Wallet wars or digital public infrastructure? Orchestrating a digital identity data ecosystem from a government perspective

Degen, Konrad; Teubner, Timm Article — Published Version Wallet wars or digital public infrastructure? Orchestrating a digital identity data ecosystem from a government perspective Electronic Markets Provided in Cooperation with: Springer Nature Suggested Citation: Degen, Konrad; Teubner, Timm (2024) : Wallet wars or digital public infrastructure? Orchestrating a digital identity data ecosystem from a government perspective, Electronic Markets, ISSN 1422-8890, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Vol. 34, Iss. 1, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-024-00731-1 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/315794 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Vol.:(0123456789) Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-024-00731-1 RESEARCH PAPER Wallet wars ordigital public infrastructure? Orchestrating adigital identity data ecosystem fromagovernment perspective KonradDegen1,2 · TimmTeubner1,3 Received: 3 March 2024 / Accepted: 2 September 2024 / Published online: 3 October 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract With the eIDAS 2.0 legislation, the European Union seeks to establish a digital identity data ecosystem and to empower citizens to manage digital credentials from various sources through an ID wallet interface. To achieve this, governments must develop holistic orchestration models integrating technical, regulatory, and economic perspectives. This approach will foster ecosystem value creation, address orchestration tensions, and design sustainable operating models for various ecosystem actors. While IS research has explored private-sector governance mechanisms in platform and data ecosystems, a research gap exists in understanding public–private orchestration where governments act as orchestrators. We address this through a structured document analysis of 80 position papers from various stakeholders participating in a public government consultation process and 14 semi-structured in-depth interviews. By examining ecosystem value creation mechanisms, orchestration tensions, and monetization challenges, we identify two government orchestration standard types for the ID wallet provision. The Government ID-Infrastructure Wallet model embodies an ecosystem-integrated public infrastructure, while the Trust ID Wallet Federation exemplifies a dynamic and competition-driven approach. By bridging the self-sovereign identity ecosystem paradigm with digital identity infrastructure research, our work contributes to the understanding and theoretical development of data ecosystems and digital identity research from a government perspective. Keywords Data ecosystems governance· Open government data· Government ecosystem orchestration· Digital identity infrastructure· Self-sovereign identity (SSI)· Digital identity ecosystem Introduction “Every time an App or website asks us to create a new digital identity or to easily log on via a big platform, we have no idea what happens to our data in reality. That is why the Commission will propose a secure European e-identity. One that we trust and that any citizen can use anywhere in Europe to do anything from paying your taxes to renting a bicycle. A technology where we can control ourselves what data is used and how. (Cater, 2021)” — Ursula von der Leyen used these words to describe the European Union’s vision for creating a digital identity data ecosystem through the EU eIDAS 2.0 legislation (European Commission, 2024). Since the beginning of the legislative process in 2020, political decision-makers, civil society, and various organizations have started to debate and design technical, economic, and legal frameworks to realize the vision (Lips etal., 2022; Weigl etal., 2022). This digital identity data ecosystem extends beyond providing public eID infrastructures and necessitates adopting a new perspective, envisioning a user-centered ID wallet that reflects a concept known from the self-sovereign identity paradigm (Ansaroudi etal., 2023; Guggenberger etal., 2023). Considering the pivotal role of citizens’ digital identity (and the associated data) for digital transformation processes of state, economy, and society, it is essential to incorporate various perspectives. This includes technical, socio-technical, economic, and political Responsible Editor: Frederik Oliver Möller. * Konrad Degen k[email protected] Timm Teubner [email protected] 1 TU Berlin, Institute ofTechnology andManagement, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623Berlin, Germany 2 German Federal Agency forDisruptive Innovation (SPRIND), Lagerhofstraße 4, 04103Leipzig, Germany 3 Einstein Center Digital Future, Wilhelmstraße 67, 10117Berlin, Germany Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 2 of 25 viewpoints (Giannopoulou, 2023; Schlatt etal., 2022; van Dijck & Jacobs, 2020). This complexity presents a significant challenge, especially for governments, who grapple with a similar task that major platforms like Google or Microsoft had to address: effectively creating and “governing” a dynamic ecosystem with autonomous actors that generate value (Lechner etal., 2023). Internet browsers and mobile payments illustrate how their provision is caught between intense market competition (e.g., “browser wars”), and the regulatory need to foster competition and protect consumers (Liu etal., 2015; Sedlmeir etal., 2021). From a socio-technical perspective, these solutions have become an essential infrastructure for our digital lives. Similarly, government-provided and regulated ID wallets seek to leverage the state’s power to steer markets and societies toward greater (public) value creation. This active government role presents an opportunity for novel governance mechanisms, leveraging the state’s unique dual role as both regulator and market actor—capabilities not available to private sector orchestrators (Addo, 2022; Borrás & Edler, 2020). IS research has explored the emergence of digital ecosystems, the role of data, as well as various positive and negative governance mechanisms in the private sector (Gleiss etal., 2023b; Halckenhaeusser etal., 2020; Möller etal., 2024). However, while there is a solid understanding of orchestration within business domains, less is known about how it applies to public–private data ecosystems (Gupta etal., 2020). In our case, the federal government acts as an orchestrator, needing to coordinate and steer both vertically across public administration levels and horizontally across multiple private industries toward a common goal. In this context, orchestration goes beyond inter-organizational cooperation within the public administration domain, control over IT systems or data resources, as often discussed in the e-government literature (e.g., Cordella & Paletti, 2019; Klievink etal., 2016). Instead, orchestration in our study is a dynamic and strategic process across various ecosystem development phases and industries initiated by a government (Addo, 2022). Building on Addo (2022), we define government orchestration as the strategic coordination and management of government-provided data and digital public infrastructures. This orchestration involves various public and private actors within a complex ecosystem and aims to generate collaborative value, accountability, legitimacy, and efficiency. This process requires governance to create value mechanisms, overcome tensions, and generate collaborative value. Given the eIDAS 2.0 scope to create a public–private ecosystem, developing sustainable public operating models and viable business models is essential to attract private sector participation in a government-orchestrated ecosystem. Research on open data reveals that government-provided data often falls short of delivering its promised value. This shortfall creates barriers for non-government actors and limits innovations through public–private co-creation (Runeson etal., 2021; Zuiderwijk etal., 2016). Overcoming these challenges is essential to unlocking the full value of identity data for citizens and organizations. Against this backdrop, this study conceptualizes government orchestration models for a natural person ID wallet provision in digital identity data ecosystems. For this purpose, we examine value mechanisms, and orchestration tensions and explore monetization flows leading to potential operating models associated with ecosystem roles. These perspectives represent crucial facets and cover a wide range of the problem space, leading to a holistic view of government orchestration. Our chosen framework enables us to study the complexities and opportunities within government-orchestrated data ecosystems, resulting in more effective and sustainable implementations as well as valuable research insights. We achieve this through an inductive qualitative research design involving content analysis and semi-structured indepth interviews. The gathered qualitative data is based on the German government’s public consultation process that aims to collect various perspectives on designing a national digital identity data ecosystem. Building on Oliveira etal. (2018)’s definition of data ecosystems, we refer to a digital identity data ecosystem as an interconnected network of autonomous private and public actors that issue, hold, and verify digital identity data from various sources and trust levels through shared governance to create collaborative value for users, governments, and businesses. Our research question is the following: “Which government orchestration models exist for a public-private identity data ecosystem and how can the ID wallet be economically provided as a central user interface for managing identity data?” The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: The “Background” section provides an overview of interdisciplinary foundations for data ecosystems and digital identities and outlines our theoretical perspective on ecosystems. The “Research design” section details our qualitative methodological approach. In the “Findings” section, we identify value governance mechanisms, explore orchestration tensions, and analyze economic monetization options for ID wallet provider operating models. The “Discussion and implications” section systematizes and discusses the implications of our findings. Finally, the “Conclusion” section summarizes the paper, addresses its limitations, and suggests avenues for future research. Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 3 of 25 50 Background Interdisciplinary research foundations forpublic data ecosystems The digital transformation of governments, industries, and society has led to unprecedented growth in the volume and complexity of data. Besides data analytics capabilities in private and public organizations, access to data from various sources has become essential for value creation (Shah etal., 2021). Data access and sharing, especially in an inter-organizational context, becomes both a challenge and an opportunity to leverage this potential in various industries and cross-sectoral settings (Fassnacht etal., 2023; Möller etal., 2024). Therefore, organization-centric data governance, known as the “exercise of authority and control over the management of data,” must be extended to an ecosystem-centric perspective (Abraham etal., 2019, p.424). In this context, autonomous actors shape collaboration and value through shared governance mechanisms and create ecosystems based on modularity (Jacobides etal., 2018). In research and practice, data ecosystems emerge as socio-technical networks based on IT infrastructures in which actors, through collaboration, “find, archive, publish, consume, or reuse data” (Oliveira etal., 2019, p.589). Based on the data ecosystem constructs of actors, roles, relationships, and resources, innovation is promoted, value is generated, and operating and business models are facilitated (Abraham etal., 2019; Oliveira etal., 2018). Given the nature of data ecosystems, the IS research community has discovered the phenomenon as recent calls for papers in leading journals and conference highlights (e.g., Möller etal., 2023). However, contributions from related disciplines, such as Management Science and Public Administration, offer valuable perspectives and foundational insights. This becomes particularly evident when applying the concept of data ecosystems, as demonstrated in this paper, in the public sector and e-government context. Figure1 maps the interdisciplinary research landscape: IS research on data ecosystems covers foundational work such as defining the characteristics and various taxonomies based on empirical case studies and conceptual research. Otto and Jarke (2019) as well as Beverungen etal. (2022) examine the design and emergence of data ecosystems and data spaces based on various industry case studies. Here, research takes place through an economic, technical, and governance lens researching, for instance, underlying IT infrastructures (Schleimer & Duparc, 2023), data sharing mechanisms (Costabile & Øvrelid, 2023), tensions or incentives (Jussen etal., 2024), and ecosystem openness (De Reuver etal., 2022). Furthermore, diverse stakeholder interactions raise questions about the design and consequences associated with the (absence of) interoperability and portability, exemplified by identity data and/or reputation (Hesse & Teubner, 2020). Emerging meta-models explain how these concepts are connected and provide a holistic view of the data ecosystem phenomenon (Oliveira etal., 2018). Van den Broek and van Veenstra, (2015) identify the market, hierarchy, bazaar, and network governance models for managing and generating value in inter-organizational collaboration settings. Schurig etal. (2024) synthesize (i) ownership, (ii) decision and control rights, (iii) ecosystem access, (iv) boundary resources, (v) actor interactions and relationships, (vi) pricing and revenue, and (vii) values, trust and beliefs as critical governance dimensions for orchestration. Based on the existing literature, further research avenues are, for example, the role of IT artifacts in shaping ecosystem governance and the role of keystone Fig. 1 Foundations of public–private identity data ecosystems in interdisciplinary research Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 4 of 25 actors, especially with their contribution to the design and performance of data ecosystems (Jussen etal., 2024; Möller etal., 2024; Oliveira etal., 2019). Scholars claim that more research is needed regarding economic sustainability, potential operating models, and the social and political processes surrounding data ecosystems (e.g., Oliveira etal., 2019). Government orchestration ofplatform and(open) data ecosystems Research on digital platform ecosystems offers valuable insights for data ecosystems into orchestration interdependencies and tensions between platforms and actors bound together through platform governance (Mini & Widjaja, 2019). Both in IS and the e-government literature, orchestration is defined as a strategy to design governance mechanisms (Autio, 2022; Cordella & Paletti, 2019). The government perspective on orchestration in data ecosystems is unique due to the state monopoly over various resources that coordinate the development and capabilities within the ecosystem (Gupta etal., 2020). Governments’ enormous power and reach enable to shape markets and societies (Addo, 2022). Governments, acting as regulators, establish the regulatory guidelines for economic activities. Simultaneously, they actively participate in markets by providing their public services or as consumers, thereby contributing to demand creation (Levi-Faur, 2011). This dual role as an adjudicator and market participant is well-known from private digital platform ecosystems (Heimburg & Wiesche, 2023). Here, the platform’s power in rule setting and governance design has led to controversial behaviors, such as self-preferencing in-house services through product bundling (Khan, 2016). Powerful digital platforms have been proven to generate competition problems and negative social impacts caused by their governance behavior and enabled by the underlying platform characteristics (Gleiss etal., 2023b; Heimburg etal., 2023). For instance, Apple utilizes its position as the App Store’s owner to harness data from the ecosystem, creating products and services that strategically extract value from its top-performing ecosystem actors (Cowls etal., 2023). However, given the dominant organizational form in the digital age, platform ecosystems are slowly gaining importance in the public sector, known as the Government as a Platform (GaaP) concept (Bender & Heine, 2021; Gawer, 2022). From a public administration perspective, digital (platform) ecosystems redesign the governance over IT systems, public actors, and service delivery using distributed participation and co-creation mechanisms (Ansell & Miura, 2020). Co-creation involves collaborative governance, where diverse interests are integrated, and activities are modularly orchestrated (Ansell & Gash, 2018). The collaboration between public and private entities is crucial, as it can drive a successful outside-in digital transformation of governments (Klievink etal., 2016). This is achieved by leveraging innovation from the private sector while generating public value. Examples of this approach include open data ecosystems, public APIs in taxation, and emerging data spaces in education that allow public sector organizations to steer the development and effectively generate public value through co-creations with third parties (Cordella & Paletti, 2019; Gleiss etal., 2023a). Open data ecosystems play a vital role in both practice and research, aiming to generate value by leveraging government data through collaborative efforts with third parties (Dawes etal., 2016). In the context of smart cities, data ecosystems comprise data providers, intermediaries, and users who use public data to improve private and public services (Reggi & Dawes, 2022). Open data can lead to greater transparency, better decision-making, economic growth, and an enhanced government-citizen relationship (Allen etal., 2020; Fang etal., 2024). Despite the value creation potential, governments face numerous technical and economic obstacles to realizing the benefits of open data ecosystems (Dawes etal., 2016). Inconsistent data formats, lack of standardization, and poor data quality present significant challenges that must be addressed to establish effective inter-organizational data sharing across various business domains (Beverungen etal., 2022; Möller etal., 2024). These issues often lead to siloed systems, driven by outdated IT infrastructures and limited interoperability, which hinder value creation (e.g., Jussen etal., 2024; Oliveira etal., 2019). Moreover, inaccurate data insights can have serious economic consequences and negatively impact individuals, particularly in sectors such as healthcare, when used for decisionmaking (Kari etal. 2023). Economically, these technical complexities result in increased costs and high compliance efforts(Stegemann & Gersch, 2019). Furthermore, the provision of (open) data often focuses on the technical aspect, neglecting the need for active co-creation and data commercialization. The absence of a shared open data ecosystem vision between public and private stakeholders hinders value creation and underscores the need for collaborative initiatives to address societal challenges (Susha etal., 2017). Using government data positively impacts private sector innovations, and with government orchestration that facilitates negotiations and collaboration, it can generate trust and significant public value (Magalhaes & Roseira, 2020; Runeson etal., 2021). Opening up identity data and public registries showcases significant potential and is a logical extension of existing government open data initiatives. However, the identified hurdles must be overcome to ensure this concept transitions from theory to reality. Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 5 of 25 50 Digital identity: Acrucial andcontentious enabler forthedigital world Our data ecosystem study focuses on digital identities as the primary observation subject, and the term describes “uniquely a person, organization or thing but also contains information about the subjects’ relationship to other entities” (Windley, 2023, p.7). Digital identity attributes and credentials related to an individual play a crucial role for digital and trustworthy transactions and can have several digital and analog origins (Amard etal., 2024; Sedlmeir etal., 2021). A foundational digital identity defines the root of trust, which other entities recognize and accept as a valid assertion of an individual’s claimed identity (Atick, 2016; Sen, 2019). In the Global North, the foundational identity is typically grounded in civil registry data or national ID systems established and overseen by public authorities (Sen, 2019). However, numerous countries in the Global South face challenges in providing their citizens with foundational identities, resulting in approximately 1.1 billion individuals worldwide lacking formal recognition (Mir etal., 2020). Consequently, the employment of IT systems to grant foundational identity is pivotal in development cooperation, notably in the refugee and humanitarian aid context (Cheesman, 2022; Madon & Schoemaker, 2021). In contrast to a foundational digital identity, a functional digital identity serves a particular purpose and context, such as eID cards for identification, driving licenses for mobility services, or bank cards for using a bank account (Atick, 2016). In Europe, national ID schemes, defined as digital identity infrastructure, actively provide functional digital identities (Walke etal., 2023). Occasionally, they draw a global audience, as illustrated by the example of the Estonian e-Res- idency program (Tammpuu & Masso, 2019). IS literature has started to examine the design of such IT infrastructures, implementing success factors and technological trends (Sharif etal., 2022; Walke etal., 2023). Here, the organizational structure, the system and process design, and the regulatory environment significantly influence the success (Kubicek & Noack, 2010; Medaglia etal., 2017). Moreover, possible cooperation between government and private actors, particularly banks and corresponding public–private partnership governance models, are discovered and conceptualized (Bazarhanova etal., 2020; Eaton etal., 2018; Lips etal., 2023). For this, the convergence of technical and political developments is crucial, as they mutually shape one another (Wihlborg, 2013). Additionally, comparative research includes in-depth case studies in countries such as Estonia, India, and Germany (Addo & Senyo, 2021; Kubicek & Noack, 2010). The user-centric self-sovereign identity (SSI) paradigm challenges the centralized digital identity infrastructure approach by adopting an ecosystem-centric view (Guggenberger etal., 2023; Weigl etal., 2023). Research explores SSI ecosystems from a technological perspective, employing decentralized technologies and technical standards, often using distributed ledgers (Dunphy etal., 2018; Schlatt etal., 2022). From a socio-technical perspective, decentralized governance mechanisms based on market principles are conceptualized (Kölbel etal., 2022). In addition, issues surrounding trust relationships are explored (Der etal., 2017). The socio-political and socio-economical perspective takes a critical stance on the SSI paradigm and digital identities in general (Giannopoulou, 2023). Due to the importance of digital identities, such solutions embody conflicting social and political values (van Dijck & Jacobs, 2020; Whitley & Schoemaker, 2022). Criticism is directed toward the adverse impacts on data protection arising from surveillance, missing data, and identification usage minimalization that can strengthen surveillance capitalism (Masiero, 2023; Zuboff, 2015). Our assessment of the academic literature on data ecosystems and digital identities identifies the following research gaps: First, potential orchestration tensions in data ecosystem governance, especially within a public–private context, are not thoroughly conceptualized (Möller etal., 2023). Second, ecosystem orchestration from a (federal) government perspective is only conducted in the digital (identity) platform context (Addo, 2022) and, surprisingly, not for (identity) data ecosystems. Furthermore, public administration research on (open) data ecosystems tends to focus heavily on local smart city phenomena (e.g., Dawes etal., 2016; Gupta etal., 2020), particularly considering the government-citizen relationship (e.g., Allen etal., 2020). This approach inadequately addresses the dynamics of a federal governmentorchestrated public–private ecosystem, especially regarding the economic aspects of providing an ID wallet as the central user interface for managing digital identity data. Third, monetization flows and possible operating models in data ecosystems represent very relevant questions for practice, but IS research still lacks comprehensive insights (Möller etal., 2024; Oliveira etal., 2019). In the context of a public–private identity data ecosystem, the ID wallet can be provided by government, private, or civil society actors, necessitating an examination of the economic conditions required for these various options. Fourth, despite its practical relevance and overlapping characteristics, the ecosystem perspective emerging from the self-sovereign identity paradigm in digital identity research is not yet integrated into research on public digital identity infrastructures. Our study uses an ecosystem theory perspective and aims to address the identified research gaps through a government-orchestrated digital identity data ecosystem view. Hence, we delve into the governance of value mechanisms, orchestration tensions, and monetization flows and operating Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 6 of 25 models within a public–private digital identity data ecosystem. Moreover, we identify two government orchestration models to provide the ID wallet representing the ecosystem’s central user interface. EU eIDAS 2.0 regulation anddigital identity application inpractice Digital identities serve as a foundation for digitizing various regulated business processes. Industry stakeholders or public administration often perceive digital identities as an indispensable but challenging topic (World Economic Forum, 2023). This perception arises because current approaches are frequently established and regulated within isolated countries and domains such as Know Your Customer for banks or telecommunication (Arner etal., 2019). This reality challenges the emergence of interoperable and comprehensive solutions, as the technical, economic, and legal prerequisites diverge even when serving identical purposes (Lips etal., 2022). The EU eIDAS 2.0 regulation strives to establish a unified regulatory framework to foster the development of a digital identity ecosystem (European Commission, 2024). This ecosystem comprises issuers of identity data, ID wallet providers, relying parties, users, the orchestrator/regulator, and ecosystem service providers with their respective tasks described in Table1: According to eIDAS 2.0 citizens are users who utilize EU ID wallets as the primary interface to manage their digital credentials sourced from public and private entities. It facilitates secure data sharing with third parties in online and offline use cases. Leveraging ID wallet core functionalities such as identification, authentication, electronic signatures, and boundary functions such as payment authorization, it can be characterized as a super-app (van der Vlist etal., 2024). It enables the digitization of conventional business processes and creates seamless user journeys across different industries (Busch, 2023). For example, the ID wallet approach enables a seamless user journey from the digital purchase of a car, obtaining car insurance and registration from private insurance providers and public authorities to presenting a driver’s license at a police checkpoint. In addition, the example highlights the need to involve various private and public stakeholders to unlock the value of a digital identity data ecosystem from a user perspective. The necessary identity ecosystem encompasses data issuers, ID wallet providers facilitating user data management, and relying parties that utilize the data to enable relevant business processes (Schwalm, 2023). Therefore, inter-organ- izational data sharing and establishing trust relationships are crucial. Sector-specific regulators (e.g., the Financial Supervisory Authority) and ecosystem service providers (e.g., payment providers) are extended actors, helping ecosystem participants to guide their activities and fulfill their roles. Figure2 illustrates the digital identity ecosystem architecture. Issuers are various public and private organizations that provide personal identification data such as passport credentials or individual attributes, for instance, IBAN or health insurance numbers. Within the eIDAS framework, a distinction is made between qualified and unqualified data (eIDAS expert group, 2024). User’s self-attesting data, such as an address, carries a low trust level unless verified against an authentic source (e.g., public registry or eID card). In collaboration with the ID wallet provider, which stores or links user data, these elements are used in ID wallet use cases. For instance, they can initiate legally binding electronic signatures or establish trust relationships by creating role credentials between natural and legal persons (e.g., professor at a specific university). This enables the use of regulated and non-regulated relying party business processes (e.g., login into eHealth patient record or eCommerce checkout). As the ID wallet serves as an interface for diverse users to manage identity data and related services, the technical architecture can vary (Podgorelec etal., 2022). Here, one can differentiate between decentralized and centralized architecture concepts, where, for instance, data is stored on a smartphone or cloud environment (Sule etal., 2021; Windley, 2023). Moreover, the visibility of the ID wallet can differ, offering Table 1 Ecosystem roles and descriptions Ecosystem role Description Issuers Issue identity data (e.g., driver’s license or membership card) to the ecosystem upon the user’s request ID wallet providers Provide a platform serving as a central wallet interface for users to store and manage their identity data Relying parties Utilize various identity data at the user’s request to enhance shared value creation for business processes Users Control and manage their own identity data through a wallet application provided by the ID wallet provider Orchestrator/regulator Initiates the identity data ecosystem, orchestrates the value mechanisms, and oversees the regulation of activities, specific ID wallet use cases, and relying party business processes Ecosystem service providers Provides technical and non-technical services to support ecosystem value creation and ensure regulatory compliance for other ecosystem roles Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 7 of 25 50 choices such as white-label SDK solutions or independent app and web frontends. In creating a digital trust space, an identity data ecosystem necessitates defining governance processes beyond technical considerations. Arising from the eIDAS 2.0 regulation, managing the potential scale of the ecosystem and handling interdependencies among various stakeholders present a significant challenge that all EU institutions and member states must address (Schwalm, 2023). This led the German government to launch a national consultation process in 2023 (BMI, 2023). The ongoing process aims to define the ecosystem design, underlying technical architecture, and regulatory and economic framework in close cooperation with private, civic, and public stakeholders. The consultation process focuses on digital identity data related to natural persons, and we adapt this perspective for our study. Research design We seize the opportunity presented by the German government’s national consultation process on digital identity. Our study investigates the orchestration of a public and private data ecosystem from a government perspective. We use an inductive approach and apply a qualitative multi-method research design based on content analysis and semi-struc- tured interviews, including thematic analysis. To enhance the robustness and credibility of our results, we employed method triangulation, aligning with the recommendations proposed by Jack and Raturi (2006). An inductive qualitative research approach is appropriate to fundamentally advance theory creation through insights into specific phenomena (Bansal & Corley, 2012). Our research design allows a focused analysis of insights to develop new knowledge, identify more comprehensive explanations, and achieve greater generalizability (Skinner etal., 2022). Figure3 maps the study’s research design and results: Before initiating data collection, we conducted a literature review to identify key issues related to our research inquiry. This ensures that our study is well-grounded in the relevant academic literature. We used dual search term combinations (AND) of the keywords data ecosystems, open government data, government ecosystem orchestration, eID-infrastructure, digital identity, and digital identity ecosystem through Google Scholar and the AISEL database and screened the first fifteen results for each combination. We also performed backward and forward searches to uncover additional academic literature in IS, Management Science, Public Administration/e- Government, and interdisciplinary digital policy research. We identified 102 publications in journals and conference proceedings, which form the basis for the literature discussion and the selected theoretical lens on orchestrating digital identity data from a government perspective. Throughout the investigation, it became evident that considering value mechanisms, tensions, and monetization flows is crucial for developing a government orchestration framework that addresses the economic Fig. 2 Digital identity data ecosystem architecture overview Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 8 of 25 dimension of providing an ID wallet within an identity data ecosystem. These perspectives represent interdependent facets, offer a coherent structure, and cover a broad range of the problem space. Our government orchestration framework incorporates Mini and Widjaja (2019)’s digital platform business model tension framework. We apply their findings from private platform business models on our public–private data ecosystem context to identify public operating and private business models for providing the ID wallet as an interface to manage user’s identity data. The inductive qualitative content analysis in Step 1 is based on position papers of various public and private stakeholders requested by the German government to design the governance of a national digital identity ecosystem based on the upcoming European eIDAS regulation (European Commission, 2024). The public consultation process was organized on the open code collaboration platform1 and included online discussions, offline stakeholder workshops, and technical design evaluations. Following the focus of our research question, relevant position papers on the general ecosystem design and specific position papers on ecosystem financing and possible operating and business models were considered during the data collection process. In total, 80 position papers with. Two hundred eighty-seven pages of text were publicly received by the German government in two calls between June and November 2023 and considered in this study (see Appendix 1). The authors of these position papers represent three stakeholder groups summarized in Table2: After the initial assessment of the position papers, an initial coding scheme was developed using the tool ATLAS.ti. During the analysis, the data was critically evaluated, and continuously adjusted following an inductive category formation process (Mayring, 2014). The coding scheme was expanded through aggregation and synthetization, and content themes emerged and were reapplied until the final version was achieved (Appendix 3). In addition to a thematic analysis, the frequency of certain content was included in the structured assessment. This approach is well-suited for investigating the inherent and causal connections within social and economic phenomena and proves valuable for extracting explicit and implicit messages from text (Mayring, 2004). This initial iteration formed the basis for this study’s key findings and helped to develop a semi-structured interview question guide used as a blueprint during research Step 2. In Step 2, 14 in-depth qualitative semi-structured expert interviews were conducted using appreciative and laddering techniques (Schultze & Avital, 2011). The average interview length was 62min and led to 235 pages of transcribed text in total. Experts were selected based on the consultation process and aimed to reflect the diversity of possible interests. The primary factors in the selection process were stakeholder group affiliation and the academic background (Tech, Business, Law, Public Policy). Particular emphasis was placed on talking to representatives of public administration and political decisionmakers, as they offer very important perspectives on Fig. 3 Multi-method qualitative research design 1 https:// bmi. userc ontent. openc ode. de/ eudiwallet/ eidas2/ start/ Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 15 of 25 50 tensions between ID wallet providers serving user’s interests and relying parties. Interviewee 2 points out the conflicting interests: “Data minimization is a legal requirement and user protection mechanism, but it does not align with the interest of relying parties, as having more (verified) data is always better for value creation.” At a strategic level, the concern revolves around defining the roles between the government and the private sector and allocating value distribution between European entities and non-European companies such as Google and Apple. This generates a conflict between digital sovereignty and market diversity, particularly on how many ID wallet providers should exist and how this number will evolve during ecosystem development. Furthermore, tension arises between digital sovereignty and security/privacy concerns regarding the compulsory use and provision of open-source components (e.g., PP20-1 OWF). This affects market variety and highlights known tensions, including competition vs. cooperation and internal development vs. external development (Mini & Widjaja, 2019). Meta‑level tension arising fromthemicro andmacro‑level: ecosystem monetization In this context, ecosystem monetization is pivotal, representing a meta-tension and bridging the described micro- and macro-level conflicts. Despite the digital identity data ecosystem value promise, considerable upfront investment costs occur for the ecosystem roles. This becomes particularly apparent with ID wallet use cases, such as identification or payments, that must enter markets served by established solutions and actors. As a result, it is essential to consider the switching costs, which private entities try to offset with uncertain revenue streams. This is exemplified by the case of private issuers like insurance companies, who must invest in meeting ecosystem requirements for providing insurance credentials (PP36-1 GDV, PP48-1 PKV). Nonetheless, there is uncertainty regarding whether relying parties need these identity attributes. Furthermore, depending on the technical framework of the ecosystem, private issuers may lack evidence of the user’s actual utilization of these attributes. One interviewee describes the implication: “For instance, my bank knows my IBAN, and there’s interest from a relying party to verify its authenticity. The critical question is, what advantage does the bank gain by verifying this information, especially when the issuer remains unaware of the IBAN’s utilization via my ID wallet? Under these conditions, it is difficult to establish a usage-oriented pricing model for private issuers” (I7). Also, issuers and relying parties might need to integrate various ID wallet providers, which increases costs. In line with Mini and Widjaja (2019), this represents a trade-off between the governance costs and co-created value. Having multiple ID wallet providers brings flexibility and competition, but it also amplifies variety and complexity, which carries implications for monetization (Lukkien etal., 2023). Hence, the subsequent section examines the monetization flows within the ecosystem and potential operating models. Conceptualizing ecosystem monetization flows andoperating models To analyze potential financial value exchange, it is crucial to consider the ecosystem roles of the issuer, ID wallet provider, relying party, user, and orchestrator. Based on our data, we categorize commercial relationships as fixed or optional. Fixed relationships exist among issuers, ID wallet providers, and relying parties. Opportunities for optional revenue arise through user charging, and ecosystem orchestration expenses can be considered cost factors. This differentiation is based on our empirical data, as orchestration is considered a government responsibility and an obligation for EU member states according to the eIDAS 2.0 regulation. Funding for ecosystem orchestration could come from various sources, including charging ecosystem fees from actors or government subsidies. According to the eIDAS 2.0 regulation and our data, the core ID wallet should be free for users (e.g., PP4-2 Governikus). Nevertheless, additional ID wallet services or potential relying party business process fees, such as administrative charges, may occur. Consequently, our primary analysis revolves around understanding the monetization dynamics for public operating and private business models involving issuers, ID wallet providers, and relying parties, as illustrated in Fig.6: The core concept of monetization revolves around several key players. Issuers play a vital role by supplying verified data from both public and private sources. ID wallet providers then consolidate this data and facilitate the management of user identities. Additionally, relying parties gain access to the verified user data, allowing them to utilize identityrelated services, such as qualified electronic signatures. This access enables them to streamline their business processes effectively. Therefore, relying parties willingly pay for the data and services as they facilitate the adoption of efficient and innovative processes. However, the willingness to pay varies depending on the relying party and specific business processes, as IT provider for Airlines, Amadeus writes in his position paper: “For banks, the customer lifetime value of a new customer could be worth thousands of euros, while the added value per customer for airlines or hotels is significantly lower” (PP23-2 Amadeus p.1). In addition, there is also a disparity in transaction frequency since a hotel checkin happens more often than opening a bank account. Thus, the willingness to pay depends on the intended usage value. Similar questions arise for issuers who are not obligated to share data mandatorily, as they need to evaluate whether Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 16 of 25 providing data is economically viable in light of the necessary investments. In this context, the data characteristic impacts the monetization options. For instance, static data like diploma certificates can be subject to a one-time fee, while applying the same approach to dynamic creditworthiness identity data could pose a challenge (interview I7). Revenue generated from transactions or incentives provided by orchestrators, such as government subsidies, can assist in financing the issuer expenses associated with integrating ecosystem standards and participation requirements. Identifying operating models fortheID wallet provision The issuer and the relying party derive value from the ecosystem, but unlike the ID wallet provider, they are not economically dependent on it. To monetize the ID wallet provider role, we identify an infrastructure and competitiondriven approach. The government or a community-oriented entity (e.g., a foundation) can offer the former through a fixed-price financing operating model (e.g., PP12-1 ID Union). Here, public subsidies and/or ecosystem usage fees contribute to the ID wallet provision and development, serving as an infrastructure for the ecosystem. This approach is characterized by the orchestrator’s need to make significant investments. Therefore, government subsidies are an important financing source in a government-orchestrated ecosystem to attract autonomous actors. The debate about the growing importance of digital public infrastructure (DPI) as an enabler for digital transformation and the government’s role in providing it underscores this aspect (Eaves etal., 2024). The competition-driven approach enables differentiation between those organizations that are intrinsically motivated to become an ID wallet provider and those with extrinsic motivation. Potential ID wallet providers encompass stakeholders who currently offer identification services (e.g., IDnow) and aim to extend their services to include an ID wallet offering. Another group sharing this motivation includes existing ID wallet use case providers like eIDAS trust service providers and payment providers. The third category includes entities such as Banks or Google and Apple, which have an existing ecosystem. For example, they have an unregulated wallet offering and want to expand their reach by incorporating verified identity data to increase customer retention. The commonality of intrinsically motivated ID wallet providers lies in the capacity to finance the ID wallet provision through revenues generated from other business segments. In contrast, extrinsically motivated potential ID wallet providers depend on ecosystem revenues for the provision and/or integration of the offering. Hence, monetization from the ecosystem is the core revenue source of this business model. As the emerging ID wallet provider market matures, actors currently offering identification or Fig. 6 Digital identity data ecosystem monetization flows and operating models Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 17 of 25 50 trust services may increasingly shift toward extrinsic motivations. These actors, whose core business depends on transaction revenues, are challenged by ID wallet providers who, through their existing ecosystems and the strategic value of customer retention, are better positioned to sustainably subsidize their ID wallet offering with revenue from other business segments. However, the intrinsic and extrinsic business model motivation encompasses power dynamics and various competitive structures. While extrinsically motivated ID wallet providers rely on revenues, intrinsically motivated actors with a large ecosystem can nullify the financial monetization foundation for these providers by offering identity data for free. The strategic value of user retention outweighs immediate revenues. This scenario is not purely theoretical since Google outlines this strategy in its official position paper: “We do not plan on charging users and relying parties for the use of storing identity on Google Wallet” (PP38-2 Google, p.6). This example underscores the importance of the government orchestration design for generating and distributing value between the ecosystem actors. In addition, it highlights the challenge government orchestration faces in striking a balance between the competing interests of digital sovereignty, market diversity, and monetization. Furthermore, it shows the interplay between states and markets on one hand—and European and non-European stakeholders on the other. Towards government orchestration standard types fortheID wallet provision Our study has analyzed the ecosystem value mechanisms, orchestration tensions, and monetization flows within a digital identity data ecosystem. Two government orchestration standard types focusing on ID wallet provision can be deducted by incorporating the perspectives of our applied government orchestration framework. Figure7 summarizes the Government ID-Infrastructure Wallet (standard type 1) and the Trust ID Wallet Federation (standard type 2) approach: The “Government ID—Infrastructure Wallet” represents an infrastructure-driven public–private data ecosystem. In this arrangement, a core ID wallet is provided by, for instance, a government or community actor, and this infrastructure serves as a foundation for ecosystem actors to integrate the functionality and build competing added-value services on top of it. The core ID wallet infrastructure refers to a regulated core wallet presented, for instance, as an SDK, containing essential functionalities and publicly issued identity data. Third parties can use this infrastructure to extend the wallet scope and build addedvalue services on top. In this standard type, the government is an ecosystem enabler that fulfills the orchestration tasks and focuses on the infrastructure provision of the core ID wallet and issuing public personal identity data Fig. 7 Government orchestration standard types for digital identity data ecosystems Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 18 of 25 (e.g., driving license). Therefore, the ecosystem perspective is public issuer-centric and the scope is fixed. Given its infrastructure nature, the rigorous technical implementation of data protection and security requirements assumes a pivotal role, and the application focus is on regulated use cases and business processes. The “Trust ID Wallet Federation” describes a competition-driven public–private data ecosystem where multiple ID wallet providers compete in an ecosystem with competitive guardrails to increase trust. This guardrail may encompass guidelines for ID wallet providers regarding identity data management (e.g., prohibiting data monetization) or regulated monetization flows (e.g., fixed transaction revenues). Consequently, they influence the role of ID wallet providers through technical, socio-technical, and economic effects. In addition to fostering ecosystem growth, the primary focus of government orchestration in this standard type 2 revolves around certifying non-gov- ernment ID wallet providers and developing public ID wallet offerings. In this scenario, the government becomes an active market participant in the ID wallet provider space and engages in a “coopetition” model with private and civil society offerings. Depending on the operating and business model, the ID wallet providers differ in scope, value-added services, and data monetization after user consent. This results in a dynamic ecosystem development beyond regulated use cases and business processes. Standard type 2 switches to a user-centered perspective and aims to build a cross-sectoral ecosystem around user’s needs. The two identified government orchestration standard types represent contrasting approaches to design co-crea- tion between government and market activities. Depending on the initial status quo and government capabilities, they can develop, change, and combine into mixed forms as subtypes might emerge. For example, an infrastructure-driven ecosystem can emerge in a market-driven ecosystem if the government changes its orchestration strategy. This behavior is identical to what private ecosystem orchestrators (e.g., Google, Amazon) do during platform envelopment (Eisenmann etal., 2011). In doing so, our analyzed data provides insights that it is likely that similar governance problems, such as self-preferencing, can occur (Gleiss etal., 2023b). A potential private ID wallet provider representative hints into this direction: “A potential government orchestrator’s selfpreference of its ID wallet offering can result in a trust deficit leading to harm ecosystem development” (I4). Therefore, government orchestration employs the identical mechanisms as private actors, with a notable difference: The government, acting as a “meta-governor,” not only oversees an ecosystem but also establishes the boundaries and guidelines for all economic and social activities. It must balance private and public value creation by ensuring an equal level playing field (Gjaltema etal., 2020). Discussion andimplications A digital identity data ecosystem evolves from existing markets and solutions and must provide added value beyond the existing status quo. As such, orchestration requires a wide range of (new) government capabilities. This new reality demands a stronger government engagement with market needs. It shifts from linear public service provision to a permanent and dynamic collaboration and task sharing with various private and public actors. In addition, the eIDAS 2.0 regulation, with its multiple regulatory objectives, aims to digitize public administration and the government-citizen relationship while simultaneously intervening in the market activities of data issuers, (potential) wallet providers, and relying parties across various industries. In shaping a digital identity data ecosystem, it is imperative for the government’s orchestration strategy to holistically incorporate technology, regulatory, and economic interdependencies in a well-balanced manner. The ecosystem collaboration configuration becomes a critical capability, ensuring effectiveness, accountability, and legitimacy to increase public value. This finding confirms recent studies on the changing role of governments in the digital age (Cordella & Paletti, 2019; Dunleavy & Margetts, 2023; Janssen & Estevez, 2013). In addition, our study has shown that collaborative governance is recommended for building trust between public and private ecosystem actors and the broader (civil) society stakeholders (Gleiss etal., 2023a). We confirm the findings of Möller etal. (2024) and Lips etal. (2023), who highlight the critical role of building trust and ensuring sustainable benefits among ecosystem actors for success. In the context of digital identities, we further emphasize the need for a public–private partnership to harmonize institutional boundaries, enabling efficient value creation and fostering legitimate governance decisions. Therefore, transparent role definition, communication, and expectation management are necessary to establish an effective collaboration environment. We confirm similar previous findings from digital identity management in government contexts (Lips etal., 2023; Seltsikas & O’Keefe, 2010). Our investigation into a digital identity data ecosystem corroborates the findings of Mini and Widjaja (2019). We identify “control vs. openness” on the micro-level and “control vs. variety” on the macrolevel, besides ecosystem monetization at the meta-level, as main tensions. Given our focus on government orchestration, we identify “public subsidization vs. private co-financing” as a tension arising from the public–private nature of the identity data ecosystem. This tension highlights the need for the orchestrator to define the economic boundaries and interplay between government responsibilities and market activities. The government orchestration standard types identified in this study help to define the government’s ecosystem Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 19 of 25 50 role and form the basis for a coherent digital identity data ecosystem vision. It is crucial to establish clear ecosystem definitions and boundaries, as well as to define core (infrastructure) components and standards to shape a collective public–private vision effectively. In this context, we corroborate earlier findings that the absence of boundary resources (such as technical standards) and a lack of collaborative governance hinders the launch of digital identity wallets (Lukkien etal., 2023). In the case of standard type 1, outlining the extent of the infrastructure scope is essential. For standard type 2, identifying a regulated core is necessary to obtain regulatory approval and facilitate ongoing dynamic development simultaneously. Governments should carefully consider the chosen standard type based on their existing capabilities. Our digital identity data ecosystem case confirms similar findings from the public–private governance of IT infrastructures and platforms (Klievink etal., 2016). Furthermore, we confirm that the eID infrastructure evolution success model developed by Walke etal. (2023) and the governance configuration taxonomy for government orchestration proposed by Amard etal. (2024) are highly applicable to our digital identity data ecosystem context. This highlights the necessity for both standard types to tackle similar challenges in order to ensure successful user and market adoption. Both standard types reflect the infrastructure or ecosystem perspective on digital identities identified in academic literature. Our study underscores the closely interwoven nature of infrastructure and ecosystem perspectives and emphasizes the importance of conceptualizing them together in research and practical applications. The current eIDAS eID schemes in Europe exemplify the creation of an ecosystem originating from an IT infrastructure standpoint, adopting a more expansive viewpoint and actively pursuing partnerships with private entities in different domains. Regarding orchestration, an infrastructure-centered ecosystem (standard type 1) means governments have more control over critical components such as ID wallets and issued identity data. Therefore, the ecosystem scope is fixed. On the other hand, a competition-centered ecosystem perspective (standard type 2) leads to lower control but a dynamic and broader ecosystem envelopment. Notably, modular co-creation fuels continuous ecosystem development and innovation. However, in the context of ID wallets, it requires private sector-known capabilities from governments to compete successfully with private offerings. In summary, our standard types shed light on the various ID wallet provider provision options, a role that can be fulfilled by both state and non-state actors. Additionally, our findings confirm that selecting an appropriate ID wallet provider is a personal decision heavily influenced by the user's trust in the provider (Kostic, 2024). Viable operating models are core challenges for all digital identity data ecosystem roles. Governments must consider these aspects carefully, as a financially sustainable and open public–private ecosystem can only emerge if all stakeholders have a solid financial foundation. Distinctions emerge between fixed-price financing models, primarily associated with infrastructure-centric ecosystems, and transactionbased models that find favor within competition-driven ecosystems. Furthermore, our data indicates that industries characterized by substantial government participation and regulation, such as healthcare, tend to gravitate toward the fixed-price financing model (interviews I7, I12, I14). In contrast, private sector segments (e.g., e-commerce, payments) typically lean towards the transaction-based financing model. Our research confirms the open data findings of Janssen and Zuiderwijk (2014) and Kazantsev etal. (2023) that intermediary business models—particularly those focused on data provision, sharing, aggregation, and/ or visualization are emerging in a government-orchestrated identity data ecosystem. The provision of the ID wallet and services that empower issuers and relying parties to participate in the ecosystem and meet compliance requirements effectively illustrates this finding. Additionally, it highlights the potential for specialized intermediary business models that thrive on economies of scale by serving multiple ecosystem actors. These offerings play a crucial role in supporting public value creation and should be considered by the government orchestrator as an important private complementary to foster ecosystem adoption. Regarding the initial financing of the ecosystem, we have identified an elephant in the room between the government, acting as the ecosystem orchestrator, and non-state actors (e.g., relying parties) who benefit from the value generated. Economically, while all stakeholders aim to reap the benefits, they also strive to minimize their financial contributions, thereby increasing the risk of ecosystem failure. This underscores the tension between individual interests and the collective contributions needed to support the public good of the ecosystem (Mini & Widjaja, 2019). Our research confirms the trade-off between (public) data distribution and (private) data monetization, underscoring the necessity for sustainable operating models at both the individual actor and collective ecosystem levels (D’Hauwers etal., 2022; Kazantsev etal., 2023). Therefore, IS Researchers and practitioners should focus more on monetization options and operating models to increase the sustainability of data ecosystem initiatives that emerge in many industries and countries (Beverungen etal., 2022; Möller etal., 2024). Attracting (private) issuers is crucial for scaling the ecosystem successfully. More and better data quality from issuers enables additional possible use cases and monetization sources and options. Mandatory issuer provision of data and monetary incentives for (private) issuers are recommended to achieve this. Studies on open data ecosystems highlight that achieving a balance between data Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 20 of 25 supply and demand relies on offering appropriate incentives for data sharing (Jussen etal., 2024; van Loenen etal., 2021). Without data that is pushed into the ecosystem, it is impossible to grow the ecosystem and create a pull for value generation. The trend towards opening up (private) data silos, for example, through open banking or open insurance initiatives, represents a promising approach to address this challenge (Zachariadis & Ozcan, 2017). In addition, data access remedies against big data aggregators (e.g., Apple, Meta) ensure fair digital market competition (Krämer & Schnurr, 2022). Our research has highlighted the significant role of ID wallet providers in a digital identity data ecosystem. From the user’s perspective, the ID wallet is the primary user interface for integrating different (regulated) services and managing digital identity credentials. However, the ease of use vs. privacy/security concerns in the ID Wallet and ecosystem design context can impact the operating model and monetization options. The distinction between these factors is essential for determining the level of data protection and minimalization that should be embedded in the ecosystem design. Balancing data protection and monetization is a well-known trade-off in the literature (Masiero, 2023; van den Broek & van Veenstra, 2015). Depending on governance configuration, this orchestration tension holds significant consequences for ecosystem actors, the value proposition, and possible operating models. From a business perspective, the strategic relevance of user retention resulting from network effects explains the “battle” between public and private players to become the leading ID wallet provider. This phenomenon is wellknown in mobile payment and digital platform markets (de Reuver etal., 2015; Gleiss etal., 2023b). Both government orchestration standard types outlined in our study indicate that Google and Apple, as the providers of smartphone operating systems (Android and iOS) are best positioned to become the leading ID wallet providers for natural persons. Here, interoperability between ID wallets is needed and industrial policy elements are useful to enable fair competition and ensure digital sovereignty against non-European providers such as Google and Apple. In addition, competition policy (e.g., EU Digital Markets Act) should be enforced to gain non-discriminatory access to security-critical infrastructure components, such as secure elements (SE) controlled by smartphone manufacturers. Without regulatory intervention, the structural advantages of a wallet provided by Google or Apple through bundling with the smartphone will win the wallet war. Thus, BigTech would reshape another regulated industry (Ozalp etal., 2022) and effectively represent a privately owned infrastructure for digital identities from the user’s point of view. Conclusion Our study has shed light on the significant role that governments play in the formation, value creation, and distribution within digital identity data ecosystems. This research underscores the need to balance technology, regulatory, and economic perspectives to foster collaborative value creation between autonomous public and private actors. In this context, the government is a key player, serving as an initiator, trust anchor, adjudicator, and role model for other ecosystem actors. We have identified two distinct types of government orchestration approaches: the “Government ID-Infrastructure Wallet” and the “Trust ID Wallet Federation.” These standard types emphasize infrastructure-driven or competition-driven dynamics. First, the “Government ID-Infrastructure Wallet” model advocates for a public issuer-centric approach where the government or a community actor provides the core ID wallet infrastructure, which autonomous actors use to build their own ID wallet offerings. This model has a fixed scope and aims to ensure high data protection and security. In contrast, the second model of a “Trust ID Wallet Federation” promotes a competitive environment with multiple public and private ID wallet providers competing under equal regulatory conditions, allowing a more dynamic and user-centered ecosystem development. Our findings highlight the importance of considering monetization flows, operating models, and micro, macro, and meta-level orchestration tensions for government orchestration. In doing so, governments must create a trustworthy collaborative partnership between public, private, and civic actors to gain legitimacy and achieve effective ecosystem orchestration that creates an equal level playing field. Practically, our findings help policymakers craft orchestration strategies that align with their government capabilities and existing market conditions. Therefore, our research might help to implement the eIDAS 2.0 regulation effectively across Europe and beyond. Academically, our work bridges the gap between digital identity infrastructure and self-sovereign identity studies by adopting a data ecosystem theory perspective. We address a notable gap in the study of public–private ecosystems, focusing on the integral role of governmental orchestration and the economic mechanisms vital for sustainable data ecosystems. However, our study is not without limitations. Our qualitative research design, incorporating content analysis and semi-structured in-depth interviews, is susceptible to biases. We have attempted to mitigate the potential biases through triangulation to enhance reliability and validity. Furthermore, it is essential to note that our study focused on a digital identity data ecosystem for natural persons Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 21 of 25 50 and has not included perspectives on legal persons and digital identities of things. In addition, we focus on the ID wallet provision, which plays a central role as a user interface and intermediary. We acknowledge that government orchestration for data ecosystems encompasses a broader range of tasks and activities beyond the scope of this study. Furthermore, our data is from Germany, which provides a unique opportunity through the federal government-initi- ated stakeholder consultation process but, naturally, yields a German-centered view. Given the country’s unique characteristics, such as a low maturity usage level of digital identities, its known data protection culture, and its federal public administration tradition, our findings may not be entirely applicable and comparable to other national contexts (Custers etal., 2018; Initative D21, 2023; Kuhlmann & Wollmann, 2019). To address these limitations, future research should include national case studies, comparative analyses, and quantitative stakeholder surveys that help verify and/or challenge our results. Applying our research approach to other public–private sectors, such as healthcare or education, can expand our understanding of orchestration mechanisms within various government-initiated data ecosystems. In conclusion, orchestrating a sustainable identity data ecosystem is a complex activity that requires governments to balance various tasks and stakeholders strategically. As one interviewee pointed out, “We want to bring trust into the digital world. This is not an easy task. I think everyone, including me, has understood that over the last few years” (I10). By adopting a coherent orchestration strategy based on our findings, governments can effectively generate trust and facilitate the development of (identity) data ecosystems. This creates value for both public and private stakeholders, as well as for society as a whole. As digital identities evolve, our research helps to navigate the complex landscape between IS and bordering disciplines that aim to explore the wide-ranging technical, socio-technical, and economic and political implications. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 024- 00731-1. Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. References Abraham, R., Schneider, J., & Vom Brocke, J. (2019). Data governance: A conceptual framework, structured review, and research agenda. International Journal of Information Management, 49, 424–438. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. ijinf omgt. 2019. 07. 008 Addo, A. (2022). Orchestrating a digital platform ecosystem to address societal challenges: A robust action perspective. Journal of Information Technology, 37(4), 359–386. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02683 96222 10883 33 Addo, A., & Senyo, P. K. (2021). Advancing E-governance for development: Digital identification and its link to socioeconomic inclusion. Government Information Quarterly, 38(2), 101568. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. giq. 2021. 101568 Allen, B., Tamindael, L. E., Bickerton, S. H., & Cho, W. (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101412. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1016/j. giq. 2019. 101412 Amard, A., Hartwich, E., Hoess, A., Rieger, A., Roth, T., & Fridgen, G. (2024). Designing digital identity infrastructure: A taxonomy of strategic governance choices. In HICSS 2024 Proceedings (pp. 20151–2160). https:// hdl. handle. net/ 10125/ 106646. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Ansaroudi, Z. E., Carbone, R., Sciarretta, G., & Ranise, S. (2023). Control is nothing without trust a first look into digital identity wallet trends. In IFIP Annual Conference on Data and Applications Security and Privacy, pp. 113–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 031- 37586-6_7 Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2018). Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(1), 16–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1093/ jopart/ mux030 Ansell, C., & Miura, S. (2020). Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance? Public Administration, 98(1), 261–276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ padm. 12636 Arner, D. W., Zetzsche, D. A., Buckley, R. P., & Barberis, J. N. (2019). The identity challenge in finance: From analogue identity to digitized identification to digital KYC utilities. European Business Organization Law Review, 20, 55–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40804- 019- 00135-1 Atick, J. (2016). Digital identity: The essential guide. ID4Africa Identity Forum, 2016, 1–3. https:// www. id4af rica. com/ main/ files/ Digit al_ Ident ity_ The_ Essen tial_ Guide. pdf. Accessed: 18.08.24. Autio, E. (2022). Orchestrating ecosystems: A multi-layered framework. Innovation, 24(1), 96–109. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14479 338. 2021. 19191 20 Bansal, P., & Corley, K. (2012). Publishing in AMJ—Part 7: What’s different about qualitative research? Academy of Management Journal, 55(3), 509–513. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amj. 2012. 4003 Bazarhanova, A., Yli-Huumo, J., & Smolander, K. (2020). From platform dominance to weakened ownership: How external regulation changed Finnish e-identification. Electronic Markets, 30(3), 525–538. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 019- 00331-4 Bender, B., & Heine, M. (2021). Government as a platform? Constitutive elements of public service platforms. In International Conference on Electronic Government and the Information Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 22 of 25 Systems Perspective, pp. 3–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-3- 030- 86611-2_1 Beverungen, D., Hess, T., Köster, A., & Lehrer, C. (2022). From private digital platforms to public data spaces: Implications for the digital transformation. Electronic Markets, 32(2), 493–501. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 022- 00553-z BMI. (2023). Rege Teilnahme a Konsultationsprozess zur EUdI-Brief- tasche – Press release German Ministry of the Interior. Website German Ministry of the Interior. https:// www. perso nalau sweis por t al. de/ Share dDocs/ kurzm eldun gen/ Webs/ PA/ DE/ 2023/ 08_ konsu ltati onspr ozess. html. Accessed: 18.08.24. Borrás, S., & Edler, J. (2020). The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation. Research Policy, 49(5), 103971. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. respol. 2020. 103971 Busch, C. (2023). eIDAS 2.0: Digital identity services in the platform economy. Centre on Regulation in Europe. https:// cerre. eu/ publi catio ns/ eidas-2- 0- digit alident ityservi cesin- theplatf ormecono my/. Accessed: 18.08.24. Cater, L. (2021). The EU has introduced a new ‘digital’ id. Here’s what it means for you. POLITICO. https:// www. polit ico. eu/ artic le/ eueurope- digit alid/. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Cheesman, M. (2022). Self-sovereignty for refugees? The contested horizons of digital identity. Geopolitics, 27(1), 134–159. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14650 045. 2020. 18238 36 Cordella, A., & Paletti, A. (2019). Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: The Italian case. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101409. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. giq. 2019. 101409 Costabile, C., & Øvrelid, E. (2023). Identifying governance mechanisms for data sharing in collaborative platform ecosystems. In ECIS 2023 Proceedings, (pp. 1–17). https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ ecis2 023_ rp/ 283/. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Cowls, J., Morley, J., & Floridi, L. (2023). App store governance: Implications, limitations, and regulatory responses. Telecommunications Policy, 47(1), 102460. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. telpol. 2022. 102460 Custers, B., Dechesne, F., Sears, A. M., Tani, T., & Van der Hof, S. (2018). A comparison of data protection legislation and policies across the EU. Computer Law & Security Review, 34(2), 234–243. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. clsr. 2017. 09. 001 D’Hauwers, R., Walravens, N., & Ballon, P. (2022). Data ecosystem business models: Value and control in data ecosystems. Journal of Business Models, 10(2), 1–30. https:// doi. org/ 10. 54337/ jbm. v10i2. 6946 Dawes, S. S., Vidiasova, L., & Parkhimovich, O. (2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. giq. 2016. 01. 003 de Reuver, M., Verschuur, E., Nikayin, F., Cerpa, N., & Bouwman, H. (2015). Collective action for mobile payment platforms: A case study on collaboration issues between banks and telecom operators. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(5), 331–344. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. elerap. 2014. 08. 004 De Reuver, M., Ofe, H., Agahari, W., Abbas, A. E., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2022). The openness of data platforms: A research agenda. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Data Economy, pp. 34–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 35650 11. 35690 56 Der, U., Jähnichen, S., & Sürmeli, J. (2017). Self-sovereign identity - Opportunities and challenges for the digital revolution. In Preprint ArXiv:1712.01767. https:// doi. org/ 10. 48550/ arXiv. 1712. 01767 Drew, H. (2014). Overcoming barriers: Qualitative interviews with German elites. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 12(2), 77–86. Dunleavy, P., & Margetts, H. (2023). Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance. Public Policy and Administration, 0(0). https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1177/ 09520 76723 11987 37 Dunphy, P., Garratt, L., & Petitcolas, F. (2018). Decentralizing digital identity: Open challenges for distributed ledgers. In IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW), pp. 75–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ EuroS PW. 2018. 00016 Eaton, B., Hedman, J., & Medaglia, R. (2018). Three different ways to skin a cat: Financialization in the emergence of national e-ID solutions. Journal of Information Technology, 33(1), 70–83. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ s41265- 017- 0036-8 Eaves, D., Mazzucato, M., & Vasconcellos, B. (2024). Digital public infrastructure and public value: What is ‘public’ about DPI. Working Paper Series (IIPP WP 2024–05). London: UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. https:// www. ucl. ac. uk/ bartl e tt/ publicpurpo se/ sites/ bartl ett_ public_ purpo se/ files/ iipp_ wp_ 2024- 05. pdf. Accessed: 18.08.24. Eisenmann, T., Parker, G., & Van Alstyne, M. (2011). Platform envelopment. Strategic Management Journal, 32(12), 1270–1285. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 935 European Commission. (2024). eIDAS Regulation. European Commission Website. https:// digit alstrat egy. ec. europa. eu/ en/ polic ies/ eidasregul ation. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Fang, J., Zhao, L., & Li, S. (2024). Exploring open government data ecosystems across data, information, and business. Government Information Quarterly, 41(2), 101934. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. giq. 2024. 101934 Fassnacht, M. K., Benz, C., Heinz, D., Leimstoll, J., & Satzger, G. (2023). Barriers to data sharing among private sector organizations. In HICSS 2023 Proceedings, (pp. 3695–3704). https:// hdl. handle. net/ 10125/ 103084. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Garber, E., Haine, M., Knobloch, V., Liebbrandt, G., Lodderstedt, T., Lycklama, D., & Sakimura, N. (2021). GAIN digital trust: How financial institutions are taking a leadership role in the digital economy by establishing a Global Assured Identity Network. In European Identity and Cloud Conference, Munich, 13th September. https:// gainf orum. org/ GAINW hiteP aper. pdf. Accessed: 18.08.24. Gawer, A. (2022). Digital platforms and ecosystems: Remarks on the dominant organizational forms of the digital age. Innovation, 24(1), 110–124. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14479 338. 2021. 19658 88 Giannopoulou, A. (2023). Digital identity infrastructures: A critical approach of self-sovereign identity. Digital Society, 2(2), 18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s44206- 023- 00049-z Gjaltema, J., Biesbroek, R., & Termeer, K. (2020). From government to governance… to meta-governance: A systematic literature review. Public Management Review, 22(12), 1760–1780. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14719 037. 2019. 16486 97 Gleiss, A., Degen, K., & Pousttchi, K. (2023a). Identifying the patterns: Towards a systematic approach to digital platform regulation. Journal of Information Technology, 38(2), 180–201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 02683 96222 11468 03 Gleiss, A., Degen, K., Knoth, A., Pousttchi, K., & Lucke, U. (2023b). Governance principles and regulatory needs for a national digital education platform. Public Policy and Administration, 0(0). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09520 76723 12023 27 Guggenberger, T., Kühne, D., Schlatt, V., & Urbach, N. (2023). Designing a cross-organizational identity management system: Utilizing SSI for the certification of retailer attributes. Electronic Markets, 33, 3. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 023- 00620-z Gupta, A., Panagiotopoulos, P., & Bowen, F. (2020). An orchestration approach to smart city data ecosystems. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, 119929. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. TECHF ORE. 2020. 119929 Halckenhaeusser, A., Foerderer, J., & Heinzl, A. (2020). Platform governance mechanisms: An integrated literature review and Electronic Markets (2024) 34:50 Page 23 of 25 50 research directions. In ECIS 2020 Proceedings, (pp. 1–18). https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ ecis2 020_ rp/ 30. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Heimburg, V., Schmitt, J., & Wiesche, M. (2023). The future of digital platform design - The case of the EU platform regulation discourse. In ECIS 2023 Proceedings. https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ ecis2 023_ rp/ 372/. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Heimburg, V., & Wiesche, M. (2023). Digital platform regulation: Opportunities for information systems research. Internet Research, 33(7), 72–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ INTR- 05- 2022- 0321 Hesse, M., & Teubner, T. (2020). Reputation portability – Quo vadis? Electronic Markets, 30(2), 331–349. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 019- 00367-6 Initative D21. (2023). eGovernment Monitor 2023 - Use and acceptance of digital administrative services from the citizens’ perspective: A comparison of the German federal states, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. EGovernment Monitor Initative D21. https:// initi ative d21. de/ uploa ds/ 03_ Studi en- Publi katio nen/ eGove rnment- MONIT OR/ 2023/ eGovM on2023_ eng. pdf. Accessed: 18.08.24. Jack, E. P., & Raturi, A. S. (2006). Lessons learned from methodological triangulation in management research. Management Research News, 29(6), 345–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 01409 17061 06838 33 Jacobides, M. G., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255– 2276. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ smj. 2904 Janssen, M., & Estevez, E. (2013). Lean government and platformbased governance—Doing more with less. Government Information Quarterly, 30, S1–S8. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. giq. 2012. 11. 003 Janssen, M., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2014). Infomediary business models for connecting open data providers and users. Social Science Computer Review, 32(5), 694–711. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 08944 39314 525902 Jussen, I., Möller, F., Schweihoff, J., Gieß, A., Giussani, G., & Otto, B. (2024). Issues in inter-organizational data sharing: Findings from practice and research challenges. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 150, 102280. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. datak. 2024. 102280 Kari, A., Schurig, T., & Gersch, M. (2023). The emergence of a new European data economy: A systematic research agenda for health data spaces. SMR Journal of Service Management Research, 7(4), 176–198. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5771/ 2511- 8676- 2023-4- 176 Kazantsev, N., Islam, N., Zwiegelaar, J., Brown, A., & Maull, R. (2023). Data sharing for business model innovation in platform ecosystems: From private data to public good. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 192, 122515. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. TECHF ORE. 2023. 122515 Khan, L. (2016). Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox. Yale Law Journal, 126, 710–805. http:// hdl. handle. net/ 20. 500. 13051/ 10275. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Klievink, B., Bharosa, N., & Tan, Y. H. (2016). The collaborative realization of public values and business goals: Governance and infrastructure of public–private information platforms. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 67–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. GIQ. 2015. 12. 002 Kölbel, T., Gawlitza, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2022). Shaping governance in self-sovereign identity ecosystems: Towards a cooperative business model. In WI 2022 Proceedings. https:// aisel. aisne t. org/ wi2022/ it_ for_ devel opment/ it_ for_ dev el opment/ 18. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Kostic, S. (2024). Who is the better operator of an identity wallet prioritised by the user? - A quantitative survey between state and company. In CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2024, 1–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 36139 05. 36479 61 Krämer, J., & Schnurr, D. (2022). Big data and digital markets contestability: Theory of harm and data access remedies. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 18(2), 255–322. https:// doi. or g/ 10. 1093/ joclec/ nhab0 15 Kubicek, H., & Noack, T. (2010). Different countries-different paths extended comparison of the introduction of eIDs in eight European countries. Identity in the Information Society, 236–245. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12394- 010- 0063-x Kuhlmann, S., & Wollmann, H. (2019). Introduction to comparative public administration: Administrative systems and reforms in Europe (2nd ed.). Edward Elgar. Langley, A., & Meziani, N. (2020). Making interviews meaningful. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 56(3), 370–391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86320 937818 Lechner, C., Dexheimer, M., Lang, N., & Wurzer, C. (2023). Obstacles and strategies in ecosystem governance: A view from the orchestrator side. Journal of Strategy and Management, 16(4), 767–784. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JSMA- 02- 2023- 0038 Levi-Faur, D. (2011). Handbook on the Politics of Regulation. Edward Elgar Publishing. Lips, S., Tsap, V., Bharosa, N., Krimmer, R., Tammet, T., & Draheim, D. (2023). Management of national eID infrastructure as a statecritical asset and public-private partnership: Learning from the case of Estonia. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(6), 2439– 2456. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10796- 022- 10363-5 Lips, S., Vinogradova, N., Krimmer, R., & Draheim, D. (2022). Re- Shaping the EU Digital Identity Framework. In Proceedings of the 23rd Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 2022, 13–21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 35434 34. 35436 52 Liu, J., Kauffman, R. J., & Ma, D. (2015). Competition, cooperation, and regulation: Understanding the evolution of the mobile payments technology ecosystem. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 14(5), 372–391. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. ELERAP. 2015. 03. 003 Lukkien, B., Bharosa, N., & De Reuver, M. (2023). Barriers for developing and launching digital identity wallets. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research 2023, 289–299. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 35984 69. 35985 01 Madon, S., & Schoemaker, E. (2021). Digital identity as a platform for improving refugee management. Information Systems Journal, 31(6), 929–953. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ isj. 12353 Magalhaes, G., & Roseira, C. (2020). Open government data and the private sector: An empirical view on business models and value creation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101248. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. GIQ. 2017. 08. 004 Martens, T. (2010). Electronic identity management in Estonia between market and state governance. Identity in the Information Society, 3(1), 213–233. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12394- 010- 0044-0 Masiero, S. (2023). Digital identity as platform-mediated surveillance. Big Data & Society, 10(1). https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20539 51722 1 1351 76 Mayring, P. (2004). Qualitative Content Analysis. In U. Flick, E. von Kardoff, & I. Steinke (Eds.), A companion to qualitative research. SAGE Publications Ltd. Mayring, P. (2014). Qualitative content analysis: Theoretical background and procedures. In A. Bikner-Ahsbahs, C. Knipping, & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education: Examples of methodology and methods (pp. 365–380). Springer Netherlands. https:// doi. org / 10. 1007/ 978- 94- 017- 9181-6_ 13 Medaglia, R., Hedman, J., & Eaton, B. (2017). Public-private collaboration in the emergence of a national electronic identification policy: The case of NemID in Denmark. In HICSS 2017 Proceedings, pp. 2782–2791. https:// doi. org/ 10. 24251/ HICSS. 2017. 336 Mini, T., & Widjaja, T. (2019). Tensions in digital platform business models: A literature review presenter information. In ICIS 2019 Electronic Markets (2024) 34:5050 Page 24 of 25 Proceedings. https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ icis2 019/ is_ heart_ of_ innov ation_ ecosy stems/ innov ation_ ecosy s tems/6. Accessed 18 Aug 24. Mir, U. B., Kar, A. K., Dwivedi, Y. K., Gupta, M. P., & Sharma, R. S. (2020). Realizing digital identity in government: Prioritizing design and implementation objectives for Aadhaar in India. Government Information Quarterly, 37(2), 101442. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. GIQ. 2019. 101442 Möller, F., Jussen, I., Springer, V., Gieß, A., Schweihoff, J. C., Gelhaar, J., Guggenberger, T., & Otto, B. (2024). Industrial data ecosystems and data spaces. Electronic Markets, 34(1), 1–17. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 024- 00724-0 Möller, F., Legner, C., Strobel, G., Schoormann, T., Cappiello, C., Lóscio, B. F., & Otto, B. (2023). CfP special issue on Designing Data Ecosystems: Foundations, configurations and value. Electronic Markets Website. https:// www. elect ronic mark e ts. org/ callfor- papers/ singleview- forcfp/ datum/ 2023/ 08/ 14/ cfpspeci alissue- ondesig ningdata- ecosy stemsfound ationsconfi gurat ions- and- value/. Accessed: 18.08.24 Mukhopadhyay, S., & Bouwman, H. (2019). Orchestration and governance in digital platform ecosystems: A literature review and trends. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 21(4), 329– 351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ DPRG- 11- 2018- 0067 Oliveira, M. I. S., de Barros Lima, G. F., & Farias Lóscio, B. (2019). Investigations into data ecosystems: A systematic mapping study. Knowledge and Information Systems, 61(2), 589–630. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10115- 018- 1323-6 Oliveira, M. I. S., Oliveira, L. E. R. A., Batista, M. G. R., & Lóscio, B. F. (2018). Towards a meta-model for data ecosystems. InProceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age 2018. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 32092 81. 32093 33 Otto, B., & Jarke, M. (2019). Designing a multi-sided data platform: Findings from the International Data Spaces case. Electronic Markets, 29(4), 561–580. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12525- 019- 00362-x Ozalp, H., Ozcan, P., Dinckol, D., Zachariadis, M., & Gawer, A. (2022). “Digital colonization” of highly regulated industries: An analysis of big tech platforms’ entry into health care and education. California Management Review, 64(4), 78–107. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00081 25622 10943 07 Podgorelec, B., Alber, L., & Zefferer, T. (2022). What is a (digital) identity wallet? A systematic literature review. In IEEE 46th Annual Computers, Software, and Applications Conference (COMPSAC) 2022, 809–818. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1109/ COMPS AC542 36. 2022. 00131 Reggi, L., & Dawes, S. S. (2022). Creating Open Government Data ecosystems: Network relations among governments, user communities, NGOs and the media. Government Information Quarterly, 39(2), 101675. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. GIQ. 2022. 101675 Rossnagel, H., Zibuschka, J., Hinz, O., & Muntermann, J. (2014). Users’ willingness to pay for web identity management systems. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(1), 36–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ ejis. 2013. 33 Runeson, P., Olsson, T., & Linåker, J. (2021). Open Data Ecosystems — An empirical investigation into an emerging industry collaboration concept. Journal of Systems and Software, 182(12), 111088. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. JSS. 2021. 111088 Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11135- 017- 0574-8 Schlatt, V., Sedlmeir, J., Feulner, S., & Urbach, N. (2022). Designing a Framework for Digital KYC Processes Built on Blockchain- Based Self-Sovereign Identity. Information & Management, 59(7), 103553. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. IM. 2021. 103553 Schleimer, A. M., & Duparc, E. (2023). Designing digital infrastructures for industrial data ecosystems – A literature review. WI 2023 Proceedings. https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ wi2023/ 32. Accessed 18 Aug 24. Schultze, U., & Avital, M. (2011). Designing interviews to generate rich data for information systems research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. INFOA NDORG. 2010. 11. 001 Schurig, T., Kari, A., & Fürstenau, D. (2024). The symphony of orchestrated participatory data space governance: A systematic review. In ECIS 2024 Proceedings. https:// aisel. aisnet. org/ ecis2 024/ track 10_ dmds_ ecosy s tems/ track 10_ dmds_ ecosy s tems/9. Accessed 18 Aug 24. Schwalm, S. (2023). The possible impact s of the eIDAS 2.0 digital identity approach in Germany and Europe. In H. S. Roßnagel Christian H.,& Günther Jochen (Ed.), Open Identity Summit 2023. Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18420/ OID20 23_ 09 Sedlmeir, J., Smethurst, R., Rieger, A., & Fridgen, G. (2021). Digital identities and verifiable credentials. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 63(5), 603–613. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12599- 021- 00722-y Seltsikas, P., & O’Keefe, R. M. (2010). Expectations and outcomes in electronic identity management: The role of trust and public value. European Journal of Information Systems, 19(1), 93–103. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1057/ ejis. 2009. 51 Sen, S. (2019). A decade of Aadhaar: Lessons in implementing a foundational ID system (292). Observer Research Foundation Issue Brief No. 292. https:// www. orfon line. org/ wpconte nt/ uploa ds/ 2019/ 05/ ORF_ Issue_ Brief_ 292_ Aadha ar. pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. Shah, S. I. H., Peristeras, V., & Magnisalis, I. (2021). Government big data ecosystem: Definitions, types of data, actors, and roles and the impact in public administrations. Journal of Data and Information Quality, 13(2), 1–25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1145/ 34257 09 Sharif, A., Ranzi, M., Carbone, R., Sciarretta, G., Marino, F. A., & Ranise, S. (2022). The eIDAS regulation: A survey of technological trends for European electronic identity schemes. Applied Sciences, 12(24), 12679. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ app12 24126 79 Skinner, R. J., Nelson, R. R., & Chin, W. (2022). Synthesizing qualitative evidence: A roadmap for information systems research. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 23(3), 639–677. https:// doi. org/ 10. 17705/ 1jais. 00741 Stegemann, L., & Gersch, M. (2019). Interoperability – Technical or economic challenge? IT - Information Technology, 61(5–6), 243–252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1515/ itit- 2019- 0027 Sule, M. J., Zennaro, M., & Thomas, G. (2021). Cybersecurity through the lens of digital identity and data protection: Issues and trends. Technology in Society, 67(1), 101734. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/J. TECHS OC. 2021. 101734 Susha, I., Janssen, M., & Verhulst, S. (2017). Data collaboratives as “bazaars”? Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(1), 157–172. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ TG- 01- 2017- 0007 Tammpuu, P., & Masso, A. (2019). Transnational digital identity as an instrument for global digital citizenship: The case of Estonia’s E-residency. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 621–634. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10796- 019- 09908-y van den Broek, T., & Fleur van Veenstra, A. (2015). Modes of governance in inter-organizational data collaborations. ECIS 2015 Proceedings. https:// aisel. aisne t. org/ ecis2 015_ cr/ 188/. Accessed 18 Aug 2024. van der Vlist, F. N., Helmond, A., Dieter, M., & Weltevrede, E. (2024). Super-appification: Conglomeration in the global digital economy. New Media & Society, 0(0), https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44823 12234 19 van Dijck, J., & Jacobs, B. (2020). Electronic identity services as sociotechnical and political-economic constructs. New Media