Kit-Driven Innovation: Difference between revisions
(Created page with " =More Information= See the article by Michael Schrage on 'Kitonomic Innovation': * http://quality.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SIP_Kits_Kitonomics.pdf [[Category:Man...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
See the article by Michael Schrage on [http://kits.makezine.com/blog-post/kits-and-revolutions/ 'Kitonomic Innovation']<ref>Kits and Revolutions: An MIT economist’s lesson in Kitonomics 101. pp 8-10. 2012. Available [http://kits.makezine.com/blog-post/kits-and-revolutions/ here] and [http://quality.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/SIP_Kits_Kitonomics.pdf here]</ref>. | |||
= | == Contents == | ||
<img src="http://makekits.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/websip_kitonomics_watt-steam-engine.jpg?w=228" class="external-image"/> | |||
The Industrial Revolution began with kits. In 1763, Glasgow University’s scale model Newcomen steam engine broke, so the physics professor asked the school’s resident mechanic to fix it. A talented instrument maker, this university employee didn’t just get the machine working again, he figured out a clever way to improve the design by turning a surgical syringe into a piston and condenser. That Scottish mechanic was James Watt, and he partnered with Birmingham, England’s Matthew Boulton to commercialize the design. But rather than producing finished steam engines for the coal mines and breweries that used steam power, they sold engineering “kits” — with extensive instructions — that required on-site assembly. Boulton & Watt made a killing, and transformed their age. | |||
This rough template has foreshadowed technological revolution ever since. Whether in radio, auto, aircraft, electronics, or personal computers and the internet, communities of kit-building talented amateurs — not credentialed elites — have disproportionately influenced early innovation. The proliferation of cheap kits better signals a market sector ripe for revolution than the presence of expensive “cutting-edge” products. | |||
In other words, “kitonomic” innovation doesn’t follow the money; the money follows the kits. Although government research funding and industrial investment undeniably matter, they shouldn’t eclipse the importance of bottom-up mechanisms for human capital formation, such as kits. | |||
Talented amateurs don’t just build kits; kits help build talented amateurs. And healthy innovation cultures — and successful innovation economies — need the human capital that their talent embodies. Kits are integral, indispensable, and invaluable ingredients for new value creation. | |||
== References == | |||
<references/> | |||
[[Category:Manufacturing]] | [[Category:Manufacturing]] | ||
Revision as of 13:00, 4 December 2012
See the article by Michael Schrage on 'Kitonomic Innovation'[1].
Contents
<img src="http://makekits.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/websip_kitonomics_watt-steam-engine.jpg?w=228" class="external-image"/> The Industrial Revolution began with kits. In 1763, Glasgow University’s scale model Newcomen steam engine broke, so the physics professor asked the school’s resident mechanic to fix it. A talented instrument maker, this university employee didn’t just get the machine working again, he figured out a clever way to improve the design by turning a surgical syringe into a piston and condenser. That Scottish mechanic was James Watt, and he partnered with Birmingham, England’s Matthew Boulton to commercialize the design. But rather than producing finished steam engines for the coal mines and breweries that used steam power, they sold engineering “kits” — with extensive instructions — that required on-site assembly. Boulton & Watt made a killing, and transformed their age.
This rough template has foreshadowed technological revolution ever since. Whether in radio, auto, aircraft, electronics, or personal computers and the internet, communities of kit-building talented amateurs — not credentialed elites — have disproportionately influenced early innovation. The proliferation of cheap kits better signals a market sector ripe for revolution than the presence of expensive “cutting-edge” products.
In other words, “kitonomic” innovation doesn’t follow the money; the money follows the kits. Although government research funding and industrial investment undeniably matter, they shouldn’t eclipse the importance of bottom-up mechanisms for human capital formation, such as kits.
Talented amateurs don’t just build kits; kits help build talented amateurs. And healthy innovation cultures — and successful innovation economies — need the human capital that their talent embodies. Kits are integral, indispensable, and invaluable ingredients for new value creation.