Scaling Open Source Product Development

From Open Source Ecology
Revision as of 20:59, 7 September 2019 by Marcin (talk | contribs) (→‎Blog Post)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Intro

We're recruiting for the Open Source Product Development (OSPD) Mastermind group - a learn and do group for organizing OSPD in the format of 9 day Design-Build Camps. See this invitation - yes, we're paying - the catch is - we all create the program first. https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/wiki/STEAM_Camp_Candidates#Simple_Message

Blog Post

Title: Open Source Product Development Mastermind

OSE does collaborative design - for a transparent and inclusive economy of abundance. We talked about creating a scalable platform for open source product development since 2008 - when we first formulated the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS) concept. We've been prototyping hundreds of GVCS machines over the last decade, but did little on productization and financial feedback loops. We watched as the project began to grow on its own (that is a line from my TED Talk, but we plateaued before widespread replication. At the same time, we developed our Extreme Manufacturing Workshop model for crowd builds. As such, we learned how to build machines - in One Day - or houses in a few days. This has become our main revenue stream since our Shuttleworth Foundation funding dried up by 2014. We have never developed kits or products that we can produce on an ongoing basis - it has been more ad hoc as we kept on learning. We are continuing the Extreme Builds, such as with the CEB Microhouse Build in Belize, and are finally developing kits for sale - starting with the 3D Printer. Along the lines of smaller tools like the 3D Printer, we began to run STEAM Camps - with our first one 2 months ago.

Our next stab at a bootstrapped platform for open source product development is to grow the STEAM Camps. This is relevant directly to our core mission of teaching open source product development methods. The revenue model here involves the participants who pay for the experience - which allows us to continue the events - while contributing to GVCS development in a tangible way.

We found this financial feedback loop worked well enough in the last STEAM Camp that it is worthwhile to scale the STEAM camp effort. The idea is to continue developing - both hardware and the curriculum - as part of the actual Camps - until we arrive at economically viable products. If this addresses making a living for all the instructors - then we have scored a win for the open source product development method.

There is another important purpose to the STEAM Camps - training people for Design Challenges. On September 1, 2010 - we plan to launch a $250k incentive challenge on HeroX. The challenge involves design the blueprints for and an enterprise around the world's first, open source, professional grade cordless drill - made from waste plastic. The challenge involves developing a garage-scale microfactory that can achieve this. The microfactory would involve at least 3D printing and plastic recycling - as the requirement is to build the cordless drills from waste-stream plastic.

By using open source design with recycling capacity - we are creating the circular economy and finally taking consumer goods out of the waste steam - where a typical useful life of an artifact is shorter than the time it took to produce it. To us, lifetime design is a game-changer from the environmental perspective - and also from the human treadmill perspective. If products last a lifetime, then we don't need to buy new ones and thus we increase our economic freedom. Lifetime design is key to environmental integrity, and it is part of a paradigm shift in production, where business models must now transition to making improvements, as opposed to making waste. Indeed, we plan to offer a lifetime warranty with a twist - in that the product will improve in time - not degrade. By virtue of modular, open source design - products can be upgraded or repaired.

The goal of the Incentive Challenge is to show the first clear example that open source product development - coupled with distributed production - can produce common consumer goods better, cheaper, and faster than proprietary development. If a strong example can be made of an open process like this working beyond software - with hardware - then it is likely that the process can be applied to any other hardware product. We foresee a cascade of other companies shifting to this method of development. Our big question is, How do we transition the economic paradigm from proprietary to collaborative development? Our goal is to get a clear answer to this question within a year of Sep 1, 2020. We would like to spin off a number of small enterprises producing cordless drills in many communities - along with the other 5 giants who currently dominate the $10B cordless drill market. Our goal is to achieve Distributed Market Substition of cordless drills within a 3 year window. We will see if a thousand or so small producers can produce a better product. This would require that distributed production engineering and distributed quality control is addressed properly.

We think that such goals are beyond any individual or existing company - and that only an unleashed, collaborative process can accomplish such remarkable results. If this succeeds, we will have rewritten human economic history. If we fail, we will have learned much about what it really takes to make the distributed economy a reality. I don't think that any compelling evidence exists for centralized, proprietary production being a superior way to do business in the digital age - if efficiency, effectiveness, environmental factors, and social factors are considered.

So let's do it. The best way to predict the future is to create it, paraphrasing Lincoln.

The approach is to run with the STEAM Camps as a significant way to scale development. That means that the STEAM Camps must be really good - if they are to make impact. Thus, the promise is:

  1. To provide an amazing experience that spreads by word of mouth
  2. To teach fundamental open source product development skills, using fully open source toolchains
  3. To develop real products during STEAM Camps, and produce a real contribution to enterprise development
  4. To build a team of instructors, for continuing the development effort
  5. To do all of this with a bootstrap-funded model, so that it can scale on its own merit.

The point of point 5 relates to the structure of mainstream funding, which we think contributes to structural evil. In the typical get-a-buttload-of-money-to-develop-a-product-then-sell-out model - there appears to be little vetting for the true merit of any enterprise. That is - throw enough money at it - and it will succeed. The only problem is, you could be creating a monster. For this reason, we like the bootstrap funded way, because it forces an enterprise to succeed on its own merit. Furthermore, bootstrap funding is more relevant to widespread replication of an enterprise - since no money - but only the skill and persevearance - are required.

To create a compelling product, the idea is to collaborate with diverse A-talent on creating the curriculum - first. Sure, we could do it ourselves - but I would like this to be exceptional. As such, I've been contacting people to help create the STEAM Camp curriculum. The new experiment aims to live up to our mission of 'collaborative design for a transparent and inclusive economy of abundance.' I decided to go all out on forming a team. This brought the additional challenge: how do you pay a dozen instructors from the proceeds of a STEAM Camp? Impossible from a single event - but quite doable from a dozen camps if we run them at the same time.

Blog Post Rough Draft

Title: Open Source Product Development Mastermind

We have talked about creating a scalable platform for open source product development since we formulated the Global Village Construction Set (GVCS) concept in 2008. That is - we are not only developing the GVCS - but also a generalized method for open source product development. We're developing methods of collaborative design - for a transparent and inclusive economy of abundance. We've been prototyping hundreds of GVCS machines over the last decade, but did little on productization. We watched as the project began to grow on its own (that is a line from my TED Talk, but we plateaued before the final step of viral enterprise creation and replication. At the same time, we developed our Extreme Manufacturing Workshop model for crowd builds. As such, we learned how to build machines - in One Day - or houses in a few days. This has become our main revenue stream since our Shuttleworth Foundation funding dried up by 2014. We have never developed kits or products that we can produce on an ongoing basis - it has been more ad hoc as we kept on learning. We are continuing the Extreme Builds, such as with the CEB Microhouse Build in Belize, and are finally developing kits for sale - starting with the 3D Printer. Along the lines of smaller tools like the 3D Printer, we began to run STEAM Camps - with our first one 2 months ago.

Our next stab at a bootstrapped platform for open source product development is to grow the STEAM Camps. This is relevant directly to teaching basic open source product development methods, while developing some of the GVCS CNC tools and derivative products in the process. The revenue model here involves the participants who pay for the experience - which allows us to continue the events - while contributing to GVCS development.

We found this financial feedback loop worked well enough in the last STEAM Camp that it is worthwhile to scale the STEAM camp effort. The idea behind the STEAM Camps is that the package addresses funding of open source product development, while engaging in such development in the process. We continue evolving the products - both hardware and the curriculum - in successive Camps - until we arrive at economically viable products. If this addresses making a living for all the instructors - who in turn are product developers - then we have scored a win for the open source product development method. Instructors have a growth opportunity to start an open source microfactory in their community.

There is another important purpose to the STEAM Camps - building talent for Design Challenges. On September 1, 2010 - we plan to launch a $250k incentive challenge on HeroX. The challenge involves design the blueprints for and an enterprise around the world's first, open source, professional grade cordless drill - made from waste plastic. The challenge involves developing a garage-scale microfactory that can achieve this. The microfactory would involve at least 3D printing and plastic recycling - as the requirement is to build the cordless drills from waste-stream plastic.

By using open source design with recycling capacity - we are creating the circular economy and finally taking consumer goods out of the waste steam - where a typical useful life of an artifact is shorter than the time it took to produce it. To us, lifetime design is a gamechanger from the environmental perspective - and also from the human treadmill perspective. If products last a lifetime, then we don't need to buy new ones and thus we increase our economic freedom. Lifetime design is key to environmental integrity, and it is part of a paradigm shift in production, where business models must now transition to making improvements, as opposed to making waste. Indeed, we plan to offer a lifetime warranty with a twist - in that the product will imrove in time - not degrade. By virtue of modular, open source design - products can be upgraded.

The goal of the Incentive Challenge is to show the first clear example that open source product development - coupled with distributed production - can produce common consumer goods better, cheaper, and faster than proprietary development. If a strong example can be made of an open process like this working beyond software - with hardware - then it is likely that the process can be applied to any other hardware product. We foresee a cascade of other companies shifting to this method of development. Our big question is, How do we transition the economic paradigm from proprietary to collaborative development? Our goal is to get a clear answer to this question within a year of Sep 1, 2020. We would like to spin off a number of small enterprises producing cordless drills in many communities - along with the other 5 giants who currently dominate the $10B cordless drill market. Our goal is to achieve Distributed Market Substition of cordless drills within a 3 year window. We will see if a thousand or so small producers can produce a better product. This would require that distributed production engineering and distributed quality control is addressed properly.

We think that such goals are beyond any individual or existing company - and that only an unleashed, collaborative process can accomplish such remarkable results. If this succeeds, we will have rewritten human economic history. If we fail, we will have learned much about what it really takes to make the distributed economy a reality. I don't think that any compelling evidence exists for centralized, proprietary production being a superior way to do business in the digital age - if efficiency, effectiveness, environmental factors, and social factors are considered.

Links

Retrieved from "https://wiki.opensourceecology.org/index.php?title=Scaling_Open_Source_Product_Development&oldid=198225"