Standardization

Governance of IT Standards

Finding the Right Standards

The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool

DoD IT 
Contents January/March 2007

1 Director’s Forum

4 “Openness”

An Important Principle for the Stewardship of DoD IT Standards

8 DoD IT Standards Program Strategy and Principles

Enabling Warfighters at Internet Speed

14 Governance of IT Standards

20 Finding the Right Standards

26 A Behind-the-Scenes Look at Managing

DoD/Joint Interoperability

30 Collaborating with External Organizations to Develop

and Set IT Standards

34 DoD Representatives to Organizations for IT Standards

38 DoD IT Standards Registry

44 The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool

56 Harvesting

Creating an ISO Standard from a Military Specification

60 Lessons Learned in IT Standards Development

Departments

70 Events 72 People

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office

Timothy P. Koczanski

Editor, Defense Standardization Program Journal

Defense Standardization Program Office

8725 John J. Kingman Road

Stop 6233

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221

703-767-6870

Fax 703-767-6876

dsp.dla.mil

The Defense Standardization Program Journal

(ISSN 0897-0245) is published four times a

year by the Defense Standardization Program

Office (DSPO). Opinions represented here are

those of the authors and may not represent official policy of the U.S. Department of Defense.

Letters, articles, news items, photographs, and

other submissions for the DSP Journal are welcomed and encouraged. Send all materials to

Editor, DSP Journal, J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office, 8725 John J. Kingman

Road, Stop 6233, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6221.

DSPO is not responsible for unsolicited materials. Materials can be submitted digitally by the

following means:

e-mail to DSP-Editor@dla.mil

floppy disk (Windows format) to DSP Journal

at the above address.

DSPO reserves the right to modify or reject any

submission as deemed appropriate.

For a subscription to the DSP Journal, go to dsp.dla.mil/newsletters/subscribe.asp

8

4
dsp.dla.mil 1

Director’s Forum

DoD’s IT standards program has two primary goals:

❚ Improve interoperability, scalability, effectiveness,

and efficiency of DoD’s IT and national security

systems

❚ Facilitate DoD’s transformation to enhance the

net-centric capabilities of the warfighter and supporting business operations.

To achieve these goals, the DoD Executive Agent

for IT Standards oversees efforts such as the following:

❚ Identify and assess relevant emerging technologies and related standards

❚ Manage DoD participation in external IT standards developing organizations (SDOs) and standards setting organizations (SSOs)

❚ Facilitate feedback and dissemination of IT standards information among stakeholders

❚ Develop, acquire, adopt, specify, maintain, and

manage the life cycle of IT standards for DoD.

The IT standards program management strategy is

built around initiatives in three major areas:

❚ IT standards governance.The IT standards governance process selects the best available standards,

develops standards portfolios, and adopts them

for DoD use.The approved and mandated standards and profiles are retained in the DoD

Information Technology Standards Registry

(DISR). DISR is hosted on a web-based applicaMichael O’Connor

Chief, DISA Interface Standards Division

MESSAGE FROM THE DOD 

EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR IT STANDARDS

By Michael O’Connor

Chief, DISA Interface Standards Division

In this issue of the Defense Standardization Program Journal, we are focusing on information

technology (IT) standardization efforts and initiatives underway at the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). DISA is the DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards. It is my pleasure to turn over 

my column in this issue to Mr. Mike O’Connor, Chief of the Interface Standards Division in the DISA 

Engineering Organization. Mr. O’Connor has been delegated the duties assigned to the DoD Executive Agent

for Information Technology Standards.

Gregory E. Saunders

Director, Defense Standardization Program Office
2 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

tion tool called DISRonline. DISRonline

also hosts other information relating to the

IT standards life cycle and the management

actions and activities that assist the DoD

acquisition and requirements communities

with their interoperability efforts.Three articles address our IT standards governance initiatives: Jerry Smith and Walt Okon provide

an overview of the governance structure and

process, Dave Brown and Jerry Smith discuss

how to find the right standards, and Ken

Dolson and Doris Bernardini describe the

DISR process and DISRonline.

❚ Participation in relevant external SDOs/SSOs.

DoD must ensure that its requirements are

met with accredited standards that are available from or under development by authoritative non-government sources.When

warfighter and business operations have

requirements for which there are no available

open accredited standards, or that can be met

only partially by existing standards, DoD participates in relevant external SDO/SSO

activities to ensure the timely consideration

of DoD requirements.The SDO/SSO

Collaboration Tool is an online capability to

facilitate DoD participation in the right

external IT standards activities and is

described in an article by Robert Kidwell,

Joe Brazy, Chris Kreiler, and Nonna Bond.

The articles by Jerry Smith and Dennis

Devera give us a perspective of our involvement in external global IT standards activities. Finally, Nonna Bond and Chris Kreiler

explain “harvesting”—a method for creating

an ISO standard from a military specification.

❚ Compliance testing and certification.Validation

testing of IT standards and testing of DoD

systems for conformance with IT standards

ensure that the implementation of standards

across DoD is consistent and in compliance

with mandated standards. Certification of systems for interoperability is also essential to

ensure that DoD’s requirements are being

satisfied by the selected standards and that

battlefield interoperability is enabled.The

article by Ned Roper, Lylha Cahill, and Steve

Cole explains how this important function

contributes to achieving interoperability.

The IT standards program management strategy

features a proactive management structure, clear

yet flexible processes, and a life-cycle approach to

the development and promulgation of IT standards, testing and certification, configuration

management, sun-setting of IT standards still

essential for the interoperability of legacy systems, and retirement of standards that are no

longer needed.This strategy applies to DoD

components that develop IT standards, use IT

standards and profiles, or have an interest in the

development of IT standards.Top-level DoD

executive participation, oversight, and governance

of the IT standards program are provided by the

IT Standards Oversight Panel and the Information Technology Steering Committee. Our

guiding principle is to separate management of

the standards process from the substantive content.An article by Jerry Smith discusses the 

strategy and principles guiding the IT standards

program. In another article, he discusses lessons

learned in IT standards development.

A number of laws and regulations mandate the

use of technical standards developed by voluntary

consensus standards bodies to attain greater

reliance on voluntary standards and conformity

assessment bodies and to participate in external
dsp.dla.mil 3

SDOs and SSOs.We appoint the official technical experts who represent the warfighter and

business operations requirements in appropriate

non-government standards development efforts.

Our strategy is to increase the availability of

open IT standards for DoD use in leveraging

net-centric technologies and capabilities and

ensuring their widespread visibility. In his article,

Jim Hall,Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense for Logistics and Materiel Readiness/

Logistics Plans and Programs, articulates the significance of this important policy regarding the

DoD preference for open standards.

By driving the incorporation of requirements—

of warfighters, users, consumers, and business

operations—into open information and communications technology standards, we encourage

industry to develop and build compliant commercial products.As more and more vendors

offer such products, prices go down, the number

of standardized products goes up, and reliability,

robustness, and interchangeability increase.This

significantly enhances interoperability.When

users and consumers influence the specification

of international standards, competition to deliver

required products increases while making newly

developed products more marketable globally.As

a result, more conforming products are readily

available in the marketplace.

DoD IT standards are prescribed to enable

warfighter and DoD business operations to operate in a net-centric environment efficiently and

effectively to protect and exchange information.

Selection of the “right” standards based on

appropriate technology will help us transform to

a net-centric environment and facilitate interoperability. Market-supported, open, non-government standards are becoming increasingly

important to achieving the scalability and interoperability that are critical to this environment.

We need to determine which technologies,

standards, and products best function together to

form interoperable and scalable solutions. Our

goal is to help program and project managers

make well-informed decisions and leverage limited resources to maximum advantage by identifying, developing, prescribing, and implementing

the IT standards that best satisfy DoD needs.

Our goal is to help program and project managers make well-informed 

decisions and leverage limited resources to maximum advantage by 

identifying, developing, prescribing, and implementing the IT standards 

that best satisfy DoD needs.
4 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Jim Hall

“Openness”

An Important Principle 

for the Stewardship 

of DoD IT Standards

Global Connectivity

Strategy

DoD Standards

Strategy

DoD Net-Centric

Data Strategy

Information Assurance

Strategy
dsp.dla.mil 5

I

In discussions about IT standards, we often hear the term “open.”The mandated

use of open standards by DoD is not only desirable, but is necessary for practical

legal and cost reasons:

❚ If we were to place in our official registry of mandated standards a proprietary

specification that belongs to Vendor A or to Consortium B, then DoD would

be put in a position of non-competitively “favoring” that entity at the expense

of others and accordingly may be subject to potential legal liability.

❚ If a party in a consortium provides certain intellectual property that is incorporated into one of the consortium’s specifications, and DoD places this particular specification into its official registry of mandated standards, then DoD may

be liable for future royalty payments for employing that intellectual property.

These two simple examples demonstrate the importance of ensuring that the

standards and specifications adopted by DoD are publicly available and are unencumbered by patents, copyrights, intellectual property rights (IPR), and royalties.

About Open Standards and Specifications

Standards and specifications are considered open—as opposed to proprietary or

“closed”—when sponsored and supported by an organization that uses an open,

public consensus process to develop and maintain them. This includes control of

the document (hard copy or electronic versions) and the absence of IPR issues.

In direct contrast, closed standards and specifications are arbitrarily “controlled,”

usually as proprietary. DoD’s main issue with proprietary standards is that they promote vendor lock-in and exacerbate problems with legacy systems. Business enterprises, consumers, and governments alike pay dearly when locked into proprietary

solutions.

When applied to the standards creation process, the term “open” means that participation is available to all interested parties who are directly and materially affected. Participation is not conditional upon membership in any organization, nor

is it unreasonably restricted on the basis of certain qualifications. All participants

have the opportunity for their views and opinions to be heard during the development, approval, adoption, and distribution processes.The development and approval

processes must be free from undue influence or dominance by any special or single

interest.The development and adoption processes are thought to be open when

the normal creation, review, adoption, and publication of technical standards and

specifications have the following characteristics:

❚ The “owning” organization completely and fully discloses the development
6 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

process and products.The organization uses a public consensus process to develop, maintain, and manage the configuration of its products.

❚ IPR issues are absent. A written and publicly available statement delineates the

attitude of the organization and its members regarding IPR for patents, disclosure,

copyrights, royalties, distribution rights, trademark rights, original contributions,

and so on.

❚ The owner of products published by the organization is clearly and unambiguously identified and is responsible for version control of the products.The owner

uses a formal change control process to manage changes to the products and has

mechanisms in place to track versions, fixes, and addendums.

❚ The products and the procedures governing the work of the organization are

available (but not necessarily without fee) to any interested party.

In addition to the characteristics of openness, DoD considers the following when

selecting open standards for use:

❚ The standards developing organization (SDO) or standards setting organization

(SSO) has established its position within the relevant technical, professional, and

marketplace communities as an objective authority.

❚ The SDO/SSO is accredited or formally recognized as an authoritative body that

produces and distributes formal, publicly available standards and specifications.

DoD’s Open Standard Adoption Strategy

The DoD strategy for adopting open IT standards is to participate in SDOs and SSOs

that address emerging information and communications technologies. DoD participants in such organizations ensure that our requirements are considered in deliberations for the standards being developed by the SDO/SSO and that published

standards are open and widely available. It is paramount for DoD to be actively involved in relevant SDOs and SSOs so that our requirements for net-centricity are incorporated as part of the published open standard. By incorporating these DoD

requirements into open information and communications technology standards, we

encourage the private sector to design and build commercial products that comply

with the standards.

We recognize that the IT standards-making process will always be outstripped by the

pace of technology evolution. DoD participants in external SDO/SSO activities are

key links in identifying emerging technologies and standards that will support the DoD

net-centric transformation programs, and they must be diligent to provide this important feedback information to priority programs and engineering support activities.
dsp.dla.mil 7

The chief principle is to rely upon the marketplace to build products to the open

standards that are essential to DoD’s warfighting and business operations.This principle also applies to non-IT standards that are adopted by the Defense Standardization

Program Office (DSPO). Figure 1 shows the relationship of the IT standards and the

DSPO standards program.

Summary

The National Defense Strategy clearly states how DoD will operate in the future:“we

will be net centric. Our job is to deliver the critical enabling capability to conduct

network-centric operations.” Open standards are essential building blocks for realizing

the DoD Global Information Grid, making the transition to a net-centric environment, and realistically obtaining interoperability. Market-supported open standards

will be indispensable for DoD to exchange information seamlessly.

About the Author

Jim Hall is the DoD Standards Executive and the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

for Logistics and Materiel Readiness/Logistics Plans and Studies.t

FIGURE 1. DoD Standards Program Structure

ADUSD, Logistics

Plans and Programs

DoD Standardization

Council

DoD CIO

(NII/DoD CIO)

Executive Agent for

IT Standards

DISR

External 

SDOs/SSOs

DoD 

Memberships

Defense Standardization

Program Office

ASSIST-Online

Adopted Standards Adopted IT Standards

SDO/SSO

e-Portal
8 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

DoD IT Standards Program

Strategy and Principles

Enabling Warfighters at Internet Speed

By Jerry Smith
dsp.dla.mil 9

T

The Defense Department’s vision is for net-centric operations and warfare:

The National Defense Strategy clearly states how we will operate in the future—we will be net centric. Our job is to deliver the critical enabling capability to conduct network-centric operations. Defense transformation hinges

on the recognition that information is our greatest source of power.We can

leverage information to allow decision makers at all levels to make better decisions faster and sooner. (John Grimes, DoD Chief Information Officer,

March 2006)

The IT standards program is a key element in enabling net-centric transformation. IT standards enable information to be protected by identity-based capabilities

that allow users to connect, be identified, and access needed information in a

trusted manner—all in a world in which the information is virtual and on demand

with global reach.

The Global Information Grid (GIG) is a web-like enterprise and infrastructure in

which we can discover information, orchestrate an operational picture based on

the situation at hand, have shared situational awareness, and operate securely. Open

IT standards will enable Internet technology at speeds capable of bringing people

together rapidly and efficiently, help them do their jobs in new ways never before

anticipated, and help them accomplish their missions as never before envisioned.

DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards

The Director, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), is designated as the

DoD Executive Agent (EA) for IT Standards.The duties assigned to the EA have

been delegated to the Interface Standards Division in the DISA GIG Enterprise

Services Engineering Directorate of the Systems Engineering, Architecture and

Integration Center.The EA duties are as follows:

❚ Centrally manage the IT standards program in accordance with DoD Directive

5101.7, “DoD Executive Agent for Information Technology Standards,” May

2004.

❚ Develop, with DoD components, a standards management strategy and program plan that implements the requirements of various public laws and

statutes. Examples are Section 2223,Title 10 of the United States Code; DoD

Directive 4630.5, January 11, 2002; and DoD Instruction 4630.8, June 30,

2004.

❚ Manage and oversee the identification, adoption, specification, and life-cycle

configuration management of IT standards that apply throughout DoD.These

standards are to help achieve interoperable IT and national security systems

(NSS) and to contribute to decision superiority in support of net-centric

operations.
10 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Strategy

The EA has identified two goals for the IT standards

program:

❚ Improve interoperability, scalability, effectiveness,

and efficiency of DoD’s IT and NSS

❚ Facilitate the net-centric capabilities of the

warfighter and DoD business operations.

The strategy is to ensure that DoD requirements are

met within accredited non-government standards—

open, market supported, and from authoritative

sources—that are available or under development.This

is consistent with public law, judicial precedent, and

extant policy of the federal government and DoD.

The national standards strategy developed by the

American National Standards Institute (ANSI) encourages the reliance on a voluntary, consensus-based

process to develop market-endorsed open standards

that support the global competitiveness of the United

States. DoD supports ANSI’s strategy and encourages

the establishment of partnerships and collaboration

with relevant external standards developing organizations (SDOs) and standards setting organizations

(SSOs) of interest specifically to meet DoD needs.

DoD’s strategy for the IT standards program is to use

accredited standards from authoritative sources in accordance with DoD policy and preferences to satisfy

requirements with open, consensus-based public- and

private-sector standards. Our experience shows that

this approach reduces costs and enhances vendor-supported product availability. Also, the responsible SDO

or SSO, because of its established position within the

relevant technical, professional, and marketplace communities, is an objective authority, which implies that

the standards developed by the organization are

widely accepted and have been successfully implemented in the marketplace.The requirement for open

IT standards is not simply a desired characteristic; it is

based on practical legal and cost considerations. Standards must be publicly available and free from patents,

copyrights, intellectual property rights, constraints,

and royalties.

By advocating for the incorporation of DoD requirements into open commercial standards, DoD

encourages industry to design and build compliant

commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) products that will

enable DoD to operate effectively in a net-centric

environment.

RATIONALE

DoD needs to use commercially available open standards-based products that work together seamlessly

and can be integrated into existing business processes

and warfighter systems. The solutions supported by

the selected open standards must be scalable and interoperable.

The right standards solve user problems as manifested

in well-designed and efficient business processes, reflect available and relevant technology, and have market support in that vendors have built conforming

products that are available in the marketplace.

By driving the incorporation of user, consumer, and

business operations requirements into open information and communications technology standards, DoD

encourages industry to develop and build compliant

commercial products that are available as conforming

COTS products. As more and more vendors offer

compliant COTS products, prices go down, the number of standardized products goes up, and reliability,

robustness, and interchangeability increase. This significantly enhances interoperability. When users and

consumers influence the specification of international

standards, competition to deliver required products

increases while making newly developed products

more marketable globally.As a result, more conforming products are readily available in the marketplace.
MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The IT standards program management strategy is

built around three major areas: IT standards governance, participation in relevant external SDOs and

SSOs, and standards testing to ensure compliance. In

the case of IT standards that are not supported commercially, that is, standards (such as some satellite standards) that have only military application, DoD

follows the MilStd development processes prescribed

in DoD Directive 4120.24, “Defense Standardization

Program (DSP).”

The IT standards governance process selects best

available standards, develops standards portfolios, and

adopts them for DoD use. The approved/mandated

standards and profiles are retained in the DoD IT

Standards Registry (DISR), which is hosted on a

web-based application tool called DISRonline.

DISRonline also hosts other information relating to

IT standards life-cycle and management actions that

assist the DoD acquisition and requirements communities with their interoperability efforts.

When warfighter and business operations have requirements that cannot be met with available open

dsp.dla.mil 11

accredited standards or that can be met only partially,

DoD participates in relevant external SDO/SSO activities to ensure that its requirements can be addressed in a reasonable time frame.

DoD IT standards governance and SDO/SSO participation are linked. Emerging technology and standards trends, coupled with DoD IT interoperability

needs, can be identified through work in the

SDO/SSO and brought forward to the IT standards

governance process. By promoting the development

and use of open market-supported, non-government

standards whenever possible, the IT standards program will support transformation to a net-centric 

environment, reduce costs, and achieve the interoperability necessary for net-centric warfighting functions

and DoD business operations.When open accredited

standards cannot satisfy DoD systems’ requirements,

the EA actively participates as a key player at the military, national, and international levels to provide

management and technical expertise in developing

the needed standards.

Validation testing of IT standards and testing of

DoD systems for conformance ensures that the imParticipation is fully open to interested parties who are directly and materially affected.

Participation is not conditional upon membership in any organization or unreasonably restricted on the basis of certain

qualifications.

There is opportunity for the views and opinions of all participants to be inputs to the development, approval, adoption,

and distribution processes.

The development/approval process is free from undue influence or dominance by any special or single interest.

The products, and the procedures governing the work, of the organization are available (but not necessarily without fee)

to any interested party.

IT Standards Development Principles
12 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

plementation of standards across DoD is in compliance and consistent with mandated standards. Certification of systems’ interoperability is also essential to

ensure that DoD’s requirements are being satisfied by

the standard.

The IT standards program strategy features clear, yet

flexible, processes and a life-cycle approach to the development and promulgation of IT standards, testing

and certification, configuration management, sun-setting of IT standards still essential for legacy systems

interoperability, and retirement of standards that are

no longer needed.This strategy applies to DoD components that develop IT standards, use IT standards

and profiles, or have an interest in the development of

IT standards.

Principles

An important principle of the IT standards program

is the separation of the management of standardization activities from the technical work. IT standards

activities are managed within a life-cycle portfolio;

decisions are based on mission goals, architecture,

risk, performance, and expected return on investment.Technical work is based on IT interoperability

needs, DoD requirements, and technology evolution

or revolution. DoD must also consider priorities for

transformation to a net-centric environment for warfighter and business operations. The management

principle is that the EA owns the IT standards management process, and the sponsors and stakeholders

across the enterprise own the substantive content.

GOVERNMENT ROLE

In the United States, there is a strong orientation toward relying on private enterprise to lead voluntary

standards activities. Standards are validated by marketplace acceptance when vendors produce COTS

products based on open standards. For DoD, this is

usually the most efficient and cost-effective approach

to IT standardization. However, left to its own devices, the U.S. voluntary standards system does not always reliably produce all of the standards that DoD

needs.The IT standards program will work with the

private sector to help ensure that DoD requirements

are incorporated into the needed open standards.

Manage IT standards as a portfolio. A portfolio is a group of standards and activities related to a specific technology area.

Rely on open private-sector-produced IT standards availability.

Replicate good, proven business practices.

Keep pace with technology evolution.

Employ a life-cycle approach to standards management.

Make standards visible and available.

Understand that the Executive Agent owns the standards management process, while the sponsor/stakeholder owns the

substantive content of the standard.

Leverage technology and tools for maintaining a “paperless” environment.

Involve stakeholders.

Monitor the timing of building and mandating standards in relation to technology. Timing is critical. Setting standards too

early could stifle innovation and creativity; setting them too late could engender social and economic costs.

When creating standards, specify performance and interface requirements, not the process for building the end product.

IT Standards Program Management Principles
Public law and federal government policy mandate

DoD participation in external standards forums to

lead and influence open private-sector-based IT standards activities.To that end, a set of objective criteria

have been established for evaluating and ranking the

various SDOs/SSOs.These criteria will also help determine which standardization paths will provide the

best mechanism for the development, adoption, and

publication of the IT standards needed by DoD. DoD

representatives must work with SDOs/SSOs to incorporate warfighter and business operations requirements into standards and drive the availability of

open, standards-based products.

Summary

DoD’s overall strategy is to rely on the private sector

to build the open standards that are needed. DoD

participates as equal partners in as many SDOs and

SSOs as possible.The reasons for DoD’s participation

are twofold: provide input on DoD requirements into

the standards-building process, and bring back to

DoD stakeholders information about technology

standards trends and activities.

The IT standards program management approach is

proactive, with flexible open processes to ensure that

DoD can capitalize on getting its requirements into

commercially available standards developed by recognized and authoritative external SDOs and SSOs.The

strategy recognizes that the right IT standards are key

enablers to fast and accurate information awareness

and exchange across the enterprise.

About the Author

Jerry Smith is a computer scientist in the Interoperability

Standards Division of the Defense Information Systems

Agency, DoD’s Executive Agent for centralized life-cycle

management of IT standards. Mr. Smith is coordinating

DoD’s participation in global private-sector IT standards

activities.

dsp.dla.mil 13

t

STRATEGIC STANDARDIZATION

Strategic standardization is important to the U.S.

economy. It is an effective management tool for businesses to gain a leading edge on competition or protect a competitive position. DoD’s stake in strategic

IT standardization is rooted in the fact that a strong

defense is based on a strong economy, and a strong

economy depends on maintaining global competitiveness. IT standards are a key enabler to achieving

and maintaining global competitiveness. U.S. global

leadership of IT standards and leading-edge technology is a critical factor to the future health and vitality

of our economy. It is in DoD’s long-term best interest

that the U.S. IT industry is healthy and robust and

maintains its current global leadership position. DoD

representatives to SDOs/SSOs at national and international levels must keep this in mind when preparing DoD positions for input into these organizations.

DOD INVOLVEMENT IN EXTERNAL STANDARDS ACTIVITIES

Externally developed, non-government standards are

becoming increasingly important to achieving scalability and interoperability throughout DoD. By promoting the development and use of marketsupported, open non-government standards whenever possible, the IT standards program will support

transformation to a net-centric environment, reduce

costs, and achieve the interoperability necessary for

net-centric warfighting functions and DoD business

operations.When standards sponsored by the private

sector cannot satisfy DoD systems requirements, the

EA actively participates as a key player at the military,

national, and international levels to provide management and technical expertise in developing the required IT standards deliverables. By influencing the

specification of international standards, competition

to deliver required products increases while making

newly developed U.S. products more marketable

globally.
14 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Governance of IT Standards

By Walt Okon and Jerry Smith
E

dsp.dla.mil 15

Effective governance of IT standards is crucial to ensure the selection of the best

available standards, development and maintenance of standards portfolios, and

adoption of IT standards for DoD use. Therefore, DoD has established a governance structure that provides an opportunity for a wide-range of DoD entities to

have input into the standards selection process. It encourages participation

throughout DoD and maintains a flexible, responsive environment to encourage

open discussion and exchange of ideas to meet DoD requirements.

The key entities involved in governance of IT standards are the DoD Executive

Agent (EA) for IT Standards, the Chief Information Officer (CIO) Executive

Board, the IT Standards Oversight Panel (ISOP), and the IT Standards Committee

(ITSC), including its subcommittees and technical working groups (TWGs). Below,

we describe some of the governance activities for which these entities are responsible. Figure 1 shows the relationship of the key entities in IT standards governance.

DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards

The Deputy Secretary of Defense has designated the Director, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA),as the EA for IT Standards.The duties assigned to the

EA have been delegated to the Interface Standards Division in the DISA Global

Information Grid (GIG) Enterprise Services Engineering Directorate of the Systems Engineering,Architecture and Integration Center.The chief responsibility of

the EA is to centrally manage the IT standards program for DoD, ensuring the selection of the best available standards, development of standards portfolios, and

adoption of the standards for DoD use.

FIGURE 1. Relationship of Key IT Governance Entities

CIO EB

IT Standards Oversight Panel

IT Standards Committee

Defense 

Standardization

Committee

MCEB/MIB

USD(AT&L) USD(C) USD(P&R) Service CIOs Joint Staff CIO IC CIO USJFCOM CIO

DPA&E Joint Staff-J6 USN-N6 USAF-AF/S Dep Dir NSA Dir DISA DoD OGC

● Overarching Guidance ● Policy ● Final Arbitrator

and Direction ● Strategic Planning

DISA IN Services/Agencies IC CIO JFCOM J2/J4

Tri-Chairs: AT&L; DoD CIO; J6

● Issue Resolution ● Planning ● Direction ● Implementation ● Priorities ● Enforcement ● Programmatics ● Approval

ASD(NII)/DCIO USD(AT&L) USA USN USAF USMC USCG Joint Staff/J6 DISA DIA

NSA DLA DTRA DMSO MDA NIMA NRO DARPA SOCOM TRANSCOM

DFAS JFCOM IC CIO J2/J4 ● Management Direction ● Priority Setting ● Periodic Review ● Issue Adjudication ● Project Oversight ● Adoption ● Coordination ● Cross-Functional Integration ● IT Standards Program Promulgation

Chair: DISA (DoD EA for IT Standards

Chair: DoD CIO
16 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Chief Information Officer Executive Board

DoD Chief Information Officer (Chair)

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)

Air Force (AF/S)

Air Force Chief Information Officer

Army Chief Information Officer

Deputy Director, National Security Agency

Director, Defense Information Systems Agency

Director, Program Analysis and Evaluation

DoD Office of General Counsel

Intelligence Community Chief Information Officer

Joint Staff Chief Information Officer

Joint Staff (J6)

Marine Corps Chief Information Officer

Navy Chief Information Officer

Navy (N6)

U.S. Joint Forces Command Chief Information Officer

IT Standards Oversight Panel

DoD Chief Information Officer (Tri-chair)

Joint Staff (J6) (Tri-chair)

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) (Tri-chair)

Defense Information Systems Agency (IN)

Intelligence Community Chief Information Officer

Joint Staff (J2/J4)

Services and Agencies

U.S. Joint Forces Command

IT Standards Committee

Defense Information Systems Agency/DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards (Chair)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Networks and Information Integration, Deputy Chief Information Officer)

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics)

Air Force

Army

Coast Guard

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

Defense Information Systems Agency

Defense Intelligence Agency

Defense Logistics Agency

Defense Modeling and Simulation Office

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Intelligence Community Chief Information Officer

Joint Staff (J2/J4)

Joint Staff (J6)

Marine Corps

Missile Defense Agency

National Imagery and Mapping Agency

National Reconnaissance Office

National Security Agency

Navy

U.S. Joint Forces Command

U.S. Special Operations Command

U.S. Transportation Command

Entities Involved in Governance of IT Standards
dsp.dla.mil 17

DoD Directive (DoDD) 5101.7, “DoD Executive Agent for Information Technology Standards,” encompasses IT standardization in all Lead Standardization Activities (LSAs). DoDD 4120.24, “Defense Standardization Program (DSP),” and

DoD 4120.24-M, “Defense Standardization Program Policies and Procedures,”

contain complementary direction:

❚ DISA is designated as the LSA for data communications protocol standards,

information standards and technology, information processing standards for

computers, and telecommunications systems standards within the Defense

Standardization Program.

❚ The National Geospatial Agency is designated as the LSA for geospatial intelligence standards, including the Imagery Standards Management Committee

and Geospatial Standards Management Committee.

❚ The Defense Modeling and Simulation Office is designated as the LSA for

modeling and simulation standards.

Figure 2 depicts the governance structure.

CIO Executive Board and IT Standards Oversight Panel

The CIO Executive Board maintains the overall oversight of the IT standards

process.The board provides overarching guidance and direction, policy, and strategic planning and is the final arbiter of issue disputes.

ITSC Subcommittee

FIGURE 2. Governance Structure

Business Subcommittee Warfighting Subcommittee

Governance Governance

Installations &

Environment Domain

Human Resources

Management Domain

Acquisition Domain

Strategic Planning

& Budgeting Domain

Logistics Domain

Accounting &

Finance Domain

GIG Governance

National Intelligence

Subcommittee

Governance

In work

In work

Governance

National Intelligence

Enterprise Information

Environment

Subcommittee

NET OPS

System Engineering

JS/OSD Working

Portfolio Definitions

& Governance

Governance

Enterprise Information Environment Subcommittee

Communications

Domain

(IPv6, Information

Transfer,

Messaging, Radio,

SATCOM,

Transformational

Communications)

Computing

Infrastructure

Domain

(Application,

Discovery,

Mediation, Storage,

and User Assistant)

CORE Enterprise

Services Domain

(Collaboration,

Enterprise Service

Management)

Information

Assurance/Security

Domain

(IA/Security,

including Biometrics)
18 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

The ISOP assists with planning, sets priorities for the ITSC, and provides direction and resolution for issues originating within the ISOP, and approves all standards included in the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR).

IT Standards Committee

The ITSC provides the main technical coordination, cross-functional integration,

and collaboration among the ITSC subcommittees. The ITSC also promulgates

standard operating procedures and adjudicates issues arising from the ITSC subcommittees. Currently, the ITSC has four subcommittees: business, warfighting,

enterprise information environment, and national intelligence.

The ITSC is the EA’s DoD IT standards coordination body consisting of representatives of the services, agencies, and combatant commands.These representatives

help with assigning subject matter experts (SMEs) to TWGs charged with vetting

IT standards and standards profiles to adopt and mandate for DoD use.

During TWG deliberations, each SME represents his or her sponsor’s position

while negotiating to reach consensus. Consensus is defined as a general agreement

characterized by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any

important part of the concerned interests, and by a process that involves seeking to

account for the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. Consensus does not imply unanimity.

ITSC Subcommittees

The ITSC subcommittees are established to pursue standards identification, development, adoption, and review, as well as configuration management activities.The

subcommittee chairs, who are appointed by the EA, ensure that the ITSC and

ISOP are notified of content changes to the portfolio. Content changes also affect

the DISR.

Technical Working Groups

The TWGs, which are subordinate to the ITSC subcommittees, consist of SMEs

from standards sponsors and stakeholders.The TWG chairs are responsible for submitting findings and recommendations to their subcommittee chairs.

The TWGs do the technical work on IT standards for their respective subcommittees.The SMEs discuss and determine the requirement for a standard, hold discussions, and recommend adoption—based on such criteria as public availability,

the standard’s implementation in vendor products, and the standard’s maturity—for

implementation by DoD program managers. TWGs promote interoperability
dsp.dla.mil 19

through implementation guidance on standards in their area of assignment and

manage changes to standards portfolios.

TWGs coordinate and integrate all actions assigned within their function or

portfolio activity area, including appropriate support to DoD standardization executives and LSAs in developing, adopting, specifying, and testing IT standards.

When standards are readily available to meet its requirements, DoD will select the

best and most cost-effective standards.When there are gaps between the DoD requirements and standards, or no standard yet exists to meet DoD’s requirements,

DoD works with public and private-sector standards developing and standards setting organizations (SDOs/SSOs) to ensure that DoD requirements are considered

in the IT standards development process. Figure 3 depicts the general working relationship of TWGs and SDOs/SSOs.This process shows the life cycle of a standard

from idea to adoption and recording of the standard in the DISR.

Published standards developed within the SDO/SSO environment are selected

and adopted by the TWGs, approved by the ITSC subcommittee chairs, and forwarded to the ITSC for consideration.The ITSC will forward its recommendations to the ISOP for approval and authority to promulgate. Upon adoption,

standards are registered and stored on the DISRonline.The ITSC subcommittee is

responsible for moving a standard through its life cycle.

About the Authors

Walt Okon is a senior staff member of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and

Information Integration/DoD Chief Information Office. He has oversight responsibilities for the

DoD Executive Agent for IT Standardization.

Jerry Smith is a computer scientist in the Interoperability Standards Division of the Defense

Information Systems Agency and coordinates DoD’s participation in global private-sector IT

standards activities.t

Stakeholders

Technical Working Groups

ITSC Subcommittee

ITSC

ISOP

DISR

Approved

DISR Standards

Selection Process

Vote

SDO/SSO

Market

Need

Standards

Development

Process

Published Standards and Technical Specifications

DoD Requirements Industry

Reqs

FIGURE 3. Relationship between Technical Working Groups and SDOs/SSOs

Selected

Standards
DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Dave Brown and Jerry Smith

Finding the Right Standards

20
dsp.dla.mil 21

A

Anyone who has tried it knows: finding the right IT standards is not easy. One issue is

that navigating today’s complex and volatile standards environment is time-consuming

and expensive. Another is that there is no recognized, readily accessible, and unbiased

source of information that answers scalability and interoperability questions reliably and

objectively.

Value Proposition

Participation in standards development can be very expensive, in view of the investments

in time (labor) and travel costs. However, on the benefit side of the equation, finding the

right standards is of strategic importance for building better, cost-effective weapons systems while achieving interoperability with our coalition partners.An early investment in

developing open standards can reap huge savings in weapon system acquisition costs. For

example, the Department of Commerce estimates that ISO 10303,“Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data”—a private-sector standard for which DoD played a

major development role—could save $928 million per year by reducing interoperability

problems in the automotive, aerospace, and shipbuilding industries.1

A goal of the IT standards program is to determine which standards and products best

function together to form interoperable and scalable solutions. Unfortunately, thousands of candidate standards and myriad global groups and activities address—and often

perform duplicated work on—the same issues.There are simply too many standards

developing organizations and standards setting organizations (SDOs/SSOs) to track

them all, let alone influence the incorporation of DoD requirements into the standards

they develop.

Thus, finding the right standard is a difficult and risky task.

What Are “Good” Standards?

The key drivers of “good” IT standards are fresh technology, marketplace support, and

business processes,as shown in Figure 1.

Good standards solve user problems as manifested in well-designed and efficient business processes, reflect available and relevant technology, and very importantly have market support, in that vendors have built conforming products that are available in the

marketplace.

DoD must use commercially available open standards-based products that seamlessly

work together and can be integrated into existing business processes and warfighter

systems.The solutions supported by the selected open standards must be scalable and

interoperable.
DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

The goal of the DoD IT standards program is to help program and project managers make well-informed decisions by identifying, developing, prescribing, and implementing the IT standards that best satisfy DoD needs to protect and exchange

information.The strategy is to use accredited standards from authoritative sources in

accordance with DoD policy and preferences.

A net-centric environment uses a web-based infrastructure to allow people

throughout the enterprise to access and share information for total situational

awareness and superior decision making. Market-supported, open, non-government

standards are becoming increasingly important to achieving the scalability and interoperability that are critical to this environment.

DoD Requirements

A number of laws and regulations mandate the use of technical standards developed

by voluntary consensus standards bodies, to attain greater reliance on voluntary standards and conformity assessment bodies.2 The U.S. National Standards Strategy encourages reliance on a voluntary, consensus-based process to develop marketendorsed open standards that support the global competitiveness of the United

States.

DoD has established a long-standing hierarchy of preference for selecting standards

on the basis of their source.Table 1 shows that hierarchy.

22

FIGURE 1. Enablers of “Good” Standards
dsp.dla.mil 23

TABLE 1. Standards Preference Hierarchy

Strategy

An effective IT standards management program helps make well-informed decisions

and leverage limited resources to maximum advantage by identifying, developing,

and implementing IT standards that best satisfy DoD needs.This is accomplished by

identifying and participating actively in selected external SDOs/SSOs that can contribute directly to DoD’s transformation to a net-centric environment. It also ensures representation of DoD needs in these external organizations. By advocating

incorporation of its requirements into open, non-government, “commercial” standards, DoD encourages industry to develop and build compliant commercial products that will enable DoD to effectively operate in a net-centric environment.

The strategy of the Executive Agent for IT Standards is to increase the availability

of open IT standards for DoD use in leveraging net-centric technologies and capabilities, to ensure their widespread visibility, and to identify the ones that are most

closely aligned with our requirements and priorities.We have developed some selection criteria, outlined in Table 2, to provide an objective framework for identifying

the best candidates to include in the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR).

Priority Standards source hierarchy Examples

1 International International Electrotechnical Commission

International Organization for Standardization

International Telecommunication Union 

2 National American National Standards Institute 

3 Professional society; technology Government Electronics and Information Technology Association

consortia; industry association Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

Internet Engineering Task Force

Organization for the Advancement of Structured 

Information Standards

World Wide Web Consortium 

4 Government Federal Information Processing Standards 

5 Military Military standards

Standardization agreements
24 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

What Are the “Right” Standards?

DoD prefers to satisfy its requirements with open, consensus-based public- and private-sector standards that are currently available or under development. Being available from a reputable and authoritative source means that the responsible SDO/SSO

must have an established position as an objective authority in its sphere of activity

within the relevant technical, professional, and marketplace communities.This also

implies that the standards the organization develops are widely accepted and have

been successfully implemented in the marketplace. The requirement that IT standards be open is not simply a desired characteristic but based on practical legal and

cost considerations. Standards must be publicly available, royalty free, and free from

patents, copyrights,and intellectual property rights constraints.

Figure 2 illustrates the process for adopting open standards for DoD.The priority is

support for net-centric IT standards.

TABLE 2. Standards Selection Criteria

Criterion Description

Source of the standard Recognized authority

Cooperative stance

Feedback (receptive to user needs, concerns, and appeals)

Process (development process documented and widely available)

Consensus (development/approval process free of undue influence 

or dominance by any special or single interest)

Openness Ownership (organization policies regarding document ownership,

control, and intellectual property rights)

User participation

Vendor participation

Technology relevance Applicability to current DoD objectives (technically feasible/

commercially viable; “state-of-art” vs. “state-of-practice”)

Maturity Planning horizon (length of time standard has existed or length 

of time standard should be useful) 

Stability

Revision content and schedule

Marketplace support Acceptance

Commercial viability

Usefulness/utility Well-defined quality attributes

Services and application interoperability

Risk Issues regarding performance, maturity, and stability 
dsp.dla.mil 25

FIGURE 2. Process for Adopting Open Standards

Summary

DoD prescribes IT standards to enable both the warfighter and DoD business operations to protect and exchange information efficiently and effectively. Selecting the

correct IT standards based on appropriate technology will help DoD facilitate interoperability and transform to a net-centric environment.

1

National Institute of Standards and Technology,Economic Impact Assessment of the International Standard for the Exchange of Product Model Data (STEP) in Transportation Equipment Industries, NIST

Planning Report 02-5, 2002, p. ES-2.

2

Examples are United States Code,Title 10, Section 2223; National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act; and “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus

Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities” published as Office of Management and Budget

Circular A-119, revised, February 1998.

About the Authors

Dave Brown manages the Standards Engineering Branch within the Defense Information

Systems Agency (DISA) Systems Engineering Center. He has been principally involved in the

development and promulgation of DoD policy and processes that support the interoperability

and supportability of information technology and national security systems. He has served

DISA, the DoD Chief Information Officer, and the U.S. Navy in standards management

aspects ranging from governance to assessment and compliance.

Jerry Smith is a computer scientist in DISA’s Interoperability Standards Division and coordinates DoD’s participation in global private-sector IT standards activities.t

One or more exist to

meet requirements

and selection criteria

One or more exist to

partially meet 

requirements and

selection criteria

None exist to meet 

requirements and

selection criteria

Select the best and

most cost-effective

standard for a 

service area

Identify differences,

use applicable parts,

fill gaps, and work

with SDO/SSO to fix 

standards

Input DoD requirements

into an SDO/SSO to 

fix the deficiency and

participate in group 

to fix it

● Build reference 

or prototype 

implementations

(if possible)

● Develop or use a

testing program

and certification

suite

● Promote development of conforming

COTS products (as

appropriate)

● DISR standards continue to

improve in quantity/quality

● Architecture views built to

represent DoD product

domains

● DoD systems use standards

to achieve interoperability

and cost savings

● Facilitates transformation to

a net-centric environment

Standards Steps Common End

Availability Required Steps States
26 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Ned Roper, Lylha Cahill, and Steve Cole

A Behind-the-Scenes Look

at Managing DoD/Joint

Interoperability
H

Have you ever picked up your TV remote and pushed button after button, only to

realize you had the wrong remote? The remote that operates the ceiling fan is not

interoperable with your TV. Similarly, how about the set of speakers you just purchased that don’t work with your new 42-inch plasma screen TV—frustrating, isn’t

it? You could have avoided or minimized such problems if your equipment choices

had been governed by a process to review and enforce interoperability beforehand.

Likewise, every management process in the pursuit of DoD/joint interoperability

needs an enforcement capability that assists both overseer and implementer. The

Interface Standards Division of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) is

one of several technical offices within the Office of the Secretary of Defense

whose major goal is to manage the process leading to battlefield and business interoperability.

Within the Interface Standards Division is a subordinate branch, Net-centricity,

Requirements,Analysis and Assessments Branch (GE333), whose major role is the

behind-the-scenes facilitator of the Joint IT and national security systems (NSS)

Interoperability Assessment, Test and Evaluation Program and the developer and

manager of specialized applications used by key players in the DoD IT community:

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration/DoD Chief Information Officer, or OASD(NII)/DoD CIO; the Joint

Staff Directorate for Command, Control, Communications, and Computer Systems (J6); and DISA.This community, as well as specialized offices in other DoD

components, works closely with GE333 to minimize interoperability issues across

DoD. GE333 serves as the front-end manager of network-centric reviews, assessments,and analysis geared toward ensuring that DoD programs and systems are interoperable and supportable before they’re developed and fielded across DoD.

To facilitate support—as mandated in DoD, Joint Staff, and DISA policies—

GE333 provides the IT community with help via the Joint IT and NSS Interoperability Assessment,Test and Evaluation Program.To that end GE333 has operated

autonomously as the developer and manager of the original implementation of the

Joint C4I Program Assessment Tool (JCPAT) software application and all of its follow-on enhancements. This tool focuses on interoperability- and supportabilitybased net-centric reviews, assessments, and analysis. JCPAT was the first of its kind

to capitalize on the World Wide Web to efficiently facilitate assigned responsibilities

and simultaneously support the formal collaboration needs for staffing, assessment,

review, and comment between the IT/NSS community and other DoD components via NIPRNet (Unclassified but Sensitive Internet Protocol Router Network) and SIPRNet (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network).

dsp.dla.mil 27
28 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

The inception of joint net-centric capabilities, accompanied by the need for

timely pretest analysis of net-centric interoperability and supportability, required an

upgraded JCPAT application in FY05–FY06.The JCPAT-Empowered (JCPAT-E),

as the new application is known, extends the original capability, incorporates

DoD-wide usage of the DoD IT Standards Registry, and facilitates program manager enforcement of IT standards development (TV-1 of the DoD Architecture

Framework).1 Its functions have expanded greatly beyond its predecessor’s basic beginnings:

❚ JCPAT-E functions as the formal interoperability and supportability staffing,

comment collection, and resolution mechanism for all Joint Capabilities

Integration and Development System (JCIDS) documents and all Information

Support Plan (ISP) documents as OASD(NII)/DoD CIO directs.This version

is the front-end triggering mechanism and support process for the Joint

Staff–J6’s Joint IT and NSS Interoperability and Supportability assessment,

analysis (planned), test, evaluation, and eventual interoperability/supportability

certification requirements mandated by the JCIDS and OASD(NII) ISP

processes.

❚ The new application also provides DISA with the needed coordination and

collaboration platform to ensure internal ISP verification of policy and procedural matters prior to a document’s formal JCIDS or OASD(NII) submission.

Through the JCPAT-E, DoD program managers can always view, address, collaborate on, and consider DoD-wide recommendations on interoperability,

supportability, and information assurance, and receive pre-evaluation of Net

Ready Key Performance Parameter requirements and products before deciding to release a document for submission via GE333.

JCPAT capitalizes on the World Wide Web to facilitate assigned 

responsibilities and simultaneously support the formal collaboration

needs for staffing, assessment, review, and comment between the

IT/NSS community and other DoD components.
dsp.dla.mil 29

JCPAT-E and the various subprocesses it supports involve centralized management; assessor/program manager collaboration; and availability and retention of

pertinent interoperability and supportability assessment and analysis information

for DoD, Joint Staff–J6, and OASD(NII)/DoD CIO. Its critical linkage to the

JCIDS processes and procedures of the Joint Staff Force Structure, Resources and

Assessment Directorate (J8) ensures that all GE333, Joint Staff–J6, and OASD(NII)/

DoD CIO assessors are supported by the tenets of handling information only once.

JCPAT-E upgrades planned over the next 3 years will involve the consumption

and production of web services, real-time collaboration, content discovery, and single-person assessment management.To help users access program- or system-specific information in other related DoD support applications, JCPAT-E will

capitalize on binary-XML web service techniques for smoothing out the process

and flow between certain applications. Specifically, JCPAT-E’s content discovery

functions will produce an awareness (accountability) of JCIDS artifacts, a topdown system evaluation using data mining techniques (dashboards), stronger application management with deeper operations metrics, and smarter searches of

systems metadata and binary file attachments.

1

The TV-1 is one of the 15 architecture products required by the mandatory Net Ready Key

Performance Parameter (NR-KPP) product table, outlined in Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff Instruction 6212.01D.

About the Authors

Ned Roper is chief of DISA’s Netcentric Interoperability Assessments Branch and the facilitator of DoD’s Joint IT and NSS Interoperability Assessment, Test and Evaluation Program.

He has more than 30 years of experience in communications enhancement for the U.S.

Army and Joint communities.

Lylha Cahill is the project manager for JCPAT-E and the Netcentric Interoperability

Assessments Program. Steve Cole is the assistant project manager for JCPAT-E. Both 

Ms. Cahill and Mr. Cole have extensive experience with DoD joint programs.t
30 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Jerry Smith

Collaborating with External

Organizations to Develop

and Set IT Standards
T

dsp.dla.mil 31

The U.S. National Standards Strategy, developed by the American National Standards Institute, encourages reliance on a voluntary, consensus-based process to develop market-endorsed open standards that support the global competitiveness of

the United States. DoD supports that strategy, and it encourages collaboration and

partnering with relevant external standards developing and standards setting organizations (SDOs/SSOs) that can help meet DoD needs.

Current Environment

DoD prescribes IT standards to enable both warfighters and business operations to

protect and exchange information. Selecting the correct IT standards, based on appropriate technology, will help DoD to facilitate interoperability and transform to

what is known as a “net-centric” environment.

Such an environment uses a web-based infrastructure for accessing and sharing information throughout DoD for total situational awareness and superior decision

making. Market-supported, open, non-government standards are becoming increasingly important for achieving the scalability and interoperability that are critical to

this environment. A goal of the IT standards program is to determine which standards and products best function together to form interoperable and scalable solutions that meet DoD requirements.

Strategy

The strategy of the DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards is to increase the availability of open IT standards for DoD use in leveraging net-centric technologies and

capabilities, and ensuring their widespread visibility.We must identify those groups

whose activities are most closely aligned with our requirements and priorities. Unfortunately, not all SDOs or SSOs are equally effective, efficient, respected, or neutrally objective.To this end, we have developed various assessment criteria, outlined

in Table 1, to provide a framework and set of objective criteria for identifying and

evaluating the best candidate SDOs or SSOs for meeting our needs.

In similar fashion, we have developed some standards selection criteria, outlined in

the article, “Finding the Right Standards,” to provide an objective framework for

identifying the best candidate standards to include in the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR). The IT standards governance process selects the best available standards, develops standards portfolios,and adopts them for DoD use.The approved and

mandated standards and profiles are retained in the DISR.
32 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

The goal of the IT standards program is to help make well-informed decisions and

leverage limited resources to maximum advantage by identifying, developing, prescribing, and implementing those IT standards that best satisfy DoD needs.

The strategy is to use accredited standards from authoritative sources in accordance

with DoD policy and preferences. DoD prefers to satisfy requirements within open,

consensus-based public- and private-sector standards that are currently available or

under development. Being available from a reputable and authoritative source means

that the responsible SDO/SSO must have an established position as an objective authority in its sphere of activity within the relevant technical, professional, and marketplace communities.This also implies that IT standards the organization develops

are widely accepted and have been successfully implemented in the marketplace.

TABLE 1. SDO/SSO Assessment Criteria

Criterion Description

Nature of organization Recognized authority

Cooperative stance

Development process

Openness Policies on intellectual property rights

Ownership

User participation

Vendor participation

Technology relevance Leading edge

Innovation and creativity

Technical maturity

Stability Participation levels

Process maturity

Planning horizon

Marketplace support Acceptance

Commercial viability

Relevant deliveries

Usefulness/utility Related deliverables

Well-defined product quality attributes

Interoperability of services and applications

Risk Process stability 

Relevant scope

Change management
dsp.dla.mil 33

The requirement that IT standards be open is not simply a desired characteristic but

based on practical legal and cost considerations. Standards must be publicly available,

royalty free, and free from patents, copyrights, and other intellectual property right

constraints.

By advocating incorporation of DoD requirements into open non-government,

“commercial” standards, DoD encourages industry to develop and build compliant

commercial products that will enable it to effectively operate in a net-centric environment.

Summary

Information and communications technology is characterized by new products,

markets, and services that emerge and become obsolete far more quickly than in traditional industry sectors. Industry has long recognized that appropriate standards are

essential to effective operation—indeed, to the very survival of an enterprise.

We must determine which technologies, standards, and products best function together to form interoperable and scalable solutions. Our goal is to help program and

project managers make well-informed decisions and leverage limited resources to

maximum advantage by identifying, developing, prescribing, and implementing IT

standards that best satisfy DoD needs.

Our IT standards program provides a means to represent the requirements of

warfighters and business operations in appropriate, non-government global efforts

that produce market-supported, open IT standards and specifications.

Our overall strategy is to rely on the private sector to produce the needed open

standards.We participate as equal partners in as many relevant external activities as

we can for developing and setting standards, hoping that we have selected the right

ones, based upon our comprehensive selection criteria.The purpose of our participation is twofold: to input our requirements into the standards building process and

to bring back to DoD stakeholders information about trends and activities in technology standards.

The strategy recognizes that the right IT standards are key enablers to fast and accurate information awareness and exchange across the enterprise. Using the right IT

standards is vital to net centricity.

About the Author

Jerry Smith is a computer scientist in the Interoperability Standards Division of the Defense

Information Systems Agency, DoD’s Executive Agent for centralized life-cycle management of

IT standards. Mr. Smith has more than 30 years of experience in international standards

activities.t
By Dennis Devera and Jerry Smith

DoD Representatives 

to Organizations 

for IT Standards

34 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Dennis Devera and Jerry Smith

DoD Representatives 

to Organizations 

for IT Standards
dsp.dla.mil 35

A

A number of laws and guidelines mandate the use of technical standards developed

by voluntary consensus standards bodies and require DoD to actively participate in

private external standards developing and standards setting organizations

(SDOs/SSOs). (See “Relevant Laws and Guidelines.”) This article outlines how

DoD selects representatives to these bodies and what their responsibilities are.

Function and Selection

DoD policy is to ensure compliance with internationally accepted standards as articulated by a former Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,Technology and Logistics, who stated that “as DoD envisions future systems, the United States must

ensure that the best people are placed on the appropriate national and international

IT standards committees to convey the DoD vision and schedule, and to agree to

the standards that will permit interoperability with future systems.” DoD representatives must work with relevant standards initiatives and activities to incorporate

warfighter and supporting business operations requirements into market-relevant

standards and drive the availability of products based on open standards.

With that in mind, selecting the right people to represent DoD interests in an external SDO/SSO is a significant task. Solicitation of interested and qualified candidates is an open process managed by the DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards.

Stakeholders, military services, and agencies nominate candidates, whom the DoD

Executive Agent selects using comprehensive criteria outlined in Department of Defense (DoD) Information Technology Standards Program (ITSP) Management Plan and

“Guidance for DoD Representative Participation in External Standards Development Organizations/Standards Setting Organizations.”

National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003

United States Code, Title 10, Section 2223, “Information Technology: Additional Responsibilities of Chief Information

Officers”

United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 145, “Cataloguing and Standardization”

Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, “Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary

Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities”

DoD Instruction 4630.8, “Procedures for Interoperability and Supportability of Information Technology (IT) and 

National Security Systems (NSS)”

Relevant Laws and Guidelines
36 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Responsibilities

The official DoD representative is one of the most important participants in the IT standards program.This individual is the primary interface between DoD stakeholders and external SDOs/SSOs. He or she is responsible for representing the view of DoD to the

designated SDO/SSO and is authorized to speak officially on behalf of DoD in that particular forum.All members of a DoD delegation to an SDO/SSO are bound by this premise:

That they all will support the DoD position, provide inputs, negotiate in support of the

DoD position, and vote accordingly.Table 1 summarizes the representative’s responsibilities.

TABLE 1. Responsibilities of DoD IT Standards Representative

Responsibility Description

Convey DoD vision Convey U.S. interests in general and DoD’s vision in particular—

for example, Joint Vision 2020

Articulate DoD requirements

Represent interests and constraints of DoD schedule

Articulate and defend DoD positions

Agree Agree to the standards that are compatible with U.S./DoD interests ■ Coordinate positions ■ Develop/submit white papers, draft technical specifications

■ Present arguments that defend our interests

■ Vote accordingly

Take steps to help defeat actions that are inimical to our interests

Defeat non-value-added proposals 

Promote interoperability Support only technical standards and specifications that will enable 

interoperability with DoD future systems in a net-centric environment

Be alert to ferreting out those that do not

Provide feedback Provide feedback on IT trends and activities to DoD stakeholders,

especially program managers and project teams

When issues facing an SDO/SSO could result in technical requirements that may measurably affect standards significant to DoD interests, additional technical representation may

be necessary to support DoD’s official voting representative in dealing effectively with such

situations.The composition of such delegations, in addition to the official voting representative and designated alternate, requires careful consideration.The makeup of the delegation

must consider the nature and purpose of the external standards activity and the possible impact of decisions on DoD.

DoD representatives will need to integrate DoD objectives, requirements, and positions

on relevant issues into the external standardization processes.Thus, they should promulgate

positions or inputs to these external bodies accordingly.Where possible, the official representative uses the process described in “Guidance for DoD Representative Participation in

External Standards Development Organizations/Standards Setting Organizations” to vet
dsp.dla.mil 37

and establish the official DoD position on certain IT standardization issues. (See “Principles for Working Effectively with External SDOs/SSOs.”)

PROVIDE TIMELY FEEDBACK

Stakeholders must be kept informed of significant technical and

policy developments that occur during SDO/SSO activities.

Official voting representatives are responsible for facilitating

communication or coordination of proposals for new or modified standards throughout the organization and elsewhere in

DoD where stakeholders and affected parties need to know

about the issues.

MAINTAIN RECORDS

Official DoD representatives need to prepare thorough, yet concise, meeting reports; follow up with appropriate staff or stakeholder representatives; analyze issues; and distribute reports.They

also should maintain a file of SDO/SSO-related information, including the procedures, bylaws, membership lists, final ballots,

relevant correspondence, and minutes of meetings.A web-based

SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool has been developed to support

the official DoD representatives in maintaining and disseminating SDO/SSO-related information.

Summary

DoD personnel are encouraged to participate in private-sector

IT standardization activities to promote standards that meet the

needs of warfighters and related business operations.The official

DoD representatives and their alternates appointed to external

SDOs/SSOs ensure that the organizations meet DoD interests

by constructively influencing the content and direction of IT

standards development.Today, more than ever, influencing open

standards that maintain, affirm, and uphold technology transition into market-supported defense “products” is of paramount

importance in fostering the DoD transformation toward net

centricity, scalability, and battlefield interoperability.

Principles for Working Effectively

with External SDOs/SSOs

Work with Principal Staff Assistants, services,

combatant commands, and agencies to

gather, consolidate, and coordinate requirements for specific technical standards.

Advocate DoD standards requirements and

positions in the appropriate SDO/SSO, and

represent DoD interests in non-government

standards bodies.

Form global alliances and partnerships of

mutual interest among industry, consortia,

professional societies, academia, and nongovernment standards bodies to improve

availability of non-proprietary commercial offthe-shelf products that implement open standards.

Provide leadership in appropriate private-sector SDOs/SSOs to leverage promotion of DoD

interests.

Replicate successful standardization projects

that incorporate proven best practices.

Influence the development and adoption of

standards that support DoD requirements by

both the private sector and our allies.

Leverage and exploit industry standardization

initiatives to maximize mutual opportunities

and satisfy DoD warfighter and business operations requirements.

Foster collaboration among professional societies, industry associations, user groups,

consortia, and academia to reduce fragmentation and duplication of standardization activities.

Be alert to opportunities for using seed funding to accelerate promising external standards activities that serve DoD interests and

are key components for net centricity and interoperability.

Promote the use of mandated and adopted

internationally accredited standards and

specifications in specific DoD programs and

projects by providing direct support as

needed to program, project, and functional

managers.

Bring back and insert IT technology, and

awareness of related standards trends, into

DoD priority programs and DoD engineering

support activities.

About the Authors

Dennis Devera and Jerry Smith are computer scientists in the Interoperability Standards Division of the Defense Information Systems

Agency, coordinating DoD’s participation in global private-sector IT.t
38 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Doris Bernardini and Ken Dolson

DoD IT Standards Registry
T

dsp.dla.mil 39

The DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR) is the official registry of IT standards for

DoD use. The secretariat of the Information Technology Standards Committee

(ITSC) maintains the currency of IT standards information on the web-based tool,

DISRonline, and ensures that standards portfolios are established, up to date, and reviewed.The ITSC secretariat is also the principal point of contact for coordinating

standards portfolios with working groups and committees external to the purview

of the DoD Executive Agent (EA) for IT Standards.The screen on page 38 shows

how standards are brought into the DISR from standards developing organizations

(SDOs) and standards setting organizations (SSOs).

Information Technology Standards

DoD uses IT standards from a variety of sources.These IT standards include international standards (for example, ISO and International Electrotechnical Commission),

specifications, profiles, protocols, implementation conventions, Federal Information

Processing Standards, military standards, defense performance specifications, NATO

standardization agreements, allied communications publications, allied data publications, guidelines, commercial item descriptions, standardized drawings, handbooks,

manuals, tools, and other documents relevant to the application and use of information and communications technology. In addition, DoD uses IT standards produced

as non-government national standards (American National Standards Institute), consortia specifications (World Wide Web Consortium, Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards), and trade association and professional

society standards (Government Electronics and Information Association, Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers).

DISRonline

DISR is hosted on DISRonline, which also hosts other related standards guidance

and direction. DISRonline includes software and hardware standards that are used

for intelligence collections, data and information processing, information transfer,

and information presentation and dissemination. DISRonline provides technical

definitions for information system processes, procedures, practices, operations, services, interfaces, connectivity, interoperability, information formats, information content, interchange, and transmission of transfer and IT standards that apply during the

development, testing, fielding, enhancement, and life-cycle maintenance of DoD information systems.
40 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Selection Criteria

Selection of the correct standards based on appropriate technology will help enable

DoD to transform to a net-centric environment and facilitate interoperability.The

role of the Executive Agent for IT Standards is to identify and assess emerging technologies, manage DoD participation in external SDOs and SSOs, develop and maintain IT standards, and manage the life cycle of IT standards for DoD.

The EA uses standards selection criteria as the framework for determining which

standards should be selected for inclusion in DISR.The criteria also provide guidance for moving through the DISR standards life cycle that changes the category of

a standard from “emerging” to “mandated” to “mandated sunset” to “inactive/retired.”1

The term “IT standard” as used here also includes profiles (system or IT), which are

a collection of standards, parts of standards, or options within a standard by name and

version, prior to emerging profiles or after becoming a reference implementation or

mandated profile. Each IT profile contains one or more standards from the DISR.A

system profile is a collection of one or more IT profiles.

Standard Classification Categories

Once a standard is selected, it should be categorized either “emerging” or “mandated.” A mandated standard may be reclassified as “mandated sunset” or

“inactive/retired.”The current standard classification categories are defined below.

EMERGING STANDARDS

Emerging standards and technologies include

❚ emerging or developing technology,

❚ standards and specifications under development (new work items),

❚ draft standards, and

❚ candidate published standards (approved published standards by an authoritative

source that are publicly available).

Emerging standards and technologies are candidates to assist DoD with tracking

new technologies, new work items, draft standards, and other items or subject matter

that may be of interest. Standards and technologies included in DISR should be

properly classified by net-centric areas and identified as either a standard or a technology. Use of an emerging standard requires a waiver, including a risk assessment,

until that standard is vetted and designated as mandated or mandated sunset.
dsp.dla.mil 41

Emerging standards include candidate published standards that help the program

manager determine areas likely to change, creating a concern for upgradability.

Emerging candidate published standards may be implemented, but may not be used

in lieu of a mandated standard.A candidate published standard is expected to be elevated to mandatory status within 3 years.Those that continue in an emerging status

for longer than 3 years require justification.Table 1 provides a notional view of the

process.

MANDATED STANDARDS

Mandated standards are essential for enabling interoperability or net-centric services

across the Global Information Grid (GIG). They are the minimum set of essential

standards for the acquisition and development of all DoD systems that produce, use,

or exchange information and, when implemented, facilitate the flow of information

in support of the warfighter and supporting business operations.These standards are

mandated for the management, development, and acquisition of new or improved

systems throughout DoD. Mandated standards must be published (either in print or

electronically) by an authoritative source.

A mandated standard may also be directed by DoD policy documents signed by an

Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense or higher. These policy documents

usually take the form of a DoD memorandum, instruction, or manual. In such cases,

TABLE 1. Process for Emerging Standards and Technology

Technology and

standards of interest Steps required Activities Benefits

One or more emerging

technologies of interest

to a net-centric 

environment

One or more standards

being developed that

should be monitored

One or more draft or

published candidate

standards of interest

Review selected standards

development progress periodically

Track selected technology

trends and standards development within the technology

area

Select published candidate

standards for elevation to

“mandated” or removal

Select the best and most

promising technologies

for a DoD mission area or

net-centric environment

Select the best and most

promising standards for a

technology area

Select standards that are

relevant to technologies

of interest

Continued improvement in quantity and quality of DISR standards

Early identification of potential

standards and technology

Interoperability and cost savings

Facilitation of transformation to a

net-centric environment 
42 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

the EA, in consultation with the ITSC, should be afforded the opportunity to comment on the proposed mandated standard.

MANDATED SUNSET STANDARDS

A mandated sunset standard is a mandated standard with a predefined event and date

when it should be moved to inactive/retired status.The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration is responsible for assigning a sunset

tag to a standard.The sunset tag requires a waiver request with a risk assessment that

includes a migration plan. A migration plan is required to explain how the system

will transition from that standard when it is retired.

INACTIVE/RETIRED STANDARDS

The EA, in coordination with the ITSC, approves the designation of a standard as

inactive/retired. Inactive/retired standards should not be used in a new or upgraded

system. All inactive/retired standards remain in the DISR. However, when selected

for inclusion in a technical standards view, an inactive/retired standard requires the

previously described waiver.

Profiles

Profiles (system or IT) are a collection of standards, parts of standards, or options

within a standard by name and version, prior to becoming a reference implementation, that is, implemented or instantiated. Standards must be in the DISR in order to

create a profile. Each IT profile contains one or more standards from the DISR.

A system profile is a collection of one or more IT profiles. Building a system profile

is an iterative process; most systems will contain more than one IT profile. IT profiles

can be built by using any of the five profile-building methods in DISRonline. System

engineers will often use several of these methods to construct their system profiles.

A profile may be mandated such as a key profile (KP), or may be a specific profile

built to satisfy the requirements of a system or program manager, a community of

interest, or a functional area such as logistics. Specific profiles may include emerging

standards from DISR. A mandated profile may contain only mandated standards

from DISR.

Key interfaces are functional and physical characteristics that exist at common

boundaries with co-functioning items, systems, equipment, software, and data. GIG

KPs provide a net-centric-oriented approach for managing interoperability across

the GIG based on the configuration control of key interfaces. KPs are a mechanism
dsp.dla.mil 43

to manage the complex interfaces within the GIG system of systems.A KP is a set of

documentation produced as a result of interface analysis that

❚ designates an interface as key;

❚ analyzes the interface to understand its architectural interoperability, test, and

configuration management characteristics; and

❚ documents those characteristics in conjunction with solution sets for issues identified during the analysis.

Managing key interfaces to ensure interoperability is critical. A single interface

specification is easier to develop, implement, maintain, and enforce than maintaining

synchronization of the individual interfaces of numerous systems. The approach is

more legacy tolerant since it does not always assume or require changes to the internals of related systems.The approach is also system evolution tolerant; system internals can be changed, capabilities enhanced, and new technologies incorporated, as

long as the interface remains stable or evolves in a measured way consistent with a

defined configuration management process.

Summary

Selection of the right standards for inclusion in the DISR is only the beginning.

Standards are of little use if not implemented in interfacing systems.A successful IT

standard is a widely accepted specification of how to implement a set of technologies that must exchange data and interoperate. But it is what is done with that specification—how it is implemented—that measures the true success of a standard.The

main goal is to facilitate transformation to a net-centric environment and foster

DoD-wide interoperability and scalability.

1

The criteria that the ITSC uses is described in another article in this issue of the Journal,“Finding

the Right Standards” by Dave Brown and Jerry Smith.

About the Authors

Dr. Doris Bernardini is a computer specialist in the DISA Standards Engineering Branch of

the Interface Standards Division where she leads the DISR Support Team.

Ken Dolson, who recently retired after a long career of government service, was instrumental

in revitalizing the DoD IT standards program and a key architect of the DISR.t
44 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Robert Kidwell, Joe Brazy, Chris Kreiler, and Nonna Bond

The SDO/SSO 

Collaboration Tool
dsp.dla.mil 45

D

DoD monitors or participates in numerous standards developing organizations

(SDOs) and standards setting organizations (SSOs). In FY06, DoD purchased memberships in 38 separate SDOs/SSOs. Most of these organizations have subcommittees, working groups, or technical teams, each of which has one or more standards

development projects underway.

Managing DoD membership in the various SDOs and SSOs has proved to be a

formidable task. Management activities include annually surveying needs, tracking

SDO/SSO membership accounting and financial information, managing SDO/

SSO representatives and alternates, identifying key issues, collaborating with key

SDO/SSO stakeholders, and developing DoD guidance packages. One of the tools

used to help manage these activities was the “SDO/SSO Notebook,” a Microsoft

Word document, prepared for the DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards, which

contained relevant management and technical information on each SDO/SSO.The

notebook contained many summary views of the information, with considerable redundancy.The maintenance of this information, when a new SDO/SSO representative was assigned, had become burdensome as the document grew to more than

1,000 pages.

Another challenge has been communicating with SDO/SSO representatives. Many

representatives are tasked as an additional duty to their primary responsibilities, so

their SDO/SSO membership participation is time constrained. Although e-mail

provided a vastly improved method of communication between SDO/SSO representatives and stakeholders, it still only automated a part of the SDO/SSO participation process.

This situation provided the impetus to find an alternative approach to making the

SDO/SSO membership management and operational tasks more efficient.The solution adopted was a database-driven web-based SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool.This

tool supports an improved process for the Executive Agent’s management of memberships in non-government SDO/SSOs, and it provides DoD SDO/SSO representatives, stakeholders, and the Information Technology Standards Committee (ITSC)

Technical Working Groups (TWGs) the means to collaborate, develop DoD consensus positions on key issues (via a guidance package), and share information.The tool

also enables information sharing with other interested parties, as long as they have

Internet access.

The specific goals for the SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool are as follows:

❚ Facilitate Executive Agent management of DoD’s external SDO/SSO memberships
46 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

❚ Serve as a tool for managing the activities of the DoD

SDO/SSO memberships

❚ Provide a one-stop source of information on all DoD

SDO/SSO activities

❚ Complement the DoD IT Standards Registry (DISR) and

Defense Standardization Program Office (DSPO)

❚ Provide collaboration, information-sharing, and SDO/SSO

management support not available at DISRonline and 

ASSIST-Online

❚ List standards developed by DoD SDO/SSO membership

organizations

❚ Provide links to DSPO and DISRonline and other related

sites.

Capabilities

The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool is a collaborative and information-sharing web space, currently under development, to support for SDO/SSO representatives, DoD stakeholders, and other

authorized users with an interest in or responsibilities related to

IT standards. Figure 1 (see page 49) depicts the tool’s capabilities.

The SDO/SSO representative is the central actor in this environment with the capability to manage SDO/SSO information,

SDO/SSO meeting-related information, SDO/SSO news, and

the stakeholders. SDO/SSO stakeholders participate in issue discussions and identify and assess requirements.All users can benefit from the use of collaboration and information-sharing tools

such as discussion boards, e-mail exploders list, action items, and

document repositories.

Table 1 (see page 52) lists the tool’s collaboration capabilities

and, for each, identifies key features and related benefits to

SDO/SSO users.These tools enable the SDO/SSO representatives to communicate effectively with stakeholders and keep interested parties apprised of the SDO/SSO activities.

The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool enables the SDO/SSO

representative to share vital information, both management and

technical, on SDO/SSO activities and their status. SDO/SSO

stakeholders can access this detailed and pertinent information at

any time. Initial information-sharing capabilities, summarized in

Table 2, identify key features and benefits to SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool users and SDO/SSO stakeholders.

DoD SDO/SSO 2006 

Memberships

Accredited Standards Committee X12

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry

Solutions

American National Standards Institute

American Society for Testing and Materials International

Biometric API Consortium

Biometric Consortium

Distributed Management Task Force

Electronic Commerce Code Management

Association

Free Standards Group

Global Grid Forum

Health Level Seven, Inc.

High Frequency Radio Industry 

Association

Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers–Standards Association

International Committee for Information

Technology Standards

International Federation of Standards

Users

International Organization for Standardization and International Electrotechnical

Commission

International Telecommunications

Union–Radio Sector
dsp.dla.mil 47

The “SDO/SSO Notebook” contained a complete summary

of relevant information about the SDOs/SSOs, their external interactions, the products they develop, and information relevant to

the DoD membership management. Table 3 lists information

areas covered in the notebook and indicates whether the information is primarily management or technical.

Architecture Design

The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool architecture design features a

flexible, extensible role-based collection of privileges or rights

for managing the content of web pages, as well as the finegrained control over collaboration tools.The overall architecture

is divided into three major areas: a public area (no registration required), a private area (registration, user identifier, and user password required), and an administrative area, as shown in Figure 2.

Implementation views of these three SDO/SSO Collaboration

Tool areas are shown in Figures 3 through 5. In addition, Figure

6 provides an SDO/SSO representative view of a part of the 

InterNational Committee for Information Technology Standards

(INCITS) SDO/SSO information area.The blue arrow in Figure 6 points to a horizontal navigation bar with some of the collaboration and information-sharing tools, including INCITS

SDO/SSO News, Syndicated News, Discussion Board, Action

Items, and Document Repository.

The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool provides for role-based user

views. The information displayed and the administrative privileges are based on a user’s role. A user may be assigned one or

more roles, and the roles may be tailored for unique situations.

Table 4 defines the initial SDO/SSO user roles.

The public area includes a wide variety of content, including

“SDO/SSO Notebook” information (except membership fee information and personal contact information). The “SDO/SSO

Notebook” information and other related information are portrayed in an SDO/SSO domain model, which is shown in Figure

7. For ease in reading any taxonomy, a glossary is linked to key

terms. Clicking the link will provide the glossary definitions for

the selected term.Taxonomies are used to classify and link each

SDO/SSO to an area of interest. Similarly, Figure 8 provides a

domain model for the private area of the SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool.

DoD SDO/SSO 2006 

Memberships, cont.

International Telecommunications

Union–Telecommunications Sector

Internet Protocol Detail Record 

Organization

Internet Society/Internet Engineering Task

Force

ISO/IEC JTC1/SC31, Automatic 

Identification and Data Capture 

Techniques

Liberty Alliance Project

Memorandum of Understanding/

Management Group (IEC/ISO/ITU/UNECE)

MFA Forum (MPLS Forum/Frame Relay 

Alliance)

National Information Standards 

Organization

Network Centric Operations Industry 

Consortium
48 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Four major technologies are used in SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool implementation:

❚ ColdFusion Application Server MX 7

❚ Oracle 10g Relational Database Management System

❚ Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Operating System

❚ Secure Sockets Layer and Public Key Infrastructure.

Access and privileges can be managed through established role-based groups.The

DoD SDO/SSO official voting representatives are given maximum authority to

manage within their SDO/SSO area and can approve stakeholders and update the

SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool’s private-side information.The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool provides an easy method to maintain an environment for disseminating

SDO/SSO information and issues that affect DoD.

Summary

The SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool will facilitate the management of DoD memberships in external SDOs and SSOs. It will enable communication of SDO/SSO

issues and activities within the DoD community, as well as any selected non-DoD

individuals or organizations.

Keeping stakeholders informed and involved in developing standards by providing

an environment for the free exchange of ideas will greatly enhance DoD’s ability to

reach consensus on important SDO/SSO issues. In short, because of the tool’s flexible design and the delegation of administrative privileges to the lowest level, the

SDO/SSO official voting representative can more effectively participate in

SDO/SSO activities.

About the Authors

Robert Kidwell, Joe Brazy, and Chris Kreiler are part of the Enterprise Integration Center 

(e-IC) of ManTech International Corporation. Mr. Kidwell serves as the vice president and

senior technical director of the e-IC. His career spans some 30 years as a senior program

manager with emphasis on enterprise-wide system integration, technical and cost issues,

live test demonstrations, business process engineering, computer hardware evaluations,

software engineering, and computer system performance and modeling. Mr. Brazy is the

senior systems engineer of the e-IC. He served as the chief engineer for the development of

the SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool. Mr. Kreiler serves as a management director of the e-IC. He

developed the content of the SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool and assists the DoD Executive

Agent for IT Standards with the management of DoD memberships in SDOs/SSOs.

Nonna Bond is on the staff of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Logistics and

Materiel Readiness/Resource Management. Ms. Bond is active in the Defense Logistics

Enterprise Services Program and serves as the deputy secretary for ISO Technical

Committee 184, Subcommittee 4, Industrial Automation Systems and Integration/

Industrial Data.t
dsp.dla.mil 49

FIGURE 1. Tool Support of SDO/SSO Representatives, Stakeholders, and Others

in IT Standards

FIGURE 2. Role-Based Architecture Design

Public ePortal

Content

User interface look/feel

Notices/accessibility

General requirements

Architecture Summary

Private ePortal

Content of common areas

SDO/SSO collaborative/information-sharing

workspaces

ePortal Administration

User/group administration

Content publishing administration

SDO/SSO workspace administration
50 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

FIGURE 3. SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool: Public ePortal FIGURE 4. SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool: Private ePortal

FIGURE 5. SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool:

ePortal Administration

FIGURE 6. SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool: Representative 

View of Information Area
dsp.dla.mil 51

FIGURE 7. SDO/SSO Domain Model—Public Area

FIGURE 8. SDO/SSO Domain Model—Private Area
52 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

TABLE 1. Features and Benefits of Collaboration Capabilities

Capability Feature Benefit

E-mail exploder list Is database driven Easier maintenance by administrator

Is extensible Additional exploder lists easily created by administrator

Is available to all registered users Easy document distribution along with message

Supports attachments

Hot topic issue vetting Identifies issues Easier visibility of key issues and consensus for guidance

Allows for comments (by stakeholders, packages

SDO/SSO representative supervisor)

Supports voting (by stakeholders)

Calendar of events Highlights meetings, workshops, Better visibility of events

conferences, and activities

Announcements Highlights key events, standard Better visibility of key events

development milestones, and 

SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool status

Action items Is flexible, customized to each Better visibility of before- and after-meeting actions,

SDO/SSO needs and accessible to all authorized users

Supports attachments Ability to support information attached to any 

Allows for archiving action item

Discussion board Is topic oriented Additional tool to discuss issues and share points of view 

Is persistent

Supports attachments
dsp.dla.mil 53

TABLE 2. Features and Benefits of Information-Sharing Capabilities

Capability Feature Benefit

DoD SDO/SSO Maintains list of current memberships Better visibility of relevance to net-centric enterprise 

memberships Provides SDO/SSO taxonomy services and ITSC TWGs 

relationships

SDO/SSO management See Table 1 Better visibility into financial information, DoD mission 

information relevance

SDO/SSO technical See Table 1 Better visibility into publications, dawning technologies,

information technology thrusts, hot spots

SDO/SSO report Provides standard reports Faster report generation

generation Provides ad hoc reports Flexible custom reporting

SDO/SSO document Has folder/file structure SDO/SSO representative-controlled library (enables 

repository Has links customization to meet individual needs)

Has search engine Easier to locate information with search engine

Is extensible Flexibility to add file or links to internal or external 

Has flexible user-defined structure web pages

Common resources Is extensible Better sharing of documents needed by all SDO/SSO 

Supports attachments users

Allows remote content publication Easier web page maintenance by authorized 

administrator

Syndicated news Provides syndicated news from Better visibility into significant events occurring on other

aggregation external SDOs/SSOs and other SDO/SSO Collaboration Tools

IT-related sites

Provides standards-based syndication

SDO/SSO Collaboration Allows full text search and basic Easier to find information

Tool search engine search

Allows advanced search

Directory Provides directory of site users Faster way to find contact information about users

Provides directory of SDO/SSO and organizations

members

Provides directory of DoD and 

contractor organizations
54 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

TABLE 3. “SDO/SSO Notebook” Information

Area Management Technical

Membership fee information ●

List of current representatives ●

List of current stakeholders ●

SDO/SSO membership information ●

List of subcommittees ●

List of liaisons ●

List of issues ●

Taxonomy relationships ●

SDO/SSO description/scope of work ●

Organization membership contact information ●

DoD mission relevance (justification) ●

Net-centric priority rating ●

Fora category information ●

Deliverables/achievable objectives ●

IT publications summary ●

IT publications ●

Official DoD tasking ●

Technology thrusts ●

Hot spots ●

Dawning technologies ●

Capabilities provided ●

Net-centric area ●

Net-centric area relevance ●

DoD requirements inclusion ●

DoD unique requirements needed ●

DISR profile/life-cycle code ●

DoD leadership resource mix ●

Costs ●

Meetings ●

Impact of DoD not participating ●

External funding availability ●

Supporting and related fora ●

DoD stakeholders ●

Assessment criteria ●

Additional comments ● ●
dsp.dla.mil 55

TABLE 4. Summary of SDO/SSO Collaboration Tool User Roles

Role Definition/Responsibilities

Super-administrator Responsible for the overall administration of the ePortal.

The super-administrator has all privileges for the website.

DoD Executive Agent for IT Standards Responsible for IT standards management.

Information Technology Standards Responsible for reviewing the work of the ITSC subcommittees,

Committee adjudicating issues, and forwarding recommendations to the 

IT Standards Oversight Panel. Members of the ITSC are appointed 

by their respective organizations.

SDO/SSO administrator Responsible for representing DoD in SDOs and SSOs. These 

representatives and alternates are appointed by letter. Additional 

representatives may be appointed for each SDO/SSO subcommittee 

or work group. Representatives are given administrative privileges 

solely within their SDO/SSO domain. An individual may have 

responsibilities in multiple SDOs/SSOs. Privileges follow a hierarchy 

in that representatives for the overarching SDO/SSO also have the 

same privileges for all subcommittees and work groups.

SDO/SSO stakeholder Responsible for participating in the vetting process for the DoD position,

which is established before issues come to a vote. Stakeholders include 

parties with a vested interest in the standards developed by a specific 

SDO/SSO. Stakeholders belong to a specific group that is associated 

with an SDO/SSO, subcommittee, or work group.

SDO/SSO representative supervisor Members serve as the supervisors of SDO/SSO-designated representatives. This role is given appropriate access to function as a limited 

backup if the SDO/SSO representative is unavailable.

SDO/SSO readers All DoD, contractors, and other personnel registered for access to 

the private area. This role has the lowest level of privileges and is 

limited to read only. They do not have access to the SDO/SSO 

vetting process.
56 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

By Nonna Bond and Chris Kreiler

Harvesting

Creating an ISO Standard 

from a Military Specification
D

dsp.dla.mil 57

DoD needs to be able to transpose military standards and specifications into internationally recognized, accredited, and accepted documents. One way of doing this is to use the “harvesting” process

available within ISO, which is considered to be the premier worldwide body for global standards.

Subcommittee (SC) 4 of ISO’s Technical Committee (TC) 184 established a process for the transposition of certain qualified externally

developed documents into ISO-accredited international standards,

technical specifications, or publicly available specifications. This was

done in recognition that industrial automation will benefit from collaborative standardization initiatives and that cooperative and joint

standardization activities offer significant opportunities to produce

higher quality specifications with broader global acceptance and implementation. It also acknowledges the need to consider accepting a

broader class of documents from a more diverse set of sources than is

currently served by the ISO standards development process for potential recognition and transposition.

The harvesting process, depicted in Figure 1, was developed in 2001

by the Secretary of SC 4 in response to the recognition that the fastpaced evolution of information and communications technologies

creates new opportunities for standards-based solutions to meet the

requirements of new and emerging markets. Many outside the standards community thought that the ISO processes were too unwieldy

and slow to meet the needs of fast-paced technology evolution.The

harvesting approach uses an accelerated process, without burdensome

administrative rules, to reach outside the standards community.When

first proposed, harvesting was strongly opposed by the “technical

standards gurus” not wanting to “let the ‘unwashed’ contaminate the

pristine process of ISO.” Fortunately, the SC 4 community’s business

interests prevailed, leading to the adoption of the process.

Using the harvesting process, quality specifications created outside

ISO can be brought into the global community and quickly adopted

and accredited. External organizations such as consortia, professional
58 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

societies, industry associations, and government agencies now have a

quick and efficient mechanism for elevating certain standards and

specifications to an internationally accredited status.This presents a

golden opportunity for DoD.

To date, SC 4 has successfully harvested several specifications.The

following are examples:

❚ Transposition of Air Transport Association Specification 2000,

“ATA Spec 2000: E-Business Specification for Materiels

Management,” Chapter 9, “Automated Identification and Data

Capture (AIDC),” into an international standard in collaboration

with ISO TC 20/Working Group 13.

❚ Transposition of the International Alliance for Interpretability

Industry Foundation Class (IFC) 2x platform into a publicly

available specification. In addition, SC 4 initiated efforts to harmonize the next generation of IFCs with ISO 10303,“Standard

for the Exchange of Product Model Data.”

FIGURE 1. SC 4 “Harvesting” Process

Externally 

developed 

document

90+ days

Assess conformance 

to criteria

Technical 

specification 

International

standard 

Publicly available

specification 

ISO ballot

(“Fast track”)
dsp.dla.mil 59

About the Authors

Nonna Bond is on the staff of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for

Logistics and Materiel Readiness/Resource Management. Ms. Bond is active

in the Defense Logistics Enterprise Services Program and serves as the

deputy secretary for ISO Technical Committee 184, Subcommittee 4,

Industrial Automation Systems and Integration/Industrial Data.

Chris Kreiler is a management director of ManTech Inc.’s Enterprise

Integration Center. He serves as a member of the TC 184/SC 4 Secretariat

staff.t

❚ Transposition of the Open Data Services specification from the

Association for Standardization of Automation and Measuring

Systems and possible integration with SC 4 standards.

❚ Transposition of the Strategic Automotive product data Standards

Industry Group’s “Product Data Quality Guidelines for the

Global Automotive Industry” into an ISO publicly available

specification.

❚ Transposition of the European Esprit Project 20496, “Systems

Engineering Data Representation and Exchange Standardisation

(SEDRES),” into an ISO publicly available specification:

“Industrial automation systems and integration—Product data

representation and exchange—Part 20542: Reference model for

systems engineering.” This specification will be integrated into

ISO 10303-233,“Application protocol: Systems engineering data

representation.”

The transposition of DoD’s Core Architecture Data Model specification into an ISO-accredited deliverable is underway.

SC 4 has offered to make the process available to other standards

setting organizations to consider for adoption in their own standards

development process.1

1

See ISO/TC 184/SC 4 document N#1198, Procedures for Transposing Externally

Developed Specifications into ISO Deliverables, July 2001.
60 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Lessons Learned in IT 

Standards Development

By Jerry Smith
A

dsp.dla.mil 61

After 30-plus years of experience, I’ve observed a few characteristics of what I consider to be “good” standards and various approaches to building them.A good standard is one thing; an efficient and effective standards development process is another.

The following observations are based on some successful and some not-so-successful

approaches to building consensus-based information and communications technology (ICT) standards.

Characteristics of “Good” Standards

SATISFACTION OF USER NEEDS

Good standards satisfy a universal need and are actually used.They are adequate to

do the job but also exhibit quality attributes of technical excellence.They facilitate

information exchange—interoperability and scalability. We see many examples of

unused standards, sometimes referred to as shelf-ware.1 We also see standards that

captured the marketplace, but were, in fact, poor solutions. For example, the VHS

standard is functionally and technically inferior to the Beta standard, but it won the

market share war and survived.A good standard facilitates generation of relevant and

useful products that satisfy needs. It solves a problem and has a certain, perceivable

utility for end users.

INTEROPERABILITY

Do you recall, prior to ubiquitous wireless availability, the number of different telephone jacks needed to maintain connectivity in various locations around the world?

That situation begged for global standards to foster interoperability. Borrowing a

definition from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., we need

systems that implement sufficient open specifications2 for interfaces, services, and

supporting formats to enable properly engineered applications software that can

❚ be ported with minimal change across a wide range of systems,

❚ interoperate with other applications on local and remote systems, and

❚ interact with users in a style that facilitates portability.3

Interoperability contains the notion of robustness and an ability to adapt or evolve

over time. The bottom line? Interoperability fosters productive interaction—exchange of resources, products, information, and ideas.

QUALITY

A good standard must be technically implementable and include all of the functionality necessary to achieve the stated level of compatibility or interoperability in a

product-independent manner.
62 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

A quality standard has the following characteristics:4

❚ Complete. It possesses coherent functionality.Within its scope, the specification

should completely describe the functionality (in terms of interfaces, protocols,

formats, and so on) necessary for implementation and is an indication of how

well all interfaces are specified. It includes the ease of implementation, without

the need for additional descriptions, and the existence of a successful and consistent range of implementations to show its commercial viability.

❚ Clear. Contextual material is provided for better understanding by the reader.

Textual and other means (tables, figures, and reference materials) are available

that provide definitive descriptions.The specification is well defined and unambiguous.

❚ Predictable and consistent. It can be ported across platforms, enterprises, industry

sectors, regional and national boundaries, and global entities. It is durable and

long lasting, stable, can demonstrate functional coherence, and has few bugs or

defects that remain unfixed.

❚ Testable. The specification contains provisions for testability.The extent, use, and

availability of conformance and interoperability tests, or means of implementation verification, are described. Some form of verification (prototype testing,

paper analysis, full interoperability tests) has been demonstrated. More than one

vendor product has been implemented using the specification.

ACCREDITATION/BRANDING

The standard is recognized as being available from a reputable and authoritative

source.The responsible standards developing organization (SDO) has an established

position within the relevant technical, professional, and marketplace communities as

an objective authority in its sphere of activity.To a user, this means that the specification has been created and approved, adopted, and published through a formal

process, and configuration management of the specification has been established.Accreditation implies acceptance by a recognized authoritative standards setting organization (SSO). By established public law, judicial precedent, and extant policy, the

U.S. government and DoD prefer using consensus-based products from a formally

recognized SSO—an entity that produces and distributes formal, accredited publicly

available standards.5 Branding is the term used by The Open Group to certify conformance.

6 The Open Source Initiative’s logo7 is a certification mark that indicates

that the software is being distributed under a license that conforms to the open

source definition.8

OWNERSHIP

The owner of the specification or standard is clear and unambiguous and maintains

version control of the document. The owner manages changes to the document
dsp.dla.mil 63

using a formal change control process, with mechanisms to track versions, fixes, and

addendums.The specification is also free of intellectual property rights (IPR) and related constraints.

OPENNESS

Standards and specifications are considered “open” when sponsored and supported

by an organization that uses an open, public consensus process to develop and maintain them.This is in contrast to closed standards, which are controlled, usually as proprietary. DoD’s main issue with proprietary standards and specifications is that they

promote vendor lock-in and exacerbate future legacy problems. Business enterprises, consumers, and governments alike pay dearly when locked into proprietary

solutions.Table 1 summarizes the IPR issues related to open standards.

Several points of view define “open” quite differently. For example, open can be defined from a process, a legal, a technical, or a user/consumer point of view.9

Whatever,

TABLE 1. Issues Related to Open Standards

Characteristics Issues

Patents Are there any patent rights, covering any item of a proposed 

specification, that the original document contributor or owner is 

aware of? Does the organization have written policies and procedures 

regarding disclosure?

Copyrights Have any copyrights been granted relevant to the subject content 

of the proposed specification? What conditions, if any, apply 

(copyright statements, electronic labels, logos)?

Royalties Does the organization have a published “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” policy? What are the terms?

Distribution rights What publication and distribution rights exist, and what are the 

terms of use? Is dual/multiple publication or distribution by other 

organizations possible, and if so, are there any conditions or special 

considerations?

Trademark rights Will any trademarks apply to a specification? If so, what are the 

conditions for use? Can they be transferred in part or in their entirety?

Original contributions What original contributions, outside IPR categories (documents,

plans, research papers, tests, proposals) need consideration in terms 

of ownership and recognition? Will any financial considerations apply?

Are there any legal considerations that apply? 
64 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

the point of view, openness means that participation is freely available (open) to all interested parties who are directly and materially affected; participation is not conditional upon membership in any organization, or unreasonably restricted on the basis

of certain qualifications.10 Procedures governing the work of the organization are

publicly available to any interested party.The process to build an open standard maintains a balance of interests. Relevant stakeholders—including commercial producers

of products and services, industry-sector participants, government agencies, users, developers, testers, and researchers—all participate equally. It provides the means for

multiple parties and interests to overcome conflicting interests to achieve a commonly agreed outcome. It is suggested that a metric is the degree to which competitors collectively participate and support the process and its deliverables.

INCORPORATION IN COMMERCIAL OFF-THE-SHELF PRODUCTS

Good standards are used in building successful commercial off-the-shelf (COTS)

products. From a user’s perspective, it is best to have available a choice of competing

conforming products. Ultimately, standards must be validated by marketplace acceptance; in other words, vendors need to produce COTS products based on open standards.As Phil Condit,a previous chairman and chief executive officer of The Boeing

Company, said, “markets—not standards committees—determine which standards

will be the winners!”

A successful standard is a widely accepted specification of how a set of technologies

that must exchange data and interoperate need to be implemented. But it is what is

done with that specification—how it is implemented—that measures the true success of a standard. By driving the incorporation of user, consumer, and business operations requirements into ICT standards, we encourage industry to develop and

build commercial products using open standards. As more and more vendors offer

compliant COTS products, prices go down, the number of standardized products

By driving the incorporation of user, consumer, and business operations 

requirements into ICT standards, we encourage industry to develop and build

commercial products using open standards. As more and more vendors offer

compliant COTS products, prices go down, the number of standardized 

products goes up, and reliability, robustness, and interchangeability increase.
dsp.dla.mil 65

“Open” can be defined in various ways, depending on the viewpoint:

● The process viewpoint is concerned with the ability of all stakeholders to participate in the process.

● The legal viewpoint is concerned with legal issues, defining open in terms of intellectual property, considering a

standard to be open if it is royalty-free and unencumbered by IPR claims.

● The technical viewpoint focuses on whether an open standard allows for the unrestrained exchange of technical 

information in developing a standard.

● The viewpoint of the user/consumer considers the products that result from use of a standard such that the 

bottom line focuses mostly on the software. Thus, the concern is whether anyone, anywhere, for any purpose

whatsoever, has the right to use the software, copy it, modify it, and distribute those modifications free, or for a

fee, and with the right to have the actual source code that makes those things possible.

Definitions of “Open”

goes up, and reliability, robustness, and interchangeability increase.This significantly

enhances interoperability. By users and consumers influencing the specification of

international standards, competition to deliver required products increases while

making newly developed products more marketable globally.As a result, conforming

products are readily available in the marketplace. Carl Cargill, vice president of Sun

Micro Systems, sums this up best:“Success of a standard is measured by the number

of competing implementations that build upon that standard, not in the creation of

the specification itself.”Thus one metric for determining the “goodness” of a standard is the extent of conforming implementations.

Characteristics of “Good” Development Processes

The following are some observations and conclusions with respect to management

of ICT standards development and standards setting:

❚ Standards vs. technology. There is a natural tension between technology evolution

and standards setting.Timing is critical. If one sets standards too early, the result

is to stifle innovation and creativity (the fuel of technology evolution). Setting

them too late engenders social and economic costs (as seen in Beta vs.VHS).

❚ Performance vs. process. Successful standards specify performance and interface

requirements.Telling a vendor how to build a product is a poor example of how

to establish effective standards. Users and consumers are interested in the final

product—not the process used to get there.

❚ Marketplace support. The marketplace determines which standards are the winners. Good (effective, useful, desirable) standards allow a range of implementa-
66 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

tions and are supported in the marketplace. Part of the premise is that vendors

can gain a competitive edge by using open standards.

❚ Relevance. The chief end goal is widespread recognition and acceptance of standardization process deliverables—open standards that are actually being used in

conforming COTS products. There seems to be a relationship between “hot”

new technology and the level of consortia activities, and this metric can provide

some clues about relevance.The key for users is to encourage new consortia and

other SDOs/SSOs to collaborate to produce technologically current standards

that vendors use in COTS products.

❚ Management as a project. A good process produces a quality technical document

(specification) reflecting a business case via an engineering and management

process that considers relevant user and industry input.The process needs to be

requirements driven; use a proven engineering method; and be managed as a

“project” with coordinated expectations, correctly applied expertise, specific

deliverables, adequate resources, realistic schedules, and associated accountability.

❚ Quick publication. Specifications should be published quickly, supported by an

effective means to capture defects, add new and better enhancements, and incorporate new ideas as extensions and later versions. A successful project will preclude “feature creep” and “perfectionism.”

❚ User advocacy involvement and participation. Necessary participants include all

stakeholders with a material interest; these include technologists, vendors, testers,

users/consumers, and government agencies, and others actively involved in setting standards. High membership fees and intensive resource investments, such

as extensive face-to-face meetings requiring significant travel expenses and time

away from the office, are barriers to small and medium enterprises’ participation

in standardization activities.

❚ Product of a consensus process. The most useful and stable standards seem to come

mostly via a voluntary consensus process.And the broader the range of consensus, the higher the quality of the resulting specification.The ICT standards principles adopted by DoD define consensus process characteristics.11

❚ Open deliverables. Standards and specifications are considered open when sponsored and supported by an organization that uses an open, public consensus

process to develop and maintain them.This has to do with control of the document and the absence of IPR issues.The owner of products published by the

organization is clear and unambiguous and is responsible for version control.The

organization developing and publishing the specification has documented policies regarding document ownership, distribution, IPR, and change control.

There is a written statement that delineates the attitude of the organization and

its members regarding IPR with reference to a candidate specification, for
dsp.dla.mil 67

example, patents, disclosure, copyrights, royalties, published “reasonable and nondiscriminatory” policy, distribution rights, trademark rights, and original contributions.

❚ Collaboration. The process is collaborative, avoiding antagonism among various

constituencies and subversion by. minority interests.

In addition to emulating the above good characteristics, a viable standards development process needs to avoid some traps observed in past project failures. Unfortunately, many failures are not easily recognized until long after a project

starts—sometimes years later.The following are key traps to be avoided:

❚ Standards for standards sake.We’ve all witnessed various shelf-ware standards activities that never really go anywhere. Indeed, they are actually counterproductive

to the global ICT standards community’s long-term interests.When certain special interests, especially some of the small projects fostered by standards consultants and academics, obtain funding to pursue their standards-for-standards-sake

technical projects—most of which are not only of highly questionable value, but

more important, are invariably proven to be antithetical to global community

interests—they use limited funds that are needed for better, more legitimate ICT

standards activities.They are a negative and counterproductive drain on the standards community infrastructure. Little or no acceptance or use of a standardization project deliverable is a strong metric of project failure.

❚ Unclear focus. Implementations should not be standardized. Instead, the focus

should be on standardizing interfaces and expected outcomes.Vendors should be

encouraged to develop conforming COTS products that are differentiated by

features.They should be very careful about incorporating leading-edge, new, or

untried technology. Experience shows that being conservative is best in most

cases.Keeping in mind who will implement the standard and who will purchase

conforming products will help reduce the risk of standards for standards sake.

❚ Feature creep. Expanding a project’s original scope—adding new ideas, features,

and capabilities, regardless of merit—generally proves to be a schedule killer.

However, there is a real need to fix defects quickly. Experience shows that, like

software, fixing bugs later is more difficult and expensive.

Our experience is that consortia are good for technology development, and the formal standards process is good for consensus building.The standards activities, professional societies, industry associations, and consortia each have a role, scope, and

purpose, but they generally do not compete. Instead, each community contributes to

the standardization process and a coordinated approach, based on combining the best

that each community has to offer—a very effective model for standards development.
68 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Summary

Standards and the standardization process are boring to most people:

❚ They do not generate high interest and excitement among engineers and technologists in general.

❚ Program and project managers are keenly interested in budget and schedule, but

frequently view standards as obstacles.

❚ Most chief executive officers usually do not see standards, and their organization’s participation in standardization activities, as a positive influence on the

company stock price for the next quarter.

❚ Standardization is not considered to be a high-profile issue with politicians.

❚ Users are interested only in the final product and fail to appreciate the role and

value of standards and the standardization process in helping them obtain interoperable products and services.

An effective ICT standardization approach needs to consider these realities.

On the surface, working with IT standards may not appear glamorous. But just as

the company commander who brings his troops through a firefight intact, those of

us who work with IT standards can feel a particular pride when we influence a standard that will save the lives of countless men and women we’ll never know or see.

With standards, we help save the tax dollars of other hard-working Americans just

like us. So when we are working in the IT sector, we do our homework, establish

important relationships, participate in countless groups known by myriad indecipherable abbreviations, and work hand in hand with our military and civilian counterparts, with nothing but higher standards in mind.And when we achieve them, we

can all share a sense of pride and accomplishment. Even though it may not be

viewed as glamorous, it’s still a victory; and that’s worth celebrating.
dsp.dla.mil 69

1

According to the National Center for Manufacturing, the United States has almost 100,000 published technical standards (more standards than most other nations), but a significant portion of

them document obsolescent technology, are redundant, or are overlapping.An American National

Standards Institute (ANSI) study showed that 80 percent of the orders for individual standards are

for only 15 to 20 percent of the total number published.

2

The terms “specification” and “standard” are used fairly loosely in this article. Some would say

that a specification is a future standard under development and that it becomes a standard when

formally published and released as such.

3

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., POSIX 1003.0.

4

This list is excerpted from ISO TC 184/SC 4 N#1198,“Procedures for Transposing Externally

Developed Specifications into ISO Deliverables,” July 31, 2001.

5

Congress prescribes management of IT and national security systems standards for DoD. Formal

direction comes from several sources, including United States Code Title 10, Section 2223;

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-113); National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Public Law 104-113); and various National Defense Authorization Acts. DoD standards policy is found in DoDD 5101.7, “DoD Executive Agent for Information Technology

Standards,” May 2004, and related documents.These principles are based on ISO and ANSI principles and the “National Standards Strategy” published by ANSI.

6

The Open Group has a conformance certification program for the Common Operating Environment (COE) Platform, CORBA®, Directory, LSB®, POSIX®, Schools Interoperability

Framework (SIF),TOGAF, UNIX®, and Wireless Application Protocol (WAP).The Open Group

developed Test Suites for UNIX, CDE, and XPG4 branding.

7

See http://opensource.org/trademarks/osi-certified/.

8

See http://www.opensource.org/.

9

Larry Rosen, Panel Discussion on Legal Issues, Open Source Conference at the University of

Saint Thomas, Minneapolis, MN, June 24–25, 2003.

10These properties are based on ISO and ANSI accreditation processes and procedures.

11DoD IT standards principles are articulated in DoDD 5101.7,“Executive Agent for Information

Technology Standards,” May 2004, and related documents. They are based on various ISO and

ANSI principles and the “National Standards Strategy” published by ANSI.

About the Author

Jerry Smith is a computer scientist in the Interoperability Standards Division of the Defense

Information Systems Agency and coordinates the DoD’s participation in global private-sector

IT standards activities. He has served as the DoD voting representative to myriad external

standards setting organizations over the past 12 years.t
70 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Events Upcoming Events and Information

July 10–12, 2007, Chantilly, VA

Course on Standardization within

NATO (U.S.-Based Track)

On July 10–12, 2007, the International

Cooperation Office, Defense Standardization Program Office, and North

Atlantic Treaty Organization Standardization Agency (NSA) will host the

first course in the United States on

Standardization within NATO. This

course is designed to present an

overview of domestic and international standardization practices within

the United States as they relate to interoperability with allies and partners.

Thus, the course is intended for military, DoD civilian, and federal government personnel who have little

knowledge of international standardization or knowledge in distinct areas

but have never taken the Standardization within NATO course. Non-DoD

federal government employees and defense contractors who are involved in

NATO standardization and interoperability activities are also eligible for this

course depending on space availability.

Seats are limited, and going fast. If

you’re interested in attending this

course, please contact Latasha Beckman

at latasha.beckman@dla.mil.

March 13–15, 2007, Arlington, VA

Defense Standardization Program

Outstanding Achievement Awards

Ceremony and Conference

The Defense Standardization Program

Outstanding Achievement Awards Ceremony and Conference will be held

March 13–15, 2007, at the Westin Arlington Gateway Hotel in Arlington,

VA. The Westin Gateway Hotel is accessible by metro and is close to National Airport, the Pentagon, and

Washington, DC. Rooms will be offered at the government per diem rate.

This year’s event will be administered

by the Society of Automotive Engineers and promises to be top notch in

every respect. Although details are still

being worked out, there will be a Standardization Executive Panel, discussion

of new initiatives regarding parts management, and presentations on NATO

and international interoperability.Tutorials will be presented on the Berry

Amendment, ITARS/EARS, RFID,

updates to the DoD 4120.24-M, and

much more. For more information, go

to www.sae.org/events or www.dsp.

dla.mil/ or call 703-767-6870.
dsp.dla.mil 71

Upcoming Events and Information Events

August 20–21, 2007, San Francisco,

CA

56th Annual SES Conference/12th

International IFAN Conference

The Standards Engineering Society

will hold its 2007 annual conference in

conjunction with the 12th international conference of the International

Federation of Standards Users. Join us

for an informative and lively conference featuring representatives from

around the world to discuss global

standards issues. For more information,

go to www.ses-standards.org or e-mail

admin@ses-standards.org.

Navy Six Sigma Kaizen Event to

Improve Overage Document Review

Process

The Navy Departmental Standardization Office convened a 3-day six sigma

kaizen event in January 2007 to improve the process by which the Navy

prioritizes, evaluates, updates, and validates the overage documents for which

they are responsible. The goal was to

improve the way the Navy ensures the

technical adequacy and currency of its

specifications and standards in order to

better support operations, acquisition,

and logistics support. There were a

number of recommendations for

changing Defense Standardization

Program polices and prioritizing overage documents, but the most significant recommendation is to add a

document feedback capability to ASSIST that would become a permanent,

central repository for technical feedback collected for every document.

Such information would be valuable in

assessing the technical adequacy of

documents, prioritizing workloads, and

assessing whether a document needs to

be updated, canceled, or validated. All

of the services and agencies will be invited to participate in the technical requirements definition for this feedback

system and take part of the ensuing

pilot program.
72 DSP JOURNAL January/March 2007

Farewell

Raymond Monnin, Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), OH, retired on

December 31, 2006, after 20 years of federal service. Mr. Monnin started his federal

service in engineering and standardization with the former Defense Electronics Supply Center (DESC), Dayton, OH, in May 1986. His accomplishments from his entry

electronic engineer position at DESC to the Microelectronics Team Chief position at

DSCC were many. His notable accomplishments were the development and management of the standardization program for the monolithic and hybrid microcircuits; the

contributions of his engineering expertise to the Joint Electron Device Engineering

Council’s JC-13 Microcircuit Committee, and the Government Electronics and Information Association’s G-12 Users Committee; and his tireless collaborative effort

with the Defense Standardization Program Office in transitioning the Defense Microcircuit Planning Group to the DoD Joint Standardization Board on Microelectronics and Semiconductors.

Welcome

On January 9, 2007, Kristin Stanley was appointed as Standards Executive for the

U.S. Army Materiel Systems Analysis Activity (AMSAA) at Aberdeen Proving

Ground, MD. Ms. Stanley led the Research, Development and Engineering Command’s Standardization Working Group to improve internal standardization

processes. In addition, she actively contributed to AMSAA’s standardization efforts,

specifically in the development of web-based tools that will facilitate the application

of Visual Growth and other AMSAA methods.

People People in the Standardization Community
Upcoming Issues—

Call for Contributors

We are always seeking articles that relate to our

themes or other standardization topics. We invite

anyone involved in standardization—government

employees, military personnel, industry leaders,

members of academia, and others—to submit proposed articles for use in the DSP Journal. Please let

us know if you would like to contribute.

Following are our themes for upcoming issues:

If you have ideas for articles or want more information, contact Tim Koczanski, Editor, DSP Journal,

J-307, Defense Standardization Program Office,

8725 John J. Kingman Road, Stop 6233, Fort

Belvoir, VA 22060-6221 or e-mail DSP-Editor@

dla.mil.

Our office reserves the right to modify or reject

any submission as deemed appropriate.We will be

glad to send out our editorial guidelines and work

with any author to get his or her material shaped

into an article.

Issue Theme

April–June 2007 IT Standardization

July–September 2007 DHS Standardization

October–December 2007 Parts Management