* The standards process
In our last two newsletters we discussed what constitutes a standard as well as the role of standards. In this newsletter, we will discuss the standards process.
Jim has participated on three different standards bodies. The first was the X3T9.5 committee that was chartered with developing the standard for FDDI (Fiber distributed data interface). At the time that Jim was on the X3T9.5 committee, Jim worked in a marketing organization. Other than Jim, the committee was made up entirely of technologists. There were no other marketers and there were no end user organizations represented. This is typical of how standards committees are constituted.
Jim also participated on both NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and ECMA (European Computer Manufacturers Association) committees that were chartered with developing ISDN standards. Typically, a standards committee is comprised of tens of participants from different vendors. In many cases, the vendors that are represented on the committee have done significant development of the technology under discussion and want the standard that eventually gets ratified to reflect their approach. This is not to say that the members of standards committees are evil. It is to say, however, that one of their roles on the committee is to try to influence the eventual standard to reflect the approach taken by their employer.
While participating at an ECMA standards committee meeting Jim realized a fundamental cultural schism between members of the standards committee. What Jim realized was that there were two fundamental groups of participants on that particular standards committee. One group spoke English and the other spoke German. On issue after issue the two groups clashed over a fundamental difference for how to construct a standard.
For each component of the technology under study, the goal of the English-speaking group was to determine which parameters the standard would require and which parameters would be driven by the marketplace. In contrast, for each component of the technology under study, the goal of the German-speaking group was to determine which parameters the standard would require and which parameters the standard would forbid. Both approaches have their pros and cons. The point is not which approach is better, but that due to both the competition between vendors and inherent cultural differences, the standards process is often contentious.
In our next newsletter we will discuss the length of the standards process. In the meantime, we want to hear from you. We all know that standards are important. However, how important are proprietary extensions to standards? How long into the standards process is it before there actually is a working standard that enables interoperability? Do you choose one vendor over another based on their support for standards?
