Goverment and ICT standards: An electronic voting case study
| Published date | 31 August 2004 |
| Date | 31 August 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/14779960480000249 |
| Pages | 143-158 |
| Author | Jason Kitcat |
| Subject Matter | Information & knowledge management |
Goverment and ICT Standards:
An Electronic Voting Case Study
This paper presents a case study detailing
several attempts to standardise aspects of
electronic voting systems. This case is
important not only due to the controversy
surrounding the implementation of elec-
tronic voting systems but because it pro-
vides an interesting perspective on govern-
ment intervention in the development of
information and communication technolo-
gy (ICT) standards. By taking a descriptive
approach this paper does not aim to, in the
positivist tradition, prove or disprove cer-
tain theoretical approaches to ICT stan-
dards.1
Before presenting the case this paper will
use the first section to set the theoretical
context. The current literature will be
examined and used to provide a simple
framework to help clarify the presentation
of the case delivered in the second section.
The paper will then conclude with an exam-
ination of the case study against the theory
discussed along with recommendations
which arise from this analysis.
THE THEORETICAL CONTEXT
OF STANDARDS
Standards are used in a vast range of activi-
ties but the focus of this exploration will be
ICT-based. For the purposes of this paper
the author will define a standard as “a set of
technical specifications that may be
adhered to by a producer, either tacitly or
as a result of a formal agreement” (David
Info, Comm & Ethics in Society (2004) 3: 143–158
©2004 Troubador Publishing Ltd.
KKEEYYWWOORRDDSS
Electronic
voting
Standards
Consortia
ICTs
e-government
Jason Kitcat
SPRU, The Freeman Centre, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN1 9QE
Email: jeep@j-dom.org
CCOOVVEERRAAGGEE
This paper examines and illustrates the process of setting technical intercommunication standards
through a case-study taken from the electronic voting industry. It begins by addressing the large number
of types of standards and the many ways in which they are created. The tensions between the speed to
market, stakeholder involvement, the mode of production and the legitimacy of a standard are explored.
The modes of standards production are then presented in a linear model. The preceding discussion sets
the context for a case which presents attempts to standardise the large number of competing electronic
voting solutions. The importance of which actors back and influence a standard’s development up to suc-
cessful adoption is exposed. The vital role government can play in preventing a standards market fail-
ure is raised and recommendations are offered on how governments can improve their contributions to
standardisation.
ABSTRACT
and Rothwell, 1996), a definition used by
the UK government’s own centre for ICTs,
CCTA2(CCTA, 1994). Within this defini-
tion fall a number of variables by which
standards may differ and these will be
addressed in turn.
Standards: a multitude of types
and uses
This section aims to provide sufficient
background on technical standards to
enhance the reader’s contextualisation and
understanding of the subsequent case.
David identifies three key types of stan-
dards (David, 1995). These are reference
standards (e.g. the International
Committee on Weights and Measures’ plat-
inum-iridium cylinder that defines one
kilogram), minimum quality standards (e.g.
BS 6807, the British fire safety standard for
mattress ignitability) and interface or com-
patibility standards (e.g. the ‘Really Simple
Syndication’ standard for syndicating a
website’s headlines to other sites).
The time taken in the complex negotia-
tions required to agree on standards, along
with the subsequent adoption process stan-
dards-users must undergo, has resulted in
standards tending to lag behind technolog-
ical innovation. This lag can create a gap
between the dated technologies defined in
standards and the technology currently
available. To redress this technological gap
two complementary types of standards
need to be super-imposed across David’s
three. The first of these types are meta-
standards, which define a standard way of
describing standards. An excellent example
is eXtensible Markup Language (XML), a
standardised method of defining struc-
tured data languages, such as those for
building web pages. The second comple-
mentary type are forward or anticipator y
standards which predefine areas which do
not yet exist as usable technologies. So, for
example, the IEEE 802.11 standard for
wireless networking (commonly known as
WiF i) has predefined levels of definition
which anticipates future security and per-
formance gains. Both forward and meta
standards aim to create enough certainty
for new markets to emerge but usually at
the expense of detailed and precise specifi-
cations (Hawkins, 1991). It is important to
note that forward and meta standards can
be reference, minimum quality or interface
standards, hence they complement David’s
typology.
The literature often typifies standards as
being in tension between forces of free-
dom, which can allow diversity and creativ-
ity for evolution, and forces of order which
can offer efficiency and stability benefits.
This balance shifts over time resulting in
periods of relative freedom interspersing
times of standards-induced order (David
and Rothwell, 1996). That is, with some
types of standards, a design paradigm
embodied in a standard allows, for a period,
economies of scale to emerge providing
firms with a chance to reap profits from the
standardised innovation in question (Teece,
1986).
Another way of approaching the polari-
sation between freedom and order is to
model standards as being produced by a
variety of means which can be divided
between de jure and de facto (CCTA, 1994;
David, 1995). De jure standards are typical-
ly created by independent institutions
specifically formed for the purpose of
developing standards, for example the
International Telecommunications Union.
One of the benefits of institutional stan-
dards-setting is their providing very specif-
ic rules and procedures for developing con-
sensus whilst ensuring that a broad set of
stakeholders are engaged.
De facto standards, by emerging from
market forces, eschew institutional
processes whilst tending to have commer-
cial interests tied to their development. For
example, Windows operating on an Intel
microprocessor is a de facto personal com-
puter platform standard due to its market
dominance; no independent body specifies
or verifies it as a standard. Market driven
de facto standards tend to have a faster
time to market as it is usually through
competition in the marketplace itself that
Kitcat: Electronic Voting ICT Standards Case Study
TThhee sspplliitt bbeettwweeeenn mmaarrkkeett
((ddee ffaaccttoo)) aanndd oorrggaanniissaattiioonnaall
((ddee jjuurree)) ffoorrcceess iiss aa ssiimmpplliissttiicc
wwaayy ooff mmooddeelllliinngg ssttaannddaarrddss..
TThheerree aarree ootthheerr,, mmoorree
ccoommpplleexx,, mmooddeellss
144
To continue reading
Request your trial