A research scoping document for the Internet of Production Alliance's Materials and Components (IoP-MC) project, to help overcome challenges of access to materials data or access to components.
This document is intended to scope the potential development of an Open Data Standard (ODS) for materials and components, as detailed in the in section ODS4: Materials & Components in the Internet of Production Alliance application to the Sloan Foundation.
The purpose for this section of the overall project is,"To help overcome challenges of access to materials data or access to components.”
In this scoping exercise the key outcomes were:
An assessment of the feasibility and viability of an ODS for materials and components.
A greater understanding of the existing materials and components standards.
A greater understanding of the stakeholders and broader ecosystem that relates to the potential ODS.
Put simply, after seeing the challenge of getting materials and components data globally, this research asks what can be done and how might would one go about doing it?
The objectives of this research were quite broad and needed further delimitation to carry out the scoping more effectively. For example, it is estimated there are over 50,000 engineering materials[1], let alone non-traditional materials and all the various components in the world - an unwieldy remit. The following use cases are proposed, to help contextualise the rest of this document, as well as frame any further development of the standard: discovery, selection, specification, verification and identification.
Discovery - What can I make this thing of?
Access to materials and components libraries at the design phase, to enable the designer or engineer to discover the right materials for their solution.
Selection - What should I make this thing of?
Access to data, technical information and quality grades or standards for materials and components, as well as analyses, decision trees and intelligence for appropriate material selection at design phase.
Specification - Here’s what this thing needs to be made of?
Communicating the exact material or component needed for the design, or the design intent regarding the necessary quality and function, to the maker, community or documentation.
Verification - Has this thing been made with the right stuff?
Clear processes for testing and verifying the materiality, quality and tolerance of the end product’s materials and components. In other words, how do we ensure compliance?
Identification - What’s this thing made from?
To ensure, especially at the local level, the circularity of existing products, materials and components need to be identifiable, in order to be retrieved and reused or recycled. This connects back with aiding makers and designers in the discovery of materials from circular material sources.
These use cases for the potential relationship between an ODS for materials and components and the stakeholders, mirroring a circular material flow, can be contextualised further still. The vision statement of the Internet of Production Alliance says, “the future of production lies in decentralized manufacturing based on shared knowledge, allowing us to deliver products faster, made from locally sourced materials and with less ecological impact.” To that end, this ODS would largely, but not exclusively, focus on the discovery, selection, specification, verification and identification of materials and components for the fabrication and assembly of Open Source Hardware (OSH) and other designs intended for decentralised / distributed production. That is to say, this research prioritises the materiality of distributed designs, over those intended for conventional production.
In sum, the starting point for this scoping exercise is to delimit the future potential research and development of one or more materials and components ODS(s), in the context of a distributed production paradigm, for the purpose of discovering, selecting, specifying, verifying and/or identifying constituent materials and components of OSH and other physical products.
Alex Kimber, hereafter referred to as the researcher, was commissioned, by the Internet of Production Alliance, as a consultant to scope the research and development of the standard and produce this report. The methodology was primarily a desktop research combined with informal interviews with experts and stakeholders.
A literature review, mostly of Technical Standards (TS’s), academic papers and industry reference material, was conducted to gather the information needed to address the outcomes and produce deliverables, as well as an assessment of select open source hardware projects across different platforms and local supplier catalogues. Search terms were generated iteratively, as insights and direction was gathered from the interviews and other literature. This was not a formal literature review process, rather a desktop research to better understand the contextual landscape of materials and components data and standards, to address the stated objectives. That being said, care was taken to ensure standards came from recognised bodies, papers that were peer reviewed and otherwise credible and appropriate sources.
This research, in conjunction with qualitative insights from interviewed experts and the researcher’s own domain expertise, helped formulate definitions, categorisations, stakeholder analysis and mapping the landscape of standards, so that recommendations and specifications for the potential development of an ODS could be made. A lot of the research was collated and organised on the note taking platform Notion, as well as open discussions on the Internet of Production Alliance forum[2].
It should be noted, should a development of an ODS take place further research would likely be needed, relevant to the specific brief of that work.
Unstructured and informal 30-minute interviews were conducted with various experts and stakeholders, in order to guide the research, gather insights and potentially build a community for future development. This was integral to an iterative process, whereby new information and direction based on input from the interviewees could change the literature review focus, as well as new stakeholders and experts being identified from the literature.
Most of the interviews were conducted virtually using Google Meets, although some were written and conducted over email for the convenience of the participants. Paraphrased notes were taken, rather than verbatim transcripts, because the purpose of the interviews were for insight and direction, rather than qualitative or linguistic analysis. In this report, the insights will be anonymised as well as aggregated by the researcher, since the objective of this document is not to determine the specific details of development, but to scope what is relevant.
To date, nine interviews were conducted. Their roles included: Consultants, an architect, researchers, Fablab managers and engineers. They were contacted through introductions through the Internet of Production Alliance, at a conference, the researcher’s own network, from the literature review and from recommendations from other participants. The sample size and diversity of the interviewees is a limitation of this study, as well as the misalignment with the stakeholder groups identified below. As noted before, if an ODS were to be produced henceforth, then the identified stakeholder groups should be interviewed, or represented to some degree, for that future development, together with other diversity considerations such as gender, geographic distribution and domain expertise.
Not only for the purpose of this document, but to aide the development of a materials and components ODS afterwards, the following definitions and delimitations of terms can be applied. This is not an exhaustive list of technical vocabulary for this project, nor are these definitions absolute, but it should provide a common reference point for understanding how this document and the future development conceptualises the following terms.
Materials
The definition given by Nature Materials journal[3] is:
"materials" are identified as substances in the condensed states (liquid, solid, colloidal) designed or manipulated for technological ends.
A more specific and contextual definition for a material is[4]:
Engineering materials refers to the group of materials that are used in the construction of manmade structures and components. The primary function of an engineering material is to withstand applied loading without breaking and without exhibiting excessive deflection.
The latter definition is somewhat reductive, particularly with regard to the primary function of a material being its mechanical strength, neglecting subjective qualities of materiality, like aesthetics, or regulatory requirements like safety. However, the fundamental idea that materials are defined by their applicability to technical human ends, namely the manufacture of products, is key to this research.
Components
One definition for components in this case is from a contracting perspective, from Law Insider[5]:
Components means articles, materials, and supplies incorporated directly into end products at any level of manufacture, fabrication, or assembly by the contractor or any subcontractor.
This is reasonable definition but does not come from a design or manufacture perspective. However, in the absence of a more practicable definition the following description has been produced:
Components are functionally independent physical parts or elements that make up a larger system or product, which are typically sourced off-the-shelf, mass-produced and can be assembled directly into the design.
Crossover between materials and components
There is a grey area between materials and components, depending on the application. Materials often come in stock shapes and sizes, such as in sheets or bars, which can be used directly as a component, that is a physical part to be assembled into the design, rather than being changed by some fabrication process, either additive, subtractive or formative. Take for example a one meter long aluminium extrusion with a standardised profile. This object could be used with other parts to assemble a frame structure, typical of a 3D printer body, or it could be cut up, drilled into and manipulated in some way as a material to make a new part. This ambiguity should be considered in the naming and categorisation of materials and components, allowing for repetition depending on application and context.
Figure 1. An image of an aluminium extrusion.
Similarly to the definitions above, it is important for the clarity of this scoping document and the precision of a future development that we have a common reference point for the categorisation of materials, components and their respective technical standards. Again, these categorisations and classifications are not authoritative nor absolute, but are a tool for communication and understanding.
Materials used in engineering are mostly organised by patterns in their atomic structure. Usually categorised under: metals, polymers, ceramics and composites[6]. There are numerous engineering references that use this taxonomy, or some variation of it to include woods and other materials. There are a few limitations with this approach to materials categorisation. Typically, engineering materials and their subsequent databases are for isotropic materials - meaning their mechanical properties are consistent in all directions, making calculations and simulations simpler. Often natural materials like woods, leather and textiles are not included because they are not engineering materials in a classical sense, because they are structurally anisotropic. You might find woods and suchlike in CAD program material libraries, but invariably they will be for appearance and annotation purposes, rather than containing detailed, accurate or applicable material property information - since in order to do, let us suppose, structural calculations with an anisotropic material, one would need substantively more information and input from the designer. This limitation, among others, makes the engineering and material science approach to categorisation and classification potentially limiting for the broad reach to stakeholders with varying access to materials as well as communicating all the material property information necessary.
There are other approaches to categorising materials, including psychological - how do we interpret and experience materials. One architecture journal even suggests a continuum of materials, based on perception, with categories ranging from: contemptible, familiar, unfamiliar, unknown and unknowable[7]. A very intriguing approach, with implications perhaps for user experience design as well as, in an architectural context, designing for human well-being. However, for the practicable purposes of accessing materials data distributively, this approach could be too subjective.
Researchers in psychology, looking for a standardised way to classify materials, precisely in order to study empirical aesthetics, developed a standards based approach to material classification, with the intention for it to be interdisciplinary and understandable to a wide audience[8]. This standards based classification is highly detailed, relatively clear to understand and grounded in ISO and DIN norms. A criticism in their discussion was that their classification is from an industry perspective and less holistic than it ought to be, but for the application of an ODS for materials in a distributed production context this is aspect is very relevant. It was intended for an international audience and has been drafted in both English and German. Even the elements that are informed by data from German imports or by DIN standards, this has been taken into consideration in the formulation and presentation of this particular classification of materials. For easier navigation, the classification has been formatted on a shareable Notion page, but the original data is publicly available with the reference (https://diligent-manta-855.notion.site/Classification-of-Material-Substances-02cda1110aa44a49804b6c9df40306de)
There are not many clear categorisations or taxonomies for components and those that could be found were either not so relevant, incomplete or not accessible. One such example was a report produced by the European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN)[9], which served as “guidance for the selection of technical standards” and “provides maps of standards for different technical fields”, for components. This report was humbly named Components Standards. The underlying data and aforementioned maps are inaccessible to the public within CERN’s Engineering Data Management Service (EDMS). Request for access was applied for by the researcher, but there has been no reply to date. The framework for this standards based approach for categorising components was the International Classification for Standards (ICS) codes[10], from the International Organization Standardization (ISO). One of the draw backs from this component standards mapping was the inclusion irrelevant categories like welding - which would be appropriate for mapping joints but not strictly discrete components.
In lieu of an entire and appropriate source for a components categorisation, a couple of approaches were undertaken to suggest an alternative. One quick and simple starting place was the Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbot, ChatGPT, which after a few prompts and reconfiguration from researcher resulted in a categorisation [11]. This approach is burdened with all the biases and inaccuracies that comes with AI, which we are only beginning to understand in the public discourse at the time of writing, as well as the particular issues of: the exclusion of any recent components to come to the market, since the language model of the chatbot is grounded in data a few years old; a lack of detail with regard to the contents of the categories, such that the developer of the ODS would still need to determine which items belong to which category; and a tendency to include terminology and references from less applicable industries, such as the inclusion of stud wall and roof truss vernacular in the structural components category, from the housebuilding world rather than what is relevant to hardware design.
Another suggested approach was to reference component supplier catalogues and aggregate how components are currently organised by those that ship these parts. This way, the structure is more organic, more detailed and reflective of the reality of ordering components. The key issue is that this approach is highly localised. The categorisation produced for this scoping exercise[12] was based on mostly UK suppliers, some US suppliers, of components, resulting in a framework that might not be applicable or intuitive in other regions. During the aggregation of catalogues into a coherent categorisation a number of product groups had to be omitted or reorganised, since these suppliers also sell tools, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and other ancillaries not relevant to the scope of this project.
It should be noted that although it might be possible to determine an agreeable definition and classification of materials and components, the names of the items themselves are highly localised, even within the English speaking world. It should be considered that there are linguistic variations, regional terminology, industry-specific terminology, cultural influences and trademarks.
Language Variations: Different languages have their own terms for components and materials.
Regional Terminology: Even within the same language, there can be regional variations in how components and materials are named. For instance, in the United States, a specific type of fastener may be commonly referred to as a "screw," while in the United Kingdom, it might be known as a "bolt." Likewise, materials like Aluminium are spelt and pronounced differently.
Industry-Specific Terminology: Certain industries or sectors may have their own specialised terms for components and materials. For example, in the automotive industry, a particular type of metal sheet may be called "body panel," while in the construction industry, it may be referred to as "cladding."
Cultural and Contextual Influences: Cultural factors can also influence the naming of components and materials. For instance, in traditional building practices, materials like wood, stone, or bamboo may have specific local names based on cultural heritage or regional availability.
Branding and Trademarks: Some companies or manufacturers may use their own proprietary names or trademarks for specific components or materials. These names may vary from region to region based on licensing agreements, distribution networks, or market preferences. It can also be cultural, that in a particular region a component is simply called by its brand name.
All these variations in vernacular of materials and components need to be accounted for to some degree, in the specification of a materials and components standard with global reach and to multiple audiences.
By and large, material grades, as defined in Technical Standards (TSs) are determined one of two ways: by chemical composition or by testing material properties. These standards mostly use both approaches, as well as specify the exact application that the material in question is appropriate for, defining it through many different lenses. An example of a material defined by its molecular structure is ISO 15510:2014, which lists the internationally agreed specifications for the composition of stainless steels, by percentage of mass for each element in the alloy[13]. This standard references a number of others, ranging from the definitions of steels to the numbering system for naming stainless steel. This cross-referencing of standards is very complicated and makes access to the information challenging, because you may need to purchase numerous standards to see the full picture. Materials standards defined by testing physical properties are no different, often referencing the standards that set out the testing procedure, which themselves reference other standards for the testing equipment, ad nauseam. One such example is ASTM B209M[14], which specifies properties like tensile strength, as well as the testing conditions like sample thickness. It should be noted, that this standard also sets material composition “limits”, like many other standards that distinguish on grounds of mechanical property that also incorporates chemical composition in their grade definition.
Navigating the entire web of standards is rarely required by any individual when specifying and verifying materials. When ordering a part to be fabricated, a designer might specify the material grade and tolerance they require for their application, then the fabricated part is shipped with an Inspection Certificate, otherwise known as Mill Test Report (MTR), which should indicate compliance information, including: material supplier contact information, referenced standards, heat treatment procedures and actual testing results[15]. Figure 2 shows a real example of an inspection certificate, typical of a fabrication order where a material quality grade is a requirement. There are standards also for what these certificates should include, such as EN 10204, but there sometimes is variance in how diligently they are adhered to by the material suppliers. This kind of documentation is important for product certifications, regulatory compliance and resolving legal disputes regarding liability.
Figure 2. Example of an inspection certificate, provided by the researcher from a previous project.
Typically, designers and engineers do not reference TSs directly for material properties information, they seek material libraries and databases. These range from CAD package libraries, engineering websites and internal libraries.
CAD programs need materials information for rendering, simulations and producing technical drawings, so they often come with some materials data pre-loaded as well as the function for adding new materials. SolidWorks for example has pre-defined materials where the material properties reference the Metals Handbook Desk Edition (2nd Edition) by ASM International[16], as well as features for adding materials of your own and organising them with custom categories. FreeCAD[17], an open source parametric software comparable to SolidWorks, recommends in its documentation using free online material databases to populate the library. There are a number of comprehensive material databases online, with varying degrees of accessibility. Some, like MatWeb[18] have a freemium model, with limited features for free before hitting a paywall. Others, such as Total Materia[19], are paid databases.
Professional engineers will often adapt material databases for their own application and have internal libraries relevant to their context. It is not uncommon to create original material data for trusted suppliers, optional extras or even for simpler navigation. If you only use 10 different materials 95% of the time, it could improve your CAD workflow to make a folder of the materials you use, even if it is a mix. A degree of customisation in structure, content and indexing is helpful for effective practice, particularity for selection and specification.
Component standards typically contain detailed information about the design, dimensions, materials, manufacturing processes, performance requirements, testing methods, markings and safety aspects surrounding these parts. The specific information included in a component standard may vary depending on the type of component and the industry or application it is intended for. However, some common information found in component standards includes:
Design and dimensions: Component standards specify the design requirements, including geometry, size, shape, tolerances, and features of the component.
Materials: Component standards define the material requirements, such as the type of material, chemical composition, mechanical properties, and any specific quality or performance criteria.
Manufacturing processes: Component standards may provide guidelines or requirements for the manufacturing processes used to produce the component. This can include information on fabrication techniques, machining, forming, casting, or other production methods.
Performance requirements: Component standards specify the performance characteristics that the component must meet, such as strength, durability, reliability, resistance to corrosion or wear, and other functional requirements.
Testing and inspection methods: Component standards often outline the procedures and methods for testing and inspecting the component to verify its compliance with the standard.
Marking and labelling: Component standards may include requirements for marking, labelling, or identification of the component to provide traceability and ensure proper identification during installation, use, and maintenance.
Safety considerations: In certain industries or applications, component standards may incorporate safety guidelines or requirements to ensure the component's safe operation, usage, or interaction with other components and disposal.
The important characteristics for component standards, in most cases, are dimensions and materials, and are usually referred to in a shorthand. This relates back to the highly vernacular nature of making and industry at large. When talking about a bolt, one might refer to “M6” without needing to say “an ISO 68-1 series bolt with ISO 262:2023 nominal diameter of 6mm.[20]” Likewise, one might specify a “high tensile marine grade bolt” or “A4-80” without explicitly referring to “ISO 3506-1”. It could even be suggested the vast majority of even professional practitioners are not aware of the name or details of the component standards to which they refer. An A4-80 M6 bolt is just an A4-80 M6 bolt.
There are numerous platforms that list all the commonly available parts, as well as documentation like datasheets, CAD models and suppliers. Very few of these platforms are comprehensive of all parts that might be considered components, even if some are very detailed and have many thousands of components listed. Three examples worth examining are Octopart, Traceparts and GrabCAD. Octopart is a widely-used component search engine focused on electronic components. It aggregates data from various manufacturers and distributors, offering datasheets, pricing information, availability, and CAD models. Traceparts, on the other hand, is a CAD content platform that provides a vast library of 3D models for components across different industries. It offers downloadable CAD models, technical data, and product catalogues from multiple manufacturers. GrabCAD, although not solely focused on components, offers a community-driven platform with a significant collection of 3D models for mechanical components. It facilitates collaboration and knowledge sharing among professionals.
Information about component properties varies a great deal across these libraries, from size and shape to contextual data like electronic properties, which would be totally irrelevant in another domain like hydraulics. This would make standardising a format of component properties perhaps even more challenging than materials.
Companies like IKEA produce a wide range of mass produced and globally available parts and products, which have been appropriated by makers as standard components in OSH. Likewise, functional units of other products are sometimes used in the open projects and ad hoc designs, such as lawnmower engines or electronic modules. Other standards are taken advantage of, such as for wooden pallets, where the pallet may not be used as a whole component but does make a widely available and consistently dimensioned resource for a design. Any understanding of the landscape of materials and components standards would be amiss if it did not account for these kinds of non-formal and even cultural standards. As such, any future development of an ODS should make prevision for these kinds of materials and components, or justify their omission.
It is challenging to find existing open standards, freely accessible databases and resources of the digital commons, that bolster the use cases of discovery, selection, specification, verification and identification of materials and components, that would ultimately address the issue of access to data and parts. Notwithstanding, there are relevant and important examples of open or at least neutral standards and protocols in this context.
There are a number of totally open source materials databases and platforms, such as The Materials Project[21], The Open Materials Database[22] and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) Material Data Repository[23], but they are all aimed at material science and academia, rather than industry, makers and distributed production. Take the Open Materials Database for example, which boasts 205,264 materials to date, but the kind of information available are paper references, chemical formulae and visual representations of molecular structures. Not helpful for engineering properties or supply chain availability. The more applicable material and component databases, which are both comprehensive and relevant, like MatWeb or Octopart, are accessible for free but are nonetheless proprietary and have monetised plans and services.
The Standard for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP), defined by ISO 10303, is a neutral CAD filetype, not only used for sharing 3D geometry but provides a framework for exchanging many kinds of product information[24]. This is not an open source protocol, but it is used globally and is not proprietary or native to a particular program. The various issues of STEP have included Application Protocols (APs) that have broadened the product data that can be shared. In particular, AP235 which details "engineering properties for product design and verification" within STEP. The particulars of this data exchange are highly complicated and are beyond the understanding of the researcher to relay accurately, but it is understood that although there is a framework here for sharing material information about a design, this is only achieved by not constraining the expected property type or value to any predefined concept - allowing for the exchange of virtually any engineering property, rather than specifically its materiality[25]. In short, STEP files are a way of sharing detailed material information, which can be used to verify compliance, but it would certainly not be intuitive for all stakeholders. Initiatives, like the Open Data Product Specification[26], version 2.0 to date, are interesting product metadata models that could serve an exemplars, but in this particular instance is not relevant to hardware and as mentioned before are few and far between.
One of the most pertinent open standards in this context is the Open Source Hardware Association (OSHWA) Certification[27]. This certification is largely about the openness and accessibility of open hardware projects, covering aspects of documentation, licencing and so on. In terms of materials and components, it only has cursory language on ensuring availability of the Bill of Materials (BoM) and little else.
The Internet of Production Alliance’s own Open Know-How Specification[28] does have provisions for sharing materials and components information using this open protocol. The descriptive properties of the manifest that are most relevant to the use cases in this scoping are: standards used, bill of materials and quality control instructions. Standards used indicates which standards have been used, but only for the designer - not for the maker or user, meaning communicating which material or component standard the fabricator needs to comply with is not communicated through this property and could get lost in the other referenced documentation. The bill of materials property is by definition where to find data on materials and components for the associated design, but it does not suggest a filetype, format or content, only that it should be a single file. This is not a limitation, it is important to keep the protocol adaptable, but it affords inadequate communication. Lastly, quality control instructions provides the facility to share testing or quality management instructions, which might include surface finish standards or a requirement to provide an inspection certificate, but these uses are not communicated in the OKH specification.
The design and production of physical things sometimes requires the sensory experience of handling the materials and components in question. Designers and makers alike routinely use real samples, swatches and prototypes in development, which simply cannot be replicated digitally. As such, there are archives and collections of material samples that can be visited in-person all around the world, often as part of material selection consulting services. The book Materials and Design (2013)[29] provides a handy list of these libraries at various locations around the world.
As a general point, the subjective and aesthetic quality of materiality should not be overlooked in the development of any standard for materials and components used for products that interact with people.
It should be noted that the supply, packaging and handling of certain materials and substances can be strictly regulated and that these regulations vary between jurisdictions. For example, in the UK the regulations under The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (CoSHH)[30], which were implemented after an EU directive and so are similar to other laws across Europe, ban the supply of some dangerous substances and heavily restrict others. These regulations stipulate the responsibility of workers and employers when storing and handling these materials, for safety reasons. This kind of legislation does not have much bearing on the development of an ODS, but it should be considered that some materials are not just standardised but regulated, often for safety and security, and that these legal restrictions vary from place to place.
These stakeholder groups have been identified from literature as well as from the analysis of the researcher following conversations with the interviewees, including the authors of the cited papers relating to these stakeholder groups for a clearer understanding of the limitations. The stakeholders relate to the possible uses and outcomes of an ODS for materials and components, so following a brief description and contextualisation of each stakeholder a matrix is presented with a short note on how each stakeholder may connect with the use cases. This stakeholder analysis is not conclusive, but should provide a framework for the current assessment and a future development.
Bakirlioğlu and Hansdoğan [31] developed a stakeholder framework specifically for distributed value creation networks, where two broad groups were identified: value creation for self and value creation for others. The stakeholders that fall under value creation for self are: responsible consumer, active user and prosumers/makers/DIY-ers. Likewise, those that come under value creation for others are: local producers, regional producers and global mass producers. This reference has been appropriated, paraphrased and contextualised for its relevance for a materials and components standards, in consultation with the author, as well as the limitations for our application addressed in the next section.
Responsible users/consumers are individuals, or perhaps organisations, who acquire products manufactured by local, regional, or global mass-producers for direct use, without actively participating in the design or production process. These stakeholders do not contribute to the creation of open design knowledge, which in the context of a materials and components standard could suggest they would not engage or share data on, for example, local material availability.
Active users acquire products from local, regional, or global producers and modify them according to their specific needs and preferences. These modifications can be made during the design and production stages through predefined intervention areas, enabling mass-customisation. Alternatively, modifications can be made post-purchase by adding parts and features. This customisation can be achieved through production nodes located closer to end-users, utilising additive manufacturing and IoT technologies. Active users can also engage with online or offline communities, participating in the design and production processes. They make post-purchase alterations through DIY tinkering, fabricating add-ons, and similar approaches. As stakeholders, active users not only utilise openly shared design knowledge but also contribute to the production of new open design knowledge. They have the capability to perform self-repair or self-upgrading to some extent and actively share resources, such as equipment and space, to facilitate these practices. Active users might then have an awareness of the availability of materials and components and a surface level or colloquial understanding of quality grades and standard conformity.
Prosumers/makers/DIY-ers are stakeholders who actively engage in the fabrication and assembly of parts and components to create objects tailored to their specific needs, preferences, and desires. They have the ability to make radical alterations to component designs, combining them in unique ways, and reusing components for self-repair and self-upgrading purposes. These stakeholders actively share knowledge and resources among themselves and with other stakeholders. They acquire certain parts and components produced at local, regional, or mass/global scales, and they also design and fabricate their own parts and components. It could be conjectured that these stakeholders not only have a cursory knowledge of materials and components data, but require it for actively designing and fabricating the parts they are making.
Local producers, such as maker entrepreneurs and craftsmen, produce components and products for the local market. These stakeholders utilise digital fabrication equipment and/or traditional craftsmanship techniques to manufacture specific components. They combine these locally sourced materials and components with regionally and globally sourced to create value. Local producers have the ability to produce on-demand and customise the designs of their parts and products based on the preferences and needs of their local customers. The involvement of active users and prosumers/makers/DIY-ers in the design and production process is facilitated through open knowledge sharing, which could extend to sharing materials or supply information. The proximity of local producers significantly enhances the provision of post-use services, such as repair, refurbishment, and recycling of components and products.
Regional producers serve as significant hubs within the distributed production ecosystem, focusing on developing products using a combination of batch-produced components and globally mass-produced components. Their product offerings can be tailored to meet the specific needs and preferences of the regions/markets they serve. These products can be designed to be adaptable to regional requirements and are manufactured using locally available material resources, requiring a sense of regional supply chain dynamics. Regional producers leverage the open nature of mass-produced components to outsource the production of more complex components that may require higher levels of precision and compliance with safety regulations. This strategic utilisation of open designs and mass-produced components can allow regional producers to streamline their manufacturing processes while ensuring the quality and safety of their products.
Global mass producers represent the largest entities in the production ecosystem, offering a many parts and products. These offerings are typically either simple and widely used, making mass production economically viable, or highly complex, necessitating precise production processes and flawless repetition. Mass production can enable regional and local producers, as well as active users and prosumers/makers/DIY-ers, to build upon the resultant goods and create value.
After identifying one of the shortcomings of the distributed value creation stakeholders framework, where the focus was on production rather than design, a couple of stakeholder groups are suggested. This is to account for those who share a design or OSH project globally and digitally, to be produced locally. A designer or small design firm - such as Denis Fuzii, designer of the OpenDesk Valovi chair[32] - would not fit appropriately in the above categories, yet in the context of this research and scoping exercise would be integral to the distributed production landscape.
Akin to the prosumers/makers/DIY-ers stakeholder group, but instead they are creating value for others, like the local producers. Maker-designers are individuals or small collaborations, who might operate out of fablabs or utilise other local level fabrication facilities, to develop open designs intended for global dissemination. The difference being made in this analysis between maker-designers and local producers is that where local producers sell their goods at the local level, maker-designers might develop their designs drawing from local insight but then share the design globally to be reproduced elsewhere. The value being created in this instance is not necessarily the physically produced good, but the design and its documentation. These categories are not static or exclusive, in that the same individual could be a prosumer with respect to one product and a maker-designer regarding another.
Professional designers and engineers bring specialised knowledge, technical expertise, and a systematic approach to the design and production of products and components, contributing to the overall quality, functionality, and sustainability of the end result. Typically working in-house for a larger firm, part of a small or medium sized consulting businesses or working in a freelance capacity[33]. These designers might consult for the value creation for others stakeholder group cluster, to help them develop their designs, but for this analysis these industry designers who might not operate in a distributed production paradigm are also included, even if that is not focus for the research. Contemporary, mainstream and established design sensibility utilises and drives materials and components standards as well as broader industry norms.
This would include the Internet of Production Alliance, who aims to address the problem of access to material data and components, as well as an army of others, ranging from the EU funded Distributed Design Platform[34] to Open Source Ecology[35]. These actors are part of the broader community who may contribute to the development of the potential ODS, as well as use it for their own applications, making them non-exclusive from other stakeholder groups here.
The platforms where designers can share projects and makers access the material and component information, through documentation like BoMs. Not all designs are shared on these platforms, especially not with traditional models for production, but they are critical for distributed production and the local fabrication of globally accessible designs. They would need to be consulted if the ODS had strict stipulations for the content and format of material and component data.
Raw material extraction, otherwise known in economics as the “primary sector” generally includes the agriculture, forestry, mining and fishing industries[36]. Although individuals can extract primary resources first-hand, and in many parts of the world people do, the assumption here is that materials intended for manufacture (before they are processed) are farmed, felled, mined and fished by corporations and sold as commodities for global trade.
Once primary raw materials are extracted, they need to be processed and sometimes reprocessed into materials that would have practicable applications. A generalised view of this stakeholder group is that these processors and material producers are corporations that sell blank material to distributors and manufacturers. In actuality, the global material supply chain system is highly complex and dynamic, so it should be stated these stakeholder groups are for abstraction and analytical purposes rather than a detailed model of reality.
Producers and manufacturers of high volumes of standardised components, usually found in global manufacturing economies like China, USA and Germany. These stakeholders are themselves makers of a product, but for the sake of this delimitation they are simply the producers of parts for the products that are being built by the other stakeholders. They are highly attune to material availability in their region, commodity pricing and standards for material grades, as well as the needs of the specific industries they manufacture for, but they are likely to be highly specialised.
For this description, these distributors are for both materials and components. They import from component manufacturers and material producers globally in order to sell to retailers regionally and or directly to individual makers locally.
Local hardware stores, builders merchants and specialised material suppliers are the businesses that stock both materials and components. These retailers could be small independent shops or large chains. They may not even be specialised in supplying materials and components for hardware production, for example many supermarkets do sell items like lightbulbs.
Stakeholders like local producers and maker-designers might be operating from fablabs and makerspaces, which themselves have complex materials and components supply and stocking arrangements. Firstly, the Fab Foundation and the associated documentation are very specific about the machinery and equipment needed for a fablab, but are vague or even silent about the appropriate materials and components to purchase, handle and stock. Many fablabs do not order materials, leaving members to bring their own, but some do. Those that do are often not explicit about their suppliers, the material grades they use, their inventory or even the facility they provide materials at all. This is likely due to ordering on an ad hoc basis, project by project, and only stocking an inventory of excess and offcuts. Those that do run an organised materials shop and maintain a stock are very much subject to the availability of materials in their area and might have to contend with complicated procurement processes, if they are part of a wider institution like a public library or university.
There is an experimental culture in makerspaces, which could foster a wealth of tacit knowledge about local materials and machine settings for using working with materials. Some makerspaces work to capture this knowledge, for example with shared open spreadsheets where members can update machine settings, like laser cutter power and speed, worked for each material they used in their projects. This organically collated tacit knowledge for materials exists in small pockets of the broader fablab ecosystem and might be beneficial if they were connected globally. The issue would be essentially that this knowledge is hyper local and contextual, perhaps to the level of one particular piece of equipment and a home-made experimental biomaterial.
In the global supply chain landscape of materials and components, it is worth noting the existence of non-formal, or even clandestine, supply chain actors especially in developing and remote regions. This scoping document will not explore these stakeholders in further detail, grounded on the assumption that they would be highly localised and situational, but it should be noted that non-formal suppliers, manufacturers, distributors and retailers exist and should be considered in the development of an open standard.
Technical Standards are drafted and ratified by various committees, facilitated by national, supranational and international standards agencies. These agencies, from DIN to ISO, are responsible for the thousands, possibly millions, of guidelines, standards and regulations that specify all the details of materials and components that concern this project.
Approving standards by a process of consensus building is complex, but some standards agencies have recognised stakeholder groups to represent the interests of all those impacted by the standard in question. For example, the EU’s European Committee for Standardization (CEN) and the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC) both have “Societal Stakeholders”[37], who are represented by: European Association for the Co-ordination of Consumer Representation in Standardisation (ANEC), European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) and the Environmental Coalition on Standards (ECOS). These stakeholders have a say in the development of standards, as well as technical experts.
Those who maintain, update and disseminate material databases, websites sharing engineering material properties and test results for specific material grades are important references of data.
Components libraries like TraceParts are directories that monetise their resource of accessible material and component data with advertising and exposure, namely for the component manufacturer and material producer stakeholders. Other businesses like SupplyFrame[38] help engineers with supply chain data to make decions on availability of components. This stakeholder group could be seen as actors who share knowledge on the availability of materials and components, aiding in the discovery and selection use cases.
An example system map was produced, on Figma, showing the identified stakeholders and some of the flows between them, including money, materials and data. This mapping is not exhaustive, as many more relationships, clusters and stakeholders could be itentified and remapped, but this serves as a starting place for any future development as well as an overview of the complexity of the landscape of materials and components.
To view the system map, click here: https://www.figma.com/file/j7gry1vGfJs3unxliv05Bf/IoPA-MC-Stakeholder-Analysis?type=whiteboard&node-id=0%3A1&t=SJL6Udn2OyqszFN9-1
If you would like editing rights or to copy the system, please write to the author.
The feasability is hard to assess without a specififc and concrete concept for development. That being said, before some ideas are put forward some general points can be made about the feasability of an ODS for materials and components in this context.
The remit of the ODS would almost certainly need to be delimited much further, by a minimum of separating materials from components. The supply chains, engineering properties and classifications are different from each other, so a single intervention for materials and components would be unrealistic. Within each branch, concious exclusion of categories would need to happen also. To give an example, under components, it seems hard to harmonise item properties between hydraulic, electronic and mechanical components - their functions and industry norms differ greatly. Less materials and components, more materials or components.
Of the use cases set out in this scoping document, it seems as if some are more feasible to target than others. For example, it appears very challenging, particularly for plastics, to improve identification of materials in a meaningful way, other than perhaps by labelling (for which there are already recognised standards and research into product passports), compared to the use case of specification, which is more about documentation and communication between stakeholders.
The aformentioned stakeholders should be involved, or at least considered methodically, in any future development. So resources would be needed for this kind of work, for the developed intervention to be effective. It is likely the remit of materials or components, across all use cases, is too broad to address all stakeholder needs and that starting with a subset of materials or components within a particular use case, perhaps delimited even further to industry context also, would be more fruitful.
There is little identified need for an open database of materials data or CAD files for components, as this is well covered by a number of sites, albeit not entirely open.
Some of the suggested ideas that have emerged from the research and discussions include:
A rating system, to score and map the availability of materials and components in different regions, based of a combination of regional import data and user ratings.
Scenario: A designer is selecting materials for an open project based on the the most distributive criteria, so they can refer to a heat map to acertain which material has the widest global availability.
Scenario: A maker or user can check a project BoM for availability in their area, based on feedback from other nearby makers, as well as see suggested alternatives.
A distributed inspection certificate system, where if a maker choses to resell an open project they can opt into generating an inspection certificate to take responsibility for the materiality and complience of the product, as per the exact specifications of the designer. A system where the designer could stipulate certain standards and tolerances to conform to in the documentation. Then, one can reproduce the design uncertified, in which case they cannot apply the project branding, or if they accept responsability for full or partial compliance they can generate a certificate which is available on some register. This idea is not fleshed out and would need legal, technical and perhaps ethical consultation to accurately determin feasability, but it could be a concrete outcome to address the verification use case.
Scenario: A workshop wants to reproduce an open medical device for the local hospital, but the hospital needs assurance that the device is compliant, so the maker searches for a compliant open design that subscribes to the inspection certificate system, then generates a certificate to go with the device, once they have done their due diligence on their own suppliers.
Introducing more detailed guidence and peramiters related to materials and components to the OKH specification, perhaps by introducing a compliance standards property or adding rules to the BoM property. This is in all likelyhood too restrictive for the intended purpose of the OKH standard, but it would lie well within the scope of intervention.
A materials and components pledge, where designers and makers sign an open pledge to a convention for effective open communication of materials and components data. Items in the pledge could contain referecing open databases, specifying the material grade and providing a detailed BoM on the part of the designer, and providing an inspection certificate and feeding back to the open design repository material availability in the region on the part of the maker.
An assesment of the most relevant materials or components from a discrete range of OSH projects would help delimit targeted categories. A focused and detailed study of, for example, 10 projects, where the BoMs are compared against each other, the project owners are interviewed, makers who used the design documentation are also interviewed and the projects are built by the researchers, to understand first hand the challenges of sourcing parts, while applying the frameworks set out in this scoping document, would identify really concrete issues that could be addressed with realisitic interventions. This approach would be analougus to a customer journey mapping or an ethnographic research, with the aim of delimiting the most relevant material or component categories, as well as the issues in discovery, selection, specification, verification and identification.
To account for variances in vernacular and naming of materials and components, the features below could be considered. Note, these may be highly challenging to implement.
Multilingual Support: The ODS should accommodate multiple languages and provide translations for common terms.
Synonyms and Cross-References: The ODS can include a comprehensive list of synonyms, alternative names, and cross-references for components or materials.
Contextual Descriptions: The ODS can provide detailed descriptions and specifications for each component and material, allowing users to understand the characteristics and applications even if the terminology varies.
Standardised Identifiers: Implementing standardised identifiers for components or materials can provide a common reference across languages and regions.
Collaborative Contributions: Encouraging collaboration and contributions from a diverse community of users can help identify and address variations in vernacular. Users from different regions and industries can contribute their knowledge and terminology to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive standard.
Localisation and Customisation: Providing flexibility in the ODS to allow for localised versions or customisations can accommodate specific regional or industry-specific terminology while maintaining compatibility with the overall standard.
The feasability of a materials and components ODS for discovering, selecting, specifying, verifying and identifying, in the context of distributed production of hardware, is questionable, since the remit is too broad to be effectual. If a standard relating to one or two of the use cases for either materials or components is to be developed, then this scoping document could serve as a framework for initiating that research, identifying stakeholders and understanding the existing standards landscape. Furthermore, the handful of interviewees could be the start of a community around this development. That being said, a few things would be needed before development can begin, including: a stakeholder group with a clear need relating to materials or components in one of the use cases set out; a target set of material or component categories to delimit to, perhaps applying the categorisation frameworks disucssed here (being careful not to exclude non-formal standards); and an initial idea of the kind of intervention, output or standard being developed, for a more accurate assesment of feasability.
In order to facilitate a global internet of production there would likely be utility in some form of data architecture that relates to materials or components, but without a more detailed need and a more focused view it is difficult to make a concrete analysis. Therefore, at this juncture, that specific need is not apparent in a high enough resolution and neither is the focus.
(2022). U-Joints - A Taxonomy of Connections (A. Caputo & A. Koivu, Eds.) [Review of U-Joints - A Taxonomy of Connections]. SYNC-SYNC Editions. https://u-joints.com/
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)
