recent DISCUSSION

• Ajit Jaokar says:

  Thanks Andy. No worries re the HTML. Kind rgds Ajit
• Andy Updegrove says:

  And the somewhat interesting answer is “no.” The text editor deletes HTML tags without giving them effect.
• Andy Updegrove says:

  Ajit,

  [Let's see whether a little HTML works here] You are certainly right that when governments come and go, the programs they have funded can founder. As a result, risks for private sector participants in standards development may both increase as well as decrease as a result of government involvement. But many of those that participate in standards development organizations will already be dealing with that reality in their businesses in other ways, so at least this will not be an unfamiliar risk. And if the alternative is no solution at all, at least there will be significant benefits to provide incentives to participate notwithstanding the risks.

  Andy
• Ajit Jaokar says:

  Hello Andy
  Good to meet you here.
  You give the example of NIST and smart grids .. It is an area I am familair(and involed in).

  Re
  ————————————————————————————————–
  More than just standards are needed to address challenges such as climate change, however. In addition, new internet-based architectures and cross-sectoral frameworks of standards will be required, and the existing standards development infrastructure is not equipped to provide such solutions. In most countries, only governments are likely to be able to catalyze and facilitate the development of such solutions. Indeed, such efforts are being mounted in countries such as the U.S., where a well-funded public-private effort to develop SmartGrid standards is well underway.
  ————————————————————————————————–
  My view is – this is commendable to some extent(and one could even argue that for Smart grid, the govt itself is the driving the business case currently .. However, my concern is – governments have very limited mandates. Every five years, they change. We see it here in the UK. See ‘Greatest Living Briton (Tim Berner Lee) loses £30m – 404: Semantic Web institute not found’
  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/05/25/farewell_institute_of_web_science/

  So, my concern with detailed govt involvement is – after 5 years everything could change as we see here in the UK

  thoughts?
  kind rgds
  Ajit
• Andy Updegrove says:

  Stacy and Peter

  No, I don’nt think that the standards process needs government intervention across the board. I think that it’s entirely situational, and perhaps even just transitional.

  What I see being needed is the evolution of a new layer of infrastructure able to identify more complex goals, develop an approach to their resolution (which may vary with the challenge), coordinate the efforts of actual standards development organizations, and then (perhaps) sometimes do more – like promote adoption of the result, or resolve differences as they arise, or involve governments to support the solutions, or?

  For the present, it appears (to me) that government needs to step in to provide the impetus for this to happen, especially where the time frame is short. But in the long term, there’s no reason why the existing standards infrastructure can’t evolve to meet the need. After all, the Big Is have done it once before, in the sense of evolving to enable global consensus among many existing SDOs.

  Andy
• Stacy Baird says:

  Andy, interesting to understand your perspective on the limitations of the status quo. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that better cross-sectoral coordination (and cooperation) is needed (just look at healthcare IT), but I do you think the need can be generalized to all standard setting (if that is what you are suggesting), or is really more issue specific?
• Peter Gray says:

  That is a good point, creative destruction in the standardisation process. Or is more a process of tug of war – government takes over from private to standardise railway width, then gives way back to private – and you’re suggesting that it is the government’s turn again?
• Andy Updegrove says:

  Peter,

  Yes, I think that existing organizations certainly can evolve, at least in principle. But there are several questions that come to mind, such as (a) whether they have the interest, competence, resources and infrastructure to take on the new remit, (b) whether they have the acknowledged right and/or authority to take it on, (c) whether they have the culture (e.g., nimbleness) to take on a challenge with different dynamics, and so on. Sometimes they may provide a proper foundation, and sometimes the world may be better served by the formation of a new organizaiton. It’s worth noting that consortia would not exist today if the existing bodies had had an interest in adapting to the perceived needs that consortia were formed to address.

  Andy
• Peter Gray says:

  Andy, thanks for the clarification. This thread is definitely an interesting discussion, I commend the active role you have taken. When you mentioned ISO “becoming engaged in setting standards in areas of societal, as compared to technical”, is this in reference to the upcoming 26000 social responsibility standards? Does this move by ISO suggest that organisations such as this can perhaps adapt to meet evolving challenges, even in facing issues traditionally the realm of governments?
• Andy Updegrove says:

  Stacy,

  One of the key points I was making in my NIST testimony is that the US has (in my view) an overly sector-specific standards development infrastructure that makes it difficult to address challenges like the SmartGrid, cybersecurity, global warming, etc. ANSI tries to help address this need by providing a meeting place for its c. 200 member SDOs, and most recently, to form “panels” that can address such broad, cross-sectoral challenges, and which welcome stakeholders of all types to participate from both the public and private sectors.

  Unfortunately, consortia understandably don’t participate in ANSI, because is a US body, and almost all consortia are not only global in membership, but frequently have issues with looking too US-centric to begin with. So while ANSI is willing to work with consortia, it doesn’t have strong ties in the crucial ICT area, which is dominated by consortia (consortia do participate in some of the panels).

  Similarly, while ANSI is widely recognized globally as the voice of the US standards community for many purposes (including at ISO and IEC, either directly or indirectly), it doesn’t have a formal charge from Congress to act as the focal point for US standards development. Sometimes it is formally engaged by Congress or an agency, and sometimes it isn’t.

  My view is that for the US “bottom up” system to work in these modern cross-sectoral, rapid paced world, the US needs to optimize its historical system by formally charging NIST with being the interface within government among the agencies, and also with being the government’s interface with the private sector. I also think that it would make good sense for ANSI to be formally recognized as being the private sector interface with government, so that a consistent working relationship can be institutionalized and broadened. This would have the added benefit of giving consortia a reason to engage with ANSI to achieve their goals as well, given the size of the US marketplace, as well as the size of the government’s purchasing power.

  At this point I should disclose that I am on the Board of Directors of ANSI, but also stress that am in no way speaking for ANSI.

  Andy
• Andy Updegrove says:

  Peter,

  My sense of what is going on among ISO/ITU/IEC collectively is more a matter of coordination on matters such as intellectual property rules. Individually, ISO is certainly becoming engaged in setting standards in areas of societal, as compared to technical, areas, such as corporate responsibility. But I’m not aware of any of the “big Is” undertaking what might be considered to be the type of macro challenge that would involve (for example) the following:

  - Identiy a goal (say, a clean coal target)

  - Set the target emissions goals

  - Describe the measurement techniques to verify the results

  - Identify the existing standards that could be employed to facilitate attaining the goal

  - Identify the gaps that need to be filled

  - Solicit interest in appropriate, existing standards groups to fill those gaps

  This sort of proactive action is easy for a government to identify and act on, but I’m not aware of any existing standards group likely to undertake it on its own.

  Andy
• Stacy Baird says:

  Andy, as a former government policy person, I am impressed to see someone so anxious to add government institutions to the decision-making of markets. Indeed, your observations about the ability of NIST to bring together disparate interests to develop cohesive results is generally valid (with regard to industry interests, NIST has a harder time with the differing viewpoints of federal agencies). But in your NIST testimony, you propose formalizing the relationship between NIST and ANSI with regard to certain efforts. I would be interested in understanding the benefits of making more formal a relationship which you describe as successful in the past.

  As to your interesting idea of a new international standards body, I am not sure that creating a new formal structure is going to change the behavior of the participants. The issues that separate nations will not be addressed by simply creating a new organization. With the market changing shape at the speed of light, the effort has to be put into getting everyone on the rocket that’s moving ahead, not building a new one. Globalization demands getting people (i.e., governments) to understand what has worked, how they can participate to take the best advantage of the changing shape of the market. In some cases (whether South East Asia or the U.S.), they need to deal with the fundamentals such as education, infrastructure, coherent public policies that harmonize with the global environment. Concurrently, historical market leading nations need to recognize the changing shape of the market and with some humility, work to advance globalization to greater mutual benefit of the new market players.
• Helen Disney says:

  Andy, I think you are right to suggest governments should not to idolise or demonise standards – they are a tool and the most important thing is to facilitate ease of use for consumers which may include a myriad of socially beneficial ends.
• Andy Updegrove says:

  Stacy,

  Good to meet you as well.

  I hadn’t seen your comment before answering Mattias’, so I won’t repeat, but as you’ll see from that comment what I have in mind is closer to the NIST model. Interestingly, I recently testified before the House subcommittee reviewing the updating of NIST’s mandate to which you refer, and dedicated much of the last issue of my eJournal, Standards Today, to that topic. You can find it here: http://www.consortiuminfo.org/bulletins/mar10.php

  Andy
• Peter Gray says:

  Andy, in line with Stacy’s comments, I wonder if a number of large SSOs with strong international membership aren’t already approaching the role of the “new type of international organization” which you discuss?
• Andy Updegrove says:

  Mattias,

  I think that a distinction can usefully be made between standards development and standards goal setting and facilitation. For example, in the US right now, the government is playing a major role in facilitating and incentivizing the development of standards to enable the SmartGrid, without actually setting those standards.

  If challenges such as global warming are to be met, many types of standards will be needed, including (for example) metrology standards. A global effort to define the framework within which a myriad of marketplace determined experimental efforts (with related standards developed through traditional, market-driven means) could profitably focus could help determine what those metrology standards should be, which could then be developed, perhaps for adoption by ISO – again, a traditional route. Individual approaches, each with the standards needed for those approaches, could then evolve in the marketplace, and best solutions predominate.

  Similarly, standards will be needed to allow non-market tasks, such as scientific modeling and analysis, to be performed, in order to judge secondary and tertiary (often undesired) side effects to be measured in order to gauge whether planned efforts will end up actually being productive on a net basis. As an example, standards for measuring the release of greenhouse gases from existing biomass (e,.g., tundra, peat, deadfalls, etc.) will be needed to measure net effects of repurposing land and resource extraction.

  To give another example, the global treaty on human rights does not have to be adopted by any nation – but most have adopted it. A global effort could create a standards-driven model for addressing green house gases that individual nations, and especially those that might not be able to rapidly develop such a model on their own due to resource and other constraints, could adopt, thereby furthering the clause of global warming abatement more rapidly and in a demonstration of good faith. Such a model could actually be instantiated in a treaty that could be signed by an increasing number of nations.

  So I think that there are opportunities for government to profitably be a facilitator and driver once it is appreciated that the question need not be viewed as being an either/or question (i.e., either the government sets the standards, or the private sector does).

  Andy
• Stacy Baird says:

  Andy, good to meet, albeit virtually. I think you over-simplify in your observation “Unless these standards are uniform, research cannot be efficiently conducted on a global scale…” Indeed, global uniformity is an important goal, but I think creating new organizations can slow progress, rather than accelerate them. Indeed, there are existing standards bodies that can be made more efficient, even retooled to address pressing needs. As you know, in the U.S., NIST has been undergoing a substantial re-examination of its mission. Its role, really a remarkable public-private partnership, is being elevated in standards setting where there is an urgent need for coordinated industry action – particularly in energy and healthcare. Where there is the demand to meet an urgent need, I expect existing organizations will be able to rise to the occasion. Indeed,organizations such as the ISO do get bogged down when there is over-politicization of a technical question; so that’s certainly a concern. But I don’t know that creating a new international enterprise will solve that problem.
• Mattias Ganslandt says:

  Andy, Good points. As with conventional trade policy one should recognize that at the global level there might be a regulation-related prisoners’ dilemma. Countries may unilaterally find it attractive to promote standards that benefit domestic producers rather than global efficiency.

  The solution to the trade-policy prisoners’ dilemma, with respect to tariffs and quotas, has been to establish bilateral and multilateral binding agreements and organizations to handle these problems and to facilitate solutions that are globally efficient.

  However, unlike tariffs (i.e. trade taxes) standards are not and should not be a policy parameter. Standards are volontarily coded information, by markets – for markets.

  Bottom line: The implication of this is that, while further globalization of industry-led standardization is desirable it is not clear that greater political or more institutional development at the global level is good. /Mattias