Necessity demonstration of formulating standard plan projects
1. Core judgment: Whether the object should be included in the scope of standardization
The essence of standards is technical specifications, and the objects they regulate must meet two core attributes:
Technicality: It is necessary to focus on the content that reflects the objective laws in the production, technology or service process (such as the technical parameters of products, process methods, and testing requirements), rather than commercial (such as promotion plans), administrative (such as approval processes) or transactional (such as attendance systems) issues. These non-technical issues cannot be uniformly restricted through standardization due to the lack of support from objective laws.
Universal repeatability: Standardization is only valuable when a certain type of technical requirement appears repeatedly (such as the dimensions of general components and the strength indicators of commonly used materials). There is no need to standardize accidental problems (such as the process of one-time customized products) or individual problems (such as a temporary technical solution exclusive to a certain enterprise) — after all, the significance of standards lies in reducing the total social cost through "formulating once and applying multiple times".
In short, only when the problems are "technical, regular, and repetitive" can there be a basis for standardization.
2. Target anchoring: Clarify the purpose and value of the standard
The core of the necessity argument is to answer "why it is necessary to do this", and it needs to focus on four dimensions:
Problem orientation: Clearly define the specific pain points addressed by the standard (for example, if the equipment energy consumption in a certain industry is too high, the standard should solve the problem of "unifying energy consumption limits"; if safety accidents occur frequently for a certain product, the standard should solve the problem of "unifying safety thresholds").
Benefit quantification: It is divided into two categories, economic (such as reducing the energy consumption cost of enterprises and reducing raw material waste) and social (such as reducing carbon emissions and improving the level of consumer rights protection), to illustrate the actual value that the standard can bring.
Risk pre - judgment: Analyze the consequences of "not formulating standards" (for example, the absence of unified safety standards will lead to an increase in the product accident rate, and the absence of unified quality standards will trigger disorderly competition in the market), and strengthen the urgency of standardization.
Regulatory connection: Sort out relevant superior regulations (e.g., environmental protection standards need to comply with the Environmental Protection Law) and existing standards (e.g., existing standards cover traditional equipment, and new equipment needs to fill in the gaps), to ensure that the standards conform to the policy framework.
3. Clear boundaries: Define the scope of application and scenarios of the standard
The "validity" of the standard depends on clear boundaries.
Scope of application: It needs to be strongly bound to the "scope of influence" —— National mandatory standards cover the whole country, industry standards are limited to specific industries, and enterprise standards are only applicable internally; if the influence of the standard spans industries (such as general motor standards), the scope of coordination needs to be clearly defined.
Application scenarios: It is necessary to correspond to the specific links of production/services (such as dimensional standards in the design stage, process parameters in the manufacturing stage, detection methods in the inspection stage, and component compatibility requirements in the maintenance stage). For example, the application scenarios of automotive component standards include "design (unified dimensions), manufacturing (unified precision), maintenance (unified replaceability)", covering the entire life cycle.
4. Preliminary preparation: Initially formulate the structural and content framework of the standard
The last step in the necessity argument is to transform the "needs" into an "operational work blueprint". The core is:
Framework design: Define the core structure of the standard (such as term definitions, technical requirements, test methods, inspection rules) - this is the "object basis" for subsequent feasibility studies.
Content focus: Sort out the key points of the standards (for example, electrical safety standards should include requirements for insulation performance and withstand voltage tests) —— Avoid generalizing the content.
Condition pre - judgment: Initially plan the resources required for the work (such as test equipment, drafting units). For example, formulating material strength standards needs to rely on scientific research institutes with high - end testing capabilities, and formulating process standards requires cooperation with enterprises with large - scale production experience.
Feasibility demonstration of formulating standard plan projects
The core of the feasibility demonstration is to answer "whether it can be done and when to do it", and it needs to be carried out from two dimensions: "timing" and "conditions".
1. Timing judgment: Consideration of the "timeliness" of the standard's introduction
Timeliness is the core of feasibility, and two dimensions need to be verified:
(1) Technological maturity: The standard shall be based on "verified laws"
The content of the standard must be a consensus reached after the technology has stabilized, that is, the effectiveness and reliability of a certain type of technology have been verified through scientific experiments (laboratory verification) and production practices (large - scale application by enterprises). For example:
- If the endurance technology of new energy batteries is still in the iterative period (for example, the performance improves by 30% annually), formulating standards at this time will limit technological progress.
- If the technology is stable (e.g., there has been no significant change in energy density for three years), the standard can accurately reflect the current optimal level and guide the industry in establishing unified specifications.
It is necessary to avoid "premature standardization" (formulated when the technology is not yet mature) or "delayed standardization" (formulated when the technology has been phased out).
(2) Production adaptability: The standards need to be in line with the "requirements of the development stage"
It is necessary to judge the market popularity of technologies or products: When a certain technology shifts from "niche application" to "general promotion" (for example, 5G equipment moves from pilot projects to large-scale deployment), it is the best time to formulate standards. At this time, standards can guide the industry to unify specifications and maximize benefits.
- Premature (technology not yet widespread): The standards will be left idle, resulting in a waste of resources.
- Too late (the technology is mature but there is no standard): Enterprises have established their own specifications, resulting in high transformation costs (for example, smart home appliances lack unified interconnection and interoperability standards, and users have to face the pain point of "device incompatibility").
2. Condition assessment: The supporting capacity for the formulation and implementation of standards
The key to the feasibility demonstration is to verify "whether there is the ability to do it", and it is necessary to focus on four major conditions:
(1) Formulating entity: Is there a competent unit
Formulating standards is a technical integration task, and three types of entities need to be selected:
- Scientific research institutions (such as the Institute of Materials Research of the Chinese Academy of Sciences): They have the ability for theoretical research and experiments and are suitable for formulating standards based on basic research (such as material strength standards).
- Leading enterprises (such as Huawei): They are familiar with the pain points in the industry and production practices, and are suitable for formulating standards close to the market (such as communication equipment interface standards).
- Industry associations: They have the ability to coordinate the interests of all parties and are suitable for formulating cross - enterprise general standards (such as industry energy consumption limit standards).
It is necessary to additionally verify the testing capabilities of the unit: whether there are environments (such as constant temperature and humidity laboratories), equipment (such as high-precision testing instruments) and methods (such as internationally recognized testing processes) that meet the standard requirements - these are the guarantees for the "scientific accuracy" of the standard content.
(2) Implementation feasibility: Can the standard be "implemented in practice"
The essence of standards lies in implementation, and three obstacles need to be anticipated:
Cost threshold: If the standard requires enterprises to adopt new processes (such as environmental protection processes), it is necessary to evaluate the enterprises' financial capabilities (whether there is government subsidy support).
Technical threshold: If the standard requires complex testing (such as high-precision instrument testing), the implementation capabilities of small and medium-sized enterprises (whether public testing services are provided) need to be considered.
Interest recognition: It is necessary to investigate the acceptance levels of enterprises (whether they are willing to cooperate) and consumers (whether they recognize the value of the standards). A standard without the support of stakeholders will inevitably become a "dead letter."
(3) Data reserve: Is there sufficient basis to support it
The scientific nature of standards depends on comprehensive data accumulation, and three types of information need to be collected:
- Domestic and international standards (such as the EU RoHS Directive and the domestic GB/T series of standards): Used for comparing the international advanced level with the actual domestic needs.
- Scientific research results (such as technical reports from universities): Used to verify the technical rationality of standards.
- Production experience (e.g., practical data of enterprises): Used to ensure that the standards are in line with the actual market situation.
It should be noted that for foreign materials, it is necessary to "fully understand the original meaning" (for example, when translating international standards, it is necessary to accurately understand the background of technical indicators) to avoid "mechanical application"; for domestic materials, it is necessary to "conduct comparative analysis" (for example, whether the energy consumption limits of existing standards are suitable for the current technological level of enterprises) to ensure that the standards are "down-to-earth".
(4) Supporting and coordination: Is there a coordinated standard system
Modern standards have cross - domain relevance. A certain standard often needs to be used in conjunction with other standards (for example, equipment performance standards need to refer to testing method standards, and electrical plug standards need to be matched with socket standards). Therefore:
- Synchronous planning of supporting standards is required: Simultaneously include standards that reference and depend on each other in the plan (for example, when formulating the motor performance standard, the motor testing method standard should be formulated synchronously).
- Duplicate project establishment should be avoided: For general projects across industries (such as motor standards), the requirements of different industries (machinery, electronics) need to be coordinated to avoid formulating standards with conflicting content. After all, "formulating two standards for the same thing" is a waste of resources.
In summary, the necessity argument is about "choosing the right direction", and the feasibility argument is about "finding the right timing and method". Together, they form a "double insurance" for standard planning projects, ensuring that the standards are "worth doing, can be done, and can be done well".