Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:46:10.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MAKING THE MOST OF MAKERS: AN EXPLORATION OF THE NEED FOR A PROTOTYPING TOOL FOR COMPANIES TO ENGAGE WITH THE MAKER MOVEMENT

Part of: Design Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

A. J. E. Kimber ,
C. A. Hansen  and
A. G. Özkil
A. J. E. Kimber
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
C. A. Hansen*
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
A. G. Özkil
Affiliation:
DTU-Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Makers have proven to be skilled at prototyping and therefore present a unique opportunity for companies, who seek to improve their capabilities, to learn from them. In this study, a mixed methods approach was used to understand possible benefits to both companies and makers from collaborating in prototyping, and to identify a set of design considerations to guide the future development of a tool to facilitate such collaboration. Despite challenges to collaboration, a tool designed to help companies engage with makers in prototyping could be beneficial to both and should be developed.

Keywords

prototypingco-designopen innovationdesign tools
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 967 - 976
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

About - Distributed Design Market Platform (n.d.), Available at: https://distributeddesign.eu/about/ (Accessed: 28 May 2019).Google Scholar
Baldwin, C. and von Hippel, E. (2011), “Modeling a paradigm shift: From producer innovation to user and open collaborative innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 1399–1417. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonvoisin, J. and Mies, R. (2018), “Measuring Openness in Open Source Hardware with the Open-o-Meter”, Procedia CIRP. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.08.306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockhoff, K. (2003), “‘Customers’ Perspectives of Involvement in New Product Development”, Int. J. Technology Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2003.003418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Browder, R.E., Aldrich, H.E. and Bradley, S.W. (2019), “The emergence of the maker movement: Implications for entrepreneurship research”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 34 No. 3, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2019.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B. et al. (2017), “Design prototyping methods: state of the art in strategies, techniques, and guidelines”, Design Science, Vol. 3 No. 13. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B.A. et al. (2016), “The Way Makers Prototype: Principles of DIY Design”, Proceedings of the ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Volume 7: 27th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, p. V007T06A004. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2015-46295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camburn, B. and Wood, K. (2018), “Principles of maker and DIY fabrication: Enabling design prototypes at low cost”, Design Studies, Vol. 58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.04.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W. and West, J. (2006), Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Coutts, E.R., Wodehouse, A. and Robertson, J. (2019), “A Comparison of Contemporary Prototyping Methods”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19). Delft. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.137Google Scholar
Denscombe, M. (2014), The Good Research Guide: For small-scale social research projects. 5th edn. McGraw-Hill Education, New York.Google Scholar
Dervojeda, K. et al. (2014), “Design for Innovation: Co-creation design as a new way of value creation”, Business Innovation Observatory Contract, Vol. 3 No. 19, p. 1–20.Google Scholar
Dougherty, D. (2012), “‘The Maker Movement’, Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization”, MIT Press, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/inov_a_00135Google Scholar
Elsen, C. et al. (2012), “Representation in Early Stage Design: An Analysis of the Influence of Sketching and Prototyping in Design Projects”, ASME 2012 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Chicago.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, N., von Hippel, E. and Schreier, M. (2006), “Finding Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of Lead-User Theory”, Journal of Product Innovation Management. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2006.00203.xGoogle Scholar
Gasparotto, S. (2019a), “A framework analysis of the ‘open paradigm’. Four approaches to openness in the field of design”, International Association of Societies of Design Research Conference 2019. Manchester.Google Scholar
Gasparotto, S. (2019b), “Open Source, Collaboration, and Access: A Critical Analysis of ‘Openness’ in the Design Field”, Design Issues, Vol. 35 No. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gengnagel, C., Nagy, E. and Stark, R. (eds) (2016), Rethink! Prototyping: Transdisciplinary Concepts of Prototyping. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24439-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerstenberg, A., Sjöman, H. and Steinert, M. (2019), “Fixation on premature concept choices - a pitfall of early prototyping?”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 84, pp. 33–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2019.04.246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hausberg, J.P. and Spaeth, S. (2018), “Why makers make what they make: motivations to contribute to open source hardware development”, R&D Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hui, J.S. and Gerber, E.M. (2017), “Developing Makerspaces as Sites of Entrepreneurship”, Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. Portland: ACM, pp. 2023–2038, https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jensen, M.B. (2017), “Opportunities of Industry-Based Makerspaces: New Ways of Prototyping in the Fuzzy Front End”, PhD Thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology.Google Scholar
Larson, J. et al. (2017), “Makers as Adaptive Experts-in-Training: How Maker Design Practices Could Lead to the Engineers of the Future”, ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
Lauff, C.A., Kotys-Schwartz, D. and Rentschler, M.E. (2018), “What is a Prototype? What are the Roles of Prototypes in Companies?”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 140 No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4039340Google Scholar
Lauff, C., Menold, J. and Wood, K.L. (2019), “Prototyping Canvas: Design Tool for Planning Purposeful Prototypes”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED19). Delft. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leech, N.L. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2009), “A typology of mixed methods research designs”, Quality and Quantity, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neeley, W.L. Jr. et al. (2013), “Building Fast to Think Faster: Exploiting Rapid Prototyping to Accelerate Ideation During Early Stage Design”, 25th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology; ASME 2013 Power Transmission and Gearing Conference, https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2013-12635Google Scholar
Özkil, A.G. (2017), “Collective design in 3D printing: A large scale empirical study of designs, designers and evolution”, Design Studies, Vol. 51, pp. 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papavlasopoulou, S., Giannakos, M.N. and Jaccheri, L. (2016), “Empirical studies on the Maker Movement, a promising approach to learning: A literature review”, Entertainment Computing, Vol. 18, pp. 57–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.entcom.2016.09.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quinn, A.J. and Bederson, B.B. (2009), “A Taxonomy of Distributed Human Computation” Human-Computer Interaction Lab Tech Report, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Raasch, C., Herstatt, C. and Balka, K. (2009), “On the open design of tangible goods”, R&D Management, Vol. 39 No. 4, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2009.00567.xGoogle Scholar
Ratcliff, D. (n.d.), “15 Methods of Data Analysis in Qualitative Research” Available at: https://www.psychsoma.co.za/files/15methods.pdf (Accessed: 6 October 2019).Google Scholar
REMODEL (n.d.), Available at: https://remodel.dk/ (Accessed: 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Richardson, M., Elliott, S. and Haylock, B. (2013), “This home is a factory: Implications of the Maker movement on urban environments”, Craft+ design enquiry, Vol. 5, pp. 141–153, https://doi.org/10.22459/CDE.05.2013.09Google Scholar
Rieken, F. et al. (2019), “Corporate makerspaces as innovation driver in companies: a literature review-based framework”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2019-0098CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadler, J. et al. (2016), “Building Blocks of the Maker Movement: Modularity Enhances Creative Confidence During Prototyping”, Design Thinking Research. Understanding Innovation. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19641-1_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, E.B.-N. and Jan Stappers, P. (2008), “Co-creation and the new landscapes of design Co-creation and the new landscapes of design”, CoDesign, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, E.B.N. (2000), “Generative Tools for CoDesigning” , Collaborative Design, Springer, London, pp. 3–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Service Specifications | Service Design Tools (n.d.), Available at: https://servicedesigntools.org/tools/service-specifications (Accessed: 9 October 2019).Google Scholar
Singh, S.P. (2018), “Lessons From the Maker Movement”, MIT Sloan. Available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/lessons-from-the-maker-movement/ (Accessed: 1 June 2019).Google Scholar
Smyth, M. and Helgason, I. (2017), “Making and unfinishedness: Designing Toolkits for Negotiation”, The Design Journal, Vol. 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352899CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wall, M.B., Ulrich, K.T. and Flowers, W.C. (1992), “Evaluating Prototyping Technologies for Product Design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 3 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. and Zamberlan, L. (2015), “Design for an Unknown Future: Amplified Roles for Collaboration, New Design Knowledge, and Creativity”, Design Issues, Vol. 31 No. 2. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00318CrossRefGoogle Scholar