If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then standardization should not be a primary consideration. On the other hand, it may be beneficial to standardize on interfaces or protocols for these types of items. For example, under the open systems initiative, you would not want to standardize on the equipment, but you do want to standardize on the information architecture and the cable attachments to permit interfacing with existing equipment. The tremendous flexibility offered by the open systems approach is only possible by having a standardized plug and play capability among the physical and electronic interfaces, while still permitting equipment upgrades to keep pace with technological advances by not standardizing on the internal parts of the equipment. If customers can and do turn easily to other sources when their specific preferences are not honored, it may not be practical to standardize at more than a very generic level.
Some examples are tools, food products, and medical equipment.
While it may be possible to buy standardized products to meet the customer s requirements, customer preference for specific brand items may be the overriding consideration. This is particularly relevant with the initiation of the credit card purchasing authority, and the new higher thresholds for using simplified buying procedures. If a primary goal of an acquisition is to allow the developer maximum design flexibility and innovation, standardization is not appropriate. Generally, standardization emphasizes and supports competition through the development and use of performance-oriented standardization documents. It is important to develop and use the right type of product description to satisfy the immediate technical and acquisition needs, and to support such broader and long-term acquisition objectives as logistics support, competition, quality, use of commercial products and processes, best value, and standardization.