Impact of Modularity Design on Mobile App Launch Success

References

• Adbi A, Liu X, Mishra A (2021) Technology licensing and productivity growth: Evidence from manufacturing firms in developing economies. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 24(1):214–234.Link, Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Bayus BL (2002) The market evolution and sales takeoff of product innovations. Management Sci. 48(8):1024–1041.Link, Google Scholar
• Ahn JH, Han SP, Lee YS (2006) Customer churn analysis: Churn determinants and mediation effects of partial defection in the Korean mobile telecommunications service industry. Telecommunications Policy 30(10–11):552–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1977) Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psych. Bull. 84(5):888–918.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Allon G, Askalidis G, Berry R, Immorlica N, Moon K, Singh A (2022) When to be agile: Ratings and version updates in mobile apps. Management Sci. 68(6):4261–4278.Link, Google Scholar
• Atreyi K, Ye JH, Teo HH (2015) Comparing potential and actual innovators: An empirical study of mobile data service innovation. MIS Quart. 39(3):667–682.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baldwin CY, Clark KB (2000) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Banker RD, Kauffman RJ (1991) Reuse and productivity in integrated computer-aided software engineering: An empirical study. MIS Quart. 15(3):375–401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Barnes B, Durek T, Gaffney J, Pyster A (1988) A framework and economic foundation for software reuse. Tracz W, ed. Software Reuse: Emerging Technology (IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC), 77–88.Google Scholar
• Belloni A, Chernozhukov V, Hansen C (2013) Inference on treatment effects after selection among high-dimensional controls. Rev. Econom. Stud. 81(2):608–650.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belloni A, Chen D, Chernozhukov V, Hansen C (2012) Sparse models and methods for optimal instruments with an application to eminent domain. Econometrica 80(6):2369–2429.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berente N, Lyytinen K, Yoo Y, King JL (2016) Routines as shock absorbers during organizational transformation: Integration, control, and NASA’s enterprise information system. Organ. Sci. 27(3):551–572.Link, Google Scholar
• Berry S, Jia P (2010) Tracing the woes: An empirical analysis of the airline industry. Amer. Econom. J. Microeconomics 2(3):1–43.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berry S, Levinsohn J, Pakes A (1995) Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica 63(4):841–890.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bolton RN (1998) A dynamic model of the duration of the customer’s relationship with a continuous service provider: The role of satisfaction. Marketing Sci. 17(1):45–65.Link, Google Scholar
• Brown CL, Carpenter GS (2000) Why is the trivial important? A reasons-based account for the effects of trivial attributes on choice. J. Consumer Res. 26(4):372–385.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: A review and new directions. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 48(3):292–306.Google Scholar
• Brusoni S, Prencipe A (2001) Unpacking the black box of modularity: Technologies, products and organizations. Indust. Corporate Change 10(1):179–205.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bun MJG, Harrison TD (2019) OLS and IV estimation of regression models including endogenous interaction terms. Econometric Rev. 38(7):814–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Campbell DE, Wells JD, Valacich JS (2012) Breaking the ice in B2C relationships: Understanding pre-adoption e-commerce attraction. Inform. Systems Res. 24(2):219–238.Link, Google Scholar
• Carpenter GS, Glazer R, Nakamoto K (1994) Meaningful brands from meaningless differentiation: The dependence on irrelevant attributes. J. Marketing Res. 31(3):339–350.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chesbrough H, Kusunoki K (2001) The modularity trap: Innovation, technology phase shifts and the resulting limits of virtual organizations. Nonaka I, Teece D, eds. Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer and Utilization (SAGE Publications, London), 202–230.Google Scholar
• Christensen CM, Rosenbloom RS (1995) Explaining the attacker’s advantage: Technological paradigms, organizational dynamics, and the value network. Res. Policy 24(2):233–257.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clark KB, Fujimoto T (1991) Product Development Performance: Strategy, Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Clutch (2018) Top Mobile App Development Companies. Retrieved November 14, 2018, https://clutch.co/directory/mobile-application-developers.Google Scholar
• Cuadrado F, Dueñas J (2012) Mobile application stores: Success factors, existing approaches, and future developments. IEEE Comm. Magazine 50(11):160–167.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Curry D (2021) App Revenue Data (2020). Business of Apps. Retrieved January 31, https://www.businessofapps.com/data/app-revenues/#1.Google Scholar
• Dahana WD, Miwa Y, Morisada M (2019) Linking lifestyle to customer lifetime value: An exploratory study in an online fashion retail market. J. Bus. Res. 99:319–331.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalmasso I, Datta SK, Bonnet C, Nikaein N (2013) Survey, comparison and evaluation of cross platform mobile application development tools. Saracco R, BenLetaief K, Gerla M, Palazzo S, Atzori L, eds. Wireless Communications and Mobile Computing Conference (IWCMC), 2013 9th International (IEEE), 323–328.Google Scholar
• Danese P, Filippini R (2012) Direct and mediated effects of product modularity on development time and product performance. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 60(2):260–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Danilovic M, Browning TR (2007) Managing complex product development projects with design structure matrices and domain mapping matrices. Internat. J. Project Management 25(3):300–314.Crossref, Google Scholar
• De Giovanni P (2019) A feature fatigue supply chain game with cooperative programs and ad-hoc facilitators. Internat. J. Production Res. 57(13):4166–4186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• del Gallego NP, Urag OB, de Dios Bulos R (2016) Predicting daily active users for match-3 mobile games. Aviso K, Ilao J, eds. DLSU Research Congress (De La Salle University), 1–6.Google Scholar
• Dogtiev A (2018) How Much Does App Development Cost? Business of Apps. Retrieved July 20, 2018, http://www.businessofapps.com/guide/app-development-cost/.Google Scholar
• Dooley KJ, Pathak SD, Kull TJ, Wu Z, Johnson J, Rabinovich E (2019) Process network modularity, commonality, and greenhouse gas emissions. J. Oper. Management 65(2):93–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Downes L, Nunes P (2014) Big Bang Disruption: Strategy in the Age of Devastating Innovation (Penguin, London).Google Scholar
• Ernst D (2005) Limits to modularity: Reflections on recent developments in chip design. Indust. Innovation 12(3):303–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D (2004) Modularity and innovation in complex systems. Management Sci. 50(2):159–173.Link, Google Scholar
• Ethiraj SK, Levinthal D, Roy RR (2008) The dual role of modularity: Innovation and imitation. Management Sci. 54(5):939–955.Link, Google Scholar
• Fazio RH, Powell MC, Williams CJ (1989) The role of attitude accessibility in the attitude-to-behavior process. J. Consumer Res. 16(3):280–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fishbein M (1979) A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Sympos. Motivation 27:65–116.Google Scholar
• Flora HK, Wang X, Chande SV (2014) An investigation into mobile application development processes: Challenges and best practices. Internat. J. Modern Ed. Comput. Sci. 6(6):1–9.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Garg R, Telang R (2013) Inferring app demand from publicly available data. MIS Quart. 37(4):1253–1264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Allamneni S (1999) Modular product design: A life-cycle view. J. Integrated Design Process Sci. 3(4):13–26.Google Scholar
• Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2003) Product modularity: Definitions and benefits. J. Engrg. Design 14(3):295–313.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghandi L, Silva C, Martinez D, Gualotuna T (2017) Mobile application development process: A practical experience. Alturas B, ed. Iberian Conf. Inform. Systems Tech., CISTI (IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC), 1–6.Google Scholar
• Ghose A, Han S (2014) Estimating demand for mobile applications in the new economy. Management Sci. 60(6):1470–1488.Link, Google Scholar
• Gordon ME (2018) Benchmarking the Half-Life and Decay of Mobile Apps. Flurry. Retrieved July 14, 2018, https://www.flurry.com/blog/benchmarking-the-half-life-and-decay-of-mobile/.Google Scholar
• Griffin A (1997) The effect of project and process characteristics on product development cycle time. J. Marketing Res. 34(1):24–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grundberg S (2012) Angry Birds Space Hits 10 Million Downloads. Wall Street Journal (March 27), https://www.wsj.com/video/angry-birds-space-hits-10-million-downloads/8EED5F81-C1BC-4D8A-9E63-CFBDB46F3528.html.Google Scholar
• Hansen LP (1982) Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50(4):1029–1054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heckman J (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47(1):153–161.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hise RT, O’Neal L, McNeal JU, Parasuraman A (1989) The effect of product design activities on commercial success levels of new industrial products. J. Product Innovation Management 6(1):43–50.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Invonto (2022) Mobile App Development Process: A 6-Step Guide. Invonto. Retrieved June 30, 2022, https://www.invonto.com/insights/mobile-app-development-process/.Google Scholar
• Jabangwe R, Edison H, Duc AN (2018) Software engineering process models for mobile app development: A systematic literature review. J. Systems Software 145:98–111.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jacobs MA, Swink M (2011) Product portfolio architectural complexity and operational performance: Incorporating the roles of learning and fixed assets. J. Oper. Management 29(7–8):677–691.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jang S, Chung J (2015) How do interaction activities among customers and between customers and firms influence market performance and continuous product innovation? An empirical investigation of the mobile application market. J. Product Innovation Management 32(2):183–191.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kleibergen F, Paap R (2006) Generalized reduced rank tests using the singular value decomposition. J. Econometrics 133(1):97–126.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Knight JC, Dunn MF (1998) Software quality through domain-; driven certification. Ann. Software Engrg. 5(1):293–315.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krishnan V, Ulrich KT (2001) Product development decisions: A review of the literature. Management Sci. 47(1):1–21.Link, Google Scholar
• Kutner MH, Nachtsheim C, Neter J (2004) Applied Linear Regression Models (McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York).Google Scholar
• Lau Antonio KW, Yam RCM, Tang E (2007) The impacts of product modularity on competitive capabilities and performance: An empirical study. Internat. J. Production Econom. 105(1):1–20.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee G, Raghu TS (2014) Determinants of mobile apps’ success: Evidence from the app store market. J. Management Inform. Systems 31(2):133–170.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lee GM, He S, Lee J, Whinston AB (2020) Matching mobile applications for cross-promotion. Inform. Systems Res. 31(3):865–891.Link, Google Scholar
• Li H, Hecht B (2021) 3 stars on Yelp, 4 stars on Google Maps: A cross-platform examination of restaurant ratings. Proc. ACM Human Comput. Interaction 4 (CSCW3), 1–25.Google Scholar
• Liu CZ, Au YA, Choi HS (2014) Effects of freemium strategy in the mobile app market: An empirical study of Google Play. J. Management Inform. Systems 31(3):326–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• MacCormack A, Rusnak J, Baldwin CY (2006) Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code. Management Sci. 52(7):1015–1030.Link, Google Scholar
• Masi E, Cantone G, Mastrofini M, Calavaro G, Subiaco P (2012) Mobile apps development: A framework for technology decision making. Uhler D, Mehta K, Wong JL, eds. Int. Conf. Mobile Computing, Applications, and Services, vol. 110 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg), 64–79.Google Scholar
• Miller E (2014) Ranking Items with Star Ratings. Evanmiller.org. Retrieved February 19, https://www.evanmiller.org/ranking-items-with-star-ratings.html.Google Scholar
• Murkin P (2021) What is SDK in a SaaS solution and how to integrate SDK. InAppStory. Retrieved January 26, 2022, https://inappstory.com/blog/how-to-integrate-sdk.Google Scholar
• Murphy JJ (1999) Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets: A Comprehensive Guide to Trading Methods and Applications (Penguin, London).Google Scholar
• Nambisan S (2002) Complementary product integration by high-technology new ventures: The role of initial technology strategy. Management Sci. 48(3):382–398.Link, Google Scholar
• Narayanan S, Balasubramanian S, Swaminathan JM (2009) A matter of balance: Specialization, task variety, and individual learning in a software maintenance environment. Management Sci. 55(11):1861–1876.Link, Google Scholar
• Neffke F, Henning M (2013) Skill relatedness and firm diversification. Strategic Management J. 34(3):297–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Novak S, Eppinger SD (2001) Sourcing by design: Product complexity and the supply chain. Management Sci. 47(1):189–204.Link, Google Scholar
• Nowlis SM, Simonson I (1996) The effect of new product features on brand choice. J. Marketing Res. 33(1):36–46.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Özkan GF, Gaimon C, Kavadias S (2015) Dynamic knowledge transfer and knowledge development for product and process design teams. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 17(2):177–190.Link, Google Scholar
• Panko R (2017) How much does it cost to develop an App: 2017 Survey. Clutch. Retrieved January 17, https://clutch.co/app-developers/resources/cost-build-mobile-app-survey.Google Scholar
• Pätäri E, Vilska M (2014) Performance of moving average trading strategies over varying stock market conditions: The Finnish evidence. Appl. Econom. 46(24):2851–2872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perez S (2013) Paid Apps on the Decline: 90% of iOS Apps Are Free, Up from 80-84% During 2010-2012, Says Flurry. Tech Crunch. Retrieved January 15, 2018, https://techcrunch.com/2013/07/18/paid-apps-on-the-decline-90-of-ios-apps-are-free-up-from-80-84-during-2010-2012-says-flurry/.Google Scholar
• Qiu Y, Gopal A, Hann IH (2017) Logic pluralism in mobile platform ecosystems: A study of indie app developers on the iOS app store. Inform. Systems Res. 28(2):225–249.Google Scholar
• Ramachandran K, Krishnan V (2008) Design architecture and introduction timing for rapidly improving industrial products. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 10(1):149–171.Link, Google Scholar
• Roma P, Vasi M (2019) Diversification and performance in the mobile app market: The role of the platform ecosystem. Tech. Forecasting Soc. Change 147:123–139.Crossref, Google Scholar
• SafeDK (2018) Mobile SDKs Data Trends in the Android Market. Accessed July 20, 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20180725003701/http://mobile-sdk-data-trends.safedk.com/full-report-June-2018.Google Scholar
• Sharma L, Chandrasekaran A, Bendoly E (2020) Does the office of patient experience matter in improving delivery of care? Production Oper. Management 29(4):833–855.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shoavi O (2017) How Top Mobile Apps Fight the SDK Fatigue and the Effect on their Business Results. SafeDK. Retrieved November 12, 2018, https://web.archive.org/web/20171222030802/http://blog.safedk.com/sdk-economy/sdk-fatigue-sdks-control-mobile/.Google Scholar
• Song LZ, Song M, di Benedetto CA (2011) Resources, supplier investment, product launch advantages, and first product performance. J. Oper. Management 29(1–2):86–104.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staiger D, Stock JH (1994) Instrumental variables with weak instruments. Econometrica 65(3):557–586.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Statista (2018) Mobile Gaming Industry - Statistics & Facts. Retrieved November 12, 2018, https://www.statista.com/topics/1906/mobile-gaming/.Google Scholar
• Stock JH, Yogo M (2005) Testing for weak instruments in linear IV regression. Andrews DWK, Stock JH, eds. Identification and Inference for Econometric Models: Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 80–108.Google Scholar
• Strauss K (2013) The $2.4 Million-per-Day Company: Supercell. Forbes. Retrieved July 19, 2018, https://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2013/04/18/the-2-4-million-per-day-company-supercell/#23b37cdf6fc1.Google Scholar
• Strong DM, Volkoff O (2010) Understanding organization-enterprise system fit: A path to theorizing the information technology artifact. MIS Quart. 34(4):731–756.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Succi G, Valerio A, Vernazza T, Succi G (1998) Compatibility, standards, and software production. StandardView 6(4):140–146.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sullivan KJ, Griswold WG, Cai Y, Hallen B (2001) The structure and value of modularity in software design. Software Engrg. Notes 26(5):99–108.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Talton JO III, Dusad K, Koiliaris K, Kumar RS (2019) How do people sort by ratings? Brewster S, Fitzpatrick G, Cox A, Kostakos V, eds. Proc. 2019 CHI Conf. Human Factors Comput. Systems (Association for Computing Machinery, New York), 1–10.Google Scholar
• Tatikonda MV, Stock GN (2003) Product technology transfer in the upstream supply chain. J. Product Innovation Management 20(6):444–467.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Teece DJ, Rumelt R, Dosi G, Winter S (1994) Understanding corporate coherence: Theory and evidence. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 23(1):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson DV, Hamilton RW, Rust RT (2005) Feature fatigue: When product capabilities become too much of a good thing. J. Marketing Res. 42(4):431–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tibshirani R (1996) Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 58(1):267–288.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ulrich K (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res. Policy 24:419–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Venkatesan R, Kumar V (2004) A customer lifetime value framework for customer selection and resource allocation strategy. J. Marketing 68(4):106–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vickery SK, Koufteros X, Dröge C, Calantone R (2016) Product modularity, process modularity, and new product introduction performance: Does complexity matter? Production Oper. Management 25(4):751–770.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wang Q, Li B, Singh PV (2018) Copycats vs. original mobile apps: A machine learning copycat-detection method and empirical analysis. Inform. Systems Res. 29(2):273–291.Link, Google Scholar
• Wooldridge JM (2010) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Xue L, Song P, Rai A, Zhang C, Zhao X (2019) Implications of application programming interfaces for third‐party new app development and copycatting. Production Oper. Management 28(8):1887–1902.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zhang D, Mao R, Li H, Mao J (2011) How to count thumb-ups and thumb-downs: User-rating based ranking of items from an axiomatic perspective. Amati G, Crestani F, eds. Conf. Theory Inform. Retrieval (Springer), 238–249.Google Scholar