This brief original content column by Heat Treat Today’s publisher, Doug Glenn, is from the most recent print magazine, Air and Atmosphere 2021. Are standardization and innovation in competition with one another, or do they assist each other? Which one is better to have? Read this article weighing the economics, business, and cultural realities of both.
Publisher and Founder
Heat Treat Today
In the heat treat industry, I wonder what effect standardization has had on innovation. This is a somewhat loaded question given the number of companies in the North American heat treat industry that are invested in industry standards such as AMS2750, CQI-9, and a large alphabet soup bowl of other standards. I’d like to hear your specific stories about how standardization has been helpful or harmful. Maybe Heat Treat Today can do a future article on the topic if we get enough responses. But in lieu of those real-life anecdotes, let’s think for a moment about the relationship between innovation and standardization.
First, I think that nearly everyone would agree that innovation is a good thing and should be encouraged. Many of today’s conveniences are the result of yesterday’s innovations. Certainly, not EVERY innovation is good, but encouraging a company, economy, or culture of innovation is far and away preferred to the absence of innovation.
Second, we should also acknowledge the benefits of standardization. Repeatability is the hallmark of high production societies. Knowing that you’re always going to get the same burger at any McDonald’s across the country is a huge selling point for that fast food giant. And when it comes to mission-critical or life-critical goods or services, who would not want the assurance that “past performance is a good indicator of future results.” I prefer my heart surgeon to do the same thing every time!
Third, let’s be clear that standardization and innovation are, by nature, mortal enemies in the sense that each tends to destroy the other. An atmosphere of standardization, where everything is always done the same – over and over again – is antithetical to shaking things up and trying new and sometimes odd things. Likewise, an atmosphere of innovation, cuts directly across the same sameness of standardization. If you do it differently one time, standardization is destroyed.
There is wonderfully simple and brilliant book written by the towering mind of Ludwig von Mises called Bureaucracy which contrasts bureaucratic organizations with profit-driven organizations. I recommend it highly (search Bureaucracy, von Mises) and it has something to say about the differences between bureaucratic organizations, which are highly standardized by nature, as well as being profit-driven organizations that tend to be less standardized and more innovative. One of his points is that there is a place for both in the world. The military, for example, is not a good place for question-asking and innovation, especially in the midst of a battle. In a military setting, do what you’re told without question and don’t deviate/innovate. In a profit- driven business, however, this same mindset is not so healthy – take for example the postal system or another bureaucratic organization where responsiveness to customer needs is not highly valued.
Some may say that there is a standardized process for being innovative. Could be.
Where’s the balance and how do we know if/when we’ve gone too far in either direction?
I’d be interested to hear your heat treat stories of when and why standardization or innovation is good, and especially how these two live comfortably together.
