IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v39y2014icp18-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Third Wave Do-It-Yourself (DIY): Potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure

Author

Listed:
  • Fox, Stephen

Abstract

There is a new Do-It-Yourself (DIY) paradigm that involves ordinary people inventing, designing, making, and/or selling physical goods ranging from jewellery to off-road vehicles. Via websites, this DIY involves combining the read-write functionality of Web 2.0 with computer-aided (CAD) design and additive manufacturing. In addition, the new DIY is carried out at workshops where people use handheld tools together with CAD and manufacturing machines. There have been two earlier waves of DIY: subsistence DIY (First Wave) and industrial DIY (Second Wave). It has been claimed that the new, Third Wave, DIY paradigm is revolutionary for prosumption, for innovation, and for entrepreneurship. Furthermore, it has been claimed that Third Wave DIY could be carried out by anybody at any location. However, much Third Wave DIY involves participants who are literate in a “lingua franca”, and have computer skills. Furthermore, Third Wave DIY is often reliant on infrastructure used in industrialized manufacturing. Findings are reported from a study investigating the potential for Third Wave DIY to better enable prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship – particularly by local populations that lack functional literacy in any “lingua franca”, computer skills, and access to industrial manufacturing infrastructure. Study findings suggest that while Third Wave DIY is revolutionary, its expansion may never be fully viable without subsidy of innovation activities. However, in many parts of the world, prosumption of basic goods may be more important initially than innovation of new sophisticated goods. This can be enabled by combining Third Wave DIY technologies with mobile production facilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Fox, Stephen, 2014. "Third Wave Do-It-Yourself (DIY): Potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 18-30.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:39:y:2014:i:c:p:18-30
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.07.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X14000396
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2014.07.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand Moingeon & Muhammad Yunus & Laurence Lehmann-Ortega, 2010. "Building Social Business Models: Lessons from the Grameen Experience," Post-Print hal-00528385, HAL.
    2. Kera, Denisa, 2014. "Innovation regimes based on collaborative and global tinkering: Synthetic biology and nanotechnology in the hackerspaces," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 28-37.
    3. Xiaohua Yang & Elly Ho & Artemis Chang, 2012. "Integrating the resource-based view and transaction cost economics in immigrant business performance," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 753-772, September.
    4. Casson, Mark, 2005. "Entrepreneurship and the theory of the firm," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 327-348, October.
    5. Danny Miller, 1983. "The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(7), pages 770-791, July.
    6. Palich, Leslie E. & Ray Bagby, D., 1995. "Using cognitive theory to explain entrepreneurial risk-taking: Challenging conventional wisdom," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 425-438, November.
    7. Elaine Mosakowski, 1998. "Entrepreneurial Resources, Organizational Choices, and Competitive Outcomes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(6), pages 625-643, December.
    8. King, Robert G. & Levine, Ross, 1993. "Finance, entrepreneurship and growth: Theory and evidence," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 513-542, December.
    9. Kenta Nakamura & Hiroyuki Odagiri, 2005. "R&D boundaries of the firm: An estimation of the double-hurdle model on commissioned R&D, joint R&D, and licensing in Japan," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(7), pages 583-615.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Francisco Javier Forcadell & Fernando Úbeda, 2022. "Individual entrepreneurial orientation and performance: the mediating role of international entrepreneurship," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 875-900, June.
    2. Grichnik, Dietmar & Smeja, Alexander & Welpe, Isabell, 2010. "The importance of being emotional: How do emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 15-29, October.
    3. Michael Sheppard, 2020. "The relationship between discretionary slack and growth in small firms," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 195-219, March.
    4. Marta Najda-Janoszka, 2012. "Matching Imitative Activity of High-Tech Firms with Entrepreneurial Orientation," Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Fundacja Upowszechniająca Wiedzę i Naukę "Cognitione", vol. 8(1), pages 52-67.
    5. Mthanti, Thanti & Ojah, Kalu, 2017. "Institutions, Human Capital and Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO): Implications for Growth Strategy," MPRA Paper 89551, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Jeffery S. McMullen & Katrina M. Brownell & Joel Adams, 2021. "What Makes an Entrepreneurship Study Entrepreneurial? Toward A Unified Theory of Entrepreneurial Agency," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 45(5), pages 1197-1238, September.
    7. Erik Monsen & Holger Patzelt & Todd Saxton, 2010. "Beyond Simple Utility: Incentive Design and Trade–Offs for Corporate Employee–Entrepreneurs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(1), pages 105-130, January.
    8. Mitoko, Jeremiah, 2021. "Economics of Microcredit-From current crisis to new possibilities," MPRA Paper 108392, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Dietmar Grichnik & Alexander Smeja & Isabell Welpe, 2010. "The Importance of Being Emotional: How do Emotions Affect Entrepreneurial Opportunity Evaluation and Exploitation?," Post-Print hal-00856603, HAL.
    10. Charles H. Fine & Loredana Padurean & Sergey Naumov, 2022. "Operations for entrepreneurs: Can Operations Management make a difference in entrepreneurial theory and practice?," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 31(12), pages 4599-4615, December.
    11. Mohammad Fakhar Manesh & Giulia Flamini & Damiano Petrolo & Rocco Palumbo, 2022. "A round of dancing and then one more: embedding intuition in the ballet of entrepreneurial decision making," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 499-528, June.
    12. Klein, Peter G. & Mahoney, Joseph T. & McGahan, Anita M. & Pitelis, Christos N., 2009. "Toward a Theory of Public Entrepreneurship," Working Papers 09-0106, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, College of Business.
    13. Michael H. Morris & Justin W. Webb & Rebecca J. Franklin, 2011. "Understanding the Manifestation of Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Nonprofit Context," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(5), pages 947-971, September.
    14. Iman Aghaei & Amin Sokhanvar, 2020. "Factors influencing SME owners’ continuance intention in Bangladesh: a logistic regression model," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 10(3), pages 391-415, September.
    15. Per Davidsson & Johan Wiklund, 2001. "Levels of Analysis in Entrepreneurship Research: Current Research Practice and Suggestions for the Future," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 25(4), pages 81-100, July.
    16. Syed Shah Alam & Mohd Fairuz Md Salleh & Mohammad Masukujjaman & Mohammed Emad Al-Shaikh & Nurkhalida Makmor & Zafir Khan Mohamed Makhbul, 2022. "Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance among Malay-Owned SMEs in Malaysia: A PLS Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-16, May.
    17. Andreas Hönl & Philip Meissner & Torsten Wulf, 2020. "Betting the farm and playing it safe? Hyper-core self-evaluation in decisions when managers are winning and losing," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 1293-1316, November.
    18. Patrick M. Kreiser & Louis D. Marino & Pat Dickson & K. Mark Weaver, 2010. "Cultural Influences on Entrepreneurial Orientation: The Impact of National Culture on Risk Taking and Proactiveness in SMEs," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 34(5), pages 959-984, September.
    19. Ricarda Bouncken & Boris Plüschke & Robin Pesch & Sascha Kraus, 2016. "Entrepreneurial orientation in vertical alliances: joint product innovation and learning from allies," Review of Managerial Science, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 381-409, March.
    20. Heidenreich, Stefan & Mohr, Alexander & Puck, Jonas, 2015. "Political strategies, entrepreneurial overconfidence and foreign direct investment in developing countries," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 793-803.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:39:y:2014:i:c:p:18-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.