Richard Baskerville
email: baskerville@acm.org

Jan Pries-Heje

Diffusing best practices: A design science study using the theory of planned behavior

Keywords: Diffusion, Best Practice, Theory of Planned Behavior, Action Case

Both the practice and the research literature on information systems attach great value to the identification and dissemination of information on "best practices". In the philosophy of science, this type of knowledge is regarded as technological knowledge because it becomes manifest in the successful techniques in one context. While the value for other contexts is unproven, knowledge of best practices circulates under an assumption that the practices will usefully self-diffuse through innovation and adoption in other contexts. We study diffusion of best practices using a design science approach. The study context is a design case in which an organization desires to diffuse its best practices across different groups. The design goal is embodied in organizational mechanisms to achieve this diffusion. The study used Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) as a kernel theory. The artifacts resulting from the design were two-day training workshops conceptually anchored to TBP. The design theory was evaluated through execution of eight diffusion workshops involving three different groups in the same company. The findings indicate that the match between the practice and the context materialized in the presence of two concordant factors. On the context side, the qualities of the selected opinion leader were necessary to provide the subjective norm described in TPB. On the best practice side, the technological qualities of the best practice itself were necessary to instill the ideal attitude (belief that the behavior will be effective). These two factors were especially critical if the source context of the best practice is qualitatively different from the target context into which the organization is seeking to diffuse the best practice.

Introduction

While there is much work regarding the content of best practices, there is remarkably little work that considers that nature of best practices and in particular the diffusion of best practices in general. The definition of the concept best practice is regarded as subjective. The term is rarely defined in the literature. For the purposes of this paper, we will adopt the following as our working definition, "best practices are leadership, management, or operational methods or approaches that lead to exceptional performance." [1, p. 334] This general conceptualization of best practices is flavored by its anchors to the concepts of professionalism. Professionals encourage the diffusion of best practices among their professional colleagues. Often this encouragement takes the form of professional certifications or accreditation. While accreditation, such as professional accreditation, is often intended to diffuse best practices. However, studies have shown that it actually has only limited effects in this regard [START_REF] Teodoro | Socializer or Signal?, How Agency Accreditation Affects Organizational Culture[END_REF]. Such studies suggest a critical suspicion of the concept of best practice diffusion might be fair.

Diffusion of best practices by professionals is sometimes driven by commercial interests. Commercial pressure to converge on a set of best practices in global strategic management arises from international competition and capital markets. Improved communications and professionalization often presses for dissemination of best practices worldwide. However, this idea downplays differences in national systems and cultures as sources of competitive advantage. More nuanced strategy formulation is necessary that a radical convergence on a single, global set of best practice [START_REF] Carr | Convergence of Management Practices in Strategy, Finance and HRM between the USA, Japan and Germany[END_REF]. Such differences, and the need for nuanced diffusion of best practices, may help explain why the effects of professional diffusion of best practices are so limited.

The need for professionals to adapt or "nuance" the best practices as they diffuse is a continuing theme in the research in this area. Consultants and experts deliver practices to their companies and their clients. These professionals operate with conflicting roles, creating a dilemma. In one role, as professionals, they adhere to an epistemic community; in another, they adhere to a community of practice [START_REF] Creplet | Consultants and experts in management consulting firms[END_REF]. Professionals enacting a role as an expert interacts more with their epistemic community, privileging their creative processes. To convey the value of these proposed best practices, the professional must convince top management to change their strategic vision. Professionals enacting the role as a consultant interacts more with their community of practice, privileging the diffusion of best practices across the firm to enhance routine operations. These professionals (consultants and experts) often operate globally. As a result, any diffusion of best practices can involve inter-industries, cross-cultural, international, inter-disciplinary and trans-disciplinary links [START_REF] Creplet | Consultants and experts in management consulting firms[END_REF]. Professionals are knowledge carrying agents who diffuse best practices into diverse organizations.

Sluggish diffusion of best practices can sometimes be explained simply. For example, diffusion is known to increase "when the actors involved are perceived as being similar, when the diffusing practices are theorized as similar, and when the practices are theorized to be modern." [START_REF] Gooderham | Institutional and Rational Determinants of Organizational Practices: Human Resource Management in European Firms[END_REF] But the conceptualization of diffusion of best practices can be overly naïve. Best practice diffusion often involves a dependence upon the transfer of primarily explicit knowledge. Many professionals admit that such explicit coding of a best practice will lack its important implicit aspects. Such explicit best practices may provide a foundation for practicing in the setting at hand, but adaptation is usually necessary. Consequently, in real-world usage, a best practice will incorporate an emergent property. A coded best practice represents the starting point for a process of improvement [START_REF] Gonnering | The Seductive Allure Of "Best Practices": Improved Outcome Is A Delicate Dance Between Structure And Process[END_REF]. In this sense, diffusion of best practices is not necessarily dissemination of knowledge. Rather it is a process of improvement. In this process, the actors in the field are not just receivers of a best practice, but are co-constructors of this best practice. In other words, the best practice must be coconstructed by the actors in the new context [START_REF] Komporozos-Athanasiou | Policy as a struggle for meaning: disentangling knowledge translation across international health contexts[END_REF].

The need for best practice co-construction in the diffusion process means that certain kinds of best practices may seem to diffuse more easily than others. For example, with reference to new product development, best practices for strategy-setting (product selection, goal-setting, technology, etc.) seem to diffuse more widely than best practices for control (process control, metrics, documentation, etc.) [START_REF] Dooley | Adoption Rates and Patterns of Best Practices in New Product Development[END_REF]. It is not uncommon to blame limited best practice diffusion on motivational factors, like resistance to change. However, diffusion of high-value best practices are related to internal stickiness [the inability to reset a practice, 9]. Sticky best practices have a higher incremental cost of best-practice diffusion. Studies have shown that the central barriers to the diffusion of a best practice are the recipient's lack of absorptive capacity, causal ambiguity in the practice itself, and an arduous relationship between the source and the recipient [START_REF] Szulanski | Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best practice within the firm[END_REF].

The diffusion of best practices is therefore not as simple as declaring new process rules. For example, there is a known dialectical tension among the key principles in international business regulation. Harmonization and mutual recognition often oppose national sovereignty and low cost location. Such rule compliance opposes diffusion of best practices, continuous improvement, and best available technology [START_REF] Hargrave | A Collective Action Model of Institutional Innovation[END_REF].

The concept of a best practice implies a motivation to diffuse such a practice. However, the literature suggests that this diffusion is problematic. There are at least six aspects to these problems:

1. Diffusion of best practices can be motivated as part of a professional identity, and such diffusion may disregard the suitability for such practices in different settings. 2. In their efforts to diffuse best practices, experts and consultants can overly regard their own epistemic community and marginalize the community of practice that contextualizes the practices. 3. Diffusion of best practices sometimes disregards the innate advantages of national systems and cultures. 4. Best practices sometimes diffuse in an incomplete form: the explicit knowledge aspects are disseminated without the tacit knowledge aspects. New settings require adaptation, which can mean deconstructing and re-constructing/co-constructing the practice as an outcome of its arrival in a new setting with different actors. 5. Diffusion of highly valuable best practices can encounter internal stickiness making the diffusion costly. 6. Diffusion of best practices varies depending on the subject matter of the practice.

These issues lead to the research question addressed in this paper: Why do organizations fall victim to the innate problems with diffusion of best practices; how can an organization ideally enable such diffusion?

We use a design science research approach to explore this question. We develop a procedural artifact (a process or method artifact) that aims to avoid the known problems above and effectively diffuse best practices. Our kernel theory is Theory of Planned Behavior as (TPB). A kernel theory is a natural or social science theory that governs design requirements [START_REF] Walls | Building an information system design theory for vigilant EIS[END_REF]. We selected TPB because the initial framing of the problem was given as resistance to change. This abductive selection arose because TPB is perhaps the most widely acknowledged model for describing the decisionmaking process that results in behavioral stasis or behavior change. (See the discussion of TPB in the next section.) We report results in a case where TPB was used as an intervention to diffuse a procedure for (improved) project management. A workshop was carefully designed using TPB as a basis. Forty managers in this workshop reported strongly increased intention to use immediately after the workshop. Furthermore observational data indicated a majority of the managers actually used the procedure months after the workshop.

Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)

TPB is a predictive model of human behavior in specific situations [START_REF] Fishbein | Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research[END_REF][START_REF] Ajzen | Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior[END_REF]. It is an extension of the theory of reasoned action. Ajzen is probably correct when he states, "Judging by the sheer number of investigations it has stimulated, the TPB is perhaps the most popular of the reasoned action models" [14, p. 454]. As an extension of the theory of reasoned action, TPB is anchored in the human attitude toward a behavior, often modeled as an expectancy of value. Such attitudes have a cognitive component (beliefs) and an affective component (evaluations). The causality presents actions as dependent on attitudes, and attitudes as dependent on beliefs and evaluations. TPB regards an individual's intention to perform a given behavior as a central factor. A strong intention is expected to increase the likelihood of an actual behavior. However, the degree to which an intention leads to a behavior is conditioned by the degree to which an individual actually has volitional control (whether the individual can actually decide to perform the behavior). Behavioral achievement depends on intention (motivation) and ability (behavioral control) [START_REF] Ajzen | The theory of planned behavior[END_REF].

Behavioral control regards the extent to which people possess the information, skills, abilities, emotions, compulsions and the absence of external barriers to perform a given behavior. In TPB, the actual behavioral control is less important that the perceived behavioral control. That is, the degree of their belief in their behavioral control. It is very similar to the notion of self-efficacy. " Behavioral control is linked both to behavioral intention and behavioral achievement [START_REF] Ajzen | Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology[END_REF].

Motivation is partly comprised of a trait possessed by the individual: a general disposition to succeed that is not dependent on the situation at hand. This general disposition combines with a situational expectancy of success. A third situational factor is the incentive value of the expected success. Together with behavioral control, these factors combine to make three determinants of behavioral intention. The first determinant is the attitude toward the behavior. It embodies the degree to which the individual has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior. The second determinant is subjective norm, a social factor referring to the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior. The third determinant is perceived behavioral control [START_REF] Ajzen | The theory of planned behavior[END_REF]. Figure 1 illustrates the TPB.

Research Method

The case methodology applied here is described as an action case [START_REF] Braa | Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research[END_REF]. An action case is a hybrid research approach that combines action research and interpretive case approaches. It combines intervention and interpretation in order to achieve both change and understanding. It is a form of soft field experiment with less emphasis on iteration and learning and more on trial and making. The approach is holistic in philosophy, and prediction is not emphasized. The intervention in this case was that of a designer introducing a previously well-published theory -the theory of planned behavior (TPB) -as a strategy for solving a problem diffusing a best practice. The case at hand is a setting in which an international company in the energy sector faced problems. For anonymity reasons we will refer to this company as ENKACE.

ENKACE is an old company headquartered in Europe but working with projects all over the world. Recently ENKACE has grown considerably mainly through mergers and acquisition. They had started to gather "lessons learned" from projects and realized that improving their project management would have a huge positive influence on their results. For example, better forecasting of their potential problems through early risk management brought the potential of saving millions of Euros. Another example is better stakeholder management, which together with early communication about expectations would have saved a number of projects from costly failure.

But in some projects, ENKACE had found that everything had worked out successfully. Based on these successes, the quality department had developed a best practice procedure. This procedure was carefully written so that problems that had been encountered in ENKACE projects could have been coped with. ENKACE quality managers from all parts of the world had been involved in the development of the procedure, hence it was covering best practice in ENKACE. The first version of the best practice procedure was aimed at project managers managing energy projects at sea. Their challenge in diffusing these best practices was to improve the professionalism of some 40 project managers for at-sea operations.

One author of this paper was presented with ENKACE's best-practice diffusion problem. Using TPB as grounding, this researcher suggested the design of an intervention to deliver these best practices as ideal professional conduct for the project managers. The design idea of implied within TPB to diffuse both explicit and implicit best practice to build on the project managers general disposition to succeed. The design process began in early 2013 with a brainstorming and knowledge transfer session at ENKACE headquarters. Following the brainstorming session, the researcher created an initial design. This design was then discussed in several video-based sessions involving participants from ENKACE worldwide. The final design was framed as a 2-day workshop for project managers.

Data consisted of field notes and documentation. The documentation centered on the evolving design of the training program and the evaluation of the various events in the training program. Like other forms of action research, action case methodology is often iterative. In ENKACE, the iterations coincided with a sequence of training events (e.g., in Asia, Europe, and North America). Learning acquired in each event conditioned the subsequent events. Some of these training events were collaborations between a professional trainer and the researcher; other training events were conducted by the trainer alone.

4

The design

The kernel theory for the design was TPB. A number of company-based examples were chosen to influence the attitude of project managers. The rationale for choosing the examples involved illustrating for the participants how unfortunate project outcomes could have been prevented or avoided by using a particular best practice (in this case, the Project Management Procedure).

Influence over subjective norms involved recruiting an influential Project Manager as a co-trainer in the workshop. This individual is seen among colleagues as a respected opinion leader. The co-trainer not only influences (group) normative beliefs in the group of project managers participating in the workshop, but also encourages others in co-construction of the best practice. Co-training by someone perceived as a peer participant can relax other participants about interactively offering content adjustments. Hence this part of the intervention was built on Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations theory [START_REF] Rogers | Diifusion of Innovations[END_REF] using the idea that early adopters have the highest degree of opinion leadership.

The workshop included training in risk management, stakeholder management, and planning. This training is intended to influence perceived behavioral control. A teaching case built on realistic projects was developed. Exercises incorporated in the teaching case gives participants the feeling that they have the necessary information, skills, abilities, etc., to exercise volitional control to shape their behavior and their behavioral intentions.

See Figure 2 for the overall workshop design.

Fig. 2. First workshop design

The Design Rationale behind the workshop design was the following (numbers referring to Figure 2):

1. The workshop begins with a focus on the attitude of the participating project managers. This session unfreezes the participants' attitude about their past behaviors and the behavioral norms. Attitudes are opened to the relevance of doing something different. This attitudinal shift arises in telling the failure stories from their own projects. Simultaneously participants contribute their own best practices for their peers to consider. Such a discussion of the success stories reveals implicit knowledge within the community of practice that is present in the workshop. 2. The workshop participants shift to a learning mode by studying best practices from other companies and from the professional community of project managers. This process should help move subjective norms closer to the best practices. 3. The first day concludes with a further focus on the attitude of the project managers.

A sense of motivation is communicated helping participants realize that the use of the best practice procedure could have led to the prevention of unfortunate previous outcomes. 4. The second day begins with a continuation of the learning mode to help reset to subjective norms. 5. The centerpiece of the second day is a teaching case to provide the participating project managers an understanding of how they could apply the best practice in a professional way. This activity increases the belief in their behavioral control. 6. The emphasis on improving a belief in behavioral control continues. The cotrainer from ENKACE participates intensely in the discussion of the case thereby influencing both the belief in behavioral control and the subjective norm within the community of practice among ENKACE project managers. By witnessing the co-construction of the best practice at the hands of a peer project manager (the cotrainer), the belief in behavioral control re-freezes the best practice as behavioral intention. 7. The final session of the workshop evaluates the results of the workshop process.

The participants critically assess "Did it work?" and "How do you perceive the best practice procedure now?"

Iteration One

The first instance of the workshop was held in Asia early May 2013 primarily for Asian project managers. An author of this paper worked as the main trainer. A known strategy for overcoming resistance-to-change is to involve an opinion leader as a change advocate [START_REF] Rogers | Diifusion of Innovations[END_REF]. An experienced project manager -now working in Quality Assurance (QA) at ENKACE -was enlisted as co-trainer in the workshop. Before having the workshop the author and the enlisted co-trainer had a virtual meeting a month before and a physical meeting the day before the workshop. These two meeting were spend re-designing and improving the workshop. For example the meetings resulted in the specific choice of cases for learning (bullet 3 in Figure 2) and in the specifici presentation of the teaching Case (bullet 5 and 6 in Figure 2). The presence of the opinion leader as co-trainer succeeded. Commencing with the project manager's own successes and failures also succeeded in making the participants receptive to the best practice and its concomitant professional knowledge. Learning from past projects, especially a demonstration of exactly where the new best practice procedure would have helped, was also successful. The discussion of each case clearly brought forward knowledge that was not explicitly stated in the practice, but was implicitly known by the experienced members of the group.

At the end of the workshop people were enthusiastic about the best practice procedure. This practical outcome suggests that this first test run of using TPB as kernel theory for designing a workshop was a success: The participants found it useful and gave it high scores for utility.

The two next instances of the workshop were held in Europe in May and June 2013. Both workshops were small in terms of the number of participants: 8 and 10. As with Asia, the workshop setup worked well. Participants noted that the time allocated for the workshop (ten hours over two days) was too brief. In one of the workshops the co-trainer from Asia could not participate. Instead the senior project manager in the company (in terms of the longest tenure) was trained to take on the role as opinion leader and contributed to the case projects to look at (bullet 3 in Figure 2)

The workshops were also evaluated using a questionnaire. Table 1 lists the items on this questionnaire. The participants were asked to rate questions on a scale from one to five, with one being poor and five being excellent. On average answers in the three workshop ended up at 4.2 -4.3. The highest scores in the two workshops were given to question no. 4 on how well the workshop reinforced the use of the best practice procedure. Based on the experience and the participant responses, our conclusion is that TPB is suitable as a kernel theory for designing a workshop to diffuse best practice.

The learning that developed from this iteration centered on the role played by the opinion leader. While enlisted as an advocate for change (in order to overcome resistance-to-change), this individual demonstrated how essential it is to situate the best practices within the practical context of the participants. This role must be richer than merely advocating for change, but became as well essential for helping the participants to learn how the best practices would operate in their own context.

Iteration Two

The second iteration and intervention took place in another part of ENKACE. The three workshops in Iteration One covered most of the project managers in that part of the company. This second iteration was then aimed at project managers for land operations in a mature market. The aim of the undertaking was to create buy-in for two of three best practice procedures and to deliver information about a third. Proceduresagain -had been written by QA based on best practices identified throughout the company. The three procedures regarded: (1) Starting a project; (2) Running a project; and (3) Creating a Project Quality Plan.

Based on the experience from Iteration One, and because three best practice procedures were diffusing, it was decided to add three hours each day making it an 16 hour workshop in total. In order to expand the focus on local context, new topics were covered including stakeholder management and even more emphasis was placed on planning. A new teaching case (with exercises relevant to the context of the new group of project managers) was developed and incorporated. The teaching case al-lowed the participants to experience a project situation that could easily have been their own project. This new case context was important to give the participants the perception of behavioral control through

The first workshop in Iteration Two was held in August 2013 in North America, the second in September (Europe), a third in October (Europe), and a fourth in the beginning of November again in North America. Learning from the first iteration continued through the workshops in the second iteration. In the first workshop, the new teaching case was not fully successful in building in the participants' own context. More work was needed to attract the participants to picture themselves as working with just such a project. Between the first and the second workshop the teaching case was updated. It was important to get it exactly right so that the participants could picture themselves in it as if it was their own project.

Another limitation concerned the co-trainer's ability to command a role as opinion leader. The co-trainer in Iteration Two had many years' experience in industry but only one year experience in ENKACE. While well-equipped to contextualize a new best practice, this co-trainer lacked corporate-level experience with this particular new practice itself. This clearly led to limitations in the co-trainer's ability to take on the role both as opinion leader for the new practice, and as contextualizing expert to help the participants situate the new practice in their own projects.

Iteration Three

In parallel with the latter part of Iteration Two another target group of project managers were identified. This third target population for the best practices was land operations in immature markets. Again, the aim of the workshop was to get diffuse the use of best practice procedures, e.g. in dealing with the immature market and the risks incurred by it.

In Iteration Three a very experienced co-trainer with many years at ENKACE was engaged. This co-trainer also took on a more active role in the workshop. Where the division of work in the first two iterations had been 70-30% between the trainer/researcher and the co-trainer/ENKACE-er, in Iteration Three the division of work was fifty-fifty.

In October 2013, the first instance of Iteration Three opened. The timing was again eight hours a day for two days. The participants fell in two groups; Old with more than 20 years' experience (on average), and Young with about five years' experience (on average). An interesting observation was that the intended behavior (the buy-in) by the Young group was higher than the Old group. The attitude from some of old group was, "just let me keep doing what I have been doing all the time; why bother with a new best practice procedure? To me my practice is good enough."

Another interesting observation was that the co-trainer had been training some of the Young group four-five years ago when they first came to the company. This history strongly influenced the co-trainer's ability to function as opinion leader among these people. They simply accepted straight away what was being taught as best practice. In contrast, the Old group needed to see several examples before becoming convinced that they were confronting a best practice.

4.4

The effect of the interventions

In the first iteration there was very clear buy-in (behavioral intention) to the procedure immediately after the workshop. An interesting question is (of course) whether that behavior intention yielded behavioral achievement. (In other words, did this buy-in last?) Preliminary indications are positive. The Iteration One co-trainer observed improved use of the best practice had continued months later. However, no exact figures have been gathered yet. So it is still too early to measure an effect (for example as a lower percentage of failing projects).

In the second iteration there was clear behavioral intention toward two out of three best practices. For the first two instances the buy-in was not directly measured. But then we developed an instrument specifically for measuring buy-in (behavioral intention). The questions asked for the first best practice procedure (on starting projects) are shown in Figure 3. Similar questions were asked for the "CONTINUE" best practice procedure on ongoing project management and for the Project Quality PLAN procedure.

The buy in for the three procedures after instance 3 (the third best practice) was reasonably good. On a scale from 1 to 5 (with 5 being "Strongly Agree") the scoring is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. behavior intention (buy-in) for three best practices after instance three.

The buy-in for the three procedures at the end of the training was quite good and noticeably higher than in instance 3. On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5 being "Strongly Agree" the scoring at the end is shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Behavioral intention (buy-in) at the end of the intervention.

There was a change between workshop instance 3 and workshop instance 4. We gave the participants an exercise for each best practice/procedure: "Make a critical review of the procedure and come up with at least one observation e.g. on something missing or superfluous". This exercise seems to have a positive influence possibly linked to participants' perception of control over the procedures and ability to influence it.

In the third iteration three instances has taken place. The measured buy-in effect of the first instance workshop was good. Seven out of nine rated the effect "Good", one rated it "Fair, and one rated in "Inadequate". The one rating it inadequate pointed to the lack of relevance of the procedures to the individual himself as the main cause.

Overall, however, there was a high measured positive effect of the workshop on participant behavioral intention (buy-in) to adopt the best practices.

Discussion

The learning that developed across iterations one and two shifted our perspective on the essential practical problem. We initially framed the problem as "resistance-tochange". Across the iterations, we reframed this problem as "not-invented-here". This re-framing arose as the role of the co-trainer evolved. In keeping with Roger's (2003) theory that opinion leaders can help overcome resistance to change, the initial role of the co-trainer was pronounced as an opinion leader. As the iterations evolved, a further critical role emerged: that of contextualizing expert who helped participants see themselves using the new best practice in their own projects. The importance of both roles became evidence in the comparison of the iterations. In iteration one, the co-trainer was both opinion leader and contextualizing expert. In iteration one, the outcome of the TPB-based training program was positive. In iteration two, the co-trainer was well prepared as an opinion leader, but a weakly prepared as a contextual expert. The outcome of the TPB-based training program was less positive. In iteration three, the co-trainer was more carefully chosen to strongly suit both roles. The outcome of the TPB-based training program was very positive.

The research question at hand is, "Why do organizations fall victim to the innate problems with diffusion of best practices?" Our work first reveals that there are two essential innate problems involving behavioral planning: (1) resistance-tochange, and (2) not-invented-here. Problem one is a deeply human issue involving both psychological and cognitive components. Grounding training in TPB provides an avenue to resolving this problem. In our research setting, however, the second problem is also a facet of decentralized organizations. It is a tension between centrici-ty and diversity in the sense that widespread adoption of best practices assumes sufficient organizational coherence to permit distributed adoption of the practice. But in decentralized organizations, such an assumption may only hold in the most central part of the organization. Diffusion of a best practice requires the engagement of experts who can help adopters situate the practice in their own specific context. Such experts address the not-invented-here problem but do not obviate the resistance-tochange problem. Also needed are opinion leaders.

Organizations fall victim to innate problems of diffusion of best practices because there is a problem dualism confronting such diffusion: resistance-to-change and not-invented-here. Such diffusion is aided when both opinion leaders and contextualizing experts are engaged in the process.

The results reported in this paper has some likeliness to the work of Mathiassen et al. [START_REF]Improving Software Organizations. From Principles to Practice[END_REF] on Software Process Improvement. In Chapter 1 they discuss how important it is to focus on real problems to motivate improvements [18, p. 4]. That is exactly the mechanism used in the workshops at ENKACE. Mathiassen et al. [18, p. 11] also emphasizes that "Participation makes improvement happen" which is exactly why it was so successful involving co-trainers in the workshop.

Conclusion

Research that considers that nature of best practices and in particular the diffusion of best practices is remarkably sparse. This may lead to a critical suspicion that the diffusion of best practice is difficult or nearly impossible. However, at the core of being professional often lies the notion of being able to apply best practices. In that sense professionals are knowledge carrying agents across or within organizations.

In this paper we have described an Action Case study with the aim of using TPB as the kernel theory for a design of a method for diffusing best practices within the case organization ENKACE. In short we found that it is possible to use TPB for guiding a design. And we found that the resulting design actually diffused best practice within ENKACE. In more detail we found: Diffusion of best practices can be motivated as part of a professional identity within an organization especially through the systematic engagement of opinion leaders to influence subjective norm It is important to allow the described best practice to be adopted into the community of practice that contextualizes the practices. One possible vehicle for achieving this diffusion is the discussion of lessons learned from relevant, completed projects.

Lessons learned from prior projects can be used for co-constructing a practice -building on the best practice -in a new setting with different actors. Internal stickiness that makes the diffusion costly is hard to avoid. But using TPB as kernel theory for the design can help considerably.

Best practice diffusion often involves a dependence upon the transfer of primarily explicit knowledge. But the transfer of implicit aspects is also an important part of working professionally. Actors in the field are not just receivers of a best prac-tice, but are co-constructors of this best practice. The workshop design applied here (cf. Figure 2) allowed for this. Furthermore, our findings from ENKACE indicate that the match between the practice and the context materialized in the presence of two concordant factors. On the context side, the qualities of the selected co-trainer / opinion leader were necessary to provide the subjective norm described in TPB. On the best practice side, the technological qualities of the best practice itself were necessary to instill the ideal attitude (belief that the behavior will be effective). These two factors were especially critical if the source context of the best practice is qualitatively different from the target context into which the organization is seeking to diffuse the best practice.

Fig. 1 .

 1 Fig. 1. Theory of Planned Behavior [from 15]

Fig. 3 .

 3 Fig. 3. Best practice "buy-in" questions for determining behavioral intention.

Table 1 .

 1 Evaluation questionnaire items


Maria Åkesson
email: maria.akesson@hh.se

Michel Thomsen
email: michel.thomsen@hh.se

Digital Innovation and Social Dilemmas

Keywords: Digital innovation, research agendas, social and ethical challenges, social dilemmas

Digital innovation is rapidly reshaping society, affecting fundamental aspects of our everyday activities and lives. This development is accompanied with benefits as well as social dilemmas. In this paper we approach this class of challenges in IS digital innovation research. We investigate how social challenges are attended in research agendas, and reflect upon social challenges emerging from a digital service innovation project. Based on the empirical case, we present a scenario that illustrates how social challenges can unfold in digital service innovation. The case exemplifies three conflicts of interest that are used to discuss implications for the research agendas for digital innovation. We propose that explicit attention is paid to social and ethical challenges, taking a large scale and interdisciplinary approach on social and ethical challenges in digital ecosystems.

Introduction

Digital innovation is continuously reshaping everyday activities, affecting many aspects of our lives. Innovative digital services are designed and implemented in a variety of contexts, targeting new user groups and application areas. For example, digital services have been developed to promote independent living for elderly [START_REF] Frantzidis | Description and future trends of ICT solutions offered towards independent living: the case of LLM project[END_REF] and for medical support in homes for people with diabetes [START_REF] Kanstrup | Design for more: an ambient perspective on diabetes[END_REF]. Innovative digital design is also implemented in numerous products. Newspapers and books are being digitized, cars have novel digital capability, shoes have embedded chips counting steps and measuring blood pressure, etc. The rapid development of digital technology enables innovative digital services, expanding design into new contexts, confronting us with new social dilemmas. While digital innovation indeed enables novel values to large groups of people, others are left behind. As Walsham [3, p.91] pose, it is important to ask -Who benefits, and who is missed out? Walsham´s question clearly has bearing on digital innovation and design. Within IS research more assessment of social consequences has been emphasisized [START_REF] Majchrzak | ICT and Societal Challenges, Call for Papers Special Issue[END_REF]. Laying out a future agenda for the IS field, Walsham suggests use of critical approaches and strong ethical goals in IS research. Let us give an example of a social dilemma. Imagine a tourist bus equipped with an intelligent remote diagnostic system (RDS). The RDS predicts a break failure before entering downhill on Timmelsjoch-Hochalpenstrasse (Fig. 1), and a potential accident is luckily avoided.

Fig. 1 Timmelsjoch-Hochalpenstrasse This digital innovation clearly has benefits for safer bus transportation. Now, imagine the difference RDS can make in developing countries with limited resources, and where traffic accidents are common due to technical failures. So, how do we approach this class of challenges in digital innovation, affecting individuals, groups of people and society at large? Since the millennium, digital innovation has been recognized as an important IS research theme. IS scholars like Kalle Lyytinen, Youngjin Yoo, Richard Boland and Ola Henfridsson have published proposals for research agendas, calls for research, and commentaries on digital innovation. In this paper we investigate how social challenges are treated in these publications, and reflect upon social dilemmas that emerged in a digital innovation project in the vehicle industry. In this project an intelligent RDS is developed with a vehicle manufacturer that seeks to expand business by adding digital services to their vehicles. There are technical and organizational challenges associated with this ambition, however in this paper we pay particular attention to the social challenges. We adopt a broad view on social challenges by referring to the world agenda for sustainable development, including aspects such as social responsibility, social justice and equity [START_REF]Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future[END_REF]. Using a scenario based on the RDS project, we illustrate potential benefits and social dilemmas in this project. A social dilemma emerges when actions or decisions impair, or has the potential to impair the wellbeing of an individual or group. Social dilemmas, or what Walsham [START_REF] Walsham | Ethical theory, codes of ethics and IS practice[END_REF] refers to as ethical issues, impact on the moral well-being of organizations and are important to IS scholars. The aim of this paper is to discuss and empirically illustrate social and ethical dilemmas accompanying digital innovation, and to contribute to the agenda for future research on digital innovation.

The paper is organized as follows. We start with an overview of challenges addressed in calls for research and research agendas on digital innovation. We then present the empirical context, the RDS project, and an empirically grounded scenario illustrating how social dilemmas can unfold in digital service innovation. Finally, we discuss social dilemmas and ethics in digital innovation research.

Calls for Research and Research Agendas on Digital Innovation

Digital innovation is a sub field in IS which captures the innovative capacity driven by the rapid development of digital technology. In general terms, innovation refers to an outcome perceived as new, weather it is an idea, object, or process, as well as to the process of creating this newness [START_REF] Slappendel | Perspectives on Innovation in Organizations[END_REF]. The newness may be a recombination of old ideas challenging the present order in such a way that it is new to the people involved [START_REF] Van De Ven | Central Problems in the Management of Innovation[END_REF]. Digital innovation refers combining digital and physical components in new ways making products programmable, addressable, sensible, communicatable, memorable, traceable and associable [START_REF] Yoo | Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research On Experiential Computing[END_REF]. Such digitization distinguishes digital innovation from non-digital innovation. The generative capacity of digital technology enables refinement, expansion and recombination of digital services [START_REF] Yoo | Research commentary -the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research[END_REF]. To its nature, digital innovation is distributed because the control over product components is distributed across multiple firms, and the product knowledge is distributed across heterogeneous disciplines and communities [START_REF] Yoo | Research commentary -the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research[END_REF]. Accordingly, digital innovation spans beyond single stakeholders control [START_REF] Henfridsson | The Generative Mechanisms of Digital Infrastructure Evolution[END_REF], creating a paradox of change and control in digital innovation, see e.g. [START_REF] Tilson | Research Commentary -Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda[END_REF]. This in turn, continuously leads to new emergent and fragmented design situations [START_REF] Thomsen | Understanding ISD and Innovation through the Lens of Fragmentation, in Grand Successes and Failures in IT: Private and Public Sectors[END_REF]. By digital service innovation we refer to services enabled by digital innovation. To give an example we use the RDS. In this case, buses are digitized by embedding sensors, processors, wireless transmission and algorithms for prediction of faults in the buses. This digitization of buses provides a platform for digital services innovation. An example of a digital service enabled by the RDS is a real-time monitoring service of a fleet of buses offered to bus operating companies. This type of digital service innovation brings new business opportunities for manufacturing companies, expanding their business with digital services afforded by digital innovation [START_REF] Akram | Understanding Tensions in Incumbent Manufacturing Firms -A Study of Digitalized Product[END_REF].

Within the IS sub field of digital innovation a number of calls for research and research agendas on digital innovation have been published since the millennium. We have reviewed central research themes, and how social and ethical challenges are articulated in these publications (summarized in order of appearance in Table 1). The authors analyse nomadic information environments based on their prevalent features of mobility, digital convergence, and mass scale, along, with their mutual interdependencies.

A research framework that organizes research topics in nomadic information environments at the individual, team, organizational, and interorganizational levels and is comprised of both service and infrastructure development, we assess the opportunities and challenges for IS research (see Table 1 p. 381) Attention to social and ethical challenges Na -The authors mention e.g. "At the level of services, IS researchers need to address the design, use, adaptation and impact of (digital) services." (see Table 1, theme 2, p. 381). Infrastructure for individual level -Governance and control address access privileges, privacy, and visibility of personal and public knowledge.

Communications of the ACM -Issues and challenges in Ubiquitous computing, 2002, Vol. 45, No.12, pp. 63-65. Lyytinen, K. and Yoo, Y. -Special issue article [START_REF] Lyytinen | Issues and challenges in Ubiquitous computing[END_REF] The authors suggest that radical improvements in microprocessor cost-performance ratios have, in 40 years, transformed the early large "computing machines'' into compact devices that enable, mediate, support, and organize our daily activities.

The authors suggest that the shift toward ubiquitous computing poses multiple novel, social, and organizational challenges. Technical level issues of computer architecture and configurations on a large scale. "… the emergence of truly integrated sociotechnical systems will create a wide array of research and policy issues that deal with social organization, impact, and the future of work, organizations, and institutions." (p. 65)

Attention to social and ethical challenges

The authors put forward questions that concern previously, unexplored (social) challenges that will emerge at the border between the technical and the social some issues are to be left outside the technical implementation to be addressed by social negotiation and due process; other issues should be addressed during technical design.

Organization Science -Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World, Vol. 20, No. 1, January-February 2009, pp. 278-279 Yoo, Y., Boland, R., Lyytinen, K. and Majchrzak, A. -Special issue [START_REF] Yoo | Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World[END_REF] The authors suggest that many challenges related to rapid and radical digitization will dominate the concerns of managers in this century. Studying the full impact of digital technology on innovation requires cross-disciplinary dialogue, richer vocabularies, diverse theoretical perspectives, new research methodologies, novel data analysis techniques and increase the breadth of research.

Research questions relating to:

-Convergent and generative characteristics of pervasive digital technology -Organizational innovation with pervasive digital technology

Attention to social and ethical challenges

Na -One question is: What are the social and material characteristics of digital technology that enable radical innovation? [START_REF] Yoo | Research commentary -the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research[END_REF] As the rapid development of digital technology continues to make computers and computing a part of everyday experiences, we are once again in need of a new discipline of the artificial. The author argues that the IS community must expand its intellectual boundaries by embracing experiential computing as an emerging field of inquiry in order to fill this growing intellectual void.

An experiential computing design science research encompassing both behavioural and design sciences Six research opportunities are suggested to the IS research community relating to e.g. sociomateriality, generativity, group experience, and hybrid networks.

Attention to social and ethical challenges

The author does not discuss topics like social challenges, ethics or "who is missed out?" in any detail. However he suggest research opportunities that relate to e.g. social challenges and integration of digital infrastructures with existing cultural infrastructures.

Information Systems Research -Report on the Research Workshop: "Digital Challenges in Innovation Research" 2010. Yoo, Y., Lyytinen, K., Boland, R. and Berente, N. -Research workshop to guide future research on digital innovations. [START_REF] Yoo | The Next Wave of Digital Innovation: Opportunities and Challenges: A Report on the Research Workshop 'Digital Challenges in Innovation Research[END_REF] The authors suggest that ubiquity of digitalization is one of the primary forces behind innovations across a wide range of product and service categories. (2) the emergence of distributed innovations, and (3) the prevalence of combinatorial innovation. Identification of research opportunities for organization science scholars. Attention to social and ethical challenges Na -one article in the special issue deals with the consequences of digitalization of tools, in the context of car development. The authors (Bailey, Leonardi and Barley "explore how the increased dependence on more realistic digital tools to simulate, visualize, and test new complex products and their "crashability" leads to unintended consequences of separating physical objects and people from the virtual representations of design objects. They also show how the use of these highly realistic digital tools leads to recon-figurations of jobs and tasks and design outcomes are not always desirable. Finally, they point out that placing too much trust on digital tools can backfire, and the likelihood of casting blind faith on digital technology increases as its power and capacity to represent the world grows. Their finding provides a contrarian perspective to existing stream of research.

MIS

Attention to social and ethical challenges

Ethical issues an IT is mentioned as a pedagogical theme, but not discussed Table 1 shows that most themes relate to technical and organizational challenges, and that digital innovation is addressed as a large scale phenomenon. It also shows that central themes are the characteristics of digital technology, infrastructure and platforms, conditions for innovation and processes, and the general organizing logic of digital innovation. The table shows, however, that explicit attention is put to the nature of digital technology, while ethical considerations are articulated in only few of these publications.

Empirical Context -the R2D2 Project

To illustrate how social challenges can unfold in digital innovation research, we zoom into a collaborative research project in the vehicle industry. The R2D2-project started in April 2009 and was finalized in December 2013. The participants were a global vehicle manufacturer and a group of researchers in computer engineering and informatics. The overall goal of the project was to develop an intelligent RDS that diagnose the health status of individual vehicles while in traffic. The RDS detects deviating patterns of vehicles with sensor technology in for example a fleet of city buses, and wirelessly transmit information about the buses while in traffic. This digital technology enables digital services such as prediction of faults, maintenance and traffic planning. In exploiting potential digital services enabled by the RDS, public bus transport organizations and bus operating companies were engaged in activities in the project as they are potential customers.

The incitement for the vehicle company to explore this innovation path is grounded in an ambition to expand their business with digital services coupled with their vehicles. The vehicle company has offered services to support the function of vehicles since 1985. This has been regarded as a post market and not a core business. In 2009, the company decided to prioritize servitization of their products, taking digital innovation initiatives such as the R2D2 project. This expansion brings technical, organizational and social challenges that were addressed in the project.

The rationale of an intelligent RDS, if successfully implemented and adopted, is benefits for traffic safety, reduced maintenance costs, increased life length of vehicles, increased up-time of operation, better work environment for bus drivers, improved service quality for public, etc. In other words, there are many potential benefits for large groups of bus riders, public transport companies, bus operators, and other stakeholders in the transport ecosystem. The project is therefore relevant in relation to the question -who benefits, and who is missed out.

The project was organized in two parallel parts. The first part involved the technical development of the RDS including diagnostics and prediction of maintenance, with a focus on methods for diagnosing and predicting faults. The second part involved digital service innovation enabled by the RDS. This included studying the RDS ecosystem, business potential and customer value of such services. While the first part started in 2009 and ended 2013, the second part started in 2010 and ended 2012. This paper is based on the second part where three informatics researchers and two service developers from the vehicle company participated. In this part of the project, the researchers interacted with different company representatives and external stakeholders. In Table 2 we present a summary of activities in the project. In the monthly project meetings, participants from both project parts gathered to inform about and discuss project progress. These meetings were generic and cross disciplinary including technical as well as service innovation issues that emerged in the project. The meetings with service developers were planning meetings for the second part of the project and related to the digital service innovation. The interviews with the vehicle company representatives aimed at capturing the internal vision of RDS, and to get a deeper insight into the company reasoning on challenges associated with the digital services. The interviews with stakeholders outside the vehicle company aimed at exploring potential digital services based on the RDS. The workshops were explorative and aimed at creating scenarios for future digital services. In addition to meetings, interviews and workshops, there were group discussions in order to gain a holistic understanding of public bus transport. Finally, the data from these activities is complemented with documents such as minutes of meetings, project newsletters and project reports.

When interpreting and reflecting on the activities and interactions in the R2D2 project, we identified social dilemmas observed as conflicts of interest. We exemplify three of these conflicts in an empirically grounded scenario. The scenario is a means to bring life to the sociotechnical context and social dilemmas when RDS is implemented in a public transportation system.

The Public Bus Transportation System in Cityville

Alan is responsible for repairs and maintenance planning in BusOp, a bus operating company with the contract for public transport in Cityville. There are 65 vehicles of the brand SmartBus and 15 of the brand Riveras in the fleet of buses in Cityville. In high frequency traffic 78 of these buses are needed in operation, while in low frequency traffic there are about 50 buses in traffic.

There are a two hours at nigh when the busses are out of operation. Alan's responsibility is to make sure that there are enough buses available at different times, and to reduce the risk of bus failure while in traffic. This is a complex task.

BusOp has a contract with the vehicle manufacturing company SmartBus for regular maintenance performed according to a schedule every 12 weeks on each individual bus. BusOp also has its own garage where they do checkups and some repairs work. At these occasions parts are, for preventive reasons, also exchanged even if they function. This is costly, but it is weighed against the risk of breakdowns while in traffic, which is a priority to avoid.

The high frequency timeslots are the bottlenecks in Alan´s planning, but the biggest challenge is that individual buses do not have the same pattern. For some busses the 12 week regular maintenance is enough, but other buses might need it every 8 or even 6 weeks. There is even one bus that is seldom in traffic since the engine for some reason suddenly stops and the driver cannot start it again. Because of the individual differences Alan keeps journals on each individual bus.

Disturbance in operation happens every day. It can be anything from a door not closing, or flat tire, to break failure and electrical problems. In some cases the problem is easy to solve by a mechanic that drives to the bus and fixes the problem. In other cases a replacement bus needs to be put in, and the bus that has broken down is towed to the garage. These types of failures are disruptive and disturbing for the bus riders, and the situation is uncomfortable for the bus driver and other employees in BusOp. An even worse situation, that luckily happens less often, is when the break down causes an accident. The most common breakdown causing accidents is break failures.

SmartBus is an innovative company that in collaboration with researchers has developed a new intelligent RDS, enabling to predict faults such as break failure before they actually happen. The overall function of the RDS is to model and characterize operation for a fleet of buses, and to predict their maintenance need over a lifetime. The system is built on an architecture where sensors are embedded in different parts of the bus. The sensors generate on-board data that the system continuously mines. The information is sent to a back office server where it is analyzed for deviating patterns by comparison to reference data. This enables to detect faults early and to estimate the lifetime of parts (see Figure 2).

Sensors installed in buses

Wireless data transmission while in traffic Back office analysis of data SmartBus is now offering a set of digital services enabled by the RDS to BusOp. The service offer builds on a monthly payment for continuous monitoring of the health status of the buses. Alan thinks this service is a great help for his work. Now he can monitor the buses in real time while in traffic. He can better match maintenance with needs for individual buses. Alan can also prevent break-downs with help of the predictive information which in turn improve the overall up-time of the bus traffic. Most importantly, Alan really hopes this will make the zero accident goal of BusOp possible.

There is just on thing he is not so happy about. The RDS service is only available for the SmartBus vehicles, hence the Riveras buses cannot be connected to the service. Bob, the traffic planning manager, finds this challenging. He thinks it is difficult to decide what routes to put the now safer SmartBus buses and what routes to traffic with the Riveras buses. He has taken the Riveras out of school bus operation and now looks at statistics of traffic, passenger numbers etc. in order to make an as good a decision as he can.

Bob also works for the bus operating company BusGo in a neighbor city. BusGo drives only SmartBus vehicles equipped with RDS technology, but they have not found room for the RDS service in their budget. When Bob planes the school bus rout he cannot help thinking that the information in the system could prevent accidents. However, BusGo cannot does not get that information since they are not paying for the service. This makes Bob feel uncomfortable. He wonders what the parents would say if they knew this.

Alan really likes the RDS service. At a public transport convention Alan did a presentation together with Jessie from SmartBus. They explained the RDS and Alan spoke in very positive terms about it and how it contributes to better up-time for BusOp. Jessie explained how this is a new business opportunity and a how SmartBus now can have a more service oriented relation to BusOp. They can now work together to develop more digital services enabled by the RDS. At the convention a representative from the national transport administration asked about the type of data that the system mines. She asked if this perhaps is important information that can help develop new routines for roadworthiness, tests etc, in turn contributing to a safer traffic environment for all. "If your data shows that a part should be examined in roadworthiness tests it is of public interest that we have that information". Jessie hesitated, and realized that opening the system for public organizations would have implications for future business cases. She recognized that there is also a dilemma since the data mining enables analyzes of the weaknesses of SmartBus vehicles. This is of course of confidential nature for the SmartBus company.

Discussion and conclusion

In this paper we empirically illustrate social and ethical dilemmas accompanying digital innovation. We discuss that digital service opportunities bring social and ethical challenges. We show how this class of challenges is treated in IS research agendas for digital innovation, and we show how social dilemmas can emerge in digital innovation initiatives. The review of calls for research and research agendas on digital innovation give at hand that the technical re-orientation in IS is well covered, while social challenges are articulated less explicit. Since digital innovation is diffused to new social contexts, it is reasonable to expect that a) potential teaching themes [START_REF] Fichman | Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information Systems Curriculum[END_REF] more emphasis on social challenges and ethics, and b) social and ethical issues to be well mirrored in the research agendas.

The investigation into the digital innovation project showed how such challenges can unfold, in this case conflicts of interest. In summary, the scenario shows how third parties stakeholders such as bus riders might have different value perceptions and interests than what is inscribed in the service design. This was illustrated with the example of school buses and the bus operating companies' restrained budgets. Another conflict of interest was related to the challenge of balancing safety and risk in traffic planning, and the relation to business model interests of service provision. This is portrayed with the example of how the RDS was locked-in by the bus manufacturer for exclusively for their brand. Finally, the scenario gives an example of how public interest of data mining as a source for societal improvement, in this case improved traffic safety, potentially can be in conflict with the interests of companies building up data mines as a resource for digital service innovation.

Acknowledging the nature of digital innovation such as stakeholder heterogeneity, generativity, multi layered logic, distribution of knowledge, the paradox of change and control, see e.g. [START_REF] Yoo | Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research On Experiential Computing[END_REF][START_REF] Yoo | Research commentary -the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research[END_REF][START_REF] Henfridsson | The Generative Mechanisms of Digital Infrastructure Evolution[END_REF][START_REF] Tilson | Research Commentary -Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda[END_REF], we suggest there are implications when addressing social challenges in digital innovation. As highlighted by the scenario, it is overpowering to one single actor to overview and control the chain of possible social consequences in large scale digital ecosystems. It is not always evident who is to take responsibility for, or to coordinate, the systematic application of moral principles in distributed innovation settings. Furthermore, the complex nature of digital innovation continuously creates new research and design situations. As a consequence new and multi disciplinary social challenges rapidly emerge in digital innovation settings. Without doubt, the fragmented nature of digital innovation adds to this complexity.

There certainly are important research themes addressing technical and organizational challenges in the research agendas for digital innovation. As illustrated in the scenario there is a complex maze of business opportunities and ethical challenges when digital innovation is diffused to new social contexts. The social dilemmas observes in the RDS project unmistakably point to social dilemmas that can emerge in digital service innovation when apprising value of services from different stakeholder´s perspectives. The interest of one stakeholder can clearly lead to decisions that can impair the wellbeing of people. We propose that explicit attention is paid to social and ethical challenges, for example with collaborative analysis of consequences and models for shared ethical responsibility.

In the research agendas in reviewed, digital innovation is mainly addressed as a large scale phenomenon. Our understanding is that the structures and architectures on large scale have ethical implications that pervasively span everyday human activities. We therefore propose taking a large scale approach also to social and ethical challenges in digital ecosystems.

As suggested by e.g. Walsham [START_REF] Walsham | Are we making a better world with ICTs? Reflections on a future agenda for the IS field[END_REF] and Majchrzak et al. [START_REF] Majchrzak | ICT and Societal Challenges, Call for Papers Special Issue[END_REF] this class of challenges cannot be solved by simple interventions -today's sociotechnical challenges encourage for multidisciplinary research initiatives. Consequently, we suggest that there is a need to find efficient ways to articulate and share our experiences and insights with researchers in relating disciplines to contribute to strong ethical goals in the future digital innovation research agenda.

  Participants were asked to address four questions; one is What are the organizational, technological, social and economic implications of these issues, and what generative processes of innovation and change emerge from them? Six recommendations for future research: Multi disciplinary research, Design scholarship, Taking data seriously, Infrastructure, and Theorizing digital technology. Attention to social and ethical challenges Na, One question deals with organizational, technological, social and economic implications of these issues, and what generative processes of innovation and change emerge from them. Organization Science -Organizing for Innovation in the Digitized World. Vol. 23, No. 5, September-October 2012, pp. 1398-1408. Yoo, Y., Boland, R., Lyytinen, K. and Majchrzak, A. -Special issue [19] Pervasive digital technologies change the nature of product and service innovations. The organizational research implications of these three An analysis of convergence and generativity observed in innovations reveals three traits: (1) the importance of digital technology platforms, digital innovation traits.

  Quarterly -Digital Innovation as a Fundamental and Powerful Concept in the Information Systems Curriculum. Forthcoming 2014-2015. Fichman, R. G., Dos Santos, B. L. and Zheng, Z. E. -Issues and opinions [20] Potential teaching themes related to IS core class. Examples: IT for competitive advantage, IT assimilation, digitally infused products, Ethical issues an IT, IT driven industry transformation, IT architecture, and interface design. Suggestions to the IS research agenda for digital innovation: -Broaden innovation research -Focus more attention on distinctiveness and heterogeneity -Focus more attention on how digital technology transforms innovation

Figure 2 .

 2 Figure 2. The overall principle of the RDS

Table 1 .

 1 Digital innovation research themes and challenges

	Theme	Emerging research agenda
	Information Systems Research -The Next Wave of Nomadic Computing, Vol. 13, No. 4, December 2002, pp. 377-388
	Lyytinen K. and Yoo Y. -Research Commentary [15]

social and ethical challenges Na Information Systems Research

  -Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2010, pp. 748-759. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K. and Sørensen, C. -Research Commentary [12]Use of e.g. mobile services creates decentralized work organizations. Understanding these new dynamics will necessitate the field paying attention to digital infrastructures as a category of IT artefacts.

	architecture: the layered modular architecture	digital innovation including research themes relating to:
	A conceptual framework describing the new organizing logic	-New strategic frameworks
	for digital innovation	-Cooperate IT infrastructure
	Attention Three research directions:
		1) Theories of the nature of digital infrastructure as a separate
		type of IT artefact
		2) Digital infrastructures as relational constructs are shaping
		all traditional IS research areas.
		3) Paradoxes of change and control as salient IS phenomena.
		Suggestions on feasible methods for studying large scale
		sociotechnical phenomena.
	Attention
	Information Systems Research -The New Organizing Logic of Digital Innovation: An Agenda for Information Systems
	Research Vol. 21, No. 4, December 2010, pp. 724-735. Yoo, Y, Henfridsson, O and Lyytinen, K.-Research Commentary [10]
	Pervasive digitization gives birth to a new type of product	A conceptual framework of a new IS research agenda with

to social and ethical challenges Na MIS Quarterly

  -Computing in Everyday Life: A Call for Research On Experiential Computing Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 213-231, June 2010 Yoo, Y. -Issues and opinions

Table 2 .

 2 Summary of sources, activities and participants.

	Sources, activities and participants (2010-2012)	Duration	Number
	Project meetings
	Monthly project meetings	2-3 hours	20
	Service development meetings with company service developers	2-3 hours	30
	Interviews
	Vehicle company business managers	1-2 hours	3
	Vehicle company service development manager	1 hour	1
	Vehicle company technology development manager	1 hour	1
	Vehicle company repair and maintenance manager	1 hour	1