Conference Paper · 2020
Best Short Paper in Track · 2020
Wang, G., & Burton-Jones, A. (2020). Governing digital transformation: A new perspective. In Proceedings of the 41st International Conference on Information Systems (pp. 1–9). Association for Information Systems. https://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2020/digital_innovation/digital_innovation/2/
Explore the original contribution
Interactive paper explorationStarting point
A written framework exists, yet actors disagree about what matters or what outcome is desirable.
The paper’s insight
Actors work out the issue’s meaning, scope, and timing, then act on that evolving understanding.
What changes
The response may enforce, enrich, revise, or temporarily accommodate the framework.
The governance-as-framework perspective treats an agreed framework as a relatively stable container for behaviour directed towards predefined outcomes.
The paper advances governance-as-practice: actors continually make sense of what outcomes are desirable and re-establish governance frameworks through governing. Its provisional findings distinguish elaborating from framing.
Concept explorer
Select a concept to see its role in this paper’s contribution.
Governance as ongoing situated activity through which shared outcomes and governance frameworks are enacted.
Understanding the desired outcome and the significance of an issue through temporal anchoring, efficacy scoping, and sociotechnical referencing.
Acting on that understanding through disciplining, exemplifying, reformulating, and compromising.
Actively delineating whose interests and which scope of effects matter to the issue.
Temporarily accommodating conflicting demands or deferring a decision for further investigation.
The provisional model separates understanding what is desirable from acting on that understanding. It makes the reflective work preceding enforcement analytically visible.
Provisional findings and discussion, PDF pp.7–8; paper pp.6–7.
The analysis shows actors constructing a relevant scope and time horizon. It also identifies compromise and postponement as consequential governing activity.
Discussion, PDF pp.8–9; paper pp.7–8.
The model draws attention to the outcome sought, who is affected, and the relevant time horizon before choosing a governance response.
Elaborating and framing, PDF p.7; paper p.6.
In the case, postponement could register an action item for further investigation; it could also establish what was tolerable. Neither effect should be treated as neutral.
Compromising, PDF pp.7–9; paper pp.6–8.
Why this matters
When a digital innovation brings new participants, purposes, and technological possibilities, a governance issue may call for rethinking what should be achieved before deciding how to regulate action.
Discuss this researchResearch-in-progress short paper with provisional findings from one Australian digital healthcare transformation programme. The seven modalities are not proposed as a deterministic causal recipe.
Ongoing longitudinal case: 76 meetings, 46 interviews, and archival material at reporting.
Two-stage process, seven modalities, explicit non-deterministic caveat, and implications.
This exploration is based on the author-supplied full text. It distinguishes the paper’s own contribution from established concepts it draws on. For formal citation, consult the publication.