Makers in the Plant? Exploring the Impact of Knowledge IT Artifacts
on DIY Practices in Manufacturing Firms
Luca Cremona and Aurelio Ravarini
School of Industrial Engineering, Università Carlo Cattaneo – LIUC,
C.so Matteotti 22, Castellanza (VA), Italy
Keywords: Makers, DIY, Digital Fabrication, Digital DIY.
Abstract: In this study we investigate the impact of digital technologies on fabrication activities carried out by a worker
leading her organizational role to be critically reshaped. We assume that the characteristics of the Makers
(individual and environmental characteristics) could be applied to workers in a manufacturing plant, bringing
benefits in terms of higher achievements deriving by the digitization of fabrication. We propose to interpret
the digital technologies enabling digitization through the lens of the KITA construct. Two case studies have
been carried out in order to explore these assumptions and providing preliminary insights of the effects of
Digital DIY practices on manufacturing firms.
1 INTRODUCTION: MAKERS
AND DIGITAL FABRICATION
Makers are an emerging community of self-described
DIY-enthusiasts, tinkerers and hobbyists.
Popularized by the quarterly magazine MAKE and
annual Maker Faire events, the term maker and its
meaning seem to have originated in the context of the
maker movement and the do-it-yourself world
(Anderson 2012, Lande 2013, Hatch 2013).
McFedries (2007) calls the maker: “high-tech tinkerer
who lives to take things apart, modify... them to
perform some useful or interesting task, and then
(sometimes) put them back together.” In the context
of the maker movement Honey and Siegel (2010)
used the terms circuit bender, personal fabrication,
and risk takers.
Noteworthy, a number of articles (McFedries
2007, Kafai 2011, Dougherty 2012, Campbell 2012,
Schön 2014, Hallaq 2014, Frissen 2015) mention
makers referring to an educational context. Dale
Dougherty (2012), founder of MAKE Magazine and
Maker Faire festivals, describes making as “learning
by doing”, pointing out the development of new skills
as a core aspect.
The diffusion of individuals with such
characteristics, led Anderson (2012) to envision an
industrial revolution in “making”, a disruptive change
that should have radically transformed the
manufacturing industry. He forecasted that the spread
of technologies such as 3D printers could enable
Makers to fully exploit their creative potential and
challenge the current structure of manufacturers and
their supply chains (Anderson 2012).
While "Makers" are evolving into a phenomenon
with growing economical relevance, another
revolution is affecting the creation of physical
products: digitization of the manufacturing.
According to a recent survey four disruptions are
occurring in manufacturing: rise in data volumes,
emergence of analytics and business-intelligence
capabilities; new forms of human-machine
interaction; and improvements in transferring digital
instructions to the physical world (McKinsey
Quarterly 2015). Rapid prototyping technologies are
impacting business processes because the offer this
knowledge to the people (Oxman 2007). Specifically,
they impact the work of traditional craftsmanship
involving the knowledge and skill-set of particular
practical arts. By bringing new methods and
technologies for production (e.g. digital desktop
fabrication), knowledge work, craft, and design are
recombined in novel ways (Ratto and Ree 2012).
While the two phenomena belong to different
domains: Makers are single individuals, digitization
of manufacturing appears in production plants, it is
possible to recognize that they share common or at
least overlapping roots. In both cases:
- the activity subject of the change is the
process of fabrication (the transformation
of physical objects),
Cremona, L. and Ravarini, A.
Makers in the Plant? Exploring the Impact of Knowledge IT Artifacts on DIY Practices in Manufacturing Firms.
DOI: 10.5220/0006094502810288
In Proceedings of the 8th International Joint Conference on Knowledge Discovery, Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management (IC3K 2016) - Volume 3: KMIS, pages 281-288
ISBN: 978-989-758-203-5
Copyright
c
 2016 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
281

- digital technologies are a necessary
condition to enable the change,
- the change is highly human centric: it
occurs thanks to individuals who own - or
develop – soft skills, besides the technical
ones.
1.1 Digital DIY and Knowledge IT
Artifacts
In a recent position paper, NN et al. (2016) argue that
these two phenomena - in fact - can be described by
introducing a more general framework, named Digital
DIY (DiDIY). Under this framework, a “DiDIY
activity” is carried out when the following conditions
occur altogether: a) a DiDIYer, i.e. a certain
organizational role, b) carries out on her own certain
activities, activities previously carried out by experts
(this aspect deals with the traditional notion of Do-It-
Yourself), c) by exploiting certain digital
technologies, d) possibly exploiting the knowledge
about the activity shared within a certain community
of individuals (this aspect deals with the innovative
notion of Do-It-Together, where “together” refers to
a community the DiDIYer belongs to).
The context of a DiDIY activity can be interpreted
at the light of the Knowledge IT Artifact (KITA)
construct. According to Cabitza and Locoro (2014)
definition of the “situated perspective” a knowledge
artifact (KA) do not necessarily represent knowledge
per se but rather promote knowledge-related
processes like innovation, decision making and
learning: in this latter case the nature of the KA
cannot be decoupled, nor generalized, from the
specific setting or Community of Practice, or from the
boundary between communities where the KA is
supposed to play its role of knowledge facilitator and
transfer medium (Cabitza and Locoro, 2014).
Following this rationale, any digital technology in
the context of a DiDIY activity, as defined above, can
be seen as a KA.
In this study, we investigate the impact of digital
technologies on fabrication activities carried out by a
worker leading her organizational role to be critically
reshaped. We assume that the characteristics of the
Makers (individual and environmental
characteristics) could be applied to workers in a
manufacturing plant, bringing benefits in terms of
higher achievements deriving by the digitization of
fabrication. We propose to interpret the digital
technologies enabling digitization through the lens of
the KITA construct.
For example, a worker operating with the mindset
and skills typical of a maker could exploit digitization
not merely eliminating routinely tasks, but - thanks to
a digital technology, a KA - getting a better
understanding of the fabrication process, and thus
becoming able to design and experiment
improvements.
2 THEORETICAL
BACKGROUND: INDIVIDUAL
AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF
MAKING
The literature about the Maker Movement allows us
to draw a general picture of the characteristics
qualifying the makers and the environment in which
they operate. At the individual level, makers typically
participate in a community, driven mainly by values
(Dewey, 1929), beliefs (Elby et al., 2001), and
dispositions (Perkins et al., 2000). These drivers help
in shaping the Maker mindset: playful, asset- and
growth-oriented, failure positive, and collaborative
(Martin, 2015; Peppler, 2013).
Dougherty (2013) pointed out that it is
“experimental play” that have fostered the rise of new
digital tools, an easier access to components and
growth of online communities eventually culminated
with the explosion of the Maker Movement (Martin,
2015). Playful activities along with fun are at the
hearth of Makers’ activities that group and work
together for “their pleasure in making and using their
own inventions’’ (Gershenfeld, 2005). Persistence in
the challenge of making (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004)
encourage experimentation and create the basic
conditions for the development of conceptual
knowledge and adaptive expertise (Hatano et al.,
1986). Another important element emerging from
seminal papers is the freeness of Makers to focus on
doing the task or job they want. They can strengthen
their expertise background as long as focusing on
something new to learn. Within the Maker Movement
the crucial topic is that, they focus on skills rather
than abilities. As reported by Martin (2015), “making
advocates a growth mindset, where, given effort and
resources, anyone can learn the skills needed to
complete any project they can imagine”.
Within the Makers community it is recognizable
a free-choice nature of making, that emphasizes
assets and the ability to learn over deficits—an
orientation sometimes missing in school settings
(Gutierrez et al., 2003). Therefore, Makers do not
experience failures of making as demoralizing (Soep,
2014) but they understand that overcoming small
KITA 2016 - 2nd International Workshop on the design, development and use of Knowledge IT Artifacts in professional communities and
aggregations. Knowledge Artifacts as resources in the maker and DIY communities
282

obstacles is equally important. Petrich et al. (2013)
state that “the process of becoming stuck and then
unstuck is the heart of tinkering”, and they find that
such moments are often among the most salient in
participants’ post-activity interviews. Sharing ideas,
project, helping others, making and connecting
characterize Makers under the collaboration
perspective. This mindset is probably the most
important element when talking about Makers and is
shown both in online and in offline communities
where Makers group and collaborate to show their
work (Kuznetsov et al., 2010).
Besides this personal traits, the Makers
movement has been enabled by the presence of
favorable environmental conditions: a playful
learning environment (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004),
learning environments that advocate a growth
mindset, encouraging persistence, challenge seeking,
and learning (Dweck, 2000). Learning environments
that support youth autonomy and control of their
endeavors are “more motivating, support engagement
and persistence, identity development, and the growth
of resourcefulness” (Azevedo, 2011; Ryan et al.,
2000).
3 RESEARCH METHOD
This section aims at introducing the methodology
used for investigating the theoretical constructs
within organizational settings. After introducing the
chosen methodology and motivating the need of an
exploratory study, the data collection process is
introduced and described. Finally, data analysis is
presented.
3.1 Methodology
In the empirical section of this research we used an
exploratory case study, whose aim is to enable the
emergence of the impact of digital technology on
work practices and people competence profiles. Two
criteria guided the choice of a case study research: the
cost per subject and the potential for theory
generation. A multiple-case study approach (Yin,
2003) was chosen to investigate the theoretical
framework presented above using constructs to order
the data and relate to earlier literature. Multiple cases
strengthen the results by replicating the patterns. and
thus providing external validation to the findings.
Each case served to confirm or disconfirm the
conclusions drawn from the others.
The unit of analysis chosen was “a worker in a
manufacturing firm”. This unit was analyzed through
the collection of primary (interviews, direct
observation, and informal discussions), and
secondary data (firms documents and web pages from
the firm web site). Before starting the collection of
primary data (Darke et al., 1998), some preliminary
background information was collected in order to
help the interviewer during the data collection
process. The preliminary information came from the
Internet web site of the firm and some supplementary
information was given by the organizational
interviewee. Together with a representative of each
firm, the names and the positions of all the potential
participants were identified and contacted for an
interview (Darke et al., 1998). Following Yin (2003),
a case-study protocol was designed including the
following sections: overview of the project
(objectives and issues), field procedures, questions,
and guidance for the report.
The interviews were semi-structured interviews
(Kerlinger, 1964; Emory, 1980). In order to
operationalize the theoretical constructs and ground
the findings, whenever possible, key representatives
of a “worker” were interviewed. The interviews were
focused on introducing the main themes and sub-
themes to discuss together with the interviewee. At
the beginning of each interview an introduction on the
reasons and the objects of the interview was
performed (Miles et al., 1994). This explanation
aimed at reducing the researcher effects at the site,
which could bias the data collection (Darke et al.,
1998; Miles et al., 1994). The interview guide was
designed to gather the characteristics of the
interviewee and what is her view. The set of data
produced by each interview was analyzed in parallel
with the prosecution of the other interviews in order
to use the content of the previous interviews as source
of questions to ask in the next interviews (Miles &
Huberman, 1994). To increase homogeneity and
comparability between the firms, a selection was
made according to specific criteria such as B2B or
B2C situation and similarity of firm size. Cases were
chosen for enabling theoretical and literal replications
(Yin, 2003).
3.2 Data Collection
A questionnaire has been implemented as a guideline
to perform the interviews. The questionnaire is
composed of 4 sections, one in respect of each focal
topic found in literature, and 25 questions. Since the
research was highly exploratory, a pilot-case was
followed by a multiple case study involving other
firms selected appropriately according to the
phenomenon object of the study (Yin, 2003; Dubé
Makers in the Plant? Exploring the Impact of Knowledge IT Artifacts on DIY Practices in Manufacturing Firms
283

and Paré, 2003). To build a triangulation and to give
rigor to the study other sources of evidence will be
included: direct observations, historical archive
records, physical artefacts. The quantitative data are
collected directly on a copy of the interview guide by
the interviewer, while the qualitative data produced
by the interview are synthesized in a report,
immediately after each interview. These reports, the
quantitative data collected on the direct observation
and the collected secondary data were archived in a
repository. The questionnaire, as previously
mentioned, is divided into four main sections plus
introduction. One round of interviews has been
carried out in order to interview the 2 representatives
for each firm.
3.3 Data Analysis
All interviews have been tape-recorded and then
transcribed. Durations of the interviews were between
one hour and one hour and a half, producing an audio
material of 150 minutes in total. In addition to the
interviews, secondary data, such as website pages and
documentations, have been collected. The data were
encoded and structured into "projects" using the
software NVivo 10 following a grounded theory
approach (Strauss 1987, Glaser 1992) that aims at
finding properties or links between data. The coding
procedure was done as follows: first, in order to
mitigate potential bias, a master student (first coder)
who had not taken part in the interviews read and
coded the interview transcripts by identifying text
passages that included information about the
constructs emerged from the literature. Following the
coding of the first coder, another master student
(second coder), likewise, coded the transcripts. The
comparison of the two coding resulted above inter-
coder reliability threshold defined by Holsti (1969).
The two coders then examined the mismatched
coding and agreed on a final coding matrix that was
used for the data analysis. The reasons for
mismatches were always very obvious (e.g. one coder
had simply overseen an issue within a statement). On
top of this approach an Assistant Professor (third
coder) acted as referee providing guidance whenever
needed. Eventually, a second Assistant Professor
contributed in guaranteeing the coherence with the
DiDIY context. For the purpose of literal and
theoretical replication, the instances of the theoretical
constructs were determined for each firm whenever
possible. A purposeful sampling strategy was pursued
in order to stay in line with the research objectives
and the multiple case studies design (Quinn Patton,
2002).
3.4 The Context of the Empirical Study
The context of the empirical study was represented by
two manufacturing firms that recently carried out a
digital transformation of their internal core processes.
The digitalization of the physical assets reshaped how
workers interact with the production environment and
impacted on their competences.
Table 1. Overview of the firms involved in the empirical
study.
FIRM 1
FIRM 2
industry
Mechanical
Textile
employees
140
91
turnover (2015)
60-70 Mln. €
14 Mln. €
4 ANALYSIS OF COLLECTED
DATA
This section discusses the main topics emerging from
the interviews with regard to the framework
previously presented. In this light, there is an attempt
to discuss how the work of a workmen is reshaped
according to the influence of DiDIY. Plus, by
understanding what kind of activities can be DiDIY-
related, there is an attempt to analyze how the work
of a workman is changing with the evolution of other
organizational roles in the firms’ object of the study.
4.1 Within-case Analysis
The first firm is operating in the mechanical industry,
that produces professional and industrial coffee
machines, used in a large number of bars, restaurants
and hotels. The firm offers to customers a series of
technologically advanced products that makes it one
of the most appreciated organization in its market.
As a result of data analysis three important digital
innovations introduced, or currently in the process of
being introduced, come out as relevant:
1. Implementation of electronic documents:
These ones are used by company’s sales men
that can access in real-time information,
even from their mobile device, about
machines being in production
2. Automatic warehouse: Thanks to this new
innovation, workers do not need to look for
the items needed anymore. A computer
checks inventory in real-time, a robot picks
up the item from the shelf and put it at the
disposal of workers who only need to take it
and deliver it to the specific area
KITA 2016 - 2nd International Workshop on the design, development and use of Knowledge IT Artifacts in professional communities and
aggregations. Knowledge Artifacts as resources in the maker and DIY communities
284

3. Automatic trial: The company is thinking to
introduce a new system that allows to
automate some operations before were
carried out manually by the worker during
the trial process of the machines
According to the DiDIY framework previously
introduced, the use of electronic documents allows to
sales men (DiDIY-ers) a real-time access to the
information needed. In this way sales men did not
need any more to ask to production manager what
machines are ready or not to answer to customers’
needs but they can do it by themselves using their own
personal devices. Due to that new technology they not
only change how they worked before but they also
acquire a new level of autonomy because they do not
depend any more from production manager but they
can develop activities without any experts’ support.
This one can be considered as a “DiDIY activity”
because three point of the framework are respected.
The second digital innovation is different from the
previous one. Here the firm decided to introduce a
new system to automate warehouse management.
While before workers were in charge of deciding
what items to pick up following a list of scheduled
objects, now it is the system, guided by the ERP
system, that communicates what items are needed and
where (i.e. which inventory position) they are. This
new solution is facilitating and easing all workers’
activities by increasing the speed of the process and
its efficiency; on the contrary, it reduces the
autonomy of the workers because they are now
guided by the systems therefore losing the minimum
decisional power they had before. Also here we have
a new digital innovation that changes the way of
people work but, differently than before, this change
is only a way to automate a process, to improve it, but
it did not cause relevant impacts on workers. For that
reason, it is not possible to consider this innovation as
a “DiDIY activity”.
The last digital innovation is about the trial
process of the machines. While before workers
needed to work on one machine a time only now,
thanks to the new automatic systems, they can work
on more than a single one because the program does
the work automatically. Therefore, even here is
possible to observe that, thanks to the new
technology, workers’ autonomy increases but in a
different way with respect to the first case. Here, the
worker gains freedom from the process and becomes
a little bit less worker and a little more manager, such
as a supervisor of the whole process. The new
solution increases the speed of the process, because it
is now possible to work in parallel on more machines,
but it also changes significantly the way employees
work, increasing their autonomy and their decisional
power. For that reason, also this last innovation
analyzed can be considered as a “DiDIY activity”.
With regard to the framework before introduced,
we can say that both the digital innovations explained
present a set of “DiDIY activities” that described in
the last points of the framework. As emerging from
the interview they consider really import to analyze
and study innovations with their workers. In fact,
most of the time innovations are implemented
responding to specific needs coming from workers,
asking for new and smarter way to develop their
activities. The firm gives a really big importance to
common moment of sharing too, where all employees
can share their opinions. They can happen both within
formal meetings and informal contexts such as during
the coffee break where people can share knowledge
and expertise. What clearly emerges is that for the
firm “Do-It-Together” is not only an idea, but more a
real culture.
The second firm is a commission printer of cotton
fibers with rotary and flat machines. Their mission is
to be a vibrant competitor offering the highest
standards of quality at low cost and be proud in using
the most recent production technologies,
management control systems and material handling
techniques. Conveyer belts and custom robotics
simplify and accelerate color-tank operations, while a
fully automated warehouse allows efficient storage of
clients' fabrics during the various steps of
manufacturing. The key process carried out are
related to the textile printing activities; the print
process can be defined through the following steps:
 Receipt of the printing order by customer
 Preparation of printing dispositions and
dispatch to the worker
 Preparation of the machines and start of textile
printing
 Print’s checks
After printing activities, there will be fixing,
washing and packaging activities. The technological
innovation is supported by a software that manages
the production progress. At the first stage, the
software generates paper dispositions composed by
few basic information, displayed thought monitors to
the workers. Originally the software was merely
based on a simple copy of non editable and sometimes
incomplete information and records. Up today, the
software has been integrated with all the required
information allowing and giving to the workers a
fully access to the information and a faster process of
training. This digital innovation, has been customized
for the firm, with the aim to industrialize the product
Makers in the Plant? Exploring the Impact of Knowledge IT Artifacts on DIY Practices in Manufacturing Firms
285

ensuring more efficient activities. First of all, the new
software enables workers to get complete and updated
information in real-time, and always available on the
printing machines making them accessible to all
stakeholders. In case of lack of data this solution is
not possible anymore, it needs a definition of all
dispositions in order to avoid any communications
between worker and department head. Nowadays, the
changes of printing dispositions can be handled by
workers who interacts with production progress
software, even providing data updating in real-time.
All activities of productions are recorded during the
process, so in case of a sudden interruption of printing
machines, workers of the following shift can have a
complete view of the situation and manage possible
problems, avoiding calls to colleagues or department
heads and the usage of post-it attached to machines as
a way to share anomalies. A big shift driven by the
technology is that projects and printing dispositions
are already saved by production progress software
and, consequentially, set-up time of the machine and
number of errors made during printing of fabrics are
drastically reduced to ensure an equal level of quality.
The production progress software allows an
integrated data management and information is
available from the beginning until the end of
production process. Due to the absence of flexibility
in the processes, the autonomy of workers is not
granted, but a great advantage is the speeding up of
information retrieval. Furthermore, another
advantage is the use of the saved time to improve the
quality of the production process.
With regard to how the digital innovation of the
firm is contextualized within the DiDIY framework,
we can recall DiDIY Activities concept and define it
within the current case: a DiDIY-er, is the printing
department head, who thanks to a software that
manages the production progress, changes the way in
which he coordinates activities. Up today, he gives
orders and checks prints without asking the support
of the person that creates the sequence of production
activities on textiles and, therefore, can reduce the
number of support requests to the printing director
and to customers. The opportunity to have all
necessary information in real time allows to a faster
elaboration of data and a more efficient decision
making process that can communicated to the
machine operators.
With regards to the knowledge sharing we
reported an absence of formal processes that manage
it. It casually occurs with workers in the same shift
only or with department heads. Both for a matter of
security and endogenous reason of the firm process –
quite vertical and not flat – the knowledge shared with
other communities is totally absent (i.e. the workers
cannot access to internet). Not all the four points of
the framework are respected so this activity can be
considered only as a DiDIY activity.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This article has been developed under the DiDIY
project funded from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement No 644344.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C.: Makers: The new industrial revolution. New
York, NY: Random House (2012).
Azevedo, F. S.: Lines of practice: A practice-centered
theory of interest relationships. Cognition and
Instruction, 29, 2, pp. 147–184 (2011).
Bedeian, A. G., Wren, D. A.: Most Influential Management
Books of the 20th Century. Organizational Dynamics,
29, 3, pp. 221–225 (2001).
Benbasat, I., Goldstein, D. K., Mead, M.: The Case
Research Strategy in Studies of Information Systems.
MIS Quarterly, 11, 3, pp. 369-386 (1987).
Bernstein, A., Raman, A.: The Great Decoupling: An
Interview with Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee.
Harvard Business Review. http://bit.ly/2acgQbh
(2015).
Buxmann, P., Hinz O.: Makers. Business & Information
Systems Engineering, 5, 5, pp. 357-360 (2013).
Cabitza, F., & Locoro, A. “Made with Knowledge”:
Disentangling the IT Knowledge Artifact by a
Qualitative Literature review”, KMIS 2014, Rome, Oct.
2014
D’Aveni, R.: 3D printing will change the world. HBR, 91,
3, pp.34 (2013).
D’Aveni, R.: The 3-D Printing Revolution.
https://hbr.org/2015/05/the-3-d-printingrevolution
(2015).
Darke, P., Shanks, G., Broadbent, M.: Successfully
Completing Case Study Research: Combining Rigour,
Relevance and Pragmatism. ISJ, 8, pp. 273-289 (1998).
Davenport, T. H., Kirby, J.: Beyond Automation.
http://bit.ly/2a4l5U3 (2015).
Dewey, J.: The quest for certainty: A study of the relation
of knowledge and action, New York, NY: Minton,
Balch and Company (1929).
Dougherty, D.: The maker mindset. In M. Honey & D.E.
Kanter (Eds.), Design, make, play: Growing the next
generation of STEM innovators, pp. 7-11. New York,
NY: Routledge (2013).
Dubé, L., Paré, G.,: Rigor in Information Systems Positivist
Case Research: Current Practices, Trends, and
Recommendations. MIS Quarterly, 27, 4, pp. 597-636
(2003).
KITA 2016 - 2nd International Workshop on the design, development and use of Knowledge IT Artifacts in professional communities and
aggregations. Knowledge Artifacts as resources in the maker and DIY communities
286

Dweck, C.: Self-theories: Their role in motivation,
personality, and development. Psychology Press
(2000).
Edwards, C.: Home is where the art is’: Women, handicrafts
and home improvements 1750 – 1900. Journal of design
history, 19(1): 11–21 (2006).
Elby, A., Hammer, D.: On the substance of a sophisticated
epistemology. Science Education, 85, 5, pp. 554–567
(2001).
Emory, W. C.: Business Research Methods. Irwin (1980).
Franke N., Von Hippel E., Schreier M.: Finding
Commercially Attractive User Innovations: A Test of
Lead-User Theory. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, vol.3, Issue 4, pages 301–315 (2006).
Gershenfeld, N.: Fab: The coming revolution on your
desktop — from personal computers to personal
fabrication. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books (2005).
Gibson, D., Rosen, W., Stucker, B.: Business opportunities
and future directions. Additive Manufacturing
Technologies: Rapid Prototyping to Direct Digital
Manufacturing, 18, pp. 437–446, Springer (2010).
Glaser B.: Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley,
CA: Sociology Press (1992).
Grover, V., Kohli, R.: Cocreating IT Value: New
Capabilities and Metrics for Multifirm Environments.
MIS Quarterly, 36, 1, pp. 225-232 (2012).
Gutierrez, K., Rogoff, B.: Cultural ways of learning:
Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational
Researcher, 32, 5, pp. 19–25 (2003).
Hatano, G., Inagaki, K.: Two courses of expertise. In
Stevenson, H., Assume, H., Hakuta, K. (Eds.), Child
development and education in Japan, pp. 262–272, New
York, NY: Freeman (1986).
Hofferbert, S., Cahalane M., Finnegan P.: Gamification as
an Architecture of Participation: An Investigation of an
Innovation Maker Community (2015).
Hoftijzer J.: DIY and Co-creation: Representatives of a
Democratizing Tendency. Design Principles &
Practices, An International Journal 3 (6) (2009).
Holsti O.R.:Content analysis for the social sciences and
humanities: Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass (1969).
Honey, M., & Siegel, E.. Proceedings from the Innovation,
Education & Maker Movement Workshop. New York
Hall of Science (2010).
Kerlinger, F.: Foundations of behavioral research:
Educational and psychological inquiry. Holt. Rinehart
and Winston. Inc. John Wiley, New York (1964).
Koten, J.: Revolution in the making. The Wall Street
Journal, June 11, R1 (2013).
Kuznetsov S., Paulos E.: Rise of the Expert Amateur: DIY
Projects, Communities, and Cultures. NordiCHI ’10,
ACM, New York, NY, USA, 295-304 (2010).
Lande, M., & Jordan, S. S., & Nelson, J., Defining Makers
Making: Emergent Practice and Emergent Meanings
Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference,
Atlanta, Georgia. https://peer.asee.org/ 19382 (2013,
June).
Leadbeater C.: We-Think: Mass innovation, not mass
production. Profile Books (2008).
Lipson, H., Kurman, M.: Fabricated: The New World of 3D
Printing. Indianapolis. IN: John Wiley & Sons (2013).
Martin, L.: The promise of the Maker Movement for
education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research (J-PEER), 5, 1, p. 4 (2015).
Maye, L.: Sustainable DIY Technologies Servicing.
Cultural Heritage. UD for Sustainability in Maker
Communities. Workshop co-located with the Fourth
International Symposium on End-User Development.
ITU Copenhagen (2011).
McFedries, P.: The hobbyist renaissance. IEEE Spectrum.
2007, June.
McKinsey, http://tabsoft.co/1J2ji1m (2015).
McKinsey, http://bit.ly/1bWlTem, retrieved on 30.04.2015.
McKinsey, http://bit.ly/224Htlg (2015).
Merchant, N.: 11 Rules for Creating Value in the Social Era.
Cambridge MA, Harvard Business (2012).
Miles, M.B, Huberman, A.M.: Qualitative Data Analysis.
2nd Ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage, pp. 10-12 (1994).
Morris, M. G., Venkatesh, V.: Job characteristics and job
satisfaction: understanding the role of enterprise
resource planning system implementation. MIS
Quarterly, pp. 143-161 (2010).
NN et al., “From smart work to Digital Do-It-Yourself: a
research framework for digital-enabled jobs” accepted
at itAIS workshop of Information Systems, Verona,
Italy (2016).
Oxman N.: Digital Craft: Fabrication Based Design in the
Age of Digital Production, in Workshop Proceedings
for Ubicomp 2007: International Conference on
Ubiquitous Computing. September 2007; Innsbruck,
Austria; pp. 534-538 (2007).
Peppler, K., Bender S.: Maker movement spreads
innovation one project at a time." Phi Delta Kappan
95.3, pp. 22-27 (2013).
Perkins, D., Tishman, S., Ritchhart, R., Donis, K., Andrade,
A.: Intelligence in the wild: A dispositional view of
intellectual traits. Educational Psychology Review, 12,
3, pp. 269–293 (2000).
Petrich, M., Wilkinson, K., Bevan, B.: It looks like fun, but
are they learning? In Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (Eds.),
Design. Make. Play. Growing the next generation of
STEM innovators, pp. 50–70, New York, NY:
Routledge (2013).
Quinn Patton M.: Qualitative Research & Evaluation
Methods. Sage Publications, Thousands Oaks et al
(2002).
Ratto, M., Ree, R.: Materializing information: 3D printing
and social change”, First Monday, 17 (7), July 2012
Ravarini, A., Strada, G., Leandri, M.: From smart work to
Digital Do-It-Yourself:
a research framework for digital-enabled jobs.
Proceedings of itAIS 2016 conference, October 2016,
Verona, Italy.
Rode, J. A., et al.: From computational thinking to
computational making. Proceedings of the ACM
UbiComp 2015.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L.: Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivations: Classic definitions and new directions.
Makers in the Plant? Exploring the Impact of Knowledge IT Artifacts on DIY Practices in Manufacturing Firms
287

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 1, pp. 54–
67 (2000).
Sharp, B., Dawes, J.: Is Differentiation Optional? A
Critique of Porter’s Generic Strategy Typology. In:
Earl, P. (ed) Management, Marketing and the
Competitive Process. Edward Elgar (1996).
Soep, E.: Participatory politics: Next-generation tactics to
remake public spheres. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
(2014).
Spender, J.C., Kraaijenbrink, J.: Why Competitive Strategy
Succeeds - and With Whom. In: Huggins, R., Izushi, H.
Competition, Competitive Advantage, and Clusters:
The Ideas of Michael Porter. Oxford University Press
(2011).
Strauss A.: Qualitative analysis for social scientists.
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press
(1987).
Tanenbaum, J. G., et al.: Democratizing technology:
pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker
practice. Proceedings of the SIGCHI 2013.
Tiwana, A.: Separating Signal from Noise: Evaluating
Emerging Technologies. MIS Quarterly Executive, 13,
1, pp. 45-61 (2014).
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M.,
Deci, E. L.: Motivating learning, performance, and
persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal
contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 2, p. 246 (2004).
Wing, J. M. "Computational thinking and thinking about
computing."Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and
Engineering Sciences 366.1881, pp. 3717-3725
(2008):.
Yetton, P., Craig, J., Davis, J., Hilmer, F.: Are Diamonds a
Country’s Best Friend? A Critique of Porter’s Theory
of National Competition as Applied to Canada, New
Zealand and Australia. Australian Journal of
Management, 17, 1, pp. 89-120 (1992).
Yin, R. K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods”,
Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications (2003).
Zhang, X., Venkatesh, V.: Explaining Employee Job
Performance: The Role of Online and Offline
Workplace Communication Networks. MIS Quarterly,
37, 3, pp.695-722 (2013).
Jordan S., and Lande M., "Might young makers be the
engineers of the future?", Frontiers in Education
Conference (FIE) 2014 IEEE, pp. 1-4, 2014.
KITA 2016 - 2nd International Workshop on the design, development and use of Knowledge IT Artifacts in professional communities and
aggregations. Knowledge Artifacts as resources in the maker and DIY communities
288