0018-9162/07/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE April 2007 25PP uu bb ll ii ss hh ee dd bb yy tt hh ee II EE EE EE CC oo mm pp uu tt ee rr SS oo cc ii ee tt yy

C O M P U T I N G P R A C T I C E S

The Economic Motivationof Open Source Software:Stakeholder Perspectives

Open source software has changed the rules of the game,

significantly impacting the economic behavior of

stakeholders in the software ecosystem. In this new

environment, developers strive to be committers,

vendors feel pressure to produce open source products,

and system integrators anticipate boosting profits.

T he advent of open source software has produced more than lower soft-ware costs for users. It has also caused major changes in the economicinteraction among players in the software ecosystem. For many, opensource embodies a specific approach to software development—even alifestyle. But it’s also sound business strategy. Ron Goldman and Richard

Gabriel suggest that companies should use open source software to grow theiruser communities and build an ecosystem around their products and services.1

Open source software is typically free and comes with the source code neededto adapt it to users’ needs. Most open source licenses let users redistribute the soft-ware, including possible changes, and charge for redistribution as long as sourcecode changes are publicly available (www.opensource.org).

There are two types of open source software. Community open source is soft-ware that a community develops. Rather than a single corporate entity owning thesoftware, a sometimes broad community of volunteers determines which contri-butions are accepted into the source code base and where the software is headed.Individual developers, the committers, and not a specific company, make deci-sions about the software, as in the case of the Apache Web server (httpd.apache.org).

Commercial open source is software that a for-profit entity owns and develops.The company maintains the copyright and determines what is accepted into thesoftware code base and what to implement next, as in the case of MySQL andits MySQL database (www.mysql.com).

Prior work on community open source economics focused mostly on laboreconomics, that is, the frequently surprising amount of volunteer work that goesinto open source software. Eric Raymond notes that developers contribute toopen source projects for the personal gratification that comes from increasingtheir reputation among peers.2 Ernan Haruvy and his colleagues reached similarconclusions in their empirical study.3

Joshua Lerner and Jean Tirole, meanwhile, argue that developers contribute todocument their technical capabilities and improve job prospects with futureemployers.4 And Karim R. Lakhani and Robert G. Wolf report that enjoyingtheir work is a key intrinsic motivation for developers to contribute to open

Dirk RiehleSAP Research

26 Computer

source projects, although survey respondents alsorevealed that financial incentives are important.5

While this explains some of the volunteer work, it does-n’t explain why companies today employ people who con-tribute to open source projects on company time. Il-HornHann and colleagues found that the salaries of ApacheSoftware Foundation project contributors correlated pos-itively with the contributor’s rank in the Apache organi-zation.6 They therefore concluded that employers use adeveloper’s rank within the foundation as a measure ofproductive capabilities.

SYSTEM INTEGRATOR PERSPECTIVELarge system integrators, or solution providers, stand

to gain the most from open source software because theyincrease profits through direct cost savings and the abil-ity to reach more customers through improved pricingflexibility. Every dollar a system integrator saves onlicense costs paid to a software firm is a dollar gainedthat the customer might spend on services.

IT solutions demand curveCustomers typically want information technology

providers to deliver “solutions.” A solution solves a cus-tomer’s IT problem, freeing the customer to focus onbusiness rather than IT. A comprehensive solution com-prises hardware, software, and services. Indeed, the ITindustry earns its living by removing or reducing cus-tomers’ IT worries.

System integrators deliver solutions by selling a stackof hardware, software, and services as one product. That

allows the customer to talk toone company, rather thanmany. Figure 1a illustrates thisstack together with the cus-tomer demand curve.

The demand curve showshow many customers are will-ing to buy the system integra-tor’s solution at a given price.On the y-axis is the customer’scost to purchase a solution,and on the x-axis is the num-ber of customers who are will-ing to pay for that solution atthe given price. The form ofthe demand curve variesdepending on what is beingsold. However, in general, thedemand curve is downwardsloping: The lower the price,the more customers are will-ing to buy.

A system integrator’s profitsdepend on which of the stack’scomponents it owns and

which it must buy. Usually, a system integrator’s strong-hold is services, which puts together the hardware andsoftware pieces to meet the customer’s need. However,if the system integrator owns only the services compo-nent, it will have to pay other companies for the soft-ware and the hardware and thereby share revenue,leaving less profit for itself.

It’s therefore in a system integrator’s interest to acquirehardware and software as cheaply as possible. Opensource software, if an option, is typically much cheaperthan closed source software, hence its use increases prof-its for the system integrator.

Figure 1b illustrates how with stable supply anddemand, more money is made in the services part of thevalue stack if software cost goes down.

Software cost savings aren’t easily passed on to cus-tomers for two reasons: First, customers tend to careabout the whole product rather than individual com-ponents; second, large system-integration projects arecomplex and new competition doesn’t spring up easily.Thus, system integrators can maintain their prices.

While this is one good reason for system integratorsto support open source software, there’s another equallycompelling reason for them to support and contribute toopen source software.

Business growthThe simple value stack that Figure 1 illustrates sug-

gests that system integrators charge customers only one price. In reality, the system integrator can chargevarying prices for a total solution to a prospective

Hardware

Number of customers willing to buy

Pric

e to

cus

tom

er

Services

(b)

Increase inservice revenueper customer

hardware +software +services =whole product

Open sourcesoftware

Customer demand curve

Hardware

Number of customers willing to buy

Pric

e to

cus

tom

er

Services

(a)

hardware +software +services =whole product

Software

Customer demand curve

Figure 1. IT solutions demand curve. (a) System integrators sell a stack of hardware,

software, and services. (b) Integrators can charge customers similar prices even if they use

open source software.

April 2007 27

customer’s problem. Only onething is certain: A system inte-grator will want to at leastcover its costs.

The price charged per cus-tomer that Figure 1 shows canbe split into the system inte-grator’s service cost, plus themarkup or margin needed tomake a profit. If the systemintegrator owns just the ser-vices part of the stack, the costfor providing that servicedefines the lower price limitfor the work. In a reasonablycompetitive market, the sys-tem integrator will accept alldeals above this limit if it hasthe resources.

This limit, together with thedemand curve, determines themaximum number of cus-tomers the system integratorcan sell to and take on, asFigure 2a illustrates.

Switching from more expensive closed source soft-ware to less expensive open source software increasesthe profits of a sale through the money saved on the soft-ware. It also reduces the lower price limit for possibledeals and puts a new set of more price-sensitive cus-tomers within reach. Not only does open source soft-ware improve profits on the original individual sales, italso increases the total number of potential customers.

Figure 2b shows how a switch from closed source toopen source software results in more potential cus-tomers. And more potential—and presumably satis-fied—customers mean higher sales and profits. The totalprofit is represented as the area of the gray triangle underthe demand curve, showing the increase in profits whenmoving down the curve. Since in reality a system inte-grator might own many of a total solution’s compo-nents, including software and hardware, more customersmean more profits through these components as well.

Pressures in the IT value stackIf it were up to the system integrators, all software

would be free (unless they had a major stake in a par-ticular component). Then, all software license revenuewould become services revenue. To this end, I believethat system integrators prefer community open sourceover commercial open source. Only community opensource software prevents vendor lock-in.

Community open source ensures that prices for soft-ware support are subject to market forces rather thanone owning corporation. Community open source is astrategic weapon for system integrators to squeeze out

proprietary as well as commercial open source softwarevendors.

SOFTWARE VENDOR PERSPECTIVEIndependent software vendors provide only a few soft-

ware products, sometimes just specializing in one.Understanding the independent software firm strategyrequires comparing open source software and closedsource software cost and pricing.

Software cost and pricingWhy is open source software typically much cheaper

than closed source software? In a closed source busi-ness, most of the investment in new software comes fromshipping the first copy. The initial investment is recoupedwith increasing sales. The additional cost of producingand selling another copy is small, consisting of produc-ing another CD or allowing for another download plusproviding the (frequently minimal) free support thatcomes with a software license.

As the number of copies sold increases, the averagecost per copy declines and the profits rise. Figure 3a illus-trates the long-run average cost curve for a single soft-ware product.

The more mature a market for a specific software com-ponent, the higher the investment in the existing products,the higher the barrier to entering this market, the moreestablished the existing players, and the more stable theprice for the software component. A common scenario is“the 800-pound gorilla” firm that dominates a market andis surrounded by smaller players catering to market niches.7

Hardware

Number of customers willing to buy

Pric

e to

cus

tom

er

Services

Increase innumber ofreachablecustomers

Open sourcesoftware

Hardware

Number of customers willing to buy

Pric

e to

cus

tom

er

Services

Software Services cost

Serviceprofits

Services cost

Serviceprofits

Maximum number ofreachable customers(at zero profits fromservices)

(b)(a)

Figure 2. Sales margins and number of customers. (a) The lower price limit determines the

customers the system integrator takes on. (b) Switching from closed source software to open

source software can result in more customers and higher profits.

28 Computer

In such a market, the leading software vendor sets aprice that maximizes its profits. Since the market is fairlytransparent, the vendor can set just one pricing sched-ule, offering the product to different customers at thesame price. (This is in contrast to the highly individualdeals of large system integrators.) The result is frequentlya flat price, as Figure 3b shows. Remarkably, the priceof the proprietary closed source software doesn’t directlydepend on the actual cost incurred to develop, maintain,and provide the software.

The profit-maximizing price is largely independent ofcost; the cost provides only a lower limit. Competitionthat drives prices closer to cost can’t spring up easily dueto the large initial investment a software productrequires.

In a community open source situation, no such mar-ket-entry barriers exist. Given the right license, anyonecan set up a company and start selling software. Whatthe company will sell, of course, isn’t the software itself,but its provision, maintenance, and support.

Because anyone can enter an attractive open sourcemarket, competition is fierce, and pricing will be basedon markup over cost. If the markup is too high, newcompanies will enter the market; if it’s too low, compa-nies will leave the market. Moreover, the more maturethe product, the lower the overall price.

Figure 3c shows the total cost of developing opensource software. The total cost and the resulting averagecost per copy sold is mostly the same as for the closedsource solution. The main difference, of course, is that

the different contributing companies now share this cost.Figure 3d illustrates the pricing of open source soft-

ware from a single firm’s perspective. Because of the com-petition, the price charged for providing the softwareplus support is based on markup over cost. (The graphmerging various dimensions into one 2D graph simplifiesthe situation, although the basic argument holds.)

Different firms will have different costs depending ontheir share of contributions to the open source project.However, with increasing project share, the companycan charge higher prices because customers are likely toreceive better service. The basic relationship remainsunaffected: Price is markup over cost and varies depend-ing on cost.

Customers love this situation because prices are sub-stantially lower than in the closed source situation.System integrators love the situation even more becausethey can squeeze out proprietary closed source software.

Generating software profitsA system integrator can increase its profits if it

reduces the software cost. By reducing software cost, it can move down the demand curve and sell to morecustomers.

Closed source software is the main obstacle to doingthis: It cuts into profits on an individual sale and reducesoverall pricing flexibility. Hence, system integrators havea high interest in turning closed source software mar-kets into software markets with at least one viable com-munity open source product.

0100200300400500600700800900

Number of units sold (in thousands)

Ave

rage

cos

t per

uni

t

(a)

Closed source

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Closed source Open source

Open source

0100200300400500600700800900

Number of units sold (in thousands)

Pric

e qu

oted

to c

usto

mer

(b)1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

0100200300400500600700800900

Number of units sold (in thousands)

Ave

rage

cos

t per

uni

t

(c)1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

0100200300400500600700800900

Number of units sold (in thousands)

Pric

e qu

oted

to c

usto

mer

(d)1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31

Figure 3. Differences in cost and pricing. (a) and (c) show a similar average cost per unit for closed source and open source

software, while (b) and (d) indicate the relationship between price and number of units sold for open and closed software.

April 2007 29

Before the advent of open source software, enteringan established and well-defended market was a riskyproposition. With increasingly well-understood opensource processes, setting up an open source project com-peting with an established closed source market leader’sproduct is much less risky and carries a significantlyhigher chance of success than before. But it’s not just aspecific system integrator that will want to do that. It’spretty much everyone who isn’t the closed source mar-ket leader.

To understand this, put yourself inthe shoes of the CEO of an also-run-ning traditional closed source com-pany. At one point, it’s becomingclear that you won’t be the leadingfirm in your market and that yourcompany’s profits will come frommarket niches at best. Neither younor your investors are happy withthe projected return on investment.

Your best option now is to open source your product.You might be reducing the market’s overall return oninvestment, but at least you’ll have a second chance atsatisfying your own investors by making your companya successful open source business. You’ll be in good com-pany. With a proper license for your open source prod-uct, you might well receive help from the systemintegrators, customers, and software vendors higher inthe IT stack.

Now, assume you’re the CEO of the market-leadingcompany in some space. Thinking ahead, you have toassume that either a competitor will open source itsproduct or that a system integrator will instigate an opensource product—or both. The proactive answer to thisscenario is to open source your product, even thoughyou’re the market leader and would win big in the oldclosed source world. But it’s better to win in an opensource world than not to win at all.

These two thought experiments show that commercialopen source software has a high chance of taking newmarkets early on. Only strong intellectual property pro-tection or other competitive advantages might lead aclosed source company to win and keep a new market.Leaders in established markets might be able to defendtheir positions for a long time. They tend to dig in withcomplex products, established processes, customer datalock-in, and many other positional advantages. Still, opensource might well prove to be disruptive enough to con-quer even these markets.8

Commercial open sourceWith such gloomy prospects for closed source busi-

nesses, independent software vendors have sought busi-ness models for harnessing open source software’sbenefits while gathering some of the profits of a closedsource business. The answer is corporate open source.

Strictly speaking, commercial open source is a mis-nomer because community open source can be com-mercial as well. The key differentiator is whether acommunity or a single entity like a corporation holdsthe power to make decisions about the project.

Commercial open source software is typically avail-able for free to nonprofit users. Sometimes commer-cial use is free as well. Usually, companies make moneyby providing support services. Sometimes they makeadditional money by selling proprietary software

enhancements. Like community open source, com-

mercial open source is available insource code form. Unlike communityopen source, however, one companycontrols commercial open source.This way, commercial open sourcesoftware can gather some of the ben-efits of community open source: fasteradoption, free and speedy user feed-

back, and possibly volunteers’ code contributions. Thisapproach is mostly a marketing strategy, however,because the company that owns the software still mustdo the development. Hence, the company must employand pay the software’s developers.

During the early days of an open source project, thisis an advantage, as the company can provide clear direc-tion and muster more resources than community opensource projects typically can. As the project matures,this can turn into a disadvantage, as a competing com-munity open source project might have more resourcesat hand in the form of volunteers.

The upside for the owning company is that little opensource competition can spring up for its product.However, system integrators have a strong interest inproviding alternatives to proprietary software, and thisapplies to commercial open source as well. Hence, thisbusiness model is likely to experience the same pressuresas proprietary software.

Open source service firmsIf it isn’t possible to be a profitable closed source busi-

ness, what does it mean to be a successful open sourcebusiness? The market’s answer is the open source ser-vice company, which comes in at least two kinds.9 Oneprovides first-level support and implementation services;the other provides second-level support, training, anddevelopment services.

Clients of the first kind of firm are typically IT userswho employ the firm’s services to put the open sourceproduct into place in their IT operations. Clients of thesecond kind of firm typically need to get trained on theproduct or need to have a technical problem fixed thatthey can’t handle themselves.

The strength of a service business usually lies in itsability to

Open source

software has a

high chance of taking

new markets early on.

30 Computer

• recruit and retain the right people,• reliably set up and execute specific service processes,

and• bring to bear expert domain knowledge and unique

intellectual property.

In the open source situation, this is usually labor eco-nomics. Technical skills around the open source prod-uct are a key part of determining an employee’s valueto a firm. Anyone who’s smart enough can develop theseskills because the open source software is available topeople outside the firm.

Hiring and firing becomes easier because there’s alarger labor pool to draw from, and switching costsbetween employees are lower compared with the closedsource situation. Given the natural imbalance betweenemployers and employees, this aspect of open source islikely to increase competition for jobs and drive downsalaries. Lower salaries aren’t as much of an advantageto the software vendor as might be expected because inthe more transparent and competitive open source sit-uation, such cost savings are likely to be (at least par-tially) passed on to customers.

The need for committersAn employee’s position in the open source project is

another key part of his or her value to a firm. The orga-nizational setup varies between open source projects,but in some form, people always play user, contributor,and committer roles. Users use the software, contribu-tors contribute in some form, and committers decidewhat contributions to accept into the project.

Figure 4 illustrates how a developer might progressthrough the ranks of a community open source project:A committer typically promotes a user to a contributorrole implicitly by accepting the user’s contribution intothe software. A contributor is typically promoted to acommitter position explicitly, through a prior vote of theexisting group of committers and a subsequent public

announcement of the contributor’s ascension to com-mitter status.

Committers determine where the open source projectis headed, strategically and on a day-to-day basis. Theycan typically resolve technical problems faster than non-committers, and have high visibility to the user com-munity. Most projects are set up so there’s only a smallinner circle of committers, a larger set of contributors,and an even larger user community.

For an employer, the value of employing a committeris manifold. Through the committer, an employer:

• gets problems with the open source software fixedfaster and better,

• can better align company strategy with the opensource project and vice versa,

• appears as a more attractive employer than competi-tors who don’t employ a committer, and

• has higher visibility with the user community andcan reach out more effectively.

A major goal of any open source service company isto convert freeloading users into paying customers. Acommitter’s visibility with the user community is animportant marketing advantage that an employer canuse to support this goal.

Thus, committers have a strong negotiation positionwith their employers. Employing a committer is impor-tant for a first-level support and implementation servicescompany, and it’s critical for a second-level support ser-vice company.

THE EMPLOYEE PERSPECTIVEOpen source software and service businesses make

life more complicated for employees. Employees buildup less firm-specific knowledge simply because there’sless of it. People from the outside can replace them moreeasily. At the same time, an employee’s day-to-day workimproves non-firm-specific knowledge of an opensource project that can be taken to another employer.So a developer who is fired can find a job faster thanbefore.

Benefits of being a committerAn employee who is a committer is likely to earn

higher compensation. Hann and colleagues have empir-ically verified this for committers to Apache SoftwareFoundation projects.6

At any time, the committer-employee can crediblythreaten to leave the company, taking significant powerand reputation away from the current employer.Employers often pay premium salaries just to employprominent committers.

But how do you become a committer? Communityopen source projects tend to be meritocracies, judgingdevelopers by their social and technical contributions.

User

Contributor

Committer

{Explicitpromotion}

{Implicitpromotion}

Time

Seni

ority

and

influ

ence

Figure 4. Positions and promotions. In open source projects,

users are implicitly promoted to contributor status, while con-

tributors are explicitly promoted to committer status.

April 2007 31

In contrast, a company owning some commercial opensource gives committer status to its employees (and takesit away) as it sees fit.

Consequently, it makes little sense for the economi-cally rational software developer to invest time in com-mercial open source. The value these developers createis tied to the product and the owning company. Unlessthe product is in wide use or the developer wants towork only for this one company, it makes more sense toinvest time in a community open source project.

How to become a committerDevelopers who start projects

immediately become committers.However, they now face the task ofcreating a successful project out ofnothing. This is a highly entrepre-neurial activity: Developers mustpromote their project while doingthe actual programming work,understanding that the outcome isuncertain.

It’s more common to join an exist-ing open source project. Assuming a fair and transpar-ent promotion process, the two main criteria that willget a developer promoted from contributor to commit-ter are

• the developer’s social and technical abilities, and• demonstrated commitment to the open source

project.

This is what most project Web sites state and whatdeveloper surveys have revealed.2, 3, 5 However, these sur-veys rely on what developers say they do, and actualbehavior could vary from what people believe motivatesthem.

Because being a committer can have clear financialbenefits, keeping the group of committers small is in theeconomic interest of a committer to a successful project.Not doing so would dilute the committer’s value to cur-rent and future employers. At least this would be an eco-nomically rational person’s train of thought.

Counteracting the existing committers’ economicinterests is the need and desire to build a working com-munity. Also, the participants in a new project are likelyto appreciate every helping hand while a mature projectmight not need any additional committers.

Thus, the following forces possibly influence a devel-oper’s promotion:

• the economic self-interest of the group of existingcommitters,

• the committers’ philosophical convictions on runningthe project, and

• the project’s need for more committers.

In many ways, investing in an open source project islike joining a startup. The earlier a developer joins, thehigher the risk of the project not working out but also themore likely the ascension to committer status. The latera developer joins, the lower the risk, but also the lower thechances of becoming a committer any time soon.

The window of opportunity is small for those aspir-ing to achieve committer status in an important opensource project. With the ongoing commercialization ofopen source, many current projects expect a commit-ter to work full-time on the open source project.Otherwise, committer status wouldn’t be granted. This,

for example, is what the Eclipse project Web site states about its core projects (www.eclipse.org).However, a company is likely to letan employee work full-time on anopen source project only if that per-son is already a committer; other-wise, how many of the benefits of itscontributions the company wouldreap is uncertain.

A developer who chooses the rightproject can gain and maintain a position that willincrease salary-negotiation power and job prospects.The developer will enjoy those benefits as long as theproject is of significance to potential employers.

Open source reinforces the trend toward employeesbecoming “free agents.” Committers who rationally fol-low their economic interests are likely to be more loyalto the open source project than to their current employerbecause that’s where their market value lies. This resultsin a more fluid job market where developers can beexpected to move around more freely and more fre-quently than in the past.

O pen source software has enabled large systemintegrators to increase their profits through costsavings and reach more customers due to flexible

pricing. This has upset existing ecosystems and shuf-fled structural relationships, resulting in the emergenceof firms providing consulting services to open sourceprojects. This new breed of service firm in turn lives or dies by its ability to recruit and retain appropriatetalent.

For such talent, in particular for software developers,life has become more difficult and exciting at once.Developers face new career prospects and paths, sincetheir formal position in an open source project, in addi-tion to their experience and capabilities, determinestheir value to an employer. Economically rationaldevelopers strive to become committers to high-profileopen source projects to further their careers, which inturn generates more recognition, independence, andjob security. ■

The window of opportunity

is small for those aspiring

to achieve committer

status in an important

open source project.

32 Computer

References

1. R. Goldman and R. Gabriel, Innovation Happens Elsewhere,Morgan Kaufmann, 2005.

2. E. Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, O’Reilly, 2001.3. E. Haruvy, F. Wu, and S. Chakravarty, “Incentives for Devel-

opers’ Contributions and Product Performance Metric inOpen Source Development: An Empirical Exploration,” Univ.of Texas working paper; www.iimahd.ernet.in/publications/data/2005-03-04sujoy.pdf..

4. J. Lerner and J. Tirole, “Some Simple Economics of OpenSource,” J. Industrial Economics, vol. 50, no. 2, 2000, pp.197-234.

5. K.R. Lakhani and R.G. Wolf, “Why Hackers Do What TheyDo: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/OpenSource Software Projects,” Perspectives on Free and OpenSource Software, J. Feller et al., eds., MIT Press, 2005, pp. 3-22; http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf.

6. I-H. Hann et al., “Economic Returns to Open Source Partic-ipation: A Panel Data Analysis,” unpublished working paper,

Univ. of Southern California; http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/wise2004/sun412.pdf.

7. G. Moore, Inside the Tornado: Marketing Strategies from Sil-icon Valley’s Cutting Edge, Harper Perennial, 1999.

8. C. Christensen, The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Tech-nologies Cause Great Firms to Fail, Harper Business, 2000.

9. S. Krishnamurthy, “An Analysis of Open Source BusinessModels,” Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, J.Feller et al., eds., MIT Press, 2005, pp. 279-296; http://faculty.washington.edu/sandeep/d/bazaar.pdf.

Dirk Riehle leads the open source research group at SAPResearch. His research interests are open source software,collective intelligence and wikis, and object-oriented soft-ware architectures. Riehle received a PhD in computer sci-ence from ETH Zurich, the Swiss Federal Institute ofTechnology. He is a member of the IEEE and the ACM.Contact him at dirk.riehle@sap.com or dirk@riehle.org; seealso www.riehle.org.

In 2006, the IEEE Computer Society celebrated its60th anniversary. To commemorate the event, theIEEE CS History Committee selected the Top 60Events in the history of the Society.

The launching of IT Professional in 1999 wasamong those Top 60 Events. In its selection, thecommittee gave special recognition to ITProfessional’s first Editor in Chief, Wushow Chou.

IT Professional can be proud of this significanthonor. Congratulations to all who have helpedmake the magazine the source for the developersand managers of enterprise information systems.

Congratulations to

IT Professional

www.computer.org/itpro

Congratulations to

IT Professional