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

referencesMaxim, Hiram S. 33Lilienthal, Otto 31Penaud, Alphonse 22Mouillard, Louis 21Hargrave, Lawrence 19Moy, Thomas 19Le Bris 17Langley, Samuel 16Wenham, F.H. 15Phillips, Horatio 14Stringfellow, John 11Tatin, V. 11Goupil 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

tat

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 f1 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 f1 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