CT-2 Retention of Experts and Recruiting

Forum SMB 2011-09

CT-1 Use of e-tools and effective meetings
/ The IEC has broadly deployed electronic tools for use by its experts in developing the technical work. While these tools have advanced capabilities, there are two keys to their successful and effective use: training and understanding of how they are utilized and their continued evolution to meet the changing needs of the industry they serve. The issues regarding training will be addressed in the separate document noted in (1) above.
The SMB is invited to use the collaboration tools discussion thread to address the following points under the thread of e-tools: [CT-1]
1)What can be done to better encourage the use of the collaboration tools by experts at the working level?
2)What capabilities of the existing tools need to be enhanced? (and how)
3)What features of the Collaboration Tools Suite are not useful in their present form?
4)What additional capabilities should be added?
5)Is the current access to the tools by stakeholders acceptable?
6)Is the availability (uptime) and response time of the tools acceptable?
7)What future needs are foreseen for e-tools for IEC technical experts?
Re: CT-1 Use of e-tools and effective meetings
Created by: Jean-Pierre ISNARD l
draft / 1)What can be done to better encourage the use of the collaboration tools by experts at the working level?
R : Better advertising on existing collaboration tools with some training within NCs
2)What capabilities of the existing tools need to be enhanced? (and how)
R : Matter to be dealt with IEC Members : the NCs
3)What features of the Collaboration Tools Suite are not useful in their present form?
R : Matter to be dealt with IEC Members : the NCs
4)What additional capabilities should be added?
R : Matter to be dealt with IEC Members : the NCs
5)Is the current access to the tools by stakeholders acceptable?
R : As far as we know yes, but an enquiry could be necessary
6)Is the availability (uptime) and response time of the tools acceptable?
Matter to be dealt with IEC Members : the NCs
7)What future needs are foreseen for e-tools for IEC technical experts?
?

CT-2 Retention of Experts and Recruiting
/ Discussion around retention of experts in the IEC technical work: This effort is focused around the ability for experts to recognize and communicate to their management the value of participation in other IEC projects after completion of the initial project they were appointed to address. Key factors affecting this participation includes:
a.Relevance of the work to the interests of the individual and their employer or stakeholders
b.A proper balance on time and expense invested versus the resulting quality and value of the resulting IEC deliverable
c.The degree that time spent in meetings, online and in preparation for the same are felt to be spent effectively and not wasted by non-productive activities.
d.The ability to find and identify work of significance to that individual and their employer or constituency.
e.The degree to which similar work affecting a specific market or technology is grouped into appropriate structures (SCs, Technical Areas, or Working Groups) to facilitate easy access to multiple projects of common interest.
f.How much elapsed time is required to complete a specific activity, and degree that the investment in meetings, teleconferences etc. are known up front as a part of the project plan.
How these factors are addressed and communicated differs widely from TC to TC.
Discussion is invited from SMB members using the Collaboration tools suite on the following question:
[CT-2] How can the IEC better retain and ensure the continued engagement of its technical experts on a longer term basis, taking into consideration the factors noted. What should the TC / SC Officers do? The National Committees? The Central Office?
Re: CT-2 Retention of Experts and Recruiting
Created by: Jean-Pierre ISNARD l
draft / [CT-2] How can the IEC better retain and ensure the continued engagement of its technical experts on a longer term basis, taking into consideration the factors noted. What should the TC / SC Officers do? The National Committees? The Central Office?
If we do not retain experts, that means either that the topic is not or no more market relevant or that the cost of participating is not or no more in line with the return on investment
•For the first reason, we have only to note the resulting decision to stop the work if we have not enough experts
•For the second, the new ways of working could be a chance to maintain the experts or to recruit new ones : teleconference or webinar, etc. By this way we answer to another question : how to make easier the access for expert coming from SMEs
CT-3 Engaging New Experts
/ The ability of the IEC and its national committees to identify, recruit and engage capable experts for the technical work is also critical. New experts are also essential to ensure the IEC’s continued relevance to new and emerging technologies and their standardization needs.
The draft IEC MasterPlan identifies this as an important issue, and the SMB Chairman will seek inputs from the National Committee representatives in the Melbourne General Meeting on how to improve the quality, quantity and diversity of the stakeholder representatives who participate in the IEC technical work.
The IEC system is developed around the concept of a New Work Item Proposal being circulated with an attached project outline, and serving to call for interested industries and National Committees to appoint experts to the work project. In practice, most NPs have drafts attached which have been fully developed within working groups or project teams and are essentially mature documents. While this is an unintended consequence of SMB imposing time limits on work projects (6 months to advance as promised, 24 months to CDV and 5 years to publication) the end result is that very little notice goes to individuals and organizations who might be interested but were not aware or engaged in the preliminary development of the draft. Likewise, the PWI stage could advertise potential new work, but it is currently perceived as an “elephant graveyard” where failed projects go to die. SMB is invited discuss through the Collaboration Tools the following point with an aim to discuss next steps in the Melbourne meeting:
[CT-3] How can new work projects can be circulated broadly to engage additional experts without impeding the timely flow of the technical work?
Re: CT-3 Engaging New Experts
Created by: Jean-Pierre ISNARD l
draft / [CT-3] How can new work projects can be circulated broadly to engage additional experts without impeding the timely flow of the technical work?
In fact the situation is the outcome of IEC politics to reduce the apparent time to produce standards.
I was in SMB between1999 to 2004 when the topic to reduce the time was set up. Two actions were decided :
•To affix necessarily a draft together with the NWP form
•To put at zero stage any project which does not reach the CD stage after a 24 months
As a matter of consequences, some sectors of stakeholders decided to prepare the new proposal before it was announced at IEC level. That we have gain in “reducing the time to production” we have lost in term on transparency. Moreover, the ex-ante work has 2 merits: the work is made by a small group of experts and if some difficulties appear, time to solve them is possible without the risk to have a project at zero stage.
What we have done in recognising some draft coming from fora and consortia may be considered as an avatar of the previous statement.
I do not say I am against that. I say with have the consequences of our decision.
What could we do :

•To set up Pre-Projet Team (PPT) working in IEC specific blog: there task is to draft roughly the content of a draft. The experts of the PPT being not considered as a full expert from the NCs which they designs as their work does not need to be followed officially by the NCs (matter of cost of participation) until the draft becomes an official NWP.
.

CT-4 Collaboration between two or more TCs or with groups outside the IEC
/ In discussion of this topic, the SMB noted there are many areas where this is done routinely and successfully within the Technical Committees. One key criteria noted is that success requires high level commitment and communication between all leadership of the groups involved. This includes:
a.Development of shared view on the outcomes desired, the deliverables and their timing, and a general map of future direction.
b.Boundaries of existing work in the individual groups as well as the new joint work must be clearly defined and understood by all.
c.These issues need to be discussed in a face to face meeting early in the collaboration process
d.Having common members between the two groups is also a key success factor.
e.The need for the collaboration needs to be clearly communicated to the industry to ensure that capable experts will be committed to the effort.
f.Collaboration can come from within (two groups seeking a mutual outcome) or without (SMB or other management imposed requirements) but in the end both groups must be equally invested in the outcome.
In addition to the above success criteria, additional discussion needs to be held to better understand how to identify and remove where possible any barriers to collaboration within the IEC. SMB members are invited to address the question below, and specific inputs will be sought from the TC / SC Officers at the Melbourne General Meeting by the SMB Chairman.
SMB is invited to consider a decision at SMB142 to form an ad-Hoc to discuss specific ways that current rules and practices need to be modified to enhance collaboration within the IEC and between IEC and other appropriate groups. This ad-Hoc could be composed of a mix of SMB members, National Committee representatives and TC / SC leadership.
Question for SMB Discussion On the Collaboration Tools Site:
[CT-4] How do present practices and rules encourage collaboration between TCs or TCs and external groups and how do they discourage it? What changes, if any do you recommend to encourage more timely collaboration within the IEC?
Re: CT-4 Collaboration between two or more TCs or with groups outside the IEC
Created by: Jean-Pierre ISNARD l
draft / [CT-4] How do present practices and rules encourage collaboration between TCs or TCs and external groups and how do they discourage it? What changes, if any do you recommend to encourage more timely collaboration within the IEC?
I share Mike’s views: If industry sectors wish to collaborate then they find ways to do so. The problem is when they don't wish to do so and engage in turf wars, this damages the reputation of the IEC.
The role of IEC is to write standards in line with WTO rules. As such it cannot be as agile as fora and consortia, but it is recognised as being open, transparent, coherent, etc.
IEC does not and cannot compete in the same league as fora and consortia
CT-5 The “self-perpetuating” working group
/ In the IEC, once a working group has been established it is difficult to disband it once it has finished the task it was set up for. Many working groups will either create additional work for themselves or undertake major revision work to keep themselves occupied.
Whilst this additional work may have been processed and approved in accordance with the recognized procedures, in reality the National Committees will usually refer issues such as new work proposals back to the people who will be directly concerned by them. There is therefore no real, independent review of proposals for work and revision.
One is led to question whether all this additional work is really necessary and market-relevant.
The SMB did make an attempt to deal with this problem some years ago, with the introduction of project teams (PTs) and, more recently, with the use of Project Committees (PCs). These are both intended to deal with a single well-defined task and be subsequently disbanded. However, theses have been only partially successful and many TC/SCs have continued to use working groups which seem to exist for ever.
Question for discussion by the SMB:
[CT-5] The structure of WGs in IEC
1.Is there a problem with the current structure of semi-permanent WGs in TC/SCs and are we sure that all the work undertaken is really necessary and market relevant?
2.What mechanisms could be used to ensure independent review of the work in working groups?
3.Should the Project Team (PT) become the default group for undertaking new work with requirements for clearly delimiting the task and with clear time limits for completion of the work and subsequent disbanding?
Re: CT-5 The “self-perpetuating” working group
Created by: Jean-Pierre ISNARD l
draft / 1.Is there a problem with the current structure of semi-permanent WGs in TC/SCs and are we sure that all the work undertaken is really necessary and market relevant?
Is there any problem with semi-permanent WGs? Not really they have existed forever so who is complaining
What is the additional cost for CO? : peanuts.
Generally the permanent WGs deal with recurrent topics around the main subject to standardise such as test methods, terminologies, material use for the construction of the product, MTs which have over the task of maintaining standards which used to be done previously by WG, etc.
Is the work market relevant? Generally yes, if not the permanent WG would not have new item to deal with.
Do any WGs try to self aliment their program of work? This point is normally solved when between two plenary meeting of TCs the WGs works and report to the TC. But also as the boss of the expert generally want to know if the investment he does has a return on investment ; the matter is more marginal.
However one point stays problematic: the number of D liaison existing whilst D liaison has been set up for specific project. When the project is become standards the D liaison should have been stopped.
The best way to avoid an indefinite D liaison in a diplomatic way is to systematically and formally give the task of a new NP xwz to a new PT within the relevant TC this PT could be one existing WG but its name is PT xwz. When the task of the PT xwz is achieved, the PT XWZ is disbanded, with all existing liaisons.
2.What mechanisms could be used to ensure independent review of the work in working groups?
This should be the responsibility of the TC which shall receive the report of its WGs and has to follow the stage of the work of the different topics.
3.Should the Project Team (PT) become the default group for undertaking new work with requirements for clearly delimiting the task and with clear time limits for completion of the work and subsequent disbanding?
A PT seems to be the better way to solve the problem I raise here above.