No, Thomas Friedman, More Maker Spaces are Not the Solution to Manufacturing Problems

In his recent OpEd in the New York Times "Post-Pandemic, Here’s How America Rises Again", Thomas Friedman lays out a vision for how Government can be proactive in the wake of the COVID-19 lockdown. I'm a great admirer of Friedman's work; I own several of his books, and reading "The World is Flat" radically changed my life (in a positive way). In general his geopolitical and financial analysis has been prescient. But a key section of this OpEd is based on a faulty premise. He writes:

"This connectivity would also promote another enabling platform we need: manufacturing from anywhere through a network of open-source maker spaces. This, too, requires less government funding and more inspiration and imagination to show people what is possible."

This statement ignores key realities about manufacturing and conflates "Maker Spaces" with manufacturing. One could write this off as just a simple error in semantics, but if this portion of his OpEd is used to guide policy it could be dangerous and wasteful. Maker Spaces and manufacturing are both good things, but they are radically different from one another and serve completely different roles in the economy and society. Finally, Friedman ignores the both the maker spaces and manufacturing capacity that is already present across the United States. I'll sidestep the comment about "open source" because it is primarily concerned with who has rights to the idea created and Maker Spaces don't have a say in whether something produced therein is open source or not (unless they compel their members to do so in the membership contract, but I've never heard of this). 

What is a Maker Space and What is it there for?

Hobbyists making items for their own enjoyment is not a new phenomenon; radio controlled airplanes have been around since my boyhood and model trains since long before that. But in the past, in order to make something, hobbyists either had to be wealthy enough to acquire specialized equipment and training to use it, or their efforts had to be limited to what they could make with simple hand tools. Maker Spaces began to arise because of two digital phenomena: first, the internet and cheap digital cameras allowed hobbyists to share designs and techniques across social and geographic boundaries, and second, 3-D printers became affordable, allowing ideas to be represented in plastic without requiring huge capital outlays or specialized training. Maker Spaces usually charge a membership fee (about the cost of a week's groceries or less) which provides funds to purchase supplies, consumables and pay for maintenance on the machines, as well as pay a small number of staff to enforce rules, keep things stocked, and act as a resource for improving the skills of the members. Often they are subsidized by local governments, philanthropists and community organizations so that the membership fee can be reduced or eliminated.

While it is likely that someone tried to create something akin to a "Maker Space" years ago, it is not difficult to imagine why they did not become widespread until recently. Hobbyists, upon going to such a "space" would find that it did not have the tool that they needed for their particular hobby, small hand and power tools would be abused or "walk off", and it didn't provide a value proposition for people to pay the membership. 3-D printing changed all this, because having just one tool was enough to get members. By now, an individual of average means can purchase a quite serviceable 3-D printer, but s/he is unlikely to use it to its full capacity, may want access to a product with better accuracy or build volume than s/he can afford, or may not use it often enough to use up the plastic filament before it reaches its shelf life. While Maker Spaces started to pop up during the time when 3-D printers still cost several months' rent, Maker Spaces remain relevant, because a community of people can collectively share the equipment and supplies. While the 3-D printer is usually the centerpiece of a Maker Space, it is not the only piece of equipment one will find; it is common to find laser cutters (machines that use a laser to etch or cut computer-generated shapes through thin sheets of acrylic or plywood), vinyl cutters (which use a servopositioned knife rather than a laser), and assortments of power and hand tools.

The lure of 3-D printing is that with very limited training (and the willingness to wait the required "build time"), anyone can have a plastic representation of what s/he sees in her/his mind's eye. Sometimes a part off of a 3-D printer or laser cutter can serve as a structural part, but not always. By structural part, I don't mean that it is a bridge or skyscraper; it can be something as common as a soda bottle (which must sustain the pressure from the carbonation and the weight of other racks of soda bottles placed on top in the delivery van). While 3-D printing is rapidly improving in its structural abilities due to scientific research and commercial innovation, most consumer grade printers (and laser cutters) produce parts that are brittle and vulnerable to breakage under the forces generated by the operation of the device into which they will go. The part you are making must also structurally support its own weight during printing (try to print a mushroom right-side-up and see what happens). If you go to the web forums, you will find many clever ideas and techniques on how to improve the structural capabilities and accuracy of 3-D printed parts. There is definitely an art to it, but what I mean to say is that while the part looks like what you see in your mind's eye, there may be a large gap between what you are dreaming of in terms of function and what comes out of the printer.

The role that Maker Spaces serve is to allow average citizens (most of whom have the bulk of their time consumed by studies or a regular job) to try out their ideas. Some, with dedication and effort over a sustained period will produce something in a Maker Studio which will become a prototype that will lead to a patent or even production, but this is a minority. Most will use it to advance their hobbies, achieve self-actualization, enjoy learning, and form relationships in their communities. What it is definitely not, is a manufacturing solution. Trying to set up a manufacturing line in a Maker Space is likely to get your membership revoked, but there is another reason it doesn't work. Even if the parts you make are structurally sound enough, they take entirely too long to...manufacture. The appeal of the 3-D printer is also its Achilles heel: Your average office jock can come in at his lunch break, load a print job, check to make sure the print starts off all right, go back to work and pick up his print after work or the following day. That's 4+ hours for a single part! (In the image you can see my crude attempt to "save" a 3-D printed part several days into the build that was about to turn into a failed print). That's not all; as I'm fond of telling graduate student researchers "3-D printing doesn't take much of your time, but it takes a lot of absolute time". For complicated parts, it often takes several iterations to overcome the limitations of the 3-D printing process, and the "build time" (which has been up to 4-day in a few of my prints) is included in each iteration. This cannot be justified in terms of time taken.

How is a manufacturing environment different from a Maker Space?

I am not a manufacturing researcher, and I have never been involved in manufacturing first-hand, but I did work in new product design for consumer products, and the majority of my job was concerned with design for a manufacturing process, so I am familiar with the themes and challenges. There are two inviolable rules in manufacturing: first, it's not enough to make just one unit that works, (almost) every single unit that comes off the line has to work and can be only nearly indetectably different from its neighbor. Second: every piece that's made has to be justified in terms of what it is sold for and what it cost to make in terms of machine usage, raw materials, and labor. Viable manufacturers have extremely tight projections on every part they make. Engineering and technician effort for a consumer product is not devoted only to producing a product design, as much or more can be dedicated to getting the right manufacturing process. 

Manufacturing is concerned with speed of production and minimizing waste. While 3-D printing is making inroads into manufacturing in certain niche areas, the bread and butter of manufacturing is the lathe and milling machine for subtractive manufacturing, and injection molding. The milling machine and lathe start with a block or rod of solid material and either spin a sharp cutter (milling machine), or spin the material (lathe) as the cutter shaves off chips of material in carefully controlled locations to generate holes, slots, edges, and faces. These machines can be very dangerous and require concerted training and strictly enforced ground rules to operate safely. This is why they seldom appear in a Maker Space. More importantly, to operate them well, and with acceptable throughput, requires years of experience. With a well-maintained machine and an experienced operator, it is not unreasonable to expect accuracies of 1/1000 of an inch. Injection molding forces molten plastic into a metal tool (or mold, which is usually made on a milling machine), which then cools, forming it into a solid plastic part. Hundreds or even thousands of plastic parts can be made within minutes on an injection molding machine. Getting the tool right so the parts do not come out warped or incompletely formed is a major development effort and can sometimes require capital outlays in the millions of dollars. This has to be amortized over the piece price. If the tool is that expensive, why on earth would we use this process? Even with the cost of the tool, the speed and volume with which parts can be produced easily beats other manufacturing processes in cost.

Manufacturing environments are carefully controlled and optimized, both for part production and assembly. Lanes are marked on the floor where employees are permitted to walk, both for their safety and to avoid disrupting the process. Even hand tools have a carefully marked location where they are placed when not in use, and employees are disciplined if they don't comply. Where machines are in relation to each other are rigorously evaluated to see if a change will increase throughput or reduce scrap. This would never work in a Maker Space.

Maker Spaces and Distributed Manufacturing Capability are already plentiful in the United States

The biggest thing that Friedman misses is that Maker Spaces and and Distributed Manufacturing Capability are already here! The majority of Americans will be able to find a Maker Space in their community they can use. In Tulsa, where I live, there are several Maker Spaces; examples include the public library and the Hardesty Center for Fab Lab. The situation is similar in other communities. Regarding manufacturing, the country is positively teeming with "mom and pop" and mid-size manufacturers, like Werco in Broken Arrow OK, or AMS Grinding in Brockton, MA. If you need something that can be made on a milling machine or lathe (or even several thousand), give Tony at AMS Grinding a call and I'll guarantee he can get you your parts in good time if the price is right. While any enterprise needs a good business plan, it's possible to start a manufacturing operation with comparatively little capital outlays; a milling machine in a garage with one capable operator and some basic tooling is enough to get started. These small manufacturers are constantly looking to increase capacity, make strategic purchases, and while some have an independent streak, many will likely be open to investment.

The reason personal protective equipment and ventilators are heavily reliant on China has to do with supply chain, cost of labor, and acquisition of raw materials. In the past several decades, large, (often state-controlled) manufacturing enterprises in China have delivered the biggest profit margins for companies. While companies might prefer to manufacture in the United States, few have found a way do this and to compete on consumer purchase price with their competition who is manufacturing in China. Friedman has written about this in his books and articles; why would he propose the solution he proposes in his OpEd? What we need is to understand the manufacturing capability we already have and innovative ideas on how to deploy it in a way that is competitive with large foreign manufacturing. Henrik Christensen has written several illuminating articles on LinkedIn about how robotics and automation allow manufacturers to be competitive. In addition, some of the reason that small manufacturers may lose contracts to China is that they cannot deliver the entire volume needed by the customer. Innovation in online markets where manufacturers can bid the capability they have and combine with their compatriots to satisfy the total volume needed may help. Innovation in injection molding to reduce capital outlays associated with a tool will allow companies to spread their volume over a greater number of manufacturers, bringing more work to the US and make supply chains less brittle. The real solution is technical innovation and innovation in commerce. Maker Spaces will continue to give hobbyists and innovators a chance to pursue their dreams, and they should be funded for that reason, as a social good. They are not a solution to getting products in the hands of those who need them, nor for job creation.