From bb4974741f511f86431fd8a9c4f96551940878e8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Georg Gruetter Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:18:49 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] removed accidentally added donut --- donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md | 85 --------------------------- 1 file changed, 85 deletions(-) delete mode 100755 donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md diff --git a/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md b/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md deleted file mode 100755 index 685c4596d..000000000 --- a/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,85 +0,0 @@ -## Incentive mechanisms to foster voluntary contribution - -## Problem - -In hierarchical and silo-organized organizations, get voluntary contributions in InnerSource -projects can be challenging. It is crucial to create mechanisms to incentivize managers 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 if there is a business alignment with contributor's -home business unit. -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 to the InnerSource project rejected by -their respective line managers. The reasons presented by the management are: (i) the lack of strategic -alignment between the InnerSource project goal and the business unit product/service portfolio, -(ii) 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. - -## 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 iniciatives, - 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. - -## Authors - -Diogo Fregonese (Robert Bosch GmbH) -Georg Gruetter (Robert Bosch GmbH) -Robert Hansel (Robert Bosch GmbH) - -## Acknowledgements - From 505fa466f8d037465fcbd78c6883e49b2e658e44 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Georg Gruetter Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 15:21:12 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] added new donut pattern from Bosch --- donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md | 85 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 85 insertions(+) create mode 100755 donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md diff --git a/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md b/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md new file mode 100755 index 000000000..685c4596d --- /dev/null +++ b/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md @@ -0,0 +1,85 @@ +## Incentive mechanisms to foster voluntary contribution + +## Problem + +In hierarchical and silo-organized organizations, get voluntary contributions in InnerSource +projects can be challenging. It is crucial to create mechanisms to incentivize managers 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 if there is a business alignment with contributor's +home business unit. +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 to the InnerSource project rejected by +their respective line managers. The reasons presented by the management are: (i) the lack of strategic +alignment between the InnerSource project goal and the business unit product/service portfolio, +(ii) 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. + +## 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 iniciatives, + 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. + +## Authors + +Diogo Fregonese (Robert Bosch GmbH) +Georg Gruetter (Robert Bosch GmbH) +Robert Hansel (Robert Bosch GmbH) + +## Acknowledgements + From d3c1b431cbc409ce8108869922b6d8c309ae8bec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick Yeates Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:45:04 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] clarified problem and added solution Clarified problem statement, added new possible solution (used at Red Hat) --- donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md | 33 ++++++++++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md b/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md index 685c4596d..16de017ff 100755 --- a/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md +++ b/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md @@ -2,19 +2,23 @@ ## Problem -In hierarchical and silo-organized organizations, get voluntary contributions in InnerSource -projects can be challenging. It is crucial to create mechanisms to incentivize managers 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 if there is a business alignment with contributor's -home business unit. +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 to the InnerSource project rejected by -their respective line managers. The reasons presented by the management are: (i) the lack of strategic -alignment between the InnerSource project goal and the business unit product/service portfolio, -(ii) managers have planned their developer's capacity 100% to the home business units projects. +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. @@ -58,11 +62,17 @@ and 100% allocated to the home business unit projects - 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 iniciatives, + 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 @@ -80,6 +90,7 @@ and 100% allocated to the home business unit projects Diogo Fregonese (Robert Bosch GmbH) Georg Gruetter (Robert Bosch GmbH) Robert Hansel (Robert Bosch GmbH) +Nick Yeates ## Acknowledgements From 4932e455a1888775b19bf145e82fdeb7de3e1f24 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nick Yeates Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 10:47:50 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Renamed file to be consistent MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Removed “donut” from front of file name to be consistent with file names in root directory --- ...contributor-despite-silo.md => get-contributor-despite-silo.md | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md => get-contributor-despite-silo.md (100%) diff --git a/donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md b/get-contributor-despite-silo.md similarity index 100% rename from donut-get-contributor-despite-silo.md rename to get-contributor-despite-silo.md