Design Options of Store-Oriented Software Ecosystems: An Investigation of Business Decisions

  • Bahar JazayeriEmail author
  • Olaf Zimmermann
  • Gregor Engels
  • Jochen Küster
  • Dennis Kundisch
  • Daniel Szopinski
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 319)


Nowadays companies like Apple create ecosystems of third-party providers and users around their software platforms. Often online stores like Apple App Store are created to directly market third-party solutions. We call such ecosystems store-oriented software ecosystems. While the architecture of these ecosystems is mainly derived from business decisions of their owners, ecosystems with greatly different architectural designs have been created. This diversity makes it challenging for future ecosystem providers to understand which architectural design is suitable to fulfill certain business decisions. In turn, opening a platform becomes risky while endangering intellectual property or scarifying quality of services. In this paper, we identify three main design options of store-oriented software ecosystems by classifying existing ecosystems based on similarities in their business decisions. We elaborate on the design options, discuss their main contributions, and provide exemplary ecosystems. Our work provides aspiring ecosystem providers with the reusable knowledge of existing ecosystems and helps them to take more informed architectural decisions and reduce risks in future.


Software ecosystems Reusable designs Variabilities 


  1. 1.
    Bosch, J.: From software product lines to software ecosystems. In: International Software Product Line Conference, pp. 111–119. CMU (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bosch, J., Bosch-Sijtsema, P.: From integration to composition: on the impact of software product lines, global development and ecosystems. J. Syst. Softw. 83(1), 67–76 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Manikas, K., Hansen, K.M.: Software ecosystems-a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 86(5), 1294–1306 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sadi, M.H., Yu, E.: Modeling and analyzing openness trade-offs in software platforms: a goal-oriented approach. In: Grünbacher, P., Perini, A. (eds.) REFSQ 2017. LNCS, vol. 10153, pp. 33–49. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berger, T., Pfeiffer, R.-H., Tartler, R., Dienst, S., Czarnecki, K., Wasowski, A., She, S.: Variability mechanisms in software ecosystems. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(11), 1520–1535 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jazayeri, B., Zimmermann, O., Engels, G., Kundisch, D.: A variability model for store-oriented software ecosystems: an enterprise perspective. In: Maximilien, M., Vallecillo, A., Wang, J., Oriol, M. (eds.) ICSOC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10601, pp. 573–588. Springer, Cham (2017). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Van Angeren, J., Kabbedijk, J., Jansen, S., Popp, K.M.: A survey of associate models used within large software ecosystems In: International Workshop on Software Ecosystems, pp. 27–39. CEUR-WS (2011)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jazayeri, B., Platenius, M.C., Engels, G., Kundisch, D.: Features of IT service markets: a systematic literature review. In: Sheng, Q.Z., Stroulia, E., Tata, S., Bhiri, S. (eds.) ICSOC 2016. LNCS, vol. 9936, pp. 301–316. Springer, Cham (2016). Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zimmermann, O., Wegmann, L., Koziolek, H., Goldschmidt, T.: Architectural decision guidance across projects-problem space modeling, decision backlog management and cloud computing knowledge. In: Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture, pp. 85–94. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rozanski, N., Woods, E.: Software Systems Architecture: Working with Stakeholders Using Viewpoints and Perspectives. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2012)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Holzer, A., Ondrus, J.: Mobile application market: a developer’s perspective. Telematics Inf. 28(1), 22–31 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grover, V., Kohli, R.: Cocreating IT value: new capabilities and metrics for multifirm environments. MIS Q. 36, 225–232 (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dataset. Technical report (2018).
  14. 14.
    Hanssen, G.K.: A longitudinal case study of an emerging software ecosystem: implications for practice and theory. J. Syst. Softw. 85(7), 1455–1466 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gawer, A., Cusumano, M.A.: Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. J. Prod. Innov. Manage. 31(3), 417–433 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bahar Jazayeri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Olaf Zimmermann
    • 2
  • Gregor Engels
    • 1
  • Jochen Küster
    • 3
  • Dennis Kundisch
    • 1
  • Daniel Szopinski
    • 1
  1. 1.Paderborn UniversityPaderbornGermany
  2. 2.University of Applied Sciences of Eastern SwitzerlandRapperswilSwitzerland
  3. 3.Bielefeld University of Applied SciencesBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations