Through this agreement, SES and ANSI will work together to identify and advance joint initiatives, evaluate progress, and explore new opportunities to support the standards community. Planned areas of collaboration include workforce development, educational programming, community engagement, and cross-promotion of programs and events.

The MoU reflects a shared commitment between SES and ANSI to strengthen the impact and reach of the standards profession.

I know many SES members have had the pleasure of interacting with Gordon Gillerman, former Director of the Standards Coordination Office at the National Institute of Technology. Gordon has spent most of the latter portion of his career in standardization coordinating standards and conformity assessment across government with the private sector. After 20 years of federal service, Gordon is retiring to pursue other endeavors.

In terms of SES, Gordon has supported NIST’s organizational membership, moderating and speaking at SES conferences, and was an instructor the conformity assessment portion of the SES Fundamentals course for many years. His conformity assessment “popcorn” interactive exercise has become a cornerstone of SES training programs. Gordon is an SES Fellow and was the recipient of SES’s most prestigious award this year, the Leo B. Moore Award.

Gordon has mentored many professionals in the standardization fields. He shares his knowledge freely and provides guest lectures at universities and programs, whenever asked. He has worked with countless government and industry professionals in a many subject areas; the vastness of Gordon’s knowledge should not overshadow his depth of subject matter expertise. He is a problem solver, coordinator and facilitator extraordinaire. Personally, as the person who brought me to NIST, I have the utmost respect (and awe) for Gordon. He has been a great leader, manager and a mentor. He will be sorely missed!

Some of Gordon’s accomplishments at NIST include:

• leading the drafting of the U.S. Government National Standards Strategy for Critical and Emerging Technology.
• developing a first ever government wide standardization training program that has thousands of attendances and created a strong U.S. Government (USG) standards community.
• leading the development of Federal policies on standardization including Office of Management and Budget, Circular A119, Guidance for Agencies – Federal Participation and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and Conformity Assessment Activities.
• authoring the standards and conformity assessment provisions of the USMCA Trade Agreement (formally NAFTA).
  

Many federal agency programs were designed under Gordon’s leadership:

• FDA - Accreditation Scheme for Conformity Assessment
• FedRAMP - certification of cloud computing service providers
• Department of Health and Human Services - Health IT certification
• WaterSense certification
• CPSC - Accredited laboratories for testing of children’s products
• DoJ - Compliance Testing Program for body armor
• DHS - P25 Compliance Assessment Program for First Responder Radio

Before joining NIST, Gordon spent his early career at Underwriter’s Laboratories. Some of his accomplishments at UL include:

• Leading harmonization of safety standards for ITE and electro-medical equipment
• Training US industry on harmonized safety standards
• Reducing barriers to trade through the implementation of test data exchange programs between UL and VDE (Germany) and leading UL’s entrance into the IECEE CB Scheme for ITE and electromedical equipment

Gordon has held many important roles over the last several years including:

• Department of Commerce, Standards Executive and Chair, Interagency Committee on Standards Policy (ICSP)
• Co-Chair US/EU Technology Trade Council (TTC), Technical Standards Working Group
• Co-Chair QUAD Critical and Emerging Technology Working Group, Standards Sub-group
• ANSI Board of Directors – Member, Executive Committee and Director-at-large, Board of Directors
• Chair Advisory Task Group to Enhance the Effectiveness of the USNC to the IEC

Some his previous roles include:

• Chair, ANSI National Policy Advisory Committee
• Co-rapporteur of the International Telecommunications Union – Study Group on Conformance and Interoperability
• Public Sector Co-Chair of the American National Standards Institute’s (ANSI) Homeland Defense and Security Standards Collaborative
• U.S. Expert ISO/IEC 17065, Requirements for Bodies Certifying Products, Processes or Services
• ANSI Advisory Committee on Accreditation for Personnel Certification
• IECEE Certification Body Scheme peer assessor
• Standards developer in ASTM International, IEC, NFPA, IEEE and UL
• Affiliate Member, Quality Infrastructure Committee, Organization of Scientific Area Committees (Forensics)

The loss to NIST will be significant.  I am thankful that I had the opportunity to learn and work alongside Gordon for 14 years. On behalf of the community, we thank Gordon for the impact he has made in the field of standardization and for his numerous accomplishments, and commitment to SES: The Society for Standardization Professionals. Here’s to hoping we will still see him around at standardization events.

#BreakTheBias

As a young female engineer, it was not uncommon for me to be asked at job sites whether I was the administrative assistant. You see, I was just “too pretty” to be an engineer. Even disguised as a backhanded compliment, the message was clear: I was not their idea of an engineer, and I did not belong.

I am not the only one who heard this message; unfortunately, too often we listen to it. In the United States, it has been estimated that almost 40% of female engineering graduates leave the profession .¹ Nevertheless, I persisted and rose in the ranks. I wish I could say that no one today is surprised by my role as a CEO, but there are still those who do a double take.

Research has shown that women are not considered prototypical leaders. There is a bias that certain roles, particularly leadership roles, are still better suited for men. While one might think it is more common for men to have a bias against women, it turns out this is not the case. A recent study from the United Nations found that 51% of women in Canada hold some form of gender bias, compared to 53% of men. Globally, gender bias is higher, with 86% of women and 90% of men showing at least one clear bias against gender equality.²

We have a lot of work to do to break the bias. And the longer we wait, the more it costs society. According to the latest gender gap report from the World Economic Forum, it will take nearly 268 years to achieve economic gender parity worldwide. That’s 10 generations of women who are to be paid less than men!³ Gender inequality affects physical and mental health, safety, employment—all spheres of life.

And it has staggering economic impacts. It is well established that closing the gender gap—such that women’s participation in the economy equals that of men—would add trillions to global gross domestic product (GDP). In 2015, McKinsey estimated that closing the gender gap would add $28 trillion USD to global GDP in 2020.⁴ We have so much to gain, yet progress is slow.

In 2020, the Standards Council of Canada (SCC) published a report, When One Size Does Not Protect All: Understanding Why Gender Matters for Standardization, which found that the relationship between standardization and unintentional fatalities is indeed gender-specific. We conducted a cross-country analysis, using data from 106 countries. Our research shows that at a national level, participation in standardization is associated with a decrease in unintentional fatalities—for men. In other words, the more a country is involved in standardization, the fewer men die because of unintentional injuries.⁵ However, there was no such link for women, which means that being involved in standardization had no effect on unintentional injuries for women. This is further evidence that standardization is failing women.

Another example is that the risk of being injured or killed in a car accident is 73% higher for women.⁶ This is because crash test dummies are based on male anthropometry. Women are not small men. The assumption that they share men’s anthropometry has led to many preventable accidents. Given that accidents are largely preventable, the evidence that women are not protected as well as men is unacceptable.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further shone a spotlight on the intersection between standards and gender equality. Throughout the pandemic, we’ve seen the impact when standards are not designed with women in mind. One example is personal protective equipment (PPE). Historically, PPE has been designed for the male shape—think about masks, face shields, goggles, and so on.⁷

Advancing Equality Through Standards Development

While understanding how standards impact men and women differently is important, it is also essential to understand why standards are not protecting women as well as men. Standards are set by those who participate in their development, and women are still underrepresented in the standards development process. SCC tracks the number of women in Canada who participate on technical committees at the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). Our latest data show that only 24% of mirror committee members are women, even though women make up almost half of Canada’s labor force (48%).

The underrepresentation of women in technical committees is reflected in the standards that are developed. While technical committees should strive for gender parity, research indicates that at least 30% representation is necessary to ensure that women’s contributions are not marginalized.⁸

There’s no question we need to increase the participation of women on technical committees. But this is only one part of the solution. We also need to ensure that the female voice is reflected in the content of the standards—that standards are designed with women in mind, regardless of the number of women participating on technical committees.

We know standards are not meeting the needs of women as much as they should. SCC conducted a preliminary mapping of the National Standards of Canada to the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and found that only 2% of our national standards contribute to SDG 5, the UN’s gender equality goal. Canada is a nation that considers itself a leader in gender equality and diversity, yet only 2% of the National Standards of Canada factor in gender equality.

I am proud of the work that SCC has done so far. In 2019, SCC became one of the first national standards bodies to publish a five-year strategy to improve gender equality in standards. Since then, we have been striving to foster a standardization system that is inclusive and equal, regardless of gender.

We are also leading the development of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) Guidelines on Developing Gender-Responsive Standards, which are currently open for comments. The guidelines address how to improve the representation of women on technical committees, how to ensure that meetings are inclusive and foster the participation of women, and how to ensure that standards are gender responsive, regardless of the number of women participating on the technical committee. The following three steps are concrete actions that committees can take to incorporate gender considerations:

• Start with the assumption that there are gender differences. To ensure standards are gender-responsive, we should start with the assumption that there are gender differences.
• Gather evidence. To determine if there are impacts and if the standard needs any potential modification, you need to gather data—specifically, sex-disaggregated data.
• Take targeted action. Based on the results of the research and assessment, take action to ensure the gender responsiveness of the standard.

In recognition of the need for gender-responsive standards, the IEC and ISO have created the Joint Strategic Advisory Group on Gender Responsive Standards, with SCC co-leading the work. The group’s charge is to create tools for technical committees that ensure standards are gender responsive.

Not only is SCC very involved in advancing gender equality in the standardization system, we have also been supporting work to advance diversity and inclusion in organizations across Canada. We recently published, in collaboration with the Ted Rogers School of Management’s Diversity Institute, a Publicly Available Specification for the Canadian Government’s 50-30 Challenge,⁹ which seeks to improve parity for women and underrepresented groups on boards and in senior management. We have collaborated with government, post-secondary institutions, and key stakeholders to give organizations a framework and tools to improve gender parity. This work establishes key terms and definitions for measuring diversity and inclusion in the workplace and builds on national and international knowledge and best practices to provide common language for organizations.

Breaking the Bias: Taking Steps

To move forward, we need to break both known bias and unconscious bias. Gender inequality is a systems issue that requires structural changes within the standardization system. A recent ISO and IEC survey found that 75% of responding technical committees have not considered gender.¹⁰ Among those that had not considered gender, almost 80% said that gender was not relevant to their sector. A recurring refrain amongst the comments was that technical standards “are not a gender issue.”

Although the actions may not be intentional, the consequences are real. It’s important to mention that the failure to consider the needs of women is not necessarily indicative of dislike or believing that men are superior to women; rather, there is an inherent tendency to see men as prototypical, and this is also true in standards development. Acknowledging this tendency can help us take concrete actions to mitigate this bias and ensure standards work for all.

Standards are a force for good in societies, ensuring that products, services, and processes work as intended. They support economic growth, facilitate trade, and play a role in protecting health and safety. And yet, standards are achieving these outcomes while not fully addressing the needs of half the world’s population. By taking action to ensure that standards are responsive to all, those of us responsible for standards development can magnify the positive impact they can have on society as a whole. I invite you to join SCC’s community of experts who shape standards that affect us all.

Chantal Guay is the chief executive officer of the Standard Council of Canada, having previously served as SCC’s vice president of standards and international relations and vice president of accreditation services. In January 2020, she became the first woman to both lead SCC and represent Canada on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Council. Prior to joining SCC, she was CEO of Engineers Canada, a national organization composed of the 12 provincial and territorial associations that regulate the practice of engineering in Canada and license the country’s 300,000-plus professional engineers.

REFERENCES

¹ St. Fleur, N. 2014. “Many Women Leave Engineering, Blame the Work Culture.” All Tech Considered. Washington, D.C.: National Public Radio.

² Begeny, C.T., M.K. Ryan, C.A. Moss-Racusin, and G. Ravetz, G. 2020. “In some professions, women have become well represented, yet gender bias persists—Perpetuated by those who think it is not happening.” Science Advances, 6(26).

³ World Economic Forum. 2021. Global Gender Gap Report 2021. Geneva, Switzerland.

⁴ McKinsey Global Institute. 2015. The Power of Parity: How Advancing Women’s Equality Can Add $12 Trillion to Global Growth. London, U.K.

⁵ Parkouda, M. 2019. An Ounce of Prevention: Standards as a Tool to Prevent Accidental Fatalities. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Standards Council of Canada.

⁶ Forman, J., G.S. Poplin, C.G. Shaw, T.L. McMurry, K. Schmidt, J. Ash, and C. Sunnevang. 2019. “Automobile Injury Trends in the Contemporary Fleet: Belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions.” Traffic Injury Prevention, 20(6): 607-612.

⁷ Janson, D.J., B.C. Clift, and V. Dhokia. 2022. “PPE Fit of Healthcare Workers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Applied Ergonomics, 99.

⁸ See, for example: Joecks, J., K. Pull, and K. Vetter. 2013. “Gender Diversity in the Boardroom and Firm Performance: What Exactly Constitutes a Critical Mass?” Journal of Business Ethics, 118(1): 61-72.

⁹ Diversity Institute. 2021. The 50-30 Challenge. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ryerson University.

¹⁰ Nebra, Noelia Garcia. 2021. “ISO Raises the Standard on Gender Equality.” Geneva, Switzerland: International Standards Organization.

Over the past several years the preference of those consuming Standards content has shifted dramatically. As people enter the workforce the baseline models by which they have consumed content vary drastically from GEN-X and Baby Boomers, for example. As these preferences change, so to must the content delivery models. It is important to be aware of these expectations. Simply providing a printed manual or a static PDF file is no longer a reasonable option. Recent graduates, for example, want digital content that goes where they go. They want searchability across single and multiple titles and they want the ability to capture notes, create flash cards and build elements within the content that will assist their studying efforts and ultimately render the content more effective. These are not future wants; these are baseline features that millennials, for example, want and expect right now.

In parallel to providing users with content they can access in a way they prefer, SDO’s must also be constantly aware of the threat to their intellectual property. The countless hours of effort by multiple contributors from multiple different organizations could be jeopardized if the content is pirated. SDO’s again need to apply proper controls beyond the typical PDF restrictions. These security elements can take one of two forms. They can be application settings that activate restrictions such as no printing, printing with watermarks, applying expiration dates, barring concurrent access, etc. Or an even more creative way to ensure that content is protected is to apply rich media elements that take the content well beyond a static printed piece or a static PDF file. Including video, assessments and other rich media elements creates content that is far beyond a static fie. By default, the material is protected because any copying effort would render a completely different finished product.

These are key elements of an SDO’s digital channel evolution but there’s another important factor to consider. One of the most common topics on social media and news outlets today is data analytics. It’s such a broad-based term but, in regard to SDO content, it relates to gaining an understanding of what users are doing with your content.  This is a frontier element that most SDO’s simply don’t have the technology to facilitate. Either that shortfall is with their internal resources or the traditional reseller model in place for the sale of their content. In either case, there is a significant opportunity to gather important data that paints a clear picture of what content is being viewed, for how long and what’s being ignored. Image how this can benefit the content curation and massaging process?

The term “activating digital channels” refer to far more than modernizing how content is distributed, consumed, and protected. It also entails how such content is monetized and how that process is conducted in the most user-friendly way while also ensuring that SDO’s have complete visibility and control. Factors such as regional taxation based on location for consumption for digital content is another area where many SDO’s often fall outside of the proper taxation rules. Take this challenge to a global market and the tax implications of selling digital content gets even more complex not to mention transacting in multiple currencies. Stay tuned for a focused article on this topic in the next SES Digital Newsletter.

This article serves one clear purpose: provoking thought that drives change. Standards content is some of the most research-based and collaborative thinking output in the world. It makes products better, saves lives and improves countless processes across countless industries and sectors.  It deserves to be treated that way. 

Written By:

Michael Dunnigan

Vice President, Gilmore Global

www.gilmoreglobal.com

dunniganm@gilmore.ca