[en] Innovation with emerging technologies is often challenging. They are still evolving and many are surrounded by unbalanced claims and hyperbole, which give rise to ambiguity and complicate adoption. These difficulties become even more pronounced when organizations attempt to introduce two loosely coupled emerging technologies. Building on a six-year case-study of the European Blockchain Partnership that attempted to simultaneously introduce blockchain and digital identity wallets, we flesh out the evolution their relationship. Our analysis surfaces a complex material-discursive process that first only discursively and later also materially de-coupled the two technologies along three population ecology principles for species interaction: technological mutualism, technological commensalism, and technological amensalism. Our study contributes an information systems perspective on the enactment and evolution of loosely coupled emerging technologies. Moreover, we use insights from population ecology to better explain and understand the underlying mechanisms.
Research center :
Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SnT) > FINATRAX - Digital Financial Services and Cross-organizational Digital Transformations NCER-FT - FinTech National Centre of Excellence in Research
Disciplines :
Management information systems Computer science
Author, co-author :
Roth, Tamara
Rieger, Alexander
HÖß, Alexandra ; University of Luxembourg > Interdisciplinary Centre for Security, Reliability and Trust (SNT) > FINATRAX
External co-authors :
yes
Language :
English
Title :
From Mutualism to Amensalism: A Case Study of Blockchain and Digital Identity Wallets
FNR13342933 - Paypal-fnr Pearl Chair In Digital Financial Services, 2019 (01/01/2020-31/12/2024) - Gilbert Fridgen FNR16570468 - 2021 (01/07/2022-30/06/2030) - Yves Le Traon
Name of the research project :
U-AGR-8121 - MinDIGI_Digital Identities for Luxembour - FRIDGEN Gilbert
Funders :
Ministry for Digitalisation FNR - Fonds National de la Recherche
Funding text :
This research was funded in part by the Luxembourg National Research
Fund (FNR) and PayPal, PEARL grant reference 13342933/Gilbert Fridgen, grant reference
NCER22/IS/16570468/NCER-FT, and grant reference 14783405, as well as Luxembourg’s Ministry
for Digitalisation. For the purpose of open access, and in fulfillment of the obligations
arising from the grant agreement, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0) license to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this
submission.
Gaspary, E., Moura, G.L.D., Wegner, D.: How does the organisational structure influence a work environment for innovation? Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 24(2–3), 132–153 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEIM.2020.105770
Swanson, E., Ramiller, N.: The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organ. Sci. 8(5), 458–474 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.8.5.458
Miranda, S.M., Kim, I., Summers, J.D.: Jamming with social media: how cognitive structuring of organizing vision facets affects IT innovation diffusion. MIS Q. 39(3), 591–614 (2015). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2016/40.2.02
Miranda, S.M., Wang, D.D., Tian, C.A.: Discursive fields and the diversity-coherence paradox: an ecological perspective on the blockchain community discourse. MIS Q. 46(3), 1421–1452 (2022). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2022/15736
Currie, W.L.: The organizing vision of application service provision: a process-oriented analysis. Inf. Organ. 14(4), 237–267 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2004. 07.001
Ramiller, N.C., Swanson, E.B.: Organizing visions for information technology and the information systems executive response. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 20(1), 13–50 (2003)
Davidson, E.J., Østerlund, C.S., Flaherty, M.G.: Drift and shift in the organizing vision career for personal health records: an investigation of innovation discourse dynamics. Inf. Organ. 25(4), 191–221 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2015.08.001
Parameswaran, S., Kishore, R., Yang, X., Liu, Z.: Theorizing about the early-stage diffusion of codependent IT innovations. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 24(2), 379–429 (2023). https://doi.org/10. 17705/1jais.00789
Øvrelid, E., Bygstad, B.: Exploring loose coupling in system interaction. Selected Papers of the IRIS, Issue Nr. 7 (2016). https://aisel.aisnet.org/iris2016/5. Accessed Jan 2016
Sedlmeir, J., Barbereau, T.J., Huber, J., Weigl, L., Roth, T.: Transition pathways towards design principles of self-sovereign identity. In: ICIS 2022 Proceedings (2022). https://aisel. aisnet.org/icis2022/is_implement/is_implement/4. Accessed 29 Mar 2024
Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 6th edn. SAGE Publications, Inc. (2017). https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/case-study-research-and-applications/book25 0150
Eisenhardt, K.M.: What is the Eisenhardt method, really? Strateg. Organ. 19(1), 147–160 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127020982866
Agarwal, R., Prasad, J.: The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decis. Sci. 28(3), 557–582 (1997). https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x
Kim, I., Miranda, S.: 20 years old but still a teenager? A review of organizing vision theory and suggested directions. In: PACIS 2018 Proceedings, June 2018. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pac is2018/23
Wang, P., Ramiller, N.C.: Community learning in information technology innovation. MIS Q., 709–734 (2009). https://doi.org/10.2307/20650324
Hardy, C., Maguire, S.: Organizing risk: discourse, power, and ‘riskification’. AMR 41(1), 80–108 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2013.0106
Orlikowski, W.J., Scott, S.V.: What happens when evaluation goes online? Exploring apparatuses of valuation in the travel sector. Organ. Sci. 25(3), 868–891 (2014). https://doi.org/10. 1287/orsc.2013.0877
Maitlis, S., Christianson, M.: Sensemaking in organizations: taking stock and moving forward. ANNALS 8(1), 57–125 (2014). https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.873177
Gioia, D.A., Chittipeddi, K.: Sensemaking and sensegiving in strategic change initiation. Strateg. Manag. J. 12(6), 433–448 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250120604
Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D.: Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organ. Sci. 16(4), 409–421 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133
Weick, K.E.: Sensemaking as an organizational dimension of global change. In: Cooperrider, D.L., Dutton, J.E. (eds.) Organizational Dimensions of Global Change: No Limits to Cooperation, pp. 39–56. SAGE Publications, Inc. (1999). https://sk.sagepub.com/books/organizat ional-dimensions-of-global-change
Berente, N., Yoo, Y.: Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: postimplementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Inf. Syst. Res. 23(2), 376–396 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1110.0373
Mitchell, V.L., Zmud, R.W.: The effects of coupling IT and work process strategies in redesign projects. Organ. Sci. 10(4), 424–438 (1999)
Nambisan, S., Luo, Y.: Toward a loose coupling view of digital globalization. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 52(8), 1646–1663 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41267-021-00446-x
Coccia, M., Watts, J.: A theory of the evolution of technology: technological parasitism and the implications for innovation magement. J. Eng. Technol. Manag. 55, 101552 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.11.003
Gastaldi, L., Appio, F.P., Trabucchi, D., Buganza, T., Corso, M.: From mutualism to commensalism: assessing the evolving relationship between complementors and digital platforms. Inf. Syst. J., 1–47 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12491
Barnett, W.P.: The organizational ecology of a technological system. Adm. Sci. Q. 35(1), 31–60 (1990). https://doi.org/10.2307/2393550
Sandén, B.A., Hillman, K.M.: A framework for analysis of multi-mode interaction among technologies with examples from the history of alternative transport fuels in Sweden. Res. Policy 40(3), 403–414 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.12.005
Zhang, G., McAdams, D.A., Shankar, V., Darani, M.M.: Modeling the evolution of system technology performance when component and system technology performances interact: commensalism and amensalism. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 125, 116–124 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.08.004
Ellinger, E.W., Gregory, R.W., Mini, T., Widjaja, T., Henfridsson, O.: Skin the the game: the transformational potential of decentralized autonomous organizations. MIS Q. (Forthcom.) (2023). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2023/17690
Halaburda, H., Levina, N., Semi, M.: Digitization of transaction terms as a shift parameter within TCE: strong smart contract as a new mode of transaction governance. MIS Q. (Forthcom.) (2023). https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2023/17818
Beck, R., Müller-Bloch, C., King, J.L.: Governance in the blockchain economy: a framework and research agenda. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 19(10), 1020–1034 (2018). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00518
Chong, A., Lim, E., Hua, X., Zheng, S., Tan, C.-W.: Business on chain: a comparative case study of five blockchain-inspired business models. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 20(9) (2019). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00568
Ziolkowski, R., Miscione, G., Schwabe, G.: Decision problems in blockchain governance: old wine in new bottles or walking in someone else’s shoes? J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 37(2), 316–348 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2020.1759974
Glöckler, J., Sedlmeir, J., Frank, M., Fridgen, G.: A systematic review of identity and access management requirements in enterprises and potential contributions of self-sovereign identity. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-023-00830-x
Lacity, M., Carmel, E.: Self-sovereign identity and verifiable credentials in your digital wallet. MIS Q. Exec. 21(3) (2022). https://aisel.aisnet.org/misqe/vol21/iss3/6
Rieger, A., Roth, T., Sedlmeir, J., Fridgen, G., Young, A.G.: Organizational identity management policies. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. (Forthcom.) (2024)
Sedlmeir, J., Smethurst, R., Rieger, A., Fridgen, G.: Digital identities and verifiable credentials. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 63(5), 603–613 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-007 22-y
Hoess, A., Rieger, A., Roth, T., Fridgen, G., Young, A.: Managing fashionable organizing visions: evidence from the European blockchain services infrastructure. In: ECIS 2023 Proceedings (2023). https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2023_rp/337
Lacity, M.C.: Blockchain: from bitcoin to the internet of value and beyond. J. Inf. Technol. 37(4), 326–340 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1177/02683962221086300
Kudra, A., Rieger, A., Roth, T., Sedlmeir, J., Fridgen, G., Young, A.G.: Digital identity wallets. University of Arkansas Working Paper (2024)
Rieger, A., Roth, T., Sedlmeir, J., Weigl, L., Fridgen, G.: Not yet another digital identity. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6(1), 3 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01243-0
Huber, G.P., Power, D.J.: Retrospective reports of strategic-level managers: guidelines for increasing their accuracy. Strateg. Manag. J. 6(2), Article no. 2 (1985). https://doi.org/10. 1002/smj.4250060206
Corbin, J.M., Strauss, A.: Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13(1), 3–21 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Saldaña, J.: The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, Fourth. SAGE Publications Ltd. (2021). https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the-coding-manual-for-qualitative-res earchers/book273583. Accessed 20 Apr 2024
Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E., Sonenshein, S.: Grand challenges and inductive methods: rigor without rigor mortis. AMJ 59(4), 1113–1123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2016. 4004
