1 / 12

What's in a (Missing) Name? Status, Quality and Attention in Open Standards Development

This study delves into the impact of author identity, status perception, and inferred quality on open standards development. Analyzing the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) process, it explores the role of status as a shortcut and its effects on publication outcomes. The study uncovers the importance of attention and coordination in determining the success of standards development and examines the influence of high-status authors. By scrutinizing the relationship between perceived and actual quality, the research sheds light on the dynamics of open standards creation.

williampwilliams
Download Presentation

What's in a (Missing) Name? Status, Quality and Attention in Open Standards Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. What's in a (Missing) Name? Status, Quality and Attention inOpen Standards Development Timothy S. Simcoe J.L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto David M. Waguespack Robert H. Smith School of Business, University of Maryland

  2. Status, quality, and attention • Does author identity matter? • Status = perceived quality • Quality inferred from relationships • Loosely linked to actual quality • “unearned” deference • Increasing returns and rigid hierarchies

  3. Questions • Does status matter? • Unobserved ex ante quality • Rayleigh type natural experiment on screening • What is the mechanism? • Examine attention and coordination • Is status a useful shortcut or taste based bias? • Examine long-run ex post outcomes

  4. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) Publication Process • Open internet standards • Submission process for internet drafts (IDs) • Anyone may submit a proposal • Two tracks: Working Group and Independent • Published as an RFC, revised, or expired • “Et al” experiment • Names suppressed on ID announcement emails from IETF Secretariat

  5. Data • Estimation sample; drafts submitted: • 2000-2003 • 2 to 5 authors • no WG chair in lead position • Dependent Variables • Published as RFC • Email lists/replies • Future citations (if published) • Independent Variables • Unlisted authors • High status (WG chair) author

  6. Non-parametric comparisons

  7. Conclusions • Interpretation. In this setting: • Statistical discrimination • Identity matters for publication when ex ante uncertainty high • Ex post performance no worse • Status and attention • Large effect for a weak treatment: increasing returns • 80 new/revised 23 page drafts every week! • Limitations • Small numbers • Which attributes matter? • Settings where quality is endogenous?

More Related