After coding, similar concepts were then grouped into specific categories. Following the Gioia methodology several first order codes were developed by reading the interviews. Then second order themes from the codes were derived which then lead to the development of aggregate dimensions. This formed a data structure as shown in Fig. 1. (Gioia Corley and Hamilton 2013). The findings are discussed further.
Second Order Themes
The identified themes were given specific labels as seen in the second column of Fig. 1. According to Gioia et al (2013) these emerging themes may help in describing and explaining the phenomena being observed. More importantly it provides space to focus and examine the emergence of new themes.
Actor Typologies
Most of the participants were engineers, who were also inventors of the technology itself, while some were those that had non-scientific backgrounds such as designers, academics, researchers, managers etc. Engineers had an obvious interest in the technology because of their background but it was interesting to find other actors of different backgrounds interested in the technology as well. In SM, diverse group of actors connect with one another since they are working towards similar goals but why the 3D printing actors connected with one another having diverse backgrounds? The participants were asked when it was the first time they heard about this technology? This allowed a deeper insight into how they became involved with this technology. Most of the respondents got to know about the technology through different mediums such as magazines, videos, YouTube, word of mouth, through academia, jewellery exhibitions and maker faire’s. Some however, got into it by accident when they were looking for a job or while they were already working in a company that introduced them to the technology:
‘Well 3D printing the first time I heard about it was in like 89 or 91 when I saw some demonstration of the potential for the technology. But you know it was pretty coarse and it was ridiculously expensive’.-CP
Most of the actors did not came into the industry with a pure entrepreneurial objective. They were mostly involved in it either as researchers, inventors, hobbyists, designers or engineers whom out of some later integrated the technology as part of their companies or started their own entrepreneurial initiative(s):
“I am more of an academic than an entrepreneur really. I am not sure I am a very good business person. I’m pleased to say our company makes profits but I wouldn't really think of myself as being an entrepreneur.”-AB.
The participants showed similar behavior in the way they identified themselves to the industry or the technology itself. This also correlated with the initial observation which were made during the data collection phase when various 3D printing individuals were visited at the Maker Faire in Rome. This was observed while asking them to introduce themselves or through asking questions. Some were quick in identifying themselves as initiators/ protagonists while some were humbler about it. For most of them, it gave a sense of recognition and a sense of being an influential part of the industry. What can be deduced from these findings is that though these participants had different backgrounds they had one thing in common and that was ‘3D printing’ and their objective to be a part of this industry and to see it progress further, something that is similar in a SM setting as participants within a movement are working towards the same goals.
Views/ Perception
Though the participants were diverse they shared a similar interest in 3D printing. However, there were also some varying views and perceptions of the participants specifically regarding the application of the 3D printing technology in terms of it replacing manufacturing. Most respondents believed that while 3D printing was initially thought to replace manufacturing, realistically it is not possible:
“I never believed it would replace manufacturing, in certain industries it won’t touch manufacturing. My father was a tool and dyeing engineer and they would spit out a hundred thousand products in a minute…just boom boom...3D printing will never replace that”-DL.
3D printing could act as a technology that aids manufacturing, but it cannot replace manufacturing completely. However, other respondents were more optimistic and believed that 3D printing would outnumber traditional manufacturing to a certain extent:
“So, we will have machines who can take printing electronic chips as oppose to the conventional process for making electronic chips which will eventually end. Umm and we will have machines building large engineering structures, umm components for large engineering structures at least.”-AB.
Almost all the participants believed that 3D printing was an industry except one who claimed that he/she viewed 3D printing as a technology that assists other industries:
“I would comment that I don't look at 3D printing as an industry. I look at it as a set a set of technologies”-CL
Despite having different views and perception all the actors were still involved in the industry and shared similar interests to a great extent. This highlights another important component that is parallel with SM theory where participants despite having different views come together because they share similar goals.
Actor Functions
Whist interviewing the participants, a certain pattern was noticed where the actors were sort of performing complementary functions. In simpler words one or more actors were assisting one or more other actors either through becoming their voice or by creating a certain platform that allowed other actors to come together:
“So instead of letting the then CEO and the founder hide behind the curtain back in headquarters. I made him get out and talk about what they were doing, and I got them on to the podium and I got him to speak and that was not easy because these guys were more technologist than and they were speakers. Scott Crump is just like that. He's very intelligent and insightful but he's not a great speaker. So, you had to really work with them, but I think ultimately we, you know the reason I joined was to help get that message out and go get new users and to create case studies and that was a tough part”-CL.
This showed that some actors had a more complementary role in which they tried to push other actors forward. By doing so these helped the actors to reach out other actors and hence create more knowledge and awareness about 3D printing. Furthermore, one participant recognized that there was a certain gender gap within the industry and a lot of actors specifically female actors were missing from the industry. Hence, she started to build an all women 3D printing platform called “Women in 3D printing” that not only encouraged female participants but also pushed other organizations and actors belonging to the 3D printing industry to become a part of this community. It kind of formed a movement organization that created awareness of the existence of female participants and initiated functions and roles of females in the industry:
“Yeah I have to say NT has done a fabulous job. I mean it wasn’t that long ago I met her at a conference and she is like I am starting to put this little group together and I am like okay and now I see all that she is doing and wow and so she has told you know if you need a resource right, of women in Additive and boy she has got a primo list”-HC.
This also highlights a SM pattern where actors are coming together and forming collations by meeting in conferences and meetups and hence forming a movement type pattern.
Elements of Actor Participation
Participation is an important element in SM since without participants a movement cannot thrive. Most of the actors that were interviewed had been in the industry for long but what was also observed was that some of them had a more temporal relationship with the industry. By temporal it is meant that though the participant were involved in the industry, at some moment in time, they had decided to either leave the industry completely or partially. There were several reasons that came up as to why the actors made such a decision. These were divided under the labels of voluntary drop-out and involuntary drop-out. Within SM settings there is an assumption that every individual that participates has a certain threshold value that determines how many other participants must be there before that individual decides to participate (Garnovetter 1978; Garnovetter and Song 1983, 1986). However, Sandell (1999) tries to extend this knowledge by examining interpersonal influences that leads to drop-out behavior by participants. In other words, even in SMs there exists temporal behaviors from participants which means that participants may drop out from the movement at any given time. The reasons in SM theory regarding drop out varies however, in this study the focus will be on the reasons that were discovered while interviewing the participants. Firstly, under voluntary drop-out, there were reasons such as moving on and finding other opportunities, problem of availability, less resources and time. However, age may have played a role as well:
‘Now I happen to be an older individual, so I'm 66, so whatever my next decision is and I will probably make something in the next 3 to 4 months, it's going to be more about helping people understand the value of the Technologies or helping people achieve their greatest potential because I've had an amazing career and that might be more meaningful than just focusing on a single technology’-CL.
Involuntary dropouts occurred when actors were forced by law or by change in perceptions and values. One respondent gave a detailed account of forced drop out. For example, the founder of the Model Maker, Roy Sanders was legally sued by Solidscape (3D printing company) based on patent infringement. Another involuntary drop-out that was discovered was the difference of opinion that had formed between two founders, Bre Pettis and Zach Hoeken, who had started the company MakerBot. The company originated on the principal value of keeping it open source however, Bre Pettis decided it was time to make the company closed sourced which went against the values of Zach Hoeken who believed in keeping it open-sourced. Hence, Zach Hoeken eventually had to drop-out of the company forcefully:
‘In 2009, I invited my friends Adam Mayer and Bre Pettis to go into business with me building 3D printers. Thus, MakerBot Industries was born. Fast forward to April 2012 when I was forced out of the very same company. I do not support any move that restricts the open nature of the MakerBot hardware, electronics, software, firmware, or other open projects. MakerBot was built on a foundation of open hardware projects such as RepRap and Arduino, as well as using many open software projects for development of our own software. I remain a staunch supporter of the open source movement, and I believe the ideals and goals of Open Source Hardware remain true. I have never wavered from this stance, and I hope that I never do. Future me, beware.’-(Hoeken 2012)
The drop out did, however, not only concern just a single firm or an individual but a whole subgroup within the 3DP movement. For many, the 3DP technology was next open technology, so many technology interested individuals had chosen 3DP over other technology because it was going to be open. Makerbot’s move was a strong signal that the future would be different and many disappointed dropped out. What was observed from the responses and behavior of these actors was that participation in the emergence of an industry can be on a temporary basis. The choice of leaving an industry may be dependent on many factors such as personal motivations, differences in opinions and/or forced drop-out.
Knowledge Dissemination
The 3D printing industry was a very quiet affair from the start and it only started gaining recognition as an industry when it started coming into the limelight:
“3D printing was held back for a long time because it was so tightly controlled by a few companies and their patents.”-SH.
During the data collection period it was understood that the open source movement had a significant role in the 3D printing industry that allowed the technology to be more accessible. However, open sourcing of the technology only started in 2005 when RepRap was developed. It was important to identify how diffusion of knowledge took place which allowed the industry to gain traction. The senior participants mentioned that they were unaware of the existence of other companies because they were all specializing in one specific form of 3D printing technology. It was only during conferences that they were able to gain knowledge of the existence of other companies that were working on 3D printing as well. Here it is important to mention that through secondary data collection important archival information was collected from the personal blog of Terry Wohler of Wohler Associates. Through this archival data and response from the it was identified that most of the conferences, where 3D printing was mentioned, were mostly engineering conferences. This highlights the fact that 3D printing at that time was not considered as a separate industry and was mentioned more as a technology, used by different industries, in engineering conferences:
“I attended COFES2003 last week in Scottsdale, Arizona. (COFES is The Congress of the Future of Engineering Software.) I sat in on an architectural/engineering/construction industry session that debated the pros and cons of designing and communicating in 2D versus 3D. It became clear that the A/E/C industry has not progressed much in its transition from 2D to 3D over the past several years, compared to manufacturing”-(Wohler 2003).
Though conferences related to 3D printing started emerging they were still accessible and known to only a few actors that were using the technology. Here is where open source played its part in spreading the knowledge to the masses. As mentioned before open source was an important element in making 3D printing accessible and most of the credit goes to the academic researcher who developed RepRap, a self-replicating machine:
“When I started the RepRap project, I decided to make it open source and give all the software, all the 3D cat designs everything you needed to make a machine all the documentation. I decided to give that all away for no cost and no royalties.”-AB.
By making it open source 3D printing technology became less costly and more accessible:
“Yeah I think the open source piece was very critical to the success. It's really tough to say what would have happened without it but I mean the industry basically sat idle for so long and then the open-source aspect help kick-start it and bring it to the limelight and most average users they maybe don't even realize that it the technology 3D printing has been out there for such a while.”-DG
Though most participants agreed that open source was essential for making 3D printing more prominent they also mentioned how it got overhyped which made the industry lose its focus:
“The hype was ultimately quite damaging because the technology presented at the time couldn’t live up to what people were saying and increasingly now more premises are being met much more is possible but people don't take it seriously because they don’t see a purpose before and the technology just wasn't there yet and it’s still not there yet to a great extent.’-SG.
The respondent believed that the hype was fueled mostly by media outlets, presidential speeches, movies, and articles etc. which although brought positivity to the industry but there were also some negative impacts as well. However, they also mentioned how they were happy that the hype cycle had died now which meant the 3D printing could be more focused now:
‘I’m actually quite happy that the hype has died down. I think it will be a lot easier as there aren’t any expectations. But long term there is the growth of industry there. There are a lot of incredible things that you can do, that you can't do any other way.’-MV.
It is worth mentioning that one of the positive effects of the open sourcing and hype was the entry of entrepreneurial actors. Once RepRap came into the market entrepreneurs like Bre Pettis and Zach Hoeken started working on the technology. Individuals with entrepreneurial initiatives started meeting in places such as hackerspaces and Fablabs to use the technology and start their own startups.
The participants were further asked about what their views were on the entrepreneurs, who on the onset of the hype, started opening their own 3D printing startups. Most of them believed that entrepreneurs were a driving factor that had pushed the industry forward:
“I think that the entrepreneurial role in additive is probably similar to that of a lot of other technologies in that they are going to be the ones that are going to push the limits and they're going to be the ones that are going to drive the creativity. So, I think that it's very similar you know it's going to continue to be pushed outside the box and see what we can see what we can do with the technology. I think that those startup have most entrepreneurial like ideas have already really influenced a lot of the new things that we can do and when you pair the entrepreneurial spirit with the background and the funding and the research that these big organizations want to do that's where you're actually going to get substantial progress.’-CO.
What can be deduced from the responses is that entrepreneurs play a vital role in bringing the industry forward but also through the collective efforts with other actors, organizations etc. However, a few stated that the though entrepreneurs did push the industry forward being less knowledgeable caused more problems:
“A lot of the entrepreneurs coming into it really don't know much about the history nor much about the technology. They were actually seen as causes of some problems, because it started giving the industry bad name because they come in with poor quality and poor engineering. That’s not to say that’s true to a point because there are some very good innovators out there, but I think 7 out of 10 entering it are causing more problems in the industry rather than solving problems.”-MV
The outcome from these responses demonstrated that entrepreneurs were indeed involved in bringing the industry forward, but it also meant that they needed to be equipped with certain knowledge and resources that made them capable enough to create more innovative products and services with the technology.
Community Building
While the open source led to more dissemination of knowledge it meant more doors opened for more collaborations and engagements between different actors and organizations such as academia, which also fostered community building:
“I know that if we had gone alone and no one else was there for let’s say 20 years...I don’t think we would had grown anywhere near as fast because we were getting people to invest in new idea, new technologies, new markets, new customers that didn’t exist, new profits that never existed.”-SC.
Some participants mentioned the importance of collaborations and community building within schools and universities while some emphasized how the 3D printing was an ecosystem that was helping in development and sharing of strategies and practices. They unanimously agreed that 3D printing industry was very collaborative, and this led to sharing of resources such as funds, knowledge etc. enabling the growth of the industry.
A very interesting outlook was from the female perspective. As mentioned in the previous theme, actors played complementary roles and in 3D printing industry a prominent example is the organization called “Women in 3D printing”. The person behind the organization believed that it was essential to bring forward the women in 3D printing to bring more diversity in the industry:
“I really truly think that the next big change in the 3d printing comes from different backgrounds and we have to share this. And this is really how the idea of the blog started. The idea was to share the background of the women in the 3D industry.”-NT.
Future Technology Advancements
All 15 participants agreed that 3D printing was an industry (technology) that had tremendous growth opportunities. They believed that the industry could grow further by acting as a complementary technology in industries such as aerospace and healthcare and that entrepreneurs will push the industry forward:
“I think a lot of the complementary technologies will continue to evolve and push the boundaries of it and the entrepreneurs of the world will continue to push the boundaries and how we're going to use it. So definitely.”-CO.
From these themes three aggregate dimensions, “Social Movement Composition”, “Temporal Engagement” and “Coalition Development” were identified (see column 3 of Fig. 1). The first three themes showed a diverse set of actors pursing similar goals for 3D Printing coming together and acting as complementors hence creating a SM composition. The fourth theme highlights the participants motivation to be part of an industry, hence creating temporal engagement. The last three reveal further strengthening of ties and networks between actors, communities and organizations that led towards development of coalitions. This formed the complete data structure as shown in Fig. 1, which is an important component that demonstrates the detailed and rigorous analytical phase of qualitative research.