Topology, typology, and dynamics of commons‐based peer production: On platforms, actors, and innovation in the maker movement

Abstract

In this paper, we aim to present a comprehensive analysis on the emerging phenomenon of distributed innovation in commons‐based peer production (CBPP) platforms. Starting with the exploration of the widely held belief on value‐creation confined to industrial settings, we raise several questions regarding the feasibility of, and a need for, an inclusive innovation process that can tap grassroots capacity into both traditional (industrial research and development) and emerging (peer‐to‐peer) innovation models to yield sustainable solutions. In particular, we explore the emergence and structuration of digital innovations in the maker movement, as it presents an alternative construct of innovation wherein access to and sharing of knowledge is predominantly distributed. With innovation outcomes often freely revealed, its very structuration could pose a principal challenge to our conceptualizations of value creation and competitive advantage in the current economic model. Drawing from responses received from 200 collaborative innovation platforms, six semi‐structured interviews focusing on socio‐technical innovation cases, as well as four in‐depth narrative interviews with maker turned entrepreneurs, we present a detailed analysis on the topology of network, typology of actors, as well as the underlying innovation ecosystem in CBPP networks in Germany. In doing so, we contribute to the conceptualization of peer‐to‐peer distributed innovations in collaborative platforms.

How Open Is the Maker Movement? Integrative Literature Review of the Openness Practices in the Global Maker Movement

“…Openness of hardware designs is often seen as having intrinsic value in the maker movement [28,29]. Open hardware designs can be a source of customisability and endless creativity, encouraging others to further modify and adapt hardware to suit their purposes or creative goals [30].…”

“…It could be described as a pedagogy of making that creates favourable circumstances for different learning curves to emerge. Aryan et al [28] observe that society-driven or sustainable innovation is traditionally considered a peripheral activity. Driven by financial crisis, social movements and postgrowth philosophy, for example, societal innovation has developed towards mainstream thinking and activity.…”

“…Open innovation is a term that refers to innovation processes that are not closed in one unit of innovating but instead use multiple sources of innovations [39]. Open innovation is seen as a framework for combining innovation in developed and developing economies [39] as well as utilising maker networks to complement the innovation processes of companies [28]. Innovation processes can be made more open through cooperation between commercial firms and maker networks, where the different understandings supplement each other.…”

“…Firstly, the costs of making can exclude some people, be they material and prototyping costs [35] or membership fees of makerspaces [28]. The excluding impact of costliness can also extend to establishing [34] and sustaining [60] makerspaces and securing the best and most suitable environment for pleasant and inclusive making experiences [43].…”

“…Government and institutional initiatives in several countries aim at increasing interest in STEM education among young people by financing the establishment of makerspaces that host free educational activities for children and young people [60]. In Germany, makers even recognised basic income as a possible means for focusing on open hardware innovation [28].…”