"It 'one thing to legislate something else to enforce it."
- Bryce Law
Not long ago, Shane "Locutus" Shields wrote an interesting blog called "What is the use of standards?" where he expressed his disappointment with the standards in information technology (IT) field. His discontent is not without precedent. Many of us sooner or later they wanted in our standard of work, only the harsh reality of a sector that can not be counteredhow to embrace the standards. Suppose all the standards of a good idea and we should all go in the direction, sometimes ... but that day never seems to come, because it forces the opposition to play against such deliberate efforts.
First, is the main reason for the standards to find some kind of agreement in our work. This uniformity simplifies product development, maintenance and ease of use and, God forbid, the interchangabiity components. Standards improved significantlyCommunication between people and saves time, because everyone has accepted and adapted to the standard, making them communicate on a common level (aka ", on the same page"). Imagine where the entertainment industry would be today if there are no standards in musical composition. People need to reinvent the expression of music with each new song again. But because we took the time to develop standards that can be read and musical composition written by everyone on the planet. Thisalso means that the rules can be taught and applied on a universal basis.
Standard also provides a way to work effort, which is one reason why some people object to measure it. Instead of in a consistent manner that can be compared and in conflict with other EN some people prefer non-conformity to cover their work secretly, so comparisons opacity. The excuse of these people is that they do not want to "load" or "repressed" standards. In reality they arejust trying to protect their jobs.
Without standards, stop the cooperation and communication between the parties. From this we can deduce that the standard is an integral part of teamwork. Instead of chaos in a heterogeneous environment (in which everyone is entitled to "their thing") is involved, it offers the tranquility of a uniform standard environment, where people are all "rowing on the same oar" in concert. From this perspective, one could easily argue that the standardspromotes productivity in the workplace. This means that the standards require a manager who understands intuitively the value of teamwork and consistency in terms of job performance. Unfortunately, most managers today still prefer "rugged individualism" rather, the antithesis of teamwork.
Another problem is standard, the reality of who dominates the market share of de-facto standard and jealously defends against intruders. We have seen more than once in the IT industryField and to be honest there is little we can do about it. We were able to state authorities, in turn, act as referees, but they have proved an effective tool for the definition of standards, at least in the IT industry. Instead, a coalition of companies linked to might be a better alternative, with maybe a couple of the government's insistence that things are moving.
But my biggest concern for the rules are applied. I think that we are now at a point in the IT industryIndustry standard in which we have to admit, without some form of automation in order to establish compliance with them unnecessary. Over the years I have had numerous attempts at standardization in the IT industry and those who simply human judgments are enforced through bureaucratic processes to see how, inevitably dies a slow death. Without some form of automation to validate compliance with standards, people will find a way to avoid compliance with these. Sad, but true.
One of the advantagesof aging is that your current perspective is clear. Although I have seen numerous attempts at standardization in the IT industry, it is difficult to find a true standard, as all the vendors have their own unique spin on it. You should then became the first universal programming language such as COBOL, but this has never happened, as a hardware manufacturer implements its nuances in their compilers, which allows multiple interpretations of COBOL. Perhaps the only true standard I have comein this area is ASCII text, which was invented by Robert W. Beamer.
In 1970 my father first called for industry-wide standards for systems development. This was at the annual meeting of the old Data Processing Management Association (, - now the AITP Association of Information Technology professionals DPMA) did. At that time, DPMA power in terms of size and resources and could easily have made such an effort, but unfortunately resisted in this wayLike many other associations.
A recent attempt was the "Business Analysis Body of Knowledge" (BABOK), the International Institute of Business Analysis (IIBA), which means a number of interesting tips and techniques, but it is certainly not a standards body. For example, there are conceptual foundations or defined glossary of basic concepts such as the definition of "system", "Business Process", "method", "software", "information", "data", etc. These are alltaken for granted and wants us all have the same interpretation (which certainly do not). Although it is good, it means missing the target. Without a conceptual basis, the techniques are enshrined in the document, as an attempt to learn without having a nuclear bomb, build E = MC2.
CONCLUSION
Standardization offers the advantages of uniformity, predictability, compatibility and harmony. If this is not of interest to you, but try a little 'senseThey participate in a standard program. But if you want to participate, is to understand the implementation of the rules, which say "that's just how it works." There must be valid reasons for their governance. They should also address the question of application. Standards will be met by the degree of discipline instilled in the staff, even when covered, your chances of success are good, but when lax discipline, automation is necessary to ensure standardsare met.
