Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development
Abstract
Open source software projects rely on the voluntary efforts of thousands of software developers, yet we know little about why developers choose to participate in this collective development process. This paper inductively derives a framework for understanding participation from the perspective of the individual software developer based on data from two software communities with different governance structures. In both communities, a need for software-related improvements drives initial participation. The majority of participants leave the community once their needs are met, however, a small subset remains involved. For this set of developers, motives evolve over time and participation becomes a hobby. These hobbyists are critical to the long-term viability of the software code: They take on tasks that might otherwise go undone and work to maintain the simplicity and modularity of the code. Governance structures affect this evolution of motives. Implications for firms interested in implementing hybrid strategies designed to combine the advantages of open source software development with proprietary ownership and control are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The broad decentralization and openness of OSS facilitate open collaboration that transcends institutional boundaries yet simultaneously remove resources for accountability and governance.
“The broad decentralization and openness of OSS facilitate open collaboration that transcends institutional boundaries yet simultaneously remove resources for accountability and governance, meaning that successful projects have to build their own approaches [22, 77, 94].”
From Paradoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software (2024) · cites this paper as [94]
Cites
Handbook of Qualitative Research
Crozier, G., Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (1994) · British Journal of Educational Studies · doi:10.2307/3121684 · Cited by 26,636 · see citing works
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455 · see citing works
Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists
Strauss, A. L. (1987) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511557842 · Cited by 12,277 · see citing works
Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research
King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994) · Princeton University Press · doi:10.1515/9781400821211 · Cited by 7,225 · see citing works
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627 · Cited by 7,176 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…evaluation theorists argue that intrinsic motivation is based on feelings of competence and self-determination—feelings supported by feedback in the form of information and rewards from external sources (Boggiano and Pittman 1992; Deci 1971, 1975; Deci et al. 1999; Lepper and Greene 1978).”
BackgroundEffects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Deci, E. L. (1971) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0030644 · Cited by 4,170 · see citing works
Deci, E. L. (1975) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4613-4446-9 · Cited by 2,911 · see citing works
Deci, E. L. (1976) · Organizational Dynamics · doi:10.1016/0090-2616(76)90036-x · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Emergence of Governance in an Open Source Community
O'Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2007.27169153 · Cited by 899 · see citing works
Digital governance: A conceptual framework and research agenda
Hanisch, M., Goldsby, C. M., Fabian, N. E., & Oehmichen, J. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113777 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Beyond the organizational ‘container’: Conceptualizing 21st century sociotechnical work
Winter, S., Berente, N., Howison, J., & Butler, B. (2014) · Information and Organization · doi:10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.10.003 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
What’s coming next? Epistemic curiosity and lurking behavior in online communities
Schneider, A., von Krogh, G., & Jäger, P. (2013) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.09.008 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Review: application of artificial intelligence in phenomics
Nabwire, S., Suh, H.-K., Kim, M. S., Baek, I., & Cho, B.-K. (2021) · Sensors · doi:10.3390/s21134363 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
The Sustainability of Polycentric Information Commons1
Mindel, V., Mathiassen, L., & Rai, A. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14015 · Cited by 90 · see citing works
Acceptance of Monetary Rewards in Open Source Software Development
Krishnamurthy, S., Ou, S., & Tripathi, A. K. (2014) · Research Policy · doi:10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.007 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Maruping, L. M., Daniel, S. L., & Cataldo, M. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13928 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Work-to-rule: the emergence of algorithmic governance in Wikipedia
Müller-Birn, C., Dobusch, L., & Herbsleb, J. D. (2013) · Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies · doi:10.1145/2482991.2482999 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Song, F., Agarwal, A., & Wen, W. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal (preprint) · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4856935 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
“Prior research has focused on benefits of developer participation (Hann et al. 2002, Lakhani and Wolf 2003, Shah 2006, David and Shapiro 2008, Spaeth et al. 2015) but paid limited attention on the potential costs of participation.”
BackgroundMethodParadoxes of Openness: Trans Experiences in Open Source Software
Frluckaj, H., Stevens, N., Howison, J., & Dabbish, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3687047 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shah, S. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shah, Sonali K.
- ORCID
- Shah, Sonali K.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2006-07
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1000-1014
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W2142440840
- Cited by
- 894
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 23 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 50 · 2016: 54 · 2015: 57 · 2014: 64 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 70
- FWCI
- 70.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Management Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Digital Platforms and Economics
- Keywords
- open source software, developer motivation, software governance, voluntary participation, community viability, developer communities, code maintenance
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
