In response to their growing importance, digital infrastructures (DIs) are increasingly subject to governmental regulation due to concerns over the downside risks posed by digital technologies to individuals and society. There is a general paucity of studies that address the impact of regulations on DI innovation. In addition, existing research presents seemingly contradictory findings on regulations governing digital technologies as both enabling and inhibiting innovation. This paper, therefore, elaborates on how different types of regulation impact various forms of DI innovation. We draw on modular systems theory to enrich extant conceptualisations of DIs and develop a related conceptual model that demonstrates the paths by which two types of DI regulation influence DI architectural modularity, which is proposed as a mediating mechanism that influences DI innovation. Our model makes a theoretical contribution through an in-depth explanation of the relationship between regulation and DI innovation by articulating and illustrating the effects of regulatory provisions and thereby extends the extant DI literature. In terms of practical implications, our model can help stakeholders both create DI regulation and respond to regulatory provisions.
AanestadMGrisotMHansethO, et al. (2017). Information infrastructures for eHealth. In: Hanseth., AanestadMVassilakopoulouP, eds. Information Infrastructures within European Health Care. Cham, Switzerland: Springer
2.
AanestadMJensenTB (2011) Building nation-wide information infrastructures in healthcare through modular implementation strategies. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems20(2): 161–176.
3.
AgarwalRTiwanaA (2015) Editorial—evolvable systems: through the looking glass of IS. Information Systems Research26(3): 473–479.
4.
BaldwinCClarkK (2000) Design Rules. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.
5.
BaldwinCVon HippelE (2011) Modeling a paradigm shift: from producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation. Organization Science22(6): 1399–1417.
6.
BaldwinCYClarkKB (2006) Modularity in the design of complex engineering systems. In: BrahaADMinaiABar-YamY, eds. Complex engineered systems. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
7.
BaldwinCYWoodardCJ (2009) The architecture of platforms: a unified view. In: GawerA, ed. Platforms, markets and innovation. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
8.
BauerJMKniepsG (2018) Complementary innovation and network neutrality. Telecommunications Policy42(2): 172–183.
9.
BazarhanovaAYli-HuumoJSmolanderK (2020) From platform dominance to weakened ownership: how external regulation changed Finnish e-identification. Electronic Markets30(3): 525–538.
10.
BoninaCEatonB (2020) Cultivating open government data platform ecosystems through governance: lessons from Buenos Aires, Mexico City and Montevideo. Government Information Quarterly37(3): 101479.
11.
BoyerR (1998) Technical change and the role of ‘regulation. In: DosiCGNelsonFRSoeteL, eds. Technical Change and Economic Theory. London, UK: Pinter Publishers.
12.
BraaJHansethOHeywoodA, et al. (2007) Developing health information systems in developing countries: the flexible standards strategy. Mis Quarterly31(2): 381–402.
13.
ButlerTO’BrienL (2019) Understanding RegTech for digital regulatory compliance. In: Disrupting Finance. Cham: Palgrave Pivot.
14.
BygstadBØvrelidE (2020) Architectural alignment of process innovation and digital infrastructure in a high-tech hospital. European Journal of Information Systems29(3): 220–237.
15.
CapelloRLenziC (2021) 4.0 Technologies and the rise of new islands of innovation in European regions. Regional Studies55(10–11): 1724–1737.
16.
CiborraCHansethO (2000) Introduction: from control to drift. In: CiborraC., ed. From Control to Drift. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
17.
CiborraCU (2009) Interpreting e-government and development: efficiency, transparency or governance at a distance? In: AvgerouGCLanzaraFWillcocksLP, eds. Bricolage, Care and Information. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.
18.
ClarkKB (1985) The interaction of design hierarchies and market concepts in technological evolution. Research Policy14(5): 235–251.
19.
ContiniF (2014) Let agency circulate: architectures and strategies for Pan-European e-Justice. In: ContiniFLanzaraGF, eds. The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
20.
ContiniFLanzaraGF (2014a) The challenge of interoperability and complexity in European Civil Proceedings Online. In: ContiniFLanzaraGF, eds. The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. London, UK: Springer.
21.
ContiniFLanzaraGF (2014b) The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice: Interoperability and Infrastructures for European Transborder Judicial Proceedings. London, UK: Springer.
22.
ContiniFMohrR (2014) How the Law can make it simple: easing the circulation of agency in e-Justice. In: ContiniFLanzaraGF, eds. The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. London, UK: Springer, 53–79.
23.
DamsgaardJLyytinenK (1998a) Contours of diffusion of electronic data interchange in Finland: overcoming technological barriers and collaborating to make it happen. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems7(4): 275–297.
24.
DamsgaardJLyytinenK (1998b) Governmental intervention in the diffusion of EDI. In: AndersenKV, ed. EDI and Data Networking in the Public Sector. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 13–41.
25.
EatonBElaluf-CalderwoodSSorensenC, et al. (2015) Distributed tuning of boundary resources: the case of Apple’s iOS service system. MIS Quarterly39(1): 217–243.
26.
EatonBHedmanJMedagliaR (2018) Three different ways to skin a cat: financialization in the emergence of national e-ID solutions. Journal of Information Technology33(1): 70–83.
27.
EBA (2019) European Banking Authority Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management. France: European Banking Authority.
28.
ECB (2019) European Central Bank Cyber Resilience Oversight Expectations for Financial Market Infrastructures. Frankfurt, Germany: European Central Bank.
29.
European Commission (2015a) Directive (EU) 2015/2366 on Payment Services in the Internal Market. Brussels; European Commission
30.
European Commission (2015b) ETSI TS 119 495. Electronic Signatures and Infrastructures (ESI); Sector Specific Requirements; Qualified Certificate Profiles and TSP Policy Requirements under the payment services Directive. Brussels; European Commission
31.
European Commission (2020) Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on Digital Operational Resilience for the Financial Sector and Amending Regulations (EC) No 1060/2009. (EU) No 648/2012, (EU) No 600/2014 and (EU) No 909/2014. Brussels; European Commission
32.
FaulhaberGRSingerHJUrschelAH (2017) The curious absence of economic analysis at the Federal Communications Commission: an agency in search of a mission. International Journal of Communication11: 1214–1233.
33.
FerrareT (2019) The 5G Effect: New Threats, New Defense, and Mounting Political Tension from the Next Era of Mobile Networks. Utica, NY: Utica College.
34.
FinckM (2018) Digital co-regulation: designing a supranational legal framework for the platform economy. European Law Review43(1): 47–68.
35.
FinkLShaoJLichtensteinY, et al. (2020) The ownership of digital infrastructure: exploring the deployment of software libraries in a digital innovation cluster. Journal of Information Technology35(3): 251–269.
36.
FlewTWildingD (2021) The turn to regulation in digital communication: the ACCC’s digital platforms inquiry and Australian media policy. Media Culture & Society43(1): 48–65.
37.
FordCL (2008) New Governance, compliance, and principles‐based securities regulation. American Business Law Journal45(1): 1–60.
38.
GheorgheAVMaseraMVriesLD, et al. (2007) Critical infrastructures: the need for international risk governance. International Journal of Critical Infrastructures3(1–2): 3–19.
39.
GilsonLLGoldbergCB (2015) Editors’ comment: So, what is a conceptual paper?Group & Organization Management40(2): 127–130.
40.
GrisotMHansethOThorsengAA (2014) Innovation of, in, on infrastructures: articulating the role of architecture in information infrastructure evolution. Journal of the Association for Information Systems15(4): 197–219.
41.
GunninghamN (2002) Beyond compliance: next generation environmental regulation. In: JohnstoneRSarreR, eds. Regulatory Institutions Network, ANU, paper presented at the Current Issues in Regulation: Enforcement and Compliance Conference. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology, 49–60.
42.
HallinanA (2021) Operational resilience in the financial sector: evolution and opportunity. Journal of Financial Transformation53: 108–115.
43.
HansethOLyytinenK (2010) Design theory for dynamic complexity in information infrastructures: the case of building internet. Journal of Information Technology25(1): 1–19.
44.
HansethOModolJR (2021) The dynamics of architecture-governance configurations: an assemblage theory approach. Journal of the Association for Information Systems22(1): 5.
45.
HansethOMonteiroE (1997) Inscribing behaviour in information infrastructure standards. Accounting, management and information technologies7(4): 183–211.
46.
HansethOMonteiroEHatlingM (1996) Developing information infrastructure: the tension between standardization and flexibility. Science, Technology, & Human Values21(4): 407–426.
47.
HendersonRMClarkKB (1990) Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterl35(1): 9–30.
48.
HenfridssonOBygstadB (2013) The generative mechanisms of digital infrastructure evolution. MIS quarterl37(3): 907–931.
49.
HenriksenHZDamsgaardJ (2007) Dawn of E-Government–An institutional analysis of seven initiatives and their impact. Journal of Information Technology22(1): 13–23.
50.
HullandJ (2020) Conceptual review papers: revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Review10(1): 27–35.
51.
JaakkolaE (2020) Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS review10(1): 18–26.
52.
JCESA (2019) Joint Committee European Supervisory Authorities Joint Advice of the European Supervisory Authorities to the European Commission on the need for legislative improvements relating to ICT risk management requirements in the EU financial sector. Ranson, WV: JCESA.
53.
JensenTVatrapuRBjørn‐AndersenN, et al. (2018) Avocados crossing borders: the problem of runaway objects and the solution of a shipping information pipeline for improving international trade. Information Systems Journal28(2): 408–438.
54.
KallinikosJ (2009) The regulative regime of technology. In: ContiniFLanzaraGF, eds. ICT and Innovation in the Public Sector. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 66–87.
55.
KhemaniRSShapiroDM (1993) Glossary of Industrial Organisation Economics and Competition Law. Paris, France: OECD.
56.
KlingRIaconoS (1984) Computing as an occasion for social control. Journal of Social Issues40(3): 77–96.
57.
KnolATanY-H (2018) The cultivation of information infrastructures for international trade: stakeholder challenges and engagement reasons. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research13(1): 106–117.
58.
KohliRMelvilleNP (2019) Digital innovation: a review and synthesis. Information Systems Journal29(1): 200–223.
59.
KoutsikouriDLindgrenRHenfridssonO, et al. (2018) Extending digital infrastructures: a typology of growth tactics. Journal of the Association for Information Systems19(10): 1001–1019.
60.
KrämerJWiewiorraL (2012) Network neutrality and congestion sensitive content providers: Implications for content variety, broadband investment, and regulation. Information Systems Research23(4): 1303–1321.
61.
LanzaraGF (2014) The circulation of agency in judicial proceedings: designing for interoperability and complexity. In: ContiniF.LanzaraG. F., eds. The Circulation of Agency in E-Justice. London, UK: Springer, 3–32.
62.
LyytinenKDamsgaardJ (2011) Inter-organizational information systems adoption–a configuration analysis approach. European journal of information systems20(5): 496–509.
63.
MayP (2003) Performance‐based regulation and regulatory regimes: the saga of leaky buildings. Law & Policy25(4): 381–401.
64.
MonteroJFingerM (2021) The Rise of the New Network Industries: Regulating Digital Platforms. London, UK: Routledge.
65.
NambisanSLyytinenKMajchrzakA, et al. (2017) Digital innovation management: reinventing innovation management research in a digital world. MIS quarterly41(1): 223–238.
66.
NapieralskiA (2019) Collecting data at EU smart Borders: data protection challenges of the new entry/exit system. Zeitschrift für kritik - recht - gesellschaft1: 199–209.
67.
OgusA (2008) Command and control regulation. In: CanePConaghanJ, eds. The New Oxford Companion to Law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
68.
ØvrelidEBygstadB (2019) The role of discourse in transforming digital infrastructures. Journal of Information Technology34(3): 221–242.
69.
PaechP (2019) Thirty recommendations on regulation, innovation and finance. In: Expert Group on Regulatory Obstaclesto Financial Innovation (ROFIEG), Final Report to the European Commission. Brussels: European Commission.
70.
ParnasDL (1972) On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Communications of the ACM15(12): 1053–1058.
71.
PayneAFrowPEggertA (2017) The customer value proposition: evolution, development, and application in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science45(4): 467–489.
72.
PipekVWulfV (2009) Infrastructuring: toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems10(5): 447–473.
73.
PlantinJ-CLagozeCEdwardsPN, et al. (2018) Infrastructure studies meet platform studies in the age of Google and Facebook. New Media & Society20(1): 293–310.
74.
Rodon ModolJEatonB (2021) Digital infrastructure evolution as generative entrenchment: The formation of a core-periphery structure. Journal of Information Technology36: 342–364. Published online in advance.
75.
RodonJSilvaL (2015) Exploring the formation of a healthcare information infrastructure: hierarchy or Meshwork?Journal of the Association for Information Systems16(5): 394–417.
76.
RollandKHMathiassenLRaiA (2018) Managing digital platforms in user organizations: the interactions between digital options and digital debt. Information Systems Research29(2): 419–443.
77.
RollandKHMonteiroE (2002) Balancing the local and the global in infrastructural information systems. The Information Society18(2): 87–100.
78.
RowellAvan ZebenJ (2021) Regulatory Instruments. In: RowellAvan ZebenJ, eds. A Guide to US Environmental Law. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 59–76.
79.
RukanovaBHenningssonSZinner HenriksenH, et al. (2018) Digital trade infrastructures: a framework for analysis. Complex Systems Informatics and Modeling Quarterly. 2018(14): 1–21.
80.
RukanovaBVan StijnEHenriksenHZ, et al. (2009) Understanding the influence of multiple levels of governments on the development of inter-organizational systems. European Journal of Information Systems18(5): 387–408.
81.
SanchezRMahoneyJT (1996) Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic management journal17(S2): 63–76.
82.
SarkerSHenningssonSJensenT, et al. (2021) The use of blockchain as a resource for combating corruption in global shipping: an interpretive case study. Journal of Management Information Systems38(2): 338–373.
83.
SchillingMA (2000) Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Academy of management review25(2): 312–334.
84.
ShadikhodjaevS (2021) Technological neutrality and regulation of digital trade: how far can we go?European Journal of International Law32(4): 1221–1247.
85.
SimonHA (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
86.
SinclairD (1997) Self‐regulation versus command and control? Beyond false dichotomies. Law & Policy19(4): 529–559.
87.
SindikA (2021) Administrative law and the federal communications commission. Communication Law and Policy26(3): 312–335.
TanM (1998) Plugging into the wired world: perspectives from Singapore. Information Communication & Society1(3): 217–245.
90.
TekirG (2020) Huawei, 5G network and digital geopolitics. International Journal of Politics and Security2(4): 113–135.
91.
Tikkinen-PiriCRohunenAMarkkulaJ (2018) EU general data protection regulation: changes and implications for personal data collecting companies. Computer Law & Security Review34(1): 134–153.
92.
TilsonDLyytinenKSørensenC (2010) Research commentary—digital infrastructures: the missing IS research agenda. Information systems research21(4): 748–759.
93.
TriviñoRFranco-CrespoAOchoa-UrregoL (2021) Network neutrality: the case of five south American countries. In: CruzMBotto-TobarHDíaz CadenaA, eds. Artificial Intelligence, Computer and Software Engineering Advances: Proceedings of the CIT 2020 Volume 1. Ecuador: Springer Quito, 150–161.
94.
UlrichK (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy24(3): 419–440.
95.
WangP (2021) Connecting the parts with the whole: toward an information ecology theory of digital innovation ecosystems. MIS Quarterly45(1): 397–422.
96.
WienerJB (2004) The regulation of technology, and the technology of regulation. Technology in Society26(2–3): 483–500.
97.
YooYHenfridssonOLyytinenK (2010) Research commentary—the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Information systems research21(4): 724–735.
98.
ZachariadisMOzcanP (2017) The API Economy and Digital Transformation in Financial Services: The Case of Open Banking. Belgium: SWIFT Institute Working. Paper No. 2016-001.
99.
ZorinaADuttonWH (2021) Theorizing actor interactions shaping innovation in digital infrastructures: the case of residential internet development in Belarus. Organization Science32(1): 156–180.
100.
ZuboffS (1988) In the Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. New York City, NY: Basic Books, Inc.
101.
ZuboffS (2019) The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power. London, UK: Profile books.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
