Economic Impact of DIY Home Manufacturing of Consumer Products with Low-cost 3DP Literature Review/Emergence of Home Manufacturing in the Developed World: Return on Investment for Open-Source 3-D Printers

Peer production by persons with disabilities – opening 3D-printing aids to everybody in an inclusive MakerSpace[edit | edit source]

Bosse, I. K., & Pelka, B. (2020). Peer production by persons with disabilities – opening 3D-printing aids to everybody in an inclusive MakerSpace. Journal of Enabling Technologies, 14(1), 41–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/JET-07-2019-0037

• Abstractː

People with disabilities (PWD) produce aids using 3D printing in an inclusive MakerSpace in Germany. This study aims to demonstrate the pathways enabling people with disabilities to be "makers" of aids, creating a "medium-quality market".

This study conceptualizes the foundation of the MakerSpace as a social innovation and traces supporting and hindering factors on three different layers: normative, structural and functional contexts.

3D printing can empower PWD to design and construct aids by themselves. The emerging "medium-quality" market offers potentials for availability for individualized aids. The design-thinking method used and the developed scalable approach empower PWD to create aids that best meet their own needs. The study found three arguments for printing aids that involve 3D printers: "New": objects that are not available without a 3D printer. "Better": objects that are available through established channels but were produced either more cheaply, quickly or on a more individualized level. "More": objects that are available through other channels, but where 3D printing allows more of them to be produced for more people.

The qualitative study has limitations because of sample size and context dependency. Research has only been carried out in Germany. Future research should be conducted in other countries to generalize the results.

The article allows to understand the emergence of a new market for aids. It can steer producers (including PWD or sheltered workshops) in producing new aids and making them available to more people.

Understanding the functioning of the "new market for aids" can boost the accessibility of aids. Empowering PWD to produce aids can support their independence, self-determination and self-esteem. Supporting PWD to become producers of aids can support them in becoming experts and boost the quality and availability of aids.

All data presented has been collected by the authors.

• Maker movement (P4)
• Transfer of pedagogy (P9)

The future of three-dimensional printing: Intellectual property or intellectual confinement?[edit | edit source]

Santoso, S. M., & Wicker, S. B. (2016). The future of three-dimensional printing: Intellectual property or intellectual confinement? New Media & Society, 18(1), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814538647

• Abstractː For the first 25 years, three-dimensional printing was the domain of industrial manufacturing and engineering. Through the open-source movement and peer production, this disruptive technology has become more widely available. This article considers how the future development and use of three-dimensional printing may be facilitated or inhibited through intellectual property law and practice. Using a combination of technical, legal, and policy analysis, we conclude that the potential for patent infringement is a primary issue in the continued development of three-dimensional printing technology. When it comes to the printed objects themselves, copyright issues will be the main focus of this debate. As these issues become more pervasive, some copyright holders will find technology-based solutions to enforce copyright laws and restrict printing activities. A common recourse is digital rights management as a means for protecting intellectual property, but its use has the potential for imposing unnecessarily stringent limitations on the use of three-dimensional printing.
• Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Creative Commons (CC), open source nature of 3DP (P2)
• Proliferation of 3DP (P3, Leadbeater, 2005; Shirky, 2005; Zwick et al., 2008)
• Include consumers in production (P3, Zwick et al., 2008: 184–187)
• Crowdsourced prosumption (P3, Ritzer and Jurgenson, 2010: 14)
• Participatory culture, new form of a citizenship (P4, Jenkins, 2009)
• Sharing of ideas informally (P4, Kuznetsov and Paulos, 2010: 9)
• Compensation for prosumers (p4, Zwick et al., 2008: 184–187)
• FOSS as a form of freedom of expression (P11, Coleman, 2009: 421–422)
• Stagnation of adopting DRM (P13, Proffitt, 2012)

Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer.'[edit | edit source]

Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer.' Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673

• Abstractː This article deals with the rise of prosumer capitalism. Prosumption involves both production and consumption rather than focusing on either one (production) or the other (consumption). It is maintained that earlier forms of capitalism (producer and consumer capitalism) were themselves characterized by prosumption. Given the recent explosion of user-generated content online, we have reason to see prosumption as increasingly central. In prosumer capitalism, control and exploitation take on a different character than in the other forms of capitalism: there is a trend toward unpaid rather than paid labor and toward offering products at no cost, and the system is marked by a new abundance where scarcity once predominated. These trends suggest the possibility of a new, prosumer, capitalism.
• Examples of prosumption (P6)
• Prosumptoin in Web 2.0 (P7)
• Websites ask users to do free work (P13)
• Gain merit for contribution (P13)
• Corporations gains from prosumption activities in Web 2.0, unlike in 3DP (P15)
• Decrease of cost of maintaining Web 2.0 (P16)
• Abundance, effectiveness, and inefficiency in Web 2.0 (P18)

Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures[edit | edit source]

Kuznetsov, S., & Paulos, E. (2010). Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868950

• Abstractː This paper presents a large-scale study of Do-It-Yourself (DIY) communities, cultures and projects. We focus on the adoption and appropriation of human-computer interaction and collaboration technologies and their role in motivating and sustaining communities of builders, crafters and makers. Our survey of over 2600 individuals across a range of DIY communities (Instructables, Dorkbot, Craftster, Ravelry, Etsy, and Adafruit) reveals a unique set of values, emphasizing open sharing, learning, and creativity over profit and social capital. We derive design implications to embed these values into other everyday practices, and hope that our work serves to engage CHI practitioners with DIY expert amateurs.
• Low barrier for entry users (P7)
• Share together but work alone (P8)
• Creativity filters out some personal ideas deemed to be not so creative (P9)

Putting Consumers to Work: `Co-creation` and new marketing govern-mentality[edit | edit source]

Zwick, D., Bonsu, S. K., & Darmody, A. (2008). Putting Consumers to Work: `Co-creation` and new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture, 8(2), 163–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469540508090089

• Abstractː Co-creation is a new paradigm that has captured the imagination of marketing and management professionals and scholars. Drawing on Foucault's notion of government and neo-Marxist theories of labor and value, we critically interrogate the cultural, social, and economic politics of this new management technique. We suggest that co-creation represents a political form of power aimed at generating particular forms of consumer life at once free and controllable, creative and docile. We argue that the discourse of value co-creation stands for a notion of modern corporate power that is no longer aimed at disciplining consumers and shaping actions according to a given norm, but at working with and through the freedom of the consumer. In short, administering consumption in ways that allow for the continuous emergence and exploitation of creative and valuable forms of consumer labor is the true meaning of the concept of co-creation.
• Transformation of the role of customers (P5, Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004b; Jenkins, 2006; Tapscott and Williams, 2006; von Hippel, 2005)
• Satisfying customer is more important than maximizing efficiency (P8, Kotler and Levy, 1969; Kotler, 1972)
• Consumers are knowledge workers (P10)
• Goods are the middle agent for consumers to create more value (P11, Vargo and Lusch, 2004: 7)
• Free, yet enjoyed, labor from consumers (P14, Michel Foucault, 1991)

This home is a factory: Implications of the Maker movement on urban environments[edit | edit source]

Richardson, M., Elliott, S., & Haylock, B. (2013). This home is a factory: Implications of the Maker movement on urban environments. Craft Plus Design Enquiry, 5.

• Abstractː This paper considers the matter of sites of production in view of recent technologically enabled trends toward the intersection of designing and making. These changes have been conceptualised as 'open design' or as 'consumer-as-producer' and they are specifically manifest in accessible and inexpensive 3D printing. We argue here that these developments reactivate the Arts and Crafts notion of personalised domestic-scale production in newly technologised and globally connected ways. Akin to the ideals of the 1970s Punk movement, amateurs can become agents of change as the open-source Maker movement provides individuals with the 'source code' to make, adapt and disseminate individualised products via information and communication technology (ICT) channels. This paper discusses the possible impacts of distributed making on our urban landscapes, with the increasing conflation of domestic, industrial and retail zones and what some have described as 'maker-friendly' cities.
• Scaled globally rather than organizationally (P3)
• Localized manufacturing leads to local sourcing, which leads to more opportunities locally (P5)

Innovation lessons from 3-D printing[edit | edit source]

De Jong, J. P., & De Bruijn, E. (2013). Innovation lessons from 3-D printing. MIT Sloan Management Review, 54(2), 43.

• Abstractː N/A
• Wright brothers started with personal flights first before its commercialization (P5, [11])
• Firms step in when demand is more stable (P5, [12])
• Dissatisfaction of consumers on commercialized product (P6, [16])
• User communities may lead industries to improve (P6, [18])
• Some customers still prefer commercialized product (P6)
• Users interaction enhance companies' products (P7)
• Extra revenues from selling tool kit to modify existing model T Ford (P7)
• Companies may attack infringing usages (P9)
• Different attitudes towards patents from customers and firms (P10, [26])

The third wave[edit | edit source]

Toffler, A. (1980). The Third Wave. Morrow.

• Abstractː N/A
• Prosumption
• Economic tension (P1)
• Third wave back to the second wave (P3)
• Revived community (P4)

Wohlers Associates Publishes 20th Anniversary Edition of Its 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing Industry Report[edit | edit source]

Wohlers Associates. (2016). Wohlers Associates Publishes 20th Anniversary Edition of Its 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing Industry Report | Wohlers Associates. http://wohlersassociates.com/press71.html

Low-‐cost 3D printing for science, education and sustainable development[edit | edit source]

Canessa, E., Fonda, C., Zennaro, M., & Deadline, N. (2013). Low-‐cost 3D printing for science, education and sustainable development. Low-Cost 3D Printing, 11(1).

• Abstractː N/A
• Less waste compare to TM (P14)

RepRap – the replicating rapid prototyper[edit | edit source]

Jones, R., Haufe, P., Sells, E., Iravani, P., Olliver, V., Palmer, C., & Bowyer, A. (2011). RepRap – the replicating rapid prototyper. Robotica, 29(1), 177–191. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026357471000069X

• Abstractː This paper presents the results to date of the RepRap project – an ongoing project that has made and distributed freely a replicating rapid prototyper. We give the background reasoning that led to the invention of the machine, the selection of the processes that we and others have used to implement it, the designs of key parts of the machine and how these have evolved from their initial concepts and experiments, and estimates of the machine's reproductive success out in the world up to the time of writing (about 4500 machines in two and a half years).

YouMagine. (2021). YouMagine – About YouMagine: share, remix and 3D print. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/about[edit | edit source]

Cura LulzBot. (2015, November 4). Cura LulzBot Edition. LulzBot. https://www.lulzbot.com/cura[edit | edit source]

Amazon. (2021). Amazon.com: Amazon Basics PLA 3D Printer Filament, 1.75mm, White, 1 kg Spool: Industrial & Scientific. https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Printer-Filament-1-75mm-White/dp/B07S2ZXM97/[edit | edit source]

rockets2. (2021). Han Solo Blaster. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/han-solo-blaster[edit | edit source]

Amazon. (2021b). Amazon.com: Cosplay Prop Gray Resin for Men: Clothing. https://www.amazon.com/Cosplay-Prop-Gray-Resin-Men/dp/B087NK5R87/?th=1&psc=1[edit | edit source]

YouMagine. (2021). Mac OSX paper bin. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/mac-osx-paper-bin[edit | edit source]

Make Magazine. (2021). Make: 2015 3D Printer Shoot Out Test Geometries. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/make-2015-3d-printer-shoot-out-test-geometries[edit | edit source]

Gijs. (2021). belt tensioner. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/belt-tensioner[edit | edit source]

SavageRodent. (2021). 3D Printer Feet. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/3d-printer-feet-71d19cd6-4955-4abf-a8ae-50564997c580[edit | edit source]

Hüger LP. (2021). Banana Slicer. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/banana-slicer[edit | edit source]

Amazon. (2021). Amazon.com: Hutzler 571 Banana Slicer: Kitchen & Dining. https://www.amazon.com/Hutzler-3571-571-Banana-Slicer/dp/B0047E0EII[edit | edit source]

Horne, R. (2021). Nefertiti - in sections up for 3D printing full sized. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/nefertiti-in-sections-up-for-3d-printing-full-sized[edit | edit source]

Amazon. (2021). Amazon.com: Pacific Giftware PTC 18 Inch Egyptian Queen Nefertiti Head and Bust Resin Statue Figurine: Home & Kitchen. https://www.amazon.com/Egyptian-Queen-Nefertiti-Statue-Figurine/dp/B009D0SHV2/ref=sr_1_5?dchild=1&keywords=Nefertiti+head+statue&qid=1620666201&sr=8-5[edit | edit source]

Statista. (2021). Worldwide non-metal 3D printer shipments 2022. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/765639/global-non-metal-3d-printer-shipments/[edit | edit source]

Statista. (2021). 3D printer shipments worldwide 2027. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/370297/worldwide-shipments-3d-printers/[edit | edit source]

Wohlers Associates. (2017). Wohlers Associates Publishes 20th Anniversary Edition of Its 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing Industry Report | Wohlers Associates. https://wohlersassociates.com/press72.html[edit | edit source]

Zumwalt, G. (2021). Perpetual Motion da Vinci Style II. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/perpetual-motion-da-vinci-style-ii[edit | edit source]

Amazon. "Amazon.Com: Sunnytech Low Temperature Stirling Engine Motor Steam Heat Education Model Toy Kit (LT001): Toys & Games," 2021. https://www.amazon.com/Sunnytech-Temperature-Stirling-Engine-Education/dp/B008JOKO1O/[edit | edit source]

Thomas Sanladerer. (2021). 3D-printable Glidecam. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/3d-printable-glidecam[edit | edit source]

Amazon. (2021). Amazon.com : FLYCAM Redking Quick Balancing Video Camera Stabilizer with Dovetail Quick Release (FLCM-RK) | Professional CNC Aluminum Camera Stabilizer for DSLR BMCC Sony Nikon DV Camcorders up to 7kg/15.4lb + Bag : Camera & Photo. https://www.amazon.com/FLYCAM-Stabilizer-FLCM-RK-Professional-Camcorders/dp/B01H1IE74I[edit | edit source]

Somerwil. (2021). R2-D2. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/r2-d2[edit | edit source]

Cederberg, E. (2021). Protective Visor by 3DVerkstan. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/protective-visor-by-3dverkstan[edit | edit source]

YouMagine. (2021). YouMagine – Derived designs. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/protective-visor-by-3dverkstan/derivatives[edit | edit source]

Payen, S. (2021). Customizable U-Hook. YouMagine. https://www.youmagine.com/designs/customizable-u-hook[edit | edit source]

Payen, S. (2016). Parametric U-Hook – Serge Payen. http://sergepayen.fr/en/parametric-u-hook/[edit | edit source]

MakerBot. (2020, May 27). Everything you need to know about PLA 3D printing. MakerBot. https://www.makerbot.com/stories/engineering/everything-you-need-to-know-about-pla-3d-printing/[edit | edit source]

OpenSCAD. (2021). OpenSCAD. http://openscad.org[edit | edit source]

Mini lit review on DIY[edit | edit source]

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.
• Compatibility of the customized items (P13)

The rise of personal fabrication[edit | edit source]

Mota, C. (2011). The rise of personal fabrication. Proceedings of the 8th ACM Conference on Creativity and Cognition, 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1145/2069618.2069665

• Abstractː In recent years we have been witnessing the first stages of a democratization of manufacturing, a trend that promises to revolutionize the means of design, production and distribution of material goods and give rise to a new class of creators and producers. A disruptive technology and several cultural and economic driving forces are leading to what has already been called a new industrial revolution: public access to digital fabrication tools, software and databases of blueprints; a tech Do-It-Yourself movement; and a growing desire amongst individuals to shape and personalize the material goods they consume. This paper is an overview of the current state of personal digital fabrication and the trends that are shaping it.
• Mass customization (P2, [10,11,16])
• Independency of global hackerspaces (P2)
• Mash up and customization, Thingiverse (P9)
• Minor broken parts can not be acquired (P7)

Factory@ home: The emerging economy of personal fabrication[edit | edit source]

Lipson, H., & Kurman, M. (2010). Factory@ home: The emerging economy of personal fabrication. A report commissioned by the US Office of Science and Technology Policy.

The value of personalised consumer product design facilitated through additive manufacturing technology[edit | edit source]

Kudus, S. I. A. (2017). The value of personalised consumer product design facilitated through additive manufacturing technology (Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University).

• Abstractː This research attempted to discover how Additive Manufacturing (AM) can best be used to increase the value of personalised consumer products and how designers can be assisted in finding an effective way to facilitate value addition within personalisable product designs. AM has become an enabler for end-users to become directly involved in product personalisation through the manipulation of three-dimensional (3D) designs of the product using easy-to-use design toolkits. In this way, end-users are able to fabricate their own personalised designs using various types of AM systems. Personalisation activity can contribute to an increment in the value of a product because it delivers a closer fit to user preferences. The research began with a literature review that covered the areas of product personalisation, additive manufacturing, and consumer value in product design. The literature review revealed that the lack of methods and tools to enable designers to exploit AM has become a fundamental challenge in fully realising the advantages of the technology. Consequently, the question remained as to whether industrial designers are able to identify the design characteristics that can potentially add value to a product, particularly when the product is being personalised by endusers using AM-enabled design tools and systems. A new value taxonomy was developed to capture the relevant value attributes of personalised AM products. The value taxonomy comprised two first-level value types: product value and experiential value. It was further expanded into six second-level value components: functional value, personal-expressive value, sensory value, unique value, co-design value, and hedonic value. The research employed a survey to assess end-users' value reflection on personalised features; measuring their willingness to pay (WTP) and their intention to purchase a product with personalised features. Thereafter, an experimental study was performed to measure end-users' opinions on the value of 3D-printed personalised products based on the two value types: product value and experiential value. Based on the findings, a formal added value identification method was developed to act as a design aid tool to assist designers in preparing a personalisable product design that embodies value-adding personalisation features within the product. The design method was translated into a beta-test version paper-based design workbook known as the V+APP Design Method: Design Workbook. The design aid tool was validated by expert designers. ii In conclusion, this research has indicated that the added value identification method shows promise as a practical and effective method in aiding expert designers to identify the potential value-adding personalisation features within personalisable AM products, ensuring they are able to fully exploit the unique characteristics and value-adding design characteristics enabled by AM. Finally, the limitations of the research have been explained and recommendations made for future work in this area.
• Added values for end-users (P139)
• Differentiation of personalized product (P152)
• 70% users modify existing files upon printing, small sample population (10 people) (P153)
• Major personalization on appearance, with functionality maintained (P153)
• Positive sensations from personalization (P154)

Adding product value through additive manufacturing[edit | edit source]

Campbell, R. I., Jee, H., & Kim, Y. S. (2013). Adding product value through additive manufacturing. In DS 75-4: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED13), Design for Harmonies, Vol. 4: Product, Service and Systems Design, Seoul, Korea, 19-22.08. 2013.

• Abstractː The term additive manufacturing (AM) refers to layer-based material addition technologies that have extended the approach of rapid prototyping (RP) technologies to end-use products and components. The application of AM technologies for this purpose is still rather limited at present but there are a few widely publicised examples. The authors believe that the wider use of AM is being inhibited by the inability of most designers to fully appreciate the contribution that AM can make to E3 (economic, ecological and experience) product value. Research at (removed for anonymity) has indicated that AM can contribute in each of these areas. This paper defines E3 value and then gives some examples of AM products that demonstrate different means of improving value. The conclusions drawn are that AM has an important role to play in adding E3 value to many products but that designers must be better informed as to how to integrate this added value into their designs.
• Positive emotion values for designers (P6)

Handymen, Hippies and Healing: Social Transformation through the DIY Movement (1940s to 1970s) in North America[edit | edit source]

Smith, C. (2014). Handymen, Hippies and Healing: Social Transformation through the DIY Movement (1940s to 1970s) in North America. Architectural Histories, 2(1), Art. 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/ah.bd

• Abstractː This paper explores the relation between the 'DIY' ('do-it-yourself') movement and 'DIY architecture', and the notion of social transformation, in examples of DIY manuals and discourse of North America drawn from the 1940s to the 1970s. The DIY movement emerged as a significant phenomenon in North America of the 1950s, where it was associated with a mainstream audience and a residential market. By the 1960s, the DIY approach was embraced by the North American counterculture as a self-sustaining sensibility that could overcome a reliance on the mainstream, consumerist society that spurned it. On the surface, the association of DIY with the counterculture and countercultural architects appears to denote a significant ideological shift from its original association with the beliefs and culture of mainstream North America and the nuclear family. However, one of the key characterisations of the DIY movement identified in the present paper is the way it is bound to the notion of social identity and transformation, regardless of ideology. Particular attention is paid to DIY manuals and discourse of the 1950s.

Do It Yourself: Democracy and Design[edit | edit source]

Atkinson, P. (2006). Do It Yourself: Democracy and Design. Journal of Design History, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epk001

• Abstractː N/A
• DIY, shortage of labor post war (P3)

GlobalPetrolPrices. (2021). Electricity prices around the world. GlobalPetrolPrices.Com. https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/electricity_prices/[edit | edit source]

Statista. (2021). U.S.: Number of households 1960-2019. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/[edit | edit source]

All3DP. (2019, April 16). 3D Face Scanner/Model: How to 3D Print Your Face. All3DP. https://all3dp.com/2/3d-face-model-how-to-make-a-3d-model-of-your-face/[edit | edit source]

RepRap. (2021). Printable part sources - RepRap. https://reprap.org/wiki/Printable_part_sources[edit | edit source]

Statista. (2021). Plastic waste generation per capita by country. Statista. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1228043/plastic-waste-generation-per-capita-in-select-countries/[edit | edit source]

Fortune. (2021). GameStop | 2021 Fortune 500 | Fortune. https://fortune.com/company/gamestop/fortune500/[edit | edit source]

Mini Lit Review on Target Journal[edit | edit source]

Assessing the effect of 3D printing technologies on entrepreneurship: An exploratory study[edit | edit source]

Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2021). Assessing the effect of 3D printing technologies on entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 164, 120483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120483

• Abstractː The aim of this paper is to critically assess the effect of 3D printing technologies on entrepreneurship. While 3D printing technologies (also known as 'additive manufacturing') have been considered as highly transformative technologies, they have been so far (despite over 30 years of existence) restricted to niche markets, and until recently, it seemed that only the largest firms were able to take advantage of those technologies. However, the cost of use of such technologies has sharply decreased over the past few years, and an increasing number of service companies offer both offline (Fab Labs, makerspaces, bureaus) and online (3D printing platforms) access to 3D printing capacities, enabling to "bridge the gap" and provide access to 3D printing technologies to everyone. In this context, using a case-based exploratory methodology, this research aims to explore the benefits of 3D printing technologies for entrepreneurs and new ventures, in particular in relation to overcoming specific challenges these smaller and younger structures face. After identifying the key types of hurdle faced by entrepreneurs – NPD issues, technical issues, market issues, financial issues, and business model issues – this article investigates the manner in which different forms of usage of 3D printing technologies – prototyping, tooling, direct manufacturing, distributed and localised manufacturing – can help alleviate each of those types of barrier. The results of this research indicate that 3D printing technologies are indeed likely to enable entrepreneurs to overcome the five main types of barriers they generally face. Furthermore, because of the very particular situation of entrepreneurs and new ventures and the specific challenges they face in terms of scale, access to markets, and lack of financial resources, 3D printing may in fact be more transformative for smaller and younger structures, than for larger and well-established corporations. However, this research also indicates that benefits for entrepreneurs derived from the use of 3D printing may depend on the degree of involvement of 3D printing in the overall productive process – the more the merrier – and that using 3D printing only at design and tooling stage, although helpful to some extent, may not be so impactful.
• Disruptive products to enter new market (P2, Feinleib, 2011)
• High tolerance for failed innovation, users lose patience (P3, Azadegan et al., 2013; Feinleib, 2011)
• Market-pulled products are safer than technology-pushed products (P3, Cooper, 1976; Gerstenfeld, 1976; Kulvik, 1977)
• Hard to copy existing business model due to lack of capital (P4)
• Advantage of 3DP compared to TMs (P5)
• Effect of complexity of the product on TM and AM (P6, Chen et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2013)
• Proliferation of 3DP services (P7)
• Benefits various start-ups (P8)
• Combination of product developing and manufacturing (P8)
• "Value network" from customers (P8, Rayna and Striukova, 2016b)
• Significant failure rate of new product development (NDP) (P8)
• Crowd sourcing, open innovation (P8)
• Mass customization subsidies lack of capital (P9)
• Users print to test and still purchase commercialized version (P9)
• 3DP weakens some issues TM industries usually face (P10, 5.2.0)
• Significant lead time and upfront cash for TM (P10)
• Potential positive cash flow during commercialization stage (P11)
• Flexibility in scalability (P11)
• "Enabler of local fabrication" (P11, Rayna, T., & Striukova, L)
• Local fabrication leads to local delivery (P13)
• TM wins on large scale production still, AM not so disruptive? (P15)
• Five major issues faced by entrepreneurs (P15)

Building the layers of a new manufacturing taxonomy: How 3D printing is creating a new landscape of production eco-systems and competitive dynamics[edit | edit source]

Kapetaniou, C., Rieple, A., Pilkington, A., Frandsen, T., & Pisano, P. (2018). Building the layers of a new manufacturing taxonomy: How 3D printing is creating a new landscape of production eco-systems and competitive dynamics. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 128, 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.10.011

• Abstractː Recent innovations in 3D printing technologies and processes have influenced how products are designed, built and delivered. However, there is a significant gap in our knowledge of how 3D printing is impacting on manufacturing eco-systems within different industries and contexts. Drawing inspiration from earlier manufacturing taxonomies as well as the competitive dynamics literature which provides insights into industries' moves from straightforwardly rivalrous frameworks, through competitive-cooperative exemplars, into the more recent relational-based competition. Basing our analysis on a systematic review of organizations' use of 3D printing, we develop a new taxonomy explaining the many areas the technology can impact. In addition to offering a comprehensive framework to conceptualise the impact of 3D printing, we emphasise the role of users in co-creation and personalisation. While 3D printing has been touted as disruptive, we suggest that our new taxonomy offers a richer understanding of the ways firms can operate in a 3D printing context. We furthermore apply the relational competition category of the competitive dynamics model to our taxonomy, showing how 3D printing influences the modes and aims of competition, roster of actors and action toolkits within the different industry sectors.
• Customer involvement and co-creation (P2, Rayna and Striukova, 2016)
• From prototype to end products (P3)
• 3D printable spare parts seen as a threat (P7)
• Limited co-creation in high tech field (P9)
• Prototyping with 3DP, end product still TM (P9)
• Consumers would like personalized objects (P10)

Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: A research agenda[edit | edit source]

Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S. J., Garmulewicz, A., Knowles, S., Minshall, T. H. W., Mortara, L., Reed-Tsochas, F. P., & Rowley, J. (2017). Unlocking value for a circular economy through 3D printing: A research agenda. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 115, 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.021

• Abstractː The circular economy (CE) aims to radically improve resource efficiency by eliminating the concept of waste and leading to a shift away from the linear take-make-waste model. In a CE, resources are flowing in a circular manner either in a biocycle (biomass) or technocycle (inorganic materials). While early studies indicate that 3D printing (3DP) holds substantial promise for sustainability and the creation of a CE, there is no guarantee that it will do so. There is great uncertainty regarding whether the current trajectory of 3DP adoption is creating more circular material flows or if it is leading to an alternative scenario in which less eco-efficient localised production, demands for customised goods, and a higher rate of product obsolescence combine to bring about increased resource consumption. It is critical that CE principles are embedded into the new manufacturing system before the adoption of 3DP reaches a critical inflection point in which negative practices become entrenched. This paper, authored by both academic and industry experts, proposes a research agenda to determine enablers and barriers for 3DP to achieve a CE. We explore the two following overarching questions to discover what specific issues they entail: (1) How can a more distributed manufacturing system based on 3DP create a circular economy of closed-loop material flows? (2) What are the barriers to a circular 3D printing economy? We specifically examine six areas—design, supply chains, information flows, entrepreneurship, business models and education—with the aim of formulating a research agenda to enable 3DP to reach its full potential for a CE.
• Shift to less waste (P1)
• Recycled inputs (P2)
• Closed-loop of material inputs (P2)
• Additive already waste less (P2)
• Reduced need on scales (P3)
• Production of filament relies on TM, centralized (P4)
• Implement circular economy into 3DP (P8)

A bricolage perspective on democratising innovation: The case of 3D printing in makerspaces[edit | edit source]

Beltagui, A., Sesis, A., & Stylos, N. (2021). A bricolage perspective on democratising innovation: The case of 3D printing in makerspaces. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 163, 120453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120453

• Abstractː The availability of digital technologies such as 3D printing can allow members of the public rather than only producers, to innovate. Makerspaces, where communities of individuals share access to such technologies may therefore support the democratisation of innovation. Yet little is known about how and why makerspace members use 3D printing to realise their creative and commercial ambitions. Through an ethnographic study, we identify a bricolage approach whereby makerspace members combine 3D printing with whatever resources are at hand in a makerspace, to generate innovations that otherwise may not be realised. In this context, we find bricolage entails synergy - combining resources in creative ways - and openness - a willingness to gather and share resources. We confirm that bricolage restricts commercial growth such that a need for more structured processes and perhaps a move away from makerspaces eventually becomes necessary. We contribute to theory by presenting makerspaces as a route to innovation in resource constrained contexts, or those in which neither a problem nor solution are clearly defined. This contrasts with crowdsourcing where problems but not solutions are defined, and R&D where both problem and expected solution are defined.
• Neglected elements for non-commercial production (P7)
• Motives of engaging in DIY community (P9)
• Aid instead of replacement at current stage (P9)
• Makerspace does not only serve 3DP (P10)

The non-disruptive emergence of an ecosystem for 3D Printing — Insights from the hearing aid industry's transition 1989–2008[edit | edit source]

Sandström, C. G. (2016). The non-disruptive emergence of an ecosystem for 3D Printing — Insights from the hearing aid industry's transition 1989–2008. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.09.006

• Abstractː 3D Printing technologies have received extensive attention in recent years, but empirical investigations of how this technology is used for manufacturing are still sparse. More knowledge is also needed regarding how 3D Printing affects the competitive dynamics between firms. This article explores how 3D Printing has been adopted for manufacturing and discusses under what conditions it might influence competition in different industries. Drawing upon data from the global hearing aid industry's adoption of 3D Printing during the period 1989–2008, this paper describes some of the benefits of using the technology, while also pointing out challenges firms encounter in making this transition. The study shows that early adopters were exposed to more technological uncertainty related to choosing printers. All firms encountered operational challenges as 3D Printing required new skill sets, but the technology had little impact on the competitive dynamics of this industry. Drawing upon literature on technological discontinuities, platforms and ecosystems, the paper illustrates and explains why the technology was not disruptive and also discusses how these findings apply to other industries where 3D Printing is currently gaining momentum.
• Major adoption of 3DP for hearing aid (P3)
• not printable non-technical assets (P6)
• 3DP is available to everyone (P6)
• Monetary incentive for existing firms (P7)

Additive manufacturing for consumer-centric business models: Implications for supply chains in consumer goods manufacturing[edit | edit source]

Bogers, M., Hadar, R., & Bilberg, A. (2016). Additive manufacturing for consumer-centric business models: Implications for supply chains in consumer goods manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.024

• Abstractː Digital fabrication—including additive manufacturing (AM), rapid prototyping and 3D printing—has the potential to revolutionize the way in which products are produced and delivered to the customer. Therefore, it challenges companies to reinvent their business model—describing the logic of creating and capturing value. In this paper, we explore the implications that AM technologies have for manufacturing systems in the new business models that they enable. In particular, we consider how a consumer goods manufacturer can organize the operations of a more open business model when moving from a manufacturer-centric to a consumer-centric value logic. A major shift includes a move from centralized to decentralized supply chains, where consumer goods manufacturers can implement a "hybrid" approach with a focus on localization and accessibility or develop a fully personalized model where the consumer effectively takes over the productive activities of the manufacturer. We discuss some of the main implications for research and practice of consumer-centric business models and the changing decoupling point in consumer goods' manufacturing supply chains.
• 3DP is more complementary than disruptive to an extent (P6)
• AM still applicable for centralized manufactures (P7)
• Platforms for consumers and firms (P7)
• "Glocalized" supply chain (P7)

The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing[edit | edit source]

West, J., & Kuk, G. (2016). The complementarity of openness: How MakerBot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.025

• Abstractː Selective openness allows a firm to sell a systemic innovation that combines both open and proprietary technologies. Such firm strategies are now common for open source software and other information goods. However, they pose conceptual and practical uncertainties for hardware-focused companies, particularly as research on open hardware has emphasized community rather than firm success. Here we study firm openness in 3D printing, with a case study of how MakerBot Industries leveraged external communities and selective openness become the consumer market leader. After reviewing the literature on systemic innovation and selective openness, we document the proprietary strategies of a dozen startup companies during the first two decades of the 3D printing industry. We contrast this to the open hardware, software and content strategy that MakerBot's founders used to enter and grow the consumer market from 2009 onward. We show how MakerBot shifted to a selectively open, systemic innovation strategy that complemented proprietary hardware and software with open user-generated content from its Thingiverse online community. From this, we suggest the inherent complementarity of selective openness strategies between open and proprietary components, and conclude with predictions as to when and how a startup or incumbent firm will combine open and proprietary elements.
• "Complementarities of openness" (P10)
• Value creation and value capture (P10)

Personal Opinions[edit | edit source]

• Sometimes government advertise some market because they know it will produce good results in a long run, they may not be intentionally promoting just to raise their market, although the raise of the market is part of the consequence, for which some people suspect as some ogs are gaining from it, certainly that could be suspected...
• Functional wise, 3DP seems disruptive. However, customers may not print for monetary reasons.
• Customization
• Critical lead time for medical field
• Modification upon printing may not be recorded under derivatives
• Easiness of expanding market as file is digital if 3DP services exist in the destination country