National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?

« Previous: Introductory Remarks
Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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.
×

KEYNOTE: HOW IMPORTANT ARE STANDARDS, AND IS IT IN OUR INTEREST TOFOSTER THEM?

Rear Admiral Donald G. Iselin, CEC, USN (Ret)
Chairman, Federal FacilitiesCouncil

Standards play a distinctive role in the design and constructionindustry. They are in constant use throughout the entire design andconstruction process. They are the unsung guidelines of our profession.Who in this room would consider writing a construction specificationfrom scratch, and not be permitted to refer to standards? If we didn't have standards, we would have to invent them.

Most of us have grown up with acronyms such as ASTM, NEC, NFPA, ACI,AISC, ANSI, and the three nationally recognized model building codes,the National Building Code, the Standard-or Southern-Building Code,and the Uniform Building Code. How did these standards and codescome to be? Almost all have the unique feature that they are developedthrough a voluntary, consensus building process, mostly by privateprofessionals in their respective fields. The standards are not laidon from above; they are built up and maintained at the grass rootslevel. In this day and age of ever-increasing government regulation,it's refreshing that our standards and national model codes representguidelines of the profession, developed by the professionals, for the profession. Abraham Lincoln would have been proud of the process,and would have endorsed it. As an aside, many of you may know thatit was Lincoln who chartered the National Academy of Sciences, in1864, just the year after his famous Gettysburg address—”of the people,by the people, and for the people.”

So standards are important. Coming closer to home, the federal governmenthas recognized both the importance of the voluntary standards andthe opportunity that the federal agencies have to make more use ofthem. The Office of Management and Budget, in OMB Circular A-119,calls upon the federal agencies to adopt and use the voluntary standards,in the interest of economy and efficiency. Interestingly, and particularlyso in view of the subject of today's symposium, A-119 is entitled“Federal Participation in the

Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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.
×

Development and Use of Voluntary Standards.” Specifically, the circular states, in part:

Many such standards, appropriate or adaptable for the Government's purposes, are available from private voluntary standards bodies.Government participation in the standards-related activities of thesevoluntary bodies provides incentives and opportunities to establishstandards that serve national needs, and the adoption of voluntarystandards, whenever practicable and appropriate, eliminates the costto the Government of developing its own standards.

It is the policy of the Federal Government in its procurement andregulatory activities to:

  1. Rely on voluntary standards, both domestic and international, wheneverfeasible and consistent with law and regulation pursuant to law;and

  2. Participate in voluntary standards bodies when such participationis in the public interest and is compatible with agencies' missions,authorities, priorities, and budget resources.

That OMB Circular A-119 was signed in 1982. The immediate reactionof most agencies was the standard bureaucratic response, “How dowe get exempted from this?” And that's about what happened. Nobody paid muchattention to A-119. It represented change, and bureaucracy doesn't like change. However, a few agencies gave it some thought, andsome even started to participate on the committees of the voluntarystandards organizations. At least one agency reviewed its designcriteria and removed essentially all the provisions that were coveredin the national model codes and the industry consensus standards;it also directed its A/Es to use the industry standards and to selectand use the national model code that the A/E considered most appropriatefor the particular project to be designed. However, most agencieswere comfortable with their own criteria, and with the increase inthe volume of federal design and building during the 1980s, A-119had low priority.

In late 1988, Congress jumped into the act, and passed Public Law100-678, which included a major section entitled “Compliance withNationally Recognized Codes.” The key provision reads:

Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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.
×

“Each building constructed or altered by…[a] Federal agency shall be constructed or altered, to the maximumextent feasible...in compliance with one of the nationally recognizedmodel building codes and with other applicable nationally recognizedcodes. Such other codes shall include, but not be limited to, electricalcodes, fire and safety codes, and plumbing codes…”

There has been some constructive response by some of the federalagencies. In fact, most agencies were already using the NationalElectric Code and the National Fire protection code, and severalothers, but in general they were not enthralled with the time andcost of modifying their own criteria so that they could specify theuse of one or more of the national model building codes. There wasthe further complication that, among the three model codes, thereare some substantive differences in content, in format, and in geographicapplication. For example, the Uniform Building code has its widestapplication in the western states, where seismic provisions are emphasized;the Standard Building Code is used mostly in the southeastern states,where windy conditions are emphasized, and the National BuildingCode is used mostly in the northeast and midwest.

Thus, agencies that have projects in different parts of the country,and overseas, were faced with the task of dealing with three somewhatdifferent baselines, in modifying and reducing their own buildingcriteria. How nice it would be if the three model codes were somehowthemselves codified into an underlying basic and truly national code,possibly with three optional supplements, each recognizing regionaldifferences. On that subject, there is an organization that servesas an umbrella for model code organizations. It is the Council ofAmerican Building Officials (CABO), which acts as a forum for identifyingand sometimes resolving certain differences among model codes. Butno bold step has been taken toward unification of the three codes,or the use of a common format, or even the use of agreed languagefor provisions that the three codes agree upon in substance. Andunfortunately, a direct point-by-point comparison of the three modelcodes is difficult, even with today's computers.

The obvious challenge here is two-fold, and parallel: First, finda way to achieve basic code uniformity among the “big three” national modelcode organizations; and secondly, find an interim way to modify agencycriteria to adopt and specify one of these nationally recognizedmodel building codes as the baseline of agency criteria. Some effortand cost will be required to do the criteria cutback, but many inthis audience have solved seemingly cumbersome problems before, andmaybe some enlightened attention to this challenge will yield a simpleryet effective way to get there.

Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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.
×

I have been using the term “criteria” without defining it, or comparing it to the codes. Let me take astab at it. First of all, when I use the word “criteria,” I'm talking about designcriteria, used to enable the designer to come up with a set of plansand specs that will produce a facility that does what the owner oragency has in mind. That's the object of the game. Most federal agenciesand many major private firms have assembled and formalized theirbuilding design criteria into design guideline documents or manuals.For example, NAVFAC has a 5-foot bookshelf of Design Manuals, thefamiliar “DM's.” Such agency or owner design criteria frequently includemany items not covered by codes and may include requirements thatexceed the levels adopted in building codes. Several of the agenciescomprising the Federal Facilities Council have estimated that 70-80percent of all their design criteria are either not covered by codesor they knowingly exceed the codes. For example, the military havecertain facilities such as weapons storage magazines and specialtraining facilities whose criteria have been developed over decadesof experience, and which are well beyond the coverage of the modelcodes and other standards. The Department of Energy's criteria forits many nuclear facilities lie well beyond the coverage of the regularstandards and model codes. On the other hand, most of the facilitiesthat these agencies build, such as administration buildings, bachelorand family housing, dining halls, etc. could very well use one ofthe model building codes and the related other standards as the backboneof their design requirements. IBM and Intel have clean room criteriarequirements that are found nowhere else, but these companies alsobuild administrative and storage facilities that can and are welldesigned using local codes. The point here is that the owner's criteriacould cover only those features and special requirements that exceedthe codes and standards.

For a long time, many agencies have used these special requirementsfor certain of their facilities as a crutch to retain their own criteriato cover requirements for all their facilities. However, a numberof agencies are currently moving at various speeds to see if theycan't find a way to make more use of the model codes, and therebyreduce the volume of their own singularly prepared and maintainedcriteria. I applaud this step, and would urge one more step—thatthe agencies become much more active in participating as membersof the standards setting committees. Certainly Circular A-119 givesthe green light, and also gives a strong thrust in the directionof active participation in the development of the voluntary standards,particularly the national model codes as first priority. As I lookat the title of today's symposium, and the subjects to be coveredby the other speakers and the afternoon panel, I see a real opportunityfor the federal agencies to do with codes and design criteria whatthey are doing in the shift to metrication. What is needed firstis a decision by the agencies, individually but in collaboration,

Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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.
×

to adopt the national codes and standards as the backbone and baselineof their design criteria. Then the hard work begins of strippingfrom the existing criteria everything that is adequately coveredby the adopted codes and standards. Concomitant with this decision,is the adoption of a policy that authorizes and encourages meaningfulparticipation in influencing the content and coverage of the severalcodes and standards that are adopted by reference in the agency's design criteria.

How can this be done in this time of severe cutbacks in dollars andin senior personnel in many of the agencies? By knowing (1) thatin the long run and not too long—there will be a significant savingsin maintaining and using much smaller design criteria, guidelines,and manuals, and (2) by coordinating among agencies in appointingonly a single person to participate in each particular code or standardssetting committee, and then channeling input from any agency to thatappropriate federal representative on the committee. This lattercollaboration can be done effectively, and with much less overallcost to any one agency, and still build up a significant federalinput to the codes and standards that are of importance to the agencies.

In summary:

  • Standards and codes are essential to the functioning of the designand construction industry.

  • There is great value in keeping the standards and codes as private,voluntary, consensus-built documents.

  • There is high potential for significant gain in the usefulness ofthe various standards and codes, through participation by and directinput from representatives of the federal agencies involved in designand construction.

  • There needs to be more participation by federal personnel on thecommittees and with the organizations that develop and maintain thestandards and codes.

  • There should be a concerted effort among the agencies for each toadopt the use of a nationally recognized model building code foreach project, and the construction-related standards, as the baselineof the agency's design criteria; this includes a good and meaningfulscrub of the existing criteria documents to keep only those criteriathat are not included in the codes and standards, or where the agency's requirements must be higher or more stringent than the appropriatecodes and standards provide.

Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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.
×
  • There should be special effort throughout the design and constructioncommunity to cause more genuine uniformity among the major nationallyrecognized model building codes.

  • There is plenty of authority and direction in Public Law 100-678to carry out the adoption of the codes and standards as a criteriabaseline, and to do the scrub of the existing design criteria.

  • There is plenty of authority and urging in OMB Circular A-119 tohave federal employees fully participate in the various committeesand organizations that develop and maintain the several standardsand codes.

Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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 3
Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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 4
Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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 5
Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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 6
Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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 7
Suggested Citation:"Keynote: How Important are Standards and Is it in our Best Interests to Foster Them?." 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 8
Next: Standards Organization Want More User Participation »
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!