218 STANDARDIZATION AS AFFECTING THE 
our own standard things are not always for sale in every port in the world. Mr. Henry 
Ford has given us a wonderful example in standardization which foreigners look upon with 
as much amazement as we do. 
Mr. H. H. Scuuuze, Member:—We have heard many remarks regarding the value 
of standardization, and in one of these the previous speaker stole my thunder when he re- 
ferred to the value of standardization in estimating. 
Shipbuilding will exist only so long as the shipyards can make money, and it has been 
my experience that the contracts upon which we are most liable to lose money are those in 
which the specifications contain clause “as directed or approved by the naval architect.” This 
was particularly true of the early naval vessels, and I remember, when Mr. Smith came to 
the Bureau at Washington, all ships were constructed under the “‘as approved” clause. The 
same argument applies to merchant work, and when we have the various items standardized 
the shipbuilder will know what he has to figure on. 
The value of standardization as applied to shipbuilding can only be fully appreciated 
by those who have taken an active part in the development and who have made use of the re- 
sults. No one could help but be enthusiastic when he stops to consider what standardiza- 
tion really is. 
Before real standardization can be effected a thorough study must be made of all 
methods and practices relating to the subject, after which a standard is determined. In other 
words, the standard represents the best practice and knowledge of the art as far as is known 
to the one preparing the standard. It is intended to represent the best result for the least 
expenditure, and why, then, should not standardization be considered the proper procedure ? 
Standardization in shipbuilding only becomes effective when the shipowner is willing to 
accept the standards adopted by the shipbuilder. In many cases, however, shipowners, par- 
ticularly large operators, have their own standards which render the standards of the ship- 
builder useless and consequently entail an additional cost of construction. 
When, however, the owners’ requirements are not specific, standardization either of in- 
dividual items, groups of items or methods of construction are of the greatest value not only 
in reducing the cost of construction but obtaining for the owner the best experience of the 
shipbuilder to meet the specific requirements. 
It is, therefore, apparent that standardization will only become a fact when the owners 
have sufficient faith in the builder to accept his adopted standards as the best practice. 
I thoroughly agree with Mr. Rigg’s statement on page 208 of his paper that the ship as 
a whole can only be standardized under the conditions stated by him, but I also thoroughly 
believe in the standardization of items, groups of items, and methods of construction, which 
can be so combined as to meet practically the requirements of the owner. 
Nearly all old-time shipbuilding companies have adopted standardization of items such 
as flanges, fittings, shackles, etc., but few of them have attempted the standardization of the 
entire system such as anchor gear, boat gear, rigging, etc. Where the standardization 
of such entire groups have been made it is of very great assistance in the preparation of 
bids, for the reason that, without investigation on the part of the estimator, he has immedi- 
ately at hand the results, including weight and cost of the best practice, to fulfill the required 
condition. 
It is surprising to learn how far such standardization can be effected when one really 
