Jobs at Materialise 3D in the Ukraine; thoughts on social change
Paul D. Fernhout
(Materialise) and some rambles about social implications of advanced
technology.
===
I probably would not call Materialise "open" as far as their actual products
and software (although one might think of their services as open-neutral):
http://www.materialise.kiev.ua/history-of-materialise-group.aspx
"Begun as a joint venture with the University of Leuven-Belgium, Materialise
was one of the first European rapid prototyping service bureaus. It has
since grown into a European supplier of plastic prototype solutions, and
today is a worldwide leader in the rapid prototyping industry. Materialise
offers a broad range of rapid prototyping, tooling and digital CAD software.
In addition, Materialise prototypes and software have established a
reputation in medicine and dentistry, with clinicians the world over using
them in the most complex surgical cases. Its design products division
concentrates on the development of rapid manufacturing. The company is
privately owned with several subsidiaries in Europe, Asia and the USA, and
employs over 400 people in its 4 divisions. ... Having revolutionized
product development, Materialise is now giving the design world a thrill by
offering esthetic innovative solutions for this age of information and
global digital access. ..."
Still, even if their solutions are presumably proprietary in themselves,
they are making tools that might be central to otherwise open manufacturing
(3D printing related stuff to print out your own open designs, same as if
one used an old but proprietary Bridgeport mill adapted for CNC to make stuff).
But in any case, there seem to be jobs at that 3D printing company based in
Europe (all with R&D in the Ukraine right now, though they say they have a
wordwide presence). Probably about half of the 25 ones listed there oriented
to software development, mostly Windows-oriented it seems, maybe they could
make some cross-platform tools? :-)
http://www.materialise.kiev.ua/open-jobs.aspx
They started to follow my twitter feed, so I looked them up and followed
them back. :-)
I sent them an @message just now about a book with ways to keep employees
intrinsically motivated:
"Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's,
Praise, and Other Bribes" by Alfie Kohn
http://www.alfiekohn.org/books/pbr.htm
I thought to send that when I read:
http://www.materialise.kiev.ua/benefits.aspx
"There is a variety of contemporary methods that are being used to motivate
the staff, for example a system of bonuses which are paid out quarterly or
upon the project�s successful completion"
I'm starting to really understand how brilliant SAS was (the statistics
software company) for creating a company with intrinsic motivation decades ago:
http://kateegrey.com/2010/03/01/case-study-sas-institute/
"SAS has no grand policies about how to treat employees, just four basis
principles, one of which emphasizes intrinsic motivation. The company aims
to �deemphasize financial incentives as source of motivation.� It�s really
the anti-Nordstrom: even its salespeople are not commissioned. According to
SAS leadership, sales commissions do not encourage an orientation toward
taking care of the customer or building long-term relationships. Its HR
leader commented �People are constantly finding holes in incentive plans.�
Yes, no kidding. Just look at Nordstrom! Does this kind of compensation
system make it difficult to attract and retain talent? No � it eliminates
the �sharks� and encourages people who really want to serve the company and
its customers. A commission-oriented, extrinsic motivation structure means
employees will move as soon as that motivation looks better somewhere else.
... There�s no question that SAS will continue to thrive with these
practices. In fact, they are thriving. In 2010, 12 years after the case
study was published, SAS was named the No.-1 company on the Fortune 100 Best
Companies to Work For 2010 list � after appearing on the list every year
since its inception."
Which is exactly the point Alfie Kohn makes in that book (which I finally
got a copy of a week or so ago), linking those sorts of recommendations to
various studies. Sad to think I could have applied at SAS when I live nearby
in North Carolina for a time. People I knew suggested SAS highly (one woman
was so excited about the on-site day care, for example, another just praised
them so highly), but I did not follow it up. It probably would have been a
much better experience than the one I did have at a different small company
in NC, and maybe I would have stayed in NC to this day, and maybe it might
have been a lot of fun. :-) But I was dumber back then in some ways. :-)
Still, SAS still seems to have a proprietary artificial scarcity model at
its core. How they would need to change in the future, I don't know. They
could think about adopting a three years and the code is under the GPL
transition approach? :-) But even having Wikis and stuff for open
discussions around a proprietary core is a great step forward, and, when you
think about it, such a change from how things were two decades ago, given at
least users are sharing information with each other:
http://www.sascommunity.org/wiki/SAS_and_Open_Source_Software
Like my comments on Google's conflictedness about whether it was a
scarcity-based or post-scarcity institution:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Project-Virgle.html
I'd suppose any 3D printing related company like Materialise would also have
some of the same issues as Google does -- developing a technology of
abundance in the midst of an economy built around scarcity assumptions. And
it's not obvious how to deal with them.
And it is the same problem any of us on the list may face as we may do
commercial activities. :-) A related website by me: :-)
http://www.artificialscarcity.com/
"""
It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate, and in that
sense, is defective by design if what you want is universal abundance. If
there is universal abundance under capitalism, it needs to be privatized and
locked away or capitalism will cease to function. If there is too much
abundance even with privatization, to make capitalism work we need to have
continual warfare, endless schooling, vast prisons, unlimited bureaucracy,
and above all endless competition to burn up all that abundance which
threatens an economic religion built around scarcity, even to the point
where some people might rather blow up most of the planet to artificially
create global physical scarcity and start the obsolete system all over.
Still, where does it get us all to know that? What good does it do the
fly caught in amber to know the chemical properties of the stuff? ...
"""
Some thoughts on getting unstuck over the long term:
"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics"
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery
At least, I hope the people working for Materialise get enough vitamin D,
working a lot on fascinating fun stuff indoors. :-)
"A Vitamin D Test Is More Important Than A Cholesterol Test"
http://blog.peertrainer.com/tip_of_the_day/2010/03/a-vitamin-d-test-is-more-important-than-a-cholesterol-test-dr-furhman-explains-why-even-people-who-g.html
Free healthy cooking classes might be good for employees, too: :-)
http://www.drfuhrman.com/
Anyway, a 3D printing company like Materialise (or someone else) will
probably be the next Google or Apple before this is all over. :-)
Although I'm still also rooting for ShopBot Tools in North Carolina
http://www.shopbottools.com/
to be that, given that Ted Hall posts here and he talks about how 3D
printing seems just about equivalent to the Apple I today, whether additive
or subtractive. :-) Yet, here is another example of ironic metaphysical
confusion -- indirect competition among all these companies ultimately all
about creating inexpensive abundance for all. Open manufacturing as an
ideology at least cuts through that irony.
Are we all flies trapped in sticky tree sap, commenting on how sticky the
stuff is, and how it is rapidly getting harder towards becoming amber?
By the way: :-)
"How To Remove Tree Sap"
http://www.gardeningknowhow.com/trees-shrubs/how-to-remove-tree-sap.htm
"Many commonly used household products can be used as pine tree sap remover.
For instance, one of the most common household items for removing sap is
rubbing alcohol. Alcohol acts as a solvent, breaking up sap and dissolving it."
Of course, that probably should not be taken as a suggestion by me that what
the world needs is for Ted Hall and the people at Materialise and MakerBot
and so on all get extremely drunk together. :-) Or should it? :-)
No, probably not: :-(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholism
Even if addiction is probably mostly environmental: :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park
=== A digression about the Chinese Automotive Sector
But if they do all do get drunk together by chance, here are some new
Chinese cars being designed to drive them home safely: :-)
"This video on the future of China�s car industry will blow your mind"
http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/07/29/this-video-on-the-future-of-chinas-car-industry-will-blow-your-mind/
"""
There are so many things revealed in this video�
* The fact that car production, once dominated by the U.S. and Japan,
is now dominated by China both in terms of production and consumption
* The massive number and size of China�s cities
* The incredible change that is coming in the way China thinks about
and makes cars ...
A text version of the same:
http://www.gizmag.com/up-close-and-personal-with-saics-yez-concept-car/15808/
["The biggest aspect of the Yez which has not been made public just yet are
plans to include it in the networked vehicle concept, just as the EN-V is
envisioned � this means it will have sensors and GPS functionality and will
be capable of running in autonomous mode, of platooning with other cars, of
driving you home if you�ve had too much to drink, or driving your children
to school, or your elderly grandmother to the shops, or going and picking up
the babysitter so you can have a night on the town."]
"""
BTW, if you look at the graph on that page you'll see that the premier
manufacturers of the USA, the car industry, has been dropping off the world
radar screen over the last ten years in relative terms. While people do talk
in the press about US automaker economic problems, this graph makes it
pretty clear that there is some huge fundamental shift that has taken place,
and it seems beyond even what newspapers have talked about. In round
numbers, the US automaker share of world production has gone over the past
decade from about 25% of global production to 10% of global production,
whereas China has moved from about 3% of world automotive production to
about 25% in just ten years:
http://www.gizmag.com/up-close-and-personal-with-saics-yez-concept-car/15808/picture/118192/
I have not heard anything like that before, as far as making that big
picture point. The implications for the US economy and technical leadership
are indeed staggering.
And that is just part of "mind blowing" aspect of that presentation.
Apparently, not only are US car companies way behind on market share, and
also environmentally responsible electric cars, but they are also behind on
self-driving cars, too. Of course, it helps car companies in China that the
Chinese government is pouring billions into such research, but a bigger
aspect may just be attitude? China may have an optimism about the future
that seems conspicuously absent from a USA bogged down in ideologically
justifying wars and a huge rich/poor divide and massive unemployment, when
everything seemed to be going so well a few decades ago? So, the US grapples
emotionally with a relative (and in some cases, absolute) decline, while
China roars ahead to things always getting better. (I'm not trying to
idealize China here -- they have a lot of pollution, and a lot of mistreated
workers -- I'm just trying to get at an intelligent generalization about the
cultural zeitgeist of each country.) I'm not sure what I'd say the Zeitgeist
of Europe is on that spectrum? In between? Or just very different?
So, we are seeing huge changes globally as advanced manufacturing technology
proliferates. Maybe in the near future (ten years?), people around the globe
will 3D print small common stuff like dishes and basic toys at home from a
few standard materials in Makerbots, and then send our Chinese smartcars off
to fetch other stuff printed at a nearby facility (with equipment by
Materialise and ShopBot and others that makes bigger things or makes stuff
through more specialized processes)? And when we are done at the moment
with something (or it breaks), we can use our Android smartphones to summon
our smartcars to take that item to some Freecycle-like exchange area, or to
a recycling center for shredding, or to a repair place, or to some other
public logistics network, and from there to go as a gift (or as an exchange)
to anyone else who wants it? Related, by a friend from my time in NC:
"Public Logistics Networks"
http://www.ise.ncsu.edu/kay/pln/index.htm
Ah -- so another possibly patentable idea I'll disclose into the wild to
help keep it open. :-) Assuming it has not been patented or disclosed by
others, as it might well have been (the Public Logistics Networks described
above relates to this, too). These smart cars that pick up your oversized or
unusual 3D printing for you should have some sort of box built into them for
transporting these items, or they should have some sort of way of holding
such a box, or maybe holding more than one. So, rather than putting boxes
and bags into the passenger compartment of the car, which might take a
person or at least a smart robot if the car was sent without a driver, and
might lead to boxes and bags bouncing around, automated material handling
equipment can stick standardized boxes of different standard sizes and
configurations onto the car or into a special area of the car in a standard
way. Hmm, maybe sort of like a standardized "trunk" with standard connectors
to hold special boxes. :-) (I mentioned something related in Post-Scarcity
Princeton, too.) Ideally, these boxes or the support structure should also
be able to keep hot foods hot and cold foods cold (or frozen) so your car
can pick up your groceries for you, or nutritious fresh prepared foods, too.
So with that approach, integrating smartcars and materials handling at home
and at the store and at the 3D printing shop, we'll also see the elimination
of millions of related jobs in supermarkets and big box stores and delivery
in this economy in the next decade or two... Again, this is a reason to
coordinate technical and economic changes, as suggested by Marshall Brain
and many others (and consolidated at that knol above). But unfortunately,
our political infrastructure is lagging on coming to grips with this (though
that is not uniquely a US problem -- China and countries in Europe are
facing it too (but may be better able to deal with it, either because of
Europe's traditional social safety net or China's embrace of change).
=== Resuming our main thesis
So, I guess manufacturing and distribution is going to change radically one
way or another, alcohol or not. :-) So, the real issue is, as Alan Kay
implied in his famous quote on the future,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alan_Kay
what sort of future do we want to invent for ourselves and the planet? Which
requires a bit of bigger picture thinking, and then applying that bigger
picture to deciding what to invent, as in: "Think Globally, Act Locally,
Plan Modestly".
And it would seem that groups like Materialise (and also Makerbot and
ShopBot tools) are on the frontiers of that change (as are many on this list
in their own ways, of course).
Here is what I'll put forward as an idea about social change in the business
world as a result of open manufacturing and increasing technological
development. The notion that a bunch of humans should get together in a
place to do something as a community (like write software or design better
cars and 3D printers, right now most often at a place called a "company" or
a "university") is not going to be obsolete any time soon, because that
relates to how humans are and the value of face-to-face community and shared
tools and mentoring and having fun together. Personally, I'd like to be part
of such a face-to-face community, even as I want it to be in a more rural
area with some nature around. :-) But the economic ideology that now
underpin getting a bunch of people together as a scarcity-based company or
in a competitive university setting, that economic ideology is going to
change, especially with the very success of all these 3D printers and other
technologies-of-abundance projects. And as a consequence, the relationships
inside these face-to-face technical communities will change some (like
issues of who is the boss and why, or if there even is a "boss", like with
Debian or Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear story). But an even bigger change
may be about how all these local communities relate to each other (like
whether Materialise and ShopBot Tools would share ideas somehow in an
intense way without the clutter of creating complex legal arrangements first
requiring secrecy and profit-sharing etc.). These face-to-face groups will
also change their relationships to individuals on the internet too, for
similar reasons. So, it may well be that people interested in open
manufacturing who go to work at these otherwise proprietary groups, as
frustrating as that may be in some ways, may find, in time, maybe five or
ten years down the road, that more and more of what they develop essentially
becomes part of open systems as we see a broad cultural change across the
manufacturing sector, forcing these organizations to adapt, in the same way
this has happened with a lot of software, where "free" and "open" has
proliferated as an idea.
Of course, maybe that is more wishful thinking than an accurate prediction?
We'll see. :-) Or, more likely, like Roy Amara's law, or Ray Kurzweil's
similar Law of Accelerating returns,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Amara
"We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and
underestimate the effect in the long run."
So, my prediction may be right, but it make take twenty or thirty years to
play out fully instead of five to ten. :-)
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
http://twitter.com/pdfernhout
====
The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of
abundance in the hands of those thinking in terms of scarcity.