Context
The researchers use the name Pi to protect the organisation’s identity. Pi was a leading industrial manufacturer and faced lower immediate disruption pressure than several other organisations in the study. This gave it more time to develop capability.
What Pi did
Pi created a separate organisational unit and built an industrial IoT platform largely with an internal software team. Senior management remained involved in governance.
Observed outcome
The study identifies Pi as part of a successful digital-service-innovation pathway. The result should not be read as proof that internal development is always preferable. The route worked in the context described by the researchers.
Why the approach worked
The implementation model matched Pi’s position. The organisation had time to build, executive involvement and a focused unit that could develop the digital service without being fully absorbed by established structures.
What leadership should take from the case
Build, buy and partner decisions should reflect the competitive window, the capability the organisation wants to own and its ability to attract and retain the required people. Internal development also needs product discipline, funding continuity and clear decision rights.
What this means for infrastructure decisions
There is no preferred sourcing ideology. The appropriate route depends on business urgency, readiness, strategic control, lifecycle responsibility and the capability that should remain after implementation.
Source and evidence note
Soto Setzke et al., “Pathways to Digital Service Innovation,” Information Systems Frontiers 25 (2023), 1017–1037. DOI: 10.1007/s10796-021-10112-0. Pi case discussed on p. 1028.
Peer-reviewed multi-case research; anonymised organisation. Success refers to the pathway identified by the study, not to a universal prescription.