Designing Open Projects: Lessons From Internet Pioneers (PDF) by David Witzel.
From the foreword:
A key insight underpinning Witzel’s tips is that this is not a precise methodology to be followed. Instead, an open project approach should be viewed as a mindset. Leaders have to discern whether the challenges they are facing can best be solved using a closed or open approach, defined as follows:
- A closed project has a defined staff, budget, and outcome; and uses hierarchy and logic models to direct activities. It is particularly appropriate for problems with known solutions and stable environments, such as the development of a major highway project.
- An open project is useful to address challenges where the end may not be clear, the environment is rapidly changing, and/or the coordinating entity doesn’t have the authority or resources to directly create needed change. In these open projects, new stakeholders can join at will, roles are often informal, resources are shared, and actions and decisions are distributed throughout the system.
Witzel’s report provides guideposts on how to use an open project approach on appropriate large-scale efforts. We hope this report serves as an inspiration and practical guide to federal managers as they address the increasingly complex challenges facing our country that reach across federal agency—and often state, local, nonprofit, and private sector—boundaries.
I can think of examples of semantic integration projects that would work better with either model.
What factors would you consider before putting your next semantic integration project into one category or the other?
I first saw this at: Four short links: 15 August 2012 by Nat Torkington