Difference between revisions of "Journal:What is the "source" of open-source hardware?"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Saving and adding more.)
(Saving and adding more.)
Line 45: Line 45:


Like free and open-source software, OSH is an IT-enabled internet phenomenon. Fjeldsted ''et al.''<ref name="FjeldstedOpen12">{{cite journal |title=Open Source Development of Tangible Products - From a business perspective |journal=Proceedings of NordDesign 2012 |author=Fjeldsted, A.S.; Adalsteinsdottir, G.; Howard, T.J. et al. |year=2012 |url=https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/open-source-development-of-tangible-products-from-a-business-pers}}</ref>, as well as Bonvoisin and Boujut<ref name="BonvoisinOpen15">{{cite journal |title=Open Design Platforms for Open Source Product Development: Current State and Requirements |journal=Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design |author=Bonvoisin, J.; Boujut, J.-F. |volume=8  |pages=11–20 |year=2015 |url=https://www.designsociety.org/publication/37899/OPEN+DESIGN+PLATFORMS+FOR+OPEN+SOURCE+PRODUCT+DEVELOPMENT%3A+CURRENT+STATE+AND+REQUIREMENTS}}</ref>, point out the integral part IT platforms play in fostering product-related data sharing and community-based product development, as well as the emergence of OSH-based business models. However, Raasch<ref name="RaaschProduct11" /> draws a contrast: compared with OSS development, the aspect of physical object design in OSH has strong impacts on required skills, tools, and infrastructure. This aspect is even increasingly salient as the focus of OSH progressively expands towards many other forms of hardware than electronic hardware, like mechanical, construction, medical, optical, agricultural, or textile hardware. From a design point-of-view, the degree of freedom in the problem-solution space introduced by their mechanical portion rises significantly. Howard ''et al.''<ref name="HowardOpen12">{{cite journal |title=Open Design and Crowdsourcing: Maturity, Methodology and Business Models |journal=Proceedings of DESIGN 2012 |author=Howard, T.J.; Achiche, S.; Özkil, A. et al. |pages=181–90 |year=2012 |url=https://www.designsociety.org/publication/31985/OPEN+DESIGN+AND+CROWDSOURCING%3A+MATURITY%2C+METHODOLOGY+AND+BUSINESS+MODELS}}</ref> and Raasch, Herstatt, and Balka<ref name="RaaschOnThe09">{{cite journal |title=On the open design of tangible goods |journal=R&D Management |author=Raasch, C.; Herstatt, C.; Balka, K. |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=382–93 |year=2009 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00567.x}}</ref> also illustrate how OSH is looking at the full spectrum of product complexity and different manufacturing strategies, from do-it-yourself (DIY) to industrial production.
Like free and open-source software, OSH is an IT-enabled internet phenomenon. Fjeldsted ''et al.''<ref name="FjeldstedOpen12">{{cite journal |title=Open Source Development of Tangible Products - From a business perspective |journal=Proceedings of NordDesign 2012 |author=Fjeldsted, A.S.; Adalsteinsdottir, G.; Howard, T.J. et al. |year=2012 |url=https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/open-source-development-of-tangible-products-from-a-business-pers}}</ref>, as well as Bonvoisin and Boujut<ref name="BonvoisinOpen15">{{cite journal |title=Open Design Platforms for Open Source Product Development: Current State and Requirements |journal=Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design |author=Bonvoisin, J.; Boujut, J.-F. |volume=8  |pages=11–20 |year=2015 |url=https://www.designsociety.org/publication/37899/OPEN+DESIGN+PLATFORMS+FOR+OPEN+SOURCE+PRODUCT+DEVELOPMENT%3A+CURRENT+STATE+AND+REQUIREMENTS}}</ref>, point out the integral part IT platforms play in fostering product-related data sharing and community-based product development, as well as the emergence of OSH-based business models. However, Raasch<ref name="RaaschProduct11" /> draws a contrast: compared with OSS development, the aspect of physical object design in OSH has strong impacts on required skills, tools, and infrastructure. This aspect is even increasingly salient as the focus of OSH progressively expands towards many other forms of hardware than electronic hardware, like mechanical, construction, medical, optical, agricultural, or textile hardware. From a design point-of-view, the degree of freedom in the problem-solution space introduced by their mechanical portion rises significantly. Howard ''et al.''<ref name="HowardOpen12">{{cite journal |title=Open Design and Crowdsourcing: Maturity, Methodology and Business Models |journal=Proceedings of DESIGN 2012 |author=Howard, T.J.; Achiche, S.; Özkil, A. et al. |pages=181–90 |year=2012 |url=https://www.designsociety.org/publication/31985/OPEN+DESIGN+AND+CROWDSOURCING%3A+MATURITY%2C+METHODOLOGY+AND+BUSINESS+MODELS}}</ref> and Raasch, Herstatt, and Balka<ref name="RaaschOnThe09">{{cite journal |title=On the open design of tangible goods |journal=R&D Management |author=Raasch, C.; Herstatt, C.; Balka, K. |volume=39 |issue=4 |pages=382–93 |year=2009 |doi=10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00567.x}}</ref> also illustrate how OSH is looking at the full spectrum of product complexity and different manufacturing strategies, from do-it-yourself (DIY) to industrial production.
The capacity of communities outside the closed and hierarchical environment of research and development (R&D) departments to develop complex and high-quality products remains a challenge; the largest majority of OSH products available to date are gadgets for hobbyists.<ref name="HansenTheCurrent13">{{cite journal |title=The Current State of Open Source Hardware: The Need for an Open Source Development Platform |journal=ICoRD'13 |author=Hansen, A.; Howard, T.J. |pages=977–88 |year=2013 |doi=10.1007/978-81-322-1050-4_77}}</ref> As processes transform inputs into outputs, their structure is generally related to the product and project scope. OSH can be described as individual or participatory realization of a shared product design. Therefore, 3D printing designs shared by individuals on sites such as Thingiverse{{Efn|[https://www.thingiverse.com/ Thingiverse] is a platform that allows users to share a huge variety of 3D models based on CAD or STL files.}} may classify as OSH, similar to large community-based efforts such as the E-Nable project.{{Efn|[https://perma.cc/XZ7W-ELAQ Enable Outreach] is a network of makers that collaborate locally with disabled children to provide them with adapted 3D printed hand prosthesis.}} This makes a big difference in regards to the type of effort being structured for the realization of an open-source product. Hence, depending on the product scope and also the originator's intent to foster co-design, levels of interaction maturity differ starkly in OSH. A useful macro-level classification is offered by Camarinha-Matos ''et al.''<ref name="Camarinha-MatosCollab09">{{cite journal |title=Collaborative networked organizations – Concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprises |journal=Computers & Industrial Engineering |author=Camarinha,-Matos, L.M.; Afsarmanesh, H.; Galeano, N. et al. |volume=57 }issue=1 |pages=46–60 |year=2009 |doi=10.1016/j.cie.2008.11.024}}</ref>, starting at networks, then moving to coordination, cooperation, and collaboration.


==Footnotes==
==Footnotes==

Revision as of 20:41, 13 January 2020

Full article title What is the "source" of open-source hardware?
Journal Journal of Open Hardware
Author(s) Bonvoisin, Jérémy; Mies, Robert; Boujut, Jean-François; Stark, Rainer
Author affiliation(s) Technische Universität Berlin, Grenoble Alpes University
Primary contact Email: jeremy dot bonvoisin at tu-berlin dot de
Year published 2017
Volume and issue 1(1)
Page(s) 5
DOI 10.5334/joh.7
ISSN 2514-1708
Distribution license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
Website https://openhardware.metajnl.com/articles/10.5334/joh.7/
Download https://openhardware.metajnl.com/articles/10.5334/joh.7/galley/12/download/ (PDF)
Emblem-important-yellow.svg This article should be considered a work in progress and incomplete. Consider this article incomplete until this notice is removed.

Abstract

What “open source” means once applied to tangible products has been so far mostly addressed through the light of licensing. While this approach is suitable for software, it appears to be over-simplistic for complex hardware products. Whether such a product can be labelled as open-source is not only a question of licence but a question of documentation, i.e. what is the information that sufficiently describes it? Or in other words, what is the “source” of open-source hardware? To date there is no simple answer to this question, leaving large room for interpretation in the usage of the term. Based on analysis of public documentation of 132 products, this paper provides an overview of how practitioners tend to interpret the concept of open-source hardware. It specifically focuses on the recent evolution of the open-source movement outside the domain of electronics and DIY to that of non-electronic and complex open-source hardware products. The empirical results strongly indicate the existence of two main usages of open-source principles in the context of tangible products: publication of product-related documentation as a means to support community-based product development and to disseminate privately developed innovations. It also underlines the high variety of interpretations and even misuses of the concept of open-source hardware. This reveals in turn that this concept may not even be clear to practitioners and calls for more narrowed down definitions of what has to be shared for a product to be called open source. This article contributes towards this effort through the definition of an open-source hardware lifecycle, summarizing the observed approaches to open-source hardware.

Keywords: open-source hardware, open design, open innovation, open-source innovation, open-source product development

Introduction

We are currently witnessing an increasing number of initiatives transferring product development and production from the private sector to the public. Enabled by the growing accessibility of affordable manufacturing technology, this is manifested in the expansion of the so-called “maker culture,” which takes action to install participational production as an alternative to industrial production.[1][2] The emergence of this culture is interwoven with the phenomenon of open-source hardware (OSH), which transfers open-source principles (as defined by Open Source Initiative 2007) from their origins in software development to the world of physical objects.[3] While these new practices are raising significant attention, they are still in their infancy and struggle to reveal their full economic, social, and environmental potential. One of the challenges they face is that sharing knowledge about atoms is not as frictionless as sharing bits.

Both practitioners and the scientific community generally acknowledge that online sharing of a piece of hardware is more difficult than the sharing of a piece of software (e.g., see discussion of this point by Raasch[4]. Software is digital by nature; it is made of series of characters in a format that can be shared and displayed online without specific tools, with a text editor being enough. Hardware may need to be described through more complex constructs like 2D or 3D schematics, which may require more specific software to be edited and displayed. Based on the evaluation of a pool of 20 OSH projects whose products embedded both software and hardware components, Balka, Raasch, and Herstatt[5] highlighted that hardware components were generally less documented than the software components. This result raises questions in terms of practice. When a piece of hardware is poorly documented, is it still open source? What does “less documented” mean? What are the minimal requirements for labeling a hardware product as "open source"?

In the absence of clear guidance on this issue, it is not easy to draw a line between which piece of hardware is open source and which is not, even when licensing terms may be clear. Unlike in software, attributing appropriate licences[a] is not sufficient to call hardware open source. Given OSH is a sociotechnical phenomenon, the answer primarily depends on how the product documentation enables co-development and replication. This article seeks to provide guidance on which information sufficiently describes OSH. In other words, what is the source of OSH?

The objective of this article is to provide an overview of how current projects tend to interpret and make use of the concept of OSH. Its ultimate goal is to provide a deeper description of what OSH means based on the observation of actual practices. This is performed through the analysis of the “source”, i.e., the published documentation of 132 OSH products with the help of categorical criteria addressing the question “how open are OSH products?” It specifically focuses on the recent evolution of the open-source movement outside the domain of electronics and DIY to those of non-electronic and complex OSH products.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section the general context of emergence of OSH as an alternative product development pattern based on free distribution of information is depicted and characterized. Then definitions from practice communities and scholars are analysed and combined in order to provide a consolidated overview of the concept of OSH. After the definitions, the methodological approach for the acquisition of empirical data allowing the analysis of current practices of OSH documentation is introduced. The results produced by the application of this method are then described and interpreted. Finally, we summarize the findings into an original framework termed "OSH lifecycle," additionally summarizing observed approaches to OSH.

The context of open-source hardware

OSH is a relatively young phenomenon with projects emerging in the past decade[7], although it has several prominent examples already. Pioneering projects such as RepRap, Open Source Ecology, and Local Motors have certainly set a precedence to lift the air of mystery and aloofness of engineering ingenuity closely guarded for means of commercial appropriation. As to whether these are heralds of what Moritz et al.[8] depict as disruptive changes on the upstream end of value chains toward value-co-creation, only time will tell. Clearly, this alternative course of action could take an active part in shaping the technological future. Indeed, there are already promising examples of successful businesses based on OSH for which the scientific community identified corresponding value creation models.[9][10] These examples, together with the empirical evidence provided by free and open-source software, allow for a foreseeing of a flourishing future for OSH.[9][10]

Like free and open-source software, OSH is an IT-enabled internet phenomenon. Fjeldsted et al.[11], as well as Bonvoisin and Boujut[12], point out the integral part IT platforms play in fostering product-related data sharing and community-based product development, as well as the emergence of OSH-based business models. However, Raasch[4] draws a contrast: compared with OSS development, the aspect of physical object design in OSH has strong impacts on required skills, tools, and infrastructure. This aspect is even increasingly salient as the focus of OSH progressively expands towards many other forms of hardware than electronic hardware, like mechanical, construction, medical, optical, agricultural, or textile hardware. From a design point-of-view, the degree of freedom in the problem-solution space introduced by their mechanical portion rises significantly. Howard et al.[13] and Raasch, Herstatt, and Balka[14] also illustrate how OSH is looking at the full spectrum of product complexity and different manufacturing strategies, from do-it-yourself (DIY) to industrial production.

The capacity of communities outside the closed and hierarchical environment of research and development (R&D) departments to develop complex and high-quality products remains a challenge; the largest majority of OSH products available to date are gadgets for hobbyists.[15] As processes transform inputs into outputs, their structure is generally related to the product and project scope. OSH can be described as individual or participatory realization of a shared product design. Therefore, 3D printing designs shared by individuals on sites such as Thingiverse[b] may classify as OSH, similar to large community-based efforts such as the E-Nable project.[c] This makes a big difference in regards to the type of effort being structured for the realization of an open-source product. Hence, depending on the product scope and also the originator's intent to foster co-design, levels of interaction maturity differ starkly in OSH. A useful macro-level classification is offered by Camarinha-Matos et al.[16], starting at networks, then moving to coordination, cooperation, and collaboration.


Footnotes

  1. ↑ For an overview of OSH licences, see for example Katz.[6]
  2. ↑ Thingiverse is a platform that allows users to share a huge variety of 3D models based on CAD or STL files.
  3. ↑ Enable Outreach is a network of makers that collaborate locally with disabled children to provide them with adapted 3D printed hand prosthesis.

References

  1. ↑ Hatch, M. (2013). The Maker Movement Manifesto: Rules for Innovation in the New World of Crafters, Hackers, and Tinkerers. McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 9780071821124. 
  2. ↑ Voigt, C.; Montero, C.S.; Menichinelli, M. (2016). "An Empirically Informed Taxonomy for the Maker Movement". In Bagnoli, F., Satsiou, A.; Stavrakakis, I. et al.. Internet Science - INSCI 2016. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 9934. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-45982-0_17. ISBN 9783319459820. 
  3. ↑ Balka, K. (2011). Open Source Product Development - The Meaning an Relevance of Openness. Gabler Verlag. p. 4. doi:10.1007/978-3-8349-6949-1. ISBN 9783834969491. 
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Raasch, C. (2011). "Product Development in Open Design Communities: A Process Perspective". International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 8 (4): 557–75. doi:10.1142/S021987701100260X. 
  5. ↑ Balka, K.; Raasch, C.; Herstatt, C. (2014). "The Effect of Selective Openness on Value Creation in User Innovation Communities". The Journal of Product Innovation Management 31 (2): 392–407. doi:10.1111/jpim.12102. 
  6. ↑ Katz, A. (2012). "Towards a Functional Licence for Open Hardware". The Journal of Open Law, Technology & Society 4 (1): 41–62. doi:10.5033/ifosslr.v4i1.69. 
  7. ↑ Balka, K. (2016). "Project List". Open Innovation Projects. Archived from the original on 27 September 2016. https://web.archive.org/web/20160927222446/http://open-innovation-projects.org/project-list. 
  8. ↑ Moritz, M.; Redlich, T.; Krenz, P. et al. (2015). "Open up or Close down - The new Era of “Openneers” and how they lead the Way to Future Success". Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 13 (6): 15–22. http://www.iiisci.org/journal/sci/FullText.asp?var=&id=HB188KY15. 
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Pearce, J.M. (2017). "Emerging Business Models for Open Source Hardware". Journal of Open Hardware 1 (1): 2. doi:10.5334/joh.4. 
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Li, Z.; Seering, W.; Ramos, J.D. et al. (2017). "Why Open Source?: Exploring the Motivations of Using an Open Model for Hardware Development". Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. doi:10.1115/DETC2017-68195. 
  11. ↑ Fjeldsted, A.S.; Adalsteinsdottir, G.; Howard, T.J. et al. (2012). "Open Source Development of Tangible Products - From a business perspective". Proceedings of NordDesign 2012. https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/open-source-development-of-tangible-products-from-a-business-pers. 
  12. ↑ Bonvoisin, J.; Boujut, J.-F. (2015). "Open Design Platforms for Open Source Product Development: Current State and Requirements". Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design 8: 11–20. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/37899/OPEN+DESIGN+PLATFORMS+FOR+OPEN+SOURCE+PRODUCT+DEVELOPMENT%3A+CURRENT+STATE+AND+REQUIREMENTS. 
  13. ↑ Howard, T.J.; Achiche, S.; Özkil, A. et al. (2012). "Open Design and Crowdsourcing: Maturity, Methodology and Business Models". Proceedings of DESIGN 2012: 181–90. https://www.designsociety.org/publication/31985/OPEN+DESIGN+AND+CROWDSOURCING%3A+MATURITY%2C+METHODOLOGY+AND+BUSINESS+MODELS. 
  14. ↑ Raasch, C.; Herstatt, C.; Balka, K. (2009). "On the open design of tangible goods". R&D Management 39 (4): 382–93. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00567.x. 
  15. ↑ Hansen, A.; Howard, T.J. (2013). "The Current State of Open Source Hardware: The Need for an Open Source Development Platform". ICoRD'13: 977–88. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-1050-4_77. 
  16. ↑ Camarinha,-Matos, L.M.; Afsarmanesh, H.; Galeano, N. et al. (2009). "Collaborative networked organizations – Concepts and practice in manufacturing enterprises". Computers & Industrial Engineering 57 }issue=1: 46–60. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2008.11.024. 

Notes

This presentation is faithful to the original, with only a few minor changes to presentation. In some cases important information was missing from the references, and that information was added. The original article lists references alphabetically, but this version—by design—lists them in order of appearance. To more easily differentiate footnotes from references, the original footnotes (which where numbered) were updated to use lowercase letters. Some footnotes referencing web pages were turned into proper citations.

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Journal:What_is_the_%22source%22_of_open-source_hardware%3F&oldid=37441"