ISO standards are presented as global best practices—neutral, technical, and practical frameworks meant to improve quality, safety, and trust across industries. Yet one uncomfortable question is rarely asked openly:
Who is actually writing these standards, and how much real-world implementation experience do they truly have?
Representation Without Implementation
In reality, most ISO Technical Committees are dominated by representatives from national standards bodies. On paper, this looks inclusive and democratic. In practice, many of these representatives have never implemented the standards they help draft.
A large number of committee members have spent their careers in:
• Regulatory offices
• Administrative or policy-making roles
• Standardization bureaucracy
They speak confidently about clauses, structures, and terminology, but often lack hands-on exposure to implementation challenges faced by laboratories, hospitals, manufacturers, and service providers. A standard written without implementation experience inevitably becomes theoretical by design.
Indirect Commercial Representation Through National Bodies
A deeper concern is the indirect yet powerful presence of certification and accreditation interests within ISO committees.
Several members:
• Originate from certification bodies (CBs) or accreditation bodies (ABs)
• Have never implemented a management system themselves
• Have spent their careers in administration, strategy, or commercial expansion
• Are deeply embedded in the business of certification and accreditation
Their thinking is shaped by audit scalability, certificate volumes, commercial feasibility, and market growth—not by implementation realities. The outcome is predictable: standards that are easier to audit and easier to sell, but harder to genuinely implement.
Where Are the Practitioners?
True practitioners—those who have:
• Implemented standards from scratch
• Faced resistance from operations
• Managed competence gaps and resource constraints
• Lived through failed audits and corrective actions
—are rarely visible in ISO Technical Committees.
The uncomfortable truth is this:
Those who struggle with implementation seldom get invited to write standards.
Instead, committees are dominated by those who talk about implementation, not those who have actually done it.
A Flawed Standard-Writing Philosophy
Even ISO’s own standard-writing guidelines reflect the same weakness.
Those who drafted these guidelines often:
• Lack implementation backgrounds
• Prioritize structure over usability
• Encourage abstraction and heavy jargon
• Promote one-size-fits-all thinking
As a result, many standards become verbose yet vague, structured yet unclear—compliant on paper but confusing in practice. This is not accidental; it is the natural result of writing standards from conference rooms rather than shop floors.
Committee Lobbying and Intellectual Stagnation
Another rarely discussed issue is internal lobbying and intellectual stagnation within technical committees.
Member selection is frequently driven by:
• Institutional power rather than competence
• Seniority rather than relevance
• Longevity rather than learning
A small group of stubborn, old-thinking individuals often dominates discussions, resisting field feedback, user-centric simplification, and meaningful reform. Innovation is quietly suppressed in the name of “consensus.”
Non-Uniform and Non-Practical Standards
The consequences are visible across ISO standards:
• Similar concepts explained differently across standards
• Inconsistent terminology
• Overlapping clauses
• Minimal implementation guidance
Instead of clarity, users face confusion. Instead of quality improvement, documentation multiplies. Instead of empowerment, dependency on consultants grows.
Quality Jargon Without User Perspective
ISO standards increasingly rely on quality jargon—risk-based thinking, context of the organization, interested parties, opportunities—without clearly explaining:
• How a small laboratory should apply them
• How a hospital should operationalize them
• How a micro-enterprise should interpret them
Users are expected to “figure it out,” often by hiring consultants or auditors—the very ecosystem that benefits from ambiguity.
Conclusion: A Systemic Disconnect
This is not an attack on individuals. It is a critique of a systemic design failure.
When standards are written without implementers, influenced by commercial accreditation interests, dominated by closed committees, and detached from user realities, they cease to be tools for quality improvement and become products of compliance economics.
If ISO truly wants standards that improve quality, it must:
• Rebalance committees toward real implementers
• Restrict commercial influence
• Reform standard-writing guidelines
• Prioritize usability over jargon
• Treat practitioners as equal stakeholders, not passive users
Until then, the question remains painfully relevant:
Do ISO Technical Committee members truly possess adequate hands-on experience in implementing the standards they develop?
About the Author
Dr. Sambhu Chakraborty is a distinguished consultant in quality accreditation for laboratories and hospitals. With a leadership portfolio that includes directorial roles in two laboratory organizations and a consulting firm, as well as chairman of International Organization of Laboratories ( An ILAC stakeholder organisation), Dr. Chakraborty is a respected voice in the field. For further engagement or inquiries, Dr. Chakraborty can be contacted through email at info@sambhuchakraborty.com and contact information are available on his websites,https://www.quality-pathshala.com and https://www.sambhuchakraborty.com , or via WhatsApp at +919830051583