FORM PGR9 CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATURE RESEARCH PROPOSAL · PGR9 – Confirmation of Candidature V1.1 Update Aug 16 Page 1 of 26 FORM PGR9 CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATURE RESEARCH PROPOSAL

PGR9 – Confirmation of Candidature V1.1 Update Aug 16 Page 1 of 26

FORM PGR9

CONFIRMATION OF CAND IDATURE RESEARCH PROPOS AL

Student ID No 16898760 Name Jose Antonio Esparza Flores

Faculty Design & Creative Technologies School/Dept COLAB

Commencement Date February 2016 Expected Submission Date

December 2018

Working Title The firm within the product: using additive manufacturing to trace the firm design process

S U P E R V I S O R S Ricardo Sosa ricardo. [email protected] Andrew connor [email protected]


P R O P O S A L S U M M A R Y

The firm within the product: using additive manufacturing to trace the firm design process

Late developments in entrepreneurship research propose alternative theories where firms and markets are

described as networked artifacts. Those artifacts are built around a product with the purpose of

accumulating means and achieving goals. This artificiality of firms implies that rather than a natural

phenomenon, firms can be designed. Yet as Sarasvathy suggests, a theory of firm design needs to go

beyond the descriptions of traditional transactions towards the understanding of their symbolic

implications. With the objective of articulating a theory of firm design, this research uses the overlapping

fields of entrepreneurship, product architecture, and design to suggest that, while not all transactions

within the firm are accounted for in traditional theories, all the existing interactions are present in the

product. The rationale follows that, whilst one of the major benefits of additive manufacturing technologies

is the elimination of transaction costs related to the complexity of design, product architecture iterations

are more flexible. Hence with such product flexibility, a greater flexibility in firm design is available. The

study suggests that the implementation of Additive Manufacturing can rise patterns within the affordances

of the product and firm architectures facilitating the delimitation of the form of the firm and as a

consequence its design process. Therefore, this research aims to answer the following questions:

A. Which is the taxonomy of the firm form?

B. Which parts of the firm form are considered in the traditional management and entrepreneurship

theories?

In order to answer the former research questions, this study will simulate the use of additive manufacturing

in a business creation scenario. Here participants will iterate a profitable business by portraying the related

network and product architectures. The study will collect the architectures and affordances of networks

and products. It will classify the resulting relations according to the Actor-Network theory and the FBS

framework of design. Later it will look for patterns and relationships between products and networks with

the purpose of finding causal relationships between them. Those relationships will be used to propose a

theory of firm design. Such theory will contribute to the creation of tools that help individuals to

understand firms as instruments that form part of a longer and more deliberate entrepreneurial career.


R E S E A R C H P R O P O S A L

Working Title The firm and the product: using additive manufacturing to trace the firm design process

Research Question(s) This research aims to answer the following questions:

A. Which are the effects of additive manufacturing in the relation between product architecture

and firm design?

1. How does AM support flexibility in the product and firm creation process?

2. How does AM impact complexity at the product and firm levels?

3. What affordances are introduced by AM in the firm creation process?

B. What parts of this relationship between product and firm are not considered in current entrepreneurship theories?

In order to answer these research questions, this study will simulate the use of additive manufacturing in an

experimental study of product design and new business creation. Participants will generate ideas for

profitable businesses by manipulating the product and network architectures. The study will analyse the

architectures and affordances of networks and products. It will classify the resulting relations according to the

Actor-Network theory and the FBS framework of design. Then, it will look for patterns and relationships

between products and networks with the purpose of finding causal relationships between them. Those

relationships will be used to propose a theory of firm design. It is anticipated that such theory will contribute

to help explain firms as designed artefacts, and will support the creation of tools for more deliberate

entrepreneurial activities in the future.

Rationale and Significance of the Study

In the current entrepreneurship literature, a spectrum of studies aim to explain the process of new business

emergence. In the media and industry events, prominent entrepreneurs appear regularly sharing successful

stories, while academic research often focuses on breaking down the embedded knowledge in cases that

highlight best practices. Nevertheless within all this hype, it seems that the micromanagement level of start-

up firms avoids the fact that entrepreneurship is linked to economic cycles. More specifically,

entrepreneurship introduces new productive means and practices that increase the production output of the

economy (Kirzner, 2002; Schumpeter, 2002). Therefore, if we are to consider the current entrepreneurial

landscape, we must also consider the situation of the economy today and its relation to entrepreneurship.

The current neoliberal model was born along the second half of the 20th century, it fosters economic growth

through the liberalization of state control. Free markets surged through these model, exploiting and boosting

competitiveness by creating global markets. Here, corporations grew by using automation and the workforce

of labour-intensive countries to produce high-value products. An unaccounted externality of this global flow


decompensates the distribution of wealth and the security mechanisms that we were formerly assured

through governments (K. Hart, 2015). Contrary to the Keynesian model in the beginning of the 20th century,

states are withdrawing from the roles of security providers instead of passing the responsibility of security to

individuals. As economic entities, we are forced to develop flexibility and polyvalent competencies to create

security for ourselves. Consequently, labour relationships have been replaced with temporary contracts,

freelancing and entrepreneurial careers (Lorey & Butler, 2014). Contrary to the former two mentioned

models of labour engagement, entrepreneurship stands out for its effects in the reorganization of practices

(Spinosa, Flores, & Dreyfus, 1995). By doing so, entrepreneurial activity has a deep influence in the creation of

new infrastructure and the economic-space fit that relates to the innovation cycles (Florida, 2011). These

deep changes in infrastructure are part of economic growth, they make space for a growing population and

improve well-being (Piketty & Goldhammer, 2014).

Today, this infrastructure fit of the economy is built around information technology. The dematerialization of

business in prominent start-up models such as Airbnb, Coursera, Whatsapp, and Uber is possible through the

optimization and simulation activities by information technologies (IT) that otherwise used to require the

acquisition of fixed assets or the control of bureaucratic procedures by personnel (Ford, 2016). To our

entrepreneurial population, this is an opportunity to experiment in the virtualization of different industries

and markets. Nevertheless, despite the apparent advantages gained through the use of IT, it is important to

highlight that in the number of successful entrepreneurial ventures remains relatively low. For instance, the

global entrepreneurship Monitor reports that at least 30 to 25% of the surveyed population got involved in a

business venture in 2015, while after that year only 7% of businesses manages to continue its operations

(Kelley, Singer, & Herrington, 2016) . Simultaneously, the distribution of innovative start-ups worldwide

conforms to the same economic flow mentioned above, meaning that innovative projects are concentrated in

developed countries while traditional enterprises concentrate in developing ones (P. K. Wong, Ho, & Autio,

2005). Altogether, results seem to be insufficient to foster even and sufficient growth.

Considering the importance of entrepreneurship in economic growth and the relationship that has with our

current individual precariousness, this project looks for alternatives to the current entrepreneurship paradigm

in firm design. In order to do so, this study focuses on the elimination of complexity cost found in Additive

Manufacturing and the flexibility that this implies for product design. This study argues that theories of

effectuation, product architecture, and design, link the organizational mapping with the structural

arrangement of the product. The former could be used as a base to induce a firm design theory from

empirical evidence present in the product. The confirmation of this hypothesis implies a significant aid for the

creative entrepreneurship theories. Such creative theories have been studied in the last twenty years relating

the process of firm creation to the product (Alvarez & Barney, 2007). Nevertheless, a theory that describes

the firm design space, its formal, behavioural and semantic properties does not exist. This study aims to


develop a rationale that complements these generative theories with a framework of firm design that gives

the firm a different character of instrument and promotes entrepreneurial agency.

Results of this research will create an alternative view of business creation. The new model may become

useful for the creation of methods to articulate business affordances from the moment of conception.

Regarding the use of AM the framework will provide a structure for entrepreneurial processes that articulates

possible market affordances that correspond to different product architectures. The framework will also

become a model for the creation of software and algorithms that articulate the opportunities mentioned

above.

Literature/Past Research Review A critical review of the literature which provides the context in which the research is undertaken. This should include a brief account of how the proposed project relates to existing knowledge and literature within the appropriate field.

The creation of new businesses.

The definition of entrepreneurship is contested between two very different economic phenomena,

independent businesses, and novel change initiatives (Davidsson, 2004). It is very difficult to define the exact

position that entrepreneurship represents between the two extremes. Every case of entrepreneurship is

fundamentally complex, involving both a need for differentiation and change to survive, and an initial

organizational unit for change introduction. Yet, not all novel change is entrepreneurship, as not all

independent business is either. This complexity forces entrepreneurship academia to touch topics in different

disciplines. Therefore proposing a theory of entrepreneurship will never cover all the topics related to the

phenomenon itself citation (Gartner, 1985).

Born from the field of economics, entrepreneurship theory derives from two main propositions found in the

early 20th century. The first one, is the assumption that markets are phenomena that present inefficiencies

produced by external socio-technical forces. The second, the principle of creative destruction, proposes that

through mechanisms of innovation industries destroy pre-existing production schemes favouring the most

efficient new ones (Drucker, 1986; Schumpeter, 2002; Venkataraman, 2002). Based on the former,

entrepreneurship theory proposes that individuals discover opportunities in marketing inefficiencies due to

the possession of prior information or cognitive traits that are valuable for the opportunity. Later on, they

examine the nature of the opportunity, its expected value, and the related opportunity costs. Thereafter

entrepreneurs make the decision to exploit the opportunity through the creation of new firms or the sale of

the opportunity to other business markets. Therefore, entrepreneurship is the process of discovery and

exploitation of market opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). Consequently, the unit of study of

entrepreneurship research has become the opportunity. Opportunities can be described as situations where

goods can be introduced and sold in a greater value than the production cost. They required the discovery of

new means-ends to exploit resources. The treatment of opportunities as phenomena implies that


entrepreneurial processes should be measured according to them. Also that they present knowable

properties that can be assessed in order to evaluate future gains and losses (Sarasvathy, 2008).

Despite the huge acceptance that these theories have received, their validation has proven troublesome.

Resulting methodologies of opportunity discovery have led to a scarce number of successful cases

concentrated in a few clusters worldwide. Tools derived from such cases are clearly not representative of the

entrepreneurship phenomenon since they are difficult to replicate. Moreover, evidence has shown that many

of their implications are simply far from real entrepreneurial behavior. For example, the idea of the objective

opportunity discovery has motivated the creation of methods to reduce risk in future investment.

Methodologies such as the lean startup, business model design, lean stack, and design thinking look for

reductions in risk by either prototyping the value proposition or gaining empathy with the final user of the

product in the early beginning of the process (Mueller & Thoring, 2012; Osterwalder, Pigneur, Bernarda, &

Smith, 2015; Osterwalder, Pigneur, & Clark, 2010; Ries, 2011). Nevertheless, the low success of these tools of

market forecasting suggests that entrepreneurs face different circumstances than the ones presented in

these theories. The former is argued by Sara Sarasvathy who arguments that academia uses case studies to

justify the existence of opportunities just after the phenomena has happened (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005).

Research by Sarasvathy began trying to find out similarities among expert entrepreneurs just to find out that

cognitive differences are not relevant. Rather, she found that experts entrepreneurs learn to behave in

specific manner that substitutes forecasting with control which she called effectuation logic (Sarasvathy,

2001a). Similarly, Baker and Nelson also challenge traditional theories by studying firms that engage in

resource restrictive entrepreneurial processes which according to the former theories should not be able to

perceive and pursue opportunities. In their study, resource scarcity forces entrepreneurs to test their

boundaries through a process of bricolage where their unique combination of resources creates innovative

results (Baker & Nelson, 2005). Likewise, Furr et al. question the model of the rational entrepreneur to

suggest that, understanding of new market problem can be misguided by ego preservation and associative

thinking biases (Furr, Nickerson, & Wuebker, 2016). Flores and Spinoza also suggest a theory were

entrepreneurial behaviour is not guided by opportunistic behaviour but by the need of discovery placing

profit secondary to meaning (Spinosa et al., 1995). Finally, contrary to the traditional views that suggests

strategy formation, evidence shows that entrepreneurs focus more time for practice then strategic thinking

(Johannisson, 2011). After all, the advances in entrepreneurship research have shown that many of our initial

assumptions were wrong.

In the actual context of social change, where objectivistic assumptions of phenomena are difficult to hold, the

previously cited inconsistencies remind findings in the fields of psychology and behavioural economics. Here

the restrictions presented in the cognitive processes bias the decision-making process in a way where

complete rationality of economic utility is not possible (Benartzi & Thaler, 1995; Kahneman, Knetsch, &

Thaler, 1986, 1990, 1991). This means that in order to propose a new theory of entrepreneurship we must

avoid bounding the entrepreneur to the account of opportunities that the traditional theory of


entrepreneurship considers. Sarasvathy summarizes the need to go beyond traditional theories of

entrepreneurship by proposing a rationale that re-focuses on the behaviour of entrepreneurs that are not

completely rational. This logic builds upon an entrepreneur whose career considers the creation of more than

one firm as part of her learning process. It also considers that entrepreneurs can have heterogeneous goals

and will not always behave opportunistically. Under this logic, the firm becomes an artefact used by

entrepreneurs to shape their immediate environment and achieve goals. By artefact Sarasvathy means "an

outcome (however expected and novel) of serious design, motivated and negotiated by particular aspirations

forged in entrepreneur/stakeholder networks that evolve over time" (Sarasvathy, 2000). With this, Sarasvathy

proposes that entrepreneurship is a matter of design, an emergent creation of artificial means that aid in the

transformation of a situation to a desired outcome. Sarasvathy deeply elaborates this argument analysing the

entrepreneurship phenomenon through the reasoning of Herbert Simon's "sciences of the artificial". There

she stresses that through the effectuation logic of control found in expert entrepreneurs, we can induce that

the artefacts used by entrepreneurs do not adapt to the environment but rather negotiate with it to shape a

common reality. Stressing the artificiality of the firm, she points out that natural laws do not dictate designs

(Sarasvathy, 2003). Accordingly, the theories of Baker and Nelson describe how entrepreneurs focus their

efforts in the recombination of their means to create. The final result does not obey the restrictions imposed

but rather bypasses them. Therefore the locality that surrounds the artefact and entrepreneur is of extreme

importance. Here, through negotiations with contingencies the artefact is built (Baker & Nelson, 2005).

Sarasvati portrays this process as a process of near decomposition of complex problems. In this process

entrepreneurs break down complex problems into semi-independent components appreciating the problem

from a personal and unique perspective. Returning to the theory proposed by Spinoza and Flores, this

personal process of ordering, brings not only possibilities for organization, but coordination. The combination

of components resembles the definition of style in the management of the creation process. Consequently, in

this need for understanding the organization and coordination of entrepreneurial artefacts, Sarasvathy

suggests that the processing and categorization of the symbols that constitute this creation process should be

studied in an entrepreneurship theory of firm design (Sarasvathy, 2004).

Theories of design.

Theories of design concern the abduction of representations between the external chaos of our environments

and our bounded rationality (Simon, 1996). Contrary to natural sciences were laws are deducted from

observation of phenomena, design abducts desired outcomes from their interpretation citation. Design is

defined as the human activity of conceiving, planning, and making artificial means that serve in the

accomplishment of individual and collective purposes. Therefore, design is the art and science in charge of

that which not exist, an artificial product. These artificial outcome, represents the formal cause, the synthesis

of the negotiations between all the actors and the environment involved. Just as a vase is the result of the

negotiation between the restrictions imposed by the resources and capabilities at the ceramist’s hand. For

Martin Heidegger, artefacts (or things) resemble the state of our worlds in this synthesis. At the same time


they resemble all the conversations that we take for granted in order to live in a comfortable normality.

Therefore, in the creation of artefacts, humans are involved in the synthesis for an activity and as a

consequence also in the creation of conducts and identities (Calvera, 2007; Heidegger & Stambaugh, 1996).

As the entrepreneurship theory of Spinoza and Flores recalls, this synthesis becomes a central part of

entrepreneuring, "the creation of disclosure worlds". As a result, a theory of firm design should account for

the firm as a usable artefact, the quality of its use, and identities that come with from it.

In the study of semiotics, Umberto Eco traces the origins of culture to design. He points out that through the

designation of use, cultures and identities begin to exist (Eco, 1978). For instance, the designation of primitive

objects for specific use, such as concave shapes for drinking water. The designated object then turns into a

sign, a reference and a model for the creation of future objects that resemble the primitive archetype.

Heidegger argues in “Being and Time” how the use of everyday objects create such references to activities,

other objects and identities (Heidegger & Stambaugh, 1996). The use of a bowl references the hands of the

user, it influences (and references) a family of objects that complement it. Spoons, forks, plates, kitchens,

start developing a semantic field. Finally the use of the field develops the identity of a specialist; the cook.

Ergo, supporting Sarasvathy’s arguments, artefacts have an inherent linguistic function that relates the form

to their symbolic properties. Such symbolic properties extend beyond use through time relating users with

objects, other users, projects, and discourses through form (Krippendorff, 2006). The symbolic categorization

form has long been related to the qualification of space and artefacts (Hall, 1990). Fernando Martin Juez

argues that artefacts gather meaning in particular areas which he calls guideline areas (areas de pauta). Such

areas are limited spaces inside the form that determine the hierarchies of possible uses that can be afforded

through it. Hence, the form is composed by primary guideline areas that show what the artefact is followed

by secondary ones that determine subtypes and secondary uses for it (Martín Juez, 2002). Psychologist

Donald Norman has contributed extensively by studying the relationships that everyday artefacts created at

the cognitive level. For him, artefacts have an important role in the interactive process of knowledge creation.

Similarly to other points of view cited above, artefacts contain knowledge in the world, moreover artefacts

carry affordances for behaviours (positive or negative), which are relationships that the artefact has to allow

or restrict use. He uses the term signifier in a practical definition away from linguistics. Signifiers here, are the

areas in the artefact space that signal desired behaviours. Through the creation of conceptual models, maps,

and structures, designers have the role of facilitating the use available through the artefact itself (D. Norman,

2013; D. A. Norman, 1999, 2011). Therefore, the symbolic processing and the semantic categorization

mentioned in Sarasvathy's work leads us into the determination of the affordances, behaviours, meaning,

guidelines, and signifiers of the firm consequently drawing its designable form. Moreover it would also create

a typology of signifiers of the firm, a language for business design beyond managerial sciences that brings

user centeredness and agency to entrepreneurs.

The firm as the entrepreneurial artefact.


Having mentioned how design relates to the creation of semantic domains of use through form, it is

important to trace the entrepreneurial artefact space that contains its components. Despite several theories

of the firm describe the composition of the firm space (incomplete contracts, future cash flows, transaction

costs), most of them are built upon the same objectivist perspective of economic rationality. This means that

they assume an opportunistic and rational behaviour which contradicts empirical evidence. New theories of

entrepreneurial creation account for the composition of the firm, however Sarasvathy’s proposal is one of the

most developed. Her concept of firm design is the result of the study of expert entrepreneurs that behave

under the logic of effectuation. Here entrepreneurs negotiate with the context through the enactment of

commitments which have the purpose of gathering meetings or acquiring new goals (Sarasvathy, 2001b,

2001a, 2008). According to the effectuation theory, entrepreneurs face uncertainty trying to control variables

in the future rather than forecasting its unpredictability. This permits entrepreneurs leverage contingencies

by partnering and controlling affordable losses. In Sarasvathy's words, an effectuative entrepreneur does not

care how many chances does he have to win a draw, rather they look for ways of influencing the draw

process to favour themselves. In this process it is important for them to account for the available means they

have at hand. Such means, next to their aspirations are translated into available actions and goals. Next, the

entrepreneur builds a product as a result of both and brings it to possible stakeholders. The interaction

between their aspirations and means of both, creates an effectual commitment to continue the venture

process. This commitment is broken down into levels, first the decisions considering the product, where

architecture changes to fit aspirations and means of both partners. Second, the means that each of the

partners compromise in order to make the changes happen. These mutual commitments of means and goals

form a network of stakeholders that resembles a value chain through time as shown in figure 1. This also

means that the market itself could be the result of the same process (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005). The complete

process works as a way to get more means and goals. Based on this, we could suggest that the firm artifact

space is limited by the commitments that a community has around the product.


Figure 1: The effectuation of markets (Sarasvathy & Dew, 2005)

Supporting this theory from the outside of entrepreneurship research is the theory of product architecture. In

an attempt to describe innovation cycles, Henderson and Clark documented how innovations with a more

efficient architecture destroyed the knowledge of established firms (Henderson & Clark, 1990). Furthermore,

Anderson and Tushman expanded the theory by describing the same effect of technological discontinuities of

architectural innovations which create an era of ferment full of technical variation that culminates with the

selection of a dominant design (Anderson & Tushman, 1990). Karl Ulrich explains this effect where the

selection of a specific architectural relationship between the product components affects the organizational

flexibility that the organization will have in the future (Ulrich, 1995). The underlying explanation to the

innovation cycles is in the mirroring effect of the product architecture. As citation explains, due to the

bounded rationality principle, firms need to decompose the complexity of product design in smaller

problems. This means the creation of organizational units that design solutions to particular problems. The

relation between the problems will determine the relationship between the teams and will shape the

interfaces between them. As the complexity of the product increases, and the ferment period passes, the

interfaces generated solidify creating standards inside firms and across value chains. Such interfaces then

shape the way firms behave and become restrictions for the same teams in the creation of new designs and

the appreciation of new insights (Colfer & Baldwin, 2016). Hence, the market change initiatives start with a

proposed product architecture that competes with other architectures and solidifies its networks through

time. As expected, inefficient mirroring is a cause of firm failure (Christensen, 2013). In the case of

entrepreneuring it can happen in early stages where product and organizational architectures solidify before

solving all the latencies related to the product implementation. In order to survive the ferment period firms

must develop flexibility to generate new interactions and product architectures. We can conclude that

similarly to the theory of effectuation, the product architecture theory describes the creation of a firm as a

result of interactions reflected in the product.

Both effectuation and product architecture theories are reflected in the modern sociologies of organization.

The Actor-Network theory states that networks, such as organizations, are heterogeneous and not only

composed by humans. Closely related to the account of artefacts described earlier, the Actor-Network theory

is based on the agency of human and not human actors who build entities by interacting within themselves.

In this theory, organizations perform as a single block and begin to act as a single actor regardless its

heterogeneous composition. This act of transformation or translation form a network to an actor, is called

punctualization. Under this lens, patterns in networks that are widely performed by groups of people and

artefacts are the ones that can be considered an actor by themselves. This theory brings a different

perspective to social constructions and artefacts because through understanding the composition of the

interactions and the behaviours, an organization can be engineered and designed within the agency of a set

of actors and artefacts and not from afar. Again we are talking about organizations as a consequence of the

accumulation of individual interactions between different human and nonhuman actors (Law, 1992).

Commented [AC1]: I’d probably give this a figure number and

title, then refer to it in the text so that the purpose of the diagram is

clear.


Overlapping the three theories we can conclude that the space that compounds a firm artefact might be

made from interactions and that its borders could be directly related to the product architecture.

Consequently, a theory of firm design would look for the affordances that this interactions carry with, and

how those interactions can become a form (guidelines and signifiers) in the negotiation between

entrepreneurs and their environments.

Additive manufacturing and its benefits

According to the previously cited theories firm design can be understood as the conception and negotiation

of an artefact made of specific interactions around the product and focused in achieving a specific goal.

Therefore a successful entrepreneurial needs a flexible way to iterate product and commitments according to

the ongoing negotiations and avoid premature mirroring. Contrary, current practices of business creation

focus in the accumulation of means and capital. In exchange for capital, entrepreneurs usually compromise

future revenue and autonomy in order to comply with the financer’s goals. Therefore instead of focusing in

the design and the negotiation of the entrepreneurial artefact, current practices (even design ones) centre in

strategic design implementation. Surprisingly at the same time, information technologies have developed

digital tools that increase flexibility by absorbing operations that before would need the acquisition of high

specificity assets. One of these technologies that out stands for its flexibility is Additive Manufacturing.

Additive Manufacturing can be defined merely as a systematic addition of layers of thin material according to

a virtual predefined model (Kodama, 1981). Its main feature is the availability of freeform manufacturing. In

freeform fabrication, the only restriction is the volume available for layer deposition. In consequence, the

production of something as simple as a cube and something as complex as a human figure has the same cost

and takes the same time as long as they have the same volume. Compared to regular manufacturing which

requires tooling investment this feature represents a great advantage (Gibson, Rosen, & Stucker, 2010b). This

available complexity has brought design and manufacturing activities together by taking the focus of expertise

away from production towards designers. Through the development of software for scanning, modelling, and

processing, a new approach of manufacturing for design has risen (Petrick & Simpson, 2013). The former has

left to a body of research that describes thoroughly its benefits and mechanics. Consequently trend

forecasters and strategy consultants highly recommend to integrate additive Manufacturing to strategy

expecting a boom in its performance (Deutscher, Schuuring, & Ritter, 2013; Joyce, 2014;

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2014).

Additive manufacturing is a technology that could enable firm design due to its ability to break the

relationships of economies of scale. Thus, in order to understand this benefits it is important to understand

the available architectural complexity. The term, according to product architecture theories, is the measure of

the number of components and the relationships between them (Ulrich, 1995). Lu and Su expand this

definition by making a difference between the inborn activity complexity and the complexity added by the

manufacturing process, together they create an overall product difficulty. The first great benefit of Additive

Manufacturing is the removal of the manufacturing complexity that previously increased cost (Lu & Suh,


2009). Conner describes that this lack of manufacturing complexity also opens a third dimension to the

traditional dichotomy in economies of scale (complexity versus volume). He suggests, that inasmuch as the

manufacturing is linked in real time with a CAD model, production can always be modified permitting

personalized and complex massive manufacturing (Conner et al., 2014).

However as a new technology this implementation depends on the cost-effectiveness of the manufacturing

process. During the last 30 years, the cost of manufacturing has dropped consistently (Deutscher et al., 2013).

Consequently research has broken down its economic implications in order to develop successful business

strategies. Here, it is important to stress that even though this processes can't be compared to mass

production options yet (such as injection mounding), studies have found it viable for the production of small

batches (Allen, 2006; Baumers, 2012). In addition, studies have noted that in terms of cost, the machinery

and personnel accounts for the main adoption costs (Baumers, Dickens, Tuck, & Hague, 2016; Francis E.H.

Tay, Yadav P. Khanal, Kwok Kuen Kwong, & Kim Cheng Tan, 2001; Khajavi, Partanen, & Holmström, 2014).

Nevertheless, Douglas Thomas argues that the best economic benefit of additive manufacturing is in the

substitution of complete value chains. There, the possibility of printing complex preassembled architectures

can save important enterprise resources in terms of time, inventories, and environmental impact (Thomas,

2015). Overall, besides obvious prototyping, these benefits have pushed the emergence of flexible business

models based on the two concepts of mass complexity and mass personalization (Cautela, Pisano, & Pironti,

2014; Gibson, Rosen, & Stucker, 2010a; Rayna & Striukova, 2014). Yet, considering all the former examples of

additive manufacturing studies, there is no evidence of the study of its benefits in relationship to the firm

design process itself.

Proposition

Considering the importance of product architecture flexibility in the firm design process, the manufacturing

for design in additive manufacturing has a different role. When most projects and recommendations try to

use flexibility for prototype building, a wider offering of products, or personalized production, in the firm

design process, the flexibility creates an opportunity to design organizational interfaces. Additive

manufacturing as a method for interface building is described by Ponche et al. who suggest that the freeform

availability in 3D printing should merge production and design from the very beginning. In this proposal, the

designer/manufacturer starts with the functional requirements of the product, followed by the creation of

functional volumes that satisfies this requirements. They add that holes, beams, briefs, bearings, services etc.

are modelled in this step. Finally, all the volumes are merged in a single product by creating a unique

interface that binds all the components regardless the complexity. This merging process is sometimes assisted

by topographic optimization Software that analyses the consequences of the volumes and creates an

interface that satisfies them all (Ponche, Hascoet, Kerbrat, & Mognol, 2012). Hereby, it is evident how

additive manufacturing combines functional surfaces and volumes that according to our reasoning could

represent signifiers and guidelines of the product artefact. Therefore if Additive Manufacturing can iterate

Commented [AEF2]: Insert mass complexity and mass customization for thesis


those guidelines, and as a result, those guidelines can iterate the organizational interactions, Additive

Manufacturing could enable firm design.

Despite the evident convergence between additive manufacturing and the theories of product architecture

and the phenomenon of entrepreneurship, the convergence of the three is sparsely explored in literature as

shown above. Yet, the interfacial role of additive manufacturing has proven to create ventures that can be

described through the existing literature but seem to present a completely different composition in term of

the quality of its relationship with its surroundings. Examples abide in the different networks that have been

created in the implementation of additive manufacturing like the ones found through social media or the

miniaturization of factories which creates better synergies with the surrounding context (de Vere, 2014;

Teelahti, 2014). Therefore, the proposition of this project is to describe this overlapping area in a theoretical

model that accounts for the implied changes and reinterprets the current categories.

Design of the Study

The main proposal of this project is the articulation of a firm design theory using the available flexibility of

Additive Manufacturing to observe its mirrored effects in the product architecture. By this is meant, a theory

that builds upon the empirical misalignments that firm creation has with traditional management &

entrepreneurship theory. At the same time this means considering the creative theories of entrepreneurship

like bricolage, creative organizing, and effectuation. This articulation complements the existing

entrepreneurship literature by explaining the process of conceptualizing and structuring the firm that within

all the reviewed theories accounts for “firm creation”. Hence, this proposal responds to Sarasvathy’s call for

a firm design theory that describes the symbolic processing and the semantic categorization present in the

creation of an artificial firm. As symbolic processing it is understood that the process of use of the artefact

which, as described above, can be segmented in perception and interpretation of the form. Semantic

categorization can be defined as the composition of the firm, the spatial qualification of the form. Therefore,

considering the former definitions and the content presented in the literature review, a theory that explains

how is the firm artefact composed and which are the limits of its form in the context of additive

manufacturing is proposed.

Considering then, that the composition of the firm artefact resembles a network of interactions, and that

neither the product architecture theory nor the effectuation theory describe the quality of those

interactions, the main challenge of this project lies in the description of an artificial space that is not tangible

to the users beyond the mirrored effects of product architecture. Consequently in order to tackle this

challenge it is proposed to analyse pairs of networks-product creation processes. Here a map of the

stakeholders behaviours within the network is proposed for later use in the derivation of the form of the

abstract firm. Later the project intends to compare the corresponding surface of the artefact to the form of

the product to trace the mirroring effects of each commitment.


The abstracted correlations will be used to respond the following research questions:

B. Which are the effects of additive manufacturing in the relation between product architecture

and firm design?

1. How does AM support flexibility in the product and firm creation process?

2. How does AM impact complexity at the product and firm levels?

3. What affordances are introduced by AM in the firm creation process?

C. What parts of this relationship between product and firm are not considered in current

entrepreneurship theories?

Methodological stance

Research that concerns processes of emergence such as entrepreneurship, design, innovation, and social

change present difficulties related to the inborn uncertainty and complexity of the phenomena. Difficulties

mainly come from the heterogeneity in the composition of the related variables (Davidsson, 2004;

Muratovski, 2015). In the case of the cited theories, variability is not only present but desired since as Baker &

Nelson argue, the unique composition of the entrepreneurial environment is the source of innovation in the

bricolage of resources. Consequently, the departure paradigm is a phenomenological one. It is assumed as an

initial stance, that a firm artificiality is a matter of design, and that as such it comes from a process that is

unique to its contingent reality. That contingent reality creates a unique set of relationships between actors

and artefacts. Thus, there is no unique nature of the phenomenon that can be objectively studied. This means

that from a phenomenological perspective, it is recognized that the project will not pursue an objective

reality. This aligns with the nature of design where artificial objects do not represent objective truths but

contingent negotiations.

The main assumption behind this project is that the current account of business taxonomy does not reflect

the completeness of the transactions. Therefore, this project looks for an interaction with the object of study

that can evidence the behaviours that are enacted through it. The iterative interaction between the method

and the study will rise emerging categories of interactions. The induction of these categories will inform the

creation of a theoretical model that can be refined in sequential cycles.

As a result, a mixed method proposal will be structured. Considering the artificiality of the firm, the

emergence and contingency of the studied phenomenon, any method should be focused in the longitudinal

nature of the phenomena as the only consistent feature. Epistemologically, the process will make use of

iterative cycles that involve the researcher and the participants in the concurrent generation of knowledge.

Again, this remains aligned to the nature of design. The method will consider that design knowledge can be


generated by any user since artefacts, regardless their complexity, can be used (or misused) according to its

affordances. No specific background is needed for the participants, as long as they have the same level of

knowledge for tool use. As mentioned above, the project will lean on this interaction for model generation.

Focusing on phenomenological interaction with the process rather than the uncertain and complex

composition of variables will strengthen the validity and reliability of the study regardless the creative

component.

Research Method

According to the phenomenological stance of the project, a quasi-experimental structure has been chosen.

The proposed methodology is an action based framework with a controlled environment that simulates the

firm emergence process in the presence of additive manufacturing. In the case of this study, research will

follow Sarasvathy by defining the firm creation process as the process where entrepreneurs create a

network of commitments around a product to achieve specific goals. It will control the variables that are

related to manufacturing and finance of the proposed firm and let the participants react to these variables

and create a set of firm network arrangements. With the purpose of portraying and analysing the artificial

forms of firm and product two theories that can describe design from a relational perspective will be used;

the Function-Behaviour-Structure (FBS) ontology of design and the actor network theory.

The FBS Ontology proposed by Prof. John Gero, was created as a framework where design could be

compared and studied despite the creative essence of the discipline itself. It is built over the premise that

the foundations of design are the same across designers, situations and manifestations, therefore, it departs

from the principle that artefacts have three main structures, function, behaviours, and structure. Function

concerns the ultimate purpose of the artefact, what it is made for. Behaviour considers the actions that the

users enact through the artefact. Meanwhile structure is the physical manifestation of the artefact. Gero

argues that users build connections between these three structures through experience. Hence, function

establishes a teleological connection with behaviour by making sense of the observable activity of the

artefact and the user’s goals. Similarly, behaviour is linked to structure by heuristics and physical laws. This

three structures live both in and outside of the user’s mind, therefore interaction between our expected set

of FBS and the outside version is present in the manifestations of the product. Gero and his team describe

different activities of perception and interpretation by showing relationships between the two sets of

structures through a framework that has been validated in different research studies (Dorst & Vermaas,

2005; Gero & Kannengiesser, 2014).


Figure 2: The FBS framework (Dorst & Vermaas, 2005)

Second, as mentioned above, the actor-network theory is a sociological approach conceived to articulate

social networks, like power and organization in terms of its network effects. It is mainly focused in the

heterogeneity of networks and the relationship between these diverse components. Its main concern is the

punctualization between the network and the actor, or the process where the network patterns become

widely performed to the point that it resembles an actor itself. Patently here, this translation process can be

connected in the process of design and the production of form. In his account of actor-network theory John

Law describes how interactions between the heterogeneous components present four main qualities;

durability, mobility, representation, and calculability. First, durability concerns the lasting effects of

interactions. Here material performances such as a product and assets have more durability than spoken

commitments. Second, mobility considers ordering through space. Mobility determines the scope and reach

of the network, such as the relationships between writer and reader that the mobility of printed paper

permits. Third, representation is the fidelity that the interactions keep from its original print, how initial

intentions keep consistency. Finally, calculability is the property of interactions that permits actors and

networks measure and predict the behaviour of the interaction. Calculability permits translation and

regularity. The actor-network framework presented by Law (1992), gives us a parameter to classify the

interactions within the firm in a way where it can describe its content and effects beyond managerial

sciences.

Therefore, in order to draw the form of the firm, this study will link both theories mentioned above through

the concept of affordance. As described above, the concept of affordance relates the accessible behaviours

to the user through the manipulation of the form and inside a specific environment. The research will use

the concept of affordance because these relationships derive from the form and manifest in the behaviours

of the user. Gero traces three kinds of affordances in the FBS framework according to the rational

involvement of the user (Kannengiesser & Gero, 2011). Thus, if it is possible to detect the behaviours and the

environment around the firm in the FBS framework, it is also possible to derive the surface of the form.

Therefore, if an arrangement of interactions, with specific durability, mobility, representation and

calculability motivate a set of behaviours in a repeated pattern, induction of a kind of form in the firm

architecture can be achieved. Moreover, their relationships with patterned product architecture, would

show how the firm design process could be perceived, interpreted and enacted.


Structure of the study

Therefore, in order to witness the process of firm emergence, the proposed method will use a simulation of

firm creation. Such simulations will be held in cycles that evolve according to the findings of the previous

iterations. Hence, the method will allow the documentation of a process under controlled circumstances that

otherwise would be long and difficult to follow. The simulation will give a group of five participants a

hypothetical budget of an artificial currency to create a business and improve its profitability. Since the

concept of affordance is enacted by the form and the surrounding environment, participants will be asked to

start a business considering their current live situations. Participants will be asked to state a goal for their

business, define a product, describe the product architecture, the production batch, and extract their

network architecture from the functional diagram. Participants will be recruited in hubs that gather

entrepreneurs and 3D printing enthusiasts such as business accelerators and fablabs. The simulation will be

held in the place hub where participants are recruited. In the case that organizations cannot host the

implementation, the study will take place in AUT WG building levels 10 & 11 as noted in the ethics

application.

Figure 3: Participant stickers

Figure 4: Participant worksheet

In order to simulate the product design process, participants will use a set of stickers and a working sheet to

portrait the needed components, actors, and relationships within the network. The stickers used will describe

the nature of the components and its use. With this information, the study controller will calculate a product

complexity rank and deduce price and cost for the scenario based on additive manufacturing studies (Allen,


2006). The participants will be asked to improve the profitability in five rounds. It is expected that due to the

complexity freedom in additive manufacturing, participants will increase product complexity and innovation.

As a consequence of product architecture this increase of complexity shall also be reflected in more

interactions and stakeholders which will give a greater set of commitments for analysis.

Figure 5: Example of filled instrument

The instrument will be implemented in six cycles with different groups of participants recruited in accelerator

hubs and fablab centers. Each cycle will be adapted to the contextual reality of the projects and the resulting

relationship categories of the previous cycle. Whilst the simulation scheme and the network representations

will not change, possible adaptations may be made in the specificity of the brief and the context of

product/industry. It is expected to finish a cycle in a 3 month period that will be used for adaptation,

implementation and analysis of results. Analysis will consist of two phases according to the theories

presented above. The first phase will look for an initial classification of the actors, artefacts and interactions

according to the actor-network theory. This will create a first scheme based on the four dimensions of

interactions; durability, mobility representation and calculability according to the written evidence in the

entrepreneurs documentation. After classifying the interactions in terms of the Actor-Network theory, they

will be placed in the FBS framework according to the affordance situation of Gero:


Figure: 6 Adapted from Kannengiesser & Gero, 2011

Reflexive affordances: Affordances that require little processing. Mainly relating the user through sensing, they

concern the fit of the artefact and the user. They are directly extracted from the interaction with the structure

and compare with the expected behaviour.

Figure 7: Adapted from Kannengiesser & Gero, 2011

Reactive affordances: Relationships that are selected from a range of possible affordances. They are the result

of an active search process with the artefact. They are extracted from the structure but are dependant from the

function of the artefact.


Figure 8: Adapted from Kannengiesser & Gero, 2011

Reflective affordances: Resulting relationships from the situation of the artefact in different contexts. Therefore

by comparing not only the behaviors but the function insude a situation, the user finds different possibilities of

interaction.

The situation of the previously classified interactions in the affordance framework will permit a deeper

classification according to the expected functions and behaviours. The resulting classification will be

compared to a the existing entrepreneurship literature that describes firm emergence according to the

previously cited theories; causation, effectuation, and bricolage. In addition, the classification will also be

compared to the theories of the firm and organization that become relevant according to the analysed results

of the cycle. This theories of the firm will include the theories of transaction costs, the theories of incomplete

contracts, and the busines model onthology (O. D. Hart, 1988; Osterwalder, 2004; Williamson, 1989; Zott &

Amit, 2010)

Resources for the implementation of the study only consider material for promotion and print of simulation

tools. Therefore, as described below, the budget is minimal. Implementations that require the trasportation

of the researchewr abroad, will be negotiated with the host of the study and other partners. In the case of

implementations based in Mexico, CONACYT has allocated a budget for transportation and implementation as

part of the granted scholarship.

Expected Outcomes

Considering the importance of entrepreneurship today, the final output aims to create a theoretical model

that describes the firm in a broader way. By this it is meant finding relevant relationships beyond the

traditional value chain proposed by Porter (Porter, 1991, 1997) the business model as portrayed by

Osterwalder and Zott (Osterwalder, 2004; Zott & Amit, 2010) and the transaction cost theory (Williamson,

1989). The former theories are centered in an objectivistic approach of firms and markets and as such the

design ability is restricted to strategies and products within a common firm framework and the financial

exchange of a traditional economy. Still, a broader approach could account for mechanisms that are currently


being experimented in domains such as sustainable development, art, and social innovation where

transactions go beyond monetary transactions.

The outcome will articulate better entrepreneurial processes that fit with the context that surrounds the

entrepreneur rather than using a one-fits-all formula. The articulation of a theory of firm design will help in

the development of businesses in countries and contexts that cant be compared to the places where current

start-up hype gathers, like Sillicon Valley. Therefore, in the context of New Zealand, this research will enable

the creation of more innovative business proposals that develop strong local structures for capability building

beyond the software sector. Tools can be developed by accelerators and universities to integrate digital

manufacturing in entrepreneurial porjects. This will allow improvements in product complexity and business

efficiency regardless the gfeografical disadvantages of New Zealand based on additive manufacturing

technologies. In the case of efficiency and factor driven economies such as Mexico, the outcome will create

means for entrepreneurs to better manage their chances in resource restricted environments. Finally, the

resulting model will create a connection between the entrepreneurial process and data driven technologies

thata currently are not considered by default in the entrepreenurial process. This connection will help in the

exploration of alternative uses for the firm artefact structure and experimental economics.

Several example projects include interactions in different levels than traditional monetary transactions. These

examples are not easily quantified by the existing models. First, the experimental model for crowdsourced

collaboration that De Fillipi et al. propose (De Filippi & Hassan, 2015). Here the accumulation of contributions

is quantified in a parallel economy in order to aid collaborating individuals in their acquisition of living means.

A second project by De Filipi and the Okhaos collective creates a mechanism of self-replication for artwork

based on cryptocurrency wallets (De Filippi, Bovill, Roudaut, & Renaud, 2015). Other examples gather time

banks, gamified currencies, pop-up experiments etc. (Ralph Heidenreich & Stefan Heidenreich, 2015). A

model that can show a path for entrepreneurship towards the interaction of alternative economies between

actors and artefacts would increase the range of decisions that entrepreneurs could use for designing firms.

Making a design analogy, such model can describe the firm to the entrepreneur just like visual grammar can

be described for graphic designers (Leborg, 2013; W. Wong, 1993).

References A list of sources referred to in the proposal. Allen, J. (2006). An investigation into the comparative costs of additive manufacture vs. machine from solid for aero

engine parts. DTIC Document. Retrieved from

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA521730

Alvarez, S. A., & Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strategic

Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(1–2), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/sej.4


Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological Discontinuities and Dominant Designs: A Cyclical Model of

Technological Change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(4), 604. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393511

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. E. (2005). Creating Something from Nothing: Resource Construction through Entrepreneurial

Bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329

Baumers, M. (2012). Economic aspects of additive manufacturing: benefits, costs and energy consumption (Thesis). ©

Martin Baumers. Retrieved from https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/10768

Baumers, M., Dickens, P., Tuck, C., & Hague, R. (2016). The cost of additive manufacturing: machine productivity,

economies of scale and technology-push. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 193–201.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.02.015

Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. H. (1995). Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of

Economics, 110(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118511

Calvera, A. (2007). De lo bello de las cosas.: Materiales para una estética del diseño. Editorial Gustavo Gili. Retrieved

from https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/libro?codigo=298757

Cautela, C., Pisano, P., & Pironti, M. (2014). The emergence of new networked business models from technology

innovation: an analysis of 3-D printing design enterprises. International Entrepreneurship and Management

Journal, 10(3), 487–501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11365-014-0301-z

Christensen, C. (2013). The Innovator’s Dilemma: When New Technologies Cause Great Firms to Fail. Harvard Business

Review Press.

Colfer, L. J., & Baldwin, C. Y. (2016). The Mirroring Hypothesis: Theory, Evidence and Exceptions (SSRN Scholarly Paper

No. ID 2770675). Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from

http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2770675

Conner, B. P., Manogharan, G. P., Martof, A. N., Rodomsky, L. M., Rodomsky, C. M., Jordan, D. C., & Limperos, J. W.

(2014). Making sense of 3-D printing: Creating a map of additive manufacturing products and services.

Additive Manufacturing, 1–4, 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2014.08.005

Davidsson, P. (2004). Researching entrepreneurship. Boston: Springer.

Deutscher, S., Schuuring, M., & Ritter, D. (2013). 3D Printing Will Change the Game. Retrieved March 16, 2016, from

https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/information_technology_strategy_innovation_prepare_i

mpact_3d_printing_change_game/

Dorst, K., & Vermaas, P. E. (2005). John Gero’s Function-Behaviour-Structure model of designing: a critical analysis.

Research in Engineering Design, 16(1–2), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-005-0058-z

Drucker, P. F. (1986). Innovation and entrepreneurship: practice and principles. Pan in association with Heinemann.


Eco, U. (1978). La estructura ausente: introd. a la semiótica. Barcelona: Ed. Lumen.

Florida, R. L. (2011). The great reset: how new ways of living and working drive post-crash prosperity (1. ed). New York,

NY: Harper.

Ford, M. (2016). The rise of the robots: technology and the threat of mass unemployment.

Francis E.H. Tay, Yadav P. Khanal, Kwok Kuen Kwong, & Kim Cheng Tan. (2001). Distributed rapid prototyping – a

framework for Internet prototyping and manufacturing. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12(6), 409–415.

https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006106

Furr, N., Nickerson, J. A., & Wuebker, R. (2016). A Theory of Entrepreneuring (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 2747458).

Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2747458

Gartner, W. B. (1985). A Conceptual Framework for Describing the Phenomenon of New Venture Creation. The

Academy of Management Review, 10(4), 696. https://doi.org/10.2307/258039

Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2014). The Function-Behaviour-Structure Ontology of Design. In A. Chakrabarti & L. T.

M. Blessing (Eds.), An Anthology of Theories and Models of Design (pp. 263–283). Springer London.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_13

Gibson, D. I., Rosen, D. D. W., & Stucker, D. B. (2010a). Business Opportunities and Future Directions. In Additive

Manufacturing Technologies (pp. 450–459). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1120-9_18

Gibson, D. I., Rosen, D. D. W., & Stucker, D. B. (2010b). Introduction and Basic Principles. In Additive Manufacturing

Technologies (pp. 20–35). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-1120-9_1

Hall, E. T. (1990). The hidden dimension. New York: Anchor Books.

Hart, K. (2015). Money in the making of world society. In G. Lovink (Ed.), Moneylab reader: an intervention in digital

economy. Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.

Heidegger, M., & Stambaugh, J. (1996). Being and time ; : a translation of Sein und Zeit. Albany, NY : State University of

New York Press, [1996].

Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural Innovation: The Reconfiguration of Existing Product Technologies

and the Failure of Established Firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2393549

Johannisson, B. (2011). Towards a practice theory of entrepreneuring. Small Business Economics, 36(2), 135–150.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-009-9212-8

Joyce, J. (2014). 3D opportunity: Additive manufacturing paths to performance, innovation, and growth. Retrieved

March 16, 2016, from http://dupress.com/articles/dr14-3d-opportunity/


Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986). Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market.

The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728–741.

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase

Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348. https://doi.org/10.1086/261737

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo

Bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206.

Kannengiesser, U., & Gero, J. S. (2011). A Process Framework of Affordances in Design. Design Issues, 28(1), 50–62.

https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00123

Kelley, D., Singer, S., & Herrington, M. (2016). 2015/16 GLOBAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP REPORT. Global Entrepreneurship

Monitor. Retrieved from http://www.gemconsortium.org/report

Khajavi, S. H., Partanen, J., & Holmström, J. (2014). Additive manufacturing in the spare parts supply chain. Computers

in Industry, 65(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2013.07.008

Kirzner, I. M. (2002). Entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurial function. In Entrepreneurship: Critical Perspectives on

Business and Management (Vol. 1, p. 59). Routledge.

Kodama, H. (1981). Automatic method for fabricating a three‐dimensional plastic model with photo‐hardening

polymer. Review of Scientific Instruments, 52(11), 1770–1773. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1136492

Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: a new foundation for design. Boca Raton: CRC/Taylor & Francis.

Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5(4),

379–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01059830

Lorey, I., & Butler, J. (2014). State of insecurity: government of the precarious. Place of publication not identified: Verso.

Retrieved from https://www.overdrive.com/search?q=30ECE1E5-482D-4D63-AFD4-5FA89D211CD1

Lu, S. C.-Y., & Suh, N.-P. (2009). Complexity in design of technical systems. CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology,

58(1), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2009.03.067

Martín Juez, F. (2002). Contribuciones para una antropología del diseño (1. ed). Barcelona: Gedisa Editorial.

Mueller, R. M., & Thoring, K. (2012). DESIGN THINKING VS. LEAN STARTUP: A COMPARISON OF TWO USER-DRIVEN

INNOVATION STRATEGIES. In Leading innovation through design (p. 990). Boston, Mass. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234066097_DESIGN_THINKING_VS_LEAN_STARTUP_A_COMPARIS

ON_OF_TWO_USER-DRIVEN_INNOVATION_STRATEGIES

Muratovski, G. (2015). Research for designers: a guide to methods and practice (1st edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Norman, D. (2013). Design of Everyday Things : Revised and Expanded Edition (Revised). Boulder: Basic Books.


Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, Conventions, and Design. Interactions, 6(3), 38–43.

https://doi.org/10.1145/301153.301168

Norman, D. A. (2011). Living with complexity. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., Bernarda, G., & Smith, A. (2015). Value Proposition Design: How to Create Products and

Services Customers Want. John Wiley & Sons.

Osterwalder, A., Pigneur, Y., & Clark, T. (2010). Business model generation : a handbook for visionaries, game changers,

and challengers. Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, [2010].

Petrick, I., & Simpson, T. W. (2013). 3D Printing Disrupts Manufacturing. Research Technology Management, 56(6), 12.

Piketty, T., & Goldhammer, A. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge Massachusetts: The Belknap Press

of Harvard University Press.

Ponche, R., Hascoet, J. Y., Kerbrat, O., & Mognol, P. (2012). A new global approach to design for additive

manufacturing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 7(2), 93–105.

https://doi.org/10.1080/17452759.2012.679499

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2014). Technology forecast (Technology Report No. 2). PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.

Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2014). Digital Enterprise Design & Management. (P. Benghozi, D. Krob, A. Lonjon, & H.

Panetto, Eds.) (Vol. 261). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-04313-5_11

Ries, E. (2011). The Lean Startup: How Today’s Entrepreneurs Use Continuous Innovation to Create Radically Successful

Businesses. Crown Publishing Group.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2000). Discussion: Seminar on research perspectives in entrepreneurship (1997). Journal of Business

Venturing, 15(1), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00046-4

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001a). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to

Entrepreneurial Contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.

https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4378020

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001b). Effectual Reasoning in Entrepreneurial Decision Making: Existence and Bounds. In Academy

of Management Proceedings & Membership Directory (p. D1). Retrieved from

http://ezproxy.aut.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=613306

5&site=eds-live&scope=site

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2003). Entrepreneurship as a science of the artificial. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24(2), 203–220.

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2004). Making It Happen: Beyond Theories of the Firm to Theories of Firm Design. Entrepreneurship

Theory and Practice, 28(6), 519–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2004.00062.x


Sarasvathy, S. D. (2008). Effectuation: elements of entrepreneurial expertise. Cheltenham, Glos, UK ; Northampton, MA:

Edward Elgar.

Sarasvathy, S. D., & Dew, N. (2005). New market creation through transformation. Journal of Evolutionary Economics,

15(5), 533–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-005-0264-x

Schumpeter, J. A. (2002). The Process of Creative Destruction’,in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. In The

foundations of entrepreneurship (Vol. 1). Edward Elgar Pub.

Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The Promise of Entrepreneurship as a Field of Research. Academy of

Management Review, 25(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2000.2791611

Simon, H. A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. MIT Press.

Spinosa, C., Flores, F., & Dreyfus, H. (1995). Disclosing new worlds: Entrepreneurship, democratic action, and the

cultivation of solidarity. Inquiry, 38(1–2), 3–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201749508602373

Thomas, D. (2015). Costs, benefits, and adoption of additive manufacturing: a supply chain perspective. The

International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-015-7973-6

Ulrich, K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24(3), 419–440.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3

Venkataraman, S. (2002). The Distinctive Domain of Entrepreneurship Research. In The foundations of

entrepreneurship (Vol. 1). Edward Elgar Pub.

Wong, P. K., Ho, Y. P., & Autio, E. (2005). Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Economic Growth: Evidence from GEM

data. Small Business Economics, 24(3), 335–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-005-2000-1

D E C L A R A T I O N B Y A P P L I C A N T

I declare that the information provided by me in this application is true and complete. I have read and understand the conditions of candidature outlined in the current Postgraduate Handbook and am prepared to accept them in full. This proposal has been discussed between my supervisors and myself and I therefore submit it for confirmation of my candidature.

Applicant’s signature: Date: 22 JUN 2017

Documents

FORM PGR9 CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATURE RESEARCH PROPOSAL · PGR9 – Confirmation of Candidature V1.1 Update Aug 16 Page 1 of 26 FORM PGR9 CONFIRMATION OF CANDIDATURE RESEARCH PROPOSAL