This is Michail Tsatsanis signing in to continue talking about my Technology Marketing Center case study on How to Balance Standards and Innovation.
This week I want to talk about how one might choose the right venue, or standards body to pursue standardization of a new technology. Rather, I would like to just pose the problem, more than actually give any concrete tips. This is something I have thought about from time to time, but I am far from having any perfect solutions.
The question of the right standards venue is (like everything else related to standards), not a straightforward one. Often there are choices, from established international standards organizations, to regional bodies, to more protected industry alliances etc. The question is what is the right place to pursue the standardization effort so that a timely, complete and respected specification is produced.
In some cases, the choices are limited, and in this sense the problem has been already solved for you. There may be customer, technology or legacy related reasons that a given standards body has to be involved. In the case of our startup, we were dealing with the extension of an established technology, and a given market and customer base accustomed to a certain standardization process; that pretty
much dictated which standards bodies were acceptable. In other cases, products target regional markets and need the stamp of approval of regional standards bodies. For example, in the past, telecommunications products sold in the Japanese market used to have very different specifications from the rest of the world and had to follow local standardization procedures.
Often though, one has choices on the standardization venue and this decision can have profound implications on the standards strategy. As a customer once famously said: "the good thing about standards is that there are so many of them to choose from...". However devastating this ironic observation may be to the vendor, it also implies that there are many ways to skin that standards cat.
One might look at this from the perspective of selecting the battleground, choosing the time and place that will give the best advantage over competitors. One may consider whether a more protected organization in the form of an industry alliance may be easier to make progress in, compared to a bigger, established organization with strong majority or even consensus based decision rules. One may worry about relative influence as compared to competitors (the classical big fish / small pond vs small fish / big pond dilemma).
All these are valid concerns, and the source of a great amount of stress and anxiety. But it is important to not forget another important dimension, that is related to the customer's perspective. It is important to assess the reasons the customer is interested in the standardization process and ensure that your preferred standards venue will address the customer's concerns. Thorough vetting for example, is usually at the top of customer's concerns. The standards committee has to have the gravity to attract key players across the food chain, so that the perspectives of all involved in the solution are incorporated. Then there are other intangible qualities of a venue, like its ability to resonate with the customer's culture, the historical context, interpersonal relationships, etc.
There are no easy solutions to this problem, and there is always the tension between what is feasible within a reasonable time and effort and what is desirable in a perfect world. There are even more complications when the solution requires a combination of more than one standards, or when a standard has to migrate and take different forms for different geographies or applications.
While the question is convoluted, it always helps to think of it as part of the market segmentation and market entry strategy. The standards venue has to address the customer's concerns and support the company's strategic marketing goals.
Check in next week for more discussion; until then, be well and do well,
-Michail.
Comments