The Maker Movement and the Disruption of the Producer-Consumer Relation

  • Elisabeth UnterfraunerEmail author
  • Christian Voigt
  • Maria Schrammel
  • Massimo Menichinelli
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10750)


The Maker movement represents a return of interest to the physical side of digital innovation. To explore expectations and values within the Maker movement, we applied qualitative research method, interviewing 10 managers of maker initiative as well as 39 makers from eight different countries. The paper analyses how the Maker movement is contributing to a change in production, logistics and supply chains and how it changes the relationship between producer and consumer. Based on the interview data and supported by literature, the study indicates that the Maker movement has the potential to impact producer-consumer relationships in many ways. Making, on a bigger scale would mean producing locally, de-centralised and on-demand. This would have an impact on the logistics and the supply chain. Long transportation routes would be avoided and shorter supply chains would make some of the-in-between vendors obsolete. Makers as prosumers, who produce for themselves, are introducing two growing phenomena: a more personalised relationship between maker and object and personalised products as a form of self-expression.


Maker movement Digital Social Innovation Supply chain Prosumer Sharing economy 



The study has been conducted with the support of the European Commission in the framework of the Horizon2020 Project MAKE-IT (GA 688241). For further information:


  1. 1.
    Gershenfeld, N.: Bits and atom. Presented at the 2005 International Conference on Digital Printing Technologies (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Voigt, C., Montero, C.S., Menichinelli, M.: An empirically informed taxonomy for the maker movement. In: Bagnoli, F., Satsiou, A., Stavrakakis, I., Nesi, P., Pacini, G., Welp, Y., Tiropanis, T., DiFranzo, D. (eds.) INSCI 2016. LNCS, vol. 9934, pp. 189–204. Springer, Cham (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bria, F., Almirall, E., Baeck, P., Halpin, H., Kingsbury, J., Kresin, F., et al.: Digital social innovation interim report. Nesta, London (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Unterfrauner, E., Voigt, C.: Makers’ ambitions to do socially valuable things. Des. J. 20(Sup1), S3317–S3325 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Watson, R.T., Boudreau, M.-C., Chen, A.J.: Information systems and environmentally sustainable development: energy informatics and new directions for the IS community. MIS Q. 34(1), 23–38 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brettel, M., Friederichsen, N., Keller, M., Rosenberg, M.: How virtualization, decentralization and network building change the manufacturing landscape: an industry 4.0 perspective. Int. J. Mech. Ind. Sci. Eng. 8, 37–44 (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Churchman, C.W.: Philosophical speculations on systems design. Omega 2, 451–465 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dougherty, D.: The maker movement. Innovations 7, 11–14 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silverman, D.: Qualitative Research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flick, U.: An Introduction to Qualitative Research. SAGE, Thousand Oaks (2014)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Millard, J.: D2.2 monitoring and assessment framework (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mayring, P.: Einführung in die qualitative Sozialforschung: Eine Anleitung zu qualitativem Denken. Beltz Verlag, Weinheim und Basel (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reichertz, J.: Abduktion, Deduktion und Induktion in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. In: Flick, U., von Kardoff, E., Steinke, I. (eds.) Qualitative Forschung, pp. 276–285. Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, Hamburg (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bianchini, M., Menichinelli, M., Maffei, S., Bombardi, F., Carosi, A.: Makers’ Inquiry. Un’indagine socioeconomica sui makers italiani e su Make in Italy. Milano: Libraccio Editore (2015).
  15. 15.
    Unterfrauner, E., Schrammel, M., Hofer, M., Fabian, C.M., Voigt, C., Deljanin, S.R., Sorivelle, M.N., Devoldere, B., Haga, H.: Final case study report focusing on cross-case analysis (2017)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hughner, R.S., McDonagh, P., Prothero, A., Shultz II, C.J., Stanton, J.: Who are organic food consumers? a compilation and review of why people purchase organic food. J. Consum. Behav. 6(2–3), 94–110 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kohtala, C.: Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 106, 654–668 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Osunyomi, B.D., Redlich, T., Buxbaum-Conradi, S., Moritz, M., Wulfsberg, J.P.: Impact of the fablab ecosystem in the sustainable value creation process. OIDA Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 9(1), 21–36 (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lacy, P., Rutqvist, J.: Waste to Wealth: The Circular Economy Advantage. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Joore, J.P.: New to Improve – The Mutual Influence Between New Products and Societal Change Processes. VSSD, Delft (2010)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nascimento, S.: Critical notions of technology and the promises of empowerment in shared machine shops. J. Peer Prod. 5 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Voigt, C., Unterfrauner, E., Stelzer, R.: Diversity in fablabs: culture, role models and the gendering of making. In: Kompatsiaris, I., Cave, J., Satsiou, A., Carle, G., Passani, A., Kontopoulos, E., Diplaris, S., McMillan, D. (eds.) INSCI 2017. LNCS, vol. 10673, pp. 52–68. Springer, Cham (2017). CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Unterfrauner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christian Voigt
    • 1
  • Maria Schrammel
    • 1
  • Massimo Menichinelli
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Social Innovation, Technology and KnowledgeViennaAustria
  2. 2.Fab City Research LabIAACBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations