I have spent the last year of my career reading, analyzing, and (for honesty's sake) misinterpreting to some extent a variety of International Standards.
After reviewing different standards from different countries, I have realized that there are 5 wrong ways to analyze standards, especially International ones.
1. This is my first point. You expect information.
This is a section of text. Text that is the same size, same font, and will begin to seem redundant. This is vague and seemingly unimportant. You will disregard this point until later... sometimes much later.
2. You think you understand the context immediately.
The context for the standard is not familiar. You cannot relate the standard to a domestic one and draw similarities. For the most part, similar domestic standards do not exist. You cannot rely on your technical knowledge or specialties because the definitions of familiar terminology are not the same. Even when the terminology is the same, it may have been mistranslated or misinterpreted. You are not a national from the standard's country of origin which creates a large contextual deficit because you lack the legal and governmental knowledge to form the proper context.
3. You expect the standard to be all inclusive.
It won't be. Remember point 2? You are not a sponge and it's unlikely that you can find videos on YouTube to teach you an international law which is likely the basis for the standard you're analyzing. This means you must read more than just the standard. You will likely need to at least skim each referenced piece of material in the standard as well as translated versions of the laws for which the standard is derived. Remember each piece of supporting documentation will clarify the context of the standard so whether you find 5 or 50 supplemental pieces, do not discount any without a good skim.
4. You do not ask questions.
International standards are challenging because the context is often unknown, they are vaguely written, and they are technical. Sections often build on one another or refer to previous areas or supporting documentation. Assumptions are dangerous, so ask questions to clarify context, terms, etc.
While it is important to ask questions, remember this important rule:
Quality over Quantity. Ask less well-phrased questions for better results.
5. You interpret vague as "open to interpretation."
Remember point 1? You disregarded it until now. You will experience the same phenomenon when analyzing standards. While standards are often vague, the proper context defines your ability to comply, not your interpretation. This is the most important thing to remember, especially when you begin the audit process. Interpretations and loopholes do not exist when analyzing standards. The sections, sub-sections, bullet points, etc. really do have a meaning in the proper context.
I've learned that to understand the context of an international standard you need to do more than analyze. You must also research and ask appropriate questions. Standards are not created for the sake of having one (although some would argue otherwise) which means each one has an origin story; each one has context. Research the laws, regulations, or policies that the standard is based on even if it means reading 5, 9, or more documents. Ask knowledgeable parties (auditors, consultants, or colleagues from that country for example) appropriate, quality questions to clarify areas that are still unclear. Finally, evaluate the standard in its proper context and never accept your own interpretation as the only proper analysis.
By avoiding these 5 mishaps, you can successfully analyze the most complex international standards .
