standards australia · standards australia review of technical governance submission question 2:...

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA Review of Technical Governance Submission

STANDARDS AUSTRALIA

REVIEW OF TECHNICAL GOVERNANCE SUBMISSION

SEPTEMBER 2017


CONTENTS

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................................. 2

ABOUT US ................................................................................................................................................................... 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................ 3

HEADING ................................................................................................................ ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.

SUB-HEADING ..................................................................................................................................................................... 4

CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................................13

ABOUT US

Consult Australia is the industry association representing consulting firms

operating in the built and natural environment sectors. These services

include design, engineering, architecture, technology, survey, legal and

management solutions for individual consumers through to major

companies in the private and public sector including local, state and federal

governments. We represent an industry comprising some 48,000 firms

across Australia, ranging from sole practitioners through to some of

Australia’s top 500 firms with combined revenue exceeding $40 billion a

year.

Some of our member firms include:


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Established in 1922, Standards Australia is the nation’s peak non-Government, not-for-profit

standards organisation, responsible for the development and adoption of standards in Australia.

To ensure its continued reputation, brand and organisational sustainability Standards Australia

frequently conducts technical governance reviews into the openness, transparency and consensus

of the various technical committees which make up the organisation.

Recent reviews conducted by Standards Australia highlighted consistent areas for technical

governance improvement including:

▪ Committee membership and the role and responsibilities of a committee Chairperson;

▪ Access to the standards development process by young leaders, the next generation of

contributors and new contributors joining established technical groups;

▪ Ensuring that people with relevant skills, knowledge and expertise can contribute;

▪ Succession planning within current committees;

▪ Balance of representation within committees and what this means in different sectors;

▪ Access to documents and drafts;

▪ Increasing the role technology will play in transforming participation within the development

of standards;

▪ Access to information at a nominating organisation level; and

▪ The proposal and standards development processes.

Each of these contributing factors which are highlighted in the Standards Australia Review of

Technical Governance Issues Paper require individual consideration to ensure that the organisation

continues to enhance the nation’s economic efficiency, international competitiveness and contributes

to the growing community demand for a safe and sustainable environment.

Consult Australia, as the peak industry body representing multidisciplinary consulting firms operating

in the built and natural environment provides has enjoyed a long and fruitful relationship with

Standards Australia and has accordingly nominated skilled professionals and technical experts to

several Standards Australia’s technical committees.

This submission will provide several recommendations in response to the questions raised in the

Standards Australia technical governance issues paper and is further supported by Consult

Australia’s submission to the Standards Australia Nominating Organisation Guidelines review.


CONSULT AUSTRALIA RECOMMENDATIONS

In response to questions raised in Standards Australia issues paper, Consult Australia has prepared

the below recommendations which are further supported and supplemented by the Consult Australia

Nominating Organisation Guidelines submission of August 2017.

Standards Australia Issues Paper Questions

Question 1: How can the project initiation process be improved?

▪ Is the right balance being struck between accessibility and openness – and rigour of the

process?

Recommendation: Consult Australia recommends that there is greater transparency around

the way in which proposals are assessed. Currently the information provided on the Standards

Australia website states that:

▪ Once proposals are evaluated and reviewed, and a decision has been made by

Standards Australia, the outcome will be communicated directly to the proponent and

a list of approved projects published on the Standards Australia website under Sector

Updates; and

▪ Project proponents and responsible committees will be notified with details on project

commencement activities.

It is noted that Standards Australia has developed the Guide - Project Prioritisation Process and

Criteria, however this information should be set out much more clearly on the website itself, in

a more engaging and informative way.

Standards Australia also needs to ensure that it is following its own guidance. The Guide states

that evidence of commitment of resources and commitment to timeframes from a balanced

group of multiple stakeholder interests is mandatory – proponents should circulate the proposal

to stakeholders in advance and have documented responses. Consult Australia is aware of at

least one proposal where evidence of stakeholder support was not provided, and yet the

committee was convened and the standard progressed.

If the process is flexible, it must be clear that it is flexible, otherwise there will be no trust in the

project initiation process.

Finally, Standards Australia needs to be capable of directly empowering the individual subject

matter experts, as key thought leaders to actively engage with ill-informed or less-experienced

stakeholder groups as part of the wider introduction and implementation of progressive

initiatives.


Question 2: Would more frequent review of proposals for standards be an advantage?

▪ Would staying with the six-monthly cycle be better for most projects- with the addition of

an ‘expedited’ process for projects with a case for urgency?

Recommendation: Consult Australia concurs with the need to maintain the existing six-monthly

cycle for most projects and also recommends the need for the creation of an expedited review

process in the case of an urgent review.

Question 3: What issues are you experiencing with the current proposal form?

▪ How could the current form be improved?

▪ Are there other methods that could be considered for commencing project development

work?

▪ Are there any risks or downsides to changing the method for proposals?

Recommendation: Consult Australia recommends the creation of an in-real time, editable

secure webform document. Proponents would complete each step of the process online, and

their progress saved at each point, so that they can return to it later and make further edits

before submitting. This would allow a much more user-friendly experience, with interactive tips

and advice that could be provided along the way. Each section would link to the relevant section

of the guidance documentation, which proponents go see by linking on an ‘info’ button. This

could also be accessible to the National Sector Manager, so they can provide direct feedback

on the proposal as it is being developed. There are many examples of this type of online form

being uses successfully across the public and private sector, e.g. the Department of Immigration

and Border Protection’s online visa application process.

Consult Australia believes that moving to a user friendly and well-designed online process will

help to modernise the Standards Australia image and approach.

Question 4: In your view, is the assessment process striking an effective balance of rigour,

speed and efficiency?

▪ How transparent is the assessment process for proponents who are new to Standards

Australia?

Recommendation: Consult Australia believes that there should be greater transparency of

the assessment process, please see our recommendation in response to Question 1.


Question 5: Is the current level of pre-submission consultation raising and dealing with the

stakeholder issues prior to submission?

▪ Is it striking the right balance of thoroughness and efficiency?

▪ How could the process be improved?

Recommendation: Consult Australia is concerned that Standards Australia is not enforcing its

mandatory rule that stakeholders are consulted pre-submission. In addition, Consult Australia is

concerned that where stakeholder consultation has occurred it does not demonstrate a balance

of stakeholder views. Inevitably, proponents of the proposal will put forward views in support of

their proposal, therefore it is important that Standards Australia explores this further to ensure

that all the relevant stakeholders are represented. Standards Australia must ensure that it is not

captured by individual interest groups, and that there is a genuine need for a new, or a review,

of a Standard.

However, Consult Australia recognises the need for an adequate measure of justification when

making implementing changes, particularly regarding amendments aligning with changes to

International Standards and should be able to fast-tracked, without the need for detailed ‘cost-

benefit’ analysis.

Question 6: How well do Standards Australia committee constitutions ensure that

stakeholder interests are represented and balanced appropriately?

▪ Is the right balance being struck of openness of access and efficiency?

▪ What suggestions do you have for handling committee balance?

Recommendation: Consult Australia believes that this has been an ongoing challenge for

Standards Australia, particularly in development of standard form contracts. While we recognise

that not every Standards Australia staff member who manages a technical committee is a subject

matter expert, there should be a greater level of stakeholder mapping conducted by Standards

Australia when ensuring the stakeholder interests are appropriately represented and balanced.

This can be assisted by ensuring that the capacity of the Standards Australia staff is appropriate

to this task.

Accordingly, as outlined in 2.3 of the Consult Australia Nominating Organisation Guidelines

Submission:

“2.3. Enhancing the capability and authority of Standards Australia staff, in their capacity as

committee secretariat, to effectively manage project timelines and outcomes, facilitate

negotiation, dispute resolution, committee discipline, contribution and wider functionality, will

increase the effectiveness of the individual technical committees.


2.3.a. Provision of increased professional development for committee secretariat

members/Standards Australia staff to increase their abilities to committee

functionality, negotiation, dispute management and resolution, and contribution.

2.3.b. Empowering Standards Australia committee staff through the creation of an

internal Standards Australia oversight committee for technical committee staff

reporting, to monitor progress and timelines.

Included as part of this committee is the introduction of a risk register to flag project

slippage, which can then be explored with the committee secretariat, and address

through appropriate support mechanisms to resolve a range of committee issues

including dispute resolution and productivity1.”

Question 7: Do the current sub-committees/working group structures effectively support

participation of experts?

▪ Is expert advice obtained when it should be?

▪ Is expert advice applied and carried through?

▪ Should we consider different models for expert collaboration?

▪ Are sub-committees recognised within the development process appropriately?

Recommendation: Consult Australia recognises that the complexity and time sensitivity of some

committees and working groups presents serious obstacles to sourcing relevant expertise and

skills.

In response, Consult Australia recommends the creation of ad-hoc specialist working groups

drawing upon the existing pool of specialist knowledge and experience and that of member

organisations to respond to the cyclical nature of committee requirements. These could be

operated in part through online forums (or other online tools) to reduce delays in arranging face

to face meetings, and promote real-time development of Standards through shared-access,

editable documents.

All working groups require careful management by the Secretariat to ensure that they have a

clear scope of work/terms of reference from the relevant Committee. There must be clear points

of interaction to ensure that the working group’s contribution is understood and acknowledged.

They must also have a clear beginning and end point according to the project at hand, to avoid

scope creep or lack of clarity about their role.

Further to this, as outlined in 2.1. of the Consult Australia Nominating Organisation Guidelines

Submission the creation of a multi-tiered committee member structure:

1 Consult Australia, ‘Standards Australia: Nominating Organisation Guidelines’, pg. 6.


“2.1. Of paramount importance is recognising the different structures and capabilities of

individual ‘nominating organisations’ particularly the differences between peak bodies, industry

bodies and professional associations is at the core of resolving these issues.

2.1.a. Tier One: An individual representative directly appointed, managed and supported by

the relevant industry body, peak body and/or professional association and their associated

mirror committees, responsible for representing the interests of that nominating organisation

and their membership.

2.1.b Tier Two: An individual representative who as a ‘subject matter’ nominee is appointed

by the relevant industry body, peak body and/or professional association and passively

managed and supported by their nominating organisation and its corresponding mirror

committees/feedback processes.

As part of their responsibilities, this individual may also provide an ad-hoc reporting process to

the nominating organisation and/or seek feedback or clarification on contentious issues.

2.1.c. Tier Three: An individual ‘independent expert’ who an employee of a member entity

makes use of the “nominating organisation’s” position with Standards Australia as a means of

actively participating with a relevant Standards Australia technical committee.

In this role, the ‘independent expert’ is not tied to or actively supported by the ‘nominating

organisation’ and operates essentially in a ‘sole trader’ capacity representing themselves.

The ‘nominating organisation’ may write a letter of endorsement, but that industry practitioner

will not be acting as a full nominee of the ‘nominating organisation’. The industry practitioner

would still be required to provide reports to the nominating organisation, to ensure

transparency in the committee process.2”

Question 8: Are technical committee processes flexible enough to encourage participation

from new members?

▪ How well do current processes support new contributors?

▪ Do you support greater electronic working and shorter time commitments?

▪ What are the risks with moving in this direction?

▪ What other suggestions do you have for improvements?

Recommendation: As outlined in the Consult Australia Nominating Organisation Guidelines

Submission operational and organisational flexibility is paramount to the success of the

Standards Australia’s technical committees and the organisation.

2 Consult Australia, ‘Standards Australia: Nominating Organisation Guidelines’, pg. 5.


In response, Consult Australia recommended a series of points which would serve to increase

participation, organisational and operational flexibility, including:

“2.2. Increasing the participation of the next generation of industry and thought leaders is

essential to the long-term growth and sustainability of Standards Australia as the nation’s peak

non-government, not-for-profit standards establishing organisations.

Accordingly, this requires:

“2.2.a. A new strategy for the Standards Australia brand, to build the next generation’s

understanding and respect for the role of Standards Australia. It should consider how to

engage their interest in the role of Standards Australia and the development process.

2.2.b. Increased integration of technology as part of the committee organisational

engagement and participation structure provides the necessary operational flexibility

around committee contribution, information sharing, member involvement and content

management.

2.2.c. Introduction of mandatory sunset periods for committees operating over an

extensive period of time, with a focus upon turning over committee membership based

on productivity, contribution and conduct within the committee, as a means of updating

skills provided and introducing new members3.”

Question 9: Is the system for recognising nominating organisations working effectively?

▪ Is the role of a nominating organisation needed? Are there better ways for Standards

Australia to engage experts and constitute committees whilst maintaining constituent-based

representation?

▪ Is it striking the right balance of open access and the rigour needed for standards

development?

▪ Are there better ways for Standards Australia to consult and engage with nominating

organisations?

Recommendation: Consult Australia‘s Nominating Organisation Guidelines Submission

recognises the need for the definition of Nominating Organisations to adapt to the contemporary

requirements of Standards Australia’s technical committees and governance.

In response, Consult Australia made a significant recommendation which highlighted the need

to clearly define a nominating organisation and recognise that not every ‘nominating organisation’

is equal and this impacts their ability to appoint a representative.

3 Consult Australia, ‘Standards Australia: Nominating Organisation Guidelines’, pg. 5-6.


This recommendation included the introduction of a three-tier system for appointees and their

corresponding ‘nominating organisation’ as follows:

“2.1. Of paramount importance is recognising the different structures and capabilities of

individual ‘nominating organisations’ particularly the differences between peak bodies, industry

bodies and professional associations is at the core of resolving these issues.

2.1.a. Tier One: An individual representative directly appointed, managed and supported

by the relevant industry body, peak body and/or professional association and their

associated mirror committees, responsible for representing the interests of that

nominating organisation and their membership.

2.1.b Tier Two: An individual representative who as a ‘subject matter’ nominee is

appointed by the relevant industry body, peak body and/or professional association and

passively managed and supported by their nominating organisation and its

corresponding mirror committees/feedback processes.

As part of their responsibilities, this individual may also provide an ad-hoc reporting

process to the nominating organisation and/or seek feedback or clarification on

contentious issues.

2.1.c. Tier Three: An individual ‘independent expert’ who an employee of a member

entity makes use of the “nominating organisation’s” position with Standards Australia as

a means of actively participating with a relevant Standards Australia technical committee.

In this role, the ‘independent expert’ is not tied to or actively supported by the ‘nominating

organisation’ and operates essentially in a ‘sole trader’ capacity representing

themselves.

The ‘nominating organisation’ may write a letter of endorsement, but that industry

practitioner will not be acting as a full nominee of the ‘nominating organisation’. The

industry practitioner would still be required to provide reports to the nominating

organisation, to ensure transparency in the committee process4.”

Question 10: Do nominating processes effectively ensuring that members are able to fully

contribute to committee work?

▪ Should a skills matrix or selection criteria be put in place for committee members?

▪ Should there be a ‘qualifying’ process before a nomination is accepted onto a committee?

▪ Are there other ways to improve this?

4 Consult Australia, ‘Standards Australia: Nominating Organisation Guidelines’, pg. 4-5.


Recommendation: Members should have an appropriate amount of training or experience in

the area relevant to the project. However, Consult Australia believes that a skills matrix may be

too restrictive. It is perhaps more important for Standards Australia to understand the lens

through which the member views the project, and their ability to work towards the common goal.

It has been Consult Australia’s experience that issues have arisen not because the members of

the committee have lacked the appropriate knowledge or experience, but because:

a) the balance of membership in the committee has not been appropriate, or

b) too many ‘experts’ have been introduced, thereby smothering the input of the core

members, or

c) members have become entrenched in their views causing conflict and loss of focus of the

primary goal of the Committee.

Consult Australia recommends that Standards Australia focuses on upskilling its staff and/or

committee chairs to improve project assessment, and committee management (see our

recommendation for Question 6).

Question 11: Are the current rules and processes effectively encouraging new organisations

and members to participate?

▪ Are the current processes striking the right balance of encouraging continuing tenure

(experience) and refreshment (new perspectives)?

▪ What obstacles or barriers exist to providing new organisations and individuals with open

access to committee positions?

Recommendation: As previously mentioned, the existing organisational structure of Standards

Australia prohibits new participation and engagement, in response, Consult Australia

recommends:

“2.2. Increasing the participation of the next generation of industry and thought leaders is

essential to the long-term growth and sustainability of Standards Australia as the nation’s peak

non-government, not-for-profit standards establishing organisations.

Accordingly, this requires:

2.2.a. A new strategy for the Standards Australia brand, to build the next generation’s

understanding and respect for the role of Standards Australia. It should consider how to

engage their interest in the role of Standards Australia and the development process.

2.2.b. Increased integration of technology as part of the committee organisational

engagement and participation structure provides the necessary operational flexibility


around committee contribution, information sharing, member involvement and content

management.

2.2.c. Introduction of mandatory sunset periods for committees operating over an




Question 12: Are the current processes for appointing, supporting and reviewing the

effectiveness of Committee Chairs optimum?

▪ Should Chairs necessarily be the main conduit for information between committees and

Standards Australia?

▪ How should we monitor performance and tenure of Chairs?

Recommendation: As previously mentioned, Consult Australia recognises that not every

Standards Australia staff member who manages a technical committee is a subject matter expert.

However, they should have the appropriate level of experience of working with committee

structures to recognise when a chair is being effective/ineffective. In answer to Question 6, we

have set out our recommendations for enhancing the capacity and authority of Standards

Australia staff to ensure that they are facilitating the effective operations of the Committees.

This must include working with the chair to ensure that the Committee is moving forward, working

to its terms of reference and objectives.

Additionally, Consult Australia recommends (as set out in our Nominating Organisation

Guidelines Submission):

“2.2.c. Introduction of mandatory sunset periods for committees operating over an




There is also an argument to be made that not all committees require a chair, but rather an

effective facilitator. For example, for the negotiation of standard form contracts. A chair chosen

from the committee’s membership may tip the balance between the negotiating parties, which

is not desirable. An independent facilitator (which could be an appropriately skilled member of

Standards Australia, or someone agreed on between the parties) would be there to ensure

that the negotiation is focused on the task and making clear progress. A respected facilitator

can also help to head off issues, or assist in mediation between the parties where there is an

impasse. A chair chosen from the committee membership itself, is often in a difficult position

because they are there as chair but also to represent their interest group.

5 Consult Australia, ‘Standards Australia: Nominating Organisation Guidelines’, pg. 5-6. 6 Consult Australia, ‘Standards Australia: Nominating Organisation Guidelines’, pg. 5-6.


Standards Australia needs to consider alternative approaches to the traditional committee

structure and meeting formats, to meet its objectives.

Ensuring the effectiveness, efficiency and sustained capacity of chairs requires that any chair

appointee has the unique balance of practical managerial skills, combined with impartiality and

appropriate technical knowledge. Supporting this endeavour, Standards Australia should

provide identification, personal development and mentoring for potential chairs.

Questions 13 to 18:

Consult Australia believes that the answers to these questions have been addressed above.

CONTACT

We would welcome any opportunity to further discuss the issues raised in this submission. To do so,

please contact Megan Motto, Chief Executive, Consult Australia on (02) 8252 6700 or at

[email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

standards australia · standards australia review of technical governance submission question 2:...

Documents