My week at Vigyan Ashram FabLab

As we drive from the city of Pune to Pabal, a village about 70 kilometres away, the road becomes increasingly narrow; the traffic increasingly agrarian; the landscape increasingly dry. The vehicle climbs a small knoll and turns into a drive, signposted Vigyan Ashram – and I can hardly imagine I’m actually here at this legendary FabLab, one of the first established in the global FabLab network about 15 years ago. For the next week, I will live here among the students, eating with them, talking with them, following their work on projects done for the benefit of the local community.

Signpost for Vigyan Ashram, Pabal, India, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

Signpost for Vigyan Ashram, Pabal, India, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

I have visited and worked in India before, but this is my first time in a rural area. It is a necessary reminder that many in India work in agriculture and that rural technology development is both vibrant and vital. Young people here do not want to move to the big cities; they want challenges and opportunities in their own regions. Moreover, this part of Maharashtra is drought prone, where solutions related to water and soil conservation are clearly needed. The ethos of FabLabs and maker culture, that knowledge is public commons and solutions should be shared, hacked, forked, modified and shared and shared again, is therefore so important here: this is not proprietary innovation aimed at profit-making for a few, it is grassroots innovation by citizens for citizens, for community betterment. That Vigyan Ashram caught the attention of MIT’s Neil Gershenfeld because of their internet connectivity back in the late 90s, should be no surprise: this village and community needs knowledge from the outside to foster resilience. Now, in the late 2010s, this village, community and FabLab build and share knowledge on rural technology solutions with the world.

I am well accustomed to FabLabs and citizen innovation, so having a technology lab here in the middle of this large, rural traditional metalsmith workshop, is no particular surprise – the solutions needed here benefit from having sensors and communication devices connected to them. One of the first people I meet is a day visitor with an Australian accent, one of a group that has arrived here by bus to see this innovative learning centre. (Over the next week, there will be many such people and many such buses driving in for a day, an afternoon, an hour.) She seems somewhat gobsmacked that here, in the apparent middle-of-nowhere, young people are making microcontroller boards and printing objects with 3D printers. I, on the other hand, am somewhat gobsmacked that I can stroll out of the FabLab to the outbuildings and visit with chickens, goats and dairy cows.

Vigyan Ashram FabLab, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

Vigyan Ashram FabLab, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

Back then, when Gershenfeld first visited in the early 2000s, Vigyan Ashram was a place of learning, where marginalized young people, school drop-outs, the unemployed, came and were immersed in what we now call project-based learning. This function still exists, students come from all over India and learn animal husbandry and horticulture, but now also to learn product development: Vigyan Ashram offers a Diploma in Basic Rural Technology (DBRT, recognized by the National Institute of Open Schooling, the government’s programme for facilitating open learning) and a newer certificate known as Design Innovation Centre (DIC, recognized by Saitribai Phule Pune University). DIC students who complete a six-month project in Vigyan Ashram earn university credits equivalent to one semester. Among the projects I saw were a biogas digester, an injection moulding device for recycling plastic and a vegetable cooler made of readily available materials.

Komal's vegetable cooler with circulating water, March, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

Komal’s vegetable cooler with circulating water, March, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

Vigyan Ashram also offers Fab Academy, the international distributed education programme for digital fabrication offered by the FabLab network. Each week the students learn a new aspect of digital fabrication, via online lectures broadcast from MIT, local instruction and by completing a weekly assignment. All the skills accumulated over four months are to be applied in a final project, and Director Yogesh Kulkarni discusses these final projects with the students, to ensure they will indeed benefit Vigyan Ashram and/or the local surrounding community. (This is unusual; in all other FabLabs I have visited, students are free to choose their own final project, which does not need to prove local relevance, social impact or environmental benefit – even if such projects do tend to garner special praise by evaluators.) The projects this year will include a solar tracker for solar cookers and a greywater treatment solution for the Ashram.

solar cooker at Vigyan Ashram, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

solar cooker at Vigyan Ashram, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

The projects I heard about are already in use or are soon to be implemented and do not sit idle on the shelf. Several projects for Fab Academy, DIC and DBRT are commissioned by clients, such as local farmers or small business owners seeking a low cost but effective solution. Working for clients enhances students’ entrepreneurial and consultancy skills. But particularly, what I heard again and again, during my week at Vigyan Ashram, but also at other Indian FabLabs, was how such direct, material, hands-on learning boosted confidence. For students with previous engineering education, the work in the FabLab allowed them to put into embodied practice what they had learned in the abstract. For all students, completing a project gave them the confidence that yes, they can do and they can make.

Technology Development Park at Vigyan Ashram, displaying grassroots innovations such as a vegetable dryer and rice planters, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

Technology Development Park at Vigyan Ashram, displaying grassroots innovations such as a vegetable dryer and rice planters, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

They can identify a problem, they can search for information and solutions online, they can prototype, and they can physically produce whatever solution they have designed and adapted for this particular problem, given existing local material, technical and cultural constraints. It is this confidence that allows them to imagine a future of their own creation, where they can dream, but also develop the needed skills to complete projects and deal with clients. It is a conception of entrepreneurship related to resilience, aspiration and practicality, more than the tech-driven startup language seen elsewhere, of innovation for innovation’s sake. This is the FabLab network’s mission enacted: do not bring technology to the people, bring them the means to make their own technology.

rural machinery prototyped and developed for specific local conditions at Vigyan Ashram, March, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

rural machinery prototyped and developed for specific local conditions at Vigyan Ashram, March, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

On my favourite day in the FabLab that week, all the elements came together – peer learning, entrepreneurship, skill development. FabLab Manager Suhas began the day with instruction on electronics design, and the students soon paired off naturally to begin learning more from each other and from tutorials online. Recent DIC graduate Prachi was working on a prosthetic robot arm for a client in the FabLab, and she began to coach the others on the electronics knowledge she had picked up along the way. Fab Academy students Arundhati and Abhijeet put their heads together to start learning the software. DIC student Komal watched, as she will benefit from this information later. Fab Academy tutor Suyog arrived and also began to coach the students when they ran into trouble. The other local Fab Academy tutor Supriya was away for the day. Based on her knowledge and experience building a ‘rangoli’ machine for last year’s Fab Academy (rangolis are those exquisite powder pattern drawings people make on the ground outside their front doors in India, for good luck), she was asked to put together and deliver a small laser engraver to a client. This day was delivery day.

Meanwhile, behind the electronics group, DBRT student Sandeep was learning how to use the laser cutter. Sandeep wanted to make a measurement device, like callipers, that could be held up to an object (such as a shelf edge) to determine its width. Suhas gave him basic instruction on how to send the design to the laser cutter while a small group of DBRT students watched. Soon after the measurement device was cut and was on the table, Fab Academy student Mahavir came into the FabLab and picked it up, curious. What’s this? He picked up callipers to measure the accuracy of the device and noticed it was off. He showed Sandeep. Do you know about kerf? Sandeep shook his head. Mahavir grabbed his tablet and began explaining kerf by drawing. This had been a Fab Academy exercise a few weeks’ previously: how to know the cutting width of your laser cutter and account for it in your design to be able to achieve accurate final dimensions. A crowd began to gather around the table, as other students wanted to learn this important lesson too.



huddles of peer learning at Vigyan Ashram FabLab, March, 2017. Photos: Cindy Kohtala

No matter the region, many students have reported to me that completing the Fab Academy was a strategic decision for their career: to learn software and understand the hardware in our shift to an ever more digitalized society. It is a substantial time commitment and financial investment that is seen as necessary, an investment in their future. Fab Academy is also the path by which people become inducted into the FabLab world: they learn to become Fab Academy tutors and regional instructors, and many go on to be FabLab managers or to found their own FabLab. They embed themselves in their localities, where their FabLabs serve local needs, but they also find information and inspiration from their global colleagues in FabLabs around the world. Supriya received valuable help on her laser engraver from a colleague in Japan, for instance. The annual FABx meeting brings all the Fab Academy cohort together, as well as managers, directors, technicians, teachers, researchers – a chance to meet face to face and form the lasting bonds that truly create community.

In Vigyan Ashram, students had a variety of motivations for attending Fab Academy. Some had completed DIC and were hungry for more. Some had received scholarships from universities, an alternative learning track to the conventional academia of classrooms, lectures and clean laboratories. Two students had come from up north, from Chandigarh: they were planning to open their own FabLab and had carefully considered the best Lab for their Fab Academy experience – a five- to six-month long immersion. Vigyan Ashram FabLab was chosen because its rural location and especially its approach to invention, innovation and education: “They are teaching everything,” the students told me. “They are actually doing what I plan to do.”

working with sensors to measure air quality, at Vigyan Ashram FabLab, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

working with sensors to measure air quality, at Vigyan Ashram FabLab, February, 2017. Photo: Cindy Kohtala

Given its longevity, Vigyan Ashram and its FabLab appear to offer a needed alternative, an alternative model of education, production and regional development. All too soon my week came to an end, but I returned to Helsinki full of ideas and hope.


Gupta, Anil K. 2016. Grassroots Innovation: Minds on the Margin are not Marginal Minds. Gurugram, India: Random House India.
Kalbag, S.S. 2010. Selected Essays of Dr. S.S. Kalbag on Education, Technology & Rural Development. Edited by Sangram Gaikwad. Pune: Vigyan Ashram, Pabal.
Kulkarni, Yogesh. 2016. ‘Fab Lab 0 to Fab Lab 0.4: Learnings from Running a Lab in an Indian Village’. In Proceedings of the Fab 12 Research Stream. Shenzhen, China: International FabLab Association.

Doctoral dissertations and Master’s theses

Here is a list of dissertations and theses on (a) Open Design and (b) Making, digital fabrication, makerspaces. Buy me a cocktail sometime to thank me.

Doctoral Dissertations: Open Design

Sawhney, Nitin, 2003. Cooperative innovation in the commons: Rethinking distributed collaboration and intellectual property for sustainable design innovation. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Architecture, Program in Media Arts and Sciences. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.

von Busch, Otto, 2008. Fashion-able: Hacktivism and Engaged Fashion Design. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Fine, Applied and Performing Arts, School of Design and Crafts, University of Gothenburg, Sweden.

Zheng, Jing, 2009. Open Collaborative Mechanical/Product Design: User as Developer. A New Design Methodology for Internet Era Business Innovations and Entrepreneurship. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Mechanical, Aerospace, and Structural Engineering, School of Engineering and Applied Science. Washington University, in Saint Louis, Missouri, USA.

Silver, Matthew Robin, 2010. Open Collaborative System Design: A Strategic Framework with Application to Synthetic Biology. Doctoral dissertation. Engineering Systems Division. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.

Balka, Kerstin, 2011. Open Source Product Development: The Meaning and Relevance of Openness. Doctoral dissertation. Hamburg University of Technology Hamburg-Harburg, Germany. Published by Gabler, Springer.

Sinclair, Matthew, 2012. The specification of a consumer design toolkit to support personalised production via additive manufacturing. Doctoral dissertation. Design School. Loughborough University, UK.

Dexter, Matt, 2014. Open Design and Medical Products. Doctoral dissertation. Sheffield Hallam University, UK.

Philips, Robert Daniel, 2015. The Bee Lab kit: Activities engaging motivated lay users in the use of open technologies for citizen science activities. Doctoral dissertation. School of Design. Royal College of Art, London, UK.

Hermans, Guido, 2015. Opening Up Design: Engaging the Layperson in the Design of Everyday Products. Doctoral dissertation. Industrial Design. Umeå Institute of Design, Faculty of Science and Technology. Umeå Institute of Design Research Publications, No. 002. Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.

Kyriakou, Harris, 2016. Collective Innovation: Novelty, Reuse and their Interplay. Doctoral dissertation. Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey, USA.

Bakırlıoğlu, Yekta, 2017. Open Design for Product/Part Longevity: Research through Co-designing with a Focus on Small Kitchen Appliances. Doctoral dissertation. Industrial Design Department, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

Rozas, David, 2017. Self-organisation in commons-based peer production: Drupal – “the drop is always moving”. University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. 

Boisseau, Étienne, 2017. Open-Design: Modeling the open design process in the development of tangible products. Doctoral dissertation. Paris Institute of Technology, l’École Nationale Supérieure d’Arts et Métiers.

Master’s theses: Open Design

Menichinelli, Massimo, 2006. Reti collaborative : Il design por una auto-organizzazione Open Peer-to-Peer. Master’s thesis (Italian). Industrial Design, Faculty of Design. Politecnico di Milano, Italy.

de Bruijn, Erik, 2010. On the viability of the open source development model for the design of physical objects: Lessons learned from the RepRap project. Master’s thesis. Department of Information Management, Faculty of Economics and Business. University of Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Turner, Robin, 2010. Open Source as a Tool for Communal Technology Development: Using Appropriate Technology Criteria to Determine the Impact of Open Source Technologies on Communities as Delivered Through the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fab Lab Projects. Master’s thesis. Digital Arts. Wits School of Arts, Faculty of the Arts. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.

Wong, Garry Chun Yang, 2011. Open Source Hardware: The history, issues, and impact on digital humanities. Humanities Computing. University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Paiva, Juliana, 2012. Towards Openness: A Study about Open Design and its Translation from Theory into Practice. Master’s thesis. New Media & Digital Culture. University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Suarez Carmona, Mariana, 2012. The Value of Design as a Holistic Approach in Enhancing a Global Brand: The Case Study of Heineken Open Design Explorations. Master’s thesis. Strategic Product Design. Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering. Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

Gardner, Alec J., 2013. The Architecture of Mass Collaboration: How Open Source Commoning Will Change Everything. Master’s thesis. Architecture. University of Cincinnati, USA.

Bagiński, Jan, 2014. Budynek wielorodzinny otwartego kodu [Open Source Housing]. Master’s thesis (Polish). Architecture and Urban Planning. Warsaw University of Technology, Poland.

Muhur, Melike, 2014. Evaluation of a Proposal for a Production Center “Fab Lab” as a means of Realization Open Design. Master’s thesis (Turkish). Graduate School of Science, Engineering and Technology. Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey.

Rodriguez, Edison, 2014. Open Design no cenário contemporâneo. [Open design in the contemporary context.] Master’s thesis (Portuguese). UNESP (Universidade Estadual Paulista), Brazil.

Harrison, Peter Hugh, 2017. The participatory design of a human-powered shredder for urban farmers in Soweto. Thesis for Master’s of Technology Industrial Design. University of Johannesburg. Available on ResearchGate:

Doctoral Dissertations: Making and makerspaces, maker culture, digital fabrication, 3D printing…

Aldoy, Noor N., 2011. An investigation into a digital strategy for industrial design education. Doctoral dissertation. Design School. Loughborough University, UK.

Rajan, Prashant, 2012. Organizing Grassroots Innovations: Examining Knowledge Creation and Sharing Practices for Technological Innovation at the Grassroots. Doctoral dissertation. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

Bianchini, Massimo, 2014. Industrious design : Design e cambiamento dei modelli di (micro)produzione nell’ibridazione tra individuo e organizzazione [Industrious design: The role of design in the evolution of (micro)production models enabled by the hybridization of individuals and organizations]. Doctoral dissertation (Italian). Industrial Design, Department of Design. Politecnico di Milano, Italy.

Leduc-Mills, Benjamin A., 2014. Embodied Fabrication: Body-Centric Devices for Novice Designers. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Computer Science. University of Colorado at Boulder, USA.

Neves, Heloisa, 2014. Maker innovation. Do open design e fab labs… às estratégias inspiradas no movimento maker. Doctoral dissertation. Faculdade de Arquitetura e Urbanismo (FAU). Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Paulo, Brazil.

Seravalli, Anna, 2014. Making Commons: Attempts at composing prospects in the opening of production. Doctoral dissertation. Interaction Design. Dissertation series: New Media, Public Sphere and Forms of Expression. Faculty: Culture and Society. Department: School of Arts and Communication. Mälmö University, Mälmö, Sweden.

Dias, Pedro João Jacinto da Silva, 2015.  Design e auto-produção : novos paradigmas para o design de artefactos na sociedade pós-industrial : a contribuição das tecnologias digitais. Doctoral dissertation. Faculdade de Belas Artes. Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal.

Justice, Sean Bradley, 2015. Learning to teach in the digital age: Digital materiality and maker paradigms in schools. Doctoral dissertation. Teachers College. Columbia University, New York, USA. NOTE: now a book (2016), published by Peter Lang:

Mota, Sofia Catarina, 2015. Bits, Atoms, and Information Sharing: new opportunities for participation. Doctoral dissertation. Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas, Departamento de Ciências da Comunicação. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Portugal.

Applin, Sally A., 2016. Disrupting Silicon Valley Dreams: Adaptations through Making, Being, and Branding. Doctoral dissertation. School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, UK.

Bosqué, Camille, 2016. La fabrication numérique personnelle, pratiques et discours d’un design diffus : enquête au coeur des FabLabs, hackerspaces et makerspaces de 2012 à 2015 [Personal digital fabrication, discourses and practices of diffuse design: A survey into FabLabs, hackerspaces and makerspaces between 2012 and 2015]. Doctoral dissertation (French). Esthétique et sciences de l’art, Spécialité design, École doctorale Arts, lettres, langues. Université Rennes 2, France.

Doubrovsky, E.L., 2016. Design Methodology for Additive Manufacturing: Supporting Designers in the Exploitation of Additive Manufacturing Affordances. Doctoral dissertation. Mechatronic design. Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.

Kohtala, Cindy, 2016. Making Sustainability: How Fab Labs Address Environmental Issues. Doctoral dissertation. School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Department of Design. Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland.

Lacy, Jennifer E., 2016. A Case Study of a High School Fab Lab. Doctoral dissertation. Curriculum & Instruction. University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

Lyles, Dan Allen, 2016. Generative Contexts. Science and Technology Studies. Doctoral dissertation. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York, USA.

Kyriakou, Harris, 2016. Collective Innovation: Novelty, Reuse and their Interplay. Doctoral Dissertation. Faculty of the Stevens Institute of Technology Hoboken, NJ, USA.

Niaros, Vasileios, 2016. Making (in) the Smart City: Urban Makerspaces for Commons-Based Peer Production in Innovation, Education and Community-Building. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Social Sciences, Ragnar Nurkse School of Innovation and Governance. Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia.

Ramanauskaitė, Eglė, 2016. Technarium Hackerspace: Community-Enabled Informal Learning in Science and Technology. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Philosophy, Department of Education, Vilnius University, Lithuania.

Searle, Kristin A., 2016. Culturally responsive computing for American Indian youth: Making activities with electronic textiles in the native studies classroom. Doctoral dissertation. Education and Anthropology. University of Pennsylvania, USA.

Shin, Myunghwan, 2016. A makerspace for all: Youth learning, identity, and design in a community-based makerspace. Doctoral dissertation. Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education. Michigan State University, USA.

Somerville, Rachel E., 2016. Making In Education: A Study Of Teachers Decisions To Participate In Professional Development, Their Emerging Understandings Of Making, And Teacher Plans For Implementation. Doctoral dissertation. Education, Educational Leadership. University of California, Davis, USA.

Toombs, Austin Lewis, 2016. Care and the Construction of Hacker Identities, Communities and Society. Doctoral dissertation. School of Informatics and Computing. Indiana University, USA.

Weichel, Christian, 2016. Mixed physical and virtual design environments for digital fabrication. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Science and Technology, School of Computing & Communications. Lancaster University, UK.

Foster, Ellen, 2017. Making Cultures: Politics of Inclusion, Accessibility, and Empowerment at the Margins of the Maker Movement. Doctoral dissertation. Science & Technology Studies, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, US.

Moilanen, Jarkko, 2017. 3D Printing Focused Peer Production: Revolution in design, development and manufacturing. Doctoral dissertation. Faculty of Communication Sciences, University of Tampere, Finland.

Boeva, Yana, 2018. Break, Make, Retake: Interrogating the Social and Historical Dimensions of Making as a Design Practice. Doctoral dissertation. Science & Technology Studies, York University, Canada.

Cuartielles, David, 2018. Platform Design: Creating Meaningful Toolboxes When People Meet. Doctoral Dissertation. Faculty of Culture and Society, School of Arts and Communication, Malmö University, Sweden. 

Mazzilli-Daechsel, Stefano, 2018. Invention and Resistance: FabLabs against Proletarianization. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) thesis. University of Kent, Universität Hamburg.

Smith, Thomas SJ, 2018. Material geographies of the maker movement: Community workshops and the making of sustainability in Edinburgh, Scotland. Doctoral dissertation. University of St Andrews, Scotland.

Braybrooke, Kaitlyn, 2019. Hacking the museum? Collections makerspaces and power in London cultural institutions. Doctoral thesis (PhD). University of Sussex, School of Media, Film and Music. 

Krebs, Vaughn M., 2019. Making Experts: An Ethnographic Study of “Makers” in FabLabs in Japan. Doctoral dissertation. University of Kentucky, Department of Anthropology Theses and Dissertations–Anthropology

Torres, Cesar Armando, 2019. Hybrid Aesthetics: Briding Material Practices and Digital Fabrication through Computational Crafting Proxies. Doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, USA.

Menichinelli, Massimo, 2020. Open and collaborative design processes: Meta-Design, ontologies and platforms within the Maker Movement. Doctoral dissertation. Department of Media, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Espoo, Finland.

Balamir, Selçuk, 2021. Unsustaining the commodity-machine: Commoning practices in postcapitalist design. Doctoral dissertation. University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam School for Cultural Analysis. 

Priavolou, Christina, 2021. Towards a Convivial Built Environment: Developing an Open Construction Systems Framework. Doctoral dissertation. Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia.

Master’s theses: Making and makerspaces, digital fabrication, 3D printing…

Nunez, Joseph Gabriel, 2010. Prefab the FabLab: Rethinking the habitability of a fabrication lab by including fixture-based components. Master’s thesis. Architecture Studies, Department of Architecture. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.

Heltzel-Drake, Ryan, 2012. Technocraft: Community Fabrication in Rainier Beach. Master’s thesis. Architecture. University of Washington, USA.

Lumans, Christine Zinta, 2014. Printable products: Investigating three-dimensional printing in the design process of interior products. Master’s thesis. University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA.

Patokorpi, Lassi, 2014. The Art and Craft of the Machine: 3D Printing, the Arts and Crafts Movement and the Democratization of Art. Master’s thesis, English Philology. School of Language, Translation and Literary Studies. University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.

Sherrill, John T., 2014. Makers: Technical Communication in Post-Industrial Participatory Communities. Master’s thesis. Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

Torretta, Nicholas, 2014. A journey through alternative ways of living. Master’s thesis. Department of Design, School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland.

Weinmann, Julian, 2014. Makerspaces in the university community. Master’s thesis. Institute of Product Development. Technische Universität München, Germany.

Dickerson, Kathryn, 2015. The Innovation Makerspace: Geographies of Digital Fabrication Innovation in Greater New York City. Master’s thesis. Geography, School of Arts and Sciences, Hunter College. The City University of New York, US.

Faller, Nicholas L., 2015. Networks of Making. Master’s thesis. Architecture. University of Washington, USA.

Jobse, Koert, 2015. Catching trains of thought: UX guidelines for facilitating knowledge exchange between makers. Master’s thesis. Department of Design, School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland.

Morimoto, Taro, 2015. Pelori – Designing a digital service for maker projects through research. Master’s thesis. Department of Media, School of Arts, Design and Architecture. Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland.

Oates, Amy, 2015. Evidences of Learning in an Art Museum Makerspace. Master’s thesis. Museology. University of Washington, USA.

Schnedeker, Marya, 2015. An Exploration of Introductory Training Experiences in 3D Design and 3D Printing. Master’s thesis. Human Factors. Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts, USA.

Durant, Kathryn M., 2016. The maker movement and 3D printing: A critique. Master’s thesis. Sociology. San Diego State University, USA.

Fornasini, Giacomo, 2016. Investigation into the influence of build parameters on failure of 3D printed parts. Master’s thesis. Mechanical Engineering Department. University of Maryland, USA.

Hector, Philip, 2016. Trojan Horse: Re-framing sustainable practices as “design support” to attract new practitioners. Master’s thesis. Department of Design, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Helsinki, Finland.

Sturmlehner, Marlene, 2017. Entrepreneurship education in action: How FabLabs influence entrepreneurial intention. Master’s thesis. Universität Linz, Faculty of Social Sciences, Economics and Business, Institut für Innovationsmanagement.

Lachner, Valentina, 2018. The Sweater Work / Shop. Master’s thesis. Product and Spatial Design Master’s Programme, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Espoo, Finland.

Sherer, Samantha, 2018. Objects that Create Community: Effects of 3D Printing and Distributed Manufacturing beyond Circular Economy. Master’s thesis. Interdisciplinary Art Media and Design, OCAD University, Canada.

Sirelä, Minni-Maaria, 2018. Makeable design: Designing and sharing DIY furniture. Master’s thesis. School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.

Adeegbe, Joshua Muyiwa, 2019. A System Supporting Analysis of Prototyping in Fab Lab Education. Master’s Thesis. University of Oulu, Degree Programme in Computer Science and Engineering.

Park, Goeun, 2019. Rethinking social acceptance of renewable energy. Master’s thesis. Creative Sustainability Master’s Programme, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Espoo, Finland.

Akter Nasrin, 2020. System-Supported Instructor Feedback on the Students’ Design and Prototyping Processes in Fab Lab Education Context. Master’s thesis. University of Oulu, Degree Programme in Computer Science and Engineering.

Daly, Henry, 2020. Design for hacking & repair: A practical experiment. Master’s thesis. School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, Espoo, Finland.

Kliuciute, Simona, 2020. Upcycling Textiles. Master’s thesis. Master’s Programme in Contemporary Design, Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Espoo, Finland.

environmental studies on Additive Manufacturing III

I’ve been away from the blog for a while (too long) while I’ve been writing and revising journal papers. But as this is such a useful way to compile thoughts, references and discourses, here I am again with another review of additive manufacturing studies.

(Previous compilations are here and here.)

I revisited this 2009 report on AM:

Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing: Identifying the Future of Freeform Processing

It’s certainly geared to distributed manufacturing rather than personal fabrication, but in this ‘New Industrial Revolution’ we seem bent upon achieving, a lot of these impacts and benefits apply to both scales.

Chapter 8 in the report is called Energy and Sustainability:

“There are a number of clear, potential benefits to the adoption of AM for part production, which could be driven by the sustainability agenda. These include:

  1. More efficient use of raw materials in powder/liquid form by displacing machining which uses solid billets
  2. Displacing of energy-inefficient manufacturing processes such as casting and CNC machining with eradication of cutting fluids and chips
  3. Ability to eliminate fixed asset tooling, allowing for manufacture at any geographic location such as next to the customer, reducing transportation costs within the supply chain and associated carbon emissions
  4. Lighter weight parts, which when used in transport products such as aircraft increase fuel efficiency and reduce carbon emissions
  5. Ability to manufacture optimally designed components that are in themselves more efficient than conventionally manufactured components by incorporating conformal cooling and heating channels, gas flow paths, etc.” (page 28)

They also write:

“In principle, some AM processes (such as DMLS, SLM and possibly EBM) use less energy per unit volume of material in the final part than alternative manufacturing processes such as die casting or CNC machining. This appears to have a number of economical and environmental (coupled) benefits. However, very little is known about the waste streams associated with different AM processes. It is known that some polymeric AM processes have very high waste streams (e.g., SLS – powder refresh, FDM/OBJET/SLA – support structure materials). We also know that many metallic processes require significant levels of post-process heat treatment to reduce residual stresses, in addition to considerable energy loss from highly inefficient laser systems and optical tracks. These are waste streams, as they add nothing to the part. Moreover, AM machines are not designed to be efficient. Thermal management is often poor and energy loss is considerable.” (page 29)

A critical issue that “AM can greatly contribute to addressing is the reuse or remanufacturing of parts or products. (page 30)

But – as has been said here again and again – these authors say there needs to be more research and better models for analysis, development of sustainable materials, development of science-based sustainable product design principles.

“Next-generation AM processes must fully demonstrate their incorporation of sustainability principles including energy efficiency and the following major sustainability targets/goals:

  • Reduced manufacturing costs, material and energy use, industrial waste, toxic and hazardous materials and adverse environmental effects;
  • Improved personnel health, safety and security in AM processes and use of products made by AM; and
  • Demonstrated reparability, reusability, recoverability, recyclability and disposability of products produced from AM.” (page 30)

I sense the third one will experience the most roadbumps in this roadmap.

(As an aside, this report was produced at the University of Texas at Austin, who hosts the Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, whose Proceedings in turn are much cited.)


Faludi, J., Bayley, C., Bhogal, S., Iribarne, M., 2015. Comparing environmental impacts of additive manufacturing vs traditional machining via life-cycle assessment. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21 (1), 14–33.

This brand-spanking new study came to my attention because the first author is a buddy in the o2 global network. In this paper, the team was studying “the environmental impacts of two additive manufacturing machines to a traditional computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine to determine which method is the most sustainable”.

I like how they word the target and target audience of the paper:

“The goal of this research was to conduct a comprehensive comparison across all major sources of ecological impacts (energy use, waste, manufacturing of the tools themselves, etc.) and all major types of impacts (climate change, toxicity, land use, etc.) so that prototypers and job shop owners can make an informed decision about which technology to purchase or use, and so the makers of 3D printers can understand their priorities for improving environmental impacts.” (By 3D printers here we are talking about FDM and inkjet machines printing in plastic.)

Here the utilization of the machines stood out as most important: if the printers were used constantly or used only occasionally and sitting around on stand-by for long periods of time. “Higher utilization both reduces idling energy use and amortizes the embodied impacts of each machine.” The authors suggest that “the best strategy for sustainable prototyping is to share tools, to have the fewest number of machines running the most jobs each.”

The FDM printers that sit in most Fab Labs seem relatively benign according to this study, especially if they are TURNED OFF when not in use. We’ll see below that the materials they use also seem relatively good, especially in comparison to other AM materials for other processes. But then we see the quote above about material efficiency, where a key objective in the AM roadmap would be “more efficient use of raw materials in powder/liquid form by displacing machining which uses solid billets”. This seems to be the trend – more desktop 3D printers being developed are more about powders than filaments. But keep in mind what Faludi et al. report in this study, that the claims about waste reduction and material efficiency when comparing AM to conventional manufacturing are often overblown because the gains are outweighed by the impacts related to energy (including embodied energy). In short, grab those environmental benefits where you can, but really put your efforts to where the real impacts are. Here, don’t get a printer in-house until you have enough work to keep it running efficiently.


Short, D.B., Sirinterlikci, A., Badger, P., Artieri, B., 2015. Environmental, health, and safety issues in rapid prototyping. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21 (1), 105–110.

This article is in the same journal issue as the one above; it focuses especially on health and safety issues in rapid prototyping. One gets the picture that a rapid prototyping facility in an industrial context would probably have a lot of these issues in hand, such as the ventilation called for, but even this is not certain. In Fab Labs and makerspaces this is rare.

According to the authors,

“The modeling materials for the FDM systems are all inert, nontoxic materials developed from a range of commercially available thermoplastics and waxes. However, it is important not to exceed melting temperature recommendations to avoid the fumes produced during processing. They may cause eye, skin and respiratory tract irritation. Moreover post-processing operations such as grinding, sanding or sawing can produce dust, which may present an explosion or respiratory hazard.” So not a giant worry, but SLA machines and other technologies are beginning to enter Fab Labs at a rapid pace and that is another potential can of worms.

And then there are the waste management problems – especially through to the end of the life cycle when the product / material is downstream. What happens then? Seems it’s time these kinds of issues were taken up in the maker community. It wouldn’t take much to start compiling and distributing Health, Safety and Environment watchlists for these small-scale prototyping environments. Put a few posters up. Distribute the MSDSs (Material Safety Data Sheets). Open a window. That kind of thing.


Kellens, K., Renaldi, R., Dewulf, W., Kruth, J., Duflou, J.R., 2014. Environmental impact modeling of selective laser sintering processes. Rapid Prototyping Journal 20 (6), 459–470.

In this paper, based on LCI data, “parametric process models are developed allowing to estimate the environmental impact of the manufacturing stage of SLS parts”. The hope is that such work can improve future design-for-SLS processes, especially with regards to reducing the environmental impacts of waste materials and electricity consumption – but not just the design of 3D printed products, also the design of the equipment itself.


The importance of considering environmental impact in the design stage is also considered in this article:

Le Bourhis, F., Kerbrat, O., Dembinski, L., Hascoet, J., Mognol, P., 2014. Predictive model for environmental assessment in additive manufacturing process. Procedia CIRP 15, 26–31.

These authors emphasize how Design for Additive Manufacturing can optimize for the specifics of AM processes (such as the ability to produce complex shapes), and – at least in their analysis and system boundaries – electricity consumption is not always the most impactful factor compared to other flows (powders and fluids, in the metal deposition process they studied).

Yes, on the surface that might seem to conflict with what Faludi et al. conclude above, but in these studies the system boundaries are much smaller and they are concentrating only on the manufacturing stage in order to inform part and process design.


Most of the same authors above also published this article:

Le Bourhis, F., Kerbrat, O., Hascoet, J., Mognol, P., 2013. Sustainable manufacturing: evaluation and modeling of environmental impacts in additive manufacturing. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 69 (9-12), 1927–1939.

Here they tried out a couple of different ways to produce a part while doing the environmental evaluation (also considering energy consumption and material flows).


Let’s also put this article in the ‘optimizing design’ section:

Ratnadeep, P., Anand, S., 2012. Process energy analysis and optimization in selective laser sintering. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 31 (4), 429-437.

If you are interested in “a methodology to calculate the laser energy of a part manufactured in the SLS process and to correlate the energy to the part geometry, slice thickness and part orientation”, then check out this article. The lit review section also has heaps more citations to energy studies in additive manufacturing.


And another well-cited energy study here:

Sreenivasan, R., Goel, A., Bourell, D.A., 2010. Sustainability issues in laser-based additive manufacturing. Physics Procedia 5, 8190.

Let’s let the authors tell us what they were doing:

“The goal is to reduce energy consumption in SLS of non-polymeric materials. The approach was to mix a transient binder with the material, to create an SLS green part, to convert the binder, and then to remove the open, connected porosity and to densify the part by chemical deposition at room temperature within the pore network.”

I’m just going to skip over that level of detail. Suffice to say that – given how many researchers use the Eco-indicators – let’s be happy that so much work is *also* done developing these evaluation tools and metrics.


ADDED Feb 2015:

Almost forgot this. Must be because it was sitting right in front of me on my desk.

Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, I., Rosamond, E., Hague, R., 2013. Transparency Built-In. Journal of Industrial Ecology 17, 418–431.

This nicely dramatic title for an academic paper comes from the authors’ description of AM as inherently transparent: it’s a “one-stop” manufacturing process, so even for a complex design there’s no need for additional steps like making moulds or dies or other tooling. Sometimes just some finishing steps. This makes measuring the energy flows in production a lot easier, and in fact, it seems considering cost efficiency when planning AM builds and production processes “is likely to lead to the secondary effect of minimizing process energy consumption”. This doesn’t necessarily happen in conventional manufacturing, so immediately we see sustainability opportunities. In this study the authors present a methodology for “design for energy minimization”: a tool to estimate process energy flows as well as costs, using Direct Metal Laser Sintering experiments to test it.


Then there is the JM Pearce gang, who are quite prolific. Here are four articles, but there are more out there.

Krieger, M.A., Mulder, M.L., Glover, A.G., Pearce, J.M., 2014. Life cycle analysis of distributed recycling of post-consumer high density polyethylene for 3-D printing filament. Journal of Cleaner Production 70, 90–96.

This study promotes not only distributed production but distributed recycling: the authors claim that there are benefits to actors producing their own printer filaments from post-consumer plastics with their own low-cost (and open source, of course) shredding-extruding systems compared to a centralized recycling system. This is especially in areas where the population is not so dense, since recycling collecting and transport is impactful. I’m not going to dig into their LCA procedures to find holes at this point; someone else can do that. I’m more interested in what these researchers want to promote.

Last year I was talking to a Fab Lab manager who also works with an industrial filament manufacturer, and she was sceptical about these homegrown ‘recycle-bots’. She said it’s challenging enough to make consistent-quality filament that works without glitch in your printer at the commercial scale – how is that possible with these grassroots systems? Seems to me it would take a level of expertise that is itself not widely distributed.

Anyway, the paper presents some interesting scenarios and is quite a new take on this New Industrial Revolution the maker movement is supposed to represent – where a cottage industry could develop around the collection and reprocessing of plastic waste into, for example, spare parts and other Useful Things. I seem to remember a scene like that in Ian McDonald’s Brasyl, and these authors do mention some initiatives in the global South, but they also intend it to develop and benefit regions in the North.


Baechler, C., DeVuono, J., Pearce, J.M., 2013. Distributed recycling of waste polymer into RepRap feedstock. Rapid Prototyping Journal 19 (2), 118-125.

In this earlier paper, a Pearce crew report on the filament quality they made in the RecycleBot: “Filament was successfully extruded at an average rate of 90 mm/min and used to print parts. The filament averaged 2.805 mm diameter with 87 per cent of samples between 2.540 mm and 3.081 mm.” The problems are quite well documented too, as well as the design of the device itself. You could get your hands on a windshield wiper motor and the other components and make your own.


Kreiger, M., Pearce, J.M., 2013. Environmental Life Cycle Analysis of Distributed Three-Dimensional Printing and Conventional Manufacturing of Polymer Products. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 1, 1511–1519.

“This study evaluates the potential of using a distributed network of 3D printers to produce three types of plastic components and products. A preliminary life cycle analysis (LCA) of energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is performed for distributed manufacturing using low-cost open-source 3D printers and compared to conventional manufacturing overseas with shipping.” The researchers used a RepRap printer, calculations for both PLA and ABS, as well as for conventional electricity and power from a solar photovoltaic source. The objects were a toy (a polymer block fabbed locally vs a wooden block made in and shipped from Switzerland); a water spout (a locally fabbed spout that is intended to fit onto an existed, reused, 2L bottle vs an entire watering can made in China); and a citrus juicer.

The authors have a number of ‘tips’ for making distributed manufacturing of this type even more sustainable, such as using solar PV systems, controlling temperatures during printing to enhance energy efficiency and taking recycled filaments more prominently into use. PLA is seen to have benefits over ABS, being a bio-based polymer and needing lower temperatures in printing, hence affecting energy consumption. And using a local 3D printer means you can control the design (and fill) of the product, optimizing the use of material.

Nevertheless, some of us have discussed the article and agree that the choice of objects is a bit odd and we wonder about the comparability of the mass manufactured choice vs the fabbed object.

Anyway here again we have the clear promotion of open hardware, which is not so common as a meta-level agenda in AM studies.


Wittbrodt, B. T., Glover, A. G., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G. C., Oppliger, D., Irwin, J. L., Pearce, J. M., 2013. Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers. Mechatronics 23 (6), 713−726. 

And there we have it right in the title: open source 3D printers. This is published as a Technical Note in this journal and is described as a “life-cycle economic analysis (LCEA) of RepRap technology for an average US household”. They took 20 designs from Thingiverse and after some numerical wizardry concluded that the household in question could save hundreds to thousands of dollars a year if they printed this stuff (a razor, a spoon rest, a phone dock, a phone case, shower curtain rings etc etc) instead of buying it. Again it is interesting to read for the plethora of positive scenarios they spin about distributed open source 3D printers, if not the results of the study itself.


Tabone, M. D., Cregg, J. J., Beckman, E. J., Landis, A. E., 2010. Sustainability metrics: life cycle assessment and green design in polymers. Environmental Science & Technology 44 (21), 8264−8269.

This is not about Additive Manufacturing per se, rather polymers, but it’s worth a check to see a summary of 12 polymers and the authors’ summaries of them – regarding their environmental impact (via LCA) and compliance with “green design principles” (12 Principles of Green Chemistry and 12 Principles of Green Engineering).

For instance, for the biopolymers they studied, the materials’ production resulted “in the highest impact in 5 of the 10 categories: ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, carcinogens, and ecotoxicity”. The biopolymers also “adhere well to several green design principles: the use of renewable and regional resources, low emissions of carcinogens, and low emissions of particulates”. However some of the fossil-fuel-feedstock polymers fared surprisingly well compared to the bio-based materials: “Polyolefins (PP, LDPE, HDPE) rank 1, 2, and 3 in the LCA rankings. Complex polymers, such as PET, PVC, and PC place at the bottom of both ranking systems.” It is therefore not a foregone conclusion that using PLA in your printer is clearly the environmental choice, due to the problems with how it’s produced.

As we saw above with the study on “distributed recycling”, maybe makers should also get involved in the sustainable ‘growing’ and production of their own biobased plastics, avoiding petroleum fertilizers. Could give whole new meaning to being “off-grid”. We could set up a village network. I’ll grow the potatoes for people food and use the waste to make PLA, and I’ll trade you a bundle of filaments for some cloth that someone has woven from linen – derived from the flax field next door. I guess these fields will be on the roofs of our blocks of flats / apartment buildings. And, depending on how much the sea level has risen by then, it’s possible that I have to transport that filament to you by boat. Luckily I live on the third floor of my building.


Facets of the Maker Movement: repair, fix and hack

When I tell people I’m researching environmental issues in Fab Labs, there is often a mysterious response: “are you being ironic?” Um, no… why?

I’m not sure I understand this reaction. Is it because people see Fab Labs as just obsessed with gadgets, technology driven, focused only on pumping out plastic Yodas and weird electronic contrivances? Well, that is certainly a visible part of makerspaces, and we’d be right to start examining what we are doing in Fab Labs and why. I know I’m not the only one who’d like to see a way to pop that plastic blob that didn’t work back into an extruder, make a new filament out of it, and feed it back into the printer. If I were a coder I’d come up with a solution that could scan a piece of ply or acrylic that has bits laser cut out of it – already while it is sitting in the laser cutter – and then help me plan a new cut so any small pieces I need can come from the parts that will otherwise go to waste. Maybe this already exists somewhere.

But back to my question: what are you comparing, exactly, if it becomes “ironic” to talk about environmentally-conscious making, especially considering the extreme low volumes of material flow in and out of makerspaces? So desktop 3D printers tend to produce a lot of plastic waste, but does focusing on that allow us to ignore the amount of crap that gathers dust on shelves in discount stores, “dollar stores”, or “pound-saver” or “euro-saver” shops? Or consumer products that end up in landfill – whether it is post-consumer waste or pre-consumer waste that never even gets to the shops? What if the comparison is rather the choice between experimenting with fabrication in a makerspace and spending all day in a shopping mall / shopping centre (to which you drove in your private car, of course)? Or doing a workshop in a Fab Lab where you learn to make your own mobile phone, maybe instead of buying a new one? These comparisons are not entirely fair either, but sometimes I get the impression that some believe makerspaces will take people away from making things with their hands. 3D printing is wasteful because people will just go crazy and print out all kinds of plastic rubbish in some experimental frenzy, just because they can – instead of what – their usual routine of sitting by the fire and carving their own cutlery? Yeah, right. I do still contend that the enemy of DIY and handcraft is not digital fabrication but rather the anonymity and cheap prices of mass produced products – and that has been the case for more than one hundred years. Know thine enemy.

So isn’t the route to happiness for all our camps to support handcraft and DIY via makerspaces as an alternative to consumerism and shopping? And to promote craft and artisan skills in the makerspace alongside the digital fabrication skills? This is already happening, partly via the repair movement, which I will get to in a minute. But before I do, let’s get back to this question of irony, attitudes to environmental sustainability, and makers’ and designers’ motivations.

A rather similar topic is “Sustainable Fashion”, which a lot of my colleagues are active in. They also have to always justify this expression and nod their heads: “Oh, yes, yes, what an oxymoron, ‘sustainable’ and ‘fashion’ just don’t go together, yes, yes.” Meanwhile, they have a more accurate and profound understanding of the term ‘fashion’ and its role as a cultural and social phenomenon – which differs from our understanding of ‘fad’. And they know their enemy is “fast fashion” in particular and not the entirety of the thousands of years of human history related to how we chose to clothe ourselves, represent our identities, our cultures, our social class in apparel.

Let’s continue and imagine that our knee-jerk reaction is still to assume that ‘fashion’ just means trendy, faddish, short-term clothes buying and disposal. Clearly unsustainable, right? Well – doesn’t that make it even more important that we figure out how to make it more sustainable? If it is an oxymoron, or an ironic statement, why does it mean something not worth doing?

If Fab Labs are just techy playgrounds and a breeding ground for 3D printers and their reckless offspring, and considering how fast makerspaces are spreading, the DIY and maker movement getting more media attention, and how quickly digital fabrication technologies are developing, shouldn’t we study the environmental issues in making sooner rather than later?

I follow quite a few of the usual maker suspects on Twitter, and particularly the commercial entities’ tweets tend to confirm that tech driven image of the maker movement. The incessant focus on 3D printing in the mass media doesn’t help. What is easily forgotten, though, is why people get into making in the first place: it is often because they are seeking an alternative to mass production and consumerism – and often this is intertwined with environmental consciousness. Click on this link and see how the P2P Foundation defines the Maker Movement. See? Did that surprise you? Did you know that it is “about reusing and repairing objects, rather than discarding them to buy more”? And now do you understand why I find it puzzling that “environment” and “Fab Lab” should be seen as an oxymoron? A Fab Lab might not precisely be “a philosophical idea about what ownership really is”, but it is definitely about giving people the means of developing – and understanding – their own tech rather than just giving them tech. (See Gershenfeld’s book Fab.)

This ethos of the maker movement seems easily lost in the hullabaloo around additive manufacturing, so some writers do feel the need to remind us:

We Need a Fixer (Not Just a Maker) Movement, in Wired

Design for repair: empowering consumers to fix the future, in The Guardian

When recycling is the second-best option, on BBC.

Repair events are spreading from space to space and city to city, and they are notable because they attract a much wider audience than just the hardcore makers and hackers. Protospace in Calgary offered repair events after the city’s big floods last year so people could salvage their electronics. (I’m looking forward to visiting Protospace next month.)

Helsinki’s Trashlab offers a repair event every month in collaboration with the city library, and this is also attracting larger and larger crowds and a lot of media attention. Today, in fact it will be on a consumer programme on TV (they were filming last week) – later available on Areena (in Finnish, viewable only in Finland). So far I have only had clothes to fix, something I could also do at home, but I bring them to Trashlab because it’s much more fun to darn socks when you can chat to friends. Such activity does not always need digital fabrication equipment but sometimes it might come in handy if one needs to make a spare part or component that is trickier to do by hand or has tolerances best met with digital help.

In Fixing therefore I argue we see all kinds of benefits and issues in the maker movement come together: the problems with consumer products and their planned obsolescence, the value of a shared makerspace where people can come together to socialize while learning something, and the advantages of combining digital fabrication capability with electronics knowledge with hand skills. Most importantly, this is how these heroes choose to spend their time. So what if it is quicker to just buy another replacement product? It is so much more rewarding for the fixer to help someone with their broken product, and test their own skills, and for the fixee to learn how something can be repaired and be able to keep what may be a treasured object. And I believe this time is the most valuable currency. It may even turn out to be insurance against the rebound effect in our quest to dematerialize our economies.

More on MIT-Fablab Norway

Last year I was blogging for Aalto University’s Living+ site (connected with the World Design Capital events), and I wrote this post on one of the first Fab Labs ever created, the one in Lyngen, Norway. (See this one too.)

Earlier this year a fellow Fab Lab researcher was also there, and she wrote about her experience and interview with Haakon here (in French).

I’d like to reproduce the text here in English; the translation is imperfect and stiff in places and may contain errors. I’ll correct them as I find them!

See the original site for nice photos as well as the links (I didn’t include the links in the translation):

and see more images here: under ‘juin 2013’

(extra note made on 2 Oct: Camille says the Strabic site is temporarily down but back up soon)


MIT FabLab Norway: where it all began

MIT FabLab Norway is one of the few FabLabs in the world to include the MIT acronym in its own name. Its birth in 2003 involves a motley evolution of a farm at the edge of the Lyngen Fjord, engaging leading researchers in engineering from Boston and local and rural development of artificial insemination techniques on sheep. Let’s return to the early hours of MIT FabLab Norway with Haakon Karlsen Jr., one of the pillars of the movement.

Above the Arctic Circle

Getting to MIT FabLab Norway requires a long journey from Oslo to Tromsø and finally Lyngen. It is a great, long chalet, on a large plot whose entrance is flanked by two flags: those of the region and the United States. It is surrounded by smaller buildings for accommodation. Each year about 600 people pass through the door of the FabLab.

When we arrive, around 21.oo, it’s raining lightly. We put our bags in the entrance of the FabLab, take off our raincoats and shoes, and meet Haakon Karlsen Jr., his wife Gunn and the little dog Junior. Two other women are in the kitchen and out of the oven has just come a huge plate of fish caught that morning in the fjord. Without further ado, we are asked to sit for dinner. Haakon is seated on one of the chairs designed specially by Jens Dyvik, a globe-trotting young designer who recently did a world tour of FabLabs doing projects here and there.

Haakon is a gentleman in his early sixties. He was born here and, after training as an engineer, spent his youth working with sheep insemination in the region of his family farm, which is located just down from the FabLab. He’s an unmissable figure in the region; he has also been successively a teacher and farmer. He owns several houses and land at the edge of the fjord. For ten years he’s been a pillar of the FabLab movement whose contours he’s contributed to drawing in collaboration with MIT.

The vast vault of the FabLab gives the effect of a strange chapel, in which we talk softly, silence is allowed, and the sound of the wind is heard blowing gently outside, where the light in summer never fades.

“The first FabLab in the world is here!”
Interview with Haakon Karlsen Jr

Strabic: Let’s go back a little before the creation of the FabLab. What determined your involvement in this project?

Haakon Karlsen Jr: It all started a little before the year 2000. There were many diseases and it was necessary to boost growth in some herds. In 1994, the Norwegian government was asked to establish a laboratory for artificial insemination of sheep, deer and goats. With some farmers and shepherds in the region, we got surprising success rates of up to 94% instead of the usual 10%. We quickly realized this was due to two farmers we were working with who knew their animals well and knew how to inseminate at the exact moment of ovulation. To succeed, it was necessary to know when the females were in heat. I suggested that we imagine for ourselves a technical tool to measure hormones.

It was the meeting point between a pragmatic necessity on the farm and your engineering skills …

Yes! We tried to detect different hormones to see what could be learned. We finally developed a small machine that captured the temperature and sent a message to warn the farmer about the time of ovulation. It was based on the female brain activity curves. Then we created a program to educate shepherds about the tool. Later, with farmers, we thought about a possible use for the rest of the year. So we put an accelerometer in our little machine to capture the movements of the sheep. To test this feature, we created a system that calls home after fifteen minutes of inactivity for the sheep, saying, “I’m dead”. We then put in a GPS, which allowed us to get the geographical coordinates of the sheep sent to the farmers. The Electronic Shepherd project was born as well: it helps locate flocks of sheep in the mountains to protect the animals from wolves or unstable ground.

The FabLab did not exist yet, but you had the electronic equipment?

We worked in the laboratory, on the farm. It had everything to do welding … That’s where we got the idea for the sheep phone. But it was difficult to get the signal from the mountains to the farms. We worked with Telenor (a Norwegian telecommunications company) for one year.

It was with this project through the National Science Foundation Grant that MIT spotted you …

There was an innovation competition launched by MIT globally to develop local projects. MIT sent some of its best teachers to Norway to find a suitable cooperation project. They found us through Telenor, who told them: “There is this crazy guy lost in the fjord who devised sensors for his animals ….” We enjoyed a great year of cooperation with MIT in 2001 and we were invited to Boston to present and develop this project …

Who was part of the project team?

Jurgen my son who works at the firm and myself. It was fantastic, but after years of collaboration we had to terminate the project. We had a discussion at MIT in Boston and we decided to do something to further enable this kind of adventure, something we would call … a FabLab. A Fabrication Laboratory. The decision was taken on 18 October 2002, I remember. We first decided to launch three FabLabs. One in Pune with a man named Kalbag, from Vigyan Ashram, south of Mumbai, and another in a poor neighborhood of Boston called South End Technology Center, with Mel King. And the third here in Norway.

What was the project, when you first spoke of what a FabLab could be?

At first we did not really know what we were doing. The definition at MIT was “rapid prototyping”. But since then, things have changed and other places are born with other definitions. In my opinion many FabLabs now exist that just have the name FabLab … My definition? “A global network of people who want to work together and share their knowledge.” That’s all.

Who was at the table when the word FabLab was spoken for the first time?

In my memory there was Gershenfeld, Kalbag, Mel King and me. Mel King is an old fellow who was a professor at MIT and Kalbag was an old Indian who had many projects in the community. He came into contact with MIT through links with the Indian government. A bit like here, he had created a local system for watering different plantations and was spotted by MIT. Melvin King is a very special man, who has been fighting for human rights. His FabLab has an interesting history. It was located in a very poor neighbourhood of Boston. Mel had pitched many tents in the city, he called it “Tent City”. After a few years of struggle, Mel King and his followers won the battle and built apartments for the poor, who still live there. This is a fantastic man who is 94 years old now.

Advancing in time gradually … How did the complete installation of MIT FabLab Norway come to be on this land?

In 2004, we built this house. All equipment came from Boston, free. Why here? Good question, ultimately. We must ask Gershenfeld or Sherry Lassiter. Initially, the Lab was down on the farm. I am not an architect, but I made all the plans. When the house was built, we installed all the machines here. Then MIT sent other machines and some students. Neil came, his wife, his twins, as well as Sherry Lassiter and Amy Sun. Engineers, researchers, who were there to install the machines with my son and me. It was great.

How long did it last, this first introduction? How did it go?

At first they stayed three weeks. And they came back several times. They then went elsewhere, to go to other places. They travelled a lot. Everywhere. But they always say: the Norwegian FabLab is really special. It was not only done for MIT students, it was a very big project, to see how we could change the world …

FabLab as a “community centre”

Haakon now believes his FabLab is more of a “community centre” than a place for prototyping: “It has even held a wedding celebration!” The layout of machines, tables and workstations in the main room of the chalet can be seen immediately. All technology is now on the periphery of the place, on the sides, along the walls. In the centre, a large meeting table and videoconferencing, a huge fireplace, several dining tables and chairs occupy the space. The open kitchen is itself important. Haakon jokes:
“When Neil Gershenfeld of MIT came to see the finished chalet and saw the kitchen, he told me that it was useless, that I had made a mistake, that it was not planned! The result proved that I was right. A FabLab is people, not just machines.”

Coffee, various teas, muesli, biscuits – and aquavit – are available. There are plenty of tables, some of which are there to accommodate any visitors who want to stay in the area for a few days to go hiking or other outdoor activities. The FabLab at the moment is a kind of lodging as well as a place for prototyping and manufacturing. This is precisely what guarantees a good part of its funding.

When FabLabs go green

Symptomatic of the state of friction between the rural and technological worlds, the huge digital milling machine is not in the main FabLab chalet: it was installed on the farm. It is hidden behind a door in a small shed at the back of a cluttered barn, from whose ceiling a wooden kayak is suspended.

In winter, when the sheep return, they rub against the milling machine in a great disorder. The milling machine does not give the impression of being used regularly. Access is difficult, the room is not arranged. Although Haakon does not confirm it directly to us, this machine is fairly representative of the level of daily activity in MIT FabLab Norway. It is mainly in the Boot Camps that are held or during the international workshop sessions that this place is really effervescent.

A video shows precisely what the FabLab is like in operation: one sees particularly Gershenfeld, perched on a mezzanine, slumped on a bench working with his computer on his stomach.

There is also Tomas Diez and Alex Schaub, from FabLab Barcelona and Amsterdam Waag FabLab respectively, isolated in this large wooden temple in the fjord and conducting several projects.

The rest of the time is definitely more like the days that we have experienced: the machines are stopped, Haakon is sometimes at home and sometimes in the FabLab at the computer, and people come to drink coffee, keep abreast of the status of the herds, or fix something.

In some respects, Haakon Karlsen’s story may seem far removed from MIT’s official version. At Fab9 – the large annual meeting of FabLabs held in Tokyo in late August – we were able to interview Sherry Lassiter about it: “Haakon is a great storyteller, what he says is not false but he surely has his own way of presenting things.” The FabLabs, in the narrative of their genealogy, appear as objects with multiple versions and multiple interpretations, in which the heroes are not necessarily the same …

Article written and interview conducted by Camille Bosqué.


3D Printing hype

Especially after the furore created after Defense Distributed created a 3D-printed gun (or rather gun components), there seems to be a huge amount of confused discussion about this technology (or technologies), its benefits and limits, its trajectory, and its actual current role and impact, including who is using it.

I get a bad taste in my mouth when I read enthusiastic rah-rah articles about what people have been 3D printing, especially the ones with a technology determinist bent where materialist progress is the sole measure of a successful society. The most distasteful thing is how these articles usually present utter crap as their representational images. 3D printed plastic shoes, printed badly, no less? Oh, yeah, that’s going to save both the world and the global economy.

But neither do I have any sympathy for the people wailing and gnashing their teeth about the evils of 3D printing. This is because I believe it betrays a vast ignorance of what is actually going on and where the threats and opportunities actually lie. And hey, I’m no expert either, but I think I can detect an expert voice when I hear it. (And here I don’t count the ever-increasing numbers of fora and seminars and platforms for discussing the ethical, social, axiological sides of distributing production – as long as they arm themselves with the facts.)

First of all, let’s get one thing straight. There is a world of difference between digital manufacturing and personal (digital) fabrication, and 3D printers belong in both worlds – but do completely different things. Yes, personal FDM machines are becoming cheaper and easier to use, and people might buy them and print out some plastic crap and then forget about them, but do you really think this poses significant environmental risks when compared to the whole of consumer material flow in mass production? (And I’m pretty sure you can’t print out gun components successfully on a RepRap or Ultimaker.)

So let’s call this world DIY 2.0. Then we have Factory 2.0 where companies are using additive manufacturing technologies (let’s just use the media shorthand of ‘3D printing’ here) in various applications. This has existed for decades, by the way. Especially for prototypes and models but increasingly we’re seeing a shift in terminology from Rapid Prototyping to Rapid Manufacturing. And the most useful applications here seem to be in the biomedical field. I see no Chicken Little The Sky is Falling danger here, culturally, environmentally, socially – but I’m under no illusions that this new method of production is any panacea. I’ve said before that the biggest problems seem to be related to the unknown elements of the materials themselves, especially their toxicity which will have environmental impacts all through the life cycle, including End of Life. And I’m concerned about the ability to mix and fuse elements in additive fabrication (e.g. embedding electronics), which also complicates design for disassembly. But does design for disassembly, design for repair, design for reuse, etc. exist in mass produced consumer products? exclamation point. If we detect the problems beforehand, and especially identify the leverage points, we can (try to) prevent many of these issues from becoming issues.

There have been a couple of recent Economist articles on 3D printing that mention this difference between the consumers/hobbyists and industrial production – focusing especially on what is happening in China and in certain industries such as aerospace. The second article especially clarifies *what* 3D printing is suited for and where it sits in relation to conventional manufacturing. That’s important to remember, and something that is usually neglected in the hype-and-furore. This includes remembering what kinds of activities these are. Are they B2B, or B2C? Becoming C2B?

What is interesting (for me) to monitor here in terms of environmental impact is the change in supply chains, if any. Will production become more local after all, if the Chinese move towards additive manufacturing and mass customization? Will we be able to prevent pre-consumer waste (as we see in the fashion industry) as stuff will be produced according to what customers order, rather than the current model where massive volumes of stuff produced are then pushed onto consumers – and shoved into landfill if the customers don’t want it, or even before it hits the shops?

OK, let’s go back to DIY 2.0. Terry Wohlers is *the* turn-to guy on 3D printing, and he’s not predicting a huge revolution in personal fabrication. He, like a lot of Americans in the field, focuses on education and the role of ‘making’ in promoting math and science education and understanding as well as a new generation of entrepreneurs. But what about entrepreneurs today? The more inexpensive 3D printing and rapid prototyping technologies are, and/or the more access independent designers and creatives (or any other entrepreneur, for that matter) have to them, the more it can help them. I’ve seen this myself in Fab Labs. Nothing wrong with a little distributed, grassroots, niche innovation, even if it doesn’t grow expansively and turn into the next Nokia. (Ah – sorry, the updated Finnish example is now Rovio or Supercell.)

Wohlers also points out another important thing in the Forbes article, the services that are popping up around the Maker Movement. This means that both the entrepreneurs *and* the hobbyists can turn to businesses like Ponoko and Shapeways and iMaterialise to get things made in better quality and better materials. For consumers/hobbyists, this is the fuzzy in-between area between DIY 2.0 and Factory 2.0. Another hype-and-furore thread I find quite amusing / ghastly is directly related to this development: the horror (expressed by professional designers) that people without design training might design their own products. My opinions on that would need a different post on another day, but again, let’s re-examine the scale of this in relation to the dominant consumerist mass production paradigm. Is it really going to grow into a threat, especially in the next, say, ten years? I doubt it.

Designers are also concerned about the legal issues, and this is something quite fascinating to monitor. Regarding concerns over protecting IP and design rights, in this day and age, I laugh heartily in their general direction. (Admitting, all the while, that I make my money from design research and not designing products.) More intriguing, Motherboard (among many others) points out that some laser sintering patents are expiring next year and how Makerbot emerged from the expiration of FDM patents. So something interesting could be on the horizon. In addition, the industry is consolidating. Makerbot was bought by 3D Systems while RepRap remains open source and firmly in the grassroots, experimental, p2p hacker/maker community. These two threads, the commercial and proprietary developments and the open source ones, will be worth following. Open source and open design will always have a role to play in environmental, social and economic sustainability, but that is also a discussion for another day.

If you are keenly following this development, then there is nothing new or surprising here. At any rate, check out the ‘expert voices’ in the links. Some useful stuff there.


‘What Works And What Doesn’t In 3D Printing: A Talk With Terry Wohlers’, in Forbes: . See also ‘3D Printing Misinformation’ by Wohlers:

‘Next Year, 3D Printers May Finally Make Something You Want to Keep’, in Motherboard:

‘From dental braces to astronauts’ seats’, in The Economist: . (Read the comments too, just for fun.)

‘3D printing scales up’, in The Economist:

Shaping Sustainability in Fab Labs

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a narrative case study describing interactions in one Fab Lab in Helsinki, Finland. The intent is to reveal how (or if) sustainability concerns are socially shaped within an organization in the same way participatory innovation can be shaped. The contribution of the paper is two-fold. First, it augments understanding of environmental impacts and attitudes in Fab Labs; secondly it describes how peer learning is encouraged in Labs, thereby setting the stage for participatory innovation in what is – in essence – a novel infrastructure for product development. The preliminary findings suggest pathways that can lead towards participatory invention or innovation as well as environmentally responsible practice.

The paper is forthcoming published in the Participatory Innovation Conference Proceedings, PIN-C 2013 in Lahti, Finland, 18-20 June 2013.

I‘ll be presenting presented in Track 3, Social Shaping of Innovation.

You can find the paper here: pin-c-2013-Kohtala_SustainabilityFabLabs

Full Proceedings here:

Kohtala, C., 2013. Shaping Sustainability in Fab Labs, in: Melkäs, H., Buur, J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Participatory Innovation Conference PIN-C 2013, LUT Scientific and Expertise Publications, Tutkimusraportit – Research Reports No. 6. Presented at the Participatory Innovation Conference 2013, Lappeenranta University of Technology, Lahti, Finland, pp. 287–290.

Summer Seminar: Sustainable Maker Culture

SUMMER SEMINAR: The Maker Movement: From Prosumer to Growsumer*
Wed 18.7.2012, 12-21, Pavilion Main space
What happens when people start making their own stuff and “growing” their own solutions?
From Hacklabs to Techlabs to Fablabs to Trashlabs to Transitionlabs**…
What is the Maker Movement, and where it is going?
Meet the maker communities and hear their stories. Sit down and join us in a workshop.


12.00-13.00 ‘Growing and Learning’ panel discussion
One emerging aspect of the ‘New DIY’ Movement are the communities developing around sustainable solutions, addressing the gaps between urban and rural, nature and culture, art and science, doing and learning. This often results in new, hybrid forms of knowledge and solutions.
These makers come from urban agriculture and renewable energy communities, organizations that promote learning and sharing through making and doing, and people and organizations that promote open design, open knowledge, design literacy and sustainability literacy.
How can we create and share the knowledge we need to cope with complexity and limited natural resources?
Erich Berger (Finnish Society of Bioart)
Taika Ilola (Tuunaamo)
Mikko Laajola (Pixelversity, Res Agri)
Päivi Raivio (Kääntöpöytä)

13.00-17.00 ‘New DIY’ Workshops and Demos
The Helsinki Maker Movement represents a variety of interests, areas of expertise and cultural domains – from hacking, to urban gardening, to smart textiles, to fashion hacking, to electronics hacking, to making stuff from industrial waste….
Some activities have been around for a while but some are new and strange – representing the new ways we are making sense of our world in the 21st century and taking action not only to understand our environment but to make it better.
The workshops will offer hands-on experiences for all visitors – locals and tourists alike.

13.00-15.00 ‘Making as journey’ workshop: Katharina Moebus (Aalto University). A philosophical exploration of the experience of making. Participants will explore together how making something out of seemingly ‘nothing’ can have great effects on our psyche and human relationships.
14.00-16.00 ‘E-textiles’ workshop: Ramyah Gowrishankar (Aalto University). E-textile worktable combines traditional textiles craft and simple electronics. Join us on our e-craft table to learn how to sew a soft-circuit on textiles, to practice and share your textile craft knowledge and work or to simply try and experiment with different materials. Bring your own craft to share with others or make something new from the materials provided on the table to take with you. No previous experience is necessary.
15.00-17.00 ‘Upcycling Design’ workshop: Isabella Haas, EDEL City. Make your own unique design souvenir from waste material!

18.00-20.00 ‘Making and Fabbing’ panel discussion
Fab labs, hack labs and maker spaces are truly new spaces for post-industrial activities: distributed production as an alternative to mass production. These panelists represent both the proponents and critics of digital manufacturing and personal fabrication – and we’ll attempt to dissect the sustainability and unsustainability aspects behind these practices: the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Antti Ahonen (Koelse, Trashlab)
Harri Hämäläinen (Helsinki Hacklab, WÄRK:fest)
Miska Knapek (Fab Labs and Open Design enthusiast, Aalto University)
Kirsi Niinimäki (Aalto University)
Jesse Sipola (Oshipala Air Hammer Studio)
Nina Wiklund (DIY enthusiast, Ninitchi)
Eero Yli-Vakkuri (Ore.e Refineries)

20.00-21.00 Free Chat
Enjoy the end of a Helsinki summer evening with the makers, at the lovely Pavilion.

* thanks to Damien Melotte for the term ‘Growsumer’
** credit to Diana Wildschuft for the term ‘Transition Lab’

See more about all the panelists, workshop facilitators and seminar organizer here.

Kesäseminaari: The Maker Movement: From Prosumer to Growsumer
Tekijäliike: kestävää kehitystä tee-se-itse-hengessä
ke 18.7 klo 12-21, WDC Paviljonki

Mitä tapahtuu, kun ihmiset alkavat tehdä omia juttujaan ja “kasvattaa” omia ratkaisujaan?
Mikä on “Maker Movement”, tekijäliike, ja mihin se on matkalla?
Tule tapaamaan Helsingin tekijäyhteisöt ja kuulemaan niiden tarinoita. Ota osaa myös työpajaan.

12.00-13.00 ‘Kasvattaminen ja oppiminen’ -paneelikeskustelu
Uusia tee-se-itse-yhteisöjä on syntymässä kestävien ratkaisujen ympärille. Ne kurovat umpeen kuiluja, jotka erottavat kaupungin maaseudusta, luonnon kulttuurista, tieteen taiteesta, tekemisen oppimisesta. Miten jakaa tätä tietämystä? Keskustelu on englanniksi.
Erich Berger (Finnish Society of Bioart)
Taika Ilola (Tuunaamo)
Mikko Laajola (Pixelversity, Res Agri)
Päivi Raivio (Kääntöpöytä)

13.00-17.00 ’Tee-se-itse 2.0’ Työpajat
Hacklabit, Techlabit, Fablabit, Trashlabit ja Transitionlabit – Helsingin tekijäliike edustaa monenlaisia kiinnostuksen kohteita, tietämystä ja elämänalueita.
Tule tekemään tuttavuutta tee-se-itse-liikkeeseen omin käsin “tekijä 2.0”-työpajoissa.
13-15 ’Tekeminen matkana’ työpaja (Katharina Moebus, Aalto-yliopisto). Filosofinen tutkimus tekemisen kokemuksesta. Osallistujat havainnoivat, miten se että tehdään jotain yhdessä näennäisesti ei-mistään voi olla psyykkisesti ja sosiaalisesti vaikuttava kokemus. Englanniksi ja suomeksi.
14-16 E-tekstiili-työpaja (Ramyah Gowrishankar, Aalto-yliopisto). E-tekstiili yhdistää perinteisen tekstiilikäsityön ja yksinkertaisen elektroniikan. Tuo oma käsityösi tai käytä työpajan tarjoamia materiaaleja ja opi ompelemaan tekstiileihin pehmeä virtapiiri. Englanniksi.
15-17 Upcycling-design työpaja (Isabella Haas, EDEL City). Tee itse design-lahja ystävällesi – osallistu ja inspiroidu! Englanniksi ja suomeksi.

18.00-20.00 ‘Making and Fabbing’ eli tekeminen ja tuunaaminen -paneelikeskustelu
Fab Labit ja hacklabit, 3D-tulostus ja käsityö – oma tekeminen ja käsittely tarjoaa vaihtoehdon massatuotteille. Panelistimme keskustelevat siitä, mikä on hyvää, huonoa ja rumaa tekijäliikeessä (Maker Movement).
Keskustelu on englanniksi.
Antti Ahonen (Koelse, Trashlab)
Harri Hämäläinen (Helsinki Hacklab, WÄRK:fest)
Miska Knapek (Aalto-yliopisto)
Kirsi Niinimäki (Aalto-yliopisto)
Jesse Sipola (Oshipala Air Hammer Studio)
Nina Wiklund (tee-se-itse tekijä, Ninitchi)
Eero Yli-Vakkuri (Ore.e Refineries)

Sustainable Maker Culture
Kestävä tee-se-itse kulttuuri
Hållbar gör-det-själv-kultur

-a series of events at the World Design Capital Pavilion, May-September 2012
-coordinator Cindy Kohtala, doctoral researcher, Aalto University
cindy [ dot ] kohtala [ at ] aalto [ dot ] fi

More here


“Kestävä tee-se-itse kulttuuri” -seminaari on osa designpääkaupunkivuoden Paviljongin ohjelmaa.
“Sustainable Maker Culture” Summer Seminar is part of the World Design Capital Helsinki 2012 Pavilion programme.
“Hållbar gör-det-själv-kultur” seminarium är del av programmet på designhuvudstadsårets Paviljong.

Summer series 2012

Special Summer Series: Sustainable Maker Culture
Kesäohjelmaa: Tee-Se-Itse -tapahtumat

Helsinki Green Drinks moves to the Pavilion! Tervetuloa! Welcome!

World Design Capital Paviljongissa/Pavilion/Paviljongen, Ullanlinnankatu 2-4

Maker Culture: Do It With Others
Jon Sundell (FIN) tells us about the Made in Kallio collective and the importance of collaborative making. The presentation is in English, discussion in Finnish and English.
Thur 31.5, 18-20, Pavilion Library corner
Tee-Se-Itse kulttuuri: Do It With Others
Jon Sundell (FIN) kertoo Made-in-Kallio -ryhmästä ja yhdessä tekemisen tärkeydestä. Esitys on englanniksi; keskustelu on englanniksi ja suomeksi.
to 31.5 klo 18-20, Paviljongin Lukunurkkaus

Maker Culture: Open Design
Massimo Menichinelli (IT/FIN) tells us about Open Design. What is it? Who does it benefit? The presentation and discussion is in English.
Thur 14.6, 18-20, Pavilion Library corner
Tee-Se-Itse kulttuuri: Avoin muotoilu
Avoin Muotoilu (Open Design) Massimo Menichinellin (IT/FIN) silmin. Mitä Avoin muotoilu on? Kuka siitä hyötyy? Esitys ja keskustelu englanniksi.
to 14.6 klo 18-20, Paviljongin Lukunurkkaus

Maker Culture: Fab Labs
Peter Troxler (NL) presents his view on fab labs and maker spaces. Where are they now? Where are they going? Why are we so fascinated by them? The presentation and discussion is in English.
Fri 6.7, 15-18, Pavilion Main space, “After Work” programme
Tee-Se-Itse kulttuuri: Fab Labs
Peter Troxler (NL) esittelee ajatuksiaan tekemisen tiloista ja työpajoista (fab labs). Mikä on niiden nykyisyys? Minne ne ovat menossa? Mikä niissä vangitsee ja kiehtoo? Esitys ja keskustelu englanniksi.
pe 6.7. klo 15-18, Paviljongin päätila

Maker Culture: Growing Knowledge
Mikko Laajola (FIN) tells us about the Res Agri (Resilient Technologies in Urban Agriculture) peer-learning initiative and other maker activities in Helsinki.
Tues 21.8, 18-20, Pavilion Library corner
Tee-Se-Itse kulttuuri: Kasvava tietoisuus
Mikko Laajola (FIN) kertoo Res Agri –ryhmästa ja kaupunkiviljelystä.
ti 21.8 klo 18-20, Paviljongin Lukunurkkaus

The Future of Sustainable Maker Culture
Tues 4.9, 18-20 Pavilion Library corner
Researcher Kristiina Soini-Salomaa (FIN) presents some alternative images of the future of craft and design. What kind of relevance might skills and culture competences have in the future? How could designers and makers respond to the challenges of sustainable development?

Kestävän taitokulttuurin tulevaisuus
ti 4.9 klo 18-20, Paviljongin Lukunurkkaus
Tutkija Kristiina Soini-Salomaa (FIN) esittelee muotoilun ja käsi- ja taideteollisuuden vaihtoehtoisia ammatillisia tulevaisuudenkuvia. Mikä merkitys taito- ja kulttuuriosaamisella voi olla tulevaisuudessa? Miten muotoiljat ja käsityöläiset vastaavat kestävän kehityksen haasteisiin?


SUMMER SEMINAR: The Maker Movement: From Prosumer to Growsumer*
Wed 18.7, 11-21, Pavilion Main space
What happens when people start making their own stuff and “growing” their own solutions?
From Hacklabs to Techlabs to Fablabs to Trashlabs to Transitionlabs**…
What is the Maker Movement, and where it is going?
Meet the maker communities and hear their stories. Sit down and join us in a workshop.
Programme here.

Kesäseminaari: The Maker Movement: From Prosumer to Growsumer
ke 18.7 klo 11-21, Paviljongin päätila
keskustelut ja työpajat
ohjelma englanniksi täällä

For more information: / Kysymyksiä? cindy dot kohtala at aalto dot fi

*thanks to Damien Melotte for the term ‘Growsumer’
**credit to Diana Wildschuft for the term ‘Transition Lab’

“Kestävä tee-se-itse kulttuuri” -tapahtumat on osa designpääkaupunkivuoden Paviljongin ohjelmaa.
“Sustainable Maker Culture” Summer Series is part of the World Design Capital Helsinki 2012 Pavilion programme.
“Hållbar gör-det-själv-kultur” händelser är del av programmet på designhuvudstadsårets Paviljong.