I have been interested in the idea of “open source design” since my introduction to the field of design, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that the concept itself remains somewhat nebulous in definition. My ideas about open source design are founded in my understanding of open source software and that development model’s applicability to the design, manufacture, and use of physical products. In recent weeks I have been pleased to come across a number of direct and tangential references to ideas which help to solidify this concept.

In “Ethnography and Critical Design Practice”, Tim Plowman introduces ethnography as an anthropological research method that has also been adopted by designers working in fields such as industrial, graphic, and computer interface design. However, during this pragmatic importation process, ethnography and other social science theory and methods tend to be socially decontextualized and commodified. The design disciplines, Plowman observes, have typically followed a narrow path in this sense and make little use of the social theory upon which these tools are based (Plowman, 2003).

Plowman goes on to suggest that the insights of French social historian Michel de Certeau may be worth attention from those in the design profession. De Certeau’s theories focused on the ordinary practices of people in everyday life, in which each individual uses readymade objects to become the “producer” of his or her own unique lifestyle. This idea seems to strike close to the heart of open source design, a key precept of which revolves around the idea of the user being able to assemble collections of flexible and interconnectable components to create new, customized objects with specific uses. In fact, I was pleased to find that Plowman even muses, “how can we design artifacts so they radiate the degrees of freedom necessary to enhance the self-invention that de Certeau observed? Can the cross pollination between these professions move toward the introduction of emancipatory content into designed artifacts?” (Plowman, 2003).

Plowman’s application of de Certeau’s social theory to the design disciplines recalls the concept of “modularization” which Hewlett Packard emerging markets specialist Ami Mehta referred to in a recent discussion. Mehta spoke of the idea of technology sold in small units such that they could be connected together to make something bigger; these interoperable pieces allow the user to create his or her own products (personal communication, March 10, 2006).

Many in the so-called “maker” community, composed largely of technology enthusiasts who modify readymade products to upgrade their performance or perform new tasks altogether, propose taking the modularization concept one step further. Readymade products, they argue, ought to be accessible to those who want to open them up, take them apart, and see how they work, as opposed to locking the user out. Dale Dougherty, editor of Make magazine, recently suggested that product manufacturers should “look at the lessons of open source, which provides access to the underlying source code. When a system is open and easily modified, it anticipates adaptation to a variety of uses that were never considered in the product’s original design” (Dougherty, 2005). Another issue of the same publication contained a “Maker’s Bill of Rights” regarding product design, with directives ranging from “cases shall be easy to open” to “standard connectors shall have pinouts defined” (Jalopy, 2005).

The term “open source design” does not turn up much using conventional research methods, but I have been gradually been able to center in on a solid definition of the concept by drawing bits and pieces from the array of materials, experiences, and ideas I’ve encountered during my design education. I hope to have enough to write a formal journal article on the subject in the coming months.

References

Dougherty, D. (2005). Maker Friendly. Make, 3, 7.

Jalopy, M. (2005). The Maker’s Bill of Rights. Make, 4, 157.

Plowman, T. (2003). Ethnography and Critical Design Practice. In Design Artifacts, Culture and the Study of Imponderabilia (pp. 1-18). San Francisco: Cheskin Research.