Dear Moises Mir,

As can be seen from the ISO web page of the ISO/TC 279 Innovation management technical committee:

https://www.iso.org/committee/4587737/x/catalogue/p/0/u/1/w/0/d/0

the ISO/CD 50500 Innovation management series standards and technical recommendations, does not contain the term "Requirements" but is given as "Guidance". Thus, the ISO 50501 won’t require independent certification, leaving the responsibility for monitoring and assessment to the organization itself.

Best regards,

Stoyan

The ISO 50501 won’t require independent certification, leaving the responsibility for monitoring and assessment to the organization itself.

Best regards,

Mercedes

Dear Moises Mir,

At first glance in the ISO/TC’s 279 webpage, it appears that Guidance are being developed (https://www.iso.org/committee/4587737/x/catalogue/p/0/u/1/w/0/d/0).

It would be interesting to study both the business plans of the ISO/TC’s 279 WGs and the content of the current issues ("under development status") of the standardization documents in order to understand the approaches, the linkages, the possible interrelations and interconnections with conceptual entities like market, national innovation systems (OECD), innovation internships, innovation procurements etc.

Taking into account the presentation done by ISO/TC’s 279 (http://untref.edu.ar/sitios/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/08/ISO_TC279_InBrief.pdf), both the criteria for self-assessment (1st party CA) will be developed by WG4 (ISO/NP TR 50502) as well as the dimension of market’s benefits will be considered (ISO/CD 50501).

Returning to your question, whether the coming ISO 50501 should or could be guidance or requirements, it should be considered whether Certification (3rd party CA) may be the appropriate CA approach (does a major market demands or allows it? Do the risks associated with non-compliance are high? Does demonstration of highest level of confidence and trust is needed? Is it mandated by legislation? etc.).

The views expressed above are purely those of the writer and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission.

Dears, many thanks for the inputs, I already know that the standard is being developed as a guidance type, my concern is about whether it will be enough or not to be a sucessful standard, I mean, which is the scientific base to decide one type or another? Which advantages and disadvantages represents each option for the interested parties? in line with questions above from Aikaterini (focused on market reasons, etc.). Other questions arise thinking on it..., a guidance standard can be transformed into a requirements standard (or viceversa)? and why The ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 are requirements type and the future ISO 50501 will not?

I would like to add a reflection. Similar cases such as ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, which are certifiable, were issued as requirements type. However, both are voluntary standards indeed, thus not implemented and certified under any legal mandate, just like some national standards for innovation management that are issued as requirements. The debate continues, specially taking into account interesting different visions between different national SIMSs (Standardized Innovation Management Systems) that exist in different countries.

Drawing on that, we can find, at least, the following standards and its type (requirements/guidance): Russia GOST R 55347-2012 guidance, Europe CEN-TS 16555-1:2013 guidance, Brasil ABNT NBR 16501:2011 guidance, Denmark DS-hæfte 36:2010 guidance, Ireland NWA 1:2009 guidance, Mexico NMX-GT-003-IMNC-2008 requirements,Portugal NP4457:2007 requirements, Spain UNE 166002:2014 requirements, Colombia NTC 5801:2008 requirements.

The question is still unresolved, it is specially interesting at firm level point of view: In order to improve firm innovation capabilities and innovation performnce, an innovation management system standard is more desirable to be a guidance (self-assessement)? or requirements (third party independent certification) type?

A comment to update, the numbering of standard series for innovation management have been decided to be changed from ISO 50500, ISO 50501, ISO 50502, ISO 50503, etc.. to ISO 56000, ISO 56001, ISO 56002, ISO 56003 etc...

Best regards.

Dear Moises Mir,

I have worked with both Guidelines and Requirement based ISO standards as both a consultant and an internal process improvement owner. I personally believe that for the specific case of Innovation Management, a guidelines based approach is more realistic considering:

1. Tacking Innovation Management through a management system standard is still in its infancy and a lot needs to be explored before a more specific "Requirement" based approach may be adopted

2. The very nature of innovation management and its foundation of the concept of creativity and ideation would make it harder to follow a requirement based approach

3. As mentioned earlier by one colleague, a key driver for a certification based standard is the "demand" in global markets for such a certification and what would such a certification mean in comparing one organization to another. I think in case of Innovation Management, certification would simply not offer this benefit

I hope the above was useful

Cheers!

Dear Rizwan Khan,

Thank's a lot for your comments, this is a valuable input accordiong to your large experience on this topic.

I see your point and I would like to add that this duality about national standards, that some are issued as requirements and others as guidelines, is not enough studied empirically to clarify whether SIMS sholud be certifiable or not, thus, my concern is about not only the ISO standards but also about the national standards for innovation management, that already exist and can be studied, as different considerations depending on the country add conffussions, and the new ISO standards will add more confussions to the users (speially those who already have certificates according to their own national SIMS requirements) as there is a clear overlapping (national/international) in this subject.

I believe that there is a need for more empirical studies and more reflection around this topic, I appreciate a lot every opinon, the more opinions we have the better understanding on different points of view we can consider, but I think that in the scientifical perspective there is still a long way to explore.

More inputs are welcome!

Dear Moises,

You have made a very interesting observation. I gather two possible areas of further investigation and both very intriguing:

1. Requirement vs. Guideline based standards at both International as well as National level. Adoption approaches, benefits of adoption and most importantly, a comparison of the real value added to the organization in cases of both.

2. Once a national standard exists and organizations have certifications against that, what impacts do newly issued international standards have in the context of the existing management system implementations.

Very interesting and intriguing