Digital Technology and Structure

  • Stefan SeidelEmail author


Digital technologies are deeply embedded in the social and material world as they are penetrating into products, services, and processes. The confluence of physical and digital materiality, their rapid development, and the emergence of combinatorial innovation pose new challenges for the Information Systems (IS) field. Inspired by Jörg Becker’s famous line “strukturieren, strukturieren, strukturieren” (“to structure, to structure, to structure”), which has influenced many generations of IS students in Münster, in this short essay I discuss how “structure” (the noun) and “to structure” (the verb) are reflected in our research on digital technologies and how they can help us identify some of the challenges involved. Specifically, I discuss research challenges related to (a) the structure of digital technologies, (b) the relationship between digital technologies and structure, and (c) the structures that emerge through the design of digital technologies.


Structure Digital technology Information systems research 


  1. Arthur, W. B. (2009). The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, J., Rosemann, M., & von Uthmann, C. (2000). Guidelines of business process modeling. In W. van der Aalst, J. Desel, & A. Oberweis (Eds.), Business Process Management. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1806, pp. 30–49). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Becker, J., & Schütte, R. (2004). Handelsinformationssysteme. mi-Wirtschaftsbuch.Google Scholar
  4. Becker, J., vom Brocke, J., Heddier, M., & Seidel, S. (2015). In search of information systems (Grand) challenges. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(6), 337–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berente, N., & Yoo, Y. (2012). Institutional contradictions and loose coupling: Postimplementation of NASA’s enterprise information system. Information Systems Research, 23(2), 376–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandra, L., Seidel, S., & Gregor, S. (2015). Prescriptive knowledge in IS research: Conceptualizing design principles in terms of materiality, action, and boundary cconditions. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 4039–4048).Google Scholar
  7. Faulkner, P., & Runde, J. (2011). The social, the material, and the ontology of non-material technological objects. European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS) Colloquium.Google Scholar
  8. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of theory of structuration. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  9. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregor, S., & Jones, D. (2007). The anatomy of a design theory. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(5), 313–335.Google Scholar
  11. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New state of play in information systems research: The push to the edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hultin, L., & Mähring, M. (2014). Visualizing institutional logics in sociomaterial practices. Information and Organization, 24(3), 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS Quarterly, 35(1), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Leonardi, P. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? In P. M. Leonardi, B. A. Nardi, & J. Kallinikos (Eds.), Materiality and organizing: Social interaction in a technological world (pp. 25–48). Oxford (GB): Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Leonardi, P. M., Nardi, B. A., & Kallinikos, J. (2012). Materiality and organizing: social interaction in a technological world. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Markus, M. L., & Silver, M. S. (2008). A foundation for the study of IT effects: A new look at DeSanctis and Poole’s concepts of structural features and spirit. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 9(10/11), 609–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Österle, H., Becker, J., Frank, U., Hess, T., Karagiannis, D., Krcmar, H., … Sinz, E. J. (2011). Memorandum on design-oriented information systems research. European Journal of Information Systems, 20(1), 7–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Oxford Dictionary. (2018). Structure. Retrieved from
  20. Porter, M. E., & Heppelmann, J. E. (2014). How smart, connected products are transforming competition. Harvard Business Review, 92(11), 64–88.Google Scholar
  21. Seidel, S., & Berente, N. (2013). Toward “Third Wave” information systems research: Linking sociomaterial practice with broader institutional logics. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2013). Milan (IT).Google Scholar
  22. Seidel, S., & Watson, R. T. (2014). Improving the societal effectiveness of IS research: The pursuit of prescriptive accuracy. Available at SSRN 2477917.Google Scholar
  23. Seidel, S., Berente, N., Lindberg, A., Lyytinen, K., & Nickerson, J. V. (2019). Communications of the ACM, 62(1),50–57.Google Scholar
  24. Strong, D. M., Johnson, S. A., Tulu, B., Trudel, J., Volkoff, O., Pelletier, L. R., … Garber, L. (2014). A theory of organization-EHR affordance actualization. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 15(2), 53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tiwana, A., Konsynski, B., & Bush, A. A. (2010). Research commentary—platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance, and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 675–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical realism and affordances: Theorizing IT-associated organizational change processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Walls, J. G., Widmeyer, G. R., & El Sawy, O. A. (1992). Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS. Information Systems Research, 3(1), 36–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Watson, R., & Seidel, S. (2018). Three strategies for information systems research in the presence of an efficient knowledge market. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS 2018), San Francisco (USA).Google Scholar
  29. Yoo, Y., Boland, R. J., Lyytinen, K., & Majchrzak, A. (2012). Organizing for innovation in the digitized world. Organization Science, 23(5), 1398–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LiechtensteinVaduzLiechtenstein

Personalised recommendations