uropean ICT standardisation policies will never be realised - or later possibly reviewed - just because White Papers are published every four to five years
Kallistratos Dionelis, secretary general of ASECAP, comments on the European Commission's new ICT Standardisation Work Programme
I've just read a proposal from theAs
The industrial world is always informed, but not always involved, on issues related to the main objectives that the policy-makers identify. The policy-makers, in their daily comings and goings, examine the open socio-economic issues, ask opinions of the citizens/voters and finally define, in their own way, the targets for whichever issue is at hand. Most of the time, the goals of the policy-makers don't change in the general sense but the strategies to get there change and sometimes abruptly... this is always a possibility and often a reality.
So, we now have a paper from the European Commission on the 2010-2013 ICT Standardisation Work Programme. The basic objectives and visions for 'promised lands' remain in broad terms the same but the work plan and the road maps proposed have changed drastically and I am sure that in the near future they will change again. The question is whether we can manage change and what direction the change will take.
Understanding partnership
The European Commission's various documents include always references to the Public-Private Partnership, the famous PPP. Globalisation is based on cooperation and partnerships. Nobody in the modern era is against 'partnership' per se but not all the stakeholders understand it in a homogenous way. The basic difficulty is that in the relation between public and business both parties know that the public sector is never put out of business by a bad or ill-informed decision.At this point, I'll quote the following paragraph from the EC Communication:
"ICT standardisation is part of the general standardisation activities and contributes to the policy objective of improving European competitiveness while balancing industry expectations with societal needs. Public authorities are always interested in complementing European legislation and policies by references to standards. Standards established by the private sector can help create a level playing field for competition and their referencing can be a means of promoting an effective partnership between the private and public sectors."
With this Communication the Commission is once again thinking in positive negatives. I keep repeating that European ICT standardisation policies will never be realised - or later possibly reviewed - just because White Papers are published every four to five years and proposals are set every year. It is not so. As I have noted before in these pages, ITS is a turbulent world with fast-changing interpretations of conflicting acronyms which create a glass wall or ceiling that only serves to divide high-level managers and ITS experts. An inner circle of ITS experts really knows the game and can seriously lead, drawing the basic actions, but the larger proportion of managers and politicians is rather lost in the ITS labyrinths. The situation is worsening and becomes serious given that no-one in the political cabinets dares to openly declare that ITS is a hard world and assistance is needed. I can only smile when each time I read about the European Commission's democratic 'public consultations' where every citizen is invited to define in his way the form that ITS should take.
He or she (the citizen) may propose what a European Electronic Tolling Service (EETS) should look like, how to develop an eCall programme or to adjust the priorities of an e-safety action plan. Above all, he or she can express a view on the most appropriate ICT standards.
Good luck, ladies and gentlemen; but true democracy plays by harder rules. Merely inviting individuals to submit their proposals doesn't work, or, at least, it cannot be expected to work and have its 'decisions' be universally popular and accepted.
Aligning needs
ITS is not just theories and ideas. At its core, the ITS or transport management business needs to align what the transport domain really needs with what ITS providers and enablers can understand and build, having of course in mind what society can afford.The main objective for the European Commission's ICT standardisation policy is to promote the use of standards as a means to increase interoperability between services and applications. Given the global nature of the market, synergy and cooperation between the relevant forums and consortia should be encouraged to cope with the ever-growing demand for standards to support interoperability in the different fast-evolving, innovative technology domains. The standardisation work programme cannot be the result of close-door inter-service cooperation among 27 European Commission Directorates-General and among 27 European Commission cabinets. This procedure may be correct in the political world but it is fully wrong in the real industrial one. Identifying areas of high political importance is just one side of the coin; the other side is also needed in order to see whether the industrial world is ready to produce and help achieve the policy objectives.
The specific work programme under consideration 'describes' various ICT standardisation needs over a period and sets out as an obligation which type of standardisation deliverables are needed, defining the corresponding timeframes. From the (many) domains that this paper covers I just focus on Domain 3: Intelligent transport.
I will not quote here all the lengthy list of issues to be done. There is not the space. However, I will just copy in brief the following points of reference: standardisation needs in the field of transport particularly related to the i2010 Intelligent Car; the e-Safety action plan; Green Car initiatives, Electronic Fee Collection, the EETS, the and Intelligent Transport System (ITS) Action Plan.
Beyond intentions
The document states what the above mean in theory. How the Intelligent car initiative will accelerate the deployment of intelligent vehicle systems ensuring interoperability across countries and harmonising technical solutions; and how ICT-based services and applications will bring down the number of road victims and reduce road traffic's energy consumption and CO2 emissions, thus contributing to low carbon mobility. The ITS Action Plan will also appear to complement the work of the Intelligent Car initiative and the e-Safety forum (which has been working already for over six years) will keep addressing the priority areas where actions are necessary to lift the barriers hampering the wider and more coordinated deployment and use of ITS. The cost of traffic congestion is also an important goal to be targeted: it is estimated at 1 per cent of total European GDP and, according to the paper, could be reduced by up to 10 per cent through the deployment of ITS (which could also prevent more than 5,000 deaths in road accidents).There are of course good intentions, but are they enough? Most of the time, good intentions simply aren't enough. As a part of the industrial ITS world I can easily state that ITS priorities in the EU regions are not harmonised and ITS technologies are not mature, so time is needed where private and public must come together and talk to see the deployment side of the political messages and, mainly, their cost.
Reading between the lines, I feel that the Communication already knows what I know and this is the reason that the following statement is also included in the paper: "The work programme is intended to be a living document which can be adjusted or updated if deemed necessary. A first evaluation of the effectiveness of the multi-annual work programme for ICT standardisation will be made in early 2011 at which time a decision can be made on whether to continue with the multi-annual approach."
In the ITS field the stakes are high and the margins for error are really small. Untested decisions lead to serious mistakes but the truth is that technology will always be the decisive factor in determining the winners and the losers. There's a lot of truth in the old saying, "You need to know before you start drilling."
