In 1904, a fire razed a large section of Balti-more. Over a 30-hour period, more than 1,500 buildings burned down and fire companies came from as far away as New York to help combat the blaze. This was indeed a wakeup call for establishing stand-ards for compatibility and interoperability, terms that are now part of our lexicon. The demand for compatibility stemmed from an understanding of the importance of safety. Earlier concerns for compatibility, such as the adoption of standard track gauges for railroads, often reflected a desire for convenience, by not having to change trains repeatedly when traveling through several states or local jurisdictions.
Standards also prescribe performance or quality characteristics.
There still may be villages where everyone knows everybody else, and where each can judge the quality of workmanship and efficacy of available products. In most of today's world, however, societies and products have become far too complex for individuals to be able to make competent judgments about each item needed for daily life. We expect our computers to have interoperable parts, that the monitor will work with the modem and the printer as well as the processor, and that we will not have to rewire parts so that they will work together. As a result, we have seen the rise and proliferation of many different types of organizations to describe, test, evaluate, and recommend courses of action in myriad product and service sectors. As a general rule, performance standards are preferred over design standards to allow greater flexibility in product design and development, and to foster innovation.