1
Introduction

Many facets of our daily lives depend on standards. Standards influence the products we use, the foods we eat, how we communicate, our means of travel, our modes of work and play, and many other activities. Standards may function to inform, to facilitate, to control, or to interconnect—frequently, a combination of such elements. They serve economic ends, enabling or catalyzing commercial transactions of all sorts. They also serve societal aims, such as protecting health, safety, and the environment.

There is no single, simple definition of standard that captures the broad range of meanings and uses of the term. There are, however, general characteristics of many or most standards that will serve as a working definition within this report. A standard is a set of characteristics or quantities that describes features of a product, process, service, interface, or material.1 The description can take many forms, such as definition of terms; specification of design and construction; detailing of procedures; or performance criteria against which a product, process, etc., can be measured.

A standard can be formal or informal in varying degrees. Social customs—waving or shaking hands, for example—are informal standards. There is no codified, formal, "standard handshake" to which we refer for guidance when we meet someone; yet most Americans know and follow the standard.

A formal standard, by contrast, is one that has been formulated to meet a specific goal and written down by its developers so that others may use it. Formal standards can be written unilaterally by a designer, manufacturer, or purchaser. They can be developed through cooperation and consensus among a group of interested parties. Or they can be mandated by government. These paths often



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 9
--> 1 Introduction Many facets of our daily lives depend on standards. Standards influence the products we use, the foods we eat, how we communicate, our means of travel, our modes of work and play, and many other activities. Standards may function to inform, to facilitate, to control, or to interconnect—frequently, a combination of such elements. They serve economic ends, enabling or catalyzing commercial transactions of all sorts. They also serve societal aims, such as protecting health, safety, and the environment. There is no single, simple definition of standard that captures the broad range of meanings and uses of the term. There are, however, general characteristics of many or most standards that will serve as a working definition within this report. A standard is a set of characteristics or quantities that describes features of a product, process, service, interface, or material.1 The description can take many forms, such as definition of terms; specification of design and construction; detailing of procedures; or performance criteria against which a product, process, etc., can be measured. A standard can be formal or informal in varying degrees. Social customs—waving or shaking hands, for example—are informal standards. There is no codified, formal, "standard handshake" to which we refer for guidance when we meet someone; yet most Americans know and follow the standard. A formal standard, by contrast, is one that has been formulated to meet a specific goal and written down by its developers so that others may use it. Formal standards can be written unilaterally by a designer, manufacturer, or purchaser. They can be developed through cooperation and consensus among a group of interested parties. Or they can be mandated by government. These paths often

OCR for page 9
--> overlap, as when a group chooses to adopt a standard developed unilaterally by one of its members or when a government agency adopts a private standard by reference in a regulation or law. Mechanisms for U.S. and international standards development are considered in detail in Chapter 2. This report is concerned primarily with formal standards. Formal standards impinge on our activities every day, with or without our conscious awareness. A ubiquitous element of American life, the automobile, offers many examples. We choose the grade of gasoline we put in our cars according to a formal standard for octane ratings. We use motor oil classified as SAE 10W-30, 10W-40, etc., against standards written by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), a professional society that develops many standards for the automotive industry.2 If we perform our own car repairs, we consult a manual of standards for parts and assembly published by the manufacturer. Safety and environmental standards play a major part in our use of automobiles. We are protected by safety features that meet standards mandated by government or adopted voluntarily by automakers. In many states, cars must be tested and certified as meeting emission standards designed to protect air quality. To obtain a driver's license, we must pass a test that measures our skills and knowledge against formal standards, and when we drive, we obey standard traffic signals and laws. These examples illustrate the influences of standards on the use of a product by its ultimate user, the consumer. The average car owner, however, may never think about an additional set of relevant standards—those that the automaker uses in designing and building the car. These standards play a role from the very beginning of the production cycle. Electronic data interchange standards enable teams of engineers to share designs on their computer workstations. Computer-controlled machine tools follow standard, coded instructions in cutting and welding sheets of metal—metal that meets material specifications for strength, rigidity, and other characteristics. The tools are calibrated to units of length, mass, pressure, and other quantities against references maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (before 1987, the National Bureau of Standards) in Gaithersburg, Maryland. In order to win the car manufacturer's business, suppliers of materials, parts, and services must meet performance specifications set by the manufacturer. The manufacturer also applies performance criteria to internal operations, as part of a continuous process of managing and improving the quality of his or her own products. Use of formal standards describing quality management systems, such as the International Organization for Standardization's ISO 9000 international standards series or the Department of Commerce's Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria, is increasing rapidly in this country, with consequences that are considered in this report.3 These examples demonstrate clearly that standards take many forms and serve many purposes. This report focuses primarily on formal standards for products and processes in manufacturing industries. This focus is determined by

OCR for page 9
--> the committee's main objective, which is to examine the influence of domestic and international standards—through their development and use, as well as through testing and certification—on U.S. economic performance. Drawing upon this examination, a specific set of recommendations for improvements in public policy is outlined in Chapter 5. Functions Of Standards The first requirement for understanding the link between standards and economic performance is a systematic consideration of the functions of standards. Many schemes for classifying standards by function or goal have been developed.4 The functions of standardization can be divided into seven categories (see Table 1-1). These categories are not mutually exclusive. Most standards serve more than one purpose. Commercial Communication Standards convey information about a product to the buyer in a consistent, understandable manner. This communication reduces the amount of work the buyer has to do to find out about the product's characteristics (or, alternatively, the work the seller must do to inform the buyer). In other words, standards reduce the transaction costs for buyer and seller.5 For example, the owner of a portable radio does not need to talk to a salesperson or experiment with various batteries in order to find ones that will work in the radio. He or she simply picks batteries labeled with the correct size—AAA, A, D, etc.—and makes the purchase, confident that they will fit the radio. If there were no standard, the consumer would have to invest time and effort in researching and trying out various batteries, or pay extra costs for expert advice and assistance. By contrast, in product sectors with less complete standardization—such as personal computer software—the task of identifying, buying, and installing compatible products can be time-consuming and expensive.6 The buyer-seller interaction is not a feature of the consumer marketplace alone. Procurement specifications set by purchasing departments of companies and government agencies are further examples of standards that convey information in support of a commercial transaction. Given the enormous range of transactions dependent to some degree on standards, standardization clearly facilitates commerce in the U.S. economy to a degree that is difficult to quantify, but unquestionably significant.7 Technology Diffusion The previous discussion highlighted communication between a buyer and a seller. However, standards serve an additional communication-related function—recording technological advances in a form that others may reproduce and use. In

OCR for page 9
--> TABLE 1-1 —Functions of Product and Process Standards CATEGORY FOR EXAMPLE… 1. COMMERCIAL COMMUNICATION Standards convey information about a product to the buyer in a consistent, understandable manner. (a) construction materials—standard dimensions, strengths, and durabilities make it easier for the builder to select materials for specific purposes (b) film speed—standard ratings (ISO 100, 200, 400, etc.) simplify matching film to photographic needs 2. TECHNOLOGY DIFFUSION A technological advance incorporated into a standard is more readily adapted and used by others. (a) personal computer architecture—use of PCs expanded rapidly once IBM-compatibility standard came into being (b) advanced materials (e.g., composites, ceramics)—standards that describe processing and test methods allow duplication and improvement upon state of the art 3. PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY Standardization of parts, processes and products enables economies of scale in production. (a) automobile assembly line—efficient mass production pioneered with the Ford Model T (b) fast food chains (e.g., McDonald's)—food, restaurant style, equipment, and procedures standardized for efficiency

OCR for page 9
--> 4. ENHANCED COMPETITION When some or all of the features of different manufacturers' products conform to one standard, comparison is easier and competition sharper. (a) direct-dial long-distance telephone service—competing carriers offer a standardized basic service; competition centers on price and extra services (b) gasoline—octane ratings allow consumer to compare similar products on the basis of price 5. COMPATIBILITY Standards defining interfaces enable products to work or communicate with each other. (a) Internet—standard format for sending and receiving data enables communication among computers worldwide (b) stereo system components—various types of components can be connected with standard cables and jacks 6. PROCESS MANAGEMENT Manufacturers not only design products to conform to standards, they also organize the manufacturing process itself in accordance with standards. (a) numerically controlled machine tools—standard computer languages allow rapid reconfiguration of production line (b) quality assurance—ISO 9000 series of standards guides firms in setting up and maintaining a quality assurance management system 7. PUBLIC WELFARE Standards are an important mechanism for promoting societal goals, such as protection of health, safety, and the environment. (a) health codes—restaurants conform to sanitary standards that are backed up by inspections (b) automobile air bags, seat restraints, and bumpers—government-mandated crash protection

OCR for page 9
--> creating a new product or process, a designer may choose to use technological approaches already developed by others and incorporated into formal standards. This is an advantage if it enables the designer to avoid reinventing an already-existing innovation. Standards play a key part in the process of technology diffusion. When a technological advance by a designer, researcher, or developer at one firm is incorporated into a standard and used by others, that advance is diffused throughout the industry. Innovations made at academic and government institutions can diffuse in the same way. This process raises productivity and industrial competitiveness. It increases efficiency by enabling firms to adopt standardized approaches, where appropriate, rather than reinventing technologies already developed elsewhere.8 The adoption of best industrial practices and technologies throughout U.S. industry is a crucial factor supporting the nation's industrial competitiveness and economic performance. If the standard incorporates a patented technology, the firm adopting it may have to pay a royalty (provided the owner is willing to license the technology). However, using the standard may still be more cost-effective than developing a unique approach. Choice between standardized and firm-unique technologies is one aspect of strategic standardization management, a managerial approach gaining adherents in some parts of U.S. industry.9 Productive Efficiency A fundamental characteristic of twentieth-century manufacturing is mass production through interchangeable parts. First popularized by Eli Whitney in producing muskets for the Continental Army during the American Revolution, manufacturing standardization may have reached a peak in the 1920s at Ford's River Rouge automobile plant.10 Standardization of parts and processes enables efficiency-increasing measures such as repetitive production, reduced inventories, and flexibility in substituting components on the assembly line. Production of standardized goods in great quantities for a uniform marketplace brings about significant economies of scale. These economies of scale benefit the producer through cost reductions, which may be passed on to the consumer in lower prices.11 Enhanced Competition From the consumer's perspective, standards enhance the efficiency of purchasing in the commercial marketplace by placing products that conform to a standard in direct competition with one another. When some or all of the features of different manufacturers' products conform to one standard, the consumer's task of comparing is made easier—particularly with respect to price. These effects sharpen competition.12

OCR for page 9
--> It is important to note that standardization of products also limits the consumer's range of choices. Henry Ford's great River Rouge automobile plant was a model of productive efficiency through mass standardization. However, although this standardization lowered cost, it also reduced Ford customers' options to a single product: the black Model T.13 Manufacturers compete on the basis of differentiated features and technological innovations as well as price. For this reason, there is the potential for excessive standardization to lead to decreased market choice and a reduced range of innovation. This may, in specific cases, outweigh the benefits of standardization.14 In short, both standardization and differentiation of products are necessary for society to gain the greatest economic and social benefit. The two are not necessarily incompatible. From the producer's perspective, standards for computerized design and machine-tool automation have fostered the spread of flexible manufacturing methods. These methods have made it increasingly possible for manufacturers to provide greater product variety without sacrificing economies of scale. In the late twentieth century, standardization of processes may be replacing standardization of final products as a key enabler of large-scale manufacturing efficiency.15 Compatibility When products are used together, the standards defining their interfaces are important. For example, the widespread standard for stereo equipment interconnection makes it possible for a compact disk player made by one firm and an amplifier made by another to work together. The ability to mix and match components of a system—made possible by the interface standard—increases the consumer's choice and the breadth of competition in the market. Compatibility standards—also known as interoperability standards—are especially important in industries that are organized into networks. An example is telecommunications. A telecommunication network gains value with increasing size, because each new member of the network adds to the scope of possible connections that each current member is able to make.16 Standards describing how to attach to a network and use it are necessary for the network to form and grow. For example, formal definitions of formats for transporting electronic data through the global Internet make it possible for millions of people, using computers, to communicate with each other. It is the worldwide availability of Internet standards that makes the network's rapidly expanding size and scope possible.17 Process Management Manufacturers not only design products to conform to standards, they also organize the manufacturing process itself in accordance with standards. Many of these are purely internal standards—the routines and procedures by which a

OCR for page 9
--> company does its work. However, compliance with some external standards is a necessity for all firms. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates many manufacturing processes to protect worker safety, while the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) sets standards for the sanitation of meat processing facilities. Independent inspection and audit of production play a key part in the enforcement of process standards such as those set by OSHA and USDA.18 Firms may also perform—or hire independent auditors to perform—assessments of their procedures for ensuring product quality. This process-management approach to quality assurance, pioneered by W. Edwards Deming, is reflected in the internal quality programs of numerous manufacturers. It is also formalized in quality management system standards, such as the ISO 9000 series published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)—a private, international standards-developing organization in Geneva, Switzerland, with membership including national standards organizations from most countries of the world.19 It is also reflected in the Department of Commerce's Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award criteria. These standards furnish objective criteria for evaluating aspects of a firm's quality assurance processes. They also serve as one avenue for diffusion of best practices in quality assurance throughout industry as manufacturers invest the effort needed to adopt and conform to them.20 Public Welfare Standards are an important means of promoting societal goals, such as protection of health, safety, and the environment. Government agencies at the national, regional, state, and local levels administer thousands of regulatory standards or technical regulations. These govern the characteristics of the products and services that manufacturers produce and the materials and processes that they use in producing them. Some regulatory standards are developed by government agencies, but many are developed within the private sector and adopted by government. OSHA and USDA guidelines noted above are examples of process-oriented regulations. The National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration's automobile bumper and air bag standards are examples of product-oriented regulations. Standards for treatment, storage, and distribution of drinking water have been developed by the private, non-profit NSF International and are used by the Environmental Protection Agency, state governments, and many public and private water utilities.21 In addition to federal standards, a range of regulations applies in the United States at the state, regional, and local levels. Building codes enforced by public inspectors set parameters for electrical wiring, plumbing, materials, and other aspects of construction. Many public jurisdictions apply water and air quality standards setting limits on pollutants and toxins that may be emitted into the

OCR for page 9
--> environment. The automobile emission standards of the state of California, for example, are stricter than those applied at the national level. Conformity Assessment Standards would be unable to fulfill any of the many purposes just outlined without some degree of confidence that manufacturers' claims for their products of conformity to standards are correct and justified. Such assurance can come from the firm's internal procedures for meeting standards; from review by an independent, private source outside the firm; from a government-mandated regulatory program; or from a combination of such elements. Conformity assessment is the comprehensive term for procedures by which products and processes are evaluated and determined to conform to particular standards. As distinct from standards development, conformity assessment may be thought of as a central aspect of the use of standards. In the context of many commercial and regulatory uses of standards, measures to evaluate and ensure conformity are of as much or more significance than the standards themselves. They impose significant costs in manufacturing through testing, inspection, audit, and related procedures. The benefits that mitigate these costs accrue from the value added by increased buyer (or regulator) confidence that a product or service meets a standard.22 As noted previously, standards facilitate commerce by informing prospective buyers about aspects of products and services. An implicit element in this communication is the need for trust on the buyer's part that a product meets cited standards. Often, the reputation of the producer expressed in his or her brand name is adequate to establish this confidence. However, when a consumer looks for a recognized certificate of approval on a product, he or she gains additional assurance that the product has been independently tested and verified against applicable standards.23 A well-known certification mark found on many products is the ''UL" label. This mark is owned and managed by Underwriters Laboratories, a nonprofit institution that develops safety standards and tests and certifies many consumer and other products.24 The efficacy of regulation similarly depends on the reliability of measures to determine that products and processes comply with mandatory standards. Regulatory enforcement often—though not always—depends on assessment of the producer's compliance with regulations by an independent inspector or testing laboratory. Building inspection and water quality testing are examples of state and local government assessment of compliance with standards. Many independent, private-sector laboratories also test products for regulatory compliance. Testing, manufacturer's declaration of conformity, independent certification, laboratory accreditation, and quality system registration are the key elements of the U.S. and international conformity assessment systems. Each of these elements figures prominently in the overall impact of standards on U.S.

OCR for page 9
--> economic performance. Chapter 3 contains a detailed examination of the organization, efficiency, and economic value of these processes. Standards, Conformity Assessment, And Public Policy The U.S. system for developing standards and assessing conformity to them is complex, decentralized, and multifaceted. It encompasses many kinds of standards, as the preceding discussion illustrates. It comprises many types of conformity assessment activities, conducted by manufacturers, independent private-sector testers and certifiers, and government regulators. Complexity is not necessarily evidence that the system cannot function well. Each aspect of the system has evolved to meet the conditions and requirements of a specific technology, industry sector, or public interest. Historical and political accident have also played their part in the system's development. Assessing the U.S. System How well does the U.S. system work? The purpose of this report is to analyze U.S. standards development and conformity assessment in the context of the nation's domestic and international economic performance. On the basis of this evaluation, improvements in U.S. public policy are recommended in three broad areas: (1) the efficiency of the domestic standards and conformity assessment system, including private-sector and government components; (2) the link between standards and U.S. technological advance; (3) the role of standards and conformity assessment in enhancing U.S. export performance and facilitating global trade. Virtually every sphere of economic activity is influenced to some degree by standards and conformity assessment. This influence varies widely, however, among industry sectors. The functions of standards vary widely in their applicability to a given commercial activity. Compatibility standards, for example, are clearly much more important in network industries, such as telecommunications, than in industries producing stand-alone goods. Quality is important in all industries; however, setting standards for quality system management is a considerably more costly undertaking in industries with complex manufacturing or service processes than in those with simple procedures. Products that pose potential health, safety, or environmental risks are subject to many more regulatory standards than are relatively riskless products. This report does not identify a discrete quantity representing the total economic impact of standards. The claim is justifiable, nevertheless, that standards have a highly significant role in the U.S. economy. The previously outlined

OCR for page 9
--> categorization of standards by function (again, see Table 1-1) illustrates their ubiquity in our economy. The value of standards in the first category alone—informing buyers about products and services—is, if considered in the economy-wide aggregate, clearly significant. It is probably also impossible to quantify precisely. Such a task would require not only determining the number of commercial transactions that are influenced by one or more standards, but also estimating how efficiently those transactions would take place in the absence of standards—if they were to occur at all. The number of standards and related conformity assessment programs (such as testing and certification) in the United States provides a rough sense of standardization's economic impact. Federal government standards—including regulations and public procurement specifications—total more than 50,000, of which Department of Defense standards are the majority. Private standards-developing organizations, professional societies, and industry associations account for more than 40,000 additional, formal standards.25 These figures do not account for the much larger number of de facto industry standards. These are products, processes, and technologies that are established as standards not through formal procedures, but through widespread acceptance in the free market.26 How can the efficiency of the standards system be improved? Efficiency comprises two elements—cost of input and value of output. Chapters 2 and 3 analyze the costs, quality, processes, and organization of standards development and conformity assessment in the United States. The representation of U.S. interests in international standards-setting forums is considered as well. Although the scale of this report does not permit a detailed examination of individual industry sectors, principles are identified that apply across industries, as well as guidelines for linking more focused policy measures to appropriate industries. The assessment of the U.S. system's efficiency in this report encompasses both its private- and its public-sector components. Many standards are developed entirely within the private sector and are applied voluntarily. This may occur through the formal procedures of consensus-seeking standards organizations or through the success of individual firms' products, services, or technologies in the competitive marketplace. Assessing the capacity of the U.S. system to generate appropriate standards in a timely manner is a complex issue, highly dependent on the specific industry and even the product or service in question. The vested interest in development and use of a standard—or choice among possible technologies to use in a particular standard—can vary widely among different producers, consumers, and government entities. This variation may, in some cases, strongly influence whether standards development activities produce the greatest possible public benefit with respect to such concerns as market efficiency and technological advance.27

OCR for page 9
--> Public Welfare Government is both a major producer and a major user of standards. This report takes as given the fact that public needs may sometimes outweigh other concerns. There are, for example, health and safety concerns that justify imposition of regulatory standards despite the costs they impose on manufacturers and consumers. Government is also a major purchaser of goods and services, frequently by means of procurement standards and specifications. As a result, government agencies have a public interest in obtaining the best value for the public dollar through appropriate standards and efficient conformity assessment procedures. Within these constraints, the standards system should work as efficiently as possible. It should be efficient both in terms of cost and in terms of enhancing, or not inhibiting, economic growth and technological innovation. Chapters 2 and 3 consider ways that improved coordination among standards developers and users in the public and private sectors can decrease costs and improve the functioning of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment system. Clearly, specific industry sectors vary in significant aspects. The objective of this report, however, is to identify the best opportunities for improving the overall system through public policy measures. U. S. International Trade Policy How can trade policy be improved to enhance export opportunities for U.S. firms and promote creation of jobs in the trade-oriented sector of the nation's economy? International trade is and will continue to be of growing importance to the U.S. economy. In the latter half of the 1980s, for example, exports accounted for 20 percent of the nation's total employment growth.28 The continued increase in the share of U.S. economic performance dependent on international trade has raised the importance of international standards and conformity assessment issues to new heights. This report evaluates the performance of the U.S. standards and conformity assessment system not only as it meets the nation's domestic needs, but also with respect to facilitating global trade and U.S. exports. Significant changes related to standards have taken place in the international trading system within the past year. The Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade resulted in substantial revisions to the Technical Barriers to Trade provisions and creation of a new section on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Standards for food and agricultural products. Unfair trading practices based on standards, testing, and certification requirements are prohibited under these two sections of the agreement.29 The Uruguay Round provisions include updated and expanded coverage of governments' product approval regulations; inclusion of process and production method regulations; increased transparency to foreign firms of national and regional

OCR for page 9
--> standards developing activities (such as those of the European Union); and promotion of mutual acceptance among trading partners of product test results, certifications, and other conformity assessment measures. In the context of the new World Trade Organization, progress continues in these and related areas. A current focal point of U.S. trade policy, discussed in Chapter 4, is the negotiation of agreements with our trading partners for mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures. Chapter 4 assesses the potential utility and feasibility of such agreements for realizing the full benefit of trade enhancement provisions of the Uruguay Round, as well as forestalling the growth of trade barriers related to conformity assessment systems worldwide. The emergence of significant new markets for U.S. products—particularly in Asia and Latin America—offers great potential for improvements in U.S. export performance. Many of the countries and regional trading groups that comprise these markets do not yet have well-developed systems for implementing standards or assessing conformity. In many of these markets, this condition is characteristic of the regulatory, public procurement, and private industry sectors alike. A key concern of this report is to examine how the United States can support efforts in developing markets to design and implement modern, open standards systems. Chapter 4 assesses the potential for enhancing U.S. exports and global trade through providing developing countries with appropriate technical assistance regarding implementation of standards and conformity assessment regimes. Notes 1.   See Maureen Breitenberg, The ABC's of Standards-Related Activities in the United States. For additional examples, see ASTM, ASTM and Voluntary Consensus Standards (Philadelphia, PA.:ASTM, undated); and Carl Cargill, Information Technology Standardization: Theory, Process, and Organizations. 2.   Maureen Breitenberg, The ABC's of Certification Activities in the United States, 5. 3.   Maureen Breitenberg, More Questions and Answers on the ISO 9000 Standard Series and Related Issues, 1. 4.   See Breitenberg, The ABC's of Standards-Related Activities in the United States, 3-5; Charles P. Kindleberger, Standards as Public, Collective and Private Goods, 1983, 378; and U.S Congress, (OTA), Global Standards: Building Blocks for the Future, 5-6. 5.   Charles P. Kindleberger, Standards as Public, Collective and Private Goods, 384-385. 6.   The enormous number of possible configurations of microcomputer hardware and software components produces strong incentives for both users and producers to reduce variety through standards. See Michael Hergert, Technical Standards and Competition in the Microcomputer Industry. 7.   David Hemenway, Industrywide Voluntary Product Standards, 9-10. 8.   For a discussion of business use of standards as a mechanism for adopting externally developed technologies, see Diego Betancourt, Strategic Standardization Management: A Strategic Macroprocess Approach to the New Paradigm in the Competitive Business Use of Standardization. 9.   See American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 1993 Annual Report, 8; and Betancourt, Strategic Standardization Management. 10.   Breitenberg, The ABC's of Standards-Related Activities in the United States, 3; and OTA, Global Standards, 42.

OCR for page 9
--> 11.   See Hemenway, Industry-Wide Voluntary Product Standards, 21-26; and Kindleberger, Standards as Public, Collective and Private Goods, 384-388. 12.   For a discussion of the effects of standardization on market efficiency under various conditions, see Farrell and Saloner, Competition, Compatibility and Standards: the Economics of Horses, Penguins ans Lemmings. 13.   OTA, Global Standards, 42. 14.   Joseph Farrell and Garth Saloner, Standardization and Variety, 71. 15.   A great deal of literature exists on the changing nature of manufacturing efficiency. See, for example, National Academy of Engineering, Mastering a New Role: Shaping Technology Policy for National Economic Performance, 28-39. 16.   Paul A. David, Some New Standards for the Economics of Standardization in the Information Age, 217. 17.   Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council, Realizing the Information Future: The Internet and Beyond, 17-26. 18.   For a partial listing of federal certification programs and their methodologies—including facility inspection—see Maureen Breitenberg, ed., Directory of Federal Government Certification Programs. 19.   Breitenberg, ed., Directory of International and Regional Organizations Conducting Standards-Related Activities, 274-275. 20.   Breitenberg, More Questions and Answers on ISO 9000; Curt W. Reimann and Harry S. Hertz, The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and ISO 9000 Registration, 42-53. 21.   NSF International Corporate Brochure, Drinking Water Additives Program. 22.   See International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Certification and Related Activities for a detailed overview of types of conformity assessment activities and the costs and benefits, in qualitative terms, of each type. 23.   ISO, Certification and Related Activities, 22. 24.   Ross Cheit, Setting Safety Standards: Regulation in the Public and Private Sectors, 28; and Underwriters Laboratories (UL), An Overview of Underwriters Laboratories, brochure. 25.   Rober B. Toth, ed., Standards Activities of Organizations in the United States, 4. 26.   In the academic economics literature, there has been more analytical attention paid to free-market, de facto standardization processes than to coordinated, voluntary consensus processes. For an overview of the economics of de facto and consensus standard-setting, see Shane M. Greenstein, Invisible Hands and Visible Advisors: An Economic Interpretation of Standardization, 538-549. 27.   For an overview of these effects, see Farrell and Saloner, Competition, Compatibility and Standards. 28.   Office of the Chief Economist, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. Exports Create High-Wage Employmenti. 29.   Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Uruguay Round: Final Texts of the GATT Uruguay Round Agreements.