The document discusses standards development processes and issues related to "design by committee". It analyzes the development process for SOAP Version 1.2 and WS-Addressing standards at the W3C. The analysis found that the process involved significant design contributions from participants and work outside of meetings. It also involved a core group of experts, wider participation, and willingness to accept outcomes, avoiding some issues seen in "design by committee".

1. Standardizing Web Services: Overcoming ‘Design by Committee’ Sandeep Purao (With J. Bagby and K. Umapathy) Associate Professor of IST Enterprise Informatics and Integration Center Standards Interest Group, Socio-technical Systems Lab

5. Where do standards come from? (Public) R & D Patents Standards Adapted from: Kahin 2007 Expected Trajectory Observed Trajectory (Public) R & D Patents Standards Anticipatory Standards

7. Developing Anticipatory Standards Simon Search Satisficing Software Engineering Modeling Refining Testing OMB Cir. 119 Standards Development Act 2004 Opportunity to participate Avoiding domination by one party Access to information Right to be considered Willingness to accept outcome Design Legislation Are these two at odds?

10. A Theoretical Framework Design Negotiation Creating and choosing amon alternatives Agreeing on designs, fixing the actor network The D-S-N Framework Recursion Fomin et al. 2004 Sense-Making Attaching meaning to design alternatives

13. Design by Committee? Not! During the meeting Prior to the meeting Interpretation : The process is significantly influenced by design contributions from participants, who can expend significant resources for designing parts of the standard under development.

14. Design by Committee? Not! Interpretation : A significant amount of design may be occurring outside the W3C meetings.

17. Comparison (Henning 2006) (Our Work) Design contributions Problem Lack of reference implementation Facilitator, Negotiation Problem Multiple draft specifications Advocate, Architect Problem Vendors’ response to proposals in spite of known technical flaws Guru Problem Calling for proposals when technology still unproven Two-level process Problem Lack of entry qualifications to participate in the process Services CORBA Criteria