Standardization organizations in the area of information and telecommunications technology have mushroomed in the last two decades. In addition to new official organizations at the regional level, many private consortiums and forums have been set up that complement and compete with the incumbent national and international organizations. The organizational landscape and the relations between the standardization organizations are examined, and institutional reasons that could explain why the frequency and intensity of jurisdictional conflicts has remained low are considered. Institutional features do not only frame a standardization organization's behavior toward other organizations, they also account for speed, exclusiveness, costs and market acceptance of standardization and thus influence firms' decisions as to which organization to turn to with a standards issue. ZusammenfassungIn den letzten beiden Jahrzehnten ist die Zahl der Standardisierungsorganisationen im Bereich der Informations-und Telekommunikationstechnik rasch gewachsen. Neben neuen offiziellen Organisationen auf der regionalen Ebene sind viele private Konsortien und Foren entstanden, die sich mit den bestehenden nationalen und internationalen Organisationen ergänzen oder auch mit ihnen konkurrieren. Die Landschaft der Standardisierungsorganisationen und die Beziehungen zwischen ihnen werden untersucht und zudem die institutionellen Faktoren aufgezeigt, die dazu beitragen, dass Kompetenzkonflikte relativ selten auftreten und nicht sehr intensiv sind. Die institutionellen Merkmale kanalisieren nicht nur das Verhalten der Standardisierungsorganisationen untereinander, sie beeinflussen auch Geschwindigkeit, Exklusivität, Kosten und Marktakzeptanz der Standardisierung und leiten damit die Entscheidung der Unternehmen, an welche Organisation sie sich mit einem Standardisierungsproblem wenden.
The European Community as a social configuration, with its complex division of competencies and action capacities between EC institutions and national governments, is still difficult to conceptualize. In this context the authors propose the concept of corporate actor networks in order to understand more thoroughly the interaction processes of policy integration by which the European community has accumulated increasing supranational action capacities. A case study on the emergence and development EC telecommunications policy provides the background for a discussion of the scope, structure and operation of such EC policy actor networks.
The emergence of large technical systems like railroads, telecommunication networks or power grids was closely associated with hierarchical governance. Despite the success of hierarchical structures in promoting the development of these systems they have recently come under strain. They are suspected of being too slow, too cumbersome, and too unimaginative to deal with the complexity and turbulence of modern technology. Practical people as well as academics look for functional alternatives. One of the alternatives is the decentralisation of technical control via standards. The paper investigates this alternative by analysing the role that standards have achieved in telecommunications after the hierarchical order was eroded by globalisation and deregulation. It discusses how the demise of hierarchy has boosted the ‘demand’ for standards and how the institutional infrastructure for standardisation was adapted to meet this demand
The way information and communication technology (ICT) develops can promote or hinder the democratic potential of this critical societal infrastructure. Concerns about the role standards development organizations (SDOs) play in this context predate the 'digital age' but are reemerging amid substantial changes in the institutional landscape of standardization. This article explores the increasingly critical link between the institutional design of SDOs and the democratic design of ICT. We review some principles of democracy in terms of the design of technology, apply these to standardization, and discuss the role public policy may play here, while distinguishing between input and output legitimacy.
This article deals with the regulation of cyberspace and suggests that the challenges of regulation in this area are partly reminiscent of those in other regulatory domains and partly new ones. This newness is due to the opportunities that the new technologies provide to actors and which allow them to act in very different ways — as regulators or as regulatory targets. A significant point in this field is that the distinction between those who regulate and those who are regulated can become blurred because public regulators increasingly, and more so than in other regulatory domains, depend on the co-operation of regulatory intermediaries, if public intervention is to be effective. The continuing challenge in this field is liable to centre around the norms, rules, and regulations governing this complex and dynamic space and the ways in which these are influenced by a variety of factors, parties, interests, institutions, and forces.
Different sub-disciplines of the social sciences analyse the evolution and diffusion of technical innovations from an institutional perspective. Important contributions are provided by socio-economic studies of national systems of innovation, by politico-economic research on the varieties of capitalism, and by the sociology of technology. These studies often start from rather simple distinctions between types of technical innovations (e.g., radical versus incremental) which they usually do not elaborate on. Also, most of them neglect that particularly large and complex technical systems require specific institutional provisions for their functioning. Such “black-boxing” of technology by and large facilitates detecting generalisable relations between institutional constellations and technical innovations. But a more sophisticated analysis of the relationship between institutions and technical innovations needs more precise concepts of both technology and institutions, and it must dismiss the prevailing institutional determinism. Processes of technical and institutional innovations are characterised by co-evolution , interaction and mutual adjustment
Software regelt immer mehr zwischenmenschliche Interaktionen. Üblicherweise werden die Funktionsmechanismen, Wirkungen und Gestaltungsoptionen von Regeln in der Institutionenforschung behandelt. In diesem Artikel soll beleuchtet werden, inwieweit sich Ansätze der Institutionenforschung auf Software anwenden lassen und was sich aus dieser Forschungsperspektive zu den Regelungswirkungen und Gestaltungsoptionen von Software ableiten lässt
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
334 Leonard St
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Copyright © 2023 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.