Short instruction

Today, processes between SSOs may differ quite considerably, and each one has its strengths and weaknesses. For instance, ‘speed’ does not come for free; it may lead to processes that may, for example, sacrifice a reasonable level of consensus for it or may be hijacked by personal or corporate interests. Coordination of SSOs working on similar (or virtually identical) technologies or on systems that depend on each other remains to be an issue. The wide range of coordination mechanisms that are available today helps, but it also serves to make the standards-setting environment more complex. A problem that persists in Europe until today is the perception of privately run standards consortia as being inferior to the formal ESO, in terms of processes, legitimacy of the output and inclusiveness. While this may be correct in theory, in practice these distinctions become increasingly blurred.

The ILOs examples

K6.1 K7.1

Recommended Teaching Case studies/Serious games/Оther

Good practice

Educators addressing consortia-based standardisation focus on its collaborative nature, where companies, industry groups, and stakeholders join forces to develop standards outside formal standards organizations. Educators use various examples (e.g., OASIS, W3C, Wi-Fi Alliance, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG)) to show why this type of standardisation is usual in rapidly involving industries, e.g., information technology. They also use various examples to explain the effectiveness and efficiency of consortia-based standardisation, which is why it enables stakeholders to respond quickly to technological advancements and market needs. Through group discussions, they also discuss challenges, including limited global reach and standards battles. Case studies and role-playing exercises allow students to simulate the decision-making processes in consortia.

Recommended sources

Would you like to improve this content? Leave a comment!