kuijper 201012 - iippsw-sra-xmas2010

Strategic Research Agenda ICT Innovationplatform Productsoftware

Loosely coupling

User-owned Data,

Customer-owned Functions and

Vendor-owned Processing

X-mas 2010 edition, version 0.9

X-mas 2010 edition, version 0.9 - 12/23/10 5:16 PM

II


“Losing your cell phone is like losing your mind”

New York, I Love You (Israel Horovitz, 2009)


IV


Contributors

Ben van Lier (Centric software, Board IIP/psw)

Bas Linders (Software~VOC@ICT~Office, Board IIP/psw)

Eric van Pelt (Agentschapnl, Board IIP/psw)

Arco van Nieuwland (Yuki software, formerly Exact , Board IIP/psw)

Boudewijn van Dongen (TU/Eindhoven, Board IIP/psw)

Erik Jaspers (Planon software, Board IIP/psw)

Hans van Vliet (VU, Board IIP/psw)

Wil van der Aalst (TU/Eindhoven, Board IIP/psw)

Sjaak Brinkkemper (U/Utrecht, Platformchair IIP/productsoftware)

Michiel Kuijper (U/Utrecht, Platformmanager IIP/productsoftware, ed.)

Arnoud Verdwaald (Consultant Management & Organisation)

Bert van Werkhoven (Agentschapnl)

Dirk Groten (Layar software)

Erik Jansen (TU/Delft)

Frits Grotenhuis (IIP/Create, IIP/Brain&Cognition)

Geert-Jan Houben (TU/Delft)

Hans Wortmann (U/Groningen, IIP/Saas)

Henk van der Schuur (U/Utrecht)

Inge van de Weerd (U/Utrecht)

Jaap de Rijk (GX software)

Jaap Kabbedijk (U/Utrecht)

Johan Versendaal (U/Utrecht)

Jos van Hillegersberg (TU/Twente)

Jurriaan Souer (GX software)

Jurrian Meeter (Ministerie van Economie, Landbouw en Innovatie)

Kevin Vlaanderen (U/Utrecht)

Laurens van der Tang (Vitalhealt software)


VI

Leen Blom (Centric software)

Marcel van de Sandt (Exact software)

Marco Spruit (U/Utrecht)

Mark van den Brand (TU/Eindhoven)

Marko van Eekelen (RU/Nijmegen)

Marijn Plomp (U/Utrecht)

Martijn van Berkum (GX software)

Martijn Kriens (iCrowds, IIP/Saas)

Naser Bakhshi (U/Utrecht)

Patricia Lago (VU)

Paul Klint (CWI)

Ramon Rentmeester (Agentschapnl)

Remco Veltkamp (U/Utrecht)

Remko Helms (U/Utrecht)

Rik Bos (U/Utrecht)

Rogier van de Wetering (U/Utrecht)

Ronald Dähne (Exact software)

Ronald Wanink (Backbase software)

Sandor Spruit (U/Utrecht)

Sandra Verdonk (U/Utrecht)

Slinger Jansen (U/Utrecht)

Toine Hurkmans (Exact software)

Willem Bekkers (Centric software, U/Utrecht)

Willem-Jan van den Heuvel (U/Tilburg)


Our dream

The productsoftware sector is the ICT engineroom that drives the Dutch

innovation-axis. In our research quest for the next service delivery

infrastructure we aspire to capitalise on our capability as a distribution

country. The Dutch are well-poised to become an important node in the

global networkeconomy. Succesful examples are Greenport, Capital of

Peace, Brainport, Schiphol airport, Rotterdam Harbour, AMS Internet

Exchange1.

As an inspiration we take our forefathers from the sixteenth century.

For instance, the clothmakers guild, so brilliantly depicted by

Rembrandt van Rijn in 1662, by certifying products with a quality

stamp, had a great impact on lowering transaction costs in cloth

trading2. The quality stamp cut short onerous negotiations between

individual sellers and buyers

by creating a trusted hub. By

doing so they became one of

the first accelerators in

interoperability.

In the wake of this image we

envision in 2020 a Dutch hub

for the digital services market

that will cut short onerous negotiations between buyers and sellers of

digital services, quality checked by Dutch software design architects

based on worldclass productsoftware research, known as softportNL.


VIII


Contributors Our dream Introduction Management Summary Strategic Research Agenda Netcentric processing 01. Research topic: Refactoring in Reuse 02. Research topic: Functional concepts in Customisation 03. Research topic: Variability 04. Research topic: Multi-tenancy 05. Research topic: Software Operations 06. Research topic: Evolution & Legacy 07. Research topic: Orchestration in Functionality 08. Research topic: Loose Coupling User-centric complexity reduction 09. Research topic: Close Interfaces as Rational Route/Complexity 10. Research topic: Identity Management in Privacy 11. Research topic: Recommendation technology as Social R/Complex 12. Research topic: Certification in Security 13. Research topic: Data mining for Recommendations 14. Research topic: Process mining for Usability 15. Research topic: Product Virtualisation 16. Research topic: Service Productivation Generic 17. Research topic: Quality Control in Interoperability 18. Research topic: Software Product Management 19. Research topic : Software Ecosystems Programme Organisational Stucture Roadmap Affiliated Networks Resourcing Impact Mission Vision Strategy SoftportNL as Optimising Software Potential Strategy Route Rationale: Productsoftware Research as Design Science Research User-centric framework Netcentric framework References

V VII 11 13 15 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 39 39 40 41 42 43 45 48 50 53 55 62 65 70


X

STRATEGIC RESEARCH AGENDA www.iipproductsoftware.nl 11


Introduction

This is the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) of the ICT

Innovationplatform Productsoftware (IIP/psw). Productsoftware is the

deliverable of reuse-based software engineering. Productsoftware is

designed for a market, but runs for a specific customer. The ICT

Innovationplatform Productsoftware is one of 15 ICT

Innovationplatforms acknowledged by ICTRegie, the government

incubator of the Dutch ICT ecosystem. The purpose of the IIP/psw is to

facilitate the knowledge flow between productsoftware researchers,

productsoftware practitioners and productsoftware policymakers in

order to address socio-economical challenges and boost socio-

economical thrusts.

The purpose of the IIP/psw SRA is to provide a focused and shared

conceptual foundation for the discussions about the relationship

between productsoftware policymaking, productsoftware research and

productsoftware business. The contents of the SRA consists of the

loosely coupled results of the interviews and meetings involving more

than 50 researchers, practitioners and policy makers conducted in the

latter half of 2010. The contributors are listed in the beginning of this

document.

The results are described in four consecutive parts: 1) the IIP/psw

Research Agenda, a listing of research topics informed by the coherence

of an IIP/psw framework, 2) the IIP/psw Programme describing our

organisational structure, roadmap, affiliated networks and resourcing

opportunities to achieve our vision, 3) the IIP/psw Impact describing

our mission, vision, and strategy and 4) the IIP/psw Rationale where we

justify the IIP/psw framework as a hinge between Utility and

Knowledge. The first two parts are action-oriented parts, the latter two

provide due diligence.

12 STRATEGIC RESEARCH AGENDA www.iipproductsoftware.nl




Management Summary

Many societal information networks float on productsoftware. These

networks are facing big challenges today in all corners of society: how

do we manage mobility, health, safety, education, public services &

sustainability. Users of these networks are dealing with tremendous

data, systems and organisational complexity. The productsoftware

sector can aid and benefit in two ways. Firstly, by preventing further

fragmentation by looking at informationflow across the entire network

instead of looking at each participating partner in isolation. Secondly,

by facilitating integration by organising the software ecosystem that

supports the societal information network. Therefore we are embarking

on a journey of software ecosystem and information network alignment.

Our mission is to simplify user access to societal and economic products

by loosely coupling user-owned data, customer-owned functions and

vendor-owned processing.

To understand the nature of loose coupling we need to investigate what

netcentric processing entails. So far we know that interoperability

between systems, data and organisations is key, but what exactly

influences interoperability and how can we manage it according to

quality terms? To start our investigations we have identified 19

research topics, 8 of which deal with netcentric processing and 8 of

which deal with complexity reduction. The remaining three deal with

quality of service under interoperability, the netcentric software

ecosystem and federated software productmanagement. The latter is

our flagbearing topic. We have a fair understanding what software

productmanagement means in a single organisation, but the linking pin

between netcentric software processing and netcentric organising is

federated software productmanagement. Our vision therefore is to

create a worldclass software productmanagement capability that

enables software businesses to collectively align software ecosystems

with societal information networks.



To focus our vision we have dreamed up an organisational concept,

softportNL, which will be the sedimentation and inspiration of the

research projects that we will undertake. We hope that reflective

practitioners in software productmanagement will feed on and off this

hub to collectively manage quality in the software infrastructure of

societal information networks. Our strategy is to accrue competence

and capability to this hub by executing nationally and european funded

projects.

To position our research we have defined productsoftware research as

design research. Design research is an emerging science that focuses

on the relationship between acting and artifact. It therefore provides a

hinge between the behavioral and natural sciences. Our second order

mission is to articulate and show the value of design research, and by

doing so enabling it to earn it’s place on scientific policy agendas.



Strategic Research Agenda

Productsoftware is the deliverable of reuse-based software engineering.

Productsoftware is designed for a market, but runs for a specific

customer3. The current productsoftware landscape is characterised by

five challenges.

The Technical Trend is a shift from designtime to runtime4 in software

engineering. This entails that increasingly more logical modularisation

and layering is injected in productsoftware that enables stalling

commitment to domain decisions to enable creativity for the domain-

intimate user. This also allows for interoperability with productsoftware

from partnering productsoftware-vendors. The current Technical

Challenge is to define the reusable patterns in this pluriform

interaction in order to make them maneagable as a product.

The Informational Trend is an increased medium complexity in user-

value interaction. We define value for the user in terms of Maslov5,

being either a commercial or societal product or service, or access to

informational or social networks. More and more ICT solutions become

available to aid the user in foraging for value6, but the combined effect

of these create a staggering amount of Data & Systems complexity7. The

current Informational Challenge is to simplify medium complexity by

learning from the digital traces users leave behind in their

workarounds.

The Organisational Trend is an increasingly netcentric way of working8

amongst productsoftware-vendors themselves in software ecosystems ,

but also together with software-intensive customers in societal

information networks trying to adopt a user-centric stance. The current

Organisational Challenge is to create Coordination schemes that

loosely couple User-owned Data, Customer-owned Functions and

Vendor-owned processing.



The visual below illustrates these challenges. As a system these three

challenges their interplay

create tensions around the

question what to focus on.

These three challenges are

used as dimensions in two

frameworks that are used to

understand research

requirements in a coherent

fashion. One framework (Blue-

Green) describes the research requirements from a Utility perspective

defining the impact of the organisational challenge, working in

ecosystems, on the informational challenge, complexity reduction in

user-value interaction. The other framework (Blue-Red) describes the

research requirements from a Knowledge perspective defining the

impact of the organisational challenge, working in ecosystems, on the

technical challenge, the shift from designtime to runtime introducing

Productsoftware Research tensions

Productsoftware Research Frameworks



coordinationtime.

The frameworks introduce several layers of analysis through which the

implications of changes in the productsoftware landscape can be

understood. The inner three layers define our scope of control. This is

where we do Research, Development, Innovation and Professiona-

lisation. The outer two layers define our scope of influence. This is our

impact.

The justification of the frameworks is given in the Rationale section. For

now we will postulate the research requirements as they are shown in

the blue boxes of the frameworks in order to provide a comprehensive

list of research topics. The framework structure aids in understanding

the dependencies between adjacent research areas.

In the following sections we will describe 18 - 1 = 17 research topics

concerning Methods, Protocols, Standards & Languages in Software

Engineering with Interoperability as pivotal concept and 2 research

topics concerning Software Product Management and Software

Ecosystems. This is what we define as our Research Scope of Control

addressing the Technical, Informational and Organisational Challenges

mentioned before.

Before we do this we want to bring your attention to our Scope of

Impact, the red and green rings in the productsoftware framework.

These refer to the Economical and Policy Challenges.

The Economical Challenge for productsoftware-vendors is the shift

from an Economy of Scale to an Economy of Scope. Reuse is the

hallmark of an Economy of Scale. The increased connectivity ICT brings

to economy and society makes it possible to scope markets in a much

more granular way than before. The trend in fact is not so much a shift

between Scale and Scope, but an ever more interweaving of Scale and

Scope. This is visible in the rise of Social Media-based commerce that

runs on reuse-based software but use progressive profiling9 as means

for complexity reduction for the user (recommendation technology)



and creating a shared information image for the software-intensive

societal information network.

The interwoven character of a virtual software product assembled from

functionality owned by different productsoftware-vendors in a software

ecosystem also triggers a shift from Property-based revenue to Usage-

based revenue10. This we refer to as the Policy Challenge. It is not only

a Business Policy challenge but also a Governmental Policy challenge,

because it changes the dynamics of Research, Development, Innovation,

Productivity, Education and Employment. The Policy Challenge is to

stage the transition in Business models, not so much by decreeing

terms on the product but by creating a level playing field for “Tragedy of

the Commons11”-like problems, where first-mover costs are unlikely to

return directly to its investor, but rather return in the collective value

that benefits the informational infrastructure by which users invest in

and benefit from societal challenges and thrusts.



Research topic: Refactoring in Reuse

Productsoftware is the deliverable

of reuse-based software

engineering. It is design for a

market, but runs for a customer.

A productsoftware-vendor

capitalises on an economy of scale.

By reusing functionality common

for a market into the productbase

he is able to sell developments

investments multiple times12.

The challenge here is to find the

right levels of granularity and

abstraction that strike a balance between component reuse and

variability requirements.

The market demand of netcentrism invites the productsoftware-vendor

to refactor his products into components to facilite loose couplings with

components and platforms of other productsoftware-vendors.

Research is necessary, for

example, to support and automate

the extraction of architectural

assumptions13. See also Servicify

box14.

Refac-‐toring

Servicifi is a JACQUARD project

that aims to extract a large

numbers of services from

monolithic products and open

source components in the

financial services domain using

a Service Extraction Process.

Partners involved are DBS,

Runbook, Yuki.nl, Yunoo.nl,

42Windmills.com and the

University of Utrecht.

Example of Research into Refactoring. servicifi.files.wordpress.com



Research topic: Functional concepts in Customisation

Productsoftware is the deliverable of

reuse-based software engineering. It

is designed for a market, but runs for

a customer. To allow the customer to

tailor the software to their own needs

the software is parametrised. These

parameters allow the customer to

instantiate generic functionality with

specific functionality.

Parametrisation is now moving in the

direction of functional authoring.

Extensible languages (XML-based)

allow the customer to author domain

rules and data formats in a technology-independent logic. The

underlying technology interprets these rules and formats. Because the

interface to the author is geared towards domain functionality this is

referred to as a functional concept of software organisation. Related

development are model-driven design and business blueprints15.

Parallel to this we see a bottom-up development that incorporates

domain-specificity into a programming language. This is referred to as

domain-specific languages16. A domain-specific language (DSL) is a

programming language or executable specification language that offers,

through appropriate notations and abstractions, expressive power

focused on, and usually restricted to, a particular problem domain.

DSLs have been applied with success in domains as disparate as

financial services,

telecommunication protocols,

hardware design and software

engineering tools. Func-‐tional

Concepts

Vitalhealth platform

Vitalhealth Software BV is a

psw-vendor of Health solutions.

The Vitalhealth platform is a

generic code base that allows

customers to tailor

functionality by using a multi-

tier logical layering on op top of

that generic code base. This

cater for the diversity in the

health sector.

Example of a Functional Concept requirement, www.vitalhealthsoftware.nl



Research topic: Variability

Variability management (VM) is a

fundamental productsoftware

engineering activity that explicitly

represents software artifact

variations for managing

dependencies among variants and

supporting their instantiations

throughout the productsoftware life

cycle17.

Managing variability involves

extremely complex and challenging

tasks, which must be supported by

effective methods, techniques, and tools. Researchers have studied

these challenges and proposed solutions to them for nearly 20 years.

For example, how productsoftware can be made configurable such that

it can support variants of the same process18.

Variability is related to refactoring because the logical organisation of

modules and layers determines the different configurations that are

supported. Variability is related to functional concepts, because

customer-owned functions have to

run on variable vendor-owned

processes. Varia-‐bility

The CoSeLoG project aims to

create a cloud infrastructure

for municipalities. Such a cloud

would offer services for

handling various types of

permits, taxes, certificates, and

licenses. Although

municipalities are similar, their

internal processes are typically

different.

Example of variability research. http://www.win.tue.nl/coselog/wiki/start



Research topic: Multi-tenancy

Multitenancy entails serving multiple

customers from one container running

a single instance of an application.

Tenancy allows the application to

present itself to the customer as a

service (Saas19), thereby reducing the

Total Cost of Ownership for the

customer. The productsoftware-vendor

is now able to maintain his code base in

a single place. This brings forth the

challenge how to cater for multiple

customisations in a single code base.

This is done by using a dynamic

architecture that gets instantiated as

domain decisions are made.

Deployment is the installation of a runtime version of an application.

Traditionally deployment is done on-premise at the customer. This

introduces dependencies on the on-premise hosting environment. This

is a challenge because the

accountability for performance far

exceeds the scope of control of the

productsoftware-vendor. Online

deployment of the application as a

service addresses this challenge. Online deployment at the provider

(productsoftware-vendor himself or 3rd party partner) is now subject to

the challenge of scaling up and down to demand of multiple customers.

Also when a multitenancy model is used care has to be taken that data

space and processing time is fairly distributed between customers. This

is referred to as the Partitioning problem in deployment20.

Multi-‐tenancy

Product-as-a-Service project

Exact Software BV and AFAS

BV together with the University

of Utrecht and Groningen as

members of the IIP/psw and

IIP/Saas have embarked on a

project to investigate the

requirements for multi-tenant

architectures that allow

runtime partitions and

variations.

Example of Research into Multi-tenancy. www.ictregie.nl:iip-cooperation-challenge.html



Research topic: Software Operations

Generally, software vendors have

little knowledge of the performance,

usage and feedback of their software

in the field, while software vendors

mark this knowledge as very useful

and valuable. While a small number

of vendors has implemented

functionality that automatically

generates bug or usage reports,

these vendors extract too little

knowledge from the data they

gather, insufficiently apply the

extracted software operation

knowledge to their organization or

present the extracted software

operation knowledge

inadequately21. Research is ongoing

into reducing maintenance effort through software operation

knowledge22.

Software operations is related to orchestration, because the runtime

qualities of autonomous services have to be coordinated according to

quality terms. Software operations is related to evolution, because

operations have to continue during

evolution with minimal disruption

to current services.

Opera-‐tions

The Dutch Software~VOC organises a knowledge workgroup about software operation. The workgroup consists of CTOs and other technicians of Dutch software vendors, and is initiated to share experiences and research results, and to contribute to the software operation knowledge research initiative.

Example of Software Operations knowledge development. http://hwschuur.nl/phd/sok/index.php/english/software-knowledge-workgroup/



Research topic: Evolution & Legacy

The challenge in the adoption of new

productsoftware is to allow

customers to make this move in a

staged way with minimal disruption

to operational technical or business

services. This implies that customers

should be able to work with the new

and the old concurrently using the

same information image. This means

that the legacy software should be

encapsulated in logic that caters for

the architecture of the new. This is

what we refer to as software

evolution.

The evolution question is relevant on

different levels of granularity. On the

functional level this pertains to the

move from unstructured to structured information handling (see

example). On the software level this pertains to legacy migration and

encapsulation23, or component updating24 and upgrading25. Software

evolution is a research area related to software maintenance. Instead of

considering a single product an entire sequence of subsequent products

is considered26.

Evolution is related to multi-tenancy because multi-tenancy allows the

code base to maintained and evolved in a single place. Evolution is

related to operations because

operations have to continue with

minimal disruption to current

services.

Evolu-‐tion

Physicians moving from unstructured to structured information

Vitalhealth Software BV offers administrative solutions for Physicians. In order to fully reap the benefit of the netcentric solution physicians should used structured formats. Now they use fully unstructured information. How can this be evolved in a staged way?

Example of functional evolution www.vitalhealthsoftware.nl



Research topic: Orchestration in Functionality

Orchestration is the allocation of

functionality to processing resources

and synchronising their collaboration.

In a business network, functionality

from multiple productsoftware-

vendors are syndicated in different

compositions according to coalition

and projects needs. The challenge here

is to find orchestration schemes and

languages27,28. This will also facilitate

Business Process Outsourcing29: “The

next step is for organizations to

leverage expert third parties to handle

not just the applications, but the

processes that the applications

manage as well.” (The accountant behind financial services.)

Orchestration is related to functional concepts, because autonomous

services have to be coordinated from a functional perspective.

Orchestration is related to software operations, because the runtime

qualities of autonomous services have to be coordinated according to

quality terms.

Orches-‐tration

Dutch bicycle

The current Dutch bicycle is the deliverable of a complex orchestration of a network of bicycle components vendors. Each vendor, by specialising in a certain component, can deliver this component with high quality and in the most effective and efficient way

Van Hilligersberg sees this as a harbinger for things to come in the software industry.

Example of an Orchestration scheme (Van Hillegersberg, 2005)



Research topic: Loose Coupling

Loose coupling is enabling the

transactions between functional

entities whilst allowing them to

operate in a relatively autonomous

fashion. Most loose coupling schemes

use the principle of transaction

genericity. Transaction genericity

enables the entities to talk to each

other on a general level carrying

entity-specific logic and content.

Transaction genericity is often

handled by an intermediary entity,

referred to as a broker, orchestrator or

midoffice.

Loose coupling is related to refactoring

because formerly tightly coupled functionality has to be decomposed

into functional autonomous modules that can be loosely coupled. Loose

coupling is related to multi-tenancy because pluriformity of

customisations have to be loosely coupled with generic functionality.

Loose coupling is the core

proposition of SOA (Service

Oriented Architecture) research30.

Loose Coupling

Municipal Midoffice

To realise e-government imperatives dutch municipalities are adopting a common reference architecture that introduces a transaction broker called the midoffice. Genericity of transactions is achieved by encapsulation in a common message format (STUF: Standaard Uitwisseling Formaat)

Roovers, Kuipers en Keller (2007)

Example of Loose Coupling



Research topic: Close Interfaces as Rational Routes through Complexity

Close Interfaces are interfaces that are

user-bound instead of system-bound.

The usability discipline started out

looking at interfaces for location-

bound systems. With the rise of mobile

devices location-awareness has now

come into play as a next pruning

parameter in data & systems

complexity. This location-awareness

offers opportunities to connect an on-

board interface with data-augmented

environments.

We see a trend here that view-

controller devices are user-bound and location-aware. The data models

they access are maintained on the net. We expect these data models to

become more environment-bound making using of sensors and

actuators.

The progress of closeness can be seen in the movement from smart

office to smart homes and smart cars. Mobile device fuctionality is

expected to move into apparel and clues of implants and intubations

become available31.

Close interfaces are related to

privacy because interfaces and

identities have to be loosely coupled.

Close interfaces are related to

virtualisation of products, because intertfaces and product data have to

be loosely coupled.

Close Inter-‐faces

Layar

Layar software provides augmented reality solutions. When looking through the camera of your mobile phone selected information overlays appear of the scene. Information models of the environment are coupled through location awareness and compass functions with image matching. The next challenge is to capitalise on sensor-augmented environments.

Example of a Close Interface



Resarch topic: Identity Management in Privacy

Privacy-enhancing identity

management (PIM) offers a means

whereby individuals controls the

nature and amount of personal

information about them that is

disclosed. In particular, to achieve

privacy, individuals can use

pseudonyms and determine the

degree of linkability between different

occurrences of their data through the

secure and authenticated use of

pseudonyms32.

With PIM accountability of an

individual for his or her actions can

be achieved without giving away

personal data. Thus, privacy-

enhancing identity management systems (IMSs) enable users to assert

their right to "informational self-determination" better than before.

Such systems are needed in all computer-mediated communications,

even more so now with the advent of new technologies like mobile

communication, UMTS, or ubiquitous computing33.

PIM is related to close interfaces, because interface and identity have to

be loosely coupled. PIM is related to recommendation technology,

because fragmented user profiles

undermine the effectiveness of

recommendation solutions. Id-‐mgt Privacy

Twitter

Twitter software provides communication services for lifestyle. It’s big success is due to flexible access control of identity footprints. It’s flexibility with respect to determining the scope of communication allows users to move easily from private to public mode and the other way around. This is based on correlating people-centric (followers) and content-centric (hashtags) slices of the communication space.

Example of Flexible Identity Management



Research topic: Recommendation technology for Social Routes through Complexity

Whereas usability offers a rational route

through data & systems complexity,

recommendation technology offers a social

route through data & systems complexity.

Recommendation technology uses

collaborative filtering techniques by which

behavioral traces are used to correlate

user profiles with user value. On the basis

of related profiles related value can be

cross-promoted or recommended.

Different approaches to recommendation

technology exist. Research on scalability is

required34.

Currently recommendation technology is

mainly used for commercial purposes, ie.

cross-promoting products and services to

users that share profile properties. It is

foreseen that recommendation technology can also be used for

didactical purposes during task execution35.

Recommendation technology is related to privacy requirements,

because user data has to be correlated with each other, which requires

consent from the user. Recommendation technology is also related to

service productivation, because it

informs delivery of value in the

product. Re-‐

commendation

GX Blueconic

GX software provides content, traffic and conversion solutions. Their latest platform Blueconic aids customers to generate traffic from content, which is then analysed to drive conversion through recommendation technology. For instance, users on the Voetbal International site could be identified as being either Ajax or Feijenoord fans. This helped prevent to promote a Feijenoord t-shirt to an Ajax fan.

GX Blueconic as architectural solution to Recommendation solutions. (www.gxsoftware.nl)



Research topic: Certification in Security

Increased connectivity with critical

infrastructural systems raises the bar for

security. It emphasis the importance of the

connection between the model and the

code36. By maintaining this connection code

can be model-checked to safeguard the

instantiation of security requirements.

Certification of software artifacts offers

organizations more certainty and confidence

about software. Certification of software

helps software sales, acquisition, and can be

used to certify legislative compliance37 or to

achieve acceptable deliverables in

outsourcing38.

Security is related to process and data

mining requirements. In order to apply

mining mechanisms, access to the “in-house”

repositories is required. In methods for

design fast and reliable implementation and realisation of systems

require the availability of components that have proven and certified

properties. To reuse these components it is necessary that they can be

used in different contexts. The development of adaptable software

components that induce predictable networkproperties, both functional

as non-functional, is an important area of research39. Correct

specifications of system- and componentbehavior and of interfaces is of

great importance here.

Certified Security

Stuxnet is a Windows-specific computer worm. It is the first discovered worm that spies on and reprograms industrial systems. It was specifically written to attack Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems used to control and monitor industrial processes. Stuxnet includes the capability to reprogram the programmable logic controllers (PLCs) and hide the changes. It is also the first known worm to target critical industrial infrastructure.

Example of where certified security is necessary (en.wikipedia.org org stuxnet)



Resarch topic: Data mining for Recommendations

Data mining, a branch of computer

science and artificial intelligence, is the

process of extracting patterns from data.

Data mining is seen as an increasingly

important tool by modern business to

transform data into business intelligence

giving an informational advantage. It is

currently used in a wide range of profiling

practices, such as marketing,

surveillance, fraud detection, and

scientific discovery40.

Both in a consumer market and customer

market data mining is used for

progressive profiling and predictive

analytics41. Well-known examples from

the consumer market our Amazon.com.

In the customer area this is being used by

ERP solutions.

Data mining is related to security

requirements, because data has to be

available for mining, whilst preventing

opportunities for misuse. Data mining is

related to service productivation, because

it can inform the architecture of the

product.

Data Mining

In september 2010 Apple introduced iTunes Ping. Ping is a software-based, music-oriented social networking and recommender system service developed and operated by Apple. Apple used some of Facebook’s open programming interfaces to allow users to find their Facebook friends on Ping. But soon after Ping’s introduction that stopped working. Allegedly Facebook blocked Apple because of “site stability” and “infrastructure” problems.

When Apple introduced Ping, it introduced a sink into Facebook’s network. Facebook, by allowing Ping to identify friends of friends, jeopardised it’s most important asset : user’s profiles.

Example of the competitive value of consumer data. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/02/apple-facebook-friction-erupts-over-ping/



Resarch topic: Process mining for Process Usability

Process mining is a process management

technique, that allow for the analysis of

business processes based on event logs. The

basic idea is to extract knowledge from

event logs recorded by an information

system. Process mining aims at improving

this by providing techniques and tools for

discovering process, control, data,

organizational, and social structures from

event logs42.

To understand how productsoftware is used

in the field research can be done into

process mining of event logs recording the

way people work and used products43.

Process mining is related to security

because data has to be accessible for mining,

but secured against misuse. Process mining

is reated to the virtualisation of products

because it informs how users work around

complexity.

Process Mining

TU/e research into process mining

The TU/e has applied process mining in one of the provincial offices of the Dutch National Public Works Department, responsible for the construction and maintenance of the road and water infrastructure. Using a variety of process mining techniques, the processing of invoices sent by the various subcontractors and suppliers were analysed from three different perspectives: (1) the process perspective, (2) the organizational perspective, and (3) the case perspective. This allowed the organisation to improve it’s processes.

Example of Process mining (W.M.P. van der Aalst, H.A. Reijers, A.J.M.M. Weijters, B.F. van Dongen, A.K. Alves de Medeiros, M. Song, and H.M.W. Verbeek. Business Process Mining: An Industrial Application. Information Systems, 32(5):713-732, 2007.



Research topic: Product Virtualisation

Product virtualisation is the

augmentation of physical products

with embedded sensors, actuators and

software. Properties that are of

importance to life cycle management

of the product become externalised by

means of sensors and actuators.

Embedded software's principal role is

not information technology, but rather

the interaction with the physical

world. It's written for machines that

are not, first and foremost, computers.

Embedded software is 'built in' to the

electronics in cars, telephones, audio

equipment, robots, appliances, toys,

security systems, pacemakers,

televisions and digital watches, for

example. This software can become

very sophisticated in applications like

airplanes, missiles, process control

systems, and so on44.

Product virtualisation is related to close interfaces because product

data should be viewable and controlleable from any interface of choice.

Product virtualisation is related to process mining, but this can disclose

how users workaround possible

complexity. Product Virtualisation

eProvenance, a new company using advanced technologies to help guarantee the quality of wines, has unveiled an 'Intelligent Bottle' and wine temperature tracking system to provide an e-pedigree from wine producers through to store shelves. The eProvenance system includes three physical components that RFID-enabled.

The RFID components are linked with their unique ID numbers in an encrypted online database. This combined data creates an e-pedigree for each bottle of wine, which includes authentication data from the chateau, as well as shipment data and temperature records.

Example of Product Virtualisation (www.eProvenance.com)



Research topic: Service Productivation

Service productivation is the

embedding of routine service tasks in

software products. In many domains

professional service delivery have

canocical elements that can be

translated to wizard-like steps on

decision-support databases. These

software products can be used to help

first-line support staff to gear up

their response time such as in

callcenters. Or they can be used

without any human intermediation

at all via internet websites.

Applications in the housing, tax and

financial domains are good examples.

Service productivation is related to recommendation technology,

because profiles can be used to personalise delivery of the product.

Service productivation is related to data mining, because mining can be

used to inform the underlying

architecture of the product.

Service Productivation

Yunoo.nl is a online personal finance management application that helps consumers and small businesses keep track of their spending. Yunoo provides essential insight into consumer spending, which has not been picked up by online tooling strategies of banks.

Yunoo.nl is a University of Utrecht’s “ICT-Entrepreneurship course” start-up and won the Website of the Year award in 2010

Example of Service Productivation



Research topic: Quality Control in Interoperability

Interoperability is defined as deploying

mutual connectivity between two of

more systems and entities to enable

the exchange and sharing of

information in order to produce,

function or act45.

In order for a system or entity to

participate in production, function or

action the participating systems have

to agree on the technology to use, the

semantics (language) and the context

in which they want to (re)use the

shared information.

Interoperability is the linking pin

concept in a networked, medialised

economy and society and is therefore

informed and constrained by all

previous requirements .

In methods for interoperability fast

and reliable implementation and

realisation of systems require the

availability of components that have proven and certified properties. To

reuse these components it is necessary that they can be used in

different contexts. The development of adaptable softwarecomponents

that induce predictable emergent

networkproperties, both functional

as non-functional, is an important

area of research46.

QoS Interop-‐erability

QoS Interop-‐erability

Centric study into casualty registration at large calamities

The registration of casualties during unexepcted and large-scale disaster and calamities is a complex affair with many actors from many different professional networks . These networks need efficient and effective information exchange, both in the response phase as in the post-care phase, in order to provide adequate casualty handling services.

Registration of casualities enables the response to questions of next of kin, the inventarisation of the need for care & cure, but also to trace the subjected for health research and insurance claims.

Example of Need for Interoperability (Van Lier, 2009b)



Research Topic : Software Product Management

Software product

management is a

set of managerial

practices around

the deliverables of

reuse based

software

engineering. Van

de Weerd47 defines

four main clusters

of activities:

portfolio management, product planning, release planning and

requirements management. The challenge for software product

management in a netcentric economy is federated management in a

virtual organisation of software ecosystem partners. This implies that

the requirements stemming from the topics described in the previous

sections, currently classified as stemming from the external

stakeholders, need to become defined and manageable.

Software productmanagement is our flagbearing topic. We have a fair

understanding what software productmanagement means in a single

organisation, but the linking pin between netcentric software

processing and netcentric organising is federated software

productmanagement. Our vision

therefore is to create a worldclass

software productmanagement

capability that enables software

businesses to collectively align

software ecosystems with societal

information networks.

Software Product Management Virtual Organisation

Software Product Management Competencies Model (Van de Weerd, 2010)



Research Topic: Software ecosystems

A software ecosystem (SECO) is

defined by Jansen48 as a set of

businesses functioning as a unit and

interacting with a shared market for

software and services, together with

the relationships among them. These

relationships are frequently

underpinned by a common

technological platform or market

and operate through the exchange of information, resources and

artifacts. Some examples of SECOs are the MySQL/PHP SECO, the

Microsoft SECO, and the iPhone SECO.

Jansen49 offers a research agenda for software vendors to focus on

three different perspectives: the software ecosystem level, the software

supply network level, and the software vendor level. Articulating such a

focus allows the vendor to move from best effort to quality-managed

working within an ecosystem in order to provide integrity to the virtual

software product.

The operational dynamics of networked industries have significant

implications for practitioners, from operating managers to technology

architects, and from policy makers to entrepreneurs. Current research

draws heavily from the fields of complexity theory and evolutionary

biology. The shift is in the perception of the network, formerly seen as a

source of inertia, not as a dynamic

factor in innovation, productivity

and firm renewal. Core to this is the

distributed responsibility for the

health of the collective50 by

enabling mutual productivity51.

Software Ecosystems Virtual Software Product

Software ecosystem perspectives (Jansen, 2009)



Programme

Organisational Stucture

The IIP/psw is organised

as shown. It consists of a

board and working

groups.

The board hosts

representatives of

industry, science and

policy-making. Their role

is to maintain a link with

their respective backlands and bring in governance from this

perspective, but also to champion the focus we have defined as

reflective practioners and researchers. Current board members are

indicated in the list of contributors.

The working groups are composed in a similar way. Their role is to

develop projects around the research topics we have defined. With these

project proposals we will bid for grants at a national and european level.

Coordinating the working groups and providing the two-way

communication between the governing board and the operational

working groups is the platformmanager. The platformmanager is also

responsible for external communication, of which this SRA is an

example, and organising feedback opportunities. Feedback will be made

possible at social and electronic fora. For the latter we have an

interactive website: www.iipproductsoftware.nl . The main social events

foreseen are listed on the roadmap, being the National Productsoftware

Day and the International Conference of Software Business52. In

addition we will have working group meetings in which projects will be

developed that will build on and inform external communication.

IIP productsoftware Organisation Structure



Roadmap

The visual below shows our roadmap for the lifecycle the IIP/psw has

been granted. The IIP/psw is actively resourced since mid-2010. In this

time we have explored the productsoftware landscape in order to define

our mission, vision and strategy, the result of which has been laid down

in this SRA.We now have the focus to accrue mass and will start

developing project proposals for national and european grants that will

allow us to become self-productive after the seeding grant has been

depleted.

To increase our chances for bidding we now first need to map out the

grant landscape and find our most favourable niches. A start with this

map has been made and is shown above.

In our quest for mass we will promote our endeavours in our own

community, as indicated at our roadmap, but we will also call on

affiliated networks.

IIP Productsoftware roadmap



Affiliated Networks

Our affiliated networks are:

• Software~VOC • ICT Office • IIP/Software as a Service • IIP/Creatieve Industrie • IIP/Health Support • IIP/Intelligente Communicatie • IIP/Mobiliteit als ICT-systeem (MAIS) • IIP/ICT Veilig Verbonden (Security & Privacy) • IIP/ICT in de Bouw • IIP/Sensor Networks • IIP/Brain & Cognition • IIP/Geo • IIP/Duurzame ICT • IIP/Roboned • IIP/Vitale ICT • IIP/Domotica & Smart Living • ESA: European Software Association • ECIS: European Committee for Interoperable Systems • NESSI: Networked European Software & Services Initiative • EITO: European Information Technology Observatory • OFE: OpenForum Europe • Agentschapnl • KvK: Chamber of Commerce • SkillCity • Software Business Lab, Helsinke University of Technology



Resourcing

The visual above shows a map of the grant opportunities available to us.

Our mind is set on Call8 of Framework 7 of the European Commission,

but on the way there we will not foresake to seek out other

opportunities. We see three routes:

Route 1. To pool resources with a big group of Small–to-Medium-sized

Enterprises (SMEs). For this we aim to build on our liaison with the

Software~VOC.

Route 2. To coordinate Grant Proposals in managerial innovation with a

big pool of SMEs in the FP7 Capacities programme: Research for the

benefit of SMEs. Also we will look into Innovation Prestatie Contracten

and Fiscalisation-based Instruments.

Route 3. To partner in Grant Proposals with SME & big company

consortia to do fundamental innovation (Preparation for FP7 Call 8 Dec

2011 in the Cooperation Programme)



Impact

Many societal information networks float on productsoftware. These

networks are facing big challenges today in all corners of society: how

do we manage mobility, health, safety, education, public services &

sustainability. Users of these networks are dealing with tremendous

data, systems and organisational complexity. The productsoftware

sector can aid and benefit in two ways. Firstly, by preventing further

fragmentation by looking at informationflow across the entire network

instead of looking at each participating partner in isolation. Secondly,

by facilitating integration by organising the software ecosystem that

supports the societal information network. Therefore we are embarking

on a journey of software ecosystem and information network alignment.

Therefore our mission is to simplify user access to societal and

economic products by loosely coupling user-owned data, customer-

owned functions and vendor-owned processing.

To understand the nature of loose coupling we need to investigate what

netcentric processing entails. So far we know that interoperability

between systems, data and organisations is key, but what exactly

influences interoperability and how can we manage it according to

quality terms? To start our investigations we have identified 19

research topics, 8 of which deal with netcentric processing and 8 of

which deal with complexity reduction. The remaining three deal with

quality of service under interoperability, the netcentric software

ecosystem and federated software productmanagement. The latter is

our flagbearing topic. We have a fair understanding what software

productmanagement means in a single organisation, but the linking pin

between netcentric software processing and netcentric organising is

federated software productmanagement. Our vision therefore is to

create a worldclass software productmanagement capability that

enables software businesses to collectively align software ecosystems

with societal information networks.



To focus our vision we have dreamed up an organisational concept,

softportNL, which will be the sedimentation and inspiration of the

research projects that we will undertake. We hope that reflective

practitioners in software productmanagement will feed on and off this

hub to collectively manage quality in the software infrastructure of

societal information networks. Our strategy is to accrue competence

and capability to this hub by executing nationally and european funded

projects.



Mission

Our mission is derived from the socioeconomical challenges and thrusts

as given by the different Societal Innovation Agendas, in particular

those addressing the relationship with ICT.

The Digital Agenda for Europe53 is one of the seven flagship initiatives

of the Europe 2020 Strategy, set out to define the key enabling role that

the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) will have

to play if Europe wants to succeed in its ambitions for 2020. These

ambitions are high levels of employment, a low carbon economy,

productivity and social cohesion.

The most important challenges are better health care, safer and more

efficient transport solutions, a cleaner environment, new media

opportunities and easier access to public services and cultural content.

Several Dutch Societal Innovation Agenda’s complement these

ambitions. For the Netherlands in particular for instance the ECP-EPN

(Dutch Platform for the Information Society)54 agendises: Productivity

Growth, Healthcosts, Mobility, Digitisation of Public Services,

Improvement of Education.

The VNO-ECW (Union of Employers in the Netherlands)55 advocates the

use of ICT in SME networks and sees the Netherlands as a potential

candidate for becoming the ICT portal of Europe, building on its

prominent position as a distribution hub in logistics (Schiphol,

Rotterdam harbour) and data traffic (Amsterdam Internet Exchange) .

We fully adhere to this agenda and aspire to create a complementary

software productmanagement capability to this. This notion will be

elaborated in the section softportNL.

Our mission is to simplify user access to societal and economic products by loosely coupling user-owned data, customer-owned functions and

vendor-owned processing.



The Dutch Innovationplatform has identified ICT as the innovation-axis

of society and economy56. The Dutch ICT branche organisation

ICT~Office has issued the ICT~Manifest 2010-201457 building on that

notion. ICT as innovation-axis should create more prosperity, wellbeing

and ageing with less means, a more sustainable society, an efficient

mobility system, a society in which people feel safe, a well-functioning

health system, watermanagement en – quality, high-quality education

tailored to everybody, coupling between citizens and government,

digital content, Public-private cooperation.

Their concerns laid out for the branche are the following: Sufficient and

well-trained personel; Safety & Trust; Proper Contract Issuing &

Execution; Architectural thinking, Interoperability and Open

Standards, Research and Innovation, Investments in a next generation

infrastructure, New working relationships, working environments and

usage of social media.

Also ICTRegie, the Dutch governmental organisation for ICT, has

written a strategy ICT203058. It propagates the notion of an ICT-

innovation system in which science, innovation, education and

entrepreneuship mutually inform and build on each other. The

IIP/productsoftware is part of this ecosystem together with 14 others

ICT Innovationplatforms. We will develop our programme in close

collaboration with them.

The IPN (Dutch Institute for Informatics Research) has written a

complementary ICT Masterplan59 in which it identifies four main

challenges. How do you manage complexity of data and systems?

How do we utilise ICT for societal innovation? How do we employ ICT for

science paradigms in traditional domains? How do we foster enough

well-qualified ICT researchers?

In our opinion the linkage between ICT and the socioeconomical

challenges can be made more concrete by looking at processing in

societal information networks that produce societal and economic



products. Examples in the Health area are the acute medical care-

network and diabetes-care network. Examples from the Safety area are

the identitity-management network and nuclear-control network.60 Our

challenge is to articulate how productsoftware can contribute to these

challenges and ambitions by investigating the relationship between

software ecosystems and societal information networks.

Productsoftware forms the infrastructure of societal information

networks. Many networks use software on a organisational level.

Couplings between the organisations in the networks are lacking. The

productsoftware sector can aid and benefit in two ways. Firstly, by

preventing further fragmentation by looking at informationflow across

the entire network instead

of looking at each

participating partner in

isolation. Secondly, by

facilitating integration by

organising the software

ecosystem that supports

the societal information

network.

Van Lier advocates a shift in thinking from organisation-centric to

netcentric. The main design problem here is introducing

interoperability on a technical (engineering), semantic (managerial)

and contextual (organisation) level.

Interoperability will allow us loosely couple user-owned data, customer-

owned function and vendor-owned processing.



Vision

Our vision is derived from the challenge to augment ICT innovations

with appropriate management capabilities. This is flagged in several

Societal Innovation Agenda’s.

In the 2009 report Towards a European software strategy61 an industry

expert group wrote European software SMEs have been successful in

creating ideas and developing products, but they have been rather less

successful in creating businesses to take those products to market. The

main problem is lack of management and marketing skills, resulting in

under‐performance at the crucial commercialisation phases (product

marketing, packaging, customer support services, etc.). Excellent R&D

is no substitute for excellent development strategy, marketing and a

channel policy. Indeed, each stage of a software company’s growth is

critical, from seed to early stage, domestic development and

international expansion. Public policy should target and encourage

companies that invest in the complete innovation chain: idea, concept,

development and localisation, validation‐ pilot, go‐to‐market –

consistent, of course, with international trade rules.

The European Commission in Europe’s Digital Competitiveness Report

201062 reports ICT take-up by European businesses is increasing and

Europe is beginning to see signs of efficiency gains in all sectors.

Nevertheless, the latest academic research also shows that in order to

make the most of the productivity potential of ICT, investment in ICT on

its own is not sufficient. Complementary organisational change, in

particular involving management practices and decentralisation, as

well as skills also matter. US firms have been more successful in

implementing organisational changes, but have also invested more in

Our Vision is to create a worldclass software productmanagement capability that enables software businesses to collectively align software

ecosystems with societal information networks



ICT and skills. These factors help explain the differing productivity

experiences of the two regions. And they will contribute to the recovery,

providing opportunities for the smart, sustainable and inclusive growth

the European Union is striving to achieve. The ICT~Manifest 2010-2014

(ICT~Office)63 also signals the importance of a focus on the culture and

management of organisations in addition to innovative applications.

ECP-EPN in its vision document64 nails down the most important issue

in the culture and management of organisations: Standardisation-

initiatives run into the prisoner’s dilemma. Individual actions often

indebts a party more than it returns, where collective actions would be

in the interest of all parties involved. The challenge is to get those

collective actions recognised and organised.

Federated software productmanagement can help us to define those

collective actions and make them manageable.



Strategy

Henderson & Venkatraman (1993)65 offer a model for thinking about

strategic alignment of a business and it’s ICT. We are projecting this on

Nederland BV. The model juxtaposes strategic fit with Functional and

Technical Integration. Since all four

corners of the model - Business

strategy, ICT Strategy,

Organisation, Technosystem – are

design questions the model argues

that three corners can be explicitly

managed whilst one corner is then

left emergent. This brings to bear

four possible strategic scenarios

when one starts with one of the two strategic corners.

Scenario 1. Executing Nederland BV Strategy: This would entail

enabling the areas in the dutch economy that have been appointed key

areas (sleutelgebieden), starting from their organisation. These are

creative industry, food & flowers, the chemical industry, pension &

social insurance, and high-tech & materials.

Scenario 2. Transformation through Technology: This would entail

enabling the areas in the dutch economy that have been appointed key

areas (sleutelgebieden), transforming their organisation though ICT.

Scenario 3. Utilising IT-potential: This would entail starting from ICT

potential and creating organisations through influencing the Nederland

BV strategy: Agendising software-ready information networks.

Scenario 4. Optimising software potential: This would entail starting

from the ICT potential, creating an integrated technosystem that

societal networks can adopt. Building information innovative networks

on an innovative infrastructure.

We have chosen Route 4 which will we now justify.

Business ICT Strategic Alignment Model (Henderson & Venkatranan, 1993)



The VNO-NCW (Union of dutch SMEs)66 write in their socioeconomic

agenda “Optimistic!, chances for sustainable growth and employment”:

Lastly, there is one particular weakness, that strongly determines our

future growth. The Netherlands is lacking an ambitious economic

policy. A policy that recognises and fosters our strengths, builds on

them and continously take them as a keystone. In general we are

talking about Dutch entrepreneurship and in particular about our

logistical function because of our geographic location, our inviting

climate for headoffices of international businesses and for a number of

key areas featuring worldclass Dutch companies. Pivotal to these areas

are the progressive ICT-developments and sustainability of our

economy. In the economic policy of our country the real economy has

been neglected. The Haguean economy is the economy of macrofigures

in the budgets of economical research institutes. The reality as well as

the diversity of the industries behind the macrofigures drop off the

horizon. It is due time to reinstantiate the real economy as the

foundation of our economic policy. The Netherlands needs a modern

industry- and servicespolicy that starts from the strength of

multifacetted entrepreneurship.

The Software~VOC67 has taken

on this challenge and issued a

Survey amongst Dutch software

companies in 2010. The survey

201068 clearly shows our

tremendeous Dutch potential:

The software sector is a fully-

fledged and significant economic

sector in the Netherlands, with a

turnover of 25 billion euros and

gross added value of 17.3 billion euros. The sector contributes to 2.8% of

the Netherlands’ economy (GNP). This added value is at least as high as

most key areas defined by the Innovation Platform as strategic sectors

Distribution of software companies in the Netherlands. (Survey 2010, ICT~Office)



in which the Netherlands excels at international level both in

knowledge and in commercial activities. Companies in the Netherlands

achieve a turnover of 10.2 billion euros from selling software developed

in-house. We are talking about product and tailor-made software (9.4

billion) as well as embedded software (0.8 billion). Programming for

third parties accounts for another 4.0 billion euros. Implementation,

testing, management, and maintenance contribute 3.8 billion euros to

the total sales. These are the main activities focused on by companies

that generate revenue especially from the development and sales of

software The software sector has 192,000 full-time employees, of

whom 68,000 are employed full-time in software development and

14,000 in research and development (R&D). The proportion of R&D is

highest among software producers, at 8 to 9 percent.

The survey can be regarded

as an instrument in strategy

route 3: Utilising ICT

potential. The

IIP/productsoftware has

chosen strategy route 4 to

complement the

Software~VOC strategy.

Route 4 entails Optimising

our software potential by

bundling our efforts towards the creation of a technosystem,

softportNL, that will create the critical mass in processing quality to

acquire foreign as well as native customers.

Our choice is strengthened by the VNO-ECW (Union of Employers in the

Netherlands) seeing the Netherlands as a potential candidate for

becoming the ICT portal of Europe, building on its prominent position as

a distribution hub in logistics (Schiphol, Rotterdam harbor) and data

traffic (Amsterdam Internet Exchange).

Strategic Alignment Route IIP Productsoftware



SoftportNL as Software Potential Optimising Strategy

SoftportNL is a processing concept. From the Utility point of view it is

an enabler for the Nederland Kennisland agenda and the Lissabon

agenda, both striving to strengthen the competitive position of The

Netherlands and Europe in a knowledge-intensive economy. From a

Design Research point of view it is an Organisational Artifact acting as

culmination point of knowledge about software-intensive processing

quality. In the section Our Dream we have already called on an analogue

from the Dutch clothmaking trade to explain the effect on transaction

costs in organisational networks.

Weijnen69 points out that the Netherlands is well-poised to become an

important node in the global networkeconomy. Succesful examples are

greenport, Capital of Peace, Brainport, Schiphol airport, Rotterdam

Harbor, AMS Internet Exchange. She identifies a number of conditions

and mechanisms that contribute to the formation of strong nodes.

The strategic investment to deepen the Rotterdam harbor channels to

the Northsea has led to Rotterdam being the only one able to cater for

megatankers and bulcarriers. At Schiphol hardening the tracks as first

airport in Europe has given it an first mover advantage. The early

investments in the SURFnet backbone has led to the keystone position

of the AMS-IX.

The pluriform role that a node plays is one of the other mechanisms.

Rotterdam harbor not only gives access through its channels from the

Northsea but also has quality connection into the backland: the Rijn.

In addition to being a technical hub there needs to be a close connection

to knowledge and skills necessary to learn and upgrade the technical

aspects. Co-location of the technical core and social core is

recommended.

Managerial concepts to coordinate the node are also paramount.

Rotterdam is successful because it adopted the transferconcept of



containers. Containers create interoperability between goods than

before had to be custom-handled. This created significant flexibility and

efficiency in the transfer workflows.

Schiphol is widely known for its bagagehandling concept, which has

been copied widely in other airports. Also it has created a synergie with

a commercial infrastructure hosting an integrated shopping mall.

The AMS Internet Exchange has as its main content driver the gaming

industry. It’s technical capabilities – large datacenters – and content

flow form a perfect team.

We aim to take this lessons to heart. The projects that we embark on

need to be supportive of infrastructure investment, pluriform role

formation, co-locative knowledge exchange and developing managerial

concepts.

.



Rationale: Productsoftware Research as Design Science Research

The Rationale section describes how the previous sections were

developed seen from the frame of design science research. Design

science is an emerging science that deals with the interplay between

action and artifact. In this way it hinges the behavorial and natural

sciences. A seminal article about the role of this hinge was written in

2004 by Alan Hevner, who received a Design Science Lifetime

Achievement Award at the Fourth International Conference on Design

Science Research in Information Systems and Technology in 2009.

The top visual shows

how to separate and

circumscribe Utility

development and

Knowledge building by

seeing them as two

learning cycles around

the design of Artifacts.

The learning cycle coupled with the environment is called the Relevance

cycle and the learning cycle coupled with Knowledge Base is called the

Rigor cycle.

In this spirit we have

created a relevance

argumentation

represented by the

mission pyramid70 for

our environment and a

rigor argumentation

represented by our

worldview pyramid71 for

our knowledge base. The

relevance pyramid has

helped us to understand top-down how mission, vision, strategy hinges

Design Science Research Cycles (Hevner, 2004)

Productsoftware Research as Design Science Research



with our programme and projects. The Rigor pyramid helped us to

understand how our methods & tools hinge with our theory and

worldview.

Our mission, vision and strategy were described in the section Impact.

Our worldview and theory will be explained shortly. The user-centric

part of the productsoftware Framework (blue-green) provides the hinge

in the Relevance pyramid from Strategy to Programme: within the

general idea of reducing complexity for the user we need to zoom in one

level deeper on what the pillars of research are. A similar line of

reasoning holds for the Rigor pyramid where the netcentric part of the

productsoftware Framework (blue-red) hinges processing theory with

processing in organisations, management and engineering.

Together they span up the artifact space in which we do

productsoftware research. By undertaking projects in the spirit of our

mission according to our canonical body of knowledge about organising,

managing and engineering we will be able develop the processing

concept of softportNL. In this effort we build on the research capabilities

in our IIP/psw network.

The 2010 Assessment on Research Quality in Computer Science72

shows that ICT Research in the Netherlands is a vibrant enterprise. As a

country, the Netherlands remains among the top nations in computer

science research, and in the absolute top in a number of sub-areas.

Our flagbearer group is the Business Informatics department at the

University of Utrecht. It’s research focus is on software products,

covering methodological studies of development processes in the

software industry, instrumentation, and theory validation for

implementation and adoption of software products.

Productsoftware research touches upon several themes from the NOAG-

I Dutch Research Agenda for ICT73.

The challenges in the Theme Data Explosion are the grounding of

domain knowledge in datamodels and supporting sustainable



techniques. Standardisation of datasets based on format (technical eg.

XML) and language (semantic, eg RDF) are necessary, without

comprimising utility.

On the higher layers (Theme Networked World.) – presentation and

application layer – very big challenges come into play. Securing the

network and the exchanged messages, the shift of design decisions

towards runtime, the development of open system architectures,

bridging the gap between businessprocesses and ICT-systems, the

development of new services and businessmodels.

In the Theme Intelligent Systems it is of primary concern that

computational agents that operate in a more or less autonomous way,

can be coordinated thourg communication and synchronisation.

In the Theme Methods for Design fast and reliable implementation and

realisation of systems require the availability of components that have

proven and certified properties. To reuse these components it is

necessary that they can be used in different contexts. The development

of adaptable softwarecomponents that induce predictable

systemproperties, both functional as non-functional, is an important

area of research. Correct specifications of system- and

componentbehavior and of interfaces is of great importance here. This

will lead to many new research questions around techniques for

specification and composition of components, code generation, generic

programming and aspect-oriented programming. A special case of reuse

concerns the integration of existing legacy software in new systems.

This gives a whole new slant on techniques in the areas of analysis and

transformation of source code.

In the next sections we will justify the choices we made in creating the

productsoftware Framework informed by a commitment to a theory and

worldview.



Worldview

Our worldview is one of design science. Design sciences regards the

world as a sociotechnical world and places at it’s core the dialogue

between action and artifact. Action and Artifact design mutually inform

and constrain each other. Design science is about the dialogue between

on the one hand the cognitive and social organisation, let’s call it

wetware, and on the other hand hardware artifacts.

Their meeting point is the information interface whose function it is to

enable interoperation of wetware and hardware. Guiding criteria are

consistency & coherence of control & feedback74 within the scope

created by hardware and wetware frontiers75.

The current manifestions of wetware are being mined out of digital

traces. These are our digital profiles. Our hardware on the other hand

becomes increasingly more augmented with sensors and actuators

Profiles and augmentations are coupled together through layers of logic.

Reuse hides itself in this logic in an ever more granular way. When

regarding productsoftware research we are really asking ourselves the

canonical question:

Which combination of logical layers with reusable patterns work

best to couple profiled wetware with the augmented hardware

environment?

Our theory postulates these logical layers as a medium through which

Users look for Value. This is elaborated in the next section.



Theory

The visual below shows our theoretical outlook on ICT as Interface to

Value. User Value is defined in terms of Maslov76, being either a

commercial or societal product or service, or access to informational or

social networks. We can understand the role of ICT as a value-accessing

device by positioning it in the experience of the user. ICT together with

the organisational factor behind it represent a medium to the user. The

user uses this medium to forage for User Value77.

The notion of User Value has changed in the past decades. This is

symptomatic of the dialectic nature of the action-artifact dynamic. The

perceived User Value is determined by Bounded Rationality78: we have

IIP Productsoftware Theory on Medium Upscaling



a limited perception of what we want bounded by the complexity of our

societal arrangements. Creating artifacts that encapsulate current

values augment this rationality and deepens the horizon on which

Value is perceived. In the 1980’s ICT was perceived as an enabler of

computation. The design emphasis was on utility of ICT. Once this was

well encapsulated the role of ICT shifted to enabler for the value of task

execution. The design emphasis was on the usability of ICT. With the

rise of a mature GUI the role of ICT shifted to enabler of processes. The

design emphasis was on alignment of business processes with the ICT

landscape. Now we see mature Enterprise solutions coming up the value

in sight is the Societal and Economic Product. The Internet boom’s

adagium of organisations moving from bricks&mortar to clicks&mortar

has now become mainstream. The current ethos of customer- and client-

centricity implies that it is not the organisation that should matter but

that it is the service of giving access to a societal or economic product

that counts.

Design science in ICT in those decades has had different manifestations

but if we abstract from the increase of scale in the medium we see that

the engineering factor and the organisation factor mutually inform and

build each other with designers trying to make engineering more

human-centered and organisational consultants trying to make the

organisational factor more service-oriented. This is visualised by the

wave of emphasis in theory visual.

From this theoretical perception we induce that the coming decade will

be characterised by a next step change in scale of the medium. This will

cause a new set of problems in the interplay between engineering and

organisation. It will bring a new wave of Data & Systems complexity.

(see Youp van het Hek’s commentary on helpdesks).

Professional services organisations are working on bridging the service

gap by enabling personalisation, using combinations of portal

technology and organisational orchestration services (See Municipal



Customer Contact Centers; See ING’s recent campaign “Hoeveel bank

wil je hebben?”)79.

Processing in networks will be revisioned on a business level, on a

management level and on an engineering level. The great unbundling

has set in already. The challenge now is how do we put things together

again, controlled by quality terms, informed by the digital traces of user

workarounds, using runtime decisions about personal and situational

relevance.

Software vendors and software-intensive customers will work together

in business networks. These business networks will be interwoven

partnerships between software ecosystems and functional information

networks creating a virtual medium product.

This virtual medium product will be managed in a federated way by

product managers owning partial solutions provided by multiple

businesses forming a virtual organisation.

Software Designers will focus on methods and protocols how ICT can be

loosely coupled by making systems interoperable, both on the level of

user-centric value transaction and network-centric transaction

management.

Informed by these theoretical commitments we will now describe the

productsoftware Framework consisting of a user-centric part dealing

with new questions addressing complexity reduction and a netcentric

part dealing with questions around coordination in organisational,

managerial and engineering processing .



User-‐centric framework

In the traditional product&service landscape the User got to Value

through local services that were using productsoftware behind the

scene. This was very local Value but

the route to it was fairly simple.

Because of the increased

medialisation between product and

service - that connected software

ecosystems brought on - the scope of

Value that became available was

greatly enlarged, but also the Data &

Systems complexity the user was

faced with80.

A huge opportunity for vendors and customer alike now lies in

analysing the foraging behavior of users81. By finding correlations in

users’ behaviors recommendations

about User Value can be made on

the basis of profile similarity. This

can be seen as the Social route to

Value. The alternative is the

Rational route to Value. Here

correlations in users’ behavior can

be used to improve usability of

foraging functionality. This

informs the architecture of

processing. The current emphasis on mining (analysing the behavior of

workers82, analysing the behavior of engineers83) is indicative thereof.

The main Utility Challenge for productsoftware research is therefore

hygiene of processing that optimises Usability and safeguards Profiling.

Data & Systems complexity has increased due to upscaling of the medium

Users deal with data & systems complexity while foraging for value



Out of this increased medialisation that makes visible the digital traces

of foraging behavior the 9 research topics arise that have been

described in more detail in the section Research Agenda.

Our core focus is becoming consciously capable in managing

participation in heterogeneous networks of software, ways of working

and ways of organising. From an engineering perspective we see the

rise of the SOA paradigm that capatilises on the principles of

information hiding and

dependency

minimalisation. As for

now the emphasis lies on

design time, but emergent

runtime qualities remain

largely unchecked. We

are consciously incapable

in this area. We see this in

the rise of questions

around privacy and

security brought forth by

new forms of interfaces

and social technologies

based on process and

data mining techniques.

Their interplay has to be

looked upon as a whole

and we need to revisit our

methods, protocols,

languages and standards to see how they interoperate. This needs to

driven by an organisational strategy, but this time the organisation is

virtual consisting of different partnering organisations. Partnering is

difficult. Full fruition is often stalled because of organisation-centric

incentives schemes. We are consciously incapable in this area. We see

the rise of Strategic Alliances in joint products but in a lot of cases this

IIP productsoftware research framework : user-centric part



bogs down in the jurisdictive qaugmire. We are consciously incapable in

this area. In all three areas defusing the conflict potential has begun by

unbundling organisations, processes and tools so that their components

can be re-assembled per coalition, per project and per task. We have to

become consciously capable in these areas to simplify access to societal

and economic products for the User.



Netcentric framework

Productsoftware is designed for a

market, but runs for a particular

customer. One dilemma therefore is

how to reuse functionality in an

optimal way, but allow for

configuration by the customer.

Productsoftware has to be deployed

by the Vendor in an environment

over which they have no control.

The dependencies in the host

environment can cause performance problems that are attributed to the

product, while it is really the host environment that is debit.

Productsoftware has different releases and if the Customer upgrades its

version configuration settings, databases and custimisations have to be

maintained.

The productsoftware landscape is

changing because of the

opportunity to re-arrange what is

done at the vendor and what is

done at the customer. Because of

an increase in Technical Capacity,

devices become powerful and the

network becomes faster, vendors

are experimenting with different

modes of delivery. We see a shift

from onpremise deployment to

online deployment. The latter is often referred to as Software as a

Service (Saas). The phenomenon of deploying functionality and data

online is called Cloud Computing. This re-arrangement changes the

distribution of costs: the Total of Cost of Ownership for the customer

reduces because he needs no more hardware and personnel. The vendor

Increase in Technical Capacity and Business Commodification creates new research questions

Productsoftware vendors work in software ecosystems and need to coordinate



can now serve several customers from one application container which

is called Multi-tenancy. This eases deployment and maintenance

because all customers are running on the same instance. It complicates

variability and quality issues because now all variations have to be

catered for in the same code base. Also the load of the instance varies to

a much greater extent than before. Partitioning of customer data is

sought after.

There is also threat that drives change in the productsoftware

landscape. Software products commodify fast because supply increases

fast: software engineering skills become more abundant. On the other

hand demand is stalled by legacy investments which make the market

saturated. Productsoftware is a fighting market, but also Open Source

solutions mature fast and services surrounding them become more

professional as well.

Because of the opportunity of Technical Capacity increase and the

threat of Business Commodification the competitive edge shifts to

networked applications delivered by networked businesses. Vendors are

specializing and partnering in software ecosystems and the Customer

now deals with an ecosystem portals. Vendor are refactoring their

applications into modules and components that augment ecosystem

platforms. All of these now often run online in a Service Oriented

Architecture in which services are orchestrated by a broker.

Conceptually, this introduces the need for coordination in between

designtime and runtime.

In terms of productsoftware engineering we can now distinguish

between the corners of the matrix and the cross that is emerging from

the middle. The corners represent the areas that are well-known but

that are now affected by networking demands. We will call these the

innovation corners.

The areas in the middle cross are relatively unknown and are in need of

more research. We will therefore refer to these areas as the research

cross.



These areas of research &

innovation have been

described in more detail

in the section Research

Agenda.

For these areas methods,

protocols, languages and

standards have to

investigated and

improved. This holds for

engineering, managerial

and organisational fields.

Our engineering field is

informed by the work

done in the web-services

area, best referred to as

Service Oriented

Architeture.

Our managerial field is informed by Software Development

methodologies, ranging from Waterfallclass methodologies for quality-

centric design to Incrementation-centric methodologies for utility-

centric design.

Our organisational field is informed by thinking about modular

organisations and business networks.

These are three levels of analysis and logic that mutually inform and

build on each other. Our aim is to investigate how we lift a utilitarian

best effort approach onto a more defined level which may allow us to

introduce Quality of Service. QoS in loose coupling.

All three levels of engineering, management and organisation have in

common that they need to be conceptually recasted to work in

ooordinated networks. This conceptual recasting on an engineering

IIP Productsoftware Research Framework : net-centric part



level is known as Service Oriented Architecture. On a managerial level

this is known as business process redesign, unbundling processes into

atomic tasks that can re-assembled per project and coalition. On an

organisational level this is known as toppling (kantelen) towards a

customer- or citizen-centric perspective. All three paradigms introduce

brokering concepts: the service broker, the director manager, the

midoffice. They move away from central command&control paradigms

and are looking at decentral peer-2-peer paradigms. Research in these

areas tries to articulate different variants of

orchestration and choreography in relation

to the degree of turbulence in the

environment . From an engineering stance

the conceptual ambition is to create a service

delivery infrastructure84 that allows

management of service delivery quality. Like

TCP introduced QoS on the Network

Transport layer as alternative to UDP we are

now looking for a way to introduce QoS in

networks of productsoftware,

productsoftware management and software

ecosystems. With TCP the notion of the Virtual Circuit was introduced.

We now need to find out what virtual products and virtual organisations

are and what federated management is.

Service Delivery Infrastructure according to Flederius, TNO (Future Internet – PPP 2010)



References

1 Margot Weijnen (2010). Van Nederland-Distributieland naar Hub-Holland. In “Verbinden,

innoveren en concurreren”. Het Innovatieplatform. 2 Frank den Butter (2010). Innovatief verbinden door transactiemanagement. In “Verbinden,

innoveren en concurreren”. Het Innovatieplatform. 3 Lai Xu and Sjaak Brinkkemper (2007). Concepts for Product Software. European Journal of

Information Systems, vol. 16, nr. 5, 531-541. 4 Dr. M. Kas (NWO EW) en dr. ir. F. Karelse (STW), (2005). Met vaste hand. Nationale

Onderzoeksagenda Informatie- en Communicatietechnologie (NOAG-ict) 2005 – 2010.

Informaticaonderzoek Platform Nederland (IPN) 5 Oortmerssen, G. van, Darwin en het Internet (2009) (In verkorte vorm uitgesproken bij de

aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar in De Evolutie van Internet bij het Tilburg

centre for Creative Computing (TiCC) van de Faculteit Geesteswetenschappen van de

Universiteit van Tilburg op woensdag 9 september 2009) 6 Swaak, J. (2004). Overleven in de kenniseconomie. Management Team nr 20, 3 december

2004. 7 Oortmerssen, G. van (2009) ICT2030.nl: ICT-agenda voor de toekomst van Nederland.

ICTRegie. 8 Lier, B. van, (2009). Luhmann ontmoet “the Matrix”. Uitwisselen en delen van informatie in

netcentrische omgevingen 9 James Kobielus (1 July 2008) The Forrester Wave: Predictive Analytics and Data Mining

Solutions, Q1 2010, Forrester Research. 10 M. A. Cusumano. The changing software business: Moving from products to services. IEEE

Comp., 41(1):20–27, 2008 11 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons 12 Lai Xu and Sjaak Brinkkemper (2007). Concepts for Product Software. European Journal of

Information Systems, vol. 16, nr. 5, 531-541. 13 Roeller, R., Lago, P., van Vliet, H., Recovering architectural assumptions. Journal of Systems

and Software, Vol. 79(4), 2006, pp. 552-57 14 Jansen, S (2009). Servicify: Service Extraction from Decomposed Software Monoliths in the

Financial Domain. (http://www.onderzoekinformatie.nl/en/oi/nod/onderzoek/OND1340253/) 15 Heuvel, W.J.A.M. van den (2009). Changing the Face of the Global Digital Economy: What

Smart Service Systems Means for people's Everday Life, Enterprises and Societies. Tilburg:

Tilburg University Press. 16 P. Klint, J.J. Vinju, T. van der Storm, RASCAL: A Domain Specific Language for Source Code

Analysis and Manipulation, IEEE International Workshop on Source Code Analysis and

Manipulation, 168-177, IEEE Computer Society, 2009. 17 Babar, M. A., Chen, L. and Shull, F. (2010) 'Managing Variability in Software Product Lines',

Software, IEEE, 27(3), 89-91, 94. 18 F. Gottschalk, T. Wagemakers, M.H. Jansen-Vullers, W.M.P. van der Aalst, N. Sidorova, and M.

La Rosa. Configurable Process Models: Experiences From a Municipality Case Study. In P. van

Eck, J. Gordijn, , and R. Wieringa, editors, Advanced Information Systems Engineering,

Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Systems



Engineering (CAiSE'09), volume 5565 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 486-500.

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2009. 19 Kriens et al. (2008). Strategic Research Agenda IIP/Saas 20 Jansen, S., Houben, G.-J., Brinkkemper, S. (2010). Customization Realization in Multi-tenant

Web Applications: Case Studies from the Library Sector. To appear in the Proceedings of the

International Conference on Web Engineering (ICWE-2010) 21 H. van der Schuur, S. Jansen and S. Brinkkemper. (forthcoming). A Reference Framework for

Utilization of Software Operation Knowledge. Accepted for publication in the proceedings of the

36th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA),

2010 22 H. van der Schuur, S. Jansen and S. Brinkkemper. Reducing Maintenance Effort through

Software Operation Knowledge: An Eclectic Empirical Evaluation.Accepted for publication in the

proceedings of the 15th European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering

(CSMR 2011). 23 Heuvel, W.J.A.M. van den (2009). Changing the Face of the Global Digital Economy: What


Tilburg University Press. 24 H. Schonenberg, R. Mans, N. Russell, N. Mulyar, and W.M.P. van der Aalst. Process Flexibility:

A Survey of Contemporary Approaches. In J. Dietz, A. Albani, and J. Barjis, editors, Advances in

Enterprise Engineering I, volume 10 of Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, pages

16-30. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2008. 25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSGi 26 Brand, M.G.J. van den (2008). Consistentie tussen model en code (Intreerede, uitgesproken

op 3 juli 2008 aan de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven) 27 Hillegersberg, J. van (2005). Information Systems for Networked World. 28 Heuvel, W.J.A.M. van den (2009). Changing the Face of the Global Digital Economy: What


Tilburg University Press. 29 Knorr, Eric (2006). http://www.infoworld.com/d/applications/software-service-next-big-

thing-319 30 U. Zdun, C. Hentrich, and W.M.P. van der Aalst. A Survey of Patterns for Service-Oriented

Architectures. International Journal of Internet Protocol Technology, vol. 1, no. 3, pages 132-

143, Inderscience, 2006 31 Lier, B. van, (2009). Luhmann ontmoet “the Matrix”. Uitwisselen en delen van informatie in

netcentrische omgevingen. 32 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_management 33 Sebastian Clauß, Andreas Pfitzmann, Marit Hansen, Els Van Herreweghen Privacy-Enhancing

Identity Management, The IPTS Report, Special Issue: Identity and Privacy, Pages 8-16,

September 2002 34 Leavitt, N. 2006. Recommendation technology: Will it boost E-Commerce. IEEE Comput. 13–

16. 35 Lai Xu and Sjaak Brinkkemper (2007). Concepts for Product Software. European Journal of

Information Systems, vol. 16, nr. 5, 531-541.



36 Brand, M.G.J. van den (2008). Consistentie tussen model en code (Intreerede, uitgesproken

op 3 juli 2008 aan de Technische Universiteit Eindhoven) 37 Heuvel, W.J.A.M. van den (2009). Changing the Face of the Global Digital Economy: What


Tilburg University Press. 38 Eekelen, M. van (2010). "Leven Lang Computeren, Leven Lang Foeteren? Er valt nog veel te

leren!" (Inaugurele rede Open Universiteit) 39 Dr. M. Kas (NWO EW) en dr. ir. F. Karelse (STW), (2005). Met vaste hand. Nationale


Informaticaonderzoek Platform Nederland (IPN) 40 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining 41 James Kobielus (1 July 2008) The Forrester Wave: Predictive Analytics and Data Mining

Solutions, Q1 2010, Forrester Research. 42 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_mining 43 Aalst, W.M.P. van der, Weijters A.J.M.M. (2004) Process mining: a research agenda 44 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embedded_software 45 Lier, B. van, (2009). Voordracht - Inleiding Crisisbeheersing na Rampen en Calamiteiten. 46 Dr. M. Kas (NWO EW) en dr. ir. F. Karelse (STW), (2005). Met vaste hand. Nationale


Informaticaonderzoek Platform Nederland (IPN) 47 Weerd, I. van de, Brinkkemper, S., Nieuwenhuis, R., Versendaal, J., & Bijlsma, L. (2006).

Towards a reference framework for software product management. Proceedings of the 14th

International Requirements Engineering Conference, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, USA,

319-322. 48 Jansen, S., Brinkkemper, S., Finkelstein, A. (2009). A Sense of Community: A Research

Agenda for Software Ecosystems. 31st International Conference on Software Engineering, New

and Emerging Research Track 49 Idem 50 Iansiti & Levien (2004), The operational dynamics of business ecosystems 51 Lier, B. van, (2009). Luhmann ontmoet “the Matrix”. Uitwisselen en delen van informatie in

netcentrische omgevingen 52 http://icsob.org/

53 A Digital Agenda for Europe (2010). COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS 54 Visie ECP-EPN op de mogelijkheden informatie- en communicatietechnologie te benutten voor

duurzame oplossing van maatschappelijke vraagstukken (2010) 55 Optimistisch!: over duurzame groei en werkgelegenheid. Een ondernemersvisie op de kansen

van Nederland. VNO-NCW (2010) 56 ICT als innovatie-as (2005). Het Innovatieplatform. 57 ICT~Manifest 2010-2014. (2010). ICT~Office 58 ICT2030.nl: ICT-agenda voor de toekomst van Nederland. ICTRegie (2009) 59 Masterplan ICT (2009) IPN



60 Grijpink, Plomp & Horstink (2010). Kijk op ketens. 61 Towards a european software strategy (2009). REPORT OF AN INDUSTRY EXPERT GROUP.

DG Information Society and Media Directorate for Converged Networks and Service. 62 European Digital Competitiveness report 2010. European Commission. 63 ICT~Manifest 2010-2014. (2010). ICT~Office 64 Visie ECP-EPN op de mogelijkheden informatie- en communicatietechnologie te benutten voor

duurzame oplossing van maatschappelijke vraagstukken (2010) 65 Henderson & Venkatraman (1993) . Leveraging information technology to transform

organisations. IBM SYSTEMS JOURNAL, VOL32, NO 1, 1993. 66 Optimistisch!: over duurzame groei en werkgelegenheid. Een ondernemersvisie op de kansen

van Nederland. VNO-NCW (2010). 67 Bas Linders (2008). "Grote kansen voor een klein land - Software als product". ICT~Office.

www.ictoffice.nl 68 The Dutch software sector Survey 2010. Dialogic commissioned by ICT~Office 69 Margot Weijnen (2010). Van Nederland-Distributieland naar Hub-Holland. In “Verbinden,

innoveren en concurreren”. Het Innovatieplatform. 70 Boterenbrood & Wijnand-Hoek (2005) Informatiearchitectuur als scharnier van strategie

naar informatievoorziening. 71 Guus Schreiber, Hans Akkermans, Anjo Anjewierden, Robert de Hoog, Nigel Shadbolt, Walter

Van de Velde and Bob Wielinga. Knowledge Engineering and Management: The CommonKADS

Methodology, MIT Press, ISBN 0262193000. 2000. 72 Computer Science 2002-2008. Assessment of Research Quality. 73 Dr. M. Kas (NWO EW) en dr. ir. F. Karelse (STW), (2005). Met vaste hand. Nationale


Informaticaonderzoek Platform Nederland (IPN) 74 Kuijper, M.P. (1998). Knowledge Engineering for Usability: model-mediated authoring of

instructional simulations. PhD Thesis UvA. 75 Johnson, Steven (1997). Interface Culture. 76 Oortmerssen, G. van, Darwin en het Internet (2009) 77 Swaak, J. (2004). Overleven in de kenniseconomie. Management Team nr 20, 3 december

2004. 78 Simon, H. (1969). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. 79 Van Hillegersberg, J., Boeke, R. & Van den Heuvel, W.J. (2004) Potential of webservices to

enable smart business networks. Journal of Information Technology, 19 (4): 281-287. 80 Oortmerssen, G. van (2009) ICT2030.nl: ICT-agenda voor de toekomst van Nederland.

ICTRegie. 81 Swaak, J. (2004). Overleven in de kenniseconomie. Management Team nr 20, 3 december

2004. 82 Van der Aalst, Process mining. 83 Van Vliet , Architecture & Knowledge Management 84 Flederius, E. TNO Presentation at Future Internet-PPP meeting Agentschapnl

kuijper 201012 - iippsw-sra-xmas2010

Documents

Transcript of kuijper 201012 - iippsw-sra-xmas2010