Source for ISA standard

V
After following closely such controversial shootout on ISA's ability to generate standards, and spent & trying to recover money while doing it, from my personal status as a member, I decided to do what Walt kept saying is our privilege to do.

I asked to ISA's staff to supply some explanations on what ( and how ) is it going on, and provide some figures to help understand the answers.

This is what they came up with as an answer to my questions, so let me share it with you guys:

o The ISA S&P program has two main components:
(1) Development of standards (administration of the work and communication of the nearly 150 committees that are active at any one time in ISA). In 2000, this effort has three full-time equivalent staff and a total cost (almost no revenue) of $575K, of which $445K (77%) is staff-related (salaries, benefits, overhead). This cost has been reduced significantly (by nearly one-third) since 1998.
(2) Publication and distribution of developed standards (about 130 are currently actively distributed). In 2000, this activity has about $550K of revenue and $425K of expense for $125K of net. Staff-related costs are about 66% of the expenses here.

o The total S&P program of ISA costs about $1.0 M/year, with a net cost to the Society of about $450K a year. Solely through cost reduction (because sales have been declining), this deficit has been reduced from ~$700K in 1998. But we have reached the limit of gains through cost reduction. Further cost reduction would reduce the level of the program (number of standards developed and administered).

o It is the development costs that most people can't see, and often don't understand how much effort goes into the administration of a big program like ISA's, or even into an individual committee's work. All of the technical work is indeed done by volunteers, but most, if not all of the administrative work is done by ISA.

o ISA's costs, and distribution of costs among staff and other expenses, are in line with what other Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs)have.

o Financially, the goal of ISA's S&P program is to operate on a break-even basis, NOT to make any positive profit. Companies are the true beneficiary of strong standards program, which indirectly benefits our individual members who work for the companies. The issue we are working now is how to recover the total cost from the parties that directly benefit from the ISA standards program.

o ISA's standards have wide use and are considered a very important part of what the society does, but do not have a big potential sales market.

The Society conducts the program as an essential part of its mission. But the high net cost of the program, which primarily benefits companies, needs to be recovered in some way. Raising standards prices is one way, but not desirable. We welcome any constructive advice on how to make the program breakeven, which is our goal.
OK, this roughly matched ( sometimes surpassed ) my expectations, and loose pieces of information I already heard about. It surely matches the policy we members ask our staff to implement. Staff surely is trying to implement Policy as determined by the proper committees, within "real
world" constraints. No "Santa Clauss wish list, free meals, etc allowed here".

I think it only proves you can not really judge
someone else's work unless you try to undertake it yourself. I don't believe anyone that never took active part into developing a standard can easily imagine the amount of organizational and administrative "behind the scenes" work involved. Sometimes I think we are so naive about the unseen work in this activity as an 8 years old boy watching an experienced pilot to fly a Boeing.
"That's easy, ...I could do it, all you need is to taxi it to the head of the runway, push the thrusts forward and wait until it takes off. Once in the air, turn the nose into the direction you want to fly and wait till you get there. Reduce your speed, lower the landing gear and flaps, align with a landing strip and let it go down graciously to a touch down, then taxi it back to the guy with the two flashlights.
Easy, cheap, safe, anyone can do it....,no big deal, I wander why they need to keep so many guys on their payroll just to do that..."... "Oh, why so many panels full of switches, lights and indicators in the cockpit ? Well, I would not really need to use them, they are not really necessary just to fly..."

Of course we can always imagine this huge administrative task could be made more efficiently... also anyone involved into generating standards can point out several cases where things did not run exactly as well as expected....but who really knows or may evaluate how efficient ISA is at it ? I can't even grasp all that is really involved when 150 committees with (what ?) maybe some 50 members each ( 7500 individuals ) start to generate correspondence ( some by e-mail, some by fax, by snail-mail, even hand delivered ) that has to be classified,
copied, filed, distributed, generates secondary comments by other committee members, and all this should be consolidated, included in the revised drafts, copied, printed, re-distributed before certain deadlines for meetings, evaluated and commented by peers, filed for future references, etc.... Just handling this correspondence without loosing or misplacing any of it, seems to me to be more than enough to fulfill the 3 assigned staff persons with work. Generating the notes of meetings, when the 3 staff persons should ideally be present to all simultaneous committee meetings during the ISA President Meetings and other occasions also seems to be simply an impossible task. God knows how they can handle it, but we can always complain that they should do it better... lower costs, narrow time frames, less mistakes, etc... There is no end to what we may think or wish about those largely unknown and unappreciated tasks involved.

Now, anyone with a bright idea about how could we generate and distribute free standards ? I'd really like to see that. I also want my free standards CD-ROM as much as anyone else. How about the Instruments Standard
Foundation ? I heard it is already working. Dave Rapley and a group of volunteers and staff are working at it, and donations are already being
accepted. I don't have an e-mail for details or snail-mail address to whom you may sent your company checks, but if someone cares to ask for it, I'll surely dig one and inform it to the list.

Vitor Finkel
 
D

David W Spitzer

Vitor,

Your e-mail below presents the issue very very well. Standards really are a bargain. People who want them for free should join a committee (in their area of expertise) to see how things work. Afterwards, they may feel that their efforts and those of their peers are worth much more than what is charged.

With regards to ISA's standard generation efficiency, I suggest evaluating the work of other professional societies that generate similar
standards...ASME (flowmeters), AWWA (water meters), AIChE (safety systems), NEL (UK), AFNOR (France)... to see if there some organization that has found a better way to generate standards.

I suspect that ISA is reasonabley efficient. As you state, the challenge then becomes how to recuperate costs from those who benefit from the
standards.

Um abraco,
David W Spitzer
Consultant
845.623.1830
www.icu.com/spitzer
 
C
That's right and anybody who has a dissenting opinion is just obviously wrong. Simply compare ISA to the fieldbus folks, they're the penultimate of efficiency. Remember, the whole point is to get _paid_ !

Seems like some of the first things that need opening up in this industry are ears and minds. And one of the most prevalent trends is to pay no attention when people tell you how they perceive you products and services. What in the world would you want to listen to the customer for? Just tell them they're wrong and how they really ought to think.

No wonder the business is declining.

Regards
cww
 
Curt, what you've said in your last several posts is polemic and unfair, and you know it. You are trolling on a very serious issue, and I wish you'd stop it. It isn't useful, and it isn't helping the cause of open standards.
ISA's standards are open, consensus standards. If you wanted to, you could participate. If you have the time, we'd like to invite you to do so.

ISA is paying extremely close attention to this thread, from the Executive Director on down. There are at least 20 members of the staff and Executive Board who are lurking on this thread, and making copious notes on what people say they want, and how they perceive ISA and the making of standards.

So, we are listening.

May I suggest some reading to you? Read the report on consensus standards bodies from ANSI at http://web.ansi.org/public/nss.html for a discussion of the National Standards Strategy. If you haven't read it, you should. It will help you understand the perspective of a neutral party consensus standards developer like ISA.

Walt Boyes
 
Walt Boyes said:
> ..we are listening.

Walt,
Entirely agree that ISA Standards cost money, (a lot), to generate and therefore we have to pay, (a comparable amount to what we would pay for any other standard from any other professional body). But agree with many of the group that we need
to look at a more 21st Century solution to the problem.

Having been a Senior Member of ISA since 1979, (but absent overseas 2 years), I am embarrassed to admit that I have never even seen an ISA Standard! (This I believe to be more a reflection on my employers during that time than on me.
They won't send me to Conferences or Training Classes either and I can't afford $950 for an exciting Video on how to tune PID loops!) Your average member simply can't afford to buy these standards and pay these prices. So you have limited your market to Corporate buyers only. (The $5 dollar coupon refund on my division memberships doesn't go far towards buying a
$100-200 Standard and the ones offered in InTech seldom interest me sufficiently to ask my wife to buy me one for Xmas!).

I can't get my hands on ANSI, UL or European CE Mark Standards either, (Which I would dearly love to peruse), but did recently talk my employer into purchasing all of the SEMI, (Semiconductor Equipment Materials International), Standards,
(All 11 Volumes, on CDROM for $695, where, with full SEMI permission, they are available on the Company Intranet - a fantastic bargain).

I am , however, building up a library of, (And making good use of), NEMA Standards, which are available, FREE, on the Web, (At www.nema.org). I
understand that NEMA, realizing that they had a problem and that their Standards were not being widely used, (Sound familiar?), and not wanting to go the way of the dinosaurs, made the decision to put a selection of their standards on the
WWW and make them available until the end of this year. They will then review the situation.

Perhaps you could contact NEMA, Walt, and see if ISA could learn anything from their experience.

Regards,
Tony Firth, Electrical Eng.,
Quester Technology Inc., Fremont,CA
 
D

Diana Bouchard

I would be interested to know how NEMA proposes to fund the standards development process if they give away their standards for pdf download. I can't imagine hard-copy sales supporting the process. The source of golden eggs does eventually dry up if you don't feed the goose.

What we seem to need is a business model for standards development other than selling the end product. This is what the ISA Standards Foundation, in existence for some years and in process of being revived and expanded, is trying to provide. ISA is trying to get companies and individuals to support the standards development enterprise as a whole, rather than relying on sales of the half-dozen individual standards that sell more than a handful of copies. This would appear to me to provide a broader and more reliable funding base for standards development. Does NEMA have anything similar?

Diana Bouchard
[email protected]
ISA Publications VP Elect-Elect
 
C
Hi Ralph

The question was, how to change and why. You and others seem more interested in the question "How do we maintain the (apparently) bankrupt and ineffective status quo" This seems to be a big problem in every facet of the automation business. "This sucks, but don't change
anything"

Deming's definition of insanity is where you keep doing the same thing and expecting the results to be different.

I've said how I see it, time will tell. I'm back to deep lurk mode.

Regards

cww
 
What do you mean by the "economic model that dispenses knowledge with no expectation of return"?

The volunteers that work the standard dispense knowledge without payment. Is not the sharing of software dispensing of knowledge?
 
I don't think web access to .pdf or .html version of the specs would cannibalize 100% of hardcopy sales--undoubtedly some, though. I know I
always go to my hardcopy of the BACnet spec rather than the CD-ROM or the electronic files I had as a member of the developing committee. Viewing the doc on a computer screen one page at a time is sub optimal, and printing the .pdf leaves you with a pile of unbound papers which cost more than buying it from ISA.

Also, posting the specs to the web should be considered advertising. People can see if the spec is really what they need, and if it is, buy the hardcopy. I used the BACnet spec for developing extensions to the standard and developing products that used the protocol. What are ISA specs used for and is it easier to use the hardcopy for these purposes than an electronic
copy?

Best,
B.O. Nov. 20, 2000
--
Robert Old, System Architecture, [email protected]
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., HVAC Division
1000 Deerfield Pkwy., Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513 USA
Phone: +1(847)941-5623, Fax: +1(847)419-2401
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

> Entirely agree that ISA Standards cost money, (a lot), to generate and
> therefore we have to pay, (a comparable amount to what we would pay for any
> other standard from any other professional body). But agree with many of
> the group that we need to look at a more 21st Century solution to the
> problem.

I'm certainly not against looking at alternatives, but I wouldn't exactly call "free" a strictly 21st Century solution.

> Having been a Senior Member of ISA since 1979, (but absent overseas 2
> years), I am embarrassed to admit that I have never even seen an ISA
> Standard! (This I believe to be more a reflection on my employers
> during that time than on me. They won't send me to Conferences or
> Training Classes either and I can't afford $950 for an exciting Video
> on how to tune PID loops!) Your average member simply can't afford to
> buy these standards and pay these prices. So you have limited your
> market to Corporate buyers only. (The $5 dollar coupon refund on my
> division memberships doesn't go far towards buying a $100-200 Standard and
> the ones offered in InTech seldom interest me sufficiently to ask my wife
> to buy me one for Xmas!).

You get a coupon for standards that is equal to your ENTIRE membership dues, not just a division membership coupon. I recently used my $65
membership coupon to buy SP95 for $31. If a standard that costs $31 is not of enough interest for you then the whole thing is a moot point: You just don't need any ISA standards free or not.

> I am , however, building up a library of, (And making good use of),
> NEMA Standards, which are available, FREE, on the Web, (At
> www.nema.org). I understand that NEMA, realizing that they had a
> problem and that their Standards were not being widely used, (Sound
> familiar?), and not wanting to go the way of the dinosaurs, made the
> decision to put a selection of their standards on the WWW and make
> them available until the end of this year. They will then review the
> situation.

NEMA is an employer sponsored organization that exists to benefit its members: manufacturers of electrical equipment. It has been quite a while
since I worked for a NEMA member. In the past, NEMA did not derive a significant amount of revenue from standards sales. Giving them away for
free would have little affect on their financial situation.

ALSO: The documents available for download are scanned documents and you cannot do keyword searches on them.

That said, I would encourage everyone to go to the NEMA site and download the ICS-1 standard (Industrial Control Systems: General Requirements) at a minimum. There is lots of good stuff in that one including excellent noise
immunity tests that you can build yourself using inexpensive parts.

It will be interesting to see what they do after the end of the year. ISO tried a similar thing several years ago but quickly backed off after their revenue collapsed.

From another post:

> I would be interested to know how NEMA proposes to fund the
> standards development process if they give away their standards for
> pdf download. I can't imagine hard-copy sales supporting the process.
> The source of golden eggs does eventually dry up if you don't feed
> the goose.

NEMA is supported by membeship dues and actually subcontracts out the sales of their standards to a third party (global.ihs.com). The IHS web
site doesn't display properly on my computer so I can't investigate them further. NEMA dues are based on the sales of products fitting NEMA
categories and typically run into the many tens of thousands of dollars a year. NEMA is also an active industry lobbying group and sponsors research (most notably into the health effects of EMI).

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
C
Hi Walt

Don't blow me off, you and I both know I'm trying to help. What you guys need is more buy-in and participation and you might have to trade away some conventional thinking to get it. IMHO, we got one useful response that put the situation on the table. Dismissing me as an anarchist is not gonna accomplish anything. Refusing to reach out to your customers and rely on their goodwill so
far hasn't set the world on fire. A simple change in attitude and focus can change the perception from "standards business" to a "customer supported standards service" I think you want to be the latter, but you have to stress the service. Although it isn't directly applicable you might want to look at "The
Cathedral and the Bazaar". I am working in a movement that manages to attract thousands of the best and brightest to give time and talent for the common cause.

No commercial venture has thus far inspired so many to cooperative effort. Perhaps your organization needs to hover in the middle, between the extreme commercialism in this industry and the idealistic goals of the FSF. You do need to migrate towards the end that elicits cooperation and sharing and you simply can't (as far as I can see) have it both ways.

I stand by the quote from Deming.

I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but the rhetoric I am hearing is all about business and business as usual and nothing that would encourage anyone to take up your cause and work to improve things in the common interest. Even given the difference in
our definition of the term "open" I support your effort. Now, if you guys can take it farther in that direction, as far as possible, maybe accept some risk in your effort to serve, people will notice and support you. Right now you are asking how you can change things without changing anything, how you can recieve gifts without giving anything and thus have yet to make any better case than you had going in.

Regards

Curt Wuollet,
Radical, Anarchist and Linux Systems Engineer.
 
M

Matthew da Silva

Curt Wuollet wrote:
>Deming's definition of insanity is where you keep doing the same thing and
>expecting the results to be different.

Yes, but you want to try something different with no guarantee that the results will be useful? Have a look at this
http://www.india-today.com/btoday/20000522/interview.html
Risk management is really what any business is all about.

I suggest that an online method should be adopted. Credibility could be guaranteed if participants are first vetted and certified for involvement. I suggest that Control-dot-com staffers here could set it up and administer
it. Recognition of the anonymous participants should be performed by a few individuals and the list held in secrecy. I think that it would be pretty easy to do this. ISA should of course be involved in the recognition process and in the administration process, but it might be better for an independent entity such as Control-dot-com to handle the operations. This would ensure
global participation at a level commensurate with the diversity of participants in this list.

Trust, of course, would be a prerequisite.

If you don't believe it is possible, look at ODP (open directory project) which has outgrown Yahoo as the world's No.1 online directory of sites. All
editors (bar a handfull of staffers) are volunteers. Yahoo OTOH pays about 125 editors, but they cannot handle the work load. There is almost no way to get a free listing anymore. you must nowadays pay 199 dollars to get a site
listing. But Yahoo is full of dead links and its structure barely changes to meet growth. ODP is free and while it is suffering from its success, it continues to grow organically. One reason for this (which has been highlighted here in this list) is that editors often make suggestions for
improvements such as a How-To guide for standards. In a structured arena such as a working group, such ideas are too easily dismissed. This is one reason for having anonymity. Another reason, is that words from 'senior' or 'established' figures may have the same weight as words from newcomers. We
should always concentrate on the words people say, not who they are.

Matthew Yamatake Tokyo
 
C
Hi all

Just a note to mention that the last couple of posts, one in response to Ralph and one in response to Walt were delayed by a couple of weeks (at least ) and are not to be construed as an attempt to restart the debate. I see no interest in change which renders the whole discussion rather moot. I am interested in how these were delayed for so long. Was this success in moderation or failure?

(MODERATOR'S RESPONSE: I was on vacation last week, during which time Curt's posts came in. Another of my colleagues filled in when she could,
but a substantial backlog remained. This has finally been cleared out, but we apologize to Curt and anyone else who got stuck in Backlog Hell. I will post any response to Curt's posts that have already been received as of this moment, but as he notes, portions of the discussion are now moot. Thanks for your understanding. --Jennifer Powell)

Regards

cww
 
Curt Wuollet says:
> Don't blow me off, you and I both know I'm trying to help. What
> you guys need
> is more buy-in and participation and you might have to trade away some
> conventional thinking to get it. IMHO, we got one useful response
> that put the
> situation on the table.

I _am_ thinking radically. I do not represent the ideas of many people on the ISA Staff or Standards Committees. I certainly am not blowing you off. If I wanted to blow you off, I'd just stop talking about this.

> Dismissing me as an anarchist is not
> gonna accomplish
> anything. Refusing to reach out to your customers and rely on
> their goodwill so
> far hasn't set the world on fire. A simple change in attitude
> and focus can
> change the perception from "standards business" to a "customer supported
> standards service" I think you want to be the latter, but you
> have to stress the service.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is the subject of ongoing dialog inside ISA.

> Although it isn't directly applicable you might want to
> look at "The
> Cathedral and the Bazaar". I am working in a movement that
> manages to attract
> thousands of the best and brightest to give time and talent for
> the common cause.

Yes, I've read it. I also believe that the jury is out on the open source movement. I don't think it is sustainable over a long period of time.

> No commercial venture has thus far inspired so many to cooperative effort.
> Perhaps your organization needs to hover in the middle, between
> the extreme
> commercialism in this industry and the idealistic goals of the FSF. You do
> need to migrate towards the end that elicits cooperation and
> sharing and you
> simply can't (as far as I can see) have it both ways.

The standards development function _is_ a cooperative. It is the support function and the publishing and dissemination function that costs the money. I don't know how, except by endowing the Instrument Standards Foundation, to make that happen.

> I stand by the quote from Deming.
>
> I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but the rhetoric I am hearing is all
> about business
> and
> business as usual and nothing that would encourage anyone to take
> up your cause
> and work to improve things in the common interest. Even given
> the difference in
> our definition of the term "open" I support your effort. Now, if
> you guys can
> take
> it farther in that direction, as far as possible, maybe accept
> some risk in your
> effort to serve, people will notice and support you. Right now
> you are asking how you can change things without changing anything, how you can recieve gifts
> without giving anything and thus have yet to make any better case
> than you had going in.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I had hoped that people would come up with more constructive suggestions than "throw it all out and do it this way." I believe that you can be of tremendous assistance in this process. Your ideas are excellent. I don't agree with all of them, and you elide gracefully over much of the intricacies of "making it work," but you have a clear grasp
of what has to be done in the end result. We need to transform the image of ISA standards development into a customer supported, customer serving activity. It actually is that, and it is the main reason ISA exists.

Walt Boyes
(who is speaking here entirely on his own, and not for ISA)
 
R

Ralph Mackiewicz

> The question was, how to change and why. You and others seem more
> interested in the question "How do we maintain the (apparently)
> bankrupt and ineffective status quo" This seems to be a big problem
> in every facet of the automation business. "This sucks, but don't
> change anything"

This completely misrepresents my position and several other positions taken in this discussion. Its clear to me from the responses of those
directly involved in ISA that the ISA is trying to change. ISA is a responsive and innovative professional membership organization.

My fundamental objection to all this is the assertion that paying a modest fee for standards is the root of the problem. I personally paid $31.USD ($96.USD without member discount) out of my own pocket for the SP95 standard because it was of personal and professional interest to me. If you can't afford that kind of a modest fee, then you obviously place NO value on the standard. Its no wonder that standards are not widely implemented in this industry if this is the value that the people that need them most put on them. That's the problem.

> Deming's definition of insanity is where you keep doing the same thing and
> expecting the results to be different.

Yes and here we are insisting that the only reason that standards are not widely used in the automation industry is because you have to pay a modest fee for them. Here's a rephrase of the argument being made: If professional membership organizations would just stop expecting to
actually receive money (yuk!) for standards then we could finally use standards in our work <sarcasm>(oh by the way...please ignore that I
actually expect to be paid for MY work)</sarcasm>.

From another post:

> What do you mean by the "economic model that dispenses knowledge with
> no expectation of return"?
>
> The volunteers that work the standard dispense knowledge without
> payment. Is not the sharing of software dispensing of knowledge?

The VAST majority of participants in standards activities ARE paid to participate by the company that employs them. Not only that, they are not
dispensing their knowledge like they contribute to some charitable organization. They contribute their knowledge to standards in expectation of receiving quantifiable benefits to themselves and/or their companies:

1. Vendors hope that a standard will help their customers justify actually paying money for goods and services that conform to the standard.

2. Users hope that by setting a standard that vendors will comply with it and their costs for implementing systems will decrease.

3. Some participants are consultants who are paid to participate on behalf of a client.

Granted these are simplistic, but the point is that participants generally do expect to benefit from their participation. And, they are generally
paid for their efforts. And yes, dispensing (sharing) software is dispensing knowledge.

Regards,
Ralph Mackiewicz
SISCO, Inc.
 
This purported penchant for anonymity on the part of stardards developers escapes me. Can anyone tell me why elaborate arrangements must be made for this?

Aren't there enough knowledgeable people available to create the standards, and who don't present this drawback?
Don't most companies *want* to be known as contributing to the good of the industry?
Don't most participants enjoy the networking with their peers and the glory of getting your name in the book?

The use of The Internet during the development of standards *could* facilitate the anonymity of the participants, but I think that's irrelevant.

The Internet is useful because it's such a great communication tool.

o It's universally accessible via a PC and a telephone.

o Supports fast transfer of information - vs surface mail

o Email reflectors provide easy distribution from one to many.

o Copious storage frees filing cabinets in my cubical

o Ubiquitous office automation software provides reasonably appropriate tools - wp, db, drawing

o Supports multiple access mechanisms for the convenience of different people - webboard, nntp, email, instant msg, website

o Convenient for timeshifting, whether I'm busy at the moment or you're 7 timezones away from me.

o Electrons are much cheaper than paper and no one complains about how many electrons were killed for this email attachment.

o Automation of procedures can save a lot of time processing the comments.

Best,
B.O. Nov. 22, 2000
--
Robert Old, System Architecture, [email protected]
Siemens Building Technologies, Inc., HVAC Division
1000 Deerfield Pkwy., Buffalo Grove, IL 60089-4513 USA
Phone: +1(847)941-5623, Fax: +1(847)419-2401
 
C
Ralph Mackiewicz wrote:

> > The question was, how to change and why. You and others seem more
> > interested in the question "How do we maintain the (apparently)
> > bankrupt and ineffective status quo" This seems to be a big problem
> > in every facet of the automation business. "This sucks, but don't
> > change anything"
>
> This completely misrepresents my position and several other positions
> taken in this discussion. Its clear to me from the responses of those
> directly involved in ISA that the ISA is trying to change. ISA is a
> responsive and innovative professional membership organization.

I'm sorry if that is a misrepresentation. That is my perception and perception _is_ the problem here. I deal with several types of
organizations. When the first thing they are interested in is a credit card number, they go on a different mental list than those I perceive are trying to help me. There is no shortage of people who will _sell_ me purported solutions to my problem. I get 30 calls a week from that group. It is as difficult for ISA to get past that and reach me as it is for printer ribbon scammers or life insurance scammers or others of that ilk. I suspect the great majority of people react in a similar fashion. I'm sorry if you don't like it and if people sre supposed to think differently, but I'll bet on human nature every time.

> My fundamental objection to all this is the assertion that paying a modest
> fee for standards is the root of the problem. I personally paid $31.USD
> ($96.USD without member discount) out of my own pocket for the SP95
> standard because it was of personal and professional interest to me. If
> you can't afford that kind of a modest fee, then you obviously place NO
> value on the standard. Its no wonder that standards are not widely
> implemented in this industry if this is the value that the people that
> need them most put on them. That's the problem.

The problem is getting their attention and raising their level of interest to the point where the information is of sufficient value to them. This is where ISA has failed. If people desperately needed the standards it would be like selling ice water in hell. I believe we acutely need standards, you believe we need standards. Unfortunately, all the proprietary vendors believe what they do should _be_ the standard, and this makes the potential users somewhat jaded and cynical. This is the status quo that has prevailed for the history of the industry. To break out of that rut, which shows every sign of perpetuating itself forever, will take something more compelling than wishing and hoping that lip service to openness and objectivity will be enough.. There is a clear parallel to the LinuxPLC here. I cannot coerce people to use it or force the commercial vendors to a more customer friendly posture. The only force it has behind it is that people who contribute to it and use it act _both_ in their own interest and for the common good. The only way to achieve that is for it to be unquestionably free and open and obviously in the public interest. I doubt very seriously that there is any other way that we could generate enough enthusiasm, interest, or consensus to bring people together in the common interest. Adding money to the equation would
only serve to instill destructive competitive forces and make it part of the problem instead of a solution.

> > Deming's definition of insanity is where you keep doing the same thing and
> > expecting the results to be different.
>
> Yes and here we are insisting that the only reason that standards are not
> widely used in the automation industry is because you have to pay a modest
> fee for them. Here's a rephrase of the argument being made: If
> professional membership organizations would just stop expecting to
> actually receive money (yuk!) for standards then we could finally use
> standards in our work <sarcasm>(oh by the way...please ignore that I
> actually expect to be paid for MY work)</sarcasm>.

No the primary reason is that there are too many standards and not enough objectivity. I was referring to the work we do for the LinuxPLC project which is donated with no expectation of recompense other than that we can also share in the result..

> >From another post:
>
> > What do you mean by the "economic model that dispenses knowledge with
> > no expectation of return"?
> >
> > The volunteers that work the standard dispense knowledge without
> > payment. Is not the sharing of software dispensing of knowledge?
>

Not my post, I don't even understand it out of context.

Regards

cww
 
D

Dave Ferguson

I have sat on the sidelines for a long time on this one but it is time to speak.

This is my opinion of a part of the problem and only that, unfortunately I have not replied because I can not quite figure out the answer and us Engineers........have to have the answer to speak...... :)

Part of the problem is we live in a world where I can buy the average book for any PC program or topic of interest on the web for $20-$30 and the
average book from ISA is probably $40-$50.

Now I understand that there is a difference in scale between millions of users and thousands and therefore the price.

I also notice classes for a $100-$200 on a ton of topics for PC's etc, but several hundred from ISA and for the most part available only after several
hundred miles of plane travel and hotel usually at companies expense. The bean counters look at this and say "WHY".......even though I know we are
talking about specialized equipment and knowledge.

I also know that we live in a world of "free" information on the web, yet this is information that you want to be correct and always right, unlike the info on the web sometimes.

I do think there is a happy medium somewhere between "old world" and "new world".

Unfortunately this is the same issue that DCS vendors face today. They were proprietary and "expensive" and got beat out by off the shelf hardware and PC software and now are scrambling to compete because "CUSTOMERS" demand it. Same for ISA, the budgets to travel and hotel are being slashed in this quarter to quarter world we have created, and yes we are all part of
it.........just follow your 401K and move a couple of options when the price goes down and you are contributing to the issue.

Also Y2K spending put a damper on future spending for a while, we spent a lot of money upgrading and now have none for a year of 2 for "new" stuff or training or standards etc.

Again I don't know what the answer is other than to adapt or die but unfortunately that may mean die. If you constantly go in the red to produce
standards because users want them for free, then that is the price we all pay for our demand of freedom.

I do think there is a happy medium whereby we could hold "virtual" meetings without the perks of donuts and plane fare and could post and discuss those results on the web. The old world view of face to face is the same argument I have with my boss about telecommuting, they still think that out of sight must mean "not working". I can only say one thing........

Patience, patience..........the customers will win, they usually vote with their dollars and that is the only vote that counts. If they are not willing to spend them on your standards, your standards will lose. Unfortunately this is probably why we are in the boat we are in over standards now, the big companies dish out cash to create standards and no-one trusts them because of the big money behind them, and yet no-one is willing to participate in ISA's efforts to do it "independently".

Oh well, by the way I have been an ISA member since 1980 but will admit, only because my company pays my dues, when they don't pay my dues I probably would not (being honest here).

I think they do a great job, are a little bureaucratic, but do a good job. But if I have to choose between college for my kids, or a boat or a beer or ISA dues, unfortunately ISA dues will probably lose......sorry.

Dave Ferguson

Blandin Paper Company
UPM-Kymmene
DAVCO Automation
 
C
Walt Boyes wrote:
>
> Curt Wuollet says:
> > Don't blow me off, you and I both know I'm trying to help. What
> > you guys need
> > is more buy-in and participation and you might have to trade away some
> > conventional thinking to get it. IMHO, we got one useful response
> > that put the
> > situation on the table.
>
> I _am_ thinking radically. I do not represent the ideas of many people on
> the ISA Staff or Standards Committees. I certainly am not blowing you off.
> If I wanted to blow you off, I'd just stop talking about this.
>
> > Dismissing me as an anarchist is not
> > gonna accomplish
> > anything. Refusing to reach out to your customers and rely on
> > their goodwill so
> > far hasn't set the world on fire. A simple change in attitude
> > and focus can
> > change the perception from "standards business" to a "customer supported
> > standards service" I think you want to be the latter, but you
> > have to stress the service.
>
> I agree wholeheartedly. This is the subject of ongoing dialog inside ISA.
>
> > Although it isn't directly applicable you might want to
> > look at "The
> > Cathedral and the Bazaar". I am working in a movement that
> > manages to attract
> > thousands of the best and brightest to give time and talent for
> > the common cause.
>
> Yes, I've read it. I also believe that the jury is out on the open source
> movement. I don't think it is sustainable over a long period of time.
>

Yes, I suppose, but 10 years is a long time for the jury to deliberate before coming to a decision. The number of heavyweights now comitted
makes me think the fix is in, just like for Microsoft ;^).

What people totally ignore is the significance of achieving this even for one bright shining moment. This degree of cooperation across all
boundaries is unique in the human experience and could rightly be considered impossible if it weren't happening. Stop and really think about that, please. Then, go ahead and find a better model. With the enormous technical and economic benefits already derived, OSS isn't going away any time soon. IBM "gets" it. Even Microsoft "gets" it.
The automation market is technologically isolated, balkanized and fortified against commoditization and standardization but bridges
are being laid to the mainstream and the customers will soon taste freedom. After that, standards will take on their proper role as a
given rather than a competitive weapon.

> > No commercial venture has thus far inspired so many to cooperative effort.
> > Perhaps your organization needs to hover in the middle, between
> > the extreme
> > commercialism in this industry and the idealistic goals of the FSF. You do
> > need to migrate towards the end that elicits cooperation and
> > sharing and you
> > simply can't (as far as I can see) have it both ways.
>
> The standards development function _is_ a cooperative. It is the support
> function and the publishing and dissemination function that costs the money.
> I don't know how, except by endowing the Instrument Standards Foundation, to
> make that happen.

These words I so crudely forge, for what little value they have, are now available to each and every member, potential member and curious
observer of your specific target audience. This for a cost that they are already bearing cheerfully even if they choose to delete them.
With very little effort and no incremental cost I have just far exceeded the wildest, most optimistic dreams of distribution your hard-working staff may entertain. If you wish your standards to become universal and ubiquitous you may draw your own conclusions. With that exposure and increased utilization you may very well have
thousands willing to part with $5.00 instead of hundreds? grudgingly parting with $50.00. In any case your organization must scale with whatever you sell and volume is far more likely to solve your problem than higher prices. You are much more likely to attract contributors as well.

> > I stand by the quote from Deming.
> >
> > I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but the rhetoric I am hearing is all
> > about business
> > and
> > business as usual and nothing that would encourage anyone to take
> > up your cause
> > and work to improve things in the common interest. Even given
> > the difference in
> > our definition of the term "open" I support your effort. Now, if
> > you guys can
> > take
> > it farther in that direction, as far as possible, maybe accept
> > some risk in your
> > effort to serve, people will notice and support you. Right now
> > you are asking how
> >
> > you can change things without changing anything, how you can recieve gifts
> > without giving anything and thus have yet to make any better case
> > than you had
> > going in.
> >
>
> I'm sorry you feel that way. I had hoped that people would come up with
> more constructive suggestions than "throw it all out and do it this way." I
> believe that you can be of tremendous assistance in this process. Your ideas
> are excellent. I don't agree with all of them, and you elide gracefully
> over much of the intricacies of "making it work," but you have a clear grasp
> of what has to be done in the end result. We need to transform the image of
> ISA standards development into a customer supported, customer serving
> activity. It actually is that, and it is the main reason ISA exists.
Well then you're halfway there :^)

I am not gracefully glossing over the details of how to accomplish this. As a customer focused organization, your customers should tell you how
to accomplish this. it's about them. I will excuse this as customer orientation is a novel concept in this market sector and needs to be
learned. We call it CRM in the rest of the world.
 
R
I think the reasons for anonymity are several including:

1. desire to avoid taking any personal responsibility for something that might go wrong.

2. desire to have the result be an organizational effort rather then an individual one.

3. desire to not have an "expert" out there who speaks with more authority than other "experts" becuase he/she wrote the standard, or a big chunk of it.
 
Top