The only tools were some booklets in which ...... 19 SWIFT = Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. ..... This reputation is due to their findings, and tips the balance of force in their favour. ..... 27 This listing is based on a manual for a course for NNI's standardization consultants ...... Tailor-made service.
Standards for the Nation Analysis of National Standardization Organizations This study is the first academic analysis of national standardization organizations. In many cases, formal standardization organizations at the international, regional, or national level are no longer the obvious bodies for developing standards to meet business needs. Is this inevitable or could they improve performance and regain their market share? This question is answered against the background of current standardization developments. Both theoretical and practical chapters offer a better understanding of standardization in general and national standardization organizations in particular. Henk de Vries (1957) is Standardization Consultant at the Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut (Dutch standardization institute) and Education and Research Officer Standardization at the Department of Management of Technology and Innovation, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam.
ISBN 90-9012839-5
v Nemo magis obedit ... quam qui hausto Christi spiritu liber esse coeperit. [Nobody obeys more ... than he who has drunk in the Spirit of Christ and starts getting free.] 1
Prologue This study concerns services offered by national standardization organizations. In writing it, I built on my experience as an employee of one of these organizations, the Dutch standardization institute NNI. The first day of my appointment at NNI, in fall 1984, I was assigned to some standardization committees as their secretary and was expected to be able to support them. The only tools were some booklets in which formal procedures were laid down and the committee files. Since then, NNI has been professionalized and I have had the opportunity to experience standardization from different points of view. Standardization is a fascinating phenomenon, and I was delighted to have the opportunity to study standardization via a part-time appointment at the Rotterdam School of Management. I am very grateful to the NNI and Erasmus University for enabling me to do this. I thank, in particular, Messrs J.C. Blankert, Henk Huigen, Felix Janszen, Ab Waszink and Cees de Visser for their efforts. This study profited from the insights of my adviser, Prof. C.A.J. Simons. An international benchmarking study2 named his Corporate Standardization Department at Philips, Eindhoven, as the best in the world along with the company standardization departments of five other multinationals. Jan, I am glad that I had the benefit of your extensive experience in standardization, which, to a large extent, was complementary to mine. It is your point of view that science should reflect good practice and, subsequently, should prove its value by forming the basis for better practice. I did my best. I am very grateful for your unremitting support and your conscientious comments on the subsequent versions of the manuscript. A special word of thanks to the other members of the Very Learnt Committee: Prof. E.L.J. Bancken, Prof. T.W. Hardjono, Prof. W. Hesser, Prof. F.H.A. Janszen, Prof. G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot, and the Committee’s adviser Dr. C. de Visser, for your efforts and feedback. Prof. Hesser: I enjoyed your kind hospitality in Hamburg including discussion of standardization. I would like to thank Wubbo Winter and Jacob Bouma. From you I learned that standardization is a discipline. You contributed to the underpinning and maturing of 1
Desiderius Erasmus in a letter to Paulus Voltz, 1518-08-14, introductory to Enchiridion militis christiani (P.S. Allen, H.M. Allen & H.W. Garrod (Ed.) (1906-1958) Opus Epistolarum Des. Erasmi Roterodami 858, Oxford, pp. 471-472), cited by Weiler, 1997, p. 5. An application of Erasmus’ statement on business practice is given by Van Roon and De Vries (1997). 2 Strategic Standardization - Lessons from the World’s Foremost Companies (Verity Consulting, Los Angeles, 1995). It is a confidential study that could not be used in this research.
vi this discipline,3 suggested that NNI create a chair on standardization, and encouraged me to write this study. To my other colleagues at NNI and at the Department of Management of Technology and Innovation of the Rotterdam School of Management: you contributed to my research, maybe without being aware of it. Thanks to you and to the many others mentioned in Annex 5. I apologize in advance if I’ve overlooked anyone. Marianne Sanders and your colleagues at the Centre for Language Studies of the Katholieke Universiteit Tilburg: thank you very much for correcting the English. Last but not least I would like to mention my parents who provided love and education and the ability to study, and my wife and children: Anneke, Roelf-Jan, Juriena, Maria, and Jan-Lieuwe. I hope to be more at home now that this work is finished. Henk de Vries
3
For instance: Bouma & Winter, 1982.
vii
How to read this book? Those interested in all topics of this study can simply read it from start to finish. This, however, is not the sequence of scientific underpinning. Part B provides derivations and cases that are used in Part A. In an earlier version, all chapters were placed in a logical order, but apparently some readers got lost. Therefore, some conclusions from Part B are summarized in Part A. General conclusions and recommendations follow in Part C. Readers that prefer the scientific sequence can skip Sections 2.1 and 2.3 and read the chapters/sections as indicated in Figure 0.1.
Figure 0.1. Scientific sequence of chapters/sections.
For other readers the following applies: Interested in: National standardization organizations Concept of standards and standardization Stakeholders in standardization Management systems Service management Actor behaviour in standards application Company standardization Table 0.1. Chapters/sections per topic of interest.
Chapters / (sub)sections 1.1.1 - 1.1.2 2 - 7 15 2.1 8 - 9 2.2 4 5.2 - 5.3 5.7 10 3.7.2 - 3.7.3 7.6 - 7.7 11 5.1 12 14 3.7.4 7.8 - 7.9
viii
ix
CONTENTS Prologue How to read this book? Contents Abbreviations and acronyms Terms and definitions PART A
1 1.1
v vii ix xv xvii
ANALYSYS OF NATIONAL STANDARDIZATION ORGANIZATIONS
General introduction Reasons for the study
1 1
1.1.1 Importance of standardization, 1.1.2 Problems related to the existing standardization, practice, 1.1.3, Gap in available research, 1.1.4 Conclusions
1.2 1.3 1.4
Aim of the study Research questions Research methodology
8 8 9
1.4.1 Introduction, 1.4.2 Unit of analysis, 1.4.3 The role of case studies, 1.4.4 The role of theory, 1.4.5 The role of observations, 1.4.6 Combining cases, literature, and observations
1.5
Structure of the study
14
2 2.1
Introduction to standards and standardization The concept of standards and standardization
19 19
2.1.1 Standardization, 2.1.2 Standards
2.2
The standardization arena
21
2.2.1 Routes to standards, 2.2.2 Choice between company standardization and cooperation, 2.2.3 Forms of co-operation, 2.2.4 Networks of standards developing organizations, 2.2.5 Stakeholders
2.3
Mechanisms in the spread of standards
35
3 3.1 3.2
Current NSO services Introduction Services to support developing national standards
39 39 39
3.2.1 Introduction, 3.2.2 Steps in developing national standards, 3.2.3 Standards, 3.2.4 NSO support in developing national standards, 3.2.5 The diminishing importance of national standardization
3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
Services to support developing international or regional standards Performing secretariats for international or regional committees Selling standards Information Other services
49 51 52 53 55
3.7.1 Metrology, 3.7.2 Testing, product certification and management system certification, 3.7.3 Accreditation, 3.7.4 Incidental other activities
3.8 3.9
Improvements in NSO performance Final remarks and conclusions
58 59
x 4 4.1 4.2
Actor needs Introduction Needs for standardization services per standards category
61 61 61
4.2.1 Needs related to subject matter categories, 4.2.2 Needs related to actordependant categories
4.3 4.4
Needs related to mechanisms in the spread of standards Wishes concerning NSO services
64 66
4.4.1 Introduction, 4.4.2 Companies, 4.4.3 Consumers, 4.4.4 Governments, 4.4.5 Standards developing organizations, 4.4.6 Summary and conclusions
4.5
Conclusions for NSOs
76
5 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5
Analysis of NSO standards development Introduction Multi-client approach Co-producing customers Services Service delivery
79 79 79 82 84 86
5.5.1 Throughput time, 5.5.2 Delay within a standardization bureau, 5.5.3 Delay within a standardization committee, 5.5.4 The waterfall and evolutionary approaches, 5.5.5 Cultural differences
5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9
NSO officers NSO organizations Communication and supporting facilities Summary and conclusions
6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4
Improvements in NSO standards development Introduction Multi-client approach Co-producing customers Services
90 91 94 95 97 97 97 98 100
6.4.1 Extending the portfolio of types of standards, 6.4.2 NSOs designing standards, 6.4.3 NSOs performing committee chairmanship
6.5
Service delivery
107
6.5.1 Reduction of througput time, 6.5.2 Avoiding delay within a standardization bureau, 6.5.3 Avoiding delay within a standardization committee, 6.5.4 The waterfall and evolutionary approaches, 6.5.5 Risk management, 6.5.6 Configuration management, 6.5.7 Cultural differences, 6.5.8 Boundaries of project management, 6.5.9 Subcontracting
6.6 6.7
NSO officers Organizations
114 115
6.7.1 Tasks allocation between committees, 6.7.2 Committee composition, 6.7.3 Organizational requirements for NSOs
6.8 6.9
Communication and supporting facilities Summary and conclusions
118 119
xi 7 7.1 7.2
Other NSO services Introduction Theories on diversification strategies
123 123 123
7.2.1 Introduction, 7.2.2 Transferring skills and sharing activities, 7.2.3 Core competences, 7.2.4 Information asymmetry and economies of scope, 7.2.5 Assets, 7.2.6 Conclusions
7.3 7.4
Selling standards Information services
127 131
7.4.1 Announcements, 7.4.2 Help in monitoring standards, 7.4.3 Information to elucidate standards
7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 7.10
Metrology Testing and certification Accreditation Other activities Services related to company standardization Summary and conclusions
PART B 8 8.1 8.2
134 134 136 137 139 139
SUPPORTING STANDARDIZATION THEORY AND CASES
Standardization - what’s in a name? Introduction Official definitions
143 143 144
8.2.1 ISO/IEC, 8.2.2 Dictionaries
8.3
Other definitions
145
8.3.1 ISO/IEC and CEN/CENELEC, 8.3.2 NSOs, 8.3.3 Dutch experts, 8.3.4 World Trade Organization and the European Union
8.4
Possible elements that constitute the definition
150
8.4.1 Which elements? 8.4.2 Entities, 8.4.3 Sectors, 8.4.4 Purposes, 8.4.5 People, 8.4.6 Characterization, 8.4.7 Purposes, sectors, entities
8.5 8.6 8.7
Choice of a definition Use of the proposed definition Summary and conclusions
161 162 163
9 9.1 9.2
Classification of standards Need for classification of standards Subject-matter-related classifications
165 165 166
9.3
Actor-related classifications
9.2.1 Introduction, 9.2.2 Entities, 9.2.3 Entity-related classifications
170
9.3.1 Actors, 9.3.2 Functional classifications, 9.3.3 Classifications related to the installed base, 9.3.4 Time-related classifications, 9.3.5 Classification by the rate of obligation, 9.3.6 Classifications related to the process of developing standards, 9.3.7 Classifications related to business models, 9.3.8 Property rights
9.4
Conclusions 9.4.1 Entity-related classifications, 9.4.2 Actor-related classifications, 9.4.3 Applicability of standards’ classifications
177
xii 10 10.1 10.2 10.3
Possibilities for better management system standards Introduction The danger of conflicting standards Applying a new method for standards development
179 179 180 182
10.3.1 Choice of a method, 10.3.2 Functions of management systems standards, 10.3.3 Definition of management systems, 10.3.4 Functions of management systems, 10.3.5 Designing a management system model, 10.3.6 Designing a management system standard, 10.3.7 Analyzing existing standards, 10.3.8 Making a new standard
10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7
Project results Prerequisites for use of Functional Standards Development Recent developments in management systems standardization Evaluation and conclusions
188 189 191 193
11 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5 11.6 11.7
Standardization in service sectors Introduction Outline of the methodology used Model to classify service sector standards Assumptions about service sectors with expected need for standardization Survey of existing formal standardization initiatives Selection of sectors for further research Results
195 195 196 196 199 203 203 204
11.7.1 Insurance business, 11.7.2 Accountancy / financial management, 11.7.3 Public education, 11.7.4 Catering, 11.7.5 Housing associations
11.8 11.9
Conclusions from NNI’s research project Epilogue
207 208
12 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 12.5 12.6 12.7 12.8 12.9 12.10
Mechanisms in the spread of standards Introduction Installed base, conversion, lock in Backwards, forwards and sideways compatibility Dominant design, bandwagon First agent, free rider and dominant agent Competing standards, gateway technologies Timing Modularization, layer structures Integration of technologies, components, and markets Conclusions
211 211 211 212 213 215 217 218 218 220 222
13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.10 13.11
Methods to develop standards The need for methods Beitz Blom Philips Bouma and Winter Susanto Schacht Nakamura NNI Van Bruggen et al. Evaluation of available methods
223 223 225 226 226 227 228 229 230 230 231 232
xiii 13.12 Recommendations for future research 14 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4
Services related to company standardization 237 Introduction 237 Tasks in company standardization 237 Possible support of company standardization tasks by NSOs 240 Conclusions on including company standardization services in an NSO’s portfolio 245
PART C 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5
235
RESULTS
Summary, conclusions, and recommendations Introduction Summary Evaluation of the study Contributions to the body of knowledge of standardization Recommendations for NSOs
249 249 249 254 256 257
15.5.1 Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, 15.5.2 Practical recommendations, 15.5.3 Analysis of recommendations, 15.5.4 Priorities
15.6 15.7
Lessons for actors needing standardization Recommendations for future research
264 264
16
Samenvatting [Summary in Dutch]
265
Annexes 1 2 3 4 5 6
NSO data Blom’s method for standards development NNI’s method for strategic standardization studies References Acknowledgements Curriculum vitae
271 275 277 281 319 321
xiv
xv
Abbreviations and acronyms The following abbreviations and acronyms are used in this study. Ciphers between brackets refer to sections in this book where further elucidation is given. Text in bold is explained elsewhere in this list or in the list of terms and definitions. Tag AFNOR ANSI BS BSI CEN CENELEC
DIN
Meaning Association Française de Normalisation American National Standards Institute British Standard British Standards Institution Comité Européen de Normalisation Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique
EDI EFTA
Deutsches Institut für Normung Deutsche Industrie Norm Electronic data interchange European Free Trade Association
EN
Europäische Norm
ETSI
European Telecommunication Standards Institute European Union Formal standardization organization
EU FSO
GSO ICT IEC
ISO
ITU MS NEN Tag NF
Governmental standardization organization Information and communication technology International Electrotechnical Commission International electrotechnical standard International Organization for Standardization International standard International Telecommunication Union Management system(s) Nederlandse Norm Meaning Norme Française
Elucidation French NSO. American NSO.
NSO in the UK. European Committee for Standardization (2.2.3). European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (2.2.3). German NSO. German standard. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland. European Standard (CEN or CENELEC) (2.2.3). (2.2.3).
ISO, IEC, their national members, regional SDOs related to these national members, ETSI and ITU (2.2.3). Governmental SDO, governmental FSOs excluded (2.2.3, 9.3.6). (5.8). (2.2.3).
(2.2.3). Non-electrotechnical standard. (2.2.3).
Dutch standard. Elucidation French standard.
xvi NNI NSO
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut National Standardization Organization
OHS PAS
Occupational health and safety Publicly Available Specification
SC
Subcommittee
SDO
TC
Standards developing organization Small and medium-sized enterprises Sectoral or specialized standardization organization Technical Committee
WA
Workshop Agreement
WG
Working Group
SMEs SSO
Dutch NSO. SDO recognized at the national level that is eligible to be the national member of the ISO and/or the IEC and the regional FSO(s), if any (2.2.3). De facto standard that has become formal standard by FSO approval (3.2.3). Standardization committee responsible for carrying out standardization activities in a specified sub-area (3.2.2). (2.2.1; 2.2.3). Enterprises with less than 100 employees. (2.2.3). Standardization committee responsible for carrying out standardization activities in a certain area. Specific tasks may be allocated to SCs or WGs (3.2.2). Consensus-based specification agreed in an open workshop, issued by an FSO (3.2.3). Temporary standardization committee responsible for drafting one or more specific standards (3.2.2).
xvii
Terms and definitions The following terms are used in this study. After each definition a source is indicated: a (sub)section, or a standard: ISO 8402 (ISO, 1994b), ISO/IEC 2382-17 (ISO/IEC 1996a) or ISO/IEC Guide 2 (ISO/IEC 1996b). Terms in bold are also defined in this list or in the list of abbreviations and acronyms; for the terms ‘standard’ and ‘standardization,’ no bold is used.
Term Accreditation
Backwards compatibility Bandwagoning Basic standard Certification
Compatibility standard Consensus
Consortium Conversion De facto standardization Dominant agent Dominant design Entity
Factual standard First agent Term
Definition Procedure by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks (3.7.3 / ISO/IEC Guide 2). Absence of conversion costs when the old standard’s implementations have to meet criteria of the new standard (12.3). Tendency to choose the same solutions that others have already chosen (12.4). Standard that provides structured descriptions of (aspects of) interrelated entities (9.2.3). Procedure by which a third party gives written assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements (3.7.2 / ISO/IEC Guide 2). Standards concerning fitting of interrelated entities to one other, in order to enable them to function together (9.2.3). General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Note: consensus need not imply unanimity (ISO/IEC Guide 2). Form of co-operation between some competitors to agree on standards (2.2.3). Transition from the existing situation to a stituation in which a new standard is implemented (12.2). Standardization carried out by non-governmental parties other than FSOs (9.3.6). Actors whose standard is expected to be a dominant design (12.5). Design that has achieved and maintained the highest level of market acceptance for a significant amount of time (12.4). Any concrete or abstract thing that exists, did exist, or might exist, including associations among these things. Examples: A person, object, event, idea, process, etc. (8.4.2; 8.5; 9.2.2; ISO/IEC 2382-17). Standard determined by circumstances (9.3.6). First actor to set a standard for a certain topic (12.5). Definition
xviii Formal standardization Forwards compatibility
Standardization carried out in FSO committees (9.3.6).
Term Non-public standard
Definition Standard accessible only to parties involved in drafting it (9.3.6).
Situation in which a standard has been constructed in such a way that its future successors are expected to be backwards compatible to it (12.3). Free rider User of a standard who did not contribute to its development and market introduction, and the costs related to that (12.5). Gateway technology Technology that generates ex post compatibility between implementations of incompatible standards (12.6). Historical standard Choice of one person or a few people that finds broader application and gradually becomes broadly based (9.3.6). Horizontal standard Standard that sets requirements for a collection of different entities or provides methods to be used to check whether requirements set for collections of different entities have been met (9.2.3). Infrastructure Entities having a low speed of development (8.3.3, 12.8). Installed base Collection of users of a certain standard (12.2). Interference standard Standard that sets requirements concerning the influence of an entity on other entities (9.2.3). International standard ISO or IEC standard (Simplification of definition in ISO/IEC Guide 2). Layer Interrelated entities having the same technology speed (12.8). Licensed standard Standard in which a design is included for which a patent or copyright protection applies (9.3.8). Lock in Tendency to stick to a certain standard once it is implemented, due to cost of conversion (12.2). Matching problem Problem of interrelated entities that do not harmonize with one other. Solving it means determining one or more features of these entities in a way that they harmonize with one other, or of determing one or more features of an entity because of its relation(s) with one or more other entities (8). Measurement Standard that provides a method to check whether criteria set standard in requiring standards have been met (9.2.3). National standard Standard that is adopted by an NSO and made available to the public (ISO/IEC Guide 2). Note: national standards include national implementations of international and regional standards (3.5). Network externalities Situation in which the functional profit that individual users have from their investments increases with the number of users (12.4). Openness Possibility for all interested parties to be represented in standardization (3.2.3). Orphaning Situation of users who had implemented a technology that failed to become standard, and consequently ceased to be supported and further improved (12.4).
xix Partly backwards compatibility Performance standard Public standard Quality Quality standard Regional standard
Requiring standard Sideways compatibility Solution-describing standard Stakeholder Standard
Standardization
Standardization committee Technical Officer Transparency Vertical standard
Situation in which old standard’s implementations have to be modified to meet the new criteria (12.3). Requiring standard that sets performance criteria (9.2.3). Standards accessible to third parties (9.3.6). The totality of characteristics of an entity that bear on its ability to satisfy stated and implied needs (9.2.3, ISO 8402). Standard that sets requirements for entity properties to assure a certain level of quality (9.2.3). Standard that is adopted by a regional FSO and made available to the public (Modification of definition in ISO/IEC Guide 2). Note: regional standards include regional implementations of international standards (3.2.3). Standard that sets requirements for entities or relations between entities (9.2.3). Compatibility between a standard and standards in adjacent areas (12.3). Requiring standard that describes solutions for matching problems (9.2.3). Interested party (2.2.5). Approved specification of a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, prepared for the benefit of the party or parties involved, balancing their needs, and intended and expected to be used repeatedly or continuously, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant (2.1.2). Activity of establishing and recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, directed at benefits for the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending and expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant (8). Committee responsible for standardization activities. Standardization committees include TCs, SCs, and WGs (3.2.2). FSO employee responsible for supporting a standardization committee (5.6). Opportunity for non-participants to influence standardization (3.2.3). Standard that sets several requirements for one kind of entity (9.2.3).
1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1
Reasons for the study
1.1.1 Importance of standardization Safety requirements for toys, the A4 series of paper sizes, specifications of credit cards, ISO 9000 requirements for quality management systems, the SI1 system of units, McDonald’s product and service specifications, and the specifications of the GSM telephone system have in common that they are used repeatedly by a large number of people and, therefore, are laid down in standards. The activity of making standards may be called standardization. Standardization concerns establishing and recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential problems directed at benefits for the party or parties involved and intending and expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used during a certain period by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant.2 Standardization is a lubricant for modern industrial society. In company practice the main aim of standardization lies in its contribution to business results and to the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization. Standardization reduces costs of products and services. Meeting or not meeting certain standards can be the difference between success or failure in the market. More general aims of standardization include:3 - reduction of the growing variety of products and procedures in human life; - enabling communication; - contributing to the functioning of the overall economy; - contributing to safety, health, and protection of life; - protection of consumer and community interests; - eliminating trade barriers.4 The importance of standardization is growing, because (De Vries, 1997): - Companies, in general, can no longer be regarded as isolated organizations, not only in trade transactions but also in their technical operations. Especially in the area of information and communication technology (ICT), they are connected to other companies. Also in other areas, technical specifications chosen by the company have to fit specifications of the company’s environment. ICT without standardization is impossible. The chemical composition of petrol should not differ per country. - The tendency to concentrate on core business and to contract out other activities makes it necessary to agree with suppliers on, for instance, product specifications, product data, communication protocols, and the quality of the production and delivery processes. Because the company usually has several suppliers each with
1
SI = Système International d’Unités [International System of Units]. A thorough discussion on the right definition of standardization is presented in Chapter 8. 3 This listing is a slight modification of the aims mentioned by Sanders (1972). 4 Conversely, standardization at the national or regional level can also create barriers to trade (Hesser, Hildebrandt & Kleinemeyer, 1995). 2
4
-
-
-
several customers, the most profitable way to solve these matching problems is by using widely accepted standards. The tendency to pay more attention to quality and environmental management has not only increased the need for management systems standards, such as the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 series, but has also increased the need for other standards, because management systems cause companies to perform activities in a structured way; standards for products, production means and information systems contribute to the structure needed. Globalization of trade increases the need for international standardization. Within the European Union and the European Free Trade Association, the choice for one single market without barriers to trade causes replacement of different national standards by European ones.5 Both at the European and the national level there is a tendency to link standardization to legislation, in a way that standards provide detailed requirements that correspond to global requirements laid down in laws. This causes an increase in the number of standards and an increase in obligations to use them.
Sometimes parties can set their own standards, to use themselves or for others. Generally, however, they are not in the position to force others to use their standards and they need others to agree to common standards. In such cases, they have the choice between getting together and creating a standard, or by using services offered by standards developing organizations (SDOs).6 The increasing need for standards has led to an increase in the number of parties offering standardization services and in the amount of work done by these organizations.
1.1.2 Problems related to the existing standardization practice The role of SDOs is under discussion. The European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI), for instance, was established because of dissatisfaction with the way the official European standardization bodies at that time, the CEN and CENELEC, operated.7 But history repeats itself, and dissatisfaction with ETSI has caused some parties to again search for other ways to agree on standards. Writing about standardization in the field of information technology, James Burrows, of the American National Institute of Standards and Technology, concludes: 5
This makes life easier for companies that export to several countries: they no longer have to produce different variants of their products to meet different standards in different countries. However, companies that mainly serve national markets, especially in smaller countries, are confronted with a substantial increase in the number of standards that are used. 6 Rosen, Schnaars and Shani (1988) distinguish four modes of achieving standardization: by government, by industry coalitions, by the free market, and by an industry leader. The third option allows customers to choose between different competing standards and, through their purchases, select the dominant one. Schmidt and Werle (1992, p. 306) focus less on parties and more on co-ordination mechanisms and distinguish between three principle modes of co-ordination: hierarchy, market, and committees. This study will focus on “committees.” 7 CEN = Comité Européen de Normalisation [European Committee for Standardization]; CENELEC = Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique [European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization].
5
While many standards have been and are being produced, the standards are not well integrated and are difficult to use in developing multi-vendor systems, in moving data and applications from existing systems to new technology, and in supporting specific applications such as enterprise-wide electronic publishing activities. (Burrows, 1993, pp. 50-51) The Austrian standards users organization AGN (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Normenpraxis) states: It is often difficult to study (and understand!) hundreds of pages and to find out afterwards what really has to be done (e.g. risk analysis according to the Machine Directive) (AGN, 1997, p. 1) Many German and European standards for laboratory testing insufficiently contribute to reliable test results (Hinrichs, 1997). After a failed attempt to get support for an international standard on Systems Software Interface (SSI), Takahashi and Tojo (1993, p. 535) conclude: The consensus process in the international standardization business is, as easily surmised, more or less like a political or economical power game although the topics discussed are mostly of a purely technical nature. Unfortunately, this was most true in the case of SSI. For the Information Technology area, Meek (1993, p. 40) concludes there are both too many and too few standards, so standardization has not been serving the IT community as well as it should. Crawford (1991, pp. 79-93) lists “problems and dangers of standards,” such as: - Standards that specify unusual or high level performance criteria raise barriers to new competitors, especially for those from less developed countries. - Standards often favour certain companies over others. - If standardization begins too soon, it can damage innovation. - Some standards are too detailed, making it difficult or even impossible to implement them. - Many standards mix levels: instead of just describing a solution to one issue, they present solutions to different issues. - Occasionally, standards lack clear definitions of their scope. - Several standards seem to address trivial problems, or address problems in ways that may not be useful. - Many standards are poorly written. - Some standards are ambiguous due to bad writing or because consensus has been achieved by making the standard less explicit. - Often standards are approved through consensus. This may be a political rather than technical consensus, resulting in weak standards.
6 - New standards often do not indicate the differences with previous versions. The user is expected to determine these differences himself. - The huge number of different standards makes it difficult to find the right ones. - The high price of standards hinders their large-scale distribution, so fewer people use them and the standards are less effective. Since product life cycles are getting shorter, there is an increasing need for standardization to be fast. This, however, conflicts with the wish to involve all interested parties in the process and to have consensus-based decision making. Many SDOs are accused of being too slow and not cost-effective. Others, for instance industrial consortia, are faster and therefore less expensive, but they lack public support and face other problems, such as the availability of the standards and their maintenance.
1.1.3 Gaps in the research To date, no specific academic research directed at the role of SDOs is available. This does not mean, however, that academic studies ignore them, but generally they concentrate on one technical topic (for instance: ‘standardization of gas chromatographic analysis of essential oils;’ Van den Dool, 1974), one specific item (for instance: ‘relations between construction and standardization;’ Hesser, 1981) or one aspect of standardization (often the economic aspect, for instance: Meyer, 1995).8 More general studies on standardization (for instance: Gaillard, 1933, Glie (Ed.), 1972, Kuppanna (Ed.), 1988, Sanders (Ed.),1972, Toth, 1990 and Verman, 1973) only partly describe the role of SDOs. Other publications just describe (aspects of) one standardization organization (for instance McIntyre, 1997, State Committee of the USSR Council of Ministers, 1976, Wölker, 1992) or three of them (De Vries, 1990). Standards and standardization have yet to reach the status of an academic discipline in their own right, while on the other hand they cannot be classified under one of the accepted academic disciplines, such as engineering or social sciences. (Hesser, 1997, p. 3) Kuhn (1972, cited by Van Aken, 1996) distinguishes some periods in the development of a scientific discipline. In the pre-paradigm period the phenomenon exists, but is not the subject of study. This applies to standardization from several ages before Christ up to 1900.9 In the first decades of the 20th century, industry use of standardization emerged and national standardization organizations were founded. This period can be called the paradigm period: the phenomenon was named (standardization) and the first practice-oriented publications appeared. In the subsequent network period, a limited number of practitioners focusses on the theoretical background of the phenomenon. They generally know each other and are 8 9
Kleinemeyer (1997, pp. 28-30) offers an overview of economic studies on standardization. A thorough description of standardization in this period is offered by Muschalla (1992).
7 employees of a limited number of organizations. In standardization, publication of the first doctoral theses on standardization (Brady, 1929; Gaillard, 1933) marked the start of this period. The next period, the cluster period, does not yet fully apply to standardization. Characteristic of this period is that groups of scientists contact each other and formulate an admittance policy. The foundation of EURAS10 in 1993 was a step in this direction, as was the start of the journal Computer, Standards & Interfaces in 1986. An attempt, in 1996, to establish a general scientific journal in the area of standardization failed.11 Since the Eighties, economists have paid a lot of attention to standardization, but their focus has mainly been limited to the consequences of product standards for market share. They do not cover the whole area or study all aspects.12 Other scientists are also studying standardization. These studies add to the body of knowledge of standardization, but are one-sided by definition.13 The discipline still has a way to go to reach the last period: the specialization period, in which there are ‘standards’ for the academic discipline as well as occupational and academic training. The chairs in standardization in, for example, Hamburg and Rotterdam, are forerunners of this period.
1.1.4 Conclusions From the above it can be concluded that: - the importance of standardization is growing and, because of this, the work done by standardization organizations is increasing (1.1.1); - there are certain problems in the functioning of these organizations (1.1.2); - there is a lack of systematic research on the functioning of standardization organizations (1.1.3). Because standardization research may help to solve the problems mentioned, it can be concluded that there is a need for systematic academic research in this area.14
1.2
10
Aim of the study
EURAS = European Academy for Standardization: an association of researchers in the area of standardization. 11 Kluwer Academic Publishers (Dordrecht, The Netherlands) made an inventory but found this niche market too small. Moreover, there were doubts about the ability to get enough publications at the academic level. 12 According to Hesser (1997b, p. 3) the legal, economic, regulatory, engineering, organizational, sociological, and philosophical aspects apply. 13 Hesser and Kleinemeyer (1998) even state that mono-disciplinary studies in standardization remain by definition incomplete and will always lead to conclusions that are either incorrect or require amendment. These tend to lead us into making inappropriate statements so that the effect will be a reduction in knowledge rather than an increase (Cited from the English version at http://www.unibwhamburg.de/MWEB/nif/fnm/he-klei_e.htm). The author of this study disagrees with this disparaging opinion of specialist studies, but shares the observation that, in practice, they often cause confusion rather than contribute to better understanding of standardization. 14 King, Keohane, and Verba (1994, p. 15) mention two criteria for selecting a research project: 1) it should pose a question that is “important” in the real world; 2) it should make a specific contribution to an identifiable scholarly literature by increasing our collective ability to construct verified scientific explanations of some aspects of the world. The first criterion is addressed by the first two conclusions, the second criterion by the third.
8 Academic research should preferably add to the “body of human knowledge,” to get a better understanding of how things are. Moreover, by providing this knowledge, it should offer a basis for improvements of the existing situation. This research concerns a process in which the main actors are parties needing standards and organizations offering standardization services. For reasons of accessibility of data and reduction of the amount of work, the latter will be restricted to official national standardization organizations (henceforth abbreviated as NSOs). The aims of this study can be formulated as: 1 revealing more about the nature of the standardization phenomenon in general; 2 revealing more about the role of national standardization organizations; 3 providing a basis for practical help to actors needing standardization; 4 providing a basis for practical help to national standardization organizations. In order to be able to draw conclusions about NSOs, it is necessary to discuss other standards developing organizations (SDOs).
1.3
Research questions
Figure 1.1 shows, in its most simple form, the processes to which standardization services are directed. To keep it simple, feedback-loops have been omitted. Actors needing a standard will often make use of services of a third party that facilitates standardization: an SDO, such as an NSO. The main question to be answered in this study is: What services should national standardization organizations offer to facilitate actors to standardize? This question should be answered taking into account existing practice and the actors and their needs and wishes. Therefore, the following research questions can be formulated: 1 What parties are concerned in standardization and what does standardization mean to them? 2 How does standardization proceed? 3 What role is played by NSOs in order to facilitate actors to standardize? 4 To what extent do NSOs meet user needs? 5 How could NSOs perform better (assuming that their current performance is not sufficient)?
9 15
Figure 1.1. Processes to which standardization services are directed.
1.4
Research methodology
1.4.1 Introduction It can be expected that there will not be one answer to these questions. Market needs for standardization services will differ per country depending on, for instance: - the size and economic potential of the country; - the main branches of business; - the business culture; - the political culture; - the general development level of the country. Because of these differences it will not be possible to give general answers, though common elements may be expected. Per country, the arena of existing SDOs, with their offer of services and their mutual relations, is different. NSOs differ enormously in, for instance: - size: 1 - 800 employees; - legal structure: private organization or governmental bureau; - product and service portfolio: relative share of standards development, standards selling, information services, and other activities, if any. Therefore, it will not be possible to give univocal answers to research questions 4 and 5, but common elements will be sought. 1.4.2 Unit of analysis The services to be offered by an NSO are the research topic, in terms of Yin (1994, pp. 21-27), the unit of analysis. Because of the large number of relevant aspects and 15
A matching problem deals with interrelated entities that do not harmonize with each other. Solving it entails determining one or more features of these entities so that they harmonize with each other or determining one or more features of an entity because of its relation(s) with one or more other entities. This will be elucidated in Chapter 8.
10 the variety in different situations, knowledge about the unit of analysis will have to result from a mixture of knowledge about “embedded units of analysis:” smaller units of analysis. Investigating them offers a contribution to the research on the primary unit of analysis. Knowledge about these embedded units of analysis will be derived from case studies, theory, and observations.
1.4.3 The role of case studies In general, case studies are the preferred strategy when “how” or “why” questions are being posed, when the investigator has little control over events, and when the focus is on a contemporary phenomenon within some real-life context. (Yin, 1994, p. 1) Because of the last argument in particular, case studies are necessary in this research project and owing to the broad scope and many aspects of the research problem, it will not be possible to generalize case study results. Generalization to theoretical propositions, however, may apply. Empirical data will be derived both from case studies the author carried out and from those of others. The field of standardization has only partly been investigated. Therefore, case studies can have a revelatory character: the simple fact that only one case is described, adds to the “body of knowledge” in this field (Yin, 1994, p. 40). For instance, the case about management systems standards described in Chapter 10 reveals something about the potential and difficulties of preparing standards in a more systematic way so that they better meet user needs. Yin (1994, pp. 41-44) distinguishes holistic and embedded case studies. In a holistic study, the unit of analysis is examined as a whole. In an embedded study, several subunits are distinguished that can be investigated separately. In this project, there is one main case: the Dutch standardization institute (NNI). Embedded studies will be used, for two reasons: - the diversity in relevant aspects; - availability of useful data from previous projects that only partly cover the unit of analysis mentioned above. It will, of course, be essential to return to the unit level.
11
Figure 1.2. Embedded cases.
1.4.4 The role of theory Data mainly come from observations, new case studies, and existing case descriptions. Cases can serve to verify existing theory and/or to develop new theory. Only parts/aspects of the topic are covered by theory. New theory, necessary to answer the main research question, has to be based on a combination of theoretical and empirical research. Pieces of existing theory that can be used are found both in standardization literature and in literature in related disciplines, such as the field of service management. A problem with most literature in the field of business science is its one-sidedness. Furusten & Tamm Hallström (1996) investigated popular management books on the Swedish market, originating from the USA and from Sweden. They found many similarities in these books; the Swedish books simply adopt the American view. Furusten and Tamm Hallström demonstrate that these books could even be regarded as unofficial standards, because they all agree on the same assumptions, for example: - they suggest general models that are supposed to result in success; - the destiny of organisations is said to lie in the hands of management; - the formula for effective management is to set values, control the culture, act symbolically, and be open to demands from the customers. They explain this phenomenon by describing an “alliance” of authors, consultants firms, publishing houses, and those who buy the consultants’ services and books. They confirm the existing paradigms. It is difficult to reach a wider audience for “voices” which advocate other messages and who traffic in another rhetoric than what is generally taken-for-granted and “defended” by these “allies” (ibid., p. 16). In the author’s perception, business science shares this view,16 adding the general characteristics of all science (Schuurman, 1977, p. 28-29): - Science is based on assumptions such as the above, though these often are not mentioned.
16
The term business science was used intentionally. In practice, it is generally called management science and the faculties are called schools of management. This illustrates that business science shares the assumption that the destiny of organizations is in the hands of management.
12 - Science only concerns finding knowledge of one or some aspects of reality. The claim of the multidisciplinary character of business science overestimates its powers, since in practice, only a limited number of aspects is taken into account. - Even in generating knowledge on one aspect, science is limited: it presents only generalizations of the diversity of reality. In the case of NSOs, the applicability of business science faces an extra complication as NSOs are not companies, they are intermediary organizations with a more “idealistic” mission, related to the common national good (in the area of standardization). Nevertheless, this study has been written according to the main paradigms in business science: - because these are the paradigms underlying most of the available literature; - because practice has been partly constructed with these paradigms in mind (by which they have become self-fulfilling prophecies);17 18 - to use them as a tool for finding acceptable standardization improvements; - to be acceptable to the “scientific community.” The author has tried to avoid the one-sidedness of the Anglo-Saxon mainstream by adding some (English language) voices from other parts of the world and by using sources in Dutch, French, and German. They all, however, have been influenced to a certain extent by the Anglo-Saxon mainstream.
1.4.5 The role of observations For 15 years, the author had the unique opportunity to observe NSO standardization services by participation. The strengths of participant observation are as follows (Yin 1994, p. 80, 88-89): - They originate from access to events that are otherwise inaccessible to scientific investigation. - Together they cover almost all possible standardization services, both from the perspective of a party offering these services (NNI) and from the company’s point of view (experiences in company standardization, supplemented with company contacts in the other job, at the Rotterdam School of Management). - They are “real-life” and provide insight into interpersonal behaviour and motives. The weaknesses are: - Events may proceed differently because the observer is not only participant, but also has an “academic interest.” - The danger of bias due to the investigator’s manipulation of events. In this case, there is a difference to the participant observation described by Yin: the author did not participate for reasons of research, but made use of observations 17
An example of this is the shift in perceived importance of shareholder value in European companies. In Europe, strategic continuity of the firm was often a main issue, and strategic decisions often based on this. The American emphasis on shareholder value, found in most management books, has caused a shift from company continuity to short-term financial results. 18 In other publications, the author chose different assumptions (Van Roon & De Vries, 1997; De Vries, 1999a).
13 afterwards. Therefore, the weaknesses mentioned do not apply. However three weaknesses may be added: - the danger of selective perception; - the danger of selective remembrance; - lack of reconstructability or other “evidence” that statements are true. These weaknesses have been tackled by letting the relevant sections be checked by others who can assess the truth of the statements, which turns subjectivity into intersubjectivity.19 Without observation, it would have been impossible to answer the research questions: case studies and existing literature do not offer enough data and it would have been too time consuming to do additional research to gather more data.
1.4.6 Combining cases, literature, and observations This study aims to expand our knowledge of standardization and provide a basis for practical advice for parties who need standards and those who offer standardization services. Because of this, the study can be characterized as Verstehende Research (sense-making research) (Köbben, 1977, pp. 304). It is mainly inductive research. Existing knowledge, laid down in literature, is regrouped and mixed with observations to create a more systematic description of the standardization phenomenon, from which it is possible to discuss standardization services in a systematic way. The literature can be divided in general business science literature, specific scientific literature on standardization, non-scientific literature describing standardization practice, and documents from standardization practice, such as standards and minutes of meetings. This study is more inductive than deductive and combines a descriptive and a design approach (see also De Jong, 1996 and Meijdam & Boelen, 1996). The approach chosen deviates from the more deductive form management studies often have, by stipulating a hypothesis that is subsequently tested in the research project. After all, the test should make use of the same data used to formulate the hypothesis, and with some new data added. The other way round, a hypothesis might be formulated based on the author’s experiences that could subsequently be tested using existing theories. As standardization theories are not readily available, theories from other scientific disciplines should be used. These may provide additional insights into standardization, but there is a danger that the theories themselves dominate the 19
Relevant parts of the manuscript were reviewed by both NNI customers and NNI colleagues. Customers include Prof. C.A.J. Simons and Prof. E.L.J. Bancken. Prof. Simons was Head Development Services & Tools of Philips Product Division Consumer Electronics, Eindhoven (19811988), Director Corporate Standardization of Philips International B.V. (1988-1996), and Standardization Expert and Advisor to the EU Commission and Philips International B.V. (19961997). He checked the entire manuscript. Prof. Bancken of Akzo Nobel B.V., Sassenheim, the Netherlands, is Chairman of NNI’s Sector Board Chemistry and of Technical Committee 35 Paints and varnishes of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). He checked Chapters 1-5. NNI colleagues include Mr. W.J.A. Honig, Mr. R.T. Huigen, and Mr. W. Walters, (Senior) Standardization Consultants (Chapters 2-7), Mr. J.M. Blijham, NNI’s Manager Publishing (sections on standards selling and information services), and Mr. P. Wolters, NNI’s Manager Automation Services (sections on applications of Information and Communication Technology). Other NNI customers and colleagues checked some other (sub)sections.
14 selection and description of observations, so that the aims of the study are not met.20 Moreover, the choice of these theories will at least partly be based on the available observations and the hypothesis would be influenced by theories the author knew already at that moment. In this study, therefore, no hypothesis is formulated but, instead, a mixture of theoretical chapters and case studies is offered that together cover many aspects of the research topic. In the next section, these aspects are described and the choice of them is substantiated.
1.5
Structure of the study
This study is divided into three parts: A Part A is the heart of the book. After a general introduction to standards and standardization (Chapter 2), it describes present NSO services (3) and actor needs concerning these services (4). NSO services are then analysed, to get a better understanding of them (5, 7). Based on this, Part A concludes with services to be offered by NSOs to meet the needs of their customers, and to possibilities for improving these services (6, 7). B Part B supports part A by providing underpinning in the form of additional theory and cases. The chapters in Part B can be read as independent studies. C Part C offers some conclusions and recommendations. Before the research questions (see Section 1.3) are answered, the concepts of standardization and standards are analysed (Chapters 8 and 9, summarized in Section 2.1). A preliminary answer to the first two questions is given in the other sections of Chapter 2, making use of theory on the success or failure of the spread of standards (Chapter 12). The role of NSOs (research question 3) is described in Chapter 3. The extent to which NSOs meet user needs (question 4) is addressed in Chapter 4. The last question, namely, how NSOs could improve their performance, is addressed in Chapters 6 and 7. This is based on an analysis presented in Chapters 5 and 7, the case studies presented in Chapters 10 and 11, plus additional theory on standardization methods (Chapter 13) and company standardization (Chapter 14). In Figure 1.3 it is indicated which chapters or sections in part A are supported by which chapters in Part B. Support relations within Part B are also given.
20
An example of this approach is Shaping Standardization, a doctoral thesis by Egyedi (1996). She studies standardization from the point of view of social constructivism. It appears that standardization practice can be described in terms of this theory. This provides some additional insights in social aspects of standardization. However, because other aspects are not treated, the study lacks essential elements for making practical recommendations.
15
Figure 1.3. Research overview
The contents per chapter are described below, along with the methodology used. Part A: Analysis of National Standardization Organizations Chapter 2 provides a short introduction to standards and standardization. Sections 2.1 and 2.3 are a summary of the first three chapters of Part B. Section 2.2 maps the stakeholder arena. The data come from the literature and observations.
Chapter 3 lists present NSO services. Data in this chapter are derived from the literature. Additionally, some illustrations and nuancing are presented in frames, based on NNI experience.
Sections 4.2 and 4.3 derive needs for standardization services from standardization theory. Section 4.4 adds requirements to NSO services expressed by actors. Section 4.2 builds on standards classifications (Chapter 9), Section 4.3 on mechanisms in the spread of standards (Chapter 12). Data in Section 4.4 come from the standardization literature. The findings in these sections have been combined to yield the conclusions in Section 4.5.
Chapter 5 analyses the way NSOs support standards development. As supporting standards development is a form of service, Chapter 5 is structured along the lines of the general model for services standardization (and innovation) developed in Chapter 11. Data from the literature are completed by NNI experience. General business management literature is used for the analysis.
Chapter 6 discusses how the services that NSOs offer to support standards development might be improved. This chapter follows the structure and contents of Chapter 5, adding issues from previous chapters. The data come from the standardization literature and documents from standardization practice, supplemented by NNI experience. Insights from literature in related areas, such as automation and general service management literature, are used to arrive at proposals for improvements.
16
In addition to services to support standards development, NSOs sell standards (7.3), provide information on standards and standardization (7.4), and often also provide other services (7.4 - 7.9). In order to avoid too many cross-references, this chapter offers both an analysis and suggestions for improvements. The different services are not scrutinized; emphasis is put on whether or not to include these services in the NSO portfolio. Therefore, a general theory on diversification strategies is presented (7.2). Section 7.2 uses general business science literature. The other sections use data from the standardization literature and documents from NSO practice, and build on Chapters 3 (7.3 - 7.8) and 15 (7.9).
Part B: Supporting standardization theory and cases Many definitions of ‘standardization’ are available; none of them appears to be convenient. Therefore, in Chapter 8 a new definition is developed. The new definition is based on observations about the way the term ‘standardization’ is used in practice, and on a collection of definitions in the literature. A previous version has been presented to a group of researchers in the field of standardization (De Vries, 1996b). In a small test they were invited to indicate, using red en green cards, whether they considered certain phenomena standardization. Among these experts there appeared to be confusion about the term. Chapter 8 is the (almost) verbatim text of a contribution in Terminology - International journal of theoretical and applied issues in specialized communication (De Vries, 1997f).
Because the matching problems to be solved differ and actors differ, standardization projects differ as do the supporting services needed. Therefore, a classification of possible standards is necessary. Current classifications are often inconsistent and confusing. Chapter 9 presents classifications related to the entities targeted by standardization, and to the different actors, their mutual relations, and their interests. Chapter 9 is based on the definition of standardization formulated in Chapter 8 and on standardization literature. The chapter was published in Knowledge Organization - International Journal Devoted to Concept Theory, Classification, Indexing, and Knowledge Representation (De Vries, 1998e).
Chapter 10 describes a case that demonstrates that the quality of standards can be improved considerably if they are developed in a more systematic way. The case is based on a research project directed at improvements of standards in the area of management systems (Van Hezik & Zwetsloot, 1994). The author supervised this project and provided the research method. The chapter not only describes the project and its results, but also gives an evaluation of these results and their applicability based on a description of developments since finishing of the research project. This chapter has been published in the EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, Vol. 2 (De Vries, 1999b).
Whereas standardization is generally used in technical sectors, Chapter 11 describes a case about standardization needs in service sectors. This chapter is based on an NNI research project (De Vries & Schipper, 1997). The author developed the conceptual models. Desk research, interviews, and analysis of results were carried out with Mr. Schipper. A previous version of this chapter was presented at the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, Hamburg (De Vries, 1997e). Insights from the service management literature were added to that version. A shortened version of Chapter 11 was published in DINMitteilungen (De Vries, 1998d).
Existing standardization literature describes several mechanisms in the spread of standards. Chapter 12 describes them and their application to SDOs. This Chapter is based on the standardization literature, experiences, and findings.
17 Chapter 13 describes methods to develop a standard, and evaluates them. Further research on these methods is necessary; Section 13.4 provides recommendations for future research. The first seven methods are derived from the literature. The description of the eighth is based both on the literature and on practical experience (Van der Feen & De Vries, 1992). The author was involved in developing and describing the ninth method (Van Bruggen et al., 1997).
Chapter 14 offers a discussion about services that NSOs might offer related to company standardization. This chapter starts with a description of company tasks related to standardization. It is based on research the author was involved in (Biesheuvel, Verkuyl & De Vries, 1993), supplemented with information from the literature. Supporting services follow logically from descriptions of company tasks and are checked and supplemented by data from the literature and from observations.
Part C: Results Chapter 15 offers a summary and some conclusions and recommendations. These include an evaluation of this research, its contribution to the body of knowledge of standardization, recommendations for NSOs, lessons learnt for actors that need standardization, and recommendations for future research. The chapters have been updated to December 1998, unless stated otherwise. To refer to people ‘he’ sometimes is used where ‘she’ may also apply.
2
INTRODUCTION TO STANDARDS AND STANDARDIZATION
2.1
The concept of standards and standardization
2.1.1 Standardization National standardization organizations all subscribe to the official definition of standardization, laid down in ISO/IEC Guide 2 (ISO/IEC, 1991): standardization is the activity of establishing, with regard to actual or potential problems, provisions for common and repeated use, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. Notes: 1 In particular, this activity consists of the processes of formulating, issuing and implementing standards. 2 Important benefits of standardization are improvement of the suitability of products, processes and services for their intended purposes, prevention of barriers to trade and facilitation of technological co-operation. It is not clear whether this definition only concerns standardization by formal standardization organizations (FSOs), or also covers the establishment of provisions for common and repeated use by other parties. Moreover, the definition also applies to phenomena that are usually not recognized as standardization, such as design for assembly, the process of making standard software, or legislation. Therefore, in Chapter 8 a new definition is derived by comparing existing definitions with the way the term is used in practice. That definition should be of help in gaining a better understanding of the process, in serving as a basis for a theory of standardization, and in distinguishing under which circumstances and in which areas standardization might be an appropriate instrument. Chapter 8 concludes to the following definition: standardization is the activity of establishing and recording a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, directed at benefits for the party or parties involved, balancing their needs and intending and expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant. Notes: 1 matching problem Problem of interrelated entities that do not harmonize with one other. Solving it means determining one or more features of these entities in a way that they harmonize with one other, or of determining one or more features of an entity because of its relation(s) with one or more other entities.
20 2 entity Any concrete or abstract thing that exists, did exist, or might exist, including associations among these things. Example: A person, object, event, idea, process, etc. The main differences with the ISO/IEC definition are: - the economic qualification of standardization: creating benefits, and balancing the needs of the parties involved; - the characterization of the kind of problems for which solutions are chosen: matching problems; - the characterization of the solutions: a limited set of features of entities. The definition is the starting point for this study. When discussing standardization and NSO services, attention could be paid to: - the way of balancing needs, taking into account the costs and benefits of standardization;1 - the processes of both establishing and recording solutions; - the character of matching problems; - the entities concerned; - the time aspect: a once-only solution, to be used during a certain period, after which a new standard may be implemented; - the parties involved in standardization; - the parties to use the results of standardization; - the arguments for the expectation that these results will actually be used.
2.1.2 Standards ISO/IEC Guide 2 defines standard as: document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. Note: Standards should be based on the consolidated results of science, technology and experience, and aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits. This definition restricts the term standard too much to standards from FSOs (see Chapter 8). Moreover, a standard need not necessarily have the form of a (paper or electronic) document. Using the above definition of standardization, a standard can be defined as:
1
This element gets very little attention in this study. It was the topic of another research project at the Rotterdam Chair of Standardization which, unfortunately, ended prematurely. A first contribution on this topic is offered by Simons (1997).
21 approved specification of a limited set of solutions to actual or potential matching problems, prepared for the benefits of the party or parties involved, balancing their needs, and intended and expected to be used repeatedly or continuously, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant. Chapter 9 discusses several possible classifications of standards. Some of the classifications listed in Section 9.4 will be used in subsequent chapters.
2.2
The standardization arena
2.2.1 Routes to standards Figure 2.1 shows how a company gets a standard it needs. It is a simplified scheme; for instance, cost/benefit analyses, go/no go decisions and feed-back-loops have been left out, as well as governmental standardization organizations (GSOs). Clarification is given below; the digits refer to the text. 1 After having specified the standard needed, the first question is whether such a standard already exists, outside or even within the company. It might seem easy to answer this question, but in practice it is not. The policy of most companies is to develop their own standards only when there is no external standard or when external standards exist but fail to meet company needs. Using external standards has the following advantages: - It prevents reinventing the wheel and the related costs. - It is useful in co-operating with other companies, for example when contracting out activities: suppliers may be familiar with them already. - The company does not have to worry about standards management and maintenance: the SDO takes care of the management and, in general, looks after maintenance from time to time. 2 If no satisfactory standard exists and a new one has to be developed, it must be decided whether co-operation with other parties is needed. When the standard affects other parties with other interests, the company has to take these interests into account. The only exception might be the situation in which it has the power to force others to use the self-specified standard. A well-known example of this was IBM during the sixties: manufacturers of peripheral equipment had the choice between conforming to the specifications set by "Big Blue" or selling nothing. When the standard does not affect other parties, but the company’s matching problems are similar to those of other parties, co-operation in developing the standard might be in order. Subsection 2.2.2 gives arguments for the choice between doing it alone and co-operation.
22
Figure 2.1. How a party gets a standard it needs.
23 3 Per company, the number of company standards generally exceeds the number of external standards.2 They, however, are often not called standards, but, for instance, procedures, instructions, or technical descriptions. Chapter 14 focusses on company standardization. 4 When companies have to co-operate to develop a standard, the first question is, with whom? Annex 2 describes one method for determining other stakeholders, namely by studying the supply chain of the entities to which the standards are related. The “stakes” will have to be determined or estimated per stakeholder. When the relevant parties and their respective interests are known, or at least partly known, an investigation of the relations between the different parties can be made to determine one’s position relating to the other actors concerning the standardization question. In other words, the “standardization arena” has to be “mapped,” including identifying SDOs, if any, and their services. Based on the foregoing, one can try to estimate: - effort necessary to help create the standard; - chances that the standard will in fact be created; - the expected degree to which it will meet the company needs (the standard will often be a compromise, reflecting different interests), and benefits related to this; - expected losses if the matching problem is not solved. 5 After deciding to develop a standard, the next issue is, who will be involved: all interested parties, or only some of them. 6 In both cases there is the option to use the platform offered by an SDO, or to arrange things just with selected parties. The last option may be called ad hoc de facto standardization: standardization without SDO support.3 7 If all interested parties are welcome, it is possible to choose between FSOs and other SDOs. FSOs include NSOs. Participation in FSOs at the international or European level is generally only possible through NSOs. Other SDOs include branch organizations, sectoral SDOs, professional associations, and industrial consortia. They, however, often do not allow all categories of interested parties to participate. Therefore, an actor’s choice of whom to invite, may strongly influence the choice of an SDO. This choice will also depend on, among other things: - the portfolio of standardization services offered; - the characteristics of these services; - the price/performance rate of these services; - the SDO’s reputation; - the expected quality of the standards. In practice, choices are much more complicated than suggested here, as many organizations exist that often partly overlap in activities, and all kinds of political considerations may influence these choices. In order to have a strong influence, it
2
Nevertheless, standardization literature does not devote much attention to company standardization. Recent exceptions are Adolphi (1997) and Nakamura (1993). 3 Berg (1988), Brown (1993), Compton (1993), and Foray (1994) discuss this choice.
24 is often necessary to join several committees that discuss the same topic. Subsection 2.2.4 provides an example of this. 8 Regardless of which platform has been chosen, standardization always includes:4 - designing solutions for the matching problem; - decision making on these solutions; - recording solutions; - making standards known to interested parties or a selection thereof; - distributing standards.
2.2.2 Choice between company standardization and co-operation No literature on the choice between making a company standard and co-operating with others to draft a standard is available. Table 2.1 presents a list of criteria, based on practical experience: Aspect Cost of research to support standardization Cost of standards development Decision making Organization of the activities Solving the matching problem
Do-it-yourself Pay for everything yourself.
Co-operate Cost sharing.
Pay for everything yourself. Easy. Easy.
Cost sharing. Reaching consensus takes time. The more parties, the more time (money) needed. The problem is solved, but due to compromises the common solution does not fit perfectly, causing adaptation costs and/or additional conversion costs. When an introduction campaign is necessary: share costs of campaign development and realization.
The problem is solved, but maybe, with help of others, better solutions would have been found. Standards When an introduction implementation campaign is necessary: develop and pay for it yourself. Internal acceptance Acceptance through “Not invented here” may influence rate of of the standard involvement. acceptance positively as well as negatively. External acceptance Less willingness to accept (More) acceptance through involvement. of the standard the standard, though others may feel forced to use it (see Chapter 12). Table 2.1.Criteria for the choice between developing a company standard and co-operating with others to develop a standard.
Cost is, to a large extent, related to the time needed for standards development. Experience in developing procedural company standards, being part of an ISO 9000 quality system, shows that the median time needed to develop a standard is between 40 and 80 hours (Van Bruggen et al., 1996, p. 45-46). The time necessary for technical company standards may be less as they are often written by a specialist and fewer people need to agree on them. On the other hand, developing a technical company standard may take more time than developing a procedure, due to gathering technical data, making technical drawings, and/or testing proposed solutions. 4
This can be concluded from the definition of standardization.
25 Because of the time needed to reach consensus, co-operation with other firms doesn't pay. If a packet of standards is needed, the situation may be different. In large companies more time may be needed, due to the larger number of people involved. Shell International has estimated an average total of 320 hours per company standard. For Shell, participation in external standardization takes fewer hours: typically 240 hours for company people (120 hours per year for two years) (Saile & Reeve, 1997, p. 12). Therefore, and because of the advantages of external standards mentioned in Section 2.2.1, Shell generally favours international standardization to company standardization, despite the added cost of travelling.
2.2.3
Forms of co-operation
Simons distinguishes four organizational forms related to standardization (Simons & De Vries, p. iii), see Table 2.2. Practice is generally a mixture of them. Form of organization Autocracy
Bureaucracy
Characteristics
Examples (by HdV)
The boss decides.
The Chinese emperor Qin Shihuang (± 250 BC) standardized lengths of chariot axles.5 EN 10238 Automatically blast cleaned and automatically primed structural steel products.6 NEN 3516 Ontwerpen van formulieren7
The process of developing and approving standards is, to a large extent, determined by a jungle of formal rules and procedures. Diplomacy Personal processes to a large extent determine the standard’s content and approval. Replacement of a person would lead to another content. Democracy All interested parties are welcome to be involved in drafting and approval of standards. Formal procedures guarantee their well-balanced involvement. Standards’ contents do not depend on specific persons. Table 2.2. Organizational forms related to standardization.
NEN 2059 Handelsformulieren.8
Standards developing organizations (SDOs) include formal standardization organizations (FSOs), sectoral or specialized standardization organizations (SSOs), governmental standardization organizations (GSOs), and consortia:
5
Source: Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut & Nederlands Elektrotechnisch Comité (1987). See elucidation in Section 5.7. 7 The contents of the Dutch standard NEN 3516 Ontwerpen van formulieren [Designing forms] (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1988b) has, to a large extent, been determined by one person. He was a recognized expert, author of several books (among others, Steenwijk, 1992 & 1994), and used to give courses based on NEN 3516 and adjacent standards. These standards are largely influenced by his insights, because of his participation in the committees that drafted and accepted the standards, and because of participation of former scholars in the same committees (source: personal observations as the secretary of these committees and participant in one of the courses). 8 Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1988a. See elucidation in Subsection 6.5.1. 6
26 Formal standardization organizations (FSOs) Table 2.3 lists FSOs at the international, regional, and national level: Level International
FSO International Telecommunication Union (ITU, telecommunication); International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC, electrical and electronic engineering) International Organization for Standardization (ISO, other subjects). Europe European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI, telecommunications); Comité Européen de Normalisation Electrotechnique (CENELEC, electrotechnology); Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN, other subjects) Other regions ASEAN Consultative Committee for Standards and Quality (ACCSQ); (Source: ISO, Arab Industrial Development and Mining Organization (AIDMO); 1998c) African Regional Organization for Standardization (ARSO); Comisión Panamerican de Normas Técnicas (COPANT); Euro-Asian Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification (EASC); Pacific Area Standards Congress (PASC). National NSOs (“official” due to governmental decision and/or due to membership of IEC and/or ISO).9 Table 2.3. Formal Standardization Organizations.
Co-operation within FSOs can be characterized as a mixture of bureaucracy, diplomacy, and democracy. As demonstrated in the above examples, depending on the circumstances, one of these characteristics can be more or less prominent, even within the same FSO. Sectoral or specialized standardization organizations (SSOs) Many branch organizations at the national, regional, or international level develop standards for their sector. This can be their main task or just one of their tasks. The same applies to professional or specialist organizations at these three levels. It can be difficult to distinguish these from branch organizations, since a sector can grow based on a specialism, for example, quality management (consulting and certification firms). Therefore, in this thesis no distinction is made between sectoral and specialized SDOs. Occasionally, standards developed by national or regional SSOs are used internationally. This especially applies to some of the American SSOs, such as the American Petroleum Institute (API) and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). SSOs all have committees where experts meet and agree on standards. They differ in, for instance, openness (who is allowed to be involved), and rules for decision making. Some SSOs resemble FSOs. In general, SSOs produce voluntary standards. Some branch organizations oblige their members to use certain standards: companies that do not meet these are excluded from membership.10 In business practice, SSO standards can become mandatory because parties refer to them in contracts, or regulations enforce their use.
9
Listings of NSOs can be found in IEC (1999), ISO (1998f), and Toth (1997). This applies to the Association of Dutch Catering Organizations (see Section 11.4).
10
27 Governmental Standardization Organizations (GSOs) GSOs only differ from SSOs in that they are governmental agencies. Their standards may be voluntary. In practice, however, they will often be obligatory. In the USA, for example, the majority are mandatory since they are referenced in legislation or regulations, or are invoked in contracts as a condition of sale to government agencies (Toth (Ed.), 1991, p. 548).11 Consortia The term consortium can cause confusion, as it is used for at least three different concepts: 1 Organizations that do not develop standards themselves, but in one way or another perform standardization-related activities in relation to FSOs, SSOs, and/or GSOs. Weiss and Cargill (1992, p. 559) define consortia as organizations that are formed explicitly to complement or influence the standards development process. (...) They range from organizations whose primary role is to facilitate the adoption of existing standards through promotional activities and conformance testing to those that are actively developing new technologies that are intended to form the basis for either de facto or consensus standards. The examples they provide, however, include organizations that have developed standards, though they may not refer to them as standards.12 2 Specialized standardization organizations. Some SSOs call themselves consortia. For example, the Open GIS Consortium develops standards for Geographic Information Systems. Its membership is open to all interested corporations, universities, and governmental agencies (McKee, 1998). 3 Form of co-operation between some competitors to agree on standards.13 Often a consortium is formed to counteract the influence of other competitors.14 The last definition will be used in this study. The difference between consortia and SSOs, then, lies in access to the group: consortia co-opt new members; in SSOs, each party is welcome that meets their criteria. Because, in practice, the term consortia is also used for some SSOs, confusion is inevitable. Therefore, in this thesis the term will be avoided as much as possible. In the trio, bureaucracy, diplomacy, and democracy, consortia, in general, highlight diplomacy. The main reasons for the relative growth of consortia are: 11
Toth also provides an overview of GSOs in the USA. This applies to the MAP, TOP, SQL, and OSF consortia. MAP = Manufacturing Automation Protocol; TOP = Technical and Office Protocol; SQL = Standard Query Language; OSF = Open Software Foundation. 13 Source: Simons & De Vries, 1997, p. 22. 14 According to Compton (1993, p. 866), a consortium is a broad grouping of different companies pursuing a common objective - usually attempting to create a common approach or de facto standard in a particular technology field. Consortia are often formed in order to compete against a well-established competitor or group that threatens to dominate that technology with its own de facto standard. 12
28 - specialization in industry; for many subjects, only a few experts in the world are able to provide input; - the increase in R&D expenditures, due to which companies co-operate in R&D to share costs and, as part of the project, agree on standards. Thorough studies on forms of co-operation in standardization include Shaping Standardization (Egyedi, 1996), and Coordinating Technology (Schmidt & Werle, 1998). Both focus on telecommunication.
2.2.4
Networks of standards developing organizations15
Many standards are developed with the involvement of several SDOs. Such a network of SDOs may be simple, for instance, just NSOs and the ISO, or it can be quite complicated, as demonstrated below. Figure 2.2 shows the routes to influence standards development in the area of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) for both a big and a small Dutch company. The organizations behind the acronyms are listed in Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6.
Figure 2.2. Routes for Dutch companies to influence standards development in the area of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI).
15
Sources for this section: EDIFORUM (1998), Van den Broek (1998), additional information from websites of organizations mentioned, and personal communications of Mr. V.C. van den Broek (EDIFORUM) and Mr. J.A. Dijkstra (NNI).
29
Organizations involved in EDI standardization at the international level UN/CEFACT (United Nations Centre for Facilitation of Procedures and GSO that sets the major Practices For Administration, Commerce and Transport) standards for EDI. ISO/TC 154 (International Organization for Standardization, Technical Formalizes standards Committee 154 ‘Documents and data elements in administration, agreed upon in commerce and industry’) UN/CEFACT. Table 2.4. Organizations involved in EDI standardization at the international level Organizations involved in EDI standardization at the European level CEN/EBES (European Board for Part of CEN for co-ordination of EDI standardization. It EDI Standardization) channels European input into UN/CEFACT. CEN/ISSS (Information Society Part of CEN for ICT standardization. Its Electronic Commerce Standardization System) Workshop has several EDI projects that should result in CEN Workshop Agreements (low-status standards). EUROPRO (European European association of national trade facilitation Organization for Simplification of organizations International Trade Procedures) EEMA (European Electronic EEMA’s EDI Working Group formulates common Messaging Association) requirements for European EDI usage. EUREDIs (European sectoral Most of the approximately 20 European EDI users groups EDI groups) define sector-specific sets of standard EDI messages. Examples: CEFIC16 (chemical industry), EAN17 (retail, industry, transport and logistics), ODETTE18 (automotive), SWIFT19 (banking). Table 2.5. Organizations involved in EDI standardization at the European level Organizations involved in EDI standardization at the (Dutch) national level NEBES (Netherlands Prepares the national standpoint in EBES and UN/CEFACT. NEBES is Board for EDI/EC open to all interested parties. Standardization) SITPRONETH National trade facilitation body and NNI standardization committee. (Simplification of National access to ISO/TC 154 and EUROPRO. Prepares the national International Trade standpoint concerning trade facilitation negotiations in UN/CEFACT. Procedures Netherlands) NNI (Nederlands Apart from its standardization committee SITPRONETH, the NNI Bureau Normalisatiechannels the Dutch input in instituut) - CEN concerning policy issues related to CEN/EBES and CEN/ISSS - ISO/TC 154 as far as this is not covered by SITPRONETH. EDIFORUM Tries to co-ordinate all national involvement in EDI standardization. Participates in UN/CEFACT and EBES. Convener of NEBES. Head of delegations for SITPRONETH. Secretariats of NEBES and SITPRONETH. Head of delegation for the Dutch participation in EBES and UN/CEFACT, the latter on behalf of the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. National EDI users These groups include national members of European groups, such as EAN groups Nederland and ODETTE-Nederland. Some national EDI users groups define sector-specific standard EDI messages, often in co-operation with related international organizations, such as EAN and ODETTE. Table 2.6. Organizations involved in EDI standardization at the (Dutch) national level
16
CEFIC = Conseil Européen de l’Industrie Chimique [European Chemical Industry Council]. EAN = International Article Numbering Association. 18 ODETTE = Organization for Data Exchange by Teletransmission in Europe. 19 SWIFT = Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. 17
30 To keep it simple, the inner structure of the different organizations has not been presented - most of them have a hierarchy of committees, and supporting staff. Moreover, the possibilities for influencing standardization via non-SDOs have been omitted. These include lobbying via sectoral or general employers organizations at the national, regional, or international level, via professional organizations, via national governments, or other organizations, including the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and Electronic Commerce Europe (ECE). The above is a picture at a given moment, September 1997. The scene changes rather frequently. The EDI example illustrates: - the complexity of the SDO network from the point of view of individual companies; - the fact that many SDOs derive their added value to a large extent from their links to other SDOs; - the interaction of FSOs, GSOs, SSOs, and consortia at the national, regional, and international level. For small and medium-size companies this complexity and the costs related to standardization can be reasons for non-participation or for participation via branch or professional organizations.20
2.2.5
Stakeholders21
Not only companies and SDOs play a role in standardization. Other parties also have stakes and may get involved in standardization. This subsection lists these stakeholders and, moreover, distinguishes two typical roles companies can play in standardization: “producers” and “users.” A producer, in this respect, is a company whose products are affected by the standards concerned, a user is a company buying products affected by standards, or using (external) standards for its production processes. A producer with respect to one standard may be a user with regard to another standard. Producers “Producers” use standards in order to get market success for their products and services: - When the company declares that his products and services meet certain requirements laid down in standards this may give potential customers confidence, so that they may be more inclined to buy these products or services. - Customers may prefer written assurance that products or services meet certain requirements, in the form of a certificate. Criteria to be fulfilled for obtaining certification are laid down in standards. - Complying with standards may determine the difference between delivering and not delivering: do products fit with other products, do they meet compulsory safety 20
Meeus et al. (1996, pp. i, 15-18) had telephone interviews with 781 Dutch SMEs that all had a stake in technical standards (others were excluded). 57% in one way or another were involved in standards development (at that moment or no more than 5 years before), via branch organizations or other networks (39%), or by direct involvement (18%), the latter by participating themselves (10%) or by giving comments. 21 Most of the data in this subsection come from Simons & De Vries (1997).
31 requirements, do they meet criteria generally accepted in the market, do they meet procurement standards prescribed by the government? - The use of standards can be the most efficient way to meet legal requirements. In the European market, for instance, this applies to products for which the CE mark is obligatory (see Section 5.7). - The company is not an island. In order to play a role in a supply chain, it is necessary to agree on standards concerning, for instance, product properties, quality issues, environmental performance, transport characteristics, (electronic) communication, and payment. - The product’s specifications may compete with specifications of products offered by competitors: market competition may, to a large extent, be competition between standards. Chapter 12 describes mechanisms that may determine success or failure in this game. Users As stated above, users in this section are companies buying products affected by standards or using (external) standards for their production processes.22 The use of standards contributes to efficiency: - Reinventing the wheel is not necessary. Standards describe solutions agreed upon by experts. - Standard methods and standard parts enable more efficient production thanks to routine and less maintenance. Procurement costs decrease due to quantity rebate and supplier independence that may cause price competition between suppliers. Standardization of parts reduces stock, causing additional savings. - Standards can contribute to health, safety, process quality, and environmental protection, in order to meet company targets and/or to meet customer or legal requirements. Generally, per standard, the number of “users” is greater than the number of “producers.” Despite this, users are usually not the main group of participants in standardization: 1 A user participating in standardization will try to influence the process for his own benefit. This, however, is also profitable for other, “free-riding,” users. If users simply obeyed economic laws, they, in general, would not participate, but would wait for others to participate, everybody waiting for each other: the “prisoner’s dilemma” described by Foray (1994, pp. 274-281). In practice, however, having influence is only one of the reasons for participation. Getting information straight from the horse’s mouth, and establishing a contact network are other reasons to participate. These are the rational reasons. In practice, however, other aspects can also be of overriding importance, as described by Jakobs (1997, p. 7) in a case about 22
In a book about user needs in information technology standards, Evans, Meek, and Walker (1993, pp. 3-4) make a distinction between: end users/terminal operators using the computer as a tool in their job, system administrators who maintain the integrity of the IT environment, users who establish and maintain the IT environment, and developers who develop a solution to a problem, for instance, by making software or by integrating systems. A final category is formed by non-human users: information processing systems. All use standards, but will, in general, have different requirements. All these categories are included in the above user concept.
32 user participation in electronic mail standardization: Where representatives of corporate users did participate in standardization, this appears to be largely based on “personal initiative plus a supportive director.” 2 A practical handicap is that users are often insufficiently qualified to take part in standardization (Foray, 1994, p. 270). On the other hand, they sometimes have specific knowledge that makes their involvement indispensable (Foray, 1994, p. 272). Do users have real influence? The standardization of Dutch crates for food products was dominated by users (Koehorst, De Vries & Wubben, 1998). MAP23 standardization was initiated by a big user (General Motors) who involved other users, though a shift from user-orientation to vendor domination could be witnessed in the course of the process (Dankbaar & Van Tulder, 1991, p. 29). In both the crates and the MAP case, the initiator involved other users. In general, user organizations can be better vehicles for user participation in standardization than individual companies (Jakobs, 1997, p. 14). Under certain conditions, users will “automatically” form a coalition, under other conditions, the coalition building process needs active co-ordination (Foray, 1994, p. 291). Often, user influence is less or even non-existent. In electronic mail standardization, users were involved, but they did not ask for any functionality beyond what was already provided (Jakobs, 1997, p. 8). Jakobs does not give an explanation for this. Three possibilities are: - the users are satisfied with the vendors’ proposals;24 - the users lack the knowledge to add requirements; - users often use only a small part of the functionalities offered, so they are only interested in the specifications of that part, and not in the other ones. Consumers A ‘consumer’ is a person who purchases goods and services for his own private use or that of his family or group closely related with him (Verman, 1973, p. 284). Most consumers are totally unaware of the existence of standards.25 Consumer organizations, however, are aware of them and participate actively in standardization in order to fight for consumer interests.26 As Verman (1973, p. 289) states, standards required for the 23
MAP = Manufacturing Automation Protocol - a set of standards defining rules for electronic communication in a manufacturing environment. 24 Users interviewed by Jakobs (1997, p. 8) mentioned that the majority of functional shortcomings, flaws, and problems stemmed from poor implementations of standards rather than from inadequate standards. 25 In a British investigation, of which a summary is given by Healy & Pope (1996, Appendix B) most individual consumers say they know about standardization. It can be questioned, however, whether the study provided too much information in the questions. In any case, the project only provided consumers’ opinions concerning the content of standards, not on standards or standardization as such. One of the conclusions is that consumers do not have any clear idea as to how standards are prepared and who prepares them (Healy & Pope, 1996, p. 18). Half a century ago, Coles (1949, pp. 212-214) suggested carrying out research to determine consumer needs in order to take these into account when developing standards. 26 A point of discussion is whether or not consumer issues in standardization should be a governmental responsibility (Wiest, 1994).
33 consumer differ in no special manner from those required by any other interest. But for adequately serving the well-developed activity of comparative testing, consumer organizations stand particularly in need of standardized test methods more so than for other types of standards. Other topics consumer organizations give special attention to include product safety,27 product and service quality, conformity assessment of products and services, product marks, certification, industry codes of practice and codes of behaviour, and environmental issues. Consumer organizations face problems in getting enough money and expertise to participate in standardization. North European countries offer some financial facilities for this, other countries do little or nothing (Langmann, 1997). The ISO has a committee on consumer policy (COPOLCO), Consumers International28 has official liaisons to several ISO and IEC Technical Committees, and ISO and IEC actively promote consumer influence in standardization (ISO/IEC, 1986). In practice, however, this does not mean that much attention is given to consumer interests (Healy & Pope, 1996; Langmann, 1997). Direct consumer influence is generally minimal or absent. The real consumer influence mostly comes in an indirect way: from companies who sell their products and services to consumers.29 Some NSOs, especially in northern countries, have special consumer platforms. The Standards Council of Canada, for example, has regional Consumer Advisory Panels. These are sounding boards which review draft standards and participate in other consumer-related standards work such as seminars and general meetings. They meet with representatives of committees that write standards and they make recommendations on draft standards (Standards Council of Canada, 1996). Governments With regard to standardization, governments can have six different roles:30 1 support standardization as a part of their general role in stimulating business performance and international trade; 2 create a legal foundation for standardization; 3 carry out standardization activities themselves; 4 supplement, simplify, or improve their legal system with standardization by making references to standards in laws; 5 use standardization for specific public sector tasks; 6 use standardization to improve their performance in areas that are not specifically governmental. Sub 1 A government can stimulate improvements in the national standardization infrastructure. An example is offered by the Dutch government that financed the
27
Van Weperen (1993) offers an example of a thorough view of safety standards from a consumer organization’s point of view. 28 International association of independent national consumer organizations. 29 An example of real consumer influence is described by Richter (1994) in a case about standards for playground equipment for children. 30 Three of these are mentioned by Repussard (1995).
34 re-organisation of NNI, directed at making NNI more market-driven. Standardization may be a topic in governmental R&D programmes.31 Sub 2 Some countries have a national standardization system that is fully private. Others have a law on standardization, establishing the NSO and laying down requirements for it. Sub 3 In the former state economies, standardization was a state activity (see, for instance, State Committee for Standards of the USSR Council of Ministers, 1976). In China, it still is. In the area of agriculture, the same is, to a large extent, true of the EU countries. In the USA, governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health carry out standardization activities; almost 50% of all US standards are governmental ones (Toth (Ed.), 1996, p. 2). In countries such as Canada, Japan, the Irish Republic, and many developing countries, the NSO is a part of the civil service (see Annex 1). Based on cases concerning languages, railroads, and telecommunication, Blankart and Knieps (1993) argue that standardization carried out by a state bureaucracy may lead to over-standardization. Sub 4 An example of this is the European New Approach.32 Sub 5 Governments can use standardization for specific governmental tasks, for instance, in the areas of public health, environmental protection, traffic infrastructure, army, and police. Their interests are comparable to those of companies with a dominant market position or companies as main users. Sub 6. Examples include procurement and office automation. Consultancy firms, scientists Latour (1987) addresses the development of science and technology in general. He stresses the important role of scientists. They can speak based on their reputation. This reputation is due to their findings, and tips the balance of force in their favour. Tamm Halström (1996, pp. 66-67) described the dominant role of professionals such as consultants in the development of the ISO 9000 quality management standards.33 31
Probably the best example of this is Japan. The close connection between Japanese R&D policy and standardization is described by McIntyre (Ed., 1997). Examples at the European level are the EUREKA project (EUREKA Secretariat, 1988) and the Star project (Buntzly, 1996). 32 In the European New Approach, standards are developed that are related to European Directives. These Directives set essential requirements on, for instance, safety, health, or environment that are formulated globally. Linked to these directives, European standards are developed in which detailed requirements and/or test methods are laid down. A company that meets the relevant standards is assumed to meet the general requirements set in the Directives. Thus, implementing the standards is an efficient way to meet the legal requirements. The company, however, is allowed to meet these requirements in another way. Though principally voluntary, in practice, these standards are almost obligatory. Conformity to requirements in the Directives is indicated by means of the CE mark (CE = Conformité Européenne) (Grützner, 1994; Huigen, Inklaar & Paterson, 1996). 33 In a historical study on the interaction between scientific, economic, and political factors in the elaboration of control on fertilizer in France and Germany 1850-1914, Jas (1996) concludes scientists had a decisive influence. Science was presented as being morally superior to the voice of industry (ibid., p.
35 Professionals not only have a lot of influence based on their know-how, but may also have particular interests. This applies to consultants in particular. Their involvement increases the risk of getting complicated standards.34 There are two reasons for this: - Their specialists have a professional interest in sophisticated solutions. But the best is often the enemy of the good: standards become too complicated. - The more complicated the standards, the more work for the consultants in assisting companies to implement these standards. Because consultants often have a leading edge in knowledge, it can be difficult for other participants to avoid this effect, which, of course, may cause problems for standards users. Others Occasionally, other stakeholders take an interest in standardization. Trade unions are interested in standards that influence occupational health and safety. Organizations involved in testing, certification and accreditation need standards for their business. The ecology movement is rarely involved, though standards can be a tool in environmental protection and, vice versa, requirements in standards can cause unnecessary pollution.35
2.3
Mechanisms in the spread of standards
This section gives a summary of Chapter 12. Of course, standardization can only be successful when the benefits of implementing the new standard exceed its costs. If the new standard replaces an existing standard, there may be conversion costs. The potential for success of a new standard, therefore, depends on the installed base of the existing standard and the cost of conversion. Backwards and sideways compatibility enhances the chances for a standard to become successful. In order not to hinder future developments, a standard should also be forwards compatible, as far as future developments can be anticipated. Conversion costs can be avoided by setting performance criteria instead of describing solutions in standards. Once established, a dominant design reduces confusion, permits economies of scale for producers, reduces risks inherent to competing systems, may cause a shift in competition from design to price, may cause shake-out of suppliers, influences entry barriers, and may facilitate co-operative behaviour of oligopolists. Therefore, users tend to bandwagon the early adopter’s choice. Reasons for bandwagoning include: - availability of the solution; - informational increasing returns: it is used because it is better known than other possibilities; - avoiding uncertainty; 37). Scientists used standardization to promote their activities and their scientific status (ibid., p. 36). She concludes that standards assure the presence of science, namely its vocabulary, its techniques, its institutions, and its people (ibid., p. 38). 34 Source: own experience. 35 Examples of pollution due to standards: Grünbauer (1996, pp. 3-4) and the case described in Subsection 5.3.4. In order to avoid this, the IEC and ISO issued guides for the inclusion of environmental aspects in product standards (IEC, 1995b; ISO, 1997a).
36 - economies of scale; - improved functionality related to the installed base; - essential functionality: in case of compatibility there is a functional need for bandwagoning: without sticking to the specifications used by another actor, interoperatability is not possible, or only possible by adding a gateway technology; - network externalities. Market processes can cause actors to bandwagon to standards they dislike, for instance, because they describe inferior solutions or hinder technological improvements. In the case of network externalities, the lock-in effect is extra strong. Because of the bandwagon effect, the first standard available has an advantage over later, competing standards, if any. Therefore, if there are competing SDOs, an SDO with fast tracks for standards development, has the first agent advantage. In addition, SDOs can be a dominant agent due to their status. When competing standards differ in the advantages they generate for different categories of users, each of them may get its own installed base and, then, lock-in effects and bandwagoning prevent one of them from winning. In a market with network externalities and competing compatibility standards, the preferred solution is a gateway technology, assuming that additional costs are not too high. This increases the functionality of the system for customers. For suppliers, it enhances the chance that the technology as such gets enough customer support to achieve the critical mass necessary for a break-through. Competing standards may cause market and buyer uncertainty. The other way round, an early choice of one standard can provide confidence to invest in a new technology. Entities or combinations of entities can be regarded as modules in the entity system. Standards can specify aspects of modules or specify interfaces between modules. Often, several options apply per module of which one or more are chosen and laid down in the standard. In case of more than one option, the standard can specify variants per module. The choice of the preference range per variant is a matter of optimizing, seeking the right balance between variety (often because of differences in customer needs) and uniformity (because uniformity is generally cheaper than variety). Each module can, again, be divided into sub-modules. In this way, a standards architecture can be made corresponding to an entity architecture. Standards freeze solutions for matching problems, till the “thaw” sets in and the standard is withdrawn, modified, or replaced. The time after which withdrawal, modification, or replacement is necessary depends on the speed at which the new technologies concerned are developed. Infrastructure is rather stable in time, while other entities may soon need innovations. People in relation to technology can be regarded as a separate layer: their “speed of development” is not high; elderly people especially may have problems in “changing their mind” once they are accustomed to something. The introduction of pincodes in financial services, for instance, was difficult for many of them. Systematic standardization includes the continuous matching of the stable infrastructure, components that change frequently, and actual and conceivable shifts in human behaviour.
37 A standards structure preferably corresponds to a layer structure and, when applicable, to modules within layers. A basic standard can describe the structure. Other standards set requirements or provide test methods for entities, groups of entities, or interfaces between entities. In a good standards structure, a standard can be changed without affecting too many other ones. In a stable standards structure, interface specifications are kept unchanged during a long period. This can be reached when the modules or layers each provide different functions. A functional analysis of entities and standards related to these entities can be of help in designing an entity architecture and a related standards architecture that are stable in time. A stable standards architecture enables modifications of individual standards to honour innovations. At the company level, such a structure enables parallellization of research, product development, process development, maintenance, and marketing.
3
CURRENT NSO SERVICES
3.1
Introduction
In industrialized countries, National Standardization Organizations (NSOs) were founded in the early decades of the 20th Century by organizations of engineers, and in some countries with organizations of industrialists.1 These NSOs had to develop national standards, to join efforts and avoid duplication of work by different industries that each made company or sectoral standards to solve the same matching problems.2 International and regional standardization started later, after the second World War.3 In electrotechnical and telecommunications standardization, however, there was an international dimension from the outset; international standardization organizations were established in 1865 (ITU,4 telecommunications) and 1906 (IEC, electrotechnology). Nowadays, a great deal of national standardization has been replaced by international and regional standardization. Nevertheless, we start this chapter on NSO services with national standardization, because it still is part of NSO activities, and because their role in international and regional standardization can be best explained on the basis of knowledge about national standardization. In Section 3.3, NSO services to support developing international or regional standards are described, and Section 3.4 focusses on the more specific situation of an NSO performing an international or European secretariat. Sections 3.5 and 3.6 describe the other core services: selling standards and providing information on standards and standardization. Section 3.7 lists other activities that some NSOs carry out, Section 3.8 devotes attention to initiatives to improve NSO performance, and 3.9 concludes with some characteristics of NSOs.
3.2
Services to support developing national standards
3.2.1
Introduction
Most NSOs offer the opportunity to develop national standards. In some countries, they only authorize standards developed by other organizations. This applies to, among others, Canada, Japan, Norway, Sweden, and the United States.5 Some countries, such 1
1901: United Kingdom; 1916: the Netherlands; 1917: Germany, France; 1918: United States; 1919: Belgium, Canada, Switzerland; 1920: Austria; 1921: Japan, Italy, Hungary; 1922: Australia, Czechoslovakia, Sweden; 1923: Norway; 1924: Finland, Poland; 1925: Soviet Union; 1926: Denmark; 1928: Romania; 1929: Portugal (Toth (Ed.), 1997). 2 Information on this topic can be found, for example, in Cargill (1998, Chapter 2), Cochey (1996), De Geus (1991), and Wölker (1991 and 1992). 3 A predecessor of ISO was started in 1926: the International Federation of National Standardization Associations (ISA). NSOs met in ISA to exchange and co-ordinate information on national standards. 4 ITU = International Telecommunications Union, at that time International Telegraph Union. 5 Most of the data in this subsection came from Websites of NSOs in Australia, Austria, Canada, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Kenya, Malaysia, New Zealand, Trinidad and Tobago, Sri Lanka, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, and the USA. These were completed with literature about NSOs in Austria (Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, 1988), Canada (ASTM Standardization News, 1997b; Hesser & Kleinemeyer, 1994), Germany (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1986), Japan (Krislov, 1979, pp. 161-180; Stern, 1997; Tanabe, 1997), the Netherlands
40 as France and Switzerland, have a mixed system in which the NSO both authorizes standards developed in associated bodies and has its own committees that develop standards. Some of the larger countries have lots of SDOs in addition to the NSO. In Germany, for instance, 153 private sector organizations have prepared 15,000 standards, while the German NSO, DIN,6 has prepared 22,000 (Toth, 1997, p. 3). Malaysia is decentralizing standardization activities from the NSO to sectoral organizations. The Slovenian NSO’s policy is not to develop national standards, but only to participate in international standardization, and to adopt international and regional standards. Many NSOs in developing countries just adopt ISO standards and seldom participate in ISO Technical Committees (TCs), due to lack of resources. In the electrotechnical field, three organizational options apply: 1 An electrotechnical NSO in addition to an NSO for standardization in other sectors. This especially applies to European industrialized countries, because their electrotechnical standardization started earlier than standardization in other sectors. Examples include Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, and the Netherlands. This electrotechnical NSO has direct links to IEC and CENELEC and often operates in close co-operation with the ISO-related NSO.7 2 An electrotechnical NSO plus other sectoral SDOs that co-operate in a central NSO. This applies, for instance, to Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. The electrotechnical NSO is one of the sectoral member bodies of the central NSO; the electrotechnical institute has direct links to IEC and CENELEC; the other sectoral institutes have contacts with international (ISO) and regional (CENELEC) FSOs only via the central NSO. 3 Full integration of electrotechnical standardization in one NSO. One NSO is both an ISO and IEC member. Within this NSO there is an electrotechnical committee. This applies to new industrialized countries, many developing countries, and, for instance, to Denmark and Greece.
3.2.2
Steps in developing national standards
NSOs that develop national standards, usually distinguish the following steps: 1) request, 2) assignment to a committee, 3) drafting, 4) public comment, 5) review of comments, 6) approval, 7) publishing, 8) publicity, 9) implementation, and 10) evaluation:8
(Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997a), Thailand (Hesser & Kleinemeyer, 1994), Sweden (Karlsson, 1997), Trinidad (Hutchinson, 1998), United Kingdom (BSI, 1997), and the USA (Toth, 1996). 6 DIN = Deutsches Institut für Normung [German Standardization Institute]. 7 In the Netherlands, for example, the committee structures are separated, but the supporting offices are fully integrated; at the national level the bureau of the Dutch Electrotechnical Commission functions as NNI’s electrotechnical department. 8 This description is mainly based on a Dutch publication (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997a, pp. 13-14), with additions from British Standard 0-2 (BSI, 1997b, pp. 16-25). Terms are taken from BS 0-2; other NSOs may use different terms. Procedures for steps 1-8 may slightly differ per NSO but
41 1 Request Any company, organization, person, or the NSO itself can indicate a need for new standards, or for improvements in existing standards. Most NSOs have Sector Boards that are responsible for dealing with such requests. They may ask advice from a standardization committee or have a feasibility study carried out. To be able to decide on the proposal for a new work item, they need justification, including: - reasons for standardization: what advantages can be expected for whom? - the topic of standardization: is it (technically) convenient for standardization? - the amount of support in the market, including willingness to finance the project; - reasons, if any, to standardize at the national level, instead of at the - preferred international and/or regional level. The title and scope of the standard need to be clear; when necessary, further specifications may be added, as well as a schedule for development. Handling standardization requests - NNI practice In NNI practice, the NNI Bureau (in this case, the responsible technical officer) often carries out a quick, incomplete, feasibility study, or just leaves the factual decision to a TC. The formal decision is up to the Sector Board: a managing committee that supervises the activities of a number of TCs. For new areas of standardization and controversial topics, more sophisticated feasibility studies are carried out, often with financial support from the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The method used in these studies is described in Section 13.9. (Sources: Horringa & De Konink Consultants (1991); own experience; information from NNI Technical Officers)
2 Assignment to a committee The Sector Board will decide on the proposal. When positive, the new work item will be assigned to a technical committee (TC). When no TC exists, a new one may be set up. A TC may establish a subcommittee (SC) or working group (WG) to handle the topic.9 Interested parties are invited to get involved. Additionally, the new work item and the establishment of a new TC, SC and/or WG, if any, is publicly announced, so that representatives of all interested parties have the opportunity to join the committees. Often, in the first meeting its composition is discussed, and organizations that were overlooked still get an invitation to participate.10 NSOs in the European region inform each other, CEN, CENELEC, ETSI, and the European Commission, to enable other NSOs to propose transferring the work item from the national to the European or international level from the outset, in case the topic is of interest for more countries.11 Many NSOs have committed themselves to inform the ISO/IEC Information Centre in Geneva on their new activities.12 are similar to NNI and BSI procedures. Steps 9 and 10 are up to standards users, though NSO procedures require evaluation of standards after a certain period. 9 A WG exists only for the time necessary to draft one or more standards. When the standards are ready, the WG is discontinued. An SC is a more permanent committee, responsible for a field of activities. This, however, does not exclude them from being disbanded. 10 In general, the committee one step higher in the hierarchy has to agree on this. 11 They are forced to do this by European Directive 83/189/EEC (European Communities, 1983) as amended by Directives 88/182/EEC (ibid., 1988) and 94/10/EEC (Ibid., 1994). 12 The World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade has been signed by countries that, together, represent more than 95 % of world trade. Its annexes include the Code of
42
Committee composition - NNI practice Often it is difficult to get all interested parties involved, because they have to spend time and money. This especially concerns the involvement of consumers and trade unions, but also professional users, governmental agencies, and small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs). (Sources: own experience, information from NNI Technical Officers)
3 Drafting The responsible TC, SC, or WG prepares a first draft, based on professional expertise, deliberations, and consensus. Sometimes, research is carried out to obtain data to be used in the standard. Often, the committee initiates the discussion making use of an initial document brought forward by one of the participants.13 The standard may require testing, to be carried out either by participants or, as part of a special program set up for the project, by a testing organization. When the TC has delegated the work to an SC or WG, their approval is followed by the TC’s approval. After this, NSO employees check the draft on conformity to standards in adjacent areas, and to the NSO’s rules for the drafting and presentation of standards. 14 Drafting - NNI experience Drafting standards in meetings takes a lot of time. Nevertheless, in the eighties, this was common practice in many NNI WGs. Experience has shown that it is more efficient to divide writing tasks among several committee members, and discuss their contributions in meetings. The most efficient way is to have just one editor, with a clear job description, agreed upon by the committee. With “volunteers” as writers it is difficult to manage progress - their employer has other priorities than the committee. Therefore, some committees have a professional (paid) writer of standards. This is usually an external specialist, from a consulting firm, for instance, but it can also be an NSO technical officer. A compromise is having the committee secretary edit the experts’ contributions. (Sources: personal experience, information from NNI Technical Officers)
Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards. NSOs were invited to accept this Code. NSOs that notified the ISO/IEC Information Centre that they accepted this Code, have to publish their work program at least once every six months and transmit it to the ISO/IEC Information Centre. This facilitates information exchange, which can stimulate international cooperation and avoid duplication of work carried out in different countries (IEC, 1996b; Schwamm, 1997). 13 In Germany and the United Kingdom, this is recommended practice (BSI, 1997b, p. 16, Subsections 8.5.1 and 8.6.8; DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1986, p. 2, Subsection 2.2.1). 14 Some NSOs laid down these rules in national “standards for standards.” Examples include the American national standard SES 1 (SES, 1995), British standard BS 0-3 (BSI, 1997c), the French standard X 00-001 (AFNOR, 1993), and the German standard DIN 820-2 (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1996). Others have an internal publication that did not follow the route of an official standard (for example, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1993).
43 4 Public comment The draft standard is published for comments. It is announced in the NSO’s regular media, such as its monthly magazine and its website, and in selected media, such as specialists’ journals. Sometimes, copies are sent to experts and to interested parties not represented in the committees. Other NSOs are notified and get the opportunity to comment. The party that requested the standard, if not a committee member, also gets a copy. Parties get a certain amount of time, mostly a few months, to give their comments, if any. Public comment - NNI experience Formal actions are carried out accurately, but it often depends on the personal initiative of committee members and/or the committee’s secretary, in co-operation with his colleagues responsible for press releases and other publicity affairs, whether or not additional informative activities are carried out, so that interested parties are informed effectively and in time. (Sources: personal experience, information from NNI Technical Officers and Public Relations specialists)
5 Review of comments The TC, or its SC or WG, discusses the comments and uses them to improve the standard. Sometimes, major contributors are invited in a meeting to discuss their comments with the committee. All contributors are informed about the committee’s decision on their comments. Review of comments - NNI experience The underpinning of information provided to contributors of comments is often a point of weakness, due to lack of time and knowledge of the secretary, whereas committee members are often not interested in such additional tasks. Sometimes the secretary faces another problem in giving the right underpinning, if the committee failed to take comments seriously, due to laziness or because decisions were based more on power positions than on arguments. (Sources: own experience, information from NNI Technical Officers)
6 Approval The TC decides on the proposed standard.15 NSO officers check it again for conformity to standards in adjacent areas and to rules for drafting and presentation of standards. If it is decided that the standard is still appropriate but the content or structure of the document is changed significantly as a result of comments received, a second draft for public comment may be issued. 7 Publishing The NSO does the final editing and publishes the standard.
15
In Malaysia this is followed by final approval by the Minister of Science, Technology and the Environment (SIRIM Berhad, 1998).
44 8 Publicity The NSO uses its own media, such as its journal or website, to announce the new standard. Additionally, press releases are sent, media events organized, seminars or courses held, etc. 9 Implementation Of course it is up to the companies and other organizations to implement the standard. Some NSOs provide support for this by means of written guidelines, courses, or advice (see Chapter 7). 10 Evaluation Most NSOs review their standards after five years. The responsible committee then decides to withdraw, revise, or to maintain them unchanged. Of course, market developments may be a cause for earlier revision.16 Evaluation of standards is a problem when the responsible TC has been disbanded. Then the NSO Bureau has to decide whether or not the standards should remain in the collection.17
3.2.3
Standards
All NSOs include international standards in their national standards collection. These are generally indicated by combining the international and the national tags, for instance, DIN-ISO 1234.18 European standards all become national standards in the EU and EFTA member countries and the Czech Republic, and are indicated as, for example, BS-EN 5678.19 If the European standard is identical to an international standard, three tags are combined, for instance, NEN-EN-ISO 9001.20
16
ISO, CEN and CENELEC also review standards once every five year. The IEC introduced a more systematic review, with a pre-recorded cycle between two and twelve years. All standards are related to TCs and SCs; Maintenance Teams carry out revision activities (Möhr, 1998; Raeburn, 1998d). 17 NNI has no clear policy on this topic. In the Building and Civil Engineering Section, Technical Officers consult some stakeholders and, based on their findings, the Sector Board decides to maintain or withdraw the standard (NNI-Bouw, 1996, pp. 11-12). The ICT Section, however, maintains obsolete standards. An example is the standard NEN 2296 Handwriting for Elementary Schools Letters and Figures (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1958a). In 1985, NNI was informed that this standard was outdated. NNI tried to form a committee for revision. However, there was not enough support in the market. Twelve years later, the standard is still in NNI’s catalogue (source: personal observation in handling this topic). Some claim that in spite of the 5-year reviews, 25 to 30 percent of US standards refer to and document obsolete technology (Toth (Ed.), 1997, p.4). 18 DIN = Deutsche Industrie-Norm [German standard]. 19 BS = British Standard; EN = Europäische Norm [European Standard]. 20 So national standards include national implementations of international and regional standards.
45 Prestandard Many NSOs have introduced prestandards: documents adopted provisionally by an FSO and made available to the public so that the necessary experience may be gained from its application on which to base a (“normal”) standard (ISO/IEC, 1996, Clause 3.4). Prestandards follow the normal development and approval procedure, but have a shorter period of review, for instance, three years. These standards are used for rapidly changing technologies or when the need arises though there is not yet enough experience and/or consensus to set a definitive standard. NNI, for instance, issues prestandards that describe methods for measuring pollution. Once these methods have been proven in practice, they become normal standards. When experience shows they are unsatisfactory, these standards are changed. An example of prestandards at the European level are ENVs,21 developed by CEN. They differ from ‘normal’ European standards (ENs) in that they are reviewed every three rather than five years and that NSOs in EU and EFTA countries are not obliged to include them in their national standards collection. Conflicting national standards may be kept in force till the ENV is converted into an EN. Therefore, ENVs can be used in case the European countries have problems in accepting one single European specification. FSO experience shows that due to the lower status of prestandards, committees are able to arrive at consensus sooner, because they know the revision period will start shortly after the prestandard has been published (and, in the case of ENVs, national standards can be maintained).22 Code of practice (TR) Most FSOs issue Codes of practice or Technical Reports: documents that recommend practices or procedures for the design, manufacture, installation, maintenance or utilization of equipment, structures or products (ISO/IEC, 1996b, Clause 3.5). These documents have a lower status than normal standards; they are just for information and transfer of knowledge. However, they follow the normal standards development procedures.23 Workshop Agreement (WA) A recent development is the introduction of Workshop Agreements. These apply more to the international and the regional level than to the national level though they indirectly influence the national level. CEN introduced WAs, consensus-based specifications, drawn up in an open workshop environment, in order to meet the market demands for a more flexible and timelier alternative to the traditional European Standard (EN) . These workshops are open to the participation, through registration, of any entity without geographical restriction, non-Europeans being especially welcome. WAs are drawn up in a 21
Not to be confused with prENs: Draft European Standards. See for ENVs: CEN Central Secretariat, 1998c. 22 If national standards are maintained, there is a danger that the ENV is insufficiently tested in practice. 23 See: CEN Central Secretariat, 1998a.
46 straightforward way, with a minimum of rules, and the layout follows the drafting requirements which govern European standards, to facilitate their possible conversion to an EN or ENV at a later date (CEN Central Secretariat, 1998b; CEN/ISSS, 1998).24 Publicly Available Specification (PAS) Publicly Available Specifications are standards developed outside FSOs that can achieve FSO status. In spring of 1998, the German NSO, DIN, issued its first PAS Technische Beschreibung für Geldspielgeräte [Technical Description of Slot Machines]. The document was prepared by the slot machine industry in co-operation with the organization of wholesalers and the organization of amusement arcades, and publication took only three months from the first contacts with DIN. The PAS was approved by one of DIN’s TCs (DIN-Mitteilungen, 1998). A second option is that DIN performs the secretariat of an organization outside DIN that develops the PAS. DIN checks the PAS for conformity to other national, European and international standards and legislation. The organization that proposes the PAS is responsible for its contents (DIN, 1998; DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1998).25 Other kinds of standards The examples given above are the main types of standards. Their definitions may differ slightly between electrotechnical and non-electrotechnical FSOs and per NSO. Many FSOs also have others kinds of standards, for instance, in the case of IEC, Guides, Technical Specifications, and Technology Trend Assessments (IEC, 1998c).
24
A comparable situation is CENELEC’s European Specifications (ESs) (CENELEC, 1998, p.8) and IEC’s Industry Technical Agreements (ITAs). IEC introduced ITAs in response to the market need for fast moving technologies. The time needed for development of ITAs will be months instead of years. ITAs are minimum technical specifications. Workshops comprising experts nominated by the industrial and user parties wishing to participate will process and decide on them. ITAs will only progress to international standards or technical reports through the normal processes if a market demand is foreseen (IEC Bulletin, 1997a). IEC’s first ITA deals with multimedia platforms. It was developed by the Open Platform Initiative for Multimedia Access (OPIMA) (IEC Bulletin, 1998a). 25 An example of PASs at the international level are standards developed by X/Open. X/Open markets products and services world-wide to computer system buyers, system suppliers, software developers, and standards organizations. By integrating prioritized requirements and expertise from each of the groups, X/Open evolves and manages a comprehensive set of publicly available open system specifications, which define the common applications environment. X/Open also operates a test and verification procedure for products developed in line with its specifications, and awards its brand name as the mark of compliance. Since 1996, X/Open is recognized by the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 (JTC 1) for standardization in the field of information technology as a PAS submitter (IEC, 1996a). In extraordinary cases the same can also apply to company standards: at the international level, Sun Microsystems’ Java specifications were the first example. ISO/IEC JTC 1 is leading in the area of PASs; their criteria can be found in ISO/IEC (1995) and ISO/IEC (1998b). Characteristics of PASs differ per FSO, which causes confusion (Wende, 1998, p. 685).
47 3.2.4
NSO support in developing national standards
Related to the development of national standards, an NSO offers interested parties the following options: 1 Participation in standardization activities, which includes: - influence on the standards’ contents; - information straight from the source; - having contacts with other specialists in the same field, who are also committee members.26 2 Giving comments on draft standards without participation in standardization committees. 3 Receiving information about what NSO committees are doing. To enable developing national standards, NSOs offer interested parties:27 1 A formal framework, laid down in the NSO’s statutes, internal regulations and directives. These guarantee:28 - Openness. All interested parties can and should participate in standardization. - Consensus. General agreement, no sustained opposition to substantial issues, due consideration of the opinions of all parties concerned and clarification of conflicting arguments. - Transparency. Opportunity for non-participants to influence standardization.29 - Coherence. The standards collection shall be coherent, i.e., standards shall not be conflicting. 2 Professional advice concerning standardization methods and procedures. 3 Secretarial support, including: - overall co-ordination; - project management (to a certain extent); - editing standards; - organizing committee meetings; 26
Standardization committee members come from different organizations. Their interests differ but concern the same topics. Therefore, participation can be very attractive as a source of information and to arrange all kinds of things. Suppliers and potential buyers, for instance, can meet in an informal setting. NSOs seldom mention this “deliverable,” but for some committee members it is the main reason for participation. 27 This listing is based on a manual for a course for NNI’s standardization consultants (De Vries, 1997b). 28 Cited from the website of ON, the Austrian NSO (http://www.on-norm.at/english/wason.htm#prinzipien). The principles mentioned apply to all NSOs. 29 Standards Australia achieves transparency by: - advising of, and calling for, comment on the instigation of new projects; - advising of, and calling for, expressions of interest in the formation of new and substantially reconstituted TCs; - submitting all draft standards for public review. Standards are announced in the NSO’s monthly and the press and limited numbers of the draft standards are distributed to interested parties. Justified objections have to be taken into account by the related technical committees; - committee members circulate drafts at various stages to their stakeholder groups (Walsh, 1997, p. 15). CEN (1998b, p. 666) also includes possibilities for non-participants to get information on standardization; they confuse transparency with visibility.
48
4 5 6 7 8
- assisting at committee meetings; - taking meeting minutes; - document management, including gathering, structuring, sending, and filing documents. Sometimes, the secretarial work is subcontracted to an external body. This body should agree to abide by the constitution and rules of the NSO. NSO staff supervises their operations. Access to international and regional FSOs (see Section 3.3). Ability to draft and publish national standards. Standards distribution (see Sections 3.5 and 7.3). Publicity and providing standard-related information (see Sections 3.6 and 7.4). The NSO’s brand name (which can give a standard a certain status).
3.2.5
The diminishing importance of national standardization
The internationalization of trade is the main reason for the diminishing importance of national standardization. National standardization still applies in the following cases (Simons & De Vries, 1997, pp. 33-34): 1 standards that are related to national legislation;30 2 specific geographic circumstances;31 3 an installed base of solutions that differ from those in other countries;32 4 presence of typical national products;33 5 differences in language;34 6 national priorities;35 7 to influence international or regional standardization: the more users implement a national standard, the higher the chance that this standard will form the basis for later international standards, if any.36 30
For example, Dutch standards that set verification methods for legislative requirements for buildings (NNI-Bouw, 1997). 31 For example, the soft Dutch soil makes railway inclines relatively expensive. Therefore, in standards that specify the height of bridges and viaducts, this height is kept as low as possible (De Vries, 1996a, p. 11). 32 For example, the Dutch standard on address formats (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1991b); the inability to get an international or European standard for plugs and sockets accepted and applied (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997b, p. 6). 33 For example, the Dutch standard specifying the colours of the national flag (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1958b). 34 For example, Belgium and the Netherlands have a joint standard on the correct usage of Dutch in business and technology (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut & Belgisch Instituut voor Normalisatie, 1998). 35 For example, Australian initiatives for standards on consumer protection in the global marketplace (ISO Central Secretariat, 1998); Dutch standards for measuring pollution (Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut, Cluster Milieu, 1996; ibid. 1997). 36 Swann and Temple (1995) and Link and Tassey (1987, p. 234) conclude that original national standards are more effective than internationally equivalent standards in promoting export. However, as stated in Subsection 3.2.2, NSOs that signed the WTO’s Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Application of Standards have to provide information available to other NSOs on their intention to write a new standard. This enables others to start standardization on that topic at the international level. CENELEC’s Vilamoura procedure even guarantees a shift in the work item to the European or the international level if four or more other (European) NSOs are interested and willing to participate (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997a, p. 21). The French standard on
49 Most remaining national standardization is related to the national government: National standardization related to the government - NNI experience NNI’s national standardization includes: - standards for building and civil engineering, related to the government as legislator and main customer; - environmental standards - governmental priority; - standards for occupational health and safety - related to legislation; - standards for name and address data elements - related to governmental data bases; - standards for geographic information systems - governmental agencies are the main customers. In the near future, these activities are expected to be extended, as the Dutch government decided to use standardization and certification in as many areas as possible, to replace governmental regulations and inspection (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 1998).
The portion of publicly available standards identical to, technically equivalent, or based on international standards varies between 5% (Venezuela) and 90% (Belgium, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Trinidad and Tobago).37 Slovenia’s policy is to base all national standards on international or European standards.38 The move towards fewer national standards is unmistakable, but many countries still have a large base of deviating domestic standards.
3.3
Services to support developing international or regional standards
The international standardization of ISO and IEC and the regional standardization of CEN and CENELEC to a large extent resemble national standardization practice. The main differences include: - Participants in ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC TCs and SCs are national delegates, whereas NSO committee members represent national stakeholder groups. Delegates are expected to speak and act on behalf of their country, not on behalf of their company or stakeholder group. NSO committees formulate the national standpoints for voting or for input by participation in committees at the international or regional level. - In national standardization, decisions are based on consensus. ISO, IEC, CEN and CENELEC use the consensus principle within committees that draft standards, but voting also takes place at several crucial stages of standards development. NSOs vote on behalf of their country.
“16K barcodes” was developed to influence a European standard (CEN, 1998c) in order to protect a French installed base (Source: personal communication of Mr. J.A. Dijkstra, NNI). 37 Other data: Bolivia, Ecuador, Israel, Peru: 10%; Poland: 17%; Jordan, Russian Federation, Singapore, Uruguay: 20%; South Africa: 22%; France: 26%; Kyrgyztan: 30%; Hungary: 36%; Finland, Philippines: 40%; Sweden, Ukraine: 60%; Mauritius: 70%; Turkey: 85% (Toth (Ed.), 1997). About 90% of the CENELEC standards are identical to, or closely based on, IEC standards (IEC Bulletin, 1998). In CEN, approximately 60% of the standards are identical with those of ISO (ICSCA, 1997). PASC (Pacific Area Standards Congress) depends solely upon ISO/IEC standards, the standards development efforts of other regions, such as MERCOSUR and COPANT (both in Latin America), are patterned after ISO/IEC documents (ICSCA, 1997). 38 Source: http://www.naresa.ac.lk/slsi/STANDARD.HTM.
50 ISO, IEC, CEN and CENELEC were established by NSOs and, in turn, recognize only one NSO per country. This is a main reason why countries with lots of sectoral standardization organizations, such as Japan, Norway, Sweden and the USA, have also an NSO.39 The NSO has to be intermediary between national stakeholders and the international and regional standardization arena. Therefore, NSOs tend to form national TCs that more or less reflect the committee structure of ISO/IEC (and CEN/CENELEC). Related to the development of international and regional standards, an NSO offers interested parties the following possibilities, which are comparable to those related to national standardization: 1 Participation in national committees, in order to influence the national standpoint on the standards’ contents, get information straight from the source, and have the opportunity to a national delegate in international or regional TCs and SCs.40 2 Giving feedback on draft international/regional standards without participation in national committees. The committees use this feedback in preparing the national standpoint. 3 Receiving information about developments in international/regional standardization. To serve national parties interested in these matters, an NSO offers: 1 access to the national, international, and regional standardization arena, including the opportunity to participate in and/or influence international and regional standardization (e.g., by voting); 2 professional (standardization) advice; 3 documents and other information from international and regional standardization committees; 4 secretarial support; 5 standards distribution; 6 brand names ISO, IEC and EN. Voting in the absence of a national TC - NNI experience If there is no national committee to vote on an international proposal, and national parties cannot be mobilized, NNI’s policy is to abstain from voting. In such cases, however, other NSOs often vote in favour of the proposals, so that proposals that have the support of only a few countries can be approved. Therefore, ISO and IEC require that at least five participating members vote in favour and nominate an expert in the WG (ISO/IEC, 1995a, clauses 2.3.5 and 2.4.2). This, however, causes problems if less than five countries are able to nominate experts, simply because they lack the necessary expertise. (Sources: personal communication of NNI Technical Officers)
3.4
39
Performing committees
secretariats
for
international
or
regional
Other reasons include (ASTM Standardization News, 1997a, pp. 22-23): - by working together within the NSO community, SDOs provide a system for self regulation; - for companies, government, and SDOs there is one policy forum for general standardization issues. 40 Members of international and regional Working Groups do not participate on behalf of their NSO, though NSOs may nominate them. NSOs may (but seldom do) nominate experts from other countries. International organizations with which ISO/IEC have a liaison may also nominate participants. WG members are primarily chosen because of their expertise.
51 The formal SDOs at the international and the European level have a decentralized structure: NSOs take care of most TC, SC, and WG secretariats. Annex 1 demonstrates that four NSOs (AFNOR, ANSI, BSI, and DIN) have 70% of all ISO secretariats. In proportion to the Gross Domestic Product, Sweden is the country with the largest number of ISO secretariats, see Table 3.1. Indicator for the number of ISO secretariats in proportion to the GDP 41 Top 10 of countries having the largest number Some other countries of secretariats in proportion to the GPD Country Indicator Country Sweden 100 Australia Norway 72 Brazil United Kingdom 52 China Denmark 49 India Germany 48 Indonesia Switzerland 44 Italy The Netherlands 37 Japan France 33 Malaysia Slovakia 22 Poland Mongolia 20 Russian Federation Singapore South Africa Spain United States Table 3.1. Indicators for the number of ISO secretariats.
Indicator 15 1 1 0 0 7 5 4 9 10 3 10 0 10
The services offered related to an international/regional secretariat are comparable to those related to a national secretariat described in Section 3.1, but, of course, have an extra dimension. Organizing an international meeting, for instance, requires more effort than a national meeting. As in national standardization, the NSO secretary is the spider in the web between all interested parties, but in international standardization these include the ISO (or IEC/CEN/CENELEC) Central Secretariat, other NSOs, various international organizations, and other interested parties. More diplomatic, inter-cultural and language skills are required than in national standardization.
41
(4 x number of TC secretariats + 2 x number of SC secretariats + 1 x number of WG secretariats) / (GDP in billions USD x 1.11); the coefficient of weight was added in order to get the outcome 100 for “number 1,” Sweden. All data come from Toth (Ed., 1997).
52
3.5
Selling standards
Each NSO sells their national standards42 and ISO and/or IEC standards.43 Most NSOs also sell standards from all other NSOs. Often, NSOs also sell standards from other organizations, for instance, military or SSO standards. Most NSOs sell standards over the counter and provide mail-order shopping. Some NSOs, for instance, DIN, also have decentralized selling points (Beuth, 1998, p. 1). There is an increase in providing standards on electronic media, such as CD ROM. Internet sales are growing: buying standards via the Internet, as well as full text delivery of standards via the Internet.44 In general, all national standards and other frequently requested standards collections are kept in stock. Other standards are ordered from the SDOs that issued them. Since a growing number of NSOs prepare standards electronically, printing on demand is a means to reduce stocks (Kölling, 1996; Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1998b, p. 21). NSOs have a gentlemen’s agreement to be the only selling point in their country for formal standards from all over the world. A company in country A wanting to buy a standard from country B buys this standard from the NSO in country A. When this company asks the NSO in country B to send the standard, this NSO will usually refer to the NSO in country A. Mostly, but not always, to avoid being accused of forming a cartel, NSOs make exceptions. The amount of exceptions depends on the country’s culture. BSI, for instance, often delivers standards to other countries, whereas the Swiss Association for Standardization (SNV) consciously refers to their colleagues in the home countries of companies that order a Swiss standard. This gentlemen’s agreement can cause delays in delivery, and for many customers speed of delivery is more important than price. FSOs also face competition from commercial firms in selling standards (Blijham, 1996). Some FSOs, including ISO, have contracts with firms that permit them to resell standards. In other cases, firms resell standards without contract.45 These companies have a part of the market because: 42
As stated in Subsection 3.2.3, national standards include national implementations of international and regional standards. 43 NSOs are not obliged to implement ISO/IEC standards in their national standards collection. ISO member bodies are normally the primary ISO sales agents in their countries (ISO, 1998a, p. 5). IEC standards can also be bought from national members, from IEC Customer Service Centre in Geneva, and from some IEC approved sales outlets (IEC, 1998a, pp. 13-17). 44 Standards Australia is the first NSO that sells all their standards via the Internet (Pontoni, 1998; www.standards.com.au). CEN members prepare Internet selling in the INES (Internet Network for European Standardization) project, Work Package 4 Standards Delivery (AFNOR, 1998; http://ines.afnor.fr/cen/cenwp4.htm#S1). All IEC standards published as of September 1996 are available at the IEC Central Office in electronic format, and the IEC develops Web purchase (IEC, 1998f). Up-to-the-minute reports can be found on the NSO websites. These can be reached via http://www.iso.ch and http://www.iec.ch. An example of DIN Internet applications is offered by Walser (1998). 45 In general, FSOs have copyrights on their standards. Many governmental NSOs’ standards, however, are not copyrighted (Toth, 1994, p. 47). Most FSOs do not seek out or prosecute copyright violators (ibid., p. 48). Some NSOs do not give commercial firms permission to (re)sell national
53 - they sometimes deliver faster; - they provide standards on CD ROM that are not available on this medium from the FSO that published them; and/or - they often also sell standards from other SDOs.
3.6
Information
Most NSOs provide information services related to national standards and, often, also to, for instance, technical regulations and certification/accreditation. NSO information centres co-operate in ISONET, the ISO information network. The ISONET Directory (ISO, 1997b) lists information services offered by the NSOs that participate in this network. Information services, in general, include: 1 announcements of standards and developments in standardization These may have the form of: - updates of data bases, for example, additions to catalogues and CD-ROMs, and listings of new standards in the NSO’s periodical; - other written information, for example, newsletters, informative publications, press releases, and websites. 2 help for companies in tracing relevant standards FSOs provide information services to help companies find the right standards: - bibliographic data in paper catalogues46 and catalogues on electronic media, such as CD ROMs and websites;47 - grouping of related standards in handbooks or compendia;48 - other written information, for instance, news letters and other informative publications; - verbal information at the counter or by telephone; - advice, that, once a standards collection is established, may be followed by an update-service: assistance in keeping the collection up to date by offering information on new, changed and withdrawn standards and/or by offering subscriptions to a dedicated standards collection;49 standards in the NSO’s motherland. However, an NSO in country A cannot prevent these firms from (re)selling standards from country B in country A, and from country A in country B. 46 These catalogues differ very much in their presentations: many NSOs do not apply the international standard that sets up rules with regard to these matters: ISO 7220. This hinders catalogue users (IFAN, 1997d, Item 12.2; ISO, 1996a). 47 ISO members agreed on common data elements to be used in their electronic databases (laid down in the ISONET Manual (ISO, 1998e; ISONET is the ISO Information Network: the world-wide network of national standards information centres)). In spite of this, there are differences per country, which hinders exchange of data on standards between databases (IFAN, 1997d, Item 12.3). 48 Both handbooks and compendia contain a collection of full-text standards. The only difference concerns their size: in handbooks the standard sizes are reduced, in compendia they are reproduced full-size (ISO, 1998a, p. 29). 49 For example, ANSI’s Standards Tracking and Automated Reporting (STAR) Service (ANSI, 1998b) and NNI’s Update Service (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1998c, p. 20). For many organizations, the importance of systematic standards management has increased due to the introduction of ISO 9000 quality management. ISO 9001 states: The supplier shall establish and maintain documented procedures to control all documents and data that relate to the requirements of this International Standard
54 - tracing relevant standards and regulations in the countries a company wants to export to.50 3 elucidation of a standard’s contents This may have the form of: - telephone information; - written information, for example, newsletters and informative publications; - films and videos; - courses, symposia, workshops, lectures; - tools related to standards, such as templates for standardized symbols, and software; - advice, for example, help in interpreting and implementing standards. Within the total portfolio of NSO services, information services are growing, as may be illustrated by the NNI example. Information services - the NNI example In its mission statement, NNI mentions information services as the third area of activities, in addition to developing and influencing standards, and selling standards. In 1988, NNI transformed its department for company standardization into a special department for company standardization and courses. Nowadays, 7% of NNI’s income comes from training services, 7% from other information products and services, 42% from standards development, 41% from selling standards, 2% is an allowance from the national government, and the remaining 1% comes from different sources (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997b).
To provide information services, most NSOs have an information centre and a public relations officer/department. Larger NSOs additionally have one or more special departments, for instance, to organize courses. Newsletters and advice - NNI practice NNI has grouped its standardization activities into clusters. Each cluster has its own newsletter, usually a quarterly. The number of subscribers per newsletter is between 150 and 500. By subscribing to the relevant newsletter(s), companies and other stakeholders get information on current standardization activities. Those who prefer more detailed information can take out a subscription to TC documents. Some clusters also provide advice: they assist companies is implementing European New Approach Directives and related standards.
including, to the extent applicable, documents of external origin such as standards and customer drawings (ISO, 1994c, clause 4.5.1). 50 For example, ANSI’s Research Services (ANSI, 1998a) and BSI’s Technical Help to Exporters (BSI, 1997d). The NSOs in Australia, Israel and New Zealand also offer such service (ISO, 1997b).
55
3.7
Other services
3.7.1 Metrology51 All standards collections include standards for units of measurement, measuring instruments, terms and definitions related to measurement, and methods for upkeep and maintenance of the instruments. A specialized institution should keep the primary (physical) measurement standards of the country. Twenty percent of the 70 NSOs listed in Annex 1 are the national metrology organization. All are governmental NSOs in developing countries or in countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. As this group is underrepresented in that listing, the real portion will be more than 20%. Some NSOs also calibrate instruments used by industry, research laboratories, shops, etc.52 3.7.2 Testing, product certification, and management system certification53 Most NSOs are involved in product testing54 and/or certification.55 As can be seen from Annex 1 these are NSOs all over the world, including industrialized countries, such as, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, New Zealand, the Russian Federation, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. They have their own product labels that demonstrate a product’s conformity to standards.56 Most of these NSOs also carry out quality and environmental management certification activities. As can be seen in Annex 1, some NSOs earn more than 50% of their income from activities in the area of testing and certification.57
51
Information in this Subsection is taken from ISO (1994a, p. 28) and Toth (Ed.) (1997). Metrology includes all problems of a theoretical and practical nature related to measuring instruments, methods and execution of measurements and estimation of their characteristics, and with units of measurement. That part of metrology related to legal requirements is called legal metrology. It deals with the establishment, reproduction, conservation and dissemination of units, and with the examination and stamping of measuring instruments (verification) (ISO, 1987c, p. 67). 52 In the other countries, in general, this activity is partly left to industry, to calibrate its own instruments, but additionally, for the sake of consumer protection, it is done by a governmental agency outside the NSO. 53 Information in this Subsection is taken from websites and from Toth (Ed.) (1997). 54 Testing is the action of carrying out one or more tests. A test is a technical operation that consists of the determination of one or more characteristics of a given product, process or service according to a specified procedure (ISO/IEC, 1996b, Clauses 13.1.1 and 13.1). 55 Certification is the procedure by which a third party gives written assurance that a product, process or service conforms to specified requirements (ISO/IEC, 1996b, Clause 15.1.2). Information on certification can be found in Certification and related activities (ISO/IEC, 1992a). 56 A thorough discussion of labels is provided by Coles (1949). 57 Argentina: 55%; United Kingdom: 62%; Spain: 63%; Venezuela: 68%; South Africa: 74%; Bolivia: 75%; Turkey: 80%; India: 89%.
56 3.7.3 Accreditation58 To assure that testing and calibration laboratories, and certification bodies, meet standards set for them, accreditation59 is necessary. Usually, accreditation bodies are independent agencies, often with governmental support. Generally, such an accreditation body is outside the NSO, although the latter often plays a leading role in setting up such a body. In, for instance, Beylarussia, the Czech Republic, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyztan, Mexico, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Thailand, Tunisia and Zambia, the NSO performs this activity.
3.7.4 Incidental other activities In addition to the above mentioned NSO activities, a limited number of NSOs also carry out one or more other activities, including: Advocating standardization as a discipline Verman (1973) mentions standardization as a discipline. Hesser and Inklaar (1997b, pp. 59-60) stress that standardization, as a discipline, needs academic research. A few NSOs (France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey) stimulate some activities in this field. This book could be written only thanks to NNI’s funding of the chair in standardization at the Rotterdam School of Management. Education A discipline also needs to be taught in schools, possibly from secondary school through university. The Turkish NSO is the only one with a well-concieved strategy in this area (TNSCAS, 1998). Some other NSOs (France, the Netherlands, United Kingdom) also have some activities directed at public education. Promotion and pursuance of industrial research NSOs, in general, do not carry out their own research activities. They have no R&D department. Some NSOs, for instance, AFNOR and DIN, occasionally let others do some general research. Some NSOs play an intermediary role in arranging research related to specific standards or sets of standards.60
58
Information in this Subsection comes from ISO (1994a, p. 28-29) and Toth (Ed.) (1997). Accreditation is the procedure by which an authoritative body gives formal recognition that a body or person is competent to carry out specific tasks (ISO/IEC, 1996b, Clause 12.11). 60 This applies, for instance, to projects related to the European STAR system: R&D support for standardization (Buntzly, 1996). 59
57 Support for the national standards users organization61 Promoting standardization can include support for the national standards users organization (Hesser & Inklaar, 1997b, pp. 60-61). Several countries have such organizations; 21 of them are members of the International Federation of Standards Users (IFAN). In, for instance, Germany, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, NSOs give active support; in other countries, for instance, the Netherlands, the NSOs stress the importance of independence and do not give support. Support can include performing secretariat duties (Germany), offering other facilities (United Kingdom) and/or offering some money (Norway). The Austrian and Swiss Association for the Application of Standards, AGN and NOP, are part of the national NSO. In Austria, the NSO finances AGN. The NOP is self-supporting and financed mainly by conference fees. Asistance to other NSOs Some NSOs provide assistance to other NSOs. The NSO in Mauritius, for instance, had help from NSOs in Malaysia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom and is now assisting Madagascar and Comores (Kumar & Dewkurun, 1998).62 Information on (technical) regulation NSOs in, for instance, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, Mozambique, New Zealand, the Philippines, Portugal and Singapore provide information on technical regulation in their country (ISO, 1997b). Inspection of imported products Some NSOs in developing countries carry out inspection activities to protect the home market against the dumping of cheap, inferior products by foreign producers. For example, the Trinidad and Tobago Bureau of Standards inspects imported tyres (Hutchinson, 1998).
61
Data in this subsection come from IFAN (1997a, 1997b and 1997d). AFNOR, BSI and DIN especially, are very active in this area. Such assistance may be also in favour of their national industries. If the country that receives help would adopt a subset of their national standards, it is easier for these industries to export. Moreover, informal contacts may pave the way for export (source: Mr. R.T. Huigen, standardization consultant, NNI, active in consulting other NSOs; this claim has not been examined further). 62
58
3.8
Improvements in NSO performance
NSOs appear to have a choice of being more or less a national monopolist in having the national link to ISO/IEC, or being proactive in finding new business opportunities and improving performance. Some NSOs, especially the big ones, are examples of the latter option.63 The ISO,64 IEC,65 CEN,66 and CENELEC also try to implement improvements; this encourages NSOs to not just sit and wait, but to innovate their processes as well. Move towards proactiveness - NNI experience In 1991/1992 NNI was reorganized to become more market-driven. Changes included: - a shift to a more decisive form of administration for both the standardization committees and the institute; - an organizational shift from grouping of committee secretariats according to technical disciplines to a grouping according to market segments; - introduction of feasibility studies for possible areas of new activities;67 - addition of new activities in the product and service portfolio in the area of information products (advice, courses, newsletters); - a different financing of activities: only those standardization projects remain, for which participants or other stakeholders are willing to pay; - change in financial support by the Ministry of Economic Affairs: direct subsidies for specified projects, with decreasing amounts of money, instead of 10% base funding; - introduction of account managers for major stakeholders (big companies, and branch organizations); - major personal changes on the management level, minor changes on the operational level; - quality management in the training services department, including ISO 9001 registration; - education of employees. In official readings both the advantages of the new organization and the disadvantages of the old organization are stressed,68 while, in fact, many things hardly changed, for instance, the procedures for developing standards. A positive shift for NNI, however, is indisputable. It includes: - a relatively large participation of Dutch stakeholders in international and European standardization; - better information products, so that Dutch stakeholders get better information, especially on European developments; - improved contacts with stakeholders, including governmental agencies; - an overall increase in activities and in the number of employees; - process improvements thanks to better use of ICT; - a healthy financial situation. No systematic research on customer perceptions is available. Their willingness to pay for NNI services and the relative increase of NNI compared with NSOs in other countries, provide a certain indication that they also appreciate this shift.
63
BSI, for instance, carries out systematic stakeholder research to measure performance improvements (BSI, 1996) and did a benchmarking study to compare BSI with other NSOs (Tidmarsh, 1995). An overview on DIN’s efficiency improvements is provided by Reihlen (1997). The Standards Council of Canada published a strategic plan for improvements (SCC, 1998). Standards Australia re-engineers the standards preparation process (Walsh, 1997). 64 ISO (1998d); Rajchel (1997). 65 IEC (1996b); Liess & Salffner (1998). 66 CEN (1995 & 1998a); Enjeux (1996b). 67 The method used for these activities is described in Section 13.9. 68 See, for instance, the interim manager’s view (Straatman, 1994) and the foundation president’s view (Tot, 1996).
59
3.9
Final remarks and conclusions
NSOs differ enormously in size and in portfolio of activities, see Annex 1. NSO kernel activities include standards development, selling standards, and providing information on standards and standardization. Other activities may be added. NSOs in small economies, especially in developing countries, are often also involved in metrology, testing, certification and/or accreditation. Most industrialized countries have more separation of responsibilities, but many NSOs in these countries are also involved in testing and/or certification. Sections 7.5 - 7.7 devote some further attention to NSO services in these areas, discussing their reconcilability with standardization services.69 Electrotechnical standardization has been carried out at an international level from the outset (1906). Electrotechnical NSOs are justified mainly because of the IEC’s existence and proven value for the sector. Additionally, they prepare some national standards, including standards that set requirements for safety of electrotechnical installations and operations. Non-electrotechnical NSOs in industrialized countries were founded in the first decades of the 20th century mainly to get more efficiency in industrial production. National standards systems have emerged, especially in the larger countries and countries formerly associated with the Soviet bloc.70 Since the second World War, a huge collection of international standards has emerged. The reasons for the growing importance of standardization, listed in Subsection 1.1.1, stress the ISO’s and IEC’s (and the ITU’s) position. The ISO and IEC derive their authority from: - their huge collection of standards, sector-specific for the IEC, and for the ISO, covering almost all sectors of industry; - their principles (openness, consensus, transparency, coherency); - ISO’s representation by its members in almost all countries of the world, and IEC’s representation in almost all industrialized countries; - the availability of their standardization infrastructure for all new standardization initiatives; - their enormous network of committees; - their official liaisons with almost 500 international organizations (for ISO listed in ISO, 1995d). ISO’s (and IEC’s) operating procedures may be outdated and it is questionable whether the principles of openness, consensus, transparency, and coherency fully apply; these matters will be discussed later. But ISO’s main force is its large installed base. Also standardization activities not carried out in FSOs often get a link to ISO. 69
In more than 50% of over 70 NSOs investigated by Toth (1997), there is a national body which coordinates or oversees activities in the areas of metrology, standardization, testing and quality. Nearly all of these bodies are governmental agencies. This applies more to developing countries than to industrialized countries. 70 The largest collections of national standards include the USA (93,000 standards), Germany (37,000), Russia (22,000), Ukraine (21,000), France (19,500), Byelorussia (19,000), Japan (18,000), China (17,000), India (16,500), Poland (15,400), Italy (15,000), United Kingdom (13,700), Bulgaria (13,000), Taiwan (13,000), Turkey (12,600), Sweden (12,100), Spain (11,900), and Indonesia (10,000) (Toth, 1997, p. 4). Note: the number of standards is of relative importance: an average German standard, for instance, is shorter than a British one: the BSI sometimes handles topics in one big standard for which DIN uses several smaller standards.
60 The ISO is the spider in the world-wide standardization web. NSOs that once founded the ISO, now derive their main value from their exclusive link to ISO. This not only applies to young NSOs, especially in developing countries, but also, to a large extent, to settled NSOs that once were co-founders of ISO. Moreover, exclusive links to regional FSOs were added, the strongest with CEN and CENELEC.71 Efficiency, once reason for establishing NSOs, is nowadays often a reason to avoid them when possible, since standards setting takes so long. National standards still remain - in many countries the majority of them are not (yet) based on international standards. National standardization still applies, but is mostly organized per sector, using the NSO channel only when necessary because of its links to the ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC.72 Governments in particular have more appreciation for NSO performance, because NSO principles guarantee careful decision making, which makes the NSO attractive for governments afraid of being blamed if things go wrong.
71 72
See the listing of regional FSOs in Subsection 2.2.3. This also applies to service sectors, as was concluded in the Dutch study described in Chapter 11.
4
ACTOR NEEDS
4.1
Introduction
The question to which extent National Standardization Organizations (NSOs) meet actor needs, of course, cannot simply be answered, as actor needs differ. This Chapter addresses differences due to 1) kinds of standards needed (4.2), and 2) mechanisms that determine which standard will be used by which user groups (4.3). More in general, actors have certain wishes concerning Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) (4.4). This chapter concludes on NSO appropriateness to meet the different actor needs (4.5). Between brackets, reference is made to (sub)sections in other chapters.
4.2
Needs for standardization services per standards category
4.2.1
Needs related to subject matter categories
Actor needs can differ per kind of standard. This section lists these needs, ordered according to the standards classification that will be presented in Chapter 9. Standards classifications are related to the subject matter or to the actors concerned. In general, differences in subject matters do not cause much diversification in standardization services needed. Some classifications that slightly influence services needed and, thus, the choice of SDOs, include: 1 standards for testing (9.2.3) Standards that provide test methods gain in reliability when they have been agreed upon in committees in which the major stakeholders participate. Therefore, in general, companies that need test methods for their products or services will prefer SDOs that guarantee possibilities for such participation. Other stakeholders will not oppose this. All Formal Standardization Organizations (FSOs) guarantee openness. Consortia fail on this point. For Governmental Standardization Organizations (GSOs) and Sectoral or Specialistic Standardization Organizations (SSOs) it depends on their respective rules. 2 basic standards (9.2.3) Basic standards are of general importance; no direct company interests are at stake. They need public support. FSOs fit this criterion best. Basic standards that are specific for one sector or profession may also be developed by an SSO. Not mentioned in Chapter 9, but also relevant, is the degree of subject matter complexity. The more complex the subject matter, the more subject-matter-related expertise SDOs may need to be able to give adequate support. Of course, experts from parties involved primarily bring in this expertise. SDO officials, however, should at least be able to understand what they are talking about. FSOs and GSOs may be less equipped with this knowledge than consortia or SSOs. For example, for the oil industry, the American Petroleum Institute (API) may have more subject-matter-related knowledge than the technical officers of the NSOs that perform secretariats for ISO
62 committees relevant for this branch of industry, and this also applies to technical officers of ISO’s Central Secretariat.
4.2.2
Needs related to actor-dependent categories
main actors (9.3.1) Mostly, suppliers of products or services are in the position to set the standards. If one of them is a dominant agent, he can force others to use the (company) standard he has set. In case of an oligopoly, the most appropriate SDO may be a consortium or an SSO. In case of a large number of suppliers, an SSO is the obvious solution. If they want to involve users or other stakeholders, an SSO may also be suitable, provided that they guarantee openness to all stakeholders, as do FSOs. In case of governmental dominance, a GSO may be the obvious choice, but an FSO may also be appropriate. Koehorst, De Vries and Wubben (1999) describe a case with a user as the dominant agent. This user was in the position to set his own standard and force his suppliers to use it, but chose to co-operate with suppliers, other users, and other stakeholders. So, the market position of major stakeholders determines to a large extent whether or not they have a need for co-operation, and, if so, with whom. Other stakeholders just have to reconcile themselves to this situation. level of standardization (9.3.1) Subsection 9.3.1 demonstrates that, in general, the distinction between standardization at the company, national, regional, and international level is not unambiguous. It may be worthwhile, however, to consider these levels related to the parties one wants to enable to get involved. Often, national standards serve as input for European or international standardization, which may be advantageous to the country concerned. In general, companies have a need to standardize at the level of their markets (Hoffmann, 1995). standards functions (9.3.2) By means of the standards functions listed in Subsection 9.3.2, the interests of all stakeholders can be traced in a systematic way. This can reveal whether these interests are equal, supplement each other, or conflict with one another. In case of converging interests, it can be beneficial to all to choose an SDO that is open to participation for all, for example, an FSO. In case of divergent interests, it may be attractive for some of the actors to limit access to standardization disputes, though this need not be so. In the first case, a consortium or an SSO may be the best option for them. ‘designing’ or ‘selecting’ (9.3.3) If a new standard has to be designed, SDOs that have skills in using methods for standards development, as described in Chapter 13, have a competitive advantage compared to other SDOs. At present, not all FSOs are known for using such knowledge, even if this knowledge is available (as is the case in DIN, for instance). If just an existing standard has to be selected, knowledge of methods is less necessary but
63 is still an advantage. Basic knowledge of preferential assortments will always be of help. So actors may have a need for professional standardization support. This is a latent need rather than a manifest need. anticipatory, concurrent or retrospective standardization (9.3.3) Anticipatory standardization, in general, requires more standardization know-how than retrospective standardization because the standard’s contents will have to be designed from scratch, as no existing documents can be used. In retrospective standardization, one can often make use of descriptions of existing solutions. Concurrent standardization occupies a position that is in-between these two. For anticipatory and concurrent standardization, the speed of standards development should not be slower than the development speed of the entities concerned. This makes FSOs unsuitable for at least parts of the standards collections needed for a growing number of sectors, because product development time is decreasing in most sectors. rate of obligation (9.3.5) In general, companies dislike compulsory standards. Sometimes, however, they agree to prescribe certain standards, for instance in order to assure a common minimum level of quality for all members of a branch organization. Their wish to get compulsory standards or, on the contrary, their fear of them may strongly influence the choice of SDOs. Formal standards are voluntary standards. Despite this, governments prefer them to SSO standards and standards from consortia when they refer to standards in legislation.1 GSO standards may but need not be obligatory standards. historical, factual, or consciously developed standards (9.3.6) Actors have a need (again: latent rather than manifest) for SDOs that are aware of historical and factual standards and, where necessary, honour these when developing standards. Historical standards can be confirmed and made available by inclusion into FSO or SSO standards collections. formal or de facto standards (9.3.6) Formal standards differ from many de facto standards by being common, open, and public. It will depend on the circumstances whether or not companies need these characteristics or prefer their absence. Consumer organizations generally appreciate these characteristics (see Subsection 4.4.3). Governments prefer them if they do not want to enforce standards themselves (4.4.4).
1
For this reason, Dutch employers’ organizations did not want to have a national standard on occupational health and safety management, but preferred just a national report; certification criteria, if any, should be (and are in practice) set by certification bodies. The national government is not expected to refer to such de facto standards (see Chapter 10 and ISO Bulletin, 1996c).
64 property rights (9.3.8) FSOs (and often SSOs and GSOs) allow inclusion of patents in standards only if licences are offered on reasonable terms. Therefore, in case of patents or copyright protection, consortia can be attractive to parties possessing property rights, whereas other actors may prefer FSOs.
4.3
Needs related to mechanisms in the spread of standards
This section relates actors’ needs to the mechanisms in the spread of standards that will be described in Chapter 12 and have been summarized in Section 2.3. Subsequently, SDO suitability to meet these needs is discussed. installed base, conversion, lock-in (12.2) Needs for new standards depend to a large extent on the installed base of existing standards. With regard to the possible role for FSOs, four characteristic situations apply: 1 installed base of a historical, factual or de facto standard There may be a need to include this standard in an FSO’s standards collection: - to affirm its value; - to stimulate its use; - to help developers of de facto standards to distribute standards and to inform interested parties; - to assure standards maintenance by putting it in the hands of a standardization committee that is responsible for it and has to review its value every five years;2 - to provide producers of clones, if any, with the right information to avoid clones that seem to meet the standard’s requirements but fail to do so, causing problems in their functioning. This especially applies to compatibility standards. 2 installed base of several conflicting standards SDOs can try to limit the number of solutions, but, due to lock-in effects and cost of conversion, many actors have a need to stick to these standards, so this will often be ineffective. An SDO could list the existing standards to inform the market and prevent malfunctioning of clones. 3 a great number of isolated solutions If many actors have isolated solutions that cannot function together, they may have a need to agree to a common standard, provided that the costs of conversion are less than the costs of existing incompatibilities. For these actors, the slow FSO procedures can be an advantage: they have some years to depreciate their investments and to anticipate the new standard.
2
Or, even better, 2-12 years as within IEC (see Subsection 3.2.2).
65 4 installed base of an existing FSO standard If a standard needs to be revised, actors, to a certain extent, are locked in the FSO that once developed that standard. Actors that wish to extend an existing set of standards with a new one face the same problem: they may feel forced to choose the FSOs that developed that set of standards, whether they like this or not. A large number of current FSO standardization projects can be explained from these lock-in effects: actors may feel forced to opt for FSOs because of the installed base of FSO standards, despite the fact that procedures that used to be convenient to develop these standards are no longer satisfactory for developing new standards, due to acceleration in product and process development speed and shorter product life cycles. backwards, forwards and sideways compatibility, integration (12.3) For technical and business reasons, technologies are more and more interrelated or integrated. This reinforces the need for mutual compatibility of standards collections. Proliferation of SDOs may increase the risk of incompatible standards. Therefore, a central SDO at the international level is an advantage: if ISO were not there already, it should be invented. Organizational unity, however, only makes sense if internal procedures that should guarantee compatibility of standards really function. In spite of all kinds of liaisons between ISO/IEC TCs, and between ISO/IEC and other organizations, this does not function optimally, which is illustrated by the unnecessary discrepancies between the international standards for quality management and environmental management (see Chapter 10) and confusion in the area of graphical symbols.3 bandwagoning to a dominant design (12.4) The bandwagoning mechanism is not only applicable to standards, but also to SDOs: actors may have a need to bandwagon an SDO if other actors already make use of that SDO’s services, and/or if they already obtain some services of that SDO. The first four reasons for bandwagoning (12.4), namely, availability of the solution, “informational increasing returns,” uncertainty avoidance and economies of scale, all favour “one-stop shopping” with one SDO. The other reasons for bandwagoning, namely, improved functionality, essential functionality, and network externalities, may also cause bandwagoning to a single SDO. The loss of the FSO market share in practice, therefore, can only be explained by dissatisfaction with FSO services. A special example of bandwagoning is the inclusion of international standards in NSOs’, CEN’s and CENELEC’s standards collections.
3
The Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC) has set up a study group to look into the issue of consumer confusion about graphical symbols. Various surveys have reported that consumers find it difficult to understand what they mean and sometimes take them for their opposite meaning. Different symbols are used on different products to convey the same message. Misunderstanding of warning signs could result in accidents (Consumer Communiqué, 1998, p. 7; the issue of graphic symbols is also addressed in ISO Bulletin (1997) and by Bergner (1997) and Böcker (1996)).
66 first agent, dominant agent (12.5) Actors that agree to a standard do not want this standard to be beaten by another, competing standard. The first agent mechanism, in this respect, favours SDOs that have short procedures. In general, FSOs are too slow to be able to be first agents, which can cause actors to opt in favour of other SDOs. FSOs, however, can be dominant agents, due to their status. free riders (12.5) All actors, of course, prefer standardization at low cost, or, if possible, free of charge. Participation in standardization activities costs time and money. It is also possible to influence standardization without paying for it by giving comments at the stage of public enquiry. Though this is not so effective, there is a danger that too many interested parties leave participation to others and only use this possibility. Standardization activities that benefit many users often face the problem that individual users do not invest in standardization by participating in the standards development process or paying for this process. They prefer to wait for others to do so. Once the resulting standards are available they just buy (or copy) them. competing standards (12.6) As actor needs differ, compromises may be necessary. To reach consensus, standardization committees sometimes, as a compromise, describe several options in the same standard.4 Such contradictory options may cause confusion among standards users that were not involved in the creation of the standard. It is a moot point whether or not FSOs should permit such compromises. An argument in favour is that these standards at least provide some sort of reduction by describing only a limited number of solutions: having no standard would be worse.
4.4
Wishes concerning NSO services
4.4.1
Introduction
Different groups of NSO customers may have different wishes concerning standardization services. This section tries to describe these wishes. The word tries may be stressed, for it is difficult for actors to express their wishes concerning standardization services: people hardly know which services with which characteristics might help them, so they do not know what to ask. Therefore, answers to questions about their needs and wishes concerning standardization services often do not go beyond “standards should be developed faster and be sold at a lower price.”5 If a user 4
This applies, for instance, to some of the standards on Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) of ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 Information technology. 5 Hardly any producer’s wishes concerning standardization services can be found in the literature. According to Simons, former Director of Corporate Standardization with Philips International BV, this is due to the confidentiality of product strategies and to a general wish to avoid participation in SDO activities whenever possible, partly because these organizations lack technical expertise.
67 panel discusses customer requirements, better-founded conclusions may be expected. The national standards user organizations can be considered as being such a user panel, and the needs and wishes they have expressed will be mentioned. To structure the data in this chapter, a distinction is made between standards, standardization, and other SDO services. The parties whose wishes were inventoried are companies (4.4.2), consumers (4.4.3), governments (4.4.4), and SDOs (4.4.5). Of course, parties that are affected by standards are interested in the standard’s content and to what extent it meets their specific (technical) needs. However, this issue will not be addressed in this section, only their general wishes with respect to the characteristics of standards will be considered.
4.4.2
Companies
Standards National and regional standards should be based on international ones (ICSCA, 6 1997, Resolution 10). Regional SDOs should develop agreements with international standardization bodies comparable to the Dresden Agreement7 between IEC and CENELEC (ibid., Resolution 21; UNICE,8 1991, p. 8). European standards should be developed only if there are links with European legislation and Europe should try to have them adopted at the international level (UNICE, 1991, p. 8). Requirements mentioned by Siemens (Hoffmann, 1995, p. 10-15): - The flood of (European) standards should be dammed by better prioritizing.9 - Standards at the international, European and national level should be harmonized. Siemens prefers standards at the level of its markets, so international ones. - Too often European standards are of a poor quality. The format and contents of standards should be tested before they are issued. - Information to facilitate their use should be added to standards, including lists of differences with preceding standards. - Both for preparing standards and for issuing them, electronic devices should be used such as SGML, hypertext, and the Internet (see Section 5.8).
6
ICSCA = Industry Committee on Standards and Conformity Assessment, a pressure group in which big multinational companies and ANSI participate. 7 The Dresden Agreement specifies the way IEC and CENELEC harmonize their standards. IEC standards that are adopted by CENELEC are automatically included in the national standards systems of EU and EFTA countries. The Dresden Agreement also covers the way in which IEC or CENELEC take up new work. Finally, it regulates parallel voting. At present, about 90% of the CENELEC standards are identical to, or closely based on, IEC standards (IEC Bulletin, 1998b). 8 UNICE = Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe. 9 To produce a car radio, for example, Siemens needs 65 different standards that refer to about 200 other standards.
68 German standards users10 have listed requirements for (European) standards, such as: - CEN should use its own rules for standards (obviously, this is not a matter of course). Standards, therefore, should be accurate, without contradictions, understandable for qualified people, corresponding to the state of technology, and should not hinder possible future technological developments. - Sets of standards should be coherent. - Editorial conditions should be met concerning, for instance, standards numbering,11 pictures, abbreviations, and references to other standards. North-American standards users suggested improvements in the identification, layout, and accessibility of standards (Elinski, 1985).12 Standardization Top-level industry and technology policy leaders13 advised ISO and IEC to: - establish new mechanisms (in addition to their traditional consensus procedures) to serve the needs for global collaboration on standardization questions at early stages of technological innovation. These mechanisms should be flexible (direction setting agreements on provisional or quasi standards), fast (very simple procedures), and open (to direct participation from companies and/or national organizations associated with R&D programmes). These new mechanisms should be used when the standard needs are seen to be market enhancing for all producers, and therefore not driven by competitive and/or nationalistic pressures; - concentrate on pilot studies and technical trials in areas where they already have a credible basis of experience; - undertake these new service mechanisms (which might take the form of workshops, peer-reviewed technical papers, strategic planning symposia, etc.) by forming alliances with partner institutions which are concerned with international collaborative research; 10
The German standards users organization (ANP) made a guideline for participants in European standardization committees with the purpose of establishing user-friendly European standards (Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN, 1995). These requirements are confirmed by Hoffmann (1995) and reflect a more general German concern about the quality and style of European standards that differ from the DIN standards they are accustomed to. 11 Numbering should not be mentioned here, because it is not a responsibility of standardization committees but of the CEN Central Office. Of course, users can verify whether CEN meets its own rules. 12 The standards users organization Standards Engineering Society (SES) bases its recommendation on a survey among its members. It appeared that 45% indicated problems because standards’ titles did not adequately describe the subject; 40% stated that abstracts were either inadequate or non-existent; 37% stated that key words were either inadequate or non-existent. To develop proposals for improvements, SES formed task groups for designating standards, titles and keywords for standards, abstracts of standards, standards’ format, and catalogues and indexes (Mackay, 1987). Making use of the results of the deliberations of these task groups, a Recommended practice for Standards Designation and Organization was prepared, which has been issued in the form of an American National Standard (SES, 1995). 13 These leaders were members of the ISO/IEC joint Presidents’ Advisory Board on Technological Trends (ABTT). It was created to advise ISO and IEC on global trends in technology and industrial development and their impact on the demand for global standardization. The apparent reason for this was the fear of ISO and IEC to lose their market share.
69 - promote the importance of the new services with senior industrial executives, to OECD14, and to organizations in industrial countries where “science and technology policy debates” are conducted. (ISO/IEC, 1990, p. 9) Too many international standards are out of date, which makes it technologically impossible to use them. Therefore, ISO and IEC should review their existing portfolio of standards in conformity with the rule of five-year review. They should withdraw conflicting standards and reduce the number of standards by 50%. They should develop a more effective approach to accepting new work items (ICSCA, 1997, Resolution 11). CEN should accelerate the process of standards development to avoid duplication of work and to check the consistency of the standardization programmes (UNICE, 1997, Comments 5 and 6). ISO, IEC, and CEN should improve their price-performance rate (ICSCA, 1997, Resolution 17; UNICE, 1997, Comments 1 and 2). FSOs should be private organizations. This is of special interest at the European level, where the European Commission may use standardization as a tool in its policies. The European Commission should principally play the role of a customer using the services of private standardization bodies. It should not seek to impose its views of standardization in its capacity as a public authority (UNICE, 1992, p.1). In European standardization, there is a recurrent debate whether companies should be involved via their participation in national standardization (which is current practice in CEN and CENELEC) or by direct participation at the European level (as in ETSI). UNICE states that direct participation of European interest groups in the work of European standardization bodies should be possible, in order to increase efficiency. This, however, does not apply to the level of those committees where the standards’ contents is developed (WGs and SCs): the number of their members should be limited for reasons of effectiveness. Participating European interest groups should meet three conditions (UNICE, 1992, p. 1-2): 1 credible representation at the European level; 2 participation from start to finish of the standardization project; 3 ability to make factual contributions to the work.15 UNICE also supports a growing role for associated standardizing bodies, such as industry-based associations that prepare standards that can get the status of an official standard. Such associations might also carry out preparatory work on standards and thus serve as feeder organizations for FSOs. FSOs should maintain their consensusbased decision-making. Standards should meet user needs, so other stakeholders should not be excluded: co-operation at an early stage with all interested circles is indispensable in order to take the various requirements into account (UNICE, 1991, p. 1, 3). The way standards (in the area of Document processing and related communication) meet user requirements should be improved.16 Therefore, the ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 1817 14
OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. It is questionable to which extent actors other than producers will be able to meet these criteria (HdV). 16 The same need has been expressed by Takahashi and Tojo (1993, p. 535). 15
70 secretariat developed an addendum to the general ISO/IEC Directives (Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 18, 1995). It states that user requirements should be expressed in terms of global functions envisioned for typical applications. It offers a Style Guide for describing these requirements. Meeting user needs should start at the very beginning of each standardization project. Any New Work Item Proposal should include preliminary user requirements. NSOs that vote on the proposal should comment on these requirements. During the stages of standards development, user requirements are expressed and agreed upon, and the way the concept standard conforms to these requirements must be described. The question who the users are and which requirements they have, is left to the participants, no matter whether these are users or producers. To stimulate the development of standards that meet users’ needs, Cobeno18 (1982) recommended: - Standardization committee members should have sufficient knowledge and represent different interests. - Before a standardization project is started, the need for the standard should be investigated. - Each standardization committee should have a clear job description, including target days for work to be ready. - The committee (and/or its secretariat) should maintain contacts with experts and other interested parties not directly represented on the committee. These should be invited to comment on drafts and get information about the committee’s opinion on these comments. The Dutch socio-economic development council SER (1994)19 gave the following advice: - The NSO should operate actively and be market-driven. - The NSO should make clear to parties in the market the economic significance of standardization. - The NSO should focus on international standardization and actively contribute to improvements in the functioning of international standardization, for instance, in improvements of the standards’ quality20 and in speeding up standards delivery. - Where possible, national regulations should be replaced by a combination of standardization and certification, taking the European New Approach (see Section 5.7) as an example.
17
ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 Information Technology / Subcommittee 18 Document processing and related communication. 18 Cobeno was a committee of Dutch standards users set up to advise the foundation governors of NNI. 19 The SER consists of representatives of employers organizations and trade unions, and independent experts. They advise the national government on socio-economic issues. 20 According to the SER, a standardization organization is responsible for the quality of its standards. The standardization organizations do not share this opinion; they point to the standardization committees who decide on the standards.
71 Other services German standards users (Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN, 1995) recommend that: - the FSO should contact relevant user organizations to announce standardization developments; - when a new standard replaces an existing one, a document describing the differences should be made available; - an FSO might provide lists of producers that claim to offer products that meet requirements set in standards; - when standards are too vague to be applied (ANP mentions the example of standards for testing), an FSO might provide additional explanations. Cobeno (1982) recommended: - providing information when new standards appear (press releases, articles in specialized journals, media events, etc.); - adding information about how the standards should be used, for instance by providing a Technical Report. Sixty-one per cent of the North-American standards users need better standards catalogues or indexes (Elinski, 1985, p.30).21 More than 80% of North-American standards users needs to know when new standards are initiated, approved, or published, and when revisions are initiated, so SDOs have to evaluate the effectiveness of their own programmes in addressing these specific informational needs (Elinski, 1985, p.31). SDOs should preserve obsolete and withdrawn standards and to provide users access to them under the usual commercial terms (IFAN, 1997c, p. 6).22
4.4.3
Consumers
Consumer organizations appear to have no special requirements on standards as such; the wishes they express concern standardization. In particular, they want the possibility to participate free of charge. They often even want payment for their willingness to participate (Langmann, 1997). 21
Meanwhile, the International Classification for Standards (ICS) has been introduced (ISO, 1993a). As far as the author knows, no investigation has been carried out to determine whether standards users perceive the ICS to be an improvement. 22 IFAN = International Federation of Standards Users, see Section 3.7. A questionnaire on this issue was sent to all ISO members. Of the 85 full members, 42 NSOs returned the questionnaire; 30 of these answered they preserve their standards (IFAN, 1998b). Standards related to products, machines and installations can be part of the set of technical product documentation that should be available for maintenance and product liability purposes. Moreover, there may be an obligation to test them from time to time against the requirements of the standard that was in force when the product, machine or installation was released. New low voltage installations in the Netherlands, for example, have to meet the requirements of the Dutch standard NEN 1010 Safety requirements for low voltage installations (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1996a). Existing installations have to meet NEN 1010 edition 2, 3, 4, or 5: the edition in force at the moment the equipment was installed, supplemented with some additional requirements. So people involved in testing installations older than the present edition of NEN 1010 have to use an old edition.
72 Consumer organizations want better possibilities to influence standardization.23 They show concern about the apparent slowness of the development of standards at the European and international levels. Although there is some concern about the quality of European and international standards, they are rated positively for their effects on consumers, especially because they contribute to product safety and product quality.24
4.4.4
Governments
In Subsection 2.2.5 six different governmental roles with regard to standardization were presented. Related to the role of supporting standardization in order to stimulating business performance and international trade, governments tend to stress that small and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) should be able to participate in standardization and profit from it. They also stimulate the involvement of consumer organisations in standardization.25 In cases of direct governmental involvement in standardization, in the form of a legal foundation for standardization or if the NSO is a governmental agency, governments stress the public function of an NSO, which implies, among other things, impartiality, and well-defined and laid down decision-making procedures. Governments that refer to standards in legislation want to make sure that these standards have been developed in a careful and transparent way, enabling all interested parties to participate. Stuurman (1995, p. 141) argues that when governments force parties to use standards,26 the boundaries between private and public law diminishes. In this case, generally accepted criteria for development of regulations should also apply to standardization. Stuurman (1995, pp. 162-208) demonstrates that FSOs only partly meet these criteria. He therefore expects further pressure on standardization bodies to comply with principles such as open access to the process (in particular for consumers, workers and SMEs), transparent decision making, impartial appeal procedures and access to standards on reasonable terms (Stuurman, 1997, p. 39). However, if this has a significant impact on the current position of the standardization bodies, traditional key players (large industries) might rethink their position when the standards making process becomes a more democratic and transparent process that no longer offers them the possibility to protect their own interests in the way they are used to. They 23
Broos (cited in ISO Bulletin, 1994, p. 5) describes how the consumer’s voice could get a more structured place in standards development, namely in four steps: 1 investigating, from the start of a development, the consequences for society arising from a technology; 2 translating these aspects into consumer criteria; 3 taking account of these criteria at an early stage; 4 seeing that the consumer representatives play a role in the decision-making process. (...) In two ways the standardization process can be helpful: firstly by the fact of the participation of the consumer’s organization itself in the standardization movement, and secondly, by the participation of industrial actors willing to take consumer interests into account. 24 These data come from an investigation among 30 national consumer organizations (mentioned by Healy & Pope, 1996, p. 7). 25 An example of this is that the European parliament and the Economic and Social Committee have stressed the need for greater transparency in the standardization process and asked for far greater resources to be made available for consumer representation in standardization (COPOLCO, 1996, p. 17). 26 This is done, for example, by the European Commission in their Public Procurement Directives (See for an introduction on this topic and references to the Directives: Plissart, 1995).
73 would move away from the - public - standardization arena to - de facto standardization consortia. Then, even though the standardization process might be perfectly in compliance with all the legal requirements derived from the intended role of standards in a democratic society, the end result might be that standards will no longer be a useful tool for regulators (ibid., p. 39). Det Norske Veritas (DNV) carried out a research project within the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport, to investigate their opinions concerning standardization, related to legislation. Based on their findings, they formulated four preconditions for standardization (Jakobs & Sewuster, 1998): - All interested parties should be involved. - There should be clearly documented procedures for consensus-based decision making. - SDO support should be independent, well-defined and known to all participants. - The role of governmental representation in standardization committees should be clear. Based on these and other stakeholder’s opinions, the Dutch Ministry for Economic Affairs formulated a “Standardization code,” presenting additional requirements to NNI’s operating procedures (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 1998). The main addition concerns an investigation of actors’ opinions that can be carried out before a standardization project’s start (ibid., p. 7). If governmental agencies use standardization for specific governmental tasks or just to improve their performance, their requirements concerning standardization may be expected not to be different from those of companies. Speaking on behalf of the world’s largest standards user in the field of information technology, the American government, Burrows (1993, pp. 51/54) recommends a systems approach to the testing of standards.27
4.4.5
Standards developing organizations
FSOs generally do not express requirements for their own services, but when their own position is questioned, this changes. In Europe, this is the case when direct actor participation in European standardization is proposed without the intermediate station of an NSO. Reihlen (1996, pp. 106-107), general director of DIN, stresses the importance of NSOs: - NSOs contribute to the democratic legitimation that cannot be reached at the regional (European) level. - NSOs inform the national market about developments in European standardization. - NSO participation in ISO/IEC facilitates unmodified inclusion of international standards in the European standards system and avoids duplication of work. - National consensus-building stimulates national acceptance of European standards. 27
According to Burrows, better testing was an important reason that the TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol) standards got better acceptance than the competing OSI (Open Systems Interconnection) standards. This was due to better user participation, facilitated, for example, by circulating documents on the Internet (Burrows, 1993, p. 54).
74 - National participation in standardization is cheaper because of shorter distances and easier because of the use of the national language. This is especially true for SMEs. - NSOs implement European standards in the national standards system. - NSOs offer a set of services to facilitate standards users. - The present system corresponds to the principle of subsidiarity that underlies the European Union.28 According to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME International), standards development processes should be non-discriminatory and transparent. The one-country/one-vote provision of the ISO and IEC does not ensure fair opportunity of representation across the full range of affected interests (Ling, 1997). ANSI stresses the need to use modern technology tools to speed up the document distribution process and facilitate communication. The work should be done not only at meetings, but also between meetings. Both the SDO staff and the volunteers who write the standards should be held accountable for creating a product within a given time frame (ASTM Standardization News, 1997a).
28
Simons and De Vries (1997, pp. 30-31) add the following to the arguments presented by Reihlen: - Most stakeholders are organized at the national level. They only occasionally have federations on the European level. Such European federations are a great distance from the individual stakeholders in the different European countries. Although these federations may have specialized knowledge that would be welcome in deliberations at the European level, they often have no feeling for what individual stakeholders really need. - The development of European legislation is based on the input of the EU member countries. As many European standards relate to European legislation, there is an advantage to organizing standardization in a parallel way. This makes it possible to harmonize legislation and standards development on a national level. - If European standardization were centralized, CEN and CENELEC could become ISO and IEC members respectively, instead of the European NSOs. This would decrease European influence in international standardization drastically. Nowadays, European countries have a majority in many ISO and IEC committees. - Those national standards that remain will harmonize best with European standards if they are developed by committees that are directly involved in European standardization. - National involvement in European standardization enhances the abilities of an NSO to inform the national market about European developments. It is almost impossible for a European institute to inform the various national markets. Arguments for direct access to European standardization, omitting the national level, are (Simons & De Vries, 1997, pp. 29-30): - Fast-moving technical developments require fast standardization processes. Omitting national matching and voting speeds up the process. - The - mostly technical - entities to which standards refer disregard national borders. Therefore, when developing these standards no national barriers should be erected. - Trade barriers between countries have been removed. A single EU and EFTA market has been created. Consequently, the rules of the game for this market, such as standards, should be developed on the level of this market. - Many standardization topics are of such a specialized nature that only a few experts are able to participate. Many countries lack the expertise to be able to offer an intrinsic contribution. - The more involved, the higher the costs: direct participation at the European level is cheaper. Even if the number of people were equal, the number of committees in which they participate will be larger if there is a separate national level, which generates extra costs.
75 4.4.6
Summary and conclusions
Most of the opinions do not contradict, but confirm and supplement each other. This subsection lists them. The author’s impression about the rate to which NSOs, in general, meet these wishes, have been added. Of course, there are differences between NSOs, and there may also be differences per sector or TC. + = NSOs meet this criterion 0 = NSOs meet this criterion to a certain extent - = NSOs fail at this point. A + is rarely given: if most NSOs (and other FSOs) would have met the criterion, the stakeholders would not have mentioned it as a point for improvement. Wishes concerning standards include: 0 Standards should be accurate, without contradictions, simply understandable for qualified people, corresponding to the state of technology, and should not hinder future technological developments. + Editorial conditions should be met concerning, for instance, format, numbering, pictures, abbreviations, and references to other standards. 0 Scope and field of application should be described unambiguously. 0 Sets of standards should be coherent. - Information to facilitate their use should be added to standards, including lists of differences with preceding standards. 029 In general, national and regional standards should be based on international standards. 0 Electronic devices should be used, such as the Internet and means for advanced text processing. Expressed wishes concerning the standardization process include: 0 Participants in standardization should represent an interested party, should participate from the start to the finish of the project, and should be able to contribute to the work. + Representatives of all interested parties should be welcome to participate. 0 The standards development process should be transparent for all participants. 0 Prioritizing at the outset and withdrawal of outdated standards should restrict the number of standards to the necessary minimum. 0 When possible, standards development should be accelerated. - Standards should be tested before they are issued, to avoid poor quality.30 - SDO operations should be effective and efficient. Customer needs differ concerning: - criteria for standardization Governments may wish to add legal criteria, which might make standardization unattractive for economic parties and might hinder internationalization;31 29
In the case of electrotechnical NSOs this should be +: their national (and CENELEC) standards are based on IEC standards, with only a few exceptions. 30 FSOs leave testing to the participants.
76 - assignment of costs Consumer organizations, professional users, scientists, small and medium-size companies and other less-equipped parties prefer to participate in standardization without paying for it, which means others would pay more; - role of NSOs in European standardization Multinational companies and supranational intermediary organizations may prefer direct participation at the European level without a national level in-between, whereas smaller, nationally-oriented players may be in favour of the existing system of involvement via NSOs. Arguments for and against it have been presented. The relative importance of these arguments differs, depending on the subject matter, the sector, and political viewpoints. Therefore, variety in possibilities might be the best solution. Moreover, the role of NSOs depends on the value they add in the processes. Thus, the balance can differ per country. Several proposals for improvements date from decades ago. They have not been implemented. This illustrates the difficulty in changing standardization practice. This is remarkable, since the different stakeholders, especially businesses, were the creators of standardization organizations and are, in principle, in a position to change them. They are apparently not doing so. This may be related to the general conclusion that can be drawn from this section: it appears to be difficult for SDO customers to express their needs concerning standards and standardization. Parties that formulated needs address only a few issues. But even these issues were insufficiently reckoned with, though certain actions for improvement can be observed (see Section 3.8).
4.5
Conclusions for NSOs
To the actor needs listed in Subsection 4.4.6 the following from 4.2 and 4.3 may be added: - Standards should be backwards, forwards, and sideways compatible. - Standardization services and standards should have an acceptable price/performance rate. - NSO officers need to have know-how at a useful level concerning 1) the subject matters (at least enough know-how to understand the issues under discussion), 2) methods for designing standards, 3) adjacent standards, including de facto, factual, and historical standards, and 4) IT tools for designing standards, such as templates. - FSOs should offer the possibility to include existing de facto, factual, and historical standards in their collections, to be able to offer the market a complete set of standards in the relevant area.
31
There is a rather general support for total or partial replacement, where appropriate, of national or regional regulations by combinations of private standardization and certification. The problem of governmental wishes to add legal criteria to standardization can be solved by understanding that standardization is an economic activity by nature (Subsection 8.4.7). When governments using standards in legislation want standardization to meet legal criteria they do not respect this economic nature (De Vries, 1995c). In her study on the public law status of formal standards that are referred to in legislation, Elferink (1998) also ignores the economic nature of standardardization and the resulting standards. This leads her to conclusions on the copyright of standards that may be subject of discussion.
77 - Integration at the technical and market level requires close co-operation of SDOs or merging of SDOs, provided that these SDOs have internal mechanisms to assure harmonization. Some needs differ. The following can be added to the list presented in Section 4.4, based on 4.2 and 4.3: - public support For many standards, especially for basic standards and standards for testing, public support is essential. For other standards, major stakeholders may have a need to limit access to standardization. - speed Most actors prefer fast standardization. In case of competing SDOs, the first to come up with a standard has a first mover advantage and, therefore, serves the needs of its customers best. In some cases, however, a certain period of time is necessary for depreciation of investments in the old standard’s implementation. Then, the SDO should provide the market with information on progress in the development and approval process. - property rights The differences in needs between parties having property rights and parties preferring to make use of licenses free of charge can cause differences in the needs for SDO rules. In general, it may be concluded that there are hardly any topics in which NSOs excel, and few or no areas in which they totally fail. In practice, SDOs cannot always meet all needs simultaneously. Three options are possible: 1 ignoring needs; 2 meet the needs of a group of actors as much as possible and leave activities that would better meet the needs of other parties to other SDOs that have different characteristics; 3 different service packages running parallel within an SDO. Sub 1 NSOs were founded by industrialists and engineers to meet their needs (for efficiency and, in the case of electrotechnology, also for safety). However, once established, organizations often go their own way. Due to the exclusive links to ISO and IEC, NSOs to a certain extent are monopolists, which does not stimulate market-orientedness. Their loss of market share demonstrates that FSOs have ignored customer wishes, but at the moment there are several initiatives for improvements (see Section 3.8). Sub 2 FSOs, GSOs, SSOs and consortia develop standards, alone or together. In the last decade, FSOs have increasingly co-operated with other SDOs, that, for instance, can “feed” them with specifications. Sub 3 Among FSOs, there is a tendency towards diversification, for instance, by introducing pre-standards, WAs and PASs (see Subsection 3.2.3).
78 The need for co-operation between SDOs or integration of SDOs is increasing, due to interconnection and integration of technologies and markets. This strengthens the ISO’s position, because they are already the spider in the web of international standardization activities. Merging of the ISO and IEC would reflect the increasing relations between electrotechnology and other areas of business and technology. At present, FSOs are the obvious SDOs to develop: - basic standards; - standards that should have public support; - standards intended to be referred to in legislation; - standards to be added to an existing FSO standards collection in the same area; - standards that are not bound to a certain branch of business. FSOs are not convenient if: - standards development time should be less than 3 - 5 years (though under certain conditions FSOs can offer mechanisms for fast-track standardization: WAs and PASs); - first-mover effects apply and competing SDOs have a shorter standards development time; - SDO officers need advanced technical knowledge to be able to understand the topics under discussion (to cope with this, some NSOs contract out secretariats to specialistic organizations); - patents or copyright protection apply and cannot be included under reasonable terms; - only a few parties are interested. This applies to FSOs at the international, regional, and national level. To a large extent, NSOs depend on FSOs at the international or regional level and , therefore, the NSO portfolio has to be related to the characteristics of these FSOs. Thus, NSOs are limited in possible extensions of their portfolio. At the national level in diversified economies, consortia and SSOs will be needed in addition to NSOs to meet all national standardization needs effectively. NSOs should consider improvements in current activities, to better meet customer needs. In the next Chapter, an analysis of NSO services is given, to form the basis for suggestions for improvements that will be given in Chapter 6.
5
ANALYSIS OF NSO STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
5.1
Introduction
This chapter analyses NSO services related to standards development, as the basis for a discussion of possible improvements in the process (Chapter 6). In order to systematize the analysis, a distinction is used that will be further elucidated in Chapter 11. It proved its value for systematic market studies on standardization in service sectors, and was also used for studying possibilities for innovation (Wintraaken, 1997). The distinction concerns: 1) the service organization, 2) its employees, 3) service delivery, 4) service results, 5) physical objects supporting service delivery, 6) workroom, 7) additional elements to the core service, 8) communication between customer and service organization, and 9) communication within the service organization. An important question is: who is the client? This will be addressed in Section 5.2. In fact, NSOs have to satisfy several categories of customers. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between service production, delivery, and consumption: committee members are customers but are also coproducers. This influences an NSO’s ability to meet customer demands (see Section 5.3). The NSO services related to standards development (3) have been handled in Sections 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Some additional remarks will be made in Section 5.4. Service delivery (3) will be discussed in Section 5.5, with a focus on the most striking drawback, the slow process. Section 5.6 focusses on the main service employees (2): NSO officers that provide secretarial services. The service organization (1) is discussed in Section 5.7, devoting attention to the problem of task allocation between different organizations. Physical objects (5) mainly concern information and communication technology and, therefore, will be discussed with communication (8 and 9) in Section 5.8. Workrooms (6) deal with NSO offices and meeting rooms, but need not be discussed as they, in general, are ordinary facilities, not specific to NSOs.1 Additional elements to the core services will be discussed in Chapter 7.
5.2
Multi-client approach
NSOs face the problem of diversity in clients: 1 Organizations as well as officials within these organizations can be regarded as clients. Often, the NSO will have client relations with different officials within the same organization, for instance, (general and/or middle) managers, technical experts, standardization or quality management specialists, and documentalists.
1
This does not mean that they do not deserve special attention. ICT applications mean additional requirements for meeting rooms and secretarial support. For example, all participants need a monitor or PC, and the activity of photocopying is replaced by file management. The ISO/IEC Working Group on Coding of moving pictures and audio uses a guide that sets requirements for meeting accommodation (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, 1998).
80 2 The organizations differ in nature (company, governmental agency, testing house, consultancy), size, sector, and interests. Their officials differ in function and in area of (technical or other) expertise. A major problem for NSOs is not only this diversity in clients, but concerns the problem of meeting the needs of different parties when offering the same service. In the service of facilitating a standardization project the multi-client situation manifests itself in four ways: 1 diversity in interests concerning the standards to be developed Each NSO has rules to meet the problem of different parties having different interests. The consensus principle is generally used (see Subsections 3.2.2 and 3.2.4). However, Sibu and Hughes (1996, p. 20) observed that firms which might have been expected to have similar interests made different decisions.2 2 diversity in interests concerning committee participation Not all parties participate just to influence3 standardization. Other motives include: - getting first hand information about standards development; - having contact with other parties (such as competitors, clients, suppliers, governmental agencies). For some of the participants, the latter are the main ones, which can stimulate participation but frustrate the process. Case: learning by committee participation Sirbu and Hughes (1986) observed that many of the participants in the IEEE standardization committee on LANs conceded they were there to learn from the other participants rather than support any particular position. This means that even when there is a desire to reach a standard the process can be lengthy as the participants struggle to understand each other’s arguments. (Source: Schmidt & Werle, 1998, p. 94)
Personal interests may be a factor in addition to business interests. A survey among 54 participants of 19 different American standardization committees on information technology showed that 42% of the participants had non-business interests for participation: curiosity (18%), prestige (16%), travelling (6%), and boredom (2%) (Spring et al., 1995, p. 233). 3 different persons per participating organization An organization involved in a standardization project often has a division in tasks and responsibilities. In its most extreme form these include: 1 a general manager who decides on the funding of the project; 2 a technical manager who participates in the supervising TC that decide on the standard; 3 a technical expert who participates in a WG that draws a standard; 4 other technical experts who feed him additional experience and knowledge; 5 colleagues who implement the standard once it is ready; 2
Quoted by Schmidt & Werle (1998, p. 94). Sirbu and Hughes examined a standardization committee of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) on local area networks (LANs). 3 This may include causing delay (see Subsection 5.3.4) and trying to hinder standards development.
81 6 users of the standard’s implementation.
Figure 5.1. The people involved in external standardization.
The general manager and/or the technical manager take(s) the decision on the company’s participation. At this stage, the NSO has direct contact with them. Once the project has started, almost all contacts concern the expert participating in the WG. For the FSO officers, there is a danger of narrowing their perception of ‘clients’ to these experts, without acknowledging the other people and the client organization as a whole. In the worst case, the expert does not have enough feedback within his organization and the only remaining contact of the general manager with the NSO is in the form of the annual bill to be paid. Experts in WGs may be enthusiastic about the technical matters they discuss and enjoy the meetings with experts from other organizations, but forget their primary mission on behalf of their company. It can be difficult for them to convince their manager of the business importance of the project. The manager may forget his continuing responsibility for the company’s involvement in the standardization project. The NNI has observed that many members of standardization committees continue participation once they change jobs or retire, which may indicate that their personal commitment is greater than their company’s commitment. When a group of people is responsible for carrying out a task, this creates a bond (Van Roon & De Vries, 1997, pp. 35-36). This social mechanism makes it easier for WGs to agree on the contents of draft standards and for TCs to decide on their approval.4 This solidarity with the standardization group, however, may be at the expense of the solidarity with the company. Of course, the latter is up to the expert and his manager.
4
This social mechanism has also been observed by Grotenhuis (1997) in groups that had to generate specifications for information systems.
82 4 participating and non-participating organizations NSO officers serve participants in standardization committees in a direct way. The final output of these committees in the form of standards will not only be used by organizations represented in the committee, but also by other organizations. Their needs and wishes are not necessarily the same as those of the participants. For instance, they might like standards that are easily understood, whereas for the parties involved this is less important because they are informed already, which means they are not likely to invest extra efforts to elucidate their solutions laid down in the standard. In that case, the parties that did not participate will be dissatisfied with the standards. The question is, to what extent the NSO should keep in mind this group of potential standards users while serving the other, smaller, group of participants. In practice, most choices are left to the standardization committees, and afterwards some NSOs offer additional services to explain the “unnecessarily-difficult” standards to the other parties, for example, by offering courses. A participant’s influence on a committee depends on (Simons & De Vries, 1997, p. 23): - authority based on a known participation on behalf of an interest group of recognized importance; - continuation in participation: changes in delegates always cause a decline of influence, as newcomers have problems sensing what is going on, how to react, with whom to ally themselves, etc.; - underpinning of contributions: they should be based on facts such as verifiable test results; feelings or opinions cannot be verified objectively by others. Weiss and Sirbu (1990) mention: - the size of the firm; - the extent to which a position is backed by written contributions.
5.3
Co-producing customers
Standardization committees draft standards and decide on them. NSOs only facilitate this process. The participants’ primary orientation is towards the output (agreed solutions to matching problems, standards, information), not towards its production (drafting comments and standards, assembling). They are both NSO customers and co-producers of a product, namely a standard, sold by NSOs. Thus, the customers of an NSO’s first main “product,” services to facilitate standards development, are coproducers or even main-producers of its second main product: standards, to be sold to a larger group of customers. The NSO has, then, only limited control of the production process of one of its main products: a standard. The situation of co-producing customers is addressed by Bowen (1986), Chase (1981), Mills & Morris (1986), and Shostack (1991). Service facilities characterized by high customer contact are perceived as being inherently limited in their production efficiency because of the uncertainty that people introduce into the service creation process. This
83 uncertainty derives from individual differences in customers’ attitudes and behaviours. (Chase, 1981, p. 700) Bowen (1986, p. 378) mentions three considerations for behaviour of co-producing customers: 1 Do they understand how they are expected to perform? 2 Are they able to perform as expected? 3 Are there valued rewards for performing as expected? The answer to all these three questions should be yes. Understanding expected performance FSOs, in general, provide members of their committees with information about expected behaviour. NNI, for instance, gives each new participant information about the committee and an issue of its statutes and regulations. The Swiss Association for Standardization published a guide for delegates at CEN meetings (SNV, 1988).5 The availability of information about expected performance, however, does not guarantee that it will be understood. Ability to perform Understanding performance does not guarantee ability to perform. Additional education and training may be necessary. Courses to improve committee members’ ability to perform - AFNOR, IEC and NNI examples The French NSO, AFNOR, offers new members of its standards commissions the opportunity to attend two training modules. ‘To become a skilled participant on standards commissions’ focuses on the structures of the French system. ‘Participating in European and international standardization’ aims at deciphering the internal systems at work in CEN and ISO. A third module concerns rules of good practice in standards development. AFNOR’s objective is to offer experts a better understanding of standardization to further its advancement and quality (Dufour, 1998). IEC offers seminars in IT tools for standards developers, in co-operation with its national members, in various geographical locations (IEC, 1998f, p. 4). Some years ago, NNI started short courses accessible to all committee members, and issued an informative guide for them (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut & Nederlands Elektrotechnisch Comité, 1993 / Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997a).
Other NSOs perform comparable activities. Since the courses and reading are on a voluntary basis, and NSOs do not give tests, these activities can help but do not guarantee an acceptable minimum level of knowledge and competence. Rewards for performing as expected
5
CEN describes expected behaviour in a detailed way in its loose-leaf CEN System Handbook, for instance, 34 pages on The first plenary meeting of a Technical Committee (CEN, 1997b) and 5 pages on Responsibilities of the Chairman of a Technical Committee (CEN, 1996a). The IEC provides guidance for convenors of WGs and project leaders (IEC, 1995a).
84 Being able to perform as expected does not guarantee willingness to do so. The main rewards for performing as expected are: - creating standards that better meet the business needs; - acceleration of the development process; - reduction of development costs. These rewards, however, do not equally apply to all customers. Some actors may even have an interest in slowing down the process.6 Interest in delay: Philips TV example Philips Sound & Vision produces, among other things, television sets. Occasionally, TVs catch fire. Statistics show this mostly occurs in the last weeks of December, so an external reason is plausible. Internal combustion due to, for instance, short circuit, occurs incidentally. To avoid fire outside the TV set, the plastic back cover of the TV serves as a heat screen. Within the IEC it was proposed to develop stricter requirements for these back covers. Consumer organizations and the plastics industries were in favour of this: consumers because of the safety issue, and the plastics industry because of a higher turnover in selling more sophisticated plastics. Philips was against the proposal because it thought it could not raise the price of the TVs to allow for the higher costs - consumers would not accept this. They argued that the existing solutions were sufficient since the power consumption had been diminished to less than 200 Watt. Therefore, the heat generation was negligible. Since interests often count more than arguments in standardization, Philips expected to lose the game. Therefore, they developed a strategy to delay the process. They did this by questioning data such as measurement results to underpin the requirements in the standard, and offered their own testing facilities for carrying out additional tests. The strategy was successful: the result was a delay of more than four years. Meanwhile there are new discussions about the TV covers, since environmental issues count - the plastics used to prevent or retard fires contain substances that are harmful to the environment. This additional interest caused a shift in the balance. Now the plastics industry may want to delay the process. (Sources: Schillemans, 1996; personal communications from Simons, at that time Director Corporate Standardization Philips International B.V., Eindhoven).
There is an emotional reward in being part of a successful team. On the other hand, too much delay can cause uneasiness. Ongoing customer involvement in service production without sufficient results may even be a reason for stopping service production. In standardization practice, this happens a lot: committees are dissolved because they have not made enough progress.
5.4
Services
Various NSO services have been listed in Chapter 3. NSOs may differ in the rate of gearing these services to customer needs. According to Van der Zee (1997, pp. 4547), four prospects for “good services” are possible. In practice, mixtures can be found:
6
To be able to slow down the process, actors need to be skilled in using formal procedures, maybe even more so than other participants.
85 1 discipline-directed services Internal standards, procedures, protocols and purposes are the starting points for services. They provide a legitimization for the organization’s activities and its place in society. This certainly applies to NSOs and other FSOs. The rise of SSOs and consortia illustrates a shift to the second prospect mentioned by Van der Zee: 2 market-directed NSOs pay more attention to their customers. Some carry out market research and other marketing activities (see Section 3.8). In, for instance, Germany the diminishing availability of governmental funding stimulates this shift. 3 problem-directed Matching problems form the starting point for standardization. NSOs, however, in general are not looking for matching problems to be solved, but look for manifest market needs for the services they offer to solve such problems. The following examples may elucidate the difference between the market-directed and the problem-directed approach: Examples of NSO-unsuitibility to a problem-directed approach In 1990, the NNI received a proposal to start activities in the area of environmental management systems. The proposal was rejected, because actors in the market did not ask for it. The same happened with proposals on, among other things, the areas of integral chain management, and organic agriculture. Some years later, the market was ready for environmental management standards and found its way to NNI, but the international initiative had shifted from the Netherlands (where employers organizations were the first to pay attention to it) to the United Kingdom. Projects in integral chain management nowadays are carried out by consultancy firms in co-operation with branch organizations, with marginal involvement of NNI or without any NNI involvement (see, for instance, Koehorst, De Vries & Wubben, 1999). In the area of organic agriculture, a proliferation of labels and related criteria has arisen. The project described in Chapter 11 on standardization in service sectors can be seen as a recent attempt to combine a problem-directed with a market-directed approach. However, it has not got a systematic follow-up. (Source: personal experience as submitter of these proposals)
The main reason for failure of the problem-directed approach is related to the consensus principle of NSOs. By sticking to this criterion, they have to wait to start something new until there is enough support in the market. Even then, when NNI starts new projects based on market research it is sometimes accused of trying to initiate standards in areas where not everybody wants them. Therefore, the criterion of consensus-based decision-making about new work item proposals forces NSOs (and other FSOs) to let the moment pass and leave the initiative to other organizations who get standardization activities started, or who fail to do so, as in organic agriculture. 4 competence-directed Van der Zee states each service offered should form the basis for other services to be offered in future, for reasons of customer satisfaction and learning effects for the service provider. Market- and problem-orientation are prerequisites for this. BSI may be the first NSO in which such a drive for continuous improvement can
86 be observed: it carried out systematic stakeholder research (Waloff, 1996) and benchmarked its activities against other organizations (Tidmarsh, 1995).7 8
5.5
Service delivery
5.5.1 Throughput time The average development time for ISO standards in 1988 was 92.1 months (Hesser, 1992, Module 2, Figure 2-14). The median throughput time in 1997 was between 60 and 72 months (ISO, 1998g, p. 3), which is still a considerable period of time. No wonder both SDOs and their customers show concern about the speed of the standards development process. Its slowness is the most striking disadvantage of formal standardization compared with de facto standardization. Solutions have been sought in: - changing procedures;9 - information and communication technology (see Section 5.8); - collaboration with SSOs and consortia: PASs (see Subsection 3.2.3) and reference to de facto standards; - issuing documents with a lower status than "normal” standards, such as prestandards and workshop agreements (see Subsection 3.2.3). Figure 5.2 shows the time in years from registration of ISO projects to publication of the standard or other document. Documents published in 1997 are represented.
Figure 5.2. Time from registration of the project to publication of the standard or other document for ISO documents published in 1997 (ISO, 1998, p. 3).
7
For reasons of confidentiality, the two studies could not be used in this thesis. By way of comparison, the American Society for Testing and Materials, an SSO, says in its mission statement: To be the foremost developer and provider of voluntary consensus standards, related technical information, and services having internationally recognized quality and applicability (...) (ASTM, 1998). 9 NSOs, to a large extent, gear their procedures to those of the ISO and IEC, and, as far as Western Europe is concerned, to those of CEN and CENELEC. The ISO and IEC changed their Directives to enhance speed (TC Communiqué, 1994). CEN has an ‘Optimizing’ project, in which changing procedures is a main issue (Enjeux, 1996b). 8
87 The figure shows large differences in throughput time: it appears to be possible to issue a document within one year, where it often takes 2-6 years. For 43% of the documents, more than 6 years have been necessary.10 From these data, it can be seen that the ISO procedures are not the main hindrance, since it is possible to manage things very fast. All measures, however, are directed at changing or by-passing procedures rather than improving the normal process. The next two subsections list reasons for delay in that process.
5.5.2 Delay within a standardization bureau No matter how NSOs organize their work, delay is due to waiting times in more than 95% of the cases. One major reason for NSO bureau delay is that standardization officers frequently have too much work.11 When this is not the case, delay can be avoided by effective time management. Other waiting times include: 1 waiting times related to the check on contradictions with other standards A new standard should not contradict existing ones. NSO officers responsible for adjacent standards check this. If they fear contradictions they sometimes have to consult experts in their committees. The waiting time consists of the time necessary to check for and eliminate any contradictions. Waiting time to prevent contradictions between standards (1) NNI has formed groups of officers to make sure there are no contradictions between standards. Each group gets a copy of the draft standard. People within a group hand over the drafts to each other. All groups need to be ready within a fixed period. This partly sequential process might be speeded up by making it parallel, i.e., sending all drafts (in electronic form) to all colleagues. In addition, NNI officers contact colleagues at earlier stages in anticipation of possible contradictions. This informal habit, of course, helps prevent delays caused by contradictions. (Source: personal experience)
10
IEC’s data are comparable. The average development time for standards published in the period between October 1997 and October 1998 was 6 years (Raeburn, 1998c). 11 In the Netherlands, there is an average of 208 working days per year (based on an average of 5% absence through illness, 5 public holidays, and 35 holiday). NNI technical officers are expected to have 190 days paid work. The remaining days are for education, providing information, keeping up with the market, preparing new projects, and participating in office activities such as meetings and social activities. Many of them, however, have planned work for more than 190 days. By way of comparison, Dutch consultancy firms have about 165 paid days per year.
88 Waiting time to prevent contradictions between standards (2) NNI has published a technical report on Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) management systems (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997c). Quality management and environmental management are adjacent areas. When the draft report was issued, in the fall of 1996, the “leading” standard for management systems was ISO 14001 Environmental management systems, specifications with guidance for use (ISO, 1996b). The text of this standard was available in time and the responsible NNI officers made this known to the committee that developed the OHS report. The TC, however, ignored this. In the external comment phase, however, most external parties argued to conform to ISO 9001 (ISO, 1994c) and ISO 14001. The committee then decided to adopt these comments and change the technical report. This change caused additional delay; after the closing date for comments it took 7 months to publish the definitive report. (Sources: personal communications of mouth of NNI standardization consultants; Nieuwsbrief kwaliteits-, arbo- en milieumanagement, 1997, p. 6)
2 waiting times in the conformity check with rules set for standards NSOs also have a conformity check of the standards with the rules set for them (see Subsection 3.2.2). When the people carrying out this task have too much work to do, a reservoir of draft standards waiting for checking may arise.12 3 waiting times in publishing Draft standards that are made available for public inquiry (to enable actors to give comments) and final standards need final text editing, lay-out editing, proof correction, and printing before they are published. Language issues may cause additional delay: - Some FSOs offer standards in different languages, making translations necessary.13 - Different NSOs using the same language may have to agree on terms.14
5.5.3 Delay within a standardization committee Most delay is caused by incorrect priority setting, unsystematic standardization etc. discussed in other parts of this study. Delays may also be due to difficulties in getting consensus; or time between meetings can be too long or the number of meetings too great. The period between meetings is needed mainly for: - writing new proposals or comments to be discussed at the next meeting; - committee members collecting opinions from their constituency; - testing the applicability of proposals. 5.5.4 The waterfall and evolutionary approaches
12
This also applies at the international and regional level. In 1994, the IEC found that no fewer than 85% of the manuscripts offered to IEC’ Central Office for preparation of the Draft International Standard were found not to be in accordance with the rules for the presentation of standards (laid down in Part 3 of the ISO/IEC Directives) and 35% were unusable - this despite the Central Office editing all CDVs (Committee Draft for Vote) during voting and sending the corrected documents to TC/SC Secretaries (IEC Bulletin, 1994, p. II). Checking whether CEN’s PNE Rules (Rules for the Presentation of European Standards) are met is the first point on the checklist for participants in European standardization issued by the German standards users organization (Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN, 1995, p. 15-3). 13 This applies, for instance, to the Belgian NSO BIN/IBN, and the ISO, IEC, CEN, and CENELEC. 14 For example, the German language in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland.
89 Analyzing the rather common failure of project management in automation projects, Kocks (1997) discusses two approaches used for such projects: the ‘waterfall approach’ and the ‘evolutionary approach.’ In the waterfall approach, product specifications form the basis for the design of the project. Not only the final product but also some in-between milestones are defined. Experiences in EDP auditing show that often the pre-defined specs are not met. The main reasons for this are: - a lack of knowledge in extracting user needs from the clients; - a lack of knowledge in deriving a process design from the pre-specified product; - problems in linking people to the process (even with a perfect process design, if people do not do what they are expected to do, the project will fail). The evolutionary approach reflects the other side of the spectrum of possible approaches. In this approach, the project team starts without knowing the final result. Hope for a positive result is mainly based on trust in the personal skills of the people who carry out the project. Project planning is vague and the budget cannot easily be estimated. The characteristics of a successful evolutionary approach are flexibility, smooth communication, fast decision making, and professional people. The formal setting of standardization within NSOs corresponds to the waterfall approach. The description of a new work item proposal is comparable to the functional specification of an automation system, though in a limited sense. Milestones are draft standards that already have the form of the final standard. The process usually has a standard design; it is not adapted to the specific requirements of the standard. The only specific thing concerns the selection of the people: representatives of all interested parties are welcome. However, all three reasons for failure of the waterfall approach apply to standardization.
5.5.5 Cultural differences International standardization has an extra dimension due to the cultural differences of the participants. Dufour (1998, p. 11) shows this may have consequences both for the standards themselves and for the process of making them. She mentions the example of standardization of safety colours and signs. The mastery of colour symbolism is required as people in different countries attribute different meanings to each colour. Regarding the process, common sense in southern Europe is only distantly related to what Northern Europeans mean when they use the same words. German and Japanese manufacturers often value technical perfection more highly than American firms (Hollingsworth & Streeck (1994), cited by Schmidt & (1997)). Differences in, for example, daily schedules, perception of the significance of time, ability to divide time between several projects, and the amount of information required, can form hindrances in international co-operation (Schneider, 1995). These can be overcome by standardization of decision making and problem solving methods, briefing and meeting techniques, and delegation principles. This increases the efficiency of the project work, in that all those involved are working with tools
90 that they understand. Through this, a common way of behaving and thinking evolves (Schneider, 1995, p. 249). This underpins the choice of FSOs to have a high rate of such internal standardization. Schneider’s findings fit to Hofstede et al. (1990). They state cultural differences consist of differences in values, in the sense of broad, non-specific feelings, such as of good and evil, and of differences in organizational practices that are learned through socialization at the workplace. For people working in organizations the last category is the most important. In standardization practice, cultural differences between participants will mainly be due to differences between organizational practices in their companies, and, of course, their personal cultural baggage and background. For their work in the standardization arena a second set of organizational practices, namely that of the FSOs, is added. From this it can be concluded that “cultural problems” also apply on a purely national level, due to differences in company culture. At the international level, of course, the differences will be more pronounced, though people of the same profession may also have an occupational culture (Hofstede et al, 1990). Kumar and Fenema (1997, p.4) argue that in addition to the cultural gap, international projects face a physical gap (people have to travel to meet), a time gap (differences in time zones), a technical or infrastructure gap (differences in information and communication infrastructure), and a governance gap (differences in management, procedures, and policies). These gaps cause barriers to project coordination and control (Kumar & Fenema, 1997, p. 15): - communication barriers; - lack of transparency (because other participants often cannot be observed); - information asymmetry (some participants know more about the project than others). The solution Kumar and Fenema offer concerns additional ICT investments. In the author’s view they overestimate the role of ICT.
5.6
NSO officers
NSO officers that facilitate standards development processes as secretaries of standardization committees determine the quality of NSO support to a large extent. Their personal qualities will be a result of their qualities at their appointment, and growth in qualities due to experience and additional education. Most NSO officers have a technical education at the academic or polytechnic college level. ISO recommends this practice: Standardization is a technical activity and emphasis should be put on this when designing the staff structure (ISO, 1994a, p. 24). Preferably he (the NSO officer - HdV) should also have had several years’ practical experience in his profession. Without this experience he will find it difficult to appreciate the problems which give rise to the need for standardization and unable to do his job which is to solve them (ISO, 1985, p. 12). Their knowledge should include principles and purposes of standardization, the working of the NSO, preparation of standards, standards administration, and the role of the NSO in international standardization. They should also be versatile, develop good organizing
91 and communication skills, and must be able to give firm but sometimes unseen leadership (ibid., p. 12). Training should provide them with these abilities. A thorough listing of items for this training is provided (ibid., pp. 15-28). For staff deployment, two approaches can be considered (ISO, 1994a, p. 25-26): in the horizontal approach staff specializes in one kind of activity, for instance, standards writing, certification, testing, metrology, or quality management; in the vertical approach the NSO officer is involved in more than one of the activities in a specific branch. Recruitment and education of NSO officers - NNI example NNI prefers its standardization consultants to have an education at academic level, with some years of practical experience. In practice, graduates without experience are also employed, or people with a polytechnical degree and several years’ experience. For a couple of years, economists and people educated in management science or administration science have also been invited to apply. Other requirements include analytical and problem solving capabilities, social skills (including skills in handling conflicts of interests and oral proficiency), project management and writing skills, active knowledge of the English language and passive knowledge of French and German, and skills in using IT applications. New entrants get a standard set of written information. A mentor elucidates the material and helps them train on the job. They can take some additional courses, for instance, on negotiating. During their first year at NNI, new entrants have six plenary sessions with other newcomers to discuss key points. The need for additional education is determined yearly, based on NNI’s general business plan, and on sector business plans and the specific needs of the employees. (Sources: personal communication of Mrs. E.P. van der Valk, NNI’s human resources manager; vacancy section at NNI’s website (http://www.nni.nl); Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1998d, pp. 9-13)
NSOs do not exchange ideas concerning qualifications for standardization officers; the ISO, IEC, CEN, and CENELEC do not have a policy at this point.15
5.7
NSO organizations
In Section 2.2, an overview of the standardization arena was given, including a characterization of FSOs and an example of the network of SDOs in which NSOs operate. The task allocation between different organizations and within these organizations may cause complications. Task allocation manifests itself on different levels: 1 between SDO committees and the supporting SDO bureau 2 hierarchically within an SDO For example, General Board - Sector Board - TC - SC - WG. 3 between adjacent committees For example, a WG that prepares revision of the ISO 9001/9002/9003 quality assurance standards and a WG preparing revision of the ISO 9004 quality management guidelines; a TC on quality management standards and a TC on environmental management systems standards. 15
Source: personal communication of Mrs. E.P. van der Valk, NNI’s human resources manager.
92 4 between an FSO and a ‘feeder organization’ For example, organizations carrying out pre-normative research, organizations performing secretarial support for an FSO, organizations preparing PASs.16 5 between an SDO and a member SDO For example, ISO - ANSI. 6 between SDOs at different geographical levels For example, ISO - CEN, and IEC - CENELEC. 7 between SDOs at the same geographic level For example, ISO - IEC, co-operation between the NSOs in the Nordic countries, co-operation between NSOs in Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.17 8 between SDOs and governmental agencies: SDOs developing standards that relate to legislation developed by governmental agencies For example, the European New Approach (see 2.2.5). In each NSO standardization project, the task allocation between the NSO bureau and committees (1), and the hierarchy of committees (2) applies. One or more other forms of task allocation also generally apply. The more diffusion of tasks, the more complicated the project. Kumar and Fenema (1997, pp. 10-11) mention four mechanisms for co-ordination of work in projects in which a multitude of organizations is involved: - procedural co-ordination Formal procedural mechanisms such as procedures, plans, and schedules. - structural co-ordination Organizational structures such as management hierarchies, steering committees, and matrix-networks. - social co-ordination Mutual adjustment, trust, and relationships. - technical co-ordination Advanced information systems and electronic communication media. All of these are used in international and regional standardization. This, however, does not guarantee good results. The following case suggests a relation between task allocation and a lack of engaged participants.
16 17
See Subsection 3.2.3 and ISO Bulletin, 1996a. The latter develop joint standards for the timber industries (Pontoni, 1998a).
93 Task allocation and a lack of engaged participants - the case of EN 10238 The Netherlands were the only country that voted no on the European standard EN 10238 Automatically blast cleaned and automatically primed steel products. Obligations mentioned were, amongst others (CEN, 1996b, pp. 3-4): - The standard excludes the possibility of manual priming after automatic blast cleaning. This, however, is often the most appropriate and economical solution. - The scope of the standard does not mention its field of application. At an earlier stage the Dutch TC had voted in favour of this standard. The shift was the result of an action carried out by a Dutch company that argued that the standard was expected to have a negative influence on the environment (removing primer before welding), health (of welders), safety (of product transport), product quality (welds without steel-blasting) and economics (necessary additional investments in machinery and/or less use of already available machinery) (Grünbauer, 1996). Though the TC did not adopt all these arguments, its general comment was: The standard is confusing and technically inadequate (CEN, 1996b, p. 3). The intervening company stated the one-sidedness of the standard reflected the influence of only one of the stakeholder groups: paint producing companies. The (French) SC secretariat, however, refuted this and wrote the company that, at least in the French committee, steel makers, shot-blastingpainting workshops, structural steel work and civil engineering works, and paint manufacturers were involved. The company informed all other CEN members and colleague-companies in other EU countries about the obligations. This did not cause the other countries to vote no: ten countries voted in favour of the standard, seven countries did not vote at all. The arguments against the standard were not refuted; they just were ignored and the standard was approved. In this case, the following task allocation applies: - relations between committees and supporting bureaus, both on the national and the European level; - hierarchy within NSO committees; - hierarchy within NSO bureaus; - contacts between NSOs; - relations between NSOs and CEN; - association between CEN and ECISS;18 - relation between an NSO (NNI, the Netherlands) holding the TC secretariat and another NSO (AFNOR, France) holding the SC secretariat; - relations between three CEN sectors: Metallic materials (because the standard concerns steel), Chemicals, chemical engineering and food products (paint), and Building and construction (because of the products’ applications); - relations between sectors within NSOs;19 - relations between the CEN and the EC;20 - relations within the EC between authorities responsible for two different directives. In such a complicated institutional context, it is no wonder that a project, once initiated, follows its own way through the institutions, making it difficult for actors to have a real influence on it.
18
EN 10238 has been prepared by SC 2 Automatically blast cleaned and primed steel products of TC 10 Structural steels - Qualities of the European Committee for Iron and Steels Standardization (ECISS). ECISS is one of CEN’s Associated Bodies (Abecassis (Ed.), 1995, pp. 27, 74-93, 394-395). 19 In the Netherlands, the work item was shifted from the metal to the chemical sector. This also had consequences for the classification used for announcement of the new standard, which for some companies hindered tracing the standard. 20 EN 10238 is related to two European New Approach Directives: the Council Directive on Construction Products (89/106/EEC (Official Journal L040), amended 93/68/EEC (L220)) and the Council Directive relating to Simple Pressure Vessels (87/404/EEC (L220), amended 90/488/EEC (L270) and 93/68/EEC (L220), rectified in 1990 (387L040R(01) (L031)) and 1997 (393L0068R(01) (L216)). At the very beginning of the project the relation to these directives was mentioned. It is, however, not clear whether an official link will be established (by mentioning the standard in the EC Official Journal).
94 In the task allocation the final results depend to a large extent on: - the committee that formulates and proposes a new work item (this committee often is not the one that takes the formal decision to include the work item in the programme of work); - the committee secretariat; - the WG or SC that drafts the standard (this often is not the committee that decides on the standard’s contents); - the secretariat of this committee. The contents of the standards programme and standards are mainly influenced by the committees. Within these committees, those who offer proposals have more influence than those who only take part in the discussions or observe. Committee secretariats have supplementary influence on the project progress.21
5.8
Communication and supporting facilities
It is with good reason that NNI requires communication skills for its standardization officers. They communicate a lot, primarily with the members of their committees, but also with managers and technical experts of companies and other organizations in their sector. “Back-office” they communicate with colleagues, other NSOs, FSOs at the international and regional level, and with other SDOs. To a growing extent, communication is supported by information and communication technology (ICT). This corresponds to findings in general services literature that state that the ability to effectively manage the flow and processing of information is a key element in improving the cost, quality, and speed of service operations (Chase & Aquilano, 1995, p. 93). FSOs are aware of this and innovate by applying ICT. Chase and Aquilano (pp. 93-101) mention five areas of ICT relevant for services: 1) office automation, 2) image processing systems, 3) electronic data interchange (EDI), 4) decision support systems and expert systems, and 5) networked computer systems. The first three areas and the last one are used by FSOs, and further ICT applications will follow, including video conferencing (ISO Bulletin, 1996d). As far as the author knows, decision support systems are not used in standardization. NSOs in industrialized countries go ahead in applying ICT. ISO, IEC and ITU created an Information Technology Strategies Implementation Group and a Technical Solutions Group (Friederich, 1997) that prepares, among other things, SGML22 inclusion in standards development (ITSIG, 1998, p. 28). Further use of the Internet is being prepared for electronic document support in the standards development process, including the (draft) standards themselves (AFNOR, 1998; Walser, 1998). 21
The source of this paragraph is personal experience. SGML = Standard Generalized Markup Language. SGML is a device-independent method of representing text in electronic form. It is a meta-language: a means of formally describing a language. SGML is laid down in the international standard ISO 8879 and some additional standards. More about SGML can be found, for example, in Sperberg-McQueen & Burnard, 1997. SGML offers a standard way of describing the structure of a document. Once structured, the text can be manipulated, and, for instance, be published in several forms using different media. SGML facilitates advanced document searching and enables hypertext applications. DIN has already introduced SGML (Marschall & Wernicke, 1997; Walter, 1998, p. 291). 22
95 More than other TCs, the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1 Information Technology uses ICT (Frost, 1997; ISO/IEC JTC 1, 1998). In electrotechnical FSOs, the IEC has the lead in ICT implementations, which is related to their tradition of common standardization at the international level. As a result, the ISO, JTC 1 and IEC communities not only differ in priorities and in implementation speed, they develop different ICT tools for identical work.
5.9
Summary and conclusions
NSOs face the problem of servicing a multitude of different clients whose needs only partly overlap. Moreover, many of these clients, namely participants in standardization committees, are co-producers. For the sake of service quality, these co-producers should understand expected performance, be able to perform in that way and be willing to do so. NSOs try to meet these requirements by providing participants with information, giving courses, and supporting the functioning of committees, but this does not guarantee service quality. A shift in NSO services in many countries can be seen from sticking to formal procedures towards market orientation. The consensus principle keeps NSOs from being problem directed in a proactive way. NSOs try to speed up their processes by shortening procedures, using ICT, collaborating with SSOs and consortia, and issuing documents with a lower status than “normal” standards. They pay less attention to delay in normal standards development. The simple fact that it is possible to issue a standard in less than one year from the inclusion of the work item in the programme of work, when it usually takes three years or more (NSOs), or five years (ISO, IEC), demonstrates that it should be possible to speed up the process. Delays in that process are mainly due to periods in which nobody does anything. This partly concerns delays within NSO bureaus: waiting for the secretary to do something, waiting for officers to check on contradictions with other standards or to check on conformity to layout rules, and waiting in publishing. This waiting is partly due to an overload of work for NSO officers. Probably, however, the main delays concern handling by committees between meetings. From experiences in automation projects it can be seen that projects may fail due to problems in defining customer needs, problems in designing a process to meet their needs, and/or people acting other than expected. Moreover, standardization, especially at the international level, means bridging cultural differences. The current approach, with lots of formal procedures, seems the right one to manage these differences. Standardization processes face the problem of many people doing a small job, which compromises the quality due to lack of dedication. The committee designing the standard and its secretary are spiders in the web of standards development; as such they form the first point of action for process improvements, if any.
1
5
Analysis of services of national standardization institutes related to standard development
2016-08-25 c:\data\t09srvth.doc
5.1
Introduction
NSOs only partly meet the users requirements listed in Chapter 4. To get a better understanding this Chapter analyses their services related to standards development. This will form the basis for a discussion of possible improvements in Chapter 6. Chapter 7 pays attention to the other NSO services by giving an analysis and suggesting improvements. To systematize the analysis in this chapter we make use a method that will be further elucidated in Chapter 12. There, it appeared to be applicable for systematic market studies on standardization in service sectors. As was demonstrated by Wintraaken (1997), it can be also applied for studying possibilities for innovation. This method distinguishes between 1) the service organization, 2) employees thereof, 3) service delivery, 4) service results, 5) physical objects supporting service delivery, 6) workroom, 7) additional elements to the core service, 8) communication between customer and service organization, and 9) communication within the service organization. A preceding question, however, is: who is the client? This question will be addressed in Section 5.2. It will appear that several customers can be distinguished and NSOs have to satisfy them all. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between service production, delivery, and consumption: committee members are customers but are also co-producers. This limits an NSO’s possibilities to meet customer demands. See Section 5.3. The NSO services related to standards development (3) already have been handled in Section 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4. Service delivery (4) will be discussed in Section 5.4, with a focus on the drawback mentioned most: the slowlyness of the process. Section 5.5 pays attention to the main service employees (2): NSO officers that provide secretarial services. The service organization (1) is discussed in Section 5.6, paying attention to the problem of tasks allocation between different organizations. Physical objects (5) mainly concern Information and Communication Technology and, therefore, will be discussed together with communication (8 and 9) in Section 5.9. Workrooms (6) concern NSO offices and meeting rooms, but need not be discussed. Additional elements to the core services will be discussed in Chapter 7.
2
5.2
Multi-client approach
SDOs face the problem of diversity in clients: 1 Organizations as well as officials within these organizations can be regarded as clients. Often the SDO will have client-relations with different officials within the same organization, for instance, (general and/or middle) managers, technical experts, standardization or quality management specialists, and documentalists. 2 The organizations differ in nature (company, governmental agency, testing house, consultancy), size and sector and in interests. The officials differ in function and in area of (technical or other) expertise. A major problem for SDOs is not only this diversity in clients, but concerns the problem of meeting needs of different parties when offering the same service. This problem especially is related to the service of facilitating a standardization project. The multi-client-situation here manifests itself in four ways: 1 diversity in interests concerning the standards to be developed. Each SDO has rules to meet the problem of different parties having different interests. Mostly the consensus principle is used. 2 diversity in interests concerning committee participation Not all parties just participate to influence standardization. Other motives for participation are: 1 getting first hand information about standards development 2 getting in contact with other parties (such as competitors, clients, suppliers, governmental agencies). For some of the participants, the latter reasons are the main ones, which can frustrate standards development. Case: diversity in interests concerning committee participation During four years (1984-1988) I held the secretariat of the Dutch committee responsible for facilitation of trade procedures and standardization of trade data. In its sub-committee Vervoer en havens [Transport and harbours] only a part of the participants had an interest in standards development. One or a few could may have had an advantage in avoiding standards development (which is an honourable stake), but never told this. All liked to be informed about new developments and many of them liked contacts. Half of the time in the meetings was spent just on chatting. The points set on the agenda served as a legitimization for the participants to come. This situation irritated those really interested in standards development. On the rebound, they often did not come. As their secretary I tried to remind the group of the working programme to be carried out. This did not work. It took some years till the supervising standardization committee finally decided to dissolve the sub-committee, because of lack of results.
3
3 different persons per participating organization An organization involved in a standardization project often has a division in tasks and responsibilities. In its most extreme form: 1 a general manager decides on the funding of the project; 2 a technical manager participates in the supervising technical committee that decides on the standard; 3 a technical expert participates in a working group that draws a standard; 4 other technical experts feed him with additional experience and knowledge; 5 (partly) other colleagues implement the standard once it is ready.
Figure 5.1 Different persons per participating organization.
The general manager and/or the technical manager take(s) the decision on the company’s participation. In this stage, the SDO has direct contacts with them. Once the project has started, almost all contacts concern the expert participating in the working group. For the SDO officers, there is a danger of narrowing their perception of ‘clients’ to these experts, without paying enough attention to the other persons and the organization as a whole. In the worst case, the expert does not have enough feed-back within his organization and the only remaining contact of the general manager with the SDO has the form of the yearly bill to be paid. Experts in working groups may be enthusiastic about the technical matters they discuss and enjoy the meetings with experts from other organizations, but forget their primary mission on behalf of their company. They often are only partly able to mention the importance of the project to their manager. Complementary, this manager may forget his continuing responsibility for the company’s involvement in the standardization project. When a group of people is responsible for a task to be carried out this creates a bond (Van Roon & De Vries, 1997, pp. 35-36). This social mechanism makes it easier for a working group to agree on the contents of draft standards and for technical committees to decide on their approval. This solidarity with the standardization group, however, may be at the expense of the solidarity with the own company. Such conflicting loyalties can at least partly be avoided by making explicit the actors needs in the working a group and by recalling them now and then during the
4
process of standardization. On the other hand, it is up to the expert and his manager to stick to the arguments for the company’s participation. 4 participating and non-participating organizations SDO officers serve participants in standardization committees in a direct way. The final output of these committees in the form of standards mostly not only will be used by organizations that were represented in the committee, but also by other organizations. Their needs and wishes are not necessarily the same as those of participants. For instance, they might like standards that are easily to be understood, whereas for parties involved this is less important because they are informed already, which makes that they are not likely to invest extra efforts to elucidate their solutions laid down in the standard. In that case, the parties that did not participate will be dissatisfied with the standards. Question is, to which extent the SDO should keep in mind this group potential standards users while serving the other, smaller group of participants. In practice, most choices are left to the standardization committees, and afterwards some SDOs offer additional services to explain the “unnecessary-difficult” standards to other parties, for example by offering courses.
5.3
Co-producing customer
5.3.1 Introduction Standardization committees draft standards and decide on them. SDOs only facilitate this process. The participants’ primary orientation is towards the output (agreed solutions to matching problems, standards, information), not towards its production (drafting comments and standards, assembling). Being “customers” they are co-producers. A further complication is that the resulting standards are a product sold by SDOs. So the customers of a SDO’s first main “product”, services to facilitate standards development, are co-producers or even main-producers of its second main product: standards, to be sold to a larger group of customers. From the point of view of quality management this is a problematic situation: the SDO has only limited control on the production process of one of its main products: a standard. The situation of co-producing customers is addressed by Bowen (1986), Chase (1981), Mills & Morris (1986), and Shostack (1991). Service facilities characterized by high customer contact are perceived as being inherently limited in their production efficiency because of the uncertainty that people introduce into the service creation process. This uncertainty derives from individual differences in customers’ attitudes and behaviours. (Chase, 1981, p. 700) Bowen (1986, p. 378) mentions three considerations for behaviour of coproducing customers, that will be addressed om the next three sections:
5
1 Do they understand how they are expected to perform? 2 Are they able to perform as expected? 3 Are there valued rewards for performing as expected? The answer to all these three questions should be yes.
5.3.2 Understanding expected performance To be able for committees to develop standards in a systematic way, such an initial commitment is a prerequisite. As far as I know, FSOs never ask any commitment, but they do provide information about expected behaviour. NNI, for instance, provides each new committee member with information about this committee and with an issue of its statutes and regulations. CEN describes expected behaviour in a detailed way in its loose-leaf CEN System Handbook, for instance 34 pages on ‘The first plenary meeting of a Technical Committee’ (CEN, 1997) and 5 pages on ‘Responsibilities of the Chairman of a Technical Committee’ (CEN, 1996).
5.3.3 Ability to perform The French NSO, AFNOR, offers new members of its standards commissions the opportunity to attend two training modules. ‘To become a skilled participant on standards commissions’ focusses on the structures of the French system. ‘Participating in European and international standardization’ aims at deciphering the internal systems at work in CEN and ISO. A third module concerns rules of good practice in standards development. AFNOR’s objective is to offer experts a better understanding of standardization to further its advancement and quality (Dufour, 1998). Other NSOs perform comparable activities. Some years ago NNI started short courses accessible for all committee members, and issued an informative guide for committee members (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut / Nederlands Elektrotechnisch Comité, 1993/1997). In my period as secretary of standardization committees I organized explanatory courses on standardization for some of my committees. Committee members affirmed my perception that this timeinvestment contributed to the functioning of these committees. As participation in courses and reading information is on voluntary basis, and results are not tested, these activities can improve abilities but do not guarantee an acceptable minimum level of knowledge and competences.
5.3.4 Rewards for performing as expected Main rewards for performing as expected are: - acceleration of the standards development process; - reduction of development costs; - a better quality of resulting standards.
6
These rewards, however, do not equally apply to all customers. Some actors, for instance, have an interest in slowing down the process. Philips TV sets: interest in delay Philips International BV produces, among others, television sets. TVs occasionally catch fire. Statistics show this mostly occurs in the last weeks of December, so an external reason is plausible. Internal inflaming due to, for instance, short circuit, incidentally occurs. To avoid fire outside the TV set, the plastic back cover of the TV serves as a heat screen. In IEC it was proposed to develop stricter requirements for these back covers. Consumer organizations and the plastics industries were in favour of this: consumers because of safety, and the plastics industry because of raising their turnover by selling more sophisticated plastics. Philips was against the proposal, because it expected it could not raise the selling prices of its TVs some dollars to allow for the higher costs - consumers would not accept this. They argued that the existing solutions were sufficient since the power consumption had been diminished to less than 200 Watt. Therefore, the heat generation is negligible. Since in standardization interests often count more than arguments, Philips expected to lose the game. Therefore, they developed a strategy to delay the process. They did this by questioning data such as measurement results to underpin the requirements in the standard. This strategy was successful: the result was a delay of more than four years. Meanwhile there are new discussions about the TV back covers, since environmental issues count - the plastics used to prevent or delay fire contain substances that are harmful to the environment. This additional interest causes a shift in the balance. Now the plastics industry may be expected to have an interest in delay. (Sources: Schillemans, 1996; word of mouth from Simons, at that time Director Corporate Standardization Philips International B.V., Eindhoven).
An award on emotional level lies in being participant of a successful team. The other way round, too much delay causes uneasiness. Ongoing customer involvement in service production without sufficient results may even be a reason for stopping service production. In standardization practice this rather often occurs: committees are dissolved because they do not have enough progress in standards development.
5.4
Service delivery
5.5.1 Throughput time The average development time for ISO standards in 1988 was 92,1 months (Hesser, 1992, Modul 2, figure 2-14). In 1994 it had been reduced to 52,9 months (ISO Bulletin, April 1995, p. 13), which still is a considerable period of time. No wonder that both SDOs and their customers show concern about the speed of the standards development process. Its slowness is the most striking disadvantage of formal standardization compared with de facto standardization. Till now solutions are sought in -
Changing procedures NSOs to a large extent gear their procedures to those of the ISO and the IEC, and, as far as Western-Europe is concerned, to those of CEN and CENELEC. ISO and IEC changed their Directives to enhance speed (TC
7
Communiqué, 1994). CEN has an ‘Optimizing’ project, in which changing of procedures is a main issue (Enjeux, 1996). -
Information and Communication Technology See Section 5.9.
-
Collaboration with SSOs and consortia Two alternatives apply (ISO Bulletin, March 1996, p. 5): 1 A Publicly Available Specification (PAS) developed in a consortium or forum can, if it meets certain criteria, ultimately be accepted as an official standard. 2 A specification can be normally referenced in an official standard, without itself becoming an official standard
-
Issuing documents with a lower status than "normal” standards Many FSOs offer possibilities for issuing provisional standards. They have less status and therefore the period after which a decision is taken on maintenance on the programme, revision or withdrawal (normally 5 years) is shortened. The FSOs offer the option to convert such provisional standards into “normal” ones. More radically different are, for instance, the IEC Industry Technical Agreements (ITAs). The IEC introduced them in response to the market needs of fast moving technologies. The time needed for development of ITAs will be months instead of years. ITAs are minimum technical specifications. Workshops comprising experts nominated by the industrial and user parties wishing to participate will process and conclude on them. ITAs will only progress to international standards or technical reports through the normal IEC technical committee or subcommittee processes if a market demand is foreseen (IEC, 1997). ITAs can be compared with the CEN Workshop Agreements described in Section 4.3.
8
5.5.2 Delay within a standardization bureau Because SDOs differ I will not draw detailed process flow diagrams or apply the critical path method or PERT1. No matter how SDOs organize their work, delay will for more than 95 % be due to waiting times: 1 waiting times in the personal schedule of the secretary The rather common practice of standardization officers having an overload of work is a major reason for SDO-bureau delay. In the above case of the Dutch standard on trade documents, enough time was allocated for the work on this committee, so this problem did not apply. When there is no overload of work, the remaining is a question of effective personal time management. 2 waiting times related to the check on contradictions with other standards A new standard should not contradict other, existing ones. SDOs have a check on this. Offices responsible for adjacent standards examine this. When they fear contradictions they sometimes have to consult experts in their committees. The waiting time consists of the time necessary for checking and, when any contradictions are found, the time to eliminate these contradictions: Waiting time due to avoiding contradictions between standards (1) NNI has formed groups of officers for the check on possible contradictions between standards. Each group gets a copy of the draft standard. People within a group hand over the drafts to each other. All groups need to be ready within a fixed time limit. This partly sequential process might be speeded up by making it parallel: sending all drafts (in electronic form) to all colleagues. Besides, in NNI’s practice officers contact colleagues already at earlier stages when they expect possible contradictions. This informal habit, of course, is a better guarantee against delay caused by contradictions.
Waiting time due to avoiding contradictions between standards (2) NNI has published a technical report on Occupational Health and Safety management systems (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997). Quality management and environmental management are adjacent areas. When the draft report was issued, autumn 1996, the “leading” standard for management systems was ISO 14001 Environmental management systems, specifications with guidance for use. The text of this standard was available in time and the responsible NNI officers made this known to the committee that developed the OHS report. The committee, however, was not willing to pay attention to this. However, in the phase of external comment, most external parties argued for conformance with ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. Then the committee decided to take up these comments and change the technical report. This fundamental change caused extra delay; after the closing date for comments it took 7 months to publish the definitive report. (Sources: words of mouth of NNI standardization consultants, Nieuwsbrief kwaliteits-, arbo- en milieumanagement No. 6, 4th quarter 1997, p. 6)
3 waiting times in the check on conformity to rules set for standards 1
PERT has been used by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). In the process of creating a standard 125 steps were distinguished (Hesser, 1992, p. 2-57 & Figure 220).
9
SDOs also have a check on conformity of the standards with the rules set for them. An example of these are CEN’s ‘PNE Rules’: Rules for the Presentation of European Standards. When the people carrying out this task have a too big work load, a reservoir of draft standards waiting for checking may arise. In practice this often occurs. The IEC mentions this as an important reason for delay: In a recent sample of 20 percent of the manuscripts received, no fewer than 85 percent were found not to be in accordance with Part 3 of the Directives2 and 35 percent were unusable - this despite Central Office editing all CDVs3 during voting and sending the corrected documents 4 to TC/SC Secretaries for preparation of the DIS . (IEC Bulletin, Sept./Oct. 1994, p. II) No wonder checking whether the PNE Rules are met is the first point in the checklist for participants in European standardization issued by the German standards users organization (Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN, 1995, p. 15-3). 4 waiting times in publishing Draft standards that are made available for public inquiry (to enable actors to give comments) and final standards need final text editing, lay-out editing, proof correction, and printing before they are published. Some SDO offer standards in different languages (for instance the Belgian standardization institute BIN/IBN and ISO, IEC, CEN, and CENELEC). In other cases, different SDOs using the same language have to agree on the proper terms to be used (for instance the German language in Austria, Germany and Switzerland, and the Dutch language in Belgium and The Netherlands).
5.5.3 Delay within a standardization committee Most delay is caused by wrong priority setting, unsystematic standardization etc. discussed in other parts of this thesis. But apart from this, most time is spent by nobody doing anything at all. I am afraid this applies to a high percentage of the time between meetings. This time is needed mainly for: 1 writing new proposals or comments, to be discussed at the next meeting; 2 committee members taking the pulse of the rank and file of the party: having feed-back with colleagues and/or other supporters. 3 testing the applicability of proposals.
5.5.4 Waterfall and evolutionary approach
2
Part 3 of the ISO/IEC Directives sets out the rules for drafting and presentation of international standards. 3 CDV: Committee Draft for Vote. 4 DIS: Draft International Standard (by the way, I am afraid this is a mistake, the Final Draft International Standard, FDIS, applies).
10
Analyzing the - rather common - failure of project management in automation projects, Kocks (1997) discusses two approaches: the ‘waterfall approach’ and the ‘evolutionary approach’. 1 waterfall approach In the waterfall approach product specifications form the basis for the design of the project. Not only the final product but also some in-between milestones are defined. Experiences in EDP auditing show that often the pre-defined specs are not met. Main reasons for this are: 1 lacking knowledge to define the needs of the organization; 2 lacking knowledge to derive a process design from the pre-specified product; 3 problems in relating people to the designed process (even with a perfect process design: when people do not do what they are expected to do, the project will fail). 2 evolutionary approach The evolutionary approach is on the other side of the spectrum of possible approaches. In this approach, the project team starts without knowing the final result. It is comparable to the building of cathedrals in former ages: without drawings, and deciding on extensions depending on the progress. Hope on a positive result is mainly based on trust in the personal skills of the people who carry out the project. Project planning and budget hardly can be estimated. Characteristics of a successful evolutionary approach are: flexibility, smooth communication, fast decision making, and professional people. The formal setting of standardization within NSOs corresponds to the waterfall approach. The description of a new work item proposal is comparable to the functional specification of an automation system, though in a limited sense. Mile-stones are draft standards that already have the form of the final standard. The process mostly has a standard-design, it is not adapted to specific requirements of the standard. The only specific thing concerns the selection of the people: representatives of all interested parties are welcome. However, all three reasons for failure mentioned by Kocks, apply to standardization.
5.5.5 Cultural differences Project management in international standardization has an extra dimension: managing the differences in cultures of the participants. Differences in, among others, life rhythms, perception of the significance of time, ability to divide time between several projects, and the amount of information required, form hindrances in international co-operation (Schneider, 1995). According to Schneider, standardization is the main solution to overcome problems related to this: Standardization of decision-making and problem solving methods, briefing and meeting techniques, and delegation principles increases
11
the efficiency of the project work, as it means that all the involved are working with tools that they understand. Through this, a common way of behaving and thinking also involves. (Schneider, 1995, p. 249) This underpins the choice of formal SDOs to have a high rate of such internal standardization. Schneider’s findings fit to Hofstede et al (1990). They state cultural differences consist of differences in values, in the sense of broad, nonspecific feelings, such as of good and evil, and of differences in organizational practices that are learned through socialization at the workplace. For people working in organizations the last category is the most important. Applying this to standardization: cultural differences between people participating in standardization will mainly be due to differences between organizational practices in their companies, and, of course, their personal cultural baggage and background. For their work in the standardization arena a second set of organizational practices, namely that of the SDOs, is added. From this it can be concluded that “cultural problems” also apply on pure national level, due to differences in company culture. At international level, of course, the differences will be more pronounced, though people of the same profession also may have an occupational culture (Hofstede et al, 1990). Kumar and Fenema (1997, p.4) argue that additional to the cultural gap, international projects face a physical gap (people have to travel to meet), a time gap (differences in time zones), a technical or infrastructure gap (differences in information and communication infrastructure), and a governance gap (differences in management, procedures, and policies). These gaps cause barriers to project co-ordination and control (Kumar & Fenema, 1997, p. 15): - communication barriers; - lack of transparency (because other participants often cannot be observed); - information asymmetry (some participants know more about the project than others). The solution Kumar and Fenema offer concerns additional investment in Information and Communication Technology (ICT). To my opinion they overestimate the role of ICT.
5.5
NSO officers
ISO-development boekje: geeft dit eisen? According to Van der Zee (1997, pp. 45-47), four prospects for “good services’ are possible. In practice often mixtures can be found: 1 discipline-directed services
12
Internal standards, procedures, protocols and purposes are the starting points for services. They moreover provide a legitimization for the organization’s activities and its place in society. This certainly applies to NSOs and other official SDOs. The rise of other, non-traditional, SDOs, such as consortia, gives rise to a shift to the second prospect mentioned by Van der Zee: 2 market-directed NSOs pay more attention to their customers. Some NSOs carry out market research and other marketing activities. In countries like Germany the diminishing availability of governmental funding stimulates this shift. 3 problem-directed Matching problems form the starting point for standardization. SDOs, however, in general are not looking for matching problems to be solved, but look for manifest market needs for the services they offer to solve such problems. The following examples may elucidate the difference between the market-directed and the problem-directed approach in standardization services: Examples of NSO-unfitness to a problem-directed approach In 1990 I proposed NNI to start activities in the area of environmental management systems. The proposal was rejected, because actors in the market did not ask for it. I got the same reaction to proposals on, among others, the areas of integral chain management, and organic agriculture. Some years later, the market was ready for environmental management standards and found its way to NNI, but the international initiative has shifted from The Netherlands (where employers organizations were the first to pay attention to it) to the United Kingdom. Projects in integral chain management nowadays are carried out by consultancy firms in co-operation with branch organizations, without or with marginal involvement of NNI. One of these projects is described in chapter 12. In the area of organic agriculture a proliferation of labels and related criteria has arisen. In logistics NNI tried to gain a strong foothold, but till now did not succeed in mobilizing the market to solve their matching problems through standardization. The project described in chapter 16 on standardization in service sectors can be seen as an other attempt to combine a problem-directed with a market-directed approach. However, it did not get a systematic follow-up.
The main reason for failure of the problem-directed approach is related to the consensus-approach of NSOs. By sticking to this criterion they have to wait starting something new till there is enough support in the market. Even then, when NNI starts new projects based on market research it sometimes is accused for trying to get standards in areas where not everybody likes them. So the criterion of consensus-based decisionmaking about new work item proposals forces NSOs to let the moment pass and leave the initiative to other organizations who start standardization activities, or who fail in doing this, as in organic agriculture and logistics. 4 competence-directed Van der Zee states each service offered should form the basis for next services to be offered in future, because of customer satisfaction and
13
because of learning effects for the service provider. Market- and problemorientation are prerequisites for this. Maybe BSI is the first NSO in which such a drive for continuous improvement can be observed.
5.6
Organizations involved in standardization: the problems of tasks allocation
Till now no attention has been paid to an important complicating issue: the task allocation between different organizations. In standardization practice, task allocation manifests itself on different levels: 1 between SDO committees and the supporting SDO bureau 2 hierarchical within a SDO Example: general board - sector board - technical committee subcommittee - working group. 3 between adjacent committees Examples: a working group that prepares revision of the ISO 9001/9002/9003 quality assurance standards and a working group preparing revision of the ISO 9004 quality management guidelines; a technical committee on quality management standards and a technical committee on environmental management systems standards.. 4 between a SDO and a ‘feeder organization’ Examples: organizations carrying out pre-normative research, organizations performing secretarial support for an SDO, organizations preparing publicly available specifications. 5 between an SDO and a member-SDO Example: international SDO - national SDO. 6 between SDOs at different geographical level Example: co-operation agreements between ISO and CEN, and between IEC and CENELEC. 7 between SDOs at equal geographic level Examples: co-operation between ISO and IEC; co-operation between the SDOs in the Nordic countries. 8 between SDOs and governmental agencies: SDOs developing standards that relate to legislation developed by governmental agencies Example: the European ‘New Approach’. In each NSO standardization project the task allocation between SDO bureau and committees (1), and the hierarchy of committees (2) applies. Mostly one or more other forms of task allocation also apply. The more diffusion of tasks, the more complicated the project. Kumar and Fenema (1997, pp. 10-11) mention four mechanisms for co-ordination of work in projects in which a multitude of organizations is involved: 1 procedural co-ordination Formal procedural mechanisms such as procedures, plans, and schedules. 2 structural co-ordination Organizational structures such as management hierarchies, steering committees, and matrix-networks. 3 social co-ordination
14
Mutual adjustment, trust, and relationships. 4 technical co-ordination Advanced information systems and electronic communication media. All of these are used in international and regional standardization. This, however, does not guarantee good results. The following case suggests a relation between tasks allocation and lacking engagement of participants.
15
Tasks allocation and lacking engagement of participants - the case of EN 10238 The Netherlands were the only country that has given a negative vote on the European standard EN 10238 Automatically blast cleaned and automatically primed steel products. Obligations mentioned were, amongst others (CEN, 1996, pp. 3-4): - The standard excludes the possibility of manual priming after automatic blast cleaning. This, however, often is the most appropriate and economical solution. - The scope of the standard does not mention its field of application. At an earlier stage the Dutch committee had voted in favour of this standard. The shift was the result of an action carried out by a Dutch company that argued that the standard was expected to have a bad influence on environment (because of removing of primer before welding), health (of welders), safety (of product transport), product quality (welds without steel-blasting) and economics (necessary additional investments in machinery and/or less use of already available machinery) (Grünbauer, 1996). Though the committee did not adopt all these arguments, its general comment was: The standard is confusing and technically inadequate (CEN, 1996, p. 3). The intervening company’s explanation for the one-sidedness of the standard was a major influence of only one of the stakeholder groups: paint producing companies. The (French) subcommittee secretariat, however, refuted this and wrote the company that at least in the French committee steel makers, shot-blasting-painting workshops, structural steel work and civil engineering works, and paint manufacturers were involved. The company informed all other CEN members and colleague-companies in some other EC countries about the obligations. This did not cause other countries to give a negative vote: ten countries voted in favour of the standard, seven countries did not vote at all. The arguments against the standard were not refuted; they just were ignored and the standard was approved. In this case the following task allocation applies: - relations between committees and supporting bureaus, both on national and European level - hierarchy within NSOs - contacts between NSOs - relations between NSOs and CEN 5 - association between CEN and ECISS - relation between a NSO (NNI, The Netherlands) holding the TC secretariat and an other NSO (Afnor, France) holding the SC secretariat - relations between three CEN sectors: Metallic materials (because the standard concerns steel), Chemicals, chemical engineering and food products (because of paint), and Building and construction (because of the products’ applications) 6 - relations between sectors within NSOs 7 - relations between CEN and the EC - relations within the EC between authorities responsible for two different directives. In such a complicated institutional context it is no wonder that a project once initiated follows a self-willed way through the institutions, making it difficult for actors to have a real influence on it.
In my experience, in the task allocation the final results depend to a large extent on: 5
EN 10238 has been prepared by Sub-Committee 2 Automatically blast cleaned and primed steel products of Technical Committee 10 Structural steels - Qualities of the European Committee for Iron and Steels Standardization (ECISS). ECISS is one of CEN’s Associated Bodies. 6 In The Netherlands the work item was shifted from the metal to the chemical sector. This also had consequences for the classification used for announcement of the new standard, which for some companies caused a hindrance to trace the standard. 7 EN 10238 is related to two European New Approach Directives: the Council Directive on Construction Products and the Council Directive relating to Simple Pressure vessels. At the very beginning of the project the relation to these directives was mentioned. It is, however, not clear whether an official link will be established (by mentioning the standard in the EC Official Journal).
16
1 the committee that formulates and proposes a new work item (this committee often is not the one that takes the formal decision to include the work item in the programme of work); 2 the secretariat of this committee; 3 the working group or sub-committee that drafts the standard (this often is not the committee that decides on the standard’s contents); 4 the secretariat of this committee. The contents of the standards programme and standards is mainly influenced by the committees. Within these committees those who offer proposals have more influence than those who only take part in the discussions or observe. Committee secretariats have supplementary influence on the project progress.
5.7 Communication and supporting facilities NSOs in industrialized countries go ahead in applying ICT. The international standardization organizations ISO, IEC and ITU created an Information Technology Strategies Implementation Group and a Technical Solutions Group A key element in improving the cost, quality, and speed of service operations is the ability to effectively manage the flow and processing of information (Chase & Aquilano, p. 93). This certainly applies to standardization. SDOs are aware of this and already innovate by applying Information and Communication Technology (ICT). Therefore it is no use paying extra attention to this in this thesis, except the possible use of decision support systems and expert systems, and of Internet. Chase and Aquilano (pp. 93-101) mention three areas of ICT relevant for services: 1 office automation 2 image processing systems 3 electronic data interchange (EDI) 4 decision support systems and expert systems 5 networked computer systems. Of these the first three and the last one are used already by SDOs, and further ICT applications will follow, including video conferencing (ISO Bulletin, 1996). As far as I know, decision support systems are not used in standardization.
References Aken, Teun van (1996) De weg naar projectsucces - Eerder via werkstijl dan via instrumenten. Uitgeverij LEMMA BV, Utrecht, 230 pp. Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN (1995) Leitfaden für Mitarbeiter in europäischen Normungsgremien zur Erstellung anwendungsgerechter
17
Europäischer Normen [Guidelines for Participants in European Standardization Committees to establish User-friendly European Standards].
In: 1995 ‘Normung wird unverzichtbar für erfolgreiche Unternehmensführung [Standardization is getting Indispensable for Successful Business], 29. Konferenz Normenpraxis, Leipzig 1995, ANP Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN / DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung eV, Berlin / Beuth Vienna/Zürich, pp. 15-1 15-13. Bosch, Frans van den (1996) Stakeholders en management: een casestudie [Stakeholders and management: a case-study]. In: Holland Management Review No. 47, B.V. Uitgeversmaatschappij Bonaventura, Amsterdam, pp. 24-31. Bowen, David E. (1986) Managing Customers as Human Resorces in Service Organizations. In: Human Resource Management, Fall 1986, Vol. 25, No. 3, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 371-383. CEN (1996) Responsibilities of the Chairman of a Technical Committee. In: CEN System Handbook DEFI/TC-CH 1996-11-15, CEN, Brussels, 5 pp. CEN (1996) Result of Vote on Draft European Standard prEN 10238. CEN, Brussels, 4 pp. CEN (1997) The first plenary meeting of a Technical Committee. In: CEN System Handbook DEFI/MTG/TC 1997-03-31, CEN, Brussels, 34 pp. Chase, Richard B. (1981) The Customer Contact Approach to Services: Theoretical Bases and Practical Extensions. In: Operations Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, July-August 1981, Operations Research Society of America, Baltimore, pp. 698-706. Chase, Richard B. & Nicholas J. Aquilano (1995) Production and Operations Management - Manufacturing and Services. 7th Ed., IRWIN, Chicago/Bogotá/Boston/Buenos Aires/Caracas/London/Madrid/Mexico City/Sydney/Toronto, 853 pp. Church, Colin B. (1997) Accelerating Standards Development. In: ASTM Standardization News, August 1994, American Society for Testing and Materials, W. Conshohocken, Pa., pp. 44-45, Deming, W. Edwards (1982) Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. Massachusetts Institute of technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, Massachesetts, USA, 380 pp. Dufour, Anne (1998) Expertise: the new game plan ...or Profile of today’s standardizer. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 7, July 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 10-13.
18
Enjeux (1996) Optimation du CEN [Optimizing CEN]. Enjeux No. 167, September 1996, Dossier du Mois, Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR), Paris, pp. 36-51. Graham, I. (1992) TQM in Service Industries: A Practitioner’s manual. TQM Practitioner series, Technical Communications (Publishing) Ltd., Letchworth, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom, 74 pp. Grünbauer, J.J. Beng (1996) Memorandum: A critique of draft standard prEN-10238. Constructiewerkplaats Grünbauer, Diemen, The Netherlands, 13 pp. Hesser, Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. W. (1992) Organisation der Normung [Organization of Standardization].
Module 2 in: Vorlesung Normenwesen - Einführung in das Normenwesen [Lectures in Standardization - Intruduction in Standardization], Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Fachbereich Maschinenbau, Fachgebiet Normenwesen und Maschinenzeichnen, Hamburg, 76 pp. Hofstede, Geert et al. (1990) Measuring organizational cultures. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, Volume 35, No. 2, June 1990, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA, pp. 286-316. IEC Bulletin (1994) Standards development: quick quick slow. In: IEC Bulletin, Sept./Oct. 1994, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, p. II. IEC Bulletin (1997) New ITAs respond to market needs. In: IEC Bulletin, No. 167 November/December 1997, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, p. 1. ISO (1995) ISO 10007 Quality management - Guidelines for configuration management. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 14 pp. ISO (1996) ISO/DIS 10006 Quality management - Guidelines to quality in project management. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 24 pp. ISO Bulletin (1996) Information technology: PAS (Publicly Available Specifications) - Transposition and normative references to non-standard documents - A new paradigm in international IT standardization. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 3, March 1996, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 5-6. ISO Bulletin (1996) Standardization in Cyberspace. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 12, December 1996, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 14-16.
19
Kocks, Cor (1977) Het échec van projectmanagement in de systeemontwikkeling [The Failure of Project management in Systems development] In: Informatie, April 1997, pp. 6-11. Krieg, Klaus G. (1972) Netzplantechnik [Network planning technique] In: Handbuch der Normung - Band 3: Normung als Instrument der Unternehmungsleitung [Standardization manual - Volume 3: Standardization as Tool of Management], 2nd. Edition September 1972, Deutscher Normenausschuss DNA, Beuth-Vertrieb GmbH, Berlin/Cologne/Frankfurt, pp. 10-1 - 10-21. Kumar, Kuldeep & Paul V. van Fenema (1997) Barrier Model: Towards a Theory of Managing Geographically Distributed Projects. Management Report No. 46 (13), Eramus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam School of Management, Rotterdam, 23 pp. Loughran, Peggy (1994) ASTM Increases Administrative Support - Making the ASTM System Work for You. In: ASTM Standardization News, Vol. 22, no. 8, August 1994, American Society for Testing and Materials, W. Conshohocken, Pa., USA, pp. 30-33. Mercer, Paul W. (1995) The National Standards Systems Networkt. In: ASTM Standardization News, December 1995, American Society for Testing and Materials, W. Conshohocken, Pa., pp. 27-29. Mills, Peter K. & James H. Morris (1986) Clients as “Partial” Employees of Service Organizations: Role Development in Client Participation. In: Academy of Management Review Vol. 11. No 4, Academy of Management, Bowling Green, USA, pp.726-735. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1988) NEN 2059 Handelsformulieren [Trade Documents].
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 47 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1997) NPR 5001 Model voor een arbomanagementsysteem [Guide to occupational health and safety management systems]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 11 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut & Nederlands Elektrotechnisch Comité (1993) Handleiding voor Commissieleden [Comittee Members Guide]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 43 pp. Nieuwsbrief kwaliteits-, arbo- en milieumanagement (1997) Publicatie NPR 5001 [Publishing NPR 5001]. In: Nieuwsbrief kwaliteits-, arbo- en milieumanagement No. 6, 4th quarter 1997, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 1, 4-6. Nieto-Galan, Agusti (1997) The Standardization of Colours in XIXth Century Europe. La Villette - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de recherche en Histoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris, 40 pp.
20
Pitner, Tomás (1997) Introduction to Standards for Internet Communication. In. Proceedings Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, 2-23 May 1997, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Department of Standardization, Hamburg, pp. 275-280. Roon, ir. J. van & ir. H.J. de Vries (1997) Arbeid en ondernemen - Aanzet tot een christelijke visie [Labour and enterprising - Initial Impetus towards a Christian Approach].
Carmel Enterprising, Gorinchem, The Netherlands, 56 pp. Schillemans, H.J. (1996) Product Safety at Philips Sound & Vision. Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam School of Management, Rotterdam, 85 pp. Schmenner, Roger W. (1995) Service Operations Management. Prentice-Hall International, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 420 pp. Schneider, Andreas (1995) Project management in international teams: instruments for improving cooperation. In: International Journal of project management Volume 13, No. 4, Elsevier Science Ltd, Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 247-251. Shostack, G. Lynn (1991) Service Position Through Structural Change. In: Lovelock, Christopher H. Services Marketing, Second Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, pp. 147-160. Simons, Prof.dr.ir. C.A.J. (1996) De wereld van het virtuele document [The world of the virtual document].
In: Normalisatie 2000+ - Maken en distribueren van normen: een nieuw tijdperk [Standardization 2000+ - Making and Distributing Standards - a New Era], Normalisatie Kringen Nederland / PDI Cals Centrum, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands, 6 pp. Takahashi, Sigeru & Akio Tojo (1993) The SSI story - What it is, and how it was stalled and eliminated in the International Standardization arena. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces 15, Elseviers Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 523-538. TC Communiqué (1994). TC Communiqué, No. 30, November 1994, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 6 pp. Wijnen, Gert (1997) Multiprojectmanagement. Het Spectrum/Marka, Utrecht, 144 pp. Wintraaken, Niels (1997) De industriële groothandel: kritische succesfactoren en innovatiestrategieën [The industrial wholesale business: critical success factors and innovation strategies].
21
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam School of Management, Rotterdam, 148 pp. Zee, H.J.M. van der (1997) Denken over dienstverlening - Over facilitaire diensten en hun veranderende rol in de primaire bedrijfsprocessen [Thinking about Service - The Changing Role of Fascilitating Services in Primary Company Processes]
Kluwer BedrijfsInformatie, Deventer, The Netherlands, 247 pp.
6
IMPROVEMENTS IN NSO STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
6.1
Introduction
Whereas previous chapters described and analyzed NSO services related to standards development, this chapter aims at deriving or just suggesting improvements. Its structure is the same as Chapter 5. Topics analyzed in that chapter are discussed in order to arrive at preferred solutions. Topics from Chapters 2, 3, and 4 have been added, including the main topic of the services offered. These topics fit into the same sections structure, resulting in some additional subsections.
6.2
Multi-client approach
NSOs can tackle the problem of meeting the needs of different clients (see Section 5.2) as follows: 1 diversity in interests concerning the standards to be developed In the existing practice, one of the participants mostly offers a first proposal for the standard’s content and discussions start on the basis of this document. This, however, excludes other options that might meet user requirements better. By using brainstorming and other systematic methods for standards development, this can be partly avoided, as will be shown in Chapter 13. Introducing such methods in standardization practice would form quite a culture shock for the participants. Therefore, they are best used in preliminary investigations at the start of a project. Such studies may provide an overview of possibilities to meet the different interests involved as much as possible. 2 diversity in interests concerning committee participation Standardization committees, of course, should stick to their programme of work. This resolution may be frustrated by parties that participate only to get first-hand information about standards development, and/or to get in contact with other parties. Though they cannot be forced to co-operate, total freedom of obligations is not necessary: from the outset the committee might agree not only on the work to be done and target dates to accomplish it, but also on the role of the respective participants in managing this. 3 different persons per participating organization Experts participating in standardization committees may face the problem of conflicting loyalties: to their company (or other organization) and to the committee in which they participate. Such conflicting loyalties can be avoided at least in part by making explicit the interests of all participants and by recalling them now and then during the process of standardization. Though this may seem to make it harder to arrive at a consensus, it is the best way of keeping standardization services businesslike. In order to manage the situation of different persons within the same organization who all have contacts with the NSO, NSOs can structure contacts with this
98 organization to be able to optimize services for them. A client information system may be useful and the NSO may appoint account managers: Account managers: NNI example For its 69 most important customers,1 NNI appointed account managers: per company or other organization, one NNI officer is approachable for all matters. He has an overview of all NNI contacts with that organization, making use of informal contacts with colleagues and information technology tools, such as, for example, databases. He is assisted by a co-ordinator who is responsible for the financial aspects. (Source: Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997d)
4 participating and non-participating organizations NSOs may consider meeting the interests of non-participants by inducing committees to list all stakeholders and their expressed or estimated needs and to write down in an annex for each standard how this standard meets their needs. This would make it much easier for such stakeholders to comment on a draft standard. However, this may make NSOs less attractive for other interested parties that are willing to invest in participation. It may even tempt them to look for another SDO. On the other hand, it would strengthen the NSO’s characteristics of independence and deliberation. An option which holds the middle is to do this only when extra need for these characteristics arises, which can be expected especially when standards are intended to be referred to in legislation. A second issue concerns the readability of standards: participants are not likely to invest extra effort to elucidate solutions laid down in the standard, assuming that they are able to do so. This, again, should be a point of consideration at the very beginning of the project: for whom do we make standards and how should they be used? Who will edit the standard? Will additional elucidation, if any, be offered in written form or, for instance, in the form of courses? These decisions should not be left to the committees only; NSOs have their own responsibility in serving the wider group of standards buyers. In the most extreme case, an NSO could refuse to start a project if participants are unwilling to contribute to writing user-friendly standards.
6.3
Co-producing customers
In order for co-producing customers to add to the quality of the services produced, they should understand how they are expected to perform, be able to perform in that way and be willing to do so (Section 5.3; Bowen, 1986, p. 378). Mills and Morris (1986, p. 732) argue that before starting a service process the role of the different actors should be discussed and they should agree on the nature of their relationship, in order for the group to be able to meet the necessary performance criteria. The service provider sets the authority boundary of clients primarily through negotiation and re-negotiation of contracts. Where client role readiness is low, the negotiation
1
These are customers that pay more than NLG 25000 per year for participation in standardization committees, plus some additional customers that are “very important” for other reasons.
99 phase may be more difficult, increasing agency costs beyond those of actual service production. If applied to standardization, NSOs might consider laying down preferred participant behaviour in a contract. By providing information and education, they should then inform the participants about expected behaviour, and train them to act accordingly. This, however, costs participants time, and thus money, so that it would form an entrance barrier. Moreover, there would be the practical problem of changes in committee membership during the standards development process: new participants would have to be educated immediately, without, perhaps, the education facilities being available at that moment. In line with Bowen (1986, p. 379-380), a more far-reaching possibility for getting capable and co-operative committee members concerns recruitment and selection: by allowing only those who are able to participate in standards development. Apart from the question how to determine the abilities needed, this would form an extra barrier to participation, and would really violate the principle of accessibility for representatives of all parties concerned. It can be used, however, for convenors. BSI (1997b, Clause 6.9.2.1) requires: - working knowledge of standardization procedures; - prior membership of a BSI committee; - attendance at a relevant training course. It seems that obligations may be counterproductive, but total non-commitment is not necessary either. At the start of a project, an inventory of abilities to perform and the willingness to perform may be made, and a letter of intent signed, including the project plan and a description of everybody’s responsibilities, authority, and tasks. Next to providing basic information, the NSO should frequently offer training facilities for new committee members. A group-training session at the start of a new project, moreover, may be a good kick-off for the group, stimulating from the outset the feeling of being a member of a successful team. If committees fail to meet performance criteria agreed at the start, dissolving them should be a real option. In current standardization practice, committees are only dissolved after years in cases of insufficient progress. According to Mills and Morris (1986, p. 733), a service firm, in general, will try to uncouple client and service production in such a way that good relations with this client are maintained and this client will be willing to return to the service provider in the future. In standardization, this would mean directly pointing out all deviations from the agreed schedule, and asking the committee whether to agree or disagree with these. In this way, the delay is a conscious choice of the responsible committee, which, moreover, would enable the NSO bureau to refute unjustified claims about being itself a cause for delay. Deming (1982) states that behaviour and motivation are the result of the design of processes that are improved by making use of statistical control. A proper design will lead to high motivation and effectiveness. Shostack (1991) quotes Deming as evidence, but adds:
100 Our purpose here is not to choose one approach over another, but to underscore the fact that people are just as important as structural design. If people issues are not addressed effectively, even the best design will fail. (Shostack, 1991, p. 158) So the SDO may invest in the interpersonal skills of its employees, to enable them to be effective players in the Game Between Persons (Bowen, 1986, p. 377). Apart from this, the only advice in service literature concerning the management of customer coproduction concerns limiting their co-producing tasks. If applied to standardization, this means that NSOs may consider taking over tasks that are normally carried out by standardization committee members. Decision-making, of course, should remain the committee’s responsibility. But designing might be done partly by NSO employees or by third parties (Subsection 6.4.2). Further, it could be considered that NSOs not only look after the secretariat, but also perform chairmanship (6.4.3). Possibilities for improving project management will be discussed in the service delivery section (6.5).
6.4
Services
6.4.1 Extending the portfolio of types of standards To meet customer need for short-track standards, FSOs have recently introduced several new types of standards in their portfolio (see Subsections 3.2.3 and 5.5.1). However, as will be shown in Section 6.5, most delays can be avoided through a set of measures within the existing procedures. Therefore, it can be questioned whether the new types are necessary at all and, even worse, whether they do not in fact harm the existing standards and their characteristics. The new types of standard will be discussed below. Pre-standards FSO experience with pre-standards underpins their importance: due to their lower status, committees are able to arrive at consensus sooner, as they know the revision period will start shortly after the pre-standard has been published. The FSO principles of openness, transparency and consensus fully apply, so that these standards do not harm other standards or the FSO’s image. Workshop Agreements The short WA procedure is possible through concessions to the principles of openness, transparency, and consensus. The next question is, however, whether or not interested parties have any problems with this erosion of principles. The group for which these principles are most important are governments that want to refer to standards in legislation. If they restrict these references to standards that follow the normal consensus-based procedures, nothing in fact changes. However, it’s not that simple. The authority of all standards is under discussion. The US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1992, pp. 104-105) states, in line with Max Weber, that legitimacy forms the basis for authority. This legitimacy
101 comes from the organizations that set standards. However, the authority of standards can be undermined not only when FSOs deviate from their principles, but also when they fail to meet market needs. Tamm Hallström (1997, p. 7) distinguishes four SDO authority bases: expertise, democracy, market-orientation, and efficiency. The relative weight of these authority bases differs per SDO (ibid., p. 12-13). WAs are introduced for the sake of efficiency and at the cost of ‘democracy.’ Tamm Hallström demonstrates tensions between the different authority bases (ibid., pp. 16-20). SDOs seek a balance that depends on the relative importance they attach to the four bases of authority. FSOs that introduce WAs add a new mixture of authority bases within the same SDO. This new mixture has different weights that balance the four authority bases. This situation is comparable to a scientific publisher who adds a series of popular books to his portfolio. If he fails to communicate to his customers very clearly that these have to be seen as separated from his other books, he will lose his reputation and may be lowered in the ranking of scientific publishers. So for FSOs that add WAs, clear communication about their special status is a prerequisite for maintaining trustworthiness.2 Other possible requirements include: - transformation to “normal”3 standards at a later moment in time should be the normal procedure, unless short-term changes are foreseen due to rapid changes in the subject matters concerned; - a “normal” TC should agree on exceptional procedure; - WAs should meet normal layout rules; - WAs should be checked for compatibility with standards in adjacent areas;4 - all interested parties should be welcome to join the deliberations. If parties are unwilling to meet these criteria, FSOs might be better off leaving the subject to other SDOs. Publicly Available Specifications PASs are developed by SDOs or individual companies that, in general, are not open for participation by all interested parties. PAS inclusion in an FSO standards collection may have the following advantages: - It smoothens users’ access to these specifications. - It may give a PAS more status, in addition to the status it already has due to current or expected market acceptance, the latter being related to dominance of the SDO or company that developed it. - It may make PASs acceptable for governments to refer to (Vardakas, 1996, p.3). - The organization that developed the PAS does not have to provide interested parties with the data laid down in their standard.
2
CEN, however, does the opposite by stating: WAs will be published under the CEN logo. By giving the product such a seal of approval, the market knows that the output has a quality similar to other deliverables produced by the highly-reputed European standardization organizations (CEN, 1998). 3 “Normal” standard: standard developed using the normal FSO procedures. 4 This is stricter than CEN’s requirements for Workshop Agreements and CENELEC’s requirements for European Specifications: they state that WAs/ESs should not conflict with provisions of European standards (ENs), but may compete with them (ISO/TMB WG ‘PAS’, 1997, p. 2).
102 - Standards maintenance is assured: after, for instance, five years, the responsible TC will assess the need to maintain, change or withdraw the standard, whereas the organization that developed it may no longer exist.5 For PASs, a short-track procedure may be feasible because of its de facto market acceptance. Further, FSOs may consider all requirements listed for WAs, except the layout rules: re-formulating and re-formatting would be a source of delay and, possibly, mistakes. Taking the original publication with an FSO cover page may suffice. Referring to specifications in normal standards The more technologies as well as markets get interrelated or fully integrated, the more standards will have to refer to one another. Therefore, referring to non-FSO standards in FSO standards is inevitable. This need not be any problem, as long as the decision to refer is part of the normal consensus-based FSO standards development process. Referring to, for instance, a specification related to one company while another company is offering a competing solution should be avoided. Another problem might be reference to licensed standards. In such cases, the obvious option is to allow such reference only if licenses are provided for free or on reasonable terms, which normal FSO rules require. Taking into account Tamm Hallström’s four authority bases, the types of standards mentioned can be classified (Table 6.1). In relation to these authority bases, the following additional remarks can be made: - expertise For specialist topics, the number of experts is sometimes limited to a few, working in a limited number of organizations. In such cases, knowledge at the national level may be absent and an international WG may be the only option open on the basis of which to draw up standards. ISO and IEC procedures cover this situation, as WG members are chosen because of their competence, and not because of their national origin. When experts already meet in other organizations, for instance, in a consortium, this may be a legitimate reason for the standard to be developed outside FSOs.6 - ‘democracy’ The FSO requirement of openness may be meaningless if only a few experts are able to draft the standard or comment on it. This, however, does not apply to decision-making on the standard as a whole: these decisions concern business implications and can be open to all interested parties. A WA is agreed upon in an open one-off meeting; the proposal is prepared beforehand by one or more
5
Assumed that FSOs really perform the five-yearly review. In practice they fail at this point (see Subsection 3.2.2). 6 IEC offers possibilities for organizations which can make an effective technical contribution to participate as full members in a WG or project group (a Category D liaison - see Raeburn, 1997).
Yes.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Need for common support and/or trustworthiness.
Development by FSO WG or SC, approved by FSO TC.
Consensus-based, several stages.
Openness
Consensus
Transparency
Market need
Drafting standards
Decision making
“Democracy”
Market Orientation
Efficiency
Table 6.1. Authority base per type of standard.
Developed outside FSO, by FSO TC.
PAS approved outside FSO; FSO TC decides on inclusion.
Introduced by one FSO participant, sometimes slightly modified in a workshop. Consensus in an open workshop.
Development by FSO WG or SC, approved by FSO TC.
Consensus-based, several stages.
Need to formalize de facto standards.
Need for fast track new standards.
Need for common support and/or trustworthiness in an area where ideas are shaping up.
No.
Standard approved outside FSO; FSO TC decides on reference.
Standard developed outside FSO; FSO WG proposes reference.
Need to refer to de facto standards.
No.
No.
No.
Outside FSO.
Outside FSO.
No.
Reference to defacto standard
PAS
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Within FSO committees.
WA
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Within FSO committees.
Within FSO committees.
Source
Main expertise
Pre-standard
“Normal” standard
Type of standard
Feature
Authority Base
103
104 specialists. A PAS, in fact, is the same, but in the case of a PAS the document has already received a certain status in the market and an FSO open meeting or TC has to agree on it.7 These meetings and committees may use the consensus principle during meetings. An FSO may want to add a voting round to enable other parties to comment. Such transparency of the process, however, would cause delay. Another option might be to use the Internet as a platform for discussions before the meeting in which decisions are taken. Actually, this is the way in which Internet Society works: discussions on the Web and consensus-based decisionmaking in the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) (Schmidt & Werle, 1998, pp. 53-55). More generally, FSOs can give their Sector Boards or TCs the authority to decide whether or not they want to use other elements of the standards portfolio. In that way, the decision whether or not to introduce them in a specific sector follows normal FSO principles. For example, there can be a consensus-based decision to drop the consensus principle in certain well-defined projects for the sake of efficiency. - market orientation A feasibility study per sector may reveal the stakeholders and their needs for standards, and the characteristics of these standards. If the SDOs that are active in the sector are also mapped, including their current standards collections, the possible role of FSOs and other SDOs may be pointed out. FSOs might take the lead in organizing meetings to discuss results of such studies and to reach consensus on an allocation of tasks among the different SDOs. Another aspect of market orientation is that FSOs might include still more types of standards in their portfolio, to be able to offer tailor-made solutions. This, however, would add confusion to the already complicated situation of different types of standards. - efficiency Efficiency in drafting standards should be distinguished from efficiency in decision-making. There is no reason why FSOs should be less efficient in drafting standards than other SDOs are. Only the choice of experts may cause delay. FSO efficiency drawbacks are related to their decision-making process, which, in turn, may influence the drafting process when initial drafts have to be modified to take comments into account. So, a sector should decide whether they prefer fast-track decision-making and, if so, whether they will stick to FSOs or use other SDOs. Tamm Hallström does not address the necessary coherence and user-friendliness of a standards collection. These might form a fifth base for authority. This point, however, is hardly distinctive with regard to the alternatives for “normal” standards, as these are also not known for coherence and user-friendliness. However, the more complete, consistent and readable the ISO/IEC standards collection and the related collections at the regional and national levels are, the more authority FSOs will get. Full integration of ISO and IEC would further strengthen their position. 6.4.2 NSOs designing standards 7
IEC decides on PASs by means of a written voting procedure between Participating IEC members.
105
For designing standards, a combination of standardization knowledge, market knowledge and subject matter knowledge (often technical) is necessary. SDO officers may be expected to be standardization specialists, whereas committee members have more market and subject matter knowledge. In NSO practice, standards are mostly designed by committee members. NSO officers, however, can also design standards: NSO officers developing standards - NNI example: environmental standards Some years ago, Dutch TCs that developed standards to measure pollution made use of preliminary work carried out by specialized NNI-employees. Such specialists made an inventory of available measuring methods and standards, and prepared a proposal that included a description of the method, its source, an elucidation of the choice, possible bottlenecks, if any, and a list of experts that had been called in. The proposal was handed over to the committees responsible for drafting of and deciding on the standard, and to TCs in adjacent areas. Within four weeks, they could comment on it, ask for consideration in a meeting, or reject the proposal and indicate reasons. In the case of rejection, an amended proposal was circulated or a meeting organized. If there were no reactions, the people involved were assumed to agree. In such cases, the NNIspecialist would draft the standard and the normal official procedure would start. This support by NNI-specialists speeded up the process and contributed to its quality. The Dutch Ministry responsible for environmental affairs paid for these projects. Nowadays, comparable projects in this sector are carried out, but the pre-normative research is carried out by people outside NNI: employees of laboratories or specialized consultancy firms. The reason for this separation include: - Some of the resulting standards had a somewhat theoretical character, because most methods had not been tested before in a laboratory. Committee members did not test them either. In an experimental post-validation it appeared that methods that had been based on fully documented laboratory methods were good, whereas those based on incomplete files were too vague. - Outsourcing enhances the involvement of the market. - It appeared to be difficult to find people that combine technical expertise with the knowledge and skills necessary for standardization services. - NNI needed such technical expertise only for the duration of the project and, therefore, could not offer a permanent appointment. A disadvantage of outsourcing appears to be that the laboratories and consultancy firms that are able to do the work can also have a special interest in the contents of the standard, for instance, because they have a preference for laying down the methods they already apply in the standard. In the area of measuring noise, NNI again intends to appoint a specialist who has to convert governmental requirements into standards. (Sources: internal NNI documents; personal communications of J.B. Dielhof and D. Hortensius, Standardization Consultants, NNI)
SDOs specialized in one sector often have more technical and market know-how. This is especially true in the case of the USA’s decentralized standardization system, where SSOs8 develop hundreds or even thousands of standards. So, due to lack of technical expertise, NSOs, in general, will not be able to design standards - for that, the expertise of committee members is needed. NSOs, however, can take work off the committee’s hands by:
8
Examples include the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the Society of Automotive Engineers International (SAEI), the National Information Standards Organization (NISO - standards for libraries, publishing and information science), and the American Petroleum Institute (API - standards for the petrochemical industry) (Toth (Ed.), 1996).
106 - carrying out exploratory studies before or at the start of a project; - preparing proposals for standards together with one or more other (mostly, technical) experts; - editing the standard once the committee has agreed upon its contents.
6.4.3 NSOs performing committee chairmanship Chairmanship of NSO committee - NNI experience Some committee chairmen are well-prepared, have inter-meeting contacts with committee members, set the agenda, lead discussions, and guide the committee to consensus. Others come to a meeting without knowing what is on the agenda, and having forgotten their files and half of the names of the committee members and the organizations they represent. The secretary has to promt them in everything that has to be done. Fortunately, these are exceptions; mostly the experience is positive. If the committee chairmen are not able to come because of illness, for instance, the secretary sometimes takes over chairmanship. He may have a helicopter view without having specialist technical knowledge and without having his own interest, and, of course, he is informed about standardization procedures and possibilities. This can be an ideal position from which to chair meetings. Some committees were surprised that meetings could be so effective. (Source: own experience)
This experience illustrates three disadvantages of choosing a chairman from the committee members: - He does not always have the skills necessary to chair the committee. - Because it is a sideline, he may fail in his duty towards the committee. - He is wearing two different hats: although he has a specific interest in the matters being discussed, he has to be impartial. Advantages of the present system are: - It stresses the FSO’s independent and solid position. It prevents the FSO from being accused of showing partiality. Conversely, they might be blamed for enabling a chairman to bend things to his will. - It emphasizes the importance of market involvement. - A chairman who represents an important stakeholder may carry more weight in negotiations. - It saves out-of-pocket costs. It is not possible to give a general answer to the question of which option is best. The proof of the pudding may be in the eating: NSOs could experiment by offering to take the chair of a TC, SC, or WG.
107
6.5
Service delivery
6.5.1 Reduction of throughput time Church (1994) offers a long list of possible ways to accelerate the standards development process, under existing preconditions. Most of his recommendations concern project management. The following example underpins the importance of this: Case: reduction of throughput time by using project management In the eighties, the median9 time needed for developing a Dutch national standard was 46 months. Of these, 36 months were spent by the committee to reach consensus and draft the standard, 5 months were set aside for collecting comments on drafts, and 5 months were spent at the NNI bureau. The time between the decision to create the Dutch standard on trade documents NEN 2059 (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1988a) and its publication, however, was only 11 months, though all official approval procedures were followed, which took up 5 months. In retrospect, the first reason for this speed was the TC’s commitment from the very outset. In the meeting where the unanimous decision to make the standard was taken, the WG was formed from the TC members. So no extra time was necessary to compose the WG. The second reason for speed was the time schedule. Tasks were divided, target dates set and meetings planned. Activities were planned per week. The WG secretary kept the tight schedule under close surveillance. Some days ahead of target days, he phoned people and asked them if they had managed to get things ready in time. They had not always succeeded - in their jobs, other activities often had higher priority. In such cases, the scheme had to be changed. The total delay caused by this was some weeks. Within NNI, the secretary agreed dates with the text processing department, the drawing office, the people who check all standards, the public relations department, and the people responsible for the final printing, so that there was no internal waiting time. The secretary edited the standard. Reaching consensus on main features was easy in this case, because the WG could make use of international standards, and there was a common interest to have standardized trade documents, no matter what their specifications were. The greatest difficulty lay in reaching consensus on the right translations of English, French and German terms to be used in trade documents. The time schedule was kept as short as possible by doing things simultaneously instead of sequentially whenever possible. Besides, managing the time schedule required a lot of extra secretary-time. The secretary had to interweave this project with other projects. 10 Because some other projects had a less strict time schedule, this was not too difficult. Before each meeting, everybody had done his homework, which contributed to the effectiveness of meetings and to maintaining the enthusiasm of the people involved. At the end, preparing printing matter (especially the forms), correcting proofs and printing unexpectedly took some extra weeks. (Source: personal experience as secretary of the TC and WG concerned)
From this case, it can be learnt that standards can be developed quickly using normal procedures thanks to initial commitment, division of tasks, scheduling, and
9
It is common habit to use average. However, the time needed for the slowest 5% of the standards exceeds the average by several years and this, conversely, is not the case with the fastest 5%. Therefore, the median gives a better indication of the time needed for most of the standards. 10 Standardization officers, therefore, should have skills in personal time management and multiproject management. Wijnen (1997) offers guidance for this.
108 surveillance. Below, we will examine whether general literature about project management can provide additional insights.11 Service operations management is dealt with by, amongst others, Chase and Aquilo (1995), and Schmenner (1995). Schmenner stresses the importance of making detailed process flow diagrams (Schmenner, 1995, Chapter 3), and of the critical path concept or the program evaluation and review technique (PERT) (Schmenner, 1995, Chapter 11; Chase & Aquilo, 1995, Chapter 12). Some NSOs use flow diagrams to present their procedures (for instance, BSI, 1997, p. 18). More detailed mapping and analysis of the processes might reveal reasons for delay both within the standardization bureau and “within the committee.” PERT has been used by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). In the process of creating a standard, 125 steps were distinguished (Hesser, 1992, p. 2-57 & Figure 220).
6.5.2 Avoiding delay within a standardization bureau In this section, it will be discussed how sources for delay within SDO bureaus, as described in Subsection 5.5.2, can be diminished or avoided. Waiting times in the personal schedule of the secretary can be avoided by making realistic time schedules, so that there is no structural overload of work. In the above case involving the Dutch standard on trade documents, enough time was allocated to working on this committee, so this problem did not apply. If there is no overload of work, the remainder is a question of effective personal time management.12 1 waiting times related to the check on contradictions with other standards Checking afterwards is an old-fashioned way of quality control. In modern quality management, the organization tries to avoid mistakes from the outset. At the very beginning of a new standardization project, the possible relations to adjacent areas should be mapped to set limiting conditions for the new project. Of course, during the process, things can change: the scope of the standard might be modified and/or adjacent standards may change. This should be a permanent point of attention for a committee secretary and his colleagues in adjacent TCs. 2 waiting times in the check on conformity to rules set for standards Again, post-hoc checking should be replaced by quality management during the process. Here, an IT tool can be of help: a template to be filled in. The secretary should help committee members to draft standards in the right layout from the outset.
11
In 1972, the German Standardization Handbook already paid attention to the use of network planning techniques (Krieg, 1972). However, it did not provide an explicit link to standardization. Hesser (1992) applied project management to international and national standardization. 12 Therefore, NNI organized a training in time management for its officers (1985), has let some of its new employees attend a course on this topic since then, and is considering a new general training (sources: own experience, personal communication of Mrs. E.P. van der Valk, Personnel Manager, NNI).
109 3 waiting times in publishing Waiting times in publishing can be avoided by keeping appointments and by doing things simultaneously instead of sequentially, for instance, drawing figures and preparing translations.13
6.5.3 Avoiding delay within a standardization committee Often, at the end of a meeting, the date for the next one is set, which may be difficult due to full diaries. It should be possible to schedule beforehand moments in the process when meetings are necessary for information exchange, discussion, brainstorming and/or decision-making, and the amount of intervening weeks necessary for writing, feed-back and/or testing. Drafting standards during meetings is a time-consuming mistake. Having more-day sessions and preparing proposals for the next day in the evening, however, may enhance productivity. Retrospectively, the Dutch standard on trade documents (Subsection 5.5.3) might have been developed in nine instead of eleven months if meetings to discuss terminology had been combined. So, project management with respect to the committee work includes making a draft schedule of activities, discussing this in the committee and agreeing on it. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has implemented a tracking system that enables staff to monitor documents in different stages of the standards development process. The main moments for ballots and other actions are entered into the system, to help committee secretaries manage their time and to provide central staff with an overview of progress. The introduction of this system has resulted in cost and time savings (Loughran, 1994).14
6.5.4 The waterfall and evolutionary approaches In Subsection 5.5.4, it was concluded that formal standardization naturally resembles the waterfall approach. It shares drawbacks that are inherent to this approach: problems in specifying the standard needed, difficulties in designing the process to arrive at that standard, and difficulties in handling unforeseen human behaviour. The first two drawbacks may be tackled by carrying out a strategic study before starting the project. The third one is intrinsic to making use of co-designing customers, but can be restricted by having a skilled secretariat and/or contracting out certain activities. Standardization practice has at least some characteristics of the evolutionary approach. During the process, unexpected circumstances have to be attended to, so that the final result, if any, does not always meet the criteria set at the outset. The process, however, does not meet all criteria for successful application of this approach: - FSOs are not known for a high rate of flexibility; 13
Another solution to avoid waiting for standards due to translations is to issue the standard in the original language as soon as possible and to come up with a translated version some months later. 14 Recently ISO, IEC, CEN, CENELEC, ETSI, AFNOR, BSI, and DIN developed a harmonized stage codes system (Wilson, 1998).
110 - smooth communication is possible in a national setting; in an international setting, there are cultural and language barriers, though smooth communication from the very start is not impossible; - fast decision-making is hindered by official procedures; - the degree of professionality of the participants (including chairmen) is an unknown quantity. From this, it can be concluded that the evolutionary approach as such is not applicable in standardization. It is only in new sectors where one cannot say beforehand which collection of standards is necessary, that an evolutionary approach might be used to design a standards architecture, but not to design the standards themselves. Problems related to the waterfall approach can be solved partly by learning from the evolutionary approach that the project manager, i.e., the secretary, should manage flexibility, informal communication, and informal pre-decision making. To minimize risks, systematic risk management might be considered. 6.5.5 Risk management15 Changes in opinions and uncertainties about the outcome of the decision-making process can be regarded as risks to the standardization project. These are foreseeable risks. Other risks may be unforeseeable. Managing project risks includes (ISO, 1996c, pp. 16-17): 1 Risk identification: determining risks in the project. The main areas of risk in standardization projects are:16 a replacement, sickness and other unexpected abstention of the chairman, the secretary, or committee members that carry out essential tasks; b lack of commitment of committee members; c changes in opinion of committee members; d changes in external circumstances (for instance, adjacent or competing standards development, legislation); e inability of committee members to draw up a standard; f conflicts about property rights. An identified risk should have a person assigned to it who bears responsibility for managing the risk. In standardization, this may be the chairman, who delegates responsibilities to the secretary. 2 Risk estimation: evaluating the probability of risk occurrence and the impact of risks on the project. Disasters often result from a combination of risk occurrences, whose effects strengthen each other.
15
In this subsection the draft international standard ISO 10006 Quality management - Guidelines to project management (ISO, 1996c) has been used. 16 Source: own experience.
111 3 Risk response development: developing plans for responding to risks. Possible solutions for the above-mentioned risks include: Sub a Previous appointment of a replacement.17 Sub b At the start of a project, commitment of committee members should be asked for, agreed to and recorded. Sub c Changes in opinions might lead to a change in project schedule. The committee should agree on this. Sub d Before the start of the project, external factors relating to the project should be mapped out as far as this is possible. In case of unexpected changes, the committee should agree to their consequences for the project design. Sub e Ability in drawing up standards should be a point of attention when designing the project. Education might provide people with the necessary skills. Sub f The pre-project inventory should include research on property rights. Risks that are consciously accepted should be identified, and reasons for accepting them should be documented. 4 Risk control: implementing and updating the risk plans. The project’s risk situation should be monitored and reports on risks should be part of progress evaluation. During the project, people should be encouraged to anticipate and identify further risks, and to report them. Risk analysis should form part of a pre-project inventory. The responsible TC could agree on risk response. During the project, the secretary could monitor it. At the end of the project, a review should highlight experience that can be used by other projects. 6.5.6 Configuration management18 During a standardization project, an initial draft is modified and re-modified until the final standard is ready. Configuration management, therefore, can form part of project management. Configuration management not only concerns avoiding the use of old drafts. Its primary objective is to document and justify all changes and the final content of the standard. This is important because: - It enables the SDO to account for why the standard is as it is. This is an act of responsibility aimed at standard users, and enables actors in public enquiries to comment not only on the standard’s content but also on the reasons for this content. - It stresses the consensus-based character of the standard. - It enables the detection of deviations from the process layout designed at the start of the project. - It protects the integrity of the standard and avoids secretariats from being accused of making changes to the contents that are presented as editorial changes.19 17
At NNI, for instance, each officer has a “shadow-partner” who more or less knows what is going on in his colleague’s committees. He is able to take over the most urgent things in case of absence. 18 In this subsection, the international standard ISO 10007 Quality management - Guidelines for configuration management (ISO, 1995a) has been used. 19 Several NNI colleagues experienced the latter in international and regional standardization.
112 The committee secretariat is the natural party to carry out configuration management. ISO 10007 provides practical guidelines for this. A weakened form of the measures prescribed in it will suffice.
6.5.7 Cultural differences Subsection 5.5.5 pays attention to problems related to differences in cultures. FSOs already use Schneider’s main solution for such problems: standardization of service processes. Consortia and some of the SSOs may face more problems in this respect. A prerequisite for FSOs is that they make known their internal standardization to the participants. AFNOR pays attention to cultural differences in their courses (Dufour, 1998). The problem of having to learn organizational practices when entering the standardization arena gives rise to the conclusion that NSOs that adapt their organizational practices to those of the international and regional FSOs make it easier for their committee members (and their own staff) to participate in international (or regional) standardization. Without such adaptation, these people need extra socialization when entering the international arena.20
6.5.8 Boundaries of project management Because of the consensus-character of standardization, participants can enter into an obligation of exertion but not into an obligation of result. This is a fundamental boundary of project management in standardization. The most obligatory way to get commitment for the project is to lay down responsibilities, authorities, and tasks in a contract. A prerequisite for this is that at the very beginning of the project all participants have reached consensus on this approach. In that case, however, the starting phase itself would be excluded from project management. Further, it can be questioned whether trying to get to grips with a standardization project is the right way to manage it. In a contribution on creating complex governmental automation projects, Luitjens (1997) concludes that this does not work. He mentions the following key success factors: 1 a pronounced assignment Without a clear assignment, projects fail. For inter-organizational projects, this causes problems, because there is no single authority that can order employees to do something. If applied to standardization, the responsible TC should give a WG a pronounced assignment, which will be more than just formulating the scope of a standard to be developed in one sentence. 2 financing schedule from the outset 20
This is one of the measures taken by DIN to improve the efficiency (Reihlen, 1997, p. 771). It is also BSI’s policy (BSI, 1997b, Subsection 5.5.6).
113 From the very beginning, a clear financing schedule for the whole project should be established and agreed upon. This includes giving an estimate of the costs and a list of parties that have expressed their willingness to pay. Salami tactics mostly fail. 3 understanding complexity Complexity consists of product complexity, the technical complexity of the system that has to be built, and process complexity, which includes the different stakeholders with diverging interests and mutual relations, and financial possibilities. 4 creating a basis for the project The different actors should support the project. To attain this, it is important to make explicit the arguments for them to start and maintain their participation. Joint conceptualization appears to be a prerequisite for this: the more people are involved in finding solutions and balancing alternatives, the more they will be willing to support the final choice. 5 personal skills Some people manage where others, in comparable circumstances, fail. Common sense and a sense of humour appear to be pre-requisites. Van Aken (1996) provides a partly underpinning for Luitjens’ findings. His doctoral thesis on success in project management follows from the observation that projects often fail. Success, according to him, is the rate at which interested actors are satisfied with the project result. Van Aken made an inventory of projects and their results by analyzing 160 questionnaires received from different actors. It appeared that instruments for project management do generally not contribute to success; there is even a slightly negative correlation. The more instruments used, the less chance there is of project success. Structuring, however, is desirable in projects that are barely governable. A goal-oriented style of working affects project success favourably. It can be questioned to what extent Van Aken’s findings apply to standardization; the example of the Dutch standard on trade documents (Subsection 6.5.1) suggests an other conclusion. In Van Aken’s project, there was no question about project managers: there was no doubt about who they were and what their responsibilities were. In standardization practice, however, this issue is ambiguous. Therefore, and because of the multitude of different types of stakeholders, standardization projects are, in Van Aken’s terms, hard to govern, and, therefore, need structuring. The present structuring, however, is one-sided as it is focused on procedures, and other tools are hardly used. Maybe procedures are too rigid and other project management instruments might be added. The attractiveness of de facto standardization may be (partly) explained by its goalorientation, the smaller number of involved parties, and the lesser amount of procedures. According to Van Aken, this may be effective, because structuring should be avoided in the case of obligations of result, which correspond more closely, but not self-evidently, to de facto standardization. In formal standardization,
114 where obligations of exertion are involved, structuring is necessary (Van Aken, 1996, p. 132).
6.5.9 Subcontracting Many NSOs contract out secretarial activities to other organizations, including companies. One of their officers provides the link to this exterior secretariat. Often, these organizations have specialist knowledge about the subject matter concerned. It may appeal to them to hold a secretariat, because it enables them to influence the process of standards development. In-between solutions also occur: secretariats are allocated to NSOs, but most of the operations are done by people from companies. It can be questioned whether NSOs should allow TCs to decide to contract out core activities. It shows their incompetence, which should give them food for thought. From the point of view of quality assurance, this is not an optimal situation either: CEN encounters more difficulties than necessary because key TC Secretariats were delegated outside CEN Members to organizations which in some instances do not behave neutrally or with the expected degree of professionalism. BT,21 however, never had the strength to address these issues, which are certainly politically sensitive, but which risk, if not seem to, damage seriously CEN’s reputation in some areas. European industry (CEFIC,22 ORGALIME23) have tied on several occasions to draw the attention of CEN/CS24 to such issues. (CEN Secretary General, 1996, p. 5) The obvious conclusion is that NSOs should, where possible, limit outsourcing, provided they are able to take over the activities and the responsible TC agrees. In time, they could remove this option from their rules and regulations.
6.6
NSO officers
The knowledge and skills of NSO officers, including, for instance, accuracy, diplomacy, and humour, to a large extent determine customer satisfaction. For the ISO, IEC, CEN and CENELEC, the way NSO officers perform in international or European secretariats is crucial too. Therefore, one might expect them to set requirements for these officers. Present requirements mainly concern duties, and hardly their abilities to perform (ISO/IEC, 1995a, p. 105). From a quality management perspective, this situation needs to be improved, given the performance of ISO TC secretariats:
21
BT = Bureau Technique: CEN’s Technical Board. CEFIC = Conseil Européen de l’Industry Chimique [European Chemical Industry Council]. 23 ORGALIME = Organisme de Liaison des Industries Métallique Européennes (contact body for engineering industry associations). 24 CEN/CS = CEN’s Central Secretariat. 22
115 Performance indicators for ISO secretariats ISO/IEC Directives require that agendas for meetings are sent at the latest 4 months before the meeting. During 1997, 59% of all secretariats were late in providing the data. Documents ready for publication as Draft International Standards (DISs) should be submitted to the ISO Central Secretariat within 4 months. Those NSOs that had to fulfil this duty in 1997 had an average delay from 4 months to 21 months. After voting on a DIS, 4 months are available for making the Final DIS and the report of voting. In 1997, the average delay per secretariat, taking only secretariats that had to pass more than 10 documents, was between 8 and 23 months. International standards should be reviewed at least every 5 years, and secretariats should inform the ISO of the TC decision within 3 months. In June 1998, the ISO was awaiting decisions concerning 921 of its standards that it should have received in 1992-1996; 1997 even excluded. (Source: ISO, 1998d)
Not only secretariats can be blamed for bad performance – in the end they depend on their committees. In spite of this, the system as a whole does not function at an acceptable level and NSO officers are part of the problem. ISO, IEC, CEN, and CENELEC could set additional criteria for NSO officers performing international or regional secretariats. Training facilities should be made available and a form of audit carried out. Certified officers could be registered.25
6.7
Organizations
6.7.1 Task allocation between committees The case on EN 10238 (Section 5.7) suggests a lack of responsibility resulting from the extreme division of tasks between different committees. Simplification of the institutional context, therefore, would be nice. This is a major argument against a national intermediate level in regional standardization (see Subsection 4.4.5). Often, facilitation of the organizational network will not be feasible,26 and actors will have to find their way in that network. NSO officers performing secretary services will have to be skilled in facilitating relations to other organizations. The only thing NSOs can manage is their own organizational structure. All NSOs have a standardization committee structure with a bureau structure. To keep the situation as surveyable as possible, both for committee members and for NSO officers and their secretaries, NSOs can arrange their national committee structure in a way that reflects the international (and/or regional) committee structure (see Subsection 6.5.7). As NSOs differ enormously with respect to size and culture, it is difficult to give general recommendations about the structure of their bureau. To restrict the number of organizational interfaces, a structure may suffice that links NSO officers to clusters of TCs that are interrelated both because of the subject matter concerned and because of the markets served. Where a choice has to be made 25
De Vries and Schipper (1997) provide examples of this in other service sectors, such as accountancy, insurance business, public education, and health care services. 26 Actors may be locked in an SDO network structure that only partly meets their needs. This might apply to the SDO network in EDI standardization, presented in Subsection 2.2.4.
116 between subject matter and market segmentation, the latter should prevail when the relations of NSO officers with the market are regarded as more important than their technical expertise.
6.7.2 Committee composition Another organizational element NSOs can influence is the composition of their committees. Arguments for composition include representativeness, expertise, and workability. Workability is related to the number of participants. For the sake of representation, a committee may have a few dozen members. This, however, hinders the effectivity of meetings. Meetings may be used for information exchange, idea generation, decision-making, and the evaluation of decisions. To enable effective deliberations, 6-10 participants may be the optimal number. If more members are needed to represent parties, meetings might be prepared by a subgroup, and the plenary meetings restricted to statements and formal decision-making. BSI requires the size of its committees to balance breath of representation and effectiveness in reaching decisions. Generally, a smaller membership is better for a committee dealing with detailed aspects of a standard, with wider representation being appropriate for a committee that considers policies (BSI, 1997b, Section 6.4). The criterion of openness causes a real problem for NSOs. All parties are welcome, but many of them do not come because they have other priorities, for instance. NSOs might record this refusal in an annex to the standard, in order not to be accused of one-sidedness in composing committees. Other parties may stay away because they do not want a standard to be developed. This reason for non-participation violates the consensus-claim of NSOs. In such cases, NSOs might consider one of the less-status standards options, or may simply cancel the proposed project, which may result in another SDO being the first mover in setting a standard. The NSO might give advice to that SDO to enable them to make the standard suitable for possible inclusion in the collection of formal standards at a later moment in time. Incidentally, in practice, parties that oppose standards development sometimes feel forced to participate to prevent the emergence of a standard. This, of course, can be a cause of uneasiness not only for them but for the whole committee. It can be questioned whether or not NSO officers should be members of the committee. For the sake of a clear separation of responsibilities and authorities between NSO bureau and standardization committees, it is better that NSO officers are only attached to committees, without being a member of them.27 6.7.3 Organizational requirements for NSOs The ISO’s Central Secretariat achieved an ISO 9002 quality assurance certificate (ISO Bulletin, 1996; ISO, 1994). Such a certificate should provide customers with confidence, because it shows that an acknowledged certification body has verified 27
This is current practice in Germany (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1994a, Clause 3.4) and the Netherlands (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1994, Clauses 9.2.1 and 10.1) and also at an international level (ISO/IECa, 1995, pp. 8-10). In the United Kingdom, however, the secretary is a member of the committee (BSI, 1997b, Clause 6.9.3). If an NSO officer takes the chair, NSO (and ISO/IEC) rules prescribe that he is a member of the committee.
117 that ISO’s business processes meet the requirements laid down in the standard. There are good reasons for NSOs to consider ISO 9000 certification: - Quality management, in general, can improve an organization’s ability to meet user needs better. Certification can be a milestone on the route of continuous improvements. - ISO 9000 registration would stress the trustworthiness by which NSOs should distinguish themselves from other SDOs. - NSO operations in the area of standards development are formalized to a large extent, which harmonizes with the ISO 9000 emphasis on documented procedures. - From the point of view of ISO and IEC, NSOs are subcontractors who should be evaluated and selected on the basis of their ability to meet subcontract requirements including the quality system and any quality assurance requirements (ISO 9002 clause 4.6.2.a (ISO, 1994d)). For the sake of their own quality assurance, ISO and IEC might consider obliging their members to get ISO 9002 registration. As a result, non-compliant NSOs should be degraded to correspondent members or subscriber members (the two lower-status forms of ISO membership).28 - The ISO 9000 standards are NSO best-sellers all over the world. Many NSOs provide additional services related to them, such as, courses, consultancy, certification, and/or accreditation. They would be expected to apply to themselves what they promote in the market. ISO 9000 is not undisputed (Seddon, 1997), and this applies especially to its application in professional services (Broekhuis & De Leeuw 1995a & 1995b). However, most drawbacks of ISO 9000 quality assurance can be avoided by professional and prudent implementation (Van Bruggen et al., 1997, Chapter 7-9; De Vries, 1999a). After ISO 9001 registration, the Standards Council of Canada intends to achieve ISO 14001 registration: recognition of their environmental management system (SCC, 1998).
28
A correspondent member is normally an organization in a developing country which does not yet have its own NSO. Correspondent members do not take an active part in the technical work, but are entitled to be kept fully informed about the work of interest to them. Subscriber memberships are intended for countries with very small economies. Subscriber members pay reduced membership fees that nevertheless allow them to maintain contact with international standardization (ISO/IEC, 1995b, p. 6). IEC has associate and pre-associate members (IEC, 1998b, p. 10).
118
6.8
Communication and supporting facilities
The Internet is both a means to inform and a means to communicate. As a means to communicate, it offers the possibility for alternative actor participation in standardization. Geographical distance is no longer of importance.29 The best example of new standardization enabled by the Internet is offered by the Internet developers themselves: they use Internet communication to develop standards and use it as a means to inform and present standards to all participants, free of charge.30 Using the Internet, all interested parties can present their opinions and discuss them with others. This can diminish the role of traditional standardization committees. SDOs that stick to balanced decision-making, however, will still need committees in which interested parties are represented and decisions are consensus-based. These can profit from the arguments from Internet discussions, participate in them, and use the Internet - partly - for their own communication. So the role of committees may change, but will not disappear. ICT may enable NSOs in developing countries to intensify participation without high travelling expenses, but it may also increase differences between NSOs in industrialized countries and those in developing countries. ISO and IEC need ICT to improve their processes, for instance, using electronic voting and electronic document distribution. In future, NSOs that fail to use these methods will form a hindrance to the ISO system. IEC has fewer problems, because of the smaller number of members in developing countries.31 ISO may feel forced to exclude NSOs from participating in TCs if they are not able to keep up with technological developments, as this would hinder the others: Those ISO members who do not have an adequate ICT infrastructure risk becoming more isolated from the mainstream ISO activities. (ISO, 1998d) IEC already requires comments on draft standards to be submitted in electronic form (Raeburn, 1998f) and electronic voting is strongly recommended (Raeburn, 1998b). In the near future, ISO and IEC may consider restricting membership to NSOs that operate a minimum set of ICT facilities. In future, FSOs may use advanced systems for terminology control and information retrieval more often (Budin & Galinski, 1991).
29
In a study about standardization of colours in the textile industry in 19th-century Europe, NietoGalan (1997) concludes that improvements in the possibilities for travelling enabled standardization at the European level. The role of single individuals from different countries was endorsed by close communication among them. Nowadays, not only ICT, but also the relative fall of prices of aeroplane tickets, makes it easier to standardize at an international level. 30 Short introductions to Internet Standardization are offered by Cargill (1997, pp. 255-261), Pitner (1997), and Schmidt & Werle (1998, pp. 53-56). 31 IEC (1998f) lists ICT tools and services currently available to the IEC community. A Guide on the use of information technology tools in the IEC can be downloaded from the IEC’s website (IEC, 1998e).
119 As mentioned in Section 5.8, decision support systems are not used in standardization. Their use could be considered in complex standards development areas, such as multimedia. The systems might provide help in developing decision alternatives, gathering and analyzing the information required for evaluating the decision alternatives, and identifying either the best decision per stakeholder or a set of good decision alternatives acceptable to most, or even all stakeholders. This may be a topic for further research.
6.9
Summary and conclusions
This chapter has suggested how NSOs could face the needs of their customers with respect to standards development. Without clear assignment standardization projects fail. Therefore, in general, an exploratory study should be carried out before starting a project. Such a study should reveal: - interested parties and the way they are organized; - their interests related to standardization; - relevant SDOs and their standards collections; - standards used in the sector; - user satisfaction with existing standards; - user needs for withdrawal or modification of standards, or for new standards (using the classifications listed in Chapter 9); - relevant standardization mechanisms (Section 2.3 / Chapter 13); - an overview of possibilities to meet the different needs; - possible role of FSOs and other SDOs; - necessary expertise; - willingness of interested parties to get involved, financially and/or by participation; - preferred composition of committees to do work; - possible schedule of activities and parties that may carry them out; - global identification and estimation of risk and development of possible responses and control mechanisms; - estimate of cost and of parties to pay. This is an extension of the method presented in Section 13.9.32 Depending on the circumstances, other methods described in Chapter 13 can be added. Based on such a study, FSO Sector Boards can decide to assign the work to existing TCs and/or to establish new ones. Interested parties that were unwilling to participate should be listed. FSOs should not be afraid to leave work to other SDOs, if these are more feasible due to market forces, including available expertise. Standardization projects are barely governable due to customer co-production and allocation of tasks. Therefore, they need structuring, however many disadvantages this has. To enable this structuring, TCs should agree at the outset about:
32
Exploratory studies should also be carried for standardization projects at the international level. Current ISO and IEC rules for justification of proposals for the establishment of standards (Raeburn, 1998e, pp. 2-3, 7; ISO, 1981) do not suffice, provided that they are applied, which, in case of ISO, hardly happens.
120 - goals to be reached; - a time schedule, including an overview of which party should carry out which tasks, and target dates to accomplish them; - the target group for the standards; - measures to create user-friendly standards, including text editing, explanatory notes, introduction campaigns, and courses; - necessary budget; - parties’ commitment to pay. Consensus regarding the process should precede consensus regarding the standards themselves.33 Any deviation from the agreed schedule should be agreed upon, the schedule amended, and the reasons for deviation registered, the latter to enable learning by doing and to enable FSOs to account for deviations. FSOs should not hesitate to discontinue projects or dissolve committees if agreed trajectories are not met. In order to elucidate and account for the standards’ contents, FSOs should add an attachment to standards that should give information on: - parties that were involved in drafting them and deciding on them; - interested parties that did not accept the invitation to participate; - arguments for the main choices made in the standard; - external comments received and changes resulting from these comments; - intended use of the standards, including a list of the parties for whom they are meant; - further elucidation of requirements; - a list of differences with previous standards. Further, standards should meet the criteria mentioned in Sections 4.2 and 4.3. NSO officers need to perform systematic stakeholder management, including managing relations to: - organizations involved in standardization, paying attention to different persons within the same organizations; - interested parties that do not participate, including (potential) standards users; - other SDOs; - colleagues within the NSO bureau. Their role could include: - carrying out exploratory studies; - preparing, together with subject matter specialists, proposals for standards; - editing standards; - (on an experimental basis:) carrying out committee chairmanship. They should be educated in using standardization procedures and methods. Their skills should include diplomacy and accuracy, and they should be able to get on well with others. They should also have editorial and time management skills. NSO bureaus can avoid delay by carrying out activities simultaneously in checking and publishing standards. Most delays, however, are not due to the bureaus but to the 33
BSI introduced a new procedure for accepting work proposals and allocating resources to the standardization programme, which to a certain extent resembles the above (BSI, 1995).
121 committee work. The above-mentioned exploratory studies, followed by project plans that set agreed time schedules, can save lots of time. In addition to their current ICT initiatives, FSOs may consider: - standards development tracking systems; - terminology control systems; - tools for configuration management; - Internet discussions prior to committee discussions and decisions. ICT investments challenge NSOs in developing countries. ISO and the IEC may put additional requirements on their members to improve performance of the world-wide standardization system. These may concern ICT, ISO 9002 registration, and, after some years, requirements for NSO officers and auditing of their capabilities.34 Setting requirements for committee members would violate the NSO principle of openness. However, to stimulate improvements of their performance, NSOs should provide them with written information on standardization and their expected role in the process, and offer training to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills. Training topics may include: - the organizational setting of standardization; - standardization procedures; - standardization mechanisms; - the role of convenors, other committee members, and the secretariat; - negotiating; - handling cultural differences. The combination of the above measures may improve FSO performance considerably. This will speed up the process, strengthen the competitive position of FSOs compared to other SDOs, and diminish the need for alternative standards, such as, pre-standards, WAs and PASs. Of these, pre-standards are useful in areas where ideas are still taking shape. WAs should be considered only in areas where the required speed justifies concessions to the principles of openness, consensus, and transparency. This should be clear from studying standardization mechanisms. To prevent loss of FSO trustworthiness, WAs should only be considered under the strict conditions listed in Subsection 6.4.1. This also applies to the inclusion of PASs in FSO standards collections. Referring to de facto standards is not problematic as long as the decision to refer is consensus-based and property right issues are taken into account. The decision to add other than “normal” standards should be consensusbased also. The more FSOs improve their processes, the more their performance will profit from integration of electrotechnical and non-electrotechnical FSOs. Where possible, NSOs should no longer outsource secretarial activities to external bodies. Their committee structure should preferably reflect the structure of international committees.
34
According to the Secretary-General of ISO, the challenge for NSOs is to make sure to catch the international train before it leaves the station. For many NSOs this means that fundamental changes are needed, and soon (Eicher, 1998).
7
OTHER NSO SERVICES
7.1
Introduction
An NSO’s core services relate to developing standards. Often, distributing standards is a second area of services, and providing information concerning standards sometimes a third. Moreover, in practice, some NSOs add other service areas, such as, testing and certification. This chapter examines these services, but not exhaustively. They are discussed only in as far as they are related to standards development. Therefore, the questions to be addressed are: - Can an organization involved in standards development also be “good” at these other activities? - Do these activities reinforce each other and/or standards development or is there any danger that they interfere with each other or the process of standards development? To answer these questions, this chapter starts by presenting general business theory on the options and restrictions for diversified services. In the next sections, the different NSO services are discussed.
7.2
Theories on diversification strategies
7.2.1 Introduction This section largely draws on the Master’s thesis of Van Ulden (1997) on diversification in service companies. Van Ulden discusses three approaches: those of Porter, Hamel & Prahalad, and Nayyar. His choice of Porter, and Hamel & Prahalad is based on the widely used volume on strategic management by De Wit & Meyer (1994). For companies active in more than one businesses, they distinguish three approaches: - The portfolio approach is based on sharing financial resources. There need not be any synergy between the different businesses. Therefore, this approach is not relevant in our case. - The linkages approach focuses on business units sharing skills and activities to meet market needs. The main exponent of this approach is Porter. - The core competence approach focuses on building the corporation around fundamental competencies shared by all business units. Hamel and Prahalad support this approach. Porter, Hamel and Prahalad do not pay much attention to the specific characteristics of service firms. That’s why Van Ulden adds the approach of Nayyar, who addresses the diversification strategies of service companies. However, none of them acknowledge something that is also important in decisions about diversification: the company’s set of strategic assets. This topic is addressed by Markides and Williamson (1996). The applicability of these approaches is discussed in the following subsections. In 7.2.6, conclusions are presented.
124 7.2.2 Transferring skills and sharing activities According to Porter, successful diversification is only possible when there are clear opportunities to transfer skills or share activities (Porter, 1985). Transferring skills refers to skills transferred between business units, so that they can profit from each others experiences and capabilities. This presupposes similarities or comparabilities in activities. Sharing activities means different business units share, for instance, clients, technology, or a distribution channel. Both ‘transferring skills’ and ‘sharing activities’ create synergy between business units and, therefore, create a competitive advantage. Porter talks about big companies having competitors and trying to maximize shareholder value. For NSOs, this often is not the case: they are small or mediumsize, having at most hundreds of employees. Often, fierce competition is lacking. Many NSOs also do not have to make a profit, though they of course have to be costeffective. Nevertheless, Porter’s message is that a diversification strategy can improve an NSO’s performance when there is synergy between the different services. This synergy can originate from “outside” when clients to be served overlap to a considerable extent. Internal synergy can arise by sharing knowledge and/or abilities, and/or by sharing activities which generates economies of scale. Porter states that when there is no synergy between business units, it is better to split up the company. Therefore, Porter raises the issue of which parties NSOs carry out activities for and what potential synergy is there between these activities.
7.2.3 Core competences Whereas Porter stresses the importance of an organization’s activities, Prahalad and Hamel (1990) focus on the company’s core competence. According to them, core competences are the sources of new business development. ‘Core competence’ is the collective learning in the organization, especially how to co-ordinate diverse production skills and integrate multiple streams of technology (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990, p. 82). A core competence should (ibid., pp. 83-84): - give access to a wide variety of markets; - make a significant contribution to the perceived customer benefits of the end product; - be difficult for competitors to imitate. Like Porter, Prahalad and Hamel talk about big companies in competition trying to maximize shareholder value. Again, however, the basis of their message can be applied to NSOs: performance improvements using a diversification strategy are only possible when these different services make use of shared competences. So Prahalad and Hamel ask what core competences are necessary in order to provide the different possible standardization activities.
125 7.2.4 Information asymmetry and economies of scope Nayyar (1993) focuses on service firms. He stresses two reasons for successful diversification: 1 information asymmetry Often, sellers of a service have more information than buyers about the true quality of their services: there is information asymmetry between the company offering the service and its clients. Buyers may economize on information acquisition costs by favouring current suppliers with whom they are satisfied when evaluating alternative providers of other needed services. Diversified firms can, therefore, gain a competitive advantage by meeting the multiple needs of existing satisfied buyers. 2 economies of scope Economies of scope arise when the joint cost of producing two or more outputs is less than the sum of the costs of producing each output by itself. Such cost benefits may arise when businesses share some unique factor of production: a management or distribution system, a product or process technology, or a plant and equipment. Again, the basic assumption is a situation of competition in which companies try to maximize shareholder value. But here, too, the kernel of the message can be applied. Between an NSO and its clients, in general, information asymmetry exists. Nayyar gives arguments for an NSO to offer a complete set of standardization services, assuming that the NSO is able to offer all these services at an acceptable price/performance rate and these services are not contradictory.1 Economies of scope can be necessary for the organization to reach the acceptable price/performance rate. Economies of scope are comparable to the synergy effects mentioned by Porter (Subsection 7.2.2).
7.2.5 Assets Markides and Williamson (1996) claim that diversification enhances performance if it allows a business to obtain preferential access to skills, resources, assets, or competences that cannot be purchased by non-diversifiers in a competitive market or replaced by some other asset that can be purchased competitively. Compared with Prahalad and Hamel, they add ‘assets’ to competences: Superior performance of diversification depends on opportunities to share strategic assets (Markides and Williamson, 1996, p. 344). They do not define ‘asset,’ but cite Verdin and Williamson who give the following examples (ibid., p. 348):
1
For example, NSOs offer platform services for parties to come to an agreement on standards. Another possible service would be that NSO officers could participate in standardization committees on behalf of companies. This second service, however, would affect the NSO’s independent position necessary for the first service.
126 - customer assets, such as brand recognition, customer loyalty, and installed base; - channel assets, such as established channel access, distributor loyalty, and pipeline stock; - input assets, such as knowledge of imperfect factor markets, loyalty of suppliers, and financial capacity; - process assets, such as proprietary technology, product or market-specific functional experience (e.g., in marketing or production), and organizational systems; - market knowledge assets, such as accumulated information on the goals and behaviour of competitors, price elasticity of demand, or market response to the business cycle. For an NSO, examples of these assets might be: - customer assets: standards tags (‘ISO’, ‘NF’, ‘BS’, ‘DIN’) existing standardization committees existing standards organization’s image; - channel assets: agreements with branch organizations subscription systems installed base of existing standards; - input assets: knowledge of participants in standardization committees standards originating from other NSOs, from the ISO and/or the IEC, from the CEN/CENELEC, and/or from other SDOs governmental mandates to develop standards; - process assets: standards information systems working methods for standards development articles of association plus rules and regulations governmental recognition as official national standardization organization recognition by the ISO and/or the IEC as national member; - market knowledge assets: general market knowledge data about participation in standardization committees data about who sold which standards. Markides and Williamson (1996, p. 363) conclude: The strategy of related diversification will enhance performance only when it allows a business to obtain preferential access to strategic assets - those that are valuable, rare, imperfectly tradable, and costly to imitate. Even then, the advantage afforded by this access will eventually decay as a result of asset erosion and imitation by single-business rivals. In the long run, therefore, only accumulated competences that enable a firm to build new strategic assets more quickly and efficiently than competitors can will allow it to sustain supernormal profits. Also for Markides and Williamson, the basic assumption is competition and maximizing shareholder value. But, again, the kernel of their message can be applied. 7.2.6 Conclusions
127
Based on Nayyar, we can conclude that “one-stop-shopping” for different standardization services is to be preferred, assumed that these services are offered at an acceptable price/performance rate and are not conflicting. For NSOs, this acceptable price/performance rate is not self-evident, because they all had and still have, in some aspects, a monopolistic position, due to their “asset” as the national link to the international and regional FSOs. However, forms of competition force them to keep this price/performance rate in mind. NSOs have several competitors in standards selling: both private companies and, to a certain extent, other NSOs.2 We can learn from Porter that the first thing is to make an inventory of which services are, or might be, offered to which clients. From Prahalad & Hamel, and Markides & Williamson, we can conclude that a second thing is to determine existing core competences and assets, and necessary competences and assets needed for possible new services. Only when there is enough fit between new and existing competences and assets, is diversification a real option. A precondition for all four above theories is that organizations have the necessary internal communication to be able to profit from synergy effects, core competences, or strategic assets.
7.3
Selling standards
As indicated in Section 3.5, NSOs sell their own standards and, frequently, lots of other standards. However, it is not self-evident that an organization that develops documents also publishes them. Applying the above theory of diversification strategies, the following arguments are in favour of selling standards: - NSO customers in standards development, in general, form a subset of NSO customers that buy standards. - Both activities require knowing market needs for standards. - The organization that sells standards can have knowledge about their contents and knows the route to experts that have even more knowledge, so questions, if any, concerning these contents can be answered.3 - Standards information systems that are needed for selling standards are also used in standards development. - The output from the standards development process (an approved standard) forms the input of the publishing process. - Customers are expected to prefer one address for standardization services. - Customers expect NSOs to sell standards and the ISO describes standards selling as a self-evident NSO activity (ISO, 1998a, p. 5). It can be concluded that standards selling is an evident NSO activity and that synergy with standards development is possible. For NSOs in some developing countries, 2
Source: Internal NNI discussion paper (Blijham, 1996). In NNI practice, the selling department, when necessary, contacts technical officers who, subsequently, can ask members of their committees. At this point, NNI’s selling department can offer better service than a mail-order company could. 3
128 selling standards may even be their main activity. For publishing, however, specialized skills are needed to assure an acceptable level of performance. Three differences between NSOs and “normal” publishing companies are: a the dull appearance of most standards and their unclear texts; b the limited distribution channel: from only one or a few counters in the country and by mail-order shopping; c the high prices. Sub a The user-unfriendliness of standards can be improved by improving the process of drafting them, as indicated in Chapters 6 and 13. Sub b One might expect standards, or at least the most important ones, to be available in bookshops that sell technical and/or management books. NSOs may argue that when bookshops sell standards there is no version control: outdated versions might be sold. However, that problem can be solved. The centralized method of selling seems related to the semi-monopolistic situation: in a competitive market, other outlets would probably be used too. Sub c Compared to books of comparable size, standards are expensive, despite the non-profit character of NSOs.4 Whether this is an indication for poor NSO performance has not been investigated. The rationale of the high prices is: - They cover not only the expenses made for printing and distributing standards, but also meet a part of the NSO costs of supporting the development of these standards.5 These costs go far beyond normal authors fees of, say, USD 50 per page. - NSOs have some best-sellers, but generally sell only a few copies. A normal publisher would not insert such publications into his collection. The scene for standards selling is changing due to the Internet. First applications are electronic ordering of standards and, subsequently, electronic payment. These are just modifications of the mail-order service. Of greater consequence is the possibility of offering standards themselves in electronic form via the Internet.6 This issue will be addressed using the structure of Simons’ (1996) article on virtual documents:7 - Data storage Data can be stored in pixelmode (both the text and figures as “pictures” of paper documents) or as structured documents. The latter enables systematic searching and, for instance, hyperlinks to other documents, and is the inescapable trend. FSOs prepare for this situation by using SGML8 for making standards. 4
The non-profit character of some NSOs is under pressure, especially if they have a lot of commercial activities. BSI, for instance, earns most of its income in testing and certification and carries out these activities in a competitive market, all over the world. 5 Without money from standards selling the daily rate for NNI’s standardization consultants would have been ca. USD 200 more. 6 For example, the American National Standards Network (Mercer, 1995; http://www.nssn.org), Australian standards publishing via the Internet (Pontoni, 1998b). 7 This article has been chosen because it offers an overview of aspects related to standards in electronic form from a company’s point of view. 8 See Section 5.8.
129 - Data to be stored As far as FSOs use electronic media in standards selling, they mainly provide bibliographic information. Standards Australia now also offers the possibility to download standards from the Internet (AFNOR, 1998, Pontini, 1998). Private companies are already offering complete pixelmode FSO collections on CDROM, and NSOs increasingly offer standards on CD-ROM. - Authorization From a user’s point of view, the ideal situation would be that an expert system accessible via the Internet enables advanced searching for relevant standards which are available in PDF,9 SGML and/or HTML10 format and, when necessary, can be downloaded (Swensson, 1998). This, however, would cause financial problems for NSOs, which might cause them to give, for instance, only bibliographic information for free and charge (electronically) for each standard viewed, with additional fees for downloading standards. - Configuration management Electronic publishing may guarantee users getting the latest version. In some cases they also need previous versions; FSOs should keep these available.11 - Copyright FSOs, in general, have copyrighs on their standards.12 This permits them to determine which parties are allowed to (re)sell standards and under which conditions. Given their public function, one would expect NSOs to provide standards on reasonable terms.13 This not only concerns prices, but also availability: the gentlemen’s agreement to have one selling point per country for all FSO standards resembles a cartel and is on bad terms with the WTO policy of free trade. Moreover, in market economies one would expect private companies to not be hindered in reselling standards. This could stimulate NSOs to continuously improve their performance. These aspects are not elaborated further in this thesis. - Finance The portion of NSO income that comes from standards selling varies between 0% (some governmental NSOs offer standards for free) and 69% (Australia).14 A survey carried out by the IEC among its standards buyers revealed that 242 paper copies sold were used by 1586 people, thus, 6.55 people per standard (Nelson, 1998). Electronic availability facilitates copying; increase in copying will cause a decrease in FSO income. It can be expected that users will put standards on the Internet or their intranet despite of the property rights of FSOs. Advanced Internet search indexes enable other users to trace them. Moreover, NSOs will compete 9
PDF = Portable Document Format. HTML = Hyper-Text Markup Language. 11 The need for withdrawn standards is related to their installed base - see Subsection 4.4.2. 12 Though the intellectual effort mainly comes from the participants in standardization, FSOs operate under the condition that they possess property rights concerning standards. Some governmental NSOs, however, have not copyrighted their standards (Toth, 1994, p. 47). 13 This may be compared with the reference to property rights in standards, see Subsection 9.3.8. 14 See the listing in Annex 1. NSOs that earn 50% or more from selling publications include the Netherlands and the Philippines (50%), Norway (64%), and Germany (67%). 10
130 with one another in selling via the Internet: the technology enables customers to compare prices with each other.15 So most NSOs are expected to face a decrease in income from standards selling.16 FSOs may even consider offering standards for free and finding funding in another way, as is done by ETSI. The obvious way then is to raise the fees for standards developing services: the costs of publishing the resulting standards should be covered by the fees. This is a drastic measure - for NNI, for instance, it would double their fees. An advantage would be that the free availability of standards might stimulate their use, so that the aims of standardization are better met. A disadvantage, however, is that it would inhibit some or even many parties from participation and, consequently, harm the common support for standards and, thus, the competitive position of FSOs.17 Modern technology should enable customers to download standards from the Internet to add them to their intranet-based company standards collection. This gives rise to a need for further co-operation between FSOs, and between them and the users, in order to avoid incompatible technical systems. Some NSOs not only sell FSO standards, but also standards from other SDOs. NNI, for instance, sells SSO (ASTM)18 and GSO standards (military standards). For NSO customers there is the advantage of one-stop shopping. However, as with the addition of new types of standards such as workshop agreements to the NSO portfolio, there is a danger of affecting the NSO’s reputation. In practice, there is probably no problem - in the case of NNI,19 all the other SDOs also have authority, though their authority base may slightly differ (see Subsection 6.4.1). The latter, however, does not apply to the general management books sold by the French and German NSOs. It is astonishing that AFNOR that, in general, carries out French interests including the value of its culture and language,20 sells translations of mainstream Anglo-Saxon management books. They, moreover, are advocated in AFNOR’s journal Enjeux. The German NSO, DIN, created a separate publishing company, Beuth Verlag, to publish both standards and other publications, and the books are not mentioned in DIN’s journal DIN Mitteilungen. To the customer, the other publications are more related to Beuth than to DIN. In the French situation, AFNOR’s reputation is directly damaged. DIN’s reputation of inpartiality, however, is damaged too because Beuth is not independent of DIN.21 NSOs should, therefore, only sell standards and related information products, but nothing else. 15
Standards Australia, for instance, expects to deliver its products and services other regions (Lions, 1998). The IEC (1998d) decided to give its members and IEC Central Office the ability to sell electronic versions of IEC standards over the World Wide Web. 16 This expectation deviates from Toth’s conclusion (1994, p. 21) who says that standards in electronic form will be sold to a considerably larger market beyond the traditional purchasers of standards who, according to him, in many ways were intermediaries. He did not address SMEs. 17 More arguments against providing standards free of charge are offered by CEN (1998, p. 672). 18 ASTM = American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM develops voluntary consensus-based standards. 19 Other NSOs have not been studied at this point. 20 An example of this is the argument for using French in international standardization by the general director of AFNOR (Durand, 1998). 21 If Beuth were an independent publisher, DIN’s reputation of impartiality would be damaged too, because of preference for one publishing company, though many others exist.
131
7.4
Information services
7.4.1 Announcements As described in Section 3.6, NSO information services include announcements of standards and of developments in standardization, help for companies in tracing relevant standards, and elucidation of contents. These will be discussed in Subsections 7.4.1, 7.4.2, and 7.4.3. Many NSOs increasingly use electronic media to announce new standards. They also give information on draft standards. From a company’s point of view, however, even that stage can be too late to be able to anticipate new standards. Therefore, they might profit from more structured information on projects in progress. Most FSOs have or should have such information for internal use, which they could make available to outside parties.
7.4.2 Help in monitoring standards From a company’s point of view, the help NSOs offer in monitoring standards is often insufficient: tracing standards that cover the topic and distinguishing these from irrelevant ones is often difficult.22 And once these have been found, their status is still unknown. Some FSO standards are not used at all. Other standards in the same area even conflict with each other,23 making it difficult to decide which one to use. Or maybe de facto standards are used in practice. Thus, additional information is necessary about the practical status of standards.24 The NSO could offer this information; otherwise it should come from the branch organization, professional literature, or other companies. In the Netherlands, SMEs use branch organizations, professional literature, and the NSO as the main sources of information.25 22
The reasons for this are (Toth, 1994, p. 27): 1) titles are inadequate; 2) there is no discipline in utilizing terms; 3) designations (numbering) are inconsistent among standards developers, particularly in identifying revised standards; 4) few standards have descriptive abstracts. Toth (p. 33) suggests: 1) indexes with consistent, fully descriptive titles and abstracts; 2) on-line or automated dial-up or fax service to verify validity of existing standards, and determine the stage of standards under development; 3) delivery of draft and approved standards in electronic formats via on-line and networks, CD-ROM, or other media such as magnetic tape, with features that provide easy access and linkage to referenced documents, enable interoperability, and accommodate tables and graphics. 23 The FSO check on conflicts between standards does not function sufficiently (see Subsections 3.2.2 and 5.2.2). 24 In a Dutch research project among companies in the metal and electrotechnical industry, it appeared that 50% of them did not succeed in tracing the relevant standards. The bigger the company, the better their performance. As small and medium-size companies were under-represented in the interviews, it may be assumed that more than 50% of the companies are not able to trace relevant standards. Many were not aware that relevant - sometimes even obligatory - standards were missing. On the other hand, some of the companies that, as far as the researchers could judge, had a complete standards collection were afraid of having missed some essential standards (Biesheuvel, Verkuyl & De Vries, 1993, pp. 36-37). 25 This was concluded in two research projects, both based on telephone interviews with about 1000 companies (De la Fuente & De Vries, 1995, pp. 28-29, 48; Meeus et al., 1996, pp. 35-42). In the first
132
Tracing de facto standards is extra difficult. It can be done by asking, for instance, branch organizations and other companies. Traceability can be a reason for partners in a consortium to offer an agreed upon standard to an FSO.26 NSOs that carry out feasibility studies before starting standardization projects map the standards scene, including other SDOs and de facto standards, from the point of view of stakeholders and their needs. These NSOs are, therefore, better equipped to provide information on relevant standards and the feasibility study itself could be a guide for stakeholders to get a survey of standardization in their sector. A German research project (http://www.vernetzung.de/eng/b3/) is trying to develop advanced software that may be a tool to finding the right information technology standards.
7.4.3 Information to elucidate standards The more unreadable and complex standards are, the more explanation they need.27 NSOs might be accused of making standards difficult in order to be able to earn more money in providing clarification. This, however, is implausible, since standards were complex already before some of the NSOs started offering courses and related activities, and the TCs decide on the standards’ contents. Rather, these activities demonstrate, on the one hand, the difficulty of writing self-evident standards and, on the other hand, the growth in customer focus, by providing additional service. Applying the above theory of diversification, the following arguments support offering courses and related information services:28 - NSOs have information on new developments right from the source. - NSOs have access to specialists who can teach courses themselves or know good teachers in the field. - NSOs know the market, especially if they have carried out a feasibility study for the standards concerned.
project, sources of information mentioned were professional magazines (40%), NNI (37%), branch organizations (36%), suppliers or customers (27%), certification and testing bodies (27%), Chambers of Commerce (24%), commercial organizations (9%), Euro Info Centres (3%), and others (10%) (these percentages were not published in the report). In the second project, the percentages found were: professional magazines: 77%, branch organizations: 75%, NNI update service: 34%, NNI catalogue: 26% (these two may overlap, so the percentages should not be added), Staatscourant (official journal of the Dutch government, in which announcements of new standards are published): 17%. Explanations for differences in percentages include: a) the populations differ slightly; b) in the first project companies that said they did not use standards were included, whereas they were excluded in the second project; c) in the first project general managers were interviewed, the report of the second project does not mention who answered the questions; d) both projects used pre-formulated answers. The respondents could say whether or not these applied. The lists of possible answers were different, and the second project did not have a remaining group. 26 Other reasons are listed in Subsection 6.4.1. 27 For instance, in NNI’s book on how to implement the ISO 14000 standards, 43 pages were needed to clarify ISO 14001 and ISO 14004 (Heida et al., 1997). 28 Source: personal experience in developing and marketing NNI courses.
133 - Organizations that buy standards are potential customers for courses. Leaflets announcing courses can be sent with the standards.29 - NSO customers have the advantage of one-stop shopping. - NSOs profit from their image of independence and authority. - Announcing these activities also publicizes the standards themselves.30 - When NSO officers are directly involved in information services it enhances their contacts with standards users which, subsequently, can be of benefit for the way they support standards development.31 There are lots of arguments for synergy between training and other information services, and standards development and selling. However, some objections can also be made: a Special skills are necessary for developing courses and other forms of information services. b The NSO may be charged with unfair competition.32 Sub a Big NSOs can obtain the necessary expertise. Others may need to co-operate with other, specialistic, organizations but should be careful not to lose their impartiality by favouring one organization over its competitors. Partners preferably should have a certain status with respect to authority. Sub b NSOs indeed have competitive advantages, as appears from the above listing. The objection, therefore, questions their general neutral position “for the benefit of all”: when an NSO offers courses, for instance, it is competing with commercial firms, so the NSO is operating “at the expense” of some others. The NSO could argue that standards development is competitive, namely with other SDOs. This applies to national standardization, but only partly to international and regional standardization where the NSOs have the exclusive links to the FSOs at the international and regional level. In order to maintain its trustworthiness, an NSO could take the following precautions: - It should not be one-sided in the selection of teachers or choice of information materials so as not to be accused of favouring certain companies, which would affect its image of impartiality. - It should not withhold information from other organizations that offer courses (and , thus, give away this part of the competitive advantage). - It should charge comparable prices for standards provided as teaching materials.
29
NNI experience shows this is very effective: response rates of more than 10% are possible, which, in the Dutch courses market, is extremely high. 30 NNI uses direct mailings to announce its courses. Direct mail is expensive: circa USD 1,- per leaflet sent. This method can be used because of the margins on courses and appears to be effective, with response rates between 1% and 20%. For announcements of standards it is usually too expensive. Press releases which cost hardly anything are the most common way to announce these. Thanks to announcements of courses, the standards themselves are promoted. 31 It is NNI’s policy that NNI officers, where possible, teach NNI courses, with teachers from professional practice. 32 NNI was accused of this by an employers organization, who said they should leave this activity to private companies and employers organizations.
134 - It can deliberate these issues with the responsible committees, including financial consequences: they might agree to use a part of the income from courses or other information products to lower the price of standards or the contributions for standards development. Information activities directly support the aims of standards development because they make standards better known, promote their use and facilitate their implementation. The more courses and related activities on offer, the better the aims are met, no matter whether they are carried out by NSOs or other organizations.
7.5
Metrology
NSO services in the area of metrology have been described in Subsection 3.7.1. Controversies may arise between standardization and metrology, for instance, a dispute on conversion to metric sizes.33 Therefore, in a mature economy an institutional separation is better, as it reflects the differences in character of these responsibilities.34
7.6
Testing and certification
Most NSOs are involved in testing and certification (see Subsection 3.7.2 and Annex 1). Testing and certification, in general, are based on standards, so the target groups for standardization and testing/certification overlap. Moreover, NSO officers involved in these activities experience the applicability of the standards concerned and can use this experience when revising the standards or preparing related ones. Furthermore, standardization as well as testing and certification are part of a country’s institutional business infrastructure. However, much more than in the case of metrology, there is a danger of conflicting interests. Charles de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu (1689 – 1755), developed the famous trias politica: he stated there should be a strict separation of powers between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches. There should also be a separation of powers between standards development, standards implementation, and testing/certification. NSOs develop standards, companies and other organizations 33
There was a more direct relation between metrology and NSO information services in the past, due to the major operation of the introduction of the Système International d’unités [SI – the International System for Units]. NSOs were active in campaigns to introduce SI. NNI, for instance, was involved in an SI television course (Smits, 1995, p. 4). Anglo Saxon countries and other countries influenced by them still face problems related to the transition to metric and other SI standards. A recent book addressing this topic is Metric Standards for Worldwide Manufacturing (Kverneland, 1996). 34 People involved in metrology primarily need knowledge and skills in the field of measurement. These rarely overlap with knowledge and skills necessary for standardization services. Markets also differ. Though metrology is based on standards, there are no direct advantages to including metrology in NSO services except that they are both part of the infrastructure necessary for industry. In developing economies, where institutions providing the infrastructure are small, there may be an advantage in combining them, in order to have one service desk for industry and to share office facilities. If they are both governmental agencies, it is self-evident that they are not too far from each other within the administration.
135 implement them, and test houses and certification bodies judge whether or not companies meet the requirements laid down in the standards. The intertwining of standards development on the one hand and testing/certification on the other may cause problems: - FSOs might be accused of influencing standards in order to stimulate their business in testing/certification by making standards complex, giving preference to their own test methods, or promoting development of additional standards.35 - If their information services help companies to implement standards, NSOs are no longer independent in judging whether or not these companies implemented them well. Dependency might be avoided by having a strict separation of responsiblities within the NSOs,36 but then there are no advantages to combining them in one organization, except for sharing office facilities (economies of scale). - Information services may lose impartiality by promoting third party testing and certification over self-declarations of conformity.37 - The NSO’s testing and certification department may decide to test and certify only on the basis of formal standards, thus influencing the choice of SDOs in favour of FSOs.38 Therefore, for the sake of assuring their independence in standards development, NSOs should not be involved in testing and certification. Other complications are: - Many NSOs have their own mark of conformity that can be placed on products indicating their compliance to standards. Sometimes the standard tag and the conformity label are even identical, such as, NF (Norme Française [French Standard]). This leads to further confusion. Moreover, it is not clear who has declared that the products meet the requirements: the producer, a testing house, or the NSO’s testing department. - NSOs have a common interest in improving the world-wide ISO/IEC standardization system on which they all increasingly depend. Their co-operation in this area may be hindered by the competition between them in the field of certification. These are additional reasons for NSOs to terminate these activities or to split up the organization.
7.7
35
Accreditation
For instance, on occupational heath and safety management – see ISO Bulletin (1996c). Such a separation is a requirement laid down in ISO/IEC Guide 62 (ISO/IEC, 1996c, clause 2.1.2.o). In the Netherlands, this requirement is not met in practice (Hoogers & De Vries, 1998a). 37 An example can be found in the ISO’s Development Manual on conformity assessment (ISO, 1998). The British Standards Institution (BSI) includes BSI Standards and BSI Quality Assurance. These are formally separated. Nevertheless, the latter got the floor in the ISO series of booklets for developing countries to present a one-sided view on these matters, ignoring industry preferences for selfdeclarations of conformity over third-party assessment (Becker, 1997, p. 13; ICSCA, 1997, Resolution 15; Simons, 1990, p. 36), and suggesting a difference between certification bodies set up by NSOs and other certification bodies (Reed, 1998, p. 37). 38 The relative lead of AFNOR in national standards for services might be explained by such a relation with certification (see Section 11.8). 36
136 Some governmental NSOs are involved in accreditation (see Subsection 3.7.3). Standardization has less synergy with accreditation than with testing/certification. The direct target group of accreditation is small, namely, testing and certification bodies and laboratories, and only a few standards are concerned. Furthermore, there can again be some synergy, as accreditation is also part of the national business infrastructure and office facilities can be shared. The arguments against NSO involvement in testing and certification, are also partly applicable to accreditation: - In their information services, NSOs are no longer independent: they might stress the importance of third party testing and certification, and focus less on selfdeclarations of conformity. - The NSO’s accreditation department may decide to base accreditation only on formal standards. This would influence certification bodies, companies, and other actors in favour of formal standards and, thus, of FSOs instead of other SDOs. - There is a lot of criticism on the functioning of certification bodies, especially in the area of ISO 9000 registration (Hoogers & De Vries, 1998a; Seddon, 1997). A Dutch research project showed that the accreditation process functions insufficiently which is partly related to the standards used: ISO/IEC Guides and, based on these, the European EN 45000 series of standards (Hoogers, 1998; Hoogers & De Vries, 1998a). Other standards for testing and certification are also of poor quality (Hinrichs, 1997). At the moment, the stakeholders have no interest in changing this situation, though a change would benefit most of them.39 NSO activities in accreditation, certification, and/or testing may withhold NSOs from taking initiatives for standards improvement. It can be concluded that NSOs should terminate their involvement in accreditation. A combination of accreditation and testing/certification should always be avoided, of course: this would be totally unreliable. Nevertheless, NSOs in Beylarussia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, Tunisia, Ukraine and Zambia combine the activities of accreditation and testing/certification.40 All, except South Africa, are governmental NSOs.
7.8
39
Other activities
Certificates should ensure that the criteria established in the standards are met. The Dutch practice of management systems certification is dubious (Drouven, 1994; Hoogers & De Vries, 1998b; Van Schooten & Ebbinge, 1998; Specifiek, 1997). Individual companies are not in the position to change this situation. The employers organizations could take the initiative, but they also have members that prefer the present situation with cheap certificates (better certification would make certificates more expensive). Certification bodies have a long-term common stake in trustworthy certificates, but shortterm individual stakes in getting new customers in a market of fierce competition prevail, so they economize on the costs of inspection at the expense of its quality. Stricter accreditation might cause several certification bodies to terminate their activities, which would reduce the income of accreditation bodies; so they will not take the initiative either. The national government advocates a liberal market ideology and, therefore, prefers to leave these matters to the market. Thus, nobody is taking moves (De Vries, 1998a, p. 22). 40 This conflicts with the ISO/IEC Technical Report 17010 ‘General requirements for bodies providing accreditation of inspection bodies’ (ISO/IEC, 1998a, clause 4.2.1).
137 Subsection 3.7.4 lists some other activities carried out by a limited number of NSOs: Advocating standardization as a discipline As may have become clear from this thesis, standardization can be regarded as a scientific and professional discipline involving other disciplines. As demonstrated in Subsection 1.1.3, it has not yet reached a stage of real scientific maturity. Therefore, one might expect FSOs, as focal points of standardization, to stimulate R&D to further develop the profession, which would also benefit their own businesses. In terms of the money spent on standardization, such R&D expenditures are almost negligible. Education Education cannot be the focus of NSO activity, but it can use its knowledge and contacts to encourage others to include standardization in the curricula. This can be regarded as a long-term investment in promoting their business. NSOs may also provide educational materials developed for their own services, such as courses. Promoting and performing industrial research Feasibility studies for standards development may reveal a need for related research. NSOs, in general, will not be the obvious party to carry out such research, but might stimulate and be involved in it by contributing general standardization know-how. Support for the national standards users organization When users wishes (Section 4.4) are compared to the analysis of standardization services in Chapters 5 and 7, and recommendations developed in Chapters 6 and 7, it appears that these suggestions, generally, do not reach any further than the level of “processes should be speeded up.” Standardization is apparently not very accessible. User fora are better equipped to express needs than individual users. Nor do NSOs themselves understand their business sufficiently, as can be seen from their efforts to add low-profile standards to their portfolio which only treats the symptoms and serves as an excuse to avoid improving current business processes. Combining these observations, it can be concluded that the standardization scene might profit from the presence of skilled user groups, independent of FSOs, to advise them. The national standards user groups sometimes form such fora. Some of the best articulations of user needs listed in Section 4.4 come from national standards user organizations. It can be questioned whether the close ties some NSOs have with the national standards users organization, for instance, acting as their secretariat, are not counterproductive, as this support may be at the expense of their impartiality towards the NSO. On the other hand, it can be observed that without NSO support these organizations may not survive, as they have problems in getting money and volunteers for the secretariat. It can be concluded that it may be worth the effort for an NSO to invest a little in the national users organization, while maintaining its
138 independence.41 Moreover, these organizations represent their most prominent customers.42 Assistance to other NSOs NSOs can use their experience to assist colleagues in other countries. Moreover, it is in the common interest to improve the world-wide standardization system. Information on (technical) regulation From a company’s point of view (technical) regulations as well as (voluntary) standards should be traced, obtained, interpreted, and used in order to be able to sell products and services. Often the same people within the company will be involved in these activities. NSOs that provide information on (technical) regulation make life easier for them. Moreover, standards are often related to technical regulations. Therefore, NSOs should not hesitate to add this activity to their portfolio provided that they have the necessary expertise. However, there is the danger that, due to such activities, the image of standardization will shift from “a tool of efficiency” to “(voluntary) regulation.” Inspection of imported products NSOs (in some developing countries) should stop inspecting imported products. Though there is some synergy between the expertise necessary for drafting standards and the expertise necessary for using these standards in inspection, the activities are totally different. In a somewhat mature economy, nobody would think of combining them. Moreover, an NSO carrying out such activities may be accused of showing partiality, in both approval and disapproval of imported goods.
41
The International Federation of Standards Users (IFAN, see Section 3.7) requires NSO recognition for national standards users organizations in order to be allowed to be IFAN members (IFAN, 1998a, clause 3.1.1). 42 The 50 members of NKN, the Dutch standards users organizations, account for more than 10% of NNI’s turnover (Source: investigation of NKN among its members).
139
7.9
Services related to company standardization
The main NSO services involve developing and issuing common standards and providing related information. From a company’s point of view, this does not cover everything related to standardization, as they may also create and implement company standards. Chapter 14 addresses the issue of company standardization and NSO support, if any. Several company standardization tasks have been distinguished and analysed, determining the competences and assets necessary to perform them. There appears to be a lot of similarity and overlap between standardization at the national and the company level. Therefore, NSOs can provide support in this area, not only to enable companies to perform their standardization tasks better, but even by offering the potential to take over some tasks (so the company can contract out one or more tasks to an NSO). The argument for one-stop shopping of standardization services supports NSOs offering such services, provided they are able to offer them at an acceptable price/performance rate and assuming the services do not conflict. It will appear in Chapter 14 that they do not interfere with each other or with other NSO services. Thanks to synergy effects, NSOs should be able to offer most of these services at an acceptable price/performance rate. When “critical mass” is attainable, therefore, it is wise to add company standardization services to an NSO’s service portfolio. The growing interconnection between company standardization and external standardization supports this conclusion. This situation only applies if the NSO has sufficient internal communication to enable synergy and has good company contacts.
7.10 Summary and conclusions Core NSO services include standards development, standards selling, and information services. Within these categories, several services are possible and other categories of services may also be offered. Theories of diversification strategies indicate that such portfolio extensions can benefit customers as they are expected to prefer one-stop-shopping, provided that the services have an acceptable price/performance rate and do not conflict. Therefore, synergy between activities is necessary, for which good internal communication within the NSO bureau is a prerequisite. Standards publishing is a self-evident NSO activity that may profit from further professionalization, among others, by using ICT. The latter is expected to diminish income for NSOs. By selling standards from other SDOs, including non-FSOs, NSOs serve their clients, but selling popular management books damages their reputation. Information services can profit from synergy with standards development and standards selling. Furthermore, the more standards users there are, the more likely the aims of standardization are met, and information services encourage this use. NSOs could offer all kinds of information services, but should not exclude competitors in order not to damage their image of an impartial organization operating for the benefit of all. Therefore, some precautions are needed (see Section 7.3).
140
The habit of adding non-standardization services, such as metrology, testing, certification, and accreditation to the NSO portfolio should be avoided in maturing economies, because separation reflects the differences in character and responsibilities. Testing, certification, and accreditation can directly affect the NSO’s reputation at the point of impartiality. NSOs could consider providing forms of support for company standardization, as there are lots of possibilities for synergy between such services and other activities. Bigger NSOs could stimulate R&D and public education in the field of standardization, and, to a limited extent, be involved in these themselves. There are several possibilities for synergy between different kinds of NSO standardization services by sharing knowledge, skills and assets, and by overlap in customer groups.43
43
The latter gives NSOs options for service packages for regular customers. Some of them do this in the form of memberships. Standards Australia offers its 17,000 members 20% discount on the price of standards, and a subscription on its monthly magazine. ON (Austria) offers the same, plus a discount on courses and ON happenings. DIN offers a 15% discount on its standards, catalogue, and journal, and a license for a special fee to make copies of DIN standards for in-house purposes and to use them in electronic form in internal networks (Sources: NSO Websites).
8
STANDARDIZATION: WHAT’S IN A NAME? 1
8.1
Introduction
What is standardization? Several definitions exist, illustrating some confusion about it. It is demonstrated below that none of these definitions exactly defines standardization in the way that the term is generally used in practice. Therefore, a new definition has been formulated. A clear definition is of help in gaining a better understanding of standardization, in distinguishing under which circumstances and in which areas standardization is an appropriate instrument, and in improving standardization. A prerequisite for the approach chosen is that a definition of standardization should correspond to the common feeling - as far as this exists - about what standardization is. Moreover, it should preferably be in accordance as much as possible with the official definition formulated by ISO and IEC. De Leeuw (1990) distinguishes between empirical and formal definitions. Here an empirical definition will be chosen, because it should define phenomena in reality. After that, de Leeuw divides empirical statements, depending on their rate of generality and level of abstraction, into direct statements, generalizations, and theoretical statements. Here a theoretical statement will be sought, because the definition will have to be workable in order to serve as the basis for a general theory of standardization. De Leeuw divides theoretical statements into causal statements and teleological statements. A definition of standardization will be a teleological one, because it refers to intentions people have. In summary, it can be stated that the definition to be developed is part of a theory of standardization, to be derived from standardization practice, with a focus on the intentions of people regarding standardization. Section 8.2 introduces official definitions and indicates why these are unsatisfactory. Section 8.3 presents a collection of existing definitions, both to illustrate the existing confusion and to lay a basis for the development of a new definition. Section 8.4 then analyzes the constituent elements of these existing definitions and discusses them by comparing them with the way the term ‘standardization’ is used in practice. Based on this, a new definition is formulated in Section 8.5. In Section 8.6, its practical usefulness is discussed. Section 8.7 provides a summary and conclusions.
1
This chapter is the verbatim text of an article in Terminology, Vol. 4 No. 1 (De Vries, 1997f), apart from some minor changes: - An adjustment mentioned in Terminology, Vol. 4 No. 2 has been included. - English translations of definitions in French and German have been added, as well as original Dutch texts of definitions in that language. - Some editorial changes, for instance, terms have been replaced by abbreviations commonly used in this study.
144
8.2
Official definitions
8.2.1
ISO/IEC
ISO and IEC define standardization as: [the] activity of establishing, with regard to actual or potential problems, provisions for common and repeated use, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. Notes 1 In particular, this activity consists of the processes of formulating, issuing and implementing standards. 2 Important benefits of standardization are improvement of the suitability of products, processes and services for their intended purposes, prevention of barriers to trade and facilitation of technological co-operation. (ISO/IEC Guide 2, ISO/IEC, 1996b) The same definition has been adopted by CEN and CENELEC, in the European standard EN 45020 (CEN/CENELEC, 1993). This definition causes some problems: - Does it only concern standardization by FSOs, or does it also cover the establishment of provisions for common and repeated use made by other parties? In practice there appears to be confusion about this. - In practice standardization mainly concerns technology. The most conspicuous exception is standardization in the field of management systems. The definition does not restrict standardization to a technical environment nor to applications within companies. This may not be necessary, but the definition seems to be so broad that it also applies to phenomena that are usually not recognized at all as being standardization, such as design for assembly, safety procedures within a company, the process of making standard software, legislation, the educational books of Dr. Spock, and papal encyclicals.
8.2.2
Dictionaries
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (Gove, 1981) defines ‘standardization’ as: the act, process, or result of standardizing; the condition in which a standard has been achieved or effectively applied. ‘To standardize’ is: 1 to reduce to or to compare with a standard; determine the strength, value, or quality of by comparison with a standard; 2 to bring into conformity with a standard; make uniform; 3 to arrange or order the component items of a test (as of intelligence, achievement, or personality) so that the probability of their eliciting a
145 designated class of response varies with some quantifiable psychological or behavioural attribute, function or characteristic; to adopt a specified product or method as the only one to be produced or utilize. The Oxford English Reference Dictionary (Pearsall and Trumble, 1995) does not define standardization. However, it gives the following descriptions of the verb ‘standardize’: 1 cause to conform with a standard 2 determine the properties of by comparison with a standard 3 (followed by on) adopt as one’s standard or model. In this study standardization will be restricted to the activity of creating a standard or something like that. Because in all definitions given by the latter dictionary the availability of a “standard” is already presumed, they do not apply. For the same reason, of the definitions in Webster’s, only 2b and 3b apply: ‘make uniform’ and ‘to adopt a specified product or method as the only one to be produced or utilized’. Definition 3b appears only to be an example of 3a. These definitions, however, seem both to be simultaneously too broad and too narrow: standardization need not imply uniformity; and, the other way round, uniformity is not always the result of standardization. So these definitions do not appear to be appropriate.
8.3
Other definitions
8.3.1
ISO/IEC and CEN/CENELEC
The definition of standardization given in ISO/IEC Guide 2 (ISO/IEC, 1996b) replaces a former official definition that described standardization as: the process of formulating and applying rules for an orderly approach to a specific activity for the benefit and with the co-operation of all concerned and in particular for the promotion of optimum overall economy taking due account of functional conditions and safety requirements. It is based on the consolidated results of science, technique and experience. It determines not only the basis for the present but also for future development and it should keep pace with progress. (Sanders, 1972, pp. 17–18) This definition is mentioned, because it will be used later. ISO/IEC Guide 2 (ISO/IEC, 1996b) and EN 45020 (CEN/CENELEC, 1993) describe a standard as follows: document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context.
146 Note - Standards should be based on the consolidated results of science, technology and experience, and aimed at the promotion of optimum community benefits. CEN (1994, p. iii) gives a different definition in its General Technical Report 1994: A European Standard is a set of technical specifications established in collaboration with and with the approval of the parties concerned in the member countries of CEN. It is established on the principle of consensus and adopted by the votes of a weighted majority.
8.3.2
NSOs
Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) NSOs mostly use the definition from ISO Guide 2 (1991). Until 1994, DIN used a different definition: Normung ist die planmäßige, durch die interessierten Kreise gemeinschaftlich durchgeführte Vereinheitlichung von materiellen und immateriellen Gegenständen zum Nutzen der Allgemeinheit [Standardization is the conscious unification of material and immaterial entities, commonly realized by the interested parties for the benefit of all].
(DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1994b) This definition has been maintained in DIN 820 Part 1 (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1994a), where the following is added to the above definition of standardization: Sie darf nicht zu einem wirtschaftlichen Sondervorteil einzelner führen. Sie fördert die Rationalisierung und Qualitätssicherung in Wirtschaft, Technik, Wissenschaft und Verwaltung. Sie dient der Sicherheit von Menschen und Sachen sowie der Qualitätsverbesserung in allen Lebensbereichen. Sie dient außerdem einer sinnvollen Ordnung und der Information auf dem jeweiligen Normungsgebiet. Die Normung wird auf nationaler, regionaler und internationaler Ebene durchgeführt [It should not give anyone preferential business advantages. It stimulates rationalization and quality assurance in commerce, technics, science, and administration. It serves for human and object safety and for quality improvements in all areas. Moreover, it serves for useful order and information in the standardization area concerned. Standardization is realized at the international, regional, and national level].
Otto Kienzle, cofounder of DIN, gave the following definition:
147 Normung ist die einmalige, bestimmte Lösung einer sich wiederholenden Aufgabe unter den jeweils gegebenen wissenschaftlichen, technischen und wirtschaftlichen Möglichkeiten [Standardization is the once-only set solution of a returning problem, always taking into account scientific, technical and business possibilities].
(DIN, 1992, p. 4) British Standards Institution (BSI) BSI with the adoption of EN 45020 also subscribes to the international definition of standardization. However, in BSI’s publication ‘Standards and Quality Management An Integrated Approach’ (British Standards Society, 1995, p. 1), this definition is broadened, by adding the following note: Note. In this publication the term [standardization] also covers action in all areas of company operation to improve efficiency by unification or simplification. In ‘Quality Improvement through Standards,’ a book published in association with BSI, Barrie Dale and John Oakland (1991, p. 20) describe standardization as: an activity to improve efficiency by bringing consistency to the products, services or processes. The activity generally consists of the processes of formulating, issuing and implementing standards. Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) The French standard NF X 03-100 (AFNOR, 1979) gives the following definition of a standard: spécification technique ou autre document accessible au public, établi avec la coopération et le consensus ou l’approbation générale de toutes les parties intéressées, fondé sur les résultats conjugués de la science, de la technologie et de l’expérience, visant à l’avantage optimal de la communauté dans son ensemble et approuvé par un organisme qualifié sur le plan national, régional ou international [technical specification or other publicly available document, established by cooperation and consensus or general approval of the interested parties, based on the common results of science, technology and experience, for the optimal common benefit and approved by a qualified body at the national, regional, or international level].
AFNOR’s Buntzly (1992) prefers the definition in Décret français 84-74: La normalisation a pour objet de fournir des documents de référence comportant des solutions à des problèmes techniques et commerciaux concernant les produits, biens et services qui se posent de façon répétée dans les relations entre partenaires économiques, scientifiques, techniques et sociaux [Standardization aim is to supply with reference documents displaying solutions for commercial and technical issues dealing with products, goods and services, issues which arise again and again (repetitively) in the relations between social, technical, scientific and economic partners].
Buntzly used to add keywords about the consensus process when using this definition in education.
148
8.3.3
Dutch experts
Some Dutch experts have formulated other definitions. Bouma Bouma is a former employee of NNI, and at present general director of Analoog Data BV, a company specializing in technical-components information systems. Bouma (1989, p. 10) emphasizes the role of standardization in managing technical developments in time: Standaardisatie is de kunst de levenscycli van infrastructuur, componenten en kennis op elkaar af te stemmen [Standardization is the art of matching the life cycles of infrastructure, components and knowledge].
Infrastructure is the part of technology that is rather stable in time like the telephone network. Components are subject to much modernization. Knowledge is the knowledge of the user of technology in relation to this technology - man in general prefers a certain amount of stability in his relation to technology, so that too many changes do not occur in the way that technology is handled. The purpose of standardization is to enable modernization of components and maintenance of the technical infrastructure without unnecessarily hindering humans in their role as its designers, builders, and users (see Section 12.8). Gaillard A classical definition is the one by Gaillard (1933, p. 23), who was an acting general director of the Dutch standardization institute and an employee of the American Standards Association: A standard is a formulation established verbally, in writing or by other graphical method, or by means of a model, sample or other physical means of representation, to serve during a certain period of time for defining, designating or specifying certain features of a unit or basis of measurement, a physical object, an action, a process, a method, a practice, a capacity, a function, a performance, a measure, an arrangement, a condition, a duty, a right, a responsibility, a behaviour, an attitude, a concept or a conception. Van Roon Van Roon’s characterization of standardization (Van Roon & De Vries, 1996, p. 15) can be summarized as follows: the process of creating established patterns to solve matching problems in an industrial way. In this definition, matching involves creating an interface between two different “worlds.” An interface can be:
149 - an area where people understand one other and have come to an agreement, for instance, a cultural, social, or juridical understanding (such as a contract); - the design of objects in such a way that they correspond to one other or to the person using them. According to traditional methods, matching problems are solved at the moment they occur and in the place where they occur. A carpenter, for instance, saws wood on a building site to make a window frame fit in the opening left in a wall. Where objects can be transported, the job may be done in a workplace; e.g., a horse can be taken to a farrier, a person can go to a dentist’s office. In contrast, the industrial approach is first to solve matching problems making use of a model, such as a calculation, a drawing, a prototype, or a template and at a later moment to use this solution. “Memory” in the traditional methods is craftsmanship and experience. In the industrial way, a standard is recorded memory to be used in models; standardization is preparing and recording such memory. Simons Simons, Professor of Standardization at Erasmus University, Rotterdam, defines standardization as: het met inspraak van alle belanghebbende groeperingen opstellen van regels en het toepassen ervan, teneinde overbodige en ongewenste verscheidenheid te voorkomen of te verminderen [the creation, with participation of all parties concerned, of agreements and the use of these, to prevent or reduce unwanted variety].
(Simons, 1994, p. 3) De Vries De Vries (1991b, p. 3) used to define standardization as searching and recording solutions for matching problems. Matching involves three dimensions: a physical one, a temporal one, and a social one: - The physical dimension concerns properties of entities (physical objects, processes, operations). Standardization leads to a choice from the possible solutions. - Standardization “freezes” this solution for a certain period, until developments make it necessary to choose another solution: then the old standard makes way for a new one. This is the temporal dimension of matching. - The social dimension is related to the parties concerned, who must reach consensus on the solution.
150 8.3.4
World Trade Organization and the European Union
The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT, nowadays World Trade Organization) defined terms and their definitions for the specific purposes of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, including the following definition of a standard: A technical specification approved by a recognized standardizing body for the repeated or continuous application, with which compliance is not mandatory. (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1979, p. 27) In their Council Directive of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations, the Council of the European Communities (1983, p. 9) used the same definition. According to the GATT, a technical specification is: A specification contained in a document which lays down characteristics of a product such as levels of quality, performance, safety or dimensions. It may include, or deal exclusively with terminology, symbols, testing and test methods, packaging, marking or labelling requirements as they apply to a product. The Council of the European Communities (1983) defined technical specification in a comparable way.
8.4
Possible elements that constitute the definition
8.4.1
Which elements?
Each of the above definitions contains some of the following elements: - the entities standardization is concerned with - sectors in which standardization is applied - purpose(s) of standardization - the way people/parties are involved in standardization. All the definitions characterize standardization. See Table 8.1.
8.4.2
Entities
The official definition of standardization does not mention the entities that standardization is concerned with. In a note on the “subject of standardization,” however, ISO/IEC Guide 2 (ISO/IEC, 1996b) and EN 45020 (CEN/CENELEC, 1993) state this subject might be a product, process or service, as, for instance, any material, component, equipment, system, interface, protocol, procedure, function, method or activity. Dale and Oakland (1991) also mention products, processes, and services. Décret français 84-74 (Buntzly, 1992) mentions products, goods, and services. Element
Purpose(s)
People
Characterization
Definition ISO/IEC (1996b); CEN/CENELEC (1993) ISO/IEC old (Sanders 1972) CEN (1994) + DIN 820 (1994a & b) + Kienzle (DIN 1991b) BSS PD 3542 (1995) Dale and Oakland (1991) + AFNOR NF X 03-100 (1979) Décret français (Buntzly 1992) + Bouma (1989b) + Gaillard (1933) + Van Roon (1996) + Simons (1994) De Vries (1991b) GATT (1979); EC (1983) + Table 8.1. Elements of definitions of standardization
Sectors
Entities
151
+ + -
+ + + + + + + + + -
+ + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
CEN (1994) associates standard with technical specification, suggesting that standardization concerns technology. In practice, some CEN standards cover non technical issues, such as quality systems. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (1994a & b) states that standardization concerns materiellen und immateriellen Gegenständen. Gaillard’s old definition (1933) describes in detail the entities standardization is concerned with: units or bases of measurement, physical objects, actions, processes, methods, practices, capacities, functions, performance, measures, arrangements, conditions, duties, rights, responsibilities, behaviours, attitudes, concepts or conceptions. This list seems to cover the areas of almost all official standards nowadays; however, it is to be questioned whether all aspects of standardization in the fields of terminology, bio-technology, and management systems are included. Bouma (1989b) mentions infrastructure, components, and knowledge, and his illustrations show that in so doing he restricts the entities with which standardization is concerned to technology and to the interface between people and technology. Van Roon (1996) connects standardization with interfaces between different “worlds:” people or things. Standardization is not related to all kinds of interfaces, but only to those where matching problems are to be solved in an “industrial way.” This may also be the case in other than industrial sectors. Because of the purpose of their definition, GATT (1979) and EC (1983) make a restriction to products. Conclusion. Definitions that say nothing about entities seem to be too broad. So something has to be said about them, but what? At this point it is not yet possible to answer this question. We shall come back to this after having discussed other possible elements of a definition.
152 8.4.3
Sectors
By saying that standardization concerns technology and human beings in relation to technology, Bouma (1989b) in fact restricts the standardization area to sectors in which technology has an essential place. The only other definition indicating something about sectors is Van Roon’s (1996). He speaks about an “industrial approach” to solving matching problems. This might suggest that standardization in his view is restricted to industry. The history of standardization shows that at least the official standardization, which started at the beginning of the twentieth century, was only, or to a large extent, related to industry. But there has been a shift from industry to industry plus services. The reason for this shift is that service sectors, such as the banking, health-care and cleaning sectors, are also increasingly adopting an “industrial approach,” as Van Roon describes it. So perhaps a definition of standardization should not mention certain sectors, but should say something about this “industrial approach.” This will be discussed later. Another shift is the one from private organizations to private organizations plus government.2 More often standardization is linked with legislation or with special governmental tasks and responsibilities, such as providing the country with infrastructure (roads, canals, railways, electrical grids, telephone-network systems), environmental care, safe working conditions. So standardization cannot be restricted to private sectors only. The reason for government to participate in standardization is that this phenomenon is related to “the industrial approach” that governments are increasingly confronted with: both because of the increasing government involvement with private sectors and because of use of “the industrial approach” with respect to public services (for instance, EDI applications). Conclusion. Standardization today cannot be restricted to a few sectors. There could, however, be a limitation that is related to “the industrial approach.” We shall come back to this after having discussed other possible elements of a definition.
8.4.4
Purposes
The official definition of standardization does not mention the purposes of standardization. In a note, however, important benefits are mentioned. In the old ISO/IEC definition (Sanders, 1972) the purpose of standardization was a part of the definition: for the benefit of all concerned and in particular for the promotion of optimum overall economy taking due account of functional conditions and safety requirements. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (1994b) mentions zum Nutzen der Allgemeinheit [for general benefit]. In DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (1994a) this is made more explicit. In contrast to these “idealistic” purposes, the two British publications cited mention to improve efficiency. Though this may not be the only purpose for some parties involved in standardization, it may well be the primary objective.
2
In former state economies, however, there is a shift in the opposite direction.
153 The purpose of standardization according to Décret français 84-74 (Buntzly, 1992) is to provide reference documents that describe solutions for technical and commercial problems. The purpose Simons (1994) mentions is more directly related to the characteristics of standardization: to prevent or reduce unwanted variety. In Van Roon’s definition (1996) the purpose is problem solving, namely, solving matching problems. Conclusion. The purposes mentioned above are not mutually exclusive. Because different parties may perceive different purposes for standardization, general purposes such as the ones cited by ISO/IEC, DIN, and BSI should not be part of a definition of standardization. The French definition raises the question whether standardization is always directed at developing a standard (a “reference document”). It cannot be concluded at this moment whether the purposes mentioned by Simons and van Roon should be part of the definition because they are directly related to the characterization of standardization, which will be discussed in Subsection 8.4.6.
8.4.5
People
The official definition (ISO/IEC, 1996b and CEN/CENELEC, 1993) describes standardization as an activity without saying anything about the way people perform this activity. A note, however, states that the activity in particular consists of the processes of formulating, issuing and implementing standards, and the definition of standards states that the document is established by consensus and approved by a recognized body. In this way, ISO/IEC and CEN/CENELEC restrict standardization more or less to their own sphere of activity: preparing formal standards. These restrictions, however, do not correspond to the general feeling that standards can also be set by a single dominant party or be set by other SDOs, e.g., de facto standards. Both de facto and formal standards are standards, so the activity of making them can be called standardization. So at least ‘approved by a recognized body’ or something like that should not be part of a definition of standardization. Must the consensus principle be part of the definition? ISO/IEC Guide 2 (ISO/IEC, 1996b) and EN 45020 (CEN/CENELEC, 1993, p. 10) define consensus as: General agreement, characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Note — Consensus need not imply unanimity. In the case of one dominating party that sets a standard, many parties may be concerned, but only one is involved in the process of creating the standard. This party does not necessarily take into account the views of all other parties concerned. They will be involved in the use of the standard, but not in formulating it. Therefore, there is no consensus, but we still call it standardization. So ‘consensus’ should not be part of the definition.
154 VHS, for example, can be called a standard for video systems, so the process of formulating it can be called standardization. However, there have been competing systems/standards: Betamax and Video 2000. The process of formulating Video 2000 also can be called standardization, because of its intended and expected wide-scale use. However, its use did not appear to be wide-scale; there was “consensus” in the market to buy the other system. For the three competing standards, there was no consensus when they were developed; there was no agreement with the main competitors nor with the potential customers. In an explanatory note to its definition of the term standard, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1979) states: technical specifications which are not based on consensus are covered by this Agreement. Since the consensus principle should be left out, the description of DIN 820 (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1994a & b) is also unacceptable, because it states that uniformity is durch die interessierten Kreisen gemeinschaftlich durchgeführt. Maybe not all interested parties were involved. The same lack can be found in: - the old ISO/IEC definition (Sanders 1972), which speaks about the co-operation of all concerned; - NF X 03-100 (AFNOR, 1979): établi avec la coopération et le consensus ou l’approbation générale de toutes les parties intéressées; - the definition of Simons (1994), who speaks about participation of all parties concerned; - the definition of De Vries (1991b), who mentions the social aspect of matching: people have to agree. Conclusion. The way in which people perform standardization activities (‘approval by a recognized body,’ ‘consensus,’ ‘co-operation’ or something like that) should not be part of the definition.
8.4.6
Characterization
Of course, all the presented definitions try to describe the characteristics that distinguish standardization from all other phenomena. In Table 8.2 the definitions are mentioned again. The main characterization is shown in italics. Of course, this does not take due account of the definitions, but it is necessary to be able to discuss in the following paragraphs several possible elements of a standardization characterization.
155
Source 1 ISO/IEC Guide 2 (ISO, 1996b) 2 ISO/IEC old (Sanders 1972)
3 ‘Standard’ in ISO/IEC Guide 2 4 CEN (1994) 5 DIN 820 (DIN, 1994a & b) 6 Kienzle (DIN, 1992) 7 BSS PD 3542 (British Standards Society, 1995) 8 NF X 03-200 (AFNOR, 1979)
9 Décret français (Buntzly, 1992)
10 Dale and Oakland (1991) 11 Bouma (1989b) 12 Gaillard (1933)
13 Van Roon (1996) 14 Simons (1994) 15 De Vries (1991b) 16 GATT (1979); EC (1983)
Characterization within the definition Activity of establishing, with regard to actual or potential problems, provisions for common and repeated use, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. The process of formulating and applying rules for an orderly approach to a specific activity for the benefit and with the co-operation of all concerned and in particular for the promotion of optimum overall economy taking into due account functional conditions and safety requirements. Document, established by consensus and approved by a recognized body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. A set of technical specifications established in collaboration with and with the approval of the parties concerned in the member countries of CEN. Planmäßige, durch die interessierten Kreisen gemeinschaftlich durchgeführte Vereinheitlichung von materiellen und immateriellen Gegenständen zum Nutzen der Allgemeinheit. Einmalige, bestimmte Lösung einer sich wiederholenden Aufgabe unter den jeweils gegebenen wissenschaftlichen, technischen und wirtschaftlichen Möglichkeiten. The term [standardization] also covers action in all areas of company operation to improve efficiency by unification or simplification.
Spécification technique ou autre document accessible au public, établi avec la coopération et le consensus ou l’approbation de toutes les parties intéressées, fondé sur les résultats conjugués de la science, de la technologie et de l’expérience, visant à l’avantage optimal de la communauté dans son ensemble et approuvé par un organisme qualifié sur le plan national, régional ou international. Fournir des documents de référence comportant des solutions à des problèmes techniques et commerciaux concernant les produits, biens et services qui se posent de façon répétée dans les relations entre partenaires économiques, scientifiques, techniques et sociaux. An activity to improve efficiency by bringing consistency to the products, services or processes. The art of matching the life cycles of infrastructure, components and knowledge. A formulation established verbally, in writing or by other graphical method, or by means of a model, sample or other physical means of representation, to serve during a certain period of time for defining, designating or specifying certain features of (...). The process of creating established patterns to solve matching problems in an industrial way. The creation, with participation of all parties concerned, of agreements and the use of these, to prevent or reduce unwanted variety. Searching and recording solutions for matching problems.
Technical specification approved by a recognized standardizing body for the repeated and continuous application, with which compliance is not mandatory. Table 8.2. Main characterization of standardization in definitions of standardization
The main elements of these characterizations are listed below. The numbers in parentheses refer to the sources in Table 8.2; conclusions appear in boldface. A Common use (1, 3)
156
The intention of standardization is that the chosen solution will be used by many. Sometimes the solution found is hardly used. Still the process of coming to this solution is called standardization. So the actual common use should not be an element of the definition, but the intended and expected wide-scale use. The element ‘intended wide-scale use’ is related to ‘levels’ of standardization: in company standardization this will be ‘wide-scale use’ within the company, in national standardization ‘wide-scale use’ within the country, etc. B Repeated use (1, 3, 6, 9, 16) People using the standard are supposed to use the solution described in the standard during a certain period. Thus ‘repeated use’ is an essential element in a definition of standardization. Because this use may be continuous, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1979) and the Council of the European Communities (1983) talk about ‘repeated or continuous application’. Again, it is not the actual repeated or continuous use that should be an element in the definition, but rather the intended and expected repeated or continuous use. It may be a matter of discussion whether an expectation of common and/or repeated use is reasonable or not. In a definition one prefers to avoid such ambiguity. In fact, here the ambiguity is not in the definition itself, but in reality. Of course, this will cause problems when making the definition operational: how should one determine whether or not a claim of intended and expected common and repeated use is correct? C Order, consistency, established patterns (1, 2, 3, 10, 13) Order, consistency, or established patterns are results of standardization, but may also result from activities other than standardization. So they do not distinguish established standardization from other phenomena and therefore should not be part of the definition. D Optimum (1, 3) The word ‘optimum’ in ‘optimum degree of order’ suggests a balance between uniformity (the model T Ford being allowed to have any colour, provided that the colour is black) and variety. Indeed, standardization always means finding such a balance. This may be a cost-driven balance (uniformity is cheap, but different customers have different needs and wishes) and/or a balance between different opinions: the optimum solution for a technical-economical approach need not be optimal with respect to social support. Since ‘order’ need not be part of the definition, ‘optimum degree of order’ need not be part of it either. E Rules, ‘rules, guidelines or characteristics,’ specifications, reference documents (2, , 4, 9, 16) Each rule or specification is not a standard, but all standards are rules or specifications. They describe the chosen ‘provisions for common and repeated use.’ Standardization without standards is possible too. That is why Simons (1994) uses the term ‘agreements.’ But because the results of standardization will have to be used during a
157 certain period of time by a multitude of people, a way of recording is essential. Gaillard (1933) lists how this could be done: verbally, in writing, or by other graphical methods, or by means of a model, sample, or other physical means of representation. In 1933 he could not yet foresee digital recording methods. Conclusion: recording should be an element in the definition. Recording alone is not enough: those who are expected to use the chosen solutions will have to be informed. Therefore, one might question if ‘communicating the solutions’ or something like that should be part of the definition. In the way the term ‘standardization’ is used in practice, activities to inform the parties concerned are not part of standardization itself, though they are part of the work of standards engineers within companies and part of the activities of standardization bodies. Above (B) it was concluded that use should be expected. This is only possible when the parties concerned know about the standard, either because they participated themselves in the process of making the standard or because they were informed about the results. So implicitly ‘communication’ is presupposed, but it need not be part of the definition, because standardization stops when the solutions are found and recorded. F Technical (4, 11, 16) There seems to be a rather general agreement that standards can also be procedures, describing what people should do in a certain context. Therefore, there should be no limitation to a technical environment in the definition of standardization. G Conscious, systematic (5) The opposite of ‘planmäßig’ (conscious, systematic) is unconscious, arbitrary. Could standardization be an unconscious, arbitrary process? Simons and De Vries (1997, p. 12) divide standardization processes into: - historical ones: the choice once made by one or more persons gains wider acceptance and application, for instance, the “QWERTY” keyboard and many units of measure; - factual standardization processes: choices depend on accidental circumstances, for instance, the prevailing etiquette or the way that salaries are administered; - conscious actions, for instance, the hi-fi standard agreed upon within IEC. So, it appears, ‘conscious’ is not an essential element in a definition on standardization. H Once-only problem solving (6) This is an essential element: the intention of standardization is to choose at a certain moment a solution for a problem that will be used by many during a certain period, after which the solution may be replaced by another solution. This element is related to ‘intended and expected repeated use’ (B).
158 I Unification, ‘unification or simplification,’ prevent or reduce unwanted variety (5, 7, 14) Simplification is not a characteristic element - standardization may result in complicated solutions. Unification, however, is an essential element: from the large amount of possible solutions a limited number is chosen. J Publicly accessible (8) The standard itself need not be accessible. Often its intended and expected wide-scale use is possible because of the availability of products that have been developed according to the standard. Many de facto standards are secret or become accessible after some years. The specifications of the VHS video format during some years were only accessible to a very limited number of interested parties. Since they are described in international (IEC) standards, they are publicly accessible. So public accessibility should not be part of the definition. K Matching (9, 11, 13, 15) In practice, standards always concern the relations between entities (things, plants, animals, people) or these entities themselves because of their relations with other entities. So standardization in one way or another is always related to finding solutions for matching problems. But this does not mean that this process of finding solutions itself is standardization; only when these solutions or aspects/features of solutions are intended for wide-scale use during a certain period, can one speak about standardization. The definition of the Décret français (Buntzly, 1992) states that reference documents are used in the relations between social, technical, scientific, and economic partners. Matching is necessary to enable them to co-operate in the right way. This will, however, not always be the case: for instance, a company standard may be used for company applications only. Then, there is one party, the company. Within this company there may be distinguished different (sub)parties, for instance, different people or different departments, but this need not necessarily be the case. So use of the standard in relations between different parties need not be part of the definition. L Life cycles, temporal aspect of matching, serve during a certain period of time (11, 13, 15) The intended “freezing” of a solution for a certain period until the “thaw” comes3 and the chosen solution is withdrawn or replaced by a new one distinguishes standardization from other activities, so it should be part of the definition.
3
Some standards remain unchanged, for instance, the QWERTY keyboard, the A series of paper sizes, and the International System of Units (SI).
159 M Industrial approach (13) In the industrial approach to production, solutions for matching problems are often made beforehand, so that when the matching situation occurs in reality, the solutions are there. Standardization is a characteristic instrument in this industrial way of production, but that does not mean the other way round that ‘the industrial way’ should be an element of the definition. N Features (12) Standardization concerns entities or relations between entities, but in general does not determine entities as a whole. Only certain features of these entities are recorded. Exceptions are ‘virtual entities,’ such as units of measure, statistical methods, computer languages, and telecommunications protocols: they can be fully determined by a standard when all their features are recorded in the standard. Conclusion: features of (relations between) entities should be mentioned in the definition. O Not mandatory (16) The degree of obligation imposed upon standards can differ from totally voluntary to legally prescribed, with all kinds of more or less obligatory situations in between. The degree of obligation depends on the use of the standards; for instance, reference might be made to standards in legislation. The same standard may be voluntary in situation A and prescribed in situation B. So there is no reason for the degree of obligation to be an element of the definition. There is more to be said on this topic, however. Above (A) it was concluded that ‘intended wide-scale use’ is an essential element of a definition for standardization. This wide-scale use can be voluntary or enforced. In the latter case, dominant parties induce enforcement. In all other cases, consensus will be a prerequisite to achieve voluntary wide-scale use. This explains why some definitions of standardization include the consensus principle.
8.4.7
Purposes, sectors, entities
Subsections 8.4.2, 8.4.3, and 8.4.4 are ‘open-ended’ with regard to the eventual place of the elements ‘entities,’ ‘the industrial way,’ and ‘purposes’ in the definition. Now it is time to look at these open ends. P Purpose (Subsection 8.4.2) The purpose of standardization mentioned by Simons (1994) is to prevent or reduce unwanted variety. So he mentions savings that are possible thanks to standardization. Standardization not aimed at savings does not deserve to be called standardization. This is in accordance with our feeling: legislation, the books of Dr. Spock, and papal encyclicals are not standardization or standards, because they do not primarily involve an economic advantage. So an essential element of the definition of standardization is the economic qualification. Dooyeweerd (1955, p. 66) explains the term ‘economy’ as follows:
160 Its foundational scientific meaning is the sparing or frugal mode of administering scarce goods, implying an alternative choice of their destination with regard to the satisfaction of different human needs. The adjectives ‘sparing’ and ‘frugal’ do not have the limited sense of the economic term ‘saving’ (said of money, for instance). They are only the correlatives of “scarce” and refer to our awareness that an excessive or wasteful satisfaction of a particular need at the expense of other more urgent needs is uneconomical. Economy demands the balancing of needs according to a plan. In standardization practice there often are, but not always, “savings” in money. Always, however, there is a balancing of the needs of the parties involved. In this way standardization is an economic activity. Q Sectors (Subsection 8.4.3) Now that we have qualified standardization as being an economic activity, we can say more about sectors: the standardization instrument is especially suitable for organizations or activities for which the same economic qualification is characteristic. Because standardization concerns finding solutions for matching problems, it is often related to processes within organizations or between organizations. These processes and the problem solving beforehand in a model with the help of standardization are related to what Van Roon (1996) calls the ‘industrial way.’ Organizations which use this industrial approach are thus also using standardization and will be found especially in economic sectors: industry and commercial services such as trade and transport. Nowadays, however, the ‘industrial way’ is increasingly used also in sectors that have a non economic qualification, such as public health care, education, and all kind of services including governmental services. In that case, standardization can also be used there. Though these organizations are not qualified as being economic but, for instance, social, they also are confronted with economic mechanisms (the other way round, economic-qualified organizations like industries are confronted with social aspects). This makes clear that such organizations can also use standardization. Whether standardization is a suitable instrument to be used in any given case depends on the situation. Too much emphasis on economic aspects might conflict with the - for instance, social - qualification. For instance, an organization in home-nursing services, qualified by the social aspect of caring for one other, can introduce standard protocols to be able to work in a more efficient way. Does this lead to “pseudo-care,” treating people as if they were machines needing extra maintenance, or does it merely help to take care of people better? Again, there should be a proper balance between uniformity and variety. Finding such a balance is typical for an economic activity. So standardization is an economic activity to be used in economic sectors, but also, to a certain extent, in other sectors. This may broaden the vision of standardization and the possibilities and impossibilities of using it, but it does not provide new essential elements for the definition of standardization.
161 R Entities (Subsection 8.4.4) In the above statement about matching (K) and features (N), entities are mentioned. It is not necessary to specify these entities or to give other restrictions than the ones given above.
8.5
Choice of a definition
Subsection 8.4.6 concludes that the following elements are essential for a definition of standardization (the letters refer to the list in Subsection 8.4.6): - intended and expected wide-scale use (A) - intended and expected repeated or continuous use (B) - recording (E) - once-only problem solving (H) - unification (I) - finding solutions for matching problems (K) - “freezing” (L) - features (N). Subsection 8.4.7 adds economic qualification (P, Q). Combining the above, our definition can be formulated as follows (again the letters refer to Subsections 8.4.6 and 8.4.7): Standardization is the activity (E) of establishing and recording (I) a limited set of solutions (K) to actual or potential matching problems (P, Q) directed at benefits for the party or parties involved (P, Q) balancing their needs (A, B) and intending and expecting that these solutions will be repeatedly or continuously used (B, L) during a certain period (A) by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant. Notes. 1 Matching problem. (K, N) Problem of interrelated entities that do not harmonize with each other. Solving it means determining one or more features of these entities in a way that they harmonize with one other or of determining one or more features of an entity because of its relation(s) with one or more other entities. 2 Entity. (N) Any concrete or abstract thing that exists, did exist, or might exist, including associations among these things. Example: A person, object, event, idea, process, etc.4
4
According to the International Standard ISO/IEC 2382-17 (ISO/IEC, 1996a). Almost the same definition can be found in the International Standard ISO 8402 (ISO, 1994b), which states: entity: that
162
8.6
Use of the proposed definition
To determine whether an activity is standardization or not, the given definition can be made operational by making questions out of its elements. 1 Does the activity aim at balancing the needs of all parties involved? 2 Is the activity directed at both establishing and recording a limited set of solutions for one or more problems? 3 Can these problems be qualified as being matching problems; i.e., do they aim at determining one or more features of different interrelated entities to let them harmonize with one other or determining one or more features of an entity because of its relation(s) with one or more other entities? 4 Do the parties performing this activity have the intention and expectation that the established solutions will be used within a certain period by a substantial number of the parties for which the solutions are meant? An activity is standardization, only when the answer to all these questions is yes. To illustrate the use of the definition, we shall now determine whether the phenomena mentioned in Subsection 8.2.1 constitute standardization or not. Design for assembly. In design for assembly the answer to questions 2 and 3 is yes. The answer to the other questions may also seem to be yes, but it is not. Design for assembly is a tool for designers, with which solutions for matching problems can be developed. However, it has only one point of view. In decisions within the company, the arguments from other parties will also be important. This decision process “after” design for assembly and the recording of the choices made may be called (company) standardization. Safety procedures within a company. The answer to questions 2-4 is clearly yes. Because the character of the activity is finding the right balance between safety measurements that are expensive (for instance, because of the time that is needed to fulfil all safety requirements) and assuring an acceptable safety level, the answer to the first question is also yes. So creating and recording safety procedures is an example of (company) standardization. Creating standard software. Here the answer to all questions seems to be yes, although question 4 causes some problems. The manufacturer of the standard software may have the intention and expectation that its software will be the “standard” in the market. It depends on the market situation whether or not this expectation is realistic and the software becomes the “standard.” But then: what is the standard? In fact the product is not the standard, but its specifications are the standard. They are the “solutions for general use” from the definition. Comparable to design for assembly, standardization is not the professional process of creating software,5 but it is the determination and recording of the software specifications. Because software is a “virtual product,” the product and its specifications are almost the same, but there remains a difference. which can be individually described and considered. Note - An entity may be, for example: an activity or a process, a product, an organization, a system or a person or any combination thereof. 5 Though there might be company standards for this product-creation process.
163 Legislation. Legislation is not an economic activity, “balancing the needs of all parties involved,” but a legal one, in which the government is not just a (dominant) party, but the legislator. Some laws, such as the European New Approach Directives, aim at saving resources, but still they remain laws instead of standards. There are standards related to the European New Approach Directives. These standards are drawn up primarily to serve a legal purpose. However, this process can still be called standardization, because, though within a legal context, the activity aims at finding economic solutions that are supported by the economic parties involved. Here the intended and expected wide-scale use of the standards is not because of the involvement of the parties creating the standard, but because of another party, the legislator. The educational books of Dr. Spock, papal encyclicals. The answer to questions 2-4 is yes, but the answer to question 1 is no. The publications by Spock and the Pope do not have an economic qualification; they are not primarily directed at creating benefits and at balancing the needs of the parties involved.
8.7
Summary and conclusions
By comparing existing definitions of standardization with the way the term standardization is used in practice, a new definition of standardization was derived in Section 8.5. The main differences with the official definition of ISO/IEC Guide 2 are: - the economic qualification of standardization: creating benefits, balancing needs of parties involved; - the characterization of the kind of problems for which solutions are chosen: matching problems; - the characterization of the solutions: a limited set of features of entities. By giving the essential characteristics of standardization, the definition can be the starting point for quality improvements in the field of standardization. Attention will have to be paid to: - the way of balancing needs, taking into account the costs and benefits of standardization; - the processes of both establishing and recording solutions; - the character of matching problems; - the entities concerned; - the time aspect: a once-only solution, to be used during a certain period, after which there may come a new standard; - the parties involved in standardization; - the parties who use the results of standardization; - the arguments for the expectation that these results really will be used.
9
CLASSIFICATION OF STANDARDS1
9.1
Need for classification of standards
The standardization literature offers many possible classifications of standards. Most of them, however, lack systematic foundations, and many are unsystematic,2 as is demonstrated in the following example:3 Example of unsystematic classification: DIN 820-3 The German standard DIN 820 part 3 (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1994b) presents two ways to classify standards. The second one concerns the standard's contents: 1 Dienstleistungsnorm [service standard]: specifies requirements to be fulfilled by a service to establish its fitness for purpose; 2 Gebrauchstauglichkeitsnorm [fitness for purpose standard]: specifies properties of entities that can be determined objectively to be able to judge the entity's ability to serve a defined purpose under specific conditions; 3 Liefernorm [supply standard]: specifies technical and contractual requirements for deliveries; 4 Maßnorm [measurement standard]: specifies sizes and tolerances of material objects; 5 Planungsnorm [planning standard]: specifies planning fundamentals and basic principles for design, calculation, construction, realization, and functioning of machines, structures, and achievements; 6 Prüfnorm [testing standard]: specifies methods, sometimes supplemented with other provisions related to testing, such as sampling, use of statistical methods, sequence of tests; 7 Qualitätsnorm [quality standard]: specifies properties of a material object that are essential for its use and specifies related assessment criteria; 8 Sicherheitsnorm [safety standard]: specifies requirements to prevent unacceptable risk or harm for people, animals, and material objects; 9 Stoffnorm [material standard]: specifies physical, chemical, and technological properties of materials; 10 Verfahrensnorm [process standard]: specifies requirements to be fulfilled by a process to establish its fitness for purpose; 11 Verständigungsnorm [comprehensibility standard]: specifies terminology, symbols, or systems to provide unambiguous understanding.
This classification combines apples and oranges, the apples being entities (services, material objects, materials, transactions, production processes, other processes or entities in general, the oranges being aspects to standardize: linguistic aspects 1
This chapter has been updated till July 1998 and is the verbatim text of an article in Knowledge Organization, Vol. 26 No. 4 (De Vries, 1998e), except for some minor changes: - the definition of standardization and some short elucidation already given in other chapters of this thesis have been omitted; - some terms have been replaced by abbreviations commonly used in this thesis; - some references to literature have been replaced by references to other parts of this study; - a reference to Standardisierung Zwischen Kooperation und Wettbewerb (Kleinemeyer, 1997) was added; - the definition of de facto standardization was modified, governmental standardization was added (Subsection 9.3.6). 2 This even applies to the most complete standards classification available, offered by Baynard (1982), which offers a standard fingerprint covering nine different aspects. Other examples are the classifications presented by Bonino & Spring (1991), Cargill (1990), Coles (1949, pp. 115-117), David (1995a, pp. 211-217), and Le Lourd (1992, p.14). 3 When this was written, the author did not know that Kleinemeyer (1997, pp. 56-57) used the same example.
166 (terminology, symbols, systems), (process-, technical, contractual or safety) requirements, requirements for use, sizes and tolerances, test methods, and properties in general. The aspects, moreover, could be divided into aspects that are intrinsic to the entity, such as size, chemical properties, and process speed and aspects related to the entity: linguistics, requirements, test methods. A systematic classification could prevent such confusion. SDOs can use classifications: - to describe standardization projects; - to develop criteria to determine whether or not certain standards are within their scope; - to improve identification of standards. This, in turn, may be of benefit to their customers. This chapter includes an inventory of current classifications and a discussion of their applicability. Based on the new insights gained from this examination, other possible classifications of standards are suggested.
9.2
Subject matter-related classifications
9.2.1 Introduction As standards result from the process called standardization, systematic classification of standards must start with the definition of standardization. The definition presented in Chapter 8 consists of elements related to the subject matter (solutions, matching problems, entities, entity features), to the people and their activities and needs (establishing, recording, benefits, needs, the parties involved) and to the wider circle of interested parties and their activities (parties for whom they are meant or by whom they are used). Classifications of standards may relate to either the first, the second, or the third group of elements. The first will be discussed in the following two subsections, the others in Section 9.3.
9.2.2 Entities Standards concern entities or relations between entities. Thus, standards can be classified according to these entities. An entity may be - a person or group of persons; - a "thing" such as an object, an event, an idea or a process. "Things" includes plants and animals;4 - a combination of the first two kinds of entities (for instance, a car with a driver, or a company). It can be concluded that matching problems, because they concern interrelated entities or relations between entities, can concern: - matching thing - thing (for instance: bolts and nuts); - matching man - thing (for instance: safety or ergonomic requirements); 4
Gaillard (1933, p. 33) provides a rather complete list of possible entities.
167 - matching man - man (for instance: procedures, management systems). Current entity-related classifications generally concern only one of the entities and are therefore only partly satisfactory.5 In defining the tasks to be carried out in a standardization project, the matching problems to be solved need to be described unambiguously. Defining the entities concerned should be part of this description. It is often not one or two entities that are involved, but a system of interrelated entities. Hildebrandt (1995, pp. 34-35) related a hierarchic product structure, based on VDI 2222,6 to standardization. IEC 61355 (IEC, 1997, p. 31) more generally relates documents to the structure and reference designation of a plant, system, or equipment.
9.2.3 Entity-related classifications FSOs often distinguish between horizontal and vertical standards. Horizontal standards set general requirements for a collection of different entities, for instance, bio-compatibility criteria for medical devices. Vertical standards set several requirements for one kind of entity, for instance, a transfusion apparatus or medical gloves. In information and communication technology, one often distinguishes between classic standards, functional standards, and standards for testing.7 - Classic standards provide general descriptions. Although these mostly are called basic standards, they are not basic and classic standards is a better designation (De Vries & Simons, 1997, p. 13). - Functional standards (or profiles) provide a selection out of the options offered in classic standards. - Standards for testing specify a technical procedure for performing a test (CEN/CENELEC, 1993, Clause 12.2). A distinction can be made between basic standards, requiring standards, and measurement standards. - Basic standards provide structured descriptions of (aspects of) interrelated entities to facilitate human communication about these entities8, and/or to be used in other 5
This also applies to the International Classification of Standards (ICS) (ISO, 1993), used by FSOs in their standards catalogues. ICS, moreover, concerns fields of activity rather than just entities; consequently, ICS mixes entities with the human use of them. Owing to these two factors, most standards have to be placed in two or more ICS categories. 6 Richtlinie 2222 Konstruktionsmethodik [Guideline 2222 Design Engineering Methodology] of the Verein Deutscher Ingenieure [Association of German Engineers] (1982 & 1996). 7 For instance, Kampmann, 1993, p. 47. For classic standards, Kampmann used the term basic standards. 8 Descriptive standards to a large extent coincide with the basic standards defined in EN 45020 (CEN/CENELEC, 1993, clause 5.1). The definition there, however, is not accurate enough. David (1987, p. 215) uses the term reference standards. Writing about standards in information and communication technology, he obviously had the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standards in mind. The OSI reference model is an internationally recognized design template for information technology. A set of international OSI standards has been developed, of which ISO 7498-1 (ISO/IEC
168 standards. Examples are terminology standards, standards providing quantities and units,9 standards providing classifications and/or codes,10 and standards providing systematic data11 or reference models. - Requiring standards set requirements for entities or relations between entities. These can include specifications of the extent to which deviations from the basic requirements are allowed. There are two sub-categories: performance standards and standards that describe solutions. Performance standards set performance criteria for the solution of matching problems. They do not prescribe solutions. Performance standards can include specifications of the extent to which deviations from the basic requirements are permissible. 12 Solution-describing standards describe solutions for matching problems. - Measurement standards provide methods to be used to check whether requiring standards criteria have been met. Example: acoustic standards in housing If the entity is a wall separating two houses, one performance criterion might be its soundproofing effect (in DbA). This could be laid down in a performance standard. A descriptive criterion could be that to get this effect when using sand-lime bricks, the wall should be 22 cm thick. Such a standard provides an example of a solution that meets the requirements set and would be of practical help when designing a row of houses. Another standard might describe a method to measure the soundproofing characteristics once the houses have been built.
Simons (1994; elucidated in Simons & De Vries, 1997, pp. 14-15) distinguishes between interference standards, compatibility standards, and quality standards. - Interference standards set requirements concerning the influence of an entity on other entities. Examples are safety, health, environmental, and EMC13 standards. Companies often have to use interference standards because of governmental requirements. They, therefore, have no choice: they must use them. - Compatibility standards concern fitting of interrelated entities to one other, in order to enable them to function together, for example, specifications for films and cameras, GSM telephone specifications. Choices regarding compatibility standards are often commercial decisions that can have direct impact on market share. Thus, while the choices are up to the company, it is often the market situation which strongly influences these choices. 1994a) describes the basic reference model and the others provide requirements, to facilitate computer systems working together. 9 For instance, SI: Système Internationale d’unités [International System of Units]. 10 For instance, the international standard ISO 7372 Trade data interchange - Trade Data Elements Directory (ISO, 1993c). 11 Ergonomic standardization, for instance, includes standards describing man’s characteristics and abilities, such as dimensions of the human body. These data are used in other standards (Schultetus, 1997). 12 The Agreement on Government Procurement (coming out of the Uruguay Round along with the World Trade Organization) advocates performance standards rather than standards that describe solutions (Schwamm, 1997, pp. 17-18). Companies and other stakeholders in standardization in general share this policy (for instance, the French NSO AFNOR (Le Lourd, 1992, p. 14)), but most developing countries prefer descriptive standards with a large number of technical details (Hesser & Inklaar, 1997a, p. 38). The percentage of performance standards is growing, at the expense of standards that prescribe certain solutions. 13 EMC = electromagnetic compatibility. These standards concern electrical disturbances.
169 - Quality standards set requirements for entity properties to assure a certain level of quality. ISO 9000 quality management standards, a film having a standard film sensitivity (to enable standard film processing), measurement standards, and company procedures are examples of quality standards. Quality standards are often related to the company’s operations, and, in many cases, the company is free to set or choose them. Basic standards are missing in Simons’ classification. His interference, compatibility, and quality standards are particularizations of requiring standards. Compatibility standards are always descriptive; interference and quality standards can be performance standards as well as solution-describing standards. Measurement standards are included in Simons’ quality standards. In fact, they are a particular kind of requiring standards, namely, standards that describe a solution for measuring. In the case described in Chapter 11 it proved fruitful to distinguish between requiring and measuring standards. Wiese (1998, p. 286) distinguishes between horizontal compatibility and vertical compatibility. - Horizontal compatibility concerns the fit between functionally equivalent objects. Examples: two Lego bricks, two telephones. - Vertical compatibility concerns the fit between functionally different things. Examples: hardware and software, tracks and trains. Indirect horizontal compatibility results from the common fit of functionally equivalent objects to functionally different objects (Wiese, 1998, p. 288). Example: telephone A - telephone system - telephone B. The above classifications can be combined as follows: 1 basic standards 2 requiring standards 2.1 performance standards - interference standards - quality standards 2.2 solution-describing standards - interference standards - compatibility standards horizontal compatibility vertical compatibility - quality standards 3 measurement standards. By combining this standards classification to the above entity classification, it can be concluded that basic standards include descriptions of entity architectures and the related standards architecture. Such a standards architecture can, subsequently, include horizontal and vertical standards. All categories of standards can, in principle, concern all categories of interrelated entities including men.14
14
Basic standards concerning people include data to be used for ergonomic requiring standards. Height requirements for pilots are an example of a requiring compatibility standard for people.
170
9.3
Actor-related classifications
9.3.1 Actors The definition of standardization indicates that two groups of actors are relevant: those interested in the standard and those involved in standardization. The second is a subset of the first. The set of potentially interested actors can be determined by identifying which (groups of) people have a direct or indirect relation to the entities involved during the entities’ life cycle. In a system of interrelated entities, this life cycle may differ per kind of entity. The actors are usually producers and customers, and some other stakeholders such as governmental agencies, pressure groups, consultancy firms, scientists, and organizations involved in testing and certification. As many of the standards are mainly used in a particular business sector and/or professional discipline, many standards classifications refer to such stakeholder groups.15 In practice, these classifications are not unambiguous: - A professional discipline may be developed around aspects, such as environmental aspects, from which a separate business sector may subsequently emerge. - As most standards relate to two or more stakeholder groups, most of them fit into two or more categories, unless all the stakeholder groups share the same general category. - Standards are sometimes used by groups for which they have not been developed.16 It appears that such classifications are not really fundamental, though they may be practical for bibliographic reasons. The geographic spread of the actors may lead to another classification, often called level of standardization (Verman, 1973). In most cases, a distinction is made between the international, regional, national, and company level. In formal standardization, this classification corresponds to the geographic spread of the parties that are able to get involved. The standards can be used by actors in other geographic areas too,17 whereas, conversely, actors within the geographic area will not always use the standards.18 In de facto standardization, it is more difficult to use a geographic classification: the actors involved in preparing the standard may even be limited to one company.19 Interested actors will often have a different geographic spread.
15
For instance, it is one of the three dimensions in the most often cited standards classification, the one developed by Verman (1973). 16 EAN (International Article Numbering Association) barcodes, for instance, were initially developed for the retail sector to be placed on consumer products, but have found their way to business-to business logistics too. 17 Example: American (national) ASTM standards are used in Europe; German DIN standards in the USA. 18 Example: the A and B series of paper sizes are laid down in international standards. In the NorthAmerican region, however, different sizes are used. 19 The Windows versions can be regarded as company standards of Microsoft.
171 Moreover, this, may change over time20. Thus, it appears that level of standardization is too inconvenient to be a common classification criterion.
9.3.2 Functional classifications Functional classifications connect standards to actors. Kienzle (1943)21 provides a functional classification. According to him, a standards function is the inevitable link between a standard as independent variable and the consequences that depend upon its content. So, the standard itself and its functions are at the centre. In another functional approach, developed by Susanto (1988, p. 36), it is not the standard but its use that is the focal point: Standardization functions are taken to mean the relationship between the actual state before standardization (input variable) and the results of standardization (output variable) of a set of circumstances (system). We will speak about intrinsic functions of a standard when we use Kienzle’s definition. The functions of standards according to Susanto’s definition will be called standards’ extrinsic functions. A third category is subjective functions, which indicate actor-specific interests related to a standard. Though their definitions of the functions are clear, Kienzle and Susanto confuse these three different functions. Combining Kienzle, Susanto, and Bouma (1989b), intrinsic standards’ functions can be concluded to be: - describing a set of agreed solutions to a matching problem; - recording these; - freezing them during a certain period; - providing elucidation to them. The first three apply to all standards. Extrinsic functions differ per standard and can include: - assortment control; - providing transparency (by laying down unambiguous descriptions); - facilitating information exchange between people and/or institutions; - storing know-how, and keeping it accessible; - enabling repetition of the solution laid down in the standard; - enabling dissemination of the solution laid down in the standard; - enabling economies of scale; - serving as a benchmark (for instance, in process management, to be able to decide between approval and disapproval); - assuring performance (by setting, for instance, certain quality or safety characteristics); - enabling interchangeability; - enabling interoperability; - creating an installed base;
20
For instance, a Scandinavian standard that provided a classification for technical aids for disabled persons got world-wide spread because of its adoption as international standard (ISO, 1992b). 21 English version in Hesser & Inklaar, 1997, pp. 39-45.
172 - matching the life cycle of different entities.22 Apart from these, there are subjective functions, related to the interests of specific actors, for instance: - cost reduction; - enabling a company to continue selling its products; - creating barriers to new entrants and/or competitors; - stimulating price competition between suppliers; - enabling customization at acceptable costs (by assembling standardized modules in products, methods and marketing tools23); - eliminating barriers to trade (for instance, by harmonizing national requirements); - creating barriers to trade (for instance, by creating a regional standard different from an existing international standard); - stock control; - providing transparency in the supply of products or services (by means of standardized descriptions of them); - facilitating technological innovations (by using a standards architecture that permits changes in parts of the entity systems without affecting other parts of these systems, or by describing good R&D practice); - enabling interworking and portability of entity systems (making use of interconnection and interoperability); - enabling justification; - contributing to quality management; - enlarging consumer safety; - avoiding extra legal safety requirements; - facilitating processes (for instance, by using standardized data exchange); - making processes more difficult (by laying down high-level process requirements); - environmental care; - facilitating meeting legal requirements; - contributing to knowledge management; - providing reliable testing; - enabling re-use; - improving maintainability of products or systems. Although this list is longer than other existing lists, it is not complete. This is virtually impossible, since certain actors may have particular interests, including irrational ones. 9.3.3 Classifications related to the installed base Standardization freezes solutions for matching problems. Three typical situations can apply24: 1 anticipatory (or prospective) standardization 22
According to Bouma (1989b), standardization is directed at matching the life cycles of entities having different speeds of change: infrastructure, which is rather stable in time, components, which are subject to rapid changes, and man in relation to these entities, who, in general, prefers a certain amount of stability (see Subsection 8.3.3). 23 Application of standardization in marketing is described by De Vries (1998b). 24 Source: Stokes (Ed.), 1986, p. 306 (cited by Stuurman, 1995, p. 27).
173 In anticipation of an expected future matching problem, a standard is developed so that the matching problem can be solved from the outset.25 2 concurrent standardization Matching problems are solved as soon as they occur. 3 retrospective standardization Standardization to solve present matching problems. IEC 61355 (IEC, 1997, p. 31) relates documents to the product’s “life cycle,” such as engineering, manufacturing, installation, commissioning, operation, and maintenance. This may be applied to standards, but does not add a useful classification.26 Another distinction27 concerns: 1 ‘designing’ standardization Standardization directed at creating a limited set of new solutions to solve matching problems; 2 ‘selecting’ standardization Standardization directed at establishing a set of preferred solutions out of already available solutions to the matching problems. In anticipatory standardization, solutions have often not yet been developed. In that case, standardization includes designing solutions. In retrospective standardization, there are often several solutions, and standardization entails selection of one or some of these. Development of new solutions is also an option in retrospective standardization. The combination of existing solutions and the modification of existing solutions are in-between options.
9.3.4 Time-related classifications Standardization freezes matching problem solutions until the standard is revised or withdrawn. Afterwards, a standard’s life span can be calculated exactly. Life span calculation for implementation in company practice is more difficult, because this differs per company or even within a company.28 In sectors with rapid technological changes, standards can quickly become outdated. Therefore, Simons (1994, p. 10) states that the life span of a standard meant for producers should exceed the life span of their investments; for customers, it should exceed the economic or technical life span of the products; and for governments, it should correspond to the life span of the laws that refer to it. Thus, standards can be classified in accordance with the expected life span of the entities they relate to. 25
Bonino and Spring (1991, p. 102) describe this for the Information Technology Industry. The term ‘product life cycle’ is also often used to indicate a product’s introduction, growth, maturity and decline stage. Seen from a company’s point of view, standardization can play different roles in different stages. An initial impetus to this is provided by Pries (1995, pp. 11-13). 27 This distinction is lacking in the standardization literature. 28 Standards implementations, of course, may remain while a standard has been replaced. Because of these implementations it may be necessary for a company to keep the old standards in stock, see Subsection 4.4.2. 26
174
The life span of standards should be more than the time needed to develop a new standard, so the expected life span can be a criterion whether standardization makes any sense or not. For FSOs as well as for big companies preparing company standards, the present minimum life span for standards is three years (Simons & De Vries, 1997, pp. 7-8). Standards can also be classified by the stage they are in the process of their development. ISO/IEC’s stages in standards’ development The ISO/IEC stages are: preliminary stage, proposal stage, preparatory stage, committee stage, approval stage, and publication stage. Other stages are: review stage, and withdrawal stage. Per stage sub-stages are distinguished: registration, start of main action, completion of main action, and decision. Codes related to this classification make it possible to indicate what stage in its development process a standard is in. (Source: ISO/IEC, 1995a, pp. 119-120)
Such classifications are useful for standards’ project management. Moreover, they indicate the status of the document: a Working Draft, for instance, has less status than a published International Standard. All FSOs use such classifications, which usually resemble the ISO/IEC classification. Recently, the different classifications have been aligned (Wilson, 1998).
9.3.5 Classification by rate of obligation Many authors classify standards by the rate of obligation. Galinski,29 for instance, distinguishes between six classes of regulation: information, indication, recommendation, case-by-case, obligatory regulation, and legally enforced regulation. In practice, the difference between regulatory standards and voluntary ones is not strict.30 Moreover, the same standard can be voluntary for one actor and obligatory for another party.31 Therefore, this is not a fundamental classification, although it may be of help to describe the interests of different stakeholders. 9.3.6 Classifications related to the process of developing standards SDO standards, in general, are the result of a conscious process of drafting and decision making by interested parties. This, however, does not always apply. Simons (in: De Vries & Simons, 1997, p. 12) distinguishes two other categories of standards development processes: historical and factual standardization processes. 29
Source: personal letter, 1995. Mr. C. Galinski is involved in the International Information Centre for Terminology (Infoterm) in Vienna and is chairman of ISO TC 37 Terminology (principles and coordination). 30 In the European New Approach, for instance, voluntary standards are related to European directives and, in practice, almost obligatory (see Subsection 2.2.5). 31 Example: company A may use standard ISO 9001 on quality assurance as a benchmark in its quality management policy. Company B may be forced by its customers to meet the requirements set in this standard.
175 - In historical standardization, the choice of one man or a few people finds broader application and gradually becomes broadly based. The QWERTY keyboard, many quantities and units, and musical notes and symbols are examples of this. - In factual standardization, circumstances determine the standard. There is no conscious process of balancing needs. Many company-created standards are factual ones: most procedures and forms used by personnel departments, for instance, are highly determined by governmental requirements. Conscious standardization is restricted by historical and factual standardization: a standard for keyboards cannot ignore QWERTY and a standard test method for steel can not ignore widely accepted performance criteria. Within conscious standardization, a distinction can be made between: - Formal standardization: carried out in committees of formal standardization organizations (FSOs) as listed in Subsection 2.2.3. - Governmental standardization: carried out by governmental agencies other than FSOs. - De facto standardization: carried out by other non-governmental parties, for instance, companies, sectoral or specialized standardization organizations (SSOs), and consortia. The term ‘formal’ may cause confusion. Does it mean ‘recognized,’ for instance, by governments or by the international FSOs ISO, IEC or ITU? Or does it refer to a more or less democratic, consensus-based decision-making process and openness to all interested parties? The literature provides no clear answers to this question. According to Stuurman (1995, pp. 22-24), ‘formal’ refers to the SDO’s recognition. He also distinguishes between: - one-sided standards, originating from one dominant organization, and common standards, meeting common interest; - open standards, where all interested parties have been welcome to participate, and closed standards, where participation has been restricted; - non-public standards, accessible only to parties involved in drafting them, and public standards, accessible to all third parties. NSO standards are formal, common, open, and public. SDOs can be private or governmental organizations. In most industrial countries, NSOs are private organizations; in many developing countries and former state economies, they are part of the governmental administration.32 9.3.7 Classifications related to business models A French classic publication on standardization is La normalisation dans l'entreprise (AFNOR, 1967). It includes a classification of objectives of standardization based on
32
Governmental NSOs and voluntary standardization are not contradictory, as is demonstrated by, for instance, the Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC), the National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI), and the Standards Council of Canada (SCC).
176 a business typology.33 The typology is obsolete, but it illustrates the possibility of relating a standards’ classification to a company model. For companies in service sectors, such a model is presented in Chapter 11. Cargill (1990) offers a combination of two standards classifications that try to relate standards classifications to company’s practice. His second classification distinguishes between - regulatory standards: standards having some form of statutory enforcement behind them; - business/marketing standards: standards to gain a business or marketing advantage or to avoid a business or marketing disadvantage; - operational standards: standards to structure day-to-day operations of an organization.34 In the case of regulatory standards and operational standards, the company can obtain the standards needed from outside and/or make company standards. The only reason to get other parties involved is that they might be facing the same problems so they could co-operate in finding solutions. In the case of business/marketing standards, a strategy is needed to handle the situation of different parties having different interests. Consequently, three different situations are possible: a the party making its own (company) standard; b the party co-operating with other parties having the same interests; c the party trying to find its way in an arena with different parties having different interests. Although it provides some insight into actors’ interests, Cargill’s classification is not unambiguous and again mixes apples and oranges. One may try to relate standards to accepted business models, such as Porter’s value chain. Without explicitly talking about business models, Enjeux (1992) and Simons & De Vries (1997, pp. 87-96) group standards into areas of business activities. Feier (1995) links standards to hierarchical levels within a company. However, a standard that sets requirements for a pump sold by company A, for example, may also be applied by company B that uses this pump in its installation. For A, the entity is a product; for B, it is a part of an installation. This demonstrates that the same standard may be placed into different classes in business-model-related standards classifications, depending on the party using them. Therefore, we have not tried to develop such a classification. In describing the interests of different actors, however, it would be useful to relate a standard to their business processes. 9.3.8 Property rights According to Crawford (1991, p. 44), a licensed standard is created when a company (or group of companies or agencies) establishes a new design, gains patent or copyright protection for it, and explicitly sets out to persuade other companies to use 33
The dimensions of this typology are: 1) activity rhythm (seasonal fluctuations in production); 2) product complexity; 3) characterization of the added value; 4) production techniques; 5) production speed; 6) market and customer characteristics. 34 In practice, this classification resembles Simons’ classification mentioned in Subsection 9.2.3: compatibility standards are often business/marketing standards; interference standards are often regulatory standards; and general quality standards are often operational standards.
177 the same one. Such de facto standards are sometimes offered to FSOs to include them in their standards’ collections.35 In general, FSOs have the intellectual property rights to standards developed in their committees. This may cause problems when a standardization committee wishes to include patented matters in standards. FSOs only allow this when the patent holder declares that he is willing to negotiate licences under patent and like rights with applicants throughout the world on reasonable terms and conditions.36 The market mechanism determines what is ‘reasonable.’37 A standards classification can specify whether or not such intellectual property rights apply.
9.4
Conclusions
9.4.1 Entity-related classifications Standards’ classifications can be divided into entity-related and actor-related classifications. Additional to a classification of entities themselves, the major entityrelated classification distinguishes between: 1 basic standards 2 requiring standards 2.1 performance standards - interference standards - quality standards 2.2 solution describing standards - interference standards - compatibility standards horizontal compatibility vertical compatibility - quality standards 3 measurement standards. Sets of requiring standards can also often be divided into horizontal versus vertical standards, and classic versus functional standards. 9.4.2 Actor-related classifications Fundamental actor-related classifications are the functional ones, relating to intrinsic functions of standardization, extrinsic functions, or subjective functions. Classifications related to the installed base are: 35
Standards and patents both describe a mostly technical solution. A standard, however, is intended to be used by all parties for which it is meant, whereas a patent is only used by the patent-holder and, via licenses, by third parties chosen by him, who usually have to pay for this use. Standards and patents have in common that they provide information to prevent reinventing the wheel. 36 Annex A Reference to patented items in ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 (ISO/IEC, 1992b, p. 17). 37 In ISO, IEC, CEN and CENELEC practice referring to patents in standards does not cause problems. Licences are offered on reasonable terms. In ETSI, however, problems have arisen. Especially in the field of telecommunication there often is a need to combine standards and patents (Simons & De Vries, 1997, p. 24-25). More information on standards and intellectual property rights is provided by, among others, Farrell (1989), Stuurman (1997, Chapter 8), and Weiss & Spring (1992).
178 - anticipatory, concurrent, and retrospective standardization; - ‘designing’ and ‘selecting’ standardization. Time-related classifications can concern: - life expectancy of standards - stages in the development of standards. Processes of standards’ development can be: - conscious / historical / factual - formal / de facto / governmental - common / one-sided - open / closed. The resulting standards can be public or non-public. SDOs can be private or governmental. Finally, it can be important whether or not intellectual property rights relate to the standard. 9.4.3 Applicability of standards’ classifications In general, classifications can be of help in human communication, in searching for information, and in organizing data. They are the means to make matters clear. However, many current standardization classifications mix apples and oranges. Others appear to be irrelevant or inconsistent, such as - classification related to the level of standardization (company, national, regional, international) - business-oriented classifications - classifications by rate of obligation of the standards. In this chapter, some new classifications have been introduced and relevant ones from the literature have been sorted out. SDOs can use them as a help - to define criteria for inclusion of proposed work items in their work program; - to describe proposed and current standardization projects. Entity-related classifications can be used to describe a standard’s scope, actor-related classifications can be used to describe their field of application;38 - to create coherent sets of standards that correspond to relevant entity structures, matching problems therein, and actors and their interests.
38
These are ambiguously indicated in many current standards. Often the application field is missing. The Standards Engineering Society (SES, 1995, p. 7) advises distinguishing between scope, purpose, and application. ‘Application’ can be related to the above-mentioned intrinsic and extrinsic functions of standardization; ‘purpose’ to the subjective functions.
10
POSSIBILITIES FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS1
10.1 Introduction This chapter describes a method to improve the process of creating standards for management systems (MSs). It is demonstrated that by using the method, the quality of these standards can be improved: standards for quality management, environmental management, and occupational health and safety (OHS) management can resemble each other closer and can be more compatible with company practice. In ISO’s standards collection the ISO 9000 standards on quality management are the absolute best sellers. These particular non-technical standards concern the way a company (or other organization) should be organized. Both because of the number of standards implemented and because of their scope, these are the standards which have the greatest impact on companies. Companies applying them face the problem of bridging the gap between the standards’ requirements and company practice. Tens of thousands of consultants all over the world earn their living by assisting companies with this. This gives rise to the question whether the standards could not have been designed in such a way that they would be more compatible with company practice. Meanwhile, the use of standards on environmental management is increasing and in some countries standards for OHS management are being added. Within a company, these three MSs should preferably be linked in such a manner that on the shop-floor only a unique MS can be observed. Experience shows, however, that requirements pertaining to these three systems can hinder their being linked together. This gives rise to a second question: Can standards for the three MSs be designed in such a way that they can easily be used in combination? In this chapter it will be shown that standards for the three MS areas can be developed in a way that will make them more compatible with each other and with company practice. Such standards would make life easier for hundreds of thousands of companies all over the world, except perhaps for consulting firms in the area of MSs. To achieve this, standards developers will have to use an approach that is more methodical than those they are accustomed to. The remaining problem, therefore, is to integrate such an approach into the current method of preparing standards.
1
This chapter is the verbatim text of an article in EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, Vol. 2 (De Vries, 1999b), apart from some minor changes: - some elucidation given already in previous chapters of this thesis has been deleted; - some terms have been replaced by abbreviations commonly used in this thesis. This chapter has been updated to April 1998. Developments since then are not dealt with. Apart from the literature mentioned, this chapter is based on personal observations and: - telephone interviews with. H.J.P.M. van Hezik and G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot, researchers of the project; - interviews with D. Hortensius, Mrs. A.M. de Jong, and P.M. de Vlaming, secretaries of the Dutch TCs on environmental, quality, and OHS management systems, respectively; - (telephone) interviews with members of Dutch TCs in the field of management systems: R.T.C. de Grood, A. Waszink (quality), J.C. Stans (environment), and H. Bosch (occupational health and safety); - a telephone interview with an expert in value analysis: G. Gerritse.
180 This chapter is based on a research project2 managed by NNI. The question addressed in this project was, how to avoid having companies confronted with requirements pertaining to the three MSs which make it difficult to link the systems together. Section 10.2 describes the objectives of the project. The method that was used is described in Section 10.3. Section 10.4 presents the results. Section 10.5 describes how the Dutch TCs reacted to these results and presents an analysis of these reactions using experiences in industry with a comparable method. Subsequently, prerequisites for use of the method are formulated. Section 10.6 describes developments in management system standardization and how and under what conditions the method can be applied to get better standards. An evaluation and conclusion are presented in Section 10.7.
10.2 The danger of conflicting standards To use the time available as effectively as possible, the NNI project only dealt with MS assurance standards, such as ISO 9001, because they contain strict requirements. Guidelines such as those from the ISO 9004 series were therefore not taken into consideration. When the research project was operational, 1993/1994, the situation in regard to the three different areas of MS standards was as presented in the frame on the next page. MS standards relevant to Dutch companies were prepared at both the international, the European, and the national level. For environmental and OHS MSs, governmental requirements on the European or the national level also applied. Although there was an exchange of information between the different parties, there was the danger of diverging developments resulting in conflicting requirements. In company practice, MSs for OHS, environment, and quality are related. In principle, they can be fully integrated. Conflicting requirements hinder integration. Differences in the structure of MS standards complicate their implementation. Companies are then less able to profit from synergy (Zwetsloot, 1994a). Researchers, therefore, had to investigate how to make standards in such a way that they optimize possibilities to achieve synergy. This knowledge could be used by the Dutch TCs on MSs standardization to improve their work and by the Dutch government when setting requirements, if any, relating to environmental management and OHS management.
2
The present writer supervised this project. It was carried out by consultants of NEHEM Consulting Group and the Dutch Institute for Working Environment, NIA (Van Hezik & Zwetsloot, 1994).
181 MS standards picture for Dutch companies, January 1994 and April 1998 In 1994, the relevant standard for quality assurance was ISO 9001-1987 Quality systems - Model for the quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and servicing (ISO, 1987). It was implemented in the national standards system (NEN-ISO 9001). The responsible international TC, ISO TC 176 Quality management and quality assurance prepared two revisions. A minor revision meanwhile has been published (ISO, 1994c) and has been implemented in the European and national standards systems (EN-ISO 9001 and NEN-EN-ISO 9001 respectively). A major revision was started in 1994 and is expected to be ready in 2000. It will again be implemented on the European and national level. In 1994, Dutch companies mostly used the British standard BS 7750 Specification for environmental systems for environmental management systems (BSI, 1992). That year a new version appeared (BSI, 1994). At the international level, a standard was prepared by ISO TC 207 Environmental management. The international document available in January 1994 was ISO/IEC/SAGE SG1, N55 Standardization of Environmental Management Systems - A model for discussion (ISO/IEC Strategic Advisory Group on the Environment / Sub-Group 1 Environmental Management Systems, 1993). Companies could also use the requirements set in the European EMAS Regulation (European Commission, 1993). In 1996, the international standard ISO 14001 Environmental management systems - Specification with guidance for use came out (ISO, 1996b), which was implemented in the European and national standards systems (EN-ISO 14001 and NEN-EN-ISO 14001, respectively). Companies that want to meet the EMAS requirements can use ISO 14001 with some additional requirements laid down in a Bridging document (CEN, 1997a). Meanwhile, revision of EMAS is prepared. A new EMAS version is due to appear in 2001. Revision of ISO 14001 started autumn 1998. In 1994, Dutch companies could find a governmental interpretation of general legal OHS requirements in Publikatieblad 190 ‘Arbo en verzuimbeleid. De wettelijke basis voor de zorg voor arbeidsomstandigheden en het terugdringen van het verzuim nader toegelicht’ (Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid / Arbeidsinspectie, 1994). NNI considered preparing a national standard. The TC, however, did not develop a standard but a Technical Report NPR 5001 ‘Model voor een arbo-managementsysteem’ (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997c). Meanwhile, several other countries, such as Australia, New Zealand, Spain, and the United Kingdom, have guidelines or standards in the OHS area. In 1997, both ISO and CEN decided not to develop an OHS standard.
NNI has TCs on the three MS areas plus a Management Systems Co-ordinating Committee. The intention was that the project results would be used by the Dutch TC on quality management and on environmental management to improve their input in international and European standardization. The OHS TC could use the results when preparing a national standard. The TCs on environmental management and OHS management might also use the results in their contacts with the Dutch government, who in turn might influence European legislation. Because of the large installed base of ISO 9000 quality systems, the existing 9001 standard could not be disregarded when preparing improved versions.3 For the same reason, both environmental and OHS management standards should be compatible to ISO 9001. For environmental management, the British standard BS 7750 and some other national standards were available. One could expect that these standards would be the starting point for discussions within ISO/TC 207.4 For developing standards for 3
Restrictions in replacing a standard by a new one due to the installed base of standards applications have been described by Farrell and Saloner (1986), Kindleberger (1983), and Liebowitz and Margolis (1990), see Section 12.2. 4 In retrospect, this was the case, starting with BS 7750, but also using other national standards.
182 OHS management, some (draft) national standards and guidelines were available and standards from the quality and environmental area could be used as examples. This process, however, does not guarantee that the resulting standards will harmonize with each other. ISO 9001, for instance, puts more emphasis on the necessity of written procedures and pays less attention to performance improvements compared to management system standards in the environmental and OHS management areas. The one-sidedness of ISO 9001 could cause problems of inconsistency in the other areas, while a standard on environmental management systems could block improvements of ISO 9001. Moreover, it was questionable whether the separate standards would sufficiently match the situation in the organizations where they are applied. Preyde (1994) and Zwetsloot (1994a), among others, expressed concern about this.
10.3
Applying a new method for standards development
10.3.1
Choice of a method
There are few methods for standards development. Exceptions are Beitz (1971), Bouma and Winter (1982), Schacht (1991), Sinnott and Turner (1995), and Susanto (1988). Their methods concern improving standards, but do not link this to the consensus process in standardization committees (see Chapter 13). The only available method that provides the opportunity for such a link was developed by De Vries and is partly described in De Vries (1991a & 1991b). This method was derived from value analysis, a method used in industry to improve an existing product.5 Thus, when using a method derived from product development theory, a standard is considered as being a product6 that has to meet customer needs: it should perform its function(s) at an acceptable quality level and it should be produced, if possible, at the lowest cost. The purpose is not to seek better ways to produce the product, but better ways to perform the product’s function(s). Thus, the product (here: the standard) itself is brought up for discussion. Therefore, the method will be called Functional Standards Development (FSD). In finding better ways to perform the function(s), the following major steps can be distinguished: 1) problem orientation; 2) problem definition (“In what way may I ...”); 3) idea generation; 4) idea selection (basic choice of a solution); 5) idea development. Discussions alternately have the character of brainstorming and of (team) analysis. In brainstorming, all ideas are welcome, however strange they may seem. In the analysis phase, based on arguments the number of options is restricted. In practice, one does not just go from step 1 to 5, but sometimes will return to previous points, for instance, because one discovers that one of the functions of the existing product has been forgotten.7 This method is perhaps not the best one or the only applicable one, but among methods for standards development known at that moment, it was the only convenient one. 10.3.2 Functions of management systems standards 5
For information on value analysis, Gelderloos (1992), Ollner (1974, pp. 74-85), and Ridge (1969) were used. The elements of value analysis related to costs have not been used in this case. 6 This first was done by Susanto (1988). 7 Schacht (1991, pp. 22-25) and Susanto (1988, pp. 32-38, 50-62) also use standards’ functions; see Sections 13.7 and 13.6.
183
The approach starts at the functions the standards (should) perform. Functions are related to actors. How the researchers described the different actors in the case of management system standards is shown in Table 10.1. Actors having an interest in the standards’ Actors having an interest in the existence of contents the standards8 - companies: management / employees - shareholders - customers - insurance companies - government: both as legislator and as law - people living in the neighbourhood enforcement agencies - consumer organizations - certification bodies - employers’ organizations - branch organizations - trade unions Table 10.1. Parties having an interest in management systems standards.
The researchers discussed the functions of management systems standards for all parties listed in Table 1 (“What does the standard do for...”) and arrived, tentatively, at the functions listed in Table 10.2. Functions standards (have to) perform Primary functions: - provide criteria for assessment (internal/external: 1st/2nd/3rd party) Secondary functions: - provide a basis for reference in contracts (quality: supplier/customer; of growing importance for environment and OHS) - provide a basis for “social contracts” (environment and OHS)
Interested parties all interested parties
company’s management, customers
company’s management, employees, government, actors having an interest in the existence of MS standards Table 10.2. Functions management system standards (have to) perform.
10.3.3 Definition of management systems From the primary function of MS standards, it can be concluded that they should describe the essential MS elements. Therefore, the definition of a management system should first of all be clear. This caused problems because the current definitions9 were vastly different. In the main, these discrepancies are not due to differences between quality, environment, and OHS, but to differences in: - the MS’s purpose (assurance/improvements); - its direction (process/results); - its frontiers related to the company’s frontiers (limited set of activities / all relevant activities); - its geographical borders (related to, for instance, chain-management, co-makership); - relations with the MS’s output (performances). 8
Each party mentioned may have its own wishes concerning the contents of standards, possibly differing per MS area. The contents, however, are only of indirect interest to these parties. 9 In the research project these definitions were taken from ISO 8402 (ISO, 1986), Tweede Kamer (1989), and Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (1993), being the most commonly accepted definitions for the three management systems areas at that moment in the Netherlands.
184
In order not to limit the project unnecessarily, a broad working definition was chosen which encompasses the then current definitions: a management system is the systematic application of policy, organizational and administrative procedures, and measures directed at gaining an understanding, (continuous) improvement, and (where relevant) assurance of processes and measures relevant to the organization’s performance (including relations with its suppliers and customers) in the area of quality/environment/OHS; the system itself being assured and improved, making use of periodical evaluations of its functioning and performance. Choices made in the definition, of course, influence the contents of the relevant standards. Therefore, a prerequisite for standards being mutually compatible is that the same choices are made in the definitions. This is the first point the standardization committees will have to reach consensus on.
10.3.4 Functions of management systems The next step is to determine the MS elements. These depend on the MS model chosen. The question of how to choose such a model or how to improve an existing model can be answered by asking which functions an MS performs. In accordance with the main “dimensions” of the definition, the researchers concluded that the functions listed in Table 10.3 were applicable. These and the foregoing conclusions were confirmed in a workshop with MS experts from a number of companies. Dimension in the definition Gain an understanding of. Improve (where possible continuously).
Primary functions management systems have to perform Generate relevant management information. Be the key to a systematic approach of (continuous) improvements in company performance. Facilitate bottom-up improvement initiatives. Assure (where relevant). Guarantee continuation of (the level of) the performance. Evaluate, assure, and improve the Meet business principles by being effective and efficient. system’s functioning and Demonstrate the rate, the continuation, and the progress of performance. the (level of) performance internally and externally. Table 10.3. Primary functions management systems (have to) perform.
In addition to the primary functions, secondary functions were also distinguished; these are not mentioned in Table 3. Whether or not the listed functions are the preferred ones is open to discussion within the relevant standardization committees.
10.3.5 Designing a management system model Once standardization committee members have reached consensus on the functions an MS has to perform, a MS model can be produced. This is a creative effort. Within the limitations of the chosen set of functions, many MS models are possible. In the research project, the model in Figure 10.1 was chosen. It consists of control loops (so-called
185 Deming circles10) at the strategic, steering, and operational level. The criteria for control are placed in the model, but are not part of the management system itself. Factors essential for the organization’s ability to realize its objectives, using the control loops, are specified separately in the scheme of the model (“organizational preconditions”). It is a generic model that can be applied in for quality, environmental, and OHS MSs, as well as fully integrated systems.11
Figure 10.1. Generic management systems model.
10
The Deming circle is a tool for continuous improvements. It is a discipline for problem solving and learning from mistakes. The Deming circle includes 1) “Plan”: set objectives and agree on action; 2) “Do”: implement the action plan; 3) “Check” or “Study”: review actions and results; 4) “Act”: assure the process or take corrective action. To continue improvements, “Plan” follows again, etc. 11 The research report (Van Hezik & Zwetsloot, 1994) explains how this model fulfills all functions mentioned above plus the secondary functions that are not mentioned here in order to limit the length of this contribution.
186 10.3.6 Designing a management system standard Once standardization committees members have reached consensus on the MS model, they can start drafting a MS standard. The standard has to describe the essential elements of such an MS. Therefore, this activity is relatively simple, as the model gives the framework for the standard, see Table 10.4 (the numerals refer to Figure 10.1). Principal structure 1 Control cycle at the strategic level
2 Control cycle at the steering level
3 Control cycle at the operational level 4 Organizational preconditions
Generic framework, 2nd level 1.1 Making an inventory / determining objectives and strategies 1.2 Systematic approach (including performance indicators) 1.3 Evaluation 1.4 Adjustment 2.1 Making an inventory / determining objectives and strategies 2.2 Systematic approach (including performance indicators) 2.3 Evaluation 2.4 Adjustment 3.1 Input from and feedback to steering level
4.1 Initiating role of company management 4.2 (Degree of) demonstration 4.3 Communication and consultation 4.4 Self-activation and -motivation 4.5 Education and qualification Table 10.4. Management system standard’s framework in second level detail
From this, one can go into more detail, down to the level of the requirements to be mentioned in the standard. Again, the choices to be made are up for discussion. Differences between quality, environment and OHS appear at the third and fourth level of detail. The requirements to be mentioned in the standards are reached at the fourth or fifth level of detail. Table 10.5 gives an example of parts of the framework. Level of detail Principle structure
Framework elements 1 Control loop at strategic level 2/3/4
2nd level of detail
1.1
3rd level of detail
1.2/1.3/1.4 2.1/2.2/2.3/2.4 ... 1.1.1/1.1.2
Making an inventory / determining objectives and strategies
1.1.3 Formulate a policy statement 4th level of detail
1.1.4 ... ...
1.1.3.1 Policy statement relevant for activities, products, services, and corresponding effects12 1.1.3.2 Policy statement publicly available13 ...
Table 10.5: Part of a management system standard’s framework in the fourth level of detail
10.3.7 Analyzing existing standards 12
Activities, products, services, and corresponding effects can be different in the areas quality, environment, and OHS. Such differences would appear at a 5th level of detail. 13 ”Publicly available” is related to internal and external communication. Here differences between quality, environment and OHS apply. In quality management, internal communication is directed to the employees and external communication primarily to customers. In environmental management, internal communication concerns the employees; the company communicates externally with, among others, the government, people living in the neighbourhood, and customers. In the OHS area, communication is primary employee-oriented.
187
The researchers’ next step was to determine whether or not the standards in the three areas of management systems available at that moment14 fitted into the framework developed. This was important because preferably new standards should be backwards and “sideways” compatible (i.e., compatible to its predecessor in the same MSs’ area and compatible to existing standards in the two other MS areas). It appeared that all the items of all existing standards or comparable documents could be placed in the MSs standards framework. Some of the cells in this filled-in framework remained empty, which indicated lack of requirements on that subject in that standard. In this way the survey gave a first indication of the one-sidedness of existing standards. ISO 9001, for instance, has many operational level requirements on the input from and feedback to the steering level, but nothing specific on communication and public relations.
10.3.8 Making a new standard A new standard can be made by filling in the blank framework. A survey of existing standards can be used when discussing the contents of each element of it: this can be compared with the corresponding elements of existing standards. When the standardization committee members have reached consensus on all elements of the standard, the last thing to do is edit the standard. The project showed that for the first two levels of detail, MS standards in the three areas can be identical. In the third level of detail, the first differences appear. So, alternative standards in these areas can resemble each other much more than existing standards do. Of course, this is only an academic conclusion. The method should prove its value in practice, when applied by standardization committees. When a standardization committee developing management systems standards agrees to the above approach, it has to take the steps shown in Figure 10.2. First, it has to decide to use the method. By making this choice, the committee decides to take all the steps mentioned. In each step, there is freedom to make choices. The choices made restrict options in following steps. The last step is to reach consensus on the text of the standard. In practice, the path will not be as rigid as in the above scheme. In the beginning, it will be of help to look ahead to the subsequent steps, while in later steps, it might be necessary to reconsider choices made in previous steps.
14
Quality: ISO 9001 (ISO, 1987); environment: BS 7750 (BSI, 1992), ISO/IEC/SAGE SG1 N55 (ISO/IEC Strategic Advisory Group on the Environment / Sub-Group 1 Environmental Management Systems, 1993), EMAS (European Commission, 1993); OHS: Pubikatieblad 190 (Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid / Arbeidsinspectie); see the frame in Section 10.2.
188
Figure 10.2. Steps to take when preparing a management systems standard.
10.4 Project results It can be concluded that by following the path described above it is possible to develop standards that are backwards compatible to existing standards in the same area of management systems and sideways compatible to standards in other MSs’ areas. The standard’s framework, based on a MS model, is the basis for this compatibility. In practice, many companies build their quality system on the structure of ISO 9001. This is not the best way. It is better to start with the company’s processes, then use the ISO 9004-1 (ISO, 1994e) and, where necessary, other guidelines from the ISO 9000 family, and finally to check whether the system meets the ISO 9001 requirements (Van Bruggen et al., 1997, Chapter 9). Irrespective of how a company builds its quality management system, it has to link the standards with company practice. This will be easier if the standards’ structure is based on a MS model. If the same model structures the MS standards in the fields of environment and OHS, it will be much easier to add management systems in these areas to an existing quality system, or to make a fully integrated system. This will, moreover, facilitate combined (internal and/or external) auditing from the quality, environmental, and/or OHS point of view. Though not investigated, it is plausible that Functional Standards Development (FSD) can also be used in preparing guidelines for MSs, such as ISO 9004. This also offers the possibility to connect assurance standards to guidelines in a direct way. The framework
189 can also be the basis for a generic MS standard. This, however, was not the intention it is a spin-off of the research project. A second spin-off is of more practical and immediate importance for companies: the standard’s framework filled in with references to existing standards can be of help to companies that create MSs in one, two, or three areas or add, for instance, environment to an existing quality system. It helps to link the company and the existing standards, though these standards themselves do not (yet) have the structure of a MS model. This can be useful both for building MSs, for adding new areas to an existing MS, and for (internal and external) auditing MSs. Meanwhile, such a publication has been issued by the consultancy agency that participated in the project (Hezik, van et al, 1995). It, however, uses another “model”: the Dutch Quality Award model, which is based on the model of the European Foundation for Quality Management. It is not a MS’s model as such, but a list of the essential elements for quality management. This list can function as a framework in which the elements of existing standards can be placed. The quality award model, however, differs more from the existing standards, because it contains many areas these standards pay hardly any attention to.
10.5 Prerequisites for use of Functional Standards Development Given the promising results, one might expect the Dutch TCs to embrace them and use them to improve their work. However, this has hardly been the case. During the project, the Management Systems Co-ordinating Committee remained, to a certain extent, at a distance. The reasons for this were the unorthodox approach used in the project and the evolution in personal opinions of the committee members about both MSs and the necessity of the research project. However, when the project was finished, most of the members of the committee welcomed the results. A group of experts from the Dutch TC on quality management systems discussed the results and found them useful in bridging the gaps between different MSs, both in standards development and standards application. The experts, however, disagreed with the statements on definitions and with the model chosen to describe an MS. The Dutch delegates in ISO/TC 176 were not asked to use the research results in their work. The Dutch TC on environmental management barely discussed the results. There was criticism of the MS model used. The Dutch delegates in ISO/TC 207 were not asked to use the results in their work, since this was no longer regarded relevant, as a fundamental restart of the development of ISO 14001 no longer seemed to be expedient. The Dutch TC on OHS management had decided not to prepare a standard, but rather an OHS MSs guideline that would combine legal and other OHS requirements in a practical way. Their work started in spring 1994, parallel to the research project. Initially, the TC tried to use the research project’s approach. However, they soon stopped using FSD because it seemed too complicated and was expected to take too much time. Instead, they established a small WG that had to propose a guideline within three months. The WG participants were representatives of the three main stakeholders: employers, employees, and government. “Experts” were excluded because they were
190 regarded as less crucial stakeholders and were expected to make the guideline too complicated. Thus, there was a lack of acceptance in the TCs mainly because of the degree of complexity of FSD and criticism of the MS model used. Companies trying to introduce value analysis often experience comparable resistance. Objections against it include (Gelderloos, 1992): “We already tried to make improvements”; “It is too expensive”; “Company B used it, but did not survive”; “Our customers do not like it”; “Our company is too big / too small to use it”; “There is no time / money available to do it”; “It is too ambitious”; “We already have enough problems”; and “I am not accustomed to it.” The reasons mentioned may be correct, but often they are not, at least from a rational point of view. It is necessary to take such objections seriously, as they demonstrate feelings of uneasiness that may also have non-rational reasons behind it. Resistance to FSD was expressed primarily by criticizing the MS model. Because all existing standards in the MS areas fit into the standard’s framework based on this model, and the model has been discussed in a workshop with company experts in MSs, one might give it the benefit of the doubt. But even assuming that those who criticize the model were right, another model might be chosen. With respect to FSD, this is not a problem at all: an essential characteristic of FSD is that everything is open for discussion, including the choice of such a model. The above example of the publication using the Dutch quality award model (Van Hezik, 1995) shows that other models are possible too. There is, however, a real problem if the conclusion is that there is no single model that can be applied to all kinds of organizations. Then, it is also impossible to develop MS standards that claim to be applicable to all kinds of organizations, as such standards, according to their main function, should list the essential elements of an MS. Therefore, the model chosen in the project cannot be the real problem. Difficulties in understanding, as expressed by some people, may have been a real problem. Expected difficulties in using FSD, though not mentioned, may be another reason for rejecting it. Using FSD in standardization committees will be more difficult than using value analysis within companies. In companies, value analysis is used by, for instance, a product development team whose sole aim is to improve the product. This differs from the situation in standardization committees, where the participants have different interests, sometimes even an interest to stop or delay the process. This is a genuinely complicating factor. Therefore, to be able to use FSD in standardization practice, some prerequisites must be formulated, based on lessons learnt from the application of value analysis: 1 The method is to be used by a “product development team.” In standardization practice, this will generally be a WG. 2 There should be a common decision to use the method. In standardization practice, such decisions are usually taken at the TC level. Thus, a TC should decide that the WG is to use FSD, or the WG itself should decide this. 3 One will only decide to use FSD when its advantages are clear. Therefore instruction is necessary. 4 When the decision has been taken, all WG members should be instructed on how to use FSD. Such instruction is necessary not only to explain FSD, but also to convince them of its possibilities. When the team members do not believe it works, it will not
191 work because they will not use it in a consistent manner. Education of members of standardization committees is rather unusual, certainly at the European or the international level. 5 During the use of the method, professional coaching must be available, mainly to guide the process. Experience in value analysis shows that experts are accustomed to solving problems, but, as a consequence, tend to stick to a solution once they have found it. In value analysis, it is essential to try to find other, possibly better, solutions. Without guidance, this rarely happens: it seems to be difficult for the team to stick to the rules of the game. In a standardization setting, the committee’s secretary might be the one to give this assistance, provided the committee agrees to this choice and the secretary is trained in the use of FSD. 6 Experience in value analysis shows that the team should consist of experts in different fields, preferably not more than eight people, with a maximum of ten. They report their findings and recommendations to decision makers. So a WG should consist of about eight experts and report their findings to a TC or SC. This long list of prerequisites was not taken into account when the researchers presented their results. It is plausible that the members of the TCs felt this deficiency, though it was difficult for them to find the right words. This may be a major reason for the lack of acceptance. Since so many prerequisites have to be fulfilled, use of FSD in practice must be restricted to areas where it is really difficult to make good standards and where there is a great need to improve the standards’ quality. This might be the case in regard to MS standards, because these are the standards most in use in the world, having major impact on the functioning of companies. In the next section, the development of MS assurance standards since the project start in 1994 to the completion of this chapter, April 1998 will be traced.
10.6 Recent developments in management systems standardization ISO/TC 176 prepared a design specification for the new quality assurance standard (ISO, 1995). It reflects the systematic way in which ISO/TC 176/SC 2/WG 11 Revision of ISO 9001, 9002 and 9003 did its work: - The specification gives a motivation for the revision. - It proposes a structure based on a process model configuration for a quality MS. - It identifies users of the standard and their needs. - Based on all the requirements, it describes the purpose of the standard and its title and field of application. - It pays attention to the interaction with other standards. - It describes points of interest for the process of preparing the standard.
192 Important subjects of discussion within ISO/TC 176 include: - definitions of quality, quality management, quality management system and quality assurance; concepts underlying the existing definitions in ISO 8402 (ISO, 1994b) appear to be insufficiently consistent; - whether a business process model or ISO 14001 should be used as the starting point for a new standard; - the amount of detail of a business process, if any: the right balance between a thorough description of company practices and simplicity. It can be concluded that ISO/TC 176/SC 2/WG 11 used, independently from the Dutch research project,15 a comparable systematic approach. Value analysis, or something like it, was not used: the methods used by WG 11 seem less rigid. A practical problem was that, within ISO TC 176, three lines ran parallel to each other: 1 The new versions of ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 were prepared in two different WGs (TC 176/SC 2/WG 11 and WG 12 respectively). These were disbanded in 1996. Decisions about the contents of these standards were, and are, taken in ISO/TC 176/SC 2 Quality systems. 2 The standards’ contents was also under discussion in the QA/QM Packaging Task Force, which reported to SC 2. This Task Force was removed in the autumn of 1995. In spring 1997, it was succeeded by WG 18 Development of a ‘consistent pair’ of Quality Assurance and Quality Management standards, consisting of 80 experts divided over 10 different expert groups, each preparing some parts of the standards. In Spring 1998, the first drafts of the new standards were available (Secretariat of ISO/TC 176/SC 2, 1998). These lack consistency and are being widely criticized. 3 The main features of the new standards were proposed by the ISO/TC 176 Strategic Planning Advisory Group (1995). This group reported to the plenary TC. It was transformed into the Project Management Group, consisting of convenors and secretaries of TC 176, its three SCs, and those WGs that develop standards for the “year 2000 product line.” The international standard on environmental MSs, ISO 14001, was issued in 1996. The work on ISO 14001 started before ISO/TC 207 was founded, in the ISO/IEC Stategic Advisory Group on the Environment (SAGE). Its Subgroup on Environmental Management Systems (SG 1) prepared a model for discussion (ISO/IEC Strategic Advisory Group on the Environment / Sub-Group 1 Environmental Management Systems, 1993). To prepare this model, the example of BS 7750 was taken, adding just one element: external communication. The discussions within ISO/TC 207 were reopened, but again the list of standard’s elements came from BS 7750. In writing requirements per element, other national standards were also used. Finally, the elements of the standard were placed in the structure of a Deming circle, by giving the following chapter headings: planning (Deming: “plan”), implementation and operation (“do”), checking and corrective action (“check”), and management review (“act”).
15
At least the Dutch expert in WG 11 did not link the research results with his input in WG 11.
193 Several committees are involved in co-ordination between ISO/TC 176 and ISO/TC 207: - Strategic decisions are taken by ISO’s Technical Management Board (TMB). - The TCs confer in the Joint Co-ordination Group. - There are four groups at the SC level: for auditing the Common Study Group; for MS standards the Joint Task Group; for terminology and concepts the Joint Advisory Group; for co-ordinating these three: “J6.” The Joint Advisory Group recently reported to the ISO/TMB about ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 compatibility (ISO/TAG12, 1998). - The ISO Committee on Conformity Assessment (CASCO) is responsible for the development of guides and standards related to conformity assessment and develops ISO Guide 66 Requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification/registration of environmental management systems based on its existing Guide 62 Requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification/registration of quality systems (ISO/IEC, 1996c). As stated before, in the spring of 1994, the Dutch TC on OHS MSs founded a WG to draft a guideline. This WG decided to take the British standard on environmental MSs, BS 7750, as an example for both the structure and the contents of the guideline, to group both legal and non-legal requirements. Nine months were necessary to finish a structure of the standard and another eight months to make a draft document. The delay was due to discussions on the desirability of a standard and to changes in definitions chosen at earlier stages. The draft was amended a number of times and appeared in October 1996 (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1996). A great many comments were made on this draft. The main comments have been honoured in the definitive version of NPR 5001, issued October 1997 (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997c). Its structure was modelled on the example of ISO 14001. However, NPR 5001 uses two Deming circles both at the organizational and strategic level and at the operational level, whereas in ISO 14001, these are combined in one Deming circle.
10.7 Evaluation and conclusions FSD appears to be applicable to solve the kind of problems the international WGs had or (April 1998) still have to cope with. In the quality area, using FSD would have forced ISO TC 176 to have fundamental discussions on quality assurance (QA) and quality management (QM) definitions and concepts at an earlier stage. The question about using a business process model versus using ISO 14001 was unnecessary: both are possible simultaneously. Preparation of QA standards (ISO 9001) and of QM guidelines (ISO 9004) can be combined in a more natural way using FSD; at an earlier stage, TC 176 could have decided to have just one WG for both. The separate WG on developing a consistent pair of QA and QM standards was unnecessary - one group could have done all the work, making use of “Vision 2000” and the work done already by the QA/QM Packaging Task Force, SC 2, SC 2/WG 11 and SC 2/WG 12; given the above and the immense importance of the ISO 9000 standards, ISO/TC 176 could have used the method in drafting a proposal for “a consistent pair of QA/QM standards.” The organizational problem of giving a task for all more than 60 countries that want to
194 participate could have been solved by letting the 10 groups each fill in a part of an agreed standard’s framework. In the area of environment, ISO 14001 was developed in the traditional way: making use of the elements of existing standards and amending the contents of these elements. Because the requirements have been arranged in the structure of a Deming circle, the standard seems to be more user-friendly than ISO 9001 is. This, however, has not been done in a consistent way and ISO 14001 is not user-friendly either: it needs much elucidation.16 FSD might be useful for future revisions. To solve the co-ordination problem between the areas of environmental management and quality management, a confusing number of co-ordinating committees has been set up. Despite all these efforts, one of these groups concludes: The business models of the two series of standards are different. This is a possible basis for user confusion and difficulty in joint implementation. (ISO/TC 176/SC 2 and ISO/TC 207/SC 1 Joint Task Group on Co-ordination, 1997, Subsection 3.2.3). If FSD had been used, this confusion, concerning both organization and standards’ content, might have been avoided. In the OHS area, partly thanks to initial use of FSD, the Dutch TC discovered fundamental differences of opinion at an early moment (for instance: Do we want a standard or not?). A major reason to drop FSD was the expected necessary time span, but the reverse was true: instead of months it took years. The guideline, moreover, could have had a better structure than the present one. The fierce critique on the draft guideline could, to a large extent, have been avoided by honouring stakeholder needs better and providing a better fit to ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. However, it is questionable whether enough support for the use of FSD could have been mobilized in this TC. All three areas could have profited from FSD. It seems to be particularly applicable in the stage of drafting a standard. But it can also be of use in later stages, even in voting, because it offers the opportunity to present all decisions that have led to the final draft in a systematic manner. This could be done by adding a description of these choices to the standard itself, comparable with the way this is done in the Design specification for the structure and content for the revisions of ISO 9001:1994, ISO 9002: 1994, ISO 9003:1994 (ISO, 1995c). FSD offers opportunities to extensively improve the process of creating standards so that they greatly resemble each other and are more compatible with company practice. By their nature, these standards are very complicated to develop compared to other, mostly technical standards. Therefore, it is plausible that FSD can be used in preparing other standards. However, as there are many prerequisites to fulfil for successful use of the method, the threshold is high. Therefore, application should only be considered in areas where there is a great need for better standards. The area of management systems is such an area.
16
Heida et al. (1997), for instance, offer such elucidation.
11
STANDARDIZATION IN SERVICE SECTORS1
11.1 Introduction This chapter discusses the applicability of formal standardization in service sectors. Traditionally, standardization has mainly been used in technical environments. Some service sectors also have a tradition of standardization, for instance, financial services (Darsie, 1990), and services in the area of libraries and documentation (Crawford, 1991). Other service sectors have just started using standardization, for instance, removal services (Canioni, 1996) and maintenance (Enjeux, 1996a). In general, there is an increasing use of standardization in service sectors. Standards for services at the national level include, for instance, classification of hotels (Australia), codes of practice for banks (United Kingdom), and information cards for health care services (USA) (ISO Bulletin, 1995a). Standardization has received little attention in the service literature. Gustavson (1997) suggests this may be due to the technocratic paradigm associated with standardization. Such matters have been discussed by, among others, Giddens (1984), Gouldner (1954), and Weber (1964). Problems related to formalization may have led to a reluctance to pay much attention to standardization. The simple fact, however, that, in practice, the use of standardization emerges, means it should be a topic in services research. Problems expected to be related to standardization should be an extra stimulus to investigate this phenomenon. Schwenner (1992) points to a tendency in services towards decreasing labour intensity, decreasing direct consumer interaction, and decreasing customization. This may partly explain the general growth in standardization. This growth is related to the “industrialization” of services (Normann 1991, p. 9) that leads to service management systems (ibid., pp. 37-58) including, for instance, reproducibility of service systems (ibid., p. 45), and an emphasis on quality and productivity (ibid. pp. 141-152). Berry, Zeithaml and Parasuraman (1992) present five imperatives for improving service quality. Their first imperative concerns defining the service role, for which standards are necessary. However, they define standards as customer expectations stated in a way that is meaningful to employees. Gustavson (1997) concludes that they stick to the service paradigm and its assumption that services are different from products.
1
An earlier version of this chapter was presented at the Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research “Building the Future with Standardization,” 20-23 May 1997, at the University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (De Vries, 1997e). This chapter has been updated to July 1998. A short version has been published in DIN-Mitteilungen (De Vries, 1998d).
196 FSOs are increasingly paying attention to services standardization (Enjeux, 1995; Hartlieb & Behrens, 1996; Henry, 1996; Hiok Hoong, 1997, p. 27; Schwamm, 1996), but scientific service literature, till now, has ignored this development. This chapter fills this gap. It is based on an NNI research project directed at determining the need, if any, for additional formal services standardization in the Netherlands (De Vries & Schipper, 1997). This chapter describes the methodology used and some of the results.
11.2 Outline of the methodology used As service sectors cover more than 50% of Dutch business activities, it was impossible to investigate the role of standardization in all of them. To be able to draw as many conclusions as possible, the following approach was chosen: 1 A model was developed which classifies possible standards in service sectors (11.3). 2 Characteristics of service sectors in which a need for standardization may be expected were listed (11.4). 3 Some service sectors to be further investigated were identified, using a survey of current international, European, French and Dutch formal standardization initiatives; and the survey of Dutch service sectors published by Statistics Netherlands (11.5, 11.6). 4 Information on standardization practice and needs in these sectors were obtained and determined using interviews and literature (11.7). 5 The general approach and sector results were combined to draw general conclusions (11.8).
11.3 Model to classify service sector standards In conformity with the definition of standardization (Chapter 8), standards always concern entities or relations between entities, so in a systematic approach to standards in service sectors it is necessary to determine the entities involved and their mutual relations. To be able to do this, services should be defined. The following service definition was chosen: A service is an activity or series of activities of more or less intangible nature that normally, but not necessarily, takes place in interactions between the customer and service employees and/or physical resources or goods and/or systems of the service provider, which are provided as solutions to customer problems. (Grönroos, 1990, p. 27) Typical of services is the interaction between supplier and customer. These two, therefore, are the main entities. It can be useful, moreover, to distinguish, on the supply side, between the organization (the service company as a whole), and its service employees. Both can be regarded as entities. The service process can likewise be regarded as an entity. The service result has to be distinguished from this - it will
197 be considered to be another entity, though of course closely related to the process. Because of the co-producing function of customers, their satisfaction during the service delivery is a service result already; in show business, for instance, service delivery and service result occur, to a large extent, simultaneously. For the sake of standardization, however, we distinguish between the delivery and the (final) result. Relations between entities on the supply side and the customer side concern communication. Based on such considerations, the following listing was made. To illustrate this, it is applied to hair care service: Entity or relation between entities 1 Service organization. 2 Service employee. 3 Service delivery (those supplier activities necessary to provide the service). 4 Service result (the result generated by activities at the interface between supplier and customer and by internal supplier activities to meet customer needs). 5 Physical object supporting the service delivery. 6 Workroom. 7 Additional elements to the core service.2 8 Communication between customer and service organization / service employee. 9 Communication within the service organization or between this organization and its suppliers. Table 11.1. Services entities model.
Example: hair care service Hair-dressing company. Hairdresser. Modelling (cutting, washing, trimming, dyeing, fixing, etc.). Hairstyle (customer satisfaction during service delivery thanks to, for instance, communication between hairdresser and customer, is a service result too, but is of less interest from the point of view of standardization). I.e., pair of scissors. Hairdressing salon. Waiting facilities, sale of hair care products. Giving advice, appointments, payment. Appointment planning.
Standards can be divided into (see Subsection 9.2.3): 1 requiring standards, setting requirements to entities or relations between entities. These can be performance standards, setting performance criteria without specifying how these should be met, and standards that describe solutions. 2 measurement standards, which describe methods to check whether criteria set in requiring standards are met. Thus the following standards may apply to service sectors (see Table 11.2). An inexhaustive list of examples from the road transport sector is added in the right columns.3 During the project this classification appeared to be appropriate to classify existing standards in service sectors and to trace the need for standards in any sector.4
2
These, again, can be distinguished in service delivery and service results. Bad performance of European road carriers caused their customers to lose confidence. Standards can be a means to restore confidence (Biencourt, 1996). 4 At that moment, the only available classification of standards for services was the one of Henry (1996a). He distinguishes standards for terminology (8.1 and 9.1 in the above classification), offer (8.1), contract (8.1), methods for measurement (3.2, 4.2), description of the professionality of a service organization (1.1), service characteristics and performance requirements (3.1. and 4.1, being distinguished insufficiently), guidelines for ISO 9000 application (1.1), and personnel abilities (2.1). So it can be concluded that his classification is inexhaustive. 3
198
Entity or relation between entities
Standards may concern
1 Service organization.
1.1 Requirements.
2 Service employee. 3 Service delivery. 4 Service result. 5 Physical objects supporting service delivery.
1.2 Measurements. 2.1 Requirement. 2.2 Measurements. 3.1 Requirements. 3.2 Measurements. 4.1 Requirements. 4.2 Measurements. 5.1 Requirements.
Road transport example: entities or relations between entities include: Road transport company.
Driver. Driving.
Goods transport. Truck / freight container.
5.2 Measurements.
6 Workroom. 7 Additional elements to the core service.
6.1 Requirements. 6.2 Measurements. 7.1 Requirements.
Garage. Repackaging activities / guarantee.
7.2 Measurements. 8 Communication 8.1 Requirements. Communication between between truck customer and driver and service customer. organization. 8.2 Measurements. 9 Communication 9.1 Requirements. Tracking and within the tracing the truck service / EDI. organization or 9.2 Measurements. between this organization and its suppliers. Table 11.2. Services standards model and road transport example.
5
Road transport standards may concern, among others: (- = no standards)
Management system requirements, for instance, ISO 9001. Management system audit. Driving ability. Driving test. Regulations governing driving hours / safety requirements. Tachograph / safety audit. Just-in-time delivery. Delivery time registration. Legal and voluntary road vehicle requirements / freight container sizes. Road vehicle supplier’s declaration of conformity to requirements / casting a glance at conformity to standard sizes. OHS requirements for garages. OHS audits. Requirements for repackaging / terms of guarantee. Spot checks / -. Code of behaviour / standard trade documents / EDI messages. ‘Mystery shopper’5 / - / -. Vehicle tracking and tracing system specifications / EDI messages. - / -.
Mystery shopper = person who “under cover” mingles with the customers, on behalf of the supplier, to judge the services offered.
199
11.4 Assumptions about service sectors with expected need for standardization To select service sectors in which a need for standardization may be expected, general theory on service marketing and service quality (Van der Aa & Elfring, 1996; Grönroos, 1990; Lovelock, 1996; Viehoff, 1992) was combined with general knowledge of the researchers about standards and standardization6 and specific literature about standardization in service sectors (CEN, 1996c; Enjeux, 1995; Hartlieb & Behrens, 1996; ISO Bulletin, 1995b; Consensus, 1996). As a result, the following propositions were formulated: 1 Commercial services will show more need for standardization than noncommercial ones. Standardization, according to its definition, is directed at benefits for the parties involved, balancing their needs. Such conscious balancing is to be expected more in a commercial than in a non-commercial environment. This does not, however, exclude standardization in non- or less commercial settings. The health care sector, for instance, shows a lot of standardization, related to liability issues. 2 Sectors offering business services will show more need for standardization than sectors offering consumer services. Standards that set criteria for the service organization (for instance, the ISO 9000 series of standards for quality management) or for the service employee will be asked more frequently by companies than by consumers, because most consumers lack the knowledge to do so, and consumer organizations do not have enough resources to pay much attention to standardization (see Subsection 2.2.5). Lack of knowledge also influences the expressed need for standards for the service delivery and service result, but here the effect will sometimes be the opposite: because of the lack of knowledge, service providers can use standards to make clear which service they offer and how they offer it. But often, again, business clients will ask for more standards than individual consumers. In home cleaning services, for instance, it is not common to make use of available standards, while standards are used more widely in office cleaning. Concerning standards for physical objects supporting the service delivery, standards for workrooms, standards for additional service elements, and standards for communication (for instance, for ICT facilities) similar arguments apply. Hence, in business markets, more standards will generally be needed than in consumer markets. For formal standardization, for which the involvement of several interested parties is essential, there is the problem of involving consumers, see 2.2.5. 3 The more ICT used in the communication between service provider and customer, the lower the need for specific communication standards. Standard protocols for communication between service provider and customer can contribute to the service quality and efficiency. No further special communication standards are needed, except natural language and “standards of behaviour.” 6
Concise text in the synopsis of lectures in standardization at the Rotterdam School of Management (Simons & De Vries, 1996).
200 When, however, provider and customer are in different locations there will often be communication using electronic media, for which standards are indispensable to enable sender and receiver to understand each other. 4 Service sectors operating at the international level will show more need for standardization than service sectors operating at national level. In most international services, service provider and customer will only meet, for instance, to discuss their business or for on-site verification purposes. In some international service sectors, their meetings are inherent: when the customer visits the service provider (tourism), when the service provider visits the customer (international consultancy), or when the service itself crosses borders (passenger or freight transport). In these areas, standards will be needed for good communication. In tele-services, standards for the service delivery itself will also be necessary. The World Trade Organization (WTO) agreed in its Uruguay Round of trade negotiations to extend the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to the area of cross-border services. This General Agreement of Trade in Services (GATS - World Trade Organization, 1994) stimulates standards development at international level (Kakabadse, 1995). 5 Public services will show more need for standardization than private ones. European standards for public transport services have been developed, for instance, on payment systems (Tourneur, 1996). Some of these relate to European legislation directed at achieving a single European market for investments in public sectors (European Communities - Commission, 1990). This demonstrates that public interests can give rise to extra need for standards. 6 The more tailor-made the service, the lower the need for standardization. Tailor-made services can, but need not necessarily, make use of standards. These include standards of behaviour and standard protocols at the interface between service employee and customer (“front-office”), and all kinds of standards “backoffice.” When the services themselves are standardized, however, additional standardization of service delivery and service result applies. McDonalds is a well-known example of this (Ritzer, 1998). 7 The more back-office, the more possibilities for standardization. Often, the activities at the interface between service employee and customer need to be performed again and again for each new customer. In that case, the economic advantages of standardization at the front-office are limited to those of standard protocols, standards of behaviour, and standard techniques. Back-office, the cheapest way to perform activities is often by doing it in a similar way each time, making use of standards.
201 8 Service sectors using workrooms may need additional standards providing criteria for these rooms. General ergonomic standards for offices specifying, for instance, minimum daylight access, and hygiene standards for hospitals are examples of workroom standards. 9 Services in which products are involved may need additional standards setting requirements for these products. Product standards can be expected to be of more importance when products play a more dominant role in the service. In the following listing the extent to which products are involved in service is diminishing: - service directly related to products sold (installation, after-sales services); - rental services (cars, equipment); - services related to customer goods and having a permanent effect on these goods (repairing); - services related to customer goods and having a temporary effect on these goods (cleaning, maintenance); - services related to customer goods and (hopefully) having no effect on these goods (goods transport); - services directed at people making use of goods (passenger transport: car; restaurant: food); - services for which formal means of communication are dominant (insurance, accountancy, legal advice); - services without goods (interim management, social worker, guide). 10 Service sectors facing strong temporal fluctuations in customer demand may need additional standards for reservation systems. Goods can be stored, but services cannot. The cheapest way to provide services, therefore, is performing them nonstop, subsequently for different customers. The more customer demand fluctuates in time, the more difficult this is. In case of foreseeable fluctuations this problem can at least be partly solved by making use of a reservation system. Often, standards will be necessary for such a system. Examples: tourist accommodation, flight reservation. In case of fluctuations that cannot be influenced, this is not possible. Example: fire brigade. The only form of standardization, then, concerns availability prognostications (standardized calculations). According to Healy (ISO Bulletin, 1995a, p. 21) the main commercial advantages of standardization in service industries are technical interchangeability, demonstrating compliance with regulations, and improved consumer confidence. Combining these with the main reasons for standardization in product sectors (as described by Simons and De Vries (1997, pp. 5-6)) the following applies to service sectors: 1 The greater the need to provide customers with adequate confidence that a duly identified service meets known requirements, the greater the need for standardization. Often, customer confidence can be based on the supplier’s declaration that service delivery and/or service results meet certain requirements laid down in standards.
202 Sometimes customers will appreciate a certificate issued by an independent party to provide them with adequate confidence.7 2 The greater the need for clear communication between service provider and customer, the greater the need for standardization. 3 The more legislation sets sector-specific criteria for a service sector or is expected to set such criteria, the more plausible it is that standardization can be an alternative to providing the necessary amount of order.8 Governments can stimulate the development of standards they refer to in legislation. Conversely, parties in the market may agree to develop and use standards to prevent authorities setting the rules. 4 The larger the number of customers, the more possibilities for economies of scale using standardization. The above can be summarized in the following scheme, which indicates service characteristics which reduce or increase the expected need for standardization. Expected need for standardization depending on a services classification Less need More need Non-commercial. Commercial. Consumer market. Business market. Less ICT in communication. More ICT in communication. National. International. Private. Public. Tailor-made service. Standard service. Less back-office. More back-office. Less relation to products. More relation to products. No specific workroom. Specific workroom. Less foreseeable fluctuations in customer More foreseeable fluctuations in customer demand. demand.
Table 11.3. Expected need for standardization depending on a service classification. Expected need for standardization depending on reasons for standardization Less need More need Less need to provide customers with adequate More need to provide customers with adequate confidence. confidence. Less need for clear communication between More need for clear communication between customer and supplier. customer and supplier. No sector-specific regulations apply. Sector-specific regulations apply or may apply in future. Small number of customers. Large number of customers.
Table 11.4. Expected need for standardization depending on reasons for standardization.
7
A comprehensive contribution on this topic is provided by ISO/IEC (1992a). Occasionally, an opposite mechanism can be observed: parties that are unwilling to develop a standard because they are afraid that authorities will refer to them. This applies in the area of standards for occupational health and safety management systems (see Subsection 4.2.2). 8
203
11.5 Survey of existing formal standardization initiatives France is the country with the largest number of formal standards in service areas, including housing services, boating services, professional training, funeral services, and maintenance. In the Netherlands formal standards have been developed for, among other things, daytime nursing, cleaning services, and landscape and forest protection. European service sector standards include standards for auditing, certification and accreditation, welding, maintenance, cleaning, transportation services, tourism, and postal services. CEN set up a working group on services that prepared a report on possible activities in services standardization (CEN, 1996c; Henry, 1996a). International standards include banking (Darsie, 1990), the area of libraries and documentation (Crawford, 1991), surveying (Østensen, 1995), quality management (Dale & Oakland, 1991), and environmental management (Heida et al., 1997). In 1998, ISO discussed additional activities, if any, in service sectors by means of international workshops (ISO Bulletin, 1998).
11.6 Selection of sectors for further research The criteria mentioned in Section 11.4 were used to estimate the possible need for standardization in all Dutch service sectors found in a listing by Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, 1993). Sectors in which a need for standardization might be expected were selected. Sectors already represented in NNI committees were excluded: all the sectors mentioned in Section 11.5, including those with European or international standardization, as NNI already has committees that provide national input. Extra attention was paid to sectors for which other NSOs, such as AFNOR, carry out activities: a need for standardization in another country may indicate a possible need in the Netherlands. The Consumentenbond (Dutch consumer association) was interviewed to trace sectors with consumer needs for standardization. A further criterion was the size of the sector: the bigger it is, the more reason for investigating it. Based on these criteria, the main sectors to be investigated were the insurance sector and accountancy / financial management. These sectors were unknown to NNI, and cause problems for consumers that can be solved by means of standardization. The insurance sector is very big. Accountancy is much smaller, but is related to the financial aspects of all companies. Because of a known possible need for standards, public education was added. The arguments that made formal standardization in cleaning services successful apply similarly to catering services. This is why this sector was chosen too. The last service sector chosen was that which lets houses, because of the large amount of money spent (by people that rent a house owned by a housing association). Each sector was investigated making use of interviews on
204 location, telephone interviews, literature,9 and discussions. Section 11.7 summarizes results per sector.
11.7 Results 11.7.1 Insurance business Standards related to legislation European legislation is completed by rules set by national “chambers of insurance.” These rules differ per country, so in practice there is no single European market without barriers to trade. This situation may be changed by setting essential requirements in European Directives and European (CEN) standards connected to these Directives that provide detailed interpretations of them.10 The only reason for such a development would be a political one - at least in the Netherlands the interviewed parties do not experience problems with the existing situation. At the national level, the insurance companies prefer as little legislation as possible. To prevent the government from setting legislation, however, they sometimes make agreements themselves, for instance, standard questions concerning AIDS. In addition, they set requirements to complement legislation, for example, to protect personal data, or, together with the government, they agree on a covenant. Standards for market transparency The main customer complaint about insurance business is the intransparency of the market: one can hardly compare the offers of different suppliers because each one presents them in a different way. That’s why, in the Netherlands, 80% of the customers make use of the services offered by an insurance advisor or broker: they assist in finding the insurance policies that best fit their situation. Standards for the “format” of the offer would make it easier for customers to find the policies themselves. This would benefit them, as it is doubtful whether advisers and brokers are independent: they may have a preference for a limited number of insurance companies, because of contracts they have with these companies, differences in the payment they get from different companies and/or telematics links with a limited number of insurance companies. Consumer organizations, therefore, would welcome standardization initiatives that create market transparency. Employers’ organizations, however, do not see a need for this. Moreover, an employers’ organization that has insurance companies among its members would get an internal conflict because insurance companies prefer the existing situation. Transparency in the market would give rise to price competition, which would lower their margins. The advisors and brokers would lose a part of their business, and will consequently also be unwilling to participate. As consumer 9
Because all the literature used is in the Dutch language, it is not mentioned here. A listing per investigated sector can be found in the research report (De Vries & Schipper 1997, pp. 115-118). Interviewed people are listed too (ibid., pp. 119-120). 10 As in the New Approach - see Subsection 2.2.5.
205 organizations do not have enough power to force the other, unwilling, parties to participate, this form of standardization is not feasible on a voluntary basis.
11.7.2 Accountancy / financial management Accountancy Standards to provide market transparency can also apply to accountancy. The employers’ organization that was interviewed, however, indicated that all parties are satisfied with the present situation, so that there is no need for such standards. An organization of smaller Dutch accountancy companies has developed a set of quality requirements for accountancy companies, to enable its members to present a quality image. The European Union sets basic legal requirements for accountancy. National accountants organizations add national requirements. A system of linking European standards to European legislation is possible here as well. Dutch parties, however, said that they prefer requirements on the national and the international level only, without a European level in-between. Financial management Standards for financial management systems are possible, comparable to those for quality management (the ISO 9000 series), environmental management (the ISO 14000 series) and occupational health and safety management. The parties interviewed, however, indicated that they do not need such standards. The main area of standardization in financial management is financial reporting. Several sets of requirements exist, both at the national, European, and world-wide level. Most important are the International Accounting Standards (IAS), developed by the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC). Participants in IASC are national accountancy organizations, in which, in most countries, only the accountancy business participates. It is profitable for them to have difficult standards so here is what happens: an average Dutch company that switches from the present Dutch standards to IASC will have to double the length of its annual financial report. In the Dutch national accountancy organization (NIVRA) customers are represented, who also participate in IASC. France is the only other country where customers are involved. At the moment, there is not enough support for formal standardization with involvement of all interested parties. A system of European standards related to European legislation is possible but not feasible, because it would mean that the European authorities should grant responsibilities to standardization committees in which both accountancy organizations and their customers would be represented, whereas so far the latter have hardly shown any willingness to get involved in such activities.
11.7.3 Public education
206
In Dutch public education the national government sets rules. There is, however, a tendency to give schools more freedom. Competition between schools is increasing. Both developments call for a “quality drive.” Therefore, criteria are necessary to be able to determine to which extent a school is “good.” Consensus standardization is hardly possible here, because scholars, parents, and teachers are not equally well organized. For teachers, continuous education is available. However, there appears to be a discrepancy between the need for refresher courses and the availability of these courses. Standards may be of help in the communication between customer and supplier: to provide formats that help the customers to make their needs explicit and to help the suppliers to describe what they have available in a standardized way so that the courses market will be more transparent. Other standards may provide quality criteria for suppliers. The Ministry responsible for education considers a feasibility study to examine the need for such communication and quality standards, taking into account the French experience with standards in the field of commercial education.
11.7.4 Catering Of the various forms of catering only “contract-catering” has been examined: the service of providing restorative services during an agreed period performed by a professional catering company. In the Netherlands 14 big companies together have a 95% market share. They are united in the Veneca (Association of Dutch Catering Organizations). Veneca developed a set of quality criteria for catering companies. These criteria include the ISO 9002 quality assurance requirements, HACCP (Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points), and environmental, financial and health requirements. Meeting the criteria makes it possible to obtain a certificate, which will be obligatory for Veneca-members. So in this sector standardization combined with certification is used for “quality-companies” to distinguish themselves from other suppliers. At the issue of quality this creates transparency, but for the rest the catering companies prefer intransparency, so that their customers can hardly compare offers. That’s why, as in the assurance market, there are (other) companies that offer advice in choosing a catering company.
11.7.5 Housing associations Housing associations primarily offer the use of housing accommodation and its maintenance. Until recently, the Dutch government set detailed requirements for these associations, their service, and the houses. They have now been given more freedom. Competition between housing associations is growing. This causes them to distinguish themselves by means of “quality” from other housing associations and from private letting offices and real-estate agents. Therefore, quality criteria are necessary, including criteria describing the services offered. The two national umbrella organizations of housing associations, therefore, are developing an assessment standard for housing associations. This standard is intended to form the
207 basis for certification of housing associations. Again, standardization is a one-sided action of suppliers.
11.8
Conclusions from NNI’s research project
The data from NNI’s research project suggests the following conclusions: 1 Both formal and de facto standardization in service sectors are growing at the national, European and international level. 2 Most standardization projects are initiated by suppliers. 3 The researchers could use standards classification presented in Section 11.3 to describe existing standards and standardization initiatives in any service sector and to identify the need for possible new standards in these sectors. 4 When existing service sector standards are analyzed using this classification, they often seem to lack a clear structure. This applies both to FSO standards and to standards developed by other organizations. 5 The assumptions about service sectors with expected need for standardization appeared to be only partly true. Other aspects, including non-rational ones, may also strongly influence decisions to use standardization. Tables 11.3 and 11.4 can, however, serve as check-lists when determining the possible need for standardization. 6 In all Dutch sectors where, using Tables 11.3 and 11.4, a need for standardization was expected, standardization initiatives were already in place that used other channels than the NSO. 7 Suppliers initiating standardization mostly do this to distinguish themselves from other suppliers as being “good” or “better than.” The standards mostly concern the service organization, the service employee, the service delivery and/or the service result. These standards are often developed to provide criteria to be used in certification.11 8 Governmental requirements for services also mostly concern the service organization, the service employee, the service delivery and/or the service result. Sometimes the sector is allowed to add additional specifications to the overall legal requirements. Some sectors set standards to avoid regulation by authorities.
11
Though not investigated, it seems plausible that the fact that AFNOR is leading in the number of initiatives for services standardization, is related to the fact that AFNOR performs both standardization and certification activities (ISO Bulletin, 1998, p. 19; see Section 7.6). For many of the interviewed people the possibilities of NNI in the area of services were unknown, mostly NNI was associated with technical standards only.
208 9 Customers are hardly involved in services standardization. Often, business customers are less interested than the researchers expected. Individual consumers depend on consumer organizations, but these mostly lack the power and/or ability to participate. Service suppliers prefer to set their own standards. In this situation, formal standardization, for which the involvement of all interested parties is required, is usually out of the question, unless authorities force such standardization. 10 In many service sectors, it is possible to lay down essential requirements in (European or national) legislation, and detailed requirements in standards. 11 In general, Dutch companies prefer to have standardization at the international level only and, when necessary, also at the national level, but without a European level in-between. 12 Standardization can provide customers with more market transparency. This will cause more price competition, lowering the profit margin of service providers. This is why they are not willing to participate in such standardization. In some sectors, for instance, the owner-occupied property market and tourism, market transparency is created by de facto standards combined with information technology, for instance, Internet applications.
11.9 Epilogue The NNI project shows that, in defining standards, customers are usually not involved and it is doubtful whether standards reflect their expectations.12 It should be investigated whether this also applies to other countries - as far as data from other countries were found they did not contradict the Dutch findings. In setting technical standards, customers are often more involved. Standards, indeed, seem to be in line with Levitts’ (1972) technocratic paradigm. In the four private service sectors investigated, there appeared to be a lot of governmental involvement. In all sectors, this offers opportunities for a system of setting essential requirements in legislation, and additional detailed requirements in standards. Especially in these areas, formal standardization can be the most appropriate way because it guarantees the (European or national) government that all interested parties can participate, and the decision-making process is transparent, making use of established procedures including consensus. Future research projects in services standardization, if any, might, therefore, start with the governmental, making an inventory of legislation and other governmental rules affecting service sectors. It can then be determined for each “rule-sectorcombination” whether standardization related to global regulation may apply and provide improvements for both government and market parties. This can then be related to governmental policies on deregulation making use of standardization, in the European Union (Skea, 1995; Abecassis, 1995, 29-35) and in several countries 12
Thus, the customer-directed standardization definition proposed by Berry, Zeithaml, and Parasuraman (1992) (see Section 11.1) does not apply.
209 such as France (Schultz, 1997), Germany (Feldhaus, 1997), and the USA (Termaat, 1997 p. 4). Particularly in countries that seek forms of deregulation, the possibilities for standardization could be investigated. The choice of the intermediate “platform” for standardization (FSO, branch organization, consortium, or consultancy) can only partly be elucidated rationally. Coincidental contacts seem to play an important role. The model presented in Section 11.3 appears to reach beyond the area of standardization. After the research project was finished, the model was used, for example, in a quality management project on professional soccer (De Vries & Meesters, 1997), in an evaluation of standards for certification and accreditation (De Vries, 1998c), in the systematic evaluation of possibilities for innovation in industrial wholesale business (Wintraaken, 1997, pp. 10-17, 22-23, 60, 132-133), and in this study (Chapters 5 and 6). There are no reasons why this model should not also be applicable in other countries. It thus appears that a systematic approach to standardization opens the floor to discussions on whether to formalize or to leave room for all possible options. Service practice will benefit most from a good balance.
12
MECHANISMS IN THE SPREAD OF STANDARDS1
12.1 Introduction An essential element in the definition of standardization (Chapter 8) is the intention and expectation that standards will be repeatedly or continuously used, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant. This chapter lists mechanisms that can be used to assess a claim of expected use (compare Subsection 8.4.6, B). Insight into these mechanisms is valuable when considering whether or not a standardization project is feasible, and which SDO would be best equipped for such a project. As standardization is a cultural phenomenon, liable to human fancies, not everything is predictable. However, some patterns can be observed that often occur. Several of the mechanisms listed in this chapter have been described in the literature. Many observations state the obvious. However, practice often ignores these mechanisms, so listing them can contribute to a better understanding of standardization and, therefore, improvements in its practical application. The listing of mechanisms does not pretend to be complete,2 and it is too early to describe the “laws” behind. Knowledge of some of the mechanisms is necessary to be able to describe others. The chosen sequence serves this purpose.
12.2 Installed base, conversion, lock-in Standards provide solutions for matching problems. Once such solutions have been implemented in company practice, implementing other solutions is only possible at additional expense: conversion costs. Economists call the number of users the installed base (Hesser and Kleinemeyer, 1996, p. 23). Three characteristic situations may apply: 1 The installed base consists of one solution, commonly used. Examples: QWERTY keyboard, designation of chemicals in the periodic table, specification of analogue audio cassettes. 2 The installed base consists of a limited number of sets of different solutions. Examples: metric or inch paper sizes, V2000, Betamax or VHS video systems,3 international versus American and East European standards regarding geometric tolerances. 3 The installed base consisting of a large number of different isolated solutions. Examples: geographic distance measurement from 200 years ago, use of function keys as shortcuts in software operations, sizes of cardboard boxes for food articles. Users have invested money or effort in the installed base. Conversion to a new standard requires a new investment. Standardization can only be successful when the benefits of implementing the new standard exceed the costs of conversion. 1
This chapter has been updated to April 1998. However, in the literature, no other mechanisms have been found. 3 Meanwhile, VHS has become the common standard. 2
212 Conversion costs include the costs of human adaptation. For instance, costs of conversion from QWERTY to an easier keyboard would require expensive courses for typists to learn the new system. Once the installed base has been created, users tend to stick to a standard. This is called lock-in (Arthur, 1988): the users are locked into the installed base, though, after some time, the technology may become old-fashioned or inferior. Reasons for preferring lock-in are reduction of uncertainty, and increasing returns (Cowan, 1991, p. 807).4
12.3 Backwards, forwards and sideways compatibility When implementations of an old standard also meet the criteria set in the subsequent standard, this new standard is backwards compatible to the preceding one. In this case, there are no conversion costs for the old standard users. If the implementations have to be totally replaced by new ones, costs of conversion are maximal. Partly backwards compatibility also occurs: in that case, a standard’s implementations have to be modified to meet the new criteria. Forwards compatibility means constructing a standard in such a way that future successors will be backwards compatible to it. Of course this is more difficult to do. When, in 1982, Philips negotiated with Japanese companies about the specifications of the Compact Disc, they already knew that the CD should be forwards compatible to the CD ROM and CD Interactive that, at that moment, were not yet known to the Japanese (Simons & De Vries, 1997, p. 8). Implementations of ISO 9000 quality management standards and ISO 14000 environmental management standards overlap. Therefore, these standards should be sideways compatible to each other. If not, combined implementation is impossible, or only possible at additional cost. The case in Chapter 10 describes how such sideways compatibility can be achieved. In, for instance, information and communication technology, sideways compatibility can sometimes be realized ex post by means of converter and gateway technologies (David, 1995, p. 26).
4
According to Cowan (1991, p. 810), standardization due to market forces, compared to standardization by authorities, enhances the danger of locking into inferior technologies. However, the opposite may also apply, as is demonstrated by the SECAM television system that was enforced by French authorities.
213
12.4 Dominant design, bandwagon A dominant design is: the distinctive way of providing a generic service or function that has achieved and maintained the highest level of market acceptance for a significant amount of time. Lee et al. (1995, p. 6) ‘Design’ refers to the supply side, ‘dominant’ to the demand side. Once established, a dominant design - reduces confusion; - permits economies of scale for producers; - reduces risks inherent to competing systems; - may cause a shift in competition from design to price; - may cause shake-out of suppliers; - influences entry barriers; - may facilitate co-operative behaviour of oligopolists (ibid., pp. 4-5). Users determine a dominant design’s emergence. Once a limited number of them have chosen to implement a certain solution to a matching problems, others tend to choose the same solutions. They bandwagon the early adopters’ choice. The reasons for bandwagoning are, in logic order (each reason presupposes the foregoing): 1 availability of the solution In the case of “isolated” matching problems, the only reason for bandwagoning is the availability of this solution. Bandwagoning prevents reinventing the wheel. For instance, when designing forms to be used within the company only, one can profit from examples designed elsewhere (Van Bruggen et al., pp. 75-76). 2 informational increasing returns Often a solution that is more adopted enjoys the advantage of being better known. This stimulates its spread (Arthur, 1988, p. 68). 3 avoiding uncertainty An already implemented solution has proven to be feasible. Most users dislike experimentation (Cowan, 1991, p. 811; Cowan, 1992, pp. 285-291) and, therefore, bandwagon the early adopters’ choice. This reason for bandwagoning often applies to historical standardization. The more uncertainty, the more reasons for locking in (Cowan, 1992, p. 290). This especially applies to technologies with high fixed costs (due to R&D and expenditures and capital intensive production), and relatively low variable costs, as in the Information Technology and pharmaceutical sectors (Cowan, 1992, p 292). 4 economies of scale In non-isolated matching problems there is an advantage in using the same solutions due to economies of scale. Standardization of nuts and bolts at the national level started, circa 1920, because of this. It was cheaper to develop
214 national standards than to develop company standards in each company separately. Doubling output can lower the average cost by about 20% (Cowan, 1992, p. 294). 5 improved functionality In the case of nuts and bolts, in later years the argument of interchangeability became important too. Nowadays, cost advantages in producing or ordering nuts and bolts are secondary to the advantages of supplier-independence, general availability, standard designation, and ease in production and maintenance. Therefore, the functionality related to the installed base of nuts and bolts causes new users to bandwagon. Standardization promotes an efficient functioning when changing from one system to another comparable system, thus preventing damage, inconveniences, and expenses for lack of routine (Bouma & Winter, 1982, p. 7). 6 essential functionality In the case of compatibility, there is a functional need for bandwagoning: without sticking to the specifications used by another actor, interoperatability is not possible, or only possible by adding a “converter.” Such essential functionality applies, for instance, to combinations of photo cameras and films, and is the main reason that replacement of QWERTY is unlikely. 7 network externalities With horizontal compatibility, the more users hold the specifications, the more functional profit individual users have from their investments.5 In a telephone system with n users, for example, the number of possible connections for one user is n-1, the total number of connections is n(n-1). So the total functionality of the system is proportional to the number of users raised to the square. The more overall functionality, the more actors will be willing to bandwagon the system. Moreover, the entrance of each new user is a profit for all current users, because, per user, the system’s functionality is improved. This applies, for instance, to telephone systems, and to text processing software. Apart from such direct network effects, indirect network effects can apply. The value of, for instance, a video system increases with the availability of pre-recorded video tapes. The more users of the video system, the more different tapes will be available and the lower their price. Thus, without improved system functionality for the individual users, they have even more profit when the number of users grows: indirect network effects (Nicklas, 1997, p. 195). Market processes can become bandwagons, moving groups of people in directions that they would not, as individuals, choose to go. They are locked in through historical accident. Decentralized decision-making can result in too much standardization, of the wrong standards, arrived at too soon (David, 1995b, p. 25), resulting in:
5
Katz and Shapiro (1985) offer a basic contribution to this issue.
215 - selection of a technological system that is inferior to one that is either available or would otherwise have become available; - hindering a subsequent round of technological improvements; - stranding or orphaning of a substantial body of users who had adopted products that failed to become standard, and consequently ceased to be supported and further improved (ibid., pp. 25-26).6 From a case of numerically controlled machine tools in automated batch manufacturing, Link and Tassey (1987) conclude that some technologies need standardization to get enough critical mass. Without standardization they would not diffuse. Therefore, it can be profitable for a company to have competitors that offer clone products, using the innovator’s technology, since it enhances the user-quality of the company’s products, due to network externalities (Conner, 1994, pp. 180-181).7 In the case of network externalities, the lock-in effect is extra strong. Conversion to a new, better, technology is only profitable when a large number of actors do the same, so nobody dares to change since he does not know whether others will follow.
12.5 First agent, free rider and dominant agent Because of the bandwagon effect, the first standard available has an advantage to later, competing standards, if any. The first agent is the first actor to set a standard for a certain topic. This term is mostly used in describing de facto standardization. However, it also applies to formal standardization: - By being the first to have a national standard on environmental management, BSI could have a major influence on the international standards in this field (Heida et al., 1997, p. 20). - One of the reasons for failure of Systems Software Interface (SSI) was that it was proposed two months after a competing standard, POSIX, had been proposed (Takahashi & Tojo, pp, 525-529, 534). The first agent to set a standard will not always be the winner in terms of profit. In spite of having income from early adopters, and advantages in terms of goodwill and brand loyalty, other early entrants using the same standard can free-ride on the first mover’s investment in infrastructure and training (Landis Gabel, 1994, p. 144). In a market with great uncertainty, the second mover can learn from the first mover’s mistakes and gain a competitive advantage by improving product quality or by positioning its offerings closer to the customer’s preferences (Nicklas, 1997, p. 200). From a case about microprocessor standards, Swann (1987, p. 260) also mentions the attractiveness for the new entrant to produce a second-source copy of an industry standard rather than introduce his own product. The profits for the party that has introduced the standard also depend on its copyright position. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to give free licences to gain enough customer confidence in a new product so that they are willing to buy it. Philips’ compact cassette is an example of this. Particularly in the case of strong network externalities, the firm faces the choice 6 7
For example, Apple Macintosh computers. Conner gives conditions under which encouraging a clone may pay.
216 between encouraging imitation of the design or keeping its hold on this design (Lee et al., 1995, p. 8). Avoiding free-riding in NSO standardization - NNI example Participants in NNI’s standardization committees invest time and money. Non-participants, however, can also influence the outcome of the standardization process: they can give comments on draft standards (see Subsection 3.2.2) and, if they disagree with the TC’s decision on their comments, they can lodge an appeal with the responsible Sector Board. To prevent such freeriding, NNI’s Building and Civil Engineering Department made additional rules. Parties that were invited to participate but turned down the invitation have to pay for the opportunity to give comments. This, of couse, does not guarantee that their wishes will be honoured. NNI excludes them from the possibility of appeal, unless the government intends to refer to the standard in legislation.8 (Sources: Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1997, p. 13; NNI-Bouw, 1996, pp. 25-26)
It is not a law of nature that first agents dominate the game of competing standards. Often several standards can co-exist, each of them having a part of the market. In case of network externalities, however, it is more probable that one standard will win, because that is the most profitable situation from a users point of view, not counting the drawbacks from monopolistic situations. Of crucial importance for the success of standards in such situations, however, is not their current rate of use, but the expectation of their future use. In such a situation a standard proposed by a powerful party, having little or no current market share, may push away an existing standard that has a considerable market share. The shift from WordPerfect to Word in text processing is an example of this. The expectation that Word will win is related to the shift from MS DOS to Windows. Moreover, Word has additional functionality, and is partly backwards compatible to WordPerfect. A powerful party like Microsoft can be called a dominant agent. Its dominance may be due to, for instance, market share (Braunstein & White, 1985), power image, or status.9 Within standardization committees, large firms are dominant agents and other participants are more likely to be successful in coalition with them (Weiss & Sirbu, 1990, p. 128). Dominance related to status may apply to FSOs:
8
It is debatable whether these rules are not on bad terms with clause 6.1.2 of NNI’s Huishoudelijk reglement [Rules and Regulations] (NNI, 1994, p. 15). 9 In the case described by Koehorst, De Vries, and Wubben (1999) on the introduction of a standard crate, the initiator was a dominant agent: the retailer with the largest market share. Others had to follow. Though all retailers experienced advantages in terms of efficiency and costs, the relative competitive position shifted in favour of the biggest party, being the initiator (Belleflamme, 1997, p. 12). So the small companies had a competitive disadvantage. Despite this, they decided to bandwagon.
217 FSOs as dominant agent - a nuts and bolts example Until recently, hexagon nuts and bolts in the Netherlands met the specifications set in two German standards: DIN 931 and DIN 934. These have been replaced by international standards: ISO 4032 Hexagon nuts, style 1 - Product grades A and B (ISO, 1986) and ISO 4014 Hexagon head bolts Product grades A and B (ISO, 1988). In 1991, these standards were adopted as European standards (EN-ISO 4032 and EN-ISO 4014) and, therefore, had to be implemented in the national standards systems of, among others, Germany and the Netherlands (DIN-EN-ISO 4032 and DIN-EN-ISO 4014; NEN-EN-ISO 4032 and NEN-EN-ISO 4014). The main difference between the old and the new standards concerns the width across flats. Use of these standards is voluntary,10 so companies can continue using the old ones. In practice, some users have switched to the new nuts and bolts whereas others stick to the old ones. Most suppliers offer both variants. Some of them sell the new ones at a lower price, others do the opposite. It is expected that a total conversion of the nuts and bolts market to the new standards will take some ten years.11 (Source: personal communication of Mr. J. Landré, standardization consultant NNI)
The dominant status of international standards over national ones is also addressed in Subsection 3.2.5.
12.6 Competing standards, gateway technologies When competing standards differ in the advantages they generate for different categories of users, each of them may get their own installed base and subsequent lock-in effects, and bandwagoning may prevent one of them from winning (Arthur, 1988, pp. 69-73). In a market with network externalities and competing compatibility standards, the preferred solution is an adapter that enables conversion from an implementation of one standard to an implementation of the other standard, assuming that costs of an adapter are not too high (Baake & Boom, 1997), or a joint modification (Cowan, 1992, p. 281). This increases the functionality of the system for customers. For suppliers it enhances the chance that the technology, as such, gets enough customer confidence to obtain the critical mass necessary for a break-through. Such gateway technologies generate ex post compatibility (Nicklas, 1997, p. 197). Examples are PAL/SECAM/NTSC multistandard TVs and VCRs (Landis Gabel, 1994, p.142). Competing standards may cause market and buyer uncertainty.12 On the other hand, an early choice of one standard can build confidence to invest in a new technology. The early setting of an American standard for colour television is, on the one hand, the reason that in the USA the colours are prone to deterioration in transmission through the ether. On the other hand, it has strengthened the leading role of the US in producing programmes and films and provided the public with the technology at an
10
There is one exception: the European Directive on Pressure Equipment (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 1997) refers to these standards. 11 Ten years from 1998. In 1993, DIN expected a transition period of five years (Vogel, Ed., 1993, p. 7-77). 12 This has been argued by Lichard (1997) in a case about IBM’s OS/2 standard for operating systems. OS/2 competed with the Windows 95 standard and reinforced the loss of market share of IBM’s own DOS standard.
218 early stage (Overkleeft & Groosman, 1987, p. 113), even though it took another ten years for the real breakthrough (Farrell & Shapiro, 1992, p. 54).
12.7 Timing Most standardization is concurrent to technology development, or retrospective by providing order ex post. Anticipatory standardization provides order ex ante and especially applies: - to set basic standards that provide a framework to group future standardization. The OSI reference model (see Subsection 9.2.3 and Cargill, 1997) is the best known example of this; - to lay down solutions for matching problems so that different interrelated entities are able to function together. Examples include ISDN and telefax (Cowan, 1992, p. 297); - to set performance criteria, that at the moment cannot be met, but that stimulate innovations to meet them. In the Netherlands, covenants between employers organizations and the government to improve environmental performance are examples of this. Government and manufacturers of aerosol cans, for instance, may agree to stop, within a certain period, using propellants that may disturb the ozone layer.
12.8 Modularization, layer structures From the definition of standardization it can be concluded that all standards concern systems of interrelated entities. In case of horizontal compatibility all entities can, but need not necessarily, be of the same kind. Mostly the entity system consists of different kinds of interrelated entities. Entities or combinations of entities can be regarded as modules in the entity system. Standards specify aspects of modules or specify interfaces between modules. Often several options apply per module of which one or more are chosen and laid down in the standard. In case of more than one option the standard specifies variants per module (Bouma & Winter, 1984, pp. 1011). The choice of these variants is a question of optimizing, seeking the right balance between variety (often because of differences in customer needs) and uniformity (because, generally, uniformity is cheaper than variety). Such preference ranges per module can be based, for instance, on an arithmetic range, a geometric series, or a series based on a demand curve (Simons & De Vries, 1997, pp. 61 - 70).13 Each module, again, can be divided into sub-modules, for which standardization is also possible, both for interfaces and for aspects per sub-module. In this way a standards’ architecture can be made corresponding to an entity architecture.14
13
Bongers (1980) and Meyer (1995) provide advanced studies on preference ranges in standardization. Short introductions on this topic can be found in Simons & De Vries (1997, pp. 6170) and Verman (1973, pp. 367-369). 14 Examples of such structures are offered by Clarke (1990) (software), ISO (1995b) (geometrical product specification), Ryan (1995) (information technology and telecommunication), and Shackleton & Ziegenfuss (1997) (welding).
219 Modularization - Example: standards for automotive LPG systems CEN/TC 286 Liquefied Petroleum Gas equipment and accessories WG 6 Automotive LPG systems structured its programme of work making use of a modular structure of an automotive LPG system. Three of its sub-groups are related to main modules: tanks, tank accessories & fittings, and components. The other sub-groups concern installational requirements and operational requirements. So the standards structure is intended to correspond to the technology structure. (Source: Van Cleef, 1996)
Standards freeze solutions for matching problems, till the “thaw” sets in and the standard is withdrawn, modified or replaced. The time after which withdrawal, modification or replacement is necessary depends on the development speed of the technologies concerned. Entities having a low speed of development can be called infrastructure, such as the rails in a railway system. Other entities show faster changes, for instance, trains making use of the rails. As long as the interface remains the same, both entities can be modified or replaced, for instance: introduction of concrete sleepers or replacement of steam trains by high-speed trains, whereas the interface, the distance and profile of the rails, remains unchanged. Entity-clusters having the same technology speed are sometimes called layers (Blankart & Knieps, 1993; Clarke, 1990; Simons & De Vries, 1997, p. 56, De Vries, 1991a, p. 3.7.2-11). Man in relation to technology can be regarded as a separate layer. The “speed of development” in this layer is not too high; elderly people, especially, have problems in “changing their mind” once they are accustomed to something such as the places of light switches in buildings, the way of detaching a car safety belt, or the use of keyboard function keys in a software application. When entering another house, driving another car, or using other software where different options have been chosen, people have to adapt mentally. The shift from analogue to digital telephone is a successful example of a technologic conversion that has not hampered people using it: users can telephone in the same way they were accustomed to, new functionality is additional to the old one but does not cause adaptations of the old way of operating. The shift from dial to key does not cause problems and is not absolutely necessary.15 Systematic standardization includes continuous matching of the infrastructure that is rather stable in time, components that change frequently, and actual and conceivable shifts in human behaviour. Standardization should smooth technological developments of infrastructure and components by making changes within layers without affecting other layers, including people designing, building, and using technology (Bouma, 1989b). A standards’ structure, therefore, should correspond to a layer structure and, when applicable, to modules within layers.16 A basic standard can describe the structure.17 Other standards set requirements or provide test methods for entities, groups of 15
The sequence of the keys, however, deviates from the one used at computer keyboards. This is a lost opportunity from an ergonomic point of view. 16 An example of this is offered by Hildebrandt (1995, pp. 34-35). 17 For example, ISO/IEC 7498-1 describes the Open Systems Interconnection model (ISO/IEC, 1994a), ISO/TR 14638 describes a standard’s structure for geometrical product specifications (ISO, 1995b), CEN/TC 230 N229 describes a modular approach for standards on determination of heavy metals in environmental samples (NNI, 1995b).
220 entities, or interfaces between entities. In a good structure a standard can be changed without affecting lots of other standards. In current standardization practice, packages of standards18 lack a clear conformity to a layer and modular entity structure, which causes problems in revising them: a revision of one standard often affects several others. When they are not revised in parallel, the standards package is not up to date. This, unfortunately, applies to most national, European and international packages of standards, and causes confusion for users. A standards’ structure can often be chosen in different ways. The most stable structure is that in which interface specifications can be kept unchanged over a long period. This can be reached when the modules or layers each provide different functions. Therefore, a functional analysis of entities and standards related to these entities, is of help in designing an entity architecture and a related standards’ architecture that is stable in time. Chapter 10 provides an example of this in the area of management systems standardization. A stable standards architecture enables standards’ modifications to honour innovations. On the company level, such a structure enables parallellization of research, product development, process development, maintenance, and marketing (Bouma, 1989a, p. 9; Overkleeft & Groosman, 1987, p. 109; Simons & De Vries, 1997, p. 60). It also honours competition in markets: stable interface standards provide anchor points for component markets (Kleinaltenkamp, 1994, p. 208). A flexible structure can encompass alternative specifications and designs that each fulfil an agreed set of systems functions (David, 1995b, p. 30).
12.9 Integration of technologies, components, and markets Separated areas of technology are being interwoven. This applies, for example, to the fields of mechanical and electrical engineering, and to technologies in the areas of sound (telephone), vision (photo-copying), text (typewriter), and data (computer). Such integration introduces new matching problems, for which standardization can provide consolidated solutions. Each area has its own traditions that cannot be disregarded. Where areas meet, interfaces have to be standardized (Overkleeft & Groosman, 1987, pp. 43-45). On the component level, the most appealing examples of integration can be found in electronics. Separate electronic components have been integrated into chips, “integrated circuits.” These components evolve to small devices that can perform functions, such as adding or controlling. Devices integrate into systems, systems into networks (Overkleeft & Groosman, 1987, p. 41). The following example demonstrates an integration of markets:
18
A package of standards is a group, as small as possible, of inter-related standards (CEN Technical Board Resolution BT 20/1993 Revised).
221 Integration of markets - the EAN example The EAN19 barcode originally was developed for food products to improve logistical performance. Scanning of codes enables automatic stockkeeping and automatic reordering. Because supermarkets not only sell food products but also, for instance, tobacco and chemist’s products, the barcodes were introduced for these products too. This enabled specialized tobacconists and chemists to introduce the same codes. As supermarkets also sell products like glue, light bulbs, and sometimes electric cables, the EAN codes were also introduced for such products, which, subsequently, enabled do-it-yourself shops to adopt the code system. Their suppliers, however, produce for both the consumer and the professional market, and preferred to use these codes for automatic ordering. So, nowadays, EAN barcodes are used, for instance, in trade transactions between automotive industries and their suppliers. Finally, with regard to this technology, totally separated markets, the groceries and automotive, are integrated. (Source: Simons & De Vries, 1997, p. 59)
The above mentioned technical integration of mechanical and electrical engineering, and of sound, vision, text, and data also leads to integration of markets that formerly were strictly separated. The following example demonstrates consequences of integration for standardization: Consequences of technical and market integration for standardization - the TV and PC example From a technical point of view, differences between television sets and PC monitors are diminishing. Their markets too are integrating: PCs have found their way to consumer markets. However, different standards set safety requirements for both product lines: the international standard IEC 65 Safety requirements for mains operated electronic and related apparatus for household and similar general use (IEC, 1985), and IEC 950 Safety of information technology equipment including electrical business equipment (IEC, 1991). CENELEC has included these standards in their collection, and the European Low Voltage Directive (Council of the European Communities, 1973) makes their use almost compulsory for companies that sell their products on the European market. Technical and market integration of the two product lines cause a need for integration of the two sets of requirements: IEC 65 and IEC 950. These standards, however, have different structures. IEC 65 sets performance criteria. IEC 950, on the other hand, lays downs technical solutions that should guarantee safety. These solutions, however, would make TVs unnecessarily expensive and would hinder technical innovations. Moreover, different IEC committees are responsible. Sooner or later, however, the standards and these committees will have to be integrated. For interested parties, this may cause a shift in their strategy. (Source: Schillemans, 1996)
Integration causes a need not only for better co-operation between, or merging of standardization committees, but also for more transparent boundaries between different SDOs, for instance IEC and ISO, in order to avoid inefficiency and duplication of work (Kunerth, 1996, p. 428).20 Technology diffuses geographically as well as temporally. Globalization of trade requires geographic integration. This is the main reason for the shift from national to global standardization. The simultaneous growth of regional standardization is mainly related to political integration, which applies more on the regional than on the 19
EAN = European Article Number. Nowadays EAN is the acronym of the International Article Numbering Association (see Subsection 2.2.4). 20 The 1997 IEC General Assembly discussed three examples of ISO/IEC controversies, namely standards for safety of medical instruments, electricity generators, and laser diodes (Liess & Salffner, 1998, p. 33).
222 global level. In the long run, however, regional standardization may be expected to be less important, in favour of international standardization. An example of this is the following: Geographical integration - the EDI example EDI needs standardization of, among others, syntax rules for electronic messages. Two competing standards existed, the American ANSI X12 standard and the European Guide for Trade Data Interchange (GTDI). The UN Economic Commission for Europe’s Working Party on Facilitation of International Trade Procedures (UN/ECE/WP4) agreed to the EDIFACT standard that provides uniform syntax rules. This standard has been included in the ISO standards system (ISO 9735). ANSI X12, however, still has an installed based in North America and new users are bandwagoning it. EDIFACT is getting an increasing market share in North America. The US Customs Commissioner has moved to accept it, which indicates that X12 may be slowing down. EDIFACT is the dominant standard in the rest of the world. (Sources: Cargill, 1997, pp. 294-295, Van der Vlist, 1987, p. 38; personal experience)
12.10 Conclusions This chapter discussed mechanisms for the spread of standards.21 Most of them can be found in the standardization literature, but they have never been described together. Some of them have not been presented previously: - the three typical forms of an installed base (12.2); - the concept of sideways compatibility of standards (12.3); - the sequence in reasons for bandwagoning and the relations between them (12.4); - application of the first agent concept to SDOs (12.5); - application of the free-rider concept to SDOs (12.5); - application of the dominant agent concept to SDOs (12.5); - the listing of application areas of anticipatory standardization (12.7); - regarding modularization not only as a method but describing it as a mechanism (12.8); - application of the integration concept to SDOs and adding geographic integration (12.9). Additional research should reveal social mechanisms related to the development of standards.22 Systematic underpinning of mechanisms is also still lacking; future research may fill this gap.
21
A free market is a basic assumption in this chapter. In centralized economies other mechanisms might apply: in that case the government is the dominant agent. 22 Egyedi (1996, p. 309) even concludes the field of standardization is best characterized in terms of group processes.
13
METHODS TO DEVELOP STANDARDS
13.1 The need for methods This Chapter presents an inventory of available standardization methods and discusses their applicability. In general, FSOs do not use special methods for standards development other than the formal procedures and the text format for the standard.1 Standards users do not expect FSOs to use such methods.2 “Standards for standards,” such as the British standard BS 0 (BSI, 1997a, -b and -c), the French NF X 00-01 (AFNOR, 1993), and the German DIN 820 (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1986; 1994a and -b; and 1996) do not take into account methods either.3 In the field of information and communication technology, some specialist methods are used (Sinnott & Turner, 1995). Problems related to standards (Subsection 1.1.2), such as contradictions within and between standards, can partly be explained by the absence of systematic standardization methods.4 Mostly, standardization committees just sit around the table trying to agree on a standard, often by discussing a proposal presented by one of the participants (Weiss & Sirbu, 1990). This habit may cause the committee to be “locked in” points of view that prevent them from finding better solutions, as is the case for the management systems standards (Chapter 10). The lock-in effect is reinforced by the social mechanism of group polarisation (Grotenhuis, 1997): a reinforcement of initial opinions resulting from group discussions between people that share this opinion. This may lead to an accentuation of opinions, ending in more extreme points of view.
1
At first sight, ETSI offers an exception by listing quality criteria for standards (ETSI Guide EG 201 014 V1.1.1., ETSI, 1997a), and providing a methodology for validation of standards (ETSI Guide EG 201 015 V1.1.1., ETSI, 1997b). EG 201 014 is directed at achieving technical quality, which means meeting the basic objectives for which the standards were designed. A major objective of telecommunications standardization is interconnection and interoperability, so the standard should work when implemented. The quality criteria listed in the standard should guarantee this, but the guide does not describe how. The validation techniques laid down in EG 201 015, when used at the appropriate time, help avoid flawed standards that need long correction cycles (many flaws are not detected before the Public Enquiry) and become available too late as a result. EG 201 015 provides a methodology for validating standards which use the Specification and Description Language (SDL) laid down in a recommendation by the International Telecommunication Union to specify their function. Thus, this guide does not provide a method for developing standards either, only for testing them once concepts have been developed. It can be concluded that ETSI does not offer a methodology for standards development, but only two elements. 2 This is reflected in the American Recommended Practice for Standards Designation and Organization (SES, 1995) and the German guideline for participants in European standardization committees (Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN, 1995). 3 Some ISO TCs have developed standards for the layout of specific standards, for instance, for methods of microbiological examination (ISO, 1983), and chemical analysis (ISO, 1982). 4 DIN found 200 different definitions of the term Nennspannung in its standards (DIN Memorandum AK-NG 206, cited by Susanto, 1987, p.29).
224
Examples of group polarisation: NEN 3516 and ISO 9000 growth certificate The WG that prepared the Dutch standard NEN 3516 Ontwerpen van formulieren [Designing Forms] (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1988b) considered its ideas to be the best. There was little or no divergence in opinion. It appeared, however, that their opinions found little support in the market. (Source: personal observation as secretary of the WG and the TC involved) In the Netherlands, a project was started to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises to get an ISO 9000 quality assurance certificate. A so-called growth certificate would be provided if certain stages were reached en route to compliance with all ISO 9001 or 9002 5 requirements. The Dutch TC on quality management expressed fierce opposition against this proposal. The TC’s secretary observed that the initial arguments of some of the TC members against the SME growth certificate reinforced one another, resulting in a firm standpoint that was more extreme than all other initial points of view. The TC that should have represented the Dutch parties was unanimously against a proposal that gained wide support in a growth certificate project group which also included representatives of many of the Dutch parties involved, including employers’ organizations, the Ministry for Economic Affairs, and the Dutch Council for Accreditation. So, despite widespread and partly overlapping backing, both committees arrived at completely opposite conclusions.6 (Sources: Dutch Council for Accreditation (RvA) (1997); personal communications of Mrs. A.M. de Jong, Standardization consultant, NNI, and Dr. G.S.D. Maathuis, Managing Director MHB, Dordrecht, the Netherlands.)
This mechanism undermines one of the basic principles of formal standardization, namely that its procedures are directed at balancing the needs of all interested parties.7 In general, the more diversity there is in ideas and points of view, the more chance there is of effective or creative solutions. Open exchange of opinions and interests at an early stage is a necessary prerequisite for finding common solutions. Skipping such debates will lead to delays at later stages (Grotenhuis, 1997). To create good standards open discussions alone are not enough. It can be elucidating to regard standards as products. In general, designing products by simply sitting round the table and discussing what they should look like is not going to be fruitful. However, this is the way most standardization committees work, and the quality of the resulting standards is therefore surprising. Designing products, in general, is an activity for which creativity is combined with logic. The lessons learned from product development can be applied to standardization, as is demonstrated in Chapter 10, and by Schacht (1991) and Susanto (1987). Beitz (1971) contributed to systematic standardization by linking standardization to systems theory. This will be discussed in Section 13.3. Methods from company 5
ISO, 1994c and ISO, 1994d, respectively. These data could also be interpreted differently, namely as an illustration of the force of rational arguments within committees. In both cases, opponents did not refute the committee’s arguments, but simply did not accept them. In the first case, they did so by ignoring the standard, in the second case, by accepting a method that could be regarded as a de facto standard that was rejected by the TC. A problem with this interpretation, however, is that the arguments would be valid within committees only and not outside them. 7 Both examples are from user-directed standardization. The mechanism might be less important or even absent in standardization activities directed at achieving consensus between suppliers. 6
225 practice are described in Sections 13.3 (Akzo Nobel), and 13.4 (Philips). These days, however, they lack official status and are no longer used in a systematic way.8 In other countries, examples are not known. Bouma and Winter developed standardization fundamentals that are partly based on experiences in company standardization (13.5). Sections 13.6 and 13.7 present the findings of two German researchers, Susanto and Schacht, respectively. The only known method currently being used by an NSO is described in Section 13.8. Section 13.9 describes a method for writing procedures that may have a more general application in standards development. Each section ends with a short discussion on the applicability of the method.
13.2 Beitz Beitz (1971) distinguishes phases of systems development that may be applied in standardization. Each phase consists of systems studies, systems synthesis, systems analysis, systems elaboration, systems decision, and systems construction planning. Phase 1 Systems phase.
Activities - Analyze requirements. - Search for possibilities to fulfil functions. - Develop alternative directions to meet these functional requirements. - Analyze and evaluate these alternatives. - Establish and decide on concepts of solutions. 2 Design phase. - Work out concepts of solutions. - Evaluate concepts. - Come up with and decide on preferred solutions. 3 Drafting phase. - Optimize sub-solutions and solutions. - Draft the standard in detail. - Evaluate the draft standard. - Gain approval. Table 14.1. Phases in standards development (Beitz).
According to Beitz (1971, p. 384), a systems approach is characteristic for standardization. However, this would seem to be nothing more than wishful thinking.
8
Sources: personal communication by Mr. A. de Groot, who at the time was manager of the Department Standardization and Organization, Akzo Nobel Engineering, Arnhem, and Mr. H.C. van den Elzen (†), responsible at the time for Standardization Methodology and Production & Information Services at Concern Standardization Department, Philips International, Eindhoven.
226
13.3 Blom A primary example of such a systems approach is offered by Blom (1971), head of the central standardization department of Aku, in Arnhem, the Netherlands at the time.9 Because Blom’s publication is not publicly available, a summary of his method is included in Annex 2. Blom states that standards serve as a means to improve communication within a company, by providing data that is easily accessible and presented in an orderly way. Standards should be unambiguous and complete, avoid redundant text, and should, where necessary, refer to each other. Standards describe routines: properties of objects, general know-how, and methods. Creating user-friendly standards is the art of ordering data in the right way. Standards are a means to move from an existing to a new situation. Comment. Blom offers a simple method to describe both the existing system and user needs in a systematic way. Blom’s method was used, among others, to develop standards for piping classes. These days, Blom’s strict sequence of properties is less of a necessity, since all properties may form the search key in tracing the right requirements in a computer system. In developing such a system, however, Blom’s work can be of help. In most current standards collections, such simple structuring is lacking.10 Blom’s method can be used to draw up a great number of comparable standards in an effective and efficient way.
13.4 Philips Another Dutch company that developed a method for systematic standardization is Philips. The method is described in a Philips standardization manual (Philips Concern Standardization Department, 1982) that was recently withdrawn. Most of the manual deals with procedures and standards’ layout. At several stages in the standardization process, measures that concern the contents of a standard are taken, starting with a preliminary investigation, see Table 14.2. Based on the preliminary investigation, it should be decided to standardize (or not). The nominated project leader now draws up a plan of action. He makes use of the preliminary investigation, but adds some details, such as a time schedule, for instance. To support the use of the standard, an implementation plan is drawn up.
9
Aku was one of the founding companies of Akzo, which merged with Nobel to form Akzo Nobel, a Dutch/Swedish multinational chemical industry. 10 An - unconscious - application of Blom’s method is Mahesh’s feasibility study on a modular approach of standards to determine heavy metals in environmental samples (Mahesh, 1995; NNI, 1995a).
227
Description of: The problem.11
Indicating: - Who has which problem. - Tthe possible causes of this problem. - An estimation of the positive effects of standardization. Interested - Who should be involved. parties. - Their interests. - The urgency for them. - How they should be involved (advisors, participants, assessors of results, decision-makers, etc.). - Their possible input. - Their relation to other parties. - The conditions to be fulfilled. The possible - Which type of standard. contribution of - Which aspects should be standardized and under which conditions. standardization. - The support to be offered by the standardization department. The present - Previous history (activities, experience, standards). situation - Relevant existing standards (company and external standards) and the concerning extent to which they may be used or should be taken into account. standardization. - Current and expected standardization activities. - Existing consultative bodies (such as standardization committees). Actions to be - what type of standard is needed for which aspects. undertaken. - how to manage the process. - the role of the standardization department. - urgency, priority. - cost-benefit analysis. Table 14.2. Elements of the preliminary investigation in standardization projects (Philips).
Comment. The danger of doing things too consciously, and of accounting for every step taken is that it takes too much time. For this reason, the method described was not always consistently used and the Concern Standardization Department withdrew the document. However, FSOs that stick to principles of openness, consensus, transparency, and coherence (Subsection 3.2.5) could profit from Philips’ method as it aims at effectiveness and efficiency in standardization on the basis of such principles.
13.5 Bouma and Winter Bouma and Winter (1982) present a method to develop standards based on the basic question why you should standardize if you do not know what to standardize, let alone how and by what? (see Tabel 13.3).
11
Sometimes, there is no real problem, but an existing situation may need to be improved. In such cases, it must be determined what could be improved how, and how standardization could contribute to the improvement.
228
Basic standardization questions 1 Why? (aim of standardization). 2 What? (object of standardization). 3 How? (method of standardization).
Basic answers Efficient functioning of systems. A ‘system’: a complex of interconnected entities.
Selection of an optimum of variants of comparable systems. Unnecessary variety is an obstacle, but there should be enough variants to meet the different needs. So here, a balance has to be found. Four phases apply12: 1 Restriction (project definition) What systems and aspects thereof are to be considered for standardization? 2 Classification (ordering modules, interfaces between them, and variants per module) 3 Selection (choice of a preference range of variants per module, and specification of interfaces) 4 Realization (drafting the standard). The choices made are recorded and a standard is drafted. The standard is used for comparison (measure, reference) to control entities.13 4 By what? Information and organization for decision-making and project (means of standardization). management. Table 13.3. Basic standardization questions (Bouma & Winter)
Comments. Bouma and Winter developed their method to improve standardization practice. Their approach, however, is not as generic as it claims to be. It does not apply to performance standards, but only to standards that describe solutions to matching problems, and particularly to standards that describe preference ranges of solutions to these problems.14 For developing such standards, their method can be of use. However, it still has to be linked to the decision-making process in standardization committees.
13.6
Susanto
Susanto (1988) considers standards to be technical products and derives his method from product development theory. As is the case in Bouma and Winter’s method, modularization is an important theme. Susanto’s method is directed at developing coherent sets of compact standards that can be used easily by engineers, and that support technical innovations. As do Beitz and Philips, Susanto distinguishes a number of stages in standards development, see Table 13.4:
12
To the steps described by Bouma and Winter (1982), insights from Winter (1991, p. 22) have been added. 13 The use of this ‘building block’ principle in standardization was also described by Sumner (1981, pp. 9, 14-18). 14 An example of this is offered by Barnett (1993), who describes standard parts management at the Boeing Company.
229
Stage in standard development 1 Stage of elucidation and specification of the proposal for developing a standard (including a test on technical, scientific and organizational feasibility of the proposed new work item). 2 Draft stage (including: - developing a functional specification of the standard; - generating principle possibilities to meet these specifications; - choosing convenient standards’ concepts; - checking these concepts against technical, economic, and organizational criteria). 3 Stage of global design (including the use of modularization). 4 Stage of detailed design. 5 Testing stage (including testing the applicability of the standard and, where necessary, modifying and re-testing it). 6 Final stage (including editing and publishing the standard). Table 13.4 Stages in standard development (Susanto).
Output List of requirements.
Possibilities to fulfil the required functions.
Raw draft of the standard. Draft standard. Test results and final draft standards. Definitive standard.
Comment. Susanto’s method combines elements of the methods described above and adds a functional approach. His method seems applicable for lots of standards, maybe even for all standards. A problem, however, is integrating the method with the consensus-based decision-making model used by standardization committees. Though this is not impossible, the method may be expected to meet even more resistance than the method described in Section 10.3.
13.7
Schacht
Schacht (1991) concludes that standards are not convenient for integration with Computer Integrated Engineering, because of redundancy of information, contradictions between standards, and too many references to other standards. He has developed a method to improve this, which makes use of product development theory. He includes stages comparable to those distinguished by Susanto and, again, a functional analysis and modularization. The method is directed at developing a collection of standards that do not only harmonize with technical systems, but can even be integrated fully into technical information systems. Comment. Schacht’s method can be used to develop standards in a specialist technical development team. It will be nearly impossible to integrate his method into consensus-based decision-making.
230
13.8
Nakamura
Nakamura (1993) describes standardization as a tool for performance improvements in manufacturing. He lists a number of steps for writing technical standards (ibid., p. 56). These include a test run (ibid., p. 38-39): 1 Develop a new standard. Have the workers use it without giving them any prior explanations. 2 Let them write down their comments or questions about the instructions laid down in the standard. 3 Carry out test runs for a while. Then repeat steps 1 and 2, this time using workers who have never used the new standard before. It appears that employees often use a standard in a differently way than the writers had intended. After a first test, writers often add new descriptive paragraphs for elucidation. However, rather than resorting to additional descriptions and explanations, it is better to write a clearer and more complete standard in the first place. The best thing to do is to involve users in writing and re-writing the standard. Nakamura offers further checklists that can be used for the contents of several types of company standards, and describes lots of examples. Comment. Nakamura’s experience shows that his approach, although it takes some time and trouble, results in standards that users can identify with. This leads to a much smoother implementation of new standards. In formal standardization, it is up to interested parties whether or not they test a draft standard in practice. Procedures allow them to do so, and to take comments into account to improve the standard. In practice, this does not prevent standards from being difficult in use. SDOs, therefore, might consider introducing testing as a mandatory step in standard development. There is a difficulty in transforming Nakamura’s method, which had positive results in Japanese company standardization practice, to the national, regional and international level of standardization. Here, the difference between the “parties involved” and “interested parties” is greater, and testing would be more difficult to manage, and more time-consuming. In spite of this, the proof of a good standard is in its use, and forms of feed-back should be introduced from the use of standards to standards development.
13.9
NNI
The NNI uses a particular method to determine market needs for new areas of standardization. Often, the need for such an inventory arises from a proposal for a new field of standardization activities at the European level. These activities are linked to national business sectors. Such studies consist of five phases: 1 definition of the sector or area of interest; 2 description of the sector and its importance; 3 analysis of the strategic importance of standardization; 4 analysis of the gap between existing and required activities; 5 plan of action. The method is described by Horringa & De Konink Consultants (1991). Because this report is not publicly available, Annex 3 offers a summary.
231 Comment. Meanwhile, the NNI has carried out more than 50 sector investigations. Often, such studies formed the start of active Dutch involvement in European and international standardization,15 and of activities aimed at providing Dutch companies with information on standardization developments. So, this method has certainly proved its value in practice.16
13.10 Van Bruggen et al. Van Bruggen et al. (1997) describe how procedures should be developed for an ISO 9000 quality management system. The steps they distinguish can be summarized and generalized as follows: 1 describe the structure of the entities concerned; 2 describe existing business practices; 3 discuss these practices with all parties concerned; 4 determine matching problems to be solved; 5 make an inventory of existing standards and other requirements to take into account; 6 draft standards (making use, amongst other things, of stakeholder interviews and/or work groups); 7 check these draft standards for conformity with other standards/requirements, including “standards for standards”; 8 carry out field tests; 9 evaluate these tests and, where necessary, modify the draft standards; 10 gain formal approval; 11 publish and distribute standards; 12 audit standards implementation. Van Bruggen et al. also pay attention to, amongst other things, management support, a process approach, the art of restricting the number of standards to the necessary minimum, clear language, and integration of standards into business processes. Comment. Though limited to procedural company standards, Van Bruggen et al. offer a comprehensive guideline for drafting standards. Application to FSO practice, however, will only be possible after several modifications.
15
See Section 3.4 and Annex 1. NNI holds 7 of the ISO’s 180 TC secretariats (ISO, 1998f) and 17 of CEN’s 262 TC secretariats (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1998a). 16 However, a Dutch employers’ organization expressed criticism that NNI, using this method, creates its own market: parties that were not aware of standardization do not only reach awareness, but are persuaded to participate in standardization. Here, one can argue that it is up to organizations in the market to decide whether or not they are willing to participate; the strategic study provides them with arguments for such a decision.
232
13.11 Evaluation of available methods Standardization methods can be listed depending on whether or not they pay attention to: - a standards structure (such as modules or layers) - systematic design - systematic decision-making - translation of actor wishes into the design - involvement of actors - procedures - evaluation of draft standards - evaluation of market use of standards some time after they have been published. In Table 13.7, the methods mentioned above are placed in a matrix. The method described in Section 10.3 is added. The Xs indicate which aspects these methods take into account, the X in bold indicates, per method, the most important aspect.
X X X X X X X
De Vries
Aspect Standards structure X X X X Systematic designing X X X X Decision making X X Actor wishes X X X X X X Actor involvement X X X Procedures X X X X X Evaluation of drafts X X X X X Standards use evaluation X X Table 13.7. Aspects of standardization to which standardization methods pay attention.
Van Bruggen
NNI
Naka-mura
Susanto, Schacht
Bouma, Winter17
Philips
Blom
Beitz
Method
X X X X X X X
The table reflects the uni-dimensionality and incompleteness of current methods. They sometimes overlap. As they do not exclude each other, they may be used as complementary methods. Next, these methods will be evaluated using elements of the definition of standardization (Chapter 8): matching problems, interested parties, needs of these, balancing needs, establishing solutions, and recording solutions. matching problems Standardization is directed at solving matching problems. The first thing to do in systematic standardization is to determine the problem to be solved. All methods, to a certain extent, pay attention to this, but none of them offers sufficient tools. Here, the standards classifications described in Chapter 9 can be of help.
17
In another publication, Winter pays attention to the first three remaining aspects (Winter, 1990).
233 To determine which methods to use, the major distinction is between ‘designing’ standardization and ‘selecting’ standardization (9.3.3). In ‘designing’ standardization, methods can be useful in formulating a solution. In such cases, developing a standard resembles the development of a product. From product development theory and practice, it is known that extra time spent in the introductory phase on phasing, making an inventory of requirements, and assessing pre-designs, leads to cost-savings and time-savings at later stages, because it avoids unnecessary commentary and redesign (Liesker, 1992). Rogaar and Duijf (1996), therefore, propose the following stages: Stage: 1 Search stage.
Includes: - Aanalysis of market requirements and product/market policies. - Agreement on product development aims. - Agreement on functional specifications. - Generating directions of technical solutions. 2 Breeding stage. - Feasibility study. - Draft modular design. 3 Development stage. - Drawing in detail. - Building a prototype. - Testing. - Making a pre-production badge. - Market introduction. - Etc. Table 13.5. Stages in product development (Rogaar & Duijf).
These stages almost completely correspond to those presented by Beitz. If applied to standardization, in current practice, a TC often decides on scope and field of application of a standard to be developed before a WG drafts the standard. Comments on the draft are taken into account, and it is up to the WG members whether any further tests are carried out. So search and breeding stage activities are hardly taken into account, almost all activities concern the development stage. This may be expected to be a source of delay, extra costs, and problems in meeting customer demands. Paying more attention to the earlier stages may prevent these drawbacks. This may take on the form of exploratory standardization studies, in which the methods mentioned in this chapter (except Nakamura’s) may be useful. The different standards classifications can be used to unambiguously describe the matching problem to be solved. In ‘selecting’ standardization, methods that concern the standards’ contents are less necessary. Unnecessary would not be the right qualification, as these methods can be useful to distance the developer from problems in their perceived form - this may lead to the discovery of unexpected extra degrees of freedom for finding solutions, as was the case in the management systems standards case (Chapter 10). interested parties The NNI method can be used to determine interested parties, by studying the supply chain in which the entities are used to which the standards are related.18 needs of interested parties 18
Koehorst, De Vries and Wubben (1998) provide an example of this.
234
Though the NNI-method also describes parties’ interests, it, like Beitz, Blom, Philips, Bouma & Winter, and Van Bruggen et al., does not offer a methodology for doing this in a systematic way. Susanto and Schacht present a functional approach: a systematic study of functions standards fulfil for different stakeholders. Such a functional approach appeared to be useful in the case about management systems standards (Chapter 10). Subsection 9.3.2 provides functional classifications of standards that can be used as a checklist in this approach. A functional analysis can start out as desk research, but then it should be submitted for adaptation and approval to representatives of the interested parties, in the form of a workshop, for instance (Subsection 10.2.4). balancing needs All these methods pay attention to the balancing of needs, but most of them concentrate on developing standards in a “laboratory context.” This is their fundamental weakness. Cargill (1997, p. 233) concludes that the key to successful standardization rests with managing the immense diversity (in standpoints and character traits - HdV) of the participants. They need to be educated to be able to understand their task of drafting standards that meet the needs of their sectors. Combining Cargill’s conclusion with the conclusion that methods are necessary to build consistent and effective standards collections, leads to the conclusion that those methods that can easily be understood and applied, and that can take full account of the diversity of rational and irrational user requirements, are best. The method described in Section 10.3 offers options to honour such requirements, but the case demonstrates that it is too far removed from committee practice to be generally applicable. So the methods can be useful in exploratory standardization studies, but, in their present form, only the methods of Philips and, to a certain extent, Van Bruggen et al., are suitable for use in standardization committees. Their methods, in fact, are more like procedures that describe what should be done at which stage, without describing how. establishing solutions The methods of Blom, Bouma & Winter, and Van Bruggen et al. can be used to develop coherent sets of solution-describing standards. Blom’s method is also convenient for describing coherent sets of performance standards. Susanto’s method is applicable to most standards. If standards are integrated into computerized technical information systems, Schacht’s method may be considered. The NNI’s method does not cover standards creation. The method described in Section 10.3 provides a systematic way to reach consensus in a committee on solutions that explicitly honour actor needs (that are expressed in terms of standards’ functions). recording solutions Blom offers a structure for recording solutions. In Akzo Nobel’s company practice, this still appears to be applicable; their standards have a better layout than
235 comparable standards in other companies.19 Philips’ standardization handbook and Van Bruggen et al. pay much attention to the standards’ format. For NSOs, the format is not the real problem. Their “standards for standards” provide such formats.20 This, however, does not guarantee that standards can be read easily. So it may be useful to add Nakamura’s user test.
13.12 Recommendations for future research The methods investigated can contribute to better standardization performance.21 Several methods may be used in combination. These methods are especially useful in exploratory studies that precede the actual standardization activities. The integration of methods into day to day committee work is still a problem. In general, success stories can persuade actors to adopt a certain method. But to be able to create a success story, additional research with a focus on this issue would be welcome, followed by application of its results by standardization committees. Because of the parallels between standards development and product development in general, and software development in particular, the development of new standardization methods may profit from experience in these areas. The methodical development of more detailed designs is provided by the Society of German Engineers Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (1982 and 1996), amongst others. These publications focus on systematic procedures. They may be combined with the standardization mechanisms described in Chapter 12. All the above standardization methods do not honour these mechanisms sufficiently. They are too static and ignore dynamic mechanisms in the market that influence the spread of standards and, as such, can be decisive for success or failure. Many other methods might be considered, for instance object orientation22 and quality function deployment.23 Hopefully, these will be investigated in future. The 19
This is the opinion of suppliers that use Akzo Nobel’s standards when working for that company, but use other standards when working for other companies (source: personal communication by Michiel Oly en Florens Slob, who carried out a benchmarking study on company standardization in Dutch process industries (Oly & Slob, 1999). 20 Formats for standards can be found in, among others, AFNOR (1993), BSI (1997c), DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (1996b), ISO (1982 and 1983) and Standards Engineering Society (1995). 21 IEC recently expressed the need for this. Their Masterplan 1996 (IEC, 1996b, p. 7) says a systems approach is necessary to related technologies. This is particularly important in the areas of global information networks and multimedia, but also in the more traditional field of power transmission networks it is needed to obtain better co-ordination and coherence among the product standards issued by various committees. Most of the above methods are examples of such a systems approach. 22 Object orientation is described by, amongst others, Van der Goor, Brinkkemper & Hong (1993), Van Hilligersberg (1997), and Kuijs et al. (1996). This method is used increasingly in software development. Applied to standardization, both standards, the entities concerned, and (sic!) the different stakeholders can be regarded as objects that are related to each other and fulfil functions for each other. The approach is very complicated and, therefore, should only be considered for very complicated standards architectures, such as those necessary in multimedia. The main advantages may be the rate of coherence that can be achieved, and the sturdiness of the standards collection in meeting unpredictable future developments. 23 Introductions in quality function deployment can be found, among others, in Akao (1990) and Hauser & Clausing (1988). This method might be applied to systematically honour customer needs in standards development.
236 main challenge will be to find possibilities to link systematic standards development to standardization committees’ practice.
14
SERVICES RELATED TO COMPANY STANDARDIZATION
14.1 Introduction The main NSO services relate to developing and issuing common standards and providing information about them. From a company’s point of view this does not cover all aspects of standardization, because a company itself may also create standards. Company standardization is standardization at the company level. It includes developing standards for use within the company (internal standardization), and developing standards to be used in the company’s relations with its direct business partners. A company standard may have the form of: - a reference to one or more external standards officially adopted by the company; - a company modification of an external standard; - a subsets of an external standard (for instance, a description of the company’s choice of competing possibilities offered in an external standard, or a subset of the topics covered in the external standard); - a standard reproduced from (parts of) other external documents, for instance, suppliers’ documents; - a self-written standard. Companies may need support to perform their standardization activities better or may contract out one or more of these activities. NSOs may consider offering such support or even taking over company standardization tasks (contracted out to NSOs). In order to discuss these possible NSO activities, this chapter takes the different tasks in company standardization as a starting point (14.2). Section 14.3 presents, per task, the competences and assets that are needed. Based on this inventory, possible support for the task is presented and an assessment is given of whether or not contracting out is possible. Section 14.4 concludes by providing NSOs with arguments for deciding whether or not to include company standardization services in their portfolio.
14.2 Tasks in company standardization Most of the literature about company standardization postulates medium-size or large companies having a company standardization officer or department.1 This situation, however, applies only to a small minority of companies (Biesheuvel, Verkuyl & De Vries, 1993). A small-scale own investigation carried out in 19922 showed the same situation to be prevalent in other Western countries. Mostly, different standardization tasks are performed by different people working in different departments. The British standards users’ organization no longer speaks of standardization departments, but 1
For instance, Adolphi (1996), AFNOR (1967), Barnes et al. (1988), DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (1991b), Düsterbeck & Hesser (1997), Toth (1990). 2 The author interviewed representatives of national standards user organizations in Austria, Canada/United States of America, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom during the 7th IFAN conference Standards, Quality and World Markets in Strasbourg, 1992. The investigation results were not published.
238 recommends employing a standards specialist. His main challenge includes promoting the benefits of standardization in the form of rationalization, better collaboration, and improved communication, and consolidating the results of such co-operation to produce permanent economies or improvements in the form of standards. These aims and responsibilities may extend beyond the activities of the organization (British Standards Society, 1995, p. 37).3 The standardization tasks distinguished in 1993 were completed in 1995 and include (De Vries, 1995a): 1 strategic standardization management As standardization is of strategic importance for nearly all companies it might (but in practice, often does not) get attention at a strategic level. Determining priorities, especially, is a strategic activity. It may be necessary to make a distinction here between strategic analysis, prepared by a standardization expert, and strategic decisions, taken by the company’s management, and communicated within the company. 2 co-ordination of standardization activities If a company carries out several standardization activities, there may be a need to coordinate them in order to avoid overlap, to share assets and competences, and to enable prioritizing at the company level. 3 spotting developments This includes searching for: - external standardization developments and standards that might be relevant; - related external developments, such as legislation; - developments within the company. 4 analyzing these developments After developments and standards have been traced, their relevance for the company is analyzed. 5 establishing priorities Strategic prioritizing has already been mentioned above, but often setting priorities at a more "operational" level is done by others, who have been authorized for this task. 6 ordering standards Standards are ordered from NSOs and/or from other standards providers. 7 making (company) standards See Section 14.1. 8 introducing standards Some standards, especially procedural standards, need special introduction activities, such as courses and training, to lower the threshold for using them. 9 using (external and company) standards
3
Adolphi (1997) provides different models for organizing company standardization.
239 10 standards administration Standards administration enables employees to have the necessary standards at their disposal when and where they need them. It includes operating an accessible company standards database, announcing new standards, and standards distribution. 11 variety reduction Often, variety reduction is standardization without written standards: just choosing a limited number of variants makes production cheaper, but enough variety should remain to meet the in-company, and/or customer’s needs.4 12 participation in external standardization activities 13 evaluation This task includes evaluating: - whether the standards that should be used really are used; - whether the right standards are used (for instance, the most recent ones); - the way the company manages and performs company standardization; - the contribution standardization makes to company results. It can be questioned whether this list is complete. A small investigation among representatives of standardization departments in six large Dutch companies5 (De Vries, 1997) shows that they carry out all or almost all of the tasks listed above. Some of them also carry out additional tasks: administrating an article database and/or product documentation, and assessing suppliers. However, on the basis of the standardization definition presented in Chapter 8, these cannot be regarded as standardization tasks, although they are related to standardization. Adolphi (1996) has added some extra tasks that were carried out by German company standardization departments: 1) classifying parts, 2) creating parts lists, 3) implementing EU directives, 4) investigating patents, 5) administration of books and journals, and 6) gaining (product) approval. 1/2 Parts classification and creation of parts lists do not constitute standardization, but can be used as tools for variety reduction. 3
Implementation of EU directives,6 in practice, means implementation of European standards. To implement these standards, one has to, among other things, develop both procedural and technical company standards. As far as tasks related to implementation of EU directives can be regarded as standardization, these tasks have already been mentioned above.
4 Searching for patents strongly resembles the standardization task of ‘spotting developments,’ which includes searching standards. If the company is (or expects to get) concerned with inclusion of patented matters into standards (see Subsection 4
A thorough examination of variety reduction is presented by Meyer (1995). An example of “standardization without standards” is provided by Sumner (1981, p. 17). 5 Akzo Nobel, DAF, DSM, Gasunie, NAM and Shell. 6 Adolphi means New Approach Directives, see Subsection 2.2.5. There are many other EU directives.
240 9.3.8), it is not only advisable to create a direct link from searching patents to searching standards, but also between taking out a patent and participating in standards development. 5 Administering books and journals is comparable to standards administration, but otherwise bears no relation to standardization. 6 Because product (and other) approvals are based on standards, it can be handy for those involved in acquiring approvals to also be involved in standardization activities. This is, however, not a standardization task. The same applies to other approvals, for instance, the approval of services, persons, or management systems. Düsterbeck and Hesser (1997, p. 111) and the Austrian standardization institute (Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, 1988, p. 17) include the task of inspecting drawings and parts lists. This inspection aims at conformity to standards. Though rather specialized, it might be included as part of the evaluation task mentioned above. The long list of standardization tasks offered by DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (1991a, pp. 13-6 - 13.7) does not add any new tasks to the list described above. It can be concluded that the literature reviewed above does not offer other standardization tasks, and that the list can therefore be regarded as complete. This does not, however, mean that a company performs all tasks. Small companies, especially, do not carry out all of them.
14.3 Possible support of company standardization tasks by NSOs7 Per company standardization task, this section describes subsequently: - the competences necessary for people performing the task; - the company assets required to carry out the task or to improve carrying out this task; - options for the company in letting the task be supported externally; - options for the company to contract out the task; - remarks concerning the possibilities for an NSO to provide support, if any, and/or take over company tasks.
7
The contents of this section are based on the author’s experiences. Where possible, reference to other resources is mentioned. The findings have been confirmed in a discussion with representatives of standardization departments in six large Dutch companies: Akzo Nobel, DAF, DSM, Gasunie, NAM, and Shell.
241
Task 1: Strategic standardization management8 Competences needed: General management competences. Knowledge of strategic possibilities of standardization. Asset needed: Standardization policy. Possible support: Consultancy. General information about the strategic importance of standardization. Providing a test to diagnose the company’s performance in standardization.9 Contracting out? No. Remark for NSOs: To be able to know the needs of their customers, NSOs need to understand the strategic importance of standardization. Table 14.1. Possible NSO support for the company task of strategic standardization management. Task 2: Co-ordination of standardization activities General management competences. Management information system. General information about systematic management of standardization activities. Contracting out? No. Remark for NSOs: NSOs may provide general information about the possible standardization tasks to be managed. Table 14.2. Possible NSO support for the company task of co-ordinating standardization activities. Competences needed: Asset needed: Possible support:
Task 3: Spotting developments Knowledge about the company’s matching problems to be solved. Bibliographic knowledge and skills. Assets needed: Access to standards and/or to standards information systems. Access to people who know what is going on, both inside and outside the company. Possible support: Providing a contact network (as is offered by the national standards users organizations; see Subsection 3.7.4 and Section 7.8). Providing easy accessible information on developments (see Sections 3.6 and 7.4). Providing easy accessible standards information systems. Providing easy accessible standards collections. Contracting out? The services offered by Technical Help to Exporters (see Section 3.6) demonstrate that spotting necessary standards can be contracted out. Many NSOs offer subscriptions to collections of standards having certain predetermined descriptors. This enables subscribers to get automatically all standards (or announcements of them) to which these descriptors are connected. Remark for NSOs: ICT offers possibilities for further improvements of services in this area (see Sections 3.6 and 4.2). Table 14.3. Possible NSO support for the company task of spotting developments related to standardization. Competences needed:
8
Information on this topic is to be found in, among other sources, British Standards Society (1995, pp. 37-42), Feier (1995) and Hesser (1997a). An example of a company’s standardization strategy is offered by Teal (1990), who describes the strategy of Du Pont. 9 A simple test is described in Rationalisierung durch Werknormung [Rationalization by Company Standardization] (Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut der Bundeskammer, 1976, pp. 18-19). For quality management based on ISO 9000 standards and environmental management based on ISO 14000 standards, “audit diskettes” are available that provide insight into the extent to which the firm already complies with the requirements laid down in the standards. In a similar way, a “standardization audit diskette” might be developed.
242 Task 4: Analyzing developments Analytical insight. General standardization knowledge. Specific sectoral knowledge. Assets needed. No special assets. Possible support. Training in standardization. Consultancy. Providing information about standardization mechanisms and methods. Contracting out? No. Remark for NSOs. The competences correspond to those necessary for an NSO to support standards development. Table 14.4. Possible NSO support for the company task of analyzing developments related to standardization. Competences needed.
Task 5: Ordering standards Competences needed. No special competences. Asset needed. Access to sellers of standards. Possible support. Providing easy access to standards collections, including easy ways of ordering, delivering and paying them. Contracting out? Subscriptions to collections of standards. Remark for NSOs. ICT offers possibilities for further improvements in this area. Table 14.5. Possible NSO support for the company task of ordering standards.
Competences and assets needed for the sixth task, establishing priorities, are identical to those needed for analysing developments (4). Task 7: Making (company) standards Analytical insight. Standardization knowledge. Organizational and project management skills. Diplomacy. Assets needed: Procedure for standards making. Standards format (including a classification and coding system). Company standardization policy. ICT for standards production.10 Possible support: Training in standardization. Consultancy. Providing information about standardization mechanisms and methods. Contracting out? To a certain extent making standards can be contracted out. From the point of view of acceptability of the standards, however, this should be discouraged. Remark for NSOs: The competences correspond to those necessary for an NSO to support standards development Table 14.6. Possible NSO support for the company task of making (company) standards. Competences needed:
10
See British Standards Society (1995, Chapter 6) and Verstege (1995).
243
Task 8: Introducing standards Educational skills. Company standardization policy. Software or other tools in which the standards have been incorporated in such a way that standards implementation has been facilitated. Possible support Consultancy. Introductory courses. Educational handbooks. Software or other tools in which the standards have been incorporated in such a way that standards implementation has been facilitated.11 Contracting out? Technical implementation of standards may be contracted out, for instance replacing dates and times in computer software to data according to the international standard ISO 8601 (De Vries, 1997a). Remarks for NSOs NSOs should consider the form in which they offer the standard. The traditional document form, on paper or electronically, sometimes might be replaced by or completed by another form, mostly more advanced software. Even three-dimensional electronic standards might be an option in some cases. See for NSO information services Sections 3.6 and 7.4. Table 14.7. Possible NSO support for the company task of introducing standards. Competences needed Assets needed
Task 9: using (external and company) standards Specialistic competences dependent on the scope and field of application of the standard (often technical competences). Assets needed. Specialistic assets dependent on the scope and field of application of the standard (often technical assets). Possible support. Training. Contracting out? No. Remark for NSOs. See Subsection 7.4.3. Table 14.8. Possible NSO support for the company use of standards. Competences needed.
11
An example of this is the software NNI provides to support implementation of its standard graphical symbols for electrotechnology (Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, 1991a). A set of diskettes contains all 1986 symbols in a format that enables them to be integrated in all available Computer Aided Design software. Other examples are the above mentioned audit diskettes for ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 implementation, and templates or software as a help for drawing flow charts.
244
Task 10: Standards administration12 Competences needed. Knowledge about Documentary Information Systems. Knowledge about Quality Management. Assets needed Standards documentation system (storage and retrieval system, making use of information and communication technology (ICT) tools). Standards administration procedure. Possible support. Providing well-structured standards with identification tags, descriptors. Providing standards both in paper and electronic formats. Providing information about standards administration. Providing software tools. Contracting out? Only creating the (ICT) infrastructure can be contracted out. Remarks for NSOs. Requirements from company’s standards administration urge FSOs to pay attention to the way they offer standards. ICT offers possibilities for improvements, including direct links between NSO standards and standards information databases, and company’s information systems (for instance intranet). An NSO offering services for standards administration and/or software tools for this, has a strategic asset in form of its direct channels to those who buy standards. Table 14.9. Possible NSO support for the company task of standards administration. Task 11: Variety reduction Knowledge about preference series.13 Organizational skills. Diplomacy. Asset needed. Information system containing data about the entities for which variety reduction is to be applied (for instance, parts system). Possible support. Providing information about variety reduction. Consultancy. Contracting out? Contracting out is partly possible, both in making an inventory of existing parts and in providing ICT tools. Decisions about a preferred assortment and/or reduction of the existing assortment should be taken by the company itself. Remarks for NSOs. As all standards, in one way or another, aim at variety reduction, NSOs need knowledge about this, which might be used too to assist companies. Some NSOs offer standards that directly support variety reduction in companies.14 Table 14.10. Possible NSO support for the company task of variety reduction. Competences needed.
The twelfth task, participation in external standardization activities, is discussed in other chapters.
12
More information on standards administration: British Standards Society (1995, Sections 5.6 - 5.8), Gooskens & De Vries (1994) and Van Werven (1997). 13 Presented in an easy way by Simons & De Vries (1997, Section 4.2) and far more advanced by Bongers (1980). 14 An example of this is DIN 4000 Sachmerkmal-Leisten [Tabular layouts of article characteristics] (see DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, 1991c).
245
Task 13: Evaluation General audit competences. Knowledge of strategic possibilities of standardization. Asset needed. Standardization audit scheme. Possible support. Developing and offering a test to diagnose the company’s performance in standardization. Contracting out? Evaluation may be performed by external auditors. Remark for NSOs. NSOs may consider developing and offering a test, and performing evaluation services. Table 14.11. Possible NSO support for the company task of evaluating standardization performance. Competences needed.
14.4 Conclusions on including company standardization services in an NSO’s portfolio In this chapter, several tasks that need to be carried in the area of company standardization have been distinguished. Although the information in this chapter is mainly based on experiences in the Netherlands and literature from Western countries, there is no reason why it should not be valid for companies in other parts of the world. NSOs, however, differ a lot, so conclusions on whether or not NSOs could be active in supporting company standardization also differ. However, some general conclusions can be drawn: In companies which have no central standardization department or an appointed standards officer, the target group for an NSO offering standardization services is diffuse.15 Therefore, Porter’s argument of offering company standardization services in addition to other standardization services, because of corresponding target groups (see Subsection 7.2.2), only partly applies. For an NSO, there is not enough synergy “from the outside” for at least part of the possible standardization services. NSOs can easily address standards buyers and participants in standardization committees. They can offer them information on standards, their importance and/or on ways to implement them. Access to these specialists combined with the NSO’s knowledge about the dates standards are issued, puts them in a good position to offer such services. Standards buyers, in general, are also the target group for services related to the task of standards administration in a company. To support this task, NSOs might offer information or software tools. This does not fit in with the NSO’s core competences, but ICT continues to offer new possibilities to create direct links between company standards information systems and the standards information systems of FSOs. So, both for companies and NSOs, ICT is definitely an asset. Therefore, NSOs may consider offering more services or selling software in this area, and develop and offer them in co-operation with a specialized third party, for instance, a software company.
15
Biesheuvel, Verkuyl & De Vries (1993, p. 12) call this the task-directed model, in which different standardization tasks are carried out by different people, or different departments.
246 Synergy effects can also be generated by shared competences. The competences NSO officers need to support the development of formal standards (see Section 5.6) correspond, to a large extent, to those necessary for making company standards. So here, synergy effects in offering services could possibly be generated. The form services take may require special skills. For instance, to be able to offer courses, didactic skills are necessary. Forms can include publications, consultancy, seminars, general courses, training courses, workshops, software tools, other tools, subscription systems, and telephone or helpdesk information services. There should be enough “critical mass” to be able to offer a certain form of service. Chapter 7 concludes that, because of the argument of “one-stop-shopping” of standardization services, NSOs should offer all these services, provided they are able to offer them at an acceptable price/performance ratio, and assuming that the services do not conflict with each other. Based on this chapter, it can be assumed that company standardization services do not interfere with each other, or with other standardization services. Thanks to synergy effects, it should be possible to offer most of these services at an acceptable price/performance rate. If there is enough “critical mass,” it becomes advisable to add company standardization services to the core services of an NSO. The growing interreletedness between company standardization and external standardization stresses this conclusion. These arguments only apply if the NSO has good internal communication channels that enable it to profit from possible synergy.
15
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
15.1 Introduction In Section 1.2, the four aims of this study were listed: 1 to reveal more about the nature of the standardization phenomenon in general 2 to discover more about the role of national standardization organizations; 3 to provide a basis for practical help to actors needing standardization; 4 to provide a basis for practical help to national standardization organizations. Results related to the first two aims are presented in Section 15.4; the third is addressed in 15.6, and the fourth in 15.5. The sequence of sections deviates from the sequence of aims for reasons of logic: practicability of this study for actors (aim 3) is to be derived from the conclusions about NSOs (aim 4). Section 15.7 gives recommendations for future research. Section 15.2 summarizes the answers to the research questions, and 15.3 discusses the methodology used and the validity of results.
15.2 Summary The following answers were found for the research questions mentioned in Section 1.3: 1 What parties are concerned in standardization and what does standardization mean to them? Standardization, in general, involves solving matching problems (8). Companies need standards for the matching of their products and services to the environments in which they are intended to be used. This can mean the difference between success and failure (2.2.5). Companies also use standards for their production processes, and buy products affected by standards. They need standardization for reasons of effectiveness and efficiency of company operations (2.2.5). Within companies, several officials should be distinguished that play different roles concerning standardization: general management, technical management, technical experts that participate in standardization, other experts that provide additional experience and knowledge, people who implement standards, and standards users (5.2). Consumer organizations have a stake in test methods and in standards that are of general benefit to consumers, such as standards to create transparency in the market or to assure a certain level of quality or safety (2.2.5, 11.7). Governments can fulfil the following functions related to standardization: 1) stimulate national business performance and eliminate barriers to trade, 2) create a legal foundation for standardization, 3) carry out standardization activities themselves (many NSOs are governmental organizations (Annex 1)), 4) refer to standards in legislation, 5) use standardization for specific governmental tasks, and 6) use standardization to improve the performance of governmental agencies (2.2.5).
250 The fourth task may cause problems if governments want to add legal criteria to the process of developing standards. These may be solved by better understanding the economic nature of standardization (4.4.6, 8). Consultancy firms often have a stake in making standards difficult (2.2.5). SDOs themselves, of course, also have stakes in standardization. SDOs can be divided into formal standardization organizations (FSOs), sectoral or specialized standardization organizations (SSOs), governmental standardization organizations (GSOs), and consortia (2.2.3). They may be intertwined in rather complicated organizational networks (2.2.4). The main motive of SDOs may be survival. In the European region, the role of NSOs in European standardization is disputed. Arguments for and against it have been presented (4.4.5), leading to the conclusion that the relative importance of the arguments differs depending on the subject matter, the sector, political viewpoints, and the added value of the NSO which differs per country (4.4.6). 2 How does standardization proceed? In general, companies make company standards only when no acceptable external standards are available - arguments for the choice between these options are given (2.2.2). Concerning external standardization, the company can choose between just adopting standards or influencing their development (2.2.1). Standardization combines designing and decision making. SDOs support the related processes, FSOs and many other SDOs have formalized these processes to a large extent. In the case of FSOs, these include handling a standardization request, assignment to a committee, drafting, public comment, review of comments, approval and publishing, and, subsequently, implementation and evaluation (3.2.3). The development and approval of standards do not guarantee their use. Their spread depends, for example, on: - the installed base of other standards, cost of conversion, lock-in effects (12.2); - compatibility issues (12.3); - the role of dominant designs and reasons for bandwagoning (availability, informational increasing returns, avoiding uncertainty, economies of scale, improved functionality, essential functionality, and network externalities) (12.4); - positions of different stakeholders (including first agent, dominant agent, and free riders) (12.5); - competing standards, if any, and gateway technologies (12.6); - timing (12.7). The structure of a standard should, but often does not, correspond to a modular or layer design in the entities concerned. The most stable structure is one in which interface specifications can be kept unchanged for a long period. This can be achieved when the modules or layers each provide different functions (12.8). The integration of technologies as well as markets necessitates reshuffling of standardization activities, including merging of electrotechnical and nonelectrotechnical standardization (12.9).
251 3 What role is played by NSOs in order to facilitate actors to standardize? To support the development of standards, NSOs offer a formal framework (characterized by openness, consensus, transparency, and coherence), advice, secretarial support, access to the international and regional FSOs, and facilities to publish standards and provide information about them (3.2.5). NSOs have also introduced other types of standards, such as, Prestandards, Codes of Practice, Workshop Agreements, and Publicly Available Specifications; for some of these the process of development differs (3.2.3). The importance of national standardization is diminishing, but seven reasons for national standardization still apply (3.2.5) and many countries maintain large collections of national standards (Annex 1). NSOs enable national actors to get involved in formal standardization at the international and regional level (3.3), and can maintain international or regional committee secretariats (3.4). NSOs sell national and international standards, increasingly making use of information and communication technology (ICT) (3.5). Their information services include announcements of standards and developments in standardization, help for companies in tracing relevant standards, and elucidation contents (3.6). Many NSOs also offer services in the areas of metrology (3.7.1), testing and certification (3.7.2), and accreditation (3.7.3). Some NSOs also offer other services (listed in 3.7.4). 4 To what extent do NSOs meet user needs? In general, NSO customers are not able to express their needs beyond the idea that “standards should be developed faster.” The wishes of companies, consumer organizations, governments and SDOs have been listed, including quality characteristics of standards, how to influence the process of standards development, and the quality of these processes (4.4). User needs can also be derived from general standardization theory (4.2 and 4.3, based on 9 and 12). The extent to which NSOs meet user needs differs per NSO and per Technical Committee but, in general, NSOs are not known for excellent performance (4.5), so improvements are needed to meet present and future needs. 5 How could NSOs perform better? Emphasis was given to performance improvements in standards development (analysis in Chapter 5, improvement suggestions in 6), after which, the portfolio of other services was analysed and discussed (7). Research on possible improvements in standards development has been structured using a model developed for standardization in service sectors (11). This model was applicable because NSOs are service organizations. The model distinguishes between the service organization, employees within this organization, service delivery, service results, physical objects supporting service delivery, workrooms, additional elements to the core service, communication between customer and service organization, and communication within the service organization. Problems with the existing standardization process (listed in 1.1.2) are mainly due to:
252 - the multi-client situation: NSO customers differ in interests concerning the standards’ contents and concerning committee participation; moreover, within a company different people have different interests in the NSO’s role (5.2); - the division of tasks between different SDOs, committees within these organizations, and people within these committees (2.2.4, 5.7); - the fact that NSO customers are the main producers (of standards) (5.3); - the fact that their results (standards) should also be used by parties not involved in the process of drafting them (5.2). These problems are inherent in developing formal standards. However, improvements are possible in order to better meet customer needs. Co-producing customers should understand expected performance, be able to perform as expected and should be rewarded for performing as expected (5.3). NSOs can manage this by (5.3, 6.3, 6.9): - equipping participants with more knowledge and skills. This, however, should not be enforced, in order to keep the standardization scene accessible for all interested parties; - asking commitment at the start of projects, including financial contributions and personal effort; - improving interpersonal skills of NSO employees. Rewards include creating standards that better meet the interests of the participants, getting them faster, and at lower cost (5.3.4). In NSO services in many countries a shift can be observed from sticking to formal procedures towards market-orientation. The consensus principle hinders NSOs being problem-directed in a proactive way (5.4). The addition of Workshop Agreements and Publicly Available Specifications to the FSO portfolio may harm the FSO’s authority base. FSOs, therefore, should terminate these activities or offer them only under strict conditions (6.4.1). They better concentrate on the improvements of the development of “normal” standards. NSOs can play a more active and professional role in this: - by getting knowledge about and advising committees on the application of systematic methods for standards development (10, 13); - by designing standards in co-operation with subject matter experts (6.4.2); - by experimenting with performing committee chairmanship (6.4.3). The simple fact that it appears to be possible to issue a standard in less than one year whereas it generally takes three, four or five years (national standards) or six years (international standards) demonstrates that it should be possible to reduce the throughput time of standards considerably (5.5.1, 6.5.1). For this, asking commitment of committee members, better scheduling of their activities, using risk management, parallelization of activities at NSO offices, and better time management of NSO officers are necessary (6.5). In general, an exploratory study should be carried out before starting a project (6.5.8, 6.9, 13.4, 13.9). Once NSO performance has been improved there is less need for subcontracting secretarial activities (6.5.9).
253 FSOs should maintain their procedures and principles: they are necessary to manage cultural differences (5.5.5) and in so doing they distinguish themselves from other SDOs (2.2.3, 6.4.1). Competence and skills of NSO officers should better reflect their crucial role, a minimum-level might be agreed upon in order to ascertain an acceptable performance capability (5.6, 6.6, 6.9). FSOs tackle the problem of extreme division of tasks by procedural, structural, social, and technical co-ordination mechanisms (5.7). Additionally, organizational simplifications might be feasible (6.7.1), FSOs could improve the composition of committees (6.7.2) and could enhance organizational quality using, for instance, ISO 9000 (6.7.3). Communication is and will be further facilitated using ICT (5.8, 6.8). Electrotechnical and non-electrotechnical FSOs do this in a different way, though their processes are almost identical (5.8). From theories on diversification strategies it can be learnt that NSO customers could profit from extensions of the portfolio of NSO services as they are expected to prefer one-stop-shopping, provided that the services have an acceptable price/performance ratio and are not conflicting (7.2.6). Therefore, synergy between activities is necessary, for which good internal communication within the NSO bureau is a prerequisite (7.2, 7.10). Standards publishing is a self-evident NSO activity that may profit from further professionalization, among others, by using ICT. The latter is expected to lead to a reduced income for NSOs (7.3). Information services can profit from synergy with standards development and standards selling. Seen in another light, the more standards users, the better the aims of standardization are met, and information services encourage this use. NSOs could offer all kinds of information services, but should not exclude competitors in order not to damage their image of an impartial organization operating for the benefit of all. Therefore, some pre-cautions are needed (7.4). The habit of adding non-standardization services, such as metrology, testing, certification, and accreditation to the NSO portfolio should be avoided in maturing economies, because separation reflects the differences in character and responsibilities: these activities can directly affect the NSO’s reputation for impartiality (7.5 - 7.7). NSOs could consider providing forms of support for company standardization, as there are lots of possibilities for synergy between such services and their other activities (7.9, 14.4). This conclusion is based on an investigation of company standardization tasks (14.2) and the competences and assets needed to perform them (14.3).
254 In summary, the answer to the main research question: which services should national standardization organizations offer to facilitate actors to standardize? concerns both changes in the present portfolio of services and measures to improve existing services.
15.3 Evaluation of the study Crawford’s observation that the consensus by which standards are approved may be political rather than technical, resulting in weak standards (Crawford, 1991, p. 92), has not really been addressed in this study. The case on standards for management systems (Chapter 10) underpins his observation: using systematic methods (as discussed in Chapter 12) could result in compatible and user-friendly sets of standards, but inter-human processes hinder this. Further study on personal behaviour in groups and on negotiating and decision-making processes should be carried out to get a better understanding of standardization and the possible role of NSOs in managing it. As this topic was not scrutinized, this study could only stress the importance of skills of NSO officers in tackling these matters. It may be expected, moreover, that at this point differences per country will exist. A basic assumption in this study is that FSOs should stick to their principles: openness, consensus, arguments, transparency, and public support. All stakeholders expressed the value of these principles (4.4). In a period of post-modernism and growing individualism, however, these principles are not self-evident: postmodernism questions whether there is any truth, so arguments make place for pragmatism and opportunism. In the standardization scene, a gradual shift can be observed from common interest and idealism to business strategies, clashes of interest, and opportunism, though these were never absent. This not only applies to the standardization systems in former state economies, but seems to be a world-wide tendency. The relative growth of consortia can be seen as a manifestation of this, though the main reasons for their rise are the further specialization (for many subjects only a few experts in the world are able to have input), and the increase in R&D expenditures (companies co-operate in R&D to share costs and, as part of the project, agree on standards). The introduction of Workshop Agreements and commercial NSO activities, such as testing, are another manifestation of this shift. A culturalhistorical investigation might reveal the extent to which these observations are true, as well as their consequences for formal standardization. Again, there may be differences per country. Meek (1990) describes the “wrong attitudes” of some interest groups that have thwarted the standards-making process (in the ICT area). These attitudes include ‘Yes in Theory, not in Practice,’ ‘Yes, but not in My Area,’ ‘Yes, but not Yet,’ ‘Yes, but We Cannot Afford It,’ ‘We must have ‘State of the Art,’ and ‘Standards Inhibit Progress.’ He argues that most of these attitudes are simply wrong, some totally wrong, some at least in part, and gives arguments for opposing attitudes. However, such a dispute does not work when arguments against standardization are a rationalization of unspoken resistance. Stories about benefits of standardization and standards cannot remove a general feeling of uneasiness about them. Many do not know how to express this uneasiness. It is more than just complaining about the length of the process or having to
255 accept a standard that does not meet one’s needs. It is a feeling of discomfort about standardization and standards as such. The more standards affect people, the greater this uneasiness. Therefore, many concerns have been expressed about the ISO 9000 standards. These have been described and analysed by De Vries (1999a) making use of the philosophies of Foucault, Habermas, and Dooyeweerd. This research should be continued in order to further improve standardization practice and to better distinguish when standardization is an appropriate instrument. This study made use of Dutch experiences and literature from all over the world. As can be seen in Annex 1, the Dutch NSO is relatively involved in international and European standardization. Its policy is, in general, to implement new developments soon after the “big sisters” in France, Germany and the United Kingdom have done so. In 1991-1993, it experienced a shift from a technical-driven to a market-driven organization. For these three reasons, NNI provides a good case to study NSOs and necessary improvements. The only exception is services in the areas of metrology, certification, and accreditation: these are not carried out by NNI and, as was concluded in Chapter 7, for good reason. In general, conclusions of this study can be generalized for all NSOs, despite the differences listed in Annex 1, because: - all depend to a large extent on the international FSOs ISO and IEC and, therefore, have to adapt their processes to those of the ISO and IEC and are influenced by the culture of the international standardization arena; - they share three core services (standards development, standards selling, and information services), though they differ in the amount and diversity of services they offer; - they share basic principles of standardization and the formal processes of standard development are almost identical; - they encounter the same types of stakeholders. The service model used is applicable universally, so the areas for possible improvement will not differ per NSO. Priorities, however, are expected to differ per country to a large extent, due to differences in: - industrial setting and business culture in the country (5.5.5, 6.5.7); - institutional setting of the NSO (basic data in Annex 1); - size and portfolio of activities of the NSO (Annex 1); - sources of finance for the NSO (Annex 1); - importance attached to the elements of the NSO’s authority base (6.4.1). These differences, especially cultural differences, should be investigated further. The chapters most directly related to the Dutch situation concern the cases on management systems standards (10) and services (11). The method developed in 10 is applicable all over the world, but the acceptability of such a method may differ per region - in Japan, for instance, better acceptance may be expected than in most other countries, as Japan is leading in applying systematic methods for quality improvements. The model developed to study standardization in service sectors can be used everywhere, but the willingness to standardize and the choice of SDOs to support standardization will differ per country, depending on, for instance, business
256 culture, quality awareness, the role of certification, and governmental policies such as deregulation. Therefore, this study might be completed by future studies that address: - political issues; - decision-making in standardization committees and how to support this process; - perceptions per country of the value of the FSO authority base; - feelings of uneasiness about standards and standardization and how to cope with them; - differences per NSO (such as, size, portfolio, financing).
15.4 Contributions to the body of knowledge of standardization Choosing to give this study a broad scope, and not a focus on one case or on a specific scientific discipline, has offered a broader view on the topic, giving new insight into several points: - In-depth knowledge has been provided on the concept of standardization (Chapter 8) and on different categories of standards (Chapter 9) that prior to this study were not available, an absence which has caused confusion in the scientific literature. - Most of the standardization mechanisms described in Chapter 12 have been described earlier, but not together, and not related to NSOs. - Chapter 14 provides a systematic way of analyzing company standardization and relates it to NSO services: both are new in the scientific standardization literature. - The case on management systems standards (Chapter 10) not only provides insight to what does and doesn’t work in approving standards by using systematic methods, but also adds to the body of knowledge on management systems. - Analogously, the case on services (Chapter 11) not only provides insights into expanding the application area of standardization to service sectors and using a systematic market approach, but also contributes to the service management literature, in which standardization is often ignored. Moreover, the developed method appeared to also be applicable in studying service organizations in general, which was applied to NSOs (Chapters 5 and 6) and to certification bodies (Hoogers & De Vries, 1998a; De Vries, 1998c), and to service innovations in particular (Wintraaken, 1997). The role of SDOs has been described in many earlier studies, but always as a part of these. They tended to focus on the international, American, or European arena. This is the first study on NSOs. In retrospect, more attention should have been paid to their role in the international scene. This is related to the lack of a political dimension. Factors that were previously not addressed include: - the company’s choice between company standardization and co-operation (2.2.2); - the interconnection between FSOs, SSOs, GSOs, and consortia (2.2.4); - systematic description of NSO services (3);1 - investigation of user needs (4); 1
With the exception of studies from the chair of standardization at the University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg (Hesser & Inklaar, 1997; Hesser & Kleinemeyer, 1994; Kleinemeyer, 1997, Section 3.1).
257 - analysis of standardization processes (5, 6); - analysis of the NSO portfolio (7); - inclusion of systematic methods in the consensus-based standards development process (10, 13).
15.5
Recommendations for NSOs
15.5.1
Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
Based on the previous chapters, an analysis of general strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats can be made. Differences may vary per NSO. Subsection 15.5.2 lists practical recommendations mentioned in foregoing chapters. Subsection 15.5.3 analyzes these, elaborating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, to prioritizing (15.5.4). The strengths of NSOs include: - exclusive access to the international and, where applicable, regional FSOs, that are spiders in the web of world-wide standardization (3.9); - a large collection of national and international standards and their installed bases (3.9); - access to a large number of national organizations and experts (2.2, 5.2, 5.7); - customer co-production (5.3, 6.3); - characteristics: openness, consensus, transparency, public support for standards (3.2.4); - established and well-tried procedures (5.5, 5.7, 6.5.8); - non-exclusiveness concerning sectors and topics (this does not apply to NSOs in the electrotechnical field); - status, due to the above; - brand names, such as ISO, IEC, EN, BS, DIN, NF. NSO weaknesses include: - limitations in managing projects, due to: customer co-production (5.3, 6.3) multi-client situation (5.2, 6.2) extreme division of tasks among different people, committees, and organizations (2.2.4, 5.7); - other limitations inherent to consensus standardization: procedures that often hinder being the first agent (4.3, 5.4) difficulties in getting consumers and professional users involved (6.7.2) lack of stakeholder commitment in standardization projects (6.5.4, 6.7.2) participants that can enter into obligations of exertion, but not of results (6.5.8); - problems in meeting customer demands: process speed: often too slow to keep pace with technological and market developments (3.9, 5.5.1) insufficient quality of standards collections regarding accessibility, consistency, being up to date, and readability (4.3) one-sided centralized market channels (3.5, 7.3); - general lack of professionalism:
258 very little R&D (1.1.3, 3.7.4) lack of recognition of standardization as a profession for which higher education is necessary (3.7.4) lack of added value in consulting the standardization committees due to lack of knowledge about standardization mechanisms and methods (4.5) ambiguous definition of the NSO business (8, 9, 3.2 - 3.4); - the inferior performance of many NSOs which prevents other NSOs being part of a well-functioning international system (5.5.1, 6.6); - mistakes in portfolio choices: subcontracting of secretarial services that may be an indication of their own inability to achieve an acceptable level of performance, but could also lead to inferior quality (6.5.9) metrology (3.7.1, 7.5), testing (3.7.2, 7.6), certification (3.7.3, 7.6), accreditation (3.7.4, 7.7) that may harm the NSO’s impartiality selling of commercial books (7.3) which may affect the NSO’s authority base.
Opportunities for NSOs include: - market developments: growing need for standardization (1.1.1) growing need for interconnection of standardization activities (12.9) customer preference for one-stop shopping (7.2.4, 7.2.6) deregulation: governmental rules may partly be replaced by formal standards (2.2.5, 11.7, 11.8); - potential to strengthen the NSO’s position by: modifying current processes (6.5) upgrading knowledge and skills of technical officers (6.6) quality management, preferably ISO 9000-based (6.7.3) application of ICT tools (6.8); - current initiatives for improvements at the international, regional, and national level (3.8); - opportunity for synergy if NSOs further diversify their services (7.2), especially in the areas of: information services (7.4.) services related to company standardization (7.9, 14). Threats for NSOs include: - growing problems of maintaining income from standards selling, due to: the inevitable shift to Internet sales (7.3) competitors (7.3); - market developments: further accelleration of technological and market developments (1.1.2) declining importance of national entities (3.2.5) 2 growing governmental influence (1.1.1, 2.2.5); - loss of conscientiousness due to: introduction of Workshop Agreements (3.2.3, 5.5.1, 6.4.1) 2
Apart from the danger that governments impose additional criteria, they might also have too much influence in priority setting. This applies especially to CEN in its relation to the European Union, which, in turn, influences European NSOs (CEN, 1998b, p. 672). The EU pays 45% of the costs of CEN Central Office (Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften, 1998, p. 653).
259 activities in certification, testing, and accreditation (3.7, 7.5-7.7); - the expected quality move at the international and regional level, for which NSOs without ISO 9000 registration (6.7.3) and sufficient ICT tools (6.8) may be excluded from performing international and regional secretariats. After some years certification of technical officers is expected to become an additional requirement (6.6). Also minimal ICT equipment will soon be compulsory for being a participating member of standardization committees (6.8).
15.5.2
Practical recommendations
Section 4.5 lists the situations in which FSOs are the obvious SDOs for standards development and the situations in which other SDOs better meet user wishes. This is not black and white; FSOs may improve their present trend of decreasing market shares by improving their performance. Many of the improvements suggested in this study apply to both the national level (indicated with an N) and the international and regional levels (indicated with an I). The latter are indirect recommendations to NSOs as they can use their influence in ISO, IEC and regional FSOs to stimulate changes. Recommendations for improving the process of standards development a General recommendations NI FSOs should improve the definition and communication of their core business (8, 9, 3.2 - 3.4). N In order to maintain their role in European standardization, European NSOs should improve their added value (4.4.5). I International standards should meet market needs in such a way that there is no need for regional standards, except for standards related to legislation at the regional level (11.8). b Recommendations concerning the initial project stage NI Before starting standardization projects, feasibility studies should be carried out (6.2, 6.4.2, 6.9). N NSOs should inform committee members about expected behaviour (5.3.2, 6.3.1) and offer training facilities (5.3.3, 6.3.1, 6.5.8, 6.9). NI At the start of standardization projects, a project plan should be available, including a clear assignment (6.5.8), responsibilities, authorities and tasks of the participants (6.3.1), a schedule of activities (6.5.3), measures to account for risks (6.5.5), and commitment to contribute financially and personally (6.5.1, 6.5.3, 6.5.8). NI Changes to the project plan should be authorized by the responsible committee (6.5.5). c Recommendations concerning process design
260 N NSOs should, where possible, gear their processes to those of the ISO/IEC (6.5.7, 6.7.1), if they have not yet done this. N NSOs should implement ISO 9000 based quality management (6.7.3). d Recommendations for project management N NSOs should avoid delays at their offices by parallellization and better planning of activities (5.5.2, 6.5.1, 6.5.2). NI NSOs officers should advise their committees not only on procedures and layout rules, but also on standardization mechanisms (12) and the application of standardization methods (13). N NSO officers should be more directly involved with experts in preparing proposals for standards (6.4.2). N NSOs should be more actively involved in editing standards (6.4.2). NI Project management should include risk management (6.5.5). NI Committee secretariats should carry out configuration management (6.5.6). N NSOs could experiment with performing committee chairmanship by their technical officers (6.4.3). Recommendations for the NSO portfolio a Recommendations concerning the standards portfolio NI FSO should limit the number of types of “fast-track” standards; sector boards or TCs should decide on deviations from the normal route of standards development (6.4.1). NI Unless FSOs fine-tune criteria for Workshop Agreements, they should leave them to other SDOs (6.4.1). NI FSOs should not be afraid to leave work to other SDOs and should be willing to assist them in order to make standards that, at a later time, might be included in the FSO’s standards system (6.4.1). NI FSOs can co-operate with governments to develop standards for legislation, but the economic character of standardization should be maintained (2.2.5). N NSOs should stop selling books that were prepared without consensus-based procedures (7.3). b Recommendations concerning the portfolio of other services N NSOs are an obvious party to offer information services related to standardization, but should meet some criteria to avoid unfair competition (7.4). N NSO could add services related to company standardization to their portfolio (7.9, 14). N NSOs in mature economies should terminate activities in metrology (7.5) and accreditation (7.7). N NSOs should terminate activities in testing and certification (7.6). Recommendations for NSO officers
261 N In addition to the knowledge and skills of NSO officers listed by the ISO (5.6) they should: - be trained in understanding the mechanisms of standardization and applying standardization methods (6.4.2); - have common sense and communication skills (5.8, 6.5.8). I Minimum requirements for NSO officers that are allowed to perform international or European secretariats should be formulated, and an infrastructure developed for assessing their competence (6.6). Recommendations concerning the NSO organization NI Working Groups should be small, for the sake of effectiveness (6.7.2). NI Each electrotechnical FSO should merge with its related non-electrotechnical FSO (6.4.1, 6.9, 12.9). N NSOs should terminate contracting out secretariats, provided they are able to perform at the same level (6.5.9). N The NSO should have a policy for personnel recruitment and education (5.6); N NSOs should give their officers reasonable work loads in order to avoid delay and other quality losses (5.5.2, 6.5.2). Recommendations concerning standards NI NSOs should improve the quality of their standards on the aspects listed in 4.4.6 and 4.5. NI FSOs should add attachments to standards to better inform users on the aims of a standard, its genesis, and, when necessary, to elucidate its contents (6.9). Recommendations for ICT support NI NSOs should continue implementing ICT innovations (6.8). NI A tracking system may contribute to project management in standards development (6.5.3). Other recommendations NI FSOs should promote standardization as a discipline and be active in and support R&D and education in this profession (7.8). N NSOs should stimulate the functioning of an independent professional national standards users organization (7.8).
262 15.5.3 Analysis of recommendations Many of the above recommendations can be characterized as business process reengineering (BPR): fundamental rethinking and radical redesign of business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in critical, contemporary measures of performance such as cost, quality, service and speed (Hammer & Champy, 1995). Abrupt changes distinguish BPR from total quality management (TQM) which is a systematic incremental improvement approach (Krieter, 1996). BPR often does not work: even BPR promoter Champy admitted that around 70 percent of such efforts ended in failure (Donlon, 1996). Romney (1994) mentions that 75% of all BPR projects fall short of expectations, due to resistance, tradition, the time investment needed, cost, scepticism and fear of job losses. In this research project, NSO readiness for change has not been investigated. Therefore, it is difficult to indicate a sequence of priorities: fundamental changes might have advantages over incremental ones, but when the organization is not ready to cope with such radical ones, small improvements are better. Hammer (1987, pp. 198-205) describes six possible BPR strategies. The most radical one is diversification: Diversification creates new processes to support new products and services. This is the riskiest strategy of the six because it requires change in what the company does, namely in its processes. More than just finding new markets, diversification means creating new ways of working as well. This is a bad choice for a company that can’t be sure that it has, or can develop, a process advantage over competitors. NSOs differ in the rate of diversification. From this study it can be concluded that diversification, especially in the area of information services, can create customer benefits due to synergy effects. The potential benefits are high, but so are the risks of failure. Therefore, adding, for instance, company standardization services or courses to the portfolio should not have top priority for NSOs that are not yet active in these fields. The best strategy is to improve existing processes before introducing new ones.3 Such improvements can be developed and implemented by each NSO, but they should also co-operate in development, as they already do in, for instance, ICT. They have a common interest in improving the world-wide standardization system, on which they all increasingly depend. Such co-operation should prevail in spite of their competition in setting specific standards and in selling standards, especially in the latter case when the gentleman’s agreement has disappeared.4
3
In their book on international standardization of telecommunications Schmidt and Werle (1998, p. 85) mention North’s finding that institutions, once they have emerged, gather momentum, and are more likely to change incrementally than radically. 4 And their competition in the area of certification (see Section 7.6).
263 15.5.4
Priorities
In this Subsection some priority areas for NSOs will be indicated. Priorities per individual NSO can be based on these, but then, of course, additional study of that specific NSO, its customers, and its environment is necessary. NSOs in small economies profit from the strengths of the international standardization system, and can take its weaknesses for granted: they may wait for others to cope with them. They can profit from opportunities used by other NSOs and ISO/IEC, but will have to give priority to performing their basic functions at an acceptable level. This level should be raised, especially at the point of the ICT infrastructure, in order to be and stay an effective member of the ISO or IEC community. This primarily applies to standards development, but ICT will also be increasingly important in maintaining the role of the NSO as a national selling point. However, even with sufficient ICT tools, there is a threat of losing a considerable part of the standards selling activities and the related income, due to competitors and Internet sales. In the case of active participation in international standardization, the NSO should give priority to educating and training its officers, national committee members, and, especially, delegates to international meetings, for the sake of effectiveness of participation. NSOs in small economies that want to acquire or maintain the option to perform international secretariats, will have to invest more in the competence of officers, in the quality of processes (preferably rewarded with an ISO 9000 certificate), and in additional ICT. Large NSOs can implement different improvements simultaneously and should give priority to improving the “normal” standards development process. A relative shift to information products may diminish the danger of decreasing income from standards selling. In order to turn the current tide of diminishing credibility, they should terminate certification and testing services and the development and/or selling of low-status publications as soon as possible. Large institutes may have the lead in initiatives for improvements at the international level. It is impossible to give recommendations for medium-size NSOs other than the selfevident remark that their priorities will be a mix of the above for small and large NSOs. The experience of the Nordic countries shows that medium-size and small NSOs may co-operate to arrive at national improvements and at a common input in the international and regional organizations. At the international (and regional) level further initiatives should be taken for process improvements within the Central Offices. Setting additional requirements for the qualifications and performance of officers should be considered. Through the years, these should be strengthened gradually, in order to get a continuous upgrading of the world-wide standardization system. The more improvements made, the more the international system will profit from further integration of ISO and IEC (and, subsequently, CEN and CENELEC), leading to full merging, taking the best out of the two traditions.
264
15.6
Lessons for actors needing standardization
Actors needing standardization can use this study: - to help find their route to standards, including arguments for the selection of SDOs (2, 3.2 - 3.4, 15.5); - to get a better understanding of standardization in general (2), and of NSOs in particular (3); - to formulate basic needs concerning standardization services to present to SDOs (4, 6.9, 7.10); - as a basis for the design of feasibility studies (that could also be carried out by organizations other than SDOs) (13.9, 6.9); - for education of standardization experts; - as a source for a systematic approach to quality management, environmental management, and occupational health and safety management (10); - as a source for systematic service management, including service standardization and service innovation (11); - as a source for systematic standardization at company level (12, 13, 14).
15.7 Recommendations for future research Future research may include: - Transition strategies for FSOs. - Acceptability of suggested NSO improvements. This might be done by asking both NSOs and participants in standardization. In case of actual implementation of changes, the results could be investigated.5 - Possible FSO improvements at the international or regional level (ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC). - Specific themes related to NSOs, such as the way they are financed, membership constructions, the way of organizing NSO head offices, and advantages and disadvantages of governmental NSOs compared to private NSOs. - Case studies of NSOs in different countries (15.1). - Personal behaviour in standardization groups, negotiating, decision-making (15.1). - Costs and benefits of standardization related to the decision to participate. - Standardization methods (12). - Process innovation in standards development by means of ICT tools, including systems for terminology control and information retrieval (6.8, 7.4.2), and decision support systems (5.8, 6.8). - Discomfort with standardization and consequences thereof for standardization practice (15.3). - Cultural-historical research on standardization (15.3).
5
Chapters 6, 10, and 13 are used in an ISO project to avoid future incompatibilities between management systems standards - this project might provide data for such a proof-is-in-the-pudding assessment (De Vries & Hortensius, 1998).
Annex 1 NSO DATA This annex lists some data on NSOs from the IEC (1999), ISO (1997b & 1998f), and the (American) National Institute of Standards and Technology (Toth (Ed.), 1997). In the subsequent colums of Table A1-1, the following data are presented: 1 Country; Year of foundation; Private organization (P) or governmental organization (G). 2 Number of staff; Number of committee members. 3 Indicator for influence in ISO: number of WG secretariats + 2 x number of SC secretariats + 4 x number of TC secretariats; IEC member (or associate member or pre-associate member): yes (IEC) or no (-). 4 Number of standards published or approved by the ISO member body; % voluntary standards (the remaining are mandatory standards). 5 NSO activities, if any, in the areas of metrology (M), testing/certification (C) and/or accreditation (A); Information products, if any: journals (J), courses (C) and/or information on (technical) regulations (R). 6 NSO’s yearly budget (in millions USD); % of income from: sales of publications / certification and testing / private sector subscription / government subvention / other. 7 Remarks / additional data. The available data sets were not complete. For instance, an NSO may offer courses, though this is not indicated in the list. 1 Country Year / Priv/Gov. Argentina 1935 P Australia 1922 P Austria 1920 P Beylarussia about 1991 G
2 Staff Part.
3 ISO IEC
111 3000 309 9000 111 7700
0 63 IEC 19 IEC 0 IEC
Belgium 42 32 1946 6000 IEC Bolivia 16 0 1993 P 250 Brazil 195 10 1940 P IEC TableA3-1a. NSO data per country. 1
2
3
4 Stnd. %Vol . 7900 95 5400 70 7500 88.5 19000 0 7342 99 760 90 8000 100
4
5 Act. Inf.
6 Budget %S/C/P/G/O
C
4 15/55/30/0/0 10.7 69/0/9/14/8
JR J MCA
0/0/0/100/0
C J
0.5 30/0/20/33/17 0.25 5/75/20/0/0 7.5 17/12/48/17/0
5
6
J C
7 Remarks
International Information Centre for Terminology. Catalogue of products manufactured by Beylarussian enterprises. Parastatal organization.
7
272 Country Year / Priv/Gov. Canada 70 G Chile 1973 China 1957 G Colombia 1963 P Costa Rica 1987 P Czech Republic 1968 Denmark 1926 P Ecuador 1970 G Finland 1924 P France 1926 P
Staff Part.
ISO IEC
60
114 IEC 0 29 IEC 2 IEC 0 8 IEC 55 IEC 0 15 IEC 392 IEC
Stnd. %Vol . 1600 100 1900 70 17000 90 4000 92 154 80 16000 10 3500 92 2000 5 5200 86 19470 99
Germany 1917 P
1061 35000
711 IEC
22000 100
Greece 1976 G Hungary 1947 Iceland 1987 P India 1987 Indonesia 1984 Israel 1945 P Italy 1921 P Jamaica 1968 G Japan 1949 G
72
8 IEC 6 IEC 0 IEC 0 IEC 0 IEC 9 IEC 73 IEC 0 143 IEC
2300 99.6 14360 81 2600 100 16500 99 3600 97 2100 65 10400 90 250 56 8100 100
C JR C JR
1030 0 450 0 1300 33
MC J MCA
4 Stnd.
5 Act.
43 40 25000 140 7 48 51 133 96 120 70 620
100 11 2340 55 3000 880 4000 107 5000 186 95 9231
Jordan 121 0 1972 G IEC Kazakhstan 40 0 1992 G Kenya 500 0 1974 G Table A3-1b. NSO data per country. 1 2 3 Country Staff ISO
Act. Inf.
J C
J C J C J A J C J MC J C JR C JCR
JCR
C J JR C JCR J MA J J
MC JC
Budget %S/C/P/G/O
Remarks
11.2 23/0/0/62/15 1.9 10/?/?/62/? 2.3 0/0/0/100/0 4.5 10/50/19/17/4 0.2 11/?/5/45/? 10 22/0/0/78/0 25
Total number of publicly available standards: 5500 Parastatal organization.
Consultancy services.
1.5 2/38/0/60/0 13.7 80 27/7/11/24/32
110 67/0/17/16/0
6.7 2/16/1/74/7 2.7 12/13/0/73/0 1.3 12/?/2/6/? 7/89/?/?/? 0.4 0/0/0/100/0 63 1/78/?/4/? 14.5 34/2/19/31/14 2.4 ?/?/?/76/? 14.6 0/0/0/100/0 1 0/0/0/100/0 0.2 ?/?/?/70/? 2.8
6 Budget
Bilingual terminological data bank (French/ English) / ISONET French Language Agency. 152 other SDOs publish 15000 standards. Software for standards collections management.
Database of certified products.
203 other (mostly private) SDOs publish 9900 standards.
18943 other standards publicly available.
7 Remarks
273 Year / Priv/Gov. Korea, Republic of / 1961 G Kyrgyzstan about 1991 G Malaysia P Malta 1965 G Mauritius 1975 Mexico 1943 G Mongolia 1953 G Mozambique 1993 G Nepal 1976 G Netherlands, the 1916 P New Zealand 1965 P Norway 1923 P Pakistan P Peru 1992 G Philippines 1964 G Poland 1924 G Portugal 1986 G Romania 1970 G Russian Federation 1991 G
Part.
IEC
53
0 IEC 0 8 IEC 0 0 IEC 0 IEC 1 0 0 113 IEC 9 IEC 76 IEC 0 IEC 0 0 IEC 19 IEC 0 IEC 0 IEC 80 IEC
11 9 43 102 210 500 100 2 84 210 4500 63 39 152 100 200 100 54 314 5823 216 129 320 370
%Vol . 9400 100 40000 60 2000 100 60 48 173 95 5500 98 3500 9
400 99 6000 100 1800 99 3600 90 3500 99 3300 99 1700 97 15366 83 2700 90 14000 96 22000 40
Saudi Arabia 512 0 1132 1972 G IEC 15 Singapore 27 2 713 1963 600 IEC 88 Slovakia 50 8 1500 G 1350 IEC 90 Slovenia 20 1880 1991 G 2100 IEC 100 South Africa 1372 21 1945 IEC Table A1-1c. NSO data per country. 1 2 3 4 Country Staff ISO Stnd. Year / Part. IEC %Vol
Inf.
%S/C/P/G/O
J MCA
2.3 0/0/0/100/0 0.8 1/99/0/0/0
JC
C JC MCA C R R MC
JCR C JC C J M CA CA JR J JR A J MCA J
MCA
0.3 0/0/0/100/0 0.8 3/12/0/85/0 0.3 0/0/0/100/0 0.2 4/5/?/54/? 0.3 0/0/0/100/0 0.3 0/0/0/100/0 18 50/0/39/1/10 6.3 33/28/28/3/8 9 64/8/1/22/5 0.8 3/26/?/62/? 7.5 ?/?/?/12/? 0.9 50/40/10/0/0 6.7 3/0/0/97/0 13.5 0.8 0/0/0/100/0 5.5 5/8/2/85/0
JR MCA JR CA JR
10.4 0/0/0/100/0 2.3 JR 2.5 0/0/0/100/0 0.8 28/0/0/72/0 43 3/74/0/23/0
5 Act. Inf.
6 Budget %S/C/P/G/O
Parastatal organization.
Several services in the area of quality management.
Terminological database, services and products. ISONET Russian Language Agency. Consultancy service.
Translation services.
Autonomous body created by the government. 7 Remarks
274 Priv/Gov. Spain 1985 P Sri Lanka 1965 G Sweden 1922 P
180 114 340 107 6500
Switzerland 1919 P Tanzania 1975 G Thailand 1968 G Trinidad and Tobago / 1974 G Tunisia 1982 G Turkey 1954 G
35
Ukraine 1991 G United Kingdom 1901 P United States 1918 P
120 142
135 459 100
103 1216
25000 106
0 IEC 0 181 IEC
. 10800 80 1300 93 12094 100
73 IEC 1 1 IEC 0 -
5700 100 500 75 1500 97 400 93
0 12 IEC
4000 86 12600 92
MCA R CA JCR
2.5
0 IEC 602 IEC
1553
MCA
13700 100
C JR
1.3 2/3/0/95/0 225 25/62/6/7/0
715 IEC
11500 JR
30 34/0/43/?/?
Uruguay 28 0 1939 P 300 Venezuela 66 0 1973 P 5000 Zambia 28 0 1982 30 Zimbabwe 84 0 1957 P Table A1-1d. NSO data per country.
C JR C JCR JR
JR C A JR
1200 90 3241
C C C
200 100 400 99.6
MCA A J
25 15/63/4/10/8 2.5 2/2/?/75/? 37 48/11/3/13/2 5 10 45/?/16/21/? 0.9 0.4/7/?/60/? 15 0/0/0/100/0 1.6
41 2/80/13/0.3/5
0.9 4/38/19/3/35 0.9 8/68/3/0/21 1 2/0/1/97/0 1/17/?/75/?
Services in the areas of patents and quality management. Total number of publicly available standards: 21553. Translation services.
Portion of revenues from accreditation: 4%. 80 GSOs and 620 SSOs publish another 81500 standards. Portion of revenues from training: 35%.
Services in the area of quality management. Services in the area of quality management.
275
Annex 2 BLOM’S METHOD FOR STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT Blom’s method for standards development focuses on systematic ordering of data. Standards are a means of progressing from an existing to a new situation. In the existing situation, there are entities each having one or more properties. These properties may have different values. Standardization is directed at ordering the collection of entities. Blom presents an example of a set of standards intended to restrict the variety in a collection of different pipes: Entity Piping part.
Property Way of connection.
Value Flange connection. Welded connection. Solder connection. Glue connection. Sleeve connection. Material. Cast iron. Cast iron. galvanized. St 00. St 35. St 35.8. 15 Mo 3. 13 Cr Mo 4 4. Bronze. PVC, solid. Function. Stop. Cap. Nipple. Socket. Etc. Table A2-1. Structure of entities with properties and possible values
‘Way of connection,’ ‘material,’ and ‘function’ are the most important properties, in sequence of diminishing importance. For each relevant combination of values of these properties a (product) standard is made, specifying other properties: allowed sizes, acceptable overpressure, further specification of the connection, designation (using a code number). Furthermore, a picture is added. All standards have the same format: comparable data on the same place.1 Blom’s second example concerns thermal insulation for piping. Here, the data start with the different pipes. The situation to be reached is indicated by a description of the necessary insulation performance. Both can be described using entities (pipe and insulation performance, respectively) with one or more properties (for pipes, for instance, a, b, and c, each taking two possible values: a', a", b', b", c', c"; for insulation performance, for instance, p, q, and r with possible values p', p", q', q", r', r"). All combinations of values can be grouped on the axes of a matrix, as follows: Values needed 1
Akzo Nobel has added a software tool that enables engineers to quickly find the right piping specification (Oly & Slob, 1999, pp. 60-61; the company’s name was not mentioned).
276 p’
p’’
q’ r’’
r’
q’ r’’
r’
q’’ r’’
r’
r’’ c’ b’ c’’ a’ c’ b’’ c’’ c’ b’ c’’ a’’ c’ b’’ c’’ Table A2-2. Chosen solutions per combination of values given and values needed. Values given
r’
q’’
In each case in the matrix, an (insulation) solution can be indicated: the preferred solution for any given situation described by the combination of values of the lefthand side with the above combination of values. Blom’s last example concerns hazardous materials. For each hazardous material a standard sheet is needed, indicating the chemical substance, the dangers, hazard prevention, emergency actions, and first aid. Developing such standards is a complicated process due to the large number of interested parties having different interests both on the contents of the standard and on the way to present the data. Each specialist should add the data of his specialty and the standards engineer should group these into the standard format. After this, the specialists should comment on each other’s input. The standardization bureau should draft a standard which takes these comments into account.
277
Annex 3 NNI’S METHOD STUDIES
FOR
STRATEGIC
STANDARDIZATION
NNI uses a method for strategic studies on market needs for participation in possible new areas of standardization.2 Often, the impetus for such an inventory is a proposal for a new field of standardization activities at the European level. In the study, these activities are linked to national business sectors. The extent to which these sectors’ economic well-being depends on the use of standards is estimated. The selection of sectors is based on their national importance, from the point of view of economic and/or other aspects. Table A2.1 gives a set of indicators for detemining the importance of standardization for sectors or economic groups. Indicators for the extent to which the economic well-being of a sector depends on standardization Indicators Elucidation 1 Industry or service? In general, industry will need more standards than service sectors. 2 Customers: professional With professional users, more standards will often be needed. They users or consumers? will often refer to standards in contracts. 3 CE3 - yes or no? With New Approach Directives,4 standards are the easiest way to meet the legal requirements, so extra standards are needed. 4 High-tech or low-tech? High-tech industries will often need more standards. 5 Standard products or For standard products such as sugar, in general fewer standards will be differentiated products? needed than for differentiated products, such as pharmaceuticals. 6 Percentage of companies ISO 9000 requirements force companies to pay attention, in a having an ISO 9000 systematic way, to the use of technical standards. quality system and/or having started to develop such a system. 7 Current participation of the Indicators for current participation include: sector in national, and/or - participating or observing memberships of ISO/IEC TCs; international - number of delegates in international meetings; standardization. - number of national committees; - number of participants in these committees. 8 Relations of the sector with The ISO/IEC/CEN/CENELEC technical programmes show the areas new areas of work in in which new standards are being developed. Are these areas relevant European/international for the sector? standardization. Table A3-1. Indicators for the extent to which the economic well-being of a sector depends on standardization.
The investigation consists of five phases: 1) definition of the sector or area of interest; 2) description of the sector and its importance; 3) analysis of the strategic importance of standardization; 4) analysis of the gap between existing and desired activities; 5) plan of action. The investigation is just a rough one, in accordance with the Pareto principle that, in general, 80% of the data can be found with 20% of the effort. To get the last 20% of the 2
The report in which the method is described (Horringa & De Konink Consultants, 1991) is not publicly available. This annex is an adaptation of an earlier publications (De Vries, 1995b). 3 CE = Conformité Européen, see Subsection 2.2.5. 4 European directives that set essential product requirements and refer to standards, see Subsection 2.2.5.
278 data, 80% of the effort is needed. For this investigation, one should be happy once 80% of the data has been collected, and avoid spending time and effort getting the last 20%. The final result of the investigation will be a plan of action: what has to be done, by whom, paid by whom, and the sequence of activities. 1 Definition of the sector The sector to be investigated has already been determined, though sometimes it may be useful to take a subsector rather than the whole sector. For instance, the national machine building sector may be relatively small, but the subsector of machines for agriculture has a substantial share in the European market. It might be wise to only investigate that subsector. Some areas of standardization are not restricted to one sector. For instance, standards for technical drawings or environmental management will be used by several sectors. In such cases, an area of interest, such as the environment, could be investigated in several sectors; or the investigation could be restricted to a few sectors, or to one sector, for instance ‘redundancies in the building industry.’ 2 Sector description and importance of the sector The key questions in this first part of the investigation are: 1 What role does the sector play within the economic system? 2 What is the economic importance of the sector for the country? 3 What developments in the coming years might influence this importance? The industrial column is mapped and the following data are presented per party: - the number of participants/companies; - the 3 biggest ones and their market share (%); - the percentage of small and medium-size enterprises (< 100 employees); - kind of products: standard products or differentiated products; - market situation: fierce competition or willingness to co-operate. This part of the investigation aims at mapping the different parties concerned, in their mutual relations. The economic importance of the sector can be determined using indicators.5 The general importance of the sector includes non-economic factors, for instance, the importance due to governmental policies, such as, environmental issues, health and safety issues, or policy in science and/or technology (for instance, priority areas in research). Attention should also be paid to trends that may change the sector’s importance, such as, competition with other countries (will the sector be a winner or a loser?), developments in technology, and governmental support priorities.
5
These include the number of employees, the amount of production, export, and import, and the share in intra-European trade.
279 3 Strategic importance of standardization The current and expected situation in standardization is described by making an inventory of existing standards, programmes of work, and expected future developments. Next, the strategic importance of standardization for the sector is estimated using an inventory of interested parties, and, per party, an estimate of the effects of existing and possible future standardization developments, assuming that it is possible to determine such effects. If not, one might think of choosing two or three possible scenarios, and determining the effects per party, per scenario. This will give a rough idea of the possible influences of standardization developments. Of course, not all possible effects should be studied, only the strategic ones that are really of interest. These are, mostly, the influences that can directly affect the competitive positions in the market (making this position stronger or weaker), and/or strengthen or weaken government objectives. 4 The gap between existing and desired activities Once the sector has been described, its importance is clear, and it has been determined which parties find standardization strategically important, the gap, if any, between the existing and the necessary activities should be analysed. Therefore, the current situation has to be mapped: 1 awareness, knowledge - Do all interested parties know enough about strategic standardization developments? - What is their level of knowledge on standardization? - Do they anticipate new standards? - Are they aware of implications of changes in standardization to their business? 2 influence, involvement - Do parties participate in national or international standardization? - Is there any co-ordination of national participation in international standardization? If so, how is this managed? Which activities are carried out by companies, the NSO, the national government, and/or other parties? 5 Plan of action Based on the description of the gap between existing and necessary activities, a plan of action is made that describes possible actions to be carried out, such as: 1 awareness, knowledge - listing parties concerned; - persuading these parties of the importance of standardization, by means of, for instance, newsletters, seminars, meetings, and/or briefings; - working out a way to provide the interested parties with information, by means of, for instance, a help desk, newsletters, seminars, and/or meetings. 2 influence, involvement - lobbying; - participation in standardization work.
280 3 resources - cost per proposed action (mainly those related to the man hours spent on the activities); - parties possibly willing to pay for this; - parties best equipped to perform the proposed activities: NSO, branch organization, governmental agency, and/or another party. 4 step-by-step plan to perform the targeted activities 1 logical sequence of actions; 2 estimated time needed per action; 3 who should do what, when; 4 commitment, including financial commitment. 5 evaluation A detailed plan may have a time frame of about three years. After that, it should be assessed whether the gaps between the past and the desired situation have been bridged. The above method makes use of desk research, interviews, telephone inquiry and team analysis. Experience shows, that such an investigation can generally be done in about 40 man-days, preferably by two people.
281
Annex 4 References The problem is not a lack of recommended standards (for bibliographic references), but too many different ones. Walt Crawford (1991) Technical Standards - An Introduction for Librarians, Ed. 2, p. 23.
For the benefit of the reader, these references provide a bit more data than most bibliographies. Aa, W. van der & T. Elfring (1996) Management van dienstverlenende bedrijven [Management of Service Companies]. Academic Service, Schoonhoven, 1996, 185 pp. Abecassis, Jacques (Ed.) (1995) Standards for Access to the European Market. Ed. 2, CEN Central Secretariat, Brussels, 496 pp. Adolphi, Hendrik (1996) Die Stellung von Normenabteilungen [The Position of Standards Departments]. Professur für Normenwesen, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, 18 pp. Adolphi, Hendrik (1997) Strategische Konzepte zur Organisation der betrieblichen Standardisierung [Strategic Concepts for the Organization of Company Standardization]. DIN Normungskunde Vol. 38, Beuth Verlag, Berlin / Vienna / Zurich, 221 pp. AFNOR (1967) La normalisation dans l’entreprise [Company Standardization]. Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, 295 pp. AFNOR (1979) X 03-100 ‘Termes généraux et définitions relatifs à la normalisation et à la certification [General Terms and Definitions Related to Standardization and Certification]. Association Française de Normalisation, Paris. AFNOR (1993) X 00-001 ‘Normes françaises - Règles pour la rédaction et la présentation - Conseils pratiques [French Standards - Rules for the Drafting and the Presentation - Guidelines]. Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, 157 pp. AFNOR (1998) INES: Internet Network for European Standardization. http:// ines.afnor.fr/cen/first.htm. AGN (1997) Activity Report Sept. 1996 / Aug. 1997. Arbeitsgemeinschaft Normenpraxis, Vienna, 1 p. Akao, Y (Ed.) (1990) Quality Function Deployment, Integrating Customer Requirements into Production Design. Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 369 pp. Aken, Teun van (1996) De weg naar projectsucces [The Route Towards Project Success]. Uitgeverij LEMMA BV, Utrecht, 230 pp. ANSI (1998a) Research Services. http://web.ansi.org/public/services/research/html, 1 p. ANSI (1998b) Standards Tracking and Automated Reporting (STAR) Services. http:// www.nssn.org/about_star.html, 1 p. Arthur, Brian W. (1988) Competing Technologies: An Overview. In: Giovanni Dosi et al. (Ed.) Technical change and economic theory. Pinter Publishers, New York, pp. 590-607. ASTM (1998) Welcome to ASTM. http://www.astm.org, 3pp.
282 ASTM Standardization News (1997a) An Interview with the ANSI President. In: ASTM Standardization News, Vol. 25 No. 6, June 1997, American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshoshocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 20-23. ASTM Standardization News (1997b) An Interview with the SCC Executive Director and CEO. In: ASTM Standardization News, Vol. 25 No. 6, June 1997, American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshoshocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 24-27. Ausschuß Normenpraxis im DIN (1995) Leitfaden für Mitarbeiter in europäischen Normungsgremien zur Erstellung anwendungsgerechter Europäischer Normen [Guideline for Participants in European Standardization Committees to Establish User-friendly European Standards]. In: Normung wird unverzichtbar für erfolgreiche Unternehmungsführung [Standardization is Becoming Indispensable for a Successful Business],
29. Konferenz Normenpraxis, Leipzig 1995, ANP Ausschuß Normenpraxis in DIN / DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin / Beuth, Vienna / Zurich, pp. 15-1 - 15-13. Axelroth, Robert et al. (1995) Coalition Formation in Standard-setting Alliances. In: Management Science, Vol. 41 No. 9, September 1995, Institute of Management Science, Baltimore, pp. 1493-1508. Baake, Pio and Anette Boom (1997) Vertical Product Differentiation, Network Externalities, and Compatibility Decisions. Workshop on Standardization, Munich June 6-8, 1997, 30 pp. Barnes, E. et al (1988) Development and organization of a company standards department. ISO Development Manual 5, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 65 pp. Barnett, Peter N. (1993) World Standards Day - A U.S. Celebration Award Winning Paper. In: ANSI Reporter, November 1993, American National Standards Institute, New York, pp. 1-6. Baynard, Ernest C. (1982) The Nature of the Voluntary Industrial Standards Concept. In: Computers & Standards, Vol. 1 No. 2/3, September 1982, NorthHolland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp. 145-159. Becker, Dipl.-Ing. Ingfried B. (1997) Standardization and Conformity Assessment for the Global Information Society. In: Proceedings Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 11-28. Beitz, Prof.Dr.-Ing. Wolfgang (1971) Normung und Systemtechnik - Grundlage für ganzheitliche Betrachtungsweise in Konstruktion und Fertigung [Standardization and System Analysis - Basis for a Thorough Approach in Construction and Production]. In: DINMitteilungen, Vol. 50 No. 9, September 1991, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 378-384. Belleflamme, Paul (1997) Coalition-Proof Adoption of Network Technologies in Asymmetric Oligopolies. Workshop on Standardization, Centre of Economic Studies, Munich June 6-8, 1997, 13 pp. Berg, Sanford V. (1989) Technical Standards as Public Goods: Demand Incentives for Cooperative Behavior. In: Public Finance Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, January 1989, pp. 29-54. Bergner, K.-H. (1997) Writing sign language. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 2, February 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 15-17. Berry, Leonard L., Valerie A. Zeithaml & A. Parasuraman (1992) Five Imperatives for Improving Service Quality. In: Christopher H. Lovelock (Ed.)
283 Managing Services - Marketing, Operations, and Human Resources, Ed. 2, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 224-235. Besen, Stanley M. & Joseph Farrell (1994) Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization. In: The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 8 No. 2, Spring 1994, American Economic Association, Nashville, pp. 117-131. Beuth (1998) Beuth und DIN immer im Kundennähe [Beuth and DIN Always Close to their Customers]. In: Beuth informiert, 1998 No. 4, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, p. 1. Biencourt, Olivier (1996) Concurrence par la qualité dans le transport routier de marchandises: normes ou résaux? [Competition by Quality in Road Transport of Goods Standards or Net?] In: Revue d’Économie Industrielle, No. 75, first term 1996, Éditions Techniques et Économiques, Paris, pp. 211-222. Biesheuvel, drs. J, drs. J. Verkuyl & ir. H.J. de Vries (1993) Normalisatie in de metalektro, van beroeps- naar taakgericht werken - deelrapportage [Standardization in the Metal and Electrotechnical Industry, from Profession- to Task-directed Work - Section of the Report]. NEHEM Consulting Group, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands /
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 50 pp. Blankart, Charles B. & Günter Knieps (1993) State and standards. In: Public Choice, Vol. 77, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, the Netherlands / Boston / London, pp. 39-52. Blijham, Joost M. (1996) Concurrenten ten aanzien van het leveren van normen [Competitors in Providing Standards]. MT-NNI/96-259, Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut, Delft, 2 pp. (Not publicly available) Blom, A.J.L. (1971) Bedrijfsnormalisatie [Company Standardization]. Akzo, Arnhem, 98 pp. (Not publicly available) Böcker, Martin (1996) A multiple index approach for the evaluation of pictograms and icons. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 18, Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 107-115. Bongers, C. (1980) Standardization - Mathematical Methods in Assortment Determination. Doctoral thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Martinus Nijhoff Publishing, Boston / the Hague / London, 248 pp. Bonino, Michal J. & Michael Spring (1991) Standards as change agents in the information technology market. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 12 No. 2, North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 97-107. Bouma, ir. J.J. (1989a) Management van technische ontwikkelingen [Management of Technical Developments]. Analoog Data BV, Assen, the Netherlands, 14 pp. Bouma, ir. J.J. (1989b) Standaardisatie, een vak apart? [Standardization: A Special Discipline?]. In: Normalisatie-magazine, Vol. 65 No. 3, March 1989, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 8-10, 19. Bouma, J.J. & W. Winter (1982) Standardization fundamentals. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 15 pp. Bowen, David E. (1986) Managing Customers as Human Resources in Service Organizations. In: Human Resource Management, Fall 1986, Vol. 25 No. 3, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 371-383. Brady, Robert A. (1929) Industrial Standardization. National Industrial Conference Board, Inc., New York, 306 pp. Braunstein, Yale M. & Lawrence J. White (1985) Setting technical compatibility standards: an economic analysis. In: The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 31 No. 3, Summer 1985, Federal Legal Publications, New York, pp. 337-355.
284 British Standards Society (1995) PD 3542 ‘Standards and Quality Management - an Integrated Approach.’ British Standards Institute, London, 120 pp. Broek, V.C. van den (1998) Internationale vertegenwoordiging bij Electronic Commerce [Electronic Commerce International Representation]. Stichting EDIFORUM, Leidschendam, the Netherlands, 52 pp. Broekhuis, drs. H. & Prof.dr.ir. A.C.J. de Leeuw (1995a) NEN-ISO normering in de professionele dienstverlening I [ISO Standardization in Professional Services I]. In: Bedrijfskunde, Vol. 67 No. 2, Uitg. Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands, pp. 71-79. Broekhuis, drs. H. & Prof.dr.ir. A.C.J. de Leeuw (1995b) NEN-ISO normering in de professionele dienstverlening II [ISO Standardization in Professional Services II]. In: Bedrijfskunde, Vol. 67 No. 3, Uitg. Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands, pp. 66-74. Brown, Jack E. (1993) Technology Joint Ventures to Set Standards or Define Interfaces. In: Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 61 No. 3, Spring 1993, American Bar Association, Chicago, pp. 921-936. Bruggen, ing. W.A. van et al (1997) Opstellen van procedures voor een ISO 9000kwaliteitssysteem [Establishing Procedures for an ISO 9000 Quality System]. Ed. 2, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 104 pp. BSI (1992) BS 7750 ‘Specifications for environmental systems.’ British Standards Institution, London, 22 pp. BSI (1994) BS 7750 ‘Specifications for environmental systems.’ Ed. 2, British Standards Institution, London, 20 pp. BSI (1995) Reflecting Priorities - An introduction to Project Acceptance in BSI Standards. BSI Standards, London, 9 pp. BSI (1996) Standardization and the view of stakeholders - A report on BSI standards’ programme of stakeholder research 1994-1996. Document 96/88 0212, British Standards Institution, London, 3 pp. BSI (1997a) BS 0-1 ‘A standard for standards - Part 1: Guide to the context, aims and general principles.’ British Standards Institution, London, 14 pp. BSI (1997b) BS 0-2 ‘A standard for standards - Part 2: Recommendations for committee procedures.’ British Standards Institution, London, 34 pp. BSI (1997c) BS 0-3 ‘A standard for standards - Part 3: Specification for structure, drafting and presentation.’ British Standards Institution, London, 52 pp. BSI (1997d) Technical Help to Exporters (THE). http://www.bsi.org.uk/bsi/services/ the.html. Budin, G. & C. Galinski (1991) Comprehensive Quality Control in Standards-Text Production and Retrieval. Infoterm, Vienna, 13 pp. Buntzly, Y. (1992) Normalisation - Définitions [Standardization - Definitions]. BZY/OC 1992/09, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, 1 p. Buntzly, Yves (1996) Recherche et normalisation - Le Star système [Research and Standardization - The Star System]. In: Enjeux, No. 167, September 1996, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 56-60. Burrell, Gibson & Gareth Morgan (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis - Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. Heinemann Educational Books, London, 432 pp.
285 Burrows, James H. (1993) Information Technology standards in a changing world: The role of the users. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 15 No. 1, May 1993, Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, pp. 49-56. Canioni, Jean-Noël (1996) History of the French Removal Quality Standards. In: Workshop Papers Services Standardization in Europe - Challenges and Objectives of Standardization in Services for Industry and Consumers, CEN, Brussels. Cargill, Carl F. (1990) Justifying the Need for a Standards Program. In: Toth, Robert B. (Ed.) Standards Management - a handbook for profits. ANSI American National Standards Institute, New York, pp. 1-18. Cargill, Carl F. (1997) Open Systems Standardization - A Business Approach. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 328 pp. CEN (1994) CEN General Technical Report 1994. Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 1994. CEN (1995) Optimizing CEN. CEN, Brussels, 21 pp. CEN (1996a) Responsibilities of the Chairman of a Technical Committee. In: CEN System Handbook DEFI/TC-CH 1996-11-15, CEN, Brussels, 5 pp. CEN (1996b) Result of Vote on Draft European Standard prEN 10238. CEN, Brussels, 4 pp. CEN (1996c) Service and Standardization. Addendum to BT N 4563, CEN, Brussels, 26 pp. CEN (1997a) The “Bridging Document” between the EN ISO 14000 series and the EU regulation for EMAS. CEN Report CR 12969, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 10 pp. CEN (1997b) The first plenary meeting of a Technical Committee. In: CEN System Handbook DEFI/MTG/TC 1997-03-31, CEN, Brussels, 34 pp. CEN (1998a) CEN Strategic Review. Proceedings of the Workshop held on 1998-05-19, Brussels, 40 pp. CEN (1998b) Efficiency of European Standardization - CEN Contribution. In: DINMitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 9, September 1998, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 656-673. CEN (1998c) EN 12323 ‘Bar coding – Symbology specifications – Code 16K.’ Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 28 pp. CEN/CENELEC (1993) EN 45020 ‘General term and their definitions concerning standardization and related activities.’ CEN/CENELEC, Brussels, 66 pp. CEN Central Secretariat (1998a) CEN Report. In: CEN System Handbook, CEN, Brussels, 10 pp. CEN Central Secretariat (1998b) Characteristics of the CEN Workshop Agreement (CWA) and process for its development - CEN ISSS Workshop guidelines. In: CEN System Handbook, CEN, Brussels, 20 pp. CEN Central Secretariat (1998c) European Prestandards. In: CEN System Handbook, CEN, Brussels, 27 pp. CENELEC (1998) Annual Report 1997. CENELEC, Brussels, 14 pp. CEN/ISSS (1998) Information Society Standardization System. http://www.cenorm.be/ isss/default.htm. CEN Secretary General (1996) Report of the Secretary General. CA N 905, CEN, Brussels, 23 pp.
286 Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (1993) Standaard Bedrijfsindeling 1993 [Standard Classification of Enterprises 1993]. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, Voorburg / Heerlen, the Netherlands, 267 pp. Chase, Richard B. (1981) The Customer Contact Approach to Services: Theoretical Bases and Practical Extensions. In: Operations Research, Vol. 29 No. 4, JulyAugust 1981, Operations Research Society of America, Baltimore, pp. 698-706. Chase, Richard B. & Nicholas J. Aquilano (1995) Production and Operations Management - Manufacturing and Services. Ed. 7, IRWIN, Chicago / Bogotá / Boston / Buenos Aires / Caracas / London / Madrid / Mexico City / Sydney / Toronto, 853 pp. Church, Colin B. (1997) Accelerating Standards Development. In: ASTM Standardization News, August 1994, American Society for Testing and Materials, W. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 44-45. Clarke, Roger (1990) Open Applications Architecture: A User-Oriented Reference Model for Standardization of the Application Platform. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 11 No. 1, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 15-27. Cleef, ir. L.G.M. van (1996) Pressure Equipment Directive. In: Normalisatie Nieuwsbrief Adviespunt Machinebouw, Vol. 5 No. 2, April 1996, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 1-5. Cobeno (1982) Bevordering toepassing van normen [Stimulating Application of Standards]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Rijswijk, the Netherlands, 3 pp. Cochey, Franck (1996) Histoire de la normalisation ou normalisation de l’histoire? Quelques pistes pour une approche socio-historique de la normalisation [History of Standardization or Standardization of History? - Initial Impetus to a Socio-historical Approach of Standardization]. In: Normalisation: un nouveau service pour une nouvelle
demande, Journée recherche du réseau R/N (Recherche sur la Normalisation), 1996-06-27, AFNOR, Paris, 9 pp. Coles, Jessie V. (1949) Standards and Labels for Consumers’ Goods. The Ronald Press Company, New York, 564 pp. Compton, Charles T.C. (1993) Cooperation, collaboration, and coalition: a perspective on the types and purposes of technology joint ventures. In: Antitrust Law Journal, Vol. 61 No. 3, Spring 1993, American Bar Association, Chicago, pp. 861-897. Connor, Kathleen R. (1994) Strategic Implications of High-technology Competition in a Network Externality Environment. In: Michael W. Lawless & Luis R. Gomez-Mejia (Ed.) Advances on Global High-Technology Management Management of Competitive Strategy in High Technology, Vol. 4, Part A, JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, Connecticut / London, UK, pp. 163-189. Consensus (1996) The measure of good service. In: Consensus - Canada's Newsmagazine of Standardization, Vol. 23 No. 6, October 1996, Standards Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 4-6. Consumer Communiqué (1998) JISC study group on graphical symbols. In: Consumer Communiqué, No. 39, August 1998, COPOLCO, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, p. 7. COPOLCO (1996) Political Developments in Europe. In: Consumer Communiqué No. 35, COPOLCO, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, p. 17. Council of the European Communities (1973) Council Directive of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of laws of Member States relating to electrical
287 equipment designed for use within certain voltage limits (73/23/EEC). In: Official Journal of the European Communities Vol. 16 No. L77, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Council of the European Communities (1983) Council Directive of 28 March 1983 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulation (83/189/EEC). In: Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 26 No. L109, 26 April 1983, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 8-12. Council of the European Communities (1988) Council Directive for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations (88/182/EEC). In: Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 31 No. L81, 26 March 1988, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 75-76. Council of the European Communities (1993) Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1836/93 of 29 June 1993 allowing voluntary participation by companies in the industrial sector in a Community eco-management and audit scheme. In: Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L168, 10 July 1993, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 1-18. Cowan, Robin (1991) Tortoises and Hares: Choice among Technologies of Unknown Merit. In: The Economic Journal, Vol. 101 No. 3, July 1991, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 801-814. Cowan, Robin (1992) High technology and the economics of standardization. In: Meinolf Dierkes & Ute Hoffmann (Ed.) New technology at the Outset - Social Forces in the Shaping of Technological Innovations, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt / New York, pp. 279-300. Crawford, Walt (1991) Technical Standards - An Introduction for Librarians. Ed. 2, G.K. Hall & Co., Boston, Massachusetts, 333 pp. Dale, Barrie & John Oakland (1991) Quality improvements through standards. Stanley Thornes Ltd, Leckhampton, Cheltenham, England, 280 pp. Dankbaar, Ben & Rob van Tulder (1992) The influence of users in standardization: the case of MAP. In: Meinolf Dierkes & Ute Hoffman (Ed.) New Technology at the Outset, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am Main / New York, pp. 327-349. Darsie, Burns (1990), Financial services. In: Robert B. Toth (Ed.) Standards Management - A Handbook for Profits, ANSI - American National Standards Institute, New York, pp. 351-359. David, Paul A. (1995a) Some new standards for the economics of standardization in the information age. In: Dasgupta, Partha & Paul Stoneman. Economic policy and technological performance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York / New Rochelle / Melbourne / Sydney, pp. 206-239. David, Paul A. (1995b) Standardization policies for network technologies: the flux between freedom and order revisited. In: Hawkins, R., R. Mansell & J. Skea (Ed.) Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness - The Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical Environments, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, United Kingdom / Brookfield, USA, pp. 15-35. Deming, W. Edwards (1982) Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position. Massachusetts Institute of technology, Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, 380 pp.
288 Deutscher Normenausschuß - DNA (1972) DIN Handbuch der Normung. Band 2 Innerbetriebliche Normungsarbeit [DIN Standardization Manual. Part 2 Company Standardization]. Beuth Vertrieb GmbH, Berlin/Cologne/Frankfurt (M). DIN (1992) Was Sie schon immer über DIN wissen wollten [What You Always Wanted to Know about DIN]. Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin, 16 pp. DIN (1998) DIN kennen Sie. Aber was ist PAS? [You Know DIN. But what about PAS?]. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin, 4 pp. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1986) DIN 820 Teil 4 ‘Normungsarbeit - Geschäftsgang’ [DIN 820 Part 4 ‘Standardization - Working Procedure’]. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 7 pp. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1991a) Auswertung von Informationen aus den ANP-Berichten über die Vorstellung von Normenabteilungen [Data About Company Standards Departments, Derived from their Presentations as Reported by the German Standards Users Organization ANP]. In: Handbuch der Normung - Band 3 [Standardization Handbook - Part 3], Ed. 4, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 13-1 –
13-9. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1991b) Die Normenabteilung in der Organisationshierarchie eines Unternehmens [The Standards Department in the Company’s Hierarchy]. In: Handbuch der Normung - Band 3 [Standardization Handbook Part 3], Ed. 4, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 1-5 - 1-24. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1991c) Sachmerkmalsystem in der anwendung [Application of a System of Tabular Layouts of Article Characteristics]. Workbook to DIN-Seminar Sachmerkmalsystem in der anwendung, DIN, Berlin, 111 pp. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1994a) DIN 820 Teil 1 ‘Normungsarbeit - Grundsätze’ [DIN 820 Part 1 ‘Standardization - Principles’]. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 4 pp. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1994b) DIN 820 Teil 3 ‘Normungsarbeit – Begriffe’ [DIN 820 Part 3 ‘Standardization – Concepts’]. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 8 pp DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1996a) Beiblatt 1 zu DIN 820 ‘Normungsarbeit - Stichwortverzeichnis’ [Annex 1 to DIN 820 ‘Standardization Index’]. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 11 pp. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V. (1996b). DIN 820 Teil 2 ‘Normungsarbeit - Teil 2: Gestaltung von Normen’ [DIN 820 Part 2 ‘Standardization Part 2: Presentation of Standards’]. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 173 pp. DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung (1998) Publicly Available Specification (PAS). http://www.din.de/din/frame/de/dienstleistungen/pas/index.html. DIN-Mitteilungen (1998) Kurzinformationen [News Flashes]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 7, July 1998, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, p. VII. Donlon, J.P. (1996) Is Re-Engineering a Fad? In: Chief Executive, No. 113, May 1996, pp. 52-64. Dool, H. van den (1974) Standardisation of gas Chromatographic Analysis of Essential Oils. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands, 172 pp. Dooyeweerd, Dr jur. Herman (1955) A new critique of theoretical thought. Volume II: The general theory of the modal spheres. Uitgeverij H.J. Parts, Amsterdam / The Presbytarian and Reformed Publishing Company, Philadelphia, 598 pp.
289 Drouven, L.V. (1994) Is certificatie een onvoldoende beheerst process? [Is the Certification Process Insufficiently Managed?]. In: Bedrijfskundig Vakblad, Vol. 6 No. 8, December 1994, Uitgeverij B&id, Amsterdam, pp. 21-25. Dufour, Anne (1998) Expertise: the new game plan ...or Profile of today’s standardizer. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 7, July 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 10-13. Durand, Alain (1998) Les enjeux du français à l’ISO [Contributions of the French Language in ISO]. In: Enjeux, No. 185, June 1998, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 37-42. Düsterbeck, Bernd & Wilfried Hesser (1997) Information Management: A Case Study of Company Standardization. In: Wilfried Hesser & Alex Inklaar (Ed.) An Introduction to Standards and Standardization, DIN Normungskunde Band 36, Beuth Verlag, Berlin / Vienna / Zurich, pp. 139-160. Dutch Council for Accreditation (RvA) (1997) SME Growth Certificate. In: Annual Report 1996, Dutch Council for Accreditation, Utrecht, pp. 11-15. EDIFORUM (1998) Het netwerk van EDIFORUM [EDIFORUM’s Network]. Stichting EDIFORUM, Leidschendam, the Netherlands, 22 pp. Egyedi, Tineke ( 1996) Shaping Standardization - A study of standards processes and standards policies in the field of telematic services. Thesis Delft University of Technology, Delft University Press, Delft, 329 pp. Eicher, Lawrence D. (1998) Rendez-vous with the future - The role of national standards bodies in the 21st century. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 9, September 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, p. 2. Elferink, M.H. (1998) Verwijzingen in wetgeving. Over de publiekrechtelijke en auteursrechtelijke status van normalisatienormen [References in Legislation. On the Public Law Status and Copyright Status of Formal Standards]. Meijersreeks No. 7, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Juridische Faculteit, E.M. Meijers Instituut voor Rechtswetenschappelijk Onderzoek, Leiden, the Netherlands, 364 pp. Elinski, Donald (1985) Standards from the Users Perspective. In: Standards Engineering, Vol 37 No. 2, March/April 1985, Standards Engineering Society, Dayton, Ohio, USA, pp. 28-32. Enjeux (1992) Les functions de l’entreprise [Company’s functions]. In: Enjeux No. 123, March 1992, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 28-59. Enjeux (1995) Standardization of services: a turning point. In: Enjeux, No. 155, June 1995, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 37-51. Enjeux (1996a) Maintenance et normalisation [Maintenance and Standardization]. In: Enjeux, No. 168, October 1996, April 1998, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 33-56. Enjeux (1996b) Optimisation du CEN - Dossier du mois [Optimizing CEN - Theme of the Month]. In: Enjeux, No. 167, September 1996, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 36-51. ETSI (1997a) EG 201 014 V1.1.1 (1997-05) ‘Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); ETSI Standards-making; Technical quality criteria for telecommunications standards.’ European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Sophia Antipolis, France, 55 pp. ETSI (1997b) EG 201 015 V1.1.1 (1997-05) ‘Methods for Testing and Specification (MTS); Specification of protocols and Services; Validation methodology for standards using SDL; Handbook.’ European Telecommunications Standards Institute, Sophia Antipolis, France, 27 pp.
290 EUREKA Secretariat (1988) Guide to standardization for companies involved in EUREKA projects. EUREKA Secretariat, Brussels, 1988, 32 pp. European Commission (1990) Proposal for a Council Directive co-ordinating the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community rules on the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water, energy, transport and telecommunications sector (COM (90) 297 def.-SYN 292). In: Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 33 No. C216, 31 August 1990, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 8-14. European Communities (1994) Directive 94/10/EEC of the European Parliament and the Council of 23 March 1994 materially amending for the second time Directive 83/189/EEC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations. In: Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 37 No. L100, 19 April 1994, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, pp. 30-36. European Parliament & Council of the European Union (1997) Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment. In: Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 40 No. L181, 9 July 1997, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 55 pp. (rectified 367L0023R, Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. 40 No. L265, 27 September 1997, p. 110) Evans, C.D., B.L. Meek & R.S. Walker (1993) User needs in information technology standards. Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd, Oxford / London / Boston / Munich / New Delhi / Singapore / Sydney / Tokyo /Toronto / Wellington, 403 pp. Farrell, Joseph (1989) Standardization and Intellectual Property. In: Jurimetrics Journal Vol. 30 No. 2, Fall 1989, American Bar Foundation, Chicago, pp. 35-50. Farrell, Joseph & Garth Saloner (1986) Installed base and compatibility: innovation, product pre-announcements, and predation. In: The American Economic Review, Vol. 76 No. 5, American Economic Association, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 940-955. Farrell, Joseph & Garth Saloner (1988) Coordination through committees and markets. In: The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 19 No. 2, Summer 1988, The RAND Corporation, Washington, D.C., pp. 235-251. Farrell, Joseph & Carl Shapiro (1992) Standard Setting in High-Definition Television. Brookings Papers Microeconomics, 90 pp. Feen, ing. E.J. van der & ir. H.J. de Vries (1992) Medische disposables & normalisatie - een strategische verkenning [Medical Disposables & Standardization A Strategic Study]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 105 pp.
291 Feier, Dr.-Ing. G. (1995) Einbindung der Normung in die Unternehmensstrategie [Integration of Standardization in Company’s Stategy]. In: Normung wird unverzichtbar für erfolgreiche Unternehmungsführung [Standardization Is Becoming Indispensable for a Successful Business], 29. Konferenz Normenpraxis, Leipzig 1995, ANP Ausschuß Normenpraxis in DIN / DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin / Beuth Vienna / Zürich, pp. 3-1 - 3-14. Feldhaus, Gerhard (1997) Umweltnormung und Deregulierung [Environmental Standardization and Deregulation]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 76 No. 10, October 1997, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 680-686. Forey, Dominique (1994) Users, standards and the economics of coalitions and committees. In: Information Economics and Policy, Vol. 12 No. 6, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, pp. 269-293. Friederich (1997) ITSIG/TSG. Annex 12 to IFAN No. 11-1997, IFAN Secretariat, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 6 pp. Frost, Thomas F. (1996) Information technology: Implementing information technology within JTC 1. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 7, July 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 3-4. Fuente, Manolo de la & Henk de Vries (1995) Normen, normalisatie en het MKB [Standards, Standardization, and SMEs]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft / Economisch Instituut voor het Midden- en kleinbedrijf, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands, 57 pp. Furusten, Staffan & Kristina Tamm Hallström (1996) Standards and Standardization - on the production of Official and Unofficial Management Standards. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual EURAS Conference “Standards and Society,” Stockholm, 24 pp. Gaillard, John (1933) A Study of the Fundamentals of Industrial Standardization and Its Practical Application, Especially in the Mechanical Field. NV W.D. Meinema, Delft, 133 pp. Gelderloos, ir. P.J. (1992) Value analysis. Stewardship, Policy-making and Management, Brno / Timisoara, 7 pp. (Not publicly available) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1979) Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Geneva, 31 pp. Genschel, Philipp & Raymund Werle (1993) From National Hierarchies to International Standardization: Modal Changes in the Governance of Telecommunications. In: Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 13 No. 3, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 203-225. Geus, G. de (1991) 75 jaar normalisatie in Nederland [75 Years Standardization in the Netherlands]. In: Normalisatie Magazine, Vol. 67 No. 1, January 1991, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 5-10. Giddens, Anthony (1984) The Constitution of Society - Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press, Berkeley / Los Angeles, 402 pp. Glie, Rowen (Ed.) (1972) Speaking of standards. Cahners Books, Cahners Publishing Company Inc. Boston, Massachusetts, 302 pp. Goor, G.P.M. van den, S. Brinkkemper & S. Hong (1993) Objectgeoriënteerde ontwerpmethoden [Object Oriented Design Methods]. In: Informatie Vol. 35 No. 12, December 1993, Kluwer, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 840-851.
292 Gooskens, Frans & Henk de Vries (1994) NEN-ISO 9000 en documentbeheer [ISO 9000 and Document Management]. In: Open - Vaktijdschrift voor Bibliothecarissen, Literatuuronderzoekers en Documentalisten, Vol. 26 No. 4, Stichting Vaktijdschrift, Delft, pp. 112-115. Gouldner, Alvin W. (1964) Patterns of Industrial Bureaucracy - A case study of modern factory administration. The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, 282 pp. Gove, Philip Babock (Ed.) (1991) Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged. Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, Massachusetts. Grotenhuis, Henk-Jan (1997) Informatie-analyse in sociaal-psychologisch perspectief [Information Analysis from a Social-psychological Perpective]. In: Informatie, Vol. 39 No. 4, April 1997, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 23-27. Grönroos, Christian (1990) Service Management and Marketing - Managing the Moments of Truth in Service Competition. Lexington Books, Lexington, Massachesetts, 298 pp. Grünbauer, J.J. Beng (1996) Memorandum: A critique of draft standard prEN-10238. Constructiewerkplaats Grünbauer, Diemen, the Netherlands, 13 pp. Grützner, Dipl.-Kfm. Bernd (1994) Normung, Zertifizierung und Akkreditierung im EU-Binnenmarkt [Standardization, Certification, and Accreditation in the European Domestic Market]. VDE Verlag, Berlin / Offenbach, 143 pp. Gustavson, Eva (1997) Selling practices and standardization - A study on interaction practices between seller and buyer on the industrial service market. Paper presented at the 14th Nordic Conference on Business Studies, School of Economics and Commercial Law, University of Göteborg, Göteborg, Sweden, 11 pp. Hammer, Michael (1997) Beyond Reengineering. Harper Business, New York, 285 pp. Hammer, Michael & James Champy (1995) Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution. Brealey, London, 231 pp. Hartlieb, Bernd & Hermann Behrens (1996), Dienstleistung und Normung Ergebnisse von der Arbeitsgruppe "Dienstleistung und Regelsetzung" im BMBFVorhaben "Dienstleistung 2000plus" [Services and Standardization - Results of the Working Group ‘Services and Requirement-setting’ in the BMBF Plan ‘Services 2000 and beyond’]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 75 No. 11, November 1996, Beuth Verlag
GmbH, Berlin, pp. 746-751. Hauser, J.R. & D. Clausing (1988) The House of Quality. In: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, May-June 1988, Harvard University, Boston, pp. 63-73. Healy, Maurice & Nicholas Pope (1996) Consumer representation in standards making. In: Compendium from The Third Annual EURAS (European Academy for Standardization) conference, EURAS, Stockholm, 29 pp. Heida. Jan Fokke et al. (1997) Werken met ISO 14000 [Implementing ISO 14000]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 125 pp. Henry, Loïc (1996a) Final Report of CEN/BT/WG 88 “Services” - Conclusions and Recommendations. BT N 4441, CEN, Brussels, 16 pp. Henry, Loïc, (1996b) Type of standards in the field of services - The situation in France. In: Proceedings Workshop on service standardization in Europe, 14 December 1995, CEN, Brussels, 6 pp.
293 Hesser, Wilfried (1981) Untersuchungen zum Beziehungsfeld zwischen Konstruktion und Normung [Study on Relations between Construction and Standardization]. DINNormungskunde Band 16, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin / Cologne, 232 pp. Hesser, Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. W. (1992) Organisation der Normung [Organization of Standardization]. Module 2 in: Vorlesung Normenwesen - Einführung in das Normenwesen [Lectures in Standardization - Introduction in Standardization], Fachgebiet Normenwesen und Maschinenzeichnen, Fachbereich Maschinenbau, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, 76 pp. Hesser, Wilfried (1997a) Standardization as an Internal and External Management Tool for Companies. In: Proceedings International Workshop on Standardization Research. University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 111128. Hesser, Wilfried (1997b) The Need for Interdisciplinary Research on Standardization. Presentation for the SCANCOR/SCORE Seminar on Standardization, Lund, Sweden, Professur für Normenwesen und Maschinenzeichnen, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, 16 pp. Hesser, Wilfried, Roland Hildebrandt & Jens Kleinemeyer (1995) Free Trade in Sight or Inside - Standards as Barriers to International Free Trade. In: Wilfried Hesser (Ed.) From Company Standardization to European Standardization - A collection of papers presented at the workshop on company standardization in Hanoi, Vietnam, and further selected publications, Forschungsberichte der Professur für Normenwesen und Maschinenzeichnen No. 2, Universität der Bunderswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 71-85. Hesser, Wilfried & Alex Inklaar (1997a) Aims and Functions of Standardization. In: Hesser, Wilfried & Alex Inklaar, An Introduction to Standards and Standardization, DIN Normungskunde Band 36, Beuth Verlag, Berlin / Vienna / Zürich, pp. 33-45. Hesser, Wilfried & Alex Inklaar (1997b) Organizational Aspects of Standardization. In: Wilfried Hesser & Alex Inklaar (Ed.) An Introduction to Standards and Standardization, DIN Normungskunde Band 36, Beuth Verlag, Berlin / Vienna / Zurich, pp. 46-71. Hesser, Wilfried & Alex Inklaar (Ed.) (1997) An Introduction to Standards and Standardization. DIN Normungskunde Band 36, Beuth Verlag, Berlin / Vienna / Zurich, 328 pp. Hesser, Univ. Prof. Dr.-Ing. W. & Dipl.-Kfm. Jens Kleinemeyer (1994) The Structures of National Standards Institutions and Organizations. In: Wilfried Hesser (Ed.) Different Aspects of research on Standardization - A collection of papers presented at the conference on “MSTQ” in San Pedro, Costa Rica and at the University of Costa Rica, Chair of Standardization, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, 28 pp. Hesser, Wilfried & Jens Kleinemeyer (1998) Standardisierung - Ein interdisziplinärer Forschungsbereich? [Standardization: An Interdisciplinary Area of Research?]. In: Uniforschung, Vol. 8, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 62-67. Hezik, H.J.P.M. van et al. (1995) Normen en totale kwaliteit [Standards and Total Quality]. NEHEM Consulting Group, 's-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands, 68 pp.
294 Hezik, drs. H.J.P.M. van & dr. G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot (1994) Afstemming van eisen aan zorgsystemen voor kwaliteit, milieu en arbeidsomstandigheden [Harmonization of Requirements for Quality, Environmental, and Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 1994, 47 pp.
Hildebrandt, Dipl.-Ing. Roland (1995) Entwicklung einer Methodologie zur Bereitstellung von Arbeitsschutzwissen für den Entwicklungs- und Konstruktionsbereich [Development of a Methodology to meet Occupational Health and Safety Conditions in Research and Development]. Working Paper, Professur für Normenwesen und Maschinenzeichnen, Fachbereich Maschinenbau, Universität der Bundeswehr Hamburg, Hamburg, 40 pp. Hillegersberg, Jos van (1997) Metamodelling-based integration of object-oriented systems development. Thesis Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 203. Hinrichs, Dr.-Ing. Wilfried (1997) Bemerkungen zur Normung aus Sicht eines Begutachters im Akkreditierungsverfahren [Remarks Concerning Standardization from the Point of View of an Accreditation Consultant]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 76 No. 4, April 1997, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, Berlin, pp. 262-267. Hiok Hoong, Lee (1997) Promoting Competitiveness and Productivity in Singapore. In: ASTM Standardization News, Vol. 25 No. 11, November 1997, American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshoshocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 24-27. Hoffmann, Dipl.-Ing. Obering. B. (1995) Anwendungshemnisse bei der Einführung Europäischer Normen [User Problems when Implementing European Standards]. In: Normung wird unverzichtbar für erfolgreiche Unternehmungsführung [Standardization is Becoming Indispensable for a Successful Business], 29. Konferenz Normenpraxis, Leipzig 1995, ANP Ausschuß Normenpraxis in DIN / DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin / Beuth Vienna / Zurich, pp. 10-1 – 10-26. Hofstede, Geert et al. (1990) Measuring organizational cultures. In: Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 2, June 1990, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, pp. 286-316. Hollingworth, J. Rogers & Wolfgang Streeck (1994) Countries and sectors: Concluding remarks on performance, convergence, and competitiveness. In: J. Hollingworth et al. (Ed.), Governing Capitalist Economies, Oxford University Press., Oxford / New York, pp. 270-297. Hoogers, drs. Wilbert W.T.J. (1998) De Auditor geaudit - Een onderzoek naar de kwaliteit van door de Raad voor Accreditatie uitgevoerde audits [Auditing the Auditor - Studying the Quality of Audits Carried out by the Dutch Council for Accreditation].
Master’s thesis, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 169 pp. Hoogers, drs. W. & ir. H.J. de Vries (1998a) Toezicht op Certificatie-instellingen kan beter [Surveillance over Certification Bodies could be improved]. In: Sigma, Vol. 42 No. 1, February 1998, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 8-12. Hoogers, Wim & Henk de Vries (1998b) Wat is uw ISO-certificaat waard? [What is Your ISO Certificate Worth?]. In: LaboratoriumPraktijk, March 1998, TenHagenStam Uitgevers, the Hague, pp. 102-103.
295 Horringa & De Konink Consultants (1991) Draaiboek voor het opstellen van operationele plannen door het bureau NNI [Scenario for Drafting Operational Plans by NNI Central Office]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 101 pp. (Not publicly available) Huigen, Henk W., Alex Inklaar & Ewing Paterson (1997) Standardization and Certification in Europe. In: Wilfried Hesser & Alex Inklaar (Ed.) An Introduction to Standards and Standardization, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, pp. 230-251. Hutchinson, Gene A. (1998) A delicate balancing act - Trinidad style. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 4, April 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 20-26. ICSCA (1997) Final resolutions of ICSCA II, Palo Alto, CA, United States, 12-13 June 1997. Industry Committee on Standards and Conformity Assessment, 4 pp. IEC (1985) IEC 65 ‘Safety requirements for mains operated electronic and related apparatus for household and similar general use.’ International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 137 pp. IEC (1991) IEC 950 ‘Safety of information technology equipment.’ International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 434 pp. IEC (1995a) Guidance for Convenors of Working Groups and Project Leaders. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 20 pp. IEC (1995b) Guide 109 ‘Environmental aspects in product standards.’ International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 59 pp. IEC (1996a) ISO/IEC JTC 1 recognizes X/OPEN as first Submitter of Publicly Available Specifications. News Release 011/96a, 06 February 1996, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2 pp. IEC (1996b) Masterplan 1996 - The IEC Strategy. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 18 pp. IEC (1997) IEC 61355 Classification and designation of documents for plants, systems and equipment. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 107 pp. IEC (1998a) 1998 Catalogue of IEC Publications - Update six. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 18 pp. IEC (1998b) Annual Report 1997. International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 12 pp. IEC (1998c) Definitions of IEC Technical Publications. C/1127/INF, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2 pp. IEC (1998d) Electronic Sales Approved at GM. In: IEC Bulletin, Vol. 32 No. 6, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, p. 8. IEC (1998e) Guide on the use of information technology tools in the IEC. Ed. 2, ftp://ftp.iec.ch/pub/kits/ittool98.pdf, 44 pp. IEC (1998f) IT tools and services for the IEC community. In: IEC Bulletin, Vol. 32 No. 5, Supplement, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, pp. S1-S4. IEC (1999) Members. http://www.iec.ch. IEC Bulletin (1994) Standards development: quick quick slow. In: IEC Bulletin, Vol. 28, Sept./Oct. 1994, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, p. II. IEC Bulletin (1996) Standards code directory. In: IEC Bulletin, No. 157, March/April 1996, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, p. 2.
296 IEC Bulletin (1997a) New ITAs respond to market needs. In: IEC Bulletin, No. 167 November/December 1997, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, p. 1. IEC Bulletin (1997b) Standards code directory. In: IEC Bulletin, No. 163, March/April 1997, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, pp. 1, 3. IEC Bulletin (1998a) First IEC ITAs underway. In: IEC Bulletin, Vol. 32 No. 6, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, pp. 1, 8. IEC Bulletin (1998b) Regional Agreements. In: IEC Bulletin, Vol. 32 No. 4, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, pp. 4-5. IFAN (1997a) Additional working documents for 24th IFAN Members’ Assembly. IFAN Secretariat, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 33 pp. IFAN (1997b) IFAN Memento 1997. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 8 pp. IFAN (1997c) Minutes of the twenty-fourth IFAN Members’ Assembly. IFAN, Geneva, pp. 1-10. IFAN (1997d) Twenty-fourth IFAN Members’ Assembly Bled, Slovenia, 15-16 October 1997 - Minutes and additional working documents. IFAN Secretariat, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 31 pp. IFAN (1998a) Draft IFAN Statutes and Rules of Procedure. IFAN, Geneva, 9 pp. IFAN (1998b) Replies to the Questionnaire Concerning the Archiving of Standards. In: Twenty-fourth IFAN Members’ Assembly, Orlando, Florida (USA) 18-19 October 1998, Appendix 2 to annex 3 to IFAN No. 7-1998, IFAN, Geneva, 2 pp. ISO (1981) ISO Guide 26 ‘Justification of proposals for the establishment of standards.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 12 pp. ISO (1982) ISO 78/2 ‘Layouts for standards - Part 2: Standard for chemical analysis.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 12 pp. ISO (1983) ISO 7667 ‘Microbiology - Standard layout for methods of microbiological examination.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 7 pp. ISO (1985) Training of technical staff - national level and company level. ISO Development Manual 3, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 130 pp. ISO (1986) ISO 4032 ‘Hexagon nuts, style 1 - Product grades A and B.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 3 pp. ISO (1987a) ISO 704 ‘Principles and methods of terminology.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 16 pp. ISO (1987b) ISO 9001 ‘Quality systems – Model for the quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and servicing.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 11 pp. ISO (1987c) Teaching of standardization in institutions of higher learning in developing countries. Development Manual 4, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 114 pp. ISO (1988) ISO 4014 ‘Hexagon head bolts - Product grades A and B.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 8 pp. ISO (1991) ISO 9004-2 ‘Quality management and quality systems - Guidelines for services.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 18 pp. ISO (1993a) International Classification for Standards (ICS). Ed. 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 72 pp.
297 ISO (1993b) ISO 7372 ‘Trade data interchange – Trade data elements directory.’ Ed. 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 160 pp. ISO (1994a) Establishment and management of a national standards body. ISO Development Manual 1, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 95 pp. ISO (1994b) ISO 8402 ‘Quality management and quality assurance - Vocabulary.’ Ed. 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 39 pp. ISO (1994c) ISO 9001 ‘Quality systems - Model for quality assurance in design, development, production, installation and servicing’. Ed. 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 11 pp. ISO (1994d) ISO 9002 ‘Quality systems - Model for quality assurance in production, installation and servicing.’ Ed. 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 10 pp. ISO (1994e) ISO 9004-1 ‘Quality management and quality system elements – Part 1: Guidelines.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 23 pp. ISO (1995a) ISO 10007 ‘Quality management - Guidelines for configuration management.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 14 pp. ISO (1995b) ISO TR 14638 ‘Geometrical product specification (GPS) - Masterplan.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 30 pp. ISO (1995c) Liaisons. Ed. 8, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 176 pp. ISO (1996a) ISO 7220 ‘Information and Documentation - Presentation of catalogues of standards.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 17 pp. ISO (1996b) ISO 14001 ‘Environmental management systems - Specification with guidance for use.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 14 pp. ISO (1996c) ISO/DIS 10006 ‘Quality management - Guidelines to quality in project management.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 24 pp. ISO (1997a) Guide 64 ‘Guide for the inclusion of environmental aspects in product standards.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 9 pp. ISO (1997b) ISONET Directory. Ed. 6, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 128 pp. ISO (1998a) Catalogue 1998. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 1138 pp. ISO (1998b) Conformity assessment. Development Manual 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 113 pp. ISO (1998c) Highlights on ISO relations with regional organizations. In: Working Documents 21st ISO General Assembly, Annex 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 23-24. ISO (1998d) ISO’s Long-Range Strategies 1999-2001 - Draft. In: Working Documents 21st ISO General Assembly, Geneva, 1998-09-16--18, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 281-297. ISO (1998e) ISONET Manual. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 120 pp. ISO (1998f) Memento 1998. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 193 pp. ISO (1998g) Performance of the ISO system. In: Working documents 21st ISO General Assembly, Geneva, 16-18 September 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 49-57.
298 ISO Bulletin (1994) Protecting the consumer - International Standards to promote the uses and prevent the abuses of Information technology and telecommunications. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 25 No. 9, September 1994, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 3-8. ISO Bulletin (1995a) National examples of service standards in practice. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 9, September 1995, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 19-22. ISO Bulletin (1995b) Servicing the service industry. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 9, September 1995, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 7-13. ISO Bulletin (1996a) Information technology: PAS (Publicly Available Specifications) - Transposition and normative references to non-standard documents - A new paradigm in international IT standardization. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 3, March 1996, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 5-6. ISO Bulletin (1996b) ISO Central Secretariat in Geneva has achieved full site certification of conformity to ISO 9002. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 7, July 1996, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 7-14. ISO Bulletin (1996c) ISO Workshop on Occupational Health and Safety. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 11, November 1996, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 15-21. ISO Bulletin (1996d) Standardization in Cyberspace. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 12, December 1996, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 14-16. ISO Bulletin (1997) In symbiosis with symbols - an ISO committee that draws the world together. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 2, February 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 15-17. ISO Bulletin (1998) Service Standards for Open Global Markets - ISO/WTO Seminar on Services in Singapore. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 7, July 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 15-21. ISO Central Secretariat (1998) Consumer protection in the global marketplace. In: Consumer Communiqué, No. 39, August 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 1-2 ISO/IEC (1986) Standards and the consumer - Information for the guidance of consumers engaged in standardization. Ed. 2, International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 67 pp. ISO/IEC (1990) A vision for the future - Standards needs for emerging technologies. International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 67 pp. ISO/IEC (1991) ISO/IEC Guide 2. ‘General terms and their definitions concerning standardization and related activities.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 60 pp. ISO/IEC (1992a) Certification and related activities - Assessment and verification of conformity to standards and technical specifications. International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 171 pp. ISO/IEC (1992b) Directives Part 2: Methodology for the development of International Standards. Ed. 2, International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 63 pp.
299 ISO/IEC (1994a) ISO/IEC 7498-1 ‘Information technology - Open Systems Interconnection - Basic reference Model: The Basic Model.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 59 pp. ISO/IEC (1994b) ISO/IEC Guide 59 ‘Code of good practice for standardization.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 5 pp. ISO/IEC (1995a) Directives Part 1: ‘Procedures for the technical work.’ Ed. 3, International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 140 pp. ISO/IEC (1995b) Directory of international standardizing bodies. Ed. 7, International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 82 pp. ISO/IEC (1995c) ISO/IEC Directives - ‘Procedures for the technical work of ISO/IEC JTC 1 on Information Technology - Supplement 1 - The Transposition of Publicly Available Specifications into International Standards.’ Ed. 3, International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 5 pp., http://www.iso.ch/dire/jtc1/supp1.html. ISO/IEC (1996a) ISO/IEC 2382-17 ‘Information technology - Vocabulary - Part 17: Databases.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commision, Geneva, 33 pp. ISO/IEC (1996b) ISO/IEC Guide 2 ‘Standardization and related activities - General vocabulary.’ Ed. 7, International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 81 pp. ISO/IEC (1996c) ISO/IEC Guide 62 ‘General requirements for bodies operating assessment and certification/registration of quality systems.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 16 pp. ISO/IEC (1997) ISO/IEC Directives - Part 3 ‘Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 118 pp. ISO/IEC (1998a) ISO/IEC TR 17010 ‘General requirements for bodies providing accreditation of inspection bodies.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 12 pp. ISO/IEC (1998b) Transposition of Publicly Available Specifications (PAS) into International Standards (Draft) - A Management Guide. Ed. 7, International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 15 pp., http://iso.ch/dire/jtc1/pas.html. ISO/IEC JTC 1(1998) ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 5448 ‘Resolutions Adopted at the Twelfth Meeting of ISO/IEC JTC 1, 2-5 June 1998 in Sendai, Japan.’ Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC 1, American National Standards Institute, New York, 25 pp., http://www.jtc1.org. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 (1998) ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11 N 1985 ‘Guide for WG 11 meeting hosts.’ Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 11, Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione, Milano, 6 pp.
300 ISO/IEC Strategic Advisory Group on the Environment / Sub-Group 1 Environmental Management Systems (1993) ISO/IEC/SAGE SG 1, N55 ‘Standardization of Environmental Management Systems - A model for discussion.’ International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 35 pp. ISO/TAG12 (1998) ISO 9000 and 14000 compatibility. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 34 pp. ISO/TC 176/SC 2 and ISO/TC 207/SC 1 Joint Task Group on Co-ordination (1997) ISO/TC 176-207 N25 ‘Report of the ISO/TC 176/SC 2 and ISO/TC 207/ SC 1 Joint Task Group on Co-ordination.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 8 pp. ISO/TC 176/SC 2 (1997) ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N307 ‘Final version of the design specification for the structure and content for the revisions of ISO 9001:1994, ISO 9002:1994, ISO 9003:1994.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 15 pp. ISO/TC 176 Strategic Planning Advisory Group (1995) ISO/TC 176/SPAG/N90 ‘Updated Vision 2000 for the ISO 9000 family.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 29 pp. ISO/TMB WG ‘PAS’ (1997) First Draft of Discussion Paper. SIR/- 23 July 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 4 pp. ITSIG (1998) ITSIG reengineering draft business plan - Executive summary. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 36 pp. Jakobs, Kai (1997) Users and standardization - worlds apart? - The example of electronic mail. Paper presented at Building the Future with Standardization Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, 16 pp. Jakobs, drs. A.J. & drs. R.J.E. Sewuster (1998) Deregulering en Normalisatie [Deregulation and Standardization]. Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, Rijswijk, the Netherlands, 80 pp. Jas, Nathalie (1996) L’interaction d’enjeux scientifiques, économiques et politiques dans l’éboration d’un contrôle des engrais [The Interaction between Scientific, Economic and Political Factors in the Elaboration of Control on Fertilizer]. Papier préparé pour le séminaire “Règles, standards et normalisation,” Centre de Recherche en Histoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris, 41 pp. Jong, A.P.A.M. de (1996) Verkenning ter verbreding en opschaling vanuit standaardisatieperspectief [Investigation for Broadening and Expansion from a Standardization Perspective]. NEHEM Consulting Group, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands, 63 pp. (Not publicly available) Jong, Taeke de (1996) Criteria voor waardering van een ontwerp als onderzoeksoutput [Criteria for Assessment of Research Results in Form of a Design]. In: Meijdam, Jan & Christoph Maria Ravesloot (Ed.) Criteria voor wetenschappelijk ontwerp en onderzoek [Criteria for Scientific Design and Research], Bouwkunde Assistenten In Opleiding Overleg (BaioO), Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, pp. 31-35. Kakabadse, Mario (1995) The place of services in international trade. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 9, September 1995, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 14-18. Kampmann, Frank (1993) Wettbewerbsanalyse der Normung der Telekommunikation in Europa [Competition Analysis of Telecommunication Standardization in
301 European University Studies, Series V Economics and Management, Vol. 1360, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin / Bern / New York / Paris / Vienna, 329 pp. Karlsson, Sören (1997) Standards - the common European language - Case studies of small and medium-sized companies. SIS - Standardiseringen I Sverige, Stockholm, 23 pp. Katz, Michael L. & Carl Shapiro (1985) Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility. In: American Economic Review, Vol. 75 No. 3, June 1985, American Economic Association, Princeton, New Jersey, pp. 424-440. Kienzle, Prof.Dr.-Ing. Otto (1943) Normenfunktionen [Functions of Standards]. Seminar für Technische Normung Blatt 6 (STN 6), Technische Hochschule Berlin / Hannover, 1 p. Kindleberger, Charles P. (1983) Standards as Public, Collective and Private Goods. KYKLOS Vol. 36 No. 3, Kyklos Verlag, Basel, pp. 377-396. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane & Sidney Verba (1994) Designing Social Inquiry – Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Yersey, 245 pp. Kleinaltenkamp, Prof. Dr. Michael (1994) Technische Standards als Signale im Marktprozeß [Technical Standards as Signals in the Market Process]. In: Erich Zahn (Ed.) Technologiemanagement und Technologien für das Management, SchäfferPoeschel Verlag, Stuttgart, pp. 197-226. Kleinemeyer, Jens (1997) Standardisierung zwischen Kooperation und Wettbewerb [Standardization between Co-operation and Competition]. Schriften zur Wirtschaftstheorie und Wirtschaftpolitik Vol. 10, Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main / Berlin / Bern / New York / Paris / Vienna, 406 pp. Köbben, A.J.F. (1979) Participerende obeservatie, ja! Maar hoe en waartoe? [Participating Observation, Yes! But How and Why?]. In: Amsterdams Sociologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. 4 No. 3, December 1997, Wolters-Noordhoff bv, Groningen, the Netherlands, pp. 301-310. Kocks, Cor (1977) Het échec van projectmanagement in de systeemontwikkeling [The Failure of Project Management in Systems Development]. In: Informatie, Vol. 39 No. 4, April 1997, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 6-11. Koehorst, Hans, Henk de Vries & Emiel Wubben (1999) Standardisation of crates: lessons from the Versfust (Freshcrate) project. In: Supply Chain Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, 1999, MCB University Press Limited, Bradford, U.K., pp. 95-101. Kölling, Dipl.-Vv. Dipl.-Ing. Jürgen (1996) Der Weg zum elektronisch Publizieren im DIN [The Route Towards Electronic Publishing by DIN]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 75 No. 8, August 1996, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 547-550. Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften (1998) Effizienz und Verantwortlichkeit in der europäischen Normung im Rahmen des neuen Konzepts [Efficiency and Responsibility in European Standardization Related to the New Approach]. In: DIN Mitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 9, September 1998, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 646-654. Europe].
302 Krieg, Klaus G. (1972) Netzplantechnik [Network planning technique]. In: Handbuch der Normung - Band 3: Normung als Instrument der Unternehmungsleitung [Standardization manual – Vol. 3: Standardization as Tool of Management], Ed. 2, September 1972, Deutscher Normenausschuss DNA, Beuth-Vertrieb GmbH, Berlin / Cologne / Frankfurt, pp. 10-1 - 10-21. Krieter, Cindy (1996) Total Quality Management versus Business process Reengineering: are Academicians Teaching what Businesses are Practicing? In: Production and Inventory Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2, 2nd Quarter 1996, American Production and Inventory Control Society, inc., Falls Church, Virginia, pp. 71-75. Krislov, Samuel (1997) How Nations Choose Product Standards and Standards Change Nations. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, 264 pp. Kumar, Shyam & Raj Dewkurun (1998) Mauritius - The Star and Key of the Indian Ocean. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 29 No. 12, December 1998, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 30-35. Kumar, Kuldeep & Paul V. van Fenema (1997) Barrier Model: Towards a Theory of Managing Geographically Distributed Projects. Management Report No. 13-46, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 23 pp. Kuijs, drs. Joop et al. (1996) Objectoriëntatie [Object Orientation]. In: Informatie, Vol. 38 No. 2, February 1996, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 4-36. Kunerth, Prof.Dr.-Ing. Walter (1996) Normung in Europa und das DIN - Ziele bis zum Jahr 2005 [Standardization in Europe and DIN - Purposes till 2005]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 75 No. 6, June 1996, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, pp. 427-430. Kverneland, Knut O. (1996) Metric Standards for World-wide Manufacturing. ASME Press, New York, 744 pp. Landis Gabel, H. (1994) Competitive Use of Technology Standards and Standardization. In: Advances in Global High-Technology Management, Vol. 4 Part A, JAI Press Ltd, Hampton Hill, UK, pp. 139-161. Langmann, Gordon (1997) Consumer Representation in Standardisation - A Review of the National Arrangement for Co-ordinating Consumer Representation in ISOCOPOLCO Member Countries. ANEC - European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardization, Brussels, 86 pp. Latour, Bruno (1987) Science in action - How to follow scientists through society. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, UK, 274 pp. Lee, Ji-Ren et al. (1995) Planning for dominance: a strategic perspective on the emergence of a dominant design. In: R&D Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, Basil Blackwell Publishers, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, pp. 3-15. Leeuw, A.C.J. de (1990) Een boekje over bedrijfskundige methodologie; management van onderzoek [A Booklet on Business Science Methodology; Management of Research]. Van Gorcum, Assen / Maastricht, 186 pp. Levitt, T. (1972) Production-line approach to service. In: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 50 No. 5, September-October 1972, Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, pp. 41-52.
303 Licharz, Elmar-Marius (1997) Strategies for the Standardization of Software Illustrated by the PC Market. In: Proceedings Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 181-190. Liebowitz, S.J. & Stephen E. Margolis (1990) The fable of the keys. In: Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 33 No. 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 1-25. Liesker, Friso (1992) Eerste ontwerp is goud waard [First Design is Invaluable]. In: Ingenieurskrant, Vol. 4 No. 3, 1992-02-06, NIRIA, the Hague, p. 23. Liess, E. & R. Salffner (1998) 61. IEC-Jahrestagung in Neu-Delhi [61th IEC General Meeting in New Delhi]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 1, January 1998, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 30-36. Ling, June (1997) What Is an International Standard? In: ASTM Standardization News, June 1997, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 15-16. Link, Albert N. & Gregory Tassey (1987) The Impact of Standards on Technologybased Industries: The Case of Numerically Controlled Machine Tools in Automated Batch Manufacturing. In: H. Landis Gabel (Ed.) Product Standardization and Competitive Strategy, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, pp. 217-237. Lions (1998) Business opportunities using Knowledge Management. In: The Australian Standard, April 1998, Standards Australia, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia. Loughran, Peggy (1994) ASTM Increases Administrative Support - Making the ASTM System Work for You. In: ASTM Standardization News, Vol. 22 No. 8, August 1994, American Society for Testing and Materials, W. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 30-33. Lourd, Ph. Le (1992) La normalisation et l’Europe - Secteurs de l’agro-alimentaire, du bois, et de l’eau [Standardization and Europe - Agriculture and Food, Forestry, and Water Sectors]. Editions Romillat/AFNOR, Paris, 1992, 313 pp. Lovelock, Christopher H. (1976) Services Marketing. Ed. 3, Prentice Hall International, Upper Saddle River, 660 pp. Luitjens, Steven (1997) Interorganisatorische informatiseringsprojecten bij de overheid [Interorganizational Government Service Automation Projects]. In: Informatie, Vol. 39 No. 4, April 1997, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 18-22. Mackay, Donald R. (1987) SES Standards Users Conference. Standards Engineering Society, Dayton, Ohio, USA, 6 pp. Mahesh, S. (1995) Haalbaarheidsonderzoek modulaire opzet van normen voor de bepaling van zware metalen [Feasibility Study on a Modular Approach for Standards on Determination of Heavy Metals in Environmental Samples]. Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut, Delft, 78 pp. Markides, Constantinos C. & Peter J. Williamson (1996) Corporate diversification and organizational structure: a resource-based view. In: Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39 No. 2, Academy of Management, Briarcliff Manor, New York, pp. 340-367.
304 Marschall, Dipl.-Pol. Horst-Werner & Dipl.-Ing. Andreas Wernicke (1998) SGML im DIN: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Bereitstellung von Normen in öffentlichen Netzen [SGML in DIN: Possibilities and Limits of Standards Processing in Open Networks]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 76 No. 7, July 1997, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 470-475. McIntyre, John R. (Ed.) Japan’s Technical Standards - Implications for Global Trade and Competitiveness. Quorum Books, Westprot, Connecticut / London, 209 pp. McKee, Lance (1998) OGC and Europe’s GI Future. In: Geomatics Info Magazine, Vol. 12 No. 3, March 1998, GITC BV, Lemmer, the Netherlands, pp. 23-25. Meek, Brian L. (1990) Changing People’s Attitudes: Personal Views. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 10 No. 1, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 29-36. Meek, Brian L. (1993) There are too many standards, and there are too few. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 15 No. 1, 15 May 1993, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Amsterdam, pp. 35-41. Meeus, dr. Marius T.H. et al. (1996) Participatie van het Nederlandse Midden- en Kleinbedrijf in normalisatie: oorzaken en gevolgen [Participation of Dutch Small and Medium-size Enterprises in Standardization: Reasons and Consequences]. Instituut voor Informatica en Recht, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam / Faculteit Technologie Management, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, the Netherlands, 61 pp. Meijdam, Jan & Alexander Boelen (1996) Criteria voor ontwerpend onderzoek en ontwerp [Criteria for Designing Research and Design]. In: Meijdam, Jan & Christoph Maria Ravesloot (Ed.) Criteria voor wetenschappelijk ontwerp en onderzoek [Criteria for Scientific Design and Research], Bouwkunde Assistenten In Opleiding Overleg (BaioO), Faculty of Architecture, Delft University of Technology, Delft, p. 21. Mercer, Paul W. (1995) The National Standards Systems Network. In: ASTM Standardization News, December 1995, American Society for Testing and Materials, W. Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 27-29. Meyer, Rolf (1995) Parameter der Wirksamkeit von typenreduzierenden Normungsvorhaben - Ein Beitrag zu einer Theorie der typenreduzierenden Normung [Parameters of Effects of Variety-reducing Standardization Activities - A Contribution to Theory on Variety-reducing Standardization]. DIN Normungskunde Band 4, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin / Vienna / Zurich, 226 pp. Mills, Peter K. & James H. Morris (1986) Clients as “Partial” Employees of Service Organizations: Role Development in Client Participation. In: Academy of Management Review Vol. 11. No 4, Academy of Management, Bowling Green, USA, pp. 726-735. Ministerie van Economische Zaken (1995) Normalisatie, certificatie en open grenzen [Standardization, Certification, and Free Trade]. Ministerie van Economische Zaken, the Hague, 42 pp. Ministerie van Economische Zaken (1998a) Concept Normalisatiecode [Draft Standardization Code]. Ministerie van Economische Zaken, the Hague, 14 pp. Ministerie van Economische Zaken (1998b) MDW-Project Normalisatie en Certificatie [Market Functioning, Deregulation and Legislation Improvement - Project on Standardization and Certification]. Reader containing the official report and Ministerial letters, Ministerie van Economische Zaken, the Hague, 112 pp.
305 Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid / Arbeidsinspectie (1994) Publikatieblad 190 ‘Arbo en verzuimbeleid. De wettelijke basis voor de zorg voor arbeidsomstandigheden en het terugdringen van het verzuim nader toegelicht’ [Publication 190 ‘Occupational Health and Safety and Abstention Policy. Elucidation of the Legal Basis of Occupational Health and Safety Management and Prevention of Abstention]. SDU
Uitgeverij, the Hague, 52 pp. Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid / Werkgroep kwaliteit van het uitvoeringsbeleid met betrekking tot arbozorg (1993) Arbozorg en systeemgericht handhaven [Occupational Health and Safety Management and System-Directed Control]. Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid / DGA/SAB/AOZ, the Hague, 61 pp. Möhr, D.E.C. (1998) Neue Norm erschienen - Technik bereits veraltet? [New Standard Published - Technology Already Outdated?]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 9, September 1998, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 678-679. Nakamura, Shigehiro (1993) The New Standardization - Keystone of Continuous Improvement in Manufacturing. Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon, 287 pp. Nayyar, Praveen R. (1993) Performance effects of information asymmetry and economies of scope in diversified service firms. In: Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 1, Academy of Management, Eugene, USA, pp. 28-57. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1958a) NEN 2296 ‘Handschrift voor het lager onderwijs – Schrijfletters en cijfers [Handwriting for Elementary Schools – Letters and Figures]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, the Hague, 2 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1958b) NEN 3055 ‘Kleuren voor textielgoederen - Vlaggekleuren - Rood en blauw’ [Colours for Textile - Flag Colours - Red and Blue]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, the Hague, 12 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1988a) NEN 2059 ‘Handelsformulieren’ [Trade Documents]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 47 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1988b) NEN 3516 ‘Ontwerpen van formulieren’ [Design of Forms]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 12 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1991a) NEN 5152 ‘Technische tekeningen Elektrotechnische symbolen’ [Technical Drawings - Graphical Symbols for Electrotechnology]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 484 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1991b) NEN 5825 ‘Adressen - Definities, tekensets, uitwisselingsformats en fysieke presentatie [Addresses - Definitions, Character Sets, Interchange Formats and Physical Presentation]. Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut, Delft, 12 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1993) Regels voor het opstellen van Nederlandse normen [Rules for Drafting Dutch Standards]. Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut, Delft, 71 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1994) Huishoudelijk reglement [Rules and Regulations]. Stichting Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 26 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1994 - 1996) Documents used within the Dutch TCs on quality, environmental and OHS management systems. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1996a) NEN 1010 ‘Veiligheidsbepalingen voor laagspanningsinstallaties’ [Safety Requirements for Low Voltage Installations]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 743 pp.
306 Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1996b) Ontwerp NPR 5001 ‘Model voor een Arbo-systeem’ [Draft NPR 5001 ‘Guide to Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems’]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 18 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1997a) Handleiding Commissieleden 1998 [Committee Members Guide 1998]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 40 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1997b) Jaarverslag 1996 [Annual Report 1996]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 20 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1997c) NPR 5001 ‘Model voor een Arbomanagementsysteem’ [Guide to an Occupational Health and Safety Management System]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 11 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1997d) Overzicht accountmanagers / organisatie en coördinatoren [Overview of Account Managers, Organizations, and Coordinators]. MT-NNI/97-25, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 4 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1998a) Commissielijst Juni 1998 [Listing of Committees June 1998]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 95 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1998b) Jaarverslag 1997 [Annual Report 1997]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 28 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1998c) Normalisatiecatalogus 1998 [Standardization Catalogue 1998]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 800 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1998d) Sociaal Jaarverslag 1997 [Social Annual Report]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 21 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut & Belgisch Instituut voor Normalisatie (1998) NEN 5050 / NBN X 04-001 ‘Woordwijzer - Goed taalgebruik in bedrijf en techniek’ [Wording Guide - Correct Usage of Dutch in Business and Technology]. Sdu Uitgevers, the Hague / Standaard Uitgeverij, Antwerp, 176 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Cluster Milieu (1996) De Europese milieumarkt en normalisatie [The European Environmental Measurements Market and Standardization]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 36 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Cluster Milieu (1997) NormalisatieNieuwsbrief Milieunormalisatie, Vol. 5 No. 15, Nederlands Normalisatieinstituut, Delft, 36 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut & Nederlands Elektrotechnisch Comité (1987) Normalisatie op het gebied van de Elektrotechniek [Standardization in the Electrotechnical Area]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 6 pp. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut & Nederlands Elektrotechnisch Comité (1993) Handleiding voor Commissieleden [Comittee Members Guide]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 43 pp. Nelson, Donna-Lane (1998) Electronic Product Survey. In: IEC Bulletin, Vol. 32 No. 3, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, pp. 2-3. Nicklas, Mark (1997) Standardization and lock-in effects in the market for digital broadcasting services. In: Proceedings Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research 20-23 May 1997, Department of Standardization and Technical Drawing, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 191-202. Nieto-Galan, Agusti (1997) The Standardization of Colours in XIXth Century Europe. La Villette - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Centre de recherche en Histoire des Sciences et des Techniques, Paris, 40 pp.
307 Nieuwsbrief kwaliteits-, arbo- en milieumanagement (1997) Publicatie NPR 5001 [Publishing NPR 5001]. In: Nieuwsbrief kwaliteits-, arbo- en milieumanagement, No. 6, 4th quarter 1997, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 1, 4-6. NNI (1995a) Feasibility Study on a Modular Approach for Standards on Determination of Heavy Metals in Environmental Samples. CEN/PC 7 N 101, CEN/PC 7 Environment, CEN, Brussels, 6 pp. NNI (1995b) Modular Approach for Standards on Determination of Heavy Metals in Environmental Samples. CEN/TC 230 N229, CEN, Brussels, 1995, 6 pp. NNI Bouw (1996) Compilatie beleidslijnen en -uitgangspunten Bouwnormalisatie [Compilation of Policies and Basic Principles of Standardization in Building and Civil Engineering]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 10 pp.
NNI Bouw (1997) Normalisatie-Nieuwsbrief Bouwnormalisatie, Vol. 4 No. 4, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 10 pp. Normann, Richard (1991) Service management - Strategy and Leadership in Service Business. Ed. 2, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester / New York / Brisbane / Toronto / Singapore, 185 pp. Ollner, Jan (1974) The company and standardization. Ed. 2, Swedish Standards Institution, Stockholm, 87 pp. Oly, Michiel & Florens Slob (1999) Benchmarking Bedrijfsnormalisatie - Een best practice voor de procesindustrie [Benchmarking Company Standardization - A Best Practice for the Process Industry]. Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 153 pp. (Not publicly available) Østensen, Olaf (1995) Mapping the future of geomatics. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 26 No. 12, December 1995, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 5-10. Österreichisches Normungsinstitut (1988) Werknormung in Österreich - Ein Leitfaden für Normenpraktiker [Company Standardization in Austria - Guide for Standards Practitioners]. Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, Vienna, 96 pp. Overkleeft, D. & L.E. Groosman (1987) Het Dekker perspectief [Dekker’s Prospect]. Kluwer, Deventer / Veen, Utrecht, the Netherlands, 205 pp. Pearsall, Judy & Bill Trumble (Ed.) (1995) The Oxford English Reference Dictionary. Oxford University Press, Oxford / New York. Philips Concern Standardization Department (1982) Normalisatie-handboek [Standardization Manual]. Philips Concern Standardization Department, Eindhoven, 178 pp. Pitner, Tomás (1997) Introduction to Standards for Internet Communication. In. Proceedings Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 275-280. Plissart, H. (1995) Public procurement. In: Jacques Abecassis (Ed.) Standards for Access to the European Market, Ed. 2, CEN Central Secretariat, Brussels, pp. 32-35. Pontoni, Felicity (1998a) Harmonizing Standards. In: The Australian Standard, Vol. 19 No. 6, June 1998, Standards Australia, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia, p. 25. Pontoni, Felicity (1998b) Individual Standards available via the Web.....a world-first for Australia. In: The Australian Standard, Vol. 19 No. 8, August 1998, Standards Australia, Strathfield, New South Wales, Australia, pp. 8-9. Porter, Michael E. (1985) Competitive Advantage - Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press, New York, 557 pp.
308 Prahalad, C.K. & Gary Hamel (1990) The core competence of the corporation. In: Harvard Business Review, Vol. 68 No 3, May/June 1990, Harvard University, Boston, pp. 79-91. Preyde, ing. Marcus (1994) Richtlijn voor een besturingssysteem van kwaliteitskenmerken - Onderzoek naar management en organisatie in situaties met een sterke samenhang tussen kwaliteit, milieu en arbeidsomstandigheden [Guideline for a Control System of Quality Attributes - Study of Management and Organization in Cases of Strong Intertwinement of Quality, Environment, and Occupational Health and Safety]. Masters
thesis, Faculteit Bedrijfskunde, Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Loon op Zand, the Netherlands, 49 pp. Pries, Frens (1995) Innovatie in de bouwnijverheid [Innovation in the Construction Industry]. Eburon, Delft, 222 pp. Raeburn, A.M. (1998a) Category D liaison - Participation in IEC work. Administrative Circular 02/1019/AC, 1998-03, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 5 pp. Raeburn, A.M. (1998b) Electronic voting on IEC CDVs and FDISs. Administrative Circular 79/AC, 1998-05-15, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 3 pp. Raeburn, A.M. (1998c) Lateness and quality of documents. Administrative Circular 143/AC, 1998-11-21, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 8 pp. Raeburn, A.M. (1998d) New Procedures for the Maintenance of IEC Publications and New Work Proposals. Administrative Circular 53/AC, 1998-03-20, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 2 pp. Raeburn, A.M. (1998e) Procedures for new work, revision, amendments and maintenance of IEC publications. Administrative Circular 79/AC, 1998-05-15, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 3 pp. Raeburn, A.M. (1998f) Submission of comments on drafts in electronic form. Administrative Circular 73/AC, 1998-05-01, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, 7 pp. Rajchel, Lisa (1997) Re-engineering of ISO/IEC JTC 1 - Where it stands. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 7, July 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, p. 4. Rankine, L. John (1996) The Future for Standardization. Rankine Associates, Westport, Connecticut, USA, 5 pp. Reed, M. (1998) ISO 9000 certification/registration. In: ISO, Conformity assessment, Development Manual 2, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 33-39. Reihlen, Prof.Dr.-Ing. Helmut (1996) Zusammenfassung der Beratungsergebnisse durch Prof.Dr.-Ing. Helmut Reihlen, Direktor des DIN. [Summary of the Deliberations Results by Prof.Dr. Helmut Reihlen]. In: Normung in Europa und das DIN - Ziele für das Jahr 2005 [Standardization in Europe and DIN - Objectives for the Year 2005], DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin / Beuth, Vienna / Zurich, pp. 102-113.
309 Reihlen, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Sc. D. Helmut Reihlen (1997) Zur Effizienz der Arbeit des DIN - Untersuchung im Auftrag des Finanzausschusses des DIN-Präsidiums [Towards Efficiency of DIN Operations - Study by Order of the Financial Committee of the DIN Presidium]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 76 No. 11, November 1997, Beuth Verlag
GmbH, Berlin, pp. 765-773. Réju, Emmanuelle (1998) Des référentiels bien appliqués...[Of well-applied references...]. In: Enjeux, No. 183, April 1998, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 33-35. Repussard, Jacques (1995) Problems and issues for public sector involvement in voluntary standardization. In: R. Hawkins, R. Mansell & J. Skea (Ed.) Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness, Edward Elgar Publishing Company, Aldershot, United Kingdom / Brookfield, USA, pp. 62-66. Richter, Julian (1994) Nutzen der Verbrauchersvertretung für die Produktentwicklung [Benefits of User Representation for Product Development]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 73 No. 10, October 1994, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 639-641. Ridge, Warren J. (1969) Value Analysis for Better Management. American Management Association, Inc., The Kingsport Press, Inc., Kingsport, Tennessee, 207 pp. Ritzer, George (1998) The McDonaldization Thesis - Explorations and Extensions. SAGE Publications, London / Thousand Oaks, California / New Delhi, 220 pp. Rogaar, ir. H.Ph. & drs. G. Duijf (1996) Integrale productontwikkeling [Integral Product Development]. NEHEM Consulting Group, ‘s-Hertogenbosch, the Netherlands, 2 pp. Romney, Marshall (1994) Business Process Re-engineering. In: The CPA Journal, Vol. 64 No. 10, October 1994, New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants, New York, pp. 30-32. Roon, ir. J. van & ir. H.J. de Vries (1997) Arbeid en ondernemen - Aanzet tot een christelijke visie [Labour and Enterprise - Initial Impetus Towards a Christian Approach]. Carmel Enterprising, Gorinchem, the Netherlands, 56 pp. Rosen, Barry Nathan, Steven P. Schnaars & David Shani (1988) A Comparison of Approaches for Setting Standards for Technological Products. In: Product Innovation Management, Vol. 5 No. 5, Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc, New York, pp. 129-139. Ryan, Henry J.F. (1995) The GII: information technology and telecommunications standards. In: IEC Bulletin, No. 154, Sept./Oct. 1995, pp. 4-7. Saile, D. & P.T.N. Reeve (1997) SIOP/SIEP Standards Action Plan 1997-2001. OP 97-30930, ORTEE/400, Shell International Oil Products B.V. / SIEP 97-5930, EPT-MS, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V., the Hague, 92 pp. Sanders, T.B.R. (Ed.) (1972) The aims and principles of standardization. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 115 pp. SCC (1998) Strategic Plan 1998-2001. Standards Council of Canada, Ottawa, http:// www.scc.ca/publicat/stratplane.html. Schacht, Mario (1991) Methodische Neugestaltung von Normen als Grundlage für eine Integration in den rechnerunterstützten Konstruktionsprozeß [Methodical Standards Redesign as a Basis for Integration in Computer Aided Engineering]. DINNormungskunde Band 28, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin / Cologne, 175 pp.
310 Schillemans, H.J. (1996) Product Safety at Philips Sound & Vision. Master’s thesis, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 85 pp. Schipper, drs. H.W. & ir. H.J. de Vries (1997) Normalisatie in dienstverlenende sectoren - strategische verkenning [Standardization in Service Sectors - Strategic Study]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 120 pp. Schmenner, Roger W. (1992) How Can Service Businesses Survive and Prosper? In: Christopher H. Lovelock (Ed.) Managing Services - Marketing, Operations, and Human Resources, Ed. 2, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 31-42. Schmenner, Roger W. (1995) Service Operations Management. Prentice-Hall International, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 420 pp. Schmidt, Susanne K. & Raymund Werle (1998) Coordinating Technology - Studies on the International Standardization of Telecommunications. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, 365 pp. Schneider, Andreas (1995) Project management in international teams: instruments for improving cooperation. In: International Journal of project management Vol. 13 No. 4, Elsevier Science Ltd, Kidlington, Oxford, United Kingdom, pp. 247-251. Schooten, drs. A. van & drs. M. Ebbinge (1998) ISO ontspoord [ISO Derailed]. In: Sigma, Vol. 42 No. 1, February 1998, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 4-7. Schultetus, Wolfgang (1997) Standards for your comfort: Do we want to standardize man? In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 7, July 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 9-12. Schultz, Klaus-Peter (1997) Vertrag zwischen AFNOR und der französischen Regierung - Normungsziele für 1997 bis 2000 [Agreement between AFNOR and the French Government - Standardization Targets, 1997 to 2000]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 76 No. 10, October 1997, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 722-725. Schuurman, Prof.dr.ir. E. (1977) Techniek, middel of moloch? – Een christelijkwijsgerige benadering van de crisis in de technisch-wetenschappelijke cultuur [Technology, Means or Moloch? – A Christian-philosophical Approach of the Crisis in the Technical-scientific Culture]. Uitgeversmaatschappij J.H. Kok, Kampen, the
Netherlands, 136 pp. Schwamm, Henri (1996) Services - A challenge for international standardization. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 10, October 1996, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 7-19. Schwamm, Henri (1997) Worldwide Standards. In: ISO Bulletin, Vol. 28 No. 9, September 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 12-28. Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 18 (1995) SC 18 Strategy for Standards Development and User Requirements. ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 18 N 5063, Secretariat ISO/IEC JTC1/SC 18, American National Standards Institute, New York, 13 pp. Secretariat of ISO/TC 176/SC 2 (1998) ISO/TC 176/SC 2/N399 ‘Working Drafts of ISO 9001:2000 and 9004: 2000.’ International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 48 pp. Seddon, John (1997) In Pursuit of Quality – The case against ISO 9000. Oak Tree Press, Dublin, 207 pp.
311 SER Sociaal-Economische Raad (1994) Advies Normalisatie, certificatie en open grenzen [Advice Standardization, Certification, and Free Trade]. Sociaal-Economische Raad, the Hague, 42 pp. SES (1995) SES 1 ‘Recommended Practice for Standards Designation and Organization - An American National Standard.’ Standards Engineering Society, Dayton, Ohio, 12 pp. Shackleton, D.N. & H.G. Ziegenfuss (1997) Welding standards together - the path to unity for preparing international standards for the welding industry. In: ISO Bulletin Vol. 28 No. 5, May 1997, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, pp. 8-12. Shostack, G. Lynn (1991) Service Position Through Structural Change. In: Lovelock, Christopher H. Services Marketing, Ed. 2, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, pp. 147-160. Simons, dr.ir. C.A.J. (1990) De betekenis van normalisatie en certificatie in Europees verband voor de onderneming [Company Significance of Standardization and Certification in Europe]. In: VNO/NCW, Normalisatie en certificatie [Standardization and Certification], Ondernemen in Brussel Vol. 3, Verbond van Nederlandse Ondernemingen / Nederlands Christelijk Werkgeversverbond, the Hague, pp. 34-43. Simons, Prof.dr.ir. C.A.J. (1994) Kiezen tussen verscheidenheid en uniformiteit [Choosing between Diversity and Uniformity]. Inaugural lecture, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 21 pp. Simons, Prof.dr.ir. C.A.J. (1996) De wereld van het virtuele document [The World of the Virtual Document]. In: Normalisatie-nieuws, Vol. 4 No. 5/6, June/July 1996, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 5-6. Simons, C.A.J. (1997) How to choose an optimal standardization process? Workshop on Standardization, Centre of Economic Studies, Munich, 8 pp. Simons, Prof.dr.ir. C.A.J. & ir. H.J. de Vries (1997) Standaardisatie en normalisatie [Standardization]. Synopsis of lectures, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Stichting Syllabi, Rotterdam, 107 pp. Sinnott, Richard O. & Kenneth J. Turner (1995) Applying formal methods to standard development: The open distributed processing experience. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 17 No. 5/6, September 1995, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, pp. 615-630. SIRIM Berhad (1998) Process Flow of Malaysian Standards Development. http:// www.sirim.my/IMAGES/charts/msd/pfmsdcht.jpg. Skea, Jim (1995) Changing procedures for environmental standards-setting in the European Community (EC). In: R. Hawkins, R. Mansell and J. Skea (Ed.) Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness - The Politics and Economics of Standards in Natural and Technical Environments. Edward Elgar, Adershot, United Kingdom / Brookfield, USA, pp. 122-135. Smits, Nicoline (1995) 175-jarig bestaan van het metrieke stelsel in Nederland [175th Anniversary of the Metrics System in The Netherlands]. In: Normalisatie-nieuws, Vol. 3 No. 4, April 1995, pp. 4-5. SNV (1988) Leitfaden für Teilnehmer an CEN-Tagungen / Guide à l’attention des délégués aux réunions CEN / Guide for delegates to CEN meetings. SNV Schweizerische Normen-Vereinigung, Zurich, 15 pp.
312 Specifiek (1997) Gecertificeerde bedrijven scoren onverwacht slecht [Registered Companies Perform Unexpectedly Bad]. In: Specifiek, No. 159, March 1997, KDI, Rotterdam, pp. 10-11. Sperberg-McQueen, C.M. & Lou Burnard (1997) A Gentle Introduction to SGML. http://www-tei.uic.edu/orgs/tei/sgml/teip3sg/index.html#TOC. Spring, Michael B. et al. (1995) Improving the Standardization Process: Working with Bulldogs and Turtles. In: Brian Kahin & Janet Abbate, Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts / London, UK, pp. 220-250. Standards Council of Canada (1996) Standard and the Consumer. http://www.scc.ca/ publicat/conbroe.html, 6 pp. State Committee for Standards of the USSR Council of Ministers (1976) State System of Standardization. State Committee for Standards of the USSR Council of Ministers, Moscow, 208 pp. Steenwijk, K. (1992) Praktijkboek formulierenlogistiek [Practical Guide to Forms Logistics]. Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands, 180 pp. Steenwijk, K. (1994) Praktijkboek formulierontwerp [Practical Guide to Forms Design]. Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aan den Rijn, the Netherlands, 432 pp. Stern, John P. (1997) The Japanese Technology Infrastructure: Issues and Opportunities. In: John R. McIntyre (Ed.), Japan’s Technical Standards Implications for Global Trade and Competitiveness, Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut / London, pp. 75-86. Stichting Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (1994) Huishoudelijk reglement [Rules and Regulations]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 26 pp. Stokes, A.V. (Ed.) (1986) Communications standards. In: State of the art report, Vol. 14 No. 3, Pergamon Infotech Ltd, Maidenhead. Straatman, Tineke (1994) Beleefd, maar duidelijk [Polite, but Clear]. In: Intermediair, Vol. 30 No. 50, VNU Business Publications, Amsterdam, p. 55. Stuurman, mr.drs. C. (1995) Technische normen en het recht [Technical Standards and the Law]. Reeks Informatica en Recht Vol. 17, Kluwer, Deventer, the Netherlands, 584 pp. Stuurman, Kees (1997) Standardisation and standards: a legal vacuum? In: Building the Future with Standardization - Proceedings Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, pp. 29-40. Sumner, L. (1981) PD 6470 ‘The management of design for economic production.’ British Standards Institution, London, 45 pp. Susanto, Agus (1988) Methodik zur Entwicklung von Normen [Methodology for Standards Development]. DIN-Normungskunde Band 23, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin / Cologne, 189 pp. Swann, G.M.P. (1987) Industry Standard Microprocessors and the Strategy of Secondsource Production. In: H. Landis Gabel (Ed.) Product Standardization and Competitive Strategy, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), Amsterdam, pp. 239-262. Swann, Peter & Paul Temple (1995) School Report. In: BSI News, March 1995, pp. 22-23.
313 Swenson, Per-Åke (1998) The value of Documentation Standards. In: IEC Bulletin, 1998 No. 2, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, pp. 6-7. Takahashi, Sigeru & Akio Tojo (1993) The SSI story - What it is, and how it was stalled and eliminated in the International Standardization arena. In: Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 15 No. 3, December 1993, Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, pp. 523-538. Tamm Halström, Kristina (1996) The Production of Management Standards. In: Revue d’Économie Industrielle, No. 75, 1st Trimester 1996, Éditions Techniques et Economiques, Paris, pp. 61-76. Tamm Hallström, Kristina (1998) Construction of authority in two international standardization bodies. SCORE Working Paper 1998:5, Stockholm Center for Organizational Research (SCORE), Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 23 pp. Tanabe, Koji (1997) Globalization and the Role of Standards. In: John R. McIntyre (Ed.), Japan’s Technical Standards - Implications for Global Trade and Competitiveness, Quorum Books, Westport, Connecticut / London, pp. 67-73. TC Communiqué (1994). TC Communiqué, No. 30, November 1994, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 6 pp. Teal, James L. Setting the Standard for Engineering Excellence - The People, The Process, The Competitive Edge. In: ASTM Standardization News, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, June 1990, pp. 32-35. Termaat, Keith B. (1997) Ford takes strategic Approach to Standardization. In: ANSI Reporter, February 1997, American National Standards Institute, New York, pp. 3-4. Tidmarsh, Alan R. (1995) BSI Standards - Benchmarking. Annex to ISO/TMB 180, ISO Technical Management Board, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 3 pp. TNSCAS (1998) Report on Activities of Turkish National Steering Committee for the Application of Standards 1997-1998. In: IFAN, Twenty-fifth IFAN Members’ Assembly, Orlando, Florida (USA) 18-19 October 1998 - Working documents, Annex 1 to IFAN No. 6-1998, 2 pp. Tot, drs. Anneke (1996) Van normenfabriek naar slagvaardig instituut [From Standards Factory towards Decisive Institute]. In: Normalisatie-nieuws, Vol. 4 No. 3, March 1996, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 3-4. Toth, Robert B. (1994) Distribution of standards via electronic media - a market survey by ISO and IEC. International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission, 79 pp. Toth, Robert B. (Ed.) (1990) Standards Management - a handbook for profits. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), New York, 505 pp. Toth, Robert B. (Ed.) (1996) Standards Activities of Organizations in the United States. NIST Special Publication 806, 1996 Ed., United States Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 778 pp. Toth, Robert B. (Ed.) (1997) Profiles of National Standards-Related Activities. NIST Special Publication 912, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, 157 pp.
314 Tourneur, Jean-Claude (1996) Transports publics - La télébillettique séduit les collectivités locales [Public Transport - Automatic Debiting Systems Seduce Local Authorities]. In: Enjeux, No. 163, April 1996, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 53-55. Tourneur, Jean-Claude (1998) Un rapport qui rend service [A Report at Your Service]. In: Enjeux, No. 183, April 1998, Association Française de Normalisation, Paris, pp. 27-32. Tweede Kamer (1989) Bedrijfsinterne Milieuzorg [Environmental Management within the Company]. Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 1988-1989, 20 633, No. 3, SDU Uitgeverij, the Hague, 51 pp. Ulden, S.J.A. van (1997) Diversificatie bij dienstverleners [Diversification in Service Companies]. Master’s thesis, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 86 pp. UNICE (1991) Green paper on the development of European standardisation - UNICE Position. Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe, Brussels, 9 pp. UNICE (1992) Communication from the Commission to the Council on standardisation in the European economy - Document 91/521 - UNICE Comments. Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe, Brussels, 4 pp. UNICE (1997) Draft Review of European Standardisation Policy - UNICE Comments. Union of Industrial and Employers’ Confederations of Europe, Brussels, 2 pp. U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1992) Global Standards: Building Blocks for the Future. TCT-512, March 1992, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 115 pp. Vardakas, E. (1996) Commission Statement. Contribution to the General Assembly of CEN, Copenhagen, 1996-09-26, European Commission, Directorate-General III Industry, Brussels. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (1982) VDI 2222 Blatt 2 ‘Konstruktionsmethodik Erstellung und Anwendung von Konstruktionskatalogen’ [Design Engineering Methodology - Setting up and Use of Design Catalogues]. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin / Cologne, 43 pp. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure (1996) Entwurf VDI 2222 Blatt 1 ‘Konstruktionsmethodik - Methodisches Entwickeln von Lösungsprinzipien’ [Design Engineering Methodology - Systematic Development of Solution Principles]. Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 63 pp. Verity Consulting (1995) Strategic Standardization - Lessons from the World’s Foremost Companies. (Summary) ANSI, New York, 74 pp. (Not publicly available) Verman, Ph.D. Lal C. (1973) Standardization - A new discipline. Archon Books, The Shoe String Press Inc., Hamden, Connecticut, USA. Verstege, Dr.-Ing. L. (1995) Elektronische Bereitstellung von Normen [Electronic Production of Standards]. Proceedings 29. Konferenz Normenpraxis, Leipzig 1995, ANP Ausschuss Normenpraxis im DIN, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., pp. 4-1 - 4-11. Viehoff, J.H.R.M. (1992) Markteffectief organiseren en dienstverlenende organisaties [Market-driven Organizing and Service Organizations]. Kluwer Bedrijfswetenschappen, Deventer, the Netherlands, 168 pp. Vlist, ir. P. van der (1987) Telematica netwerken [Telematics Networks]. Tutein Nolthenius, Amsterdam, 151 pp.
315 Vogel, Monika (Ed.) (1993) Handbuch der Normung - Band 1 - Grundlagen der Normungsarbeit [Standardization Handbook - Part 1 - Standardization Fundamentals]. Ed. 9, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, 392 pp. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1990) Nationale, Europese en internationale normalisatie [National, European, and International Standardization]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 18 pp. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1991a) Normalisatie [Standardization]. In: O.A.M. Fisscher, J.J. Krabbendam & M.J.M. de Vaan (Ed.) Management van Technologie, Kluwer, Deventer / Twente School of Management, Enschede, the Netherlands, pp. 3.7.2-01 - 3.7.2-18. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1991b) Normalisatie [Standardization]. In: Industriële organisatie B, Delft University of Technology, Delft, 38 pp. Vries, Henk J. de (1995a) Company standardization - Importance of company and/or inter-company standardization in addition to the use of national, European and international standards. PHARE Programme EC - EFTA, Regional Programme on Quality Assurance PRAQ91, Action *3.2.6, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 1995, 10 pp. Vries, Henk J. de (1995b) Involvement of economic partners with the standards development process of national standards bodies. PHARE Programme EC EFTA, Regional Programme on Quality Assurance PRAQ91, Action *3.2.6, Comité Européen de Normalisation, Brussels, 1995, 13 pp. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1995c) Technische normen en het recht [Technical Standards and the Law]. In: Normalisatie-nieuws, Vol. 3 No. 9, November 1995, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, p. 9. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1996a) Normalisatie voor NS Railinfrabeheer [Standardization for the Dutch Railways Infrastructure]. TRAIL Research School, Delft, 31 pp. Vries, Henk de (1996b) Standardization - what’s in a name? In: Standards and Society, Compendium from The Third Annual EURAS (European Academy for Standardization) Conference, held in Stockholm May 3-5, 1996, EURAS, Stockholm, 24 pp. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1997a) Computer en het jaar 2000: wèl vier cijfers afgesproken [Computers and the Year 2000: Four Digits Have Been Arranged]. Dagblad Trouw, 1997-08-19, Trouw/Kwartet, Amsterdam, p. 9. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1997b) Cursus Dienstverlening door Standardization Consultants - Syllabus [Course on Standardization Consultants’ Services - Course Manual]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 32 pp. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1997c) Discussiebijeenkomst normalisatie binnen procesindustrieën [Discussion of Standardization in Process Industries]. Report of a meeting 1997-09-05, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 3 pp. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1997d) Het nut van normen en normalisatie voor het midden- en kleinbedrijf [The Value of Standards and Standardization for Small and Medium-size Enterprises]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 21 pp. Vries, Henk de (1997e) Standardization in Service Sectors - Exploration of Market Needs in The Netherlands. In: Proceedings Interdisciplinary Workshop on Standardization Research, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, pp. 309-333. Vries, Henk J. de. (1997f) Standardization, what's in a name? In: Terminology International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Issues in Specialized
316 Communication, Vol. 4 No. 1, John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam / Philadelphia, pp. 55-83. (Rectification in Vol. 4 No. 2). Vries, ir. H.J. de (1998a) Is beter toezicht op certificatie-instellingen haalbaar? [Is Better Surveillance of Certification Bodies Feasible?]. In: Sigma, Vol. 42 No. 2, April 1998, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 19-22. Vries, ir. H.J. de (1998b) Klantafstemming voor minder geld - Standaardisatie in de marketing [Customization at Lower Cost - Standardization in Marketing]. In: Tijdschrift voor Marketing, Vol. 32, No. 2, Februari 1998, Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, pp. 40-43. Vries, H.J. de (1998c) Naar betere normen voor certificatie [Towards Better Standards for Certification]. In: Nieuwsbrief Kwaliteits-, arbo- en milieumanagement, Vol. 3 No. 1, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 3-4. Vries, Henk de (1998d) Standardization needs in service sectors. In: DINMitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 11, November 1998, Beuth Verlag, Berlin, pp. 828-833. Vries, Henk J. de (1998e) The classification of Standards. In: Knowledge Organization, Vol. 25 No. 3, ERGON-Verlag, Würzburg, pp. 79-89. Vries, Henk J. de (1998f) Wishes Concerning Services Offered by National Standardization Organizations. Management Report No. 15-98, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 26 pp. Vries, ir. Henk J. de (1999a) Kwaliteitszorg zonder onbehagen – Praktische analyse van ISO 9000-kwaliteitszorg vanuit christelijk-filosofisch perspectief [Quality Management without Uneasiness – Practical Analysis of ISO 9000 Quality Management Seen From Christian-Philosophical Perspective]. Buijten & Schipperheijn, Amsterdam / KDI,
Capelle aan den IJssel, the Netherlands. Vries, Henk de (1999b) Possibilities for better Management System Standards. To be published in: Manfred J. Holler & Esko Niskanen (Eds.) EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, Vol. 2, Homo oeconomicus Vol. 15 No. 3, Accedo Verlaggesellschaft mbH, Munich. Vries, ir. H.J. de & drs. D. Hortensius (1998) AH group MSS N 8 ‘Discussion paper for the 1st meeting of the ISO ad hoc group on Guidelines for the drafting of management systems standards.’ Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 18 pp. Vries, Henk de & Barry Meesters (1997) ISO 9000 in het betaald voetbal [ISO 9000 in Professional Soccer]. In: Kwaliteit in Bedrijf, Vol. 12 No. 5, August 1997, Koggeschip Vakbladen BV, Amsterdam, pp. 30-32. Vries, ir. H.J. de & Schipper, drs. H.W. (1997) Normalisatie in dienstverlenende sectoren - strategische verkenning [Standardization in Service Sectors - Strategic Study]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 120 pp. Waloff, Ingrid (1996) Standardization and the view of stakeholders - A report on BSI Standards Programme of Stakeholder Research 1994-1996. Proceedings CEN/CENELEC/ETSI Conference Standards on Trial, CEN, Brussels, 3 pp. Walser, Dipl.-Komm.-Wirt Aljoscha (1998) Bedeutung des Internets für das DIN [Significance of the Internet for DIN]. In: DIN Mitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 10, October 1998, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 765-773. Walsh, Peter (1997) Reengineering the Standards Preparation Process. In: ASTM Standardization News, Vol. 25 No. 10, October 1997, American Society for Testing and Materials, Conshoshocken, Pennsylvania, pp. 14-15. Walter, I (1998) DIN-Tagung “NormDOC ‘97 - Technische Produktdokumentation und rechnergestützte Bearbeitung und Archivierung von Dokumenten” [DIN
317 Conference ‘NormDOC ‘97 - Technical Product Documentation and Computer Aided Document Processing and Storage’]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 4, April 1998, Beuth
Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 286-291. Warren-Boulton, Frederick R., Kenneth C. Baseman & Glenn A Woroch (1994) The Economics of Intellectual Property Protection for Software: The Proper Role for Copyright. Paper prepared for a June 1994 meeting of the American Council on Interoperable Systems in Washington, D.C., MiCRA, Washington, D.C. / University of California-Berkeley, Department of Economics, Berkely, California, 26 pp. Weber, Max (1964) Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft - Grundriss der verstehende Soziologie [Economy and Society - An Outline of Interpretive Sociology]. Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln / Berlin, 1168 pp. Weiler, Anton G. (1997) Desiderius Erasmus - De spriritualiteit van een christenhumanist [Desiderius Erasmus - The Sprituality of a Christian Humanist]. Titus Brandsma Instituut / Uitgeverij Valkhof Pers, Nijmegen, the Netherlands, 71 pp. Weiss, Martin & Carl Cargill (1992) Consortia in the Standards Development Process. In: JASIS - Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 43 No. 8, September 1992, John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York, pp. 559-565. Weiss, Martin B.H. & Marvin Sirbu (1990) Technological Choice in Voluntary Standards Committees: An Empirical Analysis. In: Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 1 No. 1, Harwood Academic Publishers GmbH, Chur, pp. 111-134. Weiss, Martin B.H. & Michael B. Spring (1992) Selected Intellectual Property Issues in Standardization. Paper presented at the Twentieth Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Solomons, MD, September 12-14, 1992, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Information Science, Pittsburgh, 18 pp. Wende, I (1998) Informationstechnik [Information Technology]. In: DIN-Mitteilungen, Vol. 77 No. 9, September 1998, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 683-684. Weperen, Willem van (1993) Guidelines for the development of safety-related standards for consumer products. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, Vol. 25 No. 1, Pergamon Press Ltd., Oxford / New York, pp. 11-17. Werven, ing. G. van (1997) Documentbeheer [Document Management]. In: ing. W.A. van Bruggen et al. Opstellen van procedures voor een ISO 9000-kwaliteitssysteem [Establishing Procedures for an ISO 9000 Quality System], Ed. 2, Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, pp. 88-104. Wiese, Harald (1988) Compatibility, Business Strategy and Market Structure a Selective Survey. In: Holler, Manfred J. & Esko Niskanen (Eds.) EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, Vol. 1, Homo oeconomicus Vol. 14 No. 3, Accedo Verlaggesellschaft mbH, Munich, pp. 283-308.
318 Wiest, Max (1994) Eigenverantwortlichkeit des Verbrauchers oder staatliche Massnahmen des Verbraucherschutzes [The Responsibility of the Consumer or Governmental Measures for Consumer Protection]. In: DIN Mitteilungen, Vol. 73 No. 10, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 635-638. Wijnen, Gert (1997) Multiprojectmanagement. Het Spectrum/Marka, Utrecht, 144 pp. Wilson, Patrick (1998) Harmonized Stage Codes. ISO Technical Management Board Secretariat, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, 11 pp. Winter, W. (1990) Bedrijfsnormalisatie [Company Standardization] Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 31 pp. Winter, W. (1991) Methoden en technieken van normalisatie [Methods and Techniques of Standardization]. Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut, Delft, 35 pp. Wintraaken, Niels (1997) De industriële groothandel: kritische succesfactoren en innovatiestrategieën [The Industrial Wholesale Business: Critical Success Factors and Innovation Strategies]. Master’s thesis, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, 148 pp. Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut der Bundeskammer (1976) Rationalisierung durch Werknormung [Rationalization by Company Standardization]. Schriftenreihe Rationalisieren, No. 88, June 1976, Wirtschaftsförderungsinstitut der Bundeskammer, Vienna. Wit, Bob de & Ron Meyer (1994) Strategy - Process, Content, Context - An International Perspective. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minneapolis / New York / Los Angeles / San Francisco, 877 pp. Wölker, Thomas (1991) Entstehung und Entwicklung des Deutschen Normenausschusses (DNA) - Ergebnisse einer Dissertation [Genesis and Development of the German Standardization Commission (DNA) - Doctoral Thesis Results]. In: DINMitteilungen, Vol. 70 No. 10, October 1991, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, pp. 533-537. Wölker, Thomas (1992) Entstehung und Entwicklung des Deutschen Normenausschusses 1917 bis 1925 [Genesis and Development of the German Standardization Commission 1917 till 1925]. DIN Normungskunde Band 30, DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin / Cologne, 302 pp. World Trade Organization (1994) General Agreement on Trade in Services. World Trade Organization, Geneva, 29 pp. Yin, Robert K. (1994) Case study research. Ed. 2, Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 5, SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California / London / New Delhi, 171 pp. Zee, H.J.M. van der (1997) Denken over dienstverlening - Over facilitaire diensten en hun veranderende rol in de primaire bedrijfsprocessen [Thinking about Service The Changing Role of Facilitating Services in Primary Company Processes]. Kluwer Bedrijfsinformatie, Deventer, the Netherlands, 247 pp. Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. (1994a) Joint management of working conditions, environment and quality: in search of synergy and organizational learning. Dutch Institute for Working Environment (NIA), Amsterdam, 336 pp. Zwetsloot, Gerard I.J.M. (1994b) The synergy between the ISO 9000, safety and environmental requirements. In: Flemish Quality Management Centre, Conference Proceedings of the ISO 9000 Forum, Vlaams Centrum voor Kwaliteitszorg, Zelle, Belgium, 6 pp.
319
Annex 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study benefitted from the insights and help of:6 Drs. W. van der Aa G. Aben Dr. Dipl.Ing. H. Adolphi Prof.ir. E.L.J. Bancken B.B. de Boer Ir. J.J. Bouma Drs. H. Bosch Drs. H.J.J. van Breemen V.C. van den Broek Y. Buntzly Dr.-Ing. H.J. Czysz Dr. F. Cochoy
Dr.ir. A.C.M. Dumay MBA A. El-Tawil Ir. H.C. van der Elzen (†) M. Fox Drs. M. de la Fuente Dr. S. Furuston Dr. C. Galinski Ing. G. Gerritse Ch.T. Gilreath R.T.C. de Grood Ing. A. de Groot Mr. D.J. de Groot Ir. J.J. Grünbauer Univ.-Prof. Dr.-Ing. W. Hesser Dr. Dipl.-Ing. R. Hildebrandt Prof.dr. G.W.J. Hendrikse Drs. H.J.P.M. van Hezik Prof.Dr. M.J. Holler Drs. W.W.T.J. Hoogers K. Krechmer Dr. Dipl.-Kfm. J. Kleinemeyer Prof.ir. J.L. de Kroes Prof. H. Leclercq Mr. Th.J.M. van Mierlo H. du Mortier 6
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam DAF Trucks, Eindhoven Chair of Standardization, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Akzo Nobel BV, Sassenheim / Technische Universiteit Eindhoven NAM, Assen Analoog Data BV, Assen Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid, the Hague VNO-NCW, the Hague Ediforum, Leidschendam AFNOR, Paris, France Chair of Standardization, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany CERTOP: Centre d’Étude et de Recherche Techniques, Organisations, Pouvoirs, Maison de la Recherche, Université Toulouse II, Toulouse, France TNO Fysisch en Elektronisch Laboratorium, Delft ISO, Geneva, Switzerland Philips International, Eindhoven BSI, London, UK Economisch Instituut Midden- en Kleinbedrijf, Zoetermeer SCORE - Stockholms Centrum för Forskning om Offentlig Sektor, Stockholm, Sweden Infoterm, Vienna, Austria Son Editor-in-Chief Knowledge Organization, Gainesville, USA Philips Medical Systems, Best Akzo Nobel Engineering, Arnhem Directoraat-Generaal Industrie en Diensten, Ministerie van Economische Zaken, the Hague Constructiewerkplaats Grünbauer, Diemen Chair of Standardization, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Chair of Standardization, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam NEHEM Consulting Group, ‘s-Hertogenbosch Institute of Economics, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany / Managing Editor EURAS Yearbook of Standardization ABN/AMRO, Amsterdam Action Consulting, Palo Alto, California, USA Chair of Standardization, University of the Federal Armed Forces Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Hilversum Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium Sociaal Economische Raad, the Hague VOM-VMB, Bilthoven
If no country is mentioned the Netherlands applies.
320 M.P. Oly Mr. S. Paul P.T.N. Reeve Ir. J. van Roon (†) Dipl.-Ing. G. Senk F.J.C. Slob Mrs. drs. W.B. Sonneveld Ir. J.C. Stans Dr.mr. C. Stuurman Th.B. Waalder H. Wenström Dr. R. Werle Ir. W.J. de Wijn Prof.dr. G.I.J.M. Zwetsloot
Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam Directie Gezondheidsbeleid, Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport, the Hague Research and Technical Services, Shell International Exploration and Production B.V, Rijswijk Consultant, Ottoland, the Netherlands / Timişoara, Romania DIN, Berlin, Germany Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam School of Management, Rotterdam Topterm, Amsterdam / General Editor Terminology BKH Adviesbureau Juridische Faculteit, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam Gasunie, Groningen SIS Services AB, Stockholm, Sweden Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Cologne, Germany DSM Services, Geleen Dutch Institute for Working Conditions (NIA), Amsterdam / Erasmus University Rotterdam
Present and former colleagues at the NNI, especially Pim Bijl, John Bijlsma, Joost Blijham, Ellen van den Broecke, Bart van Cleef, Jo Collins, Jos Dielhof, Jelte Dijkstra, Anneke Draaisma, Ed van der Feen, Dick van der Goes, Wim Honig, Dick Hortensius, Henk Huigen, Robert Huigen, Annemarie de Jong, Anja Kuijpers, Job Landré, Renée Lobry, Peter Maas, Gertjan Majoor, Pauline Mars, Steven van der Minne, Frits Oirbans, Harry Oosthoek, Bert Otten, Herman Schipper, Lida van der Spek, Elly van der Valk, Cees de Visser, Pieter de Vlaming, Piet Vos, William Walters, Wubbo Winter, and Peter Wolters. Present and former colleagues at the Department of Management of Technology and Innovation, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, especially: Boudewijn Bertsch, Wynand Bodewes, Jan van den Ende, Vincent de Graaff, Murthy Halemane, Teun Hardjono, Felix Janszen, Mark Leenders, Karen van Namen - Halbmeijer, Tom Paffen, Erik ten Pierick, Peter Pop, Joop Ramondt, José van Schaardenburg-Krause, Jan Simons, Ab Waszink, and Nachoem Wijnberg. Anonymous reviewers of EURAS Yearbook of Standardization, Knowledge Organization, and Terminology.
321
Annex 6 CURRICULUM VITAE Henk de Vries was born on 29 June 1957 in Assen, the Netherlands. He received his Atheneum-B certificate from the Christelijke Scholengemeenschap Assen in 1975. He finished his studies in Geodesy at the Technische Hogeschool Delft (Technical University of Delft), the Netherlands, in 1982, with credit. He had appointments at Bureau Uitermark - Consultants in Geodesy, Environmental Planning and Automation, Deventer, the Netherlands, and at the International Christian Study centre, Amsterdam. Since 1984, he has worked at the Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (Dutch standardization institute) as Standardization Consultant in the Information Technology sector (1984 - 1988), Company Standardization and Courses Officer (1988 - 1992), and Consultant Company Standardization and Quality Management (since 1992). Since 1994, he has been Education and Research Officer Standardization at the Department of Management of Technology and Innovation, Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University of Rotterdam. Henk is married and has four children.
