See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341930759

Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Conference Paper · June 2020

CITATIONS READS

11 1,304

2 authors:

Joshua Gelhaar Boris Otto

Fraunhofer Institute for Software and Systems Engineering ISST Technische Universität Dortmund
6 PUBLICATIONS   13 CITATIONS    250 PUBLICATIONS   4,472 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Digital Life Journey View project

Leistungszentrum Logistik und IT View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Gelhaar on 05 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Completed Research Paper

Joshua Gelhaar Boris Otto

Fraunhofer ISST Fraunhofer ISST
Dortmund, Germany Dortmund, Germany
joshua.gelhaar@isst.fraunhofer.de boris.otto@isst.fraunhofer.de

Abstract
The importance of data as a resource for innovation and value creation is increasing
steadily. As a result, organizations must adapt their strategies and develop methods for
integrating data into their value creation processes. At the same time, data-driven value is
less and less created by one company alone but rather through the sharing of data in so-
called data ecosystems. The data ecosystem field is, however, not well understood yet. For
example, it is unclear how data ecosystems emerge and evolve further. To address this
research gap, this paper focuses on the challenges in the emergence phase of data
ecosystems. By conducting a multiple case study of eleven use cases, we find that, among
other challenges, building trust between the ecosystem participants is one of the major
challenges a data ecosystem has to overcome in its emergence phase.

Keywords: data ecosystems, ecosystem emergence, multiple case study, International

Data Spaces

Introduction and motivation

The digital transformation leads to major changes in established value creation structures and traditional
business models of companies (Weill and Woerner 2015; Yoo et al. 2010). Data are increasingly used
beyond the improvement of internal processes by serving as a strategic resource for the development of
data-driven innovations and business models (Davenport 2013; Otto et al. 2015). This data-driven
innovation and creation of economic value is less and less created by a single organization or in
traditional value chains but instead takes place in cross-industry, socio-technical networks – so-called
data ecosystems (Hein et al. 2019; Oliveira and Lóscio 2018; Yoo et al. 2010). Some authors suggest
that in today’s age, engagement in ecosystems is no longer a choice but rather a necessity for
organizations (Llewellyn and Erkko 2015; Selander et al. 2013). This is also supported by the
management consulting firm McKinsey who expects that ecosystems will generate 30 percent of the
global gross domestic product by 2025 (Lorenz 2018). However, while data ecosystems are gaining in
importance many companies still proceed on individual strategies and thus fail to utilize the offerings
of data ecosystems since they require data sharing and therefore cooperation (Heimstädt et al. 2014b;
Kaiser et al. 2019; Prieelle et al. 2020). One reason for this is that ecosystems, in general, do not emerge
spontaneously but rather require planning and testing from various parties (Immonen et al. 2014;
Jacobides et al. 2018). Another reason lies in the infancy of the data ecosystems research which results
in a lack of engineering and management methods for them (Oliveira et al. 2019). This includes
methodologies for their development, implementation, and guidance. Because the formation of an
ecosystem is affected by various factors (Zhang and Fan 2010), and the initial conditions have a great
influence on the further development of the ecosystem (Peltoniemi and Vuori 2005), we consider an
understanding of the emergence phase of data ecosystems to be important. Furthermore, in their
systematic review of the data ecosystem literature, Oliveira et al. (2019) advise conducting empirical
studies to gain more knowledge about the evolution of data ecosystems. To the best of our knowledge,

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 1

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

there is yet no scientific publication addressing the authors’ call. Thus, to address this research gap and
to contribute to the understanding of data ecosystems we aim to answer the following research question
in this paper:
Research Question (RQ): What challenges arise in the emergence of data ecosystems?
In the remainder of this paper, we begin with an overview of the theoretical background of the data
ecosystem concept and its emergence process. In the following section, we outline our research
approach and describe the analysed use cases. The use cases derive from the International Data Spaces
initiative and represent emerging data ecosystems. For the analysis of the eleven use cases, we draw on
the theoretical groundwork of Moore (1993). The results show that emerging data ecosystems are
characterized by cooperative and competitive challenges. In the last section, we discuss the results of
our analysis, comment on limitations, and point out potential fields for further research.

Theoretical Background
Data Ecosystems
The research on data ecosystems has its origins in the concept of biological ecosystems which
essentially describes the interactions between organisms of different species and their environment as
an integrated system (Chapin III et al. 2014). Based on the concept of the biological ecosystem, new
areas of research have emerged in which the specific properties of a biological ecosystem have been
transferred to the respective context of research (Jacobides et al. 2018; Wang 2019).
A pioneer in this field was Moore (1993) who coined the concept of “business ecosystems” (Nachira et
al. 2007). Moore (1996) defines a business ecosystem as an “economic community” consisting of
interacting organizations including producers, suppliers, competitors and various stakeholders. The
community works cooperatively and competitively to create new innovative products or services for
the customers who are themselves members of the ecosystem (Moore 1993, 1996). With the transition
from a physically connected to a digital technology-driven economy, the term “digital ecosystem” was
introduced (Senyo et al. 2019b; Wang 2019). Selander et al. (2013, pp. 184-185) define digital
ecosystems “as a collective of firms that is inter-linked by a common interest in the prosperity of a
digital technology for materializing their own product or service innovation”. Digital ecosystems can
be based on software or platform technologies which lead to the research streams on software
ecosystems and platform ecosystems (see e.g. Jansen and Cusumano 2013 or Tiwana et al. 2010).
However, these ecosystem concepts can all be seen as subsets of business ecosystems (Annanperä et al.
2016; Jansen and Cusumano 2013; Oliveira et al. 2019). For example, software ecosystems are seen as
subsets of digital ecosystems and digital ecosystems as “digital versions” of business ecosystems
(Jansen and Cusumano 2013; Senyo et al. 2019a, 2019b). The various concepts share the commonality
that they are used to describe different and diverse interactions between several actors who contribute
to the construction or manipulation of a resource (e.g. business object, service, software or platform)
through common activities (Heimstädt et al. 2014b; Oliveira and Lóscio 2018). In the context of data
ecosystems, these objects of focus are data and their related technologies (Nischak et al. 2017; Oliveira
and Lóscio 2018). Based on that, we follow the definition from Oliveira et al. (2019, p. 16) who define
a data ecosystem as “a loose set of interacting actors that directly or indirectly consume, produce, or
provide data and other related resources.”
Since the actors of an ecosystem have different relationships with the resource, which is the centre of
interest within the ecosystem, they develop different roles in the ecosystem (Hanssen and Dybå 2012).
A role is defined as a function performed by an actor within the ecosystem (Oliveira and Lóscio 2018).
Characteristic for ecosystems is the existence of a central role that is largely responsible for the survival
and success of the ecosystem (Iansiti and Levien 2004; Jansen et al. 2013b). This role is often referred
as “keystone” actor (Iansiti and Levien 2004; Jansen et al. 2013a).
Other than the existence of a keystone actor, most ecosystems have further specific similarities and
characteristics in common which show the difference to traditional value chains and industrial structures
(Adner 2017; Erkko and Llewellyn 2014; Li 2013). One characteristic is a certain degree of openness
and absence of clear boundaries which can have the consequence of a heterogeneous and alternating

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 2

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

member base in the ecosystem (Nischak et al. 2017; Yoo et al. 2012). This leads to different degrees of
dependency and relationships between the actors of the ecosystem.
Another shared property of ecosystems is referred as “co-evolution” (Jacobides et al. 2018; Rong et al.
2018). With its origin in biology, in this context, co-evolution describes that the evolution of one
ecosystem member will influence the evolution of other members and vice versa (Moore 2006; Rong
et al. 2018). Reason for this is the complex interconnection between the companies within an ecosystem
which leads to situations in which companies are working cooperatively and competitively at the same
time – also known as coopetition (Adner and Kapoor 2010; Basole et al. 2015; Iansiti and Levien 2004;
Moore 1996; Walley 2007).
The characteristic “platform“ is often described as further similarity between the different ecosystem
concepts (Oliveira et al. 2019; Senyo et al. 2019b). The characteristic describes “platforms” as services,
tools or technologies that ecosystem actors can use to contribute to the value creation of the ecosystem
(Senyo et al. 2019a). However, Oliveira et al. (2019) state that data ecosystems differ in this regard
from other ecosystem concepts, since data ecosystems do not need to rely on an explicit common
platform. The authors argue that the common platform is the large collection of data that are exchanged
within the ecosystem and do not need to be provided by a single ecosystem actor. The lack of a common
platform creates a more diffused supply–demand network (Oliveira et al. 2019).

Emergence of data ecosystems

The scientific literature describes the evolution of ecosystems in terms of different life cycle phases
(Moore 1993; Peltoniemi and Vuori 2005; Senyo et al. 2019b). Moore (1993) proposes the four distinct
development stages of business ecosystems birth, expansion, leadership, and self-renewal. In this paper,
we focus on the first phase “birth” of data ecosystems. Reasons for this focus are, on the one hand, the
lack of ecosystem literature on the emergence of ecosystems in general (Llewellyn and Erkko 2015).
On the other hand, there are conflicting opinions in the scientific literature on this topic (Adner 2017;
Otto and Jarke 2019). Some researchers argue that ecosystems are the result of a structured design
process, generally organized around a keystone actor (Iansiti and Levien 2004; Immonen et al. 2014;
Jacobides et al. 2018; Tian et al. 2008). Jacobides et al. (2018, p. 2263), for instance, state that
ecosystems, in general, do not emerge “spontaneously” or “accidental” but rather are “the result of a
(partly designed) process”, often in areas with coordination problems. Adner (2017), however, argues
that ecosystems emerge around a shared value proposition and can only be planned and designed to a
certain extent (Otto and Jarke 2019). Nevertheless, he also states that in theory an ecosystem could
succeed without a keystone actor, but in most cases one ecosystem leader emerges (Adner 2017).
Based on these opposing views and the missing theory on data ecosystems emergence (Oliveira et al.
2019), we initially draw on the theoretical groundwork of Moore (1993, 1996) on business ecosystems.
According to the author, at the beginning of an ecosystem the actors are mainly focused on the
identification of innovations, which can be technologies or concepts, that will create radically new
products or services (Moore 1993, 1996). Therefore, one goal of this stage should be the establishment
of a “proof of concept” which shows the viability of the innovation and fulfils the needs of initial
customers (Moore 1996). For this, it is useful to cooperate with partners to link capabilities and to find
first customers for feedback (Moore 1996). The birth phase is characterized by the cooperative
challenge of working with both the demand and supply parties to create new value propositions that
form the basis for future innovation. At the same time, the emerging ecosystem must protect its ideas
from imitation by closely integrating all actors involved in the ecosystem (see Table 1).

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 3

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Table 1: The challenges in the birth phase of a business ecosystem (adapted from Moore 1993)
Stage of development of Cooperative challenges Competitive challenges
the business ecosystem
Birth Work with customers and Protect your ideas from others who
suppliers to define the new value might be working toward defining
proposition around a seed similar offers. Tie up critical lead
innovation. customers, key suppliers, and
important channels.

Methodology
Research context
The use cases described in this paper are use cases of the International Data Spaces (IDS) initiative. The
IDS initiative designs an architecture, the IDS Reference Architecture Model, for a trustworthy and
secure data sharing within ecosystems of various industries (Otto et al. 2019c). The initiative is based
on two pillars, namely a research project and the International Data Spaces Association1 (IDSA). The
IDS research project is led by Fraunhofer and funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (BMBF). The IDSA is an open, non-for-profit organization that consists of more than 100
member organizations from over twenty countries. The IDSA bundles user requirements and promotes
the continuous development, dissemination, and exploitation of the IDS. These requirements also
originate from the here described business-driven use cases that are developed by members of the IDSA.
Each use case outlines a real scenario, in which the involved actors try to reach a certain goal by using
the IDS. The use cases share the similarity that the various data owners want to retain sovereignty over
their data. This is ensured by allowing a data owner in the IDS to attach usage restriction information
to its data before it is transferred to a data consumer. Thus, the IDS is seen as the basis for data
ecosystems since it enables secure and sovereign data sharing between various actors (Achatz et al.
2018). Derived from the number of actors and the level of technological development, we argue that
the studied data ecosystems are in the emergence phase.
Generally, the research design follows a multiple case research strategy. This method is particularly
suitable, as it captures and describes the complexity of novel phenomena (Yin 2018). In addition,
multiple-case studies can offer a more reliable basis for generalizing practical findings and gaining
scientific knowledge (Zrenner et al. 2019). According to Benbasat et al. (1987), a phenomenon should
have specific characteristics for the appropriate application of case research strategy. Building upon
this, we argue that case research is firstly useful here since the increasing attention on data ecosystems
in practice and academia shows the significance and actuality of the research topic (Yin 2018).
Secondly, we focus on the exploration of “why” and “how” data ecosystems emerge (Benbasat et al.
1987; Yin 2018).

Data collection and data analysis

Due to the lack of scientific literature on the IDS use cases, we executed a Multi-vocal Literature
Review (MLR) for data collection, which includes scientific peer reviewed articles as well as so-called
grey literature such as white papers and websites and press releases (Ampatzoglou et al. 2015; Benzies
et al. 2006). This decision is, firstly, justified by the fact that we see a gap between academic research
and professional practice in the field of data ecosystems (Elmore 1991). Secondly, secondary data, from
the Internet, can provide vast and rich data material which exceeds the amount of information that would
be possible to collect through e.g. interviews (Romano et al. 2003). Finally, the combination of multiple
data sources can improve the data quality and increase the explanation of a research problem through
triangulation (Creswell 2007; Jick 1979).

1
https://www.internationaldataspaces.org/

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 4

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Consequently, the data for the eleven use cases are based on archival data, empirical studies and market
reports. Archival data includes independent reports on milestones, partnerships, key events (like kick-
off of the use case), and the general development of the use cases. Overall, we collected 17 archival
data sources and 9 empirical studies on the IDS data ecosystems. As described by Yin (2018), the data
of each use case were analysed by relying on the theoretical propositions of Moore (1993, 1996) who
proposes that the birth phase of a business ecosystem is characterized by cooperative and competitive
challenges. After reviewing each of the eleven use cases using the theoretical lens by Moore (1993,
1996), we draw cross-case conclusions on how data ecosystems emerge by analysing similarities and
differences between the cases focusing on the described challenges in the emergence phase of the data
ecosystems (Yin 2018).
Table 2 gives an overview of the analysed use cases. Apart from a brief description, we highlight which
data is shared and which actors are involved in the development of the respective data ecosystem. The
underlined actors show the keystone actors identified by us for the respective ecosystem.

Table 2: Overview of the analysed use cases

ID Industry Use case description Shared data Ecosystem actors Source
UC1 Iron and steel  Improvement of inbound  Vehicle  Supplier (Noll et al. 2018;
logistics processes location data  Logistics service Otto et al. 2016;
through data exchange  Route data provider Otto et al. 2019a;
between carriers, logistics  Open data  OEM Otto and Jarke
service provider and 2019)
OEM.
UC2 Automotive  Data sharing between  Inventory data  OEM (Otto et al.
suppliers, carriers and  Demand data  Tier-1 supplier 2019a; Otto and
manufacturers in a supply  Risk  Tier-2 supplier Jarke 2019;
chain to increase supply management Zrenner et al.
chain transparency. data 2019)
UC3 Manufacturing  Exchange of additive  Process data  Steel company (IDSA 2019;
manufacturing data to  Construction  IT company Punter et al.
process additive data  Research 2019; Stumpfe
manufacturing orders in a  Material data organization 2019; Stumpfe
fast, traceable and reliable and Wiederkehr
manner. 2018, 2019)
UC4 Maritime  Development of a secure  Terminal  Port authority (Sarabia-Jacome
virtual environment for operations  Container et al. 2019;
sharing data in a seaport data terminal operator Sarabia-Jacome
environment.  Vessel  Shipping et al. 2020)
positions data company
UC5 Science  Digitization of materials  Material data  Industry (Gumbsch et al.
and their properties over association 2018; IDSA
their entire lifecycle to  Research 2018; Otto et al.
improve development organization 2019a)
times and production  Manufacturer of
efficiency. optical systems
 Steel company
UC6 Cross-Industry  Exchange of railway  Railway  Railway (Bohlen et al.
infrastructure data with infrastructure infrastructure 2018; IDSA
suppliers for predictive data company 2018; Otto et al.
maintenance through a  Open Data  Signal 2019b)
decentralized data construction
marketplace. company
 Data marketplace
operator

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 5

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

UC7 Iron and steel  Sharing of steel quality  Data of steel  Tele- (IDSA 2018;
information and the data quality communications Knüpffer 2018;
mapping logics to increase  Mapping company Otto and Jarke
cooperation efficiency. logics data  Plant 2019)
manufacturer
 Steel company
UC8 Logistics  Enable data sharing  ERP/PLM  Research (Brouwers 2018;
between 1st, 2nd and 3rd data organization Punter 2019;
tier suppliers to improve  Supply chain  Network of Stolwijk and
visibility in the supply data suppliers Punter 2018;
chain.  ICT vendors TNO 2018)

UC9 Logistics  Combination of transport  Supply chain  Telecommunicatio (Breuker 2019;

data with open data, e.g. data ns company IDSA 2019)
weather data, to predict  Open data  Software
lead times and reduce company
logistics cost.  Open data
providers
UC10 Manufacturing  Improvement of a  Milling  Open source (Alonso et al.
manufacturing process by machine data software 2018; IDSA
combining and analysing  Coordinate- foundation 2019)
data from two machines. Measuring  Milling machine
Machine manufacturer
(CMM) data  CMM
manufacturer
 Software
company
UC11 Medicine  Secure sharing of results  Clinical  Research (Chakrabarti et
of clinical studies to studies data organization al. 2018; IDSA
improve medical research.  Biological  Software 2018)
material data company
 Pharmaceutical
companies

Results
Cooperative Challenges
The representation of the use cases shows that at least two actors are involved in the development of
each data ecosystem. This indicates that a data ecosystem can probably not be established by one actor
alone. On the one hand, this illustrates that the focus of data ecosystems is on data and their sharing
between different actors. For the realisation of this scenario, there must be at least one data provider
and one data consumer. On the other hand, it shows that the value of data ecosystems is created by the
exchange and combination of several data sources from different actors. Conversely, the use cases also
show that there could be a maximum number of possible actors for the emergence phase of a data
ecosystem. While in UC5 five actors are involved in the data ecosystem development, most use cases
described here have three or four founding actors. We argue that too many actors in the birth phase
could lead to conflicts of interest regarding strategic and technical decisions in the data ecosystem and
therefore more actors are not necessarily better.
The analysis shows as well that the shared data, which is in the focus of the specific use case, can be
internal, sensitive data, e.g. condition data from the production (see UC10), publicly available data like
open data, or even both (see UC6). This situation illustrates that not one dataset alone, but rather the
combination of different data, forms the basis for the goal of the ecosystem which is the offering of
innovative services. The goal of these data-driven services is either the improvement of internal
processes, like the inventory planning in a supply chain in UC2, or a new service offering like the
development of a decentralised data marketplace in UC6. In both scenarios, however, the goal in the
emergence phase is the realisation of a proof-of-concept which shows, on the one hand, the feasibility
of a technical realisation and, on the other hand, shows the added value generated by the data sharing
in the data ecosystem (see UC3).

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 6

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

One barrier which has to be overcome at this stage is the fear of exposure of valuable or sensitive data
of the ecosystem participants. In most use cases, the data providing organizations know that their data
is valuable and therefore worth protecting which prevents them from sharing this data (see UC1, UC3
or UC4). To overcome this obstacle, it must be guaranteed to all involved parties that the sovereignty
over their data is always maintained. In addition to that, it must also be made clear to everyone involved,
how they can benefit from the engagement in the data ecosystem. Although in most use cases, e.g. UC4
or UC10, the involved actors already know that they could benefit through e.g. process improvements
if they would share their data. However, the companies fear that the shared data could be disclosed to
competitors (see UC10). Here, organisational, legal and technical measures must be taken to create a
trustworthy and secure environment for the sharing of data and to allow data providers to retain
sovereignty over their data even after the exchange.
The barrier of fear and mistrust is also evident in the fact that a lot of the companies involved in the use
cases already had business relations with each other before setting up the IDS use case and therefore
had known each other previously (e.g. UC1 and UC7). We argue that the building on existing
relationships can make communication and cooperation easier than the establishment of new business
relationships. Ultimately, this can facilitate the development of the data ecosystem. An example of this
is UC1 in which the data ecosystem is built upon existing relationships which enables the development
of a new data-driven service.
Furthermore, the uses cases show that in most cases one organization is driving the further development
of the use case. We underlined the respective companies in Table 2. This leading organization can be
seen as a keystone actor since it is promoting and fostering the development of the ecosystem. The
motives of the individual keystones are diverse, but as described above, it can be divided into the two
categories: Improvement of internal processes or the offering of a new service. We assume that most of
the respective keystone actors have a high understanding of the data within their data ecosystem and
can therefore establish themselves as a keystone actor (see UC1, UC2, UC4 and UC7).
Although there can be keystone actors identified in every use case, the evaluation of the use cases also
shows that the other actors contribute significantly to the development of the data ecosystem as well. In
addition to the data and knowledge they bring into the ecosystem, they help to develop interfaces and
standards for the sharing of the data. We argue that interoperability is, on the one hand, important to
ensure non-discriminatory data sharing between the actors and, on the other hand, enabling further
processing of the data through a common understanding (see UC2 and UC4). We, therefore, think that
cooperation with standardization initiatives and the agreement on standards can be key factors in the
development phase of data ecosystems.

Competitive challenges
The variety of different industries in which the analysed use cases are developed makes clear that the
emergence of data ecosystems is not limited to a specific domain. It rather shows that data sharing is
independent of domains and context. The closer assessment of the ecosystem actors and of the shared
data also shows that data sharing in data ecosystems can take place in vertical and horizontal
collaboration. Vertical collaboration is shown for example in UC2 where data is shared within a
traditional supply chain between suppliers and an OEM. Whereas horizontal collaboration is seen in the
development of a data marketplace in UC6 and in the establishment of a data sharing environment for
a network of suppliers in UC8.
However, besides these two use cases there is not much horizontal collaboration seen in the analysed
use cases. Reasons for this we, firstly, see in the lack of trust in the other ecosystem actors and the fear
of sharing data with them. Secondly, we see a reason in the fact that the presented data ecosystems are
in the emergence phase and the participants therefore want to protect their data and their idea for a data-
driven service (e.g. developed algorithms) which may not be fully developed yet.
The fear of losing intellectual property and knowledge to competitors also becomes apparent in the lack
of openness which we discovered in the use cases. Most of the use cases do not show such a degree of
openness as described in the characteristics of data ecosystems above. We would rather describe these
emerging ecosystems as “closed communities”. We see these closed communities characterised by

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 7

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

close integration of the other participants involved in the ecosystem through the keystone actor. The
opening of these closed communities we understand as a challenge but as necessary for the further
development of the data ecosystem since the value and potentials of the ecosystem arise through the
data sharing with various actors.
However, the use cases described here have the property that they are developed within the context of
the IDS initiative. This leads to the situation that different companies, which may compete with each
other, are members of IDSA and simultaneously work on building their own data ecosystems. Even if
competitors do not work together on one use case, they still jointly develop standards such as
certification schemes governance mechanisms within the IDSA workings groups. Since the members
come from various countries with different legal systems, legal aspects such as data ownership are also
discussed in a separate working group. We see the motivations of the companies for this co-opetition
in the possibility of gaining competitive advantages by the participation in the development of
standards, e.g. for data models or APIs (see UC1). This supports our observation above on the
importance of the joint development of standards in the emergence phase of data ecosystems.
In this context, the challenge of building trust and transparency is once again a big concern of the
involved organizations (see UC2). To overcome this challenge, it is crucial for data providing
organizations to have a transparent presentation of how and by whom their shared data is used (see
UC3). The transparency of the data usage can include the complete history of the data, from its creation
to its transformation and usage. This leads to the generally known conflict of objectives between a high
level of transparency of data usage and the confidentiality of competition-relevant information (Zhu
2002). To deal with this conflict in a data ecosystem various measures can be necessary. In addition to
technical measures that allow the enforcement of data usage policies (see UC2) or the immutable data
storage in a blockchain (see UC3), contractual measures can be necessary as well (see UC2 and UC3).
Table 3: Challenges in the birth phase of a data ecosystem
Data ecosystem stage Cooperative challenges Competitive challenges
Birth  Finding the right number of  Protection of ideas for data-
ecosystem participants. driven services.
 Building trust between  Building of a “closed
ecosystem actors. community”.
 Show that all actors can  Joint development of standards
benefit from the with competitors.
participating in the  Agreement on legal and
ecosystem. governance measures.
 Enablement of
interoperability through the
agreement of standards.

Discussion and further research

This research gives insights into the emergence process of data ecosystems and into the challenges
arising during this phase. The results show that organizations face cooperative and competitive
challenges at this stage. The examined use cases indicate that there could be a minimum number but
also a maximum number of actors for the creation of a data ecosystem. Thus, one challenge is to find
the right number of actors to form the basis for a data ecosystem. Regardless of the number of
participants, we highlight that the building of trust between the ecosystem actors plays a major role at
this stage. Related to this is the challenge to show all actors how they can benefit from participating in
the data ecosystem and from sharing their data with other organizations. The use cases indicate that the
agreement and joint development of standards is also a great challenge in this phase. This becomes
apparent in the cooperative as well as in the competitive challenges. Regarding competitive challenges
we recognize the building of “closed communities”. Reasons for this we see in the wish to protect ideas
for data-driven services and in the lack of trust in potential new ecosystem participants.

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 8

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

This work contributes to the understanding of data ecosystems in general and in particular to the
understanding of the emergence process of data ecosystems. Since data ecosystems are recently gaining
in importance, we argue our study can be useful for researchers and practitioners. In the research area
around data ecosystems, our results can help to develop engineering methods and processes for the
management and development of data ecosystems which are still missing in the literature (Oliveira et
al. 2019). For practitioners, our research can be helpful to understand their own situation as well as the
one of their partners in the development phase of a data ecosystem. An understanding of the roles,
motivations, capabilities, and resources of the ecosystem partners is generally considered as helpful and
important for the success of an ecosystem (Annanperä et al. 2016; Lin et al. 2012).
Our results, firstly, support the model of Moore (1993) regarding the characterization of the birth phase
of ecosystems with cooperative and competitive challenges. In this regard, we can also confirm the
findings from other authors who stated that at this stage the competitive challenges are smaller than in
later stages (Llewellyn and Erkko 2015). Furthermore, the findings in some use cases confirm that
ecosystems are often build on existing alliances (Jacobides et al. 2018). Our study is also consistent
with previous research regarding the importance of the keystone actor. In most use cases we could
identify one organization which is, to a large extent, responsible for the coordination and further
development of the data ecosystem. This is in line with other authors who emphasize the important role
keystone actors play in the emergence phase of an ecosystem because they tend to pioneer and shape
the further development of their respective ecosystem (Senyo et al. 2019b; Teece 2007). Nevertheless,
we can also confirm that an ecosystem cannot evolve only by the guidance of the keystone actor, but
rather develops through the interactions between the cooperating and competing actors (Heimstädt et
al. 2014a). Our results also support the general importance of standards in data ecosystems because they
enable interoperability and therefore enable efficient data sharing (Oliveira et al. 2019). Furthermore,
we can confirm the motivations of companies for the joint development of standards, e.g. for data
models or APIs, in the possibility of gaining competitive advantages and in the avoidance of later lock-
in effects (Borgogno and Colangelo 2018; Farrell and Klemperer 2007). However, in the context of our
use cases, we could not confirm the importance of modularity in the formation phase of ecosystems as
emphasized by Jacobides et al. (2018). Nevertheless, it should be taken into account in this context that
the IDSA as an association provides a certain structure and rules for its members. Thus, the association
represents an important pillar in the coordination of the emerging data ecosystem as it helps companies
to work together and to build trust among each other with its structure in working groups and its general
neutrality. This suggests that data ecosystems can be better planned and coordinated with the help of a
neutral body such as the IDSA than data ecosystem without one.
Despite the high degree of agreement with other results of the literature, our research is still limited by
a number of limitations that must be taken into account when interpreting the results. Firstly, the use of
multivocal literature can be accompanied by an impairment of reliability and validity of the results
(Ogawa and Malen 1991). Secondly, the results are derived from a small number of use cases which
are all part of the IDS initiative. A larger and more diverse selection of use cases could improve the
insights and add credibility to the results. Additionally, there are also conceptual limitations of data
ecosystems. The absence of a well-accepted definition for the term data ecosystems makes a clear
distinction to related concepts, e.g. alliances and networks, and to related ecosystem concepts, e.g.
digital and platform ecosystems, difficult (Oliveira et al. 2019). Similarly, the distinction between the
different life cycle phases of an ecosystem is also ambiguous since, in reality, the stages can blur (Moore
1993).
The limitations raise questions for future research. First, improvements in the used research design
could be applied. Since the data for the use cases are based on archival data and empirical studies, we
take the role of the neutral observer. One way to mitigate this limitation could be conducting in-depth
case studies to elaborate on the challenges organizations face in the emergence phase of data
ecosystems. Furthermore, the investigation of a larger sample would provide a broader data basis and
therefore would reduce the risk of revealing relations by coincidence. In addition, a comparison of the
results with data ecosystems outside the IDS initiative could help to validity check our findings.
Regardless of the validity of the results of this study, it would be interesting to see how the challenges
develop in the next life cycle phases of data ecosystems. Data from a longitudinal study could provide

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 9

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

helpful insights in this regard. Moreover, data ecosystems are likely to gain more attraction through
emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and technologies that enhance trust and
transparency over data in an ecosystem of different actors like the IDS or blockchain.

Acknowledgements
This work has been supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) in
the context of the InDaSpacePlus project (no. 01IS17031).

References
Achatz, R., Ahle, U., Bader, S., Nagel, L., Nemat, A., Otto, B., Steinbuß, S., and Sol, E.-J. 2018.
“Jointly paving the way for a data driven digitisation of european industry: Interweaving IDS as a
reference architecture for the data economy with relevant initiatives,” Position Paper, International
Data Spaces Association (ed.).
Adner, R. 2017. “Ecosystem as Structure,” Journal of Management (43:1), pp. 39-58.
Adner, R., and Kapoor, R. 2010. “Value creation in innovation ecosystems: how the structure of
technological interdependence affects firm performance in new technology generations,” Strategic
Management Journal (31:3), pp. 306-333 (doi: 10.1002/smj.821).
Alonso, Á., Pozo, A., Cantera, J. M., La Vega, F. de, and Hierro, J. J. 2018. “Industrial Data Space
Architecture Implementation Using FIWARE,” Sensors (18:7).
Ampatzoglou, A., Ampatzoglou, A., Chatzigeorgiou, A., and Avgeriou, P. 2015. “The financial aspect
of managing technical debt: A systematic literature review,” Information and Software
Technology (64), pp. 52-73 (doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2015.04.001).
Annanperä, E., Liukkunen, K., and Markkula, J. 2016. “Managing Emerging Business Ecosystems -
A Knowledge Management Viewpoint,” in Twenty-second Americas Conference on Information
Systems, San Diego.
Basole, R. C., Russell, M. G., Huhtamäki, J., Rubens, N., Still, K., and Park, H. 2015. “Understanding
Business Ecosystem Dynamics,” ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (6:2),
pp. 1-32 (doi: 10.1145/2724730).
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., and Mead, M. 1987. “The Case Research Strategy in Studies of
Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (11:3), pp. 369-386.
Benzies, K. M., Premji, S., Hayden, K. A., and Serrett, K. 2006. “State-of-the-evidence reviews:
advantages and challenges of including grey literature,” Worldviews on evidence-based nursing
(3:2), pp. 55-61.
Bohlen, V., Bruns, L., Menz, N., Kirstein, F., and Schimmler, S. 2018. “Open Data Spaces: Towards
the IDS Open Data Ecosystem,” International Data Spaces Association (ed.).
Borgogno, O., and Colangelo, G. 2018. “Data Sharing and Interoperability Through APIs: Insights
from European Regulatory Strategy,” Stanford-Vienna European Union Law Working Paper, S.
Fina and R. Vogl (eds.).
Breuker, N. 2019. Setlog increases delivery reliability by intelligently predicted lead times.
https://www.setlog.com/en/setlog-increases-delivery-reliability-by-intelligently-predicted-lead-
times.
Brouwers, B. 2018. Brainport Industries Campus starts a Fieldlab for safe use of data.
https://innovationorigins.com/brainport-industries-campus-starts-a-fieldlab-for-safe-use-of-data/.
Chakrabarti, A., Quix, C., Geisler, S., Pullmann, J., Khromov, A., and Jarke, M. 2018. “Goal-Oriented
Modelling of Relations and Dependencies in Data Marketplaces,” in Proceedings of the 11th
International i* Workshop co-located with the 30th International Conference on Advanced
Information Systems Engineering (CAiSE 2018), M. Goulão (ed.), Tallinn, Estonia. 12.06.2018.
Chapin III, F. S., A. Matson, P., and M. Vitousek, P. 2014. “The ecosystem concept,” in Principles of
Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology, F. S. Chapin III (ed.), Berlin, Germany: Springer, pp. 3-22.
Creswell, J. W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches,
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Davenport, T. H. 2013. “Analytics 3.0,” Harvard Business Review (91:12), pp. 64-72.

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 10

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Elmore, R. F. 1991. “Comment on "Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying

the Exploratory Case Study Method",” Review of Educational Research (61:3).
Erkko, A., and Llewellyn, D. W. T. 2014. “Innovation Ecosystems: Implications for Innovation
Management?” in The Oxford handbook of innovation management, M. Dodgson, D. M. Gann
and N. Phillips (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 204-228.
Farrell, J., and Klemperer, P. 2007. “Chapter 31 Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with
Switching Costs and Network Effects,” in Handbook of Industrial Organization Volume 3,
Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1967-2072.
Gumbsch, P., Mayer, B., and Eul, U. 2018. “… for tomorrow.,” Fraunhofer Group for Materials and
Components – MATERIALS (ed.).
Hanssen, G. K., and Dybå, T. 2012. “Theoretical foundations of software ecosystems,” in
Proceedings of the Forth International Workshop on Software Ecosystems, S. Jansen, J. Bosch
and C. Alves (eds.), Cambridge, USA. 18.06.2012, CEUR-WS.org, pp. 6-17.
Heimstädt, M., Saunderson, F., and Heath, T. 2014a. “Conceptualizing Open Data ecosystems: A
timeline analysis of Open Data development in the UK,” Discussion Papers 2014/12, Free
University Berlin, School of Business & Economics., Freie Universität Berlin.
Heimstädt, M., Saunderson, F., and Heath, T. 2014b. “From Toddler to Teen: Growth of an Open
Data Ecosystem,” JeDEM - eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government (6:2), pp. 123-135
(doi: 10.29379/jedem.v6i2.330).
Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., and Krcmar, H. 2019. “Value co-
creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems,” Electronic Markets (29:3), pp.
503-518.
Iansiti, M., and Levien, R. 2004. The Keystone Advantage: What the New Dynamics of Business
Ecosystems Mean for Strategy, Innovation, and Sustainability, Boston, USA: Harvard Business
School Press.
IDSA 2018. “Use Case Overview International Data Spaces: Our Use Cases make it happen!,”
International Data Spaces Association (ed.).
IDSA 2019. “Use Case Overview International Data Spaces: Our Use Cases make it happen!,”
International Data Spaces Association (ed.).
Immonen, A., Palviainen, M., and Ovaska, E. 2014. “Requirements of an Open Data Based Business
Ecosystem,” IEEE Access (2), pp. 88-103 (doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2014.2302872).
Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., and Gawer, A. 2018. “Towards a theory of ecosystems,” Strategic
Management Journal (39:8), pp. 2255-2276.
Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., and Finkelstein, A. 2013a. “Business network management as a survival
strategy,” in Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software
Industry, S. Jansen, S. Brinkkemper and M. A. Cusumano (eds.), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar
Publishing, pp. 29-42.
Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., Souer, J., and Luinenburg, L. 2013b. “The open software enterprise
model: how open is my software business,” in Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing
Business Networks in the Software Industry, S. Jansen, S. Brinkkemper and M. A. Cusumano
(eds.), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 159-186.
Jansen, S., and Cusumano, M. A. 2013. “Defining software ecosystems: a survey of software
platforms and business network governance,” in Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing
Business Networks in the Software Industry, S. Jansen, S. Brinkkemper and M. A. Cusumano
(eds.), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 13-28.
Jick, T. D. 1979. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action,”
Administrative Science Quarterly (24:4), p. 602 (doi: 10.2307/2392366).
Kaiser, C., Stocker, A., and Fellmann, M. 2019. “Understanding Data-driven Service Ecosystems in
the Automotive Domain,” in Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information
Systems, Cancún, Mexiko. August 15-17.
Knüpffer, G. 2018. International Data Space: Wie ein Standard für den sicheren Datenaustausch
entsteht. https://www.produktion.de/trends-innovationen/wie-ein-standard-fuer-den-sicheren-
datenaustausch-entsteht-204.html.

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 11

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Li, Y.-R. 2013. “The technological roadmap of Cisco´s business ecosystem,” in Software Ecosystems:
Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, S. Jansen, S. Brinkkemper
and M. A. Cusumano (eds.), Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 307-321.
Lin, F.-R., Hsieh, P.-S., and Uden, L. 2012. “Analyzing Sustainable New Service Development: An
Activity Theory Perspective,” in 2012 International Joint Conference on Service Sciences,
Shanghai, China. 24.05.2012 - 26.05.2012, IEEE, pp. 200-205.
Llewellyn, D. W. T., and Erkko, A. 2015. “The processes of ecosystem emergence,” Academy of
Management Proceedings (doi: 10.5465/ambpp.2015.10453abstract).
Lorenz, J.-T. 2018. The rise of ecosystems and platforms: What role can insurers play and how can
they get started? https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/financial-services/our-insights/the-rise-of-
ecosystems-and-platforms-what-role-can-insurers-play-and-how-can-they-get-started.
Moore, J. F. 1993. “Predators and Prey: A New Ecology of Competition,” Harvard Business Review
(71:3), pp. 75-86.
Moore, J. F. 1996. The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business
ecosystems, New York, USA: Harper Paperbacks.
Moore, J. F. 2006. “Business Ecosystems and the View from the Firm,” The Antitrust Bulletin (51:1),
pp. 31-75.
Nachira, F., Dini, P., and Nicolai, A. 2007. A Network of Digital Business Ecosystems for Europe:
Roots, Processes and Perspectives, London: London School of Economics and Political Science
Department of Media and Communications: London School of Economics and Political Science
Department of Media and Communications.
Nischak, F., Hanelt, A., and Kolbe, L. M. 2017. “Unraveling the Interaction of Information Systems
and Ecosystems - A Comprehensive Classification of Literature,” in Proceedings of the Thirty
Eighth International Conference on Information Systems, Seoul, South Korea. December 10-13.
Noll, F., Luke, W., Wappler, M., and Oles, M. 2018. “Industrial Companies in Innovation
Ecosystems,” in 2018 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation
(ICE/ITMC), Stuttgart. 17.06.2018 - 20.06.2018, IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Ogawa, R. T., and Malen, B. 1991. “Towards Rigor in Reviews of Multivocal Literatures: Applying
the Exploratory Case Study Method,” Review of Educational Research (61:3), pp. 265-286 (doi:
10.3102/00346543061003265).
Oliveira, M. I. S., Barros Lima, G. d. F., and Lóscio, B. F. 2019. “Investigations into Data
Ecosystems: a systematic mapping study,” Knowledge and Information Systems.
Oliveira, M. I. S., and Lóscio, B. F. 2018. “What is a data ecosystem?” in Proceedings of the 19th
Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, A. Zuiderwijk and C. C.
Hinnant (eds.), Delft, Netherlands. May 30-June 1, New York, USA: ACM.
Otto, B., Auer, S., Cirullies, J., Jürjens, J., Menz, N., Schon, J., and Wenzel, S. 2016. “Industrial Data
Space: Digital sovereignity over data,”
Otto, B., Bärenfänger, R., and Steinbuß, S. 2015. “Digital Business Engineering: Methodological
Foundations and First Experiences from the Field,” in 28th Bled eConference #eWellBeing, Bled,
Slovenia. June 7 - 10.
Otto, B., Hompel, M. ten, and Wrobel, S. 2019a. “International Data Spaces: Reference architecture
for the digitization of industries,” in Digital Transformation, R. Neugebauer (ed.), pp. 109-128.
Otto, B., and Jarke, M. 2019. “Designing a multi-sided data platform: findings from the International
Data Spaces case,” Electronic Markets (29:4), pp. 561-580.
Otto, B., Korte, T., Azkan, C., Spiekermann, M., Lis, D., Gelhaar, J., Iggena, L., Meisel, L.,
Trautmann, B., Fiedler, J., Bresser, P., Müller, N., Goecke, H., Demary, V., Engels, B., Fritsch,
M., Krotova, A., Rusche, C., Scheufen, M., Thiele, C., Lichtblau, K., Schmitz, E., Aliu, O., and
Bretfeld, J. 2019b. “Data Economy: Status quo der deutschen Wirtschaft & Handlungsfelder in
der Data Economy,” Fraunhofer-Institut für Software und Systemtechnik ISST (ed.).
Otto, B., Steinbuß, S., Teuscher, A., and Lohmann, S. 2019c. “Reference Architecture Model Version
3.0,” International Data Spaces Association (ed.).
Peltoniemi, M., and Vuori, E. 2005. “Business ecosystem as the new approach to complex adaptive
business environments,” in FeBR 2004: Frontiers of e-business research 2004, M. Seppä (ed.),
Tampere, Finland: Tampere University of Technology, pp. 267-281.

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 12

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Prieelle, F. de, Reuver, M. de, and Rezaei, J. 2020. “The Role of Ecosystem Data Governance in
Adoption of Data Platforms by Internet-of-Things Data Providers: Case of Dutch Horticulture
Industry,” IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, pp. 1-11 (doi:
10.1109/TEM.2020.2966024).
Punter, M. 2019. Smart Connected Supplier Network. https://www.internationaldataspaces.org/wp-
content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2019/07/20190625-1545-Smart-Connected-Supplier-Network-by-
Matthijs-Punter.pdf.
Punter, M., Fournier, F., Skarbovski, I., Jürjens, J., Holtkamp, B., and Steinbuß, S. 2019. “Blockchain
technology in IDS: Position paper on the application of blockchain technology in the context of
International Data Spaces,” International Data Spaces Association (ed.).
Romano, N. C., Donovan, C., Chen, H., and Nunamaker, J. F. 2003. “A Methodology for Analyzing
Web-Based Qualitative Data,” Journal of Management Information Systems (19:4), pp. 213-246.
Rong, K., Lin, Y., Li, B., Burström, T., Butel, L., and Yu, J. 2018. “Business ecosystem research
agenda: more dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized,” Asian Business &
Management (17:3), pp. 167-182 (doi: 10.1057/s41291-018-0038-6).
Sarabia-Jacome, D., Lacalle, I., Palau, C. E., and Esteve, M. 2019. “Enabling Industrial Data Space
Architecture for Seaport Scenario,” in 2019 IEEE 5th World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-
IoT), Limerick, Ireland. 15.04.2019 - 18.04.2019, IEEE, pp. 101-106.
Sarabia-Jacome, D., Palau, C. E., Esteve, M., and Boronat, F. 2020. “Seaport Data Space for
Improving Logistic Maritime Operations,” IEEE Access (8), pp. 4372-4382.
Selander, L., Henfridsson, O., and Svahn, F. 2013. “Capability Search and Redeem across Digital
Ecosystems,” Journal of Information Technology (28:3), pp. 183-197.
Senyo, P. K., Liu, K., and Effah, J. 2019a. “Digital business ecosystem: Literature review and a
framework for future research,” International Journal of Information Management (47), pp. 52-
64.
Senyo, P. K., Liu, K., and Effah, J. 2019b. “Unpacking the role of politicalwill in digital business
ecosystem development for socioeconomic benefits,” in Proceedings of the 27th European
Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Stockholm & Uppsala, Sweden. June 8-14.
Stolwijk, C., and Punter, M. 2018. “Going Digital: Field labs to accelerate the digitization of the
Dutch Industry,” TNO report.
Stumpfe, J. 2019. Digital platform for industrial 3D printing.
https://www.ibm.com/blogs/blockchain/2019/04/digital-platform-for-industrial-3d-printing/.
Stumpfe, J., and Wiederkehr, S. 2018. “Gesicherte Prozesskette: Auftragsfertigung unter Kontrolle
von Blockchain und International Data Space,” c't (23), pp. 78-80.
Stumpfe, J., and Wiederkehr, S. 2019. Blockchain & IDS in Additive Manufacturing.
https://www.internationaldataspaces.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/20190625-1445-AM-
Platform-IBM-and-thyssenkrupp-by-Joachim-Stumpfe-and-Sarah-Wiederkehr.pdf.
Teece, D. J. 2007. “Explicating dynamic capabilities: the nature and microfoundations of (sustainable)
enterprise performance,” Strategic Management Journal (28:13), pp. 1319-1350.
Tian, C. H., Ray, B. K., Lee, J., Cao, R., and Ding, W. 2008. “BEAM: A framework for business
ecosystem analysis and modeling,” IBM Systems Journal (47:1), pp. 101-114.
Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., and Bush, A. A. 2010. “Research Commentary: Platform Evolution:
Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics,” Information
Systems Research (21:4), pp. 675-687.
TNO 2018. Use Case Solution – TNO. https://www.internationaldataspaces.org/publications/use-case-
solution-tno/.
Walley, K. 2007. “Coopetition: An Introduction to the Subject and an Agenda for Research,”
International Studies of Management & Organization (37:2), pp. 11-31.
Wang, P. 2019. “Theorizing digital innovation ecosystems: a multilevel ecological framework,” in
Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Stockholm &
Uppsala, Sweden. June 8-14.
Weill, P., and Woerner, S. L. 2015. “Thriving in an Increasingly Digital Ecosystem,” MIT Sloan
Management Review (56:4), pp. 27-34.
Yin, R. K. 2018. Case study research and applications: Design and methods, Los Angeles: Sage.

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 13

 Challenges in the Emergence of Data Ecosystems

Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., and Majchrzak, A. 2012. “Organizing for Innovation in the
Digitized World,” Organization Science (23:5), pp. 1398-1408.
Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. 2010. “Research Commentary —The New Organizing
Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research,” Information Systems
Research (21:4), pp. 724-735.
Zhang, J., and Fan, Y. 2010. “Current state and research trends on business ecosystem,” in 2010 IEEE
International Conference on Service-Oriented Computing and Applications (SOCA), Perth,
Australia. 13.12.2010 - 15.12.2010, IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Zhu, K. 2002. “Information Transparency in Electronic Marketplaces: Why Data Transparency May
Hinder the Adoption of B2B Exchanges,” Electronic Markets (12:2), pp. 92-99.
Zrenner, J., Möller, F. O., Jung, C., Eitel, A., and Otto, B. 2019. “Usage control architecture options
for data sovereignty in business ecosystems,” Journal of Enterprise Information Management
(32:3), pp. 477-495 (doi: 10.1108/JEIM-03-2018-0058).

Twenty-Third Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 2020 14

View publication stats