The Aristotelian Causalities in Localised Distributed Manufacturing

Abstract

Half of the total greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of biodiversity loss come from resource extraction and processing. (EC 2020). To counter this, we must switch to sustainable, long-lasting products and slow down the use of resources. It is clear that these systems will not be fixed by incremental changes but by a series of disruptions. This article uses the Aristotelian causalities as a vehicle to break down the concept of "why" industrial design and discuss the underlying value propositions of distributed manufacturing. This critical perspective allows designers and engineers to bridge the knowledge-siloes and rewire the way a product is designed, sourced, built and consumed in relation to the four Aristotelian causalities. The paper discusses the limitations and potentialities for each causality in relation to a distributed manufacturing paradigm and argues for a new sustainable design concept: The Local Limited Edition. A site-specific product design, realised by brands to enrich brand value on local markets, improve market fit and increase attachment, ultimately improving the products' longevity and value of the products.

Full text

Cite this article: Skouboe, E. B., Barros, M. (2023) ‘The Aristotelian Causalities in Localised Distributed
Manufacturing’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED23), Bordeaux, France,
24-28 July 2023. DOI:10.1017/pds.2023.334
ICED23 3335
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING DESIGN, ICED23
24-28 JULY 2023, BORDEAUX, FRANCE
ICED
THE ARISTOTELIAN CAUSALITIES IN LOCALISED
DISTRIBUTED MANUFACTURING
Skouboe, Esben Bala;
Barros, Mário
Aalborg University
ABSTRACT
Half of the total greenhouse gas emissions and 90% of biodiversity loss come from resource extraction
and processing. (EC 2020). To counter this, we must switch to sustainable, long-lasting products and
slow down the use of resources. It is clear that these systems will not be fixed by incremental changes
but by a series of disruptions. This article uses the Aristotelian causalities as a vehicle to break down the
concept of "why" industrial design and discuss the underlying value propositions of distributed
manufacturing. This critical perspective allows designers and engineers to bridge the knowledge-siloes
and rewire the way a product is designed, sourced, built and consumed in relation to the four Aristotelian
causalities. The paper discusses the limitations and potentialities for each causality in relation to a
distributed manufacturing paradigm and argues for a new sustainable design concept: The Local Limited
Edition. A site-specific product design, realised by brands to enrich brand value on local markets,
improve market fit and increase attachment, ultimately improving the products' longevity and value of
the products.
Keywords: Sustainability, Industrial design, distributed manufacturing, philosophy, Design theory
Contact:
Skouboe, Esben Bala
Aalborg University
Denmark
ebsk@create.aau.dk
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3336 ICED23
1 INTRODUCTION
“We will have to redesign everything around us, our clothes, our food, our furniture, what we value,
what is the price of goods, who owns the material, how do we value durability and resilience, and how
do we transition to an intangible economy over a physical economy?” Indy Johar cited in Heathcote
(2022)
As a result of climate change, the stress in natural ecosystems, and overconsumption, the global
transition away from fossil fuels shapes new patterns of design, production, distribution, and
consumption aimed at shaping a more climate-neutral society. These major transformations are
prompted by practice and research in various disciplines, from a strategic to an operational level. We
argue, in this article, that philosophical perspectives can enrich strategic and operational perspectives,
by introducing an operational framework for collaboration between knowledge silos. This vision
builds on the prerequisite that designing in a complex world requires a worldview that overcomes the
deductive epitomes of a positivist knowledge tradition. In addressing wicked problems, logic and
discipline separation often fall short when meeting the complexity posed by socio-technical systems.
The philosophical viewpoint can provide an integrated worldview that breaks down knowledge silos,
and focuses on the underlying value propositions, to encourage reflections across multiple levels of
interconnected problems.
The bridge between the philosophical and operational perspectives is based on the premise that each
product has transformative power, and thus the act of design encapsulates an act of worldmaking
(Hosale, 2018). Both Hosale (2018) and Henning and Rauterberg (2022) revisit Aristotle's four
causalities relating it to designerly knowledge (Cross, 1982). This article uses Aristotle's four causalities
as a philosophical framework defining an integrated worldview that is applied to assess the relationships
and potentialities of localised distributed manufacturing. Can Aristotelian ideas be used to clarify what
sort of value propositions that can enable a shift from the unsustainable centralised production paradigm
of mass consumption to a more sustainable localised distributed manufacturing paradigm?
According to UNIDO (2014), the industry 4.0 would enable a new type of distributed manufacturing
which was envisioned to be one of the most important emerging technologies eight years ago. This
vision was enabled because new production and communication technologies enable a new set of
competitive advantages for small and medium-sized businesses. These were described as: shorter
delivery times, closer proximity to customers, better fulfilment of individual consumer needs, creation of
stronger attachment to products, reduction of transportation and thus CO2 emission, meeting the growing
demand for novel sustainable production, increasing innovativeness and local competitiveness, and
minimising the risk of supply chain collapse have been described as potential benefits (Bruccoleri et al.
2005, Rauch et.al. 2015) when shifting to distributed production. These advantages can be clustered into
six megatrends (Rauch et al. 2016): 1) sustainability; 2) rising logistic costs; 3) mass customisation; 4)
design democratisation; 5) market and customer proximity and 6) regionalism and authenticity. So far
research on distributed manufacturing has focused on the economic aspects (Lombardi 2003),
organisational (Rauch et.al. 2015) and social ones (Bessière et. al. 2019).
In recent years, the coronavirus pandemic and the war in Ukraine have further revealed the
vulnerability of complex supply chains and motivated a revisit to the romantic visions of taking part of
the production ‘home’, to make a more ecological, safe, and socially viable production systems
(Bessière et. al. 2019). Taking the food industry as a benchmark example we bring forth two
perspectives: First, there is the centralised knowledge and uniform quality control of mass production
that enables, for example, Coca- Cola to produce the same taste around 900 bottling plants worldwide.
Second, is a local approach to materials, local history, and creative curiosity, developed by a network
of chefs in the Nordic countries. According to the Danish Noma chef René Redzepi (2018), the very
fundament of "attractiveness" has been fundamentally redefined, when he asks the rhetoric question:
"what do you prefer: The mushroom that breaks through in nature for only two weeks of the year, that
also requires huge dedication and knowledge to find and prepare? Or the expensive can of farmed
caviar that can be found in any corner of the world?".
Both cases employ two fundamental different strategies of attractiveness. On the one hand Coca Cola has
created the idealised assemblage with the same taste distributed to the entire world. On the other hand
Noma uses the scope of the local materials, climate and traditions as a key to deliver attractiveness and
novelty. A full analysis of attractiveness is beyond the scope of this paper; however, Noma's approach
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ICED23 3337
highlights time and place as key drivers to the user experience and promotes a more direct engagement
between the maker, product, user, and environment. Furthermore, it reconsiders the quantity of
production through an approach to local materials and the creativity of highly skilled chefs to capture the
essence of a place. This approach can be applied in the design domain and be linked to the six
megatrends of distributed manufacturing to assess how it can be implemented in practice. Aristotelian
causalities will be used as a theoretical framework, that allows us to reflect on the hypothesis: That a new
model of sustainable use, design and production can be developed and enabled by the recent
technological development in distributed manufacturing. We argue that one of the reasons for the failure
of distributed manufacturing is a lack of sensitivity to local cultures, materials, and production history.
The central argument is not to take a step back in time to production infrastructures before
industrialisation, but rather, one in which material sourcing, product development, manufacturing and
life-cycle prolonging activities, such as takeback systems, refurbishment, and repairs can occur in
local hubs. The local hubs can respond to the requirements of industry 5.0 (EC, 2021) and utilize the
visions of Digital Product Passport (DPP) (Adisorn et. al. 2021) to promote more transparency, and
enabling consumers to find information about production, material sourcing, design or use from local
and global networks. We argue that such vision can result in a new type of social and sustainable
mode of production.
2 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Techné is an ancient concept that encapsulates the relationship between how and why a product is
made, and how it is being used. Aristotle used techné as a framework to describe how the development
of a product embodies both an understanding of the world and promoted a new way of living, thus
rewiring causalities, and thereby showing an alternative way of making. Aristotle (1934) described the
act of making a new object as achieving a new truth about how the world is understood. While the
concept of techné is traditionally closely connected to the skills of craftsmen, it is also a key tool in the
exploration of knowing, and a significant part of the process of revealing the truth about the world. To
Aristotle making was a matter of knowing and revealing a certain path, and for designers and
manufacturers, this understanding is essential because it strikes a fundamental paradox in the age of
mass consumption: never has the variations of products been wider, and never has the need for a new
type of product been greater; not as another style, but as a fundamental revolution of how the product
is made and used including its underlying subsystems.
Techné is a relevant concept to approach human relationships with products and their creation since it
emphasizes the underlying values and operations in a product. Because industrial-designed products
are often created in complex networks of collaborating expert humans and non-humans (Rauch et al.
2016) it is important to understand the underlying principles of the relationship between tools and their
human operators. Guttari (2007) suggests that manufacturing facilities cannot be a matter of the
organisation of machines alone, but it must be seen as a collective assemblage of material, cognitive,
affective, and social aspects installing themselves and working transversally. Thus, understanding the
real value within a localised distributed manufacturing system cannot lie in innovation in one part
alone; it must address the causal relationships that enable the design, material sourcing, production,
use and social dimensions of the products.
3 ARISTOTELIAN CAUSALITIES AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
Aristotle (1934) described four fundamental types of answers to the question “why” a certain object is,
and this encompasses four causalities (Figure1): 1) causa materialis addresses the material or matter
out of which the object is made; 2) causa formalis accounts for the form or shape of the object; 3)
causa efficiens accounts for the principles and tools involved in the act of making the object; and 4)
causa finalis is the purpose of a product. The coming sections will unfold how these causalities can
contribute to the qualities of a more sustainable distributed production.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3338 ICED23
Figure 1. Relationship between causa formalis, causa materialis, causa efficiens and causa
finalis in industrial design.
3.1 Causa materialis: the materials
Aristotle considered causa materalis of an object as the equivalent to the nature of the raw material out
of which the object is composed (Hankinson, 2001). Understanding the physical properties of a material
is key for the object to undergo transformations throughout the design process. For a table, this might be
the specific type of wood from which is made. Considering the intrinsic relationship between material
and its local context in which the material is extracted, transformed, used, we can affirm there is a time
and place displacement in the current centralised mass production paradigm. The distant relationship to
the material sourcing and other steps of the supply chain blurs product transparency and respective
conscious consumption patterns. The challenge in localised distributed manufacturing is concerned with
how industrial production can adapt to materials in different regions, while, at the same time living up to
quality standards of homogeneous mass production. Solutions to this trade-off must be found in each
product category and decisions must be according to specific material requirements and its use and life
cycle context. Accordingly, not every industrial production and material sourcing can be fully
decentralised, and the solutions will be depending on product context.
As an example, basic materials such as stone, wood, recycled plastic, water, and others could be local
materials, while specific standardised materials, rare materials, electronics, or special components
would still need transportation. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools such as Målbar (2022) support
quality decision-making regarding the materials’ climate impact. And this tool is just one of the new
types of material sourcing tools that allow designers and manufacturers to take more qualified
decisions in the design of local production and assembly. These new climate impact screening tools
are essential to bridge the new and more sustainable sourcing.
Other important factors are the local presence of brands, the local storytelling in sales and post-sales
services. All these relationships require community-based activities that go beyond material sourcing.
The localised distributed production and sourcing strategy can become intrinsic aspects of the
products’ value proposition. To achieve this premise, designers must rethink the semantic properties of
materials because in many cases these properties are associated with local narratives and cultural
aspects. Furthermore, the design could then be open for local variations in material choice weaving
local and global supply chains and rendering a new type of product design category, such as local
limited editions. As an example, a local limited-edition chair might be designed according to local
storytelling and be produced from ash wood in Scandinavia and in walnut in North America.
Nonetheless, such an approach would lower the dependency of companies in complicated supply
chains because transportation of basic materials would be decreased. At the same time, a new layer of
local supply chains would be revitalised. Even though the discussion of specific weights between
local- and global-sourced materials is outside the scope of this paper, the requirements for sourcing
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ICED23 3339
local materials can follow at least three tiers: basic, exclusive, and re/upcycled. Basic and recycled
materials would be material types available within the local context, while exclusive materials would
be rare and small- scale materials which are not locally available. This differentiated sourcing
mechanism would have to be qualified by LCA tools. The sourcing of basic and exclusive materials
should follow their existence in the local ecosystems and geography, considering bioregions (Vilhena
and Antonelli, 2015) which encompass terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecoregions into a cohesive
system and overcomes country- level or region-level approaches.
There is potential in further exploring how the local materials can support the meaning and narratives
in product design (Steffen, 2009), and use them as essential value propositions in the final product.
Stronger product narratives may result in a stronger symbolic meaning, driving a more sustainable
mode of consumption. The limitation of the number of units of a local edition being established by the
availability of local resources and their regeneration is one example of how these material narratives
can drive a more sustainable pattern of production and consumption.
3.2 Causa formalis: the design
Aristotle (1934) describes causa formalis as the causality that defines the final form into which
material is transformed. This involves two main steps. The first step is the design activity of bringing
forth or inventing a new model of the shape of the object. The second step is the formal representation
of the object through drawings, diagrams, descriptions, physical models, digital models, production
files, etc. Before industrialisation, the formal representation of a design was primarily made using
drawings, and physical- or mental models. There was a close link between the process of designing the
actual object and its representation because the two were often performed by the same person – the
craftsman – who could easily make variations depending on ideas, feelings, special wishes from the
customers or changes in material supply and other requirements.
These steps in the design process have become separated since the 19th century when Wedgwood
division of labour in the pottery industry became prevalent in mass production (Forty, 1986, pp. 32 –
34). This separation was essential to produce products of high uniformity and consistency and frames
the fundamental difference between the craftsman and the industrial designer. Before industrialisation,
craftsmen often had a great role in the creation of objects, with a high degree of freedom, hence each
handcrafted product had its own marks and character. After industrialisation, most products must be
homogeneous, and they are manufactured in multiple processes often executed by more companies
geographically separated. However, recent developments in CAD/CAM technologies have
reintroduced the made-to-order paradigm and companies use these techniques to give the customer an
option to customise or even personalise certain features of a product while keeping costs at or near
mass production prices. Companies that offer mass customisation can give themselves a competitive
advantage over other companies that only offer generic products (Pine, 1999).
In a framework of localised distributed manufacturing, the following question must be posed. Can
there be localised and limited versions of mass customisation, that use local history, craftsmanship
traditions (e.g. details in joints), or local materials variations, to enrich the overall design? Could one
imagine that one chair has a different joint detail in Japan and another in India, related to the local
history and culture? The design would encompass address become the DNA of the product, and the
product details and materials would be adapted to the unique qualities of the local context.
Making place-specific designs seems to be outside the traditional domain of industrial design, however,
when approaching the design of buildings, there are buildings that "relate" to the place, and even involve
the spirit of the place or genius loci (Norberg-Schulz, 2019). The underlying vision is to make a sensible
design that adapts to its place and its users and thereby fits into the culture of the place. The techniques
involve mapping of location, local climate, existing physical objects (buildings and landscape) as well as
historic events and narratives from local people. As such the investigations include positivistic data about
the place as an object (Lynch, 1984) phenomenological data on the experience of the place (Norberg-
Schulz, 2019) and lastly the constructivist dimensions about the local powers and interests, hence seeing
the context as a social construction (Gehl 2003). These techniques are developed for architectural design
practice and cannot be directly translated into industrial design practice. However, understanding the
local history, traditions, and people as well as the available raw materials, and networks for production
will support industrial design practice in accommodating local requirements. Telling these stories would
consequence add to the storytelling and value proposition of the products, potentially increasing the level
of attachment and thereby the likelihood of increasing the lifetime of the product.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3340 ICED23
3.3 Causa efficiens: production and distribution
Aristotle identifies ‘the craftsman’ as central in causa efficiens, since (s)he is responsible for the
change of material into form and worldmaking. Causa efficiens identifies ‘what makes of what is made
and what causes change of what is changed’ and so suggests all sorts of agents, non-living or living,
acting as the sources of change or movement or rest (Lloyd, 1996).
The description of ‘bringing forth’ must be seen as a unified process (Waddington, 2005). Hence the
act of design, production, choice of materials and use works in a continuum, reshaping the relationship
between object and consumer. In other words, the way things look is, in the broadest sense, a result of
the conditions of their making (Forty, 1986), including domains such as mechanical engineering,
robotics, and electronics, as well as more traditional craftsmanship, such as woodworkers, potteries,
carpenters etc. It is beyond the scope of this article to fully unfold each domain, however, using the
conceptual lenses allows the authors to investigate the potentialities and barriers in design for a world
of distributed manufactured products.
Considering a localised distributed manufacturing framework where production is closer to
consumers, there is an opportunity to re-think the factory as an aggregated cyber-physical system or
micro-factories with a high level of automation. A new level of collaboration between smaller scale
automated production systems and networks of craftsman with specialised know-how could be
achieved in similar fashion to what is observed in small-scale production systems in the DIY (Do-It-
Yourself) communities (Zanetti, et al. 2015).
So far, there is no large-scale example of localised distributed manufacturing. The example closest to
address such requirements are the many networks of Makers and FabLabs (Gershenfeld, 2005), which
offer custom-crafted furniture created with entry-level manufacturing equipment, such as CNC mills
and 3D printers. Though the success of these approaches points to the value of having a closer
connection and interaction between the customers on the one side and the designers, engineers, and
craftsmen on the other side (Lindtner, et al. 2016), they are still not considered viable alternatives to
traditional furniture manufacturing regarding craftsmanship, product quality nor production scalability
(O’Neil and Pentzold 2021).
The era of industry 4.0 and the maturity of critical technologies (such as sensor and actuator networks,
intelligent controls, optimisation software and cyber-physical systems, etc.) have made researchers
argue that smart and agile distributed manufacturing systems will soon be available and in a short time
become the preferred way to produce (Kuehnle, 2015). Parallel to the research focus on agility and
changeability (see Pullan 2014; Nylund, Salminen et al. 2012; Deif 2015), research in distributed
manufacturing has also evolved around the concept of mini-factories. Initially focused on creating
production franchising networks that would allow for mass customisation (Zäh and Wagner, 2003) it
evolved to plug+produce concepts that would make it possible to roll out geographically distributed
production units. More recent studies have pointed to the mobile factory network, in which mobile and
smart factories can be placed in proximity to the customer (Rauch et al., 2016). Different versions of
the mobile factory unit have been tested both in research as well as in industry, for instance, the
CassaMobile-project supported by the EU and Nokia’s ‘Factory-in-a-box’ concept. Even though these
recent developments offer unique possibilities for the industries, we can argue that two main
interactions are not addressed: 1) the interaction between the local community and the design(er); and
2) the interaction between the local craftsman (manufacturer, production engineer, woodcraft) and the
‘intelligence’ in the smart production unit. How can these interactions be facilitated? And to what
extent can streamline and automated production technologies help enable the logistic challenges?
Zanetti et al. (2015) described how the near future would allow small-scale fabrication units to be
located within a shopping mall and they would be able to directly interact with the customers while
being close to them in terms of design expectations, quality, and environment, costs, and delivery
time. Considering that mass customisation created the possibility of customised design variations, one
can imagine that distributed manufacturing would then produce custom designs according to local
nuances, within local communities of production and use. This could lead to rethinking users beyond
the role of consumers, empowering them in more active and responsible participation within local
communities (as proposed in the UN 12th sustainable goal (UN, 2015)).
3.4 Causa finalis: end use
According to Aristotle, causa finalis is the final cause, or the end result of the creative process
(Hankinson, 2001); a chair is for sitting, a sailboat is for sailing etc. In other words, causa finalis
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ICED23 3341
deals with the use phase and life of the product, or post-purchase customer behaviours (Mugge et al.
2010). Although customer behaviour research has mainly been focused on buying behaviour,
understanding consumer-product relationships are crucial to understanding the life of a product.
First, we must acknowledge that some products generate greater satisfaction and stronger customer
attachment than others. Product satisfaction is directly linked to the experienced satisfaction related
to the product performing better than expected or promised (Mano and Oliver 1993). This cognitive
evaluation of a product’s utility has a direct effect on the degree of satisfaction; however, user
satisfaction is not a purely cognitive and utilitarian endeavour. Bloch (1995) showed that beautifully
designed products can provide consumer’s direct pleasure. This hedonic judgment is linked to the
appearance of the product and leads to the experience of pleasure for a product, and pleasure serves
as a mediator for their effect on satisfaction (Mano and Oliver 1993). Utility and appearance do not
only affect satisfaction but are also reasons for people to consider a product as treasured (Kamptner,
1991); special (Csikszentmihalyi and Halton 1981); important (Richins, 1994), or favourite
(Wallendorf and Arnould, 1988). These studies suggest that treasured product design must make a
great utility and a strong appearance, but it also suggests that customer expectations are important to
meet. Based on these premises, local adaptions would never have to compromise the quality of the
design.
Literature in the field of product design verifies that product attachments are more complicated
because people only develop attachments to products that have a special meaning to them (Wallendorf
and Arnould, 1988). Hence, strong customer-product attachments are associated with stronger feelings
of connection, affection, love, and passion (Mugge and Schifferstein, 2010). Thus, a person is more
likely to handle the product with care, repair it when it breaks down, and postpone its replacement
(Mugge et al. 2005). To obtain a special meaning, a product should provide the owner with more than
just its basic function, and developing a strong product attachment is crucial for products to last. This
observation requires products to evoke rich sensory, enjoyable, and maybe surprising interactions to
evoke pleasure during use, and thereby increase the level of attachment. Several studies conclude that
people become more attached to products that serve as a reminder of the past (Wallendorf and Arnould
1988; Kleine et al. 1995), hence making products that foster enjoyment is likely to be most successful
if it also supports the accumulation of memories. Page (2014) found that enjoyment and pleasure was
the primary reason for customer-product attachment to newly purchased items, whereas memories
were highest for older possessions.
However, the memories connected to a product are typically not under the designer’s control since
they involve an individual’s connections to people, places, or events that are important only to that
individual. In a localised distributed manufacturing framework, in which the product is built near the
consumer, we can hypothesise that it will be possible to make memorable social events and
interactions as part of the purchase and post-purchase that would generate memories and might
stimulate a closer relationship between the people buying and the people producing and maintaining.
As such, the product would be linked to a product-service system that would accommodate both
customer- and product-related needs over time. This can be a unique opportunity for the physical shop
to respond to the growing competition from the web shops and create meaningful user experiences as
part of the purchase and product life- prolonging repair activities (e.g. repair, rent, refurbish). This
stronger relationship between product design, production, repair, marketing, and post-purchase
services could be an essential value asset for the products, leading to both a potential increase in the
lifetime of the product and strengthening the relationship between brands and customers. It is therefore
crucial to evaluate a product's causa finalis in relation to product attachment and satisfaction in the
light of the user's expectations, utility, appearance, and memories.
4 DISCUSSION
This paper uses Aristotle's causalities to reflect upon and conceptualise an interdisciplinary design
framework for distributed manufacturing. Aristotle's causalities are used both as a theoretical approach
to structure the arguments around four aspects of industrial design, to analyse them regarding the
literature, and as a speculative tool to imagine a new type of distributed design activity. The activity
could be applied by international brands and small-scale industries who are interested in closely
linking local communities, consumers, and brands in a new sustainable production paradigm.
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3342 ICED23
Figure 2. Four stages of industrial production: 1) local; 2) regional; 3) global; 4) multilocal
and distributed.
Figure 2 summarises the four stages of industrial production, starting with local production by
craftsmen (1) that evolved to regional production overseen by guilds (2). The industrial revolution and
mass production (3) renders the web of industrial production and sale. In this paper, we propose for a
(4) new multilocal distributed manufacturing framework, where the design model is open to local
variations in material sourcing and production of a new type of a limited edition - not limited by
numbers but limited by local resources. The framework builds upon existing aspects of former types of
craftmanship, industrial production and promotes more sustainable production and consumption of
products, based on informed LCA analysis, mini-factories, bioregions, local networks, and
communities. Using the philosophical framework to question and break down knowledge silos, we
critically inquire on how an interdisciplinary design framework for distributed manufacturing could
find new meaningful value propositions. In the paper we discussed the four challenges:
• Causa materialis (materials): How can distributed manufacturing adapt to materials in different
regions, while, at the same time living up to quality standards of homogeneous mass production?
• Causa formalis (design): How can design propose localised versions of mass customisation, that
integrate local materials, industries and culture?
• Causa efficiens (production and distribution): How can the interactions between the designer, the
craftsman (manufacturer, production engineer, woodcraft) and the ‘intelligence’ in the local
production unit be facilitated? And how can these interactions be in service of the local user?
• Causa finalis (end use): How can distributed manufacturing support the creation of memorable
interactions that would stimulate long-term relations between brands and the user, ultimately
prolonging the life of products?
Each of these questions could be further addressed, such as taking into consideration the scale of local,
and the scalability of distributed manufacturing regarding economies of scale or scope. Furthermore,
how to deal with the cost-effectiveness of setting up local production hubs and their respective socio-
economic, political, or cultural issues. How to deal with the competitive evolution and uncertainties
that have traditionally led to new forms of centralisation (Lombardi, 2003)?
While each question can be further addressed and lead to new streams of discussion, we take a step
back and analyse the broader scope. The current state of knowledge promotes specialisation over
integration and systemic overview. When analysed in isolation, each causa can be optimised based on
specific requirements (e.g. material performance, production lead time, or design standardisation, etc),
however, for this to occur, other interrelated aspects need to remain rather abstract or ill-defined (e.g.
meaningfulness, long-term use, repairability, local sustainability, etc). Overcoming these barriers
requires breaking down silos of knowledge, and more open forms of discussion between different
stakeholders and disciplines. From this openness, new multi-localities can emerge.
Another critical problem of new technologies and the respective seducing new revealed potential
described by Heidegger (1977) as the concept of "standing-reserve". By this, he described how the
discovery of new technologies, is seducing in itself, and that they create a new opportunity waiting for
someone to exploit, and when the opportunity is revealed, it is extremely difficult to undo. We can
exemplify that in the proposed localised distributed manufacturing framework in which products are
locally produced, a local limited edition made in Japan might be worth more for a collector in New
York than the respective local edition. In such a scenario, the potential for decreasing the climate
footprint would somehow be lost. Even though this may occur in some products (e.g. luxury), the
potential for extending product lifetime, for creating new local limited edition custom designs may
enable brands to empower local communities around the world.
The potential for curated material sourcing, production of parts, assembly and post-sale services, such
as repair cafes and take-bake systems may allow brands to increase their local presence and build
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

ICED23 3343
communities. These local hubs would become knowledge facilitators connecting brands to local
communities building stronger alliances between brands and local communities and users, thereby
improving user attachment, product longevity and local innovativeness.
Heidegger would still question if we would be able to uninvent the products and fast fashion we have
today, even though we would find it beneficial. Once the opportunity is revealed it is impossible to go
back, the opportunity would always be standing reserve (Heidegger, 1977). In this light, one could
question if humanity would be able to escape the unsustainable means of production and designs that
rely on heavy transportation networks that exploit labour and environmental health to create the lowest
price. However, we consider that increasing storytelling, local knowledge and materials, combining
craftsmanship with intelligent production means, and developing products that stimulate long-term
relationships with users can promote a more sustainable mode of consumption, one that is rooted in
and drawn upon the ecological fabric surrounding every aspect of the product and its cycles.
REFERENCES
Adeleye, E.O. & Yusuf, Y.Y. (2006) "Towards agile manufacturing: models of competition and performance
outcomes", International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 93-110.
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijasm.2006.008861
Adisorn, A., Tholen, L., Götz, T. (2021) "Towards a Digital Product Passport Fit for Contributing to a Circular
Economy", Energies, Vol. 14, No. 8.. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14082289
Aristotle (1990 [1934]), Nicomachean Ethics (H. Rackham, Trans.), Harvard University Press, London,
Cambridge, Mass.
Bessière, D., Charnley, F., Tiwari, A. & Moreno, M.A. (2019) "A vision of re-distributed manufacturing for the
UK’s consumer goods industry", Production Planning & Control, Vol. 30, No. 7, pp. 555-567.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2018.1540053
Bloch, P.H. (1995), "Seeking the ideal form: Product design and consumer response", Journal of Marketing,
Vol.59, No. 3, pp. 16-29. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252116
Bruccoleri, M., Nigro, G.L., Perrone, G., Renna, P. & La Diega, S.N. (2005) "Production planning in
reconfigurable enterprises and reconfigurable production systems", CIRP annals, Vol. 54, No. 1, pp. 433-
436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60138-3
Cross, N. 1982, "Designerly ways of knowing", Design Studies, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 221-227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
Csikszentmihalyi, M. & Halton, E. (1981), The Meaning of Things: Domestic Symbols and the Self, Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6357(85)90166-4
Deif, A.M. (2015) "A system dynamic approach to manage changeability in manufacturing systems", Procedia
Manufacturing, Vol. 2, pp. https://doi.org/543-549. 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.094
Forty, A. & Cameron, I. (1986) Objects of Desire: Design and Society Since 1750, Thames and Hudson, London.
EC (2021) Industry 5.0: human-centric, sustainable and resilient, Publications Office of the European Union.
https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2777/073781
Gehl, J. (2003) Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Danish Architectural Press, Copenhagen.
Gershenfeld, N.A. (2005) Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop--from personal computers to personal
fabrication, Basic Books, New York.
Hankinson, R.J. (2001) Cause and explanation in ancient Greek thought, Oxford University Press, New York.
https://doi.org/10.1093/0199246564.001.0001
Heathcote, E. (2022), “Architect Indy Johar: ‘The scale of what we’re about to face is completely
underestimated’”, Financial Times, 5 November, available at: https://www.ft.com/content/b1604232-bfcd-
49a5-99eb-9ac540d22748 (accessed 20 November 2022).
Heidegger, M. (1977) "The Question Concerning Technology". In: Krell, D. (Ed.). Martin Heidgger: Basic
Writings. Harper & Row, New York, pp. 287-317.
Hosale, M. (2018) Worldmaking as Techné; Participatory Art, Music, and Architecture, Riverside Architectural
Press.
Kamptner, N.L. (1991) "Personal possessions and their meanings: A life-span perspective", Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, Vol. 6, No. 6, pp. 209-228.
Kleine, S.S., Kleine III, R.E. & Allen, C.T. (1995) "How is a possession “me” or “not me”? Characterizing types
and an antecedent of material possession attachment", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp.
327- 343. https://doi.org/10.1086/209454
Kuehnle, H. (2015) "Distributed manufacturing (dm)-smart units and collaborative processes", International Journal
of Computer and Systems Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1246-1257. http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1100454
Lindtner, S., Bardzell, S. & Bardzell, J. (2016) "Reconstituting the utopian vision of making: HCI after
technosolutionism", Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
pp. 1390. http://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858506
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press

3344 ICED23
Lloyd, G.E.R. (1996) Adversaries and Authorities; Investigations into Ancient Greek and Chinese Science.
University of Cambridge, Cambridge.
Lynch, K. 1984, Good City Form, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Lombardi, M. 2003, "The evolution of local production systems: the emergence of the “invisible mind” and the
evolutionary pressures towards more visible “minds”", Research Policy, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1443-1462.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00157-9
Mano, H. & Oliver, R.L. (1993) "Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience:
evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 451-466.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209361
Mugge, R., Schoormans, J.P. & Schifferstein, H.N. (2005) "Design strategies to postpone consumers' product
replacement: The value of a strong person-product relationship", The Design Journal, Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 38-
48. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069205789331637
Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H.N. & Schoormans, J.P. (2010) "Product attachment and satisfaction: understanding
consumers' post‐purchase behavior", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol.27, No.3, pp.271-282.
https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761011038347
MÅLBAR (2022) https://www.maalbar.dk/ (25.11.2022)
Norberg-Schulz C. 2019. “Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture (1979).” In Cody J., Siravo
F. (Eds.), Historic Cities: Issues in Urban Conservation, Vol. 8, p. 31. Getty Publications.
Nylund, H., Salminen, K., Andersson, P.H. (2012). Framework for Distributed Manufacturing Systems. In:
ElMaraghy, H. (eds) Enabling Manufacturing Competitiveness and Economic Sustainability. Springer,
Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23860-4_28
O’Neil, M. & Pentzold, C. (2021) The Handbook of Peer Production. Wiley-Blackwell, United Kingdom.
Page, T. (2014) "Product attachment and replacement: implications for sustainable design", International
Journal of Sustainable Design, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSDES.2014.065057
Parley (2020) PARLEY AIR STATION / BLUEPRINT MODULE. Available: https://www.parley.tv/air-station-
blueprint-module [2020, 22.11.].
Pine, B.J. (1999) Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, Mass. https://doi.org/10.1177/03128962930170020
Pullan, T.T. (2014) "Decision support tool using concurrent engineering framework for agile manufacturing",
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 132-154. https://doi.org/
10.1504/IJASM.2014.061445
Rauch, E., Dallinger, M., Dallasega, P. and Matt, D.T. (2015) ‘Sustainability in manufacturing through
distributed manufacturing systems (DMS)’, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 29, pp.544–549. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.procir.2015.01.069
Rauch, E., Dallasega, P. & Matt, D.T. (2016) "Sustainable production in emerging markets through Distributed
Manufacturing Systems (DMS)", Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 135, pp. 127-138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2016.06.106
Redzepi, R. (2018) A Work in Progress: A Journal, Phaidon Press Inc.
Richins, M.L. (1994) "Valuing things: The public and private meanings of possessions", Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 504-521. https://doi.org/10.1086/209414
Steffen, D. (2009) "Meaning and narration in product design", DPPI'09 Proceedings, pp. 1-9.
Vezzoli, C., Garcia Parra, B. & Kohtala, C. (2021) Designing Sustainability for All: The Design of Sustainable
Product-Service Systems Applied to Distributed Economies, Springer International Publishing AG, Cham.
Vilhena, D.A. & Antonelli, A. (2015) "A network approach for identifying and delimiting biogeographical
regions", Nature Communications, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 6848. https://doi.org/10.1038 /ncomms7848
Waddington, D.I. (2005) "A field guide to Heidegger: Understanding ‘the question concerning technology’",
Educational Philosophy and Theory, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 567-583. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
5812.2005.00141.x
Wallendorf, M. & Arnould, E.J. (1988) "“My favorite things”: A cross-cultural inquiry into object attachment,
possessiveness, and social linkage", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 531-547.
https://doi.org/10.1086/209134
UN. (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development A/RES/70/1, United
Nations, New York. available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/
publication [2022. 04.11.].
UNIDO (2014), Emerging Green Technologies, For the Manufacturing Sector, United Nations Industrial
Development organization.
Zanetti, C., Seregni, M., Bianchini, M. & Taisch, M. (2015) "A production system model for Mini-Factories and
last mile production approach", 2015 IEEE 1st International Forum on Research and Technologies for Society
and Industry Leveraging a better tomorrow (RTSI), pp. 451. http://doi.org/10.1109/RTSI.2015.7325139.
Zäh, M.F. & Wagner, W. (2003) "Planning mini-factory structures for the close-to-market manufacture of
individualized products", Proceedings of the MCPC, Vol. 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44733-8_71
https://doi.org/10.1017/pds.2023.334 Published online by Cambridge University Press