Advertisement

Open Source Technology in Intra-Organisational Software Development—Private Markets or Local Libraries

  • Juho Lindman
  • Mikko Riepula
  • Matti Rossi
  • Pentti Marttiin
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter explores how two organisations have changed their software development practices by introducing Open Source technology. Our aim is to understand the institutional changes that are needed in, and emerge, from this process. This chapter develops a conceptualisation building on the insights of entrepreneurial institutionalism, concentrating on the changing relationships of organisational groups in the areas of decision-making, rewarding and communication. We identify the links between the (1) emerging, yet embedded technology and (2) the underlying institutional decision-making, reward and communication structures. We move the Open Source 2.0 research agenda forward by concentrating empirical work on the nuances of institutional change that open source brings about in large hierarchical organisations. We will discuss the appropriateness of internal accounting organised according to the principle of an open market vs. a local library. We believe that both of these metaphors can support innovation, but different groups will find different approaches more appealing.

Keywords

Open Source Software Business Unit Institutional Theory Philips Healthcare Case Company 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. (2005). Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms. Research Policy, 34, 481–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1991). Introduction. In W. Powel & DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organisational analysis (pp. 1–38). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fink, M. (2003). The business and economics of linux and open source. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.Google Scholar
  4. Fitzgerald, B. (2006). The transformation of open source software. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), 587–598.Google Scholar
  5. Garud, R., Hardy, C., & Maguire, S. (2007). Organisation Studies, 28, 957–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage vs. breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 277–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Greenwood, R., & Hinings, C. R. (1996). Understanding radical organisational change: bringing together the old and the new institutionalism. Academy of Management Review, 21(4), 1022–1054.Google Scholar
  8. Klein, H. K., & Myers, M. D. (1999). A set of principles for conducting and evaluating interpretive field studies in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 23(1), 67–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organisational analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Rajala, R., Nissilä, J. & Westerlund, M. (2006). Determinants of Open Source Software Revenue Model Choices. In Proceedings of the 14th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2006), 12–14 June, Gothenburg, Sweden.Google Scholar
  11. Seaman, C. B. (1999). Qualitative methods in empirical studies of software engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 25(4), 557–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Scott, W.R. (2001). Institutions and Organisations, 2nd ed., CA, Thousand Oaks.Google Scholar
  13. Stol, K. & Babar, M. (2009). Reporting empirical research in open source software: the state of practice, in Boldyreff, C., Crowston, K., Lundell, B., Wasserman, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Open Source Ecosystems: Diverse Communities Interacting, June 3rd–6th, Skövde, Sweden, IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology 299/2009, Springer 2009, 156–169Google Scholar
  14. Swanson, B., & Ramiller, N. (1997). The organizing vision in information systems innovation. Organisation Science, 8(5), 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Van de Ven, A.H. (1993). Managing the Process of Organisational Innovation in Huber, G.P. & Glick, W.H. (Eds.). Organisational Change and Redesign: Ideas and Insights for Improving Performance. Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Wesselius, J. (2008). The bazaar inside the cathedral: Business models for internal markets. IEEE Software, 25(3), 60–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Further Reading

  1. Barnett, L. (2004). Applying Open Source Processes in Corporate Development Organisations. (http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/applying_open_source_processes_in_corporate_development/q/id/34466/t/2, Forrester Research.
  2. Dinkelacker, J., Garg, P., Miller, R. & Nelson, D. Progressive open source. Proc ICSE 2002, 177–184.Google Scholar
  3. Gurbani, V., Garvert, A., & Hersleb, J. (2010). Managing a corporate open source asset. Communications of the ACM, 53(2), 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. van der Linden, F., Lundell, B., & Marttiin, P. (2009). Commodification of industrial software—a case for open source. IEEE Software, 26(4), 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lindman, J., Rossi, M., & Marttiin, P. (2008). Applying Open Source Development Practices Inside a Company. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Open Source Systems. 7–10 September 2008, Milan, Italy.Google Scholar
  6. Santos, C. (2008). Understanding partnerships between corporations and the open source community: A research gap. IEEE Software, 25(6), 96–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sharma, S., Sugumaran, V., & Rajagopalan, B. (2002). A framework for creating hybrid-open source software communities. Information Systems Journal, 12(1), 7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Välimäki, M. (2005). The rise of open source licensing. A challenge to the use of intellectual property in the software industry. Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University of Technology.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juho Lindman
    • 1
  • Mikko Riepula
    • 2
  • Matti Rossi
    • 3
  • Pentti Marttiin
    • 3
  1. 1.Hanken School of EconomicsHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Aalto University School of Economics/CKIRHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Aalto University School of EconomicsHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations