Standardisation education

The importance of standardisation is growing. This might be reflected in a growth of standardisation education. In this paper we will elaborate on education in the field of standardisation

Brexit – the way out. A business perspective

No matter how the Brexit process continues, it will become a disaster for companies both in the UK and in the EU because the British are likely to disappear from the Single Market without proper alternatives being prepared in good time. This is because of the lack of coherence on the British side, but also because of rigidity on the EU side. Leaving the issue to politicians and legal experts could lead to an outcome that is detrimental to business and society on both sides of the Channel. I will attempt to show there is a way out, by taking a business perspective

Welke normen heb ik nodig voor mijn product of dienst?

Inleidend: Toepassing van normen is soms verplicht of bijna verplicht, omdat de wet dat voorschrijft of omdat de klant het eist. Maar het kan ook een eigen keuze van het bedrijf zijn om normen te gebruiken, bijvoorbeeld om kosten te besparen of de klanten beter te bedienen. Normen kunnen bepalen of een product of dienst flopt of een mega-succes wordt (klik hier voor voorbeelden). Normen kunnen een stuurmiddel voor een bedrijf zijn om nieuwe markten te veroveren en betere bedrijfsresultaten te krijgen. Klik hier voor voordelen van normalisatie voor producenten en afnemers. Het belang van normen en normalisatie neemt steeds verder toe. Wil je weten, hoe dat komt, klik dan hier. Normen uitzoeken is lastig, omdat er zo veel zijn. Het gevaar is dat je door de bomen het bos niet meer ziet. Hieronder vind je een systematische benadering om normen voor producten en diensten uit te zoeken. We gaan er van uit dat er al een globaal ontwerp van het product of de dienst is...

Best Practice In Company Standardisation

Though the majority of standards are company standards, scientific standardisation literature pays hardly any attention to them. In this paper we describe results from a research project on company standardisation (Oly & Slob, 1999). The researchers investigated six chemical and petrochemical industries in the Netherlands: Akzo Nobel, Dow Chemical, DSM, Gasunie, NAM and Shell. These companies have numerous standards for their installations. Best practice for developing such standards was developed by examining the companies and using insights from relevant literature. This paper describes the scientific approach used and some of the best practice results

Language Selection Policies in International Standardization – Perception of the IEC Member Countries

International standards setting organizations have different language selection policies. These policies have, besides their financial aspects, also an important cultural/ political dimension. The standards setting organizations are either bilingual (English/ French), or unilingual (English), or multilingual (English, French and further languages). We have investigated the references of the 65 national members of the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The main findings are a moderate preference for the use of both English and French for the technical work, and a strong preference for the use of English only for communication.. The obvious dominance of the English language is seen as a necessity, rather than an indication of a hypothetical Anglo-American linguistic/ cultural imperialism. Finally, some conclusions regarding language selection policies in international standards setting organizations are presented

The Dutch Banking Chipcard Game

The banks in the Dutch chipcard market initially agreed on one chipcard system. One system is attractive for companies as well as consumers. Companies, banks and retailers, prevent costs of duplication, while consumers enjoy the benefits of a widespread acceptance of one card and do not face uncertainty regarding the chipcard standard. Two standards could harm the development of the chipcard market. However, one bank withdrew from the initial agreement and introduced its own chipcard system in December 1995. This has resulted in a costly battle between the two banking chipcard standards, duplication costs for retailers, the introduction of a gateway technology in order to establish compatibility for users, and low market acceptance of the chipcards. March 2001, after a struggle of more than five years, the banks decided to return to one chipcard. The rationality of the decision to withdraw, despite the prospect that everybody may be worse off, will be analyzed from the perspective of game theory and the theory regarding standards battles

EU heeft toekomst als gedeelde belangen voorop staan

Er is alle reden om door te gaan met samenwerken in Europa, maar meer decentraal en op vrijwillige basis. De vraag hoe de lidstaten elkaar kunnen aanvullen en dienen, moet daarbij leidend zijn

Standardisation Management

Standards are essential for the success of products and services in the market, and for the well-functioning of processes and organisations. Trends such as globalisation, integration of ICT and electrotechnology in almost every sector, and the increased attention for sustainability, have made standards even more important. Unfortunately, little research is available to provide a better understanding of this phenomenon. In my inaugural lecture I first give an overview of the research I have conducted on the processes of standardisation. I discuss standards development, dissemination, market acceptance, implementation and use, and impact of standards and standardisation on business and society. In future research, my research agenda will focus on three levels of standardisation management: (1) within companies, (2) in complex projects involving many stakeholders, and (3) at local, national, regional and global level. I illustrate the societal relevance of my research with some examples about animals

Governance of electrotechnical standardisation in Europe

__Abstract__ This report provides recommendations about the governance of electrotechnical standardisation in Europe to seven independent National Committees: DKE (Germany), Electrosuisse (Switzerland), OVE (Austria), NEC (the Netherlands), NEK (Norway), SEK (Sweden), and SESKO (Finland). It answers the following questions: 1. How can formal standardisation be organised so that it enables industry to have optimal impact with minimal effort, without compromising reasonable participation and influence by other stakeholder groups? 2. Does CENELEC have any added value as a separate European standardisation organisation next to CEN and ETSI? 3. How can it be ensured that industry defines market relevance of standardisation projects? The researcher first interviewed the general directors of these NCs and listened to their concerns. These concerns were then analysed using some additional interviews, professional and scientific literature, and the researcher’s own experience. Problems as perceived by the seven electrotechnical NCs include: • Concerns whether industry, the main stakeholder in electrotechnical standardisation, can remain in the lead for both technical and for governance issues. • Concerns that current governance directs most of its attention at the European level of standardisation, whereas the international level is far more important for industry. • Concerns about the increasing influence of the European Commission and the decreasing influence of industry. • Concerns about the complex governance structure of CENELEC and its counterpart CEN. • Concerns about further integration of CENELEC and CEN, which brings more ‘political’ (non-technical) and European (non-international) issues to CENELEC agenda, leads to a decrease in the influence of the electrotechnical industry on policy, and results in sub-optimal solutions for the electrotechnical sector. • Dissatisfaction with CEN CENELEC Management Centre that is supportive in regular technical work, but insufficiently supportive in governance-related issues and sometimes putting the wrong emphasis. • Difficulty to align with newer CENELEC members from Central, Eastern and partly Southern Europe which tend to have less involvement of the electrotechnical industry and have a different culture, which leads to differences in input in CENELEC. • Bureaucracy: the huge number of governance-related committees and working groups which leads to vast numbers of meetings and documents and puts a huge administrative burden on NCs. Other interviews, industry position papers , and internal CENELEC documents confirm the relevance of these issues, but one specifically appears to be up for discussion: the wish to focus on the international level. Indeed, this is the natural level for industry, in combination with the national level. The European level is an artificial level for political reasons. But it is a reality. Standards have contributed to the single European market without barriers to trade. Standards are relevant for policy areas as well, such as sustainability and the digital agenda. Because CENELEC prefers to focus on rubberstamping international standards, the European Commission largely determines the European agenda and as a result, industry is no longer in the lead and may feel pressurised to participate in committees they would not have chosen themselves. Meanwhile the agenda of governance-related committees is overwhelmed by European issues, sometimes also related to politics. CENELEC, its sister organisation CEN, and their common secretariat CCMC have responded by creating even more committees, which generate new documents. As a result, the system is bogged down by bureaucracy and is no longer effective. In order to improve the situation, CENELEC, CEN, their members and CCMC have focused on more efficiency, but as will be explained in this report, this makes the situation worse instead of better because it draws attention to internal issues while the external environment requires more effectiveness. An ‘escape’ is needed and two scenarios have been designed. Scenario A is in line with the wishes of the independent NCs: a focus on alignment with IEC. Scenario B advocates a more proactive European role. In both scenarios, the overload of committees and working groups is stopped simply by dismantling most of them. Although they may be important, they hinder more important work. Their work should stop or be (partly) taken over by the secretariat. In Scenario A, the focus shifts further to the international level by aligning European structures and meetings with international ones and by putting the European Commission at a distance. Standardisation requests are no longer honoured, the default answer to these requests is ‘no’. Compared to the current situation, CENELEC becomes leaner, industry can focus on technical standardisation issues, and the administrative workload of NCs is reduced considerably. It requires a more pro-active role of the secretariat. If CCMC is not prepared to play this role, then a move to another secretariat can be considered. However, this scenario more or less ignores European issues, and the default rejection of standardisation requests is not realistic. The focus on IEC leads to less rather than more integration between CENELEC and CEN, which may be beneficial for the electrotechnical industry but not necessarily for CEN and CENELEC members, particularly those members from countries that have a limited electrotechnical industry and thus hardly have any involvement in IEC. In Scenario B, the needs in the European market get more priority. The market for electrotechnical components and products is global, but the market for systems in which these are applied can be global, European, national, or even local. In these systems, electrotechnology is interwoven with ICT, other technologies, and services. In Scenario B, CENELEC takes a forerunner role in developing architectures of standards for such systems. It develops the electrotechnical standards themselves in cooperation with IEC, while leaving the remaining standards to other standards setting bodies, including ETSI and CEN. In this scenario, CENELEC cooperates with the European Commission but in a different way than it currently does – next to it, not under it. The proactive role requires a proactive secretariat that is knowledgeable in the art of systems-related standardisation. CCMC, in its current shape, is not in a position to play this role. Many conveners of committees and standardisation officers at the national level need additional education to enable them to lead and support this more sophisticated form of standardisation. In this scenario, CENELEC remains independent from CEN, 1) because of this sophisticated character, 2) to allow industry to be in the lead, 3) because of its relation to IEC, and 4) to ensure an external focus. However, if CEN moves in a similar direction, more integration between CEN and CENELEC makes sense at a later stage – the historical reasons for having separate organisations disappear due to the integration of technologies and markets. First feedback suggests that most NCs involved in this project are not prepared to play a more active role in Europe and therefore prefer Scenario A. However, because its weaknesses, a third scenario has been developed that starts as an improved version of Scenario A and then moves in the direction of Scenario B. CENELEC’s purpose would be to develop, approve and disseminate trustworthy and sound standards in the field of electrotechnology, relevant for stakeholders in Europe. In this growth scenario, CENELEC would start with a pilot project of system-related standardisation