In architecture, to use the word “standard” seems to be a taboo. Bringing up standardization in a positive context in a presentation or lecture guarantees an active participation from the public in the Q&A afterwards, reactions reaching from puzzlement, moral indignation or plain outrage. The experiences of the 1960s and 1970s in mass-produced architecture have apparently been so traumatic, that this had led to the creation of a dogma in architecture and urbanism that translates as diversity = good, uniformity = bad. Within this polarization, standard is automatically linked to uniformity.

It is no use questioning the content of this dogma – in the end, this is a reflection of the current cultural preferences. The problem is in its existence as a dogma: an unchangeable code of belief. This means it excludes from discussion a field of knowledge and experience that is essential for the development for any contemporary form of manufacturing. Fact is that in processes of design, production and marketing the use of standards actually enables innovation and diversification. True, the nature of these standards and the way they are used are very different from the way they manifested themselves in the mass housing project of the 1960s. This was a very primitive form of standardization, that you could put in the context of Henry Fords famous quote “you can get my car in any colour, as long as it is black”. Everybody will agree that in the manufacturing industry much has changed since this phrase was uttered. In order to regulate the balance between the need to address the wishes of the individual consumer and the need to produce for the masses industry has gone through an evolution, meaning that now consumers choice is bigger ten ever in a market that has become completely globalized. This has only become possible through a refined system of standards, classifications and formats. It is time to break the taboo and consider the application of this experience in the field of architectural design – not as an aim in itself, but as a key to make good design available to more people.

On the next pages, you will find 8 examples of standardizing processes from our everyday world which benefits are obvious: though they may introduce a certain level of formal control, this is outweighed by the advantages it creates for users.

Shoe sizes
Even within the realm of standardization you have a problem of standardization. For shoe sizes there is a number of standards, the oldest one being introduced in 1324 by King Richard II. As most ergonomic standards, the shoe size standard is a standard of scale. Shoes change proportionally in three dimensions: one could say that each shoe is the same, only the scale of the shoe is different, though this is not completely true: the thickness of soles and leather is the same for big and for small shoes.

The shoe size standard is an example of a standard that enables diversification. Instead of having to producing tailor-made shoes that fit exactly the foot of the consumer, the shoe size standard enables to production of a limited series of shoes that fit more or less anyone. This means that producers can produce for all people and consumers can compare all models of shoes of one size. This leads to competition and to variety. Shoes of the world can compete independent of the place where they are produced. No contact is necessary between consumer and producer. In addition, within its production process, the sole of the shoe acts as a platform: it is possible to develop various shoes on the basis of one sole model.

The shoe size analogy teaches us that a standard for sizes does not lead to standard shoes: to the contrary. The creativity of all shoe designers in the world is much larger then that of one local shoe maker. His shoes will fit better, but you will be sure to find that many of your neighbours will wear shoes that look exactly like yours.

Paper sizes
The international paper size standard is based on a single aspect ratio of square root of 2, or approximately 1:1.4142 and was introduced in 1922. The base format is a sheet of paper measuring 1 m² in area (A0 paper size – ). Successive paper sizes in the series A1, A2, A3, and so forth, are defined by halving the preceding paper size. The most frequently used paper size is A4 (210 × 297 mm).
The main advantage of this system is its scaling: if a sheet with an aspect ratio of ?2 is divided into two equal halves parallel to its shortest sides, then the halves will again have an aspect ratio of ?2. Folded brochures of any size can be made by using sheets of the next larger size, e.g. A4 sheets are folded to make A5 brochures.This is directly related to the way the printing process on a sheet-feeding printing press is organized. After having been printed, big sheets are folded until they get the right format. Book and journal formats that are close to format of folded sheets are the most efficient in their paper use. This does not mean other formats are not possible – designers can make more or less any format they want, but this has a price: the los of paper that has to be cut off and thrown away. Following the standard leads to less waste – an important factor especially if we talk about big circulation. The higher the circulation of a publication, the more likely that its size will be close to A4.

A standard for paper size has another advantage: office supplies like folders and office machines (printers, copymachines) can use any paper – you don’t have to order special paper for each machine you have. And finally – when you build book shelves, it is very practical that books have similar sizes…
The paper size is an example of a standard that you are not required to use, but which use has certain advantages. Designers can still make books in any format they want, but they will just be a bit more expensive. At the same time it doesn’t seem to bother anyone that we always use A4 size paper. Size does seem to matter much here.

Ships classes
The way ships are classified differ dependent on what ships it concerns – Naval ships, Merchant ships or sailing boats. However, there is a common denominator – the fact that ships develop on the basis of certain properties that relate to the ships design. Although each ship is built individually (mass production is no option here), its design has a certain level of standardization.

This is most obvious what we speak about boats that sail in races reserved for particular classes. The designs for these ships are completely standardized, though they are produced in different parts of the world. This standard design makes it possible for sportsmen to compete on an even basis – only their skill are tested independent from the quality of the boat. Boats of various classes or that do not belong to a specific class can also sail against each other, but then there is a system of handicaps that evens out the differences in speed between the various ships. Standards are used for the calculation of these handicaps.

With naval ships we speak of certain families: a ship with specific design and functional abilities is developed by a wharf and is produced in small series for the navy of one or more countries. Though it is manufactured on demand, the ships are never designed completely new for each new client – they are rather customized. Thus investements in design, testing and optimizing the prototype are shared by all buyers of the ship.

Finally, there is merchant ships. They are classified by registers, the most well-known of which is Lloyds register in Londen. When ships are designed, the design of the hull is provided by Lloyds. If the ship adheres to this and a number of other quality standards, it can be registered, meaning that it can be insured. Standards that relate to ship size often are a direct reflection of the capacity of main waterways, for instance the Panama canal: Panamax is the standard for the maximum size of a ships that fits in the locks of the Panama canal. We also have the Suezmax and the Lawrencemax……

Tires
Tires are made in a great variety for a great variety of cars. Certain tyres fit on certain cars. In order to understand which tire fits to which car each tyre is has a code that describes its parameters. This code makes it possible to select and compare tires fit to a certain car. The code provides a guarantee for compatibility, but also a method to refine choice and find exactly what you are looking for. The only thing that cannot be translated in a code is how the tire looks: in the end comparison will be on the basis of aesthetics.

Since the number of car types and the variety of tires produced for them is so large, the question is how to enable choice. The classification system is that complicated and multileveled that you cannot find it by just listing catalogues. Web sites of tire producers help the consumer with finding a list of all tyres that fit on your specific car.

A code system for products translates the properties of a product into a number of codes on the basis of a standard for each property. Each user who wants to find a specific product can decide first what are the minimum requirements a product should address, and then choose on the basis of which properties the comparison between products is made. Since minimum standards are met, his choice is free. For producers this means that in order to be able to participate in this choice, they should meet the minimum standard.

Video format
In the 1980s there we a number of formats for video that were competing with each other, such as Betamax, Video 2000, ….. , . Each format had its own advantage. However, this was a bad situation for both the consumers and producers of content. For the consumer it was important to have a maximum choice of content without having to buy a great number of video players. Reality was that not all movies were brought out in all formats, and even if they were, they were not always available everywhere. If film producers would want to have maximum sales, they would have to bring out the movies in all formats. For shops that would stock them this meant that it was very well possible that they would get stuck with a title in one format whereas it would be sold out in another format.

In order to solve this situation the movie industry put pressure on the producers of video players to define one format for video. The battle on which format should win was won by the VHS system, not the best one, but the one with the most powerful lobby. After this consumers had the full choice, leading to a big growth in the variety of films available on video: the introduction of a technical standard enabled a greater variety of content, since development costs could be spread out over a greater number of sold copies.

Lego
Lego is the perfect examples of a form of production based on a standard module. It enables a child to combine them into a make a great number of variants, thus stimulating its creativity.

Traditionally, Lego would consist of a limited number of standard elements that could be used in many ways. This meant that the models produces by Lego always had a certain level of abstraction: the ‘pixels’ were always visible. In the 1990s Lego started to feel the competition from other toys makers that offered systems that led to more customized models that looked more realistic. As a reaction, Lego stated to produce more customized designs, using components that were developed for use in one particular model.

Though this made the Lego system less transparent, it had the effect that was desired: sales were getting better. At the same time the number of components produced by Lego increased dramatically, leading not only to higher production costs, but also to an explosion in the number of possible designs.

This problem (or opportunity) was tackled by introducing the site Legofactory.com that offers visitors the possibility to design its own Lego toys. The user can order the parts of which the toy is made with Lego, who will send them to him with a box featuring an image of the designed toy. The user can also submit this design to the Lego company for mass production. If it is accepted as such, the designer will get royalties from the Lego company for every product sold. Thus the standardized Lego block is an interface that makes consumer participation in de design process possible – the creation of a real open source in Lego design.

Cars
The Japanese model for the production of cars that was introduced in the 1980s meant a complete change in car manufacturing. It was not about one factory producing the whole car, but about assembling parts that were produced by other companies that completely specialize on the design and production this specific part. They could rationalize the production of this part without worrying about the rest. It also meant that they needed standards that would enable them to produce parts for cars of various companies, thus getting the advantages of mass production.

This idea of assembling cars from parts went further in the development of car platforms that formed the basis of a number of models of the same company. In this way each part of the car had another level of mass production. Big car companies that have more then one brand even start to develop motors and other high tech components for cars of various brands.

The final development in this field can be seen on the Mini website, where the consumer can assemble his own car on the basis of a great number of options, (10.000.000 as claimed by the web-site). Though the level of changes is still rather cosmetic, it shows how by introducing computer interfaces one can reach a high level of consumer participation in the design.