Emergence of Home Manufacturing in the Developed World: Return on Investment for Open-Source 3-D Printers[edit | edit source]

Petersen, E. E., & Pearce, J. (2017). Emergence of Home Manufacturing in the Developed World: Return on Investment for Open-Source 3-D Printers. Technologies, 5(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies5010007

  • Abstractː Through reduced 3-D printer cost, increased usability, and greater material selection, additive manufacturing has transitioned from business manufacturing to the average prosumer. This study serves as a representative model for the potential future of 3-D printing in the average American household by employing a printer operator who was relatively unfamiliar with 3-D printing and the 3-D design files of common items normally purchased by the average consumer. Twenty-six items were printed in thermoplastic and a cost analysis was performed through comparison to comparable, commercially available products at a low and high price range. When compared to the low-cost items, investment in a 3-D printer represented a return of investment of over 100% in five years. The simple payback time for the high-cost comparison was less than 6 months, and produced a 986% return. Thus, fully-assembled commercial open source 3-D printers can be highly profitable investments for American consumers. Finally, as a preliminary gauge of the effect that widespread prosumer use of 3-D printing might have on the economy, savings were calculated based on the items' download rates from open repositories. Results indicate that printing these selected items have already saved prosumers over $4 million by substituting for purchases.
  • Economies of scale lowers general cost for consumer (P1, [8])
  • Traditional 3-D is mainly trying to expand their business (P2, [14])
  • Rep-Rap 3-D printer (P2, [16-21])
  • 3-D printer profits average American owner, three-tired modes of operation (P2, [25])
  • Average personnel may not be able to operate a 3-D printer (P2, [25, 27, 28])
  • Financial saving is not the only factor motivating consumers (P2)
  • Big ROI is seen even with cheap equiv (P9)
  • AM eliminate cost from traditional purchasing (P9, [60-62])
  • Process of 3-D printing is seen to be enjoyable (P9, [68])
  • DIY may harm taxation and employment (P9)
  • Increase in AM units sale (P10, [70])
  • Improvements are seen to aid accessibility and economy for consumer (P10, [25])
  • 2 million designs on YouMagine and Thingiverse (P10, [71])
  • Patent law, intellectual trademarks (P10, [72])
  • 26 common example yield a value over 4m dollars (P11)

Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers[edit | edit source]

Wittbrodt, B. T., Glover, A. G., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G. C., Oppliger, D., Irwin, J. L., & Pearce, J. M. (2013). Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers. Mechatronics, 23(6), 713–726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2013.06.002

  • Abstractː The recent development of open-source 3-D printers makes scaling of distributed additive-based manufacturing of high-value objects technically feasible and offers the potential for widespread proliferation of mechatronics education and participation. These self-replicating rapid prototypers (RepRaps) can manufacture approximately half of their own parts from sequential fused deposition of polymer feedstocks. RepRaps have been demonstrated for conventional prototyping and engineering, customizing scientific equipment, and appropriate technology-related manufacturing for sustainable development. However, in order for this technology to proliferate like 2-D electronic printers have, it must be economically viable for a typical household. This study reports on the life-cycle economic analysis (LCEA) of RepRap technology for an average US household. A new low-cost RepRap is described and the costs of materials and time to construct it are quantified. The economic costs of a selection of 20 open-source printable designs (representing less than 0.02% of those available), are typical of products that a household might purchase, are quantified for print time, energy, and filament consumption and compared to low and high Internet market prices for similar products without shipping costs. The results show that even making the extremely conservative assumption that the household would only use the printer to make the selected 20 products a year the avoided purchase cost savings would range from about $300 to $2000/year. Assuming the 25 h of necessary printing for the selected products is evenly distributed throughout the year these savings provide a simple payback time for the RepRap in 4 months to 2 years and provide an ROI between >200% and >40%. As both upgrades and the components that are most likely to wear out in the RepRap can be printed and thus the lifetime of the distributing manufacturing can be substantially increased the unavoidable conclusion from this study is that the RepRap is an economically attractive investment for the average US household already. It appears clear that as RepRaps improve in reliability, continue to decline in cost and both the number and assumed utility of open-source designs continues growing exponentially, open-source 3-D printers will become a mass-market mechatronic device.
  • Third industrial revolution (P1, [9])
  • Orthotics (P7)
  • Local printer shop (P7)
  • Per-item based manufacturing (P8)
  • Education enhancement P2P (P8)

216 Million Americans Are Scientifically Illiterate (Part I)[edit | edit source]

Duncan, D. E. (2007). 216 Million Americans are scientifically illiterate (Part I). MIT Technology Review. Retrieved November, 9, 2015.

  • Disparity in basic scientific knowledge between groups of people

Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Distributed Three-Dimensional Printing and Conventional Manufacturing of Polymer Products[edit | edit source]

Kreiger, M., & Pearce, J. M. (2013). Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Distributed Three-Dimensional Printing and Conventional Manufacturing of Polymer Products. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, 1(12), 1511–1519. https://doi.org/10.1021/sc400093k

  • Abstractː With the recent development of the RepRap, an open-source self-replicating rapid prototyper, low-cost three-dimensional (3D) printing is now a technically viable form of distributed manufacturing of polymer-based products. However, the aggregate environmental benefits of distributed manufacturing are not clear due to scale reductions and the potential for increases in embodied energy. To quantify the environmental impact of distributed manufacturing using 3D printers, a life cycle analysis was performed on three plastic products. The embodied energy and emissions from conventional large-scale production in low-labor cost countries and shipping are compared to experimental measurements on a RepRap with and without solar photovoltaic (PV) power fabricating products with acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid (PLA). The results indicate that the cumulative energy demand of manufacturing polymer products can be reduced by 41–64% (55–74% with PV) and concomitant emission reductions using distributed manufacturing with existing low-cost open-source 3D printers when using <25% fill PLA. Less pronounced positive environmental results are observed with ABS, which demands higher temperatures for the print bed and extruder. Overall, the results indicate that distributed manufacturing using open-source 3D printers has the potential to have a lower environmental impact than conventional manufacturing for a variety of products.
  • Increase in energy in small volume production (P2)
  • Shipping fee included to compare the distributed manufacturing (P2)
  • PLA or other material have minimal environmental impact (P2, [22])
  • Expand the accessibility of AW using PV (P4)
  • AM unit's energy efficiency (P7)
  • Recycling of filament (P7)
  • Inclusion of labor cost in comparison (P7)
  • Access of OS designs for AM unit owner (P8)
  • Classic network effect (P8)

From consumer to prosumer: a supply chain revolution in 3D printing[edit | edit source]

Halassi, S., Semeijn, J., & Kiratli, N. (2018). From consumer to prosumer: a supply chain revolution in 3D printing. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 49(2), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-03-2018-0139

  • Abstractː

Recent technological advances in three-dimensional printing (3DP) may disrupt traditional manufacturing and logistics processes. Because the increasing availability of 3DP service centers, affordable 3D printers, and online platforms empower consumers to design and print objects at home, companies must determine the motives that lead consumers to become prosumers so that they can establish appropriate business models and supply chains. Accordingly, the purpose of this paper is to identify factors that drive consumer acceptance and use of 3DP technologies.

The explanatory conceptual framework, based on the extended unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, undergoes empirical testing with a sample of 196 3DP consumers who participated in an online survey.

Facilitating conditions, hedonic motivation and a do-it-yourself mentality are key determinants of consumer acceptance and use intention of 3DP technology.

Companies can use these insights about consumers' motivation to determine whether their use of 3DP technology threatens current business models or supply chains. In turn, they can develop new ideas about how to adapt these features, as well as identify opportunities for new revenue streams.

Unlike most extant literature on 3DP in manufacturing and logistics domains, this study takes consumers' point of view to shed light on an issue typically investigated from an operations management perspective.

  • Consumer to prosumer (P3, Rayna et al.)
  • Prosumerism is encouraged (P3, Xie et al.)
  • Supply chain face challenge? (P4, Tjahjono et al.)
  • UTAUT2 & UTAUT (P4, Venkatesh et al.)
  • The technology acceptance model (TAM) (P4, Davis)
  • The theory of reasoned action (TRA) (P4, Ajzen and Fishbein)
  • 3DP is at its early stage of product life cycle (PLC) (P12)
  • 3DP super centers (P14)
  • Pay-per-use platforms / owning a 3DP (P14)
  • Intellectual property rights or copyright law (P14)
  • Lack of underrepresented groups (P14)
  • Access to academic journal shifts to an OS style (P14)

Co-creation and user innovation: The role of online 3D printing platforms[edit | edit source]

Rayna, T., Striukova, L., & Darlington, J. (2015). Co-creation and user innovation: The role of online 3D printing platforms. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37, 90–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.07.002

  • Abstractː The aim of this article is to investigate the changes brought about by online 3D printing platforms in co-creation and user innovation. As doing so requires a thorough understanding of the level of user involvement in productive processes and a clear view of the nature of co-creative processes, this article provides a 'prosumption' framework and a typology of co-creation activities. Then, based on case studies of 22 online 3D printing platforms, a service-based taxonomy of these platforms is constructed. The taxonomy and typology are then matched to investigate the role played by online 3D platforms in regard to the various types of co-creation activities and, consequently, how this impacts user innovation.
  • Co-creation (between firm and consumers) and mass-customization (P1, Lettl, 2007)
  • Ideas from consumers (P2, Christensen, 1997; von Hippel, 1988) to co-creation (P2, Nambisan, 2002)
  • Outside-in ideas (P2, Berthon et al., 2007; Bogers et al., 2010; Poetz and Schreier, 2012)
  • Inside-out paths (P2, Baldwin and von Hippel, 2006; Shah and Tripsas, 2007)
  • Co-creation ≠ innovation (P2)
  • Consumers and their devices are assets to firms (P4, Teece,1986; Stieglitz and Heine, 2007; Rayna and Striukova, 2009)
  • 3DP enables contribution from consumers in production (P4)
  • Crowdsourcing
  • 3DP sites enable user to innovate (P12)
  • Society gain from user activities (P12)
  • Some platforms lack functionalities to capture advantages (P13)

Trying to prosume: toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value[edit | edit source]

Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume: toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value. Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, 36(1), 109-122.

  • Abstractː One important aspect in the service-dominant logic in marketing is the role of customers as co-creators of value. This role typically involves producing products for own consumption, i.e. what Toffler referred to as "prosumption." This study explores the motivational mechanisms underlying people's prosumption propensity. A theoretical framework that incorporates ideas from value research and attitude theory, specifically the "theory of trying" (Bagozzi and Warshaw in Journal of Consumer Research 17:127–140, 1990), is developed and tested in the empirical context of food prosumption. The results based on a survey of 380 households show that global values influence domain-specific values in food prosumption, and domain-specific values then affect attitudes, self-efficacy, and on-going behavior before ultimately shaping intentions to engage in prosumption in the future.
  • Customer is a part time employee (P1, Bowers et al., 1990)
  • Co-creation of value (P2, Lusch and Vargo, 2006: 284)
  • Goods-dominant logic
  • Prosumption is not only economical (P3, Becker)
  • Subjective experiences, objective existence (P4)
  • Prosumption may not lead to boring repetition (P8)
  • Attitude toward success and process, self-efficacy (P10)

User involvement competence for radical innovation[edit | edit source]

Lettl, C. (2007). User involvement competence for radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 24(1), 53–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2007.01.004

  • Abstractː One important market related capability for firms which seek to develop radical innovations is the competence to involve the 'right' users at the 'right' time in the 'right' form. While former studies have identified a rather passive role of users in the radical innovation process, this paper focuses on the involvement of such users that are in the position to play an active role as inventors and (co)-developers. A multiple case study analysis was conducted in the field of medical technology. Five radical innovation projects within four firms were selected including medical robots and computer-assisted navigation systems. The case study analysis reveals that firms who closely interact with specific users benefit significantly for their radical innovation work. These users have a high motivation toward new solutions, are open to new technologies, possess diverse competencies, and are embedded into a very supportive environment.
  • Gain for manufacturing firms from inventive users (P8)
  • Intrinsic motivation (P10, Csikszentmihalyi, 1988)
  • Retention of manufacturers to adopt user's ideas to minimize risks (P13)
  • Radical innovation to market (P13)
  • Ties between users and user to firm (P15)
  • Radical and incremental innovations (P15)
  • User pyramids (P17, swell model)

Ford Motor | 2020 Global 500. (n.d.). Fortune. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from https://fortune.com/company/ford-motor/global500/[edit | edit source]

3D printing in the laboratory: Maximize time and funds with customized and open-source labware[edit | edit source]

Coakley, M., & Hurt, D. E. (2016). 3D Printing in the Laboratory: Maximize Time and Funds with Customized and Open-Source Labware. Journal of Laboratory Automation, 21(4), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/2211068216649578

  • Abstractː 3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is the computer-guided process of fabricating physical objects by depositing successive layers of material. It has transformed manufacturing across virtually every industry, bringing about incredible advances in research and medicine. The rapidly growing consumer market now includes convenient and affordable "desktop" 3D printers. These are being used in the laboratory to create custom 3D-printed equipment, and a growing community of designers are contributing open-source, cost-effective innovations that can be used by both professionals and enthusiasts. User stories from investigators at the National Institutes of Health and the biomedical research community demonstrate the power of 3D printing to save valuable time and funding. While adoption of 3D printing has been slow in the biosciences to date, the potential is vast. The market predicts that within several years, 3D printers could be commonplace within the home; with so many practical uses for 3D printing, we anticipate that the technology will also play an increasingly important role in the laboratory.
  • Savings in medical field and prototyping (P4)
  • Time saving (P4)

Consumer additive manufacturing or 3D printing adoption: an exploratory study[edit | edit source]

Steenhuis, H.-J., & Pretorius, L. (2016). Consumer additive manufacturing or 3D printing adoption: an exploratory study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 27(7), 990–1012. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2016-0002

  • Abstractː

The purpose of this paper is to explore what underlies the development of the consumer 3D printing industry and gain insight into future developments and its potentially disruptive impact on the existing manufacturing industry.

A combination of approaches was followed. Initially a consumer 3D printer was purchased to gain first-hand experience as part of a practical research case study. Results were discussed with manufacturers and additional information was sought, and triangulated, via a survey and an exploratory bibliometric study.

Many characteristics are in place to identify consumer 3D printing as a potential disruptive technology for the manufacturing industry. For example, the cost of consumer 3D printing is lower than for traditional manufacturing. However, the current adoption rate is low and the user friendliness and technological capabilities need to improve.

The main limitation is the exploratory nature of the study which does not allow generalizations.

If developments and adoption patterns continue, then traditional manufacturing industries, distribution channels and the transportation sector may become threatened.

Technological advances in consumer manufacturing can potentially threaten several economic sectors, which can lead to loss of jobs and affect budgets of states of countries that depend on sales tax.

One of the first studies to employ experiments in combination with other methods to gain insight into adoption patterns and the disruptive nature of consumer 3D printers specifically, rather than industrial 3D printers or new business models as a result of 3D printing technology.

  • Disruptive technology (P3, Dawson, 2014; Hyman, 2011; Lipson, 2014; Merrill, 2014; Potstada et al., 2016; Soubra, 2013; Sung-Won, 2013)
  • Disruption in broader term and in technical definition (P3)
  • Finished product not colored
  • Low adoption rate compare to home PC (P17)
  • Inclusion of labor cost and depreciation in industries (P18, Atzeni et al., 2010; Atzeni and Salmi, 2012; Wittbrodt et al., 2013)
  • Savings and ROI (P18, Wittbrodt et al., 2013)
  • Customization (P19, Bozkurt, 2012)
  • AM unit individual holder and manufacturers holder (P19, Bogers et al., 2016)
  • Adopter ideal types (P19, Rogers, 1995)
  • Low user-friendliness (P19)
  • Limitation in injection molding (P20)

From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: How 3D printing is changing business model innovation[edit | edit source]

Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2016). From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: How 3D printing is changing business model innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 214–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.023

  • Abstractː There is a growing consensus that 3D printing technologies will be one of the next major technological revolutions. While a lot of work has already been carried out as to what these technologies will bring in terms of product and process innovation, little has been done on their impact on business models and business model innovation. Yet, history has shown that technological revolution without adequate business model evolution is a pitfall for many businesses. In the case of 3D printing, the matter is further complicated by the fact that adoption of these technologies has occurred in four successive phases (rapid prototyping, rapid tooling, digital manufacturing, home fabrication) that correspond to a different level of involvement of 3D printing in the production process. This article investigates the effect of each phase on the key business model components. While the impact of rapid prototyping and rapid tooling is found to be limited in extent, direct manufacturing and, even more so, home fabrication have the potential to be highly disruptive. While much more value can be created, capturing value can become extremely challenging. Hence, finding a suitable business model is critical. To this respect, this article shows that 3D printing technologies have the potential to change the way business model innovation is carried out, by enabling adaptive business models and by bringing the 'rapid prototyping' paradigm to business model innovation itself.
  • Rapid prototyping, then, 3DP (P3)
  • Time savings of 3DP (P3, Hiemenz, 2013; Zonder and Sella, 2013)
  • Owner's identity of 3-D printers (P3, Wholers, 2013)
  • Other disruptive technologies (P3)
  • Local printshop, like internet café (P4)
  • Made to stock / made to demand (P5, Zonder and Sella, 2013)
  • Target heterogenous market segments (P5)
  • Increase competitivity of firm (P6, Calia et al., 2007)
  • Elimination of volume requirement (P6)
  • Advantageous in heterogeneous production
  • Alternation of distribution channel & cost structure (P6)
  • Low value items, cost more to storage (P6)
  • Minimum order quantity
  • Platform intermediaries (P6, Giaglis et al., 2002)
  • Legal issues in direct manufacturing (P7)
  • Adoption of 3DP leads to value creation (P7)
  • Web 2.0, prosumer (P7, Tapscott and Williams, 2006)
  • Companies face changes of their business model (P7)
  • Adaptiveness of 3DP (P7)
  • Hasbro pony figurine (P8)
  • Prototype business model (P8)
  • Disruptive radical business innovation (P9, Voelpel et al., 2004)
  • Radical innovation may not be disruptive (P10, Rayna and Striukova, 2009)

Everyday making: identifying future uses for 3D printing in the home[edit | edit source]

Shewbridge, R., Hurst, A., & Kane, S. K. (2014). Everyday making: identifying future uses for 3D printing in the home. Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems, 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598544

  • Abstractː Low-cost and commercially available 3D printers are predicted to be the next disruptive innovation in technology. However, little research has examined how non-designers might interact with fabrication tools in their homes. To explore the potential uses of 3D printers and other fabrication devices in the home, we conducted a study in which 10 households (with 28 individuals) kept a faux 3D printer in their homes for four weeks. Participants kept a log of items that they would want to print, and completed a series of design probes. We found that participants' use of the fabrication tools involved three activities: replicating existing objects, modifying and customizing existing objects, and creating new custom objects. Our study also provides insights on the types of objects that individuals wish to create, and how the faux 3D printer was situated in our participants' homes.
  • DIY and 3DP (P2, [5, 10-12])
  • Replacing broken objects (P9)
  • Scanning tool to generate model (P9)

Impact of DIY Home Manufacturing with 3D Printing on the Toy and Game Market[edit | edit source]

Petersen, E. E., Kidd, R. W., & Pearce, J. M. (2017). Impact of DIY Home Manufacturing with 3D Printing on the Toy and Game Market. Technologies, 5(3), 45. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies5030045

  • Abstractː The 2020 toy and game market is projected to be US$135 billion. To determine if 3D printing could affect these markets if consumers offset purchases by 3D printing free designs, this study investigates the 100 most popular downloaded designs at MyMiniFactory in a month. Savings are quantified for using a Lulzbot Mini 3D printer and three filament types: commercial filament, pellet-extruded filament, and post-consumer waste converted to filament with a recyclebot. Case studies probed the quality of: (1) six common complex toys; (2) Lego blocks; and (3) the customizability of open source board games. All filaments analyzed saved the user over 75% of the cost of commercially available true alternative toys and over 90% for recyclebot filament. Overall, these results indicate a single 3D printing repository among dozens is saving consumers well over $60 million/year in offset purchases. The most common savings fell by 40%–90% in total savings, which came with the ability to make novel toys and games. The results of this study show consumers can generate higher value items for less money using the open source distributed manufacturing paradigm. It appears clear that consumer do-it-yourself (DIY) manufacturing is set to have a significant impact on the toy and game markets in the future.
  • Peer-production (P1, [8])
  • 3DP boosts sales of board game (P6, [45])
  • Infill percent influences cost (P11, [52, 53])
  • Failed prints (P16, [20])
  • Potential disruption to the current market (P16)
  • Assembly time of 3-D printed parts (P17)
  • Compatibility of the customized items (P13)

Decentralization and Localization of Production: The Organizational and Economic Consequences of Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing)[edit | edit source]

Ben-Ner, A., & Siemsen, E. (2017). Decentralization and Localization of Production: The Organizational and Economic Consequences of Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing). California Management Review, 59(2), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125617695284

  • Abstractː The future organizational landscape may change drastically by mid-century as a result of widespread implementation of 3D printing. This article argues that global will turn local; mega (factories, ships, malls) will become mini; long supply chains will shrink; many jobs will be broadened to combine design, consulting, sales, and production roles; and large organizations will make room for smaller ones. "A once-shuttered warehouse is now a state-of-the art lab where new workers are mastering the 3D printing that has the potential to revolutionize the way we make almost everything." [President Obama, State of the Union Address, 2013].
  • Efficiency and flexibility of smaller firms (P3)
  • Relative small investment compare to traditional manufacturing (P5)
  • Amortization with large volume in traditional manufacturing (P5)
  • Wide range of application on products (P5)
  • Scope over scale in AM (P5)
  • Proximity of AM (P6)
  • Economies of scale
  • Hearing aids (P9, [23])
  • Industries not disrupted (P13)
  • Local 3DP shops (P14)
  • Production leans to customers instead of firms (P15)
  • Decrease of critical lead time from AM (P16)
  • Safety and legal issues of AM (P16)
  • Technology barrier to users (P

3D printing community and emerging practices of peer production[edit | edit source]

Moilanen, J., & Vadén, T. (2013). 3D printing community and emerging practices of peer production. First Monday. https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v18i8.4271

  • Abstractː Based on the results of a 2012 survey on people doing 3D printing, we present results on the demographics and self-identification of the community, as well as describing participants' printing activity. Combining results from the survey with insights from research literature, we analyse emerging patterns and practices of 3D printing as a subdivision of a more general trend of physical peer production, and, even, of a revolution in manufacturing, as predicted by several theorists.
  • OS aiding AM (P3)
  • Friction of physical products and lack of commons (P9)
  • Maker movement and peer production (P26)
  • Lack of organization extends issues (P27, Schweik, 2013)
  • Differ from the commons-based production is FOSS (P31)

Commons-based peer production and digital fabrication: The case of a RepRap-based, Lego-built 3D printing-milling machine[edit | edit source]

Kostakis, V., & Papachristou, M. (2014). Commons-based peer production and digital fabrication: The case of a RepRap-based, Lego-built 3D printing-milling machine. Telematics and Informatics, 31(3), 434–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2013.09.006

  • Abstractː Through the case of the RepRap-based, Lego-built three-dimensional (3D) printing-milling machine, this paper sets out to discuss and illustrate two points: First, on a theoretical level, that modularity, not only in terms of development process but also of hardware components, can catalyze Commons-based peer production's (CBPP) replication for tangible products enabling social experimentation and learning. Second, the hybrid 3D printing-milling machine demonstrates the digitization of material and the potential of digital fabrication. We show how the synergy of a globally accessible knowledge Commons as well as of the CBPP practices with digital fabrication technologies, which are advancing and becoming more and more accessible, can arguably offer the ability to think globally and produce locally.
  • Modularity in commons-based peer production (CBPP) (P2, Benkler, 2006; Bauwens, 2005; Tapscott and Williams, 2006; Dafermos and Söderberg, 2009)
  • Voxel-based (P3, Hiller and Lipson, 2009; Hiller et al., 2011)
  • "Think global produce local" (P3, Gershenfeld, 2007; 2012)
  • Sustainability of AM distribution (P3, Hazeltine and Bull, 1998)
  • Stigmergic collaboration (P8, Elliott, 2006)

The new industrial revolution[edit | edit source]

Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55(2), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003

  • Abstractː This article examines the characteristics and applications of 3-D printing and compares it with mass customization and other manufacturing processes. 3-D printing enables small quantities of customized goods to be produced at relatively low costs. While currently used primarily to manufacture prototypes and mockups, a number of promising applications exist in the production of replacement parts, dental crowns, and artificial limbs, as well as in bridge manufacturing. 3-D printing has been compared to such disruptive technologies as digital books and music downloads that enable consumers to order their selections online, allow firms to profitably serve small market segments, and enable companies to operate with little or no unsold finished goods inventory. Some experts have also argued that 3-D printing will significantly reduce the advantages of producing small lot sizes in low-wage countries via reduced need for factory workers.
  • Customization as delayed differentiation (P2, Berman, 2002)
  • Traditional customization requires existing components (P2)
  • Paid then produced (P3)
  • Low waste for AM (P3)
  • Recycle in AM material (P3, Petrovic et al., 2011)
  • Savings in terms of prototyping for firms (P6, Timberland)
  • Trace old designs easily (P7)

Prosumption perspectives on additive manufacturing: reconfiguration of consumer products with 3D printing[edit | edit source]

Yoo, B., Ko, H., & Chun, S. (2016). Prosumption perspectives on additive manufacturing: reconfiguration of consumer products with 3D printing. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 22(4), 691–705. https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-01-2015-0004

  • Abstractː

This paper aims to examine the changing backdrop of the consumer market in relation to three-dimensional (3D) printing, especially in the context of Web infrastructure that connects consumers and producers with unprecedented diversity and scale and Web 2.0 user-created content in the material domain.

The paper presents a conceptual architecture and software platform that facilitates do-it-yourself reconfiguration of existing products incorporating 3D printing, mobile 3D sensor, augmented reality (AR) and Web technologies.

This work shows that prosumer reconfiguration of consumer products is the major paradigm in the era of democratized production. The results suggest that this approach may be used in the consumer market to meet consumer preferences for adopting innovations without redundant consumption.

Verification of the proposed conceptual approach is limited to the use of household consumer products. A critical mass of participants and product information are both necessary to achieve a sustainable ecosystem from the proposed platform. Intellectual property issues rely on the fair use of end-user production in this paper.

The proposed approach allows users to swap out consumer product parts or upgrade individual modules as innovations emerge, extending the lifecycles of consumer products and potentially reducing consumer waste.

There is a lack of work on facilitating the proliferation of practical 3D printing through prosumption in relation to existing consumer products. This paper's scientific contribution involves how 3D printing affords social manufacturing and consumer-oriented presumption in conjunction with mobile 3D sensor, AR, and Web technologies.

  • Web 2.0 and prosumption (P2)
  • Online makers (P4, Anderson, 2012)
  • Maker community on Thingiverse (P4, Greenberg, 2012)
  • Social manufacturing (P4, Feiyue, 2012)
  • Modification and sharing (P4, Santoso and Wicker, 2014)
  • Third party printing service for manufacturing (P4)
  • Difference between firm production and CBPP (P4, Benkler and Nissenbaum, 2006)
  • Uber as a prosumption
  • Reconfigurability (p6, Haldaman and Parkinson, 2010)
FA info icon.svg Angle down icon.svg Page data
Authors JUNYU QIAN
License CC-BY-SA-4.0
Language English (en)
Related 1 subpages, 2 pages link here
Impact 241 page views
Created May 13, 2021 by JUNYU QIAN
Modified April 14, 2023 by Felipe Schenone
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.