Altus Viljoen, Benedikt Stelzl, Maoying Yang, John Nguyen, Andreas Hein, Edona Elshan, Helmut Krcmar
{"title":"Navigating Flexibility and Standardisation in Low-Code/No-Code Development","authors":"Altus Viljoen, Benedikt Stelzl, Maoying Yang, John Nguyen, Andreas Hein, Edona Elshan, Helmut Krcmar","doi":"10.1111/isj.70001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Low-code/no-code (LCNC) platforms, such as ServiceNow and Microsoft Power Platform, enable employees without formal IT training to build applications and automate workflows, thus driving agility and reducing dependence on traditional IT teams. However, LCNC platforms also pose a persistent challenge for organisations: while they offer <i>flexibility</i> and freedom by enabling decentralised development, they also require <i>standardisation</i> and control to manage risks that can be exacerbated by these platforms, such as shadow IT and technical debt. Striking the right balance is difficult—too much flexibility can compromise stability, while too much standardisation can stifle the autonomy and creativity that make LCNC platforms valuable in the first place. This study explores flexibility–standardisation tensions in LCNC development through an investigation of two multinational technology firms with differing LCNC maturity levels, both using ServiceNow. Drawing from 57 interviews, we identify three types of flexibility-standardisation tensions shaped by three key elements of LCNC development: the <i>platform</i> itself, the <i>people</i> using the platform and the organisational <i>processes</i> targeted for improvement. We derive six guidelines used to navigate flexibility–standardisation tensions and demonstrate how these are applied across different stages of LCNC maturity. Building on these insights, we provide concrete, context-sensitive recommendations to help organisations adapt the guidelines to their specific environments. We conclude with forward-looking reflections on how firms can dynamically make sense of these tensions as LCNC platforms and practices evolve. Overall, our findings show that effective LCNC governance requires a dynamic approach—one that balances flexibility and standardisation simultaneously rather than treating them as opposing choices.</p>","PeriodicalId":48049,"journal":{"name":"Information Systems Journal","volume":"36 1","pages":"95-109"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/isj.70001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information Systems Journal","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/isj.70001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Low-code/no-code (LCNC) platforms, such as ServiceNow and Microsoft Power Platform, enable employees without formal IT training to build applications and automate workflows, thus driving agility and reducing dependence on traditional IT teams. However, LCNC platforms also pose a persistent challenge for organisations: while they offer flexibility and freedom by enabling decentralised development, they also require standardisation and control to manage risks that can be exacerbated by these platforms, such as shadow IT and technical debt. Striking the right balance is difficult—too much flexibility can compromise stability, while too much standardisation can stifle the autonomy and creativity that make LCNC platforms valuable in the first place. This study explores flexibility–standardisation tensions in LCNC development through an investigation of two multinational technology firms with differing LCNC maturity levels, both using ServiceNow. Drawing from 57 interviews, we identify three types of flexibility-standardisation tensions shaped by three key elements of LCNC development: the platform itself, the people using the platform and the organisational processes targeted for improvement. We derive six guidelines used to navigate flexibility–standardisation tensions and demonstrate how these are applied across different stages of LCNC maturity. Building on these insights, we provide concrete, context-sensitive recommendations to help organisations adapt the guidelines to their specific environments. We conclude with forward-looking reflections on how firms can dynamically make sense of these tensions as LCNC platforms and practices evolve. Overall, our findings show that effective LCNC governance requires a dynamic approach—one that balances flexibility and standardisation simultaneously rather than treating them as opposing choices.
低代码/无代码(LCNC)平台,如ServiceNow和Microsoft Power Platform,使没有经过正式IT培训的员工能够构建应用程序和自动化工作流,从而提高灵活性并减少对传统IT团队的依赖。然而,LCNC平台也给组织带来了持续的挑战:虽然它们通过实现分散开发提供了灵活性和自由度,但它们也需要标准化和控制来管理这些平台可能加剧的风险,例如影子IT和技术债务。要取得适当的平衡是很困难的——太多的灵活性会损害稳定性,而太多的标准化会扼杀自主权和创造力,而自主权和创造力正是LCNC平台最初的价值所在。本研究通过对两家使用ServiceNow的LCNC成熟度不同的跨国技术公司的调查,探讨了LCNC开发中灵活性与标准化之间的紧张关系。从57个访谈中,我们确定了由LCNC发展的三个关键因素形成的三种类型的灵活性标准化紧张:平台本身,使用平台的人员和目标改进的组织流程。我们得出了六个用于处理灵活性标准化紧张关系的指导方针,并演示了如何在LCNC成熟的不同阶段应用这些指导方针。在这些见解的基础上,我们提供具体的、上下文敏感的建议,以帮助组织使指南适应其特定的环境。最后,我们对企业如何随着LCNC平台和实践的发展动态地理解这些紧张关系进行了前瞻性思考。总的来说,我们的研究结果表明,有效的LCNC治理需要一种动态的方法,即同时平衡灵活性和标准化,而不是将它们视为对立的选择。
期刊介绍:
The Information Systems Journal (ISJ) is an international journal promoting the study of, and interest in, information systems. Articles are welcome on research, practice, experience, current issues and debates. The ISJ encourages submissions that reflect the wide and interdisciplinary nature of the subject and articles that integrate technological disciplines with social, contextual and management issues, based on research using appropriate research methods.The ISJ has particularly built its reputation by publishing qualitative research and it continues to welcome such papers. Quantitative research papers are also welcome but they need to emphasise the context of the research and the theoretical and practical implications of their findings.The ISJ does not publish purely technical papers.