Absence of guidelines or criteria

Standards for chemical products include mainly standards that specify requirements for these products and standards that describe methods to test them. Standards for installations primarily concern engineering solu- tions that define how to design, construct, and maintain manufacturing facilities Simpkins, 2001. Regarding aims of standards, the main aim of a safety standard might be zero accidents, whereas the main aim of a standard that specifies a preference range for pipes might be cost savings. Because each of these standards should be evaluated on its own terms, it is not possible to use one general criterion for ascertaining the quality of standards in a company. For this reason, we decided that the best practice that should be developed in this study would not be based on criteria for the quality of the products of the standardization process the company standards themselves but rather on process criteria. A study of the available scientific and professional literature on the process of designing company standards confirmed the expectation that criteria for a good quality process were not available. Such criteria, therefore, as well as the “best” practices related to them, should be “dis- covered” in this study. Each of the companies was visited in order personally to meet the company’s standardization officer and get a first overview of the com- pany’s standardization practices. How was standardization defined in that company? What did the company do in this area, and how and why? The character of this first meeting was more like a chat than an interview. It was unstructured in order to be able to explore the com- pany’s situation without any preconceived ideas. It can also be seen as a “quick scan” of company standardization in that company. Partially based on this initial information about the standardization processes in our companies and partially based on the process model of innovation as developed by Chiesa et al. 1996, we developed a process model of company standardization. This model made a distinction between four core processes and four supporting processes see Figure 11.2. Core processes 1. Prioritizing. Which company standard will be developed and which will not? Who decides, based on which criteria if any? 2. Company standard development. This process consists of the composition of draft versions of the standard, commentary rounds, the writing of the final version, and its approval. 3. Company standard introduction. The approved standard must be introduced to its users. In this introduction process, the ben- efits of the standard and the reasons for certain choices in the standard can be explained. The more and the better the stan- dard is known to its potential direct users, the higher the chance that they will actually use it and do so in the way intended by the standard’s developers. The “promotion” of the standard can also continue after the introduction period. 4. Distribution. The purpose of this process is to ensure that the standards reach the direct user in a fast and easy way. This can be done by, for instance, subscription, ordering on demand, or in the form of “publishing on demand” using an Intranet. Facilitating processes 1. Standardization policy is needed to steer the core processes – a global policy on a company level, more detailed on department level. 2. Funding is needed to finance the core processes – standardization activities ask for investments. Costs precede benefits. The break- even point may be after, for instance, 3 years. 3. Human resource management is a necessary supporting process. Competent personnel must enact the established policy. 4. Facility management. The core processes are also facilitated by IT e.g. electronic publishing of standards on the Intranet and other tools. Chapter 11 Standardization policy Facility management Human resource management Funding Company standard Call for a standard FeedbackVerification Prioritizing Company standard development revision Company standard introduction Distribution Core processes Standard’s use Figure 11.2 Company standardization model Figure 11.2 also contains some other relevant concepts. On the right hand side of this model, the required end situation is represented by the concept “standard’s use”. Company standardization can only be a success when the standard is used in practice, and in the right way. A standard that is of a high quality but that is not used in practice has no value. Potential direct users must be willing to use the standard and be capable of understanding and using it. On the left hand side of the model, the beginning of the process is represented by the concept “call for a standard”, which represents the requirement for any standard that it is seen as responding to a perceived problem “on the floor”. Finally, at the bottom of the model, a feedback loop is represented. Evaluation of the standard’s use may form the basis for withdrawing, maintaining, or changing the standard. The developed standard should be an answer to the question for which it was produced – are the potential users of the standard satisfied? Therefore, user feedback to those who have decided to make the standard, as well as to the people who have developed it, is essential. The figure shows only one overall feedback loop, but in actual best practice a feedback loop is required in each of the four steps of the standardization process. The model was presented to the project’s steering group, which con- firmed that it is a useful representation of the different processes that contribute to good standardization practice. Note that this model is not a representation of a best practice but of a series of processes only. The “best” practice for each of these processes is still to be determined.

11.4.3 Measurement

Our next step was to collect data from actual instances of standardization in the six companies with the aim: 1. to assess in each case whether the core and supporting processes as specified in the model could be identified; and 2. to describe for each case in detail how these processes were conducted, including if possible a description of evaluation procedures and of the criteria-in-use for assessing the quality of the standardization activities. Using a questionnaire that covered the eight processes of the model as an interview guide, semi-structured interviews with standardization man- agers were conducted in each of the six companies to investigate how the processes were shaped. The standardization managers introduced us also to other people who were involved in one or more company 244 standardization processes, such as technical managers, technical experts who wrote standards, standards users, and standards officers staff at the standardization department. We spent at least 1 week in each company, conducting a number of 15–20 interviews of 1–2 hours each in each company. Additional data were also generated by means of observation, informal conversations, and reading documents e.g. written descriptions of company standardization processes.

11.4.4 Data presentation

Each company’s standardization processes were described in detail, using flowcharts. Our model appeared to be a useful framework for this description. Each of the eight processes of our model was a relevant subprocess of standardization in each of the companies. Within these processes, practices of the different companies appeared to differ quite a lot, for example: ■ In one of the companies, the corporate policy included stand- ardization, in the other companies it did not. ■ Three of the six companies had a steering group for stand- ardization, which consisted of line managers. In all cases, the standardization manager was member of this group as well. ■ Two companies attached a “why document” to some of their company standards. This document provided the underpinning of the most important choicesdecisions that were made during standards development. Often, the authors of the standard were mentioned as well in this document.

11.4.5 Concept definition

Starting from the observed practices in the six companies, in a brain- storming session we formulated statements that expressed criteria that could be applied to each of these practices. Company standardization literature, scientific or professional, played a minor role in this brain- storm because, in general, this literature did not provide any guidance regarding best practice in company standardization. Examples of such statements that we generated are: ■ a best practice regarding standardization policy is that there is a clearly stated strategic policy on company standardization;