Re: [SystemSafety] FMEA draft international standard

From: Peter Bernard Ladkin < >
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 20:57:53 +0200

On 2014-07-16 19:39 , Braband, Jens wrote:
> But I agree with Peter that there should be some minimal quality requirements and some competence management for standards development.

Engineering-standards development is a society-wide consensus-based process. There is a purpose - encapsulate the state of the art in <whatever the purpose is of the technology you are describing>.

Let's look at other consensus-based processes. Lawmakers in most European countries and North America have a review process - the judiciary. The comparison object is a constitution, written or in the case of the UK unwritten. Not all laws now are locally-made. There are international agreements, such as the ECHR and EU. These offer comparison also.

Engineering-standards processes, country-internal as well as international, by contrast, have no such independent review. They are thus vulnerable to capture by powerful special interests, as well as by the business models of the organisations which implement standardisation procedures. Just as are governments which have no supervening judicial review processes, as political scientists and legal scholars have been pointing out for centuries now. I have experienced first-hand both mechanisms at work in my standards activities.

If some degree of independent review is deemed through centuries of experience to be necessary for successful democratic lawmaking, how on earth do standards organisations imagine they can get along without it?

PBL Prof. Peter Bernard Ladkin, Faculty of Technology, University of Bielefeld, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany Tel+msg +49 (0)521 880 7319 www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de



The System Safety Mailing List
systemsafety_at_xxxxxx Received on Wed Jul 16 2014 - 20:58:05 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Feb 16 2019 - 02:17:06 CET