In this study, we explore the role of Chief Digital Officer (CDO) through the perspectives of CDOs in thirty-five organizations. In enacting their emerging role, CDOs must navigate the existing institutionalized context of established information technology (IT) roles and respective jurisdictional claims. We find that CDOs intentionally draw on the term “digital” to distance themselves from existing executive roles in order to gain legitimacy. CDOs as institutional entrepreneurs take a focal role in both: (1) articulating and developing the emerging “digital” logic of action and (2) enacting this digital logic through strategies such as grafting, bridging, and decoupling to navigate tensions between the existing and emerging approaches to innovation with digital technologies.
AbbottA. (1988). The System of Professions. An Essay on the Division of Expert Labor, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AgarwalR., and SambamurthyV. (2002). Principles and Models for Organizing the IT Function, MIS Quarterly Executive1 (1): 158–162.
3.
ApplegateL.M., and ElamJ.J. (1992). New Information Systems Leaders: A Changing Role in a Changing World, Management Information Systems Quarterly16 (4): 469–489.
4.
AvgerouC. (2000). IT and Organizational Change: An Institutionalist Perspective, Information Technology & People13 (4): 234–262.
5.
BacharachS.B., BambergerP., and SonnenstuhlW.J. (1996). The Organizational Transformation Process: The Micropolitics of Dissonance Reduction and the Alignment of Logics of Action, Administrative Science Quarterly41 (3): 477–506.
6.
BankerR., and KauffmanR. (1991). Reuse and Productivity in Integrated Computer-Aided Software Engineering: An Empirical Study, Management Information Systems Quarterly15 (3): 375–401.
7.
BatraD., XiaW., VanderMeerD., and DuttaK. (2010). Balancing Agile and Structured Development Approaches to Successfully Manage Large Distributed Software Projects: A Case Study from the Cruise Line Industry, Communications of the Association for Information Systems27: 1.
8.
BattilanaJ. (2006). Agency and Institutions: The Enabling Role of Individuals’ Social Position, Organization13 (5): 653–676.
9.
BattilanaJ., LecaB., and BoxenbaumE. (2009). How Actors Change Institutions: Towards a Theory of Institutional Entrepreneurship, The Academy of Management Annals3 (1): 65–107.
10.
BechkyB.A. (2003). Object Lessons: Workplace Artifacts as Representations of Occupational Jurisdiction, American Journal of Sociology109 (3): 720–752.
11.
BenjaminR.I., DickinsonC.Jr., and RockartJ.F. (1985). Changing Role of the Corporate Information Systems Officer, Management Information Systems Quarterly9 (3): 177–188.
12.
BerenteN., and YooY. (2012). Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System, Information Systems Research23 (2): 376–396.
13.
BharadwajA., El SawyO.A., PavlouP.A., and VenkatramanN. (2013). Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of Insights, Management Information Systems Quarterly37 (2): 471–482.
14.
BrooksN.G., RiemenschneiderC.K., HardgraveB.C., and O'Leary-KellyA. M. (2011). IT Professional Identity: Needs, Perceptions, and Belonging, European Journal of Information Systems20 (1): 87–102.
15.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
16.
CreswellJ.W. (2012). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (3rd ed.), Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd.
17.
CzarniawskaB., and MazzaC. (2003). Consulting as a Liminal Space, Human Relations56 (3): 267–290.
18.
Czarniawska-JoergesB., and SevónG. (1996). Translating Organizational Change, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
19.
DayG.S. (2011). Closing the Marketing Capabilities Gap, Journal of Marketing, 75 (4): 183–195.
20.
DiMaggioP. (1997). Culture and Cognition, Annual Review of Sociology23 (1): 263–287.
21.
DychéJ. (2015). 6 Responsibilities of the Chief Digital Officer, CIO magazine.
FichmanR.G., Dos SantosB.L., and ZhengZ.E. (2014). Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information System Curriculum, Management Information Systems Quarterly38 (2): 329–353.
24.
FlickU. (2009). An Introduction To Qualitative Research Sage (Vol. 4), Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
25.
FligsteinN. (1990). The Transformation of Corporate Control, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26.
FligsteinN. (1997). Social Skill and Institutional Theory, American Behavioral Scientist40 (4): 397–405.
27.
FriedlandR., and AlfordR. (1991). Bringing Society Back In: Symbols, Practices and Institutional Contradictions, Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
28.
GarudR., JainS., and KumaraswamyA. (2002). Institutional Entrepreneurship in the Sponsorship of Common Technological Standards: The Case of Sun Microsystems and Java, Academy of Management Journal45 (1): 196–214.
29.
GerringJ. (2006). Case Study Research: Principles and Practices, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
GoodhueD.L., ChenD.Q., ClaudeM., DavisA., and CochranJ.D. (2009). Addressing Business Agility Challenges with Enterprise Systems, MIS Quarterly Executive.
31.
GreenwoodR., and SuddabyR. (2006). Institutional Entrepreneurship in Mature Fields: The Big Five Accounting Firms, Academy of Management Journal49 (1): 27–48.
32.
GrossmanR. (2016). The Industries That are Being Disrupted the Most by Digital, Harvard Business Review, Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
33.
GuillemetteM., and PareG. (2012). Toward a New Theory of the Contribution of the IT Function in Organizations, Management Information Systems Quarterly36 (2): 529–551.
HardgraveB.C., DavisF.D., and RiemenschneiderC.K. (2003). Investigating Determinants of Software Developers’ Intentions to Follow Methodologies, Journal of Management Information Systems20 (1): 123–151.
36.
HardyC., and MaguireS. (2008). Institutional Entrepreneurship, in GreenwoodR., OliverC., SuddabyR., and Sahlin-AnderssonK. (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism.SAGE Publication Ltd.
37.
HenfridssonO. (2014). The Power of An Intellectual Account: Developing Stories of the Digital Age, Journal of Information Technology29 (4): 356–357.
38.
HenfridssonO., MathiassenL., and SvahnF. (2014). Managing Technological Change in the Digital Age: The Role of Architectural Frames. Journal of Information Technology29 (1): 27–43.
39.
HenfridssonO., and YooY. (2014). The Liminality of Trajectory Shifts in Institutional Entrepreneurship, Organization Science, 25 (3): 932–950.
40.
IansitiM., and LakhaniK. R. (2014). Digital Ubiquity: How Connections, Sensors, and Data are Revolutionizing Business, Harvard Business Review, Boston: Harvard Business School Publishing.
41.
JeppersonR.L. (1991). Institutions, Institutional Effects, and Institutionalism, in DiMaggioP. (ed.), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, pp. 143–163.
42.
KahlS.J., KingB.G., and LiegelG. (2016). Occupational Survival Through Field-Level Task Integration: Systems Men, Production Planners, and the Computer, 1940s-1990s, Organization Science27 (5): 1084–1107.
43.
KarlssonF., and HedströmK. (2013). Evaluating End User Development as a Requirements Engineering Technique for Communicating Across Social Worlds During Systems Development, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems25 (2): 3.
44.
KingJ.L. (2011). CIO: Concept is Over, Journal of Information Technology26 (2): 129–138.
45.
KleinH.K., and MyersM.D. (1999). A Set of Principles for Conducting and Evaluating Interpretive Field Studies in Information Systems, Management Information Systems Quarterly23 (1): 67–94.
46.
LeeJ., and BerenteN. (2012). Digital Innovation and the Division of Innovative Labor: Digital Controls in the Automotive Industry, Organization Science23 (5): 1428–1447.
47.
LeonardiP.M. (2011). Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts, Organization Science22 (2): 347–369.
48.
LevinaN., and VaastE. (2005). The Emergence of Boundary Spanning Competence in Practice: Implications for Implementation and Use of Information Systems, Management Information Systems Quarterly29 (2): 335–363.
49.
LucasH.C., AgarwalR., ClemonsE.K., El SawyO.A., and WeberB. (2013). Impactful Research on Transformational Information Technology: An Opportunity to Inform new Audiences, Management Information Systems Quarterly37 (2): 371–382.
50.
McDonaldM.P., and Rowsell-JonesA. (2012). The Digital Edge: Exploiting Information and Technology for Business Advantage, Incorporated: Gartner.
51.
MeyerJ.W., and RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Myth and Ceremony, The American Journal of Sociology83 (2): 340–363.
52.
MooreJ. (1979). A Framework for MIS Software Development Projects, Management Information Systems Quarterly3 (1): 29–38.
53.
MüllerO., JunglasI., DebortoliS., and vom BrockeJ. (2016). Using Text Analytics to Derive Customer Service Management Benefits from Unstructured Data, MIS Quarterly Executive15 (4): 243–258.
54.
NambisanS., LyytinenK., MajchrzakA., and SongM. (2017). Digital Innovation Management: Reinventing Innovation Management Research in a Digital World, Management Information Systems Quarterly41 (1): 223–238.
55.
NylénD., and HolmströmJ. (2015). Digital Innovation strategy: A Framework for Diagnosing and Improving Digital Product and Service Innovation, Business Horizons58 (1): 57–67.
56.
PacheA.C., and SantosF. (2012). Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Conflicting Institutional Logics, Academy of Management Journal56 (4): 972–1001.
57.
PeppardJ., EdwardsC., and LambertR. (2011). Clarifying the Ambiguous Role of the CIO, MIS Quarterly Executive10 (2): 115–117.
58.
PhillipsN., LawrenceT.B., and HardyC. (2004). Discourse and Institutions, Academy of Management Review29 (4): 635–652.
59.
PurvisJ. (2015). Human Resources Marketing and Recruiting: Essentials of Digital Recruiting, in ZeuchM. (ed.) Handbook of Human Resources Management, Berlin: Springer, pp. 53–71.
RossJ.W., and FeenyD.F. (1999). The Evolving Role of the CIO, in CISR WP No. 308. Center for Information Systems Research MIT.
63.
RoyleJ., and LaingA. (2014). The Digital Marketing Skills Gap: Developing a Digital Marketer Model for the Communication Industries, International Journal of Information Management34 (2): 65–73.
64.
SannerT.A., MandaT.D., and NielsenP. (2014). Grafting: Balancing Control and Cultivation in Information Infrastructure Innovation, Journal of the Association for Information Systems15 (4): 220–243.
65.
SawyaradajA., SawyO.E., PavlouP., and VenkatramanN. (2013). Digital Business Strategy: Toward a Next Generation of Insights, Management Information Systems Quarterly37 (2): 471–482.
66.
SeidelS., and UrquhartC. (2013). On Emergence and Forcing in Information Systems Grounded Theory Studies: The Case of Strauss and Corbin, Journal of Information Technology28 (3): 237–260.
67.
SeoM.-G., and CreedD.W.E. (2002). Institutional Contadictions, Praxis, and Institutional Change: A Dialectical Perspective, Academy of Management Review27 (2): 222–247.
68.
SojerM., and HenkelJ. (2010). Code Reuse in Open Source Software Development: Quantitative Evidence, Drivers, and Impediments, Journal of the Association for Information Systems11 (12): 868–901.
69.
StarS.L., and RuhlederK. (1996). Steps Toward an Ecology of Infrastructure: Design and Access for Large Information Spaces, Information Systems Research7 (1): 111–134.
70.
SvahnF., MathiassenL., and LindgrenR. (2017). Embracing Digital Innovation in Incumbent Firms: How Volvo Cars Managed Competing Concerns, Management Information Systems Quarterly41 (1): 239–253.
71.
TambeP. (2014). Big Data Investment, Skills, and Firm Value, Management Science60 (6): 1452–1469.
72.
TanriverdiH., RaiA., and VenkatramanN. (2010). Research Commentary—Reframing the Dominant Quests of Information Systems Strategy Research for Complex Adaptive Business Systems, Information Systems Research21 (4): 822–834.
73.
ThorntonP.H., OcasioW., and LounsburyM. (2012). The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure, and Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
74.
TilsonD., LyytinenK., and SørensenC. (2010). Research Commentary—Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda, Information Systems Research21 (4): 748–759.
75.
TiwanaA., KonsynskiB., and BushA.A. (2010). Research Commentary—Platform Evolution: Coevolution of Platform Architecture, Governance, and Environmental Dynamics, Information Systems Research21 (4): 675–687.
76.
ToddP.A., McKeenJ.D., and GallupeR. B. (1995). The Evolution of IS Job Skills: A Content Analysis of IS Job Advertisements from 1970 to 1990, Management Information Systems Quarterly19 (1): 1–27.
77.
TumbasS., SchmiedelT., and vom BrockeJ. (2015). Characterizing Multiple Institutional Logics for Innovation with Digital Technologies, in 48th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Kauai, Hawaii, pp. 4151–4160.
78.
UrquhartC. (2013). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide, London: Sage.
79.
vom BrockeJ. (2016). Interview with Martin Petry on ‘Digital Innovation for the Networked Society, Business & Information Systems Engineering58 (3): 239–241.
80.
WeberK., and DacinM.T. (2011). The Cultural Construction of Organizational Life: Introduction to the Special Issue, Organization Science22 (2): 287–298.
81.
WeillP., and WoernerL.S. (2016). Top-Performing CIOs in the Digital Era, Cambridge: Center for Information Systems Research.
82.
YooY., HenfridssonO., and LyytinenK. (2010). Research Commentary-The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research, Information Systems Research21 (4): 724–735.
83.
ZmudR.W. (1980). Management of Large Software Development Efforts, Management Information Systems Quarterly4 (2): 45–55.
