IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v43y2016i2p192-195..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Return on investment for open source scientific hardware development

Author

Listed:
  • J. M. Pearce

Abstract

The availability of free and open source hardware designs that can be replicated with low-cost 3D printers provides large values to scientists who need highly-customized low-volume production scientific equipment. Digital manufacturing technologies have only recently become widespread and the return on investment (ROI) was not clear, so funding for open hardware development was historically sparse. This paper clarifies a method for determining an ROI for the development of scientific free and open source hardware (FOSH). By using an open source hardware design that can be manufactured digitally, the relatively minor development costs result in enormous ROIs for the scientific community. A case study is presented of a syringe pump released under open license, which results in ROIs for funders ranging from hundreds to thousands of percent after only a few months. It is clear that policies encouraging FOSH scientific hardware development should be adopted by organizations interested in maximizing return on public investments for science.

Suggested Citation

  • J. M. Pearce, 2016. "Return on investment for open source scientific hardware development," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 192-195.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:2:p:192-195.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scv034
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua M. Pearce, 2012. "Make nanotechnology research open-source," Nature, Nature, vol. 491(7425), pages 519-521, November.
    2. Dale Dougherty, 2012. "The Maker Movement," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 7(3), pages 11-14, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Deb, C. & Schlueter, A., 2021. "Review of data-driven energy modelling techniques for building retrofit," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    2. Heikkinen, I.T.S. & Savin, H. & Partanen, J. & Seppälä, J. & Pearce, J.M., 2020. "Towards national policy for open source hardware research: The case of Finland," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Anurag Anurag & Jiemin Zhang & Jephias Gwamuri & Joshua M. Pearce, 2017. "General Design Procedures for Airport-Based Solar Photovoltaic Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Marcos Geraldo Gomes & Victor Hugo Carlquist da Silva & Luiz Fernando Rodrigues Pinto & Plinio Centoamore & Salvatore Digiesi & Francesco Facchini & Geraldo Cardoso de Oliveira Neto, 2020. "Economic, Environmental and Social Gains of the Implementation of Artificial Intelligence at Dam Operations toward Industry 4.0 Principles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-19, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Troxler, Peter & Wolf, Patricia, 2017. "Digital maker-entrepreneurs in open design: What activities make up their business model?," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 807-817.
    2. Vladimiras Dolgopolovas & Valentina Dagiene, 2022. "On Semiotics Perspectives of Computational Thinking: Unravelling the “Pamphlet” Approach, a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Greg Schrock & Marc Doussard & Laura Wolf-Powers & Stephen Marotta & Max Eisenburger, 2019. "Appetite for Growth: Challenges to Scale for Food and Beverage Makers in Three U.S. Cities," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 33(1), pages 39-50, February.
    4. Steve Marotta, 2021. "Making sense of ‘maker’: Work, identity, and affect in the maker movement," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 53(4), pages 638-654, June.
    5. Langley, David J. & Zirngiebl, Marthe & Sbeih, Janosch & Devoldere, Bart, 2017. "Trajectories to reconcile sharing and commercialization in the maker movement," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 783-794.
    6. Laurent Dupont & Alex Gabriel & Mauricio Camargo & Claudine Guidat, 2017. "Collaborative Innovation Projects Engaging open communities: a Case Study on Emerging Challenges," Post-Print hal-01582548, HAL.
    7. Yingqiu Wu & Zhonghong Ma, 2022. "The Power of Makerspaces: Heterotopia and Innovation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-18, December.
    8. Stefania Fiorentino, 2019. "The Maker Faire of Rome as a window of observation on the new perspectives for local economic development and the new urban entrepreneurial ecosystems," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 34(4), pages 364-381, June.
    9. Welter, Friederike & May-Strobl, Eva & Wolter, Hans-Jürgen & Günterberg, Brigitte, 2014. "Mittelstand im Wandel," IfM-Materialien 232, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    10. Douglas Henrique Milanez & Leandro Innocentini Lopes Faria & Roniberto Morato Amaral & Daniel Rodrigo Leiva & José Angelo Rodrigues Gregolin, 2014. "Patents in nanotechnology: an analysis using macro-indicators and forecasting curves," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 101(2), pages 1097-1112, November.
    11. Joshua Pearce, 2018. "Sponsored Libre Research Agreements to Create Free and Open Source Software and Hardware," Post-Print hal-02111369, HAL.
    12. Hamalainen, Markko & Karjalainen, Jesse, 2017. "Social manufacturing: When the maker movement meets interfirm production networks," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(6), pages 795-805.
    13. Kolja Oswald & Xiaokang Zhao, 2021. "Collaborative Learning in Makerspaces: A Grounded Theory of the Role of Collaborative Learning in Makerspaces," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, June.
    14. Tabarés, Raúl & Kuittinen, Hanna, 2020. "A tale of two innovation cultures: Bridging the gap between makers and manufacturers," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    15. Munari, Federico & Toschi, Laura, 2014. "Running ahead in the nanotechnology gold rush. Strategic patenting in emerging technologies," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 194-207.
    16. Andreea Gorbatai & Cyrus Dioun & Kisha Lashley, 2021. "Making Space for Emotions: Empathy, Contagion, and Legitimacy’s Double-Edged Sword," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 42-63, January.
    17. Ying Chen & Can Wu, 2017. "The hot spot transformation in the research evolution of maker," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(3), pages 1307-1324, December.
    18. Fritzsche, Albrecht, 2020. "Making without fabrication: Do-it-yourself activities for IT security in an open lab," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    19. Marc Doussard & Greg Schrock & Laura Wolf-Powers & Max Eisenburger & Stephen Marotta, 2018. "Manufacturing without the firm: Challenges for the maker movement in three U.S. cities," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(3), pages 651-670, May.
    20. Anthony Hussenot & Viviane Sergi, 2018. "Collaborating Without (Formal) Organization: How Do Independent Workers Call Into Question the Matter of Organization?," Post-Print hal-01948575, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:43:y:2016:i:2:p:192-195.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.