See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/301275721

Implications of Open Source Design for Sustainability

Chapter · January 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-32098-4_5

CITATIONS READS

5 162

1 author:

Jérémy Bonvoisin
University of Bath
32 PUBLICATIONS   163 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Business models supporting open source hardware View project

OPEN! Methods and tools for community-based product development View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jérémy Bonvoisin on 27 December 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Implications of Open Source Design for
Sustainability
Jérémy Bonvoisin, Technische Universität Berlin, Institute for Machine-tools and Factory
Management, Chair of Industrial Information Technology, Berlin, Germany, jeremy.bonvoisin@tu-
berlin.de

Abstract. In order to cope with the challenges of sustainability, systematic methods have been
developed for improving the ratio between usefulness and environmental impact of products. These
necessary efforts are however constrained if the surrounding business model patterns are not
challenged at the same time. In this article, open source design (OSD) is presented as a potential
concept leading towards alternative and eco-efficient production and consumption patterns.
Potential advantages of OSD for environmental sustainability are hypothesized and confronted with
the analysis of the environmental friendliness of four open source products. Two synergies between
sustainable design and OSD are identified (product modularity and design for local manufacturing) as
well as corresponding challenges for further research.

Keywords: open source innovation; open hardware; sustainable product design; eco-design.

Beyond Sustainable Product Design

Eco-design, i.e. the approach of improving the ratio between usefulness and environmental impact of
a good or service is a necessary approach to assume the challenges of sustainability and has been
largely addressed in engineering design in the last decades—see, for example, contributions of
Wimmer and Züst in 2003 [1] or Pigosso et al. in 2013 [2] for an overview of this domain. This
product focused approach may be limited if production and consumption patterns remain
unaddressed at the same time. Improvements in terms of environmental impacts per product unit
are framed by several constraints applying to product development (in terms of, among other,
performance, production cost, aesthetics, and standardisation) [3]. A mere product-centred
approach may not allow achieving more than incremental improvement though radical cuts in the
environmental impacts of our material economy are required. Therefore, while keeping the pace of
increasing maturity of eco-design, complementary approaches are required to question not only the
technical design of the product but also the production and consumption pattern in which it takes
place. One promising complementary approach is the concept of Product Service Systems (PSS): an
integrated offer of products and services focused on customer satisfaction rather than on exchanging
product ownership (e.g. Tukker and Tischner [4]). While it is meanwhile understood that PSS are not
inherently eco-efficient, this concept has been identified as a “potential sustainable business model”
because it may help break the links between profit and production volume without constraining
usage volume [5].

In this essay, open source design (OSD)—an innovative approach of product development and
manufacturing tending to redefine the roles of the producer and the consumer—is presented as an
alternative concept for challenging conventional production and consumption patterns. In a first
theoretical section, the concept of OSD is defined and potentials for leading to eco-efficient
production and consumption patterns are hypothesized. This discussion is followed by an empirical
analysis of four OSD projects with the help of a qualitative environmental analysis grid presented.
Theoretical arguments are confronted to empirical data in order to draw conclusions on the potential
of OSD for supporting environmental sustainability and to identify challenges for further research.

Open Source Design, Definition, Challenges, Potentials

The spread of information and communication technology and cheap low-size production tools like
3D-printers enabled the emergence of the “maker movement” [6] based on the extended
participation of the individual citizen in product definition and production. A new category of “home
engineers” is supported by online CAD model repositories like Thingiverse1 or Shapeways2 that allow
up- and downloading 3D models that can be printed at home or received per post. Those repositories
allow their users getting inspiration, exchange best practices and do-it-yourself assembly manuals.
The easiness of sharing digital content also enables local-based projects to publish online product-
related information so their product can be copied or further developed by spontaneously emerging
online communities, like in the case of the well-known RepRap 3D-printer3. Companies may also use
the dynamics of online communities and open source product definition for setting up innovative
business models. Examples are Local Motors4, a car which is registered under a Creative Commons
license and which is manufactured in distributed workshops, or the open source electronic board
BeagleBoard5 produced by Texas InstrumentsTM. The current emergence of such initiatives based on
open source products shows great potential for product innovation and incubation of new
businesses, and further, allows OSD to be seen as a potential “billion dollar business” just as open
source software became along the last 40 years [7].

Characterizing Open Source Design

Just like open source software development, OSD is a form of open source innovation, defined by
Raasch et al. [8] as the “free revealing of information on a new design with the intention of
collaborative development of a single design or a limited number of related designs for market or
non-market exploitation”. Huizingh et al. [9] differentiates product development projects depending
what is being made open: either the development process itself (i.e. by giving the opportunity of
every interested person to participate) and/or its outcome (i.e. by publishing product information).
The case where both elements are closed is conventional industrial product development, while
where the process is open but the outcome closed is crowdsourcing. OSD, as defined in this article, is
the case when both elements are open. Balka et al. [10] further refines the concept of openness as a
gradual and composite concept determined by three factors: transparency (access to sufficient
information to understand the project details), accessibility (possibility for community members to
take an active part in the development) and replicability (possibility of self-assembly of the product).
Combining these definitions, the concept of OSD can be characterized by:

1
http://www.thingiverse.com/
2
http://www.shapeways.com/
3
http://reprap.org/
4
https://localmotors.com/
5
http://beagleboard.org/
  a participatory approach allowing the involvement of every interested person;
 the willingness to share intellectual property related to a physical product under the four
principles of open source (right to see, use, modify and redistribute [11]);
 the possibility to replicate the product, i.e. that a different team than the originator team
fabricates the product.

As illustrated by the examples cited at the beginning of this section, different types of approaches
may satisfy this definition. In practice, OSD projects may be delineated according to the following
characteristics:

 Level of openness. Products are not either completely open or closed, but in practice
partially opened, like in the case of the Arduino6 electronic board. Companies may choose to
publish some parts in order to profit from the dynamics of the crowd and keep some parts
protected in order to safeguard key competences [10].
 Size of the active community. There is a continuum between a one-man or one-company
project whose documentation is made open source and a large community designing a
project from scratch. Participants in open source projects may be characterized in three
types of roles (as assumed e.g. in [12]): 1) the deeply involved core team of developers who
takes an active part in generating content and organizing the development process 2) a pool
of contributors who may generate content in a rather sporadic way and 3) a larger audience
who follows the development of the project and is interested in using results without taking
part actively. The size of the active community is resulting from the absolute size of
community and the relative size of these three groups in the community.
 These characteristics may move along the project timeline. Some projects may for example
start as a local project, go open and community-driven and turn back to partially closed, as
the famous example of MakerBotTM illustrates.

Challenges for Further Development

As a disruptive alternative to current practices, OSD raises numerous challenges for practical
implementation. For example, in contrast to industrial product development, contributions of project
members are no longer sealed by contractual agreement. Hierarchical organization is therefore
replaced by a low level of restrictions, self-motivation and self-selection of tasks [13]. To date, the
emergence of OSD still suffers from a limited availability of adapted structuring mechanisms helping
to face the organizational challenges raised by distributed collaboration of non-contractually
engaged volunteers. A large part of OSD projects is still restricted to the development of products of
low complexity and quality, i.e. prototypes or toys for do-it-yourself hobbyists [14]. In order to
compete with today’s industrial standards, OSD shall be provided with engineering methods and
tools ensuring significant process efficiency [15]. Another challenge is to, based on existing (un-
)successful examples, define systematic guidance for developing business models generating
economic value out of open source products. Further, the non-exclusivity of the participation in the
development process requires protection mechanisms against vandalism, as experienced by
Wikipedia [16] or other participative projects (e.g. [17]).

6
https://www.arduino.cc/
Potential of Open Source Design for Environmental Sustainability
Open source innovation (including open source design and software) is seen as an alternative to the
innovation model based on protection of intellectual property through patenting, whose ability to
foster innovation has been criticized [18]. By enabling any interested person to take part in solution
finding, open source innovation may allow mobilizing sufficient creative task force so innovation
becomes “trivial”. In other words, open source innovation is believed to lead to:

 Better design due to high number of peer reviews and knowledge capitalization;
 Faster adoption of technologies thanks to lower financial and knowledge barriers;
 Especially for companies: reduced R&D costs and development time due to the involvement
of a higher number of (voluntary) contributors;

From a social point of view, a fundamental motivation of the maker movement is to defend user
autonomy, i.e. the capability of the citizen to influence the products (s)he is surrounded with. This is
notably expressed by a wished independency to industrial manufacturers regarding product repair:
being able to repair a product on ones’s own and even to participate in the design process in order to
prevent planned obsolescence. In environmental terms, a first hypothesis (H1) is that OSD could lead
to longer service life due to promotion of robust product design and repairability.

In parallel to this, the maker movement is motivated by an ideal of “do-oracy”, where “makers”, in
contrast to “consumers”, have access to decision power through their creative/constructive activity
[10]. From a very broad perspective, this ideal challenges the concept of social distinction through
conspicuous consumption and even gives rise to a hypothesis of reduced consumption volume (H2).
On a more concrete level, this ideal is expressed by the principle of “do-it-yourself” that supports the
generation of more locally-bound value creation chains and the concept of distributed economy as
presented for example by Johansson et al. [19]. From an environmental perspective, locally-bound
value creation chains may go along with use of local resources, hence promoting shorter
transportation loops, adaptation to the local ecosystem and even closed-loop material circles (H3).
Finally, the participation of the end-user in design may support better fitting between the product
and the user’s needs (H4). From an environmental perspective, better adaptation means avoidance
of over-engineering and corresponding useless environmental burden, as well as a closer emotional
link between the user and the product promoting longer product life.

Empirical Research – Case Studies

Some of the hypotheses presented in the previous section include socio-economics effects and their
verification would require a long series of observations that are out of the scope of engineering
design science. Therefore, in this section, the empirical analysis is limited to concrete and technical
observations: how products developed in OSD projects integrate aspects of environmental
friendliness and what is being claimed by the communities developing those projects.

Methodology
Four OSD projects have been selected that satisfy the three criteria of openness defined by Balka et
al. [11] and introduced in section 2.1: transparency, accessibility and replicability. Translated in
practical terms:
  Product information is at least partially available online through e.g. CAD Models, Bill of
Materials (BOM) or assembly instructions.
 The project is surrounded by a community that is at least passively following the
development and ideally actively involved with encouragement from the
originators/moderators of the project.
 The product has been at least been prototypically realized or ideally already replicated, i.e.
produced by another team than the core team of originators.

The evaluation of the environmental friendliness of the selected products is based on the analysis
grid offered by the “ten golden rules” of eco-design developed by Luttropp and Lagerstedt [3] (and
reproduced by Table 1). The online documentation of the four selected projects has been reviewed
in order to identify how far these ten generic design principles (that cover the whole product
lifecycle) are satisfied by these products according to their documentation.

Use of recycled/reused raw materials and components. Do not use toxic

substances and utilize closed loops for necessary but toxic ones.

Use of non-toxic raw materials. Minimize energy and resource consumption in the
production phase and transport through improved housekeeping.
Begining
of life Lightweight design. Use structural features and high quality materials to minimize
weight in products if such choices do not interfere with other functional priorities.

Minimized transportation. Minimize energy and resource consumption in the

usage phase, especially for products with the most significant aspects in the usage
phase.

Minimized energy and resource consumption in use phase. Promote repair and
upgrading, especially for system-dependent products. (e.g. cell phones).

Repairability and upgradability. Promote long life, especially for products with
significant environmental aspects outside of the usage phase.
Middle
of life
Durability. Protect products from dirt, corrosion and wear, thereby ensuring
reduced maintenance and longer product life.

Maintainability. Prearrange upgrading, repair and recycling through accessibility,

labelling, modules, breaking points and manuals.

Recycling and reuse. Promote upgrading, repair and recycling by using few, simple,
recycled, unblended materials (e.g. no alloys).
End of
life
Reversible joining elements. Use as few joining elements as possible and adapt
them according to the life cycle scenario.

Table 1. Analysis grid adapted from Luttropp & Lagerstedt [3]

Analysis of the Four Selected Projects

LifeTrac 6 is an open source tractor developed in the frame of the project Open Source Ecology, a
project aiming at developing and building a “Global Village Construction Set”, i.e. a set of 50 open
source industrial machines allowing to “build a small civilization with modern comforts” 7. Six
versions of the tractor have been developed over time and four of them have been prototyped. The
third version has been replicated at least 3 times. Product information (CAD models, BOMs, manuals
and videos) is available without registration on the wiki of the project which is being used as a
development and documentation platform for the whole project together with forums and a self-
developed website. Intellectual property is licensed under an extended Creative Commons license
(CC-BY-SA 4.0 Attribution and ShareAlike).

The product is designed to be “simple” to assemble in order to allow do-it-yourself, hence local
production. This is achieved through the use of standard Lego-like parts that can be assembly by
bolts. The product is further designed to be modular so it is easy to maintain, repair and upgrade,
therefore supporting its durability. Modularity is achieved by ensuring disassembility through
reversible connections (e.g. bolting of XYZ connections) and interchangeability of general purpose
parts (i.e. components can be used in other products). Modularity further supports recycling and
reuse as well, hence resource efficiency.

Multimachine8 is an open source multiple-purpose machine tool that is designed to be assembled by

a non-expert using commonly available tools out of discarded vehicle parts. In its current version, it is
a 3-in-1 machine providing the functions of drill press, lathe and milling machine. It is however
intended to design the product as a platform for more tools. The project has been developed as a
one-man activity and made open source via an online group. 80 pages of assembly instructions can
be downloaded from the project website. No information about licensing could be found.

The very concept of a product made of discarded car parts shall ensure the sustainability of material
procurement. The product is designed to be built “at home”, hence for local production. The concept
of extensible machine tool platform shall ensure upgradability and integration of new or updated
machine tool functions using rotating elements (e.g. grinding). Modular design shall ensure easy
maintenance with commonly available tools as well as reuse of parts.

WikiHouse is an open source house building concept based on decentralised manufacture of wooden
structural components. Structure components can be produced locally by CNC machines and
assembled by man force and without specialized training and specific tools. The project was started
in 2011 and a legal entity was created in 2014 in order to support a global online community that
further develops the project. More than 10 versions of the WikiHouse have been adapted and built
throughout the world to date. Product information (e.g. CAD Models and building plans) is licensed
under a CC-BY-SA license and is available online; the community communicates over a Google Group
and shares data over a GitHub repository. A version of the product as a prepared kit is commercially
available in the UK.

The project claims to use sustainability-sourced timber and materials with low embedded carbon,
though this is less a design property than a question of production context. It is designed for local
production: the models can be downloaded and parts can be milled using local CNC machines and

7
http://opensourceecology.org/
8
http://opensourcemachine.org/
bolted together on-site. Energy in the use phase shall be saved thanks to high insulation capacity of
the material used. Here again, modularity shall ensure that building elements are dismountable and
substitutable, thereby supporting maintainability and durability.

RepRap (for “Replicating Rapid-Prototyper”) is a general purpose “self-replicating” desktop 3D

printer initially implementing the process Fuse Deposition Modelling. The machine is claimed to be
self-replicating because it can print some of the structural parts required for building a new machine.
Several forks of this project have been developed since the release of the first functional machine in
2007. We consider here especially the model named “RepRapPro Mendel”. The project and its
different variant are further developed by an active community structured thanks to several online
resources (wiki, forums, IRC, GitHub repository, mailing lists). Intellectual property is licensed under
GNU General Public Licence. More than 50 vendors are selling starter kits for building a RepRap.

The printed mechanical parts used in the structure of the machine are made of PLA (Polylactic acid),
a thermoplastic that is claimed to be recyclable and biodegradable. The machine is designed so
structural parts can be locally produced and the whole product can be locally assembled as well.
Modular design and disassembility ensures maintainability, repairability, upgradability and
recyclability, hence supporting product durability and resource efficiency.

Table 2 summarizes the analysis of the four considered projects. A first observation is that the three
criteria use of non-toxic raw material, lightweight design and minimized transportation are not
addressed by any of the selected projects. Minimized transportation is however indirectly covered by
the fact that all the considered products are designed to be manufactured locally. Nonetheless, the
potential environmental advantage of reducing transportation through local production patterns is
not directly claimed by the selected projects. Minimized energy & resource consumption in use
phase is only under the focus of WikiHouse and is not addressed by any other projects. Use of
recycled/reused raw material and components is also only directly under the focus of Multimachine.
LifeTrac and RepRap indirectly address this issue by providing the possibility to integrate reused
parts. In contrast to this, all projects are designed to be maintainable, repairable and upgradable. On
one hand, this is achieved through modularity and the use of reversible joining elements and on
another through the availability of detailed product information. Three of the four projects claim
their products to be durable based on this analysis.

Table 2. Summary of analysis of the four selected projects

Interpretation of Results
This empirical analysis underlines two general tendencies. On the one hand, OSD projects do not
necessarily seem to focus on environmental aspects related to product begining of life. On the other
hand, the concept of open source product design seems to be strongly connected with
environmental aspects related to the middle and end of life: maintainability, repairability,
upgradability, reusability, recyclability and therefore extended product life and increased resource
efficiency.

This analysis also brings to the foreground two concepts shared by all projects and that are of
potential interest for environmental sustainability: product modular design and design for local
manufacturing.

All four analysed projects claim to have designed modular products. The concept of modularity is
technically implemented through the use of reversible connectors actionable with conventional tools
and allowing for replacing a damaged module (repairability), integrating a new functionality
(upgradability), and exchanging modules between products (reuse and recyclability). This last point is
also addressed in the case of LifeTrac through the use of Lego-like standards components. It has been
previously empirically observed that product modular design plays an important role in open source
product development projects because it supports the necessary self-selection of tasks required by a
non-hierarchic organization of work [13]. The present study underlines that modularity is also being
used by open source product design projects as a tool for claiming sustainable product design.

Another predominant aspect is the focus on local production. This is achieved, for example, by use of
local material flows (e.g. scrap in the case of the Multimachine) as well as by “simple design” (as
advocated for example by LifeTrac) that can be assembled by non-experts or even amateurs thanks
to standard interfaces (e.g. bolts in the case of WikiHouse). How local can the production be and
what relative environmental advantages (e.g. less transport) or drawbacks (e.g. less concentrated,
hence less efficient production) it may confer to the product is however not clear.

Conclusion
This article provides a first attempt to define the potential of open source design for environmental
sustainability. The limited size of the study does not allow drawing general conclusions, but already
gives directions for further research. Of the four hypotheses formulated in Section 2.3, two have
been supported in the empirical study: that open source projects promote repairability in design (H2)
and aims at generating locally-bound value creation chains (H3). Two product design principles
constituting synergies between OSD and sustainable product design have been thereby highlighted:
the use of modular structure and the design for local production. Based on these findings, research
topics of interest for environmental engineering would be to determine 1) how beneficial local
manufacturing could be for the environment 2) what design features enable local manufacturing 3)
what practical product modularization methods help to make the best of the organisational and
environmental advantages of product modularity. In order to refine the results of this first study, a
further step could be to perform a larger scale analysis including a higher number of projects
(allowing ensuring statistical representativeness), a more profound analysis of the projects (reflecting
the history of their community and their degree of openness) as well as a deeper feature-based
technical analysis of products.
 References
1. Wimmer, W., and R. Züst, Ecodesign Pilot - Product-Investigation-, Learning- and Optimization-Tool for Sustainable
Product Development with CD-ROM. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.
2. Pigosso, D. C. A., H. Rozenfeld, and T. C. McAloone, “Ecodesign maturity model: a management framework to support
ecodesign implementation into manufacturing companies,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 59, pp. 160–173, Nov.
2013.
3. Lagerstedt, J., and C. Luttropp, “Guidelines in ecodesign: a case study from railway industry,” in Innovation in Life
Cycle Engineering and Sustainable Development, D. Brissaud, S. Tichkiewitch, and P. Zwolinski, Eds. Springer
Netherlands, 2006, pp. 245–254.
4. Tukker, A., and U. Tischner, “Product-services as a research field: past, present and future. Reflections from a decade of
research,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 14, no. 17, pp. 1552–1556, 2006.
5. Bocken, N. M. P., S. W. Short, P. Rana, and S. Evans, “A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business
model archetypes,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 65, pp. 42–56, 2014.
6. Dougherty, D., “The Maker Movement,” Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 11–14,
Jul. 2012.
7. Fjeldsted, A. S., G. Adalsteinsdottir, T. J. Howard, and T. C. McAloone, “Open Source Development of Tangible
Products-from a business perspective,” presented at the NordDesign 2012 conference, Aalborg, Dennmark, August 22-
24, 2012.
8. Raasch, C., C. Herstatt, and K. Balka, “On the open design of tangible goods,” R&D Management., vol. 39, no. 4, pp.
382–393, 2009.
9. Huizingh, E. K. R. E., “Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives,” Technovation, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 2–9,
2011.
10. Balka, K., C. Raasch, and C. Herstatt, “How Open is Open Source? – Software and Beyond,” Creativity and Innovation
Management, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 248–256, 2010.
11. Depoorter, G., “La ‘communauté du logiciel libre’ : espace contemporain de reconfiguration des luttes?,” in Résister au
quotidien ?, B. Frère and M. Jacquemain, Eds. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po, 2013.
12. Heyer, S., and G. Seliger, “Open Manufacturing for Value Creation Cycles,” in Design for Innovative Value Towards a
Sustainable Society, D. M. Matsumoto, P. Y. Umeda, D. K. Masui, and D. S. Fukushige, Eds. Springer Netherlands,
2012, pp. 110–115.
13. Müller-Seitz, G., and G. Reger, “Networking beyond the software code? an explorative examination of the development
of an open source car project,” Technovation, vol. 30, no. 11–12, pp. 627–634, Nov. 2010.
14. Hansen, A., and T. J. Howard, “The Current State of Open Source Hardware: The Need for an Open Source
Development Platform,” in ICoRD’13, A. Chakrabarti and R. V. Prakash, Eds., Springer India, 2013, pp. 977–988.
15. Bonvoisin, J., and J.-F. Boujut, “Open design platforms for open source product development: current state and
requirements,” in Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Engineering Design, Milan, Italy, 2015, vol. 8 -
Innovation and Creativity, pp. 11–22.
16. Adler, B. T., L. de Alfaro, S. M. Mola-Velasco, P. Rosso, and A. G. West, “Wikipedia Vandalism Detection: Combining
Natural Language, Metadata, and Reputation Features,” in Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, A.
Gelbukh, Ed., Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 277–288.
17. Rahwan, I., “How Crowdsourcing Turned On Me”, Nautilus, no. 18, 2014.
18. Buitenhuis, A. J., and J. M. Pearce, “Open-source development of solar photovoltaic technology,” Energy for
Sustainable Development, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 379–388, 2012.
19. Johansson, A., P. Kisch, and M. Mirata, “Distributed economies – A new engine for innovation”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, vol. 13, no. 10–11, pp. 971–979, 2005.

View publication stats