networks of tinkerers: a model of open-source innovation
Post on 25-Jan-2016
24 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
Networks of Tinkerers:
a model of open-source innovationPeter B. Meyer
U.S. Bureau of Labor StatisticsAt BEA, July 17 2006
This work does not represent official findings or policies of the U.S. Dept of Labor.
2
IntroductionHobbyists have developed important
technologies open source software
in which programmers share source code widely Linux; email processing; Web
servers/browsers personal computers
Homebrew Club of hobbyists, circa 1975 pre-history of airplanes
documented clearly, from many points of view took a long time; one can watch forces at play fun to see
3
Goals here
See some of the experimental efforts Explore their “network” of
communications
try some modeling assumptions about the hobbyists / tinkerers (not their “output”)
show they would share information in networks
4
Early aircraft developments
1800-1860 – George Cayley and many others try aeronautical experiments
1860s – aeronautical journals begin Much sharing of experimental findings 1894 Octave Chanute’s Progress in
Flying Machines 1903 – Wrights fly famous powered glider 1910 – many have flown. Firms are
starting up
5
Octave Chanute
Wealthy former engineer in Chicago Ran experiments of his own on gliders Surveyed previous work in 1894 book Progress in
Flying Machines. discusses a hundred individuals, from many countries,
professions and many experiments, devices, theories helps define “flying machines” work, based on kites book supports network of information and interested
people Chanute corresponded actively with many experimenters.Chanute preferred that everyone’s findings be open.
6
Clement Ader’s Eole
It traveled 50 meters in uncontrolled flight in 1891 French military thought it would be useful. Ader didn’t patent outside France because it would expose
details. Chanute criticized this choice. Ader “drops out” from communication with other experimenters
7
Lawrence Hargrave
Retired in Sydney Ran many creative diverse experiments starting in
1884 Drawn to flapping-wings designs Also made innovative engines Box kites showed layered wings were stable and had lift
Often made small models or designs without building.
Devices often did not work right the first time but he moved on to new inspirations.
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.
8
Lawrence Hargrave’s box kites
9
Lilienthal’s Wings and Gliders
German engineer Otto Lilienthal studied birds and lift on shapes in wind
20 years of experiments, often with brother Gustav
Published Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation, 1889
Made hang gliders Flew 2000+ times Became famous and an
inspirational figure
10
11
Samuel Langley's technology choices
Professor in Pittsburgh, then Director of Smithsonian Institution in DC
His 1896 powered gliders went over half a mileDecides that for safety:• aircraft must be intrinsically stable, and• pilot must sit up craft must be rigid and strong innovatively, makes strong frame from steel
tubing much heavier than a glider; needs strong
engine for liftSo he gets the best engine made, to that time, for
its weight. (Balzer-Manly engine)
12
Langley’s aerodrome
Resulting aircraft is heavy, expensive, housed with difficulty Steel materials Large wings Powerful engine Cost ~$50,000
Hard landings; lands on water => can't try twice easily
Operator is not too useful, like rocket, unlike glider
Langley's demonstrations are big, sometimes public
In key demonstrations in Oct & Dec 1903 it crashes early
Editorials attack Embarrassed trustees asked him to stop research But it was designed like a modern passenger jet
13
Wrights' technology choices
Focused on wing shape, propellers, and control mechanism
Built craft as kites, then gliders Did not attach an engine until 1903. Materials light & cheap, wood &
canvas pilot lays flat less drag intrinsically unstable, like a bicycle Pilot controlled that by hip
movements which pulled wires to warp (twist) wing tips to turn glider
This invented piloting skill had no future
14
15
“Measures” of significance in the network
Who did Chanute refer to in 1893 survey? About 190 who made some “informational”
contribution Weinberg’s list from technological
history 150 important innovations before 1910
Who did the Wrights ever cite?
16
Assumptions for micro model Assume there are motivated tinkerers
We do observe this Assume they have a way to make
“progress” defining progress carefully
Assume total technological uncertainty No market is identifiable so no clear competition, little R&D
The tinkerers would share information
17
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:
18
Tinkering rules Tinkerer may invest in ("tinker with") A The agent thinks that tinkering this
period will raise all future period payoffs at by p units each time period. p stands for a rate of progress, which is
subjectively experienced by the agent We assume p is fixed and known to the
agent Example: .07
19
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 from one effort to tinker equal p in each subsequent period.
The present value of those payoffs is:
20
Rates of Progress
p 1
Progress must meet the criterion above for tinkering to be worth it
Progress is subjective
There are not many tinkerers working on this activity who can make this much progress.
21
Payoffs from endless tinkeringPayoffs
period 0 period 1 period 2 period 3 period 4
Net payoff of each investment at time
0
-1 p p p p pβ/(1-β)
-1 p p p β * pβ/(1-β)
-1 p p β2 * pβ/(1-β)
-1 p β3 * pβ/(1-β)
-1 . . .
a01 1
1 p1 2
Present value of all that at time
zero has a closed form:
22
A network of two tinkerers
U0 a01 1
1 p1 fp21 2
Case of two tinkerers with identical utility functions p1 and p2 – subjective rate of progress Their innovations are useful to one
another Tinkerers form a network Present value of expected utility:
23
Subgroups of occasional tinkerers
A group of slow-progress tinkerers might agree to work together to generate progress rate p.
Then the group acts like a single “tinkerer” in terms of its output
and also in its incentive to join other groups There are something like economies of scale
here; it’s a positive sum game. So Wilbur and Orville Wright could be one
tinkerer maybe also:
Boston-area group All readers of a certain journal Kite people, together, as distinguished from balloon
people
24
Standardization and Specialization
U0 a01 1
1 cs p1 f2p21 2
Only f є (0,1) of experiments one player are usable to another 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 utility after standardizing is:
25
Payoff to standardization
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
26
Same comparison supports choice to specialize If other player and I work on differentiated
problems, 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
27
Role of “moderator”
Aside from his book, Chanute contr
28
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 Jobs and Wozniak start Apple
they hire Homebrew club people as employees Red Hat becomes a company
29
Entrepreneurial exits from network
If a tinkerer has an insight into how to make a profitable product it may be worth leaving the network
conducts directed R&D becomes an entrepreneur enters economic statistics
30
Conclusion
This process may be important explaining the rise of industrial countries a long time ago 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
Search and matching costs take some more thinking
An industry can spring out of this, not well modeled yet
31
What are they making?Aeronautical journals appear in 1870s and 1880s. Experimenters make diverse choices.Available metaphors:
Balloons are light, ascends without power Meteorological balloons, hot-air, helium-filled balloons
Rockets are high-powered, rigid, hard to control Kites and gliders (light; fixed wings generating
lift) For lift (upward force), requires speed. Propulsion?
Flapping wings? Birds are light and have big wings Propellers? Jets?
Power? muscles, steam engines, internal combustion engines, in models, wound up rubber bands
Hard to control
32
Wilbur and Orville Wright
No college degrees 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.
33
Wrights’ wings and propellers
Wrights’ wind tunnel carefully tested to make air flow smooth
Their balance device measured lift precisely They tested many wings systematically and came to an
ideal design for their craft.
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
34
Wrights’ Propeller
Propeller: “a mechanical device that rotates to
push against air or water A machine for propelling an aircraft or
boat, consisting of a power-driven shaft with radiating blades that are placed so as to thrust air or water in a desired direction when spinning.”
Wrights invented propellers that delivered 50% more pulling power from a given engine!
35
This evidence is selected
Many other experimenters and publishers would be worth mentioning if time permitted:
Alphonse Penaud Horatio Phillips Hiram Maxim James Means Alberto Santos-Dumont Richard Pearse Many others
Paper has the beginnings of a list of what was available in the public domain.
36
Technology advance through collective invention
Quantity
Product value per unit of cost
37
Industry birth
Quantity
Product value per unit of cost
Players who worked together to create a valuable new technology have different incentives once the product has value in a market. The same incentive to mass-produce makes them competitors. The hobbyist activity has then become an industry.
38
Conclusion
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
39
Conclusion Why would individuals do this? Start manufacturing company Get revenues from patent Get hired as engineer Lerner and Tirole (2002, and repeatedly) Research funding (Langley, from War dept and Smithsonian) Prestige of accomplishment in contributing To grapple with interesting problems. Or, the concept is so cool! They want the problem solved -- that is, they want to live in a world in which they
can fly through the air (that is, to change their world, not their place in it) "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 . . ." Wrights, How We Invented the Airplane, [1953] p. 87
"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 Other airplane; computer; open source people express this thought. Tentative formal assumption: Relevant individuals ("players") have utility functions
that support this activity. - tentatively treat motivation of innovators as exogenous - testable implications of different utility functions? psychic joy of experimenting; or
research salary; or imagined future payoff.
40
Secrecy? Not usually Books by Lilienthal (1889) and Chanute (1894) Journal periodicals in France, Britain, US Wrights collected info from Smithsonian and Weather Bureau (location) Chanute actively corresponds with experimenters, researchers
technology moderator Wilbur’s speech to Society of Western Engineers, 1901 Journal publications in 1901 in England and Germany Scientific American article about them in 1902. Visit of Spratt and Herring on tip back problem Langley gets secretive about his wing design Wrights get secretive starting late 1902 Modeling ideas: Sharing institution exists already Innovator chooses sharing vs. secrecy Players may be open (prestige; joy of sharing; desire for progress) Public pool of information is productive But if their device approaches some threshold (technical success or profitability), they close their
connections to the network. (Homebrew and Apple example) This creates an industry. Then competition stimulates progress.
41
1866British engineers founded Aeronautical Society of
Great Britain
Crouch, p. 30; Anderson p. 4
1866F.H. Wenham
highlight superiority of long narrow wings over short wide ones in generating lift (though this is sometimes forgotten, later)
Anderson, p. 45
1868 Britainpublication of Annual Reports of Aeronautical Society starts
Crouch, p. 31
1868 Moy scale effects in aerodynamics established
Anderson, p. 46
1869 Parisbeginning of publication of L'Aeronaut
Crouch, p. 31
1870-1871
F.H.Wenham and John Browning developed wind tunnel
Crouch, p. 31
History
42
1871 Wenham
found that the center of pressure (center of lift) tended to be near the leading edge of a wing -- a fact sometimes forgotten, later
Anderson, p. ??
1871Alphonse Penaud
upward sloping tail, for stability; center of pressure . . . .; understood it; had theory, created standard.
Anderson, pp. 35-37
1871du Temple powered hop in France
1875Octave Chanute
discovers, on trip to Europe, that European engineers treat airplane as possible
Crouch, p. 26
1876
Penaud
cambered wing 1876. dihedral angle 2 degrees. Was on track to further success, but committed suicide
P 37 Anderson
1883Osborne Reynolds
analysis of "laminar" (smooth) versus turbulent air flows
Anderson, p. 44
1884Horatio Phillips Analysis of wing shapes
43
1884Mozhaiski powered hop. Russia.
1888 Francebeginning of publication of the Revue de l'Aeronautique
Crouch, p. 31
1889 Lilienthalpublished Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation
1890Clement Ader
Piloted, steam-engine-powered airplane, the Eole; no controls; wings moved like a bat's
Anderson, p. 51
1894 Jan
ChanutePublication of Progress in Flying Machines
Stoff, p. iv
1894Hiram Maxim Flying machine
Anderson, p. 4
1896Chanute & Herring adapted Pratt truss to gliders
Stoff, , p. iv
44
1896Chanute/Herring two-surface, double decker wings
Jakab,47;54-58
1896Samuel Langley
steam-powered unpiloted one minute flight over Potomac
Anderson, p.5
1897Arnot / Herring Indiana gliders
Crouch, p. 210
1898Langley and others
internal combustion gasoline engine determined to be superior to steam enginesfor lightweight power
Anderson, p. 143
1899 Wrightswing warping for control of rolling motion
Jakab, p. 54
1900 Mar
Wrightswilbur wright contacts chanute; ww's already studied Progress
Stoff, p. vi
1901 Oct
Wrightscalculation of smeaton coefficientir wind tunnel, and wing tests, and lilienthal calculations
Jakab, circa p. 130
45
Motivation of the Experimenters: Why Would Individuals Do This? To start manufacturing company To get revenues from patented
technology To establish oneself professionally
(Lerner and Tirole, 2002) To earn research funding (Langley,
from War and Smithsonian) To earn respect for their contribution To win a competition To grapple with interesting problems
or solve them
46
ConclusionCollective Invention Model:Individuals are motivated by utility functions Sometimes unknown reasons for joining the network Discoveries are random
Key choice – share their findings or not?Octave Chanute and Samuel Langley –co-inventors of the Wright airplane or not?
How much of the invention X is due to its inventor?
47
Secrecy: When Does it Start? Books by Lilienthal (1889) and Chanute
(1894) Journal periodicals in France, Britain, US Wrights collected info from Smithsonian and
Weather Bureau (location) Chanute actively corresponds with
experimenters, researchers Wilbur’s speech to Society of Western Engineers,
1901 Publications in 1901 Visit of Spratt and Herring on tip back
problemLangley gets secretive about his wing designWrights get secretive starting late 1902
48
1901 Balzer & Manly
high powered light engine (not known or available to Wrights)
Anderson, p 144
1903 May
Wrights
Wrights blade-element propeller (50% more efficient than contemporaries; apparently highest recorded to that time).
Anderson, p. 141
1903 Dec
Langley / Manly
Public demonstration of aerodrome; crashes before full flight
1903 Dec
Wrightsself-powered sustained flight;
takeoff and landing at same level
1904 Wrightstesting grounds on Huffman
Prarie
49
End of Information Sharing If the activity succeeds, it becomes an
industry – competitive “commercial production and sale of goods”
The network loses importance, shrinks, breaks up Examples: Wrights in late 1902 clamp down; disagree
with Chanute. Langley's wings Later: Apple computer
Model assumption: Network will self-destruct if there is enough success
Then industry players have private intellectual capital and don't share R&D.
50
Two dimensions of new-technology exploration
Quantity
Product value per unit of cost
A player’s technology of production can be characterized by a location. With time the player may invent or adopt technologies producing higher-valued quality per unit of cost, or producing more copies of the same product.
51
Timelines
Open-sourcesoftware … industries?
Personal computer and software industry
Aircraft industry
Real businesses: Apple, 1976, many others from Homebrew club; Microsoft 1977, IBM PC 1981
1976Apple I
1975Altair kit
Homebrew Computer club
Red Hat company
Novell & SuSE
combine
IBM commits to Linux
1971Intel
microprocessor
1804 Cayley1804
Cayley1804 Cayley1804
Cayley1804 Cayley1804
Cayley
1893 Chanute book
Progress in Flying Machines
Chanute networks (by mail, travels)
Aeronautical journals
52
Special role for network moderators?
Suppose there is a cost to joining the network costs of subscribing, paying attention it’s worth the cost to a tinkerer if
the cost (cj) is low he values future outcomes a lot the others are producing a lot of progress (p) their progress is useful to him – f is high enough
Suppose there is also a cost to searching for new members Chanute wrote book others published journals Then the search costs affect innovative output (Web has
effect) There is a role for a special effort to expand the network Paper does not model this
top related