diff --git a/README.md b/README.md index e96256dfb..cabd509f9 100644 --- a/README.md +++ b/README.md @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ possible to either deploy the same service in independent environments with sepa * [Project Management Time Pressures](patterns/1-initial/overcoming-project-management-time-pressures.md) * [Organizational Mindset Change](patterns/1-initial/organizational-mindset-change.md) * [Bad Weather For Liftoff](patterns/1-initial/bad-weather-for-liftoff.md) -* [Get Contributions Despite Silo Thinking](https://github.com/InnerSourceCommons/InnerSourcePatterns/pull/38) +* [Get Contributions Despite Silo Thinking](patterns/1-initial/get-contributor-despite-silo.md) ## What are InnerSource Patterns? diff --git a/patterns/1-initial/get-contributor-despite-silo.md b/patterns/1-initial/get-contributor-despite-silo.md new file mode 100755 index 000000000..b1c654877 --- /dev/null +++ b/patterns/1-initial/get-contributor-despite-silo.md @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +## Title + +Incentive mechanisms to foster voluntary contribution + +## Patlet + +TBD + +## Problem + +In hierarchical and silo-organized organizations, getting voluntary contributions in InnerSource +projects can be challenging. It is crucial to create mechanisms to incentivize managers to foster +voluntary contributions. Consider the following story: + +Company A has started an InnerSource initiative. Their InnerSource concept expected to have +associates voluntarily contributing to InnerSource projects, regardless of topic and regardless of +home-business-unit alignment. + +After some time in activity, the core team realizes that their InnerSource project is not getting +voluntary contributions. While engaging with potential individual contributors, the +core team (pattern link) has consistently learned that the contributors in question were +not allowed to contribute or have their participation in InnerSource projects rejected by +their respective line managers. The reasons presented by management are: + +- the lack of strategic alignment between the InnerSource project goal and the business unit product/service portfolio, +- managers have planned their developer's capacity 100% to the home business units projects. + +So, the management is not motivated to provide their scarce developer capacity to the +InnerSource project. + +As a result, the total number of contributors remained restricted to the core team and the +project cannot build a community of developers. Furthermore, contributions mostly originated +in the same business unit the Dedicated Community Leader (link to Dedicated Community Leader) +belonged to. Innovation did not happen in the expected scale. Top management is no longer +convinced that InnerSource yields the expected benefits and abandons the initiative altogether. + +## Context + +- The InnerSource initiative is sponsored (budget) by top level management. +- The managers (middle-management) have their bonus directly depending +only on business units results under their responsibility +- The capacity of every associate is usually planned by their superiors +and 100% allocated to the home business unit projects +- Cross organizational collaboration is not the norm. +- Contributions to InnerSource projects are expected to be made during working + hours. + +## Forces + +- Managers of business units are held accountable for their results. Reducing + the capacity of an associate contributing to an InnerSource project rather + than the goals of the business unit will make it harder for them to reach or + exceed their goals. +- The more time an associate spends on contributions to an InnerSource project + which does not benefit his day-to-day work, the more will the workload for + his teammates in his business unit increase. +- The individual contributor would like to participate to enhance his + professional network within the company and gain knowledge and experience + with both the InnerSource method and the technical area he makes a + contribution to. + +## (Possible) Solution + +- The top management sets and communicates a corporate strategy where development + capacity are to be planned and committed to a maximum of 85% to home business units projects +- A central funded formal contracting mechanisms, where line managers get + refunded by the percentage of associates work time in InnerSource is in place. +- Managers (middle-management) have a percentage of their bonus associated to + contribution and the results of InnerSource projects not directly related/sponsored + by their business units. +- Utilize any existing engineering-wide bonus that allots some percentage of each employee's + bonus to be aligned with Inner Source interactions. It could be # of commits, or commits + + issues + documentation + chat interaction, etc. Utilize some kind of personally-linked + statistic to fill, for example, 15% of each employees bonus. Note that this encourages + after-hours type work more-so than regular work-week hours, but if combined with other + solutions above, could hit the issue from multiple angles. (used partially @ RedHat) + +## Resulting Context + +- The top management communication of the strategic decision to plan and commit + 85% of developers capacity and have 15% buffer for other company initiatives, + for instance InnerSource projects, shows their support and sets a clear sign + that InnerSource is part of the corporate goal and get executive air cover. +- Allocation of corporate funds to business units for reimbursement of + development capacity makes easier for business units to contribute to InnerSource + projects without to commit their cost center budget. +- Setting the bonus of middle-management partially depending on contributions and the success + of InnerSource projects, motivates managers to encourage their developers participate on those + projects +- With a stable group of contributors, it is more likely that some of them will + eventually achieve trusted committer status and the InnerSource project will be able + to establish a healthy community around their project. + +## Status + +* Initial + +## Authors + +* Diogo Fregonese (Robert Bosch GmbH) +* Georg Gruetter (Robert Bosch GmbH) +* Robert Hansel (Robert Bosch GmbH) +* Nick Yeates + +## Acknowledgements