THE GEORGE 

WASHINGTON 

UNIVERSITY 

WASHINGTON, Engineering Management & Systems Engineering DC 

December 4, 2015 

Memorandum 

To: Erik Puskar, Federal Program Officer, NIST 

Husai Rahman, Grants Officer, NIST 

From: Jonathan Deason, Principal Investigator 

Subject: Grant Completion Technical Report, September 30, 2015 (amended report) 

I am very pleased to forward the six attached documents that together comprise the final 

technical report for the period ending September 30, 2015 for NIST Grant Award#: 

70NANB14H243. Professors Joe Cascio and Steve Crawford have developed the new course that 

has been designated -- Global Connections: Standards for Technology, Business & Public Policy, 

which will be offered this coming spring semester 2016. I also am happy to acknowledge the 

wonderful support and materials received by Joe and Steve from individuals at the American 

National Standards Institute who made significant contributions to the creation of this course. 

The enclosed documents are self-explanatory, but if you have any questions please feel free to 

give me a call at: (202) 994-4827, or e-mail at: jdeason@gwu.edu. 

Professor, Environmental and Energy Management Program 

Joe Cascio, GWU 

Steve Crawford, GWU 

Lily Gebru, GWU 

Theresa Tran-Nguyen, GWU 

School of Engineering & Applied Science 

800 22nd Street NW Suite 2620 Washington, DC 20052 

t 202-994-5386 Admitted Graduates: emsegrad@gwu.edu www.emse.seas.gwu.edu/ 

1 
Attachments: 

1) Course Completion Summary 

2) Course Outcomes 

3) Course Syllabus 

4) Course Case Study 

5) Course Guest Lecturers 

6) Course Reading List 

2 
Course: Global Connections: Standards in Technology, Business & Public Policy 

(Course Completion Summary) 

NIST Award Reference Information: 

llllllNIST Award#: 70NANB14H243 

llllllFederal Program Officer: Mr. Erik Puskar 

llllllRequisition #: 1460102 

llllllDun and Bradstreet#: 043990498 

llllllRecipient ID: 1133067 

llllllRequestor ID: 1133067 

llllllNIST Grants Officer: Mr. Husai Rahman 

llllllNIST Grants Specialist: Mr. Anthony Stephens 

Description of Work Covered by Grant: 

The recipient is expected to develop a graduate-level foundation course on: 

a) The role of standards and conformity assessment in promoting safety, interoperability, 

sustainability and prosperity in the modern world, and 

b) The structure and processes for creating and using documentary consensus standards. 

Co-listed as a course in the School of Engineering and Applied Science (EMSE 6992-80) and the 

Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration (PPPA 6085-80}, this course 

could stand alone but is des·1gned to serve as a common course in several course sequences in 

which the subsequent courses are more specialized ones taught in other GW schools. 

Course Name: 

The course has been assigned the name: Global Connections: Standards for Technology, 

Business & Public Policy. This title brings together the areas to be emphasized in the course and 

is meant to appeal to students in three fields of study: technology, business and public policy. 

Course completion: 

The course is complete as of September 30, 2015. Our approach was to extract teaching points 

from the references in the reading list and from other materials we have collected from our 

contacts at ANSI and other sources. We also collected information from other schools (e.g., 

Catholic University; University of Pittsburgh) that are currently teaching courses on standards 

and standardization. 

Our objective was to collect as much information as we could for the lessons listed in the 

attached "Course Syllabus." We simply amassed relevant teaching points for each of the 

thirteen lessons. We then fashioned a set of slides for each lesson and wove in a case study ·into 

the thirteen lessons. 

3 
We also have invited guest lecturers and will slot them into those sessions where they feel most 

comfortable in contributing. We have compiled a preliminary list of guest lecturers (attached), 

all of whom have expressed a willingness to contribute, and this list is expected to grow. 

The process of teaching each lesson will be tested against the General Course Outcomes (see 

attached). We designed the lessons to address one or more of those outcomes. As we created 

each lesson, we also extracted the detailed learning points for each. These will serve to guide us 

in delivering each lesson so that we are sure to cover the points we want to convey. Each lesson 

will also contain case study exercises to give students a "hands-on-experience" to absorb the 

points made in each lesson. 

Goals for the Course: 

The course can be characterized as "Standards 101." It is intended for graduate level students 

and professionals in engineering, business, public policy and international affairs who expect 

either to come into contact with standards, to integrate standards into their work or discipline, 

or to be involved in national or international standardization activities including conformity 

assessment. The expected course outcomes are as follows: 

1. Knowledge of the prevalence and importance of standards for technological progress and 

commerce, and of their uses in public policy. 

2. Knowledge about standards organizations (national and international), their scope, 

processes, and their roles in global standardization activities. 

3. Knowledge of the U.S. national standards system. 

4. Knowledge of the international standards system. 

5. Knowledge of certain commercial, technological and management principles that have been 

championed in standards over the years. 

6. Knowledge of the use ofstandards and a greater appreciation of how standardization 

influences corporate strategies, product design and management systems that have direct 

and indirect bearing on many fields including those which students are pursuing (i.e., 

relevance to their own careers and their own areas of interest). 

7. Knowledge of the process of creating standards. 

8. Knowledge of how conformity to standards is tested, who does the testing, the system for 

validating the testers, and the benefits and uses of conformity certification. 

9. Knowledge of how standards contribute to public policy approaches aimed at Next 

Generation Self-Governance, including the achievement of cultural and operational change 

in organizations. 

10. Capability and confidence to participate in national and international standards-making 

activities, including organizational considerations when selecting a representative to be its 

expert in a standard-making activity. 

11. Capability to advise organizational Management on the general process for standardsmaking and what it would take to get involved in that process if the organization decides it 

wants to influence a particular outcome. 

4 
12. Capability to competently evaluate the use of voluntary, consensus standards to advance 

the strategic goals of an organization or the public policy agenda of national or international 

governmental authorities. 

Since the course has not yet been taught, we have not had the opportunity to test for actual 

outcomes. The course is scheduled to be given during the spring semester of 2016 and we will 

have actual outcomes data by June of 2016. We intend to ask NIST for a spot on the fall 

workshop agenda for us to report on the course outcomes and course adjustments. 

Challenges in course development: 

The overarching challenge in developing this course was to create one that builds a memorable 

construct for the students given the sheer amount of information and considerations that were 

relevant to the subject; especially since we included in the syllabus the disparate fields of 

technology, business, and public policy. The course is by design a "standards 101" course. One 

strategy was to make the course one in a set of six courses that together are being offered in a 

graduate certificate program on environmental and energy management in the GW School of 

Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS). One of the six courses in that package is devoted to 

teaching how to apply the ISO 14000 and ISO 50000 series of standards to build environmental 

and energy management systems in organizations. By taking both courses, students will have 

been exposed not only to the generic, basic attributes of standards, standardization, and 

conformity assessment but also trained on the detailed and specific application of standards in 

the development and implementation of effective and conforming environmental and energy 

management systems in organizations. This course is thus anchored within a logical collection 

of courses where each one reinforces the key concepts taught in the others. Other schools at 

GW can also use this approach by integrating this course into other "packaged" offerings that 

develop students' competence in the areas of business, public policy, and even law, for 

example. 

The other strategy for overcoming the challenge of creating a coherent course that did not 

drown in a profusion of scattered detail, was to create a case study that would bind the course 

together, giving it cohesion and continuity as an integrated whole that would be meaningful to 

students and helpful for the retention of the material. Students retain concepts better if they 

can hang details onto a logical, memorable construct rather than trying to make sense of or 

remember a hodge-podge collection of facts without a binding narrative. The case study is 

woven into each of the fourteen lessons and builds up and is dependent on each lesson to 

advance to the next stage. It is based on the actual experience of developing the ISO 14000 

series of environmental management standards. 

Not only does the case study serve to bind the course details into a cohesive whole, it helps also 

to illustrate the disparate technological, business, and public policy issues which are 

fundamental to the goals of the course. Consequently, the instructors believe that we will be 

able to meet the challenge of creating a course that hangs together and therefore has strong 

staying power with students. We would emphasize, however, that this outcome still needs to 

be tested when we give the course. When that occurs, we will be sure to request feedback from 

the students on whether the course material and presentation succeeded in forming a mental 

5 
construct that is likely to remain with them even if the specific details imparted eventually 

recede in memory. 

Potential for adoption of course by others: 

This course will definitely be adoptable by other institutions of learning as long as the 

instructors have an appreciation for the standards development cycle. The course will still work 

if the case study is adapted to the development of some other standard as long as the 

development cycle format is retained. So, substituting ISO 9001 (Quality Management}, or ISO 

26000 (Social Responsibility) or some other standard will work fine as long as the same format 

is used and the instructor(s) have first-hand experience in developing the standard they are 

substituting. The experience of developing a standard in an international technical committee 

cannot easily be acquired academically from afar. If we want students to get a realistic sense of 

how that process works, then instructors must have experienced it themselves. 

Supplementary tasks currently underway: 

The following supplementary tasks currently are under way through the efforts of Professors J. 

Cascio and S. Crawford: 

1} Receive departmental approval for the Environmental and Energy Management graduate 

certificate program that includes this course. 

2} Advertise the course across campus. 

3} Conduct the course in the spring semester, starting on January 14, 2016. 

6 
Course: Global Connections: Standards in Technology. 

Business & Public Policy (EMSE 6992-80) 

(Course Outcomes) 

At the successful completion of this course, students will have acquired the following knowledge 

and capabilities: 

13. Knowledge of the prevalence and importance of standards for technological progress and 

commerce, and of their uses in public policy. 

14. Knowledge about standards organizations (national and international), their scope, 

processes, and their roles in global standardization activities. 

15. Knowledge of the U.S. national standards system. 

16. Knowledge of the international standards system. 

17. Knowledge of certain commercial, technological and management principles that have been 

championed in standards over the years. 

18. Knowledge of the use ofstandards and a greater appreciation of how standardization 

influences corporate strategies, product design and management systems that have direct 

and indirect bearing on many fields including those which students are pursuing (i.e., 

relevance to their own careers and their own areas of interest). 

19. Knowledge of the process of creating standards. 

20. Knowledge of how conformity to standards is tested, who does the testing, the system for 

validating the testers, and the benefits and uses of conformity certification. 

21. Knowledge of how standards contribute to public policy approaches aimed at Next 

Generation Self-Governance, including the achievement of cultural and operational change 

in organizations. 

22. Capability and confidence to participate in national and international standards-making 

activities, including organizational considerations when selecting a representative to be its 

expert in a standard-making activity. 

23. Capability to advise organizational Management on the general process for standardsmaking and what it would take to get involved in that process if the organization decides it 

wants to influence a particular outcome. 

24. Capability to competently evaluate the use of voluntary, consensus standards to advance 

the strategic goals of an organization or the public policy agenda of national or international 

governmental authorities. 

7 
Course: Global Connections: Standards in Technology, 

Business & Public Policy (EMSE 6992-80) 

(Syllabus) 

COURSE DESCRIPTION 

What are standards and why care about them? Standards are agreed-upon ways of doing something 

- of making a product, managing a process, delivering a service or supplying materials. 1 In our 

technologically advancing and connected world, they increasingly shape the competitiveness of 

firms and economies, the health of individuals and complex systems (energy, trading, financial 

reporting), and the fate of the planet. Yet, few business managers, government officials or those 

who advise them know much about the standardization process for voluntary, consensus standards 

and who creates them, much less how to get involved in order to shape them and take full 

advantage of their existence. This inter-disciplinary, graduate-level course addresses that gap by 

teaching the knowledge and skills needed to operate effectively and provide leadership in the 

standards arena. It gives special attention to the exciting potential for voluntary consensus 

standards to promote prosperity and safety at a time when governments find it difficult to act. 

LEARNING GOALS and OBJECTIVES 

The overarching learning goal of this course is to introduce you to the mildly esoteric but exciting 

world ofstandards, standards organizations and standards development in a way that leaves you 

knowledgeable about their key factors, prepared to apply that knowledge in professional settings 

including those for creating standards, and motivated and well-equipped to continue learning on 

your own. The learning objectives below represent more specific dimensions of that goal, organized 

around basic questions about standards. 

LEARNING OBJECTIVES 

What are standards and what do they do? Technology standards control access to markets, and 

thus play a critical role in the fortunes of firms and countries. By the end of this course, you will be 

able to explain standards, the wide range of subjects they cover, and the different types that exist 

for different purposes, with special attention to voluntary, consensus standards. 

Why do we need standards? There are many answers, from making sure spare parts fit, to ensuring 

that transmitters and receivers work together, to protecting children from toxins in toys. By the end 

of this course you will be able to explain how standards promote consumer and worker safety, 

economic development and environmental sustainability, and why they are sometimes 

controversial. 

Where do standards come from and how are they enforced or revised? By the course's end, you will 

be able to explain the existing industrial, national and international institutions for developing 

standards and for assessing and enforcing conformity with them. You will have opportunities to 

To be more precise, standards are published documents that spell out the specifications and procedures that 

ensure the safety and reliability of the materials, products, methods, and/or services people use every day. 

1 

8 
meet with senior executives at the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National 

Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST), and other leading standards bodies. 

How can I use such knowledge in my career? By the course's end, you will be able to identify and 

explain the need for a new standard or risks posed by a proposed one, support the development 

and consensus negotiation of an appropriate standard, and assist with its implementation and/or 

enforcement in your professional setting. You will be able to assess and show how standardization 

does or would affect corporate strategy, product design, and management systems. For those in 

public policy, you will be able to evaluate the need for and implications of new standards and the 

challenges of attaining agreement on them. 

How else might I use such knowledge? You will also gain deeper insight into the challenges of 

ensuring prosperity, safety and sustainability in an increasingly complex world. And you may come 

to care about the potential of private, consensus-based processes for making needed rules about 

emissions, trade, financial reporting, product and worker safety and much more in a world where 

governments are often unable to do so. Such insight and caring may affect your personal decisions 

about career choice and volunteer activities. 

PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH 

This course is premised on the belief- one backed by much evidence -- that learning is most 

effective when it is active. Therefore, lectures will be few and brief, discussion and group projects 

will be serious endeavors, and the professors will act more as guides by your side than sages on a 

stage. You will have an opportunity to shape the course as it unfolds, but should expect in turn to 

take some responsibility for its success. 

Your professors bring much relevant experience to your community of learners. An engineer and 

lawyer by training, Joe Cascio is an experienced consultant on management systems based on ISO 

standards and a Visiting Scholar at GWU's School of Engineering and Applied Science. He worked 

for 26 years at IBM, chaired the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) on the IS0-14000 series of 

environmental management standards from 1991 to 2003, and served as the Federal 

Environmental Executive with the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office ofthe 

President in 2008-09. He has published widely on the role of process standards and conformity 

assessment of environmental management systems. 

Steve Crawford is a Research Professor in GWU's Institute of Public Policy. Previously he worked as 

a senior manager at Brookings, the National Governors Association, and in Maryland State 

government, as well as a college professor. Currently he directs a major project on developing and 

operationalizing standards for defining labor-market credentials. He is a member of the board of 

the American National Standards Institute, and awaiting Senate confirmation of his nomination by 

President Obama to serve on the U.S. Postal Service's Board of Governors. 

The students in this class bring a wealth of professional and personal experience of their own. By 

working collegially and collaboratively, just as in professional settings, we will be able to achieve 

the learning objectives set out above for this course. 

9 
COURSE TOPICS 

This course envisions thirteen learning sessions in a three credit academic offering. Most sessions 

will be enriched by a guest lecturer who has exceptional experience in the topic being covered. The 

course sessions include: 

1. Historical perspective and value ofstandards: 

a. Illustrate with a sampling of standards from antiquity through industrialization, World 

War II, the post-war decades and the last few decades' revolution in information and 

communications technology 

b. Discuss the influence of military specifications to other standards 

c. Discuss the genesis and advantages of standards for the industrial era 

d. Present anecdotes on the contributions of Deming, Juran and other leaders in 

standardization 

e. Discuss how quality standards led to a proliferation of management system standards 

(MSS), many of which treat areas that are "normally" in the province of public authorities 

f. Introduce the case study: International Standards for Environmental Management 

2. Types of standards, principles and value to society: 

a. Technical standards (mechanical, electrical. Metrical, IT) 

b. Quality processes (scientific management) 

c. Product characteristics (medical devices, labeling, LCA, Design, Buildings) 

d. Management subsystems (Environmental, OSH, Social Responsibility) 

e. Exemplify with: ISO 9000, 14000, 26000, 50001, 45001, others 

f. Case study exercise 

3. The U.S. national standards system(!): Private sector 

a. Players, structure, process, checks and balance 

b. ANSI Federation, SDOs, Consortia Groups 

c. Case study chapter 

4. The U.S. national standards system (11): Governmental role 

a. NIST, USTR and other Federal agencies 

b. The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) 

c. The Standards Development Organizations Advancement Act (SDOAA) 

d. NIST report to the National Science &Technology Council (2011) 

e. Case study chapter 

5. The International standards system (I) 

a. Players, structure, process (ISO, !EC, CEN/CENELEC, ITU, Country Member Bodies) 

b. The ISO Technical Management Board 

c. The ISO Central Secretariat 

ct. Case study chapter 

10 
6. The International standards system (II) 

a. The Vienna Agreement 

b. Relationships with other international bodies (e.g., WTO, !LO, OECD, UN, Member Bodies 

and Governments, etc.) 

c. Representation of interest groups on committees 

d. Case study chapter 

7. The mechanics ofstandardization (I) 

a. ISO technical committees, subcommittees, work groups (formation, scope of work) 

b. National member bodies (e.g., ANSI) and national mirror groups (e.g., USTAGsJ 

c. Strategic Advisory Groups to ISO (e.g., Strategic Advisory Group on the Environment) 

d. Case study chapter 

8. The mechanics ofstandardization (II) 

a. New work item proposals (NW!Ps) 

b. National delegations (delegates, experts, operation and rules) 

c. Consensus (Definition, how it is achieved in practice) 

d. Participation in standardization (materially interested parties) 

e. Case study chapter 

9. The use of standards(!): 

a. By industry and commercial entities (voluntarily) 

b. For national governmental purposes (DoD, USEPA, FDA, etc.) 

c. Case study chapter 

10. The use of standards (II): 

a. For international governance, arrangements, agreements, protocols 

b. Federal policy of incorporation by reference into regulations 

c. Ramifications of incorporation by reference (ramifications for regulation) 

d. Legal uses and issues (copyright, etc.) 

e. Case study chapter 

11. Conformity Assessment(!) 

a. How conformity assessment works separately from standardization 

b. Accreditation, Certification, Registration 

c. Structure and entities involved 

d. Oversight and control nationally and internationally 

e. Case study chapter 

12. Conformity Assessment (II) 

a. Auditing standards (e.g., ISO 19011) 

b. Legitimacy and credibility in conformity assessments 

c. Qualification and competence of auditors and course providers 

d. CASCO guides for accreditation, certification and auditor competence 

e. Case study chapter 

11 
13. Next Generation Self-Governance 

a. What is it? 

b. Enablers (technology, voluntary standards, public awareness and involvement 

c. Achieving cultural and operational change in organizations 

d. Case study chapter 

14. Review and reinforce concepts and principles from previous lessons 

ASSESSMENTS, LOGISTICS and INTEGRITY 

In a course about standards, there should be clear criteria and standards for assessing student 

learning. At the same time, the assessments should encourage deep and enduring learning, and not 

only about the course material but about your own interests, abilities and best ways of learning. 

With that in mind, this course offers some choice about what you do to demonstrate progress 

towards competency in standards and how much the various activities count. Please review the 

following menu and choose according to the directions. The result will be a contract. 

(1) Case Study: The case study will be presented as chapters in a rolling scenario over the thirteen 

sessions. It will explore the issues and options for the creation of international environmental 

management standards. We will discuss in class the underpinnings of the types of issues and 

options available for the creation ofsuch standards in each chapter of the scenario. Students 

will be divided into small groups and will receive a set of questions at the end of each session. 

Answers to the questions will reflect their analysis and recommendations to be submitted in 

written form before the next course session. We will devote the first 30 minutes of each session 

to reviewing the submissions and discussing their merits. 

Issues and options to be considered in the case study chapters may include ones such as: 

• What evidence would you expect to be presented as justification for creating separate, 

unique standards? 

• What goals might the advocates for new standards have in mind? 

• What expertise would you expect from those that would create such standards? 

• Which interest groups would you expect to come forward to participate in creating such 

standards? 

The group submissions will be graded for quality and for the degree of understanding of the 

international standardization process. Members of each group will all receive the same grade 

on the case study portion of the course grade (50%) 

(2) 3 Quizzes on readings and class instruction, worth 5 points each (15%) 

(3) Class Participation/contributions to discussion (learning through discussion) (20%) 

(4) Write a 5-page policy brief arguing for or against the adoption of a new standard ofyour choice 

(to be approved by instructor) and advising a client (firm, industry association, government 

agency) on the best strategy to pursue and why (15%) 

12 
CLASS LOGISTICS 

Course credits: Three credit hours 

Time is 2.5 hours/session, one session/week, 6:10 - 8:40 PM, 15 weeks 

Location: Lehman Auditorium, Science and Engineering Hall, 800 22<>d St. NW 

Submit work electronically to Professors Cascio and Crawford by email. 

Office Hours: Cascio -Tuesday: 4-8 pm (Tompkins Hall, Suite 103).cascio@gwu.edu; 994-3005 

Crawford -Thursday: 4-6 pm (Media & Public Affairs Building, Suite 625). 

Crawford@gwu.edu; (202) 994-5365 

HOUSEKEEPING 

Students should check the GW Campus Advisories web site at: 

http://www.campusadvisories.gwu.edu/index.cfm for current information related to campus 

conditions, closures, safety information and any other information concerning events that may 

disrupt normal operations. You may find it convenient to register in the GW Banner system to 

receive emergency alerts, notifications and updates sent to the GW email addresses. If 

individuals elect to receive these alerts on a mobile device, they may log on to GWeb 

Information Web Site at https://banweb.gwu.edu and update their contact information to include 

mobile devices. 

lfwe fail to arrive for the class at the designated starting time and have not notified the class ofa 

late starting time or cancellation, students should wait in the classroom for at least 15 minutes 

before departing. One member of the class should be selected to notify the EMSE Department ofthe 

instructors' absence by calling the EMSE Department at 202-994-754-1 on the next business day. 

All students should familiarize themselves with the emergency evacuation routes from our 

classroom. In the event of an emergency evacuation of the class building, students are to assemble 

at the northwest corner of z3,·d and H Streets, N.W. 

ACADEMIC INTEGRITY 

Academic integrity is central to the learning and teaching process. Students are expected to conduct 

themselves in a manner that will contribute to the maintenance of academic integrity by making all 

reasonable efforts to prevent the occurrence of academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty 

includes, but is not limited to, obtaining or giving aid on an examination, having unauthorized prior 

knowledge of an examination, and plagiarism of all types. Ignorance is no excuse. Nevertheless, 

collaboration is a good thing, just acknowledge it. 

13 
Course: Global Connections: Standards in Technology, 

Business & Public Policy (EMSE 6992-80) 

(Case Study) 

Case Study: International Standards for Environmental Management 

Case study structure and operation 

This case study is structured and presented through thirteen exercises (corresponding to the 

thirteen course learning sessions) to give students a hands-on experience on the mechanics and 

logical concepts ofstandards creation and utilization to help cement the learning points in each 

session. The class will be sub-divided into small groups so that students can interact and learn from 

each other as well as reach collective answers that are of higher quality than might otherwise be the 

case for students working individually. Students are encouraged to remain an additional 30 

minutes at the end of each session to work within their groups to answer the questions in the case 

study exercises. They also have the option to come to consensus by e-mail or any other method 

convenient for their group. Each group will record its answers to the exercise questions and submit 

them electronically to the professors by end of day Tuesday before the next scheduled session. The 

first thirty minutes of each session will be devoted to a class discussion of the answers, except when 

the scheduling of guest lecturers requires later coverage during the session. Student submissions 

will be graded and the grades will account for 50% of the total course grades given. 

Every member of each group will receive the same grade for the case study portion of the total 

course grade, including an extra grade point for each week in which his or her group earns the 

highest grade. Answers will be graded on the following criteria (25% allotted to each criterion): 

1. How close does the answer agree with the aspect of standardization that was discussed in the 

corresponding class session? 

2. How much depth of understanding of the nuances, considerations and consequences does the 

answer reflect? 

3. How many valid or useful options, considerations and consequences does the answer 

contain? (Invalid, improbable or impractical options, considerations and consequences in the 

answer will not count against the grade for the answer.) 

4. The degree to which the answer is concise, logically structured, and well communicated. 

1. Case study introduction 

We have been informed that the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is looking into 

the possibility and desirability of creating international standards for environmental management 

that will achieve the same level of popularity and usefulness as the ISO 9000 series of standards for 

quality management in organizations. ISO has notified its member bodies and will soon convene the 

first meeting of its newly appointed Strategic Advisory Group on Environment (SAGE) in Geneva, 

Switzerland, to begin looking at these questions. ISO itself will be the convener of the meeting and 

will provide the secretarial support. It has also named a chairman to run the meetings. The 

chairman of SAGE is an executive in one of the organizations that approached ISO to conduct this 

14 
inquiry. That organization is an industrial enterprise in Switzerland, headed by the wealthiest Swiss 

citizen according to widespread belief. The vice-chairman of SAGE is an American executive from a 

small manufacturing company in New jersey, but this nascent activity had not yet been 

communicated to other ANSI members until now. The American National Standards Institute 

(ANSI) has now called a meeting of"volunteers" from among its members to discuss the formation 

ofa U.S. delegation to the SAGE meeting and to prepare consensus positions for participation in that 

meeting. You have been volunteered by your company to participate in the ANSI meeting and 

perhaps to be a part of the delegation to the upcoming Geneva meeting. 

1. Exercise: In preparation for the ANSI meeting, you ask yourself: Do we want international 

environmental management standards, and why do we? 

2. Type ofstandards 

Assuming we have decided to create international environmental management standards, and 

considering our in-class discussion of the variety of standards, we now need to decide the type of 

standards we want to create for environmental management. Should they be technical engineering 

specifications, measurement protocols, process standards, standards for product characteristics, or 

guidelines for carrying out analytical investigations? You have been informed that the SAGE group 

has decided to create standards in four main categories: (1) environmental management system for 

organizations, (2) product labeling, (3) life-cycle analysis, and ( 4) green-house-gas measurement 

and reporting. Considering these four categories, what type ofstandards should we create for each 

category? 

2. Exercise: You have been selected to go to Geneva as part of the U.S. delegation to SAGE. The 

consensus in the ANSI meeting was that we do want such standards. There was also 

consensus on the type of international standards that should be created for the four 

categories selected for environmental management by SAGE. What might those types of 

standards be and why? 

3. Selecting the U.S. SDO Administrator 

As we discussed in this session, the U.S. standards system is decentralized, with ANSI serving a 

coordination function for over 400 active standards development organizations (SDOs). 

Importantly, in the environmental field we also need to consider that environmental protection is a 

major subject for governmental controls and regulations that are principally executed through the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) but also involving the Department ofthe Interior, 

the Bureau of Land Management, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture and the myriad state and local agencies 

dedicated to protecting the environment. Additionally, there are many non-governmental 

organizations devoted to environmental protection such as the Sierra Club, the Audubon Society, 

the National Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural 

Resources Defense Council, and dozens of others at both the national and local levels. Given this 

broad diffusion of responsibilities among governmental and non-governmental organizations and 

the fact that there is a serious public concern for environmental protection, the decision on which 

organization organizes and administers the U.S. sub-group to the international standard-creation 

effort (the US "mirror group") needs to be weighed and allocated carefully by ANSI. 

15 
3. Exercise: As the U.S. member body to ISO and head of the federation ofSDOs, ANSI can keep to 

itself or allocate responsibility to organize and administer the U.S. mirror group to 

correspond directly to the structure of the international technical committee. What factors 

should ANSI weigh to select the appropriate SDO that can form the mirror group and gain 

broad acceptance from all the U.S. "materially interested parties" on this subject, and why? 

4. U.S. government role 

In exercise #3 we took note of the fact that in the U.S. many governmental and non-governmental 

organizations share responsibility for environmental protection and for promoting environmental 

performance improvements. !-laving chosen one ofthe existing private-sector SDOs to organize and 

administer the U.S. mirror group, what role should the governmental and non-governmental 

organizations play within this mirror group to ensure that public policy issues are appropriately 

safeguarded, competently represented, and appropriately included in U.S. positions? 

4. Exercise: What role in the U.S. mirror group should the governmental and non-governmental 

organizations play for the creation of international standards for environmental management, 

and what is the primary vehicle for playing such a role? 

5. The appropriate international secretariat 

In this lesson, you have had an introduction to the international bodies that create international 

standards. As you have heard, they tend to specialize within certain sectors and generally respect 

and stay out of each other's turf. They sometimes formalize their relationships and boundaries with 

a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or even more formally with "treaties" such as the Vienna 

Agreement between ISO and the European Union (EU). Even though ISO initiated this current 

process of evaluation, considering the characteristics of the international bodies that we have 

discussed in class, is one such body more appropriate than the others to establish a technical 

committee on environmental management standards? The selected international standards body 

would then delegate to one of its member countries the authority to convene an international 

technical committee to create the international standards for environmental management. 

5. Exercise: Which international body and which of its member countries would you select to 

convene the technical committee for the creation of international standards for 

environmental management, and why? Include reasons on why the other candidates are less 

suitable. 

6. Coordination among national mirror groups 

The international technical committee (TC) has now been formed and the U.S. has also formed its 

mirror group, typically named the Technical Advisory Group (TAG), which will be administered by 

the selected SDO. The initial stages of work to prepare the scope ofwork and new work item 

proposals (NW!Ps) are very important since these blueprints will largely determine what the 

committee will work on and hence produce as standards, at least during the first five to eight years 

of the committee's life. Consequently, there are strong temptations to reach out to the other 

national mirror groups to form alliances that can more effectively influence the process of deciding 

16 
on the scope of work of the committee and on the initial work items to be addressed under that 

scope of work. Importantly, there are also factions within each national mirror group that may have 

stronger common interests with similarly interested factions (e.g., NGOs) in other national mirror 

groups and they would welcome the opportunity to collude or at least to coordinate their strategies 

for getting what they jointly want to achieve from the process. 

6. Exercise: To what extent should the U.S. mirror group or factions within the group be allowed 

to coordinate and/or collude with their counterparts in other member bodies in the creation 

of international standards for environmental management, and why? 

7. Scope of work 

As discussed in exercise #2, the areas of standardization selected by SAGE and passed on to the TC 

include: (1) environmental management system for organizations, (2) product labeling, (3) lifecycle analysis, and ( 4) green-house-gas measurement and reporting. In exercise #2 we also decided 

on the type ofstandards appropriate to each of these four categories. The question that must now 

be decided is the depth, the detail, and the level of prescription that standards in these four 

categories can attain or should attain. Factors that weigh on those decisions have to do with what is 

the appropriate level of prescription for this topic that can be promulgated by an international 

standards body; what is the actual level of need in the user community that should be addressed; 

what is the level of technical expertise that can be brought to bear for the creation of these 

international standards; what level of detail is politically acceptable to the member bodies; what 

potential economic effects are acceptable to the member bodies; and what is agreeable to the other 

international standards bodies who are jealously protecting their turf/ 

7. Exercise: What should be the scope of work for the four categories of environmental 

management that will be standardized by the international committee, i.e., how deep should 

they go, and why not deeper? 

8. Mirror group makeup 

In exercise #6, we alluded to the fact that there are factions within the mirror groups. These are 

made up of separate parties that have close common interests and have coalesced to work together 

within the mirror group as an interest category (e.g., NGOs; Industry; Consumers; Labor; 

Government, etc.). Considering the total population of interest categories in the U.S., there are many 

possibilities as to which of them should join or be invited to join the mirror group. Parties often 

need to be invited even though any party that can show a material interest in the proposed 

standardization has a right to join and participate in the mirror group. 

8. Exercise: In the U.S., which materially interested parties should join or be invited on to the 

mirror group for creating international standards for environmental management? From 

which of these groups should representatives be selected to speak for the U.S. in the TC, and 

why? 

9. Use of standards (I) 

In exercise #1, we learned that the consensus decision in the first ANSI meeting on this subject 

17 
was that the U.S. would support the creation of international standards for environmental 

management. Presumably, the parties that made that decision saw value in the use of those 

standards. In lesson #9, we were given some examples of how such standards have been used in 

the U.S. by some organizations in the private and public sectors. 

9. Exercise: List other possibilities for using international standards for environmental 

management for different levels of technology, business and government, and provide a 

reasonable rationale for such uses. 

10. Use ofstandards (II) 

In this lesson, we were given examples of other uses of these standards. One of these uses is their 

inclusion by reference in government regulations. Many commentators have criticized such use 

and the attendant limitations on access to the referenced standards. To them, this appears to 

contravene the universal assumption that in a democracy access to laws should be unencumbered 

and free. 

10. Exercise: What issues might arise ifUSEPA were to incorporate international standards for 

environmental management into U.S. regulations by reference? 

11. Conformity assessment decision 

Conformity assessment provides a neutral, unbiased, independent verification that an 

organization, product, or process has met all the requirements and specifications of a standard 

and is therefore in conformity with the standard. An organization is said to comply with 

regulations, but conform to voluntary standards. This nuance reflects the top down, command 

nature of mandatory compliance edicts, and the bottom up, aspirational effort to conform to a 

higher standard. Organizations spend money and costly effort to achieve conformity to the 

requirements of voluntary standards and to acquire third party certification of conformity (or 

registration) of their systems or products. 

11. Exercise: What are some reasons for U.S. companies to seek registration of their 

environmental management systems if they are already in compliance with USEPA and local 

regulations? How might the USEPA use the option that companies have to register their 

environmental management systems to advance public policy goals for environmental 

improvements? 

12. Conformity assessment integrity 

Many countries have established conformity assessment institutions to provide conformity 

assessment services to organizations within their borders. Some of these institutions have 

achieved recognition and credibility in other countries and have established themselves as 

international providers ofsuch services. These international players are based predominantly in 

developed countries. The other national institutions that hail from developing countries have not 

in general achieved a high enough level of international acceptance of their programs. 

Unavoidably, there are different levels of rigor in the conformity assessment programs of 

different countries. For some countries, there are serious questions about the integrity of their 

18 
programs despite international safeguards in place and consequently there is a level of 

international skepticism about the credibility of their certifications. 

12. Exercise: Should U.S. companies rely on certifications in other countries as being honest and 

accurately reflective of actual conformity to specifications? What steps would US EPA need to 

take in the U.S. to ensure that certifications of environmental management systems are 

honest and valid reflections of truly effective systems? 

13. Standards in the achievement of next generation self-governance 

A recent trend is the use of global management standards that create voluntary "rules of the road" 

for global supply chains. Certification of organizational management systems to the ISO 9001 

standard for quality management or the ISO 14-001 standard for environmental management allows 

businesses to establish their bona fides in the global marketplace. More recently developed 

standards such as the ISO 45001 for worker safety and the ISO 37001 for anti-bribery will help 

bring needed oversight and sunlight to the far ends of global supply chains where laws are few, 

often ineffective, and mostly unenforced. 

Voluntary consensus standards establish technologically, financially, and socially desirable 

benchmarks that individuals and organizations can adopt, voluntarily implement, and conform to 

without the coercive force of authority. More importantly, over time such voluntary adoptions have 

the beneficial effect oftransfonning the internal culture of organizations and the personal attitudes 

and behavior patterns of individuals. When those transformations occur, the reliability of their 

implementation is much stronger and society has achieved a valuable, lasting benefit. While such 

ends are desirable, there are factors that promote or inhibit the adoption ofself-governing 

measures, practices, and standards. Organizations must first decide that the benefits of voluntary 

practices outweigh the costs, at least over the long term. Individuals must also recognize that 

conformity is to their own personal interest. Standards are seen by public policy experts as having a 

crucial role in next generation self-governance. 

13. Exercise: What might be the factors that promote or inhibit the adoption by organizations of 

voluntary self-governance standards for next generation environmental protection and 

improvement? Detail the positive or negative effects of the factors you select. 

19 
Course: Global Connections: Standards in Technology. 

Business & Public Policy (EMSE 6992-80) 

(Candidate Guest Lecturers) 

• Gordon Gillerman: Chief, Standards Services Division, NIST; formerly, Head of Government 

Affairs, Underwriters Laboratories. (contacted) 

• Mary Saunders: Associate Director for Management Resources, NIST; formerly, Director of 

NIST's Standards Coordination Office. (contacted) 

• Mary McKiel: President and CEO, The McKiel Group, Member of the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) Board of Directors; formerly, Standards Executive, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. ( contacted) 

• Gary W. Kushnier: Consultant and lecturer on standards, formerly Senior Vice President, 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI). (contacted) 

• Chris Pyke: Chief Operating Officer, USG BC; Adjunct Professor, GWU; formerly, co-chaired 

the U.S. Climate Change Science Program's lnteragency Working Group on Human 

Contributions and Responses to Climate Change. 

• Dorothy Bowers: Environmental Policy Consultant; Chair, ASQ Standards Group Council; 

formerly, Vice President, Environmental Policy, Merck & Co., Chair, EPA National Advisory 

Council on Environmental Policy and Technology (NACE PT). 

• Frederick W. Allen: Counselor, Office of Strategic Environmental Management, Office of 

Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

• Alan D. Hecht: Director for Sustainable Development, Office of Research and Development, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

• Daniele Gerundino: Strategic Adviser to the Secretary-General, ISO 

• Roy Swift: Executive Director, Workcred (an affiliate of ANSI). (contacted) 

• Scott Cooper: VP, Govt. Relations & Public Policy, ANSI; Adjunct Professor, GW Business 

School. ( contacted) 

• Mike Schmidt: Principal Consultant, Strategic Device Compliance Services 

• Brian Kahin: Fellow, MIT Sloan School Center for Digital Business; Senior Fellow, CClA 

• Robert Sheets: Research Professor, GW Institute of Public Policy, George Washington U. 

• Ken Krech mer: Senior Member, IEEE; Instructor, U. of Colorado 

• Dorothy Garcia: Faculty Member, Georgetown U, Dept. of Communication, Culture & Tech. 

20 
Course: Global Connections: Standards in Technology, 

Business & Public Policy (EMSE 6992-80) 

(Reading List) 

1. Standards, Conformity Assessment, and Trade into the 21" Century. 

National Research Council, National Academy Press (1995), ISBN 0-309-05236-X, 

2. Governing through Standards, Origins, Drivers, and limitations. 

Edited by Stefano Ponte, Peter Gibbon and Jakob Vestergaard. Palgrave Macmillan, (2011), 

ISBN 978-0-230-29540-7 

Chapters: 

I. Governing through Standards: An Introduction, Stefano Ponte, Peter Gibbon and 

Jakob Vestergaard 

Vil. ISO 26000, Alternative Standards, and the Social Movement ofEngineers' Involved 

with Standards Setting, Craig N. Murphy and Jo Anne Yates 

X. Competition, Best Practices and Exclusion in the Market for Social and 

Environmental Standards, Stefano Ponte and Lone Rilsgaard 

XII. Conclusion: The Current Status, limits and Future ofGoverning through 

Standards: Stefano Ponte, Peter Gibbon and Jakob Vestergaard 

3. Global Institutions: The International Organization for Standardization {ISO), Global 

Governance through Voluntary Consensus, Craig N. Murphy and Jo Anne Yates, Routledge 

(2009), ISBN 978-0-415-77428-4 

Chapters: 

IV. From Quality Management to Social Regulation 

V. Standards Wars and the Future ofISO 

4. The New Global Rulers: The Privatization ofRegulation in the World Economy, by Tim Buthe 

and Walter Mattli (Princeton Unive,·sity Press, 2011). 

5. Effective Participation in the Development ofGlobaffy Relevant !EC Standards: ANSI National 

Committee of the IEC 

6. Global Standards, Building Blocks for the Future, TCT-512, U.S. Congress, Office ofTechnology 

Assessment, (1992) 

7. Federal Engagement in Standards Activities to Address National Priorities, 

Background and Proposed Policy Recommendations, NIST Subcommittee on Standards, 

October 2009,www.NIST.gov/standardsgov/ 

8. The Strategic Value a/Standards Education, A Global Survey conducted by The Center for 

Global Standards Analysis, August 2008, Edited by Donald E. Purcell, Chair 

9. Improving Worker Safety in Global Supply Chain, A Case for a Global Safety & Health 

Management Standard, Scott Cooper, October 2014 

10. Testimony byJoe Cascio to The U.S. House ofRepresentatives, Committee on Science, 

Subcommittee on Technology, June 4, 1996 

11. ANSI Public Document Library: 

(1) ANSI International Delegates' Guide (2013) 

(2) ANSI Standards Action 

(3) ANSI Accredited Standards Develope,·s 

21 
(4) ANS Guidance Documents 

(SJ ANSI Procedures for U.S. Participation in the International Standards Activities of 

ISO, January 2015 

12. ISO/IEC Directives &Policies: 

(1) ISO/IEC Directives Part 1 and Consolidated ISO Supplement 

(2) ISO/IEC Directives Part 2 

(3) The Agreement on Technical Cooperation Between ISO and CEN (Vienna 

Agreement) 

(4) Using and Referencing ISO and !EC Standards to Support Public Policy 

(SJ Supporting Public Policy Initiatives 

(6) ISO and !EC International Standards - for Policy Makers 

(7) ISO and ISO/IEC Guides: what they are and what they can help you achieve (PDF) 

22