Advertisement

Investigations into Data Ecosystems: a systematic mapping study

  • Marcelo Iury S. OliveiraEmail author
  • Glória de Fátima Barros Lima
  • Bernadette Farias Lóscio
Survey Paper
  • 61 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Data Ecosystem Data consumption Data provision Systematic mapping 

Notes

References

  1. 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. 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 1–6Google Scholar
  3. 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 26–29Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arksey H, O’Malley L (2005) Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:19–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atkinson C, Kuhne T (2003) Model-driven development: a metamodeling foundation. IEEE Softw 20(5):36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 453–456Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barbosa L, Pham K, Silva C, Vieira MR, Freire J (2014) Structured open urban data: understanding the landscape. Big Data 2(3):144–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bourne PE, Lorsch JR, Green ED (2015) Perspective: sustaining the big-data ecosystem. Nature 527(7576):S16–S17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 81–84Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen M, Mao S, Liu Y (2014) Big data: a survey. Mob Netw Appl 19(2):171–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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):1476–1492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chun SA, Shulman S, Sandoval R, Hovy E (2010) Government 2.0: making connections between citizens, data and government. Inf Polity 15(1):1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chyi Lee C, Yang J (2000) Knowledge value chain. J Manag Dev 19(9):783–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Clegg CW (2000) Sociotechnical principles for system design. Appl Ergon 31(5):463–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Daniel EM, Wilson HN (2003) The role of dynamic capabilities in e-business transformation. Eur J Inf Syst 12(4):282–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    da Silva AR (2015) Model-driven engineering: a survey supported by the unified conceptual model. Comput Lang Syst Struct 43:139–155Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davies T (2011) Open data: infrastructures and ecosystems. In: Proceedings of web science conference, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dawes SS, Vidiasova L, Parkhimovich O (2016) Planning and designing open government data programs: an ecosystem approach. Gov Inf Q 33(1):15–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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):325–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 22.
    Fisher DM (2004) The business process maturity model: a practical approach for identifying opportunities for optimization. BPTrends, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  23. 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 87–118Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gama K, Lóscio BF (2014) Towards ecosystems based on open data as a service. In: ICEIS (2). pp 659–664Google Scholar
  25. 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. 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):165–172Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hanssen GK (2012) A longitudinal case study of an emerging software ecosystem: implications for practice and theory. J Syst Softw 85(7):1455–1466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hanssen GK, Dybå T (2012) Theoretical foundations of software ecosystems. In: IWSECO@ ICSOB. Citeseer, pp 6–17Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harrison TM, Pardo TA, Cook M (2012) Creating open government ecosystems: a research and development agenda. Future Internet 4(4):900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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 245Google Scholar
  31. 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. 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, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Immonen A, Palviainen M, Ovaska E (2014) Requirements of an open data based business ecosystem. IEEE Access 2:88–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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 29–38Google Scholar
  35. 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 34Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Jansen S, Cusumano MA, Brinkkemper S (2013) Software ecosystems: analyzing and managing business networks in the software industry. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29(4):258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kitchenham B, Charters S (2007) Guidelines for performing systematic literature reviews in software engineering. Tech. rep., School of Computer Science and Mathematics, Keele UniversityGoogle Scholar
  39. 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 207–210Google Scholar
  40. 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 173–180Google Scholar
  41. 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 351–360Google Scholar
  42. 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 40–49Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lindman J, Kinnari T, Rossi M (2016) Business roles in the emerging open-data ecosystem. IEEE Softw 33(5):54–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 61:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 1–5Google Scholar
  46. 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 researchGoogle Scholar
  47. 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 365–370Google Scholar
  48. 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 33–44Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Manikas K, Hansen KM (2013) Software ecosystems—a systematic literature review. J Syst Softw 86(5):1294–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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 335–336Google Scholar
  51. 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 202–209Google Scholar
  52. 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. 53.
    Munro R (2009) Actor-network theory. The SAGE handbook of power. Sage Publications Ltd, London, pp 125–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Nachira F, Dini P, Nicolai A (2007) A network of digital business ecosystems for Europe: roots, processes and perspectives. European Commission, Bruxelles, Introductory PaperGoogle Scholar
  55. 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 415–424Google Scholar
  56. 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. ACMGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Ordanini A, Pol A (2001) Infomediation and competitive advantage in B2B digital marketplaces. Eur Manag J 19(3):276–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Organization T (2014) Sustainability. www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Sustainability.htm. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  59. 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):24Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Petersen K, Feldt R, Mujtaba S, Mattsson M (2008) Systematic mapping studies in software engineering. In: EASE, vol 8. pp 68–77Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (2003) The external control of organizations: a resource dependence perspective. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  62. 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. 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. 64.
    Sandelowski M (2010) What’s in a name? qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health 33(1):77–84Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Shaw M (2011) Writing good software engineering research papers. In: 25th international conference on software engineering, 2003. Proceedings. IEEE, pp 726–736Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Shin DH (2016) Demystifying big data: anatomy of big data developmental process. Telecommun Policy 40(9):837–854CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Shin DH, Choi MJ (2015) Ecological views of big data: perspectives and issues. Telemat Inform 32(2):311–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Silver B, Richard B (2009) BPMN method and style, vol 2. Cody-Cassidy Press Aptos, AptosGoogle Scholar
  69. 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 358–378Google Scholar
  70. 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 1277–1286Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Sommerville I (2010) Software engineering. Pearson, LondonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Sooklal R, Papadopoulos T, Ojiako U (2011) Information systems development: a normalisation process theory perspective. Ind Manag Data Syst 111(8):1270–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Stol KJ, Fitzgerald B (2015) Theory-oriented software engineering. Sci Comput Program 101:79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Teece DJ (2010) Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):172–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 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. 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):68–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Welle Donker F, van Loenen B (2017) How to assess the success of the open data ecosystem? Int J Digit Earth 10(3):284–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Wikipedia (2001) Ecosystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem. Accessed 20 Jan 2018
  79. 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):724–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2014) Capability matrix for open data. In: Working conference on virtual enterprises. Springer, pp 498–509Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Zeleti FA, Ojo A (2016) Open data value capability architecture. Inf Syst Front 19(2):1–24Google Scholar
  82. 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. 83.
    Zott C, Amit R (2010) Business model design: an activity system perspective. Long Range Plan 43(2–3):216–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 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):250–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 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 115–135Google Scholar
  86. 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):156–172Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M, Davis C (2014) Innovation with open data: essential elements of open data ecosystems. Inf Polity 19(1, 2):17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 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):223–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 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 79–88Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for InformaticsFederal University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Academic Unit of Serra TalhadaFederal Rural University of PernambucoSerra TalhadaBrazil

Personalised recommendations