Table of Contents
Go Back
Building a Theory of
Open Online Collaboration
Using System Dynamics
Modeling
(Work in Progress)
Vedat G. Diker
University at Albany
System Dynamics Society
May 2003
Open Online Collaboration
Communities are...
© online communities
* formed by loosely connected groups of
people
rf using the Internet as a medium for
carrying out collaborative projects
f producing and disseminating
information products.
Two Examples
© Open Source Software Development
Communities
© Instructional Material Development
Communities
Literature Places OSS in
Online Communities
‘Markus, Manville and Agres (2000)
“Stanoevska and Schmid (2001)
Classifications for
Online Communities
* Hagel and Armstrong (1997)
r Lazar, J. and). Preece (1998)
r Stanoevska and Schmid (2001)
Hagel and Armstrong (1997)
Transaction Communities
Stanoevska and Schmid (2001)
© Task-and-goal-oriented communities
D ai
@ oe:
« Design Communities
Research Opportunity
© Dynamic interactions between the
determinants of success have not been
fully explored and theorized yet.
© No means to test system-wide policies
to improve performance.
Research Design
Literature on
Online
Communities
Parallds
Literature on Open
Source Software
Development
Research Design
Literature on
Online
Communities
Theoretical
Parallds Implications
Literature on Open Dynamic Feedback
Source Software Model of a Generic
Development | Variables, Causal} OSS Community
Relationships,
Behavior
10
Research Design
Literature on Interviews with K-12
Online instigcione Material
ne evelopment
Communities Community
Parallds Implications _—
Literature on Open Dynamic Feedback
Source Software Model of a Generic
Development | Variables, Causal} OSS Community
Relationships,
Behavior
11
Research Design
Literature on Interviews with K-12
Online instigcione Material
iti evelopment
Communities Co ity
Differences
ie Op prmighates | | "Ramsar
Source Software Model of a Generic -}-———+ Explains OSS and
Development Wiles Cope OSS Community Settee K-12.Co ities
Behavior
12
Theoretical Approaches to the
Study of Online Communities
Gift Economies
Barbrook, 1998;
Ghosh, 1998;
Kollock, 1999;
Bays and Mowbray,
2001
Raymond, 2001
Public Goods Kollock, 1999; Hawkins, 2001;
Millen, 2000; Bessen, 2002
Wasko and Teigland,
2002
Social Turoff and Hiltz, 1982; | Raymond, 2001;
Informatics Hiltz, 1986; Fogel and Bar, 2001
as Preece, 2000
13
Gift Exchange
© Between parties who have an existing
relationship, or are aiming to build an
ongoing relationship;
* Not instantaneous - a gift is not
necessarily reciprocated by the giving of
a ‘counter-gift’ right away.
14
Applying Gift Economies to
OCs
© A ‘digital gift’ can be given to a group of
people instead of a single individual, with
no or a non-significant additional cost;
© A gift is not necessarily reciprocated by
the beneficiary, but by someone else that
takes part in the generalized exchange.
15
Implications for Online
Communities
r A relatively larger community would
motivate contributors to a greater
extent.
16
Public Goods
r “Non-excludable”
(too hard, too costly, or impossible to
exclude the non-payers from
benefiting),
© “Non-rival” consumption
(consumption by an individual does not
hinder other individuals’ consumption of
the same good).
17
Private vs. Public Goods
Rival
Non-rival
Excludable Food
TV broadcasts
Non-excludable| City streets
(adapted from Bucovetsky, 2001)
National defense
18
Digital Goods as Public Goods
Non-rival
Excludable Digital goods
(adapted from Bucovetsky, 2001)
19
Digital Goods as Public Goods
Non-rival
Excludable Digital goods
Non-excludable Open source D.G.
(adapted from Bucovetsky, 2001)
20
Two Challenges in Production
© Motivating individuals
© Coordinating motivated individuals
21
Motivation Factors
* Expectation of generalized reciprocation,
* Reputation (ego, and opportunities),
© Feeling of self-efficacy,
© Benefits to other members of the community
(altruism).
22
Motivations —— | mplications
~ Reciprocation ————>
~ Reputation —————>
~ Larger community
would motivate
contributors more.
Visibility would motivate
contributors more.
~ Larger contributor
~ Self-efficacy aN
—p e
r Altruism en
population may
decrease motivation.
Larger user population
may increase
motivation.
Feedback channels may
increase motivation. 33
Social | nformatics
Design and Use of
Information Systems |
—— |
Social Structure
and Relationships
24
Social | nformatics
Design and Use of
Information Systems |
Social Processes
25
Social | nformatics
Design and Use of
Information Systems |
Social Processes
26
Implications for Online
Communities
r Software and media have influence on
which community rules can be
implemented, and to what extend.
© Software, media, and community rules
have impact on participation,
collaboration, and productivity.
27
Implications for Online
Communities
© Low barriers to entry and contribution
would increase participation.
r Accessibility and usability of
end-products would increase user
population.
Generic Behavior of Successful
OOCCs
Number of Contributors
Number of Users
Time
29
Generic Behavior of Successful
OOCCs
Product Functionality
Time
30
Generic Behavior of Unsuccessful
OOCCs
Number of Contributors
Number of Users
Time
el
Generic Behavior of Unsuccessful
OOCCs
Product Functionality
-——$]
Time
32
Growth of Fetchmail
Fetchmail project growth history
1200 2. - - 1 - 4 : 59000
|} 45000
q
1900 4
+ 40900
FaQ file started
Bad addresses dropped after switch to —_
800 4 t 35000
Web page existed by this point
x fetchmail list split Pa
a
5 am | sae00
a a Lists moved to MailMan
a a
o 6608 Release 5¢9.0
Pa asa a ga
t a + 2sega
on ante
|
400 + we r 20000
a 09 00 Ce agit
Ht ott
wontons yt att L 1se00
200 4
Both lists 6 19800
fetchmail-announce a
fetohwail-friends +
Lines of code ¢
a+ T —T T T T T T T 5000
a 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
From: Eric S. Raymond, ‘The fetchmail Home Page”, http://tuxedo.org/~esr/fetchmail/
Days since baseline
Lines of code
33
Growth of X Windows
Nov-84 Aug-87 May-90 J an-93 Oct-95 J ul-98 Apr-01
From: Michael W. Godfrey, “Understanding Software Evolution”, Software 34
Architecture Group - Department of Computer Science - University of Waterloo
Total LOC
Growth of Linux
2,500,000
-* Total LOC ("wc -I") -- development releases
2.000,000 — Total LOC ("wc -I") -- stable releases
—_ -4-Total LOC uncommented -- development releases
=Total LOC uncommented -- stable releases
1,500,000
1,000,000
500,000
)
Jan 1993 Jun 1994 Oct 1995 Mar 1997 Jul 1998 Dec 1999
From: Michael W. Godfrey, “Understanding Software Evolution”, Software
Architecture Group - Department of Computer Science - University of Waterloo
Apr 2001
35
Growth of Perl
36
Growth of Perl - Size in kbytes
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
:
4000
3000
2000
1000
Years
—@—total without doc kbytes —g—total with doc kbytes
From: www.perldoc.com
Growth of Perl
37
Growth of Perl - Number of Files
L 66-990
- 66-un [
L 86-99q0
+ 86-un [
| 26-290
+ £6-un [
| 96-99q
+ 96-uN [
| S6-28q
+ S6-un [
- v6-22q
L ve-un [
- €6-99q
L €6-un f
+ 76-280
L z6-un [
- 16-280
L T6-un [
+ 06-28d
L o6-un [
- 68-280
L 6g-un [
| g8-28q
L gg-un [
28-990
900
800
SOI JO#
Years
—gtotal without doc # of files —e—total with doc # of files
From: www.perldoc.com
Developers
Production
Product
Functionality,
39
Developers
Production
Product
Functionality,
40
Developers
Production
Product Functionality
Harvested Adding Efficiency
Functionality Ratio
Limit on Product < -
Functionality "el
41
; - +
a Developers
Developers New
fo Developers +
Production
Overall Attractiveness
of Product for
Developers
42
; - +
a Developers
Developers New
fo Developers +
Production
Overall Attractiveness
of Product for
Developers ‘—)
+
Attractiveness of Product
for Developers Due to Product: +
Functionality Functionality] "New Product
: OC Functionality Added
-_ +
y, a i
fe)
Harvested Adding Efficiency
43
; - +
a Developers
Developers New
f Ze Devdopas i.
ay p a ¥ Production
Overall Attractiveness Developers
of Product for
Developers ‘—)
+
Attractiveness of Product
for Developers Due to Product + yt
Functionality Functionality] "New Product
: OC Functionality Added
. #*
Product Functionality
44
Developers New Devdopas
f ant Developers i.
ay a # Production
Overall Attractiveness Developers
of Product for +
Developers ‘—) —)
+
: Leaving Acceleration
Attrractiveness of Product Due to Functionality +
for Developers Due to Product +
Functionality Functionality] "New Product
: Functionality Added
VAcny,
pervert Futon
Functionality Ratio ew
45
46
Potential
Users
New Users
4/7
Potential
Users
Harvested
Functionality Ratio
48
Potential
Users
New Users
ao
Attractiveness of
Product for U:
Functionality Ratio
Users Acceleration Due
to Success in Attracting
49
Overall Attractiveness
of Product for
i Developers
Attrractiveness of
Product for Developers
Due to Users
ne
Success in
Attracting Users
Potential
Users
New Users
ao
Attractiveness of
Product for U:
Functionality Ratio
Users Acceleration Due
to Success in Attracting
50
51
(Developers|
Attractiveness of Product
for Developers Due to
Functionality
Leaving Acceleration
Due to Functionality
Bice Ratio sw
Product
ara
+
New Product
Functionality Added
+
o Functionality
Agting Efficiency
Limit on Product
Functionality
52
i = +
Potential —————+— Developars
Attractiveness of
Product for Developers Leaving Acceleration.
Due to Users Attractiveness of Product Due to Functionality +
“a for Developers Due to Product aul
Functionality ara New Product
Functionality Added
Attracting Users /*
a Functionality
Bieter Ratio Bates Eiiceary
Potential |__- x +, "
Users New Users
Limit on Product
Functionality
Users Acceleration Due
to Success in Attracting
Attrractiveness of
Product for Users ¢
53
Main Indicators
Time (Month)
Developers : 02 base
Users : 02 base
Product Functionality : 02 base
Main Indicators
100 people —
2C UF
Time (Month)
Developers : 02 base hi pot
Users : 02 base hi pot
Product Functionality : 02 base hi pet
Main Indicators
people —
50C people
100 UF |
people —
25( people -
5C UF
|
people
people
Time (Month)
Developers : 02 base very hi pot
Users : 02 base very hi pot
Product Functionality : 02 base very hi pet
Graph for Harvested Functionality Ratio
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
( 1 Z 3 4 5 G 7 g f 100
Time (Month)
Harvested Functionality Ratio : 02_base Dnml
Harvested Functionality Ratio : 02 base hi pet Dnml
Harvested Functionality Ratio : 02 base very hi pot Dnml
5/7
i = +
Potential —————+— Developars
Attractiveness of
Product for Developers Leaving Acceleration.
Due to Users Attractiveness of Product Due to Functionality +
“a for Developers Due to Product aul
Functionality ara New Product
Functionality Added
Attracting Users /*
a Functionality
Bieter Ratio Bates Eiiceary
Potential |__- x +, "
Users New Users
Limit on Product
Functionality
Users Acceleration Due
to Success in Attracting
Attrractiveness of
Product for Users ¢
58
References
Barbrook, R. (1998). "The Hi-Tech Gift Economy." First Monday. 3 (12).
Available: <http:// www. firstmonday. org/issues/issue3_12/barbrook/index.html>. Accessed:
January 10, 2003.
Bays, H. and M. Mowbray (2001). Cookies, Gift-Giving, and Online Communities. Online
Communities. C. Werry and M. Mowbray. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall PTR.
Bessen, J. (2002). Open Source Software: Free Provision of Complex Public Goods. Open
Source Software: Economics, Law and Policy, Toulouse, France, Institut d'Economie
Industrielle. J une 20-21, 2002.
Bucovetsky, S. (2001). "Pure Public Goods : Definitions and Examples."
Available: <http://dept.econ. yorku.ca/~sanV/4080/pubgoods1.html>. Accessed: J anuary 12,
2003.
Fogel, K. and M. Bar (2001). Open Source Development with CVS. Scottsdale, AZ, Coriolis
Technology Press.
Gallaugher, J.M. and Wang, Y.," Network Effects and the Impact of Free Goods: An Analysis
of the Web Server Market ,” International J ournal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 3, No. 4,
Summer 1999, pp. 67-88.
Ghosh, R. A. (1998). "Cooking Pot Markets: An Economic Model for the Trade in Free Goods
and Services on the Internet." First Monday. 3 (3).
Available: <http:// www. firstmonday.org/issues/issue3_3/ghosh/index.html>.
Hagel, J. and A. Armstrong (1997). Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual
Communities. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press.
Hawkins, R. (2001). The Economics of Free and Open Source Software. 7th International
Conference of the Society for Computational Economics, New Haven, CT. J une 28-29, 2001. 59
References
Hiltz, S. R. (1986). Online Communities: A Case Study of the Office of the Future. New
York, NY, Ablex.
lannacci, F. (2002). "The Economics of Open Source Networks." Open Source Research
Community. Available: <http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/iannacci.pdf>. Accessed: J anuary
10, 2003.
Katz, M., and Shapiro, C. Network Externalities, Competition and Compatibility. American
Economic Review, 75, 3 (1985), 424-440.
Kling, R. (1999). "What is Social Informatics and Why Does It Matter?" D-Lib Magazine. 5
(1). Available: <http://www.dlib. org/dlib/january99/kling/O1kling.html>. Accessed: J anuary
12, 2003.
Kollock, P. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in
Cyberspace. Communities in Cyberspace. M. Smith and P. Kollock. London, Routledge: 220-
239.
Lancashire, D. (2001). "Code, Culture and Cash: The Fading Altruism of Open Source
Development." First Monday. 6 (12).
Available: <http:// www. firstmonday.org/issues/issue6_12/lancashire/index.html>. Accessed:
January 10, 2003.
Lazar, J. and J. Preece (1998). Classification Schema for Online Communities. AMCIS -
Americas Conference on Information Systems, Baltimore, MD. August 14 - 16, 1998.
Madey, G., V. Freeh and R. Tynan (2002). The Open Source Software Development
Phenomenon: An Analysis Based on Social Network Theory. Eighth Americas Conference on
Information Systems, Dallas, TX. August 9-11, 2002.
60
References
Markus, M. L., B. Manville and C. E. Agres (2000). "What Makes a Virtual Organization
Work?" Sloan Management Review 42(1): 13-26.
Millen, D. R. (2000). Community Portals and Collective Goods: Conversation Archives as an
Information Resource. 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui,
Hawaii, |EEE. J anuary 4-7, 2000.
Preece, J. (2000). Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability. New
York, NY, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Raymond, E. S. (2001). The Cathedral and the Bazaar : Musings on Linux and Open Source
by an Accidental Revolutionary. Sebastopol, CA, O'Reilly and Associates.
Stanoevska-Slabeva, K. and B. F. Schmid (2001). A Typology of Online Communities and
Community Supporting Platforms. 34th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, Maui, HI. J anuary 3-6, 2001.
Turoff, M. and S. R. Hiltz (1982) The Electronic J ournal: A Progress Report, J ournal of The
American Society For Information Science, 33, (4).
Wasko, M. M. and R. Teigland (2002). The Provision of Online Public Goods: Examining
Social Structure in a Network of Practice. 23th International Conference on Information
Systems, Barcelona, Spain, AlS. December 15-18, 2002.
Watts, D. (1999). Small Worlds. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.
Watts, D. and S. H. Strogatz (1998). "Collective Dynamics of Small-World Networks."
Nature(393): 440-442.
Wellman, B. (1997). An Electronic Group is Virtually a Social Network. Culture of the
Internet. S. Kiesler. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum: 179-205.
él
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0