This document summarizes a discussion on improving standards development processes in the learning, education, and training domain. It outlines the current Process and Product Legitimacy model used to analyze standards. Participants identified opportunities like increasing stakeholder involvement and recognizing diverse standards bodies. Barriers included a lack of inclusiveness and understanding of standards scopes. Solutions proposed were learning from agile specification processes, improving adoption support, and managing expectations of policymakers. The document concludes by outlining an improved model with multiple perspectives to better understand standards development drivers and motivate diverse stakeholders.

1. Improving the way we do
standards
Tore Hoel & Paul A. Hollins
ICALT 2010

2. Outline
The Context – the value of standard is questioned
The Process & Product Legitimacy (PPL) Model
Current state of affairs analysed through the PPL model
Improving the model

3. The Context
The value of standards

4. Trends (from #ADLRR2010)
Social Media and Web 2.0
Context
Linked Data & Semantic Web
Conventional Repositories and Registries
Standards, Specifications and Profiles
Harmonization & Integration
Source: Dan Rehak - liaison report to CEN WS-LT June 2010
CEN WSLT -- 20100621

5. European Union responds
“we badly need to
reform how ICT
standards are dealt
with in Europe”
proposals for the
reform of the
European
standardisation
system by the end of
the year

6. The Context
Learning, Education and Training as an
emergent domain

7. Content Timeline
 (Learning) Content 1990’s
 Description  Metadata 2000’s
 Context  Paradata 2010’s?
 Use  Analyticaldata ????
Source: Dan Rehak - liaison report to CEN WS-LT June 2010
CEN WSLT -- 20100621

8. The PPL model
Process & Product Legitimacy

9. Standards legitimacy

10. Standards legitimacy

11. The state of affairs in LET
standardisation
Summary of an international experts meeting
(January 2010)
Opportunities – Barriers – Solutions

12. Opportunities for improvement
– process issues
Increased adoption through involvement of more
stakeholders
Improve the diversity of participation in standards
communities
Recognise, understand and work with bodies which differ
across a range of dimensions - e.g. legal status, respect,
trust, openness, business models
Rapid, iterative development of specifications and pre-
standardisation work
Identify criteria for discontinuing work

13. Opportunities – product
issues
Learn from the culture and lightweight processes from
the informal specification community
Improve quality through early implementation and
evaluation
Build shared concepts between stakeholders

14. Barriers – process issues
Lack of inclusiveness in specification processes
Conflicting understanding of the scope and purposes
of standards

15. Barriers – product issues
Public procurement policy that does not recognize
standards & specifications from a variety of sources
Lack of early implementation of specifications
New dimension?
The ability to create derivative works is an
ESSENTIAL issue.

16. Solutions – process issues I
Learn from incubation models, for example the Apache
incubator.
Support adoption, community engagement & advocacy
throughout the whole lifecycle from incubation to
adoption and beyond. Identify criteria for candidacy for
incubation and moving from one to the other.
Match agility to the goal/stage of the spec process
Ensure resources are available throughout the whole life
cycle

17. Solutions – process issues II
Raise awareness, and be transparent, about the way we
want to move through this multi-dimensional space.
Increase effective coordination between the different
bodies
Improve the understanding of policy makers of the
diversity of standards and specifications
Manage the expectations of policy makers
Many bodies should more effectively disseminate within
their existing “rules”

18. Solutions – product issues
Identify solutions for the patent and ownership issues
with specifications
Both Process and Product:
Document success and failure stories to identify
success and failure criteria

19. Conclusions
The PPL model serves its purpose
We need to understand more about the drivers and the
motivation of the diverse group of stakeholders
Two keywords for further development of the model:
Complexity
Transparency

20. Improving the model

21. The Process
A new LET
standard

22. The Process
Historical,
Application,
and Basic views
analysis
A new LET
standard

23. The Process
Facilities
Draft Potential consensus
Project team
specification on LET standard
Standards Division of
Community Stakeholder
work
methodologies Communities

24. The Process
Facilities Facilities
Competing
Project team Draft Potential consensus Competing
Draft
specification on LET standard Project team
specification
Standards Standards
Division of Division of
Community Stakeholder Stakeholder Community
work work
methodologies Communities Communities methodologies

25. The Product
Draft A new LET
spec standard

26. The Product
A new LET
standard

27. The Product
Methods Engineering
(How we develop the methods
we use to develop the
standards)
describes /
prescribes
LET standards Design
(How we develop the
standards)
describes /
prescribes
LET standards

28. The Perspectives
why
what
what does it mean

29. The Perspectives
systelogical
infological
conceptual

30. The Complete Model
(1st draft)
Historical, Application and Generic views
Facilities Facilities
Methods Engineering
(Design Methods for creating
LT Design Models)
describes /
systelogical prescribes
systelogical Competing
Project team Object Object Project team
(through perspectives) LET standards Design (through perspectives)
infological (LT Design Models) infological
conceptual describes / conceptual
prescribes
Standards
Standards Division of LET standards Division of Stakeholder Community
Community Stakeholder work
work Communities methodologies
methodologies Communities

31. Questions?!
P.A.Hollins@bolton.ac.uk
Tore.Hoel@hio.no
Thanks!