Our guest columnist for this edition of Standard Deviation is former STC president Alan Houser. He raises an important question that leads us to ask yet another: should we have general, independent standards for technical communication, or are we best served by sections included in specific industry-related standards?
Standard Deviation is a column all about standards—a subject that affects most of our lives, but that we seldom think about. As the title implies, I want to keep the conversation lively and engaging. I’m always looking for guest columnists, and we welcome feedback with comments or requests for standards-related topics to cover. Email me at rgallon4stc@culturecom.net.
By Alan Houser | Fellow
Many years ago, I worked on an “industry standard” version of the UNIX operating system, designed by a software consortium to compete against Microsoft Windows. The product’s interoperability and security features, and its multi-vendor installed base, would make it a viable competitor.
However, only one computer manufacturer sold the product. There was no real benefit for customers to adopt the operating system, and Windows is still with us.
Standards exist in many forms, and have many positive effects. Standards ensure the interoperability of our computer networks, power grids, and transportation systems. Standards ensure that our food and drugs are safe. But not all standards are widely adopted, and not all standards are successful.
How can one judge the success of a standard? Metrics might include: awareness of the standard, its popularity, and whether the standard achieves its goals.
Whither DITA?
Consider one popular technical communication standard. The Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) has a substantial following. DITA is supported by a range of commercial and open-source software. Communities of practice have arisen to share knowledge and promote the use of the standard to meet organizations’ business goals (the Yahoo DITA-Users email list recently surpassed 4,000 members). Without question, DITA has achieved mindshare among a substantial number of technical communicators.
DITA is developed by the DITA Technical Committee, a working group within the OASIS standards body (https://www.oasis-open.org). OASIS funds its operations through member dues, and provides its standards at no cost. Thanks to the OASIS funding model, organizations can:
- Download and read the DITA specification
- Assess its appropriateness for their business requirements
- Find information about DITA best practices from sources including email lists, web content, trade-press books, free webinars, and training classes.
Arguably, the free availability of the DITA specification has contributed to its success.
Heretofore ISO
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) offers a set of standards relating to information development and content management. (Until 2013, STC funded a part of this effort). These standards codify processes and best practices, and include requirements for planning, writing, and testing user documentation. The ISO working group most recently published ISO/IEC/IEEE 26531:2015, Systems and software engineering—Content management for product life cycle, user and service management documentation.
There’s just one problem. Finding these standards in the wild has been challenging. In all of my travels among technical communication circles, I’ve only encountered one technical communicator who is using these standards.
While my experience is anecdotal, there is evidence to back it.
These ISO information development standards vary in price from approximately 150 to 200 US dollars, depending on the source from which they are purchased and the financial exchange rate (ISO sells the standards in Swiss Francs). Tables of contents are available for preview, but to obtain the standard for any sort of assessment or deployment, you must purchase it.
And apparently, that’s a problem. When STC looked at the rates of purchase through the ISO website, the numbers were grim. In 2012, ISO/IEC/IEEE 15289: 2011, Systems and software engineering—Content of life cycle information items (documentation) showed 15 copies sold. The remainder were in the single digits. (These figures only show sales directly through ISO. Other channels exist, but ISO is a major sales channel).
A Path to Relevance?
Can the ISO standards become more widely known and adopted among technical communicators? Possibly, through the following actions:
- Education of prospective users of the benefits of the ISO standards. This would ideally include criteria for self-selection (“These standards may be helpful if you are in the following circumstances…”).
- Formation of communities of practice. Who are using these standards, and what business benefits do they experience?
- Increase education of the standards’ goals and contents, to increase prospective adopters’ confidence before a purchase decision.
- Change the distribution model. Find sponsors for making the standards publicly-available. A handful of ISO standards are available under this arrangement.
- Develop the standards under a different organization that would foster greater publicity and adoption.
Even with these changes, other technical communication standards are freely available for inspection, use, and deployment. Best practice information is available in textbooks and other sources, both freely available and for cost. In this context, I fear that the ISO standards are doomed to serve a very small niche. And that’s unfortunate.
Do you need to follow a standard in your job? Let us know which one by leaving a comment on this article online or by contacting rgallon4stc@culturecom.net.
