The zen of standards harmonization and globalization. (Viewpoint).

The globalization of standards is a topic that is often discussed, frequently debated and regularly argued. It is, without question, an issue as divisive as one can imagine, and is fast becoming one of the central most international issues.

On the surface, the globalization of standards seems a simple issue, especially when couched in such slogans as "one standard, one test, one time." But beneath the surface of catch phrases, buzz words and mantras, lies a murky and turbulent topic. It is a very strong undercurrent and of the variety that can easily transform the leisurely and unsuspecting swimmer to become the subject of the "News at 11," so to speak.

In the U.S., ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials) has been a leader in developing standards on a consensual basis, and has jumped head-long into the whirlpool created by the currents of international trade and standards development.

Initially, ASTM began direct international involvement by establishing TAGs (technical advisory groups) to participate and interact with ISO (International Organization for Standardization) technical committees, such as ISO/TC 45 on Rubber. The TAGs report ISO standards activities to the membership of ASTM and channel suggestions for ISO standards through ANSI (American National Standards Institute).

ANSI is the sole voting U.S. representative to ISO, which has a somewhat controversial "one country, one vote, majority rules" policy. This is controversial because the nations that lead in standards development (Britain, Germany, Japan, and the U.S., for example) are placed on equal footing with other member nations who may not have a national standards development organization and rely solely on those standards incorporated in the annals of ISO, or those of other member nations having internationally recognized standards.

Many will argue that this level playing field is equitable and certainly democratic, an altruistic concept and very difficult to debate without seeming nationally self-indulgent or industrially proprietary.

When a standard, developed by a leading standards development organization such as ASTM, is incorporated (referred to as harmonization) into ISO, it often undergoes modifications that the developing body is, in some cases, powerless to change, and may well be in conflict with the more widely used original document or less than technically equivalent, and in some cases technically inferior.

The result is not "one standard, one test, one time," but rather "two standards, two tests, two times, too costly, too confusing." Idealism aside, the term harmonization is nothing short of an antonym! When there are technical differences between internationally recognized and widely used national standards being considered for harmonization, the waters become more turbulent and considerably murkier, adding countless numbers to the clever phrases.

The development of standards is not truly international, per se. It is industry-based and user-driven. Ultimately, a method that is used will, and is, the one that best suits the user's needs, whether it is a local, regional, national, international or a truly global one.

One must realize that ISO is not truly a standards development organization. ISO relies heavily on those countries that develop standards to submit them for incorporation. These national organizations, in turn, are wholly dependent upon the industries they serve.

ISO has, in some situations, globalized standards, but has not necessarily harmonized them. In instances where, for example, a particular national standard addressed a standards issue and there were, or are, none that approached it, its incorporation into ISO admirably served the global need by filling a void.

However, in more frequently occurring situations, there are a myriad of internationally recognized standards that have been incorporated into ISO, which are, more often than not, an amalgamation of the many extant standards, which become dilutions rather than solutions.

The ASTM Committee on Rubber (D11) has truly tested the waters, making changes to harmonize many of the extant standards with current ISO standards. The result being that recently revised ASTM D11 standards hold to the original document, allowing users to comply with the existing methodology. The differences are presented as alternatives, so that they may simultaneously adhere to an existing ISO standard.

Where the rubber meets the road ASTM D11 is leading the way, control and leadership being the keywords.

A "best practice" is one which equitably serves the interests of both consumers and producers. The precarious balancing of quality, safety, cost efficiency, ROI (return on investment) and such matters are as countless as the debates over Hadrian's Wall. It is not one that will be resolved, in the short term, long term or perhaps ever!

What will remain is the question: What is best for your company? Define harmonization and you may have an answer!

Michael Kent Warner is Special Projects Manager for CCSi, a manufacturer and distributor of testing instruments. He currently chairs five subcommittees of ASTM's Committee D11 on Rubber. They are Pico Abrasion, Stain Migration, Durometer Hardness, Terminology, and he is task group chairman for Resilience Tests. He is scheduled to become chair of Subcommittee D11.14 on Resilience Tests in June. He also serves on several other committees and has authored revisions to several methods and procedures.