PhD Defense Øyvind Hauge

1.453 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

A brief presentation of my PhD used for the PhD defense. The topic of my PhD was Adoption of Open Source Software in Software-Intensive Industry.

Veröffentlicht in: Technologie, Business
0 Kommentare
0 Gefällt mir
  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Keine Downloads
Aufrufe insgesamt
Auf SlideShare
Aus Einbettungen
Anzahl an Einbettungen
Gefällt mir
Einbettungen 0
Keine Einbettungen

Keine Notizen für die Folie
  • Focused on two related topics:* OSS adoption in general* Selection of OSS componentsEmpirical, exploitative studies to understand how organizations adopt OSSOSS adoption in legal (for profit) entities/organizations -> software-intensive industry
  • Unclear what it meant: OSS and OSS adoption was a black box and there was significant uncertainty about what OSS really meant to software-intensive organizations.Alienated, OSS is something different from traditional software: Moreover, OSS was characterized by many other conflicts and contradictions like: free software vs OSS, the cathedral vs. the bazaar, and copyright vs. copyleft. Use of the term has been confusing: OSS, OSS adoption, and other terms were used quite loosely in the literature. Several studies, talk about OSS adoption without really describing what these organizations do.Resulted in skepticism towards it and false expectations among those who are not familiar with it
  • based software development is really about piecing different software components together.
  •, there are a lot of pieces out on the Internet. This makes selecting the right piece for your software system difficult.
  • **
  • Web questionnaires (9+66 respondents)E-mail survey + 700 responsesSemi-structured interviews (16+23 respondents)The COSI project and case studies within this projectA Norwegian case study/survey with TelenorA systematic review of + 1500 publications on OSS, identifying 112 publications with empirical evidence on OSS adoption.
  • We have described how several organizations adopt OSSWe have found that industry-wide, this adoption is significant. However, pin-pointing the exact level of adoption will not benefit practice.We have developed a framework for how (software engineering wise) software-intensive organizations adopt OSS.These ways of adopting OSS may be overlapping, but they all present different benefits and challenges.
  • * First we have surveyed current status of research* How to benefit practitioners will be discussed in the implications* Empirical research on adoption of OSS has been limited, but it is increasing* Many of the publications are experience reports
  • * Cover a large number of topics.* However, few related studies, and the majority focus on “general adoption” topics* Majority of papers from the USA and Europe
  • * We describe how software developers actually select OSS components.* This is very developer-dependent, informal, and based on the developer's experience. Experience both personal and within the team
  • * To explain why the process is so informal, we have created a model for situated selection.This model shows that the selection process is part of a much larger situation, where the search space is determined by the developer, and where most important requirements come from his experience, and the specific context he is in.Much of the research on selection has tried to “force” selection into specific methods, and developed a number of general evaluation criteria. However, we find that there are often just a few evaluation criteria that are important. Experience is perhaps the most decisive one.
  • Many things outside the scope of what we have done that are relevant, but at the same time the scope could have been more clearly defined earlier on.Replication and extension could be: Closer observations More long term Other contexts Construction of tools
  • C1 Empirically grounded descriptions of how several organizations adopt OSS.C2 A systematic review of the literature on OSS adoption in organizations.C3 A classification framework presenting six ways of organizational OSS adoption, each with its particular benefits and challenges. The six ways include: deploying OSS products, using OSS CASE tools, integrating OSS components, participating in the development of OSS products, providing OSS products, and using OSS development practices.C4 Descriptions, based on empirical evidence, of the strategies and resources practitioners actually use to identify, evaluate, and select OSS components.C5 A model for situated software selection and its constraints, indicating why formalized selection methods have failed to see significant adoption.
  • * To benefit practitioners we have the following recommendations for OSS adoption researchers. In addition, we have created a list of topics that we believe should be useful for such researchers (see P8).
  • PhD Defense Øyvind Hauge

    1. 1. Adoption ofOpenSource Software in<br />Software-IntensiveIndustry<br />PhDDefense Øyvind Hauge<br /><br />Øyvind Hauge, PhD Defence, 2010<br />
    2. 2. Focus<br /><ul><li> Empirical studies
    3. 3. Software-intensive organizations
    4. 4. Software engineering</li></li></ul><li>Introduction and background<br />Research<br />Results and contributions<br />Summary and implications<br />
    5. 5. What Is OSS?<br />Software products that you may<br />Run<br />Study<br />Modify<br />Redistribute<br />Often developed by distributed communities<br />
    6. 6. Why OSS?<br />Software products worth billions of Euro<br />Development practices that manage highly distributed development<br />Grassroot movement that successfully involve large number of developers and users<br />
    7. 7. Topic 1: OSS Adoption<br />“Both evidence and theory confirm that open source delivers better reliability, lower costs, shorter development times, and a higher quality of code (including better security)” (Raymond, 2004, p. 88).<br />=<br />Software engineering<br />
    8. 8. Existing research on OSS<br />Limited, but increasing<br />A lot of opinions and experience reports<br />Focused on the communities (outside organizations) that developed OSS products<br />von Krogh and von Hippel (2006), Scacchi et al. (2006), Feller et al. (2006), Stol and Ali Babar (2009)<br />
    9. 9. Topic 2: Software Selection<br />
    10. 10.
    11. 11. Ayala (2008)<br />
    12. 12. Existing Research on Selection<br />Formalized selection methods<br />Rational decision making<br />Quantifiable evaluation criteria<br />Product<br />Provider<br />Influence on practice has been very limited<br />Torchiano and Morisio (2004), Li et al. (2006), Mahmood et al. (2007), Land et al. (2008), Birkmeier and Overhage (2009)<br />
    13. 13. Introduction and background<br />Research<br />Results and contributions<br />Summary and implications<br />
    14. 14. Research Questions<br />RQ1: How and to what extent are software-intensive organizations currently adopting OSS?<br />RQ2: What is the current status of research on OSS adoption in organizations and how may this research benefit practitioners?<br />RQ3: Which strategies and resources do software developers use to identify, evaluate, and select OSS components?<br />
    15. 15.
    16. 16. Introduction and background<br />Research<br />Results and contributions<br />Summary and implications<br />
    17. 17. RQ1 -> Contribution C1 and C3<br />Empirically grounded descriptions of how organizations adopt OSS<br />OSS adoption is significant<br />
    18. 18. RQ2 -> Contribution C2<br />
    19. 19.
    20. 20. RQ3 -> Contribution C4<br />Identification<br />Experience<br />Monitoring and review of “trusted” sites<br />Unstructured web-search<br />Evaluation<br />Experience<br />Reviewing<br />“Trusted” sites for experience reports<br />Provider site for activity and documentation<br />Unstructured web-search for experience reports<br />Prototyping<br />
    21. 21. RQ3 -> Contribution C5<br />
    22. 22. Evaluation and limitations<br />Positive<br />Grounded in empirical evidence from the industry<br />Extends previous research within the group<br />Reliable and well documented<br />Room for improvement<br />Scope and focus<br />Replication and extension particularly with richer data<br />Improved understanding should be materialized<br />
    23. 23. Introduction and background<br />Research<br />Results and contributions<br />Summary and implications<br />
    24. 24. Summary contributions<br />A platform for future research on OSS adoption<br />C1 Empirically grounded descriptions of how organizations adopt OSS<br />C2 A systematic literature review of the OSS literature<br />C3 A classification framework of how organizations adopt OSS<br />Improve vocabulary<br />Topics and direction for future research<br />An empirical basis for software selection research<br />C4 Empirically grounded descriptions of practices and resources<br />C5 A model for situated software selection<br />
    25. 25. Implications<br />OSS adoption<br />Researchers should align their efforts, solve real industrial needs, and look to related areas for support<br />Practitioners should not be afraid to exploit the benefits of OSS, but evaluate adoption in their own context<br />Software selection<br />Researchers should focus on supporting actual practice<br />Practitioners should understand and use available informal knowledge sharing platforms<br />
    26. 26. References<br />Claudia P. Ayala. Systematic Construction of Goal-Oriented COTS Taxonomies. PhD thesis, Technical University of Catalunya (UPC), 2008.<br />Evangelia Berdou, Learning and the imperative of production in Free/Open Source development, in: Proceedings of the 3rd IFIP Working Group 2.13 International Conference on Open Source Software (OSS2007) - Open Source Development, Adoption and Innovation, June 11th-14th, Limerick, Ireland, Limerick, Ireland, June 11-14, pages 235--240, Springer, 2007,<br />Dominik Birkmeier and Sven Overhage. On Component Identification Approaches – Classification, State of the Art, and Comparison. In Grace A. Lewis, Iman Poernomo, and Christine Hofmeister, editors, Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Component-Based Software Engineering (CBSE 2009), June 24th-26th, East Stroudsburg, USA, volume 5582/2009 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 1–18. Springer, 2009. ISBN 978-3-642-02413-9.<br />Wolf-Gideon Bleek and Matthias Finck, Ensuring Transparency -- Migrating a Closed Software Development to an Open Source Software Project, in: Proceedings of the 28th Information Systems Research Seminar in Scandinavia (IRIS'28), Kristiansand, Norway, 2005<br />Cornelia Boldyreff, David Nutter and Stephen Rank, Communication and Conflict Issues in Coollaborative Software Research Projects, in: Collaboration, Conflict and Control Proceedings of the 4th Workshop on Open Source Software Engineering (WOSSE 2004), May 25th, Edinburgh, Scotland, pages 14--17, 2004<br />Kristin Braa and Richard Vidgen, Interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: a framework for in-context information system research (1999), in: Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, 9:1(25 – 47)<br />Andrea Capiluppi, Patricia Lago and Maurizio Morisio, Characteristics of Open Source Projects, in: Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on Software Maintenance and Reengineering (CSMR '03), March 26th-28th, Benevento, Italy, pages 317-327, IEEE Computer Society, 2003<br />Leonhard Dobusch, Migration Discourse Structures: Escaping Microsoft's Desktop Path, in: Proceedings of the 4th IFIP Working Group 2.13 International Conferences on Open Source Software (OSS2008) - Open Source Development Communities and Quality, September 7th-10th, Milano, Italy, Milano, Italy September 7-10, pages 223--235, Springer, 2008<br />Sigi Goode, Something for nothing: management rejection of open source software in Australia's top firms (2005), in: Information & Management, 42:5(669--681)<br />Simon Grand, Georg von Krogh, Dorothy Leonard and Walter Swap, Resource allocation beyond firm boundaries: A multi-level model for Open Source innovation (2004), in: Long Range Planning, 37:6(591—610)<br />
    27. 27. References<br />Joseph Feller, Patrick Finnegan, David Kelly and Maurice MacNamara, Developing Open Source Software: A Community-Based Analysis of Research, in: {Social Inclusion: Societal and Organizational Implications for Information Systems FIP TC8 WG 8.2 International Working Conference, July 12th-15th, Limerick, Ireland}, pages 261--278, Springer, 2006,<br />Brian Fitzgerald, The Transformation of Open Source Software (2006), in: MIS Quarterly, 30:3(587-598)<br />ITEA Report on Open Source Software, Information Technology for European Advancement (ITEA), 2004<br />Juha Järvensivu and Tommi Mikkonen, Forging A Community - Not: Experiences On Establishing An Open Source Project, in: Proceedings of the 4th IFIP Working Group 2.13 International Conferences on Open Source Software (OSS2008) - Open Source Development Communities and Quality, September 7th-10th, Milano, Italy, pages 15--27, Springer, 2008<br />Georg von Krogh and Eric von Hippel, The Promise of Research on Open Source Software (2006), in: Management Science, 52:7(975—983),<br />Rikard Land, Lauren Blankers, Michel Chaudron, and Ivica Crnkovic. COTS Selection Best Practices in Literature and in Industry. In Hong Mei, editor, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Software Reuse (ICSR 2008), May 25th-29th, Beijing, China, volume 5030/2008 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 100–111. Springer, July 2008. ISBN 978-3-540-68062-8.<br />Jingyue Li, Finn Olav Bjørnson, Reidar Conradi, and Vigdis By Kampenes. An Empirical Study of Variations in COTS-Based Software Development Processes in the Norwegian IT Industry. Empirical Software Engineering, 11(3):433–461, 2006a. ISSN 1382-3256.<br />Sajjad Mahmood, Richard Lai, and Y. S. Kim. Survey of component-based software development. IET Software, 1(2):57–66, 2007.<br />Catharina Melian and Magnus Mähring, Lost and Gained in Translation: Adoption of Open Source Software Development at Hewlett-Packard, in: Proceedings of the 4th IFIP Working Group 2.13 International Conferences on Open Source Software (OSS2008) - Open Source Development Communities and Quality, September 7th-10th, Milano, Italy, Milano, Italy, pages 93--104, Springer, 2008,<br />Eric S. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, O'Reilly, 2001<br />Eric S. Raymond. Up from Alchemy. IEEE Software, 21(1):88-90, 2004. ISSN 0740-7459.<br />Peter C. Rigby, Davor Cubranic, Suzanne Thompson, Daniel M. German and Margaret-Anne Storey, The challenges of creating open source educational software: the Gild experience, in: Proceedings of The First International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS2005), July 11th-15th, Genova, Italy, Genova, Italy, 11-15 July, pages 338-340, 2005<br />
    28. 28. References<br />Walt Scacchi, Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam and Karim R. Lakhani, Understanding Free/Open Source Software Development Processes (2006), in: Software Process: Improvement and Practice, 11:2(95—105),<br />Klaas-Jan Stol and Muhammed Ali Babar, Reporting Empirical Research in Open Source Software: The State of Practice, in: {Proceedings of the 5th IFIP Working Group 2.13 International Conference on Open Source Systems (OSS2009) - Open Source Ecosystems: Diverse Communities, June 3rd-6th, Skövde, Sweden}, pages 156-169, Springer, 2009,<br />Marco Torchiano and Maurizio Morisio. Overlooked Aspects of COTS-Based Development. IEEE Software, 21(2):88–93, 2004. ISSN 0740-7459.<br />Robert K. Yin, Case Study Research Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Applied Social Research Methods, 2003<br />Thomas Østerlie, Problems and solutions: Maintaining and integrated system in a community of volunteers, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 2009<br />