The real options approach to standardization

In this paper we propose a new model of technology standardization under market uncertainty and show how its value is quantifiable using the theory of real options. Our options-based approach to standardization shows that a rational way to standardize some IT technology in uncertain markets is with correct structure and proper staging of the standard. First, highly modularized standards provide a higher option value because of the ability to pick and choose the best modules to change at a fine granularity. Secondly, a modular structure that promotes easy and non-disruptive parallel experimentation (such as end-2-end applications) enhances the option value by providing a larger field of options from which to select. Lastly, allowing the standard to evolve along with the customers' expectations of the technology is a good strategy to match standards with uncertain user markets.

[1]  Vinton G. Cerf,et al.  Casting the Net: From ARPANET to INTERNET and Beyond , 1995 .

[2]  Carl F. Cargill,et al.  Open systems standardization : a business approach , 1997 .

[3]  Lawrence M. Wein,et al.  Economics of Product Development by Users: the Impact of Sticky Local Information , 1998 .

[4]  Nalin Kulatilaka,et al.  Managing information technology investments using a real-options approach , 2000, J. Strateg. Inf. Syst..

[5]  K. Clark,et al.  Innovation: Mapping the winds of creative destruction☆ , 1993 .

[6]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Innovation, Competition, and Industry Structure , 1993 .

[7]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  The Art of Continuous Change : Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations , 1997 .

[8]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  The Interaction of Design Hierarchies and market Concepts in Technological Evolution : Research Policy , 1985 .

[9]  Nalin Kulatilaka,et al.  Managing Information Technology Investments : A Capability-based Real Options Approach , 1998 .

[10]  W. Abernathy.  Innovation : Mapping the winds of creative destruction * , 2003 .

[11]  M. Iansiti.  Shooting the Rapids: Managing Product Development in Turbulent Environments , 1995 .

[12]  Nalin Kulatilaka,et al.  Real Options: Managing Strategic Investment in an Uncertain World , 1998 .

[13]  S. Wheelwright,et al.  The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution * , 2003 .

[14]  S. Kauffman.  At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity , 1995 .

[15]  Marshall T. Rose,et al.  The Open book - a practical perspective on OSI , 1990 .

[16]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[17]  M. J. van Wegberg,et al.  Standard Selection Modes in Dynamic, Complex Industries: Creating Hybrids between Market Selection and Negotiated Selection of Standards , 1998 .

[18]  Tim Berners-Lee,et al.  Weaving The Web: The Original Design And Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web , 1999 .

[19]  M. Tushman,et al.  Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of Technological Change , 1990 .

[20]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[21]  S. Gould.  Bully for Brontosaurus , 1991 .

[22]  J. William,et al.  Innovation : Mapping the Winds of Creative Destruction : Research Policy , 1987 .

[23]  John H. Holland,et al.  Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems: An Introductory Analysis with Applications to Biology, Control, and Artificial Intelligence , 1992 .

[24]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories , 1993 .

[25]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity Volume 1 , 1999 .

[26]  V. Jacobson,et al.  Congestion avoidance and control , 1988, CCRV.

[27]  David Clark,et al.  An analysis of TCP processing overhead , 1989 .

[28]  Jerome H. Saltzer,et al.  End-to-end arguments in system design , 1984, TOCS.