Open Source Technology in Intra-Organisational Software Development—Private Markets or Local Libraries

Abstract

This chapter explores how two organizations have changed their software development practices by introducing Open Source technology. Our aim is to understand the institutional changes that are needed in and emerge from this process. This chapter develops a conceptualization building on the insights of entrepreneurial institutionalism, concentrating on the changing relationships of organizational groups in the areas of decision-making, rewarding and communication. We identify the links between the 1) emerging, yet embedded technology and 2) the underlying institutional decision-making, reward and communication structures. We move the Open Source 2.0 research agenda forward by concentrating empirical work on the nuances of institutional change that open source brings about in large hierarchical organisations. We will discuss the appropriateness of internal accounting organized according to the principle of an open market vs. a local library. We believe that both of these metaphors can support innovation, but different groups will find different approaches more appealing.

Inner Source Definition, Benefits, and Challenges

“…Lindman et al [24] introduced a model distinguishing between private-market IS where organizational units can place software components for sale at an internal IS market and local-library IS where the use of components is free.…”

“…We integrated the models of Gurbani et al [17] and Lindman et al [24] into our IS classification framework in section IV.…”

“…As a result of our qualitative data analysis of the surveyed literature (primarily the surveyed case studies), we extended their model to form the prevalence dimension. The internal economics dimension integrated the classification model of Lindman et al [24] into our framework. The different degrees of self-organization were derived solely from qualitative data analysis.…”

On Infrastructure for Facilitation of Inner Source in Small Development Teams

“…SAP [13], Nokia [7,8] and IBM [16,19]. The former part is used for searching and finding projects, whilst the latter offers a project specific toolbox with common communication and development features where users and developers interact, also commonly identified the previously mentioned studies.…”

“…The reuse of software can be considered opportunistic or ad hoc and there is no limitation on the number of projects to be shared within the organization. Success stories include cases from SAP [13], IBM [16,19], HP [1,10] and Nokia [7,8].…”