Content uploaded by Tobias Redlich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tobias Redlich on Oct 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Die Zukunft der Wertschöpfung – dezentral, vernetzt und kollaborativ
Abstract
Will man über die Zukunft der Wertschöpfung diskutieren, kommt man nicht umhin, sich zunächst mit der Frage auseinanderzusetzen, was Wertschöpfung heute eigentlich bedeutet. Von welchem Wert reden wir? Und wer schöpft oder vielleicht treffender schafft Wert? Weltweit können wir beobachten, wie Menschen sich vernetzen und (weitestgehend) frei von Hierarchie und Markt und in der Regel unentgeltlich mit oder ohne Unternehmensbeteiligung gemeinsam Wert schöpfen. Neue Wertschöpfungsmuster sind dadurch entstanden, die entgegen traditioneller Konzepte auf Offenheit basieren und kollaborativer sowie dezentraler Natur sind (zusammengefasst im Konzept der Bottom-up-Ökonomie). Ein interdisziplinärer Ansatz ist erforderlich, der die verschiedenen Sichtweisen aus Technik, Gesellschaft und Recht über wirtschaftliche Perspektiven hinaus vereint.
... Durch diese Technologie können mit einer Anlage aktuell zwar nur kleine, aber dafür sehr komplexe Teile gefertigt werden(Berman 2012). Die direkte Fertigung aus digitalen Daten bietet auch Möglichkeiten und mehr Freiheit für das Design, nachdem bestehende Limitationen der Fertigungsmöglichkeiten überholt wer-Creation-Aktivitäten" und "Nutzerinnovation", was durch Technologien wie den 3D-Druck und die digitalen Werkzeuge hierzu vermehrt ausgeprägt wird, überholen Netzwerkaktivitäten klassische Wertschöpfungsmuster. Neue Wertschöpfungsmuster sind vor allem durch Offenheit und kollaborative Natur geprägt(Gassmann 2006;Rayna et al. 2015;Redlich/Moritz 2018).Solche kooperativen Beziehungen verfolgen unterschiedliche Ziele. Neben der Aufteilung von Risiken ermöglichen Kooperationen den Zugang sowie die Zusammenführung von Ressourcen, die gemeinschaftliche Verknüpfung von Aktivitäten und die Förderung der Diffusion, also die Gewinnung von organisationalem Wissen und Markt-Know-how (Bosch-Sijtsema/Postma 2009;Henneberg et al. 2013;Hauschildt et al. 2016). ...
Die vorliegende explorative Interviewstudie untersucht die Bedeutung von Dienstleistungskooperationen in der 3D Druck Branche. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, wie unterschiedliche Akteure kooperativ Dienstleistungen in der 3D Druck Branche erbringen. Hierunter fallen Innovationsdienstleistungen, Konstruktionsdienstleistungen, Schulung und Trainingsdienstleistungen und Produktdienstleitungen. Die Ergebnisse geben zudem Auskunft über den Nutzen und die Risiken von Dienstleistungskooperationen in der 3D Druck Branche.
... Anyone can produce anything (Gershenfeld, 2005). Therefore, FabLabs and Makerspaces represent first pioneers of bottom-up-economics (Redlich & Wulfsberg, 2011, Gershenfeld, 2005, Redlich & Moritz 2017. They enable anyone to participate in value (co-)creation if the one wants to prototype an idea or just tinker around. ...
Innovative collaboration strategies are a promising tool for fostering the governance of smart cities while acknowledging citizen centricity. During implementation, however, determining the number and background of the involved actors is challenging. The Design-Thinking (DT) approach appears suitable for addressing this issue as it offers a concrete and adaptable course of action. The present contribution involves a study on implementing DT principles in a German health resort and identifies three critical components: (1) team, (2) process, and (3) workspace. Our use case is an adaptable project- and workshop plan that encourages the implementation of DT collaboration in smart cities when designing digital services. Our results provide initial guidelines on how to involve diverse actors, when to integrate trained DT coaches, and how to design collaborative innovation in a digital way. The practice-oriented insights gained in the study can be applied, adapted, and discussed in other smart cities and citizen-centered projects.
Urban production as a conceptual understanding is rooted in several scientific disciplines, which traditionally are treated seperately. With definitions of urbanity, factories and their interfaces, a guiding frame can be laid out leading to the definition of urban production as synthesis. The identification of exchange flows and their resulting effects will enable new options and methods to foster sustainable development in cities with the concept of urban production.
Personalisierung, Customization & Co. – Was bedeuten die Begriffe?
Was haben sie gemeinsam, was unterscheidet sie?
Die berufliche Lehrerbildung leidet im Vergleich zur allgemeinen Lehrerbil-dung unter einer geringeren Reputation, sowohl in ihrer gesellschaftlichen Wahrnehmung (vgl. Lipsmeier 2014) als auch in ihrer Position innerhalb der Universitäten und Pädagogischen Hochschulen. Zugleich sind die Aus- und Fort-/Weiterbildungsbedarfe für diesen – mit sich stark verändernden Anfor-derungen konfrontierten – Lehramtstyp außerordentlich hoch (vgl. Klemm 2018; Lange, Frommberger 2020). Die Qualitatsoffensive Lehrerbildung, ein von Bund und Ländern initiiertes Förderprogramm zur Verbesserung der Lehrerbildung an Universitäten und Pädagogischen Hochschulen, trägt die-sem Umstand mit der dritten Förderrunde gezielt Rechnung. Im Gegensatz zu den ersten beiden Förderrunden bildet die berufliche Lehrerbildung neben der Digitalisierung der Lehrerbildung einen Schwerpunkt der im November 2018 ausgeschriebenen dritten Förderrunde. Anträge zu dieser Förderrichtlinie konnten bis zum März 2019 eingereicht werden. Bereits im Mai 2019 wurden die vom Auswahlgremium zur Förderung empfohlenen Projekte in einer Pressemitteilung der GWK (2019) veröffentlicht.
Nach Bekanntgabe der geförderten Projekte wurde innerhalb der Sektion Berufs- und Wirtschaftspädagogik (BWP) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Erziehungswissenschaft (DGfE) vor allem mit Blick auf den konkurrierenden Förderschwerpunkt zur Digitalisierung der Lehrerbildung diskutiert, inwie-weit mit der Schwerpunktsetzung der dritten Förderrichtlinie zur Qualitätsof-fensive Lehrerbildung sowie durch die zur Förderung empfohlenen Projekte-anträge die berufliche Lehramtsausbildung an den verschiedenen Standorten tatsächlich gefördert wird. Als Grundlage für weiterführende Diskussionen wurden Daten zur Anragstellung und zur Förderung der Projekte im Rahmen der dritten Förderrunde dr Qualitätsoffensive ausgewertet und analysiert. Die Datenbasis bildeten veröffentliche Informationen zur Qualitätsoffensive Lehr-erbildung und zu den als förderfähig bewerteten Projekten sowie Online-Umfragen des Vorstandes deer Sektion BWP in der DGfE.
Mit diesem Beitrag werden die Analysen und deren Ergebnisse darge-stellt. Im folgenden zweiten Abschnitt wird kurz das Programm der Quali-tätsoffensive Lehrerbildung skizziert. Daran schließen sich die Analysen der Auswahlentscheidungen der ersten beiden Förderrunden (3. Abschnitt) und der dritten Förderrunde (4. Abschnitt) an. Im fünften Abschnitt werden die Ergebnisse der Umfragen des Vorstandes der Sektion BWP präsentiert. Auf diese Analysen aufbauend wird abschließend die Frage diskutiert, inwieweit es mit der dritten Förderrunde der Qualitätsoffensive Lehrerbildung gelingen kann, substanzielle Akzente für die berufliche Lehrerbildung zu setzen.
When an effort is made to understand how the blockchain may influence the evolution of economies, a distinction between marketing promises and neutral assessments is required. This work aims to review the prospective development of three key economic principles under the assumed constitution of a blockchain future. It is analyzed how the concepts of intermediation, economic transparency and economic automation show characteristics under possibly disruptive impact. Their present situation is laid out and extrapolated to gain a reasoned insight into economic development driven by blockchain technology as currently promised. An argument is made that the consumers view of innovative services will be coined by nescience towards the actual data structure in use.
During last years, ICTs have enabled the rise of the so-called “collaborative consumption” (CC) – a form of consumption where people share goods and services online. CC has been expected to alleviate societal problems such as hyper-consumption, pollution, and poverty by lowering cost of economic coordination within communities. However, beyond anecdotal evidence, there is a dearth of understanding why people participate in CC. Therefore, in this paper we investigate people’s motivations to participate in CC. The study employs survey data (N=168) gathered from people registered into a collaborative consumption site. The results show that participation in collaborative consumption is motivated by many factors such as its sustainability, enjoyment of the activity as well as economic gains. An interesting detail in the result is that sustainability is not directly associated with participation unless it at the same time is also associated with positive attitudes towards CC. This suggests that sustainability might only be an important factor for those people for whom ecological consumption is important. Furthermore, the results suggest that in CC an attitude-behavior gap might loom; people perceive the activity positively and say good things about it, but this good attitude does not necessary translate into action.
This book integrates new theory and research findings into the framework of a “free innovation paradigm.” Free innovation, as the book defines it, involves innovations developed by consumers who are self-rewarded for their efforts, and who give their designs away “for free.” It is an inherently simple grassroots innovation process, unencumbered by compensated transactions and intellectual property rights. Free innovation is already widespread in national economies and is steadily increasing in both scale and scope. Today, tens of millions of consumers are collectively spending tens of billions of dollars annually on innovation development. However, because free innovations are developed during consumers' unpaid, discretionary time and are given away rather than sold, their collective impact and value have until very recently been hidden from view. This has caused researchers, governments, and firms to focus too much on the Schumpeterian idea of innovation as a producer-dominated activity. Free innovation has both advantages and drawbacks. Because free innovators are self-rewarded by such factors as personal utility, learning, and fun, they often pioneer new areas before producers see commercial potential. At the same time, because they give away their innovations, free innovators generally have very little incentive to invest in diffusing what they create, which reduces the social value of their efforts. The best solution, this book argues, is a division of labor between free innovators and producers, enabling each to do what they do best. The result will be both increased producer profits and increased social welfare—a gain for all.
Die Globalisierung und die zunehmende informationelle Vernetzung führen zu völlig neuen Mustern der Wertschöpfung, die sich unter dem Begriff „Bottom-up-Ökonomie“ zusammenfassen lassen. Sie unterscheidet sich durch eine Verschmelzung von Produktion und Konsum sowie durch verteilte Strukturen und Prozesse bei der Leistungserstellung. Dabei unterliegt sie einer Logik der Offenheit. Mit diesem Buch wird „Offenheit“ als ein Charakteristikum der Wertschöpfungssystematik untersucht und ein geeignetes Rahmenkonzept entwickelt, das produzierende Unternehmen bei der Wertschöpfungsgestaltung in einer zunehmend dynamischen Umwelt unterstützt. Es werden einerseits adäquate Modelle zur Beschreibung und Analyse von Wertschöpfungssystemen bereitgestellt, andererseits werden geeignete praktische Maßnahmen daraus abgeleitet, mit denen Wertschöpfungsaktivitäten und -strukturen in einer Bottom-up-Ökonomie erfolgreich gestalten werden können. Dabei wurden sowohl vorhandene eklektische Ansätze berücksichtigt, als auch neu gefundene Muster in ein gemeinsames Rahmenwerk integriert.
Currently, two models of innovation are prevalent in organization science. The “private investment” model assumes returns to the innovator result from private goods and efficient regimes of intellectual property protection. The “collective action” model assumes that under conditions of market failure, innovators collaborate in order to produce a public good. The phenomenon of open source software development shows that users program to solve their own as well as shared technical problems, and freely reveal their innovations without appropriating private returns from selling the software. In this paper, we propose that open source software development is an exemplar of a compound “private-collective” model of innovation that contains elements of both the private investment and the collective action models and can offer society the “best of both worlds” under many conditions. We describe a new set of research questions this model raises for scholars in organization science. We offer some details regarding the types of data available for open source projects in order to ease access for researchers who are unfamiliar with these, and also offer some advice on conducting empirical studies on open source software development processes.
Currently, two models of innovation are prevalent in organization science. The "private investment" model assumes returns to the innovator result from private goods and efficient regimes of intellectual property protection. The "collective action" model assumes that under conditions of market failure, innovators collaborate in order to produce a public good. The phenomenon of open source software development shows that users program to solve their own as well as shared technical problems, and freely reveal their innovations without appropriating private returns from selling the software. In this paper, we propose that open source software development is an exemplar of a compound "private-collective" model of innovation that contains elements of both the private investment and the collective action models and can offer society the "best of both worlds" under many conditions. We describe a new set of research questions this model raises for scholars in organization science. We offer some details regarding the types of data available for open source projects in order to ease access for researchers who are unfamiliar with these, and also offer some advice on conducting empirical studies on open source software development processes.
In an age of open source, custom-fabricated, DIY product design, all you need to conquer the world is a brilliant idea. Photo: Dan Winters The door of a dry-cleaner-size storefront in an industrial park in Wareham, Massachusetts, an hour south of Boston, might not look like a portal to the future of American manufacturing, but it is. This is the headquarters of Local Motors, the first open source car company to reach production. Step inside and the office reveals itself as a mind-blowing example of the power of micro-factories. In June, Local Motors will officially release the Rally Fighter, a $50,000 off-road (but street-legal) racer. The design was crowdsourced, as was the selection of mostly off-the-shelf components, and the final assembly will be done by the customers themselves in local assembly centers as part of a "build experience." Several more designs are in the pipeline, and the company says it can take a new vehicle from sketch to market in 18 months, about the time it takes Detroit to change the specs on some door trim. Each design is released under a share-friendly Creative Commons license, and customers are encouraged to enhance the designs and produce their own components that they can sell to their peers. The Rally Fighter was prototyped in the workshop at the back of the Wareham office, but manufacturing muscle also came from Factory Five Racing, a kit-car company and Local Motors investor located just down the road. Of course, the kit-car business has been around for decades, standing as a proof of concept for how small manufacturing can work in the car industry. Kit cars combine hand-welded steel tube chassis and fiberglass bodies with stock engines and accessories. Amateurs assemble the cars at their homes, which exempts the vehicles from many regulatory restrictions (similar to home-built experimental aircraft). Factory Five has sold about 8,000 kits to date. One problem with the kit-car business, though, is that the vehicles are typically modeled after famous racing and sports cars, making lawsuits and license fees a constant burden. This makes it hard to profit and limits the industry's growth, even in the face of the DIY boom. Jay Rogers, CEO of Local Motors, saw a way around this. His company opted for totally original designs: They don't evoke classic cars but rather reimagine what a car can be. The Rally Fighter's body was designed by Local Motors' community of volunteers and puts the lie to the notion that you can't create anything good by committee (so long as the community is well managed, well led, and well equipped with tools like 3-D design software and photorealistic rendering technology). The result is a car that puts Detroit to shame. It is, first of all, incredibly cool-looking — a cross between a Baja racer and a P-51 Mustang fighter plane. Given its community provenance, one might have expected something more like a platypus. But this process was no politburo. Instead, it was a competition. The winner was Sangho Kim, a 30-year-old graphic artist and student at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California. When Local Motors asked its community to submit ideas for next-gen vehicles, Kim's sketches and renderings captivated the crowd. There wasn't supposed to be a prize, but the company gave Kim $10,000 anyway. As the community coalesced around his Rally Fighter, members competed to develop secondary parts, from the side vents to the light bar. Some were designers, some engineers, and others just car hobbyists. But what they had in common was a refusal to design just another car, compromised by mass-market needs and convention. They wanted to make something original — a fantasy car come to life. While the community crafted the exterior, Local Motors designed or selected the chassis, engine, and transmission thanks to relationships with companies like Penske Automotive Group, which helped the firm source everything from dashboard dials to the new BMW clean diesel engine the Rally Fighter will use. This combination — have the pros handle the elements that are critical to performance, safety, and manufacturability while the community designs the parts that give the car its shape and style — allows crowdsourcing to work even for a product whose use has life-and-death implications.
