IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v137y2018icp182-189.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method

Author

Listed:
  • van de Kaa, Geerten
  • Janssen, Marijn
  • Rezaei, Jafar

Abstract

Businesses are obliged to report all kinds of data to the government. In the past this was paper-based, and over time Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) types of solutions have been implemented. The new eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) standard seems to have replaced EDI types of solutions. This paper applies the Best Worst Method to identify the key factors that lead to the dominance of these business reporting standards. The results show that the key factors for standard dominance are the overall commitment of key stakeholders, timing of entry, and installed base, and suggest that XBRL has the best chance of becoming the dominant standard, replacing EDI as the standard for business reporting. However, this will take time due to the installed base of systems.

Suggested Citation

  • van de Kaa, Geerten & Janssen, Marijn & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Standards battles for business-to-government data exchange: Identifying success factors for standard dominance using the Best Worst Method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 182-189.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:137:y:2018:i:c:p:182-189
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.041
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162517301518
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.041?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph Farrell & Garth Saloner, 1985. "Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 70-83, Spring.
    2. Arthur, W Brian, 1989. "Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(394), pages 116-131, March.
    3. Ghani, Erlane K. & Laswad, Fawzi & Tooley, Stuart, 2011. "Functional fixation: Experimental evidence on the presentation of financial information through different digital formats," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 186-199.
    4. Gupta, Himanshu & Barua, Mukesh Kumar, 2016. "Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 69-79.
    5. David, Paul A, 1985. "Clio and the Economics of QWERTY," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(2), pages 332-337, May.
    6. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    7. Suarez, Fernando F., 2004. "Battles for technological dominance: an integrative framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 271-286, March.
    8. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    9. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    10. Salimi, Negin & Rezaei, Jafar, 2018. "Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 147-155.
    11. Schilling, Melissa, 1999. "Winning the standards race: : Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 265-274, June.
    12. Rezaei, Jafar & van Roekel, Wilco S. & Tavasszy, Lori, 2018. "Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 158-169.
    13. Fernando F. Suárez & James M. Utterback, 1995. "Dominant designs and the survival of firms," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(6), pages 415-430.
    14. Foray, Dominique, 1994. "Users, standards and the economics of coalitions and committees," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 6(3-4), pages 269-293, December.
    15. Cusumano, Michael A. & Mylonadis, Yiorgos & Rosenbloom, Richard S., 1992. "Strategic Maneuvering and Mass-Market Dynamics: The Triumph of VHS over Beta," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(1), pages 51-94, April.
    16. Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, 1994. "Systems Competition and Network Effects," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 93-115, Spring.
    17. van de Kaa, Geerten & Rezaei, Jafar & Kamp, Linda & de Winter, Allard, 2014. "Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 662-670.
    18. Ren, Jingzheng & Liang, Hanwei & Chan, Felix T.S., 2017. "Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 29-39.
    19. Indrit Troshani & Lee D. Parker & Andy Lymer, 2015. "Institutionalising XBRL for financial reporting: resorting to regulation," Accounting and Business Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(2), pages 196-228, February.
    20. William Lehr, 1992. "Standardization: Understanding the process," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 43(8), pages 550-555, September.
    21. Rezaei, Jafar, 2016. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 126-130.
    22. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    23. Raghu Garud & Arun Kumaraswamy, 1993. "Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems' open systems strategy," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(5), pages 351-369, July.
    24. Stanley M. Besen & Joseph Farrell, 1994. "Choosing How to Compete: Strategies and Tactics in Standardization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(2), pages 117-131, Spring.
    25. Steven Klepper & Kenneth L. Simons, 2000. "Dominance by birthright: entry of prior radio producers and competitive ramifications in the U.S. television receiver industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(10‐11), pages 997-1016, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Cenamor, Javier, 2021. "Complementor competitive advantage: A framework for strategic decisions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 335-343.
    2. Jafari-Sadeghi, Vahid & Amoozad Mahdiraji, Hannan & Busso, Donatella & Yahiaoui, Dorra, 2022. "Towards agility in international high-tech SMEs: Exploring key drivers and main outcomes of dynamic capabilities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    3. Sisto, Roberta & Fernández-Portillo, Luis A. & Yazdani, Morteza & Estepa-Mohedano, Lorenzo & Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi, 2022. "Strategic planning of rural areas: Integrating participatory backcasting and multiple criteria decision analysis tools," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PA).
    4. Wafa Sassi & Hakim Ben Othman & Khaled Hussainey, 2023. "The determinants of eXtensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL) adoption : a cross-country study," Post-Print hal-04191489, HAL.
    5. Hoogerbrugge, Coen & van de Kaa, Geerten & Chappin, Emile, 2023. "Adoption of quality standards for corporate greenhouse gas inventories: The importance of other stakeholders," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 260(C).
    6. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. van de Kaa, G. & Fens, T. & Rezaei, J. & Kaynak, D. & Hatun, Z. & Tsilimeni-Archangelidi, A., 2019. "Realizing smart meter connectivity: Analyzing the competing technologies Power line communication, mobile telephony, and radio frequency using the best worst method," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 320-327.
    2. Geerten Van de Kaa & Daniel Scholten & Jafar Rezaei & Christine Milchram, 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-13, October.
    3. van de Kaa, Geerten & de Vries, Henk J., 2015. "Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 222-235.
    4. Narayanan, V.K. & Chen, Tianxu, 2012. "Research on technology standards: Accomplishment and challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(8), pages 1375-1406.
    5. Papachristos, George, 2017. "Diversity in technology competition: The link between platforms and sociotechnical transitions," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 291-306.
    6. van de Kaa, Geerten & van Ek, Martijn & Kamp, Linda M. & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Wind turbine technology battles: Gearbox versus direct drive - opening up the black box of technology characteristics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    7. G. Kaa & M. J. Greeven, 2017. "Mobile telecommunication standardization in Japan, China, the United States, and Europe: a comparison of regulatory and industrial regimes," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 181-192, May.
    8. Sillanpää, Antti & Laamanen, Tomi, 2009. "Positive and negative feedback effects in competition for dominance of network business systems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 871-884, June.
    9. Deishin Lee & Haim Mendelson, 2007. "Adoption of Information Technology Under Network Effects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 395-413, December.
    10. van de Kaa, Geerten & Greeven, Mark, 2017. "LED standardization in China and South East Asia: Stakeholders, infrastructure and institutional regimes," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 863-870.
    11. Frank Borowicz & Ewald Scherm, 2001. "Standardisierungsstrategien: Eine erweiterte Betrachtung des Wettbewerbs auf Netzeffektmärkten," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 53(4), pages 391-416, June.
    12. Cecere, Grazia & Corrocher, Nicoletta & Battaglia, Riccardo David, 2015. "Innovation and competition in the smartphone industry: Is there a dominant design?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 162-175.
    13. den Hartigh, E. & Langerak, F. & Commandeur, H.R., 2002. "The Effects of Self-Reinforcing Mechanisms on Firm Performance," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2002-46-MKT, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    14. van de Kaa, Geerten & Papachristos, George & de Bruijn, Hans, 2019. "The governance of platform development processes: A metaphor and a simulation model," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 190-203.
    15. Takahashi, Takuma & Namiki, Fujio, 2003. "Three attempts at "de-Wintelization": Japan's TRON project, the US government's suits against Wintel, and the entry of Java and Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(9), pages 1589-1606, October.
    16. Kaplan, Sarah & Tripsas, Mary, 2008. "Thinking about technology: Applying a cognitive lens to technical change," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 790-805, June.
    17. Heli Koski & Tobias Kretschmer, 2004. "Survey on Competing in Network Industries: Firm Strategies, Market Outcomes, and Policy Implications," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 5-31, March.
    18. Geerten van de Kaa & Lieke van den Eijnden & Neelke Doorn, 2020. "Filtering Out Standard Success Criteria in the Case of Multi-Mode Standardization: Responsible Waste Water Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-10, February.
    19. Rodolphe Durand & Robert M. Grant & Tammy L. Madsen & David P. McIntyre & Arati Srinivasan, 2017. "Networks, platforms, and strategy: Emerging views and next steps," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 141-160, January.
    20. Mi, Xiaomei & Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang & Shen, Wenjing & Lev, Benjamin, 2019. "The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what, what for and what's next?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 205-225.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:137:y:2018:i:c:p:182-189. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.