Infrastructure flexibility created by standardized gateways: The cases of XML and the ISO container

Abstract

This article addresses the problem of entrenchment in large technical systems. It explores in what manner standardization could be used as a means to inscribe flexibility into infrastructures and focuses in particular on the role of standardized gateway technologies. Two cases are examined: the Extensible Markup Language (XML) for structured information exchange and the intermodal freight container, also known as the ISO container.The cases indicate that flexibility is a transient characteristic of gateway standards. Where standards do not meet the needs of subsystems and changed circumstances, competing gateways emerge. Flexibility, entrenchment and competition are part of a cyclic movement in gateway evolution. Entrenchment, Standards and System Flexibility 1Policy developers in the fields of transportation and information networks face a problem that besets most infrastructures and other large technical systems (LTSs): such systems often seem impervious to change. Indeed, most studies on the matter confirm that change is most difficult. The countless number of interdependent socio-technical components and subsystems define the complexity of LTSs. They comprise technical artefacts as well as, for example, the institutional and regulatory contexts of artefact use and production (Kaijser, 1999). Organisations and companies emerge that develop and sustain the system. Each specialises in certain tasks, develops technical add-ons and complementary products, gains experience with (part of) the system, etc. As the infrastructure develops, the number of and interdependence between actors and artefacts grows. Over time, these interdependencies crystallise, solidify, and make manifest a process of Tineke Egyedi, Ph.D, is a co-guest editor of this issue.You can read more about her in the Foreword.

Grafting: Balancing Control and Cultivation in Information Infrastructure Innovation

“…In particular, the authors point to a critical stage in infrastructural innovation by what they term the "gateway phase", during which innovations are inevitably tied into networks of existing infrastructures. Gateways (e.g., technical plug adapters and software document format converters) allow heterogeneous and isolated information systems, or "modules", to facilitate information sharing and communication, while retaining the flexibility to rapidly co-evolve with a changing environment (Egyedi, 2001;Hanseth, 2001;Jackson et al, 2007). Gateways permit multiple systems to be adopted and used as if they were a single integrated system.…”

Standards and infrastructure flexibility: Literature review

“…With the exception of several studies in our literature analysis (Allen & Boynton, 1991;Bhatt, 2000;Ciborra & Hanseth, 1998;Duncan, 1995;Egyedi, 2001;Egyedi & Verwater-Lukszo, 2005;Hanseth, Monteiro, & Hatling, 1996), the role of standards in flexibility is almost completely ignored. The studies that deal with the topic of standards can be largely summarized by the following flexibility characteristics of standards (adapted from Egyedi & Verwater-Lukszo, 2005): degree of specificity, degree of functional inclusiveness, and system level addressed by standards 6 .…”

“…In relation to the ways of achieving flexibility that we have discussed above, we have identified some correspondence with flexibility characteristics ( Another idea identified in the literature is that paradoxically both flexible and inflexible standards can increase flexibility (Egyedi, 2001). For example, TCP/IP protocol that Internet is based on is rather inflexible.…”

“…Hughes, 1983), or on the use of standards (e.g. Duncan, 1995;Egyedi, 2001;Egyedi & Verwater-Lukszo, 2005;Fomin, 2003;Fomin & Blechar, 2005;Hanseth, Monteiro, & Hatling, 1996), still others focus on the modularity of systems (e.g. Schilling, 2000).…”

Sociotechnical Studies of Cyberinfrastructure and e-Research: Current Themes and Future Trajectories

“…To study standardization is to inspect the ways that local divergence from a desired norm is managed, integrated and/or eradicated; how workarounds and gateways (David and Bunn 1988;Egyedi 2001) can add flexibility to rigid standard implementations; and, how boundary work (Star and Griesemer 1989;Bietz and Lee 2009) can serve to translate and interlink difference while sustaining it. The papers in this issue show how adoption of standards allows participation in a more collective research practice.…”