Are standards necessary / useful in the UK?

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
That's an unanswerable question.

Allow me to throw in a simple scenario: You buy a car. You don't need a licence to drive it. No insurance required. There are no properly laid roads, though some are excellent dual carriageways. There are no road signs because there are no rules,and anyway some roads just finish in the middle of nowhere.
When you get on the road you can go at any speed. You can drive in any direction - on either side of the road.......................
When you fix your car after the last bump, none of the spares fit.......

Standardisation of all sorts are rules - top to bottom -that allows manufacturers to make spares that fit your car, non statutory test standards (Some car-makers from the Fatherland excluded) that tell you how it will perform.... Roads that work, and enable predictable performance both behind the wheel and in front of it. I could continue, though I do allow that some manufacturing standards ISO 9000 series, the 31000 series etc) introduce levels of bureaucracy that make your ****** itch....

Yes - we do need 'em. Globally, it's an immensely complex area, that actually requires (and largely receives), international co-operation and co-operation between trading rivals.

Disclaimer: In a previous wage-earning existence, I contributed on behalf of UK manufacturers to a number of standards, at BS, CEN, ISO/IEC levels........
 
Last edited:
Yes and maybe.

Yes because how the hell else are we to get parts of a specified shape from more than one supplier. How would you fit a chuck to a drill if there were no standards as to thread size and receiver sizes.

Maybe because there are times when a standard is wanting in scope. I work in a business which is very innovative. Not in the sense of theatricals but in the sense of creating things which are improved or new ideas. A new idea may be the thing which creates the standard out of necessity. eg The Tesla charger point receiver as the first mover in mass EVs ( I think).

Three products I have worked on went on to become the or a global standard over maybe 5 yrs of effort.

I have just created what I think is the first AIOC ( AI Operating Centre sort of like a NOC) in the world to connect to AI systems, interrogate them as to health and performance and to report back to the AIOC that all is well OR not. If not then to precipitate action to repair and restore. This took 7 months over the recent pandemic and was a key element in the survival of my business. So lots at stake.

Few people have any conception of what innovation is really. Its a kind of self protection about change or lack of it. Most people do not welcome change unless it is tiny and to them harmless incremental change. Real change/innovation is often a brutal and unforgiving thing as it frequently destroys prior thoughts and radically changes perceptions into new channels.
 
You have to thank Whitworth for standardization. When he invented a screw cutting lathe. Also to some extent Lucas electrical as well. Remember the 60's and 70's cars with 7'' round headlights, That was Lucas's doing.
 
Yes and maybe.

Yes because how the hell else are we to get parts of a specified shape from more than one supplier. How would you fit a chuck to a drill if there were no standards as to thread size and receiver sizes.

Maybe because there are times when a standard is wanting in scope. I work in a business which is very innovative. Not in the sense of theatricals but in the sense of creating things which are improved or new ideas. A new idea may be the thing which creates the standard out of necessity. eg The Tesla charger point receiver as the first mover in mass EVs ( I think).

Three products I have worked on went on to become the or a global standard over maybe 5 yrs of effort.

I have just created what I think is the first AIOC ( AI Operating Centre sort of like a NOC) in the world to connect to AI systems, interrogate them as to health and performance and to report back to the AIOC that all is well OR not. If not then to precipitate action to repair and restore. This took 7 months over the recent pandemic and was a key element in the survival of my business. So lots at stake.

Few people have any conception of what innovation is really. Its a kind of self protection about change or lack of it. Most people do not welcome change unless it is tiny and to them harmless incremental change. Real change/innovation is often a brutal and unforgiving thing as it frequently destroys prior thoughts and radically changes perceptions into new channels.

Very nice work on this, beech.
 
Ditching EU standards as we speak, finalised any day now. Less red tape should help speed up our trade with the whole world and possibly the universe! We'll soon see the results.
 
Last edited:

It's a bit like saying are laws necessary/useful in the UK?....

Ethical Standards - Yes (we could all do with better standards, better adhered to - honesty? integrity? etc. etc.)

Technical Standards - Yes (where they don't exist, they have to be invented [by groups of people collaborating at one level or another] otherwise progress is extremely limited).

The above was typed into a computer (running standardised software on standardised hardware), powered from the UK electricity grid (which relies on all sorts of standards) and transmitted over the internet (built from standardised hardware and software components).

Of course, "standards" for their own sake are a bit pointless, but without them genuine progress on any significant scale is almost impossible.
 
Without standards everyone would be working to a different set of metrics. Thats why we have calibration centres that can ensure your equipment is calibrated to a traceable standard and everyone can have confidence that everyones metre ruler is a metre long to a stated tolerance at a given temperature. Imagine if every petrol station had their own version of the litre, you would not be able to readily compare cost. I think when they talk of ditching EU standards they are not talking about the standards but things like how certain foods can be processed and what colour a cow has to be so that it can be exported into the EU.
 
Standards are good, protection for everyone involved, common sizing etc etc, what is bad is nonsensical beaurocracy, where common sense is overlooked for the lack of the right box ticked, the right form filed etc. If everything is efficient and safe everybody wins
 
Without standards everyone would be working to a different set of metrics. Thats why we have calibration centres that can ensure your equipment is calibrated to a traceable standard and everyone can have confidence that everyones metre ruler is a metre long to a stated tolerance at a given temperature. Imagine if every petrol station had their own version of the litre, you would not be able to readily compare cost. I think when they talk of ditching EU standards they are not talking about the standards but things like how certain foods can be processed and what colour a cow has to be so that it can be exported into the EU.
I think this whole anthithesis to EU rules is because powerful vested interests want us to eat their produce which meets lower standards in terms of food safety, animal welfare and environmental responsibility. It's not so much straight/bendy bananas as chlorinated chicken, pesticide residues etc.
 
There's always been pride in British Standards and the fact we were usually ahead of the curve. Dropping EU standards will do what to us really? If we adopt US level food protection then all hell will break loose.

I think the US will try to sell us their stuff, I think most people won't touch it with a bargepole and you'll see a hell of a lot more "100% British" labels and signage in shops and restaurants as a result.

OK I've been to the States a load of times and never once blinked about eating their food, so it's hypocritical to say I'd not eat it here but the fact is I wouldn't because over I've got a choice.
 
You have to thank Whitworth for standardization. When he invented a screw cutting lathe. Also to some extent Lucas electrical as well. Remember the 60's and 70's cars with 7'' round headlights, That was Lucas's doing.

****Pedant Alert****

It was Henry Maudslay who developed the first practical screwcutting lathe in the very late 1700s, building on work done by Jesse Ramsden and others in the mid to late 1700s; Joseph Whitworth came up with the first standard for screwthread diameter, pitch and threadform in about 1842.

***Pedantry Off***

Are standards necessary and useful? Yes, provided they are applied appropriately.

If you live next to a new nuclear power station, you'd want to know that the design was done properly, the right materials used in its construction and those materials supplied against appropriate standards, the plant was properly tested before it went into operation, that the operators were trained to a suitable standard, and that the plant's maintenance met suitable standards.

If you are making garden gnomes, the standards applicable to nuclear plant might not be so appropriate.
 
****Pedant Alert****
......

If you are making garden gnomes, the standards applicable to nuclear plant might not be so appropriate.
I hope you are right. We wouldn't want a Chernobyl disaster at the bottom of the garden, even if on a little gnome scale.
 
The list of Standards in the link are more Business Governance Standards, which are a bit different to Standards for Metrics. We couldn't do anything without standardisation of metrics, but Business Standards are not always necessary. Many companies perform perfectly well without adhering to any BSI standards. All these standards are a bit of a money making business, I would question why Standards are so expensive, probably on average £100 each, They should be available for a nominal fee. Then you have all the accreditation fees, the annual fees, the additional staff to maintain the standards. If you have really good staff who know what they are doing, you don't need business governance standards. Companies now often request that any suppliers have accreditation to various standards. and won't deal with companies who don't. it perpetuates the business. You can get a BSI accreditation for producing crap products, as long as you document how you make your crap product and follow the process during the audit. These standards don't measure the quality of what is being made, only the process put in place.

In many cases, Business standards are required these days, because industry is full of inexperienced people who haven't a clue what they are doing, so they need a guide to follow. Everything in business is being re-invented today and given a new sparkly name, but it's what good successful companies have been doing for years without having a Quality Management Systems.
Despite my slightly cynical view, overall, I think they are a good thing and I shouldn't complain, It was my source of income for many years. ;)
 
Economic and material success is inextricably linked to common standards.

Whether it is screw threads, interchangeable parts (Colt guns), weights and measures (metres, kilos etc), I can't think of a primitive society which has progressed wthout some level of standardisation.

And the most successful economies are those which seem to apply standards and processes with the greatest rigour - eg: Germany, Japan, Switzerland.

But there does need to be some intelligence applied. One organisation I worked for some years ago was concerned to ensure 100% complete compliance for BS5750 accredtation. Documenting the processes became more important than managing the business. Daft!
 
Without standards everyone would be working to a different set of metrics.

Well, I think the question posed here intends to ask whether standards are best formed from the ground up or mandated from on high.

The value of standards themselves is obvious, how they're formed and instituted isn't.

Standards typically either improve efficiency (replaceable parts) or reduce risk (building codes)

Could easily make the case that standards contrived simply to reduce risk cause stagnation in a given industry, and that an industry can only sustain a certain level of stagnation. While the suits may not like it, some risk is required to keep this life of ours meaningful.
 
Anybody in doubt about standards just needs to look at what "sub-standard" entails, whether it's food and drink, brake components, nuts and bolts, etc. etc. across the whole range.
 
Back
Top