

The Industrial Revolution began with kits. In 1763, Glasgow Universityโs scale model Newcomen steam engine broke, so the physics professor asked the schoolโs resident mechanic to fix it. A talented instrument maker, this university employee didnโt just get the machine working again, he figured out a clever way to improve the design by turning a surgical syringe into a piston and condenser. That Scottish mechanic was James Watt, and he partnered with Birmingham, Englandโs Matthew Boulton to commercialize the design. But rather than producing finished steam engines for the coal mines and breweries that used steam power, they sold engineering โkitsโ โ with extensive instructions โ that required on-site assembly. Boulton & Watt made a killing, and transformed their age.
This rough template has foreshadowed technological revolution ever since. Whether in radio, auto, aircraft, electronics, or personal computers and the internet, communities of kit-building talented amateurs โ not credentialed elites โ have disproportionately influenced early innovation. The proliferation of cheap kits better signals a market sector ripe for revolution than the presence of expensive โcutting-edgeโ products.
In other words, โkitonomicโ innovation doesnโt follow the money; the money follows the kits. Although government research funding and industrial investment undeniably matter, they shouldnโt eclipse the importance of bottom-up mechanisms for human capital formation, such as kits.
Talented amateurs donโt just build kits; kits help build talented amateurs. And healthy innovation cultures โ and successful innovation economies โ need the human capital that their talent embodies. Kits are integral, indispensable, and invaluable ingredients for new value creation.
Electronics, Airplanes, and Automobiles
The great book on kits, their economic impact, and their techno-cultural appeal has yet to be written. But history strongly suggests that the more pervasive a technology, the likelier its origins are traceable to a homebrew/hobbyist ethos built around (and with) kits. As deliberately unfinished engines of innovation, kits inspire improvisational ingenuity, insight, and investment.
So while there may be no โSteve Jobs of Kitsโ yet, there is surely no Steve Jobs without kits. Thereโs no Bill Gates or Akio Morita without kits either. Their market-transforming entrepreneurial leaps all emerged from kit-enabled cottage industries. The two Steves โ Jobs and Wozniak โ literally built Apple from kits. Gates and Paul Allen started Microsoft as a software systems supplier for DIY computer kit builders. Morita and Masaru Ibuka launched Sony with kits to turn AM radios into shortwave receivers. From the prewar โcatโs-whiskerโ playfulness of crystal radio kits to postwar floods of surplus electronics, kits became a medium, mechanism, and marketplace for next-generation invention.
Kit sensibilities, which value interchangeable parts and amateur tinkerability, enabled other revolutions as well. Aviation innovation, from the Wright Brothersโ wind-tunnel experiments through Lindberghโs Spirit of St. Louis, reflects diligent amateur contributions as much as sophisticated engineering. Serious analysis of early aircraft production affirms that its earliest pioneers explored modifiable kits as much as finished planes (Alberto Santos-Dumont offered the first free airplane plans in the June 1910 Popular Mechanics).
Henry Fordโs Detroit likewise evolved from homebrew subcultures of internal combustion and steam-powered hackers. Pre-industrialism, automobile DIYers relied on quasi-interchangeable parts and tools to craft their horseless carriages. Mass production was Fordโs greatest innovation. But his breakthrough created more than a mass-market automobile; his Model Tโs and Aโs became kitonomic platforms for customization and technical upgrades. The general public โ not just hobbyists โ bought kits to make their Fords better, as documented by Kathleen Franz in her book Tinkering: Consumers Reinvent the Early Automobile.
Indirect โkitfluenceโ is comparably powerful. Adolescent model airplane competitions, for example, led Paul MacCready into aeronautical engineering and the creation of 1977โs human-powered Gossamer Condor. The 1931 Grunau Baby glider construction kits proved essential to Nazi Germanyโs efforts to rebuild its aviation industry. And in the late 50s and 60s, MITโs Tech Model Railroad Club helped inspire DIY computingโs โhackerโ ethos, according to Steven Levyโs Hackers. All of the most intriguing narratives of industrial innovation feature kits as either essential props or compelling plotlines.
Kits for Green Tech and Biotech?
Looking back is easy. Looking around โ and forward โ to evaluate potential kitonomic influences is the greater challenge. To what extent do contemporary kits meaningfully anticipate future transformations? Does an absence or scarcity of kit-powered innovation communities stifle market development?
Government agencies and venture capitalists in America and Europe have been infatuated with โgreen techโ investments and โgreenovationโ markets. But neither breakout products nor breakthrough entrepreneurs have yet redefined the category. No Heathkits or Altairs of eco-sustainable kits have emerged to capture the hearts, minds, or imaginations of โhuman capital,โ and government subsidies and regulations appear to be the dominant market force. Might that help explain the sectorโs ongoing economic challenges?
Biotechnology invites the same argument. For years, many high-tech observers (myself included) have wondered if bio-hackers and โbathtub biotechโ would drive bio-innovation. Might bundling low-cost recombinant DNA reagents, gene guns, and DIY PCR machines into kits make โre-engineering lifeโ irresistible to hobbyists? If bio-hacking kits had attracted even 10% of the community that homebrew computing did, would pharma, veterinary medicine, agriculture, bio-materials, or bio-informatics have become more vibrant?
These questions are no more hyperbolic or science fiction-y than extrapolating the iPad from the Apple I or even anticipating cheap mobile telephony from germanium crystal wireless kits. Quite the contrary: the mix of kits and talented amateurs encourages such speculation. Just as the presence of kit culture signals greater things to come in a field, its absence limits vitality and diversity.
Consider autonomous vehicles. Progress in the field crawled along for decades while the Pentagon was funding the problem through its usual contractor process. But then in 2004, the first DARPA Grand Challenge invited student groups and talented amateurs into the field. Through this and two successive competitions (the last in 2007), the winning vehicles leaped from being incapable of staying on an empty desert road to completing an urban course while obeying all traffic laws and avoiding other vehicles. And all for mere peanuts in defense budget terms.
Along these lines, donโt Dean Kamenโs FIRST Robotics compe-titions and Wired editor Chris Andersonโs DIY Drones venture, both of them DIY and kitonomic, suggest robotics futures more varied and โout of controlโ than anything envisioned inside the Pentagon?
Mass Interoperability
The ultimate kits โ meta kits โ emerge when people develop their kit building blocks to work with each other. You see this with open source hardware like Arduino as well as the ongoing โappificationโ of software and digital services. Popular open standards and protocols subvert traditional business models, giving rise to global DIY R&D that enjoys far more brainpower than any company department, no many how many hot-shot engineers and designers it has hired. Perhaps this is why Microsoft โ despite intense internal political battles โ decided to turn Kinect into a DIY kit platform.
Consequently, the most exciting mass production consumer sectors increasingly defer to Web 2.0-ified economies of mass interoperability. As serial entrepreneur Joe Kraus brilliantly observed, โThe 20th-century mass-production world was about dozens of markets of millions of people. The 21st century is all about millions of markets of dozens of people.โ
Yes, it is. Remarkable, isnโt it, that kit mindsets and methodologies appear critical to both? The modularity, hackability, and improvisability that have made individual kits successful in the past become even more valuable when linked to higher-bandwidth swirls of wiki-ed and networked information. Higher-bandwidth and broader interactions between people facilitate higher-bandwidth and broader interoperability between kits. As tool chains and other innovation ecosystems evolve to be more kitlike, kits evolve into hardier innovation ecosystems.
And as (relatively) accessible technologies ensure the diffusion, dispersion, and development of technical knowledge and skills, the most talented of amateurs wonโt just โfollow the instructions.โ Theyโll advance well beyond them, and invent possible futures. The technologies may be new, but the patterns of human behavior are not.
Academic thought leaders from Berkeleyโs Henry Chesbrough to MITโs Eric von Hippel celebrate โopen innovationโ as a profound paradigm shift in value creation.
For Chesbrough, open innovation revitalizes stale innovation processes in established enterprise. For von Hippel, greater openness promotes a โdemocratization of innovationโ worldwide.
Toward a StrategicKit Initiative
Following this model, IP shifts from โintellectual propertyโ to โinnovation populismโ. What better instantiates open innovation than a kit, which entwines innovative components, innovative bundling, and, of course, innovative documentation and collaborative support?
But the transcendent issue is not whether open, proprietary, or โwalled gardenโ kits represent the optimal format. Itโs that โ no matter what regime is chosen โ kitonomics appears to play an increasingly vital role.
If kits can influence and even drive sustainable innovation, then commercial and not-for-profit organizations alike should be asking what their SKIs (strategic kit initiatives) should look like.
Already weโve begun to see these concerns materialize in NGOs and philanthropies in emerging markets (see โโDesign for Hackโ in Medicine,โ page 20). A growing number of development experts such as NYUโs Bill Easterly believe customizable kits represent a better aid format than finished products. (Victor Papanekโs classic Design for the Real World โ more than E.F. Schumacherโs Small Is Beautiful manifesto โ best articulated this โappropriate technologyโ design emphasis.)
The smart money โ are you listening, Gates Foundation? โ would be on kits as mission-critical ingredients for dramatically stimulating quality-of-life and standard-of-living innovations in the worldโs poorer populations. After all, history indicates that kits are how emerging markets emerge.
And now, desktop fabrication and manufacturing literally bring another material dimension to what kits can be. The ability to integrate and interoperate digitally designed atoms and bits, to share physical objects remotely with download-and-print ease, canโt help but transform design โ and by extension, everything else.
What happens when the same hobbyist/homebrew subculture that spawned a Gates, a Jobs, and a Michael Dell grows around kit-built 3D printers in Brazilโs favelas and Indiaโs public housing? How might microentrepreneurial design collaborations in Guangzhou yield high-impact kits inexpensive enough to seed talent and innovation throughout the world?
No meaningful answers to those questions yet exist. But we can be sure that the future of innovation is inextricably linked to the future of kits.
ADVERTISEMENT