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