Content uploaded by Babasile Daniel Oladele-Emmanuel
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Babasile Daniel Oladele-Emmanuel on Nov 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
I
nt. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2016 265
Copyright © 2016 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.
Could open source ecology and open source
appropriate technology be used as a roadmap from
technology colony?
Babasile Daniel Osunyomi*, Tobias Redlich
and Jens Peter Wulfsberg
Institute of Production Engineering,
Helmut-Schmidt-Universität,
Holstenhofweg 85, 22043 Hamburg, Germany
Email: osunyomb@hsu-hh.de
Email: Tobias.redlich@hsu-hh.de
Email: jens.wulfsberg@hsu-hh.de
*Corresponding author
Abstract: In the quest for sustainability, emerging economies can no
longer rely on the vertical transference of foreign technologies. Therefore, the
development of endogenous technologies as a driver of any sustainable national
industrialisation efforts should be reoriented. Technological independence is
profound in ensuring sustainability, which according to the research findings, is
inhibited by the resilient status of a technology colony. A technology colony
demonstrates interests in production and sales, than in idea generation,
research and development (R&D), and industrialisation of new products or
services. The aim of this article is to provide a brief explanation on what a
technology colony is, and how it affects innovation and development. In a
next step, the significance of open source ecology (OSE) and open source
appropriate technology (OSAT) concepts as a roadmap to eliminate the effects
of technology colonisation on the sustainable development of emerging
economies are explored relying on a qualitative literature review.
Keywords: sustainable development; technology colony; openness; value
creation; technology transfer.
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Osunyomi, B.D.,
Redlich, T. and Wulfsberg, J.P. (2016) ‘Could open source ecology and open
source appropriate technology be used as a roadmap from technology colony?’,
Int. J. Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, Vol. 8, No. 3,
pp.265–282.
Biographical notes: Babasile Daniel Osunyomi is a Research Assistant and a
member of the Value Creation Systematics group at the Institute of Production
Engineering (LaFT), Helmut Schmidt University. He received his Bachelor’s of
Science degree from the University of South Africa, where he majored on
Information Systems, Computer Science and Discreet Mathematics. He later
obtained both his BSc degree honours and Master’s of Science in Technology
Management at the University of Pretoria. His MSc thesis was based on his
keen interest on information technology to proffer solution to the HIV/AIDS
epidemics in South Africa. He also holds various certifications in project
management.
266 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
Tobias Redlich is a Senior Researcher, Chief Engineer and group leader of the
research group Value Creation Systematics at the Institute of Production
Engineering (LaFT), Helmut Schmidt University. He holds a doctorate degree
with the research topic: open production – design model for valuecreation in
bottom-up economics. He is the founder of the Junges Forum
(Technikwissenschaften), and he is also the Managing Director of the Hamburg
Institute of Value Creation Systematics and Knowledge Management (HIWW).
Jens Peter Wulfsberg is the Chair of the Institute of Production Engineering
(LaFT), Helmut Schmidt University. He obtained his Doctorate in Mechanical
Engineering at Hannover University (1991). He has coordinated various
academic and industrial projects, and has about 100 national and international
publications in the fields of production technologies, micro production,
production organisation and robotics, and he has about 15 patents in the
engineering field.
This paper is a revised and expanded version of a paper entitled ‘Emerging
from the technology colony: a view from the south’ presented at
the PICMET‘99. Portland International Conference on Management
Engineeringand Technology, Oregon, 25–29 July 1999.
1 Introduction
Due to the deficient development of their national systems of innovation, industries in the
technology colonies are more dependent on foreign technologies for the development and
improvement of their products, services, and processes (De Wet, 1999; Buys, 2004,
2001). From this viewpoint, we affirm that most developing economies portray the traits
of technology colonies, and can thus be referred to as technology colonies. Radosevic
(1999) points out that “the wider the technological gap, the more reliant a country will be
on the importation of foreign knowledge and technologies”. With inadequate resources to
engage in broad R&D activities, most developing countries are playing technological
catch-up with the developed countries, through the acquisition and absorption of
innovative technologies or by imitating foreign technologies (Glass and Saggi, 1998;
Hobday, 2005), though this approach still represents a display of technology colonialism.
However, most scholarly articles have subjected the economic growth, technological
advancement, and the sustainable development of resource rich developing countries to
the acquisition of foreign technologies, with less attention given to the development of
poignant endogenous technologies, which eventually results in the intended socially
sustainable development of technologies, and hence the economy.
Buys (2004) outlined that due to the lack of endogenous technological efforts, the
deficient technological base of scientists and research facilities, inadequate R&D budgets,
and customers low disposable income, the innovative capabilities of developing
economies are expected to be incomparably low to that of the developed countries. The
verification of this statement can be vividly observed since the inception of the global
innovative index (GII) report, with the growth of most developing countries dominant in
the lowest part of the GII (2014) rankings.
Within this paper, we aim to propose the open source ecology (OSE) and open source
appropriate technology (OSAT) as some of the viable means to initiate a transition from a
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 267
technology colony to a technology advanced state. OSE and OSAT are complementary
strategies that rely on the concepts of openness, networking, decentralisation,
collaboration-oriented development, thereby challenging existing predominant value
creation paradigms. The introduction of these two initiatives has encouraged the
development of intermediate and alternative technologies which was highlighted by
Schumacher (1973) as an effective means developing countries could use to foster
productivity by adopting and adapting advanced technologies to their unique needs.
Through structured literature review, the research aims to provide an outline of the
technology colony concept, and to show the effects of technological colonialism on the
growth of emerging economies. Furthermore, we aim to explore the potential
contributions of OSE and OSAT in eliminating the effects of technology colonialism in
emerging economies, but also outline the limitations of these concepts.
2 Literature review
In the present technological era, the sustainable development and economic growth of
both emerging and developed countries are highly attributed to their technological
prowess and their level of industrialisation (De Wet, 1999; Buys, 2004; Kachieng’a,
2009). Various empirical studies were able to show that there is a massive technological
gap between the technology frontiers of the colonies and their former colonial figures
(developed countries). Though technology transfer has been purported to be one of the
fundamental processes that influences the sustainable performance of an economy
(Radosevic, 1999; Ramanathan, 2008), the inability of emerging economies to improve
the quality of life of their citizens and the delays in economic developments are resultant
effects of the technology colony (De Wet, 1999; Gardner and Lewis, 1996). The features
of the technology colony are as follows (Figure 1):
• business activities in the technology colony are predominantly at the production and
sales or ‘trade-in-final-products’ end of the product life cycle (De Wet, 1999;
Kachieng’a, 2009)
• research and development (R&D) represents a small group of activities on the
product life cycle, with more focus given to incremental innovation (De Wet, 1999;
Kachieng’a, 2009)
• in-flow of technologies in the technology colonies are predominantly based on the
horizontal technology transfer from the developed countries (De Wet, 1999; Glass
and Saggi, 1998; Kachieng’a, 2009)
• lastly, the vertical transference of technologies within the product life cycle in the
technology colony are trivial (De Wet, 1999; Kachieng’a, 2009).
Nepelski and De Prato (2015) speculated that developing countries will become
important producers of technologies demanded by other countries. However, the validity
of this statement depends on the perpetual focus in creating a vertical transference of
technology during the entire product life cycle, rather than their focus on production and
sales. Therefore, in the quest for global sustainability, emerging economies can no longer
rely solely on the acquisition of foreign technologies and R&D (Kim and Jung, 1998;
Desai et al., 2002), they also need to focus on the development of endogenous
268 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
technologies as in the cases of South Korea, India and China (Nepelski and De Prato,
2015; Kim and Jung, 1998; Desai et al., 2002). Hence, a stringent focus should be given
to the development of endogenous alternative technologies as a major capital that drives
any sustainable, national industrialisation endeavours.
Figure 1 Technology transfer channels in the technology colony (see online version for colours)
Source: De Wet (1999)
Therefore, facilitating an effective transition from a technology colony to a technology
decolonised state means creating adequate coopetitive (i.e. competitive and collaborative)
presence in the global market. This can be accomplished through education, development
of human capital skills as well as through the creation of attractive business environments
(De Wet, 1999; Kachieng’a, 2009) that foster the integration into global value creation
processes that are directed towards a collaboration-oriented rather than an export-oriented
industrialisation (bottom-up economics), self-organisation, and openness (Sikka, 1996;
Redlich et al., 2014).
2.1 The technology colony as a barrier to development
De Wet (1999) further outlined that the developmental activities in technology colonies
were solely designed around the subsistence of their natural resources, which serves as
the major determinant of the infrastructural developments. This poses as a barrier due to
the equivocal focus on production and trade of mineral resources in raw forms, rather
than development of exemplary endogenous technologies to efficiently manage the
production and distribution of the resources. Thus, they are denying themselves the
economic value adding opportunity of beneficiation (Figure 1).
Secondly, De Wet (1999) highlighted that technology colonies are technically
dependent on their former colonial leaders for industrial and economical support, which
becomes visible in the predominant engagement of nationals of the former colonial
leaders in the financial and industrial affairs of the colonies. Unarguably, this serves as a
barrier for the development of human capital in the technology colonies, and limits the
opportunity for natives in the colonies to gain experiential training in research, design and
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 269
development environments, in order to boost their entrepreneurial flairs to co-create local
technology-based enterprises that effectively manage their resources (De Wet, 1999).
Lastly, in the technology colonies, secondary industries developed to purvey
consumer goods either emancipated as subsidiaries of foreign organisations or as
independent local enterprises with a preponderance of ownership and technological
support from foreign companies (former colonial leaders) (De Wet, 1999; Kachieng’a,
2009).
From these physiognomies, it is evident that the value creation processes in
technology colonies are predominantly based on an asymmetrical top-down economics
approach, which gives little attention to the creation of real value needed by the natives
(bottom-up economics) of the colonies. Therefore, it is pertinent that the technological
colonial status is detrimental to the sustainable growth and industrial development of a
developing country, with its net effect recorded in the perpetuation of technological
supports from the former colonial masters (Kachieng’a, 2009).
Having stated the features of the technology colony, the basic factors required in
traversing to a decolonised economy, and the inhibiting effects of the technology colonial
status, the following paragraph gives a detailed description of OSE and OSAT and their
potentials in fostering an adequate technological value creation process.
As stated in the introductory section, the OSE and OSAT are complementary
platforms based on the concept of openness or open innovation and the bottom-up
economics approach that rely on interaction and collaboration between all actors in the
value creation process at eye level. Recent publications in the field of innovation,
production engineering and technology management have largely attributed the concept
of openness and co-creation paradigms as the viable means to advance the value creation
process, and to enact the development of a sustainable society (Sikka, 1996; Redlich
et al., 2014; Basmer et al., 2015; Chesbrough, 2006; Heyer et al., 2014; Sargsyan et al.,
2009; Osunyomi, 2015; Buxbaum-Conradi et al., 2014; Laursen and Salter, 2006). We
aim to shed more light on these concepts in the following sections.
3 OSE and OSAT
3.1 Open source ecology
The OSE is a movement framed on a paradigm that surmises that the development of an
open source economy is an avenue to develop a harmonious and prosperous community
through the democratisation of technology development and the realisation of distributive
enterprises that are replicable and create sustainable circular systems (Thomson and
Jakubowski, 2012). Open source economy is assumed to be an economic approach that is
profoundly efficient in promoting sustainability. The efficiency of the open source
economy is measured on the maximum impact of the innovative capacity and level of
interactive opportunities created for manufacturers with minimal capital (Thomson
and Jakubowski, 2012). The OSE consists of various enthusiasts with keen interest
in the concept of openness, networking, collaboration-oriented developments, and
sustainability. This includes entrepreneurs, producers, engineers, makers, and tinkerers
globally.
From a recent survey, Ludwig et al. (2015) discovered that consumers from various
countries globally spend significant portions of their time and income to create and
270 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
modify products for their personal use. Therefore, open sourced technologies are of great
significance in enabling consumers to manufacture needed products.
The backbone of OSE lies in its openness to economically-significant information
such as product designs, techniques, and rapid learning materials. Therefore, OSE is a
platform for creating distributive enterprise, and it lowers the entry barriers through
global collaboration and opens up economic development to open product and process
design. Moreover, the OSE has the potential to raise the bar on the quality of products in
the productive economy (Thomson and Jakubowski, 2012; Jakubowski, 2015b).
Furthermore, Jakubowski (2015b) speculated that the OSE has the capability to aid
the effective appropriation of strategic resources through the principle of substitutability
(i.e. increasing the level of productivity and appropriate technologies by creating
qualitative, available and affordable developmental substitutions for strained strategic
materials), thereby addressing the conflicts evident as a result of the misappropriation of
natural resources especially in the developing economies.
Up to date, the OSE claim to have 67 global village construction set (GVCS) open
prototypes and 16 unique prototypes in five countries within the five years of its
existence (Jakubowski, 2015a), which includes devices like tractors, digital fabrication
devices (such as 3D printers, 3D scanners, laser cutters, and milling machine), soil
pulveriser, cement mixer etc.
These GVCS technological devices can be used to enable developmental programs to
provide both the materials and the required training that will lead developing economies
in maximising their resources and accomplishing self-sufficiency and sustainability.
Which culminates into a technological decolonised state.
3.2 Open source appropriate technology
In an attempt to proactively mitigate the incessant socio-environmental, socio-technical,
and socioeconomic issues, the United Nations (UN) developed the millennium
development goals (MDGs), which has seven strategic objectives (WHO, 2008), these
are:
• to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
• to achieve universal primary education
• to promote gender equality and empower women
• to reduce child mortality
• to improve maternal health
• to combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
• to ensure environmental sustainability.
Moreover, in recent years the MDGs have been extended to include an additional global
objective (UNDP, 2015), which is:
• to develop a global partnership for development.
Various scholarly articles have poised that these insistent issues could be monitored and
controlled with the development of appropriate technologies (Willoughby, 1990; Pearce,
2012; Bowonder, 1979; Wicklein, 1998; Pattnaik and Dhal, 2015).
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 271
Furthermore, the bid to facilitate sustainable economies and to solve the disparaging
human developmental issues in developing countries gave rise to the emergence of
concepts such as appropriate, intermediate, and alternative technologies. An appropriate
technology (AT) is defined as a technology tailored to fit the psychosocial and
biophysical context prevailing in a particular location and period (Willoughby, 1990).
Moreover, AT is concerned with directing technological research, development and
dissemination facilities towards raising the internal and external efficiency of
technologies.
The AT concept aims to proffer solutions that dispel social developmental issues such
as unemployment, poverty, pollution and other societal degradation constraints by
harnessing the intervening measures of technologies, and advocate for the development
and distribution of small scale technologies (Kachieng’a, 2009; Willoughby, 1990;
Pearce, 2012). Some of the criteria for the selection of AT are: availability of raw
materials, ecological stability, cost-effectiveness, import substitution, rural orientation,
durability, learnability, waste recycling, small-scale amenability etc. (Bowonder, 1979;
Wicklein, 1998).
Just like the OSE, OSAT are technological advancements based on the concept of
openness and collaboration between different actors. These are made up of technologies
built with affordable, appropriable and readily available resources in local communities,
which enable preventative mechanisms in combating most of the environmental, cultural,
economic, educational, and resource constraint issues, thereby providing sustainable
development (Pattnaik and Dhal, 2015).
These alternative technologies select and develop methods, which are compatible to
local economies, and their sophistication level placed between simple and complex
technologies (Pattnaik and Dhal, 2015). To substantiate the importance of the vertical
transference of technology from the initial phase of the product life cycle to the final
phase, further literature review highlighted that technology frontiers between countries
are not uniform, that is, all existing technologies are not suited for all economies
(Jerzmanowski, 2007; Basu and Weil, 1998).
Jerzmanowski (2007) outlined that the technology development processes in
industrialised nations are based on their factor mix, while the same is different in a
technology colony. Moreover, the ad hoc focus on technology acquisitions only provides
symptomatic solutions, while a simultaneous focus on internal technology development
and acquisition strategies provides an adequate technique to facilitate the sustainable
development and technological independence needed by the technology colonies.
Examples of some basic AT are: the appropriate renewable energy technologies, the pot-
in-pot refrigerator, bicycle powered water pump, Hippo water roller, and the rocket stove,
etc.
Basu and Weil (1998) argued that developing a model with appropriate technology
and technology diffusion is more engaging and has more pragmatic predictions for long-
term growth and convergence, than the simple endogenous growth and the neoclassical
models. Therefore, the OSE and OSAT can be dubbed as ‘open’ reverse and frugal
innovation artefacts that aim to build local-to-global technologies (i.e. new technologies
developed locally, with the potential of being exported back to the developed countries)
rather than the existing ‘glocalisation’ concept (i.e. global products amended for local
use) (Govindarajan and Trimble, 2013), which is an ardent reflection of technology
transfer in the technology colony. The following section aims to explore the significance
of OSE and OSAT in a technology colony.
272 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
4 Significance of the open value creation paradigm in transforming the
technology colony
In a recently concluded survey on the impact of digital fabrication, we discovered
that developing countries tend to benefit a lot from the introduction of social digital
fabrication initiatives such as fabrication laboratory (FabLab), Hackerspaces and
the OpenLab micro-factories (Osunyomi et al., 2015, 2016). These social initiatives are
incubators of both incremental and radical innovations, alternative and appropriate
technologies, and also a viable means that fosters hands-on learning and commensurate
human developmental capabilities, which were identified by Kachieng’a (2009) as the
major transitive measures that facilitate technology decolonisation.
Moreover, these digital fabrication platforms embody a value creation system that is
based on concepts such as: openness, self-organisation and collaboration-oriented
paradigms (Redlich et al., 2014). Therefore, ensuring the sustainable development of an
economy requires the development and implementation of alternative value creation
mechanisms (Redlich et al., 2014; Ueda et al., 2009). It also requires definite actions and
major alterations on technologies, coupled with the development of economic strategies
from the local, national, and international levels (Altieri and Masera, 1993). The
following subsections highlight the significance of OSE and OSAT as a vehicle for
sustainable bottom-up development.
4.1 OSE and OSAT as bottom-up economics platforms
Altieri and Masera (1993), Fraser et al. (2006), and Sas (2011) discovered that the
conventional ‘top-down’ development strategies are fundamentally limited in their ability
to promote equitable and environmentally sustainable development. Sas (2011) further
highlighted that the top-down approach is based on the theories of modernisation, which
implies the classic transfer of technology from the developed countries to the so-called
‘third world’ and dismisses the importance of local indigenous knowledge, thereby
creating a rent economy that further increases the level of dependency between
‘recipient’ and ‘donor’ countries. In respect of this, we look at the significance of OSE
and OSAT as a bottom-up economics platform.
The bottom-up economics approach embodies the fusion of production and
consumption. It is further characterised by distributed structures and processes otherwise
known as collaborative-oriented industrialisation (Redlich et al., 2014; Basmer et al.,
2015). In this sense, the collaboration-oriented development facilitates and strengthens
participation between consumers and producers (Redlich et al., 2014; Ueda et al., 2009).
The relationship between consumers and producers can be considered as a highly
asymmetric one within traditional value creation paradigms. It is synonymously reflected
on a macro level in the relation between technology colonies and technologically
advanced nations. The information and power asymmetries (demarcating the boundaries
between consumers and producers) are, however, drastically decreasing in open source
collaboration-oriented approaches. Also, in collaboration and value co-creation, labour
and production are more location-independent (Basmer et al., 2015; Bhalla, 2010). This
signifies that technology transfer to technology colonies should be tangible and intangible
in nature. While tangible technologies can be used to aid the development of explicit and
tacit knowledge (intangible).
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 273
OSE and OSAT are termed as iconoclastic innovation because of their focus on
creating pragmatic solutions to local problems in its root, rather than providing a
symptomatic solution (Jakubowski, 2015b). Hence, the design and development of
alternative bottom-up strategies helps to define priorities and problems, and develop
specific intervening measures (Altieri and Masera, 1993; Fraser et al., 2006). Moreover,
the bottom-up alternative approach develops flexible and adaptable technologies that can
be easily modified according to specific circumstances and problems in their various
localities (Altieri and Masera, 1993).
Though most AT are beneficial projects from technologically advanced countries,
however, the benefits of involving the natives of the developing countries (technology
colonies) during developmental processes and the localisation of materials, encourages
creative thinking towards the development of endogenous appropriate technologies. From
this context, OSE and OSAT can be concluded as a potential platform that promotes the
bottom-up economic approach and also as one of the adequate means to ensure
technological decolonisation.
4.2 OSE and OSAT as the basic structure of the value creation system in
technology colonies
Due to their flexibility (i.e. their appropriability and adaptability to changing
circumstances), the significance of openness in OSE and OSAT in aiding the
decolonisation of the technology colony is evident through collaboration, interaction, and
sharing of knowledge between two or more actors in the value creation system. The
benefits of open sourcing in a technology colony’s value creation system are as follows:
• open sourcing facilitates rapid development of effective AT (Pearce and Mushtaq,
2009)
• it provides the acceleration of AT innovation (Pearce and Mushtaq, 2009;
Jakubowski, 2015a, 2015b)
• it provides adequate access to relevant AT (Pearce and Mushtaq, 2009)
• it allows marginalised communities to have say and ownership over their technology
exploitation and development activities (Buitenhuis et al., 2010).
Redlich et al. (2014) iterated that in considering the openness of the value creation
structure, it is pertinent to examine the relationship of the system with its environment,
and also investigate the internal structure of the system in conformance with the
specifications of openness. Relating these considerations to this research focus, it can be
concluded based on their flexibility, that the OSE and OSAT provides a permeable
structure for technology colony to interact in the global space, to internalise foreign
knowledge, inspire local knowledge, and to accelerate the vertical transference of
technology in its product development life cycle.
274 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
4.3 OSE and OSAT as architecture of the value creation artefact in technology
colony
To furnish the viability of the value creation structure, Redlich et al. (2014) further
outlined that developing value creation artefacts with the openness concept is potentially
sociable. In addition, value creation artefacts are artificial systems created for a specific
purpose, hence a product of tangible and intangible constituents (Redlich et al. 2014),
whose value is articulated by its functionality, economic significance, and network
externalities (Ueda et al., 2009). Ueda et al. (2009) indicated that the acquisition of
comprehensible knowledge precedes the creation of any valuable artefacts. Moreover, the
relativity of openness to the physical structure of the artefacts are consequential to the
properties of granularity, modularity, and complexity (Wulfsberg et al., 2011). The
sustainable development of value creation artefacts lies not only in the acquisition of
knowledge, but in the synthetic engagement in developing knowledge.
However, for an artefact to create value, it must be in conformance to the
environmental (i.e. social and natural) and human values (Ueda et al., 2009). In light of
this, we conclude that OSE and OSAT are social technology artefacts with an avid focus
on the concept of openness. These concepts possess the potential to portray the
granularity, modularity, and complexity properties in their simplest form. In accordance
with the overall findings of Ueda et al. (2009), OSE and OSAT has the potential to ensure
the sustainable development of valuable artefacts, thereby assisting in the technological
decolonisation process. It is worth noting that by sustainable development, we mean
creation of artefacts that are ecological, economic, social, environmental, and humanly
viable.
4.4 Value creation process of OSE and OSAT in technology colony
The degree of openness (i.e. width and depth of co-activity) in the value creation process
is determined by the value creation strategies and activities of the actors (Redlich et al.,
2014). Openness in the context of value creation strategies aims at exploiting synergies
and cooperation between all the actors in the value creation process. While co-activity
shapes the openness of the value creation process and includes all collaborative efforts
between actors directed at maximising value creation (Redlich et al., 2014).
Figure 2 Value creation model according to Ueda et al. (2009) (see online version for colours)
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 275
From the above illustration (Figure 2), the state of technology transfer to the technology
colony is evident in the ‘providing value model’. In this model, the values of artefacts are
derived independently by the producer (former colonial leaders) and the consumer
(technology colonies), while the interaction with the environment can be specified in
advance (Ueda et al., 2009; Wulfsberg et al., 2011). The providing value model typifies
the dogmatic closed systems, which can be transferred to mass production and provision
of routine services (Wulfsberg et al., 2011).
While the value for customer and producer can be specified in the adaptive model, the
model is limited by the unpredictability of the environment (Ueda et al., 2009; Wulfsberg
et al., 2011). This results in the formation of a partially open system, which can be
likened to the existing ‘glocalisation’ concepts highlighted by Govindarajan and Trimble
(2013) as an ineffective solution to the sustainability issues in developing economies.
Nonetheless, in the co-creative value model, the values of the artefacts are jointly
determined by the actors during the value creation process (Ueda et al., 2009; Wulfsberg
et al., 2011). This exemplifies an effective measure to aid the sustainable development of
an economy especially in a technology colony (Redlich et al., 2014; Basmer et al., 2015;
Osunyomi et al., 2015, 2016; Buxbaum-Conradi et al., 2014; Ueda et al., 2009; Bhalla,
2010).
Therefore, we hypothesise that the augmentation of both OSE and OSAT in a
technology colony can facilitate co-creativity within the global value creation space, as
well as the provision of pragmatic solutions to global issues from the source.
4.5 Benefits of OSE and OSAT
In addition to some benefits stated in earlier sections, the OSE and OSAT devices also
have the following benefits some of which includes:
• economic significance through encouragement of entrepreneurial activities
(Jakubowski, 2015a, 2015b; Pearce, 2012; Buitenhuis et al., 2010; Dorf, 2001)
• simplicity and low cost of production compared to the retail price of the on-shelf
version (Jakubowski, 2015b; Dorf, 2001)
• development of technological self-reliance (Jakubowski, 2015a, 2015b; Pearce,
2012)
• effective utilisation of limited financial resources, through the minimisation of R&D
costs (Jakubowski, 2015b; Pearce, 2012)
• expedited production cycle through access to technological development blueprints
and elimination of the inhibitions caused by the intellectual property rights (IPRs)
(Thomson and Jakubowski, 2012)
• minimisation of wastes, overheads, and bureaucracy (Jakubowski, 2015a, 2015b;
Pearce, 2012; Buitenhuis et al., 2010)
• localisation of material sourcing and of production (Jakubowski, 2015a, 2015b;
Pearce, 2012; Buitenhuis et al., 2010)
• replicability, maintainability, and flexibility (Jakubowski, 2015a, 2015b; Pearce,
2012; Buitenhuis et al., 2010; Dorf, 2001)
276 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
• technology recursion, scalability and fractality (Jakubowski, 2015b)
• resilience and robustness (Jakubowski, 2015b)
• iconoclastic innovations and transformation by providing solutions that attend to
local problems or problems in general at their root (Jakubowski, 2015b; Buitenhuis
et al., 2010).
• best practices and eco-friendly (Jakubowski, 2015b; Buitenhuis et al., 2010; Dorf,
2001).
In conclusion, reviewing the benefits of the OSE and OSAT affirms that these two
paradigms possess the potency to facilitate the vital developmental processes needed by
technology colonies to effectively harness and manage their resources to transcend
beyond the constraints imposed by their technology colony status, and strive for
sustainable growth and economic development, hence, contributing to the global
sustainability. The next section provides a detailed analysis of the backward integration
in respect of OSE and OSAT.
5 OSE and OSAT in backward integration of technology flow
With backward integration, technology colonies can set up their local development
facilities to ensure a more reliable and effective flow of inputs. De Wet (1999) indicated
that technology colonies can create a value addition strategy focused on adding value
from the earlier stages of the product life cycle, and to gain ownership of intellectual
properties (IPs), which in turn leads to the development of competitive advantages
(Figure 3). However, in lieu of the IP and IPRs, this research proposes the use of the
openness concept as a viable alternative for developing economies to gain the
technological independence, which in turn leads to technological decolonisation and
advancements.
Figure 3 The effect on technology flows resulting from backward integration (see online version
for colours)
Source: De Wet (1999)
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 277
Figure 3 indicates that technology transfer at the production and sales end of the product
life cycle should be relatively reduced, so as to afford the vertical transference of
technology from the initial stages of the life cycle (i.e. from basic research capability)
(De Wet, 1999; Kachieng’a, 2009). However, the backward integration strategy
highlighted above is preconceived on the notion of closed system concept, which
provides a symptomatic solution by focusing on promoting competitiveness, capturing
value, and its prior focus on technology transfer from former colonial imperials, with
inadequate representation of the technology development process in the technology
colonies. Moreover, Buys (2001) identified a five-stage process of industrialisation of
backwards integration in the technology colony, these are:
• Stage I: Local distribution, marketing, sales and after sales services of foreign
products and services, and technologies. In the first phase of industrialisation, the
imperials aims to gain access to the local market by establishing local distribution,
marketing, sales and support of their products and services within the technology
colony. Although in some sectors, most countries have transcended beyond Stage I.
However, in terms of technological developments, most are still stuck in Stage I.
• Stage II: Local production and manufacturing of foreign products and services. Stage
II emerges as most imperials aim to utilise cheaper local labour and raw materials,
likewise to substitute imports. In terms of technological development, most
technology colonies are yet to progress to this stage.
• Stage III: Local improvement of foreign products and processes. This stage starts
with the internalisation of foreign technologies and proceeds to ‘glocalisation’
concept, that is, the local adaptation and modification of foreign products and
services to suite local conditions. During this stage, the technology colony is still
mainly dependent on foreign technologies for its product development and
improvement processes.
• Stage IV: Local development of new products and processes. This stage aims at
developing new products by imitating foreign technologies and competing within the
local and export markets. This can be purported as the development of frugal and
reverse innovation activities. The case of China, South Korea and some of their
Asian pacific counterparts perfectly depict this stage and the succeeding stage.
• Stage V: Local technology development. In Stage V, the chasm between the research
sub-systems and the development sub-systems of the life cycle in the technology
colony has been bridged by local technology development. Though the
transcendence to Stage V is elusive to most technology colonies, we postulate that
augmenting OSE and OSAT is a feasible alternative to accomplish technological
independence.
With the proposed backward integration based on the concept of openness, technology
transfer is based on the establishment of a bidirectional relationship between the phases
of the product life cycle in the technology colonies and their former colonial leaders, this
in turn represents both reverse and frugal innovation strategies embedded with openness,
which emanates to the creation of adequate values and maintenance of a coopetitive
advantage.
278 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
From Figure 4, the benefits accrued to the development and utilisation of this concept
not only reduces the cost of engaging in R&D from both sides, it can also provide
adequate and affordable designs that lead to the local production of foreign products and
services, local development of new products and processes, and local technology
development. Hence, it facilitates the global maximum effect in production and sales.
Figure 4 The effect on technology flows resulting from backward integration based on openness
(see online version for colours)
6 Limitations of OSE and OSAT
Despite the enormous potentials of OSE and OSAT, they are not without limitations. The
major limitation to these concepts is that the widespread awareness, contributions to, and
use of OSEs and OSATs has not yet occurred, partly due to the factors given below:
• Communication and information specific barriers (Zelenika and Pearce, 2011):
despite the surge in the Internet access, there is still a huge digital divide between the
impact zone (emerging economies) and developed communities. This inadvertently
connotes that the technology transfer process between the technology colony and
advanced economies has to be in tangible form, which reduces the rate of
development and strains the limited financial resources (Buitenhuis et al., 2010;
Zelenika and Pearce, 2011).
• The distance and time barriers: the barriers of distance and time between the buffer
zone and the impact zone makes it difficult to tackle issues from their source
(Zelenika and Pearce, 2011).
• Language and culture barrier (Buitenhuis et al., 2010; Zelenika and Pearce, 2011).
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 279
• Educational and technical skills barrier: the academic inequity between the natives of
the developed economies and the technology colonies further constrains the artefacts
development efforts (Buitenhuis et al., 2010).
• Inadequate funding for basic implementation and further research (Buitenhuis et al.,
2010).
• Lack of institutional support (Zelenika and Pearce, 2011).
• Inferiority stigma attached to AT as poor people’s technology (Zelenika and Pearce,
2011).
7 Conclusions and recommendations
As indicated in earlier sections, the OSE and OSAT concept aim to create a platform,
where appropriable technological information and knowledge can be distributed. This
information includes access to technology blueprints, access to external participation in
development, and also access to enterprise blueprints. However, the implementation rate
of the platforms are still novel or unidentified. Therefore, further development and
empirical testing will be needed to uncover the societal impact of the platforms,
particularly through the conduction of adaptive field studies.
In this research study we identified that the considerations of OSE and OSAT do have
some potentials for developing countries, especially countries formerly under colonial
authorities, to traverse the technology colony status to a technology independent and
advanced state. Therefore, we recommend a systematic study, development, and
implementation of the impact of the concepts in enhancing the sustainable development
of an emerging economy.
Also, future work should focus on obtaining requirements and feedback from
communities employing the technologies so as to gather adequate information about the
viability of the technologies in meeting their needs, and obtain further insights on the
barriers encountered during the development and utilisation processes.
Finally, according to the concluding remark by De Wet (1999), “being a technology
colony is not a disaster neither is it something to be ashamed of. However, remaining a
technology colony should not be a fate to be suffered, but an opportunity to be managed”.
Furthermore, traversing the technology colonial status means emerging economies need
to reorient their technology acquisition strategy, to also include internal or vertical
transference of technology from their basic research facilities through the product life
cycle. So that adequate value for in-house developed resources can be captured.
In addition, emerging economies should effectively harness the potentials of the open
innovation and development approach, to strategically effectuate the value co-creation
strategies in its product life cycle and innovation cycle. While developing applicable AT
that attends to the social needs of its populace.
Therefore, we believe that this research provides new insights to the significance of
open sourcing in OSE and OSAT as value creation patterns that ensure the most
economically sustainable development. To answer the initial question posed by the
research topic, we conclude that, if effectively harnessed, OSE and OSAT could be used
as a roadmap by technology colonies to aid their transition into a technology decolonised
states.
280 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
References
Altieri, M.A. and Masera, O. (1993) ‘Sustainable rural development in Latin America: building
from the bottomup’, Ecological Economics, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp.93–121.
Basmer, S., Buxbaum-Conradi, S., Krenz, P., Redlich, T., Wulfsberg, J.P. and Bruhns, F.L. (2015)
‘Open production: chances for social sustainability in manufacturing’, 12th Global Conference
on Sustainable Manufacturing – Emerging Potentials, Malaysia 2014. Procedia CIRP,
Vol. 26, pp.46–51.
Basu, S. and Weil, D.N. (1998) ‘Appropriate technology and growth’, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 113, No. 4, pp.1025–1054.
Bhalla, G. (2010) Collaboration and Co-Creation: New Platforms for Marketing and Innovation,
Springer Science & Business Media, New York.
Bowonder, B. (1979) ‘Appropriate technology for developing countries: some issues’,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.55–67.
Buitenhuis, J., Zelenika, I. and Pearce, J.M. (2010) ‘Open design-based strategies to enhance
appropriate technology development’, Proceedings of the 14th Annual National Collegiate
Inventors and Innovators Alliance Conference: Open, 25–27 March 2010, pp.1–12.
Buxbaum-Conradi, S., Wulf, S. and Wulfsberg, J.P. (2014) ‘The impact of openness on value
cocreation in production networks’, 6th Conference on Industrial Product-Service Systems,
Windsor (Canada 2014). Procedia CIRP, Vol. 16, pp.44–49.
Buys, A.J. (2001) ‘Technological decolonisation of South Africa by backwards integration of the
national system of innovation’, Proceedings of the First South African Association for the
Management of Technology and Innovation (SAMOTI) Conference on Managing
Technological Innovation for Global Competitiveness, Bergen-Dal, Kruger National Park,
Vol. 30, May.
Buys, A.J. (2004) ‘Industrial innovation in a technology colony’, AFRICON, 2004. 7th AFRICON
Conference in Africa, IEEE, September, Vol. 2, pp.939–942.
Chesbrough, H.W. (2006) Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting From
Technology, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
De Wet, G. (1999) ‘Emerging from the technology colony: a view from the South’, Management of
Engineering and Technology, 1999. Technology and Innovation Management. PICMET’99.
Portland International Conference on, Vol. 1, p.418, IEEE.
Desai, M., Fukuda-Parr, S., Johansson, C. and Sagasti, F. (2002) ‘Measuring the technology
achievement of nations and the capacity to participate in the network age’, Journal of Human
Development, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.95–122.
Dorf, R.C. (2001) Sustainable and Appropriate Technologies. Technology, Humans, and Society,
Academic Press, San Diego.
Fraser, E.D., Dougill, A.J., Mabee, W.E., Reed, M. and McAlpine, P. (2006) ‘Bottom up and top
down: analysis of participatory processes for sustainability indicator identification as a
pathway to community empowerment and sustainable environmental management’, Journal of
Environmental Management, Vol. 78, No. 2, pp.114–127.
Gardner, K. and Lewis, D. (1996) Anthropology, Development and the Post-Modern Challenge,
Pluto Press, London.
GII (2014) The Global Innovation Index 2014: The Human Factor in Innovation, INSEAD [online]
http://www.globalinnovationindex.org/content.aspx?page=gii-full-report-2014 (accessed 16
June 2015).
Glass, A.J. and Saggi, K. (1998) ‘International technology transfer and the technology gap’,
Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp.369–398.
Govindarajan, V. and Trimble, C. (2013) Reverse Innovation: Create Far from Home, Win
Everywhere, Harvard Business Press, Boston, Massachusetts.
Could OSE and OSAT be used as a roadmap from technology colony? 281
Heyer, S., Nishino, N., Muschard, B. and Seliger, G. (2014) ‘Enabling of local value creation via
openness for emergent synthesis’, International Journal of Precision Engineering and
Manufacturing, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp.1489–1493.
Hobday, M. (2005) ‘Firm-level innovation models: perspectives on research in developed
and developing countries’, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, Vol. 17, No. 2,
pp.121–146.
Jakubowski, M. (2015a) Global Village Construction Set. Open Source Ecology: Civilization
Starter Kit v.0.01 [online] http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Civilization_Starter_Kit_
DVD_v0.01 (accessed 16 July 2015).
Jakubowski, M. (2015b) Open Source Ecology. OSE 4 Year Review [online]
http://opensourceecology.org/ose-4-year-review/ (accessed 15 July 2015).
Jerzmanowski, M. (2007) ‘Total factor productivity differences: appropriate technology vs.
efficiency’, European Economic Review, Vol. 51, No. 8, pp.2080–2110.
Kachieng’a, M.O. (2009) ‘Roadmap from technology colony to industrialisation: the case of
South Africa’, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering
Management, 2009, IEEM 2009, December, pp.1900–1904, IEEE.
Kim, Y.S. and Jung, Y. (1998) ‘Innovation with imported technology in a dynamic global
economy: the case of Korean industry’, Human Systems Management, Vol. 17, No. 4,
pp.257–266.
Laursen, K. and Salter, A. (2006) ‘Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining
innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms’, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.131–150.
Ludwig, T., Stickel, O., Boden, A., Pipek, V. and Wulf, V. (2015) ‘Appropriating digital
fabrication technologies – a comparative study of two 3D printing communities’, iConference
2015 Proceedings.
Nepelski, D. and De Prato, G. (2015) ‘International technology sourcing between a developing
country and the rest of the world. A case study of China’, Technovation, Vol. 35, No. 1,
pp.12–21.
Osunyomi, B.D. (2015) Value Creation: Openness and Interconnectedness of eHealth Platforms
[online] http://www.ehna.org (accessed 15 May 2015).
Osunyomi, B.D., Redlich, T., Buxbaum-Conradi, S., Moritz, M. and Wulfsberg, J.P. (2015)
Implications of Digital Fabrication on the Sustainable Development of Emerging Economies:
Empirical Review of the FabLab Ecosystem, Unpublished Manuscript, Helmut Schmidt
Universitat, Hamburg, Germany.
Osunyomi, B.D., Redlich, T., Buxbaum-Conradi, S., Moritz, M. and Wulfsberg, J.P. (2016)
‘Impact of the Fablab ecosystem in the sustainable value creation process (January 30, 2016)’,
OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.21–36.
Pattnaik, B.K. and Dhal, D. (2015) ‘Mobilizing from appropriate technologies to sustainable
technologies based on grassroots innovations’, Technology in Society, Vol. 40, No. 1, p.93110.
Pearce, J.M. (2012) ‘The case for open source appropriate technology’, Environment, Development
and Sustainability, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp.425–431.
Pearce, J.M. and Mushtaq, U. (2009) ‘Overcoming technical constraints for obtaining sustainable
development with open source appropriate technology’, 2009 IEEE Toronto International
Conference in Science and Technology for Humanity (TIC-STH), September, IEEE,
pp.814–820.
Radosevic, S. (1999) International Technology Transfer and Catch-Up in Economic Development,
Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK.
Ramanathan, K. (2008) ‘An overview of technology transfer and technology transfer models’,
International Conference on South-South Cooperation for Technology Transfer and
Development of Small and Medium Enterprises, August, pp.18–22.
282 B.D. Osunyomi et al.
Redlich, T., Krenz, P., Basmer, S.V., Buxbaum-Conradi, S., Wulf, S. and Wulfsberg, J.P. (2014)
‘The impact of openness on value co-creation in production networks’, Procedia CIRP,
Vol. 16, pp.44–49.
Sargsyan, G., Meijer, G., Janssen, W., Van Buuren, R., Husmann, E., Ali-Vehmas, T., Niitamo, V.,
McGuirk, S. and Donellan, B. (2009) OSI – Socio-Economic Impact of Open Source
Innovation [online] https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/osi-socioeconomic-impact-
open-service-innovation-smart-20090077-study (accessed 13 September 2015).
Sas, L. (2011) ‘Appropriate technology for the development of the ‘Third World’’, Totem: The
University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 1, p.10.
Schumacher, F. (1973) Small is Beautiful, Blond and Briggs, London.
Sikka, P. (1996) ‘Indigenous development and acquisition of technology: an Indian perspective’,
Technovation, Vol. 16, No. 2, p.8595.
Thomson, C.C. and Jakubowski, M. (2012) ‘Toward an open source civilization: (innovations case
narrative: open source ecology)’, Innovations, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.53–70.
Ueda, K., Takenaka, T., Váncza, J. and Monostori, L. (2009) ‘Value creation and decision-making
in sustainable society’, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp.681–700.
United Nation Development Program (UNDP) (2015) [online] http://www.undp.org/content/dam/
undp/library/MDG/english/UNDP_MDG_Report_2015.pdf (accessed 11 October 2015).
Wicklein, R.C. (1998) ‘Designing for appropriate technology in developing countries’, Technology
in Society, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.371–375.
Willoughby, K.W. (1990) Technology Choice. A Critique of the Appropriate Technology
Movement, ITDG, London.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2008) Millennium Development Goals [online]
http://repository.searo.who.int/handle/123456789/15248 (accessed 7 May 2015).
Wulfsberg, J.P., Redlich, T. and Bruhns, F.L. (2011) ‘Open production: scientific foundation for
co-creative product realization’, Production Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.127–139.
Zelenika, I. and Pearce, J.M. (2011) ‘Barriers to appropriate technology growth in sustainable
development’, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, No. 6, p12.
