One debate that's well into reruns is the
argument about which type of standards is better – those laid down by some
organization, or those that have emerged in the marketplace. Another name for
this opposition is de jure standards versus de facto standards. Whatever you
call it, it's one of those arguments that misses the point.
A standard that doesn't succeed isn't a
standard. So, if a committee creates a standard and nobody uses it, it fails.
Equally, if a company promotes a standard and it doesn't catch on, it fails. But not every standard deserves to succeed.
An organization that imposes a standard on a community which doesn't recognize
its authority and isn't involved in the development is likely to produce a
botched standard. At the same time, a company that promotes a standard based on
a limited view of the domain it serves is also likely to fall short.
The key here is community involvement. To
build a credible standard, you need the input of the people who will use it.
You need their criticism, their commitment to improving on whatever is produced
during the process, and their active participation in deployment. The market will sometimes produce all these
effects automatically, especially with technical standards embodied in mass
consumer products. But the market is unlikely to produce workable business data
standards without the help of a dedicated community organization.
You know the old saying: A camel is a horse
designed by a committee. But, as someone once pointed out, if you want a pack
animal that can cross a desert, the camel is the right answer. Diginomica
Comments