Application Programming Interface API Research A R

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems
Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019
Application Programming
Interface (API) Research:
A Review of the Past to Inform the Future
Joshua Ofoeda, University of Professional Studies, Accra, Ghana
Richard Boateng, University of Ghana Business School, Accra, Ghana
John Effah, University of Ghana Business School, Accra, Ghana
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this study is to perform a synthesis of API research. The study took stock of literature
from academic journals on APIs with their associated themes, frameworks, methodologies, publication
outlets and level of analysis. The authors draw on a total of 104 articles from academic journals and
conferences published from 2010 to 2018. A systematic literature review was conducted on the selected
articles. The findings suggest that API research is primarily atheoretical and largely focuses on the
technological dimensions such as design and usage; thus, neglecting most of the social issues such
as the business and managerial applications of APIs, which are equally important. Future research
directions are provided concerning the gaps identified.
Keywords
Application Programming Interface, Conceptual Approaches, Future Research Directions, Methodological
Approaches, Software, Systematic Literature Review, Technology, Themes
INTRODUCTION
Software has become indispensable in today’s business environment. It has become challenging to
envisage business success without software. Given this, there have been advances in the field of
software development on how software is developed (Kroll, Richardson, Prikladnicki, & Audy, 2018),
and tested (Barr, Harman, McMinn, Shahbaz, & Yoo, 2015). Software development over the years is
perceived as a daunting task (Park & Bae, 2011) and demands a lot of activities (Tang, Aleti, Burge,
& Vliet, 2010). Hence, developers are continually exploring innovations that will aid the software
development process. Application Programming Interfaces (here after referred to as APIs) are one of
such innovations in the software development domain. APIs form an integral component of the software
ecosystem (Manikas, 2016). These software ecosystems have become an ideal way of constructing
large software solutions on top of a common technology platform (Manikas & Hansen, 2013).
Historically, APIs have been there since the advent of personal computers. APIs primarily existed
for the exchange between two or more programs (IBM, 2016). The emergence of APIs on the web
DOI: 10.4018/IJEIS.2019070105

Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

76
(what is mostly referred to as web APIs) was, however, witnessed around the year 2000. Since then,
APIs have received considerable interest from practitioners and researchers to the extent that some
pundits argue that we now live in the API economy. This position is supported by the fact that we have
become interconnected like never before; and APIs primarily power this interconnection of people,
applications and systems. As such, APIs are becoming the fibre of the digital ecosystem that seeks
to interconnect businesses and economies to create value and develop more capabilities (Abigee,
2016; Anuff, 2017). The mobile application market, one of the fastest growing areas in information
technology, makes use of APIs a lot (Linares-Vásquez et al., 2013; Bavota et al., 2015). Developers of
mobile applications primarily rely on APIs to provide reliable and interoperable applications. Despite
these developments, researchers are yet to take ascertain the current state of API research in order
to provide insights for future research. The current study, therefore, seeks to provide an overview of
extant API research to determine the state of the research and steer future research.
Various authors have explained what APIs are, from diverse perspectives. While some authors
have given a concrete definition for APIs, others prefer to give clues by providing the attributes or
characteristics of APIs. These definitions can be considered either from a technical viewpoint (e.g.
Niu et al. 2016; Shatnawi et al. 2016) or from a sociotechnical viewpoint, (e.g Abigee, 2016; Anuff,
2017; Zachariadis & Ozcan, 2017; Ofoeda & Boateng, 2018). Arguably, a better comprehension of
APIs goes beyond the technical definition and overlaps into a broader concept where perspectives
of users and practitioners are considered. Niu et al. (2016) aver that APIs facilitate pragmatic reuse
and improve the productivity of software development. Other authors define APIs as the collection
of codes, packaged with interfaces that aid other developers to use it (Stylos & Myers, 2007).
Similarly, Qiu et al. (2016) posit that APIs support software reuse by providing pre-implemented
functionalities; thus, reducing the effort and time programmers spend in developing software. The
importance of interfaces to the software development process is very crucial. Past research has
affirmed how vital interfaces have become in contemporary software development (Shepherd &
Pollock, 2005; Robbes & Lungu, 2011; Manikas, 2016). Generally, the explanations mentioned above
seem more technical and may be less comprehensible to a lay person. The other definitions of APIs
which seem to be less technical argue that APIs provide a common ground for software to talk to
each other (Anuff, 2017). This common ground enables different software to exchange information.
Through the exchange of information, services between and within organizations, they can create
value (Lyer & Subramaniam, 2015).
The motivation for this study is to determine the status-quo of API research since there has not
been any extensive work in the area. Several authors in the past provided literature reviews on various
software dimensions such as variability in software systems (Galster, Weyns, Tofan, Michalik, &
Avgeriou, 2014), technical debt and management as they relate to software systems (Li, Avgeriou,
& Liang, 2015; Besker, Martini, & Bosch, 2018), software requirement reuse (Irshad, Petersen, &
Poulding, 2018), software development (Kroll et al., 2018), software architecture (Lago, Avgeriou,
& Hilliard, 2010/11; Avgeriou, Stal, & Hilliard, 2013; Yang, Liang, & Avgeriou, 2016) among
others. There is arguably no review that focuses specifically on APIs even though other authors have
provided a review on particular aspects of APIs such as API usability (Mosqueira-Rey, Alonso-Ríos,
Moret-Bonillo, Fernández-Varela, & Álvarez-Estévez, 2018). This study, therefore, attempts to fill
this gap by providing a stepping stone for further research. The main contributions of this paper are:
• The identification of the dominant themes and issues studied in API research;
• The identification of the prevalent methodologies used in API research;
• The determination of the theories which underpin API research;
• The suggestion of future research areas in API research.
The rest of this article is organized as follows: Section 2 reports on the literature review which
includes literature search, categorization, inclusion and exclusion criteria, among others. Section 3
77
presents the results of the findings of the literature search. Section 4 details the discussion of the
findings. Section 5 reports on future research directions. The study ends with the conclusion and
recommendations in section 6.
FRAMING API RESEARCH
Webster and Watson (2002) aver that it is important to review past relevant research since it forms an
essential aspect of any academic work. Consequently, a useful literature review establishes a strong
foundation for the entire work. Establishing a good grounding for research work is mostly driven by
a synthesis of quality literature and detailed methodological analysis (Webster & Watson, 2002; Levy
& Ellis, 2006). The framing for this research takes on a sociotechnical perspective, thus, adapting the
approach by Heeks and Bailur (2007). Heeks and Bailur (2007) share their thought on categorization
of information technology within specific contexts. The first category is social systems which concern
the underlying socio-economic and cultural factors in API research. The second category, technical
systems, concerns understanding the design, development and adaptability of APIs. The third category
is sociotechnical systems which concern understanding the interrelationships between social systems
and technologies which would include examining the inter and intra organizational factors that
intermediate between the technologies and its users (Heeks & Bailur, 2007; Duncombe & Boateng,
2009). The sociotechnical parameters ensure that we move away from the technical parameters which
have dominated API research. This is important because besides developing information technology,
there is the need to also focus on the uses and users of the technology. It is apparent that to survive
in today’s competitive business world; businesses must be able to recognize the connections that
exist between people and the technologies used in the workplace (Avgerou, La, & Renata, 2003). In
this light, it will become virtually impossible to isolate the technical sub-system from the social sub-
system. Discussing IS research and for that matter API research from a purely technical perspective,
therefore, does not provide a holistic and in-depth understanding of how APIs advance the cause of
firms, hence it is best to view APIs from a sociotechnical viewpoint.
Classification Framework
API research is relatively new, though it is related to the concepts of inter-organizational information
systems and software application development and also sometimes mentioned in the literature of
digital platforms. Due to its nature, classification of API research is daunting for researchers. Santos
et al. (2012) and Santos & Werner (2011) identified four dimensions for mapping software ecosystems
research: technical, business, social and management engineering (Manikas, 2016). Mosqueira-Rey et
al. (2018) and Scheller & Kühn (2015) also reviewed API literature but only focused on API usability,
thereby neglecting the other dimensions such as implementation, maintenance, and design. Though
this dimension seems appropriate, it does not entirely fit into the categorization of the current review.
Hence, we adopted a cloud computing classification scheme (see Yang and Tate, 2012) to suit the
issues in API research. In line with this classification, we reported four themes in API research.
The first theme, business issues, refers to the business implications of APIs. Some distinctive
sub-themes under the business issues include API adoption, implementation/integration, legal,
ethical and social issues regarding APIs, value creation through APIs. The second theme, technology,
refers to the technical dimensions of APIs. This theme considers articles that focus on the elements,
mechanisms and constituents of API technology. Mostly, this trend of research tends to focus much on
the development of APIs. Its associated sub-themes include API development, API usage patterns, API
management, API architecture, API security, among others. The third theme, conceptualization, refers
to articles that provide understanding into API related issues. The last theme, domains and application,
refers to API articles that explore how APIs have an impact on a particular area or domain of society.
Its related subsystems may include government, education, social media, and health, among others.
78
Besides the thematic areas, two other critical issues of classification are the socio-economic
context and the level of analysis at which API research was conducted. Extant studies suggest that
there are three primary levels of classification: micro level analysis, meso level analysis and macro
level analysis (Duncombe & Boateng, 2009). Micro level classification contains research which
concern users of APIs such as individuals and micro enterprises. Meso level focuses on intermediaries
that develop and integrate APIs such as application developing firms, governments, network service
providers, etc. Macro level focuses on research that examines the role of institutions that deliver
infrastructure, policies and regulations within the API framework which will help deliver products
and services that meet the needs of users (Duncombe & Boateng, 2009).
Methodology for the Literature Review

This study presents the results of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) on the topic of API. The authors
relied largely on literature from the computer science, computer engineering and information systems
domains. The choice of a systematic literature review is to help identify, evaluate and interpret API
research (Dikert, Paasivaara, & Lassenius, 2016). Systematic literature review originates from medical
research but has been adopted recently by disciplines such as software engineering and information
systems (Besker et al., 2018). Systematic reviews are appropriate when we seek to summarize existing
research (classification and mapping) in a particular area of interest (Kitchenham, 2004; 2007). The
evaluation, interpretation and summary are followed by suitable gaps from the literature (Wohlin et
al., 2013; Hosseinzadeh et al., 2018). For this research, the three activities for performing SLR, as
proposed by Brereton, Kitchenham, Budgen, Turner, & Khalil (2007), were followed i.e., planning
of the review, conducting the literature review and finally reporting on findings from the review.
This review answers the following research questions: RQ1: What are the dominant themes
in API research? RQ2: What methodologies and frameworks dominate API research? These two
research questions were chosen because they generally provide deeper insights that will benefit both
researchers and practitioners.
To be able to answer the research questions, the authors consulted various electronic databases
(ScienceDirect, IEEE Explore, Emerald, AIS Electronic Library, Springer) and Google search engine)
to identify contemporary research in the subject area (see Table 1 for a list of the databases and their
owners). Levy and Ellis (2006) aver that these sources cover the top fifty information systems journals.
Due to the technical nature of APIs the authors were unable to obtain articles in the senior basket of
information systems journals. We did not find this unusual because, over the years, API research has
been dominated by those within the computer science discipline. Recently, however, some senior
basket IS journals (e.g., Electronic Journal of Information Systems) have called for new research on
software design for leveraging API-based services.
Several criteria were set for the identification, selection and classification of literature sources.
To begin with, we focused on research conducted between 2010 and early parts of 2018. Wohlin
(2014) contends that there is no universally agreed upon method to determine the start set for research
articles but offers some recommendations for conducting literature reviews (Irshad et al., 2018). The
Table 1. Selected electronic database
Database Institution
ScienceDirect Elsevier
ACM Digital Library ACM
IEEE Explore IEEE
Emerald Insight Emerald Insight
Springer Springer
79
following criteria were used based on the recommendations: a) selected articles for the review are
from different authors, b) selected articles are from different publication years covering at least eight
years, c) selected articles covered research on APIs. This timeframe allowed for the identification of
most of the contemporary studies in the last seven to eight years.
Furthermore, articles were drawn from a spectrum of disciplines incorporating social and technical
dimensions of APIs and their impact on transforming businesses. The sources of these articles
were drawn from journals in information technology, computer science, and information systems
disciplines. To broaden the search spectrum, the review also included non-peer reviewed literature
which are mostly accessed via search engines (Tripathi, Seppänen, Boominathan, Oivo, & Liukkunen,
2019). This approach allowed the authors to include grey literature in the form of technical papers
and reports which do not appear in the aforementioned scientific databases but are deemed useful.
Table 3 shows the distribution of the various articles based on the year of publication, and whether
they are peer-reviewed or not.
The research process follows four main stages, as proposed by Dikert et al. (2016). The first stage
is to identify all potentially relevant literature sources. The second stage is the filtering of relevant
literature sources. Qualitative coding then follows and finally, analysis of the coding and aggregation.
In line with the research questions outlined, we were guided by the following search criteria. First,
are the content criteria, which specifies whether or not a particular article addresses our research
questions. Second, duplication criteria: articles published by the same author(s) but appeared in more
than one publication outlet was treated as one article (Pourmirza, Peters, Dijkman, & Grefen, 2017).
Again, we provided the inclusion/exclusion decision: APIs, API Design, API integration, Software
API. Articles selected for analysis had to be relevant on API within the software domain. The authors
also relied on the Boolean AND to connect the search items. For instance, we employed “API” AND
“Business”, “API” AND “Sociotechnical” as search strings for the current study. The exclusion criteria
include API within other disciplines, such as medicine (Active Pharmaceutical Industry).
We extracted 275 articles from various electronic databases initially. Applying the inclusion
and exclusion criteria in Table 2 resulted in 106 usable articles. We also decided to reject some two
Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Criteria Evaluation criteria

Inclusion Articles published in English language
Inclusion Articles that have API in the title and discuss API issues in detail
Inclusion Articles published in journals, books, book chapters and conference proceedings
Inclusion Published reports from globally recognized institutions (E.g. IBM)
Exclusion Articles published before 2010 were exempted from the review
Exclusion Full text of publication not available
Exclusion Publications that do not have API in their title
Table 3. Steps defining the literature body
Step No of articles
Initial literature collected 275
Remaining literature after applying inclusion/exclusion criteria 106
Rejected articles after second verification 2
Verified included articles 104
80
articles which did not have named publishers. In all, we analyzed a total of 104. The high number
of rejected papers can be attributed to reasons such as (i) papers inability to report on API related
issues and (ii) papers published before 2010.
PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS
This section presents results of the findings. The findings are categorized based on the publication
outlets, themes, methodologies, theories and other associated dimensions.
Publication Outlets
Publication outlets refer to the various journals and conferences that have published the peer-
reviewed articles. As espoused earlier, this review also considered non-peer-reviewed papers (like
reports and working papers) to present a holistic picture of API research. The distribution of articles
is as follows: The Journal of Systems and Software (32 articles); ACM/IEEE (28); Information and
Software Technology (10); Future Generation Computer Systems (5); Journal of Documentation
(1); Computational Materials Science (2); Science of Computer Programming (3); Journal of Visual
Languages and Computing (3); Procedia Computer Science (5); Journal of Innovation in Digital
Ecosystems (1); AMCIS (1); The Information Society (1); Library Hi Tech (1); Reports (12). It is
important to state that these were not the only papers that were published on APIs in the respective
journals. The figures presented are based on the search inclusion and exclusion criteria used in this
review (See Tables 2 and 3).
API Research Themes

Based on the classification scheme, we present the findings of this review. From the selected papers,
the findings suggest that technology issues dominated the other themes with 69 publications (66.3
per cent). This dominance is, perhaps, a reflection of the fact that APIs originated from computer
science and computer engineering research. Issues within this theme include the development or
design of APIs, API usage, securing APIs, and API management. Further, the business theme in some
non-peer reviewed literature provides an understanding of how firms can adopt APIs to connect with
other applications and systems. Table 4 shows the distribution of articles under the four main themes
coupled with the year of publication.
The summary of literature sources highlights both peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed articles
ranging from 2010 to the early parts of 2018 (see Table 4). The distribution shows that the majority
of the selected articles are peer-reviewed and provide some empirical evidence to their arguments.
For instance, they followed defined scientific methodologies and presented clear research findings.
The non-peer-reviewed articles entail practitioner reports from recognized firms amongst which
are Gartner, Oracle and IBM. Table 4 also comprises the distribution of articles based on year of
publication and theme as adapted from Yang and Tate (2012).
Distribution by Year of Publication

The classification based on year of publication showed that since 2012, there had been an increase
in API research. As shown in Table 4, the peak of research was recorded in the year 2017 with 22
articles. In 2010, five articles were published. Seven articles were published per each year in both
2011 and 2012. 2013 and 2014 witnessed the publication of 7 and 10 articles, respectively. In 2015
and 2016, however, the number nearly doubled with 16 articles in 2015 and 20 articles in 2016. The
fewer studies recorded in 2018 (9) is not surprising since we were still at the early stages of the year
at the time of this review. This result indicates that there is a growing interest in API research among
both practitioners and researchers. Research in the area is likely to continue to increase, considering
this steady increase in API research over the years.
81
Table 4. Summary of literature themes and year of publication
Research Themes 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Technology issues
API development frameworks 1 1 1 3
(PR)
API Documentation (PR) 1 1 1 1 4
API security (PR) 1 2 1 2 1 7
Evolution of APIs (PR) 1 1 1 1 4
API Obstacles (PR) 1 1 1 3
API design (PR) 2 1 2 3 2 3 4 2 19
Understanding APIs (PR) 1 2 1 4
API management (PR) 1 1 1 2 2 7
API Performance (PR) 1 1 1 1 4
API usage (PR) 1 2 1 1 1 2 3 3 14
Sub Total 69
Business issues
Impact of APIs on digital 1 1 2 1 1 6
businesses
API stability and adoption 1 1 1 3
(NPR)
The APIs and digital 1 1 2 4
transformation
The fusion of business and IT 1 1 2
APIs and Digital Business 1 1 2 4 8
(NPR)
How APIs drive digital 1 1 2
transformation
API Economy 1 2 1 1 5
Sub Total 30
Conceptualization issues
API challenges and 1 1
opportnities
Institutional effects on API 1 1
development
Sub Total 2
Domain issues
API and social media 1 1 1 3
Sub Total 3
Grand Total 5 7 7 7 10 16 20 22 10 104
82
Classification Based on Research Themes

Based on the classification scheme, the following research themes emerged: technology issues theme
was dominant, recording 61 articles. The business theme recorded 23 articles. It is worth noting that
most of the articles under this theme were reports and non-peer reviewed. Conceptualization theme
had two articles whiles the domain theme recorded three published articles. These figures are not
surprising given that API is deeply rooted in the computer science and computer engineering research
with most studies focusing on the design, security and implementation of APIs. Whiles this finding is
welcomed, we also argue that API research from the business, conceptualization and domain strands
need more attention in future research.
Level of Analysis
This subcategorization tends to focus on the level of analysis of the reviewed articles. The findings
showed that the majority of the studies are in the general category (80 articles) (Figure 1). These
articles do not relate to any country, organization or individual and are conceptual. This category of
API research provides a general body of knowledge that is independent of a level of analysis. Meso
level analysis constitutes 13 of the 104 articles reviewed. This level relates to organizations. Macro
level constitutes three articles whiles micro level constitutes eight articles.
Conceptual and Methodological Approaches in API Research

This sub-section presents the conceptual approaches and methodological issues used in the selected
articles to identify potential research gaps (Table 5).
Conceptual Approaches
We categorized and presented the conceptual approaches in API research using Heeks and Bailur’s
(2007) classification. The first is theory-based approach, which uses a clearly recognized theory
that can be applied or tested. Second is framework-based approach, which uses a framework derived
from a body of theoretical work. The third is the model-based approach, which uses models that
have been presented in research without reference to any deeper framework of knowledge. The
fourth is schema-based approach, which uses a schema of techniques for a research area such as data
architecture. The fifth is concept-based approach, which uses a defined concept. The sixth is the
Figure 1. Classification based on level of analysis
83
Table 5. Analysis of conceptual and methodological approaches, and contexts of API research
Theory/ model/ Approach/ Country/

Author(s) Research focus/Key issues Relevant Gap
framework Method Continent
The study focused on

1. Diprose et al. Qualitative/
designing APIs for Design of textual
(2016) Conceptual Design New Zealand
programming social robot social robot APIs
Gaming Industry science
applications
2. Hou and Li (2011) The study explored the

Fischer’s conceptual Qualitative/ Replicating study on
Programmer obstacles encountered in USA
framework case study other frameworks
newsgroups using frameworks and APIs
3. Robillard et al.
This study focused on
(2013) Qualitative/
automated property inference NA Cross-country No clear gap
Software Survey
for APIs.
engineering
Explore the usefulness

4. Sobernig et al.
of Object Point
(2011) Analyzing and comparing the Mixed-
NA Austria analysis to evaluate
Identity complexity of API designs methods
different API design
management
approaches
Future research can

focus on the analysis
5. Taly et al. (2011)
Analysis of security-critical methods such as
Yahoo (Online NA Qualitative USA
JavaScript APIs object-sensitive analysis
news portal)
techniques in developing
security-critical code
Future research
6. Qiu et al. (2016) can investigate the
Github (Software Quantitative/ possibility of adopting
Understanding API usage Framework China
Development corpus driven actual API usage data
Platform) to facilitate API-based
code recommendation
This paper briefly introduces

the three programming
7. Mandelin et al. No defined No clear future
interfaces, and provides NA Canada
(2012) methodology research
an outlook on their further
evolution
8. Zachariadis and This study focused on how APIs

Qualitative/ No clear future
Ozcan (2017) enable digital transformation in Transaction cost Coventry, UK
Interviews research
Financial sector financial services
Future studies
The study focused on the
9. Montgomery et No defined can focus on
structures and protocols for NA NA
al (2016) methodology authentication and
API Inference
encryption
10. Lee and Ha AI Platform to Accelerate Deep learning No defined

Korea NA
(2018) API Economy and Ecosystem frameworks methodology
11. Bonardi et al Encouraging collaborating Architectural No defined No clear future

Milan, Italy
(2016) through the API economy reference model methodology research
How institutional pressures Qualitative The applicability

12. Ofoeda and New Institutional
affect API development and Case Study, Ghana, Africa of findings in other
Boateng (2018) theory
integration interviews jurisdictions
Contextual forces that

13. Yamakami API Economy in City exploratory
NA Japan leads to the success of
(2017) Platform as a Service and qualitative
API economy
How different are

14. Espinha et al closed-source API
Web APIS NA Qualitative NA
(2015) providers’ policies
from open-source
15. Uddin et al Qualitative,

API usage patterns NA Canada NA
(2011) case study
84
category-based approach, which presents a set of categories or factors used for analysis. The seventh
is the non-framework-based approach, which makes no use of any evident framework of knowledge.
The categorization mechanism provides valuable understanding and representation of the
various conceptual approaches. The analysis confirmed that only two studies used theory; thus, the
transaction cost theory to understand how APIs enable the digital transformation of the financial
sector (Zachariadis & Ozcan, 2017) and the new institutional theory to explain institutional enablers
and constraints of API development and integration (Ofoeda & Boateng, 2018). Further, while five
studies had a conceptual framework, one study had a theoretical framework. The lack of conceptual
approaches in API research is not surprising since the majority of the papers are based on experiments
and illustrations. The results have shown a dearth in literature on the use of sound theories in studying
the API phenomenon.
Geographically, the authors acknowledge that there is arguably minimal research from an African
context (Ofoeda & Boateng, 2018). The need for more API research within developing countries
cannot be over-stated since digital transformation is increasingly gaining grounds in these contexts
(especially Africa) (Bukht & Heeks, 2017; Ofoeda, Boateng, & Asmah, 2018).
Methodological Approaches
Methodological classifications followed included qualitative and quantitative approaches (Orlikowski
& Baroudi, 1991). Quantitative studies tend to be more representative in terms of sampling, but
possibly contribute less to theoretical understanding. Quantitative research is used to quantify the
problem by generating numerical data using statistics. Qualitative studies, on the other hand, largely
focus on the analysis of individual case studies, which make no claims to the general population, but
tend to provide more in-depth data concerning processes and contribute more to theory. Qualitative
research also gives room for an understanding of underlying opinions and reasons. Besides qualitative
and quantitative approaches are mixed-methods studies (Walsham & Sahay, 2006), which comprise
both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Results, as seen in Figure 2, suggest a seeming deficit in defined methodological approaches to API
research. Whereas some adopt defined methodologies, others do not follow any of the aforementioned
methodological classifications. Reasons for this is quite apparent; most researchers turn to focus on
experiments and in some cases, demonstrations to argue their points. The results indicate that 63
Figure 2. Classification based on methodology
85
articles relied on experiments as methodology. Studies under this category seem to be technical with
reference to API design, API methods and usage patterns. This is followed by “no methods” studies
constituting 21 articles and then qualitative methods (15); quantitative (3 articles). Mixed-methods
constitute the least number of articles (2 articles).
DISCUSSION
The following section details the key issues identified in the review exercise. For instance, key issues
identified in the review include the design, use, and impact of APIs.
Publication Outlets
The findings of the review suggest that API research is lacking within the information systems domain.
The publication outlets with very high representation include; The Journal of Systems and Software
(e.g., Espinha, Zaidman, & Gross, 2015; Niu, Keivanloo, & Zou, 2016; Santos & Myers, 2017;
Santos, Prendi, Sousa, & Ribeiro, 2017; Shatnawi, Seriai, Sahraoui, & Alshara, 2016; Brito, Hora,
Valente, & Robbes, 2018; Xua, Sun, Lia, Lua, & Guoa, 2018), Information and software technology
(e.g., Scheller & Kühn, 2015; Jezek, Dietrich, & Brada, 2015; Qiu, Li, & Leung, 2016; Kula, Ounid,
Germanc, & Inouea, 2018; Mosqueira-Rey, et al., 2018), Future Generation Computer Systems
(e.g., Badii, et al., 2017), Journal of Visual Languages and Computing (e.g., Diprose, MacDonald,
Hosking, & Plimmer, 2017), The Information Society (e.g., Lomborg & Bechmann, 2014); AMCIS
(e.g., Ofoeda & Boateng, 2018); IEEE (e.g., Gao & Wei, 2013; Yamakami, 2017; Treude & Aniche,
2018; Radevski, Hata, & Matsumoto, 2016); Journal of Documentation (e.g. Verborgh, et al., 2015);
Library Hi Tech (e.g. Adams, 2018). These findings are largely influenced by the articles that focused
on API related issues and passed the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The authors believe that with a
growing interest in APIs, more publication outlets will be witnessed in the coming years.
API Design Issues

The findings of the review suggest that the design of APIs which falls under the technology theme
has dominated the entire discourse. One of the critical issues raised concerning the design of APIs
relates to the tools used in developing and migrating APIs (e.g., Ali, Younis, Zamli, & Ismail,
2010; Qiu et al. 2016; Diprose et al. 2014; Diprose et al. 2017). It is no doubt that developing APIs
is tedious. Some of the difficulties involved include migrating an application to a new API (Dig
& Johnson, 2005). Another integral component is API documentation (Treude & Aniche, 2018).
Documentation is closely linked to the design of APIs, hence its inclusion in the design issues.
An API without proper documentation is arguably a useless API. This is because documentation
informs the third-party on how to call and use the API. The structure and functionality of developed
APIs are also captured in the documentation (Maalej & Robillard, 2013; Treude & Aniche, 2018).
Software documentation in a whole has been one of the overarching issues in software engineering,
as such, several authors have offered more understanding to the issue (Jansen, Bosch, & Avgeriou,
2008; Jansen, Avgeriou, & Ven, 2009).
Another critical issue in the development research entails the security and monitoring of API
usage (Taly et al., 2011; Narain et al., 2016; Tsai et al., 2016). For instance, how to ensure the security
of applications when API service providers make changes or updates, and how the users are notified
about the changes or updates are also critical issues that cannot be overlooked. Moreso, is the need
to have employees with the requisite skills and knowledge to produce innovative APIs (Narain et al.,
2016b). Irrespective of the benefits, APIs increase organizational risks with respect to the security of
the applications and data (Morrison, 2017). Decision making by developers has also been established
as a crucial component when designing APIs. Stylos & Myers (2007) asset that these decisions
have a significant impact on the quality of APIs; for instance, the performance (speed and memory
consumption), power and usability (usability is discussed in the subsequent section).
86
Besides the work of Espinha et al. (2015) which sought to understand the developers using web
APIs, as it relates to software evolution tasks, and the work of Ofoeda and Boateng (2018) which
investigated the institutional pressures that affect API development and integration, many of the
studies primarily focus on the technology or technical dimensions of APIs. Some non-peer reviewed
papers also contribute an understanding of the importance of APIs and why it is necessary for every
business in the information economy to adopt them as part of their innovation strategies. Therefore,
there is an emerging paradigm shift from the developers (technical people) perspective to managers
and boardroom perspective (Deloitte, 2016). Thus, we conceive that APIs should not only be viewed
as a technology or technical matter but rather approached holistically from a sociotechnical perspective
following the work of Avgerou et al. (2003).
Further, the usefulness of APIs cannot be limited to technical people. Research has shown that
one of the areas which take attention of API designers comes from social media APIs (Wendell, 2017).
This is not surprising because there has been a drastic rise in the number of social media applications
like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram over the last decade. Enterprises can integrate their social APIs
into their websites to allow users easily access these social media platforms. Besides social APIs,
development of financial APIs is also rising at a fast pace. This is because most financial institutions,
such as banks that deal with large datasets have realized the need to have an open banking system. In
some developing countries like Ghana, for instance, there is pressure on telecommunication companies
to have an interoperable environment, especially for the mobile payment platforms (Eduku, 2018).
This will allow mobile phone users to send money to their family and loved ones on other networks
without difficulty. In light of this, there is a need for more research into how legal and financial
frameworks affect API design. For instance, how will a country’s laws support the interoperability
of telecommunication companies?
API Usability Issues

Early researchers on API usability claim that programmers are also API users in some cases, and
therefore need libraries that are learnable (McLellan, Roesler, Tempest, & Spinuzzi, 1998). Other
pioneer researchers like Stylos & Myers (2007), also sought to offer an understanding of what APIs
are and why developers use it. They established that the value of an API is largely identified by its
power and more importantly, its usability. Thus, any good API should be easy to learn and use (Stylos
& Myers, 2007), and translate into the productivity of developers. For APIs to be usable, it needs to
have efficiency, satisfaction, minimum errors, learnability and memorability (how they can easily
remember the API calls) (Nielsen, 2012). Other features include how developers can use APIs for
specific tasks (Mosqueira-Rey, et al., 2018). Various authors over the years have tried to develop and
follow methodological approaches to API usability (Mosqueira-Rey et al., 2018). For instance, Clarke
(2005) based on the works of Green and Petre (1996), developed twelve dimensions that affect how
developers work with APIs. Years later, Zibran (2008); Zibran et al. (2011) developed some twenty-
two guidelines for API usage. It is our view, however, that due to the complexity of APIs they should
be considered from a multi-level perspective. Thus, a collaboration between the developers/designers
of the APIs, firms that consume the APIs and not forgetting the users that use products and services
created with APIs (Stylos & Myers, 2007). However, literature is this review tends to be silent on
this collaborative approach in both the design and use of APIs. Besides, it is also essential to know
the expertise of API developers in collaborating with clients/users in the design and integration of
APIs and the support provided using usage. Both sides point to the importance of social parameters
in both API design and usability.
Nonetheless, there remains a clear gap in the adoption and use of APIs since peer-reviewed
articles are lacking. Though businesses are adopting API innovations, there are considerably less
peer-reviewed papers to support this except for Tsai et al. (2016) who underscored the usage of APIs
and their security and Li et al. (2017) who also highlighted how users could assess applications
powered by APIs. Further, API innovations enable firms to open-up their applications and data for
87
others to use. Such technological innovations present difficulties to firms because these innovations
are largely motivated by change (Altman & Tushman, 2017). More critically, a firm has to determine
which interfaces it will open up to others (Gawer & Cusumano, 2014).
Notwithstanding, an important issue that arises is trust and security in the integration and use of
APIs, especially when competition exists between firms. Research on how such issues of trust and
security in API integration and usability influence strategic orientations of firms is, therefore, needed.
API Impact Issues

The literature reviewed suggests that the primary impact of APIs is reflected in the disruption taking
place in the digital economy. Companies such as Netflix and Uber are API driven enterprises. These
companies run on APIs and use the power of their API platforms to deliver superior customer services.
Therefore, they have succeeded in disrupting businesses, existing processes, and reshaping others
(Brennan, 2015). There is, therefore, no doubt that most traditional businesses are now embracing the
use of APIs to power their digital transformation and grow their businesses. While there are several
reasons why enterprises choose an API strategy, there are three key areas that inform the use of APIs:
superior customer experience, expanding ecosystems, and operational efficiency (Koppala, 2016).
Future research can further explore how these enterprises can create and sustain value through an
API-enabled strategy.
On the other hand, the understanding of APIs’ impact on the digital transformation agenda of
most enterprises suggests some challenges arising from cloud providers (Brennan, 2015). There is
no doubt that several services are available for integration via APIs. The impact that the choice of
cloud provider has on the reliability and responsiveness of social APIs has become a matter of great
concern since this could jeopardize the transformation that enterprises yearn. This concern needs more
research, especially in the context of firms in developing countries who leverage global resources
(e.g. cloud services) through APIs to develop and deploy technological solutions which are used
within the constraints of their context.
RESEARCH GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Based on this review, we identified six areas that will offer more insights into API related issues in
the future.
First, there is an interdependency on digital transformation and digital strategies. Since APIs play
a critical role in realizing this, future research can investigate the API strategies that firms have in
place to prepare them for digital transformation. More importantly, future research can investigate the
interplay between IS innovation and organizational API strategy since research is lacking in this area.
Second, as noted in the review, APIs are transforming businesses and making them more profitable
to the extent that the economy of the future is referred to some as the API economy (economy driven
by APIs). The success of the API economy is, however, influenced by contextual factors in the form
of institutions, culture, organizations, region, et cetera. (Yamakami, 2017). Future research can,
therefore, investigate these factors that influence the success of the API economy.
Third, future research could provide a better understanding of how developing country firms, for
instance, can leverage API initiatives as a means of transforming their businesses to attain business
value, amidst their resource constraints. Past research has also shown that investing in technology
alone does not automatically generate competitive advantage; instead, firms need to create some form
of capabilities that will make it very difficult for competitive firms to compete with them (Gupta &
George, 2016). Notably, future research could focus on how digital firms can achieve agility through
APIs. It is worth noting that some digital firms rely on enterprise systems for their operations, and these
innovations have the tendency of making the firms agile. In response to Chae, Koh, and Park (2017)
call, future research can explore how IS innovations such as APIs can impact organizational agility.
88
Fourth, it has also become clear from the review that there remains a dearth in the normative
literature on the business application of APIs (Shatnawi et al., 2016). Future research could also
critically consider how developing country firms develop, integrate and deploy APIs. It will be
beneficial for future API adopters to understand which development and integration strategies work
for which type of APIs and why they work.
Fifth, despite the numerous benefits firms can derive from APIs, studies have revealed that
there could be unintended consequences to the firm if they are not appropriately managed (Collins
& Sisk, 2015). Applications, platforms, systems and people are likely to face multiple risks when
the integration of APIs is poorly executed. According to an IBM report, APIs provide access to data
and other forms of capabilities beyond the firm’s firewall (IBM, 2016). Since APIs can open-up
an organization’s data, security should be of primary concern. In lieu of this, future research can
investigate the security implications of APIs within the digital ecosystem.
Sixth, this review has also shown that API research is largely atheoretical. Future research can
rely on theories to provide a more theoretically-grounded understanding of APIs. In a recent study, we
sort to use the new institutional theory to understand the enablers and constraints of API integration
and development (see Ofoeda and Boateng, 2018). Future research can draw on Jones and Karsten
(2008) work on structuration theory in information systems research to investigate how the various
structures in API research influence organizational processes and systems.
CONCLUSION
APIs are gaining much popularity among researchers and practitioners over the last decade or so. One
reason for this is that they are becoming a significant driver for most of the innovations taking place.
It is, therefore, of vital importance to understand and appreciate their contribution to both practice and
research. Poor understanding of API design and integration can pose a significant challenge to firms.
This article documents a systematic literature review of API research published from 2010 to 2018. It
presents an overview of API research, synthesizes the current research, and outlines areas that need
further attention. The findings suggest that the dominant themes in API research pertain to the design
and usability, which all belong to the technological domain of the classification scheme. The study
also suggests that API research are largely atheoretical. Majority of the studies tend to use experiments
and code samples as methods of enquiry as against the dominant qualitative and quantitative methods.
The study recommends that API research should also be considered from a sociotechnical perspective
since it offers more insights beyond the technical lenses used in past research. Just like other studies,
this work has some limitations which can serve as an opening for future research. First, the search
criteria are limited to articles that have APIs in their title. We acknowledge that there are articles that
discuss the concept of APIs without a mention of APIs in their titles. Future research can enlarge the
search scope to bring to light more studies and gaps.
89
REFERENCES
Abigee. (2016). The State of APIs:2016 Report on Impact of APIs on Digital Business.
Adams, R. Jr. (2018). Overcoming disintermediation: A call for librarians to learn to use web service APIs.
Library Hi Tech, 36(1), 180–190. doi:10.1108/LHT-03-2017-0056
Ali, F., Younis, M., Zamli, K., & Ismail, W. (2010). Development of Java based RFID application programmable
interface for heterogeneous RFID system. Journal of Systems and Software, 83(11), 2322–2331. doi:10.1016/j.
jss.2010.07.030
Altman, E., & Tushman, M. (2017). Platforms, Open/User Innovation, and Ecosystems: A Strategic Leadership
Perspective. Harvard Business School.
Anuff, E. (2017, 02 01). The API-First World. Retrieved from Apigee.com: apigee.com/about/tags/ecosystems-0
Avgeriou, P., Stal, M., & Hilliard, R. (2013). Architecture Sustainability [Guest editors’ introduction]. IEEE
Software, 30(6), 40–44. doi:10.1109/MS.2013.120
Avgerou, C. (2001). The significance of context in information systems and organisational change. Information
Systems Journal, 11(1), 43–63. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2575.2001.00095.x
Avgerou, C., La, R., & Renata, L. (2003). New socio-technical perspectives of IS innovation in organizations.
Information Systems and the Economics of Innovation, 141-161.
Badii, C., Bellini, P., Cenni, D., Difino, A., Nesi, P., & Paolucci, M. (2017). Analysis and assessment of a
knowledge based smart city architecture providing service APIs. Future Generation Computer Systems, 75,
14–29. doi:10.1016/j.future.2017.05.001
Barr, E., Harman, M., McMinn, P., Shahbaz, M., & Yoo, S. (2015). The Oracle Problem in Software. IEEE
Transactions on Software Engineering, 41(5), 507–525. doi:10.1109/TSE.2014.2372785
Bavota, G., Linares-Vasquez, M., Bernal-Cardenas, C., Penta, M., Oliveto, R., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2015). The
impact of api change-and fault-proneness on the user ratings of android apps. IEEE Transactions on Software
Engineering, 41(4), 384–407. doi:10.1109/TSE.2014.2367027
Berman, S., & Marshall, A. (2014). The next digital transformation: From an individual-centered to an everyone-
to-everyone economy. Strategy and Leadership, 42(5), 9–17. doi:10.1108/SL-07-2014-0048
Besker, T., Martini, A., & Bosch, J. (2018). Managing architectural technical debt: A unified model and systematic
literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 135, 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.09.025
Bonardi, M., Brioschi, M., Fuggetta, A., Verga, E., & Zuccalà, M. (2016). Fostering Collaboration Through API
Economy: The E015 Digital Ecosystem. In 2016 3rd International Workshop on Software Engineering Research
and Industrial Practice (pp. 4503-4170).
Brennan, M. (2015, November 16). Not All Clouds Created Equal for Social API Access. Programmable
Web. Retrieved from https://www.programmableweb.com/news/not-all-clouds-created-equal-social-api-
access/2015/11/16
Brereton, P., Kitchenham, B., Budgen, D., Turner, M., & Khalil, M. (2007). Lessons from applying the systematic
literature review process within the software engineering domain. Journal of Systems and Software, 80(4),
571–583. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2006.07.009
Brito, G., Hora, A., Valente, M., & Robbes, R. (2018). On the use of replacement messages in API deprecation:
An empirical study. Journal of Systems and Software, 137, 306–321. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2017.12.007
Bukht, R., & Heeks, R. (2017). Defining, Conceptualising and Measuring the Digital Economy. Manchester
Centre for Development Informatics.
Burns, C., Ferreira, J., Hellmann, T., & Maurer, F. (2012). Usable results from the fieldof API usability: a
systematic mapping and further analysis. In Symposium onVisual Languages and Human-Centric Computing
(VL/HCC) (pp. 179–182). IEEE.
90
Buse, R., & Weimer, W. (2012). Synthesizing API Usage Examples. 2012 34th International Conference on
Software Engineering (ICSE).
Chae, H.-C., Koh, C., & Park, K. (2017). Information Technology Capability and Firm Performance: Role of
Industry, Information and Management. Information & Management. doi:10.1016/j.im.2017.10.001
Choe, J.-M. (2008). Inter-organizational relationships and the flow of information through value chains.
Information & Management, 45(7), 444–450. doi:10.1016/j.im.2008.06.006
Clarke, S. (2005). Describing and measuring API usability with the cognitive dimensions. In Cognitive Dimensions
of Notations 10th Anniversary Workshop.
Collins, G., & Sisk, D. (2015). API economy: From systems to business services. TechTrends.
Columbus, L. (2017). 2017 Is Quickly Becoming The Year Of The API Economy. Forbes. Retrieved from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2017/01/29/2017-is-quickly-becoming-the-year-of-the-api-
economy/#229354056a41
Davenport, T. (2000). Mission Critical: Realizing the Promise of Enterprise Systems.
Deloitte. (2016, June 27). APIs Help Drive Digital Transformation. Retrieved 10 27, 2016, from http://deloitte.
wsj.com/cio/2016/06/27/apis-help-drive-digital-transformation/
Dig, D., & Johnson, R. (2005). The Role of Refactorings in API Evolution. In Proceedings of the 21st IEEE
International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM’05). doi:10.1109/ICSM.2005.90
Dikert, K., Paasivaara, M., & Lassenius, C. (2016). Challenges and success factors for large-scale agile
transformations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Systems and Software, 119, 87–108. doi:10.1016/j.
jss.2016.06.013
Diprose, J., MacDonald, B., Hosking, J., & Plimmer, B. (2017). Designing an API at an appropriate abstraction
level for programming. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 39, 22–40. doi:10.1016/j.jvlc.2016.07.005
Diprose, J. P., Plimmer, B., MacDonald, B. A., & Hosking, J. G. (2014). A humancentric API for programming
socially interactive robots. In 2014 IEEE Symposium Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/
HCC) (pp. 121-128).
Doerrfeld, B., Wood, C., Anthony, A., Sandoval, K., & Lauret, A. (2016). The API Economy: Disruption and
the Business of APIs. Nordic.
Dong, S., Xu, S., & Zhu, K. (2009). Information technology in supply chains: The value of IT-enabled resources
under competition. Information Systems Research, 20(1), 18–32. doi:10.1287/isre.1080.0195
Duncombe, R., & Boateng, R. (2009). Mobile Phones and Financial Services in Developing Countries: A Review
of Concepts, Methods, Issues, Evidence and Future Research Directions. Development Informatics.
Eduku, P. (2018). Government reschedules mobile money interoperability to May. Citifmonline. Retrieved from
citifmonline.com/2018/03/20/govt-reschedules-mobile-money-interoperability-to-may
Espinha, T., Zaidman, A., & Gross, H.-G. (2015). Web API growing pains: Loosely coupled yet strongly tied.
Journal of Systems and Software, 100, 27–43. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2014.10.014
Galster, M., Weyns, D., Tofan, D., Michalik, B., & Avgeriou, P. (2014). Variability in Software Systems—A
Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 40(3), 282–306. doi:10.1109/
TSE.2013.56
Gao, C., & Wei, J. (2013). Generating Open API Usage Rule From Error. In 2013 IEEE Seventh International
Symposium on Service-Oriented System Engineering.
Gawer, A., & Cusumano, M. (2014). Industry Platforms and Ecosystem Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 31(3), 417–433. doi:10.1111/jpim.12105
Green, T., & Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: A ‘cognitive dimensions’
framework. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7(2), 131–174. doi:10.1006/jvlc.1996.0009
91
Gupta, M., & George, J. (2016). Toward the development of a big data analytics capability. Information &
Management, 53(8), 1049–1064. doi:10.1016/j.im.2016.07.004
Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods,
and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2006.06.005
Holland, C. (1995). Cooperative supply chain management: The impact of interorganizational information
systems. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 4(2), 117–133. doi:10.1016/0963-8687(95)80020-Q
Hosseinzadeh, S., Rauti, S., Laurén, S., Mäkelä, J.-M., Holvitie, J., Hyrynsalmi, S., & Leppänen, V. (2018).
Diversification and obfuscation techniques for software security: A systematic literature review. Information
and Software Technology, 104, 72–93. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2018.07.007
Humphreys, P., Lai, M., & Sculli, D. (2001). An inter-organizational information system for supply chain
management. International Journal of Production Economics, 70(3), 245–255. doi:10.1016/S0925-
5273(00)00070-0
IBM. (2016). Innovation in the API economy: Building winning experiences and new capabilities to compete.
Irshad, M., Petersen, K., & Poulding, S. (2018). A systematic literature review of software requirements reuse
approaches. Information and Software Technology, 93, 223–245. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2017.09.009
Jansen, A., Avgeriou, P., & Ven, J. (2009). Enriching software architecture documentation. Journal of Systems
and Software, 82(8), 1232–1248. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2009.04.052
Jansen, A., Bosch, J., & Avgeriou, P. (2008). Documenting after the fact: Recovering architectural design
decisions. Journal of Systems and Software, 81(4), 536–557. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2007.08.025
Jezek, K., Dietrich, J., & Brada, P. (2015). How Java APIs break – An empirical study. Information and Software
Technology, 65, 129–146. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.02.014
Jones, M., & Karsten, H. (2008). Giddens’s Structuration Theory and IS Research. Management Information
Systems Quarterly, 32(1). doi:10.2307/25148831
Karlsson, C., Taylor, M., & Taylor, A. (2010). Integrating new technology in established organizations: A
mapping of integration mechanisms. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 30(7),
672–699. doi:10.1108/01443571011057290
Kenney, M., & Zysman, J. (2015). Choosing a Future in the Platform Economy: The Implications and
Consequences of Digital Platforms. Kauffman Foundation New Entrepreneurial Growth Conference.
Kitchenham, B. (2004). Procedures for Undertaking Systematic Reviews. Keele University.
Kitchenham, B. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering.
Keele University.
Koppala, S. (2016). The state of APIs 2016 report: An analysis of hundreds of billions of API calls in the Apigee
cloud. Apigee.
Kroll, J., Richardson, I., Prikladnicki, R., & Audy, J. (2018). Empirical evidence in follow the Sun software
development: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology, 93, 30–44. doi:10.1016/j.
infsof.2017.08.011
Kula, R., Ounid, A., Germanc, D., & Inouea, K. (2018). An empirical study on the impact of refactoring
activities on evolving clientused used APIs. Information and Software Technology, 93, 186–199. doi:10.1016/j.
infsof.2017.09.007
Lago, P., Avgeriou, P., & Hilliard, R. (2010/11). Guest editors’ introduction: Software architecture: Framing
stakeholders’ concerns. IEEE Software, 27(6), 20–24. doi:10.1109/MS.2010.142
Lee, K., & Ha, N. (2018). AI Platform to Accelerate API Economy and Ecosystem. IEEE, 978(1), 5386-2290.
Levy, Y., & Ellis, T. (2006). A systems Approach to Conduct an Effective Literature Review in Support of
Information Systems Research. Information Science Research, 9.
92
Li, L., Avgeriou, P., & Liang, P. (2015). A systematic mapping study on technical debt and its management.
Journal of Systems and Software, 10, 193–220. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2014.12.027
Linares-Vásquez, M., Bavota, G., Bernal-Cárdenas, C., Penta, M., Oliveto, R., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2013). API
change and fault proneness: a threat to the success of Android apps. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th joint meeting
on foundations of software engineering (pp. 477-487). doi:10.1145/2491411.2491428
Lomborg, S., & Bechmann, A. (2014). Using APIs for Data Collection on Social Media. The Information Society,
30(4), 256–265. doi:10.1080/01972243.2014.915276
Lyer, B., & Subramaniam, M. (2015, January 7). The Strategic Value of APIs. Harvard Business Review.
Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2015/01/the-strategic-value-of-aPIs
Maalej, W., & Robillard, M. (2013). Patterns of Knowledge in API Reference Documentation. IEEE Transactions
on Software Engineering, 39(9), 1264–1282. doi:10.1109/TSE.2013.12
Manikas, K. (2016). Revisiting software ecosystems Research: A longitudinal literature study. Journal of Systems
and Software, 117, 84–103. doi: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. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2012.12.026
McLellan, S., Roesler, A., Tempest, J., & Spinuzzi, C. (1998). Building more usable APIs. IEEE, 15(3), 78–86.
Morrison, S. (2017). Five Simple Strategies for Securing APIs. CA Technologies.
Morstatter, F., Pfeffer, J., Liu, H., & Carley, K. M. (2013). Is the Sample Good Enough? Comparing Data from
Twitter’s Streaming API with Twitter’s Firehose.
Mosqueira-Rey, E., Alonso-Ríos, D., Moret-Bonillo, V., Fernández-Varela, I., & Álvarez-Estévez, D. (2018).
A systematic approach to API usability: Taxonomy-derived criteria and a case study. Information and Software
Technology, 97, 46–63. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2017.12.010
Narain, R., Merrill, A., & Lesser, E. (2016). Innovation in the API economy: Building winning experiences and
new capabilities to compete. USA: IBM Institute for Business Value.
Narain, R., Merrill, A., & Lesser, E. (2016b). Evolution of the API economy: Adopting new business models to
drive future innovation. IBM.
Niu, H., Keivanloo, I., & Zou, Y. (2016). API usage pattern recommendation for software development. Journal
of Systems and Software, 1–13.
Ofoeda, J., & Boateng, R. (2018). Institutional Effects on API Development and Integration in Developing
Countries: Evidence from Ghana. In Twenty-Fourth Americas Conference on Information Systems, San Diego, CA.
Ofoeda, J., Boateng, R., & Asmah, A. (2018). Virtualization of government‐to‐citizen engagement process:
Enablers and constraints. E J Info Sys Dev Countries, 84(5), e12037. doi:10.1002/isd2.12037
Park, S., & Bae, D.-H. (2011). An approach to analyzing the software process change impact using process slicing
and simulation. Journal of Systems and Software, 84(4), 528–543. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2010.11.919
Pourmirza, S., Peters, S., Dijkman, R., & Grefen, P. (2017). A systematic literature review on the architecture of
business process management systems. Information Systems, 66, 43–58. doi:10.1016/j.is.2017.01.007
Qiu, D., Li, B., & Leung, H. (2016). Understanding the API usage in Java. Information and Software Technology,
73, 81–100. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2016.01.011
Radevski, S., Hata, H., & Matsumoto, K. (2016). Towards Building API Usage Example Metrics. In 2016 IEEE
23rd International Conference on Software Analysis, Evolution, and Reengineering.
Robbes, R., & Lungu, M. (2011). A study of ripple effects in software ecosystems (nier track). In Proceedings
of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE ’11) (pp. 904–907).
Robillard, M., Bodden, E., Kawrykow, D., Mezini, M., & Ratchford, T. (2013). Automated API Property
Inference Techniques. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(5), 613–637. doi:10.1109/TSE.2012.63
93
Sambamurthy, V., & Jarvenpaa, S. (2002). JSIS Editorial—Special Issue on “Trust in the Digital Economy.” The
Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3-4), 183–185. doi:10.1016/S0963-8687(02)00032-X
Santos, A., & Myers, B. (2017). Design annotations to improve API discoverability. Journal of Systems and
Software, 126, 17–33. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2016.12.036
Santos, A., Prendi, G., Sousa, H., & Ribeiro, R. (2017). Stepwise API usage assistance using n -gram language
models. Journal of Systems and Software, 1–14.
Santos, R., & Werner, C. (2011). A proposal for software ecosystem engineering. In Third International Workshop
on Software Ecosystems (IWSECO-2011) (pp. 40–51).
Santos, R., Werner, C., Barbosa, O., & Alves, C. (2012). Software ecosystems: trends and impacts on software
engineering. In Proceedings of the 26th Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES) (pp. 206–210).
doi:10.1109/SBES.2012.24
Scheller, T., & Kühn, E. (2015). Automated measurement of API usability: The API Concepts Framework.
Information and Software Technology, 61, 145–162. doi:10.1016/j.infsof.2015.01.009
Sekgweleo, T., Billawer, J., & Hamunyela, L. (2016). Integration Framework for Information Systems Coexistence
within organization. Management and Organizational Studies, 3(1).
Shain, H. (2017). Fintech continues to disrupt the digital API economy. What’s next? Cloud Elements. Retrieved
from https://blog.cloud-elements.com/fintech-continues-to-disrupt-the-digital-api-economy.-whats-next
Shatnawi, A., Seriai, A.-D., Sahraoui, H., & Alshara, Z. (2016). Reverse engineering reusable software components
from object-oriented APIs. Journal of Systems and Software, 1–19.
Shepherd, D., & Pollock, L. (2005). Interfaces, aspects, and views. In Linking Aspect Technology and Evolution
(LATE) Workshop.
Spencer, T., & Riggins, J. (2015). API Power the Internet of Things. Nordicapis. Retrieved from nordicapis.
com/apis-power-the-internet-of-things
Stock, G., & Tatikonda, M. (2004). External technology integration in product and process development.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(7), 642–665. doi:10.1108/01443570410541975
Sturm, R., Pollard, C., & Craig, J. (2017). Application Performance Management (APM) in the Digital Enterprise
Managing Applications for Cloud. Cambridge, MA: Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804018-8.00001-2
Stylos, J., & Myers, B. (2007). Mapping the space of API design decisions. In IEEE Symposium Visual Languages
and Human-Centric Computing (pp. 50–60). doi:10.1109/VLHCC.2007.44
Taly, A., Erlingsson, U., Mitchell, J., Miller, M., & Nagra, C. (2011). Automated Analysis of Security-Critical
JavaScript APIs. In SP ‘11 Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Symposium on security and privacy (pp. 363-378).
Tang, A., Aleti, A., Burge, J., & Vliet, H. (2010). What makes software design effective? Design Studies, 31(6),
614–640. doi:10.1016/j.destud.2010.09.004
Treude, C., & Aniche, M. (2018). Where does Google find API documentation? In 2018 ACM/IEEE 2nd
International Workshop on API Usage and Evolution.
Tripathi, N., Seppänen, P., Boominathan, G., Oivo, M., & Liukkunen, K. (2019). Insights into startup ecosystems
through exploration of multi-vocal literature. Information and Software Technology, 105, 56–77. doi:10.1016/j.
infsof.2018.08.005
Tsai, C.-C., Jain, B., Abdul, N., & Porter, D. (2016). A Study of Modern Linux API Usage and Compatibility:
What to Support When You’re Supporting. EuroSys ’16, April 18-21, London, UK.
Uddin, G., Dagenais, B., & Robillard, M. (2011). Analyzing Temporal API Usage Patterns. IEEE. doi:10.1109/
ASE.2011.6100098
Vangie, B. (2014). API - application program interface. Webopedia. Retrieved from http://www.webopedia.
com/TERM/A/API.html
94
Verborgh, R., Hooland, S., Cope, A. S., Chan, S., Mannens, E., & Walle, R. (2015). The fallacy of the multi-
API culture: Conceptual and practical benefits of Representational State Transfer (REST). The Journal of
Documentation, 71(2), 233–252. doi:10.1108/JD-07-2013-0098
Walsham, G., & Sahay, S. (2006). Research on Information Systems in Developing Countries: Current Landscape
and Future Prospects. Information Technology for Development, 12(1), 7–24. doi:10.1002/itdj.20020
Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review.
Management Information Systems Quarterly, 26(2), xiii–xxiii.
Wendell, S. (2017, March 17). Social and Financial Among the Most Popular API Categories. Programmable
Web. Retrieved from https://www.programmableweb.com/news/social-and-financial-among-most-popular-api-
categories/research/2017/03/17
Wohlin, C. (2014). Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software
engineering. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software
Engineering (p. 38). ACM. doi:10.1145/2601248.2601268
Wohlin, C., Runeson, P., da Mota Silveira Neto, P., Engström, E., do Carmo Machado, I., & de Almeida, E.
(2013). On the reliability of mapping studies in software engineering. Journal of Systems and Software, 86(10),
2594–2610. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2013.04.076
Xua, C., Sun, X., Lia, B., Lua, X., & Guoa, H. (2018). MULAPI: Improving API method recommendation with
API usage location. Journal of Systems and Software, 142, 195–205. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2018.04.060
Yamakami, T. (2017). A View Model of API Economy in City Platform as a Service. IEEE. doi:10.1109/
ICSESS.2017.8342872
Yang, C., Liang, P., & Avgeriou, P. (2016). A systematic mapping study on the combination of software architecture
and agile development. Journal of Systems and Software, 111, 157–184. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2015.09.028
Yang, H., & Tate, M. (2012). A descriptive literature review and classification of cloud computing research.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 31, 35–60. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.03102
Zachariadis, M., & Ozcan, P. (2017). The API Economy and Digital Transformation in Financial Services: The
case of Open Banking. Swift Institute.
Zibran, M. (2008). What makes APIs difficult to use. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Netw. Secur, 8(4), 255–261.
Zibran, M., Eishita, F., & Roy, C. (2011). Useful, but usable factors affecting the usability of apis. In 18th Working
Conf. on Reverse Engineering (WCRE) (pp. 151–155). doi:10.1109/WCRE.2011.26
Joshua Ofoeda is a Doctoral Researcher in Information Systems at the University of Ghana Business School.
Joshua is currently an assistant lecturer at the University of Professional Studies, Accra. His research interests
include e-commerce, e-government, and digital economy.
Richard Boateng is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the University of Ghana Business School.
Richard’s research experience covers digital economy, e-business, internet banking and social media. His papers
have been published in or are forthcoming in the International Journal of Information Management, Internet
Research, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, and many others.
John Effah is an Associate Professor of Information Systems at the Department of Operations and Management
Information Systems, University of Ghana Business School. His publications focus on design, development,
implementation, and evaluation of digitally enabled information systems in developing countries.
95

Application Programming Interface API Research A R

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application Programming Interface API Research A R

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems

Volume 15 • Issue 3 • July-September 2019

FRAMING API RESEARCH

Methodology for the Literature Review

Table 1. Selected electronic database

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria Evaluation criteria

Table 3. Steps defining the literature body

API Research Themes

Distribution by Year of Publication

Table 4. Summary of literature themes and year of publication

Classification Based on Research Themes

Conceptual and Methodological Approaches in API Research

Figure 1. Classification based on level of analysis

Theory/ model/ Approach/ Country/

The study focused on

2. Hou and Li (2011)﻿ The study explored the

Explore the usefulness

Future research can

This paper briefly introduces

8. Zachariadis and This study focused on how APIs

10. Lee and Ha AI Platform to Accelerate Deep learning No defined

11. Bonardi et al Encouraging collaborating Architectural No defined No clear future

How institutional pressures Qualitative The applicability

Contextual forces that

How different are

15. Uddin et al Qualitative,

Figure 2. Classification based on methodology

API Design Issues

API Usability Issues

API Impact Issues

RESEARCH GAPS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS

You might also like

2. Hou and Li (2011) The study explored the