Advertisement

Lokale Einbettung und globale Kollaborationsprozesse offener Produktionswerkstätten: Ein Einblick in die deutsche und arabische Maker-Community

  • Sonja Buxbaum-Conradi
  • Jan-Hauke Branding
  • Sissy-Ve Basmer-Birkenfeld
  • Babsile Daniel Osunyomi
  • Tobias Redlich
  • Markus Langenfeld
  • Jens P. Wulfsberg
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Offene Werkstätten (FabLabs) ermöglichen als Teil einer soziotechnischen Bewegung, die mehr Beteiligung der Bürger an Technologie- und Produktentwicklung anstrebt, einen einfachen Zugang zu technologischem Wissen und Produktionsmitteln und bergen somit das Potential, Innovationen, Gründungsinitiativen und regionale Entwicklung zu stimulieren. Die vorliegende Studie untersucht, unter welchen Bedingungen sich diese Potentiale entfalten können und nimmt in diesem Zusammenhang die Kombination aus lokaler sozioinstitutioneller und sozioökonomischer Einbettung der physischen Orte sowie der Einbettung in eine Infrastruktur, welche die Grundlage für virtuelle Kollaboration und Wissenstransfer auf globaler Ebene schafft, in den Blick. Erste Ergebnisse verweisen auf eine deutliche Diskrepanz zwischen der Vision der Bewegung und der empirischen Realität der Labs.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literaturverzeichnis

  1. Anderson, C. (2013). Makers. Das Internet der Dinge: Die nächste industrielle Revolution. München: Carl Hanser Verlag.Google Scholar
  2. Askvik, S. (1999). Twinning in Norwegian Development Assistance: A Response to Jones and Blunt. Public Administration and Development (19), S. 403−408.Google Scholar
  3. Basmer, S.; Buxbaum-Conradi, S.; Krenz, P.; Redlich, T.; Wulfsberg, J. P.; Bruhns, F. L. (2015): Open Production: Chances for Social Sustainability in Manufacturing. Procedia CIRP 26. 12th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing - Emerging Potentials, 46-51.Google Scholar
  4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open Innovation. The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.Google Scholar
  6. Congress.gov (2015). H.R.1622 - National Fab Lab Network Act of 2015. URL: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1622, [20.09.2016].
  7. Dolata, U. & Schrape, J.-F. (2016). Masses, Crowds, Communities, Movements. Collective Action in the Internet Age. Social Movement Studies, 15(1), 1−18.Google Scholar
  8. Geibler, J. V. et al. (2013). Living Labs für nachhaltige Entwicklung. Potentiale einer Forschungsinfrastruktur zur Nutzerintegration in der Entwicklung von Produkten und Dienstleistungen. Wuppertal Spezial Nr. 47, o. S.Google Scholar
  9. Gershenfeld, N. (2005). FAB: The Coming Revolution on Your Desktop: From Personal Computers to Personal Fabrication. Cambridge: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  10. Gibb, A. (2015). Building Open Source Hardware. DIY Manufacturing for Hackers and Makers. New Jersey: Addison Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  11. Ginger J.,McGrath, R., Barrett, B. &McCreary, V. (2012).Mini Labs. Building Capacity for Innovation through a local FabLab Network. World Fab Conference (Fab8), Wellington, URL: http://cba.mit.edu/events/12.08.FAB8/workshops/CUCFL-F8-2012Submission08-14-2012.pdf, [08.06.2016].
  12. Hippel, E. V. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Irwin, J. L., Pearce, J. M., Anzolone, G. & Oppliger, D. E. (2014). The RepRap 3-D Printer Revolution in STEM Education. 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.Google Scholar
  14. Karré, P. & Twist, M. V. (2012). Twinning as an innovative practice in public administration: An example from the Netherlands. The Innovation Journal, 3(17), 1−10.Google Scholar
  15. Krebs, M. (2013). The FabLab Network in Japan: Preliminary Ethnographic Observations, Working Paper, University of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  16. Moritz, M., Redlich, T., Grames, P. P. &Wulfsberg, J. P. (2016). Value Creation in Open-Source Hardware Communities: Case Study of Open Source Ecology. In Kocaoglu (Hrsg.): Technology Management for Social Innovation. Proceedings of the 25th Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET 2016), Honolulu, 2368−2375.Google Scholar
  17. Moritz, M., Redlich, T., Krenz, P., Buxbaum-Conradi, S. & Wulfsberg, J.P. (2015). Tesla Motors, Inc. - Pioneer towards a new strategic approach in the automobile industry along the open source movement? Proceedings of PICMET ‘15: Management of the Technology Age, Portland, 85−92.Google Scholar
  18. Open Source Hardware Association (2016): Open Source Hardware (OSHW) Statement of Principles 1.0, URL: http://www.oshwa.org/definition/, [24.09.2016].
  19. Osunyomi, B. D., Redlich, T, Buxbaum-Conradi, S, Moritz, M. & Wulfsberg, J. P. (2016). Impact of the Fablab Ecosystem in the Sustainable Value Creation Process. OIDA International Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(1), 21−36.Google Scholar
  20. Osunyomi, B. D., Redlich, T. & Wulfsberg, J. (2016). Could Open Source Ecology and Open Source Appropriate Technology be used as a Roadmap from Technology colony? International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 8(3), 265−282.Google Scholar
  21. Pearce, J. M. (2014). Open-Source Lab: How to build your own hardware and reduce research costs- Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  22. Powell A. (2012). Democratizing Production through Open Source Knowledge: Open Software to Open Hardware. Media Culture Society, 6(34), 691–708.Google Scholar
  23. Prahalad, C. K. (2011). The Fortune at the Bottom of the Pyramid: Eradicating Poverty through Profits. New Jersey: Dorling Kindersley Pvt Ltd.Google Scholar
  24. Redlich, T., Moritz, M. (2016). Bottom-up Economics: Foundations of a theory of distributed and open value creation. In J.-P. Ferdinand, U. Petschow (Hrsg.), The decentralized and networked future of value creation – 3d printing and its implications for society, industry, and sustainable development (S. 27-57). Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  25. Redlich, T. (2011). Wertschöpfung in der Bottom-up-Ökonomie. Berlin: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  26. Rifkin, J. (2014). The Zero Marginal Cost Society. The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism. New York: Palgrave MacMillanGoogle Scholar
  27. Saha, N.; Saha, P. (2015). Twinning strategy: Is it a vehicle for Sustainable Organizational Learning and Institutional Capacity Development? WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics (12), 317−324.Google Scholar
  28. Scharmer, O. (2013). Leading from the Emerging Future: From Ego-System to Eco-System Economies. San Francisco: Agency/Distributed.Google Scholar
  29. Smith, A., Fressoli, M., Abrol, D., Around E. & Ely, A. (2016). Grassroots Innovation Movements. London: Pathways to Sustainability.Google Scholar
  30. Smith, A., Fressoli, M. & Thomas, H. (2014). Grassroots innovation movements: challenges and contributions. Journal of Cleaner Production (63), 114−124.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, A., Seyfang, G. (2013). Constructing grassroots innovations for sustainability. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 827−829.Google Scholar
  32. Stallman, R. (1999). The GNU Project. Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution, URL: http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html, [24.09.2016].
  33. Star, S. L. (2001). Infrastructure and ethnographic practice: Working on the fringes. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14(2), 107−122.Google Scholar
  34. Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy (15), 285–305.Google Scholar
  35. Toffler, A. (1981): The Third Wave. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  36. World Bank (2014): Communities of “Makers” Tackle Local Problems. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/08/06/communities-of-makers-tackle-local-problems, [06.06.2017].
  37. Wulfsberg, J.P., Redlich, T. & Bruhns, F. L. (2011). Open Production: Scientific foundation for cocreative product realization. Production Engineering, 5(2), 127−139.Google Scholar
  38. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: design and methods, 4th Edition. Los Angeles: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonja Buxbaum-Conradi
    • 1
  • Jan-Hauke Branding
    • 1
  • Sissy-Ve Basmer-Birkenfeld
    • 1
  • Babsile Daniel Osunyomi
    • 1
  • Tobias Redlich
    • 1
  • Markus Langenfeld
    • 1
  • Jens P. Wulfsberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratorium FertigungstechnikHelmut-Schmidt-Universität HamburgHamburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations