With standards, do we get what we deserve? - Software Infrastructure for Business Value

« Our thoughts on Microsoft and Novell | Main | Another SOA podcast with a touch of open source »

November 07, 2006
With standards, do we get what we deserve?

I've been meaning to blog on this story from the Register for ages, but it got lost somewhere deep in my pile of "blog on these things" messages to myself...

It's no secret that IT industry standards bodies are hotbeds of jockeying and jostling - especially as vendors get ever smarter about ways to use standardisation processes to both make themselves more "open", and keep ahead of the competition at the same time (for an example, see JEE - many of the "enhancements" suggested over the years by the big middleware platform vendors have been engineered to make the resulting standards pretty difficult for small vendors to get certified against. Also, it's no secret that many a proposing vendor will seek to push a standard based on something they've already developed, so giving them a head-start in having a "compliant implementation").

So anything that organisations which buy IT can do to get involved with standardisation processes has to be a Good Thing - helps to keep the vendors honest, and with any luck helps to make sure that new standards actually standardise things that are actually useful. Traditionally some of the big telcos and financial institutions - the companies with the longest and most complicated histories in terms of IT use, in other words - have put time and budget aside to participate. But overall, standardisation efforts are 99% driven by vendors.

Why? Are standards somehow operating outside other market dynamics, which should be driven by what people actually want and need?

Perhaps now, in this time of open source communities, commons and participation, it's time for "users" (what a horrible word) to think about moving beyond contributing code to open implementations, to contributing ideas to open standards?

The Liberty Alliance appears to a case in point: it has involved big IT users since the outset who've kept the vendors honest - and it is one of the few standards bodies that is driven by use cases.

What do you think?

Posted by neilwarddutton in |Digg This|Add to del.icio.us

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ebizq.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/926

Comments

Neil, I think it all boils down to "have put time and budget aside to participate". Sitting on a standards body is a time consuming activity, with little immediate return. The typical "technology customer" organization can't spare the talent and/or the membership fees. Instead, they push their requirements through key (influencial) vendors. While this isn't optimal, it's the best answer for the current model. So, I'm thinking the real question is how can the models of current standards bodies change to accomodate the "technology customer"? Perhaps a requirements round? Real-World Applicability Review Gates? Free Membership and a Vote? And shouldn't the vendors speaking out for customer involvement work to influence that change? -brenda

Posted by: brenda michelson at November 7, 2006 06:38 PM | Permalink

For people to get involved in standards activity, there is the problem of finding the time and the people to participate. Real involvement means a continuous contribution over months and maybe years.

What is needed for the majority of end-user organizations is something intermediate between full involvement and no involvement. End-users need to be able to follow the evolving specifications and contribute comments, use cases and experiences which can help shape the specifications to better meet the needs of the market. What is needed is a process for end-users to do this in a simple and timely fashion.

As an example, the Open SOA collaboration, which is currently working on the Service Component Architecture and Service Data Objects specifications offers the "OSOA Supporters Group" as this form of intermediate involvement.

Yours, Mike.

Posted by: Mike Edwards at November 9, 2006 04:17 AM | Permalink