Digital desktop fabrication technologies such as 3D printing are currently being lauded in the popular press as a potentially socially transformative technology. The authors argue that more sustained attention should be paid to the ways in which 3D printing is entering into our creative environments.
Authors: Matt Ratto, University of Toronto in 2008; Robert Ree, professor at the School of Animation, Arts and Design at Sheridan College in Oakville, Ontario, US.
Published in open-access journal First Monday
ABSTRACT - Digital desktop fabrication technologies such as 3D printing are currently being lauded in the popular press as a potentially socially transformative technology. We somewhat agree, arguing that 3D printing holds great socioeconomic implications, but also that more sustained attention should be paid to the ways in which 3D printing is entering into our creative environments. Our focus in this article is on the use of rapid prototyping by creatives such as architects, designers, and DIY advocates, since it is within these contexts where the popular themes of 3D printing are currently most concrete. To this end, in section one we provide some background for desktop digital fabrication, contextualizing 3D printing within industrial processes and Maker subcultures. In section two, we summarize our environmental scan of relevant popular and academic literature, using this to identify key trends in this area. We supplement this discussion in section three using our analysis of a ‘critical making’ session that took participants through a process of designing and printing simple objects as well as follow–up interviews with these participants. In the concluding section, we target four areas in need of future research.
Paper on the “future of smart cities”.
Authors: Sauro Vicini, Sara Bellini, Alberto Sanna, eServices for Life and Health, Milano, Italy.
Published in SMART 2012: The First International Conference on Smart Systems, Devices and Technologies.
Other papers from the conference can be accessed here.
ABSTRACT - What is the future of Smart Cities? The San Raffaele Scientific Institute (HSR)’s eServices for Life and Health unit in Milan strives to explore and push the boundaries of the Smart City concept through the ideation and implementation of smart services. Often, these services achieve their highest potential through Internet of Things, which enable the constituents of these services (users, products, environments) to be interconnected. In order to examine the dynamics between users, service touchpoints and Internet of Things, HSR decided to develop a methodology within a Living Lab framework and set up the City of the Future Living Lab. The City of the Future Living Lab is both a virtual and real research environment and community and embodies a Smart City (indeed it contains a university, laboratories, a hospital, offices, shops, a supermarket, post-offices, streets, parks, a light rail train and bus service, numerous ICTs, etc.). It therefore has exposure to all users and consumers of a city. This paper focuses on delivering an overview of the Living Lab methodology and the way it brings together people, environments, ICT and Internet of Things in the creation of e-Services designed by and around the end user. The paper presents the methodology and tools implemented for all the phases of the Living Lab process and presents the case of Living Labs as user-driven open innovation ecosystems for services for future Smarter Cities.
Open access article: http://www.thinkmind.org/index.php?view=article&articleid=smart_2012_2_50_40077
Our community, consisting of academics, industrialists, managers, entrepreneurs and politicians, offers a big platform for knowledge transfer, scientific and applied discussions and active networking. Scientific results and practical contributions will be discussed in paper or workshop sessions. Key note speeches offer insights to relevant topics from science to policy to industry. Networking events provide the possibility of launching new projects and ensure a proactive knowledge transfer.
Full papers due February 15. Conference in Munich, Germany, 18-20 June 2012.
Paper or Workshop Submissions from academia, industry, policy or intermediary organizations should focus on the following areas.
Management of Innovation
Concurrent Engineering and Product Development
Virtual Enterprises, Organisations and Communities
We characterise collective design as an emerging area of research in the field of online collective intelligence and introduce mechanisms by which communities can be integrated into the innovation process. The community’s role in open innovation is reflected in their style of communication, which shapes contributions to the design process. Communication is studied across three successful social platforms that encourage an open community to participate in the design process. We describe these communities in relation to the communication dimension of a conceptual space for collective design, extending analysis to visual representations of the design process and a protocol study of communication content. The article concludes with our findings that the collective design community benefits from working within a structured design process where specific roles are ascribed for formulation, synthesis and evaluation.
By: Mercedes Paulini, Paul Murty and Mary Lou Maher, The University of Sydney, Australia.
Article to appear in CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Art.
Keywords: collective design; collaborative design; collective intelligence; design communication; social participation; online community
Collective Design, both as an online phenomenon and as a research area, is still in its infancy, but as community interest in participation continues to grow our understanding of this phenomenon will continue to develop. Mapping three collective design platforms from real world examples to a conceptual space for collective design is the first step to characterizing design communication. Taking real world examples of creative innovation from a non-laboratory setting ensures the study is not limited by external factors. This paper has examined the design process of three websites through the visual representations presented to the community. These visualizations act as guidelines that inform the type of contribution made. Mapping communication onto design processes, particularly by casting the community into roles within the design process, has led to a greater understanding of how communities engage in collective design by informing innovation through the formulation of design briefs; synthesis of potential solutions; and the evaluation of proposed solutions.
An analysis of the communication of communities during the design process has revealed that about one third of the focus is on developing ideas, one third on evaluating them, and one third is spent on social commentary. Stempfle and Badke-Schaub’s (2002) observations that the solution space in team design can be kept to manageable level by alternating analysis (widening the solution space) and evaluation (narrowing the solution space) could be further explored in relation to collective design communities, as these results indicate ideation and evaluation are relatively proportional.
A protocol study of communication content in three collective design projects has revealed two key areas in the design process where communities are particularly good at contributing: ideation and evaluation. It has also shown that social commentary forms a significant part of M. Paulini et al. design communication. It is hypothesized that social content plays an important role in persuading others to agree with design statements and forming a sense of community.
The structure of the design process afforded by a collective design platform helps to compensate for any lack of professional expertise within the open community. The collective design community is self-forming rather than pre-selected as design teams. Unlike most design teams, collective design communities are self-organised to the extent that individuals choose their roles, the degree to which they contribute, and the duration of their involvement. It is essential that the collective design platform provides an organisational framework to support this format for design by providing adequate channels of communication.
By ascribing roles and working within a design structure, elements such as keeping within time and budget do not have to be a responsibility of participants, who are freed to concentrate their contributions towards a defined outcome. de Souza and Preece (2004) write that a useful place to use professionals is for keeping the project running to schedule, as communities are less conscious of schedules than work teams.
In summary, we believe that reframing open innovation as a network of self-directed individuals espousing philosophies rooted in personal experience and empathy, rather than financial reward, would not only allow for more natural and intuitive innovation but for more equalized participation in the innovation process. Consequently, we propose taking a broader view of the potential of open innovation platforms than corporate interests have done in the past.
By: Haakon Faste, Human-Computer Interaction Institute, Carnegie Mellon University
Abstract: This investigation examines recent literature from management science, social computing and design to develop a framework for understanding the mechanisms that would enable open innovation platforms to more effectively address the most pressing areas of human need reported and reportable by such systems. The many challenges that must be overcome to solve the creative, ethical, and strategic focus problems implicit in existing open innovation systems are described. The paper concludes with specific recommendations for research on such systems, including how highly contextual end-user needs can be satisfied to encourage entrepreneurship and market success. This will only be possible if participants contributing to open innovation systems are enabled to leverage the power of the system for themselves, leading to increasingly open innovation environments.