 Okay, let's get started. Good afternoon everyone. Thank you for this opportunity to speak at new operation management summit here. We'd like to talk about quantitative method for open source contribution value and its impact on Sony's business strategy. If you have a question, please ask us at Q&A time. Please wait. Let us introduce ourselves. I'm Kazumi Sato. I am a Distinguished Engineer Sony Group Corporation. I have been working on Linux-based system software for various Sony products. I also have been working on OSS compliance and relationship with communities in Sony Group. Since 2002, when Sony started to use Linux, I have been leading system software development using Linux and introducing it to the products, complying the open source license. I am a member of the Software Strategy Commit at Sony Group. Hi, I'm Masayuki Kuwata. I'm an Osprey at Sony Group. I work on the open source strategy with the business unit. Since April 2022, I have started my career in Osprey. Before that, I was a software engineer, and now I am also an organizer of Japan Ospo Local Meetup. I had this meetup yesterday, and I gathered about 25 people. The activity is under 2D Group and OpenChain Japan Working Group. Let me introduce our co-workers who are in this room, Fukuchisa and Alin. Could you stand up? We worked with them to this analysis and discussed a lot. Thank you very much. By the end of this presentation, you will feel and understand how quantitative data is effective for open source promotion. Now, let's get things started from background. Ospo is expanding especially 2023. As you can see, the graph at the bottom. Collaboration on common challenges under 2D Group and OpenChain is very good. However, we have had still big challenges. Let me explain about that. Our challenges are to step the company up. It's staged from consumer to participant to contributor. But it is difficult to understand upper side benefit from lower side. So, how to convince engineers and management? That's our challenge. And our situation. Undoubtedly, everyone recognizes the value of using open source. As you can see, the left side of the consumer smiling face, it's easy to understand. It's clear for them, for everyone, the benefit of the consumer because just using. But difficult to make consensus, the value of participating and contributing to open source as part of company business activities on some business area. It's including our situation, our company. And from consumer, participation looks annoying from participant. And they don't think it is better to contribute for their code or something. They don't understand why it is good to contribute. Despite presenting examples of strategic utilization by other companies, limited acceptance of changing work practices. So, our three steps analysis. Let me pass the button to Kabin. Thank you, Kuwata-san. I'd like to talk about three steps, our analysis. Our three-step analysis is, at first, we assessed the company's current situation by analyzing our own open source activities. Then we visualized the overall landscape or open source activity by using OSCI analysis. OSCI is Open Source Software Analyzed Github by E-PAN Company. And then we showed the relationship between contribution and businesses. First, assessing the company's current situation. We listed our own open source development project and the number of contributors in each technical categories. As you can see, we have some open source development activity in several technology categories. But if we watch the activities with sales and profit, there is an imbalance between business and open source contributions. Right side bar shows the rate of contributors by technical categories. Left side shows the rate of our profit and sales and contributors map to business categories. As you can see, this is very unbalancing. And we explained our executive situation and it has been understood by our executives. Next, I'd like to explain about visualization, the overall landscape of technologies. We want to visualize the status of the open source project technology area related to the business by OSCI. We presented last year's OSSJ about another analysis with open source contributor index. Last year's OSSJ. The three major neutral foundations, Linux Foundation, Apache Software Foundation and Eclipse Foundation have published information on how to categorize their project. As you know, three major foundations have a lot of important open source software. So we analyze these three major foundations. So we categorize project from three major foundation into technology domain to understand the size of each development. Each foundation classifies categories differently, so we normalize them manually. This page shows developers by tech category and foundation. As you can see, cloud is a top category with 2,700 developers and almost all developers are contributing to Linux Foundation project. Next is AI and data with 1,400 developers and Apache Software Foundation has also a large amount of contributors. Third is IoT and embedded with 600 developers and again almost all under Linux Foundation. This page shows tech category contributors. You can see same contribution number covered by company. Cloud area is developed by cloud companies, of course. In AI and data, the biggest company is Meta due to PyTorch project. In IoT, we can see variety type of company, Intel, Google and semiconductor companies. This page shows developers by company. Our analysis is company basis and we can see IT giant at upper side and main category is cloud. But Facebook and Apple, their focus is on AI and data. And semiconductor companies have about 100 contributors and they are working on cloud, AI and IoT. Adobe also contribute web and contents. Our Sony contribute IoT cloud kernel network and contents. Each company contribute different kind of technology area. This page shows. Now, it is coming to almost interesting part. We showed the relationship between contribution and businesses. At first, we dive to development persons. Before sharing the quantitative data, let me show how we analyzed. We firstly looked at our raw data. As you can see, there are different frequency of each person. A lot of developer contribute only a few months. Limited developer works constantly. So, we focused on constant dedicated developers. We define dedicated developers at least 10 months and 40 commits a year. This pie chart shows pie torch dedicated developers. If you look at dedicated developer who work for their company, Metahertz, 36 persons and other total 38 extra persons more than twice the development power from Meta. Big tech and semiconductor companies value pie torch as infrastructure and appointed dedicated developer. We suppose that dedicated appointed developer is working at the company's wheel. This chart shows IT Tech contributors analysis. This table shows contribution repository in pie torch project and its contribution company. This table shows IT Tech contribute to enhance their platform. Google, Amazon, Apple, they are working for their SOCs. Microsoft look like work for Windows, I suppose. This page shows analysis of semiconductor companies contributions. Semiconductor company contributed to enhance their SOC value. We analyzed pie torch subrepositories commits by semiconductor companies and we understood that they are working for accelerating their SOC. Next part, I'd like to pass to Kuwata-san again. Okay. Thank you, Sato-san. Now let's look at progress in our company. Right. Before we got this data, our approach had only qualitative information, but no change in business strategy even though qualitative information could be understood. So we added quantitative data, as you can see with blue color in this slide. Conducting executive briefings to enhance understanding of global trends through data and igniting for bottom-up movement by delivering presentations with data. And as you can see with purple color, tailor data analysis for business unit, technology character. Convincing business units to initiate strategic activities through specific examples from other companies. Then quantitative information can convince business unit more. And business strategy including open source. Let's go into detail. First, let me share how we have conducted executive briefings. First step, we presented to software strategy committee. Second step, we conducted executive briefings to C-class executives. And third step, we presented a game with response from senior executives to software strategy committee including business unit software head. From this process, many of them are convinced with quantitative data. Next approach, to upstream of the business plan. Source information for business plan did not capture open source situation even though all technology includes open source. We approached key persons with business strategy planning and provided open source trend information with quantitatively analyzed data. Now, technology strategy includes open source explicitly. Third approach, convincing business units. Sony semiconductor solutions has a spool. Maybe some of you already attended morning session, but they made business unit understand the importance of open source. But qualitative information could not give an idea how to change the business plan. So, we provided information with quantitatively analyzed pie-torch data. Especially semiconductor companies activity, as Satoshi explained. With this trigger, strategic open source activity has been getting started. And now we came to final point. Even top-down message is shared. Engineers do not start action soon because they are not convinced without detailed explanation. So, we are conducting presentation to engineers by tailoring the information to each technology area for obtain their understanding about contribution value and aspectivity. Okay, that's everything of our company progress. So, let's move on to the key takeaways. One, quantitative data demonstrates the business impact of open source contribution. And that is useful to gain support from top-level executives. Two, analyzing technology areas with open source and providing input early in business plan discussions is valuable for business and its strategy. Three, it is important to tailor information by understanding organization's characteristics to effectively promote open source activities. And final point, bottom-up activities are also important to convince a lot of engineers. Okay, but still there are remain things. Ospo cannot have all technology area knowledge because open source is covering all technology areas. So, each technology specialist needs to join this activity, I believe. So, our approach can improve this situation. Okay, that's all. Thank you very much, and it's time for questions. Thank you for presentation. I have one question about three ideas. Please show the third idea. No bottom-up. Oh, bottom-up, okay, I see. I think it is important in Japan a lot of companies like DX and make employees to bottom-up idea or bottom-up actions, but it is difficult to conducting bottom-up action because in all of these... I'm sorry. A lot of people conducting business top-down, but now culture is bottom-up. Different culture. So, if I do this idea, this idea is important, but it is difficult to conduct this idea. So, how to conduct this idea in engineer or other employees? Can you understand? Yes, I understand your question. As you mentioned, it's difficult to get understanding and start action from bottom-up. Yes, exactly. Okay, maybe next slide will be better. As I described here, we just started this activity and currently still we are trying. Fortunately, in our company, we have several channels to access to younger generation. One is already Kazumi-san-den, but around the area, we have a chance to make a presentation all around the division. And a lot of younger generation have joined that presentation meeting. And I usually do. We say bottom-up approach is important, but someone says, please, top-down. So, we conduct some middle manager to do bottom-up activity. So, you access to the top, not top, middle manager. Young manager, such kind of staff engineer. I say we should involve bottom-up activity. So, manager do such kind of bottom-up experience. Then bottom-up people join this activity. Younger people say, we'd like to join some enhancement activity. Everyone say, but they themselves do themselves. So, we first say to middle manager to do bottom-up activity. So, middle manager say, you can do bottom-up activity. Then younger person do bottom-up activity. Okay, I got it. Thank you very much. Yeah. Any question? Thank you very much for the talk. I understand most of them. I would like to know what is the goal of your activity? So, to reduce your cost or to shorten your development terms, or to, I think that you are saying to teach the younger people to join the open source. But I don't understand why you are trying to do so. Thank you for your question. As you know, open source is a fundamental technology. So, our technology depend on open source. So, open source activity is very essential, I think. So, Sony say we are technology company, an entertainment technology company. So, we should do enhanced technology, but all technology depend on open source. So, we should encourage open source, I think. So, I do this activity. I would like to add that this slide is pretty good because if you are depending on open source, a lot of open source projects are trying hard to keep their quality, their stuff, they are exhausted. And what industry learned is that they should contribute and they do this a lot, so these projects get a lot of patches, a lot of patch reports. So, the next step is to participate more like review, take action. And this is what I get from this, so this is very welcome. So, one of the goals is not only to reduce cost but just to sustain open source in this high quality the industry depends on. This is a movement a lot more companies should do to take action so that we still in the future will have this powerful strong open source that we have today, otherwise it will collapse. That's what I think. Thank you for comment. Thank you for a good presentation and very interesting data, that I wish were more easily available for everyone. My question is, do you find a difference in, when you try to roll this out in terms of a bottom up or top down approach, what works, because Sony is a global company, what works in Japan does that directly translate into what works in Europe or the US or have you mostly worked with this in Japan so far? Yeah. Thank you for question. That's it. Our problems. Our company is, our founder is Japanese so almost main activity in Japan. But our subsidiary is oversea everywhere. So it is important to convince every, our company's engineer. But European or American, foreign, understand almost open source value. So, but we should more tight relationship with overseas colleagues in this kind of activities. Our company is conglomerate company, so not only electronic semiconductor, but also entertainment, picture and live assurance and music. So, we should do telling each situation. Maybe I should do any question. Thank you. Thank you for your sharing. I'm curious about how many years or how long have you spent to convince all your board community and to organize all the button-up activities that engage all the developers you have? Thank you. I'm not sure. But this presentation activity is this year activity. Yeah. The last year also. So, we just started our activity. If I could make a comment. I'm with Sony as well. So, we've been doing the qualitative approach for many years. Probably over 20 years. And this is a much better approach. The quantitative, it's really hard to convince upper management with kind of philosophical arguments. Although the philosophical arguments are correct, they're true, right? That if you invest, for instance, in contributions, that you'll get better software back. And there's a whole bunch of arguments that I've made them all myself in the past. But when you approach upper management with numbers, and especially if you show them the competitive landscape where it's like these companies are investing in this project, and you can say, and they're doing it for this reason, and this return on investment, that's a much better story. And that's much more convincing. And so this is a relatively new activity, this quantitative measurement stuff, but we're finding it's effective. I can come with another comment also from Sony, Europe this time. So, before this activity, we started educating the middle management with the power of open, what open means. And most managers don't get the idea just from the idea perspective. Open collaboration, open data, open source, open hardware, open code are concepts that they cannot grasp. But if you show them what other companies are doing in the same area, then it is a competition. And that they can understand. They can understand numbers. So it's easier to go and then preach the concept of open to developers once you convince the management. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Only three minutes. Thank you very much.