Digital Innovation

Understanding the impact of digital service failure on users: Integrating Tan’s failure and DeLone and McLean’s success model

“…Petter et al (2013) further suggested another update for the model and added net benefit as a variable by replacing the individual and organizational variable. Past studies have been done around Digital services and its innovation, disruption, success, transformation, empirical investigation, opportunities and challenges (Ciriello, Richter, & Schwabe, 2018;Skog, Wimelius, & Sandberg, 2018;Voigt & Hinz, 2016;Hauser, Günther, Flath, & Thiesse, 2018;Legner et al, 2017), but there is a lack of studies related to the digital services failure. Later on, Tan et al (2016) has converted the IS success model into IS failure model since there are no studies has been done to address the failure faced by the users.…”

Digital innovations

“…Another essential characteristic of digital product and service innovations is that they typically trigger follow-up innovations (Fichman et al 2014)either in the form of complementary services (e.g., mobile application stores add to the value of smartphones) or in the form of complementary products (e.g., smart home applications such as Amazon's Echo trigger the development of compatible household appliances). What is more, digital platforms and electronic markets play an important role in the context of digital product and service innovations (Ciriello et al 2018;Yoo et al 2012). For instance, media companies can resort to content platforms to produce, promote, or distribute content (Alt 2018;Karimi and Walter 2015;Koch and Bierbamer 2016).…”

“…On the other hand, organizations that want to develop digital innovations need to establish dedicated digital units that oftentimes employ cross-functional teams (Fuchs et al 2019). Moreover, many organizations struggle with the realization that in the context of digital innovations IT needs to be seen as an innovation enabler and not as a commodity (Ciriello et al 2018).…”

How affordances of chatbots cross the chasm between social and traditional enterprise systems

“…Further, our results point out that enterprise messengers as social information systems are not limited to their well-known characteristics of flexibility and malleability (Richter and Riemer 2013;Schmitz et al 2016). In fact, chatbots can help organizations in their digital and distributed innovation endeavors which demand for carefully balancing flexibility and malleability with stability and control (Ciriello et al 2018a;Tilson et al 2010;Yoo et al 2012). In a broader perspective, this may enable organizations to balance their exploration (innovation) and exploitation (efficiency) activities, thus, to improve their organizational ambidexterity (Andriopoulos and Lewis 2009;March 1991;Tushman and O Reilly 1996).…”

“…This rise of chatbots within enterprise messengers needs to be seen in the light of the broader wave of digitalization. Specifically, a key tenant of digitalization is distributed innovation, which is characterized by balancing flexibility and openness with stability and control (Ciriello et al 2018a;Tilson et al 2010;Yoo et al 2012). Further, the growing number of application programming interfaces (APIs) enable standardized digital communication and exchange between different information systems (Eaton et al 2015;Ghazawneh and Henfridsson 2013).…”