Success in Online Production Systems : A Longitudinal Analysis of the Socio-Technical Duality of Development Projects

Online production systems represent a new and innovative approach for producing information goods. However, the success of such endeavors depends on a careful interrelationship between their social and technical dimensions. In this paper, we explore how various aspects of those dimensions impact the success of online production systems. We collected data from the open source community GNOME and we used the inclusion of a product into an official release as indicator for the success of a project. Our analyses revealed that structural characteristics of the individual project’s communication and task dependency (coordination needs) networks, the position of individuals in the overall ecosystem communication network as well as the technical structure of the product, are all significantly associated with project success. Our novel results represent an important step in understanding the success drivers of online production systems as well as a starting point for reshaping traditional models for producing information goods typically used in corporate settings.

[1]  Marcelo Cataldo,et al.  The impact of geographic distribution and the nature of technical coupling on the quality of global software development projects , 2012, J. Softw. Maintenance Res. Pract..

[2]  Wallace J. Hopp,et al.  The Impact of Misalignment of Organizational Structure and Product Architecture on Quality in Complex Product Development , 2010, Manag. Sci..

[3]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Beyond Wikipedia: coordination and conflict in online production groups , 2010, CSCW '10.

[4]  Audris Mockus,et al.  Software Dependencies, Work Dependencies, and Their Impact on Failures , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[5]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Coordination in collective intelligence: the role of team structure and task interdependence , 2009, CHI.

[6]  A. Iriberri,et al.  A life-cycle perspective on online community success , 2009, CSUR.

[7]  Gino Cattani,et al.  A Core/Periphery Perspective on Individual Creative Performance: Social Networks and Cinematic Achievements in the Hollywood Film Industry , 2008, Organ. Sci..

[8]  Aniket Kittur,et al.  Harnessing the wisdom of crowds in wikipedia: quality through coordination , 2008, CSCW.

[9]  Chen Zhang,et al.  Emergence of New Project Teams from Open Source Software Developer Networks: Impact of Prior Collaboration Ties , 2008, Inf. Syst. Res..

[10]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Socio-technical congruence: a framework for assessing the impact of technical and work dependencies on software development productivity , 2008, ESEM '08.

[11]  David Hinds,et al.  Social Network Structure as a Critical Success Condition for Virtual Communities , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[12]  Soumyananda Dinda.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital and Economic Growth: A Productive Consumption Approach , 2007 .

[13]  Bernardo A. Huberman,et al.  Assessing the value of cooperation in Wikipedia , 2007, First Monday.

[14]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Architectural Misalignment: An Experience Report , 2007, 2007 Working IEEE/IFIP Conference on Software Architecture (WICSA'07).

[15]  James D. Herbsleb,et al.  Identification of coordination requirements: implications for the Design of collaboration and awareness tools , 2006, CSCW '06.

[16]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Structures that work: social structure, work structure and coordination ease in geographically distributed teams , 2006, CSCW '06.

[17]  Gueorgi Kossinets,et al.  Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network , 2006, Science.

[18]  Jin Xu,et al.  A Topological Analysis of the Open Souce Software Development Community , 2005, Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[19]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Structural properties of work groups and their consequences for performance , 2003, Soc. Networks.

[20]  Marko Čupić,et al.  Online communities – Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability , 2003 .

[21]  R. Langlois.  Modularity in technology and organization , 2002 .

[22]  Melissa A. Schilling,et al.  The Use of Modular Organizational Forms: An Industry-Level Analysis , 2001 .

[23]  Yochai Benkler,et al.  Coase's Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm , 2001, ArXiv.

[24]  Jennifer Preece,et al.  Sociability and usability in online communities: Determining and measuring success , 2001, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[25]  Martin G. Everett,et al.  Models of core/periphery structures , 2000, Soc. Networks.

[26]  M. S. Krishnan,et al.  An Empirical Analysis of Productivity and Quality in Software Products , 2000 .

[27]  Rajesh Sethi.  New Product Quality and Product Development Teams , 2000 .

[28]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity Volume 1 , 1999 .

[29]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[30]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The interdisciplinary study of coordination , 1994, CSUR.

[31]  Victor R. Basili,et al.  Analyzing Error-Prone System Structure , 1991, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[32]  W. Marsden.  I and J , 2012 .

[33]  Manuel E. Sosa,et al.  On-Line Supplement To: The Misalignment of Product Architecture and Organizational Structure in Complex Product Development , 2004 .

[34]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  The social structure of Open Source Software development teams , 2003 .

[35]  Dimitrina S. Dimitrova,et al.  Computer Networks as Social Networks: Collaborative Work, Telework, and Virtual Community , 1996 .

[36]  L. Leemis.  Applied Linear Regression Models , 1991 .

[37]  Kevin Crowston,et al.  SURFACE at Syracuse University SURFACE at Syracuse University , 2022 .