Decision making in ISO/TC 211
Purpose and summary
The decisions taken by the ISO/TC 211 should be predictable, transparent and traceable. The purpose here is to clarify to committee members and convenors the most typical cases that need a committee decision, and to ensure that the right basis for decision is at hand when taking a decision. The practice follows the tradition and needs of the committee and aligns with ISO Directives.
Important decisions for members are those concerning: the strategic direction, new projects, changes of projects, the organization and scope, and other standpoints of the committee. No decision is needed for submitting project (work item) proposals to the committee and Secretariat. A proposal may be made by any National Body, the Secretariat, a category A liaison, or other parts of ISO.
A guiding principle is that any basis for decision, e.g. outlines or draft standards, should be available in good time (4-6 weeks). If this is not fulfilled, ISO/TC 211 applies the practice of a 30-day committee internal ballot (CIB), as basis for decision, whenever required.
For Systematic reviews (SR), the TC needs to take a final decision on the outcome of the SR ballot within 6 months. In the case of revision, this includes decision on the project leader and target date.
The WG Convenors play an important role in making recommendations and taking actions when initiating revisions, as well as during the progression of the document stages.
Types of Decisions
Ballots and Resolutions
TC decisions are taken in one of these ways:
- by Resolutions at physical plenary meetings;
- by Committee internal ballot (CIB) resolutions;
- by Ballot to members for NP, DIS, FDIS and SR.
Note: CD consultations and some CIBs exist to gather comments rather than make a decision.
CIB-resolutions are suitable for virtual plenaries, but may also be considered for physical plenaries, in case of relevant information lacking or late. At virtual plenaries, and for standpoints such acknowledgements etc., the TC might consider to pass these as resolutions at a later physical meeting rather than these being subject to voting in CIBs. The CIB period is often 30 days. Note that CIB-resolutions at virtual meetings will serve as the ISO/TC 211 practice of 30-day CIB for comments (Resolution 360).
In good time
One guiding principle is that all basis for decisions, e.g. outlines or draft standards, should be available in good time, which is particularly relevant for “heavy” decisions such as those associated with the standards development process. If this is not the case, ISO/TC 211 applies the practice of a CIB whenever required, either for comments or as a CIB-resolution. According to ISO Meetings deadlines, sent out to all convenors organizing meetings, documents to be discussed during TC/SC meetings are to be circulated 6 weeks before the meeting date.
Most common types
The list of decision types is not exhaustive.
|
Strategic direction (Why) |
|
|
Organization |
|
|
Projects (What & When) |
|
|
by resolution |
|
Standpoints of the committee |
|
Comments:
- A proposal for a NWIP may be made by the Secretariat, any National Body, a category A liaison, or other parts of ISO. By resolution 360, a NWIP is first circulated to members by a 30-day CIB for comments
- A proposal that an existing standard from any source be submitted for vote as DIS, may be made by the Secretariat, a P‑member, or category A liaison organization.
- No need for formal resolution in some circumstances (allowed exception by ISO/CS).
Ad Hoc Groups
The TC decides on establishing an Ad Hoc Group (AHG). A Working Group (WG) or Advisory Group (AG), usually responsible for the area of the AHG topic, shall be assigned as responsible for monitoring the work. The WG/AG convenor facilitates commenting on the report and resolving comments from the internal review within the WG/AG. The final report is submitted to the WG/AG where its convenor is responsible for actions taken. The report shall be made available as a TC N-document.
Note that for work that needs a TC decision - e.g. the strategic direction, organization, or standpoint of the committee, the TC chair is responsible for actions taken after resolving comments, except where delegated to WG convenors as described below.
Initiating projects
There are many ways to initiate projects. The figure below shows the most common events associated with this.
 |
Figure: Typical events starting projects. The need for CIBs (often 30-days) mainly depend on providing the basis for decision available in good time. *) For practical reasons, decisions on revisions may be replaced by other ways of TC handling and recording.
Systematic Reviews
The Committee manager (CM) records the outcome of the SR ballot.
For standards which have been subject to a SR, the TC should take a final decision on the outcome no later than 6 months after the result of the SR ballot.
PMG makes a recommendation, records and presents these to the committee (to be defined).
For practical reasons, these decisions may be replaced by other ways of TC handling and recording this, which is an allowed exception by ISO/CS. If the TC still chooses a formal decision, this needs to have all parts, including the project leader and target date.
The need for a (30-day) CIB is a case by case matter. As example, if the SR outcome is to confirm, and the final recommendation is to revise, it is advised to consider sending out a CIB, to justify the new recommendation based the comments or any new circumstances.
If PMG concludes that a revision is needed, the PMG convenor will work with the appropriate working group convenor to find a project leader and propose a revision project.
The final decision on the SR shall be minuted and communicated by PMG, to the Secretariat to inform ISO of the committee’s final decision.
Read more about Systematic Review.
Document stages
The role of a WG convenor in ISO/TC 211 is to some degree similar the role of a SC chair. To follow a useful practice in the committee, the TC chair delegates to the WG convenors, in consultation with the Secretariat (ISO Directives 2.5 and 2.6) to:
- recommend circulation of CD consultation;
- propose actions based on the result from the editing committee at CD stage;
- recommend circulation of DIS ballot or CD2;
- propose actions based on the result from the editing committee at DIS stage;
- recommend publication;
- record these informal decisions (to be defined).
| Contributors |
Chair |
| Changes: | |
| 2022-07-20 | Update with changes related to the CD consultation |
| 2021-11-25 | Linked SR section to SR page |