@article {862, title = {Getting Clear About Communities in Open Innovation}, journal = {Industry \& Innovation}, volume = {15}, year = {2008}, month = {4/2008}, pages = {223 - 231}, author = {Joel West and Lakhani, Karim} } @inbook {868, title = {Movement Ideology vs. User Pragmatism in the Organizational Adoption of Open Source Software}, booktitle = {Computerization Movements and Technology Diffusion: From Mainframes to Ubiquitous Computing}, year = {2008}, pages = {427-452}, publisher = {Information Today}, organization = {Information Today}, address = {Medford, NJ}, author = {Dedrick, Jason and Joel West}, editor = {Kraemer, Kenneth L. and Elliott, Margaret} } @article {863, title = {The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities}, journal = {Industry \& Innovation}, volume = {15}, year = {2008}, month = {4/2008}, pages = {145 - 168}, author = {Joel West and Siobhan O{\textquoteright}Mahony} } @article {877, title = {Seeking Open Infrastructure: Contrasting Open Standards, Open Source and Open Innovation}, journal = {First Monday}, volume = {12}, year = {2007}, month = {06/2007}, author = {Joel West} } @conference {881, title = {Value Capture and Value Networks in Open Source Vendor Strategies}, booktitle = {40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS{\textquoteright}07)}, year = {2007}, pages = {176 - 176}, publisher = {IEEE}, organization = {IEEE}, address = {Waikoloa, HI, USA}, isbn = {0-7695-2755-8}, author = {Joel West} } @article {891, title = {Challenges of open innovation: the paradox of firm investment in open-source software}, journal = {R\&D Management}, volume = {36}, year = {2006}, month = {06/2006}, pages = {319 - 331}, abstract = {

Open innovation is a powerful framework encompassing the generation, capture, and employment of intellectual property at the firm level. We identify three fundamental challenges for firms in applying the concept of open innovation: finding creative ways to exploit internal innovation, incorporating external innovation into internal development, and motivating outsiders to supply an ongoing stream of external innovations. This latter challenge involves a paradox, why would firms spend money on R\&D efforts if the results of these efforts are available to rival firms? To explore these challenges, we examine the activity of firms in open-source software to support their innovation strategies. Firms involved in open-source software often make investments that will be shared with real and potential rivals. We identify four strategies firms employ

}, author = {Joel West and Gallagher, Scott} } @article {886, title = {Scope and Timing of Deployment: Moderators of Organizational Adoption of the Linux Server Platform.}, journal = {International Journal of IT Standards Research}, volume = {4}, year = {2006}, month = {7/2006}, pages = {1-23}, abstract = {

\ Market selection of product compatibility standards has long been explained through aggregate positive-feedback theoretical models of economic utility. Explaining aggregate patterns of organizational standards adoption requires two additional steps \— not only differences between organizations, but also differences within organizations.

Here we present a qualitative study of how organizations do (or do not) adopt a new computer server platform standard, namely Linux using PC-compatible hardware. While discussions of Linux typically focus on its open source origins, our respondents were primarily interested in low price. Despite this relative advantage in price, incumbent standards enjoyed other advantages identified by prior theory, namely network effects and switching costs.

We show when, how and why such incumbent advantages are overcome by a new standard. We find that Linux adoption within organizations began for uses with a comparatively limited scope of deployment, thus minimizing network effect and switching costs disadvantages. We identify four attributes of information systems that potentially limit the scope of deployment: few links of the system to organizational processes, special-purpose computer systems, new uses and replacement of obsolete systems. We also identify an organizational level variable \— internal standardization \— which increases scope of deployment and thus the attractiveness of the incumbent standard.

}, author = {Joel West and Dedrick, Jason} } @inbook {900, title = {A Conceptual Model for Enterprise Adoption of Open Source Software}, booktitle = {The Standards Edge: Open Season}, year = {2005}, pages = {51-62}, publisher = {Sheridan Books}, organization = {Sheridan Books}, address = {Ann Arbor, Mich.}, author = {Kwan, Stephen K. and Joel West}, editor = {Bolin, Sherrie} } @article {flosswp166, title = {Contrasting Community Building in Sponsored and Community Founded Open Source Projects}, year = {2004}, month = {September}, abstract = {Prior characterizations of open source projects have been based on the model of a community-founded project. More recently, a second model has emerged, where organizations spinout internally developed code to a public forum. Based on field work on open source projects, we compare the lifecycle differences between these two models. We identify problems unique to spinout projects, particularly in attracting and building an external community. We illustrate these issues with a feasibility analysis of a proposed open source project based on VistA, the primary healthcare information system of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. This example illuminates the complexities of building a community after a code base has been developed and suggests that open source software can be used to transfer technology to the private sector.}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/westomahony.pdf}, author = {Joel West} } @article {flosswp75, title = {How Open is Open Enough? Melding Proprietary and Open Source Platform Strategies}, journal = {RP Special Issue}, year = {2003}, month = {February}, abstract = {Computer platforms provide an integrated architecture of hardware and software standards as a basis for developing complementary assets. The most successful platforms were owned by proprietary sponsors that controlled platform evolution and appropriated associated rewards. Responding to the Internet and open source systems, three traditional vendors of proprietary platforms experimented with hybrid strategies which attempted to combine the advantages of open source software while retaining control and differentiation. Such hybrid standards strategies reflect the competing imperatives for adoption and appropriability, and suggest the conditions under which such strategies may be preferable to either the purely open or purely proprietary alternatives.}, attachments = {https://flosshub.org/sites/flosshub.org/files/rp-west.pdf}, author = {Joel West} } @article {909, title = {How open is open enough? Melding proprietary and open source platform strategies}, journal = {Research Policy}, volume = {32}, year = {2003}, month = {07/2003}, pages = {1259 - 1285}, author = {Joel West} } @article {912, title = {Open Source Standardization: The Rise of Linux in the Network Era}, journal = {Knowledge, Technology \& Policy}, volume = {14}, year = {2001}, pages = {88-112}, abstract = {To attract complementary assets, firms that sponsor proprietary de facto compatibility standards must trade off control of the standard against the imperative for adoption. For example, Microsoft and Intel in turn gained pervasive adoption of their technologies by appropriating only a single layer of the standards architecture and encouraging competition in other layers. In reaction to such proprietary strategies, the open source movement relinquished control to maximize adoption. To illustrate this, we examine the rise of the Linux operating system from 1995-2001, particularly the motivations of organizational buyers and suppliers of complementary assets, and Microsoft?s reaction to its success.}, author = {Joel West and Dedrick, Jason} }