On the Economic Value of Open Source Hardware – Case Study of an Open Source Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanner

Abstract

Increasing maturation and dissemination of easy-to-use and affordable means of digital production (e.g. 3D printing), access to these in makerspaces and FabLabs as well as powerful tools and online platforms for virtual and collaborative product design enabled the highly efficient and innovative mode of open source to spill over from software to hardware. Open source technology has enormous potential to spur innovation and enhance technological literacy and thus contribute to socioeconomic and ecological sustainability. Like in software, open source hardware (OSH) projects and online communities have evolved in a broad range of technologies and applications. In these communities, people from all over the world with diverse backgrounds (students, researchers, consumers, users etc.) gather online to jointly develop, revise, improve and freely share hardware designs and documentation. Additionally, people may build, adapt, use and sell physical artefacts based on these designs in accordance with the notion of open source. The (potential) economic impact and value of open source hardware is hard to quantify as contributors usually do not get paid and users do not necessarily buy products from vendors. Nonetheless, value is created as in the case of Linux or Wikipedia. We applied established valuation methods for open source hardware to quantify cost savings and as a result the value of an open source magnetic resonance imaging device (MRI) currently under development by the Open Source Imaging Initiative (OSI 2). Depending on the scenario and the valuation method, we found that savings for healthcare systems from US$1.8 million up to US$222 million per year are possible in the near future making the case for public funding and private investment in open source technology development.

Economic savings for scientific free and open source technology: A review

“…This horizontal scaling will be accomplished by national and state-level funding being spent only once for development of scientific equipment and then an immediate ROI is realized by the digital replication of the devices throughout the country for the costs of materials. For example, Moritz et al quantified cost savings and as a result the value of an open source magnetic resonance imaging device (MRI) currently under development by the Open Source Imaging Initiative and found that depending on the scenario and the valuation method, savings for healthcare systems from US$1.8 million up to US$222 million per year are possible in the near future making the case for public funding and private investment in open source technology development [87] . There is a clear high ROI for medical open source technologies as well as for the sciences [88] .…”

“It’s not just hacking for the sake of it”: a qualitative study of health innovators’ views on patient-driven open innovations, quality and safety

“…(6) Developed by software coding communities (7) and maker cultures,(8) these approaches are generally conducted in an open collaborative manner where individuals share their design tools and processes (9) so that anybody may build their own products. (10) Proponents list many advantages, including reduced costs,(9, 10) fast innovation cycles, (11) adaptable designs(10) as well as improved accessibility, sustainability,(9) interoperability, safety, and security. (10) Of note are the #WeAreNotWaiting community, where patients and caregivers develop open DIY health technologies for diabetes management, (6) and the field of open DIY assistive technologies, (12) which is driven by more accessible 3D printing and by many users' lack of access to (13) or satisfaction with their devices.…”

“…(10) Of note are the #WeAreNotWaiting community, where patients and caregivers develop open DIY health technologies for diabetes management, (6) and the field of open DIY assistive technologies, (12) which is driven by more accessible 3D printing and by many users' lack of access to (13) or satisfaction with their devices. (14) Though open DIY initiatives remain marginal in the health field, (11) they are drawing increasing academic attention for their capacity to innovate and their potential to improve healthcare. (6,13,(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) For some scholars, this bottom up movement (16) indicates how the provision of healthcare is now shared between institutions, providers, and citizens who are actively involved in finding solutions to their problems.…”

“…(9, 23) Numerous quality and safety issues are thus raised, mostly resulting from the lack of data security standards and untraceable development processes and materials. (11) This is especially the case when innovation development and maintenance largely depend on volunteers. (24) In addition, because open DIY solutions may be used in conjunction with medical devices that obtained market clearance for a specific indication, healthcare providers (HCPs) must sort out confusing liability issues when attending to patients who use or consider using a mixed solution (e.g., a DIY innovation that relies on an off-label use of an existing medical device).…”

Open-Source Grinding Machine for Compression Screw Manufacturing

“…RepRap technology in turn catalyzed millions of free and open-source 3D-printable designs and created a consumer (or prosumer) form of distributed manufacturing [12][13][14]. RepRaps and their derivatives are now used to manufacture a wide range of products from household items [15][16][17][18] to high-end scientific tools [19][20][21][22][23], generally far less expensively than available commercially [24][25][26]. The business community understands the widespread impact this potential shift in manufacturing represents [27][28][29][30][31][32][33] [65], composites [66] and various mixtures with waste wood fiber [47,63,67,68].…”