2: Government-Unique Standards Evaluation Criteria

Model Evaluation Criteria for Deciding to Develop USG Unique E-Gov Standards

Other Information:

Analysis Model for Developing a USG Unique E-Gov Standard 1. Review and Approval of a Project Proposal for Development of a USG E-Gov Standard Title: Does the title clearly and adequately describe the project? Type of Standard: Is the type of standard (e.g., standardized: form, policy, process, data elements, model, web interface) identified? Proposer: Is the submitting organization(s) identified? Point of Contact: Is a point of contact identified? Purpose and Need of Standard: Is the purpose and need (e.g., security, interoperability) clearly stated? Is there adequate justification for why this standard is needed? How does the standard fit into the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)? What has been done (i.e., due diligence) to establish that there is no available, suitable private sector consensus standard? Scope: Is the scope clearly defined and reasonable for this standard? Related Standards: If related standards or related standards projects exist, are there overlap issues that need to be resolved, or is there a need to coordinate with other standards projects? If an existing standard is being moved forward for adoption or is being modified for adoption, is the original standard identified? Placement of project: Are there any appropriate private sector consensus standards developing organizations which could develop this standard? If not, what is the most appropriate USG group for development of the standard? Development approach and completion schedule: Is the technical development approach sound? Is schedule reasonable? Who will serve as the chairperson for this project? Who will serve as the project editor for this project? Will there be a public review of the draft standard? What is the target date for releasing the draft document for public review? Resources required: Does the proposal identify adequate resources to carry out the project? Potential participants: Are participants and lead organization identified? Is participation broadly based? Legal considerations: Is the proposer aware of any patent assertions that may be made? If so, describe. Is the proposer aware of any IPR assertions that will hinder distribution of the approved standard? If so, describe. Life expectancy of this standard: What is the expected useful life of this standard? Is the standard independent of technology? Can the standard be implemented with known or future technology? 2. Review of a USG E-Gov Standard Prior to Approval Title: Does the title clearly and adequately describe the standard? Scope: Is the scope clearly defined? Is it clear what is within and not within the scope of the standard? Is the purpose and need (e.g., security, interoperability) clearly stated? Is there adequate justification for why this standard is needed? Applicability and intended uses of standard: Is it clear who should use the standard and for what applications? Description of relationship to existing standards if applicable: If there are related standards, are they identified and the relationship explained? Description of the development process: Is there a brief description that adequately describes the process by which the standard was developed (including meetings held, participants, etc.)? Is the basis for the standard identified, for example is this an existing standard, a modification of an existing standard or a new standard? Identification of participants: Are the participating organizations identified? (Individual names may or may not be included in the draft.) Maintenance of the Standard: Is the maintenance authority for the standard identified? If a maintenance strategy is described, is it understandable and reasonable? Body of the standard: Is the standard clearly organized and presented in an understandable manner? Does the standard follow a specific format guideline? References: Is there a reference section? Are the references clearly identified so that someone can readily obtain them? Appendices/Annexes: Is it clear whether these are informative (not part of what is being standardized) or normative (part of what is being standardized)? Legal considerations: Have any patent assertions been made? If so, describe. Are there any IPR assertions that will hinder distribution of the approved standard? If so, describe. Other Issues: How does the standard fit into the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA)? What mechanisms will be used to assess conformity of implementations to the standard? What mechanisms will be used to assess the interoperability of different vendors’ implementations? Are any editorial corrections required? Does the standard reflect the requirements of the original project proposal? Is the standard independent of technology? Can the standard be implemented with known or future technology? Are there other similar standards available or are there other related standards development efforts going on? If so, are there overlap issues that need to be resolved, or is there a need to coordinate with other standards projects? Are there any questions that need to be answered or clarifications required before approval? Was there a public review? If so, was the public review based on a broad cross-section of users? In revising the standard, was the development group responsive to the comments received during the public review period? What has been done (i.e., due diligence) to establish that there is no available, suitable private sector consensus standard? Are there any appropriate private sector consensus standards developing organizations to which this standard should be submitted for further processing as a private sector consensus standard? If so, who will take responsibility for submitting the standard?

Indicator(s):

Indicator:1

Content