So suppose that you have a standard that, regardless of the risks , has invented things instead of just documentingexisting practice . What helps it succeed or pushes ittowards failure?

(By success I mean that the standard is implemented and gets used; byfailure I mean that it is either not implemented or ignored.)

Implementing and using a standard has costs, and people are lazy . This implies that a standard's chances of success aregoing to depend a lot on its benefits relative to the current statusquo

Following on from the three stereotypes of standards approaches : so you have a standard. Now, how likely is it tosucceed, or at least to be implemented (since standards more or lessnecessarily fail if they're never implemented)?

Well, that depends on the specific standard. But we can ask whatthe continuum of risks is for each stereotype of approaches tostandardization.

At one end of the continuum is pure documentation , where thebehavior the standard calls for already exists and so the standardis 'implemented