| ||
BSI Memorandum of Understanding 20th June 2002The DTI has agreed a new Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), with the British Standards Institution (BSI). The MoU recognises the BSI as the United Kingdom's National Standards Body (NSB). BSI is an independent body established under Royal Charter in the 1920's. Changes in market forces and the greater co-operation between countries has meant that the BSI and government need to address far more and different issues now than when the BSI was incorporated. This updated MoU now includes the following key changes: Incorporation of key points of public interest Further details from Ross Howie/John Hicks, STRD1, Department of Trade & Industry, Room 326, 151 Buckingham Palace Road, London, SW1W 9SS. Tel 020 7215 1568/1575 Fax 020 7215 1529. or visit http://www.dti.gov.uk/strd/fundingo.htm QBSA Comment on the new MoUThe MoU reflects BSI's desire to operate as a commercial entity and to offer commercial services within the standards fields. E.g. Assessment and certification services, consultancy, training and standards writing. It also needs to discharge its obligation to the government to produce the standards that industry and commerce require. This has become increasingly more expensive. The previous agreements between the BSI and government imposed constraints that are no longer appropriate in the 21st century. There is however, a view held by the British public that the BSI is there only for public service in that it exists solely for the production and maintenance of standards. The view does not generally perceive the BSI as a commercial entity. There is a risk that the general public will not appreciate the fact that a driving force for many of BSI's activities will be commercial. i.e. the achievement of margins/surplus's/ profit, the maintenance of job security, the achievement of career progression and salary advancement. These are not unwholesome and are healthy motivators in a commercial environment where the expression 'Caveat emptor' is applicable. However, the term British Standards Institution does not immediately cause an individual to infer that they may be dealing with a commercial organisation. Their natural commercial instincts would be subdued. The general public will, because of the past standing of the BSI tend to treat BSI more as a 'just for public service' government type organisation and less as a commercial firm touting its services in the market place. For this reason, QBSA suggest that it is time for the name of BSI to disappear. NSB is an appropriate term for the body charged with producing standards for the nation. That function of BSI presents no qualms to QBSA. It is suggested that the term BSI and commercial activities do not fit comfortably together and are not therefore in the public interest. The non-NSB activities of BSI are structured for public consumption not service. Non-NSB activities, because they are not free of commercial interests, should be marketed under a different name. The 'ring-fence' referenced in the MoU needs to be patently obvious to industry service providers within the standards environment. The MoU has provided words to avoid an unfair commercial advantage being given to BSI. Nonetheless, QBSA calls upon BSI to make it clear how it will ensure that its own staff will not utilise in-house knowledge of standards development in order to bring products and services to the market place ahead of their competition?
QBSA
September 2002 |
 |
 |
 |
