A time for change in creating international standards
07/01/1999
 Robert Scace |
We live in a time of market globalization. Appropriate standards are needed to deliver products and services efficiently to this market. No single method of producing and promulgating these standards is likely as effective as allowing competitive processes to apply their particular skills and characteristics freely. Although there are well-entrenched standards bodies that have served us well, the rapid pace of change in technology is forging new mechanisms for setting some standards. In the end, the market will select a combination of standards developers more suitable than any that a group of authorities could choose in advance.
The traditional sources of international standards are in Geneva, home of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and the International Organization for Standards (ISO). An international standard is defined in IEC/ISO Guide 2 as "A normative document ... which has been approved ... in accordance with Part 1 of the ISO/IEC Directives ... and published by the IEC Central Office." The final step in this process is a vote by member bodies* of the ISO or member countries of the IEC.
This is an entirely appropriate procedure for standards whose principal effect is upon the relations among nations. For example, standards relating to international trade issues may be developed appropriately this way. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has recognized the ISO and IEC in its Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement as the sources of international standards to the exclusion of others. Member countries of the WTO are expected to accept ISO/IEC international standards and to withdraw their national standards that cover the same ground. The US, however, has not totally accepted this approach, but deals with the matter on a case by case basis.
There are other standards properly regarded as "international" that do not fit the restrictive definition quoted above. ASTM, for example, produces essentially all of the standards used in the petroleum industry everywhere. They are created using a well-recognized consensus process, albeit from a professional base that is somewhat US-centered. From a practical point of view, these ASTM standards have a legitimate claim to being "international" even if they don't conform to the ISO/IEC definition. Thus, in the view of the traditional international standards establishment, they are not international at all.
Most of the standards produced in the US do not become US "national standards." In the US, there are some 600 standards-writing organizations. Some, like ASTM, only develop standards. Others, such as the IEEE, are professional societies, or, like the Electronic Industries Association, are domestically based industry associations. If the originating organization desires, it may propose that one of its standards become a US national standard. To do this, it must be accepted by ANSI, which applies certain criteria to the standard and the process by which it was developed before accepting it as the US national standard.
One disadvantage in making a standard a "national" one is that it may then be subject to the WTO objective of replacing it in favor of an international standard on the same subject, as mentioned earlier. On the other hand, most candidates for formal acceptance as international standards are national standards before being submitted to ISO or IEC.
Taking a standard from initial development to international standard is a process that can take several years. Also, the final decision is based upon votes from either member countries (IEC) or nationally designated organizations (ISO). In either case, the final decision is not based on a technical consensus, or a business-based one, but a political one. If a standard deals with a highly technical subject, a political approval process is unlikely to be the best one to use.
To meet the needs of fast-moving industries, the IEC has recently devised an approach called an Industry Technical Agreement (ITA) that will allow companies to cooperate in developing specifications for new ventures. No industry-wide consensus is involved: the participants decide what they wish to do and how to address it. An ITA is not specifically a standard because, as the IEC states, "it does not pass through the same consensus procedure, nor is it produced within the same committee structure that is used for developing standards." The two current ITA projects will each take about two years to produce their planned results.
For the semiconductor industries, none of these processes is satisfactory. SEMI, a global industry association, has devised a standards process to meet this dynamic industry's special needs. SEMI develops standards by a full consensus process with international input from all regions where the industry is a significant factor. All sectors of the industry are represented in the development of the standards. Anyone with an interest in the topic can comment on the documents as they are developed. The SEMI web site (www.semi.org), open to the general public, contains complete information about document development, including upcoming ballots. Consequently, it can be assumed that the standards have been reviewed by all interested parties. A good standard can be produced in as little as one year. The target is to have the finished standards available to the public from the SEMI web site less than two months after the date of the final technical committee acceptance. Given this productive approach, SEMI sees no benefit in having its standards further modified by national or other international standards development processes.
Both the traditional international standards processes and de facto ones like SEMI's have the aim of promoting international trade in a fair and even-handed manner-the "level playing field." Why then is one process officially recognized and others not? Since the ISO and IEC have defined international standards to be only those that pass through their processes and are published by them, it appears that they have defined any other approach out of existence.
There is no reason why the ISO/IEC definition must be automatically accepted. Standards developed independently of ISO and IEC can perfectly well serve their purposes in the international arena, and in fact do so. If this approach serves the interests of international business, the standards will be used. If they are not used, they will disappear. The marketplace will make these decisions with standards as it does with any product. Furthermore, if a standard has been developed with broad participation of an international community of interest and under procedures that require a consensus decision to place the standard before the public, it is as international a standard as any other.
A less confrontational approach could result from considering the fields of activity on which each of these differing ways of developing international standards might be productively focused. The traditional ISO/IEC system works well in those areas in which national interests are of primary concern or areas that involve standards having the force of law. Its nation-based approval method is entirely consistent with these matters.
Because the ISO/IEC process is slow and participation is expensive, its value in standardizing matters in which business interests predominate may well be questioned. The prospects seem particularly poor that ISO/IEC can serve adequately in subject areas that not only are business-oriented but time-sensitive. Standards development in these fields might best be left to more flexible organizations.
*ISO member bodies are the national organizations, one/country, which are formally designated to represent that country's interests in the ISO. In the US, this body is the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). In contrast, the members of the IEC are countries.
Author
Robert Scace is president of Klaros Corp., a consulting organization on standards and metrology. Klaros Corp., 19800 Lyndenwood Ave, Beallsville, MD 20839; ph 301/972-8496, fax 301/407-2228.