The role of openness in open collaboration: A focus on open-source software development projects

  • Lee, Saerom (School of Business Administration, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Baek, Hyunmi (School of Media and Communication, Korea University) ;
  • Oh, Sehwan (School of Business Administration, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2018.09.25
  • Accepted : 2019.08.14
  • Published : 2020.04.03


Open-source software development projects are well suited for exploring new ideas and acquiring knowledge from developers outside of the project. In this paper, we examine the impact of external developers on innovation in open-source software development from the perspective of organizational learning theory. We examine the roles of external and internal developers, who "explore" and "exploit," respectively, on the innovation performance of 17 691 open-source software development projects whose data is stored in the GitHub platform. The results indicate that a multifaceted strategy, in which the exploitation successfully supports the exploration, is most effective for their success. The results also indicate that the role of exploration decreases after the release of the software.


Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea


  1. S. L. Brown and K. M. Eisenhardt, The art of continuous change: Linking complexity theory and time-paced evolution in relentlessly shifting organizations, Administrative Sci. Quarterly 42 (1997), no. 1, 1-34.
  2. F. T. Rothaermel and D. L. Deeds, Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development, Strategic Manag. J. 25 (2004), no. 3, 201-221.
  3. S. S. Levine and M. J. Prietula, Open collaboration for innovation: Principles and performance, Organization Sci. 25 (2013), no. 5, 1414-1433.
  4. S. Chengalur-Smith and A. Sidorova, Survival of open-source projects: A population ecology perspective, in Proc. Int. Conf. Inf. Syst., Seattle, WA, USA, 2003, 782-787.
  5. A. Lima, L. Rossi, and M. Musolesi, Coding together at scale: GitHub as a collaborative social network, in Proc. AAAI Int. Conf. Weblogs Social Media, Copenhagen, Denmark, July 2014, pp. 31-40.
  6. S. R. Lee, H. M. Baek and J. J. Jahng, Governance strategies for open collaboration: Focusing on resource allocation in open source software development organizations, Int. J. Inf. Manag. 37 (2017), no. 5, 431-437.
  7. M. Markus. The governance of free/open source software project: Monolithic, multidimensional, or configurational? J. Manag. Governance 11 (2007), no. 2, 151-163.
  8. W. Scacchi and C. Jensen, Governance in open source software development projects: Towards a model for network-centric edge organizations, DTIC Document, 2008.
  9. J. Hahn, J. Y. Moon, and C. Zhang, Emergence of new project teams from open source software developer networks: Impact of prior collaboration ties, Inf. Syst. R. 19 (2008), no. 3, 369-391.
  10. Z. L. He and P. K. Wong, Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis, Org. Sci. 15 (2004), no. 4, 481-494.
  11. J. G. March, Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning, Org. Sci. 2 (1991), no. 1, 71-87.
  12. L. Dabbish et al., Social coding in GitHub: Transparency and collaboration in an open software repository, in Proc. ACM Conf. Comput. Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, WA, USA, Feb. 2012, pp. 1277-1286.
  13. B. Perens, The open source definition. Open sources: Voices from the open source revolution, O'Reilly & Associates, Inc., Sebastopol, CA, USA, 1, 1999, pp. 171-188.
  14. G. Gousios and D. Spinellis, GHTorrent: GitHub's data from a firehose, in Proc. IEEE Working Conf. Mining Softw. Repositories, Zurich, Switzerland, June 2012, pp. 12-21.
  15. A. Kieser, N. Beck, R. Tainio, Rules and organizational learning: The behavioral theory approach, Handbook of Organizational Learning and Knowledge (M. Dierkes, A. Antal, J. Child and I. Nonaka, eds.), Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.
  16. B. Levitt and J. G. March, Organizational learning, Annu. Rev. Soc. 14 (1988), no. 1, 319-338.
  17. N. Argyres, Capabilities, technological diversification and sivisionalization, Strategic Manag. J. 17 (1996), no. 5, 395-410.<395::AID-SMJ826>3.0.CO;2-E
  18. G. Ahuja and C. M. Lampert, Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions, Strategic Manag. J. 22 (2001), 521-543.
  19. M. J. Benner and M. Tushman, Process management and technological innovation: A longitudinal study of the photography and paint industries, Administrative Sci. Quarterly 47 (2002), no. 4, 676-707.
  20. G. Dowell and A. Swaminathan, Entry timing, exploration, and firm survival in the early US bicycle industry, Strategic Manag. J. 27, (2006), no. 12, 1159-1182.
  21. R. Katila and G. Ahuja, Something old, something new: A longitudinal study of search behavior and new product introduction, Academy Manag. J. 45 (2002), no. 6, 1183-1194.
  22. A. Nerkar, Old is gold? The value of temporal exploration in the creation of new knowledge, Manag. Sci. 49 (2003), no. 2, 211-229.
  23. L. Rosenkopf and A. Nerkar, Beyond local search: Boundary spanning, exploration, and impact in the optical disk industry, Strategic Manag. J. 22 (2001), no. 4, 287-306.
  24. R. Belderbos et al., Technological activities and their impact on the financial performance of the firm: Exploitation and exploration within and between firms, J. Product Innovation Manag. 27 (2010), no. 6, 869-882.
  25. S. Jayanthi and K. K. Sinha, Innovation implementation in high technology manufacturing: A chaos-theoretic empirical analysis, J. Operat. Manag. 16 (1998), no. 4, 471-494.
  26. A. Nerkar and P. W. Roberts, Technological and Product market experience and the success of new product introductions in the pharmaceutical industry, Strategic Manag. J. 25 (2004), no. 8-9, 779-799.
  27. B. Van Looy, T. Martens, and K. Debackere, Organizing for continuous innovation: On the sustainability of ambidextrous organizations, Creativity Innovation Manag. 14 (2005), no. 3, 208-221.
  28. A. Phene, K. F. Lindquist, and L. Marsh, Breakthrough innovations in the US biotechnology industry: The effects of technological space and geographic origin, Strategic Manag. J. 27 (2006), no. 4, 369-388.
  29. J. S. Sidhu, H. R. Commandeur, and H. W. Volberda, The multifaceted nature of exploration and exploitation: Value of supply, demand, and spatial search for innovation, Org. Sci. 18 (2007), no. 1, 20-38.
  30. F. Perretti and G. Negro, Mixing genres and matching people: A study in innovation and team composition in Hollywood, J. Organizational Behavior. 28 (2007), no. 5, 563-586.
  31. J. A. Chatman, Improving interactional organizational research: A model of person-organization fit, Academy Manag. Rev. 14 (1989), no. 3, 333-349.
  32. M. Osterloh and S. Rota, Open source software development - Just another case of collective invention? Res Policy 36 (2007), no. 2, 157-171.
  33. F. Rullani and L. Frederiksen, Individual interaction and innovation capabilities: Exploration and exploitation in open source software communities, in Proc. DRUID Summer Conf. Opening Innovation: Strategy, Organization Technol., London, UK, June 2010, pp. 1-52.
  34. J. Howison and K. Crowston, Collaboration through open superposition: A theory of the open source way, MIS Quarterly 38 (2014), no. 1, 29-50.
  35. G. B. Voss and Z. G. Voss, Strategic ambidexterity in small and medium-sized enterprises: Implementing exploration and exploitation in product and market domains, Org. Sci. 24 (2013), no. 5, 1459-1477.
  36. V. Gilsing and B. Nooteboom, Exploration and exploitation in innovation systems: the case of pharmaceutical biotechnology, Res. Policy 35 (2006), no. 1, 1-23.
  37. M. L. Tushman and C. A. O'Reilly III, Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change, California Manag. Rev. 38 (1996), no. 4, 8-29.
  38. D. A. Levinthal and J. G. March, The myopia of learning, Strategic Manag. J. 14 (1993), no. S2, 95-112.
  39. A. E. Eiben and C. A. Schippers, On evolutionary exploration and exploitation, Fundamenta Informaticae 35 (1998), 35-50.
  40. O. Baysal and A. J. Malton, Correlating social interactions to release history during software evolution, in Proc. Int. Workshop Mining Softw. Repositories, Mineapolis, MN, USA, May 2007, pp. 1-8.
  41. Q. Tu, Evolution in open source software: A case study, in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Soft. Maintenance, San Jose, CA, USA, Oct. 2000, pp. 131-142.
  42. A. Mockus, R. T. Fielding, and J. Herbsleb, A case study of open source software development: The Apache server, in Proc. Int. Conf. Soft. Eng., Limerick, Ireland, June 2000, pp. 263-272.
  43. G. Ahuja and C. Morris Lampert, Entrepreneurship in the large corporation: A longitudinal study of how established firms create breakthrough inventions, Strategic Manag. J. 22 (2001), no. 6-7, 521-543.
  44. K. Crowston, H. Annabi, and J. Howison, Defining open source software project success, in Proc. Intern. Conf. Inf. Syst., Seattle, WA, USA, Dec. 2003, pp. 1-14.
  45. H. Baek and S. Oh, Identifying the network characteristics of contributors that affect performance in open collaboration: Focusing on the GitHub open source, J. Soc. e-Business Studies 20 (2015), no. 1, 23-43.
  46. V. Dhar and E. A. Chang, Does chatter matter? The impact of user- generated content on music sales, J. Interactive Marketing 51 (2009), no. 4, 300-307.
  47. W. Duan, B. Gu, and A. Whinston, The dynamic of online word-ofmouth and product sales: And empirical investigation of the movie industry, J. Retailing 84 (2008), no. 2, 233-242.
  48. R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny, The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 51 (1986), no. 6, 1173-1182.