Recomendados
Recomendados
Mais conteúdo relacionado
Mais de F789GH
Mais de F789GH (13)
Último
Último (20)
Barriers to Open-Source Software Adoption: Review and Synthesis
- 1. Barriers to Open-Source Software Adoption: Review and Synthesis Dmitrij Petrov (Univ. of Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany) Nikolaus Obwegeser (Aarhus University, Denmark) ISD 2018 Sweden – S19 Methodology and Modelling Lund, Friday, 24th of August 2018, 9:30-10:00
- 3. Background • Free & Open Source Software (FOSS) characteristics: • access to the source code • creation of derived works • free redistribution • approved FOSS licence • Fitzgerald (2009): FOSS is a “very viable alternative” that boosts innovation
- 4. Study aim • Review existing literature and provide a comprehensive overview of reported challenges that inhibit adoption of FOSS • Our study’s key differentiators: • all organizations in a global context • adoption and integration of FLOSS in applications and development processes • primary adoption – firms' initial adoption decision at the managerial level
- 5. Methodology • Literature Review: • Scopus, FlossHub, Google Scholar yielded ~ 4000 papers • Iterative quality appraisals led to 44 papers (2003-2016) which were thoroughly analyzed • Qualitative study: • General inductive approach to find dominant themes • Extracted codes – “inhibitor matrix” – were categorized through TOE(I) framework >50 low- and high-level barriers
- 7. Barriers • Technological Challenges • Support by the FOSS communities and vendors • Vendor lock-in • Maturity (& longevity) of FOSS solutions • Integration problems • Organizational Challenges • Lacking financial and human resources (TCO, …) • Lacking reasons to switch • Legal responsibility • Organizational size
- 8. Barriers • Environmental Challenges • Unsupportive policies & hidden politics • Public opinion • Power distance between champions and decision makers • Type of industry & market • Individual Challenges • Lack of FOSS champions/boundary spanners • Productivity killer • Resistance
- 9. Discussion • Implications for • Researchers: strengthening our knowledge baseline • Managers: a holistic overview of issues to think about (in advance) • More research needed into: • How to address all obstacles, one by one • How to establish a “continued use” • Why is FOSS on infrastructure level more adopted than on desktop/client PC level
- 10. Conclusion • In-depth analysis of 44 articles published between 2003-2016 • FOSS adoption remains unequal because: • Economic, geographic and cultural differences • Maturity of the industry (incl. regulatory/legal frameworks) • What is the order of tackling the barriers ? All at the same time or step-by-step. 1) Environmental 2) Technological and Organizational 3) Individual
- 11. References • SSRN Pre-print: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3138085 • Fitzgerald (2009): Open Source Software Adoption: Anatomy of Success and Failure. 1-23 https://www.igi- global.com/gateway/article/2768 • Okoli, C., Schabram, K. (2010). "A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review of Information Systems Research," Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10 (26). http://sprouts.aisnet.org/10- 26 • Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, xiii-xxiii.
Notas do Editor
- And so I will begin with a very short introduction to this Open Source. Later, it will transition into our study aims and goals that we have hoped to understand better. Next, I will continue of course with the research methodology and results that we have been able to derive. And finally I will look into some plausible directions for the future research and will conclude this presentation.
- Now, I think at this conference the concept of FOSS is very familiar to you. Compared to the Prop. Software it has some - to a degree unique - characteristics, with the most important one having access to the source code which you can change, and later share it with the community. FOSS has in recent decade become a topic of a great significance and interest. Not coincidently has Fitzerland already in 2009 stated that it has become a very viable alternative to the proprietary software. Not only there have been a lot of vendors such as Redhat, but also foundations and programmers who create, support and contribute to FOSS. Resulting from this, there have been a number of foundational OSS projects such as Linux Kernel or Android OS, on which many other FOSS programs depend. In many IT-driven companies, think about giants such as Google, Netflix or Facebook, adopting FOSS as well as releasing formerly proprietary projects under the FOSS license has been seen as strategically important for the company. And that not only for its survival in the marketplace but mainly for gaining new users and traction to use the products. And as we know, it is not just the private sector where FLOSS can shine. In fact, FLOSS can also be used in the public sectors, e.g. to accommodate open source principles in the governmental procurement processes. Red Hat in 2012: first one billion USD company 2015 xxx & xxx said “strategic initiative” Vienna, Munich, Barcelona
- Now, unfortunately, adopting any kind of technology is not easy and is rather a long term process because as we know it from the TAM, there are 2 beliefs that need to go hand in hand: the perceived usefulness of the technology and perceived easy to use. When these two are in agreement and support each other, a user may develop a behaviour intention and subsequently uses the technology. However, as the practise has shown us in many cases such as e.g. city of Munich, there are a lot of challenges ahead – in principle – obstacles. And these either prevent or make it harder for the user to develop a long-term intention to use FOSS because the perceived usefulness and simplicity of use is not good enough when compared to proprietary products or his or her current behaviour. And so, as the use, quality, and availability of open-source have risen dramatically and can be today considered as a matured concept, there is a stream of literature which analyses adoption challenges in various contexts and from different angles. In fact, even though the literature often provides a large list full of various advantages, the adoption of FLOSS continues to be lagging behind and is broadly speaking rather low. And having such a gap in our understanding, our question was what (!!!!!!!) essentially hinders the broader FLOSS adoption in organizations? With this study, we have aimed to review existing literature and provide a comprehensive overview of reported challenges that inhibit adoption of FLOSS in companies More specifically, we have tried to delimit ourselves on … -instead of applying limitations frequently used in other studies such as specific countries, industries -Secondly, we have concentrated our effort on barriers of adopting new development practices within an organization (Inner Source), creating a relationship with communities or publishing internally developed software as FLOSS -And lastly, our objective in this study was to investigate the challenges that managers and other decision makers perceive in their initial reasoning about FLOSS adoption; not bottom up
- OK, now coming briefly to the research meth. As the title of the paper says we conducted a literature review and a qualitative synthesis of the collected information. The initial search in 3 databases with various keywords have yielded us about 4000 different papers to investigate. After two quality appraisals and snowballing of additional resources, we have finally identified 44 papers which were read in-depth to uncover dominant, or significant themes with relation to FLOSS adoption barriers. So, during close readings of all articles, we have performed open coding to extract labels for key inhibiting challenges from 44 articles, leading to develop a concept matrix, what we call an inhibitor matrix. And to have some sort of “summary” themes, we have categorized our inductive codes based on the technology, organization and environmental (TOE) framework, which has acted as our lenses into the environment. In fact, TOE framework has demonstrated its usefulness in a variety of studies aiming to understand how organizations adopt technological innovations and so we choose it because it has suited well our research objectives. A number of researchers dealing with TOE concept have also proposed to incorporate a fourth dimension, namely the “individual”, because without it, it lacks a focus on the individual adopter. Thus, we have additionally extended it to provide us a structured way for the synthesis of research. Now, as result of inductive analysis and open coding, which we used to compile “inhibitor” matrix, we have listed over 50 different barriers.
- No, worries, there is no need to read what is written here. This is just to show you how does – what we call the inhibitor matrix – looks like. I will now go over each of 4 categories and introduce them more in-depth.
- And I will begin with the first two of them. For each category I selected about 3 or 4 most frequently mentioned ones and to which I will talk about. Quality, security and privacy of FLOSS solutions This is particularly relevant in mission-critical sectors such as in finance, healthcare or for public institutions. This challenge is strongly related with the quality of software
- Why I am worth so much less and why doesn’t company want to spend more money on me.
- Would for instance this order be the right way ?