The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code
Abstract
This paper reports data from a study that seeks to characterize the differences in design structure between complex software products. We use design structure matrices (DSMs) to map dependencies between the elements of a design and define metrics that allow us to compare the structures of different designs. We use these metrics to compare the architectures of two software products—the Linux operating system and the Mozilla Web browser—that were developed via contrasting modes of organization: specifically, open source versus proprietary development. We then track the evolution of Mozilla, paying attention to a purposeful “redesign” effort undertaken with the intention of making the product more “modular.” We find significant differences in structure between Linux and the first version of Mozilla, suggesting that Linux had a more modular architecture. Yet we also find that the redesign of Mozilla resulted in an architecture that was significantly more modular than that of its predecessor and, indeed, than that of Linux. Our results, while exploratory, are consistent with a view that different modes of organization are associated with designs that possess different structures. However, they also suggest that purposeful managerial actions can have a significant impact in adapting a design’s structure. This latter result is important given recent moves to release proprietary software into the public domain. These moves are likely to fail unless the product possesses an “architecture for participation.”
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Design Rules: The Power of Modularity
Baldwin, C. Y., & Clark, K. B. (2000) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2366.001.0001 · Cited by 3,504
Self-citationOpen source software and the “private-collective” innovation model: Issues for organization science
Hippel, E. V., & Krogh, G. V. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.2.209.14992 · Cited by 2,145
Cited by
Selective revealing in open innovation processes: The case of embedded Linux
Henkel, J. (2006) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2006.04.010 · Cited by 759
Boudreau, K. J. (2012) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1110.0678 · Cited by 676
Maneuvering in Poor Visibility: How Firms Play the Ecosystem Game when Uncertainty is High
Dattée, B., Alexy, O., & Autio, E. (2018) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2015.0869 · Cited by 567
Vuori, T. O., & Huy, Q. N. (2016) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0001839215606951 · Cited by 508
Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture
Sangal, N., Jordan, E., Sinha, V., & Jackson, D. (2005) · Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications · doi:10.1145/1094811.1094824 · Cited by 369
Metadata
- Authors
- MacCormack, A., Rusnak, J., & Baldwin, C. Y.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1015-1030
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2116805092
- Cited by
- 718
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 98.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552
- The paper
- MacCormack, A., Rusnak, J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2006). Exploring the Structure of Complex Software Designs: An Empirical Study of Open Source and Proprietary Code. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.