View
1.997
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Presentation at the 2012 Artilect Conference, Toulouse, 19 Oct 2012
Citation preview
Open Source in Distributed Manufacturing
Peter Troxler conference2012.ar=lect.fr
19 Oct 2012
Peter Troxler • Research Professor – 3rd Industrial Revolu=on
Hogeschool RoFerdam • Industrial Engineer
– PhD 1999 – Factory Automa=on – Knowledge Management / Research
• Community – Fringe theater company and arts fes=vals (1990s; 2000s) – Knowledge management researchers (2000s)
• Fab Lab – 2008/09 Fab Lab Amsterdam – 2010 Fab6 – Fab Lab Luzern (Switzerland), RoFerdam (NL) – Interna=onal Fab Lab Associa=on – FabLab Zürich
Industrial Revolu=on
• Neil Gershenfeld, 2005: Fab. The Coming Revolu=on on Your Desktop
• Jeremy Riain, 2011: The Third Industrial Revolu=on. How Lateral Power is Transforming Energy, the Economy, and the World.
• Chris Anderson, 2012: Makers: The New Industrial Revolu=on
Neil Gershenfeld
[P]ossession of the means for industrial production has long been the
dividing line between workers and owners. But if those means are easily
acquired, and designs freely shared, then hardware is likely to follow the
evolution of software. Like its software counterpart, opensource
hardware is starting with simple fabrication functions, while nipping at
the heels of complacent companies that don’t believe that personal
fabrication “toys” can do the work of their “real” machines. That
boundary will recede until today’s marketplace evolves into a continuum
from creators to consumers, servicing markets ranging from one to one
billion. (FAB. The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop, 2005, p.21)
A con=nuum from creators to consumers, servicing markets ranging from one to one billion
(Gershenfeld 2005)
Neil Gershenfeld
hFp://www.ted.com/talks/neil_gershenfeld_on_fab_labs.html
Neil Gershenfeld
[T]he killer app for personal fabrication in the developed world is
technology for a market of one, personal expression in technology (…).
And the killer app for the rest of the planet is [to overcome] the
instrumentation and the fabrication divide, people locally developing
solutions to local problems. (TED talk, 2006)
There are at least two issues to be considered
«Hardware is Hard»
It would be naïve to believe that open source software practices could be
simply copied and applied to the manufacturing domain without any
alteration or adaptation, ignoring the constraints and opportunities that
the materiality of hardware entails. (Troxler, 2011, p. 89)
Eric Steven Raymond
The Cathedral and the Bazaar (2000) Linux is subversive.
Linus Torvalds’s style of development—release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity—came as a surprise.
cathedral … carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation
a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (…) out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles
Open Source Hardware
Hardware is a
Broad Term
Inherent Openness
Moularity
Material Costs
Jeremy Riain
1st revolu=on Automa=c prin=ng press
Steam-‐powered technology
19th century
3rd revolu=on Internet Renewables Smart buildings Smart grid E-‐mobility
2nd revolu=on Electrical com-‐munica=on
Oil-‐powered combus=on engine
20th century
Jeremy Riain
• Oil Price June 2008 – 147 US$ per barrel all other prices went up purchasing power collapsed
• 25 years of 6-‐7 cycles growth/collaps, every =me the oil price hits 125…150 US$/barrel
Jeremy Riain
hFp://ec.europa.eu/avservices/video/player.cfm?sitelang=en&ref=85716
Jeremy Riain
[T]he conventional top-down organization of society that characterized
much of the economic, social, and political life of the fossil-fuel based
industrial revolutions is giving way to distributed and collaborative
relationships in the emerging green industrial era. We are in the midst of
a profound shift in the very way society is structured, away from
hierarchical power and toward lateral power. (Rifkin 2011, p. 36f.)
Makers in Fab Labs on the one hand are busy with their own
manufacturing projects and make use of their lateral relations as needed
but do not normally bother about the organization of those relationships
beyond those just-in- time needs. Occasionally they wish for better, more
effective access to resources in the network. So far, however, they have
only come up with very few sustainable and scalable ways to create new
ways of organizing distributed personal manufacturing—organization
and governance is not their core interest.
Institutions on the other hand are more concerned about organization,
structures and governance, yet their solutions tend to be of conventional,
hierarchical, top-down nature: centralized cathedral structures.
Moreover, those solutions risk counteracting lateral approaches,
suffocating emergent peer-to-peer initiatives—and they fail to get
accepted by the makers.
Neil Gershenfeld
The message coming from the fab lab is that the other five billion people
on the planet aren’t just technical sinks, they are sources. The real
opportunity is to harness the inventive power of the world to locally
design and produce solutions to local problems. I thought that’s a
projection twenty years hence into the future, but it’s where we are
today. It breaks every organizational boundary we can think of. The
hardest thing at this point is the social engineering and the
organizational engineering, but it’s here today
Commons is needed • Ostrom, Vincent, and Ostrom, Elinor (1977). Public Goods and Public Choices • Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. • David C. Stark (2001). Ambiguous Assets for Uncertain Environments: Heterarchy
in Postsocialist Firms. • Hess & Ostrom (eds). 2007 Understanding Knowledge as a Commons. From Theory
to Prac=ce. • Sieaes, Chris=an. 2008. “From Exchange to Contribu=ons. Generalizing Peer
Produc=on Into the Physical World.” Berlin: Sieae. • Dobusch & Quack (2010). Managing Boundaries between Organiza=ons and
Communi=es: Comparing Crea=ve Commons and Wikimedia. • Egyedi and Mehos (2012) Inverse Infrastructures. Disrup=ng Networks from
Below. Cheltenham: Edgar Elgar • Thomson & Taipo (2012). Design for Growth and Prosperity. Report and
Recommenda=ons of the European Design Leadership Board. Brussels: DG Enterprise and Industry of the European Commission.
IAD
confusion’’ (Oakerson 1978, p. 50). The twomain resources required for problem solving, hecontinued, are theory and information. Scholarsassociated with the Workshop in PoliticalTheory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni-versity have found that employing a frameworkhelps to organise analytical and prescriptiveinquiry (Gibson 2005, p. 229; Imperial andYandle 2005). The IAD framework (see Fig. 1)has been used for over three decades as thegeneral theoretical structure that scholars haveused to study a diversity of human-physicalworld relationships.
One can think of the IAD framework asscaffolding that holds a universal set of intellec-tual building blocks. This analytical tool can beused to investigate any broad subject wherehumans repeatedly interact so that rules andnorms guide their choice of strategies andbehaviour. It is quite adaptable and has beenused in hundreds of disparate subjects, such asunderstanding how best to restore the GreatLakes (Sproule-Jones 1999); monitoring fisherymanagement (Rudd 2004); analysing environ-mental governance (Myint 2005); modellingoperational decision making in public organisa-
tions (Heikkila and Isett 2004) and studying theinteractions of local irrigation systems (Lam2001). The scaffolding orients the analyst to askparticular questions about a nested set ofvariables that frequently helps one to dig into aproblem and identify why a particular distribu-tion of interactions and outcomes is generated.As such, the framework helps to more clearlymanifest human-technology-resource relation-ships and reveal how decisions and behaviourlead to outcomes. Its foundations are drawnfrom the field of political economy, whereunderstanding the effects of rules and decisionson performance is critical. A methodology suchas the IAD framework can help better under-stand knowledge gaps as well as the governanceissues.
Institutional analysis looks at the artisan-ship-artifact relationships. Policy analystVincent Ostrom has often likened this typeof analysis to the process of breadmaking wherea baker (the artisan) applies decisions andmethods in the mixing, kneading, rising, andbaking (artisanship) in order to produce a loaf ofbread (the artifact). The complexity of thecoordination, actions, and decisions increases
ACTIONARENA
Attributes of theCommunity
EvaluativeCriteria
Actors
ActionSituations
Outcomes
Patterns ofInteractions
Rules-in-Use
Bio-PhysicalCharacteristics
Figure 1. Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework
Analysing the microbiological commons 339
r UNESCO 2006.
IAD
confusion’’ (Oakerson 1978, p. 50). The twomain resources required for problem solving, hecontinued, are theory and information. Scholarsassociated with the Workshop in PoliticalTheory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni-versity have found that employing a frameworkhelps to organise analytical and prescriptiveinquiry (Gibson 2005, p. 229; Imperial andYandle 2005). The IAD framework (see Fig. 1)has been used for over three decades as thegeneral theoretical structure that scholars haveused to study a diversity of human-physicalworld relationships.
One can think of the IAD framework asscaffolding that holds a universal set of intellec-tual building blocks. This analytical tool can beused to investigate any broad subject wherehumans repeatedly interact so that rules andnorms guide their choice of strategies andbehaviour. It is quite adaptable and has beenused in hundreds of disparate subjects, such asunderstanding how best to restore the GreatLakes (Sproule-Jones 1999); monitoring fisherymanagement (Rudd 2004); analysing environ-mental governance (Myint 2005); modellingoperational decision making in public organisa-
tions (Heikkila and Isett 2004) and studying theinteractions of local irrigation systems (Lam2001). The scaffolding orients the analyst to askparticular questions about a nested set ofvariables that frequently helps one to dig into aproblem and identify why a particular distribu-tion of interactions and outcomes is generated.As such, the framework helps to more clearlymanifest human-technology-resource relation-ships and reveal how decisions and behaviourlead to outcomes. Its foundations are drawnfrom the field of political economy, whereunderstanding the effects of rules and decisionson performance is critical. A methodology suchas the IAD framework can help better under-stand knowledge gaps as well as the governanceissues.
Institutional analysis looks at the artisan-ship-artifact relationships. Policy analystVincent Ostrom has often likened this typeof analysis to the process of breadmaking wherea baker (the artisan) applies decisions andmethods in the mixing, kneading, rising, andbaking (artisanship) in order to produce a loaf ofbread (the artifact). The complexity of thecoordination, actions, and decisions increases
ACTIONARENA
Attributes of theCommunity
EvaluativeCriteria
Actors
ActionSituations
Outcomes
Patterns ofInteractions
Rules-in-Use
Bio-PhysicalCharacteristics
Figure 1. Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework
Analysing the microbiological commons 339
r UNESCO 2006.
Co-‐located, Synchronous
Distributed, Synchronous
• FabAcademy • various co-‐opera=on projects – e.g. Distributed Business Design Collabora=on, FabLab Lucerne
Distributed, Asynchronous • Fab Lab Networks – USFLN – FabLab.NL (BE, NL, LUX) – Swiss Fab Founda=on – [fablab-‐fr]
• Professional Organisa=ons – ShopBot (hFp://www.talkshopbot.com) – Ul=maker (hFp://forum.ul=maker.com) – Interna=onal Fab Lab Associa=on – LinkedIn (hFp://www.linkedin.com/groups/FabLab-‐Interest-‐Group-‐89815?trk=myg_ugrp_ovr)
• Local Organisa=ons
Resources
• hFp://wiki.fablab.is • hFp://vimeo.com/fabacademy2012 • hFp://neweez.com/broadcast/20612_Le_numero_zero
IAD
confusion’’ (Oakerson 1978, p. 50). The twomain resources required for problem solving, hecontinued, are theory and information. Scholarsassociated with the Workshop in PoliticalTheory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni-versity have found that employing a frameworkhelps to organise analytical and prescriptiveinquiry (Gibson 2005, p. 229; Imperial andYandle 2005). The IAD framework (see Fig. 1)has been used for over three decades as thegeneral theoretical structure that scholars haveused to study a diversity of human-physicalworld relationships.
One can think of the IAD framework asscaffolding that holds a universal set of intellec-tual building blocks. This analytical tool can beused to investigate any broad subject wherehumans repeatedly interact so that rules andnorms guide their choice of strategies andbehaviour. It is quite adaptable and has beenused in hundreds of disparate subjects, such asunderstanding how best to restore the GreatLakes (Sproule-Jones 1999); monitoring fisherymanagement (Rudd 2004); analysing environ-mental governance (Myint 2005); modellingoperational decision making in public organisa-
tions (Heikkila and Isett 2004) and studying theinteractions of local irrigation systems (Lam2001). The scaffolding orients the analyst to askparticular questions about a nested set ofvariables that frequently helps one to dig into aproblem and identify why a particular distribu-tion of interactions and outcomes is generated.As such, the framework helps to more clearlymanifest human-technology-resource relation-ships and reveal how decisions and behaviourlead to outcomes. Its foundations are drawnfrom the field of political economy, whereunderstanding the effects of rules and decisionson performance is critical. A methodology suchas the IAD framework can help better under-stand knowledge gaps as well as the governanceissues.
Institutional analysis looks at the artisan-ship-artifact relationships. Policy analystVincent Ostrom has often likened this typeof analysis to the process of breadmaking wherea baker (the artisan) applies decisions andmethods in the mixing, kneading, rising, andbaking (artisanship) in order to produce a loaf ofbread (the artifact). The complexity of thecoordination, actions, and decisions increases
ACTIONARENA
Attributes of theCommunity
EvaluativeCriteria
Actors
ActionSituations
Outcomes
Patterns ofInteractions
Rules-in-Use
Bio-PhysicalCharacteristics
Figure 1. Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework
Analysing the microbiological commons 339
r UNESCO 2006.
IAD
confusion’’ (Oakerson 1978, p. 50). The twomain resources required for problem solving, hecontinued, are theory and information. Scholarsassociated with the Workshop in PoliticalTheory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni-versity have found that employing a frameworkhelps to organise analytical and prescriptiveinquiry (Gibson 2005, p. 229; Imperial andYandle 2005). The IAD framework (see Fig. 1)has been used for over three decades as thegeneral theoretical structure that scholars haveused to study a diversity of human-physicalworld relationships.
One can think of the IAD framework asscaffolding that holds a universal set of intellec-tual building blocks. This analytical tool can beused to investigate any broad subject wherehumans repeatedly interact so that rules andnorms guide their choice of strategies andbehaviour. It is quite adaptable and has beenused in hundreds of disparate subjects, such asunderstanding how best to restore the GreatLakes (Sproule-Jones 1999); monitoring fisherymanagement (Rudd 2004); analysing environ-mental governance (Myint 2005); modellingoperational decision making in public organisa-
tions (Heikkila and Isett 2004) and studying theinteractions of local irrigation systems (Lam2001). The scaffolding orients the analyst to askparticular questions about a nested set ofvariables that frequently helps one to dig into aproblem and identify why a particular distribu-tion of interactions and outcomes is generated.As such, the framework helps to more clearlymanifest human-technology-resource relation-ships and reveal how decisions and behaviourlead to outcomes. Its foundations are drawnfrom the field of political economy, whereunderstanding the effects of rules and decisionson performance is critical. A methodology suchas the IAD framework can help better under-stand knowledge gaps as well as the governanceissues.
Institutional analysis looks at the artisan-ship-artifact relationships. Policy analystVincent Ostrom has often likened this typeof analysis to the process of breadmaking wherea baker (the artisan) applies decisions andmethods in the mixing, kneading, rising, andbaking (artisanship) in order to produce a loaf ofbread (the artifact). The complexity of thecoordination, actions, and decisions increases
ACTIONARENA
Attributes of theCommunity
EvaluativeCriteria
Actors
ActionSituations
Outcomes
Patterns ofInteractions
Rules-in-Use
Bio-PhysicalCharacteristics
Figure 1. Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework
Analysing the microbiological commons 339
r UNESCO 2006.
IAD
confusion’’ (Oakerson 1978, p. 50). The twomain resources required for problem solving, hecontinued, are theory and information. Scholarsassociated with the Workshop in PoliticalTheory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni-versity have found that employing a frameworkhelps to organise analytical and prescriptiveinquiry (Gibson 2005, p. 229; Imperial andYandle 2005). The IAD framework (see Fig. 1)has been used for over three decades as thegeneral theoretical structure that scholars haveused to study a diversity of human-physicalworld relationships.
One can think of the IAD framework asscaffolding that holds a universal set of intellec-tual building blocks. This analytical tool can beused to investigate any broad subject wherehumans repeatedly interact so that rules andnorms guide their choice of strategies andbehaviour. It is quite adaptable and has beenused in hundreds of disparate subjects, such asunderstanding how best to restore the GreatLakes (Sproule-Jones 1999); monitoring fisherymanagement (Rudd 2004); analysing environ-mental governance (Myint 2005); modellingoperational decision making in public organisa-
tions (Heikkila and Isett 2004) and studying theinteractions of local irrigation systems (Lam2001). The scaffolding orients the analyst to askparticular questions about a nested set ofvariables that frequently helps one to dig into aproblem and identify why a particular distribu-tion of interactions and outcomes is generated.As such, the framework helps to more clearlymanifest human-technology-resource relation-ships and reveal how decisions and behaviourlead to outcomes. Its foundations are drawnfrom the field of political economy, whereunderstanding the effects of rules and decisionson performance is critical. A methodology suchas the IAD framework can help better under-stand knowledge gaps as well as the governanceissues.
Institutional analysis looks at the artisan-ship-artifact relationships. Policy analystVincent Ostrom has often likened this typeof analysis to the process of breadmaking wherea baker (the artisan) applies decisions andmethods in the mixing, kneading, rising, andbaking (artisanship) in order to produce a loaf ofbread (the artifact). The complexity of thecoordination, actions, and decisions increases
ACTIONARENA
Attributes of theCommunity
EvaluativeCriteria
Actors
ActionSituations
Outcomes
Patterns ofInteractions
Rules-in-Use
Bio-PhysicalCharacteristics
Figure 1. Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework
Analysing the microbiological commons 339
r UNESCO 2006.
IAD
confusion’’ (Oakerson 1978, p. 50). The twomain resources required for problem solving, hecontinued, are theory and information. Scholarsassociated with the Workshop in PoliticalTheory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni-versity have found that employing a frameworkhelps to organise analytical and prescriptiveinquiry (Gibson 2005, p. 229; Imperial andYandle 2005). The IAD framework (see Fig. 1)has been used for over three decades as thegeneral theoretical structure that scholars haveused to study a diversity of human-physicalworld relationships.
One can think of the IAD framework asscaffolding that holds a universal set of intellec-tual building blocks. This analytical tool can beused to investigate any broad subject wherehumans repeatedly interact so that rules andnorms guide their choice of strategies andbehaviour. It is quite adaptable and has beenused in hundreds of disparate subjects, such asunderstanding how best to restore the GreatLakes (Sproule-Jones 1999); monitoring fisherymanagement (Rudd 2004); analysing environ-mental governance (Myint 2005); modellingoperational decision making in public organisa-
tions (Heikkila and Isett 2004) and studying theinteractions of local irrigation systems (Lam2001). The scaffolding orients the analyst to askparticular questions about a nested set ofvariables that frequently helps one to dig into aproblem and identify why a particular distribu-tion of interactions and outcomes is generated.As such, the framework helps to more clearlymanifest human-technology-resource relation-ships and reveal how decisions and behaviourlead to outcomes. Its foundations are drawnfrom the field of political economy, whereunderstanding the effects of rules and decisionson performance is critical. A methodology suchas the IAD framework can help better under-stand knowledge gaps as well as the governanceissues.
Institutional analysis looks at the artisan-ship-artifact relationships. Policy analystVincent Ostrom has often likened this typeof analysis to the process of breadmaking wherea baker (the artisan) applies decisions andmethods in the mixing, kneading, rising, andbaking (artisanship) in order to produce a loaf ofbread (the artifact). The complexity of thecoordination, actions, and decisions increases
ACTIONARENA
Attributes of theCommunity
EvaluativeCriteria
Actors
ActionSituations
Outcomes
Patterns ofInteractions
Rules-in-Use
Bio-PhysicalCharacteristics
Figure 1. Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework
Analysing the microbiological commons 339
r UNESCO 2006.
IAD
confusion’’ (Oakerson 1978, p. 50). The twomain resources required for problem solving, hecontinued, are theory and information. Scholarsassociated with the Workshop in PoliticalTheory and Policy Analysis at Indiana Uni-versity have found that employing a frameworkhelps to organise analytical and prescriptiveinquiry (Gibson 2005, p. 229; Imperial andYandle 2005). The IAD framework (see Fig. 1)has been used for over three decades as thegeneral theoretical structure that scholars haveused to study a diversity of human-physicalworld relationships.
One can think of the IAD framework asscaffolding that holds a universal set of intellec-tual building blocks. This analytical tool can beused to investigate any broad subject wherehumans repeatedly interact so that rules andnorms guide their choice of strategies andbehaviour. It is quite adaptable and has beenused in hundreds of disparate subjects, such asunderstanding how best to restore the GreatLakes (Sproule-Jones 1999); monitoring fisherymanagement (Rudd 2004); analysing environ-mental governance (Myint 2005); modellingoperational decision making in public organisa-
tions (Heikkila and Isett 2004) and studying theinteractions of local irrigation systems (Lam2001). The scaffolding orients the analyst to askparticular questions about a nested set ofvariables that frequently helps one to dig into aproblem and identify why a particular distribu-tion of interactions and outcomes is generated.As such, the framework helps to more clearlymanifest human-technology-resource relation-ships and reveal how decisions and behaviourlead to outcomes. Its foundations are drawnfrom the field of political economy, whereunderstanding the effects of rules and decisionson performance is critical. A methodology suchas the IAD framework can help better under-stand knowledge gaps as well as the governanceissues.
Institutional analysis looks at the artisan-ship-artifact relationships. Policy analystVincent Ostrom has often likened this typeof analysis to the process of breadmaking wherea baker (the artisan) applies decisions andmethods in the mixing, kneading, rising, andbaking (artisanship) in order to produce a loaf ofbread (the artifact). The complexity of thecoordination, actions, and decisions increases
ACTIONARENA
Attributes of theCommunity
EvaluativeCriteria
Actors
ActionSituations
Outcomes
Patterns ofInteractions
Rules-in-Use
Bio-PhysicalCharacteristics
Figure 1. Institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework
Analysing the microbiological commons 339
r UNESCO 2006.
Roadmap
• How to build effec=ve forms of collec=ve ac=on and self-‐organisa=on for Fab Labs?
• How to break free from tradi=onal systems and crea=vely design new systems that tap into the capabili=es of Fab Labs?
• How to protect the interests and crea=ve freedom of makers while also ensuring wide access to new knowledge, processes and products?
• How to appropriately and effec=vely create and capture value?
• How to achieve equity and fairness?
Why This is Important
• The hardest thing at this point is the social engineering and the organiza=onal engineering, but it’s here today.
• 3rd Industrial Revolu=on … away from hierarchical power and toward lateral power.
• A con=nuum from creators to consumers, servicing markets ranging from one to one billion.
FabLab is also
Prototyping Lateral Manufacturing (Commons-‐Based Peer Produc=on)
in Distributed Direct Digital
Manufacturing