Stealth standards or super standards?

Engineers and marketers know that well-defined standards are essential for the acceptance and expansion of any communication or network system. Without standards, your system would address only a small audience. For that reason and others, our industry has developed standards via international organizations such as the International Telecommunications Union or IEEE and under the lead of a key vendors and partners, such as Bluetooth and GSM communications. These standards light the way to broad acceptance.

These consortiumlike standard-setting efforts meet with mixed results. Some, like GSM, are in widespread use. Others, like Bluetooth, are taking longer than expected to reach market with products, although there is plenty of vendor support. You shouldn't be surprised, because you know that developing ICs, software, and end-user products is a complex activity, and proponents of a new standard tend to be optimistic. (I have no prediction regarding whether Bluetooth, for example, will take off and become the leader in its application segment or become just another alternative standard.)

But not all standards start with such broad industry support. Some have the purpose of just giving a vendor a market edge and still succeed. A recent article, which covered the development and acceptance of the Mobil Speedpass system, clarified this point (Reference 1). Mobil based the Speedpass system on a key-chain RFID unit that you wave near the gas pump before you fill up the tank. (Of course, lots of complex yet invisible-to-users communications activity and transaction processing take place behind the scenes.)

In just a few years and without much industry and media notice, more than 5 million drivers have become active users of the system, meaning that they use this system at least once a month at Mobil stations to purchase gas and other things. Using the Speedpass, they save about 30 seconds from the alternative: a three-minute, credit-card-based transaction. Due to the success of the Speedpass system, other retailers, such as McDonald's, are also considering using it place of cash or credit cards.

A clear pattern is lacking: Some industry-sponsored broad standards succeed, some have a slower start, and some fail. Meanwhile, a low-profile, limited system has succeeded and is now starting to branch out. Are standards that set out to define nearly everything in their domains better bets than those that start small and then grow? Do standards with widespread industry support have a better chance than those that are single-sourced, proprietary, and less ambitious? Do standards that are smaller in initial ambition and, thus, easier to debug in the field have greater success than those that have visible premieres?

As with so many engineering and real-world situations, the answer is simple: No one knows. Consistent, high-probability guidelines for success don't exist. After all, if there were sure-fire rules, smart people would have figured them out and would be using them to increase their odds. Don't rule out a standard simply because of its list of supporters or its scope, and don't rule it in for the same reasons.

Author Information

Contact me at bill.schweber@cahners.com.