We first develop a value ecosystem framework to model the SDP(Service Delivery Process) of web services. Since the web service has been evolving from the basic web architecture (e.g., traditional world wide web) to a prosuming platform based on virtualization technologies, the proposed framework of the value ecosystem focuses on capturing the key characteristics of SDP in each type of web services. Even though they share the basic elements such as PP(Platform Provider), CA(Customization Agency) and user group, the SDP in the traditional web services (so-called Web1.0 in this paper) is quite different from the most recent one (so-called Web2.0). In our value ecosystem, users are uniformly distributed over (0, ), where ��represents the variety level of users' preference on the web service level. PP and CA provide a standard level of web service(s) and prosuming service package, respectively. CA in Web1.0 presents a standard customization package() at flat rate c, whereas PP and CA collaborate and provide customization service with a usage-based scheme. We employ a multi-stage game model to analyze and compare the SDPs in Web1.0 and Web2.0. Our findings through analysis and numerical simulations are as follows. First, the user group is consecutively segmented, and the pattern of the segmentations varies across Web1.0 and Web2.0. The standardized service level s (from PP) is higher in Web1.0, whereas the amount of information created in the value ecosystem is bigger in Web2.0. This indicates the role of CA would be increasingly critical in Web2.0: in particular, for fulfilling the needs of prosuming and service customization.
[1]
Michael A. Cusumano,et al.
Cloud computing and SaaS as new computing platforms
,
2010,
CACM.
[2]
Kwok Kee Wei,et al.
Understanding Competing Web Application Platforms: An Extended Theory of Planned Behavior and its Relative Model
,
2011,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.
[3]
Christopher M. Anderson,et al.
The web is dead. Long live the Internet
,
2010
.
[4]
E Guizzo,et al.
5 technologies that will shape the web
,
2011,
IEEE Spectrum.
[5]
Guido Dedene,et al.
Governing Web 2.0
,
2011,
Commun. ACM.
[6]
Daniel Palacios-Marqués,et al.
Culture and purpose of Web 2.0 service adoption: a study in the USA, Korea and Spain
,
2011
.
[7]
Daniel Palacios-Marques,et al.
How to create information management capabilities through web 2.0
,
2011
.
[8]
Paul Hofmann,et al.
Cloud computing and electricity
,
2010,
Commun. ACM.
[9]
Fermín Galán Márquez,et al.
From infrastructure delivery to service management in clouds
,
2010,
Future Gener. Comput. Syst..
[10]
Tim O'Reilly,et al.
What is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software
,
2007
.
[11]
M. Sigala.
E-service quality and Web 2.0: expanding quality models to include customer participation and inter-customer support
,
2009
.
[12]
Randy H. Katz,et al.
A view of cloud computing
,
2010,
CACM.
[13]
Mary Kwak.
Web Sites Learn To Make Smarter Suggestions
,
2001
.