The emergence of openness in open-source projects: the case of openEHR

Abstract

The meaning of openness in open source is both intrinsically unstable and dynamic, and tends to fluctuate with time and context. We draw on a very particular open-source project primarily concerned with building rigorous clinical concepts to be used in electronic health records called openEHR. openEHR explains how openness is a concept that is purposely engaged with, and how, in this process of engagement, the very meaning of open matures and evolves within the project. Drawing on rich longitudinal data related to openEHR we theorise the evolving nature of openness and how this idea emerges through two intertwined processes of maturation and metamorphosis. While metamorphosis allows us to trace and interrogate the mutational evolution in openness, maturation analyses the small, careful changes crafted to build a very particular understanding of openness. Metamorphosis is less managed and controlled, whereas maturation is representative of highly precise work carried out in controlled form. Both processes work together in open-source projects and reinforce each other. Our study reveals that openness emerges and evolves in open-source projects where it can be understood to mean rigour; ability to participate; open implementation; and an open process. Our work contributes to a deepening in the theorisation of what it means to be an open-source project. The multiple and co-existing meanings of ‘open’ imply that open-source projects evolve in nonlinear ways where each critical meaning of openness causes a reflective questioning by the community of its continued status and existence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Figure 1
Figure 2

References

  1. Aaltonen, A. and Lanzara, G.F. (2015). Building Governance Capability in Online Social Production: Insights from Wikipedia, Organization Studies 36(12): 1649–1673.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Afuah, A. and Tucci, C.L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a Solution to Distant Search, Academy of Management Review 37(3): 355–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexy, O., George, G. and Salter, A.J. (2013). Cui Bono? The selective revealing of knowledge and its implications for innovative activity, Academy of Management Review 38(2): 270–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Atalag, K. (2009). Archetype Based Domain Modeling for Health Information Systems: Gastros: Case Study on Digestive Endoscopy and Validation of the Minimal Standard Terminology (Mst 2), Saarbrücken: Germany VDM Verlag Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Atalag, K., Yang, H.Y. and Warren, J. (2011). Assessment of Software Maintainability of Openehr Based Health Information Systems—A case study in endoscopy, Electronic Journal of Health Informatics 7(1).

  6. Baldwin, C.Y., O’Mahony, S. and Quinn, J. (2003). IBM and Linux (A), Harvard Business Case Study, HBS.

  7. Barrett, M., Heracleous, L. and Walsham, G. (2013). A Rhetorical Approach to It Diffusion: Reconceptualizing the ideology-framing relationship in computerization movements, MIS Quarterly 37(1): 201–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Beaulieu, T.Y. and Sarker, S. (2015). A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Crowdfunding, Communications of the Association for Information Systems 37: 1–31.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Behlendorff, B. (1999). Open Source as a Business Strategy, in T. O’Reilly (Ed.), Open Source: Voices from the open source revolution, Sebastopol: O’Reilly and Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T. and Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd, Journal of Business Venturing 29(5): 585–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Berges, I., Bermudez, J. and Illarramendi, A. (2012). Toward Semantic Interoperability of Electronic Health Records, IEEE Transactions on Information Technology in Biomedicine 16(3): 424–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Bezroukov, N. (1999a). Open Source Software Development as a Special Type of Academic Research (Critique of Vulgar Raymondism), FirstMonday: Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet 4(10): 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bezroukov, N. (1999b). A Second Look at the Cathedral and the Bazaar, FirstMonday: Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet 4(12): 1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Boudreau, K.J. and Lakhani, K.R. (2013). Using the Crowd as an Innovation Partner, Harvard Business Review 91(4): 60–68.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Boudreau, K.J. and Lakhani, K.R. (2015). ‘Open’ Disclosure of Innovations, Incentives and Follow-On Reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology, Research Policy 44(1): 4–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campbell-Kelly, M. and Garcia-Swartz, D.D. (2009). Pragmatism, Not Ideology: Historical perspectives on Ibm’s adoption of open-source software, Information Economics and Policy 21(3): 229–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Capiluppi, A., Lago, P. and Morisio, M. (2003). Characteristics of Open Source Projects, Software Maintenance and Reengineering, 2003. Proceedings. Seventh European Conference on: IEEE, pp. 317–327.

  18. Capra, E. and Wasserman, A.I. (2008). A Framework for Evaluating Managerial Styles in Open Source Projects, Open Source Development, Communities and Quality 275: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: How companies actually do it, Harvard Business Review 81(7): 12–14.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Chesbrough, H. (2007). Open Innovation and Strategy, California Management Review 50(1): 57–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Choi, N., Chengalur-Smith, I. and Nevo, S. (2015). Loyalty, Ideology, and Identification: An empirical study of the attitudes and behaviors of passive users of open source software, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 16(8): 674–706.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Christensen, B. and Ellingsen, G. (2016). Evaluating Model-Driven Development for Large-Scale EHRs Through the openEHR Approach, International Journal of Medical Informatics 89: 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ciborra, C. (1999). It and Hospitality, IRIS 22 Proceedings Technical Report, TR-21, University of Jyvaskyla.

  25. Coleman, G. (2012). Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Conboy, K. and Morgan, L. (2011). Beyond the Customer: Opening the Agile Systems Development Process, Information and Software Technology 53(5): 535–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Conlon, M.P. (2007). An Examination of Initiation, Organization, Participation, Leadership, and Control of Successful Open Source Software Development Projects, Information Systems Education Journal 5(38): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cornford, T., Shaikh, M. and Ciborra, C. (2010). Hierarchy, Laboratory and Collective: Unveiling linux as innovation, machination and constitution, Journal of the Association for Information Systems 11(12): 809–837.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dahlander, L. (2007). Penguin in a Newsuit: A tale of how de novo entrants emerged to harness free and open source software communities, Industrial and Corporate Change 16(5): 913–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Dahlander, L. and Frederiksen, L. (2012). The Core and Cosmopolitans: A relational view of innovation in user communities, Organization Science 23(4): 988–1007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Dahlander, L. and Gann, D.M. (2010). How Open Is Innovation? Research Policy 39(6): 699–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Dahlander, L. and Magnusson, M. (2008). How Do Firms Make Use of Open Source Communities? Long Range Planning 41(6): 629–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Dahlander, L. and Magnusson, M. G. (2005). Relationships between Open Source Software Companies and Communities: Observations from nordic firms, Research Policy 34: 481–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Dahlander, L. and O’Mahony, S. (2011). Progressing to the Center: Coordinating project work, Organization Science 22(4): 961–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dahlander, L. and Piezunka, H. (2014). Open to Suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention, Research Policy 43(5): 812–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Dahlander, L. and Wallin, M.W. (2006). A Man on the Inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets, Research Policy 35: 1243–1259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Davidson, R. and Poor, N. (2016). Factors for Success in Repeat Crowdfunding: Why sugar daddies are only good for bar-mitzvahs, Information, Communication & Society 19(1): 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. de Laat, P.B. (2007). Governance of Open Source Software: State of the art, Journal of Management and Governance 11(2): 165–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. De Noni, I., Ganzaroli, A. and Orsi, L. (2011). The Governance of Open Source Software Communities: An exploratory analysis, Journal of Business Systems, Governance and Ethics 6(1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. De Noni, I., Ganzaroli, A. and Orsi, L. (2013). The Evolution of Oss Governance: A dimensional comparative analysis, Scandinavian Journal of Management 29(3): 247–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dedrick, J. and West, J. (2007). Movement Ideology Vs. User Pragmatism in the Organizational Adoption of Open Source Software, in K.L.K.A.M. Elliott (Ed.), Computerization Movements and Technology Diffusion, from Mainframes to Ubiquitous Computing. Medford, Information Today, Medford, NJ: Information Today.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Demil, B. and Lecocq, X. (2006). Neither Market Nor Hierarchy Nor Network: The emergence of bazaar governance, Organization Studies 27(10): 1447–1466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Deodhar, S.J., Saxena, K.B.C., Gupta, R.K. and Ruohonen, M. (2012). Strategies for Software-Based Hybrid Business Models, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21(4): 274–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Dinkelacker, J., Garg, P., Miller, R. and Nelson, D. (2002). Progressive Open Source, Proceedings of the 2002 ACM International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’02), pp. 177–184.

  45. Dünnebeil, S., Sunyaev, A., Blohm, I., Leimeister, J.M. and Krcmar, H. (2012). Determinants of Physicians’ Technology Acceptance for E-Health in Ambulatory Care, International Journal of Medical Informatics 81(11): 746–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Edwards, K. (2005). An Economic Perspective on Software Licenses—Open Source, Maintainers and User-Developers, Telematics and Informatics 22(1–2): 111–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building Theories from Case Study Research, Academy of Management Review 14(4): 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Felin, T. and Zenger, T.R. (2014). Closed or Open Innovation? Problem solving and the governance choice, Research Policy 43(5): 914–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Fitzgerald, B. and Hayes, J. (2008). From Peer Production to Productization: A study of socially enabled business exchanges in open source service networks, Information Systems Research 19(4): 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Feller, J., Finnegan, P., Hayes, J. and O’Reilly, P. (2012). ‘Orchestrating’ Sustainable Crowdsourcing: A characterisation of solver brokerages, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 21(3): 216–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Feller, J. and Fitzgerald, B. (2002). Understanding Open Source Software Development, London: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Fitzgerald, J. (1999). Formality in Specification and Modeling: Developments in software engineering practice, Advances in Computers 49: 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The Transformation of Open Source Software, MIS Quarterly 30(3): 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Fitzgerald, B. and Agerfalk, P.J. (2005). The Mysteries of Open Source Software: Black and White and Red All Over? HICSS, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’05), Hawaii, p. 196a, Track 197.

  55. Fitzgerald, B., Hartnett, G. and Conboy, K. (2006). Customising Agile Methods to Software Practices at Intel Shannon, European Journal of Information Systems 15(2): 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Fitzgerald, B. and Bassett, G. (2003). Legal Issues Relating to Free and Open Source Software, in B. Fitzgerald & G. Bassett (Eds.), Legal Issues Relating to Free and Open Source Software: Essays in Technology Policy and Law, School of Law: Queensland University of Technology, Vol. 1, pp. 11–36.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Gacek, C. and Arief, B. (2004). The Many Meanings of Open Source, IEEE Software 21(1): 34–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ghosh, R.A. (1998). Cooking Pot Markets: An economic model for the trade in free goods and services on the internet, FirstMonday: Peer Reviewed Journal on the Internet 3(3): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Glaser, B.G. and Strauss, A.L. (1967). Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research, aldine transaction.

  60. Gleasure, R. (2015). Resistance to Crowdfunding Among Entrepreneurs: An impression management perspective, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 24(4): 219–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. González-Beltrán, A., Tagger, B. and Finkelstein, A. (2012). Federated Ontology-Based Queries over Cancer Data, BMC Bioinformatics 13(Suppl1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Henkel, J. (2006). Selective Revealing in Open Innovation Processes: The case of embedded linux, Research Policy 35(7): 953–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Huston, L. and Sakkab, N. (2007). Implementing Open Innovation, Research-Technology Management 50(2): 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Isern, D. and Moreno, A. (2016). A Systematic Literature Review of Agents Applied in Healthcare, Journal of Medical Systems 40(2): 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Jackson, M. and Zave, P. (1995). Deriving specifications from requirements: An example, Presented at the ICSE 95: Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Software Engineering.

  66. Jiménez, A.C. (2014). The Right to Infrastructure: Prototype for Open Source Urbanism, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(2): 342–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Kelty, C.M. (2008). Two Bits: The cultural significance of free software, Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Kogut, B. and Metiu, A. (2001). Open-Source Software Development and Distributed Innovation, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 17(2): 248–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Kreiss, D. (2011). Open Source as Practice and Ideology: The origin of Howard Dean’s innovations in electoral politics, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 8(3): 367–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Krishnamurthy, S. (2002). Cave or Community? An Empirical Examination of 100 Mature Open Source Projects, First Monday (http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_6/krishnamurthy/index.html).

  71. Lakhani, K. and von Hippel, E. (2003). How Open Source Software Works: “Free” user-to-user assistance, Research Policy 32: 923–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Langley, A., Smallman, C., Tsoukas, H. and Van de Ven, A.H. (2013). Process Studies of Change in Organization and Management: Unveiling temporality, Activity, and Flow, Academy of Management Journal 56(1): 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social: An introduction to actor-network-theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2000). The Simple Economics of Open Source Code, Working Paper 7600, National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, pp. 1–40.

  75. Lerner, J. and Tirole, J. (2002). Some Simple Economics of the Open Source, The Journal of Industrial Economics 2: 197–234.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Lezcano, L., Sicilia, M.-A. and Rodríguez-Solano, C. (2011). Integrating Reasoning and Clinical Archetypes Using Owl Ontologies and Swrl Rules, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 44: 343–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ljungberg, J. (2000). Open Source Movements as a Model for Organizing, European Journal of Information Systems 9(4): 208–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Majchrzak, A. and Malhotra, A. (2013). Towards an Information Systems Perspective and Research Agenda on Crowdsourcing for Innovation, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 22(4): 257–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Markus, M.L. (2007). The Governance of Free/Open Source Software Projects: Monolithic, multidimensional, or configurational? Journal of Management and Governance 11(2): 151–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Marsan, J. and Paré, G. (2013). Antecedents of Open Source Software Adoption in Health Care Organizations: A qualitative survey of experts in Canada, International Journal of Medical Informatics 82(8): 731–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Martínez Costa, C., Menárguez-Tortosa, M. and Fernández-Breis, J.T. (2011). Clinical Data Interoperability Based on Archetype Transformation, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 44(5): 869–880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. McMurray, J., Zhu, L., McKillop, I. and Chen, H. (2015). Ontological Modeling of Electronic Health Information Exchange, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 56: 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis, Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice, Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Morgan, L., Feller, J. and Finnegan, P. (2013). Exploring Value Networks: Theorising the creation and capture of value with open source software, European Journal of Information Systems 22(5): 569–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Morgan, L. and Finnegan, P. (2014). Beyond Free Software: An exploration of the business value of strategic open source, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 23(3): 226–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Nafus, D. (2012). ‘Patches Don’t Have Gender’: What is not open in open source software, New Media & Society 14(4): 669–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Nickerson, D.P., Atalag, K., de Bono, B. and Hunter, P.J. (2015). The Physiome Project, openEHR, Archetypes, and the Digital Patient, in C.D. Combs, J.A. Sokolowski and C.M. Banks (Eds.), The Digital Patient: Advancing healthcare, research, and education, Hoboken: Wiley, pp. 101–124.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Nickerson, R.C., Varshney, U. and Muntermann, J. (2012). A Method for Taxonomy Development and Its Application in Information Systems, European Journal of Information Systems 22(3): 336–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. O’Mahony, S. (2007). The Governance of Open Source Initiatives: What does it mean to be community managed? Journal of Management & Governance 11(2): 139–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. O’Mahony, S. and Ferraro, F. (2007). The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community, Academy of Management Journal 50: 1079–1106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Pahl, C., Zare, M., Nilashi, M., de Faria Borges, M.A., Weingaertner, D., Detschew, V., et al. (2015). Role of OpenEHR as an Open Source Solution for the Regional Modelling of Patient Data in Obstetrics, Journal of Biomedical Informatics 55: 174–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Piezunka, H. and Dahlander, L. (2014). “Distant Search, Narrow Attention: How crowding alters organizations’ filtering of suggestions in crowdsourcing, Academy of Management Journal.

  94. Raymond, E. (1998). The Halloween Documents. http://opensource.org/node/399.

  95. Raymond, E. (1999). The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on linux and open source by an accidental revolutionary, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Roy-Byrne, P.P., Sherbourne, C.D., Craske, M.G., Stein, M.B., Katon, W., Sullivan, G., et al. (2004). Moving Treatment Research from Clinical Trials to the Real World, FOCUS 2(3): 410–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Saebi, T. and Foss, N.J. (2014). Business Models for Open Innovation: Matching heterogeneous open innovation strategies with business model dimensions, European Management Journal 33(3): 201–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Salzberg, C.A., Jang, Y., Rozenblum, R., Zimlichman, E., Tamblyn, R. and Bates, D.W. (2012). Policy Initiatives for Health Information Technology: A qualitative study of U.S. expectations and Canada’s experience, International Journal of Medical Informatics 81(10): 713–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Scacchi, W. and Alspaugh, T.A. (2012). Understanding the Role of Licenses and Evolution in Open Architecture Software Ecosystems, Journal of Systems and Software 85(7): 1479–1494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Schenk, E. and Guittard, C. (2011). Towards a Characterization of Crowdsourcing Practices, Journal of Innovation Economics and Management 1(7): 93–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Schweik, C.M. and English, R.C. (2012). Internet Success: A Study of Open-Source Software Commons, Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Shah, S.K. (2006). Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development, Management Science 52(7): 1000–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Shaikh, M. (2016). Negotiating Open Source Software Adoption in the UK Public Sector, Government Information Quarterly 33(1): 115–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Shaikh, M. and Cornford, T. (2010). ‘Letting Go of Control’ to Embrace Open Source: Implications for company and community, Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS) 43, Koloa, Kauai, Hawaii.

  105. Shaikh, M. and Vaast, E. (2016). Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Transparency and openness in open source communities, Information Systems Research (forthcoming: Special Issue on Collaboration and Value Creation in Online Communities).

  106. Sharma, S., Sugumaran, V. and Rajagopalan, B. (2002). A Framework for Creating Hybrid-Open Source Software Communities, Information Systems Journal 12(1): 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Soguero-Ruiz, C., Lechuga-Suárez, L., Mora-Jiménez, I., Ramos-López, J., Barquero-Pérez, Ó., García-Alberola, A., et al. (2013). Ontology for Heart Rate Turbulence Domain From The Conceptual Model of SNOMED-CT, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering 60(7): 1825–1833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Spaeth, S., von Krogh, G. and He, F. (2015). Research Note—Perceived Firm Attributes and Intrinsic Motivation in Sponsored Open Source Software Projects, Information Systems Research 26(1): 224–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Stallman, R. (2009). Viewpoint: Why ‘open source’ misses the point of free software, Communications of the ACM 52(6): 31–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Star, S.L. and Strauss, A. (1999). Layers of Silence, Arenas of Voice: The ecology of visible and invisible work, Computer supported cooperative work (CSCW) 8(1–2): 9–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Stewart, K.J., Ammeter, A.P. and Maruping, L.M. (2006). Impacts of License Choice and Organizational Sponsorship on User Interest and Development Activity in Open Source Software Projects, Information Systems Research 17(2): 126–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Stewart, K.J. and Gosain, S. (2006). The Impact of Ideology on Effectiveness in Open Source Software Development Teams, MIS Quarterly 30(2): 291–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Tullio, D.D. and Staples, D.S. (2014). The Governance and Control of Open Source Software Projects, Journal of Management Information Systems 30(3): 49–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Urquhart, C. (2012). Grounded Theory for Qualitative Research: A Practical Guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  115. van Lamsweerde, A. (2000). Requirements in the Year 00: A roadmap, ICSE’00: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Software engineering 0: 5–19.

  116. Ven, K., Verelst, J. and Mannaert, H. (2008). Should You Adopt Open Source Software? IEEE Software 25(3): 54–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Venters, W., Oborn, E. and Barrett, M. (2014). A Trichordal Temporal Approach to Digital Coordination: The Sociomaterial Mangling of the Cern Grid, MIS Quarterly 38(3): 927–949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by User Communities: Learning from open-source software, MIT Sloan Management Review 42(4): 82–86.

    Google Scholar 

  119. von Hippel, E. (2005). Open Source Software Projects as “User Innovation Networks, in J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. Hissam and K R. Lakhani (Eds.), Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 267–278.

    Google Scholar 

  120. von Hippel, E. and von Krogh, G. (2003). Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science, Organization Science 14(2): 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. von Krogh, G., Haefliger, S., Spaeth, S. and Wallin, W. (2012). Carrots and Rainbows: Motivation and social practice in open source software development, MIS Quarterly 36(2): 649–676.

    Google Scholar 

  122. von Krogh, G. and von Hippel, E. (2006). The Promise of Research on Open Source Software, Management Science 52(7): 975–983.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Wang, X., Guarino, N., Guizzardi, G. and Mylopoulos, J. (2014). Towards an Ontology of Software: A requirements engineering perspective, in P. Garbacz and O. Kutz (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Wang, H. and Wang, C. (2001). Open Source Software Adoption: A status report, IEEE Software 18: 90–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Weber, S. (2005). Patterns of Governance in Open Source, in C. DiBona, M. Stone and D. Cooper (Eds.), Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution, Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly, pp. 361–372.

    Google Scholar 

  126. West, J. (2003). How Open Is Open Enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies, Research Policy 32: 1259–1285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. West, J. (2006). Does Appropriability Enable or Retard Open Innovation? in H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 109–133.

    Google Scholar 

  128. West, J. and Gallagher, S. (2006). Patterns of Open Innovation in Open Source Software, in H. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke and J. West (Eds.), Open Innovation: Researching a new paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 82–106.

    Google Scholar 

  129. West, J. and Lakhani, K. (2008). Getting Clear About the Role of Communities in Open Innovation, Industry & Innovation 15(3): 223–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. West, J. and O’Mahony, S. (2008). The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities, Industry and Innovation 15(2): 145–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Wollersheim, D., Sari, A. and Rahayu, W. (2009). Archetype-Based Electronic Health Records: A literature review and evaluation of their applicability to health data interoperability and access, Health Information Management Journal 38(2): 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Ye, H. and Kankanhalli, A. (2013). Leveraging Crowdsourcing for Organizational Value Co-Creation, Communications of the Association for Information Systems (33:13). http://aisel.aisnet.org/cais/vol33/iss31/13.

  133. Yin, R. (2003). Case Study Research—Design and Methods, Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the senior editors and the reviewers for their developmental feedback on previous versions of the manuscript. Daniel Curto-Millet gratefully acknowledges funding from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council; and the Fundación Ramón Areces for his PhD studentships.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maha Shaikh.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 4 and 5.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Curto-Millet, D., Shaikh, M. The emergence of openness in open-source projects: the case of openEHR. J Inf Technol 32, 361–379 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41265-017-0042-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • open source
  • openness
  • process of metamorphosis
  • maturation
  • processes of concreteness
  • changing ideology
  • agnosticism