Beyond the Prototype: Can Open Science Hardware Survive the Last Mile?

GOSH 2026 Concept Note Beyond the Prototype: Can Open Science Hardware Survive the Last Mile? Format: Presentation Duration: Maximum 10 minutes WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT Open science hardware has made it increasingly possible to share scientific instruments, designs, documentation, software, and knowledge beyond the institutions where they are developed. However, an important question remains: when does an open hardware project become a durable local scientific capability rather than simply an openly available design? This presentation explores the “last mile” of open science hardware — the journey between an open technical design and a capability that people and institutions can meaningfully build, understand, use, repair, adapt, and sustain over time. A project may be openly licensed and well documented while still being difficult to reproduce or maintain in another context. Components may not be locally available, fabrication may require specialist tools or skills, documentation may assume advanced technical knowledge, calibration may depend on inaccessible infrastructure, and repairs may become difficult when the original developers, suppliers, institutions, or funding disappear. The central proposition is: Open Design ≠ Open Capability. An open technical artefact becomes a durable open-science capability only when people beyond its original creators can meaningfully build, understand, use, repair, adapt, and sustain it. PROPOSED FRAMEWORK The presentation will introduce six dimensions for examining whether open science hardware can survive beyond its original development context: 1. Buildability — Can the hardware actually be reproduced in another context, considering components, tools, fabrication, skills, cost, and supply chains? 2. Learnability — Can people who did not design it understand how it works and learn to use or modify it? 3. Usability — Can it reliably perform its intended scientific purpose under local conditions, including the requirements for calibration, testing, software, and interpretation? 4. Repairability — Can local users diagnose, maintain, and repair it when something fails? 5. Adaptability — Can local users modify the hardware for their own scientific, educational, environmental, or community needs? 6. Continuity — Can the capability survive changes in funding, suppliers, institutions, leadership, or the original development team? These dimensions can be understood as a progression: Open Design → Open Build → Open Use → Open Repair → Open Adaptation → Open Continuity OPEN HARDWARE SURVIVAL INDEX Building on these six dimensions, I propose a preliminary Open Hardware Survival Index (OHSI) v0.1. OHSI is not intended as a certification system or a universal numerical standard. It is proposed as a diagnostic framework for identifying the hidden dependencies and bottlenecks that can prevent an open hardware project from becoming a sustained local capability. For example, a project may have openly available design files but depend on an imported component that is difficult to replace. Another may be technically reproducible but require specialist calibration equipment. A third may be easy to build but difficult for new users to understand or repair. This leads to a simple practical question: If the original creator disappeared tomorrow, could the science continue? The presentation will use this question to examine the difference between openness at the level of a design and openness at the level of a sustained scientific capability. RELEVANCE TO GOSH AND GLOBAL SOUTH CONTEXTS The proposal connects with broader GOSH concerns around documentation, education, local fabrication, repairability, sustainability, community science, and the ability of open projects to move beyond their original contexts. Rather than suggesting that these issues have not previously been discussed, this presentation brings them together through a “last-mile” perspective: what happens after a project is made open and enters a different context? This question is particularly relevant in Global South and resource-constrained settings, where differences in infrastructure, supply chains, technical skills, connectivity, institutional capacity, language, calibration facilities, and repair ecosystems can expose dependencies that may be less visible in the original development environment. Nepal provides a meaningful context for this discussion because there is already activity involving maker education, citizen science, low-cost scientific instrumentation, and community-based technology initiatives. The intention is not to frame Nepal as simply a recipient of open hardware, but to consider what local contexts can contribute to the wider conversation about adaptation, technological agency, and long-term continuity. MAIN OBJECTIVE AND INTENDED OUTCOME The main objective is to broaden how we think about openness in science hardware. Instead of asking only: “Is this hardware open?” the presentation asks: “Can people beyond its original creators continue doing science with it?” The intended outcome is to introduce the six dimensions and the preliminary OHSI framework as a contribution to the GOSH community and invite critical discussion about whether these dimensions adequately capture the conditions required for durable local capability. The framework is intentionally presented as v0.1, not as a finished model. Feedback from practitioners across different regions, disciplines, institutions, and community settings could help identify missing dimensions, contextual differences, and possible ways to improve it. PRESENTATION FORMAT AND REQUIREMENTS The contribution will be a short, visual presentation of no more than 10 minutes, followed by discussion or questions if the programme schedule permits. The presentation will cover the problem, the six dimensions, the preliminary OHSI framework, examples of last-mile dependencies, and the relevance of the question to Global South contexts. Technical requirements: projector/display, standard presentation setup, and microphone if required. No specialised laboratory equipment is necessary. CLOSING Open science hardware has made significant progress in opening scientific tools and designs. The next challenge may be ensuring that this openness remains meaningful when a project moves beyond its original laboratory, institution, or community. The presentation therefore asks: Can an open science hardware project become a capability that survives beyond its creators? Looking beyond the prototype may help us move from open designs to open, durable scientific capabilities.