Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Digital Business
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/digbus

A matter of definition: Criteria for digital ecosystems

Matthias Koch 1, *, Daniel Krohmer 1, *, Matthias Naab 2, Dominik Rost 2, Marcus Trapp 2
Fraunhofer IESE, Kaiserslautern, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Digital ecosystems like Airbnb or Uber have fundamentally changed their respective domains, and an increasing
Digital ecosystems number of organizations are now considering how they can benefit from the underlying concepts. While several
Digital ecosystem design examples of systems that are generally accepted as digital ecosystems exist in practice, there is no common
Digital ecosystem services
understanding yet of what exactly constitutes a digital ecosystem. This lack of a clear definition and under­
Digital platforms
Software engineering
standing substantially impedes any well-founded discussion, analysis, design, and establishment of digital
ecosystems.
Digital ecosystems are strongly driven by practice, and research is following in a descriptive and analytical
role. In search of a precise definition that matches the examples we see in practice, we analyzed the state of the
art of digital ecosystems and closely related terms, such as {platform, business, software} ecosystems as well as
the {platform, sharing} economy. While we found several common key properties in the literature, we identified
a lack of a clear definition and a common understanding of the term.
To address this problem, we propose a definition of digital ecosystems based on a set of well-defined criteria.
Our definition builds upon the traditional understanding of an economic service and extends it successively with
digital and ecosystem characteristics. The resulting model is precise and consistent, and matches the general
conception of digital ecosystems in practice. It allows clearly classifying systems as digital ecosystems as well as
reasoning about their core service and assets, which we demonstrate using Uber as a prominent example. With
this, our proposed model lays the foundation for the systematic development of specific digital ecosystem en­
gineering approaches.

1. Introduction
“Digital Ecosystems […] are straddling markets and blurring industry
boundaries”.
— (Accenture Technology Vision 2018)
“The industry landscape is going through an upheaval as digital ecosys­
tems take shape”.
— (Digital McKinsey Insights, Jan. 2018)
When we look at various whitepapers published by major consul­
tancies, we are in for yet another post-industrial revolution after the rise
of the Internet, namely that of digital ecosystems. Starting in the mid-
2000s, the services offered by eBay or Facebook quickly transformed
both our society and our economy. More recent examples such as Airbnb
and Uber further reinforce the ongoing trend. Digital ecosystems like
these are socio-technical systems (Kapoor et al., 2021). They are char­
acterized, on the one hand, by the collaboration of players (Sub­
ramaniam, Iyer, & Venkatraman, 2019), that is, the collaboration of an
asset owner and an asset consumer via a broker who does not own any of
these assets themselves, and, on the other hand, by a digital platform
enabling this collaboration (Hein et al., 2020).
Digital ecosystems are considered by different research disciplines
focusing on technical, business, legal, and social aspects of digital eco­
systems. The respective authors introduce a wide variety of terms to
discuss digital ecosystems, such as platform ecosystems, business ecosys­
tems, software ecosystems, platform economy, and sharing economy. At the
same time, the term digital ecosystem is—like the other terms—used in an
inflationary manner without precise definitions being provided, as
already highlighted by other authors as well (Kenney & Zysman, 2016a;
Schor & Cansoy, 2019). As our literature review in Section 2 indicates,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: matthias.koch@iese.fraunhofer.de (M. Koch), daniel.krohmer@iese.fraunhofer.de (D. Krohmer), matthias.naab@iese.fraunhofer.de (M. Naab),
dominik.rost@iese.fraunhofer.de (D. Rost), marcus.trapp@iese.fraunhofer.de (M. Trapp).
1
First authors.
2
Second authors.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2022.100027
Received 1 October 2021; Received in revised form 12 May 2022; Accepted 12 May 2022
Available online 18 May 2022
2666-9544/© 2022 Fraunhofer Institute for Experimental Software Engineering IESE. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M. Koch et al.
there is no common, established understanding of digital ecosystems
yet, leading to either overloaded or undefined terms. For example,
although authors and discussants may have a clear view of which tech
and Internet companies (and their services) provide digital ecosystems,
they often cannot explain why they actually form a digital ecosystem.
Additionally, we found definitional mismatches for digital ecosystems in
theory and practice: While researchers often refer to a wide variety of
scientific disciplines, such as biology, in order to grasp digital ecosys­
tems, the practical view is often rather driven by economics and engi­
neering. Furthermore, we address a phenomenon that we informally
refer to as everything-is-an-ecosystem effect. With this term, we describe
the problem that digital ecosystems are still so fuzzy that some authors
tend to label any arbitrary system as an ecosystem. Finally, we criticize
that digital ecosystems, despite containing a software product as their
main technical enabler, are not considered enough from a software en­
gineering perspective. As a result, numerous questions from a software
engineering perspective remain open, for example in digital ecosystem-
specific requirements engineering, architecture or information security.
As clearly shown by the problems mentioned above, and although
frequently addressed in research and industry for years, any discussion
on digital ecosystems is heavily constrained by the lack of a common
understanding. Sharing an understanding, however, is indispensable to
reflect on methods for designing digital ecosystems. Moreover, the lack
of a common understanding and common methods raises the risk of
failure when it comes to developing digital ecosystems in practice.
(Valdez-De-Leon, 2019) already highlighted the lack of methods for
digital ecosystem design.) The complexity and heterogeneity of digital
ecosystems with respect to the involved players indicate that they
deserve separate treatment from traditional software systems. The
absence of common definitions, however, hinders purposeful contem­
plation of digital ecosystems from the business, social, and software
engineering perspectives. Thus, our superordinate research question is:
How can digital ecosystems be defined in order to establish an inter­
disciplinary understanding? Answering this question results in imma­
nent recommendations for future digital ecosystem-related analysis and
design, which we will outline at the end of this paper.
The core contribution of this paper is the definition of a model of
digital ecosystems with criteria for assessing whether a given system is a
digital ecosystem or not. Our model relies on an extensive analysis of
related work. In our definition of this model of digital ecosystems, we do
not focus on the technical aspects—in particular, the platform—but on
the overall conceptual setup of digital ecosystems that allows generating
added value for the involved players, as typically observed in practice.
The establishment of both a common model and a common under­
standing in the digital ecosystem domain will form the baseline for any
subsequent attempts to engage in systematic digital ecosystem
engineering.
This work is structured as follows: In Section 2, we introduce a
detailed literature review in which we derive key properties and chal­
lenges of digital ecosystems. In Section 3, we propose the definition of a
digital ecosystem as the core contribution of this work. We show how
digital ecosystems inherit properties from traditional economic services.
We develop a model for a service and then systematically provide
criteria to extend it to an ecosystem service. We further explain the
transformation from an ecosystem service to a digital ecosystem service.
We show how one or more digital ecosystem services form a digital
ecosystem. In Section 4, we reflect on the achievements and limitations
of our model. Furthermore, we outline implications of our digital
ecosystem model and recommendations for future digital ecosystem-
related research using the example of Uber. Section 5 concludes the
paper.
2. Literature review
Our definition of a digital ecosystem aims to be compliant with the
scientific state of the art of digital ecosystem research. For this purpose,
2
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
we conducted a literature review to identify the key properties and
major challenges of digital ecosystem research. Fig. 1 depicts the indi­
vidual steps of our methodology for data retrieval.
2.1. Methodology
In general, our literature review is loosely based on Kitchenham’s
methodology (Kitchenham, Charters, Budgen, & Brereton, 2007).
However, we made slight adjustments in order to better address the
problem of disagreement on terminology in this research domain.
In the first iteration of our literature review, we collected publica­
tions with Google Scholar using the allintitle filter, followed by the term
digital ecosystem(s). Since a fundamental challenge in literature is
disagreement on common terminology, we repeated this pattern for
other prevalent terms that we assume to be closely related to digital
ecosystems: business ecosystem(s), (digital) platform ecosystem(s), software
ecosystem(s), platform economy, and sharing economy. In the remainder of
this work, we will collectively denote {digital, business, (digital) plat­
form, software} ecosystems as well as the {platform, sharing} economy
as digital ecosystem-likes. We will refer further to the set of keywords as
digital ecosystem-related keywords or digital ecosystem-related terms.
The second iteration aimed at identifying the most relevant authors
or author groups for each of the keywords mentioned above. We selected
the top 100 publications by overall citations for each keyword and
identified the authors who published a) the largest number of papers and
b) the most extensively cited papers. Subsequently, we formed cohesive
author groups. As a result, we obtained a literature dataset with a total of
18 author groups for six different keywords and a total of 94 publica­
tions. The author groups were formed according to the following
schema: For each of the six digital ecosystem-related keywords, we
screened which authors appeared most frequently within the top 100
list. If one or more authors or co-authors of a publication appeared in
another publication in the top 100 list as well, all authors and co-authors
of the two publications were joined to form a new author group. We
repeated this until we reached the end of the top 100 list.
In order to extract the key properties and pending challenges in
digital ecosystem-related research from this final literature set, we opted
for a reverse in-vivo coding strategy: We initially started with a random
paper from the literature set and extracted concise keywords (both
properties and challenges). We then searched for the selected keywords
and challenges in all other papers of the literature set as well. If at least
one other publication from another author group agreed on exactly this
keyword as well, it was considered a key property or challenge,
respectively. We repeated this process until all 94 publications had been
scanned (Manning, 2017).
In total, the use of our methodology resulted in the identification of
seven key properties KP1–KP7 for digital ecosystem-likes and four
challenges C1–C4 in digital ecosystem-related research.
2.2. Results
We found that digital ecosystem-likes are mostly covered by four
scientific disciplines: social, economic, engineering / computer, and
natural sciences. Within these disciplines, authors typically use their
own terminology, although numerous authors occasionally refer to
digital ecosystem-related terms from other disciplines as well. Fig. 2
shows our cohesive author groups, classified into their discipline.
Social sciences mainly cover the societal impact caused by the
sharing economy. This includes both macro-societal (e.g., political) and
socio-individual (e.g., psychological) perspectives. The economic disci­
pline focuses on the impact of novel business models arising from
M. Koch et al.
Fig. 1. The methodology of our literature review. We first collected different but similar digital ecosystem-related terms. Subsequently, we selected the top 100 most-
cited publications and formed essential author groups. From the resulting reduced literature set, we extracted the essential key properties and challenges using in
vivo coding.
Fig. 2. The use of terminology varies significantly within different domains.
Related works primarily consider digital ecosystem-likes from the perspective
of social, economic, engineering, and natural sciences.
business and platform ecosystems, or on how the platform economy
affects traditional business models. A well-known statement in this
context originates from (Parker, van Alstyne, & Jiang, 2016)§, who claim
that “platforms invert the firm”.3 This statement raises emerging new
platform-related business models to game changers for the global
economy, a subject that is widely discussed. Engineering and computer
sciences mainly address the technical infrastructure of software eco­
systems, such as development environments, interfaces, operating sys­
tems, and their interactions. Natural sciences typically motivate digital
ecosystems from biological archetypes. For example, digital ecosystems
are often considered the “digital counterpart to biological ecosystems”
3
We cite author groups that use the same terminology by listing them with
note symbols, e.g., (Moore, 2006) †, (Basole et al., 2015)†. The note symbols *, †,
‡ § ¶ #
, , , correspond to those in Table 1.
3
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
(Briscoe & de Wilde, 2006)#.
2.2.1. Key properties
This section addresses the key properties of digital ecosystem-likes
that resulted from our in vivo coding procedure. We found that there
are multiple key properties (KP1–KP7) of digital ecosystem-likes that
author groups from different disciplines agree on, which we will address
in the following. An overview of the key properties of different author
groups is given in Table 1. It should be mentioned that false negatives
are possible here, that is, an author might not mention a property in the
publications of our literature set, but might do so in other publications.
2.2.1.1. KP1–servitization. Digital ecosystem-likes establish business
models in which the main revenue stream no longer consists of the
production of a good that is sold to customers; rather, companies focus
on the provision of a combination of services and goods to their cus­
tomers. This view is almost universally shared by the authors in our
literature set. In (Cusumano, 2015)* and (Hein et al., 2019)§, this
transformation is named servitization, that is, digital ecosystem-like
companies shift away from goods-driven business models towards a
combination of services and goods. According to (Sundararajan, 2013)*,
this “reengineering of consumption is a natural consequence of the
ongoing consumerization”. (Kenney & Zysman, 2016a)‡ analyzed that
previously, “software [...] was embedded in things, ” whereas now
things, including services and physical objects, are “woven into
software-based network fabrics” (Bosch, 2016).¶ highlights that many
companies want to avoid capital-intensive items by shifting towards
services.
2.2.1.2. KP2–network effects. The success of digital ecosystem-likes is
largely driven by network effects. Network effects describe the increase
in value generated by an increasing user base. (Cusumano, 2015)* stated
that network effects lead to positive feedback loops and increase returns
to scale. (Rong et al., 2018)† see that “the network effect between supply
and demand sides is key to sustaining the platform business”. According
to (Hein et al., 2018)§, network effects are the primary drivers to “create
and capture value”. (Kenney, Bearson, & Zysman, 2019)‡ state that
network effects immediately affect winner-takes-all dynamics (cf.
winner-takes-all effect in KP4).
M. Koch et al. Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027

Table 1
Shared key properties of different author groups.
Digital Ecosystem-related Keyword * † ‡ § ¶ #

Author Group a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) o) p) q) r)

KP1–servitization ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – – – –
KP2–network effects ✓ – – – – ✓ – ✓ – ✓ ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – – –
KP3–shift of value-creation – – – ✓ – – ✓ ✓ – – ✓ ✓ – ✓ – – ✓ –
KP4–winner-takes-all effects ✓ – – ✓ – – – ✓ – – ✓ – ✓ – – – – –
KP5–openness – – – – ✓ ✓ – – – – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓ – ✓ ✓
KP6–collaboration – – – ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ ✓ ✓ – – ✓ ✓ – ✓
KP7–use of idle assets ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

* Sharing Economy y Business Ecosystem ‡ Platform Economy § Platform Ecosystem ¶ Software Ecosystem # Digital Ecosystem.
a) Cusumano b) Sundararajan c) Hawlitschek, Teubner d) Schor, Frenken e) Moore f) Rong, Shi g) Basole h) Kenney, Zysman i) Farrell, Greig j) Drahokoupil k) Hein,
Schreieck, Krcmar l) Parker, van Alstyne m) Bosch, Bosch-Sijtsema n) Jansen, Brinkkemper o) Manikas, Hansen p) dos Santos, Werner q) Briscoe, de Wilde r) Chang,
Khadeer, Dong.

2.2.1.3. KP3–shift of value creation. Digital ecosystem-likes are chang­
ing the way value is generated compared to traditional businesses, as
discussed, for example, by (Frenken & Schor, 2017)*. The main differ­
ence between traditional companies and digital ecosystem-likes is that
the latter tend to “utilize an ecosystem of autonomous agents to co-
create value”, as explained by (Hein et al., 2020)§. For instance, digi­
tal ecosystem-likes may generate value by connecting consumers and
providers using a shared platform (Jansen & Bloemendal, 2013)¶. Such
value creation is further enhanced as the number of users increases
(Kabbedijk & Jansen, 2011)¶ (cf. network effects in KP2). In (Parker et al.,
2016)§, it is highlighted that “value creation moves from inside the firm
to outside”.
efficient use of idle (or underutilized) assets than traditional business
models. Cusumano sees an expansion of markets by “renting access to
products that people used to buy” (Cusumano, 2015, 2017)*. (Sundar­
arajan, 2013)* holds the view that efficient distribution of goods in­
creases product variety and quality options within a digital ecosystem-
like system. (Hawlitschek, Teubner, & Weinhardt, 2016)* consider the
sharing economy as an umbrella term for collaborative consumption,
commercial sharing systems, and access-based consumption. This view
is also shared by (Schor & Cansoy, 2019)*, who even believe that the
term “collaborative consumption” is the original term for the sharing
economy. (Frenken, 2017a)* emphasizes the temporary nature of access
to underutilized assets.

2.2.1.4. KP4–winner-takes-all effect. Due to the strong growth and
flexibility of successful digital ecosystem-likes, they frequently domi­
nate whole market segments after exceeding a certain threshold, the so-
called winner-takes-all effect. Supporters of this view are, for example,
(Cusumano, 2015)*, (Frenken, 2017b)* as well as (Hein et al., 2020)§
and (Bosch, 2009)¶. However, the presumed potential for achieving
winner-takes-all effects within a business domain is often highly over­
estimated. After all, market-dominating digital ecosystem-likes are a
minority, with most being far less successful or failing over time
(Cusumano, 2017)*.
2.2.1.5. KP5–openness. Digital ecosystem-likes enable openness. The
term openness is understood here as facilitating the system’s accessibility
in order to enable the “use, development, and commercialization of a
technology” (Schreieck, Wiesche, & Krcmar, 2016)§. A frequently
addressed dilemma here is the choice of the appropriate balance be­
tween openness and restriction (Schreieck, Wiesche, & Krcmar, 2018)§.
However, the decision on (the degree of) openness significantly affects
the innovative strength of a digital ecosystem-like (Rong, Hu, Lin, Shi, &
Guo, 2015)†. In general, there is disagreement about how openness can
be assessed. (Rong, Lin, Shi, & Yu, 2013)† distinguish between open, less
open, and closed, while (Hein et al., 2018)† and (Schreieck et al., 2016)†
propose a classification into “public” and “private”. From a technical
point of view, the term “openness” may also relate to the ease of access
of the respective technology, such as the source code (Jansen, Finkel­
stein, & Brinkkemper, 2009; Manikas & Hansen, 2013)#.
2.2.1.6. KP6–collaboration. Digital ecosystem-likes facilitate collabo­
ration, as supported, for example, by (Frenken, 2017b; Schor & Cansoy,
2019; Schor & Fitzmaurice, 2015)*, or (Drahokoupil & Fabo, 2017)‡.
The degree and scope of collaboration may span industries, companies,
or organizations. An emerging question is to what extent competition,
collaboration, or a mixed model of both increase productivity in digital
ecosystem-likes (Basole et al., 2015)†, (Schreieck et al., 2016)§.
2.2.1.7. KP7–use of idle assets. Digital ecosystem-likes allow for more
2.2.2. Challenges
This section addresses the major challenges that resulted from our in
vivo coding procedure. Despite shared perceptions, the related work is
contradictory or may cause confusion from a holistic perspective
regarding many issues. Below, we will briefly review unresolved chal­
lenges (C1–C4) in digital ecosystem-related research.
2.2.2.1. C1–arbitrary terminology. The disagreement on a common ter­
minology within the group of digital ecosystem-likes causes problems
with consistent and acknowledged definitions. Various authors empha­
size the existence of an immense number of definitions, such as (Rong &
Shi, 2015)†, (Kenney & Zysman, 2019b)‡, (Hein et al., 2020; Schreieck
et al., 2016)§, (Dong & Hussain, 2007; Dong, Hussain, & Chang, 2007)#.
At the same time, authors criticize the lack of a commonly agreed defi­
nition, for example (Hawlitschek et al., 2016; Hawlitschek, Notheisen, &
Teubner, 2018)*, (Frenken & Schor, 2017)*. This leads to confusion and
hampers the establishment of a general understanding of digital
ecosystem-likes. Additionally, authors may be tempted to use arbitrary
definitions and general assumptions on digital ecosystem-likes that have
not yet been embraced by consensus. In contrast, authors frequently still
fail to provide a definition of the digital ecosystem-related term in
question. Although (Kenney & Zysman, 2016a, 2016b)‡ and (Parker
et al., 2016)§ provide a definition of the term platform, they do not
provide one of platform ecosystems. Similar findings apply to (Manikas &
Hansen, 2013)¶. In (Cusumano, 2015, 2017)*, for example, the authors
state neither a concrete definition of the term sharing economy nor of the
term asset, which they use as a key term in the context of the sharing
economy. The definitional issues mentioned above result in confusing
use of different digital ecosystem-related terms even within the same
author group. As an example, (Parker et al., 2016)§ mostly adopts the
term platform ecosystems, but occasionally refers to such systems as
digital ecosystems as well. This again conflicts with (Briscoe and Wilde
2006, 2008, 2009)#, who define digital ecosystems on a different level
of abstraction (cf. C4).
From an academic perspective, the lack of a common terminology
impedes any constructive discussion of digital ecosystem-likes, hinder­
ing scientific progress in this research field. From a business perspective,

4
M. Koch et al.
entrepreneurs cannot draw on an established vocabulary, for example
when writing business plans or applying for venture capital.
2.2.2.2. C2–arbitrary classification. A frequently observed issue in this
research domain is whether or not a specific business runs a {digital,
platform, business, software} ecosystem or whether it is a valid example
of the {platform, sharing} economy. Although these questions are
striking and would be difficult to answer even if uniform definitions
existed, they nevertheless illustrate a major problem that is common to
all the types of digital ecosystem-likes we have discussed so far: It re­
mains a challenging task to draw a clear boundary between what is and
what is not a digital ecosystem-like. On the one hand, this is certainly
caused by the fuzzy nature of the systems themselves, as they are highly
diverse and thus difficult to classify. On the other hand, the existing
definitions are still not strict enough. In some publications, Internet or
tech giants such as Microsoft, Google, or Amazon are broadly labeled as
digital ecosystem-likes ((Kenney & Zysman, 2019a)‡ and (Parker et al.,
2016)§), even though large parts of these corporations may function
much like regular “non-ecosystem” ones. What makes these tech com­
panies digital ecosystems needs to be discussed at a finer-grained level.
In most cases, only certain services offered by a business have digital
ecosystem-like characteristics. Without precise delineation, all Internet
or tech companies could easily be considered digital ecosystem-like. We
refer to this unfavorable effect as everything is an ecosystem, which is
particularly observed in the case of software ecosystems (Manikas,
2016)¶, which we use to highlight the negative effects of this unsolved
challenge. The understanding of software ecosystems is based on the
definition proposed by Jansen et al., who state that a “software
ecosystem is a set of businesses functioning as a unit and interacting with
a shared market for software and services, together with the relation­
ships among them. These relationships are frequently underpinned by a
common technological platform or market and operate through the
exchange of information, resources and artifacts” (Jansen et al., 2009)¶.
Despite being acknowledged by the scientific community through a vast
number of citations and references to this definition, the fuzziness of this
definition leads to the classification of a variety of things as ecosystems,
ranging from extensible software such as web browsers, integrated
development environments (IDEs), computer games, and operating
systems such as Android or Windows to programming languages such as
Python or Ruby to devices such as the iPhone to entire organizations
such as Microsoft, SAP, or any other arbitrary connected system or or­
ganization (Manikas, 2016)¶. One of the most frequently mentioned
examples of such an ecosystem is Eclipse, which is first and foremost an
IDE. In addition, Eclipse has an extension mechanism for plugins that are
brokered via a marketplace between providers and consumers. Without
a clear distinction of the key elements of a digital ecosystem, the scope of
an ecosystem can be misunderstood, obstructing the view on those as­
pects that differentiate it from traditional software.
We summarize this problem statement as follows: From an academic
perspective, arbitrary classification of digital ecosystem-likes leads to
blurred boundaries with related subject areas. This fuzziness makes
digital ecosystem-likes less tangible and therefore also difficult to un­
derstand from a didactic point of view. From an economic perspective, it
becomes more difficult for entrepreneurs to frame purposeful selling
propositions without knowing what is a digital ecosystem-like and what
is not.
2.2.2.3. C3–lack of software engineering treatment. In our opinion, cur­
rent digital ecosystem-related research lacks software engineering as­
pects. Platforms in the sense of (Kenney & Zysman, 2016a)‡ or (Parker
et al., 2016)§ have been extensively treated from an economic
perspective, as was made clear in the previous sections, but less effort
has been put into considering them from a software engineering
perspective (Senyo, Liu, & Effah, 2019). As a consequence, there has
been no comprehensive research yet on how platforms are actually built
5
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
systematically. Although digital ecosystem-specific properties, such as
network effects or platform openness, affect software engineering dis­
ciplines, such as requirements engineering and architectural design
(Villela et al. 2018), it remains unclear how they affect the disciplines
and activities. Moreover, neither guidelines nor best practices exist
regarding the most suitable architectural patterns for digital ecosystem
development. Finally, it remains unclear how all these design decisions
may affect non-functional requirements, for example, regarding security
and privacy.
By nature, a digital ecosystem is technically enabled by software.
Therefore, it should be addressed from a software engineering
perspective in both economic and scientific domains. Numerous tech­
nical issues have not been addressed yet, in particular regarding re­
quirements engineering, architecture, and security of digital ecosystem-
likes.
2.2.2.4. C4–definitional mismatch. Some terms are subject to a strong
definitional mismatch between theory and practice. This is especially
the case for the term digital ecosystems. (Briscoe & de Wilde, 2006,
2008)#, (Dong et al., 2007–2007; Dong & Hussain, 2007–2007)# assign
characteristics of biological ecosystems to digital ecosystems, such as
self-organization, sustainability, and robustness. In contrast, (Bygstad &
Dulsrud, 2020) and (Valdez-De-Leon, 2019), who are not part of our
initial literature set, consider digital ecosystems as a de-facto equivalent
to business ecosystems (Kenney & Zysman, 2016a)‡ and platform eco­
systems (Hein et al., 2020)§, (Parker et al., 2016)§. Business and platform
ecosystems again share few, if any, aspects with biological ecosystems.
For instance, they are typically not associated with self-organization or
robustness. It remains unclear whether and how this definitional
mismatch can be resolved. In addition, it is necessary to clarify whether
there may be an abstracted definition that is compatible with both
views.
The fact that there is no precise definition of digital ecosystem-likes
means that different scientific understandings of the term continue to
proliferate. It is therefore urgent to establish a unified understanding in
order to provide a solid foundation for subsequent business activities.
3. The definition of a digital ecosystem
In this section, we introduce the definition of a digital ecosystem.
Our overall approach is depicted in Fig. 3 and shows the methodology
for providing the definition of a digital ecosystem.
We understand digital ecosystems as being a) digital in terms of the
infrastructure they are built upon and b) ecosystems in terms of how they
are organized. Therefore, the term digital ecosystem is generic enough to
adequately describe the characteristics we have discussed so far. At the
same time, the term is not too generic for arbitrary systems to fall under
its interpretation.
Additionally, we aim to resolve the definitional mismatch (cf. C4)
regarding the understanding of digital ecosystems in practice. The au­
thors of (Briscoe & de Wilde, 2006, 2008)#, (Dong et al., 2007; Dong &
Hussain, 2007)# consider digital ecosystems from a naturalistic
perspective. However, in our opinion, in practice, digital ecosystems are
thematically more closely related to business ecosystems, platform
ecosystems, and the platform economy, as covered in economic disci­
plines. This view is shared by authors such as (Bygstad & Dulsrud, 2020;
Valdez-De-Leon, 2019). Additionally, to some extent, software ecosys­
tems from engineering disciplines are related to digital ecosystems as
well. Since our purpose is to formalize observations from the field, we
resort to the practical understanding of digital ecosystems.
We position this work between the economic and the engineering
disciplines, with a clear focus on applying software engineering princi­
ples for the design of digital ecosystems.
A digital ecosystem fosters collaboration among players by building
on network effects achieved by connecting consumers and providers of
M. Koch et al.
Fig. 3. The overall approach for the definition of a digital ecosystem in this work.
assets. Besides a shared (digital) platform, collaboration forms an inte­
gral part of a digital ecosystem. Therefore, we further investigate the
collaboration aspect in this section. To this end—and in accordance with
the property of servitization—we start from a service as a general form of
collaboration (B-1). Using the notion of a service, we then derive the key
concepts behind an ecosystem service (B–2) as well as behind a digital
service (B–3), thus laying the foundation for the definition of a digital
ecosystem service (B–4). After each step in this definition chain, we
derive essential criteria for both a digital service (DS1) and an ecosystem
service (ES1–ES6). Finally, based on the digital ecosystem service, we
derive the definition of a digital ecosystem (B–5) and thus provide the
criteria for building a digital ecosystem (DE1–DE3). Our definition is
then fed back to the results from our literature review to address the key
properties (KP1–KP7) as well as the challenges (C1–C4). Finally, we
conclude with recommendations for future digital ecosystem research
(R1–R3).
3.1. From service to ecosystem service
The term service is used in manifold ways. Especially in the IT
domain, a service is frequently perceived as a software functionality.
However, in this section, we purely focus on services in an economic
sense. In the economics discipline, a service is characterized by eco­
nomic activities offered by one party to another (Kotler & Keller, 2016;
Wirtz & Lovelock, 2016). From this definition, we extract three main
elements: one player providing a service, one player consuming a ser­
vice, and the activities related to the provisioning of the service. Ex­
amples of this type of service range from a hairdresser cutting the hair of
a customer or a taxi driver driving a passenger to a desired location to a
web designer creating a website for a business client.
3.1.1. Model for a (traditional) service
To make the relationships of the players involved in a service more
explicit, Fig. 4 shows a model of a service with additional elements,
which we will define below. The service provider is a natural or legal
entity that provides the service to a service consumer by offering certain
activities on behalf of the service consumer. A service consumer is another
natural or legal entity receiving the desired results or benefits from the
service provider. The activities performed by the service provider for the
service consumer may comprise anything that yields economic value for
Fig. 4. Structural model of a (traditional) service.
6
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
the service consumer. The service then consists of these activities that
characterize the relationship between a service provider and any num­
ber of service consumers. For the purpose of performing certain activ­
ities in the service, the service provider is responsible for defining and
operating a platform. A platform is an infrastructure that enables the
service. This can be a physical infrastructure, such as the room with the
equipment where a hairdresser styles their clients, the physical shop in
which customers buy products from a vendor, a taxi cab, or a digital
infrastructure, such as a digital web shop, that has the same purpose as a
physical infrastructure, namely, to display articles and handle the pur­
chasing process. The responsibility of the service provider includes the
initial setup of the infrastructure and its continuous operation. However,
a service provider may outsource parts of the responsibility to other
organizations. Finally, we introduce the role of a support provider. A
support provider is a natural or legal entity that optionally takes part in
the service by taking over certain tasks in service provision. For instance,
a package delivery service typically supports the selling of goods in an
online sales service.
Besides the depicted relationships between the players in a service,
there are contractual relationships between them to legally frame their
activities in a service. These relationships are of utmost importance
when defining a service, which is why in practice they need to be defined
carefully. However, for the sake of keeping the model and its graphical
representation understandable, we omit the explicit depiction of
contractual relationships as well as other exchanges, such as money or
information flows, that happen in conjunction with the performance of
activities in the service.
In addition to this structural perspective on a service, we take a
deeper look at the activities performed during service provision. As
depicted in Fig. 5, an initial activity in any service is the onboarding of a
service consumer. The service provider is responsible for the onboarding
of a service consumer, either by directly guiding a service consumer to
the service or by providing the means a service consumer needs to get
access to the service. In physical services, this can include guiding the
client to the hairdressing chair or—in the case of a self-service depart­
ment store—providing the facilities for customers to buy products; in
digital services, an example of handling the onboarding of service con­
sumers is the provision of and direction to a web page for accessing the
service. Onboarding can imply the establishment of a legal relationship
between the two players through a contract entered between the service
provider and the consumers with respect to the service.
Once the onboarding of a service consumer is completed, the service
provider is responsible for performing the core service activity, that is,
the activity that generates the economic value, such as cutting hair or
selling a good. After completion of the core service activity, an addi­
tional fulfillment may be necessary, especially in sales services. Fulfill­
ment includes any activities that happen after the core service activity. It
is mainly relevant for physical goods, such as a service consumer picking
up the articles they bought in a warehouse or a support provider
delivering the articles to the service consumer. Fulfillment is also
M. Koch et al. Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027

asset providers and consumers are specific instances of service consumers

as defined in the model for a traditional service because they both
consume the service of brokering. In the context of software ecosystems,
these are often referred to as niche players (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). We
chose names for the roles that describe their activities more precisely.
The service asset itself is not part of the ecosystem service, since the
ecosystem service only defines the activities of the players, similar to
traditional services. Fig. 6 depicts the structural model of an ecosystem
Fig. 5. Activities in a service from a runtime perspective.
service.
Examples of ecosystem services according to this model can be found
necessary for digital goods, for example, the service provider granting
in the physical as well as in the digital world: At a flea market, private
the service consumer access to digital media such as songs or movies. In
persons act as service asset providers (sellers) and consumers (buyers),
general, any role can be responsible for the physical or digital fulfill­
with the service assets being second-hand goods. The service asset
ment. The service provider who defines the overall process also defines
broker typically is a community of people or a local authority that or­
these responsibilities for the fulfillment for the concrete service.
ganizes a physical area as a platform to broker the service assets. The
The platform enables different steps of the process, as depicted in
online auction service of eBay works according to the same principles
Fig. 5. While the onboarding of service consumers and the provision of
using a digital infrastructure as its platform.
the core service activity are completely enabled by the platform, the
As with a traditional service, our model omits further relations be­
fulfillment may be partially outside the scope of the platform. For
tween players, such as contractual relationships, and exchanges such as
example, a delivery service acting as the support provider for the service
money or information flows, in order to keep the model and its graphical
might take over the transportation of goods without any connection to
representation understandable.
the physical or digital infrastructures of the service.
The activities and responsibilities in an ecosystem service are related
to those in a traditional service but contain variances, which we will
3.1.2. Model for an ecosystem service
discuss in the following. As depicted in Fig. 7, the responsibilities of the
Before discussing the composite term of an ecosystem service, we
service provider are now taken over by the service asset broker as the
will highlight the origins of the term ecosystem, which can be traced back
more specific role. Similarly, the onboarding of service consumers is
to the 1930s when botanists Clapham and Tansley searched for a word to
split into the onboarding of service asset providers and consumers.
“denote the physical and biological components of an environment
Typically, this activity is associated with the establishment of contrac­
considered in relation to each other as a unit” (Willis, 1997). In the
tual relationships between brokers and providers or consumers,
realm of biology and ecology, the term evolved further, considering
respectively. The onboarding phase contains one additional activity,
relationships between ecosystems (Lindeman, 1991), and introducing
namely the service asset placement performed by the service asset
the roles of producers and consumers (Odum & Barrett, 2005). In the
providers. This activity consists of making service assets available for
1960s, the term ecosystem was used to describe “the structure and
subsequent service asset matching.
function of levels of organization beyond that of the individual and
Service asset matching is a concrete instance of the core service ac­
species” (Odum, 1964). Following this path, ecologists define an
tivity in a traditional service. This activity aims at linking consumers
ecosystem as “a unit comprising a community (or communities) of or­
with providers and their service assets, as introduced in (Drahokoupil &
ganisms and their physical and chemical environment, at any scale,
Fabo, 2017; Drahokoupil & Piasna, 2017)‡. In conjunction with service
desirably specified, in which there are continuous fluxes of matter and
asset matching, contractual relationships between the involved play­
energy in an interactive open system” (Willis, 1997). Key elements in
ers—i.e., broker, providers, and consumers—can be established to le­
this definition are the existence of defined communities with specific
gally regulate the transfer of the corresponding service asset. After
roles, the environment in which they are, and the exchanges of certain
service asset matching, fulfillment takes place in the same way as with
matters between them. Additionally, the definition implies the openness
traditional services, with one exception: In the case of physical fulfill­
for new communities to join the ecosystem. Having these key concepts of
ment, such as the delivery of goods, the service asset broker in most
ecosystems in mind, the term has been applied to other domains such as
cases does not take on this responsibility, since an ecosystem service
business and software (Messerschmitt & Szyperski, 2003; Moore, 1996).
relies on network effects as one of its key properties (cf. KP2). The
By combining the notion of the previously introduced arbitrary ser­
associated growth on both sides of the market implies that the service
vice (referred to as traditional service from now on) with the idea of an
asset broker needs to scale well. Thus, the broker typically outsources
ecosystem, we introduce an ecosystem service. This differs from a tradi­
the physical fulfillment to avoid the responsibility for time-consuming
tional service mainly in terms of the involved players and their activities.
and costly physical fulfillment, which limits the potential for scaling.
In an ecosystem service, players with complementarities, that is, pro­
This is the case unless the broker achieves a high degree of automation to
viders and consumers of assets, participate (Jacobides, Cennamo, &
ensure scalability. This does not apply to digital fulfillment, since this
Gawer, 2018) and form relationships around the exchange of values
activity can be completely automated through a digital platform; thus, it
(Adner, 2017), making use of the ecosystem’s openness (cf. KP5). We
will characterize this relationship in detail in this section.
To describe the structure of an ecosystem service, we start with the
key value that is exchanged between players and refer to it as service
asset. A service asset is an arbitrary material or immaterial good
considered to be valuable by both service asset providers and con­
sumers. Both of these are natural or legal entities that provide or
consume a service asset, respectively. The ecosystem service facilitates the
transfer of service assets, that is, their provision and consumption, by
brokering service assets between their providers and consumers. To
reflect this specific responsibility of the ecosystem service provider, we
call this role service asset broker in the context of an ecosystem service.
This role maps to the keystone player, which is frequently used to express
a dominant role in software ecosystems (Iansiti & Levien, 2004). Service
Fig. 6. Structural model of an ecosystem service.

7
M. Koch et al.
Fig. 7. Activities in an ecosystem service from a runtime perspective.
may remain in the responsibility of the broker. The platform is involved
in the ecosystem service in the same way as in a traditional service.
3.2. Defining a digital ecosystem service
So far, digitality did not play any exposed role in our model of a
traditional service or an ecosystem service. In this section, we contrast
not only (traditional) services and ecosystem services, but also their
physical and digital variants to ultimately derive criteria for digital
ecosystem services. To this end, we differentiate between four types of
services: physical services, physical ecosystem services, digital services,
and digital ecosystem services. For each type, we present characteristics
that distinguish the four service types from each other. We consider the
relations between the involved players, the platform as an enabler of the
service, and process aspects of activities and responsibilities in tradi­
tional services and ecosystem services.
3.2.1. Physical, digital and ecosystem services
Physical services like the ones above are characterized by the
following relations: The service provider performs activities for service
consumers. Additionally, the service provider must not be the only
service consumer. While the first characteristic describes the key
element of the service, the second one emphasizes the importance of
having two separate players involved in a service. This means that
players performing something for themselves are not providing a
service.
Furthermore, a physical service is characterized by the following
process aspects, as directly derived from the activities and re­
sponsibilities: First, the service provider is responsible for enabling the
onboarding of service consumers. Second, the service provider performs
the core service activity. Finally, the fulfillment is either performed by
the service provider, by service consumers, or by support providers. The
responsibility for enabling the onboarding of service consumers implies
that the service provider actually onboards consumers or provides
means for consumers to onboard themselves. On the other hand, the
responsibility for performing the core service activity is invariably
assigned to the service provider.
Additionally, as the last characteristic, the physical service uses a
physical platform as an enabler for the core service activity. This means
that without a physical platform, the performance of the core service
activity is not possible, which implies that the core service activity is a
physical activity, in contrast to the digital activity discussed later.
In Section 3.1.2, we described the derivation of the roles in an
ecosystem service from the corresponding roles in a traditional service.
This derivation is applicable to the first set of criteria in the physical
service, where service provider and service consumer are replaced by
asset broker, asset provider, and asset consumer. Additionally, the
ecosystem service does not contain an arbitrary core service activity, but
a more specific brokering activity. Combining these two differences
between the two types of service yields the following criteria: First, the
asset broker brokers an asset between asset providers and consumers (cf.
ES1 in Section 3.2.2). Second, the broker must be neither the only asset
provider nor the only asset consumer (cf. ES6). As with a physical ser­
vice, the first criterion represents the relationships as depicted in the
8
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
model of the ecosystem service. The second criterion indicates the need
for additional asset consumers and providers besides the asset broker.
However, an asset broker may take the role of an asset provider or an
asset consumer in individual transfers of an asset. For example, the
organizer of a flea market (i.e., the broker) may trade goods, but it is
important that the organizer is not the only player doing so.
Furthermore, a physical ecosystem service is characterized by the
following process aspects, which reflect the activities and re­
sponsibilities of the physical service model with the adaptations already
discussed above, namely the introduction of service asset placement,
service asset matching, and physical fulfillment by roles other than the
broker: First, the asset broker is responsible for arranging the
onboarding of asset providers and consumers (cf. ES2). As a new process
element, the asset providers are responsible for the placement of service
assets (cf. ES3). Furthermore, the asset broker is responsible for the
matching of an asset provider with a consumer regarding an asset (cf.
ES4). Finally, fulfillment is performed by any of the involved players. In
practice, the physical fulfillment is rarely performed by the service asset
broker since it limits the potential for scaling (cf. ES5).
The physical platform as an enabler for the physical ecosystem ser­
vice remains the same as for the physical service, except that it enables
service asset matching as its specific core service activity. That is,
without a physical platform, the physical activity of service asset
matching is not possible.
A digital service follows the same criteria in terms of relationships and
process aspects as a physical service, which is why these criteria are not
repeated here. However, there is a key difference that distinguishes a
digital service from a physical service: A digital platform enables the
core service activity (cf. DS1 in Section 3.2.2). This implies that the
digital execution of the core service activity is not possible without the
digital platform. The selling of self-produced goods such as paintings in a
web shop is an example of a digital service. This service relies on the
availability of a digital platform.
3.2.2. Digital ecosystem service criteria
Finally, to summarize the derivation of criteria with respect to the
digitality and ecosystem aspects of a service, the digital ecosystem service
is characterized by the combination of the characteristics of a physical
ecosystem service and a digital service. The digital service criterion is
derived from the transformation of a physical (traditional / ecosystem)
service into a digital (traditional / ecosystem) service:
Digital Service Criterion
DS1. The digital platform enables the digital core service activity.
If a (traditional or ecosystem) service satisfies DS1, we call it a digital
(traditional or ecosystem) service. Applied to an ecosystem service, this
means that the core service activity, namely service asset matching, is a
purely digital activity that is not possible in this way without the digital
platform.
The following ecosystem service criteria are derived from the trans­
formation of a (traditional) service into a (physical or digital) ecosystem
service:
Ecosystem Service Criteria
There is a service asset broker who brokers service assets between service
ES1.
asset providers and service asset consumers.
The service asset broker is responsible for arranging the onboarding of service
ES2.
asset providers and service asset consumers.
ES3. Service asset providers are responsible for the placement of service assets.
ES4. The service asset broker is responsible for service asset matching.
The service asset broker is responsible for enabling physical or digital
ES5.
fulfillment. **
The service asset broker must be neither the only service asset provider nor
ES6.
the only service asset consumer.
M. Koch et al.
**As discussed in the context of a physical ecosystem service, in a
digital ecosystem service the broker typically does not perform the
physical fulfillment either, for reasons of scalability. Instead, service
asset providers, consumers, or support providers perform the fulfillment.
In the case of digital fulfillment, a digital platform can perform the
fulfillment, meaning fulfillment may remain in the responsibility of the
broker.
If a traditional service satisfies ES1–ES6, we call it an ecosystem
service; it does not matter whether the platform is physical or digital,
that is, whether service asset matching is performed physically or
digitally.
Combining both groups of criteria, as depicted in Fig. 8, yields the
following model: If a service satisfies DS1 as well as ES1–ES6, we call it a
digital ecosystem service. Common examples are eBay’s online auctioning
service, which brokers goods from private sellers to private buyers;
Airbnb’s lodging service, which brokers private accommodations
offered by hosts to travelers; or Spotify, which brokers music between
artists and listeners. All these examples comprise the three roles of an
ecosystem service and include the core service activity of service asset
matching performed by a service asset broker, while the brokering ac­
tivity is performed purely digitally using a digital platform.
3.3. Defining a digital ecosystem
Based on the definition of a digital ecosystem service, we define a
digital ecosystem. A digital ecosystem consists of one or more digital
ecosystem services that fulfill the criteria DS1 and ES1–ES6. Addition­
ally, the digital ecosystem contains all the other elements discussed
above, namely service assets, the digital platform, the ecosystem roles
service asset broker, service asset providers, service asset consumers,
and potential support providers. In the case of a digital ecosystem ser­
vice, we call the platform a digital ecosystem platform. An example would
be Airbnb’s lodging service. According to the criteria, we confirm that the
lodging service is a digital ecosystem service, involving Airbnb as a
service asset broker for the service asset accommodation, private owners
of accommodations as service asset providers, travelers as service asset
consumers, payment providers such as PayPal as example support pro­
viders, and the frontend and backend systems of Airbnb as the digital
ecosystem platform for the digital ecosystem service.
In practice, digital ecosystem services can function in conjunction
with other digital ecosystem services provided by the same service
provider, who acts as the service asset broker in each digital ecosystem
service. For instance, Airbnb does not only offer the digital ecosystem
service lodging but also the digital ecosystem service experiences, in
which activities such as city tours are offered and consumed by local
guides and travelers. Through the exchange of information between
these two digital ecosystem services, that is, the information about when
travelers are staying in which locations and potential experiences they
may be interested in, better recommendations can be made by either of
the digital ecosystem services. To reflect such combinations of digital
ecosystem services, we derive the following criteria for digital ecosystem
services belonging to the same digital ecosystem:
Digital Ecosystem Criteria
DE1. In a digital ecosystem, there is at least one digital ecosystem service.
DE2. Digital ecosystem services are provided by the same service asset broker.
Digital ecosystem services mutually exchange data. This enables
DE3. functionality for shared service asset providers or service asset consumers
that would not exist without the exchange.
If multiple digital ecosystem services meet the criteria DE1–DE3, we
consider these services to be part of the same digital ecosystem. The
exchange of data between the digital ecosystem services typically pro­
motes innovative functionalities for service asset providers or service
asset consumers. For players in multiple digital ecosystem services of the
same digital ecosystem, the exchange provides an opportunity to create
9
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
Fig. 8. Overview of digital and physical (ecosystem) services.
new added values that can only be achieved in this way. For example,
the digital ecosystem services Amazon Kindle and Amazon Audible ex­
change information about reading and listening progress such that
readers or listeners can continue consuming the same e-book or audio­
book at the exact position where they stopped in the other digital
ecosystem service.
As demanded by DE2, the role of the service asset broker is taken on
by the same organization, Amazon. Here, the criterion considers the
organization as a whole rather than sub-divisions of an organization,
even if Kindle and Audible are provided by separate business units
within Amazon. The provision of digital ecosystem services by the same
service asset broker facilitates the smooth integration and exchange of
data of the corresponding digital ecosystem services.
Usually, each digital ecosystem service in a digital ecosystem still
requires its individual digital ecosystem platform to enable the respec­
tive functionalities of the specific digital ecosystem services. However, a
shared technical infrastructure may be used when perceived as suitable
by the service asset broker, for example, to more efficiently exchange
data or to ease the use of the digital ecosystem services through a
common login for users of multiple services. Fig. 9 illustrates the inte­
gration of two digital ecosystem services into one digital ecosystem. The
number of digital ecosystem services is not limited. Amazon, for
instance, offers multiple digital ecosystem services that exchange data
such that users receive benefits.
Our definition of a digital ecosystem implies that services that do not
meet the criteria of digital ecosystem services are not part of the digital
ecosystem, even if they are digital services provided by the same orga­
nization and even if they share the ecosystem’s technical infrastructure.
While the presented criteria support the classification of systems as
digital ecosystems, we additionally supplement these criteria with a
definition of a digital ecosystem and its relevant related terms in textual
form. This encapsulates the understanding of a digital ecosystem in a
condensed and citable manner:
A digital ecosystem is a socio-technical system connecting multiple,
typically independent providers and consumers of assets for their mutual
benefit. A digital ecosystem is based on the provision of digital ecosystem
services via digital platforms that enable scaling and the exploitation of
positive network effects. A digital ecosystem service is characterized by a
brokering activity that enables the exchange of assets between their providers
and consumers. Typically, asset providers offer assets over a digital platform
that brokers these assets to asset consumers. An asset broker aims to increase
the transaction rate over the marketplace and thus facilitates the harmonized
exchange of assets, carrying the responsibility of onboarding the participants,
matching assets between them, and enabling physical or digital fulfillment. A
digital platform is a software system that forms the technical core of a digital
ecosystem, is directly used by providers and consumers via APIs or UIs—such
as a digital marketplace—and facilitates the matching of a provider and a
consumer in relation to an asset within a digital ecosystem service.
4. Discussion
In this section, we will discuss the definition of the term digital
ecosystem presented above. This includes critically examining the
M. Koch et al.
Fig. 9. Digital ecosystem consisting of multiple digital ecosystem services in
structural view.
limitations of such a definition as well as highlighting the benefits and
potentials for future work on digital ecosystems that are enabled by the
proposed delineation of digital ecosystems.
4.1. Achievements and limits of this work
Specifying the criteria for a digital ecosystem service implies
rigorous weighting of which services to include and which to exclude.
With our proposal for criteria, we aim to allow making a clear distinction
between the different types of services, from traditional physical ser­
vices to digital ecosystem services and digital ecosystems. The definition
of the criteria for a digital ecosystem (service) retains the key properties
that we derived from the literature on {platform, business, software}
ecosystems and {platform, sharing} economy as presented in Section 2:
The shift from purely goods-driven business models towards a combi­
nation of services and goods or even purely service-based business
models (cf. KP1) is directly reflected by our understanding of a digital
ecosystem’s main business as providing brokering between providers
and consumers of assets, which clearly is a service rather than a goods-
based business model. This brokering relies on the existence of two
parties, with both parties benefiting from growth on both sides, i.e.,
more demand leads to more offers and vice versa. Thus, according to our
definition, digital ecosystems reflect the property of network effects (cf.
KP2). The focus on brokering as the central element in a digital
ecosystem service is a concrete manifestation of the shift of value cre­
ation (cf. KP3). Furthermore, brokering in conjunction with the
observed network effects allows achieving the winner-takes-all effect
(cf. KP4). The definition of a digital ecosystem service prescribes
openness (cf. KP5) by requiring asset providers and asset consumers
beyond the asset broker itself. This means that a minimum degree of
openness is required for an ecosystem service to be considered as such.
The key property of collaboration in a digital ecosystem (cf. KP6) is
reflected only indirectly in the criteria, as besides the brokering of assets
provided by one party and consumed by another, the definition neither
includes nor excludes additional collaboration among participants in the
digital ecosystem. Similarly, the use of idle assets (cf. KP7) is not
explicitly required in the criteria defining a digital ecosystem service,
since no limitations are placed on the assets themselves. This implies
that idle assets are potential assets to be brokered in such a service.
At the same time, the criteria through which we define a digital
ecosystem (service) contribute to solving the challenges we observed
when analyzing the literature in the field, which we reported in Section
2. The usage of various terms in the literature with and without precise
definitions to ultimately describe similar, but not necessarily the same
phenomena, makes joint research on this topic difficult. We address the
10
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
challenge of arbitrary terminology (cf. C1) by clearly defining what we
understand by a digital ecosystem. By using criteria as a vehicle for
defining the terms that we use, we immediately address the challenge of
arbitrary classifications (cf. C2), since any digital ecosystem candidates
can be checked against the criteria to determine whether they comply
with them. To illustrate how to do this checking, we provide the list of
digital ecosystem candidates that we used to derive and validate the
criteria, along with our assessment, online.4 The elaborations on digital
ecosystems in this paper include business, legal, and technical aspects.
The technical aspects typically relate to software. Through this explicit
inclusion, we aim at fostering research on software-engineering-related
challenges during the design and realization of digital ecosystems to
address C3 – lack of software engineering treatment. The proposed
definition of digital ecosystems is based on the analysis of existing dig­
ital ecosystems to ensure that the definition reflects actual digital eco­
systems in the real world and to avoid the definitional mismatch that we
observed in definitions in the literature (cf. C4), which leads to (almost)
everything being denoted as an ecosystem.
However, we are aware that applying the criteria for digital
ecosystem services may lead to a classification of services as digital
ecosystem services that, at first glance, appear to be of minor interest
with respect to the key properties found in our literature review. For
example, the service of Reddit is, at its core, a brokering of information
as a service asset between content producers and consumers, with both
being private individuals. According to the criteria DS1 and ES1–ES6,
Reddit offers a digital ecosystem service. However, when we look at
Reddit, aspects such as value creation (cf. KP3) or leveraging of idle
assets (cf. KP7) are of secondary importance. The same applies to mes­
sage boards and social media platforms, which are also classified as
digital ecosystem services according to the criteria.
We are aware that the criteria leave considerable latitude for the
inclusion of services in the set of digital ecosystem services. However,
we consider it important not to exclude potentially interesting candi­
dates upfront. Instead, we rather propose the definition of additional
criteria for building clusters of digital ecosystem services as future work.
Those criteria may consider economic interests as one aspect to separate
the abovementioned digital ecosystem services from others like Airbnb
or eBay, which, at first glance, appear to be more typical digital
ecosystem services because of their commercial focus. Nevertheless,
from an engineering and research perspective, the examples that might
seem less interesting also come with similar challenges and thus justify
including them in the definition.
Additional uncertainty regarding the classification of systems as
digital ecosystems can arise from the fact that digital ecosystems and
their central properties are changing, just as the entire IT and business
world is constantly evolving. This implies that the definition as well as
the criteria must be constantly reviewed and, if necessary, adapted in the
future.
4.2. Recommendations
Digital ecosystems are characterized by properties that differentiate
them from traditional software systems. We derived these properties
from the literature of various author groups, and they are reflected in
our definition of a digital ecosystem and its underlying digital ecosystem
service. The introduction of our model now leads to the following two
main contributions: First, we accomplished a more precise under­
standing, based on which digital ecosystems can be discussed and un­
derstood. Second, we created a unified model with which digital
ecosystems can be designed and built systematically.
By introducing our model for digital ecosystems and their underlying
digital ecosystem services, we raise the following recommendations for
both digital ecosystem analysis and design:
4
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5141860
M. Koch et al. Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027

4.2.1. R1–Decomposition of services within a business
It is not sufficient to arbitrarily label large and diverse organizations
and businesses as digital ecosystems. Such a classification does not
reflect the complexity of digital ecosystems in practice and imposes the
risk of labeling many things as digital ecosystems while obfuscating their
specificities. Instead, we encourage the research community to decom­
pose every service provided by organizations and businesses and expose
these services to our digital ecosystem service criteria.
The advantages of service decomposition can be highlighted using
the example of Uber, which is typically considered to be a digital
ecosystem-like, as stated by various authors such as (Cusumano, 2017)*,
(Hawlitschek et al., 2018)*, (Schor & Cansoy, 2019)*, (Kenney & Zys­
man, 2016a)‡, or (Hein et al., 2020)§. Uber as a business is highly
complex and has grown to offer more services to its customers than
simply matching passengers with drivers. Therefore, we do not look at
Uber as a whole, but at all the services that Uber itself claims to offer,
namely Uber Ride, Uber Eats, Uber for Business, Uber Freight, and Uber
Health.
4.2.2. R2–Precise designation of assets and stakeholders
The service decomposition, as explained in R1, should be sufficiently
detailed to allow stakeholders of the service and the service asset to be
named precisely. Who are the service asset providers and consumers of
the service, if any? Who is the service asset broker, if any? Not being able
to name any of those can be an early indicator that a) the service in
question might not be a valid digital ecosystem service candidate or b)
the service decomposition in R1 was not precise enough. Therefore,
applying the digital ecosystem criteria would not lead to any meaningful
results, since the roles mentioned above are non-existent.
Within the five Uber services mentioned above, we identified four
different service asset consumers, namely private customers, business
customers, patients, and healthcare businesses, as well as two different
service asset providers, namely shippers / carriers and drivers / de­
liverers. The assets include business rides and food deliveries for both
private and business customers, healthcare deliveries, as well as patient
and cargo transports.
4.2.3. R3–Proper delineation of the digital ecosystem
After identifying assets and stakeholders, the digital ecosystem must
be delineated as narrowly as possible to limit the everything is an
ecosystem effect mentioned earlier. By applying the criteria DS1 and
ES1–ES6, it should therefore be verified whether the individual services
constitute digital ecosystem services. Subsequently, the criteria
DE1–DE3 should be used to assess whether the digital ecosystem ser­
vices form a superordinate digital ecosystem.
In the case of Uber, all services fulfill the criteria DS1 and ES1–ES6
and are therefore considered digital ecosystem services: Since all Uber
services are provided digitally, their compliance with DS1 is self-
evident. Uber can be seen as a broker of the assets described in R2.
Therefore, ES1 is satisfied. ES2 results from the possibility to explicitly
register with any Uber service as a service asset provider (e.g., a driver)
or consumer (e.g., a private customer). Uber drivers, for example, are
responsible for placing their ride offers. Consequently, ES3 is satisfied.
The same applies to all other Uber services, which satisfy ES3 as well. As
a service asset broker, Uber is responsible for brokering the offered rides,
shipments, or deliveries to the individual service asset consumers. All
Uber services therefore comply with ES4 and ES5. Finally, since Uber
does not appear as a service asset provider in its own service, it satisfies
ES6.
Since all Uber services were identified as digital ecosystem services,
we need to resolve whether these services ultimately form a digital
ecosystem. Since all digital ecosystem services are provided by the same
service asset broker, namely Uber, we consider DE1 and DE2 to be
satisfied. However, the last remaining criterion, DE3, is difficult to

Fig. 10. Structural views of the Uber digital ecosystem. The depiction shows how the same service asset provider type, namely the driver / deliverer, serves several
Uber services at once: Uber Ride, Uber for Business, Uber Eats, and Uber Health. Similarly, private customers may use both Uber Ride and Uber Eats, and business
customers may use both Uber for Business and Uber Freight. However, the opposite scenario may be possible as well: A digital ecosystem service can be designed for
multiple consumers or providers, as shown by Uber Health, where both patients and healthcare businesses serve as consumers. In addition, our model does allow for
multiple assets to be brokered through the same digital ecosystem service, such as in Uber for Business and Uber Health.

11
M. Koch et al.
evaluate without knowing about Ubers internals. The fact that service
asset providers and consumers may gain access to multiple Uber services
with the same user account strongly indicates mutual data exchange in
the Uber backend. Consequently, we assume DE3 to be satisfied.
The complete digital ecosystem model of Uber depicted in Fig. 10
shows how the previously presented recommendations R1–R3 can be
applied in practice: First, we identified all of Uber’s services to deter­
mine those parts of a business that could be considered for a digital
ecosystem service. Second, we designated stakeholders and assets within
each service to a) check for compliance with our model and b) identify
relationships between different stakeholders. Finally, we applied the
criteria DS1 and ES1–ES6 to the individual services and DE1–DE3 to the
overall set of services, thus sufficiently capturing the digital ecosystem
of Uber in its entirety.
The example of Uber shows how our criteria can help capture digital
ecosystems in a more precise and tangible manner. We argue that, ac­
cording to this methodology, digital ecosystems can be universally
captured and described. To demonstrate this, we created a list of various
digital ecosystem candidates. We applied our criteria to each candidate
to identify whether or not they constitute a digital ecosystem, as
described in Section 4.1. The fact that the criteria are applicable to the
individual candidates in principle strongly indicates that our model
captures the essence of digital ecosystems adequately.
5. Conclusion
Digital ecosystems as socio-technical systems connect providers and
consumers of assets via digital platforms in almost all domains and are
increasingly assuming dominant roles. In order to capture this important
driver of the digital transformation, we have elaborated criteria for
digital ecosystems to define this class of systems. We derived the criteria
by observing and analyzing digital ecosystems in practice and addi­
tionally compared our results with related work on {platform, business,
software} ecosystems and the {platform, sharing} economy. Through
this activity, we identified key properties and existing challenges in
digital ecosystem-related research. The key properties of digital eco­
systems are the provision of a service instead of reliance on the pro­
duction of goods, which leads to a shift of value creation and the
exploitation of network effects. This is enabled through a focus on
openness towards the participation of external players and their
collaboration, potentially leading to the use of previously idle assets,
and frequently leading to a “winner-takes-all” effect. While the key
properties retain a certain consistency across scientific publications, the
terminology used shows arbitrariness, since different terms are used to
describe similar phenomena. On the other hand, the same terms are not
used consistently, leading to definitional mismatches. To mitigate this
problem and allow targeted research on the construction and evolution
of digital ecosystems, in this paper we explained how a digital ecosystem
is mainly characterized by its digital ecosystem service(s). We showed
that a digital ecosystem service can be decomposed into a digital service
and an ecosystem service, both of which are based on a traditional
service model in the economic sense. This allows deriving criteria that
characterize a digital ecosystem by assessing the constellation of the
consumers, the providers, and the asset broker along with their
respective responsibilities, and involving a digital platform as the
enabler of the collaboration. Further criteria describe the combination of
digital ecosystem services in one digital ecosystem based on the ex­
change of data between digital ecosystem services provided by the same
asset broker.
The resulting digital service criterion, ecosystem service criteria, and
digital ecosystem criteria draw a clear picture of digital ecosystems.
Despite sharpening the understanding of digital ecosystems, a certain
fuzziness seems inevitable. As a consequence, some candidates that
might not have been considered digital ecosystems before may now
satisfy all digital ecosystem criteria. However, with the criteria pre­
sented in this paper, we are able to provide concrete benefits: We created
12
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
a unified understanding that helps to capture existing digital ecosystems
precisely, as we showed with the example of Uber. By making sense of
the components of a digital ecosystem, we provide a starting point for
the establishment of standards in the context of digital ecosystems. One
example of standardization in digital ecosystems that appears urgent
may be the creation of methods for the design of digital ecosystems. To
design a digital ecosystem, it is crucial to have a shared understanding of
the object under investigation, as we propose with our criteria for digital
ecosystems.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
Adner, R. (2017). Ecosystem as structure. Journal of Management, 43(1), 39–58. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0149206316678451
Basole, R., Russell, M., Huhtamäki, J., Rubens, N., Still, K., & Park, H. (2015).
Understanding business ecosystem dynamics. ACM Transactions on Management
Information Systems, 6(2), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1145/2724730
Bosch, J. (2009). From software product lines to software ecosystems. In SPLC ‘09,
Proceedings of the 13th International Software Product Line Conference (pp. 111–119).
USA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Bosch, J. (2016). Speed, data, and ecosystems: The future of software engineering. IEEE
Software, 33(1), 82–88. https://doi.org/10.1109/MS.2016.14
Briscoe, G., & de Wilde, P. (2006). Digital ecosystems: Evolving service-orientated
architectures. In 2006 1st Bio-Inspired Models of Network, Information and Computing
Systems (pp. 1–6). IEEE. December - 2006, December.
Briscoe, G., & de Wilde, P. (2008). Digital ecosystems: optimisation by a distributed
intelligence. In 2008 2nd IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and
Technologies (pp. 192–197). IEEE. February - 2008, February.
Briscoe, G., & de Wilde, P. (2009). Digital ecosystems: Self-organisation of evolving agent
populations. In N. Spyratos, E. Kapetanios, & A. Traina (Eds.), Proceedings of the
international conference on Management of Emergent Digital EcoSystems - MEDES ’09 (p.
44). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press.
Bygstad, B., & Dulsrud, A. (2020). Digital ecosystems as a unit of scientific analysis. A
sociological investigation. In T. Bui (Ed.), Hawaii International Conference on System
SciencesProceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences,
Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
Cusumano, M. (2015). How traditional firms must compete in the sharing economy.
Communications of the ACM, 58(1), 32–34. https://doi.org/10.1145/2688487
Cusumano, M. (2017). The sharing economy meets reality. Communications of the ACM,
61(1), 26–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3163905
Dong, H., & Hussain, F. (2007). Digital ecosystem ontology. In 2007 IEEE conference on
emerging technologies & factory automation (EFTA 2007) (pp. 814–817). IEEE.
September - 2007, September.
Dong, H., Hussain, F., & Chang, E. (2007). Exploring the conceptual model of digital
ecosystem. In In 2007 Second International Conference on Digital Telecommunications
(ICDT’07) (p. 18). IEEE. July - 2007, July.
Drahokoupil, J., & Fabo, B. (2017). The platform economy and the disruption of the
employment relationship.
Drahokoupil, J., & Piasna, A. (2017). Work in the platform economy: Beyond lower
transaction costs. Intereconomics, 52(6), 335–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-
017-0700-9
Frenken, K. (2017a). Political economies and environmental futures for the sharing
economy. Philosophical Transactions. Series A, Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering
Sciences, 375(2095). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0367
Frenken, K. (2017b). Sustainability perspectives on the sharing economy. Environmental
Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 1–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
eist.2017.04.004
Frenken, K., & Schor, J. (2017). Putting the sharing economy into perspective.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 23, 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.eist.2017.01.003
Hawlitschek, F., Notheisen, B., & Teubner, T. (2018). The limits of trust-free systems: A
literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy.
Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 29, 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elerap.2018.03.005
Hawlitschek, F., Teubner, T., & Weinhardt, C. (2016). Trust in the sharing economy. Die
Unternehmung, 70(1), 26–44. https://doi.org/10.5771/0042-059X-2016-1-26
Hein, A., Scheiber, M., Böhm, M., Weking, J., Wittek, D., & Krcmar, H. (2018). Toward a
Design Framework for Service-Platform Ecosystems.
Hein, A., Schreieck, M., Riasanow, T., Setzke, D. S., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H.
(2020). Digital platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets, 30(1), 87–98. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12525-019-00377-4
Hein, A., Weking, J., Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., Böhm, M., & Krcmar, H. (2019). Value
co-creation practices in business-to-business platform ecosystems. Electronic Markets,
29(3), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-019-00337-y
M. Koch et al.
Iansiti, M., & Levien, R. (2004). The keystone advantage: What the new dynamics of business
ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability / Marco Iansiti. Roy Levien.
Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School; London: McGraw-Hill.
Jacobides, M., Cennamo, C., & Gawer, A. (2018). Towards a theory of ecosystems.
Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2255–2276. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2904
Jansen, S., & Bloemendal, E. (2013). Defining app stores: the role of curated
marketplaces in software ecosystems. In G. Herzwurm, & T. Margaria (Eds.),
Software Business. From Physical Products to Software Services and Solutions (pp.
195–206). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Jansen, S., Finkelstein, A., & Brinkkemper, S. (2009). A sense of community: A research
agenda for software ecosystems. In 2009 31st International Conference on Software
Engineering - Companion Volume (pp. 187–190). IEEE.
Kabbedijk, J., & Jansen, S. (2011). Steering insight: An exploration of the ruby software
ecosystem. In B. Regnell, I. van de Weerd, & O. de Troyer (Eds.), Software business
(pp. 44–55). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Kapoor, K., Ziaee Bigdeli, A., Dwivedi, Y. K., Schroeder, A., Beltagui, A., & Baines, T.
(2021). A socio-technical view of platform ecosystems: Systematic review and
research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 128, 94–108. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.060
Kenney, M., Bearson, D., & Zysman, J. (2019). The platform economy matures: Pervasive
power, private regulation, and dependent entrepreneurs. SSRN Electronic Journal..
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3497974
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016a). The rise of the platform economy. Issues in Science and
Technology, 32, 61–69.
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2016b). What is the future of work?: Understanding the platform
economy and computation-intensive automation. Berkeley Roundtable on the
International Economy.
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2019a). Chapter 1 work and value creation in the platform
economy. In S. P. Vallas, & A. Kovalainen (Eds.), Research in the sociology of work.
Work and labor in the digital age (pp. 13–41). Emerald Publishing Limited.
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2019b). The platform economy and geography: Restructuring
the space of capitalist accumulation. SSRN Electronic Journal.. https://doi.org/
10.2139/ssrn.3497978
Kitchenham, B., Charters, S., Budgen, D., & Brereton, P. (2007). Guidelines for Performing
Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. Keele University.
Kotler, P., & Keller, K. L. (2016). A framework for marketing management. Boston: Pearson.
Lindeman, R. L. (1991). The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Bulletin of Mathematical
Biology, 53(1–2), 167–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02464428
Manikas, K. (2016). Revisiting software ecosystems research: A longitudinal literature
study. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jss.2016.02.003
Manikas, K., & Hansen, K. (2013). Software ecosystems – A systematic literature review.
Journal of Systems and Software, 86(5), 1294–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jss.2012.12.026
Manning, J. (2017). In vivo coding. In J. Matthes, C. S. Davis, & R. F. Potter (Eds.), The
international encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 1–2). Wiley.
Messerschmitt, D. G., & Szyperski, C. (2003). Software ecosystem: Understanding an
indispensable technology and industry / David G. Messerschmitt and Clemens Szyperski.
Cambridge, Mass., London: The MIT Press.
Moore, J. (1996). The death of competition: Leadership and strategy in the age of business
ecosystems. New York: HarperBusiness.
13
Digital Business 2 (2022) 100027
Moore, J. (2006). Business ecosystems and the view from the firm. The Antitrust Bulletin,
51(1), 31–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X0605100103
Odum, E. P. (1964). The new ecology. BioScience, 14(7), 14–16. https://doi.org/
10.2307/1293228
Odum, E. P., & Barrett, G. W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology (5th ed.). Belmont CA:
Thomson Brooks/Cole.
Parker, G., van Alstyne, M., & Jiang, X. (2016). Platform ecosystems: How developers
invert the firm. SSRN Electronic Journal.. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2861574
Rong, K., Hu, G., Lin, Y., Shi, Y., & Guo, L. (2015). Understanding business ecosystem
using a 6C framework in internet-of-things-based sectors. International Journal of
Production Economics, 159, 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.09.003
Rong, K., Lin, Y., Li, B., Burström, T., Butel, L., & Yu, J. (2018). Business ecosystem
research agenda: More dynamic, more embedded, and more internationalized. Asian
Business & Management, 17(3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-018-
0038-6
Rong, K., Lin, Y., Shi, Y., & Yu, J. (2013). Linking business ecosystem lifecycle with
platform strategy: A triple view of technology, application and organisation.
International Journal of Technology Management, 62(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJTM.2013.053042
Rong, K., & Shi, Y. (2015). Business ecosystems. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Schor, J., & Cansoy, M. (2019). The sharing economy. In F. F. Wherry, I. Woodward,
J. B. Schor, & M. Cansoy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of consumption (pp. 49–73).
Oxford University Press.
Schor, J., & Fitzmaurice, C. (2015). Collaborating and connecting: The emergence of the
sharing economy. In L. Reisch, & J. Thøgersen (Eds.), Handbook of research on
sustainable consumption (pp. 410–425). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. (2016). Design and Governance of Platform
Ecosystems – Key Concepts and Issues for Future Research.
Schreieck, M., Wiesche, M., & Krcmar, H. (2018). Multi-layer governance in platform
ecosystems of established companies. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2018(1),
10068. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2018.16
Senyo, P. K., Liu, K., & Effah, J. (2019). Digital business ecosystem: Literature review and
a framework for future research. International Journal of Information Management, 47,
52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2019.01.002
Subramaniam, M., Iyer, B., & Venkatraman, V. (2019). Competing in digital ecosystems.
Business Horizons, 62(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.08.013
Sundararajan, A. (2013). From Zipcar to the sharing economy. Harvard Business Review.
January 13.
Valdez-De-Leon, O. (2019). How to develop a digital ecosystem – A practical framework.
Technology Innovation Management Review, 9(8), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.22215/
timreview/1260
Villela, K., Hess, A., Koch, M., Falcao, R., Groen, E. C., Dorr, J., … Ebert, A. (2018).
Towards ubiquitous RE: A perspective on requirements engineering in the era of
digital transformation. In 2018 IEEE 26th International Requirements Engineering
Conference (RE) (pp. 205–216). IEEE. August - 2018, August.
Willis, A. J. (1997). The ecosystem: An evolving concept viewed historically. Functional
Ecology, 11(2).
Wirtz, J., & Lovelock, C. (2016). Services marketing: People, technology, strategy (8th ed.).
New Jersey: World Scientific.