STANDARDS ORGANIZATIONS WANT MORE USER PARTICIPATION
James A. Thomas President, ASTM, Inc.
One of the best things about coming to the Academy is the pleasureof being in this magnificent building. It is such a perfect settingfor a symposium on users of standards that relate to design and construction.I should like to thank Mr. Earl Kennett for the invitation to speakon this important subject, and Mr. Henry Borger of the Federal FacilitiesCouncil for organizing the symposium.
“Standards Organizations Want More User Participation” is what I have been asked to speak about today. That's certainly a true statement, because organizations like ASTM needpeople on the buyer/customer/user side of the equation to make ourprocess work. We know that if buyers/customers/users participatein the development of standards and agree with their content, boththey, and sellers/producers/suppliers are much more likely to usethem.
I was in Poland a few weeks ago. I was there to meet my counterpartsfrom the countries of eastern Europe. Like everything else in theseemerging new societies, standards bodies are experiencing tremendouschange. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, standards bodiesin eastern Europe were government agencies. Standards developmentwas a closed affair, and highly regimented. User participation wasnot an issue, and there was no choice about whether to use the standardsor not. There was no choice about whether to use products or not,and of all the powers in the system, the customer, or the user, wasthe weakest, when it existed at all. All that is changing, and itis fascinating to watch the learning process.
In countries where free trade and free enterprise are still new ideas,concepts like voluntary standards, openness, user participation,and consensus are not all that easy to grasp and are sometimes daunting.And yet, people everywhere are drawn to the smallest opportunityto experience power, freedom, and choice. I came home struck withthe thought of how very lucky
we are. I am also struck with the thought of how little we use thepower we have.
Voluntary consensus standards are symbolic of a free society. ASTM,therefore, must be open, fair, impartial, accessible, and a forumfor freedom of expression. It must exist and operate in a way thatpermits its participants to experience the power, freedom, and choicethat belong to citizens of a free society. Standards developmentin an open free society is the epitome of marketplace opportunity.It is a forum where the customer, or the user's, buying power cantake on a whole new perspective and dimension. This forum is whatI want to talk to you about today, for it represents a place of personal,professional and financial empowerment for you, the user.
I have been asked to fill this spot in the program today, in alllikelihood, because people in the building construction industryhave made ASTM the United States' primary source of standards usedby their industry. Let me give you some idea of just how much ofthe work is done in ASTM. Right now, there are more than 30 main ASTM technicalcommittees developing standards related to construction; and theyrange in subject areas from structural steel to plastic piping systems,to environmental acoustics. There are committees that deal with firestandards, with soil and rock, masonry units, and thermal insulation.Others work on standards for resilient floor coverings, gypsum, cement,and plastics. There is a committee on the performance of buildingsthat deals with building elements and components, including meansand methods of fabrication and assembly. There are hundreds of subcommitteesthat cover areas such as lead paint abatement, the mitigation ofradon, the performance of metal roof systems, and environmental buildingperformance; one of the most important areas established a committeeon Environmental Assessment, whose subcommittees address storagetanks, life cycle analysis for building materials, and commercialreal estate transactions.
In the nation's capital, and in a setting like this, it would be a shame not tomention standards that address historic architectural landmarks.Many of you here will know what an HSR is. The Historic StructureReport (the HSR) is a condition survey of a property utilizing historical,pictorial, and physical evidence. A completed report becomes theplanning document for a preservation project. Many federal agenciesuse HSRs, including the National Park Service, the Department ofDefense, and the GSA. ASTM is developing a guide for the preparationand use of HSRs. That is just one of the activities of the ASTM subcommitteeon Building Preservation and Rehabilitation Technology, which isdeveloping standards for the proper treatment of archaic buildingmaterials and systems, as well as standard practices relative topreservation and rehabilitation services. I could go on for the whole time
allotted to me, because the number of subcommittees and subjectscould more than fill up a 25-minute talk. But I won't.
I will tell you, however, that over 1300 ASTM standards are in buildingcodes. We have published a four-volume compilation of them. Thesestandards are referenced by the national model codes such as theBOCA Building Code, the Uniform Building Code, the Southern BuildingCode, and the National Code of Canada, as well as organizations suchas the American Institute of Architects, the Construction SciencesResearch Foundation, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command.
I represent some 37,800 people who develop ASTM standards. I cantell you that they are not shy, retiring people. The producers andusers who develop these standards are opinionated, biased, strong,and persistent. They are in the standards business to get their ownway, and to see to it that their needs are met. They understand whatit means to influence the way things are, and the way things aregoing to be. Standards development gives them the power to do this,and they use it. They do not assume that someone will represent theirinterests; and they are in the game because they know the consequencesof leaving it to someone else. This is one place where users learnthe realities of the marketplace. One of those realities is the valueof their buying power.
For too many owners, design professionals, architects, contractors,property managers, and other users, standards represent little morethan “reference material.” That is a legitimate function of standards, for sure, onethat makes the construction process more efficient. As referencesin a contract or a building code, they convey information, save time,and, within the context of a contract or code, they have the effectof law. But owners, design professionals, architects, property managers,and other users too often do not take advantage of the opportunityto affect the content of this “reference material.” Our experience in standards developmenthas taught us that people who use standards do not fully understandthe opportunity, or the power they possess to affect the contentof the standards they use or the standards that are imposed on themin contracts and codes.
Consider, for example, the building codes, whose basic purposes areto insure public safety, health, and welfare. Consider how much moreuseful they could be to an architect, or the owner of a building,for example, if they also addressed issues like quality levels formaterials, or workmanship. Some building code standards may indeedspecify quality levels for materials, but not workmanship. Or, theymay specify workmanship, but not quality levels for materials. Orthey may specify neither. How much time would specifications likethat save if they appeared in building codes? How much money forthe owner of a building? These are true aspects of the marketplacethat can be influenced in no place else but in the development of standards.
And suppose the standards encompassed all the applications of a product,instead of just some? Who buys that product, anyway? And who knowsbetter how many uses that product may possess? And who will say thisif the user of the product is absent? Standards will specify whatthe participants want them to specify, no more, and no less. Whatparticipation does is, it ensures the opportunity to address needs,and to make sure that what is efficient is also meaningful and relevant.To quote Mr. Roscoe Reeves, an architect, a member of this afternoon's panel, and an active participant in several ASTM committees, “Architects design buildings to comply not only with building codesbut also with the functional and aesthetic requirements set by theirclients. . . (Mr. Reeves said this in an article he wrote for ASTM's magazine, SN, November, 1992.) He also cited needed requirements in buildingcodes such as standards that incorporate “appropriate levels of qualitywith respect to durability, maintainability, appearance, strength,and other performance attributes. . .” Too few architects, designers,owners, and other users are taking advantage of the opportunity toincorporate these kinds of aspects into the standards they use, orhave to use. They fail to see participation in the development ofstandards as an expression of their own marketplace power.
Some of us who work for standards organizations also know that peopledon't participate because of common misconceptions about standardization.One of those misconceptions is that standardization is somehow anathemato creativity. This is a misconception that acts as a barrier toparticipation. An architect or a designer, for example, can makesure, by interaction with manufacturers and engineers, that the technicalaspects of a material or a product's performance make it availablefor more creative applications. They can also protect and insurecreativity by making sure the aspects that are best left to individualinnovation and invention are notaddressed in a standard.
Users at the standards table are also in the unique position to communicatewith manufacturers, to convey likes, dislikes, experiences, and needs.Many products and materials used in construction in this countrytoday are the best in the world—high in quality and performance,durable, attractive, and functional. But they are not always testedfor new applications, and all known functional parameters may notbe accounted for, or even known to the manufacturer. The manufacturercannot, and will not, meet unspecified needs of users. A floor jointsystem, for example, may be expertly specified to provide for thermalexpansion, but the building owner and the code inspector may alsoexpect it to be fire resistant. Many users assume that a standardaccounts for all requirements, and in fact, it may not. In otherwords, by not participating in the development of standards, usersmay be buying things they don't want, or can't use, or that don't do what they want them to do. We
wouldn't think of paying for anything this way in a store, yet that is exactlywhat happens when we leave specified requirements to others. We buyit in the marketplace, or we must comply with it because it is requiredby law—whether it works for us or not.
You have a real stake in the content of a standard, as much of astake as any producer. People who develop standards are sometimes,quite properly, referred to as a “stakeholders.” Let's take a look at some of the stakes.The Department of Commerce reported that in Fiscal Year 1993, FederalGovernment construction spending was estimated to total about $54.1billion. For the 12 months of 1993, the Census Bureau's preliminaryestimate for the value of new construction put in place in the U.S.was $470.3 billion. In 1992, the North American construction market(that is, Canada, Mexico, and the United States) was valued at $533billion.
The Mexican construction market has grown faster than our own, andin 1991 and 1992, imports of building materials, hardware, and fixturesjumped dramatically. The U.S. construction industry, encouraged bythe NAFTA, is filling those import needs now, and ASTM has initiatedcontracts with Mexican experts to encourage their participation inits technical work in the areas of steel and plastics. Our ties withCanada have been strong for some time. This is just the beginningof an era of North American harmonization and increased trade withinthe hemisphere.
A surprisingly large number of construction products are exported.Just a few are glass, coatings, finishes, fasteners, structural steel,wood and wood composites, and most electrical, mechanical, plumbing,and conveying equipment. Manufacturers of building materials andsupplies are looking at a construction recovery in the United Statesand increased exports around the world. And because of this, producersand manufacturers are never, ever absent from the standards table.The stakes are high, and they know—and are willing to promote—their own interests. $533 billionis a substantial figure. Think for a moment about who pays for thecosts of construction. You do, or your clients do, or if these productsand practices are used in government construction, we all do. Oneof the primary functions of the user in the standards process isto hold down costs. If you are not there, the incentive to do thatis also not there. You cannot count on the manufacturer to hold downthe costs for you. The costs of participating are minimal. The costof not participating is high. I don't know if anyone has placed areal figure on the enormous buying power of the government. It mustbe staggering. And yet, how many government users, government buyers,are weighing in with that power?
I have talked a lot about professional power, about the power ofthe buyer in the marketplace; and that is central to your interestsin standards development. But there is another reason for participationin standards
development; and that one is compelling, and personal. In 1990, aGallup survey told us that our participants considered contact withfellow professionals to be the most important benefit of their ASTMmembership. They found that working on a standards committee exposedthem to advances in technology, the latest products, properties,applications, and practices, and the rare opportunity to establishprofessional relationships with other experts in their field. Theyfound that the technical committee had become an “information superhighway,” and a continuing educational process. Some told us about a new trustthat had been established between themselves and others—manufacturerswith customers, architects with contractors, regulators with regulated.People in building construction told us that these relationshipshad extended into the “field,” and had eased and facilitated projects righton site. Associations made in the technical committee had paid off.Standards development activities are ready-made, on-going, professionaldevelopment courses, and great networks.
My time is about up, and as a final thought, I want to return tothe concept of power. Power, that heavy drug, is well understoodin this city especially; but it interests all of us. Some peoplehave too much, some have too little, some have none at all, somehave a lot, but can never get enough. The power I want to talk aboutis power that is granted but not used.
Unlike almost everywhere else, power in the development of consensusstandards is evenly and equally distributed, and no one is allowedto use power to dominate. Some people make more use of their powerthan others. Some don't use it at all. Let me give you an example.In ASTM, the smallest group in the scheme of subcommittee and maincommittee groups is the task force. It is the group that does thegroundwork, the group that most often establishes the basic foundationfor the formulation of the standard. Even under ASTM's strict rulesof consensus management, that is one group where a balance of interestsdoes not have to be present. It is made up of the people most interested,most involved, most willing to do the work, and most determined toinfluence the standard. It should not surprise you that more oftenthan not, a task group is made up of producers, and only producers.
These are the people who understand the marketplace better than anyoneelse. They understand how to use it, and how to influence it. Whatthe user doesn't understand fully, is how important he is to theseproducers. He is, in fact, their most important concern, becauseit is he who pays for everything. When he talks, they listen. Because, for the smartest producer,the customer is—still—always right. There are too many sad examples inour history of those who forgot this simple promise. And there werepeople in the world who were willing to remind us. Just ask the producersof automobiles.
You, the customer, can be the driving force behind change to anyproduct, or any process. You can bring new ideas and applicationsto old
ways of doing things. You can exercise your buying power in a wayyou never thought possible. It is an extraordinary power; and withthat power, in a consensus process, one person, with an idea, andwith a credible technical defense of that idea, can change the courseof any standard. And the standards process will stop while that oneidea is brought forth for debate. In our free society, one person,with one idea, can make that happen. I have seen it done more thanonce. This is what I thought of while I was in Poland. In a worldwhere that kind of freedom and power is so hard fought for and won,and in a country where it is yours for the taking, I honestly don't see how you can leave it to somebody else.
Thank you very much.
