Michael zur Muehlen, Ph.D. Stevens Institute of Technology Howe School of Technology Management Center for Business Process Innovation Hoboken, New Jersey [email protected] Researching Standards What? Why? How? And? 1
Jan 26, 2015
Michael zur Muehlen, Ph.D.Stevens Institute of TechnologyHowe School of Technology ManagementCenter for Business Process InnovationHoboken, New [email protected]
Researching StandardsWhat? Why? How? And?
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
First Steps...
3
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
4
“Standards should be discovered, not invented”
Vincent Cerf, in: Haffer, Lyon: “Where the Wizards stay up late”,
1998 p. 254
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
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
8
Genealogy of BPM Standards
question
Observation: IETF rejected the outside proposal by WfMC
members
What could explain this?
9
10
Standardization VenuesStandardization 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]
11
“Rough Consensus and Running Code”Sir Tim Berners-Lee in: “Weaving the Web”, 1999
12
Mobility of Standards Makers
question
Observation: Standard makers are highly mobile across venues
What could explain this?
13
14
Social Movements: Individuals
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
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
17
Standardization Venues
IETF OASIS OMG W3C WfMC
Entrance Barrier Low ($0) Low-High ($250-45,000)
Medium-High ($500-70,0000)
Medium-High ($635-63,500) or
invitation
Medium ($500-5000)or fellowship
WG formation
2 BOF + Charter, approval required
3 members, max cycle 30
days
Ad hoc, DTC charters topics
Only within current W3C activities
Ad hoc, TC charters topics
Procedural Rules Strict Formal Strict Strict Relaxed
IP Rules RAND RAND RAND W3C License Royalty-free license
Conceptual Framework Areas None MDA WS Architecture
WfMC Reference
ModelInterest in BPM None Individual WGs BEIDTF + BPMI WS-CDL Focus
Implementation Required Yes No Yes, not
enforced Yes No
18
Research QuestionWe 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?
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
20
Data CollectionExtracted 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
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
22
Developing a Theory of Social Ecology
23
Contrasting ExplanationsExample Economical Explanation Ecological Explanation
New industry groups submit their standards to older bodies (for example, IBM et al. submit to OASIS; WfMC submits to IETF)
Vendors need a branded standard that will attract more adopters.
Vendors migrate to habitats that can confer the greatest legitimacy.
A standards effort is rejected by an established institution (for example, IETF prevents the formation of a working group around the WfMC proposal)
The institution doesn’t believe the standard will increase market size.
The institution is protecting its niche; its criteria for rejection are an expression of its values.
Attempts to control IP (for example, the W3C proposal to change IP policy in vendors’ favor)
Economic self-interest of vendors favors privately owned IP.
Companies will try to protect their niches.
Attempts to make IP public (for example, the W3C decision not to change IP policy in vendors’ favor)
Shared IP is in the long run better for companies, as it reduces legal costs associated with disputes and expands markets.
The Internet emerged as an ecosystem where resources are shared, and this ethos persists.
24
ConjecturesWorking 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
25
Publications
26
Some Lessons LearnedData is everything
We had a great dataset and a hunch on how to analyze itA lot of data publicly availableBuilding theory is hard, sometimes you need multiple tries
Present your work before you submit itV 1: Conference DraftV 2: Conference SubmissionMultiple talks & previous paper
Write, rewrite, review, repeatV3: 36 editing passesV4: 56 editing passesV5: 25 editing passesV6: 36 editing passesV7: 19 editing passes
Editors want to help you, not destroy youTake advice seriouslyBe wary of quick !xesAsk for clari!cationDon’t be afraid to change your approach
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
Attendance: Power-Law at work
28
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
105
120
135
150
# of BPMN meetings attended 2001-2006, all attendees
BPMN Over Time
29
30
Topic Drift
31
Thank You - Questions?
Michael zur Muehlen, Ph.D.
Center for Business Process Innovation
Howe School of Technology Management
Stevens Institute of Technology
Castle Point on the Hudson
Hoboken, NJ 07030
Phone: +1 (201) 216-8293
Fax: +1 (201) 216-5385
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: http://www.stevens.edu/bpm
slides: www.slideshare.net/mzurmuehlen
32