Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

SNA-based innovation trend analysis in software service networks

  • General Research
  • Published:
Electronic Markets Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Service networks can be considered to be open innovation systems. It has led to research on the structure of these networks, concentrating on the static network topology and its effect on innovation. However, the research misses the changes of network positions over time. In this paper, we examine the changes of nodes’ positions in a software service network. The software service network has been built from empirical data. In this network, a node represents a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) service and a link denotes a re-use of existing software services through a new service. Our results suggest that: first, software services undergo life cycles in their network positions; second, some software services achieve to hub position in their life cycle while others a core position; and third, an innovation trend appears at service category level not just by a single service. These results imply that innovation studies should not only consider static network positions and topologies but also trends of changing positions within the network.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albert, R., Jeong, H., & Barabási, A.-L. (1999). Diameter of the World-Wide Web. Nature, 401(6749), 130–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albert, R., & Barabási, A.-L. (2002). Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Review of Modern Physics, 74(1), 47–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baek, S., Kim, K., & Altmann, J. (2014). Role of Platform Providers in Service Networks: The Case of Salesforce.com AppExchange. Proceedings of the 16th IEEE Conference on Business Informatics (CBI 2014).

  • Barabási, A.-L. (2009). Scale-free networks: A decade and beyond. Science, 325(5939), 412–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basole, R. C., & Karla, J. (2011). On the evolution of mobile platform ecosystem structure and strategy. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 3(5), 313–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bass, F. M. (1969). A new product growth for model consumer durables. Management Science, 15(5), 215–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The Social Structure on Competition. Press: Harvard Univ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell-Kelly, M. (2009). Historical reflections: The rise, fall, and resurrection of software as a service. Communications of the ACM, 52(5), 28–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. W. (2011). The case for open services innovation: The commodity trap. California Management Review, 53(3), 5–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dojchinovski, M., Kuchar, J., Vitvar, T., & Zaremba, M. (2012). Personalized graph-based selection of Web APIs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7649, 34–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everard, A., & Henry, R. (2002). A social network analysis of interlocked directorates in electronic commerce firms. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 1(2), 225–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grewal, R., Lilien, G. L., & Mallapragada, G. (2006). Location, location, location: How network embeddedness affects project success in open source systems. Management Science, 52(7), 1043–1056.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gloor, P. A., Krauss, J., Nann, S., Fischbach, K., & Schoder, D. (2009). Web science 2.0: Identifying trends through semantic social network analysis. Proceedings of the 12th CSE, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Haines, M. N., & Rothenberger, M. A. (2010). How a service-oriented architecture may change the software development process. Communications of the ACM, 53(8), 135–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administration Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon, A. B. (2002). Brokering knowledge: Linking, learning and innovation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 24, 41–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, K., Fan, Y., & Tan, W. (2012). An empirical study of Programmable Web: A network analysis on a service-mashup system. Proceedings of the 19th ICWS, Honolulu.

  • Hwang, J., Altmann, J., & Kim, K. (2009). The structural evolution of the Web2.0 service network. Online Information Review, 33(6), 1040–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin, J. H., Park, S. C., & Pyon, C. U. (2011). Finding research trend of convergence technology based on Korean R&D network. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(12), 15159–15171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jovanovic, B., & MacDonald, G. M. (1994). The life cycle of a competitive industry. Journal of Political Economy, 102(2), 322–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., & Altmann, J. (2013). Evolution of the software-as-a-Service innovation system through collective intelligence. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 22, 1340006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, K., Hwang, J. & Altmann, J. (2011). Does Web2.0 foster innovation? An analysis of the openness of the Web2.0 service network. Proceedings of the 44th HICSS, Kauai, HI.

  • Kim, K., Altmann, J., & Hwang, J. (2010). The impact of the subgroup structure on the evolution of networks: An economic model of network evolution. Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Network Science for Communication Networks (NetSciCom2010), in conjunction with IEEE Infocom 2010, San Diego, USA.

  • Kim K. & Altmann, J. (2011). A complex network analysis of the weighted graph of the web2.0 service network. Proceedings of Collective Intelligence 2011 (COLLIN 2011).

  • Kim, K., Lee, W.-R. & Altmann, J. (2013). Patterns of Innovation in SaaS Networks: Trend Analysis of Node Centralities. Proceedings of the European Conference of Information Systems (ECIS2013).

  • Krackhardt, D., & Stern, R. N. (1980). Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51(2), 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuandykov, L., & Sokolov, M. (2010). Impact of social neighbourhood on diffusion of innovation S-curve. Decision Support Systems, 48(4), 531–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemmens, C.E.A.V. (2004). Innovation in Technology Alliance Networks. Edward Elgar.

  • Maglio, P. P., Srinivasan, S., Kreulen, J. T., & Spohrer, J. (2006). Service systems, service scientists, SSME, and Innovation. Communications of the ACM, 49(7), 81–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64(2), 025102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ogrinz, M. (2009). Mashup patterns: designs and examples for the modern enterprise. Addison-Wesley.

  • O’Reilly, T. (2007). What is Web2.0: design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications and Strategies, 65, 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Opsahl, T., Agneessens, F., & Skvoretz, J. (2010). Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths. Social Networks, 32(3), 245–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papazoglou, M. P., & Georgakopoulos, D. (2003). Introduction: Service-oriented computing. Communications of the ACM, 46(10), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peres, R., Muller, E., & Mahajan, V. (2010). Innovation diffusion and new product growth models: A critical review and research directions. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(2), 91–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5th ed.). NY: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, L. J., Bergeron, S. J. & Harris, T. M. (2007). Participating in the geospatial web: Collaborative mapping, social networks and participatory GIS. In Scharl, A. & Tochtermann, K. (Eds.), The geospatial web: How geobrowsers, social software and the web2.0 are shaping the network society (pp. 153–158). Springer, London.

  • Rousch, W. (2005). Killer maps. MIT Technology Review, http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/ 404705/killer-maps/ (Accessed on October 1, 2005).

  • Sasidharan, S., Santhanam, R., Brass, D. J., & Sambamurthy, V. (2011). The effects of social network structure on enterprise systems success: A longitudinal multilevel analysis. Information Systems Research, 23(3–1), 658–678.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A Handbook. UK: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shy, O. (2001). The Economics of Network Industries. Cambridge University Press.

  • Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intra-organizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valverde, S., & Solé, R. V. (2007). Self-organization versus hierarchy in open source social networks. Physical Review E, 76(4), 046118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watts, D. J., & Strogatz, S. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘Small-World’ networks. Nature, 393(6684), 440–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, M., & Gangadharan, G. R. (2010). Modeling the mashup ecosystem: Structure and growth. R&D Management, 40(1), 40–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was partly supported within the framework of the Basic Research Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF), which is funded by the Ministry of Education (grant number: 2013R1A1A2058665), and through the ITEA 2 Project 10,014 EASICLOUDS, which has been funded by the Korea Institute for Advancement of Technology (KIAT).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Kibae Kim, Wool-Rim Lee & Jörn Altmann

Authors
  1. Kibae Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wool-Rim Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jörn Altmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörn Altmann.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Hans-Dieter Zimmermann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, K., Lee, WR. & Altmann, J. SNA-based innovation trend analysis in software service networks. Electron Markets 25, 61–72 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-014-0164-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-014-0164-8

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation