Journal of Information Technology

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 229–244 | Cite as

Managing identity tensions during mobile ecosystem evolution

Research Article


The idea of an ecosystem suggests a holistic framing of how heterogeneous actors relate to one another and of the dynamics of their relationships. Because of the dynamics some relationships will become uncertain, posing significant challenge to the identity of participating organizations. Unfortunately, the Information Systems (IS) literature has not examined how organizations develop and negotiate their identities during ecosystem evolution. We fill this void by exploring identity challenges that Swedish Road Administration (SRA) faced while implementing the Radio Data System – Traffic Message Channel (RDS – TMC) traffic information service. Through a longitudinal case study we follow how SRA’s inherited expectations, guiding norms, and standards of sense-giving about its identity prevented it from becoming a flexible service provider within an emerging mobile ecosystem. We record a constant clash – the identity tension – between the old inherited identity of a public road administrator and the aspiring new identity of a digital service provider. To enact a successful identity change, SRA had to engage in a series of change episodes whereby it deliberately implemented new routines that forged novel relationships with actors within the ecosystem. This permitted SRA to gradually align its identity to the evolving needs of the RDS-TMC service ecosystem. Our findings suggest that deliberate attempts to implement innovative mobile services – especially those involving public-private partnerships – trigger intriguing identity ambiguities and role dilemmas, and future research should therefore focus on effective strategies to identify, manage, and resolve inherent identity tensions.


identity change identity tension mobile ecosystem service delivery traffic information 


  1. Adner, R. (2006). Match Your Innovation Strategy to Your Innovation Systems, Harvard Business Review 84 (4): 98–107.Google Scholar
  2. Adner, R. and Kapoor, R. (2010). Value Creation in Innovation Ecosystems: How the structure of technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations, Strategic Management Journal 31 (3): 306–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson, M. and Lindgren, R. (2005). The Mobile-Stationary Divide in Ubiquitous Computing Environments: Lessons from the transport industry, Information Systems Management 22 (4): 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Andersson, M. and Lindgren, R. (2010). Enacting Assemblages of Technology: A Practice Lens Analysis. In Proceedings of HICSS-43 (Kauai, Hawaii, USA) Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar
  5. Andersson, M., Lindgren, R. and Henfridsson, O. (2008). Architectural Knowledge in Inter-Organizational IT Innovation, Journal of Strategic Information Systems 17 (1): 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bala, H. and Venkatesh, V. (2007). Assimilation of Interorganizational Business Process Standards, Information Systems Research 18 (3): 340–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrett, M. and Davidson, E. (2008). Exploring the Diversity of Service Worlds in the Service Economy, in M. Barrett, E. Davidson, C. Middleton and J. Degross (eds.) IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing). Information Technology in the Service Economy: Challenges and Possibilities for the 21st Century, Boston: Springer, Volume 267, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
  8. Basole, R.C. (2009). Visualization of Interfirm Relations in a Converging Mobile Ecosystems, Journal of Information Technology 24 (2): 144–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Basole, R.C. and Karla, J. (2011). On the Evolution of Mobile Platform Ecosystem Structure and Strategy, Business & Information Systems Engineering 3 (5): 313–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bitner, M.J., Brown, S.W. and Meuter, M.L. (2000). Technology Infusion in Service Encounters, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 28 (1): 138–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2007). Wakes of Innovation in Project Networks: The case of 3-D representations in architecture, engineering and construction, Organization Science 18 (4): 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Caudle, S.L., Gorr, W.L. and Newcomer, K.E. (1991). Key Information Systems Management Issues for the Public Sector, MIS Quarterly 15 (2): 171–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Corley, K.G. and Gioia, D.A. (2004). Identity Ambiguity and Change in the Wake of a Corporate Spin-off, Administrative Science Quarterly 49 (2): 173–208.Google Scholar
  14. Damsgaard, J. and Truex, D. (2000). Binary Trading Relations and the Limits of EDI Standards: The procrustean bed of standards, European Journal of Information Systems 9 (3): 173–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C. and Yoo, Y. (2015). Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: The case of Apple’s iOS service system, MIS Quarterly 39 (1): 217–243.Google Scholar
  16. Edwards, P.N., Jackson, S.J., Bowker, G.C. and Knobel, C.P. (2007). Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, Tensions, and Design. Retrieved from,
  17. Edwards, P.N., Jackson, S.J., Bowker, G.C. and Williams, R. (2009). An Agenda for Infrastructure Studies, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (5): 364–374.Google Scholar
  18. Eisenman, T., Parker, G. and Van Alstyne, M.W. (2006). Strategies for Two-Sided Markets, Harvard Business Review 84 (10): 1105–1121.Google Scholar
  19. Ferneley, E. and Light, B. (2008). Unpacking User Relations in an Emerging Ubiquitous Computing Environment: Introducing the bystander, Journal of Information Technology 23 (3): 163–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gal, U., Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2008). The Dynamics of IT Boundary Objects, Information Infrastructures, and Organizational Identities: The introduction of 3d modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry, European Journal of Information Systems 17 (3): 290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ghazawneh, A. and Henfridsson, O. (2013). Balancing Platform Control and External Contribution in Third-Party Development: The boundary resources model, Information Systems Journal 23 (2): 173–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert, C.G. (2005). Unbundling the Structure of Inertia: Resource versus routine rigidity, Academy of Management Journal 48 (5): 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gioia, D.A., Schultz, M. and Corley, K.G. (2000). Organizational Identity, Image, and Adaptive Instability, Academy of Management Review 25 (1): 63–81.Google Scholar
  25. Grøtnes, E. (2009). Standardization as Open Innovation: Two cases from the mobile industry, Information Technology & People 22 (4): 367–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hargrave, T.J. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2006). A Collection Action Model of Institutional Innovation, Academy of Management Review 31 (4): 864–888.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hedman, J., Srinivasan, N. and Lindgren, R. (2013). Digital Traces of Information Systems: Sociomateriality Made Researchable. In Proceedings of ICIS (Milan, Italy, 2013).Google Scholar
  28. Henfridsson, O. and Lindgren, R. (2005). Multi-Contextuality in Ubiquitous Computing: Investigating the car case through action research, Information and Organization 15 (2): 95–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Henfridsson, O. and Lindgren, R. (2010). User Involvement in Developing Mobile and Temporarily Interconnected Systems, Information Systems Journal 20 (2): 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kietzmann, J. (2008). Interactive Innovation of Technology for Mobile Work, European Journal of Information Systems 17 (3): 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klein, H.K. and Myers, M.D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, MIS Quarterly 23 (1): 67–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kogut, B. and Zander, U. (1996). What Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning, Organization Science 7 (5): 502–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kwak, Y.H., Chih, Y.Y. and Ibbs, W.C. (2009). Towards a Comprehensive Understanding of Public Private Partnerships for Infrastructure Development, California Management Review 51 (2): 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data, Academy of Management Review 24 (4): 691–710.Google Scholar
  35. Lenfle, S. and Midler, C. (2009). The Launch of Innovative Product-Related Services: Lessons from automotive telematics, Research Policy 38 (1): 156–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis, M.W. (2000). Exploring Paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide, Academy of Management Review 25 (4): 760–776.Google Scholar
  37. Lindgren, R., Andersson, M. and Henfridsson, O. (2008). Multi-Contextuality in Boundary-Spanning Practices, Information Systems Journal 18 (5): 641–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lindgren, R. and Holgersson, J. (2012). Transport Coopetition for Environmental Sustainability: Guiding Vertical Standard Design. In Proceedings of HICSS-45 (Maui, Hawaii, USA).Google Scholar
  39. Lindgren, R. and Wiberg, M. (2000). Knowledge Management and Mobility in a Semi-Virtual Organization: Lessons Learned from the Case of Telia Nära. In Proceedings of HICSS-33 (Maui, Hawaii, USA).Google Scholar
  40. Lyytinen, K., Keil, T. and Fomin, V. (2008). A Framework to Build Process Theories of Anticipatory Information and Communication (ICT) Standardizing, Journal of International Standards & Standardization Research 6 (1): 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. (2002). Research Commentary: The next wave of nomadic computing, Information Systems Research 13 (4): 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malhotra, A., Gosain, S. and El Sawy, O.A. (2007). Leveraging Standard Electronic Business Interfaces to Enable Adaptive Supply Chain Partnerships, Information Systems Research 18 (3): 260–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Markus, M.L., Steinfield, C.W., Wigand, R.T. and Minton, G. (2006). Industry-Wide Information Systems Standardization as Collective Action: The case of the U.S. residential mortgage industry, MIS Quarterly 30: 439–465.Google Scholar
  44. Mathiassen, L. and Sørensen, C. (2008). Towards a Theory of Organizational Information Services, Journal of Information Technology 23 (4): 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Michel, S., Brown, S.W. and Gallan, A.S. (2008). An Expanded and Strategic View of Discontinuous Innovations: Deploying a service-dominant logic, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 (1): 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orlikowski, W.J. and Baroudi, J.J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research approaches and assumptions, Information Systems Research 2 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pentland, B.T. and Feldman, M.S. (2008). Designing Routines: On the folly of designing artifacts, while hoping for patterns of action, Information and Organization 18 (4): 235–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pettigrew, A.M. (1990). Longitudinal Field Research on Change: Theory and practice, Organization Science 1 (3): 267–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ravasi, D. and Schultz, M. (2006). Responding to Organizational Identity Threats: Exploring the role of organizational culture, Academy of Management Journal 49 (3): 433–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ribes, D. and Finholt, T.A. (2009). The Long Now of Technology Infrastructure: Articulating tensions in development, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 10 (5): 375–398.Google Scholar
  51. Selander, L., Henfridsson, O. and Svahn, F. (2013). Capability Search and Redeem across Digital Ecosystems, Journal of Information Technology 28 (3): 183–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  53. Sørensen, C. (2014). Enterprise Mobility, Computing Handbook, Boca Raton: CRC Press, Scholar
  54. Sørensen, C. and Pica, D. (2005). Tales from the Police: Mobile technologies and contexts of work, Information and Organization 15 (3): 125–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. and Sørensen, C. (2010). Digital Infrastructures: The missing research agenda, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 748–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B. and Bush, A.A. (2010). Platform Evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics, Information Systems Research 21 (4): 675–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tripsas, M. (2009). Technology, Identity and Inertia Through the Lens of ‘The Digital Photography Company’, Organization Science 20 (2): 441–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van de Ven, A.H. (2005). Running in Packs to Develop Knowledge-Intensive Technologies, MIS Quarterly 29 (2): 365–378.Google Scholar
  59. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2008). Service-Dominant Logic: Continuing the evolution, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2011). It’s all B2B … and Beyond: Toward a systems perspective of the market, Industrial Marketing Management 40 (2): 181–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vargo, S.L., Maglio, P.P. and Akaka, M.A. (2008). On Value and Value Co-Creation: A service systems and service logic perspective, European Management Journal 26 (3): 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walsham, G. (1995). Interpretive Case Studies in Is Research: Nature and method, European Journal of Information Systems 4 (2): 74–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wareham, J., Fox, P.B. and Cano Giner, J.L. (2014). Technology Ecosystem Governance, Organization Science 25 (4): 1195–1215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Whitley, E.A., Gal, U. and Kjaergaard, A. (2014). Who Do You Think You Are? A Review of the Complex Interplay Between Information Systems, Identification and Identity, European Journal of Information 23 (1): 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Williams, K., Chatterjee, S. and Rossi, M. (2008). Design of Emerging Digital Services: A taxonomy, European Journal of Information Systems 17 (5): 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yin, R.K. (2010). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish, New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  67. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A call for research on experiential computing, MIS Quarterly 34 (2): 213–231.Google Scholar
  68. Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J. and Lyytinen, K. (2006). From Organization Design to Organization Designing, Organization Science 17 (2): 215–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yoo, Y., Boland, R.J., Lyytinen, K. and Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World, Organization Science 23 (5): 1398–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zammuto, R.F., Griffith, T.L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D.J. and Faraj, S. (2007). Information Technology and the Changing Fabric of Organization, Organization Science 18 (5): 749–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Information Technology Trust 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rikard Lindgren
    • 1
    • 2
  • Owen Eriksson
    • 3
  • Kalle Lyytinen
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Applied ITSwedish Center for Digital Innovation, University of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.University of BoråsBoråsSweden
  3. 3.Department of Informatics and MediaUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  4. 4.Department of Information SystemsWheatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations