Interrelation of Standards and Industrial Development

[Guest]

Introduction

Is there any engineering method that would enable us to do substantial improvement in the living standards of man-kind? From the engineering viewpoint, is it possible to scientifically specify the fundamental difference between the peoples of industrialized countries and those of the other countries? In this article I have tried to find the appropriate answers to these questions.

The strong will of nations for having a better life is undeniable. Consequently, some activities in developing countries in relation to the development and promotion of standards shall be regarded as an understanding of the need to promote development of the societies in the field of production, especially in the industrial sector. Notwithstanding the existing general definitions with regard to the concept of “industry”, this article exclusively considers the two aspects of manufacture and production of this word, which have always been in close connection with "Engineering”. Therefore, at the beginning, it seems that a careful examination of the meaning of the word "Engineering” may serve some useful purposes.

The present article is written, while believing that a comprehensive cognition of a specific phenomenon can not be ascertained through examining its general aspects only, especially if it is intended to modify or develop the phenomenon in question careful consideration of the relevant details is a must, too.
[BREAK]
The Concept of “Engineering”

"Engineering” is a science used to transform features of materials and resources of the forces existing in the nature, into structures, tools, machinery and in general “industrial products” to the benefit of the man-kind.

Therefore, conducting a discussion on industry and also examining the possibility of affecting a major change therein with a view to industrial development and as a result export-promotion will not prove successful without evaluating the quality of “engineering” within the society. Further, along the aforementioned definition and without deviating there from, it can be said that "engineering" is assigned with the duty to materialize and bring about to reality the scientific findings in order to fulfill the physical and spiritual needs of the man-kind, upon production of components and machinery(1). In other words, it can be accepted that the level of engineering-practice in a society is directly and undoubtedly related to the level of machine-manufacturing in that community. Meanwhile, it would not be irrelevant to claim that "Scientific findings will ultimately manifest themselves in solid - mechanics through transformation to shapes and volumes”.

This conclusion reiterates the fact that in various branches of “Engineering” or in other words the interface and common infrastructural (fundamental) aspects thereof, that is in "Machine- manufacturing”, not only their physical-chemical characteristics of materials and components, but also their geometric specifications are considered as a part of the extremely decisive factors. I believe so far as the machine-manufacturing industry in developing countries is concerned, this issue has not been given the extent of attention it truly deserved

The Concept of “Standard”

On the other hand, elaboration on and scrutiny of the concept of "Standard" is inevitable. Even though at the first glance and normally, observance of standards is equivalent to a better quality of industrial goods, which is not far from reality either; however, such point of view may not be a comprehensive one. As a matter of fact, the main objectives of standards is preparation of criteria and observance of such principles that paves the way for cooperation in both national and international levels, so far as the process for social production is concerned. Of course, such criteria inherently secure the minimum socially desired quality.

An investigation of the necessity for national and international cooperation, automatically clarifies the existing logical relation between the aforesaid two issues, i.e. "Machine-Manufacturing” and "Standards”. In order to further clarify the issue, it is better to review the trend of developments in machine-manufacturing, in brief.

Evidently, machine-manufacturing in its general sense, has commenced with masterly manufacturing of prototypes, that served as the strong foundation of the modern industry. While it was caused as a result of understanding the needs of its own time, it has created more advanced and sophisticated requirements, too. More complicated needs exhibit various aspects; each may have its own specific significance and can be examined on a separate basis. However, in order to shorten the discussion, reference will be made to two main aspects thereof, namely “A need to more modern science and technology” and "A need to more progressive division of labor”. It should be mentioned however, that the aforesaid issues are also as a result of ever-increasing development of the needs of the man-kind, both qualitatively and quantitatively.

Necessity to have an access to a more modern science and technology is so obvious that at least in this article, further elaboration does not seem to be required. Thus, the other aspect which is rather neglected is “A need to a more progressive division of labor”, will be reviewed in further detail.

"Masterly manufacturing of prototypes” which had only met the very limited and primitive needs, along with an increase in the quantitative level of the needs, was capable, to a certain extent, of solving some of the problems related to the quality and quantity of the products, as the number of staff-employees of a workshop grows and a job-description is verbally defined for each individual worker. Under such circumstances, the normal level of errors usually encountered due to performance of software and hardware available to the workshop, had always been a source of concern for the Masters. Such level of work-division, that only allowed cooperation at the workshop level, was practically unable to provide means required to bring about cooperation among the workshops, because coordination and establishing contacts among the industrialists and technicians, due to limitation in communication facilities, was extremely difficult, if not impossible.

The factories symbolizing developed workshops required a more efficient division of work. Diversity of expertise and accumulation of a considerable number of labor force under a ceiling, rendered it to be practically impossible to verbally divide the works to be done, among the staff.

At this stage, preparation of a set of written rules and regulations defining the job-description of each individual staff-employee, together with the extent of allowable errors of each and every element which somehow interfere with the production-process proved to be unavoidable. Such drawn-up regulations, which were actually materialization of work-division at this level, can be referred to as the first bud of "Standards”, at a factory level.

On the other hand, development of science and technology and further complication of production-processes, rendered the implementation of work-division at a higher level, or in other words, cooperation among various workshops and factories as a mandatory task. At this phase, since each individual factory was governed by certain written-criteria which were worth being presented and criticized, finally the rules governing division of work or facilitating the cooperation among various factories, were established nation-wide, presently called the “National Standards”. There is no doubt that modern national standards were initially worked-out in industrial countries.

For the very same reason, national standards had served as the basis for “International Standards” which brought about division of work and as a result, cooperation at an international level, with an acceptable quality so far as the social production-process is concerned. It is noteworthy that, international standards were also logically worked-out and have undergone continual development by those industrial countries which already had developed their own national standards.
[BREAK]
The Relation of Standards and Industrial Development

As it can be observed, growth and development of industries can be categorized in four separate classes namely, at workshop, factory, national and international levels, with the distinguishing factor being the stipulated level of “work-division” or in other words, level of cooperation.

With due regard to the aforesaid issues and in my opinion, standards which are developed on the basis of the requirements set forth by the machine-manufacturing industry, are currently transformed to an integral part of the industrial development and the level of its putting into practice within any society, is regarded as an index to indicate the degree to which that specific community is industrially developed.

With due consideration to the contents of the aforesaid norms and criteria, it can be seen that in certain parts of the world, it is already a long time that industrial development has exceeded national boundaries and in order to optimally use production-factors at a world-wide scale, it has entered the international field . In some other parts, even though the industrial development is still up to certain amount bounded by national frameworks, but the prospects suggest that it will pass through such bottlenecks, in a near future. However, in many countries, industrial development has not gone any further than the factory or even the workshop levels. In fact, the spectrum of the level of industrial development in developing countries varies from "workshop” to that of "factory”. Further, so far as certain indigenous products are concerned, it has closely approached to the “national” level. It should be mentioned that basically no standard at a factory level has been developed in these countries and therefore, the developed national standards were not comprehensive either and could meet a few needs only.

For the very same reason, at the most factories of developing countries, industrial development is loosely founded on the national standards of a number of industrialized countries, some enjoying international recognition in certain aspects. Such lack of coordination shall definitely serve as a preventive factor to pave the way for development of cooperation at a national level which in turn is regarded as a failure in national industries.

In brief, it can be concluded that ineffectiveness of work-division criteria at a national level, which in turn is due to lack of comprehensive national standards, is the main factor to prevent developing countries from being industrially developed and in the mean time is regarded as a serious impediment in merger of their industries in the world production-process.

The General Function of Standards

So far, only the justification for necessity of standards to exist was dealt with. However, in order to obtain certain specific and tangible results, it is required to examine and review the general functions of standards, at least within the domain of machine-manufacturing industry.

Basically, industrial production is based upon two main principles namely, higher-quality products and lowers production-costs. In other words, joint application of these two principles will result in the minimum socially desired quality of products, which in turn is subject to optimum utilization of characteristics of materials and energy-resources available in the nature, placing a yet heavier burden of responsibility on engineers. The ever-increasing diversity and number of needs within the contemporary human societies which are regarded as the driving-force behind the production, will be met when the fundamental production-factors, i.e. the nature and the man-power of extremely diverse capabilities which are scattered across the world, are utilized optimally. As it was explained, this issue may be materialized only through providing facilities required for cooperation at various levels, that is, division of work through preparation and enforcement of standards . In other words, standards serve as a tool to assist engineers to expand and deepen the cooperation, on one hand and cause the end-products to be usable at other locations or alternatively cause them to be interchangeable .The above issue can be tangibly summarized as follows:

In mass-production of components, parts, sets and combined industrial products, the standards prescribe such production-process that render the products interchangeable. Within the framework of new industrial concepts “making parts interchangeable” may be defined as follows:

“Any arbitrary quantity of part (A), produced at various times and at different locations shall be compatible with any other quantity of part (B) produced at various times and at different locations, provided that such parts would require to undergo no extra technical-work as compared with those already specified on the drawings”[/i].(2)

Therefore, a higher-quality product, less production-cost, easier assembly, easy and readily supply of spare-parts and possibility to cooperate at both national and international levels would be the advantages of making parts interchangeable.

Evidently, such compatibilities which include not only the physical and chemical properties of materials but also their geometrical specifications, taking into consideration the tolerances for each individual specification, shall guaranty the safe-operation and satisfactory-performance of the products.

In brief, it can be concluded that compilation and observance of standards together with promotion of the culture of "making parts interchangeable” in all industrial organizations, play a distinguished and decisive role in industrial development.

Standing of “Making Parts Interchangeable” in the Developing Countries' Industries

The issue of “making parts interchangeable” has extremely vast dimensions, hence, discussing each individual aspect thereof is beyond the scope of this article. Therefore, while examining its standing in the developing countries' industries, a short reference will be made to one of the existing problems in this regard.

At the beginning and in order to further clarify the issue, it is necessary to have a glance at the job-description of machine-design engineers . Their functions are summarized as implementation of a set of technical choices with regard to physical and chemical properties and also geometrical configurations of components and assemblies in order to bring about a specific performance for each of them. The design engineers upon logically combining technical choices and standards, prepare the grounds for "making parts interchangeable” and state the relevant instructions on drawings and technical documents. It is needless to say that correctness of the technical choices made is subject to being supported by sufficient scientific grounds and upon applying standards, it should possible "making parts interchangeable” . Therefore, scientific support and standards jointly serve as the solid foundation for the modern concept of machine-manufacturing industry.

A review of the level of technical-engineering trainings and also scientific sources accessible in these countries reveals that so far as physical-chemical properties and specifications of materials are concerned, there exists a sufficient potential of scientific-support which can be desirably put into practice to result in more sound technical choices, if assisted by engineering intuition and judgment. In this regard, even though there exists no comprehensive national standard; however, application of the national standards of other countries or the international standards may, to a certain extent, help the existing problems be solved.

So far as the geometrical specifications are concerned, I believe that due to a false assumption as to under-estimating the degree of difficulty of the job in hand, unfortunately there exists no acceptable scientific support but also, it is almost forgotten. Therefore, the technical choices made in this regard often encounter technical or economic problems.

Based on my experience, the theoretical principles of fits & tolerances, serving as scientific-support, is strong foundation in determining the geometrical specifications of parts or components and full understanding of these principles is the only factor in solid-mechanics that can materialize "making parts interchangeable”. However, fortunately since the geometrical specifications, contrary to other types of specifications, are universal, observance of relevant international standards shall immediately be put on the agenda.
[BREAK]
Conclusion

A realistic understanding of codification of the national standards is always regarded as an achievement reached as a result of national will and also multi-decade endeavors made by various communities. Finding a practical solution to respond to the most significant problems currently encountered by the industries of developing countries, is definitely an unavoidable necessity. For the very same reason I propose that as a first step and at least so far as the machine-manufacturing concepts are concerned, upon a wisely set priority and on a compulsory; however, step-by-step basis, the International Standards to be clearly introduced as the national standards on a comprehensive and wide-scale basis. Having adopted the said measures not only scientific grounds will be provided for cooperation on a national-level within the shortest possible time, but also necessary foundations basis will be established for the industries of these countries to enter production process in world-wide scale. It is appropriate that the related organizations in this countries to collaborate with the International Organization for Standardization(ISO) and actively participate in preparation of such standards. Materialization of this objective is subject to mandatory observance of such standards in technical (vocational) and university training courses as well as in conclusion of domestic and foreign industrial contracts, technology-transfer contracts and machinery-purchasing contracts or in other words, be logically and orderly emphasized and observed in business transactions.

At the end, it is necessary that the developing countries to facilitate training of the theoretical-principles of fits & tolerances to be on the agenda of their own techno-engineering training institutions.

Footnotes

1. Scientists find what exists and engineers create that is not. Note: The Persian equivalent for “Engineer” is “Mohandess” meaning “A Geometry Scholar".
2. Extracted and translated from the book titled: Toleranzen und Passungen, By: E. Felber & K. Felber

[Hamid]

"Some times, but not always, design begins when an engineer recognizes a need and decides to do something about it. Recognition of the need and phrasing the need often constitute a highly creative act, because the need may be only a vague discontent, a feeling of uneasiness, or sensing that something is not right. …
It is evident that a sensitive person, one who is easily disturbed by things, is more likely to recognize a need and also more likely to do something about it. And for this reason sensitive people are more creative. A need is easily recognized after someone else has stated it." - Joseph E-Shigley

[Guglielmo Tell]

The author of this article may be remarkable engineer, but a complete ignorant in social and particularly “development” issues. Suscribing to the demands of respect I have to tell you, Mr. Guest, haven’t got a clue even about “general aspects” of it, so if you want to dedicate yourself to social engineering as well, let me shed some light on some “development” machinery that has been roaring there for ages.
First of all, socially induced to take all the ideological trash of capitalism and neo-liberalism for a clean coin, for “the end of ideologies”, you don’t realize that you are an ideological prisoner yourself. Yes, “freedom, market and democracy” is JUST another ideology, like the communism or a religious one, we’ve all got one and the best we can do is to be aware of it. Reproducing your ideology as an engineer, you want to “standarize” the humanity thinking that with your help it will be able to pursue skyscraper-like vertical development into celestial electronic nirvanas upon taking off from the mud of “low development”. Horizontal geometry of yours lays upon “making parts interchangeable”, meanwhile you think that people in Third World countries are vertically inferior to you and they need to be taught “standards” so to be “improved” maybe even racially.
While you think of “higher quality products” and “lower costs”, the concern for Third World Peoples is the SURVIVAL. They are not “developing”, but ARE BEING SUBMITTED AND MANTAINED IN UNDERDEVELOPMENT BY “INDUSTRIALIZED” WORLD’S DEVELOPMENT. Certainly you can’t understand it if you haven’t studied the social disasters provoked by “a more efficient division of work”. Your description of the rise of manufactures and of the REASONS for it is amateur in comparison to KARL MARX’S in Section 4th of the Volume 1 of “The Capital”. The relationship between the social division of work, the State and the Ideology has been analyzed by Marx and Engels in the Chapter 1 of their first joint work “The German Ideology” while the relationship between the beginning of social labor division and the rise of the State on one hand and family kinship on another has been analyzed by Engels in “The Origin of the Family, the Private Property and the State” (which among other stuff and by the way, quotes the work of American anthropologist Henry Lewis Morgan). You don’t see that the problem of the countries impoverished by the capitalism is not lack of transition from workshops to industry, but that INTERNATIONAL LABOR DIVISION HAS BEEN IMPOSED OVER THEM FIRST CONDITIONING EVERYTHING ELSE. Plantations and mines employing slave labor were the beginning of chronic underdevelopment built upon destruction of national structures based on traditional family systems and on their own characteristic labor division thus preventing these structures from further development. The “standard” of slaves meant that these could not have even a common property, but were all employed in production of wealth for the white owners of plantations and mines. The owners were grabbing all the profit and spending it on maintenance of the colonial State and on the luxury for themselves. The mines, plantations and the colonial States were exactly the ones that prevented further diversification of today’s Third World economies by draining them of the surplus value they were producing. Today, 500 years later, it’s still the same thing: they grab ALL the land, ALL the resources, product of ALL the people’s work and shut ALL the people off the “income standards”. They keep people down or they push the people over the edge. The consumerism for the rich keeps getting diversified while the whole world is turned into a global concentration camp in the name of freedom.
Your ideology tells you that development means “climbing up” for all the social strata and all the countries. The truth is blunt and animal: EVERY SUPERIOR INCOME STRATUM IS SOLVING ITS OWN PROBLEMS AT EXPENSES OF PUSHING THE NEXT INFERIOR ONE DOWNWARDS – into the mud, over the edge or over one’s own ribs. Alex Haley’s novel “Roots” (and the TV series upon it), Toni Morrison’s “Beloved” (and Jonathan Demme’s movie upon it) show the “standards” for institutionalized humiliation and for considering suffered people “crazy”. The purpose of all of it is all the same: production. Slaves were “lazy”, workers are “spoiled” by the Welfare State, make them all work from dawn to dawn or 3 jobs at once so to give them a lesson for just having been born. Occupants in Iraq, Afghanistan or Palestine apparently compete for who can kill more people and more efficiently. The media have standards for lying presenting Qaddhafi as a monster so Libyan people wouldn’t even dare of determining their own living standard and giving free health-care service to immigrant workers. All of the oil, uranium and water from beneath Libyan desert must go to fulfill diversification of the waste in the West and all the money too. People in Egypt, Tunisia or Yemen must not be allowed to have a single farm to produce food for themselves or for closest town’s market, much less a workshop. Ethiopia had to give away money to “Nestle” as compensation for nationalizations of the “socialist” era under a program sponsored by the World Bank with the purpose “of attracting investors” (institutionalized robbers). The money was equal to 0,15% of “Nestle” ‘s incomes, but would have been enough to dig 600 water wells in Ethiopia. Even if all the wells were of the cheapest standards (not those of “Nestle” ‘s machinery processing African chocolate), the wells would have been enough to put an end to famine of 70 million of Ethiopians. The draught and the famine are striking back there right now.
So what do you want to diversify, develop, standarize, industrialize? The global establishment’s policy of “you die starved or you die killed”? Fun at expenses of all of it? Or perhaps the survival of humanity and preservation of the planet suffering from unbearable pressure of human (western) economy? Same as human income strata at transnational level f*** one another over a buck, the economy of human parasites incapable of solving issues between themselves in a “civilized” way is dumping the whole of planet Earth into garbage. “Better quality of products” making people feel comfortable in their own obesity (once again, at expenses of famished or crippled children someplace else) must be replaced with “better quality of life”. For everybody – this must be the standard for the rights and for the law, the guidance for the politics and for development of the economy. Even the design of the financial and technological systems is SOCIALLY determined (war or peace, consumerism or survival). So if the concepts of “species” and “social class” are turned into one, then the PEACE will be the guiding principle for politics, economics, development of infrastructure and industrial standards, etc. All of it would obey the principle of peace which is TO SHARE. Not the obesity, but opportunities to survive all together for a longer time. The poor are not poor and stupid who need help, but IMPOVERISHED by those who think of themselves better than anyone else and above the law. People in NOT developing countries don’t need imported standards of consumerism so to work for the First World’s markets they’ll never be part of. It’s colonialism and they rightfully reject it. In the 60’s American car monopolies with “investments” in Mexico and Brazil were cleaning up the machinery that was being withdrawn from production lines in the USA and installing them on their South American plants. The local rich in South America, meanwhile, would always prefer the imported cars to “national trash” and then they all would go on talking about “development”. The story went different in today’s Asian NICs where national politicians received plenty of Western money for what THEY wanted, including wild protectionism, although IMF will never admit it. The impoverished are victims of the grabbing and the first coordinates they need to determine the purposes of their own development are those of their own history, not the industrial standards being dumped by First World’s monopolies into the rest of the world they need to maintain as THEIR – monopolies’ - “periphery”. Try to find something about the history of Paraguay of 19th century that wouldn’t be a lie and (only) then try to read the novel “I, the Supreme” by Augusto Roa Bastos.
Unfortunately, the guys who think of themselves better than everybody else and above the law are the top income stratum and therefore the dominant class today. They determine the ideology (the direction of the brainwash) and thus make it all work their way – the Congresses, the Presidents, the Finances, the Budgets, the Infrastructure - they’re in charge of everything. They bought up the States in private property. It may be hard to believe it can be this big, but look around: the generals, the politicians, the bankers who are supposed to be keeping YOUR money, but always need more of it, Murdoch, etc. You don’t control them. In the best of cases you’re trying to escape their control. YOU, people, try taking over the control over the budget. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, REAL communism is also REAL democracy. Today it would mean everybody working for everybody else’s survival. If all of human energy would be aimed at this purpose, it would simply drain the social inequalities out. Maybe it would even pull all the potential psychopaths and sociopaths out of their behavior deviations and psychological lock-ups. But we are still in HISTORICAL 20th century. If you want us all to survive whatever the hell (?!) is coming over the next year of 2012, then broaden your standards.