• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Doing the Impossible: Managing Open Source Communities
 

Doing the Impossible: Managing Open Source Communities

on

  • 4,718 views

Today's open source world is a completely heterogeneous mix of voluntary communities, open source service providers, non-for-profit associations, government agencies and many more actors. In this ...

Today's open source world is a completely heterogeneous mix of voluntary communities, open source service providers, non-for-profit associations, government agencies and many more actors. In this context it is a great challenge for a firm to manage successfully its open source projects and create a properous community for them. Several recent examples have shown that such business-controlled communities broke apart through the forking of the project. This speech will analyze why voluntary contributors are beneficious to an open source community, how different types of open source projects are governed, and, by providing examples, what companies have to do to direct their own communities through the perfect balance between control and openness.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,718
Views on SlideShare
2,631
Embed Views
2,087

Actions

Likes
3
Downloads
21
Comments
0

8 Embeds 2,087

http://www.stuermer.ch 2072
http://paper.li 5
http://www.linkedin.com 5
url_unknown 1
http://admin.totalmarketing.com 1
http://www.slideshare.net 1
http://ranksit.com 1
http://10.52.63.121 1
More...

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-ShareAlike License

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

    Doing the Impossible: Managing Open Source Communities Doing the Impossible: Managing Open Source Communities Presentation Transcript

    • Doing the Impossible:Managing Open Source CommunitiesDr. Matthias StürmerSenior Advisor, Ernst & YoungJune 7, 2011
    • Short Bio Matthias Stürmer ● Senior Advisor at Ernst & Young EMEIA Financial Services since 2010 ● Before at Swiss open source software provider Liip ● Dr. sc. ETH Zürich at the Chair of Strategic Management and Innovation of ETH Zürich, thesis on firm involvement in open source communities ● Business administration and computer science atErnst & Young University of BernBelpstrasse 233001 BernSwitzerland ● Founder and secretary of the Swiss Nationalmatthias.stuermer@ch.ey.com Parliamentarian Group for Digital SustainabilityMobile: +41 58 289 61 97 ● Member of the Board of Swiss Open Systems User Group /ch/open Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Agenda1. Forking today2. Motivation and the private-collective model of innovation3. Benefits and best practices of corporate community building4. Balancing act between openness and control5. Little surprise... Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Forking todayOpenOffice.org LibreOffice Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Forking today DrizzleMySQL MariaDB Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Forking todayCompiere Adempiere Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Forking todayNagios Icinga Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Forking today Are these all failed open source projects? Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Forking today No, the core team just didnt manage well its community. Forking is the community‘s Sword of Damocles. Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Agenda1. Forking today2. Motivation and the private-collective model of innovation3. Benefits and best practices of corporate community building4. Balancing act between openness and control5. Little surprise... Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Like every country,every open source community is unique Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Motivation for individuals to contribute10 different reasons for individuals to contribute to open source software: Intrinsic Motivation: ● Ideology Can be enjoyment- ● Altruism or obligation-based incentives ● Kinship ● Fun Internalized Extrinsic Motivation: ● Reputation Can be non-monetary... ● Reciprocity ● Learning ● Own-use Source: G. F. von Krogh, Extrinsic Motivation: ● Career S. Haefliger, S. Spaeth, M. W. Wallin “Open Source ... or monetary incentives ● Pay Software: a Review of Motivations to Contribute” Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Firms adopting the open source model Building a firm-sponsored community byLevel 3 renouncing some of the projects control Revealing proprietary source code under anLevel 2 open source license → full control by the firm Integrating externally available openLevel 1 source software → open innovation Source: Matthias Stuermer 2009 PhD Thesis “How Firms Make Friends: Communities in Private-Collective Innovation” Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Motivation for firms to contribute7 different reasons for firms to contribute to open source software:Level 2: Legal constraints ● GPL demands contributionsforced contributionsLevel 3: Business benefits ● Low knowledge protection costsvoluntary contributions ● Learning effects for the organization ● Reputation gain ● Lower costs of innovation ● Lower manufacturing costs ● Faster time to market Source: Matthias Stuermer, Sebastian Spaeth, Georg von Krogh 2009 "Extending private-collective innovation: a case study" Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Theory to explain firm contributions Rivalry proprietary software yes no yes private good club goodExcludability no commons public good open source software Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Theory to explain firm contributions1. Private investment model ● Appropriation of financial returns from innovations through IPRs → patents, copyright, licenses, trade secrets ● Knowledge spillover reduces innovators benefits2. Collective innovation model ● Investments in public goods → non-rival, non-excludable ● Free riding problem → public funding, governments3. Private-collective model of innovation ● Innovators privately fund creation of public goods ● Example: production of open source software by firms Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Private-collective model of innovation● Free knowledge sharing● Explains conditions when innovators receive rewards from private investments in public good innovations● Rewards from process of innovation surpasses rewards of free-riders → involvement in innovation process● Process-related rewards are larger than process-related costs → public good innovation● What are such rewards or incentives? Sources: Eric von Hippel, Georg von Krogh 2003 “Open Source Software and the Private- Collective Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science” Eric von Hippel and Georg von Krogh 2006 “Free revealing and the private- collective model for innovation incentives” Georg von Krogh 2008 “Researching the Private-Collective Innovation Model” Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Agenda1. Forking today2. Motivation and the private-collective model of innovation3. Benefits and best practices of corporate community building4. Balancing act between openness and control5. Little surprise... Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Why do managers want a community?Benefits for open source project leaders having an active community: ● Free feature development ● Free extension development ● Free testing ● Free bug reporting ● Free bug fixing ● Free customer support ● Free documentation ● Free marketing ● etc. Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Best practices incorporate community building Two examples: Eclipse by IBM Maemo by Nokia Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Evidence from the Eclipse caseKey benefits for IBM:1. COCOMO: external contributions of 21.5 million LOC by 2007 ~ 214,000 man-months ~ 1.7 billion USD2. Standard-setting in Java IDE, beating competitor Sun3. Strategic platform for IBM software solutions: basis for proprietary applications Source: Sebastian Spaeth, Matthias Stuermer, Georg von Krogh 2010 "Enabling knowledge creation through outsiders: towards a push model of open innovation" Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • What did IBM do?1. Preemptive generosity ● Revealing of initial Eclipse source code by IBM2. Continuous commitment ● Constant number of IBM programmers in Eclipse ● Constant level of participation in newsgroups3. Adaptive governance structures (giving up control) ● Non-profit foundation with equal membership of firms4. Lowering barriers to entry ● Sub-projects by non-IBM people; modular architecture Source: Sebastian Spaeth, Matthias Stuermer, Georg von Krogh 2010 "Enabling knowledge creation through outsiders: towards a push model of open innovation" Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Nokias (past) open sourcecommunity building● 2003: product decision for Nokia 770 tablet● 2007: successor devices N800 and N810● June 2009: Nokia partners with Intel for Maemo● August 2009: Maemo shall supersede Symbian as smartphone platform● October 2009: Nokia releases smartphone N900● March 2010: Nokia Maemo and Intel Moblin become MeeGo● March 2011: Nokia partners with Microsoft for Windows Phone 7... (for strategic reasons) Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • What did Nokia do? Source: Matthias Stuermer, Sebastian Spaeth, Georg von Krogh 2009 "Extending private-collective innovation: a case study" Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • What did Nokia do? Source: Matthias Stuermer, Sebastian Spaeth, Georg von Krogh 2009 "Extending private-collective innovation: a case study" Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Agenda1. Forking today2. Motivation and the private-collective model of innovation3. Benefits and best practices of corporate community building4. Balancing act between openness and control5. Little surprise... Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Control of open source projectsCommunity-driven open source projects● Meritocracy: “exercise of control on the basis of knowledge” *● Technical contributions and organizational-building behavior lead to authority and control **Firm-driven open source projects● Why do firms want control?● Business model: value creation and value appropriation● Firms need control to appropriate returns of investment● Balancing act between openness and control Sources: * Max Weber 1978 “Economy and society” ** Siobhán OMahony and Fabrizio Ferraro 2007 The emergence of governance in an open source community Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Firms influencing open source projectsCorporations influence open source projects when...● firms reveal previously proprietary code.● firms contribute code.● firms control release management.● firms employ core developers who previously contributed as unpaid volunteers.● firms contract intermediary OSS firms and individuals.Firm-driven open source projects face challenges such as.. ● lack of external contributions. (issue 1) ● possible crowding-out effects of intrinsic motivation. (issue 2) Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Issue 1:Balancing act between openness and controlControl decreases contributions *● Transparency increases contributions strongly **● Accessibility increases contributions slightly **Balancing is difficult● Too much control: communities may not contribute with all of their energy, interest, and creativity● Too little control: results may not serve the firms goals Sources: * Sonali Shah 2006 “Motivation, governance, and the viability of hybrid forms in open source software development”; Dahlander and Magnusson 2005 “Relationships between open source software companies and communities: observations from Nordic firms” ** Georg von Krogh, Sebastian Spaeth, Matthias Stuermer, Guido Henkel 2009 “The Credible Sponsor: Participants’ Motivation and Organization Attributes in Collaborative Digital Innovation Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Issue 1: Effect of control on motivationPerceived firm attributes Individual Identification, Motivation, and Contribution ⊘       Source: Georg von Krogh, Sebastian Spaeth, Matthias Stuermer, Guido Henkel 2009 “The Credible Sponsor: Participants’ Motivation and Organization Attributes in Collaborative Digital Innovation Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Issue 2:Crowding-out of intrinsic motivation Source: Matthias Stürmer, LinuxTag 2007 Berlin http://www.slideshare.net/nice/crowding-effects-how-money-influences-open-source-projects-and-its-contributors Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Agenda1. Forking today2. Motivation and the private-collective model of innovation3. Benefits and best practices of corporate community building4. Balancing act between openness and control5. Little surprise... Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young
    • Ernst & Youngsnew publication on open source● For your clients: Why and how to professionally use open source software● Content: ● Benefits, risks and good practices ● Professional application of open source software ● Legal aspects of open source ● Background information on open source software P DF o n line end 1 of J une 201 Matthias Stürmer, Ernst & Young