Karin Väyrynen, Arto Lanamäki, Sari Laari-Salmela, Netta Iivari, Marianne Kinnula
The relationship between digital transformation and regulation is complex and bidirectional: regulation both drives and responds to changes in the technology landscape. Moreover, regulatory efforts to shape industry-level digital transformation often produce unwanted outcomes. Existing theories are insufficient for examining this complex relationship between regulation and digital transformation. Our case study of the Finnish taxi industry illustrates these complexities. The industry underwent a legal reform intended to legalise Uber-type solutions while restricting certain other solutions. By drawing on the notion of regulatory ambiguity and mechanism-based explanation, we show how ambiguity arises from the imprecise regulation in connection with conflicting regulation and technological uncertainties. We model the regulatory ambiguity mechanism consisting of the interconnected elements that, by affecting each other and working together, drive unintended changes in the technology landscape. We theorise regulatory ambiguity as a condition that emerges when regulations are imprecise, inconsistent, or evolving. This ambiguity shapes the technology landscape and related industry-specific practices, impacting digital transformation. Our research contributes to the literature on digital transformation and on the regulation of technology. We identify and analyse the regulatory ambiguity mechanism, providing information systems (IS) researchers with a novel framework to examine the role of regulation in digital transformation. We also conceptualise regulatory impact as a lens for future IS research.
{"title":"Unpacking the Regulatory Ambiguity Mechanism: Implications for Industry-Level Digital Transformation","authors":"Karin Väyrynen, Arto Lanamäki, Sari Laari-Salmela, Netta Iivari, Marianne Kinnula","doi":"10.1111/isj.12595","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12595","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The relationship between digital transformation and regulation is complex and bidirectional: regulation both drives and responds to changes in the technology landscape. Moreover, regulatory efforts to shape industry-level digital transformation often produce unwanted outcomes. Existing theories are insufficient for examining this complex relationship between regulation and digital transformation. Our case study of the Finnish taxi industry illustrates these complexities. The industry underwent a legal reform intended to legalise Uber-type solutions while restricting certain other solutions. By drawing on the notion of regulatory ambiguity and mechanism-based explanation, we show how ambiguity arises from the imprecise regulation in connection with conflicting regulation and technological uncertainties. We model the regulatory ambiguity mechanism consisting of the interconnected elements that, by affecting each other and working together, drive unintended changes in the technology landscape. We theorise regulatory ambiguity as a condition that emerges when regulations are imprecise, inconsistent, or evolving. This ambiguity shapes the technology landscape and related industry-specific practices, impacting digital transformation. Our research contributes to the literature on digital transformation and on the regulation of technology. We identify and analyse the regulatory ambiguity mechanism, providing information systems (IS) researchers with a novel framework to examine the role of regulation in digital transformation. We also conceptualise regulatory impact as a lens for future IS research.</p>","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 6","pages":"1528-1564"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12595","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145272668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Olgerta Tona, Dorothy E. Leidner, Nick van der Meulen, Barbara Wixom, Juliana Nunes, Doug Shagam
To embark on a digital transformation journey, organisations should prepare and adapt their workforce to meet the continuous need for skill adjustments. This paper reports insights from the journey of one organisation—Johnson & Johnson—that developed an employee skills inference platform based on artificial intelligence with the objective of creating a digital-first workforce capable of thriving amid the new reality of continuous digital innovation. We describe the challenges J&J faced during the deployment of the platform and the activities they undertook in response to these challenges. Based on that, we identify three organisational practices critical for the successful deployment of AI: blueprinting the future workforce, managing ethical data work across borders, and compensating for AI blind spots. From Johnson & Johnson's experience, we derive several important lessons for other organisations interested in using AI to develop a digital-first workforce.
{"title":"The Deployment of AI to Infer Employee Skills: Insights From Johnson & Johnson's Digital-First Workforce Initiative","authors":"Olgerta Tona, Dorothy E. Leidner, Nick van der Meulen, Barbara Wixom, Juliana Nunes, Doug Shagam","doi":"10.1111/isj.12594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12594","url":null,"abstract":"<p>To embark on a digital transformation journey, organisations should prepare and adapt their workforce to meet the continuous need for skill adjustments. This paper reports insights from the journey of one organisation—Johnson & Johnson—that developed an employee skills inference platform based on artificial intelligence with the objective of creating a digital-first workforce capable of thriving amid the new reality of continuous digital innovation. We describe the challenges J&J faced during the deployment of the platform and the activities they undertook in response to these challenges. Based on that, we identify three organisational practices critical for the successful deployment of AI: blueprinting the future workforce, managing ethical data work across borders, and compensating for AI blind spots. From Johnson & Johnson's experience, we derive several important lessons for other organisations interested in using AI to develop a digital-first workforce.</p>","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 6","pages":"1516-1527"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12594","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145271905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>This editorial functions as a call to action. At the ISJ, we are open to studies that address the future and thus welcome submissions. The future can take three roles in IS research: It can be an object of research, a purpose of research, and an implication of research.</p><p>If the future is an object of research, then we are striving to predict or envision the future. The answers to our future-oriented questions may be tentatively affirmative but to a rather restricted degree. At the turn of the last century, we saw many predictions: In 1991, Mark Weiser (<span>1991</span>) predicted that ubiquitous computing would shape the 21st century. His prediction was based on emerging technologies and became a reality to a large extent. Malone et al. (<span>1987</span>) predicted a world with more markets and larger organisations based on the projected reduction of transaction costs. This prediction was based on transaction cost theory and turned out to be correct. More recent predictions are based on data. For example, Frey and Osborne (<span>2017</span>) used data from O*NET and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to predict which jobs are endangered by digitalization. A fourth line uses semi-structured approaches to speculate about the future systematically. For example, Hovorka and Mueller (<span>2025</span>) explore what the future may be like in 2043. This is, of course, a speculation, but it is an informed speculation that extrapolates from what we know today. It involves a form of disciplined what-if analysis combined with imagination (Weick <span>1989</span>). They foresee a world where digital technologies are normal rather than exceptional, and indeed where technology is so embedded into who people are that those same people might be better described as cyborgs. Technology is likely to be integrated into many aspects of our life, and yet that integration is likely to be so seamless that we may not even notice it.</p><p>The most interesting predictions are based on theory. Theories that involve a temporal dimension are particularly well-suited to these predictions. For instance, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) is intrinsically interesting because it was developed in the 1970s (Eldredge and Gould <span>1972</span>) as a way of explaining events that had taken place some 66 million years previously, namely the Chicxulub asteroid impact that precipitated the end of the realm of the terrestrial dinosaurs (and the later rise of the mammals), as evidenced in the geologic and fossil records with iridium deposits and tektites (LaPalma et al. <span>2019</span>). We cannot be 100% certain that the theoretical explanation is accurate, but it is plausible. Can PET also help us to predict the future? We are not suggesting anything as remote as 66 million years into the future: it's too far away to be able to collect data or even to speculate anything with respect to humankind, but it could provide a good basis for shorter term predictions, for instance
这篇社论的作用是呼吁采取行动。在ISJ，我们对面向未来的研究持开放态度，因此欢迎提交。未来在信息系统研究中可以扮演三种角色：它可以是研究的对象、研究的目的和研究的含义。如果未来是研究的对象，那么我们就是在努力预测或设想未来。对于我们这些面向未来的问题，答案可能暂时是肯定的，但在相当有限的程度上。在上个世纪之交，我们看到了许多预测：1991年，Mark Weiser（1991）预测无处不在的计算将塑造21世纪。他的预测是基于新兴技术，并在很大程度上成为现实。Malone et al.（1987）基于交易成本的降低预测了一个拥有更多市场和更大组织的世界。这一预测基于交易成本理论，并被证明是正确的。最近的预测是基于数据的。例如，Frey和Osborne（2017）使用来自O*NET和美国劳工统计局的数据来预测哪些工作受到数字化的威胁。第四条线使用半结构化的方法系统地推测未来。例如，Hovorka和Mueller（2025）探讨了2043年的未来可能是什么样子。当然，这是一种推测，但这是一种根据我们今天所知道的推断出来的有根据的推测。它包括一种结合想象力的有纪律的假设分析（Weick 1989）。他们预见到，在这个世界里，数字技术是正常的，而不是特殊的。事实上，在这个世界里，技术已经深深地融入了人们的本质，这些人可能更适合被描述为半机械人。技术可能会融入我们生活的许多方面，但这种整合可能是如此无缝，我们甚至可能没有注意到它。最有趣的预测是基于理论的。涉及时间维度的理论特别适合这些预测。例如，间断平衡理论（PET）本质上很有趣，因为它是在20世纪70年代发展起来的（Eldredge和Gould 1972），作为解释大约6600万年前发生的事件的一种方式，即希克苏鲁伯小行星撞击，它加速了陆地恐龙领域的终结（以及后来哺乳动物的崛起），铱矿床和陨石的地质和化石记录证明了这一点（LaPalma et al. 2019）。我们不能百分之百肯定理论解释是准确的，但它是可信的。PET也能帮助我们预测未来吗？我们并不是在暗示遥远到6600万年后的未来：它太遥远了，无法收集数据，甚至无法推测任何与人类有关的事情，但它可以为短期预测提供一个很好的基础，例如当前和未来破坏的后果。PET已经在信息系统研究中使用，尽管只是偶尔使用，以解释稳定状态或平衡如何偶尔被深刻活动的短暂爆发（或停顿）打断，这些活动可能导致组织生产力的戏剧性或革命性变化（Gersick 1991），问题解决（Wong和Davison 2018），系统开发（Newman和Robey 1992），战略调整（Sabherwal等人2001）和数字化转型（Shu等人2023）。所有这些说法都暗示，如果PET可以用来解释历史事件，就像Eldredge和Gould（1972）所做的那样，那么PET也可以用来预测未来事件。促成这种变化的因素的确切性质各不相同。虽然Eldredge和Gould（1972）将外星物体（小行星）的影响理论化，但最近研究组织的学者已经确定了人类代理人如何发挥作用（例如，Gersick 1991； Wong和Davison 2018），而Shu等人（2023）认为一种疾病（在他们的案例中为Covid-19）可以作为代理人。我们也可以想象，像地震、海啸或极端天气事件这样的“天灾”（尽管后者越来越多地与气候变化联系在一起，但人类中心主义的观点仍然存在）也可能起到这种代理作用。不管主体的身份是什么，PET至少在预测未来的某些方面是一个有用的理论，因此应该在我们的理论剧本中占据比目前更突出的位置。有趣的“理论”是Gartner的s曲线和炒作周期。根据他们的观点，新技术会经历高期望和低期望的阶段。它们也是面向未来的，预测未来十年或更长时间内某项特定技术将达到平稳期。如果我们看看它们在咨询和实践中的使用情况，它们已经达到了事实上的理论地位，尽管它们缺乏适当的理论和经验基础。 技术引发的预测的一个特例是千年虫问题。据预测，2000年1月1日将发生计算机大崩溃，因为许多计算机系统只使用两位数来存储日期信息。这一“预测”伴随着警告和行动呼吁。尽管所有的悲观和厄运，从1999年（1999年）到2000年（2000年）的变化所带来的负面情况通常没有像预期的那样发挥作用，然而，为我们准备千年虫而进行的技术创新无疑在其他方面是有益的。同样，当我们准备迎接一个以人工智能为中心的世界时（是的，人工智能可能被视为变革的代理人），我们正在改变我们的行为。但以未来为导向的思维模式鼓励想象力，这种想象力可以被约束（Weick 1989），并利用它来创造未来的场景，这些场景不仅是合理的，而且在我们调查如何为至少不久的将来做好准备时是真正有用的。新技术的出现可以激发我们对未来可能发生的事情的兴趣，但当然，预测人与技术将如何互动并不容易。当我们社会的基本规范结构受到破坏或挑战时，无论是由于技术、疾病、自然灾害还是人类中心主义引发的情况，它都会变得更加复杂。我们建议，作为IS研究人员，我们的首要任务和特权之一应该是发展新的理论，以更准确地解释和预测接下来会发生什么。在这方面，说明性和禁止性理论将是有价值的。当然，这样的猜测是主观的，是可以证伪的。但我们认为，建立理论并冒着看似合理但错误的风险，要比根本不建立理论、坐等结果更有价值。对这些趋势的一种批评是，它们只不过是想象或不科学的推测，因此也许不值得我们注意。这样的评论是可以理解的，但我们必须指出，每当研究人员创造一个假设，这只不过是对物体之间未经证实的关系的陈述，那么研究人员就在从事虚构的推测。这些推测在科学论述中很常见，它们的合法性被接受，尤其是因为它们在数据收集和分析后很容易被证伪。我们在这篇社论中讨论的猜测本质上没有什么不同：如果它们可信、可信、合理和可证伪，它们就是有价值的。可能不同的是时间框架，因为我们建议推测未来几年的价值，而大多数研究人员在更短的时间尺度上推测未来（通常不到一年，即从模型制定到数据收集和分析），并且确实将他们推测的结果（假设检验）写在与推测本身相同的文件中。然而，尽管我们所提倡的具有潜在价值的未来情景的推测例子可能在各个方面都不完全准确，但它们可以帮助我们以一种明智的方式取得科学进步。把未来作为研究对象的最激进的观点是科幻幻想或反乌托邦。小时候，我们可能喜欢读儒勒·凡尔纳（如《海底两万里》（1871）、《二十世纪的巴黎》（1994））和乔治·奥威尔（如《一九八四》（1949））的小说。你可能也熟悉《美丽新世界》（赫胥黎，1932）、《发条橙》（伯吉斯，1962）或《我们》（扎米亚京，1924）。虽然我们不会将这些愿景和反乌托邦视为研究本身，但它们引发了随后的商业和研究活动，从而塑造了未来。凡尔纳（1994年）在死后出版的《二十世纪的巴黎》（1864年）描述了1961年的巴黎，商业和技术是唯一有价值的对象，这一点尤为贴切。同时，Neal Stephenson（1994）的反乌托邦科幻小说Snow Crash也提到了Metaverse。它塑造了微软和Facebook（后来更名为“Meta”）等科技公司的愿景。它还塑造了有远见的科学话语（Dolata and Schwabe 2023）。虽然预测和愿景之间的界限是
{"title":"The Future (As a Focus) of IS Research","authors":"Robert M. Davison, Gerhard Schwabe","doi":"10.1111/isj.12591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12591","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This editorial functions as a call to action. At the ISJ, we are open to studies that address the future and thus welcome submissions. The future can take three roles in IS research: It can be an object of research, a purpose of research, and an implication of research.</p><p>If the future is an object of research, then we are striving to predict or envision the future. The answers to our future-oriented questions may be tentatively affirmative but to a rather restricted degree. At the turn of the last century, we saw many predictions: In 1991, Mark Weiser (<span>1991</span>) predicted that ubiquitous computing would shape the 21st century. His prediction was based on emerging technologies and became a reality to a large extent. Malone et al. (<span>1987</span>) predicted a world with more markets and larger organisations based on the projected reduction of transaction costs. This prediction was based on transaction cost theory and turned out to be correct. More recent predictions are based on data. For example, Frey and Osborne (<span>2017</span>) used data from O*NET and the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to predict which jobs are endangered by digitalization. A fourth line uses semi-structured approaches to speculate about the future systematically. For example, Hovorka and Mueller (<span>2025</span>) explore what the future may be like in 2043. This is, of course, a speculation, but it is an informed speculation that extrapolates from what we know today. It involves a form of disciplined what-if analysis combined with imagination (Weick <span>1989</span>). They foresee a world where digital technologies are normal rather than exceptional, and indeed where technology is so embedded into who people are that those same people might be better described as cyborgs. Technology is likely to be integrated into many aspects of our life, and yet that integration is likely to be so seamless that we may not even notice it.</p><p>The most interesting predictions are based on theory. Theories that involve a temporal dimension are particularly well-suited to these predictions. For instance, Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET) is intrinsically interesting because it was developed in the 1970s (Eldredge and Gould <span>1972</span>) as a way of explaining events that had taken place some 66 million years previously, namely the Chicxulub asteroid impact that precipitated the end of the realm of the terrestrial dinosaurs (and the later rise of the mammals), as evidenced in the geologic and fossil records with iridium deposits and tektites (LaPalma et al. <span>2019</span>). We cannot be 100% certain that the theoretical explanation is accurate, but it is plausible. Can PET also help us to predict the future? We are not suggesting anything as remote as 66 million years into the future: it's too far away to be able to collect data or even to speculate anything with respect to humankind, but it could provide a good basis for shorter term predictions, for instance","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 6","pages":"1513-1515"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12591","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145272693","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Lauri Wessel, Elaine Mosconi, Marta Indulska, Abayomi Baiyere
Digital transformation (DT) has become an important theme in information systems (IS) and adjacent fields (Carroll et al. 2023; Hanelt et al. 2021; Kraus et al. 2021; Piccoli, Grover, and Rodriguez 2024; Schallmo et al. 2024; Van Veldhoven and Vanthienen 2022; Verhoef et al. 2021; Vial 2019). This is of course unsurprising given the widespread interest in how digital technologies occasion change in markets, societies at large, and the political landscape (Bareikytė et al. 2024; Cowburn 2024; Davidson et al. 2023; Faik, Barrett, and Oborn 2020; Majchrzak, Markus, and Wareham 2016; Tana, Breidbach, and Burton-Jones 2023). Coming to terms with these changes, their outcomes, and unintended consequences is, therefore, both important and timely. However, fully understanding these phenomena questions extant theories (Nambisan et al. 2017; Yoo 2013; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010; Yoo et al. 2024) and warrants us to pause and more carefully consider how IS as a field has tackled ‘DT’ and what challenges this entails (see also, Markus and Rowe 2021).
This special issue comes down to two motivations that made us organise and call for papers. One motivation is rooted in the abovementioned observations that cumulatively point to the diverse reverberations that digital technologies have across levels, processes, and actors altogether raising important questions for scholarship about DT (Baiyere et al. 2023; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010; Yoo et al. 2024). We, as a field, need to reflect on the implications of the assumptions shaping the narratives around DT. For example, DT has become shorthand for “change” driven by digital technology (see also, Markus 2004). Further, DT has also been discussed as being desirable to contemporary organisations, which implies that the discussion exhibits a favourability bias (Davidsson 2015, 2017). Revisiting underlying assumptions is important to avoid perceptions of DT as, for example, a ‘misnomer’ (Kane 2018). Put differently, revisiting these assumptions was one key aspect that we had in mind when we were working on the call for papers for this special issue, which emphasises ‘frontiers’ in research about DT. We wanted our special issue to foreground shifting baselines (Davison and Tarafdar 2018) where phenomena related to DT gradually overflow our conventional concepts and models and call for novel conceptualizations (Mousavi Baygi, Introna, and Hultin 2021). We sensed a need for studies and theorising that developed our understanding of DT in terms of its contents, levels of analysis, and processes that would contribute to widening our conceptu
数字化转型（DT）已成为信息系统（IS）及其邻近领域的重要主题(Carroll et al. 2023；Hanelt et al. 2021；Kraus et al. 2021；皮科利，格罗弗和罗德里格斯2024；Schallmo et al. 2024；Van Veldhoven and Vanthienen 2022；Verhoef et al. 2021；瓶2019)。考虑到人们对数字技术如何在市场、整个社会和政治格局中引发变化的广泛兴趣，这当然不足为奇(bareikytje et al. 2024；Cowburn 2024;Davidson et al. 2023；Faik， Barrett和born 2020；Majchrzak, Markus, and Wareham 2016；Tana, Breidbach, and Burton-Jones, 2023)。因此，接受这些变化、它们的结果和意想不到的后果既重要又及时。然而，充分理解这些现象对现有理论提出了质疑(Nambisan et al. 2017；柳2013;Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010；Yoo et al. 2024)，并要求我们停下来，更仔细地考虑作为一个领域，IS是如何应对“DT”的，以及这需要面临的挑战（另见Markus和Rowe 2021）。本期特刊归结为促使我们组织和征集论文的两个动机。一个动机源于上述观察，这些观察累积指出数字技术在各个层面、过程和参与者之间产生的不同影响，共同提出了关于DT的重要问题(Baiyere et al. 2023；Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen 2010；Yoo et al. 2024)。作为一个领域，我们需要反思塑造DT叙事的假设的含义。例如，DT已经成为由数字技术驱动的“变化”的简写（另见Markus 2004）。此外，DT也被认为是当代组织所需要的，这意味着讨论显示出有利的偏见（戴维森2015,2017）。重新审视潜在的假设对于避免将DT视为“用词不当”很重要（Kane 2018）。换句话说，重新审视这些假设是我们在为本期特刊征集论文时考虑的一个关键方面，本期特刊强调了DT研究的“前沿”。我们希望我们的特刊能够突出不断变化的基线（Davison and Tarafdar 2018），其中与DT相关的现象逐渐超出了我们的传统概念和模型，并需要新的概念（Mousavi Baygi, Introna, and Hultin 2021）。我们意识到有必要进行研究和理论化，以发展我们对DT的理解，包括其内容、分析水平和过程，这将有助于扩大我们的概念设备和经验账户。这就引出了第二个动机。鉴于我们的第一个动机要求多元化（Markus和Rowe 2023），朝着系统地开发与DT相关的知识的研究路径努力变得至关重要。更具体地说，有必要与多元的DT文学严格接触。我们认为，许多问题是由于频繁但有些不加批判地采用复合术语“DT”造成的，在“DT”一词发明之前，在一定程度上回避了与解决“数字化”或“转型”的理论的接触(Baiyere等人，2023；Besson and Rowe 2012；Markus and Rowe 2021；Wessel et al. 2021)。问题很简单：只要“DT”仍然松散地应用，这些批评就会持续存在，而且是合理的(Markus和Rowe 2021；Rowe and Markus 2023)。如果我们要解决这些问题，参与这些批评及其影响必须是发展与DT相关的理论和结构的首要任务(另见，Rivard 2020；Suddaby 2010)。这些动机促使我们寻找专门将“DT”作为结构中心并进一步发展其意义、应用或影响的论文。我们要求作者详细说明DT对他们意味着什么，并确定他们的论文旨在推进的前沿。在这篇社论中，我们首先解释了一种“多元严格”的方法，以帮助推进关于DT的研究，并在提供每篇论文的概述之前，在此背景下展示特刊中的论文。然后，我们突出了这些论文提出的未来研究的关键前沿，并根据我们编辑特刊的反思提供了额外的前沿。因此，我们提供了一个研究议程，以激发对该领域如何考虑DT的深入研究。我们希望这篇社论和特刊将提供一个新的视角，帮助研究人员以一种尊重话语多元性的方式进行下一波DT研究，同时使DT相关知识的传统得以系统地产生。早在“信息技术”一词被发明之前，信息技术和相关的变革就给组织带来了一个“管理难题”（Rivard et al. 2004）。事实上，在与组织相关的研究中，对转型的描述显得很重要，而且有着悠久的历史。 早在20世纪30年代，经济学家就已经解决了工业转型问题，他们解释说，通用技术需要工业环境的变化，从而导致社会变革(Smil 2021；赖特1997)。例如，几个世纪以来，能源生产塑造了人类、社会和企业（Smil 2018）。管理研究人员在20世纪下半叶开始考虑组织变革，Pettigrew（1985、1987）、Mintzberg（1979）和Mintzberg and Waters（1985）的开创性著作为“激进的组织变革”的辩论奠定了基础(Anderson and Tushman 1986；Greenwood and Hinings 1996；Romanelli and Tushman 1994；Tushman和Romanelli 1985)。这些文献变得丰富、多样、规模显著（例如，Poole和Van De Ven 2021）。信息系统学者也对组织转型和变革进行了研究，就像许多关于IT实施的文献一样(Berente and Yoo 2012；Lapointe and riard 2005；riward and Lapointe 2012)和it支持的组织转型(见；例如，在，Besson和Rowe 2012)显示的概述。从20世纪80年代和90年代早期关于IT如何改变企业的开创性作品开始(Hammer and Champy 1993；克林1980;Scott Morton 1991)，从IT与战略的一致性考虑（Henderson and Venkatraman 1999,1999）到基于实践的转型研究(Barrett and Walsham 1999；Orlikowski 1996;Scott和Orlikowski(2022))，这些文献对植根于IT的组织转型进行了细致入微的描述。值得注意的是，当管理层认为IT是一种支持功能（尽管它对组织具有变革性影响）时，这些工作中的大多数都是从时间和角度出发的。需要强调的是，其中许多见解在数字时代仍然有效(Markus and Rowe 2021；Sebastian et al. 2017)。数据现在是许多公司业务的核心，这一事实并不意味着这些重要的早期工作的贬值。相反，ERP系统等支持事务性系统中的数据生成，这些系统通常作为当代数字技术的骨干（Sebastian et al. 2017）。反过来，如何以及为什么早期的理论框架得到扩展或保持有效是，并且仍然是DT奖学金的一个重要问题。正如“转型”一词在与管理相关的各种学科中使用的历史一样，“数字化”一词也被
{"title":"Digital Transformation: Quo Vadit?","authors":"Lauri Wessel, Elaine Mosconi, Marta Indulska, Abayomi Baiyere","doi":"10.1111/isj.12578","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12578","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Digital transformation (DT) has become an important theme in information systems (IS) and adjacent fields (Carroll et al. <span>2023</span>; Hanelt et al. <span>2021</span>; Kraus et al. <span>2021</span>; Piccoli, Grover, and Rodriguez <span>2024</span>; Schallmo et al. <span>2024</span>; Van Veldhoven and Vanthienen <span>2022</span>; Verhoef et al. <span>2021</span>; Vial <span>2019</span>). This is of course unsurprising given the widespread interest in how digital technologies occasion change in markets, societies at large, and the political landscape (Bareikytė et al. <span>2024</span>; Cowburn <span>2024</span>; Davidson et al. <span>2023</span>; Faik, Barrett, and Oborn <span>2020</span>; Majchrzak, Markus, and Wareham <span>2016</span>; Tana, Breidbach, and Burton-Jones <span>2023</span>). Coming to terms with these changes, their outcomes, and unintended consequences is, therefore, both important and timely. However, fully understanding these phenomena questions extant theories (Nambisan et al. <span>2017</span>; Yoo <span>2013</span>; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen <span>2010</span>; Yoo et al. <span>2024</span>) and warrants us to pause and more carefully consider how IS as a field has tackled ‘DT’ and what challenges this entails (see also, Markus and Rowe <span>2021</span>).</p><p>This special issue comes down to two motivations that made us organise and call for papers. One motivation is rooted in the abovementioned observations that cumulatively point to the diverse reverberations that digital technologies have across levels, processes, and actors altogether raising important questions for scholarship about DT (Baiyere et al. <span>2023</span>; Yoo, Henfridsson, and Lyytinen <span>2010</span>; Yoo et al. <span>2024</span>). We, as a field, need to reflect on the implications of the assumptions shaping the narratives around DT. For example, DT has become shorthand for “change” driven by digital technology (see also, Markus <span>2004</span>). Further, DT has also been discussed as being desirable to contemporary organisations, which implies that the discussion exhibits a favourability bias (Davidsson <span>2015</span>, <span>2017</span>). Revisiting underlying assumptions is important to avoid perceptions of DT as, for example, a ‘misnomer’ (Kane <span>2018</span>). Put differently, revisiting these assumptions was one key aspect that we had in mind when we were working on the call for papers for this special issue, which emphasises ‘frontiers’ in research about DT. We wanted our special issue to foreground shifting baselines (Davison and Tarafdar <span>2018</span>) where phenomena related to DT gradually overflow our conventional concepts and models and call for novel conceptualizations (Mousavi Baygi, Introna, and Hultin <span>2021</span>). We sensed a need for studies and theorising that developed our understanding of DT in terms of its contents, levels of analysis, and processes that would contribute to widening our conceptu","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 4","pages":"1294-1308"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12578","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144273390","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Stephen McCarthy, Hendrik Scholta, Geir Inge Hausvik, Peter André Busch
Information systems (IS) research often seeks to deliver practical impact in addition to the traditional requirement for theoretical contribution. While an admirable goal, it is nevertheless a challenging prospect, as key questions remain around how best to facilitate a relationship between IS academic and practitioner communities. To explore this issue, we analyse multi-case study data from interviews with 24 IS practitioner doctorates, industry contact points, and senior IS academics who sought to create a joint field between academia and practice during their research. Our findings reveal several boundary spanning activities needed to traverse field boundaries and maintain the joint field's existence across the stages of proof-of-concept, proof-of-value, and proof-of-use. Building on insights from the work of Pierre Bourdieu, we further discuss how IS practitioner doctorates operationalised capital, doxa, and habitus to achieve varying degrees of practical impact in their work. Action-oriented recommendations are presented to support practical impact going forward including creolised messages and the mobilisation of capital to change inter-field relationships. By adapting Bourdieu's Theory of Practice to the engaged scholarship discourse in IS, we contribute new insights into how the academia-practice gap might be addressed.
{"title":"Boundary Spanning and Practical Impact in IS Research: A Bourdieusian Analysis","authors":"Stephen McCarthy, Hendrik Scholta, Geir Inge Hausvik, Peter André Busch","doi":"10.1111/isj.12577","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12577","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Information systems (IS) research often seeks to deliver practical impact in addition to the traditional requirement for theoretical contribution. While an admirable goal, it is nevertheless a challenging prospect, as key questions remain around how best to facilitate a relationship between IS academic and practitioner communities. To explore this issue, we analyse multi-case study data from interviews with 24 IS practitioner doctorates, industry contact points, and senior IS academics who sought to create a joint field between academia and practice during their research. Our findings reveal several boundary spanning activities needed to traverse field boundaries and maintain the joint field's existence across the stages of proof-of-concept, proof-of-value, and proof-of-use. Building on insights from the work of Pierre Bourdieu, we further discuss how IS practitioner doctorates operationalised <i>capital</i>, <i>doxa</i>, and <i>habitus</i> to achieve varying degrees of practical impact in their work. Action-oriented recommendations are presented to support practical impact going forward including creolised messages and the mobilisation of capital to change inter-field relationships. By adapting Bourdieu's Theory of Practice to the engaged scholarship discourse in IS, we contribute new insights into how the academia-practice gap might be addressed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 4","pages":"1257-1284"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12577","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144273219","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In this study, we examine how the Industrial Internet of Things platform ADAMOS successfully entered the German mechanical engineering market using a consortium-based approach. By establishing a joint venture among industry incumbents, ADAMOS followed consortium governance that separated platform ownership from platform operation. In so doing, ADAMOS navigated the complexities of market entry and overcame many challenges typical to business-to-business (B2B) markets. Drawing from the case, we develop a four-step framework for effective business-to-business platform market entry: (1) Spinning out a neutral legal entity, (2) designing a valuable platform core, (3) seeding the supply side with internal offerings, and (4) opening the platform to broader audiences. Based on this description, we discuss lessons learned and provide actionable recommendations for platform operators considering a consortium-based approach for their business-to-business platform market entry.
{"title":"Consortium Governance and Market Entry of Digital B2B Platforms: The Case of ADAMOS","authors":"Laurin Arnold, Philipp Hukal, Marco Link","doi":"10.1111/isj.12580","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12580","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this study, we examine how the Industrial Internet of Things platform ADAMOS successfully entered the German mechanical engineering market using a consortium-based approach. By establishing a joint venture among industry incumbents, ADAMOS followed consortium governance that separated platform ownership from platform operation. In so doing, ADAMOS navigated the complexities of market entry and overcame many challenges typical to business-to-business (B2B) markets. Drawing from the case, we develop a four-step framework for effective business-to-business platform market entry: (1) Spinning out a neutral legal entity, (2) designing a valuable platform core, (3) seeding the supply side with internal offerings, and (4) opening the platform to broader audiences. Based on this description, we discuss lessons learned and provide actionable recommendations for platform operators considering a consortium-based approach for their business-to-business platform market entry.</p>","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 4","pages":"1235-1256"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12580","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144273272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>During the colonial era, <sup>1</sup> roughly from 1400s to 1914, Europeans “gained control of 84 percent of the globe and they ruled colonies on every other inhabited continent” (Hoffman <span>2015</span>, 2). Today, 17 colonies remain. <sup>2</sup> Historians, anthropologists and sociologists have time and again shown that Eurocentric science and technology played an instrumental role in supporting the political needs of the colonial administration, from Africa (Goody <span>1982</span>) and the Indian subcontinent (Kumar <span>2006</span>; MacLeod and Kumar <span>1995</span>), to the Americas (Vickers <span>2008</span>). An unfortunate aspect of colonial project was that the technology transfer from the West to the colonies was made for political purposes. Another more subtle but still critical consequence was that the introduction and application of Eurocentric technologies also directly and indirectly subordinated local epistemologies and Indigenous <sup>3</sup> thought, making the colonies epistemically dependent on the colonisers. Some colonies gained independence through war (e.g., the 13 American colonies in 1776), but many remained under European control both politically and ideologically until well after World War II, when war-torn European countries could not afford to maintain tight control over their colonies. As countries gained their independence, many citizens sought to distance themselves from their former colonisers and return to the national and cultural identities, lifestyles and ways of knowing their ancestors had embraced prior to colonialisation. This process is referred to as <i>decolonialisation</i>.</p><p>While <i>colonialism</i> refers to the historical period of direct political and economic control by colonial powers, <i>coloniality</i> refers to the persistence of colonial power relations, embedded in contemporary institutions, values, social hierarchies, and, importantly for researchers, knowledge. Given that the purpose of colonial enterprise is control, the colonial view of the production of knowledge is “‘mentally divorced’ from the local setting” in which it operates and ignores “local requirements” and “local knowledge” (Kumar <span>2006</span>, 8–12). It attempts to erase local knowledge in every form and replace it with colonial epistemic structures (de Sousa Santos <span>2015</span>; Satia <span>2020</span>). Thus, dominant Eurocentric epistemologies served as the foundation on which fields of knowledge grew throughout the world. It is not surprising then that one legacy of colonialism is new forms of coloniality vis-à-vis the dominance of Eurocentric thought in academic discourse, including IS academic literature (Banerjee <span>2022</span>; Chughtai <span>2023</span>).</p><p>In this editorial, we seek to explain what coloniality is and how it relates to the IS field. We then explain why we organised a special is
{"title":"Decoloniality and Information Systems: Making Local Contexts Relevant to IS Research","authors":"Hameed Chughtai, Amber Grace Young","doi":"10.1111/isj.12579","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12579","url":null,"abstract":"<p>During the colonial era,\u0000 <sup>1</sup>\u0000 roughly from 1400s to 1914, Europeans “gained control of 84 percent of the globe and they ruled colonies on every other inhabited continent” (Hoffman <span>2015</span>, 2). Today, 17 colonies remain.\u0000 <sup>2</sup>\u0000 Historians, anthropologists and sociologists have time and again shown that Eurocentric science and technology played an instrumental role in supporting the political needs of the colonial administration, from Africa (Goody <span>1982</span>) and the Indian subcontinent (Kumar <span>2006</span>; MacLeod and Kumar <span>1995</span>), to the Americas (Vickers <span>2008</span>). An unfortunate aspect of colonial project was that the technology transfer from the West to the colonies was made for political purposes. Another more subtle but still critical consequence was that the introduction and application of Eurocentric technologies also directly and indirectly subordinated local epistemologies and Indigenous\u0000 <sup>3</sup>\u0000 thought, making the colonies epistemically dependent on the colonisers. Some colonies gained independence through war (e.g., the 13 American colonies in 1776), but many remained under European control both politically and ideologically until well after World War II, when war-torn European countries could not afford to maintain tight control over their colonies. As countries gained their independence, many citizens sought to distance themselves from their former colonisers and return to the national and cultural identities, lifestyles and ways of knowing their ancestors had embraced prior to colonialisation. This process is referred to as <i>decolonialisation</i>.</p><p>While <i>colonialism</i> refers to the historical period of direct political and economic control by colonial powers, <i>coloniality</i> refers to the persistence of colonial power relations, embedded in contemporary institutions, values, social hierarchies, and, importantly for researchers, knowledge. Given that the purpose of colonial enterprise is control, the colonial view of the production of knowledge is “‘mentally divorced’ from the local setting” in which it operates and ignores “local requirements” and “local knowledge” (Kumar <span>2006</span>, 8–12). It attempts to erase local knowledge in every form and replace it with colonial epistemic structures (de Sousa Santos <span>2015</span>; Satia <span>2020</span>). Thus, dominant Eurocentric epistemologies served as the foundation on which fields of knowledge grew throughout the world. It is not surprising then that one legacy of colonialism is new forms of coloniality vis-à-vis the dominance of Eurocentric thought in academic discourse, including IS academic literature (Banerjee <span>2022</span>; Chughtai <span>2023</span>).</p><p>In this editorial, we seek to explain what coloniality is and how it relates to the IS field. We then explain why we organised a special is","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 4","pages":"1285-1293"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12579","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144273235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Digital platforms, and their implications for business and society, have gained widespread and multidisciplinary popularity in recent years (e.g. Howcroft and Bergvall-Kåreborn <span>2019</span>; Sutherland and Jarrahi <span>2018</span>; Zutshi and Grilo <span>2019</span>). Scholars have studied the multifaceted consequences of digital platforms, including: the impact of labour platforms on the future of work, such as working conditions, identity and professionalisation (Berg et al. <span>2018</span>; Bosma <span>2022</span>; Dunn <span>2020</span>; Elbanna and Idowu <span>2022</span>; Idowu and Elbanna <span>2021</span>; Taylor and Joshi <span>2019</span>); the effects of knowledge datafication on digital transformation of organisations (Alaimo <span>2021</span>); commodification and subsequent exploitation of emerging platform economies such as ‘user experience’ (Lupton <span>2014</span>) and ‘emotional economy’ (Patulny, Lazarevic, and Smith <span>2020</span>); inevitable surveillance afforded by platform algorithms (Galière <span>2020</span>; Newlands <span>2021</span>; Zuboff <span>2019</span>); their implications for development (Anwar and Graham <span>2020</span>; Bonina et al. <span>2021</span>; Nicholson, Nielsen, and Saebo <span>2021</span>); and new forms of activism in response to platforms' colonial effects (Chamakiotis, Petrakaki, and Panteli <span>2021</span>). The value, and specifically the non-economic value, platforms produce has however remained understudied.</p><p>In the literature that explores platforms' value (e.g. Nachtwey and Schaupp <span>2024</span>; Pesce, Neirotti, and Paolucci <span>2019</span>; Sutherland and Jarrahi <span>2018</span>; Zutshi and Grilo <span>2019</span>), most studies have approached value from an economic perspective looking into profitability, income generation and return on investment (e.g. Constantinides, Henfridsson, and Parker <span>2018</span>; Wang, Guo, and Liu <span>2024</span>). This should be no surprise. Research in Information Systems (IS) has primarily focused on the Western world, the Global North, aiming to understand it better, to improve it further and to increase its productivity and efficiency through IS. Clarke and Davison (<span>2020</span>) find that most IS literature is in fact dominated by a focus on the economic dimension, with little or no attention paid to the non-economic dimensions of IS, such as their social and environmental aspects or their potential to educate, to free and to enlighten. Similarly, a recent paper curation found that 40% of articles on platforms published in the <i>Management Information Systems Quarterly</i> draw upon economic theory (Krishnan et al. <span>2024</span>). Economic notions of value have prevailed insofar that technology often becomes associated with the value it is supposed to produce: ‘write software save lives’ as Sahay (<span>2016</span>) reports. Yet, how transferable, relevant and purposeful are such aims for the rest of the
近年来，数字平台及其对商业和社会的影响在多学科领域获得了广泛的普及(例如Howcroft和bergvall - k<s:1> reborn 2019；Sutherland and Jarrahi 2018；Zutshi和Grilo 2019)。学者们研究了数字平台的多方面后果，包括：劳动力平台对未来工作的影响，如工作条件、身份和专业化(Berg et al. 2018；Bosma 2022;邓恩2020;Elbanna and Idowu 2022；Idowu and Elbanna 2021；Taylor and Joshi 2019)；知识数据化对组织数字化转型的影响（Alaimo 2021）；新兴平台经济的商品化和后续开发，如“用户体验”（Lupton 2014）和“情感经济”（Patulny, Lazarevic, and Smith 2020）；平台算法提供的不可避免的监控(galli<e:1> 2020；纽兰兹2021;企业2019年);它们对发展的影响(Anwar和Graham 2020；Bonina et al. 2021；Nicholson, Nielsen, and Saebo 2021)；以及应对平台殖民效应的新形式的行动主义（Chamakiotis, Petrakaki, and Panteli 2021）。然而，平台产生的价值，特别是非经济价值仍未得到充分研究。在探讨平台价值的文献中(例如Nachtwey和Schaupp 2024；Pesce， Neirotti和Paolucci 2019；Sutherland and Jarrahi 2018；Zutshi和Grilo 2019)，大多数研究都是从经济角度研究盈利能力、创收和投资回报的价值(例如Constantinides、Henfridsson和Parker 2018；Wang, Guo, and Liu 2024)。这不足为奇。信息系统（IS）的研究主要集中在西方世界，即全球北方，旨在更好地了解它，进一步改善它，并通过IS提高其生产力和效率。Clarke和Davison（2020）发现，大多数IS文献实际上主要关注经济维度，很少或根本没有关注IS的非经济维度，例如它们的社会和环境方面或它们教育、自由和启蒙的潜力。同样，最近的一篇论文发现，在《管理信息系统季刊》（Management Information Systems Quarterly）上发表的平台文章中，有40%借鉴了经济理论（Krishnan et al. 2024）。经济价值观念已经盛行，到目前为止，技术往往与它应该产生的价值联系在一起：正如Sahay（2016）所报道的那样，“编写软件拯救生命”。然而，这些目标对世界其他地区的可转移性、相关性和目的性如何？对经济价值的单向关注会引发哪些道德问题？我们的特刊与早期的IS学术研究保持一致，这些学术研究关注的是通过和利用IS创造一个更美好的世界的伦理挑战（Walsham 1993,2017），以及我们领域最近出现的探索IS研究如何有助于社会价值的产生（例如Krishnan等人，2024）和创造更美好的未来（Davison等人，2023）。我们把这个问题放在IS学术界，它已经开始关注平台可能提供的社会价值(例如Barrett， Oborn, and Orlikowski, 2016；Chamakiotis, Petrakaki, and Panteli 2021；Goh, Gao, and Agarwal, 2016)，包括更广泛的，非经济形式的价值，为其成员和超越（例如，为其当地社区）。到目前为止，不同的术语被用来指代数字平台产生的非经济形式的价值：“社会价值”（Chamakiotis, Petrakaki, and Panteli, 2021），“发展平台”（Bonina etal . 2021），“共同创造公共价值的平台”（Meijer and Boon, 2021）和“社会数字平台”（Choudhary, Kaushik, and Bharadwaj, 2021）。我们本期特刊的目的是通过撰写一系列文章，提供关于平台产生的价值形式在一系列经验背景下（如全球南方和部门）的新见解和新理解，并使用可能不同的方法方法，来增加这一发展中的信息系统领域。我们首先将IS研究中的价值主题置于背景中（第2节），并在平台上的现有文献中确定新兴的价值观点（第3节），为我们的特刊提供理论背景。接下来，我们将介绍每一篇被接受的文章，并解释它们如何为该领域的进步做出贡献（第4节）。在最后一部分，我们展示了我们特刊的集体贡献，并提出了未来研究的想法（第5部分）。技术和系统总是与它们所产生的价值联系在一起。早期的价值观念一直与现代化和发展联系在一起。 例如，经济合作与发展组织（经合组织）将技术与生产力和经济发展联系起来，而联合国（联合国）可持续发展目标承认，技术在实现各种目标方面发挥着作用，包括健康、教育、贫穷、饥饿、性别平等、水和卫生以及清洁能源。关于现代化的论述与“成功”技术的采用密切相关。不幸的是，在技术决定论的驱动下，这种话语系统地忽视了语境和人类的能动性(Dobson and Nicholson 2017；Sein and Harindranath 2004)。与此同时，较少强调具有现代化潜力的技术如何有助于人类发展，以自由，贫困，平等和教育来定义（Sen 2001）。IS学术界也承认，技术不仅会产生技术依赖，还会加剧数字鸿沟和权力关系的再生产，从而加剧贫富之间的不平等和二分法（Kwet 2019）。信息系统研究的一个专门子领域集中在发展中背景下的信息系统（ISDC），或信息和通信技术促进发展（ICT4D），出现在1980年代中期/1990年代，目的是更密切地探索技术实施和使用的不同地方背景；技术设计的原则；产生的当地文化和知识（土著理论）；以及技术如何构成更大的地方改革的一部分，从而实现更广泛的社会效益和价值(Avgerou 2008, 2017；Walsham 2017)。对ISDC/ICT4D研究的兴趣是广泛的，许多is会议组织了这一领域的轨道；专门的期刊，例如《信息技术促进发展》和《发展中国家信息系统电子期刊》；国际信息处理联盟（IFIP）工作组（WG）， IFIP WG 9.4，创建于1988年，至今仍然非常活跃（Davison et al. 2024）。IS的研究提供了在不同环境中实施技术的重要例子，旨在为当地社区带来价值。例如，Bernardi（2017）研究了卫生信息系统加强肯尼亚民主问责制的潜力；Sahay（2016）探索了印度的健康跟踪系统，旨在监测母亲和儿童对基本健康计划的遵守情况；Walsham和Sahay（1999）研究了地理信息系统（GIS）在印度的实施，以支持地区一级的行政管理。正如这些研究指出的那样，他们的意图往往被削弱技术潜力的普遍经济逻辑和产出导向所推翻。这些例子和其他例子提供了技术一次性尝试的证据，这些技术主要是在资源充足的环境中设计的，目的是在不同的环境中使用，通常是在有限的时间内使用。数字平台构成了一种不同类型的技术干预，因为它们不仅提供了局部塑造的可
{"title":"Exploring Alternative (Non-Economic) Forms of Value Engendered by Digital Platforms","authors":"Petros Chamakiotis, Dimitra Petrakaki","doi":"10.1111/isj.12576","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12576","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Digital platforms, and their implications for business and society, have gained widespread and multidisciplinary popularity in recent years (e.g. Howcroft and Bergvall-Kåreborn <span>2019</span>; Sutherland and Jarrahi <span>2018</span>; Zutshi and Grilo <span>2019</span>). Scholars have studied the multifaceted consequences of digital platforms, including: the impact of labour platforms on the future of work, such as working conditions, identity and professionalisation (Berg et al. <span>2018</span>; Bosma <span>2022</span>; Dunn <span>2020</span>; Elbanna and Idowu <span>2022</span>; Idowu and Elbanna <span>2021</span>; Taylor and Joshi <span>2019</span>); the effects of knowledge datafication on digital transformation of organisations (Alaimo <span>2021</span>); commodification and subsequent exploitation of emerging platform economies such as ‘user experience’ (Lupton <span>2014</span>) and ‘emotional economy’ (Patulny, Lazarevic, and Smith <span>2020</span>); inevitable surveillance afforded by platform algorithms (Galière <span>2020</span>; Newlands <span>2021</span>; Zuboff <span>2019</span>); their implications for development (Anwar and Graham <span>2020</span>; Bonina et al. <span>2021</span>; Nicholson, Nielsen, and Saebo <span>2021</span>); and new forms of activism in response to platforms' colonial effects (Chamakiotis, Petrakaki, and Panteli <span>2021</span>). The value, and specifically the non-economic value, platforms produce has however remained understudied.</p><p>In the literature that explores platforms' value (e.g. Nachtwey and Schaupp <span>2024</span>; Pesce, Neirotti, and Paolucci <span>2019</span>; Sutherland and Jarrahi <span>2018</span>; Zutshi and Grilo <span>2019</span>), most studies have approached value from an economic perspective looking into profitability, income generation and return on investment (e.g. Constantinides, Henfridsson, and Parker <span>2018</span>; Wang, Guo, and Liu <span>2024</span>). This should be no surprise. Research in Information Systems (IS) has primarily focused on the Western world, the Global North, aiming to understand it better, to improve it further and to increase its productivity and efficiency through IS. Clarke and Davison (<span>2020</span>) find that most IS literature is in fact dominated by a focus on the economic dimension, with little or no attention paid to the non-economic dimensions of IS, such as their social and environmental aspects or their potential to educate, to free and to enlighten. Similarly, a recent paper curation found that 40% of articles on platforms published in the <i>Management Information Systems Quarterly</i> draw upon economic theory (Krishnan et al. <span>2024</span>). Economic notions of value have prevailed insofar that technology often becomes associated with the value it is supposed to produce: ‘write software save lives’ as Sahay (<span>2016</span>) reports. Yet, how transferable, relevant and purposeful are such aims for the rest of the ","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 4","pages":"1093-1100"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.12576","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144273135","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines how external pressures drive a platform leader to fight counterfeiting over time. Acknowledging the tension between the illegality and legitimacy of counterfeiting, we find that the fighting effort involves an enduring balance between the two poles of the tension until counterfeits have been sharply reduced. We demonstrate how the management of the tension entails an interactive process in which a platform leader decouples counterfeit fighting actions to pursue legitimacy. We suggest that pressures from external forces predict a process of decoupling and legitimation through which the platform leader promotes ecosystem acceptance and builds a shared understanding of ecosystem purposes, and the endeavours to balance platform quality and activity prompt the platform leader to pursue legitimation which demonstrates the viability of an ecosystem. We show that these processes are accompanied by activating and stabilising the tension, which predicts varied strength and scope of measures and the reduction of counterfeits over time.
{"title":"A Protracted War Against Counterfeits: Navigating Tension Management Under External Pressures on an E-Commerce Platform","authors":"Bin Hao, Yanan Feng, Ken Kamoche","doi":"10.1111/isj.12575","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12575","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study examines how external pressures drive a platform leader to fight counterfeiting over time. Acknowledging the tension between the illegality and legitimacy of counterfeiting, we find that the fighting effort involves an enduring balance between the two poles of the tension until counterfeits have been sharply reduced. We demonstrate how the management of the tension entails an interactive process in which a platform leader decouples counterfeit fighting actions to pursue legitimacy. We suggest that pressures from external forces predict a process of decoupling and legitimation through which the platform leader promotes ecosystem acceptance and builds a shared understanding of ecosystem purposes, and the endeavours to balance platform quality and activity prompt the platform leader to pursue legitimation which demonstrates the viability of an ecosystem. We show that these processes are accompanied by activating and stabilising the tension, which predicts varied strength and scope of measures and the reduction of counterfeits over time.</p>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"35 4","pages":"1218-1232"},"PeriodicalIF":6.5,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144273134","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号