Finding and Characterizing Stakeholders in Social Networks

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

Who are the players? Finding and characterizing stakeholders in social networks Cristina Chuva Costa ISEC, Department of Systems and Informatics Engineering, Polytechnic of Coimbra CISUC, Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Coimbra [email protected]

Abstract Technological advances and the generalized use of the Internet provide the necessary conditions to exploit social networks. These inter-organizational systems involve several players, with different influences, roles and interests. To design social networks it is critical to identify its stakeholders. Neglecting their presence can hide network threats that can compromise its success, as well as the development or acceptance of its supporting information system. We present an approach for carrying out stakeholder identification considering the specific demands of social networks. We sought inspiration in stakeholder identification criteria for inter-organizational environments, in social network analysis, in business model theories, and in social theories. The result was an iterative approach that systematically helps refining the stakeholder set, their roles, and the social network context. We illustrate the use of our proposal through its application to Facebook.

1. Introduction The proliferation of the internet has been steadily transforming the way companies conduct business. The unprecedented ubiquitous connectivity provided at negligible costs allows stakeholders to come together in virtual networks. They have the chance to create innovative business models that would be unfeasible in the physical world. The new configurations of these models entangled significant power shifts. For instance, Amazon displaced established booksellers; Priceline.com gives its users the possibility to name their own price when shopping for flights, hotels, and car rentals. The business models mentioned above afford the chance to create original value proposals, which embrace broader concepts than the traditional financial revenues, such as: data exchange, access to new

Paulo Rupino da Cunha CISUC, Department of Informatics Engineering, University of Coimbra [email protected]

markets, research cooperation, promote common interests, minimize costs and obtain prestige, which reflect the potentialities provided by the new configurations. Similarly to what happens in the business world, Internet’s ability to connect millions of users also offers a privileged environment to exploit social networks. Nowadays, those sites attract millions of users, many of whom use their facilities in their daily practices. For instance, in the 2008 United States Presidential Elections, Facebook was intensively used to spread political messages and to find sponsors and supporters. The rich and complex interactions among social network users, similarly to inter-organizational configurations, can create innovative forms of collaboration, which in turn can enable new value proposals. However, to design appellative, functional, sustainable, and in some cases profitable social networks, their supporting business models cannot be handled based on intuition and hints. We developed a novel approach to aid analyzing, designing, and tuning inter-organizational business models, ensuring that all required stakeholders have an enticing reason to participate [1], [2]. The approach is organized in three phases: the first identifies and characterizes the network’s stakeholders, as well as the structural aspects that influence their behavior. The second studies the network and suggests eventual adjustments to ensure the alignment of the stakeholders’ interests. In the third phase, the stability of the resulting scenario is evaluated. We consider the identification of stakeholders as a crucial factor in the design of social networks. The more radical the departure from the established models of value creation, as it happens in these environments, the bigger the complexity in ensuring their sustained interest and the stability of the network bonds. It is important to regard what motivates the users’ presence in the network, as well as what drives their

978-0-7695-3869-3/10 $26.00 © 2010 IEEE

1

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

participation and involvement. For the reasons pointed, we focus this paper on the first phase of the approach and on its application to the social network domain. Our proposal to identify and characterize stakeholders is organize in the steps presented in Table 1. It has contributions from four key areas: criteria to identify stakeholder in inter-organizational systems, social network analysis (SNA), business models theories, and social theories. The social theories used were: Actor-Network Theory (ANT) [3], Structuration Theory (ST) [4], and Social Capital (SC) [5]. Steps

Contributions

1- Understand the network dynamic and context

• ANT, ST, SC, and criteria to identify stakeholders

2 – Identify initial set of stakeholders

• Criteria to identify stakeholders, and ANT

3- Tune the stakeholders’ set

• Criteria to identify stakeholders, and SNA

4 – Characterize stakeholders

• ANT, and business model theories

5 – Characterize the social network

• ANT, ST, SC, and business model theories

Table 1: Steps of the proposal The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: section 2 underlines the impact of the network configurations in today’s forms of collaboration, and section 3 describes criteria used to identify stakeholders in inter-organizational systems. Section 4 and section 5 describe, respectively, the business model theories and the social theories that influence our proposal. We provide a primer on Facebook in section 6, to serve as common ground for section 7, where our approach is applied to this social network site for illustration purposes. Finally, in section 8 conclusions are presented.

2. The network concept as the basic unit Manuel Castells says that “Networks are the fundamental stuff of which new organizations will be made” and argues that technology and globalization are making networks of relationships a decisive business asset [6]. Our 21st century reality manifests a world of interconnected people and organizations. For instance, [7] describes the importance of coordinating the interorganizational collaborations of a hospital to improve patient’s care. The global health crisis caused by the propagation of H1N1 Swine Flu, it is another example of a scenario that demands the collaboration among government leaders, research departments, airport authorities and healthcare workers. These entities have

been working together, sharing information, developing joint policies, and defining a global plan that can avoid the propagation of the disease. The network configurations we described are formed by a set of different organizations with different purposes. These organizations work together to address a complex shared cross-boundary problem, issue or opportunity. Their aim is to maximize resources and intelligence to generate innovative solutions in order to reach common goals that no one member could achieve on its own [8, 9]. The connection resulting structures are called Interorganizational Networks (IONs) and can be of different types (e.g., communication, influence, and partnership) and about diverse things (e.g., money, knowledge, and influence) [10]. The range of people and interests involved in an ION is much broader that in a traditional systems. For this reason, the question of who is involved gains an extra complexity and relevance. This topic acquires a particular importance in social networks platforms, where the concept of stakeholders must go beyond the regular users, management and IS professionals. Social networks according to [11] are “web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system”. These networks are not simply forums in which individuals congregate, they rather “create substantial value for the individuals who participate in them, the organizations that sponsor them, and the larger society in multiple ways” [12]. When developing social networks it is necessary to regard what motivates users’ presence in the network, what drives their participation and involvement. This is particularly difficult, since interactions in these environments are complex.

3. The stakeholders that really matter In our opinion we can use the existing guidelines to identify stakeholders in inter-organizational environments as a theoretical foundation to recognize stakeholders in social networks platforms. Moreover, in our view approaches based on network configurations and social network environments are intertwined. This connection brings the opportunity to integrate the potentialities of network established theories in the process of identifying stakeholders in social networks. The use of network theories permits to explore the similarities between the concepts of

2

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

stakeholder and actor (the last one is used for instance in ANT and Social Network Analysis). Usually, the actors of a system are also its stakeholders.

3.1. How we perceive the stakeholder definition Freeman [13] defined stakeholder as any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of a firm’s objectives. Bryson [14] presents variants to this definition, which differ in how inclusive they are. These differences are justified by the fact that researchers or practitioners use stakeholder analysis for different purposes or in distinct contexts [15]. For instance Eden and Ackermann [16] state that stakeholders can only be people or groups who have the power to directly affect the organization’s future. The absence of power removes the stakeholders’ status. In contrast, others consider a broader scenario, including the nominally powerless [17]. In our approach, we use a definition similar to Freeman´s: each individual that can influence or be influenced by the social network –directly or indirectly- should be regarded as a stakeholder.

3.2. Why is it critical to identify stakeholders? The business model of an ION is characterized by complex relationships among its stakeholders. Each stakeholder is able to influence others, but at the same time it is in position of being affected. They can have their individual goals; however they can share common aims. This context of many interested parties must be managed to ensure stakeholders’ interests, without compromising the network they belong to. For instance, excluding an important stakeholder can undermine the process of achieving a stable business model. Stakeholders’ identification in social networks assumes a particular relevance due to the cultural and social aspects that can influence their behavior. It is fundamental to explore stakeholders’ perspectives in terms of interests and influences to support or break the social network. This knowledge can provide valuable guidelines about the specifications that the social network should follow, as well as the requirements that its supporting information system should fulfill [18]. This will increase the platform’s chances of being accepted and adopted.

3.3. Criteria to stakeholders’ identification Pouloudi and Whitley in [15] propose criteria to identify stakeholders in inter-organizational systems. This approach is not based on generic lists of stakeholders or in static stakeholders’ maps. On the

contrary, tries to integrate the specificities of the interorganizational environments in the stakeholders’ identification. It is based on 4 principles: • “1- Stakeholders depend on the context and time frame”: the inter-organizational domain in which the network operates affects the set of stakeholders and since the networks have a dynamic nature, this set should be regularly reviewed. • “2 - Stakeholders cannot be viewed in isolation”: the complexity of the stakeholders’ interactions (e.g., power, trust, conflict, and cooperation) must be covered. Given that the identification of one stakeholder can lead to others, this process needs to be iterative. • “3 - The position of each stakeholder may change over time”: besides contextual changes (principle 1), it is also necessary to consider the stakeholders’ history. They can change their viewpoints as time goes by, which demands that we ponder their position for a longer period of time. • “4 - Feasible options may differ from the stakeholders’ wishes”: the stakeholders possess different interests that must be articulated to achieve a common solution. The feasibility of stakeholders’ wishes is also restricted by technological, economic, and political factors. These principles are based on the idea that each stakeholder identified can lead to the identification of others. For this reason, they are applied in an iterative process. The analyst stops its study when the new identified stakeholders have a residual influence in the network business model. This procedure is useful in the social network domain, since it discloses the context that can influence the stakeholders. Additionally, it considers the dynamic nature of the network’s configuration.

3.4. SNA criteria to actors’ identification Social Network Analysis (SNA) is inherently an interdisciplinary endeavor. Its concepts developed out of a propitious meeting of social theory and application, with formal mathematical, statistical and computing methodology [19]. It focuses on relationships among social units. Its concepts allow mapping the network interactions and permit to analyze the network structure (e.g, density and centrality). Before applying SNA to a network, it is necessary to collect the necessary network data. One of the procedures available is the Snowball method. The Snowball method [20] begins with a focal actor (or a set), which is asked to identify their ties to other actors. Each of these actors is then recursively asked to also provide all their ties. This process continues until

3

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

no new actors are identified, or until the analyst decides to stop (usually for reasons of time and resources, or because the new actors are marginal to the network). This method has two potential limitations. First, actors who are isolated are not located. Second, there is no guaranteed way of finding all the nominated actors. However, the method can be strengthened by carefully selecting the initial actors. In our opinion, the “Snowball method” limitations are not critical to our study, since isolated actors are not relevant in a social network. For the reasons presented, and regarding that the “Snowball method” reinforces the procedure proposed in section 3.3, in our approach to identify social network’s stakeholders we use an analogous iterative process.

4. Business models theories influences After identifying the stakeholders, it is important to disclose how they can contribute to the network and what their expectations are. This balance represents the foundations of the social network business model. The term business model has been used frequently since the mid-1990s. It is a topic of hot debate and draws considerable comments and differing opinions on both academia and practice [21]. The main driving force behind the re-evaluation of the (traditional) business model concept has been the new opportunities afforded by the Internet, as more and more organizations try to understand how to use it in a successful manner [22]. There has been a lack of consensus regarding business models definition, classification and components. In our approach we based our business model view in Timmers’s proposal [23], in which he states that a business model is “an architecture for the product, service and information flows, including a description of the various actors and their roles; a description of the potential benefits for the various actors; and description of the sources of revenues”. However, in our opinion Timmer’s definition is also applicable in inter-organizational scenarios, where the stakeholders’ relationships possess a network configuration. Similarly, the need to integrate the network concept in the business model definition was also felt in [24], and [25]. A business model supported on a network structure creates two types of value proposals: individual and network. The former is provided by the action of an individual stakeholder and the latter results from the stakeholders’ collaboration actions supported by the network configuration. According with the literature there are several basic components that constitute a business model. For instance, in [26] Shafer et al identify 42 business

model components. The components most commonly mention were strategic choices, value creation and value capturing, partner network/roles, internal infrastructure/connected activities, and target markets. The aforementioned components include information about the stakeholders’ goals, their roles, the configuration of network interactions, and the value proposals provided by stakeholders to others and to the network. These aspects were integrated in our proposal to characterize stakeholders’ behavior, revealing aspects and orientations that must be considered in the design of the social network business model.

5. Contributions of social theories Social factors can provide valuable insights about organizational, social and political viewpoints [27], improving the knowledge about the network’s scenario. They can reveal factors about stakeholders involved in the network, as well as aspects of the network context that may influence its success or affect its stability. Regarding the nature of social networks and its potentialities, we integrated in our approach its insights. We were mainly inspired by ANT and influenced by ST and Social Capital. For each contribution borrowed from these theories, we will explain the problems it helps to solve, as well as the artifacts developed to apply its principles in the field.

5.1. Actor-Network Theory In 1981, Callon and Latour developed ANT [28]. Subsequently, ANT has been enriched by its original actors and others like Law [29] and Akrich [30]. According to ANT the networks are a shifting system of relationships, alliances and exchanges among their elements (actors) [31]. These networks are heterogeneous – link together human and non-human actors (e.g., people, machines, software, and ideas) – but ANT describes them using the same language, and analyses them in the same way. ANT considers that social and technical perspectives are entangled and, for that motive, they must be analyzed together and with the same degree of importance [30]. Each actor has its own view of the network and its individual goals. These goals gain relevance when, through negotiation processes, they are shared by different actors, creating a common set of interests. The process of negotiation between the actors involves two concepts: translation and inscription. The former is responsible for the interpretation and conciliation of positions/commitments [28]. The latter describes how patterns of behavior are “wired” into the network, using artifacts, to create action programs (for

4

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

instance, the rules for processing a customer complaint) which the actors must fulfill [32]. Translation includes four distinct phases [3]: • Problematization: a focal actor (the ones driving the creation of the new network) frames the problem and defines the identities and interests of other actors that are consistent with his/her own. The focal actor renders her/himself indispensable by defining a process under her/his control that must occur for all actors to achieve their interests. This is defined as an obligatory passage [3]. • Interessement: encompasses the strategies by which the focal actor attempts to enroll others (includes searching for new allies and encouraging others to overcome obstacles in the way of passing through the obligatory passage point). This is the process of actors’ recruitment– creating an interest and negotiating the terms of their involvement. • Enrolment: requires more than one set of actors imposing their will on others for enrolment to be successful [33]. Actors achieve that when they take on the network’s problematization as their own and accept the roles defined for them in the newly defined network during interessement. • Mobilization: occurs when translation is complete, actors’ interests are stabilized and controversy is removed. Inscription is the act in which actors perform on other actors, shaping their attitudes and properties [30]. This process consists in the definition of a program of actions that specify the requirements of the network, embedding the social agendas of the actors into technical artifacts, such as information systems. As inscriptions become stable, they reduce the possibility of being challenged or questioned at a later date [34]. ANT is focused on actors, on their relationships and how they come together to create a network. This perspective centered on the actor concept gives us the possibility to establish a bridge between stakeholders’ approaches and ANT. In ANT’s problematization concept, when the focal actors delineate a network, they are able to identify an initial set of actors. This procedure is equivalent to what is suggested by the criteria to stakeholders’ identification (presented in section 3.3) and by the SNA Snowball method (described in section 3.4). The knowledge gathered by the focal on actors’ relationships reveals social influences that restrict the actors’ behavior and discloses tactical insights. Besides, ANT’s principle of following the actors through the study of their interactions leads to the identification of additional actors that can influence the network. This iterative process allows refining the identified set of actors, as is also suggested by the criteria and by the Snowball method.

ANT’s actors are the network stakeholders. Following this idea, ANT’s problematization principles can be applied to stakeholders’ identification, with the extra advantage of considering social, organizational and political perspectives. Furthermore, the information obtained about the network can be used to lead the negotiations between the stakeholders with the aim of achieving an alignment of interests between them, also as suggested by ANT’s enrolment phase. This will increase the possibilities of achieving a sustainable social network.

5.2. Structuration Theory ST was proposed by Giddens [4]. It studies social phenomena at a high level of abstraction, offering a descriptive view of the world, rather than an explanation of its mechanisms [35]. The key concepts of ST are agency and structure. Human agency represents the capacity to make a difference and describes the actors’ actions. On the other hand, structure is defined as rules and resources implicated in social reproduction [4]. Agency and Structure are dependent upon each other and recursively related. All social activity, including work processes, can be viewed as enabled and constrained by social structures that are produced and reproduced via human agency [36]. The stakeholders’ actions represent this human agency. Giddens [4] identifies three dimensions of structure, which he terms signification, legitimation and domination. These dimensions interact with human actions of communication, power and sanction through three types of modalities, namely interpretative schemes, facilities and norms. See Figure 1. ST captures the essence of the structure in which a network exists, which allows a better understanding of the very network and of its mechanisms. This knowledge provides clues about the aspects that influence stakeholders’ behavior and collaboration mechanisms [37], aiming in their identification and in discovering the aspects that can influence their actions. The ST’s capacity to describe a context and how this context influences the actions of humans, together with the ANT’s aptitude to analyze relationships between the actors of a network, provide a new background of analyses. ST describes the existing context, identifying political, social and dominations that influence the stakeholders’ behavior.

5

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

Structure

Signification

Legitimation

Domination

Modality

Interpret. Scheme

Norm

Facility

Communication

Sanction

Power

cooperation or conflict that can be used to understand the future network dynamic. This information can be used to manage negotiations among the stakeholders.

6. A primer on Facebook Interaction

Figure 1: ST’s dimensions, adapted from [4]

5.3. Social capital Social capital can generally be defined as the capital created through relationships, which can be mobilized to facilitate individual and organizational activities. As well as economic capital, social capital has to be managed to be prosperous. If the relations die out, social capital is no longer nurtured and consequently fades away [38]. Putnam [39] popularized the terms bridging social capital and bonding social capital. Bridging social capital is connected with one actor's external relations with other actors. Bonding social capital, on the other hand, is related to the internal structure of relations between actors. These concepts describe two perspectives: different types of stakeholders inside and outside the firm [8]. These perspectives are integrated in our work to analyze the business value of stakeholder’s relationships through Nahapiet's social capital definition [5]. It states that social capital is ‘the sum of the actual and potential resources embedded within, available through and derived from the network of relationships possessed by an individual or social unit’. Social capital thus comprises both the network and the assets that may be mobilized through that network. This definition explores three operational dimensions of social capital: structural, relational and cognitive. The structural dimension is concerned with the overall pattern of institutionalized connections between actors in a network, which covers aspects such as: network ties and network configuration [40]. The study of those networks structures is known as SNA (presented in section 3.4). The relational dimension deals with the levels of mutual trust and reciprocity [8]. It encompasses levels of trust, norms and social sanctions, mutual obligations and expectations, and perceptions of social identity [40]. The cognitive dimension addresses the need for a common codes, language, and narratives to build social capital [5], [40]. Similarly to ST, social capital provides information about the network’s context that can influence the stakeholders’ behavior. Additionally, verifies the quality of their relationships exposing signs of

In this section we present basics of Facebook and explain why it was chosen to illustrate our approach’s ability to identify and characterize social network’s stakeholders.

6.1. Genesis and evolution Facebook was launched by Mark Zuckerberg and co-founders Dustin Moskovitz and Chris Hughes from their Harvard dorm room in February 2004. It was originally built as a networking site for Harvard college students, but quickly expanded to Stanford, Columbia and Yale. During 2005 it grew to support more than 800 college networks, then added high schools, and, later, international school networks. By the end of the year it had reached more than 5.5 million active users. In 2006 a new policy changed the core of Facebook: the company expanded to include work networks and reached 12 million users. In the summer of 2007 Facebook launched Facebook Platform, an API allowing external developers to create, offer and sell applications within Facebook. This API increased the functionalities provided and allowed Facebook to reach over 50 million users by the end of the year. In May 2008 Facebook hit another major milestone: it passed MySpace to become the world’s largest social network [41]. Afterwards, in October 2008, Facebook started launching its application in several languages. It is the most-trafficked social media in the world [42]. In 2009 exceed the 200 million users.

6.2. Why Facebook for our illustration Facebook is the top social network in the global traffic ranking [42]. It was one of the first social networks where users actually identified themselves using their real names [41]. This environment of veracity and trust afforded unique features that enabled the idea of security and promoted the notion of true social networks, based on verified relationships. Facebook’s ability to captivate new users, which can easily update their profiles, makes it very appealing to individual and institutional users. Through Facebook is possible to establish new forms of cooperation, which ingrate concepts of friendship, trust and collaboration based on common interests.

6

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

The information gathered on Facebook besides its common use in social interactions, can be used by companies to establish a special relationship with its customers and its partners. In these interactive configurations, managers have the chance to identify new opportunities and design innovative value creation formulas. For instance, Workbook (a Facebook application) permits mediate the collaboration between employees of one company. It uses the company’s firewall to allow its employees to use Facebook securely (avoids adverse impact from employees spending time and sharing company’s info). For the reasons mentioned, we believe that is essential to identify Facebook’s stakeholders and characterize in detail their behavior in the social network. This analysis will disclose guidelines that can enhance Facebook and its clients’ business model. Our approach can provide a rich and complete characterization of the stakeholders through its capacity to integrate and regard social aspects. Based on the data obtained it is possible to explore their needs and disclose possible relationships of collaboration. Facebook can work as an omnipresent system of negotiation, taking advantage of its global vision, provided through the study of its stakeholders.

7. Stakeholder identification: the Facebook example Our proposal aims at identifying the stakeholders of the social network business model. This responsibility is initially set to the focal actors, who frame the problem and define the identities and interests of other stakeholders. The identification of an initial set of stakeholders is common to ANT’s problematization concept (section 4.1), to the criteria to stakeholders’ identification approach (section 3.3) and to the “Snowball method” (section 3.4). However, the last two, based on indications of the stakeholders already identified, introduce the idea of iteratively searching for additional stakeholders. We embrace this continuous seek for stakeholders in our approach, which demands the readjust of the stakeholder’s set. Social networks are extremely dynamic and the characterization of its stakeholders must reflect that. The network configuration can change by reasons as diverse as: new political guidelines, create or cease relationships, and establish compromises among the stakeholders. According with the criteria to stakeholders’ identification approach (section 3.3) these factors must be considered. Through ANT’s ability to follow the actors, understand their interests, behaviors and relationships we are able to do it.

We (the focal actors in this particular case) start to follow the steps defined in our proposal (Table 1) to identify and characterize stakeholders. To carry out step 1 - “Understand the network dynamic and context”, we performed an interpretative study of Facebook’s stakeholders based on reports, conference proceedings, journals and web pages. This study allowed us to “define an initial set of stakeholders” – step 2. Since we centred our study on Facebook external relationships, especially the ones established through the platform, the initial set is: Facebook’s Board, Facebook Platform, three types of users (individual, institutions and developers) and employees (technical developers and helpdesk). In step 3 – “Tune the set of stakeholders” we were not able to interview the genuine representatives of the various stakeholders identified in step 2 to apply the “Snowball method”. A possible solution would be for the researchers to put themselves in the shoes of the stakeholders and attempt to identify the network configuration. This solution would, however, go against the requirements of ‘fairness’ as a key element of the ‘authenticity’ desired from a trustworthy, rigorous, qualitative research project [43], p.180. To circumvent this problem, we have resorted to the concept of “shadowed data” proposed by [44], p. 291, for the situations in which we need to obtain data about a person or group of persons that are otherwise inaccessible. “Shadowed data” are information given by people who speak for others, playing the role of a ‘generalized self’, and is used with some frequency in unstructured interactive interviews [44] p.291. We presented our initial set of stakeholders to 10 informants through e-mails. They were chosen according with their expertise (Facebook’s users and developers, and owners and employees of technological companies), with the aim of covering all the stakeholders’ profiles. We asked them to analyze our set, playing the roles of the distinct stakeholders. Since no additional stakeholders were appointed, we did not feel the need to carry out additional iterations. The number of informants does not pretend to generalize by induction, in the tradition of the quantitative paradigm, but to offer the researcher an enriched perspective, capable of avoiding researcher bias and improving self-reflection, which is a core attribute of rigorous qualitative research [45], p. 192. In Figure 2 we present the artifact developed to “Characterize stakeholders“ - step 4. An artifact must be filling out for each stakeholder, or groups of stakeholders. If a stakeholder belongs to a group but has specificities that can differentiate its behavior from the remaining elements of the group, it is advisable to characterize her/him/its individually. As an example, in

7

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

Figure 2 we characterize the stakeholder “Institution” through five fields, namely: • Relevance: exposes the stakeholder’s importance in the network, individually or as a group, providing clues on how to respond to her/him/its demands. It is based on ST guidance to understand power influences. • Organizational interactions: depicts each actor’s interactions according to ANT’s recommendation of following the actors. The joining of all stakeholder connections, allows to the focal actors to perceive the existing relationships and disclose the entire network configuration. This configuration defines the social capital’s structural dimension. • Relationship type: classifies the existing relationships, searching for indications of future alliances or possible conflicts that can change the dynamic of the network. It integrates the social capital’s relational dimension that claims the importance of analyzing each stakeholder’s relationships and business model theories. The collected information reveals clues about the existing flows (e.g., information and services) that support the network business model. • Roles: describes the activities performed by the stakeholders in the network (represents their programs of actions that will inscribe a behavior in the network, as suggested by ANT). This field covers aspects that can be used to detail the business model and its information system. • Goals: identifies the stakeholders’ individual interests. This information is fundamental to manage the alignment of interests among the stakeholders and to define the network goals. Users (Institution) • Relevance: high (as group); low (individually) • Organizational interaction: users, and Facebook’s Board • Relationship type: depends on the platform to obtain information, co-operant with the platform and the Facebook’s Board (through the data supplied); trusts its clients and co-operates with them; competes with other institutions • Roles: creates groups; provides information about products and promotions • Goals: promotes the institution and its products; obtains new customers; increases profits

Figure 2: Stakeholder characterization The information obtained in Figure 2 provides a base of knowledge that can be used by the focal actors to “Characterize the social network” business scenario – step 5. This is done through the items presented in Figure 3. Each item provides the following indications:

• Network goals: the focal actors gather all the information obtained from each actor, balance it, and propose a first draft of the social network’s goals. It is based on business model theories. This corresponds to ANT’s obligatory passage point. • Network opportunities: describes the opportunities that can arise through the network formation. • Network threats: identifies possible menaces to the network creation or to its maintenance. • Mutual obligations and expectations: describes established commitments and provides indications about the network level of cooperation. This field is based on social capital’s relational dimension. • Shared representations and interpretations: identifies common codes, languages or narratives that guide stakeholders’ behavior. Follows the principles proposed by ST’s interpretative schemes and social capital’s cognitive dimension. • Existing rules: represents the network policies that the stakeholders must follow. It is inspired in ST (norms are one of its modalities) and in Social Capital (the relational dimension integrate network norms). • Available resources/stakeholders: identifies the available resources and the stakeholders who provide them. It is inspired by ST’s modalities. • Institutionalized sanctions: describes the actions that must be carried out if the stakeholders do not follow an acceptable behavior. This field was inspired in ST interaction sanctions and in the social sanctions from social capital. Social network business scenario • Network goals: Increase the number of Facebook users; maintain the leadership in the top of the most used social networks; increase the profit obtain through advertisement • Network opportunities: create innovative forms of collaboration; develop new business models • Network threats: in the domain of social network platforms (e.g., MySpace, Orkut, LinkedIn); in advertising (Google) • Mutual obligations and expectations: Facebook’s Board must maintain the quality of the provided services; Facebook’s Board must respect the users privacy; the users must supply trustful information in the platform; Facebook users must accept publicity banners in their profiles • Shared representations and interpretations: use the mechanisms available in the platform to communicate with friends; become a friend or a fan; allow to Facebook to reveal information to the users’ friends. • Existing rules: Can be consulted on-line at: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf • Available resources/stakeholders: user profile databases (platform), network infrastructures (Facebook’s Board) • Institutionalized sanctions: Can be consulted on-line at: http://www.facebook.com/terms.php?ref=pf

Figure 3: Network characterization

8

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

The guidelines presented in this point consist in the Phase I of our approach to evaluate inter-organizational business models.

7.1. Outcomes of stakeholders’ identification The information collected through the artifacts we described (e.g., goals, roles and interactions) give us the knowledge foundations to promote negotiations among the stakeholders. This will lead us to Phase II of our approach. Phase II consists in a negotiation process among the participating stakeholders (in terms of their contributions and returns) with the aim of achieving a commitment toward the network. When this happens, it is possible to specify the value proposals that the stakeholders provide and detail the activities that they should perform. These activities support the stakeholders’ individual goals, and the choreographed unfolding of their roles describes the network behavior. This represents the first attempt to align the stakeholders’ interests and reach a stable network configuration. Subsequently, in phase III of our approach, we look for acceptable trade-offs between the effort demanded of each stakeholder and the benefits it gets to ensure their sustained interest in participating. Special attention should be given to important stakeholders with major influence in the network, such as those who invest considerable time or money, those that hold key resources or capabilities, those with a high degree of influence, and those that cannot be replaced. The information gathered through the approach (e.g., stakeholders, activities, and value proposals) allows the definition of the business services and the activities that the social network should provide.

8. Conclusions Stakeholder identification is a critical aspect in the design of a business models and of its underlying information system. Their recognition in interorganizational environments, like social networks, introduces extra challenges such as different cultures, policies, and contradictory interests. In our opinion all the elements that influence or are influenced by the social network (directly or indirectly) should be regarded as stakeholders. It is critical to consider their contextual influences in the design of the social network business model and of its supporting information system. To include this perspective in our approach, we sought inspiration in social theories that allow us to obtain a broader perception of the factors that can

restrict the stakeholder’s behavior. Additionally, we analyzed criteria to stakeholder identification and business models theories. This enabled us to identify and refine the set of stakeholders and enrich our approach with components that can influence the social network sustainability, as well as it success. Our approach is systematic and provides tools to identify stakeholders and describe the environment where they interact. It is also flexible, since it is able to refine its findings in an iterative process. We believe that the approach can disclose issues that will aid the negotiation process between the stakeholders. This increases the chances of designing a sustainable business model and the development of a supporting information system that will fulfill stakeholders’ expectations.

9. References [1] C. Costa and P. Cunha, Reducing uncertainty in business model design: a method to craft the value proposal and its supporting system. in 16th European Conference on Information Systems, Galway, Ireland, 2008. [2] C. Costa and P.. Cunha, Business Model Design from an ANT Perspective: contributions and insights of an open and living theory, in Americas Conference on Information Systems. 2009: San Francisco, USA. [3] M. Callon, "Some elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay", in Action and Belief: a new Sociology of Knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph, J.E.P. In Law, Editor: Routledge, 1986, pp. 196-233. [4] A. Giddens, The Constitution of Society: Cambridge:Polity, 1984. [5] J. Nahapiet and S. Ghoshal, "Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage", Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 1998, pp. 242-266. [6] M. Castells, The Rise of the Network Society, Volume 1 of The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. [7] J.H. Gittell and L. Weiss, "Coordination Networks Within and Across Organizations: A Multi-level Framework", Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 2004, pp. 127-153. [8] A. Svendsen and M. Laberge, "Convening Stakeholder Network", Journal of Corporate Citizenship, Fall2005(19), 2005, pp. 91-104. [9] R. Gulati, N. Nohria, and A. Zaheer, "Strategic networks", Strategic Management Journal, 21(3), 2000, pp. 203-215. [10] L.C. Ballejos and J.M. Montagna, "Method for stakeholder identification in interorganizational environments ", Requirements Engineering, 13(4), 2008, pp. 281-297. [11] D.M. Boyd and N.B. Ellison, "Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship", Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 13(1), 2007, pp. 210-230. [12] R. Agarwal, A.K. Gupta, and R. Kraut, "The Interplay Between Digital and Social Networks (Editorial Overview)", Information Systems Research, 19(3), 2008, pp. 243-252.

9

Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2010

[13] R. Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Boston: Pitman, 1984. [14] J. Bryson, "What to do when stakeholders matter: stakeholder identification and analysis techniques", Public Management Review, 6(1), 2004. [15] A. Pouloudi and E. Whitley, "Stakeholder identification in inter organisational systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems", European Journal of Information Systems, 6(1), 1997, pp. 1-14. [16] C. Eden and F. Ackermann, Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management, London: Sage Publications, 1998. [17] G. Johnson and K. Scholes, Exploring Corporate Strategy, Harlow: Pearson Education, 2002. [18] J. Rodon, J. Ramis-Pujol, and E. Christiaanse, "A process-stakeholder analysis of B2B industry standardisation", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 20(1), 2007, pp. 83–95. [19] S. Wasserman and K. Faust, Social Networks Analysis: Methods and Applications, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. [20] R. Hanneman, "Introduction to Social Network Methods". 2001 [cited; Available from: http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/. [21] P. Joyce and G. Winch, "A framework for codifying business models and process models in e-Business design", in Business models and their relationship to strategy, W. Currie, Editor, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003. [22] P. Seddon, et al., "Business models and their relationship to strategy", in Value Creation from E-Business Models, W. Currie, Editor, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003, pp. 11-34. [23] P. Timmers, "Business Models for Electronic Markets", Electronic Markets, 8(2), 1998, pp. 3-8. [24] J. Gordjin, Value-Based Requirements Engineering: Exploring Innovative e-Commerce Ideas. 2002, Free University Amsterdam: Amsterdam. [25] M.d. Reuver, H. Bouwman, and T. Haaker, Capturing Value from Mobile Business Models: Design Issues That Matter. in 21st Bled eConference "eCollaboration: Overcoming Boundaries Through Multi-Channel Interaction" Bled, Slovenia, 2008. [26] S. Shafer, H. Smith, and J. Linder, "The Power of Business Models", Business Horizons, 48(3), 2005, pp. 199207. [27] J. Rose and R. Scheepers, Structuration Theory and Information System Development - Frameworks for practice. in 9th European Conference on Information Systems, Bled, Slovenia, 2001. [28] M. Callon and B. Latour, "Unscrewing the big Leviathan: how actors macro-structure reality and how sociologists help them to do so", in Advances in social Theory and Methodology: Toward an Integration of Microand-Macro Sociologies, I.K.K.-C.a.A.V. Cicourel, Editor: Boston, Routledge & Kegan-Paul, 1981, pp. 259-276. [29] J. Law, "Notes on the Theory of the Actor-Network: Ordering, Strategy and Heterogeneity", Systems Practice 5(4), 1992, pp. 379-393. [30] M. Akrich and B. Latour, "A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the semiotics of human and nonhuman

assemblies", in Shaping technology/ building society, W.E. Bijker and J. Law, Ed, MIT Press: USA, 1992, pp. 259 – 264. [31] J. Underwood, Not another methodology: What ant tells us about systems development. in in Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Information Systems Methodologies, Salford UK, British Computer Society, 1998. [32] B. Latour, "Technology is society made durable", in A sociology of monsters. Essays on power, technology and domination, I.J. Law, Editor: Routledge, 1991, pp. 103-131. [33] L. Uden and J. Francis, Actor-Network Theory for Service Innovation, in International Journal of ActorNetwork Theory and Technological Innovation. 2009, IGI Global. p. 23-44. [34] J. Holmström and D. Robey, "Inscribing organizational change with information technology", in Actor-network theory and organizing, B. Hernes, Ed, Liber and Copenhagen Business School Press: Malmo, 2005, pp. 165-187. [35] M. Jones, W. Orlikowski, and K. Munir, "Structuration theory and information systems: A critical reappraisal", in Social theory and philosophy for information systems, W.J. Mingers, Editor, Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2004, pp. 297-328. [36] K. Lyytinen and O. Ngwenyama, "What does Computer Support for Cooperative Work mean? Structurational Analysis of Computer Supported Cooperations Work", Accounting Management and Information Technology, 2(1), 1992, pp. 19-38. [37] N. Phillips, T. Lawrence, and C. Hardy, "InterOrganizational Collaboration and the Dynamics of Institutional Fields", Journal of Management Studies, 37(1), pp. 23-43. [38] P.S. Adler and S.W. Kwon, "Social capital: propsects for a new concept", Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 2002, pp. 17-40 [39] R. Putnam, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. [40] T. Hatzakis, et al., "Towards the development of a social capital approach to evaluating change management interventions", European Journal of Information Systems 14(1), 2005, pp. 60-74. [41] J. Gallaugher, "Facebook case", gallaugher.com Chapters, Cases, and Prior Semester Podcasts, 2008, [42] Alexa - The Web Information Company, "Global Top Sites". 2008 [cited October]; Last access October 2008]. Available from: http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_sites?ts_mode=global&lan g=none. [43] Y.S. Lincoln and E.G. Guba, "Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions, and Emerging Confluences", in Handbook of Qualitative Research N.D.a.Y. Lincoln, Ed, SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, 2000, pp. 163-213. [44] J.M. Morse, "Using shadowed data", Qualitative Health Research, 11(3), 2001, pp. 291-292. [45] J.W. Creswell, Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 3rd. ed, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc, 2008.

10