SHINY NEW IDEAS FOR THE NEXT DECADE (12 July 2023)

Description

After talking about the big theories from the past millennium, it is time to talk about the ideas that emerged after the year 2000. From sociomaterality and two-sided markets to temporal networks, modularity, and routine dynamics – contemporary scholarship is ripe with new ideas that warrant further development, empirical exploration, and rigorous testing. It is truly a wonderful time to be an information systems scholar! And just on the side, we set a new record for material referenced on the podcast.

Episode Reading List

  • Park, Y., Fiss, P. C., & El Sawy, O. A. (2020). Theorizing the Multiplicity of Digital Phenomena: The Ecology of Configurations, Causal Recipes, and Guidelines for Applying QCA. MIS Quarterly, 44(4), 1493-1520.
  • Chernozhukov, V., Chetverikov, D., Demirer, M., Duflo, E., Hansen, C., Newey, W., & Robins, J. (2018). Double/Debiased Machine Learning for Treatment and Structural Parameters.The Econometrics Journal, 21(1), C1-C68.
  • Burton-Jones, A., McLean, E. R., & Monod, E. (2015). Theoretical Perspectives in IS Research: From Variance and Process to Conceptual Latitude and Conceptual Fit. European Journal of Information Systems, 24(6), 664-679.
  • Lyytinen, K., & Damsgaard, J. (2011). Inter-organizational Information Systems Adoption – a Configuration Analysis Approach.European Journal of Information Systems, 20(5), 496-509.
  • Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., & Ropponen, J. (1998). Attention Shaping and Software Risk—A Categorical Analysis of Four Classical Risk Management Approaches. Information Systems Research, 9(3), 233-255.
  • Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.
  • Kautz, K., & Blegind-Jensen, T. (2013). Sociomateriality at the Royal Court of IS: A Jester’s Monologue. Information and Organization, 23(1), 15-27.
  • Barad, K. (1996). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Realism and Social Constructivism without Contradiction. In L. H. Nelson & J. Nelson (Eds.), Feminism, Science, and the Philosophy of Science (pp. 161-194). Springer.
  • Friedland, R. (2018). Moving Institutional Logics Forward: Emotion and Meaningful Material Practice. Organization Studies, 39(4), 515-542.
  • de Vaujany, F.-X., Adrot, A., Boxenbaum, E., & Leca, B. (Eds.). (2019). Materiality in Institutions: Spaces, Embodiment and Technology in Management and Organization. Springer.
  • Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2005). Two-sided Network Effects: A Theory of Information Product Design.Management Science, 51(10), 1494-1504.
  • Gawer, A. (2014). Bridging Differing Perspectives on Technological Platforms: Toward an Integrative Framework.Research Policy, 43(7), 1239-1249.
  • Albert, D., & Siggelkow, N. (2022). Architectural Search and Innovation.Organization Science, 33(1), 275-292.
  • Boudreau, K. J. (2010). Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control.Management Science, 56(10), 1849-1872.
  • Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press.
  • Garud, R., & Kumaraswamy, A. (1995). Technological and Organizational Designs for Realizing Economies of Substitution. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 93-109.
  • Sanchez, R., & Mahoney, J. T. (1996). Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge Management in Product and Organization Design.Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 63-76.
  • Colfer, L. J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2016). The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence, and Exceptions.Industrial and Corporate Change, 25(5), 709-738.
  • Conway, M. E. (1968). How Do Committees Invent?Datamation, (April), 28-31.
  • Um, S., Zhang, B., Wattal, S., & Yoo, Y. (2023). Software Components and Product Variety in a Platform Ecosystem: A Dynamic Network Analysis of WordPress.Information Systems Research, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1172.
  • Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735.
  • Henfridsson, O., Mathiassen, L., & Svahn, F. (2014). Managing Technological Change in the Digital Age: The Role of Architectural Frames. Journal of Information Technology, 29(1), 27-43.
  • Lee, J., & Berente, N. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry.Organization Science, 23(5), 1428-1447.
  • Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change.Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94-118.
  • Pentland, B. T., Feldman, M. S., Becker, M. C., & Liu, P. (2012). Dynamics of Organizational Routines: A Generative Model. Journal of Management Studies, 49(8), 1484-1508.
  • Mendling, J., Pentland, B. T., & Recker, J. (2020). Building a Complementary Agenda for Business Process Management and Digital Innovation. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 208-219.
  • Pentland, B. T., Recker, J., & Wyner, G. (2017). Rediscovering Handoffs. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(3), 284-301.
  • Baiyere, A., Salmela, H., & Tapanainen, T. (2020). Digital Transformation and the New Logics of Business Process Management. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(3), 238-259.
  • Pentland, B. T., Liu, P., Kremser, W., & Hærem, T. (2020). The Dynamics of Drift in Digitized Processes. MIS Quarterly, 44(1), 19-47.
  • Lindberg, A., Berente, N., Gaskin, J., & Lyytinen, K. (2016). Coordinating Interdependencies in Online Communities: A Study of an Open Source Software Project. Information Systems Research, 27(4), 751-772.
  • Schecter, A., Pilny, A., Leung, A., Poole, M. S., & Contractor, N. (2018). Step by step: Capturing the Dynamics of Work Team Process Through Relational Event Sequences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(9), 1163-1181.
  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing Social Networks. Sage.
  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415-444.
  • Grant, R. M. (1996). Toward A Knowledge-Based Theory of the Firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(S2), 109-122.
  • Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology.Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397.
  • Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI Ground Truth Really “True”? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts’ Know-What.MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525.
  • Boland, R. J., & Collopy, F. (Eds.). (2004). Managing as Designing. Stanford University Press.
  • Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
  • Lehmann, J., Recker, J., Yoo, Y., & Rosenkranz, C. (2022). Designing Digital Market Offerings: How Digital Ventures Navigate the Tension Between Generative Digital Technology and the Existing Environment. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1453-1482.
  • Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243-263.
  • Reuer, J. J., & Tong, T. W. (Eds.). (2007). Real Options Theory. Emerald.
  • McGrath, R. G. (1997). A Real Options Logic for Initiating Technology Positioning Investments. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 974-996.
  • Sambamurthy, V., Bharadwaj, A., & Grover, V. (2003). Shaping Agility through Digital Options: Reconceptualizing the Role of Information Technology in Contemporary Firms. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 237-263.
  • Rolland, K. H., Mathiassen, L., & Rai, A. (2018). Managing Digital Platforms in User Organizations: The Interactions Between Digital Options and Digital Debt. Information Systems Research, 29(2), 419-443.
  • Woodard, C. J., Ramasubbu, N., Tschang, F. T., & Sambamurthy, V. (2013). Design Capital and Design Moves: The Logic of Digital Business Strategy. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 537-564.
  • Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357-370.
  • Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2009). On the Identity of Technological Objects and User Innovations in Function.Academy of Management Review, 34(3), 442-462.
  • Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2019). Theorizing the Digital Object. MIS Quarterly, 43(4), 1279-1302.
  • Baiyere, A., Grover, V., Lyytinen, K., Woerner, S., & Gupta, A. (2023). Digital “x”—Charting a Path for Digital-Themed Research. Information Systems Research, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2022.1186.
  • Lyytinen, K. (2022). Innovation Logics in the Digital Era: A Systemic Review of the Emerging Digital Innovation Regime. Innovation: Organization & Management, 24(1), 13-34.
  • Gal, U., Hansen, S., & Lee, A. S. (2022). Towards Theoretical Rigor in Ethical Analysis: The Case of Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(6), 1634-1661.
  • Leidner, D. E., & Tona, O. (2021). The CARE Theory of Dignity Amid Personal Data Digitalization. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 343-370.
  • Recker, J., von Briel, F., Yoo, Y., Nagaraj, V., & McManus, M. (2023). Orchestrating Human-Machine Designer Ensembles during Product Innovation.California Management Review, 65(3), 27–47.
  • Martin, K. (Ed.). (2020). Ethics of Data and Analytics: Concepts and Cases. CRC Press.
  • Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2019). A Survey on Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Computing Surveys, 54(6), Article 115.

The Home Page of Professor Jan Recker