Robert Winter
Title
Prof. em. Dr.
Last Name
Winter
First name
Robert
Email
robert.winter@unisg.ch
ORCID
Phone
+41 71 224 2935
Web Site
573 results
Now showing 1 - 10 of 573
- Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, A process model to facilitate AI-based sensor manufacturing optimizationType:journal articleJournal:Information Systems and e-Business ManagementScopus© Citations 1 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, How to Generate Research Impact: A Framework and Checklist for Impact-Aware Information Systems Research(2026) - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Business IT Alignment - Where should we go: a View from Practice(2025-05-25); Scopus© Citations 1 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Exploring Data Mesh Adoption in Large OrganizationsThis paper explores how large incumbent organizations adopt the newly proposed data management approach “Data Mesh”. Particularly, this paper explores to which extent data ownership and data governance are shifting from a centralized to a decentralized approach and whether companies take different paths in this transition.Type:journal articleJournal:Issues in Informing Science and Information TechnologyVolume:22Issue:12DOI:10.28945/5509 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Mit einem Canvas den Grundstein für die ganzheitliche Gestaltungsarbeit in Veränderungsvorhaben legen – von fachlichen bis hin zu IT-AspektenType:journal articleJournal:HMD Praxis der Wirtschaftsinformatik - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Generativity and Profitability on B2B Innovation Platforms: A Simulation-based Theory Development(2024-06); Firms generate innovations to profit from market opportunities, which are newly identified customer needs not yet being met in the market. The rising complexity of market opportunities requires collaboration among multiple partner firms. However, this multipartner collaboration increases transaction and production costs when generating innovations. To address these challenges, incumbents build B2B innovation platforms with mechanisms to reduce partners’ transaction and production costs. We do not yet know if and when partners would choose to use the incumbent’s traditional service innovation model or the B2B innovation platform and how this choice would affect the generativity and profitability of innovations for the incumbent and the partners. We used agent-based modeling and simulation to develop a theory to address these questions. We found that the complexity of market opportunities interacts with the B2B innovation platform’s transaction and production mechanisms to jointly affect whether partners use the platform and when the incumbent and partners achieve generativity and profitability. When the complexity of market opportunities is low, partners use the traditional service innovation model. As complexity increases to medium or high levels, partners begin to use the B2B innovation platform mechanisms to address the transaction and production challenges presented by the complexity of market opportunities. However, there are limits to how much the platform mechanisms can address these challenges. The complexity of market opportunities inhibits the emergence of network effects on B2B innovation platforms and limits the generativity and profitability of platform partners. There are diminishing benefits of investing in the platform’s transaction and production mechanisms, and complexity affects whether the platform owner or the partners profit from innovations generated on the platform.Type:journal articleJournal:MIS QuarterlyVolume:48Issue:2Scopus© Citations 6 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Governance globaler Prozess-und ERP-Harmonisierung in dezentralen UnternehmenTransformationsprogramme auf Unternehmensebene zielen darauf ab, sowohl lokale wie auch globale Veränderungsvorteile zu erzielen. Obwohl die Balance zwischen lokaler Differenzierung und globaler Konsistenz als Schlüsselfaktor für den Transformationserfolg anerkannt wird, wird das Verständnis für und der Umgang mit Spannungen im bestehenden Governance-Wissen und in der Praxis wenig behandelt. Neuere Forschungsbeiträge verwenden „Tension Theory“ und Erkenntnisse aus der vergleichenden Untersuchung von Transformationsprogrammen in der Praxis, um Gestaltungsprinzipien für eine spannungsbewusste Programm-Governance vorzuschlagen. Die vorliegende Studie berichtet, wie dieser Vorschlag in einem globalen Transformationsprogramm eines grossen internationalen Infrastrukturanbieters angepasst und weiterentwickelt wird. In der ersten Phase des Programms wird die Prozesslandschaft des Service-Produktionsmanagements über 22 global verteilte Landesgesellschaften hinweg harmonisiert, um die Grundlage für eine globale, konzernweite ERP-Harmonisierung zu schaffen. Zu den Erkenntnissen dieser Studie gehören Unterschiede in der Anwendbarkeit der vorgeschlagenen Gestaltungsprinzipien sowie der Vorschlag zusätzlicher Differenzierungen für die systematische Etablierung einer Governance für grosse Programme in heterogenen Umgebungen mit erheblicher lokaler Autonomie. Über fallbezogene Erkenntnisse hinaus zielt die Studie auch darauf ab, die Kontextualisierung generischer Gestaltungsprinzipien besser zu verstehen und die Notwendigkeit einer situativen Unterstützung der Governance von Transformationsprogrammen zu unterstreichen.Type:journal articleJournal:HMD Praxis der WirtschaftsinformatikVolume:62Issue:1 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Digital Transformation Designer: Towards a Comprehensive, Collaborative and Easy-to-Use Modeling Support for Enterprise-level Change Endeavors(2024-02-08); Established companies intending to leverage digital technologies are required to innovate their ‘legacy’ business models through organizational transformations. Existing modeling support often leaves a ‘white space’ between informal canvas-style models used in the early phases and (semi-)formal aspect models used in the later phases of transformation endeavors. Adopting a Design Science Research approach, this paper presents a semi-formal model that is intended to fill this gap, i. e., to provide easy-to-use support for the heterogeneous stakeholders that participate in early phases of digital transformation endeavors.Being based on the traditional Business Engineering set of models and methods, this comprehensive and collaborative approach was validated together with the digital transformation program manager of a large, international corporation. For supporting analysis, reflection and design tasks that involve a broad range from canvas-style models to enterprise architecture models, four requirements were identified to be central: (remote) collaboration support, a holistic and integrative perspective, an enterprise-level view, and a focus on change. The actual model is comprised of over 20 partial models including popular canvases depicting the transformation program’s content on the strategy-to-IT layers, the enterprise and local level, and in the as-is and to-be state. Demonstration and evaluation were done with practitioners and students of an Executive Master program focusing on digital transformation. Both confirmed the utility of the underlying method and recognized its distinctive features, while capability and IT landscape models were found especially relevant. The method is expected to be applicable for digital transformations beyond the case and also to be projectable to smaller-scaled digital business innovations.Type:journal articleJournal:Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architectures JournalVolume:19Issue:4Scopus© Citations 1 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, Dealing with Complexity in Design Science Research: A Methodology Using Design Echelons(2024-06); Jan Vom BrockeDesign science research (DSR) aims to generate knowledge about innovative solutions to real-world problems. Consequently, DSR needs to deal with the complexity related to problem and solution spaces involving socio-technical phenomena that people perceive differently and are subject to constant change. This complexity poses challenges to sequential, process-based approaches—specifically, the existing DSR methodology. We designed a DSR methodology that extends existing approaches by adding a complementary organizing logic to address complexity. Based on the theory of hierarchical, multilevel systems, we suggest organizing DSR based on the concept of “echelon”—meaning to decompose DSR projects into smaller logically coherent self-contained parts—and suggest a set of five design echelons that imply a hierarchical organizing logic for DSR projects. The echeloned DSR (eDSR) methodology was developed in five iterations, involving seven design and evaluation episodes.Type:journal articleJournal:MIS QuarterlyVolume:48Issue:2Scopus© Citations 119 - Some of the metrics are blocked by yourconsent settings
Item type:Publication, The impact of enterprise architecture management on information systems architecture complexity(2023-11); ; ; Significant investments in information systems (IS) over the past decades have led to increasingly complex IS architectures in organisations, which are difficult to understand, operate, and maintain. We investigate this development and associated challenges through a conceptual model that distinguishes four constituent elements of IS architecture complexity by differentiating technological from organisational aspects and structural from dynamic aspects. Building on this conceptualisation, we hypothesise relations between these four IS architecture complexity constructs and investigate their impact on architectural outcomes (i.e., efficiency, flexibility, transparency, and predictability). Using survey data from 249 IS managers, we test our model through a partial least squares (PLS) approach to structural equation modelling (SEM). We find that organisational complexity drives technological complexity and that structural complexity drives dynamic complexity. We also demonstrate that increasing IS architecture complexity has a significant negative impact on efficiency, flexibility, transparency, and predictability. Finally, we show that enterprise architecture management (EAM) helps to offset these negative effects by acting as a moderator in the relation between organisational and technological IS architecture complexity. Thus, organisations without adequate EAM are likely to face large increases in technological complexity due to increasing organisational complexity, whereas organisations with adequate EAM exhibit no such relation.Type:journal articleVolume:32Issue:6Scopus© Citations 27