Mutual Enforcement of Research and Education—The Case of Structured Inquiry-Based Teaching of Standardization

  • Geerten van de KaaEmail author
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)


This chapter provides new empirical proof for the relationship between education and research and argues that research can lead to education and the other way around. The two concepts re-enforce each other and can increase the quality of both. This paper adds practical relevance as a concept in this relationship. The paper offers several examples of how education on standardization may lead to research on standardization and the other way around and how research and education have practical evidence.


  1. Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131. Retrieved from Scholar
  2. Banchi, H., & Bell, R. (2008). The many levels of inquiry. Science and Children, 46(2), 26–29.Google Scholar
  3. Colburn, A. (2000, March). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 42–44.Google Scholar
  4. De Vries, H. J., De Ruijter, J. P. M., & Argam, N. (2011). Dominant design or multiple designs: The flash memory card case. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 23(3), 249–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Den Hartigh, E., Ortt, J. R., Van de Kaa, G., & Stolwijk, C. C. M. (2016). Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry. Technovation, 48–49, 4–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Den Uijl, S., & De Vries, H. (2008). Setting a technological standard: Which factors can organizations influence to achieve dominance? Paper presented at the 13th EURAS Workshop on Standardisation.Google Scholar
  7. Dranove, D., & Gandal, N. (2003). The DVD versus DIVX standard war: Empirical evidence of network effects and preannouncement effects. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 12(3), 363–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrell, J., & Saloner, G. (1985). Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. The Rand Journal of Economics, 16(1), 70–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Funk, J. L. (1998). Competition between regional standards and the success and failure of firms in the world-wide mobile communication market. Telecommunication Policy, 22(4/5), 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Funk, J. L. (2002). Global competition between and within standards—The case of mobile phones. Basingstoke UK/ New York, NY, USA: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gallagher, S. R. (2012). The battle of the blue laser DVDs: The significance of corporate strategy in standards battles. Technovation, 32(2), 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gallagher, S. R., & Park, S. H. (2002). Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: A historical analysis of the U.S. home video game market. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(1), 67–82.Google Scholar
  13. Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1993). Changing competitive dynamics in network industries: An exploration of sun microsystems’ open systems strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 14(5), 351–369. Retrieved from
  14. Heinrich, T. (2014). Standard wars, ties standards, and network externality induced path dependence in the ICT sector. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 81, 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill, C. W. L. (1997). Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries. Academy of Management Executive, 11(2), 7–25.Google Scholar
  16. Kamps, X., De Vries, H., & Van de Kaa, G. (2017). Exploring standards consortium survival in high tech industries: The effects of commitment and internal competition. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 52, 105–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Katz, M. L., & Shapiro, C. (1985). Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review, 75(3), 424–440. Retrieved from
  18. Schiavonea, F. (2014). Backwards compatibility, adapter strategy and the ‘battle of converters’ in analogue photography. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schilling, M. A. (1998). Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 267–284. Retrieved from Scholar
  20. Schilling, M. A. (1999). Winning the standards race: Building installed base and the availability of complementary goods. European Management Journal, 17(3), 265–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schilling, M. A. (2002). Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Academy of Management Journal, 45(2), 387–398.Google Scholar
  22. Schilling, M. A. (2003). Technological leapfrogging: Lessons from the U.S. video game console industry. California Management Review, 45(3), 6–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). The art of standards wars. California Management Review, 41(2), 8–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sheremata, W. A. (2004). Competing through innovation in network markets: Strategies for challengers. Academy of Management Review, 29(3), 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Srinivasan, A., & Venkatraman, N. (2010). Indirect network effects and platform dominance in the video game industry: A network perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 57(4), 661–673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suarez, F. F. (2004). Battles for technological dominance: An integrative framework. Research Policy, 33(2), 271–286. Retrieved from Scholar
  27. Van de Kaa, G. (2013). Structured inquiry and standardization. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 4(2), 233–237.Google Scholar
  28. Van de Kaa, G., & De Bruijn, J. A. (2015). Platforms and incentives for consensus building on complex ICT systems: The development of WiFi. Telecommunication Policy, 39, 580–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van de Kaa, G., & De Vries, H. (2015). Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 91(2), 222–235.Google Scholar
  30. Van de Kaa, G., De Vries, H. J., & Rezaei, J. (2014a). Platform selection for complex systems: Building automation systems. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 23(4), 415–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van de Kaa, G., Kamp, L. M., & Rezaei, J. (2017a). Selection of biomass thermochemical conversion technology in the Netherlands: A best worst method approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 166, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Van de Kaa, G., Rezaei, J., Kamp, L., & De Winter, A. (2014b). Photovoltaic technology selection: A fuzzy MCDM approach. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 32, 662–670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van de Kaa, G., Scholten, D., Rezaei, J., & Milchram, C. (2017b). The battle between battery and fuel cell powered electric vehicles: A BWM approach. Energies, 10, 1707–1720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Van de Kaa, G., Van den Ende, J., & De Vries, H. J. (2015). Strategies in network industries: The importance of inter-organisational networks, complementary goods, and commitment. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 27(1), 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van de Kaa, G., Van den Ende, J., De Vries, H. J., & Van Heck, E. (2011). Factors for winning interface format battles: A review and synthesis of the literature. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78(8), 1397–1411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van de Kaa, G., Van Heck, H. W. G. M., De Vries, H. J., Van den Ende, J. C. M., & Rezaei, J. (2014c). Supporting decision-making in technology standards battles based on a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 61(2), 336–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vanhaverbeke, W., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (2001). Competition between alliance blocks: The case of RISC microprocessor technology. Organization Studies, 22(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Delft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations