Relational Coordination Collaborative

Digitally Enabled Ecosystems Innovation Lab

What is the role of relationships between humans and technology in digital ecosystems?  Research carried out by leaders of this Innovation Lab shows that for an ecosystem to thrive, it must be intentionally architected to embed trust among its participants.  They investigate how different governance models, platform architectures, and protocol implementations may create conditions that either foster or hinder trust development among participants.  Second, they analyze how relational coordination functions within digital ecosystems, particularly how communication patterns and interdependence management might influence trust dynamics. This dimension of the research seeks to understand how human relationships persist and evolve when mediated by AI systems. Third, they explore design considerations for agentic AI in ecosystems, focusing on how autonomous systems might be architected to preserve and enhance trust. This includes examining technical factors like explainability and transparency, as well as socio-technical considerations around human-AI interaction patterns and accountability frameworks. By examining governance, relational, and technical dimensions of trust, this research aims to inform more robust approaches to building and maintaining trusted digital environments in an age of increasingly autonomous systems.

Other research by leaders of this Innovation Lab proposes a framework for multi-agent collaboration that emphasizes dynamic coordination among autonomous agents and humans to solve complex, user-driven problems. Each agent operates with its own set of roles, goals, and capabilities but is designed to interact fluidly with other agents and with human users. The system leverages generative AI models embedded within each agent to interpret user intent, articulate subgoals, and collaboratively construct solutions that are aligned with overarching system objectives. At the core of the framework is the integration of coordination mechanisms. Agents synchronize their actions through shared representations of goals and constraints. To enhance decision quality, agents tap into external knowledge sources—databases, APIs, and open datasets—contextualizing their proposals with relevant, real-time information. Human users are active participants in the system, influencing search, guiding priorities, and validating outputs. Through cycles of proposal, negotiation, and refinement, agents and humans iteratively converge on solutions. We discuss the relevance of relational coordination with humans in these complex systems. For instance, agents must interpret human inputs (explicit or implicit), maintain clarity of goals, offer explanations for their actions, and invite human feedback or correction. As such AI agents are not mere elements of the structure —not just tools—but play a role as collaborators who respect shared goals, timeliness, and mutual accountability with human partners.

What Are Ecosystems?

Ecosystems are “relatively self-contained, self- adjusting systems of resource-integrating actors connected by shared institutional arrangements and mutual value creation through service exchange."  Ecosystems are composed of diverse actors who interact with each other within and across micro, meso, and macro levels that are nested and complementary to each other.  Digital technologies play a growing role in resource integration, thus digital readiness is becoming a key success factor for ecosystems.  

How Do Institutions and Relationships Matter for Digital Ecoystems?

But while technology is necessary for coordinating ecosystems, it is likely not sufficient. Scholars have argued that, to co-create mutual economic and social value through their interactions and to avoid value co-destruction, actors in an ecosystem must coordinate with each other. This is crucial given the complexity and dynamic evolution of ecosystems, as well as the potential number and diversity of actors involved, particularly when working to solve grand challenges. Such coordination is supposedly ensured by the existence of shared institutional arrangements among the actors, namely “sets of interrelated institutions” composed of normative (values, social norms), cultural-cognitive (organizational policies), and regulative (laws) institutions. Those institutions enable, guide, and constrain the actors’ behaviors in their resource-integrating interactions.  

Relationships are a key ingredient of effective coordination when actors are highly interdependent and when they are carrying out work characterized by high levels of uncertainty and time constraints.  Relational coordination is the coordination of work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect, supported by frequent, timely, accurate, problem solving communication in the context of interdependence, uncertainty and time constraints. While this theory has most often been applied within organizations, it can be expanded to address cross-organizational and cross-sectoral coordination.  Ecosystems may require relational forms of coordination to ensure successful outcomes and to manage conflicting priorities among actors; if so, institutions and digital technologies need to be designed to support relational coordination at and across levels.  

Please join us to learn more, and to contribute your knowledge!

Coordinating Ecosystems at Multiple Levels

Meta level

Institutional coordination 

Macro level 

Cross-organizational coordination

Meso level

Within-organization coordination

Micro level

Interpersonal coordination

Join This Innovation Lab

 

Innovation Lab Leaders

Ina Sebastian

Research Scientist, MIT Center for Information Systems Research

Kartik Trivedi

Post-Doctoral Fellow, Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire

Kartik Trivedi is a policy researcher and currently a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire. He received his PhD in 2023 from the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University.  Kartik's work focuses on algorithmic fairness and inclusion of people with disabilities. Broadly, he is interested in understanding the role algorithms and humans play in building fairer institutions.  In his other work, Kartik has produced econometric analysis on policy issues such as the inclusion of people with disabilities in the housing market; analyzed data for understanding minimum wage policies using real-time job posting data, and studied vocational employment policies concerning people with disabilities.

Tomaz Sedej

Ecosystem Manager, Hyperledger Foundation

Tomaz Sedej serves as an Ecosystem Manager at the Hyperledger Foundation, an open-source collaborative effort created to advance cross-industry blockchain technologies, hosted by the Linux Foundation. Additionally, Tomaz holds positions as a Guest Researcher at the Copenhagen Business School's Department of Accounting and as a Research Collaborator at the MIT Center for Information System Research. His research delves into the implications of enterprise blockchains on inter-organizational relationships, ecosystems, and digital partnering. Before starting to research enterprise blockchains, he worked at various multinational companies, such as L’Oréal and Coca-Cola, within the areas of digital transformation, process optimization, and financial controlling.

Paulo Gomes

Assistant Professor, Florida International University

Paulo J Gomes is an Assistant Professor at Florida International University College of Business where he teaches Operations and Supply Chain Management in the Healthcare MBA and Master of International Business programs. He received his doctoral degree in Technology and Operations Management from Boston University. His research focuses on management of innovation and improvement processes, in particular regarding healthcare systems and sustainable operations, and has been published in journals such as International Journal of Operations & Production Management, International Journal of Production Economics, Managerial and Decision Economics, Industrial Marketing Management, Business Strategy & Environment, among others. Prior to joining FIU, he has been on the faculty at Babson College, MIT Engineering Systems Division, Boston University and Nova School of Business. He has been the director of the COHITEC Lisbon between 2005-2008, a program that supported the launch of technology ventures. Paulo has done consulting in the healthcare industry, both with corporations such as Novartis, Roche Diagnostics, Baptist Health South Florida, and government institutions such as the Portuguese NHS and the Mission for Reorganizing Primacy Care.

Dan Moriarty

Principal, Ingleside Group

Thomas Haskamp

Research Associate, Hasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam

Thomas Haskamp is a Research Associate at the Chair of Design Thinking and Innovation Research with Professor Falk Uebernickel from the Hasso Plattner Institute (HPI), Germany's leading digital engineering faculty. With his background in business innovation from the University of St. Gallen (HSG) and a significant amount of practical experience, he is involved in research and teaching in digital innovation, transformation, and design thinking. He publishes and regularly speaks as part of public and scientific conferences in the field of information systems and management about findings from his research around organizational inertia as part of the HPI-Stanford Research Program. He is currently a visiting researcher at the MIT Center for Information Systems Research in Boston.

Jody Hoffer Gittell

Director, RCC; Professor, Brandeis University; Chief Executive Officer, Relational Coordination Analytics

Jody Hoffer Gittell is Professor and PhD Program Director at Brandeis University's Heller School, and Program Director of the Academy of Management’s Organization Development and Change Division. Gittell teaches Strategic Human Resource Management, Research Methods, and Organizational and Institutional Theory.  She is the Founder and Director of the Relational Coordination Collaborative and Chief Executive Officer of Relational Coordination Analytics. She is interested in relational strategies for achieving organizational performance, organizational change and human well-being.  She has published scientific articles and books such as The Southwest Airlines Way: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve High Performance, High Performance Healthcare: Using the Power of Relationships to Achieve Quality, Efficiency and Resilience, and Transforming Relationships for High Performance: The Power of Relational Coordination.  She is currently co-editing a book with Amanda Brewster, Ingrid Nembhard and Vicky Parker called Healthcare Management and Human Well-Being in a Turbulent Era. 

Together with students and colleagues around the world, Dr. Gittell has developed relational coordination theory, which predicts that highly interdependent work is most effectively coordinated through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect, supported by frequent, timely, accurate, problem-solving communication. The theory shows how relational coordination drives a wide range of desired performance outcomes and how organizations shape it, for better or worse.  Dr. Gittell speaks frequently about the theory and practice of relational coordination. She serves as Vice Chair of the Board for Greater Seacoast Community Health, and on the Executive Committee for NAACP Seacoast. She received her BA from Reed College, her MA from The New School, and her PhD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Resources

Adner, R. (2006).  Match your innovation strategy to your innovation ecosystem.  HBR Spotlight, Harvard Business Review

Caldwell, N. D., Roehrich, J. K., & George, G. (2017).  Social value creation and relational coordination in public‐private collaborations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 906-928.

Jovanovic, M., Kostić, N., Sebastian, I. M., & Sedej, T. (2022). Managing a blockchain-based platform ecosystem for industry-wide adoption: The case of TradeLens. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

Kostić, N., & Sedej, T. (2022). Blockchain technology, inter-organizational relationships, and management accounting: A synthesis and a research agenda. Accounting Horizons

Mustak, M., & Plé, L. (2020). A critical analysis of service ecosystems research: Rethinking its premises to move forward. Journal of Services Marketing. 34(3), 399-413.

Sebastian, I. & Jebsen, C. (2023).  Building digitally enabled relational ecosystems for social value creation.  AOM Annual Meetings.

Sebastian, I. & Gittell, J.H. (2022). Build relational ecosystems to coordinate amidst uncertaintyMIT Center for Information System Research.

Sebastian, I., Alvarez, H. & Hendriks, B. (2022).  Building relational ecosystems to tackle climate changeDecember 2022 RC Cafe.

Sebastian, I. M., Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. (2020).  Driving growth in digital ecosystemsSloan Management Review.

Sebastian, I. M. (2014). The influence of information systems affordances on work practices in high velocity, high reliability organizations: A relational coordination approach (Doctoral dissertation).

Sebastian, I. M., & Bui, T. (2012). The influence of IS affordances on work practices in health care: A relational coordination approach.

Sedej, T. (2021). Blockchain technology and inter-organizational relationships. Copenhagen Business School.

Other Background Readings

Adner, R. 2021.  Sharing value for ecosystem success.  Sloan Management Review, Nov. 1.

Bolton, R., Logan, C., & Gittell, J. H. 2021. Revisiting relational coordination: A systematic review. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science.

Burns, L. R., Nembhard, I. M., & Shortell, S. M. 2021. Integrating network theory into study of integrated healthcare. Social Science & Medicine, 114664.

Caldwell, N. D., Roehrich, J. K., & George, G. 2017. Social value creation and relational coordination in public‐private collaborations. Journal of Management Studies, 54(6), 906-928.

Crowley, K., & Head, B. 2017. The enduring challenge of ‘wicked problems’: Revisiting Rittel and Webber. Integrating Knowledge and Practice to Advance Human Dignity, 50(4), 539-547. doi:10.1007/s11077-017-9302-4.

Edvardsson, B., Kleinaltenkamp, M., Tronvoll, B., McHugh, P., & Windahl, C. 2014. Institutional logics matter when coordinating resource integration. Marketing Theory, 14(3), 291-309.

Faraj, S., & Xiao, Y. 2006. Coordination in fast-response organizations. Management Science, 52(8), 1155-1169.

Ferraro, F., Etzion, D., & Gehman, J. 2015. Tackling grand challenges pragmatically: Robust action revisited. Organization Studies, 36(3), 363-390. 

George, G., Howard-Grenville, J., Joshi, A., & Tihanyi, L. 2016. Understanding and tackling societal grand challenges through management research. Academy of Management Journal, 59(6), 1880-1895. 

Gittell, J. H. 2002. Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: Relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Management Science, 48(11), 1408-1426.

Gittell, J. H., & Weiss, L. 2004. Coordination networks within and across organizations: A multi‐level framework. Journal of Management Studies, 41(1), 127-153.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. 2015. Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739. 

Karpen I. O., & Kleinaltenkamp, M. 2018. Coordinating resource integration and value co-creation through institutional arrangements: A phenomenological perspective. In S. Vargo, &  R. Lusch (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic (pp. 284-298). Sage, London.

Kleinaltenkamp, M. 2018. Institutions and institutionalization. In S. Vargo, &  R. Lusch,  (Eds.). The Sage Handbook of Service-Dominant Logic (pp. 265-283). Sage, London.

Koskela-Huotari, K. & Vargo, S.L. 2016. Institutions as resource context. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 26(2), 163-178.

Leonardi, P.M., Bailey, D.E., and Pierce, C.S. 2019. The coevolution of objects and boundaries over time: Materiality, affordances, and boundary salience. Information Systems Research, 30(2), 665-686.

Lusch, R.F., & Vargo, S.L. 2014. Service-Dominant Logic: Premises, Perspectives, Possibilities. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Mustak, M., & Plé, L. 2020. A critical analysis of service ecosystems research: Rethinking its premises to move forward. Journal of Services Marketing. 34(3), 399-413.

Nembhard, I. M., Burns, L. R., & Shortell, S. M. 2020. Responding to Covid-19: Lessons from management research. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery, 1(2).

Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. 2009. Coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463-502.

Plé L., Mustak M., & Nguyen T.K. 2022. Beyond institutions: A relational perspective on service ecosystems’ coordination. Submitted to Frontiers 2022.

Scott, W. R. 2013. Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests, and Identities, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Sebastian, I. M., Weill, P., & Woerner, S. L. 2020. Driving growth in digital ecosystems.  Sloan Management Review.

Sharma, S., & Gittell, J. H. (2021). Expanding relational coordination to tackle global crises: The Relational Society Project. In Social Scientists Confronting Global Crises (pp. 71-83). Routledge.

Singer, S. J., Burgers, J., Friedberg, M., Rosenthal, M. B., Leape, L., & Schneider, E. (2011). Defining and measuring integrated patient care: Promoting the next frontier in health care delivery. Medical Care Research and Review, 68(1), 112-127.

Vargo, S.L., & Lusch, R.F. 2016. Institutions and axioms: An extension and update of service-dominant logic. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(1), 5-23.

Wang, P. 2021. Connecting the parts with the whole: Toward an information ecology theory of digital innovation ecosystems. MIS Quarterly, 45(1).

Woolcott, G., Keast, R., Tsasis, P., Lipina, S., & Chamberlain, D. 2019.  Reconceptualizing person-centered service models as social ecology networks in supporting integrated care.  International Journal of Integrated Care, 19(2), 1-12.

Yoo, Y., Henfridsson, O., and Lyytinen, K. 2010. Research commentary: The new organizing logic of digital innovation: An agenda for information systems research. Information Systems Research, 21(4), 724-735.