Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda

Abstract

S ince the inauguration of information systems research (ISR) two decades ago, the information systems (IS) field's attention has moved beyond administrative systems and individual tools. Millions of users log onto Facebook, download iPhone applications, and use mobile services to create decentralized work organizations. Understanding these new dynamics will necessitate the field paying attention to digital infrastructures as a category of IT artifacts. A state-of-the-art review of the literature reveals a growing interest in digital infrastructures but also confirms that the field has yet to put infrastructure at the centre of its research endeavor. To assist this shift we propose three new directions for IS research: (1) theories of the nature of digital infrastructure as a separate type of IT artifact, sui generis; (2) digital infrastructures as relational constructs shaping all traditional IS research areas; (3) paradoxes of change and control as salient IS phenomena. We conclude with suggestions for how to study longitudinal, large-scale sociotechnical phenomena while striving to remain attentive to the limitations of the traditional categories that have guided IS research.

Rate or Trade? Identifying Winning Ideas in Open Idea Sourcing

“…Among the many changes, IT has been shown to affect decentralized work organizations (Tilson et al 2010), knowledge work (Boudreau et al 2014, Forman andZeebroeck 2012), and decision-making (Arrow et al 2008, Woolley et al 2010). Many of these changes are driven by organizations' struggle to become more innovative and to satisfy the demands of heterogeneous users (Von Hippel 2005).…”

The Anatomy of Digital Trade Infrastructures

“…Recognizing the dual challenge of installed base inertia and the coordination of distributed control, the general conclusion in the extant literature is that effective development of DI requires approaches that are different from the traditional system development methods Lyytinen 2010, Tilson, Lyytinen et al 2010). As noted by Edwards et al (2009, p. 369), particular stakeholder groups "rarely if ever 'build' infrastructure; they must nurture it and, if they are lucky, help it to grow".…”

Interconnecting Governments, Businesses and Citizens – A Comparison of Two Digital Infrastructures

“…Furthermore, IIs typically also comprise the users of the infrastructure, network operators, and other actors and components. These technological and social structures are the basis for facilities and services, which in turn can be used by actors, society and economies for key functions [8]. IIs offer a potential for transformation of the way actors interact and organize (economic) activity.…”

“…Source Emerge and evolve through the interplay of technology, users, providers, and policy-makers [11,13] Used by many different users [8,11] Usage evolving over time [8,11] Type of users evolving over time [11] Socio-technological systems [7,11] Networks, systems and processes that contribute to the functioning of a specific information system [17,23] Installed base and critical mass, including (strategies) for expansion and cultivation [7,23,24] Facilities and services based on II, that actors use to function [8,13] Interactions between public and private sector [25] Decision and governance structures [23,25] …”