1

An Analysis of Standards Created for

Communication Between Engineers

Luke Daniel

University of Central Florida

Abstract- IEEE standards have been around for a long time and are generally accepted as one of the best methods for

general communication involving engineers, but what I have found is that when compared to IEEE, and independently

developed standards the IEEE standards with modifications to better fit specific situations are the most capable of

communicating highly technical information between engineers from various disciplines.

I. I

As technology continues to advance, the need for communication between different types of engineers is becoming

increasingly necessary. With that in mind the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, or IEEE, created the IEEE

Standards Association, with the goal of creating standardized documentation guidelines that can be applied to nearly any

discipline of engineering. The IEEE has created industry standards since 1963, and over that time they have adapted to many

influences ranging from what the market is looking for in engineering to the development of new technologies. Their standards

cover many topics, such as serial buses to be used in computer interfaces to software development standard practices, and

procedures. Though some businesses crete their own standards from nothing, or they modify IEEE standards to fit their needs.

To start off there are 3 main forms of engineering standards development that I am comparing using my research. First

are the IEEE standards which are created as a part of the IEEE Standards Association which is a group composed of many

influential members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, that gather to develop and refine standards to be used

by their members. Second, outside any central organization, there is the option of independent development which aims to create

standards for individual projects or companies within the group itself. Lastly there is a combination of the two, which I will be

calling IEEE Plus, where a development team that has licensed the IEEE standards will work to modify them to better fit their

intended use.

II. Ms
 2

My goal is to analyze these 3 methods, with the specific intent of how they help facilitate communication between

different types of engineers. In order to properly analyze the strengths and weaknesses of each of these methods I have created a

short guideline of what is necessary for a useful standard. The majority of this guideline is based on G. J. Burgess

Communication engineering standards: Implementing for effectiveness, where they write about what exactly is the point of

using standards. Though they focus more on how the standard affects the engineers using them, I am analysing how standards

facilitate communication between engineers.[1] Which in turn helps to identify strengths of a standard that I would not normally

recognize due to my differing perspective.

Increases productivity by removing the need to worry about the structure or style of any publication, and

allowing for the creator to focus entirely on the content they are creating
Creates a common ground for the author and the audience to communicate on, where both sides can have

expectations of how information is presented, in effect conveying information in a more understandable format
Includes tools, such as flowcharts or style guides, that assist the author in understanding what information is

most important in terms of communicating their ideas

The ability for an audience outside of those who are already well versed with the standard to be able to

understand the presented information

III. IEEE

By making use of the IEEE library of engineering standards one can gain access to standards for many different

disciplines of engineering such as, radio communications or circuit routing, effectively giving an engineer standards able to fit

most any project they may undertake. Another benefit of IEEE standards is that they are widely used throughout the global

industry of engineering meaning that by using them engineers can appeal to a wide audience, as well as, having transferable

experience after working with these standards. IEEE also has the benefit of being updated to the global marketplace over time as

covered in Steve Mills, International standards and the IEEE standards association in the emerging global economy, where one of

his main points is how IEEE standards creation process is based around movements within the industry, alongside the

professional opinions of their members.[2] Kraemers brief discussion on the process behind the creation of standards in their

Brief notes on the evolution of the ieee standards association [Commentary], which covers how the bureaucratic process slows

the process of standards creation.[3] The downfall of these standards comes in their licensing costs which is less of an issue for a

larger or more developed engineering firm, but this can be a huge turning point for start up companies or anything similar. While

less of an issue with this method there can still be a problem with educating engineers on how to use these standards, with most

universities having IEEE built into the curriculum is a good sign, but this is not universally the case. For engineers that have

never worked with these standards before may have trouble with the sheer number of different IEEE standards that exist when

trying to find which standard to use for a given situation.

 3

How it fits the criteria? Many of the IEEE publication based engineering standards use style guides similar to those employed by

MLA in that they present simple guidelines supplemented with frameworks, and examples. Also IEEE specifically tailors its

standards to fit the community that it has created, which in turn creates an audience that is prepared to understand this genre,

though this does restrict usage of these standards to publications purely within the community, as outsiders may have trouble

understanding the more technical aspects of certain standards, such as documentation of electronics based designs.

IV. I D

With this method of engineering standards creation the precreated IEEE standards are not used, and in turn saving the

money needed to license those standards, while also gaining the ability to more finely tune a standard to the intended audience,

the type of work being done, or who will be using the completed standard. Through this a standard that is much more efficient, or

easier for a non engineer to understand can be created, but this cannot come without a cost.

This cost is most evident in the three main flaws of this method, the amount of time to develop, manpower needed to

create a standard from the start, and the lack of a pre established user base that already understand how to work with the standard,

which in turn means more time spent educating engineers on how to use the new standards, which means even more money spent

on education. Difficulty with teaching someone how to use an independently developed standard can become even more extreme

when they are used to using IEEE, or even another independent standard as then they will have to be taught opposite to what they

already know. Another risk of this method is in the fact that it is not a part of the mainstream standards, and as Geradin claims

in Reverse hold-ups: The (often ignored) risks faced by innovators in standardized areas by Damien Geradin: SSRN, by

adhering too closely to an underused standard engineers are potentially blocking themselves from being able to market their

creation as those that use the IEEE standards will not use anything that they have created as it is not a part of their established

standard.[4]

How it fits the criteria? Through the use of independently developed engineering standards engineers are gaining an extremely

efficient asset, as it was likely built to be used for only one purpose, and as such does not need the extra baggage needed when a

standard is built to adapt to different scenarios. The other potential strength of this method is highly dependent on the

development team of the specific standard in question, as a team that creates great tools will be able to leverage that into making

a stronger standard, but those that do not will end up with something much less usable. Even if tools are included in the

development of the given standard that just further pushes the downside of this method as likely more time was spent creating

those tools, as well as the fact mentioned above that the fundamental flaw with this method is the lack of an established audience

that already understands these standards. The lack of readability may be what kills any form of communication with any

standards of these types.

 4

V. IEEE Ps

This method makes use of IEEE standards and modifies them similar to how the independently developed standards

tune their standards for specific applications. By doing this an IEEE Plus standard is able to make use of the user base, and

audience of the IEEE standards while being able to move away from their more general applications, and create tools that are

specifically crafted for how the engineers intend to use them. This strength is exemplified by Duval and Hodgins in

Standardized uniqueness: Oxymoron or vision of the future?, where they argue that a standard must be capable of adapting

with changes in environments or they risk jeopardizing their main goal of efficiently conveying information, as the technology

around them advances.[5] There is also a movement within many universities to implement the education of IEEE standards

specifically to their students, discussed by Gbur and Solomon, Promoting technical standards education in engineering, where

they analyze how a widely used standard becoming a part of the curriculum leads to a much higher adoption rate within the

industry, and IEEE Plus is able to take advantage of this by making it easier to transition new graduates from IEEE over to this

custom standard.[6]Effectively this method is taking as many of the advantages of the other two options as possible, which in

turn does weaken them, as a more technical modification of IEEE will make it less palatable than the original, but will also

appeal more to the specialists that are not appealed to with IEEE standards.

In gaining these strengths IEEE Plus is also combining the disadvantages, as it will cost the same amount of money to

license the IEEE standards to begin modification, but it will more than likely cost less time, and manpower as these standards are

not being created from nothing.

How it fits the criteria? IEEE Plus has the advantages of the other two options, and as such it is able to increase efficiency as they

are based on the simpler IEEE standards, but some of this efficiency may be lost in the transition towards more specialized

formats, which may require an author to rework their preexisting ideas to conform to the new form. Similarly IEEE Plus can

appeal to the wide audience of IEEE with ease as that audience should only need to adapt slightly to the changes made to the

standards they are familiar with. While in independent development implementation of tools may lead to more time being spent

on development, with IEEE Plus the developers can also just modify the tools presented within IEEE standards, making it less of

a time commitment in development while still meeting the requirement of having useful tools. Though the weakest part of the

IEEE Plus is in appealing to an outside audience, where IEEE is able to generalize their system to fix this problem, the core

concept of IEEE Plus is making the simple, and easy to understand standards, more specific in order to better convey information

to those within the industry. So the overall goal of IEEE Plus is to fit into a specific situation rather than fit to every application

like basic IEEE seeks to accomplish.

 5

VI. Cs

There is no perfect method, and the pros and cons need to be weighed against each other, which means that IEEE Plus,

while having downsides that are worth experiencing in order to obtain the better final result, and having the ability to be scaled to

any spectrum of audiences. Using IEEE Plus the common audience that already exists within the IEEE community is appealed to,

and the tools set in place by the IEEE Standards Association can be easily implemented into the modified standard. Taking

advantage of IEEEs more general applications allowing for nearly anyone to be able to understand the information being

presented. Though the IEEE standards are also able to satisfy all of these requirements as well, the IEEE Plus method is able to

gain an advantage in its ability to be customised. These standards are able to fit nearly every situation, as engineers who are used

to the modified standards are able to further modify their standards quicker, and easier than those who have only worked with

IEEE standards before.

IEEE Plus has scalability in both application and implementation that pushes it above any of the other methods, while

also developing skills, such as adaptability, and innovation in the engineers that use them. So for my purposes this method is best

suited to create highly technical means of communication between engineers that operate in different fields.
 6

[1] G. J. Burgess, "Communication engineering standards: Implementing for effectiveness," IPCC 91 Proceedings The Engineered

Communication, Aug. 2002.

[2] S. Mills, "International standards and the IEEE standards association in the emerging global economy," IEEE Aerospace and

Electronic Systems Magazine, vol. 28, no. 7, pp. 611, Jul. 2013.

[3] B. Kraemer, "Brief notes on the evolution of the ieee standards association [Commentary]," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 53,

no. 3, pp. 44, Mar. 2015.

[4] D. Geradin, "Reverse hold-ups: The (often ignored) risks faced by innovators in standardized areas by Damien Geradin: SSRN," Nov.

2010. [Online]. Available: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1711744. Accessed: Feb. 26, 2017.

[5] E. Duval and W. Hodgins, "Standardized uniqueness: Oxymoron or vision of the future?," Computer, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 9698, Mar.

2006.

[6] J. Gbur and D. Solomon, "Promoting technical standards education in engineering," 2016 ASEE Annual Conference &

Exposition Proceedings.