Our quest to define, own and control ideas limits our ability to progress. This is the war cry of open source enthusiasts. Our capitalist indoctrination and the command and control structure within our institutions have a hard time accommodating this.
It is not so much that these opposing views are at different ends of the same spectrum, the fact is they operate on completely different tracks and there are few bridges linking the two.
There are many points where the two tracks follow different paths. A good example is the blind conviction of command and control structures that if we find something that works on a small scale we need to scale up in order to achieve greater profits and return. This is not to say that scaling up is wrong, or does not have its place; it is the approach that is fundamentally flawed.
From a command and control point of view it is important to control the inputs in order to control the outputs. Scaling up allows an organization to reach economies, streamline operations and ultimately control processes. This works ok in situations where resources are infinite or at the very least not scarce. It also assumes that the outputs are universally demanded and relevant. We are increasingly finding that resources are scarce, people are searching against need and objectives and new markets are organizing themselves differently.
The open source philosophy sees this differently. They will not argue against the need for scale, but the approach to scale is different. In order for something to scale efficiently the process must be opened up. Through opening up the process , each contributor is able to use what has been built so far and add to it in a way that makes it relevant to their needs, objectives, resources, experience, context and knowledge. The scale element comes from sharing and building upon existing knowledge through an open model. In simple terms this equates to taking the elements that work successfully within a localized solution and applying those while changing specific elements that relate to context, resources, needs, learning styles and so on. Often when we scale up universally we lose many of the elements that led to success in the first place.
I know what you’re thinking: ‘this is specific to software’. If we consider that software is produced in order to facilitate solutions to problems, to satisfy needs or attain objectives, rather than for the sake of producing software, we can see how this philosophy can be universally relevant.
One of the barriers to understanding and adopting the open source philosophy is the need for profit or revenue generating models. If I give something away for free, how am I going to make money? The answer lies in changing the focus of commerce away from: ‘How can I get people to buy my product or service?’ to ‘How can I service people’s needs, objectives and demands?’. The open source approach looks at creating the right environment in order to provide relevant, contextual solutions, products and services that people are looking for, or that meet their needs and available resources.
There are numerous examples of open source initiatives that are doing just that. Ken Bank’s FrontlineSMS is a great example with its global adoption across thousands of separate initiatives, all based upon his open source software but adjusted to fit specific purposes and solutions, from development projects to larger spin offs such as Frontline SMS Medic and FrontlineSMS:Credit.
There are many examples out there. Feel free to add yours here. I would love to hear your views on the subject.
Photo by: bre pettis
a well articulated post, Alasdair. personally, inasmuch as i understand some counter-arguments against the disruptive characteristics surrounding the open source approach as you pointed out (i.e., profit, revenue generation) it is worth underscoring some of the benefits which it engenders: collaboration, knowledge-share, aggregation, etc. all of which provide opportunities not only to innovate but also cultivate a level playing field in which a multitude of talent can participate. essentially, i find the philosophical principles of open source to be quite indicative of the current movement of the social web—something which many of us are acutely aware, are very keen on monitoring and are contributing to shape. thanks for the share
@autom Thanks for your usual thought out contribution. I am with you when you liken the open source philosophy to the current movement of the social web. This way of organising, collaborating, creating content, knowledge and developing skills appears, at times, to be fundamentally at odds with how big business historically operates. It is important to recognising that the one philosophy is not at war with the other. The end goals and objectives remain the same, namely profit, business sustainability and the fulfilment of purpose. The divergence happens in the approach and the understanding that resources are scarce, needs are not constant, and consumers are more able to act on their expectations.
Thanks for the shout out! This is a great article. Ironically, we just announced at Africa Gathering in London that CreditSMS has officially become FrontlineSMS:Credit, the third iteration of the FrontlineSMS family. Although http://www.creditsms.org is till up and running (for the moment), our new site is http://credit.frontlinesms.com.
Thanks again! Please don’t hesitate to contact us for any questions, comments, suggestions, etc.
Cheers,
Ben
Hi Ben. Indeed I enjoyed your talk at Africa Gathering. I have corrected the post to say FrontlineSMS: Credit, thanks for the correction.
Best
Alasdair
Good post, Alasdair, much of which resonates with me. Your comments on scale in particular are spot on. This is a topic I’ve blogged about quite a bit over the years, and the crazy obsession many people have with their “if it doesn’t scale it has no value” doctrine. With FrontlineSMS we speak about “horizontal scaling”, i.e. through replication. Big systems on big servers are not always the way forward, and trying to push small-scale initiatives that way tend to destroy all that was good – and successful – about them in the first place. You also make this point.
In addition to the end-user uses of FrontlineSMS, it’s been very interesting to see the spin-off initiatives, namely FrontlineSMS:Medic and the new FrontlineSMS:Credit. There are others in the works. As you say, if you release and let go, and truly collaborate (and inspire, encourage and support) then interesting things happen.
It’s comforting to know that there are people out there, such as yourself, who share many of my own personal views. Maybe we’re not wrong after all!
Ken
@Ken Thanks for adding your wisdom. Indeed I read much of what you write and can thank you for many insights on the subject. One thing you have demonstrated, and it seems so obvious, yet is not always understood, is the value of your open source software is not in its immediate revenue, or in the case of development objectives, immediate solutions. (it is given away free after all) The value (profit, revenue or delivering objectives) comes from the situations the software enables or creates.
I love this Alasdair. For once, no other comment xo