National Academies Press: OpenBook

User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium (1995)

Chapter: Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions

« Previous: Government Initiatives
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

SUMMARY OF ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Henry Borger
Executive Secretary, Federal Facilities Council

In his opening remarks, the discussion moderator, Stephen Lowell, of the Defense Standardization Program, noted that the developmentof construction standards is driven by manufacturers and producersrather than by the users of standards: architects, engineers, buildingowners, and code officials. While this situation is not unique tothe design and construction industry, it is especially serious forthe industry because of the importance of standards in the designand construction process.

He noted that the morning speakers had identified the primary reasonsfor the lack of user participation in the standards development process;namely, the high cost and considerable amount of time involved inparticipating. He observed that the construction community includesmostly small to mid-sized organizations that cannot afford to sendengineers or architects to standards committee meetings. Some organizations,he said, cannot even afford to pay the membership dues of some standardsassociations or buy the standards that the committees develop. Theproblem, he said, is compounded by the large number of organizationsand committees working on construction standards, many of which seemto be very similar.

Another problem, he said, is that many owners and managers of companiesdo not understand or appreciate the importance of standards. This,he suggested, is partly because most schools do not teach engineersand architects about standards. Consequently, engineers and architectsoften are unable to explain to their managers the importance of participatingin the development of standards.

He noted that managers must be convinced of the benefits of standardsactivities before they will let employees attend meetings and participatein the standards development process. He suggested that standardsdeveloping organizations are partly to blame for the lack of userparticipation in the standards development process because they havenot made the effort to educate the industry about the importanceof standards.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

Finally, he suggested that the length of time it takes to get a standardpublished also can inhibit participation.

Mr. Lowell then introduced the members of the panel that would discussways of improving user participation:

  • Ford Chinworth, Senior Program Manager, Criteria and Standards, Naval FacilitiesEngineering Command;

  • Donald N. MacKay, Manager of International Standards, Air-Conditioning and RefrigerationInstitute;

  • William Miner, Chief, Engineering Support Branch, U.S. Department of State;

  • Roscoe Reeves, Technical Director, Professional Systems Division, American Instituteof Architects;

  • Charles A. Shrive, Specifications Consultant; and

  • Robert B. Toth, President, R.B. Toth Associates.

He explained that he wanted the panel to try to develop a shoppinglist of action items for the Federal Facilities Council and the othersponsoring organizations. He said that the discussion would addressfour issues and that the audience would be given an opportunity tocomment on each issue.

ISSUE 1: GETTING MANAGEMENT INVOLVED

Mr. Lowell asked the panel members to suggest steps that might be taken toincrease the awareness of government and industry leaders of theimportance of standards and to induce senior managers to let theirpeople work on standards committees.

Robert Toth observed that senior management usually gets involved in a topicwhen it affects the bottom line; when it is in their self interest,and particularly when it is in their monetary self interest. He saidmanagers of electric utility companies got interested in standardsafter he showed them that they were spending $11 billion a year onproducts and materials just for the operation of utilities (not capitalinvestment or new construction), and that about 77 percent of theseproducts were being purchased in accordance with standards, mostof which had been written without their input. He suggested thatthis information was persuasive because managers in major corporationsget concerned when things that affect their markets or profits takeplace outside of their control.

A major impediment to more user participation, he said, is the factthat the U.S. tandardization system is fractionated; there are toomany standards and too many organizations for users to deal with. He suggested

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

that it would help if top managers in user organizations had an opportunityto participate in planning and managing the standardization activitiesthat affect their operations. He said that we need to do away withthe current “bottom's up” planning approach.

Charles Shrive said that design firms—like other users—seldom participate in standards committees for the same reasons discussedby previous speakers. He endorsed the statement of James Thomas (thepresident of the ASTM) that the cost of participation is low comparedto the cost of not participating. The problem, he said, is that whilethe cost of standards work is easy to calculate, the benefits arehard to quantify. So even if the cost of participating is relativelylow, managers tend to turn down requests to participate because theycannot see the benefits.

Ford Chinworth said that the best way to sell standards participation in a governmentagency is to identify the benefits, but it is difficult to do. Hesaid that he tries to emphasize to his upper management that theagency has an interest in standards because the agency uses them,and that it should pay its fair share of the cost of developing standards.However, he said that he has had limited success using this argument,and he guessed that the argument would be even less successful ina private organization.

What is needed, he said, is an effort to educate upper managementin user organizations of the importance of standards and of the factthat it is in their self interest to help develop standards. Standards,he noted are going to be developed whether users participate or not,but if users do not participate, the standards may not reflect theneeds of users.

Roscoe Reeves observed that the AIA is overwhelmed at the idea of participatingin the development of standards because of the large numbers of standardsthat affect architectural design. The AIA, he said, is put off bythe size of the task and does not recognize the disadvantages ofnot being involved. The solution, he suggested, is to convince theAIA that it need not address every standard; instead, it can pickcertain standards that are critical and concentrate on them. He suggestedthat it would also help if AIA had some standards or tests for judgingthe quality of standards in terms of their usefulness as referencesin building codes or specifications. Finally, he suggested that amethod be developed (possibly by NIBS) to coordinate the participationof different professional organizations and government agencies instandards development work, so that everyone has common goals andworks together. This, he said, would help ensure users an effectivevoice in standards committees even if every user representative isunable to attend every meeting.

Robert Toth suggested that another coordinating group is not needed. He notedthat for 50 years ANSI has had the Construction Standards Board,

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

the purpose of which is to encourage organizations to cooperate andavoid duplication and overlap in the development of standards.

Donald MacKay agreed with Mr. Toth. He said that a coordinating mechanism alreadyis in place in ANSI; the problem is that it is not being used.

William Miner said that many users are unable to participate in standards workin the traditional manner; namely, by attending committee meetingsand responding to drafts. He suggested that standards organizationsneed to find more creative ways for people to participate, such asthrough electronic networks and surveys. He said that the goal shouldbe to get feedback from users, and that any method that providesfeedback should be considered participation.

In response to a question, Mr. Miner said that OMB Circular A-119has been enormously effective and helpful in his agency (the Departmentof State) in promoting reliance on the private sector. He suggestedthat the presence of a large number of federal employees at thissymposium is an indication of support among agency managers and professionalsfor the idea of relying on private standards.

Finally, he said that the most effective mechanism for ensuring theparticipation of government personnel in standards work is the performanceevaluation system. If participation is made an evaluation item fora government professional, you can be sure he or she will make aneffort to participate.

To conclude the discussion of Issue 1, Mr. Lowell asked each panel member to recommend one action that would serveto elevate the importance of standards in the eyes of senior management,both in industry and government.

Mr. Shirve recommended that standards organizations try to calculate a dollarreturn on the value of participation in standards activities, andthen work to make users aware of the value.

Mr. Toth recommended that standards-writing organizations provide top managementin the user organizations that participate in standards committeesan opportunity to help develop strategic plans for standards activities,possibly by creating a special “advisory council” that would serve as an outside boardof directors to the standards organizations.

Mr. Reeves recommended that standards organizations give special recognitionto design professionals who play an active role in standards committees;the recognition should be in a form that enhances the professional's value to his client; e.g., by emphasizing the expertise of theperson and his or her contributions to building technology.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

Mr. Chinworth recommended that standards organizations develop an educationalprogram on standards for universities and professional societies,possibly modeled after the road show concept that the Standards andSpecifications Action Team proposed to the Department of Defense.

Mr. MacKay suggested that the U.S. government, in cooperation with such majorindustry associations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, develop anddistribute a policy statement on the importance of standards to theinternational competitiveness of the United States. The statementmight be modeled after the white paper issued about ten years agoby the British government entitled, “Quality, Standards and InternationalCompetitiveness,” which set forth a British standardization policythat helped promote quality awareness in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Miner recommended that the proceedings of this meeting be distributedto a large number of standards users with a questionnaire that asks:What do you think about construction standards? Are there too many?What might be done to improve them? The results would be passed onto standards organizations for use in developing a strategic planto correct any serious shortcomings revealed by the survey.

In response to a question from the audience, Mr. Chinworth said that he had heard few complaints about the amount of time neededto develop standards.

In response to another question, Mr. Toth agreed that there are too many standards developing organizationsand too many standards for some products. He noted, for example,that there are 14 organizations that write standards for air conditioninglouvers, and that some of the organizations produce “lowest commondenominator” standards. He also commented that no more than threeof the 14 louver standards he mentioned had been processed throughANSI, and that the scopes of the overlapping standards might notbe exactly the same—though to a layman the differences might notbe self evident from the titles. Mr Toth also noted, that in theUnited States there are about 270 private organizations and 75 governmentagencies actively writing standards, which currently number about100,000 (45,000 in the private sector and 55,000 in the governmentsector), and about 12,000 of these are for construction. Undoubtedly,he said, there is a lot of overlap and obsolete technology in thesestandards.

Mr. MacKay noted that his organization (ARI) tries to minimize duplicationby coordinating its standards activities with the other major standardsorganization in the air conditioning and refrigeration field: theAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers.He said that ARI also uses the ANSI process in an effort to further minimize

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

the possibility of duplication. He added that to his knowledge noARI standards duplicate the standards of another organizations.

In response to a question from the moderator, Mr. Reeves said that his organization (the AIA) does not try to influence whatstandards are developed or the scopes of standards; however, he suggestedthat it might be better if they did so. To illustrate this he toldabout a concrete unit masonry standard that had created many problemsfor architects because some of the provisions of the standard conflictedwith some of the provisions in other standard documents used by architects.

Mr. Shrieve commented that CSI generally just reacts to drafts it receives fromvarious standards organizations. However, he said that on at leastone occasion CSI took a proactive role when it served as the secretariatfor the development of an ASTM standard on Uniformat.

Mr. Miner, responding to another question from the moderator, said that hedid not think it would be desirable for federal agencies to try todevelop a single set of construction guide specifications. He suggestedthat agencies would be better off referring to private sector standards.

Mr. Chinworth disagreed. It was his opinion that it would be possible for federalagencies to develop a common guide specification system, especiallynow that computers make it easy to incorporate agency-unique provisionsin a specification. He noted that his organization (NAVFAC) and theCorps of Engineers already are working a common guide specificationsystem and that other agencies also are involved. He suggested thatit might even be desirable to develop a single national guide specificationsystem.

ISSUE 2: IMPROVING THE STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

To begin the discussion of Issue 2, Mr. Lowell asked each panelist to name the single greatest problem in the standardsdevelopment process and to recommend a solution to that problem.

Mr. Miner suggested that a standards governing body, a focal point, is neededto certify standards, minimize duplication, and serve as a clearing-housethat everyone could go to for information.

Mr. MacKay, after emphasizing that he was speaking for himself and not hisassociation, suggested that, for international competitiveness reasons,the federal government should assume a major role in standards certificationand accreditation. It was his opinion that industry and standardsorganizations would benefit if the government played a substantiverole in standards activities, but he stressed that it should be asupportive role, not a governing role.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

Mr. Chinworth suggested that what is needed is some sort of information systemfrom which data on construction standards could be obtained. He saidthat the data stored for each standard might include the title, dateof issue (or projected date of publication for a standard under development),scope, and point of contact for submitting comments or getting informationabout the standard. He said that the system would differ from theNational Standards System Network (NSSN) described by Greg Saundersin the morning session in that it would be specifically for constructionstandards and would include data on published standards as well asstandards under development. He added that the data might be storedin digital form, possibly on a computer network. Finally, he suggestedthat the system be developed and operated by an organization likeNIBS or CSI or AIA with ties to the design and construction industry.

Mr. Reeves endorsed Mr. Chinworth's suggestion. He also commented that duplication of coverage is oneof the most serious problems in the standards-development system.He saw no benefit in having multiple standards on the same topic.Another problem, he said, is the excessive amount of time that sometimeselapses between the start of work on a standard and publication.

Mr. Toth said that one problem with the current system is that ANSI's coordination actions are reactive; they check for possible duplicationafter a standard has been developed. He suggested that what is neededis more strategic planning by ANSI and more user involvement in theANSI boards.

He also disputed the assertion that committees must include bothusers and vendors in order to produce good standards. He said thatmany good standards have been developed by imbalanced committeescomposed of all vendors or all users. What is important, he said,is that the development system be “open.”

Finally, he suggested that standards organizations investigate howthe Internet system works effectively without an elaborate governingbody. He urged them specifically to find out how an Internet “virtualcommittee,” composed of hundreds of experts from a variety of bigand small organizations, has managed to create the protocols andstandards that run the Internet without a real chairman, and withoutever getting together in a room, and without printing anything.

Mr. Shrive suggested that both CSI and NIBS have a role to play in coordinatingconstruction standards and should work together.

He also commented that the difficulty government agencies sometimesexperienced when they try to get a private organization to assumeresponsibility for the development of a particular standard mightbe an indication that the standard is not needed.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

Finally, he suggested that the best way to overcome the resistanceof users to participating in standards work is merely to work harderto let people know how the system works.

In response to a suggestion from the audience that professional societiesshould pay the expenses of one or two of their members to participatein important standards committees, Mr. Reeves said that he had tried to get that message across in his organization,but that he had been unsuccessful to date. Mr. Shrive disagreed with the idea of societies and associations paying fortheir members to participate in standards work for two reasons: Firstbecause of concern that some society members might resent havingtheir dues money used for the personal benefit of another member;and second because of doubt that it would be effective. He said thatit has been his experience that societies tend to pick representativesto other organizations for political reasons and thus frequentlyselect people with little interest in the subject. He thought itwould be far better for associations to educate their members andencourage them to participate as individuals.

ISSUE 3: STANDARDS EDUCATION

Mr. Lowell began the discussion of Issue 3 by asking the panel members to describestandards-related training programs and educational efforts thatare available from their organizations and elsewhere.

Mr. Reeves reported that the only thing the AIA currently is doing to educatepeople about standards is to include information in each AIA guidespecification on the scopes of the standards that are referencedin the specification. However, he conceded that, all too frequently,the people who see this information are specification writers whoalready know about standards and that designers who could benefitfrom the information do not see it.

He noted that whereas his undergraduate architectural education hadincluded a one-semester course in specifications and related subjects,such courses are now rare. He suggested that the place to start correctingthe problem of designers not understanding standards is with theeducational institutions and specifically the curriculum.

Mr. Miner agreed with Mr. Reeves observations. He said that the curriculafor both architects and engineers are deficient in their coverageof such things as standards. However, he noted that it is not a subjectthat generates much interest, as indicated by low attendance at thissymposium; consequently, he said, the problem will be difficult tosolve. He suggested

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

that the place to start is with the accrediting bodies for the professionalschools.

Mr. Toth noted that similar observations and recommendations had been madeat a 1988 conference sponsored by ANSI, the Standards EngineeringSociety, and the American Society for Engineering Education. He saidthat the conference participants had recommended that engineeringsocieties become more involved in the accreditation process and workto have the accreditation board for engineering schools modify thecriteria for evaluating engineering schools. He added that one society,the IEEE, had in fact started to implement the recommendations, andthat IEEE representatives would soon meet with the deans of severalengineering schools to discuss accreditation criteria. However, headvised not to expect schools to develop courses on standards perse because there is no room in the curriculum; instead, schools probablywill try to integrate standards and standardization practices intoother courses. He reported that there is also an effort under wayto have engineering licensing boards include a section on codes andstandards in the PE examination.

Mr. Chinworth reported that NAVFAC had included material on the use of standardsin a course being developed for writers of NAVFAC construction specifications.The objective, he said, is to ensure that both inhouse NAVFAC staffand A-Es working for NAVFAC have at least a general understandingof the reference standards system. He suggested that the conceptof the course might be used in universities classes or be made availableon an interactive video for home study by professionals. He speculatedthat professional societies might market the video as a continuingeducation course. He noted that he had already talked to CSI aboutthe idea.

Mr. MacKay reported that ARI does not conduct any educational programs on standards.However, he noted that ARI publishes information on standards forair conditioning and refrigeration products in its monthly newsletter,which is made available to users of equipment sold by ARI members.Included in the newsletter is information on new standards beingdeveloped and upcoming standards meetings.

Mr. Lowell concluded the discussion of issue 3 by asking the panel to identifythe most important problem and/or the action needed most in the standardstraining area.

Mr. Chinworth said that the biggest need was for more continuing education instandards, possibly combining courses at professional society conventions,a road show conducted by one of the standards bodies, and an interactivevideo course like the one he had discussed previously.

Mr. Reeves endorsed Mr. Chinworth's views on continuing education. He noted that some standards organizationsalready have symposia and training courses for which continuing educationcredits are offered.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

Mr. Toth agreed that more standards-related continuing education is needed.However, he said that the subject also needs more emphasis in schools.He suggested that it is especially important to educate top managementabout standards. In this regard he noted that the World StandardsDay Committee, which has been in existence for about five years,has been trying to educate Congress about the role of standards inthe federal sector through receptions with displays on Capitol Hill.This year, he said, a major effort is being made to inform the CEOsof large private corporations about standards.

Mr. Shrive expressed support for the idea of private, professional associationstaking the lead in continuing education without relying on the government.He also endorsed the idea of combining standards training with technicaltraining, because, he said, the two subjects are not separable. Hesuggested that combining the two subjects also might help deal withthe problem of some architects and engineers using standards withoutlearning the underlying technology.

Mr. Miner indicated agreement with the suggestions of the other panelists—especially the suggestion that schools need to do a better job ofteaching about standards. He also proposed that more meetings likethis symposium be held, but he recommended that in the future moreeducators be invited.

Mr. MacKay said that educating engineers and architects about standards isnot enough; it is also necessary to educate financial managers aboutstandards because of the impact of standards on the economics ofthe country. He recommended that standards organizations work toput standards on the agendas of such organizations as the U.S. Chamberof Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the BusinessRoundtable to help give business leaders an appreciation of how standardsaffect their enterprises.

ISSUE 4: IMPROVING ACCESSIBILITY TO STANDARDS

Mr. Lowell introduced the last issue, improving accessibility to standards,by noting that many standards users have complained about the highcost of buying all of the standards that affect them, even when thestandards are available in non-paper form. He noted that the NSSNdescribed earlier by Greg Saunders might help, but he suggested thatmore needs to be done, and he asked the panelists for their ideas.

Mr. Miner said that the standards writing organizations need to realize thatthe procurement of standards is in competition with the procurementof a lot of other things, including other reference materials thatare essential to a professional's work. He said that he is not concernedabout the large

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

number of organizations publishing standards but that he is concernedthat the organizations do not seem to have a common goal. He predictedthat some of the standards organizations would disappear over timeas a result of competition in the standards marketplace.

Finally, he expressed dismay that some standards organizations seenmore interested in selling publications than providing useful informationthat promotes life safety and user satisfaction.

Mr. Shrive applauded the efforts of ASTM to reduce the cost of some standardsby publishing them in packages, like the building standards package.He said it would also be helpful if standards organizations couldoffer standards in an electronic form that would permit a user tobuy only those documents that applied to his application.

Mr. Toth endorsed Mr. Shrive's suggestion. He said that with modern information technology itis already possible to do what Mr. Shrive proposed. He said thatthere are ways for standards organizations to determine when a subscriberreviews a standard and how many pages are printed out and to chargeaccordingly. He added that an electronic delivery system might precludethe need to put standards in a library.

Mr. Reeves reported that he had recently read of an information system witha little black box that does what Mr. Toth described. He said thatsuch a system would be ideal for specification writers because itwould give them access to the standards they need without havingto purchase standards they do not need. It would be like pay-per-viewTV.

Mr. Chinworth said that there is a need for some method of quickly and easilydetermining what standards are available and what standards are underdevelopment. He recommended that CSI establish a subcommittee underits technical committee to keep track of all existing and draft standards.The subcommittee would serve as a clearinghouse to ensure that someonefrom the professional community oversees each standard and representsthe industry on the committee that is responsible for the standard.

Mr. Shrive noted that CSI already has a “Sources of Information” committee that maintains a list of the names and addresses of theorganizations that publish construction industry documents. However,he said that the committee does not maintain a list of the specificdocuments published by those organizations nor does it try to coordinateindustry participation in standards work.

Mr. MacKay endorsed Mr. Chinworth's suggestion. However, he suggested that standards organizationscould help in the development of a tracking process by includingkey words on the title pages of their standards, stating the scopesof their standards succinctly and explicitly, and providing clearabstracts of their standards.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×

Mr. Miner said that the electronic distribution approach would be ideal forthe majority of State Department work, which is out of the country,because it is very difficult to keep their 200-plus sites overseassupplied with up-to-date standards. However, he noted that therewould continue to be a need for paper copies of standards since itsometimes takes five years to complete a project and the standardsreferenced during the design phase might no longer be in effect bythe time the project is under construction.

PANEL DISCUSSION WRAP-UP

After the symposium the Moderator, Stephen Lowell prepared the following summary of his impressions.

Major Conclusions:

  • The costs to attend meetings, pay membership fees, and buy standardsare barriers to user participation.

  • Users do not know how to participate.

  • Top level management in industry and government does not appreciatethe value of standards and participation in standards development.

  • There is a need to show a return on investment for standards participation.

  • Producers tend to dominate standards committees—there is a need for more user participation.

  • The standards development process takes too long.

  • There are too many similar standards and standards developing organizations.

  • The standards development process needs to be re-engineered—there needs to be a paradigm shift.

  • There is a need for top level management involvement in the strategicplanning of standards development.

  • There needs to be easier, less costly, access to standards.

  • There needs to be more standards education in the universities andcontinuing education for professionals.

Possible Actions by the Sponsoring Organizations:

  • Publicize the value of standards and of user participation in the development process.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
  • Conduct “road shows” at top level management industry association meetings, industryconventions, and technical meetings.

  • Issue a joint government/industry policy statement on the importanceof standards.

  • Work with standards developing organizations to get user feedbackthrough questionnaires.

  • Develop case studies to show the return on investment from participationin standards work.

  • Jointly develop 5-year strategic standards plan with to level managersfrom industry and government.

  • Establish a single oversight secretariat to act as a clearinghousefor a single set of national construction standards.

  • Re-engineer the standards development process to shorten the developmenttime, give users more clout, and make standards anticipatory ratherthan reactive.

  • Work with engineering school accrediting bodies to try to includestandards education as part of the engineering curriculum.

  • Work with engineering licensing boards to include a section on codesand standards in the PE exam.

  • Ask standards developing organizations to offer standards trainingin conjunction with major committee meetings.

  • Develop a process to identify what construction standards are availableor under revision or development.

  • Ensure NIBS is representing the construction community standardsneeds in National Standards Systems Network effort.

  • Ensure that construction standards include information needed tofacilitate automated searches (key words, abstracts, and scopes).

  • Hold another symposium next year and report accomplishments, progress,or failure to implement the recommendations. (Whatever the outcome,these recommendations should be viewed as the building blocks forfuture FFC efforts and better construction standards.)

Bottom Line:

  • Standards development is too important to be left to the “standardizers.”

  • Standards development is not a spectator sport; users must be involved.

Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Summary of Round-Table Discussions of Possible Solutions." National Research Council. 1995. User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9200.
×
Page 37
Next: Summation »
User Participation in the Development of Standards: Summary of a Symposium Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!