Standardisation institutions have different procedures and regulations, and thereby join up, more or less, to the variable demand. This study aims to gain an insight in the differences and similarities between the used methods at four important standardisation bodies, and how these methods are judged upon by (potential) participants. This insight contributes to the development of a good government policy for standardisation in this changing environment.
For many decades, governments have successfully intercepted telecommunications to collect information about—potential—criminals and terrorists. A crucial part of contemporary policy is legislation that requires telecommunications providers to make their networks and services interceptable. This paper discusses two examples of interceptability legislation: the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) in the US and the Telecommunications Act in the Netherlands, in order to focus on basic questions, considerations, and trade-offs relevant to designing legal interceptability laws. In particular, the sustainability of interceptability policies as laid down in these laws is questioned, since they are under significant pressure. Technical and market developments challenge their effectiveness and costs. These developments include IP-based services, seamless roaming, default encryption at various telecommunications layers, and the 'identity boom'. Market challenges include substantial shifts in the value chain and the explosion of traffic volumes. This paper aims to determine which interceptability policy is best suited for coping with the challenges that lie ahead.
Joint Ph.D. projects are a prominent form of research collaboration, connecting universities to firms and public research organizations. When entering into such collaborations, partners need to make choices regarding a project's governance. This paper investigates how a university and its partners govern such projects, including decision-making, daily management and disclosure policies. Earlier studies show that shared governance modes have had a higher success rate than centralized governance modes. Nevertheless, more than two thirds of the 191 joint Ph.D. projects we investigated opted for centralized rather than shared governance. Our findings show that: (1) geographical and/or cognitive distance render the adoption of a shared governance mode less likely; (2) the partner controlling critical resources tends to centralize governance, and (3) partnering firms are more likely to put restrictions on publication output than public research organizations. We therefore recommend that universities and their partners take these aspects into account when selecting such projects.
Joint PhD projects are a promising form of research collaboration, connecting universities to firms and public research organizations. Entering into such collaborations, however, requires decisions in terms of governance. This paper investigates how a university and its partners govern such projects, including decision-making, daily management and disclosure policies. Earlier studies show that shared governance modes have had a higher success rate than centralized governance modes. Nevertheless, more than two thirds of the 191 joint PhD projects we investigated opted for centralized rather than shared governance. Our findings show that: (i) geographical and cognitive distance render the adoption of a shared governance mode less likely; (ii) the partner controlling critical resources tends to centralize governance, and (iii) partnering firms are more likely to put restrictions on publication output than public research organizations. We therefore recommend that universities and their partners take these aspects into account when selecting such projects.
