14 · Survey Results: Executive Summary
them. For example, within roughly the last eighteen
months, there have been a raft of 3-D printers and
scanners introduced into the market at all price points
from hobby-level, through consumer, business, and
manufacturing grade. Although consumer-level 3-D
printers require relatively little capital investment,
more advanced rapid fabrication technology can be ex-
pensive, requiring extensive setup and maintenance,
as well as dedicated space. Some hardware even re-
quires specialized plumbing, HVAC, or access control.
This technology shift has some advantages. Prices
are dropping, and technologies in development have
the potential to dramatically improve the capabilities
of consumer- and professional-grade equipment—in
the speed of printing, ease of use, cost of maintenance,
and range of materials. Some of the benefits of these
advances may be huge. For example, the ability to use
multi-material printing technologies could allow the
integration of working electrical circuits in printed
objects, which greatly expands the potential types of
objects that can be designed, as well as the potential
range of applications.
The expertise and skills needed to support maker-
spaces and services is also complex. Library patrons
will need support to determine whether rapid fabrica-
tion will be of use to them, discover existing models
and design solutions (using specialized databases and
collections), alter models or scan or design new ones
(using specialized software), select service bureaus,
and use locally hosted fabrication tools. They will
also need support in managing the data (models) they
produce, and in sharing or archiving them. Expertise
is also needed to set up and maintain the makerspace
tools and infrastructure.
Some of this support involves discovery, data man-
agement, and reference interview expertise that is
within the traditional training of librarians. However,
making also draws on skills and expertise from mul-
tiple disciplines, including design, engineering, elec-
tronics, and architecture. Moreover, some experience
with tool use is highly device-specific and requires
tactile feedback as such, it can be gained only by us-
ing the appropriate physical tools. Further complicat-
ing matters is the fact that there is little formal guid-
ance available for libraries that wish to engage in the
development of a makerspace or services, and there
are few established sets of best practices, training,
or reference publications that may be used to guide
selection and development of these practices.
Finally, the rapid change in technology also im-
pacts both the cost and attractiveness of makerspace
service offerings. In the last eighteen months, ma-
jor retailers, such as Staples, UPS, and Office Depot,
have entered into the market both as retailers and
as print-on-demand service providers, while former
niche leader Makerbot has experienced a substantial
contraction. This is likely to have the effect of creat-
ing new opportunities for reference and design sup-
port, while reducing the attractiveness of services that
offer only low-end, consumer-grade printing—that
is, those that are already increasingly available to
the public.
In sum, while libraries can field small pilot ser-
vices or experiments in 3-D printing with relatively
few resources, support for advanced making can re-
quire substantial investment—and investments in
hardware involves heightened risk because of the
rapid changes in technology. Because of this techno-
logical instability, libraries creating makerspaces and
services should thoughtfully consider how invest-
ments can be made in staff, focusing more, perhaps,
on developing expertise and service rather than on
providing extensive hardware and facilities.
Discussion
Library Interest is Steady and Substantial
This is the first comprehensive survey of ARL mem-
ber libraries in this area, so trends are challenging
to gauge. Only two other recent surveys have been
conducted,3 and these have substantial limitations in
design and coverage. A convenience sample survey of
libraries in all classes was conducted in 2013, which
found that 41% of libraries sampled had some form of
fabrication or maker service while another 36% were
planning such services.4 The results from this SPEC
survey indicate that 27% of the responding libraries (17
of 64) are engaged with services in this area and 37%
are in the investigation and planning stages. While
this is insufficient to establish a statistical trend, it
suggests that interest in rapid fabrication/makerspace
services is steady and substantial.
Previous Page Next Page