It is generally recognised that standards and guidelines should reflect the state of the art. But should this be accepted without restriction? In my thinking error no. 4, I address this issue in a short sentence, but the problems are more profound. You can find a comprehensive analysis of this problem here: State of the art
Cleanroom technology is no exception. One example is the acceptance procedure for the operating room ceiling, which is not described in VDI 2083 but in DIN 1946. Various service providers have fallen out to such an extent that a standard has been drawn up that is hardly practicable, not to mention that the acceptance procedure can no longer be paid for by hospitals and doctors in private practice. As a result, operating rooms are declared to be ‘’protected‘’ with regard to their acceptance and outdated procedures are used.
But how can it be that this way of thinking, that standards and guidelines have become established as the state of the art, has become so widespread? I found the following passage in the above source: ‘In our opinions, we often unconsciously tend to conform to a group or majority, as this exerts a normative influence on us: We want to be liked, accepted and embraced by others, and in turn endeavour to avoid their rejection. We therefore adopt their norms, which includes the opinion of the majority (and the more attractive the group is to us, the more likely this is to be the case). On top of this, a majority can also have an informative influence - if you consider the majority to be more competent than yourself. People with low self-confidence are particularly susceptible to their influence and then uncritically adopt the majority opinion.“ (free translation from: Stengel, O.: Vorsicht, Denkfehler, Wie man sie erkennt und vermeidet, uni-edition, GmbH Berlin, 2005.)
The technical and commercial aspects to which the authors of these standards and guidelines are subject should not be underestimated, especially when drafting standards. It is unlikely that any of these authors will agree to formulations that contradict their own business content. In addition, legal requirements come into play that could contradict the state of the art and therefore have to be implemented in a deliberately contra-productive manner. If this happens in technical areas, it may result in commercial damage. If this happens in life science or medical areas, it can have serious consequences.
Try to find out who has contributed to standards and guidelines and question them. And it's not just companies that represent commercial interests; individual institutional bodies are also increasingly moving into the commercial sector and are not afraid to use their influence in standardisation to compete with the industry.
Furthermore, case law distinguishes between the state of the art and applied rules of technology.