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 9
Summaries of the Contributions of
Invited Speakers
Challenge to the Workshop Participants
Robert M. White, President
National Academy of Engineering
Washington, D.C.
In 1987 the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) published a
report entitled Strengthening U.S. Engineering Through International Co-
operation. This report had been prepared at the request of the National
Science Board. The report recommends it. . . in-depth studies of the needs
for, and benefits from, more assertive and better coordinated U.S. partici-
pation in international standards development.... Issues to be addressed
. . . include definition of U.S. policy toward international standards, . . .
authority to represent the U.S. in international standards activities, . . .
funding of participation, . . . and assessment of impact of standards on
competitiveness of U.S. products."
This workshop is part of NAE's effort to continue the recommendations
of that committee. The National Academy of Sciences, and its sister
organizations the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of
Medicine, were chartered by the government both to honor distinguished
scientists, engineers, and medical practitioners and to provide advice to the
government on technical matters. The results of this workshop constitute
the advice that the academies, by their charters, agree to provide.
9
OCR for page 10
10
Innovating in a Standardized World
Peter R Schneider
V.'ce President, Systems and Programming
International Business Machines Corporation, Armonk, New York
The data processing industry has experienced astounding change over
the past two decades, including major developments in technology in terms
of memory sizes, processor speeds, and sophistication of applications. Fun-
damental changes in the way this technology affects business have resulted
from several key trends. Information technology, spurred by greater com-
puter literacy of business executives, has been integrated into every part of
an enterprise and not confined to the classic "machine room." Exchange of
information between corporations can add competitive advantage to both
parties as they leverage the value of information. Mergers and acquisitions
have stressed the data processing resources in terms of interconnection,
interoperability, and system management. And the growth of multinational
corporations competing in a global economy has expanded the information
technology resources to be managed.
Given these trends, information technology equipment suppliers must
(and did) change. The marketplace demands a blend of the niche products,
systems integrators, application solutions, and equipment suppliers with
many varying combinations. Leo major trends are evident in suppliers.
First, there is a recognition that survival in a multivendor world requires
increased need for compliance with interconnection and interoperability
standards. Second, the formation of alliances through partnerships or joint
development and marketing efforts has become a new way of life. Alliances
provide a means to expand market coverage or to avoid costly research and
development efforts by using component building blocks both hardware
and software. The two trends sometimes merge when consortiums or other
alliances work to agree on protocols or technology choices in order to
promote interoperability.
Examples of cooperative efforts are numerous and varied in orga-
nization and form: industry trade association, industry participation in
government-sponsored cooperative research, voluntary standards-setting or-
ganizations, and industry cooperative agreements and consortiums. Each
has particular strengths that affect the standardization process of the in-
formation technology industry. In the future, all of these forms will con-
tinue. For example, some technical areas of cooperation have such rapid
technology advancement (e.g., humanimachine interface) that formal stan-
dardization processes will not be able to keep up. On the other hand, joint
research and development (R&D) efforts may effectively provide the latest
technology across a broad product set. Also, different organizations have
differing views of intellectual property and copyright protection. These
OCR for page 11
11
views may impede contributions to cooperative efforts in some forums and
hinder adoption of standards agreements by other organizations. Stronger
industry focus is needed to manage the combined strengths of these various
cooperative approaches and the common issues they face.
The Users' Viewpoint on Standards-Based Communications
Michael A. Kaminski, Manager
CommunicationsJManufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) Program
General Motors Corporation, Warren, Michigan
In the late 197Qs General Motors (GM) decided to increase sig-
nificantly automation in manufacturing. Quality improvement and cost
reduction were required if the company was to remain competitive.
As GM proceeded, they found the task very complex because of
the diversity of plant floor equipment and the computerized elements
necessary to automate manufacturing. Half of the computer systems costs
were communications related, and 80 percent of the task was systems
integration. Only 20 percent of the effort was left to focus on applications
that actually automated the manufacturing processes.
The time, complexity, and cost led to islands of automation rather than
an integrated system. The longer-term objective was to extend automation
beyond the factory to encompass the engineering, design, business, adminis-
trative, customer, and supplier processes and to provide total improvement
of processes throughout the enterprise. There is still a long way to go.
The recognized need for standards prompted GM in 1984 to sponsor
the Manufacturing Automation Protocol (MAP) User Group to accelerate
the availability of factory floor communications standards and products that
would be available for many kinds of manufacturing. Later, the MAP User
Group expanded to include the Technical Office Protocol (TOP) effort,
which embraced engineering, office, and general management information
system (MIS) environments. Through the efforts of the MAP1OP User
Group and others, solutions are starting to become available to provide a
core of data communications functions.
There is much yet to be accomplished if GM's ultimate vision is to
become reality. The desire to achieve open systems and the standards
that accomplish that task are not limited to the manufacturing industry.
Common solutions can, in fact, meet the requirements of the majority
of users, independent of the particular equipment, operating system, or
. . .
communications services.
1b accomplish the longer-term objectives, an umbrella group called the
Information Technology Requirements Council (ITRC) has been formed
to provide a structure to expand the scope of work and the breadth of
OCR for page 12
12
participation, including industry, government users, and the equipment
supplier community.
Several roadblocks exist before rapid progress can be made. Among
these are competing technologies, multiple consortia that confuse and
divide users, duplicate activities in multiple forums that overlap but don't
harmonize well, lack of corporate commitment (both user and vendor),
and a perceived lack of market acceptance. In addition, standards take too
long from the conception of a standard to the delivery of products that
incorporate that standard.
The solution to remove such roadblocks involves several elements.
The equipment suppliers have to make a commitment to standards-based
technology. Users must be educated on the importance of Information
Technology (IT) standards and make a commitment to become proactive
in standards setting as well as staunch mandators of standards in their
procurement. Users and vendors need to work together to improve the
standards-setting process.
The benefit to both consumers and providers are significant The users
will be able to enhance their competitive posture based on their ability to
easily and effectively automate company processes. The vendors will be
able to focus more resources on tools that provide more usable functions to
the user community and will utilize fewer resources in reinventing the same
wheel with no significant value added. These standards should become the
platform upon which to add value and innovate. The end result should be
broader markets for products and a significant step forward into new areas
of technology and applicability.
Can Standards Help Industry in the United States
to Remain Competitive in the International Marketplace?
Irvin Dorros
Executive Vice President, Technical Services
Bell Communications Research, Livingston, New Jersey
The creation, transport, and use of information are fundamental activ-
ities in the service economy. The service sector, now employing 67 percent
of U.S. workers, is the home of the knowledge worker. Knowledge workers
assimilate and manipulate complex data through sophisticated worksta-
tions that are networked with other knowledge workers and data banks
worldwide.
A public network infrastructure is needed to support the knowledge
workers of the future. If the United States does not have such an efficient
and ubiquitous means of interconnection, then U.S. knowledge workers
would be at a disadvantage in the world economy. Information networks
are already becoming key to market success. Companies in banking and
OCR for page 13
13
the airline industry have achieved success based on the strength of their
information networks. An enabling information infrastructure, established
worldwide, would be to eve~yone's benefit, and standards are a key ingre-
dient.
Five types~of standards play different roles in the public network in-
frastructure. These are (1) end-to-end performance standards, (2) interface
standards, (3) service standards, (4) equipment standards, and (5) configu-
ration standards. There are three different ways in which a standard could
come to play a part in the public network. These are (1) de jure, or
when a standard is established by law; (2) open and public, as a product
of the formal standards bodies; and (3) de facto, or when a product or
technology becomes so well established in the absence of a standard that it
becomes the measure against which future entrants are judged. Of the five
types of standards, end-to-end standards and interface standards are those
that require the public standards process. Service standards, equipment
standards, and configuration standards do not have to be agreed upon on
an industry-wide basis. In fact, they may be the basis for product or service
differentiation.
Standards makers have a difficult task in balancing often conflicting
goals to arrive at standards that have the desired attributes. On the one
hand, we would like standards to be timely, to promote innovation, and to
allow competition. On the other hand, we desire compatibility, economies
of scale, and market stability. It is not possible to satisfy both desires, and
compromises are required. Standards, once they become established, can
be hard to change; a threshold, which can sometimes be quite high, has
to be overcome before they can be replaced. Two cases in point are the
difficulty of establishing metric units of measure in the United States and
the challenge of replacing the "qwerty" typewriter keyboard layout with a
more efficient configuration.
The standards process is changing worldwide, with growing activity on
all fronts. Our industrial structure in the United States has traditionally
been based on an inward-looking society of internal competitors. Japan,
which came of age industrially at a later time, developed a more externally
focused approach. This approach seems to be more in tune with the current
world economy and the changing standards developing process. Although
the United States remains first class in technology, it might be falling to a
second~lass information infrastructure.
Several changes are needed for improving the competitive position
of the United States, including (1) changes in national antitrust policy
to encourage cooperation on standards, (2) the adoption of a systems
approach toward information technology on a national level, (3) increased
attention by industry participants to standards making, and (4) speeding
up the process for interface and end-to-end standards making. Subject
OCR for page 14
14
matter experts should participate in standards making as part of their jobs,
and industry managers should set the strategy and the tone for standards
developing agreements. The standards process is now a public laboratory
for the telecommunications industry's forward-looking work.
Information technology and information technology standards are im-
portant for competitive advantage in the U.S. economy. What we should
all be working toward is a globally connected information network in which
all knowledge workers can access the multimedia information they need on
demand.
An American in the Japanese Standards System
John P. Stern
Vice President, Asian Operations
American Electronics Association, Tokyo, Japan
Anyone with considerable personal experience in the Japanese stan-
dards developing system knows that policy changes have occurred over
the last 10 years. Access to the Japanese standards setting bodies is now
available to U.S. firms. The question is how to use it and why.
For the question of how to use the Japanese system, only fluency in
Japanese and a technical competence of it&D-level experience will be an
effective starting point to being respected and influential at the Technical
Committee level. Participation at the Divisional Council level, the highest
level of approval before promulgation, and above is only available to
Japanese citizens, independent of their employer. However, the Divisional
Council will listen to noncitizen witnesses. At all of these meetings, the
Japanese member participants are high level, both technically and in their
corporate or government positions. Those who represent U.S. interests
must be similarly qualified.
On the question of why we should participate, it is disturbing to hear
that Japanese take foreign and international standards into account at
the initial product development time, while U.S. vendors sometimes only
discover the importance of Japanese standards at the sales presentation.
A point overlooked by many U.S. companies is that Japanese com-
panies, while competitors to some, are the developers and suppliers of
replacement and future components and subsystems, and they may de-
termine the viability of current designs through their decisions for future
products.
Another overlooked market (other than Japan itself) is the Japanese-
owned plant overseas. These plants may well be only the initial wave of
Japanese standards onto foreign shores.
OCR for page 15
15
The European Community: Will Standards Open or Close the
Market in 1992?
L. John Rankine
Chairman, ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1
L. John Rankine Consulting Services, Westport, Connecticut
The objective for the economic merger within the European Commu-
nity beginning in 1992 is to have in place the agreements to dismantle the
technical and physical barriers between the member countries. The physical
barriers refer to the movement of goods and people; and the technical ones
refer to standards, procurement, telecommunications, and so on. It will
take many years beyond 1992 to implement the agreements.
The full ramifications of Europe 1992 are difficult to determine at this
stage, and the overall effects, good or bad, will affect European interests as
well as U.S. ones. 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 need not be created. 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 government.
Separation and judicious coordination of government and private sector
efforts are needed.
Within the Europe 1992 framework, the information technology indus-
try is viewed as most vital. It depends heavily on international standards
for its implementation. The International Organization for Standardiza-
tionfInternational Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) and Interna-
tional Telecommunication Union/International Consultative Committee for
Telephone and Telegraph (ITU/CCIIT) standards developing bodies and
processes are the best approach for reaching international accords. If stan-
dards do not facilitate the open marketplace, then the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Made (GATE) Standards Code can be invoked.
The formation of the ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee was a major
step forward in unifying information technology standards. Regional orga-
nizations lee the Standards Promotion and Applications Group (SPAG) in
Europe, Corporation for Open Systems (COS) in the United States and
Promoting Conference for Open Systems Interconnections (POSI) in Japan
are also making progress in harmonizing standards profiles and test suites,
which are essential to the successful interconnection and interoperability of
information technology systems. The current international standards struc-
tures and processes need to be refined and improved to maintain relevance
and leadership.
OCR for page 16
16
The current apprehensions over Europe 1992 have stimulated discus-
sion on the question as to whether or not a new national standards structure
is needed in the United States. While it may not be necessary to restructure
the U.S. voluntary consensus standards system, the existing processes re-
quire considerably more support and many refinements to satisfy the needs
of information technology standardization. Information technology inter-
ests are poorly represented at the management level in both the national
and international standards structure. It is a critical need for U.S. industry,
users, and government to revitalize a consensus standards writing system
in which all pay a proper share and in which all are fairly represented. If
this national need is not met, then the problems for U.S. competitiveness
in 1992, and beyond, will be exacerbated.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
japanese standards
