Standard adoption in converging technologies: The interplay between network and system

Most literature on standards selection focuses on compatibility standards for single products or large but single systems that are developing, such as the Internet or a telecommunications network. In this paper we focus on systems that connect multiple already existing subsystems and new subsystems to form a new complex system. We show that in complex systems characteristics of the networks of actors that are supporting the different competing standards play an important role in the becoming dominant of the standards.

[1]  Daniel Beimborn,et al.  A Unified Economic Model of Standard Diffusion: The Impact of Standardization Cost, Network Effects, and Network Topology , 2006, MIS Q..

[2]  D. Knoke.  Political Networks: Political Networks , 1990 .

[3]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[4]  Jeffrey L. Funk,et al.  Standards, dominant designs and preferential acquisition of complementary assets through slight information advantages , 2003 .

[5]  D. Knoke.  Political Networks: Contents , 1990 .

[6]  James B. Wade.  Dynamics of organizational communities and technological bandwagons: An empirical investigation of community evolution in the microprocessor market , 1995 .

[7]  Marco Iansiti,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Developing Products on "Internet Time": The Anatomy of a Flexible Development Process , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[8]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity , 2000 .

[9]  Rind,et al.  Complexity and climate , 1999, Science.

[10]  Hal R. Varian,et al.  Information rules - a strategic guide to the network economy , 1999 .

[11]  A. Cooper,et al.  Survivors of industry shake-outs: The case of the U.S. color television set industry , 1985 .

[12]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994, Structural analysis in the social sciences.

[13]  Paul W. Beamish,et al.  THE EFFECT OF ALLIANCE NETWORK DIVERSITY ON MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISE PERFORMANCE , 2005 .

[14]  D. Knoke,et al.  Political Networks: The Structural Perspective , 1992 .

[15]  James M. Utterback,et al.  Dominant Designs and the Survival of Firms , 1995 .

[16]  C. Hill,et al.  Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries , 1997 .

[17]  Fernando Suarez,et al.  Network Effects Revisited: The Role of Strong Ties in Technology Selection , 2005 .

[18]  W. Mitchell.  Dual clocks: Entry order influences on incumbent and newcomer market share and survival when specialized assets retain their value , 1991 .

[19]  Howard Thomas,et al.  Planning for dominance: a strategic perspective on the emergence of a dominant design , 1995 .

[20]  Martin Weiss,et al.  Consortia in the Standards Development Process , 1992, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[21]  Benjamin Gomes-Casseres.  Group versus group: How alliance networks compete , 1994 .

[22]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[23]  Jeff White,et al.  Coordinating technology: Studies in the international standardization of telecommunications , 1998 .

[24]  R. Gulati,et al.  Where Do Interorganizational Networks Come From?1 , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[25]  J. Hagedoorn.  Understanding the rationale of strategic technology partnering: Nterorganizational modes of cooperation and sectoral differences , 1993 .

[26]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[27]  R. Burt.  A note on social capital and network content , 1997 .

[28]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Technology Success and Failure in Winner-Take-All Markets: The Impact of Learning Orientation, Timing, and Network Externalities , 2002 .

[29]  Mary Tripsas.  UNRAVELING THE PROCESS OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION: COMPLEMENTARY ASSETS AND INCUMBENT SURVIVAL IN THE TYPESETTER INDUSTRY: UNRAVELING THE PROCESS OF CREATIVE DESTRUCTION , 1997 .

[30]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  John E. Prescott,et al.  The Evolution of Interfirm Networks: Environmental Effects on Patterns of Network Change , 2006 .

[32]  B. Kogut.  The network as knowledge : Generative rules and the emergence of structure , 2000 .

[33]  Pamela R. Haunschild,et al.  Network Learning: The Effects of Partners' Heterogeneity of Experience on Corporate Acquisitions , 2002 .

[34]  Fernando F. Suarez.  Battles for Technological Dominance: An Integrative Framework , 2004 .

[35]  B. Nooteboom,et al.  Density and strength of ties in innovation networks: an analysis of multimedia and biotechnology , 2005 .

[36]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[37]  Bart Nooteboom,et al.  Optimal cognitive distance and absorptive capacity , 2007 .

[38]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Migration to Open-Standard Interorganizational Systems: Network Effects, Switching Costs, and Path Dependency , 2005, MIS Q..

[39]  Geert Duysters,et al.  Technological Convergence in the IT Industry: The Role of Strategic Technology Alliances and Technological Competencies , 1998 .

[40]  Ron Sanchez,et al.  Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design , 1996 .

[41]  HERBERT A. SIMON,et al.  The Architecture of Complexity , 1991 .

[42]  Sumit K. Majumdar,et al.  Network effects and the adoption of new technology: evidence from the U.S. telecommunications industry , 1998 .

[43]  M. Tushman,et al.  On the Organizational Determinants of Technological Change: Towards a Sociology of Technological Evolution , 1992 .

[44]  Joe Tidd,et al.  Development of novel products through intraorganizational and interorganizational networks the case of home automation , 1995 .

[45]  Stefan H. Thomke,et al.  The Role of Flexibility in the Development of New Products , 1997 .

[46]  Susanne K. Schmidt,et al.  Coordinating Technology: Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunications , 1997 .

[47]  Melissa A. Schilling.  Technological Lockout: An Integrative Model of the Economic and Strategic Factors Driving Technology Success and Failure , 1998 .

[48]  W. Mitchell,et al.  Coalition Formation in Standard-Setting Alliances , 1995 .

[49]  Aija Leiponen,et al.  COOPERATIVE STRATEGIES IN STANDARD SETTING IN THE GLOBAL WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY , 2006 .

[50]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Consortium Problem Redefined: Negotiating 'Democracy' in the Actor Network on Standardization , 2003, Int. J. IT Stand. Stand. Res..

[51]  Donald E. Hatfield,et al.  Doomed from the start: what is the value of selecting a future dominant design? , 1999 .

[52]  W. Mitchell,et al.  Learning from competing partners: outcomes and durations of scale and link alliances in Europe, North America and Asia , 2000 .

[53]  E. Roberts,et al.  Networks of innovators: a longitudinal perspective , 2003 .

[54]  Clayton M. Christensen,et al.  Strategies for Survival in Fast-Changing Industries , 1998 .

[55]  Thomas Keil,et al.  De-facto standardization through alliances - lessons from Bluetooth , 2002 .

[56]  Jan Smith.  Communities, Associations, and the Supply of Collective Goods , 1976, American Journal of Sociology.