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

Management Science

Volumn 52, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 1015-1030

  MacCormack, Alan ^a   Rusnak, John ^a   Baldwin, Carliss Y ^a  

^a HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

Architecture; Design; Modularity; Open source; Product development; Software

Indexed keywords

LINUX; MODULARITY; MOZILLA; OPEN SOURCE;

CODES (SYMBOLS); COMPUTER ARCHITECTURE; COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEMS; COMPUTER SOFTWARE; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 33745595061     PISSN: 00251909     EISSN: 15265501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1060.0552     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Austin, S. A., A. N. Baldwin, A. Newton. 1994. Manipulating the flow of design information to improve the programming of building design. Construction Management Econom. 12(5) 445-455.
2. Baldwin, C. Y., K. B. Clark. 2000. Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
3. Banker, R. D., S. A. Slaughter. 2000. The moderating effects of structure on volatility and complexity in software enhancement. Inform. Systems Res. 11(3) 219-240.
4. Black, T. A., C. H. Fine, E. M. Sachs. 1990. A method for systems design using precedence relationships: An application to automotive brake systems. Working Paper 3208, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
5. Cusumano, M., D. Yoffie. 1998. Competing on Internet Time. Free Press, New York.
6. Dellarocas, C. D. 1996. A coordination perspective on software architecture: Towards a design handbook for integrating software components. Ph.D. thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
7. Dhama, H. 1995. Quantitative models of cohesion and coupling in software. J. Systems Software 29 65-74.
8. Dibona, C., S. Ockman, M. Stone, eds. 1999. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution. O'Reilly and Associates, Sebastopol, CA.
9. Eick, S., T. L. Graves, A. F. Karr, J. S. Marron, A. Mockus. 2001. Does code decay? Assessing the evidence from change management data. IEEE Trans. Software Engrg. 27(1) 1-12.
10. Eppinger, S. D., D. E. Whitney, R. P. Smith, D. Gebala. 1994. A model based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res. Engrg. Design 6(1) 1-13.
11. Fernandez, C. I. G. 1998. Integration analysis of product architecture to support effective team co-location. Masters thesis, Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
12. Fleming, L., O. Sorenson. 2004. Science as a map in technological search. Strategic. Management J. 25 909-928.
13. Garlan, M., D. Shaw. 1996. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, New York.
14. Godfrey, M., Q. Tu. 2000. Evolution in open source software: A case study. Proc. 16th IEEE Internat. Conf. Software. Maintenance, IEEE, Los Alamitos, CA.
15. Gomes, P. J., N. R. Joglekar. 2004. The costs of coordinating distributed software development tasks. Working paper, School of Management, Boston University, Boston, MA.
16. Grose, D. L. 1994. Reengineering the aircraft design process. Proc. 5th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Sympos. Multidisciplinary Anal. Optim., Panama City Beach, FL.
17. Healy, K., A. Schussman. 2003. The ecology of open-source software development. Working paper, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
18. Henderson, R., K. B. Clark. 1990. Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Admin. Sci. Quart. 35(1) 9-30.
19. Idicula, J. 1995. Planning for concurrent engineering. Research report, Gintic Institute, Singapore.
20. Kusiak, A., N. Larson, J. Wang. 1994. Reengineering of design and manufacturing processes. Comput. Indust. Engrg. 26(3) 521-536.
21. Lopes, C. V., S. K. Bajracharya. 2005. An analysis of modularity in aspect oriented design. Proc. 4th Internat. Conf. Aspect-Oriented Software Development, Chicago, IL, 15-26.
22. MacCormack, A. D. 2001. Product-development practices that work: How Internet companies build software. Sloan Management Rev. 42(2) 75-84.
23. MacCormack, A., K. Herman. 2000a. Red Hat and the Linux revolution. HBS Case 600-009, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
24. MacCormack, A., K. Herman. 2000b. Microsoft Office 2000. HBS Case 600-023, Harvard Business School, Boston, MA.
25. Marples, D. L. 1961. The decisions of engineering design. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 8(2) 55-71.
26. Mockus, A., R. T. Fielding, J. D. Herbsleb. 2002. Two case studies of open source software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Trans. Software Engrg. Methodology 11(3) 309-346.
27. Murphy, G. C., D. Notkin, W. G. Griswold, E. S. Lan. 1998. An empirical study of static call graph extractors. ACM Trans. Software Engrg. Methodology 7(2) 158-191.
28. Offutt, A. J., M. J. Harrold, P. A. Koltee. 1993. A software metric sytem for module coupling. J. Systems Software 20 295-308.
29. O'Reilly, T. 1999. Lessons from open source software development. Comm. ACM 42(4) 33-37.
30. Parnas, D. L. 1972. On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Comm. ACM 15(12) 1053-1058.
31. Paulson, J. W., G. Succi, A. Eberlein. 2004. An empirical study of open-source and closed-source software products. IEEE Trans. Engrg. 30(4) 246-256.
32. Pimmler, T. U., S. D. Eppinger. 1994. Integration analysis of product decompositions. Proc. ASME Sixth Internat. Conf. Design Theory Methodology, ASME, New York.
33. Pinkett, R. 1998. Product development process modeling and analysis digital wireless telephones. Masters thesis. MIT, Cambridge, MA.
34. Raymond, E. S. 2001. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. O'Reilly and Associates, Sebastopol, CA.
35. Rivkin, J., N. Siggelkow. 2005. Patterned interactions in complex systems: Implications for exploration. Management Sci. Forth-coming.
36. Rusnak, J. 2005. The design structure analysis system. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Boston, MA.
37. Rusovan, S., M. Lawford, D. Parnas. 2005. Open source software development: Future or fad? J. Feller, B. Fitzgerald, S. A. Hissam, K. R. Lakhani, eds. Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
38. Sanchez, R., J. T. Mahoney. 1996. Modularity, flexibility, and knowledge management in product and organization design. Strategic Management J. 17 63-76.
39. Sanderson, S., M. Uzumeri. 1995. Managing product families: The case of the Sony Walkman. Res. Policy 24(5) 761-782.
40. Sangal, N., E. Jordan, V. Sinha, D. Jackson. 2005. Using dependency models to manage complex software architecture. Proc. 20th Annual ACM Conf. Object-Oriented Programming, Systems, Languages, Appl. ACM, New York.
41. Schach, S. R., B. Jin, D. R. Wright, G. Z. Heller, A. J. Offutt. 2002. Maintainability of the Linux Kernel. IEE Proc. Software, Vol. 149. IEE, Washington, D.C., 18-23.
42. Schilling, M. A. 2000. Toward a general modular systems theory and its application to interfirm product modularity. Acad. Management Rev. 25(2) 312-334.
43. Selby, R., V. Basili. 1988. Analyzing error-prone system coupling and cohesion. Technical Report UMIACS-TR-88-46, CS-TR-2052, University of Maryland Computer Science, College Park, MD.
44. Sharman, D., A. Yassine. 2004. Characterizing complex product architectures. Systems Engrg. J. 7(1) 35-60.
45. Shaw, M., D. Garlan. 1996. Software Architecture: Perspectives on an Emerging Discipline. Prentice Hall, New York.
46. Simon, H. A. 1962. The architecture of complexity. Proc. Amer. Philos. Assoc. 106 467-482.
47. Sosa, M. E., S. D. Eppinger, C. M. Rowles. 2003. Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. ASME J. Mech. Design 125 240-252.
48. Sosa, M. E., S. D. Eppinger, C. M. Rowles. 2004. The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development. Management Sci. 50(12) 1674-1689.
49. Spear, S., K. H. Bowen. 1999. Decoding the DNA of the Toyota production system. Harvard Bus. Rev. (September-October) 96-106.
50. Steward, D. V. 1981. The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans. Engrg. Management 28 71-74.
51. Sullivan, K. J., W. G. Griswold, B. J. Cai, B. Hallen. 2001. The structure and value of modularity in software design. Proc. Joint Eur. Software Engrg. Conf./Foundations Software Engrg., ACM, New York.
52. Thebeau, R. E. 2001. Knowledge management of system interfaces and interactions for product development processes. Masters thesis, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
53. Ulrich, K. T. 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Res. Policy 24 419-440.
54. von Hippel, E. 1990. Task partitioning: An innovation process variable. Res. Policy 19 407-418.
55. von Hippel, E., G. von Krogh. 2003. Open source software and the "private-collective" innovation model: Issues for organizational science. Organ. Sci. 14(2) 209-223.
56. Warfield, J. N. 1973. Binary matricies in system modeling. IEEE Trans. Systems, Management, Cybernetics 3 441-449.
57. Yu, L., S. R. Schach, K. Chen, G. Z. Heller, J. Offutt. 2006. Maintainability of the kernels of open-source operating systems: A comparison of Linux with FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. J. Systems Software. Forthcoming.