IWSECO 2011 Presentation


Published on

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

IWSECO 2011 Presentation

  1. 1. A Survey of Associate Models used within Large Software Ecosystems<br />Joey van Angeren – Utrecht University<br />JaapKabbedijk – Utrecht University<br />Slinger Jansen – Utrecht University<br />Karl Michael Popp – SAP AG<br />
  2. 2.
  3. 3. Why would we research associate models?<br /><ul><li>Little research has been carried out within this domain so far
  4. 4. To gain insight into the structure of an associate model and the set of commitments it consists of
  5. 5. Useful for software ecosystem orchestrators when creating their own associate model
  6. 6. Useful for participant to gather insight in the model(s) they are active in</li></li></ul><li>The perspective<br /><ul><li>Software ecosystemorchestrationaroundoneparticular software vendor, platform owner, open sourceassociation
  7. 7. The software ecosystemconsists of severalsubsystems (e.g. supplierecosystem, partner ecosystem)
  8. 8. Clusters: A number of closelyrelatedactorswithin (a subsystem of) the software ecosystem</li></li></ul><li>Why associate models<br /><ul><li>Associate models are a powerful tool forlarge software ecosystemorchestrators to:
  9. 9. Manage clusters of participantswithintheirecosystems
  10. 10. Achieve all kind of ecosystem goals (e.g. financial, customer, product, network and/or market-related)
  11. 11. Gather information about their ecosystems</li></li></ul><li>Research question<br />“What are the identifyingcharacteristics of a commitmentwithinanassociate model?”<br />
  12. 12. Research approach<br /><ul><li>Literaturereview
  13. 13. Design science
  14. 14. Case studies (SAP, Open Design Alliance, Eclipse Foundation)
  15. 15. Bystudyingavailabledocumentationon the associate model (e.g. website, contracts)
  16. 16. Byconducting a semi-structured interview with a representative</li></ul>Hevner et al, 2004<br />
  17. 17. Conceptual overview<br /><ul><li>Createdbyapplying design sciencebasedon:
  18. 18. Literaturereview
  19. 19. Documentation software ecosystemorchestrators offer ontheirassociate model (notlimited to the three case studies)
  20. 20. Expert reviews
  21. 21. Describes the structure of anassociate model</li></ul>Hevner et al, 2004<br />
  22. 22. The structure of an associate model<br /><ul><li>Anassociate model consists of a set of commitmentsbetween cluster owner and participant
  23. 23. Eachassociate model has a certain type (e.g. partnership ormembership model)
  24. 24. Within the commitment the participant fulfillsoneor more rolesthatcan have multiple dimensionsthatcomewith:
  25. 25. Benefits
  26. 26. Requirements
  27. 27. Costs</li></li></ul><li>
  28. 28. Gold level<br />system integrator<br />
  29. 29. Case study and classification<br /><ul><li>Case studies employed to:
  30. 30. Evaluate conceptual overview
  31. 31. Compare three different associate models through classification
  32. 32. Classification table constructed by deriving associate model characteristics from:
  33. 33. The conceptual overview
  34. 34. The interview protocol
  35. 35. Ecosystem goals as defined by Popp, 2010</li></li></ul><li>Case study 1: SAP<br />SAP:<br />For-profitorganization<br />Headquarterslocated in<br />Germany<br />Core business in enterprise<br />applications<br />Multiple partnership models<br />(global model is subject of case<br />study)<br />
  36. 36. Case study 1: SAP<br />Structure:<br />Role-based, 10 roles (+1 general<br />umbrellarole)<br />Mainbenefits:<br />Targeted at business needs of<br />Participant<br />MainRequirements:<br />Annual partnership model fee<br />Devoting resources to product or<br />service certification<br />Locking<br />Main goals strivedfor:<br />Expansion of the SAP partner<br />ecosystem<br />Strengthen SAP offerings<br />Monetizingon the partner<br />ecosystem<br />Extension of marketreach<br />
  37. 37. Case study 2: Open Design Allaince<br />ODA:<br />Non-profit association (member<br />driven)<br />Headquarterslocated in the USA<br />Core business in engineering<br />applications<br />Membership model is the core of<br />the business<br />The Membership model consits of<br />Over 1200 members<br />
  38. 38. Case study 2: Open Design Alliance<br />Structure:<br />Layered, 5 different levels, next level<br />considered as superior to previousone<br />Mainbenefits:<br />Targeted at amount of access to the platform<br />MainRequirements:<br />Membership model fees (annual fee + one<br />time onlyentrance fee)<br />Main goals strivedfor:<br />Product and platform development<br />Expansion of the ODA ecosystem<br />
  39. 39. Case study 3: Eclipse Foundation<br />EclipseSummary:<br />Non-profit association (member<br />supported)<br />Headquarterslocated in Canada<br />Core business in software<br />devlopmentapplications<br />Utilize a membership model<br />
  40. 40. Case study 3: Eclipse Foundation<br />Structure:<br />Layered, 5 different levels, based<br />onan open sourcematurity curve<br />Mainbenefits:<br />Co-innovatingthroughindustry-specific<br />workinggroups<br />Influence in the governance of Eclipse<br />Foundation<br />MainRequirements:<br />Contribution of resources to product and/or<br />platform development<br />Main goals strivedfor:<br />Product and platform development<br />Expansion of the Eclipse Foundation<br />ecosystem<br />
  41. 41. Conclusions<br /><ul><li>Anassociate model consists of a set of commitmentsbetween model owner and participants
  42. 42. Withineachcommitment a participant fullfills a role, thatcan have multiple dimensions, with a set of benefits, requirements and costs
  43. 43. The threestudiedassociate models differfromeachother in:
  44. 44. Primarystructure
  45. 45. Entry barriers and model governance
  46. 46. Goals
  47. 47. Identifieddifferences are a resultfromorganizationsdifferingfromeachother in orrganizationalcharacteristics, thisinfluences the characteristics of the associate model and the commitmentsitconsists of</li></li></ul><li>Future research on associate models<br /><ul><li>More cases are needed to verify and evaluate the conceptualoverview
  48. 48. Edgedon the community of participantsthat is part of anassociate model
  49. 49. Out of a participants’ perspective, (e.g. advantages, disadvantages, risks, expectations, goals, implicationsfor business model)
  50. 50. Software ecosystemgovernance</li></li></ul><li>Questions<br />http://www.softwareecosystems.org/<br />