Référence :  Eaton B., Elaluf-Calderwood S., Sorensen C. Yoo Y. (2011) « Dynamic Structures of Control and Generativity in Digital Ecosystem Service Innovation : The cases of the Apple and Google Mobile App Stores » in London School of Economics and Political Science

Idée dominante : Dans l’écosystème digital du téléphone mobile les relations entre les différentes parties prenantes sont paradoxales car parfois relevant du contrôle parfois de la générativité.

Résumé :

Un écosystème digital comprend une plateforme composée d’éléments matériels sur lequel des modules immatériels peuvent être construits par des acteurs externes pour étendre les possibilités de la plateforme.

La générativité est la capacité d’un système indépendant de produire des nouveaux contenus ou des nouvelles structures sans l’aide des créateurs (dans notre cas les fournisseurs de plateformes). Cette générativité est donc une source d’incitation à l’innovation.

Cependant sans contrôle de cette générativité, les fournisseurs de plateformes ne peuvent profiter des bénéfices économiques qui en sont dégagés. Dans cet écosystème digital les fournisseurs de plateformes peuvent réguler la générativité en acceptant ou rejetant les tentatives des autres parties prenantes de l’intégrer ont va dire qu’ils ont un comportement antagoniste. S’ils vont chercher à influencer l’action des parties prenantes, ils auront un comportement protagoniste.

L’étude va identifier et monter (à partir de faits avérés sur cet écosystème) une typologie mettant en évidence 4 types d’actions dépendant du rôle de protagoniste ou d’antagoniste des parties prenantes : Les protagonistes peuvent influencer, demander, contourner ou se replier. Les antagonistes peuvent permettre, bloquer, ignorer ou affiner.

Une autre typologie est celle d’interaction selon que les protagonistes ou antagonistes aient pris l’avantage grâce à leurs actions et le paradoxe qui en résulte.

Notes d’intérêt : L’intérêt de cette recherche et qu’elle modélise les relations entres les différents acteurs présent dans cet écosystème digital, se basant sur des faits ayant eu lieu et donc ré-applicables.

Références bibliographiques :

Abernathy, W., and Utterback, J. “Patterns of Industrial Innovation,” Technology Review) 1978, pp 41-47.

Adams, D. Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy: Life, the Universe and Everything Pan Macmillan, London, 1982. Anderson, P., and Tushman, M.L. “Technological discontinuities and dominant design: A cyclical model of technological change,” Administrative Science Quarterly (35) 1990, pp 604-633.

Andriopoulos, C., and Lewis, M.W. “Managing Innovation Paradoxes: Ambidexterity Lessons from Leading Product Design Companies,” Long Range Planning (43:1), Apr 7 2010, pp 104-122. Bal, M. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative University of Toronto Press, 1985.

Baldwin, C.Y., and Clark, K.B. Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity MIT Press, Cambridge, MA,
2000.

Baldwin, C.Y., and Woodard, C.J. “The Architecture of Platforms: A Unified View,” in: Platforms, Markets and Innovation, A. Gawer (ed.), Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009, pp. 19-44.

Bar-Ilan, J. “Information Hub Blogs,” Journal of Information Science (31:4) 2005, p 297.

Barret, M., and Davidson, E. “Exploring the Diversity of Service Worlds in the Service Economy,” in: Information Technology in the Service Economy: Challenges and Possibilities for the 21st Century, E. Barret, E. Davidson, C. Middleton and J.I. DeGross (eds.), Springer, Boston, 2008, pp. 1-10.

Barthes, R. “Introduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives,” in: Image-Music-Text, S. Heath (ed.), Fontana, 1977, pp. 79-124.

Bauer, M., and Gaskell, G. Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound: A Practical Handbook for Social Research Sage Publications Ltd, 2000.

Beniger, J.R. The Control Revolution: Technological and Economic Origins ofthe Information Society Harvard University Press, 1986.

Benson, J.K. “Organizations: A Dialectical View,” Administrative Science Quarterly (22:1) 1977, pp 1-21. Bergquist, M., and Ljunberg, J. “The Power of Gifts: Organizing Social Relationships in Open Source
Communities,” Information Systems Journal (11:4) 2008, pp 305-320.

Birkinshaw, J., and Gibson, C. “Building Ambidexterity Into an Organization,” Sloan Management Review (45:4) 2004, pp 47-55.

Boudreau, K.J., and Hagiu, A. “Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators,” in: Platforms, Markets and Innovation, A. Gawer (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, 2009, pp. 163 191.

Bryson, J.R., and Daniels, P.W. “Service Worlds: The ‘Services Duality’ and the Rise of the ‘Manuservice’ Economy,” in: Handbook of Service Science, P.P. Maglio, C.A. Kieliszewski and J.C. Spohrer (eds.), Springer, London, 2010, pp. 79-104.

Cameron, K.S., and Quinn, R.E. Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management Harper Business, New York, 1988.

Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., and West, J. Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm Oxford University Press, New York, 2006.

Ciborra and Associates, C.U. From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000.

Ciborra, C. The Labyrinths of Information: Challenging the Wisdom of Systems Oxford University Press, 2002. Demil, B., and Lecocq, X. “Neither Market nor Hierarchy nor Network: The Emergence of Bazaar Governance,” Organization Studies (27:10) 2006, p 1447.

Ducheneaut, N., and Moore, R. “The Social Side of Gaming: A Study of Interaction Patterns in a Massively Multiplayer Online Game,” ACM Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Work, Chicago, Illinois, 2004.

Farjoun, M. “Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change as a Duality,” Academy of Management Journal (35:2) 2010, pp 202-225.

Faulkner, P., and Runde, J. “The Social, the Material, and the Ontology of Non-Material Technological
Objects,” University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 2011.

Ford, J.D., and Backoff, R.W. “Organizational Change In and Out of Dualities and Paradox,” in: Paradox and Transformation: Toward a Theory of Change in Organization and Management, R.E. Quinn and K.S. Cameron (eds.), Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1988, pp. 81- 121.

Garud, R., Jain, S., and Kumaraswamy, A. “Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Sponsorship of Common Technological Standards: The Case of Sun Microsystems and Java,” The Academy of Management Journal (45:1) 2002, pp 196-214.

Gawer, A. (ed.) Platforms, Markets and Innovation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, 2009.

Gawer, A., and Cusumano, M.A. Platform Leadership: How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 2002.

Ghazawneh, A., and Henfridsson, O. “Governing Third-Party Development Through Platform Boundary Resources,” in: Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 31) AIS, Saint Louis, 2010.

Gibson, C., and Birkinshaw, J. “The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity ” Academy of Management Journal (47:2), April 2004, pp 209-226.

Gotsi, M., Andriopoulos, C., Lewis, M.W., and Ingram, A.E. “Managing Creatives: Paradoxical Approaches to Identity Regulation,” Human Relations), Feb 10 2010, pp 1-25.

Greimas, A., and Rastier, F. “The Interaction of Semiotic Constraints,” in: Yale French Studies, Yale University Press, 1968, pp. 86-105.

Hanseth, O., and Lyytinen, K. “Design Theory for Dynamic Complexity in Information Infrastructures: The Case of Building Internet,” Journal of Information Technology (25:1) 2010, pp 1-19.

Hébert, L. Dispositifs pour L’analyse des Textes et des Images Pulim, Limoges, 2007.

Henderson, R.M., and Clark, K.B. “Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies and the Failure of Established Firms,” Administrative Science Quaterly (35:1), March 1990, pp 9-30.

Herzhoff, J. “Unfolding the Convergence Paradox: The Case of Mobile Voice-Over-IP in the UK,” in: Department of Management – The Information Systems and Innovation Group, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, 2011.

Herzhoff, J., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., and Sørensen, C. “Convergence, Conflicts, and Control Points: A Systems-Theoretical Analysis of Mobile VoIP in the UK,” in: Proceedings of joint 9th International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB 2010) and 9th Global Mobility Roundtable (GMR 2010), Athens, 2010.

Hill, T.P. “On Goods and Services,” The Review ofIncome and Wealth (23:4) 1977, pp 315-338. Hine, C. (ed.) Virtual Methods: Issues in Social Research on the Internet. Berg Publishers, Oxford, 2005.

ITU-T “Z.120 Formal Descriptions Techniques (FDT) – Message Sequence Charts (MSC),” International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, 2004.

Lewis, M., Welsh, M., Dehler, G., and Green, S. “Product Development Tensions: Exploring Contrasting Styles of Project Management,” Academy of Management Journal (45:3) 2002, pp 546-564.

Lovelock, C., and Gummesson, E. “Whither Services Marketing? In Search of a New Paradigm and Fresh Perspectives,” Journal of Service Research (7:1) 2004, pp 20-41.

Lüscher, L., and Lewis, M. “Organizational Change and Managerial Sensemaking: Working Through Paradox,” The Academy of Management Journal (AMJ) (51:2) 2008, pp 221-240.

Manley, K. “Frameworks for Understanding Interactive Innovation Processes,” International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation (4:1) 2003, pp 25-36.

Myers, M., and Avison, D. Qualitative Research in Information Systems: A Reader Sage Publications Ltd, 2002.

O’Reilly, C.A., and Tushman, M.L. “The Ambidextrous Organization,” in: Harvard Business Review, 2004, pp. 74-81.

Pentland, B. “Building Process Theory with Narrative: From Description to Explanation,” The Acadamy of Management Review (24:4) 1999, p 711.

Pentland, B., and Feldman, M. “Narrative Networks: Patterns of Technology and Organization,” Organization Science (18:5) 2007, p 781.

Pentland, B.T. “Sequential Variety in Work Processes,” Organization Science (14:5) 2003, pp 528-540.

Poole, M.S., and Van de Ven, A.H. “Using Paradox to Build Management and Organization Theories,” Academy of Management Review (14:4) 1989, pp 562-578.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., and Tushman, M.L. “Organizational Ambidexterity: Balancing Exploitation and Exploration for Sustained Performance,” Organization science (20:4) 2009, pp 685-695.

Robey, D., and Boudreau, M.-C. “Accounting for the Contradictory Organizational Consequences of Information Technology: Theoretical Directions and Methodological Implications,” Information Systems Research (10:2) 1999, pp 167-185.

Rothwell, R. “Towards the Fifth Generation Innovation Process,” International Marketing Review (11) 1994,pp 7-31.

Sanchez, R.A., and Mahoney, J.T. “Modularity, flexibiliity and knowlddge management in product and organization design,” Strategic Management Journal (17) 1996, pp 63-76.

Schilling, M.A. “Toward a General Modular System Theory and its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity,” Academy of Management Review (25:2) 2000, pp 312-334.

Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., and Svahn, F. “Transforming Ecosystem Relationships in Digital Innovation,” in: Thirty First International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 31) AIS, Saint Louis, 2010.

Shostack, G.L. “Classifying Services to Gain Strategic Marketing Insights,” Breaking Free from Product Marketing (41:2) 1977, pp 73-80.

Silverman, D. Doing Qualitative Research Sage Publications Ltd, 2009.

Suarez, F.F., and Cusumano, M.A. “The Role of Services in Platform Markets,” in: Platform, Markets and Innovation, A. Gawer (ed.), Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK, 2009, pp. 77-98.

Sundaramurthy, C., and Lewis, M. “Control and Collaboration: Paradoxes of Governance,” The Academy of Management Review (28:3) 2003, pp 397-415.

Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., and Sørensen, C. “Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda,” Information Systems Research (21:4) 2010, pp 748-759.

Tiwana, A., Konsynsky, B., and Bush, A.A. “Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics,” Information Systems Research (21:4) 2010, pp 675-687. Ulrich, K. “The Role of Product Architecture in the Manufacturing Firm,” Research Policy (24), Jan 1 1995, pp 419-440.

Utterback, J. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation Harvard University Press, Boston, MA, 1994. Van de Ven, A.H., Polley, D.E., Garud, R., and Venkatraman, S. (eds.) The Innovation Journey. Oxford University Press, New York, 1999.

Vargo, S.L., and Lusch, R.F. “Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing,” Journal of Marketing (68:1) 2004, pp 1-17.

Vargo, S.L., and Lusch, R.F. “Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the Evolution,” Journal ofthe Academy of Marketing Science (36:1) 2008, pp 1-10.

Von Hippel, E. “Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts,” Management Science (32:7) 1986, pp791-805.

Von Hippel, E. Democratizing Innovation The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005.

West, J., and Gallagher, S. “Challenges of Open Innovaiton: The Paradox of Firm Investment in Open Source Software,” R&D Management (36), May 18 2006, pp 319-331.

Yates, J. Control through Communication: The Rise of System in American Management The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1989, p. 339.

Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J., and Lyytinen, K. “Distributed Innovation in Classes of Network,” 41st Hawaii
International Conference on System Science (HICSS 43), Big Island Hawai’i, 2008.

Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. “The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research,” Information Systems Research (21:4) 2010, pp 724-735.

Zittrain, J. “The Generative Internet,” Harvard Law Review (119) 2006, pp 1974-2040.

Zittrain, J. The Future of the Internet: And How to Stop It Allen Lane, 2008.

Zuboff, S., and Maxmin, J. The Support Economy Viking, New York, 2002.