Development and operations

The role aggregation of development and operations is related to how APIs are used and developed. On the surface these roles might appear less relevant to innovation. However, the studied cases revealed that API use cases are multi-faceted and non-exclusive. Moreover, the use of APIs and its outcomes are often

drivers for innovation. Therefore, it is important to also understand how APIs are developed and used. The development is approached from IS perspective rather than software engineering, but the viewpoint is nevertheless technologi-cally oriented.

The role of integration and interoperability is likely the most common use case for APIs. It is associated with the integrator archetype described by Wulf &

Blohm (2017). Based on both the empirical findings and literature (e.g. de Reuved et al., 2017), APIs are used to integrate resources and functionalities across the boundaries of information systems and organizations.

For example, MPY Palvelut utilized APIs to integrate systems and pro-cesses to create and configure organizational boundary crossing services and processes. Each of the studied cases utilized APIs to either integrate internal and/or external resources or provide external integration opportunities. In-teroperability was perceived as a requirement for successful integration of re-sources and functionalities. Platform of Trust and Forum Virium Helsinki em-phasized the importance of interoperability which was a core value in their platforms. Interoperability and harmonization decrease and mitigate complexi-ty. Thus, it effectively decreases the barrier to innovate and increases the oppor-tunities for combinatorial innovation. Similar observations were made by Huhtamäki et al. (2017) and Aitamurto and Lewis (2012).

Distributed and boundary crossing innovation is dependent on the capa-bility to integrate resources and functionalities and make them compatible, i.e.

interoperable, with the organizations information systems. It requires both knowledge and technical capabilities. APIs provide the technical means for in-tegration but are also medium for knowledge transfer. In addition, they spread the platform’s influence in the ecosystem and contribute towards the conver-gence of digital technologies. (Yoo et al., 2012; Weiss & Gangadharan, 2010;

West & Bogers, 2017). The success of digital platforms is likewise dependent on the above-described ability and innovation outcomes, i.e. boundary crossing processes and operations. The processes are related to the mechanisms of dis-tributed and open innovation (Chesbrough, 2012; West & Bogers, 2017).

Technical quality influence heavily the usability and suitability of APIs for combinatorial innovation and the integration of resources (Weiss & Gan-gadharan, 2010). Metatavu emphasized the technical quality as a key considera-tion in API selecconsidera-tion and deployments. On the other hand, MPY Palvelut em-phasized how APIs align with busines processes and how they fit in the ecosys-tem. In any case, APIs have a relatively low switching cost and are often re-placed to find the best problem-solution fit (Huhtamäki et al., 2017; Parker &

Alstyne, 2016).

Platform of Trust, Tapio, and Forum Virium Helsinki focused on the har-monization, i.e. interoperability, of data. They had different approaches to it but nonetheless pursued to increase the integration potential of resources and ca-pabilities exposed by APIs. The expectation was that the convergence of re-sources would increase the pace and diversity of innovation and increase the positive dependencies in the ecosystem. Some of the expectations had already

been realized. Helsinki Region Infoshare is an open data provider that pursues to increase interoperability of open data and especially its metadata by harmo-nizing knowledge sharing. The research data included numerous use cases re-lated to how APIs are used to in integrate resources and increase the interoper-ability, and how it influences digital platform innovation.

Automation and cost-savings is a business-driven role. Cost savings are achieved by increasing the level of automation. However, the interview data unfolded multiple paths to cost savings. Machine-readability and scalability were the most often mentioned requirements for automating processes and tasks. Especially Platform of Trust and MPY Palvelut utilized APIs to increase the level of automation and scalability. Moreover, Platform of Trust pursued automation and scalability to make their business model viable in the long term.

Based on the research data, companies were more interested in cost savings as an innovation outcome than the public sector organizations. However, the effi-ciency of the innovation process was likely to provide cost savings as a second-ary or indirect outcome. The role is most accurately associated with the integra-tor API archetype but perhaps also to the mediaintegra-tor.

Automation and cost savings are operational outcomes of successful inno-vation outcomes. For example, Platform of Trust pursued internal innoinno-vation that provided cost savings and especially increases in the level of automation.

Those innovations could be first utilized internally but alter commercialized and exposed in their ecosystem. Automation increases productivity. MPY Palvelut and Metatavu had a business objective of increasing the productivity of their customers through new digital services and process improvements.

APIs were utilized to automate processes but also to increase interoperability that was considered a requirement for automation. Overall, the empirical find-ings were in line with the prior research (e.g. Zuccalá & Verga, 2016; Basole, 2016; Evans & Basole, 2016; Aitamurto & Lewis, 2012).

Modular service development is intertwined with both service innovation and service development. It is a technologically oriented role that is associated with integrator and mediator API archetypes described by Wulf and Blohm (2017). Modularity increases the potential for combinatorial innovation. It also decreases the barrier to innovate and increases the speed of service develop-ment. Digital service systems are incomplete and thus are open for unanticipat-ed innovation outcomes. (Yoo et al., 2012, Weiss & Gangadharan, 2010). Service modularity is an important to respond to specialized needs and support digital service innovation (Chesbrough, 2012).

Multiple interviewees brought up modularity in different contexts. For ex-ample, Metatavu and Platform of Trust discussed modularity in context of software development. Bonardi et al. (2016) and Vukovic et al. (2016) argued APIs have revolutionized software development. The same argument was made by Metatavu and Platform of Trust. MPY Palvelut defined modularity as the modularity of business processes that were enabled by the underlying ser-vices. Forum Virium Helsinki described that APIs provide abstraction for the technical details of various modules and thus reduce the complexity of service

systems. Furthermore, APIs enable the co-creation of service modules in plat-form ecosystem. APIs are also used to integrate the co-created modules and provide the connectivity with them. Modern service and platform architectures are service-based and practically built on top of APIs. In addition to service and software development benefits, APIs can be used to increase collaboration in platform ecosystems. Modularity support service specialization and configura-tion of specialized services based on standard modules that are exposed by APIs. The role of modularity was defined as a requirement, outcome, and bene-fit depending on the context of the term and the interviewee.

The role of modular service development is related to some of the previ-ously described roles. This observation highlights well the synergies and de-pendencies different roles have with each other. APIs are connectors between the service and platform building blocks. Platform of Trust described APIs are the modern service-oriented version of open source. They both have a similar role in being building blocks in software development. However, APIs are more refined in their offerings. The use of APIs has increased the speed and efficiency of service development. The benefits are cumulative but increase the complexi-ty of service systems. Literature (e.g. Bonardi et al., 2016) helps to connect soft-ware and service development with digital platforms and innovation. API-based service architectures provide foundations to digital platform innovation.