Standards shelf-life expired? 1

[jmw]

Engineers know the value of standards, but are some standards doing more harm than good?
If so, is the problem getting worse? What effect is this having on development and innovation?
Are some standards devloped for the wrong reasons?

I wonder how many applications continue to use orifice plate or dP transmitters in some applications, despite the availability of newer and better technologies for those applications, simply because of the existence of a very well established set of standards?

Doesn't happen? Yes it does, i have have this categorically stated to me by industry engineers, and for some very good reasons. But are those reaons still valid when 80% of technology is now estimated to be obsolete within 5-10years?

A road surface dressing company sets aside £10million each year for "re-work".
Re-work is required whenever there is reason to believe the road surface does not comply with the standards as determined through testing of the materials.

They proposed a new approach for bitumen emulsion spraying using viscometers for quality control and for application control.
Testing showed the process viscometers, even though operating with a pseudo-plastic material, were giving far superlative resuts.

The Standard called for testing of samples within 7 days (often extended to 14 days) using a Redwood viscometer.

This is specified for historical reasons. In fact it proved to be a very unsuitable technology but to be replaced with an ISO cup measurement when the standards were "harmonised" with European standards.

The project was scrapped. The local governments engineers refused to depart from the standard and were not inclined to aid in having the standard reviewed. For some, standards are sacrosanct. The standard proved more difficult to change than even £10million a year was worth.




JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[GJdW]

JMW

Interesting thought. I certainly agree that standards can be a handicap to new and emerging technologies.

Standards actually makes the engineer's work more difficult as everything (designs) must be altered to suit the standards, which can be (and mostly are) outdated in most respects. It is an excellent idea to give all standards a shelf life, after which the standards must be re-evaluated and compared with new technologies.

On your topic of road evaluation using unsuitable viscometers: I suspect that the industry's sluggishness to review the standard is that there is vested interest by companies controlling the current (and standard-stipulated) technology...


Regards

GJdW (mechanical, South Africa)

 

[jmw]

The Redwood viscometer is an inexpnsive laboratory instrument. My view is that it is down to the "jobsworths" the poeple of little imagination and no initiative.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[GregLocock]

One example is where superseded standards are applied on top of the more recent ones - in the automotive world we often test to very old procedures as well as the current ones, in order to provide continuity. This naturally results in an ever-expanding test requirement.



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[PSE]

You may also find that the pace of technology will outstrip that of standards revision. It is like watching the government "at work". A whole lot of time can be spent getting very little accomplished as everyone's opinion must be considered. Even then, internationally "recognized" standards may only be that in title. Each country sometimes has their own special additional requirements. After all, there is a lot of $ tied to standards (meeting them), and everyone wants their piece of the pie.

Regards,

 

[jmw]

There can be no doubting that many "standards" serve more than one master.

In some cases the "standard" is strongly supported by manufacturers who wish to influence the standard to reflect their product to their advantage.

Some standards are seen as a revenue earner for national bodies. Some standards are an integral part of a countries "protectionism".

Attempts at harmonisation are often frustrated. In the case of the old British standard for domestic water meters, it formed the basis of the new European standard. Sadly, as this came to fruition a new class of meter was introduced for the UK market. In defense of this, the original standard was nased on the 1945 water act and meters were expected to lead to a fair and equitable method of billing, despite many homes paying for water according to the rateable value of the property. In part also, the UK plumbing systems are not typical of the rest of Europe, due to the Napolionic Invasion scares which lead to the intorduction of gravity tanks in homes which in turn means very low flow into the tanks due to ball valve action. One cannot but wonder whether this consideration should have been raised before harmonisation.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[moltenmetal]

Many codes and standards were developed to permit non-engineers to do engineering work of limited scope without killing people. They're a helpful guide for engineers, as the best of these documents record experience garnered from years of practical observations, reviews of screw-ups etc. For the most part, the standards were intended to supplement rather than to replace good engineering judgment- but indeed it's the latter that's happened in many cases. They've become an excuse for engineers to be lazy, deny their responsibility, and play it safe by not actually doing much real engineering. And as the original poster has pointed out, they're EXTREMELY slow to adapt to technological change, they stifle innovation and cost industries huge amounts of money and time which would be unnecessary if engineers were freed to do ENGINEERING!

It comes down to the fundamental problem of innovation, as put forward by Scott Adams of Dilbert fame. Let's say I'm a work-a-day engineer, slogging away in the cubicle trenches of XYZ Corporation. One day I come across an opportunity to save the company $2 million in capital and $100,000 a year in operating costs by taking a technical risk by deviating from the company's specifications and standards. My upside, if everything goes as planned, is a certificate of appreciation in a handsome plastic frame. My downside is a "pink slip" and a boot to the ass on the way to the unemployment line. So- why would I innovate? Why would I incurr the technical risk? What's in it for me?

Fortunately I work in a company which not only permits but ENCOURAGES engineering innovation, and I share the reward of decisions that pay off. That's by choice. I get to do REAL engineering- but only when my customers permit me to do so for their benefit. Often I spend huge amounts of effort convincing my customers that despite my desire to just shut up and follow the letter of their specifications, if I do so the equipment will be rendered LESS rather than more functional and safe- and in some cases, it just plain will not work.

Where we engineers fell down in the creation of these codes and standards is that we tried to be prescriptive, to cover every case with a rule. What we should have done instead was to write two sections in these documents: a first section for engineers with design philosophy to guide their design judgment, and the other with the prescriptive rules for the non-engineers.

 

[jmw]

Moltenmetal,
not everyone works for your sort of company.
In another thread (thread756-90255) you can see a lot of anxiety about deviating from specification, whether client's, manager's or industry's.

JMW

http://www.viscoanalyser.com

Eng-Tips: Pro bono publico, by engineers, for engineers.

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

 

[moltenmetal]

jmw: I know all about it- and I understand the difficulties faced by the guys working for the multinational corporations who are our customers. I can see the bind they're in, per the Dilbert problem statement. Even if they WISH to exercise some engineering judgment, the institutional structure they're working not only doesn't reward their risk but it severely punishes any failure. So I expect them to want me to follow every specification to both the letter and the spirit, whether it's sensible or not. My trouble is that I can't do so sometimes and still deliver a safe and functional plant on a reasonable schedule for a fair price, so I have to fight the good fight whether I want to or not.

 

[friartuck]

We have so many standards and codes, its impossible to keep up unless you can spare a day or two a week reading up on them or going to seminars.

Quite often, one reg contradicts another, or it was written so long ago, nobody knows why it was introduced.

We have recently had our building regs updated to include monitoring of fuels. This essentially means that on a site, we might have to meter the boilers and the gas supply to the kitchen. This is so someone can assess the efficiency of the 'systems'. Who is going to do this?? The client..I think not. What a waste of money.

All is needed is a reg to make people service their plant.

Another problem we have is that our natural gas enters the building at 20.7mBar ( 8.5"WG) and the allowable pressure drop from the meter to the boiler or end of circuit is 1mBar. This results in enormous pipe sizes. In addition, when we also have to add a meter to sub-meter the mains, the meter pressure drop has to be included in the 1mBar drop. The net result,...rotary meters to reduce the system pressure drop, larger pipes, a meter that will probably never be read and another maintenance problem..and cost to the client...MADNESS

Whoever writes these regs has no idea about practicalities.



Friar Tuck of Sherwood

 

[ScottyUK]

Another problem with standards - a particularly noticeable example being the BS7671 Wiring Regulations in the UK - is the high cost of the standard, and the frequency with which 'Amendments' are released, rendering the earlier issue obsolete.

I've no problem paying for a standard, but having paid a fair price, I am then expected to keep paying the same price over and over to keep an up-to-date copy. Why? If amendments are needed, then the original was wrong and should have been checked more carefully. The frequency at which amendments are being issued appears to be growing too. A more cynical person might suggest that it was a money-making ploy by the issuing body. Of course, that couldn't be true - could it?





------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes,
I'm getting a great education!