DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

1

Standards Scripts Developed for NIST Grant

Standards For Everyone: An Introduction

Welcome to our modular curriculum on standards and standard setting. We call 

it “Standards for Every One.” And I would like to tell you why. What is it about 

standards that inspired me to develop this program?

 

Years ago I worked for a Congressional Agency--the Office of Technology 

Assessment. We called it “Congress’ own think tank” Unfortunately, the 101st

Congress--notwithstanding OTA’s highly acclaimed non-partisan research--

decided to no longer fund it. It was a great loss. While at OTA, I was asked to 

undertake a study assessing the performance of the US standard setting 

process--a process that I will describe in a subsequent module in some detail. At 

first I was disappointed in my assignment--what could be interesting about 

standards, I asked myself? I was in for a great surprise! Thirty years after 

having finished my OTA report, Global Standards: Building Blocks for the Future, 

the subject continues to be of great interest to me, as well as source of my 

research.

Today, what gives me great pause for thought is the fact that there are very few 

standards courses available within the university community. Nor are there many 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

2

educational materials that might be used to build courses. And you could count 

the number of students interested in taking courses on standards on one hand. 

Ironically, this lack of attention to standards comes at a time when standards are 

becoming ever more critical, given our increasingly complex and interconnected 

world. Just consider the banking system; new forms of financial paper are being 

developed faster than we can develop standards governing their use. Would 

more and/or better standards have helped to limit the industry’s collapse? A good 

question! 

The food industry is also increasingly complex. Notwithstanding labels denoting 

organic foods, gluten free foods, genetically non-modified foods, and antibiotic 

free foods, we are somewhat at a loss when trying to sort out prices and 

ingredients. We all have read, with some horror, about adulterated baby milk in 

China, and chicken products in the United States. To my chagrin, I find that the 

‘kibbles’ I have been feeding my dog contain ground up animal bones from most 

any kind of animal--even road kill; intestines and other organs; and even the 

scraps swept up from the food processing floor. Is there not room for standards 

here?

In trying to understand our limited standards educational tools and facilities, I 

have asked people in the field how they became involved in the subject. For the 

most part, they say that they entered through the back door. Trying to solve 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

3

problems of interest to them, they came face to face with standards. And it was 

only then that they became involved.

Our curriculum, Standards for Everyone, is based on this insight. We look at 

standards through the lens of different problems, and ask what role standards 

play both in the cause and the resolution. Hence our curriculum is intended not 

only for those who anticipate working in the field, but also for those who 

encounter standards in their daily lives. 

 

Our approach reflects our belief that the tepid interest in standards is due, in part, 

to the narrow way in which we typically conceive of standards. For example, 

today, most standards efforts and analyses focus almost entirely on the technical 

and economic aspects of standards. No doubt, these topics are essential to an 

understanding of standards and standards processes, and they need to be front 

and center in any standards course. But these lenses fail to portray the full range 

of issues to which standards give rise. Standards are ubiquitous--we encounter 

them everywhere. By extending our frame of reference, and characterizing 

standards and standards issues more broadly, we can develop materials that 

attract a wide audience, while at the same time amortize the associated costs 

across a larger user base.

Given the wide range of standards and standards issues, we cannot create a 

universal curriculum to satisfy all. So, we have opted for a modular approach 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

4

that allows educators to pick and choose, tailoring their course materials to their 

specific needs. Faculty--ranging in disciplines from engineering, business to 

sociology, ecology, and English--can use the modules to build an entire course, 

or simply incorporate specific modules into their diverse course offerings. 

Our first modules are prototypes, designed to illustrate the possibilities inherent 

in a modular approach. We have selected them to illustrate the broadest range 

of standards and standard setting issues. We have picked our initial modules to 

illustrate how standards play out in a number of different areas. These include, 

to name but a few: “Why Study Standards?” “The Standards Universe,” 

Standards: The Coin of the Realm,” “Standards: How the West Was Won,” and 

“Standards: The Building Blocks of Life.” Focusing on each of these sectors, we 

address topics ranging from business strategies and innovation to organizational 

roles, cultural memes, and personal identity. To help navigate the standard’s 

landscape, we employ social network analysis to create a map that--based on 

key words and topics--links modules, thereby illustrating the various ways in 

which each might be interwoven with the others. 

Standards for Everyone, is built around an open architecture. We hope that you 

will not only find the content useful in your efforts to promote standards 

education, but also be inspired by the effort to contribute your own modules. We 

welcome your engagement in our project. 

--------------------------
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

5

Why Study Standards?

When is the last time you thought about standards? Chances are the topic only 

occurred to you when you needed standards, and they were lacking. Maybe you 

thought about standards when you had to have a three-pronged plug, or perhaps 

when the sheets you ordered for your mattress didn’t fit. Alternatively, standards 

might have come to mind when you committed a faux pas speaking a foreign 

language, or maybe it was when you struggled to adjust the shower temperature

in a foreign hotel. Herein lies the Standards Paradox: Although, standards are 

so essential to our daily lives, we typically take them for granted. We seem to 

value standards most in their absence.

When we do focus on standards, however, we see that they are the basis for--or 

one might say the interface between--all interactions. As such, standards are the 

building blocks both of the natural world and society as well as the glue that 

holds everything together. For, in any given context, standards constitute an 

agreed upon set of meanings, scripts, and rules that guide behavior and govern 

relationships. Embodying critical information in a highly compressed and 

abbreviated format standards greatly simplify the environment. Signaling 

opportunities and constraining choices, standards make possible cooperation 

and coordinated behavior. 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

6

Let’s just think about the origin of the word standard. It was originally a word that 

signified a flag or banner that was associated with a given leader, and hence was 

used to rally his troops in battle (Malone, 1942, 235). Standardized signals 

continue to play such roles today, even in the animal kingdom. Take slime mold, 

for example. Instead of rallying warriors to battle, they signal the presence of 

food, drawing individual slime molds into a cluster, so as to better harvest the 

meal. Likewise, ants employ pheromones to signal the location of food sources 

as well as the task that each is performing.

Language and simple gestures play a similar role for the human race. Based on 

a common understanding, they provide the shared frame of reference and sense 

of reality that allows us to have intimate relationships and establish common 

goals. Similarly, cooperation among individuals engaged in interdependent 

activities is greatly facilitated when people don’t act randomly, or on a trial and 

error basis, but rather conform to common expectations embodied in socially 

constructed roles. Similarly, organizations gain greater access to resources and 

reduce their transaction costs, when they adhere to standardized rules and 

procedures institutionalized in their environments. In so doing, organizations 

themselves become standardized as the prevalence of bureaucratic forms clearly 

attests.
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

7

In the realm of technology as well, standard specifications and protocols add 

value to system components by allowing them to interconnect and interoperate in 

a transparent and seamless fashion. Equally important, when standards serve

as identifiers, as in the case of trademarks, they help people sort through 

extraneous information and make better choices. 

In fact, so ubiquitous are standards we ignore them at our peril. Just consider 

what happens to the man who reaches out to pet a dog, even though its hackles 

are raised? Similarly, what would you say are the prospects of the student who 

dresses inappropriately for a job interview? And one can only imagine the sorry 

sight of the driver who runs a red light.

Mishaps can occur on a large scale as well, and it is just such events that first 

peaked the public’s interest in standards and standard setting. Unfortunate 

incidents accompanying the industrial revolution provided a major impetus. 

Thus, for example, boiler explosions averaging 1,400 per year led the American 

Society of Mechanical Engineers to write a comprehensive boiler code in 1910, 

and to good effect. Once most states and cities had adopted the code, such 

explosions were virtually eliminated. Likewise, the 1904 leaf fire on the grounds 

of the National Bureau of Standards had a similar impact. Dealing with the fire 

was problematic because the fire hoses could not be coupled due to differences 

in threads. The incompatibility between hydrants and hoses also accounted for 

the problems controlling the Baltimore fire of 1904. Buildings numbering 1,526 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

8

and all electric lights, telegraph, telephone, and power facilities in an area of 

more than 70 city blocks were destroyed before the fire burned out. Fire 

companies from outside the area couldn’t help because their hoses were 

incompatible with the Baltimore hydrants.

Those who discount standards are likely to run into unanticipated setbacks, and 

forgo good opportunities. For standards have a strategic value in that those who 

control a standard also control the activities associated with it. Hence standards 

have been at the center of battles between industry titans seeking to control the 

market. In fact, the first “standards war” dates back to the turn of the century, 

when George Westinghouse and Thomas Edison fiercely competed to set the 

standard for electrical current (McNichol, 2011). Edison went to great lengths to 

assure that DC current, the basis on which he had built his electrical empire, 

would trump AC current, which was used by his competitor George 

Westinghouse. Thus, he engaged in a shameful public relations campaign 

designed to instill fear in the public about the safety of AC current. To provide 

evidence for his case, he supported a number of trumped up grizzly experiments 

involving the electrocution of dogs, cows, and horses. Notwithstanding Edison’s 

efforts, AC current--which could travel further and was more efficient that DC 

current--won the war (McNichol, 2011).

Such battles continue to be played out--and almost as fiercely--today. The early 

browser wars provide a case in point (Sebenius, 2002). In 1995, Netscape 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

9

controlled the browser market, with a 90 percent installed user base for Netscape 

Navigator (Windrum, nd. p. 1). Notwithstanding Netscape Navigator’s great lead 

in the market, the goliath Microsoft, although a latecomer to the game, was able 

to demolish its rival with a browser of its own--Internet Explorer. Because 

Netscape Navigator could be employed across multiple network platforms, and 

be used by software developers to create software for any operating system, it 

was a major threat to Microsoft’s dominance in the operating system market 

(Ryan, 2010). It was only then that Bill Gates stood up and took notice. 

Determined to squash the competition, Microsoft made its browser free to all. It 

bundled it together with its operating system, thereby loading it on desktops of 50 

million new computers each year; and then used its market power to make it the 

ISPs browser of choice (Windrum, nd, p. 8; Sebenius, 2002, p. 43). As a result, 

Internet Explorer became the Internet’s default browser, as Netscape went into 

decline. Notwithstanding Netscape’s first mover advantage, it could not compete 

with the financial resources and industry alliances available to Microsoft. It was 

subsequently taken over by AOL, which later spun the browser off to the 

nonprofit Mozilla Foundation (Stone, 2008). Today, it has reappeared in a new 

guise--Firefox.

It is important to note that network standards, such as browsers, increase in 

value the more that they are adopted, due to the growth of networks based on 

those standards and the externalities associated with them. The Internet 

standard TCP/IP provides a good example. In the early stages of the Internet’s 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

10

development, there were few adopters, and even fewer commercial providers. 

However, as the network and the number of applications that it supported 

multiplied, businesses rushed in to capitalize on the increased value accruing 

from an open, interoperable standard (Garcia, 2013).

To take advantage of standards benefits, while avoiding the pitfalls to which they 

might give rise, requires that we have a much greater understanding of them. 

Our modular curriculum provides a tour of this fascinating standards universe. I 

hope you will follow along.

References

Garcia, D. Linda, “The Evolution of the Internet and the Economics Associated 

with it. (2013).

Malone, Kemp, “Observations on the Word ‘Standard’” American Speech, v 17, 

n. 4, December 1932, p. 235.

McNichol, Tom (2011 AC/DC: The Savage Tale of the First Standards War, NY, 

NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Ryan, Johnny (2010) A History of the Internet and the Digital Future, NY, NY, 

London, UK: Reaktion Books, LTD.

Sebenius, James K. (Summer 2000) Negotiating Lessons from the Browser 

Wars,” Sloan Management Review, pp. 43-51. 

----------------------
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

11

The Standards Universe

Understanding the importance of standards in our lives begs the question of how 

we can best study them. Precisely because they are ever-present, it is difficult to 

get a handle on them. To help sort things out, we devote this module to defining 

standards; scoping out the standards universe; and laying out a framework that 

allows us to differentiate standards for the purpose of analysis. 

How we define standards can have major implications. For example, business 

standard strategies will depend on the type standard at hand. If standards are 

set by a legislative body, as in the case of the DMCA, businesses will lobby to 

influence outcomes, whereas if standards are set in the marketplace, businesses 

will seek alliances with other like minded firms, or--given significant market 

power--employ competitive economic strategies to control standards outcomes. 

Similarly, governmental policy decisions will also differ depending on whether 

one’s reference is compatibility standards, safety standards, or environmental 

standards. For this reason, broad definitions of standards used in everyday 

speech are not very helpful. 

Hence, those who research standards typically formulate their definitions to 

conform to the specific questions to be asked and the problems to be solved. 

Economists, for example, generally seek to know how, and under what 

circumstances, standards are set in the marketplace. They tend to view 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

12

standards as an agreed upon set of specifications that define a particular product 

or that allow products to interoperate. Anthropologists, on the other hand, focus 

on questions of how individual interactions give rise to cultural norms. Thus, they 

view standards as the accepted rules of behavior that facilitate social 

interactions. Government policy makers are likely to consider standards as the 

means to address a societal concern or to achieve a social end. Thus, they often 

equate standards with regulations. 

However, our curriculum--Standards for Everyone-- requires an inclusive 

definition of standards that cuts across a wide array of activities. We need a 

definition that applies equally to the standard roles that bind organizations 

together as well as the standard products, currencies and prices that unify 

markets. Viewed in the abstract, standards can be said to negotiate the 

boundaries between diverse phenomena. They provide the rules, or protocols, to 

be followed in order for objects to interact. Hence we define standards as the 

interfaces governing interactions, be they individuals, machines, words, or 

elements of the natural world. Accordingly, standard interfaces might govern the 

mode of interactions; define the conditions under which interactions take place; 

and/or signify the appropriateness of interactions. For example, to connect to the 

Internet, one must employ the TCP/IP protocol. Alternatively, to drive on the 

highways, cars must meet national environmental emission standards. Likewise, 

to select produce, consumers might look to foods that conform to ‘organic’ 

standards. 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

13

Notwithstanding their universal nature, standards can be differentiated according 

to their purposes, as well as by how they are established. We identify three 

different kinds of standards: control standards, product standards, and platform 

standards. Likewise, we point to three standard setting mechanisms: a de facto 

process, a regulatory process, and a voluntary consensus process. These three 

kinds of standards and three different standards processed can be matched to 

form a matrix, which we have labeled The Standards Universe. 

The Standards Universe
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

14

Control standards are designed to constrain interactions either by forbidding an 

action; by establishing performance criteria that an interaction must meet; or by 

prescribing the method or design of an interaction. For example, early 

environmental quality standards on automobiles were design standards: they 

required that cars be equipped with a catalytic converter. Later standards, based 

on performance criteria left the design to the automaker, requiring only that 

certain emission levels not be breached. 

Product standards establish the conditions under and the criteria according to

which interactions take place. These standards typically relate to product 

attributes in terms of their quality, safety, and appropriateness for an intended 

purpose. A simple example of a product standard is the screw thread standard. 

The thread is a ridge wrapped around a cylinder or cone, which serves to convert 

between rotational and linear force. Supporting one of the most prolific machine 

products produced each year the screw thread standard was first developed as 

far back as 1880. 

Platform standards define the architecture that links objects one to another in a 

networked configuration. For example, TCP/IP is the primary standard that 

governs access to the Internet. Designed as an open standard, TCP/IP has 

spawned multiple on-line users and uses. Because platform standards are the 

foundation for higher-level activities, which ride atop the platform, they facilitate 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

15

innovation. Thus, for example, the World Wide Web was built atop of the Internet 

platform, while YouTube rides over the WEB. 

Each of these three types of standards can come about in one of three different 

ways. Some standards are unplanned; they emerge, from the bottom up, in the 

context of repeated interactions. For instance, imagine you are walking down the 

street, and you encounter a passerby coming in the opposite direction. If you are 

like most people, you will shift your step to the right, as will the passerby. Based 

on this learned standard of behavior, ingrained over time, each of you will limit 

your choice of action to avoid a collision. Such de facto standards also emerge 

in the market place, through iterations of consumer choices or because 

interested parties have successfully sponsored them. Nature, likewise, gives rise 

to de facto product standards through the evolutionary process of variation, 

selection, and replication. Thus, for example, flowers give off an electric current 

that has evolved over time, while the bee has coevolved to recognize the current 

as signaling the amount and quality of pollen to be harvested from that flower. 

Platform standards can also emerge from the bottom up, as the development of 

languages clearly attests. 

Many standards are prescribed from the top down by some legitimate authority. 

Thus, for example, the CEO of a firm can establish the formal roles that 

employees play, as well as the behavioral expectations associated with them. 

Such workplace standards are best illustrated in the classic 1955 movie, The 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

16

Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, in which the protagonist, played by Gregory Peck, 

struggles to maintain his independence in the face of the pressures of a 

dominant material culture. Governments, operating at all levels, also impose 

standards in a top down fashion so as to achieve public policy goals. Thus, they 

may set control standards to regulate emissions, product standards to assure 

safety, and platform standards to provide for interconnection. The demand for 

standards often coincides with the emergence of new, advanced technologies. 

Most recently, for example, the prospect of private drones has led Google to call 

for privacy standards to regulate them. In the United States, the government 

relies, when possible, on voluntary consensus organizations to develop 

standards, which are subsequently mandated by law. 

Midway between the market and the government is the voluntary consensus 

standards process, carried out in the private sector by standards development 

organizations (SDOs). This voluntary consensus process resembles top down 

processes insofar as voluntary standards derive their authority from the 

consensual process in which they are developed. However, voluntary consensus 

standards approximate market-based standards in that the influence that 

participants in the process exert to promote a standard often reflects their market 

power. 

In the United States, the first SDOs emerged to address the problems and issues 

associated with industrialization. New SDOs were formed in response to specific 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

17

needs as they arose. Hence they took a variety of forms, and operated 

independently of one another. Notwithstanding their independence, American 

standards organizations resemble one another in several ways. In particular, 

they all arrive at decisions through a process of consensus and provide some 

level of due process. In addition, they all have mechanisms for participation, 

comment, and appeal. In contrast to top down, prescribed standards, the 

adoption of SDO standards is voluntary. However, conformance to such 

standards is high, given the network externalities associated with a standard that 

has a wide spread appeal. 

This characterization of the Standards Universe provides a reference model for 

categorizing standards according to the problems they seek to address and the 

issues to which they give rise. As well, by depicting standards and standards 

processes according to a variety of dimensions, this reference model provides a 

basis for drawing new insights about standards based on a comparison of a 

broad range of contexts in which standards are developed. 

------------------

Standards: How the West Was Won

President Theodore Roosevelt’s four-volume account, The Winning of the West 

(1889-1896), colorfully details the drama, determination and daring adventures of 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

18

those pioneers, cowboys, and cavalry who led America’s expansion westward. 

Far less gripping and exhilarating, although no less significant, is the untold story 

of standards and how, operating under the radar, they contributed to this great 

westward expansion.

Recall that standards are interfaces that govern all interactions, whether between 

people, machines, or people and machines. With this idea in mind, picture the 

vast stretch of territory making up the North American continent. Imagine, then, 

the boundless number of standardized interactions required to pave the way 

west. Often ad hoc in nature and negotiated en route, standards became the 

infrastructure--or platform--upon which, and according to which, travelers

journeyed; battles were lost and won; trade was established; and a frontier 

culture was born. 

At the same time, the US westward expansion generated an ever-growing need 

for standards. As pioneers moved west, they built homesteads, set up mining 

claims, established general stores, banks, and other small businesses. While 

located far from the teeming economic activity in the East, these western 

enterprises were dependent on their far-flung eastern counterparts for supplies, 

market information, customers, etc. In turn, eastern establishments sought to 

increase their gains by expanding their markets westward. But, even though 

trading was in everyone’s interest, it was inhibited by a lack of market information 

and the uncertainties associated with doing business at a distance. Absent a 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

19

communication infrastructure that could provide adequate east-west feedback, 

standards specifying product information and the means of exchange, served to 

reduce uncertainty and thereby greatly expand trade. As trade increased, so did 

the scope and intensity of interactions, and hence the need for additional 

standards.

Not surprisingly, given this context, some of the most important standards 

developed during this period were those related to the communication of market 

information and the mechanisms of exchange. As the late James Beniger 

pointed out in his seminal work, The Control Revolution: Technologic and 

Economic Origins of the Information Society, market conditions and prices 

fluctuated widely from place to place. Lawlessness and opportunism were 

commonplace. To generate the stable conditions and levels of trust essential for 

trade to take place, standard economic processes and practices were required. 

Consider the standardized roles of the middlemen who managed the trading 

process. They were central in this regard. Included among these roles was that 

of the commission agent, or factor, who carried out business on behalf of a 

merchant in distant markets; the broker, who brought buyers and sellers 

together; the financiers who provided a credit network to cover the up-front costs 

of transporting, processing, and distributing goods, as well as retailers and other 

distributors, such as auctioneers and wholesale jobbers, the latter being of 

upmost importance in supplying western retailers. 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

20

Equally important were the standardized trading forms and formats that helped to 

regularize trade by providing greater predictability. Standard invoices, for 

example, were used to document sales. The bill of lading was employed not only 

as a receipt, but also as proof of ownership, as well as a negotiable instrument 

that could be traded for goods or used as collateral to back a loan. Equally 

significant were catalogs that displayed standardized products, and listed their 

fixed prices.

Formal institutions, which led to the standardization of business practices, 

emerged as well. Among these were common carriers--such as the postal 

service and the railroads, which--operating according to standardized procedures 

and a fixed schedule--allowed trade to take place on a consistent, periodic basis. 

Of equal consequence, according to Beniger, was the development of 

commercial law and legal precedents standardizing corporations; government 

prescriptions laying out a framework for interstate commerce; the chartering of 

insurance companies and commercial banks; businesses providing commercial 

credit ratings, and standardized ways to sort, grade, weigh, and inspect 

agricultural products, to name a few. 

Eighteenth century standards served not only to facilitate east-west trade; by 

conveying product information, they also provided greater quality control. One of 

the first product areas to benefit from standards was that of food. For example, 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

21

responding to scandals in the meat packing industry, Congress passed the Pure 

Food and Drug Act of 1906. This legislation not only protected against 

misbranding and food adulteration; it also standardized containers for marketing 

fruits and vegetables, thereby eliminating false measurements and deceptive 

shapes. 

When employed as trademarks, such quality standards increased the value of 

goods; they allowed producers to differentiate their products from those of their 

competitors, and to price products to different markets. To this end, American 

farmers played a major role in setting agricultural standards. They realized that 

by grading and classifying their products, they could set up separate distribution 

channels and increase their profits. Thus, when moving west, farmers labeled 

their products by their region of origin, while wholesalers used these names--

Goschen butter, Genessee flour, and Herkimer cheese--as designations of 

grade. By the end of the century, these quality standards efforts took the form of 

branding. Notable in this regard was Henry P. Cromwell’s success in packaging 

and advertising oats, previously considered fodder for animals, as a healthy 

breakfast cereal using the brand name Quaker. 

With the deployment of the telegraph and the completion, between 1851 and 

1854, of the four major trunk lines linking the East and West, one might say that 

the West was finally won. With the advent of steam powered railroads, activities 

and interactions that had once taken place at a snail’s pace were suddenly 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

22

accelerated, greatly increasing the flow of people, goods, innovations and 

investments to the West. But, it is well worth noting that the railroads, operating 

on such a vast scale, could not have played this role without a rash of new 

standards to alleviate the system’s complexity. As described by Beniger (----), 

these included not only standardized role assignments and operating 

procedures, but also innovations such as through bills of lading, standardized 

cars, uniform standard time, standardized track gauges, as well as standardized 

automatic couplers and air breaks.

We have seen how critical standards were to the US western expansion. In 

subsequent modules we will consider how lessons about standards from earlier 

periods can be applied to our understanding of their role in the expansion of the 

global economy.

--------------------

Standards: The Coin of the Realm

I’m old enough to remember penny candy. When growing up, I was a frequenter 

at the store around the corner from my house where one could buy newspapers, 

comic books, soda pops, and, yes, penny candy. While my friends browsed the 

comics, I surveyed the candies, spread out on the counter much like colorful 

jewels. My favorites were the sugar dots lined up in rows and columns on long 

strips of paper. As I nibbled on the dots, making new patterns with each bite, I 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

23

marveled at the treasure one penny could buy. How things have changed! 

Today’s merchants are often willing to round out a bill just to avoid dealing with 

pennies. And despite the ‘good luck’ associated with them, people rarely stoop 

to pick a penny up. 

The changing value of a penny makes one stop to wonder. What are coins? 

Where did they come from? How is their valued determined? What is their 

relationship to money? To answer these questions, we need to think, once 

again, about standards. For coins are standards of value that govern 

interactions. 

Although economists have typically interpreted the value of coins solely in terms 

of their convenience for market exchange, more recent scholars show that 

money and coinage are far more multifaceted than that. In fact, as Ash Amin and 

Nigel Thrift tell us, the origin of coins is rooted not in the marketplace, but rather 

in social and cultural relationships. As telling, coinage only emerged and was 

widely disseminated given the rise of centers of power and authority--be they 

cities, religious institutions, or empires. To understand coinage in its entirely, 

therefore, we need to assume a more interdisciplinary perspective, one that 

emphasizes all of the mediating aspects of standards that are described in the 

module, The Standards Universe. 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

24

To appreciate the role of coinage as a broad-spectrum standard, let’s consider, 

first, the more narrow, economic perspective, which attributes the emergence of 

coinage--that is to say, commodity money--to interactions in the limited sphere of 

the marketplace. I first heard this account, years ago, when studying 

neoclassical economics based on Paul Samuelson’s classic text, Economics: An 

Introductory Analysis, first published in 1948. 

In my day, this text served as the font of all undergraduate microeconomic 

wisdom. In making his case, Samuelson employed a functional argument, based 

on methodological individualism. Accordingly, he posited that individuals, 

interacting in the market, and pursuing their own self-interest, logically 

progressed from bartering goods and services to a trading system based on 

coinage--that is to say, commodity money pegged to a common standard. 

Samuelson contended that this evolutionary path occurred spontaneously, driven 

by the desire for convenience, greater efficiency, and a reduction in transaction 

costs. It is noteworthy, in passing, that the scenario Samuelson described 

mirrors today’s de facto standards process, insofar as it relies, in some form or 

another, on self-organization, or--one might say--the invisible hand. In so doing, 

it seeks to explain the past in terms of today’s institutional structures--somewhat 

of a problem, as we shall see. 

Samuelson’s account has not gone unchallenged, however. More recent, 

evidence-based, archaeologically and historically oriented scholars point to a 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

25

number of deficiencies in its logic. These scholars contend that, in contrast to a 

bottom-up process, coinage was established through a top- down process, via 

the imprimatur of some legitimate authority. Randall Wray’s (1999) critique is 

especially telling in this regard. Noting that choosing a medium of exchange 

requires common consent, Wray questions whether, and how, early societies 

might have coordinated the building of a consensus, favoring one coin over 

another, especially given the lack of a preexisting market. How, he asks, could 

an agreement come about, given the broad range of candidate objects ranging 

from barley, porpoise teeth, sea shells, to various metals, each of which might 

have served just as well--and often did--as a monetary standard. 

Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift provide an alternative vision. They point out that 

money emerged in many cases as a means of governing social interactions and 

cultural practices long before it was used in market exchange. Coins were 

employed, for example, as bride and blood money, as ceremonial objects, and 

for religious purposes. Moreover, as Amin and Thrift attest, the advent of 

coinage was far from spontaneous; rather it was associated with the rise of 

institutional structures that could legitimate coins and attest to their value. That 

explains why minted coins that were guaranteed by governing powers were more 

highly valued than the actual metal--be if bronze, silver, or gold--that constituted 

them. 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

26

Early Athenian coins, for example, said to be the first commodity coins produced, 

provide insights about the complex role of coins as standards. The most 

prominent Athenian coins, the tetradrachm were standardized not only by weight 

but also by the state images featuring the head of Athena on the obverse side 

and the owl and olive spray on the reverse. These coins were first produced in 

the mid-sixth century, when an extraordinarily rich vein of silver ore was 

discovered in the Laurion area of southeast Attica. They served to regulate both 

social and economic interactions. That these coins were able to serve, equally, 

as social and economic standards was due in part to their origins in the Greek 

polis. As Peacock (----) emphasizes, just as the developing state played a key 

role in the emergence of coinage, so too did Athenian coinage play a major part 

in enhancing the legitimacy and power of the state. As the polis gained in 

authority, taking on both administrative and judicial roles, it laid claim to taxes, as 

well as allocated money to pay public officials and settle private disputes. To 

execute its roles in a fair and just manner, the polis needed a standard medium 

of exchange. What better medium than coinage?

Athenian coinage gained what today’s standard experts would describe as a first 

mover advantage. By requiring that all debits and receipts be made in Athenian 

coinage, the state created a critical mass of users who then became locked-in to 

the use of Athenian coins. Athenian coinage increased in value not only 

because of the growing number of users, but also because the state’s stamp 

served as a sign of the coins’ redeemability. The popularity of Athenian coinage 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

27

was enhanced even further, when its standardized form was enshrined in law in 

the late 4th century under the Athenian Declaration on Coinage And Standards. 

This declaration required that all coin within the Athenian territory be reminted 

and converted into Athenian coin. Not surprisingly, by 490 BC, Athenian mints 

were mass-producing the tetradachm to meet the growing demand of much of 

the Mediterranean world. In so doing, they provided a major boost to the 

Athenian economy. As John Kroll (----) describes it: “Athens’ silver industry 

effectively functioned as an ‘industry of money.’ “ But, even as Athenian coinage 

promoted trade and development, it also--and as importantly--fostered political 

unity at home, as well as tremendous political prestige and imperial expansion 

abroad.

 

Looking much later at the evolution of coinage in late Iron Age Britain--that is 

from the late second century BC to the Roman annexation by Claudius in AD 43-

-we can gain a better appreciation of the symbolic role that early coins played in 

integrating a community and sustaining an institutional authority. John Creighton, 

in his book Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain (----), provides a detailed 

account. As he points out, Britain in the late Iron Age was characterized by 

turbulence, due to border incursions from the continent and the rise of an elite 

group of warring individuals, who together with their comitatus, or loyal body of 

horsemen, jockeyed among themselves for power. The leaders of these groups 

lavishly bestowed coins and other gifts, such as rings and torcs, on their 

followers in order to recruit and retain them. Power and influence was 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

28

thereupon accorded to those who exhibited the greatest wealth and number of 

clientele. Horses played a central role in the social structure, as attested to not 

only by a growing equestrian material culture, but also by the imprinting of the 

man/horse’s image, albeit incrementally modified over time, on the series of 

coins associated with this period. According to Creighton, this image 

legitimated the leader by metaphorically linking him to the spiritual world. 

Moreover, evidence suggests that, given the artistic and technical skill required to 

mint these coins, their production was carried out through spiritual rituals, 

practiced over generations and executed by a special class of shamans, such as 

the druids. As Creighton contends: 

I believe the horse/man image denotes the right to rule through the 

alliance of a leader and nature, represented by the horse. Since in many 

ways this is a mystical union, the development of this imagery along lines 

associated with altered states of consciousness should not be seen as 

particularly surprising (53)

Looking at the standardization of coinage from an historical perspective provides 

some useful insights for the study of standardization today. Much of the existing 

standards literature is theoretical, based on tools that are derived from 

microeconomics and game theory. Often it seeks to apply universal theories to 

site-specific problems. The history of the evolution of coinage suggests, however, 

that standards emerge out of unique social and political contexts, which must be 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

29

taken into account. Recognizing this fact is evermore important today, as we 

strive to develop new, cutting edge standards, as for example, those governing 

financial transactions and interactions, in an increasingly global society. 

References

Creighton, John (2000) Coins and Power in Late Iron Age Britain, Cambridge, 

UK: Cambridge University Press. 

John H. Kroll (1993) “What About Coinage,” chapter 8, in John H. Kroll and 

Alan S. Walker, The Greek Coins, Princeton, NJ: The American School of 

Classical Studies at Athens. 

Peacock, Mark (2006) “The Origins of money in Ancient Greece: the political 

economy of coinage and exchange,” Cambridge Journal of Economics, 30, 637-

650.

Samuelson, Paul (1973) Economics, 9th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 

Thrift, Nigel and Amin, Ash 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

30

Wray, L. Randall (Summer 1999) “An irreverent overview of the history of money 

from the beginning of the beginning through to the present.” Journal Of Post 

Keynesian Economics, v, 21, n. 4: 670-687. P. 1.

------------------------

Standards: The Building Blocks of Life

We have seen that standards play a central role in every day life. In this essay, 

we explore the role that standards have played in the evolution of life itself. As 

we shall see, just as living creatures, natural phenomena, and artifacts coevolved 

in relationship to a changing environment, so too did the standards and protocols 

that linked them together. In fact, as the complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman tells 

us in his book, At Home in the Universe (1995), it was only by virtue of the 

standard interfaces inherent in the universe that the diverse entities that 

comprise all phenomena were able to interact, repair, coevolve, and recreate 

themselves. According to Kauffman (1995), it is the laws of the Universe, 

embodied in these standards that have given it its natural, hidden 

order. Although we are as yet far from understanding all of these laws, we know 

that they account for the complexity of the universe, as well as signature patterns 

such as oscillations, power laws, and phase transitions (Beinhocker, 2006). Most

importantly, these standards provide the platform upon which evolution takes 

place (Kauffman, 2008). 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

31

How did these standards come about, and what role do they play in facilitating 

life’s processes? According to Kauffman (1995), standardized rules, as reflected 

in the behavior of cells--the constituents of all living things--facilitated the 

autocatalytic processes that spawned life on our planet. Autocatalysis is a 

chemical process by which the interaction among chemicals generates a product 

that is itself a catalyst for the very same reaction. According to Kauffman, given 

enough diversity among life’s elements, all serving as both products and 

catalysts, and operating according to prescribed rules, life emerged--as in a 

phase transition--in one fell swoop. With adequate inputs of energy and food 

molecules, life’s processes became self-sustaining. 

What about human beings? Where do we fit in? Do we exhibit autocatalytic 

processes? Do we function according to some preexisting rules? Are we 

standardized? Well, while we can differentiate ourselves from other species 

according to any number of variables, we share many standardized 

characteristics. One need only reflect upon our anatomical structures. As David 

Godsell points out in his book, The Machinery of Life, creatures as diverse as 

birds and mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish have similar digestive and 

nervous systems, as well as an architecture that configures all bones and 

muscles around a head, torso, and four limbs (Goodsell, 2010). As significantly, 

when we hone in on the cellular and molecular levels, we encounter an even 

deeper resemblance among all living things. In fact, it is such commonalities in 

our make-ups that have allowed scientists to draw inferences and derive insights 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

32

about human beings based on their research of such diverse entities as plants, 

animals, and bacteria. 

To appreciate the role of standards in the make up and functioning of life, let’s 

look more closely at the cell, where we can grasp a clear picture of a rule-based, 

emergent order. Cells are non-equilibrium, complex adaptive systems that 

evolve based on rules, which have evolved, from the bottom up, in response to 

the actions of their component parts, as well as to their changing environments. 

Cells are made up of different types of molecules, which are comprised in turn of 

the atoms carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorous, and 

hydrogen. Notwithstanding this limited range of materials, these molecules, 

which are mostly proteins, can combine and recombine in a variety of ways 

depending on their chemical makeup. Each specific configuration allows the 

molecules to carry out distinct functions necessary to the survival of the cell. The 

specifications--or one might say, the standards--for their behavior and replication 

are housed for the most part in the nucleus of the cell, where they are encoded in 

nucleic acid, more generally known as DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) and RNA 

(Ribonucleic Acid). 

Looking at the overall functioning of cells, Goodsell (2010) describes them as 

molecular machines. Like the standardized, interchangeable parts of modern 

machines, the components of molecular machines connect with each other when 

their parts--defined by their chemical make up--fit snuggly together. Although 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

33

molecules encounter one another randomly when swimming in the cell’s fluid 

environment, they only bind together when the interaction is complementary--that 

is to say, when their interfaces are perfectly matched to a common 

standard. Proteins serve as enzymes that function to speed up the process. The 

combinations and configurations of molecules within the cell are optimized to 

perform specialized roles. To expand their behavioral repertoires, molecules can 

be connected to divergent molecules when they are linked together via specific 

chemical interactions and/or salt bridges that serve--much like a modem in a 

communication network--to translate between incompatible interfaces. Water in 

the cell also affects the make-up and behavior of molecular machines. Whereas 

some molecules are attracted to water, others are repelled by it. Drop a teaspoon 

of oil in a bowl of water, and you will see what I mean. Depending on how 

molecules interact with water, they can be attuned to perform specialized tasks. 

Of course, one of the most important functions of cells is their preservation and 

replication. It is here that DNA and RNA--the so-called library of life--play a 

decisive role. DNA is comprised of two long polymers made up of simple units 

called nucleotides. These are attached along a backbone made of sugar and a 

phosphate group. The two strands of DNA, which consist of four bases--adenine 

(A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T)--line up to one another in 

opposite directions but in a complementary fashion. Hence, A is always aligned 

with T, while C is always aligned with G. The specifications, which are encoded 

in the sequences of these bases, constitute the genetic information that 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

34

determines the make up and behavior not only of the molecules in a cell, but also 

the cell’s offspring. The code is transferred, read and transcribed by copying 

segments of DNA into the associated RNA nucleic acid, where it is then 

translated into proteins. When cells divide, the chromosome, which contain 

much of an organism’s genetic information, are duplicated, so that each new cell 

contains a complete set of chromosomes with specifications for the unfolding of 

subsequent cells. The information does not, however, serve as a top-down 

prescription for the next generation. As Steven Johnson points out in 

Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software (2001), 

cells make choices about how to implement the genetic script, based on the 

activities of other cells in their neighborhood. It is a bottom up, emergent 

process. 

. 

As we move up the hierarchy of livings things, we observe similar emergent 

patterns derived from routine, standardized behavior. Consider, for instance, the 

humble slime mold described by Steven Johnson. Slime molds are amoeba like 

globular organisms that typically can be found in the wet areas of the forest on 

decaying logs, or in piles of leaves on the forest floor. Although slime molds lack 

cognitive abilities, they respond to their environments in predetermined and 

predictable ways. When food is readily available they converge and become a 

single glob; however, when faced with scarcity, they desert the pack and proceed 

on their own separate ways. How does this happen? Given their limited 

intelligence, how does the slime mold know when to come and go? You might be 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

35

surprised. It took scientists some time to realize that there was no central 

commander in charge to tell the slime mold what to do. Instead, slime mold 

behavior is a bottom up, emergent process, in which standardized rules and 

signals are repeatedly at work. Depending on whether there is feast or famine, 

individual slime molds alter the amount of the pheromone ANP that they secrete, 

which--much like the switches in a computer--signal to other slime molds which 

route to take (Johnson, 2001). 

Interactions among diverse species likewise exhibit a hidden order based on 

emergent, rule-based, self-reinforcing behavior. A recent discovery made by 

researchers at the University of Bristol is illustrative in this regard. Looking at the 

relationship between flowers and bees, the researchers found that, flowers 

employ not only their bright colors, the attractive patterns in their petals, and their 

sweet aroma to romance the bees; they also seek to attract them via their 

electrical fields. As Young (2013) recounts in his coverage of this new research, 

bees typically carry a positive charge, whereas flowers carry a negative one. As 

the bee approaches the flower, the flower greets it with a release of pollen that 

contains important electronic information about the quality and quantity of nectar 

to be found in the flower. And by most accounts, flowers don’t lie! As 

importantly, once the bee has pollinated the flower, its changes the flower’s 

electrical charge, so that other bees will know that the flower is no longer a good 

source of pollen.
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

36

This type of rule-based, emergent order is ubiquitous in all complex systems; it is 

to be found not only in all life forms, but also in the ways that organization takes 

place, be it in ecosystems, the human brain, cities, markets, and technologies--all 

subjects of other modules in this series. Stuart Kauffman (1995) calls this type of 

self-organization order for free, and claims that it is essential for evolutionary 

processes to take place. As he contends, if the changes brought about by 

evolutionary selection are not to lead to system chaos, then selection must 

operate on a platform that is both stable and flexible--that is, order at the edge of 

chaos--a location that, in fact, evolution selects for. 

Understanding the role of standards in the life process yields some important 

lessons for the study of standards and standardization today. Many studies of 

standards are presently based on case studies that focus on single component 

technologies, individual or firm entities, or single standard setting events. Their 

aim is often to determine how X standard was chosen from among alternative 

others as well as how businesses might best position themselves in standards 

processes so as to become more innovative and/or gain a competitive 

advantage. However, our brief look at life’s standards suggests that a more 

holistic analytic approach is in order. For, just as life emerges from the collective 

interactions of a wide array of molecules, proteins, etc.--each performing their 

own standardized roles--so too do technologies, organizations, cities, and 

cultures. To fully grasp the role of standards, their evolution, and their impacts, 

we need to paint with a broader brush, one that captures not simple a specific 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

37

standard, but also its relationship to the standards in its community as well as its 

environment (Brian Arthur, 2009). 

There is an even broader significance to appreciating the role standards play in 

the emergence of living things. For years, social scientists have struggled to link 

behavior at the local level to that of outcomes at the global level, but to little 

avail. One problem has been dealing with complexity and the non-linearity of 

processes as they evolve over time and in different contexts. Perhaps standards 

could provide the missing key to linking the micro and macro levels without 

sacrificing our notions of the complex, hidden order. By identifying the interfaces 

across diverse boundaries, whether they are cellular membranes or national 

borders, standards both facilitate and help account for transitions and 

adaptations over time and space. 

References

Arthur, Brian (2009) The Nature of Technology: What It Is, and How It Works, 

New York, NY: Free Press.

Barnes, Barry and Dupre, John (2008) Genomes And What To Make of Them, 

Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press.

Beinhocker, Ericc D. (2006) Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

38

Bray, Dennis (2009) Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell, New Haven, CT: 

Yale University Press. 

Goodsell, David S. (2010) The Machinery of Life, second edition., New York, NY: 

Springer Science +Business Media.

Johnson, Steven (2001) Emergence, The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, 

Cities, and Software, New York, NY: Touchstone. 

Kauffman, Stuart (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for the Laws of 

Self- Organization, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

Kauffman, Stuart (2008) Reinventing the Sacred, New York, New York: Basic 

Books. 

Young, Ed, “Bees Can Sense the electrical Fields of Flowers,” National 

Geographic, Phenomena: Not Exactly Rocket Science, 

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/02/21/bees-can-sense-theelectric-fields-of-flowers/ , visited June 4, 2013. 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

39

What’s New? Platform Standards and Innovation

D. Linda Garcia, PhD. Georgetown University

“The thing that hath been it is that which shall be, and that which is done is that which 

shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastics 1:9, King James 

Bible). As can be seen from the Old Testament, creativity during the early Hebrew 

period, as well as long before, was considered the sole prerogative of God. As Weiner 

describes, because God had established the world ex nihilo, all subsequent creations 

were considered to be bi-products of God’s handiwork. Given this Biblical perspective, 

innovation was disparaged, and creators’ efforts went unrewarded (Montuori and Purser, 

1995; Weiner, 2000; Sawyer, 2006, 13-14).

Notwithstanding the admonitions of the Book, the world has, beginning in the midseventeenth century, witnessed a greatly accelerated rate of invention and innovation

(Johnson, 2009). Speaking in 1965 about the accelerating change in the semiconductor 

industry, Gordon E. Moore, the co-founder of Intel Corporation, predicted that the 

number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit would double approximately every two 

years, a prediction that has proven true at least until the present (Moore’s Law, 

Wikipedia). Rae Kurzweil then extended Moore’s notion to include all technological 

progress. As he claimed in his 2001 essay, “The Law of Accelerating Returns”:

The history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, 

contrary to the commonsense ‘intuitive linear’ view. So we won’t experience 100 

years of progress in the 21st century—it will be more like 20,000 years of 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

40

progress (at today’s rate) (http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-acceleratingreturns).

How do we account for the exponential growth of inventiveness? Can we reconcile the 

biblical idea that there is nothing new under the sun with this continuous surge of 

creativity? Might standards help solve the puzzle? Might not they play a role in bridging 

the old world and the new? Might not they be the infrastructure for evolution itself? I 

think so. For, according to our definition of standards, they are the interfaces that link 

things together, even the past and the future. And, as we shall see, inventions and 

innovations are all about making these linkages (Johnson, 2010, 46; Arthur 2009).

Brian Arthur, for one, shows us how. In his book, The Nature of Technology: What it is 

and How it Evolves (2009), Arthur asks the question: “Where does technology come 

from?” His answer is somewhat surprising. Technology, he argues, begets itself. 

Hence, notwithstanding rapid technological advances, there is—as in the biblical 

sense—nothing new under the sun. Arthur’s contention merits further inquiry.

According to Arthur, technologies are designed to take advantage of some natural 

phenomenon—such as electricity, the sun’s energy, etc. and, based on some principle, 

turn it to a useful purpose. As he says, “A technology is a programming of phenomenon 

to our purposes” (Arthur, 2009, 51). 

Technologies, moreover, are modular; they are made up of a central assembly of 

interconnected technologies, each of which is supported by a number of sub-assemblies 

of technologies that are sustained--in turn--by sub-sub-assemblies of technologies on 

down to the last module (Arthur, 2009, 32-35). Because these modular parts are 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

41

configured to work seamlessly with one another, technologies can easily be reconfigured

and used to build other new technologies (Arthur, 2009, 42, 43). Designed in this way, 

“technology becomes a complex of interactive processes—a complex of captured 

phenomena—supporting each other, ‘conversing’ with each other, ‘calling’ each other 

much as subroutines in computer programs call each other” (Arthur, 2009, p. 55). 

Of course, for any communication act to take place, there must be—as in language—

standard protocols. The modules serve this purpose. Over time, says Arthur, modules 

become standardized units that serve as mechanisms of heredity, linking the past and 

the present. By combining standardized modules in new ways, innovative technologies 

can be created that serve new purposes (Arthur, 2009, 37). It is in this way that Arthur 

accounts for the accelerating pace of technological change. As he says, the larger the 

store of previous technology modules, the more possibilities there are for assembling 

new technologies (Arthur, 2009}. When technology is viewed in this way, it appears to 

be not just a working object; rather, given standard interfaces, technology is a whole 

ecology of living objects that evolve over time through their combination and 

recombination in novel ways (Arthur, 2009). 

As Arthur describes, as technologies evolve, they create platforms upon which higher 

level and more complex technologies can flourish. (Arthur, 2009; Gawer, et al., 2009; 

Johnson, 2010). It is standards that provide the interfaces that facilitate and govern 

these linkages. Moreover, because standard platforms can be reused to create a broad 

array of products and processes, they are the source of economies of scale and scope 

as well as positive externalities. As described by Baldwin and Woodward:

A platform architecture partitions a system into stable core components and 

variable peripheral components. By promoting the reuse of core components, 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

42

such partitioning can reduce the cost of variety and innovation at the system 

level. The whole system does not have to be invented or rebuilt from scratch to 

generate a new product, accommodate heterogeneous tastes, or respond to 

change in the external environment (2009, 19). 

To appreciate how platforms add value one need only consider the Internet’s layered 

construction. The initial TCP/IP protocol, developed under the auspices of ARPA, not 

only provided a platform that bred a critical mass of users and applications; it also 

spawned the emergence of higher level platforms riding atop it, such as browsers, 

YouTube, and Facebook, each of which generated additional externalities (Johnson, 

2009, 130; Garcia, 2015 forthcoming). 

Nowhere is the innovative role of standards platforms more evident than in the biological 

world, where creativity and evolution is the norm. Consider, for instance, coral reefs 

made up of tiny coral that, simply by going about their own business, create the 

scaffolding that houses and feeds so many other ocean creatures. As Johnson 

describes: 

The tiny Sceractina polip isn’t actively trying to create an underwater Las Vegas . 

. .Nonetheless out of its steady labor-imbibing algae and erecting those aragonite 

skeletons—a higher level system emerges. What has been a largely desolate 

stretch of nutrient-poor seawater is transformed into a glittering hub of activity 

(Johnson, 124-5).

Biologist and complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman (1995) explains why these emergent, 

standards-based platforms are necessary for evolution. As he notes, if changes in 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

43

species were to occur in an unstable environment, chaos would ensue. On the other 

hand, a rigid environment would preclude any changes at all. Evolution takes place at 

the edge of randomness and order, a condition that standards—given their relative 

flexibility—provide for (Kauffman, 1995; Baldwin and Woodward, 2009). As importantly, 

because platform standards generate changes from the bottom up, outcomes at the 

macro level encompass system-wide learning and adaptations (Kontopoulos, 1993; 

Monge and Contractor, 2003; Beinhocker, 2005). 

While Arthur tells us how standards platforms foster new technologies; and Kauffman 

explains how they generate new species; Powell and Padgett (2011) describe how 

standards platforms promote the evolution of new organizational forms and business 

models. The authors show that organizational innovations takes place when there are 

spillovers across diverse domains. As they explain, the sharing of knowledge and 

practices across different domains engenders the emergence of new standards of 

behavior, which over time form the basis of innovative business cultures. They are quick 

to point out, however, that what allows diverse domains to collaborate is the existence of 

an ‘anchor tenant.’ If the anchor tenant is open and amenable to multiple business 

approaches, it can serve, much like the coral reef, to attract and accommodate a variety 

of new and diverse business practices (Powell and Padgett, 2011). 

These depictions of standards platforms contradict the long-held view that standards 

impede innovation. The argument against standardization is based on the fact that 

standards generate positive externalities and network effects (Arthur, 1983; David, 1984; 

Farrell and Saloner, 1985; Grewal, 2011). Accordingly, as more and more users adopt a 

standard, it value continues to increase, leading to the standard’s adoption in evergreater numbers. Such a ‘bandwagon’ effect (Rolfs, 2001), it is said, sets a standard on 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

44

a self-perpetuating trajectory whereby alternative standards are eliminated; users are 

locked in to a single approach; and innovation is thus greatly impeded. 

Our evolutionary perspective suggests, however, that such an outcome need not ensue. 

In the case of evolution, the setting of platform standards is an open, flexible, and 

constantly adapting process. As such, it is the fulcrum of diversity. There is an important 

lesson here. For platform standards to foster innovation, the architecture of the 

standardization process as well as the standards themselves must be much the same, 

open, flexible, and extendable. (Grewal, 2011; Johnson, 2009) 

References

Arthur, Brian (2009) The Evolution of Technology, \ 

Arthur, W, B. Brian (1983) “On Competing Technologies and Historical Small Events: 

The Dynamics of Choice Under Increasing Returns,” Mimeo, Stanford University. 

Baldwin, Carliss Y. and C. Jason Woodward, “The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified 

View, in Gawer, Annabelle, ed. (2009) Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, 

UK, Edward Elgar. 

Beinhocker (2006) The Origin of Wealth, Evolution, Complexity, and the Radical 

Remaking of Economics. Cambridge, MA, Harvard Business School Press. 

David, P. A. (1984) “Understanding the Economics of QUERTY, or Is History 

Necessary?” Mimeo, Stanford University. 

Ecclesiastics 1:9, King James Bible). 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

45

Farrell, Joseph and Saloner, Garth (Spring, 1985), “Standards, compatibility, and 

innovation,” Rand Journal of Economics, vol 16, n. 1, pp. 70-83.

Garcia, Dorothy Linda (2015 forthcoming) “The Evolution of the Internet—A 

Socioeconomic Account,” in J. M. Bauer and M. Latzer, eds (2015) Handbook on the 

Economics of the Internet, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. 

Gawer, Annabelle, ed (2009) Platforms, Markets and Innovation, Cheltenham, UK: 

Edward Elgar. 

Grewal, David Singh (2008) Network Power: The Social Dynamics of Globalization, Ann 

Arbor, Michigan, Sheridan Books.

Johnson, Steven (2010) Where Do Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of 

Innovation, New York, NY: Bloomsberg.

Kauffman, Stuart (1995) At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of SelfOrganization and Complexity, New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Kurzweil, Ray (2001) http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns).

Kontopoulos, K.M. (1993) The Logic of Social Structure. New York, NY: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Monge, P and Contractor, N. (2003) Theories of Communication Networks. New York, 

NY: Oxford University Press. 

Montuori, Alfonso and Ronald E. Purser, “Deconstructing the Lone Genius Myth: 

Towards a Contextual View of Creativy,” Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 35-69/

Padgett, John F and Walter W. Powell (2012) The Emergence of Organizations and 

Markets, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. 

Rolfs, J (2001) Bandwagon Effects in High Technology Industries (Cambridge, MA; MIT 

Press. 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

46

Sawyer, Keith (2006) Exploring Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. Oxford, 

UK: Oxford University Press. 

Weiner, Robert Paul (2000) Creativity and Beyond: Cultures, Values and Change. 

Albany, NY. State University of Stonybrook Press. 

Standards & Identity: Who Are You

I recall the time several years ago, when I was making a presentation to a conference in 

Japan on standard setting. It was my first trip to Japan, and I didn’t quite know what to 

expect. To screw up my courage and buffer my morale, I donned a brand new outfit, 

decorated with feminine frills accented by a stylish pair of pumps. The speech went 

exceptionally well, and I returned how, brimming with pride. Not long thereafter, I 

received some nice photos of the event. What a surprise! Despite my efforts to portray a 

certain image of myself, the photos of me were labeled Mr. Garcia. Apparently, I had 

little control over my identity; how I was defined, it turned out, had little to do with my 

appearance and everything to the role that I played as a ‘standards expert’—a role 

clearly associated in Japan with the masculine sex. 

I had not remembered this experience until this morning when reading The New York 

Times. From a piece written by Didi Kirsten Tatlow entitled, “IN China, a Respected Ms 

May be Labeled Mr.,” I learned that in China today, female opinion leaders and scholars 

are referred to in masculine terms. In fact, such labels are considered a sign of 

respective. As described by David Moser, a Chinese language specialist, “Sometimes a 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

47

women just has to be one of the guys” (as quoted by Tatlos, A7). It seems that in Japan I 

had met the standard for ‘standards expert,’ but failed to live up the standard for 

women. 

Thinking along these lines, I am reminded of Alice’s encounter with the 

Caterpillar during her adventures in Wonderland. You might recall the instance as 

well.

The Caterpillar and Alice looked at each other for some time in silence: at last

The Caterpillar took the hookah out of its mouth, and addressed her in a languid, 

sleepy voice.

‘Who are YOU?’ said the Caterpillar. This was not an encouraging opening for a 

conversation. Alice replied, rather shyly, “I hardly know, sir, just at present--at 

least I know who I was when I got up this morning, but I think I must have been 

changed several times since then.”

‘What do you mean by that?’ Said the Caterpillar sternly. ‘Explain yourself!’

‘I can’t explain MYSELF, I’m afraid, sir’ said Alice, ‘because I am not myself, 

you see.’ I don’t see, said the Caterpillar.

‘I am afraid I can’t put it more clearly, ‘Alice replied very politely, ‘for I can’t 

understand it myself to begin with; and being so many different sizes in a day is 

very confusing,’ (Lewis Carroll, 2009 )

Alice’s problem--believe it or not--was a one of standards. In that strange, wacky 

Wonderland, Alice lacked a common standard against which to define herself. In 

today’s terminology, Alice was experiencing an “identify crisis” (Erikson, 1968). 

Much as I had witnessed during my trip to Japan, Alice became unsure about her 

identity when she found herself uprooted and in a strange environment in which 

her physical persona was in constant flux. What does this say about our identities? 

Like Alice, in today’s interconn1ected global society, we find ourselves playing 

increasingly diverse, and often conflicting, roles. How do we manage our personal 

identities in such a complex world? Does viewing our identities as “standards,’ 

help us to figure this out?

While we can easily understand the role that standards play in determining the 

identity of a thing, as for example in the case of a product description, it is 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

48

somewhat more difficult--especially if we are technologists--to think about the 

role standards play in identifying people in standardized terms. After all, we pride 

ourselves in fostering individualism as well as diversity! But, in fact, even in 

today’s individualist culture, it is standard identities (or roles) that provide the 

interfaces that allow us to interact and cooperate with one another. For in any 

given societal context, individuals occupy positions that carry with them a 

complex set of role expectations defining appropriate behavior, obligations, and 

values (Merton, 1949; Biddle, 1986; Burke and Stets, 2009). Individuals form 

their identities by taking on and performing standard roles from the repertoire that, 

in the context in which they are situated, are available to them. Individuals 

recognize each other and develop expectations about each other based on the 

identity roles that each chooses to play. It is in this way that coordination takes 

place.

How does this all come about? According to psychological identity theories 

grounded in the works of Erik Erikson (1968), and sociological identity theories 

based on the symbolic interactionism of George Herbert Mead (1934) and Herbert 

Blumer (1969), identity formation is the product of three components: the core 

personality, the self in interaction, and the social structure in which interaction 

takes place (Cote and Levine, 2002, 30). Individuals define themselves not only by 

virtue of their unique “core” personal characteristics but also, and perhaps more 

importantly, by reflecting upon and adapting to how, in any given situation, others 

perceive them and communicate their role expectations in the course of 

meaningful communication acts, which is to say, “symbolic interaction.” In the 

process, the self becomes encapsulated as a symbol or standard (Burke and Stets, 

2009, 10).

Although not formally associated with symbolic interactionism, Erving Goffman’s 

view of identity formation is in many ways consistent with it. In fact, Goffman 

goes so far as to use a theatrical metaphor to describe the process of symbolic 

interaction. In his schema, the individual (actor) performs certain roles, during 

which he strives to frame his image and the situation so as to gain approval from 

his audience, while “others” in the audience are doing the same. In contrast to 

Mead and Blumer’s emphasis on individuals ‘taking on’ societal roles, Goffman 

claims that actors gain agency by consciously manipulating their performances--

through their appearances, demeanors, and behaviors--to construct a mutually 

agreeable role (Goffman, 1959). Of course, the extent to which individuals can do 

so will depend not only on the specific context, but also on the resources (identity 

capital) available to them, a point that Stryker and Serpe (1982) emphasize in their 

exposition of “structural symbolic interaction.”

Based on these analytical perspectives, we can see how identity constitutes a 

negotiated standard attached to a particular role, position, or thing, which is the 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

49

product of meaningful symbolic communication that occurs within a specific, 

structured social situation (Burke and Stets, 2009, 4). Hence, our identities--like 

all standards--serve as interfaces that mediate our relationships to society (Burke 

and Stets, 2009, 4; Hogg, et al, 1995). By adopting socially agreed upon identity 

roles, individuals determine with what/ whom and how they are able to interact. 

This relationship between individual selves and social structure is reciprocal. At 

any one time, the roles available to us reflect the structure of society, which can be 

conceived of as a web of interdependent roles, whereas how we perform our roles 

will serve either to reinforce or to undermine this structure (Stryker and Serpe, 

1982, 206; Burke and Stets, 2009).

Not surprisingly, therefore, the repertoire of available roles and the way they are 

allocated among a population has differed significantly from situation to situation 

and from society to society (Taylor, 1989). Thus in Roman times, roles were 

associated with a hierarchical social pyramid of legal statuses, each rung being 

linked to a distinct social style reflected in clothing, art and architecture (Stewart, 

2008, p. 40). In the Middle Ages, chaos reigned, but a semblance of stability was 

maintained through strict adherence to prescribed roles and relationships as 

established by the chivalric code, monastic life, and long-standing traditions based 

on feuds, blood ties and gift exchanges (Becker, 1981, 4; Huizinga, 1999, 1). The 

Renaissance witnessed a more individualist, open-ended approach to role 

formation due in part to the proliferation of the bourgeoisie statuses that 

accompanied the rise of a mercantile culture. Linking these identities together 

Italian humanists provided a common script that defined codes of behavior for all 

Renaissance Italians, while the literati wrote extensive treatises, such as 

Machiavelli’s The Prince, outlining the behavior expected for specific roles 

(Kristeller, 1990). During the Enlightenment, the search for universal scientific 

facts based on observation and reason rather than religious precepts and tradition 

led to efforts to classify all phenomena according to common, standardized 

definitions, the prime example being Diderot’s Encyclopedie (Gay, 1977). At the 

same time, new role identities proliferated due to greater specialization and a 

deepening division of the labor (Burke and Stets, 2009, 45). These trends 

intensified during the Industrial Revolution, so much so in fact that formal 

standard setting arrangements became required to designate and define the 

growing number of economic products as well as organizational roles (Beniger, 

1986).

Growing up today in the land of High Modernity (Giddens, 1991), Alice might 

believe that she had returned to Wonderland. For once again she would find 

herself confronted with a multitude of shifting circumstances requiring her to 

adjust her demeanor and take on any number of possible roles. How would she 

manage? What if her identities conflicted? This is a question that many identity 

scholars ponder. Some predict that, given a world in which digital technology and 
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

50

social networking abound, Alice would have much greater agency and many more 

options in determining which roles to play and how to perform them. They note 

that, to support her identity claims, she could select from the wide variety of props 

and appurtenances afforded by today’s consumer society ( Cote and Levine, 

2014). Others are less sanguine. They point out that Alice, operating in an 

uncertain world, and absent the type of community connections and institutional 

arrangements that provided existential security in pre-modern cultures, would lack 

a guiding compass and coherent basis for making her identity choices. 

Overwhelmed, she might not be able to make any choices at all, and in the process 

lose sight of herself (Cote and Levine, 2009; Giddens, 1991; Burke and Stets, 

2009, 259-261).

How successfully identity claims are worked out has implications not only for 

individuals like Alice but also for society in general. For, as is argued by structural 

symbolic interactionists, the way individual actors perform their role identities 

feeds back to determine the network of interdependent role identities that 

constitute the social order. Hence, we might ask, if role identities become 

excessively fragmented, what might be the consequences for society as a whole? 

This is a question that preoccupied Emile Durkheim in the early modern era, and 

the answer that he provided then is still relevant today (Durkheim, 1984). Noting 

that increased specialization and a deeper division of labor threatened to 

undermine the cohesion of society, he said that norms—that is to say standards—

were needed to hold society t0gether.

Recall that standards are specifications that define the relationships between the 

parts of any given whole. As such, they are the rules of the game, bounding the 

system as well as providing affordances and constraints to the actors within it. 

However, in the period of High Modernity, the number and variety of role 

identities has increased exponentially together with the complexity of society, but 

the institutional arrangements to integrate these roles have not kept pace (Grewal, 

2009). Thus, it would appear that just as problematic as the individual identity 

crises that many people may experience is a larger societal crisis due to a lack of 

institutional standards, making it extremely difficult for individuals to connect to 

others and integrate themselves within society in any meaningful way (Giddens 

1991).

References

Becker, Martin (1981) Medieval Italy, Constraints and Creativity. Bloomington, 

IN: Indiana University Press.

Burke, Peter J., and Stets, Jan E. Identity Theory. New York, NY: Oxford 

University Press.
DRAFT July 16, 2014, Linda D. Garcia

51

Beniger, James (1986) The Control Revolution: Technology and the Economic 

Origins of the Information Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Biddle, B. J. (August, 1986) “Recent Developments in Role Theory,” Annual 

Review of Sociology, v. 12, pp. 67-92.

Caroll, Lewis, (2009) Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the 

Looking Glass, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

Cote and Levine, Identity, Formation, Agency, and Culture: A Social 

Psychological Synthesis, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Durkheim, E. (1984) The Division of Labor in Society. New York, NY: The Free 

Press. Erikson, Erik (1968) Identity, Youth, and Crisis. New York, NY: W.W. 

Norton & Company.

Gay, Peter 1977) The Age of the Enlightenment: An Interpretation. The Science of 

Freedom, New York, NY: W.W. Norton and company.

Giddens, Anthony (1991) Modernity and Self Identity: Self and Society in the 

Late Modern Age, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press

Goffman, Erving (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, University of 

Edinburgh Social Sciences Research Center, Anchor Books Edition.

Grewal, David Singh ( 2008) Network Power, The Social Dynamics of 

Globalization, New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press.

Hogg, Michael A., et al., (1995) “A Tale of Two Theories: Comparison of Identity 

Theory With Social Identity Theory, Social Psychology Quarterly, v. 58, n. 4, 255-

269.

Huizinga, Johan (1999) The Waning of the Middle Ages, Mineola, NY: Dover 

Publications, INC.

Kristeller, Paul Oskar (1990) Renaissance Thought and the Arts, Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press.

Mead, George Herbert Mead, Mind, Self and Society: From the Standpoint of a 

Social Behavioralist, edited and with an introduction by C. W. Morris, Chicago, 

IL: University of Chicago Press.

Merton, Robert (1949) Social Theory and Social Structure, New York, Free 

Press.