Standards Development for Smart Systems—A Potential Way Forward

In this article, design and development of smart systems require cooperation of different technical disciplines. This multidisciplinarity represents a challenge for today's ICT (Information and Communication Technologies) standardization environment. This environment has evolved over the years and today comprises a huge variety of hundreds of Standards Setting Organisations, partly interconnected by a complex network of very diverse types of links and cooperation agreements. Yet, despite this complexity, ICT standardization is still very much monodisciplinary. Moreover, smart systems’ future true ubiquity and the resulting massive societal ramifications imply that societal stakeholders also need to participate in their standardization, thus further complicating the process. Integrating the necessary background information about the current standardization environment with two empirical studies the article sheds some light on the need for, as well as the benefits and issues to be associated with, multidisciplinarity in ICT standards setting. To resolve these issues, the article proposes the deployment of BOMOS, a collection of guidelines that establish a layered set of activities necessary for the management of a standardization process. While this solution may further increase the complexity of the standardization environment, it offers much greater flexibility and caters much better for the multidisciplinary, cross-domain standardization than the current system does.

[1]  Kai Jakobs Managing corporate participation in international ICT standards setting , 2014, 2014 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE).

[2]  Vermesan Ovidiu,et al.  Internet of Things Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda , 2014 .

[3]  Gemma Galdon-Clavell (Not so) smart cities?: The drivers, impact and risks of surveillance-enabled smart environments , 2013 .

[4]  Erwin Folmer,et al.  Management and Development Model for Open Standards (BOMOS) version 2 , 2011 .

[5]  Jos van Hillegersberg,et al.  Do semantic standards lack quality? A survey among 34 semantic standards , 2011, Electron. Mark..

[6]  D. Edge,et al.  The social shaping of technology , 1988 .

[7]  Michael O'Rourke,et al.  The Production and Reinforcement of Ignorance in Collaborative Interdisciplinary Research , 2016 .

[8]  H. Jansen,et al.  The Logic of Qualitative Survey Research and its Position in the Field of Social Research Methods , 2010 .

[9]  R. Yin The Case Study as a Serious Research Strategy , 1981 .

[10]  Dimitri Papadimitriou,et al.  A Systematic Approach for Closing the Research to Standardization Gap , 2012, Future Internet Assembly.

[11]  Fern Wickson,et al.  Standardising Responsibility? The Significance of Interstitial Spaces , 2015, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[12]  Liqun Chen,et al.  1 Trust and Legitimacy in Security Standardization – a new Management Issue ? , 2016 .

[13]  Lori Rosenkopf,et al.  Social Capital for Hire? Mobility of Technical Professionals and Firm Influence in Wireless Standards Committees , 2010, Organ. Sci..

[14]  Kai Jakobs Emerging Smart Technologies and the European Standardisation System , 2017, Bled eConference.

[15]  R. Werle,et al.  Promoting Legitimacy in Technical Standardization , 2006 .

[16]  H. S. Varsha,et al.  The tactile Internet , 2017, 2017 International Conference on Innovative Mechanisms for Industry Applications (ICIMIA).

[17]  Sophia Kluge,et al.  The Survey Handbook , 2016 .

[18]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Shaping standardization: A study of standards processes and standards policies in the field of telematic services , 1996 .

[19]  Jim Isaak The Role of Individuals and Social Capital in POSIX Standardization , 2006, Int. J. IT Stand. Stand. Res..

[20]  Knut Blind,et al.  Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence from Germany , 2009 .

[21]  Tineke M. Egyedi,et al.  Standard-compliant, but incompatible?! , 2007, Comput. Stand. Interfaces.

[22]  Edward Griffor,et al.  Framework for Cyber-Physical Systems: Volume 1, Overview , 2017 .

[23]  Sisi Zlatanova,et al.  A generic approach for 3D SDI in The Netherlands , 2011 .

[24]  Kerry L. Taylor,et al.  Where Is Everywhere: Bringing Location to the Web , 2015, IEEE Internet Computing.

[25]  Morten Kallestrup,et al.  Stakeholder Participation in European Standardization: A Mapping and an Assessment of Three Categories of Regulation , 2017, Legal Issues of Economic Integration.

[26]  R. Yin,et al.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed. , 2009 .

[27]  Josep Domingo-Ferrer,et al.  Privacy and Data Protection by Design - from policy to engineering , 2014, ArXiv.

[28]  K. Jakobs ICT Standardization , 2019, Advanced Methodologies and Technologies in Artificial Intelligence, Computer Simulation, and Human-Computer Interaction.

[29]  Sander Janssen,et al.  Harmonizing Software Standards with a Semantic Model , 2011, MTSR.

[30]  Robin Williams,et al.  Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme , 2004 .

[31]  Alan R. Dennis,et al.  The Transformative Effect of the Internet of Things on Business and Society , 2019, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

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