Open Source, Open Mind

Christopher Meyer posted an interesting article on the Harvard Business Review, "Why the Stimulus Should Support Open-Source Systems." I found this an interesting perspective:

Open standards are an essential enabler in the development of any shared infrastructure — sixty-cycle alternating current and common plugs for electricity, or a limited number of track gauges for railroads. But the habits of mind that lead to open platforms are not yet widespread with respect to software, and the interests of those with proprietary solutions to sell are very strong.

If you travel, you may question the narrow definition of the 'shared infrastructure' he cites. The fact that your electrical devices can't connect in another country without adaptors and converters is more than irritating; it's a reminder of the insular thought process that humans bring to innovation. In a perfect world, everyone would use a single standard for power supply and plug design. So why doesn't this happen? The simple answer is the logistics of getting every stake holder together to set standards, on a time table that suits the needs of everyone, is more than daunting. We see this in the little microcosms where we work. It always seems easier to get the people in your immediate area together to make a quick decision, than to involve every possible stake holder, intersecting horizontally and vertically through the company, to discuss all viewpoints and create a single strategy. People do this even though they know intellectually that the more comprehensive solution is always better than the narrow one devised by a couple people who share a perspective. Because, hey, it's easier and satisfyingly quicker.

I think there's something else going on, which is instructive for the larger theme of Meyer's post. We seemingly have an inability to accept that exclusivity is not an enduring value proposition, regardless the context. Consider the wide array of power plug configurations. Think of the cost borne by manufacturers of electrical appliances and devices who must cater to each of these variations. There's no apparent advantage of one design over another, yet the design forces cost on the supply chain. Just what advantage did exclusivity confer? Since people and goods crossed international borders before electrical infrastructures were created, we have to assume nations were in the same situation as we find ourselves now: either a belief that others don't matter (insularity) or that our way is better (exclusivity) takes hold and confines the imagination to a short-sighted, self-serving solution.

Meyer argues that when the stakes are high enough (as they are with energy and health care), we have to open ourselves up to being inclusive and sharing technology advancements and standards. I think you can take the argument much farther. Counter-intuitive though it may be to businesses, acting inclusively is always better than protecting exclusivity. We must move beyond the belief that value is derived from owning something no one else has. This is as false as the belief that owning currency -- the bills in your wallet, for instance -- actually has an inherent value. The thing itself has no value; things derive value from the use people make of them.

Imagine we had learned this fundamental lesson as the web was being constructed. It started as a shared resource for programmers and academics using Unix servers. What if the software companies that started connecting to the web also took open source as a fundamental design principle? Designing, coding and testing new applications would be completely different. Software would be robust. Applications would naturally and seamlessly (that paragon of virtue that every software company touts but none deliver) work together. Development would be very rapid, and version releases would be pain-free. OK, so there wouldn't have been a market for system integrators; there were some short-term gains for some companies that would not have existed. But, there are other revenue streams that would have opened up in this alternative reality: how much has it cost the technology industry (and the industries of their clients) for technology to lag market need, for poor implementations and embattled upgrades to cause loss of client loyalty and resistance to upgrades?

Software manufacturers may believe that their value is in the intellectual property of their code. Funny thing, I never knew of a customer who viewed it that way. With every software selection, it comes down to a couple of people looking at each other across a table, with the potential customer trying to answer these questions: Do they understand my business? Can I trust them? In the end, it's just about people, as it always is.