Friday, June 6, 2014


Erich Gunther, Aaron Snyder and Grant Gilchrist, EnerNex have published an interesting article in the SGIP Newsletter, Volume 6, June 2014 Issue:


Their Conclusion is right:

“Often misapplied, the term “standard” is truly only applicable in certain situations. The author of this piece advocates reserving the use of “standard” for de jure standards, especially when employed without the "de jure" modifier. There may appear to be little harm in referring to de facto "standards" simply as “standards,” but this actually dilutes and confuses the definition in the manner that the term "engineer" is often misapplied to functions requiring no engineering education or certification. For example, in these cases, it is preferable to use the applicable term of "specification," "requirements" and "requirements specification" instead of "standard."”

Click HERE for the full article.

So far so good. There are other languages that differentiate between “Standard” and “Norm”, like in German. German “DIN Standards” are specifications that are reflecting a document that has been published with lower hurdles than a “Norm”. The “DIN Norm” compares to the de-jure Standard.

The reality is more complex than just to differentiate between de-jure Standards and other documents. The (de-jure) Standards have to be extended in many cases by non-de-jure Standards: e.g., Implementation agreements that can be written by a Two-party (two vendors, one vendor and one user, one vendor and one testlab, …), an Alliance, Users Group, or standardization bodies.

The future power delivery systems will need many combinations of de-jure (Base) Standards and non-de-jure Documents (Implementation agreements, Profiles, … and even Green-Tissues-List as in case of IEC 61850, IEC 61400-25 – these are documents that are refer to de-jure Standards).

In the end of the day, we want to get interoperable devices to build multi-vendor automation systems for the future power delivery system! Or?

In case of IEC 61850 I see a lot of pressure to come up with more “official” Implementation agreements or Profiles that are agreed by more than two parties, two companies, or two experts.

One good example is the VHPReady Industrieforum.
Click HERE for the current Specification 3.0 in English.

This is a good starting point – it’s not yet the final result … to expected early 2015.

No comments: