PDPRIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 20-P-023

Results of Survey on Standardization Activities for 2018
(State of Implementation, Advanced Technologies,
and Organizational Design)
TAMURA, Suguru
RIETI

The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry

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

RIETI Policy Discussion Paper Series 20-P-023
September 2020

Results of Survey on Standardization Activities for 2018(state of implementation, advanced technologies,
and organizational design)
Suguru TAMURA（RIETI）
Abstract
This study discusses the results of a survey conducted in 2018 targeting standardization activities inorganizations. The questions covered: (1) the state of the implementation of standardization, (2)interest in the standardization of advanced technologies, (3) knowledge sources for standardization
activities, (4) types of standardization activities, (5) organizational designs of standardization activities,and (6) the control system for standardization activities. The participants of the survey were Japaneseorganizations including firms and research institutions. Advanced technology topics included (1) AIrelated technology and (2) quantum computing technology. The standardization needs for specifictechnology areas including (1) method of performance evaluation, (2) data style, and (3) ethicalaspects, among others, were surveyed.

Keywords: standardization activities, questionnaire survey, knowledge sources, organizational
design, artificial intelligence, quantum computing
JEL: O20, O30.
RIETI Policy Discussion Papers Series is created as part of RIETI research and aims to contribute topolicy discussions in a timely fashion. The views expressed in these papers are solely those of theauthor(s), and neither represent those of the organization to which the author(s) belong(s) nor the
Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry.
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. This work was
supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 19K01827.
e-mail: tamura.edu@nifty.com

1. INTRODUCTION
In this study, I discuss the results of a survey conducted on standardization activities
during 2018. 1 The survey targeted standardization activities within organizations and thequestions covered: (1) the state of the standardization implementation, (2) interest in theadvanced technologies standardization, (3) knowledge sources for standardization
activities, (4) types of standardization activities, (5) organizational designs ofstandardization activities, and (6) the control system for standardization activities. The
participants of the survey were Japanese organizations, including firms and research
institutions.
The survey questions comprised three main categories: (1) degree of standardization
activities, (2) knowledge sources for standardization, and (3) organizational designs ofstandardization activities. Advanced technology topics included: (1) AI-related
technology and (2) quantum computing technology. Moreover, the need to standardize
specific areas of such advanced technology was surveyed.
The items surveyed for standardization needs in specific technology areas are interalia: (1) method of performance evaluation, (2) data style, and (3) ethical aspects. Basedon the results of the survey, the following items were examined: (1) the organizational
structures of standards, (2) the characteristics of standardization within the field ofadvanced technology, and (3) the knowledge creation characteristics pertinent tostandardization.
The results provided academic insight. That is, the need for standardization is low at
the entrance to the initial stage of advanced technology, but this need increases once theinitial stage is somewhat advanced and the product becomes more marketable.
2. METHOD AND DATA
2.1. Survey Purpose
The purpose of this survey was to gain useful insight into the management ofstandardization activities by understanding how and to which extent companies
implement such activities.
2.2. Survey Subject and Method
This survey was a stated preference survey related to standardization, which presents theobjective observations of respondents, rather than a revealed preference survey.
This survey was carried out in the Japanese language. 2 This is predominantly due to
The survey title is the Survey on Standardization Activities (SoSA).
The English expressions (e.g., industry categories) used in this article are tentative translations at
the time of writing the article. Original expressions are in Japanese.
112

the survey subjects being located within Japan. Hence, it was easier for respondents tocommunicate in Japanese than in other languages. From a practical viewpoint, a higher
response rate was expected for Japanese communication.
As for survey subjects, the focus was on (1) firms and (2) research institutions (e.g.,
universities). With respect to the selection of firms as survey subjects, organizations with
reported sales of over 100 million USD (10 billion yen) were chosen. 3 The sales data offirms were obtained from the Nikkei database. Nikkei is a major financial newspaper
company in Japan. The total number of survey subjects was about 1,600.
Regarding communication methods, the questionnaire was sent to corporations andother organizations via postal mail. The responses were also obtained via postal mail (i.e.,
this survey was not an internet survey).
This survey was sent to the subjects with a note stating that, as far as possible, theanswers should be provided by people within the organization who are engaged instandardization activities, such as, inter alia, standardization of technology, tests andevaluation methods, and terminology and symbols.
As for the classification of industrial categories, ten categories were used: 4(1) Machine industry(2) Electric machine(3) Transportation machine(4) Business machine(5) Other manufacturing(6) Construction(7) Information and telecommunications industry(8) Wholesale and retail(9) Other non-manufacturing(10) Education / TLO
The industry field is reported by the ’respondent’s choice.
2.3. Survey Period
The survey was carried out from January 2020 to February 2020.
2.4. Survey Scope
2.4.1. In this survey, the definition of standardization was: Standardization means
One US dollar was equal to approximately 100 Japanese yen at the time of the writing of this article.
These categories are different from the Japanese industrial standards (JIS) or Internationalorganization for standardization (ISO) technological classification for standards documents. These
classifications are based on the idea of industrial classification. JIS and ISO classifications are basedon technological differences of each standard.
234

unifying (1) technical specifications, (2) test evaluation methods, and (3) terms andsymbols within a specific technical field.
The standardization of de jure and de facto standards are included in the survey scope.
Consortium standardization activities are also included. However, the standards here do
not include the calibration standard to maintain the measurement accuracy of an
instrument. Moreover, the standardization activities here do not include bothcertifications based on standards (e.g., ISO and JIS certifications) and activities related tothe maintenance and management of certifications.
Activities aimed at the development of technical standards themselves are consideredpart of research and development (R&D) activities and not considered standardization.
2.4.2. Regarding the survey scope of the personnel engaged in standardization activities,
the scope includes personnel involved in the following:(1) Standard planning, deliberation, and investigation.
(2) Survey activities, such as data acquisition for standard establishments.
(3) Management of established standards.
(4) Activities related to standardization for education and dissemination.
It is worth noting that there are two types of standardization activities: (1) activities
within organizations, and (2) activities outside organizations. This survey implicitly aims
to focus on collecting data on standardization activities within organizations.
Theoretically, activities within organizations cover broader activities related tostandardization than the standardization activities in standards development organizations(SDOs). Moreover, this survey does not distinguish between domestic and international
standardization activities. Thus, both types of data are collected as part of standardization
activities.
3. RESULTS
3.1. Number of Respondents by Industrial Category
Approximately 1,600 subjects were surveyed. A total of 126 responses were received via
postal mail. The number of respondents increased from 104 last year to 126 this year.
Table 1 shows the distribution by industry. Out of the 126 respondents, three did not
answer the category. The other manufacturing, electric machine, and other nonmanufacturing industries produced the highest number of respondents.
[Insert Table 1. here]
3.2. R&D Budget Distribution
Table 2 represents the distribution of R&D budgets. The mode was found to be category
6, ranging from 1000-9,999 million yen (10,000-99,999 thousand US dollars). The share3

of category 6 was 33.7%, and the number of respondents was 35. The second tier was
category 7, ranging from 10,000 < million yen (100,000 < thousand US dollars). The third
tier was category 5, ranging from 100-999 million yen (1,000-9,999 thousand US dollars).
This budget allocation tendency is the same as that of the survey results from the previous
year (Tamura, 2019a).
[Insert Table 2. here]
3.3. Practice of Standardization
Table 3 represents the number of institutions practicing standardization activities. Among
the respondents, 62.4% (78 observations) answered that they practiced standardization
activities. This number is almost the same as that of the previous survey, with a percentage
of 60.8% (62 observations). This two-year comparison of results shows that the practicing
rate of standardization activities was stable across both years. Namely, the figure isapproximately 60% in each year. Table 4 shows the presence of standard activities byindustrial sector and Table 5 presents the difference by R&D budget.
[Insert Table 3. here][Insert Table 4. here][Insert Table 5. here]
3.4. Types of Standardization Activities
As shown in Table 6, standardization activities related to products and services obtained
the largest share (63.9%) among the activity types being practiced, followed bymanufacturing process (33.0%) and measurement (30.9%). Activities related to designs
and symbols comprised 15.5% of the standardization activities (multiple answers areallowed).
The order of the types was the same as the previous year’s survey results. The
important point to note is that the standardization activities related to designs and symbols
were found to have a certain volume. Since the previous survey was the first everconducted, it is difficult to tell whether the number is reliable. Nevertheless, the results
for both years are sufficient to conclude that the standardization activities for designs andsymbols prevail. These types of standardization activities are seemingly extant inorganizations.
The role of standardization activities for designs and symbols has recently been
discussed using de jure standard document data from Japan (Tamura, 2018, 2019b).
Designs and symbols are largely related to corporate intangibles, such as brands. Brandsof consumer goods are important for the private sector. They are sources to increase profit,
whereas standardized designs and symbols promote social welfare as public brands.
Standardization of designs and symbols plays an important role in building a new social
4system. To cope with the recent coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), standardization ofdesigns and symbols has helped citizens communicate important information nonverbally both in their personal and professional lives. Thus, at present, design and symbol
standardization activities are worth discussing as relevant policy tools.
[Insert Table 6. here]
3.5. Reasons not to Practice Standardization Activities
Table 7 presents reasons firms may not practice standardization activities (multiple
answers are allowed). From these reasons, I explored whether there is a need for policies.
The most frequent reason is that standardization activities are not needed for the goods
and services the respondent provides. The second most frequent reason is that they are“using already-established standards, rather than forming standards.” These two reasonsare attributed to the design of goods and services that firms provide.
The third most frequent reason is that there is “no organization for standardization
activities.” The fourth most frequent reason is that there is a “shortage of labor forces forstandardization activities.” The third and fourth reasons can be categorized as
management-based reasons rather than as characteristics of the goods and services firms
provide. To organize the structure to control standardization activities, knowledge related
to the actual standardization activities is essential. Thus, these answers suggest the needfor organizational capability development.
The fifth most frequent category is the “high cost of standardization activities.” Forexample, the present system used by SDOs is to hold SDO meetings where participants
gather and discuss drafts of standards. The costs accompanying traveling to such meetings
are usually paid by participants themselves. Another common cost is the annual
membership fees required by SDOs. This result indicates that the support for suchaccompanying costs is still important. In the sixth most frequent category, the need for
trade secret protection can be observed. This result indicates that firms are anxious about
these issues.
[Insert Table 7. here]
3.6. Standardization of Advanced Technology
3.6.1. Artificial intelligence technology
In Table 8, attitudes toward advanced AI technologies are shown. The difference perindustry is also shown (Table 9). In this questionnaire, respondents were asked about theimportance of the term AI in general, without pursuing specific details. This is because5the ISO has not decided on a definition of the term yet. 5,6 About 36% of the respondents
answered that the standardization of AI technology is “important” or “relatively
important.” This was an increase from the 33% in last ’year’s results, indicating asubstantial rise in the need for standardization of AI. Namely, the diffusion of artificial
intelligence technology has begun to improve rapidly, and the R&D for the technology ismoving from the stage of basic research to the stage of applied and development research.
This means that the initial market for goods and services involved in AI technology
appears to be substantial. In my own experience, from last year to this year, the numberof products and services that use artificial intelligence has increased considerably aroundthe world.
The increase in the numbers indicates the spread of AI technology in society. As
technology becomes more widely used within society, the need for standardization
increases. Standardization increases the need for technology, while increasing its social
impact. The implementation of technology in society, the need for standardization, andthe value of technology interact with each other like a spiral. The difference between the
two years seemingly reflects the progress of this phenomenon.
Standardization is considered to have played an important role in increasing theacademic value of results of basic research. The phenomenon is observed in the case ofphotocatalyst (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, 2008,
p.102). Namely, the example is standardization following the discovery of the “HondaFujishima effect” of photocatalyst (Fujishima and Honda, 1972). During that time, theinternational standardization of the measurement and evaluation of photocatalysts waspromoted. Owing to standardization, the marketization of technology then progressed.
Consequently, the increased social impact of photocatalysts directly results in theirincreasing academic value. This is an example of how academic achievements can beconveyed to the market, owing to standardization.
[Insert Table 8. here][Insert Table 9. here]
Table 10 shows the results of the technological areas considered important among
artificial intelligence technologies. (1) Performance evaluation, (2) data style, and (3)ethical aspects of AI are considered the most important.
The result indicates that the need for benchmarking or setting technical goals forTechnical classifications for the patent classification of AI are largely formulated (Fujii and Managi,
2018; Tseng and Ting, 2013). The International Patent Classification (IPC) is used to specify AI-related
patents (Fujii and Managi, 2018; Tseng and Ting, (2013).
6 Tamura (2019) classified the de jure standards for Japan (JIS) to formulate data regarding the AI related standards and discuss their effective terms through survival analysis.
65conducting R&D is high for AI technologies. The setting of standards for performancemeasurements is considered important for distinguishing among different products andservices when marketization is underway and market competition is beginning to intensify.
Regarding the standardization of the data format, the standardized format of the data
makes subsequent data processing easy. Standardization of the ethical aspect is important
for the social acceptance of artificial intelligence technology because standards related to
ethical aspects contribute to preventing the social and legal misuse of the AI. The
preparation of such standards related to AI leads to social acceptance of the technology.
[Insert Table 10. here]
3.6.2. Quantum Computing-related Technology
Quantum computers are expected to become the next generation of information
processing technology. In this questionnaire, respondents were asked about theimportance of the term quantum computing-related technology in general, without
pursuing specific details. This is because the ISO technological classification does nothave the category of the technology yet (International Organization for Standardization,2005). The percentage of responses indicating “important” and “relatively important” was
15.4% (Table 11). This percentage was lower than the importance of standardization for
artificial intelligence technologies. It should be noted that 60% of the respondents selected“not important / do not use such technology” for quantum computing-related technology.
This result may reflect the situation in which quantum computing-related technology is
not yet being used in services and products aimed at the public. The difference perindustrial sector is also shown (Table 12).
The results of this year’s surveys regarding artificial intelligence and quantum
computing-related technologies allowed us to examine the process through which
advanced technologies transform into general purpose technology (GPT) (Lipsey, Carlaw,
and Bekar, 2005). These results reflect that quantum computing-related technology
seemingly has not yet become a GPT. The presumption is that, as the technology becomes
more generalized and widespread, the need for standardization increases. This is also thesame presumption for when technology becomes GPT. In other words, the standardizationand the technological transformation to GPT are considered to interact with each otherwhile they are progressing. This phenomenon is a trend observed both in this year’s andin the previous year’s results in relation to artificial intelligence technology (Table 8).
[Insert Table 11. here][Insert Table 12. here]
Table 13 shows the results for the technology areas considered to be important among
quantum computing-related technologies. In the future, as R&D progresses in this area of7technology, the need for marketization will increase. Consequently, standardization
becomes necessary in relation to the development of technology.
As for the need for standardization of quantum computers, the major technologicalareas are: (1) performance evaluation methods, (2) hardware such as arithmetic elements,and (3) data formats. Performance evaluation methods make it possible to compare theperformance of quantum computers with each other. Evaluation methods play animportant role in this technology to set R&D targets.
In comparison to the case of artificial intelligence technology, the notable differenceis that there are substantial needs for standardization regarding arithmetic elements inquantum computing-related technology. The development of the computing elements is atechnical challenge to be solved in the case of quantum computers. From other aspects,
this reflects the fact that in the case of quantum computing, hardware development is stilltaking place. On the other hand, the technical development of hardware has nearly been
completed in the case of artificial intelligence technology. From the aspect of thetechnological development, artificial intelligence technology is at the stage of algorithm
development, assuming mature hardware technology.
In the same level of importance, the development of standards of terminology and thedevelopment of standards in terms of ethics are both considered important. For example,
when nanotechnology emerged as a new technology, the formation of basic concepts suchas terminology in nanotechnology was required for the improvement of R&D in thetechnology. In the case of the quantum computing-related technology, the situation
appears similar to the case of nanotechnology (Blind and Gauch, 2009).
[Insert Table 13. here]
3.7. Knowledge Sources for Standardization Activities
The most important sources of information are: (1) information from SDOs, and (2)standardized documents. Standardization documents and information from SDOs,
account for a high proportion of important activities in the development of standards. This
trend is almost identical to last ’year’s trend (Table 14).
Since the development of standards requires consensus from all parties concerned,
this could mean that it is important to capture not only the subjective but also the objective
opinions of participants in the development of standards. For the knowledge that isformed through an agreement process, reciprocal communication is considered important.
The results of this study showed that, even with digitized communication in web
conference form, human-to-human communication is important. It has been made clearthat knowledge from bibliographic information alone is not sufficient for the formationof technical standards. I find this is the novel knowledge creation mechanism that has not8been explicitly recognized by the public.
[Insert Table 14. here]
3.8. Degrees of Importance of Knowledge Sources for Standardization Activities
To show the degree of importance in a more detailed manner, the results of a five-point
scale evaluation are demonstrated (Table 15). Both (1) standardization documents and (2)information obtained from SDO meetings appear to be of a high frequency in importance.
It is indicated that information from SDOs consists of not only written information
through the bibliography but also essential information exchanged during humancommunication (Tables 14 and 15). This is because collective decision-making actions toreach consensus are essential for the formation of standards.
With the development of new information processing technologies, such as artificial
intelligence technology, it is increasingly believed that knowledge creation is possible
without the need for direct communication between humans. However, knowledge
creation of technical standards is seemingly not possible through bibliometric analysis
alone.
This survey found that the knowledge creation of standards is one counterexample tothe current academic approach that emphasizes non-human interaction information.
Namely, unlike other typical knowledge creation disciplines, bibliographic information
alone is not sufficient for the knowledge creation of standards. Standardization requires
the sharing of knowledge among humans in SDOs. This characteristic of standards was
only implicitly implied in the past. The results of this year’s and the previous year’s
surveys present new insights regarding the difference in knowledge creation between (1)standards and (2) patents and academic articles.
[Insert Table 15. here]
3.9. Protection of R&D Information and Trade Secrets
About 30% of respondent companies have developed institutional guidelines forstandardization activities, while 70% have not (Table 16). The difference per industrial
sector is also shown (Table 17).
Approximately 68% of companies that developed institutional guidelines reported
that they include trade secret protection notices in their standardized guidelines (Table
18). The extent of these results is similar to the results of last ’year’s survey. The
difference per industrial sector is also presented (Table 19).
[Insert Table 16 here][Insert Table 17 here][Insert Table 18 here][Insert Table 19 here]93.10. Organizational Designs for Standardization Activities
As for the development of an organization to oversee standardization activities, 46
respondents (42.6%) answered that such an organization was developed (Table 20). The
number of cases, and the percentage, have increased compared to that of the previous year.
Table 21 shows the difference by industrial sector and Table 22 presents the difference by
R&D budget.
[Insert Table 20. here][Insert Table 21. here][Insert Table 22. here]
In the past, companies’ standardization activities predominantly focused on thetechnical quality control activities of each business unit. Today, however, standardization
activities have become a company-wide strategy. Whether the organization managing thestandardization activities is located in the business units or within the headquarters isshown (Table 23). Overall, 87.0% (40 cases) were located within the headquarters.
Compared to last year’s results, the percentage of standardization organizations
established within the headquarters has increased. This result indicates that the current
management structure for standardization activities is largely centralized. Namely, thestandardization division is becoming a part of the function of company headquarters morerather than a business unit.
[Insert Table 23. here]
The human resource aspects of standardized organizations were studied in detail(Table 24). The highest frequency in the number of employees for the size of the
management organization for standardization is less than ten employees. This is followedby 10-49 employees. Namely, the largest number of cases were ten or fewer, with 32 cases
accounting for 74% of the total number of cases. This is followed by 9 cases within therange of 10 to 49 employees. It is important to note that the number of employees is on afull-time equivalent (FTE) basis. Thus, the result is a good reflection of the actual amountof staff involved in the work.
[Insert Table 24 here]
One indicator of the importance of a department is to look at the level of the person
responsible for controlling the department. Table 25 shows the results of the position levelof the heads of standards departments. Officials in charge of department heads are also
responsible for the management of standardization activities and account for 26 cases, orabout 60%. This is followed by the managers in 12 cases, or 28%. It is worth noting that,in five cases (about 12%), the president or vice president is responsible for the
standardization department. In those five firms, the standardization appears to be the10strategy of the whole organization because they are controlled by high-ranked managers.
[Insert Table 25. here]
3.11. Organizational Integration
When examining whether the patent organization and the standardization organization
belong to the same organization, about 34% of respondents said they belong to the sameorganization (Table 26). This trend is almost identical to last ’year’s results. However,there are 29 cases, or about 66%, where the standardization organization and the patentorganization existed separately. In these firms, patent management and standards
management are conducted in separate departments. As for the location, when thestandard and patent management function is in the same division, the organization is
likely to be in the headquarters (Table 27).
[Insert Table 26. here][Insert Table 27. here]
4. CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATIONSThis was the second time the survey was conducted and followed its first administrationin the previous year (Tamura, 2019a).
First, this year’s and the previous year’s survey results demonstrate that thepercentage of companies implementing standardization activities was about 60%. The
percentage of companies developing standardized organizations was about 30%. These
results should be validated continuously in the future for further observation, but they canbe used as approximate figures to tentatively explain the index.
Second, in terms of organizational structure, standardization activities are notactivities managed by the business units. Rather, they are a part of the headquartersfunctions. The trends over the past two years have clearly shown that standardization
activities are managed by the headquarters. This result is consistent with the results of thecase study presented earlier (Tamura, 2012). Namely, the results show thatstandardization activities have become an enterprise-wide institutional strategy, rather
than the management issue of business units. This development can be supported bytheory and academic research (Chandler, 1962; Hirata et al., 2001; Sasaki et al., 2001;
Tamura, 2012). Previous research shows that corporate strategies are changed in responseto changes in the external environment, and organizational changes take place toimplement these adjusted strategies (Chandler, 1962).
Third, within the field of advanced technology, differences in the need forstandardization were found between artificial intelligence and quantum computing. These
differences may reflect the fact that artificial intelligence technologies experience some11

degree of marketization of the products and services using AI technologies, whereas inquantum computing, the marketization of products is not yet common. At present,
quantum computing-related technology is considered a hardware infrastructure for central
processing, rather than a commodity for general consumers. This may be the reason thatthe need for standardization is low. The difference between these two provides academic
insight into the relationship between GPT and standardization. Namely, the need forstandardization will increase as technology becomes GPT, even if the need appears low
during the earlier stage.
Finally, as a major academic and practical achievement of this study, I am able torecognize that the knowledge creation mechanism of standard formation is different fromother knowledge creation systems (i.e., academic articles and patents). Namely, despiteadvances in information processing technology, direct communication is essential for theknowledge creation of standardization.
Notes:All the citations expressing “(Tamura, year)” in this article refer to my previous studies.
By coincidence, previous research by other researchers of the same name is not cited.
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.
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.
12Sasaki, T., Nagata, A., Toyama, R., Hirata, T., and Hasegawa, K. (2001). Coevolution of patent
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. (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.
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.

13

Tables:

Table 1. Industrial categories
No.

CategoryN%

1

Machine7

5.7

2

Electric machine

18

14.6

3

Transportation machine

7

5.7

4

Business machine

2

1.6

5

Other manufacturing

48

39.0

6

Construction

8

6.5

7

Information and telecommunications

5

4.1

8

Wholesale and retail

3

2.4

9

Other non-manufacturing

18

14.6

10

Education / TLO

7

5.7

Total

123

100.0

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

Table 2. Budget allocation for R&D
No.

Budget

N

%

0

6

5.8

<100

<10

6

5.8

3

100–499

10–49

3

2.9

4

500–999

50–99

3

2.9

5

1,000–9,999

100–999

20

19.2

6

10,000–99,999

1,000–9,999

35

33.7

7

100,000<

10,000<

23

22.1

8

Unknown

Unknown

8

7.7

104

100.0

(thousand US dollar)

Reference :(million yen)

1

0

2

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

14

Table 3. Practice of standardization activities
No.

N

%

1

Yes

78

62.4

2

No

47

37.6

Total

125

100.0

Table 4. Practice of standardization activities by industry
No.

Category

Yes

No

Total

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

1

Machine

6

85.7%

1

14.3%

7

5.7%

2

Electric machine

16

88.9%

2

11.1%

18

14.8%

3

Transportation machine

5

83.3%

1

16.7%

6

4.9%

4

Business machine

0

0.0%

2

100.0%

2

1.6%

5

Other manufacturing

31

64.6%

17

35.4%

48

39.3%

6

Construction

2

25.0%

6

75.0%

8

6.6%

7

Information and telecommunications

2

40.0%

3

60.0%

5

4.1%

8

Wholesale and retail

1

33.3%

2

66.7%

3

2.5%

9

Other non-manufacturing

11

61.1%

7

38.9%

18

14.8%

10

Education / TLO

2

28.6%

5

71.4%

7

5.7%

Total

76

62.3%

46

37.7%

122

100.0%

15

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

BudgetNo.

(thousandUS dollar)

Reference :(million yen)

1

0

2

No

Total

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

Frequency

Percentage

0

1

16.7%

5

83.3%

6

5.8%

<100

<10

3

50.0%

3

50.0%

6

5.8%

3

100–499

10–49

3

100.0%

0

0.0%

3

2.9%

4

500–999

50–99

2

0.0%

1

0.0%

3

2.9%

5

1,000–9,999

100–999

11

55.0%

9

45.0%

20

19.2%

6

10,000–99,999

1,000–9,999

22

62.9%

13

37.1%

35

33.7%

7

100,000<

10,000<

22

0.0%

1

0.0%

23

22.1%

8

Unknown

Unknown

4

50.0%

4

50.0%

8

7.7%

68

65.4%

36

34.6%

104

100.0%

Table 6. Types of standardization activities being practiced
No.

N

%

1

Standardization activities related to products and services

62

63.9

2

Standardization activities related to the manufacturing processof products and services

32

33.0

3

Standardization activities related to the measurement

30

30.9

4

Standardization activities related to design and symbol

15

15.5

5

Do not practice

27

27.8

Total

166

Note: The total number of responses (166) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (97)because multiple answers are allowed for this question. The percentage column shows N/97×100.

16

Table 7. Reasons standardization activities are not practiced
No.

N

%

1

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

27

58.7

2

No established organization for standardization activities.

11

23.9

3

The management capacity for standardization activities is
scarce.

3

6.5

4

Labor force for the standardization activities is scarce.

8

17.4

5

Existence of outflow risk of technology information andrelated trade secret.

3

6.5

6

The cost of practicing the standardization activities is higher
than the benefit gained from the activities.

6

13.0

7

Using already established standards rather thanformulating standards.

16

34.8

Total

74

Note: The total number of responses (74) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (46) because multiple
answers are allowed for this question. The percentage column shows N/46×100.

Table 8. The importance of standardization for AI-related technology
No.

N

%

1

Important

14

20.9

2

Relatively important

10

14.9

3

Neutral

19

28.4

4

Relatively not important

2

3.0

5

Not important/do not deal with the technology

22

32.8

Total

70

100

17

18
0.0%
15.4%

0.0%
21.5%

Education / TLO
Total

10

33.3%

33.3%

Other non-manufacturing

9

0.0%

0.0%

Wholesale and retail

8

0.0%

50.0%

Information and telecommunications

7

0.0%

100.0%

Construction

6

6.9%

10.3%

Other manufacturing

5

0.0%

0.0%

Business machine

4

0.0%

25.0%

Transportation machine

3

30.8%

30.8%

Electric machine

2

20.0%

Machine1

1
Important2
Relatively
important

20.0%

Category

No.

29.2%

0.0%

11.1%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

44.8%

0.0%

25.0%

15.4%

20.0%

3
Neutral

3.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.4%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%

4
Relatively notimportant

30.8%

100.0%

22.2%

100.0%

0.0%

0.0%

34.5%

0.0%

50.0%

15.4%

40.0%

5
Not
important/do
not deal withthe technology

Total

100.0%

1.5%

13.8%

1.5%

3.1%

1.5%

44.6%

0.0%

6.2%

20.0%

7.7%

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

19

11
10
22
10
13

6
133

Related to the form of data used in computation.
Related to the encryption of data used in computation.
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 of energy-saving performancein operations.
Related to the terminology used to describe artificial intelligence-related
technologies.
Related to ethical aspects of use and exploitation.
Other.
Total

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

15.8

47.4

34.2

26.3

57.9

26.3

28.9

26.3

52.6

34.2

%

Note: The total number of responses (133) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (38) because multiple answers are allowed
for this question. The percentage column shows N/38×100.

18

10

20

13

Related to computational algorithms.

1

N

Category

No.

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

Table 11. The importance of standardization for quantum computing-related technologies
No.

N

%

1

Important

7

10.8

2

Relatively important

3

4.6

3

Neutral

13

20.0

4

Relatively not important

3

4.6

5

Not important/do not deal with the technology

39

60.0

Total

65

100.0

20

21
0.0%
4.8%

0.0%
11.1%

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

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

3.6%

0.0%

0.0%

23.1%

11.1%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

25.0%

2

0.0%

Machine1

1
ImportantCategory

No.

2
Relatively
important

20.6%

0.0%

11.1%

0.0%

50.0%

0.0%

32.1%

0.0%

0.0%

15.4%

0.0%

3
Neutral

4.8%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.1%

0.0%

25.0%

0.0%

0.0%

4
Relatively notimportant

58.7%

100.0%

44.4%

100.0%

50.0%

100.0%

57.1%

0.0%

75.0%

53.8%

75.0%

5
Not
important/do
not deal withthetechnology

100.0%

1.6%

14.3%

1.6%

3.2%

1.6%

44.4%

0.0%

6.3%

20.6%

6.3%

Total

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

22

4
10
8
14
4
9

4
79

Related to the form of data used in computation.
Related to the encryption of data used in computation.
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 performanceaccuracy of computation results.
Related to the measurement and evaluation of energy-saving
performance in operations.
Related to the terminology used to describe quantum computerrelated technologies.
Related to ethical aspects of use and exploitation.
Other.
Total

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

14.8

33.3

33.3

14.8

51.9

29.6

37.0

14.8

37.0

25.9

%

Note: The total number of responses (79) is not equivalent to the number of respondents (27) because multiple
answers are allowed for this question. The percentage column shows N/27×100.

9

10

7

Related to computational algorithms.

1

N

Category

No.

Table 13. Standardization items considered important toquantum computing-related technologies

Table 14. Data sources for standardization activities
Frequency

Data source

Academic article

Patent information

Standardization document

Design right information
Information obtained from the SDO meetings
including the participants
Other sources

Use

Not use

Total

N

40

14

54

%

74.1

25.9

100

N

35

17

52

%

67.3

32.7

100

N

49

6

55

%

89.1

10.9

100

N

21

30

51

%

41.2

58.8

100

N

42

12

54

%

77.8

22.2

100

N

1

8

9

%

11.1

88.9

100

Table 15. The importance of data sources for standardization activities
Frequency
Data source

Academic article

Patent information

Standardization document

Trademark information
Information obtained fromthe SDO meetings including
the participants
Other sources

Important

Relatively
important

Neutral

N

17

19

11

3

0

50

%

34.0

38.0

22.0

6.0

0

100

N

15

12

16

1

2

46

%

32.6

26.1

34.8

2.2

4.3

100

N

26

21

6

0.0

0.0

53

%

49.1

39.6

11.3

0.0

0.0

100

N

7

9

15

2

5

38

%

18.4

23.7

39.5

5.3

13.2

100

N

23

18

7

1

1

50

%

46.0

36.0

14.0

2.0

2.0

100

N

0

1

4

0

0

5

%

0

20.0

80.0

0

0

100

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

23

Relatively not
Not important
importantTotal

Table 16. Stipulations of institutional guidelines for standardization activities
and the management of standardization activities

No.

N

%

1

Stipulated

32

30.2

2

Not stipulated

74

69.8

Total

106

100.0

Table 17. Stipulations of institutional guidelines forstandardization activities by industry
No.

Category

1

Machine

33.3%

66.7%

5.8%

2

Electric machine

37.5%

62.5%

15.4%

3

Transportation machine

66.7%

33.3%

5.8%

4

Business machine

0.0%

100.0%

1.0%

5

Other manufacturing

22.5%

77.5%

38.5%

6

Construction

28.6%

71.4%

6.7%

7

Information and telecommunications

25.0%

75.0%

3.8%

8

Wholesale and retail

33.3%

66.7%

2.9%

9

Other non-manufacturing

26.7%

73.3%

14.4%

10

Education / TLO

16.7%

83.3%

5.8%

Total

28.8%

71.2%

100.0%

Yes

24

No

Total

Table 18. Inclusion of trade secrets and technology outflow protectionsin the institutions' standardization activities guideline
No.

N

%

1

Included

21

67.7

2

Not included

10

32.3

Total

31

100.0

Table 19. Inclusion of trade secrets and technology outflow
protections by industry
No.

Category

Yes

No

Total

1

Machine

50.0%

50.0%

6.9%

2

Electric machine

83.3%

16.7%

20.7%

3

Transportation machine

25.0%

75.0%

13.8%

4

Business machine

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

5

Other manufacturing

77.8%

22.2%

31.0%

6

Construction

50.0%

50.0%

6.9%

7

Information and telecommunications

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

8

Wholesale and retail100.0%

0.0%

3.4%

9

Other non-manufacturing100.0%

0.0%

13.8%

10

Education / TLO

0.0%

100.0%

3.4%

Total

69.0%

31.0%

100.0%

25

Table 20. Establishment of organizations for standardization activities
No.

N

%

1

Yes

46

42.6

2

No

62

57.4

Total

108

100.0

Table 21. Establishment of organizations for standardization activities by industry

No.

Category

1

Yes

No

Total

Machine

50.0%

50.0%

5.7%

2

Electric machine

56.3%

43.8%

15.1%

3

Transportation machine

100.0%

0.0%

4.7%

4

Business machine

0.0%

100.0%

0.9%

5

Other manufacturing

40.5%

59.5%

39.6%

6

Construction

28.6%

71.4%

6.6%

7

Information and telecommunications

66.7%

33.3%

2.8%

8

Wholesale and retail

0.0%

100.0%

2.8%

9

Other non-manufacturing

29.4%

70.6%

16.0%

10

Education / TLO

16.7%

83.3%

5.7%

Total

41.5%

58.5%

100.0%

26

Table 22. Establishment of organizations for standardization activities by R&D budget
Yes

No

Frequency Percentage

Frequency Percentage

BudgetTotal

No.
Frequency Percentage(thousand US dollar)

Reference :(million yen)

1

0

0

0

0.0%

5

100.0%

5

5.2%

2

<100

<10

3

60.0%

2

40.0%

5

5.2%

3

100–499

10–49

2

66.7%

1

33.3%

3

3.1%

4

500–999

50–99

1

0.0%

2

0.0%

3

3.1%

5

1,000–9,999

100–999

7

36.8%

12

63.2%

19

19.6%

6

10,000–99,999

1,000–9,999

9

28.1%

23

71.9%

32

33.0%

7

100,000<

10,000<

16

0.0%

7

0.0%

23

23.7%

8

Unknown

Unknown

2

28.6%

5

71.4%

7

7.2%

40

41.2%

57

58.8%

97

100.0%

Table 23. Structure of organizations for standardization activities
No.

N

%

1

Within designated department

5

10.9

2

Within headquarter

40

87.0

3

Other

1

2.2

Total

46

100.0

27

Table 24. Number of employees for the standards management department
No.

N

%

1

0

0

0.0

2

<10

32

74.4

3

10–49

9

20.9

4

50–99

0

0.0

5

100–499

0

0.0

6

500<

0

0.0

7

Other

2

4.7

Total

43

100.0

Table 25. Supervisor levels for standards management department

No.

N

%

1

Non-management

0

0

2

Management

12

27.9

3

Department head

26

60.5

4

President, Vice president

5

11.6

Total

43

100.0

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

28

Table 26. Standardization organization being part of the patent organization
No.

N

%

1

Yes

15

34.1

2

No

29

65.9

Total

44

100.0

Table 27. Organizational location where patent management and standards management
are located within the same department
No.

N

%

1

Within each department

1

6.7

2

Within headquarters

14

93.2

3

Other

0

0.0

Total

15

100.0

29