6. Quality-generating sequencing, alongside a paradigm of architectural problem-seeking
Across and along the seven cases on open sourcing while private sourcing (OSwPS) between 2001 and 2011, quality-generating sequencing emerges as the first of three theories, coming alongside a paradigm of architectural problem-seeking.
Figure 6.1 Induction into an emerging theory of quality-generating sequencing
This theory-building is based on the seven cases detailed in Appendix A (summarized in Chapter 4) and the five contexts detailed in Appendix B (summarized in Chapter 5).
6.1 A paradigm of architectural problem-seeking can be seen as articulating structure
OSwPS can be oriented philosophically towards shaping the structure of the environment, and articulating the relations between parts and wholes.
Structure167 can be defined as an arrangement in space, while process is defined as an arrangement in time. Philosophically, mereology168 is the study of parts and wholes, and morphogenesis169 is the synthesis of form. Generalizing morphogenesis from a geometric framing to a coevolutionary framing170 or a network framing171 benefits from a deeper appreciation of systems theory.
Articulating172 can mean simultaneously (i) dividing into parts (i.e. decomposition), and (ii) putting together by joints (i.e. integration). With semiotics, architecture can be seen as articulation of spaces173, with a first articulation as a denotative functional object, and a second articulation as a connotative symbolic object.
Architecture, from a systems perspective, can be seen either as autopoietic174 (i.e. self-reproducing) or allopoietic175 (i.e. produced by something external to the self). Living systems are defined as autopoietic, self-organizing and self-generating; assembly lines are allopoietic, externally-organizing and externally-generating. A theory of architectural autopoiesis includes order176 in both the physical and social senses. The societal function of architecture177 is not just framing, but continuously adapting and reordering. Architecting can be seen as the framing of spatial relations178, not just physically, but also emotionally.
Problem-seeking179 establishes a program in which key stakeholders engage in dialogue to defining the scope and nature of a future innovation. Projects that are information-laden and complex rely on systematic data gathering, analysis and traceability to assure accountability in the resulting brief. Architectural programming180 came to be seen as a problem-seeking inquiry, distinct from design as a problem-solving synthesis of facts. Since “all architecture is design but not all design is architecture”181, distinctions between the roles of an architect and a designer are sometimes unclear. Searching for sufficient clarity in problem definition182 can be separated from solving a problem.
Architectural problem-seeking to deal with complexity may be most natural in ordered modes183, workable in messy modes, and more tenuous for wicked and natural modes. Selecting a focus on one problem over another does not come without consequences. A problem that rises to the top may be self-generated or externally-generated. In comparing architectural problem-seeking to design thinking184, more emphasis is placed on the divergent than the convergent, and more on analysis rather than on synthesis. Articulating choices can create some problem that are viewed more positively than others (e.g. a small company getting swamped by too much demand is a problem that founders could hope to enjoy). Embarking on an architecture of open sourcing leads to one set of problems, while private sourcing leads to another. Engaging in OSwPS introduces complications and/or complexities for organizations and for individuals.
6.2 A theory of quality-generating sequencing emerges alongside architectural problem-seeking
Based on the paradigm described above, the cases on OSwPS lead to proposing a theory of quality-generating sequencing.
Quality-generating185 reaches back into the idea of quality-without-a-name186, with a view forward into generative codes187. Both artefactual and natural things are seen to have objective properties in themselves (i.e. with a nature of autopoiesis), that can be improved with human effort (i.e. with interventions of allopoiesis). A program that is counter to a positive direction could be labelled as quality-degenerating. Within this paradigm, an objective meaning for quality188 should coincide with a common appreciation, either favourable or unfavourable, across casual visitors, inhabitants and craftsmen. In the 1970s, inquiry into the metaphysics of quality followed the popularity of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Approaching the metaphysics of quality with hierarchy theory189, a distinction can made between structural quality as a more static (i.e. horizontal) elaboration of form, and dynamical quality as a more dynamic (i.e. vertical) elaboration of organization.
Sequencing a selection of structural components in one way may not give the same result as sequencing in an alternative way. The unfolding of quality or wholeness over time190 may be related to its composition in a disordered way. There can be a challenge with cross-scale interactions191 in hierarchical organization. In ecology, process can be seen at three levels: (i) the focal scale on which interest is centered; (ii) the larger and more slowly changing scale in which the focal scale is contained; and (iii) the smaller and faster scale that contains the focal scale. In the structuring of buildings, the layers of longevity in built components were originally described as shearing layers.192 Slow constrains quick; slow controls quick.193 In ordering the layers of civilization, “the fast layers innovate; the slow layers stabilize”194. “Fast gets all of the attention, slow has all the power”195. The label for this framework as evolved to become known as pace layering thinking196.
Quality-strengthening sequencing provides a progressive differentiation of space197 through a mindful ordering of decisions to be made. The strengthening of quality may be exhibited through the preserving of wholeness198 across a field of mutually reinforcing centers. For a generative sequence199, centers have to be laid down in an orderly form. An unfolding200 that preserves wholeness from one stage to the next may not be known in advanced, so experimenting and/or testing may be done to identify good sequences and preclude backtracking to recover from bad subsequences. Taking a scientific foundation to architecting has led to a position emerging “objective measures of coherence in complex systems, and the unavoidable relationship between structure, fact, and beauty”201.
6.3 Pattern concerns entailed by quality-generating sequencing include program envisioning, realizing and elaborating
Reflecting across and along the seven case studies from 2001 to 2011 within the paradigm of architectural problem-seeking, some patterns that emerge include (i) program envisioning, (ii) program realizing and (iii) program elaborating. A program is used here in the sense202 of a set of related measures or activities with a particular long-term aim. A program has a purpose and an organization203, more than projects it contains, in a context of a portfolio that contains it. A program has an authoritative mandate204, and may integrate multiple services. In architecture and design205, both problem-seeking206 and problem-solving207 may be involved in developing a program.
6.3.1 Program envisioning entails quality-generating sequencing
Program envisioning208 conceives how possibilities could be created for what a system might and should do, amongst alternative formulations and concepts, trade-off considerations, and organizational issues. In quality-generating sequencing, program envisioning layers in early, as a conception that can align or revise ongoing action. Generative patterns of program envisioning are outlined for three concerns in Table 6.1.
| Pattern label | (b) Selecting those who want the best | (a) Elevating common standards | (c) Levelling the playing field | ||
|
(i) Voices on issues (who and what) |
(a.i) For an enterprise investor, which industry standards are worth backing? while (b.i) For an offering owner, which features enable our entry to be superior to alternatives? while (c.i) For a community adopter, which non-exclusive projects will further anticipated interests? |
||||
|
(ii)Affording value(s) (how and why) |
(b.ii) Engaging the discerning and bourgeois distinctly from the indifferent, to rationally manage scope | (a.ii) Aligning with and influencing specifications, so future non-conformances are pre-empted | (c.ii) Following pre-established community processes, so that voices are equally heard on decisions | ||
|
(iii) Spatio-temporal frames (where and when) |
(b.iii) Segmented preferences are distinct and sustained | (a.iii) Supply of technological improvements is not overshooting demand | (c.iii) Community offering has credibility to attract peers willing to contribute | ||
| (iv) Containing systems | ← | (a.iv) For industry opinion leaders, does the prospective initiative have a future that is credible and viable? | → | ||
| (v) Contained systems | → | (a.v) For a program adopter, does the open sourcing preempt risks of lock-in from private sourcing? | ← | ||
| Concern | Private sourcing only | Open sourcing while private sourcing | Open sourcing only | ||
Let’s focus first on program envisioning with the concern of OSwPS supported by the cases in Chapter 4.
(a) Elevating commons standards is a generative pattern significant across and along all seven cases for the concern of OSwPS. While industry leading organizations may aspire to reach a higher level of quality by forging ahead on an independent de facto standard, a common standard may be satisfied by a variety of implementations. This is most clearly demonstrated in the case of coauthoring, where the Open Document specification was satisfied with implementations by OpenOffice.org and IBM Lotus, as compared to the Office Open XML Strict specification approved by Oasis in 2005 and satisfied209 by Microsoft with the release of Office 2013 in January 2013, and LibreOffice 4.3 in August 2014.
(a.i) For an enterprise investor, “which industry standards are worth backing?” is a driving voice on issues. The quality perceived by customers of offerings evolving with common standards includes credibility of the provider, where doubts are cast when features are later deprecated.
(a.ii) Aligning with and influencing specifications, so future non-conformances are pre-empted is an affording value for the enterprise investor. The quality of delivering an offering suffers without participation in industry standards committees, as development teams have to continually catch up to revisions.
(a.iii) Supply of technological improvements is not overshooting demand is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. The possibility of improving quality has to matter to stakeholders. While advances in technology may allow a provider to push the feasibility of additional features to an offering, the ability to produce enhancements may be overshooting210 the wants and needs of customers and stakeholders.
(a.iv) For industry opinion leaders, does the prospective initiative have a future that is credible and viable? is a containing system for the pattern. Whether it’s a new offering by an industry player or a new standards organization, there have been many good intentions that have never borne fruit. Whether it’s open sourcing, private sourcing or both, bad press may kill a worthwhile idea, but good journalism relies on authoritative sources for facts and opinions.
(a.v) For a program adopter, does the open sourcing preempt risks of lock-in from private sourcing? is a contained system for the pattern. While a customer might prefer to pay for a private sourcing version for reliability and maintainability, having an alternative options mitigates reliance on implemented features available only from a single supplier.
A generative pattern for the concern of private sourcing only (PSo) can be inferred from the research into OSwPS.
(b) Selecting those who want the best is a generative pattern significant for the concern of private sourcing. Unlike public sector programs, the private sector can choose the target audiences that are most profitable to serve. The economics of downward-sloping demand curves means limiting output is correlated with higher prices. Microsoft Office is a commercial product that maintains and enforces copyright.
(b.i) For an offering owner, “which features enable our entry to be superior to alternatives?” is a driving voice on issues. Offerings amongst competitors differentiate on multiple dimensions. The economics of willingness-to-pay amongst funders have to be weighed against cost-to-provide by suppliers.
(b.ii) Engaging the discerning and uncaring for the indifferent, to rationally manage scope, is an affording value for the offering owner. Private enterprise can maintain higher quality offerings by focusing attention on fans, while disregarding deselected customer sets.
(b.iii) Segmented preferences are distinct and sustained is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. Parties may choose to exchange species of capital, and free-riding can be precluded.
A generative pattern for the concern of open sourcing only (OSo) is similarly inferred.
(c) Levelling the playing field is a generative pattern significant for the concern of open sourcing. Participation in the community of a quality-generating offering is not restricted organizationally or economically, as long as licenses and processes are followed. The LibreOffice community formed as a fork of the OpenOffice community, at the threat of control being exerted with the Oracle acquisition of Sun Microsystems.
(c.i) For a community adopter, which non-exclusive projects will further anticipated interests? is a driving voice on issues. Voluntary adoption, membership and contribution to an open sourcing project means that parties can do well by doing good. Collective interests to improve quality need not be incompatible with personal interests.
(c.ii) Following pre-established community processes, so that voices are equally heard on decisions is an affording value for a community adopter. Transparency and predictability are desirable traits that engender participation on collective pursuits.
(c.iii) Community offering has credibility to attract peers willing to contribute is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. Open sourcing communities are living systems, where participation rises and falls as milestones are attained. With maturity, maintenance requires minimal effort, and parties can move on to other challenges.
The three issues around envisioning (i) elevating industry standards, (ii) aiming for superiority amongst the discerning, and (iii) aspiring towards non-exclusivity, incorporate concerns mixed across open sourcing and private sourcing programs. Industry standards can be attained either through voluntary processes, or through de facto adoption through popularization. Superiority may be achieved through a collaboration of the willing, or on a tails of an independent genius. Non-exclusivity may be ruled explicitly, or negotiated case-by-case. The three patterns described are non-exhaustive, and additional ones could be created.
6.3.2 Program realizing entails quality-generating sequencing
Program realizing211 brings the essential nature212 of an identity213 into being. Synthesis can occur in either through a casual (unselfconscious)214 or professional (selfconscious) culture. Realization includes the transcendental and feelings215 coming out of nature, whereas design includes only the measureable. In quality-generating sequencing, a different program may be realized if the order of the constitutive parts changes. Generative patterns of program realizing are outlined for three concerns in Table 6.2.
| Pattern label | (b) Aiming high, you may hit a star | (a) Doing well by doing good | (c) Raising a barn | ||
|
(i) Voices on issues (who and what) |
(a.i) For a community contributor, which balance of commons and private interests outweighs independent action? while (b.i) For an entrepreneur, which strategic bets will lead to superiority over alternatives? while (c.i) For a community participant, is a project showing momentum and attracting participants? |
||||
|
(ii) Affording value(s) (how and why) |
(b.ii) Focusing efforts consistent with defined scope, pre-empting wasteful distractions | (a.ii) Evolving private sourcing extensions, keeping compatibility with open sourcing components | (c.ii) Welcoming voluntary action by both by the experienced and learners-by-doing so participation grows | ||
|
(iii) Spatio-temporal frames (where and when) |
(b.iii) Confidence by investors on incumbency or reputation | (a.iii) Licensing on derivative open works as permissive | (c.iii) Parties (as individuals and/or institutions) are credibly respected as serving common interests | ||
| (iv) Containing systems | ← | (a.iv) For an organization integrating systems, is this initiative showing sufficient momentum to deter defecting to alternatives? | → | ||
| (v) Contained systems | → | (a.v) For a program adopter, are offering interfaces sufficiently accessible and documented to be useful? | ← | ||
| Concern | Private sourcing only | Open sourcing while private sourcing | Open sourcing only | ||
Again, for program realizing, we’ll focus first on the concern of OSwPS, supported by the cases in Chapter 4.
(a) Doing well by doing good216 is a generative pattern significant across and along all seven cases for the concern of OSwPS that realizes achieving social acceptance and/or financial success as a result of behaving in a benevolent manner. In the case of integrating-development, IBM’s cofounding of the Eclipse project and shepherding through formation of the Eclipse Foundation advanced tools available both to commercial and academic institutions. The platform and organization were realized as independent, modular and extensible systems, and enabling reconfiguration to the desirable qualities at hand.
(a.i) For a community contributor, which balance of commons and private interests outweighs independent action? is a driving voice on issues. Open sourcing more can widen adoption and influence standards, while private sourcing more can cater to needs of higher-valuing stakeholders.
(a.ii) Evolving private sourcing extensions, keeping compatibility with open sourcing components is an affording value for a community contributor. Decisions choosing trailblazing versus conforming on specifications can be made over time.
(a.iii) Licensing on derivative open works as permissive is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. Private sourcing based on open source works is practical only when derivative works aren’t covered by sharealike conditions.
(a.iv) For an organization integrating systems, is this initiative showing sufficient momentum to deter defecting to alternatives? is a containing system for the pattern. Beyond the initial promise of a worthwhile vision, the reality of market and societal changes and/or practical difficulties may lead to delays, descoping, or unanticipated emergent options unanticipated at the outset.
(a.v) For a program adopter, are offering interfaces sufficiently accessible and documented to be useful? is a contained system for the pattern. Implementers and end users are less concerned with details inside standards or specifications, and just if they deploy reliably with offering interfaces.
A generative pattern for the concern of PSo is inferred from behaviours around OSwPS activities.
(b) Aiming high, you may hit a star217 is a generative pattern associated with ambition and purpose. The emphasis on the quality of ends over means correlates with private sourcing.
(b.i) For an entrepreneur, which strategic bets will lead to superiority over alternatives? is a driving voice on issues. Investment involves committing to a program with risks that reward may or may not be realized, against other competitors in the race.
(b.ii) Focusing efforts consistent with defined scope, pre-empting wasteful distractions is an affording value for the entrepreneur. Early market entry may establish a de facto standard long before industry committees can converge on a consensus. Winning in the marketplace can make technical victories irrelevant.
(b.iii) Confidence by investors on incumbency or reputation is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. With many opportunities from which to choose, funding on risky programs tends to favour a proven player or a breakthrough innovator.
The generative pattern for the concern of OSo can be similarly inferred.
(c) Raising a barn is a generative pattern for volunteers coming together in realizing cooperation amongst neighbours. Reciprocal work bees218 could occur with regularity and frequency through the agricultural year, including shearing sheep, ploughing the land, picking apples and butchering livestock. In Finland, talkoot cooperation219 has a tradition as multiple or inter-related events where joint work is unpaid, and rewards would be hospitality and enjoyment of shared work.
(c.i) For a community participant, is a project showing momentum and attracting participants? is a driving voice on issues. Programs heavy on talk and light on producing outputs lose members rapidly. The community has to be perceived as having a future with ongoing updates and revisions, or the volunteer resources will move on to alternatives.
(c.ii) Welcoming voluntary action by both by the experienced and learners-by-doing so participation grows is an affording value for community participants. Novices get access to more senior talent, and leaders help shape the skills of more volunteers.
(c.iii) Parties (as individuals and/or institutions) are credibly respected as serving common interests is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. Community members who consistently push an agenda and take more than they give can become shunned.
The three issues around realizing (i) balancing across commons and private interests, (ii) nurturing of strategic bets and (iii) maintaining voluntary momentum, incorporate concerns mixed across open sourcing and private sourcing programs. As time unfolds, the degree to which a program realizes its promise becomes clearer. Reprioritizing concerns can be decided rapidly.
6.3.3 Program elaborating entails quality-generating sequencing
Program elaborating220 works out in detail, finishes or completes a production. After an initial or subsequent release, changes in scale, scope or speed can be framed with an identity ranging from an incremental fix to a distantly-related descendant. Elaborating a program can produce desirable quality improvements generated through internal properties (as autopoiesis) or through external influences (as allopoiesis). Generative patterns for program elaborating are show for three concerns in Table 6.3.
| Pattern label | (b) Migrating the herd to fresh pastures | (a) Cultivating perennial platforms | (c) It’s ready when it’s ready | ||
|
(i) Voices on issues (who and what) |
(a.i) For a program sponsor, which programs elevate platforms, concurring with emerging standards? while (b.i) For an offering manager, what schedule of maintenance updates and chargeable upgrades extend relevance? while (c.i) For a project participant, what additional tangible evolution is evident, as compared to forks and alternatives? |
||||
|
(ii) Affording value(s) (how and why) |
(b.ii) Deprecating legacy features, allowing optimizing operation for contemporary offerings | (a.ii) Extending work on an offering architecture, building on prior infrastructure | (c.ii) Modifying, testing and adopting concrete outputs, so value-in-use is evident | ||
|
(iii) Spatio-temporal frames (where and when) |
(b.iii) Momentum or network lock-in favours incumbency over defection | (a.iii) Reusing proven experiences more pragmatic than reinvention | (c.iii) Continuity through a collective identity maintained by a core group | ||
| (iv) Containing systems | ← | (a.iv) For an independent open sourcing foundation director, are members actively sponsoring community advancements? | → | ||
| (v) Contained systems | → | (a.v) For a program adopter, are releases of updates and fixes timely and sufficient? | ← | ||
| Concern | Private sourcing only | Open sourcing while private sourcing | Open sourcing only | ||
For program elaborating, the concern of OSwPS can be reviewed first, following from the cases in Chapter 4.
(a) Cultivating perennial platforms is a generative pattern significant across and along all seven cases for the concern of OSwPS. Private sourcing can be built on top of open sourcing, while open sourcing – by definition – can not be built on top of private sourcing. The case study on wikiing shows how a platform of collaborative web content sharing relies on open sourcing. The information content that is shared can be readily migrated, reposted and/or derived from the open Internet onto a private intranet, while the reverse requires taking responsibility consistent with authority. With system internals transparent at a foundational level, a variety of players, both commercial and non-commercial, have a platform above which competitive offerings can be built.
(a.i) For a program sponsor, which programs elevate platforms, concurring with emerging standards? is a driving voice on issues. With open sourcing as a non-chargeable alternative, a private sourcing extension has to exhibit extended quality for selection for the commercial version to be selected beyond the industry reference version.
(a.ii) Extending work on an offering architecture, building on prior infrastructure is an affording value for the program sponsor. The cost of a developing and maintaining quality in a common foundation is borne by contributors to the open sourcing community. Higher value features can be offered as private sourcing.
(a.iii) Reusing proven experiences more pragmatic than reinvention is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. Platform adoption is an architectural decision that should not be taken lightly. Reinvention has the potential to lead to new creative directions, but an open sourcing community is normally receptive to reason and dialogue that tends to deter forking.
(a.iv) For an independent open sourcing foundation director, are members actively sponsoring community advancements? is a containing system for the pattern. The governance of an open sourcing community with both corporate and individual members should ensure some fairness on parties both giving to and taking from the community.
(a.v) For a program adopter, are releases of updates and fixes timely and sufficient? is a contained system for the pattern. Under permissive licensing, any party at large can derive existing offerings for their own use, but the attraction of an open sourcing community is the pooling of resources towards formal releases.
The concern of private sourcing only has a generative pattern inferred from behaviours around open sourcing while private sourcing activities.
(b) Migrating the herd to fresh pastures is a generative pattern for private sourcing only. Commercial businesses maintaining sustainable profitability conventionally seek new customers and improved products and/or services that renew their relevance.
(b.i) For an offering manager, what schedule of maintenance updates and chargeable upgrades extend relevance? is a driving voice on issues. Most products include warranties and after-sales services that include fixes to remediate defects within a limited period. Economically, the provider may thereafter make maintenance may be available for fee, or advise an upgrade path for a price less than a new purchase.
(b.ii) Deprecating legacy features, allowing optimizing operation for contemporary offerings is an affording value for the offering manager. Performance for a current release may be improved by removing obsolete features, according to end-of-life dates established in advance.
(b.iii) Momentum or network lock-in favours incumbency over defection is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. Commercial enterprises tend to rely on repeat business. Customer may prefer the devil they know to the one they don’t.
A generative pattern for the concern of OSo can be inferred similarly.
(c) It’s ready when it’s ready is a generative pattern for OSo. Official releases are important milestones for open sourcing. Proposals and options may be retained for posterity, but progress requires synchronization points in time acknowledge by all participants. Releases may be planned according to fixed dates or fixed scope, either of which require critical defects to have been closed.
(c.i) For a project participant, what additional tangible evolution is evident, as compared to forks and alternatives? is driving voice on issues. Open sourcing projects relies on the contributions of volunteers, who may move on when their expertise is no longer appreciated.
(c.ii) Modifying, testing and adopting concrete outputs, so value-in-use is evident is an affording value for a project participant. When a defect is suspected, ways of reproducing “I have this problem, too” eliminates the “it works for me” response.
(c.iii) Continuity through a collective identity maintained by a core group is a spatio-temporal frame for the pattern. Community membership is strengthened through solidarity. Dissenters are welcomed to leave, and may fork a current or prior release for their own purposes.
The three issues around elaborating (a) elevating platforms perennially, (b) extending relevant updates and upgrades, and (c) showing additional tangible evolution, incorporate concerns mixed across open sourcing and private sourcing programs. After envisioned programs have been realized, elaborating a system reflects adaptation to environmental conditions and/or the opportunity to continue ratchet up quality.
6.4 Hypothesizing for a theory of quality-generating sequencing
One hypothesis for a descriptive theory for OSwPS within the paradigm of architectural problem-seeking can be constructed:
- Hypothesis: Open sourcing while private sourcing enables quality-generating sequencing through program envisioning, program realizing and program elaborating. This is possible in ways that that neither open sourcing only nor private source only allow.
The seven cases and the context of IBM between 2001 and 2011 support this hypothesis. Additional hypotheses within this paradigm could be developed. This hypothesis could be tested beyond IBM with contemporary cases, as OSwPS has become more commonplace.