howison rutgers-open superposition
TRANSCRIPT
James Howison
Collaboration through Open Superposition: A theory of the open
source way
CC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/baggis/
Rutgers LIS Lecture Series
14 April 2015
Work supported by the NSF03-41475, 04–14468, 05-27457 and 07–08437
@jameshowison
“Let’s do this the open source way?”
Sounds great, right?Lots of people volunteering for the enjoyment of it,
working together, sharing stuff, meritocracy, contributing stuff, fighting the man, all without raising money or top-
down management.
Open innovation, open platforms, open hardware, open data, open government,
open NASA, citizen science …@jameshowison
CC
Cre
dit:
htt
p://
ww
w.f
lickr
.com
/pho
tos/
kojih
achi
su/
@jameshowison
CC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/ejpphoto/
@jameshowison
What ought we learn from Open Source?
• Highly successful distributed work– In surprising circumstances: highly interdependent
work, many failures, at distance, while working with unreliable volunteers!
• Literature focuses on what Rousseau et al. 2006 call teamwork rather than taskwork
• e.g., Agerfalk and Fitzgerald 2008; von Krogh and von Hippel 2003; Scacchi et al. 2006; Stewart and Gosain 2006
• Less study of what they are working on, despite the importance of technology to Information Systems– Technology as “work in progress” Orlikowski and Iacono (2001)– Only small number of studies examining what is built (Zammuto
et al. 2007, Malhotra and Majchrzak 2012) @jameshowison
http://www.flickr.com/photos/gubatron/3102412751
Outsourcing to an unknown workforce?
(Agerfalk and Fitzgerald 2008)
@jameshowison
A research arc for theory development
• Participant Observation – one case– live participation and observation
• Replication– two cases chosen by replication logic– Archival study
• Theory development– Develop theory and demonstrate it’s
usefulness @jameshowison
Goal: An image of FLOSS production
CC Credit: http://flickr.com/photos/anthea/
@jameshowison
Discovery through Participant Observation
@jameshowison
Task: The Container Column
@jameshowison
How it was built
@jameshowison
BibDesk 2.0?
@jameshowison
CC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wsl-libdev/5140646741/
@jameshowison
Task: “Web Groups”
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/[email protected]
June 2003 (Email)
I really want to use this, but the conditions have never quite been right - either I was waiting for … RSS+RDF (now looks like it'll never happen) or … an XML bibliographic file format … (could happen now, but I ran out of free time).
@jameshowison
What didn’t happen
Image Credit:TreeGrid.com marketing materials
@jameshowison
Task: “Web Groups”
https://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=DF0FB757-56BA-45D7-A1EA-262EB7A5B3DC@mac.comhttps://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=7394DD78-A02E-11D7-AFC1-0003931E45D0%40mac.com
June 2003 (Email)
I really want to use this, but the conditions have never quite been right - either I was waiting for … RSS+RDF (now looks like it'll never happen) or … an XML bibliographic file format … (could happen now, but I ran out of free time).
Jan 2007 (Email with patch):
It was much easier than I expected it to be because the existing groups code (and search groups code) was very easy to extend. Kudos - I wouldn't have tried it if so much hadn't already been solved well.Thanks!
@jameshowison
Discovery Findings
1. Individual work with personal motivations
2. Superposition of layers3. Productive Deferral
CC Credit: http://flickr.com/photos/jvk/
@jameshowison
But that’s just one case!
(and what’s the point of theorizing
about idiosyncratic situations?)
@jameshowison
To the Archives!
The evidence is here, somewhere.
CC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hamadryades/
@jameshowison
Replication: Fire and Gaim
• Specific RQs:– What proportion of work was individual?– Any evidence of “productive deferral”?
• Fire and Gaim– Multi-protocol instant messaging clients– Community-based open source– Similar task and collaboration infrastructure to
BibDesk
@jameshowison
Tasks: changes to shared outcomes
Version Number
Headings and Indenting
Bullet Points Developer Initials
Tracker Numbers
@jameshowison
Release Notes Dev Email Bug Tracker RFE TrackerUser Forum
TaskOutcome
Task
RelevantDocuments
TaskOutcome
Task
RelevantDocuments
TaskOutcome
Task
RelevantDocuments
CVS
Search and assign Relevant Documents
@jameshowison
Illustrative Co-work
@jameshowison
Illustrative Individual Work
30 (of 106) tasks consisted of a single Action: Core Production@jameshowison
Tasks were individual
@jameshowison
Evidence for Deferral
@jameshowison
Deferral• E.g. Fire Task 9:
– March 2003 • a user requests that the away message only be sent
when it changes. • one of the developers assigns the request to himself,
indicating acceptance of this as a desirable feature.
– October 2003 • Different developer re-assigns the feature to himself
and says,• This is possible now with the `once' option for how often to send away
messages. We just need to reset the message count when changing state.... I think I have a fix for this... probably will check it in the next week or so.
• Fix checked in@jameshowison
An image of FLOSS production:Open Superposition
• Work is done in Tasks that are– Individual– Short– Layered
• Complex work is often deferred– Until it is easier (doesn’t always happen!)
Other types of work build on this base@jameshowison
A model of software development
@jameshowison
Superposition
Reference Display
Time 1
Reference Display
Container Column
Time 3Dev Time
Container Column
@jameshowison
Missing step in Complex Work
RSS+RDF
Web GroupsXML or RSS+RDF
Web Groups
Time 1 Time 3Dev Time (one not both)�?
@jameshowison
Multi-person interdependent work ("Co-work")
Time 1
RSS+RDF
Time 3
RSS+RDF
Web Groups
Web Groups
Interpersonal dependency
Dev Time
Undermines self locus of control, autonomy and, since failure of one is failure of all, anticipation of payoffs.
@jameshowison
Productive Deferral
Dev TimeTime 1 Deferral Time (2 years)…… Reconsideration Time n
Groups SearchSearch Groups
Independent superposition continues,
resulting in:
Web Groups
Groups SearchSearch Groups
Web Groups
@jameshowison
Theorizing
1. Why are these patterns of work observed?
2. How can complex software result from this way of working?
3. Under what socio-technical contingencies is this likely to be successful?
@jameshowison
Motivation and Experience
• Ke and Zhang (2010) based on Ryan and Deci (2000). Highest effort from:1. Anticipated payoffs (extrinsic or intrinsic)
2. Locus of regulation (self over other)
3. Positive affect (autonomy, competence and relatedness)
Individual tasks in shared volunteer environment match extremely well
@jameshowison
Why these patterns of individual work and deferral?
• Fewest dependencies, lowest coordination challenges and costs
• Closest match to motivational situation of FLOSS participants.– Increases autonomy without eliminating
relatedness
@jameshowison
Ok, but can this really work?
• Software development is highly complex, interdependent, work
(e.g., Herbsleb et al. 2001))
• Can such simple steps really get the job done?
@jameshowison
Imagine trying to plan this
1. Identify desired outcomes (design)
2. Design a task sequence that reaches them
3. Find people who are:– Motivated to do each task– Able to do each task– At just the right time
Crippling search costs!
@jameshowison
Application-led search
• Openness and availability of application
• Task identification through situated use (e.g., Suchman 1987)
“Porches fill in by stages, not all at once, you know. ... it happens that way because [the family] can always visualize the next stage based on what’s already
there”
(Brand 1995, quoting an architect)@jameshowison
But why does deferral make things easier?
• Layered tasks makes deferral more likely to be productive
• Small layers can compose in different ways. They provide option value.
(e.g., Baldwin and Clark 2001)
• Small layers are easier to understand, especially over time.
(e.g., Dabbish, 2011; Boudreau at al 2011)
@jameshowison
@jameshowison
Contingencies for Open superposition
• Attributes of object of work– Layerability– Low instantiation costs– Low distribution costs
• Irrevocable openness
• Time
@jameshowison
Layers vs Steps
CC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18378305@N00/742
6136724/
CC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jrnoded/2997160501/
@jameshowison
Irrevocable openness
Free and Open Source Licenses prevent this.
CC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bantam10/5637893667/
@jameshowison
Time == MoneyCC Credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/opacity/1600562651/
This guy hates to wait@jameshowison
What to learn from FLOSS?
• Much excitement about FLOSS about easing interdependent collaboration– Studies of leadership, governance,
technologies (e.g. CVS), culture,processes …
• What if the “something else” is simpler than that?
@jameshowison
Redesigning work for Superposition
• Irrevocable openness (licenses)– Ensure the “rug” can’t be pulled from under
• Open access for situated searching– How can we conduct the widest search to match
interests and motivations?
• Layerable artifact with independent payoffs – Can we build up small contributions?
• Time – the hardest aspect of all?– How long can we wait for success?
@jameshowison
New research:Open superposition in Scientific Software?
• Similarities:– Software and a culture of openness– Use-value motivation and open search
• Differences:– Limited userbase– Grant funding is a kind of investment– Academic reputation as motivation discourages integration
• New NSF CAREER grant to study transitions from grants to peer production– Six initial case studies, then panel study of SISI NSF
program
@jameshowison
Open Superposition
Howison, J., & Crowston, K. (2014). Collaboration through open superposition: A theory of the open source way. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 29–50.
@jameshowison