Message 02920 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT02590 Message: 20/37 L1 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Sheen S. Levine * Linux, Napster, and Sobig: A Framework for Understanding Collective Open Source Innovation (was: [ox-en] Conference documentation / Konferenzdokumentation)



Linux, Napster, and Sobig: A Framework for Understanding Collective Open Source Innovation
==========================================================================================

Sheen S. Levine [sslevine at sslevine.com]

The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Center for Knowledge Governance, Copenhagen Business School

Road Map
========

o    Collective Open Source Innovation (COSI)

     o    Prevalent and has significant economic impact

     o    Created by coordinated collectives

     o    Products and services available to anyone

     o    Poses a puzzle for theory and practice - Why? When?

o    Research sites and methods

o    Framework:

     o    Non-rival Goods & Identifiability

     o    Generalized Exchange & Coordination Institutions

o    Implications & future research

COSI has Important Economic Impact
==================================

o    Open source software has become a viable alternative to
     commercial products

          (Guth 2003; Lohr 2003)

o    File sharing is extremely common, and arguably causes substantial
     revenue loss

          (Madden & Lenhart 2003; Napster court case)

o    Viruses and other attacks cause wide-ranging disruptions to
     businesses and individuals

          (Guth & Machalaba 2003; Thompson 2004)

COSI is Created by Collectives
==============================

o    Operate in coordination

o    Accomplish innovative goals

o    Products or services have economic value and impact

o    No formal hierarchy or organization

o    Little social information & interaction

o    Strong orientation to accomplish goals rather than preserve
     relationships

Openly Available
================

o    The products and services are freely available to anyone

o    No attempt to limit access, although technologically feasible

o    No legal protection, except to protect open access

A Puzzle to Theory
==================

o    Why COSI is sustainable

          How it avoids the "tragedy of the commons"?

o    Why COSI is effective

          How it undermines commercial products?

o    Can we predict when COSI will emerge?

Research Site & Method
======================

o    Three Usenet groups that are a clearinghouse for requests for
     digital music

o    Users post requests and files

o    Universal access, non-moderated

o    Content analysis of 2,000 messages

o    Semi-structured interviews

Advantages of Research Site
===========================

o    Most interaction is observable

     o    Little private communication

o    Interaction is archived

     o    Asynchronous, easy to obtain and analyze

o    Goods offered are generic

     o    Rules out learning benefits

               (von Hippel & von Krogh 2003}

o    Identities are cloaked

     o    Rules out reputational effects

               (Lerner & Tirole 2002)

Findings in Brief
=================

o    Individuals send requests for files

o    Benefactor posts files in response or voluntarily

o    No payment or direct exchange

o    Accessible to anyone

o    Free riding is common and acknowledged

o    Strict adherence to established rules

o    Little social "off-topic" interaction

Framework
=========

o    Non-rival good

o    Perception of fairness

=> Sustainability

o    Based on generalized exchange

o    Coordinated through institutions

=> Efficiency

Non-Rival Good
==============

o    When one's consumption of the good doesn't interfere with
     another's consumption of the same good.

o    Rival goods: food, clothes, housing

o    Non-rival goods: radio, road, safety

Non-Rival Goods Sustain COSI
============================

o    Proposition #1:

o    COSI is more likely to be sustainable when the product or service
     is a non-rival good.

ADD
===

o    Low cost of replication

o    Positive chance of reciprocation

o    Explains why not limit access, but share freely

o    But doesn't explain why people don't feel violated fairness

Perception of Fairness
======================

o    People don't want to be treated unfairly

          (Kahneman, Knetsch and Thaler 1986)

o    Willing to suffer cost to punish a free-rider

          (Fehr and Gächter 2000)

o    Will withdraw if sense exploitation

Violations Don't Cause Withdrawal
=================================

o    Why violations don't lead to withdrawal of contributions?

o    People are less willing to punish an unidentified offender

o    More willing to assist an identifiable beneficiary

          (Small and Loewenstein 2003)

(Non) Identifiability Sustain COSI
==================================

o    Proposition #2:

o    COSI is more sustainable when the beneficiaries are identifiable,
     while defectors are non-identifiable.

Generalized Exchange
====================

o    Reception constitutes obligation to reciprocate to any other
     member

          (Ekeh 1974:48)

o    Neither immediate reciprocity nor obligation to a specific
     benefactor

o    Previously documented

          e.g. pacific islanders, CEOs, immigrant communities, lawyers

          (Malinowski 1920; Westphal & Zajac 1997; Portes &
          Sensenberger 1993; Lazega 2001)

Direct vs. Generalized Exchange
===============================

** Unable to import figure Levine.png **

Gen. Exchange Facilitates COSI
==============================

o    Allows contributions from unacquainted others

o    Lets neophytes ("newbies") participate

o    Cuts on cost of bargaining and transacting,

o    Especially fit for knowledge and intangibles

Gen. Exchange Facilitates COSI
==============================

o    Proposition #3:

o    Collective open innovation is more efficient when based on
     generalized exchange rather than direct exchange.

Coordination Institutions
=========================

o    Collective develops routines and defines acceptable patterns of
     action

o    Formalizes and communicates them

o    Designates and mans roles

     o    Designated forum to meet and produce (e.g. mailing list)

     o    centralized collection of knowledge (e.g. archive)

     o    Handbook of procedures (e.g. FAQ)

     o    Enforcer of violations (e.g. FAQman)

Coordination Instit. Facilitate COSI
====================================

o    Proposition #4:

o    Collective open innovation is more efficient when coordinated
     through institutions.

Framework
=========

o    Non-rival good

o    Perception of fairness

=> Sustainability

o    Based on generalized exchange

o    Coordinated through institutions

=> Efficiency

Conclusions
===========

o    COSI is important in and beyond software

o    Framework accounts for individual motivation and collective
     coordination

o    Fits more cases than competing explanations

o    Offers testable propositions

o    Questions remain:

     o    How applicable off-line? Why some projects are more
          successful?

ADD
===

o    Sport enthusiasts - off-line COSI

o    Wireless networks

o    On-line forums

o    "COSI: The Emergence of a New Economic Actor"

o    Is there an important distinction between open and free software?


_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de



Thread: oxenT02590 Message: 20/37 L1 [In index]
Message 02920 [Homepage] [Navigation]