Editing 927: Standards
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
For any engineering task, there are numerous ways a given problem can be solved. The more complex the task, the more room for diversity. That's all well and good for a one-off problem, but if a design is meant to be iterated over time, or if an entire industry is solving that same problem, part reuse and {{w|interoperability}} become issues to deal with. {{w|Technical standards}} thus came to exist so that industries could avoid wasting resources {{w|reinventing the wheel}}, whilst offering their clients a certain amount of simplicity and compatibility between vendors. | For any engineering task, there are numerous ways a given problem can be solved. The more complex the task, the more room for diversity. That's all well and good for a one-off problem, but if a design is meant to be iterated over time, or if an entire industry is solving that same problem, part reuse and {{w|interoperability}} become issues to deal with. {{w|Technical standards}} thus came to exist so that industries could avoid wasting resources {{w|reinventing the wheel}}, whilst offering their clients a certain amount of simplicity and compatibility between vendors. | ||
| β | But standards have issues of their own. They don't accommodate every {{w|Use Case|use case}}, they might have restrictions or royalties attached, and people tend to be plagued by ''{{w|Not invented here|Not Invented Here syndrome}}''. So competing standards have a tendency to arise to address different perceived needs. After a while, the market for competing standards gets messy and hard to follow, and {{w|system integration|integrating systems}} built around competing standards gets burdensome. As a result, someone eventually takes on the challenge of creating a universal standard that everyone can rally around. | + | But, standards have issues of their own. They don't accommodate every {{w|Use Case|use case}}, they might have restrictions or royalties attached, and people tend to be plagued by ''{{w|Not invented here|Not Invented Here syndrome}}''. So, competing standards have a tendency to arise to address different perceived needs. After a while, the market for competing standards gets messy and hard to follow, and {{w|system integration|integrating systems}} built around competing standards gets burdensome. As a result, someone eventually takes on the challenge of creating a universal standard that everyone can rally around. |
This almost never works. In many cases, a new standard fails to displace the incumbent standards, eventually loses funding and support, and thus becomes a relic of history. In many other cases, it only penetrates far enough to survive, ironically making the situation messier. The latter situation often ends up becoming cyclical, with new standards periodically rising and failing to gain traction. | This almost never works. In many cases, a new standard fails to displace the incumbent standards, eventually loses funding and support, and thus becomes a relic of history. In many other cases, it only penetrates far enough to survive, ironically making the situation messier. The latter situation often ends up becoming cyclical, with new standards periodically rising and failing to gain traction. | ||
