Nosov Magnitogorsk State Technical University (Magnitogorsk, Russia)

M. A. Polyakova, Cand. Eng., Ass. Prof., Dept. “Materials Processing Technologies”, m.polyakova-64@mail.ru
G. Sh. Rubin, Cand. Eng., Ass. Prof., Dept. “Automobile Technology, Certification and Service”, rubingsh@gmail.com
G. S. Gun, Dr. Eng., Prof., Rector Advicer, Dept. “Materials Processing Technologies”, mgtu@magtu.ru
Yu. V. Danilova, Engineer, Dept. “Materials Processing Technologies”, j.v.danilova@inbox.ru

Standardization as a component of control is based on a set of fundamental documents in the field of technical policy and product quality control. Customers and manufacturers put for-ward different requirements to the same kind of product: customers are interested in consumer functions on the basis of the product designation, while manufacturers are governed by quantita-tively measurable parameters, which can be measured and controlled. The novelty of the pro-posed approach is to develop methods of coordination of requirements of the parties concerned using function-target analysis based on correspondence achievement between the requirements of the customer and the capabilities of the manufacturer. The principles of the new science of standardization, protypology are formulated. In accordance with this concept, development of standards can be represented in the form of the following stages: development of customer re-quirements as a set of properties and some measurable parameters, which characterize them; correspondence achievement between the customer properties and the product properties con-trolled by the manufacturer of the product; maximal approximation of differences between the positions of the customer and the manufacturer and development of the standard as the effective trade-off between the parties. On this basis, the procedure of meeting the requirements of the customer and the manufacturer was developed. The first stage consists of comparison of the cus-tomer requirements and the capabilities of the manufacturer, which can be easily represented in the form of a matrix. The second stage is the mathematical assessment of the similarity of indi-vidual quality parameters. Taking into account the principle of continuity in the assessment change as well as continuity of the speed of assessment change, the decreasing S-shape curve was built. The next stage is the function-target analysis of the product which makes it possible to establish relations between the consumer functions of the product and its quality parameters during the course of consumer phase of its life cycle. To calculate the complex assessment, it seems reasonable to make use of qualimetry formulas, which are used to assess the product qual-ity. Thus, perfection of scientific and methodological fundamentals of standardization must be based on the application of mathematical tools to provide correct and rapid setting of require-ments to products, types of work and services.

The research work was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation within the framework of the complex project for high-technology production development (contract № 02.G25.31.0178 signed on 01.12.2015) and in accordance with the government order in the field of science (research project № 11.1525.2014К signed on 18.07.2014). Authors thanks Denis Savinov for his inestimable help.

1. Principles of Quality Assurance. Encyclopedia of Foreign Sciences (Second Edition). 2013. pp. 509–514.
2. Mazzola E., Bruccoleri M., Perrone G. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. 2015. Vol. 21 (4). pp. 273–284.
3. Seung S. H., Shin H., Park M.-S., Omega. 2015. Vol. 51. pp. 107–120.
4. Allen R. H., Sriram R. D. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2000. Vol. 64, Issues 2–3. pp. 171–181.
5. Kaufmann R. J., Tsai J. Y. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications. 2010. Vol. 9, Issue 4. pp. 305–322.
6. Blind K., Thumm N. Research Policy. 2004. Vol. 33, Iss. 10. pp. 1583–1598.
7. Currie L. A. Applied Radiation and Isotopes. 2004. Vol. 61. pp. 145–149.
8. Sered Y., Reich Y. Computer-Aided Design. 2006. Vol. 38, Iss. 5. pp. 405–416.
9. Dobrescu G., Reich Y. Computer-Aided Design. 2003. Vol. 35, Iss. 9. pp. 791–806.
10. Filho M. G., Saes E. V. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. 2013. Vol. 64. pp. 1177–1191.
11. Chen C.-C., ChengW.-Y. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. 2007. Vol. 34. pp. 1236–1245.
12. Dai W., Maropoulos P. G., Tang X.Q. Proceedings of the 36th International MATADOR Conference. 2010, pp. 145–148.
13. Yao Y., Zhao L., Qin Y. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2010. Vols. 37–38. pp. 905–909.
14. Sener Z., Karsak E. E. International Journal of Advanced Manu facturing Technologies. 2010. Vol. 48. pp. 1173–1184.
15. Jiang Z. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2013. Vols. 263–266. pp. 839–842.
16. Jun L., Shulin K., Pengyu L. Key Engineering Materials. 2011. Vols. 467–469. pp. 2103–2108.
17. Yu Z., Zhou J. Advanced Materials Research. 2011. Vol. 214. pp. 612–617.
18. Schmitt R., Stiller S., Falk B. Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability. 2014. pp. 309–314.
19. Rubin G., Polyakova M., Chukin M., Gun G. Steel in Translation. 2013. Vol. 43. Iss. 10. pp. 666–669.
20. Polyakova M. A., Rubin G. Sh. Sovremennoe napravlenie razvitiya standartizatsii kak nauki (Modern direction of development of scientific standardization). Chernye metally = Ferrous metals. 2014. No. 6. pp. 32–37.
21. Rubin G., Polyakova M., Gun G. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Modeling, Simulation and Applied Mathematics. Ed. by Gholami M., Jiwari R., Tavasoli A. 2015. Vol. 122. pp. 178–181.
22. Christensen C. M. Production and Operations Management. 1992. Vol. 1(4). pp. 334–357.
23. Liu M. D., Xu K. J., Horpibulsuk S. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Engineering. 2013. pp. 321–327.
24. Shimogawa S., Shinno M., Saito H. Physical Review E 85. 2012. pp. 1–23.