CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 626Open Source Software InnovationsManagement and Organizational StudiesInnovation and Knowledge Management

Boundary Organizations: Enabling Collaboration among Unexpected Allies

O'Mahony, Siobhán, Bechky, Beth A.·2008·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2189/asqu.53.3.422
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Our research examines how parties challenging established social systems collaborate with defenders of those systems to achieve mutual goals. With field interviews and observations from four community projects in the open-source movement, we examine how these projects collaborated with firms defending proprietary approaches to software development. Drawing on social movement and organizational theory, we explain how challenging parties not only mobilize to achieve their goals but how they are able to transform contestation into collaboration. Open-source projects and firms held divergent interests but discovered areas of convergent interest and were able to adapt their organizing practices to collaborate through the creation of a boundary organization. By showing how boundary organizations help challengers and defenders manage four critical domains of organizing practices—governance, membership, ownership, and control over production—we provide analytic levers for determining when boundary organizations work. At the same time, we reveal the subsequent triadic role structure that unfolded among communities, the boundary organizations they designed, and firms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2189/asqu.53.3.422

Cites

122 of 123 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Davis G. F., 2005, Handbook of Economic Sociology, 2d ed., 478
  2. Fujimura J. H., 1988, Social Problems, Special Issue: The Sociology of Science and Technology, 261
  3. Walker R., 2007, New York Times Magazine, December 16, Section, 6, 76

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
O'Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Davis
  • University of California, Davis (US)
ORCID
Bechky, Beth A.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2008-09
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
422-459
ISSN
  • 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-3815
DOI
10.2189/asqu.53.3.422
OpenAlex
W2112601609
Semantic Scholar
1d9fa169bddd7f4406060b5d217b4df69c8037ea
Cited by
626
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 40 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 42
FWCI
71.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Administrative Science Quarterly (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Open Source Software Innovations
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Management and Organizational Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Innovation and Knowledge Management
Keywords
boundary organizations, collaboration, social movements, open source software, contestation, organizational governance, membership, ownership

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