Collaboration Through Open Superposition: A Theory of the Open Source Way1
Abstract
This paper develops and illustrates the theory of collaboration through open superposition: the process of depositing motivationally independent layers of work on top of each other over time. The theory is developed in a study of community-based free and open source software (FLOSS) development, through a research arc of discovery (participant observation), replication (two archival case studies), and theorization. The theory explains two key findings: (1) the overwhelming majority of work is accomplished with only a single programmer working on any one task, and (2) tasks that appear too large for any one individual are more likely to be deferred until they are easier rather than being undertaken through structured team work. Moreover, the theory explains how working through open superposition can lead to the discovery of a work breakdown that results in complex, functionally interdependent, work being accomplished without crippling search costs. We identify a set of socio-technical contingencies under which collaboration through open superposition is likely to be effective, including characteristics of artifacts made from information as the objects being worked on. We demonstrate the usefulness of the theory by using it to analyze difficulties in learning from FLOSS in other domains of work and in the IS function of for-profit organizations.
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?
Coordination is often informal and decentralized in OSS settings, shaped by fluid team composition and voluntary participation.
“coordination is often informal and decentralized in OSS settings, shaped by fluid team composition and voluntary participation (Howison and Crowston 2014, Lindberg et al. 2016).”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot  (2024) · cites this paper as Howison and Crowston 2014
Peripheral developers often participate intermittently in project activities.
“because peripheral developers often participate intermittently in project activities (Howison and Crowston 2014, Krishnamurthy et al. 2016)”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot  (2024) · cites this paper as Howison and Crowston 2014
Core developers are more embedded in focal projects and maintain sustained involvement, while peripheral developers contribute more sporadically, leading to limited project familiarity.
“In the OSS community, core developers are more embedded in focal projects and maintain sustained involvement (Setia et al. 2012), while peripheral developers contribute more sporadically (Howison and Crowston 2014, Krishnamurthy et al. 2016), which leads to their limited level of project familiarity.”
From The Impact of Generative AI on Collaborative Open-Source Software Development: Evidence from GitHub Copilot  (2024) · cites this paper as Howison and Crowston 2014
Cites
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 · Cited by 18,666 · see citing works
Hartley, J. (2004) · Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research · doi:10.4135/9781446280119.n26 · Cited by 15,461 · see citing works
The interdisciplinary study of coordination
Malone, T. W., & Crowston, K. (1994) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/174666.174668 · Cited by 3,504 · see citing works
Self-citation10 Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of Technology, Work and Organization
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211644 · Cited by 2,571 · see citing works
Barley, S. R. (1986) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2392767 · Cited by 2,315 · see citing works
Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci1523_4 · Cited by 1,983 · see citing works
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
Incentives and Problem Uncertainty in Innovation Contests: An Empirical Analysis
Boudreau, K. J., Lacetera, N., & Lakhani, K. R. (2011) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.1110.1322 · Cited by 830 · see citing works
Digital materiality? How artifacts without matter, matter
Leonardi, P. M. (2010) · First Monday · doi:10.5210/fm.v15i6.3036 · Cited by 351 · see citing works
Sarker, S., & Sahay, S. (2004) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000485 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
Self-citationThe 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
Maruping, L. M., Daniel, S. L., & Cataldo, M. (2019) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2019/13928 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
The Impact of Ideology Misfit on Open Source Software Communities and Companies1
Daniel, S. L., Maruping, L. M., Cataldo, M., & Herbsleb, J. (2018) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.25300/misq/2018/14242 · Cited by 58 · 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
“On the other hand, peripheral developers often contribute to projects on an irregular or part-time basis (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2006, Howison and Crowston 2014).”
BackgroundMethodThe sustainability of open source commons
Curto-Millet, D., & Corsín Jiménez, A. (2023) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2022.2046516 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Foster, D., & Germonprez, M. (2026) · Information Systems Journal · doi:10.1111/isj.70060
- Authors
- Howison, J., & Crowston, K.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- U.S. National Science Foundation (US)
- Venue
- MIS Quarterly
- Publisher
- MIS Quarterly
- Published
- 2014-03-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 29-50
- ISSN
- 0276-7783 (ISSN-L)
- 2162-9730
- OpenAlex
- W24762504
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 24.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- MIS Quarterly (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 › Communication › Knowledge Management and Sharing
- Keywords
- collaboration, free and open source software, task delegation, search costs, information artifacts, organizational learning, information systems function
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
