Mission & Values

Vision

We want to support the transition of OScH from peoples garages to mass market-- trying to hit goal of ubiquity of OScH by 2025. We can’t do this via general networking, which isn’t getting us to where we need to be. This distributed manufacturing structure can provide intermediary services between person and lab.

Mission

  1. Getting scientists customisable, open source instruments wherever they are in the world.
  2. Supporting local scientific instrument manufacturers.

Goals

  • Manufacture in a way that supports our shared goals (a la the Manifesto)
  • Provide users with a consistent, comparable, high quality product
  • Provide users with high quality, context-appropriate support + feedback
  • Create sustainable business by ensuring sufficient amount of work for partners
  • Provide skilled opportunities for hardware engineers
  • Provide local technical support and maintenance options
  • Increase access to OScH in the regions close to the distributed manufacturers
  • Proving that openness combined with environmental and economic sustainability is feasible

Values

  • GOSH values from --> GOSH Manifesto --> "Accessible", "Changes the culture of science", "Empowers People"...

    • OScH is accessible: Increase access to OScH in the regions close to the distributed manufacturers ← how do we populate what we actually do inside these ‘values bucket’...
    • OScH makes science better: Provide users with a consistent, comparable, high quality product & high quality, context-appropriate support and feedback
    • OScH is impactful tools: Create sustainable business by ensuring a sufficient amount of work for partners
    • OScH empowers people: Provide skilled opportunities for hardware engineers
    • OScH has no black boxes: Provide local technical support and maintenance options
    • OScH allows multiple futures for science: Proving that openness combined with environmental and economic sustainability is feasible

  • We put people first and address technology and cognitive justice

  • We learn from experiments together, so one persons failure can be many people's lesson, rather than vice versa.

  • We're honest and willing to admit if things are not working out and move forward

  • We create a collaborative environment - Direct competition in open source groups is certainly possible and has some upsides, but if we're actively collaborating it can make collaboration harder. Like many distributors, I think we establish zones where we provide rights to partners to sell a product using the combined brand / trademark, etc. This enables better collaboration and reduces points of friction.

    • establish 'sales zones' for manufacturing partners with the agreements

  • We value contributors - We do not have IP, there is only 1 point of value exchange (sale of the product)... so we don't have traditional ways to incentivize / empower the developer and manufacturer separately. We need to transparently and actively provide funding back to developers, and use that as a point of marketing and education to the end user.

    • establish for each product a % which is returned to contributors

  • We share - Manufacturers also innovate heavily!!!! We should share those innovation and ensure we have toolchains which enable manufacturer-led innovation (versioning, forking, multiple options for assembly or parts lists, collaborative process for SOP updating, etc.).

    • ensure in agreements that 'know-how' is shared (no IP), use toolchain which can absorb + share this know-how.

  • We're compelling, we do not compel - Anyone will be able to see and replicate what we do... our only point of 'control' will be a trademarked quality spec. The cost should be low and value of engagement should be high.

    • 'Costs' (sharing with contributor, etc.) to join should be relatively low for manufacturers.

  • We seek sustainable, long-term partnerships - People will pop up who want to make one thing, or a few things, for a short period... even for new, good partners, there is a cost to the group to onboard, train, and support a new partners. For not so good partners, that cost can be extremely high. We need a process to identify + learn about potential partners that is efficient and effective. We probably also need a process for allowing existing partnerships to die out if they are no longer productive or aligned.

    • legal docs have 'onboarding' clauses and 'release' clauses for manufacturing partners.