This presentation was given as a research seminar at Stevens Institute of Technology on December 1, 2011. It covers the analysis of standardization processes as a research field and discusses the background, findings, and structure of several publications. It is useful for researchers and doctoral students in Information Systems, Social Science and Management that are interested in analyzing the behavior of individuals in institutions.

1. Researching Standards
What? Why? How? And?
Michael zur Muehlen, Ph.D.
Stevens Institute of Technology
Howe School of Technology Management
Center for Business Process Innovation
Hoboken, New Jersey
Michael.zurMuehlen@stevens.edu
1

2. What’s in a Standard?
Technical Standard: Agreed upon speci cation for a way of
communicating or performing actions.
Internet Standard: Protocols through which people and programs
interact over the Internet.
Built on top of TCP/IP, and mostly HTTP
Use of Internet Standards is discretionary:
For developers: Direct choice of which standard to implement
For customers: Indirect choice of which standards-compliant product
to use
Users vote with their feet, developers with their hands
2

3. First Steps...
The rst Internet Standards
were written by graduate students as part of the ARPAnet project
were intended as documents that capture technical discussion
were deliberately called “Request for Comments” (RFC)
were recommendations, rather than normative standards
3

4. “Standards
should be
discovered, not
invented”
Vincent Cerf, in: Haffer, Lyon:
“Where the Wizards stay up late”,
1998 p. 254
4

5. Today...
Internet Standards are
written by employees of software and hardware companies
describe concepts that may or may not have been implemented
yet
are debated in working groups until a stable, immutable (within
the speci c version) speci cation emerges
are still optional recommendations
5

6. Risks in Standardization
Standards making is risky
Choosing the wrong technology may be counterproductive,
incompatible, and lead to lack of adoption
Standards adoption is risky
Choosing the wrong standard may obstruct technology
upgrade paths, limit business partner connectivity, and
force resource training in (obsolete) technology
6

7. Vignette 1: WfMC/IETF Episode
Theme: Death of a Standards Group
WfMC members tried to start an IETF working group around
process integration
IETF bylaws allow for 2 birds-of-a-feathers meeting
Minutes of the second meeting:
“Informal poll: who wants to work on that (very few); something else
(slightly more); Lisa Li[ppert] asked if everyone else here was to
prevent a WG forming (larger still, but still a minority).”
Established IETF members did not condone what they perceived
as “Marketing Garbage” – Working Group did not form
7

8. Genealogy of BPM Standards
8

9. Observation: IETF rejected the
outside proposal by WfMC
members
What could explain this?
question 9

10. Standardization Venues
Standardization is not standardized
No dominant standards organization that regulates Internet
standards (W3C, IETF, OMG, OASIS etc.)
No common set of procedures across different standards bodies
(bylaws)
Large areas of domain overlap (both vertically and horizontally)
Government-sanctioned standards organizations often fail,
losing power to market consortia [Schoechle 2003]
Cultural clash between design culture striving for “good”
architecture and commercial culture striving for quick
marketability [Monteiro 1998, zur Muehlen et al. 2005]
The “right” standards body lends legitimacy to an idea
[compare Barley and Tolbert 1987]
10

11. “Rough
Consensus
and Running
Code”
Sir Tim Berners-Lee in:
“Weaving the Web”, 1999
11

12. Mobility of Standards Makers
12

13. Observation: Standard makers are
highly mobile across venues
What could explain this?
question 13

14. Social Movements: Individuals
14

15. Explaining Standardization Venues
Standards Bodies are not Companies
They can organize around ideologies
Identity = ideology (beliefs) + legitimacy
Competition forces legitimacy
Standards Bodies are Forums for Design Ideas
Individual contributions shape speci cations
Speci cations shape attitudes
“Thought Collectives” reject outside ideas
Working Groups are born, merge, and die
If similar groups exist, new groups emerge easier
Resources are nite
Competition affects cloning
15

16. Vignette 2: W3C Episode
Theme: Maintaining the Values of an Institution
W3C tried to change its IP licensing schema to RAND licensing
More than 2,000 individuals commented on the proposed
change
The policy would discriminate against the poor
The policy undermines the “Spirit of the Web”
The policy would be self-defeating for W3C
The proposal is a conspiracy
The committee reversed their position and produced a Royalty-
Free proposal
16

17. Standardization Venues
IETF OASIS OMG W3C WfMC
Medium-High Medium
Low-High Medium-High
Entrance Barrier Low ($0) ($635-63,500) or ($500-5000)
($250-45,000) ($500-70,0000)
invitation or fellowship
2 BOF +
3 members,
Charter, Ad hoc, DTC Only within current Ad hoc, TC
WG formation max cycle 30
approval charters topics W3C activities charters topics
days
required
Procedural Rules Strict Formal Strict Strict Relaxed
Royalty-free
IP Rules RAND RAND RAND W3C License
license
WfMC
Conceptual
Areas None MDA WS Architecture Reference
Framework
Model
Interest in BPM None Individual WGs BEIDTF + BPMI WS-CDL Focus
Implementation Yes, not
Yes No Yes No
Required enforced
17

18. Research Question
We have tried (unsuccessfully) for more than 12 years to
standardize how to coordinate business processes across the
Internet. Why are these standards missing?
Individual standard makers are joining, leaving, and generally
moving between different standards bodies in sometime random
seeming paths
Commercial interest is often deliberately silenced in the
development of standards
The prevailing economic models of standard making
insuf ciently explain the behavior we witnessed
How can we explain the observed phenomena
during the standard making process?
18

19. Research Design
Longitudinal Case Study based on public and restricted
archival data and participation in standards venues
Detailed Case Analysis of selected Vignettes
IETF Case
W3C Case
Collected observations (events, incidents, signi cant behavior)
from cases (a la process theory)
Evaluated signi cant observations both from an economic and
an ecological perspective
Documented results as conjectures and testing strategies for
further work
19

20. Data Collection
Extracted participant information from public and members-
only standards documents
Protocols from standards meetings 1993-2006
Standards documents
Call sheets
Gathered insight through participation
Went to 20+ standards meetings
Participated in numerous phone conferences
Multiple supplementary interviews (in person and via email)
Standards authors
Standards bodies representatives
Contemporary witnesses
20

21. Social Ecology
Phenomena supporting an ecological perspective:
The birth, merger, and death of standards institutions
The creation and survival of institutions depending largely on their
legitimacy
Individual actions shaping and shaped by the institutions
Institutional inertia obstructing rapid institutional change and
affecting the movement of ideas
Phenomena supporting an economical perspective:
Standards participants joining standards bodies, competing or
cooperating based on their perception of market share and market
size, their technological competence and their assets
21

22. Developing a Theory of Social
Ecology
22

23. Contrasting Explanations
Example Economical Explanation Ecological Explanation
New industry groups submit their Vendors need a branded Vendors migrate to habitats that
standards to older bodies (for standard that will attract more can confer the greatest
example, IBM et al. submit to adopters. legitimacy.
OASIS; WfMC submits to IETF)
A standards effort is rejected by The institution doesn’t believe The institution is protecting its
an established institution (for the standard will increase niche; its criteria for rejection
example, IETF prevents the market size. are an expression of its values.
formation of a working group
around the WfMC proposal)
Attempts to control IP (for Economic self-interest of Companies will try to protect
example, the W3C proposal to vendors favors privately owned their niches.
change IP policy in vendors’ IP.
favor)
Attempts to make IP public (for Shared IP is in the long run The Internet emerged as an
example, the W3C decision not to better for companies, as it ecosystem where resources are
change IP policy in vendors’ reduces legal costs associated shared, and this ethos persists.
favor) with disputes and expands
markets.
23

24. Conjectures
Working groups in Internet standard making function as a
population ecology
Test: Apply Hannan and Freeman’s techniques to the
formation of Working Groups at W3C, IETF etc.
Standard makers function as part of an interactional eld, in
which their actions are interdependent with those of other
standard makers
Test: Sequence analysis of standard makers
The bylaws of the standard making bodies are the source of
institutional stability in Internet standard making
Test: Study relationship between changes to bylaws and
working group formation and dissolution
24

25. Publications
25

26. Some Lessons Learned
Data is everything
We had a great dataset and a hunch on how to analyze it
A lot of data publicly available
Building theory is hard, sometimes you need multiple tries
Present your work before you submit it
V 1: Conference Draft
V 2: Conference Submission
Multiple talks & previous paper
Write, rewrite, review, repeat
V3: 36 editing passes
V4: 56 editing passes
V5: 25 editing passes
V6: 36 editing passes
V7: 19 editing passes
Editors want to help you, not destroy you
Take advice seriously
Be wary of quick xes
Ask for clari cation
Don’t be afraid to change your approach
26

27. Going Forward
Analyzing the change of working groups over time
Data from BPMI/OMG working group on BPMN 2001-2006
Studying the change in social network structures over time
Analyzing the internal processes of working groups
35,000+ emails from W3C HTML 5 Working Group
Studying decision-making patterns, topic shifts, and con ict
resolution
27

28. Attendance: Power-Law at work
150
135
120
105
90
75
60
45
30
15
0
# of BPMN meetings attended 2001-2006, all attendees
28

29. BPMN Over Time
29

30. 30

31. Topic Drift
31

32. Thank You - Questions?
Ph.D. ion
Mu ehlen, ess Innovat
zur oc ment
M ichael Business Pr gy Manage
for nolo
Center hool of Tech hnology
Sc ec
Howe Institute of T dson
s u
Steven int on the H
Po
Castle , NJ 07030 3
n 6-829
H oboke +1 (201) 21 5385
Phone
: 216- ns.edu
+1 (201) @steve /bpm
Fax: uehlen du
: mzurm w.stevens.e urmuehlen
E-mail ww
http:// eshare.net/
mz
Web: www.s
lid
slide s:
32