• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Empoweringsme
 

Empoweringsme

on

  • 874 views

A presentation on how open source can help SMEs in the technology adoption process

A presentation on how open source can help SMEs in the technology adoption process

Statistics

Views

Total Views
874
Views on SlideShare
874
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
12
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Empoweringsme Empoweringsme Presentation Transcript

    • Open Source software: empowering SMEs Carlo Daffara Conecta European Working Group on Libre Software
    • Overall slide deck summary Basic facts on OSS ● ●OSS adoption models ●Overcoming barriers ●Delivery tools ●Application examples ●Long term sustainability: some potential models ●Common errors in OSS-based companies ●Consortia and development networks
    • LinuxDay 2007 da Windows a Linux in azienda
    • Apart from any ethical/development consideration, OSS must be ● economically effective for companies COSPA project: among the results, the demonstration that when ● proper best practices are adopted, OSS can bring significant cost reductions both in the short term (1 year) and long term (5 years) The project also demonstrated that finding support, software ● selection and roadmap preparation are among the significant costs (up to 40% of all costs, when intangibles are counted) 16000 9000 8000 14000 7000 12000 6000 10000 5000 OSS 8000 Proprietary OSS-5yrs 4000 Prop-5yrs 3000 6000 2000 4000 1000 2000 0 SGV BH (phase 1) BH (phase 2) 0 SGV Estremadura BH (phase 1) BH (phase 2)
    • value appropriated collaborate and redefine champion contribute use Time business driven engineering driven denial single product multiple projects
    • value appropriated collaborate and redefine champion contribute use Time business driven engineering driven denial single product multiple projects step 1: crossing the chasm between denial and use. It requires knowledge on what is available, countering wrong beliefs and FUD, best practices for adoption and migration
    • Adoption is a multiphase process, where every step requires ● significant attention We should focus on helping EVERY stage ● For example: requirement analysis is facilitated by having ● reference data for commonly searched solution- best practice: EBSN network solution setup active life next cycle requirement  analysis dismissal/ installation integration testing training maintenan migration ce identification of solutions
    • First step: identify needs, and whenever possible PROPOSE ● actively solutions that are known to increase efficiency and quality The EU ebusiness-watch is a (limited) example ● Proceed in two distinct directions: ● ● Horizontal: ICT that provides essential infrastructure (eg. Security, backups, networking, access..) ● Vertical: industry oriented Demonstrate through web-based seminars, presentations, ● seminars, SME-oriented channels that: ● The solutions are effective ● That there are many other companies using those same ICT tools ● That there is an economic advantage ● That there are learning tools and documentation ● (If possible) identify local companies that can provide support, and create a country-wide registry ● At those same meetings, use the opportunity to ask for information on what other tools they would like
    • Creating software catalogues, using an integrated evaluation ● model (for example: QSOS, also a by-product of EU research). For selected projects, finds local support companies with competence in the identified solution Catalogues need to be updated! Share the burden across ● experts, and if possible engage local experts that may provide up-to-date descriptions As an additional tool, collect potentially vertical “stacks” ● organized per industry Collect the needs of potential OSS users, using standardized ● forms (Technology Request/Technology Offer, TR/TO) to identify IT needs Find the set of OSS projects that together satisfies the ● Technology Request If there are still unsatisfied requirements, join together several ● interested users to ask (with a commercial offer) for a custom- made OSS extension or project Aggregate and restructure the information created by other ● actors
    • Adoption: whenever possible, installation should NOT be ● necessary at least for demonstration or testing Local companies may be interested in providing a web-based or ● remotely accessible server for demos Leverage virtualization: distribute common images through web ● channels (for example, using VirtualBox images) This way, testing may happen on linux, windows, OSX,... ● Privilege solutions that require no (or limited) coding, even for ● significant adaptations Provide links to tools and documents that help in migrating from ● other common platforms (this is especially important for companies that use locally-developed software, eg. ERP) Presentation guides (eg. Walkthroughs) are useful for helping ● local user groups or local and independent dissemination agents
    • Catalogs should also follow the horizontal/vertical approach, and ● should also provide different paths for desktop and “infrastructure” applications, as previous studies found that hurdles and activities are different Desktop: identify multi-platform applications for specific tasks ● and entire desktop environments (like Ubuntu), and keep those separate as the adoption effort is substantially different Server: differentiate across horizontal products that may help ● without requiring an application change, and vertical products As previous research has found, adoption has a significantly ● higher success probability than migration On similar products, provide comparative points (for example: ● differences between Zimbra and Open-Xchange...)
    • Sustainability: for a local, healthy ecosystem there is a need for ● LOCAL support companies, that not only help the adoption process, but can provide localisation, adaptation (for example adapting an open source ERP to local legislation) Companies must adopt a sensible business model, and plan ● accordingly A common error: “we just drop this software as open source, and ● we hope that someone will pay for support” The error: As for every company, it is fundamental to understand ● ● What is sold ● To whom ● At what price ● The lack of a good business model is quite common, and killed most OSS companies in Europe and US (in a way, something similar happened to the first “internet companies”) ● A good approach can be the Osterwalder model:
    • Main revenue generation Main Licensing model OSS and multiple Company dual licensing commercial Badgew are Pure OSS packages selection ITSC Subsc ription licens ing v ersions covered Funambol l l l dual lic . Lustre l l MuleSource l l l l Mysql l l l OpenClovis l l Pentaho l l l sleepy catdb l l A daptiv e Planning l l A lterpoint l l l A ltinity l l l Codew eaver (WINE) l l Coupa l l Digium (A sterisk) l l Split OSS/commercial releases Enormalis m l l EnterpriseDB l l GreenPlum l l GroundWork l l Hy peric l l Jas perSof t l l Know ledgeTree l l OpenCountry l l Open-Xchange l NoMachine NX l l rPath l l Sc alix l l Sendmail l l Smoothw all l l Sourcef ire (SNORT) l l Splunk l l SSLEx plorer l l SugarCRM l l l TenderSystem l l l V irtualBox l l V yatta l l l XenSource (Xen) l l Zend (PHP) l l ZIMBRA l l l 1bizcom l l Badgew are CA TS applicant tracking l l EmuSof tw are/Netdirec tor l l l Jbilling l l OpenBravo l l OpenEMM l l OpenTerracotta l l SocialText l l A lf resc o l l l Babel l l CentraV iew l l CleverSaf e l l product specialists Compiere l l l Ex adel l l Jitterbit l l l Mergere l l Mindquarry l l Mirth l l Of BIZ l l Qlus ters (OpenQRM) l l Sy mbiot/OpenSIMS l l Talend l l UltimateEMR l l V ISTA l l vTiger l l Zenoss l l platf . Provid. Jboss l l l l RedHat linux l l l Sourcelabs l l l l SpikeSource l l l l SUSE Linux l l l WSO2 l l l s elec tion – consulting ay amon l l l Enomaly l l l navica l l openlogic l l Optaros l l l x-tend l l l CiviCRM l Other Ec lipse l Mozilla l OSA F Chandler l Sourcef orge
    • For example: is the software distributed through the net? Is it ● licensed (eg. RedHat)? All those questions are essential for sustainability- and when you ● have a local ecosystem, it is feasible to leave the long-term evolution of the resources like the SME-toolkit to a community Consortia: most companies aggregate, in a formal or informal ● way, to increase profitability and to be able to answer bigger tenders or requests The non-rival nature of most projects make it possible in a ● simpler way to create “co-opetition” strategies, with companies competing on the market and at the same time sharing effort for improving their products (eg. Novell, IBM, Sun with the OpenOffice.org project) Two main collaboration strategies were identified among smaller ● companies: geographical (same product or service, different geographical areas); “vertical” (among products) or “horizontal” (among activities)
    • pkg1 pkg2 pkg3 ...pkg n Software selection Installation Integration Technical suitability cert. Legal certification Training Maintenance and support Legacy migration This is an example of a “product specialist” or a “platform ● provider”, that performs an integrated set of activities on one or more packages. Multiple vendors with overlapping products can collaborate on a single offer (eg. operating system and Groupware)
    • pkg1 pkg2 pkg3 ...pkg n Software selection Installation Integration Technical suitability cert. Legal certification Training Maintenance and support Legacy migration This is an example of a “service specialist”, that performs a single ● activity, on (usually) a very large number of packages. Collaboration allows for the creation of an integrated service package along multiple software offerings