The cost of keeping up to date on Standards

[John Webb]

As someone who has sat on a BSI Committee in the past, I am well aware of the efforts that go into the preparation of new and revised Standards, and therefore understand, to a degree, the costs associated with them.

But as someone who retains an interest in certain areas, like fire safety, albeit not in paid employment, the cost of keeping up to date is horrendous. Would BSI sell a lot more copies if they either sold paper copies at a lower price or electronic copies? For example, the IFT (formerly IEE etc.) sell electronic copies of The Wiring Regs (BS7671) and some of their related guides on CD for a sum noticeably less than the sum of all the component items in paper, so it's not impossible to do!

[kurnal]

John please forgive me if this turns out to sound like a rant but I am getting increasingly frustrated with the BSI and I am starting to think that they are an over bloated money making machine and that good standards are taking a back seat.

Heres a few reasons why I feel this way.

Take a look at the cost of buying corrctions to standards - an ever increasing number of corrections are issued because they get it wrong. Look at this months "standards update" for example with corrigenda documents priced at up to £200. We got it wrong but we wont tell you how or correct our mistakes unless you pay.

Take a look at the Bo****ks that is currently out for public consultation -  FSH/24 - ISO/TC92/Sc 4. Why do we need another standard on fire risk assessment and why are we importing technical detail that is relevant to American building codes not relevant in the UK? When we asked if we could comment on the technical content they said no - only editorial comments are being accepted.

Take a look at BS9999 - it went out for public consultation but the final published document contained much (wrong) information that was never included in the public consultation draft- such as interpolation of exit capacity down to 850mm. Who agreed that?

Take a look at the draft BS9991 - I and two others burned the midnight oil on that one to produce a 26 page document (and that in a 9point font) expressing our concerns at the quantum leap from the tried and trusted standards of the past. A National Organisation of which I am a member asked if it could join the FSH14 meeting to express these concerns. After all the FSH14 membership regularly attending comprises 4 members and has included nobody from the sharp end of fire safety enforcement or risk assessment. But we were turned down.

Another issue is the fact the online comment system is a nightmare to use, there is a tiny viewing window and if you write a comment and then scroll forward to check a cross reference when you scroll back your comment has been lost and you have to start again. I raised this concern but as usual constructive criticism is unwelcome. You can after all buy a copy of the draft, spend hours of your own time making comments in the interest of the common good only to have your comments rubbished in your absence by an often highly partisan working group which you cannot influence.

We in the industry need to wake up and smell the coffee. Technical quality of standards is in steep decline. We are all too busy to make time to read comment and influence the draft standards and then because we have taken our eye off the ball a rubbish standard such as BS9999, BS9991,  ISO/TC92/Sc 4 is forced upon us, and not only is it rubbish, worse still after a couple of years people even start to believe it and quote it as the gospel.

Sorry for the rant , no doubt CT will chastise me later but I think it needs to be said before BSI declines to the extent that it is no longer fit for purpose.

 

[Davo]

Hi John
 When I was the FR Assessor for my ex-employer we spent nearly 8 grand on BSs and this was just for police premises. Then there were the revisions.........

Lord knows what the pro Assessor has to cough up

davo   ( )

[Midland Retty]

I accept that the technical standards cost money.

But the cost of purchasing technical standards must not be prohibitive, otherwise people simply won't purchase them, or more accurately, won't be able to afford them.

This has numerous negative consequences.

In the current financial crisis where everyone is having to tighten their belts the cost of standards has to be looked at and reviewed. I have never sat on a technical committee, and I doubt I ever will, so I won't comment on the integrity, motives or intrests of the people who sit on those committees.

I would just like to see a system in place to ensure that customers (I use the term customer deliberately) are charged a fair price to purchase a standard, and that minor updates to such standards are free of charge, in todays world it can be cheap and simple to broadcast addendums or alterations.

There needs to be a culture change.

[Auntie LIn]

You chaps are all pushing on an open door with this topic.
I represent my industry at standards committees and have been actively involved in the preparation of product standards for doors and windows.
The 'product standard' for doors runs to three documents - external doors and windows, internal doors and fire and smoke doors.   So far only the external doors has been published and this is supported by in excess of 70 other standards - all of which you might be expected to have on your shelf for reference.

The amount of industry input into these documents is huge.   The cost to each industry each year must run into the millions.   BSI pay nothing to the committee members and I think resents giving each member a 'free' (when we've paid for it with our blood, sweat and tears) copy at publication date.

I think it's about time someone too BSI to law under the Trade Descriptions Act - they are not BRITISH standards - they are primarily ISO and European, with the weight coming down firmly on ISO for preference.   They are not supporting our industries overseas.   Traditionally, countries such as Hong Kong and Singapore have called up British Standards in their regulations and tender documents.   What's BSI doing for us? - Sweet - nothing.   BSI is trying to withdraw certain standards "because they conflict with European standards".   But they don't conflict with anything in the rest of the world thank you very much.   British Standards are well known and trusted in places like South East Asia - ENs are not.   If BSI really wanted to get ENs on the footing that BSs have they would need to give copies of the standard away (or at a greatly reduced price) - as the Americans are doing very successfully.   Who's going to pay £150 for a BS when an American Standard doesn't even cost a fistful of dollars?

When BSI starts to support UK plc I might have a bit more faith in them as an association.   At the moment I don't know what they do for the money they cost us - it certainly isn't getting standards published, because I know of at least two groups of EN standards that will be needed by mid-2013 for CE marking purposes - both of which have sat in BSI for over a year waiting "for drawings".   And why?  Because BSI doesn't use the sort of CAD package that most self-respecting businesses and publishers use.

Oh I feel soooooo much better for getting that off my chest!

[Wiz]

It is about time that the subject of compliance Standards and Regulations was taken totally under the control of a Government agency. (I don't often think this way, but I can see no other option in this case)

Firstly, the selling cost of a copy of any Standard should be only what the raw materials and actual production cost. The cost of the research etc. in determining what the Standard contains should be paid out of general taxation because the importance of Standards is to every taxpayer's benefit.

Secondly, there should be truly only one set of Standards and Regulations for each subject. This would reduce much confusion.

[Midland Retty]

The cost of the research etc. in determining what the Standard contains should be paid out of general taxation because the importance of Standards is to every taxpayer's benefit.

Possibly but if the cost of the publication was lower and fairer perhaps more people would buy it and thus the cost of the research would be covered?

Secondly, there should be truly only one set of Standards and Regulations for each subject. This would reduce much confusion.

Amen to that, although the problem is that some punters would argue that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and that people should be given a choice on how they achieve certain "goals" - especially now we are in the days if risk assessment...

Sorry Wizzy Im not belittling your comments, just playing devils advocate.

[Wiz]

I hear what you are saying M.F., but the existing methods are not working. They can't be working - everyone is complaining. Something has to be done.

My opinion is that if there has to be a Standard then let a single body determine this and let the taxpayer fund it -it is to the taxpayer's benefit that national/European/World Standards are agreed.
Subsequently, anyone would have access to a printed copy standards for the cost of the paper and printing process only, and also free on the Internet.
One thing you could be sure of is that the taxpayer would soon start moaning if these Standards were forever updated and amended at great cost. That would be another probelm resolved.

I can't see that it would be impossible or necessarily onerous to have prescriptive Standards. Write down the prescriptive Standard solution to every scenario and another problem is resolved (no interpretation). If someone disagrees with the Standard solution then they can make representations to the Standards committee and maybe they will change it in the future, if they think it is necessary.

[colin todd]

Kurnal,  On this occasion as a "one off" only (so do not look at it as the thin end of the wedge), I have decided not to chastise to but to let you off with a minor admonishment, as you make some coherent points (statistically it had to happen).

However, Government withdrew a lot of funding for BSI long ago, so we have the national standards organization we deserve.

I first sat on a BSI commitee (on fire protection of data processing installations) in 1976. Since that time I have been a member of numerous committees, and still am, with a break only between 1978 and 1982.  (You never ever get a thank you from BSI for long service, as they regard it as a God given right that people should give freely of their time.)  In the days I remember, for a standard to go out with an error was a burn at the stake issue. Now it is regarded as commonplace, including serious technical errors that committees are aware of and take the view that they will fix when it comes up their arse, and in the meantime we can all just put up with the wrong information.  It is not helped by committee members who should not be there, vested interested and big egos.  

In a recent court case HSE pondered over something in a standard that did not make sense.  To me it was an obvious and simple error, but it confused a lot of people because it was in a standard and standards are often regarded as Bibles.  After the case I raised it with BSI who, on investigation found that, quite haughtily, the committee advised that it was aware of the error, but had not got off their backsides to fix it.

There are things included in DPCs today that should never have left the BSI building, cos they are crap but there is often a push just to get the standard out.  Try reading BS 9991 DPC, and, as Kurnal says, look at the representation on the committee responsible.

Yup, we get the standards we deserve.  It is all very sad.  I would hit the Talisker, but I am driving my daughter to a ferry later on and then going to the 24 hour gym. I may have a few after that if I think about British Standards again.

[Edita]

Kurnal and CT in agreement - it must be coming up to a Christmas truce!

Seriously, to avoid Colin hitting his favourite tipple too hard, I would be happy to consider publishing a comment piece on this subject , provided the contents are not defamatory!

[kurnal]

Kurnal and CT in agreement - it must be coming up to a Christmas truce!

No edita it just means Colin is right for a change. But it cant last.

[jayjay]

If you need to read the standards it was once possible to go to your local library and request them to obtain copies for you from the British Lending Library.

This certainly used to be possible not sure now though.

[Tom Sutton]

If you need to read the standards it was once possible to go to your local library and request them to obtain copies for you from the British Lending Library.
This certainly used to be possible not sure now though.

Check out http://www.bsieducation.org/Education/resources/libraries.shtml

[Owain]

If you need to read the standards it was once possible to go to your local library and request them to obtain copies for you from the British Lending Library.

This certainly used to be possible not sure now though.

Some libraries have online access - even from home, if you put your library card details in.

They come as locked PDFs, but there are online unlocking services so you can print/copy text.

[lancsfirepro]

I know this is an old thread but as it's not been mentioned... NSI have a standards service which allows you access to whatever standards are applicable to your NSI certification.  Just so happens that if you use NSI to gain BAFE SP205 (risk assessment) you pretty much get all standards with regard to fire. They have most of the relevant standards available (although they're in the process of adding BS9999, cause I whined).  Costs £90 plus vat per year.