Neal Gorenflo

Like any innovation, open design by itself is neither good nor bad. Its social value depends entirely on how it’s used. It can be used for the common good, or it can be used to destroy the human and biological communities we depend on for survival.

The latter would not only be tragic, but boring. We deserve a better story than this! Our species has already accrued 2.5 years of ecological debt. ¹ And the debt is mounting rapidly – this year we’ll use an estimated 150% of the resources the earth can generate. ² TREND: SCARCITY OF RECOURSES Despite this profligate level of resource use, a billion of our fellow passengers on Spaceship Earth live in extreme poverty. This is an EPIC FAIL!

So the question is: how can you help reverse ecological debt and raise a billion people out of poverty? This is a challenge worthy of your remarkable ingenuity. Sure, there’s time to create that sculpture of Obi-Wan Kenobi with your 3D printer, but set aside some time for this EPIC WIN too! Don’t you think our species has more exciting places to go than oblivion? Let’s look at the problem at the level of products for a possible road map.

What’s obvious is that we don’t need more stuff. 99% of the stuff humans make becomes trash after just six months. ³ And most of our stuff is idle most of the time. For instance: Cars are idle an average of 22 hours a day; Power drills are used an average of 20 minutes total; Most lawn mowers are used 4 hours a year. ⁴

Learning from Car-sharing

So what can we do about this? Car-sharing offers a clue. Duh, we should share! Car-sharing statistics show the positive change that could come from an access economy, one where products are services accessed on demand  DOWNLOADABLE DESIGN by users. A 2010 study ⁵ of over 6,000 North American car-sharing members found that 51% joined who didn’t have a car but wanted access to one. Almost a quarter of members shed a car, 1,400 cars total. A 2004 UC Berkeley study of City Carshare ⁶ found that members drove 47% less after joining and saved 700,000 pounds of CO2 emissions. If you’re wondering if car-sharing makes things worse by increasing access to cars, consider that the average ratio of users to cars in North American car-sharing systems is 1:24. ⁷ Compare this ownership in the US where cars outnumber drivers by 1.2 to one. ⁸ And more benefit is coming – car-sharing companies ⁹ are partnering with ride-sharing companies to increase the number of passengers per car rental.

I don’t know of another innovation that increases access to a resource and decreases the environmental footprint. Our environmental and energy crises have some people thinking we must scrimp to survive. Sharing offers a better story – it suggests that we can live well and still reduce our footprint.

But the impact goes beyond material concerns. Research shows ¹⁰ that sharing makes us happy and can prolong life.  SHARE In addition, the New Sharing Economy study ¹¹ done by Shareable Magazine ¹² and Latitude Research ¹³ showed that car-sharers share across dramatically more categories than non-car-sharers – 11 versus 8. Not only does sharing offer many benefits, it also begets more sharing. Now that’s an elegant hack.

The news gets better – entrepreneurs are applying the car-sharing template  TEMPLATE CULTURE to a wide range of assets that include parking spaces, ¹⁴ planes and boats, ¹⁵ camera lenses, ¹⁶ textbooks, ¹⁷ children’s clothing, ¹⁸ handbags, ¹⁹ spare rooms ²⁰ and houses, ²¹ office space, ²² household items, ²³ and a lot more. ²⁴ What’s more, the New Sharing Economy study suggests there’s a big future in sharing – 75% of participants felt that their sharing of material goods will increase in the next five years. Rachel Botsman, ²⁵ author of Collaborative Consumption, ²⁶ believes that the access economy could be as big as the Industrial Revolution. REVOLUTION

So I invite you to help build the access economy. Aside from that sculpture of Obi-Wan Kenobi, there may be no better use of your talent.

→ shareable.net/

Soenke Zehle

In an era of algorithmic cultures, designers willing to take on the challenges of sustainability must be prepared to deal with complex eco-politics. At the same time, any mapping of possible sites of aesthetic intervention must begin by visualizing complete material flows.

Aided by the research of non-governmental organizations and a wave of liberal celebrity journalism, users know that mobile media use here is linked to resource conflicts  TREND: SCARCITY OF RECOURSES somewhere else. The call to shift to renewables has triggered a new type of resource conflict, less about the conditions of extraction than about the terms of transnational trade, giving rise to a new geopolitics of resource access. In the race to create independent supply chains for these essential materials, industry and political leaders in Europe and the US now regret having placed potential mining areas under environmental protection and are likely to reopen extraction in the name of resource autonomy.

Any such efforts may not go unnoticed, however; electronics activists  ACTIVISM are already using free mapping tools to visualize global supply chains and demonstrate that transparency in the area of resource extraction is in fact possible. Above and beyond corporate social responsibility initiatives that may or may not amount to more than a greenwashing of largely unchanged production processes, such maps call on corporations to take responsibility for what is happening across their supply chains rather than delegating such monitoring to their suppliers. Complex data visualizations challenge claims that brand management is the only corporate responsibility in the age of intellectual property, ensuring that designers creating new gadgets and user experience strategies are placed adjacent to indigenous communities struggling to protect the integrity of local environments or local militias fighting over the revenue streams of a local.

New environmental governance regimes and regulatory frameworks (WEED, RohS) offer designers access to vast material databases that list toxicity, as well as use and disposal hazards, although corporate participation is not yet required by law. Moreover, these lists of declarable substances only cover materials present in the final product, failing to address job health and safety or the workers’ right to know what they are handling. The design (and scope) of such databases have become an eco-political terrain, giving rise to a new brand of design-related data activism to expand the collection and integration of supply chain data.

Open Source Design

The effective management of environmental standards across transnational supply chains and production networks requires some acknowledgment of worker demands to know the substances they work with, potentially raising health and safety standards for workers and consumers across industries. Even so, consumer choice in the notoriously fragmented world of electronics manufacturing, for example, does not yet extend to devices that are truly sustainable. As corporate sustainability reports show, electronics companies have no idea how to monitor, let alone control complete supply and disposal chains, lagging far behind their peers in the automotive industries.

Consumers interested in fair production are allies of designers no longer interested in ‘designing for the dump’, ¹ RECYCLING but consumer-designer alliances are rare, despite the enthusiasm over user-generated content and the emergence of ‘produsers’. Activist networks (like Bricolabs) lead the way in applying the principle of openness to hardware design – encouraging users to extend their desire to create and participate to the design and production of the very technologies of creation and participation. This pursuit of ‘open re:source design’ is aided by the wave of open educational resources (OER) available to designers. Material available online ranges from online syllabi on design and environmental topics ² to free software design tools and corresponding handbooks for self-study. ³

These developments place designers at the core of a new series of ethico-aesthetic conflicts, giving them a key role to play in the negotiation of competing futures, perspectives, and timescales of sustainability. In theory, they are well-positioned to play a pivotal role. At the same time, they are engulfed by a tentacular creative industries framework that lauds creative autonomy without providing much more than precarity compensation, while short product cycles and the volatile attention economy of real-time communications networks limit the potentially disruptive force of the call for sustainability. But ‘open’ re:source design means, above all, to raise the stakes of these questions.

→ co.xmlab.org

If you plan to produce a $50 below-knee prosthesis for a developing country like Indonesia, where would you start? Is it even possible, considering that a below-knee prosthesis in the Western world costs $4,000? Waag Society’s Fab Lab Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the House of Natural Fiber, a media and art laboratory in Yogyakarta, Indonesia are working on a collaborative project aimed at finding answers to these questions.

Alex Schaub, Deanna Herst, Tommy ‘Imot’ Surya, Irene ‘Ira’ Agrivina

The House of Natural Fiber (HONF) has initiated a number of projects in the surrounding area, ranging from arts and design to education and public services. In line with its consistent focus on interactivity between people and environments, HONF selects and structures its projects based on the needs of local communities.  SOCIAL DESIGN One of these projects includes research on production and fabrication processes in relation to such fields as robotics, open source, and scientists (e.g. microbiologists). One of the partner organizations that benefit from the support provided by HONF is Yakkum, a rehabilitation centre for disabled people. HONF has been collaborating with Yakkum for almost 9 years, working as a non-official mediator and facilitator through workshops in the field of arts and empowerment. The collaboration with Yakkum confronted HONF with its biggest challenge in the context of fabrication processes. Yakkum produces prosthetics and orthotics for people with physical disabilities, particularly in Yogyakarta and other urban areas in Indonesia. However, these medical aids are expensive to produce, and take far too much time; one prosthesis is finished every two weeks. The situation is particularly problematic since there are many patients who urgently need prostheses, and most of them come from poor families. The aim of the $50 prosthesis project was to enable Yakkum to provide prostheses for two people a day using Fab Lab technology.

The first step in this collaborative process took place in May 2009, when Fab Lab Amsterdam invited HONF to an introductory prosthetics workshop for an initial exchange of experiences between users and designers.  CO-CREATION The workshop covered methods, techniques and materials and included expert input from Hugh Herr, director of the Biomechatronics Research Group at MIT, and Marcel Conradi, director of the De Hoogstraat Rehabilitation Centre in Utrecht. End-user evaluation was provided by Appie Rietveld, initiator of Korter maar Krachtig, ¹ a Dutch support and advocacy group for people dealing with limb loss.

A second prosthetics workshop in January 2010 aimed to define design parameters for adjustability, to devise inexpensive, efficient methods for production, and to explore the use of local materials – using local bamboo instead of aluminium reduces production costs considerably.  TREND: SCARCITY OF RESOURCES Some very useful insights emerged, such as the discovery that the patent of the ‘pyramid adapter’, a crucial part of the prosthesis, is expired, which allowed the collaborating partners to re-engineer it.
The next step was to test a first bamboo prototype and to make it adjustable. Most prosthesis users currently depend on orthopaedists for every minor adjustment of their prostheses, but that could theoretically be avoided. Many users do not realize that they already have a lot of first-hand knowledge about their own prosthesis, since they wear them 24/7; they are the experts on their own prosthetics use. Children generally need to have their prosthetic legs recalibrated by a doctor every six months. In Indonesia, this costs a lot of time and money. An adjustable leg would enable end users to adjust their prosthetic legs themselves by feeling and experiencing the fit, measuring the prosthesis and adapting it.

Walking on different surfaces also requires adaptation of the leg. The roll-off curve of a foot changes drastically when walking on different surfaces. The majority of prostheses on the market are designed for just one standard surface. An adjustable prosthesis would enable users to manage aspects like the roll-off curve, the angle of the foot or the height of the prosthesis themselves. In Indonesia, prosthesis alignment is mainly done manually. To facilitate the process, the collaboration team started to develop tools, such as a cheap alignment laser device and a portable 3D scanner. As DIY  DIY kits, these tools could improve accuracy while remaining affordable and accessible. Besides using digital fabrication resources, the team embraced open innovation principles, drawing knowledge from the expert users in Yakkum, the designers from HONF and Fab Lab Amsterdam, academic advisors such as Professor Bert Otten (Center for Human Movement Sciences, NeuroMechanics, University of Groningen) and specialized manufacturers like Kamer Orthopedie in Amsterdam. Input from all the parties will be used in the process of developing and designing the adjustable leg. The concrete results of the $50 prosthesis project so far also include key design insights. For instance, adjustability allows end users to take a crucial step toward independence, and the visual design of the prosthesis is important to end users. In addition, knowledge transfer during production is important for empowerment and self-reliance. In terms of production, the team gathered knowledge  KNOWLEDGE on how to user thermoforming to produce quality limb sockets quickly.

The next steps will address specific, tangible end-user needs and preferences. What do users need in order to adjust the prosthesis effectively? How would they like the design to look and feel? The aim is to develop a process or method for design based on the parameters defined in consultation with ‘expert users’: adjustability, open innovation and digital fabrication. To this end, a Fab Lab will be set up in Yogyakarta with a special Prosthetics section. The collaborative team working on the $50 prosthesis project will not stop there. In the future, they plan to research options for using intelligent materials to enhance the experience and effectiveness for the end user. Another goal is to explore the use of embodied cognition. Professor Bert Otten expects the process of prosthetic design to be guided by the team’s increased insight into the development of embodied cognition in amputees as they learn to walk with the leg prosthesis. Their improved sense of dynamic balance can be observed best from the way they move and how they intuitively adjust the prosthesis. No technical insight or expertise should be needed to adjust the prosthesis optimally, as long as the design is based on embodied cognition.

→ blog.waag.org/?p=2454

Jens Middel

Suppose you want to make people aware of grave human rights abuses in a faraway country. Suppose you also want to convince them to take action against those abuses. And suppose, finally, that you want to interest even groups who aren’t particularly idealistic. How do you pull it off? FairPhone is an answer to this question – and open design plays a crucial role.

To create and promote the world’s first fair mobile phone, together. One that can easily compete with today’s best and most sharp-looking phones. This is FairPhone’s  SOCIAL DESIGN objective – or better said: it’s the common goal of the people visiting this interactive online community. Here, men and women from all over the planet pool their design skills,  KNOWLEDGE campaign ideas and social concerns. In the process of trying to make a fair mobile phone, participants eventually realize that they’ll need certain key minerals for the phone’s production – and that phone brands have so far refused to reveal where these minerals came from, or are clearly retrieving them from African mines where working conditions are deplorable.  TREND: SCARCITY OF RESOURCES FairPhone will facilitate both the participants’ search for better mines and their petition to phone brands to contract those better mines.

The Call for Interaction

The keyword in FairPhone is ‘together’. It is, after all, a community of people participating in a co-creation CO-CREATION process. It is not a traditional process, though; there is no-one hovering over the contributors, deciding who responds to whom or who does what. The only top-down coordination on the project is that the initiative presents ‘challenges’: specific design and campaign problems for visitors to solve. Contributors can choose for themselves which ideas and designs they send in, and have permission to freely use other people’s entries as building blocks – just as their ideas and designs in turn might form the basis of other, future contributions. FairPhone is interactive, co-creational, peer-to-peer  CO-CREATION and open. According to its founders, this is exactly what makes the project so attractive to so many people – even the ones who usually aren’t interested in taking part in idealistic initiatives.

The Call for Freedom

The founders in question are: Waag Society, a foundation that develops creative technology for cultural innovation; NiZA, an NGO, that fights for equal rights and fair distribution of wealth; Schrijf, a company specializing in creative communication concepts and text products.

Their basic assumption is that men and women in today’s society may be more individualistic than ever, but are nevertheless social and creative creatures at heart. People still want to belong; they just want to choose a community for themselves, be free to decide when or where to participate in it and make a unique, individual contribution to the group’s goals. They also want their participation to be challenging: to let their interaction with others stimulate their own personal development.

The Call for Justice

FairPhone taps into this modern mentality: by creating an internet community  COMMUNITY that people can enter and leave at will; by inviting and enabling each person to use their own creative talents in completing a collective project; and by posting design and campaign challenges online, inviting participants to comment and build on each other’s ideas. FairPhone also appeals to idealists, because it follows consumers’ growing call for corporate responsibility and transparent production lines. The project is not primarily about developing a prototype of the first fair mobile phone. Rather, it is about bringing people together, inspiring all telephone brands to ‘go fair’ and fighting injustice the most effective way possible: together, as a collective.

→ www.fairphone.com

Gabrielle Kennedy

There’s always something special about the top crop of Dutch design graduates, but every once in a while one comes along that makes everyone sit up and take notice. In 2003, that was Joris Laarman. His Reinventing Functionality project at the Design Academy of Eindhoven fused function with ornament and was snatched up by Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam.

Design must accept some of the responsibility for creating many of the world’s current problems.

Since then, he has earned a reputation for himself as a designer with visionary ideas and a concern for societal issues. His first project out of school, the Bone Furniture range, was exhibited in the Friedman Benda gallery in New York, a limited edition series made from marble, porcelain and resin. While he calls it an “annoying coincidence” that much of his work has spawned major contemporary trends, it also testifies to its relevance to the issues that matter.

Furniture That Can Be Grown

Both those early projects clearly expressed Laarman’s highly specific views on modernism. The Bone range DESIGNERS resulted from a cooperative partnership with car manufacturer Opel, using software to design a series of artworks based on the organic way that bones form. Car parts are designed with the help of topology optimization software to increase strength and maximize the efficient use of materials. Furniture, as it turns out, can also be ‘grown’ by adding and removing material to maximize its strength and functionality.

Laarman’s stance is that functionality and extravagance are not mutually exclusive. Where modernism went wrong, and how its core advantages need to be readdressed, are what drive his research. What he is looking for are design solutions that possess a revolutionary quality. Much of his current research repudiates how things are currently done and patiently pursues a better way not just to manufacture, but also to distribute design.

Seen in this light, design must accept some of the responsibility for creating many of the world’s current problems. More importantly, it can play a key role in fixing them. In 2009, Laarman opened his Amsterdam studio to the public for the first time. His purpose was to share his thinking and his process. He wanted to reveal how design experimentation and research can create answers, not just pretty objects.

“In galleries and in Milan, people only ever see perfect pieces,” he says. “In this exhibition, I wanted people to see the research part of design, what is behind all the pretty shapes, and how they could eventually be of use in the world. I wanted people to understand what the future of design could look like using technological progress.”

Laarman hit a wall when he was researching open source design and digital fabrication. He realized that design had taken a wrong turn somewhere along the way and was now failing society. “I am not necessarily against how design is now,” he says, “but I do think the internet can provide a more honest way to design, make, distribute and sell things.” Not modernism, then; what’s needed is a new -ism. It takes some audacity for such a young designer to criticize the industry. Laarman has gone beyond theoretical criticism, underlining his opinion with some tangible ideas that he wants to try out – hopefully with the support of his contemporaries.

I do think the internet can provide a more honest way to design, make, distribute and sell things.

“I started to think of my work and of design in general as a sort of laboratory,” Laarman says. He explains it as a place where solutions might be found to the predicament created by over-production in the post-industrial age. “I’m not condemning the whole design industry,” he says, “or even questioning it. There is a lot of very good industrial production, and that will never go away, but I think it will soon be joined by another revolution made possible by the internet.” REVOLUTION

Despite its failures and the role it played in creating over-production, Laarman’s research kept bringing him back to modernism – not as an aesthetic per se, but as a philosophy. In 2010 Laarman was selected by Ingeborg de Roode, curator of industrial design at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam, to participate in the Modernism Today series. “I guess she sees me as a sort of contemporary version of Rietveld,”  DESIGNERS says Laarman. “That is an interesting comparison, and I see some connection.” 100 years ago, Gerrit Rietveld experimented with technology and materials; Laarman does the same today. His aesthetic is not in the tradition of De Stijl, but his values most certainly are.

The Modernist Roots (of Open Design)

In line with those values, it made good sense to fuse Rietveld’s world of ideas and experiments with open source design and digital fabrication; both could be argued to have modernist roots. Open source has been revolutionizing the cultural content universes of music and software for almost a decade, so why shouldn’t it also be able to change the way design is both made and distributed?

“I think true modernists wanted open source design one hundred years ago,” says Laarman, “but back then it wasn’t possible. Rietveld published manuals about how to make his chairs, but nobody could really use that information, because there were no networks of skilled artisans. His designs look simple, but are difficult to construct. These days, we can distribute knowledge in a way that can potentially bring craftspeople back to the centre stage of design – not in an idealistic, naïvely romantic way, but in an economically sound way. All we need are the networks, and cheaper and more accessible digital manufacturing technology.” One of modernism’s core flaws was the huge amount of power that ended up in the hands of a few big factories and design firms. The movement was supposed to be about the democratization of design – that was their big idea – but somewhere along the line it became nothing more than an aesthetic. Of course there are some obvious differences between modernism and open source design. Modernism produced an international and generic style. Industrialization led to mass production, which meant production had to be centralized and its products transported across the globe from countries with the lowest wages at great environmental and economic expense. Information and knowledge were kept closed and protected by copyrights; even if they had been accessible, it would have been impossible for an individual to use the design data without access to exorbitantly expensive production tools. The quality of design produced was and continues to be guaranteed by the producer; in turn, the producer and the retailer divide the majority of sales revenues.

I think true modernists wanted open source design one hundred years ago.

Open source design, on the other hand, has the capacity to conserve culture and decoration as well as traditional skills by utilizing new technology.
Digital production makes mass customization possible. Open source makes information and knowledge public; in addition, it has low entry costs, quality control takes place in the form of peer review by the public, and revenues are divided between craft and creativity. Also, because the products of open source design can be produced locally, transportation costs are drastically reduced.

What open source design does is redistribute knowledge  KNOWLEDGE and the means of production. It has the potential to change everything that we know about design, from manufacturing to education. Open source design is anti-elitist insofar as it can create fairer and more honest prices. It is democratic and helps to create self-determination in an individual’s immediate environment. Ultimately, it takes power away from the huge multinationals and from production hubs like China and India and hands it back to craftspeople – those individuals rendered irrelevant by industrialization. In short, open source design could feasibly become this century’s new -ism.

Ultimately, it takes power away from the multinationals and production hubs like China and hands it back to craftspeople – those individuals rendered irrelevant by industrialization.

“This does not mean that anyone can make good design or that more rubbish can be produced,” Laarman says. “Just because everyone has a digital camera doesn’t mean that everyone is a photographer. I am not in favour of amateurism, but the way I envision the system working, the good will eventually be filtered from the bad.”  AMATEURISSIMO

Less Production Is Needed, Not More.

Statistics show that up until the Industrial Revolution, a similar amount of products were being produced every year. With industrialization came increased wealth and prosperity, which lead to massive increases in production. The result was more waste, more environmental damage  TREND: SCARCITY OF RESOURCES and a surge in unemployed artisans. The average Western person today has access to more things than Queen Victoria owned during her reign. “The tragedy is that the vast majority of what is being today made lacks creativity and quality and isn’t really needed,” Laarman says. “The over-production of mediocrity for the middle classes has created a difficult economic situation, and there is nothing that can be done about it within the current system.”

If digital design went local, imagine what this would mean for small producers. “Right now, most people are just talking about digital fabrication,” says Laarman, “but it is happening, and I think can eventually take over. I am not going to say it will change the world, but it will change the way things are made. 3D printing is still very limited,  AESTHETICS: 3D
especially in terms of materials, but as digital manufacturing technology evolves, anything is possible.”

One possible scenario would be for local communities to invest in technology. “There are already all kinds of initiatives popping up that give individuals the opportunity to start their own small production facilities,” Laarman says. “We are looking into setting up a sort of professional Fab Lab, for instance, where any design based on a digital blueprint could be mass-customized and made.”

It could work. The RepRap machine, for example, is an open-branded DIY 3D printing machine.  HELLO WORLD The RepRap is a machine that you can make yourself (and that can reproduce itself!)  REPRODUCTION that can in turn make other gadgets. “Right now, this sort of thing is the domain of geeks for geeks, but once it becomes more professional, it will be ready for more general usage,” Laarman says.

The average Western person today has access to more things than Queen Victoria owned during her reign.

Open source design and local digital fabrication could also revolutionize education, which has mostly become outdated and irrelevant. “We could tie the platform into trade schools,” Laarman says. “Education has fallen behind and kids are not being taught what is needed. Digital manufacturing should be taught in schools, especially at the vocational school level.”
These developments are slow, however, because open source design remains the great unknown, with many unanswered quandaries. The new, innovative nature of the ideas works both for and against them; instead of inspiring images of a world less controlled by branding and regulations, open source design ends up sounding chaotic, with too much choice and an over-abundance of experimentation and waste. Issues of copyright and profit-sharing scare off many, leaving a lot of the earliest experimental platforms looking unprofessional and insecure.  MANIFESTOS

But the problem for most of the current websites selling open source design is they lack professional participation. What’s needed is more of the best and most visionary design minds debating and devising ways to make it all work. “What is happening so far isn’t really making a difference, but it does show that there is huge potential,” Laarman says.

Creative Commons  CREATIVE COMMONS has made some interesting inroads. It is a new type of copyright that protects a designer (or anyone else) so that they can make licensing agreements with suitable producers or limit use of their ideas to personal use only. “It works in an idealistic sense if everybody plays nice,” says Laarman. It is still limited, though, and resembles a small-scale iTunes dominated by amateur musicians playing a limited number of instruments. What is needed next is a professional digital platform, or a network where people can meet, access and share information about how and where to have design digitally manufactured.

Digital manu­facturing should be taught in schools, especially at the vocational school level.

Make-Me .com

One exciting project already under way, albeit in its nascent stages, is Make-Me.com, a cooperative venture involving Laarman, the Waag Society, Droog Design and some early internet pioneers. For designers, it means uploading their design for general distribution. For consumers, it means being able to access and customize design. For local producers, it means using licensing agreements to make the things that people want. “It reduces our carbon footprints and allows for more customization,” says Laarman.

That is what we do. We take something from the past and shape it into something new.

Make-Me.com plans to operate like an app store. You go there to get what you want. Some of it is free and some of it is paid for; some are designed by amateurs and some by professionals. “The amateurs and the professionals have to compete against one another,” Laarman says. “You find the chair you want online via us and you go to the local Fab Lab to have it produced on the spot. The platform is linking consumers to craftspeople and digital fabrication tools.”

Make-Me.com as an open source platform is not limited to design. “It is for journalists, architects, businesspeople, scientists – even a place you could go to for a new haircut,” says Laarman. Big pharmaceutical companies, for example, don’t want to invest in research on diseases that only affect small numbers of people, because there is no money to be made. An open source platform could open up possibilities for DIY bio-labs where scientists and doctors could access research and make their own medicines. “Anyone can use Make-Me.com to distribute information in a new way.”

Designers, however, fear what all this means for them in terms of copyright. They think production companies protect their intellectual property, the quality of their designs, and guarantee them an income. What that fails to recognize is that copyright is a complicated question. Who really owns an original idea? Is anything truly and completely original? Every creative person pilfers and borrows ideas from everywhere; referencing what came before is a natural part of the creative process. “That is what we do,” says Laarman. “We take something from the past and shape it into something new.”  REMIX Via Creative Commons licensing, it might become possible to profit from someone stealing your idea.

What limits the scope of open source at this point goes beyond legal concerns. For it to work, a whole new economic model would need to be devised and accepted. Under the current system, a designer takes his or her design to a manufacturer, who makes it and then takes it to a shop that sells it. “If he is lucky, the designer gets 3% ex factory,” Laarman says. “The brand adds 300% and the shop doubles that again. It’s ridiculous how little of the cut a designer gets. If we used digital tools and changed the way stores work, the ratio would be able to favour creativity and the craftsman.”

However, test-driving a new model will require a platform like Make-Me.com. It has to be large scale, and it will need to attract big-name designers and brands so that people can see it working. It’s a tough chicken-and-egg situation: unless designers feel that their financial income and copyright dues are guaranteed, they are not going to take the risk – and without enough designers taking the risk, it will be virtually impossible to erect the solid infrastructure to ensure smooth, safe and legal operations. It will take a coordinated leap of faith from educational facilities, designers and craftspeople for anything like this to work.
None of these obstacles are insurmountable. What Laarman wants is to be a part of the experiment and to be a contributing member of that generation who will be defining the parameters and creating the way forward. It is that vision which distinguishes him from a lot of his contemporaries – he has the commitment and the patience. He knows that this is something big and wants to do whatever it takes to make it work. “Right now, I am making very expensive, limited-edition designs,” he says. “That is a good way to fund the experiments and start a business, but eventually what I’d like to be able to do is provide open source versions of my work for everyone. That is my goal.”

He knows he doesn’t have all the answers, but Laarman is working through all these problems one by one. “I don’t want to say that this idea could take over the entire production world,” he says, “but it can certainly help craftspeople to make things that are not standardized or mass produced. If a world-wide network of craftspeople grows, then this could potentially really change things.”

Closed Societies Fail

Whichever way you look at this, design cannot continue as is. Design reveals a lot about society, and closed societies fail; like organisms that shut themselves off from their environment, a society that shuns reality will eventually die. Likewise, closed design is outdated. Open source, whether it can be what designers want or even understand at this point, is one way for design to play a real role in building a new, more honest economy. A world with less mass production, less waste, less transportation and less standardized design  STANDARDS can only be interpreted as a win-win situation for all concerned.

Another decade of discussion is needed before open source design will ever be able to make a tangible difference. Interestingly, the same arguments being used against the phenomenon now are the very same arguments that were once used against the introduction of democracy. The ruling elite will always feel threatened by the idea of giving power to the people.

What I’d like to be able to do is provide open source versions of my work for everyone.

John Thackara

In 1909, Peter Kropotkin was asked whether it was possible to learn a trade as difficult as gardening from books. “Yes, it is possible,” he replied, “but a necessary condition of success, in work on the land, is communicativeness – continual friendly intercourse with your neighbours.”

Although a book can offer good general advice, Kropotkin explained, every acre of land is unique. Each plot is shaped by the soil, its topography and biodiversity, the wind and water systems of the locality, and so on. “Growing in these unique circumstances can only be learned by local residents over many seasons,” the aristocratic anarchist concluded. “The knowledge which has developed in a given locality, that is necessary for survival, is the result of collective experience.” ¹

The biosphere, our only home, is itself a kind of garden – and we have not looked after it well. On the contrary, we have damaged many of the food and water systems that keep us alive, and wasted vast amounts of non-renewable resources.  TREND: SCARCITY OF RESOURCES One of the main reasons we’ve damaged our own life-support system is that we under-value the kinds of socially created knowledge Kropotkin wrote about. Ongoing attempts to privatize nature, and the over-specialization of knowledge in our universities, continue to render us blind to the consequences of our own actions.

Openness, in short, is more than a commercial and cultural issue. It’s a matter of survival. Systemic challenges such as climate change, or resource depletion – these ‘problems of moral bankruptcy’ – cannot be solved using the same techniques that caused them in the first place. Open research, open governance and open design are preconditions for the continuous, collaborative, social mode of enquiry and action that are needed.

For centuries, the pursuit of knowledge  KNOWLEDGE was undertaken in open and collaborative processes. Science, for example, developed as a result of peer review in an open and connected global community. Software, too, has flourished as a result of social creativity in what Yochai Benckler has named ‘commons-based peer production’. ² These approaches stand in stark contrast to the legacy left by the industrial economy – from cars to power stations – which depends on a command-and-control business model and militant copyright protection. The internet may have made it easier, technically, to share ideas and knowledge – but an immense global army of rights owners and attendant lawyers works tirelessly to protect this closed system of production.

Openness, in short, is more than a commercial and cultural issue. It’s a matter of survival.

The open design experiments you will read about in this book – such as the 60 Fab Labs in operation as we go to press – are nodes within an alternative industrial system that is now emerging. These are the “small, open, local and connected” experiments that environmental designer Ezio Manzini views as defining features of a sustainable economy. ³

Open design is more than just a new way to create products. As a process, and as a culture, open design also changes relationships among the people who make, use and look after things. Unlike proprietary or branded products, open solutions tend to be easy to maintain and  TREND: GLOBALIZATION repair locally. They are the opposite of the short-lived, use-and-discard, two-wash-two-wear model of mainstream consumer products. As you will read in the pages that follow, “nobody with a MakerBot will ever have to buy shower curtain rings again”. ⁴

Another open source manifesto states, “Don’t judge an object for what it is, but imagine what it could become.” This clarion call is welcome – but it does not promise an easy ride for open design. Our world is littered with the unintended outcomes of design actions, and open design is unlikely to be an exception. For example, 90% of the resources taken out of the ground today become waste within three months – and it’s not axiomatic that open design will improve that situation.  RECYCLING On the contrary, it’s logically possible that a network of Fab Labs could produce the open source equivalent of a gas-guzzling SUV. The long-term value of open design will depend on the questions it is asked to address.

An important priority for open source design, therefore, is to develop decision-making processes to identify and prioritize those questions. What, in other words, should open designers design? All our design decisions, from here on, need to take into account our natural, industrial and cultural systems – and the interactions between them – as the context for our creative efforts. We need to consider the sustainability of material and energy flows in all the systems and artefacts we design. In reading the articles and case studies that follow in this book, I am confident that these caveats will be embraced by the smart and fascinating pioneers of open design who are doing such fascinating work. Crowds may be wise – but they still need designers.

MASS-DEFORESTATION IN THE AMAZON ➝ INTO THE OPEN / JOHN THACKARA

PHOTO: LEONARDO F FREITAS ➝ WWW.FLICKR.COM/PHOTOS/LEOFFREITAS/1469376131

OLD STYLE STRIP MINING

PHOTO: STEPHEN COLDRINGTON ➝ COMMONS.WIKIMEDIA.ORG

CONFLICT MINERALS ➝ FAIRPHONE / JENS MIDDEL

PHOTO: ROB LAVINSKY ➝ IROCKS.COM

COLTAN, CONFLICT MINERAL IN EVERY CELL PHONE

PHOTO: KAREN HAYES ➝ PACT, INC

OIL SLICK AFTER DISASTER IN THE GULF OF MEXICO, MAY 24 2010

PHOTO: NASA GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER WWW.FLICKR.COM/PHOTOS/GSFC

BURNING OIL WELLS, KUWAIT 1992 ➝ OPEN RE:SOURCE DESIGN / SOENKE ZEHLE

PHOTO: US MILITARY ➝ WWW.DEFENSEIMAGERY.MIL

COVER OF NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE, JUNE 2004 ➝ SHAREABLE / NEAL GORENFLO

COVER PHOTO: SARAH LEEN ➝ NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC, NGM.NATIONALGEOGRAPHIC.COM