David Ing's Public Library

The basic idea:

A method to select the appropriate management actions in a complex adaptive system based on the degree of certainty and level of agreement on the issue in question.

www.plexusinstitute.org/...main_aides3.html - Preview

stacey agreement certainty zimmerman

Inspired by complexity theory and open source thinking, the Constellation Model provides a framework to help organizations collaborate. The organizing model emphasizes the role of small, self-selecting action teams that operate interdependently, supported by a Stewardship Group. Leadership rotates fluidly among partners, where each partner has the freedom to lead a constellation that matches its profile and skills. The result is a shift from strained partnerships to open and effective collaborations.

This organizing model is a true social innovation. Initially created and refined with the Canadian Partnership for Children’s Health and Environment, the Constellation Model has been replicated and adapted to support the work of a dozen groups. Join Tonya Surman, creator of the model, as she explains how the model works and takes on your collaboration challenge!

This is an ideal workshop for groups that are exploring what kind of a collaboration might work for their project or for learners exploring new models of organizing.

Suggested readings:
http://www.lcsi.smu.edu.sg/downloads/MarkSurmanFinalAug-2.pdf
http://www.osbr.ca/ojs/index.php/osbr/article/view/698/666

socialinnovation.ca/...info - Preview

social innovation constellation surman

By getting rid of copyright friction, Creative Commons creates an opportunity for completely new types of collaborations and enables previously excluded sectors of society to participate. [....]

whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/...g-the-next-level-of-innovation - Preview

creative commons innovation

We identified 12 segments of these workers ...
Administrator
Agent
Aide/apprentice
Buyer
Counselor
Creator
Instructor
Investigator
Manager
Performer
Salesperson
Scientist

whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/...collaboration - Preview

collaboration work manyika

Our research shows that the performance gap between top and bottom companies in collaboration-intense sectors is nine times that of production- or transaction-intense sectors. [....]
For production workers, productivity is readily measured in terms of units of output; for transaction workers, in operations per hour. But for knowledge workers, what might be thought of as collaboration productivity depends on the quality and quantity of interactions occurring. [....]
... improving collaboration is based on the following steps:
1) classify workers by their workflow profile – the daily activities they do to perform their job
2) match new technologies to the workflows to extend collaboration efforts, improve effectiveness, and reduce inefficiencies [....]

We have identified 12 types of collaboration work (see the interactive exhibit, “Collaboration types and tools”).

whatmatters.mckinseydigital.com/...mprove-workforce-collaboration - Preview

collaboration work manyika

Deming inspired reverence among workers and engineers, but he often evoked impatience — even rage — among executives by publicly criticizing corporate practices. Nonetheless, his precepts were adopted by key members of the establishment, because they produced results. [.... ]
Here are seven key strategies that the pioneers of open collaboration have used to succeed in facing these obstacles, along with relevant perspectives from the quality movement.
1. Craft a leadership message.
2. Collaborate with your customers.
3. Build a culture of trust and open communication.
4. Cultivate continuous improvement.
5. Build a flexible innovation infrastructure.
6. Prepare your organization for the new skill sets.
7. Align evaluations and rewards.
[....] But the widespread adoption of open collaboration is not at all a foregone conclusion. Not since the quality movement of the 1980s has a management trend had such potential for widespread transformation of the way companies do business. The biggest obstacle to both movements is that they require deep changes in the way knowledge is controlled and shared — changes that have the potential to alter relationships both within a company and with its outside constituents.

www.strategy-business.com/...09302 - Preview

open source collaboration deming

So, from the users’ perspective nothing really changes. The innovation in commercial open source software is largely on the vendor side of the equation. COSS is a way for a software vendor to leverage the positive aspects of open source – particularly community development – as a way to build a business and defray some of the engineering and sales & marketing costs. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

But, as a user, if you decide to go down the free open source route – especially as a long term decision – you need to be crystal clear on how the vendor is “value adding” their proprietary version. If you don’t, you could be in for a surprise.

blogs.gartner.com/...-source-software-caveat-emptor - Preview

open source commerical

SKU: (1980) WP-324

This report describes the concept of a planning information system which is based on the argumentative model of planning and on the concept of a referral network. The system is meant to be adaptable to the class of planning activities involving many participants.

Horst J. Rittel
May 1980 | 40 pages

iurd.berkeley.edu/...ve_Planning_Information_System - Preview

rittel berkeley ibis argumentation planning

SKU: (1970) WP-131

Issue-Based Information Systems (IBIS) are meant to support coordination and planning of political decision processes. IBIS guides the identification, structuring, and settling of issues raised by problem-solving groups, and provides information pertinent to the discourse. It is linked to conventional documentation systems but also activates other sources. Elements of the system are topics, issues, questions of fact, positions, arguments, and model problems. The logic of issues, the subsystems of IBIS, and their rules of operation are outlined. Three manually operated versions of IBIS are in experimental operation by governmental agencies; computerization of system operations is in preparation.

Werner Kunz and Horst W. J. Rittel
July 1970 | 9 pages

iurd.berkeley.edu/...s_Elements_Information_Systems - Preview

ibis kunz rittel berkeley

The issue map, 1970 style, involved pen and paper (probably those lead-laced black marker pens that made your head spin from the fumes). But over the following years, IBIS was refined and further developed. Many of the components of the 1970’s version were made obsolete by advances in technology and business practices, but Issue Maps in particular, remained. In the 1980’s, the era of personal computers dawned and later pioneers such as Jeff Conklin (who had worked with Rittel from 1984), could see the potential that IBIS had by utilising a computer-based visual display.

Independently from Rittel, Conklin was pursuing ways of capturing design rationale and had created his own notation called ISAAC. He recognized IBIS as the perfect solution when he heard Horst Rittel give a talk about it.

"His IBIS structure was simpler than my ISAAC structure, and his field experience with using IBIS showed that he understood the social and cognitive issues far better than any of us. (Someone asked him what the IBIS process was for making decisions and he replied, "There is none. Decision making is completely context and culture dependent)"

Conklin then adapted IBIS for use in software engineering and created the gIBIS (graphical IBIS) hypertext system to support this use of IBIS. Later Conklin used Rittel’s ideas about wicked problems to help motivate engineers and managers to use gIBIS on their projects. Conklin spent twenty years working with IBIS and sense-making software and systems, and all of that work now culminates today in a software tool called Compendium and a facilitation method called Dialogue Mapping. These days, utilising a projector, Compendium type software, a skilled IBIS practitioner can make a massive difference in helping a group develop a shared understanding and commitment of a problem.

www.cleverworkarounds.com/...actice-to-rule-them-all-part-4 - Preview

ibis gibis rittel conklin

Argument mapping is diagramming the structure of argument, construed broadly to include any kind of argumentative activity such as reasoning, inferences, debates, and cases. Typically an argument map is a “box and arrow” diagram with boxes corresponding to propositions and arrows corresponding to relationships such as evidential support. Argument mapping is similar to other mapping activities such as mind mapping and concept mapping, but focuses on the logical, evidential or inferential relationships among propositions. Argument mapping is concerned with informal reasoning and “real world” argumentation and thus contrasts with the use of diagrammatic techniques in formal logic such as Venn diagrams.

timvangelder.com/...what-is-argument-mapping - Preview

argumentation mapping

The basic categories of business models discussed in the table below include:

* Brokerage
* Advertising
* Infomediary
* Merchant
* Manufacturer (Direct)
* Affiliate
* Community
* Subscription
* Utility

The models are implemented in a variety of ways, as described below with examples. Moreover, a firm may combine several different models as part of its overall Internet business strategy. For example, it is not uncommon for content driven businesses to blend advertising with a subscription model.

digitalenterprise.org/...models.html - Preview

business models rappa

Currently two models of innovation are prevalent in organization science. The "private investment" model assumes returns to the innovator results from private goods and efficient regimes of intellectual property protection. The "collective action" model assumes that under conditions of market failure, innovators collaborate in order to produce a public good. The phenomenon of open source software development shows that users program to solve their own as well as shared technical problems, and freely reveal their innovations without appropriating private returns from selling the software. In this paper we propose that open source software development is an exemplar of a compound model of innovation that contains elements of both the private investment and the collective action models. We describe a new set of research questions this model raises for scholars in organization science. We offer some details regarding the types of data available for open source projects in order to ease access for researchers who are unfamiliar with these, and also offer some advice on conducting empirical studies on open source software development processes.

papers.ssrn.com/...papers.cfm - Preview

von Hippel von Krogh open source collective action

To my mind there are three options:

Option 1: Open-Core but not necessarily OSI™-approved
Companies that are successfully executing an Open-Core model by growing revenue and building community have no need to change what they are doing. However, they should be prepared that any attempt to refer to themselves as an “open source vendor” is going to elicit disapproval, or be prepared to fight the plans to use the OSI to define open source development models and business strategies.

Option 2: The open source core should be released under a more permissive license, or better still via an existing community/foundation in order to benefit from and encourage a collaborative development community. This requires a shift to the community-controlled Open-Core model, as defined by Andrew Lampitt. There are two potential options for monetizing this approach:

Option 2a: Open-Core, paid services
Features currently delivered via proprietary licensing are delivered as a managed service to paying customers. This might sound like a giant step, and it does require something of a leap of faith from both the executives and investors, but I spoke to the CEO of one Open-Core company during OWF which is actively considering shifting its strategy in this way. Remember, you’re not competing on product anymore, you’re competing on service. If you’re good enough you ought to be able to compete with proprietary rivals even if they are using what was your code to build rival products.
.
Option 2b: Open code, proprietary products
Stop kidding yourself that you are an open source vendor and focus your attention on developing the proprietary extensions as a complete product that complements and builds on the open source code. If the proprietary extensions are valuable enough you ought to be able to compete with proprietary rivals even if they are using what was your code to build rival products.

For more discussion on the benefits and challenges of Vendor-controlled and Community-controlled Open-Core, see Andew La

blogs.the451group.com/...e-future-of-open-core-licesing - Preview

open core open source

Andrew recommends referring to the model as Open-Core Licensing, arguing: “My feeling is that we would save a lot of confusion for communities, customers, and vendors if all recognize that a dual license ”open core” model is a sensible business model for all involved,” and that “In this way, it is clear to customers that there is a “core” open source product that is GPL, and there is also additional high-value available as add-on features for purchase.”

Defining the model is important because it should help customers understand the actions and strategies of their vendors and, as Andrew puts it: “If you rename what it is called, you help to remove the “bait and switch” controversy by openly recognizing it as an emerging standard business model with specific attributes associated to it.”

(It is also important to distinguish between Open-Core Licensing and what I would call Embedded Open Source, where the open source code is embedded with a larger commercial package - for example IBM has for many years embedded the Apache HTTP server within its WebSphere middleware, while the Apache Geronimo project forms the basis of its WebSphere Application Server CE product. There is sometimes a fine line between the two models.)

The term Open-Core Licensing (OCL) certainly makes sense to me and I have decided to adopt it for The 451’s forthcoming report on business models related to open source software. I had originally used the term “split licensing” but have decided to switch to OCL as some people use the term “split licensing” interchangeably with “dual licensing”, such as in this research report from the University of Southampton. (Just to confuse things further, Carlo uses “twin licensing” rather than “dual licensing”).

blogs.the451group.com/...tt-defines-open-core-licensing - Preview

open source open core

What the chart indicates is that while vendor-controlled projects remain the preferred approach for VC-backed open source-related vendors, the vendor-controlled approach has declined in the past two years.

Meanwhile following the early dominance of community-controlled projects (a result of the early Linux start-ups), the popularity of community-controlled projects has been rejuvenated in the last couple of years.

Of course, those communities are now dominated by vendors, but they are built on a foundation of collaboration and (there’s no other word for it) community - that is often lacking in many vendor-dominated projects.

Of course, this chart only includes VC-backed open source related vendors so two major constituents of the commercial open source ecosystem are missing: previously proprietary vendors using and contributing open source code, and bootstrapped start-ups.

blogs.the451group.com/...mmunity-controlled-open-source - Preview

open source vendors communities

• Who is Writing Linux?
o Every Linux kernel is being developed by nearly 1,000 developers working for more than 200 different corporations. This is the foundation for the largest distributed software development project in the world.
o Since 2008, the number of individual developers has increased by 10 percent, reflecting the ubiquity of Linux across industries.

• Who is Sponsoring Linux?
o More than 70 percent of total contributions to the kernel come from developers working at a range of companies including Red Hat, IBM, Novell, Intel, Oracle, Fujitsu, among many others. These companies, and many others, find that by improving the kernel they have a competitive edge in their markets.
o Red Hat, Google, Novell, Intel and IBM top the list of companies that employ developers who are reviewing and approving Linux development.

www.linuxfoundation.org/...development-statistics-who-wri - Preview

open source linux

For those who are trying to run an open source business, it is clear that pragmatism, rather than puritanical beliefs, is key to business growth. At MySQL, we used the GPL because we felt it was the best way to achieve our business objectives of creating a popular, affordable database. It turned out we were able to build a substantial business (about $100 million in revenues as a stand-alone company) by offering a subscription model on top of open source software. And we were able to maintain the principle of having an open source database server, thereby giving MySQL users freedom from vendor lock-in.

Venture funding and acquisitions just prove the point: Open source is here to stay, and it will continue to co-exist with proprietary software.

www.infoworld.com/...volving-nature-open-source-212 - Preview

open source

While the romantic open source narrative is failing, Open Source continues to get stronger. And it’s doing so because it is becoming an integral component of modern software businesses. Gartner has been predicting that by 2011, at least 80% of all commercial software solutions will include elements of open source. That prediction is based on our observation that nearly all software vendors are finding ways to weave Open Source Software within, and around, their core offerings. It’s becoming quite common to find open source software that is tightly bound to some proprietary component – either other software or vendor-specific service offerings.

But a word of warning. There is a midpoint as a narrative moves from being relevantly insightful to quaintly nostalgic. And that’s when it’s dangerously distracting – exactly the point where so many find themselves caught in the evolution of Open Source. The fundamental principle upon which this aging narrative has been crafted – that Open Source sits in juxtaposition to proprietary software rather than being connected with it on a continuum – is today a false dichotomy. And the hardcore adherents of that dichotomy are apt to frame it in increasingly ideological terms. In their world you’re either with them or you’re against them.

From my experience it is enterprise IT organizations most likely to be caught up in the dying Open Source narrative. The software vendor community has long since figured out what’s going on. While the latter group sees Open Source through the lens of nuanced strategic objectives and synthesizing engineering endeavours, the former sees Open Source through the lens of a tactical sourcing option. For them it is the anti-proprietary option that can be used selectively to cut cost – quite often as little more than a negotiating tool. Then reality bites. TCO benefits turn out to be elusive. There is no vibrant community to assure the long-term viability of the project. Needed new features require the adoption of a proprietary version. All these proble

blogs.gartner.com/...open-sources-dying-narrative - Preview

open source

Strategy Zero: Denial

Engineering driven strategies

Strategy one: Use
Strategy two: Contribution
Strategy three: Champion

Business driven strategies

Strategy four: Collaboration
Strategy five: Redefinition

competingcooperation.com/?p=23 - Preview

open source