- The fundamental shift of IT’s role from functional support to driver of business value creates the cross-level nonlinear causality between firms and IT-induced hyperturbulence at the collective level.
- Research objectives is to understand
- how firm-level strategic uses of IT (IT innovation) can induce hyperturbulence in the competitive environment (bottom-up)
- how IT-induced hyperturbulence redefines IT-enabled solutions for a firm to cope with performance challenges (top-down)
- Component IT innovation is defined as the replacement of existing IT or business assets with new IT assets.
- Architectural IT innovation is defined as IT-enabled reconfiguration of interconnections among existing assets or systems.
The boundary of this study
- Its Implicit value is that (a) IT innovations are important forces to instigate firm strategic actions and interactions; and that (b) effects of IT innovations manifest as bottom-up and top-down nonlinear causality between firm strategic actions and hyperturbulence.
- The spatial restriction of its theory is a collective of strategically interacting firms, with markets, industry, and digital ecosystems.
- The temporal restriction is after a firm has adopted an IT innovation.
- Proposition 1 and 2 predicts that components and architectural IT innovation creates an hyperturbulent environment because of positive/negative feedback loops
- Proposition 3 predicts that architectural IT innovation amplifies the impact of component IT innovation on hyperturbluence.
- Proposition 4 predicts that hyperturbluence redefines the promise of IT.
Results & Post-hoc anlaysis
- According to their ABM simulation results, P1, P2, and P4 are supported, while P3 is not.
- The study modifies proposition 3 and allow there would be non-linear interaction effect between component and architectural innovation on hyperturbulence.
- It also suggestst that with path creation or distribute tuning, a firm can exploit IT generativity and relieve challenge from hyperturbulence.
- As in the literature review, IT innovation can be categorized into traditional and new one. But in their literature review and proposition development, the authors did not consider the relationship between component and architectural IT innovation. After they found the result against their proposition 3, they revisit literature and change it. It is quite not hard to imagine both innovations are not totally separate concepts, but entangled with each other in some ways. Why did the authors not consider the relationship in the first place, but rather modify their proposition in the post-hoc analysis?
- For example, in their literature review, they state that “the new generation of IT innovation enables modularized productive means and standardized interfaces” (p.939). This implies that modularization and standardization aspect of architectural IT innovation cannot exist before component IT innovation.
- I think the authors should have conceptualized component IT innovation in more detail. What does a high level of component IT innovation mean? Does it simply mean adopting many new ERP systems or investing a lot in IT? Because. as the authors state, component innovation coevolves with architectural innovation, high level of component innovation might not be explained without its relation to architectural innovation.
- Insufficient explanation for the reason why component IT innovation has curvilinear relationship with a hyperturbulent envionment in the high architectural setting.
- When both component and architectural are high, a certain firm (such as Apple or Google) may achieve sustainable competitive advantage over others, leading to lower hyperturbulence.