Measuring and Analyzing the Openness of the Web2.0 Service Network for Improving the Innovation Capacity of the Web2.0 System through Collective Intelligence

Web2.0 users can create new services by combining existing Web2.0 services that offer open programming interfaces. This system of service composition forms a network, which we call the Web2.0 service network. A node of the Web2.0 service network represents a service. A link between two nodes exists, if another Web2.0 service (i.e. mashup) uses the linked services. The Web2.0 service network can be understood as an innovation system that creates value through the composition of services, representing the collective intelligence of users. Within this paper, we analyze the openness of the Web2.0 service network. Openness, which is an indicator for the innovation potential ofa network, is measured using the Enhanced-EIS-Indexes. These indexes are based on Krackhardt and Sterni¯s EI-Index. The analysis results of the indexes show that the Web2.0 service network is not as open as the evolutionary analysis of the Web2.0 service network suggested. The slight closeness of the Web2.0 service network has been identified by the Agent Behavior Index EISa, which highlighted that relatively more links are created within subgroups than between subgroups. It indicates that factors such as service ownership and type of service have an impact on innovation within the network.

[1]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  Informal Networks and Organizational Crises: An Experimental Simulation , 1988 .

[2]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[3]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[4]  Henry S. Rowen,et al.  The Silicon Valley Edge: A Habitat for Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 2000 .

[5]  N. Lin.  Social Capital: Frontmatter , 2001 .

[6]  N. Lin.  Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action , 2001 .

[7]  Michael A. Cusumano,et al.  Platform Leadership How Intel, Microsoft, and Cisco Drive Industry Innovation , 2002 .

[8]  T. Flew.  New Media: An Introduction , 2003 .

[9]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[10]  Christopher Ferris,et al.  What are Web services? , 2003, CACM.

[11]  Andrea Siegberg,et al.  Inter-Organizational Knowledge Community Building: Sustaining or Overcoming Organizational Boundaries? , 2005 .

[12]  R. Burt.  Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital , 2005 .

[13]  J. Henkel.  Selective revealing in open innovation processes: the case of embedded Linux (gekürzte Version) , 2006 .

[14]  Leu,et al.  Social Networks in Silicon Valley , 2006 .

[15]  Don Tapscott,et al.  Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything , 2006 .

[16]  F. Kellermanns,et al.  Knowledge Transfer Between and Within Alliance Partners: Private versus Collective Benefits of Social Capital , 2007 .

[17]  Sendil K. Ethiraj.  Allocation of Inventive Effort in Complex Product Systems , 2007 .

[18]  Tim O'Reilly,et al.  What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software , 2007 .

[19]  Tom Erik Julsrud,et al.  Core/periphery Structures and Trust in Distributed Work Groups: A comparative case study , 2007 .

[20]  Peter A. Gloor,et al.  Coolhunting: Chasing Down the Next Big Thing , 2007 .

[21]  Jörn Altmann,et al.  The structural evolution of the Web 2.0 service network , 2009, Online Inf. Rev..

[22]  Kibae Kim,et al.  The Impact of the Subgroup Structure on the Evolution of Networks: An Economic Model of Network Evolution , 2010, 2010 INFOCOM IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops.

[23]  Pierre Lévy,et al.  From social computing to reflexive collective intelligence: The IEML research program , 2010, Inf. Sci..