Advertisement

Socio-technical Complexity in Digital Platforms: The Revelatory Case of Helix Nebula: The Science Cloud

  • Michael Blaschke
Chapter
Part of the Management for Professionals book series (MANAGPROF)

Abstract

  1. (a)

    Situation faced: The digitalization case reported here refers to the digital platform Helix NebulaThe Science Cloud. Early after the go-live in 2014, Helix Nebula aimed to compete with leading digital platforms such as those of Microsoft and Alphabet. To this end, Helix Nebula extended its scale and scope of inter-organizational collaboration toward a digital ecosystem. In effect, four leading European information technology (IT) providers started cooperating with partners over a shared digital platform to deliver cloud services to client organizations. Value-destroying high levels of socio-technical complexity resulted. This complexity increasingly inhibited the digital platform Helix Nebula from thriving and growing.

     
  2. (b)

    Action taken: Helix Nebula implemented four consecutive and interrelated actions to counteract complexity. First, it modelled its digital ecosystem entailing platform owners, partners, clients, and subcontractors. Second, it agreed on a shared understanding of socio-technical complexity comprising four constituents: structural organizational, dynamic organizational, structural IT, and dynamic IT complexity. Third, it identified manifestations of these constituents in its digital ecosystem. Fourth, it took according countermeasures to reduce these manifestations. While two countermeasures (orchestration and standardization) reflect the need of maintaining organizational and technological integrity, the other two (autonomization and modularization) reflect the need of maintaining organizational and technological elasticity in digital ecosystems.

     
  3. (c)

    Results achieved: Helix Nebula has reduced its digital ecosystem’s socio-technical complexity to value-adding levels. This reduction contributed to realizing three interrelated improvements. First, Helix Nebula has scaled more effectively from initially 10 partners to currently 40. Second, partly owing to reduced socio-technical complexity, Helix Nebula has improved its efforts in co-creating value through more effectively exchanging, adding, and even synergistically integrating resources. Third, in implementing the countermeasures against socio-technical complexity, Helix Nebula has developed four capabilities for facilitating a thriving digital platform. These capabilities deal with the intricacies of digital ecosystems that substantially complicate digital platforms’ state of continued existence.

     
  4. (d)

    Lessons learned: First, facing considerable challenges in analyzing its evolving digital ecosystem, capturing all dimensions and characteristics of socio-technical complexity in digital platforms proved intricate. In effect, Helix Nebula managers have favored the parsimonious and succinct framework presented in this work conversely. Second, Helix Nebula managers adopt an ambidextrous approach to reducing complexity. That is, successful digital platforms balance (i) top-down, central control imposed by platform owners and (ii) bottom-up, decentral generativity imposed by platform partners, clients, and subcontractors. Third, complexity in digital platforms can pose both good effects (enabling, rewarding, value-adding, required, desirable) and bad effects (constraining, unrewarding, value-destroying, unrequired, undesirable).

     

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF).

References

  1. Anderson P (1999) Perspective: complexity theory and organization science. Organ Sci 10:216–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benlian A, Koufaris M, Hess T (2011) Service quality in software-as-a-service: developing the SaaS-Qual measure and examining its role in usage continuance. J Manage Inf Syst 28:85–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bostrom RP, Heinen JS (1977a) MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective part I: the causes. MIS Q 1:17–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bostrom RP, Heinen JS (1977b) MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective part II: the application of socio-technical theory. MIS Q 1:11–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Briegleb V (2017) End of life: Windows Phone ist offiziell tot. Heise Online. https://www.heise.de/ho/meldung/End-of-Life-Windows-Phone-ist-offiziell-tot-3769434.html. Accessed 24 Nov 2017
  6. Ceccagnoli M, Forman C, Huang P, Wu DJ (2012) Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: the case of enterprise software. MIS Q 36:263–290Google Scholar
  7. Das TK, Teng B-S (2000) A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. J Manage 26:31–62Google Scholar
  8. de Reuver M, Sørensen C, Basole RC (2017) The digital platform: a research agenda. J Inf Technol:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-016-0033-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dhanaraj C, Parkhe A (2006) Orchestrating innovation networks. Acad Manage Rev 31:659–669.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.21318923CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gartner (2017) Gartner says worldwide sales of smartphones grew 9 percent in first quarter of 2017. https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3725117. Accessed 24 Nov 2017
  11. Grant RM (1999) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration. In: Knowledge and strategy. Elsevier, pp 133–153Google Scholar
  12. Han K, Oh W, Im KS et al (2012) Value Cocreation and wealth spillover in open innovation alliances. MIS Q 36:291–316Google Scholar
  13. Hanseth O, Lyytinen K (2010) Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. J Inf Technol 25:1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hauff S, Huntgeburth J, Veit D (2014) Exploring uncertainties in a marketplace for cloud computing: a revelatory case study. J Bus Econ 84:441–468.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11573-014-0719-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hill RC, Hellriegel D (1994) Critical contingencies in joint venture management: some lessons from managers. Organ Sci 5:594–607.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.4.594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huntgeburth J, Blaschke M, Hauff S (2015) Exploring value co-creation in cloud computing platform ecosystems: a revelatory case study. In: Proceedings of the twenty-third European conference on information systems (ECIS). MünsterGoogle Scholar
  17. Iansiti M, Levien R (2004) The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. Lavie D (2006) The competitive advantage of interconnected firms: an extension of the resource-based view. Acad Manage Rev 31:638–658.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2006.21318922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee AS (1991) Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational research. Organ Sci 2:342–365.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.4.342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leimeister S, Böhm M, Riedl C, Krcmar H (2010) The business perspective of cloud computing: actors, roles and value networks. In: Proceedings of the 18th European conference on information systems. PretoriaGoogle Scholar
  21. Lusch RF, Nambisan S (2015) Service innovation: a service-dominant logic perspective. MIS Q 39:155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lyytinen K, Yoo Y, Boland RJ Jr (2016) Digital product innovation within four classes of innovation networks. Inf Syst J 26:47–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Parker G, Van Alstyne M, Jiang X (2017) Platform ecosystems: how developers invert the firm. MIS Q 41:255–2A4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ritala P (2012) Coopetition strategy – when is it successful? Empirical evidence on innovation and market performance. Br J Manage 23:307–324.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2011.00741.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schneider S, Sunyaev A (2014) Determinant factors of cloud-sourcing decisions: reflecting on the IT outsourcing literature in the era of cloud computing. J Inf Technol.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2014.25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schneider S, Sunyaev A (2015) Cloud-Service-Zertifizierung. Springer Gabler, WiesbadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Statista (2017) Most valuable companies in the world 2017. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/263264/top-companies-in-the-world-by-market-value/. Accessed 22 Nov 2017
  28. Tilson D, Lyytinen K, Sørensen C (2010) Digital infrastructures: the missing IS research agenda. Inf Syst Res 21:748–759.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1100.0318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tiwana A (2015) Evolutionary competition in platform ecosystems. Inf Syst Res 26:266–281.  https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vargo SL, Akaka MA (2012) Value cocreation and service systems (re)formation: a service ecosystems view. Serv Sci 4:207–217.  https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.1120.0019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vargo SL, Lusch RF (2016) Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service-dominant logic. J Acad Mark Sci 44:5–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Venkatraman N, Lee C-H (2004) Preferential linkage and network evolution: a conceptual model and empirical test in the U.S. video game sector. Acad Manage J 47:876–892.  https://doi.org/10.2307/20159628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Venters W, Whitley EA (2012) A critical review of cloud computing: researching desires and realities. J Inf Technol 27:179–197.  https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2012.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Walsham G (2006) Doing interpretive research. Eur J Inf Syst 15:320–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Williamson PJ, De Meyer A (2012) Ecosystem advantage: how to successfully harness the power of partners. Calif Manage Rev 55:24–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Xia W, Lee G (2005) Complexity of information systems development projects: conceptualization and measurement development. J Manage Inf Syst 22:45–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of St. GallenSt. GallenSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations