The aim of this is to review existing open source industry clusters, as well as planning in paving the way ahead in the creation of one. It is expected to be a document in constant revision, as new developments are made toward its direction. An abbreviation, OSIC will be used to describe an 'Open Source Industry Cluster'.
It basically sums up being a number of member organisations and individuals, whom are running businesses within said specific industry. The industry cluster itself would serve the members interests, which would center around commercial enhancement. Therefore, it is setup and based on members requirements, having a business-oriented focus, rather than a technical one.
So how then, is an OSIC different? It isn't. It is just like any industry cluster, but serving open source software, services, and needs. It focuses on business too (so that the techies don't have to think about it), while technology is delivered by member organisations.
There can be several aims, not limited to the one's here:
A useful resource might be About OSIA, and the initial post by Con Zymaris.
Yes. Otherwise your voice is useless in respect to government, and large organisations, will not pay any attention towards you.
More interestingly is how to get registered, as this also plays an effect to membership fees. Some options as seen below:
In Malaysia, you need to be 21-years of age and above to join a cooperative; there is also the need to be a Malaysian citizen. Submitted by Raja Iskandar
Private limited companies have a limit on the number of shareholders and directors. There is also a share transfer restriction - if an existing shareholder wants to sell his shares, he must offer the other shareholders first. Submitted by Raja Iskandar
|
Currently, it seems that Raja Iskandar prefers the coop method, while Dinesh is leaning towards the private limited |
And how is it then, run?
There are problems with these implementations. Using method #1, once the tender is out in the open among members, dealing with "under-cutting" (i.e. individual members bidding, and circumventing OSIC) becomes an issue. Since OSIC has nothing to show of its success (especially at the start), organisations might feel "safer" to go with a member organisation directly!
Method #2, when positive things happen, member companies aren't shown to shine. You hear "OSIC have got really good GUI application builders" rather than "Company XYZ have got really good GUI application building knowledge". Will members actually be pleased with this? Or do you start saying "Company XYZ, an OSIC member, ..."?
How does the board distribute work evenly, if profits are to be distributed evevenly, if Method #2 is used? If a member organisation states that they're LISP experts, and within the one year, they have no LISP work, what happens then? Membership fees are still due, as are an equal distribution of profits.
The negativity of all of this is what happens when things go bad? When there is a failure of delivery? With method #1, under the law, the member company is bound to fulfill the contract - OSIC takes a hit in terms of reputation. With method #2, OSIC is bound to fulfill the contract, and this can be bad for all members in the long run.
Either way, choosing a method/model is important for the industry cluster's success.
| These are genuine questions - if its 100% commercial driven, with member organisations getting work done for the betterment of the project, how do you distribute workload? If I was Company XYZ, we have twenty employees, and we're multi-skilled with LAMP, LISP, administration, et al, and there is Company ABC with two employees that are only skilled in writing macros for OpenOffice.org, how do we assign equality to Company ABC if they don't do much (assuming that in this fiscal year, we have no tenders to write an OOo macro or convert one from a Microsoft platform)? |
Either lean and mean, or with huge up-front funds. Earlier, in Must we incorporate?, we've gone through two models, which will determine the possible revenue stream and structure of the OSIC; it will also determine the long-term success of such an organisation.
If the OSIC starts lean, by charging members nominal fees, going with Method #2 as above becomes very difficult - there will be a lack of staff, and automatically it will fail. However, if there are voluntary office bearers, with just minimal paid staff, credibility can slowly get established, provided Method #1 gets used. This means doing work for the benefit of OSIC (yes, you may not work as hard at your company!), with lots of ideas as well as full on ground-work involvement.
Starting with a more commercial approach, with paid staff that do more than just secretarial work, will involve higher membership fees, but will mean Method #2 can be worked on pretty well. Does the coop model fit with this, though?
General aims of the organisation as a whole is that it needs to make money and be self-sustaining.
If you are a member, a sole proprietor, how do you contribute to your industry cluster, and what benefits do you see in return from the OSIC? It's a common question, as people aren't interested in the press release side or advocacy of OSS - there are already established advocates in the area long before OSICs are started, so this isn't required.
Keep in mind, people are not interested in paying membership fees just to be provided with the weight of an acronym. If the aims aren't enough for the members, a member is encouraged to suggest newer aims.
Members have the right to vote in how the organisation is run.
FIXME: Besides the aims, what else do members get?
This will always be the center of debate. Members derive their willingness to pay based on the perceived value they will get in return. If the cost is too high, how do you get the sole proprietors? If the cost is too low, how does the organisation fund itself? Also, thinking ahead, when the organisation starts to involve larger players, should fees for them go up, or not?
If its coop styled, if numbers invest a fee (say $100), and there are significant numbers (say 100), there is an instant revenue of $10,000 within the first month. Here, members are companies, sole-proprietors, and interested individuals.
So, is the above $100 investment charged on a monthly basis, or on a yearly basis? How will the OSIC deliver value to each individual investor?
There-in lies the "payment model". Is it usable to base it on number of employees? It won't help if most of the members are sole-proprietors. Figuring out the numbers is something that has to happen after study of the target market.
Some suggested payment models include:
This working document was started after discussion spurred on the OSSIG lists about starting an open source industry association for Malaysia. Here are some other industry associations out there.