Advertisement

Mobile Applications as Carriers of Institutional Pressures: A Case of the Finnish Taxi Industry

  • Karin VäyrynenEmail author
  • Arto Lanamäki
  • Juho Lindman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 326)

Abstract

While the worldwide market expansion of Uber has raised controversy, Uber has also received praise for its mobile phone app. Its many features – taxi ordering, pricing, real-time location information, paying, and service evaluation – have provided significant customer value. When Uber entered Finland in November 2014, few other taxi apps were available. Between 2014 and 2018, this shortage of taxi apps turned into an abundance, with many companies introducing their own taxi apps. By leaning on institutional theory, and more specifically by applying coercive, mimetic and normative pressures as a lens, we provide an explanation for why three Finnish taxi apps now resemble Uber in some features, whereas they differ in others. Based on our interviews, we can explain the present-day differences between these apps by coercive and normative pressures in the institutional environment of the Finnish taxi industry. We contribute to the IT and institutionalization research stream by illustrating how mobile applications as IT artefacts can be seen as carriers of institutional pressures materializing in the features they provide.

Keywords

Taxi industry Institutional pressures Mobile apps 

References

  1. 1.
    Stone, B.: The Upstarts: How Uber, Airbnb and the Killer Companies of the New Silicon Valley are Changing the World. Bantam Press, London (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    McGregor, M., Brown, B., Glöss, M.: Disrupting the cab: Uber, ridesharing and the taxi industry. J. Peer Prod. 6 (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hacker, P.: UberPop, UberBlack, and the regulation of digital platforms after the Asociación Professional Elite Taxi judgment of the CJEU. Eur. Rev. Contract Law 14, 80–96 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tucker, E.: Uber and the unmaking and remaking of taxi capitalisms: technology, law and resistance in historical perspective. In: McKee, D., Makela, F., Scassa, T. (eds.) Law and the “Sharing Economy”: Regulating Online Market Platforms. University of Ottawa Press, Ottawa (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cramer, J., Krueger, A.B.: Disruptive change in the taxi business: the case of Uber. Am. Econ. Rev. 106, 177–182 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Um, S., Yoo, Y., Berente, N., Lyytinen, K.: Digital artifacts as institutional attractors: a systems biology perspective on change in organizational routines. In: Bhattacherjee, A., Fitzgerald, B. (eds.) Shaping the Future of ICT Research. Methods and Approaches. IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology, vol. 389, pp. 195–209. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35142-6_13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Boxenbaum, E., Jonsson, S.: Isomorphism, diffusion and decoupling: concept evolution and theoretical challenges. In: Greenwood, R., Oliver, C., Lawrence, T.B., Meyer, R.E. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, pp. 78–98. Sage, London (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gosain, S.: Enterprise information systems as objects and carriers of institutional forces: the new iron cage? J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 5, 6 (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rajão, R., Hayes, N.: Conceptions of control and IT artefacts: an institutional account of the Amazon rainforest monitoring system. J. Inf. Technol. 24, 320–331 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Orlikowski, W.J., Iacono, C.S.: Research commentary: desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research—a call to theorizing the IT artifact. Inf. Syst. Res. 12, 121–134 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bekken, J.-T.: Experiences with (De-) Regulation in the European Taxi Industry. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2007)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Scott, W.R.: Institutions and Organization: Ideas, Interests, and Identities. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    DiMaggio, P., Powell, W.W.: The iron cage revisited: collective rationality and institutional isomorphism in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 147–160 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Strang, D., Soule, S.A.: Diffusion in organizations and social movements: from hybrid corn to poison pills. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24, 265–290 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mignerat, M., Rivard, S.: Positioning the institutional perspective in information systems research. J. Inf. Technol. 24, 369–391 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hasselbladh, H., Kallinikos, J.: The project of rationalization: a critique and reappraisal of neo-institutionalism in organization studies. Organ. Stud. 21, 697–720 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mauranen, T.: Taksi! Matka suomalaisen taksin historiaan. Suomen taksiliitto ry, Forssa (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hodges, G.R.G.: Taxi! A Social History of the New York City Cabdriver. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R., Shaheen, S.: Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp. Policy 45, 168–178 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crittenden, A.B., Crittenden, V.L., Crittenden, W.F.: Industry transformation via channel disruption. J. Market. Channels 24, 13–26 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zorn, T.E., Flanagin, A.J., Shoham, M.D.: Institutional and noninstitutional influences on information and communication technology adoption and use among nonprofit organizations. Hum. Commun. Res. 37, 1–33 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Magnier-Watanabe, R.: An institutional perspective of mobile payment adoption: the case of Japan. In: 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), pp. 1043–1052 (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lai, K.-H., Wong, C.W.Y., Cheng, T.C.E.: Institutional isomorphism and the adoption of information technology for supply chain management. Comput. Ind. 57, 93–98 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    David, P.A.: Why are institutions the ‘carriers of history’?: Path dependence and the evolution of conventions, organizations and institutions. Struct. Change Econ. Dynam. 5, 205–220 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Frizell, S.: A Historical Argument Against Uber: Taxi Regulations Are There for a Reason. Time.com N.PAG (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Lawrence, T.B., Suddaby, R., Leca, B. (eds.): Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interact Research Unit, Faculty of ITEEUniversity of OuluOulun YliopistoFinland
  2. 2.Applied Information TechnologyUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations