Exploring Social Aspects Influence on Change in Network Relationships: A Case Study of Digital Innovation

Digital innovation processes are becoming more and more networked, and actors are growing dependent on each other’s competences, resources and knowledge. In networks developing digital innovation actors need to identify, mobilize, and integrate diverse and heterogeneous knowledge resources to be able to innovate successfully. Social aspects are important where heterogeneous actors connect, negotiate, and adjust to each other’s perspectives. The aim of this paper is to explain how social aspects such as trust, commitment and power, influence changes in relationships in digital innovation networks. A case study approach was selected to study events involving multiple actors in an innovation and development project aimed at introducing technology that aids elderly, home care personnel and next of kin by improving the management of home care visits. Based on the authors’ findings they present a model for how social aspects influence changes in relationships and conclude by making six propositions.

[1]  David Silverman,et al.  Qualitative research: meanings or practices? , 1998, Inf. Syst. J..

[2]  Youngjin Yoo,et al.  Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing , 2010, MIS Q..

[3]  Oliver Oechslein,et al.  Examining Trust within the Team in IT Startup Companies--An Empirical Study in the People's Republic of China , 2012, 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[4]  M. Hekkert,et al.  Networks and network resources in technological innovation systems: Towards a conceptual framework for system building , 2012 .

[5]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Doing interpretive research , 2006, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[6]  Myriam Cloodt,et al.  Open innovation in value networks , 2006 .

[7]  Paul R. Carlile,et al.  A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development , 2002, Organ. Sci..

[8]  Arvind Parkhe,et al.  Orchestrating Innovation Networks , 2006 .

[9]  Jacky Swan,et al.  The politics of networked innovation , 2005 .

[10]  Ojelanki K. Ngwenyama,et al.  Software process improvement with weak management support: an analysis of the dynamics of intra-organizational alliances in IS change initiatives , 2010, Eur. J. Inf. Syst..

[11]  Lorraine Morgan,et al.  Open Source Innovation Networks: Exploring High and Low- density Models , 2012, PACIS.

[12]  Varun Grover,et al.  Cocreating IT Value: New Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments , 2012, MIS Q..

[13]  Michael D. Myers,et al.  A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems , 1999, MIS Q..

[14]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions , 1991, Inf. Syst. Res..

[15]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  What's Wrong with the Diffusion of Innovation Theory , 2001, Diffusing Software Products and Process Innovations.

[16]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Research Commentary - The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research , 2010, Inf. Syst. Res..

[17]  C. Mothe,et al.  SME dependence and coordination in innovation networks , 2012 .

[18]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The Case of Digital 3-D Representations in Architecture, Engineering, and Construction , 2007, Organ. Sci..