Standardization and normalization

　　In the printed circuit industry, terms like IPC and IEC are frequently cited; however, the so‑called “clauses” or “textual specifications” are not standards per se—they are merely guidelines. For example, IPC‑6012B is a qualification and performance specification for rigid printed boards, while IPC‑4101B is a specification for base materials used in rigid and multilayer printed boards. There is a subtle distinction between “specification” and “standard,” yet this difference is often overlooked—intentionally or otherwise.
　　Standards serve as the foundational platform for specifications. The non‑creative processes that precede standardization are not intended to stifle innovation; rather, innovative approaches that have been rigorously tested and proven effective can and should be codified. In the printed circuit industry, most process engineers begin by mastering the fundamental processes, and their work invariably starts with standardized procedures. When confronted with a wide array of process requirements, they draw upon material properties, product specifications, equipment conditions, and control criteria to develop a viable process guideline, thereby ensuring that the product‑realization process is executed in accordance with established standards. This approach fully embodies the essence of standardized operations. Consequently, standardization is an integral part of our daily work—though it demands a high degree of expertise; mere token compliance will only invite ridicule.
　　What about the story after standardization? I think we can bring “standard” into the picture. Similarly, IPC‑2221A is known as the Generic Standard for Printed Circuit Board Design. Comparing the two, the former specifies that a particular outcome in a given area should fall within a certain range, whereas the latter requires that a specific task be carried out and evaluated or processed according to a defined methodology. What they have in common is that both set requirements for a process from a positive, prescriptive standpoint. Essentially, a standard objectively identifies the optimal solution through comparative validation and mandates that practitioners follow this approach. Upon closer reflection, the procedural practices that originate from such standards, after thorough empirical testing and refinement, distill widely accepted “insights of profound wisdom”—a sense of “truth” whose merits are subtly obscured yet unmistakable.
In any industry, even the smallest enterprises inevitably go through a standardization process. This process is one of internal enhancement and continuous improvement. Viewing this issue from a dynamic, evolving perspective, the path to standardization is, in essence, an ongoing cycle of refining standards and, in turn, standardizing those refinements. Through accumulation and maturation, we can distill the myriad complexities into that single golden thread—“only after blowing away the wild sands does the gold emerge.” By integrating processes through standardization, we condense lengthy workflows into a series of standardized “modules.” In our day-to-day work, this not only ensures uniformity in practices but also establishes consistent, standardized behaviors.
 
 

R&D Department, Chen Yongsheng