Downloaded for a Do-It-Yourself Realisation

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/ M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved from: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=Research%20Output (Accessed: Date). Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Open Design as sustainable competitive advantage

Student Name: JW Uys Student Number: 201281499

Thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MPhil of Engineering Management in the Faculty of Engineering at University of Johannesburg

Supervisor: Prof JHC Pretorius Co-supervisor: Dr GA Oosthuizen

25 January 2016

Declaration Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Declaration

By submitting this thesis electronically I, Johannes Wilhelm Uys , the undersigned, hereby declare that the entirety of the work contained therein is my own, original work, that I am the sole author thereof (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by University of Johannesburg will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.

2016 – 01 – 25 ______Date Signature

i Declaration Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Abstract Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Abstract

The sustainability of the quality and rate of the design process has always posed challenges. Initial open design concepts evolved from the need for an even faster rapid product development process and the desire to have co-creative platforms. Innovative open design platforms and toolkits ensure a continuous interchange of knowledge between many and diverse stakeholders from a community with a common vision. Companies continuously research social strategies to attract volunteer’s attention and keep their interest so as to contribute to the company’s objectives. Doing this can create significant value for the company’s customers and shareholders.

Nowadays, within this wave of the Internet of Things (IoT), the innovation process has totally opened up to global communities in which everybody can participate. Everybody can access and use existing design tools and solutions on these platforms and co-create even more solutions. There is a large focus, industry wide, on social manufacturing and on the business model of several innovative manufacturing companies. In addition the effects of social manufacturing on rapid product development are discussed in this research study as well as the support it can provide to local suppliers.

The objective of this research study was, therefore, to understand the main reasons for contributing to these open design platforms. An investigation regarding the changes in societal needs, markets, business models and enabling technologies of the different manufacturing paradigms is undertaken in the thesis. Both community- and company-driven open design platforms were studied and the benefits and challenges for utilising these platforms discussed. As a result, boundary conditions were identified as areas to be exploited, without compromising the constraints of current design systems.

iii

Acknowledgements Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Acknowledgements

To my friends, without whom I would have graduated two years earlier, and the other people I have yet to include in my acknowledgements:

 Dr GA Oosthuizen for providing me with the opportunity to carry out this research and for supporting me the whole way;  Prof JHC Pretorius, for assisting me with this study as my supervisor;  All participants included in the experiment to conduct this research; and  The Lord for blessing me with the opportunity and ability to study further.

Table of Contents Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg Table of Contents

Declaration ...... i

Abstract ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Table of Contents ...... v

List of Figures ...... vii

List of Tables ...... 1

Glossary ...... 1

1. Introduction ...... 1

1.1. Background and Motivation...... 1

1.2. Problem Statement ...... 5

1.3. Research Objectives ...... 5

1.4. Significance of Research ...... 6

1.5. Article of Research published ...... 6

1.6. Research Methodology ...... 6

2. Literature Study ...... 1

2.1. Manufacturing paradigms (1850 – 2000) ...... 4

2.1.1 Craft Production ...... 4

2.1.2 Mass Production ...... 5

2.1.3 Flexible Production ...... 6

2.1.4 Mass customisation and personalisation ...... 7

2.1.5 Social Manufacturing ...... 8

2.2. Knowledge Management and Technology Transfer ...... 12

2.3. Open Design for Product Development ...... 20

2.4. Open Innovation ...... 25

3. Research Methodology ...... 29

4. Experimental Results and Discussion ...... 31

4.1. Open Design Platform and Enterprises ...... 31

Table of Contents Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

4.1.1 Open Design Toolkits ...... 33

4.1.2 Open Design Projects ...... 34

4.1.3 Open Design Education and Learning ...... 35

4.1.4 Open Design Enterprises ...... 35

4.2. Reasons for Open Design Contributions ...... 35

4.3. Product development platforms and networks ...... 38

5. Conclusion ...... 40

References ...... 41

Appendix A: SAIIE 25 Conference Paper ...... 47

Appendix B: RAPDASA 16 Conference Paper ...... 48

Appendix C: Questionnaire ...... 49

List of Figures Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

List of Figures

Figure 1: Measures of product development success (Adapted from ( (Clark, 1992)) 4 Figure 2: Effect of revolutionary changes on manufacturing economics with regards to product variety and volume (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) 2 Figure 3: Craft production worked on a pull business model with the manufacturing of specialised individual products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) 5 Figure 4: Mass production worked on a push business model to lower product price with high productivity rates (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) 6 Figure 5: Flexible production worked on a push/pull business model with the manufacturing of a variety of products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) 7 Figure 6: Mass customisation and personalisation works on a pull business model with the manufacturing of customised, environmentally conscious products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) 8 Figure 7: Social Manufacturing works on a pull business model with the manufacturing of personalised products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) 10 Figure 8: The design cycle, prototyping cost and rate and access to human resources of Social manufacturing compared to Traditional manufacturing systems (not to scale – for illustrative purposes only) (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) 11 Figure 9: A physical representation of Nonaka’s Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination and Internalisation (SECI) Model for knowledge management (Nonaka, 1995) 15 Figure 10: Knowledge is generated from different sources 16 Figure 11: A closed innovation pipeline representation (Chesbrough, 2005) 26 Figure 12: An open innovation pipeline representation (Chesbrough, 2005) 27 Figure 13: Open Design tools that can be used per open innovation phase (Geyer M., 2012) 28 Figure 14: Research methodology followed to better understand the dynamics of open design 29 Figure 15: The reasons for contribution to open design platforms 36 Figure 16: The benefits of open design compared to traditional design 36

vii

Glossary Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

List of Tables

Table 1: Eight contexts of technology transfer (Amesse & Cohendet, 2001) 19 Table 2: Examples of open design platforms and networks 33 Table 3: Tools and integration of open design platforms and networks 38 Table 4: Examples of platforms along the Open Design Product Development Process (Jacobs & Chase, 2011) 39

Glossary

2D 2-dimensional

3D 3-dimensional

BMW Bayerische Moteren Werke

CAD Computer Aided Design

CAE Computer Aided Engineering

CAM Computer Aided Manufacturing

CNC Computer Numerically Controlled

DFA Design For Assembly

DFM Design For Manufacturing

DFR Design For Recycling

DIY Do It Yourself

I/O Input/Output

IoT Internet of Things

ISO International Organisation for Standardisation

ISBN International Standard Book Number

JIT Just in time

GE General Electric

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Glossary Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

MS Microsoft

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NNMI National Network for Manufacturing Innovation

OAC Open Architecture Control

OAP Open Architecture Products

OD Open design

OSS Operations Support System

PDF Portable Document Format

PLC Programmable Logic Controller

PLM Product Lifecycle Management

PTC Parametric Technology Corporation

R&D Research and Development

RAPDASA Rapid Product Development Association of South Africa

SaaS Software as a Service

SECI Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination, Internalisation

SIP Session Initiation Protocol

TT Technology Transfer

OS Open Structures

SAIIE South African Institute for Industrial Engineers

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

SMS Short message service

TBL Triple Bottom Line

TVs Televisions

Volunteers Internal and External contributors

Chapter 1: Introduction Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

1. Introduction

1.1. Background and Motivation A demand sustainable design process requires the reconciliation of environmental, social equity and economic demands. Numerous sustainability standards and certification systems are developed from these sustainability spheres, which are also known as the triple bottom line (TBL). Economically motivated design for manufacturing (DFM) and assembly (DFA) align the design process with the organisation’s manufacturing capabilities and assembly processes, and are needed to reduce operating costs and increase throughput. Environmentally, design for recycling (DFR) and disassembly stems from the pressure of recycling and refers to the product design that takes into account the ability to disassemble a used product to recover the recyclable parts. Eco-design also includes the incorporation of environmental considerations and is an extension of the other important economic requirements considered in the design process (Clark, 1992). Social design relies on the premise that personal and social networking relationships and ties provide value to organisations in a network by allowing them to tap into the resources embedded within the network for their benefit (Ettlinger, 2003). Real economic value is created out of these new principles simply owing to concurrent, mass collaboration where people are living, experiencing and expressing gradually more within digitally enabled social and peer networks. The idea of open design systems is to change the way we construct knowledge around manufacturing itself as the ability to generate new knowledge can play an integral role in staying competitive (Von Krogh & Venzin, 1995). Throughout the 1980s Sony had an impressive track record for being innovative, but, by the 1990s, the company’s engineers started to suffer from a damaging “not invented here syndrome”. Even as competitors introduced next-generation products, such as the iPod and Xbox, the Sony engineers were insular. As a result of their belief that outside ideas were not as good as inside ones, they missed opportunities in such areas as the MP3 players and flat-screen TVs. A company’s success should, therefore, be increasingly based on knowledge seeking and knowledge creation (Seufert, Von Krogh, & Bach, 1999). In today’s highly competitive industrial environment, no individual can accomplish production tasks alone. Collaboration is necessary at every technical and organisational level (Lu, 2007). Open Design has its roots in the open source software movement, which is described in Leiteritz

Chapter 1: Introduction Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

(2004) and can be understood as a change in the value creation process ( (Atkinson, Open Design: Das Ende der Massenproduktion); (Atkinson, Orchestreal manoeuvres in design. In: Abel, B.v. (ed.) Open design now. Why design cannot remain exclusive, 2011)). Open design, virtual-reality environments, digital collaboration, as well as web 4.0 technologies, allow customers to be more closely involved early on in the product design cycle. Open Design means that all information related to the product is available without obstacles, and that the developer community is open to every interested participant (Raasch, Herstatt, & Balka, 2009). It breaks down the traditional point of view and involves a community which has free access to the knowledge of the company (Vallance, Kiani, & Nayfeh, 2001). This level of openness can be influenced by various factors, including the level of proprietary information sensitivity, the purpose of the challenge and the decision about whether the product is fit for the platform. Open Design is based on the principles of open source, network manufacturing and social networks in order to ensure sustainable development. This leads to new methods for solving problems and accelerating the process of co-creation (Ueda, Takenaka, Vancza, & Monostori, Value creation and decision-making in sustainable society, 2009). In the past, the economy was not as sophisticated as it is now, and organisations were not as complex as they are now with the rapid changes and knowledge workers at the centre. In the industrial economy, attention to new ideas was not the scarce resource that it is in today’s connected world (Davenport & Beck, 2000). Information was scarce, and so virtual communities pursued open hardware and software strategies that made vast amounts of information freely available. Open design also embraced these new ways of sharing information, ideas and risks, so as to create the most collaborative environment possible. It is now becoming the norm in once traditional companies that intellectual property and production capacity is shared among hundreds of specialised companies. Together with the enormous boost from the Internet of Things (IoT) megatrend, the information generation has succeeded in sharing ideas via rapid communication. At the same time, because of information overload, it has made the attention that people pay to things a scare commodity (Davenport & Beck, 2000). In the attention economy, it is critical to evaluate actions with regard to how much attention it consumes and how we can get people to contribute to a company’s needs. Still, it is critical to realise that an open design system can become ubiquitous only if a critical mass of elements is achieved. Research (Davenport & Beck, 2000) suggests that one of the most important factors for gaining attention and keeping a

Chapter 1: Introduction Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg contributor’s interest is engaging with the user’s emotions. There are four linked lessons from psychobiology (Davenport & Beck, 2000):  The survival instinct is strongly present in everyone’s sub-conscious, and a contributor’s attention can be gained through this natural reaction;  Natural competitiveness is common amongst most people and open design platforms utilise these competitive urges that are part instinct, part cultural conditioning and eminently exploitable;  Attention deficiencies lead to easy distraction and, so, some platforms and toolkits exploit these distractions by offering to help users with their personal challenges; and  Personal engagement encourages people to participate consciously. Various open design platforms get people to invest something of their own, making them more committed than if they feel like observers. This co-creation dynamic also attracts people to contribute. Persuading design communities to contribute to designs on open platforms and to keep contributors’ interest (stickiness) is crucial if one is to stay competitive in the current corporate innovation field. Idea challenges encourage an idea suggestion system to be more competitive by rewarding successful value (from inside or outside) financially, or in other forms related to the organisation. Innovation networks also incorporate the input from a network of contributors in the form of solutions to identified problems revealing differences in solutions relating to the proposed problems. Whereas challenges are orientated to gain new ideas for innovations, networks are used to find solutions for more specific problems within a product design process (Marias & Schutte, 2009). Customer immersion platforms harness customers’ inputs as to product requirements in a customer-product interaction process with the assistance of new technologies (Marias & Schutte, 2009). To succeed, companies must respond to changing customer needs and the moves of their competitors (Ueda, Takenaka, Vancza, & Monostori, Value creation and decision-making in sustainable society, 2009). The ability to identify opportunities co- creatively and bring innovative products to market effectively in an efficient way will enhance a manufacturer’s competitiveness. As shown in Figure 1: Measures of product development success (Adapted from (), therefore, desired products should be brought to market at the right time at the desired quality level. Managers’ naturally first look inside their own functional groups or business units for creative sparks as it is easier to understand what is available. The bigger sparks, they discover, are ignited when fragments of ideas come

Chapter 1: Introduction Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg together and, specifically, when individuals across units brainstorm or when companies tap external partners for ideas (Marias & Schutte, 2009).

Figure 1: Measures of product development success (Adapted from ( (Clark, 1992)) Measures of product development success can be categorised into those that relate to the speed and frequency of bringing new products to market, to the productivity of the equal development process, and to the quality of the actual products introduced (Clark, 1992). The time, quality and productivity define the performance of development. In combination with other activities, like sales, manufacturing, advertising, and customer service, the transformation process determines the market impact and its profitability (Wheelwright & Clark, 1992). When organisations decide to collaborate in open innovation, the level of governance and the level of participation should be decided (Pisano & Verganti, 2008). Plat- forming uses co-creation tools for developing and introducing a base product with the purpose of providing a basis for contributors to access and co-create more value as the creative exploitation part of the product is left to the imagination. Collaborative product design and development is the technique of increasing the importance and responsibility of the role of suppliers and customers in the product design process. In this way, productivity is increased to the benefit, firstly, of the organisation, and, eventually, of the customer (Marias & Schutte, 2009).

In this research study, the main reasons for contributing to these open design platforms have been studied. Factors that have contributed to keeping interest and capturing designer’s attention were also investigated. Understanding the social dynamics of these platforms can

Chapter 1: Introduction Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg help to increase the steady stream of new products reaching the market in order to enhance the competiveness of companies.

1.2. Problem Statement Where tough design problems persist, citizens, social enterprises, even businesses, are relying less and less on traditional design solutions. More likely, they are depending on crowd design, product design across all industries, developing or investing, to design lightweight solutions for seemingly intractable problems. No challenge is too daunting, from malaria in Africa to traffic congestion in California.

Social manufacturing will be a force to be reckoned with in the future with the collective goal of new problem solvers being to create dynamic and rapidly evolving design processes. They trade solutions instead of dollars to fill the gap between what traditional design processes provide and what consumers really need. By erasing public-private sector boundaries, trillions of dollars are potentially unlocked during open design in open design networks and platforms.

Open design does not only serve as a practical guide to multi-sector problem solving, but it also provides frameworks for addressing the many global challenges in the design process. The fundamental principle is to highlight what the collective action of people and organisations could provide in paving the road for the most effective impact.

Historically, the world has not done a very good job of connecting people with expertise available for solving the biggest problems. Traditionally financial incentive was the most common way drawing people in. Governments and philanthropy can establish grants and prizes and set up funds to guarantee that there will be a market to pay for advances if products are developed. The question then is why people would contribute to open design platforms and networks without being incentivised only financially. Additionally, it should be considered whether open source networks and platforms can be used for a variety of industries to optimise design processes.

1.3. Research Objectives Companies continuously research social strategies to attract volunteers’ attention and keep their interest in contributing to the company’s objectives. Doing this can create significant value for the company’s customers and shareholders. The objectives of this research study are to:

Chapter 1: Introduction Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

1. Identify the different types of open design platforms and networks with their tools and modes of social integration; 2. Understand the main reasons for contributing to these open design platforms; 3. Link current platforms and networks to an open product development framework; and 4. Provide a conclusion regarding the results and make recommendations relative to the benefits of open design.

Both community- and company-driven open design platforms are studied and the benefits of and challenges to utilising these platforms discussed. As a result, boundary conditions are identified for exploitation, without compromising the constraints of current design systems.

1.4. Significance of Research Manufacturing systems change constantly and new theory toward value creation is emerging. Recent manufacturing strategies have been initiated on a national level, such as the NNMI (US), Catapult (UK), Industry 4.0 (Germany) and SIP (Japan), to create value from these adjustments. Similarly to the open source information revolution, open design platforms could eventually put the means of producing physical objects in the hands of every individual. In the last decade we have witnessed some new emerging approaches to technology creation and transfer. Nowadays, within this wave of the Internet of Things (IoT), the innovation process has even totally opened to global communities in which everybody can participate. Everybody can access and use existing design tools and solutions using these platforms and co-create even more solutions. This work investigates the tools and modes of integration of open design platforms and networks in order to understand the benefits of using open design better and to examine the main reasons for contributing to these open design platforms. The current platforms and networks to them are then linked to an open product development framework.

1.5. Article of Research published The research was presented and published, the paper entitled “The Social Dimension of Open Design”, at the South African Institute of Industrial Engineers (SAIIE) 25th annual conference at Spier, Stellenbosch from the 9th-11th of July 2013.

1.6. Research Methodology The objective of this research study was to understand the main reasons for contributing to these open design platforms. This research was divided into different phases. The first step consisted of a thorough literature study on sustainable manufacturing and open design.

Chapter 1: Introduction Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Several case studies were studied in order to understand the various tools found on these platforms and also their respective social integration. This evaluation helped in an understanding of which platforms and toolkits to use during the different phases of the product development process. A questionnaire was, then, given to a group of fifty ‘net generation’ (contributors born after 1981) open design users to understand the benefits of using open design. The main reasons behind the contribution to these open design platforms, together with the benefits that open design provides, were studied. Both community- and company-driven open design platforms were studied and the challenges relative to utilising these platforms discussed.

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg 2. Literature Study

Manufacturing has played a fundamental role in national development and overall prosperity within countries. The power and position of a state, the growth of wealth in nations, and contributions to the quality of life of individuals are some of the benefits of manufacturing to societies (Oosthuizen, Butala, Böhm, Rebensdorf, & Gergert, 2014). Manufacturing has also paved the way for the development of nations, the Netherlands in the 17th century, England in the 19th century, the US, Germany, Japan in the 20th century and China, Korea and Taiwan today. Manufacturing has always been cornerstone of the world’s economy and it can be considered to be the backbone of modern industrialised society.

All the other sectors of the economy can be stimulated by manufacturing and so having a strong manufacturing base is important for any society or community. Manufacturing, therefore, deserves the strong and continuous endeavour of all actors in a modern society to ensure prosperity, a better life and sustainable development. There have been many revolutionary changes in the way manufacturing is done throughout the years as is illustrated in Figure 2: Effect of revolutionary changes on manufacturing economics with regards to product variety and volume . According to Koren et al. (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010), these changes in the paradigms are caused by changes in the market, societal imperatives, and the development of new enabling technologies.

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Figure 2: Effect of revolutionary changes on manufacturing economics with regards to product variety and volume (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) The craft production revolution paradigm was supported by the invention of assembly lines which enabled society to focus more on economics of scale. Markets became saturated with specific products around the 1970s and societal demands for greater product variety developed. The era of customisation and personalisation started after that. The issue of connectivity in the early days of computer networking has given rise to this paradigm.

Work on the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) and standards for communication among different systems in a network were needed; the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) recognised this gap and initiated work to be done in this field. According to Day and Zimmerman (1983), the term ‘open’ was chosen to emphasise that, by conforming to OSI standards, a system would be open to communication with any other system obeying the same standards anywhere in the world. The resulting ISO 7498 standard (accepted in 1983) opened a way to the integration of systems, such as CAD/CAM and Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM).

The machine tool controllers (CNC) became a target for being opened up (e.g. LinuxCNC) at the beginning of the nineties. This provided a foundation for a new open initiative in manufacturing. Closed systems for CNC controllers were offered by only a few members at

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg that time. No adaptation was allowed and further development was blocked by these closed systems. Open Architecture Control (OAC) was proposed to bridge this gap as a concept for the easy implementation and integration of customer-specific controls by means of open interfaces and configuration methods in a vendor neutral, standardised environment (Pritschow, et al., 2001).

Open Architecture Products (OAP) recently extended the idea of open architecture, and this consists of a new class of products comprising a fixed platform and modules that can be added and swapped. Customers can adapt OAPs to their needs by integrating modules into the platform, according to Koren et al. (Koren, Hu, Gu, & Shpitalni, 2013). New small companies and customers will develop the modules using open design platforms while manufacturers will produce the social manufacturing platforms.

The latest Internet of Things (IoT) industrial revolution (Burmeister, Lüttgens, & Piller), (Bauerhansl, 2013) has ignited several manufacturing strategies on national level, such as the NNMI (US), Catapult (UK), Industry 4.0 (Germany) (Tao, Cheng, Da Xu, Zhang, & Li, 2014), (Markillie, 2012), (Schuh, Potente, Wesch-Potente, Weber, & Prote, 2014), and SIP in Japan. Kagermann et al. (Kagermann, Henning, Wolfgang, & Johannes, 2013) describe this revolution as the convergence of the physical world and the virtual world (cyberspace) in the form of Cyber-Physical-Systems (CPS). Changes in value creation, customer expectations and production methods will all stem from this era. The focus should shift from product and service innovation to business model innovation owing to these changes as stated by Burmeister et al. (Burmeister, Lüttgens, & Piller). Source code is seen as valuable intellectual property by most software producers and they, therefore, make it unavailable. The concept of open source software (OSS) is different. Access to the source code is given to any interested party by these OSS programmes leading to a distributed innovation platform in which users actively participate in the product’s development and so enabling the co-creation of value (Ueda, Takenaka, Vancza, & Monostori, Value creation and decision-making in sustainable society, 2009).

Social Manufacturing is, hence, considered to be one concept that consists of open source and open hardware concepts. The Social Manufacturing type of initiatives can be divided into toolkits (e.g. 3DVIA Cloud, Autodesk 123D), projects (e.g. SketchChair, Wikispeed and OpenStructures), education and learning (e.g. Tinkercad) and enterprises (e.g. Local Motors, Ardiuno and Bug Labs). Social Manufacturing theories are also evident in China's growing motorcycle manufacturing industry. The approach has been so successful that motorcycle

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg production has quadrupled from five million to more than 20 million vehicles a year since the mid-1990s, giving China about 50% of the global share (Tapscott & Williams, 2010).

Value creation within Social Manufacturing cannot be described as a traditional process where the consumer and the producer are separated from each other. Instead, the consumer changes his role into a consumer with development competence (prosumer) (Avital, 2011). The open design principle for value creation follows a bottoms-up approach (Redlich, 2012) from which different types of patterns emerge. The underlying theory in this process is called Emerging Synthesis (Ueda, Takenaka, Vancza, & Monostori, Value creation and decision- making in sustainable society, 2009).

2.1. Manufacturing paradigms (1850 – 2000) Jovane et al. (Jovane, Koren, & Boër, 2003) stated that, as the market and societal imperatives changed, new enabling technologies emerged for the different manufacturing paradigms. The basic elements (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010) of a manufacturing paradigm include the design (developing the product), make (manufacturing) and sale. The sequence of these elements differs in each paradigm owing to the changes in societal needs.

2.1.1 Craft Production During the 1850s Craft production was born. Figure 3: Craft production worked on a pull business model with the manufacturing of specialised individual products ’ clearly depicts the pull (sale-produce-assemble) system on which this specific business model was based. Individual products are demanded by the society and these are to be in small batches. Craftsman will design the product and, thereafter, the craftsman will manufacture the product but both of these will occur only after the customer has paid for the product.

Centuries ago, when craftsmen weaved baskets and made flint knives, Craft production actually started (Griffiths, 2012) (Hill, 1992). With the production of automobiles, where each individual part was produced using general purpose machine tools (tool and die sector) and manually assembled, the peak of this paradigm was reached. Each product is manufactured by hand by highly skilled workers in Craft production (Jovane, Koren, & Boër, 2003), (Griffiths, 2012). This paradigm has a low product volume owing to the fact that the demand is for one product at a time (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010). Examples of craft producers include carpenters, masons and silversmiths to name a few.

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Figure 3: Craft production worked on a pull business model with the manufacturing of specialised individual products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) Electricity was the enabling technology for this paradigm and the key technology was machine tools. The skills of the individuals laid the foundation for information and knowledge processing.

2.1.2 Mass Production Henry Ford, who manufactured the first car, had the realisation that the prices of automobiles needed to decrease to make them more affordable for the population. The time was, thus, right for mass production to start, and it is believed to have started in the year 1913. Henry Ford invented the moving assembly line in order to lower production costs to cater for the changes in societal needs (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010).

This paradigm has a high product volume where products are identical (Jovane, Koren, & Boër, 2003). Interchangeable parts and key technology assembly lines played a pivotal role in this paradigm, and lower labour costs were evident owing to fact that skilled workers were not required to assemble all the parts. Needless to say, the decrease in labour cost meant that the prices of products decreased. A push (develop-produce-assemble-sale) system laid the foundation for this business model as shown in Figure 4: Mass production worked on a push business model to lower product price with high productivity rates .

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Figure 4: Mass production worked on a push business model to lower product price with high productivity rates (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) As prices decreased, sales increased because more consumers could afford the products. More production stemmed for this, so decreasing prices even further (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010). Scientific management formed the foundation for information and knowledge processing.

2.1.3 Flexible Production Customers started to demand a greater variety of products as the mass produced products started saturating the market. This gave rise to flexible production around the year 1970. Lot sizes decreased in order to satisfy customer’s needs; hence, flexible production was introduced (Jovane, Koren, & Boër, 2003). In this context, Duguay et al. (Dugauy, Landry, & Pasin, 1997) defined ‘flexible’ as “the capacity to deploy or redeploy production resources efficiently as required by changes in the environment”.

This paradigm is based on a push/pull (develop-produce-sale-assemble) system as a business model, as shown in Figure 5: Flexible production worked on a push/pull business model with the manufacturing of a variety of products . A variety of products were demanded or required by society.

Quality, time and costs are used as production resources. Companies need to be flexible with regards to product volume because of all the fluctuations in customer demand. Digital

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg computers and technology flexible manufacturing systems were the enabling technology for this paradigm. Data storage/retrieval and the processing of information forms the basis for knowledge sharing or processing, enabled via information technology.

Figure 5: Flexible production worked on a push/pull business model with the manufacturing of a variety of products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) The final product is assembled only once the customer has bought the product, but the parts are still manufactured on a similar basis as mass production, in flexible production (Jovane, Koren, & Boër, 2003).

2.1.4 Mass customisation and personalisation Owing to the changes in societal needs, from a desire for a greater variety of products to customisable products and optional features, a change to a new paradigm became necessary (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010) (Lau, 1995). Manufacturing companies, thus, had to make a couple of changes to the way they ran their businesses to cater for this change in societal needs.

Mass customisation and personalisation started around the year 2000. Manufacturers were developing products that were within their capabilities but they now added a variety of optional extras, to co-create to the product, in addition to the standard products previously manufactured.

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

A pull (sale-produce-assemble) system forms the foundation for this business model as is shown in Figure 6: Mass customisation and personalisation works on a pull business model with the manufacturing of customised, environmentally conscious products . Customised products that are environmentally conscious are what society demands. As in flexible production, the product is assembled only once the product is bought by the customer. The customer, however, has to select all extras as desired before manufacturing will be completed. The standard product (without extras) is still mass produced in order to reduce production costs (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010).

Figure 6: Mass customisation and personalisation works on a pull business model with the manufacturing of customised, environmentally conscious products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) Information technologies and key technology reconfigurable manufacturing systems form the basis and act as the enablers of this paradigm. Knowledge management is the foundation for information and knowledge processing during mass customisation and personalisation.

2.1.5 Social Manufacturing Social Manufacturing allows organisations in a network to tap into the resources embedded within the network for their benefit, given that personal and social networking relationships and ties are provided, in order to add value (Koren, Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms, 2010). Zhang et al. (Zhang, Jiang, Zhu, & Cao, 2012) define social manufacturing as a new kind of networked manufacturing mode which integrates many distributed socialised manufacturing resources and aggregates enterprises into manufacturing communities through

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg initial clustering and self-organisation. Vukovic et al. (Vukovic, Kumara, & Greenshpan, 2010) believe that web 2.0 technologies are the enablers of crowd-sourced (social) manufacturing and that this has created a ‘working’ customer as a new type of customer. It is used for problem solving and the collecting of mass data. The increase in traditional costs, the introduction of addictive manufacturing, and the development of crowd sourcing platforms are three drivers that caused a growth in crowd sourced manufacturing (Diederik, et al., 2014).

It is predicted that Social manufacturing will be with us in the year 2020. Social manufacturing is deemed a pull (sale-produce-assemble) system as a foundation, as shown in Figure 7: Social Manufacturing works on a pull business model with the manufacturing of personalised products . The value chain will include sustainability as well as a demand for personalised products as the key drivers for societal needs. The internet of things and key technology will possibly be self-organising systems as the enabling technology for this paradigm. The cyber-physical system will form the foundation of information and knowledge processing.

Figure 7: Social Manufacturing works on a pull business model with the manufacturing of personalised products (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015)

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

The first disruptive entrant into the US automotive industry in decades is Local Motors. The company helps to solve local problems, locally through open-source principles, by making transportation more sustainable globally, and it utilises innovative distributed manufacturing to co-create vehicles and components with its virtual community of role-players around the world. A community manufactures the vehicles where the design is done by using a crowd on open design platforms for the design of the vehicle. A mobile factory (using rapid product development) on the back of a truck is used to transport the factory to the customer’s location and to manufacture the product at the delivery location by this social manufacturing company (Local Motors, 2012). Significantly reduced costs are the biggest outcome, hence Local Motors gain competitive advantage by producing vehicles with more human resources but at lower costs and even more quickly than their competitors.

The rapid development of technology, social media, and devices, e.g. tablets and smart phones and the creation of apps, is made possible by Social Manufacturing (Diederik, et al., 2014). The enabling technology is, therefore, the IoT which allows the company to communicate an issue to a large group of people instantly and also allows the group of people to respond instantly. Value creation within Social Manufacturing comes from the fact that the consumer has development competence (prosumer) and that the open design process follows a bottom-up approach (Redlich, 2012) from which different types of patterns emerge from emerging synthesis (Ueda, Takenaka, Vancza, & Monostori, Value creation and decision- making in sustainable society, 2009). Social Manufacturing will enable local suppliers to design and prototype products more quickly at a lower cost and also to have access to more human resources on a platform as illustrated in Figure 8: The design cycle, prototyping cost and rate and access to human resources of Social manufacturing compared to Traditional manufacturing systems (not to scale – for illustrative purposes only) . Still, it remains to be seen whether our local suppliers would be able to supply products and consumables at the same (or better) rate, quality, reliability and cost than their international counterparts.

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Figure 8: The design cycle, prototyping cost and rate and access to human resources of Social manufacturing compared to Traditional manufacturing systems (not to scale – for illustrative purposes only) (Ras C.I., 4-6 November, 2015) Owing to the emerging patterns from the customer interactions the research and conceptual design phases become shorter in social manufacturing compared to traditional design processes. A significant amount of time was usually required in the uncertain research phase before the final design could be pursued. The identification of patterns from emerging synthesis will shorten the design period. Social Manufacturing can achieve this by using more co-creation and customer immersion service platforms. In order to develop customer demanded products more quickly identification of the required patterns is needed. The significant effect on rapid product development is these identified patterns being utilised as companies now have the necessary customer needs become more competitive, due to having direct information from the customer.

2.2. Knowledge Management and Technology Transfer Knowledge Management is the creation, retention and transfer of tacit and explicit knowledge by individuals, teams and entire organisations, with the goal of becoming a more intelligent learning organisation and building critical capabilities for greater success as a business. It is the process of how organisations generate value from intellectual property

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg where Intellectual Property equals the creations of the mind and is about codifying what employees know and sharing that information” (Levinson, 2007).

Knowledge management can be divided into the following four categories for better understanding:

 Data – consists of symbols, and some examples are: rain in mm; employee lists; statements; price lists; and usage statistics;  Information – data that is processed to be useful; provides answers to "who", "what", "where", and "when" questions, and examples are: 20 mm rainfall overnight; a 20% employee turnover rate; and 5% increase in earnings;  Knowledge – application of data and information; this answers "how" questions, and examples are: it has rained because temperatures dropped and humidity was high; actions to improve employee retention; the increase in earnings will most likely have an increase in share price; and  Wisdom - Evaluated understanding and examples are: with high humidity and temperature decreasing I won’t wash my car; a new employee rewards system needs to be implemented; and this might be a good time to sell shares (Bernstein, 2011). Knowledge, furthermore, can be divided into two sub types, namely explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is facts and written information, like a document to assist you in doing something (manuals, methodologies and similar documents) in contrast to tacit knowledge that is the “know how” in your head (personal experience that can assist you personally completing a task and you might often be unaware of this type of knowledge) . Not all information is valuable, and it is up to you personally to use the information as a knowledge worker. A knowledge worker simply is a professional or intellectual who uses his/her mind to make a living and recognise, generate, share and manage tacit knowledge and turn it into explicit knowledge (Smith, 2001).

In the history of knowledge workers there have been quite a few main stream definitions/descriptions, for example:

 Peter Drucker (1959): One who works primarily with information or one who develops and uses knowledge in the workplace;  Weiss (1960): Knowledge grows like organisms, with data serving as food to be assimilated rather than merely stored;

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

 Popper (1963): There is always an increasing need for knowledge to grow and progress continually, whether tacit or explicit;  Toffler (1990): Typical knowledge workers must have some system to create, process and enhance their own knowledge; and  Nonaka (1991): Knowledge management is deemed as fuel for innovation. Knowledge is renewable and changing, and knowledge workers are the agents for that change. Knowledge-creating companies should be focused primarily on the task of innovation. In short, knowledge workers possess specialised skills, knowledge and education. Information technology can enable the knowledge worker to create, share, capture and utilise that knowledge.

By being a true knowledge worker within a company you need to possess the following attributes:

 Employees must be real problem solvers; a problem solver adds more value than a production worker;  Divergent thinking must take place amongst employees; a person must use intellectual rather than manual skills;  Employees must have un-codified knowledge; the quality of judgment rather than speed of work;  The quality of judgment is another important attribute that employees must possess; an employee who possesses un-codified knowledge which is difficult to duplicate;  Employees must understand cause and effect; employees who use knowledge and information to add to existing knowledge and information will have a deeper understanding of knowledge and information;  Strategy development must take place amongst employees by their analysing data to establish relationships;  All employees are to learn from experience by assessing input in order to evaluate complex or conflicting priorities;  The evaluation of priorities is an important attribute; this is the identification and understanding of trends;  Employees must have the ability to do trend analysis, making connections;

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

 The ability to learn new capabilities is an important attribute in order to understand cause and effect;  Employees must analyse data; this includes the ability to brainstorm by thinking broadly (divergent thinking), or the ability to drill down, creating more focus (convergent thinking);  Intellectual skills amongst employees is a key attribute, producing a new capability; and  All employees must be able to do convergent thinking by creating or modifying a strategy. Companies should strive to be a knowledge creating company, and knowledge workers should form part of the “The Knowledge Creating Company” (Nonaka, 1995). Organisational knowledge should be created within companies. There should be a re-use of all lessons learnt. Intellectual Property (IP) should be re-used and re-sold on a continuous basis. Best practice and benchmarking should be incorporated into all methodologies and philosophies used. Problem solving and solutions to complex problems should be at the core, and companies should combine this with experience in order to create a good collection of knowledge workers.

The Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination and Internalisation (SECI) Model (Nonaka, 1995) was created by Ikujiro Nonaka and Hirotaka Takeuchi, and the model is based on the knowledge creating process in order to understand the dynamic nature of knowledge creation and to manage such a process effectively. Explicit and tacit knowledge interact with each other in a continuous process and, in turn, this leads to the creation of new knowledge. Knowledge held by certain individuals is shared with other individuals in order to interconnect with one another to create new knowledge.

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Figure 9: A physical representation of Nonaka’s Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination and Internalisation (SECI) Model for knowledge management (Nonaka, 1995) The amount of knowledge can be seen as spiral of knowledge as depicted in Figure 9: A physical representation of Nonaka’s Socialisation, Externalisation, Combination and Internalisation (SECI) Model for knowledge management . As more and more rounds are completed, the knowledge keeps on growing. The sharing of tacit knowledge through face-to- face communications or shared experiences is known as Socialisation or Empathising. Examples of socialisation include social intercourse, like an apprenticeship and/or learning by means of a practical example. During the development of concepts of models, the goal is to convert tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge. This is better known as Externalisation or Articulating. The process entails the conversion of tacit knowledge into a format that all other people will be able to interpret and understand. New knowledge is created during this phase because it is believed that externalisation forms a good foundation to create knowledge. After all, explicated knowledge is compiled and shared among other role players and platforms. The next phase is simply known as Combination (or connecting). During this phase, knowledge is analysed and organised after all the explicit knowledge that was created and amalgamated during the previous phases. Once all the explicit knowledge is gathered and sorted it must be understood in order to add real value. This is known as Internalisation or

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg embodying. Transformed explicit knowledge needs to be well understood and must form part of the basic information of all the role-players. As the cycle continues, the next step will again be socialising or empathising and, thus, the spiral of knowledge resets and individuals start to share tacit knowledge again. The amount of knowledge will, thus, keep on growing as the cycles are continuously completed.

Customer relationships

Organisation Employee Memory relationships

Sources of Knowledge

Relationships Market and with other Business Organisations Environment

Research and development

Figure 10: Knowledge is generated from different sources There are various sources of knowledge as shown in the Figure above:

 Customer relationships: Examples are customer’s opinions of companies, future requirements, development of services;  Employee relationships: The knowledge within companies, for example performance information, formal surveys, or informal discussions;  Market and Business Environment: Examples are changes in politics, economy, technology, and environment, new developments in the specific sector and/or industry, competitor information, and new business development;  Research and development: Examples are creating new service offerings, improving old service offerings, providing training and retaining a competitive edge;  Relationships with other Organisations: Examples include Professional bodies, Regulatory Bodies, Governmental Bodies, conferences, and so forth; and

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

 Organisational Memory: Examples are the skills and experience and history of organisation, formal ways of sharing the latter, and ensuring that the Intellectual Property does not leave the company when an employee leaves. The process of identifying, collecting, storing, and transforming data and information into intellectual property, which in its turn is available for all staff members to use, is known as Knowledge Management. The gathering and sharing of knowledge by individuals with one another creates a solid base of intellectual capital.

Companies need knowledge management for various reasons, from increasing business efficiency, not reinventing the wheel, ensuring that there is no duplication of effort and that the same mistakes do not occur again and again, to continuous improvement and, as a whole, to saving time which in its turn saves money. The benefits for companies to have good knowledge management include:

 Faster access to knowledge and having learning resources available on hand as needed;  The ability to know who the experts are within the company;  To have facilitated collection, organisation, and sharing of information and experience;  Many organisational benefits are created if a company possesses good knowledge management;  Tasks might be able to be automated in some instances;  Knowledge management can improve market forecasting;  Competitiveness, productivity and communication will be increased over a period of time;  Errors will be reduced, and there will be far less frustration;  Decreased exposure owing to staff leaving;  Customer service and customer experience will be higher as well as overall customer satisfaction;  Innovation must be fostered across all projects and service offerings;  Improved sales process and proposals will also come to the fore;  Improved delivery on projects, specifically a decrease in time and a decrease in cost; and

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

 Improved productivity and retention by recognising and rewarding knowledge contributions (Cardinali, 1998). Several definitions of technology and its transfer exist in literature, with a recent overview given by Wahab et al. (Wahab, Rose, & Osman, 2012). For the purpose of this research, the following definition of TT is used, “Technology transfer is the movement or flow of technical knowledge, data, designs, prototypes, materials, inventions, software, and/or trade secrets from one organization to another organization or from one purpose to another purpose” (TRSG, 2013).

According to Tahmooresnejad et al. (Tahmooresnejad, Salami, & Shafia, 2011), companies are the driving forces of TT and need to prepare their infrastructure and human skills to be successful. Government’s role is to support organisations with policies to accelerate localisation and aid them in developing their new products based on transferred technology.

Amesse et al. (Amesse & Cohendet, 2001) define two phases of TT: (1) innovation process or technology creation; and (2) reproduction or technology diffusion. The authors also distinguish between these processes being performed within one organisation or between organisations. On this basis they define four contexts of traditional TT methods and point out a need for new ways of TT for a knowledge based economy.

In the last decade, we have witnessed some new emerging approaches to technology creation and transfer. Collective organisational forms have emerged, such as industrial clusters and networks. Nowadays, the innovation process is even totally open to global communities in which everybody can participate. The Google Android development and marketing platform is a good example. Everybody can access and use existing design tools and solutions on this platform and co-create even more solutions. Table 1: Eight contexts of technology transfer shows technology transfer contexts in a systematic manner. The left four quadrants (denoted by I – IV) are adopted from Amesse et al. (Amesse & Cohendet, 2001) and represent the traditional technology transfer methods. The right four quadrants (V – VIII) represent the novel technology transfer methods.

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Table 1: Eight contexts of technology transfer (Amesse & Cohendet, 2001)

Traditional technology transfer Novel technology transfer methods methods

Within Between Within cluster or Open

organisation organisations network community

I II V VI

Creating Contracting out Managing Collaboration & Open design and technology R&D and innovation open innovation co-creation outsourcing

III IV VII VIII Reproducing Transferring to Adopting & and diffusing Buying or selling Business alliances division or adapting of technology proven technologies and partnership Subsidiaries technologies

Traditionally, TT is considered as a closed system. The creation of technology is performed either within an organisation where the main concern is innovation management (I), or between two or more organisations where the technology creation is contracted or outsourced (II). If the reproduction and diffusion of technology is performed within an organisation, it is performed as a transfer of technology to a division or subsidiary of the organisation (III). If reproduction and diffusion of technology is performed to a third party, it is usually executed through buy/sell arrangements and carried out in one of the established forms, such as licensing, turnkey installation, or build-operate-transfer (IV). In all cases, knowledge is well protected either through non-disclosure measures or intellectual property rights.

The novel TT methods are more open than the traditional ones. One reason for this lies in the development of information and communication technologies, which enable collaboration in virtual, geographically distributed teams. In such environments, the creation of technologies is performed through collaboration and based on open innovation principles (V).

The next approach to technology creation, which we are recently experiencing, is the principle of open design performed in open communities. The Internet was the enabler for this approach. It started with the open source software movement and was recently extended to include open hardware design. The principles of open design enable the co-creation of value through the participation of anybody from the global community (VI).

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Within clusters and networks, the suitable forms for the diffusion of technologies are business alliances and partnerships (VII), such as joint ventures and public-private-partnerships. These forms are especially suitable for big technological investments.

2.3. Open Design for Product Development Real economic value is created out of these new principles simply owing to concurrent, mass collaboration where people are gradually living, experiencing and expressing more within digitally enabled social and peer networks. The idea of open design systems is to change the way we construct knowledge around manufacturing itself, as the ability to generate new knowledge can play an integral role in staying competitive (Day & Zimmerman, 1983). This way leads to new methods for solving problems and accelerating the process of co-creation (Kagermann, Henning, Wolfgang, & Johannes, 2013).

Open design allows the exploitation of the synergies between users, developers, producers, customers and other social groups in the design of innovative technology products. These lead to the unique opportunity of customer oriented product development. Rapidly changing customer needs are developed in collaboration with partners on specific products. This also allows for the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to benefit from the innovative development projects without a major commitment of resources (Marthandan, 2012).

The recent advances in technology have led to the development of software that enables users to exchange and synchronise the information on the design and manufacture to allow the designers and manufacturers time reduction between product design and the full-scale production (Time to market). A product can be developed with the desired function, the designers and manufacturers working hand in hand with the help of some tools and techniques.

The designers regularly exercise concurrent engineering, computer aided design (CAD) and engineering (CAE) software and also employ rapid prototyping, while usually manufacturing with the aid of computer numerically controlled (CNC) processes, cellular manufacturing, flexible, and just in time (JIT) production systems.

Variations in design, specifications, production and validation pose large challenges for the development of an end-to-end automated manufacturing system. Agility in the manufacturing process can address these challenges. There are a few ways to make the manufacturing process more agile, and these include open collaboration that maximises the re-use for example. The re-use of knowledge builds the foundation for open design so that it can be

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg successfully applied in manufacturing by encouraging co-operation. Knowledge sharing and co-operation takes place via the World Wide Web. Plans and patterns are shared at a low or no cost via the internet.

A design process can be followed step by step, and the modern technological age can provide a systematic approach for achieving this. In recent times, new products are simply not created by a single designer anymore, and bigger teams are required. Within bigger team communication and management are key challenges that need to be addressed. If design take place in a planned, systematic, holistic way during the design phase the success of product design will increase.

The engineering design methodology, furthermore, is needed to integrate different aspects of design in such a way that the whole process is clear and logical so that the design process can be broken down into different phases and clear steps developed to further the work methods.

Although it is important to produce sound technical and economic outcomes during product design. it becomes more and more important to produce rapid, effective products during product development. Optimising the design process planning, verification and flexibility will, thus, be the most important determining factors.

In order to optimise the design process, the following principles must be applied and should form the foundation in production (Beitz, 2007):

• A problem-oriented approach is highly encouraged and is to be applied to all the different design activities, irrespective of a particular area;

• Understanding and innovation should be embraced in order to produce optimal solutions;

• The findings of other disciplines as well as methods and concepts are to be incorporated and, therefore, need to be compatible;

• No reliance must be placed on finding solutions by default;

• Known solutions to specific tasks in the process must be applied as far as possible;

• A certain compatibility level is needed for data processing;

• The process steps must be easy for other role players to learn; and

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

• There is a need to consider the findings of cognitive psychology and modern ergonomics, i.e. workload reduction, time savings and the prevention of human errors, and assistance specifically to ensure interest throughout the process.

Although it is not always possible to distinguish between the various phases of product development, the planning and design process proceeds from the planning and explanation of the task by identifying the required functions, the establishment of principle solutions the construction of modular structures, and the final documentation of the complete product. The planning and design process can typically be divided into the following phases:

• Planning and the clarification of the task; • Conceptual design; • Embodiment Design; and • Details of Design. Economic conditions, requirements for certain problems within a company, and demand from markets all give rise to a product idea and they provide the first step in product development. There are various ways to develop ideas, for example through ideas sessions, workshops and informal brainstorming sessions. A selection process is needed in order to select the best ideas to pave the way for the development of the best final product.

In order to ensure the product can perform all its functions, it is necessary to determine all the constraints upfront as well as the role these constraints will play during product development. A design specification will kick off the design process and will enable the conceptualisation of the design. During the product planning phase a provisional list of constraints can normally be derived. Taking the above mentioned into account, the importance of knowing the key issues and constraints of the product planning phase becomes apparent (Beitz, 2007).

The foundation of the solution is to be determined during the conceptual design phase that precedes the product planning phase. The abstracting of fundamental problems, the establishment of functional structures, finding appropriate working principles and formulating the working structures as an end result all form part of the function of the conceptual design phase.

The structure must be transformed into a tangible representation before it can be adjudicated. After all technologically possible solutions have been explored, the dimensional layout drafted and the preliminary materials selected, the conceptualisation can take place (Beitz, 2007). The conceptual design phase can account for between 70% and 80% of total cost of a

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg product as estimated globally. There are numerous benefits accrued from improving the design phase and these include the reduction of repetition, improved customer satisfaction, and cost reduction from decreasing the product development time.

Bridging the gap between the conceptual phase of the design process and the detailed design stage is known as the embodiment design, or personification in layman’s terms. A more detailed analysis of different possible concepts is conducted during this phase of design. Process selection and industrial design, material and process selection, preliminary production information (design for manufacturing and assembly), preliminary design (component shapes and materials) and definite layout form the foundation for the analysis. The refinement of the concept layouts can be done by the establishment of clear steps and rules in order to produce clear specifications and definitions for product development.

Product design specification and design requirements, project management information and draft layouts are used as inputs to embodiment design. Calculations, dimensions and tolerances required and suggested materials (appearance, shape, style and size) and manufacturing processes, are some examples of documentation that can be produced and this will always exclude materials and process detail. Mathematical and physical evidence will allow for decisions to be made during this phase of product development. The main goal of the embodiment design phase is not to only provide different technical solutions, but also to try to create useful products that are, in addition, satisfying and appealing to users.

The engineering for every component of the product happens during the design-for- manufacturing phase, more commonly known as detailed design. The design is documented with drawings or computer files and includes all shapes, dimensions, tolerances, materials and finishes. The ultimate goal is to ensure high quality products for customers in a timeous manner. This can be achieved by using all the characteristics of the product, costing, quality analysis and the performing of a detailed investigation to see the different production possibilities and to specify these different productions. Design, production and product support precedes detail design which will happen at a later stage (Enterprises, 1999).

The thought of open-sourcing product development for most managers is a slightly disturbing thought. While they are used to the idea of viral marketing and even using Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter to reach their customers and forward their product development property to them, they shy away from exposing their intellectual property to any outsiders (Heppelmann, 2010).

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Social networking can definitely be seen as the inevitable next step. Product development has essentially gone through two historical phases. All through the industrial revolution, a product launched an individual genius – an Eli Whitney, say, or a Thomas Edison - who had an idea and brought it to the market. Gradually, as the process became more complex, the individual was substituted by an organisation, and the people who actually did the work became the company's assets (Heppelmann, 2010).

In recent times, technology has become available that allows for this co-operation but it must be employed by a whole community on open networks. Most companies still use such networks to keep product development within the corporate walls. In a huge company, like Samsung for example, two engineers who have never met find each other and share knowledge about the choice of material for a new product, all without any official approval or even the awareness of the project managers. It happens spontaneously, on the edge of the enterprise, rather than through a central database that is nicely updated and controlled. Motorola, however, still protects its intellectual property by a firewall (Heppelmann, 2010).

Another example of such an attractive network, that is a technology within a firewall, is Yammer. SMS messages can include maximum of 140 characters, they are Twitter based, and are used as a platform to keep all role players in product development in touch and engaged. It is believed that Yammer will deliver tremendous growth in the number of role players in a very short space of time (Heppelmann, 2010).

These circumstances allow for leading companies to break through barriers and allow all role players to participate and share knowledge and expertise in order to move product development to the next level. By going online, big corporates can try to address this. A few success stories include Procter and Gamble (P&G) developing the Connect+ Development programme in 2002 in order to reduce time and cost and share knowledge and ideas to develop new products. Examples of the programme’s success are that an Italian professor partnered with P&G to print text and images on its Pringles potato chips packaging as part of a social product development experiment. Profit increased significantly as a result in 2003. This means that more and more companies will experiment with social product development. If engineers within an organisation were sharing proprietary data with their suppliers it might be better to accept the practice which will be the biggest driver to create competitive advantage. (Heppelmann, 2010).

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Another success story is BMW partnering with cord-source guru Local motors. Although these companies have totally different images, BMW realised the need to design for urban mobility and let the customer or crowd design its new cars. The future of design for all car manufacturing companies will lie in the ability to visualise the design process and to develop cars for the customer by creating unique customer –centric designed cars. To provide some context, Local Motors is a small automotive firm based in Phoenix, Arizona that utilises crowd sourcing for designing cars. They created a muscle car, the Rally Fighter, built from standard components and, whilst satisfying customer needs, it was totally different to cars built by traditional car manufacturing companies (Weiss, 2012).

Great products come from great companies. The complexities in today’s products, business processes and global environments make ‘getting to great’ more challenging than before and the expectation of quality has never been higher. Creating great products demands great focus. It must be at the fore of everything a company does to succeed. To outperform the competition, companies need to optimise the product development processes that will deliver their business initiatives and strategic goals. To do this, companies need the right technology, technology that will allow them to improve their processes, avoid disasters in the field and help them turn business initiatives into competitive advantage. Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) is an example of such a technology for today’s complex environment. PLM is enterprise software that ensures that product development resources and processes deliver real business value. PLM provides a view into the complete lifecycle from great idea to digitally built materials to a physical product that is easily serviced and ultimately retired. PLM allows all role players to contribute to the product’s design and development regardless of geographical location, to be able to act as single secure source of information, and to know exactly what is happening. Decisions are made quickly and are better informed. The result is that companies create products that are more competitive, cost effective, compliant, serviceable and of a higher quality (PTC, 2013).

2.4. Open Innovation Open innovation can be explained as “a paradigm that assumes that firms can and should use external ideas as well as internal ideas, and internal and external paths to market, as the firms look to advance their technology. Open Innovation combines internal and external ideas into architectures and systems whose requirements are defined by a business model”, as explained by Henry Chesbrough (Chesbrough, 2005).

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

It is important to understand the difference between open and closed innovation. Firstly, closed innovation is when ideas are channelled through a development process. Certain gates have to be reached in this cycle, and closed innovation experiences many barriers before products finally reach the market, as portrayed in Figure 11: A closed innovation pipeline representation.

Figure 11: A closed innovation pipeline representation (Chesbrough, 2005) Open innovation combines external and internal ideas that stem from the normal product development process, as depicted in Figure 12: An open innovation pipeline representation. This new logical way of thinking embraces knowledge sharing and, together with enthusiasm, open innovation can create considerable economic value (Cimmunity, 2015). This does not, however, come without challenges. These challenges include the following:

 Interaction between all role-players, from users, developers to producers in order to create value;  Interaction of the human aspects (human to human) in terms co-ordination and integration as well as the management of the process and workflow;  Interaction between the human and machines that needs to be qualified; and  The interactions between machines specifically to manage all the data (Tickr, 2015).

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Figure 12: An open innovation pipeline representation (Chesbrough, 2005) Companies are becoming extremely modernised and are on the edge of a technology revolution. By having a “defensive” mindset companies will not score any points. Innovation within the industry has delivered proven success to gain market share. The market also opens up to more consumers as a result of innovation. Customer expectations are higher and the pressure to deliver better customer service is emerging, especially as a result of global competition. The minimum crucial functionality provided or service delivered to customers is always more important than the technology, and technology should not be confused with innovation. Customer behaviour can potentially be changed with real time service and offerings being available via technology (Henry Chesbough, 2006).

There are various tools available to support the open innovation process as per the standard phase of product development, as seen in Figure 13: Open Design tools that can be used per open innovation phase . Open Innovation allows for the product development to be user-driven which, in its turn, turns the consumer into a prosumer. The open innovation process starts when there are some user ideas, internal or external, which give rise to the invent phase. Once there is an idea, the design phase can start. Free open design tools available are Blender and Cascade. These can be used for the submission and creation of designs. Thingiverse is a good open design platform/project or community, where designs that can utilised during the design phase can be sourced. Once designs are done, the prototyping can start. Open design

Chapter 2: Literature Study Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg tools, specifically for the manufacturing of a prototype, include Ponoko, Immaterialise, Makerbot industries and build your own CNC are also good rapid prototyping open design platform tools that can be used for prototyping for open innovation. The manufacturing phase of open innovation can either be outsourced or be done “in house” through platforms like Fab lab and 100kgarages. Alibaba is a good open design toolkit that can be used if the manufacturing is outsourced. The last step in the open innovation process is the selling of the products produced. A well-known open design for the selling of products is e-commerce by Yahoo. Another is Sparkfun.

Figure 13: Open Design tools that can be used per open innovation phase (Geyer M., 2012) There are numerous examples of open innovation success stories. The General Electric (GE) “Ecomagination” challenge is aimed at start-ups. The heavy Make community is an open design community, and GE has also launched a new interesting imitative called FirstBuild (Electric, 2015). Another example is the Samsung Accelerator programme that makes information and distribution channels available to entrepreneurs (Samsung, 2015). Since open innovation is a strategic lever for most big companies, much focus and attention is being channelled to open innovation. Owing to capacity constraints, big companies can derive immense value from start-ups and entrepreneurs; hence there many more success stories than the abovementioned two.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg 3. Research Methodology

The research methodology used for this research was, firstly, to achieve an understanding by doing an in-depth literature study. Secondly, case studies were studied in order to discover the success stories. Evaluation was done and a questionnaire completed by participants. The results and discussion were done as a last step, as set out in Figure 14: Research methodology followed to better understand the dynamics of open design.

Literature study Exploratory approach Open Design Results & discussion Manufacturing Case studies paradigms Evaluation OD tools & integration Knowledge OD toolkits Tools & platforms for Management and OD projects Technology transfer product development OD education tools process Open Innovation OD enterprises Reasons for Questionaire contribution Benefits of OD

Figure 14: Research methodology followed to better understand the dynamics of open design The objective of the literature study was to understand the different manufacturing paradigms (include craft production, mass production, flexible production, mass customisation and personalisation, and social manufacturing) and to determine how manufacturing companies have developed over the years eventually to reach a stage of social manufacturing. More investigations into knowledge management supported the key concern for companies and explained why companies research social strategies to attract volunteers’ attention and keep their interest to contribute to the company’s objectives. Doing this can create significant value for the company’s customers and shareholders. Open design, specifically for product development, was researched to discover how it delivers outcomes of cost and time saving as well as customer satisfaction. A look into innovation was, furthermore, done to see how innovative companies can outperform competitors and create competitive advantage by being innovative. A thorough literature study on sustainable manufacturing and open design was completed. The information gathered supported the fact that open design presents numerous advantages to manufacturing and/or any other product development.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

During the exploratory approach, several case studies were undertaken in order to understand the various tools found on these platforms and also their respective social integration. This evaluation helped to create an understanding of which platforms and toolkits should be used during the different phases of the product development process. Research was done on OD toolkits, projects, educational tools and enterprises to determine the possible role that they could play to make product development and manufacturing more ‘open’. Their respective social integration was also studied. Thereafter, a questionnaire was completed by a group of fifty Net generation (contributors born after 1981) open design users to understand the benefits of using open design.

The objective of the results and discussion phase was to summarise the outcomes to understand the various tools found on these platforms and also their respective social integration. This helped in providing an understanding of which platforms and toolkits to use during the different phases of the product development process. One of the key objectives of this phase was to understand the main reasons for contributing to these open design platforms. The main reasons for contributions to these open design platforms, together with the benefits that open design offers, were studied. Both community and company driven open design platforms were studied and the benefits and challenges for utilising these platforms discussed. As a result, boundary conditions were identified as areas to be exploited, without compromising the constraints of current design systems.

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg 4. Experimental Results and Discussion

4.1. Open Design Platform and Enterprises Similarly to the open source information revolution, open design platforms could eventually provide the means to put physical objects in the hands of every individual and community. Local Motors is the first disruptive entrant into the US automotive industry in decades and it applies OD principles. Co-creation and collaborative (peer) production of hardware is coming of age, and advanced production corporations are becoming involved in the programme as shown in Table 2: Examples of open design platforms and networks. Open design creates opportunities for internally related work or with corporate partners to have seamless access to relevant information, and to transfer and share documents and to automate manual tasks that can accelerate processes and decision making. OD is also evident in China's growing motorcycle manufacturing industry. The approach has been so successful that motorcycle production has quadrupled from five million to more than 20 million vehicles a year since the mid-1990s, giving China about 50% of the global share (Tapscott & Williams, 2010).

Highly collaborative design and manufacturing ecosystems are not unique to the motorcycle industry. Although the success is questionable, Boeing replaced its traditional manufacturing systems for the Boeing 787 Dreamliner with innovative international collaborations. This modern aircraft consists of many specialised parts, sourced from hundreds of suppliers. For companies managing these cross-pollinating ecosystems of value creation, innovation is less about inventing and building physical things and more about cultivating and matching good ideas (Oosthuizen, Butala, Böhm, Rebensdorf, & Gergert, 2014).

Value creation of Open Design cannot be described as a traditional process, where the consumer and the producer are separated from each other. Instead, the consumer changes his role into that of a consumer with development competence (prosumer) (Avital, 2011). The Open Design principle for value creation follows a bottom-up approach (Redlich, 2012). It is characterised by collaboration as a form of interaction between the actors. Owing to the collaborative possibilities of amateurs, they are superior to single professional designers (Atkinson, Open Design: Das Ende der Massenproduktion). For the implementation of an open design project, in particular, open source web-based collaboration platforms are suitable. They are a subset of so-called computer supported cooperative work systems, which are typically used in the cross-company collaborations (Stiefel, 2011).

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

A web-based collaboration platform refers to computer-based work environments that facilitate collaborative work, especially in unstructured and non-recurring tasks (Krause, 2007). The product can, furthermore, be built in so-called open-access factories which are contacted via platforms (e.g. Alibaba). Open source software programmes (e.g. Linux) give any interested party access to the source code, leading to a distributed innovation platform in which users actively participate in the product’s development, thus enabling co-creation of value (Ueda, Takenaka, Vancza, & Monostori, Value creation and decision-making in sustainable society, 2009).

Linux CNC has many features and brings much new functionality (a flexible and powerful hardware abstraction layer that allows you to adapt it to many kinds of machinery, a software PLC controller and a new trajectory planner). Linux CNC is precompiled with Ubuntu LTS (long term support) versions for ease of installation and longevity and is a descendent of the original NIST enhanced machine controller software, which is also in the public domain. Often free, OSS products are distributed under many public licences, are reliable, and provide great flexibility and choice. The system also leads to fascinating competitive and cooperative relationships among companies and communities (Oosthuizen, Butala, Böhm, Rebensdorf, & Gergert, 2014).

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Table 2: Examples of open design platforms and networks

Logo Platforms Website

1. 3DVIA.com http://www.3dvia.com

2. Sketchchair http://diatom.cc/sketchchair

3. SketchUp http://www.sketchup.com

4. Autodesk 123D http://www.123dapp.com/

5. Open Cascade http://www.opencascade.org/

6. Tinkercad https://tinkercad.com/

7. Blender http://www.blender.org/

8. eMachineShop http://www.emachineshop.com

9. Open Source Ecology http://opensourceecology.org

10. OpenStructures OpenStructures http://www.openstructures.net/

Open design initiatives to provide open source hardware (e.g. Open Source Ecology) have recently become available. The idea of this platform is to provide licence-free product documentation to be downloaded for a do-it-yourself realisation.

Open project management tools also exist that help people organise their work using cards on a virtual task board the interface of which is easy to understand (e.g. Kerika). Despite these success stories of open design platforms and toolkits, some platforms, like the Design by Me experience from LEGO®, struggled to live up to the quality standards for a LEGO service. As a result, the Design by ME service was closed in January 2012 (Lego).

In order to define the various OD platforms better it has been divided into design toolkits, projects, education and learning initiatives and enterprises.

4.1.1 Open Design Toolkits 3DVIA.com, also known as the 3DVIA Cloud, hosted online to provide a specialised 3D service, a suite of SaaS (Software as a Service) applications for interactive viewing

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg specifically designed to help 3D professionals communicate, market and sell more effectively. SketchUp also helps people to model anything they can imagine, like redecorating their living room, designing a new piece of furniture, or re-modelling a city for Google Earth.

Autodesk 123D helps turn ordinary photos into extraordinary 3D models or to convert 3D models into cut patterns for creating build-your-own projects. Open CASCADE Technology is a software development platform freely available in open source and includes C++ components to model in date exchange, 3D surfaces, visualisation, and rapid application development.

Open CASCADE Technology can also be applied in the development of specialised CAD/CAM/CAE applications. Blender utilises OpenGL for drawing all interfaces but is available across platforms.

4.1.2 Open Design Projects SketchChair is an open-source software tool that allows anyone to design and build their own digitally fabricated furniture easily. The programme allows users to design chairs. The structure is automatically generated and the stability can be tested by using a simple 2d drawing interface. Open Source Ecology is an open source, cost-effective technological platform with high performance consisting of a network of farmers, engineers, and supporters that has been creating the Global Village Construction Set for the last two years. The 50 different Industrial Machines that it takes to build a sustainable civilisation which includes modern comforts allow for the easy DIY manufacturing in this Construction Set.

The OpenStructures (OS) project initiates a construction system where everyone designs for everyone. The exchange of experiences, parts, components and ideas serves as motivation to build things together and is stimulated by utilising a shared modular grid and common open design principles and is on-going. Riversimple is a UK based Car Company, with the single goal of producing efficient vehicles for personal transport, and Oscar’s goal is to develop a car according to OD principles. WIKISPEED is a volunteer based, green automotive- prototyping company, working in a virtual, collaborative team of skilled individuals who volunteer time to creating cost effective, safe, road-legal efficient vehicles. WIKISPEED invests all money earned back into the company as a donation to assure movement forward with WIKISPEED's vision.

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

4.1.3 Open Design Education and Learning Tinkercad enables people to enjoy learning about design and 3D printing, as they can work collaboratively either with close friends or as part of the community. eMachineShop’s open CAD software is also developed specifically to ease learning. The software commands are included for the automation of quotation, ordering, and the creation evaluation of designs. Time and money can be saved because expensive engineering support is minimised owing to the fact that feedback and advice is instantly provided via built-in automated analysis tools. Adafruit was created for online learning of electronics and making the best designed products for makers of all ages and skill levels.

4.1.4 Open Design Enterprises Local Motors is a crowd-powered automotive design and distributed manufacturing and technology to enable the creation of potential game-changing vehicles. Local Motors helps solve local problems, locally through open-source principles, by making transportation more sustainable globally. And it utilises innovative distributed manufacturing to co-create vehicles and components with its virtual community of role-players around the world.

Arduino is an open-source electronics prototyping platform based on user friendly, flexible, software and hardware. The Arduino programming language (based on Wiring) and the Arduino development environment (based on processing) uses the microcontroller on the board for programming. SparkFun is an online retail store that sells the bits and pieces to make electronics projects possible.

The innovation of organisations in the rapidly-growing Internet of Things (IoT) market is inspired by Bug Labs, a cloud-based platform. It abstracts the raw functionalities (e.g., sensors, actuators, transceivers) of any hardware device and exposes them as web services. No matter how heterogeneous hardware is, the simple drag-and-drop design of the application helps to overcome this challenge.

4.2. Reasons for Open Design Contributions In order to gain competitive advantage, companies research strategies to attract the attention of volunteers’ attention and keep their interest to contribute to the company’s objectives. The main reasons for contributing to these platforms are illustrated in Figure 15: The reasons for contribution to open design platforms. Most of these open design platforms offer no financial compensation to the contributors. Rather, most of the contributors rely on practical solutions which are freely available or intrinsically motivated social rewards.

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

I don’t know I contribute

Practical Solutions

Social Reward

Self-expression

Altruism

Reputation

Figure 15: The reasons for contribution to open design platforms Some contributors enjoyed participation to express themselves and exhibit skills, while a few were unaware that they had contributed or simply wanted the truth to be heard. Most contributors use open design platforms owing to the rapid product development process as shown in Figure 16: The benefits of open design. It is overwhelming to understand that the Net generation has a collaborative approach to design solutions and contributors find it beneficial to capitalise on the knowledge of others rather than redesigning the wheel.

Speed

Ability to capitalise on knowledge of other Cost

Hobby

Figure 16: The benefits of open design compared to traditional design The most popular open design platforms and toolkits, according to the selected group of users, are illustrated in Table 3: Tools and integration of open design platforms and networks. These open design platforms and toolkits were evaluated to understand the tools and social

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg integration used to get attention and ensure contribution. The free computer-aided systems (e.g. CAD/CAM) help users to modify existing designs or create new ones. The bill of materials signifies a freely available list of materials required for the specific product.

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Table 3: Tools and integration of open design platforms and networks

Free Social Product bill of Videos & Platforms CAD/CAM Network Materials Education software integrated

3DVIA.com x x x

Sketchchair x x x

SketchUp x x

Autodesk 123D x x x

Linux CNC x

Open Cascade x x

Tinkercad x x x

eMachineShop x x

Open Source x x x x Ecology

Local Motors x x x x

Wikispeed x x x x

Riversimple x

OScar x x x x

OpenStructures x x x x

Some platforms offer educational videos and training on their respective websites in order for users to familiarise themselves with the features of the specific platform. In most instances the design platforms are attractively integrated with social networks for increased visibility.

4.3. Product development platforms and networks Most of these platforms use a concurrent engineering approach to unite design and manufacturing contributors early in the design phase and, thereby, drive the product development process collaboratively as shown in Table 4: Examples of platforms along the

Chapter 4: Experimental Results and Discussion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Open Design Product Development Process . After studying these platforms, it was possible to group them into specific phases of the product development process.

Table 4: Examples of platforms along the Open Design Product Development Process (Jacobs & Chase, 2011)

System Testing Idea generation & Concept Production Level Detail Design and challenges development ramp-up Design refinement Autodesk Arduino eMachineShop Linux Sketchchair IdeaCONNECTION 123D Adafruit FabLab CNC Oscar InnoCentive 3DVIA.com Buglabs MakerBot Open Riversimple MycroBurst Tinkercad DIY Industries Cascade OpenStructures SketchUp DRONES Alibaba

In the idea generation and challenges phase, platforms like IdeaCONNECTION and InnoCentive can be used. MycroBurst is also a community of graphic and logo designers from around the globe who can compete on new design challenges as competition drives results. Autodesk 123D, 3DVIA.com, Tinkercad and SketchUp are typical platforms for use during the concept development phase, while the eMachineShop and FabLabs can be used to ramp-up production.

Open design can be used widely to create sustainability and, even more so, to ensure sustainable innovation. Within a design society the main goal is to share ideas.

Chapter 5: Conclusion Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg 5. Conclusion

There have been numerous changes throughout the years bringing changes to the different manufacturing paradigms. These manufacturing paradigms paving the way to a study of the effects of social manufacturing on product development were evaluated. Compared to traditional design processes the research and conceptual design phases become shorter in social manufacturing owing to the emerging patterns from the customer interactions on open design co-creation platforms.

Knowledge management is seen as a key driver for a company’s success. Companies keep on researching how to find volunteers to contribute as well as means by which knowledge can be shared and transferred internally. Technology transfer is the transferring of knowledge and skills during manufacturing, and it is seen as a key method to enhance knowledge management within companies.

The current platforms and networks were linked to an open product development framework. Both community and company driven open design platforms were studied and the opportunities and challenges for utilising these platforms discussed. Most open design contributors rely on practical solutions or social rewards. The benefits of open design platforms include the speed and co-creation benefits. The biggest challenge still remains the quality standards set by the voice of the customer. The efforts required for a country to gear up and use open design as a sustainable competitive economic driver can unlock numerous advantages. Future open design investigations will include the economic dimension behind these platforms.

References Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

References

Amesse, F., & Cohendet, P. (2001). Teechnology Transfer revisited from the perspective of the knowledge based economy. Research Policy, 30(1), 1459-1478.

Atkinson, P. (2011). Orchestreal manoeuvres in design. In: Abel, B.v. (ed.) Open design now. Why design cannot remain exclusive. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: BIS Publishers.

Atkinson, P. (n.d.). Open Design: Das Ende der Massenproduktion. Retrieved September 11, 2012, from http://futurezone.at/future/3361-open-design-das-ende-der-massenproduktion.php

Avital, M. (2011). The generative bedrock of open design. In: Abel, B.v. (ed.) Open design now. Why design cannot remain exclusive. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: BIS Publishers.

Bauerhansl, T. (2013). Industrie 4.0- Wie die 4 Industrielle Revolution die Prozesse in der Produktion Verandert.

Beitz, G. P. (2007). Engineering design: a systematic approach (Vol. 3). Springer.

Bernstein, J. H. (2011). The Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom Hierarchy and its Antithesis. 68- 75.

Burmeister, C., Lüttgens, D., & Piller, F. T. (n.d.). Business Model Innovation for Industrie 4.0: Why the "Industrial Internet" Mandates a New Perspective on Innovation. 0, 1-31.

Cardinali, R. (1998). Viewpoint: death of the knowledge worker. Logistics Information Management, 11(3), 156-159.

Chesbrough, H. (2005). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating And Profiting from Technology. Unites States of America: Harvard Business School Press.

Cimmunity, O. I. (2015). Retrieved from Open Innovation Cimmunity: The latest news, research, discussions & applications of open innovation: http://openinnovation.net/about-2/openinnovation-definition/

Clark, S. W. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum leaps in speed efficiency and quality.

Davenport, T., & Beck, J. (2000, September-October). Getting the attention you need. Harvard Business Review, 118-126.

Day, J., & Zimmerman, H. (1983). The OS1 Reference model. 71 (12), pp. 1334-1340. Proceedings of the IEEE.

Diederik, V., Dervojeda, K., Nagtegaal, F., Sjauw-Koen-Fa, J., Frideres, L., & Probst, L. (2014). Smart Factories: Crowdsourced Manufacturing. Business Innovation Observatory.

References Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Dugauy, C. R., Landry, S., & Pasin, F. (1997). From mass production to flexible/agile production. Int. J Oper. Prod. Manag., 17(12), 1183-1195.

Electric, G. (2015). Retrieved from GE Imagination at work: http://www.ge.com/about- us/ecomagination

Enterprises, R. Q. (1999). Product Design & Development. Phoenix. Retrieved 2013, from http://www.rqriley.com/pro-dev.htm

Ettlinger, N. (2003). Cultural economic geography and a relational and microspace approach to trusts, rationalities, networks, and change in collaborative workplaces. Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 145-172.

Geyer M., R. C. (2012). Open desing for manufactuirng - Best practice and future challenges. Global Conference for sustainable manufacturing.

Griffiths, B. (2012). Manufacturing paradigms: The role of standards in the past, the present and the future paradigm of sustainable manufacturing. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 226, 1628-1634.

Henry Chesbough, W. V. (2006). Open Innovation: Researching a mew Paradigm. United States of America: Oxford University Press.

Heppelmann, J. E. (2010). New developments in new-product development. Pune, India: New Word City.

Hill, C. T. (1992). New manufacturing paradigms: New manufacturing policies? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change, 41(4), 351-363.

Jacobs, F., & Chase, R. (2011). Operations and Supply Chain Management. New York: McCraw- Hill/Irwin.

Jovane, F., Koren, Y., & Boër, C. R. (2003). Present and Future of flexibke Automation: Towards New Paradigms. CIRP Ann -Manuf. Technol., 52(2), 543-560.

Kagermann, H., Henning, P. A., Wolfgang, W., & Johannes. (2013). Recommendations for implementing the strategic initiative INDUSTRIE 4.0. (April), 82.

Koren, Y. (2010). Globalization and Manufacturing Paradigms. Glob. Manuf. Revolut. Prod., 1-40.

Koren, Y., Hu, S., Gu, P., & Shpitalni, M. (2013). Open-architecture products. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 62(2).

Krause, F.-L. (2007). Innovationspotenziale in der Produktentwicklung. München: Hanser.

Lau, R. S. (1995). Mass Customization: The Next Industrial Revolution. Ind. Manag., 37(5), 18-19.

References Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Lego. (n.d.). http://ldd.lego.com/en-us/subpages/designbyme/?domainredir=designbyme.lego.com. Retrieved March 2013, from Lego Digital designer.

Leiteritz, R. (2004). Open Source-Geschäftsmodelle. Berlin: Lutterbeck, B., Gehring, R.A. (eds.), Open Source Jahrbuch 2004 - Zwischen Softwareentwicklung und Gesellschaftsmodell. Lehmanns Media.

Levinson, M. (2007, March 7). Knowledge Management Definition and Solutions. Retrieved from CIO: http://www.cio.com/article/2439279/enterprise-software/knowledge-management- definition-and-solutions.html

Local Motors. (2012, March). Retrieved from https://localmotors.com/

Lu, S.-Y. E. (2007). A scientific foundation of collaborative engineering. Annals of CIRP, 56(2), 606- 634.

Marias, S., & Schutte, C. (2009). The development of open innovation models to assist the innovation process. 23rd Annual SAIIE Conference, 1, pp. 96-116. Roodevallei Country Lodge, Gauteng, South Africa.

Markillie, P. (2012). Manufacturing and innovation: A Third Industrial Revolution.

Marthandan, R. (2012). Open Design for Manufactoring.

Motors, L. (2012, March). https://localmotors.com/. Retrieved from https://localmotors.com/

Nonaka, I. T. (1995). The knowledge creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation, New York. Oxford University Press.

Oosthuizen, G., Butala, P., Böhm, S., Rebensdorf, A., & Gergert, A. (2014). Open Community Manufacturing. SAIIE26 Proceedings. Muldersdrift.

Pisano, G., & Verganti, R. ( 2008). Which kind of collaboration are you? Harvard Business Review, 86(12), 78-96.

Pritschow, G., Altintas, Y., Jovane, F., Koren, Y., Mitsuishi, M., Takata, S., . . . Yamazaki, K. (2001). Open Controller Architecture - Past, Present and Future. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, 50(2), 463-470.

PTC. (2013). PTC Product and Service Advantage. Retrieved from http://www.ptc.com/product- lifecycle-management

Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., & Balka, K. (2009). On the open design of tangible goods. Retrieved September 2012, from http://open-innovation-projects.org/assets/Uploads/Raasch-Herstatt- Balka-On-the-open-design-of-tangible-goods-Preprint.pdf

References Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Ras C.I., B. J. (4-6 November, 2015). Social Manufacturing Business Model Elements to Support Local Suppliers. RAPDASA, 16th International Conference (pp. 59-70). Roodevallei, Pretoria, South Africa: Rapid Product Development Association of South Africa.

Redlich, T. (2012). Open Production Gestaltungsmodell für die Wertschöpfung in der Bottom-up- Ökonomie.

Samsung. (2015). Samsung Accelerator. Retrieved from http://samsungaccelerator.com/

Schuh, G., Potente, T., Wesch-Potente, C., Weber, A. R., & Prote, J. P. (2014). Collaboraton Mechanisms to Increase Productivity in the Context of Industrie 4.0. Procedia CIRP, 19(RoMac), 51-56.

Seufert, A., Von Krogh, G., & Bach, A. (1999). Towards knowledge networking. Journal of Knowledge Managment, 3(1), 180-190.

Smith, E. A. (2001). The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5(4), 311-321.

Stiefel, P. (2011). Eine dezentrale Informations- und Kollaborationsarchitektur für die unternehmensübergreifende Produktentwicklung. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Tahmooresnejad, L., Salami, R., & Shafia, M. (2011). Selecting the Appropriate Technology Tranfer method to reach the technology localisation. 1. London, UK: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering WCE 2011.

Tao, F., Cheng, Y., Da Xu, L., Zhang, L., & Li, B. H. (2014). CCIoT-CMfg: Cloud computing and internet of things-based cloud manufacturing service system. IEEE Trans. Ind. Informatics, 10(2), 1435-1442.

Tapscott, D., & Williams, A. (2010). Macrowikinomics. Rebooting business and he world. .

Tickr. (2015). Retrieved from Tickr: http://www.tickr.com/

TRSG. (2013). TRSG Inc. Retrieved August 20, 2013, from http://www.teamtrsg.com/tt%20def.html

Ueda, K., Takenaka, T., Vancza, J., & Monostori, L. (2009). Value creation and decision-making in sustainable society. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology , 58(2), 681-700.

Ueda, K., Takenaka, T., Vancza, J., & Monostori, L. (2009). Value creation and decision-making in sustainable society. Annals of CIRP, 58(2), 681-700.

Vallance, R., Kiani, S., & Nayfeh, S. (2001). Open design of manufacturing equipment.

Von Krogh, G., & Venzin, M. (1995). Anhaltende Wettbewerbvorteile durch Wissensmanagement. Die Unternehmung, 49(1), 417-436.

References Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Vukovic, M., Kumara, S., & Greenshpan, O. (2010). Ubiquitous crowdsourcing. Proc. 12th ACM Int. Conf. Adjun. Pap. Ubiquitous Comput.- Ubicomp '10, 523.

Wahab, S., Rose, R., & Osman, S. (2012). Defining the concepts of Technology and Technology Transfer. International Business Research , 5(1), 61-71.

Weiss, C. .. (2012). BMW crowd-sourcing the future of urban drving technology. 1-4.

Wheelwright, S., & Clark, K. (1992). Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum leaps in speed, efficiency and quality. 6-8.

Zhang, F., Jiang, P., Zhu, Q., & Cao, W. (2012). Modeling and analyzing of an enterprise collaboration network supported by service-oriented manufacturing. roc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part B J Eng. Manuf., 226(9), 1579-1593.

References Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg Appendix A: SAIIE 25 Conference Paper

The South African Institute of Industrial Engineers held their 25th annual conference at Spier, Stellenbosch from the 9th-11th of July 2013. The paper entitled “The Social Dimension of Open Design” was presented.

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg Appendix B: RAPDASA 16 Conference Paper

The Rapid Product Development Association of South Africa held their 16th annual conference at Roodevallei, Pretoria from the 4th-6th of November 2015. The paper entitled “Social Manufacturing Business Model Elements to Support Local Suppliers” was presented.

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg Appendix C: Questionnaire

A questionnaire was put together in order to conduct the experiment and determine why people would, in general, contribute to open design networks and platforms, without monetary value being the incentive, as well as to determine the habits, preferences and reasons why people use open design networks and platforms.

March 2012

Dear Sir/Madam

We, the Manufacturing Research Centre, are undertaking a research project to determine the habits, preferences and reasons why people use open design networks and platforms. To this end we kindly request that you complete the following short questionnaire regarding your habits, preferences and attitudes towards open design networks and platforms. It should take no longer than 10 minutes of your time. Although your response is of the utmost importance to us, your participation in this survey is entirely voluntarily.

Please do not enter your name or contact details on the questionnaire. It remains anonymous. Information provided by you remains confidential and will be reported in summary format only.

Kindly return the completed questionnaire to us. Summary results of this research will be published in the media and will be available on our website.

Should you have any queries or comments regarding this survey, you are welcome to contact us at [email protected] or [email protected]

Kind Regards

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

I, ______(full name), declare that I voluntarily participate in this research survey. I am aware that I may refuse to participate or withdraw at any stage during the research process.

______

______Signature Date

Gender: Male ☐ Female ☐

Age group: 18-24☐ 25-32 ☐ 33-40☐ 41-48 ☐ 49-older☐

1. How many hours per day do you use the following internet, social media and communication tools, if at all? Please indicate the number of hours next to each. ☐ YouTube 0-1h ☐ 1-2h ☐ 2-3h ☐ 3-4h ☐ more than 4h ☐

☐ Facebook 0-1h ☐ 1-2h ☐ 2-3h ☐ 3-4h ☐ more than 4h ☐

☐ Twitter 0-1h ☐ 1-2h ☐ 2-3h ☐ 3-4h ☐ more than 4h ☐

☐ Google+ 0-1h ☐ 1-2h ☐ 2-3h ☐ 3-4h ☐ more than 4h ☐

2. Which technology magazines do you read on a regular basis (Online or paper)? ☐ Popular Mechanics

☐ Slashdot

3. How convenient are Open Design platforms and toolkits to use? ☐ Extremely convenient ☐ Very convenient ☐ Convenient

☐ Slightly inconvenient ☐ Inconvenient

4. How professional are Open Design Networks? ☐ Extremely professional ☐ Very professional ☐ Professional

☐ Slightly unprofessional ☐ Unprofessional

5. Do you like Open Design Networks, neither like nor dislike them, or dislike them? ☐ Like a great deal ☐ Like them ☐ Like a little

☐ Neither like nor dislike ☐ Dislike a little ☐ Dislike

☐ Dislike a great deal Why: …………………………………..

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

6. How likely are you to recommend Open Design Networks to people you know? ☐ Extremely likely ☐ Very likely ☐ Likely ☐ Slightly unlikely ☐ Not at all

7. Are you of the opinion that Open Innovation can be incorporated into any company easily? ☐ Extremely possible ☐ Very possible ☐ Possible ☐ Slightly impossible

☐ Impossible

8. Benefits of Open Design? ☐ Speed ☐ Ability to capitalise on knowledge of other ☐ Cost

☐ Hobby ☐ Quality of designs ☐ Other: ______

9. Disadvantages of Open Design? ☐ Speed ☐ Ability to capitalise on knowledge of other ☐ Cost

☐ Hobby ☐ Quality of designs ☐ Other: ______

10. Do you learn something or gain knowledge from using Open design platforms ☐ Yes, a lot ☐ Yes, Some things ☐ No ☐ Don’t use it

11. Reasons for contributing or using Open Design? ☐ Cost Saving ☐ Needed someone else’s idea/design ☐ No capability to do the work yourself

☐ Trying out new things ☐ Recommended by a friend

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

12. Which of the following platforms have you used and why? Logo Platforms Seen/Heard Used Part of my Recommend it of it it lifestyle 3DVIA.com ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Sketchchair ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SketchUp ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Autodesk 123D ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Linux CNC ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Open Cascade ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Tinkercad ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Blender ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Kerika ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

eMachineShop ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Lego Factory ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Open Source ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Ecology Local Motors ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Wikispeed ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Riversimple ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

OScar ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ OpenStructures OpenStructures ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Arduino ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Fritzing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Adafruit ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SparkFun ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Buglabs ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

VIA ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Mycroburst ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

13. Evaluate the following platforms in terms of their level of user satisfaction: Logo Platforms High Medium Low Not at Reason all 3DVIA.com ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Sketchchair ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SketchUp ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Autodesk 123D ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Linux CNC ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Open Cascade ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Tinkercad ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Blender ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Kerika ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

eMachineShop ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Lego Factory ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Open Source ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Ecology Local Motors ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg

Wikispeed ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Riversimple ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

OScar ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ OpenStructures OpenStructures ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Arduino ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Fritzing ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐ Adafruit ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

SparkFun ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Buglabs ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

VIA ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

Mycroburst ☐ ☐ ☐ ☐

14. Why do you, or would you, contribute to these platforms? ☐ I don’t know I contribute ☐ Practical Solutions ☐ Social Reward

☐ Reputation ☐ Self-expression ☐ Altruism

☐ Other : ______

15. What Industry are you currently involved in? ☐ Engineering ☐ Financial Services ☐ Medical

☐ Media ☐ Non-Profit ☐ Student

☐ Other : ______

Appendix Department of Engineering Management University of Johannesburg