Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ndcr20

Download by: [Katja Fleischmann] Date: 25 February 2016, At: 19:13

Digital Creativity

ISSN: 1462-6268 (Print) 1744-3806 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ndcr20

Making things in Fab Labs: a case study onsustainability and co-creation

Katja Fleischmann, Sabine Hielscher & Timothy Merritt

To cite this article: Katja Fleischmann, Sabine Hielscher & Timothy Merritt (2016): Makingthings in Fab Labs: a case study on sustainability and co-creation, Digital Creativity, DOI:10.1080/14626268.2015.1135809

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2015.1135809

Published online: 25 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Making things in Fab Labs: a case study on sustainability andco-creationKatja Fleischmanna, Sabine Hielscherb and Timothy Merrittc

aSchool of Creative Arts, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD, Australia; bScience and Technology Policy Research,University of Sussex, Brighton, UK; cAarhus School of Architecture, Aarhus, Denmark

ABSTRACTDigital fabrication laboratories (such as Fab Labs) are a global initiative ofworkshops that offer open access to technologies to produce objects frombeginning idea to final production. Fab Labs encourage open and freeknowledge-sharing among ‘experts’ and the general public. Claims are beingmade about community-based digital fabrication workshops transformingpractices of design, innovation, production and consumption, whiledescribing positive impacts on the environment and social goals. Researchthat examines such claims is sparse. This paper explores realities of usingdigital fabrication technologies within a Fab Lab. It draws on a case studythat describes practical outcomes of a design workshop in which amultidisciplinary team engaged in issues of sustainable design and processesof co-creation to design and fabricate a prototype. This experience providesinsight into the impact of digital fabrication technologies within a sustainableand co-creational design context and critical reflections are presented.

KEYWORDSFab Lab; sustainability;co-creation; digitalfabrication technologies

1 Introduction

Community-based digital fabrication work-shops are diverse labs where people cometogether to learn about, use and develop digitaltools, technologies and science projects. Theyare often voluntarily-run spaces that can befreely (at least in part) accessed by the public.Since the setup of the first labs, the number ofFab Labs has grown ‘virally’ (Gershenfeld2014) and doubled every 18 months for thelast 10 years and now amounts to about 350labs globally (Gersehenfeld 2014). These com-munities create physical and digital infrastruc-tures to work in community-operated physicalspaces or share their learning through websites,documents and conferences. The exchange ofknowledge and sharing of digital technologies

is key to their collaborations. Fab Labs andtheir networks constitute prominent examplesthat usually adapt a workshop model pioneeredby the Massachusetts Institute of Technology(MIT).

In recent years, these workshops have gainedincreased media, government and academicattention because their activities and projectshave been linked to ideas that consider theseworkshops to be part of a digital fabricationrevolution creating opportunities for sustain-able design. Efforts towards open source, crea-tive commons, peer-to-peer networking andcollaborative working have been interpreted asbeing part of a ‘Third Industrial Revolution’(Anderson 2012, 40) and a ‘revolution in themaking’ (Ree 2011, 1). Activities in workshops

© 2016 Taylor & Francis

CONTACT Katja Fleischmann katja.fleischmann@jcu.edu.au

DIGITAL CREATIVITY, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14626268.2015.1135809

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

and the development of affordable digital fabri-cation tools have been said to put into questionthe sources and systems of innovation, patternsof co-creation and consumption (Birtchnell andUrry 2012, 2013).

Diverse themes are currently linked to com-munity-based digital fabrication workshopssuch as peer-production commons (Troxler2013), personal manufacturing (Bohne 2013),democratisation of invention (Blikstein 2013),co-design (Kohtala 2014) and sustainability(Hielscher and Smith 2014; Kohtala and Bosque2014). Beyond the hype and some preliminary,recent research (Kohtala and Bosque 2014), sig-nificant questions remain unanswered aboutdigital fabrication workshops in practice (Trox-ler 2010). For instance, workshops might just aseasily lead to a dispersal of production capacityand an intensification of consumption thatundermines ambitions for sustainability. Aca-demic studies that examine the use of digitalfabrication technologies for sustainable designwithin workshops are rare. Furthermore, thepotential of co-creation design activities withina Fab Lab setting are equally underexplored.This paper addresses the need for researchinto the realities of using digital technologiesto influence the production process towardssustainable design and co-creation ideas withina Fab Lab setting. In order to reflect upon theserealities, the paper draws on an in-depth casestudy that consists of practical outcomes of adesign workshop conducted as part of a sum-mer school at the University Institute of Lisbon(IUL) within the VitruviusFabLab-InstitutoUniversitário de Lisboa (IUL or UniversityInstitute of Lisbon) Digital Fabrication Labora-tory (Fab Lab). The goal of the summer schoolwas to make use of digital fabrication technol-ogies within collaborative teams to design andfabricate prototypes, considering issues of sus-tainability and co-creation. The aim of thepaper, therefore, is to reflect upon the designworkshop’s processes and outcomes in relationto the summer school goals. Although duringthe summer school participants were asked to

embrace the four pillars of sustainability(environmental, economic, social and culturaldimension) (Magee et al. 2013), critical reflec-tions in the conclusion mainly concentrate onissues of environmental sustainability in FabLabs.

2 Digital fabrication laboratories

Fab Labs are places where an object can be pro-duced, from its first idea to its digitalisation toits final materialisation (Büching 2013, 117).Across the globe workshops are conceptuallyembedded in a common set of requirements,technologies and processes outlined in the FabLab Charter (Troxler 2010), which is ‘toempower, to educate, and to create “almost any-thing”’ (Nunez and Gabriel 2010, 24). Technol-ogies that support the capabilities of creation inFab Labs include a collection of hardware andsoftware resources. Typically, this includessome commercially available special purposehardware tools, such as laser cutters, computernumerical control (CNC) milling machinesand CNC routers, three-dimensional (3-D)printers, but also re-purposed hardware tools,such as toaster ovens used as a cheap alternativefor surface mounted electronic component sol-dering, and self-made tools, such as custom-built vacuum moulding machines. In terms ofelectronic hardware components, there isoften a mix of new components ranging frommicrocontrollers to sensors, buttons, actuators,motors and wires available. The softwareneeded to design, build or control the machin-ery is usually comprised of a collection of off-the-shelf commercial applications, such asAdobe Illustrator, but also many open-sourcealternatives to commercial programmes andsoftware that accompanies open-source elec-tronic hardware, such as Arduino.

Fab Labs provide open access to technologiesand workshops to encourage free knowledge-sharing. They are commonly open forbusinesses and the general public, where peoplecan pursue commercial and private endeavours

2 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

(Troxler 2010). Organisational structures andfunding sources vary between Fab Labs. Someof the labs were able to create independent enti-ties, whereas others are hosted by schools, uni-versities or innovation centres. Funding oftencomes from public sources or from the host,attached with the condition that labs start toself-fund themselves after a few years. A surveyof Fab Labs has shown that most labs mainlyattract ‘well-educated’ and ‘technology-inter-ested’ people, who look for a space in whichthey can ‘tinker’ with digital technologies (Car-stensen 2013; Walter-Herrmann 2013, 42).Although the access to Fab Labs is meant tobe open to everyone, not all demographics arecurrently represented in the labs. This can resultfrom the labs’ ‘geographical location, the open-ing hours, (sometimes) the fees, their insti-tutional context (whether they are connectedto university, connected to a creative milieu ormainly used by business), and culture’ (Carsten-sen 2013, 56). Moreover, such exclusion issuesgo even further when putting them out of theWestern context. For instance, the socioeco-nomic state of countries and regions plays arole whether a $100k Fab Lab (standard setupprice) can be built and who can access it.Here, issues of gender, educational backgroundand access to technologies can be even moreapparent than in some Western contexts.

3 Digital fabrication in sustainabledesign

Claims are being made about community-baseddigital fabrication workshops transformingpractices of design, innovation, productionand consumption, whilst describing positiveimpacts on the environment and social goals(Olson 2013). Some workshops aim to enabledesign and innovation for recycling, upcycling,repair, re-manufacturing, to feed user-led pro-totypes into sustainable local enterprises, andto realise sustainable design projects (Lipsonand Kurman 2013). They might facilitate

aspects relevant to post-consumption societiesthrough the sharing economy, peer-to-peersociety and collaborative consumption. Never-theless, some research studies have suggestedthat future developments of digital fabricationcan lead to diminished (resource) scale efficien-cies and intensify production and consumptionthrough the possibility of continual, customisedmanufacturing and uncontrolled production.Although certain studies have tried to examinethe possible environmental and social impactof digital fabrications technologies (in particular3-D printers, see Kreiger and Pearce 2013;Faludi 2013) and scenario-building (Birtchnelland Urry 2012, 2013), research that assessesthose implications is still rare (Olson 2013).

In the few studies that exist, efforts have beenput into assessing the environmental impact ofdigital technologies through comparing thelife-cycle assessments of several technologies(e.g. Faludi 2013) or manufactured items, whilstcomparing them to conventional productionmethods (e.g. Kreiger and Pearce 2013). How-ever, analysing the life-cycle assessment of digi-tal fabrication technologies, such as 3-Dprinters, is not an easy undertaking, in particu-lar when trying to predict possible technical,social and cultural developments of the technol-ogy. For instance, Olson (2013, 34) has evenargued that the 3-D-printer ‘ability to revolutio-nise manufacturing, including environmentaland energy benefits, is a long way from beingproven’. Lipson and Kurman (2013, 215)argue that:

3D printing won’t be an innately green manu-facturing technology unless we actively seek tomake it one. If we can tap into 3D printing’sunique capabilities and invent greener print-ing materials, we will reap environmentalbenefits in the form of shorter supply chainsand a new generation of optimised products.

Transport reduction (or a potential increase)and the potential for re-localising manufactur-ing is an additional topic that is highly disputedin the literature on digital fabrication and its

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

influence on issues of sustainability. Forexample, Birtchnell and Urry (2012) have won-dered whether transportation (in particular,freight) impacts on the environment could bepotentially reduced through manufacturingproducts locally where they are bought andused, rather than halfway around the world.Within their scenario work, digital design fileswould be exchanged around the world and theproduct would actually be created locally in aFab Lab (i.e. local production). In contrast tothis scenario, Olson (2013) has argued thatwhen analysing the transportation impacts, itis also important to consider that digital fabrica-tion technologies need feedstock, raw andbuilding materials, to create these objects thatmight still have to travel around the globe. Fur-thermore, the need for resources to create feed-stock for building materials raises the issue ofpossible geopolitical implications within theseproduction processes where countries start tocompete to gain access to cheap resources.Such implications might question the sustain-ability and democratisation aspects of thesetechnologies if resources are more easilyaccessed by wealthier countries and withoutany limits.

The above outlined debates seem to implythat the environmental impacts of digital fabri-cation technologies and associated infrastruc-tures and practices will depend on thetechnical developments of digital fabricationtechnologies, future infrastructures of manufac-turing products and supply-and-demand sidetransportation systems. For instance, providingmaterials, technologies and infrastructures forrecycling might not be enough to encouragepeople to think about the resource implicationsof the materials used in the workshops. Social,cultural and economic aspects will influencehow people will use these technologies, includ-ing the materials required and produced out-comes. Such aspects might even be moreimportant to consider (i.e. how digital technol-ogies and their outcomes will be used and takenup in everyday work and home activities) to be

able to break the cycle of waste production anduncontrolled production. The use of digital fab-rication technologies in homes, shops andworkshops determines how printing processescreate waste, possibilities and uptake of recy-cling, and how many products people mightown and how long they will keep them. Somework has started to appear that attempts to con-sider the use of digital fabrication technologiesin relation to sustainability issues, for instance,linking principles of a circular economy to theFab Lab phenomenon (see for example, Charterand Keiller 2014). Opportunities are beingexamined surrounding the longevity of pro-ducts through people fixing and customisingthem within labs and the re-thinking of wastestreams, such as through using scrap materials.

Although work on the use of digital fabrica-tion technologies and links to sustainability hasstarted to emerge, many publications on thetopic still tend to elevate sustainability benefitsof digital fabrication technologies withoutbeing based on empirical work. More researchis needed. In particular, it is vital to considerhow digital fabrication technologies are cur-rently being used in community-basedworkshops.

4 The citizen designer: shaping asustainable future together

Fab Lab activities engage people in makingthings through collaboration in hands-on pro-jects using digital design and fabrication tech-nologies that are increasingly linked to oneanother digitally, often through networksusing social media (Smith et al. 2013). FabLabs aim to make digital technologies availableto anyone who wants to use them, aspiring tocreate spaces where diverse people with a com-mon interest (experts and amateurs) can meet,share and learn from one another. Fab Labsoften provide the opportunity not only for col-laboration but also for co-creation, often associ-ated with ideas of peer-to-peer learning andopen source working. Sanders and Stappers

4 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

(2008, 6) define co-creation broadly as ‘any actof collective creativity, i.e. creativity that isshared by two or more people’. However, co-creation is unique in that it allows the peoplewho benefit from a service, product or processto be developed or improved to actively partici-pate in the creation process. The end-user orcustomer becomes an equal partner in the cre-ation process (Bason 2010; Benson 2013; San-ders and Stappers 2008). According toWilliams (2013), co-creation ‘is the differencebetween people creating a great idea for youand people working with you to make a goodidea great’.

Alongside other methods of participatoryinquiry (e.g. participatory action research(PAR)), which are rooted in Scandinavianresearch projects on user participation fromthe 1970s (Spinuzzi 2005) in which ‘planningand conducting the research process [involved]those people whose life-world and meaningfulactions are under study’ (Bergold and Thomas2012, 192), co-creation has become increasinglypopular in the social and public innovation sec-tors to address complex, global problems undera sustainable perspective (Bason 2010; Euro-pean Commission 2013; Mahy and Zahedi2010). According to Sanders and Simons(2009), ‘the social value of co-creation is fuelledby aspirations for longer-term, humanistic, andmore sustainable ways of living. It supports theexploration of open-ended questions’. Fab Labsplay a significant role as facilitators of co-cre-ation processes because of their focus on citizenlearning and sharing. Although the linksbetween co-creation and sustainability currentlyare unclear and under-researched, Fab Labsmay offer the opportunity to make sustainabledesign ideas an inherent part of the co-creationprocess in a Fab Lab. Because Fab Labs are lar-gely community-based digital fabrication work-shops, which can typically be freely accessed bythe public, ideas and initiatives for change canemerge from the bottom-up as opposed to theusual top-down approach. This decentralisedapproach to idea generation and innovation

(Kralewski 2012) can lead to grassroots inno-vations—thus being more aligned with theneeds of the community (Seyfang and Smith2007).

Fab Labs signal a paradigm shift in creationand production from expert-driven creation toco-creation, which requires all involved todevelop empathy, to share and to accept equalpartnership in the creation process. In the co-creation process citizens or end-users receiveexpert status in the creation team (Sandersand Stappers 2008). Operators of digital fabrica-tion tools in Fab Labs become facilitators of theco-creation process and simultaneously part ofthe co-creation team. Similar to other co-cre-ation community-based projects, for exampleas described by Winschiers-Theophilus, Bid-well, and Blake (2012, 179), leadership rolesare fluid in Fab Labs and experts involved are‘being participated’. Furthermore, Blikstein(2013) argues that boundaries between disci-plines are dissolved and entirely reconfiguredin Fab Labs. ‘History and mathematics becomeclosely related, and so do music and robotics,and this richness results in a more diverse andaccepting intellectual environment.’ (Blikstein2013, 18)

5 Case study—Lisbon river waterfront:using digital fabrication technologiestowards sustainable futures

The Sustainable Technologies and Transdisci-plinary Futures 2013 (STTF2013) summerschool was a joint six-day initiative of Vitru-viusFabLab-IUL Digital Fabrication Laboratoryand the Centre for Research and Studies in Soci-ology (CIES-IUL), research units from theSchool of Technology and Architecture andthe School of Sociology and Public Policy ofISCTE-IUL. The STTF2013 summer schoolbrought together 38 participants from 17countries with a wide range of disciplinarybackgrounds and digital fabrication experience,citizens (e.g. commuters), researchers and tech-nical support staff. Nine scientific and social

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

researchers/educators from IUL (the organisingcommittee) and a consultant team, consisting oftechnical support staff and students familiarwith operating the VitruviusFabLab-IUL, facili-tated and supported the event. The consultantteam also advised in the capacity of commutersadditionally to citizens, and became co-creatorsin the process. The work process and outcomeof one of the eight multidisciplinary teams(the commuter project team) has informed thediscussions in this paper.

5.1 The commuter project team

The commuter project team consisted of fourmembers: (1) an industrial designer and doc-toral research candidate with expertise inenvironmental sustainability, design andemotion (Italy); (2) a designer and research fel-low with expertise in grassroots innovations,sustainable consumptions and design (UK);(3) an educator, researcher and designer withexperience in urban interventions, interactivespaces and digital technology tools (Denmark);and (4) a design researcher and educator withexpertise in design thinking for economic, pub-lic and social innovation and multi- and trans-disciplinary design processes (Australia).

5.2 The VitruviusFabLab-IUL

The VitruviusFabLab-IUL is equipped with a 3-D printer and a CNC router, which is a digital-mechanical tool that can cut blocks of materialinto shapes (drilling and turning) as designedby computer-aided design (CAD) technologythat includes the 3-D modelling softwareRhino 3-D and Grasshopper, which runs withinRhino and is mainly used to build generativealgorithms. Access to the Adobe Illustrator 2Ddrawing software was also provided. The teamwas given a material kit that included theopen-source electronics prototyping platformArduino and compatible electronic com-ponents, such as light-emitting diodes (LED),a photocell, push button switches, rotary

potentiometer (similar to a fader switch for alamp, it enables a wide range of input beyondthe simple on/off switch), temperature sensorand a block of cork (a native and sustainablematerial to Portugal).

5.3 Project briefing

The challenge of the project was to investigatespecific groups that utilise the Lisbon water-front, near the Tejo River. The goal of this pro-ject, for this project team, was to work withcommuters to encourage and stimulate publicsociotechnical discussion about subjects thatwould be of interest to the commuters andthat address the four pillars of sustainability,including environmental, economic, social andcultural dimensions. The commuter projectteam would design and create a prototype forlocal use in a public space along the river thatwould embrace sustainable technologies andincorporate the four pillars of sustainability.

5.4 The citizen group: commuters

Commuting from A to B is often a solitary andrushed activity. Augé (2002, 55) describes it asthe ‘collective without the celebration, the soli-tude without the isolation’. Lisbon commutersfrequent Cais do Sodré twice daily on workdays to embark on the 15-minute ferry journeyacross the Tejo River to and from work. To gaindeep insight and understanding of the commu-ters’ journey and mindset throughout the com-mute, face-to-face interviews were conductedand videotaped at the location Cais do Sodré.Transcriptions of the interviews guided theinitial conceptual development and a problem-framing process. Because members of the con-sultant team undertook the same daily journeyas commuters, they became sounding boardand co-creators during the conceptual develop-ment, and design and testing of the prototype.

Interviews with commuters revealed twomindsets on their journey. On the way towork they try to quickly get to the other side

6 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

of the river with as few interruptions as possible,thinking about their day ahead. On the wayhome, the mood changes: waiting for the ferryto arrive appears disruptive and commutersoften start to get bored while generally feelingtired. This particular time and mood space—waiting to embark the ferry on the way homefrom work—was identified as a likely point ofinteraction with the device (prototype) tostimulate commuters to generate new socio-technical debates. It was envisioned that inter-action with the prototype is conceptualisedand designed as a meeting point that enablesdialogue and exchange (Valkanova et al. 2014)rather than acting simply as another technologi-cal enhanced distraction.

5.5 Conceptual development of thedevice

From the beginning of the design process, theproject team’s activities were configured aroundthe notion of sustainability and co-creation.Through the STTF2013 summer schools’ intro-ductory session and hands-on sociotechnicalworkshop, the team was encouraged to reflectand build social, cultural, economic andenvironmental aspects represented in the fourpillars of sustainability into their final proto-type. It was pointed out to the project teamsthat sustainable technologies needed to includethese four dimensions (environmental, econ-omic, social and cultural). This project briefhelped to guide the conceptual developmentand prototyping phase and stood as a reminderthat the final outcome would need to addresssome of these debates, which was not always astraightforward process. The summer schoolclasses provided for additional informationand reflection about the design case for theteam and served to orient the creative processamong the contemporary issues in design,science, technology and culture. The projectteam began to generate ideas for the finaldesign. Through the STTF2013 summer schoolclasses and team discussions, the team was able

to filter from previous ideas and generate newdirections to consider. The co-design exerciseled by Liz Sanders (Sanders and Stappers2014) provided an empathetic approachtowards sketching the commuter journeyquickly through drawings and diagrams,which were then presented in plenum. Mem-bers of the local consultant team helped to sup-port assumptions and answer questions aboutthe target users and provided feedback in thepresentations. While the format was extremelycompressed, the needs, emotions, motivationsand struggles of the commuters in Lisbonwere becoming more visible to the group toguide our exploration, similar in the way that‘sensitising concepts’ (Blumer 1954; Bowen2008) guide the qualitative inquiry by providingsuggestions on where to look without definingthe target explicitly.

5.6 Project outcome: public transits—grow your community, share your pointof view, get to know others

Public Transits (Trânsitos Públicos in Portu-guese) is an interactive device that allowscommuters to reflect on current social, environ-mental, cultural and economic issues, whilst inthe process creating and feeling part of awider community of commuters. The TrânsitosPúblicos device is designed to be a welcome dis-traction while commuters are waiting for theirferry to arrive. An important cultural icon ofPortugal, an abstraction of manjerico (a basilplant), was chosen to invite interactions in aplayful manner. A manjerico plant is offeredduring the month of June, during the SantoAntonio celebrations, to show love and appreci-ation. It is a popular tradition for people to buymanjerico in a small vase to offer it to theirloved ones. Although particularly popular duringJune, it is a sign of love and care throughoutthe year. The abstraction of a manjerico—themanjerico paper plant—is incorporated in theTrânsitos Públicos device asking for inputabout environmental, economic and social issues

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

relevant to the commuters (Figure 1). Thesequestions aim to trigger conversations amongcommuters.

The following scenario illustrates the com-muter–device interaction (see Figure 2). Thecommuter recognises the typical symbols ofhis journey (a boat and a train) and sees themoving manjerico plant. Intrigued, the com-muter approaches the device and reads (onan LED display) a topical question (e.g. Doyou know that you help the environment bytaking public transport?). The commuter cananswer by pressing a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ button

(‘sim’ and ‘não’ in Portuguese). Then thedevice displays the percentage of other com-muters who share her/his view. At the sametime the manjerico visualises these results byexpanding to a relative position to reflect thesame percentage. For example, if 75% of peopleanswered the same way as the current user,the plant expands and opens approximately75%. This visualisation helps them feel partof the greater Lisbon commuter community.When inactive, the manjerico display playfullywiggles, inviting the user to answer morequestions.

Figure 1. Trânsitos públicos devices: (a) natural manjerico plants; (b) interactive manjerico paper plant withPortuguese public transport signage; (c) LED question display and yes/no (sim/não) buttons for input.

Figure 2. Typical interaction flow with the system: (a) user encounters installation, which poses a question; (b) userdiscusses the question with another commuter; (c) using the ‘sim’ and ‘não’ buttons, the user selects an answer; (d)the manjerico changes shape, expanding to show how others answered the same question; and (e) commutersdiscuss their responses in relation to the responses of others as shown by the system.

8 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

6 Sustainability: using digitalfabrication technologies within a FabLab

The Trânsitos Públicos device addresses thefour pillars of sustainability on an object leveland a conceptual level.

6.1 The object level

The Trânsitos Públicos device had to be madeout of a single, medium-density, cork agglomer-ate block (50 × 50 × 10 cm). Cork is a uniquematerial found in Portugal. It is significant toPortugal’s cultural heritage and industrial past.The main material component was thereforemade out of a locally sourced material, linkingthe design of the device to the idea of developinglocal production efforts within Fab Labs andreducing transportation emissions throughshorter supply chains. Additionally, cork is arenewable material. When harvesting cork, notree is cut down or dies from the process. Assoon as the harvesting process is complete, thecork can grow back and the tree can be rehar-vested after several years. Overall, using corkas part of the Trânsitos Públicos device allowedthe team to incorporate cultural, economic andenvironmental aspects into the device in antici-pation that commuters could relate to thedevice and are encouraged to engage with itand look after it, potentially prolonging its life.

Similarly, the second main component of theTrânsitos Públicos device, the manjerico paperplant, is an important cultural icon for Portugal.It is closely associated with the festivities of StAnthony and St John (held in June), where itis customary to offer a home-grown plant,including a poem, to a loved one. For the projectteam, the plant created an appropriate additionto the overall design. Firstly, it is made out ofpaper and can therefore be easily recycled.Moreover, the paper plant was sourced from alocal shop, hence connecting to principles ofre-use rather than purely relying on the assem-bly of new parts. Secondly, the plant’s social and

cultural connotations aided the conceptualdevelopment of the device. The manjericoplant is meant to remind the commuter of cele-bratory times with their loved ones and theimminent reunion with them on their wayback home, creating an additional possibleattachment to the device and a willingness toengage with it.

6.2 The conceptual level

The overall design of the Trânsitos Públicosdevice is meant to intrigue the commuters inparticular, its cultural and social connotationsincorporated into the design encourage themto engage with it and reflect on wider sustain-ability issues. The by-line accompanying theTrânsitos Públicos device encapsulates thesocial aspect of the device: ‘Grow your com-munity; share your point of view; get toknow the others.’ The commuter’s interactionswith the device and their ability to influencethe content displayed on the device aremeant to trigger a realisation that they arepart of a wider Lisbon commuter communityand aid opportunities for social interactionsaddressing social sustainability issues. Thechoice of the manjerico is culturally relevantfor Lisbon and will attract attention. A seman-tic connection between the plant and thehealth of the environment is proposed withthe intention to build empathy for the environ-mental issue (Cheok et al. 2008).

Topical questions posed by the device to thecommuters (through a programmed Arduino)relate to each of the pillars of sustainability.For instance, environmental issues are triggeredthrough questions such as ‘Do you know thatyou help the environment by taking publictransport?’ Moreover, economic and socialdebates are encouraged through questionssuch as ‘Do you support the public strikes?’and ‘Have you ever spoken to another commu-ter while waiting?’ These and similar questionswill be to a large extent user-generated, aimingto raise awareness, create bonds among

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

commuters about topics, trigger interestingthoughts, create controversy and, as a result,stimulate conversations about motivatingenvironmental, economic and social topicsamongst commuters. Increasing interest in thephysical interaction with the device and engage-ment in subsequent conversations should beachieved by including commuters in the ques-tion generation. Commuters are invited tosuggest topics or topical questions to be sub-mitted via a website for display on the device.The website, although not created during thesix-day summer school, was conceptualised asan extension of the installation offering a plat-form as additional place of interaction andinformation sharing amongst commuters, thusleading to commuters being in control of the‘machine’ instead of feeling being the ‘con-trolled’ by the device.

6.3 Reflections on the sustainable designcontext

The material considerations for making thefinal prototype were mainly guided by thedesign brief, rather than purely by digital fabri-cation technologies. During the STTF2013 sum-mer school, there was a pervasive attitudetowards re-use. In terms of the electronic com-ponents, most were harvested from cast-offcomputers and home electronics that were des-tined for the garbage dump but still providevalue, including simple switches, cables andmechanical parts. The team was encouraged toadopt this pragmatic approach, which seemsto be deeply integrated into the Fab Lab culture.Moreover, each team was given a piece of corkwith the introduction that this should be themain component of the prototype and theonly piece available to the team. Such strictguidelines encouraged the team to use itspiece of cork wisely.

The overall design was constructed withinthe 3-D design software Rhino (in order to cutthe piece of cork into a shape on a three-axisCNC router), but the team regularly cut out

paper versions to hold against the cork pieceto check whether the pieces on the computerversion would actually map neatly onto thepiece (without leaving minimal amount of off-cuts). Although two of the team members hadprevious Rhino skills, such careful and complexplanning required the expert help from one ofthe Fab Lab staff members to develop andcheck the final design. Even with his help,once cutting the cork piece, the team had torealise that the 3-D CAD did not quite fittogether in its physical form. Instead of beingable to re-cut another cork piece, the teamhad to adapt the design of the current piecesto make the overall prototype work. The teammembers felt somewhat frustrated about thefact that they could not re-cut the pieces andtherefore had to adapt the design by hand.Although cork represented a renewablematerial, given the possibility, the team wouldhave preferred to cut numerous versions ofthe pieces until they fit, rather than adapt thedesign, creating a lot of wasted materials inthe process.

In order to create a prototype with digitaltechnologies that represents the four pillars ofsustainability, a significant amount of skilfulhuman authorship is required and a brief thatoutlines in detail several sustainable designaspects, considering that digital fabricationtechnologies do not make things—peoplemake things.

7 Co-creation: multidisciplinary teamworking in Fab Labs

The design challenge given by the STTF2013summer school was intriguing but also extre-mely complex. The project team did not onlyhave to develop a theoretical idea but also hadto create a working prototype in only six days.Knowledge, exchange and communicationamong the project teams, the consultant teamof the VitruviusFabLab-IUL and commutersoccurred (with some limitations) throughoutthe project development process.

10 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

7.1 Understanding the commuter:conceptual development

From the beginning, the project team workedwell together, realising and acknowledging dis-ciplinary differences but respecting them andallowing each to have the same ‘value’ withinthe process. Whilst brainstorming the concept,all project team members contributed equally.This first phase was driven by an empathy-building enquiry, in which interviews con-ducted with commuters provided the necessaryinsight into the Lisbon commuter journey, stateof mind and commuters’ aspirations during thejourney. A generative idea developing toolkitprovided by Liz Sanders of MakeTools (USA)helped visualising and communicating particu-lar moods and stages of the journey (Figure 3).

7.2 Concept vs. digital fabricationtechnologies

Project teammembers fell naturally into roles ofexisting expertise once the decision about theconcept and design of the device was reached.

These areas were: (1) Arduino microcontrollerprogramming for display, sensors and servoactuator; (2) 3-D modelling/interfacing withCNC router; (3) design/writing/interface withcommuter group; and (4) facilitator of teamcommunication/interface with commuter group/resourcing/design/documentation of process.The Fab Lab consultant team acted as technol-ogy advisors and operators of the digital fabrica-tion technologies (such as the CNC router), andwere part of the commuter group.

Team members communicated regularlywith one another during the creation phase,providing feedback on the status of each task.These meetings were important to ensure thatthe whole team kept the overall design of thedevice in mind (considering that each memberwas immersed in his or her own task). Thisincluded frequent communication with the con-sultant team to discuss emerging ideas regard-ing the technical viability and social andcultural sensibility. However, disciplinary ten-sions under the deadline pressure emerged.For example, challenges with the electronics(such as displaying diacritical marks on the

Figure 3. Brainstorming activity: creating commuters’ mood and journey map.

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

LED display, important for the social configur-ation of the design) appeared to take centrestage, pushing conceptual ideas to the back-ground. The input from the commuter group(represented at this stage by the consultantteam of the VitruviusFabLab-IUL) becamehighly important to keep a balance betweenconcept and what was technically possible.Indeed a key idea, the use of the manjerico asa centre part of the device, only emergedthrough conversations and input from commu-ters during this hands-on creation phase. Feed-back and advice about topical questions to bedisplayed on the LED screen was also soughtfrom commuters regarding cultural and socialappropriateness and when translating questionsinto Portuguese.

7.3 Reflections on the co-creation process

The co-creation team (consisting of four mem-bers on the project team, Lisbon commutersand the consultant team in their role as oper-ators of the VitruviusFabLab-IUL) overallworked well together as evidenced by the pro-duction of a prototype of the Trânsitos Públicosdevice. The co-creation team created a devicethat was sensitive to the community and wastechnically challenging to build. This was onlypossible through engaging with the commutersin the creation process. Particular insightsneeded to address the specific needs of the Lis-bon commuters proposed the invitation to thiscitizen group to be part of the co-creation pro-cess. This has proven particularly successfulwhen developing an understanding of the cul-tural and social context of the Lisbon commutergroup. The commuter voice was heard through-out the design process—firstly through face-to-face interviews that were conducted at Cais deSodré, and continuing through members ofthe consultant team being part of this particularsocial group and being co-creators in theprocess.

The mix of expert/amateur status of teammembers regarding the technology created

value-adding perspectives but also tensions.Novice users of digital fabrication technologieschallenged preconceptions of the more experi-enced team members. In lacking experience,capabilities and limitations of the digital fabri-cation technologies were questioned andalternative solutions were explored (e.g. difficul-ties in programming the Arduino board wereovercome, due to novice team members notaccepting pre-conclusions from experiencedteam members). Awareness of and respect fordiverse disciplinary backgrounds was evidentthroughout the co-creation process. The multi-disciplinary mix of the project team helped tocreate interesting technical and conceptualinterconnections. Corroborating common find-ings on the benefits of multidisciplinary collab-oration and participatory design methods (e.g.Fleischmann and Daniel 2013; Sanders andSimons 2009), the mix of disciplines was, inthe case of the conceptual development anddesign of the prototype, needed, as was theinteraction of the project team with the FabLab consultant team and commuters to achievethe project outcome.

Throughout the creation process, membersof the consultant team regularly gave adviceand hands-on help, for instance, for the use ofdigital fabrication software. The operation ofthe CNC router was observed by the projectteam for some time but was solely in thehands of a Fab Lab expert. It is important topoint out that the Fab Lab consultant teamtried to avoid taking leadership in decision-making processes during the development ofthe prototype but had to educate project teammembers on appropriate and sensible use ofdigital fabrication technologies. Learning andsharing amongst the team members were cer-tainly achieved on different levels by acceptingcomplementary disciplinary expertise and thesocial and cultural knowledge of differentteam members

The co-creation process required from eachmember a high level of social competence todecide when to retreat partially from a

12 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

discussion, when to take a lead and/or when toquestion a disciplinary decision. Navigationissues of equal partnership were a new experi-ence for the four core members of the projectteam as they all had experience in leading pro-ject work and were used to taking ownershipof projects. The four team members agreedthat the process felt different to the multidisci-plinary team work previously experienced. Inagreement with all team members, compro-mises were made on both conceptual and tech-nical sides of the device in order to create aworking and meaningful prototype in the brieftime provided.

This available time also caused the iterationprocess of the prototype to be cut short. Usuallyend-users take on a significant role when testingthe outcome in any participatory design pro-cess. However, due to time constraints, commu-ters did not test the device in its final location atCais de Sodré. Nevertheless, Lisbon commuterswill be able to shape the interaction with thedevice and therefore communication amongcommuters in the future, as they are invited tosubmit questions to a web portal, which willthen randomly be displayed on the TrânsitosPúblicos device.

8 Discussion

8.1 Sustainability and Fab Labs

The case study has shown that explorations intosustainability are not inherent in digital tech-nologies that make up Fab Labs. The casestudy was clearly framed around sustainabilityissues (in relation to the material used and con-ceptual development) and encouraged co-cre-ation at every stage. Such framings wereoutlined in the design brief that was introducedto the STTF2013 summer school participantson the first day and reiterated throughout thedays and, in particular, whenever the organisersfelt that the design team prioritised certain ideasover the four pillars of sustainability. The four

pillars of sustainability were therefore key instructuring the development of the final design.Moreover, reflections on sustainability issueswere encouraged because of several valuesheld by the expert team that run the Fab Lab(such as to re-use materials instead of buyingnew ones). The design brief, organisers andconsultant team in the Fab Lab were thereforeincremental in helping to produce a devicethat was made up of re-used and renewablematerials, incorporated social aspects into itsdesign and considered the various productionpossibilities.

The provision of digital technologies to awide variety of people within Fab Labs doesnot seem to be enough to encourage explora-tions into sustainability issues. Projects con-ducted within Fab Labs need to be structuredaround societal and environmental aspirations.As pointed out by Nascimento (2014, 4), thepotential social and environmental value ofthese labs

may reside in a clear re-thinking about thespecific values, norms and relations, such assustainability, social justice, fairness orresponsibility, to be embedded in artefacts,and at the same time, about the alternativetechnological and social scenarios that mayarise.

The beginnings of such potential re-thinkingbecame apparent within the case study. Insteadof being purely driven by the technological capa-bilities of the digital machines, the summer schoolteam was able to balance their design intentionwith issues of sustainability. For instance, theteam debated whether to purchase new materialsor re-use existing ones, whilst in addition havingstrict guidelines on using a locally produced,renewable material (i.e. cork) and receiving onlyone piece of it. There was a constant focus on sus-tainability from materials to design concepts thatsupported the final outcomes and yet opened thetopic for critical reflection about how Fab Labscan support sustainability. The case study there-fore demonstrates that Fab Labs can potentially

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

be places that encourage sustainable design,where people can produce products locally andthink about the various implications on theenvironment and society of their design.

Nevertheless, such potential seems to berarely explored within the Fab Lab networkwhen considering Troxler’s suggestion (2010,2013) that ‘labs rarely make use of the possibi-lities the Fab Lab innovation ecosystem offers’(2010, 8), and therefore the global network oflabs currently ‘struggles to define its formand purpose’ (2013, 181). Similarly, Sterling(2014) is cautious about the current lack ofconsideration of possible consequences thatmight arise through the increase of digital fab-rication in labs. When examining the literatureon Fab Labs in greater depth engagements withsustainability issues are very rare (Cohen2014). More apparent activities within theFab Lab network are grounded ‘in experiment-ing for the sake of experimenting, or yet mak-ing something only for the sake of using forinstance the newest tools of additive and sub-tractive fabrication’ (Nascimento 2014, 4).Such issues might easily lead to a dispersal ofproduction capacity and an intensification ofconsumption that undermines ambitions forsustainability.

Which attitudes and activities will prevailwithin the Fab Lab network is currently unclear.Nevertheless, if existing transformative socialand environmental claims about labs shouldbecome a reality, there might be a need todebate more actively the role of digital fabrica-tion technologies in wider change processes.Arguably, although digital fabrication technol-ogies are not neutral (Nascimento 2014), thecase study demonstrates that notions of sustain-ability are not inherent in these technologieseither. They might allow affordances towardsincorporating the four pillars of sustainability,but such considerations are not foreseeable orpredestined. Within the summer school, thedesign brief, organisers and consultant teamguided such notions, rather than were purelydriven by the technologies available to the team.

8.2 Co-creation and Fab Labs

Fab Labs can be seen as an expression of thetransforming practices of design, innovationand production. They have the potential to sup-port distributed and open production throughfacilitating co-creation processes. As seenduring the STTF2013 summer school, idea gen-eration can occur from the bottom-up, invol-ving the people who will benefit from theproduct of the creation process. This is a signifi-cant shift from the current production processand can lead to bottom-up innovations. It isalmost inevitable that the empowerment of theend-user/citizen in co-creational idea gener-ation and production processes in Fab Labs sup-ports the creation of products that are closeraligned with the needs of the community as evi-denced by the Trânsitos Públicos device andsuggested by Seyfang and Smith (2007).

On the other hand, it seems obvious in retro-spect of the summer school that the use of digitalfabrication technologies within Fab Lab requiresthe expertise and guidance from experiencedpeople to foster the concerns for sustainabilityand to provide help in acting as a responsibledesigner when utilising digital fabrication tech-nologies. The use of these technologies requiresskills and knowledge that cannot be easilyacquired by participants and, therefore, liber-ation in the use of digital fabrication technologyis currently coupled with a dependency on thetechnical support team within Fab Labs.

This has implications for collaborationsbetween ‘experts’ and ‘amateurs’ in co-creationteams within Fab Labs, considering that equalpartnerships might not always be guaranteedwhen working together with digital fabricationtechnologies that are rather complex to use.Most people lack the necessary skills to handleand design freely with the currently availabletechnologies. Therefore, Fab Labs appear to beto some extent expert-driven (or at least areexpert-led) where access to these technologiesfor anyone might not be as easily put into oper-ation as proclaimed by the labs. As experienced

14 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

during the STTF2013 summer school, the para-digm shift of moving production away fromexpert-driven creation is in its early days. How-ever, early experimentations were apparentduring the creation of the Trânsitos Públicosdevice, which can be considered to be expert-led or expert-assisted co-creation.

The case study further highlighted that thedigital fabrication technology and the peoplewho are able to operate it can easily take centrestage in the production process, which mightendanger the development of sustainable designideas. The project team experienced that enga-ging additional experts with various disciplinarybackgrounds in a Fab Lab setting and as partnerin the co-creation process does not necessarilylead to dissolving or a complete reconfigurationof disciplinary boundaries between the disci-plines as suggested by Blikstein (2013). Whilethere was certainly a shared understanding ofclear purpose and goals of the team, and joint(fluid) leadership roles amongst team members,the case study demonstrated that negotiatingbetween technical and sustainability issues onoccasion became a challenge. Existing concep-tual ideas, which reflected the social andenvironmental aspects of the design, weresometimes questioned and even considered tobe neglected in order to make the technologywork. It took some negotiational efforts fromtwo of the design team members to find com-promises between what was technologicallypossible and the conceptual idea behind thedevice. When using Fab Labs, it is clearlyimportant to be willing to either learn techno-logical skills, and/or to develop an understand-ing of the digital fabrication processes beforebeing able to make sensible use of such technol-ogies within a sustainable design context.

One factor often overlooked when workingwith multidisciplinary collaborations within aFab Lab, and in particular within such unfami-liar cultural context and technological environ-ment, is time. For multidisciplinary processes towork effectively in Fab Labs (and other settings)sufficient time is needed to allow the

development and building of mutual under-standing, effective communication and knowl-edge exchange. This appears to be the caseregardless of the level of experience of collabor-ators in multidisciplinary settings, as becameevident in the case study. Clearly more timeand experience within a Fab Lab might thenlead to a blurring or dissolving of disciplinaryboundaries as suggested by Blikstein (2013).

9 Conclusion

This paper started by drawing attention to theincreased media, public, government and aca-demic interest towards Fab Labs, because people’sactivities and projects within these workshopshave been linked to ideas of a digital fabricationrevolution, including potentials for sustainabledesign. The current limited literature shows thatthere are contentious debates relating to linkagesof sustainability and Fab Labs. On the one hand,observers predict a dispersal of productioncapacity and an intensification of consumptionthat undermines aspirations for sustainability.On the other hand, others have argued that FabLabs have emerged in many parts of the worldoffering opportunities for people to learn skillsof digital fabrication that help citizens gainwhat Gershenfeld (2005) called a true liberalarts education. Here, skills of the privileged feware spread among the many and as a result peopleare liberated, no longer captive to the existingmarket offerings or helpless due to lack of basicskills of production. People could therefore influ-ence the production process towards sustainabledesign and co-creation ideas. The paper criticallyengaged with a case study that described practicaloutcomes of a design workshop structuredaround co-creation and sustainability issues, inorder to reflect upon the realities of using digitalfabrication technologies within Fab Labs.

The analysis of the case study has identifiedthat there seems to be a gap between theclaimed transformative possibilities of FabLabs and realities on the ground, in particular,in the context of sustainable design. Experiences

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

made in the STTF2013 summer school suggestthat the development and implementation ofsustainable design ideas are currently notautomatically ingrained in digital technologiesthat make up Fab Labs. It is apparent thatapproaches to sustainability must be drivenfrom within the Fab Labs (as was the case inthe described summer school) and the networkto re-think current production and consumptionprocess and consider issues of sustainability.

Similarly, Fab Labs are effective in facilitat-ing the interaction between experts and citi-zens during the creation process. As wasexperienced in the STTF2013 summer school,knowledge-sharing is inherent to Fab Lab cul-ture. However, equal partnership of co-crea-tors in the production process is not easilyachieved or automatically ingrained. Collabor-ation is a must when the ideas of citizens(often amateurs) and the digital world (oper-ated by experts) merge, as skills to operateand/or programme digital technology are cur-rently not easily acquired. This can pose somelimitations for a broad use of digital fabrica-tion technologies amongst the wider commu-nity. Nevertheless, access to affordable digitalfabrication tools and expert knowledge com-bined in the co-creation process can providenew sources of innovation that derive fromcitizens.

Equally important is for participants to bringa variety of skills, understandings and willing-ness to explore not only digital fabrication tech-nologies but also their use in a sustainabledesign context. Being able to translate socialand environmental aspects into sustainabledesign concepts is as important as to have thetechnical knowhow when trying to utilise thelabs as spaces for social and environmentalgoals. Acknowledging the importance of out-reach work, thinking about how to introducecitizens to digital fabrication technologies, with-out devaluing the building of conceptual skills,is key to facilitating activities within Fab Labsthat are reflective towards sustainability issuesand co-creational processes.

Overall, there are ongoing possibilities forco-creational activities in Fab Labs that considersustainable design issues through utilising digi-tal fabrication technologies. However, moreneeds to be done to harness the potential ofFab Labs towards sustainable design ideas ifcurrent claims should become a reality. Anincreased debate about these issues within FabLabs could, for instance, lead to the develop-ment of sustainability guidelines and processesthat facilitate co-creational processes. Neverthe-less, the consideration of environmental sus-tainability issues is not only up to theindividual lab user and is often beyond the con-trol of Fab Labs when acknowledging widerinfrastructural, cultural and economic develop-ments. Decisions taken by technology develo-pers, regulators, investors, materials suppliers,energy utilities, waste infrastructures and othersin the wider social world in which Fab Labsinteract, are critical in the way they set the par-ameters for environmental performance down-stream in Fab Labs.

Notes on contributors

Dr Katja Fleischmann is Associate Professor andDesign Researcher at the School of Creative Arts atJames Cook University, Australia. Her internationalexperience gained while working in the UK, the USAand Germany as designer and design educatorinforms a variety of research interests, which includedesign methods as a tool for economic, public andsocial innovation; co-design processes and designpedagogy with particular focus on the future ofdesign education. She holds a PhD (JCU), a Masterof Fine Arts (Multimedia) from the University ofMiami (USA) and a Bachelor in CommunicationDesign (Germany).

Dr Sabine Hielscher has been working as a ResearchFellow for the Science and Technology PolicyResearch Unit (SPRU) at the University of Sussexsince 2011. Her work focuses on the emergenceand development of grassroots innovations in thecontext of community energy and community-based digital fabrication workshops. Prior to joiningSPRU, Sabine completed a EPSRC funded PhD inArt and Design at Nottingham Trent University,examining the potential in applying an approach

16 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

inspired by practice theory to everyday routines toinform sustainable design/consumption strategies.

Dr Timothy Merritt is an Associate Professor ofInteraction Design in the IT Product DevelopmentBSc and MSc programme, which is a special jointoffering by the Aarhus School of Architecture andthe Aarhus University. He holds a PhD from theNational University of Singapore where his thesisexplored how and why people respond differentlyto artificial and human teammates in co-operativegames. This extends to the broad focus of explora-tions with technology as a partner in creativity andhuman performance. His research interests are situ-ated at the intersection of human–robot interactionand shape-changing interfaces.

References

Anderson, Chris. 2012. Makers: The New IndustrialRevolution. London: Random House Business.

Augé, Marc. 2002. Ethnologue dans le métro.Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Bason, Christian. 2010. Leading Public SectorInnovation: Co-Creating for a Better Society.Bristol: Policy Press.

Benson, Stephen. 2013. “Co-Creation 101: How toUse the Crowd as an Innovation Partner to AddValue to Your Brand.” VisionCritical Blog.February 27. http://www.visioncritical.com/blog/cocreation-101: Vision Critica.

Bergold, Jarg, and Stefan Thomas. 2012. “ParticipatoryResearch Methods: A Methodological Approach inMotion.” Historical Social Research/HistorischeSozialforschung 37 (4): 191–222.

Birtchnell, Thomas, and John Urry. 2012.“Fabricating Futures and the Movement ofObjects.” Mobilities 8 (3): 388–405. doi:10.1080/17450101.2012.745697.

Birtchnell, Thomas, and John Urry. 2013. “3D, SFand the Future.” Futures 50 (June): 25–34. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2013.03.005.

Blikstein, Paulo. 2013. “Digital Fabrication and‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization ofInvention.” In FabLab: Of Machines, Makers andInventors, edited by Julia Walter-Herrmann andCorinne Büching, 203–222. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.

Blumer, Herbert. 1954. “What is Wrong with SocialTheory?” American Sociological Review 18: 3–10.

Bohne, Rene. 2013. “Machines for PersonalFabrication.” In FabLab of Machines, Makersand Inventors, edited by J. Walter-Herrmann,

and C. Buching, 163–172. Bielefeld: TranscriptVerlag.

Bowen, Glenn A. 2008. “Grounded Theory andSensitizing Concepts.” International Journal ofQualitative Methods 5: 12–23.

Büching, Corinne. 2013. “A Universe of Objects.” IniFabLab: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, edi-ted by Julia Walter-Herrmann, and CorinneBüching, 105–122. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.

Carstensen, Tanja. 2013. “Gendered Fab Labs?” InFabLab: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors, edi-ted by Julia Walter-Herrmann and CorinneBüching, 53–64. Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.

Charter, Martin, and Scott Keiller. 2014. GrassrootsInnovation and the Circular Econom. Farnham:The Centre for Sustainable Design, Universityfor the Creative Arts.

Cheok, Adrian D., Roger T. Kok, C. Tan,Owen. N. N. Fernando, Tim Merritt, and JanynY. P. Sen. 2008. “Empathetic Living Media.” InDIS ’8: Proceedings of the 7th ACM conferenceon Designing Interactive Systems, 465–473.New York, NY: ACM.

Cohen, Maurie. 2014. “Making Sense of the MakerMovement.” Accessed April 19. http://ssppjournal.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/making-sense-of-maker-movement.html.

European Commission. 2013. “Guide to SocialInnovation.” Accessed February 27. http://s3platform.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/10157/47822/Guide%20to%20Social%20Innovation.pdf.

Faludi, Jeremy. 2013. “Is 3D Printing anEnvironmental win?” Accessed February 27.http://www.greenbiz.com/blog/2013/07/19/3d-printing-environmental-win#sthash.YzaJ32ww.dpuf.

Fleischmann, Katja, and Ryan Daniel. 2013.“Managing Increasing Complexity inUndergraduate Digital Media Design Education –The Impact and Benefits of MultidisciplinaryCollaboration.” Design and Technology Education:an International Journal 18 (3): 35–47.

Gershenfeld, Neil. 2005. FAB: The Coming Revolutionon Your Desktop—From Personal Computers toPersonal Fabrication. New York: Basic Books.

Gershenfeld, Neil. 2014. “Fab10 Documentary.”YouTube video, 3:23. Accessed April 19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyMl_Qedd7c.

Hielscher, Sabine, and Adrian Smith. 2014.“Community-Based Digital FabricationWorkshops: A Review of the Literature.” SPRUWorking Paper Series, 2014–08. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=2014–08-swps-hielscher-smith.pdf&site=25.

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

Kohtala, Cindy, and Camille Bosque. 2014. “TheStory of MIT-Fablab Norway: CommunityEmbedding of Peer Production.” Journal of PeerProduction 5. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/peer-reviewed-articles/the-story-of-mit-fablab-norway-community-embedding-of-peer-production/.

Kohtala, Cindy. 2014. “Addressing Sustainability inResearch on Distributed Production: AnIntegrated Literature Review.” Journal of CleanerProduction 106: 654–668.

Kralewski, Dariusz. 2012. “Bottom-Up DecentralizedApproach to Innovation Strategy.” In NGEBIS’12:New Generation Enterprise and BusinessInnovation Systems, edited by Michele Missikoffand Fabrizio Smith, 55–61. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-864/.

Kreiger, Megan, and Joshua M. Pearce. 2013.“Environmental Life Cycle Analysis ofDistributed Three-Dimensional Printing andConventional Manufacturing of PolymerProducts.” ACS Sustainable Chemistry andEngineering 1 (12): 1511–1519.

Lipson, Hod, and Melba Kurman. 2013. Fabricated:The New World of 3D Printing. Indianapolis: JohnWiley.

Magee, Liam, Andy Scerri, Paul James, James A.Thom, Lin Padgham, Sarah Hickmott, HepuDeng, and Felicity Cahill. 2013. “ReframingSocial Sustainability Reporting: Towards anEngaged Approach.” Environment, Developmentand Sustainability 15 (1): 225–243.

Mahy, Isabelle, and Mithra Zahedi. 2010. “WhenArtists and Designers Inspire CollectiveIntelligence Practices: Two Case Studies ofCollaboration, Interdisciplinarity, andInnovation Projects.” Paper presented atDRS2010: design and complexity, Montreal,Canada, July 7–9.

Nascimento, Susana. 2014. “Critical Notions ofTechnology and the Promises of Empowermentin Shared Machine Shops.” Journal of PeerProduction 5. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-5-shared-machine-shops/editorial-section/critical-notions-of-technology-and-the-promises-of-empowerment-in-shared-machine-shops/.

Nunez, Joseph Gabriel. 2010. “Prefab the FabLab:Rethinking the Habitability Fabrication Labby including Fixture-Based Components.”Master’s thesis, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology.

Olson, Robert. 2013. “A Boon or Bane?” TheEnvironmental Forum 30 (6): 34–38.

Ree, Robert. 2011. “3D Printing: Convergences,Frictions, Fluidity.” Master’s thesis, University ofToronto.

Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and George Simons. 2009.“A Social Vision for Value Co-creation inDesign.” Technology Innovation Management(TIM) Review (December). http://timreview.ca/article/310.

Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers.2008. “Co-Creation and the New Landscapes ofDesign.” CoDesign: International Journal ofCoCreation in Design and the Arts 4 (1): 5–18.doi:10.1080/15710880701875068.

Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N., and Pieter Jan Stappers.2014. “Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: ThreeApproaches to Making in Codesigning.”CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation inDesign and the Arts 10 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1080/15710882.2014.888183.

Seyfang, Gill, and Adrian Smith. 2007. “GrassrootsInnovations for Sustainable Development:Towards a New Research and Policy Agenda.”Environmental Politics 16 (4): 584–683.

Smith, Adrian, Sabine Hielscher, Sascha Dickel, JohanSöderberg, and Ellen van Oost. 2013. “GrassrootsDigital Fabrication and Makerspaces:Reconfiguring, Relocating and RecalibratingInnovation?.” SPRU Working Paper Series, 2013–02. http://www.sussex.ac.uk/spru/documents/2013–02-swps-aps-sh-gdf-working-paper.pdf.

Spinuzzi, Clay. 2005. “The Methodology ofParticipatory Design.” Technical Communication52 (2): 163–174.

Sterling, Bruce. 2014. “Fab10 Documentary.”Accessed April 19. https://owww.youtube.com/watch?v=MyMl_Qedd7c.

Troxler, Peter. 2010. “Commons-Based Peer-Production of Physical Goods: Is There Roomfor a Hybrid Innovation Ecology?” Paper pre-sented at the third free culture research confer-ence, Berlin, Germany, October 8–9.

Troxler, Peter. 2013. “Making the Third IndustrialRevolution—The Struggle for PolycentricStructures and New Peer-Production Commons inthe FabLab Community.” In FabLab of Machines,Makers and Inventors, edited by J. Walter-Herrmann and C. Büching, 181–198. Bielefeld:Transcript Verlag.

Valkanova, Nina, Robert Walter, Andrew VandeMoere, and Jörg Müller. 2014. “MyPosition:Sparking Civic Discourse by a Public InteractivePoll Visualization.” In CSCW 2014 17th ACMconference on computer supported cooperative

18 K. FLEISCHMANN ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6

work & social computing, 1323–1332. New York,NY: ACM.

Walter-Herrmann, Julia. 2013. “Fab Labs—A GlobalSocial Movement.” In FabLab: Of Machines,Makers and Inventors, edited by JuliaWalter-Herrmann and Corinne Büching, 33–46.Bielefeld: Transcript-Verlag.

Williams, John. 2013. “Co-Creation’ Is the NewCrowdsourcing: Agencies That Fail to Embrace

‘Co-Creation’ Do So at Their Peril.” The Guardian,November 11. http://www.theguardian.com/best-awards/co-creation-is-the-new-crowdsourcing.

Winschiers-Theophilus, Heike, Nicola J. Bidwell,and Edwin Blake. 2012. “Altering ParticipationThrough Interactions and Reflections inDesign.” CoDesign: International Journal ofCoCreation in Design and the Arts 8 (2–3): 163–182. doi:10.1080/15710882.2012.672580.

DIGITAL CREATIVITY 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Kat

ja F

leis

chm

ann]

at 1

9:13

25

Febr

uary

201

6