IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/itsb14/106858.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analysing standardisation processes as technology trajectories in the mobile ecosystem: Implications for competition and innovation

Author

Listed:
  • Hallingby, Hanne Kristine

Abstract

The traditional mobile industry expresses worries for the future due to converging technologies and new actors. Standards are the foundation for convergence, and have been central in all current subsectors of the mobile industry. However, subsectors have developed different technological knowledge, routines and path dependencies in their standardisation processes and can be understood as different technology trajectories within the same technology paradigm. The research question in this comparative case study is: What are characteristics, differences and similarities of important standardisation processes in the mobile telecommunication ecosystem? The systematic comparison suggests that the technology trajectories 3GPP and ETSI neither are able to spur necessary innovation in the wider ecosystem, nor to ensure satisfying profit. IETF and 3WC spur innovation through an extensive accessibility to standards, but appropriability conditions are challenging. It is private platforms such as Google and Apple that seem handle both aspects: to enable innovation and adoption by making technology elements public through extension markets, and simultaneously ensure profit by keeping technology private. This research contributes by clarifying how the tension between private and public goods is played out in major technology trajectories in the mobile telecommunication sector; especially helpful is the distinction between standard openness and extension markets as different means for making technology public. The four concepts developed for assessing the status of standardization processes can be used for structuring discussions on the issue, and for future analyses of technology innovations in the telecommunication sector.

Suggested Citation

  • Hallingby, Hanne Kristine, 2014. "Analysing standardisation processes as technology trajectories in the mobile ecosystem: Implications for competition and innovation," 20th ITS Biennial Conference, Rio de Janeiro 2014: The Net and the Internet - Emerging Markets and Policies 106858, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:itsb14:106858
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/106858/1/816641684.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. TEECE, 2008. "Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: The Transfer And Licensing Of Know-How And Intellectual Property Understanding the Multinational Enterprise in the Modern World, chapter 5, pages 67-87, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. West, Joel, 2003. "How open is open enough?: Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1259-1285, July.
    3. Bengt-Åke Lundvall, 2007. "Innovation System Research – Where it came from and where it might go," Globelics Working Paper Series 2007-01, Globelics - Global Network for Economics of Learning, Innovation, and Competence Building Systems, Aalborg University, Department of Business and Management.
    4. Jan Fagerberg, 2003. "Schumpeter and the revival of evolutionary economics: an appraisal of the literature," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 125-159, April.
    5. Langlois, Richard N. & Robertson, Paul L., 1992. "Networks and innovation in a modular system: Lessons from the microcomputer and stereo component industries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 297-313, August.
    6. Jeffrey Funk, 2009. "The co-evolution of technology and methods of standard setting: the case of the mobile phone industry," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 73-93, February.
    7. Henkel, Joachim & Schöberl, Simone & Alexy, Oliver, 2014. "The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 879-890.
    8. Fransman,Martin, 2010. "The New ICT Ecosystem," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521171205, September.
    9. Castellacci, Fulvio, 2008. "Innovation and the competitiveness of industries: comparing the mainstream and the evolutionary approaches," MPRA Paper 27523, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. 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.
    11. Laursen, Keld & Salter, Ammon J., 2014. "The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 867-878.
    12. Carlota Perez, 2010. "The financial crisis and the future of innovation: A view of technical change with the aid of history," The Other Canon Foundation and Tallinn University of Technology Working Papers in Technology Governance and Economic Dynamics 28, TUT Ragnar Nurkse Department of Innovation and Governance.
    13. Peitz, Martin & Waldfogel, Joel, 2012. "The Oxford Handbook of the Digital Economy," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195397840.
    14. Fransman,Martin, 2010. "The New ICT Ecosystem," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521191319, September.
    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. Torres de Oliveira, Rui & Verreynne, Martie-Louise & Steen, John & Indulska, Marta, 2021. "Creating value by giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 137-150.
    2. Martie-Louise Verreynne & Rui Torres de Oliveira & John Steen & Marta Indulska & Jerad A. Ford, 2020. "What motivates ‘free’ revealing? Measuring outbound non-pecuniary openness, innovation types and expectations of future profit growth," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 271-301, July.
    3. West, Joel & Kuk, George, 2016. "The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 169-181.
    4. Foege, J. Nils & Lauritzen, Ghita Dragsdahl & Tietze, Frank & Salge, Torsten Oliver, 2019. "Reconceptualizing the paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in crowdsourcing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6), pages 1323-1339.
    5. Miozzo, Marcela & Desyllas, Panos & Lee, Hsing-fen & Miles, Ian, 2016. "Innovation collaboration and appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(7), pages 1337-1351.
    6. Nicolas Jullien & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2011. "FLOSS in an industrial economics perspective," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(4), pages 39-64.
    7. Chiao, Benjamin & MacVaugh, Jason, 2021. "Open innovation and organizational features: An experimental investigation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 376-389.
    8. Veer, Theresa & Yang, Philip & Riepe, Jan, 2022. "Ventures' conscious knowledge transfer to close partners, and beyond: A framework of performance, complementarity, knowledge disclosure, and knowledge broadcasting," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 37(3).
    9. Nicolas Jullien & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2011. "Floss firms, users and communities: a viable match?," Journal of Innovation Economics, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 31-53.
    10. Shaikh, Ibrahim & Randhawa, Krithika, 2022. "Managing the risks and motivations of technology managers in open innovation: Bringing stakeholder-centric corporate governance into focus," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Reinhilde Veugelers, 2018. "Eco-systems for young digital innovators," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(6), pages 1449-1465, December.
    12. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia & Yang, Jialei, 2022. "Distinguishing between appropriability and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(1).
    13. Langlois, Jonathan & BenMahmoud-Jouini, Sihem & Servajean-Hilst, Romaric, 2023. "Practicing secrecy in open innovation – The case of a military firm," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(1).
    14. 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.
    15. Grove, Nico & Baumann, Oliver, 2012. "Complexity in the telecommunications industry: When integrating infrastructure and services backfires," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 40-50.
    16. Hallberg, Niklas L. & Brattström, Anna, 2019. "Concealing or revealing? Alternative paths to profiting from innovation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-174.
    17. Garcia-Swartz, Daniel D. & Campbell-Kelly, Martin, 2019. "Openness as a business strategy: Historical perspectives on openness in computing and mobile phones," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-14.
    18. Yaowu Sun & Yi Zhai, 2018. "Mapping the knowledge domain and the theme evolution of appropriability research between 1986 and 2016: a scientometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(1), pages 203-230, July.
    19. Andrea Renda, 2016. "Selecting and Designing European ICT Innovation Policies," JRC Research Reports JRC103661, Joint Research Centre.
    20. Yang, Jialei & Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Pia, 2022. "Evolving appropriability – Variation in the relevance of appropriability mechanisms across industries," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:zbw:itsb14:106858. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.itsworld.org/ .

    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.