GB/Z 125-2025Guidelines for standards foreign applicability evaluation (English PDF)

Foreword

This document was drafted in accordance with the rules given in GB/T 1.1-2020, Directives for standardization - Part 1: Rules for the structure and drafting of standardizing documents.

Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of patent rights. The issuing body of this document is not to be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.

This document was proposed by and is under the jurisdiction of the National Technical Committee on Principles and Methods of Standardization (SAC/TC 286).

The drafting organizations are the Science and Technology Research Institute Branch of PipeChina; the China National Institute of Standardization; PipeChina; the China Academy of Railway Sciences Corporation; the Inner Mongolia Institute of Quality and Standardization; the Shanghai Institute of Quality and Standardization; the State Nuclear Electric Power Planning Design and Research Institute; the China Classification Society; the China Urban Construction Design and Research Institute; the China Aero-Polytechnology Establishment; the Xinjiang Institute for Quality Infrastructure Development; the Beijing Institute of Space Science and Technology Information; the CNPC Engineering Materials Research Institute; the CNPC Engineering Technology Research Institute; the Heilongjiang Institute of Standardization; the China Jiliang University; the China Association for Standardization; the Shaanxi Institute of Standardization; the China Southern Power Grid Research Institute; the South China Branch of PipeChina; and PipeChina Engineering Technology Innovation Co., Ltd. Fifty-two drafters are named.

1 Scope

This document establishes the general principles for drawing up a scheme for the evaluation of the foreign applicability of standards, referred to below as the applicability evaluation, and provides guidance, recommendations and information on the design of the indicator system, the determination of the valuation rules, the scoring of the indicators, the calculation of the composite score and the application of the results of the evaluation.

This document applies to the drawing up of schemes for the evaluation of the foreign applicability of Chinese standards, and also to the drawing up of such schemes for other standards intended to be applied abroad.

2 Normative references

This document contains no normative references.

3 Terms and definitions

For the purposes of this document, the following term and definition apply.

3.1 standards foreign applicability - the risk, the role and the effect of applying Chinese standards and other standards in practice abroad in engineering construction, product manufacture and the provision of services. Note: other standards include but are not limited to international standards and the national, association and enterprise standards of other countries.

4 General principles

The evaluation of the foreign applicability of a standard should follow these principles: a) scientific soundness, meaning that the method of evaluation can reflect the objective reality of the standard being evaluated and of the environment in which it is applied; b) reasonableness, meaning that the indicator system covers the various factors that may arise in the practice of applying the standard abroad, and lends itself to scoring; c) orderliness, meaning that each step of the evaluation scheme is well defined and clear, that the method of operation, the allocation of tasks and the evaluation criteria are stated, and that the scheme is easy to carry out.

5 The evaluation scheme

5.1 The applicability evaluation scheme should cover the objective of the evaluation, the object of the evaluation, the panel of evaluation experts, the arrangement of tasks and the evaluation procedure, so as to guide the work through its steps.

5.2 The scheme should cover two levels: a) the composite score of the applicability evaluation, which measures the degree to which the standard being evaluated is suited to application abroad; b) the application of the results, which, once the standard has been shown to be suited to application abroad, analyses further which modes of application are suited to putting the standard into practice abroad.

5.3 The evaluation procedure should cover: a) design of the indicator system, normally the key element supporting the whole procedure, containing the reference factors each stage needs, and comprising the multi-level indicators and the explanation of each; b) the valuation rules, comprising the rules for valuing the indicators, the requirement on the composite score and the design of the weights; c) the scoring of the indicators, performed by the panel of experts on the lowest-level indicators on the basis of the indicators and the valuation rules, and forming the basis of the composite score and of the analysis of the results; d) the calculation of the composite score, obtained by summing the scores of all the lowest-level indicators and comparing the total with the requirement set in the valuation rules, so as to conclude whether the standard is suited to application abroad; e) the application of the results, comprising the types of mode of application and the basis on which they are compared against the score requirements, so that, once the composite score shows the standard suited to application abroad, comparing the indicator scores with the minimum score required for each indicator under each mode yields the mode of foreign application the standard is suited to.

6 The panel of evaluation experts

6.1 The responsibility of the panel is mainly to fill in the evaluation form, following the requirements of the evaluation scheme and drawing on the members' own working experience and professional knowledge together with the supporting material, and to give professional opinions and recommendations on the results.

6.2 The panel should include, but is not limited to, representatives of: a) the drafters of the standard; b) the technical committee responsible for the standard and the competent department and other management bodies; c) the relevant research institutions; d) those who implement the standard; e) those who apply the standard abroad in practice; f) others.

6.3 The members of the panel should: a) be familiar with the field of the standard, have experience of drafting, managing or applying standards in the sector concerned, and have a substantial body of theoretical knowledge and practical experience; b) be familiar with the characteristics of the sector and with the foreign environment in which the standard is to be applied; c) be able to commit themselves to the evaluation work, observe professional ethics, have the necessary professional qualities and take part in the work throughout.

7 Design of the indicator system

7.1 Structure. The indicator system should have several levels, but not more than three. Each level is designed from the level above it. The lowest-level indicators should be accompanied by an explanation stating the factors to be considered in evaluating that indicator, for the panel to use as a reference in scoring.

7.2 Design of the indicators. 7.2.1 The design should take account of how workable the evaluation is, and should distinguish veto items from indicator items. 7.2.2 Taking together the factors that commonly arise in the practice of applying a standard abroad, the first-level indicator system should cover: a) potential risk, a veto item, normally covering but not limited to policy risk and economic risk, that is whether national security is involved, intellectual property risk, the risk of coordination with the laws and regulations of the target country in which the standard is to be applied, and the formation of unfair competition; b) policy applicability, an indicator item, normally covering but not limited to domestic policy, bilateral relations, the policy of the target country and the investing party, that is the degree of domestic support for the internationalization of standards, the friendliness of bilateral relations and cultural differences, the standardization policy of the target country, its acceptance of foreign and Chinese standards, and the voice of the project investor; c) applicability of the technical content, an indicator item, normally covering but not limited to the technical level of the standard, how workable it is, how well coordinated it is and how mature it is, that is the technical content, the technical personnel, the factors of production, the technical environment of application and the effect of implementing the Chinese standard domestically; d) applicability of the benefits, an indicator item, normally covering but not limited to the improvement in quality, in efficiency and in safety the standard is expected to bring, that is savings in production and management costs, improvements in quality and technology, in the competitiveness of products and services and in the safety of the product, service or works; e) environmental applicability, an indicator item, normally covering but not limited to the social and the ecological environment, that is the industrial, social and ecological effects of the standard. Annex A gives a generic example of applicability evaluation indicators, and the indicators at each level should be adjusted to the standard being evaluated and to the characteristics of its sector.

8 Determination of the valuation rules

8.1 General principles. 8.1.1 A veto indicator should be evaluated as yes or no, and an indicator item as high, medium or low. 8.1.2 Technical data and other supporting material relating to the indicators should be provided for the panel to use as a reference in scoring; qualitative indicators should be obtained by questionnaire survey or expert consultation, and quantitative indicators from the existing statistics of the relevant departments, sectors, research institutions and enterprises. 8.1.3 The valuation rules should be standardized, so as to remove as far as possible the bias in the results caused by different scoring habits among the experts. 8.1.4 The valuation rules should be set by taking together the full mark, the number of indicators, the scoring bands and the requirement on the composite score, so that scoring and calculation are straightforward. Table 1 gives an example: a full mark of 100 points over 20 indicators, a maximum of 5 points per indicator, bands of high (5 points), medium (3 points) and low (1 point), and a composite score requirement of 75 points, that is three quarters of the full mark, set within the medium to high range of 60 to 100 points.

8.2 Weighting. 8.2.1 In weighting the indicators the following should be considered: a) the position and importance of each indicator in the system as a whole, considered level by level from the top down according to the weighting method chosen; b) the question each indicator bears on, such as laws and regulations, policy support, technical level and national culture, judged and weighted one by one. 8.2.2 The weights are determined by a weighting method; Annex B gives an example using the analytic hierarchy process and a subjective weighting method.

9 Rules for scoring the indicators

9.1 The panel should score only the lowest-level indicators in the evaluation form, for the standard being evaluated, and the form should contain the weighted indicator system and the scoring bands for those indicators.

9.2 Veto items. 9.2.1 The indicators under potential risk should be veto indicators. 9.2.2 If the result for any lowest-level indicator under potential risk is no, the feasibility of applying the standard abroad is judged to be zero and no further evaluation of the indicator items is carried out. 9.2.3 If no lowest-level indicator under potential risk results in a no, the indicator items are scored according to 9.3.

9.3 The panel scores the lowest-level indicators in the evaluation form on a high, medium or low scale.

10 Rules for calculating the composite score

The scores given by the panel to each lowest-level indicator are analysed, and the sum of the scores of all the experts divided by the number of experts gives the evaluation score of that indicator.

The composite score of the applicability evaluation is calculated by formula (1), Qs = the sum over i from 1 to n of wi times Si, where Qs is the composite score of the evaluation of foreign applicability, wi is the weight of the i-th lowest-level indicator, n is the total number of indicators and Si is the score of the i-th lowest-level indicator.

Where the Qs value of a standard is not lower than the requirement on the composite score, for example 75 points, application of the standard abroad should be considered, and the mode of application should be chosen according to Clause 11.

11 Application of the results of the evaluation

11.1 Basis for choosing the mode of application. 11.1.1 Types of mode. Standards of different types and different levels may be applied abroad through many channels and in many ways in different environments, including but not limited to drawing up an international standard, direct adoption, mutual recognition of standards, joint development, becoming a de facto standard, and applying the key technical indicators of the standard. Considered along the dimensions of how and how far a standard is applied abroad, the modes are: a) full application, in which the entire content of the standard is applied abroad directly; b) partial application, in which the key indicators and clauses are applied abroad; c) combined application, in which the standard forms the basis of a new standard developed jointly and applied abroad. The minimum score required for each indicator differs from one mode to another, and an ill-chosen mode may keep the standard from having the effect expected of it, so the minimum score required of each indicator under each mode should be designed and the scores analysed, which helps to make the way of proceeding clear and to raise the efficiency and effectiveness of the application.

11.1.2 Minimum score of an indicator. The minimum score of each indicator under each mode should follow these principles: a) fixed bands are set for the minimum score in line with the valuation rules, so that they can be compared against the indicator scores and the number of indicators meeting the requirement determined; b) the key indicators and the other important indicators of each mode are identified, so that the minimum requirements can be set sensibly; c) the minimum score required of the same indicator differs to some degree between modes, so that the mode can be chosen from the results. Annex C gives an example of the minimum scores required under each mode.

11.2 Calculation of the conditions met by a mode of application. The score Si of each indicator is compared with the minimum score required of that indicator under each mode; where Si is not lower than that minimum, one is added to the number of indicators meeting it. The degree to which the minimum score requirements are met under a mode is calculated by formula (2), S = Ny divided by n, where S is that degree, Ny is the number of indicators meeting the minimum score and n is the total number of indicators.

11.3 Choice of the mode of application. Where, under a given mode, the degree to which the minimum score requirements are met is not lower than a suitable proportion, for example 85 %, and at the same time the composite score of the applicability evaluation is not lower than the requirement, for example 75 points, the standard should be applied abroad in that mode. Where the evaluation is carried out and no veto item arises, the choice of mode may show the standard suited to several modes of application abroad; the conclusions of the evaluation should then be used sensibly and the practice of applying the standard abroad carried out as circumstances allow. Annex C gives an example of the choice of a mode of application.