<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In Act 2, Scene 2 of Romeo and Juliet, Juliet ponders \u201cWhat\u2019s in a name?\u2026That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet,\u201d suggesting that names do not define but are merely labels used to distinguish one thing from another. For most words, arguably this would be true, with one notable exception\u2014standards. If Ms. Capulet had pondered instead, \u201cIs that which we call a standard, by any other name, still a standard?\u201d the answer would be a resounding, \u201cNo!\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Unlike Juliet\u2019s rose, which cannot lose its fragrance if identified as a hyacinth, standards do<\/strong> lose potency when not recognized for their true nature. The term does define<\/strong> them, because across industry sectors, mutually agreed upon standards follow strict procedures for writing and development\u2014including extensive innovation, research, and testing phases\u2014often taking years to move from conception to publication. They\u2019re not just \u201cdocuments\u201d or \u201cpublications.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n For a rule or regulation to bear the label \u201cstandard,\u201d two unique and significant qualifications must be present:\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n The standards consensus process is what gives the standard its unique qualities. The process provides the sponsoring authority the means to weave, measure, and cut each standard as it addresses a specific need\u2014alleviating confusion, offering continuity, and in general, benefiting our lives in numerous ways across multiple fields and industries. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Today, as each wave of technology innovation moves society forward, calls to change this traditionally complex development cycle have emerged to speed up access to standards content or make it available in new ways. These calls for innovation are viewed by some as placing the value and relevance of standards in jeopardy. Some manufacturing and engineering leaders want to integrate and\/or aggregate standards data and content into proprietary end products, potentially placing the standard\u2019s distinguishing elements\u2014authority and consensus<\/strong>\u2014at risk and threatening to dilute their value. How should SDOs heed calls for changes to developing their digital rose\u2014the standard document type\u2014while allowing it to remain unique, identifiable, and valuable? <\/p>\n\n\n\n Prior to the 2008 economic recession, many SDOs operated as self-sufficient, industry-specific publishers within change- and\/or risk-averse environments, often with self-contained, restrictive, and rigid infrastructures that utilized inefficient or outdated production and print-based distribution models. Competition between SDOs within the same or similar industries often outweighed the perceived value of engaging in collaboration. Today, championed by international, independent, governmental, and non-governmental standards bodies, SDOs are collectively realizing new strategies to promote the sharing of knowledge, improve development timelines, support innovation, and provide solutions for ever-evolving global markets and economies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Through the advent of new digital distribution market streams, a much-needed impetus for evolution and transformation has emerged. SDOs across all industries have experienced considerable growth with the establishment, adoption, and adherence of universal protocols for production and distribution. International support for the development of structured methodologies for maximizing PDF format, XML tagging (NISO-STS), identification markers (ISBN, ISSN, DOI), digital and eBook delivery, and numerous \u201csmart\u201d standards initiatives have led to essentially a \u201cstandardization of standards,\u201d and placed the standards development industry at the forefront of an incredible technological opportunity, a position they cannot afford to fall back from. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As SDOs begin retooling operations, every change that maximizes delivery speed and optimizes output must also preserve the intrinsic elements that elevate standards above and beyond \u201cbest practices.\u201d To achieve this involves preserving SDOs\u2019 recognized authority and the voluntary, cooperative, collaborative consensus approval processes that are crucial for sustained relevance. Bearing equal weight in consideration is the importance of protecting content integrity when published and when the content arrives on the user\u2019s screen; addressing each helps the SDO ensure the safety, security, interoperability, compatibility, efficiency, scalability, and reliability of the content. Throughout the workflow, SDOs are focused on protecting the distinctions inherent to the standards format that define its value\u2014 and making the rose smell sweet. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As users call for greater accessibility to smart standards data and content to capitalize on global market opportunities, SDOs are carefully considering where to draw the line between ensuring greater use of standards and maintaining the SDO\u2019s own institutional integrity. How much transformation can SDOs support without relinquishing authority and consensus? How can they navigate this evolution while protecting their legacy and reputation? How can they support new use cases without cannibalizing existing revenue? How can they maintain control of standards data and content when aggregated into emerging customer systems and new workflows? <\/p>\n\n\n\n For those SDOs who respond successfully, I see no reason, should fair Juliet ask, \u201cDoes a digital rose still smell so sweet?\u201d why the answer would be anything less than \u201cYes!\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n In my next post, I\u2019ll explore answers to the questions raised above and share more perspectives on changes in the standards industry and opportunities ahead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Dan Plofchan ist der urspr\u00fcngliche Autor dieses Beitrags, der im Blog \u201eVelocity of Content\u201c auf copyright.com erschienen ist.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Branchen\u00fcbergreifend folgen einvernehmlich vereinbarte Standards strengen Verfahren in der Forschung und Entwicklung \u2013 einschlie\u00dflich umfassender Innovations-, Forschungs- und Testphasen \u2013, …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":242,"featured_media":41279,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"internal_tag":[],"topic":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-41278","blog_post","type-blog_post","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n