Your help is needed: Research on Innovation, Open Hardware and Commercialisation in the RepRap Community

Dear all,

The RepRap community has been a truly amazing innovation and democratisation driver for 3D printing. As a part of a research project conducted jointly by Ecole Polytechnique (France), University of Fribourg (Switzerland) and SKEMA Business School (France) we are conducting a survey of the RepRap community members (at large!). Our goal is to better understand how innovation takes place in a free sharing community.

By answering the survey, you will help us understand what make the RepRap community so successful! Answering the survey takes maximum 20 minutes and all the answers are confidential. Of course, the results of the study will be made publicly (and freely) available.

Looking forward to reading your thoughts!

[www.soscisurvey.de]

In the meantime, I'd be happy to answer any question you may have.

Thanks again for your help and time,

Best wishes,

Thierry

---

Professor of Innovation Management at École Polytechnique (France)
Fellow of the i3-CRG (Management Research Centre, Innovation Interdisciplinary Institute, UMR CNRS 9217)

[www.polytechnique.edu]

I'm sorry, i stopped half way through since this questionaire is seriously tiresome and repetitive. On the second page after the 5th question i started backtracking and rereading, after the 10th i gave up. If you want to get any number or replies and useful results you should rethink your approach.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/28/2018 07:58AM by Srek.

---

[www.bonkers.de]
[merlin-hotend.de]
[www.hackerspace-ffm.de]

Quote
Srek
I'm sorry, i stopped half way through since this questionaire is seriously tiresome and repetitive. On the second page after the 5th question i started backtracking and rereading, after the 10th i gave up. If you want to get any number or replies and useful results you should rethink your approach.

Same for me.

---

Large delta printer [miscsolutions.wordpress.com], E3D tool changer, Robotdigg SCARA printer, Crane Quad and Ormerod

Disclosure: I design Duet electronics and work on RepRapFirmware, [duet3d.com].

Thanks to the both of you for your feedback.

Unfortunately, as hard as we tried it is not possible to reduce the number of scenarios on page 2 (and we did try hard!). They are all different, which is why we need you to give us your opinion for each of them.

As long as it looks, though, looking at the stats of people who have answered the whole survey, the longest it took so far was just over 17 min. The average for those who have answered it in full is about 10 min.

Thanks to all of you who have completed the survey. We very much appreciate your time and help.

We need more of you to answer, though, to make sure that the data is reliable. Please don't hesitate to pass along the link of the survey to anyone relevant.

And if you have ideas of means to promote the survey to the community, we'd be very keen to hear about it.

Thanks again,

Best wishes,

Thierry

What do you expect to accomplish with the survey?

... the main focus seems to be on "commercialization of OS designs" - or how the community will react to copying/clonig or updating of community developments for comercial printers

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

That is indeed part of what we are trying to assess. As Open Source/Hardware is on the rise, it is very important to understand better how innovation communities work and thrive. There is more to it, though, as topics included in the survey also include entrepreneurship, difference between software and hardware development, etc.

I have no idea of how "other members of the Reprap community will react, and do not wish to hazard a guess.

It appears that there are only a few variables that you're separating out.

The printer is open or closed source.
The printer is a clone/upgrade/new design.
The company has not/occasionally/significantly contributed to the community

Mathematically this makes for 18 possible permutations, and you have 22 questions, broken down as follows:

1. open/clone/occasionally
2. closed/upgrade/occasionally
3. open/upgrade/significantly
4. open/new/never
5. closed/upgrade/never
6. closed/new/significantly
7. open/new/significantly
8. closed/clone/occasionally
9. open/upgrade/never
10. closed/new/occasionally.
11. open/new/occasionally
12. closed/clone/significantly
13. open/clone/never
14. open/upgrade/occasionally
15. closed/new/occasionally
16. open/clone/significantly
17. closed/clone/never
18. closed/upgrade/significantly
19. open/clone/never (How is this different from #13? the text of the question is identical.)
20. open/upgrade/never (Same as #9)
21. closed/new/occasionally (same as #10)
22. open/new/never (Same as #4)

So you have 4 duplicates.

This really gives you 3 axes to graph, and since you have a variable response, you should be able to get your data on these 3 axes much more directly, I think.

For whatever reason, I managed the time for this analysis, but I just can't be bothered to quantify my reactions to these 18 (and 4 duplicate) cases.

---

MBot3D Printer
MakerBot clone Kit from Amazon
Added heated bed.

Leadscrew self-built printer (in progress)
Duet Wifi, Precision Piezo parts

and the question on everyone's lips is....if some company with more resources goes on to make a mint from OS derived ideas, will they contact anyone to offer cash even if they dont have to?

questions are probably self checked, same thing asked over and over but differently.. to cross check your answers

Personally Im not giving them free information. they want my input, they are going to have to pay me.

Especially as there is someone wanting a new servery filled out every other week. all of them aimed at increasing their profit at the open source community expense.

OS... Does not Compute, Does not Compute...Warning A.I. Corrupted, Quantum Core caught in an infinite loop in an indeterminate state, Meltdown in Progress.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/31/2018 11:36AM by MechaBits.

I suspect that thierry rayna is unlikely to get any meaningful data from the members of this forum as all of the regulars are proudly independent outliers - each having their own opinion completely unsullied by the thoughts of anybody else. If there appears to be any visible trend lines they are likely to be as meaningful as Ley lines or the twitch of a water dowsers twig.

btw, SupraGuy, the last four question being copies of earlier ones is likely to be to weed out drift caused by becoming bored, losing concentration or just plain contrariness.

Mike

Yes, indeed, the duplicate questions are indeed there for a reason (if you are interested, the methodology we use is conjoint analysis).

However, just to be clear: this is public research that is not supported by any private funding. There is no profit for us, aside from the satisfaction, as researchers, to study OS/OH communities, which we find are really interesting and will become increasingly important in the future.

In the best case scenario, the only outcome will be articles published in academic journals, for which we get no remuneration what so ever.

By the way, not getting visible trend lines would be an interesting result. Another reason to fill in the survey

I used to believe in scientific research, but not any more. Peer review is an awful process the produces nothing. Why not do a survey to correlate 3d printer numbers and world temperature? You know, something useful.

Quote
cwaa
I used to believe in scientific research, but not any more. Peer review is an awful process the produces nothing. Why not do a survey to correlate 3d printer numbers and world temperature? You know, something useful.

Can I ask why you dislike peer review so much? I also think it is awful - as do the great majority of science and academia - but if you can't suggest anything any better then it is a bit like complaining about death and taxes. Again, most scientific research is pretty much rubbish but it is more honest rubbish than in any other sphere of human activity. The only hope for humanity is indeed that most scientific endeavor honestly tries to get closer to truth while all other activities drift ever further away.

Mike

Hm. Just filled out my share of that convey. Which is kind of pointless as I'd never consider myself part of any 3d printing community - yet. If I were to analyze my own answers it would go along these lines:
- I'm to narrow minded to grasp the idea of anybody having a different opinion than myself.
- I'll always fall for the illusion to be soooo distinct from any community.

Hugh? What do you mean by "that contradicts"? No way! That's the result of this convey, a very scientific research!


(p.s.: May contain traces of nuts or sarcasm)

Quote
leadinglights

Quote
cwaa
I used to believe in scientific research, but not any more. Peer review is an awful process the produces nothing. Why not do a survey to correlate 3d printer numbers and world temperature? You know, something useful.

Can I ask why you dislike peer review so much? I also think it is awful - as do the great majority of science and academia - but if you can't suggest anything any better then it is a bit like complaining about death and taxes. Again, most scientific research is pretty much rubbish but it is more honest rubbish than in any other sphere of human activity. The only hope for humanity is indeed that most scientific endeavor honestly tries to get closer to truth while all other activities drift ever further away.

Mike

I dislike peer review because it covers up the truth. How many times have you heard a climate alarmist say this study was peer reviewed and we know it is shitty science. There isn't even a description of peer review because everybody does it differently. That sounds like a non-scientific method right there. Why do it at all?

Quote
cwaa

I dislike peer review because it covers up the truth. How many times have you heard a climate alarmist say this study was peer reviewed and we know it is shitty science. There isn't even a description of peer review because everybody does it differently. That sounds like a non-scientific method right there. Why do it at all?

Peer review sometimes allows publishing of rubbish science and sometimes blocks publishing of good science. While I can see that, I can't see how doing away with peer review would be an improvement - even more garbage would be published and the fact that the newest science is not easy to understand would make it even harder for new insights to be heard over the noise.

Mike

New Real Peer Review? [youtu.be]

When you say peer review, nobody knows what you mean. Can you define peer review and give details how peers are selected. Why does it differ from science to science. Why isn't it consistent?

Quote
cwaa
When you say peer review, nobody knows what you mean....

The article being reviewed is read and approved or declined by "experts" in the field. That many of these experts are nothing of the sort is beyond dispute but almost any other selection of experts are no more likely to be honest or knowledgeable.

Quote

..... Can you define peer review and give details how peers are selected....

"Peers" are selected by the publisher on their own take on honesty and expertise - which almost always has some hidden agenda or other baggage.

Quote

.........Why does it differ from science to science. Why isn't it consistent?

Because the body of knowledge of each science has real or historical difference in the rigor used in review. In mathematics the logical argument has to be flawless. Conversely, in the social sciences the subject has constraints such as all data being subjective and the data gathering often being held as unethical. This means that even the most insightful and honest social sciences paper should be taken with healthy skepticism. Medical science (and yes, climate science) fit somewhere in between: The truth is likely to lie somewhere between exaggerated claims and complacency.

So I return to what I said before: Can you suggest anything any better?

Mike.

... I too had some problems with peer review - either the lack of knowledge of the peers with totally new/novel concepts, or the lack of common sense or "hidden agendas", what's ejecting some really good ideas before they can get momentum

My own diploma thesis was maybe 10 to 15 years ahead of the then actual informatic concepts, so mostly ignored by the "experts" ...

Then, 20 years later, when I was in "peer review" groups for rating European R&D project applications (where 75 percents of the submitted PA's had to be sorted out) -- not the best concepts survived, but the potentially most profitable for the "big players", which had sent most of the participants

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Why does there need to be an alternative? Why use a process that doesn't work. Its a waste of time and resources. We have spent trillions on stupid green and climate projects that have failed. BUT, they were peer reviewed...……….. How did science survive 80 years ago before peer review.

... 80 years (or more) ago a single "genius" with a novel idea or concept could gain interest and money to realize his project ... or even build it on his own, if wealthy enough.

Today many developments are so costly, that only companies or financiers can pay the bills - so it's more a run for interest or better "investment conditions" ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Quote
cwaa
.................................. We have spent trillions on stupid green and climate projects that have failed............................

Trillions???? I can't think of any projects even in the billions -------- Oh! I see, you mean the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were to help fix the climate!!

Mike (now leaving this subject due to lack of RepRap connection, meaningful debate and the will to live.)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2018 04:27PM by leadinglights.

Quote
cwaa
Why does there need to be an alternative? Why use a process that doesn't work. Its a waste of time and resources. We have spent trillions on stupid green and climate projects that have failed. BUT, they were peer reviewed...……….. How did science survive 80 years ago before peer review.

I'm reviewing your post and find it doesn't have any valid data in it Observe that peer review actually works

How do you know you are my peer?????? I would guess you have much less education and experience than I do.

Your country list only seems to reach H ???

Quote
cwaa
How do you know you are my peer?????? I would guess you have much less education and experience than I do.

You seem to guess wrong a lot Where is your documentation for trillions spent?

Now I know what CWAA means... Can't Win An Argument