IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v46y2022i8s0308596122000477.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do standards committees affect the success of a standard? Comparative analysis of RCS and VoLTE and proposed hybrid standards development model of open and bandwagon approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Dongwook
  • Kim, Sungbum

Abstract

Standards have become enablers of complex digital systems that provide a foundation for the present-day digital economy. While existing literature analyzes the factors behind the dominance of one standard over another, there has been little focus on the standards committees that define the standards. This study comparatively analyzes the case of the Rich Communication Services (RCS) and Voice over LTE (VoLTE) standards to examine the characteristics of standards committees. The findings provide lessons learned for standards committees, including non-tiered open membership, and sufficient depth of specifications. Most importantly, a new model is proposed for standards development, based on which the standards committee focuses on technical specifications with open membership, while industry consortia focus on commercial profiling of the technical specifications with the lead of influential players. The new model is expected to resolve the tradeoff between the development speed and stability of communications standards.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Dongwook & Kim, Sungbum, 2022. "How do standards committees affect the success of a standard? Comparative analysis of RCS and VoLTE and proposed hybrid standards development model of open and bandwagon approaches," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:46:y:2022:i:8:s0308596122000477
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102345
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596122000477
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2022.102345?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    2. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    3. Timothy Simcoe, 2012. "Standard Setting Committees: Consensus Governance for Shared Technology Platforms," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 305-336, February.
    4. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    5. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    6. Kim, Dong-hyu & Lee, Heejin & Kwak, Jooyoung, 2017. "Standards as a driving force that influences emerging technological trajectories in the converging world of the Internet and things: An investigation of the M2M/IoT patent network," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(7), pages 1234-1254.
    7. Teece, David J., 2018. "Profiting from innovation in the digital economy: Enabling technologies, standards, and licensing models in the wireless world," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(8), pages 1367-1387.
    8. Robert Axelrod & Will Mitchell & Robert E. Thomas & D. Scott Bennett & Erhard Bruderer, 1995. "Coalition Formation in Standard-Setting Alliances," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 41(9), pages 1493-1508, September.
    9. David Thomas Methe, 1998. "Overcoming a Standard Bearer: Challenges to NEC's Personal Computer in Japan," Discussion Paper Series 90, Research Institute for Economics & Business Administration, Kobe University.
    10. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    11. Justus Baron & Knut Blind & Tim Pohlmann, 2011. "Essential patents and standard dynamics," Post-Print hal-00658979, HAL.
    12. Cusumano, Michael A. & Mylonadis, Yiorgos & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1992. "Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 51-94, April.
    13. Bekkers, Rudi & Duysters, Geert & Verspagen, Bart, 2002. "Intellectual property rights, strategic technology agreements and market structure: The case of GSM," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(7), pages 1141-1161, September.
    14. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1986. "Installed Base and Compatibility: Innovation, Product Preannouncements, and Predation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 940-955, December.
    15. David, Paul A. & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 1994. "Economics of compatibility standards and competition in telecommunication networks," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 217-241, December.
    16. Cabral, Luís & Salant, David, 2014. "Evolving technologies and standards regulation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 48-56.
    17. Blind, Knut & Petersen, Sören S. & Riillo, Cesare A.F., 2017. "The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 249-264.
    18. Salop, Steven C & Scheffman, David T, 1987. "Cost-Raising Strategies," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(1), pages 19-34, September.
    19. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    20. Funk, Jeffrey L. & Methe, David T., 2001. "Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusion of global industry standards: the case of mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 589-610, April.
    21. Leiponen, Aija, 2006. "Competing through cooperation: Standard setting in wireless telecommunications," Discussion Papers 1056, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    22. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 1993. "Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 351-369, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2017. "Multi-mode standardisation: A critical review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1370-1386.
    2. Foucart, Renaud & Li, Qian Cher, 2021. "The role of technology standards in product innovation: Theory and evidence from UK manufacturing firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(2).
    3. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    4. Wiegmann, Paul Moritz & Eggers, Felix & de Vries, Henk J. & Blind, Knut, 2022. "Competing Standard-Setting Organizations: A Choice Experiment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    5. Funk, Jeffrey L. & Methe, David T., 2001. "Market- and committee-based mechanisms in the creation and diffusion of global industry standards: the case of mobile communication," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 589-610, April.
    6. Geerten van de Kaa & Lieke van den Eijnden & Neelke Doorn, 2020. "Filtering Out Standard Success Criteria in the Case of Multi-Mode Standardization: Responsible Waste Water Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-10, February.
    7. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, September.
    8. Vanhaverbeke, W.P.M. & Torremans, H., 1998. "Organizational structure in process-based organizations," Research Memorandum 005, Maastricht University, Netherlands Institute of Business Organization and Strategy Research (NIBOR).
    9. van Wessel, R.M., 2008. "Realizing business benefits from company IT standardization : Case study research into the organizational value of IT standards, towards a company IT standardization management framework," Other publications TiSEM 4bdde091-4f3f-4be1-84aa-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Dinçkol, Dize & Ozcan, Pinar & Zachariadis, Markos, 2023. "Regulatory standards and consequences for industry architecture: The case of UK Open Banking," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    11. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    12. Vercoulen, F. & van Wegberg, M.J., 1998. "Standard selection modes in dynamic, complex industries : creating hybrids between market selection and negotiated selection of standards," Research Memorandum 006, Maastricht University, Netherlands Institute of Business Organization and Strategy Research (NIBOR).
    13. G. Kaa & M. J. Greeven, 2017. "Mobile telecommunication standardization in Japan, China, the United States, and Europe: a comparison of regulatory and industrial regimes," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 181-192, May.
    14. Tobias Kretschmer & Katrin Muehlfeld, 2004. "Co-opetition in Standard-Setting: The Case of the Compact Disc," Working Papers 04-14, NET Institute, revised Oct 2004.
    15. Wen, Wen & Forman, Chris & Jarvenpaa, Sirkka L, 2022. "The effects of technology standards on complementor innovations: Evidence from the IETF," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(6).
    16. Freimuth, Claudia & Oelmann, Mark & Amann, Erwin, 2018. "Development and prospects of standardization in the German municipal wastewater sector: Version 1.0," IBES Diskussionsbeiträge 223, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Business and Economic Studie (IBES).
    17. Teubner, Lisa K. & Henkel, Joachim & Bekkers, Rudi, 2021. "Industry consortia in mobile telecommunications standards setting: Purpose, organization and diversity," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3).
    18. Kretschmer, Tobias & Muehlfeld, Katrin, 2006. "Co-opetition and prelaunch in standard-setting for developing technologies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 19843, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. Yoshiaki Fukami, 2021. "Open and Clarified Process of Compatibility Standards for Promoting Data Exchange," The Review of Socionetwork Strategies, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 535-555, November.
    20. Ewald Scherm & Christian Maaß, 2006. "Zum Stellenwert der Netzwerkökonomik in der Strategie-/Marketingforschung —Eine Analyse empirischer Untersuchungen," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 27-46, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:46:y:2022:i:8:s0308596122000477. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.