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

puskar@nist.gov

++1-301-975-8619++1 301 975 8619

http://gsi.nist.gov

www.standards.gov

23