Accepted Manuscript

Title: Innovating with Enterprise Systems and Digital

Platforms: A Contingent Resource-Based Theory View

Author: Darshana Sedera Sachithra Lokuge Varun Grover

Suprateek Sarker Saonee Sarker

PII: S0378-7206(16)00002-1
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.01.001
Reference: INFMAN 2872

To appear in: INFMAN

Received date: 22-1-2015

Revised date: 10-12-2015
Accepted date: 11-1-2016

Please cite this article as: D. Sedera, Innovating with Enterprise Systems and Digital
Platforms: A Contingent Resource-Based Theory View, Information and Management
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2016.01.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication.
As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript.
The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof
before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that
apply to the journal pertain.
Innovating with Enterprise Systems and
Digital Platforms: A Contingent Resource-
Based Theory View

t
ip
Authors:
Darshana Sedera*, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia,

cr
d.sedera@qut.edu.au

*Corresponding author

us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

1
Page 1 of 42
Innovating with Enterprise Systems and
Digital Platforms: A Contingent Resource-
Based Theory View

t
ip
Abstract
In an era of new technological advances and hyper-competition, it is no surprise that

cr
organizational innovation enabled through information systems in order to achieve competitive

us
parity will remain a core topic of interest for both scholars and practitioners. Understanding the
process of innovation through enterprise systems (ES) is especially critical, given the
contradictory beliefs surrounding the role of ES in organizational innovation. On the other hand,

an
recent anecdotal commentary suggests a substantial growth in digital platforms, purportedly
energizing innovation. This study seeks to address our limited understanding of how digital and
M
ES-platforms attain innovation, through a study involving 189 organizations.

Keywords
d

Innovation, Enterprise Systems, ES-platform, Digital Platforms, Contingent Resource-Based

Theory, Survey
p te
ce
Ac

2
Page 2 of 42
Introduction
The relationship between IT and innovation has been a much discussed topic in academia [1, 2]
and practice [3, 4], with many studies resorting to a highly positive view of technology’s role in

t
assisting innovation [5]. In the current competitive and aggressive corporate environments,

ip
organizations are increasingly under pressure to maximize its resources [6], especially to
maximize the values and benefits embedded in their existing technology infrastructure such as an

cr
enterprise systems (ES) [6]. Despite their continuing dominance as the most salient corporate

us
information systems since the mid-1990s [7], the role of ES in innovation is yet to be
comprehensively understood. The advent of ES provided much-needed IT functional capabilities
for organizations to innovate through process orientation, integration, and standardization [8, 9].

an
The majority of past studies discussed the influence and importance of the features and functions
of an ES that bring forth operational flexibility [10], business process improvements [11],
M
productivity [12], transparency [13], innovation [14] and profitability [15, 16]. However, there is
a growing recognition that ES is now evolving to take a more salient role as a technology
d

platform. Characteristics of a technology platform has being identified in literature such as

te

providing the basis for further actions, changes and evolves but in a stable manner, not providing
value itself and the actions conducted upon the platform is restricted by the very nature of it [17,
p

18]. Gawer [17] recognized that ES acts as a building block, providing an essential function to a
ce

technological system which acts as a foundation upon which other complementary products,
technologies or services can be developed. (For further details refer Appendix A). The
widespread adoption of ES across industry sectors, geographical locations and the emergence of
Ac

unrestricted platform architectures (e.g. the NetWeaver platform interface by SAP) further
recognize ES as a dominant corporate technology platform [19]. Moreover, adhering to the
fundamentals of a ‘platform’ [17, 18], the ‘ES technology platform’ (henceforth referred to as an
ES-platform) is facilitating an ecosystem of third-party software products, services and suppliers
[20]. Gawer and Cusumano [19] observed that reducing the restrictions in an ES-platform assists
organizations to innovate. Other studies have observed that an ES-platform may hinder
innovation [21]. Practitioners have also likened installing an ES to “pouring cement” [21, 22],
and an ES is not, in general, designed with flexibility in mind. Gable, Sedera [23] and Sedera and

3
Page 3 of 42
Gable [24] suggested that the lack of flexibility in ES-platform hinders growth opportunities.
However, contrary views of Swanson and Dans [25] on systems being upgrade or replaced
periodically to minimize deterioration, Eden et al. [26] noted that ES is rarely replaced or retired.

Moreover, since the mid-2000s, corporate IT has been presented with a plethora of

t
technology options. The advent and massive proliferation of mobile computing, cloud

ip
computing, in-memory technologies and social media, collectively referred to as digital
platforms [27, 28], fueled by the consumerization of IT [29] have presented organizations with

cr
other opportunities to innovate, signifying an era of technology that epitomizes flexible, easy-to-
deploy and cost-effective IT solutions [30]. Here, the study makes a distinction between

us
‘functional’ capabilities and the capabilities of a digital platform. Though it is acknowledged that
the functionality of such technologies may have differences, as digital platforms they possess

an
very similar characteristics. A digital platform in this research is defined as a technology
architecture that allows development of its own computing functionalities and allows the
M
integration of information, computing and connectivity technology platforms available to an
organization. The common characteristics of digital platforms represent newer technology eco-
systems that can be interconnected to provide creative solutions to organizational problems.
d

Therefore, use of the digital platform umbrella term is appropriate. While we acknowledge the
te

functional differences in digital platforms, this compromise was made to focus on the ability of
these technologies to foster innovation.
p

For organizations, the growth of digital platforms has provided an ecosystem of providers
ce

and suppliers of tools, techniques, and practices, beyond the conventional boundaries of
traditional corporate IT [28, 29, 31]. As Yoo, Boland Jr [28] identified, digital platforms denote
Ac

broad and evolving models of highly distributed computing and related solutions that rely on
heterogeneous, ubiquitous network services and associated protocols [32, 33]. Researchers also
pointed out that digital platforms have the potential to trigger innovation in organizations [27],
facilitated by their trialability, cost-effectiveness and ease of use [34, 35].

This research is driven by the following research question: “Does the ES-platform
moderate the impact of digital platforms in attaining innovation?” It allows both researchers and
practitioners to observe the changing role of ES as a platform as well as the impact that it has on
novel technologies cloud, mobile, in-memory and social media platforms. Here, though the

4
Page 4 of 42
digital platforms are associated with innovation, but the role of ES as a platform, particularly
when embedded in the IT portfolio is yet determined.

The surging changes to the corporate IT landscape [36] of cloud, mobile, in-memory and
social media platforms were evident in the present study’s sample. Figure 1 summarizes the

t
platform composition of our study sample of 189 large organizations. The study inquired the

ip
organizations to denote the percentages of spending in relation to the complete IT portfolio three
years ago and now (in 2014). Overall, Figure 1 highlights the dramatic changes in the corporate

cr
technology landscape from 2011 to 2014. For example, in 2014, the emphasis on ES
dramatically reduced (with a drop of 36%) and the footprint of all digital platforms increased.

us
Social Media 14%

an
10%

In-Memory 19%
0%

17%
M
Mobile now
6%
then
Cloud 21%
12%
d

ES 47%
83%
te

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

p

Figure 1: Proliferation of technology platforms in the corporate IT landscape (expenditure in IT portfolio on

digital platforms vs ES)
ce

Figure 1 reflects how the modern organization is transforming from a single, monolithic
ES-centric technology landscape, into a portfolio of IT with an eclectic collection of platforms.
Ac

The observation drawn from Figure 1 concurs with the predictions by practitioner outlets [e.g.,
37], where they argue that contemporary organizations are much eager to integrate digital
platforms to traditional ES technology platforms to innovate and augment the functions of
existing business processes, thereby suggesting an interacting role of ES and digital platforms in
fostering innovation.

The conceptual view of the interaction of digital platforms with ES-platforms for
innovation is illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2 alludes to two possible scenarios of the business

5
Page 5 of 42
processes involving both internal and external parties (i.e. customers and/or suppliers) posed by
the advent of digital platforms: (i) the co-existence of ES-platform and digital platforms in a
single business process, or (ii) the replacement or substitution of platforms. In both scenarios, the
digital platforms has the potential to provide an augmented, value-adding and innovative option
for completing a business process (the dotted line in Figure 2), compared to the default ES

t
ip
process (the straight line in Figure 2). The focus here shifts to functional-orientation, as opposed
to process-orientation. The engagement focus of digital platforms is not on providing a platform

cr
to automate the entire business process, but rather on innovating through exposing a selected
platform component/s to build function/s that would provide maximum innovation capacity to

us
the organization.

an
M
d
p te

Figure 2: Augmented value of Business Processes through ES and digital platforms

ce

Nambisan [27, p.216] highlighted, the inclusion of digital platforms plays an imperative
role in modern innovation, whereby digital platforms “are being embedded to an ever increasing
range of products and services…thereby expanding the role and relevance of IT in any
Ac

innovation.” Such technologies epitomize the role of IT “as an operant resource [that]
underscores how digitalization can unleash generativity and create novel opportunities for
resource integration [38, p.28].” Digital platforms purport to provide organizations with
unprecedented potential for innovation through their affordability, ease of adoption, and ease of
connection with customers and suppliers [28, 39]. Such platforms have disrupted the traditional
linear equation, so that IT sophistication is no longer proportionate to resource availability (e.g.
finance and human capital), and thus providing organizations with low capital the opportunity to
innovate in the same fashion as their resourceful counterparts. As shown in Figure 2, for the

6
Page 6 of 42
traditional ES custodians, digital platforms also provide alternative approaches as well as
providing them the opportunity to synchronize such platforms with their ES-platform. However,
digital platforms have the potential to act on their own, and do not necessarily have to rely on the
ES-platform [28]. Although digital platforms have the option to be deployed and managed in
isolation, they have the potential to deliver better value by integrating or synchronizing with a

t
ip
high quality ES-platform [40]. For instance, the Sybase Unwired Platform – a market-leading
mobile platform – has the potential to operate alone, as well as to integrate and extract the

cr
relevant master data and business rules embedded in an ES-platform. Similarly, cloud
computing, in-memory technologies and social media can also be integrated with the ES-

us
platform, potentially delivering greater benefits than if they were to be operated as individual
platforms [28, 41]. The quality of a platform has been observed through data [42], stability of the

an
business processes [9], resource dedication [43], and the ease of connectivity [28, 41].

Given the low-cost, easy to access and easy-to-deploy nature of digital platforms [44, 45],
M
a reasonable assumption in the research question is that all organizations have equitable access to
such digital resources (for example, Figure 1 evidenced the substantial footprint of digital
platforms in our study sample). Further, an operational boundary of this research is that the
d

notion of “digital platforms” herein is limited to mobile, cloud, in-memory and social media.
te

Although these technologies denote the types of digital platforms at the point of writing, an
alternative classification based on finer or broader associations of technologies can be derived in
p

a future study. Moreover, the term “social media” in this research does not pertain to the simple
ce

use a Facebook page for a company, but rather observes how social media is used as a corporate
platform (e.g. Delta Airlines allowing passengers to complete the entire ticketing process through
Facebook).
Ac

The remainder of the paper proceeds in the following manner. The next section
introduces the contingent resource-based theory as the theoretical basis of this study, followed by
the research framework and hypotheses development. Then, we present the research
methodology, highlighting sub-constructs and scale development. The data analysis and findings
are then presented. The paper concludes with an overview of the study’s contributions for
research and practice, limitations and recommended directions for future research.

7
Page 7 of 42
The Contingent Resource-Based Theory
The resource-based theory (RBT) explains that the diverse resources owned by each
organization differentiate an organization’s performance levels and provide competitive
advantage to the organization [46]. Even though RBT provides much-needed theoretical
understanding of how resources can be employed for higher outcomes, it falls short in explaining

t
ip
the conditional aspect of organizational resources [47]. Brush and Artz [48, p. 223] critiqued this
core deficiency of the RBT stating that Barney’s [46] four criteria for resources, namely, value,

cr
rarity, imitability and substitutability “are limited in their practical usefulness for this problem,
because they are context insensitive.” They further explained that “while context specificity is

us
incorporated in the theory by requiring that resources be ‘valuable,’ the theory is not instructive
in identifying the contingencies that might make the same resource valuable in some contexts

an
and not in others.” Other researchers concur with Brush and Artz [48] views. For example, after
reviewing information systems (IS) research using RBT, Wade and Hulland [49, p. 123] noted
that “resources rarely act alone in creating or sustaining competitive advantage.” This gives rise
M
to the need to pay attention to the role of other resources or complementary resources, which are
linked to the resource under consideration in creating sustainable business value. It is expected
d

that there are synergies from primary and complementary resources [47], highlighting that some
te

resources rarely act alone in creating competitive advantage. Research extensions of RBT also
suggest that, while resources can either be given exogenously or created by activities within the
p

organization, capabilities emerge from the integration and combination of these resources [47,
ce

48]. Furthermore, studies investigating the interrelationship of resources have found that the
primary resources and secondary/complementary resources are aligned to yield superior
organizational performance [47, 48]. Thus, as an extension to RBT, contingent resource-based
Ac

theory (CRBT) explains that the value of resources can be contingent upon the context and the
linkages between the primary and complementary resources [50].

The delineation of a resource as a primary resource is also context dependent. In CRBT

studies, the resource under consideration is often called the ‘primary,’ while the other interacting
resources are referred to as ‘complementary/secondary.’ However, the theory does not purport
the literal meaning of primary (i.e. main, chief) in its theoretical view when describing a
resource. Complementary resources, on the other hand, are those that are expected to interact

8
Page 8 of 42
with and increase the value of the primary resources [51]. In the IS literature, for example,
technology platforms are treated as primary resources [e.g., 47, 52], while in the context of
analytics, data is discussed as a primary resource [53, 54], which is contingent upon a stable
technology platform.

t
As per CRBT, complementary resources have a moderating effect on the primary

ip
resources [49]. In this line of enquiry, Luo, Fan [52] considered IT infrastructure, enterprise
information systems, and financial resources as organizations’ resources for improving

cr
organizational capabilities, including operational efficiency. Here, they argued that the impact of
IT assets (IT infrastructure and enterprise information systems) on organizational capabilities is

us
moderated by financial resources: the positive impact of IT assets on organizational capabilities
is stronger when organizations possess greater financial assets. In applying CRBT, this study

an
considers digital platforms as the main resource under investigation (thus considered primary)
and ES-platform as the complementary resource in delivering innovation to the organization [55-
M
57].

However, the ability of digital and ES platforms to support innovation is not a foregone
d

conclusion. It requires much debate, investigation and empirical evidence. Employing CRBT,
this study argues that, though resources can be operational in isolation to create competitive
te

advantage [48], the synergistic complementarity application of resources (in our case digital
p

platforms and ES-platforms) is purport to deliver greater benefits.

ce

Figure 3 depicts the a-priori research model of this study, with three constructs (Digital
platforms, ES-platform and Innovation). Consistent with the CRBT, the digital platforms
construct is conceptualized as the primary resource, while the ES-platform serves as the
Ac

contingent resource, which moderates the relationship between digital platforms and innovation.
The a-priori research model addresses the recent calls for empirical research on the ability of
digital platforms to trigger innovation [27].

In defining the ES-platform construct as a moderating resource, this study subscribes to

Baron and Kenny [58, p. 1174] definition of a moderator as a variable that “affects the direction
and/or strength of the relationship between an independent or predictor variable and a dependent
or criterion variable.” The idea of the moderating effect is related to the premise in contingency

9
Page 9 of 42
theory that the effect of X variable on Y variable can be stronger or weaker, depending on other
factors, which are moderators. A moderator influences the strength of the impact of X on Y [59].

ES-Platform

t
ip
h3
h2

cr
Digital
Innovation
Platforms h1

us
Figure 3: The a-priori research model

an
The discussion below introduces the key hypotheses relevant to this research. The
development of a theoretical understanding begins with identifying the critical concepts in the
M
phenomenon of interest and considering the theoretical boundaries [60]. Thus, the hypotheses
herein are based on the theoretical foundations of the CRBT [48] and are influenced by the
multi-disciplinary literature on ES / digital platforms and innovation.
d

Innovation and Technology

te

The role of IT in innovation has been studied for several decades [61, 62]. The
p

advancements in the technology landscape, the rising market demands, and globalization have
ce

necessitated innovation for the survival of the contemporary organizations [47, 63, 64]. Thus,
innovation is considered as the lifeblood of corporate survival and growth [65, 66]. The
technology advancements made during the past few years have assisted organizations to innovate
Ac

through (i) improved decision-making capabilities [67, 68], (ii) increased customer
connectedness [69, 70], (iii) increased the number of channels for reaching customers/suppliers
[71, 72], and (iv) enhanced communication facilities [73, 74].

As Crossan and Apaydin [75] stated innovation is a, “production or adoption,

assimilation, and exploitation of a value-added novelty in economic and social spheres; renewal
and enlargement of products, services, and markets; development of new methods of production;
and establishment of new management systems [75, p. 1155].” This definition provides a

10
Page 10 of 42
generalized view of innovation taking into account innovation that takes place in ‘every-day
organizations.’ It goes beyond the definitions that ideated innovation as “new to the world” (e.g.
[76]). This definition captures internally-initiated innovations, as well as adopted (imitated)
innovations. For the majority of common organizations dealing with common products or
services, the term innovation does not resonate with the new-to-the-world concept, as it would

t
ip
for technology or manufacturing innovators like Google, Apple Inc. or BMW. As such, Lai,
Riezman [77] also agreed that innovation need not be a totally new concept to the world and

cr
could even be considered as an imitation of something already used elsewhere, but new to the
unit of adoption.

us
Impact of Digital Platforms on Innovation
The digital platforms have been considered as an important resource into the corporate IT

an
landscape in the past several years [28, 78]. IS scholars have studied this emergence and the
impact of digital platforms as a resource that has the potential to influence organizational
M
strategies, structures and processes [79, 80]. In particular, there is strong avocation that these
digital resources can deliver and trigger innovation [72, 81, 82]. Researchers attribute the ability
of digital platforms to trigger innovation to its innate characteristics like easy to maintain [83],
d

ease of connectivity with other technologies [84], trialability [34, 35], need for less specialized-
te

skills [85], flexibility [27], higher processing capability, low cost [85, 86] and reusability for
different purposes [28, 39]. Further the ease of use of digital platforms increase the likelihood of
p

user innovation [86]. On the other hand, the ease of development and deployment enable the
ce

organizations to augment, replace the existing business functions [87]. These innate
characteristics of digital platforms enable a new way of attaining innovation in an organization
Ac

and the innovation processes enabled through digital platforms are known to be “rapid and
difficult to control and predict [86, p. 58].” These characteristics are the epitome of innovation-
favoring technologies, where the innovation barriers such as access to financial and human
resources (e.g. specialized skills) are required at a minimal level. Minimizing such barriers to
digital resources has disrupted the traditional linear equation of technology and innovation,
whereby innovation is no longer proportionate to the resource availability, providing
organizations with an opportunity to innovate in the same way regardless of one’s resource
availability. Further, the digital platforms provide organizations with an opportunity to innovate,
facilitated by the growing ecosystem of providers and suppliers of tools, techniques and

11
Page 11 of 42
practices, beyond the conventional boundaries of traditional corporate IT [28, 29, 31]. Such
characteristics have been recognized as highly favorable for innovation [88]. Further, the use of
digital platforms provide a rich user experience; as such, the innate characteristics such as the
ease of use and ease of learning enhance the innovation adoption and diffusion [86]. This, in
turn, increases the probability of achieving innovation through the digital platforms [17, 89].

t
ip
Furthermore, Yoo, Boland Jr [28] stated that digital platforms are ‘dynamic’ and ‘malleable,’
purportedly facilitating innovation [28] by reproducing the same resource for different outcomes

cr
and accommodating rapid changes for enhancing value [90]. Moreover, the investment risk is
also low in digital platforms [28, 86]. Fundamentally, the risk – the potential of losing value due

us
to uncertainty [91] – of an investment incerases with the cost, level of uncertainity and in general
the resources available to execute an idea. As such, for digital platforms, the economic,

an
innovation and scaling risks are much lower due to its portrayed characteristics above.

Considering the implications of this discussion, we develop our first hypothesis:

M
H1: Digital platforms have a significant and positive impact on innovation

Contingent Nature of Digital Platforms

d

Contesting the argument in hypothesis 1, following Floyd and Wooldridge [92] and
te

Powell and Dent-Micallef [93], it is worthwhile to investigate whether the commonly available
IT resources alone could drive innovation. Chae, Yang [47] suggested a contingent view of
p

resources and argued that resources are contingent and that they are more effective in yielding
ce

organizational performance when synergistically combined (rather than any individual resource
acting alone). Past studies have observed that IT delivering value is contingent upon the
Ac

availability of financial and human resources [71]. However, as argued in hypothesis 1, past
research summarized above showed that digital platforms are rarely contingent upon such
resources. If so, what are the contingent factors of digital platforms delivering value to the
organization?
Tiwana, Konsynski [18], for example, described that creativity, innovation and growth is
contingent upon the existing platforms. Given that digital platforms extract and write-back data
from the existing ES-platforms [20], it is logical to investigate the ES-platform as a contingent
resource for digital platforms. The literature also suggests that there is a natural tendency to build
digital applications on ES-platforms [28]. ES-platforms demonstrate a strong prevalence in

12
Page 12 of 42
corporate systems landscape with their high proliferation amongst businesses as the preferred
technology platform to digitally engrave corporate data and business processes [20]. The use and
continued growth of ES has facilitated notions of big-data, data warehousing and business
intelligence, where the ES-platform allows additional IS to be deployed on the existing platform
[6]. This notion is what researchers identified as the ‘technology enabled adoption,’ which

t
ip
allows organizations to make strategic investments to enhance the value of initially adopted
technologies [10, 94]. Organizations that do not consider the evolving changes can potentially

cr
limit the inherent benefits that such underlying technologies can offer [6].

us
Reducing proprietary restrictions in an ES-platform encourages complementary third
party technology integrations [20]. This is a substantial departure from the ‘end-to-end’ business

an
process approach of ES [95] advocated by past studies [56], and marks the dawn of a new era of
corporate computing. Similarly, the digital platforms also have a stronger value proposition by
connecting to an ES-platform. For example, the corporate use of mobile technology enables
M
organizations to extract the frequently used functions of a business process and set up the
functions to be completed on a mobile device (see Figure 2). Herein, organizations could employ
d

mobile technologies that rely on the master data and business rules embedded in an ES-platform,
while returning the updates to the ES-platform. Similarly, an ES-platform can be utilized as a
te

foundational platform for business intelligence, cloud computing and social media [28].
p

Even though digital platforms have the potential to achieve organizational goals
ce

independently, following CRBT, this study argues that such technologies are more effective if
they are used synergistically with traditional IT platforms such as ES. As such, in line with past
Ac

CRBT studies [49], the study hypothesizes that digital platform-led innovation is moderated by
the ES-platform. As such, the second hypothesis of the study is:

H2: ES-platform has a moderating effect on digital platform-led innovation.

ES-platforms and Innovation

Davenport [96, p. 122] highlighted the innovation potential of an ES stating that the
embrace of ES “may in fact be the most important development in the corporate use of
information technology in the 1990s.” The change cascades through the introduction of an ES-

13
Page 13 of 42
platform mirrors the characteristics that Damanpour [97] described for radical innovation [98,
99] through: (i) technological uncertainty [100], (ii) technical inexperience, (iii) business
inexperience, (iv) technology cost [101], (v) high risk [102, 103], and (vi) high initial resources
consumption in ES implementations [104, 105]. Yet, anecdotal commentary and scholarly
studies still opaque of the continuing innovation potential of an ES-platform. Proponents argue

t
ip
that an ES-platform foster innovation through its stable platform, buoyant client–consultant–
vendor ecosystem, and through its dominance as the leading corporate technology platform in an

cr
organization [28, 106]. To the contrary, some argue that ES-platform is unlikely to support
innovation for two reasons: (i) the best practices embedded in an ES are available and obtainable

us
to all organizations, including their competitors [92, 93], and (ii) the high degree of formalization
of the business processes [107, 108] may hinder innovation [107] by reducing the flexibility

an
required to respond to change and discouraging the generation of new ideas [109].

As Swanson and Dans [25] advocated, all systems deteriorate over time and eventually
M
must be retired or upgraded. Yet, since ES-platform is rarely replaced or retired, Eden, Sedera
[110] pointed out, organizations must actively update and maintain ES-platforms in order for
them to remain current [111]. Thus, once introduced, the organization must devote adequate
d

resources to maintain the ES-platform to foster innovation [111]. Consistent with the discussion
te

in Appendix A, the ES-platform manifests to support business requirements [8], process

standardization [112], and the capacity to provide real-time information. This discussion
p

highlights the imperative role of ES-platform in attaining innovation through ES, and leads to
ce

our third hypothesis:

H3: ES-platform has a significant and positive impact on innovation

Ac

Research Methodology
A survey was used to gather data to test the model described above. The survey method is
appropriate for this study design for several reasons. First, the nature of the research question
investigated through the CRBT lens requires a quantitative approach for the theoretical
consistency, and then to enhance the cumulative practice of research. Second, the phenomenon
of interest required analyzing data from a large sample of organizations, which can be best be
done using a survey approach. The survey approach followed herein fails to understand ‘how’ a

14
Page 14 of 42
portfolio facilitates innovation. Such an investigation can best be carried out using a qualitative
study approach.

The survey instrument was circulated among 350 companies represented by their chief
information officer (CIO) or chief technology officer (CTO). The data collection was held at an

t
International CIO forum in the second quarter of 2014. The event participation organization

ip
registration indicated that all participating organizations were large and were representative of all
industry sectors. Further, the survey instrument captured demographic details to assert that the

cr
organizations considered for the analysis possessed the following criteria: (i) the organization
had a dedicated CIO / CTO (henceforth referred only as the CIO to minimize repetition) and a

us
team of IT staff that managed the organization’s IT portfolio, including a packaged ES, (ii) the
organization had used an ES for the past five years and documentation of the IT roadmap since

an
the implementation of the ES was available, and (iii) at the time of the data collection, the CIO
had been in the position for at least six months, was not in the last six months of their
appointment1, and was participating in regular meetings with the executive leadership team (e.g.
M
CEO, CFO).
d

The targeted CIO sample was appropriate for the study objectives, as these personnel
would be able to comment knowledgeably on behalf of the organization in relation to innovation,
te

ES and digital platforms. As Grover, Jeong [113] explained, a CIO manages the information
p

resources that influence organizational strategy, and has the direct responsibility for the planning
of the IT framework necessary to cope with an organization’s competitive environment. One
ce

hundred and eighty-nine (189) CIOs responded on behalf of their organizations, yielding a
response rate of 55%.
Ac

Sub-Constructs and Scale Development

The dependent construct ‘innovation’ is a subjective measure. There are two types of
measurement approaches prevalent in past innovation studies [114, 115]: (i) absolute indicators
such as the number of patents [116] or the number of new products/services or new market
segments [117], and (ii) proxy measures of innovation like research and development fund
allocation or market changes to investment decisions through Tobin’s-Q. Such studies observe

1
This was essential in order to determine that the present IT leadership was not ‘in transit.’ This is an important
consideration because it has been argued that companies with in-transit CIOs do not embark on strategic initiatives.

15
Page 15 of 42
the inputs (e.g. research and development funds) and outputs of innovation (e.g. new patents).
These two approaches have been criticized for lacking relevance for the day-to-day innovation as
the common business practices would rarely engage in creating patents or even allocating
dedicated research and development funds [115, 118]. As such, this paper addresses calls of
Adams, Bessant [114] to study innovation in relation to common business practices. Thus, for an

t
ip
organization to be considered innovative under the present market conditions, it demands
consideration of how the organization faces challenging environments swiftly, effectively and

cr
mindfully [119]. Furthermore, being innovative also means how organizations move quickly out
of political and social turbulences [1]. Such measurement of innovation in the IS discipline is

us
lacking. The measures of innovation in this study were based largely on the studies of Wong,
Tjosvold [120] and Burpitt and Bigoness [121]. However, new measures were deemed necessary

an
and an inductive method was followed to derive new and appropriate measures. First, using 6
semi-structured interviews with CIOs lasting 30-40mins, each participant was asked to state how
they use IT to support innovation. Next, two researchers synthesized and mapped the CIO
M
comments to the measures of Wong, Tjosvold [120] and Burpitt and Bigoness [121]. The process
validated the existing measures and introduced several new measures as well. Finally, seven
d

measures were identified to measure innovation (see Appendix B).

te

Next, the study employs measures to understand the role of the two platforms under three
distinct technological capabilities [49]: (i) the platform’s ability to meet current business
p

requirements [122, 123], (ii) the quality of the platform infrastructure [71, 83], and (iii) the
ce

platform’s ability to meet future expansions [39, 124, 125]. The three sub-constructs that help
recognize the individual ability of both ES and digital platforms facilitating innovation, while
providing theoretical space to understand the contingent nature of digital platforms. Further,
Ac

consistent with the objectives of the study, the theoretical notions of CRBT, and operational
considerations (as the sample included 189 organizations), the three sub-constructs are treated as
formative at the organizational level.

The sub-construct measuring the platform’s ability to support current business

requirements (the sub-construct henceforth referred to as ‘support for business requirements’)
attempts to gauge how the ES and digital platforms assist in supporting the current business
requirements [126]. Past research has suggested that supporting business requirements is a

16
Page 16 of 42
salient characteristic of a stable IT platform [122]. The ability of ES to support business
requirements is a well-established discussion in the literature [127]. Furthermore, studies related
to ‘system quality’ have also observed the extent to which an ES-platform supports the business
requirements [128]. Similarly, there is evidence that digital platforms also support business
requirements through reliability, ability to support and manage current and future business

t
ip
functions of the organization [28, 44].

The second sub-construct measures the quality of the infrastructure. Here, the sub-

cr
construct is intended to observe whether or not the platforms are up-to-date and current in terms
of their technical abilities [71]. The platform infrastructure construct also observes whether or

us
not the platform can be easily maintained [83], the awareness of the shortcomings of the existing
platforms, the awareness of the forthcoming updates [71], and whether or not appropriate

an
resources are being allocated to maintain it [71, 83]. An important capability of the ES-platform
is its ability to allow easy connectivity with other technologies [84]. More specific to digital
M
platforms, the term ‘infrastructure’ can be understood by aspects such as trialability, flexibility,
ability to control risk, ability to orchestrate dependencies and the ability to re-use the same
infrastructure for different purposes [28, 39].
d

The third sub-construct attempts to gauge how the platforms facilitate and support future
te

business expansion. The expansion capability of a platform is equally important to both ES and
p

digital platforms. Especially for ES-platforms, as Eden, Sedera [110] observed, they must have a
long-term expansion capability to support future business needs [42, 84]. Similarly, though
ce

digital platforms can be easily acquired, they too must have the expansion capabilities,
interoperability, scalability and the ability to extend business functionalities. Such characteristics
Ac

are evident in mobile, cloud, in-memory and social platforms. Furthermore, digital platforms
accommodate the growing organizational requirements through storage, communication and
geographical expansions. Yet, Tiwana, Konsynski [18] suggested, IS scholars have paid very
little attention to understand the future expansion capabilities of a platform.

The operational model conceives both ES and digital platform sub-constructs as

formative: (i) support for business requirements, (ii) infrastructure, and (iii) expansion capability.
The items of the sub-constructs are measured as reflective (Appendix B presents the items
employed in the study with the corresponding literature lineage). The conception of the three

17
Page 17 of 42
sub-constructs as formative is particularly useful so that they provide the ‘specific and actionable
attributes’ of a concept [129]. Particularly interesting from a practical viewpoint would be the
weights of the sub-constructs and how they form ES and digital platforms [See details in 130].
Figure 4 presents the research model.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d

Figure 4: The Research Model

te

The survey2 designed to operationalize the three constructs, their sub-constructs and
p

measures employed a seven-point Likert scale with the end values of (1) “Strongly Disagree”
and (7) “Strongly Agree” and the middle value of (4) “Neutral.” The survey instrument included
ce

a cover page, which stipulated the code of conduct and ethics of data collection. It also included
a clear description of the constructs, where each digital platform was described using a common,
Ac

easy-to-understand definition as well as an example relating to the participatory companies.

Furthermore, the umbrella term ‘digital platforms’ was defined in the survey instrument so the
respondents knew that they needed to consider all emerging digital platforms. In addition, the
survey instrument included four criterion items as global measures for ES and digital platform
constructs that are necessary for formative construct validation and model testing. In order to

2
Survey method was used to test the model as it is appropriate for obtaining personal and social facts and attitudes
and also increases the generalizability [165]

18
Page 18 of 42
reduce the common method variance, the items for all three constructs were not grouped under
their construct headings [131, 132].

Measurement Scales and Validation of the Research Instrument

The model and construct validation in this research are reported under four headings: (i)

t
content validity (which was tested using the content validity ratio), (ii) construct validity (which

ip
was tested using the composite reliability, average variance extracted – AVE, and factor
analysis), (iii) the outer model (which was tested using the partial least squares technique), and

cr
(iv) the structural model and moderation effect (which were tested to determine the relationship

us
between the independent variable, moderating variable and the dependent variable).

Content Validity

an
Since the sub-constructs were derived specifically for the study, the establishment of
content validity was a priority. The current study followed the guidelines of McKenzie, Wood
[133] for establishing content validity, which entailed four steps3: (i) using the guidelines of
M
Lynn [134], an initial draft of the survey instrument was created by canvassing the related
literature in order to derive its measures; (ii) following the guidelines of the American
d

Educational Research Association [135], a panel of 10 CIOs was established to review and
te

evaluate the possible survey questions, ensuring that the panel had the necessary training,
experience and qualifications; (iii) the panel critiqued the survey constructs; and (iv) the panel
p

conducted a review of the questionnaire, assessing how well each item was represented as a
ce

reflective measure of each sub-construct. In this fourth step, a quantitative assessment was made,
establishing the content validity ratio (CVR) for each item/question based on the formula by
Lawshe [136]. Based on 10 pilot tests, the minimum CVR value of 0.87 was observed at a
Ac

statistical significance of p<0.05. Feedback from the pilot round respondents resulted in minor
modifications to the wording of the survey items [133, 134, 136], and endorsement of the
research model, its sub-constructs and measures.

Construct Validity
Construct validity for each sub-construct was established using factor analysis, composite
reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). As mentioned earlier, each of the three

3
The four-step approach followed here is analogous to the Q-sort approach for attaining content validity [162-164].

19
Page 19 of 42
formative sub-constructs (support for business requirements, infrastructure, and expansion
capability) were measured using reflective items qualified through content validity.

In establishing construct validity, we first determined the discriminant and convergent

validity through factor analysis, whereby the individual item loadings of the sub-constructs were

t
all above 0.5 on their assigned factor, and that the loadings within the sub-constructs were higher

ip
than those across the sub-constructs. The measures demonstrated satisfactory reliability as the
reflective factor loadings were all above 0.64, which is well above the proposed threshold level

cr
of 0.5 [137]. Further, there were no substantial cross-factor loadings.

us
Second, two measurement models (one for each platform) were assessed by estimating
the internal consistency, as well as the discriminant and convergent validity, following similar

an
studies [e.g., 138]. Strong and significant composite reliability was observed for all the sub-
constructs of ES-platform, reporting above 0.85 [139], with alpha values of 0.917 for support for
business requirements, 0.931 for infrastructure, and 0.967 for expansion capability. Similarly, the
M
composite reliability of the measures of digital platforms too demonstrated similarly high alpha
values, significant at 0.001 levels; with values of 0.917 for business requirements, 0.931 for
d

infrastructure, and 0.867 for expansion capability. The measures of innovation reported alpha
value of 0.912 significant at 0.001 levels.
te

Finally, convergent validity was established through the AVE. All the sub-constructs
p

demonstrated satisfactory convergent and discriminant validity, with the AVE for all the sub-
ce

constructs measuring above 0.5 [140], and the AVE of each sub-construct is greater than the
variance shared between the sub-construct and other sub-constructs in the model [141],
indicating strong discriminant validity. For AVE for ES-platform sub-constructs were 0.76 for
Ac

support for business requirements, 0.89 for infrastructure and 0.93 for expansion capability. The
AVE for digital platform was 0.82 for support for business requirements, 0.75 for infrastructure
and 0.92 for expansion capability.

Testing the Structural Model

For the testing of the outer and inner models, the study employed the partial least squares
technique using SmartPLS 3 software [142]. The partial least squares test [143] is a structural
equation modeling technique that is well suited for highly complex predictive models and that

20
Page 20 of 42
supports the mapping of formative observed variables [141, 143-145]. SmartPLS was used
together with the bootstrap resampling method (5000 resamples) to determine the significance of
the paths within the structural model [146, 147].

As suggested by Diamantopoulos and Winklhofer [148, p. 272], the test of the outer

t
model employs global items that “summarize the essence of the construct that the index purports

ip
to measure” and examine the extent to which the items associated with the index correlate with
these global items. For this purpose, the two criterion measures of ES and digital platform

cr
constructs were included in a separate section of the survey instrument as stated below.
SmartPLS cross-item loadings indicated that there were no major cross-factor loadings,

us
confirming our earlier observations. Correlating the measurement items with the two global
measures demonstrated significant correlation coefficients at the 0.001 level.

an
Next, using SmartPLS software and following structural equation modeling techniques,
two measurement models were established separately with sub-constructs of the ES and digital
M
platforms. Table 1 presents the results. Collectively, the three constructs accounted for 96%
variance of ES-platform and 90% of the variance of digital platforms, demonstrating strong
d

external validity.
te

Table 1: Measurement model analysis

Weight t-value R-square

p

ES-platform 0.956
0.068 1.76
ce

Support for business requirements

Infrastructure 0.751 5.98
Expansion capability 0.195 2.01
Ac

Digital platforms 0.899

Support for business requirements 0.805 6.21
Infrastructure 0.215 3.34
Expansion capability 0.566 4.09

21
Page 21 of 42
 The convergent validity of the sub-constructs (See Table 1) conformed to the heuristics
of Gefen and Straub [149], whereby all the t-values of the outer model loadings exceeded the
one-sided4 cut-off of 1.645 levels5, significant at the 0.05 alpha protection level.

Investigating the Moderation Effect

t
Next, the study employs the CRBT to examine whether there is a moderation effect of

ip
ES-platform on the relationship between digital platform and innovation. The measurement of
moderation follows the procedures outlined by Aiken and West [150] and Cohen and Cohen

cr
[151], wherein the simple argument is that the nature and/or strength of two variables change as

us
a function of a third variable. Table 2 presents the analysis of Figure 4 (the research model),
where the dependent variable – innovation – is predicted by the quality of the two platforms with
an adjusted R2 of 0.854 (0.001 significance level). The results indicate that ES-platform alone

an
influences innovation (standardized beta of 0.487, significant at 0.001). Yet, the digital platform
does not make a direct statistically significant contribution to the dependent variable
M
(standardized beta of 0.083 and non-significant). However, the interaction effect of ES-platform
and digital platforms on innovation demonstrates a significant relationship with a standardized
beta of 0.660 (significant at 0.001) outlining the moderation effect of ES-platform.
d
te

Table 2: Moderation analysis

Beta t-statistic Sig.

p

Digital platforms 0.083 1.589 0.114

ES-platform 0.487 13.652 0.000
ce

ES-platform and digital platform 0.660 14.289 0.000

Ac

Finally, having understood the moderation effect of ES-platform, further insights were
sought by observing whether the high, medium or low levels of the moderating variable change
the nature of the relationship between digital platforms and innovation. Such an approach is
essential to understand how a continuum of the moderator variable influences the relationship

4
A one-sided test is appropriate because we only hypothesize a positive contribution of the formative components.
A two-sided cut-off of 1.96 is used otherwise.
5
The t-values of the loadings are, in essence, equivalent to t-values in least-squares regressions. Each measurement
item is explained by the linear regression of its latent construct and its measurement error [148].

22
Page 22 of 42
between independent and dependent variables, as outlined by Aiken and West [150]6. The
scatter-plot regression analysis using the three groups (i.e. high, medium and low quality) of ES-
platform revealed that digital platforms had a negative relationship (correlation at -0.8,
significant at 0.001) with innovation, when the quality of the ES-platform quality is low. When
the quality of the ES-platform is high, the correlation between digital platforms and innovation is

t
ip
near perfect at 0.98 (significant at 0.001), while medium levels of ES-platform yielded a
correlation of 0.63 (significant at 0.001).

cr
Table 3 presents the results of the testing of the three hypotheses. In summary, the ES-
platform influences the relationship between digital platforms and innovation. Yet, the

us
moderation is not straightforward, with the high, medium and low qualities yielding substantially
different influences (H2). Similarly, as noted in past studies [14], ES-platform has a direct

an
influence on innovation (H3). Digital platforms, on the other hand, do not have a direct influence
on innovation (H1). Table 3 summarizes the results.
M
Table 3: Summary of the hypotheses

Hyp. Path Result

d

H1 Digital platforms have a significant and positive impact on Innovation Not supported
te

ES-platform quality has a moderating effect on digital platform-led

H2
innovation Supported
H3 ES-platform has a significant and positive impact on Innovation Supported
p
ce

Summary and Discussion

This research observed how the advent of digital platforms potentially influences
Ac

innovation in an organization. Digital platforms, a collective term associated with technologies

such as mobile technology, cloud computing, in-memory technologies and social media, have
been widely recognized as “revolutionary” [152], “innovative” [153] and at the same time being
“cost- effective” [85]. As such, research forecasting by Gartner [154] makes strong suggestions
regarding how organizations could derive innovation capabilities through digital platforms. The

6
First, the scores of ES-platform were arranged in ascending order, creating three mutually exclusive groups (in this
case, three groups of equal size n [(low/medium/high) = 63]; next, creating a scatter-plot regression between digital
platforms and innovation for the three groups of ES-platform.

23
Page 23 of 42
shift towards digital platforms suggested in both the academic and practitioner literature was also
observed in the data sample employed in this study (Figure 1).

The wide proliferation of digital platforms arguably provides organizations with an

opportunity to engage, synergize, replace and add-value [27, 28, 39] to the existing monolithic

t
ES, possibly yielding greater potential to trigger innovation (Figure 2). Yet, empirical evidence

ip
on how digital platforms contribute to innovation has been scarce. As such, Nambisan [27]
identified this area of study as a critical research area for future studies on innovation.

cr
Against this background, this study observed how digital platforms and ES-platforms

us
contribute to innovation. The study employed the CRBT [48] to conceptualize the ability of
digital platforms to create innovation, when the ES-platform acts as the contingent variable. The

an
research model includes three sub-constructs to measure digital platforms and ES-platform
quality: support for business requirements, infrastructure, and expansion capabilities.
M
The three sub-constructs defined ES-platform and digital platforms adequately,
explaining nearly 90% of the variance of each. The measurement model demonstrates that the
way in which the three formative sub-constructs defined ES-platform and digital platforms is
d

substantially different in each measurement model, highlighting possible strengths and

te

weaknesses of each technology platform. For example, while the infrastructure sub-construct
predicted the most amount of variance in ES-platform (as the dominant sub-construct), the same
p

sub-construct was the weakest in defining digital platforms. Similarly, the supporting business
ce

requirements sub-construct was dominant in defining digital platforms, but was identified as the
weakest in defining ES-platform. The findings are contrary to popularly accepted views that ES-
platforms provide support for business requirements [e.g., 7, 128, 155]. As an explanation, we
Ac

argue that, although an ES-platform would have provided support for business requirements
when first introduced, it is difficult for modern (and perhaps dynamic) business requirements to
be supported through an ES due to the system’s complexity [156]. On the other hand, the study
results highlight the importance of the ES-platform as a valuable IT infrastructure, demonstrating
the maturity of the technology, reflecting the notions of a “technology backbone” [157].

Most significantly, this study highlighted that digital platforms can yield innovation, only
through the moderation of the ES-platform. Moreover, when placed in a continuum, while the

24
Page 24 of 42
existence of high or medium levels of ES-platform quality ultimately lead the digital platform to
innovate, the low levels of ES-platform quality lead to a negative relationship between digital
platforms and innovation (Figure 4).

Academic Contributions

t
Below we discuss of three specific academic contributions from this study. Firstly, this

ip
study observed how two types of technology platforms work together to deliver innovation. The
study highlighted the role of digital and ES-platforms in deriving innovation. Contrary to popular

cr
commentary, we witnessed that digital platforms alone do not yield innovation and that they

us
need a strong ES-platform to derive innovation. Furthermore, the study revealed that a weak ES-
platform may lead the digital platform to hinder innovation. From another viewpoint, this study
observed how the role of ES has changed to become a strong enabler as a platform. A trigger of

an
innovation, maturing into an enabler of innovation is an interesting observation that has potential
for future research. For example, it obliges IS researchers to understand IT as a long term
M
investment with morphing roles, rather than as a sunk cost. This research applies CRBT
foundations to suggest that, while resources can either be given exogenously or created by
activities within the organization, capabilities emerge from the integration and combination of
d

these resources.
te

Secondly, this study provides a useful view of the emerging IT portfolio. In the past,
p

studies have attempted to understand the notion of an IT portfolio as a collection of systems

[158]. As such, rarely did studies employ the notion of a portfolio in relation to a collection of
ce

different types of platforms. When studying a collection of different types of platforms, inter-
dependencies, synergies and connectivity become important. The view presented in this study of
Ac

digital and ES-platform is a useful initial step towards a greater understanding of a portfolio of
multiple technologies.

This study provides an improved understanding of the role of technology in facilitating

innovation. Specifically, studies offering empirical evidence of the role of IT in innovation in
‘common’ organizations are rare. For example, most past studies have focused on how IT may
lead to new patents, products and services [116, 117] – making innovation seem out of bounds
for common organizations. The conceptualization, derivation and operationalization of common
organization innovation are a valid contribution of this study. Especially now, when

25
Page 25 of 42
organizations hope to innovate through a selection of technologies, these first insights into how
innovation can be attained through technology platforms will provide a useful foundation.

Practitioner Contributions
This study makes several practical contributions as well. First, this study provides early

t
empirical evidence of how an IT portfolio is assisting organizations with innovation. The

ip
encouraging study results demonstrating a positive value of ES and digital platforms for
innovation provides evidence-based confidence to IT practitioners. Second, the study observed

cr
the quality of the ES and digital platforms using three formative constructs. The study results

us
demonstrate that, while infrastructure capabilities dominate the ES-platform, support for business
requirements dominate the digital platforms. Such observations will make it easier for the
practitioners to plan for future technology investments. Third, the study demonstrated the

an
morphing role an enterprise system as a technology platform. Evidenced through the analysis of
the hypotheses, the study findings demonstrate that ES is not only evolving, but a stable platform
M
is essential for an organization to seek value through digital platforms. Therefore, for the
practitioners, contrary to what this study observed through Figure 1, continuing investment into
ES-platforms are essential.
d

Limitations and Future Research Directions

te

There are several limitations in the current study. First, the study does not distinguish the
p

type of digital platform. Instead, it bundles all available contemporary digital platform types as
ce

one. While various digital platforms were considered collectively for convenience, we recognize
that they may each have distinctive characteristics that could benefit from independent study.
Second, the homogeneous selection of organizations in the study sample may add some biasness
Ac

to the study findings. For example, the inclusion of variables associated with organizational size
(e.g. medium-sized organizations), IT maturity, governance and regulations may provide deeper
insights. The consideration of such aspects is highly recommended in a future study. Third,
innovation is measured in this study as a snap-shot, without reflecting its dynamic, contextual
nature. The snap-shot approach may also be identified as a methodological weakness. Thus a
longitudinal study of innovation, perhaps following the case method, would provide deeper
understanding of the true nature of innovation and its independent and moderating variables.

26
Page 26 of 42
 In ways that may assist future research, the study adequately describes the role of digital
and the ES platforms in facilitating innovation. The high r2 values (0.660 for ES-platform
moderating the influence of digital platforms on innovation, and 0.487 for ES-platform having a
direct influence on innovation) mean that a further investigation into their role is not essential.
Thus, it is proposed that future research could gainfully focus on the approach and method

t
ip
proposed in order to better understand the relationship between IT and innovation.

Four research directions for future research are herein identified. A natural extension

cr
would lead to a deeper understanding of each of the digital platforms (e.g. mobile) to better
understand how each platform yields innovation. Perhaps one would employ the same research

us
model with the ES-platform as a moderating variable, while including specific technology
platforms as independent variables. The second research direction relates to a better examination

an
of organizational/technology maturity and their role on digital and ES-platforms in delivering
innovation. Relating such contextual variables in a future study would provide unique insights.
M
Thirdly, a future study could embark on developing a ‘platform index.’ An index would
determine how much of each technology platform has been employed in the IT portfolio. Such
indexes are commonplace in analogous disciplines of economics and finance to understand the
d

risk and returns of investments, and would provide similar value IS discipline as well. Finally,
te

another stream of future research could focus on the inter-connectedness and contingencies
amongst the digital platforms. While the connectivity between mobile technology, cloud
p

computing, in-memory technologies and social media is obvious and evidently complex, such a
ce

study would add further insights into the role of IT in innovation.

Ac

27
Page 27 of 42
Appendix A: What is a platform?
The first known use of the word platform, which originates from Middle French word
‘plate-forme,’ was in 15357. Since then, term ‘platform’ has been employed in multiple
disciplines, especially to those with continuance and growth [89]. In biology, the human genome
database has become a platform upon which many companies and laboratories build

t
ip
complementary products and services. Despite the term platform appearing in IS/IT literature in
abundance, much less conceptual and fundamental thinking has been devoted to understand it. In

cr
general, we develop the following five fundamental characteristics to define a platform: (i) a
platform it-self does not provide value, (ii) it provides the basis for further action – e.g. to build,

us
debate, connect (iii) the actions conducted upon a platform are restricted by the very nature of a
platform, (iv) it provides a basis to make a comparison with another platform or actions built

an
upon another platform, and (v) platforms change and evolve, but in a stable manner. Radical
changes will disrupt an existing platform and will emerge as a new platform.
M
Taking the five fundamental characteristics, a ‘technology’ platform is a term for
technology that enables the development and/or delivery software services. While some
technology platforms provide tools and techniques to develop software applications, other
d

technology platforms only provide the delivery mechanism of a software service. In either case,
te

the platform will provide either a conceptual or practical boundary on the software being
developed or delivered. Competing platforms too have emerged with the growth of proprietary
p

software that competes with other technology platforms in a market place. In most cases,
ce

technology platforms evolve in a manner that allows higher capabilities.

Over a period of time, if the platform attracts enough adopters, it has the potential to
Ac

create an eco-system. With the growth of the eco-system the number of applications and the
services offered on the platform will increase. This also impacts the rate of evolution of a
platform, since more products and services will push new ideas to evolve a platform.

From a technical standpoint it is important to distinguish three related terms presented in

IS literature to clarify the role of a platform; platform, module and eco-system. Gawer [17]
defined a platform as ‘a building block, providing an essential function to a technological system

7
Online Etymology Dictionary, Retrieved 2014-12-07

28
Page 28 of 42
– which acts as a foundation upon which other organizations, loosely organized in an innovation
ecosystem, can develop complementary products, technologies or services.’ Meyer and Lehnerd
[159] defined a platform as a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common structure from
which a stream of derivative products can be efficiently developed and produced. Katz [160]
provides a technical viewpoint to the notion of a platform stating that a platform specifies the

t
ip
design rules that describe how the platform and modules interact and exchange information. The
SAP’s NetWeaver is an ideal example for a platform.

cr
A module, according to Baldwin [161] is an add-on software subsystem that connects to
the platform to add functionality to the platform. Such modules will include system features and

us
functions that business end-users engage for daily business processes. The term eco-system, as
described earlier refers to a collection of the platforms, with their specific modules and those

an
who offer services and products to support the platform as well as its modules [19, 20]. A
conceptual view of IT platforms is also available on Tiwana, Konsynski [18].
M
[149, 162-164]

[165]
d
p te
ce
Ac

29
Page 29 of 42
Appendix B: Survey Items and Lineage
Instructions to the respondent

1. Please answer all questions. If you are unable to answer a particular question, please
leave it blank.

t
2. The term ‘Enterprise System’ in this study refers to corporate-wide IT system in your

ip
organization that does Financials, Materials Management, Human Capital Management
and Sales. Some examples of such systems include: SAP, Oracle BusinessSuite,

cr
Microsoft NAV.
3. The term ‘Digital Platforms’ refers to modern technologies like Cloud, Mobile and In-

us
memory applications. Such technologies would be new to your organization, and may not
be employed across all divisions and departments.

an
ES-platform: Platform to meet business requirements
Our organizational business processes are running smoothly without much
M
issues
[158]
Our ES-platform is adequately supporting our business requirements (for e.g.
AS400 mainframe is not supported distributed network)
Our Enterprise System is regularly maintained and upgraded to meet our
d

[166] business requirements

te

Our Enterprise System meets the current business expectations of the

organization
ES-platform: IT Infrastructure
p

Our on-going investments into Enterprise System platform are substantial

[71, 83] We are aware of the forthcoming updates relating to the Enterprise System
ce

platform
Our Enterprise Systems platform has the ability to connect with almost all new
technologies
[84]
Ac

The Enterprise Systems platform has made it easier for us to bring in new
technologies to the organization
ES-platform: Business Expansion Capability
Our Enterprise System is adequate to meet our future business expectations for
innovation
Having our Enterprise System is hindering the business growth and innovation
[84] ES development, deployment time and resources are not a challenge in
meeting our expectations of responding to environmental changes
Any improvements to Enterprise System functionalities will require
substantial resources (time, people and funds)
As per [42] We do not make on-going much changes to our Enterprise Systems
items were functionalities

30
Page 30 of 42
developed I regularly receive directives to change the Enterprise System functionalities
as per business requirements
digital platforms: Platform to meet business requirements
digital platforms help us supplement existing business processes or functions
in our organization
[158, 166]
Our business processes or functions run smoothly with digital platforms
Our digital platforms meet the current business expectations of the

t
organization

ip
digital platforms: IT Infrastructure
We are well aware of the forthcoming updates relating to available digital
[71, 83]

cr
platforms
Our IT projects regularly trial new technologies seeking business opportunities
We have the ability to re-use the same digital platforms for multiple purposes

us
[84]
Our IT projects using digital platforms require less resources (time, money) to
develop and deploy
digital platforms: Business Expansion Capability

an
We employ new technologies to make our IT landscape much more agile for
dynamic business requirements
digital platforms provided business expansion opportunities to our
organization
M
digital platforms development, deployment time and resources are not a
[84] challenge in meeting our expectations of responding to environmental changes
d

Innovation
We respond to market and customer needs swiftly and effectively by
te

Developed
orchestrating multiple technologies
Developed Using corporate IT we address unique business needs swiftly and effectively
p

Where possible, we experiment and trial IT in new ways to develop new

[120]
products that can help attract and serve new markets
ce

Using corporate IT we integrate and build internal and external capabilities in

[120]
our organization
Using corporate IT we seek out information about new markets, products and
[120]
technologies from sources outside the organization
Ac

Using corporate IT we continuously try to discover additional needs of our

[120]
customers (and potential customers) of which they are unaware
Using IT we manage political and economic risks by promptly responding
Developed
proactively to them

31
Page 31 of 42
References
1. Melville, N., K. Kraemer, and V. Gurbaxani, Information Technology and
Organizational Performance: An Integrative Model of IT Business Value. MIS Quarterly,
2004. 28(2): p. 283-322.
2. Chae, H.-C., C.E. Koh, and V.R. Prybutok, Information technology capability and firm
performance: contradictory findings and their possible causes. MIS Quarterly, 2014.

t
38(1): p. 305-326.

ip
3. Davenport, T.H. and J.E. Short, The new industrial engineering: information technology
and business process redesign. Sloan Management Review, 1990. 31(4): p. 11-27.
4. McAfee, A., Mastering the Three Worlds of Information Technology. Harvard Business

cr
Review, 2006. 84(11): p. 141-148.
5. McAfee, A. and E. Brynjolfsson, Investing in the IT that makes a Competitive Difference.
Harvard Business Review, 2008. 86(7/8): p. 98-107.

us
6. Nwankpa, J.K., et al., Understanding the Link between Initial ERP System and ERP-
Enabled Adoption. Information Resources Management Journal, 2013. 26(4): p. 18-39.
7. Davenport, T.H., Process Innovation: Reengineering work through information

an
technology. 2013: Harvard Business Press.
8. Wagner, E.L., S.V. Scott, and R.D. Galliers, The Creation of ‘best Practice’ Software:
Myth, Reality and Ethics. Information & Organization, 2006. 16(3): p. 251-275.
9. Batenburg, R.S., H.v.d. Blonk, and J.G.J.M. Benders, Sticking to Standards; Technical
M
and other Isomorphic Pressures in Deploying ERP-systems. Information & Management,
2006. 43(2): p. 194-203.
10. Karimi, J., T.M. Somers, and A. Bhattacherjee, The impact of ERP implementation on
d
business process outcomes: a factor-based study. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 2007. 24(1): p. 101-134.
te

11. Grover, V. and A.H. Segars, An empirical evaluation of stages of strategic information
systems planning: patterns of process design and effectiveness. Information &
Management, 2005. 42(5): p. 761-779.
p

12. Shang, S. and P.B. Seddon, Managing Process Deficiencies with Enterprise Systems.
Business Process Management Journal, 2007. 13(3): p. 405–416.
ce

13. Akkermans, H.A., et al., The impact of ERP on supply chain management: Exploratory
findings from a European Delphi study. European Journal of Operational Research, 2003.
146(2): p. 284-301.
Ac

14. Srivardhana, T. and S.D. Pawlowski, ERP systems as an enabler of sustained business
process innovation: A knowledge-based view. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems 2007. 16(1): p. 51-69.
15. Romero, J.A., et al., ERP: Drilling for Profit in the Oil and Gas Industry.
Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 2010. 53(7): p. 118-121.
16. Staehr, L., G. Shanks, and P.B. Seddon, An Explanatory Framework for Achieving
Business Benefits from ERP Systems. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
2012. 13(6): p. 424-465.
17. Gawer, A., Platforms, Markets, and Innovation. 2009, Gloucestershire, UK: Edward
Elgar Publishing.
18. Tiwana, A., B.R. Konsynski, and A.A. Bush, Research Commentary: Platform
Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental
Dynamics. Information Systems Research, 2010. 21(4): p. 675-687.

32
Page 32 of 42
19. Gawer, A. and M.A. Cusumano, How companies become platform leaders. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 2012. 49(2): p. 28-35.
20. Ceccagnoli, M., et al., Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of
enterprise software. MIS Quarterly, 2012. 36(1): p. 263-290.
21. Kharabe, A. and K.J. Lyytinen, Is Implementing ERP Like Pouring Concrete Into a
Company? Impact of Enterprise Systems on Organizational Agility, in Thirty Third
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2012). 2012: Orlando

t
22. Davenport, T.H., Mission critical: realizing the promise of enterprise systems. 2000:

ip
Harvard Business Press.
23. Gable, G.G., D. Sedera, and T. Chan, Re-conceptualizing Information System Success:
The IS-Impact Measurement Model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,

cr
2008. 9(7).
24. Sedera, D. and G.G. Gable, Knowledge management competence for enterprise system

us
success. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 2010. 19(4): p. 296-306.
25. Swanson, E.B. and E. Dans, System life expectancy and the maintenance effort: exploring
their equilibration. MIS Quarterly, 2000. 24(2): p. 277-297.
26. Eden, R., D. Sedera, and F. Tan. Archival analysis of enterprise resource planning

an
systems: the current state and future directions. in Proceedings of the 33rd International
Conference on Information Systems. 2012. Orlando Florida, USA: AIS Electronic Library
(AISeL).
27. Nambisan, S., Information Technology and Product/Service Innovation: A Brief
M
Assessment and Some Suggestions for Future Research. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 2013. 14(4): p. 215-226.
28. Yoo, Y., et al., Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science,
d

2012. 23(5): p. 1398-1408.

29. Harris, J., B. Ives, and I. Junglas, IT consumerization: when gadgets turn into enterprise
te

IT tools. MIS Quarterly Executive, 2012. 11(3): p. 99-112.

30. Vodanovich, S., D. Sundaram, and M. Myers, Digital Natives and Ubiquitous
Information Systems. Information Systems Research, 2010. 21(4): p. 711-723.
p

31. Adomavicius, G., et al., Making Sense of Technology Trends in the Information
Technology Landscape: A Design Science Approach. MIS Quarterly, 2008. 32(4): p. 779-
ce

809.
32. Chee, B.J. and C. Franklin Jr, Cloud computing: technologies and strategies of the
ubiquitous data center. 2010: CRC Press.
Ac

33. McAfee, A., et al., Big Data. Harvard Business Review, 2012. 90(10): p. 61-67.
34. Cea, D., et al., Towards the Cloudification of the Social Networks Analytics, in Modeling
Decisions for Artificial Intelligence. 2014, Springer. p. 192-203.
35. Mallat, N., et al., The impact of use context on mobile services acceptance: The case of
mobile ticketing. Information & Management, 2009. 46(3): p. 190-195.
36. Schaller, R.R., Moore's law: past, present and future. IEEE Spectrum, 1997. 34(6): p. 52-
59.
37. Brinker, S. and L. McLellan, The Rise of the Chief Marketing Technologist. Harvard
Business Review, 2014. 92(7): p. 82-85.
38. Lusch, R.F. and S. Nambisan, Service innovation: A Service-Dominant (SD) logic
perspective. MIS Quarterly, 2014. 39(1): p. 155-175.

33
Page 33 of 42
39. Yoo, Y., O. Henfridsson, and K. Lyytinen, The new organizing logic of digital
innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research,
2010. 21(4): p. 724-735.
40. Lee, J., K. Siau, and S. Hong, Enterprise Integration with ERP and EAI.
Communications of the ACM, 2003. 46(2): p. 54-60.
41. Tilson, D., K. Lyytinen, and C. Sørensen, Research commentary-digital infrastructures:
the missing IS research agenda. Information Systems Research, 2010. 21(4): p. 748-759.

t
42. Seddon, P.B., C. Calvert, and S. Yang, A multi-project model of key factors affecting

ip
organizational benefits from enterprise systems. MIS Quarterly, 2010. 34(2): p. 305-328.
43. Bernroider, E.W., Effective ERP adoption processes: the role of project activators and
resource investments. European Journal of Information Systems, 2013. 22(2): p. 235-250.

cr
44. Larivière, B., et al., Value fusion: the blending of consumer and firm value in the distinct
context of mobile technologies and social media. Journal of Service Management, 2013.

us
24(3): p. 268-293.
45. Rigby, D., The future of shopping. Harvard Business Review, 2011. 89(12): p. 65-76.
46. Barney, J., Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management,
1991. 17(1): p. 99-120.

an
47. Chae, B.K., et al., The impact of advanced analytics and data accuracy on operational
performance: A contingent resource based theory (RBT) perspective. Decision Support
Systems, 2014. 59: p. 119-126.
48. Brush, T.H. and K.W. Artz, Toward a contingent resource-based theory: The impact of
M
information asymmetry on the value of capabilities in veterinary medicine. Strategic
Management Journal, 1999. 20(3): p. 223-250.
49. Wade, M. and J. Hulland, Review: the resource-based view and information systems
d

research: review, extension, and suggestions for future research. MIS Quarterly, 2004.
28(1): p. 107-142.
te

50. Aragon-Correa, J.A. and S. Sharma, A contingent resource-based view of proactive

corporate environmental strategy. Academy of Management Review, 2003. 28(1): p. 71-
88.
p

51. Ennen, E. and A. Richter, The whole is more than the sum of its parts—or is it? A review
of the empirical literature on complementarities in organizations. Journal of
ce

Management, 2010. 36(1): p. 207-233.

52. Luo, J., M. Fan, and H. Zhang, Information technology and organizational capabilities: a
longitudinal study of the apparel industry. Decision Support Systems, 2012. 53(1): p.
Ac

186–194.
53. Delen, D. and H. Demirkan, Data, information and analytics as services. Decision
Support Systems, 2013. 55(1): p. 359–363.
54. O'Dwyer, J. and R. Renner, The promise of advanced supply chain analytics. Supply
Chain Management Review, 2011. 15(1): p. 32–37.
55. Hendricks, K.B., V.R. Singhal, and J.K. Stratman, The impact of enterprise systems on
corporate performance: A study of ERP, SCM, and CRM system implementations.
Journal of Operations Management, 2007. 25(1): p. 65-82.
56. Davenport, T.H., The Future of Enterprise System-Enabled Organizations. Information
Systems Frontiers, 2000. 2(2): p. 163-180.

34
Page 34 of 42
57. Chen, Y., et al., IT capability and organizational performance: the roles of business
process agility and environmental factors. European Journal of Information Systems,
2014. 23(3): p. 326-342.
58. Baron, R.M. and D.A. Kenny, The Moderator-Mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 1986. 51(6): p. 1173-1182.
59. Henseler, J. and G. Fassott, Testing moderating effects in PLS path models: an

t
illustration of available procedures, in Handbook of Partial Least Squares, V. Vinzi, et

ip
al., Editors. 2010, Springer-Verlag: Berlin. p. 713–735.
60. Dubin, R., Theory Building. 1978, New York, N.Y: The Free Press.
61. Johannessen, J.-A., Information technology and innovation: identifying critical

cr
innovation factors. Information Management & Computer Security, 1994. 2(2): p. 4-9.
62. Bengtsson, F. and P.J. Ågerfalk, Information technology as a change actant in

us
sustainability innovation: Insights from Uppsala. The Journal of Strategic Information
Systems, 2011. 20(1): p. 96-112.
63. Amabile, T.M., Creativity and innovation in organizations. Vol. 5. 1996, Boston:
Harvard Business School

an
64. Gorodnichenko, Y., J. Svejnar, and K. Terrell, Globalization and innovation in emerging
markets. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2010. 2(2): p. 194-226.
65. Zahra, S.A. and J.G. Covin, The Financial implications of fit between competitive
strategy and innovation types and sources. The Journal of High Technology Management
M
Research 1994. 5(2): p. 183-211.
66. Slater, S.F., J.J. Mohr, and S. Sengupta, Radical Product Innovation Capability:
Literature Review, Synthesis, and Illustrative Research Propositions. Journal of Product
d

Innovation Management, 2013. 31(3): p. 552-566.

67. Huber, G.P., A theory of the effects of advanced information technologies on
te

organizational design, intelligence, and decision making. Academy of Management

Review, 1990. 15(1): p. 47-71.
68. Brynjolfsson, E., Wired for innovation: how information technology is reshaping the
p

economy. 2011: MIT Press.

69. Kumar, V., et al., Undervalued or overvalued customers: capturing total customer
ce

engagement value. Journal of Service Research, 2010. 13(3): p. 297-310.

70. Bharadwaj, A., et al., Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights.
MIS Quarterly, 2013. 37(2): p. 471-482.
Ac

71. Bharadwaj, A.S., A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and

firm performance: an empirical investigation. MIS Quarterly, 2000. 24(1): p. 169-196.
72. Kleis, L., et al., Information technology and intangible output: The impact of IT
investment on innovation productivity. Information Systems Research, 2012. 23(1): p. 42-
59.
73. Olesen, K. and M.D. Myers, Trying to improve communication and collaboration with
information technology: an action research project which failed. Information Technology
& People, 1999. 12(4): p. 317-332.
74. Youmans, W.L. and J.C. York, Social media and the activist toolkit: User agreements,
corporate interests, and the information infrastructure of modern social movements.
Journal of Communication, 2012. 62(2): p. 315-329.

35
Page 35 of 42
75. Crossan, M.M. and M. Apaydin, A multi‐dimensional framework of organizational

innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Management Studies, 2010.

47(6): p. 1154-1191.

t
76. Garcia, R. and R. Calantone, A critical look at technological innovation typology and

ip
innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 2002. 19(2): p. 110-132.
77. Lai, E.L.-C., R. Riezman, and P. Wang, Outsourcing of innovation. Economic Theory,

cr
2009. 38(3): p. 485-515.
78. Kirilenko, A.A. and A.W. Lo, Moore's Law versus Murphy's Law: Algorithmic Trading

us
and Its Discontents. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2013. 27(2): p. 51-72.
79. Sambamurthy, V., A. Bharadwaj, and V. Grover, Shaping agility through digital options:
Reconceptualizing the role of information technology in contemporary firms. MIS
Quarterly, 2003. 27(2): p. 237-263.

an
80. Sambamurthy, V. and R.W. Zmud, Research commentary: The organizing logic for an
enterprise's IT activities in the digital era—A prognosis of practice and a call for
research. Information Systems Research, 2000. 11(2): p. 105-114.
81. Kohli, R. and V. Grover, Business Value of IT: An Essay on Expanding Research
M
Directions to Keep up with the Times. Journal of the Association for Information
Systems, 2008. 9(1): p. 23-39.
82. Nevo, S. and M.R. Wade, The formation and value of it-enabled resources: Antecedents
d
and consequences of synergistic relationships. MIS Quarterly, 2010. 34(1): p. 163-183.
83. Chakravarty, A., R. Grewal, and V. Sambamurthy, Information technology competencies,
te

organizational agility, and firm performance: Enabling and facilitating roles.

Information Systems Research, 2013. 24(4): p. 976-997.
84. Rai, A. and X. Tang, Leveraging IT Capabilities and Competitive Process Capabilities
p

for the Management of Interorganizational Relationship Portfolios. Information Systems

Research, 2010. 21(3): p. 516-570.
ce

85. López-Nicolás, C., F.J. Molina-Castillo, and H. Bouwman, An assessment of advanced

mobile services acceptance: Contributions from TAM and diffusion theory models.
Information & Management, 2008. 45(6): p. 359-364.
Ac

86. Nylén, D. and J. Holmström, Digital innovation strategy: A framework for diagnosing
and improving digital product and service innovation. Business Horizons, 2015. 58(1): p.
57-67.
87. Armbrust, M., et al., A view of cloud computing. Communications of the ACM, 2010.
53(4): p. 50-58.
88. Chesbrough, H.W., Open Innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from
technology. 2003: Harvard Business Press.
89. Gawer, A., Bridging differing perspectives on technological platforms: Toward an
integrative framework. Research Policy, 2014. 43(7): p. 1239-1249.
90. Zittrain, J.L., The generative Internet. Harvard Law Review, 2006. 119(7): p. 1974–2040.
91. Knight, F.H., Risk, uncertainty and profit. 2012: Courier Corporation.

36
Page 36 of 42
92. Floyd, S. and B. Wooldridge, Path analysis of the relationship between competitive
strategy, information technology, and financial performance. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 1990. 7(1): p. 47–64.
93. Powell, R.L. and A. Dent-Micallef, Information technology as competitive advantage:
the role of human, business, and technology resources. Strategic Management Journal,
1997. 18(5): p. 375–405.
94. Fichman, R.G., Going beyond the dominant paradigm for information technology

t
innovation research: Emerging concepts and methods. Journal of the Association for

ip
Information Systems, 2004. 5(8): p. 314-355.
95. Palaniswamy, R. and T. Frank, Enhancing manufacturing performance with ERP
systems. Information Systems Management, 2000. 17(3): p. 43-55.

cr
96. Davenport, T.H., Putting the enterprise into the enterprise system. Harvard business
review, 1998. 76(4): p. 121.

us
97. Damanpour, F., Innovation Type, Radicalness and the Adoption Process. Communication
Research, 1988. 15(5): p. 545-567.
98. Motwani, J., et al., Successful implementation of ERP projects: evidence from two case
studies. International Journal of Production Economics, 2002. 75(1): p. 83-96.

an
99. Holland, C.P. and B. Light, A critical success factors model for ERP implementation.
IEEE Software, 1999. 16(3): p. 30-36.
100. Green, S.G., M.B. Gavin, and L. Aiman-Smith, Assessing a multidimensional measure of
radical technological innovation. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on, 1995.
M
42(3): p. 203-214.
101. Germain, R., The role of context and structure in radical and incremental logistics
innovation adoption. Journal of Business Research, 1996. 35(2): p. 117-127.
d

102. McDermott, C.M. and G.C. O'Connor, Managing radical innovation: an overview of
emergent strategy issues. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2002. 19(6): p.
te

424-438.
103. Keizer, J.A. and J.I. Halman, Diagnosing risk in radical innovation projects. Research-
Technology Management Journal, 2007. 50(5): p. 30-36.
p

104. Davenport, T.H., Need radical innovation and continuous improvement? Integrate
process reengineering and TQM. Strategy & Leadership, 1993. 21(3): p. 6-12.
ce

105. Leifer, R., G.C. O'Connor, and M. Rice, Implementing radical innovation in mature
firms: The role of hubs. The Academy of Management Executive, 2001. 15(3): p. 102-
113.
Ac

106. Ceccagnoli, M., et al., Cocreation of value in a Platform Ecosystem: The case of
Enterprise Software. MIS Quarterly, 2012. 36(1): p. 263-290.
107. Jansen, J.J.P., F.A.J. Van Den Bosch, and H.W. Volberda, Exploratory Innovation,
Exploitative Innovation, and Performance: Effects of Organizational Antecedents and
Environmental Moderators. Management Science, 2006. 52(11): p. 1661-1674.
108. Benner, M.J. and M.L. Tushman, Exploitation, exploration, and process management:
The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review, 2003. 28(2): p.
238-256.
109. Damanpour, F., Organizational innovation: A meta-analysis of effects of determinants
and moderators. Academy of Management Journal, 1991. 34(3): p. 555-590.

37
Page 37 of 42
110. Eden, R., D. Sedera, and F. Tan, Sustaining the Momentum: Archival Analysis of
Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (2006–2012). Communications of the Association
for Information Systems, 2014. 35(3): p. 39-82.
111. Chua, C.E.H. and H.M. Khoo, How organizations motivate users to participate in
support upgrades of customized packaged software. Information & Management, 2011.
48(8): p. 328-335.
112. Somers, T.M. and K.G. Nelson, The impact of strategy and integration mechanisms on

t
enterprise system value: empirical evidence from manufacturing firms. European Journal

ip
of Operational Research, 2003. 146(2): p. 315-338.
113. Grover, V., et al., The chief information officer: A study of managerial roles. Journal of
Management Information Systems, 1993. 10(2): p. 107-130.

cr
114. Adams, R., J. Bessant, and R. Phelps, Innovation management measurement: A review.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 2006. 8(1): p. 21-47.

us
115. Cordero, R., The measurement of innovation performance in the firm: an overview.
Research Policy, 1990. 19(2): p. 185–192.
116. Xue, L., G. Ray, and V. Sambamurthy, Efficiency or Innovation: How do industry
environments moderate the effects of firms' IT asset portfolios? MIS Quarterly, 2012.

an
36(2): p. 509-528.
117. Lyytinen, K. and G.M. Rose, The Disruptive Nature of Information Technology
Innovations: The Case of Internet Computing in Systems Development Organizations.
MIS Quarterly, 2003. 27(4): p. 557-596.
M
118. Adams, D.A., R.R. Nelson, and P.A. Todd, Perceived Usefulness, Ease Of Use, And
Usage Of Information Technology: A Replication. MIS Quarterly, 1992. 16(2): p. 227-
247.
d

119. Swanson, E.B. and N.C. Ramiller, Innovating mindfully with information technology.
MIS Quarterly, 2004. 28(4): p. 553-583.
te

120. Wong, A., D. Tjosvold, and C. Liu, Innovation by teams in Shanghai, China: cooperative
goals for group confidence and persistence. British Journal of Management, 2009. 20(2):
p. 238-251.
p

121. Burpitt, W.J. and W.J. Bigoness, Leadership and innovation among teams The impact of
empowerment. Small Group Research, 1997. 28(3): p. 414-423.
ce

122. Chou, S.-W. and Y.-C. Chang, The implementation factors that influence the ERP
(enterprise resource planning) benefits. Decision Support Systems, 2008. 46(1): p. 149-
157.
Ac

123. Garrison, G., S. Kim, and R.L. Wakefield, Success factors for deploying cloud
computing. Communications of the ACM, 2012. 55(9): p. 62-68.
124. Esteves, J., A benefits realisation road-map framework for ERP usage in small and
medium-sized enterprises. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 2009. 22(1/2):
p. 25-35.
125. Markus, L. and C. Tanis, The Enterprise Systems Experience - from Adoption to Success,
in Framing the Domains of IT Management: Projecting the Future through the Past,
R.W. Zmud, Editor. 2000, Pinnaflex Educational Resources, Inc: Cincinnati, OH. p. 173-
207.
126. Berkley, B.J. and A. Gupta, Improving service quality with information technology.
International Journal of Information Management, 1994. 14(2): p. 109-121.

38
Page 38 of 42
127. Bidan, M., F. Rowe, and D. Truex, An Empirical Study of IS Architectures in French
SMEs: Integration Approaches. European Journal of Information Systems, 2012. 21(3):
p. 287–302.
128. Gable, G.G., D. Sedera, and T. Chan, Re-conceptualizing Information System Success:
The IS-Impact Measurement Model. Journal of the Association for Information Systems
2008. 9(7): p. 377-408.
129. Mathieson, K., E. Peacock, and W.W. Chin, Extending the technology acceptance model:

t
the influence of perceived user resources. ACM SigMIS Database, 2001. 32(3): p. 86-

ip
112.
130. Furneaux, B. and M. Wade, An Exploration of Organizational Level Information Systems
Discontinuance Intentions. MIS Quarterly, 2011. 35(3): p. 573-598.

cr
131. Gorla, N., T.M. Somers, and B. Wong, Organizational Impact of System Quality,
Information Quality, and Service Quality. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,

us
2010. 19(3): p. 207-228.
132. Sharma, R., P. Yetton, and J. Crawford, Estimating the effect of common method
variance: The method-method pair technique with an illustration from TAM research.
MIS Quarterly, 2009. 33(3).

an
133. McKenzie, J.F., M.L. Wood, and J.E. Kotecki, Establishing Content Validity: Using
Qualitative And Quantitative Steps. Am J Health Behav, 1999. 23: p. 311-318.
134. Lynn, M.R., Determination And Quantification Of Content Validity. Nursing Research,
1986. 35: p. 382-385.
M
135. American Educational Research Association, Standards For Educational And
Psychological Testing. 2002, American Psychological Association: Washington , DC.
136. Lawshe, C.H., A Quantitative Approach To Content Validity. Personnel Psychology,
d

1975. 28: p. 563-575.

137. Hulland, J., Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: a
te

review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 1999. 20(2): p. 195-204.
138. Wixom, B.H. and P.A. Todd, A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and
technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 2005. 16(1): p. 85-102.
p

139. Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric theory. Mcgraw-Hill Series In Psychology. 1967, New
York: McGraw-Hill. xiii, 640.
ce

140. Fornell, C. and D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 1981. 18(1): p. 39-50.
141. Chin, J.P., V.A. Diehl, and K.L. Norman. Development Of An Instrument Measuring
Ac

User Satisfaction Of The Human-Computer Interface. in Proceedings Of The SIGCHI

Conference On Human Factors In Computing Systems. 1988. Washington, D.C., USA:
ACM Press.
142. Ringle, C.M., S. Wende, and A. Will. SmartPLS. 2005; 2.0 (beta):[Available from:
http://www.smartpls.de.
143. Wold, H., Introduction to the second generation of multivariate analysis. Theoretical
empiricism. 1989, New York: Paragon House: H. Wold (ed.). vii-xl.
144. Becker, J.-M., K. Klein, and M. Wetzels, Hierarchical latent variable models in PLS-
SEM: guidelines for using reflective-formative type models. Long Range Planning, 2012.
45(5): p. 359-394.
145. Henseler, J. and M. Sarstedt, Goodness-of-fit indices for partial least squares path
modeling. Computational Statistics, 2013. 28(2): p. 565-580.

39
Page 39 of 42
146. Gefen, D., D.W. Straub, and M.-C. Boudreau, Structural Equation Modeling and
Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Communications of the AIS 2000. 4(7): p.
1-79.
147. Petter, S., D. Straub, and A. Rai, Specifying Formative Constructs in Information systems
research. MIS Quarterly, 2007. 31(4): p. 623-656.
148. Diamantopoulos, A. and H.M. Winklhofer, Index Construction with Formative
Indicators: An Alternative to Scale Development. Journal of Marketing Research, 2001.

t
38(2): p. 269-273.

ip
149. Gefen, D. and D. Straub, A Practical Guide to Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph:
Tutorial and Annotated Example. Communications of the Association for Information
Systems, 2005. 16: p. 91-103.

cr
150. Aiken, L.S. and S.G. West, Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
1991, Newbury Park: Sage.

us
151. Cohen, J. and P. Cohen, Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the
behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. 1983, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
152. Hofmann, P. and D. Woods, Cloud computing: the limits of public clouds for business
applications. IEEE Internet Computing, 2010. 14(6): p. 90-93.

an
153. Sheng, H., F.F.-H. Nah, and K. Siau, Strategic implications of mobile technology: A case
study using Value-Focused Thinking. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,
2005. 14(3): p. 269-290.
154. Cearley, D.W. and K. Hilgendorf Cloud Computing Innovation Key Initiative Overview.
M
Gartner - Cloud Computing, 2014.
155. Sedera, D. and G.G. Gable, Knowledge Management Competence for Enterprise System
Success. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 2010. 19(4): p. 296-306.
d

156. Kharabe, A., K. Lyytinen, and V. Grover, Do Organizational Competencies Influence

How Enterprise Systems Foster Organizational Agility?, in International Conference On
te

Information Systems (ICIS 2013). 2013: Milan, Italy.

157. Nah, F.F.-H., J.L.-S. Lau, and J. Kuang, Critical factors for successful implementation of
enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, 2001. 7(3): p. 285-296.
p

158. Weill, P. and M. Vitale, Assessing The Health Of An Information Systems Applications
Portfolio: An Example From Process Manufacturing. MIS Quarterly, 1999. 23(4): p.
ce

601-624.
159. Meyer, M.H. and A.P. Lehnerd, The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and
Cost Leadership. 1997, New York: Free Press.
Ac

160. Katz, M. and C. Shapiro, Systems competition and network effects. Journal of Economic
Perspective, 1994. 8(2): p. 93–115.
161. Baldwin, C. and K. Clark, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. 2000, Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
162. Tractinsky, N. and S.L. Jarvenpaa, Information systems design decisions in a global
versus domestic context. MIS Quarterly 1995. 19(4): p. 28.
163. Kendall, J.E. and K.K. E., Metaphors and methodologies: Living beyond the systems
machine. MIS Quarterly, 1993. 17(2): p. 149.
164. Kendall, K.E., J.R. Buffington, and J.E. Kendall, The relationship of organizational
subcultures to DSS user satisfaction. Human Systems Management 1987. 7(1): p. 31-39.
165. Kerlinger, F.N., Foundations Of Behavioral Research. 3rd ed. 1986, Fort Worth: Holt
Rinehart and Winston. xviii, 667.

40
Page 40 of 42
166. Ray, G., W.A. Muhanna, and J.B. Barney, Information technology and the performance
of the customer service process: a resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 2005. 29(4):
p. 625-652.

t
ip
cr
us
an
M
d
p te
ce
Ac

41
Page 41 of 42
Darshana Sedera is an Associate Professor at the Information Systems School at the Queensland
University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. He received his PhD from Queensland University of
Technology in 2006 and has over 90 peer-reviewed publications. Highlights of his publications include
the Journal of the AIS (2008), Journal of Strategic Information Systems (2010), the Information &
Management Journal (2013), Communications of the AIS (2013; 2014), Australasian Journal of IT (2014;
2015) and Electronic Markets (2013). Dr. Sedera is the Chief Investigator of the Australian Research
Council grant on “Enterprise Systems Use” with Ephraim McLean of the Georgia State University, USA.

t
ip
cr
Sachithra Lokuge is an Associate Lecturer at the Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane. She
completed her PhD from the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia in 2015. She
has several years of experience in working with outsourcing organizations as a business analyst, and

us
during her tenure, she has worked with several leading companies in India, USA and UK. Her work has
been published in the Communications of the AIS (2015), International Conference on Information
Systems, Americas Conference and The Pacific Asian Conference on Information Systems.

an
Varun Grover is considered as the leading IS scholar in the IS community with an exceptional track
M
record. He has been consistently recognized as the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd most productive researcher in widely
recognized major (A* level) IS journals (e.g., MIS Quarterly, Journal of MIS, Information Systems
Research) in ten independent published studies and the 2nd most influential researcher based on
d

citation impact in a recent study. His work has been published in several top-tier outlets, including
Management Information Systems Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of the AIS and
te

Journal MIS.
p

Suprateek Sarker is considered as the leading qualitative studies scholar in the IS community with an
ce

exceptional track record. According to Google Scholar he has h-index of 28, i10-index of 48 with over
3482 citations. Dr. Sarker was awarded a “Senior Scholar” of the Association of Information Systems
(AIS).He has co-authored paper in MIS Quarterly Executive nominated for the “Best IS Publications of
Ac

the Year Awards for 2012” (i.e. adjudged best paper of the journal for 2012). He was ranked #10 and #19
based on publications in AIS basket of 6 journals (MISQ, ISR, JMIS, JAIS, EJIS, ISJ) in the IS discipline for
periods 2008-2010 (last 3 years) and 2006-2010 (last 5 years) respectively. His work has been published
in several top-tier outlets, including Management Information Systems Quarterly, Information Systems
Research, Journal of the AIS and Journal MIS.

42
Page 42 of 42