Background

As a scenario I’m working in a research company and Microsoft wants to research partnership ecosystem from client’s perspective. Microsoft is trying to understand which selection criterias are important for the client. So I prepared below questions for resource questions (3. Research Question section below). Microsoft will ask these questions to clients for re-organise their partner programme.

• Is there a generalised way to measure technical competence and know-how of a partner?

• What is the weighted effect of partner has project experience in the same industry of the client a selection criteria?

• What is the weighted effect of successfully and failed project experiences in the past of partner?

• Does the partner have or apply a sector-standard project management methodology?

• Is how long has the partner been operating in the sector a selection criteria?

• What is the preferred balance of focus for employees of the partner between completed certification programmes and project experiences in both the local and international markets?

The purpose of this study is to submit a research proposal on the partnership ecosystem in software development for the company Microsoft. Partner ecosystem can be understood as pool of partnerships a company has created. Partner ecosystem for each company differs in its incarnation depending on the requirement of the business and core competency of the organization. Moreover, the in the tech landscape, the role and importance of partnership ecosystems have increased due to the specialized services they provide. Partner ecosystem includes review sites, app store, service partners, and developer community (Rickmann et al. 2014). Almost all the successful tech companies have developed their own partnership ecosystem that helps the organization to stay ahead in competition; in turn, these partner entities are also benefited as they have access to the already developed customer base and technical support that these organizations provide. The objective of this research proposal is to assist Microsoft in identifying partnership ecosystem from client’s perspective. The report would therefore, help Microsoft to understand which selection criteria are important for the client and how partner companies and Microsoft can make a synergistic effect in order to gain competitive advantage (Wareham et al.  2014).

Microsoft is one of the largest tech companies in the world, both in terms of value and volume. The clients of Microsoft includes other big companies such as Adobe, Bing, Outlook, Skype, Pixar, EBay, Boeing, Samsung, GE Healthcare, Mazda, LG, Dell, and many more. Apart from the large corporate clients, there are millions of standalone users of Microsoft. Therefore, it is practically impossible for Microsoft to provide customized services and user experience to their users all by itself. In this context, the role of partner ecosystem becomes crucial. Microsoft has built a very strong and diverse partner ecosystem (Costanza et al. 2014).

Problem Statement

The benefits of joining Microsoft partner network are unlimited. Microsoft provides a set of core benefits that helps to save time and money, strengthen partner’s capabilities, helps to serve customers better, and build connection to reach full business potential. The core benefits are selling (sales incentive, promotions and special offers to drive growth), access to new markets and customers, staying updated with Microsoft partner network news, business opportunities, and training courses, and obtaining special support from the Microsoft (Clarysse et al. 2014).  Moreover, this relation is mutually beneficial and Microsoft benefits as much as its partners. More than 95% of the Microsoft’s revenue flows through channel, making partner ecosystem critical to the company’s success and Microsoft’s success depend on the overall performance of its channel partners (van et al. 2013).

Microsoft partner ecosystem, more popularly known as Microsoft Partner Network (MNP), is designed to make resources available to a greater number of technology companies in such a manner that they can build a business around Microsoft technologies. Currently, Microsoft’s partner ecosystem consists of more than 650,000 partners, vendors, and service providers that build or sell solutions based on Microsoft’s products and services (van et al. 2014).  Microsoft partner system consist of diverse variety such as systems integrators, original equipment manufacturers, internet hosting services, telecommunications companies, independent software vendors, marketing agencies, value added resellers and other resellers. In order to become part of Microsoft’s partnership ecosystem prospective companies have to qualify a set if core requirements that is designed to align with customer needs. These requirement includes getting access to Microsoft membership in lieu of certain annual investment, complete partner profile, customer references, business focused competency analysis, and technological credentials of the professionals (Crooymans et al. 2015).

Further, as evident from the above discussion, it is very important for the Microsoft to select right kind of companies for partner as its success depends on the performance and innovative strength of the channel partners. Therefore, it becomes very crucial to select members in partner ecosystem wisely. The issues related to associated costs and risk has to be adequately identified prior to partner selection. Moreover, what the partner company brings on the table is also important as partner ecosystem is mutual relation and every partner company plays important in overall organizational success just like cogs in a wheel (Gawer and Cusumano 2014).

A company, when registered to the Microsoft Partner Program, it is able to sell the Microsoft products and provide support to the customers as well. This program has a two-way advantage for Microsoft and the partner company. Microsoft has been increasing its service and selling network by associating with the Partner Company. The Partner Program would enable the Partner Company to access the customers of Microsoft. In return, Microsoft would be getting support from the partner company such that to provide better services to the customers. Thus, this ecosystem is a win-win network for both the sides. The research proposal would be illustrating on the selection criteria, which are important for the selection of an appropriate client for Microsoft.

• Is there any generalized way to measure the technical competence and knowhow of a partner?
• What is the weighted effect and selection criterion of a partner who has project experience in the same industry?
• What is the weighted effect of a successful and failed project experiences in the partner’s history?
• Whether the partner needs to apply a sector-standard project management methodology?
• How long the partner does has to operate in the sector for meeting with the selection criteria?
• What is the preferred balance of focus for employees of the partner between completed certification programs and project experiences in both the local and international markets?

Significance of the Research

The paper deals in creating a research proposal for Microsoft in respective of the Partner Program. It also deals in formulating questionnaire for the research based on the research topic. The research methodology would be illustrating the data collection process for collecting useful and relevant information in order to meet with the research objectives. The main SMART objectives of the research proposal are:

Specific

• To research partnership ecosystem from client’s perspective
• To understand the selection criteria which are important for the client

Measurable

• measuring technical competence and know-how of a partner
• determining the weighted effect of the partner in the project experience

Achievable

• Yes, by initializing the objectives of the research study as relevant to the research topic

Realistic

• Literature review is be conducted from a list of relevant scholarly resources by various authors
• Data collection related to the research topic is to be conducted from a list of respondents relevant to the industry

Time Bound

Data collection consumes huge amount of time and hence, should be properly planned and managed such that to complete the research within its specific deadline

Figure: Conceptual framework for the Partnership Ecosystem

Source: Created by author

There has been a significant shift in the current competing market where a technology company is considering joining or building an ecosystem consisting of a network of partners, evangelists, third party vendors, and plug in providers. These partners of the company revolve round its product offerings and core technologies. Many larger software developing integrator companies including Microsoft, Apple or IBM have been establishing and growing a partner ecosystem (Gawer and Cusumano 2014). According to Mehta et al. (2016), these technology giants are at the center of the ecosystem and are responsible for influencing their partners. They are also in charge of defining the character of the network as well. Thomas, Sharapov and Autio (2015) believe that the rise in prominence of such ecosystems has led to the idea of having collaborative organizations and a value-adding network of partners. This establishment of the ecosystem is very important for the organizations to gain competitive advantage over the other technology companies in the market. The increased prominence of the ecosystem development within the integrator companies has helped in the developing their startup strategies. According to Clarysse et al. (2014), a clear ecosystem development strategy is an essential part of the growth plan of the companies. This has been the earlier stage in the lifecycle of the integrator companies.

According to Ward and Peppard (2016), the technology providers implement the partnership strategy for the integration of their products and services into another product of the partners. This is essential for the market strategy and products of the company. According to Singer et al. (2013), this partnership strategy also allows the integrator companies to capture and enter into new market where they are not required to invest in the development of new product in the market.

Implementation of tool providers: These integrator companies are vendors who specialize in the development of software and are accustomed with the tools that help the customers to better use the company’s platforms or products (Scarlett and Boyd 2015). They add value to the products of the integrator companies and enhance its competitive advantage in the market (Refer to Appendix 1).

Research Questions

Platform for the third party application developers: These are the plug in or add on providers who are expert in building applications on top of the platform as required by another integrator companies (Gawer and Cusumano 2014). These vendors help in increasing the value of the platforms to end users, extending the functionality of the solutions and formation of the solid base of support for the products of the integrator companies.

Technology integration partner: These vendors implement the technology, which could benefit the deep integration with the technology of the other integrator companies such, that to strengthen the competitiveness and products’ features as well (Wareham, Fox and Cano Giner 2014). As for example, the integration of the web analytics with the email, closed loop analytics package and marketing solution for the end customers is the utilities of making partnership with these vendors.

Product strategy partner: These vendors are the technology experts with whom the integrator companies could market and jointly develop unique products to capture the specific market segment of the customers according to their expectations (Bharadwaj et al. 2013).

Verification partners: In most of the cases, the customers from different industries have very different usages of data model functionality or level requirements that a particular company is reluctant to build into the roadmap of the core products (Knauss and Damian 2014). The most important reason for the hesitation of the company is due to the limitation of the niche of the vertical industries. This is where the Verification partners come into existence (Hanssen 2012). These specialist integrator companies focus on the software platform customization in order to build industry specific solutions for the customers. The focus of the companies on the niche industries is facilitated by implementing the business models that offers a wide range of solutions for better serving the customers in the respective industries.

Major platform vendors: Contrasting to the platform extenders or platform providers, the users are the vendors whose solutions are built on the customers who are utilizing the platform of the integrator companies. These vendors are typically thought of as the customers owing to their influencing level that they have on the company’s reputation in the market (Jansen, Brinkkemper and Finkelstein 2013). Treating these vendors as partners would allow the integrator companies to align with their products and distribution strategy in a better way for the mutual benefit of both.

Platform providers: Contrasting to the platform extenders, these vendors are platform providers who are capable of providing a platform upon which the technology of the integrator companies depends (Jansen and Cusumano 2013). There is a mutually beneficial relationship between the companies and the vendors that is helpful in tightening the integration of the technologies both for the integrator companies and for the providers as well.

Research Objectives and Framework

According to Villa et al. (2014), there exists a universe of the service providers if the technology ecosystem who are overlooked because of their indirect marketing or reselling technology products or due to their inability to offer the technology products themselves which could be integrated with the technology stack. However, Chan, Satterfield and Goldstein (2012) argue that the service providers are crucial for any technology company who could be helpful in offering the whole range of products to the customers. The providers also help in filling the gaps in the services that had not been addressed by the product features before. These vendors also play important role in developing new products and solutions even before the marketing and sales strategies of the integrator companies take root.

According to Jansen and Cusumano (2013), the technology companies today pay attention towards the selection of appropriate partners who could be helping them in developing unique products and services that could be meeting with their expectations of the customers.

Value of certification of the partners: The certification within the Software partner Ecosystem offers the developers with a wide range of benefits including the career advancement, branding to market, and gaining access to the global customer support (Crooymans, Pradhan and Jansen 2015) (Refer to Appendix 2). The career advancement includes the mastering of technologies by staying one-step ahead in the utilization of the development techniques and the software products that are state-of-the-art. The Competency program helps in providing a meaningful credential for celebrating the technical milestone for the automation developers and control system. The certification would also enable the developers to upgrade and improve the skills of most of the companies through the utilization of the most current version of the software. The certification would also allow the companies to access the advanced problem-resolution information associated with the Technical Support. The certified partners of the company would be providing access to invaluable advice and problem solving techniques from the Technical Support database. According to Jansen and Cusumano (2013), the certification would be enabling the participants to get a review into the latest product enhancement and thus, would help them to stay ahead in the market. They would also learn about the new techniques and features related to the new product releases. According to García et al. (2014), this certification would be enabling both the company and the developers to earn the rights to use the certified logos. The official product specific certificates are issued to the developers who are certified for the use of the specific products. The developers get the developer credentials card that includes the list of their names, distributor and company together with the current produce specifications.

Conceptual Framework

Weighted effect of partner in the industry: Several scholars have conducted an in depth research on the significance of the ties between the companies with the partner developers in a software ecosystem. They had been defining the software ecosystem according to their interpretation from the data gathered from the research. According to Singer et al. (2013), a software ecosystem is a set of actors who operate as a unit with the main functionality of interacting with the shared market for the services and software together with the relationship among them as well (Refer to Appendix 3). The requirement of an effective partner in the ecosystem helps in the mutual benefit of an integrator company by a common technological market or platform to operate through the exchange of resources, information and artifacts. A software ecosystem is steered and governed by the co coordinating parties who mainly act for providing benefits to the ecosystem when it thrives. These coordinators help in controlling the technology upon which the software development ecosystem is based. Thus, software ecosystem coordinators are the beneficiaries of the growth of the ecosystem. They have the instruments for influencing the development of the software platform or the surrounding ecosystem. They are also responsible for the development of the technology underpinning the ecosystem. According to Jansen and Cusumano (2013), the role of the software platforms in the software ecosystem cannot be denied. This development of the software platforms is facilitated by mutual interaction of the integrator companies with the coordinating parties (Refer to Appendix 4).

Technical competence: The competence of a partner company provides the meaningful credentials in order to celebrate the technical milestones for the developers. This provides an opportunity for the integrator company to learn and gain the accreditations for promoting a key differentiator to the customer prospectus. The existence of the technical competence in the developer companies would enable the integrator company to have a competitive advantage in the market. This competence would be enabling both the company and the developers to develop unique and advanced products and launch the same in the market to remain competitive and sustainable in the long-run.

The software ecosystem can be comprised of three different classification factors. According to Jansen and Cusumano (2013), the classification factors include the detailed description of the underlying base technology depending on the estimated size of the ecosystem, the population and the number of platform extenders. The classification model deals with the creation of the software and business ecosystems. The model consists of the different factors associated with the different properties in an ecosystem. However, for the comfort and understating of the readers, only three of them have been discussed in the paper that is described below.

Literature Review

Base Technology: The software ecosystem suggest that there should be some technology that could be associated with the software development cycle of a particular technology company. According to Jansen and Cusumano (2013), all software ecosystems requires the utilization of technology. The major types of technology being utilized in the software ecosystem are the software platform, software standard and a software service platform. Most of the software ecosystem requires software platform including the AutoCAD, Word press or Ubuntu. While, others require multiple software platforms including Microsoft ISV ecosystem underpinned by Microsoft SharePoint, CRM, Exchange and other platforms (Refer to Appendix 5).

Coordinators: The software ecosystem is governed by the coordinators who are having the largest influence on the governance of the same. The owners have control over the methods and tools that are being utilized to increase the success of a particular ecosystem (Refer to Appendix 6). The software ecosystem can be owned either by a private party or by a community. An ecosystem governed by a community is known as an Eclipse ecosystem. The Eclipse consortium helps in controlling the ecosystem and reprints the commands and wishes of the consortium members (Refer to Appendix 7). According to Jansen and Cusumano (2013), an ecosystem exerts more control over the technology, if it is privately owned by a commercial party.

Extension market: Most of the software ecosystems are app stores or markets that are centralized around the market of extension. A software ecosystem can have various extension markets including a commercial extension market, an actual extension market, a simple list of extensions or multiple extension markets (Refer to Appendix 8). According to Jansen and Cusumano (2013), the components could be available through the third parties if the software ecosystem has no explicit extension market. One of the most appropriate examples is the AutoCAD ecosystem (Refer to Appendix 5).

Conclusion

The literature includes the various concepts, models and factors that would be helping Microsoft and other integrator companies to have a brief knowledge about the types of partners and their functionalities such that to enable them in selecting appropriate partners for making synergistic effect in order to gain competitive advantage in the market. The review would also be enabling the companies to research partnership ecosystem from client’s perspective and understand the selection criteria, which are important for the clients as well. It would also help in allowing the integrator companies to measuring technical competence and know-how of a partner and also determine the weighted effect of the partner in the project experience.

Research design

The research method can be categorized by the two segments viz., qualitative and quantitative. The qualitative research helps in improving the performance of the organizations by changing the corporate structure of the organizations and providing power to the employees working in the organisations. On the other hand, the quantitative analysis is for a huge number of respondents upon whom the survey is to be conducted based on the research questionnaire being formulated on the research (Creswell 2013). Hence, both the quantitative and qualitative research methods are required to be implemented for the study.

The data collection method is comprised of the primary and secondary data collection process (O’Leary 2013). The research study should be emphasizing on the primary data collection process in order to conduct the research. The paper deals in creating a research proposal for Microsoft in respective of the Partner Program. It also deals in formulating questionnaire for the research based on the research topic (Neuman and Robson 2012). The research methodology would be illustrating the data collection process for collecting useful and relevant information in order to meet with the research objectives. This is the main reason why the research study needs to implement the collection of the primary data related to the research topic. Moreover, the primary data being collected from the respondents would be indicating the research process to be more reliable and valid towards the readers (Blumberg et al. 2014).

The research approach can be comprised of two basic approaches including the inductive and deductive approach, which is used in most of the researches. According to Gioia, Corley and Hamilton (2013), the inductive approach includes the analysis of the data is conducted by using effective analytical tools and developing potential theories related to the research topic. While, the deductive approach follows the selection of theory, testing for hypothesis, data analysis and the implementation of the theories in order to analyse the data. The deductive approach ultimately requires the confirmation of the theoretical evidences as well (Panneerselvam 2014).

For conducting the research, a questionnaire has been formulated based on which the survey is required to be conducted from the respondents being selected for the research. The information being collected from the respondent are required to be inscribed in the form of graphs and tables such that to make the readers easily understand about the research process. Another instrument to be used in the data analysis section of the research process is the use of various software including the SPSS and Excel which should be used in both the quantitative and qualitative analysis (Silverman 2016).

Sampling is a crucial method, which helps in selecting the respondents for conducting the survey as required by the research study. Sampling plan refers to the selection of respondents in order to conduct the survey (Csikszentmihalyi and Larson 2014). The sampling method refers to selection of appropriate respondents for the research study such that to collect relevant information by implementing the data collection method. The sampling process can be comprised of two methods viz., probability, and non-probability sampling. The convenient sampling is used to reduce the deviation of the responses being collected from the candidates in the primary data collection. It is very important for the Microsoft to select right kind of companies for partner as its success depends on the performance and innovative strength of the channel partners. Moreover, what the partner company brings on the table is also important as partner ecosystem is mutual relation and every partner company plays important in overall organizational success just like cogs in a wheel. Therefore, it becomes very crucial to select respondents who should be relevant to the industry. The issues related to associated costs and risk has to be adequately identified prior to sample selection. Thus, the questionnaire needs to be formulated based on the research topic, which should be fulfilling the research objectives.

The sampling size for the data collection process would be 100 respondents working in Microsoft who would be providing responses that could be useful and relevant to the research topic (Taylor et al. 2015).

While undertaking research study, it is important to follow a methodical or systemic approach where ethical issues are considered. Moreover, consideration for ethical issues is important for validating the research study and its results. For this research study, genuine data are collected from respondents and from secondary sources; this helps in verifying the consistency and dependability of the research study. The data collected will be used solely for the academic purposes (Marshall and Rossman 2014). The questionnaire has been designed in such a manner that no personal or confidential questions are asked. Further, for the convenience of the respondents, willingness of respondents is considered in order to complete the research study. The data collected will be kept confidential in order to ensure privacy of the respondents and the referencing style employed for the research study has helped in validating the research study and proper credits given to the original authors across the report whose ideas are used to successfully complete the research study (Creswell 2013).

The research proposal would be illustrating on the selection criteria that are important for the selection of an appropriate client for Microsoft. The paper deals in creating a research proposal for Microsoft in respective of the Partner Program. It also deals in formulating questionnaire for the research based on the research topic. The research methodology would be illustrating the data collection process for collecting useful and relevant information in order to meet with the research objectives. The research proposal would be helping the readers to understand research partnership ecosystem from client’s perspective. It also help in understanding the selection criteria which are important for the client by measuring the technical competence and know-how of a partner related to the Partner Programs in a Partnership Ecosystem associated with the Software Development.

References

Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O.A., Pavlou, P.A. and Venkatraman, N.V., 2013. Digital business strategy: toward a next generation of insights. Mis Quarterly, 37(2), pp.471-482.

Blumberg, B.F., Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S., 2014. Business research methods. McGraw-hill education.

Chan, K.M., Satterfield, T. and Goldstein, J., 2012. Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecological economics, 74, pp.8-18.

Clarysse, B., Wright, M., Bruneel, J. and Mahajan, A., 2014. Creating value in ecosystems: Crossing the chasm between knowledge and business ecosystems. Research Policy, 43(7), pp.1164-1176.

Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S.J., Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S. and Turner, R.K., 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, pp.152-158.

Creswell, J.W., 2013. Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.

Crooymans, W., Pradhan, P. and Jansen, S., 2015, June. Exploring network modelling and strategy in the dutch software business ecosystem. In International Conference of Software Business (pp. 45-59). Springer International Publishing.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. and Larson, R., 2014. Validity and reliability of the experience-sampling method. In Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 35-54). Springer Netherlands.

de Bruin, S. (2012). Partnerships, Channels & Alliances – Who Does What Exactly? | The METISfiles. [online] Themetisfiles.com. Available at: https://www.themetisfiles.com/2012/02/partnerships-channels-alliances-%E2%80%93-who-does-what-exactly/ [Accessed 19 Aug. 2016].

García-Peñalvo, F.J., Johnson, M., Alves, G.R., Minović, M. and Conde-González, M.Á., 2014. Informal learning recognition through a cloud ecosystem. Future Generation Computer Systems, 32, pp.282-294.

Gawer, A. and Cusumano, M.A., 2014. Industry platforms and ecosystem innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(3), pp.417-433.

Gioia, D.A., Corley, K.G. and Hamilton, A.L., 2013. Seeking qualitative rigor in inductive research notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), pp.15-31.

Hanssen, G.K., 2012. A longitudinal case study of an emerging software ecosystem: Implications for practice and theory. Journal of Systems and Software, 85(7), pp.1455-1466.

Jansen, S. and Cusumano, M.A., 2013. Defining software ecosystems: a survey of software platforms and business network governance. Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, 13.

Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S. and Finkelstein, A., 2013. Business network management as a survival. Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, p.29.

Knauss, E. and Damian, D.E., 2014. Towards Enabling Cross-Organizational Modeling in Automotive Ecosystems. In [email protected] MoDELS (pp. 38-47).

Marshall, C. and Rossman, G.B., 2014. Designing qualitative research. Sage publications.

Mehta, K., Zappe, S., Brannon, M.L. and Zhao, Y., 2016. An Educational and Entrepreneurial Ecosystem to Actualize Technology-Based Social Ventures. Advances in Engineering Education, 5(1), p.n1.

Neuman, W.L. and Robson, K., 2012. Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches.

O’Leary, Z., 2013. The essential guide to doing your research project. Sage.

Panneerselvam, R., 2014. Research methodology. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd..

Popp, D. (2016). Ecosystems: Partner Models in the Software Industry: Referral Resell Revenue share – Dr. Karl Popp. [online] Drkarlpopp.com. Available at: https://www.drkarlpopp.com/PartnerModelsintheSoftwareIndustry.html#.V7bRC_l97Dc [Accessed 19 Aug. 2016].

Rickmann, T., Wenzel, S. and Fischbach, K., 2014. Software Ecosystem Orchestration: The Perspective of Complementors.

Scarlett, L. and Boyd, J., 2015. Ecosystem services and resource management: institutional issues, challenges, and opportunities in the public sector. Ecological Economics, 115, pp.3-10.

Silverman, D. ed., 2016. Qualitative research. Sage.

Singer, L., Figueira Filho, F., Cleary, B., Treude, C., Storey, M.A. and Schneider, K., 2013, February. Mutual assessment in the social programmer ecosystem: an empirical investigation of developer profile aggregators. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work (pp. 103-116). ACM.

Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. and DeVault, M., 2015. Introduction to qualitative research methods: A guidebook and resource. John Wiley & Sons.

Thomas, L.D., Sharapov, D. and Autio, E., 2015. Linking entrepreneurial and innovation ecosystems: the case of appcampus.

van Angeren, J., Jansen, S. and Brinkkemper, S., 2014, June. Exploring the relationship between partnership model participation and interfirm network structure: An analysis of the office365 ecosystem. In International Conference of Software Business (pp. 1-15). Springer International Publishing.

van Angeren, J., Kabbedijk, J., Popp, K.M. and Jansen, S., 2013. Managing software ecosystems through partnering. Software Ecosystems: Analyzing and Managing Business Networks in the Software Industry, pp.85-102.

Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., Portela, R., Honzák, M. and Batker, D., 2014. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PloS one, 9(3), p.e91001.

Ward, J. and Peppard, J., 2016. The Strategic Management of Information Systems: Building a Digital Strategy. John Wiley & Sons.

Wareham, J., Fox, P.B. and Cano Giner, J.L., 2014. Technology ecosystem governance. Organization Science, 25(4), pp.1195-1215.