Advertisement

Information Systems Frontiers

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 53–67 | Cite as

Realizing the vision for web services: Strategies for dealing with imperfect standards

  • Sanjay Gosain
Article

Abstract

Organizations considering the adoption of the web services framework for their Information Technology (IT) applications are confronted with a period of technological ferment, as standards for supporting non-trivial business process functionality are not yet in place. Evolving standardization poses challenges in the form of inter-temporal dependencies as organizations’ conformance to the standards that emerge in the future is contingent on their current design choices that need to be made ex-ante without complete information of how standards will evolve. At the same time, there are significant early-mover benefits to be gained by executing an IT strategy using web services as a cornerstone. This paper draws upon coordination theory to develop a conceptual framework outlining three approaches for organizations to deal with changing standardization regimes: (a) The dependencies across components, conforming to different standardization regimes, are continually bridged through intermediary services (e.g., using a protocol adapter that translates to an unanticipated emergent standard), (b) The dependencies across components are minimized through loose coupling so that standardization regime changes for any component have a minimal impact on other components (e.g., encapsulating the functionality susceptible to design change into a module with abstract interfaces), and (c) The impacted components are rapidly reconfigurable as and when standardization regime changes (e.g., by building in “extension” features into applications). The risk for organizations investing in web services can be further managed by mechanisms such as organization’s attention to signals from the periphery, undertaking low-risk experiments to learn in different areas, and bricolage-like improvisations of their legacy components at hand.

Keywords

Imperfect standards Web services Coordination theory 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, H., Gisolfi, D., Snell, J., & Varadan, R. (2002). Service oriented architecture, web services, and IBM patterns for e-business. IBM DeveloperWorks, http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-best2/.
  2. Albornoz, J. (2002). Finding your way through web services standards. IBM DeveloperWorks, http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-stand3.html.
  3. Aram, J. D., Lynn, L. H., & Reddy, N. M. (1992). Institutional relationships and technology commercialization: Limitations of market-based policy. Research Policy, 21, 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bailetti, A. J., & Callahan, J. R. (1995). Managing consistency between product development and public standards evolution. Research Policy, 24, 913–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (1997). Managing in the age of Modularity. Harvard Business Review, 75(5), 84–93.Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  8. Bolles, G. A. (2003). Technology: Web services, CIO insight, April 1.Google Scholar
  9. Bowman, E. H., & Hurry, D. (1993). Strategy through the options lens: An integrated view of resource investments and the incremental-choice process. Academy of Management Review, 18, 760–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bressan, S., Goh, C., Levina, S., Madnick, S., Shah, A., & Siegel, M. (2000). Context knowledge representation and reasoning in the Context Interchange System. Applied Intelligence, 13, 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burner, M. (2003). The deliberate revolution—transforming integration with XML web services? ACM Queue, http://www.acmqueue.org/issue/burner1.cfm?client_no=NEW.
  12. Chappell, D. (2002). Opening keynote presentation for the June 2002 XML-web services one conference, San Jose, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Chiesa, V., Manzini, R., & Toletti, G. (2002). Standard-setting processes: Evidence from two case studies. R & D Management, 32, 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chiusano, J. M. (2003).Web services security and more: The global XML web services architecture (GXA), Booz Allen Hamilton Presentation.Google Scholar
  15. Curran, K., & Gallagher, B. (2005). The deployment of protocol stack components using web services. International Journal of Web Services Research, 2(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  16. David, P. A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–337.Google Scholar
  17. David, P., & Greenstein, S. (1990). The economics of compatibility standards: An introduction to recent research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1, 3–41.Google Scholar
  18. Day, G. S., & Schoemaker, P. J. H. (2000). Avoiding the pitfalls of emerging technologies. California Management Review, 42, 8–33.Google Scholar
  19. Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1986a). Standardization and variety. Economics Letters, 20, 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Farrel, J., & Saloner, G. (1986b). Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product pre-announcements and predation. American Economic Review, 76, 940–955.Google Scholar
  21. Gandal, N. (2002). Compatibility, standardization, and network effects: Some policy implications. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 18, 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gartner (2002). Will web services standards ever happen?, Gartner Report by M. Pezzini.Google Scholar
  23. Garud, R., & Karnoe, P. (2001). Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In R. Garud & P. Karnoe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 1–38). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  24. Garud, R., & Kotha, S. (1994). Using the brain as a metaphor to model flexible production systems. Academy of Management Review, 19, 671–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1994). Coupling the technical and institutional faces of Janus in network industries. In R. Scott & S. Christensen (Eds.), Advances in the institutional analysis of organizations: International and longitudinal studies (pp. 226–242). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1995). Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution. Strategic Management Journal, 16, 93–109.Google Scholar
  27. Garud, R., Jain, S., & Kumaraswamy, A. (2002). Institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 196–214.Google Scholar
  28. Hagel, J. III (2002). Out of the box: Strategies for achieving profits today and growth tomorrow through web services. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hong, T. (2001). Advancing SOAP interoperability. IBM developer works, http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/webservices/library/ws-asio/.
  30. Irani, R. (2001). Versioning of web services—Solving the problem of maintenance, http://www.webservicesarchitect.com/content/articles/irani04.asp.
  31. Jang, J., Choi, Y., & Zhao, J. L. (2004). An extensible workflow architecture through web services. International Journal of Web Services Research, 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
  32. Katz, M., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75, 424–440.Google Scholar
  33. Kobielus, J. (2003). Web services work, but will they scale?. Business Communications Review, 33, 40–46.Google Scholar
  34. Koch, C. (2003). The battle for web services. CIO, October 1.Google Scholar
  35. LaMonica, M. (2003). Microsoft leaves standards group. ZDNet USK News, http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2132448,00.html.
  36. Leibowitz, S. J., & Margolis, S. E. (1995). Path dependence, lock-in and history. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11, 204–226.Google Scholar
  37. Levi-Strauss, C. (1966). The savage mind (La pensee suavage). London: Weidenfeld and Niolson.Google Scholar
  38. Madnick, S. (1999). Metadata Jones and the Tower of Babel: The challenge of large-scale heterogeneity. Proc. IEEE Meta-Data Conf.Google Scholar
  39. Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994). Towards an Interdisciplinary Theory of Coordination. Computing Surveys, 26.Google Scholar
  40. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  41. McCade, S. R., Olivia, T. A., & Pirsch, J. A. (2002). The organizational adoption of high-technology products for use: Effects of size, preferences, and radicalness of impact. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McGrath, R. G. (1997). A real options logic for initiating technology positioning investments. Academy of Management Review, 22, 974–996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Microsoft-IBM (2002). Security in a web services world: A proposed architecture and roadmap. A Joint White Paper from IBM Corporation and Microsoft Corporation, Version1.0. http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwssecur/html/securitywhitepaper.asp.
  44. Orlikowski, W. J., & Iacono, S. (2001). Desperately seeking the IT in IT research—A call to theorizing the IT artifact. Information Systems Research, 12, 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review, 15, 203–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Rourke, C. (2003). Waiting for web services. Oracle Magazine, 61, March/April.Google Scholar
  47. Reddy, N. M. (1987). Voluntary product standards: Linking technical criteria to marketing decisions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 4, 236–243.Google Scholar
  48. Rodgers, K. (2003). Information access waits on ID standards. Loosely Coupled, http://www.looselycoupled.com/stories/2003/access-id1205.html.
  49. Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping agility through digital options: Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS Quarterly, 27, 237–263.Google Scholar
  50. Simon, H. A. (1962). The architecture of complexity. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 106, 467–482.Google Scholar
  51. Sussman, D. (2002). New glue for age-old gaps. MSI, 20, 55–60.Google Scholar
  52. Thompson, H. S. (2000). Web Services and the semantic web—Separating hype from reality, University of Edinburgh presentation.Google Scholar
  53. Tushman, M. L., & Rosenkopf, L. (1992). Organizational determinants of technological change-toward a sociology of technological evolution. Research in Organizational Behavior, 14, 311:347.Google Scholar
  54. Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24, 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vinoski, S. (2004). Multi-middleware web services. XML Journal, 4.Google Scholar
  56. Weber, R. (2003). Still desperately seeking the IT artifact. MIS Quarterly, 27, iii–xi.Google Scholar
  57. Weick, K. (1993). Organization redesign as improvisation. In G. P. Huber & W. H. Glick (Eds.), Organization change and redesign (pp. 347–379). Cary, NC: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wouters, M. J. F., Sharman, G. J., & Wortmann, H. C. (1999). Reconstructing the sales and fulfillment cycle to create supply chain differentiation. International Journal of Logistics Management, 10, 83–98.Google Scholar
  59. W3C (2002). Web services architecture. W3C Working Draft, 14 November http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Capital Group CompaniesBreaUSA

Personalised recommendations