To Be or To Become? An Enquiry into the Changing Nature of Requirements in Open Source ...

325 Pages·2015·3.53 MB·English

The London School of Economics and Political
Science
To Be or To Become? An Enquiry into the Changing Nature of
Requirements in Open Source Health IT
Daniel Adrian Curto-Millet
AthesissubmittedtotheDepartmentofManagementoftheLondonSchoolofEconomicsand
PoliticalScienceforthedegreeofDoctorofPhilosophy,London,April2014
1
Declaration
IcertifythatthethesisIhavepresentedforexaminationfortheMPhil/PhDdegree
oftheLondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScienceissolelymyownwork
otherthanwhereIhaveclearlyindicatedthatitistheworkofothers(inwhich
casetheextentofanyworkcarriedoutjointlybymeandanyotherpersonisclearly
identifiedinit).
Thecopyrightofthisthesisrestswiththeauthor.Quotationfromitispermitted,
providedthatfullacknowledgementismade.Thisthesismaynotbereproduced
withoutmypriorwrittenconsent.
Iwarrantthatthisauthorisationdoesnot,tothebestofmybelief,infringethe
rightsofanythirdparty.
Ideclarethatmythesisconsistsof92000words.
2
Abstract
Thisthesisdevelopsacontemporaryproblematisationofsoftwarerequirements.
Itdepartsfromtraditionalconceptionsofrequirementsassimple,tamedobjects
withdeterministicforceoversocio-technicalactorsandbasedonassumptionsof
stability.Suchviewscanleadtoanarrow,ultimatelyunfruitfulunderstandingof
thesignificanceofrequirementsanddeniedwiderconsequencesoftheirmodes
ofarticulation.Instead,thethesisbuildsonperspectiveswhererequirementsare
complexandinteractiveactors.
ThethesisusesopenEHR—anopensourcehealthITprojectaimingtobuild
interoperableElectronicHealthRecords(EHRs)—asacasestudy.Studyingopen
sourcepracticeoffersagoodopportunitytoconsiderthenatureofrequirements
because there is an ongoing debate about requirements’ role and influence on
developmentactivitiesandprojectorganisation.
TheanalysisusesDeleuzianconceptsofassemblage,multiplicityandbecoming.
These themes align with a larger body of work influenced by STS and process
oriented theorisations, which see the world as dynamic and performative. The
philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari in particular provides a counter-balance to
anyassumedstabilityintheworld.
The thesis presents a new account of the nature of requirements, one that
reflectstheircomplexentanglementwithinsoftwaredevelopmentandopensource
in particular. Requirements are not insipid descriptive statements that abstract
andsimplifytheworlddeterministically.Theyhaveanintricateexistencewhich
servestoholdthepotentialintheassemblagetobecomemanythings.Inparticular,
requirementsinsinuatethemselvesintoaproject’sidentity,guideaprojectthrough
3
territories—sometobeexplored,sometobedisregarded—anddemandspecific
waystoberecognised,engaged,andcaredfor.Thethesisarguesthatrequirements
aremorevirtualthanoriginallythought,havingasubtle,notnecessarilyvisible
influenceontheirassemblagesandthewaysocio-technicalactorscanpotentially
relatetotheprojectitself.
4
Acknowledgements
ThefirstpersonIwouldliketothankisAlmudena,mywife.Sheisthereasonthis
workwascompletedandthereasonitwascompletedwithasmile.Withouther
andLeonor,ourlittlepenguinshehasbeencoddling,therewouldbenoreasonat
all.
There has been a number of persons who have been helpful beyond sanity.
TonyCornford,mysupervisor,putupwithmyconvolutedwritingandprovided
keeninsightsthatoftenledmetodaysofintensereflection.Hiscapacitytothink
acrossissuesamazesme.
MahaShaikhhasbeenagoodfriendtomeandtothisresearch.Thedebates
withherhavebeensomeofthemostchallengingIhavehad.Herpassionforthe
subject equals her passion for steaks. She has taught me to become a learned,
ethical,andpassionateresearcher.
Myparents,NicoleandFederico,havealwaysbeenpresent.Theyhavegone
beyond themselves to be supportive. Their example of hard work is imprinted
in my mind. My brother, Fabien, has been a staunch supporter for a long time.
I remember with fondness when we would talk after school about what he had
learnt.
Myfamilyinlaw—Paloma,Leandro,Carol,RichardandMati—hasbeenex-
traordinarilygenerousandkindtome.Theyhavebeenanimmensesourceofmoral
andencouragement.Richard’slessonsaboutwritingclearlywillnotbeforgotten.
Thedepartmentandthegrouphavemanagedtocreateanincitinglearningex-
perience.RoserPujadasandNunoOliveira’sfriendshiphascontributedparticularly
to making the learning process fun and intellectual. LSE’s habitual challenging
5
positiontoestablishednotionshasbeenadriverformyownperspectivesonwork.
UCL’swidelymulti-disciplinarianapproachtoeducationandresearchhasallowed
metopursuemyinterestsinandbeyondengineering.
KostisDryllerakisandFrancicsoGarcíaMorán,fromtheEuropeanCommission,
haveleftmeanunforgettableimpression.Kostistookituponhimselftoactasmy
mentorundeterredbymyinexperience.Hislessonsonbeingagoodprofessional
andsoftwareengineerareinvaluable.Franciscogavemehissupportand,despite
hishugeworkload,hetooktimetolistenandtalktoanintern.
TheCENATIC(theprincipalSpanishnationalcenterfortheresearchandap-
plicationofopensourcesoftware),kindlyinvitedmetoworkwiththemintheir
officesinSpain.Wesharedinsightfuldiscussionsregardingtherealitiesthathadto
bemetbyopensourceprojectsinSpainandbeyond.SpecialthanksgotoManuel
Velarde,PopRamsamy,ManuelDomínguez,andJorgeMartín.
Thetwoinstitutionswhichgavemetheirfinancialsupport,theEPSRCforthe
beginningandtheFundaciónRamónArecestowardstheend,haveallowedmeto
fullydedicatemyselftothisresearch.
Finally,themembersoftheopenEHRprojecthavebeenparticularlyforthcoming
intheiraccess.David’scandourinhisanswersandhiswelcomingattitudewere
very helpful. All my interviewees stand out for their eagerness to respond to
my questions. I would also like to thank all the participants in the mailing list,
particularlyDavid,Erik,Rong,Shinji,Thomas,Ian,Sam,Jussara,Tony,Seref,Pablo,
Ed,Koray,Tim,andmanyothers.Afterreadingtheirinteractionssomanytimes,I
thoughtIendedupknowingthempersonally.
6
Contents
Prologue 15
I Stability and Change: Questioning a Paradox 21
1 Introduction 23
1.1 InheritedAssumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
1.2 EvolvingContextsandtheMessyWorld . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1.3 UprootingAssumptionsandResearchQuestions . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.4 Outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2 Literature Review 35
2.1 TheEarlyArticulationofthe‘RequirementsProblem’ . . . . . . . . . 38
2.1.1 EarlyRequirementsRepresentations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.1.2 TheWaterfallSimplicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2 ExploringtheWorldtodescribetheMachine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2.1 ADifferentKindofObjectifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.2.2 RequirementsasPhenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
2.2.3 ApproachingRequirements:Risks,Uncertainties,andImbri-
cations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.3 TheSocio-TechnicalGap:RequirementsasInteractiveObjects . . . 52
2.3.1 SoftSystemsandtheInteractiveRequirements . . . . . . . . 54
2.3.2 RequirementsanditsMultipleBodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2.4 RequirementsinOpenSource . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
2.4.1 SourcingRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.4.2 ArticulatingRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
2.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3 Theory 75
3.1 AWorldin-becoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
7
3.2 RequirementsasRhizomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
3.3 UnframingRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
II Entering the Case Study 101
4 Method 103
4.1 LookingforaCase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.2 EnteringtheField . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
4.2.1 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.2.2 MailingLists. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.3 Coding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.3.1 PracticalCodingIssues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.3.2 FormalOpenandSelectiveCoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.3.3 RevisingCoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.3.4 ThemeBuilding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.4 JustifyingChoices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.4.1 CodingDecisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.4.2 TheoreticalSamplingandConstructValidity . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5 Case Study 129
5.1 ElectronicHealthRecordsandHealthIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
5.2 TheopenEHRCaseStudy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
5.2.1 EarlyHistory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
5.2.2 Pre-TransitionGovernance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
5.2.3 TransitionalPeriod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.3 RequirementsandProcessesinopenEHR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
5.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
III Starting from the Middle 145
Mapping the Analysis 147
6 Identity: Being in the World 151
6.1 BuildingaCollective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
6.2 BacktoBasics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
6.3 TheMinoritarianopenEHR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
8
6.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
7 Exploring Contexts and Territories 175
7.1 UnseenBoundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
7.1.1 TimingtheTerritory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
7.1.2 MattersofTime. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
7.1.3 AFrontierlessState . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
7.2 RealisingTerritoriesandContexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
7.2.1 Contextsin-becoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
7.2.2 Ownershipandin-becoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
7.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
8 openEHR Engages Requirements 199
8.1 ModesofEngagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
8.1.1 EmergenceisKing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
8.1.2 WaryOpportunism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
8.2 ThisisnotaRequirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
8.2.1 SubstantialRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
8.2.2 ExpressiveRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
8.3 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
IV Complexified Requirements 225
9 Discussion 227
9.1 EntangledBodies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
9.2 Requirementsin-becoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
9.3 TheEntangledBodiesofVirtualRequirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
9.4 MultiplicityofVirtualRequirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
9.5 TowardsaTheoryofVirtualRequirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
9.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
10 Conclusion 255
10.1 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
10.2 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
10.2.1 ToInformationSystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
10.2.2 ToOpenSource. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
10.2.3 ToSoftwareEngineering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
10.2.4 ToPractitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
10.3 FurtherResearch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
9
10.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
V Bibliography and Addenda 267
References 269
Glossary 301
Appendices 305
A Pilot Protocol 305
B Code 315
C Selected Movements in openEHR Lists 317
10