1
Networks of Tinkerers:
a model of open-source innovationPeter B. Meyer
Office of Productivity and Technology,U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
At IEHA, Helsinki, Aug 24, 2006
This work does not represent official findings or policies of the U.S. Dept of Labor.
2
Open-source technologies
Definition: designs or findings are regularly shared
open source software programmers share source code Linux began at University of Helsinki
personal computers - Homebrew Club, 1975
pre-history of the airplane Clearly documented, slow, written, and fun This example used to motivate model
3
Early aircraft developments
1800-1860 – George Cayley and many others try aeronautical experiments
1860s – aeronautical journals begin Much sharing of experimental findings,
conferences 1894 Octave Chanute’s Progress in Flying
Machines 1903 – Wrights fly famous powered glider 1910 – many have flown. Firms are starting
up
4
Octave Chanute, experimenter and author
Chanute was a wealthy former engineer in Chicago
Experimented with gliders Described previous work in 1894 book Progress in Flying
Machines. discusses many experimenters, devices, and theories experimenters from many countries and occupations book supports network of information and interested
people helped define “flying machines” work, focused on
kites
Chanute corresponded actively with many experimenters.Chanute preferred that everyone’s findings be open.
5
Hiram Maxim, circa 1894
6
Lawrence Hargrave
Retired young in Sydney, Australia Ran many creative diverse experiments starting in
1884 Several flapping-wings designs Innovative engines Box kites showed layered wings were stable and had lift
He did not build every design but rather moved on Did not patent, on principle. Published hundreds of findings Chanute: “If there be one man . . . . who deserves to
succeed in flying through the air” – it is Hargrave.
7
Lawrence Hargrave’s box kites
8
Lilienthal’s Wings and Gliders
German engineer Otto Lilienthal studied birds and lift shapes in wind
20 years of experiments, often with brother Gustav
Published book Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation, 1889
Made hang gliders Flew 2000+ times Became famous and an
inspirational figure
9
10
Samuel Langley's technology choices
Thinks that for safety:• aircraft must be intrinsically stable, and• pilot must sit up craft must be rigid makes frame from steel tubing – heavy Needs large wings and strong engine heavy; needs strong engine for lift Arranges for best engine possible Expensive
11
Hard landings; lands on waterCan't try twice easily Operator is not too useful, like rocket, unlike glider
12
Wilbur and Orville Wright
Ran bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio, US Starting in 1899, read from Langley and
Chanute Corresponded actively with Chanute Good tool makers and users. Have a workshop. Generally crafted each piece. Collaborated intensely.
“I wish to avail myself of all that is already known and then if possible add my mite to help on the future worker who will attain final success.”
-- Wilbur Wright, in 1899 letter to Smithsonian Institution (quoted in Anderson, 2004, p. 89)
13
Wrights' technology choices
Focused on wing shape, propellers, and control mechanism
Built craft as kites, then gliders
Materials light & cheap, wood & canvas
Did not attach an engine until 1903.
14
Wrights tested more than 200 model wing surfaces
15
pilot lays flat less dragintrinsically unstable, like a bicycle
Pilot controlled that by hip movements which pulled wires to warp (twist) wing tips to turn glider
This invented pilotingskill had no future
16
17
18
Chain-Drive Transmission System of the 1903 Flyer
19
Wrights’ propellers
What’s a propeller for an aircraft? Standard idea: like a water propeller, it
would pushes air back. Having studied wings, Wrights’
experiment with propellers that have a cross section like a wing, with lift in forward direction
This produces 50% more pulling power from a given engine!
This idea lasts
20
This evidence is highly selected
Many other experimenters and publishers would be worth mentioning if time permitted:
Alphonse Penaud Horatio Phillips James Means Alberto Santos-Dumont Richard Pearse Glenn Curtiss John Montgomery
21
Innovator significance in network
Who did the Wrights, and historians of them, cite? Chanute, Lilienthal, Wright family, Langley, many times
Weinberg’s list from Brooks’s technological history 150 important innovations before 1910
Who did Chanute refer to in 1894 survey? About 190 who made some “informational” contribution
Math and physics; engines; kites; technical comments, authors I am making a database of these citations Among the most cited: Hargrave, on 19 pages; Wenham, 15;
Lilienthal, 14; Stringfellow, 11; Tatin, 11; Langley 9
22
Information sourcepage
references
Maxim, Hiram S. 33
Lilienthal, Otto 31
Penaud, Alphonse 22
Mouillard, Louis 21
Hargrave, Lawrence 19
Moy, Thomas 19
Le Bris 17
Langley, Samuel 16
Wenham, F.H. 15
Phillips, Horatio 14
Stringfellow, John 11
Tatin, V. 11
Goupil 10
From
Chanute’s
1894
book:
23
Motivations of experimenters (1)
Curiosity, interest in the problem Interest in flying oneself Belief in making world a better place Prestige Fame / recognition Wealth (conceivably)
Start company, or license patented invention
signal to employers; get hired as engineer (Lerner and Tirole, 2002)
24
Motivations of experimenters (2)“The glory of a great discovery or an invention
which is destined to benefit humanity [seemed] . . . dazzling. . . Otto and I were amongst those [whom] enthusiasm seized at an early age.” - Gustav Lilienthal
“. . . A desire takes possession of man. He longs to soar upward and to glide, free as the bird . . . “
-- Otto Lilienthal 1889“The writer’s object in preparing these articles was .
. . [to know] whether men might reasonably hope eventually to fly through the air . . . To save . . . effort on the part of experimenters . . .” -- Octave Chanute, 1894.
25
Motivations of experimenters (3)
"I am an enthusiast, but not a crank in the sense that I have some pet theories as to the construction of a flying machine. I wish to avail myself of all that is already known and then if possible add my mite to help on the future worker who will attain final success."
-- Wilbur Wright, 1899 letter to Smithsonian Institution "Our experiments have been conducted entirely at our
own expense. At the beginning we had no thought of recovering what we were expending, which was not great . . ."
-- Orville Wright, How We Invented the Airplane, [1953] p. 87
26
Some observations for modeling
Innovators are distinctive motivations capabilities, opportunities visions of what they are making
Much of what they did was idiosyncratic, wiped out
I found it hard to model the “product” or “output”
It is possible to model the experimenter, though
27
Assumptions for micro model Assume there are motivated tinkerers
As observed Assume they have a way to make
“progress” defining progress carefully
Assume total technological uncertainty No market is identifiable so no clear competition, no R&D
The tinkerers would share information
28
The tinkerer
U t 0
ta t
Tinkerer has activity/hobby A. (for “aircraft” or “activity”)
Tinkerer receives positive utility from A of at per period.• a0 is known• later choices and rules determine at
β is a discount factor between zero and one (assume .95) applied to future period utility.Net present expected utility:
29
Tinkering rules Tinkerer may invest in ("tinker with")
A Tinkerer believes tinkering this period
will add p units to each future period payoff, at
p stands for progress subjectively forecast and experienced by the agent
We assume p is fixed and known to the agent
Example: .07
30
Tinkering decision
p p 2 p 3 p 4 p1
Tinkerer compares those gross benefits to the cost which is 1 utility unit
Tinkerer weights estimated costs and benefits
Benefits forecast from one effort to tinker equal p in every subsequent period
The present value of those utility payoffs is:
31
Payoffs from endless tinkeringPayoffs
period 0 period 1 period 2 period 3Later
Periods
present value of gross payoffs of
each investment at time 0
-1 p p p . . . pβ/(1-β)
-1 p p . . . β * pβ/(1-β)
-1 p . . . β2 * pβ/(1-β)
. . . . . . β3 * pβ/(1-β)
. . . . . .
a01 1
1 p1 2
Present value of all that at time
zero has a closed form:
32
A network of two tinkerers
U0 a01 1
1 p1 fp21 2
Consider two tinkerers with identical utility functions p1 and p2 – subjective rate of progress Fraction f of progress is useful to the other
Tinkerers form an network, sharing information
Present value of expected utility for one:
33
Subgroups of occasional tinkerers
Groups relate like individuals Group progress f(p1+p2) is received by
outsiders Group has same incentive to join other groups So the network equations scale up Examples:
Boston-area group All readers of journal Revue L’Aeronautique Kite people, together, as distinguished from
balloon people
34
Standardization (1)
U0 a01 1
1 cs p1 f2p21 2
Fraction f є (0,1) of progress is usable to other player
Suppose for a cost cs player one can adjust his project to look more like the other tinkerer’s project
And that this would raise the usable findings to f2
That’s standardization Present value of standardizing scenario is:
35
Standardization (2)
Key comparison is:
Player one benefits more from standardizing if, ceteris paribus:
other tinkerers produce a large flow of innovations p2;
the cost of standardizing cs is small; gain in useful innovations from the others (f2-f)
is large.
p2f2 f
1 2 cs
36
Same comparison supports choice to specialize
If tinkerers work on different experiments, rather than overlapping, similar, or competing experiments, can raise useful flow from f to f2.
Again:
Standardization and specialization are natural in
tinkerers’ networks. Don’t need market processes to explain
them.
Specialization
p2f2 f
1 2 cs
37
Distinct role for “moderator”
Chanute wrote a helpful book and was actively corresponding and visiting with experimenters, and putting them in touch
This helped the network progress through two paths: link in more tinkerers improve internal communication f.
So authors are another kind of specialist.
In model: if tinkerer expects that writing will generate more p than experimenting, he writes.
38
Entrepreneurial exits
At a few points there was tension: Ader “drops out” in 1891 Langley keeps secret wing design after
1901. (Chanute shares it anyway.) Wrights stop sharing as much in late
1902 After some perceived of breakthrough
Analogously Jobs and Wozniak start Apple they hire Homebrew club people as employees Red Hat becomes a company
39
Network model versus alternatives
Network: a population of agents with Interest in a problem (a0) a variety of opportunities worth p to them interchangeable information, parameterized by f
generates varied experimentation and something they’d call progress
Alternative innovation models Profit-oriented research and development Collective invention (Allen, 1983) Hierarchically organized (e.g. Manhattan project) Race to be first (space race; genome project)
40
Entrepreneurial exits from network
Suppose a tinkerer has an insight into how to make a profitable product from project A.
Suppose future profits seem worth more than the present value of staying in the tinkerers’ network.
Then tinkerer can exit network agreement conduct directed R&D becomes an entrepreneur enters economic statistics
41
Conclusion (1) This process can help describe/explain
the rise of industrial West with open source software, now
I do not know of other models of it Key assumptions:
technological uncertainty (no clear product and market) motivated tinkerers some way to make progress some way to network
A specialist in publicizing or moderating can help address searching and matching
An industry can spring out of this
42
Conclusion (2)
Airplane case makes plain certain aspects of these individuals and networks.
It seems relevant to personal computer hobbyists open source software projects
A model of this kind could be useful to describe or account for
engineering “skunkworks” in organizations scientific advances differences between societies in speed of
technology development