The Work of an International Standardization Consortia

Abstract

This article gives an account of the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA), a standardization consortium. OMA incorporates actors both from the telecommunication and IT sector. The two sectors have different standardization traditions. OMA could have chosen a multitude of setups and work procedures, but ended up with a traditional organization with technical plenary and work groups, and a consensus oriented work style. Why did OMA chose to organize itself this way? The article argues that this is due to the legacy of the organization and its members, the interconnectedness and systemic nature of the infrastructure, and the overall structure and spirit of the telecommunication field. The article also argues that the whish for legitimacy steers the organization towards its current structure, and alternative organizational forms that are less open and inclusive could create IPR licensing problems, and reduce the perceived legitimacy of the OMA standards.

Something old is new again: airline-airport consortia and key stakeholder benefits

“…While there is extensive research in the areas of the formation and definitions of strategic alliances (c.f., Schermerhorn, 1975;Nielsen, 1988) and also a significant amount of research applying those theories to code-sharing alliances in aviation (Brueckner, 2001;Rajasekar and Fouts, 2009), there is limited research focusing on consortia in general (Evan and Olk, 1990;Grotnes, 2008) and much less within the airline industry. Furthermore, most of the research that has been done on inter-firm cooperation and strategic alliances centres on the pre-existing inter-firm environment and a sparse few have attempted to focus on the direct costs (Wang, 2010) and benefits (Gudmundsson, 1999) to the consumer beyond the basics of economic competition.…”

Recent Developments in Mobile Communications - A Multidisciplinary Approach

“…This constitutes a dynamic market approach (MVCE, 2008;Irvine, 2002;Bush, 2009). The idea of digital infrastructures faces three main challenges: (1) the role played by heterogeneous systems in terms of transmission power, frequencies, range, quality of service (QoS) requirements, spectral efficiency, and standards (Grøtnes, 2009); (2) the limited or no communication between these systems; and (3) the way systems change rapidly and the way digital infrastructures have to adapt quickly without degradation of service (Herzhoff et al, 2009c). A digital infrastructure cannot be singled out as a network demand or capacity tussle mediator.…”

Standardization as open innovation: two cases from the mobile industry

“…OMA has a large liaison activity that involves more than 30 other standardization activities (Grøtnes, 2009). OMA tries to make its specifications available to the largest possible audience.…”

“…The driving forces in OMA are the incumbent telecommunication firms. OMA operates very close to the formal standardization organizations in openness, membership and process (Grøtnes, 2009) and adheres to the classical properties for standardization organizations like, openness, transparency, due process, consensus and the availability of the specifications (Hawkins, 1995). The Android project on the other hand is led by a newcomer that wants to alter the industry.…”