A Decentralized Business Ecosystem Model for Complex Products

  • Mirjana Radonjic-SimicEmail author
  • Dennis Pfisterer
Part of the Lecture Notes on Data Engineering and Communications Technologies book series (LNDECT, volume 21)


Consumers looking for complex products, demand highly personalized combinations of individual products and services to satisfy a particular need. While online marketplaces work well for individual products and services (or a predefined combination of them), they fall short in supporting complex products. The complexity of finding the optimal product/service combinations overstrains consumers and increases the transaction and coordination costs for such products. Another issue related to contemporary online markets is the increasing concentration around platform-based ecosystems such as, e.g., Amazon, Alibaba or eBay. That increases the “positional power” of these platforms, putting them in the position, where they can dictate the rules and control access directing towards de facto centralization of previously decentralized online markets. To address these issues, we propose a novel business ecosystem model for complex products—a model of a strictly decentralized exchange environment purposefully designed to support complex products in a way to lower transaction and coordination costs and alleviate the adverse effects of growing platform power. This chapter introduces our ecosystem model by describing its primary artifacts: (1) the ecosystem structure, and (2) the ecosystem architecture. The ecosystem structure maps the activities, actors, their roles, and the essential value creation pattern required to support different complex product scenarios. It integrates various actors (i.e., individuals, companies, communities, autonomous agents, and machines), and enables them to constitute and enrich their ecosystem without any central instance of control or governance (i.e., underlying platform). The ecosystem architecture describes the building blocks of our ecosystem model, and the relationships among them considered essential to support the ecosystem structure on the operational level. It is represented by a highly scalable and strictly decentralized software-system architecture that supports arbitrarily complex products given existing domain-knowledge, relevant for commercial transactions in a particular domain. The feasibility of the proposed software-system design is demonstrated based on a prototypical implementation and an evaluation use case scenario.


  1. 1.
    Cisco (2013) The Internet of everything for cities. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  2. 2.
    James JA (2016) Adverse selection. In: Augier M, Teece JD (eds) The palgrave encyclopedia of strategic management. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moazed A, Johnson NL (2016) Modern monopolies: what it takes to dominate the 21st century economy. St. Martin’s PressGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moore JF (1993) Predators and prey: a new ecology of competition. Harvard Bus Rev 71(3):75–86Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Iansiti M, Levien R (2004) The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business PressGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Peltoniemi M (2006) Preliminary theoretical framework for the study of business ecosystems. 8(1):10. Emergence Mahwah Lawrence ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Allee V (2000) Reconfiguring the value network. J Bus Strategy 21(4):36–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rong K et al (2015) Understanding business ecosystem using a 6C framework in internet-of-things-based sectors. Int J Prod Econ 159:41–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tian CH et al (2008) BEAM: a framework for business ecosystem analysis and modeling. IBM Syst J 47(1):101–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Turber S et al (2014) Designing business models in the era of internet of things. In: International conference on design science research in information systems. Springer, pp 17–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    El Sawy OA, Pereira F (2013) Business modelling in the dynamic digital space: an ecosystem approach. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Battistella C et al (2013) Methodology of business ecosystems network analysis: a case study in telecom Italia future centre. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 80(6):1194–1210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Westerlund M, Leminen S, Rajahonka M (2014) Designing business models for the internet of things. Technol Innov Manag Rev 4(7):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Adner R (2017) Ecosystem as structure: an actionable construct for strategy. J Manag 43(1):39–58Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peffers K et al (2007) A design science research methodology for information systems research. J Manag Inf Syst 24(3):45–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grefen P (2015) Beyond E-business: towards networked structures. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Radonjic-Simic M, Pfisterer D, Wolff F (2017) Analyzing an ecosystem for complex consumer services. In: ICServ2017—the 5th international conference on serviceology: lecture notes in computer science. Springer International PublishingCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pfisterer D, Radonjic-Simic M, Reichwald J (2016) Business model design and architecture for the internet of everything. J Sens Actuator Netw 5(2):7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Schewick B (2012) Internet architecture and innovation. MIT Press, p 21Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yannis Bakos J (1997) Reducing buyer search costs: implications for electronic marketplaces. Manag Sci 43(12):1676–1692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Eymann T (2001) Markets without makers—a framework for decentralized economic coordination in multiagent systems. Electronic commerce. Springer, pp 63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmees M (2003) Distributed digital commerce. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on electronic commerce. ACM, pp 131–137Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Serban C et al (2008) The concept of decentralized and secure electronic marketplace. Electron Commer Res 8(1–2):79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Xia Y, Li Q, Wang L (2010) Research on decentralized E-commerce architecture in P2P environment. In: 2010 international conference on electrical and control engineering (ICECE), pp 2929–2932. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hausheer D, Stiller B (2005) PeerMart: the technology for a distributed auction-based market for peer-to-peer services. In: 2005 IEEE international conference on communications, ICC 2005, vol 3. IEEE, pp 1583–1587Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Klems M et al (2018) Desema. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  27. 27.
    BitMarkets White Paper. BitMarkets. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  28. 28.
    OpenMarket. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  29. 29.
    Open Bazaar. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  30. 30.
    Searls D (2013) The intention economy: when customers take charge. Harvard Business PressGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    ProjectVRM. Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  32. 32.
    Kleedorfer F et al (2014) The case for the web of needs. In: 2014 IEEE 16th conference on business informatics (CBI), vol 1, pp 94–101. IEEEGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hitz M et al (2016) Generic UIs for requesting complex products within distributed market spaces in the internet of everything. In: Buccafurri F et al (eds) Proceedings of Availability, reliability, and security in information systems: IFIP WG 8.4, 8.9, TC 5 international cross-domain conference, CD-ARES 2016, and workshop on privacy aware machine learning for health data science, PAML 2016, Salzburg, Austria, 31 Aug–2 Sept 2016. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 29–44Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    W3C. RDF 1.1 Turtle. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  35. 35.
    X/Open Company Limited. Distributed transaction processing: the XA specification. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  36. 36.
    Mietz R et al (2013) A P2P semantic query framework for the internet of things. PIK Praxis der Informationsverarbeitung und Kommunikation 36(2):73–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Harris S, Seaborne A (2018) SPARQL 1.1 query language. W3C working draft. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  38. 38.
    WebRTC Project. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  39. 39.
    Stoica I et al (2001) Chord: a scalable peer-to-peer lookup service for internet applications. ACM SIGCOMM Comput Commun Rev 31(4):149–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Apache Software Foundation. Apache jena components. Accessed 4 Mar 2018
  41. 41.
    Xiong L, Liu L (2004) PeerTrust: supporting reputation-based trust for peer-to-peer electronic communities. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 16(7):843–857Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Baden-Wuerttemberg Cooperative State University MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Telematics, University of LübeckLübeckGermany

Personalised recommendations