Abstract
An essential element in the definition of standardization (Chapter 8) is the intention and expectation that standards will be repeatedly or continuously used, during a certain period, by a substantial number of the parties for whom they are meant. This chapter lists mechanisms that can be used to assess a claim of expected use (compare Subsection 8.4.6, B). Insight into these mechanisms is valuable when considering whether or not a standardization project is feasible, and which SDO would be best equipped for such a project.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
This chapter has been updated to April 1998.
However, in the literature, no other mechanisms have been found.
Meanwhile, VHS has become the common standard.
According to Cowan (1991, p. 810), standardization due to market forces, compared to standardization by authorities, enhances the danger of locking into inferior technologies. However, the opposite may also apply, as is demonstrated by the SECAM television system that was enforced by French authorities.
Katz and Shapiro (1985) offer a basic contribution to this issue.
For example, Apple Macintosh computers.
Conner gives conditions under which encouraging a clone may pay.
It is debatable whether these rules are not on bad terms with clause 6.1.2 of NNI’s Huishoudelijk reglement [Rules and Regulations] (NNI, 1994, p. 15).
In the case described by Koehorst, De Vries, and Wubben (1999) on the introduction of a standard crate, the initiator was a dominant agent: the retailer with the largest market share. Others had to follow. Though all retailers experienced advantages in terms of efficiency and costs, the relative competitive position shifted in favour of the biggest party, being the initiator (Belleflamme, 1997, p. 12). So the small companies had a competitive disadvantage. Despite this, they decided to bandwagon.
There is one exception: the European Directive on Pressure Equipment (European Parliament & Council of the European Union, 1997) refers to these standards.
Ten years from 1998. In 1993, DIN expected a transition period of five years (Vogel, Ed., 1993, p. 7–77).
This has been argued by Lichard (1997) in a case about IBM’s OS/2 standard for operating systems. OS/2 competed with the Windows 95 standard and reinforced the loss of market share of IBM’s own DOS standard.
Bongers (1980) and Meyer (1995) provide advanced studies on g ( ) y ( ) p preference ranges in standardization. Short introductions on this topic can be found in Simons & De Vries (1997, pp. 61–70) and Verman (1973, pp. 367–369).
Examples of such structures are offered by Clarke (1990) (software), ISO (1995b) (geometrical product specification), Ryan (1995) (information technology and telecommunication), and Shackleton & Ziegenfuss (1997) (welding).
The sequence of the keys, however, deviates from the one used at computer keyboards. This is a lost opportunity from an ergonomic point of view.
An example of this is offered by Hildebrandt (1995, pp. 34–35).
For example, ISO/IEC 7498–1 describes the Open Systems Interconnection model (ISO/IEC, 1994a), ISO/TR 14638 describes a standard’s structure for geometrical product specifications (ISO, 1995b), CEN/TC 230 N229 describes a modular approach for standards on determination of heavy metals in environmental samples (NNI, 1995b).
A package of standards is a group, as small as possible, of inter-related standards (CEN Technical Board Resolution BT 20/1993 Revised).
EAN = European Article Number. Nowadays EAN is the acronym of the International Article Numbering Association (see Subsection 2.2.4).
The 1997 IEC General Assembly discussed three examples of ISO/IEC controversies, namely standards for safety of medical instruments, electricity generators, and laser diodes (Liess & Salffner, 1998, p. 33).
A free market is a basic assumption in this chapter. In centralized economies other mechanisms might apply: in that case the government is the dominant agent.
Egyedi (1996, p. 309) even concludes the field of standardization is best characterized in terms of group processes.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1999 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
de Vries, H.J. (1999). Mechanisms in the Spread of Standards. In: Standardization: A Business Approach to the Role of National Standardization Organizations. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3042-5_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3042-5_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4419-5103-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4757-3042-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive