PDPRIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 21-P-015

Results of the Survey on Standardization Activity (2019):
Situation of Standardization Activities in Business Entities and Other
Institutions
TAMURA, Suguru
RIETI

The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry

https://www.rieti.go.jp/en/

RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 21-P-015
August 2021

Results of the Survey on Standardization Activity (2019):
Situation of Standardization Activities in Business Entities and Other
Institutions
Suguru TAMURA
RIETI / Senior fellow
Abstract
This study considers the standardization activities of business entities and other institutions inJapan for 2019. Through a survey, it examines their standardization activities while focusing onorganizational characteristics and factors influencing knowledge creation. The survey covers (1)whether or not the institutions conduct standardization activities, as well as their (2) interest in
standardization in advanced technology fields, (3) knowledge sources for standardization
activities, (4) organizational design for standardization activities, and (5) management system oftechnical information in standardization activities. Moreover, in the field of advanced technology(artificial intelligence and quantum computing), the survey examines essential items(performance evaluation methods, data formats, ethical aspects, and others) that may need to be
standardized.
Keywords: standardization activities, questionnaire survey, knowledge sources, organizational
design, artificial intelligence, quantum computing
JEL: O20, O30.
RIETI Policy Discussion Papers Series was created as part of RIETI research and aims to contributeto policy discussions in a timely fashion. The views expressed in these papers are solely those of theauthor(s), and neither represent those of the organization(s) to which the author(s) belong(s) nor the
Research Institute of Economy, Trade, and Industry.
1) This study was conducted as part of the Research Institute of Economy, Trade, and Industry (RIETI),

Japan. The author appreciates the support of the Technical Regulations, Standards and Conformity
Assessment Unit at the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) and Japanese Standards
Association (JSA). The author appreciates the cooperation of the survey respondents.
2) This study corresponds to the policies in Chapter 2.1. (6) of the Sixth Science, Technology andInnovation Basic Plan (FY 2021–2025) developed by the Japanese government.
3) This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19K01827 (PI: TAMURA, Suguru).
“Research funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research is conducted with the awareness andresponsibility of the researcher. Thus, the conduct of the research and the publication of the research
results are not based on government or any other such requests, and the views and responsibilities
regarding the research results belong to the individual researcher.” (Handbook on Grants-in-Aid for
Scientific Research Program (Japan Society for the Promotion of Science) (in Japanese))
4) In referring to the contents of this article, cite as: Tamura. S. (2021). Results of the Survey onStandardization Activity (2019): Situation of Standardization Activities in Business Entities and Other
Institutions. RIETI PDP 21-P-015.
5)e-mail: tamura.edu@nifty.com
11. INTRODUCTION
This study considers the standardization activities of companies and other organizationsin Japan for 2019. 1 , 2 Through a questionnaire survey, this study examines theirstandardization activities while focusing on their organizational characteristics andfactors influencing knowledge creation.
The survey covers (1) whether or not the organizations conduct standardization
activities, as well as their (2) interest in standardization in advanced technology fields,(3) knowledge sources for standardization activities, (4) organizational design ofstandardization activities, and (5) management system of technical information instandardization activities. Moreover, in the field of advanced technology (artificial
intelligence technology and quantum computing), the survey examines essential items(performance evaluation methods, data formats, ethical aspects, and others) that may need
to be standardized. The artificial intelligence and quantum computing-related
technologies are considered as key elemental technologies for the future 6G
communication platform.
This study explores the (1) organizational structure of standardization, (2)characteristics of standardization in advanced technology fields, (3) characteristics ofknowledge creation related to standardization, and (4) current status of information
management in standardization activities. As a result, the following findings wereobtained compared with previous years’ surveys: The degree of implementation ofstandardization and the rate of progress in organizational development are almost constant.
In addition, in the implementation of standardization activities, it became clear that the
restrictions on the use of technical information disclosed by standards development
organizations (SDOs) are not strict.
2. METHOD AND DATA
2.1. Survey Purpose
The purpose of this study is to gain useful knowledge for managing standardization
activities by understanding how and to what extent institutions are engaged instandardization activities as such activities’ impact on the institutions’ provision of goods

1

The survey’s title is the “Survey on Standardization Activities” (abbreviated as “SoSA”) or “標準化活動調査” in Japanese characters.
In this paper, the expressions standard’s + noun and standards + noun, both mean “forstandardization.” Because the expression standards + noun is acceptable as a convention, the word“standards” is used when referring to the Japanese Industrial Standards Committee (JISC).

22and services.
2.2. Survey Subject and Method
This study conducted a stated preference survey related to standardization, which presents
the objective observations of respondents, rather than a revealed preference survey. The
survey questionnaire was prepared and administered in the Japanese language because
the survey targets are located in Japan and their primary language is limited to Japanese. 3
From a practical perspective, a higher response rate was expected with a questionnaire in
Japanese.
As for survey subjects, the focus was on (1) business entities and (2) research
institutions (e.g., universities). Two similar surveys were conducted in 2017 and 2018
(Tamura, 2019a, 2020). 4,5 In these studies, institutions with sales equivalent to at least
10 billion Japanese yen (one billion US dollars or more) were chosen. 6,7 The current
survey comprised about 170 respondents who had responded to at least one of theprevious two surveys.
For the means of communication, both postal mail and electronic media were used.
The questionnaire was sent by postal mail to companies and other institutions, andrespondents could choose to submit their responses by e-mail or postal mail (n.b., thiswas not a web-based survey).
The survey was sent to individuals in charge of standardization activities, with a note
asking that people involved in standardization activities for technology, test andevaluation methods, terminology, and symbols within the institution should answer thesurvey as much as possible.
2.3. Survey Period
The survey was carried out from April 2021 to July 2021. 8

The expressions in English (e.g., industry classification) used in this document are provisionaltranslations at the time of preparation of this paper. The original expressions are in Japanese.
4 All citations in this article with “Tamura” as the author refer to my past research. Fortuitously, no
previous work by other researchers with the same name has been cited.
5 These previous survey results are adopted in the ISO research repository (International Organizationfor Standardization, 2021a, 2021b)
6 At the time of writing, 1 US dollar was about 100 Japanese yen.
7 The sales data of the companies were obtained from the Nikkei database. Nikkei is a major financial
newspaper in Japan.
8 The timing of the survey was postponed by about six months to avoid conducting it under restrictedconditions, such as the declaration of a state of emergency by the Japanese government for theprevention of the coronavirus infection.
33

2.4. Survey Scope
Standardization activities can be classified into two types: activities within an institution
and activities outside an institution. Implicitly, this survey aimed to collect data mainly
on standardization activities within an institution. Theoretically, within-institution
activities include a more comprehensive range of activities related to standardization than
external-institution activities. A typical example of external institutional standardization
activities is the preparation of standards documentation in SDOs.
2.4.1. Meaning of standardization activities
In this survey, standardization was defined as the unification of technical specifications,test and evaluation methods, and terminology and symbols in a specific technical field.
Standardization of de jure, de facto, and consortium standards is also included within thescope. However, calibration standards to maintain the measuring instruments’ accuracy
are excluded. Activities related to certification based on standards (e.g., International
Organization for Standardization [ISO] certification, Japanese Industrial Standards [JIS]certification) and those concerning the maintenance and management of certification are
also excluded from the scope. Activities aimed at developing technical standards
themselves are not classified as standardization activities but as research and development(R&D) activities.
2.4.2. Surveyed personnel
The survey focused on personnel engaged in standardization activities involving thefollowing:(1) Standard planning, deliberation, and investigation;(2) Survey activities, such as data acquisition for standard establishment;(3) Management of established standards; and(4) Activities related to standardization for education and dissemination (Tamura, 2021a).
3. RESULTS
Approximately 170 subjects were surveyed. A total of 92 responses were received via
postal mail or e-mail (as of July 2021). The response rate was roughly 50%, although
the number of responses decreased compared with the past two surveys (Tamura, 2019a,
2020).
3.1. Number of Respondents by Industrial Category
Table 1 shows the distribution by industry. Out of the 92 respondents, other manufacturing
4

(e.g., steel and chemical industries), electric machine, and other non-manufacturingindustries (e.g., transportation industry) accounted for the highest number of respondents.
Regarding the classification of industries, respondents were asked to choose fromamong 10 categories: machine industry, electric machine, transportation machine,business machine, other manufacturing,
construction, information andtelecommunications industry, wholesale and retail, other non-manufacturing, andeducation/technology licensing organization (TLO). 9 The choice of which industry
sector an institution falls into is at the discretion of the respondent.
[Insert Table 1. here]
3.2. R&D Budget Distribution
Table 2 shows the distribution of R&D budgets. The most frequent category was Category
6, which was between 1,000–9,999 million yen (10,000-99,999 thousand US dollars). The
share of Category 6 was 33.8%, with 27 respondents. The second was Category 7,
amounting to over 10,000 million yen. The third was Category 5, with amounts ranging
from 100–999 million yen. This trend in budget allocation is the same as in the findingsof the previous two surveys (Tamura, 2019a, 2020).
[Insert Table 2. here]
3.3. Practice of Standardization
Table 3 shows the number of organizations practicing standardization activities. Of the
respondents, 67.4% (62 observations) indicated that they practice standardization
activities. This figure is almost identical to the previous survey results of 62.4% (78observations) in 2018 and 60.8% (62 observations) in 2017. In this yearly comparison of
the results, the percentage of standardization activities practiced was about 60–70%.
Table 4 shows the presence of standardization activities by industry sector, and Table
5 shows the differences by R&D budget. The industries with higher-than-average values
are information and telecommunications, electric machine, and the industries with lower
values are wholesale and retail. In relation to R&D budgets, companies with larger
research budgets tend to have a higher percentage of standardization activities. 10[Insert Table 3. here][Insert Table 4. here][Insert Table 5. here]
These classifications are different from the technical classifications of the JIS and ISO standards
documents. These classifications are based on the concept of industrial classification, while the JIS
and ISO classifications are based on technical differences between the respective standards.
10 Fisher’s exact test shows a significant difference (5% level) among the industry and budget
categories.
59

3.4. Types of Standardization Activities
As shown in Table 6, in terms of the type of activities conducted, standardization activities
related to products and services were the most common at 64.9%, followed bymeasurement (29.9%) and manufacturing processes (28.6%). Activities related to designand symbols accounted for 10.4% of the standardization activities (multiple responses
allowed).
The order of the types was almost the same as in the previous survey results for 2017and 2018. As the results for 2017–2019 have all shown there is a certain amount ofstandardization activity related to designs and symbols, it is sufficient to conclude thatstandardization activities within institutions contain at least some amount of this type ofstandardization activities.
The role of standardization activities for designs and symbols has recently been
discussed using Japanese de jure standards document data (Tamura, 2018, 2019b). 11
Designs and symbols will become more important because they play a major role in theinformation and communication service industry, such as through pictograms. They will
also play an important role in constructing social systems (e.g., emergency exit signs) and
improving the social brand (International Organization for Standardization, 2019; Tamura,
2020, 2021b). 12 Further, they have helped communicate information non-verbally tocope with the recent coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) (Tokyo Metropolitan
Government, 2020).
[Insert Table 6. here]
3.5. Reasons Not to Practice Standardization Activities
Table 7 shows the reasons why companies do not engage in standardization activities(multiple answers allowed). These reasons are important information for theconsideration of policies that support standardization activities.
The most common reason was that standardization activities are not necessary for the
products/services offered by the respondents, and that they are using already establishedstandards rather than creating them. These two reasons were attributed to the design ofthe firms’ products and services. The second most common reasons were, respectively,
no existing organization and lack of a workforce for standardization activities. These two

The list of the type of standards is disclosed in an electric data format (Tamura, 2017).
This “emergency exit” design was proposed by Japan and standardized internationally(International Organization for Standardization, 2019). Jin (2015) provides the detailed backgroundon the negotiation process and technical issues.
6

11
12

reasons are classified as managerial reasons, not characteristics of the firms’ products orservices. In other words, they suggest the need for organizational capacity development.
These results indicate that the standardization activities’ degree of implementation is
influenced by the nature of the goods and services companies supply and these goods andservices’ technical novelty.
[Insert Table 7. here]
3.6. Standardization of Advanced Technology
3.6.1. Artificial intelligence technology
Tables 8 and 9 respectively present the attitudes toward advanced artificial intelligence
technologies and the difference per industry. In the questionnaire for this study, I did not
pursue specifics, but asked about the importance of the term “artificial intelligence” ingeneral. This treatment is because the ISO has not yet decided on a definition for thisterm. 13 , 14 About 35% of respondents answered that the standardization of artificial
intelligence technology is “important” or “relatively important.” This number is the sameas the results from 2018. Further, the results for the last three years namely, 2017, 2018,and 2019 have generally shown that about 30% of the respondents have chosen these two
options, indicating a substantial stable need for the standardization of artificial
intelligence. The diffusion of this technology is improving by involving standardization.
Standardization has the effect of increasing academic value by promoting themarketization of research results. The same effect can be expected for artificial
intelligence technology. This phenomenon can be seen in the case of photocatalysts(Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008, p. 102). With thediscovery of the “Honda-Fujishima effect” of photocatalysts (Fujishima and Honda,1972), international standardization of measurement and evaluation of photocatalyst was
promoted, and the technology was marketed. As a result, photocatalysis became popularand its academic value increased.
[Insert Table 8. here][Insert Table 9. here]
Table 10 shows the technical areas of artificial intelligence technology where
standardization is considered important. Herein, the areas of (1) performance evaluation,

International Patent Classification is used to identify artificial-intelligence-related patents (Fujii
and Managi, 2018; Tseng and Ting, 2013).
14 Tamura (2019) classifies Japanese de jure standards (JIS) to form data on artificial-intelligencerelated standards and makes them public.
7
13

(2) ethical aspects of artificial intelligence, and (3) computational algorithms are
considered the most important.
This result indicates that the need for setting benchmarks for the performance
evaluation of artificial intelligence technologies continues to be high. Setting standards
for performance measurement is considered important to distinguish between different
products and services as they become marketable and market competition intensifies.
Standardization regarding ethical aspects is important for the social acceptance ofartificial intelligence techniques because it prevents the social and legal misuse of thistechnology. Further, the need for standardization of computational algorithms is anindication that efficient common algorithms are needed to improve the usability of thistechnology. The development of such artificial intelligence-related standards will lead to
public acceptance of artificial intelligence technology.
[Insert Table 10. here]
3.6.2. Quantum computing-related technology
In the questionnaire for this study, I did not pursue specifics, but asked about theimportance of the term “quantum computer-related technology.” This is because the ISOtechnology classification does not yet have a category for this technology (International
Organization for Standardization, 2015). The percentage of respondents who answered“important” or “relatively important” was about 14% (Table 11). This percentage is lower
than the obtained importance of standardization for artificial intelligence technology.
Note that about 60% of the respondents selected “not important/will not use suchtechnologies” or “relatively unimportant” for quantum computer-related technologies.
This result may reflect the situation wherein quantum computer-related technologies have
not yet been used in services and products for the general public. Differences by industry
sector are shown in Table 12.
The results of this survey on artificial intelligence and quantum computer-related
technologies show the role of standardization in the process of transforming advanced
technologies into general purpose technologies (GPT; Lipsey, Carlaw, and Bekar, 2005).
Given the results of this study, it appears that quantum computer-related technologies
have not yet become GPTs. As technology becomes widespread, the need forstandardization increases. In other words, standardization, and technology conversion to
GPT are expected to proceed in a reciprocally influential manner. This observation canbe seen in both 2019 and last years’ results concerning artificial intelligence technology(Table 8).
[Insert Table 11. here]
8[Insert Table 12. here]
Table 13 shows the results of technology areas related to quantum computers that areconsidered important. As marketization will progress in the future, related standardization
will become necessary.
Regarding the need for standardization of quantum computers, the main areas forstandardization are (1) performance evaluation methods, (2) terminology, and (3)computational algorithms. Performance evaluation methods make it possible to compare
the performance of quantum computers. Standardization of terminology is very importantin conveying new technological concepts. When nanotechnology emerged as a newtechnology, the standardization of basic terminology was implemented (Blind and Gauch,2009). The need for standardization of computational algorithms is an indication that
efficient algorithms are needed to correspond with new hardware technologies.
[Insert Table 13. here]
3.7. Knowledge Sources for Standardization Activities
The important sources of information in standards development are (1) standardization
documents and (2) information from SDOs. This trend is almost the same as in theprevious two surveys from 2017 and 2018 (Table 14) (Tamura, 2019a, 2020).
This result implies that information in negotiations is important because thedevelopment of a standard requires the parties’ agreement. In other words, human-tohuman communication is important in the creation of knowledge for standardization, even
if the communication measure is digitalized in the form of web conferencing. Thisbackground indicates that knowledge from bibliographic information alone is insufficientfor the formation of technical standards.
[Insert Table 14. here]
3.8. Degrees of Importance of Knowledge Sources for Standardization Activities
To show the level of importance in detail, results of the five-point evaluation are shownin Table 15. The information obtained from both (1) standardization documents and (2)SDO meetings is of high importance (Tables 14 and 15). This result is almost the same aslast year’s result (Tamura, 2019a, 2020).
Unlike other typical areas of knowledge creation, bibliographic information alone is
not sufficient for knowledge creation in standards. Standardization requires the sharingof knowledge among people in SDOs. It has been shown that knowledge creation forstandards, patents, and academic research has different mechanisms. I conceptualize this9

type as “standards-type knowledge” in contrast with patent or patent-type knowledge.
Such knowledge requires two-way communication between humans, in addition to
textual data, for its creation.
[Insert Table 15. here]
3.9. Protection of R&D Information and Trade Secrets
25% of the responding companies have developed institutional guidelines forstandardization activities, while 75% have not (Table 16). Differences by industry sector
are also indicated (Table 17).
About 55% of the companies with developed institutional guidelines indicate that they
include trade secret protection notices in their guidelines for standardization (Table 18).
This result is close to the results of the previous years’ surveys that were conducted in2017 and 2018. Differences by industry sector are also indicated (Table 19).
Table 20 presents the results of information management in SDOs. Here, theresponses of “confidentiality of information is required, but NDAs are not required” and“confidentiality is not required” account for about 15% of the respondents who participate
in standardization activities. This figure is about twice as high as for respondents who
have concluded a non-disclosure agreement (NDA; 6.3%).
[Insert Table 16 here][Insert Table 17 here][Insert Table 18 here][Insert Table 19 here][Insert Table 20 here]
3.10. Organizational Designs for Standardization Activities
Regarding the development of an organization to oversee standardization activities, 33
respondents (40.2%) answered that they had developed such an organization (Table 21).
The results are close to those of the past two years in 2017 and 2018 (Tamura, 2019a,
2020).
Differences by industry sector are shown in Table 22, and differences by R&D budget
are shown in Table 23. The industries with higher-than-average values are informationand telecommunications, electric machine, and the industries with lower values arewholesale and retail. In relation to R&D budgets, companies with larger research budgets
tend to have a higher percentage of standardization activities. 15

15

Fisher’s exact test shows a significant difference (5% level) among budget categories.
10[Insert Table 21. here][Insert Table 22. here][Insert Table 23. here]
Overall, 91.2% (31 cases) of the organizations managing standardization activities arelocated within the headquarters (Table 24). Compared with last 2018’s result,standardization organizations located within headquarters, rather than within business
units, have increased. In the past, the standardization activities of companies mainlycomprised each business unit’s technical quality control activities (Tamur, 2021c). Today,
the management system for standardization activities is centralized, indicating thatstandardization activities have become a company-wide strategy.
[Insert Table 24. here]
The human resource aspect of the standardization organization was examined in detail(Table 25). Regarding the standardization organization’s management size, mostorganizations (22 cases; 62.9% of the total) had less than 10 employees, followed by 10–
49 employees (8 cases; 22.9% of the total). It is important to note that the number of
employees is counted in full-time equivalents. This measure provides a good reflectionof the workload of employees actually engaged in the work.
[Insert Table 25 here]
One way to determine the importance of a department is looking at the level of theindividual responsible for controlling that department. Table 26 shows the results of
examining the position level of the individual responsible for the standardization
department. In 23 cases (74.2%), the department head was also responsible for managing
the standardization activities. Managers were found responsible in 6 cases, accounting for19.4%. Notably, in two cases (about 6.5%), the president or vice president oversees thestandardization department. With the control of high-ranking managers, standardization
can be implemented as a strategy for the entire organization.
[Insert Table 26. here]
3.11. Organizational Integration
When asked if the patent organization and standardization organization belong to thesame company, 31.4% of the respondents answered yes (Table 27). This trend is almost
the same as 2017 and 2018’s results. Meanwhile, in 24 cases (about 68.6%), thestandardization organization and patent organization existed separately. In these11

institutions, patent and standards management is carried out in different departments.
Regarding location, the department tends to be located in the headquarters if the standards
management and patent management functions are in the same department (Table 28).
These cases are examples of the integration of standardization management operations
into the head office functions.
[Insert Table 27. here][Insert Table 28. here]
4. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThis study aimed to obtain information on standardization as an organizational activity,
which is valuable information for academic and practical purposes was obtained.
First, the data to date indicated that the percentage of companies conducting
standardization activities, a key indicator of standardization, was about 60%. In addition,
the percentage of companies that have developed a standardization organization is about
30%. This outcome can be considered an approximate benchmark figure.
Second, in terms of organizational structure, the management of standardization
activities has become part of the headquarters function. This result is consistent with theresults of a Japanese company’s case study (Tamura, 2012). Further, the results indicatethat standardization activities have become a company-wide strategy rather than amanagement task for business units. This development may indicate that corporate
organizations are responding to changes in the external environment where
networkability is becoming more important for product design (Chandler, 1962; Hirata etal., 2001; Sasaki et al., 2001; Tamura, 2012).
Third, in advanced technologies, differences in the need for standardization were
found between artificial intelligence and quantum computing. These differences may
reflect the fact that in artificial intelligence technology, there has been some extent ofmarketization of products and services using this technology, whereas in quantum
computing, the marketization of products is not yet common. Currently, quantum
computing-related technologies are not considered as consumer products; they are
considered as mainly hardware infrastructure for central processing. Nevertheless, asservices for use become available commonly in the future, the need for standardization in
related peripheral technology areas may increase.
Finally, as in the last years’ outcome in 2017 and 2018, the results of this survey on
important knowledge sources for standardization activities suggest that the knowledge
creation mechanism of standardization is different from other knowledge creation
systems (i.e., academic research and patents). This outcome means that direct12communication is still essential for knowledge creation in standardization, despite theadvances in information processing technology. In a generalized sense, some types ofknowledge cannot be created by digital information alone; standards are an example ofsuch knowledge types. I conceptualized this type as “standards-type knowledge” incontrast with patent knowledge in the academic consideration of this study.
As a policy implication, it is important to support the establishment of standards foradvanced science and technology to promote the diffusion of these technologies, on thebasis that there is a high need for standardization in fundamental fields.
References:
Blind, K. and Gauch, S. (2009). Research and standardization in nanotechnology: evidence from
Germany. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 34: 320-342.
Chandler, A. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fujii, H. and Managi, S. (2018). Trends and priority shifts in artificial intelligence technology
invention: A global patent analysis. Economic Analysis and Policy, 58, 60-69.
Fujishima, A. and Honda, K. (1972). Electrochemical Photolysis of Water at a Semiconductor
Electrode. Nature, 238: 37-38.
Hirata, T., Nagata, A., Toyama, R., Sasaki, T., and Hasegawa, K. (2001). Changing role ofintellectual property division in Japanese firms. Proceedings of the Portland International
Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology 01 (PICMET01), IEEE Xplore.
International Organization for Standardization. (2015). International classification for standards
2015. Geneva: ISO.
International Organization for Standardization. (2019). ISO 7010:2019 Graphical symbols—
Safety colours and safety signs—Registered safety signs.
International Organization for Standardization. (2021a). ISO Research library: Results of survey
on standardization activities for 2018.
International Organization for Standardization. (2021b). ISO Research library: Results of a survey
on standardization activities: Japanese institutions’ standardization activities in 2017.
Jin, T. (2015). History of the Emergency Exit Lighting Sign. Japan Lighting Manufacturers
Association Journal, 3:17-23 (in Japanese).
Lipsey, R.G., Carlaw, K.I., and Bekar, C.T. (2005). Economic transformations: General purpose
technologies and long-term economic growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. (2008). White Paper on Scienceand Technology 2008 (English edition). Tokyo: Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology.
Sasaki, T., Nagata, A., Toyama, R., Hirata, T., and Hasegawa, K. (2001). Coevolution of patent13

strategy and product strategy. Proceedings of the Portland International Conference on
Management of Engineering and Technology 01 (PICMET01), Portland (OR), IEEE Xplore.
Tamura, S. (2012). Effects of Integrating Patents and Standards on Intellectual Property
Management and Corporate Innovativeness in Japanese Electric Machine Corporations.
International Journal of Technology Management, 59(3/4):180 – 202.
Tamura, S. (2017). List of design and symbol standards. Researchmap. Retrieved fromhttps://researchmap.jp/innovation/works/6806506 [July 2021]
Tamura. S. (2018). The dynamics and determinants of de jure standards: Evidence from theelectronic and electrical engineering industries. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 56:112.
Tamura. S. (2019a). Results of a survey on standardization activities: Japanese ’institutions’standardization activities in 2017 (Implementation, knowledge source, organizational
structure, and interest to artificial intelligence). RIETI PDP 19-P- 013.
Tamura. S. (2019b). Determinants of the survival ratio for de jure standards: AI-related
technologies and interaction with patents. Computer Standards & Interfaces, 66: 103332.
Tamura. S. (2020). Results of Survey on Standardization Activities for 2018 (state of
implementation, advanced technologies, and organizational design). RIETI PDP 20-P-023
Tamura, S. (2021a). Questionnaire form of the Survey on Standardization Activities.
(unpublished) (in Japanese).
Tamura, S. (2021b). Behavioral Change and Design and Symbol Standards. RIETI Column,
Tokyo: RIETI.
Tamura, S. (2021c). The Role and Historical Development of Standards. RIETI Column, Tokyo:
RIETI.
Tokyo Metropolitan Government (2020). COVID-19 safety stickers. Retrieved fromhttps://www.metro.tokyo.lg.jp/english/topics/2020/0714_01.html [accessed Dec. 2020].
Tseng, C. and Ting, P. (2013). Patent analysis for technology development of artificial
intelligence: A country-level comparative study, Innovation: Management, Policy &Practice, 15(4), 463-475.

14

11
7
92

Electric machineTransportation machine
Business machine
Other manufacturing
Construction
Information and telecommunications
Wholesale and retail
Other non-manufacturing
Education / TLO
Total

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

15

9
10

Note: Due to rounding, the simple sum of the percentages may not equal 100%.

100.0

7.6

12.0

3.3

2.2

2
3

7.6

39.1

1.1

5.4

17.4

4.3

%

7

36

1

5

16

4

Machine1nCategory

No.

Table 1. Industrial categories

Tables:

16

3

10–49
50–99

100–499
500–999

3
4

10,000<Unknown

100,000<
Unknown

78Note 1: One US dollar was equal to approximately 100 Japanese yen.
Note 2: Due to rounding, the simple sum of the percentages may not equal 100%.

24

1,000–9,999

10,000–99,999

6

80

2

27

100–999

1,000–9,999

17

1

5

Total

5

<10

<100

2

1

0

0

1

n

Reference: (million yen)

Budget(thousand US dollar)

No.

Table 2. Budget allocation for R&D

100.0

2.5

30.0

33.8

21.3

1.3

3.8

6.3

1.3

%

17

30 (47)92 (125)No
Total

100.0 (100.0)

32.6 (37.6)

67.4 (62.4)%

Note: Figures in parentheses represent the results for the previous year, 2018 (Tamura, 2020) .

2

62 (78)

1

Yes

n

No.

Table 3. Practice of standardization activities

18

Category
MachineElectric machineTransportation machine
Business machine
Other manufacturing
Construction
Information and telecommunications
Wholesale and retail
Other non-manufacturing
Education / TLO
Total

No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Yes
Percentage
75.0%
100.0%
80.0%
100.0%
72.2%
28.6%
100.0%
0.0%
54.5%
28.6%
67.4%

No
Percentage
25.0%
0.0%
20.0%
0.0%
27.8%
71.4%
0.0%
100.0%
45.5%
71.4%
32.6%

Table 4. Practice of standardization activities by industry
Total
Percentage
4.3%
17.4%
5.4%
1.1%
39.1%
7.6%
2.2%
3.3%
12.0%
7.6%
100.0%

19<100
100–499
500–999
1,000–9,999
10,000–99,999
100,000<
Unknown

2

7

8

3
4
5
6

0

10,000<Unknown

<10
10–49
50–99
100–999
1,000–9,999

0Budget(thousand US dollar)
Reference :(million yen)1No.

100.0%
70.0%

91.7%

60.0%
100.0%
0.0%
41.2%
70.4%

0.0%

Yes
Percentage

0.0%
30.0%

8.3%

40.0%
0.0%
100.0%
58.8%
29.6%

100.0%

No
Percentage

Table 5. Practice of standardization activities by R&D budget

2.5%
100.0%

30.0%

6.3%
3.8%
1.3%
21.3%
33.8%

1.3%

Total
Percentage

20

8
23
(126)

Standardization activities related to design and symbol
Do not practice(Total)

4

5

29.9

10.4

29.9

28.6

64.9

%

Note: The total number of responses (126) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (77) because multiple
answers are allowed for this question. The percentage column shows n/77×100.

23Standardization activities related to the measurement

22

Standardization activities related to the manufacturing
process of products and services

2

3

50

Standardization activities related to products andservices

n

1

No.

Table 6. Types of standardization activities being practiced

21

4
1
4
2
1
12
(36)

No established organization for standardization activities.

The management capacity for standardization activities is
scarce.
Labor force for the standardization activities is scarce.
Existence of outflow risk of technology information andrelated trade secret.

The cost of practicing the standardization activities is higher
than the benefit gained from the activities.
Using already established standards rather thanformulating standards.
(Total)

2

3

4

5

6

7

%

42.9

3.6

7.1

14.3

3.6

14.3

42.9

Note: The total number of responses ( 36) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (28) because multiple
answers are allowed for this question. The percentage column shows n/28×100.

12Standardization activities are not needed for marketing own
products and services.

n

1

No.

Table 7. Reasons standardization activities are not practiced

22

23

Not important/do not deal with the technology
Relatively not important

1

2

10
11

61

NeutralRelatively important
Important

Total

3

4

5

13

4

n

No.

Table 8. Importance of standardization for AI-related technology

100.0

18.0

16.4

21.3

6.6

37.7

%

23

40.0%
0.0%

0.0%
11.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.6%

100.0%
57.7%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
20.0%
50.0%
37.7%

Business machine

Other manufacturing
Construction

Information and telecommunications

Wholesale and retail

Other non-manufacturing

Education / TLO
Total

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

21.3%

0.0%

0.0%

66.7%

15.4%

0.0%

25.0%

0.0%

25.0%

Transportation machine

3

13.3%

100.0%

6.7%

0.0%

0.0%

Percentage

20.0%

Percentage

Percentage

3.Neutral

Electric machine

Machine12.Relatively notimportant2

Category

No.

1.Not
important/do notdeal with thetechnology

16.4%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%

50.0%

33.3%

0.0%

Percentage

4.Relatively
important

18.0%

50.0%

40.0%

0.0%

50.0%

33.3%

7.7%

0.0%

0.0%

26.7%

0.0%

Percentage

5.Important

Table 9. The importance of standardization for AI-related technology
by industry

100.0%

3.3%

8.2%

1.6%

3.3%

4.9%

42.6%

1.6%

6.6%

24.6%

3.3%

Percentage

Total

24

(120)

(Total)11.4

Note: The total number of responses (107) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (35) because multiple answers are allowed for thisquestion. The percentage column shows n/35×100.

4

Other.

10

51.4

34.3

12
18

14.3

5

Related to ethical aspects of use and exploitation.

62.9

22

25.7

9

9

8

7

6

5

28.6
17.1

10

Related to the encryption of data used in computation.

3

45.7

51.4

%

6

16

Related to the form of data used in computation.

2

Related to hardware, such as arithmetic elements,
used in calculations.
Related to the transmission of data associated with computations(but excluding those related to encryption).
Related to the measurement and evaluation of performance accuracy ofcomputation results.
Related to the measurement and evaluation ofenergy-saving performance in operations.
Related to the terminology used to describe
artificial intelligence-related technologies.

18

Related to computational algorithms.

1

4

n

Category

No.

Table 10. Standardization items considered important to AI-related technologies

25

34

Not important/do not deal with the technology
Relatively not important

1

2

1
7
60

NeutralRelatively important
Important

Total

3

4

5

14

4

n

No.

100.0

11.7

1.7

23.3

6.7

56.7

%

Table 11. Importance of standardization for quantum computing-related technologies

26

Business machine

Other manufacturing

Construction

Information andtelecommunications
Wholesale and retail

Other non-manufacturing

Education / T LO

4

5

6

7

9

10

T otalT ransportation machine38Electric machine

Machine12

Category

No.

25.0%
0.0%
15.4%
0.0%
0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11.5%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
6.7%

0.0%
46.7%
75.0%
100.0%
69.2%
100.0%
50.0%
0.0%
20.0%
50.0%
56.7%

100.0%
40.0%
50.0%
23.3%

20.0%

100.0%

Percentage

Percentage

Percentage

3.Neutral

2.Relatively notimportant

1.Not important/do
not deal with thetechnology

0.0%
40.0%
0.0%
11.7%

0.0%

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.7%

0.0%
0.0%
3.8%
0.0%

26.7%

0.0%

Percentage

5.Important

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%

6.7%

0.0%

Percentage

4.Relatively
important

1.7%
8.3%
3.3%
100.0%

3.3%

6.7%
1.7%
43.3%
3.3%

25.0%

3.3%

Percentage

T otalTable 12. The importance of standardization for quantum computing-related technologies by industry

27

7

Related to the encryption of data used in computation.

3

1

(84)

Other.
(Total)

10

4.3

39.1

47.8

26.1

60.9

34.8

39.1

30.4

34.8

47.8

%

Note: The total number of responses (84) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (23) because multiple answers
are allowed for this question. The percentage column shows N/23×100.

9Related to ethical aspects of use and exploitation.

11

6

14

8

9

8

7

6

5

9

8

Related to the form of data used in computation.

2

Related to hardware, such as arithmetic elements,
used in calculations.
Related to the transmission of data associated with computations(but excluding those related to encryption).
Related to the measurement and evaluation of
the performance accuracy of computation results.
Related to the measurement and evaluation ofenergy-saving performance in operations.
Related to the terminology used to describe
quantum computer-related technologies.

11

Related to computational algorithms.

1

4

n

Category

No.

Table 13. Standardization items considered important to quantum computing-related technologies

28

Other sources

Information obtained from the SDO
meetings including the participants

Design right information

Standardization document

Patent information

Academic article

Data source

49
89.1
17
32.7
47
83.9
2
15.4

n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%

35

n
64.8

61.1

%

%

33

n

Use

Importance

84.6

11

16.1

9

67.3

35

10.9

6

35.2

19

38.9

21

Not useTable 14. Importance of data sources for standardization activities (1)

100.0

13

100.0

56

100.0

52

100.0

55

100.0

54

100.0

54

Total

29

5

0
0.0

2
28.6

n
%

71.4

7.8

52.9

37.3

%

4

35.9

27

28.2

2.6

%

14

19

11

1

n

11.5

6

29.2

14

21.7

10

Neutral

n

42.3

44.2

37.5

20.8

%

%

18

10

n

22

43.5

23.9

%

23

20

11

n

n

Relatively
important

Important

Importance

Note: Due to rounding, the simple sum of the percentages may not equal 100%.

Other sources

Information obtained fromthe SDO meetings including
the participants

Design right information

Standardization document

Patent information

Academic article

Data source

0.0

0

0.0

0

15.4

6

1.9

1

6.3

3

6.5

3

0.0

0

2.0

1

17.9

7

0.0

0

6.3

3

4.3

2

Relatively not
Not important
important

Table 15. Importance of data sources for standardization activities (2)

100.0

7

100.0

51

100.0

39

100.0

52

100.0

48

100.0

46

Total

30

60 (74)80 (106)

Not stipulated

Total

Note: Figures in parentheses represent the results for the previous year, 2018 (Tamura, 2020) .

2

20 (32)

1

StipulatednNo.

100.0 (100.0)

75.0 (69.8)

25.0 (30.2)%

Table 16. Stipulation of institutional guidelines for management of standardization activities

31

Category
MachineElectric machineTransportation machine
Business machine
Other manufacturing
Construction
Information and telecommunications
Wholesale and retail
Other non-manufacturing
Education / TLO
Total

No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Yes
0.0%
50.0%
40.0%
0.0%
25.0%
0.0%
100.0%
33.3%
0.0%
16.7%
25.0%

No
100.0%
50.0%
60.0%
100.0%
75.0%
100.0%
0.0%
66.7%
100.0%
83.3%
75.0%

Total
3.8%
17.5%
6.3%
1.3%
40.0%
7.5%
1.3%
3.8%
11.3%
7.5%
100.0%

Table 17. Stipulations of institutional guidelines for standardization activities and the management ofstandardization activities by industry

32

10 (10)22 (31)

Not included

Total

100.0 (100.0)

45.5 (32.3)

54.5 (67.7)%

Note: Figures in parentheses represent the results for the previous year, 2018 (Tamura, 2020).

2

12 (21)

1

Includedn

No.

Table 18. Inclusion of trade secret and technology outflow protections
in management guideline of standardization activities

33

Category
MachineElectric machineTransportation machine
Business machine
Other manufacturing
Construction
Information and telecommunications
Wholesale and retail
Other non-manufacturing
Education / TLO
Total

No.

1

2

3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10

0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
54.5%

62.5%
100.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%

0.0%

Yes

100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
45.5%

37.5%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
100.0%
0.0%

0.0%

No

4.5%
0.0%
4.5%
100.0%

36.4%
9.1%
0.0%
36.4%
4.5%
4.5%

0.0%

Total

Table 19. Inclusion of trade secrets and technology outflow protections in the institutions'standardization activities guideline and the management of standardization activities by industry

34

9
4
10
18
23
64

Confidentiality is not required by the rules of SDOs.
NDAs are signed with standards development
organizations.
Confidentiality is required by standard-settingorganizations, but NDAs are not.
Not participating in the activities of SDOs.
unknown
Total

2

3

4

5

n

1

No.

Table 20. Entering into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with a SDO whenparticipating in the activities of such an organization

35.9

28.1

15.6

6.3

14.4

%

35

49 (62)82 (108)

No

Total

100.0 (100.0)

59.8 (57.4)

40.2 (42.6)%

Note: Figures in parentheses represent the results for the previous year, 2018 (Tamura, 2020).

2

33 (46)

1

Yes

n

No.

Table 21. Establishment of organizations for standardization activities

36

Category
MachineElectric machineTransportation machine
Business machine
Other manufacturing
Construction
Information and telecommunications
Wholesale and retail
Other non-manufacturing
Education / TLO
Total

No.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Yes
33.3%
68.8%
60.0%
0.0%
29.0%
28.6%
100.0%
0.0%
44.4%
20.0%
40.2%

No
66.7%
31.3%
40.0%
100.0%
71.0%
71.4%
0.0%
100.0%
55.6%
80.0%
59.8%

Total
3.7%
19.5%
6.1%
1.2%
37.8%
8.5%
2.4%
3.7%
11.0%
6.1%
100.0%

Table 22. Establishment of organizations for standardization activities
by industry

37

8

7

3
4
5
6

2

1

No.

<100
100–499
500–999
1,000–9,999
10,000–99,999
100,000<
Unknown

<10
10–49
50–99
100–999
1,000–9,999
10,000<Unknown

Budget(thousand US dollar)
Reference :(million yen)
0
0

50.0%
40.8%

81.8%

40.0%
33.3%
0.0%
18.8%
23.1%

0.0%

Yes

50.0%
59.2%

18.2%

60.0%
66.7%
100.0%
81.3%
76.9%

100.0%No

Table 23. Establishment of organizations for standardization activities
by R&D budget

2.6%
100.0%

28.9%

6.6%
3.9%
1.3%
21.1%
34.2%

1.3%

Total

38

34

Other
Total

3

Note: Due to rounding, the simple sum of the percentages may not equal 100%.

2

Within business unit

2

1

31

1

Within headquarters

n

No.

100.0

5.9

2.9

91.2

%

Table 24. Structure of organizations for standardization activities

39

1

0
<10
10–49

1

2

3

3
35

100–499
500<
Unknown
Total

5

6

7

0

0

50–99

4

1

8

22

n

No.

100.0

8.6

0.0

0.0

2.9

22.9

62.9

2.9

%

Table 25. Number of employees for standards management organization40

0

Non-management
Management

1

2

100.0

(31)

President, Vice president
Total

4

Note: This results indicate the highest position in the respondent's organization.

6.5

2

Department head

74.2

19.4

0.0

%

3

23

6

n

No.

Table 26. Supervisor level for standards management organization

41

2

24

35

No

Total

11

1

Yes

n

No.

%

100.0

68.6

31.4

Table 27. Standardization organization being part of patent organization

42

1

12

Within business unit

Other

Total

2

3

2

9

1
Within headquarters

n

No.

100.0

8.3

16.7

75.0

%

Table 28. Organizational location where patent and standards management organization
is located