Why I.t. Standards Fail

"It is one thing to enact legislation, quite another toalternative, with maybe some government prodding to
enforce it."move things along.
- Bryce's LawBut my biggest concern in terms of standards is their
Not long ago Shane "Locutus" Shields wrote anenforcement. I think we are now at a point in the I.T.
interesting blog entitled, "What is the use ofindustry where we must admit standards are useless
standards?" whereby he expressed his disillusionmentwithout some form of automation to substantiate
with standards in the Information Technology (I.T.) field.adherence to them. Over the years I have seen
His discontent is not without precedence. Most of usnumerous attempts at standardization in the I.T. field
have at one time or another yearned for standards inand those that are simply enforced by human
our work effort, only to be thwarted by the grimjudgment, such as through a bureaucratic processes,
realities of an industry that doesn't like to embraceinevitably dies a slow death. Without some form of
standards. We all admit standards are a good ideaautomation to validate conformity to standards, the
and we should all be heading in that direction,human being will find a way to avoid complying with
someday... but that day never seems to comethem. Sad, but true.
because there are forces at play deliberately resistingOne of the benefits of growing older is that your
such efforts.hindsight becomes clearer. Although I have seen
First, the primary reason for standards is to seeknumerous attempts at standardization in the I.T. field, it
some sort of conformity in our work effort. Suchis hard to find any true standards as vendors have all
uniformity simplifies product development, maintenance,put their own unique spin on it. For example, COBOL
usability, and, God forbid, the interchangabiity ofwas intended to be the first universal programming
component parts. Standards materially improveslanguage but this never happened as hardware
communications between people and saves time,manufacturers implemented their own nuances in their
simply because everyone has accepted and adaptedcompilers, thereby creating multiple interpretations of
to the standard, thereby causing them to communicateCOBOL. Perhaps the only true standard I've come
on a common level (aka, "on the same page"). Imagineacross in this industry was ASCII text which was
where the entertainment industry would be today ifinvented by Robert W. Beamer.
there were no standards in musical composition.Back in 1970 my father first called for industry-wide
People would have to reinvent the expression ofstandards for the development of systems. This was
music with each new song. But because we took thedone at the annual convention of the old Data
time to develop standards, musical composition can beProcessing Management Association (DPMA; now the
read and written by anyone on the planet. This alsoAssociation of Information Technology Professionals -
means standards can be taught and applied on aAITP). At the time, DPMA was a powerhouse in terms
universal basis.of size and resources and could have easily
Standards also provides a means to measure workundertaken such an effort but, unfortunately, balked at
effort, which is one reason why some people objectdoing so, as has numerous other industry associations.
to them. Instead of performing in a uniform mannerOne recent attempt has been the "Business Analysis
that can be compared and contrasted to others, someBody of Knowledge" (BABOK) by the International
I.T. people prefer nonconformity to cloak their workInstitute of Business Analysis (IIBA), which is an
effort in secrecy, thereby clouding comparisons. Theinteresting set of tips and techniques, but is certainly no
excuse from such people is that they do not want tomeans a body of standards. For example, there is no
be "encumbered" or "stifled" by standards. In reality,defined conceptual foundation or glossary of terms
they are just trying to protect their job.defining such fundamental concepts as "system,"
Without standards, cooperation and communications"business process," "procedure," "software,"
between parties breaks down. From this we can"information," "data," etc. These are all taken for
deduce that standards is an inherent part ofgranted and it assumes everyone has the same
teamwork. Instead of the chaos involved in ainterpretation (which they most certainly do not).
heterogeneous environment (where everyone isAlthough it is well meaning, it misses the mark. Without
allowed to "do their own thing"), standards offers thea conceptual foundation, the techniques embodied in
tranquility of a homogeneous environment wherethe document, are like trying to build an atomic bomb
people are all "rowing on the same oar" in a concertedwithout first knowing E = MC2.
manner. From this perspective, it could easily beCONCLUSION
argued that standards promotes productivity in theStandardization offers the benefits of uniformity,
workplace. This means standards require an intuitivepredictability, interchangeability, and harmony. If this is
manager who understands the value of teamworknot of interest to you, than there is little point in trying to
and uniformity in work effort. Unfortunately, mostparticipate in a standards program. But if you do wish
managers today still prefer "rugged individualism"to participate, understand there is more to implementing
instead, representing the antithesis of teamwork.standards than to just say "that's just how it is going to
Another problem facing standards is the reality thatbe done." There has to be some sound rationale for
whoever dominates market share becomes the detheir governance. In addition, you must address the
facto standard and jealously defends it from intruders.enforcement issue. Standards will be adhered to by
We have seen this on more than one occasion in thethe degree of discipline instilled in the staff; If well
I.T. field and frankly there is little we can be do about it.disciplined, your chances for success are good, but if
We could turn to government agencies to act asdiscipline is lax, automation is required to assure
arbitrators, but they have not proven to be anstandards are being followed.
effective vehicle for the establishment of standards, atIf you would like to discuss this with me in more depth,
least in the I.T. field. Instead, a coalition of industryplease do not hesitate to send me an e-mail .
related companies would perhaps be a better