China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, together with four other central agencies including the science ministry, the national market regulator, the housing and urban‑rural development ministry and the national intellectual property office, has circulated a new “Guide to Building a Technology‑Services Standards System (2025 edition)” and directed provincial authorities to implement it. Part of the instruction sets a concrete target: to draft and promulgate more than 40 new national and industry standards for the technology‑services sector by 2027.
The term “technology services” in this context covers a wide range of activities that sit between research and commercial application: testing and certification, technology transfer and transaction services, research and development outsourcing, incubators, engineering services and IP valuation and brokerage. Beijing frames standards as the levers needed to professionalise these activities, reduce transaction costs, improve quality control and accelerate the conversion of scientific discoveries into marketable products.
The instruction arrives as a follow‑on to a broader policy package from nine ministries that seeks to accelerate high‑quality development of the tech‑services market. The circulated guide is being sent to provincial industry and information offices, science and technology bureaus, housing authorities, market regulators and intellectual‑property agencies, as well as industry associations and standardisation bodies, signalling a whole‑of‑government push to embed standards across local implementation, public procurement and market supervision.
Standardising the technology‑services sector is a technical but strategically significant step. Clear standards can make it easier for small and medium enterprises to access financing and participate in government procurement; they can create common metrics for assessing the quality of labs, testing houses and technology brokers; and they can reduce disputes over technology valuation and transfer. For China’s industrial policy goals—raising innovation absorption, shortening development cycles and strengthening domestic supply chains—such rules are practical instruments.
There are also geopolitical and market‑access consequences. A fast build‑out of domestic standards gives Chinese firms common technical expectations at home and a stronger platform from which to influence or promote their norms abroad. At the same time, the new standards may raise compliance costs for foreign suppliers and service providers or be used to channel key activities to domestic entities. International firms will be watching for substantive technical requirements—on data handling, certification processes or IP valuation—that could shape commercial arrangements.
Implementation risks should not be overlooked. Rapid standardisation can ossify particular technological choices, bias outcomes towards incumbents, or be used selectively to favour domestically aligned suppliers. The quality and openness of the drafting process will determine whether the standards improve market efficiency or simply become non‑tariff barriers. Moreover, coordination across dozens of provincial implementers will be necessary to avoid fragmentation and conflicting local rules.
The short timeline—40-plus standards within roughly two years—suggests Beijing sees standardisation as a practical, near‑term tool to consolidate gains from R&D investment and to professionalise a sector that has expanded quickly in recent years. Expect the first tranche of standards to focus on testing and certification procedures, data and security practices around technology transactions, IP valuation methods and service classifications, with more technical norms to follow in areas such as AI, advanced manufacturing services and specialized testing equipment.
For global observers, the move is a reminder that China is not only investing in advanced capabilities but also in the regulatory and normative scaffolding that shapes markets. Standards are often invisible, yet they materially influence who wins contracts, how technologies are priced and how easily new entrants scale. Beijing’s push to codify the technology‑services sector marks the next phase of industrial policy: not merely subsidising or directing activity, but designing the technical rules of engagement.