skip to main content
10.1145/2642803.2642811acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesecsawConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Reality of an Associate Model: Comparing Partner Activity in the Eclipse Ecosystem

Authors Info & Claims
Published:25 August 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Two determinants of software ecosystem health are productivity of and value creation by the actors in the ecosystem. While keystone players use partnership models to orchestrate actors, the relationship between the type of partnership and activity has not been studied. To address this gap, we have researched the partnership model of the Eclipse Ecosystem and the activity of different types of partners. We have used Eclipse Dash and GitHub to gather data about the activity of Eclipse partners. The results show that a higher level of membership is related to more activity. However, it is also observed that non-member companies are more active than associate members, which suggests that Eclipse can and should improve their partnership model by motivating associate members and incorporating active non-member companies. In addition, other software ecosystems could use these results and implications to improve their own partnership models.

References

  1. About the eclipse foundation, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Become an eclipse corporate sponsor, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Eclipse dash. 2014. http://projects.eclipse.org/projects/technology.dash.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Eclipse membership types. 2014.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. J. Bosch. From software product lines to software ecosystems. In Proceedings of the 13th IntâĂŹl Soft. Product Line Conf, pages 111--119, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. M. Ceccagnoli, C. Forman, P. Huang, and D. Wu. Cocreation of value in a platform ecosystem: The case of enterprise software. MIS quarterly, 36(1):263--290, 2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. E. den Hartigh, M. Tol, and W. Visscher. The health measurement of a business ecosystem. In Proceedings of the European Network on Chaos and Complexity Research and Management Practice Meeting, pages 1--39, 2006.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. M. Iansiti and R. Levien. Keystones and dominators: Framing the operational dynamics of business ecosystems. Boston, Estados Unidos, 2002.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. M. Iansiti and R. Levien. Keystones and dominators: Framing operating and technology strategy in a business ecosystem. Harvard Business School, Boston, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. S. Jansen, S. Brinkkemper, and A. Finkelstein. Business network management as a survival. Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, page 29, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. S. Jansen, A. Finkelstein, and S. Brinkkemper. A sense of community: A research agenda for software ecosystems. In Software Engineering-Companion Volume, 2009. ICSE-Companion 2009. 31st International Conference on, pages 187--190. IEEE, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. J. van Angeren, J. Kabbedijk, S. Jansen, and K. Popp. A survey of associate models used within large software ecosystems. In Proc. of the third WS on Soft. Ecosystems, pages 27--39. CEUR-WS, 2011.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. K. M. Viljainen, M. Framing Management Practices for Keystones in Platform Ecosystems. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. The Reality of an Associate Model: Comparing Partner Activity in the Eclipse Ecosystem

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Other conferences
              ECSAW '14: Proceedings of the 2014 European Conference on Software Architecture Workshops
              August 2014
              214 pages
              ISBN:9781450327787
              DOI:10.1145/2642803

              Copyright © 2014 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 25 August 2014

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed limited

              Acceptance Rates

              ECSAW '14 Paper Acceptance Rate29of43submissions,67%Overall Acceptance Rate80of120submissions,67%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader