments regarding the entry fee, you are correct. Our industry's major trade journals underwrite the awards programs through entry fees. Circuits Assembly, Global SMT and Packaging, SMT, EM Asia, Advanced Packaging all produce individual awards programs. There is an entry fee associated with all of the awards. The fee covers the purchasing of the actual glass awards, the associated engraving and the awards ceremony (venue, drinks, appetizers, audio visual equipment, etc). While I would welcome an awards program without a fee (perhaps your company would like to sponsor one?), I don't think anyone is willing to foot that bill.

Your assertion that these awards are meaningless is an insult to those companies that have been fortunate to have been recognized for their achievements. In our case, we take these awards programs very seriously. Our company is well-known for its innovation in the field of defluxing and cleanliness testing equipment. Our products are technically relevant, state-of-the-art and leading edge. We place a priority on engineering. The results of our efforts are products featuring innovative and unique designs with an emphasis on efficiency and environmental responsibility. These attributes, and others, make up the base criteria of the awards programs. To produce technologically innovative products that are recognized and rewarded is an honor and is certainly not, as you suggest, a result of a $500 entry fee or nepotism.

The judges are anonymous, to eliminate lobbying by contestants or competitors. While I do agree with your suggestion that judges should be revealed after the results are made public, this would most likely reduce the judge pool rapidly.

There is one final point I would like to make. You comments suggested some companies may be predisposed to win specific awards. This is only true if the contestant company is predisposed to produce innovative, technically relevant, best-in-class products. I feel compelled to inform you that we actually lose more awards than we win. If we produce a new, technologically-innovative product that we feel is worthy of award consideration, we will enter it into various awards programs and, in some instances, where the technology permits, into multiple categories (i.e., cleaning equipment and environmentally friendly products).

The fact is, we normally do not win every award in every category. In fact, we do not win the majority of awards and categories we enter. If it were as easy as paying $500 to a magazine and working with the wife of a publisher, then we would have far more awards than we do. The sheer fact that we lose more contests than we win shines more legitimacy onto the awards that we do win.

To suggest, in essence, that these awards are simply purchased minimizes the engineering efforts and the innovative vision of fine, reputable companies worldwide. It also is insulting to the numerous judges who spend countless hours reading hundreds of entries.