Standardisation---opportunity or constraint? (panel session)

Queue, 2004

Advances in Human Resources Management and Organizational Development, 2019

It has been observed that standards (and implicitly, standardization) are a hallmark of an industrialized society, since standards provide the necessary interconnections to make things interoperate. As the world tends increasingly towards a “global economy,” just-in-time supply chains, and massive interdependencies, standards and standardization forms the infrastructure of these agreements. And yet, standardization is not well understood. This chapter explores standardization.

Formal standardization communities are searching for ways to improve their approach. Process improvement is often the primary focus for this discussion. This paper explores the possibilities to put more emphasis on the technical affordances of standards. A case study is presented of a proposal to reform European standardization practice. Technical quality issues are now put forward as important metrics. However, the technical quality criteria are still vague and more research is needed to come up with the dimensions for a quality discourse on technical aspects of standardisation.

If universal principles of conservation are to be discussed effectively a common understanding of standards should be established. This paper offers a vocabulary of standards and introduces a method to describe them. The paper reviews the development of standards identifying the relationship between the origin of a standard and its resultant approach. It uses pairs of keywords to describe distinctive features of standards and uses five word pairs to examine and compare national standards in the UK and China. The process of understanding standards and describing them precisely enhances efficiency through improved communication.

2013

On 29 August 2012, the leaders of the IEEE Standards Association, the IAB, the IETF, the Internet Society, and the W3C signed a statement affirming the importance of a jointly developed set of principles establishing a modern paradigm for global, open standards. These principles have become known as the "OpenStand" principles. This document contains the text of the affirmation that was signed. Status of This Memo This document is not an Internet Standards Track specification; it is published for informational purposes. This document is a product of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and represents information that the IAB has deemed valuable to provide for permanent record. It represents the consensus of the Internet Architecture Board (IAB). Documents approved for publication by the IAB are not a candidate for any level of Internet Standard; see Section 2 of RFC 5741. Information about the current status of this document, any errata, and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6852. Housley, et al.

0. Objectius The epistemological status of (comparative) standardology and standardisation: an introduction The epistemological status of (comparative) standardology and standardisation according to Gelpí & Costa-Carreras’s (2007) model 2.1. Kaplan’s (2002) and Grabe’s (2002) reflections on the epistemological status of AL 2.2. The epistemological status of (comparative) standardology and standardisation following Gelpí & Costa-Carreras’s (2007) model 2.2.1. What is the object of (comparative) standardology and standardisation? 2.2.2. What does CS/standardisation research for? 2.2.2.1. Objectives 2.2.2.2. Products, outputs or services 2.2.3. At whom or what is (comparative) standardology and standardisation directed? 2.2.3.1. Users 2.2.3.2. Professional behaviour 2.2.4. How do (comparative) standardology and standardisation investigate? 2.2.4.1. Mediation between theory and application 2.2.4.2. Metalanguage 2.2.4.3. Evaluation 2.2.4.4. Working methodologies and methods 2.2.4.5. Multidisciplinarity 2.2.4.6. Criteria relevant to comparative standardology 2.2.4.7. Practical perspectives of (comparative) standardology and standardisation 3. Concluding remarks

Computer Standards & Interfaces, 1991

The Data Base Systems Study Group of Accredited Standards Committee X3 has initiated efforts that will lead to an eventual international standard in object-oriented data base systems. This work will require the coordination of current X3 committees H2 Data Languages and H4 Information Resource Management Dictionary within X3 as well as coordination with other standards development committees outside X3 but included in the ANSI interface with ISO through the JTC1 TAG.

International journal of standardization research, 2018

2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS'07), 2007

This paper provides a list of factors that influence the outcome of standard battles. We have developed this list by performing a meta-analysis of 103 papers. An extensive literature study has revealed 31 factors which we have grouped under five categories: superior design, mechanisms, stakeholders, dominant agent, and strategy. We discuss the relations between the factors and we have applied the set of factors to an example of a standardization battle: the video case.