ABSTRACT
This study seeks to determine the validity of the current de jure standards management system. The de jure standard is an important tool for innovation policy. However, its review interval has been fixed in the management system and maintained without the use of empirical analysis to guide its development. Therefore, this study (1) examines the factors that affect the longevity of the standards, and (2) outlines methods for improving how the de jure standards are managed. Results indicate that design and mark standards influence the longevity of standardized knowledge. This is notable, given that design for innovation is an emerging area of research that is commonly studied through the analysis of design patent data. Taken together, this study’s major findings are twofold. First, different technological categories have significantly different effects on longevity. Because the longevity of some technological sectors is naturally longer than others, there exists a need for a more flexible interval system. Second, the longevity of the mark and design standard is longer than the longevity of other types of standards. Both developing and developed countries utilize the de jure standard, so the policy implications of these findings are widely applicable.
Acknowledgments
This study is conducted as a part of the Project at Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI). The author appreciates the valuable comments and support from Director Watanabe, Director Morita, and Director Saito at Industrial Science and Technology Policy and Environment Bureau in Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. The author appreciates the support from Ms.Kobayashi and Ms.Kimura at RIETI.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 PERINORM is the database of the EU de jure standards provided by EU standards development organizatons (e.g. British Standards Institution, and Deutsches Institut für Normung).
2 As a result, the standards’ longevities have continuous distributions. One of the key contributors to the continuous distributions is the fact that the review process take more (or less) time than originally anticipated (typically 5 years) due to administrative delays.