Robert Mies

While open source hardware has been recognized as a pillar of open science practices, it has not found its place in the scholarly communication system, yet. In this paper, we question what research hardware engineers would expect from a review and publication system dedicated to research hardware, and their putative motivation to publish in such a venue. Our analysis suggests that one of their main objectives is to find a readership and grow an inclusive community of contributors, producers and users around their project. They also appear interested in getting feedback on their work, in order to make the hardware better and learn during that process. The creation of a research output that is recognized by the academic system seems important both for their career and for the development of their community. In addition, they express wishes for a publication system that avoids financial barriers, is integrated in their hardware documentation workflow, recognize the work of every contributor, and would be pleasant or even fun to use. Importantly, a research hardware publication ecosystem should link archived and living versions of the hardware project and consider the project as a whole, providing documentation on both the hardware product and the hardware development processes. We are confident this analysis will help the research hardware community to further develop and adapt infrastructures for software and hardware publication.

Based on the interviews of fifteen contributors in research hardware projects, we shed lights onto the motivations of research hardware engineers to use a hardware publication platform, and derived some high-level features that such a platform should have. Our analysis suggests that the main objectives of the authors are to find their readership and grow an inclusive community of contributors, producers and users around their project. Inclusivity requires the recognition of different types of contributions and a system free of financial or language barriers for authors and readers. They also appear interested in getting feedback on their work, in order to make the hardware better and learn during that process. The creation of a research output that is recognized by the academic system is also important both for their career and for developing their community. In addition, they express wishes for a publication system integrated in their hardware documentation workflow , as well as a system which would be pleasant or even fun to use. Importantly, a research hardware publication ecosystem should link archived and living versions of the hardware project and consider the project as a whole, providing documentation on both the hardware product and the development process.

Despite being acknowledged as key drivers for socio-economic development, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are still facing major challenges such as resource scarcity and rising competition. By engaging in open collaborative product development, SMEs can benefit from the great potential of open source hardware (OSH) as a strategic source of open innovation. This is, however, associated with numerous challenges and it is lacking a solid framework for realisation. This work identifies seven key enablers that support SMEs to engage in successful collaboration with OSH communities for the co-creation of physical products. Those enablers tackle the collaboration from various aspects such as readiness, strategic alignment, governance, tools, resources, value network, and culture. They were derived through an e-Delphi study with experts from academia, industry, and the OSH domain. The seven enablers have been defined to serve as a foundation for the maturity assessment of the concept of company-community collaboration (C3). JEL Codes: O32, O34, O35, O36

Open source hardware (OSH) is hardware for which a free right of any use is granted to the general public and whose technical documentation is completely available and freely accessible on the internet (DIN SPEC 3105). While OSH has the potential of facilitating participation in product development on a broadly distributed scale, the need for physical production adds a layer of complexity compared to the development of free and open source software (FOSS). More evidence is needed on the transferability of open source development processes from software to physical products. This cross-sectional study therefore takes a closer look at the transition of open source practices from bits to atoms on the activity level. It investigates the issue of how practitioners work together to design OSH products as well as associated limitations in practice.

‘Openness’ is one of the key concepts brought forward by postindustrial narratives questioning the modern repartition of roles between industries and customers. In these narratives, citizen participation in design and intellectual property management based on open source principles are the promise of more sustainable production models. In this context, openness in product design and development has been the object of growing interest and experimentation from academia, businesses and grassroots communities. As a result, numerous concepts emerged that attempt to grasp the essence of this phenomenon, unfortunately leading to overlapping, conflicting or speculative depictions. In this article, we share the understanding we gained throughout 6 years of research on Open Design and Open Source Hardware and attempt to make the difference between myths and facts. We depict an enthusiastic but realistic picture of Open Design and Open Source Hardware practices as we could observe them and deliver a structured framework to situate concepts and their differences. From this, we share seven observations leading to seven corresponding research questions and establish a research agenda to stimulate further investigations into this socially relevant and potentially ground-breaking phenomenon.

Open source hardware is hardware whose design is shared online so that anyone can study, modify, distribute, make, and sell it. In spite of the increasing popularity of this alternative IP management approach, the field of OSH remains fragmented of diverse practices seeking for settlement. This challenges providers of groupware solutions to capture the specific needs of open source product development practitioners. This contribution therefore delivers a list of basic requirements and verifies them by comparing offered functions of existing groupware solutions.