IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/binfse/v62y2020i5d10.1007_s12599-020-00654-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Negative Effects of Institutional Logic Multiplicity on Service Platforms in Intermodal Mobility Ecosystems

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Schulz

    (Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences)

  • Markus Böhm

    (Technical University of Munich)

  • Heiko Gewald

    (Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences)

  • Zehra Celik

    (Neu-Ulm University of Applied Sciences)

  • Helmut Krcmar

    (Technical University of Munich)

Abstract

Digitalization is changing the mobility sector. Companies have developed entirely new mobility services, and mobility services with pre-digital roots, such as ride-sharing and public transport, have leveraged digitalization to become more convenient to use. Nevertheless, private car use remains the dominant mode of transport in most developed countries, leading to problems such as delays due to traffic congestion, insufficient parking spaces, as well as noise and air pollution. Emerging intermodal mobility ecosystems take advantage of digital advances in mobility services by providing individual, dynamic and context-aware combinations of different mobility services to simplify door-to-door mobility and contribute to the reduction of private car use. However, the service platforms are limited in terms of functional range, for example they may lack integrated ticketing and rely on static data, which makes intermodal mobility inconvenient. This article adopts the service-dominant logic perspective to analyze service ecosystems for intermodal mobility and their service provision. Drawing on traditional institutional literature, the authors question the assumption that service logic is dominant for all actors of a service ecosystem. By applying activity theory, the article illustrates how an institutional logic multiplicity among actors can negatively affect the functional range of service platforms. The results of a qualitative study in Germany show that, in particular, the state logic of some actors, which is characterized by the obligation to provide mobility, impairs the quality of service platforms in supporting citizens in intermodal mobility.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Schulz & Markus Böhm & Heiko Gewald & Zehra Celik & Helmut Krcmar, 2020. "The Negative Effects of Institutional Logic Multiplicity on Service Platforms in Intermodal Mobility Ecosystems," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 62(5), pages 417-433, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:binfse:v:62:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s12599-020-00654-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s12599-020-00654-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12599-020-00654-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s12599-020-00654-z?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vargo, Stephen L. & Lusch, Robert F., 2017. "Service-dominant logic 2025," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 46-67.
    2. Paula Jarzabkowski, 2003. "Strategic Practices: An Activity Theory Perspective on Continuity and Change," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 23-55, January.
    3. Vadim Grinevich & Franz Huber & Mine Karataş-Özkan & Çağla Yavuz, 2019. "Green entrepreneurship in the sharing economy: utilising multiplicity of institutional logics," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 859-876, April.
    4. Firnkorn, Jörg & Müller, Martin, 2011. "What will be the environmental effects of new free-floating car-sharing systems? The case of car2go in Ulm," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(8), pages 1519-1528, June.
    5. Shaheen, Susan & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present, and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt79v822k5, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    6. Beirão, Gabriela & Sarsfield Cabral, J.A., 2007. "Understanding attitudes towards public transport and private car: A qualitative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(6), pages 478-489, November.
    7. Vargo, Stephen L. & Maglio, Paul P. & Akaka, Melissa Archpru, 2008. "On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 145-152, June.
    8. Shaheen, Susan A & Guzman, Stacey & Zhang, Hua, 2010. "Bikesharing in Europe, the Americas, and Asia: Past, Present and Future," Institute of Transportation Studies, Research Reports, Working Papers, Proceedings qt6qg8q6ft, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Berkeley.
    9. Wendy Hardyman & Kate L. Daunt & Martin Kitchener, 2015. "Value Co-Creation through Patient Engagement in Health Care: A micro-level approach and research agenda," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 90-107, January.
    10. Timm Teubner & Christoph Flath, 2015. "The Economics of Multi-Hop Ride Sharing," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 57(5), pages 311-324, October.
    11. Vickers, Ian & Lyon, Fergus & Sepulveda, Leandro & McMullin, Caitlin, 2017. "Public service innovation and multiple institutional logics: The case of hybrid social enterprise providers of health and wellbeing," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(10), pages 1755-1768.
    12. C. K. Prahalad & Richard A. Bettis, 1986. "The dominant logic: A new linkage between diversity and performance," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(6), pages 485-501, November.
    13. Michael Gibbert & Winfried Ruigrok & Barbara Wicki, 2008. "What passes as a rigorous case study?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1465-1474, December.
    14. Koskela-Huotari, Kaisa & Edvardsson, Bo & Jonas, Julia M. & Sörhammar, David & Witell, Lars, 2016. "Innovation in service ecosystems—Breaking, making, and maintaining institutionalized rules of resource integration," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 2964-2971.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Schulz, Thomas & Zimmermann, Sina & Böhm, Markus & Gewald, Heiko & Krcmar, Helmut, 2021. "Value co-creation and co-destruction in service ecosystems: The case of the Reach Now app," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Thomas Schulz & Markus Böhm & Heiko Gewald & Helmut Krcmar, 2021. "Smart mobility – an analysis of potential customers’ preference structures," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(1), pages 105-124, March.
    3. Hugo Guyader & Brenda Nansubuga & Karin Skill, 2021. "Institutional Logics at Play in a Mobility-as-a-Service Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-25, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Thomas Schulz & Markus Böhm & Heiko Gewald & Helmut Krcmar, 2021. "Smart mobility – an analysis of potential customers’ preference structures," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 31(1), pages 105-124, March.
    2. Schulz, Thomas & Zimmermann, Sina & Böhm, Markus & Gewald, Heiko & Krcmar, Helmut, 2021. "Value co-creation and co-destruction in service ecosystems: The case of the Reach Now app," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    3. Antonio Botti & Antonella Monda, 2020. "Sustainable Value Co-Creation and Digital Health: The Case of Trentino eHealth Ecosystem," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-17, June.
    4. Thomas Schulz & Heiko Gewald & Markus Böhm & Helmut Krcmar, 2023. "Smart Mobility: Contradictions in Value Co-Creation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 1125-1145, June.
    5. Francesco Polese & Luca Carrubbo & Francesco Caputo & Debora Sarno, 2018. "Managing Healthcare Service Ecosystems: Abstracting a Sustainability-Based View from Hospitalization at Home (HaH) Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-15, October.
    6. Daniela Rupo & Mirko Perano & Giovanna Centorrino & Alfonso Vargas-Sanchez, 2018. "A Framework Based on Sustainability, Open Innovation, and Value Cocreation Paradigms—A Case in an Italian Maritime Cluster," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-28, March.
    7. Francesco Polese & Antonio Botti & Mara Grimaldi & Antonella Monda & Massimiliano Vesci, 2018. "Social Innovation in Smart Tourism Ecosystems: How Technology and Institutions Shape Sustainable Value Co-Creation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-24, January.
    8. Pierpaolo D’Urso & Alessio Guandalini & Francesca Romana Mallamaci & Vincenzina Vitale & Laura Bocci, 2021. "To Share or not to Share? Determinants of Sharing Mobility in Italy," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 154(2), pages 647-692, April.
    9. Christoph Willing & Tobias Brandt & Dirk Neumann, 2017. "Intermodal Mobility," Business & Information Systems Engineering: The International Journal of WIRTSCHAFTSINFORMATIK, Springer;Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. (GI), vol. 59(3), pages 173-179, June.
    10. Sudbury-Riley, Lynn & Hunter-Jones, Philippa, 2021. "Facilitating inter-professional integration in palliative care: A service ecosystem perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 277(C).
    11. Vargo, Stephen L. & Lusch, Robert F., 2017. "Service-dominant logic 2025," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 46-67.
    12. Stuart Read & Stefan Michel & Jan H. Schumann & Kumar Rakesh Ranjan, 2019. "Pricing co-created value: an integrative framework and research agenda," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 9(3), pages 155-183, December.
    13. Christoph Willing & Tobias Brandt & Dirk Neumann, 2017. "Electronic mobility market platforms – a review of the current state and applications of business analytics," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 27(3), pages 267-282, August.
    14. Gu, Tianqi & Kim, Inhi & Currie, Graham, 2019. "To be or not to be dockless: Empirical analysis of dockless bikeshare development in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 122-147.
    15. Pucher, John & Buehler, Ralph & Seinen, Mark, 2011. "Bicycling renaissance in North America? An update and re-appraisal of cycling trends and policies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 45(6), pages 451-475, July.
    16. Alexandros Nikitas, 2019. "How to Save Bike-Sharing: An Evidence-Based Survival Toolkit for Policy-Makers and Mobility Providers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Tomasz Bieliński & Łukasz Dopierała & Maciej Tarkowski & Agnieszka Ważna, 2020. "Lessons from Implementing a Metropolitan Electric Bike Sharing System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-21, November.
    18. Levy, Nadav & Golani, Chen & Ben-Elia, Eran, 2019. "An exploratory study of spatial patterns of cycling in Tel Aviv using passively generated bike-sharing data," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 325-334.
    19. Hyungkyoo Kim, 2020. "Seasonal Impacts of Particulate Matter Levels on Bike Sharing in Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-17, June.
    20. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2018. "Public Service Innovation Networks (PSINs): Collaborating for Innovation and Value Creation," Working Papers halshs-01934275, HAL.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:binfse:v:62:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s12599-020-00654-z. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.