Open source and related models

Wal-Mart and Nike can be seen as examples of firms that have established themselves using novel forms of organization and co-ordination, but still centred on what has been termed a command-and-control model. This model is most often associated with military organizations and also with governmental ones, where there is a centralized structure and all communications and decision-making goes through this centre. One of the weaknesses of such an approach is that if anything happens to the central command, or to its ability to communicate with the periphery, then the entire organization can be prevented from operating. In the 1960s the US Department of Defense identified precisely this weakness in its reliance on a centralized structure, and so encouraged the development of what became known as ARPANET – a network of inter-related computer-based communication sites. The technology at the heart of ARPANET became the basis for what we now know as the internet – a network of networks. It is this model and also this technology that has prompted and promoted new forms of organization that have moved away from – or beyond – the command-and-control structure.

The most visible form of this model is probably Wikipedia and the various other forms of Wiki now available. But one of the key building blocks was the open source software movement. We now all rely on software in a whole host of various guises. Software is produced by people who often identify themselves as software engineers, and in the earliest days (1950s) of software development large-scale software was often seen in terms of a major construction project requiring a command-and-control approach to its project management. But since at least the 1970s there have been software engineers who have sought a different approach. This was outlined by F.P. Brooks in 1986 when he argued that instead of thinking about software as something to be built, it might be more useful to think in terms of growing or cultivating software. Large complex software systems could then be seen as things that grew, incrementally in stages, rather than as one-off large-scale constructions. By arguing in this fashion Brooks was countering the view of software development as a large-scale engineering project – almost inevitably managed in a command-and-control manner; instead seeing it as far more untidy and disorganized.

This idea of cultivating software was linked with the idea of developers contributing their efforts for the common good rather than on the basis of some commercial contract or agreement. The idea might not have developed much beyond the confines of this very specialized group without the contribution of Linus Torvalds. Torvalds at the time (1991) was a graduate student who had developed his own operating system, Linux, as part of his studies. He allowed anyone who wished to do so to contribute to this system, revising and enhancing it. From this basis the Linux operating system has flourished into the open source model of development and collaboration. If Torvalds was the initial driving force behind the model, Eric Raymond must be regarded as its chief advocate, supplying the open source manifesto in his paper contrasting the cathedral with the bazaar.

For Raymond the image of a cathedral is a model that conjures up a vast, complex structure developed by people with near-magical skills and powers; Raymond even calls them wizards. These people work in ‘splendid isolation’ developing a product that needs to be completed and fully guaranteed or secured prior to its ‘release’. Raymond contrasts this to ‘a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches … out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles’. Raymond specifically centres his writings on software development, more specifically on software debugging – the process of locating and fixing problems in software-based systems: A process that is truly endless in all commercial systems. The cathedral model relies on a small group of proficient developers working in splendid isolation, only releasing their software to users after extensive and thorough testing – all of which takes time and effort. In stark contrast stands the bazaar-like model, whereby disparate groups and individuals with differing agendas and approaches somehow produce a coherent and stable outcome.

The Linux philosophy is encapsulated in Linus Torvalds’ philosophy as stated by Raymond – ‘release early and release often; delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity’. The result ought to be chaotic and anarchic, a hotchpotch of different versions of software, proliferating to the consternation of developers and the despair of users and customers. Yet precisely the opposite has occurred. Linux has survived, thrived and continues to flourish. Moreover the model has been used and adopted with regard to other activities, although Raymond and many others associated with the open source software community are very hesitant about such claims and developments.

For the purposes of this chapter the bazaar model indicates that it might be possible to undertake even fairly complex development projects without having to resort to command-and-control policies; instead relying largely on voluntary and collaborative involvement. To an extent in such cases there is a level of control and management, but it is carried out in a more distributed and semi-autonomous fashion. People take on tasks and responsibilities because they feel motivated to contribute and exchange their views, their ideas and their efforts. The development of open source software – specifically Linux – has come about on a model based on several principles that at first sight ought not to prove effective or successful; but they have, and they do. The question at this point is can such principles of operation be applied to organizations in 21st century?

One of the key issues, and one that comes through very clearly in Raymond’s description of his own participation in the open source community, is that involvement must at least owe some of its initial impetus to the motivation and enthusiasm of the participant. Peter Drucker is credited with the statement that ‘in the knowledge society we are all volunteers’. This might appear strange to most of the working population who are certainly not engaged in their particular employment voluntarily. In fact Drucker’s saying is more insightful in its complete form: ‘Everyone in the knowledge economy is a volunteer, but we have only trained our managers to manage conscripts’. For our present purposes the key points are developed by Drucker himself in an article for Forbes Magazine in the late 1990s.

What motivates workers -- especially knowledge workers -- is what motivates volunteers. Volunteers, we know, have to get more satisfaction from their work than paid employees precisely because they do not get a pay check. They need, above all, challenge. They need to know the organization's mission and to believe in it. They need continuous training. They need to see results. Implicit in this is that employees have to be managed as associates, partners -- and not in name only. The definition of a partnership is that all partners are equal. It is also the definition of a partnership that partners cannot be ordered about. They have to be persuaded. (Drucker, 1998)

This is clearly at the opposite end of the spectrum from commercial organizations such as Dell, Nike and Wal-Mart. Perhaps these companies would like to think that concepts of partnership, challenge and the like ought to motivate workers; but it is all too obvious that this has little relevance to the vast majority of people’s experience.

On the other hand Raymond’s characterization of the open source model demonstrates many of the features to which Drucker refers. The participants are motivated by the challenge, and the capacity to act as partners. A similar motivational mix can be demonstrated by many organizations operating in the voluntary and civil society sectors – including many NGOs.

It should be noted that this model is really only possible given the existence of the internet. Without such resilient, extensive, and virtually effortless communication the open source community simply would not have been able to develop as far as it did. The arrival of Linux coincided with the point at which the Internet, as a key component of everyday life for a significant and rapidly growing proportion of people, was taking up its central role as the communications technology par excellence. The bazaar model, with its ‘great babbling ... of differing agendas and approaches’, demands constantly available and extensive means of communication and co-ordination. Raymond recognizes this in asserting that: ‘Provided the development coordinator has a communications medium at least as good as the Internet, and knows how to lead without coercion, many heads are inevitably better than one.’ The importance of the internet is not that it allows individuals to talk to each other on an individual basis, but that it affords a forum for exchange and co-operation; with both asynchronous and synchronous interactions.

It should also be noted that this grouping might include co-developers, suppliers, users and advisers. In fact anyone who feels that might have some thing to contribute to the specific task or project. In this case the organization is virtual not merely in the sense of being on-line and taking advantage of ICT, but in the sense of not really existing. Outsourcing and other forms of virtual organization still have an existence as organizations, but at this end of the scale a bazaar-like organization may well have only a fleeting existence for as long as the project or task is relevant.

A further look at Fayol’s five functions indicates how the open source model is distinctive – at least in its most extreme form.

Three of Raymond’s maxims, taken together, summarize the position. ‘The next best thing to having good ideas is recognizing good ideas from your users. Sometimes the latter is better.’ [#11] ‘Often, the most striking and innovative solutions come from realizing that your concept of the problem was wrong.’ [#12] And even more insightfully he states that – ‘Given a large enough beta-tester and co-developer base, almost every problem will be characterized quickly and the fix obvious to someone.’ [#8]

Taken together these offer an outline of a form of organization that is best seen as a loose alliance of interested and motivated people, acting together in ways that may achieve both expected and unexpected purposes and results.

An example of this model, with which you may be familiar, is the Wiki, particularly in the form of Wikipedia. The term Wiki seems to have several meanings and derivations. The word itself means ‘quick’ or ‘fast’ in Hawaiian, and the slogan WikiWiki is apparently used by the shuttle bus company at Honolulu International Airport. It is also claimed that Wiki is an acronym for ‘What I Know Is’. Hence the term has come to denote collaborative efforts where people come together to pool their knowledge and expertise with a minimum of fuss and formality. In many regards the Wiki principles are more easily understood from stating what the Wiki movement is not, rather than what the Wiki movement actually is. Hence the following headings from the Wikipedia entry on Wikipedia itself;

In fact the Wikipedia organizational model relies on a sufficient number of people feeling motivated and enthused to contribute and participate; exactly the same prerequisites that Drucker identifies for volunteers or associates, and that Raymond describes for the Linux participants. Moreover the Wiki philosophy is best seen as cultivation as opposed to construction. The Wiki model and the open source model share a view of organization that is chaotic and disordered, but also more extensive, more accessible, more visible, and more speedily updated and corrected than standard command-and-control centralized organizations.

Many of you will be familiar with Wikipedia, but there are numerous other forms of 'on-line bazaar', with people contributing voluntarily - you can probably name several, and may well already be signed up to sites such as MySpace and Facebook.