The Sisyphus Agenda:

Standardization as a Guardian of Innovation

Carl F. Cargill

Director of Corporate Standards

Sun Microsystems

27 January 2003

Abstract: This paper treats standardization primarily as a managerial tool for business. As such, standardization can be said to consist of a process which creates a standardized specification, the implementation of that specification in a product, and the use of that product in a commercial setting. At any time during standardization, innovation may be present. Through use of standardization, a manager can control the introduction, rate, and acceptance of standardization within the technical area being considered for standardization. The paper begins with an examination of standardization as it is practiced in the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry today (based on the current practices), reviews the impact of that methodology on the market, and then examines the challenges that the market presents for standardization and standardization for the market. The paper concludes with a gloomy assessment of the future of standardization as a guardian of innovation, given the lack of significant academic and government involvement in the formulation and creation of this nascent discipline. The paper is written reflecting my bias, which is as an empowered, embedded, and impartial (mostly) participant who participates in the standardization processes as a representative of the commercial sector.

The Environment

"Standardization is one of the hallmarks of an industrial society. As a society becomes increasingly complex and its industrial base begins to emerge, it becomes necessary for the products, processes and procedures of the society to fit together and interoperate. This interoperation provides the basis for greater integration of the elements of the society, which in turn causes increased social interdependency and complexity"[1]. I believe that, within the Information and Communications Technology (ICT) industry (and increasingly within other information intensive arenas), this statement is no longer adequate; standardization is both the initiator of technical innovation as well as the guardian of this innovation. With this increased scope, the nature of standardization changes - and it is this change with which the industry is now attempting to cope.

For the commercial sector (the vendor, provider, or seller side), standardization is a potent management tool, which is used to manage the "market". It impacts all industries that depend upon the ICT industry - from automobiles to retail to chemicals to airplanes. Because ICT can gather such vast amounts of data, and because this data can now be analyzed and used, a smooth flow of information is not only desired, it is absolutely necessary. And this smooth flow can only occur because the systems that gather, process, and report the information interconnect and interoperate. In the main, this interoperation is the result of standardization, rather than serendipity. From the user (or the buyer side), standardization promises either second sourcing or choice of implementations. For both sides, standardization allows the participants to look for - and reward - some type of innovation, rather than having to worry about infrastructure technologies.[2]

However, standardization is one of the more complex managerial tools, requiring a knowledge of technology, psychology, marketing, and strategy if it is to be used successfully over a long term. Practicing standardization as a provider within the ICT industry today is similar to the task of Sisyphus - we are condemned to push large rocks up increasingly steep slopes. Unlike Sisyphus, however, the reason that the industry undertakes this task is not because we are condemned. Rather, we do it because we know that we must, and because the alternatives are too painful to consider. To make the task more daunting, the environment in which we practice the art of standardization changes constantly and at an accelerating rate, requiring the activity of standardization to change to mirror new and increasingly complex requirements.[3]

The evolution of the environments is no surprise, as it is obvious that the ICT industry must constantly establish either ways to add to value-networks or to establish new value networks entirely,[4] and hence, create new opportunities for innovation. As it establishes these new ways and opportunities to add value, it is also establishing new business practices and new requirements for interoperation. And with these new requirements for interoperation comes the need for establishing new ways of ensuring that systems do interoperate when they are introduced. With the introduction of new processes, the need for new ways to "do standardization" becomes critical.

The Process

Standardization, as the term will be used in this paper, refers to the deliberate and consensual creation of an "open specification" (also known as an "open standard") by a group of players (usually joined together in some form of standards setting organization) who usually compete in the marketplace[5]. An acceptable definition for a standardized specification is one where the creation process has been marked by at least rough consensus, which produces a specification which can actually be implemented, and for which there are competing and independent implementations. This last point - one of competing implementations - is the acid test for an open specification. The competing implementations requirement ensures that the user has multiple sourcing of provision and that the vendors have room to innovate in their products.

The organizations and the concepts under which they are organized vary widely. Over the past several years, the Standards Department at Sun Microsystems has been engaged in reviewing the basic nature of standardization groups, and we believe that we can make the following overarching statements:

All standardization models share several basic beliefs.

1. “There are rules to participate in a standards organization and you agree to accept these rules.” The most common feature of any standardization movement is a set of rules that attempt to set/simplify/clarify relationships between the participants. The existence of rules allows some order to be brought into a chaotic situation.

2. “There is a set of common interests which bind the standards organizations participants.” This belief is absolutely necessary; absent it, there is mutual distrust by the participants and an inability to progress work.

3. “The result of the organization’s work will result in change to the current situation from which all participants (and the market generally) will benefit.”. The non-parenthetical statement is axiomatic for any organized activity; however, standards succeed only if the market changes and accepts/uses the output of the standards group.

4. “An organization will help to set direction and guide the market by publishing standards, which will be accepted by the market”. The whole reason for standardization organizations lies in the assumption that they guide/lead/structure the market through the creation and promulgation of common procedures and methods called standards. The belief that the market will accept and use these standards is predicated upon the industry leaders being part of the standards organization.

5. “Participation by multiple independent groups legitimizes the activities of the organization, when compared to a standard offered by a single entity”. The belief behind this statement lies in the folk saying that "one person can keep a secret, while three can’t." By expanding the base of participants, a wider trust (on the part of the market) can be built, and more influence to behave “openly” can be brought to bear.

All of these beliefs feed a theme that is key to standardization – that is, the group of well intentioned people, in an organization, can achieve more (and in a more trusted manner) than any individual acting alone, no matter how well intentioned or competent the individual is. The group also believes – usually very sincerely – that their activities serve a larger good by making the market more open, or safer, or bigger, or more equitable. This belief in a quasi-idealistic mission that succeeds through group synergy is absolutely necessary to inspire people to strive against long odds and what, at times, appears to be common sense and reality. (Again, the Sisyphus complex coming into play.)

If these principles are valid, and experience tends to prove that they do have some validity, the next step is to examine how the practice of these activities has changed as the ICT industry has changed. The collapse of the product life cycle in the ICT industry (from more than six years to less than 18 months) has had a significant impact on how the processes have been forced to change. This change has gone largely unstudied except by the professionals in the various companies who have had to lead their companies through the changes in standardization.

The Evolution

Please note that the first half of this section (the evolution of the formal standardization arena) is heavily biased towards the creation and development of primarily Information Technology (and not Communications) specifications from the time period of 1975 onward. There are two primary reasons for this bias. The first is that, by 1975, the majority of companies involved in the creation of IT products were based in the U.S. and tended to use the U.S. processes as the basis for their standardization efforts. Secondly, the telecommunications market was still largely regulated and the standardization processes, because of this regulatory overlayment, were much less subject to evolutionary pressures than those practiced within the IT community.[6]

The initial standardization organizations were those that operated under the rules and organizational constricts of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), following in the footsteps of all the other industrial standardization activities in the United States. This was during the period that much of the fundamental hardware standardization activities were occurring - from common interconnections for the keyboard and mouse to printers and storage systems. The negotiations that created these standards - which were complex and confined to a relative handful of providers - were usually under the aegis of one or two standardization committees in the United States[7]. They usually dealt with things that would stay standardized for a long time. The formal national bodies under the aegis of ANSI in the U.S., and the international bodies under the International Organization for Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO and IEC) were referred to as Standards Developing Organizations (SDOs) and were the source of standardization for the IT industry.

However, in the later 1980s, a different form of standardization activity appeared, beginning with an organization called "X/Open".[8] Providers began to move technology standardization away from the formal ANSI and ISO recognized SDOs to those of consortia, which did not have the intricate processes of the SDOs. The formal processes, which were both time consuming and often Byzantine, were necessary because "[m]ost delegates represent[ed] personal, professional, national, disciplinary, and industry goals…"[9], and managing this vast and sometimes contradictory set of expectations forced these groups to create intricate rules to make sure that all voices were heard. Consortia, on the other hand, because they usually consisted of groups of like minded participants (either for technical or market reasons), did not need to have the lengthy discussions over the mission and intent of the proposed standardization activity - an organization's presence was, in many cases, proof of a general agreement.[10] The archetypal consortium was the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the group that is recognized as the creator and steward for Internet infrastructure specifications. The success of this group in both keeping the Internet a leading-edge technical architecture leader as well as clear of most greed, parochialism, and lethargy is a significant accomplishment.[11]

This shift was amplified by the introduction and ensuing popularity of the World Wide Web in the early 1990s. The establishment of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)[12] in October 1994 was a turning point within the IT industry; after this date, consortia were the logical place to develop joint specifications, while before they had been the "alternative place". The generation of IT practitioners who are now leading much IT development, which is largely focused on Internet technologies, do not have an awareness of ANSI and ISO as sources for standards. Their world is largely bounded by consortia such as W3C and the IETF. They see no need for ANSI or ISO standardization - a message that they carry to their companies.[13] With the maturity of the Web, an increasing number of consortia are being created to standardize Web based technology. (Nearly all e-Commerce organizations develop their specifications in arenas that are either consortia or consortia-like.)

The reason for the use of consortia lays not so much in the speed of technical development, but rather in the willingness of the consortia to use expedited processes. The IETF has been using the Internet to communicate among interested parties, post specifications, achieve rough consensus on technical features and functions, and then move forward on standardization. The specifications that the IETF adopts are usually based upon extant practice, with at least two implementations required for specifications on the standards track, and are available for widespread public review and comment. This practice - using its own technology to permit faster standardization of follow-on technology - is another step that sets the IETF apart from its contemporary organizations of the 1980s. The use of its technologies as a basis for its standardization practices ensures workable and implementable specifications, but more importantly allows the IETF to develop into a truly international organization. When the specification is complete, it is posted on the IETF web site with free access for all.[14]

The W3C operates in a similar, though somewhat more formal, manner. W3C is a good model for the operation of many other consortia. These consortia realize the key elements are speed and accessibility - accessibility to those who are concerned about their work. As The Economist has pointed out, "…the Internet has turned out to be a formidable promoter of open standards that actually work, for two reasons. First, the web is the ideal medium for creating standards; it allows groups to collaborate at almost no cost, and makes the decision-making more transparent. Second, the ubiquitous network ensures that standards spread much faster. Moreover, the Internet has spawned institutions, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), which have shown that it is possible to develop robust common technical rules."[15] These features have made the IT community turn to consortia and similar structures for their standardization needs, in both hardware and software. The creation of highly open, highly visible specifications - widespread in their adoption and use - is essential to the continuing evolution of the IT sector and IT industry.