The difference is most profound for small organizations, which are FIGURE 2, preference for Comparing the findings highlighted in FIGURE 4, ease of participation, one less likely to have additional or specialized resources to participate open standards, with those of in a restrictive standard project. Indeed, there is more variability might expect the charts to illustrate similar variation. The levels across organization size than other segmentations, indicating of preference are strikingly high, while ease of participation is less that the challenges of participation in a restrictive standard are stark by comparison, indicating that the organizations accept any a strong limitation for certain organizations. Open standards are challenges to participation in standards development as a “cost perceived as leveling the playing field in a way that allows smaller of doing business” and likely do little, if anything, to impact pref- FIGURE 2 firms to collaborate and compete with larger, well-resourced firms. erence for open standards. The preference metrics in reflect additional perceived benefits to participating in open Additional observations support our earlier findings about char- standards development beyond ease of participation, which we acteristics and preferences. The difference in ease of participation explore in later key findings. between open and restrictive standards is the smallest for orga- nizations in the APJ region, reflecting that region’s comparative comfort with government-led market regulation. Enterprise orga- nizations reported the lowest levels of overall ease in participation, which may reflect factors such as the complexity of their organi- zational structure, legal and internal policy constraints, size-based market regulations, or more elaborate product and technology strategies to manage. THE 2023 STATE OF OPEN STANDARDS EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON THE TRANSITION TO OPEN STANDARDS 15