A Dynamic Model of Adoption and Improvement for Open Source Business Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter develops a model of open source disruption in enterprise software markets. It addresses the question: Is free and open source software (FOSS) likely to disrupt markets for enterprise business applications? The conventional wisdom is that open source provision works best for low-level systemoriented technologies while large, complex enterprise business applications are best provided by commercial software vendors. The authors challenge the conventional wisdom by developing a two-stage model of open source disruption in business application markets that emphasizes a virtuous cycle of adoption and lead-user improvement of the software. The two stages are an initial incubation stage (the I-Stage) and a subsequent snowball stage (the S-Stage). Case studies of several FOSS projects demonstrate the model’s ex post predictive value. The authors then apply the model to SugarCRM, an emerging open source CRM application, to make ex ante predictions regarding its potential to disrupt commercial CRM incumbents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".