Cited by 583Digital Platforms and EconomicsInformation Systems Theories and ImplementationService and Product Innovation

Distributed Tuning of Boundary Resources: The Case of Apple’s iOS Service System1

Open access
Eaton, Ben, Elaluf-Calderwood, Silvia, Sørensen, Carsten, Yoo, Youngjin·2015·MIS Quarterly

Abstract

The digital age has seen the rise of service systems involving highly distributed, heterogeneous, and resource-integrating actors whose relationships are governed by shared institutional logics, standards, and digital technology. The cocreation of service within these service systems takes place in the context of a paradoxical tension between the logic of generative and democratic innovations and the logic of infrastructural control. Boundary resources play a critical role in managing the tension as a firm that owns the infrastructure can secure its control over the service system while independent firms can participate in the service system. In this study, we explore the evolution of boundary resources. Drawing on Pickering’s (1993) and Barrett et al.’s (2012) conceptualizations of tuning, the paper seeks to forward our understanding of how heterogeneous actors engage in the tuning of boundary resources within Apple’s iOS service system. We conduct an embedded case study of Apple’s iOS service system with an in-depth analysis of 4,664 blog articles concerned with 30 boundary resources covering 6 distinct themes. Our analysis reveals that boundary resources of service systems enabled by digital technology are shaped and reshaped through distributed tuning, which involves cascading actions of accommodations and rejections of a network of heterogeneous actors and artifacts. Our study also shows the dualistic role of power in the distributed tuning process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.25300/misq/2015/39.1.10

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Digital resources can be edited and reprogrammed, and their functionality can be deferred until the point of use.

    “At a time when digital resources are readily editable (Kallinikos et al. 2013), reprogrammable (Yoo et al. 2010), and functionality can be procrastinated until the point of use (Eaton et al. 2015;Henfridsson et al. 2014)”

    From Recombination in the open-ended value landscape of digital innovation (2018) · cites this paper as Eaton et al. 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Apple. 2011a. App Store Review Guidelines (Rev. 9-6-11), Cupertino, CA.
  2. Simon, H. A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  3. Tilson, D., Lyytinen, K., and Sørensen, C. 2010. 'Digital Infrastructures: The Missing IS Research Agenda,' Information Systems Research (21:5), pp. 748-759.
  4. Zittrain, J. 2006. 'The Generative Internet,' Harvard Law Review (119), pp. 1974-2040.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eaton, B., Elaluf-Calderwood, S., Sørensen, C., & Yoo, Y.
Affiliations
  • Copenhagen Business School (DK)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
  • Temple University (US)
Venue
MIS Quarterly
Publisher
MIS Quarterly
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
217-243
ISSN
  • 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-9730
OpenAlex
W1573877699
Cited by
583
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 66 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 79 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 53 · 2018: 35 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 19
FWCI
93.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • MIS Quarterly (publishedVersion)
  • CBS Research Portal (Copenhagen Business School) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • London School of Economics and Political Science Research Online (London School of Economics and Political Science) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • LSE Research Online Documents on Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of the Association for Information Systems (submittedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Chicago
  • Harvard Business School
  • Academy of Marketing
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • National Research Foundation
  • National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2012-2012S1A3A2033291, NRF-2012)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/G066434/1, EP/G066426/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Service and Product Innovation
Keywords
boundary resources, service systems, iOS, Apple Inc., institutional logics, heterogeneous actors, power

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review