Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities

460

Published on

The following is a presentation that explores the roles entrepreneurs take in a private-collective community. The focus is on how entrepreneurs position themselves structurally, maintain diverse ties …

The following is a presentation that explores the roles entrepreneurs take in a private-collective community. The focus is on how entrepreneurs position themselves structurally, maintain diverse ties to understand a community, and develop a shared language and contribute to a private-collective community within the framework of an open entrepreneurship business model.

Published in: Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
460
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
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
  • Key Discussion PointsClear presence of entrepreneurs as a primary influencer within the networkStructural capital positioning as both core and bridges in the network.Interesting finding that while the entire community possesses a distinct homogeneous tendency (i.e., low heterogeneity props), entrepreneurs possess the most heterogeneous ties as well as continue to work with each other (the majority of the time). This combined with the cognitive capital component shows that entrepeneurs possibly maintain diverse ties for idea generation, but potentially collaborate with other entrepreneurs in order to complete work (this could also be the opposite though). Future research is needed to determine the work activities.The findings for the Cognitive and Relational capital also highlights the applied purpose behind entrepreneurs. Perhaps this is the where we discuss the exploratory (period one) and exploitive (period two) roles of entrepreneurs? Strictly from a management perspective, the value of keeping up to date on current trends/needs means the community and the software stays relevant and attractive to potential businesses (perhaps explaining why large firms do not completely disappear in period two and only move to the periphery because OpenSimulator is still seen as important to keep an eye on).Putting everything together: entrepreneurs are the social glue keeping the network together. Central hub for information flowing through the network (early alerts to new information), connected to diverse ties meaning they are best able to identify strengths and weaknesses in software, perhaps also leading to why they are the largest contributors of code (cognitive capital). Does this mean that there are causal relationships hidden within these findings? Perhaps relational capital and structural capital impact cognitive capital? Group level findings?Interesting dynamic between hobbyists and entrepreneurs being central. One would think these are competing interests and yet they seem to work well with each other. It’s almost like the hobbyists are the users providing market research (beta testers with technical know how) and the entrepreneurs are the organizations fulfilling their needs. Is this why they work well together? How is it that entrepreneurs could end up playing such a central role in an open source community? Does man on the inside (Dahlander and Wallin article) also apply to entrepreneurs?Entrepreneurs and the community have a symbiotic relationship that facilitates the production of social capital at both the community level as well as at the entrepreneur levelEntrepreneurs connect themselves to diverse sets of ties, position themselves as bridges between disparate network groups, and are centrally located within the network across both time periods, making them an integral part of the success of the community
  • Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/horlik/4350942510/sizes/o/
  • Background Image Attribution: http://www.flickr.com/photos/atranman/5016786784/sizes/l/
  • Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pgoyette/2280685630/sizes/o/in/photostream/
  • Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/dr/4257358754/sizes/m/in/photostream/
  • Image Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/smiling_da_vinci/14785644/sizes/o/in/photostream/
  • Key Discussion PointsClear presence of entrepreneurs as a primary influencer within the networkStructural capital positioning as both core and bridges in the network.Interesting finding that while the entire community possesses a distinct homogeneous tendency (i.e., low heterogeneity props), entrepreneurs possess the most heterogeneous ties as well as continue to work with each other (the majority of the time). This combined with the cognitive capital component shows that entrepeneurs possibly maintain diverse ties for idea generation, but potentially collaborate with other entrepreneurs in order to complete work (this could also be the opposite though). Future research is needed to determine the work activities.The findings for the Cognitive and Relational capital also highlights the applied purpose behind entrepreneurs. Perhaps this is the where we discuss the exploratory (period one) and exploitive (period two) roles of entrepreneurs? Strictly from a management perspective, the value of keeping up to date on current trends/needs means the community and the software stays relevant and attractive to potential businesses (perhaps explaining why large firms do not completely disappear in period two and only move to the periphery because OpenSimulator is still seen as important to keep an eye on).Putting everything together: entrepreneurs are the social glue keeping the network together. Central hub for information flowing through the network (early alerts to new information), connected to diverse ties meaning they are best able to identify strengths and weaknesses in software, perhaps also leading to why they are the largest contributors of code (cognitive capital). Does this mean that there are causal relationships hidden within these findings? Perhaps relational capital and structural capital impact cognitive capital? Group level findings?Interesting dynamic between hobbyists and entrepreneurs being central. One would think these are competing interests and yet they seem to work well with each other. It’s almost like the hobbyists are the users providing market research (beta testers with technical know how) and the entrepreneurs are the organizations fulfilling their needs. Is this why they work well together? How is it that entrepreneurs could end up playing such a central role in an open source community? Does man on the inside (Dahlander and Wallin article) also apply to entrepreneurs?Entrepreneurs and the community have a symbiotic relationship that facilitates the production of social capital at both the community level as well as at the entrepreneur levelEntrepreneurs connect themselves to diverse sets of ties, position themselves as bridges between disparate network groups, and are centrally located within the network across both time periods, making them an integral part of the success of the community
  • Sharing their way to success through leveraging their social capital to identify and realize opportunities
  • Key Discussion PointsClear presence of entrepreneurs as a primary influencer within the networkStructural capital positioning as both core and bridges in the network.Interesting finding that while the entire community possesses a distinct homogeneous tendency (i.e., low heterogeneity props), entrepreneurs possess the most heterogeneous ties as well as continue to work with each other (the majority of the time). This combined with the cognitive capital component shows that entrepeneurs possibly maintain diverse ties for idea generation, but potentially collaborate with other entrepreneurs in order to complete work (this could also be the opposite though). Future research is needed to determine the work activities.The findings for the Cognitive and Relational capital also highlights the applied purpose behind entrepreneurs. Perhaps this is the where we discuss the exploratory (period one) and exploitive (period two) roles of entrepreneurs? Strictly from a management perspective, the value of keeping up to date on current trends/needs means the community and the software stays relevant and attractive to potential businesses (perhaps explaining why large firms do not completely disappear in period two and only move to the periphery because OpenSimulator is still seen as important to keep an eye on).Putting everything together: entrepreneurs are the social glue keeping the network together. Central hub for information flowing through the network (early alerts to new information), connected to diverse ties meaning they are best able to identify strengths and weaknesses in software, perhaps also leading to why they are the largest contributors of code (cognitive capital). Does this mean that there are causal relationships hidden within these findings? Perhaps relational capital and structural capital impact cognitive capital? Group level findings?Interesting dynamic between hobbyists and entrepreneurs being central. One would think these are competing interests and yet they seem to work well with each other. It’s almost like the hobbyists are the users providing market research (beta testers with technical know how) and the entrepreneurs are the organizations fulfilling their needs. Is this why they work well together? How is it that entrepreneurs could end up playing such a central role in an open source community? Does man on the inside (Dahlander and Wallin article) also apply to entrepreneurs?Entrepreneurs and the community have a symbiotic relationship that facilitates the production of social capital at both the community level as well as at the entrepreneur levelEntrepreneurs connect themselves to diverse sets of ties, position themselves as bridges between disparate network groups, and are centrally located within the network across both time periods, making them an integral part of the success of the community
  • Transcript

    • 1. Open Entrepreneurship: Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in a Private-Collective Community Paul M. Di Gangi, Ph.D., Security+, CISSP Robin Teigland, Ph.D. Zeynep YetisAcknowledgements: We would like to thank the faculty of Aalto University and the Copenhagen Business School for their valuable feedback. Wewould also like to extend a thank you to the participants of the OUI (MIT), Open Innovation Workshop (Imperial), Academy of Management2012, ASONAM 2012, and Sunbelt 2012 Conferences. Lastly, we would like to particularly highlight Eric von Hippel, Ajey Mehra, and TomasLarsson for their unique contributions towards improving this manuscript.
    • 2. OverviewIntroduction & Background MotivationTheory & Research Question Social CapitalResearch Methodology & Results OpenSimulatorDiscussion & Limitations Contributions Thank You!
    • 3. Business Models• Definition – “The conceptual foundation that determines how an organization creates and captures value.” (Johnston et al., 2008)• Purpose – Develops the Boundary of the Firm (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006) • Articulates vision for value creation • Provides guidance for the value creation processes / strategy
    • 4. Business Model Evolution Growth of ICTs (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2006-7) New Forms of Organizing (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006) User-driven Innovation (von Hippel, 1988; 2005; Di Gangi & Wasko, 2009)Closed Open ? 2/6/2013
    • 5. Private - Collective Model A network comprised ofindividuals, organizations, and/or interested parties who share resources to privately produce a public good that accomplishes a personal and shared goal. (adapted from von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003, Kollack, 1998; 1999; Lerner & Tirole, 2002)
    • 6. Motivations (von Krogh et al., 2012)
    • 7. Private-Collective Communities Organization (Dahlander & Wallin, 2006; Dahlander & Magnusson, 2008, Chesbrough, 2006; West & Gallagher, 2006) User (von Hippel, 2005; Shah, 2006; von Krogh et al., 2012)
    • 8. Entrepreneurs Present in PCC’s Teigland, Di Gangi, and Yetis (Under Review – Information Systems Research) Entrepreneur: Definition • Variety of Definitions (Howarth et al., 2005; Stevenson, 2006) Any individual who founds an organization for the purpose of obtaining economic benefits through the sale or use of his/her product and/or service. (Adapted from Shane & Venkataraman, 2000)
    • 9. Private-Collective Model: Intellectual Property AppropriationFree Revealing Intellectual Property
    • 10. Social Capital Theory Social relationships and social capital are an important influence on the development of intellectual capital. (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Coleman, 1988; Gulati & Garguilo, 1999) Structural Relational Cognitive Systems ofActor Connections Actor Bonds Meaning
    • 11. RQHow do Entrepreneurs contribute to buildingsocial capital within a Private-collectiveCommunity? • How do Entrepreneurs position themselves? • How do Entrepreneurs contribute to the community? • How do Entrepreneurs shape the culture of the community?
    • 12. OverviewIntroduction MotivationTheory & Research Question Social CapitalResearch Methodology & Results OpenSimulatorConclusions Contributions Thank You!
    • 13. Exploratory Case StudyTwo Time Periods (2007-2009) & (2009 – 2011)
    • 14. OpenSimulator Member DemographicsP12007 - 2009P22009 - 2011
    • 15. Structural Capital • Definition – The properties of the social system and of the network as a whole that describes the impersonal configuration of linkages between actors in a network. (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) – Absence or Presence of Ties (Scott, 1991; Wasserman & Faust, 1994) – Density of Ties (Tichy et al., 1979) •Measures – Overall Network Density (Whole Network Structure) – Individual Centrality (Eigenvector, Closeness, and Degree) – Structural Holes (Bridge Relationships)
    • 16. Relational Capital • Definition – The assets, information artifacts, and/or actions taken by individuals to establish actor bonds. (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Hakansson & Snehota, 1995) – Understanding of Expectations, Obligations, and/or Identification (Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1997; Granovetter, 1985; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Putnam, 1993) •Measures – Heterogeneity of Ties (Holistic Understanding of Actors) – Turnover Roles (Maintaining Institutional Norms)
    • 17. Cognitive Capital • Definition – The shared representations, interpretations, and meanings of systems among individuals in a network. (Cicourel, 1973; Giddens, 1974) – Shared language, code, and narratives that act as boundary spanning objects to foster collaboration (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998) •Measures – Textual Analysis of Distribution Lists (Language) – Intellectual Property Contributions (Shared Code Objects)
    • 18. Social Network AnalysisUsing tie data from distribution lists, createda network model of community with Actor Type as attribute data (UCINET) ANOVAs
    • 19. Textual AnalysisWord Burst: Identifies the words most characteristic of a certainperson or group focusing on words over-represented in a sample orportion of text compared to the entire text using the “probabilisticgenerative model” (Kleinberg, 2004) Yetis, Teigland, & Di Gangi (2013)
    • 20. Semi-structured Interviews For Validation and Contextualization of Findings 21 Interviews
    • 21. Structural Capital Period One Period Two As a group, central to the network across time periods.
    • 22. Structural Capital .11 Network Density .05 Network Density
    • 23. Structural Capital Actor Group Degree Closeness Betweenness Eigenvector Structural Hole Academic Emp 9.56/6.50 46.77/43.55 0.90/1.63 9.30/9.33 22.67/14.21 Entrepreneur 11.85/9.23 48.70/46.55 1.53/2.51 11.47/13.44 27.83/20.00 Hobbyist 7.39/5.69 45.84/44.34 0.580.65 7.87/9.26 17.41/12.33 Periphery 1.07/1.09 37.78/36.86 0.03/0.03 1.37/2.31 2.51/2.35 Large Firm Emp 10.34/5.32 48.10/33.15 1.04/0.54 10.75/9.42 24.33/11.64 Non-profit Emp 6.78/7.55 46.84/43.37 0.15/0.82 7.77/10.43 16.67/16.5 Pub-fed Emp 9.96/6.60 47.43/45.49 1.08/0.59 9.70/10.00 23.00/15.00 Pub-local Emp 5.63/6.60 46.75/45.20 0.20/0.53 7.27/8.71 13.50/14.00 Research Inst 6.49/NA 47.53/NA 0.13/NA 8.44/NA 15.00/NA Emp SME Emp 6.47/6.45 45.64/45.85 0.54/0.20 7.23/12.08 15.13/14.33 Entrepreneurs are positioned to receive information quickly, near important members of the community, and bridging disparate sections of the community across time periods.
    • 24. Relational Capital Node Size = Heterogeneity Score Period One Period Two Entrepreneurs maintain the most diverse ties (social glue) in the community to ensure a wide variety of perspectives are received.
    • 25. Relational Capital Entrepreneurs act as “Greeters” for new members in terms of recruitment, information guidance, and training.
    • 26. Cognitive Capital August 2007 - September 2009 October 2009 – October 2011 Stakeholder Active Core Ohloh Top 20 Active Core Ohloh Top 20 Affiliation Developers Committers Developers Committers # Inds % Total # Inds % Total # Inds % Total # Inds % Total 1-Academic 2 10% 2 10% 1 8% 1 5% 2-Entrepreneur 8 40% 11 55% 7 58% 9 45% 3–Hobbyist 4 20% 2 10% 2 17% 6 30% 4-Large Firm 3 15% 3 15% 2 17% 4 20% 5–Non-profit 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 6-Local Public 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 7–Federal Public 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 8-Research Inst 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 9-SME 3 15% 2 10% 0 0% 0 0% Total 20 100% 20 100% 12 100% 20 100% Entrepreneurs are the largest contributing group of the core developers and the overall community to the code repository.
    • 27. Period One (2007-2009)Cognitive Capital Academics Entrepreneur Hobbyist Large Firm SME inventory state debug availabletype portability user join osg processing openid really obscures saving file metadata servers night succeeded worlds asset think pages osgrid users userserver server scene shape mathematics inventoryserver millions region guest center regionserver region believe functions tree script addresses physics guests wrote goods different prerouting grid next class inventoryserver core value approach executed modules currency build computer assets grid incoming sims rest assetbase agent service revision opencurrency project allow attachments asset inform cable Period Two (2009-2011) Academics Entrepreneur Hobbyist Large Firm SME hg we bulletsim updates admin wifi state wiki sciencesim item master established pm trust megaregions Entrepreneurs are info join documents testclient prims scholar never bots queue viewer focused on real-world robust night part adaptive megarion timeout pages testclient voice trees applications and regionstore scene next dsg add freeswitch region kins pronounced linkedin ensuring development university believe wise bots scalable activities are relevant to version line obsolete physics outfit documentation viewer simian names inventory a diverse membership. connector lgpl core modules authority install appearance packet root robot migration currency users retransmit sequence
    • 28. OverviewIntroduction MotivationTheory & Research Question Social CapitalResearch Methodology & Results OpenSimulatorConclusions Contributions Thank You!
    • 29. Contribution• Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities – Broadens existing view on key actors in a private-collective community. – Entrepreneurs play a crucial role in the development of the community, particularly towards creation of intellectual capital.• Entrepreneurship Literature – Importance of online communities to entrepreneurs as a form of organizing (“Open Entrepreneurship Model”) – Dialectical view of entrepreneurs as individuals who pursue both self and collective interests (Van de ven et al., 2007)• Intellectual Property Rights Appropriation – Regardless of Licensing (BSD), OSS Philosophy Lives
    • 30. “Open Entrepreneurship” Entrepreneurs openly engaging in social capital building activities through free revealing of intellectual property and contribution of other resources with purpose ofpursuing self business-related interests while contributing to pursuit of mutual goals.
    • 31. Limitations• Generalizability – Case Study approach – 1 private-collective community • eZ Systems (3rd Round Review: Information & Organization)• Case Study vs. Quantitative Approach – Lack of survey or alternative quantitative approach to test causality of findings • Historically low response rate from OSS; two year engagement to build social capital with key members to potentially follow up with a quantitative survey
    • 32. Thank You Connect Recommend

    ×