Design Global, Manufacture Local: Difference between revisions

From P2P Foundation
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
unknown (talk)
 
(17 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''= an emerging productive model that builds on the convergence of the digital commons of knowledge, software and design with local manufacturing technologies".'''


'''* Article: Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model. By Vasilis Kostakis, Vasilis Niaros, George Dafermos, Michel Bauwens. Futures, Volume 73, October 2015, Pages 126–135'''
both a concept, and the title of articles; this pages focuses on the articles; for the concept, go to: [[DGML]]


URL = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715001214
=The Concept=


URL = http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf
DGML describes the processes through which design is developed, shared and improved as a global digital commons, whereas the actual manufacturing takes place locally through shared infrastructures with local biophysical conditions in mind


See also the ongoing manifold research project of the P2P Lab [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/archives/1119 here]


==Description==


=Description=
Christina Priavolou and Vasilis Niaros:


"This article aims to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on post-capitalist construction by exploring the contours of a commons-oriented productive model. On the basis of this model called “design global-manufacture local”, we argue that recent techno-economic developments around the emergence of commons-based peer production and desktop manufacturing technologies, may signal new alternative paths of social organization. We conclude by arguing that all commons-oriented narratives could converge, thereby supporting the creative communities which are building the world they want within the confines of the political economy they aspire to transcend."
"The Design Global, Manufacture Local (DGML) approach has emerged as a production model that focuses on localized production settings via a network of distributed makerspaces . It builds on the convergence of global digital commons (i.e., knowledge, software, and design) with local manufacturing technologies, by taking into account the surrounding biophysical conditions . The reduction of transportation costs and the expected low environmental impact of locally produced solutions are considered as significant benefits of this model . Furthermore, on-demand production, sharing physical and digital infrastructures as well as the production of solutions towards a common good rather than profit maximization are key components of the DGML model.


=Excerpt=
Notwithstanding the positive dynamics of the DGML approach in the production of tangible artifacts, concerns have been raised with respect to:


We attempt to provide a tentative description of such a theoretical model that builds on the convergence of the degrowth and peer production narratives, the resilient communities and the lessons taught by the emerging DG-ML projects that utilize both ICT and desktop manufacturing technologies. To do so, the following figure would help us in outlining our proposal (Fig. 1).
(i) the existence of a comprehensive shared documentation that renders a hardware product “open” ; and  


[[File:Screen Shot 2015-09-15 at 11.11.36.png|thumbnail|A proposal for convergence: the DG-ML productive model.]]
(ii) the level of autonomy the user has while developing and maintaining that product. "
(https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4746/htm)


The main vein of our critique to resilient communities, as stated in Section 2, is twofold. First, many resilient communities and eco-villages are producing a design/knowledge commons while working to meet their needs, but because of their local focus: they have loose connections with each other; they do not produce a global commons; and thus they fail to contribute to the formation of a global counter-power. Second, a radical shift should take place toward contraction and downscaling, whereas we claim that there are possibilities for “doing things differently” utilizing the modern community-driven technologies and practices. In line with degrowth and resilient communities narratives, we are arguably living the endgame of neoliberal material globalization based on cheap energy, which necessitates relocalization of production. However, we have new possibilities for online, affinity-based socialization, coupled with the resulting physical interactions and community building. The value-creation communities of the global commons approach might be locally based but are globally linked. Out of that, there may come new forms of business organization, which are substantially more community- oriented. This approach sees no contradiction between global open design collaboration, and local production/ manufacturing: both can occur simultaneously, so the relocalized reterritorialization will be accompanied by global networks of enterprises. The various information commons, based on shared knowledge, code and design, will be part of these new global knowledge networks, but closely linked to relocalized implementations.
=The Articles=


It is obvious that the emergence of the community-driven development model characteristic of Wikispeed, Open Source Ecology and RepRap would have been impossible in the absence of the design/knowledge commons and the respective digital platforms of each project. So, at the most basic level, the scaling up of the DG-ML model would firstly require distributed access to enabling collaborative socio-technological digital platforms that would allow knowledge workers, farmers, hackers, engineers, scientists, hobbyists and open design communities to collaborate on joint or individual projects on a global basis. In a nutshell, it would include the state of the art of open source hardware, i.e., a stack of essential technologies in relation to each productive realm. The knowledge should be documented step-by-step in several languages, so that almost anybody may understand how a certain solution is implemented, replicated or even advanced. Moreover, it would be important to develop open assessment systems so that everyone could contribute to maturity evaluations of the projects. So, the current platforms and libraries of global design/knowledge commons should become more accessible and user-friendly. A proposal could be that the state organizes this first layer of infrastructure enriched with the design/ knowledge commons produced by the universities and other research institutes which are funded by tax payers money. Further, the legal framework of the digital commons, especially concerning the open hardware, should be advanced, maybe in line with the proposal for commons-based reciprocal licenses (Bauwens & Kostakis, 2014).
==Sustainability Science (2023)==


Secondly, the scaling up of the DG-ML model would require distributed access to fixed capital, i.e., a spectrum of hardware technologies such as personal computers and desktop manufacturing technologies, which constitute the essential means of production in this setting. Though production is distributed and therefore facilitated at the local level, the conjunction of peer production practices and products with desktop manufacturing technologies could create sustainable business ecologies. There, the resulting micro-factories/makerspaces, essentially networked on a global scale, would profit from mutualized global cooperation, both on the design of the product and on the improvement of common machinery. “Micro- factories” is a concept that refers to small dimension, automated factories capable of greatly conserving resources like space, energy, materials and time (Okazaki, Mishima, & Ashida, 2004; Tanaka, 2001). They are likely to feature automatic machine tools, assembly systems, evaluation and control systems, a quality inspection system and waste elimination system (Koch, 2010; Kussul et al., 2002). Micro-factories can be identical to makerspaces/fablabs which can be found either in hackerspaces, media labs, and other co-working or community-driven spaces (Troxler, 2011). Community-driven micro- factories are commonly used by individuals and groups with limited financial resources as a local, physical platform for the mutualization of resources and the provision of shared access to those means of production that are not yet as distributed and generally available as personal computers and Internet connectivity. As such, they form a territorial infrastructure for the development of commons-oriented projects like RepRap and Wikispeed. Again, on the regional, national and international level, a proposal could be that the state empowers, supports and even builds micro-factories/makerspaces and intellectual hubs so that bottom-up modes of collaboration and entrepreneurship, which would build on the commons, are developed.
A reconceptualisation of technology, as a vital component of modern society cutting across all its other aspects, is required to achieve social and environmental sustainability. This paper presents a convivial technology development framework using the concept of “cosmolocal” production. The latter captures the dynamic of dispersed technology initiatives, which exhibit conceptualisations of living, working and making around the commons. It is a structural framework for organising production by prioritising socio-ecological well-being over corporate profits, over-production and excess consumption. From the vantage point of Tzoumakers, a cosmolocal initiative in which the authors participate, this paper offers an empirical account of its conception and evolution. We further examine its relation and cooperation with various similar interconnected places in urban and rural settings.


Any distributed enterprise could be seen in the context of transnational alliances of ethical enterprises that operate in solidarity around a particular knowledge commons (de Ugarte, 2014; P2P Foundation, 2014). As the key terrain of conflict is around the relative autonomy of the commons vis-a-vis for-profit companies, we are in favor of a preferential choice towards entrepreneurial formats which integrate the value system of the commons, rather than profit-maximization. In this context, the creation of businesses by the community, can make the commons viable and sustainable over the long run. Advocates of this scenario struggle for a shift from the current flock of community-oriented businesses towards business-enhanced communities. They believe that we need corporate entities which are sustainable from the inside out, not just via external regulation from the state, but from their own internal statutes and links to commons-oriented value systems.
*Article: Beyond global versus local: illuminating a cosmolocal framework for convivial technology development. Sustainability Science.  


Hence, the third layer relates to the local communities and the development of entrepreneurial coalitions and relevant funding ecologies. Through local hubs (private and public) and the development of a global network of micro-factories/ makerspaces and commons-oriented communities, various entrepreneurial coalitions (often in the form of co-operatives) could be catalyzed. The goal should be the creation of a funding infrastructure that benefits and sustains the design/ knowledge commons, creates added value on top, and markets these as products or services. Public authorities and governments could help orchestrate the public-private-commons triad in order to benefit from the local effects of the new networked “coopetition” between entrepreneurial coalitions and their linked communities.
URL = https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-023-01378-1
 
 
==Futures (2015)==
 
The aim is to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on post-capitalist construction by exploring the contours of a commons-oriented productive model. On the basis of this model called “design global, manufacture local”, we argue that recent techno-economic developments around the emergence of commons-based peer production and local manufacturing technologies, may signal new alternative paths of social organization. We conclude by arguing that all commons-oriented narratives could converge, thereby supporting the creative communities which are building the world they want within the confines of the political economy they aspire to transcend.
 
*Article: '''Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model.''' By Vasilis Kostakis, Vasilis Niaros, George Dafermos, Michel Bauwens. Futures, Volume 73, October 2015, Pages 126–135
 
URL = http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328715001214  [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf pdf]
 
 
==Journal of Cleaner Production (2016)==
 
The emerging discussion about the sustainability potential of distributed production is the starting point for this paper. The focus is on the “design global, manufacture local” model. This model builds on the conjunction of the digital commons of knowledge and design with desktop and benchtop manufacturing technologies (from three-dimensional printers and laser cutters to low-tech tools and crafts). Two case studies are presented to illustrate three interlocked practices of this model for degrowth. It is argued that a “design global, manufacture local” model, as exemplified by these case studies, seems to arise in a significantly different political economy from that of the conventional industrial model of mass pro- duction. “Design global, manufacture local” may be seen as a platform to bridge digital and knowledge commons with existing physical infrastructures and degrowth communities, in order to achieve distributed modes of collaborative production.
 
*Article: The convergence of digital commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative cases. By Vasilis Kostakis, Kostas Latoufis, Minas Liarokapis, Michel Bauwens. Journal of Cleaner Production
 
URL = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616314184 [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Journal-of-Cleaner-Production.pdf pdf]
 
 
==Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (2016)==
 
This article explores the socio-environmental implications of two different value models currently competing for dominance in the digital economy: the neo-feudal cognitive capitalism (NFCC) and the hypothetical case of mature peer production (HMPP). Using a systematisation that considers environmental effects of information and communication technologies as direct, indirect and structural, this article discerns the future socio-environmental sce- narios indicative of each value model. We argue that the two value models share the same type of direct environmental effects associated with a similar technological infrastructure; however, their indirect effects differ in prospects of consumer behaviour, environmental awareness and product design. Likewise the difference in structural effects is significant as the NFCC is based on profit maximisation and an accumulation of capital, whereas the HMPP is agnostic to growth and oriented towards the commons. Hence, the latter is considered as the socio-environmentally auspicious choice, but comes not without transitional challenges of its own.
 
*Article: Towards a political ecology of the digital economy: Socio-environmental implications of two competing value models. By Vasilis Kostakis, Andreas Roos, Michel Bauwens. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions
 
URL = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422415300150 [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Env-Innov-and-Soc-Trans.pdf pdf]
 
=More Information=
 
==Cases==
 
[http://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/DGML/Cosmo-Local_Cases Here] you find a list of cases that exemplify a "design global, manufacture local" model.
 
==Similar approaches==
 
See also:
 
* [[Cosmo-Localization]]
* [[Engage Global, Test Local, Spread Viral]]


Therefore, political and social mobilization on the regional, national and transnational scale is seen as part of the struggle for the transformation of institutions. Participating enterprises are vehicles for the commoners to sustain global commons as well as their own livelihoods. This approach does not take social regression as a given, and believes in frugal abundance for the whole of humanity. It envisions a transition to a paradigm which would include new decentralized and distributed systems of provisioning and democratic governance, escaping the pathologies of the current political economy and constructing an ecologically sustainable alternative (Bollier, 2014). To achieve such a transition, the global commons scenario, through the DG-ML productive model, suggests that we should work on building both global and local political and social infrastructures. Of course, we do not argue that peer production can instantly substitute all production processes or that centralized infrastructures (such as water supply) are useless. Peer production is a proto-mode of production and, thus, currently unable to perpetuate itself on its own outside capitalism, to an autonomous and real mode of production. It has been argued (Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014) that the state could catalyze such a transition to hybrid modes of production reconfiguring the micro-economic and macro-economic level in the spirit of certain commons-oriented policies. Central to this discussion are the concepts of the “ethical market”, which would include commons-oriented enterprises, as well as the “partner state”, which would enable and empower direct social-value creation by providing support for the basic infrastructures, and focus on the protection of the commons sphere (Orsi, 2009; Kostakis & Bauwens, 2014 and for a critical perspective Rigi 2012, 2013, 2014).


[[Category:Design]]
[[Category:Design]]
Line 40: Line 81:


[[Category:Peerproduction]]
[[Category:Peerproduction]]
[[Category:Michel Bauwens]]
[[Category:Cosmo-Local Production]]

Latest revision as of 08:02, 9 July 2023

= an emerging productive model that builds on the convergence of the digital commons of knowledge, software and design with local manufacturing technologies".

both a concept, and the title of articles; this pages focuses on the articles; for the concept, go to: DGML

The Concept

DGML describes the processes through which design is developed, shared and improved as a global digital commons, whereas the actual manufacturing takes place locally through shared infrastructures with local biophysical conditions in mind


Description

Christina Priavolou and Vasilis Niaros:

"The Design Global, Manufacture Local (DGML) approach has emerged as a production model that focuses on localized production settings via a network of distributed makerspaces . It builds on the convergence of global digital commons (i.e., knowledge, software, and design) with local manufacturing technologies, by taking into account the surrounding biophysical conditions . The reduction of transportation costs and the expected low environmental impact of locally produced solutions are considered as significant benefits of this model . Furthermore, on-demand production, sharing physical and digital infrastructures as well as the production of solutions towards a common good rather than profit maximization are key components of the DGML model.

Notwithstanding the positive dynamics of the DGML approach in the production of tangible artifacts, concerns have been raised with respect to:

(i) the existence of a comprehensive shared documentation that renders a hardware product “open” ; and

(ii) the level of autonomy the user has while developing and maintaining that product. " (https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4746/htm)

The Articles

Sustainability Science (2023)

A reconceptualisation of technology, as a vital component of modern society cutting across all its other aspects, is required to achieve social and environmental sustainability. This paper presents a convivial technology development framework using the concept of “cosmolocal” production. The latter captures the dynamic of dispersed technology initiatives, which exhibit conceptualisations of living, working and making around the commons. It is a structural framework for organising production by prioritising socio-ecological well-being over corporate profits, over-production and excess consumption. From the vantage point of Tzoumakers, a cosmolocal initiative in which the authors participate, this paper offers an empirical account of its conception and evolution. We further examine its relation and cooperation with various similar interconnected places in urban and rural settings.

  • Article: Beyond global versus local: illuminating a cosmolocal framework for convivial technology development. Sustainability Science.

URL = https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-023-01378-1


Futures (2015)

The aim is to contribute to the ongoing dialogue on post-capitalist construction by exploring the contours of a commons-oriented productive model. On the basis of this model called “design global, manufacture local”, we argue that recent techno-economic developments around the emergence of commons-based peer production and local manufacturing technologies, may signal new alternative paths of social organization. We conclude by arguing that all commons-oriented narratives could converge, thereby supporting the creative communities which are building the world they want within the confines of the political economy they aspire to transcend.

  • Article: Design global, manufacture local: Exploring the contours of an emerging productive model. By Vasilis Kostakis, Vasilis Niaros, George Dafermos, Michel Bauwens. Futures, Volume 73, October 2015, Pages 126–135

URL = http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf [http://www.p2plab.gr/en/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Futures.pdf pdf


Journal of Cleaner Production (2016)

The emerging discussion about the sustainability potential of distributed production is the starting point for this paper. The focus is on the “design global, manufacture local” model. This model builds on the conjunction of the digital commons of knowledge and design with desktop and benchtop manufacturing technologies (from three-dimensional printers and laser cutters to low-tech tools and crafts). Two case studies are presented to illustrate three interlocked practices of this model for degrowth. It is argued that a “design global, manufacture local” model, as exemplified by these case studies, seems to arise in a significantly different political economy from that of the conventional industrial model of mass pro- duction. “Design global, manufacture local” may be seen as a platform to bridge digital and knowledge commons with existing physical infrastructures and degrowth communities, in order to achieve distributed modes of collaborative production.

  • Article: The convergence of digital commons with local manufacturing from a degrowth perspective: Two illustrative cases. By Vasilis Kostakis, Kostas Latoufis, Minas Liarokapis, Michel Bauwens. Journal of Cleaner Production

URL = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652616314184 pdf


Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions (2016)

This article explores the socio-environmental implications of two different value models currently competing for dominance in the digital economy: the neo-feudal cognitive capitalism (NFCC) and the hypothetical case of mature peer production (HMPP). Using a systematisation that considers environmental effects of information and communication technologies as direct, indirect and structural, this article discerns the future socio-environmental sce- narios indicative of each value model. We argue that the two value models share the same type of direct environmental effects associated with a similar technological infrastructure; however, their indirect effects differ in prospects of consumer behaviour, environmental awareness and product design. Likewise the difference in structural effects is significant as the NFCC is based on profit maximisation and an accumulation of capital, whereas the HMPP is agnostic to growth and oriented towards the commons. Hence, the latter is considered as the socio-environmentally auspicious choice, but comes not without transitional challenges of its own.

  • Article: Towards a political ecology of the digital economy: Socio-environmental implications of two competing value models. By Vasilis Kostakis, Andreas Roos, Michel Bauwens. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions

URL = http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210422415300150 pdf

More Information

Cases

Here you find a list of cases that exemplify a "design global, manufacture local" model.

Similar approaches

See also:

Retrieved from "https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/index.php?title=Design_Global,_Manufacture_Local&oldid=137163"