The Journal of Strategic Information Systems focuses on the strategic management, business and organizational issues associated with the introduction and utilization of information systems, and considers these issues in a global context. The emphasis is on the incorporation of IT into organizations' strategic thinking, strategy alignment, organizational arrangements and management of change issues. The journal publishes research from around the world which:

• investigate the changing nature of business in the context of emerging IT
• discuss the justification and evaluation of information systems
• discuss the organizational implications of IT
• consider how organizations have been transformed as a result of the astute management and application of IT

A transdisciplinary, critical approach/perspective is welcome.

Topics covered include:
• organizational transformation on the back of IT
• information systems/business strategy alignment
• inter-organizational systems
• global issues and cross-cultural issues
• the impact and significance of emerging IT 

Special Issue on Ethical and DEI Implications of the Future of Work: The Role of Immersive Platforms
Submission Date: 2024-12-31

In this call for papers, we seek manuscripts that explore the future of work with respect to immersive platforms enabling innovative work practices and ask perspective authors specifically to consider the potential pitfalls (i.e., concerning ethics and DEI) of all this.

Guest editors:

Prof. Marco Marabelli
Bentley University

Prof. Sue Newell
Warwick Business School

Prof. Manju Ahuja
University of Louisville

Prof. Bob Galliers
Bentley University

Special issue information:

In the spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic triggered the operations of most companies worldwide to move online. The education systems along with several other services for citizens, including public administration, healthcare etc. followed suit (Marabelli et al. 2021). In a sense, the COVID-19 pandemic served as an unintended natural experiment, testing the extent to which current technologies are able to support remote/virtual interactions via immersive platforms. At the same time, the pandemic also exposed limitations of these arrangements, setting the groundwork for novel ways (and technologies) to promote further such interactions in the future.

Most knowledge workers were already used to working remotely, at least occasionally, working from home, in virtual teams and on-line communities. Engagement in on-line meetings for prolonged periods of time, and sometimes overnight, was a disruptive change that left knowledge workers longing for a return to more in-person interactions. In healthcare, telecare was seldom used before the pandemic. Yet, when regular in-person visits became impossible, the industry adapted to the new realities and, as an example, in the US in 2021, telehealth services had been used 38 times more often than before the start of the pandemic (Marr 2022). Since then, most in-person healthcare operations have resumed. Similarly in the education sector, primary and secondary schools resumed in-person classes in most countries (China being a partial exception), as vaccines became available, and the effects of the pandemic faded. Higher education institutions, however, behaved differently. The already diffused offering of remote classes and curricula saw the pandemic as an opportunity to consolidate the on-line education industry, a development that is most likely here to stay (Lockee 2021). Looking at higher education from a researcher perspective, on-line meetings are certainly more common in the aftermath of the pandemic, along with conferences and workshops often being run in hybrid mode, albeit with mixed results (Marabelli et al. 2023).

In sum, COVID-19 forced several industries to systematically adopt technologies and practices to work, interact and collaborate remotely. The pandemic also gave high-tech companies the push to develop new systems supporting on-line interactions in a supposedly more effective fashion. For instance, Meta, in 2021, had already invested over $10B in metaverse-related projects (Brown 2021). In January 2022, Microsoft invested $68.7B in the metaverse by acquiring Activision Blizzard Inc. (Nasdaq: ATVI), a gaming and virtual reality company (Microsoft 2022). According to Matthew Ball’s (2021) definition, the metaverse is “a massively scaled and interoperable network of real-time rendered 3D virtual worlds which can be experienced synchronously and persistently by an effectively unlimited number of users with an individual sense of presence, and with continuity of data, such as identity, history, entitlements, objects, communications, and payments.” The metaverse is different from other collaborative platforms because of its immersiveness, meaning that the 3D technical features, along with the use of avatars and devices such as headsets and other types of sensors, make users sense that they are in a place in which they are not (i.e., the office, the doctor’s office, or a vacation resort). These sociotechnical systems represent a break from the mainstream. Along with the metaverse, other initiatives aimed at making up for the lack of immersive experience of traditional technologies for synchronous remote collaborations, such as Zoom, are surfacing. Examples include Apple’s augmented and mixed reality. While employing different devices, marketing approaches and strategies, they all represent sociotechnical systems aimed at overcoming the 2D limitations of current collaborative technologies. Yet, it remains to be seen whether they will actually be able to fill the gap between in-person and on-line interactions by providing immersive user experience. And, if so, at what cost?

Marabelli and Newell (2023), in a recent JSIS opinion paper, fleshed out several strategic opportunities and challenges of the future of on-line interactions, focusing on DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) issues, and on the metaverse. In this call for papers, we seek manuscripts that explore the future of work with respect to immersive platforms enabling innovative work practices and ask perspective authors specifically to consider the potential pitfalls (i.e., concerning ethics and DEI) of all this.

For instance, concerning remote working, on-line data on interactions are often harvested by analytics systems, as employee performance is assessed by automated systems such as AI. Such surveillance leaves certain segments susceptible to unfair assessment such as people with disabilities (who might not be able to access immersive platforms), women (notably less prone to speak up in on-line interactions ) and unfair treatment of non-White people (for instance, when technologies involve facial recognition systems to enter buildings and in accessing organizational resources). A further discriminatory factor concerns those excluded from remote work, such as some task workers (bus drivers, grocery store cashiers, carpenters, etc.) for whom it is impossible to perform their jobs remotely, and who often include disadvantaged people and people at the margin.

In healthcare, remotization might lead to unequal access to care, especially if telehealth becomes immersive, with remote patients required to wear devices (e.g., bodysuits) allowing clinicians to capture vitals. These devices are expensive and, for a long time, will not be available for everyone. For instance, it is foreseeable that in the US (a private/public healthcare system where private health is prevalent and very expensive), only people with private health insurance will be able to access immersive remote care. In addition, while telehealth is supposed to reach populations in rural areas and minimize travel for the elderly and people with limited mobility, remote immersive care requires broadband, which might be unavailable in these areas.

Higher education is prone to exclusions similar to those present in healthcare settings, with potential discriminations against financially weak students, students living in rural areas, students with disabilities etc. If the focus is shifted from students to professors, along with the aforementioned issues related to remote work, academics are and will be challenged by attending conferences in hybrid mode. On the one hand, expensive equipment to “attend” remotely using virtual reality may lead to the exclusion of people from under-represented regions and universities lacking resources for example. These issues will make it difficult to use hybrid techniques to include participants from the Global South (even though it might allow the participation of people who otherwise might not be able to travel, such as pregnant women). On the other hand, hybrid conferences might lead to a two-tier system of first and second class citizens, with the former enjoying social events after paper sessions, with the latter simply logging off (cf. Marabelli et al. 2023). In a debate on hybrid conferences, Ahuja (2023, Forthcoming), discusses the role of hybrid and on-line conferences in developing a sense of belonging (to the AIS community), as experienced by members of different regions. It is certainly possible that hybrid conferences intended to enhance diversity (allowing more participation from underrepresented regions for instance) end up being detrimental to inclusion. We thus invite theorizing on whether the constructs of diversity and inclusion should be decoupled in certain settings.

We have discussed remote work, healthcare and higher education as but three examples of the unequal impact that novel technologies, involving virtual, augmented and mixed reality, may involve. Other examples include the use of these technologies by law enforcement, which might collect user behavior data on such platforms and draw conclusions on what individuals could do in off-line settings – leading to predictive policing not based on data about crimes and neighborhoods but instead on inferences on behavioral data happening in virtual environments enabled by immersive platforms. We welcome papers discussing remotization – and its dark side – in the above mentioned settings and more.

Importantly, along with the problems associated with remotization, authors should be able to point to solutions that are strategic for companies. While it is an obligation for every company to uphold ethical standards, thereby preventing discrimination, promoting inclusion and fairness (i.e., DEI), often company ethical standards coincide with the requirements of the law. It is therefore strategic for companies (and organizations more generally) to use novel immersive platforms in a responsible manner, for ethical as well as compliance reasons. Laws and regulations on privacy (cf. GDPR in Europe and PIPL in China) and the use of algorithmic-based systems (cf. AI Act in Europe), demand strategic actions aimed at ensuring the respect of current laws, also considering the international breadth of these laws and the global competitive environment in which we live. To this end, papers specifically tackling subjects concerning coercive forces, under the umbrella of institutional theories, are very welcome.

Another important point to consider is that of the environmental impact associated with the intense use of virtual realities in various settings of the workplace. The need for computational capabilities and storage will require heavy use of electricity (and cooling systems), which will contribute to the global warming. Yet, global warming has uneven consequences across populations. For instance, India (nearly 18% of the world population), generates 3% of the world pollution but pays a high price because of global warming, with temperatures having risen to 110F in June and July 2022 (Williams 2022). These and other issues – and associated potential for theorizing – are summarized by Marabelli and Newell (2023). We look for papers that either build on these issues or go beyond, given the broad landscape of industries and settings that are and will be affected by remotization, with a particular focus on emerging technologies related to virtual, augmented, and mixed reality enabled by immersive platforms.

Overall, we welcome empirical, theoretical, review and perspective/position papers. While we are inclined to recommend that papers with empirical data are preferred, we understand that we are discussing a phenomenon in its becoming. Yet, papers with primary data or those that systematically analyze secondary data on organizations using novel technologies for remotization are strongly encouraged. JSIS, while specific in its focus on strategy and strategizing (cf. Gable 2020) is inclusive as to the use of methods of any kind. Qualitative, quantitative, archival/historical analyses, mixed method papers, and experiments are all welcome, as long as rigor leads the collection of data (if applicable) and its analysis. Importantly, conclusions, critical reflections and impacts should result. Strong theoretical contributions are required for empirical and theoretical papers. Perspective/position papers should also contribute to theory, by developing a research agenda, with implications for practice also being highlighted. We will give priority to empirical, theoretical and review submissions, and encourage authors planning to submit a perspective/position paper to contact us directly, prior to submitting their work.

Topics of interest include (but are not limited to):

    People analytics in organizations, leveraging virtual realities with a focus on privacy/discriminations
    The present and future of telehealth with the support of immersive platforms
    The present and future of higher education with the support of immersive platforms
    Predictive policing using behavioral data stemming from immersive platforms
    Immersive platforms and academic conferences (cf. Ahuja 2023, Forthcoming; Marabelli et al. 2023)
    Laws and regulations landscape concering DEI and immersive platforms (and challenges for companies)
    Immersive platforms and the environment

Important Dates and Publication Timeline

    January 31st, 2024: Submission of extended abstracts (~1,000 words including references). Feedback will be given by February 14th, 2024. Not required to submit a full paper, but strongly suggested.
    August 1st, 2024: deadline for full papers submission.
    November 15th, 2024: feedback to authors (reject, revisions)
    February 28th, 2025: resubmission deadline for paper granted a revision.
    June 15th, 2025: feedback to authors (reject, conditional acceptance)
    July 1st, 2025: resubmission deadline for papers granted conditional acceptance (camera ready)
    August 1st, 2025: accepted papers published online.

Associate editors:

    Anjana Susarla (Michigan State University, USA)
    Carmen Leong (UNSW Sydney, Australia)
    Carolina Salge (University of Georgia, USA)
    Cristina Alaimo (Luiss University, Italy)
    Dubravka Cecez-Kecmanovic (UNSW Sydney, Australia)
    Ghiyoung Im (Louisville University,USA)
    Mareike Mohlmann (Bentley University, USA)
    Maric Boudreau (University of Georgia, USA)
    Martin Wiener (TU Dresden, Germany)
    Massimo Magni (Bocconi University, Italy)
    Romilla Syed (University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA)
    Sepideh Ebrahimi (University of Waterloo, Canada)
    Silvia Masiero (University of Oslo, FI)
    Stella Pachidi (University of Cambridge, UK)
    Virpi Kristiina Tuunainen (Aalto University, Finland)

Special Issue on Platform Partnerships
Submission Date: 2025-09-15

Over the last years platform partnerships between independent third-party developers (complementors) and providers of software platforms (platform owners) have become the prevailing model for developing and delivering software products and services (Fürstenau et al. 2023; Jacobides et al. 2024). Platforms are strategic in enabling value co-creation through boundary resources—such as software development kits (SDKs) and application programming interfaces (APIs)—which provide complementors with the tools needed to seamlessly integrate their offerings into the core platform infrastructure (Eaton et al. 2015; Ghazawneh and Henfridsson 2013; Mann et al. 2022; Schreieck et al. 2022; Zapadka et al. 2022).

Guest editors:

Thomas Huber (ESSEC Business School, France) 
Maximilian Schreieck (University of Innsbruck, Austria) 
Andreas Hein (University of St Gallen, Switzerland) 
Ilan Oshri (University of Auckland, New Zealand) 
Julia Kotlarsky (University of Auckland, New Zealand) 

Special issue information:

Novel and creative uses of technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), low-code/no-code platforms, and distributed ledger technologies (DLT) like blockchain are redefining how organizations interact, collaborate, and compete. AI and IoT enable real-time data analytics and predictive insights, allowing platforms to coordinate relationships and optimize sourcing decisions by anticipating demand, managing risks, and adjusting partnerships (Gregory et al. 2020; Shollo et al. 2022). IoT enhances this by providing continuous data streams from connected devices, enabling more responsive, data-driven collaborations in logistics and inventory management (Pauli et al. 2021). Low-code/no-code platforms reduce entry barriers for participants, enabling organizations to develop solutions independently (Bock and Frank 2021; Viljoen et al. 2024). Blockchain and smart contracts automate partnership agreements through self-executing code, reducing transaction costs and fostering trust, particularly in complex, cross-border environments (Ellinger et al. 2023).

Together, these technologies have strategic implications on partnerships in platform ecosystems, potentially reshaping established practices in value co-creation and appropriation (Li and Tuunanen 2022), and sourcing arrangements (Oshri et al. 2015). While they offer complementors opportunities to innovate and gain leverage, they also equip platform owners with new tools to reinforce their dominance. Whether these new tools will benefit complementors or increase platform owners' control remains an open question. For example, as decentralized, real-time decision-making becomes more common, will these technologies empower complementors to innovate and operate autonomously, or will they reinforce existing power imbalances, allowing platform owners to strengthen centralized control and dictate terms of value appropriation and collaboration (Cutolo and Kenney 2021; Huber et al. 2017; Hurni et al. 2022)?

As dominant platform owners like Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft in Western markets, and Alibaba, Tencent, and Baidu in China, continue to control key sectors of consumer and business markets (Chatterjee and Sarker 2024), complementors face growing challenges in navigating the advantages of platform participation against the risks of dependency and lock-in, both undermining complementor autonomy (Kude and Huber forthcoming; Engert et al. 2023; Cutolo and Kenney 2021; Engert et al. forthcoming; Hurni et al. 2022). Meanwhile, the evolving regulatory landscape, such as the European Union’s (EU) Digital Markets Act[1], seeks to address these power imbalances by imposing restrictions on platform gatekeepers that reshape partner strategies and value co-creation.

Indeed, platform partnerships are undergoing significant strategic transformations (Zapadka et al. 2022). Advancements in technologies such as AI, IoT, and blockchain, along with shifts in political and regulatory environments, are influencing how partnerships within platform ecosystems evolve (Kude and Huber forthcoming; Schreieck et al. 2024). In this rapidly changing landscape, critical questions arise about the future dynamics of partnerships in platform ecosystems. How will the balance between value co-creation and value appropriation shift as AI, DLT, and IoT become more integrated into platform partnerships? Will these technologies empower complementors to innovate and capture a fair share of the value they create, or will they enable platform owners to centralize control, deepening dependencies and shifting value appropriation in their favor? And as platform ecosystems often narture sourcing relationships, how and in what ways sourcing relationships between a platform owner and complementors affect the platform ecosystem? Ultimately, how can both platform owners and complementors strategically navigate these changes to ensure mutual benefit in an increasingly complex ecosystem?

This call for papers invites research that explores how these strategic shifts are reshaping platform partnerships, including changes in the strategies and business models of platform owners and complementors (Böttcher et al. 2022), and the governance of these partnerships and ecosystems (Huber et al. 2017; Wareham et al. 2014). We welcome empirical, conceptual[2], design, and simulation research. Any methodologies and theoretical perspectives are encouraged as long as they contribute to the theoretical understanding of platform partnerships, along with practical insights.

Below, we list potential topics for this Special Issue along several themes, but we are not strictly limited to these topics[3].

Platform Partnerships and Emerging Technologies

    The role of AI/machine learning and predictive analytics in managing platform partnerships.
    The impact of AI platforms' unique characteristics, such as learning abilities and non-deterministic behaviors, on platform partnerships.
    The role of IoT in real-time coordination and dynamic management of platform partnerships.
    Effects of distributed ledger technologies on platform partnerships.
    Impact of low-code/no-code platforms on the role of complementors within these platforms.

Platform Partnerships, Platform Power, and the Regulatory Environment

    Strategies for complementors to manage power asymmetries within platform partnerships.
    The role of regulatory interventions in addressing the increasing power of platform owners.
    Strategies for complementors and platform owners to adapt to regulatory changes, such as new laws and antitrust decisions.
    Managing regulatory trade-offs between restricting powerful platform owners and fostering innovation.

Governance of Platform Partnerships

    Impact of emerging technologies on managing tensions in platform governance, such as control versus autonomy.
    The impact of changes in the platform core on platform partnerships.
    The heterogeneity of complementors in digital platform ecosystems and its implications for governance.
    The impact of scaling platforms/ecosystems on platform partnerships

Platform Partnerships and the Evolution of Sourcing Arrangements

    The role of AI, real-time analytics, and DLTs in shaping sourcing strategies, decisions, and governance.
    The influence of platforms in managing evolving sourcing relationships.