SPEC Kit 348: Rapid Fabrication /Makerspace Services · 15
Formal Guidance is Limited
The libraries that responded to this survey have con-
structed guides and tutorials for clients and have iden-
tified online books, articles, video tutorials, software,
and collections of models that are useful to a broader
audience. Nevertheless, existing resources in this area
remain sparse. Survey respondents and our own liter-
ature reviews revealed that relatively little information
is available online or in print that can be used to guide
patrons in determining whether rapid fabrication will
be useful to them, to help them discover and alter ex-
isting models, or to teach them to scan or design new
ones, or to support the fabrication of an object from
these models. Nor are there established best practices
or off-the-shelf solutions for libraries in this area.
We were able to identify some useful online re-
sources, which are listed in the bibliography. However,
we would recommend that libraries engaging in this
area also participate in maker events—such as confer-
ences and “faires”—to learn directly about emerging
uses, trends, and to gain hands-on experience.
Respondents, while reporting generally positive
experiences with these services, cautioned that manu-
facturer service and support is often uneven and that
even recent mass-market products require tinkering
and maintenance. Running a makerspace requires a
willingness to do-it-yourself.
The Audience is Broad
It is, perhaps, unsurprising that we’ve encountered
a wide variety of applications in our interviews with
students, staff, and faculty at MIT over the past year.
Some use rapid fabrication technologies in medical
engineering, while others employ the technologies
for such diverse projects as prototyping robotics, sup-
porting collaborative design of a satellite, visualiz-
ing information, and even developing new fashions.
Meanwhile, other MIT researchers have developed
new methods for printing everything from houses,
to solar cells, to artificial bones and skin. The ARL
survey results, however, make clear that the broad ap-
peal of these technologies extends beyond technology-
focused universities, such as MIT. As one respondent
put it, “During our pilot phase, we gauged interest
from anyone we could talk to, and it became clear that
the applications for this technology are so broad that
any department could use it.”
Outlook
While no trend data is yet available regarding ARL
member libraries’ engagement with 3-D printing and
similar technologies, it is evident from the survey data
that considerable effort is going toward mapping and
forecasting community needs and developing appro-
priate library services and resources. Unsurprisingly,
resource allocation is a primary concern, given that
most respondents report funding makerspaces and
attendant costs from existing operating budgets. The
rapid advancement of technologies, as well as the in-
crease in readily accessible consumer-level printing
services, complicate libraries’ ability to invest in and
maintain equipment that will serve their communi-
ties into the mid-term—on the flip side, however, the
novelty of the technology and the rapid expansion of
possible applications are characteristics that generate
enthusiasm and make the makerspace an opportunity
for vibrant community outreach and collaboration.
The center of balance between these potential risks
and rewards will vary depending on institutional
context—in some cases, individual schools, depart-
ments, or labs may provide access to rapid fabrication
equipment, and so, in addition to consulting peer
institutions regarding the latter’s makerspace experi-
ences, it is critical to map existing institutional servic-
es (including who can access them) and identify gaps
which may be productively addressed by the libraries,
whether independently or collaboratively. In order to
develop a sustainable model, the rapidity with which
technology is changing should be factored into ser-
vice models realistically, as should the costs of equip-
ment maintenance, staff time related to makerspace
supervision, and staff time related to instruction and
outreach. Models should also include regular assess-
ments in order to identify areas for improvement and
expansion and to ensure responsiveness to user needs
in a shifting environment. Finally, the purpose of the
makerspace service should be clearly articulated and
closely tied to the library’s and institution’s respective
missions to ensure continued relevance.
Previous Page Next Page