Subject: SC22 N2136

From: "william c. rinehuls" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 May 1996 18:17:20 -0400 (EDT)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22
Programming languages, their environments and system software interfaces
Secretariat:  U.S.A. (ANSI)

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

N2136

May 1996

TITLE:                  Criteria for Success of JTC 1 Re-engineering

SOURCE:                 Secretariat, ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22

WORK ITEM:              N/A

STATUS:                 N/A

CROSS REFERENCE:        N/A

DOCUMENT TYPE:          N/A

ACTION:                 To SC22 Member Bodies and Working Group Con-
                        veners for action or information as applicable.

                        SC22 Member Bodies and Working Group Conveners
                        with comments specifically related to the work
                        of SC22 are encouraged to submit these comments
                        to Mr. Robert Follett, SC22 Chairman, NOT LATER
                        THAN APRIL 30, 1996 for forwarding.  SC22
                        Member Bodies comments not specifically related
                        to the work of SC22 should be submitted through
                        their respective National Body.

Address reply to:

ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC22 Secretariat
William C. Rinehuls
8457 Rushing Creek Court
Springfield, VA 22153  USA
Tel:  +1 (703) 912-9680
Fax:  +1 (703) 912-2973
email:  [email-masked]

____________________________________________________________________________

Date: Thu, 02 May 96 13:32:00 edt
From: LISA RAJCHEL <[email-masked]>

Subject: Denmark's Homework Assignment, JTC 1 N 4095

Attached please find document JTC 1 N 4095, Danish Contribution on JTC 1 
Reengineering addressing the the Criteria for Success of JTC 1 
Reengineering.
National Body and SC contributions are requested on this document by 7 June 
1996.  PLEASE SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS VIA EMAIL OR DISK SO THAT THEY MAY BE 
DISTRIBUTED VIA EMAIL.

This document is also being sent via facsimile in order to ensure that it 
reaches everyone.[[ DANISHCO.TXT : 3370 in DANISHCO.TXT ]]
__________________________________________________________________
ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 4095

1996-05-02

Title:Danish contribution on the topic: Criteria for success of  JTC 1 
re-  engineering
Source:   National Body of Denmark
Action:   This document is circulated to JTC 1 National Bodies and 
Subcommittees for review and comment by 7 June 1996.

0. Introduction

 This contribution should be considered as the first step in an iterative 
process of getting to a set of measurable criteria for evaluation of the JTC 
1 re-engineering. It is obvious that the contributions on the other topics 
will create new criteria and change some of the given.

 We have tried to give the criteria with goals and objectives for the 
re-engineering in mind, ie. criteria for parameters that will lead JTC 1 to 
be THE focal point of global IT-standardization.

1. Number of participants

Several criteria can be used as a measurement of success.

1. An increasing number of P-members
2. An increasing number of people volunteering as editors and other officers
3. An increasing number of participants at standardization meetings.
 An increase of P-members aids the information desimination, officers are 
essential to progress the work and by participants we mean participation  by 
the stakeholders of the standards.

Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an 
success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1.

2. Number of projects

An increasing number of projects within JTC1 can be taken as a measure of 
success if the projects meet the needs of the market. (We are doing the 
right thing)

Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an 
success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1.

3. Project management

A project needs to be carefully defined and subdivided into specific subwork 
items/parts where it may be considered to be an advantage. The  reason for a 
subdivision might be to get parts of the standard finished  faster, to 
better meet market needs and/or to make future developments/evolution easier 
to implement.

A carefully defined project(WI) might attract new participants.

The time from a NP is initiated and until the standard is published is to be 
controlled and shortened as much as possible. Every project must have 
specific milestones that have to be met in order to satisfy the overall time 
plan for the project.

Examples of milestones could be: A firm agreement on Scope and table of 
contents, CD draft ready, DIS ready, approved DIS sent to ITTF for 
publication. Consequences for not fulfilling the milestones should be 
stated. SC chairmen with a project failing to meet the milestones need to 
explain the delays to JTC1 and present updated time schedules for approval. 
JTC1 needs to consider the  consequences of the delays and, in cases where 
the new time schedule is  not approved, specifically make decisions on how 
to proceed.

A goal of say 12 months for completion of a standard may be set by JTC1  as 
a criteria for success, but the acceptable time frame depends on several 
factors, e.g. on the complexity of the project. It may, therefore, be more 
reasonable to focus on setting up a realistic time schedule for the project 
and to ensure that the work progress according  to this schedule. This 
method may ensure that JTC1 will be considered as a reliable organization 
with time schedules that can be counted upon.

4. Error corrections

It is essential to note that there is no such thing as a perfect standard. 
The time spent in producing a standard is a compromise between seeking the 
100% perfect standard, the available time and manpower and the market needs. 
It is a healthy sign when errors are reported because it proves that the 
standard is used. If the number of reported errors  increases too much it 
may though indicate that the standard in question was not good enough when 
published.

5. Meetings

A higher activity within JTC1 may result in a higher number of meetings per 
year and/or in an increased number of participants in the meetings.

Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an 
success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1.

All documents to be dealt with at an SC or JTC1 meeting are to be 
distributed well in advance of the meeting to allow opinions to be formed by 
the NSOs. This highlights the importance of getting the agreed work done 
between meetings. In addition to distributed documents only documents 
produced at the meeting and, if the participants agree on it, late 
contributions can be discussed.  Projection systems may be used when 
agreeing to e.g. modified time schedules for projects for which previous 
distribution was not possible.

The success of a meeting may be judged on the completeness of the 
distributed agenda, the availability of the relevant documents well in 
advance of the meeting, the disposition of the available time on the agenda 
items and of the results of the meeting as such.

6. Marketing material

It is well known that most standards are difficult to understand if you have 
not participated in the writing process. In order to facilitate the use and 
understanding of the standard a technical report or annex to the standard 
should explain the background for the standard and give a short introduction 
to the standard, e.g. as a kind of tutorial. This kind of  document would 
promote the use and understanding of standards and result in an increased 
sale of standards.

7. Acceptance of PAS's

 An easy criteria is the count of accepted PAS's within one or two years. To 
be the focal point JTC 1 has to attract fora, etc. to bring there PAS's 
 forward according to the new procedures. If they do not, either the rules 
or the position of JTC 1 are wrong, and we have not shown our ability to 
co-operate with these important partners.

8. Withdrawal of obsolete standards

An increasing number of withdrawn standards can be taken as a measure of 
success.

The withdrawn standards can either have been replaced by revisions or just 
vanished as the covered topics are not relevant anymore.

In short, it could be a measure of having an updated set of standards 
available.

ISO/IEC JTC 1 N 4095

1996-05-02

Title:		Danish contribution on the topic: Criteria for success of  JTC 1 re-				engineering
Source:	National Body of Denmark
Action:	This document is circulated to JTC 1 National Bodies and Subcommittees for 			review and comment by 7 June 1996.

0. Introduction

 This contribution should be considered as the first step in an iterative process of getting to a set of measurable criteria for evaluation of the JTC 1 re-engineering. It is obvious that the contributions on the other topics will create new criteria and change some of the given.

 We have tried to give the criteria with goals and objectives for the re-engineering in mind, ie. criteria for parameters that will lead JTC 1 to be THE focal point of global IT-standardization.

1. Number of participants

Several criteria can be used as a measurement of success.

1. An increasing number of P-members
2. An increasing number of people volunteering as editors and other officers
3. An increasing number of participants at standardization meetings.
 An increase of P-members aids the information desimination, officers are essential to progress the work and by participants we mean participation  by the stakeholders of the standards.

Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1.

2. Number of projects

An increasing number of projects within JTC1 can be taken as a measure of success if the projects meet the needs of the market. (We are doing the right thing)

Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1.

3. Project management

A project needs to be carefully defined and subdivided into specific subwork items/parts where it may be considered to be an advantage. The  reason for a subdivision might be to get parts of the standard finished  faster, to better meet market needs and/or to make future developments/evolution easier to implement.

A carefully defined project(WI) might attract new participants.

The time from a NP is initiated and until the standard is published is to be controlled and shortened as much as possible. Every project must have specific milestones that have to be met in order to satisfy the overall time plan for the project. 

Examples of milestones could be: A firm agreement on Scope and table of contents, CD draft ready, DIS ready, approved DIS sent to ITTF for publication. Consequences for not fulfilling the milestones should be stated. SC chairmen with a project failing to meet the milestones need to explain the delays to JTC1 and present updated time schedules for approval. JTC1 needs to consider the  consequences of the delays and, in cases where the new time schedule is  not approved, specifically make decisions on how to proceed.

A goal of say 12 months for completion of a standard may be set by JTC1  as a criteria for success, but the acceptable time frame depends on several factors, e.g. on the complexity of the project. It may, therefore, be more reasonable to focus on setting up a realistic time schedule for the project and to ensure that the work progress according  to this schedule. This method may ensure that JTC1 will be considered as a reliable organization with time schedules that can be counted upon.

4. Error corrections

It is essential to note that there is no such thing as a perfect standard. The time spent in producing a standard is a compromise between seeking the 100% perfect standard, the available time and manpower and the market needs. It is a healthy sign when errors are reported because it proves that the standard is used. If the number of reported errors  increases too much it may though indicate that the standard in question was not good enough when published.

5. Meetings

A higher activity within JTC1 may result in a higher number of meetings per year and/or in an increased number of participants in the meetings.

Whether an increase of 10% per year is sufficient to be counted as an success or another value or rate is required is to be determined by JTC1.

All documents to be dealt with at an SC or JTC1 meeting are to be distributed well in advance of the meeting to allow opinions to be formed by the NSOs. This highlights the importance of getting the agreed work done between meetings. In addition to distributed documents only documents produced at the meeting and, if the participants agree on it, late contributions can be discussed.  Projection systems may be used when agreeing to e.g. modified time schedules for projects for which previous distribution was not possible.

The success of a meeting may be judged on the completeness of the distributed agenda, the availability of the relevant documents well in advance of the meeting, the disposition of the available time on the agenda items and of the results of the meeting as such.

6. Marketing material

It is well known that most standards are difficult to understand if you have not participated in the writing process. In order to facilitate the use and understanding of the standard a technical report or annex to the standard should explain the background for the standard and give a short introduction to the standard, e.g. as a kind of tutorial. This kind of  document would promote the use and understanding of standards and result in an increased sale of standards.

7. Acceptance of PAS's

 An easy criteria is the count of accepted PAS's within one or two years. To be the focal point JTC 1 has to attract fora, etc. to bring there PAS's  forward according to the new procedures. If they do not, either the rules or the position of JTC 1 are wrong, and we have not shown our ability to co-operate with these important partners.

8. Withdrawal of obsolete standards

An increasing number of withdrawn standards can be taken as a measure of success.

The withdrawn standards can either have been replaced by revisions or just vanished as the covered topics are not relevant anymore.

In short, it could be a measure of having an updated set of standards available.