I enjoyed reading your article.  I agree that many manufacturers have missed what variety means to their business.  The three questions you postulate for manufacturers “how much demand…How fast to make...how many resources (people)…” certainly applies to a manufacturer that has the mentality of producing without understand the customers’ wants.  Certainly, in the post-WWII era, customers were far less discriminating and more apt to accept what they could get instead of what they want.

I would contend that standardization is a solution to eliminate variation and create a foundation to deliver variety that a customer needs to be satisfied.

I believe the differentiation between “variety” and “variation” is missing from service organizations (and many manufacturing organizations!) and that “standardization” is a scapegoat for not recognizing the variety a customer wants.  I believe that standardization is critical for success and it reduces variation (undesirable process changes) and creates the platform for variety (different customer needs).  I believe many manufacturing individuals not well versed in the “language of service” exacerbate this phenomenon.  For example, when a manufacturing individual discusses “change over” and uses examples of the latest WhizDing machining center or the DooHickey press set-up, a service person is lost.  When the manufacturing person understands the language of the service process and can discuss “change-over” in terms of completing documentation, follow-up, etc between calls or between functions (taking calls, writing reports, answering emails, etc.) then the service person can begin to relate and understand the concepts.  When a manufacturing person develops “work instructions” and copies (very sinful!) the same structure to a call script thinking it will be better; misses the point of the interaction a service person has with their customer.  When a manufacturing person understands that each customer is a different “model” or “configuration”, they can begin to communicate the essential items that standardization can provide benefit and provide tools to help manage the variety. 

Standardization done well, builds the basis for the variety needed to allow each service customer as unique while still respecting a companies need for consistency.  Things such as computer systems, phone systems, email platforms, communication between employees, etc.  left non-standard creates huge problems.  Imagine the service center (I’ve been in one!) that has 3 different programs to enter customer information, to find the customers answers, and to follow-up with the customer (if needed). 

I think you hit the crux of the issue with “…poorly designed service systems causes … failure demand…”  You provide an example of scripts for agents to follow to “create consistency...”  I would suggest that a well-designed script does just that and allows for the variety needed.  As you continued with your example, I would contend that the quality checks, not focusing on customer resolution, friendly, etc. are not caused by consistency or standardization, but caused by a lack of company vision to the needs (dare I say voice) of the customer.  Not listening to the customer is certainly a much different issue than standardization.  Unfortunately, the two tend to follow each other.

The fast food industry tends to be very good at distinguishing between variety and variation.  A typical burger at a common franchise can result in over 200 configurations, each individually made and customized for the customer at the point of order.  Each configuration made from extremely standardized components, in standardized systems that even accommodate local, regional, and cultural variations.  More so, the demand can fluctuate by orders of magnitude from day-to-day, even hour-to-hour!  Each experience is highly individualized for variety and highly standardized for consistency and cost.  One experiment I try on an occasional basis is to order a configuration not found in the “regular menu” from some of my local establishments and watch how the store adapts.  I am consistently surprised that even unlisted configurations are delivered in the same amount of time as the “standard” product.

Thank you, Tripp, just a few words, from my stand-point. When a consulted company asks for forms only, but not to understand what's behind the forms, nor to be aware of their substance or their following use, well, that is a standardization problem. All too often we meet process and product failures, the root cause of which is diminished workers' attention due to standardized, repeated handwork. Women seem to be more resistant than men, to boring working. To reduce boredom negative effects, some 30 years ago, Volvo introduced their "island" assembling process, where the workers assembled cars from scratch, kind of kids' Lego game. But Ford's approach won the match, and we see millions people doing the same thing from eight a.m. to five p.m. - but surely not with the same effectiveness.