Abstract
This paper presents an action case study of the process by which the Swedish computer game developer Daydream Software planned, developed, and implemented the business model for its new online game, Clusterball. In particular, the paper explores Daydream’s choice between a radical business model and a conservative one for the game. Building on forecasts that “casual garners” such as academics, business people, middle-agedpeople, and women would become important for the future growth of the electronic games software industry, Daydream first pursued a radical business model, viewing the game as an “entertainment portal.” However, in light of the perceived need of results and release, a more conservative business model, aimed at already experienced garners, was implemented. In view of this critical choice, there were many different assumptions, beliefs, and opinions about customers, the appropriate choice of technology, and the nature of gaming in general among the staff and management at Daydream. The findings of this paper illustrate the tension between new business models and pre-existing social and technical conditions, and the study provides useful insights into the broader theme of balancing radical and incremental change in developing business-to-consumer commerce.
The original version of this chapter was revised: The copyright line was incorrect. This has been corrected. The Erratum to this chapter is available at DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_33
Chapter PDF
References
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., and McLain-Smith, D. Action Science, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.
Argyris, C., and Schön, D. A. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice, Reading, M: Addison-Wesley, 1996.
Benbasat, I., and Zmud, R. W. “Empirical Research in Information Systems: The Practice of Relevance, MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 3–16.
Bernstein, R. J. Beyond Objectivism and Relativism: Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1983.
Braa, K., and Vidgen, R. “Interpretation, Intervention and Reduction in the Organizational Laboratory: A Framework for In-context Information Systems Research,” Accounting, Management and Information Technologies (9), 1999, pp. 25–47.
Brunsson, N. The Irrational Organization, New York: Wiley, 1985.
Castells, M. The Rise of the Network Society (Volume 1), Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1996.
Ciborra, C. “Introduction: What Does Groupware Mean for the Organizations Hosting It?”Groupware and Teamwork, New York: John Wiley Sons, 1996, pp. 1–19.
Ciborra, C. U. “Notes on Improvisation and Time in Organizations,” Accounting, Management,and Information Technologies (9), 1999, pp. 77–94.
Datamonitor. “Electronic Games: Booming Prospects for the New Millennium,” Datamonitor, 1999.
Dewar, R. D., and Dutton, J. E. “The Adoption of Radical and Incremental Changes: An Empirical Analysis,” Management Science (32: 11 ), 1986, pp. 1422–1433.
DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (eds.). The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1991.
Ettlie, J., Bridges, W., and O’Keefe, R. D. “Organization Strategy and Structural Differences for Radical versus Incremental Innovation,” Management Science (30:6), 1984, pp. 682–695.
Evans, P., and Wurster, T. S. Blown to Bits: How the New Economics of Information Transforms Strategy, Boston: Harvard Business School, 2000.
Hammer, M. “Reengineering Work: Don’t Automate, Obliterate,” Harvard Business Review, July/August 1990, pp. 104–112.
Hanseth, O. “The Economics of Standards,” in From Control to Drift: The Dynamics of Corporate Information Infrastructures, C. Ciborra, K. Braa, A. Cordella, B. Dahlbom, A. Failla, O. Hanseth, V. Hespa, J. Ljungberg, E. Monteiro, and K. A. Simon (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, pp. 56–70.
Henfridsson, O., and Söderholm, A. `Barriers to Learning: On Organizational Defenses and Vicious Circles in Technological Adaptation,“ Accounting, Management, and Information Technologies (10:1), 2000, pp. 33–51.
Hughes, T. P. Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society, 1880–1930, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1983.
Kelly, K. New Rules for the New Economy, London: Fourth Estate, 1998.
Klein, H. K., and Myers, M. D. “A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems,” MIS Quarterly (23:1), 1999, pp. 67–93.
Ljungberg, J. “Open Source Movements as a Model for Organizing,” European Journal of Information Systems (9: 3 ), 2000, pp. 208–216.
March, J. G., and Olsen, J. P. Rediscovering Institutions, New York: The Free Press, 1989.
Orlikowski, W. J. “CASE Tools as Organizational Change: Investigating Incremental and Radical Changes in Systems Development,” MIS Quarterly (17: 3 ), 1993.
Orlikowski, W. J. “Improvising Organizational Transformation Over Time: A Situated Change Perspective,” Information Systems Research (7:1), 1996, pp. 63–92.
Orlikowski, W. J. “The Truth is Not Out There: An Enacted View of the ”Digital Economy,“ presentation at ”Understanding the Digital Economy: Data, Tools, and Research,“ Department of Commerce in Washington, DC, May 25–26, 1999 (http://mitpress.mit.edu/ude.html, May 10, 2000).
Orlikowski, W. J., and Baroudi, J. J. “Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions,” Information Systems Research (2: 1 ), 1991, pp. 128.
Peppers, D., and Rogers, M. Enterprise One-to-One: Tools for Building Unbreakable Customer Relationships in the Interactive Age, London: Piatkus Books, 1997.
Raymond, E. S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, Cambridge, MA: O’Reilly, 1999.
Scott, W. R., and Christensen, R. (eds.). The Institutional Construction of Organizations: International and Longitudinal Studies, London: Sage, 1995.
Shapiro, C., and Varian, H. R. Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1999.
Susman, G., and Evered, R. “An Assessment of the Scientific Merits of Action Research,” Administrative Science Quarterly (23), 1978, pp. 582–603.
Walsham, G. “The Emergence of Interpretivism in IS Research,” Information Systems Research (6: 4 ), 1995a, pp. 376–394.
Walsham, G. “Interpretive Case Studies in IS Research: Nature and Method,” European Journal of Information Systems (4), 1995b, pp. 74–81.
Woolgar S. “Configuring the User: The Case of Usability Trials,” in A Sociology of Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and Domination, J. Law (ed.), London: Routledge, 1991, pp. 57–99.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Henfridsson, O., Holmström, H., Hanseth, O. (2001). Better Safe Than Sorry? In Search of an Internet Business Model in Online Entertainment. In: Russo, N.L., Fitzgerald, B., DeGross, J.I. (eds) Realigning Research and Practice in Information Systems Development. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing, vol 66. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35489-7_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-6366-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-35489-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive