Digital innovation and transformation: An institutional perspective

被引:824
作者
Hinings, Bob [1 ]
Gegenhuber, Thomas [2 ,3 ]
Greenwood, Royston [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Leuphana Univ Luneburg, Luneburg, Germany
[3] Johannes Kepler Univ Linz, Linz, Austria
关键词
INFORMATION-SYSTEMS RESEARCH; ORGANIZATIONAL RESPONSES; TECHNOLOGY; DIFFUSION; FIELDS; LOGICS; WORLD; ENTREPRENEURSHIP; STANDARDIZATION; LEGITIMACY;
D O I
10.1016/j.infoandorg.2018.02.004
中图分类号
G25 [图书馆学、图书馆事业]; G35 [情报学、情报工作];
学科分类号
1205 ; 120501 ;
摘要
In this conceptual piece we suggest that the institutional perspective is a prolific lens to study digital innovation and transformation. Digital innovation is about the creation and putting into action of novel products and services; by digital transformation we mean the combined effects of several digital innovations bringing about novel actors (and actor constellations), structures, practices, values, and beliefs that change, threaten, replace or complement existing rules of the game within organizations and fields. We identify three types of novel institutional arrangements critical for digital transformation: digital organizational forms, digital institutional infrastructures, and digital institutional building blocks. From this vantage point, an institutional perspective invites us to examine how these novel arrangements gain social approval (i.e. legitimacy) in the eyes of critical stakeholders and their interplay with existing institutional arrangements. Questioning the disruptive talk associated with digital transformation, we draw on the institutional change literature to illustrate the institutionalization challenges and that existing institutional arrangements are pivotal arbiters in deciding whether and how novel arrangements gain acceptance. We close this essay with discussing the implications of an institutional perspective on digital transformation for policy, practice and research.
引用
收藏
页码:52 / 61
页数:10
相关论文
共 97 条
[11]  
Baldwin C.Y., 2000, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, DOI [DOI 10.7551/MITPRESS/2366.001.0001, 10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001]
[12]  
Barrett M., 2015, OXFORD HDB PROFESSIO
[13]   Reconfiguring Boundary Relations: Robotic Innovations in Pharmacy Work [J].
Barrett, Michael ;
Oborn, Eivor ;
Orlikowski, Wanda J. ;
Yates, JoAnne .
ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, 2012, 23 (05) :1448-1466
[14]   Crowdsourcing: Global search and the twisted roles of consumers and producers [J].
Bauer, Robert M. ;
Gegenhuber, Thomas .
ORGANIZATION, 2015, 22 (05) :661-681
[15]   Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System [J].
Berente, Nicholas ;
Yoo, Youngjin .
INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 2012, 23 (02) :376-396
[16]   MULTIPLE INSTITUTIONAL LOGICS IN ORGANIZATIONS: EXPLAINING THEIR VARIED NATURE AND IMPLICATIONS [J].
Besharov, Marya L. ;
Smith, Wendy K. .
ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2014, 39 (03) :364-381
[17]   Standardization Cycles: A Process Perspective on the Formation and Diffusion of Transnational Standards [J].
Botzem, Sebastian ;
Dobusch, Leonhard .
ORGANIZATION STUDIES, 2012, 33 (5-6) :737-762
[18]  
Brownsword R., 2008, Regulating Technologies: Legal Futures, Regulatory Frames and Technological Fixes
[19]  
Chesbrough H. W., 2006, Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm
[20]  
Davis G.F., 2017, SAGE HDB ORG I