Martin Mikusz

Software product lines, service-oriented architecture and frameworks: worlds apart or ideal partners?

Service-oriented Architectures and Software Product Lines are two concepts that currently get a lot of attention in research and practice. Both promise to make the development of flexible, cost-effective software systems and support high levels of reuse. But at the same time they are quite different from one another: while Software Product Lines focus on one producer alone developing a set of systems based on a common platform (often in the embedded systems-domain), most proponents of Service-oriented Architecture propose systems consisting of loosely coupled services or company-wide infrastructures including a variety of systems that are loosely coupled using services. In any case, the services are usually developed by various companies (e.g. SAP develops services for their platform itself, but explicitly allows other companies to develop and sell their services for the platform, too). Focus of this paper is the comparison of these concepts and the concept of component frameworks and show where they differ and analyze if they are mutually exclusive or (at least partially) complementary.

Plattform-Ökosysteme im Bereich der intelligent vernetzten Mobilität: Eine Geschäftsmodellanalyse

ZusammenfassungDas heutige Verständnis von Cyber-Physischen Systemen (CPS) in Forschung und Praxis ist im Sinne eingebetteter Systeme ein vornehmlich informationstechnisches. Die weiterführende Auffassung zukünftiger CPS charakterisiert diese jedoch vielmehr als sozio-technische Servicesysteme. CPS, wie sie sich beispielsweise im Bereich der intelligent vernetzten Mobilität entwickeln, eröffnen durch die Verknüpfung von physikalischer, sozialer und softwarebasierter, virtueller Welt über CPS-Plattformen die Möglichkeit disruptiver Innovationen hinsichtlich der Entwicklung geeigneter Geschäftsmodelle in Plattform-Ökosystemen. Da kaum eine Branche das Potenzial von CPS klarer darlegt als die Automobilbranche, werden im vorliegenden Beitrag Automobile als CPS im Sinne sozio-technischer Servicesysteme verstanden und eine Analyse der den Plattform-Ökosystemen der deutschen Automobilhersteller Audi, BMW und Mercedes-Benz zugrundeliegenden Geschäftsmodelle vorgenommen. Der vorliegende Beitrag richtet sich neben Wissenschaftlern im Bereich der Geschäftsmodellforschung auch an Praktiker der Automobilbranche, die hierdurch Einblicke in die zunehmende Konnektivität von Fahrzeugen und die damit einhergehende Ausgestaltung von Geschäftsmodellen im Bereich der intelligent vernetzten Mobilität erlangen.AbstractThe understanding of cyber-physical systems (CPS) in research and practice is mostly seen in purpose of embedded systems driven by an information technology point of view. The further conception of upcoming CPS characterizes them much more as socio-technical service systems. CPS like the kind developing in the area of smart mobility open the possibility of disruptive innovations related to the development of respective business models in platform ecosystems by the combination of physical, social, software-related and virtual world. Barely one industry uses the upcoming potentials of CPS better than the automotive industry. Therefore cars are seen as socio-technical service systems in this paper. An analysis of the underlying state of the art business models of platform ecosystems of the German premium automobile manufacturer Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz are done within this article. This article addresses next to researchers of the field of business model research also practitioners from the automotive industry, which get insights in the increasing connectivity of cars accompanied by the design of business models in the area of smart mobility.

Business Model Patterns for the Connected Car and the Example of Data Orchestrator

Along with the connected car, previously isolated business models of traditional goods-producing industry melt together with those of software businesses. It is becoming apparent that software businesses may have to play an important role, provided that they are capable of building up competencies in engineering business models for this emerging and converged market. We identify and cluster business model patterns that we rate as being capable of transforming product innovations, enabled by abilities and characteristics of cyber-physical systems and the underlying technical platforms, into business model innovations. We discuss further the pattern cluster Data Orchestrator.

Value-In-Context with Service Innovation in the Digital Age: A Service-Dominant Logic Perspective

The increasingly complex service context with the convergence of physical products, digitalization, and service offerings presents a major challenge for IS research on service innovation. This article addresses the resulting need for research on an adequate understanding of the perceived value of innovative digital services. It continues previous work that makes the first move in this regard—conceptualizing this value as the sum of direct value-in-context (S-D logic), and indirect and option value-in-context (both newly introduced). This article closes two research gaps. First, the option and indirect value-in-context components are clarified by developing propositions that link both to S-D logic’s main concepts of service innovation. Second, the value-in-context anatomy is empirically validated with two conjoint analyses. It can be shown that both newly introduced components of value-in-context indeed are decisive factors for customers’ perceptions of value with innovative digital services—implicating their conceptual separation.

A Comparative Perspective between Investors and Businesses Regarding Success Factors of E-Ventures at an Early-Stage

Start-ups in the software-intensive field of e-business are key for modern economies. However, those so-called e-ventures tend to face certain problems in terms of financing: Many promising e-ventures seem to fail due to missing seed capital or too few investors. The reasons for this might partially be explained by goal conflicts, different expectations–especially concerning growth of enterprise value and opportunities–, differences in valuation of risks, planning, time horizon and other trade-offs between potential investors and the company’s founders. For this reason we examined academic literature to collect data as a basis for two analogously conducted Delphi studies: one for investors and one for e-ventures. Out of 48 most widely researched success factors concerning investors (of technology start-ups) and 24 concerning e-ventures we could derive implications to eight different subtopics for the above-mentioned trade-offs. Our article concludes by naming its major limitations as well as future research directions for the purpose of advancing research in this field.