Standards Best Practices Blog

A few days ago I signed up for Google Alerts, using the keyword “standards”; I thought it would be interesting to see what sorts of standards are in the news. What caught me a bit by surprise, but really shouldn’t have, was such a wide range in the way the word is used. Here’s just a few examples from the past couple of days, chosen at random or as they caught my eye:

“Standards” as enforceable laws or regulations
Enforceable National Standards Needed to Prevent Future E. Coli Outbreaks

UAE: Draft Labor Law Violates International Standards

“Personal or Professional “Standards” of Behavior or Morals
Worlds collide — and so do journalistic standards

CFP Board Releases Draft of Ethics Standards

“Standards” of Good Taste
Design standards matter in furnishing room
(Quotes: “…a standard is simply synonymous with whatever qualifies as commonly accepted” and “….a standard solution tends to be boring because of its predictability.”

My favorite (and I’m not sure if it should go here or in the category above): Bruce Willis has really low standards

“Standards” as specifications developed and agreed upon by a consensus process in a standards developing organization
Life science organizations demand standards-based electronic signatures for document management systems

Software Powerhouses Agree on SOA Standards Bodies

This last usage, the one those of us standards professionals think of as the “true” meaning of the word, is actually one of the least used in the press.

So what’s my point? I’m not sure, other than that one needs to be careful when using (or hearing) the word “standard”. Is it a regulation, a standard of behavior, good taste or morals, or perhaps even a specification? But even with the latter, a “standard” could be de facto, de jure, consensus-based, private, open or closed, internal or external, etc. etc. More on these definitions later.

I’ve written in earlier blog entries about the qualifications of committee chairs and the standards organization’s process administrator. Another class of participant in the standards process is, of course, the members of the working group or committee.

While a member of a committee may occasionally be an individual, perhaps even an end- user of the standard, generally it will be an employee of one of the companies who are the members of the standards organization. As such, it is generally up to the company to select which of its employees it wants to participate in standards activities, and assign them to do this as part of their work duties. (Some companies make the effort to keep track of participation in committees to ensure that their employees are not participating unless assigned to do so.)

The company usually has an interest in the successful work of the standards organization; otherwise it wouldn’t be participating, especially given the costs of participation. So what should the company look for in employees who are to be assigned to work in standards committees? Here’s a few suggestions.

• The participant must, of course, be technically competent and able to contribute to the development of the work. Companies should not send people to learn as much as to contribute their efforts and expertise, though of course committee participation does provide great opportunities to learn from and network with other participants.
• The participant should have expertise in the topic, and enthusiasm and interest in participating and contributing.
• The participant must be able to act professionally, be diplomatic, and have a consensus-minded approach to solving technical and political problems. The person’s behaviour reflects greatly on others’ perception of the employer company as a whole.
• The company should make sure that the person is given sufficient time as part of his or her work duties to participate at a proper level, and on an ongoing basis. There will be weekly or monthly meetings to attend, and work to do in between meetings. Occasional travel may be required. A person who shows up to meetings only sporadically, and doesn’t prepare for meetings, is just getting in the way. Usually membership and voting rights in the committee are dependent on a person’s regular participation, so an ongoing commitment to participation is essential.
• In order to properly represent the company, the participant must be able to put his or her personal agenda aside and act on behalf of the employer. The company has a responsibility to make sure that the employee understands the company’s goals and agenda. The company should also be able to understand when to put industry-wide interests above those of the company; “growing the size of the pie” is sometimes more important than getting a bigger slice of the existing pie.
• The participant should also understand the company’s position with regards to IP, in particular, what applicable IP does the company own, and what may be disclosed and when, in compliance with the standards organization’s IPR policy.

My son Kaleb, who will be graduating from USC this year with a degree in EE, is looking at a career in designing lighting and automation systems for theatre and entertainment. There just happens to be a standards organization that develops specifications for this field, the Entertainment Services and Technology Association.

Like most accredited standards organizations, ESTA sells their standards. And my son, who wants to read up on what’s available in the field, sent me an email last night asking “Why does it cost so much to purchase a standard that is only about 20 pages?” (Don’t you love it when kids get interested in what their parents do for a living?)

Of course I had an answer.

1. ANSI, and most of the accredited standards organizations, derive about half of their operating revenue from the sale of standards and the other half from membership dues and sponsorships. Selling standards is an antiquated business model, and one which they know they need to move away from, but in general they don’t know how they’re going to get there. Industry consortia (usually non-accredited) give their specifications away for free; they get about 90% of their revenues from membership dues and 10% from other sponsorships. An example of an organization that is trying to change this is ITU-T.

2. But even counting for the sale of the documents, by far the largest cost of standards activities is borne by the participants. Millions of dollars go into developing a specification; the budget of the standards organization is a small part of that, and the revenue from the sale of standards is just half of that small part. The participants pay the big costs, and the standards organization gets revenue from selling the documents. But the participants are counting on profiting in other ways, namely through the sale of products that implement the standard.

I’ve suggested before that standards are similar to products and that the standards organization should go through the same sort of planning process as any company would do when starting the development and launch of a product. That’s not to say that we have to get the marketing guys involved, but rather that standards developers should be aware of the principles involved in product planning.

At the very least, before starting the development of a new standard, the participants and leadership of the organization should look at issues such as the following.

• Is there a need for the standard? Is this work meant to meet a specific market need? Are there specific use cases or user requirements that define what the problem is, or what this standard is meant to solve or to improve? Some standards are anticipatory; they are new technologies that have not yet been implemented. Other standards are codifications of existing technologies for the purpose of compatibility or interoperability. In either of these cases the standard must solve a problem or meet a need if it is to be adopted.
• Is the standard timely? Is the time and opportunity right for this work? Or will it be too early or too late by the time it’s completed?
• Is the technology mature enough that it can be codified? (Of course the process of developing the standard may solve this, but if it I so fluid that it cannot be codified then perhaps it is still too early.)
• What is the scope of the work? Is the standard so broad that it will be impossible to develop or to implement? Or perhaps it is so narrowly focused that it, by itself, does not solve anything.
• Are there other standards in the same area solving the same problem? Should the committee collaborate or coordinate with other committees or other organizations to minimize the duplication of work and to ensure compatibility and interoperability?
• Are there sufficient resources to do the work? Are there enough (and the right) technical experts who are interested in participating, and able to devote the necessary time and effort to the project?
• Is there sufficient support from the membership for organizational resources to be devoted to the project? Is there a critical mass of interest, or is this just one person’s pet project?

An essential part of any system of rules or laws is enforcement of the rules and the ability for a participant to appeal to an authority when the rules are not followed or the enforcement is carried out appropriately. For example, in the U.S. judicial system, the courts are arranged in hierarchical levels, and the decision of one court can be appealed to a higher court, with the U.S. Supreme Court being the highest level of appeal.

While on a smaller scale, a standards development and approval process, the “rules of the game” for the standards organization, is no different. The standards administrator, the referee, has the responsibility of enforcing the rules, and participants must have the right to appeal if a committee member, the committee chair, or even the standards administrator do not follow the rules.

The ability for participants to appeal is an important part of the general principles for a standards process and included by the standards process of most organizations. It is required for ANSI-accredited standards developers as part of the ANSI Essential Requirements.

The use of a formal appeal is not necessary in most situations. If a committee member notices that the committee chair made a simple mistake, for example, she should not immediately rush to make a formal appeal; that would be a waste of everyone’s time. In most cases a professional person will, when an error is pointed out, admit the mistake and take steps to correct it without requiring a higher authority to step in to force a correction. It’s only when the guilty party refuses to admit and fix the mistake, the correction is itself incorrect or insufficient, or there is some question as to the validity of the complaint, that a formal appeal should be made.

The organization’s standards process should define various types of levels of appeal; it’s not always necessary to go directly to the top. For example

• An appeal can be made with regards to the action or inaction of a committee member or other participant. This appeal would be made to the committee chair.
• An appeal can be made with regards to the action or inaction of the committee chair. This appeal would be made to the standards administrator or secretariat.
• An appeal can be made with regards to the action or inaction of the standards administrator. This appeal would be made to the board of directors.

The appeal could start at any of these levels, and could be resolved at that level or be further appealed up the hierarchy. In all cases the board of directors should be the highest level of appeal for the organization.

I wrote recently about the attributes of a good technical committee chair. There’s another person who is an integral part of a success standards effort; this person goes by any of a number of titles including standards administrator or secretariat, and is the person responsible for making sure that the organization’s technical process is being followed. The responsibilities of the person in this role are a combination of referee, administrator, coordinator, secretary, and den mother all rolled into one. Duties would include such things as

• Ensuring that technical committees and workgroups, and their members, are complying with the organization’s technical process.
• Accepting, reviewing, and approving submissions from members for the formation of new committees, and from committees for public reviews of draft specifications, standards approval ballots, committee charter revision, committee leadership changes, etc.
• Making announcements to members and to the public regarding calls for participation, calls for review, calls for vote, formation of new committees, ballot results, etc.
• Accepting, reviewing, and publishing declarations related to intellectual property ownership.
• Tracking and reviewing activities of the various committees to ensure that they are staying within scope and making progress towards timely completion of their charter and deliverables.
• Hearing appeals from members regarding the activities of the committee and/or chair that may or may not be in compliance with the technical process.

With respect to the referee and administrative duties, qualifications for the process administrator include all the same things as for the chair and more; the administrator is essentially a “super chair”, or chair of all of the committees collectively.

Above all, the administrator, as the referee, must be neutral. The proper, fair, and complete administration of the process, the rules of the game, must be the highest priority for the person in this role. With sometimes millions of dollars and market dominance at stake among the various members, the administrator cannot show any favoritism towards any particular member or group of members. Members have come to the organization to do their technical work on a level playing field; any favourtism shown by the administrator to any party will destroy or weaken the reputation of the organization.

Given this need for neutrality, it is generally best that this be a staff role, that the person in this role be an employee of the standards organization rather than a volunteer employee of one of the members. The organization will generally not be well served by an administrator who wears the hat of one of the participants, who however well intentioned could be swayed by the agenda of his or her employer. Further, and ideally, the position should be structured such that the administrator has independent authority within the organization, reporting to the highest level of authority such as the board of directors. The administration of the technical process should not be swayed even by the political, business development, or marketing goals of the organization. Exceptions to the rules should not be made for any market or political expediency. (If the rules are broken, fix them – but only with the consent of the entire membership. The administrator should not “fix” the process on the fly by making exceptions.)

With regards to administration, the person must be detailed oriented, a good record keeper, concerned with the long-term archiving of organizational records, able to answer for and justify his or her actions in an audit or appeal, be diplomatic, conscientious, and fair, and be able to speak on behalf of the technical work of the organization.

While I’m on the subject, I’ll put in another plug for providing the committees with proper technical infrastructure; this will go far in helping the administrator do his or her job. The ability for the committees or work groups to do their business electronically via email, document sharing, online balloting, comment tracking and resolution, meeting attendance tracking, etc., and providing for all of this information to be archived, will provide the administrator with the information needed to monitor committee activities, create activity reports, ascertain compliance with requirements, and handle appeals and audits.

In a previous blog entry and a white paper I’ve discussed the costs of the standards process. As I noted in the white paper the participation costs, i.e. the costs associated with the time and travel to participate in standards activities, are usually much greater than the cost of joining and paying membership dues to the standards organization, even though this is what most participants initially focus on.

That’s not to say, however, that a standards organization runs by itself. For the organization to provide the staff support, secretariat services, electronic infrastructure such as email and web, liaison coordination, and adoption promotion that the members expect, it must have revenue. Some large standards organizations will have budgets of a few million dollars, and even the smallest organizations are in the hundreds of thousands range.

Where does this money come from? How do standards organizations finance their work? There are a number of ways to come up with the required revenue; most organizations will use some combination of the following:

The most obvious, and most commonly used, is membership dues. A company, and sometimes individuals, will pay for the right to participate in the standards work. A number of different models can be used; the amount of dues could be based on the size (income or employees) of the company, the level of participation desired, the level of control desired, additional exposure benefits, etc. As I pointed out in a previous blog entry the member will expect benefits commensurate with the level of dues paid.

Another very common revenue source is the sales of standards. Once the specification is completed and approved as a standard, the organization will sell copies to prospective implementers. Many of the recognized organizations such as ISO and ANSI get about half of their revenues in this manner, and some accredited industry organizations get nearly three quarters. While this can be a lucrative revenue source, the downside is that adoption rates are slower because, obviously, if you have to pay to look at the specification you are less likely to do so.

Some organizations have been very successful in obtaining government grants for specific work projects. W3C, for example, has funded their web accessibility work through grants. Grants are usually tied to specific deliverables, so the organization must be sure that it can deliver what is expected; the scope and goals of what the organization is working on need to match the needs of the grantor fairly well. And the organization should be sure that they will have net revenue from the project; if they need to hire additional staff or engage in work that they wouldn’t otherwise have been doing then there may be no net gain in revenues from the grant. Governments are usually interested in funding work with societal benefits such as for health, safety, or commerce, so if the organization is engaged in any of those areas they should look into this potential source of revenue.

Many consortia will seek corporate sponsorship of their activities, over and above the membership dues that the companies may already be paying in order to participate. This sponsorship could be in exchange for increased exposure, e.g. having the corporate logo appear on the organization’s web page, or granting the company additional control over specific activities. There are trade-offs to doing this, of course, and the organization should be careful about granting too much control or diluting their own brand.

Standards organizations may also want to consider other non-standards revenue sources such as organizing and hosting conferences or educational workshops, producing educational/training materials, conducting certification testing, providing consulting services, etc. There may also be an opportunity for licensing royalties. In all such cases the organization should consult with legal counsel to ensure that such activities would not jeopardize the organization’s not-for-profit tax status.