cQ&

.--
-- CRMPultR
slnNMRos
B
ELSEVIER ComputerStandards& Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450
IiINIERHlCB

Examining the relevance of paradigms to base OS1

standardisation
Tineke M. Egyedi *
Faculty of Technology and Society, De@ Universiry of Technology, De Vries uan Heystplantsoen 2, 2628 RZ Delji, The Nether/an&

Abstract

It is now customary to think about standardisation in terms of economic and political interests. That analysing ,commiltee
processes from a technological vantage point might be fruitful as well, is often neglected or even denied. This article
explores the extent to which technological paradigms explain the outcome of committee processes. It is argued that,
especially in fields of converging technologies :such as telematic services, paradigms explain patterns of interest negotiation
in standards development. The argument is substantiated with the findings of case studies on three base Open Systems
Interconnection (OSI) standards: the transport, session and message handling protocols. 0 1997 Elsevier Science B.V.

Keyw~~rds: Technological paradigms; Telematic services; Committee processes; X.25; OS1 transport layer; OS1 session layer; X.400;
Teletex; Standardstrajectories; Converging technologies; Operational trajectories; Paradigm of telephony

1. Introduction incentive for industries to make proprietary informa-

tion public. In the aforementioned case studies the
Over the past decades a shift appears to have
choice between standards options is seldom based on
taken place from a style of standardisation predomi-
technical superiority. More often, what seems to be a
nantly based on technological considerations towards
formal technical discussion turns out to be the nego-
a process with strong political and economic over-
tiation of interests (e.g. Sirbu and Zwimpfer [4]).
tones (e.g. Irmer [I]; Van Rooij [2]). It is now more
Non-technical interests are translated into ;an institu-
or less understood that economic and political inter-
tionally legitimate type of reasoning, that is, a tech-
ests determine the outcome of negotiations in stan-
nical type of reasoning [5]. The conclusion of these
dards committees. Studies of standards processes
studies is clear: technological knowledge is predomi-
buttress this view. They do so by setting it alongside
nantly a resource for strategic action, and not a
the traditional factor of ‘technological k:nowledge’.
decisive factor in itself.
Active contribution and participation in the standards
Although the arguments of and the consensus
debate - a significant determinant of the standards
between these studies are persuasive, a number of
process [3] - requires technological knowledge. But
objections can be made. To note one, which is not
the information which industrial participants in par-
likely to get attention in current work: standardisers
ticular are willing to divulge is limited. There is little
who are partly or wholly motivated by true technical
concerns are not accounted for. A more fundamental
. E-mail: egyedi@~tm.tudelft.nl objection is that, by setting the factor ‘economic and

0920-5489/97/$17.00 G I997 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

P/I SO920-5489(97)00001-9
432 TM. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450
political interests’ against that of ‘technological
knowledge’ an important link between the two is
severed. On closer inspection, the lack of influence
of technology-related views is less evident. In many
of the controversies described in the literature (e.g.
Sirbu and Zwimpfer [4]; Abbate [6]), standpoints are
characterised by other cognitions than those of an
economic, interest-oriented nature. The controversies
show a pattern. The interests are organised according
to paradigms and concern technology-related out-
looks. Their basis of organisation would appear more
relevant in explaining the standards process than the
economic and political interests themselves. Such
interests are symptoms of different paradigms.
Thereby the role of technological knowledge is that
of paradigm articulation.
The term ‘technological paradigm’ refers to the
set of technology-related cognitions which structure
and focus the behaviour of practitioners in a field of
technology. ’ Shared methods, heuristics and rules
develop. Exemplars, that is exemplary achievements
in the practitioners’ field [7], further focus activities.
A new theory, method or model may serve as an
exemplar. These and the beliefs and expectations of
the practitioner community structure actions. These
actions can be understood in terms of structured
search processes and follow patterns of ‘normal’
problem-solving. This set of cognitions roughly cor-
responds to what Kuhn initially called a paradigm
[7] in respect to science. In Kuhn’s words, paradigms
focus on ‘puzzle-solving’. As a result, paradigm
conform activities show continuity. The string of
successive activities forms a path, so to speak, which
in the field of technology dynamics is called a
rrajectory [8].
The field of interest in this article is that of
telematic services. The article takes the view that
shared heuristics, knowledge, operational experience,
beliefs, expectations, interests and exemplars in this
’ Dosi’s definition of technological paradigm “as a ‘model’
and a ‘pattern’ of solutions of selected technological problems,
based on selcctrd principles derived from natural sciences and on
.w/~cred material technologies” ([13], p. 152) [no emphasis of
mine; TE] has a limited scope. It is useful for fundamental
technologies, but it is less appropriate for applied areas of technol-
ogy such as telematic services.
field determine the outlook of practitioners partici-
pating in standardisation. Their outlook will impact
committee contributions and the outcome of stan-
dards negotiations. (Other, individual factors of in-
fluence on committee standardisation will not be
discussed here.)
There are three reasons to deviate from the well-
tried route. Firstly, there is insight to be gained by
using a different approach as it highlights other
(aspects of) events. Secondly, too little attempt has
been made to falsify or discover the ltmits of the
interest-driven explanation. Without too much ado
most events can be interpreted in terms of economic
interests. What is needed are conceptual tools which
explain these interests. A third and related reason is,
as implied, that where paradigms and interests ac-
count for the same occurrence, the paradigm ap-
proach may provide a more fundamental - and thus
encompassing - explanation. The paradigm ap-
proach promises to expose recurring patterns in in-
terest negotiation. I will return to the issue of levels
of explanation in the concluding section (Section 7).
In this article the extent to which technological
paradigms explain the outcome of committee pro-
cessesfor telematic services is explored. Three cases
of Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) standardisa-
tion are studied in the period 1979-1988. It is a
period in which two different technological fields
and two formerly disparate economic segments are
in the process of integrating 193.Therefore, the stan-
dardisation mechanisms involved are foremost held
to be generalisable to other areas of converging
technologies (e.g. telecommunications and broadcast-
ing).
The cases are situated in the formal standards
environment of the International 0rga:nization for
Standardization (ISO) and the ComitC Consultatif
International Telegraphique et Te’lephonique of the
International Telecommunication Union
(ITU/CCITT). The difference between formal, grey
(e.g. ATM Forum and IETF) and de facto standardis-
ation and the influence of formal committee proce-
dures on the standards process are dealt with else-
where (i.e. in Egyedi [ 101).
To start with, different types of standards in the
field of telematic services are introduced (Section 2).
Next, shared, orienting principles in the field of
telematic services are explored. Paradigmatic ele-
 TM. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces 18 11997) 431-450
ments in informatics, telecommunications and telem-
atics are examined (Section 3). They offer clues as to
which factors may be relevant in the cases described
in Section 4. The cases concern three base OS1
standards: the transport, session and message han-
dling protocols. Subsequently the case findings are
analysed. First, the relation between the set of princi-
ples which underlie OS1 standardisation and the OS1
standards trajectory is examined (Section 5). Next
committee processes and the controversies therein
are analysed from the paradigm perspective (Section
6). The conclusion answers the question whether a
technological paradigm approach is worth pursuing
when analysing committee processes (Section 7).
2. Standards in telematic services
Telematic services consist of a set of functions,
which are specified in base standards. Base standards
are the generic ‘building blocks’ of standards-con-
form services. Such standards are issued in pairs of
concrete protocol definitions and abstract service
definitions. The protocol definition contains elements
which are essential to the service, indicates the pa-
rameters among which one can choose, and often
includes some optional features. Thus, the implemen-
tor of a standards conform telematic service mini-
mally implements the essential features of these
building blocks and further needs to decide which
options are required for the service in mind.
Options in base standards may cause problems of
interoperability. Such problems arise between service
implementations which are based on different choices
in base standards. Therefore, a restricted number of
sets of specified base standards with fixed options
have also been standardised. These are called pro-
files or functional standards. A functional standard
is a
‘(. . .) document which identifies a [base] standard or
group of [base] standards, together with options and
parameters, necessary to accomplish a function or a
set of functions. *’
’ ECITC Guide to IT&T TestIn: and Certification, BNSSek,
Belgium, 1993.
433
The third and last category of standards noted
here is that of the reference frameworks, also called
reference models. These describe the logical struc-
ture of a system. There are several: the OS1 manage-
ment framework, the Reference Model for Open
Distributed Processing, the Reference Model Inte-
grated Broadband Communication, etc. [ 111.
The terms ‘reference model’ and ‘architecture’
are sometimes used as synonyms. However, strictly
speaking a reference model is an implementation
independent framework, whereas the word ‘architec-
ture’ refers to the functional representation of a
range of concrete product standards. Examples of
early communication architectures are the propri-
etary Systems Network Architecture of IBR4 (SNA,
1974) and the Transmission Control Protocol/Inter-
net Protocol (TCP/IP) architecture on which Inter-
net is based. Development of the latter started in
1973 with the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) project of the US Department of
Defense. Work on these two architectures preceded
the Open Systems Interconnection Reference Model
(OSI-RM), the framework within which the stan-
dards discussed further on were developed.
OSZ reference model. The OS1 model stems from
the formal international standards bodies of the IS0
and the CCITT. The impetus for the OS1 model
came from the International Federation for Informa-
tion Processing (IFIP) Working Group 6.1 and the
European Computer Manufacturer’s Association
(ECMA). It was taken up by IS0 Technical Commit-
tee (TC) 97 in 1977 and subsequently by CCIIT
Study Group VII. The OS1 reference framework was
adopted by both standards bodies in 1984 (IS0 7498
and CC1l-I X.200).
The OS1 model identifies and structures all the
functions needed for datacommunication. It depicts
these as a set of hierarchically ordered layers (see
Fig. 1). These layers represent logically separate
functions of datacommunication, referred to above as
building blocks. They address a more or less circum-
scribed area of standardisation. Standardisation of
layers can therefore take place in parallel. Seven
layers are defined within the communicating sys-
tems. The framework specifies the service which
each layer should provide. A layer uses the service
of the lower layer and provides a service to the upper
layer. Each layer contains tools, so-called entities.
434 TM. Egyedi / Computer Standards & Interfaces
Transport - -
Nchvork - -
DataLink f -
Physical f----C
/ Physicalmedia for OS1
Fig. I. (a) The OS1 reference model (source: X.200 CCITT Recommendation); (b) Levels in electronic services and segments in service
provision (source: De Jong [3 I]).
Together these entities provide a service [33]. In
other words, a layer provides services which are
implemented as a function in that specific layer or
which derive from its lower layers.
Services are abstractions. For example, the way
data is routed through the network is defined at the
level of the network layer. This ‘routing service’ can
be provided in different ways (e.g. connectionless
and connection-oriented, that is, with or without
maintaining the connection between end systems
during the transmission). Likewise, there are differ-
ent ways to coordinate the communication session
(i.e. connect, maintain and break off the session), a
service provided by the session layer.
In order to communicate between different sys-
tems, peer-to-peer protocols are defined. Each layer
has one or more protocols, which indicate how com-
munication between the layer entities of both sys-
tems should proceed. Roughly, one can visualise the
standardised datacommunication process as follows.
In system I a set of data is passed downwards from
the application layer to the medium. At each layer,
control information is appended which indicates how
the data should be processed and transmitted. The
original data is, as it were, successively wrapped in
different layer-specific control information. The
18 (19971431-450
I Information structure
’ Telunatic service
- - *
4
- - ) 3 Network service
- - )
I
) service
levels
A B
packaged set of data enters system 2 at the lowest
layer and is passed on upwards. It is sluccessively
unwrapped again until the bare set of data emerges at
(or above) the application layer. To interwork suc-
cessfully, the two systems must agree how to inter-
pret the ‘wrappings’ at a certain layer level. This is
the essence of layer protocols. The software of two
systems should conform to the whole sta’ck of layer
protocols if they are to interwork.
In sum, a basic OS1 stack (management, security,
etc. excluded) comprises six basic protoc’ols and six
service standards with additional generic and specific
application standards [ 1I]. Neither the basic proto-
cols, nor the service standards specify how they
should be implemented. This is up to the service
providers.
The case studies discussed in Section 4 concern
base OS1 protocols.
3. Paradigms in the field of telematic services
The field of telematic services is not clearly de-
fined. It is roughly referred to as an area where
informatics and telecommunications converge. This
complicates the identification of paradigms which
 T.M. Egyedi / Computer Standards
are unique for the field of telematics. One or more
paradigms may be at stake. They may stem from the
two separate feeder disciplines and/or from the
merger of both fields. Clearly, in order to warrant
separate attention paradigms in the field of telematic
services would need to differ meaningfully from the
paradigms in informatics and telecommunications.
In order to avoid an unproductive theoretical dis-
cussion on paradigm identification, I focus on
paradigmatic elements. That is, the search is first of
all for shared outlooks and orientations which could
be relevant for standardisation in the fielld of tele-
matic services.
There are two leads which - apart from those
noted by Kuhn - are promising in identifying
paradigmatic elements in the field of telematic ser-
vices. The first is the notion of management domain.
In the field of information and communication tech-
nology components, subsystems and systems can be
distinguished. It depends on the angle one takes,
whether an artifact is labelled a component, a subsys-
tem or a system. It specifically depends on the
management domain under consideration [12]. A
stand-alone personal computer is viewed as a system
if it belongs to one management domain, namely the
personal domain. When connected to a Local Area
Network of an organisational unit with centrally
located software and printers, both the computer and
the printer are subsystems of the local area network.
Here the management domain is the organisational
unit. In the case of telematic services, the system
consists of the set of subsystems which jointly pro-
vides the service. Subsystems are peripheral comput-
ers, the network, switching equipment, communica-
tion facilities, etc. What makes the systern of telem-
atic services interesting is that two or morseoriginally
disparate management domains of telecommunica-
tions and computers, each supplying a subsystem,
are supposed to provide one system service. In the
process of developing standards, domain-bound
paradigmatic elements promise to be an important
characteristic.
The second lead stems from Dosi [I 31. Dosi in-
cludes economic considerations in his identification
of technological paradigms. This addition is of par-
ticular relevance in applied fields of tech,nology such
as telematic services. Thus, where shared outlooks in
the field of telematic services are concerned, atten-
& herfaces 18f 1997) 43 I-450 435
tion will also be paid to exemplary functionalities
and successful applications.
In the following sections paradigmatic elements
are explored in the feeder disciplines of telecommu-
nication and informatics (Section 3.1) and in the
field of telematic services itself (Section 3.3). Stud-
ies of the X.25 datacommunication standard are dis-
cussed in Section 3.2. They point to issues with
immediate relevance for the cases. Furthermore, in
view of the cases, the focus is below on the period
leading up to the 1980s.
3.1. Outlooks of informatics and telecommunication
practitioners
“What if computermen invented the telephone?”
Whitehouse [33], who embarks on this mental exer-
cise, concludes that the telephone would then have
been a more sophisticated bit of machinery, but that
incompatibility between these sophisticated handsets
would have prevented the service from ‘becoming
widespread. His question refers to the marked differ-
ence in professional culture of informatics and
telecommunications and its implications for technol-
ogy development. The characteristics of the practi-
tioners’ communities as well as the context of opera-
tion and exploitation in both fields differ [14]. Be-
low, I focus on a number of central, field-allied
operational issues and technical features to sketch
the outlooks of informatics and telecommunication
practitioners.
Telecommunications. In the period of interest, the
monopolies of national Public Telephone Operators
(PTOs) dominated the telecommunications’ scene.
The telecom administrations demanded universal ser-
vice. With regard to the operational side of the
network, PTOs were concerned with issumessuch as
reliable transmission and maintaining the integrity of
the network. The operators primarily viewed
telecommunications in terms of centralised network
control [15]. Telecom products had a relatively long
life-cycle, often spanning more than a decade [9].
The specific requirements of national PTOs were
catered for by operator-allied providers of equipment
and switching facilities. In the international forum of
CCI’IT, national monopolies facilitated international
cooperation.
Telephony strongly influenced the professional
436 TM. Egyedi/ Clmpurer Standards
culture of PTOs [12]. It determined the operators’
general outlook on telecommunications and service
provision. The telephone was a dedicated terminal,
that is, fit for one purpose only. Dedicated telecom
provisions were designed to meet this specific pur-
pose. Telephony was based on circuit-switched and
connection-oriented transmission. 3 The traffic flow
was more or less predictable (e.g. Schoute [ 161). The
bandwidth necessary for comprehensible telephone
conversation was known. The heuristics which char-
acterised the operation of networks were: fixed over-
head, fixed bandwidth, physical analogue connec-
tions and hierarchical network architecture [17]. Op-
erational and technical principles for telephony were
passed on to newer areas of telecommunications
such as telex, telefax and early datacommunication.
Digitisation and the dissemination of computers
changed telecommunications. On the one hand com-
puters became part of the telecommunication system
[ 181. They were for example deployed to operate
networks (e.g. Stored Program Control in switching
systems). On the other hand, new uses of datacom-
munication came within reach, demanding a new
approach to networking. Next to the public datanet-
works, privately operated multinational networks
emerged (e.g. GEIS). These datanetworks, Wide Area
Networks (WANS), used leased telephone lines to
provide some of the earliest telematic services, such
as banking transactions and flight reservation sys-
tems.
Informatics. Babbage’s concept of a multi-pur-
pose machine, his analytical engine, still applies to
our present day computer [ 191. The discipline of
informatics developed within the military environ-
ment (computational applications) and within the
business environment (administrative applications).
The focus of computer researchers on analogue com-
puter systems shifted towards digital computers.
Miniaturisation in micro-electronics decreased the
size of computers and increased their processing and
memory capacity. Hardware demand shifted from
’ I.e. a connection is established and maintalncd throughout the
communication session. In a connectionless servxe, on the other
hand, each data unit has the destination address attached. Units are
routed independently though the network via different routes. No
dedicated connection is made between end-terminals.
& Interfores 18 (1997) 431-450
mainframes to mini-computers and micro-computers.
The speed of product development reduced the life-
cycle of computer products to no more than a few
years. The price of hardware continuously fell. As
the turnover rate of products was high, durability
was not perceived to be an important issue. Applica-
tion development focused on designing software
modules suitable for reuse. Upward and downward
compatible software was needed to keep customers
committed to their original choice. A highly competi-
tive market for computer products developed.
In the early phase of computerisation mainframes
were extended with terminals and remote batch sta-
tions. Front-end processors dealt with communica-
tion aspects. Such computer systems had a restricted
scope, usually serving one organisation. Computing
facilities were accessible to those stationed outside
the organisation via telephone lines. These early
computer ‘network’ systems were predominantly
based on single vendor solutions.
Local Area Network (LAN) developments started
with the introduction of personal computers and
work stations. It was a period in which organisations
increasingly used multivendor systems. Processing
power, which was formerly provided centrally by
mainframes, became distributed via high speed local
networks. Computing and communication facilities
were taken over by network servers and by personal
computers and work stations.
Chronologically the onset of LAN developments
followed that of the earlier mentioned WAN devel-
opments. LANs, however, also strongly affected the
field of datacommunication. In a sense the LAN
environment formed a restricted computer-oriented
‘test site’ for new developments in datacommunica-
tion. As LAN designers and users of computer and
LAN facilities progressively extended their scope of
datacommunication across organisational bsoundaries,
a separate body of knowledge and experience
emerged. The accompanying outlook on datacommu-
nication was based on personal and organisational
needs. User control was emphasised.
Thus, an important difference between telecom-
munications and informatics practitioners lis that the
latter took the personal management domain of com-
puter users and the organisational LAN domain as
the starting point of computer communication, while
the outlook of telecommunication practitioners cen-
 TM. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450 437

tred on the network and departed from a public
domain view on datacommunication. The exemplary
function of telephony in telecommunication justifies
the use of the term ‘paradigm of telephony’. The
difference in orientation affected standardisation pro-
cesses regarding datacommunication and - in its
wake - telematic services.
3.2. Paradigmatic features in committee standardisa-
tion
Paradigmatic differences between informatics and
telecommunications resurface in studies of standardi-
sation in the field of datacommunication. For exam-
ple, Abbate [6] compares ARPA’s TCP/IP and
CCITT’s X.25. The two embed different concepts of
internetworking (distinct heterogeneous networks
versus a single homogeneous network), different
ideas about the location of control in networking
(decentral or central), different expectations about
future demands on networks (e.g. in relation to the
required reliability and user needs), and different
expectations about the telecommunication market
(e.g. role of private networks).
Different concepts of network design or architec-
ture (hierarchical and symmetrical), and the related
location of network control also reappear in analyses
of Sirbu and Zwimpfer [4] and Manse11and Hawkins
[151. The technical features reflect opinions about the
distribution of social and economic control within
and between networks. These opinions are voiced by
different groups of participants in standardisation.
Generally, controversies arise between the PTOs on
the one hand, and the private and experimental net-
work operators, computer manufacturers and com-
puter users on the other. Accordingly, the PTO-
dominated forum for telecommunication standardisa-
tion (CCITT) and the forum for computer standardis-
ation (ISO) can be identified as sparring partners.
In order to distil the paradigmatic features from
controversies in committees, the case of the com-
puter communication standard X.25 for packet-
switching [4] is reviewed. The standard is of particu-
lar interest since Sirbu and Zwimpfer qualify its
development as a political process. Contrasting views
on datacommunication are highlighted and sum-
marised in Table 1 together with the differences
mentioned earlier.

Table 1
Paradigmatic aspects in the outlook of telephony- and datacommunication-oriented practitioners in the 1970s and early 1980s
Paradigmatic aspects Telephony Datacommunication
Management domain Public Private/personal and organisational
Location of network control Central Decentral
(e.g. error and flow control)
Concepts of network design Hierarchical Symmetrical
Focus and source of revenues Transmission Applications
Technical features Circuit-switched/virtual Packet-switched/datagram
circuit connection-oriented connectionless drgital
analog fixed demand versatile demand integration
diversification trajectory trajectory (multi-purpose
(dedicated lines and terminals) terminals and transmission)
Operational features
(a) operational priority (a) integrity and reliability of network (a) flexibility for users
(b) required network reliability (b) high (b) low
(c) development horizon (c) long-term (c) short-ten-n
(d) tariff principle (d) distance (d) volume of flow
(e) market and -relations (e) homogeneous cooperation (e) heterogeneous competition
between monopolies
Interest groups PTOS Private and expertmental network
operators, computer manufacturers,
computer users
Formal standards fora CCITr IS0
438 T.M. Egyedi/Computer Standards
The case of X.25. Development of X.25 took
place in CCITT. Controversies centred on the choice
between (connection-oriented) virtual circuit and
(connectionless) datagram packet switching. Roughly
speaking, the former option was put forward by
public network operators. The latter was generally
preferred by private network operators and com-
puter-oriented participants (e.g. IFIP, ISO, ECMA
and ANSI). They strongly felt the need for a connec-
tionless option next to a connection-oriented option.
The technical decisions involved choices in net-
work control (central or decentral) and network de-
sign (hierarchical or symmetrical) [4]. The decisions
had functional and financial consequences. The
standpoint of the PTOs was generally voiced in
terms of manageability of the network. Virtual cir-
cuit could better guarantee the integrity of the net-
work. Centralised operation of the network was said
to allow better management of error control, flow
control and packet sequencing. Control services fur-
ther implied revenues for the PTOs. Furthermore, the
connection-oriented option in the X.25 committee
process matched prior operating procedures of the
public telecom operators.
On the other hand, the connectionless mode pro-
vided greater flexibility for users (user control) and
promised to be more cost-effective [4]. Users de-
manded tariff principles based on volume of flow
instead of distance [17]. The overhead needed for
virtual circuit communication was held to be wasted
for simple transactions. Moreover, it was thought
that users would to a large extent protect themselves
against network errors by duplicating virtual circuit
service functions in end computers. Computing power
had become cheap and users needed total recovery of
data in case of a breakdown [20].
Briefly elaborating, IS0 was hardly involved in
the X.25 standards process. The X.25 recommenda-
tion was ready before completion of the OS1 refer-
ence model. Fitting the X.25 recommendation into
the OS1 model would later prove somewhat difficult.
The fact that computer-oriented practitioners treated
the computer as a unit and that telecommunication
operators treated the network as a unit led to differ-
ent views on the application of OS1 protocols. The
IT industry lobbied for the ‘Royal Route’, that is, for
using the full stack of OS1 protocols with no restric-
tion on how to implement the stack. Initially they
& Interfaces I8 (1997) 431-450
were reluctant to allow for incomplete stacks.
Telecommunication operators, on the other hand,
urged for partial OS1 implementation which would
allow freedom of network operation. In line, the
X.25 recommendation was a interpreted as a so-called
access protocol which, as the term implies, controls
access to the network (and thus only demands a
partial OS1 stack).
Thus, standardisation in datacommunication
showed two distinct camps. Firstly, there was the
group of PTOs who, analogous to telephony, started
out with circuit-switched data networks (e.g. Ger-
many and the Scandinavian countries). Secondly,
there was the group of computer-oriented. practition-
ers who focused on packet-switching. Temporarily a
number of PTOs belonged to the second group,
namely those which in the late 1970s and early
1980s started operating X.25-based data networks.
Temporarily, because when the debate thereafter
shifted to new areas the computer-oriented practi-
tioners and the packet-switching PTOs again had
opposing views (e.g. in respect to the question
whether multiplexing should be accommodated in
the transport layer).
3.3. Common orientations on telematic seruices
Since both the work areas of informatics and
telecommunications assimilated microelectronics, de-
velopments therein incited similar technological pat-
terns. Digitisation is a case in point. In the field of
mass- and telecommunication, it made the earlier
distinctions between modes of information and trans-
port media superfluous. The integration of diverse
services came nearer (e.g. Slaa [21]). The same
integration trajectory was apparent in the field of
informatics (e.g. the multimedia programmes).
In respect to telematic services, two types of
focusing mechanisms can be distinguislhed: exem-
plars and integrating concepts.
Exemplars. Exemplary achievements in the field
of telematic services are of two kinds. Firstly, there
are the early - primarily technological - exemplars.
Many of these stem from research and development
on the ARPA network of the US Department of
Defense (e.g. Terink [34], p. 142). For example,
ARPA’s Computer Based Message Systelm served as
an exemplar for development of electronic mail sys-
 T.M. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces I8 (1997) 431-450
Table 2
Estimated running start
Organisational integration mid- 1980s
Cognitive integration 1979
terns. Secondly, there are the economic exemplars.
For example, the french concept of TClCtel (also
known as Minitel) entailed the use of the electronic
telephone book as a trigger service and freely dis-
tributed terminals. These means were applied to
attract users in the initial phase of videotex services.
The Tc%tel concept guided videotex activities in
many countries. However, as its example primarily
consisted of applying these two ‘rules’, TCle’tel’s
impact on telematics practitioners remained re-
stricted.
Integrating concept. Where different fields con-
tribute in new areas of technology, integrating con-
cepts are needed to forge a common cognitive basis
[22]. The OS1 framework provided such integration
for standardisation. The aim of the OS1 model was
“to provide a common basis for the coordination of
standards development for the purpose of systems
interconnection.” 4 With its approval as an Intema-
tional Standard and CCITT recommendation in 1984,
OS1 had the formal support of the computer-oriented
and telecommunications standards communities re-
spectively. It directed attention, posed specific prob-
lems and focused standards work. For example,
‘All CCITT study groups dealing with ISDN and
associated plethora of new or expanded services are
guided by OS1 (Wallenstein [23], p. 891.’
The work on OS1 standards displayed the charac-
teristics of normal puzzle-solving. In this respect OS1
can be termed a paradigm in standardisation.
A second aim of OS1 was that computer applica-
tions should be as independent as possible from
transmission and communication networks [24]. This
was interpreted in textbooks as a perpetuation of the
4 IS0 Open Systems Interconnection Basic Reference Model,
IS0 7498, IS0 Central Secretariat, Geneva, 1984.
439
Formalised
1993 ITU-T/JTC 1 Guide for cooperation
1984 OS1 reference model
separate traditional organisational and operational
domains of telecommunications and informatics.
While the figure which illustrated the OS1 ,model in
the two standards did not make a distinction between
lower and upper layers, many textbooks did. ’ Some
drew the line between layer 3/4, others between
layer 4/5 [20]. In other words, cognitive integration
started out with the allocation of work areas either to
the domain of telecommunications or to the domain
of informatics. Integration needed to evolve. Like-
wise, organisational backing for cognitive integration
in standardisation needed to develop. The fields of
informatics and telecommunications had their own
international standards bodies for telematic services:
IS0 (later ISO/IEC Joint Technical C’ommittee
(JTC) 1) and ITU’s CCITT (now ITU-T) respec-
tively. Both IS0 TC 97 SC 16 and CCI’FT Study
Group VII addressed OS1 standardisation. 6 In the
late 1970s and early 1980s cooperation between IS0
and CCITT showed signs of strain. Collaboration
between committees of different standards bodies
amounted to division of labour and of responsibili-
ties. In respect to the early years of OSI-guided
standardisation, collaboration consisted predomi-
nantly of information exchange. Thereby CCITT and
IS0 committees preserved their autonomy.
Concentrating on the time of formalisation, cogni-
tive integration seemed to leap almost a decade
ahead of organisational integrative measures.
Whereas the OS1 framework was officially published
in 1984, more structural forms of coordination be-
tween the IS0 and the CCITT started in the late
1980s. It took until 1993 to formalise the cooperation
(see Table 2).
-E.g. Carter (Ed.), Structure in Data Communications, ICL.
London, 1983; M. Schwartz, Telecommunication Networks: Pro-
tocols, Modelling and Analysis, Addison-Wesley, Reading, 1987.
6 IS0 TC 97 was later superseded by JTC I. Before that, the
subcommittee structure had already been altered, TC 97 SC 16’s
work on OS1 was reassigned to TC 97 SC 2 I.
440 TM. Egyedi / Computer Standards & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450
Thus, the most significant part of early OS1 stan-
dardisation proceeded in spite of the lack of a firm,
integrated institutional basis. ’ It is against this back-
ground that the standards discussed below were de-
veloped.
In sum, there were common orientations evident
in the emerging field of telematic services: techno-
logical and economic exemplars of the ARPA net-
work and of T&Ctel, respectively, and the (cognitive)
integrating concept of the OS1 framework. However,
these elements are too weak and unrelated to warrant
the term ‘paradigm of telematic services’.
4. Cases of base OS1 standardisation
The early period of OS1 standardisation, the pe-
riod in which organisational coordination lags behind
cognitive coordination, is an interesting one. One
may presume that limited cooperation will h&e pro-
longed a situation wherein the different ideas preva-
lent in the two standards bodies govern the content
of contributions. One would therefore expect that
paradigmatic elements would influence early work
on OS1 standards and become embedded in stan-
dards.
Below, the different outlooks in contributions to
OS1 standardisation are examined between 1979 and
1988. The cases concern standardisation of the trans-
port layer, session layer and message handling proto-
cols (OS1 layers 4, 5 and 7 respectively). The devel-
opment of the transport and session protocols took
place in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Standardisa-
tion of message handling started at the same time,
but spans a longer period. (See Table 3.)
Interviews were held with former committee par-
ticipants. The case-descriptions below are primarily
based on their account of events and hence also
7 The following quote illustrates the institutional problem at the
time: “[ISO] made special efforts to achieve stability of both
Session and Transport Layer standards in tune for the 1984
CCI?T Plenary meetings. In order to amve at mutual texts,
CCITT and IS0 have held joint meetings. In strict terms this is
not allowed by CCITT rules but meetings have been arranged to
take place concurrently (...) so that a free Interchange of dele-
gates between CCITT and IS0 could occur” (Knightson et al.
[251. pp. 18-19).
include their interest-based analyses. * The cases are
analysed in Sections 5 and 6.
4.1. Transport protocols
In 1979 IS0 and CCILIT were already working on
Standardisation in the area which was later to be-
come assigned to the transport layer of the OS1
model. Both organisations were aware of each others
developments, but no coordination took place until
the matter was taken up in an IS0 working group.
The CCITT was represented in this working group,
in which also ECMA members participated.
At the time CCITT had high hopes for teletex.
Teletex is a service which interconnects text-based
terminals. ’ A Special Study Group (SG XVIII) was
close to completing the teletex Recommendation
S.70. It was to be approved in 1980 (ITTJ/CCITT,
Yellow Book, 1981). The PTOs therefore required a
transport protocol which would support the teletex
standard.
Another main issue concerned ECMA’s proposal
to incorporate multiplexing, a technique to project
two or more logical connections onto a physical
connection, in the transport layer Protoc:ol. Multi-
plexing was already part of the pTOs’ X.25-based
service (network layer protocol). As each logical
connection involved revenues, multiplexing at the
level of the transport layer would mean a loss of
revenues for PTOs.
The controversies were difficult to solve. Differ-
ences of opinion resurfaced in the compromise which
was conjured. Five transport protocol (TP) classes
were adopted in the standard. The PTOs, concern for
teletex was accommodated in class 0 (TPO). TPO
provided minimum functionality. It simply passed
’ There is an obvious methodological risk in using interviews.
Interviewees arc likely to remember the salient controversies and
not points on which participants agree. Likewise differences of
interest are more conspicuous than paradigmatic differences. Even
when prompted for such information. interviewees often have
difficulties in expressing this tacit knowledge’. Thus, indications
of paradigmatic elements related to telematics are less likely to
become clear.
9 Teletex is a “service (. .) enabling subscribers to exchange
correspondence on an automatic, memory-to-memory basis via
telecommunication networks” (CCITT Recommendation X.200).
 T.M. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450
Table 3
The cases of base OS1 standardisation and the period of interest
Case studies Standard Start *
OS1 1979
Case 1 Transport 1979
Case 2 Session 1982
Presentation 1984
Case 3 Message CCI-IT 1979
Handling IS0 1979
* The start of standardisation activities are estimates
data on to the higher level. TPO assumed that the
underlying network was reliable, thus no error facili-
ties were included. Class 1 contained error recovery
mechanisms. It was a concession from ECMA in that
it did not include multiplexing. The interests of the
computer-oriented practitioners were represented in
the other three classes. Class 2 supported multiplex-
ing. Class 3 combined multiplexing with the error
recovery facilities of class 1 and differed from TPl
only in the sense that it supported multiplexing.
Class 4 of the transport protocol met the require-
ments of United States’ participants, who sought
compatibility with ARPA’s TCP. The primary re-
sponsibility for future changes in the protocol classes
was shared between CCITT and ISO. It was agreed
that CCI’IT would be primarily responsible for TPO
(simple class) and TPl (error recovery class). IS0
would be in charge of TP2 (multiplexing class), TP3
(error recovery and multiplexing class) and TP4
(error detection and recovery class). Where changes
were pending, the other organisation would be in-
volved.
In sum, decisive factors in the standards process
were, firstly, the PTOs’ vested interests in and rev-
enues from X.25 products (in relation to multiplex-
ing and error control). A second factor was their
interest and expectations in respect to teletex, a
dedicated, text- and document-oriented terminal.
ECMA members, on the other hand, took infor-
mation processing in general as the starting point for
discussions on the transport layer. Computer-oriented
participants were mainly driven by their expectation
that several terminals would need to operate simulta-
neously over a single connection [25] and by their
desire for more user control in order to !save costs.
441
End
1984
1984
1984
1988
CCITT 1984 Revised by CCITT/ISO 1988
IS0 1984
Us&s of the ARPA network sought compatibility
with TCP/IP protocols.
The compromise of five different protocol classes
complicated interworking [26]. In order to alleviate
interworking problems, means were developed which
allowed a certain amount of negotiation of protocol
classes. In addition, profiles were developed for
specific applications which defined a fixed OS1 pro-
tocol stack, including the necessary transport proto-
col class. For example, the use of TPO and TPI was
prescribed for CCIl’T’s message handling recom-
mendation (X.400). lo All in all: however, the num-
ber of classes prevented the transport layer standard
from being a generic building block for upper layers.
4.2. Session protocols
From 1982 onwards detailed work took place on
the session layer. Again, protocol developrnent took
place within an IS0 working group. This time the
process started out with a gentleman’s agreement to
make the session protocol compatible with CCITT’s
teletex S.62 recommendation. ” There were two
contributions to consider. First of all there were the
session functions of the teletex standard, a solution
which the participating PTOs favoured. Because of
previously developed teletex products, PTOs wanted
to be able to claim conformance to the OS1 session
layer. The second input consisted of the ECMA 75
protocol, which was championed by those with a
lo CCITT later dropped this requirement.
” CCITT S.62 was later renamed CCI’IT T.62
442 T.M. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450
Table 4
Contribution Functional units
ECMA Minor synchronisation, major synchronisation.
resynchronisation
ccn-r Minor synchronisation. activity management
Outcome Minor synchronisation, major synchronisation,
resynchronisation, activity management
computer-oriented background. At the time there
were no products based on this standard.
A synthesis of the two standards was sought
which would be acceptable for CCITT, IS0 and
ECMA. The proposal to adopt encoding and services
of S.62 and the services of ECMA did not work out.
The discussion focused on the functional units which
regulated the dialogue (see Table 4). Although the
services provided by the two sets of functional units
differed, by and large similar functions were offered,
for example: document interrupt and document re-
sume (activity management in S.62) are a form of
synchronisation and resynchronisation (ECMA 75).
The evolution of the session layer was a painful
process [26]. ECMA’s and CCITT’s work on the
session protocol had taken place in entirely separate
environments. The effort vested in their own stan-
dards made it difficult to reach consensus. Further-
more, participating carriers (e.g. Germany and
Canada) who were members of both the IS0 group
and the CCITT group also fought for CCITT’s tele-
tex-based view within IS0 committees. In other
words, even within IS0 consensus was difficult to
achieve. The standards process stagnated.
Despite the overlap between ‘activity manage-
ment’ and ‘major synchronisation and resynchronisa-
tion’ all functional units were adopted. In other
words, there was no compromise. As one intervie-
wee put it, cooperation was forced on them by the
OS1 decision mechanisms of IS0 and CCITT.
According to participants, lack of willingness to
cooperate fully frustrated the development of the
session standards (protocol and service). There was
no viable technical reason for the resulting overlap
of functionality. Even when taking into account the
existence of CCITT products, a common technical
solution could have been reached.
The consequence of the overlap was that imple-
mentors of the session protocol would most likely
implement either the ECMA or the CCITT combina-
tion of functional units. The choice again invited
interworking problems.
4.3. Message handling protocols
Standardisation in the area of message handling
was prompted by an IFIP working party in the late
1970s. The IFIP group formulated user requirements
for what was then called Computer Based Messaging
Systems. Both ECMA and CCITT responded. In
parallel the CCITT developed the X.4001 series and
ECMA worked on the Message Interchange Dis-
tributed Applications, a private network-based mes-
sage handling system [27]. ECMA’s work was fed
into ISO’s development of the Message Oriented
Text Interchange System (MOTIS). MOTIS activi-
ties took place in IS0 TC 97 SC 18. Many IS0
participants were ECMA members. After MOTIS
acquired the status of a draft international standard,
IS0 decided to stop its development and join forces
with CCI’IT on further development of the X.400
series (approved by CCITI in 1984).
Whereas little cooperation existed prior to 1984,
thereafter liaisons between CCITT and IS0 strength
ened. Joint meetings were held during the CCITT
Study Period 1985-1988. These were alternately
labelled IS0 and CCITI meetings. Parts of ISO’s
draft MOTIS, such as the concept of a message
store, were incorporated into the 1988 version of the
X.400 series [32]. Elements of ISO’s (draft which
would not be assimilated were to be forwarded by
the X.400 systems without modification (transparent
transportation). i2
The process resulted in a single text, processed by
both IS0 and CCITI. On some issues the two
standard groups did not reach agreement. In such
cases the standard recorded both standpoints, their
differences and how they were to be applied by IS0
and CCITT. Thus, almost identical standards for
message handling systems resulted: the CCITT X.400
‘* Perlee et al. [28], Data Communicatie Atlas, ‘Technical Part.
section B, p. 5- 1.
 T.M. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450 443

Table 5
Summary of the main vantage points in the cases of OS1 standardisation
Cases Developed in Vantage points PTOs Vantage points Main outcome
computer-oriented participants
Transport IS0 No multiplexing Multiplexing and error 5 protocol
layer and error control control (user control classes
(safeguard revenues saves costs)
network layer)
Teletex compatibility No dedicated end-systems
TCP compatibility
Session layer IS0 Vested interests in Vested standards work Large overlap in
teletex products (CCITI in ECMA 75 chosen functional units
S.62 compabbility)

MHS (1988): Separately in Downward compatible Compliance to new PRMD/ADMD in name

X.400 series IS0 and CC1T-f with X.400 (1984) OS1 developments
and MOTIS until 1984 (presentation and
application layer)
Central role for No distinction PRMD/ADMD Compatibility with
m-0(ADMD) X.400 (1984)
Simple and consistent More complex functionality
standard for networking

(1988) and the (new) IS0 MOTIS standard, now
referred to as Message Handling System (MHS).
One of the differences in the 1988 standards was
CCIIT’s distinction between private or business net-
works (the Private Management Domain, PRMD)
and the public network (the Administrative Manage-
ment Domain, ADMD). Historically the public net-
work was the domain of the PTOs. In CCI’TT’s view
PRMDs were end systems. CCITT X.400 (1988)
treated it accordingly. That is, in the figure which
CCIIT used to illustrate the relation between
ADMDs and PRMDs, private systems were not di-
rectly connected (not: PRMD-PRMD). The figure in
the recommendation suggested that a public operator
was necessary as an intermediary (PRMD-ADMD-
PRMD). This applied for PRMD connections within
countries as well as for crossborder connections. I3
In ISO’s perspective there was one domain. The
standard adopted the term ‘ADMD’, but gave it the
significance of a routing domain (instead of a man-
agement domain). I4
Another difference between the CCITT and IS0
versions concerned the measure of compliance sought
with the 1984 version of the X.400 series. The
CCIIT version held that implementations of the
1988 recommendation should conform to X.400
(1984) recommendations. Downward compatibility
was of importance, as many PTOs which imple-
mented the 1984 version were still operating it in
1988. IS0 did not demand downward compatibility.
From ISO’s point of view it was even preferable to
stick to the 1988 version. The reason was a:sfollows.
Since 1984, a framework and a number of building
blocks had been defined for the application layer.

I3 See, e.g. Holler 1291, p. 168. The omtsston of dtrect PRMD

connections in the CCI’IT figure was intended to prevent “open-
ing a can of worms”, as one interviewee put it. On ckoser reading.
PRMD-PRMD connections are allowed withm countries. Where
cross-border connections are concerned, the situation depends on
the rules of the governments involved.
I4 One of the ISO-initiated discussions centred on the necessity
of identifying the ADMD. If a message could be sent from one
PRMD to another without identifying the ADMD (e.g. by putting
in a blank instead of the ADMD name) it might allow systems to
automatically choose the cheapest way of routing.
444 T.M. Egyedi/Computer
The presentation layer protocol had also been com-
pleted. Of course, the X.400 (1984) version did not
comply with these new OS1 developments. For ex-
ample, in the 1984 version the presentation layer was
empty. IS0 advocated adherence to the principles of
OSI, such as using all layer functionalities. In 1988
this meant implementing the presentation layer pro-
tocol as well. IS0 further did not want to burden
new implementors of X.400 (1988) with compliance
to 1984 standards, as compliance to functionalities
which had since been revised, would make the sys-
tems based on the 1988 version less transparent.
Moreover, for implementors compliance would in-
volve extra effort with little added functionality.
In sum, differences arose from ISO’s emphasis on
matters concerning information processing and pri-
vate networks and CCITT’s emphasis on intercon-
nection and ADMD. The PTOs’ main concern was
the workability of the network, which meant consis-
tent, and to a certain extent, simple standards. From
their point of view, IS0 participants sometimes
seemed to indulge in personal hobbies, academic
thinking and superfluous embellishment. Some ideas
stemming from IS0 were deemed attractive, but too
expensive and difficult to implement. This applied
for example to the freedom of choice in routing
messages and message circulation. l5 (For a sum-
mary of the above, see Table 5.)
5. OS1 and the measure of integration
The OS1 framework, with its own paradigmatic
characteristics in respect to standardisation, func-
tioned as an integrating concept. The set of princi-
ples involved focused standards work. As was illus-
trated by the case studies, committee participants
explicitly referred to OS1 principles in standardisa-
tion controversies (e.g. the principle of non-empty
layers). However, the set of principles itself posed
some difficulties. Friction existed between the layer-
aligned, modular approach and the interdependence
of OS1 layers, which would have consequences for
I5 The idea draws on the way (paper) magazines are sometimes
circulated.
Standards & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450
the OS1 trajectory (i.e. the succession of OSI-related
activities). Layer interdependence arose from the
combination of (a) higher level use of lower level
services, (b) the development of base OS1 standards
roughly from the lower layers upwards, and (c) the
accommodation of prior non-OS1 standards within
the OS1 framework. Some of the problems encoun-
tered and provisionally solved in early standardisa-
tion affected higher level OS1 standards and the
interoperability of OS1 implementations. These as-
pects are elaborated below.
One of the aims of the OS1 framework was to
allow “existing standards to be placed into perspec-
tive within the overall Reference Model”. This
should cater for the sunk costs in standards which
existed before the OS1 framework and its base stan-
dards were completed. CCITT’s X.25, teletex and
the message handling standard are examples of stan-
dards which were developed prior or parallel to the
OS1 framework. These and ARPA’s TCF’ co-shaped
the background against which negotiations on the
‘empty’ OS1 layers took place.
When projected onto the OS1 model, the X.25
standard for packet-switching (1976) could not be
assigned to one of the layers. It combined both data
link and network functions. In spite of the layer
alignment intended by the OS1 model, X.25 was
accommodated in OS1 layers 2 and 3.
X.25 contained multiplexing facilities. Multiplex-
ing in layer 3 foreshadowed negotiations at the level
of the transport layer (layer 4). Because X.25 was
accommodated in OSI, the PTOs disputed the need
for repeated multiplexing facilities at the transport
level (TP2 and TP3). The point of incorporating TPO
and TPI next to TP2 and TP3, which only differed
on the issue of multiplexing, was heavily debated.
In another manner, teletex (1980) ‘fixed’ the
specifications of the empty OS1 layers. Il. was retro-
spectively accommodated in the application layer,
that is OS1 layer 7. However, the teletex service also
expected the lower layers to provide certain intercon-
nection functions. These functions were part of the
teletex standard.
‘( . . .) no transport layer was catered for in the
original MHS and Teletex proposals, and this is in
effect tantamount to using TPO. Indeed TPO was
 T.M. Egyedi/Computer Standards & Inte$aces 18 (1997) 431-450 445

designed to be compatible with the (rudimentary) all session layer options. This requires more work
Teletex transport protocol (Marsden [26], p. 333) l6 and more resources (e.g. memory). Implementation
of the complete session protocol, is therefore only
feasible for applications which run on large comput-
The case studies illustrate how earlier defined
ers.
lower layer functions in the teletex standard affected
Minimal implementations of FTAM or X.400,
the development of base standards for the transport
based on either the ISO/ECMA or CCITT session
layer (TPO) and the session layer (e.g. teletex set of
variant, are not suitable for elaboration with applica-
functional units).
tions which require the other session mechanism.
Thus, even before the OS1 framework was ap-
Different session software is concerned. Many
proved, prior implemented standards strongly re-
providers offer services up to and including the
stricted the latitude to define the content of the
presentation layer. Which (groups of) applications
layers. Its consistency was compromised b’ottom-up
can run on the protocol stack, depends on the way
by X.25 and top-down by teletex. The first defeated
the session layer is implemented. Others provide the
the objective of layer alignment; the sec:ond im-
whole stack, including for example X.400. In prac-
pugned 0%‘~ aim to assign each layer a function
tice this means that to exchange Electronic Data
(i.e. TPO). Overlap between layers (multiplexing in
Interchange (EDI) messages between two systems -
the network and the transport layers) and overlap-
one of which runs ED1 on top of the X.400 protocols
ping functionalities within layers (session layer) again
and the other running on FTAM - session layer
thwarted OSI’s objective of conciseness and econ-
software is required which supports both variants. (In
omy of options.
its absence a separate gateway would be needed to
Overlapping functionalities in the session layer
map the protocols onto one another.) Under normal
affected the interoperability of application services.
circumstances overlap in the session layer leads to a
As noted, ISO/ECMA’s and CCITT’s overlapping
bifurcation in OS1 applications.
and incompatible solutions for synchronisation and
In sum, standards developed prior to the OS1
resynchronisation were both adopted in the session
framework led to inconsistencies in the OS1 philoso-
protocol. This had consequences for the interoper-
phy. The OS1 model was initiated to rationalise
ability of, for example, the X.400-based message
standardisation and integrate standards activities in a
handling service and the File Transfer, Access and
merging field. Practice diverged: double multiplex-
Management (FIAM-)based file transfer service de-
ing functions in the network and the transport layer,
veloped in IS0 (in which ECMA also played a role).
parallel protocol classes in the transport layer and
Implementors of FTAM used the ISO/ECMA solu-
strongly overlapping functions within the session
tion for the session service. Conversely, CCITT’s
layer. Two clusters of application layer implementa-
X.400 (1984) best fitted CCITT’s session option.
tions emerged, one based on the IS0 version of the
The dilemma referred to here centres on the way
session protocol, the other based on the: CCIIT
the session layer is implemented. The session layer is
version.
usually not offered as a separate product. To support
OSI-based ex ante standardisation did not cut
both FTAM and MHS one would need to implement
back options as much as was hoped for. Options
were reduced through non-use. For example, TPl
and TP3 are currently seldom implememed. This
I6 The Message Handling standard (X.400 series (1984)) devel-
reduces in retrospect the number of options in the
oped approximately in parallel with the OSI framework. Parts of transport layer.
the standard migrated to OS1 (Marsden 1261, p. 91). A derivative
example of lower layer effects on upper layers is the way the use
of TPO in MHS led to the development of the Reliable Transfer 6. Paradigms in controversies
Service (a checkpoint recovery mechanism) in the application
layer. Because MHS was designed to work on TPO, and “cannot
rely on the integrity of the underlying connection, (. .) additional OS1 contributions developed in the separate envi-
procedures are required” (Marsden[26], p. 333). ronments of CCITT, IS0 and ECMA, whose mem-
446 TM. Egyedi/ Computer Standards & Interfaces I8 (1997) 431-450
hers had an influential role in ISO. Cooperation
between the distinct standards committees proceeded
haltingly. Unchecked by prior consultation, field-
specific viewpoints and interests entered the stan-
dards process. To what extent to do paradigmatic
differences lie at the root of controversies?
Many paradigmatic elements show up in the case
studies. Most salient in the early days, was the
PTOs’ adherence to the paradigm of telephony, which
they applied to standardisation in a new field of
communication. For example, the PTOs’ high expec-
tations of teletex made them persist in their demands
for teletex-compatible OS1 transport and session pro-
tocols. Teletex fitted the PTOs’ general focus on the
written and spoken word. Like the telephone, the
teletex terminal was a dedicated terminal. The tech-
nical and operational heuristics underlying its devel-
opment followed those of telephony. The idea of
teletex was at odds with the multi-purpose computer
concept and would not have been conceivable within
the informatics community. The only way to under-
stand its impact on OS1 standardisation is by relating
it to the paradigm of telephony.
In contributions of computer-oriented practition-
ers, a well-defined paradigm is less identifiable. A
clear focusing mechanism (exemplar) is lacking
which could specify the way certain recurring ele-
ments tie together. However, the practitioners did
express a distinct, shared outlook. It consisted of
profession- and management domain-related ideas.
For example, they viewed datacommunication as an
extension of the personal and organisational domain,
strived for flexibility in and user control of network
facilities, and typically emphasised the multi-purpose
function of terminals and the versatile demands which
this involved with regard to datacommunication.
More specific, in three case studies computer-ori-
ented practitioners were inclined to exploit the poten-
tial of the computer. During the X.400 (1988) pro-
cess they came up with some sophisticated ideas,
which the PTOs rejected. The PTOs emphasised
reliable networks and therefore to a certain extent
simple network solutions.
The PTOs’ view on future developments was
based on continuity in service provision and was
interwoven with vested interests in X.25, teletex and
X.400 (1984) products. Past developments had been
of an incremental kind. Downward compatibility of
X.400 (1988) with X.400 (1984) services would
ensure continuity, an option which most IS0 partici-
pants did not favour. From ISO’s point of view it
was preferable to stick to the 1988 version since in
the meantime the OS1 presentation layer protocol
had been completed. IS0 advocated adherence to the
principles of OSI, and therefore also implementation
of the presentation layer protocol. The differences
were symptomatic for the divergent time scales which
the two practitioner communities considered.
An important issue with regard to standardisation
of the transport layer was where to locate control of
the network. Telephony-oriented practitioners had a
tradition of network control and set great store on the
integrity of the network. Accordingly, they for exam-
ple argued against decentralised error control on the
level of the transport layer, which in addition would
mean loss of revenues. Conversely, lower costs of
datacommunication, next to flexible use of network
facilities, motivated computer-oriented practitioners
to demand user control.
The issue of network control reappeared in dis-
cussions concerning the message handling protocols.
The PTOs in the CCITT defined private networks
(PRMD) as end systems in order to retain authority
in the traditional domain of the public networks
(ADMD) and thereby safeguard the accompanying
revenues. IS0 participants, on the other hand, inter-
preted the ADMD-PRMD domain distinction in terms
of routing domains and thereby circumvented the
intended restriction of work area. The two bodies
tacitly agreed to let the different interpretations go in
order not to jeopardise correspondence between
CCIlT’s and ISO’s document on message handling.
With regard to overall developments in OS1 stan-
dardisation, the case findings indicate that the signif-
icance of paradigmatic differences decline during the
second half of the 1980s. Gradually integration of
work fields and coordination of standards work within
the OS1 framework start to become manifest.
A number of factors facilitated the transition. The
most controversial issues had been tackled. The on-
set of liberalisation in telecommunications changed
the PTOs’ expectations and loosened the operational
basis for the telephony paradigm. The teletex hurdle
had been cleared. (Regrettably for OSI standardisa-
tion, lack of demand for teletex was recognised
rather late.) Moreover, by the mid 1980s OS1 solu-
 TM. Egyedi / Com,puter Standards
tions were being publicly acclaimed by users, gov-
ernments and groups of manufacturers [IO]. They
drew strong political support from the European
Commission, which created incentives for OSI-con-
form product demand and provided a favourable
regulatory environment. This supportive environment
also reinforced cooperation on OSI-related standardi-
sation and the development of a common outlook.
In the OSI-TCP/IP debate, OS1 developments
have been much criticised - and often for the wrong
reasons [30]. Although the case studies add to such
criticism, it must be stressed that the aims of the OS1
framework were ambitious. Summarising, two re-
lated factors hampered OS1 developments. The first
was the mismatch between the degree of cognitive
integration embedded in OS1 and the degree of or-
ganisational rapprochement between CCITI and ISO.
Early lack of cooperation slowed down OS1 stan-
dardisation. Furthermore, OS1 committees had to
cope with two practitioner communities, which ad-
dressed different operational environments (e.g.
area-specific government regulation, dissimilar ex-
pectations about service demand, and different ideas
about the pricing of services).
The second factor was the allowances made for
standards developed prior to the OS1 framework and
the consensus demands of formal standardisation.
Base OS1 standardisation took into account previ-
ously developed services, working alternatives and
paper alternatives. The standards codified existing
diversity and thus prevented OS1 from achieving the
measure of economy and interoperability associated
with ex ante standardisation (i.e. standardise before
products have been developed and marketed). The
‘ex ante’ OS1 effort partly became an ‘ex post’
answer (i.e. standardisation applied to products or
services which are available on the market).
Despite these problems, OS1 prevented further
unproductive variety. To my knowledge, no cursive
new emphasis developments were initiated which
competed with OS1 standardisation.
7. Conclusion and discussion
The paradigm approach can to a large extent
account for the outcomes in OS1 standardisation.
There is a marked difference in the contributions of
& Interfaces I8 (I 997) 431-450 447
computer- and telephony-oriented practitioners to
base OS1 standardisation. Group-specific outlooks of
CCITT and ISO/ECMA affected the standards con-
tent. Paradigmatic elements were, for example, ap-
parent in the five transport protocol classes in which
both central and decentral network control were rep-
resented; in the teletex-compatible transport and ses-
sion protocols; and in the message handling proto-
cols for which, for example, downward compatibility
of later versions was an issue. Compromises were
forged and unclear formulations were upheld in or-
der to allow PTOs and computer-oriented practition-
ers to continue with ‘normal problem solving’ in
their respective areas of interest.
Next to paradigmatic influences, economic and
political considerations (revenues, costs of datacom-
munication and market control) entered committee
negotiations. The cases show how paradigms may
contextualise such economic and political interests.
For example, the PTO distinction between the ad-
ministrative and the private management domain can,
indeed, be interpreted as a means to stake off their
operational domain against intruders; however, the
distinction may equally be understood as a symptom
of the difficulties which ‘telephony’-oriented practi-
tioners have in visualising the way networking should
take place without hierarchic, central network con-
trol. As was noted earlier, such interpretations are
scarce. Usually committee processes are one-sidedly
interpreted in terms of interests. No efforts have been
made to explore other grounds. Not surprisingly,
therefore, standardisation literature has never at-
tempted to relate interests to technological paradigms.
Relationship between interests and technological
paradigms. A number of remarks should be made
concerning this relationship. Firstly, regardless of the
‘technical’ associations which the term ‘technologi-
cal paradigm’ may evoke, the first scholars which
used the approach took economic considerations to
be part of paradigm development.
Secondly, technology-related group interests - of
whichever nature - are shared cognitions in the same
way as shared technological heuristics, shared expec-
tations, etc. They too add a focusing element to the
activities of practitioners.
Thirdly, certain interests can be accommodated
within the paradigm concept in a more embedded
way. The reasoning here is as follows. Technological
448 TM. Egyedi/Computer Standards & lnterfoces 18 (1997) 431-450
heuristics develop in interaction with their opera-
tional environment. Practitioner communities in the
field of telematic services, for example, assess devel-
opments in service demand differently, take the
turnover rate of business equipment into account in
their ideas, favour different architectural designs, etc.
depending on the market segment they operate in.
Especially in applied fields of technology, paradigms
embody operational and economic heuristics. For
example, the emphasis on network integrity and
central network control is instrumental to universal
service provision. Paradigm-based technology devel-
opment presumes a stable operational environment -
an operational trajectory. Stability is in the interest of
practitioners as changes in the operational environ-
ment could demand a change of paradigm and
paradigms are not easily discarded. Paradigm adher-
ents will do what they can to maintain the status quo
and will oppose changes. In other words, interest
negotiation in standards committees is partly to be
understood as a means to preserve the operational
trajectory which supports the paradigm-based tech-
nological trajectory.
Thus, the paradigm approach offers leads to ac-
commodate technology-related interests. Technologi-
cal paradigms ‘organise’ cognitions. They contextu-
alise technology-related knowledge and interests.
(Perhaps needless to say, one cannot always relate
interests to technological paradigms in a straightfor-
ward way. One probably should not try to do so
where, for example, national or purely commercial
interests in standards are evident. Other perspectives
can aid in contextualising committee negotiations
based on such interests.)
Controversies in standards committees which in-
volve both interests and paradigms - are they better
explained by the paradigm approach? The paradigm
approach may in some cases provide a deeper under-
standing of the committee process than an interest-
based analysis. An example will illustrate what I
mean. The example concerns the development of the
X.25 datacommunication recommendation in CCITI’.
It is chosen because this standards process is in
literature described as a political process while I
described it in terms of paradigms (Section 3.2).
From the political perspective, the PTOs’ adher-
ence to centralised network control would be inter-
preted as a means to fortify their position against
private and experimental network operators and to
collect the revenues which are involved in providing
accompanying network control services. The
paradigm perspective, on the other hand, clarifies the
context in which such interests are put forward and
explains the ‘naturalness’ of centralised network
control. The idea of central control was embedded in
technical provisions, in the expertise and operational
experience gained in the public service environment.
The PTOs’ emphasis on reliable networks, and thus
network integrity in combination with central con-
trol, was not an improvised argument in. discussions
on X.25. Nor - taking the example of teletex - can
the ‘dedicated service approach’ be seen in isolation.
The latter is consistent with PTOs’ handling of tele-
phony. Although, indeed, centralised network control
had beneficial economic consequences for the PTOs’
and although the extension of the concept of dedi-
cated ‘end terminals’ may be interpreted as a means
to preserve the old order of network design,
paradigms better explain why in such matters certain
technical options are chosen and not others, which
also could have furthered their ‘economic and politi-
cal interests’. All committee events can in retrospect
be analysed as or reduced to interest-based occur-
rences. However, certain controversies will not be
noted, and other occasions will too one-sidedly be
interpreted as interest-driven, if the influence of
paradigms is left out.
Are there other arguments for applying the
paradigm approach? The paradigm approach ac-
counts for standards contributions of those motivated
to participate because of their interest in the technol-
ogy concerned. Furthermore, the approach explicitly
relates standardisation to technology development,
an area of research which by and large has remained
neglected. In particular in respect to converging tech-
nologies the paradigm approach promises to be fruit-
ful.
Acknowledgements
I am strongly indebted to Cor de Jong and Arie
Rip for their coaching on the original chapter and to
the anonymous reviewers for their suggestions on the
final draft. The article is based on a chapter in [lo] of
which the overall content and summary are accessi-
 TM. Egyedi / Computer Standards d Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450
ble via Internet (candl.let.ruu.nl/www/staff/loef-
fen/cv/cvlO.htm).
References
[l] Th. Inner, The single global market of telecommunication
standards, 1992 Single Market Communications Review 2
(3) (1990) 56-58.
[2] L. van Rooij, Geschiedenis van de intemationale normal-
isatie, Lecture for Histechnica, Delft, 26th October 1991,
published in: De Ingenieur (1992) (in Dutch).
[3] M.B.H. Weiss, M. Sirbu, Technological choice in voluntary
standards committees: An empirical analysis, Economics of
Innovation and New Technology 1 (1990) 111-133.
[4] M.A. Sirbu, L.E. Zwimpfer, Standards setting for computer
communication: The case of X.25, IEEE Communications
Magazine 23 (3) (1985) 35-45.
[5] S.K. Schmidt, R. Werle, Technical controversy in intema-
tional standardization, MPIFG discussion paper (93/5), Max
Planck-lnstitut fur Gesellschafsforschung, Kb;ln, 1993.
[6] J. Abbate, From ARPANET to INTERNET: A history of
ARPA-sponsored computer networks, 1966-1988, Disserta-
tion, University of Pennsylvania, 1994.
[7] T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, III,
University of Chicago Press, 2nd ed., Chicago, 1970 (origin.
1962).
181 R.R. Nelson, S.G. Winter, In search of useful theory of
innovation, Research Policy 6 (1977) 36-76.
[9] J.C. Ambak, T.M. Egyedi, Development of telematic ser-
vices, in: J.S. Duisterhout, A. Hasman, R. Salamon @Is..),
Telematics in Medicine, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991,
pp. 3-17.
[lo] T.M. Egyedi, Shaping standardization: A study of standards
processes and standards policies in the field of telematic
services, Ph.D. thesis, Delft University Press, Delhi, the
Netherlands, 1996.
[I 11 Th. Bruins, Open systemen, PTT Research, the Netherlands,
1993 (in Dutch).
1121 C. de Jong, Telecommunicatie: Strategi&n voor openbare
structuren, Collegedictaat, Delft University of Technology,
Faculty of Technology and Society, September 1991 (in
Dutch).
[ 131 G. Dosi, Technological paradigms and technological trajecto-
ries, Research Policy 11 (1982) 147-162.
[14] J.C. Arnbak, Many voices, one structure, Inaugural speech,
Delhi University of Technology, Delft, 1986.
[15] R. ManseB, R. Hawkins, Old roads and new signposts: Trade
policy objectives in telecommunication standards, in: F.
Klaver, P. Slaa @Is.), Telecommunication, New Signposts
to Old Roads, 10s Pmss, Amsterdam, 1992, pp. 45-54.
[16] F.C. Schoute, Mixed traffic patterns and traffic capacity in
ISDN, in: Arnbak (Ed.), ISDN in Europe, Innovative services
449
or innovative technology? North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989,
pp. 97-106.
1171 R.J. Solomon, New paradigms for future standards, Commu-
nications and Strategies 2 (2) (1991) 51-90.
[18] C. de Jong, Telecommunicatie: Techniek en nieuwe diensten,
in: Verschuivende Toekomst, Studium Genetale, Delft Uni-
versity of Technology, 1990b (in Dutch).
[19] M. Campbell-Kelly, Geschiedenis van Informatieverwerk-
ende Machines, De Informatiemaatschappij, Jubileumuitgave
van Natuur en Techniek, Maastricht, 1983, pp. 30-49 (in
Dutch).
[20] J.M. Lasso Peiia, Gpen systems interconnection (OSI) refer-
ence model: Several perspectives of the telecommunication
and computer worlds, Graduation thesis, Delft University of
Technology Faculty of Electrotechnology, 1992.
1211 P. %a, Naar een actorperspectief op technologie, Kennis en
Methode 1 (1988) 22-42 (in Dutch).
[22] A. Rip, A cognitive approach to science policy, Research
Policy 10 (1981) 294-311.
1231 G.D. Wallenstein, Setting Global Telecommunications Stan-
dards: The Stakes, the Players and the Process, Artech
House, London, 1990.
[24] Th. Bruins, Inleiding OSI, in: C. de Jong, E.F. Michiels,
J.A.M. Nijhof, P. van der Vlist (Eds.), Handboek Telematica,
Samson, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1990, pp. l-6 (in Dutch).
[25] K.G., Knightson, T. Knowles, J. Larmouth, Standards for
Open Systems Interconnection, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1987.
[26] B.W. Marsden, Communication Network Protocols: OS1 ex-
plained, 3rd edition, Chartwell-Bran, Bromley, UK, 1991.
[27] P.H.M. Vervest, Innovation in Electronic Mail, Towards
Open Information Network Perspectives on Innovation
Policy, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.
[28] J.A. Perlee, M.F.M. Born, H. Krijgsman-Heersink, Datacom-
municatie Atlas, Expertise Centrum, ‘s Gravenhage, 1990 (in
Dutch).
[29] H. Holler, Kommunikationssysteme: Normung und soziale
Akzeptanz, Vieweg, Braunschweig/Wiesbaden, 1993 (in
German).
[30] T.M. Egyedi, Grey fora of standardization: A comparison of
JTC 1 and Internet. KPN Research, Leidschendam, the
Netherlands, 1994.
[31] C. de Jong, Openbare netten: Inleiding, in: C. de Jong, E.F.
Michiels, J.A.M. Nijhof. P. van der Vlist (Eds.). Handboek
Telematica, Samson, Alphen aan den Rijn, 1990a, pp. l-13
(in Dutch).
[32] J.A.J. Kerkers, J.E.P.M. van der Aalst, Message handling
systems, in: C. de Jong, E.F. Michiels, J.A.M. Nijhof, P. van
der Vlist @Is.), Handboek Telematica, Samson, Alphen aan
den Rijn, Samson, 1992, pp. 1-19 (in Dutch).
[33] B. Whitehouse, Communications International, August 1990,
p. 3.
[34] G.J. Terink, Telematicadiensten en apparatuur in Nederland,
Alphen aan den Rijn: Samson, 1988.
450 T.M. Egyedi/Computer StAndArdS & Interfaces 18 (1997) 431-450

Tineke Mirjam Egyedi was employed

from 1990 to 1994 by the Delft Univer-
sity of Technology as a Ph.D. researcher
on standardisation of telematic services.
As a consultant for KPN Research, she
compared JTC 1 and Internet standardis-
ation. Subsequently she was engaged by
the Royal Institute of Technology in
Stockholm to study the role of contain-
ers in the transportation infrastructure
from a standardisation perspective. She
received her Ph.D. degree in 1996. As
an emulovee of the Delft Universitv of
Technology she wrote two policy documents for the Dutch &in-
istry of Transport and Water Works. Currently, she is studying the
effect of different transmission protocols on the use of multimedia
by researchers cooperating from several locations. Her main inter-
est concerns standardisation and the development of infrastruc-
tures.