Digital infrastructures result from individual yet interdependent systems evolving in relation to each other. This paper identifies three processes by which individual systems become embedded into digital infrastructures. The first is a parallel process, whereby systems become embedded independently of each other. The second is a competitive process, whereby systems compete for resources and attention and one system usually thrives while the other system loses importance. The third is a spanning process characterizing a situation of boundary-spanning between distinct parts of a digital infrastructure. The three processes, synthesized into a dynamic model of digital infrastructure embeddedness, offer clarity to the question how digital infrastructures evolve. They also provide insight into the emergence of three forms of digital infrastructures: silofied, regenerated, and unified. Reflecting an interconnection view, our research further facilitates an understanding of infrastructure inertia and its associated consequence. Criticality traps should be avoided by considering the right timing for system replacement in the light of growing embeddedness over time.

The assumption that generativity engenders unbounded growth has acquired an almost taken-for-granted position in information systems and management literature. Against this premise, we examine the relationship between generativity and user base growth in the context of a digital platform. To do this, we synthesize the literature on generativity into two views, social interaction (expansion of ecosystem boundaries) and product view (expansion of product boundaries), that jointly and individually relate to user base growth. Both views help us explain how opening a platform relates to the emergence and resolution of conflicting expectations in a platform ecosystem that result in new functions and expanded use. We adopt a panel vector autoregressive approach combining data from six large transaction platforms that engaged with open-source developer communities. We found that the dominant narrative of generativity engendering growth, although generally supported by our analysis, obscures the fact that the inverse is also true; that is, growth can lead to expansion of product boundaries (inverse generativity) and that generativity can be bounded; that is, growth can stabilize ecosystem boundaries (bounded generativity). Against this background, we propose an extended generativity theory that presents generativity and growth in an integrative view and raises awareness about the limitations of the “unbounded growth” claim. We conclude that there is value in separating the two views of generativity conceptually and analytically, along with their relationship to user base growth, and we call for research on the pathways through which generativity produces growth. History: Ola Henfridsson, Senior Editor; Robert Wayne Gregory, Associate Editor.