The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Industry-Wide Information Systems Standardization as Collective Action: The Case of the U.S. Residential Mortgage Industry1
Abstract
Vertical information systems (VIS) standards are technical specifications designed to promote coordination among the organizations within (or across) vertical industry sectors. Examples include the bar code, electronic data interchange (EDI) standards, and RosettaNet business process standards in the electronics industry. This contribution examines VIS standardization through the lens of collective action theory, applied in the literature to information technology product standardization, but not yet to VIS standardization, which is led by heterogeneous groups of user organizations rather than by IT vendors. Through an intensive case analysis of VIS standardization in the U.S. residential mortgage industry, VIS standardization success is shown to be as problematic as IT product standardization success, but for different reasons. VIS standardization involves two linked collective action dilemmas—standards development and standards diffusion— with different characteristics, such that a solution to the first may fail to resolve the second. Whereas prior theoretical and empirical research shows that IT product standardization efforts tend to splinter into rival factions that compete through standards wars in the marketplace, successful VIS standards consortia must encompass heterogeneous groups of user organizations and IT vendors without fragmenting. Some tactics successfully used to solve the collective action dilemma of VIS standardization (e.g., governance mechanisms and policies about intellectual property protection) are also used by IT product standardization efforts, but some are different, and successful VIS standardization requires a package of solutions tailored to fit and jointly resolve the specific dilemmas of particular VIS standards initiatives.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
Cited by
Service innovation in the digital age: Key contributions and future directions
Barrett, M., Davidson, E., Prabhu, J., & Vargo, S. L. (2015) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2015/39:1.03 · Cited by 956
Cocreation of Value in a Platform Ecosystem: The Case of Enterprise Software1
Ceccagnoli, M., Forman, C., Huang, P., & Wu, D. J. (2012) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/41410417 · Cited by 794
Data governance as a collective action problem
Benfeldt, O., Persson, J. S., & Madsen, S. (2020) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-019-09923-z · Cited by 137
Parks, R. F., Lowry, P. B., Wigand, R. T., Agarwal, N., & Williams, T. L. (2018) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2018.04.003 · Cited by 45
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Markus, M. L., Steinfield, C. W., Wigand, R. T., & Minton, G.
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2006-08-01
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- Special Issue
- Pages
- 439-465
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W252959711
- Cited by
- 332
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 65.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.