Article Preview
Top1. Introduction
There is a general understanding and empirical evidence for the importance of standardization to economic development and regional competitiveness (Brykman 2011; DTI 2005; Blind 2004). Scholars agree that the (technology) standardization process is a complex phenomenon, and insufficiently understood among businesses and politicians (Delaere and Ballon 2008; K. J. Lyytinen, Keil, and Fomin 2008; Isaak 2006; Bousquet, Fomin, and Drillon 2009; Jakobs 2003). Policy makers often call for standardization process improvements (European Commission 2007), specifically with regard to the repeatedly criticized “weak link” between standardization communities and R&D ones – the critique, which, among others, points at the lack of direct support by the European Community for early- and pre-standardization activities (Jakobs and Blind 2011). The growing complexities of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in general (Schneberger and McLean 2003) and ICT standards in particular (Delaere and Ballon 2008) aggravate the situation, which is referred to as “blurred ICT standardization landscape” (European Commission 2007; Jakobs and Blind 2011). The latter is also attributed to the lack of theoretical and practical understanding of the processes leading to the creation of standards. More often than not, development of a particular technology is advanced by several standards development organizations (SDOs) and/or consortia, whereas areas of standardization activities may be overlapping (Baldini et al. 2013). Thus, while focused, targeted efforts can help mobilize diverse R&D and standardization initiatives, the “blurred landscape” and the lack of tools or methods for “seeing through” makes it difficult for an observer to command the landscape view and hence to efficiently contribute to the technology and standards development.
An analysis of R&D activities directed at emerging technology (i.e., technology at an early or pre-standardization stage) can be helpful in informing the policy makers and standardization professionals on the research directions in general, and on “promising findings” of the research community in particular. Seeking to respond to the contemporary academic and practitioner challenges of the standardization domain, in this work we take a closer look at diverse research initiatives contributing to the development of a particular technology. These research initiatives at the early, pre-standardization stage of technology development constitute the venue for trying and learning through which immature technology gradually forms into a product(s) which can be successfully standardized and commercialized (Schot and Geels 2007; Schot, Hoogma, and Elzen 1994). An improved understanding of the R&D process and its topical content can not only contribute to establishing the links between similar activities in R&D and standardization communities, but also strengthening existing links through the reduction of duplicate efforts, for example.
This paper makes a contribution by empirically examining discourses at the early stage of technology and standard evolution, which has been rarely done before (Nickerson and zur Muehlen 2006), and thereby helps better understand the dynamics and the content of the process. To fulfil on our goals, we choose an emerging technology called Cognitive Radio. CR/SDR1 (Cognitive Radio / Software Defined Radio; hereafter referred to as Cognitive Radio (CR)) – a new generation for wireless communications, which carries a promise to overcome the existing limitations and imperfections of extant technologies in spectrum access and use.