How do Open Source software companies respond to institutional pressures? A business model perspective

Abstract

Purpose Open Source software companies (OSSCs) are confronted with institutional pressures from Open Source software (OSS) communities. They must find an acceptable balance between the expectations of these communities and their own business model. However, there are still few studies that try to analyse the OSSC business models. The purpose of this paper is to highlight OSSC typical business models by using rich empirical data. Design/methodology/approach The methodology is based on a combination of quantitative analysis of a sample of 66 OSSCs and qualitative analysis of three typical situations resulting from that sample. Findings The quantitative study enables the authors to highlight three typical business models. The in-depth study of three typical cases enables the authors to specify these OSSC business models. The authors can distinguish four key dimensions: the relationship developed with the OSS communities, the strategic manoeuvres made, the key resources and competitive positioning. Research limitations/implications The results indicate that it is possible for firms to accommodate both profit and non-profit logics using different strategic manoeuvres to position themselves with regard to the Open Source institutional environment. Such accommodation requires the development of key resources and the adoption of suitable competitive positioning. Practical implications This study allows the authors to highlight two main practical contributions for OSSCs’ directors. First, the different manoeuvres identified may help them to ensure coherence between their strategic choices and the business model chosen. Second, the results can help OSSC founders identify value creation mechanisms more clearly by analysing four key variables. Originality/value This paper provides new insight about OSSCs business models. It aggregates four dimensions that provide a more “fine-grained” analysis of business models, while other studies often emphasise one dimension (usually the regime of appropriability).

Institutional pressure and open innovation: the moderating effect of digital knowledge and experience-based knowledge

“…Emerging markets typically present obstacles for business entities because of the lack of the underlying institutional infrastructure such as access to capital and labor markets (Gatignon and Capron, 2020). Firms wishing to take part in community projects are subject to normative pressures which regularly trigger changes in corporate innovation strategy (Mouakhar and Tellier, 2017). Communities and firms can isolate a subset of convergent interests, therefore create new terms for collaborative innovation (O'Mahony and Bechky, 2008; Mouakhar and Tellier, 2017).…”

Can the OSS-Focused Education Impact on OSS Implementations in Companies? A Motivational Answer through a Delphi-Based Consensus Study

“…[24] determined three typologies of approaches regarding the relationship between OSS design, companies and communities: (1) symbiotic, when a company tries to co-develop itself and the community (2) commensalistic, when the intention of a company is to prosper by using mutual resources that are regularly replenished, although it participates minimally in the development of these resources, and (3) parasitic, when a company only focuses on its own benefits, without considering that its actions might prejudice the community. In addition, according to [25,26], the highest level of association that companies have with the OSS movement happens when organizations take part in OSS communities by performing tasks such as coding software, supporting the community or co-managing the community.…”

“…Moreover, companies can use different types of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). There is a large number of companies that have used OSS-based ICT [26], such as Open solutions for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems. This type of ICT provides significant benefits for companies compared to proprietary ERP, such as (1) lower costs, (2) lower inventories, (3) higher productivity, (4) higher operational efficiency and (5) better competitive advantages [27].…”

Capacité d’absorption des entreprises de l’open source : du modèle d’affaires à l’intention d’affaires

“…Enfin, l'assimilation qui a pour objet d'intégrer et de partager les développements avec les communautés par le biais de deux moyens : allouer des ressources pour gérer les contributions communautaires et publier du code sans importance stratégique pour la firme (Dahlander et Magnusson 2008). La littérature indique également que les compétences d'affaires permettent aux entreprises de répondre aux pressions institutionnelles (Mouakhar et Tellier 2017).…”

“…Celles-ci sont notamment chargées de protéger les commons (droits de propriété intellectuelle et ressources), c'est-à-dire de veiller au respect de l'application des licences, de protéger les marques déposées ou encore de définir les règles en matière de partage de copyright sur le code source produit (Goldman et Gabriel 2005;O'Mahony 2003). Ces différents acteurs définissent ainsi les conditions de la collaboration (boundary conditions) entre entreprises et communautés (Dahlander et Magnusson 2008;Dahlander et Magnusson 2005), faisant ainsi converger leurs intérêts a priori divergents (marchands versus non-marchands) (Mouakhar et Tellier 2017;O'Mahony et Bechky 2008). Pour leur part, des entreprises ont choisi de libérer le code source de certains de leurs produits et ont construit leur proposition de valeur sur des prestations de services (Bonaccorsi et al 2006;Casadesus-Masanell et Llanes 2011;Fuggetta 2003), intégrant ainsi l'open source dans leur stratégie (Comino et Manenti 2011;Fukawa et Zhang 2015).…”