320k people own 3d printers in 2015 - [1]
Basic question is why are people not getting involved when expected payback per year is $300-2000? [2]. An answer to this lies in first testing the prints suggested and seeing the outcome. One side is developing the production engineering so it is highly reliable - at this point, it appears that

Incentive Design

Enforced collaboration by requiring use of accepted modules pending clear interface design
Requirements are specified for performance, admissible parts and interface design
The trick lies in explicit specification of modules in a way that degenerates design to a high degree towards a specific implementation.
Degenerate production engineering - one slicer, one operating system, one machje, one software toolchain, one package. Trick here is reconciling diversity of options with starting a business. For widespread distribution, we need the most open tools possible.

Marketing

Solicit a representative from every single country to start a business in their country
Low entry cost revolves around a low cost production machine (3D printer)
For uniformity, every single production machine involved is 100% open source.
Production infrastructure uses scrap plastic.
Plastic testing protocols are included for the waste stream

Fully developed examples of D3D machine productivity and capacity(calipers, vise, drill prototype, tablet for running the printer, Soft Rubber Printing)
Gear production methods- included or off the shelf?
Testing MIG Casting and Desktop ZA 3D printing foundry.
Claerand Desktop ZA 3D printing foundry.
Clear production goals - 12 drills per day from printed parts, and 100 per month. $50 profit each.
Extreme efficiency for beating mass manufacturing with on-demand production

$10B market. At $100 per drill - 100,000,000 sold per year. Out of 8 billion people, that is 2% of the population buys a drill every year?

3 years for Distributed Market Substitution from the time the contest ends.
OS Microfactory for producing cordless drills from the waste stream of plastic, aluminum, zinc, and rubber.
Lifecycle stewardship on the part of producers, takeback for 100% recycling of materials. This means the most for the circuit boards. These should be in house manufactured and should use COTS parts
Enterprise Level - a way for anyone to be trained to produce professional grade 3D printed cordless drills with lifetime design
Materials cost - $20, profit $80 per drill
12 per day build capacity
Distributed quality control and production at 3 Sigma level
Collaboration with Big Box stores for distribution
Training ability to get any additional producer trained in a period of 1 month
Certification procedure for producers
Distributed quality control protocol that is transparent via online documentation

Scope creep - full production tool chain. Determining the level of depth of recursion. Do we make our own motors? Gearboxes? Circuits that are milled? Solution is examining this all in detail to determine which fits in the end game scenario of 100,000 producers worldwide producing drills.

Converting other projects such as V1 Engineering to open source as ancillary tools. However, this does not address degeneracy of toolchain.
Resolution of tool chain degeneracy is modularity. Making the parts so modular that they can do everything. We are the only guys that can do it at present.