From 0 to 20. An evolutionary analysis of Open Design and Open Manufacturing

The paper presents an analysis of the evolution of Open Design and Open Manufacturing from 2000 to 2020. The two phenomena are examined by taking into account real experiences in these fields in order to track the most relevant developments. The first step of the research consisted in the identification of the best-known and most oftencited experiences, which have been collected into four different subsets, according to their type, and organized into a chronological visualization. The second step of the research involved the identification and description of three case studies, one for each of the main types: Instructables, OpenStructures and Precious Plastics. Finally, the paper identifies three main time frames, and expresses the constructive and the critical aspects of the two open processes, concluding with a speculation on three possible futures.


INTRODUCTION
Open design (OD) and open manufacturing (OM) have been examined, tested and developed since the 2000s. A new way of "doing design" has grown with the spread of Internet and personal/desktop manufacturing machines. Furthermore, the paradigms of industry 4.0 will change the way we produce, design and work. Numerous publications have sought to explain the phenomenon from different points of view, for example describing processes through frameworks (Raasch, Herstatt & Balka, 2009;Menichinelli, 2016), analyzing the wider concept of openness in design (Marttila, & Botero, 2013;Tooze et al., 2014;Aitamurto, Holland & Hussain, 2015;Gasparotto, 2019), examining the meaning of "making" (Menichinelli & Ustarroz Molina, 2018), or tracing the evolution of new production methods (Walter-Herrmann, & Büching, 2014;Özkil et al., 2017). After twenty years of sometimes perplexed, but more frequently enthusiastic assertions of the potential of OD, OM and the disruptive impact of the maker movement in the development of innovative products and services, an assessment of the current scenario could be useful.
Deposition Modeling or Stereolithography, and they are equally able to print objects, food or biological systems (Menichinelli, 2016b).
Other instruments considered primary for OD and OM are the so-called "crowd-based platforms" (Howard, Achiche, Özkil & Mcaloone, 2012;Hajiamiri M., 2014) which have the merit of involving a great number of people, through the Internet, around a project for creating communities (Dolata & Schrape, 2014). At this point, we should be able to evaluate the extent of the phenomenon and we can try to draw an evolutionary line. The study proposes, in particular, an assessment of the evolution of OD and OM by tracing and describing real experiences. This evaluation makes it possible to identify the constructive aspects of open processes in design and the critical ones, and to imagine, in conclusion, possible future scenarios that could represent turning points for the phenomenon.

METHODOLOGY
This paper aims to analyse if and how OD and OM evolved by understanding how their characteristics have changed over time. In doing so, it was considered useful to take into account real experiences in order to track the most significant signs of change. We chose to use the term "experiences" to identify, generically, different kinds of case studies related to the topic, investigating areas of interest such as tools, devices, events, objects, etc. Later in this paragraph, they will be collected into more specific subsets.
Experiences were selected on the basis of a literature review analysis and fieldwork initiated in 2013. The choice was made to report the experiences most cited in the literature on the subject and those most representative of a type. Nevertheless, is important to point out that the field of OD and OM counts a considerable number of experiences, many of which are not even traceable because they were carried out by private individuals.
A first part of this work had already been done by collecting the experiences most cited in the literature on the subject from 2013 to 2017. The result was published in the paper titled: "Open source, collaboration and access. A critical analysis of "openness" in the design field" (Gasparotto, 2019). Further research has since been conducted to update the list of experiences with papers published in 2018 and 2019.
The second step consisted in identifying the same type of experiences, such as different kind of 3d printers or prototyping devices. The selected experiences were examined through Google Trends and consideration was given to the most searched of a type. For example, it was decided to include Arduino/Genuino as the best-known example of open source hardware, even if there are many other tools of the same type, such as AdaFruit or SparkFun.
Considering common characteristics, such as purpose, process and nature, experiences were grouped into four main subsets: • OM and prototyping tools and services • Sharing platforms and systems

• OD objects
• OD and OM dissemination The first subset includes those experiences related to the prototyping and production stage of the design process. The second subset collects the platforms and systems that enable the sharing of blueprints and information within the community. The third subset includes different kind of objects designed through an OD process. The last subset collects the "side events" and more specifically those experiences that have contributed to the economic, cultural and technical diffusion of OD and OM.

ANALYSIS
The first step of the research consisted in the construction of a chronological visualization of the experiences collected in Table 1 (Figure 1). This visualization shows that most of the experiences of OD and OM were initiated between 2005 and 2011. Furthermore, it seems that no new major experiences have emerged in recent years, even though most of them are still existing and, in some cases, have evolved.

Figure 1. Chronological visualization of OD and OM experiences
The second step of in the research involved the identification and description of three experiences, one for each of the three main subsets of Table 1. It was decided to exclude from this analysis the fourth subset (OD and OM dissemination) because it is considered collateral.
The experiences are very different from one other and, although they can be grouped into subsets, we cannot consider the ones we have selected to be paradigmatic. Nevertheless, we can examine them relying on common key points, and try to understand if the process through which they act is based on common ground. The key-points chosen to describe the case studies are the following: • Aim -The original purpose and its evolution over time.
• History -The story of each case study and the most significant steps.
• Technology -The use of technology in the case studies.
• Business -How case studies are financed.
• Design Culture -If the design culture is existing and in what terms (aesthetics and functionality).
Information on the case studies was collected through the analysis of web platforms, especially the FAQ (Frequently asked questions) section of the website, and by email.

Instructables -Sharing platforms and systems
As reported on the homepage of the website "Instructables is a community for people who like to make things." It was born at the MIT Media Lab to "to share their projects, connect with others, and make an impact on the world." (https://www.instructables.com). The original aim was to share the documentation of a kitesurfing project with other people. To do so, the founders of Instructables realized that they needed to create a web-based documentation system. Instructables does not publicly declare its business model, but in 2011 the platform was acquired by Autodesk and even if it didn't change the essence of the website and its community, this acquisition gave it the resources to make improvements.
The platform offers its community a place to share every kind of "recipe" through the use of text, image and video-tutorial. Other sections of the website propose lessons on different subjects and with different levels of complexity, and contests, regularly updated. The website is not linked to a single technology such as, for example, Makerbot with the 3d printing, but it is a general container of all kinds of instructions.
The community of the platform is composed of many different people and professionals, generically called "makers" or DIYers (Do it yourselfers) (Kuznetsov & Paulos, 2010). For this reason, this platform features artifacts of every quality, at both high and low aesthetic and functional levels. Design culture, in this environment, is not considered to be relevant: far more importance is given instead to innovation and creativity.

OD objects -OpenStructures
OpenStructures is an online platform published in 2007 and developed by the designer Thomas Lommée to try and solve the problem of creating a shared modular language for open, collaborative and sustainable design.
The OpenStructures project is based on a modular matrix used for designing parts that when assembled can become different kinds of objects, for example cabinets, shelves, clothes hangers and other furniture. This matrix ensures that any part can be joined to another from the same system. Parts can be generally manufacture by anyone through 3d printers, CNCmilled or laser cuts, but in some cases, they can be buy from the website due to their complexity.
Thanks to OpenStructures, anyone can design and submit a possible piece to the platform which, after being evaluated by the founder of the OS system, contributes to increase the platform's database. The new website, updated in 2019, collects more than 70 parts and 11 objects most of which were designed by a junior or a professional designer. The OS studio, run by Christiane Högner and Thomas Lommée, manages the platform and also organizes collateral activities based on the OpenStructure system, such as coordinating collaborative design processes and workshops, providing educational activities or consulting on open modularity. The OpenStructure system, through this balance between opening and closing, is able to preserve the design culture expressed by both the aesthetic and functional qualities of the website, the parts and the objects.

OM and prototyping tools and services -Precious Plastic
Among the case studies on open design and open manufacturing, Precious Plastic is probably not considered to be typical. The first classic example of OM to come to mind is usually the RepRap 3d printer. Nevertheless, Precious Plastic is interesting to analyze because it is not just an individual tool, but may be considered a system that uses both OD and OM. The Precious Plastics community is constantly growing, and the website is about to be updated for the fourth time. The economic income of the site derives from donations which reached 300,000 EUR in 2019 and will be totally reinvested in the project.
As a designer, Hakkens analyzed a problem and found a possible solution by creating a system that involved a large community of different people and professionals. Although it is not possible to fully control the quality of the objects produced by this system -some of them are shared and sell through the platform bazaar -the entire process is controlled by Hakkens and his team, so the design culture of the overall system can be considered fully expressed.

DISCUSSION
The case studies described above respectively represent the evolution of a platform on which to share instructions, that of a website which relies on OD and OM tools to design and produce objects for the home, and that of a system of open-source manufacturing machines to give a second life to recycled plastic.
In extrapolating some common information (Table 2) it may be noted that underlying all three experiences was a strong initial motivation. The more ample and shared the goal, the wider the community of participants. It is essential for projects that rely on OD and OM processes to build a community. In the case of Instructables, the platform generated an environment conducive to the formation of a significant and diversified group of makers who share manufacturing instructions among themselves. OpenStructure has gathered a more  The analysis of the timeline (Figure 1) shows how, when following a chronology, there are three fundamental moments that mark the evolution of the OD and OM phenomena ( Figure   5). To the question "How disruptive is the Maker movement?", David Langley answers: ""I would currently grade the disruptive potential of the Maker movement with a 4.5 out of 10; that is not very disruptive at all." (Langley, 2017, p. 166). It was thought by some (Rifkin, 2011(Rifkin, & 2014Troxler, 2013)  Plastic observes that while manufacturing machines have been built in many parts of the world, the bazaar that sells objects is not supported by this network but relies on the usual method of shipment by courier.

CONCLUSION -LOOKING FORWARD
Open Design arose from the application of open source methodologies and dynamics to the design and production of physical objects (Van Abel, Evers, Troxler & Klaassen, 2011;Menichinelli, 2014;Cruickshank, 2016). Open Manufacturing developed thanks to the spread of accessible digital manufacturing technologies and makes it possible for small local production and prototyping centres to make objects designed anywhere in the world (Vallance, Kiani & Nayfeh, 2001;Bianchini & Maffei, 2013;). OD and OM are two processes that were conceived and grew together, often symbiotically given that they rely on the interconnection and collaboration between systems. Though between 2000 and 2019 the phenomenon has grown in terms of projects, dissemination and number of people involved, it cannot be said that to date, it has radically modified the way we produce and consume. The positive characteristics undoubtedly include the capacity of these two processes to generate and coalesce communities around them, the collaboration of groups of people in the realization of shared projects and the drive to experiment and innovate. Critical aspects however remain the limited use and productive possibilities of digital manufacturing technologies, and the finished quality of the artefacts, which inevitably influence the possibility of manufacturing goods locally and hence the overall environmental sustainability of the production system. Although OD and OM have sometimes proved to be marginal, they are very important for the birth and development of new knowledge and virtuous practices, by generating spaces of freedom.
In the final analysis, looking towards what could happen after 2020, it is important to consider the advent of new tools intrinsic to industry 4.0, such as augmented reality, artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, automation and the Internet of Service (Hermann, et al., 2016). Though it is impossible to predict the future (Voros, 2001), we can try to image how OD and OM might evolve over the next 10 years, postulating a possible future scenario, a probable one and a preferable one (Hancock, T., & Bezold, 1994;Voros, 2003;Candy, 2010).

Probable future
In 2030 open manufacturing technologies will improve but will not achieve the level required to reach a turning point in their evolution. Digital manufacturing machines will be used to produce highly customised objects or components. Because of the manufacturing costs of the objects, it will not be possible to establish a widespread production system, and the objects manufactured with these machines will be shipped to businesses and final consumers using traditional transportation systems. Lower-quality 3d printers will be sold to the public at affordable prices to fuel the market for replacement parts and materials, and a largely disinterested public will produce objects of doubtful utility, and scarce formal and aesthetic quality. Open design will remain a niche activity practiced by communities with strong shared motivations who rely on the tools of OD and OM primarily for social purposes.
Designers will use OD processes for research and promotional activities; they will however rely increasingly on the tools of OD to build prototypes, products or interactive experiences.

Possible future
In 2030 open manufacturing technologies will be able to manufacture qualitatively irreproachable and economically affordable objects of every kind. The machines will be flexible and capable of production on a large or small scale. Large numbers of laboratories will open in cities that will use automated machinery for various types of productions: from foodstuffs to objects. These hybrid spaces will be managed by different people with different professional backgrounds who will all contribute to the creation of local networks connected with global networks that share the same interests. The laboratories will be differentiated in terms of productive typologies and will collaborate as a system to manufacture complex objects. Technological objects will remain the prerogative of a few large corporations that will be in a position to control the production data in real time and orient the market.

Preferable future
In 2030, OM will make it possible to manufacture locally using evolved digital technologies.
Production will become a customised process, made-to-order and with rapid response times. This system will make it possible to eliminate warehouses and transportation costs.
Technological evolution will allow production with exclusively sustainable materials and