What is an OpenBusiness? Part II
A recent thread on OpenBusiness.cc sought to identify characteristics which merit or disqualify a business from being ‘open’. The following positive indicators summarise parts of the discussion. Among other dimensions the main concern appears to be:
Should our definition of “Openness” include a normative dimension?
If “Openness” is essentially a smart strategy to make profits whilst enabling users to share content, yet does not allow them to make derivatives, is this a boundary which should apply?
It may be important to remember what Richard Stallman, the father of free software, notes in this regard: “While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it makes a big difference which name we use: different words convey different ideas”. He is right and opposed the term Open Source software, because he wanted to make a normative point. Free software is associated with the freedom to tinker, adapt and build upon, not with giving away product for gratis. In this sense “Free business” might have been the better term for describing a trend, which leads to more open business practises. But we do not seek a definitive definition for what Open Business is, rather we are seeking to find common characteristics of what an OpenBusiness is, as delineated from traditional business structures, norms and conventions.
Practices ‘libre’ / ‘copyleft’ notions of IP
Typically this dimension implies a business that uses Creative Commons licenses to distribute their digital works or a comparable spirit in its firm’s dealings, particularly in its licensing practices. It’s a matter of contributing to the commons or public domain by avoiding private appropriation. There are many conceptions of what it means to be ‘libre’, electing not to restrict distribution of your digital works being a low standard, whilst many argue derivations must be permitted.
To which aspects of a business can these notions be applied? The concept of ‘code’ now extends from its original software context to the materials and resources underlying a creative project. For example in a musical context, code entails multi-track recordings, ‘parts’ or samples, perhaps even details of the specific artists and recordings which influenced a product. How the notion of code can be extended in this regard is an especially interesting topic on which contributions and examples are needed.
In this regard, a further distinction deserves more thought. Whilst it is fairly simple to designate outputs as open, it is also possible to pursue open notions to your production processes or inputs. For example, a business might focus on works resulting from collaboration or decentralised production, or it might encourage derivations from CC-licensed works.
Sharing content and services i.e. giving something away gratis
By giving something away for free, a business can develop extensive networks, communities and platforms which can then generate opportunities to create revenue. Precisely what a business has to share is a function of its particular business model. For example, record labels (e.g. Beatpick, Loca) can facilitate the sharing of their recordings whilst charging for higher quality versions, whilst web 2.0 services such as Flickr offer free platforms for sharing of pictures.
There is however, given its capacity for generating revenue, a potentially cynical and profiteering aspect to this approach to sharing. For example, criticism has recently been levelled at MySpace for its submission to Rupert Murdoch, and subsequent revision of its conditions of usage.
Progressive governance and organisational structures
It may be possible to share the code underlying a business, meaning the intricacies of administering a sustainable business. This might involve writing and publishing a logistics guidebook, covering a range of simple and generic organisational practices, or perhaps even detailed examples on how to structure deals or agreements with media partners, suppliers and clients. Publishing and sharing this aspect of code is heretical in the culture of ‘industry secrets’, yet it is very appealing to those accustomed to the principles of free-software.
Also, open can indicate that the business itself has been created cooperatively and owned collectively, as opposed to the more traditional private/public ownership structures. Workers are greatly incentivised by having a higher stake in a concern, in part from feelings of responsibility and opportunity, but also from the likelihood of higher remuneration. A business can be more open still if it is owned by its members / users, managed by its stakeholders and develops entirely transparent accounting procedures.
“A business that does not use copyright or patents to privatise intellectual contributions, but leaves it in the public domain, while building a service model around it. An open business model uses and enriches the Commons, focusing on the monetisation of the services.”
“I consider a company which depends on secrets to be less open than one which relies on patents, which is in turn less open than one that relies on neither.”
“’Open Businesses’ create value for people and companies without slowing down economic or cultural flow with unnecessary fences. Rather than locking customers into a gated world, Open Businesses put the customer at the centre of their value proposition, collaborating with competitors to use standards to improve customer’s actual experience.”
“Open Business is really a return to business or commerce fundamentals.”
2 Responses to “What is an OpenBusiness? Part II”
Add yours.
Dear Christian, Michael and Hannah,
Good summary and very provoking. I have to think a little to comment it. Just to start, it seems to me that different (final) products may have different open business models. I think we cannot deal with music recordings in the same way as with a material good like shoes, for instance, or with different kinds of services.
Monserrat.
What is an Open Business? Consider the Open Value…
In two recent posts on OpenBusiness.cc, (What is an Open Business and What is an Open Business – Part II), a number of thought-provoking ideas have been voiced with regard to the conditions that shape openness in business. In a similar vain, J. Nolen…..