Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27 – 40

Shaping user-side innovation through standardisation

The example of ICT
Kai Jakobs
Aachen University, Computer Science Department, Informatik IV, Ahornstr. 55, D-52074 Aachen, Germany

Received 29 November 2004; accepted 24 June 2005

Abstract

This paper looks at the relations that exist between standardisation and user-side innovation in ICT. Some
necessary background information are followed by a discussion of how standards and user-side innovations are
shaped. A mutual influence between standardisation and innovation can be identified. To avoid the emergence of
standards that are beneficial only for a handful of users a co-ordinated representation of users in standards setting is
suggested.
D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reseved.

Keywords: Innovation; Standardisation; Users; ICT

1. Introduction-user-side innovation

Two different dcategoriesT of innovations1 may be distinguished: those that make the media typically
originate from a research lab and are the result of dedicated research and development (R&D) efforts.
Patents, for instance are a popular indicator used to measure a country’s or a company’s innovation
potential. Yet, there is also another category, which may be less spectacular, but possibly as important:
those that take place at the user side, where, for example, a company needs to innovate in order to adapt
a newly purchased ICT (Information and Communication Technology) system to its particular
environment. The former category is very much associated with R&D and, to a lesser degree, with

E-mail address: Kai.Jakobs@i4.informatik.rwth-aachen.de.

1
According to [1], ban innovation is an idea, practice or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit
of adoptionQ, and adoption is ba decision to make full use of an innovation as the best course of action availableQ.

0040-1625/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reseved.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2005.06.007
28 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40

production and marketing. The latter is rather more concerned with implementation issues and,
particularly, the effective deployment of an innovation. Such activities, following an original invention2,
particularly the implementation process within a user’s environment, are held in low esteem. However,
even more than ten years ago it was already observed that b. . .enterprises that consider innovation part
of their strategy are beginning to realize that the implementation of technological innovations in
particular is a complex matter in which. . .many interrelated factors play a role.Q [2]. The
implementation of an invention – an innovation – can affect, and be affected by, almost all aspects of
an organisation. In particular, organisational culture, its management, and its specific environment are
essential for a successful implementation.
Throughout the remainder of this paper I will have a closer look at the issues and problems that
surround such user-side innovation. Some background aspects, including a definition of the term duserT,
a discussion of the need for standards and of the role users play in the standards setting process, and the
social shaping of technology are discussed in Section 2. Section 3 looks at the context-specific nature of
user requirements, and at the relation between standardisation and user-side innovation. Finally, some
brief concluding remarks are made in Section 4.

2. Some background aspects

Technological artefacts in general, and especially such powerful representatives as information and
communication technology (ICT) systems, will exert potentially strong impact on their environment.
Complex interaction can be observed, where technology may assume both an active and a passive role;
that is, technological artefacts and their environment are mutually interdependent. The environment
within which technology is used and employed has, among others, social, cultural, societal, and
organisational behaviours, rules and norms. It is clear that technology cannot emerge completely
independent from such external influences. However, the impact ICT may have on organisations, or
indeed society as a whole, has thus far attracted considerably more attention than the powers that shape
this technology in the first place. Especially the impact of ICT within organisational settings (e.g. on a
company’s performance, or its role as an enabler of business process re-engineering) has been subject of
a vast number of studies and analyses. Keywords such as dmanagement of changeT and dorganisational
transformationT can frequently be found in the literature, typically denoting studies on how the
introduction and subsequent use of ICT have changed a particular organisational environment — for
better or worse. Only relatively recently has the reverse direction of impact been studied, i.e. that exerted
from organisational and societal conditions on technology.

2.1. Defining the duserT

Typically, the term duserT is employed in very different contexts, and with very different meanings.
For the purpose of this paper we can identify a two-level hierarchy (see Fig. 1). The dlowerT layer
represents the service providers and vendors, who have to incorporate standards into their systems. The
dupperT layer is formed by enterprises which want to implement these systems and to integrate them into
their respective local environments.
2
Using the equation dInvention + Implementation = InnovationT; dimplementationT = dadoptionT.
 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40 29

Corporate users
users of – companies, (context specific)
services/ – administrations, corporate requirements
implementations – .....

users of Implementors / potentially diverse requirements,

standards Service providers based on products/services available

Standards

Fig. 1. A two-level hierarchy of users.

That is, we have two classes of dusersT

! users of implementations or services and

! users of standards.

This paper is concerned with the former. That is, it will look at the impact standards may have on
innovations that occur at the site of companies who are using ICT systems that incorporate, or are built
around, standards.

2.2. The need for standards

The major issue in standards setting burns down to the question of how to select the drightT standard,
or how to standardise on the drightT system. dRightT, of course, means different things to different people,
which is why standardisation sometimes tends to be very tricky. Something that is drightT for one country
or one company may well be disastrous for another. The international scale of standards, especially in the
field of ICT, means that players with very different backgrounds from very different economies need to
agree on something they deem to be at least more or less drightT. Especially when corporate interests are
at stake, this is a particularly tricky task, which may well be one reason behind the frequently heard
question dwhy not leave it all to the market?T.
Let us imagine what might happen if it were solely up the market to decide upon which technology to
settle. Several results are possible; one, of course, being that the best alternative available actually wins.
There is no need to discuss this case further. There are other possible outcomes, though.
Consider, for example, a situation where different, but roughly equivalent technologies are available,
none of which commands sufficient support to establish itself as the dstandardT. It may now well happen
that this uncertainty paralyses the market, and that potential buyers postpone their purchases in order not
to invest in a loosing technology. As a consequence, innovation in that technical domain would almost
come to a standstill. Clearly, nobody would benefit from a situation like this.
The notion of duncertaintyT is important here. Standards are part of a larger socio-economic system,
which does exert a certain amount of influence on standards’ development. That is, a standard is subject
to path dependencies imposed on it by its broader environment (see e.g. Ref. [3]. Unforeseen, and indeed
30 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40

unforeseeable developments may hamper all efforts and may even impose the need to start an activity all
over again from scratch. Moreover, in most cases a standard is not a stand-alone document. Rather, it is
positioned in a network of other standards (some of them possibly only emerging), which influence the
boundary conditions within which it can emerge by laying down, for example, stringent compatibility
requirements. Last but not least, early decisions made during the standardisation of a technology itself
may have significant impact of later decisions. Selecting the telephone network as the carrier for
facsimile transmissions, for example, implicitly pre-defined numbering schemes to be used and possible
transmission speeds [4], as well as the need to eventually switch from analogue to digital transmission
technology. More general, path dependencies were established at an early stage of the process, which to
a considerable degree shaped subsequent developments.
Uncertainty has a particular strong impact on standardisation, where big oaks from minor acorns
may grow. That is, relatively small events may carry great weight; in the absence of a sound basis for
judgement and decisions the adoption of a particular technology by just one firm may encourage others
to follow suit. If this happens, chances are that a technology will be adopted, which may suit the initial
adopter (who will have evaluated the alternatives and selected the technology to best suit his needs),
but does not necessarily meet other entities’ demands. They, in turn, will then make their choices solely
based on the initial adopter’s policy decisions. Little, if any experimentation with alternative
technologies or systems will occur, which will rapidly be discarded. A similar effect may be observed
when decisions to adopt are based only on initial expressions of a technology (e.g. implementations of
ICT systems). In such cases, a poor first implementation can easily reduce to zero this technology’s
chances of being adopted, since possibly superficial, implementation specific shortcomings hide the
technology’s inherent advantages [5]. Likewise, observable early benefits of a technology will
outweigh all other aspects; in particular, higher benefits to be gained from a different technology at
some later stage will be ignored. Indeed, these benefits again cannot be identified at all due to the lack
of opportunities for experimentation. It follows that the market can – and frequently will – adopt the
dwrongT technology when left on its own. dWrongT, like drightT, of course is a vague term; a technology
may appear to be drightT for a particular adopter, but at the same time an adoption would have negative
impacts on others [6].
It is most likely that the above course of events could sooner or later be observed if standardisation
were left to market forces alone.3 To prevent this from happening, some form of co-ordinated
standardisation efforts are required. (Prospective) standards surely try to reduce uncertainty by aligning
players’ views and expectations. Indeed, the pure existence of a standard’s setting process might suffice
to prevent the development outlined above, as it would then be possible to raise expectations that a
standard will soon be emerging from this process [7].
Standardisation is becoming all the more important with the increasing economic globalisation. Large
firms are more and more looking to standards for several reasons which are typically, though not
necessarily, related to their own economic well-being. Standardisation may thus to some degree be seen
as an interface between technical and non-technical (e.g. economic, organisational, or social)
considerations. That is, standards are not only rooted in technical deliberations, but also result from a

3
In fact, it does appear. The DOS operating system may be considered as an example: one strong player, IBM, chose
this system, which did not really represent state-of-the-art at that time, and almost all others followed suit. Obviously,
IBM gained significant profits from this development (as did, even more so, Microsoft). In fact, users benefited as well,
albeit not from superior technology, but solely from the emerging network externalities.
 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40 31

process of social interactions between the stakeholders. These dynamic interactions are projected onto
the standardisation committees, where another dimension is added, that of the individual. Committee
members do not necessarily solely strive for technical brilliance; if they do, there will be a real danger of
over-engineered solutions. Much more depends on the technical, diplomatic and political capabilities of
the committee members, and last not least on the roles they assume, as the individuals play a decisive
role in the process (see e.g. Refs. [8,9]). For small companies, this may be both a chance and a problem,
as the success of their participation will to some extent depend on the aptitudes and skills of their
representatives rather than size or purchasing power.
Some rather more practical aspects of standards are possibly more convincing. Especially for users,
benefits, each of which may yield major savings, include:

! Avoiding technological dead-ends. Users want to avoid purchasing products that eventually leave
them stranded with an incompatible technology. A number of issues need to be considered in this
context. For instance, it has to be decided if and when a new technology should be purchased,
and which one should be selected. Too early adoptions not only bear the risk of adopting an
unsuccessful technology, but also ignore the considerable time and money that have gone into the
old technology. It has to be decided if and when to switch from a well-established technology to
a new one.
! Less dependency on vendors. Being locked-in into a vendor-specific environment is increasingly
becoming a major risk for a user, despite the advantages that can be associated with integrated
proprietary solutions. In particular, problems occur if a vendor misses an emerging development,
and its users are forced to switch to completely new systems; a very costly exercise [10].
Accordingly, standard compliant products from a choice of vendors appeal to the users, who can
pursue a pick-and-mix purchasing strategy, and also stand to benefit from price cuts as a result of
increased competition.
! Promotion of universality. Ultimately, users would like to see seamless interoperability between
all hardware and software, both internally and externally. With the ongoing globalisation of
markets this can only be achieved through international standards. Clearly, this holds especially
for communications products. Ideally it should not matter at all which vendor or service provider
has been selected; interoperability should always be guaranteed. This implies that user’s needs
and requirements are met by the standards (and the implementations). Yet, there is another major
economic benefit to be gained: the costs of incompatibility may be tremendous. For instance, in
the 1980s half of General Motor’s annual) automation budget (i.e. hundreds of millions of
dollars) went into the design of specific interfaces between incompatible machines, a situation
that would not have occurred if adequate standards had been available in the first place [11].

2.3. Users in standards setting

If users participate at all in standards setting, they will do so with motivations very different from
those of vendors and service providers, who seek to protect their own business interests by either trying
to push proprietary solutions, or by joining the dopen systemsT bandwagon, whatever is deemed most
profitable. Above all, though, they want to keep – better yet, increase – their customer base. Users, on
the other hand, will primarily try and push their specific requirements during the process. While typically
wishing to have standards-based systems, users at the same time also want to have solutions which are
32 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40

adaptable as much as possible to their specific needs. Thus, clashes are pre-programmed not only
between single vendors, but also between vendors and users. Not least in an attempt to circumvent these
clashes, and to accommodate their customers, vendors tend to incorporate enhancements into their
products to meet actual demand. Similarly, every now and then users tend to design their own standards,
which then eventually compete with their official counterparts. This happened for example in the case of
EDI (Electronic Data Interchange), where the official standard (EDIFACT) was preceded by, and had to
compete with, several sector standards [12]. Ultimately, such activities are likely to undermine the
general idea of compatibility standards.
Crucial questions directly related to the issue of user participation in standardisation which need to be
addressed are why, what, how, where, and when to participate (see also Refs. [5,14])? First, why
participate at all?4 After all, such commitment implies major expenses on the part of the user, with a very
uncertain return on investment.
Yet, users need to recognise that they are the ultimate sponsors of standardisation (the costs of which
are included in product prices). Indeed, as customers they have a tremendous hold over the industry. This
holds especially in the ICT sector, where the benefits to be gained from network externalities will either
rapidly attract more and more users, or where their absence will throw a standard into obscurity.
Moreover, users will suffer most from inadequate standards, that will leave them struggling with
incompatibilities [15]. On the other hand, they will reap major benefits from well-designed standards
addressing real needs [16].
What could users contribute? Their most obvious contributions are their needs and requirements.
It has been pointed out in Ref. [17], for instance, that user’s requirements are rarely, if ever,
specified in a way that renders further discussions, refinements and elaboration in the committees
dispensable. Standards setting bodies must realise that only users can provide this crucial type of
input [18]. Users, on the other hand, need to ensure that not only their compatibility needs are
addressed, but also their overall dcomputingT needs, i.e. those requirements that originate from their
organisational and strategic environments [19]. This yields the need to bring user managers and
strategists to the standards groups (as opposed to engineers, who would know about the technical
nuts and bolts, but cannot normally contribute organisational or business process related needs). A
major obstacle here is rooted in a communication problem, and in the different perceptions of
technology that are frequently held by engineers on the one hand, and managers on the other (see
e.g. Ref. [20]). To overcome potential communication problems these different perceptions need to
be aligned. This requires learning by all sides; engineers need to gain some understanding of the
necessary organisational and managerial considerations, and managers need to get an understanding
of at least the technical basics.5
The next issue to be considered is dhow to participateT. In general, there seems to be consensus that
large users, especially those with an urgent need for standardised systems or services should participate

4
Frequently, the dOpen sourceT movement is considered an alternative to the more formal process of standards setting.
For a discussion of the relations between open source software and standards see Ref. [13].
5
Orlikowski has established the concept of dFramesT (see e.g. Ref. [23]). She observes that different groups have different
views and expectations of a certain technology. These are based on previous experience, expectations and assumptions, however
well grounded they may be. If the respective frames are incompatible, major problems are likely to occur. For instance, users,
company strategists and technologists will have very different frames regarding a given technology. A later case study, however,
demonstrates that technological frames are context specific [24]. That is, alignment can only be done on a case-by-case basis due
to the different contexts from which the frames emerged, and which are likely to have shaped them.
 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40 33

directly in the technical work. In fact, some do. However, especially for smaller companies, there are
obvious barriers to this form of participation which are largely rooted in the lack of sufficient financial
resources and knowledgeable personnel (see e.g. Ref. [21]).
A variety of different types of organisations are active in the standardisation arena. These include
not only the official voluntary organisations such as ITU6 and ISO.7 In addition, industry consortia
like the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) or the Object Management Group (OMG) also play a
major role. Thus, dWhere to participate?T is another question to be addressed. Yet, in most cases dthe
standardisation processT is viewed in the literature as something akin to an atomic entity, which cannot
be subdivided any further (see e.g. Refs. [3,11,22]. Participation in profile development, for example,
would be the option of choice if interoperability of implementations were to be assured. On the other
hand, there is little point in specifying a profile for a base standard that does not meet the requirements in
the first place.8
Finally, when should users participate? This problem is closely related to the question of what users
can contribute to standardisation. The two genuine user domains, requirements and operating experience,
seem to suggest that the crucial periods of user contributions are prior to, or at a very early stage of, a
standards activity (requirements). Yet, earlier studies (e.g., [25]) seem to suggest that meaningful
requirements are not necessarily available prior to system use. For example, critical requirements on
corporate e-mail systems only emerged once the system was used outside its originally envisaged
application domain (i.e., when a company found that e-mail could do more than just provide for
convenient interpersonal communication).

2.4. Social shaping of technology

Two mutually exclusive schools have dominated research on technology and organisations until the
early eighties (and are still in evidence). Proponents of the dorganisational choiceT model consider
technology as a vehicle to both reflect and foster the interests of particular groups; the process of change
can be, and indeed is, shaped entirely by policy makers or an organisation’s managers; these actors have
unlimited technological choices. bTechnology has no impact on people or performance in an
organisation independent of the purposes of those who would use it, and the responses of those who
have to work with itQ [27]. In contrast, dtechnological determinismT in essence postulates that ICT
determines the behaviour of organisations, that the consequences of manipulating a given technology
will always be the same, independent of who manipulates and within which context. It follows that,
according to this view, organisations have little choice but to adapt to the requirements of technology;
particular paths of technological development are inevitable; like organisations, society at large also has
no other choice but to adapt.
Research into the social shaping of technology (SST; see Ref. [28] for a thorough discussion of this
concept) largely emerged as a response to technological determinism. SST adopts a middle course between
the two older approaches, acknowledging that technology indeed has an impact on its environment, but that
at the same time it is well framed through technical, but rather more through e.g. organisational, societal,
cultural and economic factors. In particular, SST attempts to unveil the interactions between these technical

6
International Telecommunication Union.
7
International Organisation for Standardisation.
8
See Ref. [26] for a discussion of the different stages of the life cycle of a standard.
34 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40

and social factors [29]. Abandoning the idea of inevitable technological developments implies that choices
can be made regarding, for instance, the acquisition, the use and particularly the design of technological
artefacts. There may be a broad variety of reasons upon which these choices may be based. In an
organisational context this may include purely technical reasons, as e.g. the need to integrate legacy
systems, but decisions may also take into account company particulars, as for instance organisational or
reporting structures. These choices, in turn, may lead to different impacts on the respective social or
organisational environments. Thus, studying what shaped the particular technology offers a chance to
proactively manipulate that very impact expected to result from this particular choice.
At the same time this capability should also contribute to the prediction – and thus prevention – of
undesirable side effects potentially resulting from a new technology. After all, technology tends to
have other effects besides those actually intended, and these effects need to be explored as well. On
the other hand, the respective environment shapes technical artefacts and systems during design and in
use, i.e. at the site of the actual implementation. The overall process that comprises the first design
stage (of an invention), its production and the final implementation can be referred to as dinnovationT.
The different factors and entities that shape technology and innovations include (but are not
limited to):

! The context from which the invention emerges, including

- designers’ views,
- vendors’ preferences and strategies.
! The environment where it is to be implemented, including
- work and organisational actualities,
- end-user attitudes,
- managerial guidance,
- successful co-operation between stakeholders,
- adequate innovation potential.
! External forces, including
- advances in science and technology,
- prevailing societal norms,
- legislation.

This list includes a diversity of influencing factors, represented by stakeholders with different
backgrounds, perceptions and interests. A similar environment may be found in a standards setting
committee.

3. Standardisation and innovation

3.1. Context-specific user requirements

The contribution of specific knowledge regarding the characteristics of the respective implemen-
tation environment represents the major task users have during an implementation process. That is, they
have to feed their intimate knowledge of local particularities, which nobody else can possibly possess,
into this process.
 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40 35

In a long-established work setting systems are typically extremely well integrated into their respective
local environment, and closely follow this environment’s particular contingencies; they are configured to
optimally meet the respective local requirements. Every (user) company is likely to have developed very
specific requirements and processes, primarily in the areas of its respective core business interests.
These, in turn, stand in the way of a straightforward implementation of any new standards-based (ICT)
system that may affect, or indeed support or in some way interact with, these processes. It is here where
long-standing, time-honoured traditions characterise the environment, and where technical systems as
well as production and business processes have been designed to optimally meet the demands of their
specific environment. A new system to be implemented here will need to be customised to a similar
degree as are the other artefacts in this environment.
Implementation of such systems requires considerable efforts, and would be next to impossible
without far-ranging input from users, who are the only ones to know their respective local environment
sufficiently well. It is especially in those cases that the site of an implementation at the same time is a site
of considerable innovation; in fact, the implementation itself becomes a source of innovation, as
additional innovations become necessary for the adaptation of a system to the local context. That is, the
resulting systems will be configured from a wide range of components, both standard and customised, to
optimally meet the need of their local environment.
In standards setting, users are typically assigned a task similar to their role in the local implementation
process, again with the aim to optimally exploit their unique knowledge. For standardisation purposes,
this knowledge typically comes in the form of requirements, which are then supposed to establish the
basis from which standards can be developed.
Unfortunately, drequirementsT is a very broad term. As noted above, they not only refer to the
technical domain, but are also closely linked to the particularities of the respective local environment.
Accordingly, contributing only functional and technical requirements does not suffice. Rather,
organisational and other non-technical needs have to be considered, and user representatives need to
be in a position to identify and communicate these needs to make sure that the non-technical issues are
adequately covered as well.
Given the huge variety of business sectors, organisational forms and business philosophies, the many
different intra- and inter-organisational interdependencies, and all the differences that come with varying
company size, not to mention regional or national differences in culture and legislation, it is most
unlikely that many accepted and agreed upon user requirements will ever be identified, apart maybe from
very generic ones.

3.2. The shaping of standards and user-side innovations

3.2.1. Shaping standardisation

Any invention is shaped by the environment from which it originated. For instance, if it originated
from one particular research lab, it has been subject to, and formed by, this lab’s context, including the
local organisational environment as well as the broader societal and political culture. The same holds for
an innovation that results from work in a standards committee. However, the influencing factors will be
broader in the latter case, as many different backgrounds, beliefs, and ideas are represented in a standards
working group.
That is, technological artefacts embody, and thus transfer, their respective environment of origin. This
alone implies that adaptations will subsequently be required if a system is to be exported to other
36 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40

markets, or user organisations, with different environments. bThe shaping process begins with the
earliest stages of research and developmentQ [30]. This observation points to the direct link that exists
between innovation and standardisation activities. Especially since the advent of pro-active
standardisation technological systems have increasingly been rooted in standards activities rather than,
possibly modified, already existing products (as it is the case in reactive standardisation). As a
consequence, it will no longer suffice if users talk to, and co-operate with their vendors during
implementation. Instead, co-operation will have to start far earlier. That is, accepting the above notion
that shaping of technology starts at the earliest possible stage implies that users will have to look closer
at standards committees if they do not want to risk being eventually stranded with a technology
incapable of meeting their needs.9
Standards emerge through the co-operation and joint efforts of different individuals in technical
committees and work groups. Whilst in theory these individuals act in their capacity as dindependent
expertsT, their views, beliefs, and prejudices have to a considerable degree been shaped by the
environment within which they live and, especially, work.10
That is, various factors that may shape technology are also likely to be channelled into the work
groups of the international standards setting bodies. The respective corporate environments of the
committee members’ employers, for instance, will play a major role in this context. The different
visions of how a technology should be used, and the ideas of how this can be achieved, are both
formed by these local environments. It will exert a significant impact on the work of the committees.
This holds especially in the case of anticipatory standards, which specify new services from scratch,
and thus offer the opportunity to incorporate to some (a considerable?) degree the particular
presumptions, views, and ideas of the members of the originating committee (and their respective
employers).
A reactive standard will likewise transpose the environment from which it emerged; this will be the
corporate environment (using this term very loosely) of its inventor (i.e. typically a manufacturer or a
service provider) who originally specified the system upon which the standard will be based. Thus, this
company’s visions will implicitly be embodied in the standard specification, together with the individual
ideas of its representative(s). The correspondence between technology and standardisation is obvious —
both are shaped by a specific environment. Only in the case of standardisation the manufacturer’s
environment has a major impact, whereas in user-side innovation the user’s environment exerts the
influence.

3.2.2. Shaping user-side innovations

At a very general level corporate ICT systems may be categorised as being either dbusiness relevantT
or dinfrastructuralT [33]. A B2B e-commerce application is an example of the former, the internal
telephone network one of the latter. Infrastructural systems’ major common characteristic is the fact that
they are not, or only to a very small extent, integrated into business processes, and thus shaped by local
particularities. Typically, they are more or less equally useful for everyone, irrespective of an individual
user’s particular background or task, or of a specific environment, as the infrastructure environment is

9
See Ref. [31] for a thorough discussion of a variety of aspects that surround the social shaping of standardisation.
10
See Ref. [32] for a more detailed account of the impact of the individual on standards setting).
 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40 37

more or less consistent across departments, companies, and even business sectors. Consequently, they
are not normally subjected to well specified context-specific requirements.
For such technologies a suitable combination of standardised components will typically be adequate
to meet a user’s needs. Accordingly, little innovation will occur during implementation of such systems,
as the impact of local particularities will be very small, and little efforts will have to go into system
adaptation. Yet, what little innovation will occur in such cases will largely be shaped by the standards
underlying the new system.
For systems directly supporting business processes standards also represent a very important
influential factor to implementation, as many system components will be directly based on standards, or
at least incorporate them. This holds despite the fact that major efforts will also (have to) go into the
adaptation of the overall system to its specific local environment.
Thus, it is safe to say that both system categories will to a considerable extent be based on
international standards. That is, the site of the user’s implementation as the major current locus of a
social shaping will be complemented by activities within standards committees. This, in turn, implies
the need to take into account how standards are formed and established in order to understand what is
going to shape future technology, and especially ICT, in the first place.
We can now identify two distinct activities which have a major impact on user-side innovations,
namely the work done within the standards committees and the actual implementation itself. As we have
seen, these activities are not unrelated; even implementations of individual, customised systems are
likely to include standards-based components. Thus, standardisation will always influence user-side
innovations, either:

! directly, e.g. if an implementation is done via integration and configuration of standards-based

components, or
! indirectly, in case of a customised solution comprising some standard elements being
implemented, or
! as the actual locus of innovations.

This observation suggests that the term dstandardisationT has to be introduced into the innovation
equation:
Innovation ¼ Standardisation þ Design þ Implementation:

4. Mutual influence between standardisation and innovation — concluding remarks

We have now seen that on the one hand standards form a major part of the framework within which
local implementations, adaptations, and thus innovations occur. On the other hand, they are shaped by
the backgrounds of those who actually do the standards setting (i.e., the members of the standards setting
bodies’ working groups).
That is, something akin to a feedback-loop exists between standardisation and user needs, local
system implementations, and thus user-side innovation. To illustrate this, imagine a user who has
commissioned a new, business-relevant system. In all likelihood, standards based components will
form its core. Now this system needs to be adapted to its future local working environment. User-side
38 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40

innovations are likely to occur during this phase, as the new system will have to be modified to meet
specific local needs and requirements. Accordingly, we can observe an impact of the standards upon
which the system is based on local innovations.
However, with ongoing modifications any standards based system will become both more locally
useful and less compatible with other systems, as it moves away from the original standard
specifications. Ultimately, the system will be completely adapted to its local environment’s needs, yet
no longer capable to communicate with the outside world — major local adaptations and standardised
functionality are mutually exclusive. Accordingly, and despite the use of standards based systems the
user will be locked in what has now become something close to a proprietary system; he has been left
as an dangry orphanT [34]. As similar developments will take place at many user sites, the resulting
incompatibilities will make inter-organisational communication and information exchange at least far
more complex, if not impossible.
One potential way to avoid this situation would be active participation of users in the earliest
stage of system design — in standardisation. We have seen (in Sections 2.3 and 2.4) that the users’
tasks are largely identical in both standardisation and local implementation — to contribute their
requirements.
Now, if the user chooses to actively participate in standards setting, he might be able to feed his
specific requirements into the standardisation process, thus making them part of the dgenericT system
[29] that typically are the output of such activities.11 In this case, much of what would otherwise be a
user-side innovation would take place during the standards setting process. That is, proactive
participation in standards setting could help reduce the need for user-side innovations (or at least
shift the locus where such innovations occur), and could thus increase the chances of ending up with a
system that meets the users’ needs while at the same time remaining compatible with the outside world.
The above scenario describes the ideal situation of a standards working group as a platform for
innovations; a place where all stakeholders, including particularly vendors, providers, and users, can
meet to shape future systems and services. In this scenario the group provides a unique platform for co-
operation between stakeholders where user requirements may be discussed and mapped onto what is
technologically feasible and sensible.
Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world. Standards setting organisations are interested in the
development of generic standards that are useful for as many entities as possible. The prospect of a
future standard that is meticulously adapted to one specific local context will considerably lower their
interest to standardise. Moreover, the context-specific nature of user requirements, and the different
contexts that comes with the huge variety of business environments (see Section 3.1), suggest that no
standard can be directly implemented in two different such environments.
Still, some very big and sophisticated users, with deep pockets, may – and do – jump at the
opportunity of using these working groups as a convenient platform for discussing their specific
problems and requirements with vendors, and possible to push them through.
This leads to a somewhat paradox situation. On the one hand, standards working groups may well be
a convenient platform for innovation as the result of in-depth discussions between vendors and users. On
the other hand, the more unlucky (smaller) users will be back to square one in many cases, and will need
to innovate locally to adapt systems to their local needs. Worse, a standard that is reasonably well

11
Obviously, this is an option only for large and fairly sophisticated user companies which have, because of their
buying power, sufficient influence in standards setting.
 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40 39

adapted to one specific environment (that of a very large user) may imply the need for even more local
adaptation efforts for all others than a more generic one.
This suggests that, for the greater overall good, users should try and align their needs and
requirements prior to participation in standards setting. Such balignment of perception is an important
step in innovationQ [35]. One approach to achieve this would be the establishment of a duser coalitionT
(see also e.g. Ref. [15]).
This body would then be responsible for voicing its stakeholders’ aligned needs and concerns in the
appropriate standards working groups. This would greatly contribute towards the production of generic
standards which are useful for many.
Finally — the exact relations that exist between ICT standardisation and (user side) innovation are
still far from being fully understood. Hopefully, this paper will trigger some further research in this
direction.

References

[1] E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed., Free Press, New York, 1995.
[2] A. Cozijnsen, W. Vrakking (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation Management, Blackwell Publishers, 1993.
[3] R. Cowan, High technology and the economics of standardisation, in: M. Dierkes, U. Hoffmann (Eds.), New
Technologies at the Outset — Social Forces in the Shaping of Technological Innovations, Campus/Westview, 1992.
[4] S.K. Schmidt, R. Werle, The development of compatibility standards in telecommunications: conceptual framework
and theoretical perspective, in: M. Dierkes, U. Hoffmann (Eds.), New Technologies at the Outset – Social Forces in the
Shaping of Technological Innovations, Campus/Westview, 1992.
[5] K. Jakobs, Even desperately needed standards may fail— the case of e-mail, Proc. Int. Conf. on the History of
Computing and Networks, ACONIT, Inst. Nat. Polytechnique de Grenoble, Grenoble, 2002.
[6] F.M. Besen, The standards process in telecommunication and information technology, in: R.W. Hawkins, et al.
(Eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness, Edward Elgar Publishers, 1995.
[7] P.A. David, Standardisation policies for network technologies: the flux between freedom and order revisited, in: R.W.
Hawkins, et al. (Eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness, Edward Elgar Publishers, 1995.
[8] M.B. Spring, et al., Improving the standardisation process: working with bulldogs and turtles, in: B. Kahin, J.
Abbate (Eds.), Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, MIT Press, 1995.
[9] K. Jakobs, R. Procter, R. Williams, The making of standards, IEEE Commun. Mag. 39 (4) (2001).
[10] G. Ferné, Information technology standardisation and users: international challenges move the process forward, in: B. Kahin,
J. Abbate (Eds.), Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, MIT Press, 1995.
[11] B. Dankbaar, R. v. Tulder, The Influence of users in standardisation: the case of MAP, in: M. Dierkes, U. Hoffmann
(Eds.), New Technologies at the Outset - Social Forces in the Shaping of Technological Innovations, Campus/Westview,
1992.
[12] R. Williams, I. Grahem, G. Spinardi, The social shaping of EDI, in: R. Williams (Ed.), The Social Shaping of Inter-
Organisational IT Systems and Electronic Data Interchange. Proc. PICT/CAST A4 Int. Res. Workshop ’93, European
Commission DG XII, 1995.
[13] T.M. Egyedi, R. van Wendel de Joode, Standards and co-ordination in open source software, Proc. SIIT 2003, IEEE
Press, 2003.
[14] L. Salter, User involvement in IT & T standardisation, Proc. Multimedia Communications, ICCC, 1993.
[15] D. Foray, Coalitions and committees: how users get involved in information technology standardisation, in: R.W. Hawkins,
et al. (Eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness, Edward Elgar Publishers, 1995.
[16] K. Naemura, User involvement in the lifecycle of information technology and telecommunication standards, in:
R.W. Hawkins, et al. (Eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness, Edward Elgar Publishers, 1995.
[17] J. Isaak, Information infrastructure meta-architecture and cross-industry standardisation, in: B. Kahin, J. Abbate
(Eds.), Standards Policy for Information Infrastructure, MIT Press, 1995.
40 K. Jakobs / Technological Forecasting & Social Change 73 (2006) 27–40

[18] D. Alexander, Infrastructure evolution and the global electronic marketplace: a European IT user’s perspective, in:
R.W. Hawkins, et al. (Eds.), Standards, Innovation and Competitiveness, Edward Elgar Publishers, 1995.
[19] C.F. Cargill, Information Technology Standardisation — Theory, Process and Organisations, Digital Press, 1989.
[20] V. Begg, M.G. Williams, Translation between software designers and users, Commun. ACM 36 (4) (1993).
[21] K. Jakobs, The Third Estate — The Role of SMEs in ICT Standards Setting, Proc. e-Challenges, IOS Press, 2004.
[22] R. Rada, Consensus vs. speed, in: K. Jakobs (Ed.), IT Standards and Standardisation: A Global Perspective, Idea
Group Publishing, 2000.
[23] W.J. Orlikowski, D.C. Gash, Changing frames: understanding technological change in organisations, Working Paper,
vol. 3368, MIT Sloan School of Management, 1991.
[24] W.J. Orlikowski, D.C. Gash, Technological frames: making sense of information technology in organisations, ACM
Trans. Inf. Sys. 12 (2) (1994)1999 (April).
[25] K. Jakobs, R. Procter, R. Williams, Shaping IT through participation in standards setting — a practicable alternative
for users? Proc. UKAIS ’99, UK Academy for Information Systems, 1999.
[26] C.F. Cargill, A five-segment model for standardisation, in: B. Kahin, J. Abbate (Eds.), Standards Policy for Infor-
mation Infrastructure, MIT Press, 1995.
[27] D.A. Buchanan, A.A. Huczynski, Organisational Behaviour, Prentice Hall, 1985.
[28] R. Williams, D. Edge, The social shaping of technology, Res. Policy 25 (1996).
[29] J. Fleck, Configurations and standardisation, in: J. Esser, G. Fleischmann (Eds.), Soziale und ökonomische Konflikte
in Standardisierungsprozessen, Campus, 1995.
[30] R. Williams, The social shaping of technology: research concepts and findings in great Britain, in: M. Dierkes, U. Hoffmann
(Eds.), New Technologies at the Outset— Social Forces in the Shaping of Technological Innovations, Campus/Westview,
1992.
[31] T. Egyedi, Shaping Standardisation. PhD Thesis, Delft University Press, 1996.
[32] K. Jakobs, R. Procter, R. Williams, The making of standards, IEEE Commun. Mag. 39 (4) (2001).
[33] K. Jakobs, R. Procter, R. Williams, Standardisation and Implementation of Information Technology, Proc. Int.
Resource Managament Assoc., IRMA, 2001.
[34] P.A. David, Some new standards for the economics of standardisation in the information age, in: P. Dasgupta, P. Stoneman
(Eds.), Economic Policy and Technological Performance, Cambridge Universiyt Press, 1987.
[35] R. Williams, The social shaping of information and communications technologies, in: H. Kubicek, et al. (Eds.), The
Social Shaping of the Information Superhighways, Proceedings of International Conference, COST A4, European
Commission DGXIII, Luxembourg, 1997.

Kai Jakobs has been with Aachen University’s Computer Science Department since 1985. He is (co-) author/editor of a
textbook on data communication and, more recently, three books on standardisation processes in IT. Also, more than 150 of his
papers have been published. He has served as an external expert for various European R&D programmes, on both technical and
socio-economic issues. Kai holds a PhD in Computer Science from the University of Edinburgh.