Socio-technical Congruence in OSS Projects: Exploring Conway’s Law in FreeBSD

  • M. M. Mahbubul Syeed
  • Imed Hammouda
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 404)


Software development requires effective communication, coordination and collaboration among developers working on interdependent modules of the same project. The need for coordination is even more evident in open source projects where development is often more dispersed and distributed. In this paper, we study the match between the coordination needs established by the technical domain (i.e. source code) and the actual coordination activities carried out by the development team, such hypothetical match is also known as socio-technical congruence. We carry out our study by empirically examining Conway’s law in FreeBSD project. Our study shows that the congruence measure is significantly high in FreeBSD and that the congruence value remains stable as the project matured.


Open Source Project Coordination Network Design Structure Matrix Stable Release Developer Community 
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.


  1. 1.
    Conway, M.E.: How Do Committees Invent? Datamation 14(4), 28–31 (1968)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kwan, I., Schröter, A., Damian, D.: Does Socio-Technical Congruence Have an Effect on Software Build Success? A Study of Coordination in a Software Project. TSE 37(3), 307–324 (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ovaska, P., Rossi, M., Marttiin, P.: Architecture as a coordination tool in multi-site software development. Soft. Process: Improvement & Prac., 233–247 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Souza, C.R.B., Quirk, S., Trainer, E., Redmiles, D.F.: Supporting collaborative software development through the visualization of socio-technical dependencies. In: International ACM Conference on Supporting Group Work, pp. 147–156 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scacchi, W.: Understanding the requirements for developing open source software systems. IEE Proceedings Software 149(1), 24–39 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bendifallah, S., Scacchi, W.: Work Structures and Shifts: An Empirical Analysis of Software Specification Teamwork. In: 11th ICSE, pp. 260–270 (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jongdae, H., Chisu, W., Byungjeong, L.: Extracting Development Organization from Open Source Software. In: 16th APSEC, pp. 441–448. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raymond, E.S.: The new hacker’s dictionary, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nagappan, N., Murphy, B., Basili, V.R.: Architectures, Coordination, and Distance: Conway’s Law and Beyond. Journal IEEE Software 16(5), 63–70 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kwan, I., Cataldo, M., Damian, D.: Conway’s Law Revisited: The Evidence for a Task-Based Perspective. IEEE Software 29(1), 90–93 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brooks, F.P.: The Mythical Man-Month, Anniversary Edition. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company (1995)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagappan, N., Murphy, B., Basili, V.R.: The influence of organizational structure on software quality: an empirical case study. In: ICSE 2008, pp. 521–530 (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cataldo, M., Wagstrom, P.A., Herbsleb, J.D., Carley, K.M.: Identification of coordination requirements: Implications for the design of collaboration and awareness tools. In: CSCW, Banff, Canada (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Browning, T.: Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(3), 292–306 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D., Rowles, C.M.: The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Science 50(12), 1674–1689 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Jingwei, W., Holt, R.C., Hassan, A.E.: Empirical Evidence for SOC Dynamics in Software Evolution. In: ICSM, pp. 244–254 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Herraiz, I.: A statistical examination of the evolution and properties of libre software. In: ICSM, pp. 439–442 (2009)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Herraiz, I., Gonzalez-Barahona, J.M., Robles, G., German, D.M.: On the prediction of the evolution of libre software projects. In: ICSM, pp. 405–414 (2007)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fogel, K., Bar, M.: Open Source Development with CVS: Learn How to Work With Open Source Software. The Coriolis Group (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Herbsleb, J.D., Grinter, R.E.: Splitting the Organization and Integrating the Code: Conway’s Law Revisited. In: ICSE, pp. 85–95. ACM Press, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Baldwin, C.Y., Clark, K.B.: Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. MIT (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Colfer, L., Baldwin, C.Y.: The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions, Working paper. Harvard Business School (2010)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bowman, I.T., Holt, R.C.: Software Architecture Recovery Using Conway’s Law. In: CASCON 1998, pp. 123–133 (1998)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    FreeBSD (2013),
  25. 25.
    Mathieu, G., Mens, T.: A framework for analyzing and visualizing open source software ecosystems. In: IWPSE-EVOL, pp. 42–47 (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Daniel, M.G.: Using software trails to reconstruct the evolution of software. Journal of Software Maintenance and Evolution 16(6), 367–384 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang, Y., Guo, D., Shi, H.: Measuring the Evolution of Open Source Software Systems with their Communities. ACM SIGSOFT Notes 32(6) (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Zhang, W., Yang, Y., Wang, Q.: Network Analysis of OSS Evolution: An Empirical Study on ArgoUML Project. In: IWPSE-EVOL, pp. 71–80 (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Apache POI-Java API for Microsoft Documents (2013),
  30. 30.
    jsoup: Java HTML Parser (2013),
  31. 31.
    Yamauchi, Y., Yokozawa, M., Shinohara, T., Ishida, T.: Collaboration with Lean Media: How Open-source Software Succeeds. In: CSCW, pp. 329–338 (2000)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dayani-Fard, H., Yu, Y., Mylopoulos, J., Andritsos, P.: Improving the build architecture of legacy C/C++ software systems. In: Cerioli, M. (ed.) FASE 2005. LNCS, vol. 3442, pp. 96–110. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mahbubul Syeed, M.M.: Binoculars: Comprehending Open Source Projects through graphs. In: Hammouda, I., Lundell, B., Mikkonen, T., Scacchi, W. (eds.) OSS 2012. IFIP AICT, vol. 378, pp. 350–355. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bolici, F., Howison, J., Crowston, K.: Coordination without discussion? Socio-technical congruence and Stigmergy in Free and Open Source Software projects. In: 2nd STC, ICSE (2009)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kazman, R., Carrière, S.J.: Playing Detective: Reconstructing Software Architecture from Available Evidence, Technical Re- p ort CMU/SEI-97-TR-010, Carnegie Mellon University (1997)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Syeed, M.M., Altonen, T., Hammouda, I., Systä, T.: Tool Assisted Analysis of Open Source Projects: A Multi-facet Challenge. IJOSSP 3(2) (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. M. Mahbubul Syeed
    • 1
  • Imed Hammouda
    • 1
  1. 1.Tampere University of TechnologyFinland

Personalised recommendations