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 59
Appendix C
The European Community:
Will Standards Open or Close the Market
in 1992?
Lit John Rue
EXE:CUTIV1E SUMMARY
The full ramifications of Europe 1992 are difficult to determine at this
stage, the overall effects, good or bad, will affect European interests as well
as U.S. ones. The development of a sense of hysteria in the United States
about 1992 is counterproductive and tends to create a United States versus
Europe polarization that is not necessary. It is also positioning standards
making as a key trade issue when, so far, it is not. As a result, the U.S.
government is being drawn into the private sector standards-making process
unnecessarily and the private sector voluntary standards-making process is,
likewise, getting too involved in areas best dealt with by the government.
Separation and judicious coordination of government and private sector
efforts is needed.
In the area of information technology, international standards are' a
way of life, and the continued need for them should discourage possible
attempts to use standards as non-tariff trade barriers. International infor-
mation technology standards will continue to open the market in 1992, and
The views expressed in this paper are solely the personal views of the author and are not intended
to represent those of any committee or organization with which the author is associated. For
further information the author can be contacted at L. John Rankine Consulting Services, 231
Bayberry Lane, Westport CT, 06880. Tel: 20~226 0657. Fax: 20~222-79 78.
59
OCR for page 60
60
the nations of the European Community will play a key role in their devel-
opment. One of the problems most likely to occur is delay in achieving the
needed harmonization of certification and conformance testing schemes in
areas such as open systems interconnection. The value of the vendor-user
relationship in achieving working systems rapidly and at the lowest cost
needs to be much better understood and accepted.
While it is not necessary to restructure the U.S. voluntary consensus
standards- making system, it requires considerably more support from all
participants and several refinements to satisfy the needs of information
technology standardization and to make the United States a more effective
contributor. Industry, government, and users must provide greater financial
support and bear their fair share of the costs. Information technology
interests are poorly represented at the management level in both the
national and international standardization structures. This problem must be
addressed to retain the respect and allegiance of the information technology
industry and users. Most of all there is a critical need for U.S. industry,
users, and government as well as the major U.S. standards-writing bodies
to rally behind a voluntary consensus standards-writing system in which
they all play and pay for their proper share and in which they are fairly
represented. If this national need is not met, then the problems for U.S.
competitiveness in 1992 as far as standards are concerned will not arise so
much in Europe as they will at home.
EUROPE 1992
It is currently fashionable to tale a lot about Europe 1992. Indeed,
there is so much talk about Europe 1992 that the United States may well
be developing a national hysteria on the issue that does not serve the
national interest. At one end of the scale the pundits proclaim an era
of discrimination against U.S. goods and services, at the other end we are
assured that all the Europeans are doing is what the United States did years
ago, namely, eliminate trade barriers among the states by "federalizing"
trade requirements. Both are facile and specious points of view. First,
Europe as an entity cannot be equated to the United States. Nor can the
member countries of the European Community, with all their differences
in culture, history, language, and politics, be equated to the states of the
United States. Furthermore, neither the United States nor the European
countries themselves know what is going to be the ultimate outcome of
the very understandable desire of the European nations to eliminate trade
barriers and facilitate the free flow of goods and services. Indeed, whatever
the result of 1992, the ultimate effects on European-based companies may
be just as good or bad as those on U.S.-based companies. At present, we
do not know. So what are those in the U.S. standards system to do?
OCR for page 61
61
First, they should take time to understand what Europe 1992 is all
about and what it is not about. It all began with the Treaty of Rome in
1958. Basically, the idea is to have in place by 1992 all of the agreements to
dismantle the technical and physical barriers between the member states.
The physical barriers refer to the movement of goods and people; and
the technical ones refer to standards, procurement, financial information
services, telecommunications, etc. This does not mean that on January 1,
1992, Europe will flip from one state to another like some binary switch. It
will take years to implement all of the agreements, perhaps even a couple
of decades. What appears certain now is that Europe 1992 is going to
happen, and many European expectations are likely to be fulfilled. Among
these are a faster rate of innovation, improved productivity, lower prices,
reduced inflation, and more " European companies " with economies of
scale that are not tied to being champions of the national cause.
In all of this the information technology industry is viewed as the
most vital and it is understood that the market must be open to succeed.
International information technology standards have been and will continue
to be a crucial need, and Europe 1992 should provide added impetus to
their continued development.
From a standards viewpoint, the structure exists to interact with Eu-
ropean developments on a sensible and mutually beneficial basis. It is not
necessary to rush to open offices in Brussels or to engineer U.S. gov-
ernment involvement with the regional European standards bodies. How
would U.S. standards bodies feel if they had to deal with European gov-
ernments instead of their peers in Europe? How would they feel if the
European standards bodies were to open offices in Washington instead
of working through the U.S. organizations? Also, it exacerbates the Eu-
rope 1992 issue when the United States is perceived as wooing Europe
one week and apparently trying to form Pacific Rim alliances against Eu-
rope the next. As far as standards issues are concerned, the International
Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commis-
sion (ISO/IEC), and International Telecommunication Union/International
Consultative Committee for Telephone and Telegraph (ITU/CCI11) mech-
anism is best for reaching international accords. If it should fail, then there
is the General Agreement on Tariffs and Made (GATE Standards Code.
Finally, it is not the job of the private sector standards developing bodies
to do the work of governments nor for governments to do what is done
best by the national standards bodies.
The best course is to work through and continue to strengthen the well-
established ISO/IEC, and ITU/CCIIT standards mechanism and rapport
both in acquiring information about Europe 1992 and in anticipating and
resolving problems that may arise calling upon the GATE Standards Code
if need be. 1b do otherwise is to weaken and seriously damage a fine
OCR for page 62
62
international rapport that has been built up over years among the ISO/IEC
member organizations. In a nutshell, the U.S. private sector and the U.S.
government would do well to keep their powder dry, work their respective
sides of the street, and exchange information and coordinate strategies
as needed on a thoughtful and cooperative basis without getting in each
other's way.
The challenge of Europe 1992 to U.S. competitiveness in world markets
is not going to be met by handwringing over imagined standards issues. It
has to be met by educational capability, innovation, product and service
excellence, intelligent and direct involvement, and quality salesmanship in
a European community that is going to be increasingly populated by a lot
of people making the most of all of these qualities in a huge marketplace.
THE INTERNATIONAL STANDARI)S STRUCTURE
A major step forward for information technology was taken when the
IEC and the ISO, after several years of study fraught with political as well as
technical considerations, formed the IEC/ISO Joint Technical Committee
known as JTC1. Earlier this year I reported on the progress of JTC1:
Both the IEC and the ISO should take pride in having established JTCI. The
first JTCI Plenary took place in Tolyo from November 17 to November 20,
19B7, and was attended by 98 delegates from 20 countries. Subsequently there
was a JTCI Advisory Group meeting in Washington, D.C., in the United States
on April 20 to April 22, 1988, with 16 countries represented. A second Advisory
Group meeting took place in London from December 7 to December 9, 1988,
with 18 countries attending. The second J]Cl Plenary was held in Paris on June
6 to June 9, 1989.
It is important to note that the national representations at JTCI Plenary
meetings and Advisory Group meetings comprise executives from national
standards bodies, user groups, governments, manufacturers, academies and
others. Furthermore, the meetings are attended by representatives from key
regional bodies and international organizations. Thus when JTa reaches a
unanimous conclusion on a matter such as its scope, it is reflecting not just the
opinion of a few people: it is stating a truly international position.
This latter fact has been of great utility to important international groupings
such as the ITU, CCII1; EEC (European Economic Community), etc. Instead
of having to look in two directions, namely at the IEC and the ISO, they now
have to look in only one.
Equally important is the fact that major regional activities in the infor-
mation technology field such as Standards Promotion and Applications Group
(SPAG), Corporation for Open Systems (COS), and Promoting Conference for
Open Systems Interconnections (POSI) need a central point of international
competence to harmonize the standards profiles and test suites which are vital to
the successful interconnection of information technology equipment worldwide.
Indeed, if JTCl did not exist IEC and ISO would have to create it in order to
survive in sensing the needs of nations in information technology standardization.
As a consequence of the pace of technological advancement in the
information technology (II) field, JTC1 is responsible for the most active
international standards program. There are 16 Subcommittees and 75 working
groups responsible for over 700 projects. There are approximately 270 published
OCR for page 63
63
standards, 125 Draft International Standards, 150 Draft Proposals and 175
working drafts which eventuate will lead to international standards.
Although the size of this program and its associated workload pose a
mapr challenge for JTCI, its Subcommittees and Secretariats, it is interesting to
note that a marked reduction has already been achieved in the time required
to process documents from new work item stage to publication. In the early
198(k; it would have taken no less than seven years to process an IT standard.
Today, owing to improved procedures and management control, we are averaging
less than four yeam for even the most complex systems standards. In addition,
the Fast Clack Procedure has proven extremely efficient in obtaining world-
wide agreement within 1~18 months on existing standards developed by other
organizations. An on-line accessible database containing status information on
all JTCI projects as well as meeting schedules is expected to be available later
this year. Increased usage of standard graphics markup language (SGML3 will
further speed up publication schedules. Further improvements are anticipated
with increased mechanization.
The point on increased mechanization is important in that uniform
methods for the publication and speedy delivery and updating of informa-
tion technology standards, profiles, and test suites is becoming increasingly
critical.
The ISO and IEC cooperation on JTC1 should be continued and
supported to the fullest, as should the JTC1 cooperation with the CCI1T
and European Computer Manufacturing Association (ECMA), etc.
In the case of the United States, this requires coordination between the
private and government sectors to ensure that actions with the nontreaty
bodies such as the ISO and IEC are consistent with those being taken with
treaty organizations such as the ITU/CCITT and the EEC.
The ISO in particular should be encouraged to draw more heavily
upon the expertise resident in its key secretariats and committee chairman.
Currently, the ISO Council, the governing body of ISO, and its executive
committees are devoid of any management expertise from the information
technology sector. Indeed, the current management experience is drawn
from those who are understandably more concerned with standards publi-
cation, distribution, and royalties than with in-depth understanding of the
end purpose and utility of the standards being produced. Accordingly, some
of the management decisions and requests of those writing the standards
and bearing the costs are counterproductive.
It has been suggested outside of the United States that it would be
better for JTC1 to break free from ISO and IEC because it brings together
truly national delegations from the nations involved with information tech-
nolo~ standards, is more closely focussed, and has a management structure
and planning function composed of those who understand the technology
and the use needs. Also, JTC1 activities are already larger in than those in
the remainder of ISO and IEC if information technology activities were to
be removed from them.
My personal view is that the current structure should be maintained
OCR for page 64
64
for the present It has been a tremendous task to bring about ISO/IEC
JTC1, which is working well, and we should give time for further necessary
adjustments to be made. It is important to understand, however, that JTC1
may someday reach a different opinion, but that is for the committee and
others to decide.
So far, block voting by nations in the area of information technology
standardization, in ISO and IEC has not been a problem and should not
be made an issue until it does. The possibility exists, however, that it may
arise in the future as an outcome of Europe 1991 Should this occur, it
could destroy the efficacy of the current system and require an entirely
new approach to meeting the needs of producers and users for information
technology standards. Most likely this would be a user-producer-based
system completely outside of the current nationaVinternational structure.
In its most probable form it would be a supplier- and user-based system
that is completely self-supportive and that produces standards proposals
for ultimate ratification by the standards developing bodies but that is
otherwise completely independent of them.
Finally, there has to be a better understanding of the fact that the
international certification and conformance requirements for information
technology systems are vastly different from those for ensuring that dishes
will not melt in a dishwasher. The expertise and resources required for
open systems testing and conformance are enormous and are often spread
around the world in the many laboratories and manufacturing plants of
the various manufacturers involved. Furthermore, there are great legal
exposures. For example, consider the legal implications of a certifying body
that certifies a system that permits a misdirection of millions of dollars
in a banking system or the mid-air collision of two fully loaded passenger
aircraft. It has to be realized that in this highly specialized and skill-
dependent area, the vendor-user relationship is the key to success and
it should not be unnecessarily impeded by bureaucratic schemes that are
incapable of doing what users and vendors can do best for themselves and,
indeed, that may retard the success of their efforts.
The current international structure does not need to be replaced, but
it does need to be refined and improved; otherwise, it will lose its relevance
and support, both of which are already being eroded.
THE U.S. STANI)ARDS STRUCTURE
The current apprehensions over Europe 1992 have rejuvenated na-
tional debate over the question of whether or not a new national standards
structure is needed. In this regard the approach of having a National
Standards Council analogous to the Standards Council of Canada is being
discussed.
OCR for page 65
65
While any country can always learn from and even adopt the methods
of another, the argument does not necessarily follow that because it works
well In one country it should be adopted in this one.
One way to help decide what, if anything, needs to be done differently
is to wipe the slate clean and examine the question of what structure
could best serve national needs in terms of today's environment if we did
not have the American National Standards Institute. Based on my own
observations of the U.S. standards scene and the national character and
culture of the United States it would appear vital to construct something
along the following lines:
1. A national standards institute largely supported by private sector
industry and organizations with a board of directors that truly represents, in
proper proportion to the support given and the work performed, the needs
of U.S. industry, users, government, labor, and general interest groups. The
fee structure would have to ensure that all who benefit should bear their
fair share of the costs.
2. The institute would provide the national coordination procedures
under which voluntary consensus standards are written and provide the U.S.
interface to the ISO and the IEC as well as other appropriate international
and regional bodies.
3. In addition to a properly representative board of directors the
institute would have a properly representative executive committee, finance
committee, and strategic planning committee. These committees would
draw on advice from a general advisory council open to all institute members
and an international advisory council appointed by the institute to bring
together the best available expertise in international affairs and strategy
from whatever source.
4. As needed (e.g., for information technology) there can also be
created industry sector councils open to all institute members interested
in a specific industry to assist the institute in serving the needs of that
industry.
5. There should be a standards associations council open to the
standards-writing associations to promote the unity of national and interna-
tional purposes and advise the institute accordingly. Associations providing
key services such as secretariats would also participate.
6. There should be also a government advisory council to advise and
coordinate with the U.S. Government on key issues. This council would
draw upon the best expertise from all sectors, as needed, for the issue or
issues at hand.
7. The chairs of the above councils should report directly to the
institute's board of directors and advise the executive committee of the
board of directors as needed.
OCR for page 66
66
The underlying purpose of the institute would be to serve the national
and international interests of the United States in the voluntary consensus
standards-making process and to be officially recognized and supported
as such by all participating U.S. interests, including those of the U.S.
government.
An obvious reaction to the above proposal is that the pieces to imple-
ment all of what has been listed above already exist. If that is the case,
then all who have the responsibility for the pieces should pick them up,
put them together, and make them work. When that is done, the United
States can be an effective international force in working competently with
the other nations, including those of the European Community, to ensure
that standards will continue to open the market worldwide in 1992 and
beyond.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
technology standards
