3D Printer Workshop Survey

From Open Source Ecology
Jump to: navigation, search


This survey is intended to gather learnings on the workshop, so that it can be improved in the future. Further, Torbjorn Ludvigsen - remote collaborator from Umeå University in Sweden - is using this data for his Master's Thesis (http://bit.ly/1U6wbM7) - exploring the 3D Printer as a Distributive Enterprise. This survey takes 12 minutes to complete. Your name and email is optional if you'd like to keep your answers confidential. Results will be published openly for learning purposes - for other potential workshop organizers. You can view the responses by clicking on the Survey Results link below the survey.






  1. Overall The event was a success, in that everyone finished their printer (except Carl, who arrived a couple hours late. The time taken was way excessive, but the spirits were in general high, and I feel like people learned a lot. With several improvements, this workshop could run much smoother, and become highly replicable.
  2. Workflow The workshop was intended to be done in parallel between pairs - but in practice: all pairs worked together on one thing at a time, instead of paralleling on two tasks. I think next time, we should follow a microchunking super-cooperators approach. Namely - video is played for one step only - about 5 seconds. Everyone does the step. Video continues looping. Everyone does that step - as soon as they are done - they get up and help others. This guarantees uniform finishing. From an instructor's perspective - it was very difficult to manage the quality control and build when everyone was on different steps towards the end of the build. This also meant that nobody was helping one another - and only instructors were helping. The microchunking supercooperator approach should address this. Unless this is done, quality control checklists are almost impossible to go over - because a lot of time was spent on discovery of where a person is, and some quality control was missed because of the nonuniformity.
  3. Complexity - The complexity and part count are excessive, and can be reduced greatly. I predict the streamlined v2 with have 1/2 or less unique parts count - dropping from about 160 unique parts to about 80.
  4. Instructionals - First, detailed written instructions should be provided, step by step. Second, micro-chunking videos should be produced for looping. Better diagrams for certain steps, like wiring, should be prepared.
  5. Software - Software remains to be addressed. Half the people had issues with the live USB, perhaps the 32 bit version could have helped - but not for certain, as nobody had an older computer.






The form has collected good concrete input from Tom, Jenna, Dan Alexander and Israel at the time of writing this. Participants seem to have enjoyed the workshop, and the weaknesses they point at are all fixable.

Weakness Fix
Going overtime This is the main reason to design D3D Printer as I see it. It will be designed to fix this.
Crossed connections
Isolating table layout Formulate new table layout principles
Group-like wiki-page Requires Internet connection, but yes, easy
Troubles with wiring
  • Laptop-style power supplies would improve safety. This is a D3D Printer design decision.
  • Include very detailed drawings made with Frizing: http://fritzing.org/home/
  • Specialize a few participants on this particular step
USB Live not booting easily
Inverting all motors
Under-communication of "bring your own tools"