STANDARDS TUTORIAL

1. STANDARDSTUTORIAL Chris Kreiler Jerry Smith Vico Equense 28 Feb 06

2. Introduction • Background • Standards Activities • Types of Standards • ISO Organization and Procedures • TC184/SC4 Organization and Standing Documents • Managing Standards • Standards Development Principles • ISO LiveLink • SC4ONLINE

3. STANDARDSTUTORIALPart IX – Standards Management Principles

4. Time Why Have Standards? Too small of a GAP is Restrictive Optimal GAP Promotes innovation & Creativity Too much GAP is costly Standards Technology The GAP between Standards & Technology is the link that associates the two.

5. Which Standard Medium Best Serves the Requirement Non-Government Standards International National Commercial Item Description Federal Specification/Standard Military Specification/Standard Standardization Options Source Priority Highest Lowest

6. Technology Assessment Business Case Analysis Action Plan & Development Validation & Certification Publication Updates Standards Development Process Overview

7. Requirements Analysis Development & Testing ADOPT/ Configuration Management and Maintenance APPROVE Develop MIL-STD TEST MAINTIAIN MIL-STD Military Unique General Requirements Participate in ON-Going Work TEST CONTINUE PARTICIPATION Develop Modification, Enhancement, Profile User Service Description Emerging MAINTAIN STANDARD, PROFILE TEST Inadequate AS IS Assess Voluntary Standards INITIATE PARTICIPATION USE AS IS Adequate AS IS Generic Process Summary

8. Standards Principles Discussion • Standards vs. Technology • Replicate Proven Practices • Performance vs. Process • Market Place Support • Avoid Government Unique Standards • Management of IT Standards Activities • “OPEN” Standards and Specifications • Government Role • Strategic Standardization

9. Standards vs. Technology • Need to keep pace with technology evolution • Natural tension between standards setting and technology evolution • Timing is critical • Standards set too early • stifle innovation and creativity (the fuel of technology evolution) • Standards set too late • engenders social and economic costs (e.g., Beta vs. VHS)

10. Replicate Proven Practices • Replicate good, proven engineering and business practices • Good practices manifested in open solutions from recognized authorities (authentic SDO/SSO)

11. Performance vs. Process • Successful standards specify performance and interface requirements • Telling a vendor how to build a product (process specific standards) is a poor example of how to establish effective standards • Interested in the final product - not the process used to get there • Beware of "management" standards • Certain "best practice" guides and specifications such as "configuration management" are generally OK

12. Market Place Support • The market place - not a Standards Committee - determines which standards are the winners! • Need good, desirable, useful, workable, and effective standards that: • realistically solve user problems • possess genuine utility • supported in the market place • else, they become ‘shelf ware’ • Need vendors to build COTS that employ open standards

13. Avoid Government Unique Standards • Government unique (vs. de jure or ‘commercial’) standards are • expensive • usually counterproductive • Do not achieve a cost effective solution • Are usually not interoperable • ditto proprietary solutions. Use MIL-STDS and specifications only when nothing else is available

14. Management of  IT Standards Activities • Governing concept needs to separate the management of standardization activities from the technical work • standards manager owns the process • sponsors and stakeholders own the specific substantive content  • Manage IT standards activities by employing a lifecycle portfolio • Decisions based upon • mission goals • architecture • risk • performance • expected return on investment (ROI)

15. Management of  IT Standards Activities • Ensuring stakeholder involvement is critical • make it easy for them to participate via a low-drag administrative process • Very important to make standards visible, understandable and readily available

16. “OPEN” Standards and Specifications • Policy to specify as ‘mandated’ only ‘open’ standards and specifications are rooted in cost and legal considerations • Two examples: • (1) Placing proprietary standards (not ‘open’) specification that belongs to Vendor ‘A’ or to Consortia ‘B’, may place the government organization in a position of non-competitively “favoring” that entity at the expense of others and thus subject to being sued accordingly • (2) If a party in a consortia provides certain intellectual property that is incorporated into the organization’s (non-open) standard or specification and the government organization places this particular specification into an official registry of mandated standards, the government organization may be open to liability for royalty payments for employing that intellectual property

17. Government Role • U.S. believes strongly in private enterprise leadership of voluntary standards setting activities • Sharp contrast to the rest of the world • Foreign governments generally have a central, and oftimes strong, role in standards setting and funding of standards activities

18. Strategic Standardization • Strategic standardization is important to a nation’s economy • effective management tool for gaining a leading edge on competition • for protecting a competitive position • Trade relation issues are not only global or regional but increasingly impact domestic as well as worldwide markets • Understanding how a particular company, or industry sector, or region, or nation must compete globally is necessary for future economic growth and health • Gaining insight and understanding of the role of standards in crafting competitive management strategies is key to future success • IT standards are a key enabler to achieving and maintaining global competitiveness

19. STANDARDSTUTORIALPart X – Some Observations

20. Observations of Cultural Differences With Respect to Standards Compliance Country Requirement Compliance Rules U.S. EXCEPT Prohibited Permitted Germany EXCEPT Prohibited Permitted Permitted Russia EVEN Prohibited Italy EVEN PROHIBITED! Permitted

21. Experience/Observations • Good • Bad • Lessons to be learned

22. INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE • Success Attributes • Failure Characteristics • Conclusion

23. Success Attributes [1] • Participants: expect long-term involvement (years) • Schedule: don’t get rushed - don’t get late! • New technology: be conservative • Scope: obstinately stick to it!

24. Success Attributes [2] • Conformance: • need to measure it • should have working definition ASAP • Target audience: commercial systems and users • Quality: fix bugs immediately! • Process: have faith in consensus process -- it works!

25. Failure Attributes [1] Failures: only recognized years later • Incorporate new/untried technology • Why waste committee time? • Ignore commercial interests • Who will implement the standard? • Ignore public comments • Who will buy standardized products? • Creeping featurism • The schedule killer!

26. Poor time estimates Progress is made over quarters, not weeks Leave bugs to later Expensive to fix later, like software Weak tests of conformance Standard-conforming, but lacks interoperability Too much implementation-defined behavior ditto Failure Attributes [2] Failures: only recognized years later

27. Some Examples • IEEE networking standards: • Success: widely accepted • Supercomputing/parallelism features: • Failure: new technology, changing conceptual model • No problems standardizing small features, but big picture wasn’t right • Hindsight: lack of big picture, technology hadn’t matured, wasn’t asking right questions • C++ standardization process: • Failure: years late, creeping featurism, no scope control, no rationale, no complete implementations during development, many inconsistencies (while close to publishing standard) • Expect many defect reports, poor conformance tests • Result: creation of Java

28. CONCLUSIONS [1] Basis: [experience] • Characteristics of Good technical work: • clear scope • “do-able” • support by vendors • support by users • well-defined conformance tests

29. CONCLUSIONS [2] • Standards participation is long-term commitment, but has high value • Collaboration and liaising help reduce duplicated efforts • Good technical standards take a while to “bake”

30. CONCLUSIONS [3] • Knowledge of the standards process can be very helpful for internal projects: • Specification development and consensus-building techniques are widely useful • Quality is recognized at the end with few defect reports and consistent spec interpretation • Standards process is a “best practice” to develop high quality specs within a reasonable technical horizon

31. OUR EXPERIENCE • De jure vs Consortia Process: • Organizations don’t actually compete - each has a role, scope, and purpose • Consortia best rapid for technology development • Formal de jure process best for consensus-building • but not vice versa • Best of Both Worlds Examples

32. Success in Becoming an Accredited International Standard (IS) ISO JTC1 TC 184 COLLABORATION SC 34 SC 4 Working Group 3 COLLABORATION Working Group 11 Technical Editor Technical Editor PDML Example National Body Technical Experts National Body Technical Experts

33. Success in Becoming an Accredited International Standard (IS) ISO JTC1 SC 24 Technical Editors PNG Example Recommended Practice WORLD WIDE WEB (W3C) CONSORTIUM

34. Some Advice For New Projects • Be certain of commitment to the project (WGs) and Scope • WG infant mortality ==> poor management • Consider commercial implications • Include relevant stakeholders • Find liaisons, don’t “reinvent the wheel” • Be patient, use realistic timeline • Consumers expect much from specs ==> “quality” over “schedule” within reason

35. SCHEDULE ADVICE Never commit to complete a project within six months of the fiscal year . . . . . . In either direction! Augustine's Law Number XXXVI

36. Correlation of Growth of Specificationsand STANDARDS GROWTH Number of Standards Produced Annually Common Weeds! Source: Augustine's Laws

37. PREMO Example BACKFIRE! New Technology Market Place Need Vendor Support Broad Active Support Schedule Slip BUT LOST THE BUBBLE!

38. VRML Example New Technology Market Place Need Vendor Support Broad Active Support Fast Process WIN - WIN - WIN!

39. JUMP-START KEY PROJECTS …. …. …. …. …. …. …. END EDIT END TIME

40. The U.S., by sheer numbers, has more standards available for application than most other nations -- but, a significant portion of these document obsolescent technology, are redundant, or are overlapping. Source: National Center for Manufacturing Sciences STANDARDS OUTPUT Source: ANSI

41. PARETO STRIKES AGAIN! 80% of the orders for individual standards are for only 15% to 20% of the total number published. Source: ANSI Most Published Standards are Seldom Used! CONCLUSION:

42. Users SDOs Consortia Vendors Test Organizations ISO PLAYERS FNC POSI ISSS

43. ISO OAG Some of the Many of Players:

44. Too Many Players! Too Many Standards! PROBLEM How do we leverage our limited resources and protect our interests?

45. TC154 X12 SC 30 X9 ISSB HL7 SC 34 CEFACT UN/ECE SC 24 ELECTRONIC COMMERCESTANDARDS

46. COMING DATA AVALANCHE! • By 2000 AD • Information doubles 1 time every 3 years • Data will double > 20 times in only 6 years • Thus, in 6 years -- Data 125,000 > Information! • e.g., "Documents" now include • Digitized Text • Photographs • Graphics • Audio • Color Animation • Video DATA INFORMATION Next 6 Years SoURCE: George Gilder , "Life After Television"

47. INTERNATIONAL…. • Global Scope • Technology Relevance • Accredited/ Professional Recognition • Significant to Stakeholder Interests • Marketplace Support

48. Standards Support for aWinning Strategy • TECHNOLOGY - Help Co-Opt Promising New Technology • PROCESS - Articulate Proven ‘Best Practices’ • PEOPLE - Inform, Help Change Attitudes, Get Involved

49. World Class Approach Being a World Class Enterprise means compliance with Global Standards You either influence the standards: Good - you control/influence product destiny Bad - short-term costs with weak traceability on long-term return Or you let others write the standards for you: Good - cost avoidance for immediate profit improvement Bad - others determine your product destiny

50. Being a World Class Enterprise Means Compliance With Global Standards World Class Approach