How can Open Source Software Development Help Requirements Management Gain the Potential of Open Innovation: An Exploratory Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key component in successfully managing software products is to properly, and in a timely manner, identify and secure competitive advantage by innovation via feature differentiation. Although open source software (OSS) is not a new idea, several product development companies that operate in a market-driven context have started to use open source solutions as core software components in their products. Adopting open source core components implies a lower degree of control over software development and increased business risk associated with integrating differentiating contributions into the core release stream. Whether and how to adjust the current requirements management practices after the adoption of OSS components to fully benefit from the concept of open innovation has not yet been empirically explored. We outline experiences and challenges related to leveraging open innovation via engaging in OSS identified during 19 interviews with practitioners occupying different roles in the requirements management process at a large company followed by four validation interviews with other practitioners. We then propose a research agenda for requirements and decision management in the open innovation context and suggest which challenges in requirements engineering open innovation affects.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it