IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sru/ssewps/94.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Applying the Open Source Development Model to Knowledge Work

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper introduces a distinction between two different types of information goods in order to analyse the processes governing the review and integration of multi-authored contributions to information goods such as those produced through collaborations using the Internet as well as modular information goods such as open source software. It is argued that these distinctions are important because they suggest different organisational arrangements for producing such information goods. This method of analysing the nature of the information goods is employed to examine different organisational arrangements using the analogy of collaboration for traditional publication to identify actors and processes. The analysis of 'contributors' is extended from authorship to collectors and researchers. The paper examines a small survey of the governance procedures employed in projects that employ open source methods for collecting various types of information. We noted the prime role of the recruitment process in the relative success of the examples that we examined (ODP, Wikipedia, Nupedia, MathLearning, VRoma, and Web of Life). For these 'collection' efforts, the role of hierarchy in editing and review of project submissions appears to be important than in open source communities and may be an impediment to recruitment and project development. A number of directions for further research are identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Juan Mateos Garcia & W. Edward Steinmueller, 2003. "Applying the Open Source Development Model to Knowledge Work," SPRU Working Paper Series 94, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:sru:ssewps:94
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/imprint/sewps/sewp94/sewp94.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steinmueller, W Edward, 2000. "Will New Information and Communication Technologies Improve the 'Codification' of Knowledge?," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(2), pages 361-376, June.
    2. Cowan, Robin & David, Paul A & Foray, Dominique, 2000. "The Explicit Economics of Knowledge Codification and Tacitness," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 9(2), pages 211-253, June.
    3. Juan Mateos Garcia & W. Edward Steinmueller, 2003. "The Open Source Way of Working: a New Paradigm for the Division of Labour in Software Development?," SPRU Working Paper Series 92, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    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. Matthijs Den Besten & Jean-Michel Dalle, 2008. "Keep it Simple: A Companion for Simple Wikipedia?," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(2), pages 169-178.
    2. Loris Gaio & Alessandro Rossi & Matthijs den Besten & Jean-Michel Dalle, 2009. "Coordination, Division of Labor, and Open Content Communities: Template Messages in Wiki-Based Collections," DISA Working Papers 0903, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 29 Jul 2009.
    3. Jean-Michel Dalle & Matthijs Den-Besten, 2010. "Voting for bugs in Firefox: a voice for Mom and Dad?," Post-Print hal-00549769, HAL.

    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. Antonelli, Cristiano, 2017. "Digital knowledge generation and the appropriability trade-off," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(10), pages 991-1002.
    2. Quatraro, Francesco & Scandura, Alessandra, 2019. "Academic Inventors and the Antecedents of Green Technologies. A Regional Analysis of Italian Patent Data," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 247-263.
    3. Francesco Quatraro & Stefano Usai, 2017. "Are knowledge flows all alike? Evidence from European regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(8), pages 1246-1258, August.
    4. Kasper, Helmut & Lehrer, Mark & Mühlbacher, Jürgen & Müller, Barbara, 2013. "On the different “worlds” of intra-organizational knowledge management: Understanding idiosyncratic variation in MNC cross-site knowledge-sharing practices," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 326-338.
    5. Andrea Bonaccorsi & Massimo Colombo & Massimiliano Guerini & Cristina Rossi-Lamastra, 2014. "The impact of local and external university knowledge on the creation of knowledge-intensive firms: evidence from the Italian case," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 261-287, August.
    6. Uwe Cantner & Martin Kalthaus & Matthias Menter & Pierre Mohnen, 2023. "Global knowledge flows: characteristics, determinants, and impacts," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 32(5), pages 1063-1076.
    7. Ozgur Aydogmus & Erkan Gürpinar, 2022. "Science, Technology and Institutional Change in Knowledge Production: An Evolutionary Game Theoretic Framework," Dynamic Games and Applications, Springer, vol. 12(4), pages 1163-1188, December.
    8. David, Paul A. & Hall, Bronwyn H., 2000. "Heart of darkness: modeling public-private funding interactions inside the R&D black box," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1165-1183, December.
    9. Diégo Legros & Fabrice Galia, 2012. "Are innovation and R&D the only sources of firms’ knowledge that increase productivity? An empirical investigation of French manufacturing firms," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 167-181, October.
    10. Isaksson, Olov H.D. & Simeth, Markus & Seifert, Ralf W., 2016. "Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain: Evidence from the high tech sectors," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 699-706.
    11. Christoph Engel, 2006. "The Difficult Reception of Rigorous Descriptive Social Science in the Law," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2006_1, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Dolfsma, W.A., 2006. "IPRs, Technological Development, and Economic Development," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2006-004-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    13. Frank Lorne & Anjum Razzaque, 2023. "The New Industrial Organization: Ecosystem Competition," International Journal of Innovation and Economic Development, Inovatus Services Ltd., vol. 9(1), pages 7-17, April.
    14. Viktoria Maria Baumeister & Leonie Petra Kuen & Maike Bruckes & Gerhard Schewe, 2021. "The Relationship of Work-Related ICT Use With Well-being, Incorporating the Role of Resources and Demands: A Meta-Analysis," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(4), pages 21582440211, November.
    15. Nooteboom, B. & Bogenrieder, I.M., 2003. "Change Of Routines: A Multi-Level Analysis," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2003-029-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    16. Rosina Moreno & Ernest Miguélez, 2012. "A Relational Approach To The Geography Of Innovation: A Typology Of Regions," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 492-516, July.
    17. Segura-Bonilla, Olman, 2003. "Competitiveness, systems of innovation and the learning economy: the forest sector in Costa Rica," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 373-384, December.
    18. Paul A. David, 2005. "The Economic Logic of “Open Science” and the Balance between Private Property Rights and the Public Domain in Scientific Data and," Development and Comp Systems 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Frédéric CREPLET, 2004. "Les Portails d’entreprise : une réponse aux dimensions de l’entreprise « processeur de connaissances »," Working Papers of BETA 2004-07, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    20. Jean-Michel Dalle & Paul A. David, 2007. "“It Takes All Kinds”: A Simulation Modeling Perspective on Motivation and Coordination in Libre Software Development Projects," Discussion Papers 07-024, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    open source software; collaboration; hierarchies; trust; teams; co-operation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L86 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Information and Internet Services; Computer Software
    • L96 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Telecommunications
    • L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
    • P13 - Political Economy and Comparative Economic Systems - - Capitalist Economies - - - Cooperative Enterprises
    • Z13 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology; Language; Social and Economic Stratification

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:sru:ssewps:94. 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: University of Sussex Business School Communications Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/spessuk.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.