IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v155y2020ics0040162518313878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards national policy for open source hardware research: The case of Finland

Author

Listed:
  • Heikkinen, I.T.S.
  • Savin, H.
  • Partanen, J.
  • Seppälä, J.
  • Pearce, J.M.

Abstract

Free and open-source hardware (FOSH) is rapidly gaining momentum because it provides customized research hardware with over 90% savings compared to the costs of proprietary tools. However, the focused skill sets of researchers who aim to facilitate their own research limit FOSH complexity. The most expensive research equipment normally requires an interdisciplinary team. To overcome this complexity barrier and obtain large returns on investment for research funders by replacing the most expensive proprietary research equipment with FOSH, new development funding mechanisms are needed. To guide such research policy, this paper provides the first analysis of the strategic national benefit of applying the FOSH approach to major research equipment for any nation. The results of an example analysis for a single nation indicate Finland's science funders could save between 2.84–27.7m€/year directly on scientific equipment purchases if research hardware is converted to FOSH and the nation would likely garner the well-established concomitant benefits of increased research innovation within their economy. Finally, a detailed generalized model for determining national research policy in hardware development is derived and research policy mechanisms for accelerating FOSH deployment and greater accessibility to research equipment are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:155:y:2020:i:c:s0040162518313878
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119986
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162518313878
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119986?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Greenstein, Shane & Nagle, Frank, 2014. "Digital dark matter and the economic contribution of Apache," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 623-631.
    2. Comino, Stefano & Manenti, Fabio M. & Parisi, Maria Laura, 2007. "From planning to mature: On the success of open source projects," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(10), pages 1575-1586, December.
    3. Eric von Hippel, 1986. "Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 791-805, July.
    4. Salter, Ammon J. & Martin, Ben R., 2001. "The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 509-532, March.
    5. Santos, Antonio Bob, 2015. "Open Innovation research: trends and influences – a bibliometric analysis," MPRA Paper 67648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. von Hippel, Eric, 1976. "The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 212-239, July.
    7. Michele Boldrin & David K. Levine, 2004. "2003 Lawrence R. Klein Lecture The Case Against Intellectual Monopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 45(2), pages 327-350, May.
    8. Harison, Elad & Koski, Heli, 2010. "Applying open innovation in business strategies: Evidence from Finnish software firms," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 351-359, April.
    9. 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.
    10. Manuel Mira Godinho & Sandro F. Mendonça & Tiago Santos Pereira, 2005. "Towards a taxonomy of innovation systems," Working Papers Department of Economics 2005/13, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    11. Michele Boldrin & David Levine, 2002. "The Case Against Intellectual Property," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 209-212, May.
    12. Michele Boldrin & David K Levine, 2003. "IER Lawrence Klein Lecture: The Case Against Intellectual Monopoly," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000493, David K. Levine.
    13. Sharif, Naubahar, 2006. "Emergence and development of the National Innovation Systems concept," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 745-766, June.
    14. Woodson, Thomas & Alcantara, Julia Torres & do Nascimento, Milena Silva, 2019. "Is 3D printing an inclusive innovation?: An examination of 3D printing in Brazil," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 80, pages 54-62.
    15. Harhoff, Dietmar & Henkel, Joachim & von Hippel, Eric, 2003. "Profiting from voluntary information spillovers: how users benefit by freely revealing their innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(10), pages 1753-1769, December.
    16. Julien Pénin, 2008. "More open than open innovation? Rethinking the concept of openness in innovation studies," Working Papers of BETA 2008-18, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    17. Franke, Nikolaus & Shah, Sonali, 2003. "How communities support innovative activities: an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 157-178, January.
    18. Zvi Griliches, 1998. "The Search for R&D Spillovers," NBER Chapters, in: R&D and Productivity: The Econometric Evidence, pages 251-268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Ugo Pagano, 2014. "The crisis of intellectual monopoly capitalism," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(6), pages 1409-1429.
    20. Mansfield, Edwin & Lee, Jeong-Yeon, 1996. "The modern university: contributor to industrial innovation and recipient of industrial R&D support," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 25(7), pages 1047-1058, October.
    21. Lundvall, Bengt-Ake & Johnson, Bjorn & Andersen, Esben Sloth & Dalum, Bent, 2002. "National systems of production, innovation and competence building," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 213-231, February.
    22. Pénin, Julien & Wack, Jean-Pierre, 2008. "Research tool patents and free-libre biotechnology: A suggested unified framework," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1909-1921, December.
    23. Sascha Friesike & Bastian Widenmayer & Oliver Gassmann & Thomas Schildhauer, 2015. "Opening science: towards an agenda of open science in academia and industry," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 581-601, August.
    24. Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Rossi, Cristina, 2003. "Why Open Source software can succeed," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1243-1258, July.
    25. Boldrin,Michele & Levine,David K., 2010. "Against Intellectual Monopoly," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521127264.
    26. Allen, Robert C., 1983. "Collective invention," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(1), pages 1-24, March.
    27. Richard R. Nelson, 2006. "The Market Economy and the Scientific Commons," Chapters, in: Birgitte Andersen (ed.), Intellectual Property Rights, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    28. Joshua M. Pearce, 2012. "Make nanotechnology research open-source," Nature, Nature, vol. 491(7425), pages 519-521, November.
    29. Babasile Daniel Osunyomi & Tobias Redlich & Jens Peter Wulfsberg, 2016. "Could open source ecology and open source appropriate technology be used as a roadmap from technology colony?," International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 8(3), pages 265-282.
    30. Zeitlyn, David, 2003. "Gift economies in the development of open source software: anthropological reflections," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1287-1291, July.
    31. Julien Pénin, 2011. "Open source innovation: Towards a generalization of the open source model beyond software," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(4), pages 65-88.
    32. Anne Gentil-Beccot & Salvatore Mele & Travis C. Brooks, 2010. "Citing and reading behaviours in high-energy physics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(2), pages 345-355, August.
    33. Lee, Sang-Yong Tom & Kim, Hee-Woong & Gupta, Sumeet, 2009. "Measuring open source software success," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 426-438, April.
    34. Forero-Pineda, Clemente, 2006. "The impact of stronger intellectual property rights on science and technology in developing countries," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 808-824, July.
    35. Takalo, Tuomas & Kanniainen, Vesa, 2000. "Do patents slow down technological progress?: Real options in research, patenting, and market introduction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(7), pages 1105-1127, October.
    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. Manuel Hensmans, 2021. "Exploring the dark and bright sides of Internet democracy: Ethos-reversing and ethos-renewing digital transformation," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/321232, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    2. Hensmans, Manuel, 2021. "Exploring the dark and bright sides of Internet democracy: Ethos-reversing and ethos-renewing digital transformation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    3. Reinauer, Tobias & Hansen, Ulrich Elmer, 2021. "Determinants of adoption in open-source hardware: A review of small wind turbines," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).

    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. Joshua Pearce, 2018. "Sponsored Libre Research Agreements to Create Free and Open Source Software and Hardware," Post-Print hal-02111369, HAL.
    2. Block, Jörn H. & Henkel, Joachim & Schweisfurth, Tim G. & Stiegler, Annika, 2016. "Commercializing user innovations by vertical diversification: The user–manufacturer innovator," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 244-259.
    3. Carliss Baldwin & Eric von Hippel, 2011. "Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1399-1417, December.
    4. Thierry BURGER-HELMCHEN & Claude GUITTARD, 2008. "Are Users The Next Entrepreneurs? A Case Study On The Video Game Industry," Working Papers of BETA 2008-14, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    5. repec:wsi:acsxxx:v:21:y:2019:i:08:n:s1363919619500142 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Blecker, Thorsten & Abdelkafi, Nizar & Raasch, Christina, 2008. "Enabling and Sustaining Collaborative Innovation," MPRA Paper 8964, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Alexander Brem & Volker Bilgram & Adele Gutstein, 2021. "Involving Lead Users in Innovation: A Structured Summary of Research on the Lead User Method," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Alexander Brem (ed.), Emerging Issues and Trends in INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, chapter 2, pages 21-48, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    8. Sheen S. Levine & Michael J. Prietula, 2014. "Open Collaboration for Innovation: Principles and Performance," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(5), pages 1414-1433, October.
    9. Adrián Kovács & Bart Looy & Bruno Cassiman, 2015. "Exploring the scope of open innovation: a bibliometric review of a decade of research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 951-983, September.
    10. Claussen, Jörg & Halbinger, Maria A., 2021. "The role of pre-innovation platform activity for diffusion success: Evidence from consumer innovations on a 3D printing platform," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).
    11. Rullani, Francesco & Haefliger, Stefan, 2013. "The periphery on stage: The intra-organizational dynamics in online communities of creation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 941-953.
    12. Preißner, Stephanie & Raasch, Christina & Schweisfurth, Tim, 2017. "Is necessity the mother of disruption?," Kiel Working Papers 2097, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    13. van der Boor, Paul & Oliveira, Pedro & Veloso, Francisco, 2014. "Users as innovators in developing countries: The global sources of innovation and diffusion in mobile banking services," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(9), pages 1594-1607.
    14. Joachim Henkel & Eric von Hippel, 2005. "Welfare Implications of User Innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 30(2_2), pages 73-87, January.
    15. Harrison, Debbie & Waluszewski, Alexandra, 2008. "The development of a user network as a way to re-launch an unwanted product," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 115-130, February.
    16. Jeroen de Jong & Eric von Hippel, 2010. "Open, distributed and user-centered: Towards a paradigm shift in innovation policy," Scales Research Reports H201009, EIM Business and Policy Research.
    17. Thierry Burger-Helmchen & Claude Guittard, 2008. "Are users the next entrepreneurs ?," Post-Print hal-02189762, HAL.
    18. Boudreau, Kevin J. & Lakhani, Karim R., 2015. "“Open” disclosure of innovations, incentives and follow-on reuse: Theory on processes of cumulative innovation and a field experiment in computational biology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 4-19.
    19. Arman Avadikyan & Gilles Lambert & Christophe Lerch, 2016. "A Multi-Level Perspective on Ambidexterity: The Case of a Synchrotron Research Facility," Working Papers of BETA 2016-44, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    20. Habicht, Hagen & Oliveira, Pedro & Shcherbatiuk, Viktoriia, 2012. "User Innovators: When Patients Set Out to Help Themselves and End Up Helping Many," Die Unternehmung - Swiss Journal of Business Research and Practice, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 66(3), pages 277-295.
    21. de Jong, Jeroen P.J. & Ben-Menahem, Shiko M. & Franke, Nikolaus & Füller, Johann & von Krogh, Georg, 2021. "Treading new ground in household sector innovation research: Scope, emergence, business implications, and diffusion," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(8).

    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:eee:tefoso:v:155:y:2020:i:c:s0040162518313878. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    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.