IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i4p1641-d323815.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Filtering Out Standard Success Criteria in the Case of Multi-Mode Standardization: Responsible Waste Water Treatment

Author

Listed:
  • Geerten van de Kaa

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Lieke van den Eijnden

    (Fluor corporation, 2132 LS Hoofddorp, The Netherlands)

  • Neelke Doorn

    (Faculty of Technology, Policy, and Management, Delft University of Technology, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Standardization can be achieved in multiple ways; firms may join forces and develop standards in standardization committees, they may compete directly on the market in standards battles, or governmental agencies may impose standards. This paper studies criteria for the selection of standards in a situation in which these three forms of standardization occur simultaneously (multi-mode standardization). The paper attempts to arrive at weights for these criteria by applying them to the case of phosphorus recovery from municipal waste water, a technological process that fits the transition to a circular economy but that is still lacking standardization. A contribution is made to the standardization literature by empirically studying the case of multi-mode standardization and by applying standard success criteria to the area of water treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1641-:d:323815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1641/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/4/1641/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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).
    2. Blind, Knut & Mangelsdorf, Axel, 2016. "Motives to standardize: Empirical evidence from Germany," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 13-24.
    3. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1987. "Coordination Through Committees and Markets," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt5sn4b6v4, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    4. de Vries, Henk J. & Verhagen, W. Pieter, 2016. "Impact of changes in regulatory performance standards on innovation: A case of energy performance standards for newly-built houses," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 48, pages 56-68.
    5. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1988. "Coordination through Committees and Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 235-252, Summer.
    6. Dan, Sujan M., 2019. "How interface formats gain market acceptance: The role of developers and format characteristics in the development of de facto standards," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    7. Gao, Xudong, 2014. "A latecomer's strategy to promote a technology standard: The case of Datang and TD-SCDMA," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 597-607.
    8. Markus Starkl & Norbert Brunner & Andreas Werner Helmut Hauser & Magdalena Feil & Hamanth Kasan, 2018. "Addressing Sustainability of Sanitation Systems: Can it be Standardized?," International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), IGI Global, vol. 16(1), pages 39-51, January.
    9. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    12. 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.
    13. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    14. 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.
    15. Henk de Vries & Kai Jakobs & Tineke M. Egyedi & Manabu Eto & Stephan Fertig & Olia Kanevskaia & Louise Klintner & Claudia Koch & Ivana Mijatovic & Mona Mirtsch & Piergiuseppe Morone & Marta Orviska & , 2018. "Standardization: Towards an Agenda for Research," International Journal of Standardization Research (IJSR), IGI Global, vol. 16(1), pages 52-59, January.
    16. Bakker, Sjoerd & van Lente, Harro & Meeus, Marius T.H., 2012. "Dominance in the prototyping phase—The case of hydrogen passenger cars," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 871-883.
    17. 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.
    18. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Bruijn, Hans, 2015. "Platforms and incentives for consensus building on complex ICT systems: The development of WiFi," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(7), pages 580-589.
    19. 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.
    20. Ram Ranganathan & Anindya Ghosh & Lori Rosenkopf, 2018. "Competition–cooperation interplay during multifirm technology coordination: The effect of firm heterogeneity on conflict and consensus in a technology standards organization," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(12), pages 3193-3221, December.
    21. Aija Elina Leiponen, 2008. "Competing Through Cooperation: The Organization of Standard Setting in Wireless Telecommunications," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1904-1919, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hoogerbrugge, Coen & van de Kaa, Geerten & Chappin, Emile, 2023. "Adoption of quality standards for corporate greenhouse gas inventories: The importance of other stakeholders," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).

    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. 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).
    3. 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).
    4. Dan, Sujan M., 2019. "How interface formats gain market acceptance: The role of developers and format characteristics in the development of de facto standards," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. van de Kaa, Geerten & Greeven, Mark, 2017. "LED standardization in China and South East Asia: Stakeholders, infrastructure and institutional regimes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 863-870.
    6. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    7. 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).
    8. van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    9. van de Kaa, Geerten & Papachristos, George & de Bruijn, Hans, 2019. "The governance of platform development processes: A metaphor and a simulation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 190-203.
    10. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    11. Ke Feng & Bas Karreman & Deming Zeng & Enrico Pennings, 2024. "R&D collaboration, social coordination, and standardization: evidence from the Chinese automotive industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 158-190, February.
    12. van de Kaa, Geerten & van Ek, Martijn & Kamp, Linda M. & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Wind turbine technology battles: Gearbox versus direct drive - opening up the black box of technology characteristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    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. Johansson, Magnus & Kärreman, Matts & Foukaki, Amalia, 2019. "Research and development resources, coopetitive performance and cooperation: The case of standardization in 3GPP, 2004–2013," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    15. Vialle, Pierre & Song, Junjie & Zhang, Jian, 2012. "Competing with dominant global standards in a catching-up context. The case of mobile standards in China," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 832-846.
    16. 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.
    17. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    18. Wu, Yuhao & de Vries, Henk J., 2022. "Effects of participation in standardization on firm performance from a network perspective: Evidence from China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:4:p:1641-:d:323815. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.