Click for next page ( 44


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 43
Appendix B An American in the Japanese Standards System John ~ Stem High atop Kasumigaseki, the heart of Japan's industrial bureaucracy, 20 Japanese electronics experts meet at the Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) to discuss the developing field of optoelectronics. The entire conversation is in Japanese. When the deliberations are over, Japanese business and government have reached a better understanding regarding the direction of new technologies. This could be the opening scene in any number of paperback novels about business-government cooperation in Japan, except that for the past few years, two foreigners, one representing the European and one repre- senting the American information industries, have also been present in the room and have participated as full, legal committee members. That the Japanese information technology standards-setting process is open to for- eign participation is now established beyond reasonable doubt: more than 20 foreign-capital companies in Japan participate. This is a sample of the type of organizations that participates in various standards bodies (Figure B-1~. The challenge for American information technology companies is now that of effectively using this access in their competitive strategy. Standardization in Japan is an immense topic, both in breadth and in detail. The Japan Industrial Standards (JIS) system, administered by MITI, contains more than 8,200 standards covering everything from optical disks to heated toilet seats. Overseas, the JIS standards system is perhaps the best-known Japanese standards system, but other aspects of standardization John P. Stern. Vice President, Asian Operations, American Electronics Assocation, Tokyo, Japan. 43

OCR for page 43
44 The Te/ecommunication Technology Commiffee [telecommunications networks anc! terminals] AMD Japan, Laid, AT&T Japan Lld, AT&T Paradyne Japan, Burroughs Co. Lld (Nihon Unisys), CGE Alsthom International (Alcatel), Digital Equipment Corp., Japan, Fuji-Xerox Co., Lld, IBM Japan Lld, Intel Japan K.K., L.M. Ericsson Int'! A.B., NCR Japan, Nihon Philips Corp., Nihon Univac Kaisha (Nihon Unisys) Nippon Motorola Lld, Tekelec Lld, Northern Telecom Japan Inc., Olivetti Corporation of Japan, Rockwell International Overseas Corp., Rolm International Japan (Siemens), Samsung Japan, Siemens K.K., Western Digital Japan Ltd E/e ctronic industries Association of Japan [components, connectors, displays, semiconductors] AMP (Japan) Lt&, Burndy-Japan, Lld, IBM Japan, Intel Japan K.K., Molex Japan Co., Lld, NCR Japan, Nippon Motorola Laid, Texas Instruments Japan LId, Yokogawa Hewlett-Packard, LId J/S Optoelectronics Technica/ Commiffee [government stanclarcls body] European Business Council, U.S. Electronics Industry Japan Office FIGURE B-1 Selected Participation in Japanese Standards Bodies. SOURCE: U.S. Electronics Industry Japan Office. affecting the electronics industry are often under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications or the Ministry of Health and Welfare. As budgets flatten and technology converges, it is not uncommon to find several Japanese ministries contesting the right to set standards. For example, when a telecommunications trunk line caught fire in Tolyo several years ago, crippling the nationwide funds transfers of a major Japanese bank, several ministries vied for the right to set data network safety, reliability, and security standards. The Ministry of International

OCR for page 43
45 Made and Industry claimed that computer data transfer was in its area of jurisdiction. The Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications claimed that telecommunications was its area of jurisdiction. The Ministry of Finance was interested because electronic funds transfers and the banking system are in its portfolio. The National Police Agency was concerned with the public order aspects of trunk line security. Even the Ministry of Construction demanded a say, based on its authority over buried cable. Until a joint interministry working group was established, our office was busy trying to keep American industry in Japan informed regarding the most likely source of potential standards. Jurisdiction conflicts and duplication continue to exist in some areas of information technology standardization in Japan, but the secretariats and members of the duplicated standards bodies do try to work to rationalize the process. There are areas of standardization that are not the subject of formal government deliberation procedures because the technology is changing too rapidly to make it worthwhile to try to freeze the standard. An example is surface mount technology. One must follow standards in this area by attending discussion groups that often do not leave an extensive public paper record. Japan also has its share of domestic voluntary technical standards that a foreign company is not legally required to adopt, but that can become an issue in customer acceptance. Examples include the electromagnetic emissions standards of the Voluntary Control Council for Interference by Data Processing Equipment and Electronic Office Machines (VCCI) and the Communication Industries Association of Japan's "C" mark for telephone voice quality. Understanding the Japanese standards developing process is not merely an exercise in sorting out the names of the various players but is also one of dealing with the vast amount of information that they produce. For example, the Telecommunications Technology Committee's (l1C's) bound set of standards takes about 3 feet of space on a shelf. ~ understand how Japanese network standardization affects one's company, one may have to read through this mass of information, plus another 3 feet of documents from other sources. Given the complexity of the topic, I will limit my remarks to the field in which I have the most experience, Japanese information technology standardization. This may mean that my view is skewed, but an attempt to discuss every area of standardization in Japan would be so general as to be largely worthless. Japan in 1989 is competitive in information technology. Many of the recent "horror stories" of Japanese nontariff standards barriers to foreign competition come from areas such as tire chains, glass, and other industries in which Japan may be less competitive. Or, these horror stories concern mandatory certification for conformity to standards by a testing organization, the impartiality of which is in question.

OCR for page 43
46 I would also like to focus on some of the strategic aspects of standard- ization because a discussion of specific standards would be overly technical and because an excellent book already exists that outlines in English what the major Japanese information technology standardization bodies do.t The United States has a clear interest in a strong domestic information technology industry. The U.S. information industry in June 1989 employed 2.63 million people and generated a payroll of $84.63 billion. In 1988 the information technology industry contributed 10.7 percent of the total value of U.S. manufacturing production and 18 percent of the value of U.S. manufactured exports.2 Thus, a strong domestic information technology industry maintains the American standard of living, strengthens the United States economy, and is a significant portion of the value of U.S. exports. I wonder if many business schools discuss why international technical standardization may affect the health of U.S. information technology com- pany? One short answer is that a knowledge of technical standardization trends can reduce business risk For example, U.S. information technology companies currently have a majority share worldwide in the engineering workstation market. However, few U.S. workstation companies manufac- ture their own high-resolution displays or optical storage devices. The center of this technology is increasingly found in Japan. Even if U.S. com- puter company X is justified in its confidence that its central processing unit (CPU) technology is the best, or that its software is the best, it must ensure compatibility with the next generation of display and storage technology being developed in Japan. Unless company X develops its new products With an eye to Japanese technical trends, it runs the risk of creating a new product that cannot take advantage of Japanese peripheral technology to the same extent as that of a competitor's product. 1b avoid this, at least one U.S. computer company that seems to have no intention of entering the optical data storage industry as a manufacturer nevertheless participates in Japanese optical data storage standardization procedures. IndustIy standardization in Japan can suddenly unlock a potential market, leaving unprepared U.S. companies in the path of massive Japanese competition. Some may remember the U.S. facsimile machine market 10 years ago. U.S. owned facsimile machine makers did not agree on a communications standard. Consumers were deterred by an expensive machine that could not communicate with anyone except the user of the identical make of facsimile. Japanese companies in 1981, however, adopted the G III standard for facsimile machines, making it possible for one G III 1 Information Technology Standardization in Japan by Jorg Muller and Paul Kuhn (September 1988~. Private printing. Available from TIT Consult K.K., Daita 6~15, Setagaya-ku, Tolyo, Japan 155. Price in Japan, 3,700 Yen. 2Source: American Electronics Assocation, Santa Clara, California

OCR for page 43
47 machine to communicate with many different makes and models of other G III machines. With some of the uncertainty over consumer acceptance of the facsimile reduced, Japanese fax makers began to mass produce and lower unit costs, leading to lower prices. Today most offices in the United States use their fax machines constantly, and the convenience of being able to send a fax without worrying about incompatibility is widely appreciated. However, there are not, to my knowledge, any U.S. owned manufacturers of commercial facsimile machines left in the United States. The import of facsimile machines from Japan annually adds at least a $0.5 billion to the U.S. trade deficit with Japan. There are areas of information technology, such as software and semi- conductor production equipment, in which U.S. companies have been suc- cessful in convincing Japan to base its domestic standards on American standards. In this event, U.S. information companies obtain a lead over their Japanese competitors in making a sale. More widely publicized is the case of the U.S. company hampered in making a sale in Japan because of legal or de facto standards in Japan that are different from those of the rest of the world. Here, foreign standards adversely affect business risk It is interesting to note that, according to one recent survey, Japanese informa- tion technology companies take account of foreign technical standards in the research and development (R&D) phase of their product cycle (Figure B-2~. For reasons that I will discuss later, some U.S. companies first come into contact with Japanese technical standards while they are making their sales presentation to a Japanese customer. At that point, it is often not possible to modify the U.S. product to conform to the Japanese technical standard. As Japanese investment in, and production in the United States escalate, U.S. owned companies will find that they are expected to conform to Japanese technical standards if they wish to supply Japanese factories and companies in the United States. In the next decade, Japanese techni- cal standards may well become part of the competitive environment in the United States. In 1984, I helped to establish the first permanent office in Japan of any U.S. manufacturing trade association. This office, established as the Japan office of the American Electronics Association, is now known as the U.S. Electronics Industry Japan Office to reflect the fact that it currently serves as the Japan office for the Electronics Industries Association (EIA) and the Scientific Apparatus Makers Association (SAMA) as well. Our goal has always been to increase the share of the Japanese market going to U.S. electronics companies. One of our major concerns in 1984 was to resolve frequent U.S. industry complaints about the lack of access to Japanese technical standards-setting bodies. As it turned out, because we are a nonprofit organization with a staff that understands English and Japanese well and that is in contact with a

OCR for page 43
48 Japanese Time From Domestic International Company R&D To Technical Technical Market, Standards Standards Months Considered Considered Computers #1 12-24 Before R&D Before R&D Computers #2 12-24 During R&D During R&D Computers #3 12-24 During R&D During R&D Computers #4 12-24 Before R&D Before R&D Computers #5 24-48 During R&D During R&D Telecom's #l 24-36 During R&D During R&D Telecom's #2 12-24 Before R&D Before R&D Telecom's #3 6-24 During R&D During R&D Telecom's #4 12-24 During R&D During R&D Consumer Elec. #1 6-12 Before R&D Before R&D Consumer Elec. #2 12-24 During R&D During R&D Semi. Mfg. Eq. #1 12-24 Before R&D Before R&D Semi. Mfg. Eq. #2 6-12 During R&D During R&D FIGURE B-2 Commercialization and Standardization in Japan. SOURCE: British Cham- ber of Commerce in Japan, "Seihin-KA", September 1988. variety of U.S. companies that are themselves competitors, we were able to serve as a trailblazer into several Japanese technical standards devel- oping bodies. From the Japanese industry perspective, I imagine that as a nonprofit we were less threatening than a profit-making U.S. company. From the U.S. company perspective, we had staff on our payroll to handle standards so that they did not have to budget for that function, and because we circulated information fairly among competitors it became less imper- ative for every company to participate. From the Japanese government perspective, Japan could open access to its standards developing bodies to many U.S. companies while at the same time sticking to the letter of the then<,nsting rule that only one U.S. company could participate on a given Japanese standards developing body. Even today it can be difficult to have more than one foreign organization seated in proportion to perhaps 20 Japanese corporate members of a Japanese standards developing body. In 1984 foreign participation on Japanese standards developing bodies

OCR for page 43
49 was still rare, and there were times when we had some of the experiences from which stories about nontariff barriers are made. I remember talking to a staff member of a Japanese trade association engaged in producing a draft technical standard regarding the possibility of admitting a certain American company to the standards developing process. The staff member was on loan from a certain Japanese company, a common practice in Japan, and would go back to that Japanese company after 2 years. His Japanese home company was a bitter rival of the American company I was assisting. This staff member informed me that the American company could not be a member of the association's technical standards drafting committee because the American company lacked the expertise necessary to actively participate in the deliberations. As he spoke, I noticed behind the asso- ciation staff member a Japanese translation of a technical treatise on the very subject of the technical standards drafting committee, that was written by someone from the same American company that he complained lacked expertise. Obviously, the "lack of expertise" claim was only an excuse. Conflicts of interest among Japanese company personnel loaned temporar- ily to standards developing organizations are still an occasional problem, although the Japanese government has acted to assist foreign companies that are being denied access because of petty commercial rivalries. Finally we succeeded, with the assistance of the U.S. Embassy and the cooperation of MITI, in placing first ourselves and then the American company in question on the drafting committee. Eventually, two other American companies were added and we resigned our seat, since everyone who had approached us had now been seated on the drafting committee in some capacity. Our approach remains to act as a trailblazer when doing so is likely to speed up eventual access by profit-making American companies. Happily, since 1985 it has become far less necessary for us to serve as a test case for information technology standards access in Japan. In 1985, after extensive discussions with the United States concerning liberalization of the Japanese telecommunications market as well as its own research and deliberation, Japan's Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications made a fundamental change in its regulatory policy. That change was to move from an era of government-imposed telecommunications standards to an era of private sector proposed telecommunications standards. The flagship of this effort has been the Telecommunications Technology Committee, which since its founding in 1985 has had representatives of foreign capital telecommunications companies on its board of directors as well as in its working groups. The lTC has evolved from a group that reviews U.S. and International Consultative Committee for Telephone and Telegraph (CCI~I) network standards for Japan to one that develops pioneering policies in areas like intellectual property protection for network protocols, where the U.S. and Europe themselves are still grappling with the issue.

OCR for page 43
50 Also, in 1985 the Ministry of International Made and Indusmy, as part of a major new standardization plan, made an institutional commitment to internationalize Japan's technical standards procedures. Some of the in- centive to open up Japan's technical standardization process was provided by increasing trade friction, and a grand pledge to provide transparency and access to foreign companies was included in the July 1985 "Action Program" of the Nakasone Cabinet. However, I feel that even before the Action Program, MITI had made a determination that complaints about closed Japanese standards-setting procedures were a profoundly unneces- sary source of friction, that Japan could well afford to allow more foreign access to its standards-setting process, and that increased international technical exchange would benefit Japan's technological base. MITI also in- creased its encouragement to Japanese companies to use the international standards-setting process, as represented by ISO and other meetings, so as to have the world agree, through representative voting, to make Japanese standards the world standards. In 1985, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) also elected its first Japanese Chairman, Mr. Isao Yamashita. The JIS standards process in 1985 was still closed to foreigners in the sense that Japanese citizenship was required to participate beyond the drafting stage (Figure B-3~. However, in 1987, MITI took the bold step of reforming Japanese government policy to allow foreigners to sit as full members of the Technical Committee level of JIS. Leo foreigners, one rep- resenting American electronics interests and one representing European electronics interests, have been sitting on the Optoelectronics Technical Committee since mid-1987. The next higher level of JIS, the Divisional Council level, reviews all electronics standards, not only those in optoelec- tronics. Membership in this level is open only to Japanese citizens, but I have appeared as a witness when the standards being considered were of interest to our industry. The top level of JIS is open only to Japanese citizens, but since it reviews all JIS standards, it is less technical than policy oriented. Of course, Japanese citizens employed by U.S.-capital companies are eligible for membership. MITI remains committed to international standardization. Its fis- cal 1989 budget for promoting international technical standardization Is 80 million (about $625,000~. Its fiscal 1989 budget for promoting the standard- ization of new technologies is 244 million (about $1.9 million). Japanese trade associations under MITI jurisdiction are an even larger source of funds to administer international standardization work. The Japanese com- panies that participate in the standards developing committees on which I serve are chiefly huge famous-name exporters that clearly devote substantial human and financial resources to the cause of international standardiza- tion. However, they do not represent the numerical majority of Japanese

OCR for page 43
51 LIES Procedure JIS Drafting Committee (gen an sakusei fin kai) [nongovernmental industry J IS Technical Committee (Nihon kogyo hyojun chose kai senmon fin kaiJ I , JIS Divisional Council (Nihon kapyo hyojun ,chosa kai bukaiJ r JIS Standard Promulgated or ~1 Revised [competent Minister] al L Transparency Policy l Prior notice to foreign parties of possibility of participation in JIS Drafting Committee [commencement of JIS Drafting Committee noted in "News From MITI. at least 3 weeks 0~ Participation by foreign parbes Participation as a full member (sei kaiin) w/o regard to nationality; to express one's technical viewpoint (iken chinjutsu nin) w/o regard to nationality] Prior notice to foreign parties of possibility of par~cipabon in JIS Technical Committee and JIS Divisional Council noted in ~susho Koho" at least 3 weeks before commencement of deliberations Display of JIS draft [finished draft is available at MlTl's Agency for Industrial Science and Technology] Participation by foreign parses [participation as a full member (sei kaiinJ w/o regard to nationality; to express one's technical viewpoint (`J OCR for page 43
52 Problems From Lack Of worldwide Standards None 46% Difficulties in exporting 24% Difficulties in importing 12% Difficulties in overseas activities 10% Difficulties in domestic purchases and sales 5% Other (overseas procurement, test methods) 5% FIGURE BE Japan and Standardization: A 1989 Sunder. SOURCE: Hyojunka Journal, October 1989. industry, although they may well have the lion's share of political influence. Much of Japanese industry consists of companies that claim to have no particular problems with the lack of international standards (Figure B-4~. Others have some interest in international standards but do not participate fully for various reasons (Figure Bob. The high yen and trade friction, which are forcing Japanese companies to produce overseas, will bring more members of Japan's subcontractor class of smaller companies into direct contact with foreign standards in the future. A typical meeting of the Optoelectronics Technical Committee will involve a 3-hour discussion, entirely in Japanese, among the 20-24 regu- lar members of the committee. Occasionally, nonmembers will be called in to report on an overseas meeting or foreign standard relevant to the discussion. Some, but not all, of the major Japanese electronics compa- nies, optical fiber cable makers, and telecommunications companies are regular members. Typically also present are regular members from pub- lic corporations, nonelectronics private companies such as electric power and broadcasting companies, and other representatives of user interests.

OCR for page 43
53 ~J/S And /nternationa/ Standards ~IS should work harder to be reflected in international standards 47% International standards should be more actively used in JIS 24% The existing relationship between JIS and international standards is satisfactory 14% Japan's situation should be reflected in ITS without regard to international standards 7% Other / No Answer S% /nternationa/ Standards Participation We participate independently in international standards drafting 6% We do nothing in particular 31% We participate in international standardization through industry drafting of international standards 27% We do not participate in international standard drafting but are aware of the standards of countries in which we do business 16% We do not participate in international standard drafting but are aware of standards related to our company without regard to trading relationships 9% No Answer If% /nternationa/ Standards Participation Obstacles Lack of qualified people 38% Lack of administrative staff 25% Inadequate budget 19% Top executives not interested JO Other / No Answer 13% FIGURE B-5 Japan and Standardization: A 1989 Survey. SOURCE: Hyojunka Journal, October 1989. Representatives of several trade associations, a national research center director, the aforementioned foreign representatives, the chairman, and a university professor round out the regular member profile. The committee secretariat consists of three officials from the Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, the research arm of MITI.

OCR for page 43
54 Last year, when I delivered the closing speech for the 1988 Deming Quality Control Awards, I suggested that if Japan were to throw open more of its heretofore closed smoke-filled rooms to foreign participation, it would reap a tremendous reward in improved international perceptions of Japanese business practices. It is human nature to be suspicious, and perhaps fearful, of discussions behind closed doors from which one is excluded. I can report, however, that in perhaps 500 hours of activity in the Japanese information-standards system, I have found many of the foreign stereotypes to be inaccurate. First, I have been surprised by the extent to which adherence to a previously established international standard is the basis for discussion. I have heard vigorous arguments from Japanese members of standardization groups that certain U.S. or CCIIT standards be followed, rather than that a unique Japanese standard be created. At least in information technology, the Japanese government and industry are very aware of foreign standards. These international standards are usually not adopted as they are if only due to the need to translate them into Japanese. Any such substitutive changes tend to be at the level of technical theory. The only clear case of the deliberate creation of a substantially different Japanese standard that I have come across concerned a fire safety test for electrical cords for household appliances. The foreign standard required testing the cord to determine when it would char wood by laying the cord against a board of pine wood of a certain species. This species was extremely cheap in Europe and the United States, but in Japan it cost about $40 per foot because the species was rare in Japan. So another species of pine, one that was much cheaper than the foreign species, was selected for the Japanese test. I have not heard any complaints about this new Japanese standard. The reason for a different Japanese standard, i.e., that it is too expensive to burn international standard wood in Japan, evolved without any thought of excluding foreign electrical appliance manufacturers. It comes as a surprise to many Americans to learn that Japanese companies do not discuss business during these meetings. While busi- ness considerations may be in the minds of the experts present when they advocate certain standards, there are many members from academia, gov- ernment laboratories, public corporations, and trade groups who have no business interests per se. Particularly in the drafting stage, Japanese com- panies do not all agree on standards or technologies. Some companies plan to use a unique standard and lock in customers to their standard with rapid commercialization and superior marketing. Other companies plan to wait until a common standard emerges and then use their mass production and captive sales channel advantages to push ahead of the competition. For example, I have heard standards-drafting members from one company

OCR for page 43
55

OCR for page 43
56 summary information available in English regarding the more mature pro- posed standards, but other ministries publish only in Japanese. There are few people in most American corporate families whose job it is to under- stand both Japanese and English, and the Japanese standards developing process and to serve as liaison between the Japanese standards developing process and the U.S. technical standards process. Sending the material to an outside translator, if a competent one can be found, will typically cost 8,000 Yen ($57) per page. A year's worth of standards can easily come to several thousand pages. In this respect, let me inject mention of the program the American Electronics Foundation has sponsored since 1984 that has placed many U.S. postgraduate engineers in Japanese companies' research facilities. These engineers combine a knowledge of the technology with a knowledge of the Japanese language and Japanese R&D culture. When they finish the program, they are available for hire by U.S., as well as Japanese, companies. At Tokyo translation rates, these young engineers are a cost-effective means of accessing Japanese technology. A number of U.S. information technology companies in Japan have tried to use their sales engineers to participate in Japanese standards developing bodies. The results have usually been frustrating for both the participant and the company. A good salesman wants to close a deal and move on. A good standards developing process participant has much more patience and concentrates on the details. The sales engineer will often have his or her performance in the company rated by sales. While contacts made in the standards-setting process can be useful in marketing, sitting on a government committee is less likely to result in a sale than visiting a customer's. Much more satisfactory results have been obtained when the American company places an it&D-oriented employee on a Japanese standards developing body. Of 384 U.S. electronics companies in Japan, less than 10 percent have genuine local R&D centers. The astonishing cost of doing business in Japan, difficulties in hiring good people, and the so-called not invented here syndrome appear to be the chief limiting factors. It is certainly difficult to demonstrate where, on the spreadsheet, the company can show the financial benefit, this fiscal year, of budgeting a person in Japan to follow Japanese technical standards. This is not to say that the benefits are insignificant, but merely to say that they do not usually appear on a short-term financial statement. In some corporate cultures, the difficulty of quantifying technical or strategic considerations is understood; in others it remains a source of contention. The mere placement of someone in Japan is not enough. That function must be supported not only in Japan, but also through liaison in the United States and perhaps Europe as will. The timely transmission of business

OCR for page 43
57 ._.. Standards Information Center ,' MINISTRY OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE AND INDUSTRY 3 1, Kasumigaseki l Chome, Chiyoda ku. Tokyo 100. Japan _ Telephone : 03 501 1668 S tandards Inf ormat i on No . 60 September 12, 198 9 ADDITIONAl, NOTICE ON PREPARATION OF NEW DRAFT OF JAPANESE INDUSTRIAL STANDARDS (J IS) In the attached list, additional work items for revision of JISs are shown. These works will be done additionally to the noticed 1988 Fy's plan for preparation of drafts of Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS). (The notice was distributed by the Standards Information No. 52 of June 1988. ) The drafting committees for each work items will be set up at organizations indicated in the corresponding column of the attached list. On Participation in JIS Drafting Committees Arranged by Industrial Associations of Japan f ram Foreign Countries . . 1. When a request to participate as a member in a JIS drafting committee arranged by an industrial association is made from a foreign country, we will recommend him/her to the committee, if he/she can represent opinion or view of relevant industry of his/her country, and he/she can contribute to the draf tiny of the standard. 2. The followings should be born in mind concerning participation in the J IS d rat t ing commi t tees: (1) A member of the committee must attend the committee meetings in pe rson. (2) A memDer bears the necessary cost to attend the meetings, and there are cases that he/she is reques ted to share cost, such as cost for conducting an experiment or special study, required for the activi- ties of the co - sittee. (3) working language of the JIS draf tiny committee is Japanese. 3. If you want to participate in a JIS draf tiny committee in the attached list, please contact International Standards Office, Standards Division, Standards Department, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, Ministry of International Trade and Industry, together with your personal history which explains your relevance and representativenesS. Inquiry and Contact I nte rna tional S tandards Of f ice, Standards Division, Standards Department, Agency of Industrial Science and Technology, Ministry of International Trade and Industry 1-3-1, Kasumigaseki, Chlyoda-ku, Tokyo 100, Japan (Phone ) 03- (501 ) 9 296 ( Te le f ax) 0 3- (5 80) 1418 FIGURE BE News ji>am MITT. SOURCE: Standards Information No. 60, September 12, 1989. Ministry of International Blade and Industry.

OCR for page 43
58 information worldwide is a skill that most Japanese manufacturers and many American senice industries have mastered. I would not say that the same is true of American manufacturing in general, although at least one large, famous U.S. computer company is, in internal information circulation, a match for anyone. Between 1984 and 1988, Japan's share of the worldwide data processing and office equipment market jumped from 14.8 to 27.8 percent, while America's share plunged from 50.8 to 33.3 percent in the same period. In 1984 America had 39.4 percent of the worldwide telecommunications market; in 1988 it had only 28.8 percent. Japan's share of the worldwide telecommunications market went from 14.4 to 21 percent between 1984 and 1988. Japanese technology and the standards that support it are increasingly present in the world. Japanese technical standards will come to you, if not in Japan, then in your home market. There is still time to prepare to meet them.