Innovation and Legislation: Standardization in ... - The Bolin Group

Strengthening the System
Challenges obviously abound in the standardization system, but so do the benefits. As Richard Soley,
executive director of Object Management Group, stated, “The first 17,000 years of standards went
well and then something went wrong in the 1980s.” So, what did go wrong and what can we do to
fix it? To begin to answer this question—and it is only the beginning—it is helpful to take a closer
look at a standards failure and a standards success.
Mike Smith of ISO opened the panel by asking “When is a standard not a standard?” The answer?
“When it is not used.” Jack Sheldon illustrated the validity of this concept by sharing a story about
the attempt to develop a global standard for plug and sockets. The process spanned 60 years and did
indeed result in a few standards. Unfortunately, they were so complex and so much of a compromise
that vendors never implemented them. What went wrong? Political and commercial interests
intervened so that consensus was difficult to reach, protectionism came into play, experts pretended
there were technical issues when in fact the real issues were political and commercial, they failed to
understand the implications of globalization and device portability, and above all the participants
forgot to take a long term view. These same problems exist in the standards development process
today. The process is too complex, involves too many people or the wrong people, and takes too
long to develop, according to Sheldon.
But standardization is not without its triumphant successes. Rosenbrock brought to attention the
GSM standard, which is now successfully adopted and implemented in 170 countries, used by at least
400 network operators and one billion customers, and specified by more than 2800 ETSI
deliverables. The key to its success can be found in a strong commitment by all interested parties, a
good standardization process, the fact that frequency bands were made available early on,
cooperation with other regions, and the possibility of strong competition. Used strategically,
Rosenbrock views standards as a means to future proof technology. In the case of GSM, he believes
that standardization contributed to GSM’s success because it is load sharing and thus cost sharing,
creates a critical mass, brings economy of scale, and fights against technical barriers to trade, among
others.
What needs to be done for the future of standardization? Kamlani recommends three things, the first
two on the US front. First, he recommends that we stop looking at government-industry
collaboration as a bad thing in the US. Second, we need a national standards policy that gets the
Innovation and Legislation: Standardization in Conflict
—Page 25—