The biggest Digital DIY revolution should be invisible
Last year, Simone Cicero wrote on CheFuturo (Italian) that:
- [in general] we should move from the PITO paradygm (Product In – Trash Out) which considers urban conglomerates as huge consumers and waste producers, to a new one called DIDO (Data in – Data Out), in which cities function as collective brains, able to use and reinterpret knowledge, in order to support sustainable, local, circular production
- [however, there is a big obstacle in the path to that vision] "Finding a solution to one's problem is still too difficult". Cicero explains this by telling how he wanted to 3D print a spare part for a stroller, which was not available on the market, and soon gave it up, for several valid reasons: besides the fact that the stroller itself was never designed to be easily repairable, he simply had not enough time to design and 3D print a spare part from scratch, by himself.
Cicero concluded that "[problems like these] remain an open issue for which the little big makers revolution has not provided really effective answers yet". As a consequence, he wrote,
"I believe the time has come to question the capability of the maker movement to really change the future of production and that of cities: if it will change them, it likely won't be thanks to yet onr more 3D printing course organized by some evangelist, but thanks to a capability of designing and producing in ways that are convenient for customers who couldn't care less of revolutions, and just want products that don't break, and when they do can easily be fixed without turning their daily routines upside down".
A few months ago, we independently looked in depth at the same issues, and came to very similar conclusions. You can read them in our report on Digital DIY risks, synergies and education, and/or discuss them at the upcoming DiDIY Final Conference!
