Nội dung

Commons-based Peer-Production of Physical Goods Is there Room for a Hybrid Innovation Ecology? Peter Troxler, Square One, Rotterdam, The Netherlands peter@square-1.eu This paper examines how in commons-based peer-production of physical goods a hybrid, privatecollective innovation ecology is developing. Using the Fab Lab community as the field of investigation, it collates three studies: a survey of Fab Lab business models, an interview study asking Fab Lab managers and assistants about the pain and pride of their Fab Lab, and a selection of cases describing innovation in Fab Lab projects. The paper finds that there is a desire and intention to establish a hybrid innovation ecology in the Fab Lab community, but that Fab Labs have not yet established business models that would e.g. replicate the known models from open source software. However, the studies indicated the possibility of such models. The paper finally puts the results in perspective to the free fabbing ecology, and the wider context of peerproduction of physical goods. Introduction First there was a digital revolution in communication (from analogue to digital telephony) that eventually cumulated in mobile communication and convergence of media. Then there was a second digital revolution in computation (from analogue to digital computers) that eventually made personal computers possible and lead to a convergence of communication and computing. The next digital revolution, according to Gershenfeld (2005), is in the field of manufactured physical goods with the emergence of digital personal fabrication or ‘fabbing’. In this paper, I’ll investigate how this third digital revolution, the emergence of fabbing and its adoption in the commons-based peer-production of physical goods influences how we go about innovation, particularly if and how a hybrid innovation ecology could develop or could be developed. First, I’ll be looking into the world of fabbing, commons-based peer-production of physical goods. I’ll briefly describe its roots and its analogy to open source software production. I’ll show how widespread fabbing is today and I’ll propose a conceptual map to describe some of the fabbing communities. I then go on to ask how open source and innovation are related and how far innovation research today understands the contribution of open source to innovation in general, and more specifically, in the area of physical goods, of manufacturing and fabbing. This leads me to my research questions, design and methods; a way to gain more in-depth understanding about business models in commons-based peer-production. I’ll report from three studies I carried out in this context, first a survey of Fab Lab business models, second an interview study asking Fab Lab managers and assistants about the pain and pride of their Fab Lab, and third a selection of five case studies describing innovation in Fab Lab projects. © 2010, Peter Troxler. This work is licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, California 94105, USA. 1 The 3rd Free Culture Research Conference, Berlin, 8-9 October 2010 Troxler, Peter Finally, in a brief discussion I’ll review the results of these studies, and try to put them into perspective to my research questions, the free fabbing ecology, and the wider context of peer-production of physical goods. Fabbing The raise of commons-based peer production, i.e. individuals collaborating in producing cultural content, knowledge, and other information and indeed physical goods, is commonly attributed to ‘digital revolutions’, the broad availability of new information technologies (see e.g. Benkler, 2006). Benkler (2003) argues that ‘in the networked information economy—an economy of information, knowledge, and culture that flow through society over a ubiquitous, decentralized network—productivity and growth can be sustained in a pattern that differs fundamentally from the industrial information economy of the twentieth century in two crucial characteristics. First, nonmarket production (…) can play a much more important role than it could in the physical economy. Second, radically decentralized production and distribution, whether market-based or not, can similarly play a much more important role’ (p. 1246f.). Commons-based peer production is most widely practiced in the area of software development, of which such important programmes as the Linux operating system and the Apache web server are the most prominent examples. Commons-based peer production has also moved beyond pure software and spread into other domains, from culture and education to knowledge discovery and sharing (e.g. the SETI@home project, Wikipedia, Open Street Map, Slashdot, or the Blender movies). Commons-based peer production might be ‘born digital’, yet it also leaves the purely digital domain. There are quite a number of fabbing projects (fabbing from fabrication), open source hardware projects that aim to produce tangible goods through a peer-production approach. Maybe this is because many ‘physical activities are becoming so datacentric that the physical aspects are simply executional steps at the end of a chain of digital manipulation’ as Shirky suggests (2007). Or maybe the commons-based peer production model ‘provides opportunities for virtuous behavior’ and so ‘is more conducive to virtuous individuals’ (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006, p. 394). Balka et al. went to great length to collect examples of open source hardware projects through their site http://open-innovation-projects.org/ which they then used as basis for their quantitative studies (2009, 2010). They find, ‘that, in open design communities, tangible objects can be developed in very similar fashion to software; one could even say that people treat a design as source code to a physical object and change the object via changing the source.’ (2009, p. 22), but also that that ‘open parts strategies in open design are crafted at the component level, rather than the level of the entire design’ (2010, p. 11) and that ‘the degree of openness differs significantly between software and hardware components, in the sense that software is more transparent, accessible, and replicable than hardware’ (ibid.). Similarly, Torrone and Fried (2010) collected 13 examples of companies that are selling open source hardware and creating some kind of community around them. Those companies together, the authors estimate, generate a turnover of about US$ 50m. The authors reckon that there are currently about 200 open source hardware projects of this kind. They project the open source hardware community to reach US$ 1b by 2015. Some of these communities have indeed seen an exponential growth recently, e.g. the RepRap community (Rhys et al. 2010). 2 © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 Commons-based Peer-Production of Physical Goods—Is there Room for a Hybrid Innovation Ecology? Next to these single-aim or single-product projects there are other initiatives promoting commons-based peer production mainly through the sharing of designs and the stimulation of ‘making things’, be it for the fun of it (e.g. the Maker Faire in the USA, the magazines Make or Craft), for easy sharing, distribution and promotion (e.g. Ponoko, Shapeways, Thingiverse), or for the purpose of more serious or more ambitious social experiments, such as the Open Source Ecology with their experimental facility Factor E Farm (Dolittle, 2008). Finally, there are other initiatives of commons-based peer production that could be summarized under the heading of ‘shared machine shops’ (Hess, 1979). These workshops are typically equipped with hand tools and relatively inexpensive fabrication machines (e.g. laser cutter, router, 3D mills). Users produce two- and three-dimensional things that once could only be made using equipment costing hundreds of thousands of Euros. They use digital drawings and open-source software to control the machines, or they build electronic circuits and gadgets. Hackerspaces define themselves ‘as community-operated physical places, where people can meet and work on their projects’ (Hackerspaces, 2010). Emerging from the counter culture movement (Grenzfurthner & Schneider, 2009), they are ‘place[s] where people can learn about technology and science outside the confines of work or school’ (Farr, 2009). Activities in hacker spaces evolve around computers and technology, and digital or electronic art. Hackerspaces are founded as local initiatives following a common pattern, becoming a hacker space is predominantly self declaratory. The Hackerspaces ecosystem comprises some 400 member locations, of which roughly half are either dormant or under construction (Hackerspaces, 2010a). Collaboration between Hackerspaces has recently begun in the shape of so-called ‘hackatlons’ that seem not to extend beyond showing activity at the hacker spaces taking part (Hackerspaces, 2010b). 100k-Garages is ‘is a community of workshops with digital fabrication tools for precisely cutting, machining, drilling, or sculpting the parts for your project or product, in all kinds of materials, in a shop or garage near you’ (100kGarages, 2010), supported by machine manufacturer ShopBot and the design sharing platform Ponoko. Most of these workshops are located in the U.S.A. and Canada (about 180), with five shops in Europe and two in Australia. As opposed to the other examples, 100k-Garages are providing a professional manufacturing service, rather than offering shop access to makers. TechShop is a group of workshops that are equipped with typical machine shop tools (welding stations, laser cutters, milling machines) and corresponding design software. Access to the workshop is through monthly or yearly membership, and courses on how to use the tools are offered, too. TechShop started in the California Bay Area, and is present in five more cities around the U.S.A. (TechShop, 2010). Fab Lab, short for fabrication laboratory, is another global initiative with a growing number of locations around the world. Fab Labs are more conceptually rooted as they emerged from an MIT course entitled ‘How To Make (almost) Anything’ (Gershenfeld, 2005). While there is no formal procedure on how to become a Fab Lab, the process is monitored by the MIT, and the MIT maintains a list of all Fab Labs worldwide. At the moment of writing, the Fab Lab community comprises 45 labs, with another 45 to 50 labs to open in the not too distant future. There are a few collaborative projects within the community, and a number of initiatives to exchange designs and experience between the labs. Similar to the hackatlons, but on a more structural basis, all the labs around the world are in contact with each other through a common video conferencing system hosted at the MIT which is used for ad-hoc meetings, scheduled conferences and the delivery of the Fab Academy training programme. © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 3 The 3rd Free Culture Research Conference, Berlin, 8-9 October 2010 Troxler, Peter In literature, there are a number of examples of Fab Lab projects. Mikhak et al. (2002) report on projects in India, at Vigyan Ashram Fab Lab just outside the village of Pabal in Maharashtra, and at the Costa Rica Institute of Technology in San Jose, Costa Rica. The India projects are about developing controller boards to do more accurate timing of the diesel engines they use to generate electrical power, and developing devices to monitor milk quality not at the collection centres and the processing plants, but at producer level. The Costa Rican projects evolve around wireless sensing modules for agricultural, educational and medical applications, for example the monitoring of a certain skin condition in a rural village. Gershenfeld (2005) lists examples of what students at MIT made in his course ‘how to make (almost) anything’, including a bag that collects and replays screams, a computer interface for parrots that can be controlled by a bird's beak, a personalised bike frame, a cow-powered generator, an alarm clock that needs to be wrestled to make it turn off, and a defensive dress that protects its wearer's personal space. Gjengedal (2006) reports on the early projects at the Norwegian MIT Fab Lab at Solvik farm in Lyngen: the ‘electronic shepard’ (sic) project that used telecom equipment to track sheep in the mountains, the ‘helmet wiper’ for clearing the face shield in the rain, the ‘wideband antenna’ for the industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) radio band, and the ‘Internet 0’ project (a low bandwidth Internet protocol), the ‘perfect antenna’, and the ‘local position system’ for positioning of robots in the lab. Pfeiffer (2009) describes her own experiments and projects in the context of distributed digital design; the experiments being Lasercut News, Digital Color Studies & Pixilated Images, Lasercut Screen, and Lasercut Bracelets (which she sold at a local shop), the projects: Distorted Chair and Asperatus Tile. Figure 1: An attempt at mapping the Fabbing world Hackerspaces, per their name and definition, build on commons-based principles. 100k-Garages and TechShops use dedicated platforms to share (final) designs, yet their commitment to a commons-based peer production philosophy seems to be somewhat weaker. Fab Labs’ commitment to some kind of 4 © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 Commons-based Peer-Production of Physical Goods—Is there Room for a Hybrid Innovation Ecology? commons is more explicit. The Fab Charter, to which all Fab Labs subscribe, states, that ‘designs and processes developed in fab labs must remain available for individual use although intellectual property can be protected however you choose’. And the Charter continues ‘commercial activities can be incubated in fab labs but they must not conflict with open access, they should grow beyond rather than within the lab, and they are expected to benefit the inventors, labs, and networks that contribute to their success’ (Fab Charter, 2007). Open Source and Innovation There is a substantial body of research trying to understand the motivational and economical issues for people to choose a commons-based or open source approach, particularly for the Open Source software sector (e.g. Harhoff et al., 2000; Khalak 2000; Lerner & Tirole, 2000, 2002, 2002a; Dalle & Jullien, 2001; Edwards, 2000, 2001, 2003; Kelty 2001; Johnson, 2001; Bonaccorsi & Rossi 2003; Lakhani & von Hippel, 2003; Lakhani & Wolf, 2003; Hemetsberger & Reinhardt 2004; Bessen, 2006; Sauer 2007). In innovation research, however, it is still relatively early days of accepting the open source way as a mode of innovation of any substantial relevance. von Hippel and von Krogh (2003) proposed the explanation of a ‘private-collective innovation model’ that combines elements of the traditional private investment model of innovation and the collective action model of innovation of public goods. Participants use their private budget to create innovations they freely reveal as a public good (private investment model). In return they do not want legal protection for the exclusive commercial exploitation of their innovation, but other private benefits such as learning, enjoyment and community participation (collective action model). Yet in 2005, von Hippel still acknowledged that ‘the empirical finding that users often freely reveal their innovations has been a major surprise to innovation researchers’. Also, theories on ‘open innovation’ (Chesbrough 2003) struggled for quite some time to explain the growth of commons-based peer production: Chesbrough (2003) called it the ‘puzzle of Open Source Software’. The major issue was the absence of a business model built around intellectual property rights: ‘By construction, open source software is created without any one firm owning the technology. No firm can patent the technology, or exclude anyone else from accessing the software code. Enhancements to the code are available to everyone on an equal basis. Is this simply an exception to the general rule [i.e. that the value of a technology is determined by the business model], is this due to a business model of a different kind, or is there something fundamentally wrong with the above claims of Open Innovation regarding the importance of business model for the behavior of firms?’ (Chesbrough, 2006, p. 25). He then introduces ‘open source business models’ (Chesbrough, 2006a, p. 45 ff.; for an in-depth discussion of open source business models see e.g. Pomerantz, 2000; faberNovel, 2007). Still slightly surprised at the fact, he concludes (p. 47) that ‘while open source was created in ways that sought to deliberately eschew the creation of IP rights over its technology, alert companies have nonetheless developed business models that are propelling the [software] technology forward into the market.’ faberNovel (2007, p. 13) distinguish four types of business models, all of which are based on complementary services for the products to generate revenue. © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 5 The 3rd Free Culture Research Conference, Berlin, 8-9 October 2010 Troxler, Peter Research Questions, Design and Methods What would these ‘open source business models’ be with regard to non-software products? How can the transfer of business practices from the software industry to manufacturing be achieved? And what are the difficulties in doing so? Is there indeed a ‘next industrial revolution’, where ‘atoms are the new bits’ (Anderson, 2010)? Is there a private-collective, a hybrid innovation ecology in commons-based peer production of physical goods? To answer these questions, I was looking for a way to gain more in-depth understanding about business models in commons-based peer-production or fabbing. I decided to select one of the communities. For theoretical and practical reasons I chose Fab Labs for my studies. I believe that the Fab Lab network is structurally more developed and better documented than the other communities, and the ambition of Fab Lab is clearly ‘hybrid’ as stated in the Fab Lab charter. Practically, this was the community to which I had the best access, I was involved in setting up a Fab Lab in Switzerland, and had looked at the Fab Lab business earlier (Troxler, 2009). I first chose to analyse the business models of existing Fab Labs and to study to which extent they were being able to (economically) sustain themselves as institutions, given their practical and ideological premise of Fab Labs as prime locations for commons-based peer production. Parts of this study were carried out in collaboration with the University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Luzern. In spring 2010, we studied business models of the Fab Labs around the world in a two-tiered approach. Firstly, a top-level description of the positioning of the Fab Labs was derived through document analysis. Secondly, we selected a subset of seventeen Fab Labs for the study. For the selection, the labs had to be publicly accessible and the main goal of the labs had to be manufacturing-oriented rather than communityoriented. Six labs did not respond, and one lab chose not to take part. The business models of the remaining ten Fab Labs were analyzed more deeply in expert interviews with the Fab Lab managers or, where applicable, with the business managers at their hosting organisations. The interview guideline addressed value proposition, revenue model, processes, resources, marketing, and innovation partnerships. Second, to gain more insight into the operational business aspects of Fab Labs, I interviewed lab managers and lab assistants of existing and prospective Fab Labs about the ‘pain and pride’ of their respective labs. Third, I wanted to investigate if and how users would make use of the open source approach stipulated by the Fab Charter, particularly since literature is mainly focusing on the users of Fab Labs (e.g. Mikhak et al., 2002; Gershenfeld, 2005; Gjengedal, 2006; Pfeiffer, 2009) rather than the labs and their business environment. Therefore, I analysed four projects carried out at Fab Labs based on publicly available documentation. These projects had to show at least some traits of ‘openness’, such as designs, drawings or documentation made available under some ‘free’ or ‘copyleft’ license. Additionally, I report a case of ‘closed’ innovation where a Fab Lab helped a commercial company. 6 © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 Commons-based Peer-Production of Physical Goods—Is there Room for a Hybrid Innovation Ecology? Study 1 Survey of Fab Lab Business Models There are currently 45 Fab Labs around the world that use the power of diversity and the disciplinary mastery of their staff to stimulate an innovation ecology accessible to everyone. The first Fab Lab was set up at MIT’s interdisciplinary Center for Bits and Atoms, a second one in Boston’s inner city. They serve youth, tinkerers, inventors as well as companies and students. Fab Labs can be used by all disciplines in teaching, professional development, applied research and research services. In this study, ten Fab Labs from the United States of America, Colombia, Spain, Iceland, The Netherlands, and Norway took part (see table 1). The labs were analysed in terms of value proposition, revenue model, processes and resources, marketing, and innovation partnerships. Location Americas Europe USA (3), Colombia Spain (2), Iceland, The Netherlands (2), Norway Table 1. Geographical Sample Description (N=10). Of the 10 Fab Labs we studied, four were independent entities, the other six were hosted at schools, research or innovation centres (see table 2). All those labs have been founded between spring 2007 and summer 2009. Their funding came typically from public sources or from their hosting institution; however, they were requested to become self-sustaining within 2 to 4 years. None of the labs had yet reached this stage. Fab Lab Educational Research Innovation Independent 2 2 2 4 Table 2. Fab Lab Hosting Institutions (N=10). Regarding the value proposition, all labs indicated that their envisaged clientele be distributed across the board, including students, researchers, companies and the general public. However, nine labs reported that students were the main users at the labs, only three labs involved the general public, two attracted companies, and only one lab attracted researchers (see table 3). Students Researchers Companies General Public Target user groups 10 6 9 9 Current main users groups 9 1 2 3 Table 3. Target vs. Current Main User Groups at Fab Labs (N=10). © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 7 The 3rd Free Culture Research Conference, Berlin, 8-9 October 2010 Troxler, Peter All labs indicated that their core competence was in technology, while five of them explicitly specified IT as additional core competence. Six labs additionally had core competencies in arts and design. The main contribution to their users’ processes was seen equally in education, research, and development and prototyping. While all labs indicated their main value proposition was providing access to infrastructure that users would have no access to otherwise, seven indicated that access to experts was equally part of their value proposition, and six of the labs saw giving access to knowledge of the Fab Lab network as part of their value proposition (see table 4). Infrastructure Experts Fab Lab Network 10 7 6 Part of value proposition Table 4. Value Proposition of Fab Labs (N=10). Current revenue of the Fab Labs included in this study came mainly from public sources or from a hosting institution. Revenue from sponsoring or from users so far remained the exception. However, all labs indicated that they needed to become self sufficient within two to four years. Regarding processes and resources, seven of the nine Fab Labs had their own employees, three were run by a faculty of their host university, and five were supported by volunteers. In terms of manufacturing technology, the labs typically adhered to the equipment proposed by MIT, sometimes excluding one single machine; eight labs offered their users extra equipment (such as 3-D-printers or embroidery machines). Eight of the nine labs included in the study position their offering as ‘social-tech’, and one as ‘green-tech’. None of them, however, positioned themselves as ‘high-tech’ or ‘smart-tech’ (e.g. intelligent materials etc.). In terms of marketing, Fab Labs typically have their own Internet presence, however, only three of the nine labs in this study actively engage in PR. The innovation ecosystems of the labs were relatively limited with few network and industry partners and few, if any sponsors (see table 5). 0 1…5 6…10 Network partners 0 6 4 Industry partners 5 1 4 Sponsors 7 3 0 Table 5. Innovation Ecosystem of Fab Labs (N=10) Also, labs rarely made use of the possibilities the Fab Lab innovation ecosystem offers. Only one lab indicated that nearly all projects required support from the network, two reported that on average every third project required support, while for the remaining labs this was the case on even fewer occasions (N=10). 8 © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 Commons-based Peer-Production of Physical Goods—Is there Room for a Hybrid Innovation Ecology? Conclusions In summary, the Fab Labs included in this study primarily offered infrastructures to students, and they were relatively passive in reaching out to potential other users. Their funding came from government or hosting institutions. They have so far created a limited innovation ecosystem. This ecosystem, however, gets used rather rarely. Looking at single labs in the sample, there was a notable tendency that labs that engaged more actively in PR attracted also non-students as users. Also, labs that more explicitly saw themselves as providing access to the knowledge in the Fab Lab network tended to have more network partners in their innovation ecology and were more often asked by users to support their projects. This seems to indicate a distinction between Fab Labs that are focusing on supporting innovation, and those that primarily offer the lab as a production facility. The study into the business models of Fab Labs finds that the funding for the Fab Labs included in the study came from government or hosting institutions. This is not surprising, given their relatively young age and their requirement to become self-sustaining within 3 to 4 years. The labs were primarily offering infrastructures to students, and they were relatively passive in reaching out to potential other users. They had so far created a limited innovation ecosystem, which got used rather rarely. This also suggests that there are two value propositions, namely labs providing facilities and labs providing innovation support. Looking at single labs in the sample, there was a notable tendency that labs engaged more actively in public relations activities attracted also non-students as users. Also, labs that more explicitly saw themselves as providing access to the knowledge in the Fab Lab network tended to have more network partners in their innovation ecology and were more often asked by users to support their projects. This again indicates a distinction between Fab Labs that are focusing on supporting innovation, and those that primarily offer the lab as a production facility. Both models, the innovation support model and the facility model, can be seen in the light of commonsbased peer-production. Peer support in the innovation model would ideally form a complete ecosystem that could deliver the experience of effective and fast innovation to participating peers. It would certainly be in the spirit of Fab Labs that such an ecosystem would evolve around a hybrid, private-collective innovation model. In the facility approach, which would support users primarily during their stay at the lab when using equipment and manufacturing process, the peer-production community would build around the experience of a well-run personal production process. Again, the spirit of Fab Labs would encourage a private-collective model of peer support. The current business models of Fab Labs were built around external funding covering the (private) budget to create innovations. The challenge for these labs will be to achieve a level of funding—be it public or private—to sustain the hybrid, private-collective model of innovation. Similar to open source business models, the key probably would be to offer complementary services to generate revenue. For the two approaches making things still would remain the core function of the lab. For the Fab Lab as a facility, the complementary proposition would be to provide added value in terms of the digital production processes; for the innovation Fab Lab complementary services could be generated using a mix of ingredients determined by the facilities and (networked) competencies available. © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0 9 The 3rd Free Culture Research Conference, Berlin, 8-9 October 2010 Troxler, Peter Study 2 The 'Pain and Pride' of Fab Lab Managers and Assistants During the international workshop and symposium on digital fabrication in Amsterdam (August 2010) I took the opportunity to interview 38 lab managers and lab assistants of existing and prospective Fab Labs. Of the 38 participants, 23 were from existing Fab Labs, 15 from labs that were in planning stages, including one lab that only opened a couple of weeks earlier. Participants were chosen because they attended a one-day workshop dedicated to Fab Lab management and achieving economic sustainability with a Fab Lab. I carried out focused, short interviews, rather than long, narrative ones. Therefore I asked them one question directed at their motivation and challenges at the lab. Methodologically, I borrowed from the critical incident technique (Flanagan, 1954), theoretically from Herzberg’s two-factor theory (Herzberg, 1968). I transcribed the answers to our question ‘What is your pain and pride at the Fab Lab?’ and categorised them according to themes. Below, I first report the answers to the pride part and then to the pain part of the question, since 36 of participants spontaneously answered to pride first. Pride existing lab planned lab total cumulative % (N=38) effect on users 8 2 10 26.32% effect on kids 4 1 5 39.47% community 2 5 7 57.89% grass-root innovation 3 3 65.79% innovate themselves 2 1 3 73.68% innovation 1 1 2 78.95% open and democratic 1 2 3 84.21% being chaotic concept of Fab Labs, educational impact, being local and independent, teaching kids 5 100.00% Other single mention Table 6: The pride of Fab Lab managers Almost 40 % of respondents mentioned the effect a Fab Lab has on its users—in terms of empowerment, in terms of experiencing achievement, or more specifically in terms of mastering technology—as their main pride in the lab. ‘I think it it it gives me great pride to know that at the end of the day I can change somebody's life directly by using the tools and machineries that are within the fab lab.’ ‘The best thing about a fab lab is the smile on the face of a middle-aged, unemployed, African American male who has been very, very discouraged. That's the second best thing. The first best thing is when he holds up the thing he just made and says: What I think: I'm going to play with this and make it better.’ 10 © 2010 Peter Troxler, CC-BY 3.0