Q&A: Inside the Work of Building Industry Standards

Strategic Operations Coordinator Lisa Davidson, MBA, QAS interviewed SMG’s Director of Standards Allison Forsythe, PMP about her role as a Standards specialist in the association management world.

Lisa Davidson: For readers who may not be familiar with the role, what does a Standards Specialist do within an association, and why are standards so important?

Allison Forsythe: At a high level, a Standards Specialist helps bring industry experts together to develop shared expectations for quality, performance, and safety. Associations are uniquely positioned to convene those stakeholders and provide a neutral space where they can work through complex technical issues and reach consensus.

My role is to guide that process—coordinating committees, ensuring the work follows outlined procedures , and making sure decisions are documented and transparent.

Standards matter because they give the industry a common foundation. They reduce confusion in the market, build trust with customers and regulators, and show that the industry is committed to responsible practices.

One of the biggest challenges is balancing different perspectives. People come to the table with strong opinions, so part of the job is helping everyone feel heard while still moving the work toward consensus.

Davidson: Can you walk us through how a standard typically moves from an idea to a published document?

Forsythe: Most standards start with a simple question: Is there a real industry need? That usually begins with a proposal that defines the scope of the project and identifies the right committee to take it on.

Once the project is approved, a working group begins drafting the standard with input from experts. Early collaboration is really important because it helps surface issues before they become roadblocks later.

From there, the draft goes through a balloting process where members review it, vote, and submit comments. Those comments are carefully resolved before the document can move forward.

If consensus is reached and all the procedural steps are met, the standard is approved and published.

The challenge is keeping that process both thorough and efficient. Standards require careful technical review, but they also need strong project management so the work continues moving forward.

Davidson: Standards development involves many stakeholders. How do you facilitate collaboration when perspectives differ?

Forsythe: That’s really where the structure of the standards process becomes valuable. Clear procedures for participation, voting, and conflict-of-interest disclosure help ensure the process stays fair and balanced.

I also focus on building committees that represent different parts of the industry. When the right mix of perspectives is in the room, the final standard tends to be stronger and more practical.

For example, during comment resolution you might have several experts proposing different approaches. The process allows those views to be discussed and documented so the group can arrive at a solution that works for the broader industry.

The biggest challenge is maintaining neutrality while guiding those conversations. You want every voice heard, but you also have to help the group move toward consensus.

Davidson: Industries evolve quickly. How do you ensure standards stay current?

Forsythe: Standards aren’t meant to be static documents. Most programs have scheduled review cycles, and the frequency often depends on how quickly the industry is evolving.

For example, areas like AI or software may require more frequent updates than more mature technologies. Committees can also trigger an early review if there’s a significant change in the market or technology.

We also rely heavily on feedback from users and committee members. They’re often the first to spot areas where a standard may need to evolve.

A good example is the growing interest in machine-readable standards—structured formats that software can interpret automatically. As industries become more digital, that kind of innovation helps standards integrate more seamlessly into workflows.

The challenge is staying ahead of change rather than reacting to it after the fact.

Davidson: Can you share an example of a standard or initiative that had a meaningful impact on practitioners?

Forsythe: One area that’s really exciting right now is the push toward machine-readable standards. Instead of a document that someone has to interpret manually, the requirements can be structured in formats that software systems can read directly.

For practitioners, that can reduce errors and make compliance activities much more efficient because the requirements can integrate with design tools, quality systems, or regulatory processes.

It’s a good example of how standards programs help industries adapt to new technologies while still maintaining consistency and reliability.

The challenge is making sure those innovations still align with the consensus process. New technologies often raise complex questions about data structure, interoperability, and governance.

Davidson: What part of your work do you find most rewarding, and what might surprise people about this field?

Forsythe: The most rewarding part is seeing experts from across an industry come together to solve shared problems. When a group of people with very different backgrounds collaborates to create something that improves safety, quality, or interoperability, it’s incredibly meaningful.

What often surprises people is how collaborative the process really is. Standards aren’t written by one person or one organization—they’re built through structured discussion and consensus among many experts.

Sometimes the process can take time, but that’s what makes the final result strong. It reflects the collective knowledge of the industry, not just one perspective.