Information Systems and e-Business Management

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 325–350 | Cite as

Empirical analysis of anticipatory standardization processes: a case study

  • Karthikeyan UmapathyEmail author
  • Sandeep Purao
  • John Bagby
Original Article


The processes followed for developing anticipatory standards such as those for web services are still not well-understood. In spite of the openness of the process, there are few analyses that shed light on the roles that different participants play or the actions they engage in during the development of these standards. We analyze archival documents that capture development of SOAP, a core web service standard. Our analysis shows that participants spend a bulk of their time discussing technical issues, identifying action items, and engaging in discussion to reach consensus. These activities reveal prototypical roles that participants take on such as: Advocate, Architect, Bystander, Critic, Facilitator, Guru, and Procrastinator. Together, the findings support the existence of three clusters in standards development processes: design activities performed by Architects, sense-making activities performed by Critics, and managerial activities performed by Facilitators; along with the important activity of coordinating the work of multiple participants. We discuss implications of our findings and identify opportunities for future work.


Standardization process ICT standards Web services Roles Activities DSN framework 


  1. Adams R, Rivaldo R, Germoglio G, Santos F, Chen Y, Milojicic DS (2008) Improving distributed service management using Service Modeling Language (SML). Network Operations and Management Symposium (NOMS). IEEE, pp 863–866Google Scholar
  2. ATLAS.ti. (2005) ATLAS.ti. Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros A, Dumas M, Oaks P (2005) A critical overview of the web services choreography description language (WS-CDL). Accessed 15 Feb 2009
  4. Cargill CF (1997) Open systems standardization: a business approach. Prentice Hall, NJGoogle Scholar
  5. Choi B, Raghu TS, Vinze A, Dooley KJ (2009) Process model for e-business standards development: a case of ebXML standards. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 56(3):448–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Feuerlicht G (2005) Design of service interfaces for e-business applications using data normalization techniques. Inf Syst E-Bus Manag 3(4):363–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fomin V, Keil T, Lyytinen K (2003) Theorizing about standardization: integrating fragments of process theory in light of telecommunication standardization wars. Sprouts: working papers on information environments. Systems and organizations 3(Winter)Google Scholar
  8. Gebauer J, Tang Y, Baimai C (2008) User requirements of mobile technology: results from a content analysis of user reviews. Inf Syst E-Bus Manag 6(4):361–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hill JL (2003) ICT standardization: changing the world for a better tomorrow. Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, pp 21–23Google Scholar
  10. ISO (2010) Discover ISO: why standards matter. Accessed 8 Apr 2010
  11. Kretschmer T, Muehlfeld K (2004, October) Co-opetition in standard-setting: the case of the compact disc. NET institute working paper no. 04–14Google Scholar
  12. Krippendorff K (2003) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  13. Latour B (1992) Where are the missing masses? The sociology of a few mundane artifacts. In: Bijker W, Law J (eds) Shaping technology/building society: studies in sociotechnical change. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 225–258Google Scholar
  14. Lehr W (1992) Standardization: understanding the process. J Am Soc Inf Sci 43(8):550–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li M-S, Cabral R, Doumeingts G, Popplewell K (2006) Enterprise interoperability research roadmap. Accessed 9 Apr 2010
  16. Lombard M, Snyder-Duch J, Bracken CC (2002) Content analysis in mass communication: assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. Hum Commun Res 28(4):587–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lyytinen K, Keil T, Fomin V (2008) A framework to build process theories of anticipatory information and communication technology (ICT) standardizing. Int J IT Stand Stand Res 6(1):1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Neuendorf KA (2001) The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  19. Purao S, Bagby J, Umapathy K (2008) Standardizing web services: overcoming Design by Committee. IEEE congress on services–part I. IEEE Computer Society, pp 223–230Google Scholar
  20. Sheldon S, Kevin V (2006) The symbolic interactionist frame. In: Delamater J (ed) Handbook of social psychology. Springer, New York, pp 3–28Google Scholar
  21. Simon HA (1977) The new science of management decision. Prentice Hall PTR, NJGoogle Scholar
  22. Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. SML (2009, May 12) Service modeling language. Accessed 2 Sept 2010
  24. SOAP (2003, 24 June 2003) Simple object access protocol (SOAP) Version 1.2. Accessed 19 Feb 2005
  25. Stemler S (2001) An overview of content analysis. Pract Assess Res Eval 7(17).
  26. Umapathy K (2006) Assessment of web services specifications to support long-running conversations. Workshop on information technologies and systems (WITS). doi:
  27. Umapathy K (2009) An investigation of W3C standardization processes using rational discourse. AIS special interest group on pragmatist IS research (SIGPrag) meeting. doi:
  28. Virili F (2003) Design, sense-making and negotiation activities in the “web services” standardization process. MIS quarterly special issue workshop on standard making: a critical research frontier for information systemsGoogle Scholar
  29. W3C-Process (2005, 14 October) World wide web consortium process document. Accessed 26 Jan 2009
  30. W3C-XMLWG (2000) XML protocol working group. Accessed 16 Jan 2006
  31. Weick KE (1995) Sensemaking in organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  32. Weiss M, Cargill C (1992) Consortia in the standards development process. J Am Soc Inf Sci (JASIS) 43(8):559–565Google Scholar
  33. Welser HT, Gleave E, Fisher D, Smith M (2007) Visualizing the signatures of social roles in online discussion groups. J Soc Struct 8(2):1–21Google Scholar
  34. WS Arch (2005, 11 February 2004) Web services architecture. Accessed 17 Feb 2005
  35. WS-CDL (2005, 9 November) Web services choreography description language (WS-CDL). Candidate recommendation. Accessed 30 Apr 2008
  36. Yin RK (2003) Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhao K, Xia M, Shaw MJ (2005) Vertical e-business standards and standards developing organizations: a conceptual framework. Electron Mark 15(4):289–300. doi: 10.1080/10196780500302690 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karthikeyan Umapathy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sandeep Purao
    • 2
  • John Bagby
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computing, University of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA
  2. 2.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations