El rol del Community Manager: papel emergente para y desde el crecimiento del software open source

1. Research
Publication Date: 8 December 2009 ID Number: G00172718
The Community Manager: A New Role Emerges From
the Growth in Open-Source Software
Brian Prentice
Proprietary vendors are increasing their involvement with open-source software because
they realize it is critical to achieving key strategic objectives. Ensuring that a direct and
committed effort to understand and engage the associated communities exists is an
important part of the successful achievement of those objectives.
Key Findings
! Software vendors need to proactively manage communities as the use of open-source
software accelerates.
! Each software community has distinct characteristics from traditional channels, and will
require entirely new competencies and metrics.
! Work with communities cannot be bound by traditional notions of users and partners —
the defining criterion is their shared vested interest.
Recommendations
! Unlike traditional channel management, community management roles, as they emerge,
cannot be bound to sales teams and revenue objectives.
! Community managers should be given responsibility for assessing actions, steering
participation (where possible) and recommending actions based on the extent to which
an open-source community is aligned with the objectives of the organization.
© 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved. Reproduction and distribution of this publication in any form
without prior written permission is forbidden. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to
be reliable. Gartner disclaims all warranties as to the accuracy, completeness or adequacy of such information. Although
Gartner's research may discuss legal issues related to the information technology business, Gartner does not provide legal
advice or services and its research should not be construed or used as such. Gartner shall have no liability for errors,
omissions or inadequacies in the information contained herein or for interpretations thereof. The opinions expressed herein
are subject to change without notice.

2. ANALYSIS
The days when stark distinctions could be drawn between an "open-source software company"
and a "proprietary software company" are largely gone. In the current software market, vendors of
all types are embracing open-source software as an integral component of their overall software
delivery strategy. So pervasive is this trend that Gartner has been predicting that by 2011, 80% of
all commercial software offerings will include elements of open source.
Gartner has been observing an emerging trend in open-source projects where a very small group
of core developers maintains the base distribution of the central code base, while a larger group
of "edge" developers maintains plug-ins and modules that are not included in the base
distribution. This is consistent with the manner in which traditional proprietary software vendors
have been getting involved in open source. In some cases, they will choose to begin actively
participating in an existing open-source project (i.e., Oracle and IBM's participation with Linux).
Or, they could initiate a new open-source project on top of a significant code contribution of their
own (i.e., Google's mobile operating system Android).
Open-source software's prevalence in the software vendor community indicates a growing and
nuanced understanding by senior management of its strategic potential (see "Open-Source
Vendor Strategies: Where OSS and Commerce Meet"). Generally, senior management is
catching up to their R&D teams in this respect.
Although management can set the organization's open-source strategy and development can
fulfill the code contribution commitments, someone, somewhere needs to be tapped into the
project's community (the individuals and organizations that are supporting the growth and stability
of the project's code base). While it's a perfectly acceptable strategy for a software vendor to
commit to an open-source project with the expectation of being the sole contributing party, most
vendors engage in open-source projects in the belief that there will be some form of sustained
community participation (Linux being an operative example).
Therein lays the challenge. Open-source project communities, by their very nature, are fluid. The
simple act of kicking off, or contributing to, an open-source project doesn't in itself sustain
community participation. Ultimately, a vibrant open-source community is an intersection of its
members' vested interests, and those interests will ebb and flow based on their own strategic
objectives.
Accessing and responding to these shifting allegiances will require new roles within software
vendor organizations. Those roles will need staff with the appropriate skills and meaningful
metrics. For this reason, Gartner believes that a key emerging role in the software vendor
community will be that of the community manager.
Community Management Requires Community Managers
Notionally, the concept of a discrete function to deal with open-source communities seems logical
enough. The goal is also simple enough — to assess options, steer participation where possible
and recommend actions based on the extent to which an open-source community is aligned with
the strategic objectives of the organization. How such a role would integrate with most vendor
organizations is what will ultimately prove most challenging. At face value, community
management seems a natural extension of existing channel management responsibilities, but
there are significant differences in perspective. They include:
! Objectives: Channel partnerships are largely bound to joint sales objectives. As a
result, each party's objectives are directly linked and quantitatively measurable.
Publication Date: 8 December 2009/ID Number: G00172718 Page 2 of 5
© 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

3. Furthermore, there is an entire taxonomy of sales-related activities that are employed to
ensure reciprocal value — i.e., product and service margins, lead distribution, territory
management. However, communities that emerge around open-source projects are
more commonly bound to shared value chain system objectives (see "Collective
Competency: A New Business Pattern"). While sales may factor into a community
member's consideration, it is likely to be well downstream of the main objective, so tried-
and-true channel tactics are of little value in soliciting participation.
! Obligations: Channel partnerships are usually formal, either via a direct contract or
through a structured channel program. While formal relationships are linked to some
form of coercive capability on either party (e.g., contract termination for nonperformance
or program expulsion due to failure to meet minimum standards), coercion doesn't factor
into communities because communities are informal. Obligation is strictly personal — a
function of a specific community member's perceived reciprocal value, whether financial
or emotional.
! Continuity: Channel partners ultimately require perpetual motion. There must be a
constant and sustained effort in order for there to be value for both sides of the
partnership. Measuring a partnership based on the amount of ongoing effort is a key
part of channel partner assessment. In a community context, however, continuity can
neither be assured nor a particularly useful metric. For example, a community member
who regularly checks code or fixes minor bugs is certainly a valuable member, but so is
the individual or organization that makes rare, but significant, code contributions. For
communities, it is the cumulative value of each discrete contribution that must be
measured, rather than their regularity.
! Authority: Channel operations have been evolving from their traditional hub-and-spoke
model with the vendor firmly in the middle, to more integrated supply chains. Open
source accelerates and alters the trajectory of the central vendor's role between these
organizations. Software vendors would be putting themselves in a precarious position if
they come into an open-source community assuming they are somehow the center of
authority for a project — even if they are the dominant participants. A particular aspect
of open-source is its ability for derived projects to be spun off ("forking"). If unnecessary
authority is exerted by any one member, it can have the detrimental effect of motivating
another community member to fork the project. Community involvement requires a level
of delicacy not traditionally associated with channel activities.
Because of all these factors, community management is becoming an imperative for software
vendors. However, the unique characteristics of open-source community models mean that
existing channel management roles cannot simply be extended to cover this responsibility. While
community management responsibilities can be vested in a distinct group that reports to the
CEO, it is also acceptable to embed community management into channel and alliance teams,
given the potential to create more-holistic relationships with key partners. Regardless of its
placement in the organization, a number of factors must be considered when defining the role:
! No sales targets: As highlighted, open-source communities are not based on direct
sales relationships. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to measure community managers
on a revenue target. Even if the organization's objectives for participating in an open-
source project are linked to driving sales, the community manager should not be
measured on that basis. The focus must be on everyone else's vested interest, not on
one's own. Because of its intricacies, community management is more politics than
sales. Power is derived from the rest of the community and is given only to those who
clearly have everyone's best interest at heart.
Publication Date: 8 December 2009/ID Number: G00172718 Page 3 of 5
© 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

4. ! No borders: Channel management in multinational vendors often follows nationally
defined organization models. Open-source communities have no such distinctions.
They're inherently global by nature. Community managers should be aligned by project,
regardless of whether it fits into the existing sales or channel territory definitions.
! Everyone qualifies for membership: Software vendors must understand that the
distinction between "user" and "partner" is meaningless in an open-source community.
These distinctions come from a traditional view that certain organizations "buy stuff" and
other organizations "sell stuff." However, open-source communities are about
intersecting interests, and they can come from both types of organizations. Community
managers must be given the freedom to work with either organization, without concern
for direct or indirect sales team relationships.
The community manager can best be described as a "vendor diplomat." This manager is there to
represent and align the organization's interests with a group of sovereign community members.
Successful community management requires:
! Strategic perspective: Value chain system dependencies, which are of growing
importance in the open-source landscape, require an ability to understand the financial
and operation impact — both for one's own organization and for that of others.
Community managers should be measured based on their ability to identify the
members of an open-source community and, importantly, to identify their reasons for
participation.
! Focus on environment factors: The shared problems that motivate active community
participation today may not be shared tomorrow. If market or industry conditions change,
then this can fundamentally alter the reason for participation, either for your organization
or for other firms. A key responsibility for the community manager is to map these
environmental factors to the reasons that are sustaining community members' current
participation. The objective is to project whether the community participation rate will be
sustained sufficiently enough to keep the project market relevant. If not, the project
needs to be flagged to senior management so that decisions on whether to increase
internal commitment to it or abandon it can be made.
! Ability to convince: The ability to help others understand why it is in their best interests
to participate without coercion of any sort is a unique skill. It requires both analytical and
interpersonal abilities. Community managers should be given responsibility for engaging
community members to sustain or increase their participation. This is directly linked to
the outcome of the environmental assessment for which they are also responsible.
RECOMMENDED READING
"Collective Competency: A New Business Pattern"
Publication Date: 8 December 2009/ID Number: G00172718 Page 4 of 5
© 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.

5. REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS
Corporate Headquarters
56 Top Gallant Road
Stamford, CT 06902-7700
U.S.A.
+1 203 964 0096
European Headquarters
Tamesis
The Glanty
Egham
Surrey, TW20 9AW
UNITED KINGDOM
+44 1784 431611
Asia/Pacific Headquarters
Gartner Australasia Pty. Ltd.
Level 9, 141 Walker Street
North Sydney
New South Wales 2060
AUSTRALIA
+61 2 9459 4600
Japan Headquarters
Gartner Japan Ltd.
Aobadai Hills, 6F
7-7, Aobadai, 4-chome
Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153-0042
JAPAN
+81 3 3481 3670
Latin America Headquarters
Gartner do Brazil
Av. das Nações Unidas, 12551
9° andar—World Trade Center
04578-903—São Paulo SP
BRAZIL
+55 11 3443 1509
Publication Date: 8 December 2009/ID Number: G00172718 Page 5 of 5
© 2009 Gartner, Inc. and/or its Affiliates. All Rights Reserved.