Exploring the structure of complex software designs: An empirical study of open source and proprietary code

被引:324
作者
MacCormack, Alan [1 ]
Rusnak, John [1 ]
Baldwin, Carliss Y. [1 ]
机构
[1] Harvard Univ, Sch Business, Boston, MA 02163 USA
关键词
architecture; software; design; product development; modularity; open source;
D O I
10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
This paper reports data from a study that seeks to characterize the differences in design structure between complex software products. We use design structure matrices (DSMs) to map dependencies between the elements of a design and define metrics that allow us to compare the structures of different designs. We use these metrics to compare the architectures of two software products-the Linux operating system and the Mozilla Web browser-that were developed via contrasting modes of organization: specifically, open source versus proprietary development. We then track the evolution of Mozilla, paying attention to a purposeful "redesign" effort undertaken with the intention of making the product more "modular." We find significant differences in structure between Linux and the first version of Mozilla, suggesting that Linux had a more modular architecture. Yet we also find that the redesign of Mozilla resulted in an architecture that was significantly more modular than that of its predecessor and, indeed, than that of Linux. Our results, while exploratory, are consistent with a view that different modes of organization are associated with designs that possess different structures. However, they also suggest that purposeful managerial actions can have a significant impact in adapting a design's structure. This latter result is important given recent moves to release proprietary software into the public domain. These moves are likely to fail unless the product possesses an "architecture for participation."
引用
收藏
页码:1015 / 1030
页数:16
相关论文
共 55 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2001, CATHEDRAL BAZAAR
[2]  
Austin S., 1994, Construction Management and Economics, V12, P445
[3]  
Baldwin C, 2000, Design Rules: The Power of Modularity, DOI DOI 10.7551/MITPRESS/2366.001.0001
[4]   The moderating effects of structure on volatility and complexity in software enhancement [J].
Banker, RD ;
Slaughter, SA .
INFORMATION SYSTEMS RESEARCH, 2000, 11 (03) :219-240
[5]  
BLACK TA, 1990, 3208 MIT SLOAN SCH M
[6]  
Cusumano Michael A, 1998, Competing on Internet Time: Lessons from Netscape and its Battle with Microsoft
[7]  
DELLAROCAS CD, 1996, THESIS MIT CAMBRIDGE
[8]   QUANTITATIVE MODELS OF COHESION AND COUPLING IN SOFTWARE [J].
DHAMA, H .
JOURNAL OF SYSTEMS AND SOFTWARE, 1995, 29 (01) :65-74
[9]  
DiBona C., 1999, Open sources: voices from the open source revolution
[10]   Does code decay? Assessing the evidence from change management data [J].
Eick, SG ;
Graves, TL ;
Karr, AF ;
Marron, JS ;
Mockus, A .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2001, 27 (01) :1-12