OK here is the question I was asked:
"Why should a standard such as EIA 649 or Mil-Std-973 be used when implementing a Configuration Management System?"

I gave my answer as "It forms a basis for the development of plans, procedures and processes needed to implement a unified CM system."

Not good enough. this person is looking for "authoritative proof" that use of a CM standard is a good thing. I have searched the web and found some survey results and brief statements that support my claim but not much.

So now I turn to one of the most "authoritative" groups I know.
Why should a standard such as EIA 649 or Mil-Std-973 be used when implementing a Configuration Management System?

OK here is the question I was asked:
"Why should a standard such as EIA 649 or Mil-Std-973 be used when implementing a Configuration Management System?"

I gave my answer as "It forms a basis for the development of plans, procedures and processes needed to implement a unified CM system."

Not good enough. this person is looking for "authoritative proof" that use of a CM standard is a good thing. I have searched the web and found some survey results and brief statements that support my claim but not much.

So now I turn to one of the most "authoritative" groups I know.
Why should a standard such as EIA 649 or Mil-Std-973 be used when implementing a Configuration Management System?

Although I can't personally vouch for the efficacy of either standard, using a published standard as a basis for anything serves mainly to provide a frame of reference. If you tell your customers you have a CM system that conforms to standard x, they have a basis for determining whether the system meets their expectations or not.

There is no "authoritative proof." Asking for authoritative proof indicates that someone doesn't understand what "proof" means.

OK here is the question I was asked:
"Why should a standard such as EIA 649 or Mil-Std-973 be used when implementing a Configuration Management System?"

I gave my answer as "It forms a basis for the development of plans, procedures and processes needed to implement a unified CM system."

Not good enough. this person is looking for "authoritative proof" that use of a CM standard is a good thing. I have searched the web and found some survey results and brief statements that support my claim but not much.

So now I turn to one of the most "authoritative" groups I know.
Why should a standard such as EIA 649 or Mil-Std-973 be used when implementing a Configuration Management System?I know you are a configuration manager, but I just don't remember if you've ever disclosed your industry. So, at the risk of being redundant, let me say "Configuration Management" is a VERY BIG DEAL in Aerospace & Defense (A&D) and in the software industries."

Here is the reason I often give in speeches and presentations as part of the reason for putting CM in the hands of folks within an organization who are imbued with Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK), the folks who know as much as possible about the interactions between products and processes and how a small change in any one of those can cascade through the entire system, including every entity up and down the supply chain.

"Imagine the amount of knowledge required for one person or group of folks to manage the configuration needs of even a medium-size and medium complex organization. Now multiply that knowledge across the entire supply chain as it must be in the A&D and software industries, and the task becomes impossible for any one human to manage. For this reason, we rely on STANDARDS, so each of the many entities charged with maintaining configuration across an entire supply chain or even an entire industry are starting with the same baseline and following the same practices as they implement and maintain CM on products and processes under their direct control so the next links can "follow the trail" in implementing and maintaining their own CM."

When all the actors are working to the same script, it's pretty easy to follow the dictum 'The show must go on!' if one actor becomes incapacitated because the understudy was practicing with the same script.

In terms of "authoritative," I've pretty much operated on the principle that if I can show a sane logical reason to follow one course of action because it is easier and more profitable in the long run than taking another path, my audience is willing to accept the "authority" of their own reasoning that it is worthwhile to follow such a course of action.

Jim and Wes,
Thank you for the replies.

Yes asking for authoritative proof indicates that someone doesn't understand what "proof" means. But considering the source of the request for "authoritative proof" I understand.

The industry I am currently involved with is medical software for a very large government endity. As such they have little understanding of what Configuration Management is or how it should be implemented.