Wilson Wong discusses the evolution and role of standards in modern life. Formal standardization began in the UK in 1901 to standardize structural steel sections, and the "British Standard Verification 'kite mark'" was created in 1903 to signify consistency and quality. However, when applied to complex service roles, an overreliance on process standardization can be risky, as evidenced by the 2008 financial crisis. Wong argues that traditional "thou shalt not" regulations were inadequate and that the next stage of standardization's evolution requires a new approach beyond simple product specifications and procedures.

1. Copyright 2014 © HR Future magazine, www.hrfuture.net
Wherefore human standardisation?
There is a case to be made for the development of principles standards in the UK – an
extract from Wilson Wong’s article in the August 2014 issue of HR Future magazine.
By Wilson Wong
The urge to standardise is part of the story human civilisation. All the ancient civilisations
had advanced standards in astronomy, astrology and calendars to mark the passage of
time, standard measures for length, area and volume. And so it is that standardisation
continues to define many aspects of modern life. Standards govern physical and electro-
technical infrastructure. It provides assurance of fitness for purpose and safety.
Standards on calculating life expectancy inform health and social policy, and rule the
insurance and pensions industries. Standards are so ubiquitous; most people just take
these assumptions for granted.
In this article, I’m sharing some of my reflections on the role of standards in modern life
and the forces shaping its use and its evolution.
Evolution of standards
Formal standardisation in the United Kingdom started in 1901 with the first meeting of
the Engineering Standards Committee. Their first achievement was the reduction of
structural steel sections from 175 to 113. Quite quickly, the need to ascertain if
something was ‘up to standard’ became apparent and, in 1903, the famous British
Standard Verification ‘kite mark’ was born.
With the advent of the ‘kite mark’, the importance of consistent quality of the end-product
in relation to its designated use became more evident. Users wanted to know that the
steel sections had a minimum load-bearing quality. Driven by the pressures of efficiency,
the advancement of management technologies, the expectation and assurance of quality
to users, reduction of health and safety risks to workers and so on, the ‘process’ of
production was standardised.
The limitations of product specification and a reliance on process and procedure to
maintain consistency works fairly well in the manufacture of widgets but, when applied to
complex service roles, can be risky. The financial crisis of 2008 is instructive. The over
concentration of risk systemically in the banks and in certain professions (see Friedman
& Krauss, 2011; Jones, 2014) and, inter alia, the failure of regulation, led to the paralysis
of the banking system in many advanced financial markets.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission appointed by the US Congress concluded that
the crisis was avoidable. It “found widespread failures in financial regulation; dramatic
breakdowns in corporate governance; excessive borrowing and risk-taking by
households and Wall Street; policy makers who were ill-prepared for the crisis; and

2. Copyright 2014 © HR Future magazine, www.hrfuture.net
systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels”. In summary – “The crisis
was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models
gone haywire”.
The (in)adequacy of traditional regulations – the "thou shalt not" approach – is key, I
believe, to the next stage of standardisation’s evolution.
Wilson Wong holds a PhD in Economic Psychology (Exon), a MA in Critical Theory and
a MBA in Finance. He is Chair: Human Capital Standards committee HCS1 at the British
Standards Institute, www.bsi.com and Head of Insight and Futures at the Chartered
Institute of Personnel & Development (CIPD), www.cipd.co.uk. The views contained
herein are his own.