Standards - Who Needs Them?

John Woodgate FInstSCE

Introduction

There are three sorts of people in the technological world, those who swear by standards, those who swear at standards, and those who are indifferent. The latter have traditionally been in the great majority, but this is rapidly changing. It is a forced change, brought about by a number of virtually irresistible developments which began about twelve years ago with the introduction of the then BS5750, and the number and influence of these developments continues to increase, very greatly during the last three years or so. The result is that many people who previously did not have to know about standards, now do need to. Furthermore, the new developments mean that much that was dogma in the past is now heresy, and this implies that many standards-conscious people need a modicum of re-enlightenment.

What Are We Talking About?
"Company standards demand the observance of all national and international standards, so that standards of product and service quality are maintained at the standard to which our clients have been accustomed, and sub-standard performance is eliminated." Not great literature, admittedly, but it serves to illustrate that 'standard' has many meanings, and we had better be sure which one we are using in this discussion.
There is a verbose definition in ISO Guide 2 and another in BS0-1. These do not provide much insight, and include explicit and implicit value judgements, such as "approved by a recognized body", which are potentially the source of controversy (.recognised' by whom?).
A standard, in the context of this article, is 'an agreement by a group of people to adopt a defined practice'. The practice must be quite closely defined, otherwise the 'agreement' may in effect be so vague (or 'flexible') that it is ineffective. On the other hand, there may, for some, be a very positive outcome of such vagueness. Consider, for example, the well-known RS232 serial data communication standard. It is so 'flexible' that a considerable industry has grown up to provide 'sleuthware' to diagnose incompatibilities between dialects, or different implementations, of the standard, and 'fixware' to put things right.

What is in a Standard?
The content of a standard may be:

l definitions, abbreviations or symbols

l methods of measurement

l performance requirements

l a code of (good) practice

l guidance

In addition, most standards-making bodies also produce publications, under various descriptive labels, which are more tentative than standards: we shall call them 'reports'.

Standards which contain methods of measurements or performance requirements form a special category, which the British Standards Institution calls 'specifications', and it would be well for other standards-makers to make this distinction as well. Furthermore, according to current thinking, that 'or' should be an 'exclusive-or', i.e. specifications of methods of measurement should not be in the same standard as specifications of performance requirements. This is because the same methods of measurement are usually applicable to a wide range of generally similar equipment, whereas a set of performance requirements usually applies only to a rather narrow range. It is also highly advisable not to mix code of practice material with a specification, but definitions, abbreviations, symbols and guidance may, of course, appear within any of the other types of standard. There should not be too much guidance: standards making bodies should not write textbooks, although there is an increasing tendency for them to do so: IEC61508 and the IEC61000-5 series are examples.

The Threat Dimension

A powerful antidote to indifference is a threat to profitability or market share caused by the introduction or enforcement of a standard. Because indifference has hitherto been the norm, protests resulting from such a threat have often been answered by 'an industry gets the standards it deserves', and that principle is still true and will remain true. Standards may be flawed in content, or ineffective, if the leading players in the field do not participate in the standards-making process, or do not respect the standard when it is published. This goes right back to the definition; if there is no realistic or lasting agreement, there is no effective standard.

Cost or Investment?

Standards are prepared, almost without exception, by committees composed of representatives of industry and academia, together with, for example, representatives of consumer interests in appropriate cases. There are still some people who believe, quite wrongly, that British Standards are written by BSI staff.

Clearly, for an organization to take part in standards-making, there is a cost involved, in terms of the time spent by personnel of that organization in attending meetings, and studying and commenting on documents between meetings. However, against this cost must be set the advantages gained from being able to influence the content of standards, and advance information on their content and date of introduction, which, if intelligently fed back, both to those concerned with product development and those concerned with marketing planning, can produce effective cost savings far in excess of the cost of participation. When successful (and it often is successful), this strategy makes standards work an investment, not an expense. Perhaps it is significant in this context that the Japanese national committee is one of the most active in ISO and IEC standards work.

The Alternative

Recent changes in the standards-making process have been prompted by the following powerful forces:

l increasing pressure to harmonise national standards, to promote free trade

l increasing reference to standards in legislation, following the realisation that the direct inclusion of complex technical requirements in the legislation itself is impracticable and undesirable (because it is difficult to get it right and even more difficult to amend it)

l the need for standards-making to match the increasing speed of technological development

The result of these forces is that, once the need for a standard is perceived by a sufficient number of people, it will be produced, practically regardless of who decides not to participate. As explained above, the resulting standard may be imperfect, in which case it will have nuisance value, possibly quite a lot. In other words, if there is standards activity in your area of operations and you do not do it, someone else will, and you may well not like the result! A good example is non-broadcast closed-circuit television (CCTV), which is used in quite a number of different fields. Only the security systems industry has seen fit to invest in the production of European standards for methods of measurement and performance requirements. Because of the non-duplication principle, it is now virtually impossible for another industry sector to secure support for the production of CCTV standards more suitable for its needs.

Standards-Making Bodies

We can usefully identify about five levels of standardization, distinguished by their areas of authority, and illustrate them by examples of standards-making bodies functioning at those levels:

International level

The largest international body is ISO, whose title is one of the shibboleths of the standards experts: you have to know it is the International Organization for Standardization, not the International Standards Organization! ISO is an organ of the United Nations, and is based in Geneva. Although its remit is supposed to exclude electrical technology, this is no longer the case: it deals, for example, with automobile electrical systems. Electrical technology is primarily the province of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which is also based in Geneva.

In addition to these, there are numerous specialist international bodies, such as the International Organization for Legal Metrology (OIML). Relatively peripheral to the activities of the Institute (at least until now) are the subsidiary bodies of the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which were until recently the International Frequency Registration Board (IFRB), the Comite Consultatif International de Radio (CCIR) and the Comite Consultatif International Telegraphique et Telephonique (CCITT). The IFRB has recently been reconstituted, while the CCIR has been replaced by the Radiocommunications Agency of the ITU (not to be confused with the Radio Communications Agency of the British Government's Department of Trade and Industry). Strictly, neither the CCIR or the CCITT overtly produced 'standards', but their 'recommendations' effectively acted as such in the fields of broadcasting and telecommunications.

Representation at ISO and IEC is through the national standards bodies ('national committees') of the member countries. Delegates and Working Group members nominated by the relevant BSI committee are normally particularly welcome, because almost all of the work is done in the English language (the other official languages being French and Russian) and it is becoming increasingly necessary for the texts to be written clearly, briefly and unambiguously. It is also necessary to eliminate expressions that cause difficulty in translation.

Regional level

The introduction of a supra-national level in standards-making may prove to be nearly as great a triumph for the EU as the Common Agricultural Policy. There are three main bodies: CEN, CENELEC and the European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI). CEN and CENELEC are organs of the Community, and participation is via the national standards bodies, but ETSI is a private agency, open to a wide range of bodies that can, and choose to, pay the membership fees. CEN parallels ISO and CENELEC parallels IEC, while ETSI is supposed to parallel CCITT and the former CCIR, but has had a strong tendency to interpret 'telecommunications' very widely indeed, and to attempt to exert its influence in areas where it has no provenance and no expertise. There are signs of the same paternalistic attitude re-appearing as one thought had disappeared for ever with the liberalization of telephone communication. After some initial political squabbles, CEN and CENELEC are now committed to co-operation with ISO and IEC, and no contrary or duplicating activity: at least, that is what is supposed to happen, but there is still a strong tendency in some quarters to fall back on a 'Fortress Europe' stance as soon as the international work deviates from what would be ideal for Europe (or for one country in it).

Supra-national, non-regional level

This level is represented mostly by the standards activities of internationally-active learned societies, such as the Audio Engineering Society. There can be difficulties, because from outside the host nation, the society may appear as a way of giving a national committee two votes, while inside the host nation, the national committee and the society may take opposing views on certain matters!

National level

Almost all developed countries have a national standards body, whose role in the past was to produce standards for that country. Now, the greater task is rather to co-ordinate national opinion and present it most effectively to the regional and international bodies. Some national standardization continues, of course, but the amount is generally decreasing. In Britain, the national standards body is the British Standards Institution: another shibboleth, 'Institution' not 'Institute'!

Industry level

Although apparently the lowest level of standardization, industry standards can be very influential. In fact, only a few survive to become widely known and used. Exactly what triggers such a success is, happily, undiscovered. If it were discovered, the big and powerful would inevitably become involved in sterile conflict.

Convergence of Technology

The standards business has been cynically likened to the building of the Tower of Babel, not least because of the language difficulties (which are not quite so prevalent now that everyone speaks English of a sort). Before the growth and diversification of digital technology, equipment for use in one industry sector bore little resemblance to that for use in another. That is certainly not true now: your mobile phone may soon be able to run SPICE and MLSSA! This is called 'convergence of technology', a phrase which has become well-known because the concept is simple enough even for politicians to understand. In standards work, it represents a considerable complication, because in the past one industry sector could more or less produce its standards in isolation, but now, what one committee agrees may provoke considerable justified protest from another. There is, however, a strong tendency for committees to become protective of their areas of interest.

A well-known painting of the building of the Tower of Babel shows work underway at four sites, at each of which a massive girder is rising to converge towards the centre of the tower, just like the Eiffel Tower. This is a good analogy of the present situation: while the four sites were more or less independent, there would be few communication problems, but when the girders converged, everyone would have to be able to communicate. ISO and IEC have attempted to solve the problem as far as 'information technology' (another phrase most useful to politicians) is concerned by setting up JTC1, a huge committee which has produced virtually innumerable subcommittees and working groups. It has not been without success, but it has been a very costly business, and there is no indication that costs will do anything but grow.

Making a Standard

The procedures for making ISO and IEC standards have recently been revised and harmonised, with greatly shortened time-scales. It is theoretically possible to go from a first draft circulated for comment to a final publication in 18 weeks, although 40 weeks is a more realistic minimum. Also, the procedures for approving new work have been tightened: previously it was possible for just one person to start a committee on a long and complex project with no formal approval at all. The following details have been somewhat simplified, because there are a number of special provisions and minor aspects which would take far too much space to set out.

Projects are divided into six stages:

Stage 0 - Preliminary:

This is an optional stage, which registers a committee's intention to work on a subject and to conduct informal discussions among experts. There is no progress schedule, but a vote of national committees is necessary to begin the work.

Stage 1 - Proposal:

This is the normal first stage, and requires a vote of national committees on a New Work Item Proposal (NWIP), which is supposed to include progress schedule dates.

Stage 2 - Preparatory:

Here is where the bulk of the making is done, usually in a Project Team (PT) or Task Force (TF), whose members are nominated by national committees but serve as experts in their own right. The Group prepares Working Drafts (WD), until the Convener, or the Committee secretary, considers that no significant further improvement can be made. The work may be allocated to a Project Leader, who normally works relatively informally with other experts.

Stage 3 - Committee:

The final draft text from the preparatory group becomes a Committee Draft (CD), which is circulated to all national committees for comment: a time of three to six months is allowed for this. The comments are then considered, and further CDs are circulated until the Committee considers that no significant further improvement can be made. At this point, the ISO and IEC procedures diverge. In ISO, the next stage is for national committees to vote on the latest text as a Draft International Standard (DIS). In IEC, the latest text is circulated as a Committee Draft with Vote (CDV) and a time of five months is allowed for voting. No technical changes are allowed at this stage: if they are necessary a further CD or a second CDV has to be circulated an IEC CDV is approved, the text, perhaps after editing, is then circulated as a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS).

Stage 4 - Approval:

FDIS texts are normally circulated in English and French. Only TWO months are now allowed for voting. No technical changes are allowed at this stage: if there are significant technical errors, the text must go back to Stage 3 or Stage 2.

Stage 5 - Publication:

In theory, this stage should not require any work outside the publishing office, but texts still arrive at the FDIS stage, and are approved, wherein some expressions defy interpretation, in either language! Each committee is supposed to have an Editing Committee to prevent such problems, but not all do, and it is very difficult to find people who are both willing and competent to do this work.

Standards and the Institute of Sound and Communications Engineers

There are more than a hundred IEC standards, and several very notable British national standards (such as BS6259 and BS7594), which are, or may be, significant to Institute members. At present, the Institute is represented, directly or indirectly, on many of the relevant BSI committees (and indirectly on some CENELEC and IEC committees) The Journal and 'Public Address', together with the web site and e-mail list, will greatly ease both the distribution to members of information on standards developments and their ability to feed back their own views to the ISCE representatives on the standards committee.

John Woodgate FInstSCE is Principal of John Woodgate and Associates, 3 Bramfield Road East, Rayleigh, Essex SS6 8RG, UK. e-mail jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk

This  article is reproduced, with permission, from the Autumn 2000 issue of the Journal of the Institute of Sound and Communications Engineers.