The tensions shaping the emergence of standard bodies: The case of a national health informatics standards body

Abstract

This study applies New Institutional theory to identify the social processes shaping the emergence of a standard setting body. Meyer and Rowan’s classification of the mechanisms that lead to the creation of institutional rules—relational networks, degree of collective organisation and leadership—is applied to a health informatics private standard consortia operating in the UK. The study identifies a number of conflicts within the institutional contexts within which the standard body operates. Such conflicts undermine the institutionalised rules that frame the emergence of the standard body and lead to the erosion of the institutionalised standardisation practice.

Keywords:

• standards
• institutional theory
• health informatics

Notes

C. F. Cargill, Information Technology Standardization: Theory, Process and Organizatons, Digital Press, Bedford, 1989; P. A. David and S. Greenstein, ‘The economics of compatibility standards: an introduction to recent research’, Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1, 1–2, 1990, pp. 3–41; C. Shapiro and H. R. Varian, Information Rules, Harvard Business Press, Boston, 1999.

P. A. David and W. E. Steinmueller, ‘Economics of compatibility standards and competition in telecommunication networks’, Information Economics and Policy, 6, 3–4, 1994, pp. 217–41.

T. M. Egyedi, ‘Institutional dilemma in ICT standardisation: co‐ordinating the diffusion of technology?’, in K. Jakobs (ed.), IT Standards and Standardisation: A Global Perspective, Idea Group Publishing, London, 2000, pp. 48–62.

Ibid.

R. Hawkins, ‘The rise of consortia in the information and communication technology industries: emerging implications for policy’, Telecommunications Policy, 23, 2, 1999, pp. 159–73.

J. W. Meyer and B. Rowan, ‘Institutionalized organizations: formal structure as myth and ceremony’, The American Journal of Sociology, 83, 2, 1977, pp. 340–63.

Ibid.

David and Greenstein, op. cit.

J. Farrell and G. Saloner, ‘Coordination through committees and markets’, The RAND Journal of Economics, 19, 2, 1988, pp. 235–52.

P. A. David and M. Shurmer, ‘Formal standards‐setting for global telecommunications and information services. Towards an institutional regime transformation?’, Telecommunications Policy, 20, 10, 1996, pp. 789–815.

J. Tate, ‘National varieties of standardization’, in P. A. Hall and D. Soskice (eds), Varieties of Capitalism, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.

W. Mattli, ‘The politics and economics of international institutional standards setting: an introduction’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 3, 2001, pp. 328–44.

M. Libicki, J. Schneider, D. R. Frelinger and A. Slomovic, Scaffolding the New Web: Standards and Standards Policy for the Digital Economy, RAND, 2000.

S. M. Besen and J. Farrell, ‘The role of ITU in standardization‐pre‐eminence, impotence or rubber stamp’, Telecommunications Policy, 15, 4, 1991, pp. 311–21.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.

Ibid.; P. Swann, ‘User needs for standards: how can we ensure that user votes are counted?’, in B. Meek, C. D. Ewans and R. S. Walker (eds), User Needs in Information Technology Standards, Butterworth‐Heinemann, Oxford, 1993.

K. Tamm Hallstrom, ‘Organizing the process of standardization’, in N. Brunsson and B. Jacobsson (eds), A World of Standards, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, pp. 85–99.

S. K. Schmidt and R. Werle, Co‐ordinating Technology: Studies in the International Standardization of Telecommunication, MIT Press, Cambridge, 1998.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.

W. Kuert, ‘The founding of ISO’, in ISO (ed.), Friendship Among Equals, ISO, Geneva, 1997, pp. 13–21.

Farrell and Saloner, op. cit.; P. Genschel, ‘How fragmentation can improve co‐ordination: setting standards in international telecommunications’, Organization Studies, 18, 4, 1997, pp.603–22.

M. T. Austin and H. V. Milner, ‘Strategies of European standardisation’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 3, 2001, pp. 411–31; S. M. Besen and J. Farrell, ‘Choosing how to compete: strategies and tactics in standardization’, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8, 2, 1994, pp.117–31.

C. Antonelli, ‘Localized technological change and the evolution of standards as economic institutions’, Information Economics and Policy, 6, 3–4, 1994, pp. 195–216 at p. 197.

Farrell and Saloner, op. cit.; Genschel, op. cit.; Besen and Farrell, 1994, op. cit.; P. Belleflamme, ‘Coordination on formal vs. de facto standards: a dynamic approach’, European Journal of Political Economy, 18, 1, 2002, pp. 153–76.

Farrell and Saloner, op. cit.

R. Werle, ‘Institutional aspects of standardization‐jurisdictional conflicts and the choice of standardization organizations’, Journal of European Public Policy, 8, 3, 2001, pp. 392–410.

Austin and Milner, op. cit.

Besen and Farrell, 1994, op. cit.

I. Graham, G. Spinardi, R. Williams and J. Webster, ‘The dynamics of EDI standard development’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 7, 1, 1995, pp. 3–20; R. Williams, I. Graham and G. Spinardi, ‘The social shaping of EDI’, in R. Williams (ed.), Proceedings of the PICT/COST A4 International Research Workshop, Vol. 3, The Social Shaping of Interorganizational IT Systems and Electronic Data Interchange, 1st edn, European Commission, Edinburgh, 1993, pp.1–16.

Schmidt and Werle, 1998, op. cit.

Werle, op. cit.; T. B. Lawrence, ‘Institutional strategy’, Journal of Management, 25, 2, 1999, pp. 161–88.

Egyedi, op. cit.; Schmidt and Werle, 1998, op. cit.; S. K. Schmidt and R. Werle, Technical Controversy in International Standardisation, Max‐Planck‐Institute fur Gesellschaftsforschung, Koln, Discussion Paper 93/5, March 1993.

W. R. Scott, ‘The adolescence of institutional theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 32, 4, 1987, pp. 493–511.

L. G. Zucker, ‘Institutional theories of organization’, Annual Review of Sociology, 13, 1987, pp.443–64.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.

Ibid.; Zucker, 1987, op. cit.; P. J. DiMaggio and W. W. Powell, ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48, 2, 1983, pp. 147–60; P. S. Tolbert and L. G. Zucker, ‘Institutional sources of change in the formal structure of organizations: the diffusion of civil service reform, 1880–1935’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 1, 1983, pp. 22–39.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.

Ibid.; R. Greenwood and C. R. Hinings, ‘Understanding radical organisational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism’, The Academy of Management Review, 21, 4, 1996, pp. 1022–54.

Zucker, 1987, op. cit.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.

L. G. Zucker, ‘Organizations as institutions’, in S. B. Bacharach (ed.), Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, 1983, pp. 1–47.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.

Ibid.

Ibid.; DiMaggio and Powell, op. cit.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 149.

Ibid.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.

DiMaggio and Powell, op. cit.; T. Dacin, ‘Isomorphism in context: the power and prescription of institutional norms’, Academy of Management Journal, 40, 1, 1997, pp. 46–81.

A. J. Hoffman, ‘Linking organizational and field‐level analyses’, Organization & Environment, 14, 2, 2001, pp. 133–56.

Greenwood and Hinings, op. cit.

C. Oliver, ‘The antecedents of deinstitutionalization’, Organization Studies, 13, 4, 1992, pp.563–88.

Hoffman, op. cit.

Oliver, op. cit.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Greenwood and Hinings, op. cit.; P. M. de Holan and N. Phillips, ‘Managing in transition: a case study of institutional management and organizational change’, Journal of Management Inquiry, 11, 1, 2002, pp. 68–83.

Greenwood and Hinings, op. cit.

Ibid.

Lawrence, op. cit.

Hoffman, op. cit.

Ibid.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.; Zucker, 1987, op. cit.; P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality, Doubleday, New York, 1967.

Greenwood and Hinings, op. cit.; Oliver, op. cit.

Dacin, op. cit.; P. S. Davis, A. B. Desai and J. D. Francis, ‘Mode of international entry: the isomorphism perspective’, Journal of International Business Studies, 31, 2, 2000, pp. 239–58; T. Slack and B. Hinings, ‘Institutional pressures and isomorphism change: an empirical test’, Organisational Studies, 15, 6, 1994, pp. 803–1052.

Hoffman, op. cit.

Greenwood and Hinings, op. cit.

Oliver, op. cit.

Schmidt and Werle, 1993, 1998, op. cit.

Schmidt and Werle, 1998, op. cit., p. 16.

See T. J. Pinch and W. E. Bijker, ‘The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other’, Social Studies of Science, 14, 3, 1984, pp. 399–441.

Schmidt and Werle, 1998, op. cit., p. 19.

Schmidt and Werle, 1993, 1998, op. cit.

Werle, op. cit.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.; Genschel, op. cit.

Werle, op. cit.

Ibid.

Lawrence, op. cit.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Werle, op. cit.

Lawrence, op. cit.

Schmidt and Werle, 1998, op. cit.

Hawkins, op. cit.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.

R. K. Yin, Case Study Research. Design and Methods, Sage Publication, California, 1994.

R. E. Stake, The Art of Case Study Research, Sage Publications, USA, 1995.

K. M. Eisenhardt, ‘Building theories from case study research’, Academy of Management Review, 14, 4, 1989, pp. 532–50.

Yin, op. cit.

M. Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation Methods, Sage Publications, London, 1980.

M. B. Miles and A. M. Huberman, Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, 1994.

Patton, op. cit.

S. Payne, ‘Interview in qualitative research’, in A. Memon and R. Bull (eds), Handbook of the Psychology of Interviewing, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England, 2000, pp. 89–102.

Stake, op. cit.

Miles and Huberman, op. cit.

The Isle of Man and the Channel Islands also have separate independent health service structures.

Version 3 development work started in 1996, but the specifications were approved by ANSI only in the summer of 2004.

See Graham et al., op. cit.

Members get voting power relative to the level of fee that they pay. This does not mean that they are necessarily actively involved in the standards development process, but rather that they can have a big say in which standards prevail when competing standards are being considered during the balloting process.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.

B. Choi, T. S. Raghu and A. Vinze, ‘Addressing a standard creation process: a focus on the ebXML’, International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 61, 5, 2004, pp. 627–48.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.; Werle, op. cit.

Schmidt and Werle, 1998, op. cit.

D. Foray, ‘Users, standards and the economics of coalitions and committees’, Information Economics and Policy, 6, 3–4, 1994, pp. 269–93; K. Jakobs, User Participation in Standardization Processes‐Impact, Problems and Benefits, Vieweg Publishers, 2000.

Lawrence, op. cit.

David and Shurmer, op. cit.

Ibid.

Schmidt and Werle, 1998, op. cit.

Ibid.

Meyer and Rowan, op. cit.

Lawrence, op. cit.