Through entrepreneurs’ eyes: the Fab-spaces constellation

Abstract

Fabrication spaces (Fab-spaces) provide individuals with access to numerous manufacturing equipment (including additive manufacturing), to carry out different types of projects. Although scholars are starting to speculate about the importance of these new organisational forms and their potential for future distributed innovation and production ecologies, this phenomenon is still largely unexplored. Building on existing multidisciplinary research, this paper offers the first empirical analysis of existing fab-spaces as providers of knowledge and production competencies. Amongst all the possible perspectives to derive a framework, we choose that of fab-space users who have an entrepreneurial intention. After deriving an analytical framework to position fab-spaces in the current academic discourse, the paper develops a classification, which considers the competences available to entrepreneurs, via fab-spaces, in conjunction with how these competences are provided. The resulting map reveals the complementarities amongst the different fab-spaces. It also shows that the current portfolio of fab-spaces supports mainly the distribution of innovation across locations and social groups. Several types of fab-spaces are currently well placed to support the transition from innovation to manufacturing, but their geographical distribution and range of manufacturing capabilities are not yet enough to provide a fully distributed manufacturing model. This study has practical consequences for entrepreneurs, in the better identification of the appropriate fab-spaces for their needs, and for policy-makers, to help position the different types of fab-spaces as elements for national systems of innovation and production.

Contextual Impacts on Industrial Processes Brought by the Digital Transformation of Manufacturing: A Systematic Review

“…Some studies focused on maker and FabLab movements, seeking to identify how digital fabrication technologies combined with new services (through "fab-spaces", that is fabrication spaces) can help transfer familiar principles from the digital to the physical world, by empowering user-entrepreneurs to turn their ideas into real prototypes or products to start a business in a comparatively easy way [50,179]. Mortara and Parisot (2016), in their work, map the current fab-spaces landscape and provide a detailed hierarchical classification of these emerging organizations by taking the particular perspective of those who use the Fab-spaces to launch entrepreneurial ventures [66]. From these settings, a research stream investigating the concept of the prosumer emerged.…”

External factors influencing Fablabs’ performance

“…This research project provides results different than those of Dreessen, Schepers, and Leen (2016) since the users of the analyzed Fablabs are traditional makes, namely entrepreneurs, since the sample includes only Fablabs focusing on entrepreneurship. Mortara and Parisot (2017) classify Fablab-spaces based on the competencies available to entrepreneurs and the way these competencies are delivered. After studying 73 Fablabs they conclude that their predominant business model relies on the knowledge of an extensive community of experts in different areas.…”

“…They also find that qualified human resources also constitute another critical resource available to Italian Fablabs that allows users to obtain better results. This research project provides a different approach than that of Mortara and Parisot (2017) and Ruberto (2015) by studying the availability of volunteers/workers and its impact on the performance of Fablabs Mortara and Parisot (2016) study the experience of eight entrepreneurs with Fablabs by applying semi-structured interviews. They find that entrepreneurs can find encouragement and support at Fablabspaces through appropriate conditions that reduce the fear of failure.…”

The Emergence of Makerspaces, Hackerspaces and Fab Labs: Dewey’s Democratic Communities of the Twenty-first Century?

“…This reflects the growing awareness of the potential for public spaces to attract members of the local community. They provide opportunities for co-creation and knowledge sharing ('open design') (Neves & Mazzilli, 2013) as well as for professional development (Paganelli, Cribbs, Silvie'Huang, Pereira, Huss, Chandler & Paganelli, 2016) and entrepreneurship (Mortara & Parisot, 2016. However, these spaces have been questioned with regard to barriers to women giving rise to gender bias (Lewis, 2015;Richards, 2016) as well as having limited accessibility for the disabled (Brady, Salas, Nuriddin, Rodgers & Subramaniam, 2014).…”