Impact of Stakeholder Type and Collaboration on Issue Resolution Time in OSS Projects

  • Anh Nguyen Duc
  • Daniela S. Cruzes
  • Claudia Ayala
  • Reidar Conradi
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 365)


Initialized by a collective contribution of volunteer developers, Open source software (OSS) attracts an increasing involvement of commercial firms. Many OSS projects are composed of a mix group of firm-paid and volunteer developers, with different motivations, collaboration practices and working styles. As OSS development consists of collaborative works in nature, it is important to know whether these differences have an impact on collaboration between difference types of stakeholders, which lead to an influence in the project outcomes. In this paper, we empirically investigate the firm-paid participation in resolving OSS evolution issues, the stakeholder collaboration and its impact on OSS issue resolution time. The results suggest that though a firm-paid assigned developer resolves much more issues than a volunteer developer does, there is no difference in issue resolution time between them. Besides, the more important factor that influences the issue resolution time comes from the collaboration among stakeholders rather than from individual characteristics.


  1. 1.
    Abreu, R., Premraj, R.: How developer communication frequency relates to bug introducing changes. In: Proceedings of the Joint International and Annual ERCIM Workshops on Principles of Software Evolution (IWPSE) and Software Evolution (Evol) Workshops, pp. 153–158. ACM, Amsterdam (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anbalagan, P., Vouk, M.: On predicting the time taken to correct bug reports in open source projects. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2009), pp. 523–526 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayala, C.P., Cruzes, D., Hauge, Ø., Conradi, R.: Five Facts on the Adoption of Open Source Software. IEEE Software 28, 95–99 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berdou, E.: Insiders and outsiders: paid contributors and the dynamics of cooperation in community led F/OS projects. In: Open Source Systems, pp. 201–208. Springer, Boston (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bettenburg, N., Hassan, A.: Studying the Impact of Social Structures on Software Quality. In: Proceedings of IEEE 18th International Conference on Program Comprehension (ICPC 2010), pp. 124–133 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bettenburg, N., Just, S., Schroter, A., Weiss, C., Premraj, R., Zimmermann, T.: What makes a good bug report? In: Proceedings of 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (ESE 2008), pp. 308–318. ACM, Atlanta (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bird, C., Nagappan, N., Gall, H., Murphy, B., Devanbu, P.: Putting It All Together: Using Socio-technical Networks to Predict Failures. In: Proceedings of 20th IEEE International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE 2009), pp. 109–119 (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonaccorsi, A., Rossi, C.: Comparing motivations of individual programmers and firms to take part in the open source movement: From community to business. Knowledge, Technology & Policy 18, 40–64 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonaccorsi, A., Lorenzi, D., Merito, M., Rossi, C.: Business firms’ engagement in community projects. Empirical evidence and further developments of the research. In: Proceedings of 1st International Workshop on Emerging Trends in FLOSS Research and Development (FLOSS 2007), May 21, pp. 1–5. IEEE Computer Society, Minneapolis (2007)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Capra, E., Francalanci, C., Merlo, F., Rossi-Lamastra, C.: Firms’ involvement in Open Source projects: A trade-off between software structural quality and popularity. Journal of System and Software 84, 144–161 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Crowston, K., Scozzi, B.: Bug Fixing Practices within Free/Libre Open Source Software Development Teams. Journal of Database Management (JDM) 19(2), 1–30 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crowston, K., Wei, K., Li, Q., Howison, J.: Core and Periphery in Free/Libre and Open Source Software Team Communications. In: Proceedings of 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2006), vol. 06, p. 118. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Devore, J.L.: Probability and Statistics for Engineering and the Sciences. Technometrics 46(4), 497Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Feczak, S., Hossain, L.: Measuring Coordination Gaps of Open Source Groups through Social Networks. In: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2009), pp. 84–90 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Freeman, L.: The Development of Social Network Analysis. Empirical Press, Vancouver (2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Guo, P.J., Zimmermann, T., Nagappan, N., Murphy, B.: Characterizing and predicting which bugs get fixed: an empirical study of Microsoft Windows. In: Proceedings of 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Cape Town, South Africa, vol. 1, pp. 495–504 (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hars, A., Ou, S.: Working for Free? - Motivations of Participating in Open Source Projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 6, 25–39 (2002)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hauge, Ø., Ayala, C., Conradi, R.: Adoption of open source software in software-intensive organizations - A systematic literature review. Journal of Information Software and Technology 52, 1133–1154 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hauge, Ø., Sørensen, C., Conradi, R.: Adoption of Open Source in the Software Industry. In: Open Source Development, Communities and Quality, pp. 211–221. Springer, Boston (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Henkel, J.: Champions of revealing the role of open source developers in commercial firms. Journal of Industrial and Corporate Change 18(3), 435–471 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Herbsleb, J.D.: Global Software Engineering: The Future of Socio-technical Coordination. In: Proceedings of 29th International Conference on Software Engineering- Future of Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 188–198 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hopkins, W.G.: A scale of magnitudes for the effect statistics. A New View of Statistics (June 2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kagan, S.L.: United we stand: Collaboration for child care and early education services. Teachers College Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lakhani, K.R., Wolf, R.: Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. In: Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Martinez-Romo, J., Robles, G., Gonzalez-Barahona, J., Perez, M.: Using social network analysis techniques to study collaboration between a FLOSS community and a company. Open Source Development, Communities and Quality 275, 171–186 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mattessich, P.W., Murray-Close, M., Monsey, B.R.: Collaboration: What Makes it Work: A review of Research and Literature on Factors Influencing Successful Collaboration. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation (2001)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Meneely, A., Williams, L.: Secure open source collaboration: an empirical study of linus’ law. In: Proceedings of 16th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2009), Illinois, USA, pp. 453–462 (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meneely, A., Williams, L., Snipes, W., Osborne, J.: Predicting failures with developer networks and social network analysis. In: Proceedings of 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE 2008), Atlanta, Georgia, USA, pp. 13–23 (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Nguyen, T., Adams, B., Hassan, A.: Studying the impact of dependency network measures on software quality. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Software Maintenance (ICSM 2010), pp. 1–10 (2010)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pinzger, M., Nagappan, N., Murphy, B.: Can developer-module networks predict failures?. In: 16th ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Foundations of software Engineering (FSE), Atlanta, Georgia, pp. 2–12 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rahman, M., Ruhe, G.: Resource allocation and activity scheduling: bug fixing perspective, Technical Report, Software engineering decision support laboratory, University of Calgary (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wolf, T., Schroter, A., Damian, D., Nguyen, T.: Predicting build failures using social network analysis on developer communication. In: Proceeding of 31st International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pp. 1–11 (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anh Nguyen Duc
    • 1
  • Daniela S. Cruzes
    • 1
  • Claudia Ayala
    • 2
  • Reidar Conradi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  2. 2.Department of Service Engineering and Information SystemsTechnical University of CatalunyaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations