Logic Multiplicity in Digital Business Models – An Institutional Logics Perspective

Digital business models (DBM) are built upon digital technologies with complexity-inducing characteristics, connecting multiple heterogeneous actors seeking to co-create value. Institutional logics coordinate and constrain actors’ value co-creation interactions. Multiple, competing institutional logics can co-exist and create barriers to value co-creation. However, we argue that business model research in the information systems (IS) discipline still assumes a homogeneous concept, overlooking the possibility of logic multiplicity within DBMs. We conceptually show why logic multiplicity should be acknowledged and derive three propositions introducing logic multiplicity to the structures and practices of DBMs. By assuming an institutional logics perspective, challenging the assumption of homogeneity, and introducing a logic multiplicity lens, we call for a return to the discipline’s sociotechnical roots. We thereby enable scholars to study the complex reality of digital business and aid practitioners in turning situations of multiplicity into opportunities

Economic Activity and Institutions

This paper is one of two working papers concerning the waste management sector transition project run from MERIT under the direction of René Kemp. This paper examines some of the numerous meanings and interpretations associated with the words “institution” and “institutions” and the different levels at which the two notions are employed. Institutionalism, institutionalization, institutional change and related terms are discussed followed by an examination of the links between “institutionalism” and the discipline of economics. The analytical, policy and political implications of the institutionalist approach are discussed and ways in which the institutionalist approach may be applied to changes in the economy during transitions are explored.Institutions, Institutional Analysis, Scale, Policy

Transformative Change in Tutoring Programs to Address Social Justice

Abstract Assessing school-based programs to ensure that a social justice perspective governs key aspects of their delivery is vitally important, as educational institutions may unintentionally reimpose societal stratifications and injustices. The problem of practice is to address gaps between actual and optimal experiences and outcomes of a tutoring educational program from a social justice perspective involving public schools and an independent school in Ontario, Canada. The objective is to redevelop tutoring programs that involve different communities by inviting stakeholders to share their understandings of what they find valuable in the program and to determine if or how inaccurate conceptions of and divisions between social groups are perpetuated. The lens and leadership approaches of the transformative paradigm and positive organizational scholarship (POS) are used to advance change by analyzing the problem, contributing factors, and solutions. The collection and inclusion of stakeholders’ voices and perspectives, a research imperative of transformative theory, will inform change targets for program improvement. Facilitated appreciative inquiry workshops will discover stakeholders’ respective experiences and their dreams for an enhanced program, and iterative cycles of the plan, do, study, and act (PDSA) model will identify guidelines and resources to realize goals. POS strategies will facilitate change implementation, including supporting stakeholders by providing resources, ensuring open communication, and emphasizing their value in contributing to the social good. By putting forward a change implementation plan that involves community input to redress negative experiences and/or enhance positive experiences in educational programs, this paper seeks to engage educators to consider equity in cross-community learning models. Keywords: social justice-based educational programs, transformative paradigm, cross-community educational programming, appreciative inquir

Public sector accounting in emerging economies:a review of the papers published in the first decade of Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies

Purpose – A review of papers on public sector accounting in emerging economies, as published in ‘Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies’ (JAEE), first decade.Design/methodology/approach – A reflection on the issues covered and achievements made in the reviewed papers in the context of extant knowledge in this domain.Findings – A majority of the research in JAEE is dominated by accounting reforms inspired by New Public Management (NPM). Performance management, budgeting and accrual accounting are the main topics in the reviewed research. NPM claims, which can range from usability and use of a new accounting repertoire, to desirable impacts on efficiency and service delivery, are often not fulfilled . Many papers attempt to explain failing accounting innovations by the local context in which they are embedded, including political instability, poor governance and a lack of capabilities Research limitations/implications – The paper reviews research published in a niche journal, but the findings are related to the wider public sector accounting literature. Practical implications – Public sector practitioners, but also researchers, need to move away from a focus on public sector reforms due to contextual circumstances leading to built-in failures and concentrate instead on understanding how the accounting repertoire works in practice, including routes for improvements therein. Originality/value – An original framework for analysing public sector accounting research in emerging economies is proposed, which, among others, distinguishes between various ambition levels for achieving NPM reforms.<br/

Protecting scientists from Gordon Gekko: how organizations use hybrid spaces to engage with multiple institutional logics

Previous work on institutional complexity has discussed two solutions that organizations deploy internally when engaging externally with multiple institutional logics: blended hybrids where logics are combined throughout the organization, and structural hybrids where different logics dominate in different compartments within the organization. While blended hybrids have been extensively investigated, few studies have examined how structural hybrids are constructed and maintained. We address this imbalance by studying university-industry research centers as instances of distinct organizational spaces used to engage with a minority logic. We found that these spaces require three kinds of work: (a) leveraging, where dominant logic practices are drawn on to achieve minority logic objectives; (b) hybridizing, where the practices inside the space are modified to allow engagement with the minority logic; and (c) bolstering, where the space is shielded against excessive minority logic influence and anchored back into the organization. Furthermore, contrary to the existing literature we found that the spaces were hybrid, rather than being dominated by a single logic. Our finding is likely generalizable across many instances of structural hybrids given the integration problems that organizations with pure single logic spaces would face, combined with the usefulness of hybrid spaces. Our study is novel in revealing the work needed to sustain hybrid spaces and questioning the previously held conceptualization of structural hybrids as made up of single-logic compartments

What is systemic innovation?

The term ‘systemic innovation’ is increasing in use. However, there is no consensus on its meaning: four different ways of using the term can be identified in the literature. Most people simply define it as a type of innovation where value can only be derived when the innovation is synergistically integrated with other complementary innovations, going beyond the boundaries of a single organization. Therefore, the term ‘systemic’ refers to the existence of a co-ordinated innovation system. A second, less frequent use of the term makes reference to the development of policies and governance at a local, regional or national scale to create an enabling environment for the above kind of synergistic, multi-organizational innovations. Here, ‘systemic’ means recognition that innovation systems can be enabled and/or constrained by a meta-level policy system. The third use of the term, which is growing in popularity, says that an innovation is ‘systemic’ when its purpose is to change the fundamental nature of society; for instance, to deliver on major transitions concerning ecological sustainability. What makes this systemic is acknowledgement of the existence of a systems hierarchy (systems nested within each other): innovation systems are parts of economic systems, which are parts of societal systems, and all societies exist on a single planetary ecological system. Collaboration is required across organizational and national boundaries to change the societal laws and norms that govern economic systems, which will place new enablers and constraints on innovations systems in the interests of sustainability. The fourth use of the term ‘systemic innovation’ concerns how the people acting to bring about an innovation engage in a process to support systemic thinking, and it is primarily this process and the thinking it gives rise to that is seen as systemic rather than the innovation system that they exist within or are trying to create. It is this fourth understanding of ‘systemic’ that accords with most of the literature on systems thinking published between the late 1970s and the present day. The paper offers an overview of what systems thinkers mean by ‘systemic’, and this not only enables us to provide a redefinition of ‘systemic innovation’, but it also helps to show how all three previous forms of innovation that have been described as systemic can be enhanced by the practice of systems thinking

The "Death of environmentalism" debates : forging links between SEA and civil society discourses

Social and environmental accounting (SEA) is currently going through a period of critical selfanalysis.Challenging questions are being raised about how SEA should be defined, who should be doing the defining, and what the agenda should be. We attempt to engage and enrich these debates from both a process and content perspective by drawing on the political philosophy of agonistic pluralism and a set of debates within the environmental movement - "the death of environmentalism" debates. The contribution of the paper is twofold: to set forth the death of environmentalism debates in the accounting literature and, in doing so, to contextualize and theorize the contested nature of SEA using agonistic pluralism. In contrast to consensually oriented approaches to SEA, the desired outcome is not necessarily resolution of ideological differences but to imagine, develop, and support democratic processes wherein these differences can be recognized and engaged. We construe the "Death" debates as illustrative of the contestable practical and political issues facing both SEA and progressive social movements generally, demonstrating the context and content of the deliberations necessary in contemplating effective programs of engagement. The SEA community, and civil society groups, can benefit from the more overtly political perspective provided by agonistic pluralism. By surfacing and engaging with various antagonisms in this wider contested civic sphere, SEA can more effectively respond to, and move beyond, traditional politically conservative, managerialist approaches to sustainability