The following is a presentation that explores the roles entrepreneurs take in a private-collective community. The focus is on how entrepreneurs position themselves structurally, maintain diverse ties to understand a community, and develop a shared language and contribute to a private-collective community within the framework of an open entrepreneurship business model.

1. Open Entrepreneurship:
Exploring the Role of Entrepreneurs in a
Private-Collective Community
Paul M. Di Gangi, Ph.D., Security+, CISSP
Robin Teigland, Ph.D.
Zeynep Yetis
Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the faculty of Aalto University and the Copenhagen Business School for their valuable feedback. We
would also like to extend a thank you to the participants of the OUI (MIT), Open Innovation Workshop (Imperial), Academy of Management
2012, ASONAM 2012, and Sunbelt 2012 Conferences. Lastly, we would like to particularly highlight Eric von Hippel, Ajey Mehra, and Tomas
Larsson for their unique contributions towards improving this manuscript.

2. Overview
Introduction & Background Motivation
Theory & Research Question Social Capital
Research Methodology & Results OpenSimulator
Discussion & Limitations Contributions
Thank You!

3. Business Models
• Definition
– “The conceptual foundation that determines how an
organization creates and captures value.” (Johnston et al., 2008)
• Purpose
– Develops the Boundary of the Firm (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006)
• Articulates vision for value creation
• Provides guidance for the value creation processes / strategy

4. Business Model Evolution
Growth of ICTs (Wagner & Majchrzak, 2006-7)
New Forms of Organizing (Chesbrough, 2003; 2006)
User-driven Innovation (von Hippel, 1988; 2005; Di
Gangi & Wasko, 2009)
Closed Open
?
2/6/2013

5. Private
- Collective Model
A network comprised of
individuals, organizations, and/or interested parties who
share resources to privately produce a public good that
accomplishes a personal and shared goal.
(adapted from von Hippel & von Krogh, 2003,
Kollack, 1998; 1999; Lerner & Tirole, 2002)

6. Motivations
(von Krogh et al., 2012)

7. Private-Collective Communities
Organization (Dahlander & Wallin, 2006; Dahlander &
Magnusson, 2008, Chesbrough, 2006; West & Gallagher, 2006)
User (von Hippel, 2005; Shah, 2006; von Krogh et al., 2012)

8. Entrepreneurs Present in PCC’s
Teigland, Di Gangi, and Yetis
(Under Review – Information Systems Research)
Entrepreneur: Definition
• Variety of Definitions (Howarth et
al., 2005; Stevenson, 2006)
Any individual who founds an
organization for the purpose of
obtaining economic benefits
through the sale or use of his/her
product and/or service.
(Adapted from Shane & Venkataraman, 2000)

9. Private-Collective Model: Intellectual
Property Appropriation
Free Revealing Intellectual Property

10. Social Capital Theory
Social relationships and social capital are an
important influence on the development of intellectual
capital.
(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998; Wasserman & Faust, 1994; Coleman, 1988; Gulati &
Garguilo, 1999)
Structural Relational Cognitive
Systems of
Actor Connections Actor Bonds
Meaning

11. RQ
How do Entrepreneurs contribute to building
social capital within a Private-collective
Community?
• How do Entrepreneurs position themselves?
• How do Entrepreneurs contribute to the community?
• How do Entrepreneurs shape the culture of the
community?

12. Overview
Introduction Motivation
Theory & Research Question Social Capital
Research Methodology & Results OpenSimulator
Conclusions Contributions
Thank You!

13. Exploratory Case Study
Two Time Periods (2007-2009)
& (2009 – 2011)

14. OpenSimulator Member Demographics
P1
2007 - 2009
P2
2009 - 2011

15. Structural Capital
• Definition
– The properties of the social system and of the network as a
whole that describes the impersonal configuration of linkages
between actors in a network. (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998)
– Absence or Presence of Ties (Scott, 1991; Wasserman & Faust, 1994)
– Density of Ties (Tichy et al., 1979)
•Measures
– Overall Network Density (Whole Network Structure)
– Individual Centrality (Eigenvector, Closeness, and Degree)
– Structural Holes (Bridge Relationships)

16. Relational Capital
• Definition
– The assets, information artifacts, and/or actions taken by
individuals to establish actor bonds. (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998;
Hakansson & Snehota, 1995)
– Understanding of Expectations, Obligations, and/or
Identification (Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1997; Granovetter, 1985; Nahapiet &
Ghoshal, 1998; Putnam, 1993)
•Measures
– Heterogeneity of Ties (Holistic Understanding of Actors)
– Turnover Roles (Maintaining Institutional Norms)

17. Cognitive Capital
• Definition
– The shared representations, interpretations, and meanings
of systems among individuals in a network. (Cicourel, 1973;
Giddens, 1974)
– Shared language, code, and narratives that act as boundary
spanning objects to foster collaboration (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998)
•Measures
– Textual Analysis of Distribution Lists (Language)
– Intellectual Property Contributions (Shared Code Objects)

18. Social Network Analysis
Using tie data from distribution lists, created
a network model of community with Actor
Type as attribute data (UCINET)
ANOVAs

19. Textual Analysis
Word Burst: Identifies the words most characteristic of a certain
person or group focusing on words over-represented in a sample or
portion of text compared to the entire text using the “probabilistic
generative model” (Kleinberg, 2004)
Yetis, Teigland, & Di Gangi (2013)

20. Semi-structured Interviews
For Validation and Contextualization of Findings
21 Interviews

21. Structural Capital Period One
Period Two
As a group, central to the
network across time periods.

22. Structural Capital .11 Network Density
.05 Network Density

23. Structural Capital Actor Group Degree Closeness Betweenness Eigenvector
Structural
Hole
Academic Emp 9.56/6.50 46.77/43.55 0.90/1.63 9.30/9.33 22.67/14.21
Entrepreneur 11.85/9.23 48.70/46.55 1.53/2.51 11.47/13.44 27.83/20.00
Hobbyist 7.39/5.69 45.84/44.34 0.580.65 7.87/9.26 17.41/12.33
Periphery 1.07/1.09 37.78/36.86 0.03/0.03 1.37/2.31 2.51/2.35
Large Firm Emp 10.34/5.32 48.10/33.15 1.04/0.54 10.75/9.42 24.33/11.64
Non-profit Emp 6.78/7.55 46.84/43.37 0.15/0.82 7.77/10.43 16.67/16.5
Pub-fed Emp 9.96/6.60 47.43/45.49 1.08/0.59 9.70/10.00 23.00/15.00
Pub-local Emp 5.63/6.60 46.75/45.20 0.20/0.53 7.27/8.71 13.50/14.00
Research Inst
6.49/NA 47.53/NA 0.13/NA 8.44/NA 15.00/NA
Emp
SME Emp 6.47/6.45 45.64/45.85 0.54/0.20 7.23/12.08 15.13/14.33
Entrepreneurs are positioned to receive information quickly,
near important members of the community, and bridging
disparate sections of the community across time periods.

24. Relational Capital Node Size = Heterogeneity Score
Period One Period Two
Entrepreneurs maintain the most diverse ties (social glue) in the
community to ensure a wide variety of perspectives are received.

25. Relational Capital
Entrepreneurs act as “Greeters” for new members in terms of
recruitment, information guidance, and training.

26. Cognitive Capital August 2007 - September 2009 October 2009 – October 2011
Stakeholder Active Core Ohloh Top 20 Active Core Ohloh Top 20
Affiliation Developers Committers Developers Committers
# Inds % Total # Inds % Total # Inds % Total # Inds % Total
1-Academic 2 10% 2 10% 1 8% 1 5%
2-Entrepreneur 8 40% 11 55% 7 58% 9 45%
3–Hobbyist 4 20% 2 10% 2 17% 6 30%
4-Large Firm 3 15% 3 15% 2 17% 4 20%
5–Non-profit 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
6-Local Public 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
7–Federal Public 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
8-Research Inst 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
9-SME 3 15% 2 10% 0 0% 0 0%
Total 20 100% 20 100% 12 100% 20 100%
Entrepreneurs are the largest contributing
group of the core developers and the
overall community to the code repository.

27. Period One (2007-2009)
Cognitive Capital Academics Entrepreneur Hobbyist Large Firm SME
inventory state debug availabletype portability
user join osg processing openid
really obscures saving file metadata
servers night succeeded worlds asset
think pages osgrid users userserver
server scene shape mathematics inventoryserver
millions region guest center regionserver
region believe functions tree script
addresses physics guests wrote goods
different prerouting grid next class
inventoryserver core value approach executed
modules currency build computer assets
grid incoming sims rest assetbase
agent
service
revision
opencurrency
project
allow
attachments
asset
inform
cable
Period Two (2009-2011)
Academics Entrepreneur Hobbyist Large Firm SME
hg we bulletsim updates admin
wifi state wiki sciencesim item
master established pm trust megaregions
Entrepreneurs are info join documents testclient prims
scholar never bots queue viewer
focused on real-world robust night part adaptive megarion
timeout pages testclient voice trees
applications and regionstore scene next dsg add
freeswitch region kins pronounced linkedin
ensuring development university believe wise bots scalable
activities are relevant to version
line
obsolete
physics
outfit
documentation
viewer
simian
names
inventory
a diverse membership. connector
lgpl
core
modules
authority
install
appearance
packet
root
robot
migration currency users retransmit sequence

28. Overview
Introduction Motivation
Theory & Research Question Social Capital
Research Methodology & Results OpenSimulator
Conclusions Contributions
Thank You!

29. Contribution
• Role of Entrepreneurs in Private-collective Communities
– Broadens existing view on key actors in a private-collective
community.
– Entrepreneurs play a crucial role in the development of the
community, particularly towards creation of intellectual capital.
• Entrepreneurship Literature
– Importance of online communities to entrepreneurs as a form of
organizing (“Open Entrepreneurship Model”)
– Dialectical view of entrepreneurs as individuals who pursue both self
and collective interests (Van de ven et al., 2007)
• Intellectual Property Rights Appropriation
– Regardless of Licensing (BSD), OSS Philosophy Lives

30. “Open Entrepreneurship”
Entrepreneurs openly engaging in social capital building
activities through free revealing of intellectual property
and contribution of other resources with purpose of
pursuing self business-related interests while contributing
to pursuit of mutual goals.

31. Limitations
• Generalizability
– Case Study approach – 1 private-collective community
• eZ Systems (3rd Round Review: Information & Organization)
• Case Study vs. Quantitative Approach
– Lack of survey or alternative quantitative approach to test causality
of findings
• Historically low response rate from OSS; two year engagement to build
social capital with key members to potentially follow up with a
quantitative survey

32. Thank You
Connect
Recommend