Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Dissemination and continuous improvement of a CTSA-based software platform, SPARCRequest©, using an open source governance model

  • Wenjun He (a1), Royce Sampson (a2), Jihad Obeid (a3), Kyle Hutson (a1), Boyd M. Knosp (a4), Bernard A. LaSalle (a5), Brian Melancon (a6), Kimberly McGhee (a1), Leslie A. Lenert (a3) and Kathleen Brady (a2)...

Abstract

SPARCRequest© (Services, Pricing, & Application for Research Centers) is a web-based research management system that provides a modular and adaptable “electronic storefront” for research-related services. Developed by the South Carolina Clinical & Translational Research Institute at the Medical University of South Carolina, it was released as open source (OS) code in 2014. The adoption of SPARCRequest© accelerated in 2016, when, to ensure responsiveness to the needs of partners, its governance also became open. This governance model enables OS partners to suggest and prioritize features for new releases. As a result, the software code has become more modularized and can be easily customized to meet the diverse needs of adopting hubs. This article describes innovative aspects of the OS governance model, including a multi-institutional committee structure to set strategic vision, make operational decisions, and develop technical solutions; a virtual roadmap that ensures transparency and aligns adopters with release-based goals; and a business process model that provides a robust voting mechanism for prioritizing new features while also enabling fast-paced bug fixes. OS software evolves best in open governance environments. OS governance has made SPARCRequest© more responsive to user needs, attracted more adopters, and increased the proportion of code contributed by adopters.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Dissemination and continuous improvement of a CTSA-based software platform, SPARCRequest©, using an open source governance model
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Dissemination and continuous improvement of a CTSA-based software platform, SPARCRequest©, using an open source governance model
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Dissemination and continuous improvement of a CTSA-based software platform, SPARCRequest©, using an open source governance model
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: W. He, PhD, South Carolina Clinical & Translational Institute, Medical University of South Carolina, Suite 100, Roper Medical Office Building, Charleston, SC 29425, USA. Email: hewwe@musc.edu

References

Hide All
1. Sampson, RR, et al. SPARC: a multi-institutional integrated web based research management system. AMIA Joint Summits on Translational Science proceedings 2013; 2013: 230. eCollection 2013.
2. Glenn, JL, Sampson, RR. Developing an institution-wide web-based research request and preliminary budget development system. Research Management Review 2011; 18(2): 3957.
3. Obeid, JS, et al. Sustainability considerations for clinical and translational research informatics infrastructure. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 2018; 2(5): 267275. doi:10.1017/cts.2018.332
4. Ibrahim, H, Warner, B. Understanding the open source development model. Linux Foundation; 2011. Retrieved from http://www.ibrahimatlinux.com/uploads/6/3/9/7/6397792/00.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2019.
5. Raymond, ES. The cathedral and the bazaar. First Monday 1998; 3(2). doi:10.5210/fm.v3i2.578
6. Dingsøyr, T, et al. A decade of agile methodologies: towards explaining agile software development. Journal of Systems and Software 2012; 85(6): 12131221.
7. Nerur, S, et al. Towards an understanding of the conceptual underpinnings of agile development methodologies. In: Dingsøyr, T, Dyba, T, Moe, NB, eds. Agile Software Development: Current Research and Future Directions. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2010. 1529.
8. Schwaber, K, Sutherland, J. The scrum guide; 2018. Retrieved from https://www.scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html. Accessed April 21, 2019.
9. PivotalTracker Enterprise. Pivotal tracker; 2019. Retrieved from https://www.pivotaltracker.com. Accessed April 21, 2019.
10. Slack Technologies. Slack; 2019. Retrieved from https://slack.com/. Accessed April 21, 2019.
11. GitHub. GitHub; 2019. Retrieved from https://github.com. Accessed January 7, 2019.
12. SPARCRequest Team. Contributing to SPARCRequest; 2017. Retrieved from https://github.com/sparc-request/sparc-request/blob/v3.6.0/CONTRIBUTION.md. Accessed April 21, 2019.
13. ProductPlan. About ProductPlan; 2019. Retrieved from https://www.productplan.com/about/. Accessed January 29, 2019.
14. Paré, G, et al. Clinicians’ perceptions of organizational readiness for change in the context of clinical information system projects: insights from two cross-sectional surveys. Implementation Science 2011; 6(15).
15. Schulte, M, DBA, FACHE, CPHIMS, eds. Go-Live: Smart Strategies from Davies Award-Winning EHR Implementations. Chicago, IL: HIMSS; 20 11.
16. Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). FAFP EHR readiness assessment tool; 2011. Retrieved from https://www.himss.org/fafp-ehr-readiness-assessment-tool. Accessed July 9, 2019.
17. Ehls, D. Open source project collapse - sources and patterns of failure. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hilton Waikoloa Village, Hawaii: IEEE; 2017. 53275336.
18. O’Reilly, T. Lessons from open-source software development. Communications of the ACM 1999; 42(4): 3237.
19. Sullivan, KJ, et al. The structure and value of modularity in software design. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes 2001; 26(5): 99.
20. Haff, G. How Open Source Ate Software: Understand the Open Source Movement and So Much More. New York, NY: Apress, 2018.
21. Sorkun, MF, Furlan, A. Product and organizational modularity: a contingent view of the mirroring hypothesis. European Management Review 2016; 14(2): 205224.
22. Conway, ME. How do committees invent? Datamation 1968; 14(4): 2831.
23. MacCormack, A, Baldwin, C, Rusnak, J. Exploring the duality between product and organizational architectures: a test of the “mirroring” hypothesis. Research Policy 2012; 41(8): 13091324.
24. Henderson, RM, Clark, KB. Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990; 35(1): 9.
25. Peng, G, Mu, J. Do modular products lead to modular organisations? Evidence from open source software development. International Journal of Production Research 2018; 56(20): 67196733.
26. Weick, KE. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 1976; 21(1): 1.
27. Bonaccorsi, A, Rossi, C. Why open source software can succeed. Research Policy 2003; 32(7): 12431258.
28. Baldwin, CY, Clark, KB. The architecture of participation: does code architecture mitigate free riding in the open source development model? Management Science 2006; 52(7): 11161127.
29. Lakhani, K, Wolf, RG. Why hackers do what they do: understanding motivation and effort in free/open source software projects. SSRN Electronic Journal 2003. doi:10.2139/ssrn.443040
30. Hars, A, Ou, S. Working for free? Motivations for participating in open-source projects. International Journal of Electronic Commerce 2002; 6(3): 2539.

Keywords

Dissemination and continuous improvement of a CTSA-based software platform, SPARCRequest©, using an open source governance model

  • Wenjun He (a1), Royce Sampson (a2), Jihad Obeid (a3), Kyle Hutson (a1), Boyd M. Knosp (a4), Bernard A. LaSalle (a5), Brian Melancon (a6), Kimberly McGhee (a1), Leslie A. Lenert (a3) and Kathleen Brady (a2)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed