Networks of Tinkerers: a model of open-source innovation

1. Networks of Tinkerers:a model of open-source innovation Peter B. Meyer Office of Productivity and Technology, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics At BEA, July 17 2006 This work does not represent official findings or policies of the U.S. Dept of Labor.

2. Hobbyists developed technologies • open source software • in which programmers share source code • Linux; email processing; Web servers/browsers • personal computers • Homebrew Club of hobbyists, circa 1975 • pre-history of the airplane • clearly documented, from many points of view • took a long time, so one can see the forces at work • fun to see

3. Goals here • See some of the experimental efforts • Explore their communications “network” • Try some formal modeling assumptions about the hobbyists / tinkerers (not their “output”) • Show agents would share information

4. Early aircraft developments • 1800-1860 – George Cayley and many others try aeronautical experiments • 1860s – aeronautical journals begin • Much sharing of experimental findings • 1894 Octave Chanute’s Progress in Flying Machines • 1903 – Wrights fly famous powered glider • 1910 – many have flown. Firms are starting up

5. Octave Chanute, author and experimenter Octave Chanute was a wealthy former engineer in Chicago • Ran experiments of his own on gliders • Described previous work in 1894 book Progress in FlyingMachines. • discusses a hundred individuals, from many countries, professions • and many experiments, devices, theories • helps define “flying machines” work, focused on kites • book supports network of information and interested people Chanute corresponded actively with many experimenters. Chanute preferred that everyone’s findings be open.

6. Example: Clement Ader’s Eole • It traveled 50 meters in uncontrolled flight in 1891 • French military thought it would be useful. • Ader didn’t patent outside France because it would expose details. • Chanute criticized this choice. • Ader “drops out” from communication with other experimenters

7. Lawrence Hargrave • Retired young in Sydney, Australia • Ran many creative diverse experiments starting in 1884 • Drawn to flapping-wings designs • Also made innovative engines • Box kites showed layered wings were stable and had lift • Often made small models or designs without building. • Devices often did not work right the first time but he moved on to new inspirations. • Did not patent, on principle. • Published hundreds of findings • Chanute: “If there be one man . . . . who deserves to succeed in flying through the air” – it is Hargrave.

8. Lawrence Hargrave’s box kites

9. Lilienthal’s Wings and Gliders • German engineer Otto Lilienthal studied birds and lift shapes in wind • 20 years of experiments, often with brother Gustav • Published book Birdflight as the Basis of Aviation, 1889 • Made hang gliders • Flew 2000+ times • Became famous and an inspirational figure

11. Samuel Langley's technology choices Professor in Pittsburgh, then Director of Smithsonian Institution in DC His 1896 powered gliders went over half a mile Decides that for safety: • aircraft must be intrinsically stable, and • pilot must sit up  craft must be rigid and strong  innovatively, makes strong frame from steel tubing  much heavier than a glider; needs strong engine for lift So he gets the best engine made, to that time, for its weight. (Balzer-Manly engine)

12. Langley’s aerodrome • Resulting aircraft is heavy, expensive, housed with difficulty • Steel materials • Large wings • Powerful engine • Cost ~$50,000 • Hard landings; lands on water => can't try twice easily • Operator is not too useful, like rocket, unlike glider • Langley's demonstrations are big, sometimes public • In key demonstrations in Oct & Dec 1903 it crashes early • Editorials criticize • Embarrassed trustees asked him to stop research • But it was designed like a modern passenger jet

13. Wilbur and Orville Wright • Ran bicycle shop in Dayton, Ohio, US • Starting in 1899, read from Langley and Chanute • Corresponded actively with Chanute • Good tool makers and users. Have a workshop. • Generally crafted each piece. • Collaborated intensely.

14. Wrights' technology choices • Focused on wing shape, propellers, and control mechanism • Built craft as kites, then gliders • Did not attach an engine until 1903. • Materials light & cheap, wood & canvas • pilot lays flat  less drag • intrinsically unstable, like a bicycle • Pilot controlled that by hip movements which pulled wires to warp (twist) wing tips to turn glider • This invented piloting skill had no future

16. Wrights’ wings and propellers • Wrights’ wind tunnel carefully tested to make air flow smooth • Their balance device measured lift precisely • They tested many wings systematically and came to an ideal design for their craft. • What’s a propeller for an aircraft? • Standard idea: like a water propeller, it would pushes air back. • Having studied wings, Wrights’ experiment with propellers that have a cross section like a wing, with lift in forward direction • This produces 50% more pulling power from a given engine! • This idea lasts

17. This evidence is selected • Many other experimenters and publishers would be worth mentioning if time permitted: • Alphonse Penaud • Horatio Phillips • Hiram Maxim • James Means • Alberto Santos-Dumont • Richard Pearse • Many others

18. Possible measures of significance in the network • Who did the Wrights, and historians of them, cite? • Chanute, Lilienthal, Wright family, Langley, many times • Weinberg’s list from Brooks’s technological history • 150 important innovations before 1910 • Who did Chanute refer to in 1894 survey? • About 190 who made some “informational” contribution • I am making a database of these references • Among the most cited: Hargrave, on 15 pages; Wenham (15); Lilienthal (14), Stringfellow (11), Tatin (11 pages), Langley (9)

19. Some observations for modeling • Innovators are distinctive, with different agendas • Different motivations • They have different visions of what they are making, also • I found it hard to model the “product” or “output” • It is possible to model the inventor, though

20. Assumptions for micro model • Assume there are motivated tinkerers • As observed • Assume they have a way to make “progress” • defining progress carefully • Assume total technological uncertainty • No market is identifiable • so no clear competition, no R&D  The tinkerers would share information

21. The Tinkerer • Tinkerer has activity/hobby A. (for “aircraft” or “activity”) • Tinkerer receives positive utility from A of atper period. • a0 is known • later choices and rules determine at • β is a discount factor between zero and one (assume .95) applied to future period utility. • Net present expected utility:

22. Tinkering rules • Tinkerer may invest in ("tinker with") A • The agent thinks that tinkering this period will raise all future period payoffs at by punits each time period. • pstands for a rate of progress, which is subjectively experienced by the agent • We assume p is fixed and known to the agent • Example: .07

23. Tinkering decision • Tinkerer weights estimated costs and benefits • Benefits from one effort to tinker equal p in each subsequent period. • The present value of those payoffs is: Tinkerer compares those gross benefits to the cost which is 1 utility unit

24. Rates of Progress Subjective progress must meet the criterion above for tinkering to be worthwhile If this is a high bar, there will not be many tinkerers.

25. Payoffs from endless tinkering Present value of all that at time zero has a closed form:

26. A network of two tinkerers • Consider two tinkerers with identical utility functions • p1 and p2 – subjective rate of progress • Fraction f of each innovation is useful to the another • Tinkerers form a network Present value of expected utility for one:

27. Subgroups of occasional tinkerers • A group of slow-progress tinkerers might agree to work together to generate progress rate p. • Then the group acts like a single “tinkerer” in terms of its output • and also in its incentive to join other groups • There are something like economies of scale here; it’s a positive sum game. • So Wilbur and Orville Wright could be one tinkerer • maybe also: • Boston-area group • All readers of a certain journal • Kite people, together, as distinguished from balloon people

28. Standardization • Only f є (0,1) of experiments one player are usable to another player • Suppose for a cost cs player one can adjust his project to look more like the other tinkerer’s project • And that this would raise the usable findings to f2 • That’s standardization • Present value of utility after standardizing is:

29. Standardization • Key comparison is: • Player one benefits more from standardizing if, ceteris paribus: • other tinkerers produce a large flow of innovations p2; • the cost of standardizing cs is small; • gain in useful innovations from the others (f2-f) is large.

30. Specialization • Same comparison supports choice to specialize • If other player and I work on differentiated problems, rather than overlapping, similar, or competing experiments, can raise useful flow from f to f2. • Again:  Standardization and specialization are natural in tinkerers’ networks. Don’t need market processes to explain them.

31. Distinct role for “moderator” • Apart from his experiments, Chanute wrote a helpful book and was actively corresponding and visiting with experimenters, and putting them in touch • This helps the network • So publicists, authors, collectors are another kind of specialist.

32. Entrepreneurial exits • At a few points there was tension: • Ader “drops out” in 1891 • Langley keeps secret wing design after 1901. (Chanute shares it anyway.) • Wrights stop sharing as much in late 1902 • After some perceived of breakthrough • Analogously • Jobs and Wozniak start Apple • they hire Homebrew club people as employees • Red Hat becomes a company

33. Entrepreneurial exits from network Suppose a tinkerer has an insight into how to make a profitable product from project A. Suppose future profits seem worth M. If M is greater than the present value of staying in the tinkerers’ network: tinkerer can exit network agreement • conduct directed R&D • becomes an entrepreneur • enters economic statistics

34. Conclusion (1) • This process may be important • explaining the rise of industrial countries a long time ago • with open source software, now • I do not know of other models of it • Key assumptions: • technological uncertainty (no clear product and market) • motivated tinkerers • some way to make progress • some way to network • A specialist in publicizing or moderating can help address searching and matching • An industry can spring out of this

35. Conclusion (2) Airplane case makes plain certain aspects of these individuals and networks. It seems relevant to • personal computer hobbyists • open source software projects A model of this kind could be useful to describe or account for • engineering “skunkworks” in organizations • scientific advances • differences between societies in speed of technology development

36. What are they making? Aeronautical journals appear in 1870s and 1880s. Experimenters make diverse choices. Available metaphors: • Balloons are light, ascends without power • Meteorological balloons, hot-air, helium-filled balloons • Rockets are high-powered, rigid, hard to control • Kites and gliders (light; fixed wings generating lift) • For lift (upward force), requires speed. Propulsion? • Flapping wings? Birds are light and have big wings • Propellers? • Jets? • Power? muscles, steam engines, internal combustion engines, in models, wound up rubber bands • Hard to control

39. Conclusion • Why would individuals do this? • Start manufacturing company • Get revenues from patent • Get hired as engineer • Lerner and Tirole (2002, and repeatedly) • Research funding (Langley, from War dept and Smithsonian) • Prestige of accomplishment in contributing • To grapple with interesting problems. Or, the concept is so cool! • They want the problem solved -- that is, they want to live in a world in which they can fly through the air (that is, to change their world, not their place in it) • "Our experiments have been conducted entirely at our own expense. At the beginning we had no thought of recovering what we were expending, which was not great . . ." Wrights, How We Invented the Airplane, [1953] p. 87 • "I am an enthusiast, but not a crank in the sense that I have some pet theories as to the construction of a flying machine. I wish to avail myself of all that is already known and then if possible add my mite to help on the future worker who will attain final success." • -- Wilbur Wright, 1899 letter to Smithsonian Institution • Other airplane; computer; open source people express this thought. • Tentative formal assumption: Relevant individuals ("players") have utility functions that support this activity. • - tentatively treat motivation of innovators as exogenous • - testable implications of different utility functions? psychic joy of experimenting; or research salary; or imagined future payoff.

40. Secrecy? Not usually • Books by Lilienthal (1889) and Chanute (1894) • Journal periodicals in France, Britain, US • Wrights collected info from Smithsonian and Weather Bureau (location) • Chanute actively corresponds with experimenters, researchers • technology moderator • Wilbur’s speech to Society of Western Engineers, 1901 • Journal publications in 1901 in England and Germany • Scientific American article about them in 1902. • Visit of Spratt and Herring on tip back problem • Langley gets secretive about his wing design • Wrights get secretive starting late 1902 • Modeling ideas: Sharing institution exists already • Innovator chooses sharing vs. secrecy • Players may be open (prestige; joy of sharing; desire for progress) • Public pool of information is productive • But if their device approaches some threshold (technical success or profitability), they close their connections to the network. • (Homebrew and Apple example) • This creates an industry. • Then competition stimulates progress.

41. History

45. Motivation of the Experimenters: Why Would Individuals Do This? • To start manufacturing company • To get revenues from patented technology • To establish oneself professionally • (Lerner and Tirole, 2002) • To earn research funding (Langley, from War and Smithsonian) • To earn respect for their contribution • To win a competition • To grapple with interesting problems or solve them

46. Conclusion Collective Invention Model: • Individuals are motivated by utility functions • Sometimes unknown reasons for joining the network • Discoveries are random Key choice – share their findings or not? Octave Chanute and Samuel Langley – co-inventors of the Wright airplane or not? How much of the invention X is due to its inventor?

47. Secrecy: When Does it Start? • Books by Lilienthal (1889) and Chanute (1894) • Journal periodicals in France, Britain, US • Wrights collected info from Smithsonian and Weather Bureau (location) • Chanute actively corresponds with experimenters, researchers • Wilbur’s speech to Society of Western Engineers, 1901 • Publications in 1901 • Visit of Spratt and Herring on tip back problem Langley gets secretive about his wing design Wrights get secretive starting late 1902

49. End of Information Sharing • If the activity succeeds, it becomes an industry – competitive “commercial production and sale of goods” • The network loses importance, shrinks, breaks up Examples: • Wrights in late 1902 clamp down; disagree with Chanute. Langley's wings • Later: Apple computer • Model assumption: Network will self-destruct if there is enough success • Then industry players have private intellectual capital and don't share R&D.