| 1) Open Source Software | | | | development team supported by a strong online |
| Open source software can be defined as software | | | | community will reduce the potential risk. |
| distributed under a licensing agreement which allows | | | | 2) Closed Source Software |
| the source code (computer code) to be shared, | | | | Closed source software can be defined as proprietary |
| viewed and modified by other users and organisations. | | | | software distributed under a licensing agreement to |
| Cost | | | | authorized users with private modification, copying and |
| Open source software is free. This is a huge draw | | | | republishing restrictions. |
| card, and if your in-house capabilities are such that you | | | | Cost |
| are able to implement, train and support at little cost to | | | | The cost of proprietary software will vary from a few |
| your organization it may be an attractive option. Having | | | | thousand to a few hundred thousand dollars, depending |
| said that, open source software requires a certain | | | | on the complexity of the system required. This cost is |
| level of technical expertise in order to manage content. | | | | made up of a base fee for software, integration and |
| It is therefore important to take into consideration the | | | | services and annual licensin g/support fees. This cost |
| costs incurred once the software is obtained may be | | | | may be prohibitive for some; however what the user is |
| substantial unless the resources are already in place to | | | | paying for is a more customized product from a |
| manage it. Long term costs include the cost of | | | | trusted brand that includes higher levels of security and |
| implementation, innovation, the opportunity cost incurred | | | | functionality, continuous innovation, a greater ability to |
| battling with service/support issues, and the costs | | | | scale, ongoing training and support and a lower |
| associated with investment in infrastructure due to a | | | | requirement for technical skills. In order to support |
| general inability to scale (assuming the organisation will | | | | these elements and maintain high availability websites, |
| grow and develop and will therefore have evolving | | | | a mechanism must be in place to recoup the costs. As |
| requirements). Notably, open source software | | | | mentioned previously, increasingly open source |
| providers are increasingly charging for add- ons, | | | | software providers are also charging for add-ons, |
| additional services and integration. The total cost of | | | | additional services, and integration, reducing the gap in |
| ownership for open source software may roughly | | | | cost between the two options. |
| equal some closed source options as a result. | | | | Service and Support |
| Service and Support | | | | If the internet is an important channel for an |
| Service is one of the key issues regarding open | | | | organisation, software is often a secondary concern, |
| source software. Open source software relies on its | | | | with service level and support structure requirements |
| online community network to deliver support via | | | | taking precedent in favour of maximising uptime and |
| forums and blogs. While there are massive, loyal and | | | | minimising downtime. Service is probably the greatest |
| engaged online communities that users can turn to, | | | | advantage of using proprietary software. Proprietary |
| time-poor consumers of today are familiar with the | | | | software providers offer ongoing support to users, a |
| immediate service and support that enables issues to | | | | key selling point for users without technical expertise.If |
| be resolved in a timely manner, and these communities | | | | the user manual or guide is not enough, or if a user |
| cannot guarantee the high level of responsive service | | | | experiences a problem with the software, there is an |
| and support proprietary software can offer. | | | | immediate point of call to turn to for assistance. There |
| Innovation | | | | is a certain reduction in the risk undertaken with |
| Open source software enables innovation by providing | | | | proprietary software because users are working with |
| users with the freedom and flexibility to adapt the | | | | companies that are viable, and people with intimate |
| software to suit, without restriction. However, | | | | knowledge of the products and services being used |
| innovation may or may not be passed on to all users | | | | should any questions arise. Because service is one of |
| of the software. It is a user’s prerogative whether | | | | the main reasons users choose proprietary over open |
| they wish to share their innovation with any online | | | | source software, many proprietary software providers |
| communities, and users must be actively participating in | | | | compete on service, increasing the bargaining power |
| these communities to become aware of such | | | | of buyers and thereby increasing customer service |
| innovations. It has been debated whether customized | | | | levels among providers. |
| changes to the original source code limit the future | | | | Innovation |
| support and growth of the software, as these can | | | | Proprietary software providers do not allow users to |
| potentially result in a limited ability to apply future | | | | view or alter the source code. While this may be |
| updates, fixes or modules aimed at improving the | | | | viewed as a disadvantage to some, it ensures the |
| software, leaving the user with a version that may | | | | security and reliability of the software. Furthermore, |
| have irresolvable issues. It is relevant to note that open | | | | many proprietary software providers customize |
| source software providers generally struggle to attract | | | | software for specific users to provide more flexibility |
| large scale R&D | | | | while investing in R&D in order to regularly offer |
| Usability | | | | new products and upgrades. Moreover, proprietary |
| Open source software has been highly criticized for its | | | | software providers have online user communities that |
| lack of usability, as generally, the technology is not | | | | create value by sharing ideas, strategies and best |
| reviewed by usability experts and does not cater to | | | | practices through feedback mechanisms such as |
| the vast majority of computer users. Open source | | | | forums and surveys, which also foster innovation and |
| software is generally developer-centric, and without | | | | allow the product to adapt with changing needs. This |
| system administration experience or the knowledge | | | | innovation comes fully tested, and is available to all |
| required to manipulate programming language, use of | | | | users of the software. It does not require investment in |
| the software and ability to fix errors as they arise is | | | | R&D or the technical understanding of source |
| often limited to those with technical expertise. | | | | code, and assistance with implementation is generally |
| Furthermore, open source software does not legally | | | | part of the package. Because vendors must ensure |
| require documentation such as user manuals or guides, | | | | their software does not become redundant, users also |
| hindering the creation of such tools. When | | | | benefit from the type of targeted innovation |
| documentation is provided, it is often general, containing | | | | undertaken- continuous investment in R&D rather |
| implicit jargon, inhibiting learning. Without adequate | | | | than “innovation for innovation’s sake”, |
| documentation users must rely on alternative means | | | | business focused rather than technology focused. |
| such as online communities, assuming they are capable | | | | Usability |
| of finding them and the problem is one others have | | | | Proprietary software generally employs expert |
| encountered or are willing to help resolve. | | | | usability testing, and as the software is normally aimed |
| Security | | | | at a more targeted audience, and therefore more |
| Open source software is often viewed as having | | | | tailored, usability is generally ranked quite high. In |
| security issues. New data from Forrester Research | | | | addition, detailed user manuals and guides are provided. |
| has shown that 58% of IT Executives and technology | | | | This enables faster training and provides an immediate |
| decision makers in large companies are concerned | | | | reference, allowing users to move along the learning |
| about the security of open source software. Open | | | | curve more quickly. Supporting services include |
| source software is not necessarily developed in a | | | | seminars, targeted training courses and extensive |
| controlled environment. While big players often have a | | | | support to help maximise use of the software. It is also |
| concentrated development team, oftentimes the | | | | important to note that while many people see |
| software is being developed by individuals all over the | | | | proprietary software as “closed”, today’s |
| world who may not work on the software for the | | | | proprietary software offers a vast array of |
| duration of its developing lifetime. This lack of continuity | | | | mechanisms for enhancement by third party systems |
| and common direction can lead to barriers to effective | | | | and developers. |
| communication surrounding the software. Furthermore, | | | | Security |
| open source software is not always peer reviewed or | | | | Proprietary software is viewed as more secure |
| validated for use. While users are free to examine and | | | | because it is developed in a controlled environment by |
| verify source code, the level of expertise required | | | | a concentrated team with a common direction. |
| means that it is entirely possible for a programmer to | | | | Moreover, the source code may be viewed and edited |
| embed back door Trojans to capture private and | | | | by this team alone, and is heavily audited, eliminating the |
| confidential information without the user ever knowing. | | | | risk of back door Trojans and reducing the risk of any |
| Adopting a reputable brand with a concentrated | | | | bugs or issues with the software. |