Advertisement

KPIs for Software Ecosystems: A Systematic Mapping Study

  • Farnaz Fotrousi
  • Samuel A. Fricker
  • Markus Fiedler
  • Franck Le-Gall
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 182)

Abstract

To create value with a software ecosystem (SECO), a platform owner has to ensure that the SECO is healthy and sustainable. Key Performance Indicators (KPI) are used to assess whether and how well such objectives are met and what the platform owner can do to improve. This paper gives an overview of existing research on KPI-based SECO assessment using a systematic mapping of research publications. The study identified 34 relevant publications for which KPI research and KPI practice were extracted and mapped. It describes the strengths and gaps of the research published so far, and describes what KPI are measured, analyzed, and used for decision-making from the researcher’s point of view. For the researcher, the maps thus capture state-of-knowledge and can be used to plan further research. For practitioners, the generated map points to studies that describe how to use KPI for managing of a SECO.

Keywords

software ecosystem digital ecosystem performance indicator KPI success factor systematic mapping 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jansen, S., Finkelstein, A., Brinkkemper, S.: A sense of community: A research agenda for software ecosystems. In: International Conference on Software Engineering. ICSE-Companion 2009, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Manikas, K., Hansen, K.M.: Software ecosystems–a systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software 86, 71–80 (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiblen, T., Giessmann, A., Bonakdar, A., Eisert, U.: Leveraging the software ecosystem: Towards a business model framework for marketplaces. In: 3rd International Conference on Data Communication Networking, DCNET 2012, 7th International Conference on e-Business, ICE-B 2012 and 3rd International Conference on Optical Communication Systems, OPTICS 2012, Rome, Italy (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosch, J.: From software product lines to software ecosystems. In: 13th International Software Product Line Conference, Carnegie Mellon University (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Barbosa, O., Alves, C.: A systematic mapping study on software ecosystems. In: 2nd ICSOB, Brussels, Belgium (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Costanza, R., Mageau, M.: What is a healthy ecosystem? Aquatic Ecology 33, 105–115 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chapin Iii, F.S., Torn, M.S., Tateno, M.: Principles of ecosystem sustainability. American Naturalist, 1016–1037 (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Iansiti, M., Richards, G.L.: Information Technology Ecosystem: Structure, Health, and Performance. The Antitrust Bull. 51, 77–110 (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rapport, D.J., Costanza, R., McMichael, A.J.: Assessing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13, 397–402 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Costanza, R.: Toward an operational definition of ecosystem health. Ecosystem health: New goals for environmental management, pp. 239–256. Island Press (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Manikas, K., Hansen, K.M.: Reviewing the Health of Software Ecosystems–A Conceptual Framework Proposal. In: International Workshop on Software Ecosystems 2013-IWSECO 2013, Potsdam, Germany (2013)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santos, R., Werner, C., Barbosa, O., Alves, C.: Software ecosystems: trends and impacts on software engineering. In: 26th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES), Piscataway, NJ, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parmenter, D.: Key performance indicators (KPI): developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. John Wiley & Sons (2010)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    GAO: Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships. US Government Accountability Office (2011) Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cokins, G.: Performance management: Integrating strategy execution, methodologies, risk, and analytics. John Wiley & Sons (2009)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Petersen, K., Feldt, R., Mujtaba, S., Mattsson, M.: Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: 12th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, Bari, Italy (2008)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wieringa, R., Maiden, N., Mead, N., Rolland, C.: Requirements engineering paper classification and evaluation criteria: a proposal and a discussion. Requirements Engineering 11, 102–107 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boley, H., Chang, E.: Digital ecosystems: Principles and semantics. In: Inaugural IEEE-IES Digital EcoSystems and Technologies Conference, Cairns, Australia (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farnaz Fotrousi
    • 1
  • Samuel A. Fricker
    • 1
  • Markus Fiedler
    • 1
  • Franck Le-Gall
    • 2
  1. 1.Blekinge Institute of TechnologyKarlskronaSweden
  2. 2.Easy Global MarketSophia-AntipolisFrance

Personalised recommendations