Skip to Main Content
HBS Home
  • About
  • Academic Programs
  • Alumni
  • Faculty & Research
  • Baker Library
  • Giving
  • Harvard Business Review
  • Initiatives
  • News
  • Recruit
  • Map / Directions
Working Knowledge
Business Research for Business Leaders
  • Browse All Articles
  • Popular Articles
  • Cold Call Podcast
  • Managing the Future of Work Podcast
  • About Us
  • Book
  • Leadership
  • Marketing
  • Finance
  • Management
  • Entrepreneurship
  • All Topics...
  • Topics
    • COVID-19
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Finance
    • Gender
    • Globalization
    • Leadership
    • Management
    • Negotiation
    • Social Enterprise
    • Strategy
  • Sections
    • Book
    • Podcasts
    • HBS Case
    • In Practice
    • Lessons from the Classroom
    • Op-Ed
    • Research & Ideas
    • Research Event
    • Sharpening Your Skills
    • What Do You Think?
    • Working Paper Summaries
  • Browse All
    Sharing Design Rights: A Commons Approach for Developing Infrastructure
    17 Oct 2013Working Paper Summaries

    Sharing Design Rights: A Commons Approach for Developing Infrastructure

    by Nuno Gil and Carliss Y. Baldwin
    Traditionally, a commons is a natural resource that gives rise to the problem of collective action: Individuals who act alone without consideration for others will arrive at outcomes that are bad for all. Pioneering research by Elinor Ostrom, a scholar of economic governance, has revealed that the claimants to a common pool resource are sometimes able to organize themselves to manage the commons on a day-today basis and to adapt to changing circumstances. In this paper, the authors study the dynamics of a commons organization: In 2006-2007, the Manchester City Council created a commons organization to design a number of new school buildings. The Council had broad decision rights over school design and construction, but rather than delegating those rights to its own staff or to a joint venture, as were the typical practices, the Council gave each school co-equal rights to approve the design so that no building project could go forward unless signed off by both the school and the Council staff. As such, the Council converted the decision-making process from a controlled, centralized style to a commons-based approach. Using the principles of Ostrom's commons theory the authors show that, overall, the commons form of organizing brought with it concomitant risk. This risk, however, was significantly lessened through the creation of a robust commons organization. Key concepts include:
    • This study uses design theory to explain why the design process for school buildings can be viewed as a common pool resource, and explain what constitutes "tragedy of the commons" in this context.
    • Sensible actions in terms of defining boundaries, making benefits proportionate to costs, and deferring to local rule-making can increase the robustness of the commons and increase its chances of success.
    • A design commons organization should be considered as a potentially advantageous alternative to other ways of organizing design production processes.
    • However, a design commons organization might not necessarily be the best approach to resolve design production problems in all environments.
    LinkedIn
    Email

    Author Abstract

    We argue that a design commons can be an advantageous organizational form under two salient conditions: 1) high "subtractability" because different claimants have mutually exclusive beliefs or preferences with respect to the design form and 2) low "excludability" in the sense that the designed artifact must be shared. Our paper is based on an empirical study of a commons organization created to design new school buildings. We argue that the design commons organization induced teachers to volunteer their knowledge and preferences, which otherwise would have been difficult to elicit. Although governance was a struggle, none of the cases in our sample suffered a "tragedy of the commons" in terms of budget overruns, bogged-down processes, or free riding. Using the principles of Ostrom's commons theory, we show that the design commons organization was robust, although it displayed some areas of fragility. We conclude with the rudiments of a contingency theory describing when and why a commons organization can be advantageous for design production. We also discuss design flexibility as an intervening variable that is critical in intermediating conflicts that commons organizations cannot resolve.

    Paper Information

    • Full Working Paper Text
    • Working Paper Publication Date: September 2013
    • HBS Working Paper Number: 14-025
    • Faculty Unit(s): Finance
      Trending
        • 02 Feb 2023
        • Research & Ideas

        Why We Still Need Twitter: How Social Media Holds Companies Accountable

        • 27 Jan 2023
        • Op-Ed

        Have We Lost Sight of Integrity?

        • 17 Jan 2023
        • In Practice

        8 Trends to Watch in 2023

        • 20 May 2019
        • Research & Ideas

        Activist CEOs Are Rising Up—and Their Customers Are Listening

        • 25 Jan 2022
        • Research & Ideas

        More Proof That Money Can Buy Happiness (or a Life with Less Stress)

    Carliss Y. Baldwin
    Carliss Y. Baldwin
    William L. White Professor of Business Administration, Emerita
    Contact
    Send an email
    → More Articles
    Find Related Articles
    • Organizational Design

    Sign up for our weekly newsletter

    Interested in improving your business? Learn about fresh research and ideas from Harvard Business School faculty.
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
    ǁ
    Campus Map
    Harvard Business School Working Knowledge
    Baker Library | Bloomberg Center
    Soldiers Field
    Boston, MA 02163
    Email: Editor-in-Chief
    →Map & Directions
    →More Contact Information
    • Make a Gift
    • Site Map
    • Jobs
    • Harvard University
    • Trademarks
    • Policies
    • Accessibility
    • Digital Accessibility
    Copyright © President & Fellows of Harvard College