Standardization decisions

The various stages of Scania’s standardization decision-making, along with the challenges associated with them, are described in the sections below.

5.3.3.1 Pre-initiation decision

Following identification of a potential standardization need through a request or a number of questions, the company’s centralized office for standardization—

that is, the standardization unit—examines whether the particular request or need should be made into a standardization project. This is the first actual decision point for the unit, which indicates that the standards-related decision making starts before instigation of the standardization project per se. This stage comprises a vital decision, since the truly important projects for the company will not receive the attention they deserve unless effective prioritization ensues, and, furthermore, taking up unlimited standardization projects would be very costly for the organization. However, this “pre-initiation” decision-making, as well as the rest of the standardization process in Scania, is not actually determined by any sort of explicit factors; instead, the decisions are connected to each particular case.

Area specialist B: “A standard is a compromise, but sometimes you cannot compromise on some things, because the use is so different, so it would be very expensive to have a standard in that case. You must have the feeling, when is it worth having a standard, can we say this is beneficial for Scania, or is it not?”

Indeed, those requests need to be examined case by case, specifically by personnel who possesses the technical knowledge to assess them and whose work will be most affected by the forthcoming standard. These personnel are no other than the various area specialists, who are the real decision makers; they assess the importance of a request and judge whether to initiate a process of standard

creation or revision. The standardization department is involved in the process, but mainly in terms of coordinating the work, rather than making decisions.

Standardization engineer A: “It has happened in the past that the area specialist decided not to change the standard after a question. And that was based on a very long experience in the company. That is something I need to trust.”

Thus, a request comes from within the company, from any internal customer or user, and it can be either be decided that this will be turned into a standard or not. In the latter case, a solution is found but is not formatted as a standard.

This means that the document is not named STD (standard), does not fall under UTMS’s authority, and is not intended to be implemented all over the company. An important reason for deciding not to make a solution standard could be its limited applicability, since a standard is supposed to be applied generally all over the company, or at least to the vast majority.

Standardization engineer C: “So the experts are the ones who decide if there is really a need, if it is something important, or it would only serve two people, for example.”

Area Specialist B: “Perhaps we know that one department cannot use the standard, but the other 10 departments need it. So I will make a standard for the 10 departments. But I will not make a standard for one department, because then it’s not a standard. Then they should make a document inside that department. It’s not uncommon, on the contrary it’s very common that you make a standard for 90% of the people, but 10% [are] outside the standard.”

5.3.3.2 Initiation decision

In the case that pursuing a standard has been decided, a second round of decision making is initiated within the organization, often with cross-functional groups of discussion, which are the groups that work best due to the overall visualization and coverage of different areas. Furthermore, cross-functional groups from different areas of the organization are formulated in order to embrace various users’ input and involvement.

In particular, instead of having a regular one-ended process where one gives input and develops an output, and where someone else is merely the end user (as visualized in Figure 8), a different approach is used in Scania’s internal standardization management. That is, the final users are involved and contribute

towards development of the standard that they will eventually use (as shown in Figure 9).

Figure 8

Regular one-ended process.

Figure 9 represents a virtuous example of users’ involvement, contributing a diverse set of opinions and experiences. UTMS is part of the discussion, but mainly in terms of administrating it. The real expertise is once again contributed by the experts and area specialists, who take “scientific responsibility” for the content of the standard.

Standardization engineer C: “To me, it is the expert that knows everything in the standard. So, it should be approved by the expert.”

Area specialist B: “It’s very clear for me what I can do and what I can trust UTMS to do, based on experience. In my standards I make the decision with the knowledge I have.”

Figure 9

Internal standardization process in Scania.

User

Identificatio n of problem

Corporate Standards processing

• Together with other stakehold ers (experts and users)

Output

• Standard

User

• Initiator of the process, who also refines the standard Initiator

• Gives

input Process Output User

Accordingly, standards-related decision making processes are conducted by three main parties, namely the experts and area specialists, the standardization department, and the internal customer that brought the need up in the first place. Ideally, additional future users of the forthcoming standard will also contribute during its creation.

Area specialist A: “So we need to form a small group, with one of the standards coordinators [standardization department], and then maybe an area specialist—

like ourselves. And then hopefully the internal customer as well, the one with the greatest need [for] the standard. So that is the minimum I think, those three parties—the need, the knowledge around the area, and the standardization administration.”

As soon as these parties have agreed on the draft of the standard, the second decision-making point of the standard’s development process arises: the decision that the draft of the standard can be sent for internal feedback.