Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigations into Data Ecosystems: a systematic mapping study

  • Survey Paper
  • Published:
Knowledge and Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Data Ecosystems are socio-technical complex networks in which actors interact and collaborate with each other to find, archive, publish, consume, or reuse data as well as to foster innovation, create value, and support new businesses. While the Data Ecosystem field is thus arguably gaining in importance, research on this subject is still in its early stages of development. Up until now, not many academic papers related to Data Ecosystems have been published. Furthermore, to the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic review of the literature on Data Ecosystems. In this study, we provide an overview of the current literature on Data Ecosystems by conducting a systematic mapping study. This study is intended to function as a snapshot of the research in the field and by doing so identifies the different definitions of Data Ecosystem and analyzes the evolution of Data Ecosystem research. The studies selected have been classified into categories related to the study method, contribution, research topic, and ecosystem domains. Finally, we analyze how Data Ecosystems are structured and organized, and what benefits can be expected from Data Ecosystems and what their limitations are.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from: [44]

Fig. 2

Source: Authors

Fig. 3

Source: the Authors

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. International Digital Government Research Conference.

  2. International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance.

  3. https://ckan.org/.

  4. https://ckan.org/.

  5. https://www.eudat.eu/.

  6. https://opendatabarometer.org/.

  7. http://www.junar.com/.

  8. http://www.socrata.com/.

  9. http://datamarket.azure.com/.

  10. https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/product/market-data/.

References

  1. Abbott D (2013) What is digital curation. http://www.dcc.ac.uk/resources/briefing-papers/introduction-curation/what-digital-curation/. Accessed 20 Jan (2018)

  2. Abu-Matar M (2016) Towards a software defined reference architecture for smart city ecosystems. In: 2016 IEEE international smart cities conference (ISC2). IEEE, pp 1–6

  3. Alves C, Oliveira J, Jansen S (2017) Software ecosystems governance—a systematic literature review and research agenda. In: ICEIS 2017-proceedings of the 19th international conference on enterprise information systems, vol 3. pp 26–29

  4. Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Atkinson C, Kuhne T (2003) Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Softw 20(5):36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Attard J, Orlandi F, Auer S (2016). Data value networks: enabling a new data ecosystem. In: 2016 IEEE/WIC/ACM international conference on web intelligence (WI). IEEE, pp 453–456

  7. Barbosa L, Pham K, Silva C, Vieira MR, Freire J (2014) Structured open urban data: understanding the landscape. Big Data 2(3):144–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Barnaghi P, Sheth A, Henson C (2013) From data to actionable knowledge: big data challenges in the web of things. IEEE Intell Syst 28(6):6–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Bourne PE, Lorsch JR, Green ED (2015) Perspective: sustaining the big-data ecosystem. Nature 527(7576):S16–S17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Campbell PR, Ahmed F (2010) A three-dimensional view of software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the fourth European conference on software architecture: companion volume. ACM, pp 81–84

  11. Chen M, Mao S, Liu Y (2014) Big data: a survey. Mob Netw Appl 19(2):171–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Christensen HB, Hansen KM, Kyng M, Manikas K (2014) Analysis and design of software ecosystem architectures-towards the 4S telemedicine ecosystem. Inf Softw Technol 56(11):1476–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chun SA, Shulman S, Sandoval R, Hovy E (2010) Government 2.0: making connections between citizens, data and government. Inf Polity 15(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chyi Lee C, Yang J (2000) Knowledge value chain. J Manag Dev 19(9):783–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clegg CW (2000) Sociotechnical principles for system design. Appl Ergon 31(5):463–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Daniel EM, Wilson HN (2003) The role of dynamic capabilities in e-business transformation. Eur J Inf Syst 12(4):282–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. da Silva AR (2015) Model-driven engineering: a survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Comput Lang Syst Struct 43:139–155

    Google Scholar 

  18. Davies T (2011) Open data: infrastructures and ecosystems. In: Proceedings of web science conference, pp 1–6

  19. Dawes SS, Vidiasova L, Parkhimovich O (2016) Planning and designing open government data programs: an ecosystem approach. Gov Inf Q 33(1):15–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Ding L, Lebo T, Erickson JS, Difranzo D, Williams GT, Li X, Michaelis J, Graves A, Zheng JG, Shangguan Z et al (2011) TWC LOGD: a portal for linked open government data ecosystems. Web Semant Sci Serv Agents World Wide Web 9(3):325–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fischer G, Herrmann T (2011) Socio-technical systems. In: Knowledge and technological development effects on organizational and social structures. IGI Global, pp 1–36. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-2151-0.ch001

  22. Fisher DM (2004) The business process maturity model: a practical approach for identifying opportunities for optimization. BPTrends, pp 1–7

  23. Freitas A, Curry E (2016) Big data curation. In: Cavanillas JM, Curry E, Wahlste W (eds) New horizons for a data-driven economy. Springer, pp 87–118

  24. Gama K, Lóscio BF (2014) Towards ecosystems based on open data as a service. In: ICEIS (2). pp 659–664

  25. Group OGW (2007) Eight principles of open government data, Open Government Working Group. https://public.resource.org/8_principles.html. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  26. Ha S, Lee S, Lee K (2014) Standardization requirements analysis on big data in public sector based on potential business models. Int J Softw Eng Its Appl 8(11):165–172

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hanssen GK (2012) A longitudinal case study of an emerging software ecosystem: implications for practice and theory. J Syst Softw 85(7):1455–1466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hanssen GK, Dybå T (2012) Theoretical foundations of software ecosystems. In: IWSECO@ ICSOB. Citeseer, pp 6–17

  29. Harrison TM, Pardo TA, Cook M (2012) Creating open government ecosystems: a research and development agenda. Future Internet 4(4):900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heimstädt M, Saunderson F, Heath T (2014) Conceptualizing open data ecosystems: a timeline analysis of open data development in the UK. In: CeDEM14: conference for E-democracy an open government. MV-Verlag, p 245

  31. Helbig N, Cresswell AM, Burke GB, Luna-Reyes L (2012) The dynamics of opening government data. Center for Technology in Government.[Online]. http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/opendata. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  32. Iansiti M, Levien R (2004) The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business Press, Brighton

    Google Scholar 

  33. Immonen A, Palviainen M, Ovaska E (2014) Requirements of an open data based business ecosystem. IEEE Access 2:88–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jalali S, Wohlin C (2012) Systematic literature studies: database searches vs. backward snowballing. In: Proceedings of the ACM-IEEE international symposium on empirical software engineering and measurement. ACM, pp 29–38

  35. Jansen S, Brinkkemper S, Finkelstein A (2009) Business network management as a survival strategy: a tale of two software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on software ecosystems. p 34

  36. Jansen S, Cusumano MA, Brinkkemper S (2013) Software ecosystems: analyzing and managing business networks in the software industry. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Tech. rep., School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele University

  39. Köster V, Suárez G (2016) Open data for development: experience of uruguay. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. ACM, pp 207–210

  40. Koznov D, Andreeva O, Nikula U, Maglyas A, Muromtsev D, Radchenko I (2016) A survey of open government data in Russian Federation. In: IC3K 2016—Proceedings of the 8th international joint conference on knowledge discovery, knowledge engineering and knowledge management, vol 3. pp 173–180

  41. Lee D (2014) Building an open data ecosystem: an Irish experience. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. ACM, pp 351–360

  42. Lettner D, Angerer F, Prähofer H, Grünbacher P (2014) A case study on software ecosystem characteristics in industrial automation software. In: Proceedings of the 2014 international conference on software and system process. ACM, pp 40–49

  43. Lindman J, Kinnari T, Rossi M (2016) Business roles in the emerging open-data ecosystem. IEEE Softw 33(5):54–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Lopez-Herrejon RE, Linsbauer L, Egyed A (2015) A systematic mapping study of search-based software engineering for software product lines. Inf Softw Technol 61:33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lundell B, Forssten B, Gamalielsson J, Gustavsson H, Karlsson R, Lennerholt C, Lings B, Mattsson A, Olsson E (2009) Exploring health within OSS ecosystems. In: First international workshop on building sustainable open source communities (OSCOMM 2009), Skövde, Sweden, pp 1–5

  46. Madhavan J, Jeffery SR, Cohen S, Dong XL, Ko D, Yu C, Halevy A (2007) Web-scale data integration: you can only afford to pay as you go. In: Conference on innovative data systems research

  47. Magalhaes G, Roseira C, Manley L (2014) Business models for open government data. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance. ACM, pp 365–370

  48. Manikas K, Hansen KM (2013) Reviewing the health of software ecosystems—a conceptual framework proposal. In: Proceedings of the 5th international workshop on software ecosystems (IWSECO). pp 33–44

  49. Manikas K, Hansen KM (2013) Software ecosystems—a systematic literature review. J Syst Softw 86(5):1294–1306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mercado-Lara E, Gil-Garcia JR (2014) Open government and data intermediaries: the case of AidData. In: Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on digital government research. ACM, pp 335–336

  51. Moiso C, Minerva R (2012) Towards a user-centric personal data ecosystem the role of the bank of individuals’ data. In: 2012 16th International conference on intelligence in next generation networks (ICIN). IEEE, pp 202–209

  52. Moore JF (1999) Creating value in the network economy. pp 121–141. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=303444.303452. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  53. Munro R (2009) Actor-network theory. The SAGE handbook of power. Sage Publications Ltd, London, pp 125–39

    Book  Google Scholar 

  54. Nachira F, Dini P, Nicolai A (2007) A network of digital business ecosystems for Europe: roots, processes and perspectives. European Commission, Bruxelles, Introductory Paper

  55. Oliveira MIS, de Oliveira HR, Oliveira LA, Lóscio BF (2016) Open government data portals analysis: the Brazilian case. In: Proceedings of the 17th international digital government research conference on digital government research. ACM, pp 415–424

  56. Oliveira Lairson Alencar OMIS, Santos WCdR, Lóscio BF (2018) Data on the web management system: a reference model. In: Proceedings of the 19th international digital government research conference on digital government research. ACM

  57. Ordanini A, Pol A (2001) Infomediation and competitive advantage in B2B digital marketplaces. Eur Manag J 19(3):276–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Organization T (2014) Sustainability. www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Sustainability.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  59. Palvia P, Leary D, Mao E, Midha V, Pinjani P, Salam A (2004) Research methodologies in MIS: an update. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 14(1):24

    Google Scholar 

  60. Petersen K, Feldt R, Mujtaba S, Mattsson M (2008) Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: EASE, vol 8. pp 68–77

  61. Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (2003) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  62. Poikola A, Kola P, Hintikka K (2011) Public data, an introduction to opening information resources. http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/78201/Public_data_-_an_introduction_to_opening_information_resources.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  63. Pollock R (2011) Building the (open) data ecosystem. In: Open knowledge foundation Blog 31. https://blog.okfn.org/2011/03/31/building-the-open-data-ecosystem/. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  64. Sandelowski M (2010) What’s in a name? qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health 33(1):77–84

    Google Scholar 

  65. Shaw M (2011) Writing good software engineering research papers. In: 25th international conference on software engineering, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 726–736

  66. Shin DH (2016) Demystifying big data: anatomy of big data developmental process. Telecommun Policy 40(9):837–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Shin DH, Choi MJ (2015) Ecological views of big data: perspectives and issues. Telemat Inform 32(2):311–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Silver B, Richard B (2009) BPMN method and style, vol 2. Cody-Cassidy Press Aptos, Aptos

    Google Scholar 

  69. Sjoberg DI, Dyba T, Jorgensen M (2007) The future of empirical methods in software engineering research. In: Future of software engineering, 2007. FOSE’07. IEEE, pp 358–378

  70. Smith G, Ofe HA, Sandberg J (2016) Digital service innovation from open data: exploring the value proposition of an open data marketplace. In: 2016 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS). IEEE, pp 1277–1286

  71. Sommerville I (2010) Software engineering. Pearson, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  72. Sooklal R, Papadopoulos T, Ojiako U (2011) Information systems development: a normalisation process theory perspective. Ind Manag Data Syst 111(8):1270–1286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Stol KJ, Fitzgerald B (2015) Theory-oriented software engineering. Sci Comput Program 101:79–98

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  74. Teece DJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):172–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Ubaldi B (2013) Open government data: towards empirical analysis of open government data initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance. https://doi.org/10.1787/19934351

  76. Van Schalkwyk F, Willmers M, McNaughton M (2016) Viscous open data: the roles of intermediaries in an open data ecosystem. Inf Technol Dev 22(sup1):68–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Welle Donker F, van Loenen B (2017) How to assess the success of the open data ecosystem? Int J Digit Earth 10(3):284–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Wikipedia (2001) Ecosystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem. Accessed 20 Jan 2018

  79. Yoo Y, Henfridsson O, Lyytinen K (2010) Research commentary-the new organizing logic of digital innovation: an agenda for information systems research. Inf Syst Res 21(4):724–735

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2014) Capability matrix for open data. In: Working conference on virtual enterprises. Springer, pp 498–509

  81. Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2016) Open data value capability architecture. Inf Syst Front 19(2):1–24

  82. Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2016) Critical factors for dynamic capabilities in open government data enabled organizations. In: Proceedings of the 17th international digital government research conference on digital government research - dg.o ’16. ACM Press. https://doi.org/10.1145/2912160.2912164

  83. Zott C, Amit R (2010) Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):216–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Zubcoff JJ, Vaquer L, Mazón JN, MaciÁ F, Garrigós I, Fuster A, Carcel JV (2016) The university as an open data ecosystem. Int J Des Nat Ecodyn 11(3):250–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Barriers and development directions for the publication and usage of open data: a socio-technical view. In: Gascó-Hernández M (ed) Open government. Springer, pp 115–135

  86. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Choenni S, Meijer R, Alibaks RS, Sheikh_Alibaks R (2012) Socio-technical impediments of open data. Electron J e-Gov 10(2):156–172

    Google Scholar 

  87. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Davis C (2014) Innovation with open data: essential elements of open data ecosystems. Inf Polity 19(1, 2):17–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, van de Kaa G, Poulis K (2016) The wicked problem of commercial value creation in open data ecosystems: policy guidelines for governments. Inf Polity 21(3):223–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Poulis K, van de Kaa G (2015) Open data for competitive advantage: insights from open data use by companies. In: Proceedings of the 16th annual international conference on digital government research. ACM, pp 79–88

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Informatics, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, PE, Brazil

    Marcelo Iury S. Oliveira, Glória de Fátima Barros Lima & Bernadette Farias Lóscio

  2. Academic Unit of Serra Talhada, Federal Rural University of Pernambuco, Serra Talhada, PE, Brazil

    Marcelo Iury S. Oliveira

Authors
  1. Marcelo Iury S. Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Glória de Fátima Barros Lima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bernadette Farias Lóscio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marcelo Iury S. Oliveira.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This paper was partially supported by funds from the following Brazilian funding agencies: the Pernambuco State Science and Technology Support Foundation (FACEPE) and the National Institute of Science and Technology for Software Engineering (INES). Marcelo Iury also thanks the National Committee of Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq) and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Level Personnel (CAPES), for granting him a PhD fellowship. The authors would also like to thank the colleagues of the Aladin research group for their input to this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

S. Oliveira, M.I., Barros Lima, G.d.F. & Farias Lóscio, B. Investigations into Data Ecosystems: a systematic mapping study. Knowl Inf Syst 61, 589–630 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-018-1323-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-018-1323-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation