Skip to content

Collaborate with External Partners on Open Source Hackathons §

Pattern Summary §

Create a process for ensuring that partner contributions are purposeful and that roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in advance.

Problem / Challenge §

Hackathons that involve external partners (e.g. companies, nonprofits, or other organizations) can deliver significant value for participants. However, they introduce coordination and project management challenges that are easy to underestimate.

External partners vary widely in their level of hackathon experience and may have unrealistic expectations relating to decision making, event management and structure of the hackathon.

A lack of early engagement and role clarity can lead to ambiguity about who is the key decision maker; logistical details on the day of the event; role confusion for mentors, judges, volunteers and partner representatives.

Partner contributions that are poorly integrated into the event reduce the value for participants.

Pattern Category §

  • Community Building
  • Education & Skills
  • Promoting Best Practices
  • Working with Tech Transfer / External Partners

Context §

A university OSPO is involved in organizing or co-organizing a hackathon.

One or more external organizations have expressed interest in participating as sponsors, problem-statement providers or resource contributors.

Internal stakeholders from across the institution are also involved.

The OSPO has established relationships with both external partners and relevant internal groups.

Forces §

External partners may not know what a productive hackathon contribution looks like or may arrive with a highly structured approach that does not fit the university context.

Partners with well-developed playbooks can be a significant asset but their approach may need negotiation and adaptation to work well for student participants.

Internal stakeholders (e.g. faculty, student groups, graduate programs) each have a stake in the event and may have different assumptions about governance and decision-making.

The OSPO has a coordinating role but not a directive one. It must build shared understanding across parties that do not naturally defer to each other.

Logistics and role clarity are significantly harder to address on the day itself, when time pressure is high.

Solution §

Obtain clarity on roles and logistics by positioning the OSPO as the central coordination point through which external partners, faculty and student groups can each contribute to the event.

The solution below outlines some core activities to consider:

Define the partner's programmatic contribution §

Before engaging with logistics, work with external partners to establish what they are uniquely positioned to offer. Questions to ask include:

  • What access or resources does the partner bring that participants would not otherwise have e.g. proprietary tools, specialized datasets, on-call subject-matter engineers, mentors, prizes?
  • What real-world problem statement can the partner offer?

Negotiate the partner's facilitation role §

  • Assess whether the partner has an established facilitation playbook and, if so, how well it fits the university context and participant needs.
  • Where a partner has a well-tested approach, work to integrate it into the event structure.
  • Where a partner has no established approach, provide more scaffolding and take a more active role in defining what their participation looks like.

Partners with highly structured playbooks may require ongoing negotiation to ensure their approach serves participants rather than primarily showcasing the partner organization.

Problem statements that are too narrow or proprietary can constrain participant creativity — this tension is best surfaced early in planning.

Manage expectations and clarify roles §

  • Meet external stakeholders in advance to agree on the event structure and individual responsibilities.
  • Produce a shared run-of-show document before the event that sets out the event timeline and key phases (opening, hacking period, mentorship windows, judging, closing). The run-of-show document is only effective if all parties engage with it before the event. Securing that engagement requires active follow-through from the OSPO.
  • Outline the specific expectations for each role i.e. mentors, judges, volunteers and partner representatives - including who owns each phase and each category of decision.
  • Circulate this document to all parties with enough lead time to resolve any disagreements before the day of the event.
  • Communicate partner contributions to internal stakeholders and participants so they can prepare to make use of it.

Resulting Context §

Collaborating with external partners offers participants fresh opportunities to access additional resources, new tools and real-world problems in a hackathon.

Role clarity achieved before the hackathon significantly reduces workload and coordination overhead in the run-up to the event and on the day itself.

External partners feel their contribution is purposeful and well-integrated, strengthening the relationship for future collaboration.

The OSPO reinforces its value as a neutral convener and steward of open source activities on campus.

Additional learning from UCSC OSPO, University of California, Santa Cruz §

It’s critical to be really clear ahead of time on roles and ‘who owns what’.

Details such as the flow of the event, expectations for mentors, volunteers and judges needs to be agreed upon and finalised in advance.

It’s also important to clarify how each phase will be run.

Additional learning from the Carnegie Mellon University OSPO §

There are two big programmatic advantages to having partners.

Firstly, they provide access to something that we might not have on campus. We partnered with one organization that donated expensive tooling for the event and also supplied engineers who were on call to answer questions.

Secondly, external partners define problem statements using real-world problems.

Often, our role as the OSPO, is to act as a central point that enables faculty, students or external stakeholders to organize the hackathon and have an equitable voice.

Known Instances §

References §

Contributors & Acknowledgement §

  • Angela Newell, University of Texas at Austin
  • Ciara Flanagan, https://orcid.org/0009-0005-3153-7673
  • David Lippert, George Washington University, https://orcid.org/0009-0003-6444-9595
  • Emily Lovell, University of California Santa Cruz, https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5531-5956
  • Laura Langdon, University of California, Davis
  • Tom Hughes, Carnegie Mellon University, https://orcid.org/0009-0008-7516-3687