Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a crucial driving force for industrial transformation in the fourth industrial revolution due to its wide applicability and the growing trend of data intelligence. The direction of technical progress, the prospect of industrial development, and even the interests of countries are all significantly affected by ongoing developments in AI in which technology standards play a crucial role. Many developed countries have adopted AI technology standards as a strategic tool to outperform their competitors. It is a fundamental practical problem worth studying to explore the development path of national AI technology standardization to clarify the formation mechanism of technology standard competitiveness(TSC).Studies have suggested that technology standardization is affected by a diverse and complex set of factors, including technical background, system design, market environment, and the characteristics of the standard’s participants. However, the conventional symmetric causal method may not be suitable in a specific scenario and could not adequately predict actuality. Given the complexity of technology standardization and the dynamic development of the AI industry, it is necessary to explore the influence mechanism and path of TSC from the configuration perspective and multi-dimensionality.
This study introduces the TOE framework and constructs a research framework affecting the formation of TSC from three aspects: technology, organization, and environment. In addition, to account for asymmetry, this study adopts the fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) to obtain a variety of equivalent paths leading to TSC. The sample of this study involves 30 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions in the Chinese mainland and 32 foreign countries. Through necessity analysis and sufficiency analysis, the study compares and analyzes the domestic and international similarities and differences in the distribution of necessary conditions, core conditions, and configuration factors, and then it puts forward countermeasures and suggestions, aiming to provide a reference for China to form a high-TSC and discourse power in the field of global AI industry.
Analysis indicates that the formation of AI Technology Standard Competitiveness (TSC) at both domestic and international levels does not rely on a single set of necessary conditions. Instead, it requires the integration and alignment of various factors across technology, organization, and environment dimensions. The sufficient analysis shows that the core condition of domestic AI high-TSC is organizational participation, while the international level is market demand, and there are three equivalent configurations at the domestic and international levels. These insights suggest the breakthrough of AI technology standard capability in various regions requires the scientific allocation of multi-dimensional elements, and differentiated mechanism selection and strategic deployment can be carried out according to their resource endowment, by analogy with the drive path of high-TSC with similar characteristics, and the construction path can be tailored to improve the TSC through ongoing dynamic improvement.
This study makes several contributions to theory and practice. First, within the TOE theoretical framework, a comprehensive model of influencing factors of the whole process of technology standardization from the stage of technology patenting, patent standardization, and standard industrialization is constructed. This study expands the application range of the TOE theoretical model and deepens the relevant research on the TSC. Second, this study challenges the traditional symmetric causal thinking and analyzes the causal complexity of multiple factors from the perspective of configuration theory. It uses the fsQCA method to explore the heterogeneity, causal asymmetric relationship between cases, and the equivalent path of producing the same result. The findings open the black box of the complex interaction between the standard innovation endowment and the standard competitiveness in different regions at home and abroad. Third, the results indicate that policymakers should enhance the ability of innovation subjects to participate in the formulation of technical standards, form an internal drive, strengthen the supply and demand interaction of the AI market, and enhance the external drive, thus forming a long-term driving force for the TSC. While it is essential to attach importance to the key role of a good academic ecology in forming the AI high-TSC, to promote the continuous high-quality output of academic achievements in the field of AI, and continuously consolidate the foundation of AI technology standardization and innovation.
[1] CHOUNG J Y, JI I, HAMEED T. International standardization strategies of latecomers: the cases of Korean Tpeg, T-Dmb, and binary CDMA[J]. World Development, 2011, 39(5): 824-838.
[2] 韩秋明,王书华,杨学成,等.产业智能化的发展机理、影响因素及对策建议——基于行业专家访谈的质性研究[J].中国科技坛,2021,37(8):59-69.
[3] BLIND K, PETERSEN S, RIILLO C. The impact of standards and regulation on innovation in uncertain markets[J]. Research Policy,2017,46(1):249-264.
[4] KNUT BLIND. Explanatory factors for participation in formal standardisation processes: empirical evidence at firm level[J]. Economics of Innovation and New Technology,2006,15(2):157-170.
[5] BARON J,MENIERE Y,POHLMANN T. Standards, consortia, and innovation[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 2014, 36(9):22-35.
[6] HONG JIANG,SHUKUAN ZHAO,ZHI LI,et al. Interaction between technology standardization and technology development: a coupling effect study[J]. Information Technology and Management,2016,17(3):229-243.
[7] VRIES H, BLIND K, MANGELSDORF A, et al. SME access to European standardization[M].Netherlands: Erasmus University Rotterdam,2009.
[8] 杨蕙馨,王硕,冯文娜.网络效应视角下技术标准的竞争性扩散——来自iOS与Android之争的实证研究[J].中国工业经济,2014,32(9):135-147.
[9] GAO P. Counter-networks in standardization:a perspective of developing countries[J].Information Systems Journal,2007,17 (4):391-420.
[10] 田博文,田志龙.网络视角下标准制定组织多元主体互动规律研究[J].管理学报,2016,13(12):1775-1785.
[11] KIM K, JUNG S, HWANG J, et al. A dynamic framework for analyzing technology standardisation using network analysis and game theory[J]. Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, 2018,30(5):540-555.
[12] WANG D, WEI X, FANG F. The resource evolution of standard alliance by technology standardization[J]. Chinese Management Studies, 2016, 10(4):787-801.
[13] 张运生,何瑞芳.高科技企业技术标准竞争优势形成机理研究[J].财经理论与实践,2015,36(4):126-130.
[14] LEE H, CHAN S, OH S. China's ICT standards policy after the WTO accession: techno-national versus techno-globalism[J]. Info, 2009, 11(1):9-18.
[15] JAKOBS K, EGYEDI T M. Beyond consortia, beyond standardization? redefining the consortium problem[M]. Hershey: IGI Global, 2006.
[16] BYEONGWOO KANG,DONG HUO,KAZUYUKI MOTOHASHI. Comparison of Chinese and Korean companies in ICT global standardization: essential patent analysis[J]. Telecommunications Policy,2014,38(10):902-913.
[17] GEERTEN VAN DE KAA,MARK GREEVEN. LED standardization in China and South East Asia: stakeholders, infrastructure and institutional regimes[J]. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,2017,72:863-870.
[18] BRUNSSON N, RASCHE A, SEIDL D.The dynamics of standardization: three perspectives on standards in organization studies[J]. Organization Studies,2012,33(5-6):613-632.
[19] 周立军.市场自主制定标准的形成机制研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2023.
[20] 陈伟,邓堯,杨柏,等.人工智能能否赋能区域技术创新——创新环境的中介效应[J].科技进步与对策,2024,41(10):57-66.
[21] HONG JIANG,SIPENG GAO,SHUKUAN ZHAO,et al. Competition of technology standards in Industry 4.0: an innovation ecosystem perspective[J]. Systems Research and Behavioral Science,2020,37(4):772-783.
[22] 侯俊军,白杨.物联网标准供给不足问题研究——以关键技术标准发展为例[J].科技进步与对策,2015,32(12):61-66.
[23] 周立军,瞿羽扬,刘思薇,等.我国人工智能产业技术标准形成能力的空间非均衡及分布动态演进[J].经济问题探索,2023,44(2):81-95.
[24] TORNATZKY L G,FLEISCHER M. The processes of technological innovation[M].Lexington:Lexington Books,1990.
[25] 冯朝睿,徐宏宇.TOE框架下电子政务服务效率及其影响因素研究——基于DEA-Tobit两步法模型[J].云南财经大学学报,2021,37(7):97-110.
[26] CRUZ-JESUS F, PINHEIRO A, OLIVEIRA T. Understanding CRM adoption stages: empirical analysis building on the TOE framework[J]. Computers in Industry, 2019, 109: 1-13.
[27] 刘淑妍,王湖葩.TOE框架下地方政府数据开放制度绩效评价与路径生成研究——基于20省数据的模糊集定性比较分析[J].中国行政管理,2021,37(9):34-41.
[28] 孟显印,杨超.话语权和问责制、法商环境与开放政府数据发展水平研究——基于TOE框架的跨国实证分析[J].情报杂志,2020,39(11):111-119.
[29] ABED S S. Social commerce adoption using TOE framework: an empirical investigation of Saudi Arabian SMEs[J]. International Journal of Information Management, 2020, 53: 102118.
[30] BLIND K, MANGELSDORF A. Motives to standardize: empirical evidence from Germany[J]. Technovation, 2016, 48: 13-24.
[31] MOON S,LEE H.The primary actors of technology standardization in the manufacturing industry[J]. IEEE Access, 2021, 9: 101886-101901.
[32] 刘刚,刘晨.人工智能科技产业技术扩散机制与实现策略研究[J].经济纵横,2020,36(9):109-119.
[33] DIMAGGIO P J, POWELL W W. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields[J]. American Sociological Review, 1983,48(2): 147-160.
[34] EISINGERICH A B, BELL S J, TRACEY P. How can clusters sustain performance? the role of network strength, network openness, and environmental uncertainty[J]. Research Policy, 2010, 39(2): 239-253.
[35] HENRY DELCAMP,AIJA LEIPONEN. Innovating standards through informal consortia: the case of wireless telecommunications[J]. International Journal of Industrial Organization,2014,36: 36-47.
[36] RAGIN C C. The comparative method: moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies[M]. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987.
[37] WITT M A, FAINSHMIDT S, AGUILERA R V. Our board, our rules: nonconformity to global corporate governance norms[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2022, 67(1): 131-166.
[38] ABBOTT A. Fuzzy-set social science[J]. Contemporary Sociology, 2001, 30(4):330.
公众号
订阅号
企业微信客服
鄂公网安备 42010602003780号