IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/orisre/v28y2017i1p64-83.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Theory of Responsive Design: A Field Study of Corporate Engagement with Open Source Communities

Author

Listed:
  • Matt Germonprez

    (Information Systems and Qualitative Analysis, College of Information Science and Technology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska 68182)

  • Julie E. Kendall

    (School of Business, Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey 08102)

  • Kenneth E. Kendall

    (School of Business, Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey 08102)

  • Lars Mathiassen

    (GRA Eminent Scholar and Professor of Computer Information Systems, Center for Process Innovation, J. Mack Robinson College of Business, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30303)

  • Brett Young

    (Management Information Systems, School of Business, Georgia Gwinnett College, Lawrenceville, Georgia 30043)

  • Brian Warner

    (Manager of Open Source Engineering and Strategy, Samsung Research America, Mountain View, California 94043)

Abstract

Although our general knowledge about open source communities is extensive, we are only beginning to understand the increasingly common practices by which corporations design software through engagement with these communities. In response, we combine design theorizing with field-study research (1) to analyze rich qualitative data from over 40 corporations participating in the Linux open source community and (2) to synthesize the observed corporate-open source community engagements into a new type of information systems design theory that we call responsive design. Empirically, we document how corporate participants in these contexts respond to market decisions, interdependent ideologies, and distributed relationships by continuously establishing and maintaining connections with community members; connections that stem from the social and material rules inherent in the open source community. Based on these observations, we create the theory of responsive design as a particular form of corporate software design which, beyond the inclusion of external participants, distinguishes itself from traditional monocentric design in which one corporation controls a dedicated team of software designers focused on solving an isolated and singular organizational problem. Guided by the principles of interconnection, opportunism, and domestication, we define responsive design as the kind of design approach that enables corporate participants to create and maintain productive design practices in response to the complex and dynamic landscapes of activities that are the foundation of corporate-communal engagements. We conclude with a discussion of the theoretical and practical implications of this new form of corporate software design.

Suggested Citation

  • Matt Germonprez & Julie E. Kendall & Kenneth E. Kendall & Lars Mathiassen & Brett Young & Brian Warner, 2017. "A Theory of Responsive Design: A Field Study of Corporate Engagement with Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 64-83, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:1:p:64-83
    DOI: 10.1287/isre.2016.0662
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2016.0662
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/isre.2016.0662?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2002. "Some Simple Economics of Open Source," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 197-234, June.
    2. Henkel, Joachim, 2006. "Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 953-969, September.
    3. Alfonso Gambardella & Bronwyn H. Hall, 2010. "Proprietary versus Public Domain Licensing of Software and Research Products," Chapters, in: Riccardo Viale & Henry Etzkowitz (ed.), The Capitalization of Knowledge, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Øystein D. Fjeldstad & Charles C. Snow & Raymond E. Miles & Christopher Lettl, 2012. "The architecture of collaboration," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 734-750, June.
    5. Joseph Feller & Patrick Finnegan & Brian Fitzgerald & Jeremy Hayes, 2008. "From Peer Production to Productization: A Study of Socially Enabled Business Exchanges in Open Source Service Networks," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 475-493, December.
    6. Joel West & Karim Lakhani, 2008. "Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 223-231.
    7. Linus Dahlander, 2007. "Penguin in a new suit: a tale of how de novo entrants emerged to harness free and open source software communities," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 16(5), pages 913-943, October.
    8. Lerner, Josh, 2013. "The Comingled Code: Open Source and Economic Development," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262518567, April.
    9. James G. March, 1991. "Exploration and Exploitation in Organizational Learning," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 71-87, February.
    10. Bruce Kogut & Anca Metiu, 2001. "Open-Source Software Development and Distributed Innovation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 17(2), pages 248-264, Summer.
    11. Stefan Haefliger & Georg von Krogh & Sebastian Spaeth, 2008. "Code Reuse in Open Source Software," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 180-193, January.
    12. Katherine C. Kellogg & Wanda J. Orlikowski & JoAnne Yates, 2006. "Life in the Trading Zone: Structuring Coordination Across Boundaries in Postbureaucratic Organizations," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(1), pages 22-44, February.
    13. Angelika Dimoka & Paul A. Pavlou & Fred D. Davis, 2011. "Research Commentary ---NeuroIS: The Potential of Cognitive Neuroscience for Information Systems Research," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 687-702, December.
    14. Dahlander, Linus & Wallin, Martin W., 2006. "A man on the inside: Unlocking communities as complementary assets," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1243-1259, October.
    15. Jenny S. Z. Eriksson Lundström & Mikael Wiberg & Stefan Hrastinski & Mats Edenius & Pär J. Ågerfalk (ed.), 2013. "Managing Open Innovation Technologies," Springer Books, Springer, edition 127, number 978-3-642-31650-0, June.
    16. Nicolas Jullien & Jean-Benoît Zimmermann, 2009. "Firms' contribution to open source software and the dominant user skill," Working Papers halshs-00449534, HAL.
    17. Katherine J. Stewart & Anthony P. Ammeter & Likoebe M. Maruping, 2006. "Impacts of License Choice and Organizational Sponsorship on User Interest and Development Activity in Open Source Software Projects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 126-144, June.
    18. Amit Mehra & Rajiv Dewan & Marshall Freimer, 2011. "Firms as Incubators of Open-Source Software," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 22-38, March.
    19. Sonali K. Shah, 2006. "Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(7), pages 1000-1014, July.
    20. Dahlander, Linus & Magnusson, Mats G., 2005. "Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 481-493, May.
    21. Eric von Hippel & Georg von Krogh, 2003. "Open Source Software and the “Private-Collective” Innovation Model: Issues for Organization Science," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 209-223, April.
    22. Johnson, Justin P., 2006. "Collaboration, peer review and open source software," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 477-497, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ruilu Yang & Qiang Wu & Yundong Xie, 2023. "Are scientific articles involving corporations associated with higher citations and views? an analysis of the top journals in business research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5659-5685, October.
    2. Veronique Sanguinetti (toudoire) & Vincent Chauvet & Kiane Goudarzi, 2023. "Interactions between formal structures and knowing communities: What does open source community involvement mean?," Post-Print hal-04192965, HAL.
    3. Kuk, George & Schaarschmidt, Mario & Homscheid, Dirk, 2024. "All of the same breed? A networking perspective of private-collective innovation," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    4. Denis Dennehy & Kieran Conboy & Jennifer Ferreira & Jaganath Babu, 2023. "Sustaining Open Source Communities by Understanding the Influence of Discursive Manifestations on Sentiment," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 241-257, February.
    5. Brea, Edgar, 2024. "The yin yang of AI: Exploring how commercial and non-commercial orientations shape machine learning innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(6).
    6. Shaikh, Maha & Levina, Natalia, 2019. "Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.
    7. Hou, Shengjie & Zhang, Xiang & Yi, Biyi & Tang, Yi, 2022. "Public attitudes on open source communities in China: A text mining analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    8. Nicolas Jullien & Klaas-Jan Stol & James D Herbsleb, 2019. "A Preliminary Theory for Open Source Ecosystem Micro-economics," Post-Print hal-02127185, HAL.
    9. Wei Chen & Fujie Jin & Ling Xue, 2022. "Flourish or Perish? The Impact of Technological Acquisitions on Contributions to Open-Source Software," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 867-886, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    2. F. Rullani & L. Zirulia, 2011. "A supply side story for a threshold model: Endogenous growth of the free and open source community," Working Papers wp781, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    3. Frank Nagle, 2018. "Learning by Contributing: Gaining Competitive Advantage Through Contribution to Crowdsourced Public Goods," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(4), pages 569-587, August.
    4. Dahlander, Linus & Piezunka, Henning, 2014. "Open to suggestions: How organizations elicit suggestions through proactive and reactive attention," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 812-827.
    5. Sebastian Spaeth & Georg von Krogh & Fang He, 2015. "Research Note —Perceived Firm Attributes and Intrinsic Motivation in Sponsored Open Source Software Projects," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 224-237, March.
    6. Stam, Wouter, 2009. "When does community participation enhance the performance of open source software companies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1288-1299, October.
    7. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    8. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    9. Maha Shaikh & Emmanuelle Vaast, 2016. "Folding and Unfolding: Balancing Openness and Transparency in Open Source Communities," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 813-833, December.
    10. Alexy, Oliver & Henkel, Joachim & Wallin, Martin W., 2013. "From closed to open: Job role changes, individual predispositions, and the adoption of commercial open source software development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(8), pages 1325-1340.
    11. De Noni, Ivan & Ganzaroli, Andrea & Orsi, Luigi, 2013. "The evolution of OSS governance: a dimensional comparative analysis," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 247-263.
    12. Andrea Fosfuri & Marco S. Giarratana & Alessandra Luzzi, 2008. "The Penguin Has Entered the Building: The Commercialization of Open Source Software Products," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(2), pages 292-305, April.
    13. Zaggl, Michael A., 2017. "Manipulation of explicit reputation in innovation and knowledge exchange communities: The example of referencing in science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(5), pages 970-983.
    14. Colombo, Massimo G. & Piva, Evila & Rossi-Lamastra, Cristina, 2014. "Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(5), pages 891-902.
    15. Frank Nagle, 2019. "Open Source Software and Firm Productivity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1191-1215, March.
    16. Siobhan O'Mahony & Rebecca Karp, 2022. "From proprietary to collective governance: How do platform participation strategies evolve?," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(3), pages 530-562, March.
    17. Linus Dahlander & Lars Frederiksen & Francesco Rullani, 2008. "Online Communities and Open Innovation," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 115-123.
    18. Rullani, Francesco & Haefliger, Stefan, 2013. "The periphery on stage: The intra-organizational dynamics in online communities of creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 941-953.
    19. West, Joel & Kuk, George, 2016. "The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 169-181.
    20. Shaikh, Maha & Levina, Natalia, 2019. "Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(8), pages 1-1.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:orisre:v:28:y:2017:i:1:p:64-83. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.