Global Standards Management Process

(GSMP) Manual
How standards are developed in GS1

Release 3.0.1, Approved, Sep 2015

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Document Summary

Document Item Current Value

Document Name Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Document Date Sep 2015

Document Version 3.0

Document Issue 1

Document Status Approved

Document Description How standards are developed in GS1

Contributors

Name Organisation

Log of Changes

Release Date of Change Changed By Summary of Change

3.0 May 2015

3.0.1 Sep 2015 D.Buckley Errata: the manual had been incorrectly marked as
‘ratified’ in May, when it had been ‘approved’.

Disclaimer
GS1®, under its IP Policy, seeks to avoid uncertainty regarding intellectual property claims by requiring the participants in
the Work Group that developed this Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual to agree to grant to GS1
members a royalty-free licence or a RAND licence to Necessary Claims, as that term is defined in the GS1 IP Policy.
Furthermore, attention is drawn to the possibility that an implementation of one or more features of this Specification may
be the subject of a patent or other intellectual property right that does not involve a Necessary Claim. Any such patent or
other intellectual property right is not subject to the licencing obligations of GS1. Moreover, the agreement to grant
licences provided under the GS1 IP Policy does not include IP rights and any claims of third parties who were not
participants in the Work Group.
Accordingly, GS1 recommends that any organization developing an implementation designed to be in conformance with this
Specification should determine whether there are any patents that may encompass a specific implementation that the
organisation is developing in compliance with the Specification and whether a licence under a patent or other intellectual
property right is needed. Such a determination of a need for licencing should be made in view of the details of the specific
system designed by the organisation in consultation with their own patent counsel.
THIS DOCUMENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” WITH NO WARRANTIES WHATSOEVER, INCLUDING ANY WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY, NONINFRINGMENT, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR ANY WARRANTY OTHER WISE ARISING
OUT OF THIS SPECIFICATION. GS1 disclaims all liability for any damages arising from use or misuse of this Standard,
whether special, indirect, consequential, or compensatory damages, and including liability for infringement of any
intellectual property rights, relating to use of information in or reliance upon this document.
GS1 retains the right to make changes to this document at any time, without notice. GS1 makes no warranty for the use of
this document and assumes no responsibility for any errors which may appear in the document, nor does it make a
commitment to update the information contained herein.
GS1 and the GS1 logo are registered trademarks of GS1 AISBL.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 2 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Table of Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 7

2 What is GSMP? .............................................................................................. 8

3 Principles ...................................................................................................... 9

4 Deliverables: What Is Developed in GSMP .................................................. 10

5 How GSMP Is Organised – the GSMP Community ........................................ 11

6 Different Ways To Participate in GSMP ....................................................... 12

7 Direct Participation In Working Groups ...................................................... 13

8 Working Groups and Governance Groups .................................................... 14

9 Working Group Membership Requirements ................................................. 15

10 The 4-Step Process for Creating a GSMP Deliverable ............................. 16

11 Step 1: Work Requests and Steering ..................................................... 17

12 Step 2: Requirements Analysis .............................................................. 18

13 Step 3: Development ............................................................................. 19

14 Step 4: Collateral Development ............................................................. 20

15 Drafting, Finalisation, Community Review, eBallot ................................ 21

16 Working Group Meetings ....................................................................... 22

17 Working Group Decision Making ............................................................ 23

18 Appeals ................................................................................................. 24

19 Membership Rights and Responsibilities ............................................... 25

20 Policies: Anti-Trust, Code of Conduct, IP ............................................... 26

21 Publication of GSMP Deliverables .......................................................... 27

A Appendix: Abbreviations ............................................................................. 28

B Appendix: Group Policies ............................................................................ 29

B.1 Comparison of Group Types............................................................................................ 29
B.2 Group Leadership .......................................................................................................... 29
B.2.1 Responsibilities of the Group Co-Chairs ................................................................... 30
B.2.2 Responsibilities of the GSMP Facilitator .................................................................... 31

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 3 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

C Appendix: Working Group Types and Formation ......................................... 33

C.1 GSMP Working Groups (WG)........................................................................................... 33
C.1.1 Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG)..................................................................... 33
C.1.2 Mission-Specific Working Groups (MSWG) ................................................................ 35
C.1.3 Working Group Charters ........................................................................................ 36
C.1.4 Relationship of SMGs and MSWGs ........................................................................... 37

D Appendix: Governance Group Members and Responsibilities ...................... 38

D.1 Board Committee for Standards (BCS) ............................................................................. 38
D.2 Industry Engagement Steering Committee (IESC) ............................................................. 39
D.2.1 IESC Work Method ................................................................................................ 40
D.2.2 Work request flow to the IESC ................................................................................ 41
D.2.3 Voting Eligibility .................................................................................................... 41
D.2.4 Voting ................................................................................................................. 41
D.2.5 Rationalisation/ Prioritisation / Work plan ................................................................ 41
D.2.6 Standards Development ........................................................................................ 42
D.2.7 IESC Secretariat ................................................................................................... 42
D.3 GS1 Architecture Group (AG) .......................................................................................... 42
D.3.1 Architecture Group Structure .................................................................................. 43
D.3.2 Architecture Group Work Method ............................................................................ 44
D.3.3 Architecture Group Liaisons to Working Groups ........................................................ 44
D.4 General Governance Operating Methods........................................................................... 45
D.4.1 General Operating Rules ........................................................................................ 45
D.4.2 General Membership Rules ..................................................................................... 45
D.5 GS1 Staff Roles in GSMP ................................................................................................ 46
D.5.1 GS1 Leadership Team ........................................................................................... 46
D.5.2 GSMP Operations Group ........................................................................................ 47

E Appendix: Work Request Steering .............................................................. 48

E.1 Work Requests and Work Orders ..................................................................................... 48
E.1.1 Work Orders that affect the GS1 Keys ..................................................................... 48
E.1.2 Work Orders that affect GS1 Application Identifier (AI) Requests ................................ 49
E.1.3 Work Orders for New Data Carriers ......................................................................... 49
E.1.4 Mandatory review of GS1 Standards and Guidelines after 3 years ............................... 50
E.2 Work Order Variations ................................................................................................... 50
E.2.1 Maintenance Work Orders – Assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group (SMG) .......... 52
E.2.2 Development Work Orders – Assigned to a Mission-Specific Working Group ................. 53
E.2.3 Decision Criteria for GSMP Process Variations ........................................................... 54

F Appendix: Detailed GSMP Process Flow ...................................................... 56

F.1 GSMP Step 1: Steering .................................................................................................. 56
F.1.1 Step 1.1: GSMP Operations Review ......................................................................... 56
F.1.2 Step 1.2: IESC Assesses non-Maintenance Work Requests to Create Work Orders
(Conditional) .................................................................................................................... 57
F.1.3 Step 1.3: GO LT Strategy / Resource Check, and Charter Creation (Conditional)........... 58
F.1.4 Step 1.4: GSMP Operations Issues Call-to-Action (Conditional) ................................... 58
F.1.5 Step 1.5: Mission-Specific Working Group formed (Conditional) .................................. 59
F.1.6 Step 1.6: Working Group Reviews Work Order and Moves to Proceed to Step 2 ............ 60
F.2 GSMP Step 2: Requirements Analysis .............................................................................. 60

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 4 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

F.2.1 Step 2.1: Working Group Performs Requirements Analysis ......................................... 60

F.2.2 Step 2.2: Working Group Finalises Requirements Analysis ......................................... 61
F.2.3 Step 2.3: Community Review of Requirements Analysis ............................................. 61
F.2.4 Step 2.4: eBallot of Requirements Analysis .............................................................. 62
F.2.5 Step 2.5: GSMP Operations (with IESC Approval) Prioritises BRADs to Create Development
Work Orders (Conditional) ................................................................................................. 62
F.3 GSMP Step 3: System Development ................................................................................ 63
F.3.1 Step 3.1: Working Group Performs System Development ........................................... 63
F.3.2 Step 3.2: Working Group Finalises Draft GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline ..................... 64
F.3.3 Step 3.3: Community Review of GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline ................................ 64
F.3.4 Step 3.4: Preliminary IP Review (conditional) ........................................................... 65
F.3.5 Step 3.5: Working Group Develops Conformance Requirements (conditional) ............... 65
F.3.6 Step 3.6: Working Group Finalises Draft Conformance Requirements Document
(conditional) .................................................................................................................... 66
F.3.7 Step 3.7: Community Review of Conformance Requirements Document (Conditional) ... 67
F.3.8 Step 3.8: Working Group Performs Prototype Testing of Standard or Guideline (conditional)
67
F.3.9 Step 3.9: Final IP Review ....................................................................................... 68
F.3.10 Step 3.10: eBallot of GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline ................................................ 69
F.3.11 Step 3.11: Ratification by the GS1 Management Board .............................................. 69
F.3.12 Step 3.12: Publication ........................................................................................... 70
F.4 GSMP Step 4: Collateral ................................................................................................. 70
F.4.1 Step 4.1: Working Group Confirms List of Collateral Materials .................................... 70
F.4.2 Step 4.2: Working Group Creates Collateral Materials ................................................ 70
F.4.3 Step 4.3: Working Group Finalises Draft Collateral Deliverables .................................. 71
F.4.4 Step 4.4: Community Review of Collateral Deliverables ............................................. 71
F.4.5 Step 4.5: Ongoing Revision to Collateral Materials as Needed ..................................... 72
F.4.6 Step 4.6: Development of Conformance Certification Test Plan (conditional) ................ 72
F.4.7 Step 4.7: Working Group Approves Conformance Certification Test Plan (conditional) ... 73
F.5 Finalisation of a Draft Document by a Working Group ........................................................ 73
F.6 Community Review........................................................................................................ 74
F.6.1 Community Review Comments by a Standards Maintenance Group (SMG) or the GS1
Architecture Group (AG) .................................................................................................... 75

G Appendix: Voting Procedures ...................................................................... 76

G.1 Working Group Motion ................................................................................................... 76
G.1.1 Working Group Motion via Email Call for Objections .................................................. 77
G.2 Working Group Ballot..................................................................................................... 77
G.3 Community eBallot ........................................................................................................ 78

H Appendix: GSMP Deliverables ..................................................................... 80

H.1 Ratified Deliverables ...................................................................................................... 80
H.1.1 GS1 Standard and GS1 Guideline ............................................................................ 80
H.1.2 GS1 Solutions ...................................................................................................... 81
H.1.3 GS1 Service ......................................................................................................... 82
H.1.4 GS1 Methodology.................................................................................................. 82
H.1.5 GS1 Policies vs. Standards ..................................................................................... 82
H.2 Intermediate Deliverables .............................................................................................. 83
H.2.1 Work Request (WR) / Work Order (WO) ................................................................... 83
H.2.2 Business Case ...................................................................................................... 83

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 5 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

H.2.3 Call-to-Action ....................................................................................................... 83

H.2.4 Business Requirements Analysis Document (BRAD) ................................................... 84
H.2.5 Map of Requirements to Standard or Guideline ......................................................... 84
H.2.6 Step 3 Impact Assessment ..................................................................................... 84
H.2.7 Conformance Requirements Document .................................................................... 84
H.3 Collateral Deliverables ................................................................................................... 85
H.3.1 Impact Statement ................................................................................................. 85
H.3.2 Value Proposition .................................................................................................. 85
H.3.3 Implementation / Migration Plans ........................................................................... 85
H.3.4 Marketing Collateral .............................................................................................. 85
H.3.5 Outreach Plan....................................................................................................... 86

I Appendix: Piloting of GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines ........................... 87

J Appendix: GSMP Intellectual Property Framework ..................................... 88

J.1 Opting-In to a Working Group ......................................................................................... 88
J.2 Opting-In to the Architecture Group (AG) ......................................................................... 89
J.3 Opting-out of a Working Group ....................................................................................... 89

K Appendix: Policy for Acknowledging Contributors ...................................... 90

L Appendix: GS1 Anti-trust Caution ............................................................... 91

M Appendix: GSMP Code of Conduct and Conflict Management Rules ............. 92

M.1 Participation Requirements ............................................................................................. 92
M.2 GSMP Participation Rules................................................................................................ 92
M.3 Conflict Management Rules ............................................................................................ 93

N GSMP Process Evolution.............................................................................. 94

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 6 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

1 Introduction
This document defines GS1’s Global Standards Management Process, or GSMP. It is the
authoritative reference for all aspects of the process.
Most readers will only need to read the first 21 pages. For newcomers to GSMP, these pages provide
a brief but comprehensive overview of how GSMP works and how to participate. For active
participants in GSMP, they serve as an easily referenced guide to working in GSMP, with pointers to
more detailed information in the appendices which follow the first 21 pages.
Each of the first 21 pages summarises a different facet of GSMP. For quick reference, here are the
topics addressed.

General Information
■ What is GSMP?
■ Principles

Deliverables
■ Deliverables: the things that are developed in GSMP

Organisation and Participation

■ How GSMP is Organised – the GSMP Community
■ Different Ways to Participate in GSMP
■ Direct Participation In Working Groups
■ Working Groups and Governance Groups
■ Working Group Membership Requirements

The GSMP 4-Step Process

■ The 4-Step Process for Creating a GSMP Deliverable
■ Step 1: Work Requests and Steering
■ Step 2: Requirements Analysis
■ Step 3: Development
■ Step 4: Collateral
■ Drafting, Finalisation, Community Review, eBallot
■ Working Group Meetings
■ Working Group Decision Making

Policies
■ Appeals
■ Loss of Membership Rights
■ Policies: Anti-Trust, Code of Conduct, IP
■ Publication of GSMP Deliverables

Throughout this document, the symbol in the left margin says where further information can be
found by consulting one of the appendices.

Key to colours used in figures

GSMP Working Group GSMP Governance Published Document
GSMP Community Other group or participant Internal Document
Indirect participants

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 7 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

2 What is GSMP?

Industry Work Step 1: Step 2: Step 3: Step 4: GS1

Engagement Request Steering Requirements Development Collateral Standard
Group

Work
Request 4-Step GS1
Consensus Guideline
Development
Process
Other Work
Community Request Collateral
Member
Working Working Working
Work Group Group Group
Request GSMP
Deliverables

The Global Standards Management Process is a community-based process for creating deliverables
that serve the GS1 community.
The deliverables from GSMP are:
■ GS1 Standards: documents that trading partners agree to follow in order to achieve
interoperability goals. The rules that must be followed are called normative statements.
■ GS1 Guidelines: non-normative documents that assist individual organisations in
understanding and applying GS1 Standards.
■ Collateral Materials: other documents that provide an understanding of GS1 Standards and
GS1 Guidelines and how to use them.
Deliverables are created through the GSMP 4-Step Process. In each of the four steps, an
intermediate deliverable or final deliverable is created by a Working Group through a Consensus
Development Process which is designed to ensure that all members of the GSMP Community have
the opportunity to shape and approve each deliverable. The four steps are: Steering, Requirements,
Development, and Collateral. GS1 Standards and Guidelines are created in the Development step,
based on the intermediate deliverables created in the Steering and Requirements steps. The
Collateral step creates any additional collateral materials that are needed.
Every GSMP Deliverable is created by a Working Group. A Working Group consists of members of
the GSMP Community who come together to work on a particular Deliverable – a specific GS1
Standard, for example. Any member of the GSMP Community may join any Working Group.
Membership in Working Groups is balanced to ensure that each Working Group has sufficient
representation and subject matter expertise, so that the final deliverable reflects a balance of
concerns across all affected stakeholders.
Each deliverable reflects the consensus of the GSMP community. Consensus is achieved first among
members of the Working Group that contribute to the authoring of the deliverables, then confirmed
by a review and vote of the entire membership of the Working Group, and lastly confirmed through
a review and eBallot by the entire GSMP community. In some cases, an even wider consensus is
obtained by offering the public at large the opportunity to review and comment.
Once the GSMP community confirms its acceptance of a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, it is ratified
by the GS1 Management Board and published by GS1. The GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is then
freely available for anybody in the world to download, read, and adopt.
The remaining sections of this manual explain all of this in greater detail.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 8 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

3 Principles

Consistency Standards Consensus and

Openness &
Protection Voting
Transparency

User-Driven Stakeholder Governance Global

Standards Participation Applicability

GSMP is founded upon a set of principles intended to ensure fairness and broad acceptance.
Openness & Transparency
The standards development process is open to all organisations and its workings are made visible to
all participants.
User Driven Standards
GS1 Standards are created in response to business needs clearly articulated by participating
organisations. Equally important, they are developed only where there is the expressed will (by
stakeholders) to implement the resulting standards.
Consistency
GS1 Standards drive consistency and interoperability between the stakeholders who adopt them. All
GS1 Standards are validated during their development to fit in the GS1 System Architecture and
adhere to architectural principles.
Stakeholder Participation
Participation in GSMP is open to all GS1 System users and all stakeholders impacted by a defined
business issue; this includes End Users, Solution Providers and GS1 Member Organisations
representing their local End Users and Solution Providers. These stakeholders come from companies
of all sizes, in multiple industries, and across all geographies.
Standards Protection
Standards developed through the GSMP are maintained by GS1 on behalf of all GS1 stakeholders.
The GS1 standards are protected by the GS1 Intellectual Property Policy for the benefit of all GS1
stakeholders.
Governance
The GSMP is accountable to GSMP governance groups and ultimately to the GS1 Management
Board, all of which are populated by End Users of the GS1 System.
Consensus and Voting
All GSMP deliverables are developed in a process that strives for consensus of all stakeholders. All
voting members have an equal voice in determining outcomes. When consensus is not possible, a
formal process exists for recording the approval or (any) disapproval of final standards solutions.
Participation and voting minimums ensure that the result of a vote is not unduly influenced by any
one stakeholder or group.
Global Applicability
GS1 Standards strive for global applicability across multiple industry sectors. Priority is given to
commonality wherever possible across different sectors, and for relevance to companies of all sizes.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 9 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

4 Deliverables: What Is Developed in GSMP

GS1
End User 1 Standard End User 2

Data exchanged between

end users conforms to Internal design of end
GS1 Data Standard, user system component is
usage subject to GS1 out-of-scope for GS1
Application Standard Standards

GS1
Standard GS1 Guidelines may
Physical objects exchanged
between end users carry GS1- assist end user in
GS1 implementing a GS1
compliant data carriers, subject to
Guideline Standard
GS1 Application Standard

The principal deliverables from GSMP are GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines, as defined in the GS1
System Architecture:
Appendix
H ■ GS1 Standards: A GS1 Standard is a specification that defines the behaviour of one or more
system components so that interoperability goals are achieved. Standards contain normative
statements, which specify what a system component must be or do in order to be in
conformance to the standard; a standard is written in such a way that conformance to the
normative statements is a sufficient condition for a component to achieve the interoperability
goals for which the standard is designed.
■ GS1 Guidelines: A GS1 Guideline is a document that provides information considered useful in
implementing one or more GS1 Standards. A GS1 Guideline never provides additional normative
content beyond the standards to which it refers; instead, the purpose of a GS1 Guideline is to
provide additional explanation and suggestions for successful implementation.
GS1 Standards may be further distinguished according to the type of normative content they
contain:
■ Technical Standards: A technical standard is one that defines a particular set of behaviours for
a system component. Technical standards are written to be as broadly applicable across
business sectors and geographic regions as possible. Technical standards include:
□ Data Standard: A data standard defines the syntax and semantics of data.
□ Interface Standard: An interface standard defines an interaction between system
components, namely the syntax and semantics of messages that are exchanged between
system components.
The distinction between data and interface standard is not always sharp, and many technical
standards contain both data specifications and interface specifications.
■ Application Standards: An application standard is one that specifies a particular set of
technical standards to which end user systems must conform in a particular business
application. Application standards provide a convenient way for different end users to express
their agreement to follow certain standards, in order to achieve mutually agreed interoperability
goals in a given application context.
All GS1 Standards and Guidelines are subject to a mandatory review 3 years after the original
Appendix publication date. This review will result in reaffirmation or a Work Request for the GS1 Standard or
H Guideline to be withdrawn or updated. The review is conducted by the Standards Maintenance
Group (SMG) responsible for the standard or guideline, or by another group appointed by the IESC.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 10 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

5 How GSMP Is Organised – the GSMP Community

Board Committee for Standards Governance

of the GS1 Management Board Groups
GSMP Operations

Architecture Industry Engagement facilitates the

Group Steering Committee activities of

Working Groups are governed by Governance Groups

GSMP Working Groups

WG WG WG WG

Direct Participants are members of Working Groups

Non-
Direct
End End Solution Trade GS1 GS1 GS1
User User Provider Assoc MO MO GO
voting Participants
Member

Indirect Participants are represented by GS1 MOs

Indirect Participants
End End Solution Solution Trade
User User Provider Provider Association

All GSMP Deliverables are created by the GSMP Community, which consists of:
■ Voting Members: Organisations that join GSMP with full voting rights, including:
□ GS1 or GS1 MO Members: Companies or other organisations that are members in good
standing of GS1 or one or more GS1 Member Organisations (MOs), according to their
membership criteria. These include:
- End Users: Companies and other organisations that make use of components of the
GS1 System (especially GS1 Standards) to conduct their business.
- Solution Providers: Companies and other organisations that offer products and
services that help end users implement the GS1 System (especially GS1 Standards).
□ GS1 Member Organisations (MOs): Over 100 not-for-profit organisations that administer
the GS1 System and provide local support and represent end users within a given country or
assigned area. Within GSMP, GS1 MOs represent End Users and Solution Providers who do
not wish to participate directly in GSMP Working Groups. This is especially important where
language or geography would otherwise create an insurmountable barrier to participation.
■ Non-Voting Members
□ GS1 Global Office (GO): The GS1 Organisation that facilitates GSMP. GO staff provide
facilitation and subject matter expertise to GS1 Working Groups and Governance Groups.
□ Non-Voting GSMP Member: An organisation that is not a member of GS1 or a GS1 MO
but who wishes to participate in GSMP. Such an organisation may not comment or vote.
All GSMP Deliverables are created by GSMP Working Groups and voted upon by the voting members
of the entire GSMP community. Any GSMP Community member may join a GSMP Working Group.
Oversight of GSMP is provided by the GSMP Governance Groups. Each is populated by
representatives from the GSMP Community, nominated by the community and selected by the GS1
Board Committee for Standards. GSMP Operations provides staff support to facilitate GSMP.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 11 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

6 Different Ways To Participate in GSMP

Reads & Comments Votes to May
Influences on Final Submit for Download
Work in Draft Ratification and Use
Progress Ratified
Deliverable

GSMP Working Group Yes Yes(*) Yes(*) Yes

GSMP Community Yes(*) Yes(*) Yes

Indirect Participants (**) (**) Yes

General Public (***) Yes

(*) Except for non-voting GSMP members.

(**) Indirect Participants may contribute through their local GS1 Member Organisation. In some
cases, input from an industry trade organisation is sought by a GSMP Working Group.
(***) In some cases, a GSMP Working Group solicits comments from the general public.

Direct Participants in GSMP have access to work-in-progress and contribute to the creation of
deliverables. All Direct Participants must sign the GSMP IP Policy. Direct participation roles include:
■ Opted-In Working Group Member: An organisation that signs the GSMP IP Policy and opts-in
to a specific GSMP Working Group may participate in all stages of work, from initial drafting to
final review and voting. Consensus of the Opted-In Working Group members is required to
finalise a deliverable for community review and community eBallot.
■ Non-Voting Working Group Member: An organisation that is not a member of GS1 or any
GS1 Member Organisation (MO) may sign the GSMP IP Policy and opt-in to a GSMP Working
Group, but may not submit formal comments nor vote. They do not count towards Working
Group membership minimums.
■ GSMP Community Member: An organisation that signs the GSMP IP Policy is a GSMP
Community Member. A voting GSMP Community Member has the opportunity during Community
Review to review and comment on a deliverable whether or not it is opted-in to that Working
Group. Following any revisions stemming from Community Review, consensus of the GSMP
community is obtained through a community eBallot of all Voting GSMP Community Members.
Any organisation may join the GSMP Community and/or opt-in to any GSMP Working Group. An
organisation may send any number of representatives to meetings; however, all votes are
conducted on the basis of one organisation, one vote.
Indirect Participants in GSMP do not have access to work-in-progress nor do they vote at any stage,
but they may provide input to GSMP Working Groups under specified conditions. Indirect
Participants include:
■ End Users and Solution Providers (other than Direct Participants) who are represented by their
local GS1 Member Organisation (MO). The MO joins the Working Group and relays explicit
contributions of indirect participants as well as any other knowledge or opinions obtained from
them. The MO must identify each indirect participant it represents in this way.
■ Members of industry trade organisations, regulatory bodies, or other bodies whose input is
sought by a Working Group (other than those who join as Direct Participants).
■ In some circumstances, a Working Group may post a deliverable for public comment prior to
eBallot; in such cases, any member of the public may contribute a comment at that stage.
While Indirect Participants do not sign the GS1 IP Policy, they must accompany each contribution
with a signed GS1 IP Contribution Form. Their access to work-in-progress may be limited compared
to Working Group members, unless they sign an MO IP Policy designed to provide similar access
rights as the GS1 IP Policy.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 12 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

7 Direct Participation In Working Groups

The majority of the work done to create a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is carried out by the
Direct Participants in GSMP Working Groups. All Direct Participants of a Working Group must sign
the GS1 IP Policy and Opt-in to that Working Group. This gives Direct Participants full rights to
access work-in-progress of the group, to influence the content by participating in discussions during
Working Group meetings and contributing to the drafting of Working Group deliverables, and
(except for non-voting members) to vote to finalise the deliverables for community review and
eBallot.
Direct Participants are expected to commit to regular participation in their Working Groups so that
the business of the Working Group may be carried out as expediently as possibly. Recognising that
not all Working Group members have the capacity to contribute equally, the following types of direct
participation are provided for by GSMP:
■ Regular Working Group Member: A representative of an opted-in Working Group member
company who participates directly in regular Working Group meetings facilitated by the GS1
Global Office. In many working groups, regular working group members are expected to attend
all working group meetings, with the understanding that occasional absences inevitably occur.
Other working groups choose to organise into teams, for example:
□ A core editorial team of working group members who are able to attend working group
meetings on a weekly or bi-weekly basis.
□ A peripheral team of working group members who do not attend every working group
meeting, but who attend meetings specially arranged to include the peripheral team,
typically on a monthly or every six week basis. This allows the core editorial team to make
steady progress, while regularly consulting with the peripheral team who may have deep
subject matter expertise but who are unable to commit the time needed to join the core
editorial team.
■ Distributed Working Group Member: A representative of an opted-in Working Group
member company who participates in Working Group meetings organised by a local GS1 MO,
typically in a different language or at a more convenient time of day than can be provided by
the GS1 Global Office. GS1 MO representatives, along with regular working group members who
choose to attend distributed working group meetings, are responsible for ensuring that input
from distributed members is incorporated into the work product of the regular working group.
When a Working Group has affiliated Distributed Working Groups, it must proceed more
deliberately to ensure that the Distributed Working Groups are fully integrated into Working
Group decision making. This means providing adequate advance notice of pending Working
Group decisions, and greater use of electronic communication and virtual votes.
Voting rights are the same regardless of whether an organisation chooses to participate via a
distributed working group, a regular working group, or both.
■ Non-voting Working Group Member: An organisation that is not a member of GS1 or of any
GS1 MO may still send a representative to a GS1 Working Group meeting, but such
organisations may not submit formal comments nor vote. Non-voting members do, however,
sign the GS1 IP Policy and opt-in to the Working Group.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 13 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

8 Working Groups and Governance Groups

Governance Groups
Board Committee for Standards Governance GSMP
of the GS1 Management Board Groups Operations GSMP Operations
facilitates the
Architecture Industry Engagement activities of all
Group Steering Committee groups

Working Groups are governed by Governance Groups

GSMP Working Groups

SMG SMG SMG SMG

MSWG MSWG MSWG

GSMP has three standing Governance Groups. Governance groups are responsible for ensuring that
the GSMP 4-Step Process is correctly executed, for prioritisation of work efforts, for resolving
Appendix
D conflicts, and for providing advice to Working Groups. Each Governance Group has a fixed number
of members who are nominated from the GSMP community and selected through a defined process.
The three Governance Groups are:
■ Board Committee for Standards (BCS): The BCS is the governing body of GSMP, reporting
to the GS1 Management Board, who is responsible for ratifying GS1 standards and guidelines.
The BCS confirms that due process is followed in all GSMP activities, and is the last point of
appeal in case of conflict. The other two Governance Groups are accountable to, and work under
the authority of, the BCS.
■ Industry Engagement Steering Committee (IESC): The purpose of the IESC is to approve
and prioritise work undertaken in GSMP based on established entrance criteria (especially,
commitment of industry to adopt the deliverables). In addition, the IESC acts as an advisory
body to the BCS and hears appeals before they are brought to the BCS.
■ Architecture Group (AG): An advisory body to the BCS whose primary responsibility is to
develop and document the GS1 System Architecture and, by reference to the architecture,
assure the technical integrity, consistency and efficient interoperation of the GS1 System.
Also shown in the figure is GSMP Operations, a group of GS1 GO staff and others who facilitate the
day-to-day operation of GSMP. It is not a Governance Group, but provides assistance to all other
parts of GSMP.
In contrast to Governance Groups, there is not a fixed set of Working Groups. Instead, Working
Groups are created as needed based on the work to be done in GSMP. Every Working Group is open
for all GSMP Community members to participate; while there is a minimum number of participants
required in each Working Group to ensure adequate representation, there is no maximum.
The current set of GSMP Working Groups is maintained separately from this document in the GSMP
Standards Group Map. There are two types of Working Groups:
Appendix
C ■ Standards Maintenance Group (SMG): An SMG has indefinite lifetime and is responsible for
the ongoing maintenance and enhancement of one or more existing GS1 Standards or GS1
Guidelines. SMGs provide continuity of expertise, as well as rapid response to requests for small
changes.
■ Mission-Specific Working Group (MSWG): An MSWG is formed to do a specific piece of work
as described in its Charter, and disbands when the work is complete. MSWGs are created for
most work efforts of substantial scope. An MSWG may be chartered to carry out requirements
analysis (Step 2 of the 4-step GSMP process), standard or guideline development (Step 3), or
both.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 14 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

9 Working Group Membership Requirements

WG Facilitator GO SME WG Co-Chair WG Co-Chair
Co-chairs are elected from
among WG membership;
GS1 Global Office staff typically each from a
members, including the different stakeholder group
WG Facilitator and GO
Subject Matter Experts
(SMEs), do not vote

End End Solution Solution GS1 GS1

User User Provider Provider MO MO

At least 2 (*) At least 2 (*) At least 2 (*)

At least 12 (*)

(*) The number of stakeholder categories, minimum participation from each category, and total minimum participation
varies according to the work effort

GS1 Standards and Guidelines are intended to meet global needs and reflect a broad consensus of
the GS1 community. All GSMP Working Groups are subject to minimum requirements for
membership and voting in order to ensure that a suitable cross-section of the community is involved
in the output. Failure to meet minimum membership requirements results in remedial actions
designed to restore membership, or else change course to reflect a change in community interest in
and support for a work effort.
The specific minimum requirements for any Working Group are set forth in its charter. Each
organisation counts only once toward meeting the minimum, regardless of how many individual
representatives of an organisation participate. Typical minimums are:
■ A minimum of 12 organisations must vote. Only organisations eligible to vote count toward the
minimum requirement
■ A minimum balance of different participant roles must be achieved. Typical balance rules for a
Working Group are:
□ Two End Users (voting organisations) from one side of the relevant trading relationship
□ Two End Users (voting organisations) from the other side of the relevant trading relationship
□ Two MOs
□ Two Solution Providers
The minimum requirements are intended to be flexible enough to accommodate different kinds of
standards efforts provided that the overall goal of balance is still met. For example, if a given work
effort affects user companies falling into three distinct trading roles, then that Working Group should
specify at least two End Users from each of the three roles in addition to the other roles (e.g., in the
Pharmaceutical industry, this might be Manufacturer, Distributor, Pharmacy). In certain
circumstances, there may be a clear need to identify Solution Providers as part of the balance rule.
For example, a Working Group developing a technical standard such as an RFID air interface
protocol might not distinguish user company’s roles, but may distinguish solution provider roles;
e.g., it may require just two user companies of any type, and additionally require two RFID tag
vendors and two RFID reader vendors.
Similar minimum requirements are established for participation in a Working Group before the group
can form. If a group falls below its stated participation minimums, the IESC is informed.
Each Working Group elects two co-chairs from among its members (or more than two, if specified in
the WG’s charter). At least one co-chair must be present at each Working Group meeting or
Appendix
B teleconference. See Appendix B for the responsibilities of co-chairs.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 15 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

10 The 4-Step Process for Creating a GSMP Deliverable

1 Steering 2 Requirements
Work Require-
Users Work Steering: Order GSMP  ments
request IESC and Working Document
GO Group Community
Review and
eBallot

3 Development 4 Collateral
Ratified Development
GS1 Collateral
GSMP  Standard Deliverables
GSMP 
Working or Working
Group Guideline
Community Group Community
Review and
Review and
eBallot
eBallot
Published Published

The GSMP 4-Step Process is designed to ensure that business needs and requirements are
understood before standards and guidelines are developed, and that supporting materials are
Appendix
F created afterward. Each step culminates in the completion of one or more outputs, created through
a consensus-based process within a working group and with larger consensus confirmed through
community review and eBallot.
# Step What Happens Outputs

1 Steering A Work Request enters the system from a GSMP Internal outputs:
Community Member Work Request (WR)
GSMP Operations, with final consideration and approval Business Case
by the IESC in the case of non-maintenance work,
considers pending Work Requests and develops a Charter Approved Work Order (WO)
for a Work Order. If a MSWG is to be formed, a call-to- Working Group Charter
action is issued. Most of the work in this step is carried
out by GSMP Operations, with the IESC providing final
approval. The IESC takes a more active role for steering
decisions that are not routine.
Information to assess the GSMP entrance criteria
provided by the submitter in the original Work Request
becomes the initial draft of the Business Case.

2 Requirements Working Group analyses and documents business Internal outputs:

Analysis requirements for meeting the stated business need. Business Requirements Analysis
Document (BRAD) or other documented
requirements

3 System Working Group develops a GS1 Standard or GS1 Public outputs:

Development Guideline to meet the requirements. Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1
The Business Case is updated to reflect what was learned Guideline, or ratified revision to existing
during development of the deliverable. GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
Revised Business Case

4 Collateral Working Group develops collateral materials (for Public outputs:

example: impact statement, value proposition, migration Collateral materials
plans, FAQs, etc.).

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 16 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

11 Step 1: Work Requests and Steering

Entrance criteria not met (yet)
1.1 1.2 1.3

GSMP Operations Review GO LT New

IESC Strategy / MSWG
Assessment Resource
Work New Development Work
Request / Major Revision Check Order

Incomplete Maintenance /
Content Errata
Existing
Work SMG
Order

Step 1 of GSMP begins with a GSMP Work Request. Any GS1 member may file a Work Request,
suggesting a new effort to be initiated in GSMP. A Work Request can ask for something as simple as
Appendix correcting an error in a published standard to something as complex as creating a completely new
E, F.1 GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, as well as anything in between.

Work Requests are assessed and approved for development in three stages:
1. The GSMP Operations team reviews the Work Request to confirm that all information needed to
assess the entrance criteria has been provided. If not, the Work Request is returned to the
submitter to complete. Otherwise, GSMP Operations routes the Work Request to the next stage.
Work Requests for simple maintenance or correction of errata in existing GSMP deliverables are
routed directly to the responsible SMG without further assessment. Anything else proceeds
through the next steps below.
GSMP Operations provide an initial response within 14 days of submission.
2. The Work Request is assessed in the following two areas, collectively called “steering”:
□ Does the Work Request meet or exceed the entrance criteria established for new GSMP
work? This includes a commitment to implement from a sufficient number of community
members. If not, the Work Request is returned to the requestor.
□ How does the Work Request relate to the entire portfolio of GS1 Standards, the GS1 System
Architecture, and to other GSMP work already planned or in progress? The GS1 Architecture
Group may be consulted at this stage. This assessment leads to a determination of:
- Whether to combine this Work Request with others in the pipeline, and/or split it into
multiple efforts
- Which GSMP Working Group should carry out the work: an existing SMG or a new MSWG
- If a new MSWG is called for, the new MSWG’s participation minimums and its related
SMG
The IESC has decision authority; however, GSMP Operations carries out a detailed analysis prior
to bringing the Work Request to the IESC, including obtaining input from the appropriate GS1
Industry Engagement Groups, so that the work of the IESC itself is focused more on approval
than on analysis. The IESC takes a more active role for steering decisions that are not routine.
3. The GS1 Global Office Leadership Team confirms that the work is consistent with the GS1
Strategy and that the proposed timing of the work is aligned with the available resources. GSMP
Operations drafts a Working Group charter (if a new MSWG is to be formed) and the President of
GSMP, as an IESC Member, confirms that the charter is consistent with the IESC’s intent.
The IESC and Global Office must provide an initial response within 45 days of the original submission
A Work Request that successfully exits the assessment and proceeds to Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the
GSMP process is termed a Work Order. Because the steering assessment in Step 1 may combine
incoming Work Requests that should be handled together and/or split incoming Work Requests that
are too large to carry out at once, the Work Orders that proceed through the process are not
necessarily in one-to-one correspondence with the original Work Requests. Each Work Order carries
links to the relevant original Work Request(s).

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 17 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

12 Step 2: Requirements Analysis

To Step 3
2.3 Final
Community 2.4
2.1 2.2 eBallot Requirements
Drafting Finalisation Review & Document 2.5
Revision Charter
Next Step

In Step 2 of the GSMP 4-step process, a Working Group analyses the business requirements that
arise from the information provided in the Work Order. The form the requirements analysis takes
Appendix
F.2 depends on the scope of the Work Order:
■ For most development efforts that are chartered to create or revise a GS1 Standard, or where
the ultimate outputs are uncertain pending requirements analysis, the result of requirements
analysis is a Business Requirements Analysis Document (BRAD). Most of the time this is based
on the established BRAD template. For certain types of requirements analysis efforts, there may
be other recommended tools or intermediate work products to help in the creation of good
business requirements, such as use case templates, and so forth.
■ For a Work Order chartered to create a GS1 Guideline, some sections of the BRAD template may
not apply. The requirements analysis phase should concentrate on documenting all of the use
cases that the guideline needs to address.
■ For a Work Order chartered to address errata in a published GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, or
for extremely narrow maintenance Work Orders, it may be more appropriate simply to
document the changes that are needed. For purposes of Step 2, this need not be extremely
precise; e.g., it suffices in Step 2 to document a requirement “change all occurrences of ‘Widget’
to ‘Approved Widget’”, rather than document each place in the existing standard where such a
change must be made.
■ For maintenance Work Orders pertaining to eCom and GDSN where requirements are
periodically consolidated and fed back to GSMP Step 1, the result of requirements analysis may
take a highly stylised form, such as a row added to a spreadsheet that will form the basis for the
subsequent consolidated Work Request.
Most of the time spent in Step 2 takes place within the “drafting” substep (2.1). The Working Group
begins a draft BRAD or other output as soon as possible, and revise this draft as work progresses
over the course of working group meetings.
When the Working Group believes that the BRAD or other output is complete, it proceeds to
finalisation, community review, and eBalloting. These substeps are described in more detail in
Section 15.
Following the completion of a successful eBallot, the BRAD or other output is now a final document
(see Section 21). If the Working Group is chartered to both requirements analysis and development,
the Working Group proceeds to GSMP Step 3. Otherwise, the Working Group has completed its Work
Order. In the latter case the finished requirements document is routed back to GSMP operations and
the IESC (Substep 2.5) to charter the next phase of development. Different requirements may be
routed to different working groups, and/or combined with others to be addressed in a single
development effort.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 18 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

13 Step 3: Development

3.3 3.8 Prototype 3.9

3.1 3.2 Final- Community 3.10
Testing & Final IP
Drafting isation Review & eBallot
Revision Review
Revision

3.11
3.4 Ratification
Preliminary IP
Review
Standard or
Guideline
Ratified GS1
Standard or
Guideline
3.7
Conformance 3.5 3.6 Final- Community
Requirements Drafting isation Review &
Revision 3.12
(if applicable) Publication

In Step 3 of the GSMP 4-step process, a Working Group develops a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
according to the Work Order, guided by the business requirements that were developed in Step 2.
Appendix
F.3 The deliverable may be a completely new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, or it may be a new
version of an existing GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline.
Most of the time spent in Step 3 takes place within the “drafting” substep (3.1). The Working Group
begins a draft BRAD or other output as soon as possible, and revises this draft as work progresses
over the course of working group meetings. When appropriate, the Working Group may solicit
assistance at this stage from GS1 Global Office staff who are assigned to provide specific technical
help to Working Groups. Examples include UML modelling, technical writing, and others.
When the Working Group believes that the BRAD or other output is complete, it proceeds to
finalisation, community review, IP review, eBalloting, and ratification. These substeps are described
in more detail in Section 15. All of these substeps, shown in blue in the figure above, are required.
Depending on the nature of the Work Order, there may be additional substeps in Step 3:
■ (Substeps 3.5–3.7) If the Work Order is to develop or revise a GS1 Standard for which GS1
offers a conformance certification program, the Working Group also develops a Conformance
Requirements document. This document is drafted, finalised, and community reviewed
separately from the GS1 Standard itself. The Working Group is encouraged to overlap work on
the Conformance Requirements document with it other work; normally work on the
Conformance Requirements document begins when the draft GS1 Standard is finalised.
■ (Substep 3.8) For technical GS1 Standards, it is highly encouraged for a Working Group to
conduct Prototype Testing following community review of the standard. During Prototype
Testing, members of the Working Group each attempt to implement the standard, and compare
these efforts with each other to identify potential areas where the standard document may be
insufficiently clear or contains errors. As a result, further revisions may be made to the draft
standard.
■ (Substep 3.4) If a Working Group develops conformance requirements, carries out prototype
testing, or both, a preliminary IP review may be done in order to uncover IP issues as early as
possible, while work on the former tasks is underway. This does not eliminate the need for the
final IP review, which the GS1 IP policy requires be done 30 days prior to ratification. A
preliminary IP review is not necessary if no significant time would elapse between it and the final
IP review.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 19 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

14 Step 4: Collateral Development

4.1 4.4 4.5

Collateral 4.2 4.3 Community Ongoing
Final
Planning Drafting Finalisation Review & Revision
Collateral
Revision

In Step 4 of the GSMP 4-step process, a Working Group develops collateral materials that are used
to support deployment of GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines by end users, solution providers, and
Appendix
F.4 MOs. These materials may include any of the following. Note that not all such materials need be
created by a GSMP Working Group; in many cases, it will be more appropriate for GS1 Global Office
or MO staff to do so. In the collateral planning substep (4.1), the Working Group decides which
materials it will create.
■ Impact Statement: The Impact Statement describes issues that user companies may face in
deploying the new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, particularly as it relates to compatibility,
transition, and interaction with other GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines. The Impact Statement
may also provide some qualitative information as to the size of the effort that is likely required
to deploy.
■ Value Proposition: The Value Proposition describes why a user company or solution provider
should implement the standard, in business terms that they can take to their budget holders for
approval. For example, the Value Proposition might indicate the expected cost to implement and
compare it to the expected benefit to the user companies.
■ Implementation / Migration Plans: These documents are intended to answer questions such
as: How will end users adopt a new or revised standard and at what pace? Is there a need for
coordinated community action? Do two (or more versions) co-exist and what are the sunrise and
sunset dates?
■ Training Materials / Support Tools: These are materials intended to help the user
understand the key concepts and principles upon which a GS1 Standard is built, specific material
or exercises to support classroom or online trainings, and online tools that provide simplified
access to a given GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline.
■ Marketing Collateral: Marketing Collateral refers to materials intended to introduce the GS1
Standard or GS1 Guideline to user companies, solution providers, and other community
members who may have no prior knowledge of the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline or who may
not understand to what extent it applies to them. The purpose of Marketing Collateral is to
achieve as broad adoption as possible by encouraging community members to examine the new
GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline and determine how it may be of benefit to them. Examples of
marketing collateral include:
□ Brief Abstract
□ Frequently Asked Questions
□ Overview Slides
□ Areas of Applicability
After the initial publication of collateral materials, the Working Group may be asked to revise them
as necessary.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 20 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

15 Drafting, Finalisation, Community Review, eBallot

Final Community
Drafting Draft Finalisation Review & eBallot
Revision
Community
Candidate
Review Final Document,
Document
Working Draft ready for ratification
Draft (if applicable)

In Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the GSMP 4-Step Process, a working group creates a deliverable that is
approved by the GSMP Community through an eBallot. Within each of these steps, the working
group carries out the following substeps which are designed to drive towards progressively wider
consensus.

Name Description Exit Criteria

Drafting This is the step where the majority of time is spent. The Working Group agrees,
The Working Group carries out the work to create the through a Working Group
GSMP Deliverable(s) for this step, through Working Motion, to enter the
Group meetings and electronic communication Finalisation substep.
between meetings. Typically a Working Group appoints
a Working Group member or GS1 staff member to act
as Editor for the deliverable(s). The group may choose
to delegate work to a smaller editorial committee
within the Working Group and less frequent meetings
of the entire Working Group to ensure consensus is
reached.
At all stages of development, the Working Group must
seek to reach consensus. The Working Group may hold
Working Group Voice Votes on specific issues if
consensus cannot be reached otherwise.

Finalisation The Editor prepares a Final Working Draft. All A Community Review Draft is
members of the Working Group are asked to do a final ready.
Appendix review of this draft and provide comments. The The Working Group agrees,
F.5 Working Group addresses all comments, resulting in a through a Working Group
Community Review Draft. Ballot, to enter Community
Review

Community The Community Review Draft is posted to the entire A revised draft is complete. All
Review GSMP Community for a period of at least 21 days (see community comments are
Appendix F.6 for exceptions). Interested members of addressed, as are issues
the GSMP Community provide comments. The Working arising from prototype testing
Appendix Group then addresses each comment received during (if applicable).
F.6 community review, either by making a change to the The Working Group agrees,
Deliverable or recording a reason why no change was through a Working Group
made. For technical standards, prototype testing may Ballot, to proceed to
take place resulting in further revisions. When all Community eBallot.
revisions are complete, the resulting draft is a
Candidate document (Candidate Standard, Candidate
Guideline, etc.)

Community The Candidate document is posted to the entire GSMP The deadline for the eBallot is
eBallot Community for a period of at least 14 days. reached, and at least 2/3 of
the votes are affirmative.

Ratification (For GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines only.) The GS1 Management Board,
via the Board Committee for
Standards (BCS) ratifies.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 21 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

16 Working Group Meetings

Group Meeting
Calendar Minutes
Invitation

Agenda Draft Working Group

Deliverables

Working Group Community Room

GSMP Working Groups and Governance Groups conduct business through teleconferences and
physical face-to-face meetings (collectively referred to simply as “meetings”), as well as through
electronic mail and electronic voting facilities of the GSMP Community Room.
■ An invitation is sent to members and the Community Room calendar in advance of each
meeting.
■ Each meeting has a written agenda, distributed to all group members via the Community Room
prior to the meeting. The agenda is distributed at least three days in advance of a periodic
weekly meeting, or at least one week in advance of a less frequent or irregularly-scheduled
meeting.
■ Minutes are taken at each meeting by the group facilitator or co-chair and made available to all
group members via the Community Room. Minutes indicate the name and organisation of every
meeting attendee. To facilitate this, the group facilitator or co-chair ensures that an accurate roll
call is taken or sign-up sheet used, and also makes note of late entrants to the meeting. Minutes
also include a record of business transacted at the meeting, sufficiently detailed so that group
members who missed the meeting can understand what took place and participate in
subsequent group work on an equal footing with those members who were present.
■ Every attendee of a Working Group meeting shall belong to an organisation that has signed the
IP Policy and opted-in to the Working Group. The group facilitator confirms this.
■ Attendance at a group meeting should meet the minimum membership requirements
established by the group work plan. A group may choose to continue a meeting even if
minimum membership requirements are not met. (When that is the case, any Group Voice
Motions required of the group will need to be supplemented by a Group Virtual Vote.) In
general, the group should be cautious about progressing too far when minimum membership is
not present. If membership in a Working Group falls below established minimums for three or
more consecutive meetings, the group facilitator shall inform the IESC.
■ The first order of business on every meeting agenda are the anti-trust caution and code of
conduct reminder, and approval of prior meetings’ minutes.
■ Group business is carried out through consensus of the group membership (See Section 17).
■ Group members are be encouraged to carry on group business between group meetings by
using the electronic mail facilities of the Community Room. Messages sent using the Community
Room mail list are archived in the Community Room and available for all group members to
inspect. Group business should not be carried out using private messages, as that is contrary to
the principle of community process.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 22 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

17 Working Group Decision Making

GSMP Working Groups (WGs) make decisions by consensus. Consensus is defined as general
agreement, characterised by the absence of sustained opposition to substantial issues by any
important part of the concerned interests and by a process that involves seeking to take into
account the views of all parties concerned and to reconcile any conflicting arguments. It is important
to understand that consensus does not mean unanimity. It is the responsibility of the group co-
chairs to judge whether consensus indeed has been reached (subject to the appeals process defined
in Section 18).
WGs have four specific types of decision processes, as specified in the following table.
Decision Type When Used Decision Method

Ordinary This is what a WG does Most ordinary working decisions are achieved through
Working in the normal course of discussion-based consensus during WG meetings. WG co-chairs
Decision developing work and facilitators should actively seek the input of all meeting
products. These include participants to ensure that discussion in meetings accurately
decisions taken during reflects group consensus.
collaborative Any WG member or the WG facilitator may request that a
development, as well as specific decision be put to a WG motion (below)
decisions taken
regarding resolution of A WG ballot (below) may also be used if a WG member or the
comments received facilitator feels that a WG motion is not sufficient to fully
during formal comment represent the group’s opinion.
review.

WG Motion GSMP mandates a WG WG motions are carried out following the procedure in
motion to confirm a Appendix G.1. As explained there, a WG motion is carried out
Working Group is ready by asking for objections, in contrast to a ballot in which each
to subject a draft to WG member casts an explicit “yes” or “no” vote. Normally a WG
formal review by WG motion is carried out by voice during a WG meeting, but if
members prior to voting minimums are not present it may be extended to the
Appendix releasing for community entire WG by asking for objections via email over a 7-day
G.1 review or eBallot. period.
If any WG member or the facilitator feels that a WG motion is
not sufficient to fully represent the group opinion, a WG ballot
may be used instead.

WG Ballot GSMP mandates a ballot WG ballots are carried out following the procedure in
by the Working Group to Appendix G.2. In contrast to a WG motion, a WG ballot asks
Appendix advance a draft, each WG member to explicitly cast a “yes” or “no” vote using
G.2 previously reviewed by the Community Room balloting feature. Only WG voting
the WG, for community members participate in this vote. The duration of the vote is at
review or eBallot. least seven calendar days (possibly minus an hour or two so
Certain SMGs that that the vote concludes immediately prior to the next scheduled
process many small WG meeting, for WGs on a weekly meeting schedule).
Work Orders are The WG co-chairs should extend the duration of the vote when
permitted to use a WG the seven day period spans holidays or events when WG
Motion instead. member absence is expected.

Community GSMP mandates a ballot Community eBallots are carried out following the procedure in
eBallot by the larger voting Appendix G.3. The duration of the vote is at least 14 calendar
(following community to approve a days (for WG meeting on a weekly schedule, the duration may
Appendix Community draft that has be an hour or two less than 14 days so that the vote concludes
G.3 Review) undergone community immediately prior to a scheduled WG meeting).
review and revisions by The WG co-chairs should extend the duration of the vote if the
the WG stemming from 14 day period spans holidays or events when WG member
that review. absence is expected.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 23 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

18 Appeals

Board Committee
for Standards
Voting Results Appeal
Industry Engagement
Steering Committee

Working
Group Co-
Chairs and
Working Facilitator Architecture
Group Group
Member
Due Process Appeal
Architecture Request for Finding

All GSMP groups operate according to the principle of consensus, and are expected to use the
consensus building process to resolve disagreements when they occur. An appeals process is
provided for those rare cases where a group is unable to resolve differences on its own.
Appeals of Matters Related to Due Process or of Voting Results
If a GSMP member believes that process has not been correctly followed, or if a voting organisation
believes that the outcome of any particular vote has been unduly influenced by one stakeholder
group, and has thereby resulted in a non-optimal outcome it may appeal as follows:
■ (Due Process Appeal only) The organisation shall first make the group co-chairs and group
facilitator aware of the concern. The organisation shall make specific reference to the process
that is believed to be incorrectly carried out, and provide supporting evidence. The group co-
chairs and group facilitators shall then attempt to resolve the issue.
■ If the organisation believes that the group co-chairs and group facilitator have not satisfactorily
resolved the issue, or if the concern is about voting results, it may appeal its concern to the
Industry Engagement Steering Committee (IESC). The IESC provides an initial response within
30 days and indicates when a final response will be forthcoming.
■ Following the final response from the IESC, if the organisation believes that the IESC has not
satisfactorily resolved the issue, it may appeal its concern to the Board Committee for Standards
(BCS). The BCS provides an initial response within 30 days and indicates when a final response
will be forthcoming. The decision of the BCS is final.
Architectural Consultation and Appeal
Working Groups shall at all times seek to ensure that they possess sufficient technical expertise in
order to carry out their assigned missions. In certain instances, additional architectural guidance
may be called for, either to clarify a GS1 System architectural principle or because a group member
is concerned that architectural principles are not being adhered to by the work of the group. This is
especially important for issues that have deep architectural impact or that span many areas of the
GS1 System. In such cases, the group may solicit the input of the GS1 Architecture Group (at any
point in the development process), as follows:
■ The group may solicit the opinion of the GS1 Architecture Group (AG) by submitting a “request
for finding.” In the request, the group shall clearly state the issue that is to be resolved, provide
supporting documentation, and any relevant group discussion or opinions. The AG responds
within 30 days to indicate if it will consider the matter, and on what schedule. As the AG
considers the issue, it may call upon group members to provide additional information. The AG
completes its deliberations by issuing an architecture finding, which becomes part of the
permanent archive of GS1 architecture materials.
■ If the group believes that the AG has not satisfactorily resolved the issue, it may appeal its
concern to the Board Committee for Standards (BCS). The BCS shall provide an initial response
within 30 days, and indicate when a final response will be forthcoming. The decision of the BCS
shall be final.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 24 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

19 Membership Rights and Responsibilities

Membership in GSMP Working Groups is open to all MOs, MO Members, GDSN Certified Data Pools,
and interested stakeholders that meet eligibility requirements. Membership, however, is subject to
policies for participation as specified in this manual.

An organisation may have its membership rights suspended for any of the following
causes:
■ The organisation violates the GS1 Anti-Trust Caution, and continues to do so even after being
advised that it is in violation.
■ Any member of the organisation violates the GS1 Code of Conduct in a group meeting or in
community email, and continues to do so even after being advised that it is in violation
■ The organisation discloses work-in-progress of a Working Group in violation of Section 6 of the
GSMP manual.
■ Interested Stakeholders (non-GS1 members) who show evidence of “bad faith”

The procedure by which an organisation may lose its membership rights is as follows:
■ The group co-chairs and the Industry Engagement Steering Committee (IESC) shall discuss the
matter with the individual participant and with his/her organisation’s primary contact (if
different), and seek to resolve the problem without suspending membership rights.
■ If the problem is not resolved to the satisfaction of the IESC, the IESC may decide to suspend
membership. In that case, the IESC shall notify the organisation, the group facilitators of all
groups to which the organisation belongs, and the BCS. The IESC shall also specify the
conditions the organisation must meet in order to have its membership reinstated.
■ While membership is suspended, no member of the suspended organisation may participate in
group meetings, group votes, or community votes. Group facilitators shall be responsible for
enforcing this. The IESC may also determine that access to Community Room be suspended for
that organisation.
■ The organisation may appeal its suspension to the Board Committee for Standards (BCS).
During this appeal, the organisation’s participation continues to be suspended. The opinion of
the BCS shall be final.

The procedure by which an organisation’s membership rights are reinstated is as follows:

■ The organisation provides proof to the IESC that it has met the conditions for reinstatement as
previously agreed.
■ If the IESC concurs that the conditions for reinstatement have been met, it advises the
organisation and all group facilitators that membership rights are reinstated.
■ Immediately following reinstatement, the organisation may resume its participation in group
meetings, group votes, and community votes, and regains the same access rights to Community
Room facilities as it had previously.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 25 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

20 Policies: Anti-Trust, Code of Conduct, IP

Anti-trust Caution

Appendix All members of GSMP groups are subject to the GS1 Anti-trust Caution, which defines behaviour that
L is impermissible on anti-trust grounds. The full text of the GS1 Anti-trust Caution is available on the
GS1 website at: http://www.gs1.org/gs1-anti-trust-caution. Every GSMP group meeting shall include a
reading of the Anti-trust Caution at the beginning of its agenda.
During any GSMP group teleconference or physical meeting, if any participant believes that discussion
is in violation of the Anti-trust Caution, the participant may request that the group co-chair halt the
discussion. The Group Facilitator will then call in GS1 Legal Counsel to resolve the issue. Repeated
failure by a group participant to heed the Anti-trust Caution may result in suspension from
membership in GSMP for that participant and his/her organisation.
Code of Conduct
Appendix All membership in GSMP groups is subject to the GS1 Code of Conduct, which defines behaviour that
M is impermissible due to its negative impact on the working of a group. The full text of the GS1 Code
of Conduct is in Appendix M of the GSMP Manual. Every GSMP group meeting shall include a
reminder of the Code of Conduct at the beginning of its agenda.
Repeated failure by a group participant to follow the code of conduct may result in suspension from
membership in GSMP for that participant and his/her organisation.
Intellectual Property (IP) Framework
Appendix The GS1 Intellectual Property (IP) Framework is designed to promote standards that have minimal
J barriers to adoption by user companies and solution providers, by making intellectual property
required to implement the standards available on a non-discriminatory and, to the extent possible,
royalty-free basis. As it relates to the GSMP Process, the IP Framework has these components:
■ IP Policy: A contract signed by a participating organisation that establishes the legal
framework for licensing of intellectual property that an organisation owns that is necessary to
implement standards in whose development the organisation participates. Signing the IP Policy
is a pre-requisite for a company to be involved in GSMP. The provisions of the IP Policy only
become operative, however, upon signing one or more of the other documents that are part of
the IP Framework.
■ Working Group Opt-In: A participating organisation that has signed the IP Policy may “opt in”
to the policy with respect to a particular GSMP Working Group. In so doing, the participating
organisation gains the right to access work-in-progress of the Working Group and to join the
Working Group, in exchange for the organisation becoming obligated to the terms of the IP
Policy with respect to the standards produced by that Working Group.
■ Contribution Declaration: A participating organisation that has signed the IP Policy but has
not opted in to a given Working Group may nonetheless participate in community review of draft
standards created by that Working Group (though the organisation does not have access to any
other work-in-progress of that Working Group). If such an organisation wishes to submit
comments to the Working Group during community review and that contribution is used in the
standard, a Contribution Declaration Form may be required which subjects the substance of the
comments to IP obligations similar to what would have occurred had the organisation opted-in
to the Working Group.
■ IP Declaration: Prior to ratification of a standard, organisations that have signed the IP Policy
are asked whether they intend to exercise their rights under the IP Policy to exempt specific
intellectual property from the royalty-free license terms specified in the IP Policy. If an
organisation wishes to exercise such rights, it does so by submitting an IP Declaration form.
Please see Appendix J for a full discussion of the IP Policy and how to opt-in and opt-out to a
Working Group.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 26 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

21 Publication of GSMP Deliverables

BRAD or other
requirements GS1 GS1 What happens
document Guideline Standard at this stage

Working Draft Working Draft Working Draft Working Group

Development

Community
Community Community Community Review and
Review Draft Review Draft Review Draft revision based on
comments

Community
Prototype
review is Prototype
bypassed only Testing
Standard
for (if applicable)
requirements
that are
subject to
periodic Candidate Candidate Candidate Community
consolidation Document Guideline Standard eBallot

Unratified Unratified Ratification

Guideline Standard by BCS

Final Document Ratified Ratified Publication

Guideline Standard

Following community review of a new or revised GS1 Standard, GS1 Guideline, or the GSMP Manual,
the new document is published in GSMP Step 4. Here is how publication takes place.
Documents Published As Changed
Most GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines are published each time they are changed.
■ The Working Group delivers the candidate GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline to GSMP Operations
to initiate an eBallot. The document delivered is the complete GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
including all changes that were made from the previous version (if applicable). This document is
the basis for the eBallot decision.
■ Following a successful eBallot, and subsequent ratification by the BCS in the case of a GS1
Standard, the Working Group delivers the same document to the GS1 Global Office publications
staff.
■ GS1 publications staff is responsible for final formatting of the document. This is limited to
formatting, legal notices, file naming, and the content of the title page. GS1 publications staff
may not alter the content of the document in any way.
■ GS1 publications staff releases the published form of the document to the GS1 public website.
Documents Published Using Change Notifications
The GS1 General Specifications is not published each time it is changed. Instead, each change
results in publication of a “change notification,” which is a document that specifies precisely what
changes are to be made to the last published version of the primary document. Periodically
(typically once per year), a new version of the primary document is published that incorporates all
of the change notifications that have been published since the last time the primary document was
published.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 27 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

A Appendix: Abbreviations
Abbreviation Term

AG Architecture Group

AIDC Automatic Identification and Data Capture

BCS Board Committee for Standards

BRAD Business Requirements Analysis Document

CDG Combined Development Group

FAQ Frequently Asked Question

GDSN Global Data Synchronisation Network

GDG Guideline Development Group

GO GS1 Global Office

GSMP Global Standards Management Process

IE Industry Engagement

IESC Industry Engagement Steering Committee

IP Intellectual Property

LT GS1 Leadership Team

MB GS1 Management Board

MO GS1 Member Organisation

MSWG Mission-Specific Work Group

RDG Requirements Development Group

SME Subject Matter Expert

SMG Standard Maintenance Group

SP Solution Provider

WO Work Order

WR Work Request

WG Working Group

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 28 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

B Appendix: Group Policies

This appendix describes in more detail policies that apply to all GSMP groups, including both GSMP
Working Groups and GSMP Governance Groups.

B.1 Comparison of Group Types

All work within GSMP is done within defined groups, collectively referred to as “GSMP Groups.” Each
GSMP Group is either a Working Group or Governance Group:
■ Working Group: A group responsible for carrying out the system development work of GSMP;
that is, developing GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines. Working Groups include Standards
Maintenance Groups and Mission-Specific Working Groups, as defined in Section C.
■ Governance Group: A group responsible for ensuring that the GSMP process is correctly
executed, for prioritisation of work efforts, for resolving conflicts, and for providing advice to
Working Groups. The Governance Groups within GSMP are defined in Section D.

The table below summarises the principal differences between Working Groups and Governance
Groups.
Working Group Governance Group

Group Role Carry out the system development work Ensure that the GSMP process is correctly
of GSMP executed
Ensure that the architecture principles and the
architecture are respected
Prioritise work efforts
Resolve conflicts
Advise Working Groups

Number of Members Unlimited, subject to established Fixed (possibly subject to small variations)
minimums

Membership Open to any participating organisation Must be members of GS1 and are selected by
that meets established criteria appointment or election

Number of Groups Varies through established process for Fixed by the enumeration of Governance
Existing forming and disbanding Working Groups Groups in Section D

Relationship of an An individual represents the interests of An individual represents the interests of the
individual, his/her his/her organisation in a Working Group, community in a Governance Group, informed
organisation, and the though should take broader community by experiences within his/her own organisation
group interests into account whenever possible and the broader community of stakeholders of
which his/her organisation is a part

The GSMP Operations group is a GS1 Global Office staff group, and assists the Governance Groups
in executing the GSMP process.

B.2 Group Leadership

Every GSMP group shall include the following designated members:
■ Group Co-Chairs: Two or more group voting members who share responsibility for leading the
activity of the group. At least one co-chair must be present at every group teleconference and
physical meeting. (A group may also occasionally ask a group member to volunteer to serve as
a temporary co-chair for the duration of a scheduled meeting for which all regular co-chairs are
unavailable.) Every group shall have two co-chairs (or as many specified in the group’s work
plan), though if there is a vacancy in one co-chair position the group may continue its activity
while a replacement is sought according to the process defined in Sections C.1.1.2, and C.1.2.2.
In some instances, a group may have more than two co-chairs. To ensure a balance in the
leadership of a working group, it is preferred not to have two or more co-chairs from the same
type of Participant Company.
Working Groups should strive to elect co-chairs from different communities within the Working
Group (retailers, suppliers, different geographies, etc.)

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 29 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

The responsibilities of the co-chairs are defined in Section B.2.1, below.

■ Group Facilitator: A GS1 Global Office staff person assigned to handle administrative
responsibilities for the group. The facilitator must be present at every group teleconference and
physical meeting. A facilitator may designate another GS1 Global Office staff person as a
substitute if the facilitator is unavailable to attend a meeting.
The GSMP Group Facilitators are guided by these principles, which remind them of their
commitment to the community they serve. GSMP Group Facilitators agree to:
□ Be results driven and take ownership for the effectiveness of meetings
□ Maintain an environment where everyone contributes
□ Inform – Excite – Empower – Involve their community
□ Gain maximum global commitment to the solution
□ Personalise the meeting experience
□ Ensure consistent meeting facilitation across the organisation
The responsibilities of the Group Facilitator are defined in Section B.2.2, below.
■ GS1 Subject Matter Expert (SME): A GS1 Global Office staff person who is familiar with the
subject matter of the standard or guideline being developed in the working group, and
understands the relationship of the material to the rest of the GS1 System and to GS1’s global
strategy. This is especially important in Standards Maintenance Groups (SMGs), where
continuity of experience is important.
■ GS1 Architecture Group (AG) Liaison: A GSMP Community Member who also is a member of
the GS1 Architecture Group. The AG Liaison opts-in and participates in the Working Group as an
ordinary participant. In addition, the AG Liaison brings to the WG broad understanding of all
GS1 Standards and how they relate to each other and to GS1’s architecture principles. The AG
Liaison keeps the GS1 Architecture Group informed of the WG’s progress, and ensures that the
AG is aware of any WG activity that may have architectural impact.
Any GSMP group may designate additional leadership roles at the recommendation of the Group co-
chairs and be confirmed by a motion of the group. It is common for a standards Working Group to
designate a Document Editor in this way to take responsibility for editing the final work product of
the Working Group. (The Editor may be the Facilitator, the SME, or any other WG member.) As
another example, a Working Group creating a Business Message Standard may have a Modeller
assigned from GS1 Global Office staff who prepares the UML and/or GS1 XML schema. Other roles
may be designated according to what is needed for the group to fulfil its mission.
Regardless of leadership positions, all decisions of a GSMP group are made by consensus and
confirmed by motions and votes in which all group voting members are equal participants; co-chairs
and other designated leadership roles do not have special rights in this regard. GS1 Global Office
staff has limited rights in Working Groups; in particular, they may not vote.

B.2.1 Responsibilities of the Group Co-Chairs

The responsibilities of the co-chairs of any GSMP group are as follows:
■ Ensure that the group fulfils its mission
■ Develop and/or review the agenda for group meetings, in consultation with the Group Facilitator
■ Lead the conducting of business in group meetings
■ Work to resolve conflicts that arise during group discussion
■ Make best effort to attend every group meeting (at least one co-chair must be present at every
meeting)
■ Recommend the appointment of additional group leadership positions, subject to confirmation by
a motion of the group
■ Represent the group in interactions with other groups, including Governance Groups
■ Ensure that the discussion in meetings accurately reflects group consensus

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 30 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ Judge if consensus was reached

B.2.2 Responsibilities of the GSMP Facilitator

GSMP Facilitators bear the overall responsibility for the organisation & management of Working
Group calls and meetings within GSMP. Working with the group co-chairs, they facilitate all Working
Group activities and additionally are responsible for basic logistics of:
■ Scheduling of calls, face-to-face meetings
■ Meeting Minutes
■ Management of motions and voting
■ Coordination of related Community Rooms
■ Document Management
■ Roster Management [beyond IP]
GSMP Facilitators also coordinate with Technology SME’s to meet the needs of the user in the
Working Groups, informing them of any possible conflicts arising out of standards development
against any approved strategy.

B.2.2.1 GSMP Facilitator Administrative Responsibilities

The administrative responsibilities of the facilitator of any GSMP group are as follows:
■ Ensure smooth operation of the group and its meetings. This includes having materials ready
(posted in advance of the meeting for participants to review beforehand), launching the call and
web conference facilities (if applicable), assisting the co-chairs in running the meeting, and
ensuring that there is effective dialogue.
■ Ensure that all GSMP policies and processes are followed
■ Ensure that membership and voting minimums are met (Section 9, for Working Groups)
■ Make a written meeting agenda available to all group members in advance of every meeting
(Section 16)
■ Maintain the group calendar, and ensure that meeting invitations are sent to all group members
(Section 16)
■ Maintain the group roster, and ensure that all group members have proper access to group
resources including the Community Room. Likewise, ensure that individuals who withdraw from
a group have their access revoked as required. (Section 19)
■ Read the anti-trust caution and reference the code of conduct at every meeting (Section 20)
■ Ensure that minutes are taken at every meeting, either by taking the minutes or delegating this
task to another meeting participant
■ Ensure that all group working materials are properly housed in the group’s Community Room
■ Ensure that all motions and votes are carried out in accordance with this manual (Section G)
and that results are properly recorded and made available
■ Act as project manager for the group’s work. This includes overseeing the creation of milestones
in the group Charter and work plan, tracking projects against these milestones, ensuring the
scope and goals are clear and giving updates to GSMP Operations
■ Work to achieve good community relations. GSMP is founded on community participation.
Having good relations with this community is essential in smooth operation of a group. This
starts with the membership process and assuring that new members know where to go and are
aware of how to participate. It also includes responding to questions and concerns with a
customer focus and includes managing Community Room and making proper community
communications.
■ Work with other group facilitators to monitor activities across groups and ensure that overlaps
are avoided and common topics are discussed once among the stakeholders

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 31 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ Ensure the expertise as defined in the work plan is available on the calls (i.e., modeller or
editor)
Specific types of GSMP groups may have additional responsibilities for group facilitators.
The key to success for a facilitator is to build a rapport with the community to assure trust, a key
enabler to efficiency. Additionally, the facilitator must remain neutral both in action and in
appearance.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 32 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

C Appendix: Working Group Types and Formation

This section describes in more detail the various types of GSMP Working Groups and how they are
formed.

C.1 GSMP Working Groups (WG)

GSMP Working Groups are responsible for carrying out GS1 System development – developing GS1
Standards, GS1 Guidelines, and collateral materials that support their deployment. Consistent with
the principles of openness and community development, all GSMP Working Groups are open to all
GSMP members. GSMP Working Groups are the means by which community development takes
place.
There are two kinds of GSMP Working Groups:
■ Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG)
■ Mission-Specific Working Groups (MSWG)
The decision to address a Work Request (WR) by within an existing SMG or by forming a new MSWG
is made during the initial project initiation phase (Step 1 of the GSMP Process), according to
established criteria. These criteria also guide the selection of process settings that determine what
type of MSWG is used (Section C.1.4).

Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG)

Mission-Specific Working Groups (MSWG)

Combined Development Requirements Development

Group (CDG) Group (RDG)

Standards Development Guideline Development

Group (SDG) Group (GDG)

C.1.1 Standards Maintenance Groups (SMG)

SMGs have an indefinite lifetime, and are responsible for the ongoing maintenance and
enhancement of one or more existing GS1 Standards or GS1 Guidelines. SMGs are intended to
provide continuity of expertise, as well as to respond rapidly to requests for small changes. SMGs
participate in both requirements analysis and system development (Steps 2 and 3 of the GSMP
Process). SMGs also review the work of Mission-Specific Working Groups during community review
and play a role in prioritisation and classification of Work Requests. In many cases, one or more
SMGs have a formal relationship to Mission-Specific Working Groups as described in Section C.1.4.
Changes that are handled by SMGs typically include correcting errata, additions to code lists, and
other small changes. Errata are defined as changes that do not materially affect the standard or
those who have implemented the standard (see Section E.2.3.1 for information on correcting
errata).

C.1.1.1 SMG Formation and Termination

The IESC is responsible for forming and terminating SMGs. A request to form a new SMG must come
from community with evidence of community support and a foreseen work stream of maintenance
to an existing standard. Examples of situations leading to such a request include:

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 33 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ An existing SMG wishes to split into two or more SMGs in order to better accommodate
changing scope
■ An existing MSWG finds that it is increasingly asked to handle ongoing maintenance, and so
decides it would be better to be re-chartered as an SMG
■ The IESC decides a new SMG is warranted based on the flow of Work Requests or to better
maintain the integrity of a standard
■ Any other GSMP group makes a request, consistent with the above principles of community
support and a foreseen work stream of maintenance to an existing standard
The IESC considers a request to form a new SMG and is responsible for approving the request and
creating the SMG’s Charter. In this process, the IESC consults with GSMP Operations and existing
SMG co-chairs to consider staffing resources and other constraints.
The IESC is also responsible for terminating SMGs. Examples of situations leading to the termination
of an SMG include:
■ Two or more existing SMGs wish to consolidate into a single SMG
■ An existing SMG determines that its work is finished (e.g., because the standard it was
responsible for maintaining has been sunset), or that its remaining work would be better carried
out in another SMG or by Mission-Specific Working Groups
■ The IESC decides that terminating an SMG is warranted based on the flow of Work Requests
A decision by the IESC to create or terminate an SMG may be appealed to the Board Committee for
Standards.

C.1.1.2 SMG Co-Chairs

The first order of business for a newly created SMG shall be to elect co-chairs from among the initial
SMG voting membership (excluding Global Office staff). An SMG shall have two co-chairs, except that
the IESC may designate that three co-chairs are required (this is expected to be rare). Each co-chair
election requires a group virtual vote that must meet the minimum participation required by the group;
for example: (2-2-2-12) with 2/3 affirmative votes. One co-chair must be from one side of the trading
partner relationship and the other from a different membership category.
Each co-chair shall serve a one year term. A given individual may serve at most three consecutive
terms. At any time, at most one individual from an organisation may serve as co-chair of a given SMG.
Whenever there is a vacancy in a co-chair seat, whether because an SMG is newly formed, a seat is
vacated mid-term, or a co-chair’s term expires, the SMG facilitator shall send a notification to the SMG
indicating that one or more co-chair vacancies exist, and solicit members to volunteer for the vacant seat
or seats. Each vacancy is then filled by a vote as described above. A vote is required even if there is
only one volunteer for a vacancy. The number of meetings a working group can operate with a co-chair
vacancy is limited to four, provided that least one co-chair seat is filled. At most one person may
volunteer from each organisation.
Each SMG co-chair is expected to make his or her best effort to attend every SMG meeting. If a co-chair
is absent for three or more consecutive meetings, unless the absence was arranged in advance with the
knowledge and consent of the SMG, the SMG may appeal to the IESC to have the absent co-chair
removed after which the resulting vacancy shall be filled as described above. An individual removed from
the co-chair position in this way may continue to serve as an ordinary member of the SMG.

C.1.1.3 SMG Standards & Guidelines Assignment Map

Every SMG is governed by a charter which describes the work domain for the group (for the purpose
of “Opting In”) and references the GSMP SMG Standards and Guidelines Assignment Map which
provides a detailed enumeration of the GS1 standards and guidelines maintained in the SMG.
The process for changing and publishing the GSMP SMG Standards and Guidelines Assignment Map
is as follows:
■ The proposed change will be submitted to the affected SMG for review and virtual motion (this
does not apply to proposals for new SMG’s)

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 34 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ The proposed change will be submitted to GS1 legal for review. Legal counsel will assess
whether or not the assignment change is in accordance with the scope of the SMG as stated in
the charter.
■ The proposed change will be submitted to the IESC for approval and endorsement of the legal
evaluation (any misalignments are escalated to the BCS).
■ The approved change will be made in the GSMP SMG Standards and Guidelines Assignment Map
document and published on the GSMP Group’s website.
■ The members of the affected SMG will be informed of the change via email stating the date at
which the new scope takes effect. The date shall be at least 30 days from the date the SMG is
notified. This 30-day period is intended to give members an opportunity to opt-out from the
SMG if they do not wish to continue to participate once the new scope takes effect.

C.1.2 Mission-Specific Working Groups (MSWG)

MSWGs are formed to do a specific piece of work as described in its charter, and which disbands
when the work is complete. Mission-Specific Working Groups are created for most work efforts of
substantial scope. MSWGs are further categorised according to what steps of the GSMP 4-Step
Process they are responsible for:
■ Combined Development Group (CDG): Responsible both for requirements analysis (Step 2 of
the GSMP Process) and standards and/or guideline development (Step 3 of the GSMP Process).
■ Requirements Development Group (RDG): Responsible only for requirements analysis (Step
2 of the GSMP Process).
■ Standards Development Group (SDG): Responsible only for standards development (Step 3
of the GSMP Process, when the deliverable is a GS1 Standard).
■ Guideline Development Group (GDG): Responsible only for guideline development (Step 3 of
the GSMP Process, when the deliverable is a GS1 Guideline).

Note: A complete list of GSMP Working Groups can be found on the GSMP website at:
http://www.gs1.org/standards-development-work-groups.

C.1.2.1 MSWG Formation and Termination

An MSWG is formed according to a process defined in a particular step of the GSMP Process:
■ CDGs and RDGs are formed during Step 1 of the GSMP Process, as specified in Sections 11
and F.1.
■ SDGs or GDGs are formed during Step 2.5 of the GSMP Process, as specified in Section F.2.5.
An MSWG terminates when its work is complete;
■ RDGs terminate at the conclusion of Step 2.4 of the GSMP Process, as specified in Section F.2.4.
■ All other MSWGs terminate at the conclusion of Step 4 of the GSMP Process.

C.1.2.2 MSWG Co-Chairs

The first order of business for a newly created MSWG shall be to elect co-chairs from among the
initial MSWG voting membership. An MSWG shall have two co-chairs, except that the IESC may
designate that three co-chairs are required (this is expected to be rare). Each co-chair election
requires a group virtual vote that must meet the minimum participation required by the group; for
example: (2-2-2-12) with 2/3 affirmative votes. One co-chair must be from 1 side of the trading
partner relationship and the other from a different membership category. The results of the co-chair
election are sent to the MSWG.
Each co-chair shall serve for an indefinite term until the MSWG ceases to exist. At any time, at most
one individual from an organisation may serve as co-chair of a given MSWG.
Whenever there is a vacancy in a co-chair seat, the MSWG facilitator shall send a notification to the
MSWG indicating that one or more co-chair vacancies exist, and solicit voting members to volunteer

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 35 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

for the vacant seat or seats. Each vacancy is then filled by a vote as described above. A vote is
required even if there is only one volunteer for a vacancy. At most one person may volunteer from
each organisation. For a newly formed MSWG, the call-to-action serves as the solicitation for co-
chairs, and co-chairs should be selected prior to the first MSWG meeting according to the procedure
above. Alternatively, the facilitator may choose to solicit co-chair volunteers during the first MSWG
meeting if it is not possible to determine them beforehand, again following the procedure above.
Each MSWG co-chair is expected to make his or her best effort to attend every MSWG meeting. If a
co-chair is absent for three or more consecutive meetings, unless the absence was arranged in
advance with the knowledge and consent of the MSWG, the MSWG may appeal to the IESC to have
the absent co-chair removed after which the resulting vacancy shall be filled as described above. An
individual removed from the co-chair position in this way may continue to serve as an ordinary
member of the MSWG.

C.1.3 Working Group Charters

Each Working Group has a Charter that includes the following information:

■ The name of the Working Group

■ A link to the Working Group’s Community Room

■ A description of the work to be carried out, delineating the scope as precisely and narrowly as
possible. For an MSWG, much of this description can be made by reference to a specific Work
Request.
■ A description of the kind of organisations that are expected to particularly benefit from
participating in this Working Group, or whose membership is especially sought by the Working
Group. (It should be noted that Working Group membership is open to all organisations as
described in Section 6, regardless of what this section of the charter says.)
At least once per year, each SMG shall review its charter to determine whether the description
continues to accurately reflect the work of the SMG. If changes to the charter are required, they are
voted upon by the SMG and then sent to the IESC for approval.
MSWG charters are not subject to annual review, however they may be amended according to the
procedure specified in the next section.

C.1.3.1 Charter Amendment

The Charter Amendment Process allows for existing approved charters to be supplemented.
Supplementing an existing charter can be initiated as a result of new, emerging user requirements
or new realisations that the scope of the charter be adjusted for business or technical reasons that
weren’t envisioned at the time of the original charter’s creation. The reasons for initiating a
supplemental charter should be documented and supporting evidence for generating the change
should be kept within the record retention area of the impacted Working Group (WG).
All requests for a supplemental charter will be presented to the GS1 Leadership Team for impact
and legal assessment. Subsequently the request will be reviewed and approved by the IESC.
Once the request is approved, the work group will draft a supplemental charter. The draft shall be
approved by WG participants using a Working Group Ballot as specified in Section G.2.
The amended charter will take effect 30 days after notification to the working group participants
that the ballot has carried. There is no requirement to re-opt-in to a WG that is using a
supplemental charter (the original WG opt-in is considered to remain in force), though participants
can withdraw from the WG if they consider the amendments to be unacceptable.
Additionally, all intellectual property contributed under the original charter now carries over to the
supplemental charter and to any standard or technical specification produced under the charter,
subject to any IP Declarations previously and properly submitted as per the IP Policy.
A WG may also use the process specified above to reduce the scope of work specified in its charter,
including the deliverables, subject to the same approval process specified above.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 36 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

C.1.4 Relationship of SMGs and MSWGs

As discussed in Section E, work on standards and guidelines is typically assigned to a Standards
Maintenance Group only in the case of routine maintenance requests, with most substantial efforts
being routed to Mission-Specific Working Groups. Nevertheless, Standards Maintenance Groups play
an important role in providing continuity of expertise for work carried out in Mission-Specific
Working Groups. This is facilitated by a formal relationship between SMGs and MSWGs, as described
in this section.
A Mission-Specific Working Group (MSWG) is typically related to one or more SMGs, which are
identified at the time the MSWG is created. In some cases, for example a Mission-Specific group
working on a brand new area of standards, there may be no related SMGs; this is expected to be
rare. (And in many such cases, the MSWG may become an SMG once it completes an initial
standard, if justified by ongoing community interest.) The relationship manifests itself in the
following ways:
■ The membership minimums for the MSWG should include at least two members of each related
SMG. The same members may also be the ones who meet the other minimums. (see Section 9).
■ A member of each related SMG is identified as either a co-chair of the MSWG, or, if that is not
possible, as a designated liaison member of the MSWG to the SMG. SMG members so
designated must Opt-In and join the MSWG.
■ A MSWG is encouraged to periodically prepare a brief report on its status and deliver this to
each related SMG, on a monthly schedule or whatever schedule is agreed with the SMG.
■ During the course of MSWG business, the MSWG may refer questions regarding work-in-
progress to the SMG. Because the GS1 Intellectual Property (IP) Framework (see Section 20)
specifies that only SMG members who have opted-in to the MSWG may have access to the
MSWG’s work-in-progress, this should be done by inviting SMG members who have opted-in to
attend an MSWG meeting, and not by MSWG members bringing questions to an SMG meeting
where there may be present SMG members who have not opted-in to the MSWG.
■ During finalisation of its deliverables, the MSWG gives a presentation of the work to the related
SMG(s), and encourages the SMG members' participation in the upcoming community review.
■ The related SMG(s) is a part of community review, and the vote thereafter.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 37 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

D Appendix: Governance Group Members and

Responsibilities
This Appendix describes in detail the composition and responsibilities of the GSMP Governance
Groups.

D.1 Board Committee for Standards (BCS)

The Board Committee for Standards (BCS) is the governing body of GSMP. The GSMP organisation
structure includes BCS advisory groups to aid in the leadership and operation of GSMP. Governance
Groups are accountable to, and work under the authority of, the BCS.

Note: The following is reprinted from the Board Committee for Standards Charter.

The principal responsibilities of the BCS are:

■ Assess that “due process” has occurred in the GSMP
■ Provide operational and strategic policy and guidance in support of the GSMP
■ Oversee the smooth operation of the governance sub-teams of the BCS, namely the Industry
Engagement Steering Committee (IESC), and GS1 Architecture Group, and advisory groups to
the BCS
■ Assess the progress of standards programmes and provide direction on major issues and
opportunities
■ Review and adapt the ongoing role of GSMP within the changing GS1 strategic landscape
■ Ensure that there is a consistently applied GS1 System Architecture and that all GS1 standards
created align with it
■ Make recommendations to the GS1 Management Board for the ratification of all GS1 standards.
See Section F.3.11 for details of the ratification process.
■ Oversee all standards created under the GS1 umbrella to ensure that they conform to the
principles of the GS1 System and the GS1 Architecture
■ Ensure that GS1 has a standards strategy to deliver world class leading standards within the
landscape of new and evolving technologies.
■ Authorise the structures and process that GS1 will use to operate GSMP
■ Regularly monitor GSMP performance to ensure:
□ That it is delivering results in line with the GS1 Business Plan
□ Escalations are resolved
□ Correct trade-offs are made between speed and quality of standards
□ Balance occurs between global user priorities and needs of Subject Matter Expert (SME) and
local requirements
■ Ensure that the broad community is aware of and committed to the role of GSMP, its scope,
performance and plans
■ Report to the GS1 Management Board

The membership of the BCS (composition and appointment):

■ A Chairperson who shall be a member of the GS1 Management Board
■ No less than 10 and no more than 25 members
■ Members may be:
□ MB members

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 38 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

□ Non-MB members that are employees of companies that have executives on the MB and are
sponsored by the MB member
□ Non-MB members that are employees of GS1 Member Organisations and User companies
Task groups will not have direct representation on the BCS due to their temporary nature.
The Chairperson is appointed by the GS1 Management Board (MB). The members are appointed by
the MB following the recommendation of the Chairperson of the BCS. Committee members that are
members of the MB shall serve for a period concurrent with their membership of the GS1
Management Board. Non-MB members will serve for a period of 2 years.
In the event that a BCS member cannot attend a meeting, it is permitted to nominate a substitute.
Substitutes do not have voting rights and are only permitted for a maximum of 3 meetings during
the member’s term on the committee.
The BCS may invite subject matter experts as needed. These will be considered as guests and will
not have voting rights. Co-chairs of the IESC and AG will attend as guests.

BCS Member Responsibilities

■ Participate in scheduled meetings of the BCS and assigned special task group meetings and,
appropriate preparation prior to meetings
■ Assure consistent and effective application of the GS1 Intellectual Property policy

BCS Member Qualifications

Committee member must have a working knowledge of the GS1 System and expertise in related
business areas (i.e. supply chain or specific industry knowledge) in order to make strategic decisions
on the impact of GS1 System changes to the global community.

BCS Procedures
The BCS meets at least three times a year and before every meeting of the GS1 Management
Board. Additional meetings may be convened at the discretion of the Chairperson. Meetings may be
validly held by telephone or video conference in addition to physical meetings. The Chairperson will
cause to be kept adequate minutes of all of the proceedings of the BCS meetings and will report its
decisions to the next meeting of the GS1 Management Board. Committee members will be provided
with copies of the minutes of each meeting and any action taken by the majority vote.
The Committee is governed by the same rules of procedure regarding meetings (including meetings
by teleconference) as are applicable to the GS1 Management Board.

D.2 Industry Engagement Steering Committee (IESC)

GS1 engages with specific industries in order to understand their needs for standards, services &
solutions for the improvement of industry processes. Those needs can vary within an industry and
across industries though some needs, such as those to support warehousing and logistics, can span
multiple industries.
The purpose of the Industry Engagement Steering Committee (IESC) is to assess required entrance
criteria of all work requests submitted to GSMP other than simple maintenance. (The latter are
routed directly to a Standards Management Group (SMG).) In addition, the IESC acts as an advisory
body to the BCS and hears appeals before they are brought to the BCS.
The BCS maintains oversight on GSMP-related Industry Engagement activities to ensure that due
process is followed. The BCS appoints 1 MO and 1 Industry tri-chair as well as 3 MO and 4 Industry
delegates to the IESC to ensure geographic and sector balance and to support process oversight as
required. (The third tri-chair is the GS1 Global Office President of Industry Engagement, ex officio.)
BCS oversight is integrated across the industry engagement, development of, or maintenance to a
standard through the ratification of that standard.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 39 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

The principal responsibilities of the IESC are:

■ Perform a qualitative review of business cases submitted for new standards or complex
maintenance to ensure entrance criteria, including and especially evidence of a commitment of
end users to adopt the deliverables, have been met.
■ Initial prioritisation and recommendation where overlap may exist between incoming Work
Requests.
■ Based on analysis provided by the GSMP Operations group, approve the conversion of Work
Requests submitted into the GSMP process into Work Orders (with the exception of simple
maintenance).
■ Review GSMP Work Group Charters prepared by GSMP Operations
■ Harmonise work across industries and identify synergies across GSMP Work Groups
The IESC can provide support for proposals to engage with new industry sectors as they progress
through the GS1 sector assessment process. The IESC does not in itself approve engagement with
new sectors. It can however provide background information and opinion to assist the GS1 Advisory
Council and GS1 Management Board in doing so.

The IESC does NOT have the power to:

■ Change decisions regarding the content of work carried out by GSMP groups; they may only
intervene on process matters. Consequently no appeals may be made to the IESC regarding
decisions on standards other than those relating to the process by which these decisions were
taken.
■ Vary agreed financial budgets, including budgeted headcount, but may make recommendations
to the BCS.
■ Change priorities established by IE.

D.2.1 IESC Work Method

IESC meetings are scheduled monthly, normally by teleconference, but will meet face-to-face twice
a year in conjunction with the GSMP Global Events. If Charter approvals are required the IESC may
meet as needed. On the other hand, the IESC does not meet if there are no pending agenda items
to consider.
The IESC works based on analysis provided by GSMP Operations to evaluate Development-Related
Work Orders and the associated Charter for moving into GSMP Step 2. Any disagreement between
the IESC and GSMP Operations regarding staff resources allocation is resolved by the GS1
Leadership Team who may confer with the BCS if, in their opinion, the importance of the topic
warrants such escalation (the BCS must be informed of any resolutions in the matter).
IESC members, with the exception of the President of Industry Engagement, are appointed by the
BCS. The IESC has a minimum of ten members and a maximum of 12 members (not including GS1
GO facilitators) and should represent the GSMP member base (size as well as sector). The voting
members of the IESC are as follows:
■ Three co-chairs:
□ President of Industry Engagement (ex officio)
□ Industry Executive
□ MO Executive
■ Four or five members representing industry
■ Three or four members representing GS1 MOs.
Each IESC member serves for a two-year term, with terms staggered so that 50% of IESC
members’ terms are subject to renewal each year. 50% of the initial members of the IESC will begin
with 3-year terms, as determined by a random selection process.
In addition to the voting members, other members of the GS1 Leadership Team and experts on
particular topics will participate in an advisory, non-voting capacity, as required. This includes the

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 40 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

GS1 President of Global Solutions and the GS1 President of Standards Development, who will attend
every IESC meeting, and also at least one member of the GS1 Architecture Group.

The qualifications of IESC members:

■ Members must be familiar with the GSMP mission, procedures and practices. Members must be
employed by a member company in good standing of a GS1 MO, a GS1 Member Organisation, or
the GS1 Global Office.
■ Members must guarantee that they will dedicate the necessary time to participate actively and
fully in the IESC. Members must provide a declaration to this effect signed by their line manager
■ Leadership and influence within their company and their industry
■ Experience in a broad range of business functions
■ An understanding of GSMP and GS1 business segments in relation to similar entities in the
marketplace
■ Members commit to uphold the GSMP principles including neutrality, transparency and due
process.

D.2.2 Work request flow to the IESC

Sections 11 and F.1 describe the process by which the IESC steers and approves GSMP work in
Step 1 of the GSMP process.

D.2.3 Voting Eligibility

No GS1 User Member or Member Organisation may have more than one vote

D.2.4 Voting
GS1 encourages decision making through discussion and consensus. However, consensus does not
mean unanimous decisions and provided a quorum is present at the time, and it is deemed by the
President of Industry Engagement that a vote is required, then a two thirds majority vote of those
present will be needed to approve the assessment.

D.2.5 Rationalisation/ Prioritisation / Work plan

The IESC will rationalise industry needs. Activities will include
■ Organise disparate recommendations under broader critical initiatives
■ Harmonise input from multiple sources (industry groups)
■ Work to identify and resolve conflicting initiatives
■ Linkages to other critical initiatives or strategic imperatives
■ Assess and quantify impact to the main strategic imperatives (aid in prioritisation)
The IESC will prioritise industry work requests according to the following criteria in order of priority:
■ Work requests which provide the greatest beneficial impact for the GS1 community as measured
by the criteria specified in the business plan including end users who have committed to
implement as well as industry group priorities. While this is not a precise measurement it serves
as a general indication of relevance and support.
■ Work request for correction of errors and omissions in prior releases of standards, services or
solutions.
■ Work requests for standardisation, which enable compliance to legal, regulatory or public policy
requirements.
■ If there are no constraints in terms of skills or resources available then priority will equate to
the order in which industry work requests have been submitted.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 41 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

The rationalisation and prioritisation activity will result in a work plan and will be published in the
Industry Engagement Steering Committee community room.

D.2.6 Standards Development

Standards Development will proceed with development activities as set out in the Industry
Engagement Steering Committee work plan and the GS1 1 Year Plan balancing standards related
work requests. In cases where this is not possible due to constraints of resource from GS1 or
MO/user side and/or skills availability then GSMP Standards Development will advise the IESC and
GS1 LT accordingly and offer an alternative work plan based upon availability.
Should the required resources/skills become available then, whenever possible, work should revert
back to the original priorities.
For major work efforts a basic assessment of time, effort and skills/resources required to complete
should be sought from GSMP Standards Development by the relevant Industry Director/submitter in
advance of submission to the IESC.

D.2.7 IESC Secretariat

The manager appointed by GS1 to lead GSMP Operations will also act as the IESC Secretariat. The
duties of the IESC Secretariat are:
■ Confirm the date, time and location of each meeting
■ Set the agenda
■ Publish reading materials at least one week in advance of the meeting
■ Publish the minutes
■ Monitor action items
■ Assist the Co-Chairs

D.3 GS1 Architecture Group (AG)

The GS1 Architecture Group is an advisory body to the BCS whose primary responsibility is to
develop and document the GS1 System Architecture and, by reference to the architecture, assures
the technical integrity, consistency and efficient interoperation of the GS1 System.

The principal responsibilities of the AG are to:

■ Provide review and recommendations for business requirements, standards and services
development as required against the GS1 System Architecture and relevant emerging standards
developments through the Architecture Review Process
■ Promote and protect the technical integrity of the GS1 System
■ Ensure consistency across the GS1 standards, services, solutions and guidelines by participating
in community review in GSMP Steps 2, 3, and 4 (see Sections F.2.3, F.3.3, F.3.7, and F.4.4).
■ Ensure the GS1 System Architecture is well documented, accessible, extensible, and broadly
understood
■ Ensure the GS1 System Architecture supports the specific needs of local, regional, and vertical
subsets of the global trading community
■ Ensure the GS1 System Architecture is fully aligned to GS1 Strategy, Vision, and Mission
■ Ensure the role of the GS1 Architecture Group and its work items are recognised and understood
across the GS1 Community through periodic community outreaches
■ Advise the strategic direction for the GS1 Product Portfolio that includes: GDSN, EPC, eCom, etc.
■ Advise the GS1 Global Office on technical aspects of liaison with third party standards
organisations
■ Review and advise on the infrastructure for new technical development

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 42 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ Respond to issues or questions submitted by members of the GS1 community regarding the GS1
System
■ Respond to Requests for Finding from the GSMP community
■ Provide valuable real world insight into how the GS1 System will be deployed
■ Engage user companies at an ownership level; goes beyond superficial implementations of the
GS1 System
■ Foster the integration of the GS1 System into commercial solutions and products beyond
superficial implementations of the GS1 System
■ Protect the interests of the broader GS1 stakeholders
The AG does not change decisions regarding the content of work carried out by GSMP groups; but
makes recommendations on matters that affect the technical integrity and interoperability of GS1
System.
The success of the AG is measured by:
■ The delivery of the GS1 System Architecture and clear and consistent architectural principles
■ GS1 System specifications are delivered in a manner that maintains the integrity and
interoperability of the GS1 system
■ All “requests for finding” submitted by members of the GS1 community are addressed

D.3.1 Architecture Group Structure

The GS1 Architecture Group comprises technical experts from End User companies, GS1 Member
Organisations, Solution Providers, the research community, and GS1 staff. It consists of a Core
team supported by mission-specific sub teams.
The Architecture Group charters sub teams on a mission-specific basis as required to address
technical issues related to a particular subject (e.g. EPC, GDSN). Sub teams shall have a defined
Charter and scope. Sub teams are disbanded by the Core Team when the Chartered work is
complete, unless a business need for continuance is defined.
The Core Team is responsible to provide to the sub teams:
■ Final recommendations on issues with Architectural Principles and Strategic Issues
■ Guidance and Maintenance of the GS1 Architectural Principles
■ Prompt response to all ‘Requests for Finding’
■ Attendance at sub team Conference Calls or Physical Meetings as needed
■ One Core Team member assigned to each sub team to act as Chair
■ Provide a determined membership composition for each sub team
■ Review and approve sub team output
The sub teams are responsible to provide:
■ Expert insight to technical issues related specifically to a particular technology, as such sub
team members must have extensive knowledge of the current state of the entity application or
topic and technical specifications
■ A Chair to serve as the main representative to the Core Team and a Co-Chairperson (and
additional Co-Chairs if required)
■ A call for participation to ensure wider representation from the community. The core team
determines the balance and representation of each sub team.
Sub teams do not vote in the Core Team, but make recommendations to the Core Team with
divergent opinions noted.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 43 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

D.3.2 Architecture Group Work Method

The AG meets every two weeks provided there are appropriate agenda items, normally by
teleconference, but will meet face-to-face as required.
The AG Core Team has a minimum of ten members and a maximum of twenty-five members. The
composition of the AG is as follows:
■ Three representatives from GS1 GO Staff (non-voting members)
■ A balanced representation of GS1 Member Organisations (MOs) and of End Users, Solution
Providers and Auto-ID Labs. To achieve this general balance, the difference between the number
of MOs and the sum of the total of End Users plus Solution Providers plus Labs shall not exceed
two.
The membership of the sub teams should be limited to 12 persons, excluding the Core Team
representative

The qualifications of AG members:

■ Members must have extensive knowledge of the overall GS1 System, GS1 Standards and
Guidelines, IT infrastructure / networks, and supply chain
■ Experience in technical system design or architecture design
■ Must have current knowledge of GS1 architecture and input to the system architecture of their
own organisation
■ Must be an active participant in the GS1 standards process
■ Prior working knowledge of standards bodies is helpful, but not required

D.3.3 Architecture Group Liaisons to Working Groups

The Architecture Group carries out its responsibilities to review ongoing work within GSMP by
participating in Community Review of deliverables and also through active participation in GSMP
Working Groups by individual AG members. The latter is formalised in the Architecture Group
Liaison process.
The AG designates an AG liaison (AGL) for each GSMP work group. The AGL is a member of the AG
and is an active member of the work group in question (subject to the same membership
requirements as any other Direct Participant). The AGL:
■ Plays an ambassador role, making the work of AG better known to the WG, with an emphasis on
the Architecture and the Architecture Principles;
□ Provides regular scheduled status reports to the AG so that the AG is kept abreast of
progress in all WGs;
□ Plays an advisory role within the WG, communicating their personal view on whether BRADs
and Standards Drafts are consistent with the GS1 Architecture and comply with GS1
Architecture Principles.
□ When the BRAD and draft standards enter Community Review, the AGL and WG Subject
Matter Expert review them against relevant Architecture Principles.
□ When the AGL has a concern, they ask WG Chairs for WG Agenda time to discuss.
□ If the AGL concern is not satisfied by the WG, the AGL may request an AG Sub-Team be
formed. The Sub-team would be open to AG and WG members and formal outcomes would
be documented in a report.
■ All WG deliverables will be made available for AG review at the community review stage. An AG
member can request a formal AG review of any particular document, or else the AG minutes will
reflect that no formal review was considered necessary. A formal AG review is always done if the
WG does not have an AGL assigned. If the AG does a formal review, the resulting comments will
be submitted into community review process as any other community review comment is, but
identified as originating from the AG as whole.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 44 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ Topics in the AG related to work in progress in GSMP should be limited to strategic issues
related to the Architecture and the Architecture Principles.
■ Other comments may be submitted through the normal community review process by individual
members of the AG.

D.4 General Governance Operating Methods

This section outlines operating methods that apply to all the governance groups described above.

D.4.1 General Operating Rules

Governance Groups will maintain a rolling six-month meeting schedule and follow all standard GSMP
meeting protocols. Meeting agendas need to be posted to the GS1 Community Room one week in
advance. Minutes of meetings are drafted for approval by the Working Group and once approved are
posted within two weeks of the meeting.
Decision-making is achieved though consensus, which is defined as approval without sustained
opposition. If the team is unable to achieve consensus after all avenues have been explored then a
formal GSMP voting procedure will be invoked. One member equals one vote; invited guests do not
vote. In cases when votes are taken the minority view should be conveyed to the BCS together with
the majority decision. All group dispute resolutions will be escalated to the BCS.

D.4.2 General Membership Rules

The size of the groups may vary at the discretion of the BCS. Membership composition should if
possible include GS1 members from all of the GS1 regions (EMEA, North America, Latin America and
Asia-Pacific) and sectors, but expertise, leadership and contribution take precedence over regional
and sector balance.
Membership eligibility is consistent with GSMP voting membership rules. The membership process
begins with a call for nominations. Candidates are reviewed and approved by the BCS.
All members serve a maximum term of three years with staggered terms ensuring continuity and
representation (at which time they will need to be re-nominated) except the GS1 Standards
Executive Representative whose membership remains for as long as he or she is in post. Members
may assign a designee in the event they cannot attend a specific meeting. However, the designee
has no voting privileges; votes must be cast by the member.

The principal responsibilities of Members are to:

■ Dedicate the necessary time to participate actively and fully in scheduled meetings and
conference calls (members must provide a declaration to this effect signed by their line
manager)
■ Appropriately prepare prior to meetings, and achieve familiarity with posted meeting materials
■ Follow-up and report on all action items and assignments at and between meetings
■ Participate actively (or have extensive experience) in the standards process
■ Participate actively in the consensus-building process with wisdom and integrity
■ Commit to uphold the GSMP principles including neutrality, transparency and due process

Chairs are chosen in accordance with the GSMP SMG rules and approved by the BCS. The
duties of the Chair are to:
■ Call and preside at meetings
■ In conjunction with the facilitator:
□ Approve agendas and organise the meeting program in accordance with the agenda
□ Facilitate the consensus process
□ Assign duties as necessary to advance the work of the group

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 45 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

□ Report to the BCS

□ Ensure the group reaches decisions and conclusions

The duties of the GS1 Staff Facilitator are consistent with GSMP
■ GS1 will provide a facilitator to each group with no voting rights
The duties of the GS1 Standards Executive Representative are to:
■ Implement the group’s decisions
■ Report to the BCS
■ Ensure that the chair has sufficient support from the GO staff

GS1 Intellectual Property (IP) Requirements:

■ Members of all Governance Groups (Core & sub teams) will be required to sign the GS1
Intellectual Property Agreement. AG members must opt-in to working groups in order to
perform their duties within the group (see Section I).
■ Sub team members will be required to sign an Opt-In relevant to topics covered by that working
group. Sub team invited guests will also be required to sign relevant Opt-In agreements. A list
of relevant topics per Sub team will need to be maintained. It may be decided that Automatic
opt-ins are more appropriate, depending on the nature of the Sub team.

Changes to Member Company Status:

■ Members who leave their company will receive an email requesting whether or not they wish to
continue being a GSMP group member.
■ If the member is employed by a company in membership of an MO and they leave their
company but wish to continue to serve, he/she may complete their term provided the new
company meets membership criteria and is approved by the BCS. The member will then reapply
at end of term as required by all members.
■ If the member is employed by an MO or GS1 Global Office and leaves their organisation, the
seat is considered vacant and will be reassigned.

Removal due to Lack of Participation:

■ Members who do not participate in 3 consecutive calls (unless previously discussed with and
agreed to by the group) will receive an email requesting whether or not they wish to continue
participating.
■ If the participant does not participate in 3 subsequent meetings, another email will be sent
requesting that they withdraw from the group.
■ If there is no response to this second email, their names will be removed from the roster of the
group and a new member will be appointed to take their place.
■ Members can petition twice to be reinstated via the BCS.

D.5 GS1 Staff Roles in GSMP

This section defines the roles of GS1 Global Office staff in GSMP.

D.5.1 GS1 Leadership Team

The GS1 Global Office Leadership Team (LT) is comprised of GS1 CEO executive staff responsible for
creating and managing an environment of skilled and dedicated GSMP staff. The GS1 Leadership
Team ensures the execution of the GSMP mission and provides guidance in areas of escalation to
the BCS.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 46 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

D.5.2 GSMP Operations Group

GSMP Operations is a governance support entity which represents the staff function. The mission of
GSMP Operations is to ensure effective functioning of the GSMP process by managing its day-to-day
operations. It advises the BCS in areas of resourcing and feasibility. It is accountable to the Vice
President of Global Standards for its role in the GSMP process.
GSMP Operations monitors and reports progress to the BCS against the Business Plan, assesses
proposed changes and provides input to decisions made by the IESC regarding prioritisation and
GS1 resource allocation within the development phase. The GSMP Operations group advises the GS1
Standards Executive Representative in the creation of a proposed GSMP Work Order by ensuring
accurate completion of the Charter. Secondly, GSMP Operations ensures accurate completion of
Charters for all approved Work Orders (WO).

The principal responsibilities of GSMP Operations are to:

■ Monitor the process and evaluate performance against the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
established by the IESC
■ In conjunction with the IESC, develop action plans for process optimisation
■ Make initial recommendations to the IESC regarding the chartering of work efforts
■ Ensure that Development-Related WR's (Section E.2.2) are submitted with a completed Charter
which identifies resources, project deliverables, timelines, etc., as developed and approved by
the IESC
■ Direct resource allocation and address issues concerning the capacity of the process
■ Develop, maintain and manage the GSMP infrastructure elements such as the Work Request
system and GS1 Community Room, etc.
■ In conjunction with IESC evaluate BRAD documents and the associated Charters for moving into
GSMP Step 3
■ Ensure that stage gate process requirements are met
■ Update all tracking tools appropriately and in a timely manner

The success of GSMP Operations is measured by:

■ Completion of the business plan on time
■ Meeting target performance as measured by GSMP metrics
The GSMP Operations Group meets regularly either by teleconference or face-to-face. The GSMP
Operations group maintains a rolling six-month meeting schedule. Participation in face-to-face
meetings and teleconferences is limited to members and invited guests. The group liaises with the
IESC on all matters of mutual concern.
The members of the GSMP Operations group are all GS1 staff including the GSMP team and at least
one staff member from each GS1 Industry Engagement group.
The responsibilities of the members include:
■ Attending scheduled meetings and conference calls
■ Preparing appropriately prior to meetings, including familiarity with posted meeting materials
■ Following-up and reporting on all action items and assignments at and between meetings
■ Participating in the consensus-building process

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 47 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

E Appendix: Work Request Steering

This Appendix specifies in detail the process for steering Work Requests through Step 1 of the GSMP
process to create Work Orders.

E.1 Work Requests and Work Orders

Work Requests (WR), the entry point into the GSMP process, are submitted by GSMP community
members to request new standards or modify existing standards. A Work Request is always
accompanied by information needed to assess whether it satisfies the entrance criteria for new
GSMP work, including evidence that a sufficient number of companies support the effort and intend
to adopt the results.
A Work Request becomes a Work Order (WO) when work is initiated in GSMP Step 1 (Steering). A
Work Order defines the scope of a specific work activity to be undertaken by a GSMP Working
Group, and signifies that resources are committed to its completion.
The transition from Work Request to Work Order takes place during the assessment activity carried
out by governance teams in GSMP Step 1 (Steering), and during similar activity that is sometimes
carried out in GSMP Step 3 (Development) as discussed below. The transition can be made in one of
three ways:
■ A single Work Request becomes a single Work Order
■ Two or more Work Requests that have similar or overlapping scope may be consolidated into a
single Work Order, (bundled). This new Work Order specifies that the work will address all of the
original Work Requests, and includes references to them.
■ A single Work Request that has a large scope may be divided into two or more Work Orders,
Each new Work Order specifies a portion of the original Work Request that will be addressed,
and includes a reference to the original Work Request.
In some cases, a Work Order includes the steps of requirements development (GSMP Step 2) and
system development (GSMP Step 3). In other cases, a Work Order created during GSMP Step 1
(Process Initiation) stops after a Business Requirements Analysis Document (BRAD) is created in
GSMP Step 2. When this is the case, a separate Work Order is created to carry out system
development in GSMP Step 3. The transition from finished BRADs to new system development Work
Orders takes place during the assessment activity carried out by the governance teams in GSMP
Step 2.5. As above, there are three possibilities:
■ A single BRAD is addressed by a single Work Order, which is entered into the tracking system.
■ Two or more BRADs whose requirements can be addressed by the same standard, guideline, or
change to an existing standard or guideline may be consolidated into a single system
development Work Order, which is entered into the tracking system. This Work Order refers to
all BRADs whose requirements are to be addressed.
■ One or more BRADs that affect several standards or guidelines may be addressed by two or
more system development Work Orders, each of which is entered into the tracking system. Each
Work Order refers to all BRADs whose requirements are to be addressed and identifies the
requirements that are relevant to the specific standard or guideline that Work Order affects.

E.1.1 Work Orders that affect the GS1 Keys

GS1 Keys are the basis of the GS1 System. If a new or modified GS1 Key is proposed, approval is
required by the General Assembly.
New GS1 Keys or modifications to existing keys should only be introduced to the standard if there
are domains of entities for which existing GS1 identifiers are not sufficient for a use case defined in
the future by a standards setting group in GSMP.
Creation of a new key means the approval of a new GS1 key which becomes added to the list of
existing keys (see the GS1 General Specifications for definition of GS1 Key).
Modification to the keys refers to changes to the data definition or format of any of the existing
keys. It does not include the use or application of the keys such as the AIDC Application Standard

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 48 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

selection of the GS1 Keys, GS1 Key Allocation Rules, assignment of Application Identifier values to
Keys, or GS1 Keys use in GDSN, eCom, EPCIS, EPC Tag Data Standards, etc.
If a new or modification to a key is included in any proposed standard, it becomes a
recommendation to the GA via the BCS and MB - electronic approval by the GA may be required.
Refer to the GS1 Operations Manual for more detailed information on GS1’s Policy on Keys.

GA Approved
Approval Change to a
via BCS/MB GS1 Key
Yes
GSMP

Work Requirements System Keys Ratified

Request Analysis Development Y/N Standard
No

Community
AG

SMG

E.1.2 Work Orders that affect GS1 Application Identifier (AI) Requests
Any individual or group putting forward a GSMP Work Request for a new or modified GS1 Application
Identifier should be aware of the following rules and recommendations around GS1 Application
Identifier assignment:
■ Submitted WRs shall not include a request for the exact AI digits to be used (e.g., 888).
However, the WR may state whether a 2, 3 or 4 digit AI is requested with justification. If the WR
includes the actual values, it will be rejected and the submitter will be asked to resubmit without
the values.
■ The GS1 Global Office AIDC Leader shall assign GS1 Application Identifier digits to a Working
Group during GSMP Step 3.1, ensuring the AI number will be included in the revised standards
during community review and community eBallot.
■ Technical Solution Design & Pilot (Note: these steps are optional and are work order
dependent). Any pilot usage or testing of requested AI functionality should be undertaken using
90 series AIs.

E.1.3 Work Orders for New Data Carriers

A GS1 Industry User Group(s) (IUG) directs the process for evaluating the business need for a new
AIDC data carrier. GS1 AIDC directs the process for evaluating the technical impact and market
readiness to support the business need.
The GS1 BarCodes & Identification Technology Group (for barcodes) or RFID Hardware Standards
Maintenance Group or related MSWG (for RFID) provides advice and guidance from the solution
provider community regarding practical implementation issues and technical applications. In
addition, it provides expertise for testing and trial implementations.
An AIDC Application Standard Mission Specific Work Group in coordination with by the Identification
SMG determines specifications for AIDC data carriers, to include endorsing specific AIDC data
carriers for inclusion in the GS1 System, specifications for carrier quality, performance, and related
ergonomic factors.

Sequence of Events for GS1 Adoption of New AIDC Carriers

1. One or more GS1 Industry User Groups, in concert with the GSMP Industry Engagement
Steering Committee (IESC) and Global Office AIDC, qualify user community need for new AIDC

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 49 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

data carriers and consults the BarCodes & Identification Technology Group or the RFID HW SMG
or related MSWG on legacy impact and market readiness.
2. An Industry Engagement User Group in conjunction with GS1 Global Office AIDC submits a
GSMP Work Request that addresses why and where (what application) the new AIDC data
carrier technology is required (what unmet business requirement is met) and what affect the
new technology will have on legacy solutions built based on GS1 Standards.
3. If a Mission-Specific Work Group (MSWG) approves an AIDC Application Standard utilising the
new AIDC data carrier, the AIDC data carrier technical specifications are added to the GS1
General Specifications and incorporated into Symbol Specification Tables (or equivalent for
RFID) for all applicable scanner/reader operating environments.

E.1.4 Mandatory review of GS1 Standards and Guidelines after 3 years

As more standards and guidelines are added to the GS1 system there is a danger that, over time,
the system becomes cluttered with unneeded components. This might happen because an individual
standard or guideline has:
■ been superseded by a better way to achieve the same function within the GS1 System
■ been added to the system in a decision that, in retrospect, turns out to be wrong
■ never been implemented
Having choices of standards tends to detract from interoperability and unnecessary choices are to be
avoided. Therefore every effort should be made to deprecate and ultimately remove unneeded GS1
system components in support of the principles of interoperability and simplicity. For these reasons
each GS1 standards and guidelines that has not been updated in the 3-year period since the original
publication date is subject to a mandatory review using the following process.
It is the responsibility of the GS1 Global Office to highlight each GS1 standard or guideline that has
not been changed for a 3-year period. Where the standard or guideline is maintained under the
responsibility of a Standards Maintenance Groups (SMGs), the responsible Standard Development
Leader shall initiate an SMG review that will result in:
■ a recommendation that the GS1 standard or guideline being reaffirmed for a further 3-years
(possibly with minor edits, such as refreshed terminology or updated cross-references to other
standards)
■ a Work Request for the GS1 standard or guideline to be withdrawn
■ a Work Request for the GS1 standard or guideline to be updated to highlight those sections of
the standard or guideline which should be marked for deprecation
For any standard or guideline where there is no SMG responsible for the maintenance, the GSMP
Operations Group and the IESC shall be notified of the mandatory review limit date and make the
judgement on the required next step.

E.2 Work Order Variations

GSMP specifies a single process that is used for all system development. This includes development
of new standards, new guidelines, and changes to existing standards and guidelines. In all cases,
the steps outlined in Sections 10 through 14 are followed, and the details of each step as specified
in Section F are largely the same.
The GSMP 4-Step Process does allow for certain variations, so that the process may be tuned to the
need of a particular work effort. For example, a very small change to an existing standard, such as
correcting an error or adding a new element to a list of data codes, is better handled by a Standards
Maintenance Group (SMG) rather than going through the overhead of creating a Mission-Specific
Working Group, whereas the creation of a standard for a new technology area requires a dedicated
Working Group to develop requirements and a separate Working Group to develop the solution.
To accommodate this diversity, the GSMP 4-Step Process includes a set of adjustable parameters
that allow the process to be tuned within the limits of allowed variations. The Work Order specifies
the specific settings of these adjustable parameters.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 50 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Work Orders include the following information:

■ References to any Work Requests from which this Work Order was created (see Section E.1).
■ The identification of the Working Group to which this Work Order is assigned; either:
□ The name of an existing Standards Maintenance Group (SMG); or
□ The name of a Mission-Specific Working Group that is formed to address this Work Order
■ If this Work Order is assigned to a Mission-Specific Working Group, the following additional
information is specified. If the Work Order is assigned to an SMG, this information is found in
the SMG’s group work plan instead, or is not applicable.
□ The names, company affiliations, and contact information of the Working Group co-chairs
□ The name and contact information of the Working Group Facilitator
□ The membership and/or voting minimums that apply to this Working Group, including an
identification of the participant roles that pertain to the balance condition. If the minimums
are different than the normal minimums, justification must be included in the group work
plan for approval by the IESC in Step 1.
□ The names of each “related” SMG, if any. See Section C.1.4. The names, company
affiliations, and contact information of each SMG liaison shall be specified (often, this is the
same as one of the Working Group co-chairs).
■ An expected timeline for the work. This timeline should identify the expected time to reach each
of the relevant GSMP 4-Step Process milestones.
■ An identification of resources needed from GS1 to support the work.

Work Orders created in GSMP Step 1 that include the requirements analysis step include
the following information:
■ What happens following the completion of requirements analysis (GSMP Step 2), one of the
following:
□ Separate Development: The finished BRAD enters a step of prioritisation, consolidation,
and distribution, where it is considered along with other BRADs for assignment to a separate
group that will do system development under a new Work Order. This corresponds to
Section E.2.2.2. In this case, this Work Order completes at the end of GSMP Step 2.
□ Combined Development: When requirements analysis is complete, the same Working
Group continues on to system development. This corresponds to Section E.2.1 if this Work
Order is assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group (Section C.1.1), or to Section E.2.2.1 if
this Work Order is assigned to a Combined Standards Group (which is mission-specific).
□ Accumulation and Recirculation: When requirements analysis is complete, the results
are accumulated into a list. At a predefined calendar interval, the accumulated requirements
are consolidated into a new Work Order that enters the system at GSMP Step 1. This
corresponds to Section E.2.1.2.

Work Orders that include the system development step (those created in GSMP Step 1
that specify “combined development,” and those created in GSMP Step 3) include the
following information:
■ Whether the deliverable is a GS1 Standard (includes normative content) or GS1 Guideline (does
not include normative content)
■ Whether or not prototype testing of the draft standard or guideline will be performed in GSMP
Step 3
■ Whether or not there will be a certification program for the standard, in which case
Conformance Requirements must be developed in GSMP Step 3 and a certification test plan
must be developed in GSMP Step 4
■ A list of collateral materials that need to be created in GSMP Step 4. As a starting point, the
IESC shall consider all of the collateral materials listed in Section H.3 as possible candidates for

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 51 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

inclusion in the work plan. The list of collateral materials is subject to review and revision in
GSMP Step 4.1 (Section F.4.1).

Figure 21-1 Work Order Criteria

Maintenance Work Order Development

Request Type Request

Application or
Type of
Technology
Maintenance?
Related?
eCOM or GDSN
All other Application Technology
Consolidated
Maintenance Related Related
Maintenance

SMG RDG
Requirements Analysis
SMG CDG Requirements Analysis
Requirements Analysis Requirements Analysis
for periodic SDG or GDG
& System Development & System Development
Consolidation System Development

Note: The Work Order provides for other possible variations, such as having a Standards
Maintenance Group (SMG) perform requirements analysis and a Mission-Specific Working
Group be chartered separately to perform development, or vice versa. It is expected that
such variations will be comparatively rare.

E.2.1 Maintenance Work Orders – Assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group (SMG)

When a Work Order relates mainly to the maintenance of an existing standard or guideline, it is
typically assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group which is responsible for both requirements
analysis and developing the change to the standard or guideline. This variation is best suited to
small maintenance requests for these reasons:
■ The overhead of forming a new working group is avoided, allowing maintenance requests to be
handled with greater speed
■ The continuity afforded by a standing group also increases speed, as it is not necessary to bring
new members up to speed
■ It is clear at the outset what standard or guideline is affected by the Work Order, so there is no
need for the extra step of mapping between requirements efforts and system development
efforts
The criteria for deciding when this variation is appropriate are discussed in Section E.2.3. When
there is doubt as to whether a Work Order is maintenance-related or not, it is categorised as a
Development Request.
Maintenance Work Orders are handled in one of two ways, as described in the following subsections.

E.2.1.1 Maintenance Work Orders Assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group for

Requirements Analysis and System Development
Most Maintenance Work orders are assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group (SMG) for both
Requirements Analysis and System Development. The SMG is responsible for analysing business
requirements and documenting them in a Business Requirements Analysis Document (BRAD) or
other requirements document. Once the requirements analysis is complete, the same SMG
immediately begins work on developing the required changes to the standard or guideline.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 52 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

E.2.1.2 Maintenance Work Orders Assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group for

Requirements Analysis Only, for Periodic Consolidation
Certain standards, in particular eCom and GSDN standards, are updated on a regular calendar
schedule. This is done to allow for a deliberate and planned transition from one version to the next
in deployed systems. Work Orders that relate to maintenance of these standards are typically
processed using a process flow variation that works in the following manner. The Work Order is
assigned to a Standards Maintenance Group (as in Section E.2.1.1), but the Standards Maintenance
Group only performs requirements analysis. The results from the requirements analysis phase are
then accumulated into a list of pending maintenance changes (typically as a spreadsheet rather than
as a collection of BRAD documents). At predefined calendar intervals, these accumulated
requirements are then consolidated into a new Work Order, which then enters the GSMP 4-Step
Process at Step 1 where it is typically assigned to a Combined Development Group. In Step 2, this
CDG harmonises the accumulated requirements and creates a consolidated BRAD, which then
proceeds directly to system development (Step 3).

E.2.2 Development Work Orders – Assigned to a Mission-Specific Working Group

When a Work Order relates to development of new capabilities as opposed to maintenance or
extremely small enhancements, a new Mission-Specific Working Group (MSWG) is formed to carry
out the work. This allows the appropriate subject matter experts and interested parties from across
the GSMP community to become involved and to focus on the single mission.
There are two variations of this approach, depending on the nature of the new capabilities being
developed. These are described in the following subsections.

E.2.2.1 Development Work Orders Assigned to a Combined Development Group (CDG)

When a Work Order relates to development of new capabilities as opposed to maintenance or extremely
small enhancements, but the nature of the development is primarily the application of existing
technology, methodologies, and standards to new business data and business processes, it is typically
categorised as a Development Work Order assigned to a Combined Development Group. A Combined
Development Group is a Mission-Specific Working Group formed specifically to address this Work Order,
and which is responsible for both requirements analysis and developing the change to the standard or
guideline. This variation is best suited to application-related developments for these reasons:
■ Unlike a standing group, a Combined Development Group is focused on a single mission, which
allows it to attract participants who have a definite interest in the work being done, and can
operate without its meetings being distracted by other Work Orders
■ A separate Working Group allows the level of interest to be easily gauged, and remedial action
taken if interest in this specific Work Order falls below the level required to justify resources and
to be indicative of broad community support
■ It is clear at the outset what standard or guideline is affected by the Work Order, so there is no
need for the extra step of mapping between requirements efforts and system development
efforts
The criteria for deciding when this variation is appropriate are discussed in Section E.2.3.

E.2.2.2 Development Work Orders Assigned to a Separate Requirements Development

Group (RDG) and Standards Development Group (SDG)
When a Work Order relates to development of new capabilities as opposed to maintenance or
extremely small enhancements, and the implications of the requirements or the nature of the
development is not fully understood before requirements analysis begins, it is typically categorised
as a Development Work Order assigned to a Requirements Development Group. A Requirements
Development Group is a Mission-Specific Working Group formed specifically to address this Work
Order, but only for the step of analysing requirements and creating a Business Requirements
Analysis Document (BRAD). When the BRAD is complete, it along with other BRADs will be
separately considered, and one or more Standards Development Groups (or Guideline Development
Groups) will be formed. A Standards Development Group (or Guideline Development Group) is a
Mission-Specific Working Group formed specifically to address the requirements in one or more

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 53 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

approved BRADs, and is responsible for system development. This variation is best suited to
application or technical development efforts for these reasons:
■ Unlike a standing group, a Requirements Development Group and a Standards Development
Group is focused on a single mission, which allows it to attract participants who have a definite
interest in the work being done, and can operate without its meetings being distracted by other
Work Orders
■ Separate Working Groups allow the level of interest to be easily gauged, and remedial action
taken if interest in this specific Work Order falls below the level required to justify resources and
to be indicative of broad community support
■ Because the implications of the requirements or the nature of the development is not fully
understood before requirements analysis begins, having a separately chartered development
effort provides the opportunity to revisit prioritisation and assignment to working groups once
the requirements are understood and documented. A much more informed decision to commit
development resources can be made in light of the documented requirements.
■ The analysis of requirements may reveal commonality between Work Orders that were
considered independent at the outset, and so independent requirements efforts may be
combined into a single work effort to develop a standard or guideline that address those
requirements simultaneously. Likewise, the requirements analysis of a single Work Order may
reveal that several different standards are affected, which are best addressed by independent
working groups.
■ Having separate requirements analysis and system development working groups allows the
most appropriate skills to be attracted to each group; typically business-oriented participants to
the requirements group and technically-oriented participants to the system development group.
The criteria for deciding when this variation is appropriate are discussed in Section E.2.3.

E.2.3 Decision Criteria for GSMP Process Variations

GSMP Operations, with final approval by the IESC in the case of non-maintenance work, is
responsible for determining which process flow variation applies to each Work Order that is initiated
in Step 1.
GSMP Operations, with IESC approval, is responsible for defining the criteria by which these
decisions are made. GSMP Operations shall document the criteria and publish them in the
Community Room accessible to all GSMP participants. GSMP Operations, with IESC approval, shall
revise the criteria from time to time as experience leads to their refinement.
The following is an initial set of criteria, upon which GSMP Operations and the IESC will build.

E.2.3.1 Correcting Errata

Errata are defined as changes that do not materially affect the standard or those who have
implemented the standard (ex. a typo, clarification, or minor change to the document formatting).
Though these changes DO require a work request for tracking purposes, they DO NOT require public
review and voting for approval. A motion of the SMG responsible for the maintenance of the
documentation indicating that no one has concerns with the work order will suffice for errata
approval. If there are any concerns with a change classified as errata, the full simple work order
process (public review and vote) is required.

E.2.3.2 Maintenance-related vs. Development-related

One dimension on which a Work Order may be described is whether it is maintenance-related or
development-related. These are not definite categorisations, and it is foreseen that many work efforts
may not readily fit one description or the other. Instead, these descriptions should be viewed as
extremes of a spectrum of possibilities. The goal is that Work Orders that are obviously at one extreme
or another can be assigned a process flow variation with comparatively little effort during GSMP Step 1,
while those lying in the middle will require more thought.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 54 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

A Work Order lies at the maintenance-related end of the spectrum if it is a small change to an existing
standard or guideline that can readily be handled by a standing committee. Examples include: Errata,
New EDI code values, new symbol placement rules, GDSN validation rules.
In contrast, a Work Order lies at the development-related end of the spectrum if it involves creation of a
new standard/guideline or significant change to existing standard/guideline. Examples include: an
extension to GDSN, a new HF air interface standard, an enhancement to the EPCIS standard to include
aggregation layers, a new barcode symbology, a new Business Message Standard.
Many Work Orders lie in between these extremes, including maintenance efforts that affect many parts
of a standard or more than one standard, and development efforts that are small in scope.
In general, the steering criteria are expected to route Work Orders that are clearly maintenance-
related to a Standards Maintenance Group (as in Section E.2.1), and to route Work Orders that are
development-related to a Mission-Specific Working Group (as in Section E.2.2). In the middle of the
spectrum, the steering process is expected to take into account the specific nature of the Work
Order, the known capabilities of the relevant SMG(s), and the potential benefits of expanded and
focused participation that can be obtained by chartering a Mission-Specific Working Group. It is
expected to err on the side of forming a Mission-Specific Working Group when there is doubt.
Certain small maintenance-related Work Orders apply to standards that are updated on a periodic
schedule, principally eCom and GSDN standards. The preferred path for these Work Orders is
requirements analysis followed by periodic consolidation (as in Section E.2.1.2). Other maintenance-
related Work Orders are simply routed to an SMG for both requirements analysis and system
development.

E.2.3.3 Application-related vs. Technology-related

Another dimension on which a Work Order may be described is whether the affected standard or
guideline is application-related or technology-related. These are not definite categorisations, and it is
foreseen that many work efforts may not readily fit one description or the other. Instead, these
descriptions should be viewed as extremes of a spectrum of possibilities. The goal is that Work Orders
that are obviously at one extreme or another can be assigned a process flow variation with
comparatively little effort during GSMP Step 1, while those lying in the middle will require more thought.
A standard or guideline lies at the application-related end of the spectrum if it primarily deals with new
combinations of business content with existing business context-neutral technologies. Examples include:
AIDC Application Standard, new Business Message Standards (XML) based on existing design patterns,
GDSN Extensions (such as Hardlines, Books, etc.), the Traceability Process Standard.
In contrast, a standard or guideline lies at the technology-related end of the spectrum if it is a standard
that defines data, messages, and interfaces that are business context-neutral (primarily reusable across
many business processes), or is a guidelines for their use. Examples include: GS1 Key definition, GS1
barcode technical specification, XML Standard Business Document Header (SBDH), the Certificate Profile
Standard, and RFID Air Interface Protocols.
Many standards and guidelines lie in between these extremes, incorporating some amount of business
context-neutral technology with some business context-specific content layered on top.
In general, the steering criteria are expected to route Work Orders pertaining to standards and
guidelines that are clearly application-related to a Combined Development Group (CDG) responsible for
both requirements analysis and standard/guideline development (as in Section E.2.2), and to route Work
Orders pertaining to standards and guidelines that are technology-related to a Requirements
Development Group (RDG) to be followed by a separate Standards Development Group (SDG) or
Guideline Development Group (GDG) (as in Section E.2.2.2). In the middle of the spectrum, the
steering process is expected to take into account the specific nature of the Work Order, the desirability
of having separate requirements and development groups owing to the potential for parallel
requirements streams to cross-fertilise subsequent development efforts, and the degree to which distinct
business and technical skills are needed for the requirements and development phases. It is expected to
err on the side of specifying separate requirements and developments groups when there is doubt.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 55 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

F Appendix: Detailed GSMP Process Flow

This Appendix describes the GSMP 4-Step Process in detail. The description of each step of the
process flow includes the following information:
■ Conditions: Indicates under what conditions this step is to be carried out. If no conditions are
indicated, then the process step is always carried out.
■ Responsible Group: Which group is responsible for carrying out this step? The responsible
group may collaborate with other groups, as noted.
■ Inputs: Documents or other artefacts produced in earlier steps that are relevant to the carrying
out of this step.
■ Process: A description of what the responsible group does during this step.
■ Criteria for completing this Step: A list of all the things that must be true or must have been
completed in order for this step to be considered “finished” and the Working Group proceed to
the next step.
■ Outputs: New or revised documents or other artefacts produced in this step. In addition to
outputs explicitly noted, most process steps also result in the creation of meeting minutes,
archived email messages, and other records of Working Group activity.
■ Exceptions: Conditions that result in a process or outcome different than the expected process
and outcome, and what happens under those conditions. If omitted, then this process step has
no exception conditions.
■ Termination: Indicates under what conditions processing of the Work Order terminates; that
is, under what conditions this step is the last process flow step for a Work Order. If no
termination conditions are indicated, then this process step is never the last step.

F.1 GSMP Step 1: Steering

This section describes the detailed process flow within GSMP Step 1, Steering.

Entrance criteria not met (yet)

1.1 1.2 1.3

GSMP Operations Review GO LT New

IESC Strategy / MSWG
New Development
Assessment Resource
Work Work
Request / Major Revision Check Order

Incomplete Maintenance /
Content Errata
Existing
Work SMG
Order

F.1.1 Step 1.1: GSMP Operations Review

Responsible Group: GSMP Operations
Inputs: Work Request submitted by a GS1 member
Process: Any GS1 member may submit a Work Request using the submission system operated by
GS1. The form provided to submitters includes a set of entrance criteria. As part of the submission
form, the submitter is prompted to supply information needed to assess the Work Request against
those criteria.
The GSMP Operations team reviews the Work Request to confirm that all information needed to
assess the entrance criteria has been provided, and then to determine the nature of the work
requested:

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 56 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ If the information needed to assess the entrance criteria is missing or incomplete, GSMP
Operations returns the Work Request to the submitter to complete.
■ Otherwise, GSMP Operations assesses the nature of the work requested:
□ If the Work Request is for simple maintenance or correction of errata in existing GSMP
deliverables, the Work Request is routed directly to the responsible SMG as a Work Order
approved to proceed with Step 1.6 (in which the SMG reviews the Work Order and moves to
begin GSMP Step 2). The appropriate GS1 Industry Engagement groups are notified that a
new maintenance Work Order has been routed to an SMG. No further assessment in GSMP
Step 1 is performed.
□ All other Work Requests proceed to Step 1.2 below.
Criteria for completing this Step: GSMP Operations has completed the assessment described
above and selected one of the three possible outcomes for the Work Request.
Outputs: Incomplete Work Request to be returned to the submitter, Work Order routed directly to
an SMG, or a Work Request ready for Step 1.2, depending on the decision described above.
GSMP operations competes its review within 14 days of the Work Request being
submitted.

F.1.2 Step 1.2: IESC Assesses non-Maintenance Work Requests to Create Work Orders
(Conditional)
Conditions: Only performed for Work Requests not routed directly to an SMG in Step 1.1.
Responsible Group: GSMP Operations, with final discussion and approval by the IESC
Inputs: Work Request determined by GSMP Operations in Step 1.1 to be complete and to be
something other than simple maintenance
Process: The Work Request is assessed in the following two areas, collectively called “steering”:
■ Does the Work Request meet or exceed the entrance criteria established for new GSMP work?
This includes a commitment to implement from a sufficient number of community members. If
not, the Work Request is returned to the requestor.
■ How does the Work Request relate to the entire portfolio of GS1 Standards, the GS1 System
Architecture, and to other GSMP work already planned or in progress? This assessment,
described in more detail in Section E, leads to a determination of:
□ Whether to combine this Work Request with others in the pipeline, and/or split it into
multiple efforts
□ Which GSMP Working Group should carry out the work: an existing SMG or a new MSWG
□ If a new MSWG is called for, the new MSWG’s participation minimums and its related SMG,
and any other GSMP process flow “settings” that will apply to the new MSWG.
To assess the commitment from the community, GSMP Operations may post the Work Request to
the GSMP Community to solicit additional statements of support for the work and intention to adopt.
This adds to the statements of support already submitted by the Work Request submitter as part of
the entrance criteria.
The IESC has decision authority; however, GSMP Operations carries out a detailed analysis prior to
bringing the Work Request to the IESC, so that the work of the IESC itself is focused more on
approval than on analysis. The IESC takes a more active role for steering decisions that are not
routine. Both GSMP Operations and the IESC may consult the GS1 Architecture Group, existing
GSMP Working Group co-chairs, GS1 Subject Matter Experts (SMEs), or any other source that may
help lead to a better assessment. In all cases, GSMP Operations sends a preliminary analysis to the
relevant GS1 Industry Engagement groups (sector leadership teams and/or Industry User Groups
(IUGs)) for review. Feedback from the GS1 Industry Engagement group(s) is included in the final
analysis brought to the IESC.

Note: The GS1 Healthcare Leadership Team (HCLT) charter stipulates that the HCLT has the
authority to approve any healthcare-only work request (other than maintenance) before it

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 57 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

proceeds through GSMP. The IESC must respect the HCLT’s decision for healthcare-only, non-
maintenance Work Requests.

It is essential that steering during this step be carried out in an open and transparent manner. The
IESC is responsible for approving entrance criteria adopted by GSMP Operations for the triage and
prioritisation of Work Requests as defined above and the process by which those criteria are to be
applied.
Criteria for Completing this Step:
■ The IESC approves new work for System Development.
■ The completed Work Order has been created, including the entrance criteria from the original
Work Request(s), the indication of which GSMP Working Group will carry out the Work Order,
and all relevant process flow settings for a new MSWG (if applicable). See Section E.2 for the
content of a Work Order.
Outputs: Work Order
Exceptions:
■ If the IESC determines that a Work Request does not sufficiently meet the GSMP entrance
criteria (despite the earlier review by GSMP Operations) the Work Request is returned to the
submitter to rectify and resubmit.
■ The IESC may recommend that commencement of work on the Work Order be delayed to
coordinate with the completion of other work or the commencement of other anticipated work, if
the IESC judges that will result in an overall better outcome for the community. Such decisions
must be explained clearly to the community.

F.1.3 Step 1.3: GO LT Strategy / Resource Check, and Charter Creation (Conditional)
Conditions: Only performed for Work Orders not routed directly to an SMG in Step 1.1.
Responsible Group: GO Leadership Team and GSMP Operations
Inputs: Work Order approved by IESC
Process: The GS1 Global Office Leadership Team confirms that the work outlined in the Work Order
is consistent with the GS1 Strategy and that the proposed timing of the work is aligned with the
available resources.
If in Step 1.2 it was determined that the Work Order is to be carried out by a new Mission-Specific
Working Group (MSWG), GSMP Operations drafts a Working Group charter based on the output of
Step 1.2, and the President of GSMP, as an IESC Member, confirms that the charter is consistent
with the IESC’s intent. See Section C.1.3 for details of the content of a Working Group Charter.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ The GO Leadership Team has confirmed that the work may begin immediately.
■ A Call-to-Action has been issued, specifying a deadline for sign up of initial members
Outputs: Confirmed Work Order, new MSWG Charter (if applicable)
Exceptions:
■ The GO Leadership Team may postpone commencement of the work if insufficient resources are
available to support it at the present time. Such decisions must be explained clearly to the
community.

F.1.4 Step 1.4: GSMP Operations Issues Call-to-Action (Conditional)

Conditions: Only performed if a Work Order specifies that work is to be performed by a new
Mission-Specific Working Group.
Responsible Group: GSMP Operations
Inputs: Work Order and MSWG Charter

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 58 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Process: The GSMP Operations issues a Call-to-Action derived from the Charter developed in
Step 1.3 to solicit membership in the newly formed Mission-Specific Working Group. The Call-to-
Action shall include the Work Order including the accompanying information used to assess the
entrance criteria. The Call-to-Action shall also specify a deadline for sign up of initial members, after
which the first meeting of the Mission Specific Working Group will take place.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ A Call-to-Action has been issued, specifying a deadline for sign up of initial members
Outputs: Call-to-Action

F.1.5 Step 1.5: Mission-Specific Working Group formed (Conditional)

Conditions: Only performed if a Work Order specifies that work is to be performed by a new
Mission-Specific Working Group.
Responsible Group: GSMP Operations
Inputs: Work Order, Call-to-Action
Process: GSMP Operations creates a new Community Room for the Mission-Specific Working Group.
A Working Group Facilitator is appointed. The facilitator enters a link to the Work Order and all
supporting materials into the Community Room. As participants respond to the Call-to-Action, the
GS1 Membership Manager confirms their eligibility to participate (that their organisation has signed
the IP Policy and opted-in), and approves their request for group membership. The facilitator keeps
track to determine whether the membership minimums established are met. Working Group co-
chairs are selected according to the process defined in Section C.1.2.2.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ A new Community Room for the Working Group is set up, and the Working Group Charter and
supporting materials entered there.
■ A Working Group Facilitator is appointed, and his or her contact information is posted in the
Community Room.
■ A sufficient number of eligible initial members respond to the Call-to-Action and are accepted
into the team’s Community Room roster, according to the membership minimums established in
the Working Group Plan.
■ An announcement of the first Working Group meeting has been sent to the Working Group via
the Community Room e-mail function. (The schedule for meetings beyond the first will be
established by consensus of the Working Group.)
■ Co-chairs have been selected according to the process defined in Section C.1.2.2. If an election
is necessary, this step completes after the election process is complete.
Outputs: A New Community Room
Exceptions:
■ An insufficient number of members respond to the Call-to-Action, according to the membership
minimums established in the Working Group Plan. In this case, Working Group Facilitator shall
work with IE to engage additional members, and notify GSMP Operations and the IESC that the
initial Call-to-Action failed to gather minimum membership. If this is not successful in meeting
the minimums, the IESC is notified, and they decide what to do. The IESC may choose to lower
the minimum membership requirements for this Working Group, allowing the group to proceed.
Otherwise, the Work Order is terminated for lack of interest. As long as the minimums have not
been met, no announcement of initial meeting is sent, and the Working Group does not meet.
■ A sufficient number of volunteers for co-chairs cannot be found. In this case, the IESC is
notified, and they decide what to do. No announcement of initial meeting is sent, and the
Working Group does not meet. (If co-chair volunteers are solicited during the initial meeting
according to Section C.1.2.2, then no further meetings may be held until the IESC resolves the
co-chair issue.)

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 59 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

F.1.6 Step 1.6: Working Group Reviews Work Order and Moves to Proceed to Step 2
Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Work Order, including information provided with the original Work Requests to support the
entrance criteria.
Process: The Working Group Facilitator presents the Work Order and the information provided with
the original Work Requests to support the entrance criteria, to the Working Group. The supporting
information is now called the Business Case, which the Working Group Facilitator (with assistance
from GSMP Operations) will maintain as the Working Group continues its work. The Business Case is
ultimately published with the final deliverable at the end of GSMP Step 3.
The Working Group reviews the Work Order and Business Case to ensure that it is fully understood
by the Working Group. If not fully understood, the Working Group shall seek the assistance of GSMP
operations, and if necessary the IESC, to clarify the intent of the Work Order.
When the Working Group is satisfied that it has fully understood the Work Order, it carries out a
Group Voice Motion (Section G.1) to confirm that the group is are ready to proceed to Step 2.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ The Working Group is satisfied that it understands the Work Order.
■ The Group Voice Motion to proceed to Step 2 carries.
Outputs: None
Exceptions:
■ If the motion does not carry, the Working Group shall consult the IESC for assistance.

F.2 GSMP Step 2: Requirements Analysis

This section describes the detailed process flow within GSMP Step 2, Requirements Analysis.

To Step 3
2.3 Final
Community 2.4
2.1 2.2 eBallot Requirements
Drafting Finalisation Review & Document 2.5
Revision Charter
Next Step

F.2.1 Step 2.1: Working Group Performs Requirements Analysis

Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Work Order, including the entrance criteria information submitted with the original Work
Request if applicable
Process: The Working Group analyses the business requirements that arise from the stated
business need. The form the requirements analysis takes depends on the scope of the Work Order:
■ For most development efforts that are chartered to create or revise a GS1 Standard, or where
the ultimate outputs are uncertain pending requirements analysis, the result of requirements
analysis is a Business Requirements Analysis Document (BRAD). The Working Group shall use
the established BRAD template, and work to complete as much of the template as is relevant.
For certain types of requirements analysis efforts, there may be other recommended tools or
intermediate work products to help in the creation of good business requirements, such as use
case templates, and so forth.
■ For a Work Order chartered to create a GS1 Guideline, some sections of the BRAD template may
not apply. The requirements analysis phase should concentrate on documenting all of the use
cases that the guideline needs to address.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 60 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ For a Work Order chartered to address errata in a published GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, or
for extremely narrow maintenance Work Orders, it may be more appropriate simply to
document the changes that are needed. For purposes of Step 2, this need not be extremely
precise; e.g., it suffices in Step 2 to document a requirement “change all occurrences of ‘Widget’
to ‘Approved Widget’”, rather than document each place in the existing standard where such a
change must be made.
■ For maintenance Work Orders pertaining to eCom and GDSN where requirements are
periodically consolidated and fed back to GSMP Step 1, the result of requirements analysis may
take a highly stylised form, such as a row added to a spreadsheet that will form the basis for the
subsequent consolidated Work Request.
As the Working Group carries out requirements analysis, it should as soon as possible begin a draft
BRAD or other output, and revise this draft as work progresses. Orienting the Working Group
towards revising a draft deliverable and formulating all Working Group decisions in the form of
revisions to the draft helps to keep the Working Group focused on the ultimate goal of producing a
document that reflects Working Group consensus. The Working Group co-chairs and Working Group
facilitator shall strive to ensure that the draft deliverable reflects the consensus of the group, and to
use the group decision making procedures (Section 17) to help drive consensus as necessary. Most
substantive issues should be addressed before the Working Group proceeds to finalisation of the
document in the next step.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ A clean copy of a “next-to-final” draft BRAD or other requirements document is posted to the
Working Group’s Community Room. In most cases, this should take the form of a PDF document
with line numbers, to facilitate the finalisation process in the next step (the use of PDF ensures
that all reviewers will see consistent line numbers).
Outputs: A draft BRAD or other requirements document, ready for finalisation.

F.2.2 Step 2.2: Working Group Finalises Requirements Analysis

Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Draft BRAD or other requirements document
Process: Working Group finalises the BRAD or other requirements document, following the
procedure in Section F.5.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All Working Group comments collected during finalisation have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the BRAD or other requirements document or
agreeing that no change is required.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) to approve the
completed BRAD or other requirements document. Exception: for maintenance Work Orders
subject to periodic consolidation following Section E.2.1.2, a Group Voice Motion (Section G.1)
may be used instead of a Group Virtual Vote.
■ A clean copy of the revised BRAD or other requirements document is posted to the Working
Group’s Community Room. This is now a Community Review Draft (except in the case of a
maintenance Work Order subject to periodic consolidation following Section E.2.1.2, where the
output at this stage is not subject to community review).
Outputs: Community Review Draft of BRAD or other requirements document (except as noted
above)
Termination: In the case of a maintenance Work Order subject to periodic consolidation following
Section E.2.1.2, this is the last process step for this Work Order. All other Work Orders proceed to
Step 2.3.

F.2.3 Step 2.3: Community Review of Requirements Analysis

Responsible Group: Working Group, with input solicited from AG, any affiliated SMG(s), and the
GSMP community

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 61 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Inputs: Community Review Draft of BRAD or other requirements document

Process: Working Group conducts a community review of the Community Review Draft BRAD or
other requirements document, following the procedure in Section F.6.
During this review, of particular importance are comments received from the GS1 Architecture
Group (AG) and any Standards Maintenance Groups to which this Working Group is related. The
Working Group shall ensure that comments from those groups are solicited, received, and given
special attention during the review process. In particular, any comment received from the AG
relating to an inconsistency with the established GS1 architecture and architecture principles must
be resolved by the Working Group.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All comments collected during the community review have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the BRAD or other requirements document or
agreeing that no change is required.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Voice Motion (Section G.1) to commence a
community eBallot.
■ The status page of the BRAD or other requirements document is changed to indicate its status
as a Candidate Document, and a clean copy is posted to the Working Group’s Community Room.
Outputs: Candidate BRAD or other requirements document

F.2.4 Step 2.4: eBallot of Requirements Analysis

Responsible Group: Working Group, with assistance of GSMP Operations
Inputs: Candidate BRAD or other requirements document
Process: The Candidate BRAD or other requirements document is posted for an eBallot
(Section G.3).
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Community eBallot (G.3).
■ The IESC and BCS are informed of any “no” votes and of all comments that accompany votes
received during the Community eBallot.
■ A summary of the vote as described in Section G.3 is posted in an area of the Community Room
accessible to the GSMP community.
■ The status page of the BRAD or other requirements document is changed to indicate its status
as a Final Document, and a clean copy is posted to the Working Group’s Community Room and
to the Community Room accessible to the GSMP community.
Outputs: Final BRAD or other requirements document
Termination: If the Work Order specified that requirements analysis and system development are
to be carried out by separate Working Groups (Section E.2.2.2), then this Work Order terminates.
The BRAD or other requirements document, however, will be considered during GSMP Step 2.5, and
one or more new Work Orders will be chartered to carry on the system development work. All other
Work Orders proceed directly to system development beginning with GSMP Step 3.1.

F.2.5 Step 2.5: GSMP Operations (with IESC Approval) Prioritises BRADs to Create
Development Work Orders (Conditional)
Condition: Only performed for BRADs that were slated for separate systems development, following
Section E.2.2.2. Work Orders that specify the same Working Group for both requirements analysis
and system development (Sections E.2.1 and E.2.2.1) proceed directly to GSMP Step 3.1.
Responsible Group: GSMP Operations, with final approval by the IESC
Inputs: Final BRADs, together with the Work Requests under which they were created
Process: GSMP Operations, with final approval by the IESC, reviews BRADs, and determines which
are to be chartered for system development. BRADs are considered as described in Section E.2.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 62 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Following any consolidation or distribution, a group creates a Work Request that defines the scope
of development work for each BRAD that has been prioritised to proceed; that group may be an
SMG, GSMP Operations, or any other group the IESC designates. When the Work Request is
completed, GSMP Operations (with IESC approval) converts it to a Work Order by determining and
filling in the settings of all adjustable parameters in the GSMP 4-Step Process that apply to the Work
Order, following the criteria it establishes and maintains.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ GSMP Operations, with IESC approval, agrees to Charter a Work Order to perform System
Development based on one or more BRADs.
■ A Work Request is created and entered into the system by a group designated by the IESC.
■ GSMP Operations, with IESC approval, has converted the Work Request to a Work Order by
filling in the Work Order according to the established criteria.
Outputs: Work Order
Exceptions:
■ A BRAD that the IESC determines to be of lower priority may be suspended at this step, until the
IESC subsequently judges the priority to be high enough to proceed.

F.3 GSMP Step 3: System Development

This section describes the detailed process flow within GSMP Step 3, System Development.

3.3 3.8 Prototype 3.9

3.1 3.2 Final- Community 3.10
Testing & Final IP
Drafting isation Review & eBallot
Revision Review
Revision

3.11
3.4 Ratification
Preliminary IP
Review
Standard or
Guideline
Ratified GS1
Standard or
Guideline
3.7
Conformance 3.5 3.6 Final- Community
Requirements Drafting isation Review &
Revision 3.12
(if applicable) Publication

F.3.1 Step 3.1: Working Group Performs System Development

Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Work Order, BRAD
Process: The Working Group develops a new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, or develops a revised
version of an existing GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, in accordance with the scope identified in the
Work Order. The resulting GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline shall fulfil the business requirements
documented in the BRAD.
As the Working Group carries out system development, it should as soon as possible begin a draft
GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline (if not revising an existing document), and revise this draft as work
progresses. Orienting the Working Group towards revising a draft deliverable and formulating all
Working Group decisions in the form of revisions to the draft helps to keep the Working Group

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 63 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

focused on the ultimate goal of producing a document that reflects Working Group consensus. The
Working Group co-chairs and Working Group facilitator shall strive to ensure that the draft
deliverable reflects the consensus of the group, and to use the group decision making procedures
(Section 17) to help drive consensus as necessary. Most substantive issues should be addressed
before the Working Group proceeds to finalisation of the document in the next step.
When appropriate, the Working Group may solicit assistance at this stage from GS1 Global Office
staff who is assigned to provide specific technical help to Working Groups. Examples include UML
modelling, technical writing, and others.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ A clean copy of a “next-to-final” draft GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is posted to the Working
Group’s Community Room. In most cases, this should take the form of a PDF document with line
numbers, to facilitate the finalisation process in the next step (the use of PDF ensures that all
reviewers will see consistent line numbers).
Outputs: A draft GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, ready for finalisation.

F.3.2 Step 3.2: Working Group Finalises Draft GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Draft GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
Process: Working Group finalises the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline following the procedure in
Section F.5.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All Working Group comments collected during finalisation have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline or
agreeing that no change is required.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) to approve the
completed GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline.
■ A clean copy of the revised GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline document is posted to the Working
Group’s Community Room. This is now a Community Review Draft.
Outputs: Community Review Draft of GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline

F.3.3 Step 3.3: Community Review of GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline

Responsible Group: Working Group, with input solicited from AG, any affiliated SMG(s), and the
GSMP community
Inputs: Community Review Draft of GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
Process: Working Group conducts a community review of the Community Review Draft GS1
Standard or GS1 Guideline, following the procedure in Section F.6.
During this review, of particular importance are comments received from the GS1 Architecture
Group (AG) and any Standards Maintenance Groups to which this Working Group is affiliated. The
Working Group shall ensure that comments from those groups are solicited, received, and given
special attention during the review process. In particular, any comment received from the AG
relating to an inconsistency with the established GS1 architecture and architecture principles must
be resolved by the Working Group.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All comments collected during the community review have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline or
agreeing that no change is required.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Voice Motion (Section G.1) to commence a
community eBallot.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 64 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ The status page of the draft GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is changed to indicate its new
status, and a clean copy is posted to the Working Group’s Community Room. The new status is
a Prototype Standard, if the Work Plan calls for prototype testing, or a Candidate Standard or
Guideline, if not.
Outputs: Prototype GS1 Standard, Candidate GS1 Standard, Candidate GS1 Guideline

F.3.4 Step 3.4: Preliminary IP Review (conditional)

Condition: Only performed if the Work Order specifies that Conformance Requirements are
required or if Prototype Testing is called for, and the Working Group determines that these steps will
take sufficient time so that an initial IP review is warranted. Otherwise, only the final IP review need
be performed. The purpose of the initial IP review is to uncover IP problems earlier in the process,
but does not take the place of the final IP review which is mandated by the GS1 IP Policy.

Note: If performed, This step is initiated immediately following the completion of Step 3.3,
and runs in parallel with any remaining substeps within Step 3.

Inputs: Prototype or Candidate GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline

Process: Working Group facilitator issues a community announcement that the initial IP review for
the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline has commenced. This announcement shall include the Prototype
or Candidate GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, shall indicate that this is the initial (not final) review,
and that organisations have 30 days to respond using the IP Declaration if they wish to declare IP.
After 30 days have elapsed from the time the announcement is sent, the Working Group facilitator
shall gather any received IP Declarations and send them to GS1 Legal Counsel, which shall respond
to the Working Group indicating if any action need be taken.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ An announcement as described above has been sent to the community.
■ 30 days have elapsed since the announcement, and all received IP Declarations forwarded to
GS1 Legal Counsel.
■ GS1 Legal Counsel has responded to the Working Group indicating any action that must be
taken, such as forming an IP Advisory Group (IPAG) which is an ad hoc group formed to resolve
IP issues.
Outputs: none

F.3.5 Step 3.5: Working Group Develops Conformance Requirements (conditional)

Note: The Working Group may perform much of the development work for this step in
parallel with Step 3.1, and is encouraged to do so to reduce the total time required.

Condition: Only performed if the Work Order specifies that Conformance Requirements are
required; i.e., if there is to be a certification program for the finished GS1 Standard.
Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Prototype or Candidate GS1 Standard
Process: The Working Group develops a Conformance Requirements Document (Section H.2.7) for
the Prototype or Candidate GS1 Standard. The Conformance Requirements Document specifies the
requirements that a conformance certification test shall meet in order to test an implementation of
the GS1 Standard for conformance to the standard. The Conformance Requirements Document is
used during Step 4 to develop a certification test program. The Conformance Requirements
Document is a separate document from the GS1 Standard itself.
In the course of developing the Conformance Requirements Document, the Working Group may
discover errata to the Prototype GS1 Standard. These should be recorded on a comment
spreadsheet or using the Community Room comment tracking function, for processing in GSMP
Step 3.8.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 65 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

As the Working Group carries out development, it should as soon as possible begin a draft
Conformance Requirements Document (if not revising an existing document), and revise this draft
as work progresses. Orienting the Working Group towards revising a draft deliverable and
formulating all Working Group decisions in the form of revisions to the draft helps to keep the
Working Group focused on the ultimate goal of producing a document that reflects Working Group
consensus. The Working Group co-chairs and Working Group facilitator shall strive to ensure that
the draft deliverable reflects the consensus of the group, and to use the group decision making
procedures (Section 17) to help drive consensus as necessary. Most substantive issues should be
addressed before the Working Group proceeds to finalisation of the document in the next step.
When appropriate, the Working Group may solicit assistance at this stage from GS1 Global Office
staff who is assigned to provide specific technical help to Working Groups.
When the Working Group believes its draft deliverable is complete and reflects consensus, a Group
Voice Motion (Section G.1) is used to advance to the step of finalising the document.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ A clean copy of a “next-to-final” draft Conformance Requirements Document is posted to the
Working Group’s Community Room. In most cases, this should take the form of a PDF document
with line numbers, to facilitate the finalisation process in the next step (the use of PDF ensures
that all reviewers will see consistent line numbers).
■ The Working Group successfully completes a group voice motion (Section G.1) to proceed to the
next step, finalisation.
Outputs: A “next-to-final” draft Conformance Requirements Document.
Exceptions:
■ If the motion does not carry, the Working Group shall continue to work to drive towards
consensus through revisions to the Conformance Requirements Document. If the Working Group
feels it has reached an impasse, it may escalate the issue to the IESC for assistance.
■ If the Working Group determines that development of a Conformance Requirements Document
will cause an unacceptably long delay in the ratification of the GS1 Standard, the Working Group
may appeal to the IESC to have the development of Conformance Requirements deferred to a
separate work effort. In that case, the first version of the GS1 Standard will be ratified without
Conformance Requirements, and no conformance certification test will be available. At a later
time, a Work Request is entered to develop Conformance Requirements and a certification test;
this activity is often accompanied by a revision to the GS1 Standard itself as errata are typically
discovered during the creation of a Conformance Requirements Document. This Work Request
proceeds through the GSMP 4-Step Process as does any other Work Request.

F.3.6 Step 3.6: Working Group Finalises Draft Conformance Requirements Document
(conditional)
Condition: Only performed if the Work Order specifies that Conformance Requirements are
required; i.e., if there is to be a certification program for the finished GS1 Standard.
Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: “next-to-final” draft Conformance Requirements Document
Process: Working Group finalises the Conformance Requirements Document following the
procedure in Section F.5.
In the course of finalising the Conformance Requirements Document, the Working Group may
discover errata to the Prototype GS1 Standard. These should be recorded on a comment
spreadsheet or using the Community Room comment tracking function, for processing in GSMP
Step 3.8.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All Working Group comments collected during finalisation have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the Conformance Requirements Document or
agreeing that no change is required.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 66 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) to approve the
completed Conformance Requirements Document.
■ A clean copy of the revised Conformance Requirements Document is posted to the Working
Group’s Community Room. This is now a Community Review Draft.
Outputs: Community Review Draft of Conformance Requirements Document

F.3.7 Step 3.7: Community Review of Conformance Requirements Document

(Conditional)
Condition: Only performed if the Work Order specifies that Conformance Requirements are
required; i.e., if there is to be a certification program for the finished GS1 Standard.
Responsible Group: Working Group, with input solicited from AG, any affiliated SMG(s), and the
GSMP community
Inputs: Community Review Draft of Conformance Requirements Document
Process: Working Group conducts a community review of the Community Review Draft
Conformance Requirements Document, following the procedure in Section F.6.
During this review, of particular importance are comments received from the GS1 Architecture
Group (AG) and any Standards Maintenance Groups to which this Working Group is affiliated. The
Working Group shall ensure that comments from those groups are solicited, received, and given
special attention during the review process.
In the course of processing community review comments for the Conformance Requirements
Document, the Working Group may discover errata to the Prototype GS1 Standard. These should be
recorded on a comment spread sheet or using the Community Room comment tracking function, for
processing in GSMP Step 3.8.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All comments collected during the community review have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the Conformance Requirements Document or
agreeing that no change is required.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Voice Motion (Section G.1) to commence a
community vote.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Community eBallot (Section G.3).
■ The IESC and BCS are informed of any “no” votes and of all comments that accompany votes
received during the Community eBallot.
■ A summary of the vote as described in Section G is posted in an area of the Community Room
accessible to the GSMP community.
■ The status page of the Conformance Requirements Document is changed to indicate new status,
and a clean copy is posted to the Working Group’s Community Room and to the Community
Room accessible to the GSMP community. The new status is an Candidate Conformance
Requirements Document.
Outputs: Candidate GS1 Conformance Requirements Document

F.3.8 Step 3.8: Working Group Performs Prototype Testing of Standard or Guideline
(conditional)
Condition: Only performed if the Work Order specifies that prototype testing is to be done
Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Prototype GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
Process: The Working Group tests the draft GS1 Standard or Guideline to ensure that it is
implementable. Specifically, the Working Group seeks to ensure that the GS1 Standard or Guideline is
clear, accurate, unambiguous, self-consistent, and complete. No new development or change in scope

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 67 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

shall be contemplated at this stage, except as necessary to correct any failure to achieve these
properties.
In most cases, the process of prototype testing of a standard or guideline entails Working Group
members each individually attempting to implement the standard or guideline, and comparing these
efforts with each other to identify potential areas where the standard or guideline document may be
insufficiently clear or contains errors. When possible, Working Group members attempt to achieve
interoperability of independent implementations as a means to identify such problem areas. If the
Working Group finds a disagreement between two implementations, it does not necessarily indicate
that the standard or guideline needs revision (it could, for example, simply be an error in one or both
implementations). Instead, the Working Group should consider such disagreements to identify a
potential place where the standard or guideline needs revision, and then the Working Group must
delve deeper to determine what action to take. Any proposed changes should be recorded formally for
later review by the Working Group during finalisation.
The Working Group members should attempt to devise a sufficient number of test cases so that all
normative statements in the standard or guideline receive some testing at this stage. It may be
possible to achieve complete test coverage among a collection of implementations during prototype
testing, even if no one of those implementations is a complete implementation of the standard or
guideline.
It should be noted that the goal of prototype testing is only to identify and fix errors in the draft
standard or guideline that prevent interoperable implementations from being created using the
standard or guideline document. Prototype testing is not intended to confirm whether the draft
standard or guideline succeeds in meeting business requirements or addressing a business need – the
latter is addressed through industry pilots conducted by IE, not prototype testing in GSMP Step 3.8.
Prototype testing is also not intended to confirm whether a given implementation conforms to the
standard or guideline – the latter is addressed through conformance certification performed after the
standard or guideline is ratified. The sole purpose of prototype testing at this step is to ensure the
quality of the standard or guideline under development.
When the Working Group believes it has thoroughly tested the draft standard or guideline and has
collected all proposed revisions, the working group incorporates those changes into the draft standard
or guideline via the process of finalisation (Section F.5). Any changes to the draft standard or guideline
arising from the completion of the Conformance Requirements Document are also incorporated at this
stage. A Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) is used to approve the completed GS1 Standard or GS1
Guideline.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All proposed changes are captured and ready for finalisation.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) to approve the
completed GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline. The result is now a Candidate GS1 Standard or
Guideline, and a Candidate Conformance Requirements Document (if applicable).
Outputs: Candidate GS1 Standard or Guideline, Candidate Conformance Requirements Document
(if applicable).

F.3.9 Step 3.9: Final IP Review

Note: This step must be completed before the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is submitted to
the BCS for ratification in Step 3.11.

Inputs: Candidate GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline

Process: The Working Group facilitator issues a community announcement that the final IP review
for the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline has commenced. This announcement shall include the
Candidate GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, shall indicate that this is the final review, and that
organisations have 30 days to respond using the IP Declaration if they wish to declare IP.
After 30 days have elapsed from the time the announcement is sent, the Working Group facilitator
shall gather any received IP Declarations and send them to GS1 Legal Counsel, which shall respond
to the Working Group indicating if any action need be taken. This response shall also be provided to
the BCS during ratification.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 68 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

Criteria for completing this Step:

■ An announcement as described above has been sent to the community.
■ 30 days have elapsed since the announcement, and all received IP Declarations forwarded to
GS1 Legal Counsel.
■ GS1 Legal Counsel has responded to the Working Group indicating any action that must be
taken, such as forming an IP Advisory Group (IPAG) which is an ad hoc group formed to resolve
IP issues.
Outputs: none

F.3.10 Step 3.10: eBallot of GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline

Responsible Group: Working Group, with assistance of GSMP Operations
Inputs: Candidate GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, Candidate Conformance Requirements
Document (if applicable)
Process: The Candidate GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, along with the Candidate Conformance
Requirements Document if applicable, is posted for an eBallot (Section G.3).
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Community eBallot (G.3).
■ The IESC and BCS are informed of any “no” votes and of all comments that accompany votes
received during the Community eBallot.
■ A summary of the vote as described in Section G.3 is posted in an area of the Community Room
accessible to the GSMP community.
■ The status page of the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is changed to indicate its new status, and
a clean copy is posted to the Working Group’s Community Room and to the Community Room
accessible to the GSMP community. The new status is an Unratified Standard or Guideline, and
Unratified Conformance Requirements Document (if applicable).
Outputs: Unratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, Unratified Conformance Requirements
Document (if applicable)

F.3.11 Step 3.11: Ratification by the GS1 Management Board

Responsible Group: GS1 Management Board, with the BCS
Inputs: Unratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline with a summary of “no” votes cast during
community eBallot (with their accompanying comments)
Process: The Board Committee for Standards confirms that due process has been followed in
creating the Unratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, as well as the Conformance Requirements
Document if applicable, and votes to ratify it (them).
Note: the GS1 Management Board delegates its authority to ratify standards to the BCS on two
conditions: 1. The BCS votes unanimously to ratify; and 2. There are no objections from members
of the GS1 Management Board who are not represented on the BCS.
Work Orders that affect the GS1 keys will need to be approved by the GS1 General Assembly
following ratification. See Section E.1.1 for information on Work Orders that affect the GS1 Keys.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ The GS1 Management Board ratifies the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, as well as the
Conformance Requirements Document if applicable.
■ The GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline has been approved by the GS1 General Assembly, if the
GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline arises from a Work Order that affects the GS1 keys as defined
above.
Outputs: Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline; Ratified Conformance Requirements Document
(if applicable)

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 69 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

F.3.12 Step 3.12: Publication

Responsible Group: GS1 Publications Staff
Inputs: Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
Process: GS1 Publications Staff publishes the Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline.
See Section 21 for more details of the publication process.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ The Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline has been published to the GS1 public website.
Outputs: Publication of previous outputs

F.4 GSMP Step 4: Collateral

4.1 4.4 4.5

Collateral 4.2 4.3 Community Ongoing
Final
Planning Drafting Finalisation Review & Collateral Revision
Revision

F.4.1 Step 4.1: Working Group Confirms List of Collateral Materials

Responsible Group: Working Group, in collaboration with Industry Engagement
Inputs: Work Order, BRAD, Business Case, Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline
Process: The Working Group considers what collateral materials ought to be developed in Step 4,
and creates a list that documents this decision. The Working Group shall collaborate with Industry
Engagement to create this list. As a starting point, the Working Group shall consider all of the
collateral materials listed in Sections 14 and H.3 as possible candidates for inclusion. Note that the
confidentiality policy (Section 6) must be followed in working with Industry Engagement.
When the Working Group agrees it has reached consensus on the list of collateral materials, it
confirms this through a Group Voice Motion (Section G.1).
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ A list of collateral materials that has been reviewed with Industry Engagement is posted to the
Working Group’s Community Room.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a group voice motion (Section G.1) to proceed to the
next step.
Outputs: A list of collateral materials.
Exceptions:
■ If the motion does not carry, the Working Group shall continue to work to drive towards
consensus through revisions to list of collateral deliverables. If the Working Group feels it has
reached an impasse, it may escalate the issue to the IESC for assistance.

F.4.2 Step 4.2: Working Group Creates Collateral Materials

Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Work Order, BRAD, Business Case, Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, List of
Collateral Deliverables.
Process: The Working Group creates collateral materials in accordance with the list developed in
Step 4.1.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 70 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

As the Working Group carries out this step, it should as soon as possible begin a draft document for
each deliverable and revise these drafts as work progresses. Orienting the Working Group towards
revising draft deliverables and formulating all Working Group decisions in the form of revisions to
the drafts helps to keep the Working Group focused on the ultimate goal of producing documents
that reflect Working Group consensus. The Working Group co-chairs and Working Group facilitator
shall strive to ensure that the draft deliverables reflect the consensus of the group, and to use the
group decision making procedures (Section 17) to help drive consensus as necessary. Most
substantive issues should be addressed before the Working Group proceeds to finalisation of the
documents in the next step.
When the Working Group believes its draft deliverables are complete and reflect consensus, a Group
Voice Motion (Section G.1) is used to advance to the step of finalising the documents.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ A clean copy of a “next-to-final” draft of each collateral deliverable is posted to the Working
Group’s Community Room. In most cases, each should take the form of a PDF document with
line numbers, to facilitate the finalisation process in the next step (the use of PDF ensures that
all reviewers will see consistent line numbers).
■ The Working Group successfully completes a group voice motion (Section G.1) to proceed to the
next step, finalisation.
Outputs: A “next-to-final” draft of each collateral deliverable identified in the List of Collateral
Materials
Exceptions:
■ If the motion does not carry, the Working Group shall continue to work to drive towards
consensus through revisions to the draft deliverables. If the Working Group feels it has reached
an impasse, it may escalate the issue to the IESC for assistance.

F.4.3 Step 4.3: Working Group Finalises Draft Collateral Deliverables

Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: “next-to-final” draft collateral deliverables
Process: Working Group finalises each collateral deliverable following the procedure in Section F.5.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All Working Group comments collected during finalisation have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the deliverable or agreeing that no change is
required.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) to approve the
completed collateral deliverables.
■ A clean copy of each collateral document is posted to the Working Group’s Community Room.
Each is now a Community Review Draft.
Outputs: Community Review Draft of collateral deliverables

F.4.4 Step 4.4: Community Review of Collateral Deliverables

Responsible Group: Working Group, with input solicited from AG, any affiliated SMG(s), and the
GSMP community
Inputs: Community Review Draft of Collateral Deliverables
Process: Working Group conducts a community review of the Community Review Drafts of all
Collateral Deliverables, following the procedure in Section G.3. The Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1
Guideline shall be pointed out to the community during this review for reference purposes, but it
shall be made clear that comments are only solicited for the collateral deliverables, not for the
Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline. The Ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is not subject
to further revision at this stage.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 71 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

During this review, of particular importance are comments received from the GS1 Architecture
Group (AG) and any Standards Maintenance Groups to which this Working Group is affiliated. The
Working Group shall ensure that comments from those groups are solicited, received, and given
special attention during the review process. In particular, any comment received from the AG
relating to an inconsistency with the established GS1 architecture and architecture principles must
be resolved by the Working Group.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ All comments collected during the community review have been addressed by the Working
Group, either by making the suggested change to the collateral deliverable or agreeing that no
change is required.
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Voice Motion (Section G.1) to commence a
community vote.
■ The IESC and BCS are informed of any “no” votes and of all comments that accompany votes
received during the Community Review.
■ A summary of the vote as described in Section G.3 is posted in an area of the Community Room
accessible to the GSMP community.
■ A clean copy of each revised collateral deliverable is posted to the Working Group’s Community
Room, to the Community Room accessible to the GSMP community, and to the public as
appropriate.
Outputs: Final collateral deliverable

F.4.5 Step 4.5: Ongoing Revision to Collateral Materials as Needed

Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Approved Collateral Materials
Process: As user companies and solution providers begin to adopt GS1 Standards and GS1
Guidelines, it is sometimes discovered that collateral materials require enhancement. For example,
it may be necessary to add additional questions to an FAQ document in order to address questions
that have arisen frequently following publication.
The Working Group continues to exist for as long as needed in order to maintain the collateral
materials. Only collateral materials may be maintained in this manner; any change to the GS1
Standard or GS1 Guideline itself, no matter how small, requires a new Work Order that begins the
GSMP Process at Step 1.

F.4.6 Step 4.6: Development of Conformance Certification Test Plan (conditional)

Condition: Only performed if the Work Order Plan specifies that a conformance certification test is
to be developed.
Responsible Group: Conformance Certification Test Organisation as designated by the GS1 Global
Office, with support from the Working Group
Inputs: Ratified GS1 Standard, Ratified Conformance Test Requirements
Process: The Conformance Certification Test Organisation develops a conformance certification test
plan that meets the requirements specified in the Conformance Certification Test. The conformance
certification test plan shall specify exactly what artefacts may be tested, and the detailed test plan
for testing each kind of artefact. If the conformance test plan includes optional tests, it shall specify
clearly what options are available and how they will be indicated in the conformance certification
test report created for any given artefact that is tested. The conformance certification test plan is a
separate document from the GS1 Standard itself.
The Conformance Certification Test Organisation shall work with the Working Group to resolve
questions regarding the interpretation of the GS1 Standard and the Conformance Requirements
document.
Criteria for completing this Step:

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 72 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ The Conformance Certification Test Organisation has completed a conformance certification test
document and presented it to the Working Group for approval.
Outputs: Draft conformance certification test plan

F.4.7 Step 4.7: Working Group Approves Conformance Certification Test Plan
(conditional)
Condition: Only performed if the Work Order Plan specifies that a conformance certification test is
to be developed.
Responsible Group: Working Group
Inputs: Draft Conformance Certification Test Plan
Process: The Working Group conducts a Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) to approve the draft
Conformance Certification Test Plan.
Criteria for completing this Step:
■ The Working Group successfully completes a Group Virtual Vote (Section G.2) to approve the
draft Conformance Certification Test Plan.
Outputs: Final conformance certification test plan
Exceptions:
■ If the vote does not pass, Steps 4.6 and 4.7 are repeated, during which the Working Group shall
work with the Conformance Certification Test Organisation to resolve issues.

F.5 Finalisation of a Draft Document by a Working Group

Several steps of the GSMP 4-Step Process specify that a draft document (such as a draft Business
Requirements Analysis Document, draft GS1 Standard, etc.) is to be “finalised” by the Working
Group. The word “finalised” refers to a specific sequence of steps to be carried out by the Working
Group, defined below. The purpose of finalisation is for the Working Group to make final revisions to
the draft document in preparation for proceeding to the next stage of the process. The finalisation
process gives all members of the Working Group a final opportunity to propose changes to the
document before it passes to review by some other body (community review, ratification, etc.).

The process for finalisation is as follows:

■ Finalisation begins after a successful Group Voice Motion to begin finalisation. The Working
Group shall agree on the period to be allowed for the submission of comments by Working
Group Members: at least one week, but longer if warranted by the size or complexity of the
document to be finalised.
■ The Working Group Facilitator (or Working Group Document Editor, if one has been designated),
prepares a “next-to-final draft” by accepting all prior changes to produce a fair PDF copy with
line numbers. (Use of PDF with line numbers provides a consistent basis for all working group
members to indicate where they propose changes.)
■ The Working Group Facilitator posts the draft to the Working Group Community Room. The
Working Group Facilitator sends an announcement to the Working Group via the Community
Room email function including the draft, instructions for submitting comments (either a
comment spreadsheet or the Community Room comment tracking function), and the date and
time by which comments are to be submitted.
■ Each Working Group member reviews the draft and records their organisation’s comments
following the instructions provided.
■ (Mission-Specific Working Group only) Simultaneous with the Working Group review, a Mission-
Specific Working Group shall prepare a summary presentation of the deliverable, and invite
members of “related” SMGs who have opted-in to the MSWG to attend an MSWG meeting to
receive the presentation. This provides an opportunity for the related SMGs to provide input
prior to the completion of finalisation, and also serves to advise the related SMGs that a
community review is imminent.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 73 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ Following the close of the review period, the Working Group Facilitator consolidates all
comments into a single spreadsheet (if comment spreadsheets are used).
■ The Working Group reviews each comment, and decides how to address it. A comment may be
addressed by accepting the proposed change, adopting a different change, or deciding that no
change is warranted. In each case, the resolution of a comment shall be decided by consensus
of the Working Group (see Section 17), and recorded in the spreadsheet or Community Room
comment area.
■ After all comments are reviewed, the Working Group Facilitator (or Working Group Document
Editor, if one has been designated) edits the draft according to the comment resolutions.
■ The draft is now finalised, and ready for the Working Group to vote to advance to the next
stage. The comment resolutions (spreadsheet or Community Room comment function) becomes
part of the permanent archive of the Working Group, and serves as a record that due process
was followed.

F.6 Community Review

Several steps of the GSMP 4-Step Process specify that a draft document (such as a draft Business
Requirements Analysis Document, draft GS1 Standard, etc.) is to undergo community review and
revision by the Working Group. Community Review refers to a specific sequence of steps to be
carried out by the Working Group and the GSMP community, as defined below. The community
review process gives all voting members of the GSMP community an opportunity to propose changes
to the document before it is complete. While Working Group members may also submit comments
during community review, it is preferable if Working Group members raise their concerns during the
finalisation process that precedes community review.

The process for community review is as follows:

■ Community review begins after the Working Group finalises a Community Review Draft and
completes a successful Group Virtual Vote to begin community review. The Working Group shall
agree on the period to be allowed for the submission of comments by the community: at least
21 days, but longer if warranted by the size or complexity of the document to be reviewed, if
the 21 day period would span a period of expected absence by many community members, or
any other reason. Exceptions: community review of changes to EANCOM Code Values or GS1
SML Code List only require 14 days. The Working Group may also vote to extend the comment
submission period after it has already commenced.
■ The Working Group Facilitator (or Working Group Document Editor, if one has been designated),
prepares a Community Review Draft by accepting all prior changes to produce a clean PDF copy
with line numbers. This document shall be clearly marked as a Community Review Draft. (Use of
PDF with line numbers provides a consistent basis for all comment submitters to indicate where
they propose changes.)
■ The Working Group Facilitator posts this draft to the GSMP Community Room that is designated
for community reviews. The Working Group Facilitator sends a community announcement using
the established community announcement mechanism; this announcement shall indicate that a
community review is beginning, and include the draft, instructions for submitting comments
(either a comment spreadsheet or the Community Room comment tracking function), the
comment submission form, and the date and time by which comments are to be submitted.
■ Any member of the GSMP community may review the Community Review Draft. If a community
voting member wishes to submit comments on behalf of his or her organisation, he or she may
do so following the instructions provided, prior to the close of the review period. If the
submitting organisation has not opted-in to the Working Group, the organisation must sign a
comment submission form or else their comments shall be rejected by the Working Group
Facilitator and not shared with the Working Group. Comments from opted-in organisations do
not require a comment submission form (see Section I).
■ Following the close of the review period, the Working Group Facilitator consolidates all
comments into a single spreadsheet (if comment spreadsheets are used).
■ The Working Group reviews each comment, and decides how to address it. A comment may be
addressed by accepting the proposed change, adopting a different change, or deciding that no

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 74 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

change is warranted. In each case, the resolution of a comment shall be decided by consensus
of the Working Group (see Section 17), and recorded in the spreadsheet or Community Room
area.
■ After all comments are reviewed, the Working Group Facilitator (or Working Group Document
Editor, if one has been designated) edits the draft according to the comment resolutions.
■ The draft is now complete, and ready for a Community eBallot to advance to the next stage. The
comment resolutions (spreadsheet or Community Room comment function) becomes part of the
permanent archive of the Working Group, and serves as a record that due process was followed.
The comment resolutions shall be posted to the GSMP Community Room that is designated for
community reviews, so that all community voting members may review the comment
resolutions prior to casting their votes.

F.6.1 Community Review Comments by a Standards Maintenance Group (SMG) or the

GS1 Architecture Group (AG)
During community review, it is expected that among the reviewing parties will be the GS1
Architecture Group (AG), as well as any “affiliated” Standards Maintenance Groups (as “affiliated” is
defined in Section C.1.4). The AG and each affiliated SMG may choose to submit their community
review comments in one of two ways:
■ Individual AG and SMG voting members may submit comments as individuals representing their
respective organisations, as would any individual responding during community review.
■ The AG or an SMG may choose to submit a single set of comments on behalf of the entire AG or
SMG. In this case, the AG or SMG shall ensure that each submitted comment reflects consensus
of the entire AG or SMG, using the normal procedures for achieving group consensus.
Comments submitted in this way shall be marked as originating from the AG or SMG as a whole
rather than as originating from an individual. Note that the process of achieving consensus
within the AG or SMG is likely to take time, and so if the AG or SMG chooses to adopt this
procedure it must work to ensure it has adequate time to achieve consensus and still submit the
comments within the review period established for the community review.
Regardless of how comments are received from the AG and affiliated SMGs, the Working Group
receiving the comments is expected to give particular attention to comments from those sources. In
particular, any comment received from the AG relating to an inconsistency with the established GS1
architecture and architecture principles must be resolved by the Working Group. Outputs that are
believed to be inconsistent with the architecture by the AG should not progress until they are
reviewed and resolved by the AG.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 75 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

G Appendix: Voting Procedures

The following sections define voting procedures to be used by GSMP groups. The GSMP 4-Step
Process specifies specific voting procedures that a GSMP Working Group must use for identified
process gates. For Working Group decisions arising in the ordinary course of Working Group
business, as opposed to process gates, the Working Group is free to select the voting procedure that
is best suited to the issue at hand.

G.1 Working Group Motion

A Working Group Motion is used to confirm group consensus in situations where the participants in a
meeting are considered sufficiently representative of the group. This includes most decisions that
arise in the ordinary course of working on WG deliverables, as well as the decision to initiate a
formal WG review of a work product prior to community review. Certain SMGs that process many
small Work Orders may agree to use a WG Motion instead of a Working Group Ballot to submit a
draft work product for community review or for ratification.
Working Group Motions shall not be used:
■ For Working Group decisions where the GSMP 4-Step Process specifies that a Working Group
Ballot is required;
■ If the established WG membership minimum attendance is not present during the meeting (except
as noted below in Section G.1.1);
- or -
■ If the WG agrees that, despite the presence of the established WG minimum attendance, it is
desirable to use a Working Group Ballot to garner wider participation in the decision. This should
be considered if it is known that a significant number of stakeholders likely to have an opinion
are absent from the meeting, or if the vote is very close.

A Working Group Motion is conducted according to the following procedure:

■ The WG facilitator confirms that the established group membership minimum attendance is
present during the meeting and that the matter at hand is one where a Working Group Motion is
permissible.
■ The facilitator or a group co-chair clearly states the issue on the table, and identifies the
acceptable responses (typically “yes” or “no”). In the case of a yes/no vote, the co-chair may
elect to conduct the vote by asking if there are any objections rather than by asking each
attendee to explicitly answer yes or no.
■ For a process-mandated Working Group Motion to advance to the next process stage, the
group's balance, minimums, and 2/3 affirmative vote must be achieved.
■ The final tally shall be recorded in the meeting minutes. A group member may request that “no”
votes and abstentions be recorded in the minutes with the name of the organisations so voting.

The motion carries if the following conditions are met; it fails to carry otherwise:
■ The established membership minimum votes were met; and
■ At least 2/3 of the votes cast agree on an outcome. (For yes/no votes, this implies a yes or no
decision is always reached. For multiple-choice votes, it may be that no choice garners 2/3 of
the votes, in which case the group must continue discussion to refine the options.)
If the motion fails to carry, the group should continue discussions to attempt to reach consensus. As
a last resort, the group may choose to put the issue to a Working Group Ballot. It is preferable,
however, for the group to work towards a broader consensus rather than push through a matter
that only has the bare minimum support required for passage.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 76 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

G.1.1 Working Group Motion via Email Call for Objections

Certain SMGs that process many small Work Orders may use the following alternative procedure if
participation in an SMG meeting does not meet the established minimums for a Working Group
Motion to carry, and if the motion is a simple yes/no motion:
■ The facilitator sends an email to Working Group community room email list in which the motion
is clearly stated. The email asks Working Group members to respond within seven days if there
are any objections to the motion carrying.
■ If no objections are received by the end of the seven-day period, the motion carries.
■ If any objection is received, the facilitator and co-chairs reach out to the objecting party to see
if the concerns can be addressed. If not, the motion returns to the Working Group, which may
decide to use the regular Working Group Motion process or to call for a Working Group Ballot.
■ Either way, the facilitator notifies the Working Group of the outcome at the next Working Group
meeting, and enters it into the minutes.

G.2 Working Group Ballot

A Working Group Ballot is used to confirm group consensus for decisions where a definitive
consensus of the group must be determined. This includes decisions that result in advancing to the
next step of a GSMP 4-Step Process. In particular, the GSMP 4-Step Process requires that Working
Group Ballots be used to submit a draft work product for community review or for community
eBallot. (Exception: Certain SMGs that process many small Work Orders may agree to use a
Working Group Motion instead of a Working Group Ballot for that purpose.) A Working Group Ballot
may also be used in situations where there are insufficient votes to carry a Working Group Motion,
or when it is felt that attendance in a given meeting is insufficient to ensure that a Working Group
Motion adequately represents group consensus.

Working Group Ballots shall not be used:

■ To approve the final version of a deliverable following a community review and revision in the
GSMP 4-Step Process; the Community eBallot process (Section G.3) shall be used instead.

Working Group Ballots are conducted according to the following procedure:

1. The Facilitator or a group co-chair clearly states the issue on the table, identifies the acceptable
responses (typically “yes” or “no”), and confirms (through voice consensus) that the group is
ready to begin a Working Group Ballot.
2. The group establishes a date and time for the close of the ballot. This shall be at least seven
days from the time the vote begins. If a group is on a regular weekly meeting schedule, the
group may choose to shorten this period by an hour or two so that the vote closes immediately
prior to the beginning of the next scheduled meeting. On the other hand, the group may choose
to extend the period; for example, if the seven day period would span a period of expected
absence by many Working Group members, if the matter at hand is expected to require an
extended period for full consideration, or for any other reason.
As soon as practical, the group facilitator sets up a Working Group Ballot using the Community
Room balloting facility. The ballot shall clearly state the issue to be decided, and carefully explain
the meaning of each available choice. It is especially important that the sense of a “yes” or “no”
vote be made extremely clear, even for voters who were not present at the meeting. Any supporting
materials, such as draft documents for consideration, shall be attached to the ballot.
The group facilitator announces the ballot to the working group using the Community Room email
function.
Any organisation that is a voting member of the group may cast one vote. If two or more
representatives from the same organisation are members of the group, they must provide a single
vote for that organisation. Only MOs, MO Members, and GDSN Certified Data Pools may vote; GO
staff, Non-voting Members, and GO/MO Affiliates may not.
While the ballot is in progress, the details of what organisations have cast votes and what those
votes are shall not be revealed to any person except the group facilitator. If any vote is cast with an
accompanying comment, however, the text of the comment shall be made available to all members

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 77 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

of the group, with the identity of the organisation withheld (unless the organisation chooses to
identify themselves within the text of their comment).
After the closing date and time is reached, a summary is made available to all group members that
shows which organisations voted, what each organisation’s vote was, any accompanying comments,
and a numeric tally of all the votes. This summary shall become a permanent part of the group’s
archive alongside the group minutes.

The ballot carries if the following conditions are met; it fails to carry otherwise:
■ The established voting minimums are met from among the organisations that cast votes; and
■ At least 2/3 of the votes cast agree on an outcome. (For yes/no votes, this implies a yes or no
decision is always reached. For multiple-choice votes, it may be that no choice garners 2/3 of
the votes, in which case the group must continue discussion to refine the options.)
If the ballot fails to carry, the group should continue discussions to attempt to reach consensus.

G.3 Community eBallot

A Community eBallot is used to confirm community consensus following community review,
prototype testing (if applicable), and revision of a draft BRAD, standard, or other GSMP deliverable.
It marks the transition from one major step of the GSMP 4-Step Process to the next.

A Community eBallot is conducted according to the following procedure:

■ A group co-chair clearly identifies the document draft to be submitted to Community eBallot,
and confirms that the group is ready to begin the Community eBallot.
■ The group establishes a date and time for the close of the Community eBallot. This shall be at
least 14 days from the time the vote is announced to the community in Step 4. The group may
choose to extend the period; for example, if the 14 days would span a period of expected
absence by many community voting members, if the matter at hand is expected to require an
extended period for full consideration, or any other reason.
■ As soon as practical, the group facilitator sets up a Community eBallot using the Community
Room balloting facility in the area designated for Community eBallots. The vote shall clearly
identify the draft to be approved, and carefully explain the consequence of a “yes” or “no” vote.
The document under consideration and a summary of how each issue submitted during
community review was addressed by the Working Group, along with any supporting materials,
shall be attached to the vote.
■ The group facilitator announces the vote to the community using the regular community
communications mechanism.
■ Any organisation eligible for Community eBallot may cast one vote. If two or more
representatives from the same organisation are members of the community, they must provide
a single vote for that organisation. Only MOs, MO Members, and GDSN Certified Data Pools may
vote; GO staff, Non-Voting Members, and GO/MO Affiliates may not.
■ While the vote is in progress, the details of what organisations have cast votes and what those
votes are shall not be revealed to any person except the group facilitator. If any vote is cast
with an accompanying comment, however, the text of the comment shall be made available to
all members of the community, with the identity of the organisation withheld (unless the
organisation chooses to identify itself within the text of its comment).
■ After the closing date and time is reached, a summary is made available to all members of the
community that shows which organisations voted, what each organisation’s vote was, any
accompanying comments, and a numeric tally of all the votes. This summary shall become a
permanent part of the group’s archive alongside the group minutes.

The eBallot carries if the following conditions are met; it fails to carry otherwise:
■ The established voting minimums are met from among the organisations that cast votes; and
■ At least 2/3 of the votes cast are “yes” votes.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 78 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

If an eBallot to recommend a GS1 Standard for ratification does not reach the required
voting minimums:
If an eBallot to recommend a GS1 Standard for ratification does not reach the required voting
minimums and a 2/3’s affirmative vote, a second attempt can be made. The second attempt must
reach the group’s required voting minimums and a 2/3’s affirmative vote. If the second attempt
fails, the vote fails.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 79 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

H Appendix: GSMP Deliverables

This section defines all deliverables that are created by the community through the GSMP. Note that
not every work effort within GSMP creates all deliverables defined here. See the process flow in
Section F for details on which deliverables are created in what situations.

H.1 Ratified Deliverables

This section defines the deliverables that are ratified by the GS1 Management Board via the BCS.
The primary purpose of the GSMP is to create these deliverables. The deliverables in the other
sections exist only to support the development and adoption of the ratified deliverables.

H.1.1 GS1 Standard and GS1 Guideline

A GS1 Standard is a specification that ensures interoperability and consistency throughout supply
chains. In GS1 terminology, “standards” are normative, meaning that they are prescriptive.
Conformance with the standards is required to claim GS1 compliance. GS1 Standards may include
normative references to other standards from other organisations (W3C, ISO, UNCEFACT, etc.). A
GS1 Standard may include normative specifications for any combination of the following:
■ Data; e.g. GTIN-13, EPC, EPCIS event
■ Messages; e.g., Pedigree, DESADV, CIN
■ Interfaces; e.g., GS1-128 barcode symbology, Gen 2 Air Interface, EPCIS Query Interface
■ Business process / choreography; e.g. GDSN
A GS1 Standard may include new normative content, or may be a “profile” which consists
exclusively of references to other standards along with normative constraints upon their use.
A GS1 Guideline, in contrast, describes the best practices for the implementation of one or more
standards. Guidelines are non-normative.
It is important to note the distinction between what is actually a standard vs. a guideline. Efforts
sometimes begin as guidelines and evolve during the creation process into standards.
■ It is a standard if (a) it's a document that defines a certain way of doing things, such that two or
more companies must do what the document says in order to achieve some common goal; or
(b) it's a document that defines a certain way of doing things, such that it will be difficult to
change later.
■ If neither of the above are true, and furthermore the document explains a way of doing
something that is consistent with existing standards, then it is a guideline.
GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines are further explained by the following text, quoted from the GS1
System Architecture:
There are four types of artefacts that make up the GS1 System:
■ GS1 Standards A GS1 Standard is a specification that defines the behaviour of one or more
system components so that certain goals are achieved. Typically these goals are interoperability
of system components, whether different components deployed by the same supply chain party
or components deployed by different supply chain parties. Standards contain normative
statements, which specify what a system component must be or do in order to be in
conformance to the standard; a standard is written in such a way that conformance to the
normative statements is a sufficient condition for a system component to achieve the
interoperability or other goals for which the standard is designed.
■ GS1 Guidelines A GS1 Guideline is a document that provides information considered useful in
implementing one or more GS1 Standards. A GS1 Guideline never provides additional normative
content beyond the standards to which it refers; instead, the purpose of a GS1 Guideline is to
provide additional explanation and suggestions for successful implementation. While
conformance to a GS1 Standard may be necessary to achieve an interoperability goal, use of a
GS1 Guideline is never required. GS1 Standards typically focus on “what” a system component
is or must do, whereas GS1 Guidelines may provide additional suggestions for “how” such a

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 80 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

component may be implemented. GS1 Guidelines may be general in nature (applying to all
implementations) or may be specific to a limited number of use cases or industries.
GS1 Standards may be further distinguished according to the type of normative content they
contain, as follows:
■ Technical Standards A technical standard is one that defines a particular set of behaviours for
a system component. Technical standards focus on “what” a system component must be or do
to be in conformance to the standard. Technical standards are typically written to be as broadly
applicable across business sectors and geographic regions as possible. While a technical
standard may illustrate specific business problems to which it applies, a technical standard does
not specify which industries or businesses must adopt the standard. An end user may choose for
itself whether to deploy a component that conforms to a particular technical standard.
Technical standards may be further distinguished as follows:
□ Data Standard A data standard is one that defines the syntax and semantics of data.
Conformance to a data standard is assessed by examining a particular instance or instances
of data to see whether it follows the normative statements laid out in the data standard.
□ Interface Standard An interface standard is one that defines an interaction between
system components, often by defining the syntax and semantics of messages that are
exchanged between system components. Conformance to an interface standard is assessed
by examining a particular system component (often a hardware or software product) to see
whether it correctly generates messages and/or responds to received messages according to
the normative statements in the interface standard. Most interface standards identify two
roles as the interacting “sides” of the interface and a given system component is assessed
for conformance to one or the other of these roles (or sometimes both).
The distinction between data and interface standard is not always sharp, and many technical
standards contain both data specifications and interface specifications. Indeed, because data is
always exchanged across an interface, an interface standard nearly always contains a data
standard or refers normatively to other data standards.
■ Application Standards An application standard is one that specifies a particular set of technical
standards to which end user systems must conform in a particular business application.
Application standards provide a convenient way for different end users to express their
agreement to follow certain standards, in order to achieve mutually agreed interoperability goals
in a given application context.
Application Standards are examples of profiles, a profile being a standard whose normative content
consists exclusively of references to other standards along with normative constraints upon their
use. Application Standards take the form of a profile together with statements about the application
area to which it applies. A profile may also be a technical standard that defines a subset of one or
more other standards for a narrower purpose.
In general, GS1 Standards seek to specify a single way of achieving a given business goal. In some
cases, GS1 Standards provide alternatives; for example, a standard that defines two different
concrete syntaxes for the same abstract data construct, each optimised for a different
implementation context. Having choices detracts from interoperability, and so GS1 Standards offer
choices of this kind only when absolutely necessary. In some cases, GS1 Technical Standards offer
choices and GS1 Application Standards define single choices to be used in different application
contexts.

H.1.2 GS1 Solutions

GS1 Solutions describes a way to navigate a series of choices of GS1 Standards, Services, or
Guidelines that integrate together to meet a business or technical need. (“Business need” is to be
interpreted in the broadest sense to include processes in, for example, healthcare, defines,
education etc.). Solutions are non-normative but rely upon normative standards. Solutions do not
impose any additional normative statements beyond what is already implied in the standards upon
which they are based.
■ Examples: GS1 Solution(s) for Traceability, GS1 Solution (s) for Patient Safety, or Solution
Providers (suppliers of hardware, software, systems integration, consultancy, etc.) are expected
and encouraged to design their product offerings on the basis of published GS1 Solutions.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 81 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

H.1.3 GS1 Service

A GS1 Service is a facility provided by GS1 Global Office (GO) that provides benefit or assistance to
parties other than GS1 Member Organisations (MOs).
GS1 Service offerings may or may not be based on GS1 Standards. Examples:
■ The Global Registry is a GS1 computer service offering based on a GS1 Standard.
■ GEPIR is a GS1 computer service offering that is not based on a GS1 Standard.
Some GS1 Standards define the interface for services; not all such services, however, are “GS1
Services.” To illustrate:
■ A service may be offered by the GS1 GO. Such a service is a “GS1 Service.”
Example: The ONS standard defines an interface for looking up a service reference for an EPC;
a portion of this standard is implemented by the ONS Root, which is a GS1 Service
■ A service may be offered by a GS1 MO. Such services are not “GS1 Services,” though they are
services in the general sense of the word. GS1 Global Services are provided by GS1 GO and GS1
Local Services are provided by MOs.
Example: The EPCIS standard defines an interface by which one supply chain party may make
physical visibility event data available to other supply chain parties. Some GS1 MOs have
provided EPCIS for the local market.
■ Services offered by parties other than GS1. Such services are not “GS1 Services,” though they
are “services” in the general sense of the word.
Example: The EPCIS standard defines an interface by which one supply chain party may make
physical visibility event data available to other supply chain parties. The party offering this
service is a supply chain party (end user), not GS1 GO, and so this is not a GS1 Service, despite
being governed by a GS1 Standard.

H.1.4 GS1 Methodology

A GS1 Methodology is a “meta” standard that provides rules and restrictions for authoring/designing
other content standards. These types of standards are used to enforce the principles of consistency,
quality, reusability, precision and non-ambiguity into the standards.
Examples:
■ GS1 XML Naming and Design Rules
■ IETF RFC 2119 "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels"
■ ISO/IEC Directives "Rules for the structure and drafting of International Standards“
■ UN/CEFACT Core Components Technical Specification (CCTS)
■ "Contributors Credit Policy for EPCglobal Standards“
■ "Use of URIs in EPCglobal Specifications“
■ "Naming Conventions for the EPCglobal Permanent Document Repository”

H.1.5 GS1 Policies vs. Standards

GS1 Policies are the rules for standards development, ensuring alignment of the standards to the
broader mission of GS1. Policies are maintained in this manual and the GS1 Operations Manual. GS1
Standards and GS1 Guidelines, in contrast, are contained in the ratified GS1 Standard and Guideline
documents.

Process:
■ The GSMP is the global process established by GS1 for the development and maintenance of global
standards and guidelines, which are part of the GS1 System.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 82 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ The GS1 CEO is responsible to propose changes to policies relative to GS1. These changes are
proposed to the governance bodies, the General Assembly (GA) and the GS1 Management Board
(MB) via the GS1 Board Committee for Standards (BCS).

H.1.5.1 Global vs. Context Specific (e.g. Regional) Standards

GS1 Standards are built upon the business requirements of our users within the Global Standards
Management Process (GSMP) to meet particular business needs with a truly global solution. These
standards are based upon:
■ A single set of methodologies
■ Components in the GS1 Global Data Dictionary (GDD)
■ Rules in the GS1 General Specifications
Within the GSMP, the creation of globally applicable standards takes precedence over a solution for
a specific context (region, industry, business process, etc.). While the GS1 Standards support
regional business practices and help to enable them, the intent is to provide a solution that is
applicable in multiple regions and industries around the world. Regional syntaxes are not supported
by GSMP.
The determination of a business requirement’s context including whether or not its applicability is
regional or global is made during the requirements analysis. In many cases, national regulations and
environmental considerations make requirements and the optional solutions they warrant specific to
a context, but only if a more broadly applicable solution cannot be created. The local applicability of
the requirement is stated in the BRAD.
Business requirements result in the creation of a GS1 Standard or a process standard that is based
upon global and sometimes context specific components. To improve implementation, the GSMP
Working Group may assign a context to a solution using the approved context values and rules of
application.

H.2 Intermediate Deliverables

This section defines deliverables that are created at intermediate steps within the GSMP 4-Step
Process, and exist to support the creation of the ratified deliverables.

H.2.1 Work Request (WR) / Work Order (WO)

A Work Request (WR) or Work Order (WO) is a document that is used to describe and track a work
effort within GSMP. A Work Request is a proposal for work to be done in GSMP that has not yet been
initiated; a Work Request becomes a Work Order (WO) when it is assigned to a GSMP Working
Group. All work carried out in GSMP is governed by a Work Order.
See Section E.1 for a complete description of Work Requests and Work Orders.

H.2.2 Business Case

The Business Case is a short document that describes the motivation for producing a GSMP
Deliverable (a new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, or modification to an existing GS1 Standard or
GS1 Guideline). When a Work Order is approved in GSMP Step 1, the Business Case is created by
GSMP Operations by extracting information from the corresponding Work Request(s), specifically the
information in the Work Request that was used to assess the entrance criteria. As the Work Order
moves through Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the process, the GS1 Facilitator and/or GSMP Operations
updates the Business Case to reflect what is learned as the Working Group progresses through the
process. When the deliverable is finally published, so is the revised Business Case, thus providing a
permanent record for the motivation behind that deliverable.

H.2.3 Call-to-Action
A standard Call-to-Action is used to form a Working Group. The announcement is sent to the GSMP
Community and specific target audiences and communicates who should be involved in the project,

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 83 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

provides focus on the scope of work, recommends a solution, shows known participants, and
provides access to meeting details.

H.2.4 Business Requirements Analysis Document (BRAD)

A Business Requirements Analysis Document (BRAD) is a document that defines the requirements
that a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline must meet in order to address the business need defined in
the Work Order. The BRAD is created by a GSMP Working Group during Step 2 of the GSMP 4-Step
Process. The focus of a BRAD is to define requirements that a solution must meet, not to define the
solution itself.

H.2.5 Map of Requirements to Standard or Guideline

A GSMP Working Group that creates a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline in Step 3 of the GSMP 4-Step
Process is also required to create in Step 3 a document that shows how each requirement specified
in the BRAD or other requirements document is met by the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline. The
requirements map may take the form of a table that enumerates each requirement specified in the
BRAD or other requirements document, and indicates the section(s) of the GS1 Standard or GS1
Guideline that address the requirement, with explanation as needed. For GS1 XML messages the
requirements map may take the BRAD requirements number and associate them with a solution in
the schema following the current methodology for XML based GSMP solutions. This is done in a
Delta document.

H.2.6 Step 3 Impact Assessment

A new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline, and especially the revision of an existing GS1 Standard or
GS1 Guideline, may have an impact on user companies. For example, there may be backward-
compatibility issues in migrating from and older version to a newer version of a standard, there may
be issues concerned with the co-existence of two versions of the same standard, a new standard
may have interactions with other already-deployed standards. It is important that these issues be
understood before a new or revised GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is finalised, so that the new
standard or guideline may address them to the extent possible. For example, if a revised GS1
Standard has a potential back-compatibility problem, it may be possible to craft the revision in a
way that mitigates or eliminates the problem.
For this reason, a GSMP Working Group that creates a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline in Step 3 of
the GSMP 4-Step Process is also required to create in Step 3 a document that describes the impact
of the new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline on user companies, with particular attention paid to
issues of compatibility, transition, and interaction with other standards. At Step 3, the purpose of
the document is to ensure that such issues are considered in the creation of the GS1 Standard or
GS1 Guideline; at Step 4 this document becomes input to creating an Impact Statement that is part
of the collateral deliverables.

H.2.7 Conformance Requirements Document

If a GS1 Standard is subject to a conformance certification program, a Conformance Requirements
document is created in Step 3 of the GSMP 4-Step Process by the GSMP Working Group that creates
the GS1 Standard. The Conformance Requirements Document specifies the requirements for the
certification test; that is, it specifies what has to be tested in order to confirm that an
implementation under test conforms to the GS1 Standard. An important part of the Conformance
Requirements Document is defining exactly what constitutes an “implementation under test” for this
GS1 Standard.
The Conformance Requirements Document is used as input to the process of creating a conformance
certification test plan; the latter is created by GS1 or an organisation to which it delegates
responsibility, with support and approval from the GSMP Working Group.
In addition to conformance requirements, interoperability requirements will be defined as part of a
work plan where applicable, e.g. EPC HW, UHF and HF tags and printers with labels.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 84 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

H.3 Collateral Deliverables

This section defines deliverables that support the deployment by community members of a ratified
deliverable. Collateral Deliverables are made available to GS1 Member Organisations and to the GS1
community as a whole to accompany a ratified GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline.
All Collateral Deliverables are created by a GSMP Working Group in Step 4 of the GSMP 4-Step
Process, with assistance from GS1 staff as necessary. Only those collateral deliverables specified in
the Work Plan are created for a given Work Order.

H.3.1 Impact Statement

The Impact Statement describes issues that user companies may face in deploying the new GS1
Standard or GS1 Guideline, particularly as it relates to compatibility, transition, and interaction with
other GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines. The Impact Statement may also provide some qualitative
information as to the size of the effort that is likely required to deploy.
The Impact Assessment completed in GSMP Step 3 is the primary source material used in creating
the Impact Statement.

H.3.2 Value Proposition

The Value Proposition describes why a user company or solution provider should implement the
standard, in business terms that they can take to their budget holders for approval. For example,
the Value Proposition might indicate the expected cost to implement and compare it to the expected
benefit to the user companies.
The Business Case first created in GSMP Step 1 and revised through subsequent GSMP steps is the
primary source material used in developing the expected benefits side of the Value Proposition.

H.3.3 Implementation / Migration Plans

If the ratified deliverable from a work effort is an update or new version of an existing GS1 Standard
or GS1 Guideline, migration planning guidance will be needed. How are existing users supposed to
move from existing standards to the new and at what pace? Is there a need for coordinated
community action? Do two (or more versions) co-exist and what are the sunrise and sunset dates?
If the ratified deliverable from a work effort is an entirely new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline,
implementation guidance will be needed. How are users expected to carry out their initial adoption
of the standard and at what pace? Is there a need for coordinated community action? Is there a
defined sunrise date? Is there any relationship to existing standards, and if so, what is the impact
on implementations of the existing standard due to adoption of the new standard?
If the ratified deliverable is a new or revised GS1 Service, or if the ratified deliverable is a GS1
Standard or GS1 Guideline that interacts with a GS1 Service, the Implementation / Migration Plans
also describe how user companies activity will be coordinated with the activity of GS1 in deploying
or upgrading the relevant GS1 Service(s).

H.3.4 Marketing Collateral

Marketing Collateral refers to materials (produced by GS1 GO Marketing) that are intended to
introduce the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline to user companies, solution providers, and other
community members who may have no prior knowledge of the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline or
who may not understand to what extent it applies to them. The purpose of Marketing Collateral is to
achieve as broad adoption as possible by encouraging community members to examine the new
GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline and determine how it may be of benefit to them.

Marketing Collateral may include:

■ Brief Abstract: A brief description of the new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline that conveys
what it is, what problem it solves, who might benefit, and why they should consider adopting. It
should be only a few sentences in length. The Value Proposition is a primary input in creating
the Brief Abstract.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 85 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

■ Frequently Asked Questions: A document that provides an explanation of the GS1 Standard
or GS1 Guideline and how it is to be used in an accessible question-and-answer format. When
possible, an FAQ should be based on actual questions that frequently arose during development
of the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline.
Note that GS1 and its Member Organisations may create additional FAQs on topics of general
interest to the community, but that is not what is referred to here.
■ Overview Slides: A document in slide (e.g., PowerPoint) format that provides an introduction
to the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline for community members and others who have no prior
knowledge. The Overview Slides may draw upon all of the other collateral deliverables for
source material, especially the Value Proposition, the Impact Statement, and the introductory
material of the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline itself.
■ Areas of Applicability: An enumeration of specific business needs that may be addressed by
the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline. The areas of applicability identified in marketing collateral
are not limited to the ones identified in the Business Case – there may be many areas to which
a standard applies beyond the ones which happened to instigate the development of the
standard or guideline.
■ GS1 Strategy: Documentation of how the new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline advances one or
more goals of the overall GS1 Strategy.

H.3.5 Outreach Plan

The Outreach Plan defines the specific activities that will be undertaken to communicate awareness
of the new GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline to the community, following ratification. The Outreach
Plan may include the following ingredients:
■ Webinars
■ Press releases
■ Marketing Collateral
■ Newsletters
■ Bulletins
■ Announcements sent to email distribution lists

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 86 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

I Appendix: Piloting of GS1 Standards and GS1 Guidelines

The GSMP provides for several activities designed to confirm that GS1 Standards and GS1
Guidelines, and implementations thereof, are of sufficiently high quality and meet business and
technical goals. In summary, these activities include:
■ Prototype Testing: An activity performed in GSMP Steps 3.8 (Sections F.3.8), whose goal is to
identify and fix errors in the draft standard or guideline that would prevent interoperable
implementations from being created using the standard or guideline document. The goal of
prototype testing is to ensure the quality of the standard or guideline document itself.
■ Conformance Testing: A test administered by a GS1-designated testing agency to confirm
that a given implementation conforms to the standard or guideline. Conformance testing is
performed on individual implementations after a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline is ratified. The
content of the conformance test is developed during GSMP Steps 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.6, and 4.7
(Sections F.3.5, F.3.6, F.3.7, F.4.6, and F.4.7).
■ Industry Pilots: A limited implementation of a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline carried out by
user companies in the target business environment to demonstrate that the standard or
guideline succeeds in meeting business requirements or addressing a business need, and to
identify promising areas for future development. Industry pilots are discussed below.
Prototype Testing and Conformance Testing have very specific goals related to the standards
development process itself, and are defined in the sections of this manual cited above.
The goal of Industry Pilots is much more varied, and depends on the interests of user companies
and MOs. Industry Pilots are for the most part not conducted as part of GSMP, but rather as
independent activities by Industry Engagement or MOs. An Industry Pilot can be carried out at one
of two times relative to the GSMP 4-Step Process:
■ An industry pilot may be carried out prior to the ratification of a GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline,
based on an early draft of the standard or guideline. In this case, the goal is to confirm that
draft is headed in the right direction with regard to meeting business needs. The results of a
pilot conducted at this stage are considered by the Working Group, and typically lead to revision
of the draft in progress. End users participating in a pilot at this stage should understand that
what is being piloted is a draft standard or guideline that is subject to further revision, and so
the pilot implementation may not be in conformance to the standard or guideline when the latter
is finally ratified.
■ An industry pilot may be carried out subsequent to the ratification of a GS1 Standard or GS1
Guideline. In this case, the goal is to confirm that the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline fully
meets expectations regarding the addressing of business needs, to gain experience and
demonstrate how the standard or guideline is actually used in a production setting, and to
identify areas where enhancements to the GS1 Standard or GS1 Guideline may be needed in the
future. Any enhancements indicated by the results of the pilot must be submitted via a Work
Request.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 87 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

J Appendix: GSMP Intellectual Property Framework

The GS1 Intellectual Property (IP) Framework is designed to promote standards that have minimal
barriers to adoption by user companies and solution providers, by making intellectual property
required to implement the standards available on a non-discriminatory and, to the extent possible,
royalty-free basis. As it relates to the GSMP Process, the IP Framework has these components:
■ IP Policy: This is a contract signed by a participating organisation that establishes the legal
framework for licensing of intellectual property that an organisation owns that is necessary to
implement standards in whose development the organisation participates. Signing the IP Policy
is a pre-requisite for a company to be involved in GSMP. The provisions of the IP Policy only
become operative, however, upon signing one or more of the other documents that are part of
the IP Framework.
■ Working Group Opt-In: A participating organisation that has signed the IP Policy may “opt in”
to the policy with respect to a particular GSMP Working Group. In so doing, the participating
organisation gains the right to access work-in-progress of the Working Group and to join the
Working Group, in exchange for the organisation becoming obligated to the terms of the IP
Policy with respect to the standards produced by that Working Group. Section J.1 below
describes the method by which an organisation opts-in to a Working Group.
■ Contribution Declaration: A participating organisation that has signed the IP Policy but has
not opted in to a given Working Group may nonetheless participate in community review of draft
standards created by that Working Group (though the organisation does not have access to any
other work-in-progress of that Working Group). If such an organisation wishes to submit
comments to the Working Group during community review and that contribution is used in the
standard, a Contribution Declaration Form may be required which subjects the substance of the
comments to IP obligations similar to what would have occurred had the organisation opted-in
to the Working Group.
■ IP Declaration: Prior to ratification of a standard, organisations that have signed the IP Policy
are asked whether they intend to exercise their rights under the IP Policy to exempt specific
intellectual property from the royalty-free license terms specified in the IP Policy. If an
organisation wishes to exercise such rights, it does so by submitting an IP Declaration form.
■ Working Group: A participating organisation that previously opted-in to a given Working Group
may subsequently opt out. Once opted out, the organisation has continuing obligations with
respect to intellectual property contributed to the Working Group’s work product prior to the
date of opting out, but does not continue to incur similar obligations going forward.
Members of this Working Group shall work in teleconference calls and F2F meetings to develop
standards and technical solutions for the common good, which, to the greatest extent possible are
not subject to IP licensing. Members who consistently promote their own agenda, or delay the
process by more than one month will be considered in violation of the code of conduct.
If a member files for a patent application during the development of a standard or guideline and
subsequently declares IP with Necessary Claims against the standard stating that the IP in that
patent application is not available on royalty-free licensing terms, this will be considered a breach of
the IP Policy and a code of conduct violation.

J.1 Opting-In to a Working Group

An organisation that has joined GSMP and signed the IP Policy may opt in to a specific Working
Group (Standards Maintenance Group or Mission-Specific Working Group) in one of two ways:
■ Explicit Opt-in: An organisation may opt in to a specific Working Group by signing an Explicit
Opt-In agreement for that working group. Doing so does not affect the organisation’s status
with respect to any other Working Group.
■ Automatic Opt-in: An organisation may sign an Automatic Opt-in Agreement. Upon doing so,
the organisation’s representatives may join all current and future GSMP groups (unless the
organisation has opted out of a specific GSMP group). An organisation that has signed the
Automatic Opt-in Agreement may opt out of an individual Working Group at any time. For a
newly created group, the automatic Opt-In takes effect when the Working Group has its first
meeting; therefore, an organisation that has signed the automatic Opt-In but does not wish to

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 88 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

be opted-in to a newly announced Working Group may opt-out between the call-to-action and
the first Working Group meeting, and thereby avoid any IP obligations for that Working Group.
An organisation’s representative that has joined a GSMP Working Group is given access to that
Group’s Community Room, which in turn gives access to all work-in-progress of that Group. An
organisation that has not opted in to a Working Group does not have access to the Working Group’s
Community Room, nor may it attend Working Group meetings. The organisation may still participate
in community review and eBallot voting (if voting member) of deliverables produced by the Working
Group.

J.2 Opting-In to the Architecture Group (AG)

■ Members of the AG will opt-in to the relevant governance group(s) but are not required to then
opt-in to Work Groups.
■ Members of the AG will agree not to file or pursue patent applications as a result of knowledge
gained from or as a result of participation in the AG.
■ If, in the course of standards review, the agreed to position of the AG does in fact affect a
normative statement, then all of the member companies of the relevant governance group must
either submit a Contribution form or IP declaration form, as applicable. Comments by individual
members of the AG are to be entered into public review in the same manner as any other
community member and follow the same approach to declaration and contribution.
■ Any work effort in the AG, such as work on the EPC Architecture, that may affect normative
statements in standards is to be handled via sub teams of the Architecture group and sub-team
participants must then opt into the Work Group itself. Determination of the need for a sub-team
will be made by the chairs and facilitator.

J.3 Opting-out of a Working Group

An organisation that has opted-in to a Working Group, whether by Explicit Opt-In or Automatic Opt-In,
may opt out at any time. There are two ways to opt-out:
■ Explicit Opt-Out: An organisation may opt out of a specific Working Group to which it had
previously opted in, whether by Explicit Opt-In or Automatic Opt-In.
■ Cancellation of Automatic Opt-in: An organisation that previously signed the Automatic Opt-
in Agreement may cancel its Automatic Opt-In. The organisation is immediately opted out from
all Working Groups except those explicitly designated by the organisation as those for which it
wishes to remain opted in, by signing individual Opt-Ins for those groups. The organisation will
not be automatically opted in to any new Working Groups created subsequently.
After an organisation has opted out of a Working Group, it no longer has access to the Community
Room, and it is also removed from the Working Group roster if it had previously joined the Working
Group. The organisation may still participate in community review and eBallot voting (if voting member)
of Working Group deliverables in the same manner as other organisations that are not opted in.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 89 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

K Appendix: Policy for Acknowledging Contributors

As stated in Section H.1.1, the standard document templates include a section to acknowledge the
individuals who contributed to the creation of a GS1 Standard, GS1 Guideline, or other document. In
most cases, this section should be included, though the Working Group has the discretion to omit it
as in the case of a long-standing or historic document for which the list of contributors would be
impractically long.
When a list of contributors is included, the following procedure should be used to determine the
contents of the list. This procedure is designed to deal fairly with all participants, and err on the side
of inclusiveness.

The contributor list shall include the following names, in the order specified:
■ A list of the working group co-chairs giving names and company affiliations, in alphabetical
order by last name. Each shall be identified “Working Group Co-Chair.” This list shall include any
individual who was a Working Group co-chair at any time during the life of the Work Order
governing the creation of the document.
■ A list of all other participants, giving names and company affiliations, in alphabetical order by
last name. The composition of this list is to be determined in the manner specified below.
If a GSMP member had more than one company affiliation through the term of his/her participation
in the Working Group during the life of the Work Order, all affiliations shall be listed.

The list of individual participants shall include:

■ Any individual whose name is listed as a participant in the approved minutes for any Working
Group meeting (face-to-face or conference call).
■ Any individual who has at least one message in the Community Room email archive for the
Working Group. The co-chairs, at their discretion, may disregard a message if:
□ It is obviously a spam or other email not originating from a Working Group member.
□ The message’s sole content concerns meeting logistics (e.g., “I will not attend the next face-
to-face meeting”) or mailing list administration (e.g., “please remove me from this list”).
■ The co-chairs, at their discretion, may give additional credit to one or more working group
members if they played a particular role. This should be used sparingly, and only to recognise a
role that was assigned to that person through consensus of the working group. For example, if a
working group member acted as overall editor for the specification, the word “Editor” may be
appended to the person’s name and company. (The term “author”, however, should always be
avoided.) Persons recognised in this way should appear immediately following co-chairs in the
contributors list.
■ Any individual, other than a co-chair, may petition the co-chairs to have his name be removed
from the list. This request will not be unreasonably denied.
■ Any inclusion or omission that is at the co-chair’s discretion, as identified above, may be
appealed by any working group member following the appeal process below.
The first draft of the contributor contribution section shall be included in the draft document
prepared for the final community review in GSMP Step 4. During that period, any Working Group
participant may petition the co-chairs to:
■ Correct the spelling of the participant’s name or company.
■ Remove the participant’s name entirely.
■ Challenge the co-chairs’ decision to omit the participant per the guidelines above.
■ Challenge the co-chairs’ designation of a special role per the guidelines above.
If a working group participant is not satisfied with the decision of the co-chairs following a petition
for a change, he/she may appeal following the appeal process described in Section 18.
The contributor list shall be included in the final draft submitted for ratification in GSMP Steps 4.5
and 4.6.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 90 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

L Appendix: GS1 Anti-trust Caution

Many of the members of GS1 compete with each other. The competition is both horizontal and
vertical. This means that every activity of GS1 must be measured against the prevailing anti-trust
laws, which proscribe combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade, monopolies and attempts
to monopolise, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. These are very broad. Violations of the
anti-trust laws can result in injunctions, treble damage judgments, heavy fines, and even
imprisonment.
Strict compliance with the anti-trust laws is and always has been the policy of GS1. GS1 exercises
extreme care to avoid not only violation, but anything that might raise even a suspicion of possible
violation.
An action, seemingly innocent when taken by itself, may be viewed by anti-trust enforcers as part of
a pattern of activity, which constitutes an anti-trust violation. Therefore, participants on GS1
committees, task forces, working groups, task groups, or other similar bodies, must always
remember the purpose of the committee, task force, or working group is to enhance the ability of all
industry members to compete more efficiently and effectively to provide better value to the
consumer or user company. However, because GS1 activity almost always involves the cooperation
of competitors, great care must be taken to assure compliance with the anti-trust laws.
This means:
■ Participation must be voluntary, and failure to participate shall not be used to penalise any
company.
■ There shall be no discussion of prices, allocation of customers or products, boycotts, refusals to
deal, or market share.
■ If any participant believes the group is drifting toward impermissible discussion, the topic shall
be tabled until the opinion of counsel can be obtained.
■ Meetings shall be governed by an agenda prepared in advance, and recorded by minutes
prepared promptly after the meeting. Agendas, where appropriate, and minutes are to be
reviewed by counsel before they are circulated.
■ Tests or data collection shall be governed by protocols developed in consultation with and
monitored by counsel.
■ The recommendations coming out of a GS1 committee, task force, working group or task group
are just that. Individual companies remain free to make independent, competitive decisions.
■ Any standards developed must be voluntary standards.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 91 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

M Appendix: GSMP Code of Conduct and Conflict

Management Rules
The GSMP is founded upon a set of principles which support the development of valid, user driven
voluntary standards developed in an open, transparent and collaborative environment. That
collaboration consists of a rich diversity of people and businesses working together in open
discussions. To this end, we have agreed on the following Code of Conduct rules which clearly define
expected behaviours and behaviours that will institute Conflict Management Rules.
The GS1 Anti-trust Caution shall be in effect during each teleconference and physical meeting.

M.1 Participation Requirements

It is GS1’s role to protect its community of users and their efforts and investments to the best of its
ability. Group or meeting defined participation requirements will be enforced. All participants must
comply with the call or meeting participation requirements, sign the Intellectual Property Policy (if
applicable, sign Invited Expert form (if applicable) and sign the relevant Opt-In Agreements. If a call
or meeting attendee is not in compliance, they will be asked to leave the call or meeting. If they
refuse to leave a call or meeting, the session will be terminated and rescheduled.

M.2 GSMP Participation Rules

■ Be Considerate: The decisions made when creating standards will affect many users
companies, all points of view are needed to make the right decisions. Please allow all
participants to provide their points of view. Once a participant has explained their point of view,
however, they should refrain from repeating it numerous times.
■ Be Respectful: Members of GSMP are to treat one another with respect. Disagreement is no
excuse for poor behaviour and poor manners. We cannot allow personal attacks or behaviours
that make people feel uncomfortable or threatened.
■ If disagreeing, constructively disagree: It is important that we resolve disagreements and
differing views constructively and respectfully.
■ Be Collaborative: Collaboration reduces redundancy and improves the quality of our work; we
should always be open to collaboration. Our work should be done transparently and should
involve as many interested parties from as many business and regional perspectives as early in
the process as possible.
■ Be Representative: a speaker should not make remarks which further a personal agenda and
are not representative of that speaker’s constituency unless it is clearly stated that the
comments are personal. A speaker should not give the impression that they speak for a
company or region if they have not spent adequate time clearly explaining the business case to
the user company/s they represent and documenting their response. Speaker’s votes should
accurately reflect their constituent’s responses. This aligns GS1 with their mission to create user
driven standards.

The following subjects may cause offense and are not acceptable, however intended:
■ Disruptive behaviour (e.g., shouting, cursing, derogatory comments, or intoxication)
■ Filibuster (one person talking too loudly or too long to overcome other opinion)
■ Remarks about people (race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, national identity, national
language, nation of origin, sexuality)
■ Disparaging remarks about companies, types of companies or industries
■ The promotion or attempt to sell a particular company, proprietary product or product type,
implicitly or explicitly
■ Remarks about another company’s business practices when they are not represented at the
meeting
If a discussion leads to any of the preceding behaviours, conflict management rules will be applied.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 92 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

M.3 Conflict Management Rules

■ Before further discussion begins, the Meeting facilitator:
□ Clarifies the objective for the discussion
□ Places a time limit on the discussion
□ Asks all who wish to speak to give their names
□ Divides the time equally or seeks advice from the Chair on whether discussion should be
deferred or extended based on interest and other agenda topics
■ Once discussion begins, the Meeting facilitator:
□ Monitors time for each speaker and tells them when their time is up
□ If the speaker does not stop within a reasonable period per the discretion of the Meeting
facilitator, the meeting facilitator gives them a verbal warning
□ If after a warning, the speaker does not immediately stop, the Meeting facilitator will
suspend the call or physical meeting for one-minute. During this minute, the session is
temporarily adjourned.
□ After one minute, the Meeting facilitator will reconvene the session, but if the speaker
continues, the session will be stopped, adjourned. The speaker’s organisation will be
contacted by GSMP Management to ensure future compliance with GSMP Code of Conduct.
■ Conflict Management Rules are applied:
□ By the Meeting facilitator after ensuring all participants are familiar with the rules
□ Per the Meeting facilitator’s discretion or upon request by any member
□ As a “formal” GSMP intervention process designed to reintroduce a formal structure into
GSMP discussions

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 93 of 94

 Global Standards Management Process (GSMP) Manual

N GSMP Process Evolution

This section specifies the procedure by which the GSMP process itself may be amended. All such
amendments result in a revision to this GSMP Manual.
■ A proposal to change the GSMP process is submitted as a Work Request.
■ GSMP Operations and the IESC review the Work Request following the procedure for GSMP
Step 1.
■ If one or more process change Work Requests are accepted as a Work Order, it is assigned to
the GSMP Process SMG. Like other SMGs, participation in the GSMP Process is open to all GSMP
Community members. However, an IP opt-in is not required to join the GSMP Process SMG. The
usual participation minimums do not apply to the GSMP Process SMG; instead, all members of
GSMP Operations are part of the GSMP Process SMG along with any other interested GSMP
Community members. In the GSMP Process SMG, unlike all other GSMP Working Groups, the
GS1 Global Office is a voting member.
■ The GSMP Process SMG develops a revision to the GSMP Manual, following the development
steps specified in Section 15 through community review. Instead of an eBallot, however, the
final draft incorporating community review revisions is submitted to the BCS for approval.
■ Once approved by the BCS, the process change takes effect. GSMP Operations may choose to
publish a new version of the GSMP Manual, or a “Process Change Notification” (PCN) that
documents the specific changes to the text of the GSMP Manual. PCNs, if used, are consolidated
into a revision of the GSMP Manual within one year of publication.

Release 3.0.1 Approved, Sep 2015 © 2015 GS1 AISBL Page 94 of 94