Motivation, Governance, and the Viability of Hybrid Forms in Open Source Software Development

By Sonali K. Shah. Management Sciences, 2006

1,004 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Accounting, Communication, Computer Science Applications

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/cb23862c6126ea30513059954464daec2c4adb09

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Communication

In Computer Science Applications

Citations in the corpus

Work Practices and Challenges in Pull-Based Development: The Contributor's Perspective (2014, background): “Contributor motivation is a well explored research topic [35, 56, 34, 46, 2].”
Influence of social and technical factors for evaluating contribution in GitHub (2014, background): “Shah [27] observed that this contribution process also leads to evolution for a developer's level of participation in the project.”
Code Reuse in Open Source Software (2008, background): “See also von Krogh, Spaeth, and Lakhani (2003) and Shah (2006) .”
Managing Distributed Innovation: Strategic Utilization of Open and User Innovation (2012, positive): “Users also gain status and reciprocity benefits from belonging to a community and donating their contributions to it (cf. Shah, 2006).”
Crowdsourcing New Product Ideas over Time: An Analysis of the Dell IdeaStorm Community (2013, background): “At the same time, thousands of software programmers willingly contribute their time to various open source software projects for no tangible rewards (Shah 2006).”
Extending private-collective innovation: a case study (2009, neutral): “Empirical research on the private-collective innovation model is mainly found in the field of open source software development where the focus has been on individual contributors and projects (e.g., Shah, 2006; Baldwin and Clark, 2006; Roberts et al. 2006; Gambardella and Hall, 2006).”
Social Barriers Faced by Newcomers Placing Their First Contribution in Open Source Software Projects (2015, background): “Shah [71] distinguished between two different contributors: need-driven and hobbyists.”
The Role of Participation Architecture in Growing Sponsored Open Source Communities (2008, background): “…source” projects which provide a subset of open source intellectual property rights to a defined sub-groups of customers (West and Dedrick, 2001) or “gated communities” that use open source development processes for a defined population without public release of intellectual property (Shah, 2006).”
Motivational Differences Across Post-Acceptance Information System Usage Behaviors: An Investigation in the Business Intelligence Systems Context (2013, methodology): “…given the richness and comprehensiveness of the RIM concept, we recommend future studies appropriate and validate RIM to other IS-related contexts, especially where intrinsic motivation plays an important role, e.g., IS project development (Shah 2006) and knowledge management (Ko et al. 2005).”
The Core and Cosmopolitans: A Relational View of Innovation in User Communities (2012, background): “First, permeable boundaries allow for membership in multiple communities (Shah 2006).”
Network Exchange Patterns in Online Communities (2011, background): “However, our results are consistent with social explanations from identity and bond theories (Ren, et al. 2007) and other suggestions that norms and obligations (Shah 2006, Wasko and Faraj 2000) are reasons for online community sustainability.”
The open innovation research landscape: established perspectives and emerging themes across different levels of analysis (2016, neutral): “source software development (Shah 2006; von Krogh et al. 2012) that do not necessarily”
Understanding Sustained Participation in Open Source Software Projects (2009, background): “…and peripheral participation levels, we pursued a more fine-grained assessment of participation than what has been attempted to date (e.g., [33, 55]). u sing the quarterly core, active, and peripheral assignments, we classified developers into one of three overall groupings representing three…”