A SECO Meta-model

A Common Vocabulary of the SECO Research Domain
  • J. Wouters
  • J. R. Ritmeester
  • A. W. Carlsen
  • Slinger Jansen
  • Krzysztof WnukEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 370)


Software development companies are venturing towards collaborative approach and software ecosystems (SECO) participation. Over the years, many papers have been written and different modelling languages were proposed to capture the interactions between the SECO participants. What is missing, however, is a comprehensive meta-model describing possible entities and relationships that constitute a SECO. The goal of this paper is to create a common language for academic researchers for software ecosystems by creating such a meta-model. We constructed the meta-model by extracting and grouping entities and relationships from research papers. The meta-model consists of 5 themes: actors and roles, products and platforms, boundaries, ecosystem health and strategy. We advocate that our meta-model allows for easy sharing and comparing of case studies and the generalization of results across studies. We present the results from initial expert evaluation of the meta-model.


Software ecosystems Meta-model Grounded theory Literature review Research synthesis 


  1. 1.
    Alves, A.M., Pessoa, M., Salviano, C.F.: Towards a systemic maturity model for public software ecosystems. In: O’Connor, R.V., Rout, T., McCaffery, F., Dorling, A. (eds.) SPICE 2011. CCIS, vol. 155, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  2. 2.
    van den Berk, I., Jansen, S., Luinenburg, L.: Software ecosystems: a software ecosystem strategy assessment model, pp. 127–134, January 2010Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosch, J.: From software product lines to software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference, pp. 111–119. Carnegie Mellon University (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boucharas, V., Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S.: Formalizing software ecosystem modeling. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Open Component Ecosystems, IWOCE 2009, pp. 41–50, August 2009Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Briand, L., Bianculli, D., Nejati, S., Pastore, F., Sabetzadeh, M.: The case for context-driven software engineering research: generalizability is overrated. IEEE Softw. 34(5), 72–75 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Charmaz, K.: The search for meanings-grounded theory. In: Rethinking Methods in Psychology, pp. 27–49 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Draxler, S., Jung, A., Boden, A., Stevens, G.: Workplace warriors: identifying team practices of appropriation in software ecosystems. In: 4th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering, pp. 57–60. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dybå, T., Sjøberg, D.I., Cruzes, D.S.: What works for whom, where, when, and why? On the role of context in empirical software engineering. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2012, pp. 19–28. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ghaisas, S., Rose, P., Rose, P., Daneva, M., Sikkel, N., Wieringa, R.: Generalizing by similarity: lessons learnt from industrial case studies. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Conducting Empirical Studies in Industry, CESI 2013, pp. 37–42. IEEE Computer Society, United States, May 2013Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hilkert, D., Wolf, C.M., Benlian, A., Hess, T.: The “As-a-Service”-paradigm and its implications for the software industry – insights from a comparative case study in CRM software ecosystems. In: Tyrväinen, P., Jansen, S., Cusumano, M.A. (eds.) ICSOB 2010. LNBIP, vol. 51, pp. 125–137. Springer, Heidelberg (2010). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iansiti, M., Levien, R.: Keystones and dominators: framing the operational dynamics of business ecosystems. The operational dynamics of business ecosystems (2002)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    van Ingen, K., van Ommen, J., Jansen, S.: Improving activity in communities of practice through software release management. In: International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems, pp. 94–98. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jansen, S.: Measuring the health of open source software ecosystems: beyond the scope of project health. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(11), 1508–1519 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., Finkelstein, A.: Business network management as a survival strategy: a tale of two software ecosystems. In: IWSECO@ICSR 2009 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jansen, S., Cusumano, M.A.: Defining software ecosystems: a survey of software platforms and business network governance. In: Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, vol. 13 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jansen, S., Finkelstein, A., Brinkkemper, S.: A sense of community: a research agenda for software ecosystems. In: ICSE-Companion 2009, pp. 187–190. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Manikas, K., Hansen, K.M.: Software ecosystems-a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 86(5), 1294–1306 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Object Management Group (OMG): Unified Modeling Language (UML) Specification, Version 2.5.1. OMG Document Number formal/17-12-05 (2017).
  19. 19.
    Paige, R.F., Brooke, P.J., Ostroff, J.S.: Metamodel-based model conformance and multiview consistency checking. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. (TOSEM) 16(3), 11 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petersen, K., Wohlin, C.: Context in industrial software engineering research. In: 3rd International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement, ESEM 2009, pp. 401–404. IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Popp, K.M.: Hybrid revenue models of software companies and their relationship to hybrid business models. In: IWSECO@ ICSOB Confernece, pp. 77–88 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Runeson, P., Höst, M.: Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Softw. Engg. 14(2), 131–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    dos Santos, R.P., Werner, C.M.L.: A proposal for software ecosystems engineering. In: IWSECO@ ICSOB, pp. 40–51 (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Van Angeren, J., Kabbedijk, J., Jansen, S., Popp, K.M.: A survey of associate models used within large software ecosystems. Computing 746, 27–39 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Den Berk, I., Jansen, S., Luinenburg, L.: Software ecosystems: a software ecosystem strategy assessment model. In: Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Software Architecture: Companion Volume, pp. 127–134. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Viljainen, M., Kauppinen, M.: Software ecosystems: a set of management practices for platform integrators in the telecom industry. In: Regnell, B., van de Weerd, I., De Troyer, O. (eds.) ICSOB 2011. LNBIP, vol. 80, pp. 32–43. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wieringa, R.J.: Design Science Methodology for Information Systems and Software Engineering. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wohlin, C.: Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In: 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, EASE 2014, pp. 38:1–38:10. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Wouters
    • 1
  • J. R. Ritmeester
    • 1
  • A. W. Carlsen
    • 1
  • Slinger Jansen
    • 1
  • Krzysztof Wnuk
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Information and Computing SciencesUtrecht UniverstyUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Software EngineeringBlekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlsrkonaSweden

Personalised recommendations