Kammer: We need to make sure consensus standards get projected into the international arena. That is, any substantial element of our society should be represented involving the standards. The concepts of transparency, openness and due process are deeply imbedded in the U.S. process; European standards, by contrast, are normally the province of governments and vendors.

Many European practices differ from U.S. practices, and the International Organ-ization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission are strongly dominated by Western Europe. Because standards represent technology, jobs and products that businesses sell, we need to get to a place where the standards acknowledge these outcomes.

The United States also needs to resolve the issue of intellectual property. Most standards organizations sell their documents, which helps finance their operations. If someone in the United States decides to develop an international stand-ard, that person would go through ANSI, ISO or IEC as appropriate. The original standards developer would receive a modest percentage of the standard's sale, while the standards body would receive an income stream from it.

This competition between ISO and standards developers probably won't be resolved easily, but I believe the intellectual property conflict could be. My job is to mediate, focus people on what the issues are and then let them, rather than the government, come to the right answers.

QD: You have referred to "the new standards economy." What do you mean by that?

Kammer: Currently, U.S. exports value a little under $1 trillion, roughly. Of that, about $150 billion, or 15 percent, currently are affected by product standards. That's probably double what it was 10 years ago, and it's increasing. Except for agricultural goods and basic resources, most products will be covered by stand-ards. That will be a way of life. Current best estimates show that $20 billion-     $40 billion of the $150 billion that are affected encounter barriers due to product specifications as contained in standards, and this amount also is increasing.

That's what I mean by the standards economy. The United States will have to take standards into account in order to continue selling products outside its borders.

QD: What part do you believe NIST should play in helping the United States compete in the global marketplace?

Kammer: One of NIST's functions is to bring together relevant industry groups. Any solution we come to in dealing with the European challenge must be industry-led, and it should preserve the merits of our current pluralistic system.

For example, information technology is one of the areas where virtually all stand-ards are U.S.-sourced. And that's because this pluralistic, sometimes frustrating system is also very agile. Software generations occur every eight months, computer hardware generations about every 18 months. Compare that to a normal product stand-ards process with ISO, where four years are but a summer's evening.

Through informal groups creating product standards that work, the United States can describe what's currently available in the marketplace.

We also can be active in the international standards writing process. About 320 NIST staff members sit on about 168 international standards committees. We also represent U.S. interests in foreign countries.

QD: In 1995, NIST and the American National Standards Institute signed a memorandum of agreement to strengthen the national voluntary standards system. What has happened since then, and what do you expect the agreement to accomplish?

Kammer: The best is still in front of us, but we've begun by sharing databases. If someone needs a foreign product standard and ANSI doesn't have it in its library, we do, or we know how to get it. ANSI will then hand people off to us and vice versa.

NIST's job is to work with ANSI, recognize it and provide a liaison to other governments around the world. But ANSI is the leader in the final analysis. It's the designated representative to ISO and the designated coordinator with other stand-ards development organizations. I'm hopeful that our collaborative relationship can create value for the United States and help us improve in foreign markets.

QD: A recent NIST review of voluntary    standards showed a significant drop in federal participation. To what do you attribute this? How can it -- or should it be -- reversed?

Kammer: Yes, I think it should be reversed. It's definitely to the U.S. government's advantage to use commercial standards. If  the government wants specific attributes represented in commercial products, it should participate in the standards-writing process.

NIST chairs a coordinating committee on voluntary standards for the government that could help turn this around. The first step would be to hold the mirror up to people and say, "This is what we're doing and the effect it's having. It's a deleterious effect. Is that really what we intend?"

Despite the downward turn, the government has discarded government-only standards and adopted about 9,000 voluntary commercial standards. And given the scope of government purchases, it's probably more than that.

QD: What are your goals for NIST in the coming years?

Kammer: I have five. The first deals with measurement and standards laboratories. The U.S. economy is the world's biggest and most vibrant, and it needs the best measurements and standards. To that end, we're asking ourselves, "What does industry need now and in the future? How are we doing?"

My second objective is U.S. participation in the international marketplace. The key to that is the voluntary standards process, formulating a strategy to deal with the challenges that Western Europeans present us.

My third objective is to stabilize the controversies surrounding the Advanced Technology Program and evaluate outcomes.

My fourth objective is to increase the scope of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which is represented in all 50 states.

Finally, I'd like to extend the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award to health care and education. It's the most highly leveraged program in government and creates the most value for the least money. If the award has even a fraction of the success in health care and education that it's had in manufacturing, I think we'd be doing our society an extraordinary service.