Short answer

Prioritize the investigation and adoption of open source hardware and software solutions when sourcing or developing scientific tools to achieve substantial cost reductions.

Field
Commercial Production
Source
HardwareX (2020)
Method
Comparative review and analysis
Evidence
Strong effect

Adopting open source hardware and software for scientific tools can lead to substantial economic savings, often exceeding 90% compared to proprietary alternatives. This commercial production research insight is drawn from a 2020 study published in HardwareX. Using Comparative review and analysis, researchers explored how this design variable affects real-world outcomes. The key design takeaway: Prioritize the investigation and adoption of open source hardware and software solutions when sourcing or developing scientific tools to achieve substantial cost reductions.

Study
Commercial ProductionHigh ImpactStrong effect

Open Source Hardware and Software Offer Over 90% Cost Savings for Scientific Tools

Adopting open source hardware and software for scientific tools can lead to substantial economic savings, often exceeding 90% compared to proprietary alternatives.

HardwareX · 2020

01

Key Findings

  • 01Open source technologies provide an average economic saving of 87% compared to equivalent or lesser proprietary tools.
  • 02Savings increased to 89% for tools utilizing Arduino technology.
  • 03Savings reached 92% for tools utilizing RepRap-class 3-D printing.
  • 04Combining both Arduino and 3-D printing resulted in average savings of 94% for FOSH tools.
02

Application

Design takeaway

Prioritize the investigation and adoption of open source hardware and software solutions when sourcing or developing scientific tools to achieve substantial cost reductions.

How to apply

When specifying requirements for new scientific equipment or tools, include a requirement to investigate available FOSH alternatives and compare their total cost of ownership against proprietary options.

Project actions

  • 01When choosing components for a design project, research if open-source alternatives exist and compare their costs.
  • 02Consider the potential for customization and community support when evaluating open-source options.
03

Method & Evidence

AimTo quantify the economic savings provided by free and open source (FOSH) technologies for scientific tools compared to their proprietary equivalents.
MethodComparative review and analysis
ProcedureThe study evaluated FOSH scientific tools from two repositories against functionally equivalent proprietary tools. The analysis specifically considered the use of Arduino-based electronics, RepRap-class 3-D printing, and combinations thereof, to calculate cost differentials.
ContextScientific research and development, particularly in the creation of custom scientific tools.

Variables

IV["Type of technology (proprietary vs. FOSH)","Use of Arduino","Use of RepRap-class 3-D printing"]
DV["Economic savings (percentage difference in cost)"]
CV["Functionality of the scientific tool","Complexity of the scientific tool"]
04

Strengths & Limitations

Strengths

  • +Provides a quantitative analysis of cost savings across various FOSH technology combinations.
  • +Highlights the broad applicability of FOSH in scientific tool development.

Limitations

The cost savings might not include the time spent assembling, troubleshooting, or customizing open-source hardware, which could add to the overall effort.

Reliability & validity

The study's validity is supported by its comparative approach and the quantitative analysis of cost data. Reliability is enhanced by examining multiple categories of FOSH technologies and their combinations.

Think critically

While the economic benefits are clear, what are the potential trade-offs in terms of reliability, support, and long-term maintenance when opting for open-source solutions over established proprietary systems?

05

Design Principles

"Leverage open-source ecosystems to maximize resource efficiency and minimize the cost of scientific instrumentation."

This insight is critical for research institutions and individual scientists making purchasing decisions. Understanding the significant cost-benefit of open source solutions can inform budget allocation, encourage innovation through customization, and democratize access to advanced scientific equipment.

06

What This Means for Your Design

Using free and open source parts and designs for science equipment can save a lot of money, sometimes over 90% compared to buying brand-name equipment.

How to use in your project

  • 1.Cite this research when justifying the choice of components or materials that are open source, highlighting the economic benefits.
  • 2.Use the cost savings data to support arguments for the feasibility and practicality of your design solution.
07

Add to My Project

08

Quick Cite

Paragraph starter

The adoption of free and open source hardware and software (FOSH) presents a significant opportunity for economic savings in scientific endeavors. Research indicates that FOSH scientific tools can offer cost reductions of up to 94% compared to proprietary alternatives, particularly when leveraging platforms like Arduino and 3D printing (Pearce, 2020). This substantial financial advantage allows for greater resource allocation towards research itself rather than equipment acquisition, democratizing access to advanced scientific capabilities.

09

Source

HardwareX

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

journal · 2020

View source

Questions About This Research

What does the research say about open source hardware and software offer over 90% cost savings for scientific tools?
Prioritize the investigation and adoption of open source hardware and software solutions when sourcing or developing scientific tools to achieve substantial cost reductions. Evidence: HardwareX (2020).
Why does "Open Source Hardware and Software Offer Over 90% Cost Savings for Scientific Tools" matter for design?
This insight is critical for research institutions and individual scientists making purchasing decisions. Understanding the significant cost-benefit of open source solutions can inform budget allocation, encourage innovation through customization, and democratize access to advanced scientific equipment.
How can designers apply this research?
Prioritize the investigation and adoption of open source hardware and software solutions when sourcing or developing scientific tools to achieve substantial cost reductions.
What were the main findings?
Open source technologies provide an average economic saving of 87% compared to equivalent or lesser proprietary tools.. Savings increased to 89% for tools utilizing Arduino technology.. Savings reached 92% for tools utilizing RepRap-class 3-D printing.. Combining both Arduino and 3-D printing resulted in average savings of 94% for FOSH tools.
What research method was used?
Comparative review and analysis.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence strength is rated Strong effect, based on a 2020 journal from HardwareX.
What should I do differently in my next project?
When specifying requirements for new scientific equipment or tools, include a requirement to investigate available FOSH alternatives and compare their total cost of ownership against proprietary options.
What are the limitations?
The study's findings are based on a review of existing repositories and may not account for all potential hidden costs or the total cost of ownership for all FOSH solutions, such as the time investment in assembly or customization.