The Case for Software Business as a Research Discipline

  • Mikko Rönkkö
  • Aku Valtakoski
  • Juhana Peltonen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 51)


Software industry has served as an important empirical setting for research in management. Subsequently, some scholars have proposed that software business constitutes or is poised to become its own research discipline or topic area. We argue that this is without solid grounding: First, there is a lack of evidence behind this claim, and some of the favoring arguments are simply fallacious. Second, there seems to be a misunderstanding of what constitutes a research discipline. Third, proponents of this thesis apparently ignore much of extant research in relevant disciplines and other research fields. In our view, the case for a software business discipline has been fueled by knowledge transfer problems between researchers primarily identifying with software business and mainstream management research. We conclude that software business does not constitute a discipline of its own and it is highly unlikely that this will ever happen.


Software business scientific progress academic discipline 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mäkelä, M., Mutanen, O.: Research in software business: implications of the special qualities of software as a good. In: Proceedings of Engineering Management Conference, 2005 IEEE International, pp. 780–783 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mäkelä, M.M.: Software Business: Position as a Field of Research and Avenues for Scholarly Contributions. Presented at the 14th International Conference of the International Association for Management of Technology (IAMOT), Vienna, Austria, May 22 (2005)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Käkölä, T.: Software business models and contexts for software innovation: key areas for software business research. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Big Island, Hawaii, USA (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ohjelmistoliiketoiminnan tutkimuksen tulevaisuus: Volendamin manifesti, tulossa,
  5. 5.
    Kontio, J., Ahokas, M., Pöyry, P., Warsta, J., Mäkelä, M., Tyrväinen, P.: Software Business Education for Software Engineers: Towards an Integrated Curriculum. In: 19th Conference on Software Engineering Education and Training Workshops (CSEETW 2006), Oahu, HI, USA, p. 5 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuhn, T.S.: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1970)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bacharach, S.B.: Organizational theories: Some criteria for evaluation. Academy of Management Review 14, 496–515 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shapiro, C., Varian, H.R.: Information rules: a strategic guide to the network economy. Harvard Business School Press, Boston (1999)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vermeulen, F.: I Shall Not Remain Insignificant: Adding a Second Loop to Matter More. Academy of Management Journal 50, 754 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Taylor, F.: The principles of scientific management. The Echo Library, Teddington (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xu, L., Brinkkemper, S.: Concepts of product software: Paving the road for urgently needed research. In: First International Workshop on Philosophical Foundations of Information Systems Engineering, LNCS. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rönkkö, M., Frühwirth, C., Biffl, S.: Integrating Value and Utility Concepts into a Value Decomposition Model for Value-Based Software Engineering. In: Product-Focused Software Process Improvement, pp. 362–374 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mikko Rönkkö
    • 1
  • Aku Valtakoski
    • 1
  • Juhana Peltonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Aalto University 

Personalised recommendations