Podcasts about information systems research

Is there a formula for doing and publishing research on digital phenomena? And if so, it is the same formula as the scripts for IS papers of the past, or has it changed? We discuss how our field has historically worked with reference theories from other disciplines and how we have moved beyond this one way of doing and publishing research to a variety of ways in which we can build theory about digital phenomena. We suggest that reference theories should not be viewed as immutable sacred cows but rather as a tentative basis of received wisdom, which we must problematize and adapt to move knowledge forward. Doing so requires us to find puzzles in the real world that point to things being different instead of new. Episode reading list Truex, D. P., Holmström, J., & Keil, M. (2006). Theorizing in Information Systems Research: A Reflexive Analysis of the Adaptation of Theory in Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 7(12), 797-821. Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2015). New State of Play in Information Systems Research: The Push to the Edges. MIS Quarterly, 39(2), 271-296. Ba, S., & Pavlou, P. A. (2002). Evidence of the Effect of Trust Building Technology in Electronic Markets: Price Premiums and Buyer Behavior. MIS Quarterly, 26(3), 243-268. Jiang, L., Hou, J., Ma, X., & Pavlou, P. A. (2025). Punished for Success? A Natural Experiment of Displaying Clinical Hospital Quality on Review Platforms. Information Systems Research, . Grover, V., & Lyytinen, K. (2023). The Pursuit of Innovative Theory in the Digital Age. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 45-59. Baiyere, A., Berente, N., & Avital, M. (2023). On Digital Theorizing, Clickbait Research, and the Cumulative Tradition. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 67-73. Grisold, T., Kremser, W., Mendling, J., Recker, J., vom Brocke, J., & Wurm, B. (2023). Keeping Pace with the Digital Age: Envisioning Information Systems Research as a Platform. Journal of Information Technology, 38(1), 60-66. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Dell'Acqua, F., McFowland, E., Mollick, E. R., Lifshitz-Assaf, H., Kellogg, K., Rajendran, S., Krayer, L., Candelon, F., & Lakhani, K. R. (2023). Navigating the Jagged Technological Frontier: Field Experimental Evidence of the Effects of AI on Knowledge Worker Productivity and Quality. Harvard Business School Technology & Operations Mgt. Unit Working Paper 24-013. Fisher, G., Mayer, K. J., & Morris, S. (2021). From the Editors—Phenomenon-Based Theorizing. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 631-639. Gregory, R. W., & Henfridsson, O. (2021). Bridging Art and Science: Phenomenon-Driven Theorizing. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 22(6), 1509-1523. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press. Salge, C. A. D. L., & Karahanna, E. (2018). Protesting Corruption on Twitter: Is It a Bot or Is It a Person. Academy of Management Discoveries, 4(1), 32-49. Abramova, O., Recker, J., Schemm, U., & Barwitzki, L.-D. (2025). Inclusion of Autistic IT Workforce in Action: An Auticon Approach. Information Systems Journal, . Grisold, T., Seidel, S., Heck, M., & Berente, N. (2024). Digital Surveillance in Organizations. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 66(3), 401-410. Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., ... Wright, R. T. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” Multidisciplinary Perspectives on Opportunities, Challenges and Implications of Generative Conversational AI for Research, Practice and Policy. International Journal of Information Management, 71, 102642. 

Our field of information systems is in the fortunate position that we have our own independent and self-governed association (we have more than one, in fact), which publishes one of the true top journals of our field, which means that the journal is entirely in our control as members. But as , the current Editor-in-Chief of the argues, this privileged position also demands from us collective awareness, vigilance, and responsibility. We discuss some of the tensions that exist between journals and publishers and what it means for authors, reviewers, and editors to be mindful about journals and publishing platforms. We also talk about several of the key hallmark features of the Journal of the Association for Information Systems and how to make the best use of them when you submit your best work to the journal. Episode reading list Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., Fuller, M. A., & Schneider, C. (2006). Research Standards for Promotion and Tenure in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 1-12. Adjerid, I., Angst, C. M., Devaraj, S., & Berente, N. (2023). Does Analytics Help Resolve Equivocality in the Healthcare Context? Contrasting Effects of Analyzability and Differentiation. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(3), 882-911. Tarafdar, M., Shan, G., Thatcher, J. B., & Gupta, A. (2022). Intellectual Diversity in IS Research: Discipline-Based Conceptualization and an Illustration from Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 33(4), 1490-1510. JAIS Workshop: Creating Policy Impact through Information Systems Research. LinkedIn Post by Monideepa Tarafdar, . King, J. L., & Kraemer, K. L. (2019). Policy: An Information Systems Frontier. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 842-847. McCarthy, C. (1985). Blood Meridian. Random House. Majchrzak, A., and Markus, M. L. (2013). Methods for Policy Research: Taking Socially Responsible Action (2nd edition). Sage. Yoo, Y. (2024) Evolving Epistemic Infrastructure: The Role of Scientific Journals in the Age of Generative AI. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 25(1), 137-144.

Estudo publicado no Information Systems Research concluiu que a beleza garante melhorespostos de trabalhos e melhores ordenados. No caso da "Beleza Premium" as vantagens são ainda maiores.

We explored the challenges and potential solutions for building trust, inclusion, and collaboration in tech-hybrid or remote teams. A focus on how technology supports transparent communication and fosters connections in tech-enabled environments related to socio-technical teams. (Tech-hybrid teams blend humans and robotics, AI, or other modern technology as team members.)  In this Episode: Dr. Emi Baressi, Tom Bradshaw, special guests Keith and Daniel Edwards from the Houston RobotLab, Dr. Matt Lampe, Alexander Abney-King, Nic Krueger, Rich Cruz, Dr. Martha Grajdek    Visit us https://www.seboc.com/ Follow us on LinkedIn: https://bit.ly/sebocLI Join an open-mic event: https://www.seboc.com/events   References: Arslan, A., Cooper, C., Khan, Z., Golgeci, I., & Ali, I. (2022). Artificial intelligence and human workers interaction at team level: a conceptual assessment of the challenges and potential HRM strategies. International Journal of Manpower, 43(1), 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2021-0052   Berretta, S., Tausch, A., Ontrup, G., Gilles, B., Peifer, C., & Kluge, A. (2023). Defining human-AI teaming the human-centered way: A scoping review and network analysis. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1250725–1250725. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1250725 Belanger, F., Collins, R. W., & Cheney, P. H. (2001). Technology Requirements and Work Group Communication for Telecommuters. Information Systems Research, 12(2), 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.12.2.155.9695   Belling, S. (2021). PsychoWorkplacegenerationslogy of Remote Teams: Trust, People, and Connections. In Remotely Possible (pp. 59–73). Apress. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4842-7008-0_5   Boccoli, G., Gastaldi, L., & Corso, M. (2024). Transformational leadership and work engagement in remote work settings: The moderating role of the supervisor's digital communication skills. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 45(7), 1240–1257. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-09-2023-0490   Brock, J. K.-U., & von Wangenheim, F. (2019). Demystifying AI: What Digital Transformation Leaders Can Teach You about Realistic Artificial Intelligence. California Management Review, 61(4), 110–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504219865226   Chin, J. H., Haring, K. S., & Kim, P. (2023). Understanding the neural mechanisms of empathy toward robots to shape future applications. Frontiers in neurorobotics, 17, 1145989. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbot.2023.1145989   Ezer, N., Bruni, S., Cai, Y., Hepenstal, S. J., Miller, C. A., & Schmorrow, D. D. (2019). Trust Engineering for Human-AI Teams. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, 63(1), 322–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/1071181319631264   Flathmann, C., Schelble, B. G., Rosopa, P. J., McNeese, N. J., Mallick, R., & Madathil, K. C. (2023). Examining the impact of varying levels of AI teammate influence on human-AI teams. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 177, 103061-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103061   Fuchs, A., Passarella, A., & Conti, M. (2024). Optimizing Delegation in Collaborative Human-AI Hybrid Teams. ACM Transactions on Autonomous and Adaptive Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/3687130   Guznov, S., Lyons, J., Pfahler, M., Heironimus, A., Woolley, M., Friedman, J., & Neimeier, A. (2020). Robot Transparency and Team Orientation Effects on Human-Robot Teaming. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 36(7), 650–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1676519   Hagemann, V., Rieth, M., Suresh, A., & Kirchner, F. (2023). Human-AI teams—Challenges for a team-centered AI at work. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 6, 1252897–1252897. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1252897   Harris-Watson, A. M., Larson, L. E., Lauharatanahirun, N., DeChurch, L. A., & Contractor, N. S. (2023). Social perception in Human-AI teams: Warmth and competence predict receptivity to AI teammates. Computers in Human Behavior, 145, 107765-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2023.107765   Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., Duan, W., Flathmann, C., & McNeese, N. J. (2024). Understanding the influence of AI autonomy on AI explainability levels in human-AI teams using a mixed methods approach. Cognition, Technology & Work, 26(3), 435–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-024-00765-7   Hauptman, A. I., Schelble, B. G., McNeese, N. J., & Madathil, K. C. (2023). Adapt and overcome: Perceptions of adaptive autonomous agents for human-AI teaming. Computers in Human Behavior, 138, 107451-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2022.107451   Li, M., Kwon, M., & Sadigh, D. (2021). Influencing leading and following in human–robot teams. Autonomous Robots, 45(7), 959–978. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-021-10016-7   Ma, L. M., Ijtsma, M., Feigh, K. M., & Pritchett, A. R. (2022). Metrics for Human-Robot Team Design: A Teamwork Perspective on Evaluation of Human-Robot Teams. ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction, 11(3), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3522581   Naikar, N., Brady, A., Moy, G., & Kwok, H.-W. (2023). Designing human-AI systems for complex settings: ideas from distributed, joint, and self-organising perspectives of sociotechnical systems and cognitive work analysis. Ergonomics, 66(11), 1669–1694. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2023.2281898   Traeger, M. L., Sebo, S. S., Jung, M., Scassellati, B., & Christakis, N. A. (2020). Vulnerable robots positively shape human conversational dynamics in a human–robot team. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6370–6375. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910402117   You, S., & Robert, L. P. (2022). Team robot identification theory (TRIT): robot attractiveness and team identification on performance and viability in human–robot teams. The Journal of Supercomputing, 78(18), 19684–19706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04645-7

You set up an assumption, you have a theory, you analyze your data, and you show that the assumption does not hold. Doing good qualitative research is that simple. Except that it's not, of course. On the ground, in the research and writing process, these basic rules can be quite tricky to implement. So we discuss some heuristics researchers can use to limit their conversants, settle on suitable theoretical lenses to examine their data, and collecting more data than what they thought was necessary.   References Geertz, C. (1973). The Interpretation Of Cultures. Basic Books. Goodall, J. (1986). The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. Harvard University Press. Popper, K. R. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books. Durkheim, E. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press. Giddens, A. (1976). New Rules of Sociological Method. Hutchinson. Barley, S. R. (1986). Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31(1), 78-108. Kellogg, K. C. (2022). Local Adaptation Without Work Intensification: Experimentalist Governance of Digital Technology for Mutually Beneficial Role Reconfiguration in Organizations. Organization Science, 33(2), 571-599. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1445 Mertens, W., Recker, J., Kummer, T.-F., Kohlborn, T., & Viaene, S. (2016). Constructive Deviance as a Driver for Performance in Retail. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 30, 193-203. Markus, M. L. (1983). Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation. Communications of the ACM, 26(6), 430-444. Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & King, J. L. (2016). Routines as Shock Absorbers During Organizational Transformation: Integration, Control, and NASA's Enterprise Information System. Organization Science, 27(3), 551-572. Alashoor, T., Keil, M., Smith, H. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2023). Too Tired and in Too Good of a Mood to Worry about Privacy: Explaining the Privacy Paradox through the Lens of Effort Level in Information Processing. Information Systems Research, 34(4), 1415-1436. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (4th ed.). Sage. Berente, N., Recker, J., & Leonardi, P. (2023). . This IS Research podcast, 13 September 2023. Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31. Lebovitz, S., Levina, N., & Lifshitz-Assaf, H. (2021). Is AI Ground Truth Really “True”? The Dangers of Training and Evaluating AI Tools Based on Experts' Know-What. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1501-1525. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. University of Chicago Press. Langley, A. (1999). Strategies for Theorizing from Process Data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 691-711. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Sage. Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An Embedded Model of Cultural Adaptation in Global Teams. Organization Science, 25(4), 1056-1081. 

Did you know there is someone who published a MIS Quarterly paper in its inaugural issue in 1977 and has another one forthcoming in 2024? Hard to fathom but has published at least one paper in our top journal in every decade of its existence. Izak has been doing IS scholarship for almost fifty years, which makes him the perfect researcher to talk to about how the field has changed, where it is going, whether we are progressing well, and whether we maintain the optimal balance between social and technical, internal and external views of IS phenomena in our research. References Benbasat, I., & Schroeder, R. G. (1977). An Experimental Investigation of Some MIS Design Variables. MIS Quarterly, 1(1), 37-49. Jussupow, E., Benbasat, I., & Heinzl, A. (2024). An Integrative Perspective on Algorithm Aversion and Appreciation in Decision-Making. MIS Quarterly, . Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Benbasat, I. (1999). Explanations from Intelligent Systems: Theoretical Foundations and Implications for Practice. MIS Quarterly, 23(4), 497-530. Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Lyytinen, K., & King, J. L. (2004). Nothing At The Center? Academic Legitimacy in the Information Systems Field. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(6), 220-246. Sarker, S., Chatterjee, S., Xiao, X., & Elbanna, A. R. (2019). The Sociotechnical Axis of Cohesion for the IS Discipline: Its Historical Legacy and its Continued Relevance. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 695-719. Wand, Y., & Weber, R. (1995). On the Deep Structure of Information Systems. Information Systems Journal, 5(3), 203-223. Banville, C., & Landry, M. (1989). Can the Field of MIS be Disciplined? Communications of the ACM, 32(1), 48-60. Benbasat, I., & Wang, W. (2005). Trust In and Adoption of Online Recommendation Agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(3), 72-101. Benbasat, I., & Barki, H. (2007). Quo Vadis TAM? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 8(4), 211-218. Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. Kim, D., & Benbasat, I. (2006). The Effects of Trust-Assuring Arguments on Consumer Trust in Internet Stores: Application of Toulmin's Model of Argumentation. Information Systems Research, 17(3), 286-300. Qiu, L., & Benbasat, I. (2009). Evaluating Anthropomorphic Product Recommendation Agents: A Social Relationship Perspective to Designing Information Systems. Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(4), 145-182. Applegate, L., & King, J. L. (1999). Rigor and Relevance: Careers on the Line. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 17-18. Mason, R. O., Mason, F. M., & Culnan, M. J. (1995). Ethics of Information Management. Sage. Mason, R. O. (2022). On the Evolution to PAPA. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 51(2), 7-22. Keen, P. G. W., & Scott Morton, M. S. (1978). Decision Support Systems: An Organizational Perspective. Addison-Wesley. Davis, G. B. (1974). Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. McGraw-Hill. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data Rules: Reinventing the Market Economy. MIT Press. Burton-Jones, A., Butler, B. S., Scott, S. V., & Xu, S. X. (2021). Next-Generation Information Systems Theorizing: A Call to Action. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 301-314. Leidner, D. E., & Tona, O. (2021). The CARE Theory of Dignity Amid Personal Data Digitalization. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 343-370. Parker, G., Van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2017). Platform Ecosystems: How Developers Invert the Firm. MIS Quarterly, 41(1), 255-266. Pujol Priego, L., & Wareham, J. (2023). From Bits to Atoms: White Rabbit at CERN. MIS Quarterly, 47(2), 639-668. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Moore, G. C., & Benbasat, I. (1991). Development of an Instrument to Measure the Perceptions of Adopting an Information Technology Innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192-222. 

What is technostress in the workplace? How does this type of stress impact individuals and organizations? Join me in this episode of Psychchat, where I will share strategies to mitigate technostress.ReferencesAyyagari, R., Grover, V., & Purvis, R. (2011). Technostress: Technological antecedents and implications. MIS Quarterly, 35(4), 831-858. https://doi.org/10.2307/41409963Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 20(2), 172-189. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038278Brod, C. (1984). Technostress: The human cost of the computer revolution. Addison-Wesley.Hauk, N., Göritz, A. S., & Krumm, S. (2019). The mediating role of coping behavior on the age-technostress relationship: A longitudinal multilevel mediation model. PLoS ONE, 14(3), e0213349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213349Maier, C., Laumer, S., Weinert, C., & Weitzel, T. (2015). The effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: A study of Facebook use. Information Systems Journal, 25(3), 275-308. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12068Pirkkalainen, H., Salo, M., Tarafdar, M., & Makkonen, M. (2019). Deliberate or instinctive? Proactive and reactive coping for technostress. Journal of Management Information Systems, 36(4), 1179-1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2019.1661092Ragu-Nathan, T. S., Tarafdar, M., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Tu, Q. (2008). The consequences of technostress for end users in organizations: Conceptual development and empirical validation. Information Systems Research, 19(4), 417-433. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1070.0165Riedl, R., Kindermann, H., Auinger, A., & Javor, A. (2012). Technostress from a neurobiological perspective. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 4(2), 61-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-012-0207-7Salanova, M., Llorens, S., & Cifre, E. (2013). The dark side of technologies: Technostress among users of information and communication technologies. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 422-436. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.680460Tams, S., Legoux, R., & Leger, P. M. (2018). Smartphone withdrawal creates stress: A moderated mediation model of nomophobia, social threat, and phone withdrawal context. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.026Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta‐techno eustress, techno distress and design: Theoretical directions and an agenda for research. Information Systems Journal, 29(1), 6-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12169Tarafdar, M., Pullins, E. B., & Ragu‐Nathan, T. S. (2015). Technostress: negative effect on performance and possible mitigations. Information Systems Journal, 25(2), 103-132. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12042Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, T. S., & Ragu-Nathan, B. S. (2011). Crossing to the dark side: Examining creators, outcomes, and inhibitors of technostress. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 54(9), 113-120. https://doi.org/10.1145/1995376.1995403Vischer, J. C. (2007). The effects of the physical environment on job performance: Towards a theoretical model of workspace stress. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 23(3), 175-184. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.1134 

Conceptual papers that offer new theories are hard to write and even harder to publish. You do not have empirical data to back up your arguments, which makes the papers easy to reject in the review cycle. We are also typically not well trained in theorizing, and there isn't even a clear process to theorizing we could learn or follow. Does that mean that we shouldn't even try to write theory papers? We ponder these questions, figure out what is so hard in writing conceptual papers – and share a few tricks that might help if you still wanted to write such a paper.  References Berente, N., Gu, B., Recker, J., & Santhanam, R. (2021). Managing Artificial Intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1433-1450. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Aldine Publishing Company. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development:  Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Tsang, E. W. K., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and a Classification of Induction. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 729-748. Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., & Lyytinen, K. (2010). The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735. Yoo, Y. (2010). Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research on Experiential Computing. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 213-231. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of Perception Routledge. Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000). Design Rules, Volume 1: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 516-531. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Sætre, A. S., & van de Ven, A. H. (2021). Generating Theory by Abduction. Academy of Management Review, 46(4), 684-701. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Farjoun, M. (2010). Beyond Dualism: Stability and Change As a Duality. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 202-225. Recker, J., & Green, P. (2019). How do Individuals Interpret Multiple Conceptual Models? A Theory of Combined Ontological Completeness and Overlap. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(8), 1210-1241. Jabbari, M., Recker, J., Green, P., & Werder, K. (2022). How Do Individuals Understand Multiple Conceptual Modeling Scripts? Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(4), 1037-1070. Cornelissen, J. P. (2017). Editor's Comments: Developing Propositions, a Process Model, or a Typology? Addressing the Challenges of Writing Theory Without a Boilerplate. Academy of Management Review, 42(1), 1-9. Recker, J., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari, M., Samuel, B. M., & Castellanos, A. (2021). From Representation to Mediation: A New Agenda for Conceptual Modeling Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 269-300. Haerem, T., Pentland, B. T., & Miller, K. (2015). Task Complexity: Extending a Core Concept. Academy of Management Review, 40(3), 446-460. Kallinikos, J., Aaltonen, A., & Marton, A. (2013). The Ambivalent Ontology of Digital Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 357-370. Ho, S. Y., Recker, J., Tan, C.-W., Vance, A., & Zhang, H. (2023). MISQ Special Issue on Registered Reports. MIS Quarterly, . Simon, H. A. (1990). Bounded Rationality. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), Utility and Probability (pp. 15-18). Palgrave Macmillan. James, W. (1890). The Principles of Psychology. Henry Holt and Company. Watson, H. J. (2009). Tutorial: Business Intelligence - Past, Present, and Future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 25(39), 487-510.  Baird, A., & Maruping, L. M. (2021). The Next Generation of Research on IS Use: A Theoretical Framework of Delegation to and from Agentic IS Artifacts. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 315-341.

Did you know that when you spend time on an online platform, you could be experiencing between six to eight different experimental treatments that stem from several hundred A/B tests that run concurrently? That's how common digital experimentation is today. And while this may be acceptable in industry, large-scale digital experimentation poses some substantial challenges for researchers wanting to evaluate theories and disconfirm hypotheses through randomized controlled trials done on digital platforms. Thankfully, the brilliant has a new paper forthcoming that illuminates the orthogonal testing plane problem and offers some guidelines for sidestepping the issue. So if experiments are your thing, you really need to listen to what is really going on out there. References Abbasi, A., Somanchi, S., & Kelley, K. (2024). The Critical Challenge of using Large-scale Digital Experiment Platforms for Scientific Discovery. MIS Quarterly, . Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Karahanna, E., Benbasat, I., Bapna, R., & Rai, A. (2018). Editor's Comments: Opportunities and Challenges for Different Types of Online Experiments. MIS Quarterly, 42(4), iii-x. Kohavi, R., & Thomke, S. (2017). The Surprising Power of Online Experiments. Harvard Business Review, 95(5), 74-82. Fisher, R. A. (1935). The Design of Experiments. Oliver and Boyd. Pienta, D., Vishwamitra, N., Somanchi, S., Berente, N., & Thatcher, J. B. (2024). Do Crowds Validate False Data? Systematic Distortion and Affective Polarization. MIS Quarterly, . Bapna, R., Goes, P. B., Gupta, A., & Jin, Y. (2004). User Heterogeneity and Its Impact on Electronic Auction Market Design: An Empirical Exploration. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 21-43. Somanchi, S., Abbasi, A., Kelley, K., Dobolyi, D., & Yuan, T. T. (2023). Examining User Heterogeneity in Digital Experiments. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 41(4), 1-34. Mertens, W., & Recker, J. (2020). New Guidelines for Null Hypothesis Significance Testing in Hypothetico-Deductive IS Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(4), 1072-1102. GRADE Working Group. (2004). Grading Quality of Evidence and Strength of Recommendations. British Medical Journal, 328(7454), 1490-1494. Abbasi, A., Parsons, J., Pant, G., Liu Sheng, O. R., & Sarker, S. (2024). Pathways for Design Research on Artificial Intelligence. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 441-459. Abbasi, A., Chiang, R. H. L., & Xu, J. (2023). Data Science for Social Good. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 24(6), 1439-1458. Babar, Y., Mahdavi Adeli, A., & Burtch, G. (2023). The Effects of Online Social Identity Signals on Retailer Demand. Management Science, 69(12), 7335-7346. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291. Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The Identity Crisis Within The IS Discipline: Defining and Communicating The Discipline's Core Properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183-194. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and Presenting Design Science Research for Maximum Impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355. Rai, A. (2017). Editor's Comments: Avoiding Type III Errors: Formulating IS Research Problems that Matter. MIS Quarterly, 41(2), iii-vii. Burton-Jones, A. (2023). Editor's Comments: Producing Significant Research. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), i-xv.  Abbasi, A., Dillon, R., Rao, H. R., & Liu Sheng, O. R. (2024). Preparedness and Response in the Century of Disasters: Overview of Information Systems Research Frontiers. Information Systems Research, 35(2), 460-468.

Social loafing is a phenomenon that is becoming more prevalent in today's workplace. In this episode, I discuss social loafing and provide mitigating tips.ReferencesAggarwal, P., & O'Brien, C. L. (2008). Social loafing on group projects: Structural antecedents and effect on student satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Education, 30(3), 255-264.Alnuaimi, O. A., Robert, L. P., & Maruping, L. M. (2010). Team size, dispersion, and social loafing in technology-supported teams: A perspective on the theory of moral disengagement. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27(1), 203-230.Bennett, N., & Naumann, S. E. (2005). Understanding and preventing shirking, job neglect, social loafing, and free riding. In R. E. Kidwell& C. L. Martin (Eds.), Managing Organizational Deviance (Vol. 1, pp. 113–130). Sage. Chidambaram, L., & Tung, L. L. (2015). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149-168.George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 191–202. Jia, H., Jia, R., & Karau, S. (2019). Cyberloafing and personality: The impact of the Big Five traits and workplace situational factors. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(3), 258-279.Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (2021). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681-706.Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., Jaworski, R. A., & Bennett, N. (2014). Social loafing: A field investigation. Journal of Management, 30(2), 285-304.Monzani, L., Ripoll, P., Peir., J. M., & Van Dick, R. (2014). Loafing in the digital age: The role of computer mediated communication in the relation between perceived loafing and group affective outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 279–285. Mulvey, P. W., & Klein, H. J. (1998). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal processes and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 62–87.Pearsall, M. J., Christian, M. S., & Ellis, A. P. J. (2010). Motivating interdependent teams: Individual rewards, shared rewards, or something in between? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(1), 183–191. Price, K. H., Harrison, D. A., & Gavin, J. H. (2006). Withholding inputs in team contexts: Member composition, interaction processes, evaluation structure, and social loafing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1375–1384.  

Many people think of summer as the best time to read. On the beach, on the airplane to a vacation, in between semesters… Sounds like a perfect time to do a literature review. But there are many ways to do a literature review, and in all honesty, we think most people choose the wrong type of review – the “systematic” literature review where they select papers about a phenomenon, do a supposedly structured but not exhaustive search across IS journals, and then criticize the knowledge others have created. We discuss a few alternatives that we think hold more promise: qualitative and quantitative meta analyses, or narrative and integrative reviews. We also point to a few papers that have helped us organize the conversations we read about in the literature – which really, is what literature reviewing is all about.  References Berente, N., Lyytinen, K., Yoo, Y., & Maurer, C. (2019). Institutional Logics and Pluralistic Responses to Enterprise System Implementation: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis. MIS Quarterly, 43(3), 873-902. Noblit, G. W., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: Synthesising Qualitative Studies. Sage. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A Meta-analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740-755. Zaza, S., Joseph, D., & Armstrong, D. J. (2023). Are IT Professionals Unique? A Second-Order Meta-Analytic Comparison of Turnover Intentions Across Occupations. MIS Quarterly, 47(3), 1213-1238. Trang, S., Kraemer, T., Trenz, M., & Weiger, W. H. (2024). Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole: How Technology Conspiracy Beliefs Emerge and Foster a Conspiracy Mindset. Information Systems Research, . Berente, N., Salge, C. A. D. L., Mallampalli, V. K. T., & Park, K. (2022). Rethinking Project Escalation: An Institutional Perspective on the Persistence of Failing Large-Scale Information System Projects. Journal of Management Information Systems, 39(3), 640-672. Skinner, R. J., Nelson, R. R., & Chin, W. (2022). Synthesizing Qualitative Evidence: A Roadmap for Information Systems Research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(3), 639-677. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2009). Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, Verona, Italy. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(9), 205-224. Bunge, M. A. (1977). Treatise on Basic Philosophy Volume 3: Ontology I - The Furniture of the World. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Burton-Jones, A., Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., & Weber, R. (2017). Assessing Representation Theory with a Framework for Pursuing Success and Failure. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1307-1333. Recker, J., Indulska, M., Green, P., Burton-Jones, A., & Weber, R. (2019). Information Systems as Representations: A Review of the Theory and Evidence. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 20(6), 735-786. Saghafi, A., & Wand, Y. (2020). A Meta-Analysis of Ontological Guidance and Users' Understanding of Conceptual Models. Journal of Database Management, 31(4), 46-68. Leonardi, P. M., & Vaast, E. (2017). Social Media and their Affordances for Organizing: A Review and Agenda for Research. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 150-188. Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474. Felin, T., Foss, N. J., & Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The Microfoundations Movement in Strategy and Organization Theory. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 575-632. Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2023). The Why and How of the Integrative Review. Organizational Research Methods, 26(1), 168-192. Paré, G., Trudel, M.-C., Jaana, M., & Kitsiou, S. (2015). Synthesizing Information Systems Knowledge: A Typology of Literature Reviews. Information & Management, 52(2), 183-199. Rivard, S. (2014). Editor's Comments: The Ions of Theory Construction. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), iii-xiii. Leidner, D., Berente, N., & Recker, J. (2023). What's been done, what's been found, and what it means. This IS research podcast, . Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future:  Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), xiii-xxiii. Grisot, M., & Modol, J. R. (2024). Special Section Introduction: Reflecting and Celebrating Ole Hanseth's Contribution to the IS Community. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 36(1), 39-40. Association for Information Systems (2023. History of AIS. .

Welcome to today's episode! We have an exciting discussion lined up as we dive into a fascinating study on TikTok, the wildly popular consumer-to-consumer media platform. My guests today explore how the length of videos impacts their performance on the platform. By modeling viewer behavior and analyzing market performance, they uncover intriguing insights including different optimal video lengths for maximizing viewer traffic. Stay tuned as we unpack these findings and their implications for content creators and platforms alike! I'm excited to introduce Xuying Zhao with Texas A&M University and Jane Gu with the University of Connecticut, to discuss their study in the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research, called Content Length Limit: How Does It Matter for a Consumer-to-Consumer Media Platform?

Time to reflect a bit. After our conversations with three excellent but very different IS researchers, we sit down and ponder the lessons we learnt from the three previous podcasts with , , and . So did we learn anything? You betcha. We talk about the balancing humble scholarship with the need to popularize important new insights, the difference between rigor and importance of research, and the different career pathways in industry and academia. References Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Alaimo, C., & Kallinikos, J. (2024). Data Rules: Reinventing the Market Economy. MIT Press. Miranda, S. M., Wang, D., & Tian, C. (2022). Discursive Fields and the Diversity-Coherence Paradox: An Ecological Perspective on the Blockchain Community Discourse. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1421-1452. Miranda, S. M., Kim, I., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Jamming with Social Media: How Cognitive Structuring of Organizing Vision Facets Affects IT Innovation Diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591-614. Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.-C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable Development:  Energy Informatics and New Directions for the IS Community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23-38. Malhotra, A., Melville, N. P., & Watson, R. T. (2013). Spurring Impactful Research on Information Systems for Environmental Sustainability. MIS Quarterly, 37(4), 1265-1274. Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 37-56. Gregor, S., Chandra Kruse, L., & Seidel, S. (2020). The Anatomy of a Design Principle. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(6), 1622-1652. Lukyanenko, R., Parsons, J., Wiersma, Y. F., & Maddah, M. (2019). Expecting the Unexpected: Effects of Data Collection Design Choices on the Quality of Crowdsourced User-generated Content. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 623-647. Recker, J., Lukyanenko, R., Jabbari, M., Samuel, B. M., & Castellanos, A. (2021). From Representation to Mediation: A New Agenda for Conceptual Modeling Research in a Digital World. MIS Quarterly, 45(1), 269-300. Abbasi, A., Dobolyi, D., Vance, A., & Zahedi, F. M. (2021). The Phishing Funnel Model: A Design Artifact to Predict User Susceptibility to Phishing Websites. Information Systems Research, 32(2), 410-436. vom Brocke, J., Simons, A., Riemer, K., Niehaves, B., Plattfault, R., & Cleven, A. (2015). Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Challenges and Recommendations of Literature Search in Information Systems Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37(9), 205-224.

is with us today. She has done some amazing theory construct research using computational methods before this was really an accepted thing. We discuss which work she built her research around to give it legitimacy, what good stopping rules are for authors or reviewers to know when enough is enough, and how we can engage in humble generalizations of interesting and general regularities. References Miranda, S. M., Kim, I., & Summers, J. D. (2015). Jamming with Social Media: How Cognitive Structuring of Organizing Vision Facets Affects IT Innovation Diffusion. MIS Quarterly, 39(3), 591-614. Walsh, I., Holton, J. A., Bailyn, L., Fernandez, W. D., Levina, N., & Glaser, B. G. (2015). What Grounded Theory Is ... A Critically Reflective  Conversation Among Scholars. Organizational Research Methods, 18(4), 581-599. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2015). Leveraging Archival Data from Online Communities for Grounded Process Theorizing. In K. D. Elsbach & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Organizational Research: Innovative Pathways and Methods (pp. 215-224). Routledge. Berente, N., Seidel, S., & Safadi, H. (2019). Data-Driven Computationally-Intensive Theory Development. Information Systems Research, 30(1), 50-64. Miranda, S. M., Wang, D., & Tian, C. (2022). Discursive Fields and the Diversity-Coherence Paradox: An Ecological Perspective on the Blockchain Community Discourse. MIS Quarterly, 46(3), 1421-1452. Fügener, A., Grahl, J., Gupta, A., & Ketter, W. (2021). Will Humans-in-the-Loop Become Borgs? Merits and Pitfalls of Working with AI. MIS Quarterly, 45(3), 1527-1556. Lindberg, A., Schecter, A., Berente, N., Hennel, P., & Lyytinen, K. (2024). The Entrainment of Task Allocation and Release Cycles in Open Source Software Development. MIS Quarterly, 48(1), 67-94. Sahaym, A., Vithayathil, J., Sarker, S., Sarker, S., & Bjørn-Andersen, N. (2023). Value Destruction in Information Technology Ecosystems: A Mixed-Method Investigation with Interpretive Case Study and Analytical Modeling. Information Systems Research, 34(2), 508-531. Miranda, S. M., Berente, N., Seidel, S., Safadi, H., & Burton-Jones, A. (2022). Computationally Intensive Theory Construction: A Primer for Authors and Reviewers. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), i-xvi. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105. Adamic, L. A., & Glance, N. (2005). The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 U.S. Election: Divided They Blog. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Link Discovery, Chicago, Illinois. Pentland, B. T., Vaast, E., & Ryan Wolf, J. (2021). Theorizing Process Dynamics with Directed Graphs: A Diachronic Analysis of Digital Trace Data. MIS Quarterly, 45(2), 967-984. Sarker, S., Xiao, X., Beaulieu, T., & Lee, A. S. (2018). Learning from First-Generation Qualitative Approaches in the IS Discipline: An Evolutionary View and Some Implications for Authors and Evaluators (PART 1/2). Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(8), 752-774. Lee, A. S., & Baskerville, R. (2003). Generalizing Generalizability in Information Systems Research. Information Systems Research, 14(3), 221-243. Tsang, E. W. K., & Williams, J. N. (2012). Generalization and Induction: Misconceptions, Clarifications, and a Classification of Induction. MIS Quarterly, 36(3), 729-748. Hume, D. (1748/1998). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding [Reprint]. In J. Perry & M. E. Bratman (Eds.), Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings (3rd ed., pp. 190-220). Oxford University Press.   Exemplar Computationally-intensive Theory Construction Papers Bachura, E., Valecha, R., Chen, R., & Rao, H. R. (2022). The OPM Data Breach: An Investigation of Shared Emotional Reactions on Twitter. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), 881-910. Gal, U., Berente, N., & Chasin, F. (2022). Technology Lifecycles and Digital Innovation: Patterns of Discourse Across Levels of Abstraction: A Study of Wikipedia Articles. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(5), 1102-1149. Hahn, J., & Lee, G. (2021). The Complex Effects of Cross-Domain Knowledge on IS Development: A Simulation-Based Theory Development. MIS Quarterly, 45(4), 2023-2054. Indulska, M., Hovorka, D. S., & Recker, J. (2012). Quantitative Approaches to Content Analysis: Identifying Conceptual Drift Across Publication Outlets. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 49-69. Lindberg, A., Majchrzak, A., & Malhotra, A. (2022). How Information Contributed After an Idea Shapes New High-Quality Ideas in Online Ideation Contests. MIS Quarterly, 46(2), 1195-1208. Nan, N. (2011). Capturing Bottom-Up Information Technology Use Processes: A Complex Adaptive Systems Model. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 505-532. Pentland, B. T., Recker, J., Ryan Wolf, J., & Wyner, G. (2020). Bringing Context Inside Process Research With Digital Trace Data. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 21(5), 1214-1236. Vaast, E., Safadi, H., Lapointe, L., & Negoita, B. (2017). Social Media Affordances for Connective Action: An Examination of Microblogging Use During the Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. MIS Quarterly, 41(4), 1179-1205. 

Adamantios Diamantopoulos (Ph.D., D.Litt.) is Professorial Research Fellow at the Department of Marketing and International Business, University of Vienna, Austria. He is also Visiting Professor at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia and Senior Fellow at the Dr. Theo and Friedl Schoeller Research Center, Germany. During 2004-2023, he held the Chair of International Marketing at the University of Vienna. During 2012-13, he was the “Joseph A. Schumpeter Fellow” at Harvard University, USA.   He is the author of 200+ papers with over 54,000 citations (h-index: 93; Google Scholar, November 2023) published, among others, in Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of International Business Studies, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Journal of Service Research, Journal of International Marketing, Journal of Retailing, MIS Quarterly, Organizational Research Methods, Psychological Methods, Information Systems Research, and British Journal of Management.   He ranks #8 worldwide in terms of citations among a total of 13,180 marketing scholars (Ioannidis, 2023) as well #1 in Austria and #94 worldwide in the 2022 Ranking of Top 1000 Scientists in Business and Management (Research.com, 2022). He is the most prolific contributor to Journal of International Marketing (Donthu et al., 2021) and the recipient of four Hans B. Thorelli Awards. He is a Fellow of the Academy of International Business, the British Academy of Management, and the European Marketing Academy. In 2019, he was awarded the JIBS Silver Medal and, in 2021, he received the Significant Contributions to Global Marketing award from the American Marketing Association.   Visit https://www.aib.world/frontline-ib/adamantios-diamantopoulos/ for the original video interview.

Wed, 10 Jan 2024 06:30:00 +0000 https://tap.podigee.io/25-panos-constantinides 422936b8b903af0d2b42983089ebff6c The formation and evolution of digital platforms across ecosystems Panos' Bio: Panos Constantinides is a Professor of Digital Innovation and Digital Learning Lead for Executive Education at Alliance Manchester Business School. He holds a PhD from the Judge Business School at the University of Cambridge and he is a Fellow of the Cambridge Digital Innovation Centre. Panos leads the Digital Transformation Research Group at Alliance Manchester Business School. Panos is also one of the co-founders of the European Digital Platforms Research Network (EUDPRN). His research investigates how organizations use digital technologies to co-create and capture value while facilitating strategic transformation. His recent work has shed light on the formation and evolution of digital platforms across ecosystems, including platforms built on generative AI technologies. He advises senior business leaders and policymakers on how to manage the transition to new technologies and new business models in the digital economy. His research has been published in FT50 journals such as Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly, and the Journal of Business Venturing and Organisation Studies, among others. His research has also appeared in Concurrences, Competition Policy International, PYMNTS, Thinkers50, MIT Sloan Management Review, ZDnet, and other media outlets. Panos' Google Scholar page: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=Erxikd8AAAAJ&hl=en Panos on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/panos-constantinides/?originalSubdomain=uk full The formation and evolution of digital platforms across ecosystems no Daniel Trabucchi, Tommaso Buganza and Philip Meier

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest University Lecturer Arto Lanamäki from the University of Oulu in Finland. Much of his research is qualitative and phenomenon-driven research, concerning the role of information technologies in social practices. He is currently working in the Research Council of Finland (Suomen Akatemia) funded AI-REG project (2022-2026) investigating the European Act on Artificial Intelligence. While publishing mostly in the field of IS, he champions a certain research eclecticism and a boundary-breaking ethos. His research has been published in the Journal of Strategic Information Systems (JSIS), Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST), Communications of the Association for Information Systems (CAIS), among others.In this episode, we first catch-up with Arto's research and new AI legislation, before turning our attention to paradigms in IS.  We consider the historical saturation of positivism in the IS discipline, the leaning into interpretivism before narrowing in on a paradigm gaining attention called 'critical realism'.  What is critical realism? Why is it important for IS? What does Arto think of critical realism? Tune in to find out. Also, colours.References:Barley, S. R. (2006). When I Write My Masterpiece: Thoughts on What Makes a Paper Interesting. Academy of Management Journal, 49(1), 16-20.Brock, S., & Mares, E. (2014). Realism and Anti-realism. Routledge.  Chen, W., & Hirschheim, R. (2004). A paradigmatic and methodological examination of information systems research from 1991 to 2001. Information Systems Journal, 14, 197-235.  Giere, R. N. (2010). Scientific Perspectivism. University of Chicago press.  Lanamäki, A. (2023). Agnostic Affordances: Challenging the Critical Realist Connection. In M. R. Jones, A. S. Mukherjee, D. Thapa, & Y. Zheng (Eds.), After Latour: Globalisation, Inequity and Climate Change. IFIPJWC 2023 (Vol. 696, pp. 265-279). Springer. Lanamäki, A. (in press). Questioning the Third Way Rhetoric of Critical Realism. The Data Base for Advances in Information Systems. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371492086_Questioning_the_Third_Way_Rhetoric_of_Critical_Realism Lanamäki, A., Väyrynen, K., Laari-Salmela, S., & Kinnula, M. (2020). Examining relational digital transformation through the unfolding of local practices of the Finnish taxi industry. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 29(3), 101622.  Mason, R. (2021). Social kinds are essentially mind-dependent. Philosophical Studies, 178(12), 3975-3994.  Menand, L. (2002). The Metaphysical Club. Flamingo.  Misak, C. (2013). The American Pragmatists. Oxford University Press.  Orlikowski, W. J., & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). Studying Information Technology in Organizations: Research Approaches and Assumptions. Information Systems Research, 2(1), 1-28. Siponen, M., & Tsohou, A. (2018). Demystifying the Influential IS Legends of Positivism. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 19(7), 600-617.  Volkoff, O., & Strong, D. M. (2013). Critical Realism and Affordances: Theorizing IT-Associated Organizational Change Processes. MIS Quarterly, 37(3), 819-834.Weber, R. (2004). Editor's Comments: The Rhetoric of Positivism versus Interpretivism: A Personal View. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), iii-xiiLink to all references

Since 1994, Dr. Barb Wixom's research has explored how organizations generate business value from data assets. Her methods include large-scale surveys, meta-analyses, lab experiments, and in-depth case studies; five cases have been placed in the Society for Information Management Paper Awards competition. Barb is a leading academic scholar, publishing in such journals as Information Systems Research, MIT Sloan Management Review, MIS Quarterly, and MIS Quarterly Executive. She regularly presents her work to academic and business audiences around the world.Before MIT CISR, Barb was a tenured faculty member at the University of Virginia (UVA), where she twice earned the UVA All-University Teaching Award (2002, 2010), which recognizes teaching excellence in professors. 2017, she was awarded the Teradata University Network Hugh J. Watson Award for contributions to the data and analytics academic community. Most recently, she won the 2021 Association for Information Systems AIS Outreach Practice Publication Award for her data monetization research.Barb authored her new book Data is Everybody's Business (MIT Press, September 2023) to inspire workers across organizations to monetize data. She actively works to encourage women, young people, and underrepresented populations to learn about data and pursue data-related careers.Dr. Perry Kaneriya, MD, MBA, is a Harvard-trained Neuroradiologist with 18 years of clinical experience in medical imaging. MBA from Darden School of Business with Distinguished Performances in Operations Management, Healthcare Innovation, Finance, Valuations, Accounting, Economics, Entrepreneurship and Creative Design Thinking. Able to leverage extensive real-world experience and unique MD/MBA skill set to develop and execute innovative medical strategies to improve healthcare quality metrics by advancing cost-effective technology-based solutions and data-driven innovations.We are committed to delivering exceptional medical solutions aligned with corporate goals and company mission—passion for lifelong learning driven by genuine curiosity about emerging trends in healthcare and innovations in medical imaging.This episode is made possible by a generous sponsorship from  Physician Computer Company. PCC emSupport the show

Many people do service to their community but usually one thing at a time. Today we speak with someone who is not only president of our global association and co-chair of our main conference at the same time but also the editor-in-chief of one of our top journals, .  clearly cannot say no – he even agreed to talk with us on the podcast. We discuss the expanding scope of scholarship that he wants to see published in Information Systems Research, the different roles that editors must play, how the Association for Information Systems made our field truly global, and what wonderful things we can expect from in Hyderabad, India.  As usual, the references to readings we mention are listed on .

Digital transformation is disrupting the way we work and learn, and many companies are struggling to keep pace. The digital skills gap continues to widen, and learning and development (L&D) leaders are tasked with delivering innovative programs and solutions that can help them navigate digital disruption and thrive in the future of work. In this episode of The Business of Learning, we spoke with Dr. Kim Tran, vice president and head of talent management at Allstate, and Stephanie Woerner, principal research scientist of MIT's Center for Information Systems Research, to learn more about how training and development can support organizations in the age of digital transformation. 

People often have rational justifications for why they don't follow the cybersecurity policies. Karjalainen M., Sarker S., & Siponen M. (2019), 'Toward a Theory of Information Systems Security Behaviors of Organizational Employees: A Dialectical Process Perspective', Information Systems Research, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 687-704, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2018.0827

Welcome to an episode with a well-recognized professor, Ben M. Bensaou. Get Ben's book here: https://amzn.to/3xpI9Zb Many people think that you need a genius leader or need to become a start-up to innovate. But we all have the potential to innovate. In this episode, Ben speaks about everyone's role in innovation and how it can be performed like a habit in our everyday lives. He also discussed the need to develop a deeper understanding of customers and create a culture of collaborating with customers to offer the ideal combination of performance, attributes, price, and other characteristics that customers need and want, or produce a product and service with a powerful market appeal. Ben M. Bensaou is a Professor of Technology Management and Professor of Asian Business and Comparative Management at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. He served as Dean of Executive Education in 2018–2020. He was a Visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School in 1998-1999, a Senior Fellow at the Wharton School of Management in 2007-2008, and a Visiting Scholar at the Haas School of Business at the University of California Berkeley in 2013-2015. He received his PhD in Management from MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, US, and his MA in Management Science from Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan; his Diplôme d'Ingénieur (MSc) in Civil Engineering and DEA in Mechanical Engineering from respectively the Ecole Nationale des TPE, Lyon and the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, two Grandes Ecoles in France. His research and teaching activities focus on: (1) how to create innovating capabilities and competencies as a way to build an innovating organization and culture; (2) Blue Ocean Strategy and value innovation implementation, and roll out processes across the whole organization; (3) how to build social capital within firms; (4) new forms of organizations, in particular networked corporations, strategic alliances, joint ventures, and value-adding partnerships; and (5) the impact of information technology on innovation. Professor Bensaou addresses these issues from an international comparative perspective, with a special focus on Japanese organizations. Professor Bensaou's research on buyer-supplier relations in the US and Japanese auto industries won him the Best Doctoral Dissertation Award in the field of information systems and a finalist nomination for the Free Press Award for outstanding dissertation research in the field of business policy and strategy. His case studies on innovation won the 2006, 2008 and 2009 ECCH Best Case Awards (with Kim & Mauborgne). His publications include papers in Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, Information Systems Research, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, book chapters and conference proceedings. He has been a member of the Editorial Board of Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly and MISQ Executive. He has been listed in the Who's Who in the World since 1998. He has been consulting for Asian, European and US corporations since 1993. At INSEAD, Professor Bensaou developed two new MBA courses: 'Managing Networked Organisations' and 'Understanding Japanese Business.' He also teaches courses on Competitive Strategy, Innovation, Blue Ocean Strategy and Value Innovation, Information Technology and Comparative Management (in English and French). He was a Visiting Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, where he taught his 'Information Technology and Corporate Transformation' course. He has also been teaching (in Japanese) in Executive Education programs at Keio Business School, Tokyo, Japan. Get Ben's book here: Built to Innovate: Essential Practices to Wire Innovation into Your Company's DNA. Ben M. Bensaou: https://amzn.to/3xpI9Zb Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

Ja-Naé Duane is CEO of the Revolution Factory and the bestselling author of The Startup Equation. Her mission is to make life better for one billion people. An award-winning innovator and expert on global systems, Ja-Naé helps corporations identify trends, using emerging technology such as AI and blockchain, that will help them pave the way for the future through futures forecasting and complex system building. She also loves singing opera. Currently, she is a PhD candidate focusing her research on the future of information systems as well as a research fellow at the Center of Information Systems Research at MIT. Ja-Naé joins Barry O'Reilly in this week's show to talk about designing Distributed Autonomous Organizations (DAO).  Everything is Interconnected John Newton's philosophy that everything is interconnected, is one that Ja-Naé lives by. We build on everything we learn, she tells Barry. The same is true in a company: its founding principles are connected to how those tenets are manifested in interactions with customers. “All of these things - much like nature - is very much an ecosystem,” she points out. Survival depends on the dependencies and interdependencies within the ecosystem. Likewise, the systems of the future will be enabled by interconnected technology, and we have to be ready. [Listen from 2:15]  DAO Principles Distributed Autonomous Organization (DAO) is one of the cornerstones of Web 3.0, and as Barry puts it, “the future of how the international world could become programmable.” In a DAO, business is conducted via programmable principles and smart contracts. Ja-Naé remarks that every member of a DAO has voting rights based on their level of contribution, unlike the traditional system where only a select few dictate how the organization is run; this can really move the organization forward. “With the democratization of information that comes along with that, we are seeing these pockets of erosion around centralized models,” she continues. [Listen from 4:25] Creating Value Together DAOs transform the role of the customer from just buyer into co-creator. Ja-Naé comments, “How do we also bring customers in to co-create and really capture value with them, so that they're building not only because they like our product or they like our service, but they're aligned with the mission of where this company is headed?” It's a massive shift in customer behavior that's ripe for exploration and innovation, she and Barry agree. The workforce of the future - the ‘liquid workforce' - will be one where you contribute to several companies, and you'll be judged on credibility and your last job, Ja-Naé says. [Listen from 17:50]   How to Start Barry asks Ja-Naé to share some tips to help people get started exploring the world of Web 3.0. Try to understand blockchain and how it's changing the world first, she urges listeners. Learn about digital twins, virtual reality and virtual worlds, as well as the metaverse. The next step is to understand crypto and NFTs; putting some ‘skin in the game' by making a small crypto investment is a good way to learn, she comments. She gives suggestions of DAO protocols listeners can explore to learn more, including her own DAO resource. [Listen from 32:50] Visit Barry O'Reilly for full show notes.   Resources Ja-Naé Duane on LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook DAO Board How to Build a DAO Revolution Factory The Startup Equation

Welcome to Strategy Skills episode 227, an episode with a well-recognized professor, Ben M. Bensaou. Many people think that you need a genius leader or need to become a start-up to innovate. But we all have the potential to innovate. In this episode, Ben speaks about everyone's role in innovation and how it can be performed like a habit in our everyday lives. He also discussed the need to develop a deeper understanding of customers and create a culture of collaborating with customers to offer the ideal combination of performance, attributes, price, and other characteristics that customers need and want, or produce a product and service with a powerful market appeal. Ben M. Bensaou is a Professor of Technology Management and Professor of Asian Business and Comparative Management at INSEAD, Fontainebleau, France. He served as Dean of Executive Education in 2018–2020. He was a Visiting Associate Professor at Harvard Business School in 1998-1999, a Senior Fellow at the Wharton School of Management in 2007-2008, and a Visiting Scholar at the Haas School of Business at the University of California Berkeley in 2013-2015. He received his PhD in Management from MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, US, and his MA in Management Science from Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo, Japan; his Diplôme d'Ingénieur (MSc) in Civil Engineering and DEA in Mechanical Engineering from respectively the Ecole Nationale des TPE, Lyon and the Institut National Polytechnique de Grenoble, two Grandes Ecoles in France. His research and teaching activities focus on: (1) how to create innovating capabilities and competencies as a way to build an innovating organization and culture; (2) Blue Ocean Strategy and value innovation implementation, and roll out processes across the whole organization; (3) how to build social capital within firms; (4) new forms of organizations, in particular networked corporations, strategic alliances, joint ventures, and value-adding partnerships; and (5) the impact of information technology on innovation. Professor Bensaou addresses these issues from an international comparative perspective, with a special focus on Japanese organizations. Professor Bensaou's research on buyer-supplier relations in the US and Japanese auto industries won him the Best Doctoral Dissertation Award in the field of information systems and a finalist nomination for the Free Press Award for outstanding dissertation research in the field of business policy and strategy. His case studies on innovation won the 2006, 2008 and 2009 ECCH Best Case Awards (with Kim & Mauborgne). His publications include papers in Academy of Management Journal, Management Science, Information Systems Research, Organization Science, Strategic Management Journal, Journal of International Business Studies, Harvard Business Review, Sloan Management Review, book chapters and conference proceedings. He has been a member of the Editorial Board of Information Systems Research, MIS Quarterly and MISQ Executive. He has been listed in the Who's Who in the World since 1998. He has been consulting for Asian, European and US corporations since 1993. At INSEAD, Professor Bensaou developed two new MBA courses: 'Managing Networked Organisations' and 'Understanding Japanese Business.' He also teaches courses on Competitive Strategy, Innovation, Blue Ocean Strategy and Value Innovation, Information Technology and Comparative Management (in English and French). He was a Visiting Professor at Aoyama Gakuin University, Tokyo, where he taught his 'Information Technology and Corporate Transformation' course. He has also been teaching (in Japanese) in Executive Education programs at Keio Business School, Tokyo, Japan. Get Ben's book here: Built to Innovate: Essential Practices to Wire Innovation into Your Company's DNA. Ben M. Bensaou  Enjoying this episode? Get access to sample advanced training episodes here: www.firmsconsulting.com/promo

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Sandeep Purao. He is a Trustee Professor in the Information and Process Management Group and Associate Director of the Hoffman Center for Business Ethics at Bentley University. He is also a Visiting Professor at Agder University in Norway. His current research focuses on the design and evaluation of digital solutions for complex societal problems. Sandeep's work has been published in MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Journal of MIS, ACM Computing Surveys, ACM Transactions, Journal of the Medical Internet Research and others, and funded by federal agencies, private foundations, and industry consortia. He holds a Ph.D. in Management Information Systems from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.In this episode, we finish our design theme series by exploring designing for societal good through projects on a more micro-scale for elderly communities when practicing self-management of illness and empathy as part of the design process, as well as designing counters to political polarization in fake news and echo chambers.  Commencing the new year off on a positive note, with insights from Sandeep about bringing about change in a world and finding joy in what we do. We are academic superheroes!References:Hao, H., Garfield, M. and Purao, S. 2021. Risk Factors that Contribute to the Length of Homeless Shelter Stays: Evidence-based Regression Analyses. International Journal of Public Health,  Forthcoming.Herwix, A., Haj-Bolouri, A., Rossi, M., Chiarini-Tremblay, M., Purao, S., and Gregor, S. 2022. Ethics in Information Systems and Design Science Research: Five Perspectives. Communications of the AIS,  Forthcoming.Khouri, Y., Purao, S., & Duffy, M. 2018. The Influence of Values on the Use of Citizen Services: The Elderly Perspective. In Proceedings of the 24th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS).Purao, S., Murungi, D. M., & Yates, D. 2021. Deliberative Breakdowns in the Social Representation Process: Evidence from Reader Comments in Partisan News Sites. ACM Transactions on Social Computing, 4(2), 1-35.Purao, S., Hao, H., and Meng, C. 2021. The Use of Smart Home Speakers by the Elderly: Exploratory Analyses and Potential for Big Data. Big Data Research. Elsevier.Purao, S., & Garfield, M. 2020. Process Modeling in Humanitarian Settings: A Case Study and Lessons Learned. In Proceedings of the 28th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS).Purao, S. 2002. Design research in the technology of information systems: Truth or dare. Unpublished Manuscript, Georgie State University.Selected References on Design:Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B. and Clark, K.B., 2000. Design rules: The power of modularity (Vol. 1). MIT press.Cross, N., 1982. Designerly ways of knowing. Design studies, 3(4), pp.221-227.Simon, H.A., 1996. The sciences of the artificial. MIT press.Suh, N.P. and Suh, P.N., 1990. The principles of design (No. 6). Oxford University Press. Other References:Al Gore's Budgets' - https://www.ccair.org/guest-blog-what-i-learned-from-spending-three-days-with-al-gore/Sandeep Purao's Website - https://purao.us/research-projects/ Vanessa Otero Political Polzarization- https://libguides.geneseo.edu/newsliteracy/identifying-major-news-sources  

Host Casandra Grundstrom is joined by special guest Professor Maung Sein. Maung is a professor of Information Systems at the University of South-Eastern Norway & Kristiania University College. He has led a holistically nomadic life after completing his PhD in Indiana University and has published in leading IS journals such as MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, Information Systems Journal, European Journal of Information Systems and presented his research in several international conferences such as ICIS. Professor Sein is probably best known for his legacy paper on Action Design Research published in MISQ.In this episode, we initiate a short series of podcast episodes on design; breaking the ice by discussing action design research (ADR), some of the politics of publishing, and friendship in academia. Maung is full of stories and metaphors that might seem to take the conversation on a detour but always come back ever so eloquently to the point. Might want to grab a snack before you listen to this episode.References:Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS quarterly, 75-105.Iivari, J. (2007). Nothing is as Clear as Unclear. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 19(2), 6.Lanamäki, A., Thapa, D., & Stendal, K. (2016, December). When is an affordance? Outlining four stances. In Working Conference on Information Systems and Organizations (pp. 125-139). Springer, Cham.Leonardi, P. M. (2011). When flexible routines meet flexible technologies: Affordance, constraint, and the imbrication of human and material agencies. MIS quarterly, 147-167.Mullarkey, M. T., & Hevner, A. R. (2019). An elaborated action design research process model. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(1), 6-20.Sein, M.K., & Rossi, M. (2018). Elaborating ADR while drifting away from its essence: A commentary on Mullarkey and Hevner. European Journal of Information Systems. ISSN: 0960-085X. doi:10.1080/0960085X.2018.1527189.Sein, M.K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS Quarterly. ISSN: 0276-7783. 35 (1). s 37 - 56.Thapa, D., & Sein, M.K. (2017). Trajectory of Affordances: Insights from a case of telemedicine in Nepal. Information Systems Journal. ISSN: 1350-1917. 28 (5). s 796 - 817. doi:10.1111/isj.12160.

On-demand ridesha­res like Uber and Lyft are now as commonplace an option for getting where we need to go as cabs, buses and trains, and arguably more accessible. However, as rideshares have increased in popularity, so to have concerns over passenger safety, as we've seen extensive media coverage over the past several years of driver sexual misconduct and assault, as well as criticism of these top rideshare companies for failing to conduct adequate background checks and other safety protocols. And while recently, Uber and Lyft have taken steps to better ensure rider safety, to include partnering to create a shared database of banned drivers, these incidences have left passengers, particularly female, potentially questioning the safety of these transportation options and their presence in their communities. But now, new research provides additional insight to the conversation surrounding rider safety, with new evidence showing that when a rideshare enters a new city, sexual assault rates in the surrounding community can decrease by more than 6%.  Joining me to discuss his work in this area is Jiyong Park with the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His study, “The Deterrent Effect of Ride-sharing on Sexual Assault and Investigation of Situational Contingencies,” will be published in a forthcoming issue of the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research.

Data brokers are the major players in the market of collecting, selling, and sharing online user information. Although their practices have raised tremendous privacy concerns, their data collection and sharing activities are still under the veil. The growth of adverse cybersecurity incidents toward the data brokers has led the regulators, including California and Vermont, to require the data brokers to register and disclose their activities. This paper analyzes the leaked information on the dark web to analyze the data sharing and collection activities among the data brokers. In specific, we cluster the data brokers based on their data collection activities given by their product description to quantify the activity proximity. Next, we empirically examine how activity proximity leads to co-occurrence on the leaked information in the dark web. We further discuss the deterrence effect of the data broker registration on information leakage. Our study contributes to cybersecurity assurance and risk assessment literature by unveiling the shadowy data-collecting and data-sharing market. About the speaker: Tawei (David) Wang is currently an Associate Professor and Driehaus Fellow at DePaul University. He received his Ph.D. from Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University in 2009. His research interests are information security management and IT management. His papers have appeared in several leading journals, including Information Systems Research, Decision Support Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Information and Management, Information Systems Journal, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Banking and Finance, Journal of Information Systems, among others. His articles have been downloaded more than 40,000 times through Science Direct. He was a speaker at events hosted by the  Institute of Internal Auditors and Institute of Management Accountants, and a panelist in a cyber risk workshop hosted by the Federal Reserve Bank Charlotte. He was selected to be the KPMG James Marwick Professor in Residence in 2018.

As of 2015 the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT had awarded $548 million in grants to states to establish health information exchanges (HIE). I have no doubt hundreds of millions of dollars more have been invested in various ways since then. So, when faced with one of the most daunting healthcare data challenges of our time in the COVID-19 vaccine rollout, surely, we turned to the HIEs first. Right? Not so much, according to today's guest. Niam Yaraghi, assistant professor of Business Technology at Miami Herbert Business School at the University of Miami and a nonresident fellow at the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation, recently explored the use of HIEs in vaccination efforts across the country. He tells us that “While the U.S. employed every possible resource to develop the vaccines, we are neglecting to use the best available information technologies to efficiently distribute them”. In Yaraghi's recent article, co-authored with Brookings Institution colleague Peter Levin, they share that none of the state vaccination plans they reviewed made any mention of using HIEs to support the effort. Further, they found no correlation between a state's vaccination success and the existence of a robust HIE infrastructure in that state.   There are some efforts underway to change this, including ONC's $20 million investment to help increase data sharing between health information exchanges (HIEs) and immunization information systems. Still, the question remains: why aren't we using HIEs to their fullest potential to support the vaccine rollout? And why aren't we turning to the HIEs first whenever we need to move clinical data in general? On this episode, we explore those questions plus:   Five ways that health information exchange can help with vaccination efforts. How HIEs can change the conversation when it comes to revenue generation. The opportunity for HIEs to add value and transform data into information through analytics. How might HIEs play a role in reopening the economy? Will HIEs play a role in patient-mediated exchange? Why it's time for the industry to rethink its views on HIE and make them their first stop for interop. Plus, some novel API ideas for HIEs.   Niam Yaraghi Niam Yaraghi is an Assistant Professor of Business Technology at Miami Herbert Business School, and a non-resident Fellow in the Brookings Institution's Center for Technology Innovation. Niam's research is focused on the economics of health information technologies. In particular, Niam studies the business models and policy structures that incentivize interoperability and sharing of health information among patients, providers, payers and regulators. Niam's research has appeared in leading business journals including MIS Quarterly, Information Systems Research, and Production and Operations Management, as well as top-tier health policy and informatics journals including Journal of American Medical Informatics Association, and Milbank Quarterly. He regularly consults with various companies and platforms in the healthcare industry and is a sought-after expert and speaker on issues related to health information technology in media and at industry conferences. Niam has a B.Sc in Industrial Engineering from the Isfahan University of Technology in Iran, and a M.Sc from the Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. He received his Ph.D. in Management Science & Systems from the State University of New York at Buffalo. Twitter: @niamyaraghi   HIE Links and Resources   The benefits of health information exchange platforms: Measuring the returns on a half a billion dollar investment Five ways that health information exchange can help with vaccination efforts Episode 140: Getting to Know eHealth Exchange – The Largest Health Information Network in the Country – Jay Nakashima Episode 129: What you need to Know About TEFCA Right Now w/ Mariann Yeager Episode 104: Why HIEs Will Lead the Way on Healthcare Quality Measurement w/ John D'Amore The Regional HIE Should be Your First Stop for Interop Plus 4 more #HCBiz Discussions with Niam Yaraghi   The #HCBiz Show! is produced by Glide Health IT, LLC in partnership with Netspective Media.

In the past, information systems (IS) captured and represented the lived (external) reality. Now, they are the lived reality. Baskerville R. L., Myers M. D., & Yoo Y. (2020), 'Digital First: The Ontological Reversal and New Challenges for Information Systems Research', MIS Quarterly, https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2020/14418

Dr. Raghunathan talks about the importance of happiness in the future of work. He asks  " If intelligence helps with decision-making, smart people should naturally make better life choices. So why are so many of the smartest, brightest, most successful people profoundly unhappy?". Raj is a Zale Centennial Professor of Business at the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin. He is interested in exploring the impact that people's judgments and decisions have on their happiness and fulfillment. Raj's work has appeared in top journals, including The Journal of Marketing, The Journal of Consumer Research, The Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Information Systems Research, and The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. His work has also been cited in several mass media outlets, including The Atlantic, The New York Times, Fortune, Forbes, Harvard Business Review, Inc, Fast Company, and The Los Angeles Times. Raj writes about his views on happiness, creativity, and leadership on his popular Psychology Today blog (with over 2 million page views), Sapient Nature. His six-week long Coursera course on happiness (titled, A Life of Happiness and Fulfillment) currently has over 350,000 registered students from 196 countries, and was recently voted the Top MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) of 2015, 2016, 2017 & 2018, and one of the Top 100 MOOCs of all time. His second MOOC on edX (Happier Employees and ROI Course) has over 5000 registered learners and was voted one of the top MOOCs of 2019. Raj's book (titled, If you're so smart, why aren't you happy?) was released in the Spring of 2016 in the US, UK, and India subsequently released in 13 other languages around the world. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/shobhana-viswanathan/support

Poziom wiedzy o kliencie końcowym oraz zdolność do funkcjonowania w środowisku cyfrowym pozwalają ustalić optymalny model biznesowy dla organizacji- twierdzi Stephanie L. Woerner z MIT Sloan Center for Information Systems Research. Rozmawia Paweł Górecki, redaktor naczelny MIT Sloan Management Review Polska. Special Guest: Stephanie L. Woerner.

We’d like to think that our performance at work, regardless of our sex, is the primary deciding factor in deciding whether or not we are recognized for our work with a promotion. You do a good job, you earn recognition, right? Unfortunately, according to new research in the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research in certain fields this might not actually be the case. Joining me for this episode is Nishtha Langer, professor with the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to discuss her study “Onwards and Upwards? An Empirical Investigation of Gender and Promotions in IT Services.”

Many of us might admit that it can take us a bit of time to get into the swing of things on a Monday morning. This is often referred to as a case of "The Mondays" or the "Monday Blues." But does the same hold true for businesses as a whole, with significant performance variations occurring based on what day of the week it is?  To take a deeper dive into this topic, I am joined by Oliver Yao, professor and association dean of graduate programs of the College of Business at Lehigh University to discuss his research recently published in the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research. His study, titled “’Monday Effect’ on Performance Variations in Supply Chain Fulfillment: How Information Technology Enabled Procurement May Help,” looks at how supply chain functionality is impacted on a day-by-day basis, and how organizations can lessen these variations.  

When we travel to a new place, whether for long overdue vacation, a work trip, or simply a day trip someplace we’ve been meaning to check out, many of us rely on review platforms such as TripAdvisor and Yelp to help us plan our visit. In particular, we look for guidance and advice in selecting restaurants, making choices based on how previous visitors have rated their own experience. But how accurate are these reviews really? And adding more ‘food’ for thought, how much of a role does personal bias play when it comes to these reviews, and exactly what factors contribute to that bias? To learn about some surprising ways in which bias impacts online reviews, in this episode I am joined by Marios Kokkodis, professor with the Carroll School of Management at Boston College, whose study, “Your Hometown Matters: Popularity-Difference Bias in Online Reputation Platforms,” is slated for publication in the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research.

The video game industry is growing at a phenomenal rate, generating a record $43.4 billion in revenue in 2018, an increase of nearly 20 percent from the year before. The largest area of growth within this industry has been within the online gaming community. But with players functioning at different skill levels and an even wide range of interest areas, how can companies ensure players remain engaged and their products continue to grow in popularity? Joining us for this episode to provide new insight into online gamer behavior is Yan Huang from Carnegie Mellon University, whose research which was recently published in the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research, tackles these questions head on. 

The best way to learn about a subject is to study it in depth. Jeanne Ross knows that better than most. As the Principal Research Scientist at MIT’s Center for Information Systems Research, she spends her time really digging into how to get the most out of information technology. One of the subjects she’s looked at closely is the topic of digital transformation — in fact, she recently published a book on the subject titled Designed for Digital. On this episode of IT Visionaries, she tells us about the building blocks of digital transformation and takes us through use cases from Apple to Lego to illustrate how the shift to digital plays out.   Key Takeaways: Jeanne’s work at MIT and how research is done The building blocks of digital transformation Digital transformation use cases How to create a good employee experience when implementing digital change IT Visionaries is brought to you by the Salesforce Customer 360 Platform - the #1 cloud platform for digital transformation of every experience. Build connected experiences, empower every employee, and deliver continuous innovation - with the customer at the center of everything you do. Learn more at salesforce.com/platform

More than 60 million companies maintain business pages on Facebook, allowing them to connect with existing customers as well as reach new ones. And with more than 1.62 billion people log onto Facebook daily, this might seem like a great way to reach a nearly limitless audience. However, the Facebook platform which enables consumers to provide comments and feedback, provides companies with very little power to control what is posted on their pages, leaving them open to negative feedback which could have a damaging effect on their brands. To give us insight into the nature of the comments consumers are making, the relationship between positive and negative comments, and the power these comments can have on a business is Mochen Yang with the University of Minnesota, whose recently published research, featured in the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research, tackles these questions head on.

Back in episode 66 (https://blionline.org/podcast-doing-digital-vs-being-digital/) , we spoke with Matt Loeb about digital transformation, and he brought up a great point — just because you’re enacting some digital solutions doesn’t make you a digital organization. There’s a difference between doing digital and being digital, which is about culture and mindset more than anything else. Jeanne Ross is a principal research scientist at the MIT Sloan Research Center for Information Systems Research and co-author of a new book titled Designed for Digital: How to Architect Your Business for Sustained Success (https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Digital-Architect-Sustained-Management/dp/0262042886/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=jeanne+ross+book&qid=1567526996&s=gateway&sr=8-1) . And she says there’s a key reason why your organization isn’t crossing that digital divide, and one that really isn’t being talked about enough. To learn more, and for the complete show notes, visit blionline.org/blog (https://blionline.org/blog) . Resources: Read: Designed for Digital: How to Architect Your Business for Sustained Success (https://www.amazon.com/Designed-Digital-Architect-Sustained-Management/dp/0262042886/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=jeanne+ross+book&qid=1567526996&s=gateway&sr=8-1) Center for Information Systems Research: http://cisr.mit.edu/ (http://cisr.mit.edu/) Connect with Jeanne https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/jeanne-w-ross (https://mitsloan.mit.edu/faculty/directory/jeanne-w-ross) Twitter: twitter.com/MIT_CISR (http://twitter.com/MIT_CISR)

Which generation is more prone to herding—millennials or Generation X? Should anchoring bias worry Baby Boomers or younger investors more? In this episode, Mark Riepe is joined by Omar Aguilar, chief investment officer for equities at Charles Schwab Investment Management and an expert in behavioral finance. Mark and Omar discuss the results of a survey that identified the biases most prevalent among baby boomers, Gen X, and millennials. This study from the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis tests the implications of anchoring bias associated with forecasting earnings per share.Another study from Information Systems Research examined the role of confirmation bias in virtual communities such as stock message boards.You can learn more about nosology and the classification of diseases in this article: https://www.3mhisinsideangle.com/blog-post/the-first-nosologists-classifying-disease-in-16th-century-london/Subscribe to Financial Decoder for free on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.Financial Decoder is an original podcast from Charles Schwab.If you enjoy the show, please leave a ★★★★★ rating or review on Apple Podcasts.  Important Disclosures:The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered an individualized recommendation or personalized investment advice. The investment strategies mentioned here may not be suitable for everyone. Each investor needs to review an investment strategy for his or her own particular situation before making any investment decision.All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions. Data contained herein from third-party providers is obtained from what are considered reliable sources. However, its accuracy, completeness or reliability cannot be guaranteed.Investing involves risk including loss of principal.Digital currencies, such as bitcoin, are highly volatile and not backed by any central bank or government. Digital currencies lack many of the regulations and consumer protections that legal-tender currencies and regulated securities have. Due to the high level of risk, investors should view Bitcoin as a purely speculative instrument.This is for general informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as tax, investment or legal advice. Consult with your legal counsel and tax advisors about your particular circumstances.The Schwab Center for Financial Research is a division of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.(0919-9DF0)

Which generation is more prone to herding—millennials or Generation X? Should anchoring bias worry Baby Boomers or younger investors more? In this episode, Mark Riepe is joined by Omar Aguilar, chief investment officer for equities at Charles Schwab Investment Management and an expert in behavioral finance. Mark and Omar discuss the results of a survey that identified the biases most prevalent among baby boomers, Gen X, and millennials. This study from the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis tests the implications of anchoring bias associated with forecasting earnings per share.Another study from Information Systems Research examined the role of confirmation bias in virtual communities such as stock message boards.You can learn more about nosology and the classification of diseases in this article: https://www.3mhisinsideangle.com/blog-post/the-first-nosologists-classifying-disease-in-16th-century-london/Subscribe to Financial Decoder for free on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen.Financial Decoder is an original podcast from Charles Schwab.If you enjoy the show, please leave a ★★★★★ rating or review on Apple Podcasts.  Important Disclosures:The information provided here is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered an individualized recommendation or personalized investment advice. The investment strategies mentioned here may not be suitable for everyone. Each investor needs to review an investment strategy for his or her own particular situation before making any investment decision.All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice in reaction to shifting market conditions. Data contained herein from third-party providers is obtained from what are considered reliable sources. However, its accuracy, completeness or reliability cannot be guaranteed.Investing involves risk including loss of principal.Digital currencies, such as bitcoin, are highly volatile and not backed by any central bank or government. Digital currencies lack many of the regulations and consumer protections that legal-tender currencies and regulated securities have. Due to the high level of risk, investors should view Bitcoin as a purely speculative instrument.This is for general informational purposes only and is not intended, nor should it be construed, as tax, investment or legal advice. Consult with your legal counsel and tax advisors about your particular circumstances.The Schwab Center for Financial Research is a division of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.(0919-9DF0)

Kartik Hosanagar is the John C. Hower Professor of Technology and Digital Business and a Professor of Marketing at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Kartik’s research work focuses on the digital economy, in particular the impact of analytics and algorithms on consumers and society, Internet media, Internet marketing and e-commerce. Kartik has been recognized as one of the world’s top 40 business professors under 40. He is a ten-time recipient of MBA or Undergraduate teaching excellence awards at the Wharton School. His research has received several best paper awards. Kartik co-founded and developed the core IP for Yodle Inc, a venture-backed firm that was acquired by Web.com for $342M. Yodle was listed by Inc. Magazine among America’s fastest growing private companies. He is a cofounder of SmartyPal Inc. He has served on the advisory boards of Milo (acq. by eBay) and Monetate and is involved with many other startups as either an investor or board member. His past consulting and executive education clients include Google, American Express, Citi and others. Kartik was a co-host of the SiriusXM show The Digital Hour. He currently serves as a department editor at the journal Management Science and has previously served as a Senior Editor at the journals Information Systems Research and MIS Quarterly. A Human's Guide to Machine Intelligence - https://www.amazon.com/Humans-Guide-Machine-Intelligence-Algorithms/dp/0525560882 Connect with Kartik: Website - https://www.hosanagar.com Twitter - https://twitter.com/khosanagar Are you looking to find your purpose, navigate transition or fix your relationships, all with a powerful group of men from around the world? Check out The Alliance and join me today. Check out our Facebook Page or the Men's community. Subscribe on Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts  | Spotify For more episodes visit us at ManTalks.com | Facebook | Instagram | Twitter    Did you enjoy the podcast? If so please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or Stitcher. It helps our podcast get into the ears of new listeners, which expands the ManTalks Community Editing & Mixing by: Aaron The Tech

Dr. Jeanne Ross is the Principal Research Scientist at the MIT Sloan Center for Information Systems Research where she lectures, conducts research, and directs executive education courses on IT management practices.

How can policymakers balance consumers' need for targeted, relevant content against such consumers' desire for privacy? Anindya Ghose (@aghose) is a Professor of Information, Operations and Management Sciences and a Professor of Marketing at New York University's Leonard N. Stern School of Business. He is the Director of the Center for Business Analytics at NYU Stern, and the co-Chair of the NYU-AIG Partnership on Innovation for Global Resilience. He is the NEC Faculty Fellow and a Daniel P. Paduano Fellow of Business Ethics at NYU Stern. He has been a Visiting Associate Professor at the Wharton School of Business. He also serves as the main Scientific Advisor to 3TI China . He was recently named by Business Week as one of the "Top 40 Professors Under 40 Worldwide" and by Analytics Week as one the "Top 200 Thought Leaders in Big Data and Business Analytics". His rise from assistant to full professor in 8.5 years at NYU Stern is widely regarded as one of the fastest in the history of the entire Information Systems and Marketing academic disciplines in business schools globally. He has consulted in various capacities for Berkeley Corporation, CBS, Dataxu, Facebook, NBC Universal, OneVest, Samsung, and 3TI China, and collaborated with Alibaba, China Mobile, Google, IBM, Indiegogo, Microsoft, Recobell, Travelocity and many other leading Fortune 500 firms on realizing business value from IT investments, internet marketing, business analytics, mobile marketing, digital analytics, social media, and other areas. He has published more than 75 papers in premier scientific journals and peer reviewed conferences, and has given more than 200 talks internationally. He is a frequent keynote speaker in executive gatherings and thought leading events globally. His research has received 12 best paper awards and nominations. He is a winner of the NSF CAREER award and has been awarded 14 grants from Google, Microsoft and several other corporations. His research analyzes the economic consequences of the Internet on industries and markets transformed by its shared technology infrastructure. He has worked on product reviews, reputation and rating systems, digital marketing, sponsored search advertising, wearable technologies, mobile commerce, mobile advertising, crowdfunding, and online markets. He also plays a senior advisory role to several start-ups in the Internet space. He has been interviewed and his research has been profiled numerous times in the BBC, Bloomberg TV, CNBC, China Daily, The Economist, Financial Times, Fox News, Forbes, Knowledge@Wharton, Korean Broadcasting News Company, Los Angeles Times, Marketplace Radio, MSNBC, National Public Radio, NBC, Newsweek, New York Times, New York Daily, NHK Japan Broadcasting, Reuters, Time Magazine, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Xinhua,and elsewhere. He teaches courses on social media, digital marketing, business analytics and IT strategy at the undergraduate, MBA, EMBA, MSBA, and Executive Education level in various parts of the world including the US, India, China, and South Korea. He is on the Research Council of the Wharton Customer Analytics Institute, a faculty affiliate with the Marketing Science Institute and the Sloan Center for Internet Retailing at the University of California, Riverside. He serves as an Associate Editor of Management Science and a Senior Editor of Information Systems Research. Before joining NYU Stern, Dr. Ghose worked in GlaxoSmithKline, as a Product Manager in HCL-Hewlett Packard, and as a Senior E-Business Consultant with IBM. He has a B. Tech in Engineering from the Regional Engineering College (NIT) in Jalandhar, and an M.B.A in Finance, Marketing and Systems from the Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta. He received his M.S. and Ph.D. from Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper School of Business. In this episode, we discussed: the 9 key forces shaping the mobile economy that entrepreneurs and policymakers alike need to know. the future of mobile technology as a key driver of marketing. how policymakers should balance privacy policy against consumers' desire for targeted and relevant content. Resources Tap: Unlocking the Mobile Economy by Anindya Ghose (MIT Press: 2017) Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future by Ashlee Vance (Ecco: 2017)   NEWS ROUNDUP The Federal Communications Commission released the text of its proposal to undo the Obama-era net neutrality rules. The rules classify internet service providers as "common carriers", thus bringing ISPs within the FCC's jurisdiction. The rules also outlaw blocking, throttling and paid prioritization of site traffic. Comments are due to the Commission by August 17th--they even seek comment on whether such rules are necessary--which, of course, the Commission settled on two years ago when it pulled together countless comments from members of the public who said, "yes--they are necessary"--So it's like we're just going around and around--net neutrality is the gift that keeps on giving--for lobbyists, that is. President Trump released his fiscal year 2018 budget request last week, which calls for numerous cuts to entitlement programs, as well as education. However, the budget calls for $228 million to modernize the federal government's IT--or phase out clunkier technologies in favor of technologies that are more secure and efficient. That $228 million amount is significantly less than the $3.1 billion called for by the Obama administration. Billy Mitchell covers this story in FedScoop. Apple reported last week that the federal government's requests for user data skyrocketed in the second half of 2016 to almost double what it was in the first half of the year. Apple reports on the number of requests using ranges instead of revealing the exact number of data requests.  In the first half of 2016, the federal government made between 2,750 and 2,999 data requests. However, during the second half of 2016 the number of requests jumped to between 5,750 and 5,999. Joe Uchill reports in the Hill. Private drone users will no longer need to register their drones with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). This is following a DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision to overturn the rules. The court held that the rules violated another statute that precluded the FAA from promulgating rules pertaining to model aircraft. Tim Wright covers this in Air & Space. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the American Civil Liberties Union and Wikimedia Foundation can indeed pursue a lawsuit the two parties brought against the National Security Agency. They argue that the NSA violated Wikimedia's First and Fourth Amendment rights when the agency tapped into Wikimedia's backbone network because Wikimedia has such a large footprint, tapping into just a part of it can have constitutional implications. Adi Robertson has the story in The Verge. Finally, big box retailer Target has settled with 47 states in connection with a widespread data breach in 2015 in which hackers obtained the credit card information of millions of customers. The settlement amount was $18.5 million and is being distributed based on each state's size.Wyoming, Wisconsin and Alabama don't appear to be part of the settlement.  The terms of the settlement also require Target to separate cardholder data from the rest of its computer network, as well as undergo an independent assessment of its data security practices.  Rachel Abrams has the story in The New York Times.

Dr. Raj Raghunathan is Professor of Marketing at the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin. He is interested in exploring the impact that people's judgments and decisions have on their happiness and fulfillment. Raj's work has appeared in top journals, including The Journal of Marketing, The Journal of Consumer Research, The Journal of Marketing Research, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Information Systems Research, and The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. His work has also been cited in several mass media outlets, including The Atlantic, The New York Times, Fortune, Forbes, Harvard Business Review, Inc, Fast Company, and The Los Angeles Times. Raj writes about his views on happiness, creativity, and leadership on his popular Psychology Today blog (with over 1 million page views), Sapient Nature. His six-week long Coursera course on happiness (titled, A Life of Happiness and Fulfillment) currently has over 170,000 registered students from 196 countries, and was recently voted the Top MOOC (Massive Open Online Course) of 2015 and one of the Top 50 MOOCs of all time. Raj's book (titled, If you're so smart, why aren't you happy?) was released in the Spring of 2016 in the US, UK, and India and is slated to be released in 12 other languages in late 2016 and early 2017. Here are two books Raj recommends: Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner The Happiness Hypothesis by Jonathan Haidt You can find Raj online here: http://happysmarts.com/blog/

After a series of recent high profile information security breach incidents, the role of Chief Information Officers, particularly their role in information security risk management, has been in a heated debate among practitioners. However, little is known in academic literature about how a CIOs' risk aversion level affects the effectiveness of information security management. Using reported information security breach incidents during 2003-2015, this study examines how a CIO's risk aversion level is associated to the possibility of information security incidents. In addition, we investigate the moderating effect of CEOs' risk aversion level and whether the CIO is on the board on the aforementioned effect. Our preliminary results show that a CIO's risk aversion level is significantly associated with a lower likelihood of information security breaches. We further document that such association varies depending on types of security breaches. About the speaker: Tawei (David) Wang is currently an Assistant Professor at DePaul University. He received his Ph.D. from Krannert Graduate School of Management, Purdue University. Before joining DePaul University, he was a faculty member at the University of Hawaii at Manoa and National Taiwan University. His research interests are IT management and information security management. His papers have appeared in several leading journals, including Information Systems Research, Decision Support Systems, European Journal of Information Systems, Information and Management, Information Systems Journal, Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, Journal of Banking and Finance, Journal of Information Systems, Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, among others.

The Facebook experience suggests that hundreds of millions of online social media users worldwide have thrown their privacy to the wind. But would consumers, when presented with the choice, opt to pay more to ensure their privacy during online transactions? In their new study in the INFORMS Journal Information Systems Research, Carnegie Mellon's Alessandro Acquisti and colleagues conducted an intriguing experiment that found an unexpected willingness to pay for online privacy. Listen to Prof. Acquisti discuss the results and the unusual experiment that led to these conclusions.

Intentional insider misuse of information systems resources (i.e., IS misuse) represents a significant threat to organizations. For example, industry statistics suggest that between 50-75% of security incidents originate from within an organization. Because of the large number of misuse incidents, it has become important to understand how to reduce such behavior. General deterrence theory suggests that certain controls can serve as deterrent mechanisms by increasing the perceived threat of punishment for IS misuse. This study presents an extended deterrence theory model that combines work from criminology, social psychology, and information systems. The model posits that user awareness of security countermeasures directly influences the perceived certainty and severity of organizational sanctions associated with IS misuse, which leads to reduced IS misuse intention. The model is then tested on 269 computer users from eight different companies. The results suggest that three practices deter IS misuse: user awareness of security policies; security education, training, and awareness (SETA) programs; and computer monitoring. The results also suggest that perceived severity of sanctions is more effective in reducing IS misuse than certainty of sanctions. Further, there is evidence that the impact of sanction perceptions vary based on one's level of morality. The results have implications for both the research and practice of IS security. About the speaker: John D'Arcy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Management in the Mendoza College of Business at the University of Notre Dame. Dr. D'Arcy teaches an MBA course on technology risk management and an undergraduate course on computer networking and security. After gaining a BS in Finance from The Pennsylvania State University, he worked the following four years as a cost accountant and then a financial systems analyst for Ford Motor Company. During that time, he earned an MBA from LaSalle University. He subsequently earned a PhD in Business Administration with a concentration in Management Information Systems from Temple University. Dr. D'Arcy's research interests include information assurance and security, computer ethics, and human-computer interaction. In recent papers, he has examined the effectiveness of procedural and technical security controls in deterring computer abuse. His research also investigates individual and organizational factors that contribute to end user security behavior in the workplace. Dr. D'Arcy has published articles in journals such as Information Systems Research, Communications of the ACM, Decision Support Systems, Journal of Information System Security, and Computers & Security.