Interoperability is one essential component in ensuring that standards are utilised across the board. Yet, while interoperability is a desired goal (and today a very popular buzzword), there is a need to discuss and consider much more seriously what are the most effective ways of securing and maintaining this objective.

Indeed, this is a serious question that also challenges policy-makers in the EU, both at the supra-national level and at the country level.

Unfortunately, in recent years we have witnessed a worrying trend in which policy-making bodies are afforded a greater degree of discretion concerning the desirable direction and forms in which standardisation interoperability should take place. One can identify a preference towards coercion and exclusion. The former takes place when regional and national authorities force one commercial entity to disclose its trade secrets to its competitors (who are also commercial entities) for the sake of ensuring interoperability. The latter refers to situations in which regional and national authorities a priori decide to discriminate against proprietary-based software and standards by asking governments to only purchase software which is based on non-proprietary models (see, for example, the forthcoming recommendations by the European Interoperability Framework).

This tendency is problematic. While there may be cases in which coercion and even discrimination may be required for the sake of standardisation and interoperability, these are the exceptions that should prove the rule, not the other way around.

The fact is that standardisation and interoperability are deeply rooted in market forces. It is the incentives and rewards that the market provides that drives innovators to make the risky, time-consuming and costly investments needed to bring new technologies and new standards to the market.

The major challenge is, therefore, how to create a modern framework that incentivises and harnesses market forces towards greater interoperability, while also providing the necessary safeguards to deal with market failures when they occur.

Join the Forum discussion here: www.talkstandards.com/questions-for-event-reforming-eu-standardization/

Besides this structural inconsistency, it is not considered what might be the effect of a more comprehensive stakeholder involvement on the effectiveness of the standardisation processes, especially its speed. The tension between broad participation and the effectiveness of the process, which is a case of the classic “allocation efficiency vs. distribution goal trade-off”, has not been discussed in the report.

Furthermore, the options of the successful New Approach to solve this tension as well as the straight regulatory way to solve market failures have not explicitly taken into account. If an issue is crucial for society, e.g. related to health, environmental and safety issues, and needs the involvement of the public in general, then it has to be questioned whether the ESS is able to meet all these requirements.

In summary, one has to be careful to not overburden the ESS with so strong requirements, which make the standardisation of simple issues difficult and slow. Such a development is not only threatening the competitiveness enhancing function of standards for the European economy, but might make international standardisation consortia – again – more attractive for dynamic and innovative European companies, and not necessarily strengthen the ESS and European economy.

The European Parliament’s first thoughts on ICT standardisation reflect the sensible view that the standards system is not fundamentally broken. To me this is its most encouraging contribution! Discussions about standards too often suffer from overstatement and over-reaction.

The Parliament’s draft paper beginning thoughts summarise this helpful approach, stressing “that the proposed review should build on the strengths of the existing system, which constitute a solid basis for improvement, refraining from any radical changes that would undermine the core values of the system.”

The rapporteur’s own comments also helpfully explain that “In that respect, the Rapporteur does not agree with a number of policy options contained in the Commission’s impact assessment study which would result in a complete overhaul of the system.”

It is also encouraging that the paper both focusses on the role of standards as the partner of innovation, and the need for the system to be accessible to everyone.

I think the approach that says evolution rather than revolution is needed in the standards area is nowhere more true than the area of patents and other intellectual property (IP). The FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) system of licensing patents and other IP among technology suppliers and users of standards fundamentally encourages developers to supply their best technologies to the standards system, for a fair payment.

FRAND doesn’t insist that every deal is the same, leaving room for SMEs and different business models to get fair licences on terms that suit their business. Innovation, developers, users and technological progress all win.

It’s interesting that despite its fundamental market-led approach, the draft Parliament report does call for putting more stakeholders into the standards system — even ones that don’t develop or use standards — and for moreapparent control by national standards bodies.

Those ideas do raise more questions than they answer: Will they produce better standards? Will they have any effect on whether a standard is in fact used? How do they relate to the market reality that ICT standards are increasingly global, not local? These strike me as the biggest questions raised in the Parliament’s report.

Image: wikimedia commons – user Tkgd2007

EU competition policy supports the notion that industry standardization should be open, transparent and non-discriminatory. The Commission’s new draft guidelines on horizontal cooperation outlines requirements (including participation, transparent procedures and IPR-regimes with clear disclosure and licensing rules) under which cooperation on standards generally would not result in restrictions of competition (and thus would not run afoul of the antitrust rules). Such a “safe-harbor” approach is particularly appropriate for formal SSOs and other standards bodies with significant industry participation, since they affect the conditions for market access and competition both at the technology level and for the standardized products.

Similarly, where governments act as regulators or procurers, their involvement may increase the market ubiquity of a given standard. Relying on open and transparent standards in such situations can ensure a level playing field and full implementation of the standard, and avoid vendor lock-in.

However, too far-reaching regulatory requirements may stifle development. The success and increased importance of various fora and consortia show that different governance and organization models may be appropriate and efficient. Moreover, important “non-formal” SSOs (e.g. in the ICT-sector) display a high degree of openness and transparency, and an ability to protect themselves from vested interests, despite “non-conventional” structures.

Ajit Jaokar spoke of the possibility that eHealth will take off in emerging markets and what the implications thereof could be. As an illustration, Jaokar mentioned the M-Pesa mobile payment service which took off in Kenya, serving 6.5 million subscribers by May 2009; such a service is yet to be deployed in Western countries. Jaokar argued that emerging markets have a way of solving real life problems which is likely to mean that eHealth innovation will take place in emerging markets. Further, the lack of infrastructure might actually provide further incentives, as it did in the M-Pesa case. The implications of such a development for global standards are not clear but it is important to not only think of eHealth as a ‘Western’ concept.

Highlighting the fact that the healthcare of yesterday is changing, and a new healthcare experience is emerging, Helen Disney discussed the challenges facing us in ‘the post-bureaucratic age’. New technology can revolutionize the way in which governments and citizens interact and move towards a bottom-up approach; but this requires the development of standards to build trust in new systems. Interoperability is one of the main challenges we are facing as companies are set to compete on delivering eHealth services. More open, network systems will benefit patients but at the same time it will be less easy for governments to intervene, argued Disney. This will ultimately affect which standards are going to be widely used. Further, Disney raised the question whether some of the poorest patients, who lack internet access, face a risk of being left behind in the eHealth-age.

Keith W Boone provided valuable input on US eHealth policy. He expressed concerns over the shotgun approach taken by recent US initiatives and called for more coordination in standardization efforts. Further, Boone was critical to the fact that there is no US ‘national program’, rather conflicts within government and between SSOs are impeding developments. Governments can help by offering a consolidated voice, setting national goals and driving standardization efforts. Unified efforts across the ICT spectra is needed to look after national interests.

Denise Silber expressed her optimism over Health 2.0 services as a driver of eHealth innovation and development. She drew the attention to existing services; blogs, wikis, search engines etc, and pointed to the fact that these are available by computer or mobile phone and contributing to participatory medicine. Lack of standards is not the issue, Silber argues, web to web synchronization is already possible. Security should not be an impediment either, online banks have succeeded and so should healthcare. Rather, the obstacle lies in data not being electronically available or safely portable. Silber called on doctors and laboratories to digitize their information and leave the rest to participatory medicine.

Recognizing that seamless access to information is important in eHealth, and that standards are vital in achieving this, Jay Kesan expressed concern over the likeliness of governments’ early involvement in the standardization process, choosing winners (and losers) prematurely. The reason for this, he said, is because the governmental role in healthcare is not as challenged as that in other sectors. Kesan argued that it is the ICT private sector that are the domain specialists and that they must be allowed to work towards standardization, jointly developing standards within private SSOs. Thus, competition should be fostered among private firms developing downstream, innovative, proprietary technologies relying upon ICT standards. Learning from past behavior, Kesan also argued that US authorities are more likely to focus on spectrum management and setting power ratings to avoid interference, while letting different industry solutions and standards compete with each other, European authorities will be prone to mandate interoperability.

Also, prior to the forum Talkstandards conducted an exclusive interview with David Ingram, Founding Chairman of openEHR. Ingram spoke of the difficulties of gathering all challenges of eHealth under one common umbrella, and expressed concern over governments sometimes being excessively enthusiastic. It is vital that governments appreciate the scope of ICT standardization and development, as to handle the challenges properly. The approach to eHealth should be practical and empirical, Ingram said, and welcomed the fact that practical progress toward interoperability is actively sought. Although difficult barriers to eHealth implementation exist in Europe which might be hard to overcome, Ingram is optimistic with the direction developments are taking. Ultimately, Ingram said, implementation is the best way to achieve progress since it offers a sense of learning-by-doing.

The discussion around these topics is bound to continue. Please visit the Open Forum Event Page for further reading.

The ICT sector is an essential part of the EU business climate, employing close to 7 million people and contributing to over 40 % of total productivity growth. Already ICT is influential in almost all other sectors but the Commission’s policies are seeking to increase this level of influence. In a coordinated move, ICT is to increase production efficiency and at the same time contribute to decreasing the environmental impact. A report from McKinsey states that CO2 emissions can be reduced by as much as 15 % by 2020, solely by an increased use of intelligent devices and application.

However, ICT seems to be a double edged tool; currently almost 8 % of total EU energy consumption can be accredited to ICT, and as the number of PCs and other electronic devices increase so will the consumption. Therefore the Commission has aimed its policies toward developing environmentally sustainable ICT solutions and identifies three specific ways ICT can reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

First, ICT can contribute to energy saving solutions in other areas of the economy. Primary targets are sectors where energy consumption is high, e.g. buildings, transport and manufacturing and the Commission suggests implementation of solutions such as sensors, control systems and Intelligent Transport Systems. Second, by increasing efficiency in transactions throughout society significant energy savings can be found. This is largely done by increasing e-commerce, cloud computing and teleworking, thus moving towards a more immaterial economy. The third contributing area is in raising awareness; if households e.g. get smart meters installed they will be more aware of how to control their energy consumption. If this is expanded to power grids and industrial applications the effects can be enormous.

On November 9-10, an EU conference on the Swedish island of Gotland was held to discuss the future of European ICT policy. Europe is at an increasing pace moving further towards a knowledge based society why policies need to be adapted into the new way in which transactions between consumers and producers etc are structured. Green ICT policies can be used in the battle against climate change and could, if strategies are well developed, give Europe a market leading position in the field.

In preparation of the meeting, Sweden, as current holder of the EU Precidency, had produced a report (‘A Green Knowledge Society- An ICT policy agenda to 2015 for Europe’s future knowledge society’) in which Green ICT is identified as a key issue.

The policy goals for 2015 are aimed at creating new markets for products and services where economic incentives will drive technological innovation and ensure their efficiency. A stimulation programme is to be launched, purposed to apply ICT solutions in energy saving roles across relevant sectors. Thus a sustainable behavior pattern is hopefully developed in citizens and businesses.