Adoption of free/libre open source software in public organizations: factors of impact

Abstract

Purpose -In this paper the authors aim to investigate the importance of factors for the adoption of free/libre open source software (FLOSS) in the public sector. They seek to evaluate how different factors impact during the initiation and implementation phases of the adoption process. Design/methodology/approach -The authors base the methodological approach on two exploratory case studies with a contrasting result logic. They build a multi-level framework grounded both on literature review, and feedback from stakeholders. They then apply the framework to two case studies to better frame the findings. They consider phases of adoption (initiation, implementation) and the levels of adoption (technological, organizational, environmental, individual). Findings -In the case studies, the authors found the importance of a strong and decision-centric management board to give the impulse for the initiation phase of the process. As perceived by the stakeholders, a strong governmental support is of paramount importance to increase the adoption at the public level, although in the case studies examined the initiation stage started from the impulse of a championing management. Both case studies passed the initiation phase successfully. Continuous employees' training, organizational objectives consensus, and business process reengineering have been found important for the implementation phase. In the case study in which these factors were not in place, the implementation phase of adoption failed. Environmental factors -although relevant for the initiation of the adoption process -are less significant during the actual implementation of the adoption process, as the contrasting result logic from the case studies shows.Research limitations/implications -The study refers to two public organizations in a specific environmental setting. No causality among factors has been inferred. Quantitative objective data have been used to determine the success of adoption, for qualitative data multiple sources have been used when possible to limit threats to validity. Practical implications -The framework can be used by stakeholders in public organizations to better frame their adoption strategies and to compare results across institutions. Lessons learnt from the case studies can be useful to drive future adoptions of FLOSS. Originality/value -The framework combines phases of adoption and levels making it possible to frame the analysis of the case studies. It has been operationalized with a set of metrics, and with a protocol for the case studies to increase replicability value.

An MADM risk-based evaluation-selection model of free-libre open source software tools

“…Additional studies from 2006-2013 period complement the findings on FLOSS implementation enablers and inhibitors (Ven and Verelst, 2006;Morgan and Finnegan, 2007;Gallego et al, 2008;Sohn and Mok, 2008;Lee et al, 2009;Hauge et al, 2010;Nagy et al, 2010;Rossi et al, 2012;Li et al, 2013). In Ven and Verelst's study (2006), five case studies are reported from Belgian organizations that adopted the utilization of a FLOSS operating system.…”

“…The main found inhibitors were: switching costs (called sunk costs), project forking, lack of internal expertise, hard selection process (reported as knowledge barriers), legacy integration, and technological immaturity. In turn, Rossi et al (2012) investigated two Italian governmental organizations as case studies. These investigators found the following main enablers: positive attitude to change (akin new business opportunities in private sector), top management support, employee skill and training, and implementation champion.…”

How do free/open source developers pick their tools?

“…Others focus on specific contexts; for example, both Rossi et al [42], and Fitzgerald et al [14] present frameworks to explain FOSS adoption in the public sector. Eckhardt et al studied the impact of social influences, referring to the influences of colleagues and other departments in an organization [12].…”

“…[40]); others are based on a set of factors that have been identified a priori before any feedback is solicited from experts (e.g. [42]). While these approaches are not invalid, they ignore perhaps the most important stakeholders, namely the volunteers adopting the technology.…”

An MADM risk-based evaluation-selection model of free-libre open source software tools

“…Some of them (for instance Navica (Golden, 2005) and QMOSS (Sung et al, 2007)) are simple models composed for 5-7 single factors and 3-5 steps, and others are complex ones with over 10-15 steps and 60 evaluation items (QualiPSo (del Bianco et al, 2009) andQSOSv2 (QSOS.org, 2013)). Additionally, other studies have identified a set of organizational factors associated to successful and failed utilizations of FLOSS tools in organizations (Dedrick and West, 2003;Rossi et al, 2012;Li et al, 2013), which provide also useful information to avoid failed and wrongly FLOSS evaluations. Hence, while FLOSS has been used for large companies, we consider that FLOSS is a natural logical resource to be used for small and medium-sized companies, which have more budgetary and human resource limitations for using commercial software (Tribunella and Baroody, 2007).…”