Standardization in IT - Current Developments and Users' Response

277

Ray W A L K E R

Secretary General, ITUSA, Centre Point, 103 New Oxford Street, London WCIA 1DU, UK

The paper emphasises the importance of standards to users to enable them to communicate change or upgrade hardware and software incrementally and exercise real freedom of choice of supplier.

Whilst the Open Systems Interconnection architecture is a useful development it is argued that it covers only a part of the problem and even there a great deal of further work is needed if the objectives desired by users are to be achieved.

The General Motors MAP and Boeing TOP initiatives indicate the influence which can be exerted by large users but international co-operation among users is essential if the tech- nical commercial and political pressures are to be properly co-ordinated to enable users to achieve the benefits which standardisation could provide.

Keywords: User and Standards, Information Technology Users' Standards Association, Upgrade Hardware and Software Incrementally, Freedom of Choice in Selecting Product or Service, Match Product or Service to Requirements, Standardise on Equipment Worldwide, Conformance Testing, Competition among Suppliers, OSI, Open Systems Interconnec- tion, Proprietary Architectures, Corporation of Open Systems, COS, Integrated Services Digital Networks, ISDN, MAP, TOP, UNIX, X400, Docu- ment Interchange, CAD/CAM, Incompatible Op- tions, Multinational Organisations - additional be- nefits, W6296640.

R.S. Wldkerjoined the Alliance, sub- sequently the Sun Alliance and London Insurance Group in 1945 and worked in a number of capacities in- eluding Manager Computer Planning from 1974-1980 which involved re- sponsibility for systems and program- ruing for a large IBM installation (3031, 3032 and 3033 with about 100 systems and programming staff). He was manager Research and Planning with responsibility for corporate plan- aing until 1984. Now he is a con-

sultant and Secretary General to the Information Technology Users' Standards Association (ITUSA).

Mr. Walker is Chairman of OIS/14, the BSI Committee responsible for data interchange at the application level and representative of ISO at UNECE meetings on Trade Data Interchange.

North-Holland Computer Standards & Interfaces 5 (1986) 277-279

1. Introduction

It could be argued that if proper s tandards were developed a nd implemented and there was confidence that this would always be the case there would be tittle market for conferences such as this. Why should it be necessary to make fundamen ta l and irrevocable decisions? Require-

ments and market condi t ions will change and with them the op t i mum solutions which users will wish

to adopt. Users have a requi rement to communi - cate efficiently at the speed and with the degree of security they require. The communica t ion may be

with each other or between work stations within their own organizat ion.

The design and tooling costs for the product ion of modern electronic equ ipment are such that there are substant ia l benefits of scale therefore even a na t ional user is likely to secure better value

if he can buy products sold on an in te rna t iona l market . The mul t ina t iona l organizat ion clearly be- nefits if it can s tandardize equipment on a worldwide basis. Users are also likely in future to have a greater choice of carrier and supplier bu t they will only be able to exploit the compet i t ion

which should develop if they can easily transfer their business.

Appropr ia te s tandards are therefore essential if users are to exercise their freedom of choice and perhaps even more impor tan t ly to make gradual changes in hardware, software or cartier with

capital inves tment spread over a period of time. The task of moni tor ing s tandards developments

is formidable. There are current ly 280 separate s tandards under development within the In te rna- t ional Standards Organizat ion Technical Commit - tee responsible for In fo rmat ion Processing Sys- tems, TC97, alone. This figure does no t include publ ished standards. In addi t ion there is the work going on in other technical committees, e.g. on computer -a ided design, on the numerical control of machines and the work on te lecommunica t ion protocols unde r t aken by the CCITT.

278 R. Walker / Users' response

2. Evolution of Technical Standards

Incompatibilities in manufactured equipment may arise for a number of reasons.

- Simultaneous but separate research and devel- opment or local developments which result in heavy capital investment. Different views of the relative importance of factors such as cost, reliability, performance. Deliberate attempts to create a unique selling feature. To render it difficult to make an exact compari- son of products and thus avoid competition on price alone. To use an initial sale to make further sales e.g. a razor and blades, a typewriter and cartridge ribbons, and a CPU and peripherals.

- Attempts by governments or F ITs to create protected markets. By deliberately introducing non-standard variations they may seek to pre- vent an international supplier marketing his standard product and thus reduce his benefits of scale of production.

- As an alternative to the non-standard product there is the standard designed to please everyone that contains so many options it is practically valueless for the purposes of achieving compati- bility.

Where there is real freedom of choice standards tend to emerge. A supplier that produces say a typewriter with a non-standard cartridge will be defeated if the typewriter proves to be a top seller. If a market is large enough and particularly if profit margins are high, competitive suppliers of ribbons will enter the market forcing the price of ribbons down until eventually the knowledgeable purchaser will not buy a new typewriter that does not use the standard ribbon cartridges.

3. So Why is There a Problem in IT?

There are two problems peculiar to IT. The first is illustrated by electrical plugs and connec- tors and power supplies. Clearly there would be advantages to users if there was a universal worldwide connector and power supply. Unfor- tunately, the investment in existing systems is such that it would take many years to recover the capital costs of the change.

A similar problem exists in IT but at a user level. The investment in programs and data may increasingly represent an investment far exceeding the cost of hardware. Although hardware may be replaced progressively every 5 years or less the investment in programs and database may lock a user into an existing supplier. It may, in practice, even be necessary to buy work stations from the same source because of the need to match a unique interface.

The second problem which is only too obvious is the requirement to communicate and therefore the need to maintain compatibility at all times with equipment inside and outside organizations.

4. What do Users Require?

Users require products built to standards which will ensure compatibility between different units of hardware and software. Users would also like standards which give some guarantee of perfor- mance and quality which could be used in the procurement process and possibly standard forms of contract.

The ability to verify compliance with standards is also necessary. Most importantly users require products which meet their needs. Standards must not be allowed to block technical progress.

5. Is OSI the Solution?

The open systems interconnection (OSI) archi- tecture, if generally implemented by suppliers, should certainly help considerably but it is not a panacea.

One major problem is the interpretation that is put on the term "system". IBM have stated that they regard OSI as a standard for communication between configurations. Within a configuration, proprietary architectures and software will be ap- plicable. This is not the interpretation which users seek. It may aid data communication but it does little or nothing to allow them the freedom of choice in hardware and software that they are seeking.

The introduction of the new integrated services digital networks (ISDNs) seems an ideal oppor- tunity to provide a standard interface for work stations but how many users are aware that even

R. Walker / Users" response 279

as the International Standard for the plug and socket is in course of agreement some PTTs are indicating that unless their design is used as the International Standard they will go their separate ways. If this attitude is adopted at the level of the plug and socket what hope is there of universal implementation of a standard electronic interface?

The increasing interest in specialist networks presents yet another potential barrier to communi- cation. Whilst a network may facilitate communi- cation between members the development of spe- cialist messages, coding systems, and other mana- gement protocols may well make inter-network communication even more difficult. There is a need to standardize at the application level also.

Is it naive to enquire why, if we have a single public telephone and telex network, data inter- change networks should require subdivision by the business sector of the users?

It is too early as yet to decide to what extent users will embrace OSI. Whilst the concept is attractive, particularly at a " b o x " level most com- mercial users will consider it prudent to await products and watch the experience of others. They will be mindful of the maxim " I f you are doing the same as everyone else you can afford to be wrong but if you do something different you had better be right".

Commercial users will be watching the pioneer- ing of the public sector with interest, grateful that it is prepared to take the risk. It may be that the risks are being taken with private sector money but at least there are not reputations at stake. If the public sector pioneers succeed there is little doubt the private sector will follow.

6. How Can the Users Assist Themselves?

There is really little possibility of any user keeping track of all the standards developments that could affect their interests. Even if a develop- ment of particular concern is identified it is dif- ficult for even the largest user to exert effective pressure on standards making bodies or suppliers. Some form of cooperation is essential.

Users are increasingly recognizing the need for their voice to be heard in the standards making process and equally important, to encourage sup- pliers to implement standards. A number of user bodies are being established, some to cover special areas, others in the interests of national users. The British organization is the Information Technol- ogy Users' Standards Association (ITUSA) which includes among its membership a number of the largest U K companies and Government depart- ments which influence national expenditure on IT hardware, software, and services.

ITUSA seeks to use political and commercial influence in addition to the normal standards- making procedures to achieve its objectives. It establishes cooperative action groups to cover areas of particular interest of its members, e.g. Docu- ment Interchange, C A D / C A M Graphics and ISDN. ITUSA is also in touch with the Network Users ' Association in Nor th America and CIGREF, the equivalent French organization, to ensure that the users' voice is coordinated interna- tionally. Small as well as large organizations are welcome as members of ITUSA but they must be users, not primarily suppliers. Subscriptions are between £250 and £1000 based on turnover.