Document created: 16 June 04
Air University Review, January-February 1970

Information Processing Standards for Computers

The federal government is the largest single user of automatic data-processing (ADP) equipment. Since delivery of the first computer in 1951, the federal ADP inventory has grown to over four thousand systems. The estimated fiscal year 1969 costs are $1.9 billion. Approximately 25 percent of these computers belong to the Air Force.¹

The question of compatibility and interchangeability of data files, computer programs (software), and computer hardware has been growing in importance since several different manufacturers started producing general-purpose computers in the early 1950s. This problem existed with punch-card equipment and during the early stages of computer development and production, but it was not nearly as acute then because there were fewer computers and the market was dominated by only a very small number of manufacturers. The search for an answer to the question of interchangeability was given impetus by passage of Public Law 89-306, commonly known as the Brooks Bill, in October 1965.

Standardization of computer equipment (hardware) and of the programs which cause it to perform as it does (software) is regarded as the most promising method of providing a reasoning degree of compatibility and interchangeability. So important is standardization that the President’s signing of a letter on 11 March 1968 to all departments and agencies approving the adoption of the USA Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) was hailed as a major event. One can think of many more benefits that will accrue to the Air Force through a successful program of standards for information processing, including facilitation of interchange, interconnection, and maintenance; reduction of training, development time, and manpower; simplification of management; improvement of communication within the Air Force, DOD, federal government, and industry; and enhancement of competitive production of systems and components.

While standards of various kinds have been recognized all through recorded history, it was only when men began to trade extensively that standards of weight, quality, and design had to evolve. Mass production, the heart of our present-day economy, would not have been possible without industrial standardization. Some standards have come into being through accepted practice without formal action on the part of any organization. In the authoritarian society, on the other hand, standards are established by decree. Experience has shown, though, that voluntary standardization is the best way of producing technically sound, realistic, up-to-date codes that meet the requirements of all affected segments of society.²   There is now a formal organizational structure by which voluntary standards are developed, for both national and international application, and it is the operation and effects of that structure which I shall describe.

In the highly technological world in which we live, standards are indispensable to the conduct of international trade. Recognition of this fact is evidenced by the participation of American industry and government in the development of international standards.³ There are two international organizations for making data-processing standards: the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The ISO was preceded by the International Federation of National Standardization Associations, which was founded in 1926. It was dissolved during World War II, but its work was continued by the ISO, which was organized in 1946. The ISO is made up of the national standards bodies of 55 countries. Its objective, as stated in Article 2 of the ISO Constitution, is to promote the development of standards in the world with a view to facilitating international exchange of goods and services and to developing mutual cooperation in the sphere of intellectual, scientific, technological, and economic activity. The scope of its Technical Committee 97, Computers and Information Processing, covers standardization of the terminology, problem description, programming languages, communication characteristics, and physical (nonelectrical) characteristics of computers and data-processing devices, equipments, and systems.⁴

The IEC was founded in 1906 to carry out electrotechnical standardization in a methodical and continuous manner. Its Technical Committee 53, Computers and Information Processing, has the responsibility “to prepare international recommendations for the electrical characteristics of computers and information processing devices and systems including process control computers.”⁵

As the use of computers in Europe grew, it became apparent that standardization in operational techniques such as programming and input/output codes was needed. As a result, in 1960 the European Computer Manufacturers Association (ECMA) was founded. Its purpose, as stated in the bylaws, is to study and develop, in cooperation with the appropriate national and international organizations, as a scientific endeavor and in the general interest, methods and procedures in order to facilitate and standardize the use of data-processing systems.⁶ ECMA-proposed standards are intended as drafts to be considered by ISO and national standards organizations, where views of the users will be expressed and the final standards adopted.⁷

American interests in the work of global and hemispheric standards are represented by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). This organization is the United States member of the ISO and the IEC. It holds membership in the Pan American Standards Committee (PASC) and works with the British Standards Institute and the Canadian Standards Association.⁸ ANSI also acts as the national clearinghouse and coordinating agency for voluntary standards in the United States.

ANSI is a federation of approximately 140 trade associations and professional societies. It is privately supported, over 750 companies being direct dues-paying members. Its main functions are

—To provide systematic means for the development of American National Standards;

—To promote the development and use of national standardization in the United States;

—To approve standards as American National Standards provided they are accepted by a consensus of all national groups substantially concerned with their scope and provisions;

—To coordinate standardization activities in the United States;

—To serve as a clearinghouse for information on American National and foreign standards;

—To represent American interests in international standards work.

 ANSI dates back to 1918, when five leading American engineering societies founded the American Engineering Committee, forerunner of the American Standards Association (ASA). Three federal government departments—Commerce, War, and Navy—joined the organization as founding members. The name of the ASA was changed to United States of America Standards Institute on 1 September 1966. To avoid any misconception that it is an official government organization, the name was changed again, on 6 October 1969, to the American National Standards Institute.

An American National Standard, the name given a standard approved by ANSI, is a voluntary standard arrived at by common consent and available for voluntary use. More than 2000 American National Standards have been developed under ANSI procedure.⁹

It is Department of Defense policy to make maximum use of industry efforts expended in the development of standardization documents and to use such documents whenever feasible.¹⁰ For this reason it might be well to look at the two basic methods by which American National Standards are developed:

Standards Committee Method. The standard is formulated by a committee composed of representatives, accredited for the purpose, of all groups and organizations substantially concerned with the scope of the standards project and organized under ANSI rules.

Existing Standards Method. An existing standard is approved under this method provided it is shown that the standard is supported by the necessary consensus of those substantially concerned with it and provided it does not conflict with any other USA Standard. About one-third of American National Standards have been approved under the Existing Standards Method.

ANSI is prohibited by its constitution from actually formulating standards; it is not a technical society engaged in standardization work. Rather, it has a number of Standards Boards to facilitate supervision of the hundreds of technical identities. The Information Processing Systems Standards Board has cognizance over American National Standards Committee X3, Computers and Information Processing. A committee belongs not to ANSI but to the group of organizations having representation on it. Administrative support and direction are provided by designated organizations principally concerned with the work assigned to the standards committee. The Data Processing Group of the Business Equipment Manufacturers Association (BEMA) sponsors the American National Standards Committee X3, which formulates standards falling in the category directly related to our present subject.

This committee is composed of 13 general interest members, 16 consumer members, and 14 producer members. Standards Committee X3 has three advisory groups, the Standards Planning and Requirements Committee, International Advisory Committee, and the Standards Steering Committee. The technical work is performed by a number of specialized subcommittees, respectively concerned with optical character recognition, codes and input/output, data communication, programming languages, terminology and glossary, problem definition and analysis, magnetic ink character recognition, data elements and codes, and input/output interface. These subcommittees are further divided into working groups and task groups. By ANSI regulations, members of the Standards Committee X3 are organizations; thus, the Department of Defense is a member, with an individual appointed as the DOD representative. There are also DOD personnel on the subcommittees and on the working and task groups, where they serve as technically competent individuals representing themselves and indirectly the information-processing community. Subcommittees and working and task groups do, however, usually limit the number of primary members of a single organization who may serve on a particular group.

The principal focal point for standards in the federal government is the National Bureau of Standards (NBS). The bureau conducts research and provides central national services in the broad program areas of (1) basic measurements and standards, (2) materials measurement and standards, and (3) technological measurements and standards.¹¹ “Its standardization activity in the information processing field was comparatively dormant until the passage of Public Law 89-306, the Brooks Bill. The federal government ADP standardization program is now based on that law, which authorizes and directs the Administrator of the General Services Administration (GSA) to coordinate and provide for the economic and efficient purchase, lease, and maintenance of automatic data-processing equipment by federal agencies. It authorizes the Secretary of Commerce, to whom the Director of NBS reports, to provide related scientific and technological advisory services, recommend uniform related federal standards to the President, and undertake research as required. The authority conferred upon the GSA Administrator and the Secretary of Commerce is exercised at the direction of the President and subject to fiscal policy control exercised by the Bureau of the Budget (BOB).

Standardization of data elements and codes in data systems is a separate federal program prescribed in BOB Circular A-86, “Standardization of Data Elements and Codes in Data Systems,” 30 September 1967.

The well-defined Defense Standardization Program (DSP) of the Department of Defense has been under way for many years, its objectives being to

—Improve the operational readiness of the military services by increasing efficiency of design, development, material acquisition, and logistic support;

—Conserve money, manpower, time, facilities, and natural resources;

—Minimize the variety of items, processes, and practices associated with design, development, production, and logistics support of equipment and supplies;

—Enhance interchangeability, reliability, and maintainability of military equipment and supplies.¹²

The Defense Standardization Program is under the overall direction of the Director for Technical Data, Standardization Policy and Quality Assurance, in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Installations and Logistics (I & L). However, because the Directorate for Data Automation in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) is responsible for data automation throughout the DOD, guidance for implementation of the Information Processing Standards for Computers Program emanates from that office. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering is responsible for engineering policies and determinations required to attain DSP objectives.

Responsibility for implementation of specified portions or segments of the DSP is assigned to the military departments and agencies in the DOD. They then become DOD assignee agents for a particular area of standardization. Each military department or agency also appoints an organizational unit to provide overall management of its standardization efforts. In the Air Force the office of primary responsibility or Departmental Standardization Office is the Standardization Group, Directorate of Procurement Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff, Systems and Logistics.¹³

Thus, the program of standardization in the DOD is an excellent one. However, it was basically conceived prior to the onslaught of computer technology and consequently was heavily oriented towards the military standard approach. In response to a demonstrated requirement, the area of Information Processing Standards for Computers (IPSC) was established by an Office of the Secretary of Defense letter in December 1965.¹⁴ The scope of the newly established area was defined as information-processing standards for computers and data-processing devices, including the standardization of terminology, methods of problem description, programming language, communication characteristics, input/output media and format, character codes, and character recognition.

The Air Force had been active in the area of computer standards since 1963, participating in technical committees of the American National Standards Institute in the fields of programming, data communications, input/output and codes. The representatives to these committees were also actively leading the program within the Air Force. Several individuals from other elements of DOD who were interested in ADP standards were contributing either by part-time activity within their local computer installations or by participating in ANSI standards work. However no other service had a standards program integrated in the ADP program management such as that of the Air Force.

The Air Force, therefore, welcomed its designation as the Standards Assignee under the Defense Standardization Program for the Information Processing Standards for Computers area. In effect, this action established the Air Force as the Department of Defense executive agent for computer standards.

The specific Air Staff office designated to perform this function is the Technology and Standards Branch of the Plans, Policy and Technology Division, Directorate of Data Automation. As the standards manager for DOD, this office is responsible for overall administration of the program. In keeping with established policy of working with industry groups to develop standards, this office provides representation to the Information Processing System Standards Board, Standards Committee for Computers and Information Processing, Standards Planning and Requirements Committee, and other subcommittees, working groups, and task groups of ANSI. It coordinates participation by DOD representatives in other committees and groups within ANSI whose work concerns the DOD. This office receives industry standards proposals, drafts proposed DOD positions, and secures approval of other military departments and agencies. It also initiates standards proposals on behalf of DOD and promotes use of approved technical standards within the department. As a further aid to coordination and administration of the DOD Standards Program, the assignee office publishes the following periodic reports: Roster of DOD Participants in ANSI Activities, ANSI Organizational Data Report, and Report of Current and Proposed American National Standards.

The fact that DOD requirements are being met by the policy of participation development of national standards in the ANSI program is evidenced by the following as report:

The Air Force and, indeed, all components of DOD participated in the development of all these standards. The degree of participation varied, of course, depending on the degree of interest and availability of resources. It ranged from direct participation in related industry technical committees to review and coordination of proposals in the determination of the DOD position with regard to the standard.  

COBOL has been specified for use on all Air Force management supporting computers. The Air Force was, therefore, particularly active in the COBOL development and standardization efforts. An Air Force representative is a member of the Programming Languages Committee of the Conference on Data Systems Language (CODASYL), whose work is to maintain and further develop the COBOL language, including organization and supervision of all developmental task groups and approval of their efforts. Language changes approved by CODASYL have then been considered by ANSI, where Air Force and DOD representatives worked with other ANSI members to standardize the language.  

The Air Force has done and continues to do a modest amount of applied research and development that contributes to the area of information processing standards for computers. An example is the PL/I comparison conducted under contract for the Air Force. This was an analytical experiment wherein contractor personnel programmed applications that were representative of Air Force computer uses. Each program was written in PL/I and in another appropriate language (COBOL, FORTRAN, or JOVIAL) by the same programmer. Analyses were then made of such items as compile time, compiler tries necessary, object program run time, programmers’ opinions, etc. The results provided our standardization workers with a clear understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the programming languages studied, thereby enabling them to better represent Air Force interests in standards meetings.

Another example is an ongoing contractual effort in computer program documentation standards. Here a survey is being made of existing computer program documentation standards used by the Air Force and non-Air Force organizations. Based on analysis of these documents and interviews with selected personnel, a conceptual outline of a documentation standard responsive to Air Force requirements will be produced. This standard will be proposed as a military standard and possibly as a basis for a federal and industry documentation standard.

It is recognized that some standardization is needed in the area of computer operating systems. The extent to which this can proceed without impinging on the design prerogatives of the computer manufacturers is yet to be determined. The Air Force is engaged in an initial effort to define the functional elements of operating systems as an approach for clearly specifying these elements in Air Force ADP procurements. In a later stage of this project, the definitions will be used as a basis for establishing criteria against which operating systems can be validated. The contribution of the project to standardization is obvious.

There are, of course a number of other research and development efforts under way in various segments of the Air Force, DOD, and government which contribute to the standardization process.

So far I have described only the development and approval or specification phase of standardization. Unless there were some way of measuring and testing compliance with the standard, such action would be almost useless. ANSI recognizes this and where possible prescribes tests. An example is Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI) tests used to insure that general-purpose paper cards meet the prescribed standards.

The Air Force is vitally concerned about how well products meet prescribed standards. It was particularly concerned about COBOL compilers in that COBOL is used for programming most management-supporting data-processing systems and for some large segments of command and control systems. (“Compilers” are computer programs that convert the language in which a program is written into machine instructions.) A completely automated technique (software system) to exercise COBOL compilers and determine the degree to which they adhered to the USA Standard COBOL specification was developed under contract. This COBOL Compiler Validation System will also be used in Air Force computer selection activity and as a means of determining the validity of COBOL compilers, as well as the effects of modifications to the compiler, and identifying differences between current compilers and the ones to which conversion is planned. Further, this product is being jointly reviewed with related work done by the Navy and ANSI, the goal being development of a single DOD and/or American National Standard for this purpose.

The JOVIAL programming language is currently under consideration for standardization in ANSI. However, Air Force Manual 100-24, Standard Computer Programming Language for Air Force Command and Control Systems, 15 June 1967, established JOVIAL as the standard programming language for Air Force command and control systems and defined the language specifications. A method of checking compliance of JOVIAL compilers on new equipment against the standard was needed. Also, JOVIAL compilers provided for older computers have been notorious for their incompatibility among different equipment lines. For this reason, a JOVIAL compiler validation system has been developed and is currently under-going tests.

Development of a similar capability for the validation of FORTRAN compilers is currently under way as a joint Army and National Bureau of Standards effort.

Successful completion of all these specification and measurement phases does not complete the standardization process. To be of value, standards must be implemented. There are five methods by which American National Standards may be implemented in the Air Force:

(1) Adoption by the federal government and publication as a Federal Information Processing Standard, as with American National Standard X3.4-1968, American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII).

(2) Incorporation into a Military Standard, as with American National Standard X3.4-1965-ASCII, which was incorporated into Military Standard 188B.

(3) Adoption by the Department of Defense, as with American National Standard X3.5-1966, Flowchart Symbols for Information Processing.

(4) Adoption by the Air Force and publication of policy regarding use, as with American National Standard X3.23-1968, COBOL.

(5) By simply using the technical content of a standard in procurement specifications, as with American National Standard X3.26-1969, Hollerith Punched Card Code.

On reflection, the computer industry is about twenty years old. Organized computer standards activity is about ten years old. To date, twenty-six standards have been approved. Indicative of the dynamic nature of the technology and the industry is the fact that over sixty standards projects are currently in various stages of work. We can, therefore, only look forward to continued expansion of activity in the area of information processing standards for computers.

Hq United States Air Force

 Notes

1. “Inventory of Automatic Data Processing Equipment in the United States Government FY 1968,” GSA (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968), pp. 17, 21.

2. Francis K. McKune, The Case for Voluntary Codes (New York: United States of America Standards Institute, 1967).

3. Elizabeth M. George, American and International Standards Organizations in the Data Processing Field (White Plains, New York: IBM Standards Publication, 1965), p. 27.

4. S. Gorn, R. W. Bemer, and J. Green, “Structures of Standards—Processing Organizations in the Computer Area,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 6, No. 6 (June 1963), p. 294.

5. Ibid., p. 297.

6. Memento 1969 (Geneva, Switzerland: European Computer Manufacturers Association, 1969), p. 7.

7. Ibid.

8. Facts Book—USASI X3 Standards Committee, ISO/TC97 Technical Committee—Computers and Information Processing (New York: Data Processing Group, Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, 1968), p. 3.

9. Ibid., p. 1.

10. Department of Defense Instruction, ASD/S&L, No. 4120.8, 9 August 1960.

11. United States Government Organization Manual, 1968-69 (Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 318.

12. DOD Directive ASD (DDR&E) —ASD (I&L), number 4120.3, 23 April 1965.

13. APR 73-1, “Defense Standardization Program,” 16 March 1967.

14. OASD (I&L) letter, 17 December 1965, “Information Processing Standards for Computer.”

Contributor

Colonel Lucius Theus (M.B.A., George Washington University) is Chief, Technology and Standards Branch, Directorate of Data Automation, DCS/Comptroller, Hq USAF. Following enlisted service during World War II, he was commissioned from OCS in 1946. Subsequent assignments have been in statistical services, data automation, and management analysis at various stateside bases and in Germany, France, and Greece. He was Comptroller, Kingsley AFB, Oregon, and at Cam Ranh Bay AB, Vietnam, 1966-67. Colonel Theus is a graduate of the Armed Forces Staff College, Industrial College of the Armed Forces, and Air War College and is presently attending the Advance Management Course at Harvard Business School.