Clopenness of Systems: The Interwoven Nature of Ecosystems

2012

Software ecosystems have become a defined and active field of research based on the recent emergence of new open business models leading to new roles and patterns for collaboration, innovation, and value proposition. In this paper we look into the theoretical foundations of this new research field. We review recent publications to describe the present theorization; we discuss the relevance of theory and, in particular, we argue for the relevance of sociotechnical theory and the related theory of organizational ecology in the continuing research on software ecosystems. To summarize we define a preliminary theoretical framework to guide and support future research.

cs.bilgi.edu.tr

Open innovation, and particularly open source software is associateded with openness in terms of participation to the innovation process. Despite the prominent image of openness to participation, however, a variety of measures are taken in large scale innovation ecosystems to tame the potentially chaotic activity and growth in bottom-up innovation, and align contributions with the strategic priorities of major stakeholders. Such taming rests on the dual desires to unleash the proven power of bottom-up innovation on the one hand, and to ride it in certain directions on the other. It emerges in the form of a variety of governance mechanisms, licensing strategies, organizational practices, etc., but exhibit certain common themes. In this paper, by drawing on several examples of large scale open source software ecosystems, we demonstrate that methods employed for taming exhibit a considerable isomorphism. By drawing also on examples of failures, we further suggest that the computing industry is settling on what we call Pax Innova. It is a coherent set of practices which retain virtues of bottom-up innovation while allowing major stakeholders investing into the ecosystem to selectively support activities, and introduce top-down corporate discipline such as quality assurance measures. The choice of available practices depend on initial conditions (i.e. whether the ecosystem is led or only supported by private firms) but nevertheless shaped around the same set of requirements.

IT Professional, 2019

Moving toward the open innovation (OI) model requires multifaceted transformations within companies. It often involves giving away the tools for product development or sharing future product directions with open tools ecosystems. Moving from the traditional closed innovation model toward an OI model for software development tools shows the potential to increase software development competence and efficiency of organizations. We report a case study in software-intensive company developing embedded devices (e.g., smartphones) followed by a survey in OSS communities such as Gerrit, Git, and Jenkins. The studied branch focuses on developing Android phones. This paper presents contribution strategies and triggers for openness. These strategies include avoid forking OSS tools, empower developers to participate in the ecosystem, steer ecosystems through contributions, create business through differentiation, and create new ecosystems. The triggers of openness are from 30 different companies with examples. Finally, openness requires a cultural change aligned with strategies and business models. & OPEN INNOVATION PENETRATES several industries such as manufacturing, finance, automotive, mining and construction, telecommunication, and software engineering. 1,9 Companies have discovered that their business may benefit from sharing knowledge with other companies (e.g., Sony Mobile, Intel, Ericsson, IBM etc.). 2,3 In OI, the knowledge may flow both inside-out and outside-in and be attached to monetary transactions, or not. 1 Tools for software engineering is an area to which companies apply OI principles. For example, in the Jenkins and Gerrit

Sprouts, 2010

Currently, many organizations open parts of their information systems (IS) via the Internet to the public in order to co-create value with from end-consumer contributions. Yet, these practices of openness are still to be integrated into the existing strategic management theories (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007). We use a resource-based perspective to develop a framework for the analysis configurations of different types of "openness" in order to move towards such integration. We consider two dimensions of openness of resources (access and control) as well as different types of relations between resources (complementarity and specifity). Furthermore, we analyze two mobile ecosystems on multiple levels to show the applicability of the framework. The paper contributes to the further development of the resource-based theory and it provides a tool for the analysis of cases of openness of resources. Additionally, the paper provides a novel perspective and of the structure of mobile ecosystems.

—Requirements Engineering has recently been greatly influenced by the way how firms use Open Source Software (OSS) and Software Ecosystems (SECOs) as a part of their product development and business models. This is further emphasized by the paradigm of Open Innovation, which highlights how firms should strive to use both internal and external resources to advance their internal innovation and technology capabilities. The evolution from market-driven requirements engineering and management processes, has reshaped the understanding of what a requirement is, and how it is documented and used. In this work, we suggest a model for analyzing and managing requirements that is designed in the context of OSS and SECOs, including the advances and challenges that it brings. The model clarifies how the main stages of requirements engineering and management processes can be adjusted to benefit from the openness that the new context offers. We believe that the model is a first step towards the inevitable adaptation of requirements engineering to an open and informal arena, where processes and collaboration are decentralized, transparency and governance are the key success factors.

2005

We provide a model of “open” and “closed” methods of software production with and interrogative eye towards the convergence to a landscape of “openness.” First, we explore the competitiveness of those methods across a social landscape of varying density. Second, we explore the competitiveness of those methods by relaxing the constraints upon the less competitive method. We find a positive correlation between density and openness. We also find that, under certain conditions, the open method outperforms the closed method, but that when those constraints are relaxed the closed method can outperform the open method.

Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications

The systems engineering discipline has made great strides in developing a manageable approach to system development. This is predicated on thoroughly articulating the stakeholder requirements. However, in some engineering environments, requirements are changing faster than they can be captured and realized, making this ‘traditional' form of systems engineering less tenable. An iterative system refinement approach, characterized by open systems developments, may be a more appropriate and timely response for fast-changing needs. The open systems development approach has been utilized in a number of domains including open source software, Wikipedia®, and open innovation in manufacturing. However, open systems development appears difficult to recreate successfully, and while domain tradecraft advice is often available, no engineering management methodology has emerged to improve the likelihood of success. The authors discuss the essential features of openness in these three domains ...

Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Software Health, 2018

Background. The concept of sub-ecosystems, widely used in natural ecosystem theory, has never been introduced in software ecosystem analysis. It provides a perspective on software ecosystems that can be used to create better understanding of them and more effective ecosystem health analysis. Objectives. The objective of this research is to introduce the concept of sub-ecosystems to the field of software ecosystems. An extension on the Open Source Ecosystem Health Operationalization for measuring the health of a sub-ecosystem is created and evaluated with three small case studies. Method. A literature review of both software and natural ecosystem research is used for the definitions of key concepts. Design Science is used for the extension of the Open Source Ecosystem Health Operationalization. Finally, for the case studies, data is gathered using several data repositories and analyzed to show how the concept of sub-ecosystems is used. Results The concept of software sub-ecosystems is defined. Next to that an extension to the Open Source Ecosystem Health Operationalization (OSEHO) framework is introduced for considering sub-ecosystems in health assessments. Conclusion The subject of sub-ecosystems provides a promising new perspective on software ecosystems that improves the understanding of this research field for both researchers and practitioners. Additionally, the extended OSEHO framework can be used to more accurately measure the health of an ecosystem by looking at both larger and smaller ecosystems around it.

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 2022

2019

The goal of this special issue on “Critical perspectives on information systems and openness: Emerging discourses, meanings, models, and implications” is to advance a critical debate in Information Systems research on the theme of openness. Research in information systems on openness has focused on the nature of technology and how openness contributes to the development of new opportunities for technological and institutional enhancements even as it introduces various limitations. However, more often than not, we take for granted the positive potential of openness guided by a market‐driven focus, which tends to marginalize potential distortions understood through interpretive, critical, and contextualized social theoretical positions. The aim of this special issue is to move beyond positivist and functionalist approaches, which merely promote rhetoric and hype, and critically and interpretively explore and explain the nature of openness and its enabling and constraining role in our ...