Standards Coordination Office - ETSI · business/engineering systems and decisions (in evaluations,...
Transcript of Standards Coordination Office - ETSI · business/engineering systems and decisions (in evaluations,...
Standards Coordination Office
Perspective from the U it d St t :United States:
Engagement With g gIndustry
ICES 2013
U.S. Standardization System
Public-private partnership: Industry-led and government-supported Competitive: Market drivenCompetitive: Market drivenFlexibility: Sector-based, responsive to industry needsChallenging mindset: Open, transparent, consensus process
This system . . .Supports a broad range of stakeholder engagementAddresses emerging priorities and new innovationsAllows stakeholders to find the solutions that best fitAllows stakeholders to find the solutions that best fit their respective needs
As defined in the United States Standards Strategywww.us-standards-strategy.org
2
Standardization Promotes Technology AdoptionStandards Promote Economic Growth doptionp
InventionInvention InnovationInnovation Economic Economic InventionInvention InnovationInnovation GrowthGrowth
Standardization
Standardization promotes technology adoption
3
p gy p
ASME Survey of US ME Department Headsepa t e t eads
• 40% of US university ME department heads yfeel that existing curricula is weak in coverage of codes & standards and needs strengthening
• 50% of US ME practitioners & engineering50% of US ME practitioners & engineering managers indicate that entry-level engineers’knowledge of codes & standards needs
44o edge o codes & sta da ds eeds
strengthening
Another Survey on Standards
2010 survey 40 000 P d d~40,000 Purdue grads
Colleges of Engineering, T h l B iTechnology, Business & Science
Self identified‘managers’
Grouped into 9 industry segments
55
Need for Fundamental Knowledge of St d d b S t P titiStandards by Segment Practitioners
66
Would Education About Standards Help P St d t f M CPrepare Students for My Company
77
Strategic Standards Management as a N l t d C titi U d i iNeglected Competitive Underpinning:
Summary of 2013 Workshops
8
Guiding Rationale for Workshops
Objective: Upgrade the depth and breadth of recognition and coverage of the growingUpgrade the depth and breadth of recognition and coverage of the growing importance of standards and the potential value from participation in standards development in US firms and educational institutions (particularly business and engineering programs)g g p g )
Approach:• 2 regional workshops (Midwest, West Coast) bringing together a stimulating, deliberately broad mix of participants from industry and academia including some standards experts but most with little or no prior standards exposure;
• Present standards in critical planning and operational decision contexts with• Present standards in critical planning and operational decision contexts with challenges in target emerging system domains set out by senior managers. (Workshop 1 gave equal attention to smart grid, smart manufacturing, cloud computing and related supply chain Workshop 2 focused on smart manufacturing)computing and related supply chain. Workshop 2 focused on smart manufacturing)
• Emphasize discussion stimulated by exercises, and intent to evolve ongoing industry-university community
9
Major Industry Participants (in addition to SMEs)
10
Universities represented Workshop 1 Workshop 2Carnegie Melon Aims Community College
Elmh rst College Caltech (economics)Elmhurst College Caltech (economics)
Georgetown Caltech (JPL)
Harvard Northwestern
Illinois Institute of Technology (Stuart) Oregon State
Illinois Institute of Technology( i i )
Purdue(engineering)Michigan State San Jose State
Monroe County Community College UCLA (Anderson)y y g ( )
Northwestern (Kellogg) UCLA (Digital Research and Education)
Northwestern (McCormick) UCLA (multiple engineering disciplines)
Purdue University of San Diego
University of Illinois University of Southern California
Zh ji U i it Zh ji U i it
11
Zhejiang University Zhejiang University
Workshop 1 (Northwestern University March 4, 2013) A d2013) Agenda summary
45 participants 26 academic, 17 industry, 2 government
1. After welcome overview, began with brief expert presentations characterizing contextual domainscharacterizing contextual domains
2. Industry view of importance of standards3. Industry perspectives on educational gaps related to standards4 NIST t ti t d i l b l t d d4. NIST presentation on trends in global standards5. Eye-opening talk by Donggeun Choi (KSA) on standards education
initiatives in other countries6. Introduction to importance of participation in standards
development and associated strategic challenges and skill/ experience/positioning requirementsp p g q
7. Discussion of “where from here” and guidance for 2nd workshop
12
Workshop 2 (UCLA, June 4-5, 2013) summary
Based on workshop 1 and close collaboration with the SMLC industry group, Day1 f d
46 participants 27 academic, 17 industry, 2 government
focused on:
• an industry clinic on smart manufacturing in which managers from a range of perspectives presented broad challenges with reaction from a panel of experts offering a standards view and active discussion from all workshop participants (including faculty).
With a bridge of a standards negotiation exercise developed by Northwestern UniversityWith a bridge of a standards negotiation exercise developed by Northwestern University (with NIST support), Day 2 shifted to a focus on academic in situational and pedagogical challenges (with continued active industry participation):
• discussion stimulating talks on the potential of JPL modeling to shed light on gaps and• discussion stimulating talks on the potential of JPL modeling to shed light on gaps and impact for standards, and sample course modules and exercises
• topic focused guided discussions on course contexts and variations, potential “homes” for standards contentcourse contexts and variations, potential homes for standards contentcommunity/network development stepsguidance for vehicles to publish related to standards research and practice
13
Key Insights (1)
Confirmed importance of presenting standards in context of p p gbusiness/engineering systems and decisions (in evaluations, particularly for 2nd workshop, 53% of respondents cited target domains as what attracted them to attend compared to 20% pointing to standardsas what attracted them to attend compared to 20% pointing to standards focus)
Also evident value of actively involving industry as well as facultyAlso evident – value of actively involving industry as well as faculty (highest rated workshop aspect, ahead of pedagogical discussion)
E i k t b i i t btl i d i diExercises key to bringing out subtle issues and engaging audience, particularly faculty (2nd highest rated aspect and singled out by several respondents for positive comment)
14
Key Insights (2)
Discussion also brought out:g
Challenges of emerging technologies and increasingly complex and interrelated systems with multiple legacies and convergence of domains withinterrelated systems with multiple legacies and convergence of domains with their own cultures and standards (such as manufacturing and IT), and the impact on timing, process and content of standards development
Potential value of applying corporate planning tools such as modeling, roadmapping and scenario planning to/with standards considerations to i f t d d d l t d b tt i t t ith t t i l iinform standards development and better integrate with strategic planning
15
Key Insights (3)
Specific potential areas for research ideally engaging both industry and f lt ( l d b i d) i l difaculty (some already being pursued) including:
•pros and cons of voluntary versus proprietary standards in impact on market value and risk; •identifying, balancing levels of allegiance and obligation in standards negotiators from individual to corporate to national affiliations in varying stages of technology maturity, cultural orientations, and with different g gy ylevels of knowledge; •how standards negotiations vary from negotiation cases typically used in business schoolsbusiness schools
Recognition that the US approach to standards development and standards education inherently varies from that in other countries (instandards education inherently varies from that in other countries (in industry, moving from vertical to horizontal standards;
and in education, stressing modules in a range of courses/disciplines (versus full courses) which might allow broader exposure but are
16
(versus full courses) – which might allow broader exposure but are harder to identify and categorize
Key Insights (4)Recommendations for future activity:
N d f h l d i tNeed for help and programming to • develop skills and experience in faculty and managers (and support soft skills development in students)• gain buy-in from CEOs and deans
Need for more in-depth simulations with embedded contexts bringing out standards beginning with broader organizational and planning issuesout standards beginning with broader organizational and planning issues
Need for promotion to main stream publications; new refereed publishing vehicles that can support/stimulate younger faculty researchpublishing vehicles that can support/stimulate younger faculty research and publishing as well as input from industry and provide value and access to both faculty and companies.
There was debate over pros and cons of a standards specific medium versus regular standards content in a broader focused journal to draw in
d h t i di t l i th l d
17
readers who may not immediately recognize the relevance and significance of standards
ANSI Communications and Continuing Education Committee Task Force on Young ProfessionalsCommittee Task Force on Young Professionals
• Joint Effort between U.S. National Committee (USNC) to IEC and ANSI Committee on Education
• Committee kicked off Fall 2012
• Task force consists of mix of industry and educators
18
Terms of ReferenceTerms of Reference
• ANSI is committed to offering a Young Professionals Program
• Task Force was appointed in early 2013 to develop recommendations for a comprehensive suite of activitiesrecommendations for a comprehensive suite of activities
• Target audience
– Students at the college/university
– Young Professionals: persons in the standards and– Young Professionals: persons in the standards and conformity assessment work force under five years
19
Specific ActionsSpecific Actions
The task force is considering a proposed action plan looking at 1 year-3 year-5 year deliverable. Items being examined:
• InternshipsInternships
• Mentoring
• Funding streams
• National events• National events
• Competitions
20
Other InitiativesOther Initiatives
University initiated
ANSI and NIST initiated
SDO d f i l i t i iti t dSDO and professional society initiated
21
Lest we forget …est g
The international language of commercelanguage of commerce is standards ….is standards ….
Donald L. Evans, U.S. Secretary of Commerce, 2004
2222
Thank You
Erik Puskar
Standards Coordination Office, NIST
++1-301-975-8619++1 301 975 8619
http://gsi.nist.gov
www.standards.gov
23