Internal interface

Openness differs from external participation since it specifically concerns the contribution to the standardization process—that is, being open in regard to internal specifications and solutions and introducing them into discussions and processes, as well as allowing internal specifications and standards be accessible by external parties (for example, by not protecting them with passwords). On the other hand, external participation does not concern the contribution to the process, but mainly attendance, and subsequently taking information in. In other words, together, those two aspects represent “inside-out” and “outside-in”

traits. It is important to distinguish between these, since external participation (outside-in) is an important trait of corporate standardization regardless of approach, while openness (inside-out) becomes important once participants aim to lead and shape standardization outcomes. That is, both external participation and openness regarding internal standards are crucial elements of Volvo’s assertive standardization management approach.

Standardization engineer A: “In each advisory group [TAG] we have four meetings a year. Face-to-face meetings are very powerful, and make the whole process more efficient.”

The various TAGs involve representatives from various parts of the company, which means that input from the different areas of the organization is regularly integrated.

Hence, since communication and information exchange among the different parts is ensured, an important task that is fulfilled in those meetings is to prioritize the urgency of different standardization-related issues. Well-informed decisions are made there, since integrated input and information are provided, but those decisions are also automatically communicated to the various parties (since they are made during the meetings).

Manager D: “But there is a wish list of standards that should be improved and these TAGs are good, because there we can prioritize.”

Another standards-related decision-making body in the company, which also holds regular meetings, is the TC, which consists of high-level managers. In that committee, standardization-related matters are discussed by upper-level management in close connection with the company’s strategic objectives.

Standardization engineer A: “[Standardization-related issues] could be determined on several different levels. Up to quite [a] high level, the TC consists of high-level managers, like the manager that is responsible for the whole development within Volvo Group. That is the second level below the CEO.”

The existence and activity of the TC indicate a number of significant things in relation to Volvo’s corporate standardization management. First, formal communication is again designed and planned; upper-level management receives information from other standardization-related parts of the company (such as the standardization department and the technical experts) and then exchange input and opinions among each other as well. Hence, standardization-related communication is ensured within the organization. Secondly, it is indicated by the organizational and communicational structure that standardization-related matters are indeed approached through a strategically oriented lens and potentially as a strategic tool towards the interests of the organization; how standardization issues will be prioritized and materialized is up to the higher managers to decide. Hence, finally, higher-level managers are explicitly involved in standardization-related decisions.

Standardization Engineer A: “[Higher-level managers] want to [be involved in standardization-related decisions]. Because they are managers, they want the power! Most of them want to be involved. And that’s great, actually, because they have lots of knowledge and also lots of power. So it is a good combination. And since they think it’s important and they are involved themselves, then of course they do help with the establishment of the standard within the organization.

Thus, this makes the process efficient.”

Interestingly, then, standards are referred to as a form of “power” in Volvo, receiving interest and attention from upper-level management. The standardization engineers feel supported and often facilitated in their job by management (in regard to nurturing structures of formal communication and close collaboration with the organization’s experts, who posses the technical expertise as well as input from the external environment, since they are the ones participating in external standardization committees). More specifically, regular communication flows between the technical experts and the standardization unit were built up and nurtured after organizational separation of the former from the standardization department. This regular information exchange has allowed the unit to maintain overall control of corporate standardization management—

that is, both internal and external processes.

The reason why such formal communication flows were set up seems to be twofold. It relates to the competence and experience of the standardization team, who have worked with corporate standardization for many years and thus realize how to proceed in this setting and which activities to safeguard, thereby maintaining close contact with the technical experts (that is, technical expertise and external information constitute crucial elements of corporate standardization management).

Manager F, Corporate Standards: “We have long experience, which we have built through many years. We have very experienced staff, with lots of long experience.

So there is good knowledge about how to work with our standardization areas.”

The second reason—and most decisive one—has to do with support that the standardization unit enjoys from upper-level management. Through the meetings and personal participation, management signals (and even enforces) that standardization issues should receive attention.

Standardization engineer A: “For instance, there is someone working with polymers cost efficiency right now, going through the purchasing prices for polymers and comparing the prices and costs for the US market with the costs we

have for the same things in Europe. And there are huge differences. That’s something that we have tried to change, make them in the US use the same suppliers and the same products as we do in Europe, but until now they have just said that it will not work. Of course we have tested those things, otherwise we wouldn’t implement them in the trucks produced in Europe, so it’s just a matter of being lazy! But now the directives have come from the CEO, so no question that it will be finally changed .”

In other words, it is often the case in the organization (and arguably could occur in any other organization) that unless higher-level management accentuates a standardization-related issue, the staff will shirk the effort to implement or perform it. Reasons for this can differ; employees either try to avoid efforts and changes that have not been ordered by higher management, or perceive that as long as higher management has not requested them they are not vital for the organization. A combination of these justifications is also possible. However, Volvo’s higher management does ensure that standardization issues are prioritized in the organization, by being involved and also by directly transmitting this message when necessary (as in the abovementioned example).

6.7.2 Interrelation of internal and external efforts

Subsequently, in the aftermath of regular exchange of information as described in the previous section, a close interrelation of internal and external standardization efforts is fueled in Volvo, which allows the company to use standardization assertively—and hence strategically—since preferred specifications are pushed into formal standards.

In that sense, a close interrelation is vital in order to tackle the challenge of identifying the value-potential issues for the company, and subsequently ascertain that the organization’s interests and strategies are served through its standardization management, both internally and externally. Unless internal information (from inside the organization) is regularly and effectively integrated with external information (from outside the organization), coordinated standardization efforts cannot be sustained.

Manager : “There are different standardization committees, national and international ones. This Excel sheet [that is available intraorganizationally] shows that in all these committees we have experts from Volvo Group. You can see perhaps 100 names here. They are not situated within Corporate Standards, of

course. They are experts in these areas but through this document an expert from one part of Volvo Group can easily find another expert working in the same area and discuss internally a solution, how to vote, etc. So that they can collaborate and find each other around the world to discuss.”

Predominantly for Volvo’s assertive standardization management approach, a close interrelation of internal and external standardization efforts is central, functioning as a perpetual cycle for the firm. That is, once strong organizational awareness has been accomplished—in other words, a clear comprehension of the company’s interests (which will be discussed in a later section)—assertive representatives will put effort into pushing the company’s benefits externally—

that is, via external standardization committees. However, at the same time, through their participation in external committees, the representatives grasp the external arena and feed this information back into the organization, hence adjusting and directing the internal standardization efforts in accordance with emerging opportunities.

Manager C: “I try to form a picture for myself. Considering the information we have from the external environment and the one from inside, what is the picture I form regarding the company’s interest?”

Manager A: “Information is collected from external committees, and is utilized in internal standardization. Often, higher management have to discuss and decide on issues, without being absolutely clear where they come from. Most likely they are brought in after external participation.”

For such a cycle to function, the interrelation of external and internal processes are close and uninterrupted in Volvo; unless external information is fed to the organization, this virtuous circle cannot be sustained. The interrelation of internal and external standardization is very much present in Volvo’s everyday standardization management. The experts maintain constant communication with the standardization department, which is also in methodical contact with the rest of the organization—that is, managers and decision makers—in order to report back to them and ensure a dynamic incorporation of standardization management with the overall strategic intentions of the organization. Hence, as depicted in this section, a close interrelation of internal and external factors can only be sustained when internal information is well grasped (strong organizational awareness), and at the same time the organization is familiar with the external standardization arena (through external participation). Volvo regularly participates in formal standardization committees and subsequently

safeguards a dynamic standardization-related dialogue in the organization, which finally enables close interrelation of the various efforts.