Knowledge Flows Within Open Source Software Projects: A Social Network Perspective

  • Noureddine Kerzazi
  • Ikram El Asri
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 397)


Developing software is knowledge-intensive activity, requiring extensive technical knowledge and awareness. The abstract part of development is the social interactions that drive knowledge flows between contributors, especially for Open Source Software (OSS). This study investigated knowledge sharing and propagation from social perspective using social network analysis (SNA). We mined and analyzed the issue and review histories of three OSS from GitHub. Particular attention has been paid to the socio-interactions through comments from contributors on reviews. We aim at explaining the propagation and density of knowledge flows within contributor networks. The results show that review requests flow from the core contributors toward peripheral contributors and comments on reviews are in a continuous loop from the core teams to the peripherals and back; and the core contributors leverage on their awareness and technical knowledge to increase their notoriety by playing the role of communication brokers supported by comments on work items.


Knowledge flows Expertise SNA Open source 


  1. 1.
    VonHippel, E., VonKrogh, G.: Open source software and the “Private-Collective” innovation model: issues for organization science. Organ. Sci. 14(2), 209–223 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dabbish, L., et al.: Social coding in GitHub: transparency and collaboration in an open software repository. In: The Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Seattle, WA, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Begel, A., DeLine, R., Zimmermann, T.: Social media for software engineering. In: FSE/SDP Workshop on Future of Software Engineering Research, pp. 33–38. Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yang, X.: Social Network Analysis in Open Source Software Peer Review, pp. 820–822 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yang, X., et al.: Understanding OSS Peer Review Roles in Peer Review Social Network (PeRSoN), pp. 709–712 (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bird, C., et al.: Latent social structure in open source projects. In: Proceedings of the 16th International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’08). Atlanta, Georgia (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Asundi, J., Jayant, R.: Patch review processes in open source software development communities: a comparative case study. In: The 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bissyande, T.F., et al.: Got issues? Who cares about it? A large scale investigation of issue trackers from GitHub. In: 24th International Symposium on Software Reliability Engineering (ISSRE) (2013)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baysal, O., et al.: The influence of non-technical factors on code review. In: Proceedings of the 20th Working Conference on Reverse Engineering. Koblenz, Germany (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bacchelli, A., Bird, C.: Expectations, outcomes, and challenges of modern code review. In: Proceedings of the 35th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’13). San Francisco, CA, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kilamo, T., et al.: Knowledge transfer in collaborative teams: experiences from a two-week code camp. In: 36th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’13), pp. 264–271. Hyderabad, India (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yarosh, S., et al.: I need someone to help!: a taxonomy of helper-finding activities in the enterprise. In: Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’13), pp. 1375–1386. Texas, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meneely, A., et al.: Predicting failures with developer networks and social network analysis. In: International Symposium on Foundations of Software Engineering (FSE’11). Atlanta, Georgia (2011)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hossaina, L., Zhub, D.: Social networks and coordination performance of distributed software development teams. J. High Technol. Manage. Res. 20(1), 52–61 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cataldo, M., Herbsleb, J.D.: Coordination breakdowns and their impact on development productivity and software failures. Trans. Softw. Eng. 39(3), 343–360 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rigby, P.C., Storey, M.-A.: Understanding broadcast based peer review on open source software projects. In: Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE’11). 2011. Waikiki, Honolulu, USAGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwan, I., Schroter, A., Damian, D.: Does socio-technical congruence have an effect on software build success? a study of coordination in a software project. Trans. Softw. Eng. 37(3), 307–324 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cataldo, et al.: Identification of coordination requirements: implications for the design of collaboration and awareness tools. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Banff, Alberta, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nam, K.K., Ackerman, M.S., Adamic, L.A.: Questions in, knowledge in?: a study of Naver’s question answering community. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Boston, MA, USA (2009)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kadushin, C.: Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings. Oxford University Press (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Higher School for Computer Science and System Analysis (ENSIAS)RabatMorocco

Personalised recommendations