Content uploaded by Bonny Brandenburger
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bonny Brandenburger on Jun 04, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Association for Information Systems Association for Information Systems
AIS Electronic Library (AISeL) AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)
ECIS 2024 Proceedings European Conference on Information Systems
(ECIS)
June 2024
Design for Product Sustainability in a Circular Economy — Using Design for Product Sustainability in a Circular Economy — Using
the Example of Six Open Source Hardware Projects the Example of Six Open Source Hardware Projects
Bonny Brandenburger
Weizenbaum Institute
, bonny.brandenburger@weizenbaum-institut.de
Maximilian Voigt
Open Knowledge Foundation DE
, maximilian.voigt@okfn.de
Simon Borgel
University of Potsdam
, simon.borgel@wi.uni-potsdam.de
Magnus Busch
University of Potsdam
, magnus.busch@wi-uni-potsdam.de
Follow this and additional works at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2024
Recommended Citation Recommended Citation
Brandenburger, Bonny; Voigt, Maximilian; Borgel, Simon; and Busch, Magnus, "Design for Product
Sustainability in a Circular Economy — Using the Example of Six Open Source Hardware Projects" (2024).
ECIS 2024 Proceedings
. 25.
https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2024/track17_greenis/track17_greenis/25
This material is brought to you by the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS) at AIS Electronic Library
(AISeL). It has been accepted for inclusion in ECIS 2024 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS
Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contact elibrary@aisnet.org.
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 1
DESIGN FOR PRODUCT SUSTAINABILITY IN A CIRCULAR
ECONOMY -
USING THE EXAMPLE OF SIX OPEN SOURCE HARDWARE
PROJECTS
Completed Research Paper
Bonny Brandenburger, University of Potsdam, Germany,
bonny.brandenburger@weizenbaum-institut.de
Maximilian Voigt, Open Knowledge Foundation DE , Berlin, Germany,
maximilian.voigt@okfn.de
Simon Borgel, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany, simon.borgel@wi.uni-potsdam.de
Magnus Busch, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany,
magnus.busch@wi.uni-potsdam.de
Abstract
Circular economy is based on extensive cooperation. This requires easily accessible information to
involve as many stakeholders as possible. How must technology be designed to make this happen? Open
source hardware promises to be a solution. As a formalized model for sharing technical information, it
guarantees the necessary information transparency. But what do such approaches look like in practice?
Are circular practices considered at the design level? This paper analyzes six open source hardware
projects and focuses in particular on the prototype phase, as this is where important foundations are
laid. Interviews were conducted regularly over a period of six months and evaluated using a developed
open hardware process model. In summary, the six projects not only consider aspects of the circular
economy, but also focus on social and ecological dimensions that enable a circular society. The process
model proves to be suitable for describing open source hardware prototyping.
Keywords: Circular Economy, Circular Society, Open Source Hardware, Open Design, Value Retention
Options, Case Studies.
1 Introduction
For decades, linear economic models relying on three steps of production, utilization and disposal have
been established worldwide (Reike, Vermeulen and Witjes, 2018). Reservation of value, quality of
materials, conservation of resources as well as repairability play a subordinate role, particularly towards
the end of a respective use phase. The concept of the circular economy (CE) advocates moving away
from a linear economy to one in which products circulate for as long as possible and resource use is
decoupled from economic growth (Gözet and Wilts, 2022). But circularity requires cooperation and
information is necessary in order to cooperate (Zimmermann and Voigt, 2023; Calisto Friant, Vermeulen
and Salomone, 2020; Bonvoisin, 2017). One example currently in circulation is the Open Source
Hardware (OSH) notebook from the company MNT Research. On the one hand, it was designed to have
open interfaces so that it can be easily expanded with plug-ins. On the other hand, there is extensive
documentation that allows it to be fully reproduced. This has already been done. People from the MNT
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 2
community have built their own laptop with slight adaptations. Others have made repairs based on the
documentation, such as reprinting buttons or improving the battery system. MNT relies on a strong brand
and the target group of Linux users who want to use open software as well as hardware (OKF, 2022b).
In this regard, the transformational potential of open source innovations is crucial as it features
cooperative local production as well as shared economic structures (Bonvoisin, 2017; Calisto Friant,
Vermeulen and Salomone, 2020; Wenzel, 2023; Hildebrandt et al., 2022). While open source has
become a dominant part in the software industry, OSH is still a barely researched phenomenon (Reinauer
and Hansen, 2021). However, OSH has enormous potential to do the same in the world of physical
productions by stressing collaboration instead of competition and knowledge sharing instead of black
box engineering (Moritz et al., 2016; Sanchez et al., 2020; Pearce and Qian, 2022). For example, OSH
provides circuit diagrams and spare part designs for spontaneous, decentralized repairs. The potential
for local production is also frequently highlighted as an advantage (Bonvoisin, 2017). Given limited
empirical evidence and understanding of the topic, this paper investigates the development of six OSH
projects funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Argumentation is guided
by the overarching question:
To what extent is the OSH developer at the prototype level considering value retention strategies
that respond to the CE?
The article aims at understanding decisions made regarding circular design in particular at early phases
of product development (prototyping). It focuses on the respective prototype development processes of
six OSH case studies. At the prototyping level important decisions about the repairability or recyclability
of a product are made through initial design and material choices (Gözet and Wilts, 2022). The aim is
to understand open source product development (Bonvoisin, 2017) in order to make it reproducible and
to be able to discuss it in the context of conventional product development processes. To this end, it will
be examined in which phases the OSH prototype development process is subdivided and how it can be
described.
First, empirical-conceptual work on OSH is presented and related to CE. Subsequently, the
methodological approach regarding the interrelation of OSH and CE is emphasized. This is followed by
a presentation of the summarized results, featuring reflections on barriers to be overcome for OSH.
2 Theoretical background
OSH is oriented towards open design options that have been developed through open source software
licenses (Bonvoisin et al., 2017). These are included in the frequently cited definition of OSHW (2022):
“Open hardware (or open source hardware) are tangible artifacts—machines, devices, or other
physical things—whose design has been released to the public in such a way that anyone can make,
modify, distribute, and use those things.” Although the degrees of freedom described are undisputed,
discourses surrounding the definition of OSH focus in particular on the question of what constitutes the
"source" in the context of OSH, as shown, for example, by DIN SPEC 3105 and Bonvoisin et al. (2017).
This involves legal problems, but also very practical aspects. After all, OSH is a digital replica of a
physical object that is made up of many different sources, such as computer-aided designs (CAD), bill
of materials (BOM) and assembly instructions. In addition to the positive attributions of OSH in
numerous publications there are also challenges (Antoniou et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2020). According to
Dai et al. (2020, p. 25), firstly, OSH projects are typically managed by a core team, but involve many
other volunteer participants. This leads to a high turnover of community members, unstructured project
information, low overall awareness of project status and ultimately knowledge loss. Secondly, compared
to software, knowledge documentation for OSH is more challenging because it is difficult to translate
the physical aspects of tangible products into the digital world. Although various concept studies
emphasize the potential of OSH for the development of sustainable products (Zimmermann and Voigt,
2023; Pearce and Mushtaq, 2009; Bonvoisin, 2017), there is little empirical work to date and thus a
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 3
research gap. CE addresses complex problems of resource scarcity and climate change while revitalizing
local and regional economies in parallel (Batista et al., 2018; Delannoy, 2018; Stahel, 2010). While
Kirchherr et al. (2017) describe CE as a set of practices such as “reuse”, “repair”, “refurbish”,
“repurpose” and “recycle”, there is a similarity with possibilities as defined by the OSH definition, such
as the free “manufacture”, “modification” and “distribution” of an OSH product. Open source perceives
product integrity as a collective responsibility, controlled not solely by company-owned ecosystems but
prosumers as main agents (Bakker, Balkenende and Poppelaars, 2018). In this regard, OSH is seen as a
promising approach to realize sustainable products with a higher probability for circularity as it
advocates more participation through an open, modular design (Bonvoisin, 2017). Open design breaks
ground for different options of value retention inherent to CE (cf. Reike, Vermeulen and Witjes, 2018;
Troxler, 2019). Design and production files are shared on the internet under a license enabling re-use
and modification of a design or product across different industries (Revellio, 2017; Prendeville et al.,
2016, Troxler, 2019). Hence, OSH is of particular interest in terms of a horizontally organized circular
economy as information is made available at a global scale, allowing for cooperation and immediate
participation among different stakeholders (Brandenburger et al., 2023). Further, open design practices
advocate creation of artifacts that can be manufactured directly from design files without previous
specialist knowledge on machines and tools (Troxler, 2019, 2011). Here, OSH movement takes
advantage of makerspaces and local DIY technologies such as 3D printers, allowing for rapid realization
of products, shortening of supply chains and consequently reduction of transportation in turn affecting
the environment (cf. Corsini et al., 2020; Bonvoisin et al., 2017). Exemplary is the production of open-
source prosthetics (cf. Smith and Mortati, 2017). In addition, OSH enhances local recycling processes
e.g. in the form of the open source waste plastic extruder (Zhong and Pearce, 2018). Thus, OSH as an
additive manufacturing tool enables decentralization of low cost production in customer vicinity (Cruz
Sanchez et al., 2020; Wittbrodt et al., 2013). In a nutshell, OSH development could bring valuable
insights into forms of implementation of CE by open design, enhancing knowledge sharing as well as
participation and fostering local manufacturing. Nonetheless, it remains unclear how an OSH
prototyping process is organized in detail and whether different value retention options, such as repair
or reuse, are already considered in the early product development phase.
3 Method
The case studies used for the qualitative analysis are embedded in the Prototype Fund Hardware (PFH),
first of its kind in Germany and established by the Open Knowledge Foundation Germany (OKF). A
funding program that complements the Prototype Fund for software in the public interest, which is also
implemented by the OKF. The fund supports the development of six OSH prototypes over a period of
six months (OKF, 2022a). The six case studies (see table 1) were selected from a total of 50 submissions
along previously defined criteria such as grade of innovation, materials used, social needs and
transferability (Brandenburger et al., 2023). The scientific monitoring was applied in monthly calls due
to the period of September 2022 and March 2023. In total, 36 semi-structured interviews were
conducted.
project
brief description
Hilo textile recycling machine
(by Studio HILO Diaz, Krasnoperova
GbR)
HILO developed a textile recycling machine to reuse locally
discarded garments on a small scale and to reintroduce them into
the production cycle.
Windkit
(by Erni-Windrad-Kollektiv e.V.)
ERNI built a small wind turbine for the supply of stand-alone
systems supplying electricity that are not connected to the
general power grid.
Mobile dishwashing system
(by Wissenschaftsladen Potsdam e.V.)
The team is working on a mobile superheated steam dishwasher
that can be integrated off-grid, into a dishwashing line of
cooking collectives.
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 4
Laser4DIY
(by Fab Lab Munich)
Laser4DIY developed a low-cost laser scribing device applied to
produce electronic circuit boards (PCBs). This technique uses a
focused laser beam directly ablating the copper layer of the
PCBs.
Libre Water
(by bluegreece.org)
Libre Water uses solar seawater desalination technology
(Multiple-Effect-Distillation) to develop a simple system that
allows people in their region to desalinate or purify water
themselves using solar energy.
OpenMycoLab
(by Schöner Land e.V.)
OpenMycoLab is building a container lab to select and grow
mushrooms which involves the construction of a mobile
cleanroom that can also be used for other purposes, e.g. in the
field of medicine.
Table 1. Short description of the six OSH projects.
To address the research questions, a qualitative research method is carried out featuring semi-structured
interviews with project members. Interviews are recorded and transcribed by amberscript transcription
software. The interview material is translated into English and analyzed qualitatively according to
Gläser and Laudel (2010). This procedure allows both an inductive and deductive approach. Here, the
six process phases are used as analysis categories: specification, design, realization, evaluation,
collaboration, and documentation (cf. Brandenburger et al., 2023). Collaboration and documentation
are not solely understood as a phase, rather defined as superordinate practices as it sets the precondition
for general application, modification and development based on existing designs (cf. Mies, Bonvoisin
and Jochem, 2019). This OSH prototyping process model is retrieved from existing product
development process models at an early stage (cf. Stirling and Bowman, 2021; Grönlund, Sjödin and
Frishammar, 2010; Mies, Bonvoisin and Jochem, 2019) and co-creation process models (cf. De Koning
et al., 2016). For example, if a project team describes that they first researched and ordered the necessary
parts for the prototype. This step is categorized under the "specification" phase. The aim of the analysis
is to a) inductively test the OSH process model´s validity and b) deductively derive potential
adjustments. Furthermore, inductive analysis is guided by c) inquiry regarding remarks that indicate the
degree to which options of value retention and product circularity are regarded by respective teams. The
latter is guided by a customized 10 value retention options (ROs) typology (cf. Reike et al., 2018).
However, customization is reasonable since Reike et al. set the boundary of their analysis to a full
product life cycle whereas the article on-hand specifically inquiries into early stages of product
development. Therefore, for out of ten value retention options - namely resell, re-use, refurbishment,
and remanufacture are excluded from analysis. Accordingly, the six OSH artifacts went through product
design and development phase and were not yet on the commercial market. In summary, transcribed 18
hours interview material is analyzed according to process phases and retention options (see fig. 1).
Figure. 1 Open Hardware Prototype Process Model (Brandenburger et al., 2023).
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 5
4 Results
Open Hardware Prototype Process Model: Qualitative analysis of the six case studies validates the
OSH process model promoted by Brandenburger et al. (2023). The interviews also show that the various
phases are passed through iteratively, with different emphasis on individual phases. The situation is
different for the collaboration and documentation phases, which do not occur iteratively, but in parallel
at different times. All project teams cooperate with third parties in different phases. Either to make the
specifications more needs-oriented, to make the documentation easier to understand or to improve the
object itself. Documentation takes place to a lesser extent across all phases. None of the projects had
developed an up-front plan for recording key lessons learned during project development, e.g. what
aspects need to be considered during assembly. However, the majority of documentation work is shifted
to the end of prototype development. It is noticeable that those who design digitally using CAD find it
easier to produce comprehensible assembly instructions.
Circularity: During project development, the project teams undertake various preliminary
considerations and measures to make the prototype more sustainable. Four out of six teams attach great
importance to easy traceability and reproducibility, either through the product design, the documentation
or both. All teams also mentioned explicit RO's, such as reparability. The following table is an overview
of the RO's considered by the projects. It is noticeable that repairability is considered in almost all
projects. The results are presented in detail below.
Hilo
Windkit
Mobile
dishwashing
system
Laser4DIY
Libre Water
OpenMycoLab
Refuse
Reduce
x
x
Repair
x
x
x
x
x
Recycling
Recover
x
Repurpose
x
x
x
Table 2. Overview of the value retention options considered by the projects.
4.1 Hilo textile recycling machine
Within six months, the HILO project team started with an idea (TRL 1) and achieved a small-scale
prototype (TRL 4). In particular, in the development process it is noticeable that the project team often
ran through different phases at the same time or in rapid succession.
Prototyping phases
Specification
As the textile recycling machine was to expand HILO's existing machinery, the technical
specifications were very clear from the outset. The aim was to combine two functions in
one machine, which was unusual until then: To shred and to card textiles. The exact
materials from which the machine parts were to be made were unclear. What was clear was
that 3D printed parts were to be used. Later, the realization came that metal parts would
make the machine more robust, but less easy to reproduce.
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 6
Design
Design was predominantly digital, with CAD. A complete model has been developed. The
CAD was very often adapted to the knowledge gained from 3D test prints.
Realization
The realization took place very early on as part of rapid prototyping tests and continued
until the final prototype was developed. During printing, there were always problems with
the 3D printer, such as misprints. So everything took longer. Once the basic mechanism
was working, safety aspects were implemented, such as precautions to prevent injuries.
Evaluation
HILO concentrated on implementation as part of the funding. The focus of the reflection
was primarily on the design. The initially complex machine was simplified further and
further to make it easier to replicate. There was no time for a comprehensive evaluation.
Simple tests were carried out.
Documentation
The documentation came into focus halfway through the funding period and a first online
repository was created, initially with the CAD. Towards the end, this was expanded further
and further, with all the necessary information, such as BOM and assembly instructions.
The description also includes safety instructions because of the emerging security risk by
using the shredder. The team plans to test the documentation by potential users and
improve the machine based on the feedback. Overall, the project team describes this phase
of the process as particularly time-consuming. There was little structured documentation
during implementation. However, due to the digital design using CAD, many intermediate
steps were recorded.
Collaboration
The HILO team was always in close contact with potential users by offering workshops on
their other machines. They were also users of their machines themselves. This means they
have a lot of practical knowledge and are familiar with existing needs. However, the
development of the prototype was carried out by the core team. They only worked with
external parties when they needed other machines, such as CNC milling machines or a
laser cutter.
Circularity
The HILO team has been thinking about easy, decentralized producibility from the very beginning and
throughout the implementation. They adapted their design to this again and again. The aim was to
improve the traceability and simplicity of the machine to make it easier to repair and adapt. When
building the machine, they made sure that they first used the materials that were already on site to save
on materials and financial resources (reduce). At the same time, many parts were 3D printed during the
realization phase. However, some of these broke in the course of the process, which in turn led to
additional material usage.
Quote
“After all, it's about developing ideas. How do we design beautiful, sustainable garments? We need open
spaces for new ideas. That's how we decided to focus more on sharing knowledge and building a community
around our machines. Through this open, iterative approach, we end up with machines that are really needed,
repairable and adapted to the needs of the designers.” ; „We didn't spend so much money at first, but simply
assembled what we had on site, untested, this geometry and what works and what doesn't work.“ (HILO)
4.2 Windkit
The Windkit project team started with a prototype (TRL 4), which has already been tested in a slightly
different version for years. The team focused on the development of a comprehensive documentation,
therefore, the other process phases were not run through.
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 7
Prototyping phases
Specification
The first prototype already existed, so no further specifications were required.
Design
CAD was adapted for the documentation and in some cases created to facilitate traceability.
Realization
The prototype had already been built once.
Evaluation
During the construction of the prototype, knowledge had already been gathered about the
problems that could arise. These were to be incorporated into the documentation.
Documentation
The team focused on the documentation of the complex system and wanted to design it
particularly well. To do this, they first researched numerous good examples of
documentation. They also defined the target group for their documentation in order to
determine the level of technical detail. For the implementation of the documentation, they
oriented themselves on DIN SPEC 3105. For the assembly instructions, they decided on
step-by-step illustrations using CAD. They published the documentation in an online
repository.
Collaboration
DIN SPEC 3105 recommends a peer review process to evaluate the documentation. To this
end, the team planned to involve external parties.
Circularity
Windkit particularly emphasized the reparability, as this often leads to the permanent malfunction of
wind turbines. It is noticeable that attention was paid to detailed documentation that is understandable
for a broad target group and focuses on reproducibility. For example, version numbers are used for each
component, which can be found in the instructions. This gives the user a better overview of how the
parts are put together.
Quote
“I have often been annoyed by glued enclosures. That's why it's important to me for resource reasons that
there is more open hardware. A modifiable and well-documented product is simply easier to repair and
recycle.” (Windkit)
4.3 Mobile dishwashing system
The project team started with an idea and a possible way of implementation (TRL1). The project team
was very ambitious and aimed for TLR7, which could not be achieved in the end. The team went through
the first two process phases in particular several times.
Prototyping phases
Specification
The focus was on steam-based dishwashing, which is supplied with energy from either gas
or firewood. This is because one of the two energy sources is used by mobile kitchens. In
addition, the approximate quantity of dishes that the machine should clean was determined.
These conditions did not change over the development period. The exact implementation
was unclear, i.e. which parts would be designed in-house and which materials would be
used.
Design
The design was analog, using simple drawings and had no depth of detail. CAD were not
created. The design changed practically with the possible materials and available parts. The
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 8
original aim was to develop a process for converting defective steam dishwashers for
mobile use. This changed as it proved to be difficult. Instead, the team decided to use new
products.
Realization
The implementation took place at a late stage without resorting to rapid prototyping.
Evaluation
As the prototype was developed late, there was no time left for testing and evaluation.
Documentation
The documentation was only created at the end and contains information gaps. Hardly any
good examples were used as a guide. There was no documentation during implementation.
The documentation was recorded on a simple website to which third parties cannot
contribute.
Collaboration
The project team itself operates a mobile kitchen and is therefore also the target group for
its own project. During the funding phase, there was also a workshop with other mobile
kitchens where the concept was discussed. The requirements gathered were incorporated
into the further development process.
Circularity
While the project team built a portable dishwashing system, they tried to use components of a second-
hand portable dishwasher from the catering trade. Thus, they aimed at a subsequent use of an end-of-
life product (recover) and assigned a new purpose (catering in crisis and protest situations) (repurpose).
This changed as it proved to be difficult. At the end, the device has a modular design so that it can be
repaired more quickly and further developed, especially with regard to the power supply.
Quote
“The current variants hardly need any electricity. We also keep the water in a closed circuit to keep
consumption as low as possible. Except for the excess pressure that escapes from the system. We are therefore
testing ways to condense the escaping steam so that we can reduce water consumption even further.”
4.4 Laser4DIY
In the Laser4DIY project, the focus is on conducting a beta test. The purpose of beta testing is to test
the design for the first time in the field of application with external actors after the interventions have
worked as a theoretical concept (McKenney and Reeves, 2012, p.138). Thus, beta testing serves a vital
function in guaranteeing the readiness of products for release to the general public (Dolan and Matthewy,
1993). In addition, components can be tested that have not yet been evaluated in the previous prototype
process, for example user’s manual (Childress, Liu and Tiersch 2023, p. 20).
In the case of the Laser4DIY project, the project members started with an initial prototype (TRL 4),
which was then tested and developed into a large-scale prototype (TRL 5). The project team developed
an assembling kit of the prototype, which was sent to two external test teams. These had the task of
rebuilding as autonomous as possible the prototype using the kit and specially prepared instructions so
that the development team can not only evaluate the prototype itself but also the rebuildability of the
prototype.
Prototyping phases
Specification
Since a prototype already existed, the specifications were fixed.
Design
Since a prototype already existed, the design was fixed.
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 9
Realization
A prototype already existed.
Evaluation
The focus of the evaluation was on improving the documentation. The project team
provided third parties with all the necessary parts to recreate Laser4DIY on the basis of the
documentation. Experiences and problems that arose were incorporated into the
documentation. The team based this evaluation process on the DIN SPEC 3105 standard.
Documentation
Some of the modules that make up Laser4DIY were already documented in the first
version. During the funding period, it was improved and missing documentation was
created. The documentation was stored in an online repository on the one hand and in a
wiki on the other.
Collaboration
Laser4DIY worked together with third parties to improve the documentation. These were,
for example, makerspaces that would like to use Laser4DIY in their workshop.
Circularity
The project group is considering the possibility of local production of components, which in turn could
avoid longer delivery times and routes (reduce pollution). Furthermore, partial components can be
used in photonics for teaching or building other laser based machines, since they designed the laser
source modularly (repurpose). The reproduction and reparability of electronic boards is ensured
by detailed documentation tested with external groups, including the listing of components.
Quote
“[...] we can repair, maintain and experiment with them ourselves, e.g. to adapt them to our needs. So for us, it
goes without saying that we make construction plans freely available when we develop something.”
(Laser4DIY)
4.5 LibreWater
The LibreWater project started as an idea with a concrete concept for the prototype (TRL 3) which was
released over the six months as a small scale prototype (TRL 4) at two different locations in Europe.
The project was conducted relatively straight forward with some specification and design at the
beginning of the project, while the realization and evaluation was performed mostly in later stages.
Prototyping phases
Specification
The project team was very clear about the target group and their technical possibilities for
replicating LibreWater or adapting it to local requirements. The process that was to be
technically implemented was also defined: vertical multiple-effect diffusion solar distiller.
This resulted in numerous specifications. It was unclear which materials and parts should
be used.
Design
The design was created digitally and very extensively using CAD after researching the
materials. This was adapted again and again during the funding phase following test set-
ups.
Realization
The team developed prototypes after a third of the term. This was then repeated several
times and the design was adapted. Even after the end of the funding phase, the team
continued to see their prototype as a changeable object that would never be finished.
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 10
Evaluation
The prototypes were tested again and again, particularly with regard to their durability,
reparability, rebuildability and drinking water output. They worked intensively with a
Greek team who rebuilt prototypes and provided feedback.
Documentation
The team did not document in a structured way right from the start, but automatically
recorded interim results using CAD. Towards the end of the funding phase, they developed
comprehensive documentation, which they stored in an online repository. In doing so, they
were guided by good examples.
Collaboration
The team had access to a large international network, which it used regularly. For example,
to obtain expertise. They worked intensively with a Greek team who rebuilt prototypes and
provided feedback.
Circularity
During prototyping, the developers repeatedly addressed the independent reproduction and
improvement of the prototype by the target group. This included the adaptation to local circumstances,
but in particular the ease of repair.
Quote
“Our target group is people who live in sunny but water-stressed regions. With the network, we want to offer
them a solution that they can control themselves. They can build, use and co-develop the system themselves in
nearby makerspaces.” (Librewater)
4.6 OpenMycolab
Regarding the OpenMycolab project, the team members started with a very rough idea (TRL 0) and
wanted to end with a large-scale prototype (TRL 5), which, however, they did not complete. Looking at
the process of OpenMycolab, it can be stated that the project was carried out in sequential phases. It was
rare to return to phases that had already been run in previous periods. It was the only project that
followed a typical project cycle in that sense.
Prototyping phases
Specification
The team had a very rough idea, with unclear specifications. In addition, there was a lack
of expertise and resources to carry out the project right from the start. They initially dealt
with these two aspects. It took about half of the funding phase for this to change.
Design
The design was analog and very general, using simple drawings. Towards the end of the
funding phase, these were taken up by a third person and converted into CAD. This was the
only time the design was improved.
Realization
The physical implementation only took place at the end of the funding phase and was not
carried out to the end. As a result, a complete prototype was never created.
Evaluation
The fact that the prototype was not finished meant that no tests could take place.
Documentation
During the development phase, there was no documentation apart from the simple
drawings. Only towards the end was an online repository created, which remained
incomplete.
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 11
Collaboration
During the funding phase, there was intensive collaboration with the international
mushroom cultivation community. This is a network for the cultivation and research of
mushrooms for civil society use, such as food supply, sustainable materials research and
combating chemical pollution. The team wanted to provide this network with easily
reproducible laboratories.
Circularity
The project group plans to build a container that can be used in different environments and under
different conditions (repurpose).
Quote
“Mushroom cultivation is one application for which such an infrastructure is needed. But there are also many
other applications. For example, to create medically sterile locations in disaster areas or remote regions. The
cleanroom container is therefore a kind of basic technology.” (OpenMycolab)
5 Conclusion and outlook
The analysis of the six case studies validate the theory-derived OSH prototype process model
inductively. Five of six case studies respond to the model. In contrast to the other five case studies, the
Laser4DIY case involved a beta test rather than a further development of the existing prototype during
the period under review. This makes it difficult to assign the process phases unequivocally. The beta
test can be seen as one evaluation phase of the prototype. Accordingly, this model is a first attempt at
describing an open design process of OSH in the pre-alpha and alpha version.
Furthermore, the interview material confirms that the project teams have been working with external
experts and interested parties from the very beginning (e.g. mobile dishwashing system and LibreWater).
The aim is to align the artifact with the needs of a broad user group and to draw on their experience.
Two out of six projects have explicitly based their documentation on DIN SPEC 3105. This is a
documentation standard that also describes a review process to allow third parties to check the
documentation for completeness and comprehensibility. In this way, knowledge is passed on and
exchanged not only after but also during prototype development. Some groups explicitly emphasize the
democratization of knowledge as a key motivating factor. Hence, the six OSH teams not only show
references to the circular economy, but also think on a larger scale about the redistribution of power and
knowledge already in a very early product development phase towards a circular society (Calisto Friant,
Vermeulen and Salomone, 2020).
As other research has already shown (Dai et al., 2020), the project teams interviewed also faced
challenges when it came to documentation. They were caught between their ideal of OSH and their real
possibilities. On the one hand, because each team has to decide for itself what information is relevant
for the target group and how it should be prepared. This requires a lot of expertise and time. On the other
hand, because individual teams lacked the skills to do this. This is a problem because the extent to which
the product can be described as OSH depends crucially on the documentation. This is because humans
are the compilers in the production of hardware. Without the necessary information, they are unable to
understand or reproduce the physical object in a reasonable amount of time.
Product circularity could be identified in OSH prototype development. All six projects aim to reduce
the use of materials and natural resources. On the one hand, through the selection of technical
developments that can be used for local production or processing. As the example of the textile recycling
machine shows, the focus is on locally reprocessing old products into new ones. On the other hand, the
project teams emphasize that they design their developments in such a way that they can be understood
by third parties. This open design enables a wide use, reuse and reparability of the devices and
automatically enables circular practices (ROs). Different value retention options, especially of repair,
were explicitly mentioned by the project teams. One team highlighted a particular potential of OSH: to
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 12
see an artifact not as an end product, in other words a finished object in the linear economic process, but
as a changing framework of modular elements that is never finished and whose parts are in constant
circulation.
Nonetheless, the six case studies are only a starting point for further investigations in a still young field
of research. The model can be used as a starting point to reflect and transform existing linear product
development processes regarding CE. Further qualitative and quantitative research on the phenomenon
of OSH is needed, particularly on the extent to which information transparency at the design level
actually affects the longer circulation of products. How can this be calculated as part of life cycle
assessment, for example to determine the circularity of an artefact in the EU product passport currently
under development?
However, the CE requires informed prosumers, transparent, shortened value chains and a new
entrepreneurial way of thinking. The open hardware community offers promising starting points for this.
Now, political decision-makers are called upon to develop appropriate incentives to foster OSH
development, in order to further advance the circular economy and, in doing so, to think with OSH about
not only the ecological and economic dimensions, but also the social aspects in the sense of a circular
society.
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 13
References
Antoniou, R., Bonvoisin, J., Hsing, P.-Y., Dekoninck, E. and Defazio, D. (2022). Defining success
in open source hardware development projects: a survey of practitioners. Design Science, 8, e8.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2021.30 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Bakker, C., Balkenende, R., and Poppelaars, F. (2018). Design for product integrity in a Circular
Economy. In Designing for the circular economy (S. 148–156). Routledge.
Batista, L., Bourlakis, M., Smart, P. and Maull, R. (2018). In search of a circular supply chain
archetype – a content-analysis-based literature review. Production Planning & Control, 29(6),
438–451. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1343502 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Bilitewski, B. (2012). The Circular Economy and its Risks. Waste Management, 32(1), 1–2.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.10.004
Bonvoisin, J. (2017). Limits of ecodesign: the case for open source product development.
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 10(4–5), 198–206. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1317875 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Bonvoisin, J., Mies, R., Boujut, J.-F. and Stark, R. (2017). What is the “Source” of Open Source
Hardware? Journal of Open Hardware, 1(1), 5. URL: https://doi.org/10.5334/joh.7 (visited on
April 9, 2024).
Brandenburger, B., Brüsch, J., Voigt, M. and Busch, M. (2023, Mai 2). Towards an Open Hardware
Prototype Process Model for long-term Sustainability. Thirty-First European Conference on
Information Systems (ECIS 2023). European Conference on Information Systems, Kristiansand,
Norway. URL: https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1076&context=ecis2023_rip
(visited on April 9, 2024).
Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V. and Salomone, R. (2020). A typology of circular economy
discourses: Navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 161, 104917. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104917 (visited on April
9, 2024).
Childress, W. M., Liu, Y. and Tiersch, T. R. (2023). Design, alpha testing, and beta testing of a 3-D
printed open-hardware portable cryopreservation device for aquatic species. Journal of Applied
Aquaculture, 35(1), 213–236. URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/10454438.2021.1955805 (visited on
April 9, 2024).
Corsini, L., Dammicco, V. and Moultrie, J. (2020). Critical Factors for Implementing Open Source
Hardware in a Crisis: Lessons Learned from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Journal of Open
Hardware, 4(1), 8. URL: https://doi.org/10.5334/joh.24 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Cruz Sanchez, F. A., Boudaoud, H., Camargo, M. and Pearce, J. M. (2020). Plastic recycling in
additive manufacturing: A systematic literature review and opportunities for the circular
economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121602. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121602 (visited on April 9, 2024).
De Koning, J. I. J. C., Wever, R. and Crul, M. (2016). Models of Co-Creation. Proceedings of the
ServDes.2016 Conference. Conference: Service Design Geographies., Kopenhagen, Denmark.
Delannoy, I. (2021). L’économie symbiotique: régénérer la planète, l’économie et la société. Actes
Sud.
Dolan, R. J. and Matthews, J. M. (1993). Maximizing the Utility of Customer Product Testing: Beta
Test Design and Management. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 10(4), 318–330.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5885.1040318 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Frändegård, P., Krook, J., Svensson, N. and Eklund, M. (2013). A novel approach for environmental
evaluation of landfill mining. Journal of Cleaner Production, 55, 24–34. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.045 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 14
Gläser, J. and Laudel, G. (2010). Experteninterviews und qualitative Inhaltsanalyse als Instrumente
rekonstruierender Untersuchungen (4. Auflage). VS Verlag.
Gözet, B. and Wilts, H. (2022). Kreislaufwirtschaft als Baustein nachhaltiger Entwicklung. In C.
Meyer (Hrsg.), „Transforming our world“: Zukunftsdiskurse zur Umsetzung der UN-Agenda
2030 (S. 173–180). transcript.
Grönlund, J., Sjödin, D. R. and Frishammar, J. (2010). Open Innovation and the Stage-Gate Process:
A Revised Model for New Product Development. California Management Review, 52(3), 106–
131.
Hildebrandt, L., Zadow, S., Lange, L., Langhammer, M., Moritz, M., Redlich, T. and Wulfsberg, J.
P. (2022). What are the Role and Capabilities of Fab Labs as a Contribution to a Resilient City?
Insights from the Fab City Hamburg. URL: https://doi.org/10.15488/12142 (visited on April 9,
2024).
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017). Conceptualizing the Circular Economy: An Analysis
of 114 Definitions. SSRN Electronic Journal. URL: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3037579 (visited
on April 9, 2024).
Kirchherr, J. and Van Santen, R. (2019). Research on the circular economy: A critique of the field.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 151, 104480. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104480 (visited on April 9, 2024).
McKenney, S. and Reeves, T. (2012). Conducting Educational Design Research. Routledge. URL:
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203818183 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Mies, R., Bonvoisin, J. and Jochem, R. (2019). Harnessing the Synergy Potential of Open Source
Hardware Communities. In T. Redlich, M. Moritz, & J. P. Wulfsberg (Hrsg.), Co-Creation (S.
129–145). Springer International Publishing. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97788-
1_11 (visited on April 9, 2024).
OKF. (2022a). Prototype Fund Hardware gestartet. Open Knowledge Foundation. URL:
https://okfn.de/blog/2022/01/prototype-fund-hardware-gestartet/ (visited on April 9, 2024).
OKF. (2022b). MNT Research: Retrocomputing als Zukunftsvision. Open Knowledge Foundation.
URL: https://hardware.prototypefund.de/mnt-research-retrocomputing-als-zukunftsvision/
(visited on April 9, 2024)
OSHWA. (2022). Definition (English). Open Source Hardware Association. URL:
https://www.oshwa.org/definition/ (visited on April 9, 2024).
Pearce, J. and Mushtaq, U. (2009, September 26). Overcoming technical constraints for obtaining
sustainable development with open source appropriate technology. IEEE Toronto International
Conference Science and Technology for Humanity, toronto, canada. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIC-STH.2009.5444388 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Pearce, J. and Qian, J.-Y. (2022). Economic Impact of DIY Home Manufacturing of Consumer
Products with Low-cost 3D Printing from Free and Open Source Designs. European Journal of
Social Impact and Circular Economy, 1-24 Páginas. URL: https://doi.org/10.13135/2704-
9906/6508 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Prendeville, S., Hartung, G., Brass, C., Purvis, E. and Hall, A. (2017). Circular Makerspaces: the
founder’s view. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 10(4–5), 272–288. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2017.1317876 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Prendeville, S., Hartung, G., Purvis, E., Brass, C. and Hall, A. (2016). Makespaces: From
Redistributed Manufacturing to a Circular Economy. In R. Setchi, R. J. Howlett, Y. Liu, & P.
Theobald (Hrsg.), Sustainable Design and Manufacturing 2016 (Bd. 52, S. 577–588). Springer
International Publishing. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32098-4_49 (visited on April
9, 2024).
Open source hardware towards circularity
Thirty-Second European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2024), Paphos, Cyprus 15
Reike, D., Vermeulen, W. J. V. and Witjes, S. (2018). The circular economy: New or Refurbished as
CE 3.0? — Exploring Controversies in the Conceptualization of the Circular Economy through a
Focus on History and Resource Value Retention Options. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 135, 246–264. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.08.027 (visited on April
9, 2024).
Reinauer, T. and Hansen, U. E. (2021). Determinants of adoption in open-source hardware: A review
of small wind turbines. Technovation, 106, 102289. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102289 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Smith, P., Baille, J. and McHattie, L.-S. (2017). Sustainable Design Futures: An open design vision
for the circular economy in fashion and textiles. The Design Journal, 20(sup1), S1938–S1947.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352712 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Smith, P. and Mortati, M. (2017). Commons people: additive manufacturing enabled collaborative
commons production (by design). International Journal of Rapid Manufacturing, 6(2/3), 197.
URL: https://doi.org/10.1504/IJRAPIDM.2017.082159 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Stahel, W. R. (2010). The Performance Economy. Palgrave Macmillan UK. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274907 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Stirling, J. and Bowman, R. (2021). The COVID-19 Pandemic Highlights the Need for Open Design
Not Just Open Hardware. The Design Journal, 24(2), 299–314. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2020.1859168 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Troxler, P. (2019). Building open design as a commons. In The Critical Makers Reader:(Un)
Learning Technology (S. 218–226). Institute of Network Cultures.
Wenzel, T. (2023). Open hardware: From DIY trend to global transformation in access to laboratory
equipment. PLOS Biology, 21(1), e3001931. URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001931
(visited on April 9, 2024).
Wittbrodt, B. T., Glover, A. G., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G. C., Oppliger, D., Irwin, J. L. and Pearce,
J. M. (2013). Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D
printers. Mechatronics, 23(6), 713–726. URL:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2013.06.002 (visited on April 9, 2024).
Zhong, S. and Pearce, J. M. (2018). Tightening the loop on the circular economy: Coupled distributed
recycling and manufacturing with recyclebot and RepRap 3-D printing. Resources, Conservation
and Recycling, 128, 48–58. URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.023 (visited on
April 9, 2024).
Zimmermann, L. and Voigt, M. (2023). Beiträge von Bits & BäumeShaping digital
transformation for a sustainable society: contributions from Bits & Bäume. 68–71. URL:
https://doi.org/10.14279/DEPOSITONCE-17526 (visited on April 9, 2024).
