Shaping Information Infrastructure Evolution: Governmental Claims of Architectural Control Points
Stefan Henningsson 1, Jonas Hedman 1 and Bo Andersson 2
1 Department of IT Management, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark 2 Department of Informatics, Lund University, Sweden
sh. itm @ cbs. dk jh. itm @ cbs. dk bo. andersson @ ics. lu. se
Abstract: Payments are central for society. Historically, it involved two parties exchanging goods and services for money. Today, payments, with increasing frequency, consist of digital representations of money that are transferred through globally intertwined network. Payments involve many parties such as payers, payment services providers, banks, central banks, telecom operators, mobile handset manufactures, and payees. The digitization of payments that occurs around the world, leads to the emergence of Digital Infrastructure( DI) that is characterized by the number and heterogeneity of included socio‐technical components, relations, and their dynamic and unexpected interactions. DIs are IT solutions that frequently are the shared responsibility of an ecosystem, including private and governmental agencies. In consequence, development of DIs requires approaches that are different from the traditional systems development approaches. It is about modifying( changing and extending) a distributed installed base, shaping the evolution of DIs in desired directions. In this paper we inquiry into the possibilities for actors, such as governments, interested in the DI to influence its evolution towards specific ends. Specifically, through a case study of the payment infrastructure we identify and describe the role of legal and technical architectural control points. These control points are parts of an DI that have particular strategic importance, for example a monopolized gateway or a de jure mandatory standard for behavior or data interchange.
Keywords: information infrastructure, digital infrastructure, architectural control points
1. Introduction
Historically, payments involved two parties exchanging goods and services for money. Today, payments involve many parties, including payers, payment services providers, banks, central banks, telecom operators, mobile handset manufactures, and payees still exchanging goods and services for money. However, money has changed form and become digitalized. So today, payments, with increasing frequency, consist of digital representations of money that are transferred through globally intertwined network.
The digitization of payments that occurs around the world affects all states and governments. It leads to the emergence of a new type of information technology( IT) artifact with the generic label of Digital Infrastructure( DI) or Information Infrastructure( Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010, Tilson et al., 2010, Star and Ruhleder, 1996, Henningsson and Zinner Henriksen, 2011). DI is a specific type of IT artifact that is characterized by the number and heterogeneity of included socio‐technical components, relations, and their dynamic and unexpected interactions( Star and Ruhleder, 1996, Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010). DIs are IT solutions that frequently are the shared responsibility of an organizational ecosystem including both private and governmental organizational entities( Northrop et al., 2006).
Design and development of effective DIs has proven difficult and incurs huge losses in foregone investments, opportunity costs, and political and social problems( Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010). DI development is frequently the result of collective action and politics rather than clear‐cut strategic rationales( Rukanova et al., 2010), exemplified by the difficulties with developing nationwide e‐Health system in the UK( Sauer and Willcocks, 2007). The evolution of DIs has been compared to“ drifting”, in many cases completely out of managerial control( Ciborra et al., 2000).
Developing DIs, such as the payment DI, requires approaches that are different from the traditional“ design from scratch” system development methods( Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010, Tilson et al., 2010). It requires somewhat different approaches – it is about modifying( changing and extending) what is to become as close as possible to what is desired – i. e., it is about making DIs evolve in the desired directions. Such an approach has been dubbed“ installed base cultivation”( Hanseth and Lyytinen, 2010).
240