Author Archive for Sam Jordison

Transfer Summit – Innovation Track

I’ve just returned home after a fascinating two days writing the live blog for the Innovation Track, one of three tracks at the TransferSummit, a conference sponsored and organised by OSS Watch. This track was billed as a ‘top-level immersion into the world of open source’. It delivered comprehensively.

Far too much ground was covered to hope to include every detail in a piece like this one. Hopefully, the live blog should demonstrate how informative the discussions were. You can also get a good feel for the breadth of the talks if you click through the links on the TransferSummit programme to look at the speakers’ slides. Here I’ll just aim  to provide a few general impressions.

Keble in the sunshine

The first thing to note is how pleasant the whole event was. Even though I was working hard to keep up with the blog, I enjoyed myself. True, when I had to pull down a blind to stop the strong sun shining on the screen of my laptop, it gave me a slightly sad feeling – but being at the conference still beat being in the office. It was certainly far more interesting than the average day’s work. Indeed, bathed in that sunshine, in the beautiful Victorian Gothic enclosures of Keble College, there was a feeling of respite from the problems of the world.

That’s not to say that delegates didn’t have such troubles in mind, however. The budget cuts faced by projects across the education, public and commercial sectors were clearly causing serious concern.  Even so, the overall atmosphere was optimistic. There was a a definite sense that progress was being made in the arguments for open innovation – and indeed that in a time of financial hardship that case becomes even stronger.

As Steven Pemberton said in his keynote speech, Open Source Is Not Enough!, ‘we are through the first stage’ in getting open innovation technology accepted and now the main task is to make it better.

Of course, there are still difficulties and complexities relating to the use of open innovation. Martin Michlmayr in his talk on The State Of Open Source Licensing and How To Improve It and Mark Taylor in his talk on FOSS Business Models ably demonstrated the tangled wood of licences and legal complexity faced by anyone hoping to launch an open source project – as well as providing a good route through.

It should also be noted that delegates again and again returned to the point that although open innovation may reduce some costs to close to zero, it shouldn’t be seen as a free for all. Andrew Savory, the open source manager for Limo Foundation, stressed in his talk about the Economics Of Innovation In Mobile Technologies, that open source is not an ‘all you can eat buffet’. It works best when the companies that use it give something back. It’s then that it does offer real cost savings, as well as access to reservoirs of talent that couldn’t otherwise be tapped, and an economy of scale begins to build up.

On that note, Steven Pemberton gave the famous example of wikipedia compared to the  hugely expensive Encyclopaedia Britannica of old and how ‘little things’ (such as the many individual wiki contributions) can join together ’to make a big thing better and better’.

The savings that open source software (OSS) can deliver in all sectors were also widely referred to, but one of the most striking examples of its benefits came from the fiercely commercial mobile technology sector. Andrew Savory pointed to the smartphone market, where consumers are demanding ever more features for ever less money, meaning that we have now reached a point where companies are having to invest more than they get back from their technology. So those companies have now started to look more seriously at open source software. They have discovered that it brings not only reduced costs to the acquisition of software, but also reduced costs of access to innovation and - crucially – reduced costs of software ownership (since there is a greatly reduced maintenance burden for true OSS). So it is that HTC has leapfrogged the competition thanks to its use of open innovation.

Clearly there is going to have to be a big cultural shift among companies who are generally secretive, and who are unused to the meritocracy that exists within OSS development, but evidence that OSS is the way forward is beginning to stack up. Andrew also highlighted the Mobile Open Source Economic Analysis white paper, showing that it’s even cheaper for companies to merge early and contribute early to OSS development streams – rather than ‘forking’ off and trying to keep their own innovations with regard to the software to themselves for as long as possible.

Coming back to the question raised by Steven Pemberton, about how to make open innovation work better, there were a number of well-attended talks about how to build up and value communities. Paul Walk of UKOLN stressed the simple importance of giving recognition to the work that developers do and helping them better explain their ideas and projects to the world away from the keyboard. Gianugo Rabellino, the former CEO of Sourcesense told us that if we recognise communities as places ‘where individuals come together to reap a reward …  we come to understand why collaboration works so well – and why people are producing open source software’. Gill Rysiecki gave excellent practical examples of how the Technology Strategies Board initiative, Knowledge Transfer Partnerships, can help academic developers reach out to the business community – and vica versa. Scott Wilson, the Assistant director of CETIS also made the important point that ‘inclusion and openness depend on collective responsibility’. open source works when people feel they have a stake in it.

In his keynote speech on day two Roland Harwood also gave powerful arguments about the importance of community  - and how effective exchanging ideas with different companies can be – a particularly striking example being how the McLaren Formula 1 team were able to help improve processes in A&E at Great Ormond Street Hospital. To emphasise his point he quoted the proverb: ‘If you want to go fast, go alone, if you want to go far, got together.’

Happily, this latter theme was well demonstrated by the conference itself. The buzz was all about open innovation and how best to achieve it. All the delegates I spoke to were deeply involved in the subject and determined to use the conference to learn as much as they could. They were also eager to make those vital connections with people heading in the same direction. There was just as much debate at lunchtime as there was in the formal talks and plenaries.

Naturally, since this was a gathering of technologists, there was also a lot of interest in the ipads, smartphones and various pieces of kit that people had brought with them. Samuel Klein, speaking as a a volunteer Trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation (who had been re-routed into the Innovation Track after being delayed in Boston),  provided a great firsthand account of the history and development of wikipedia and many of its related projects – and how MediaWiki has scaled up using open source methods.  However, he caused the biggest stir with a demonstration of one of the first new OLPC XOs that also run Gnome, which he had with him as he is also the director of outreach for One Laptop per Child.

Samuel Klein and the new OLPC XO

Yet even when it came to gadgets, the conversation kept coming back to licensing and the openness of various software platforms. My own HTC phone was several times singled out for approval (gratifying for a technological layman such as myself). But it was the arguments rather than the compliments that left the strongest impression. The innovation track had generated a real feeling that open source is only going to become more important in the next few years.

Open Source, Open Development, Open Innovation workshop

A workshop run on December 7 2009.

Introductions

More and more researchers in the UK understand the concept of open innovation and more and more universities say that they support it. A large percentage of them even have a policy to adopt open source software. Even so, the number of open innovation projects running in UK institutions is still low. More clearly needs to be done – both to persuade people to adopt open innovation policies and to enable them to do so.

This workshop was designed to show how open innovation works in practice and how open innovation concepts can be applied to software development. In providing successful working examples of open innovation it also had the side benefit of making a good case for its application. (Although during the course of the day quite a few interesting problems and issues relating to open innovation were also teased out.)

Ross Gardler from OSS watch introduced the day with a brief overview of the work carried out by OSS Watch in running workshops, providing speakers and expertise and advice: “We don’t make decisions – we help others make informed decisions.”

What is open innovation?

Ross also helped define the terms of the day by quickly explaining the principles of open innovation and citing the JISC description of a system that: “involves opening up parts of the development lifecycles for research, teaching and knowledge exchange .. external to the institution… in order to bring new perspectives, resources and collaborative opportunities.”Once these terms were laid down (and after Ross had given the most famous example of open innovation at work – the internet) we moved on to the first talk by Tim Francis from Pera.

How and where does open innovation work?

Tim built on Ross’ concise definitions of open innovation by giving Henry Chesbrough’s famous statement from 2003 that: “Open innovation is the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively…”He followed with examples of companies that have made use of open innovation practice. These included: InnovationXchange, Innocentive, and Spread Shirt. The common strand tying these examples together – aside from their adoption of open innovation – was their rapid growth and success.Yet, Tim said, there are also serious issues of trust, problems relating to overcoming cultural differences between companies and academia and problems relating to feedback mechanisms within organisations that have tried to adopt open innovation.He cited a report that Pera carried out for JISC earlier this year, which showed that currently “there’s a lot of dissatisfaction.”

Open innovation in the Apache Software Foundation

Fortunately, the next speaker, Bertrand Delacretaz a senior developer at Day Software www.day.com and a member of the Apache Software Foundation was able to declare himself pleased with the way open innovation has helped his work.

Bertrand Delacretaz

The Apache web server, he says, powers 60% of servers around the world “and it relies on open processes and open code and quite a bit of crowd-sourcing.”Bertrand says that a good bit of Apache’s success can be attributed to the quality of the feedback that everyone working on it gets when they have something to add to the programme.

He then gave a detailed description of the feedback processes that the Apache developers use, including mailing lists alerting people when code is committed to the programme’s central repository, events issue trackers, email discussions and automated tests.“It’s really useful,” he said. “It helps develop a shared vision. There’s no scattered information. All decisions are made through mailing list. They get real-time status updates. They can do real-time help requests. It also helps create self-service archives. And the beauty of open-source is that you can do this in collaboration with your users.”

Emerging themes

During the course of this talk (Bertrand has helpfully posted the slides for this on his blog) one of the major themes of the day also began to solidify – that open innovation is not about chaos and throwing away control of projects.

Apache is carefully managed and there are numerous procedures in place to ensure projects have momentum and integrity. So, for instance, new developments will generally have an incubation period during which their direction is determined by much smaller groups of people before they are opened out to the wider community – and there are many safety nets when it comes to inserting new code into programmes.Also emerging by this stage was the question of whether or not open innovation really encouraged new ideas, or whether innovation is actually more often down to a few individuals. Delegates had asked it in different ways of Tim, Bertrand and Ross. Bertrand now answered by saying that open innovation “allows ideas to blossom”. It provides those who have had them with the feedback they need to take them further – and practical help in doing so.

Open innovation in TexGen

Professor Andrew Long from the University of Nottingham gave another example of a successful open innovation project – TexGen.You can get good details about how TexGen works here, but Professor Long also provided some interesting history of its genesis, including the fact that he had to be persuaded to make it open source by some PHD students “of the sandals and Linux” persuasion.

The experience of open source at TexGen appears to have been largely positive. Many more people have downloaded it than would have done were it not freely available – and much more money has come into the project than would have done otherwise. Professor Long cited funding that came in from Unilever and Voith Paper Fabrics for further research, saying he was convinced they wouldn’t have contacted him were it not for the fact that TexGen was open source and the businesses could see what it involved  – and indeed find it more easily in the first place.Professor Long  – although happy to admit he’d like a swimming pool – noted here that money wasn’t the object. It was “a happy spin off of the process” that allowed him to employ more people and do further research. But this financial success does help illustrate one of the points Ross was keen to emphasise throughout the day – that “open innovation is not the opposite of commercialisation.”

Problems in implementing open innovation

After the presentations, delegates were presented with a self-assessment exercise (which you can find here) designed to test how open and sustainable their projects were. As these results show, few scored particularly highly. “Knowledge in our sector is a problem,” concluded Ross. There were also problems relating to legal issues and marketing.

4175886685_951f758f97_o.jpg

Delegates fill in their surveys

Discussion and conclusions

Negative as all that was, delegates did at least all say that the exercise had been helpful and the questions had helped guide their thinking.

More praise for the day emerged during the concluding discussion session and there seemed to be a broad consensus that – as one delegate suggested: “there was a line throughout that shows that open innovation would improve research.”But serious questions were also raised about how to bring about the cultural change that will allow for more open innovation programmes, and how to allow for the recognition and career advancement that academics naturally desire as a result of their work.

The lack of good open source software suppliers was also highlighted. Again the counter-argument emerged that much science depends on individual inspiration rather than group collaboration.Ross actually agreed with this latter point and acknowledged that open innovation may not always be the best fit. “But in other areas it does work,” he said. “The big thing about changing culture is to do it and show that it works.”The workshop had certainly achieved this latter aim, judging from the feedback in the session, and my own conversations with delegates who told me they had been given “plenty to think about and play around with” , given “really interesting pointers” about ways to shape the management structure of open innovation projects “not to mention a bit of inspiration”  and “a lot of interesting approaches to the issue”

But it’s also clear that much more work needs to be done to maximise the potential of open innovation across academia and in software development.