Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How Decentralized Technologies Can Enable Commons-Based and Sustainable Futures for Value Creation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Decentralized and Networked Future of Value Creation

Part of the book series: Progress in IS ((PROIS))

Abstract

Innovations from the fields of digitization, material science, and manufacturing technologies like 3D printing trigger the transformation of production systems that become increasingly decentralized and personalized. This chapter captures these trends and relates them to their potential impacts on sustainability. It becomes obvious that technological developments alone can hardly spur future paths of a greener economy. However, bottom-up approaches of governing, structuring, and organizing the embedding of novel technologies within broader application patterns may lead to this direction. Moreover, the combination and re-combination of complementary social and technological innovations offer degrees of freedom within systems of production that can boost innovative solutions for society’s urgent sustainability issues as well.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2015). Creating value through business model innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(3), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (2009). The Nature of Technology. What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner, M. (2013). From smart specialisation to smart experimentation: towards a new theoretical framework for EU-Regional Policy. Spaces online Issue, 2013-04/ Vol. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, S. (2013). Making in America. From innovation to market. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmann, F. (2004). Neue Arbeit, neue Kultur. Freiamt im Schwarzwald. Freiburg: Arbor-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beverland, M., Nielson, B., & Price, V. (2015). Redesigning Manufacturing: Redesigning the business of making in the UK. London: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birkinbine, B. J. (2015). Conflict in the commons: towards a political economy of corporate involvement in free and open source software. The Political Economy of Communication, 2(2), 3–19. http://www.polecom.org/index.php/polecom/article/view/35. Accessed 09 Sep 2015.

  • Buhse, W., Reppesgard, L., Lessmann, U., & Henkel, S. (2011). Der Case Local Motors: Co-Creation and Collaboration in der Automotive-Industrie. Download. https://www.t-systems.de/umn/uti/782372_2/blobBinary/LocalMotors.pdf?ts_layoutId=760278. Accessed 09 Sep 2015.

  • Chesbrough, H. (2008). Open innovation. researching a new paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2013). Working regions. Reconnecting innovation and production in the knowledge economy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, J. (2014). Manufacturing by design: the rise of regional intermediaries and the re-emergence of collective action. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2014(7), 433–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Backer, K., Desnyers-James, I., & Moussiegt, L. (2015). Manufacturing or services—that is (not) the question: the role of manufacturing and services in OECD economies. Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No: OECD Science. 19.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Bank Research (2014). Industrie 4.0—Upgrade des Industriestandorts Deutschland steht bevor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte (2015a). Business ecosystems come of age. Deloitte University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte (2015b). The future of manufacturing: making things in a changing world. Deloitte University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferdinand, J.-P., Flämig, H., Petschow, U., Steinfeldt, M., & Worobei, A. (2016). Evaluating the economic effects of 3D printing: state of research and prospective modelling. In J.-P. Ferdinand, U. Petschow & S. Dickel (Eds.), The decentralized and networked future of value creation. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friese, U. (2015). Digitalisierte Arbeitswelt—Die etwas andere Autofabrik. FAZ, 15 Nov 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foresight (2013). The future of manufacturing: a new era of opportunity and challenge for the UK. Project Report. London: The Government Office for Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebler, M., Schoot Uiterkamp, A. J. M., & Visser, C. (2014). A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy, 74(2014), 158–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, K. (2010). What technology wants. New York: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koren, Y. (2010). The global manufacturing revolution: product-process-business integration and reconfigurable systems. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kohtala, C. (2015). Addressing sustainability in research on distributed production: an integrated literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 106(2015), 654–668.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohtala, C., & Hyysalo, S. (2015). Anticipated environmental sustainability of personal fabrication. Journal of Cleaner Production, 99(2015), 333–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lapointe, D., & Guimont, D. (2015). Open Innovation practices adopted by private stakeholders: perspectives for living labs. Info, 17(4), 67–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKinsey (2015). Playing to win: the new global competition for corporate profits. McKinsey Global Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015a). Key characteristics of future production. Enabling the next production revolution. Issues Paper. Background document prepared for the Danish Production Council conference “Shaping the strategy for tomorrow’s Production”.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2015b). OECD innovation strategy 2015. An agenda for policy action. Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. The World Bank—Development Economics, Policy Research Working Paper 5095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pallot, M. (2009). Engaging users into research and innovation: the living lab approach as a user centred open innovation ecosystem. Webergence Blog. http://www.cwe-projects.eu/pub/bscw.cgi/1760838?id=715404_1760838. Accessed 09 Sep 2015.

  • PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC, 2014). The future of 3-D printing: moving beyond prototyping to finished products. Technologyforecast, Issue 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeld, D. (2013). Clusterpolitik, intelligente Spezialisierung, soziale Innovationen—neue Impulse in der Innovationspolitik. IAT—Forschung Aktuell, 04/2013.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rifkin, J. (2014). The zero marginal cost socitey. the internet of things, the collaborative commons, and the eclipse of capitalism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Mcmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockström, J. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461(7263), 472–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, L., Stappers, P. J. (2014). From designing to co-designing to collective dreaming: three slices in time. Interactions, November–December 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theblueprint (2015). FirstBuild—An online and physical community dedicated to makers, designers, and engineers to co-create the next generation of home appliances. https://theblueprint.com/stories/firstbuild-part-2/. Accessed 09 Sep 2015.

  • Troxler, P. (2016). Fabrication Laboratories (Fab Labs) as representatives for the revival of publicly accessible workshops. In J.-P. Ferdinand, U. Petschow & S. Dickel (Eds.), The decentralized and networked future of value creation. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing innovation. MIT Press: Cambridge, M.A. Organization Science, 18, 181–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E., Ogawa, S., Jong, J. D. (2011). The age of the consumer-innovator. In: MIT Sloan Management Review, 53(1): 27–35.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Germany

    Ulrich Petschow

Authors
  1. Ulrich Petschow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ulrich Petschow .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jan-Peter Ferdinand

  2. Inst for Ecological Economy Research, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Ulrich Petschow

  3. Friedrich Schiedel-Lehrstuhl Wissen, Tech Univ München, München, Bayern, Germany

    Sascha Dickel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Petschow, U. (2016). How Decentralized Technologies Can Enable Commons-Based and Sustainable Futures for Value Creation. In: Ferdinand, JP., Petschow, U., Dickel, S. (eds) The Decentralized and Networked Future of Value Creation. Progress in IS. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31686-4_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation