Total views : 226

What are Software Developers’ and Medical Experts’ Priorities for Adopting a Healthcare Software Platform?


  • Division of Business Administration and Economics, Konkuk University, Korea, Republic of
  • Department of Computer Engineering, Chungbuk National University, Korea, Republic of


Background/Objectives: Many policies are provided for promoting the software market. However, little research has studied medical experts' or software developers' requirements with regard to software platforms that focus on healthcare. Methods/Statistical Analysis: With a literature review and interviews with experts, questionnaires were developed in order to measure five topics: Fields to be developed, expertise, problems, effect and the factors that facilitate the platform. The survey was administered on a website for two weeks. The participants were medical experts and software developers. 97 software developers and 79 medical experts completed the survey. All of these completed surveys were analyzed using rank and priority test method. Findings: From the results of the survey of software developers and medical experts, it is possible to see the relevant priorities of these two groups. First, software developers and medical experts believe that health condition measurement and the prevention of disease/disorder are new markets that should be opened. Second, they want to share their expertise and knowledge if they participate in a healthcare software platform. Thus, we can verify that software developers and medical experts do not differ regarding the fields that should be considered and the expertise that should be offered. Third, software developers have concerns about the absence of preparation for healthcare software certification, the absence of preparation for a healthcare database and a shortage of information about the healthcare software market. Further, after adopting a healthcare software platform, software developers expect that it will enable them to utilize a specific healthcare database, utilize expertise and develop competitive content and share domestic/foreign information on healthcare. Finally, there are priority factors that software developers believe can facilitate the platform. Application/Improvements: It is relevant for this study to survey two key participating supply-side groups. The results may be utilized to help provide useful directions for Korean government's healthcare software platform policies.


Medical Experts, Network Effects, Platform, Software Developers, The Orientation Toward a Happy Korea, Two-Sided Market.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 182)


  • Danu R. Tracking theft mobile application. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016; 9(11):1–4.
  • Noh KS, Lee DS. Bigdata platform design and implementation model. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015; 8(18):1–8.
  • Rani DR, Sravani PL. Challenges of digital forensics in cloud computing environment. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2016; 9(17):1–7.
  • Baldwin CY, Woodard CJ. The architecture of platforms: A unified view. Platforms, Markets and Innovation. A. Gawer, editor. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2009; p. 19–44.
  • Choi B, Kim C, Cho W. Platform changes business. Seoul: Samsung Economic Research Institute; 2014.
  • Eisenmann TR, Parker G, Alstyne MWV. Opening platforms: How, when and why? Platforms, Markets and Innovation. A. Gawer, editor. Cheltenham, UK; Edward Elgar; 2009. p. 131–62.
  • Tiwana A, Konsynski B, Bush AA. Research commentary: platform evolution: Coevolution of platform architecture, governance and environmental dynamics. Information Systems Research. 2010; 21(4):675–87. Indian J Vol 9 (24) | June 2016 | ournal of Science and Technology.
  • National Information Society Agency (NIA). How to implement data-based creative economy. IT and Future Strategy; 2013. 2.
  • Chase D. Why Google health really failed: It’s about the money. 2011. Available from:
  • Dolan B. 10 reasons why Google health failed. 2011. Available from:
  • Eisenmann T, Parker G, Alstyne MWV. Strategies for two-sided markets. Harvard Business Review. 2006; 84(10):92–101.
  • Fichman RG. Real options and IT platform adoption: Implications for theory and practice. Information Systems Research. 2004; 15(2):132–54.
  • Katz ML, Shapiro C. Systems competition and network effects. The Journal of Economic Perspectives. 1994; 8(2):93–115.
  • Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP. The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership. New York: Free Press; 1997.
  • Rochet JC, Tirole J. Platform competition in two-sided markets. Journal of the European Economic Association. 2003; 1(4):19–31.
  • Bresnahan TF, Greenstein S. Technological competition and the structure of the computer industry. The Journal of Industrial Economics. 1999; 47(1):1–40.
  • Iansiti M, Levien R. Strategy as ecology. Harvard Business Review. 2004; 82(3):168–78.
  • Li YR. The technological roadmap of Cisco’s business ecosystem. Technovation. 2009; 29(5):379–86.
  • Evans DS. The antitrust economics of multi-sided platform markets. Yale Journal of Regulation. 2003; 20(2):325–82.
  • Evans DS. How catalysts ignite: The economics of platformbased start-ups. Platforms, Markets and Innovation. A. Gawer, editor. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar; 2009. p. 99–128.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.