The Myth of Free Standards:
Giving Away the Farm
"Information" has become the newest buzzword in our fully-integrated
Internet culture. With the pervasiveness of personal computers and
kids learning how to surf the Web at an increasingly younger age, information
is now at your fingertips with just the click of a mouse. As Thomas
Jefferson said nearly 200 years ago, information has truly become "the
currency of democracy." The free flow of information can facilitate
public empowerment, corporate productivity, and greater prosperity and
education among a population.
However, even Jefferson would not claim that information should be given
away for free. In the case of standards information, it should not.
If information is the currency of democracy, standards are the bridges
that link global trading partners. Standards are a unique type of information
and their widespread circulation and incorporation into products and services
is essential for eliminating barriers to trade. A growing consensus
among standards developers and users contends that making standards available
at no cost will further their use and development, thereby strengthening
bridges and shrinking barriers to trade. Nevertheless, proponents
of free standards are forgetting one important fact: bridges have to be
designed, constructed and maintained. Giving standards away free
will eliminate the most significant source of funding for standards development.
It will also create a greater imbalance of support between contributors
and non-contributors (to the development process) and lead to a host of
other problems. The cost of standards has become a confounding and
contentious issue. This essay seeks to resolve the question of "Standards:
Fee or Free?"
The Fundamental Reasons
The standards development process costs a great deal of money.
This fact is not new, but a good portion of standards users fail to understand
the many steps required to provide them with the standards that they so
eagerly desire. There are significant expenses other than the cost
of printing and distributing printed editions.
Much like the United Way or any other volunteer organization, standards
developers spend time and resources on coordinating the efforts of volunteers
in the development process. From the moment a standards project is
initiated through its arrival on a user's desk (or computer screen), funds
are spent on testing, materials, meetings, distribution of draft documents,
balloting, and adoption of the initial project as a standard. Every
five years, a standard must be revised, reaffirmed, or withdrawn to address
current technology. All of these activities require a full time staff
employed by the standards developing organization (SDO). While some
organizations can operate with a small support staff, others like ASTM
and ASME require dozens of people dedicated to supporting the efforts of
their respective volunteers.
Once a standard is developed, there are additional costs for publishing,
printing, and public relations. Users frequently require
assistance in finding the standards appropriate for their needs, thereby
requiring a staff of information specialists to provide support.
There are also considerable resources spent on promoting the acceptance
of standards in the marketplace. SDOs regularly invest in the education
of federal, state, and local officials to prove the merit and integrity
of standards and the development process. Since users rely on market
acceptance of standards to operate commercially, this is an important function
provided by SDOs.
The distribution and access systems may be the most significant costs
of standards development. Catalogs are created and maintained so
users know what is available. Distribution outlets are staffed to
provide fulfillment by printed editions or other formats. In the case of
electronic dissemination, the costs of printing and distribution are less,
but there are weighty costs for electronic document publishing, electronic
file maintenance, facilities and equipment for providing online or other
methods of access, and customer support for electronic applications.
Standards as Commodities
Information is any bit of knowledge or data which provides the recipient
with a greater understanding of their competition or market, or which provides
an advantage in dealing with a future event. Information fuels technology,
innovation, and creation. Information is a critical component of
design, production, and manufacturing. Information can build profits,
increase efficiency, and keep you ahead of the competition. Virtually
all companies would place a value on gaining these competitive advantages,
so we can safely assume that companies would (and do) pay for information.
Information holds value. Information is a commodity.
Standards are no different. An industry standard which dictates
the consensus rules for designing, manufacturing, testing, inspecting,
or installing a product or service on the commercial market holds significant
value. Standards strengthen a company's position in national and
foreign markets, ensure product quality and safety, and set them ahead
of their competition. Consequently, standards are undeniably critical
pieces of information. If a company needs to comply with regional
or international standards to get a product to market, they should be willing
to pay for the information required to do so.
Like other forms of information, the use of standards is an investment
in the success of a product or service. Ford Motor Company pays for
demographic information on customer preferences in China -- an investment
in foreign markets. Citibank pays for credit information on their
cardholders -- an investment in maintaining its collection rate.
University students pay for textbooks -- an investment in their education.
If using a standard is considered necessary for the success of a product
or service, then standards users should not see it differently than obtaining
any other component of the product.
Contrary to the popular beliefs spawned by our Internet culture, information
is not free. Like all other commodities, information trades at a
market value based on supply and demand. Standards too should be
traded on a supply and demand basis, fetching a cost that pays for their
development and funds the publishing, marketing, and distribution processes.
Reducing the Incentive for Private Innovation
Third-party standards providers are some of the most adept organizations
at selling information, including the niche market of standards.
Fueled by increasing sales, healthy cash flow, access to the newest technology,
and a vastly different corporate structure than SDOs, they combine innovative
products with professional information services. It cannot be denied
that these private standards providers significantly improve the access
to and distribution of standards documents. Nevertheless, while these
companies may voice their opinion in this debate, only SDOs will make the
final decision on "fee or free."
If SDOs decide to make standards available free of charge, users will
be quick to find the free sources. Consequently, private companies
could no longer expect to earn profits on document sales and information
services. Naturally, we would see a quick demise of the products
and services, and possibly even the companies themselves, that have complemented
the standards community for so long. Some SDO administrators and
standards users would praise their passing. But the truth is that
these companies are an integral part of the international standards community
and without them, the information infrastructure will suffer. Powerful
Web databases, subscription services, electronic media formats, free information
searching, and professional assistance in finding standards information
will be harder and harder to find.
Certainly, SDOs could pick up some of the slack from diminished corporate
presence. But unless they receive vast influxes of cash (and it won't
come from standards sales, will it?) and technical expertise, then most
likely, users will be left without the valuable tools that private companies
provide. Before making standards free of charge, we should examine
standards users' dependence on these companies and decide if the decision
will be worth the sacrifice that users will have to make.
Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3
