Brunel opensourcing 1

  • 100 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
100
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • How many tech savvy here? Very annoyed with tech savvy disdain. Used work in a company where coffee time was stories of stupid end users misquoting the technology – taking down for backup. Turkey story. Encrypting his documentation. Cult of Dead Cow & Back Orifice 2000—zero day warez. Going OSS ironically. 1953 Project for Advancement of Coding Techniques (PACT)—competing devs from Lockheed, Douglas & North Am Aviation pooled resources. Goal to be more efficient—not idealistic Primary (individual and decision to adopt) v secondary (organisational mass deployment)
  • Cost-saving makes inevitable IONA Celtix. Philips DVtk SugarCRM, Sendmail Pro, CollabNet for Pfizer, Merrill Lynch ( Same product - JBoss, MySQL), Ingres
  • Argyris, C. (1960) Understanding Organizational Behaviour , London: Tavistock Publications. Levinson specific about it. Also Schein and Denise Rousseau Ang, S., and Slaughter, S. A. (2001) “Work Outcomes and Job Design for Contract Versus Permanent Information Systems Professionals on Software Development Teams,” MIS Quarterly , 25(3), pp. 321-350. Miranda, S. M., and Kavan, C. B. (2005) “Moments of Governance in IS Outsourcing: Conceptualizing Effects of Contracts on Value Capture and Creation,” Journal of Information Technology , 20(3), pp. 152-169. Pavlou, P. A., and Gefen, D. (2005) “Psychological Contract Violation in Online Marketplaces: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderating Role,” Information Systems Research , 16(4), pp. 372-399. Piccoli, G., and Ives, B. (2003) “Trust and the Unintended Effects of Behavior Control in Virtual Teams,” MIS Quarterly , 27(3), pp. 365-395. Raghu, T. S., Jayaraman, B., and Rao, H. R. (2004) “Toward an Integration of Agent- and Activity-Centric Approaches in Organizational Process Modeling: Incorporating Incentive Mechanisms,” Information Systems Research , 15(4), pp. 316-335. Koh, Ang & Straub (2004) IT Outsourcing Success: A Psychological Contract Perspective, Information Systems Research, 15 (4), pp. 356-373 Parallel development of coding, testing, bug reporting, debugging, documentation
  • Company: Clear spec now part of OSS; feedback rather than payment; high risk so need ownership Project monitoring - attending project meetings, regular discussions (PyPy sprints & GNOME conferences) Proj ownership - enure top mgt support & commitment
  • Community: Benevolent dictator authority structure; independent autonomous developers; good people loyal to project long-term; developers are users so good knowledge transfer; open source service networks for inter-org teams. Taking charge and responsibility for working independently
  • The initial case selected for this study was the Celtix project, an open source Java Enterprise Service Bus (ESB) sponsored by IONA Technologies. An enterprise service bus (ESB) is a standards-based integration platform that combines messaging, web services, data transformation and intelligent routing in an event-driven service-oriented architecture (SOA) . ESBs are being rapidly adopted within IT organizations across a wide variety of industries, solving real-world integration challenges in many unique ways.
  • (Side arrangements possible)
  • IONA Distinguished Engineer
  • EiffelStudio lesson: have a development plan & publish it. Compnay must be sensitive to different project mgt regimes in OSS projects
  • Techie to techie communication
  • Mirrors transparency & close proj monitoring company obligation
  • Web-link to survey sent to key individuals who forwarded to relevant others – snowball/chain sampling. In addition to three initial cases two liberation style (EiffelStudio & OpenAdaptor) and two commectialisation MySQL & Canonical/Ubuntu) 218 responses – incomplete and those in qual phase eliminated. Late respondents as surrogates. No statistically significant differences but early respondents tended more towards extremes of satisfaction and dissat. Plausible.
  • Fac analysis based on correlation coefficients and is better with samples over 150. 5-10 particpants per evariable – we had 22 variables Varimax rotation, eigenvalues > 1 and 25 iterations 3 company component factors explained 48% of variance. 1 community obligation explained 46% of variance 3 company obligations dropped with low factor loadings (<.5) obligations dropped : Improved the reputation of the community of contributors; Helped improve the quality of the software; Used an appropriate license to safeguard community contributions Community obligations all retained (loadings .58 to .76)
  • Cronbach alpha on diagonals in parentheses for reliability all above .6 threshold level apart from seeking to dominate and control (.38) but this is measured by only two items and cronbach alpha sensitive to number of items. Discriminant validity – none of off diagonal correlations above .8 which would indicate multicollinearity
  • Mann-Whitney ANOVA. Was open to outside contributions SA 1 2 3 4 5 SD ( (p<.05)) Perhaps companies cautious about accepting outside contributions – meritocracy needs to emerge No difference between company and community in relation to perceptions of success
  • Stepwise regression using PCA 4 factors – continuous scale & normal distribution, Standardised betas 47% of variance explained
  • Consensus on vision
  • Metcalfe invented Ethernet (together with Al Gore, of course) & founded 3Com. Metcalfe quote from 1999 Infoworld. Also predicted intrenet wouldn’t last – ate his words publicly BSD likewise—90% contrbutions ignored—rest peed on to smell like Berkeley Bill Joy. Thompson quote from 1999
  • MIT Press business model – make available for free after 9 months boosts sales

Transcript

  • 1. Opensourcing: Outsourcing to a Global Unknown Workforce Professor Brian Fitzgerald Lero – the Irish Software Engineering Research Centre University of Limerick IRELAND Brunel University 5 Sep 2011
  • 2. Overview
    • Background
    • The Opensourcing concept
    • Using Psychological Contract Theory (PCT) to study Opensourcing
    • Research Approach – Mixed Method
    • Findings
      • Qualitative case studies
      • Quantitative survey
    • Conclusions
  • 3. Background
    • Early OSS implementations in back-office ‘invisible’ infrastructure
      • Deployed by ‘tech savvy’ under the radar
    • Now ubiquitous
      • Visible front-office applications
      • To military and beyond! (mil-oss.org to crowd-sourcing)
  • 4.  
  • 5.  
  • 6. Opensourcing
    • Companies wish to leverage perceived advantages of OSS
      • Reduced costs
      • Reduced cycle-time
      • Access to larger talent-pool
      • Innovation & shared best practice
      • Closer proximity to customer
    • Opensourcing – providing an OSS version of hitherto proprietary software
    • Akin to offshore outsourcing
      • Outsourcing to a global unknown workforce
  • 7. Offshoring v. Outsourcing
  • 8. Offshoring v. Outsourcing Opensourcing
  • 9. Psychological Contract Theory (PCT) and OSS
    • PCT (Argyris, 1960, Levinson et al, 1962, Rousseau, 1989)
      • “ the contractual parties’ mental beliefs and expectations about their mutual obligations in a contractual relationship, based on perceived promises of a reciprocal exchange ”
    • Also prominent in OSS
      • Mutuality and reciprocity – copyleft, free-riding
      • Psychological contracts – 60% volunteers, unwritten rules of engagement
  • 10. Research Question
    • What are the critical company and community obligations in a successful opensourcing relationship?
  • 11. Research Approach
  • 12. Initial Company* Obligations Based on Outsourcing (Koh et al 2004) * Company = Customer in Koh et al Company Obligations Relevance to OSS
      • Clear specifications
    • More likely in OSS 2.0 – new vertical domains telecomms, automotive
    Prompt payment
    • ~40% OSSers paid
    • Bounty programs
    Close project monitoring
    • Never a bazaar
    • Project planning & conferences
    Project ownership
    • > importance as OSS more visible
  • 13. Initial Community* Obligations Based on Outsourcing (Koh et al 2004) * Community = Supplier in Koh et al Community Obligations Relevance to OSS
      • Clear authority structure
    • Benevolent dictator
    • Core & peripheral developers
    Taking charge
    • Benevolent dictator
    Effective human capital management
    • Itch worth scratching
    • Self-selection
    Effective knowledge transfer
    • Remarkably successful exemplar of global software development
    Effective inter-org teams
    • Open Source Service Networks (OSSNs)
  • 14. Research Phases
    • Qualitative Phase I
      • In-depth qualitative ‘revelatory’ case studies
        • IONA Technologies – Celtix product
        • Philips Medical (DVTk)
        • Telefonica (Morfeo)
      • Refine obligations in context – intermediate set of company/community obligations
    • Quantitative Phase 2
      • Large-scale survey (n=207)
        • Factor analysis, analysis of variance, and regression analysis
      • Validate/refine results from qualitative phase
  • 15. Data Sources: Qualitative Phase I Workshops Interviews Supplementary Sources Sep 2005: Presentation and discussion of Celtix business model and strategy. Apr 2006: Workshop presentation on opensourcing strategy and discussion of DVTk and Morfeo projects. July 2006: Debriefing presentation of findings.
    • July 05 – June 2006: Interviews with
      • Chief Scientist, IONA
      • Chairman, ObjectWeb
      • Admin, IONA
      • Open Source Program Director, IONA
      • Two Project Managers, IONA
      • Two Developers, ObjectWeb
      • Two Managers, Philips Medical Systems
      • Developer, DVTk
      • Manager, Telefonica
      • Developer, Morfeo
    IONA and ObjectWeb maintain detailed and comprehensive web portals for the Celtix project. We also had access to mailing lists and project development wiki pages. Also, detailed web portals and mailing lists for DVTk and Morfeo projects were available.
  • 16. Company Obligations (Phase I)
    • Achieving consensus on development roadmap
      • Not too forceful and dominant in pushing own agenda
      • Accept a general roadmap (vision) of future functionality rather than seeking a precise requirements specification
  • 17. Company Obligations (Phase I)
    • Project ownership
      • Provide senior management commitment to the project - may be perceived as contrary to traditional proprietary business model
      • Open Source Program Director appointed in IONA
      • Provide R&D resources to further develop the project
  • 18. Company Obligations (Phase I)
    • Marketing project to increase visibility
      • Provide professional expertise in relation to marketing and productizing the software
      • Help improve the reputation of the community of contributors
      • Provide a business opportunity for the community to use the product
  • 19. Company Obligations (Phase I)
    • Transparency and close project monitoring
      • Transparent in plans for the future of the project
      • Open to outside contributions
      • Use an appropriate license to safeguard community contributions
  • 20. Company Obligations (Phase I)
    • Creating a sustainable ecosystem
      • Seek to create trust in the relationship with the community
      • Preserve continuity by keeping developers on projects for a longer period than the norm in proprietary development
  • 21. Community Obligations (Phase I)
    • Clear authority structure and transparent process
      • Transparent authority structure to allow customer see the community decision-making process
      • Behave as a professional team
  • 22. Community Obligations (Phase I)
    • Responsible and innovative attitude
      • Take responsibility and deliver on commitments
      • Be creative and innovative in suggesting new functionality and directions for the project
  • 23. Community Obligations (Phase I)
    • Creating a sustainable ecosystem
      • Offer high quality people who understand the project domain very well without requiring additional training
      • Exhibit loyalty and continued involvement in the project
  • 24. Phase 2 Survey
    • Questionnaire constructed on basis of qualitative phase 1 analysis
    • Pre-tested with four practitioners (2 company, 2 community)
    • 207 usable responses
    • Non-response bias
      • Late respondents as surrogates for non-respondents
      • No statistically significant differences
  • 25. Phase 2 Demographics
    • Respondents from 37 countries
      • Affiliation: company (56%) v. community (44%)
    • >5 years OSS experience (53%)
    • < 1 years OSS experience (10%)
    • Gender (previous studies indicate that 98/99% of OSS developers are male)
      • 4% of the respondents female in this study
        • 3% of community respondents
        • 5% of company respondents
  • 26. Principal Component Analysis
    • Three high-level company factors emerged
      • Creating open company-community ecosystem
      • Providing professional business expertise
      • Not seeking to dominate and control process
  • 27. Mean, SD, Scale Reliabilities and Intercorrelation Variable a Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 1 Create open company-community ecosystem 3.67 0.76 (.79) 2 Provide professional business expertise 3.61 0.61 .42** (.63) 3 Did not seek to dominate and control process 3.37 0.80 .33** .12 __ 4 Community professional obligations 3.74 0.61 .42** .27** .28** (.79) 5 Opensourcing success 3.95 0.81 .54** .37** .28** .57** (.84)
  • 28. Company v. Community Differences
    • Analysis of importance of fulfilment of each other’s obligations
    • Community respondents less positive than company regarding
      • Was open to outside contributions
    • Company respondents less positive than community regarding
      • Provided a transparent authority structure
      • Helped improve public perception of the project
  • 29. Obligation Fulfilment v. Opensourcing Sucess Dependent Variable Independent Variables Model Opensourcing success Company Obligations Create open company-community ecosystem Provide professional business expertise Did not seek to dominate and control process Community professional obligations .35*** .21*** .12* .38*** F R 2 38.56*** .47
  • 30. Final Set of Obligations Company Obligations Community Obligations
    • Do not seek to dominate and control process
    • Not too forceful and dominant in pushing own agenda
    • Accept a general roadmap (vision) of future functionality rather than seeking a precise requirements specification
    • Clear and democratic authority structure and process transparency
    • Provide a transparent authority structure to allow customer see the decision making process within the community
    • Behave as a professional team
    • Provide professional management and business expertise
    • Preserve continuity by keeping developers on projects for a longer period than the norm in proprietary software development
    • Provide a business opportunity for the community to use the product
    • Provide professional expertise in relation to marketing and productizing the software
    • Provide R&D resources to further develop the project
    • Provide senior management commitment to the project
    • Responsible and innovative attitude
    • Take responsibility and deliver on what is committed to
    • Be creative and innovative in suggesting new functionality and directions for the project
    • Help achieve a positive impact among customers
    • Help establish an open and trusted ecosystem
    • Behave as a responsible member of the opensourcing ecosystem
    • Open to outside contributions
    • Transparent in plans for the future of the project
    • Seek to create trust in the relationship with the community
    • Engage in community-sustaining activities
    • Help establish a professional and sustainable ecosystem
    • Offer high quality people who understand the project domain very well without requiring additional training
    • Exhibit loyalty and continued involvement in the project
  • 31. Conclusions
    • Symmetric and complementary obligations
      • Create an ecosystem
      • Symbiosis: augment what other provides – professional marketing and global reach/legitimacy
    • Tension as each party needs to accommodate change - balance must be achieved
    • Coopetition – community collaborates and competes with company
    • Source of innovation
  • 32.  
  • 33. Shameless Plug Time!