Standards Best Practices Blog

I wrote a few days ago about the various uses of the word “standard” and provided a few examples. While some uses of the word may be more applicable to our interests than others, even within that usage there are some distinctions.

Generally when we think of standards we mean a technical specification developed by multiple interested parties (manufacturers, implementers, users, etc.) in some sort of open consensus process that forms an agreement on how something should be done. But another form of standards are those specifications developed by a single party for use strictly within that organization for its own benefit.

Such standards could include manufacturing or administrative processes, purchasing requirements, facilities policies, or employee codes of conduct. Rather than being developed jointly by all interested parties under a consensus process, these internal standards are usually developed by a small group or perhaps even a single individual within the organization, then approved by management.

For example, a fast food franchise such as McDonald’s or Burger King will have standards for the operation of franchise stores, including store layout, employee uniforms, composition of and preparation instructions for menu items, and purchasing of the ingredients used to make items on the menu. The goal of these standards is product consistency between franchises (a customer knows what they are going to get, for better or for worse, in any store in the country), and cost containment (quantity discounts from e.g. a single vendor of meat patties that can supply stores across several states). The company will require some level of compliance with these standards from store owners as a condition of their holding the franchise.

The big difference from external standards, those developed to be used by multiple companies across an industry, is that there is no benefit from interoperability or interchange. A single customer, for example, will not be buying a bun from McDonald’s and the meat patties from Burger King. (Though french fries, a complimentary item, could be purchased across the street if you like those better.)

Manufacturers and other large organizations previously used such internal standards but have largely moved to external industry-wide standards for purchasing. The U.S. Department of Defense used to create huge numbers of their own standards (Milspec), as did other government agencies, but the federal government has been encouraging agencies to use public standards (and participate in their development) as a means of cost savings. Rather than having to create a government-specific version of a product, vendors can supply the products they already manufacture. Manufacturers moved to industry standards for such mundane items as nuts and bolts a long time ago. Use of these industry-wide standards saves money for the manufacturers, which is passed on to the consumer. The consumer will further benefit when it comes time to buy replacement parts.

I was referred to an article in the Japanese TechOn journal regarding the problems that the IEEE 802 committee, creators of the 802.11 WiFi standard, has been having over the past couple of years. The article seems to place most of the blame on the standards process used by the IEEE Standards Association. It’s easy – and popular – to place blame in hindsight, and while it may well be the case that the process is lacking in certain areas, it may also be simply a case of unintended consequences.

I’m not an expert on the IEEE SA process, but from the article it appears that the process was deliberately written in a way to encourage individual participation by giving voting rights to individual committee members. Doing so does have that effect, but the unintended part of this is that it also encourages companies with a lot to gain (or to loose) with regards to the committee’s work to send multiple employees to participate in the committee in order to sway the vote. Once that company’s competitors see what’s happening they too have to send lots of people just to keep up. There will be a flurry of new memberships just before a critical vote, but the new people haven’t had time to acquaint themselves with the specification. (But of course, the cynic says, they are being told how to vote by their employer, so that doesn’t matter.) IEEE SA does require, though, that a person participate for some amount of time before they are allowed to vote.

In response to all of the problems occurring in the committee, the SA has shut down the committee. Meanwhile, the 802 committee is about to loose a market window, and participating companies are likely to loose a lot of money; if the work can’t be completed and the specification delivered then manufacturers can’t sell their new products based on the standard and the market may move on to other technologies.

So the lesson here is to be careful what you wish for; if you want to encourage individual participation that may very well be what you get. But people who are employees of companies do not know how to, or are not allowed to, take off their company hats. There are very few true individuals participating in standards work; most all are sponsored, funded, or employed by a company or organization with an interest or agenda. Without something to gain from participation they wouldn’t send their employee. A better policy might be to restrict or balance the levels of company representation, and require proof that individuals really are acting as such.