Identifying Architecture Attributes in the Context of Software Ecosystems Based on a Mapping Study

Currently, software acquirers and suppliers as well as their relations have been investigated as a software ecosystem (SECO). In a SECO, an organization wants to achieve its business objectives supported by technologies based on a common ecosystem platform. Modifications on technologies can make essential systems unsupported or low performance. Thus, IT managers should consider information about technologies and their relationships. Such information may be spread in different documents and/or difficult to analyze due to the lack of support. As such, related attributes assist IT managers and architects in making decisions on the IT architecture modification, i.e., the set of technologies supporting products and services adopted by an organization. This research aims to identify architecture attributes that affect a SECO and its platform and technologies from the literature. With the intention of comparing this research to a well-accepted standard, ISO/IEC 25000 characteristics were analyzed against architecture attributes. Then, we have evaluated such attributes with experts from industry and academia based on a survey research. As a result, 64 attributes were identified and grouped by 11 critical factors. Critical factors are macro attributes that encompass other attributes. Then, a better understanding on how IT managers and architects’ choices can affect SECO could help them to take actions to mitigate negative effects.

[1]  Jeanne W. Ross,et al.  Creating a Strategic IT Architecture Competency: Learning in Stages , 2003, MIS Q. Executive.

[2]  Rodrigo Pereira dos Santos,et al.  Ecosystems effects on software-consuming organizations: an experience report on two observational studies , 2018, ECSA.

[3]  Kai Petersen,et al.  Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: An update , 2015, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[4]  Slinger Jansen,et al.  Measuring the health of open source software ecosystems: Beyond the scope of project health , 2014, Inf. Softw. Technol..

[5]  H. D. Rombach,et al.  The Goal Question Metric Approach , 1994 .

[6]  Alan MacCormack,et al.  Visualizing and Measuring Software Portfolio Architecture: A Flexibility Analysis , 2014 .

[7]  Duncan David Nulty,et al.  The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? , 2008 .

[8]  Kenichi Sakamoto,et al.  Systems and Software Quality : 4. A Quality Evaluation of System and Software - Introduction of Actual Application of ISO/IEC 25000 (SQuaRE) - , 2013 .

[9]  Ali Reza Babakhan,et al.  The strategies and the factors that influence technology acquisition channels. Case study: Iranian die-making industries , 2015, Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag..

[10]  Rodrigo Pereira dos Santos,et al.  A survey on socio-technical resources for software ecosystems , 2015, MEDES.

[11]  Rodrigo Pereira dos Santos,et al.  Software ecosystems governance to enable IT architecture based on software asset management , 2013, 2013 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST).

[12]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Speed, Data, and Ecosystems: The Future of Software Engineering , 2016, IEEE Software.

[13]  Klaus Marius Hansen,et al.  Software ecosystems - A systematic literature review , 2013, J. Syst. Softw..

[14]  Slinger Jansen,et al.  Managing Software Platforms and Ecosystems , 2019, IEEE Softw..

[15]  Konstantinos Manikas,et al.  Revisiting software ecosystems Research: A longitudinal literature study , 2016, J. Syst. Softw..

[16]  Rodrigo Pereira dos Santos,et al.  A systematic mapping study on software ecosystems from a three-dimensional perspective , 2013 .