Standards Spotlight: The Role of ANSI in Standardization
Over the years, I’ve often heard standards developers and organizations talk about the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in hushed tones—sometimes half-jokingly, sometimes not. ANSI gets cast as “the big bad wolf” of standardization: the entity you don’t want to upset, the authority whose rules loom large over the process. I’ve heard this from well-meaning professionals who care deeply about their standards work but view ANSI as a gatekeeper to be feared rather than a partner to be understood.
In reality, ANSI isn’t lurking in the background waiting to pounce. Its role is far more constructive and far more essential. ANSI exists to help ensure that standards claiming broad relevance are developed through a process that is fair, open, and grounded in consensus. The “rules” that can initially feel intimidating are really guardrails, designed to protect the integrity of the process and the trust of everyone who relies on the outcome. When you understand ANSI in this perspective, its presence shifts from something to worry about to something that strengthens the credibility of the work.
ANSI’s “behind-the-scenes” role: oversight, not authorship
In our earlier Standards Spotlight posts, we unpacked what a standards developing organization (SDO) is and why the process matters. ANSI sits one level up: it’s a process accreditor and coordinator. Standards are typically developed by SDOs (trade associations, professional societies, consortia, and other organizations). ANSI’s job is to ensure that when a standard is put forward as an American National Standard, the development process followed a recognized set of due process principles, so stakeholders can have confidence in how decisions were made.
What does “ANSI accreditation” actually mean?
ANSI accreditation focuses on the procedures an SDO uses to develop standards. Those procedures must align with the ANSI Essential Requirements—ANSI’s published framework for due process in American National Standards development.
While the Essential Requirements are detailed, the core ideas map closely to what we discussed in “Consensus-Based vs. Non-Consensus-Based Standards”:
- Openness: Materially affected and interested parties have an opportunity to participate.
- Balance and lack of dominance: No single interest category controls outcomes.
- Public notice and coordination: The process includes visibility and efforts to reduce unnecessary duplication or conflict.
- Consideration of views and objections: Comments aren’t a formality; they must be addressed.
- Consensus and appeals: There is documented evidence of consensus and a fair path to appeal procedural concerns.
For IACET’s audience, this is more than a governance checklist; it’s a credibility engine. When ANSI accreditation is present, it signals that the standard wasn’t created in a closed room; it went through a process designed to be transparent, inclusive, and responsive. IACET itself has pointed to these Essential Requirements as providing confidence in due process elements such as openness, balance, public notification, consideration of views, consensus, and appeals.
ANSI approval and the “ANS” designation
Another common misconception is that “ANSI standard” means ANSI wrote it. More often, ANSI approves a document as an American National Standard when the sponsoring ANSI-Accredited Standards Developer demonstrates that consensus was achieved, and the development complied with ANSI’s Essential Requirements and oversight process. ANSI reviews and approves ANS on an individual-document basis (with some program variations, such as audited designators).
This matters because the ANS designation provides a common, recognizable signal in a crowded standards landscape: this document followed an ANSI-accredited, due-process-driven path.
Connecting ANSI to voluntary vs. mandatory standards
In “Understanding Voluntary vs. Mandatory Standards,” we explored how voluntary standards often become powerful tools—sometimes even shaping regulations and contracts. ANSI is firmly rooted in the voluntary system. American National Standards are voluntary consensus standards developed under ANSI’s Essential Requirements and subject to neutral oversight and approval.
At the same time, voluntary standards can become “mandatory” in practice when referenced by regulators, procurement requirements, or industry gatekeepers. ANSI doesn’t make a standard mandatory, but by strengthening the fairness and rigor of development, ANSI helps create standards that regulators, industries, and the public are more likely to trust when they’re adopted or referenced.
Why this matters for learning and development, training, and certification
For IACET’s community, ANSI’s role has practical implications:
- If you build programs aligned to a standard, you want confidence that the standard reflects broad expertise—not one organization’s preferences.
- If you participate in standards work, ANSI’s framework helps ensure your voice has a path to be heard.
- If you evaluate providers, credentials, or outcomes, ANSI-style due process supports consistency and defensibility.
In other words: ANSI isn’t just “standards infrastructure.” It’s a trust mechanism—one that helps the standards community move from “we think this is best” to “we built this together, and here’s how we proved it.”
About the Author
Sherard Jones is the President of Strategic Futurist Consulting, an organization whose mission is to provide global leadership in Credentialing, Accreditation and Standards Development. Sherard has over 15 years of experience with IACET Accreditation in various roles and is committed to applying his expertise to support IACET in meeting its strategic goals. Sherard is currently a Lead Assessor for the ANSI-CAP program, has worked as Vice President of Education and Training for IAPMO, and was a past Chair of the IACET Commission. Sherard has 10+ years of experience in strategic program development and has partnered with clients having business needs varying from creating international workforce development programs to build capacity through training and credentialing -- to creating and overseeing organizational restructuring plans.