|
|
|
|
Letters
Right On, But…
Richard Peppin [November 1999 Letters to the Editor] is “right
on” with his assessment of the problem. However, his solution
of “looking to the government for help” would not help solve the
problem of lack of interest (hence funding) by private enterprise
to properly represent North America in a predominantly European
community (ISO). By definition, government does not generate revenue.
Funding must come from the private sector, which is in the business
of generating revenue and profit for shareholders. Unfortunately,
in North America, private enterprises march to Wall Street, who
in turn awards companies on “short term thinking”; by “short term”
I mean “earnings last quarter.” How much private enterprises participate
in standards development arenas depends on their perceived business
return. Convincing senior management to invest in a standards
development arena that has, at best, a four-year development cycle
for products (ASTM standards) is already a “tough sell.” To gain
their support to participate in ISO, which not only has a much
longer development cycle, but is also much more “politically driven,”
is virtually impossible as the “business return” is much more
intangible, and is mostly based on projected political scenarios
that may or may not materialize.
Like Peppin, I’ve spent over a decade in the ASTM trenches and
government standards-setting processes. It is my view that no
government will adopt standards that will disadvantage their nation’s
business enterprises. Hence, I predict that three dominant standards-setting
processes will ultimately evolve in a global economy: North America
(ASTM), Europe (ISO), and Pacific Rim (???). The notion that the
world will eventually adopt ISO standards as their primary trading
standards is, in my opinion, a “pipe dream.”
Alex T.C. Lau
Imperial Oil, Quality Assurance
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Thank you for your points, which are well-taken, but we’d like
to point out that it is not correct that a four-year standards
development cycle is the best ASTM has to offer. ASTM has, in
fact, introduced time-saving balloting procedures that committees
have used to develop standards in as little as under a year. (—Ed.)
|
|
|
