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

  • Thaiana LimaEmail author
  • Cláudia Werner
  • Rodrigo Santos
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 370)


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.


Software ecosystems Architecture Survey research Reuse Information integration 



This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.


  1. 1.
    Albert, B.E., et al.: Software ecosystems governance to enable IT architecture based on software asset management. In: Proceedings of the 2013 7th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies (DEST) Complex Environment Engineering (CEE), Menlo Park, pp. 55–60 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Basili, V.R., et al.: The goal question metric approach. Encycl. Softw. Eng. 1, 528–532 (1994)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jansen, S., et al.: Managing software platforms and ecosystems. IEEE Softw. 36(3), 17–21 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosch, J.: Speed, data, and ecosystems: the future of software engineering. IEEE Softw. 33(1), 82–88 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Santos, R.P., Werner, C., Finkelstein, A.: Ecosystems effects on software-consuming organizations: an experience report on two observational studies. In: 2018 12th European Conference on Software Architecture: Companion Proceedings (ECSA), Madrid, pp. 23:1–23:7 (2018)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC 25000: ISO/IEC 25000: Systems and software engineering – Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) – Guide to SQuaRE. ISO (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jansen, S.: Measuring the health of open source software ecosystems: beyond the scope of project health. Inf. Softw. Technol. 56(11), 1508–1519 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lagerström, R., et al.: Visualizing and measuring software portfolio architectures: a flexibility analysis. J. Mod. Proj. Manag. 3(2), 14–121 (2014)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lima, T., et al.: A survey on socio-technical resources for software ecosystems. In: Proceedings of the ACM 7th International Conference on Management of Computational and Collective Intelligence in Digital Ecosystems (MEDES), Caraguatatuba, pp. 72–79 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lima, T.: SECO-AM: an approach for maintenance of IT architecture in software ecosystems. Computer Science and Systems Engineering Department COPPE/UFRJ – Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Master Dissertation (2018).
  11. 11.
    Manikas, K.: Revisiting software ecosystems research: a longitudinal literature study. J. Syst. Softw. 117, 84–103 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manikas, K., Hansen, K.M.: Software ecosystems a systematic literature review. J. Syst. Softw. 86(5), 1294–1306 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nulty, D.: The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assess. Eval. High. Educ. 33(3), 301–314 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ross, J.: Creating a strategic IT architecture competency: learning in stages. MIS Q. Executive 2(1), 31–43 (2003)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barbosa, O., Santos, R.P., Alves, C., Werner, C., Jansen, S.: A systematic mapping study on software ecosystems from a three-dimensional perspective. In: Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., Cusumano, M.A. (eds.) (Org.). Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, Cheltenham/UK & Northampton/USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 59–81 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Shafia, M.A., Rabadi, N.J., Babakhan, A.R.: The strategies and the factors that influence technology acquisition channels, case study: Iranian die–making industries. Int. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 29(1–2), 48–65 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Petersen, K., Vakkalanka, S., Kuzniarz, L.: Guidelines for conducting systematic mapping studies in software engineering: an update. Inf. Softw. Technol. 64(1), 1–8 (2015). Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer Science and Systems Engineering DepartmentCOPPE/UFRJ – Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Department of Applied InformaticsUNIRIO – Federal University of the State of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations