Getting to "yes" in a world of "no"…


The Technology Strategy Board has a hard job. Because just about every other source of grant and fund in the UK has been systematically dismantled over the last 3-4 years, nearly every practical aspect of supporting the UK’s technologically innovative SMEs has passed into its hands. I’ve chatted with the TSB’s David Bott during this year, and – really – carrying the weight of the country’s collective startup hopefulness on your shoulders can’t be an easy gig.

Also, the way that the TSB has typically structured its grant “competitions” gets in the way, and I’m not just talking about the way startups have had to be pre-funded in order to qualify (though this was, of course, famously not the case for the Tech City Launchpad1 competition this summer). The impression I get is that in order for these competitions to be politically useful, each one has to be seen to be supporting key aspects of government policy or business-minded aspiration (most notably Tech City, of course).

However… for me, there’s something just plain wrong with this whole picture. The biggest government aspiration of all by a country mile is that startups will (somehow) pluckily drive ‘UK plc’ out of its recessionary doldrums through high-value manufacturing and the alchemical miracle of export growth. Having tried for some years now to do that myself, I can honestly say to the TSB and BIS: nope, sorry, you have basically no hope of achieving that through this kind of approach.

Might the UK’s massed cadre of angel investors be able to help with this? To be brutally honest, they currently are simply not minded to finance any aspect of manufacturing: they can see it’s something worth doing, but they’d rather not do it themselves. Almost all of them – even the ones that are clearly smart enough to know better – have bought lock, stock and barrel into the whole VC make-believe world of “scalable software apps”. That is, too many believe that investment success is merely a matter of connecting jobbing Romanian programmers with some pie-eyed social media need specified by a noodle-eating 22-year-old Shoreditch hotdesker. £65K down for silly equity and the world’s your oyster, bish bash bosh: 10x “home runs” here we come… mine’s a Bollinger, cheers. If only the world of app marketing and customer discovery were merely a viral coefficient away, all software engineers would be billionaires, right?

(Dismal, eh?)

So… if manufacturing is the question, right now the answer is neither UK angels nor that wafer-thin sliver of government funding in the TSB’s hands punted out as competitions. But do I have a better answer?

Actually, I think I do. The TSB may not like to hear it, but my opinion is that the majority of its competitions are a waste both of their time and of government money. If the Coalition had any kind of genuine interest in seeding manufacturing in the UK, what they should do is sponsor some manufacturer hackspaces, like London Hackspace but kitted out with killer stuff for building physical things. Out goes the toy stuff like the MakerBot, but in come the 5-axis mills, the Solidworks, Rhino3d, Moldflow and OneCNC licences, the EOS direct metal laser-sintering box, the 70-ton vertical plastic injection moulding machines, the computer controlled lathes, etc. Essentially, the rapid, dynamic, capital-intensive, properly modern stuff that would let startups design and build stuff in no time at all. For what it’s worth, my bet is that full-on access to modern capital-heavy making equipment would empower people to start making stuff, and would kickstart a whole generation of world-changing physical hackers, not just the kind of effetely lightweight social tweakers angels seem to want to back.

What you’d want to do is find an integrated way of giving low-end industrial training to people who are looking to gain skills using these devices, perhaps in return for helping startups out: and to set up some kind of reasonable access scheme whereby startups can use the equipment to do prototyping and test runs but not production runs.

Also, you’d probably want to place these (two? three? four?) manufacturer hackspaces near universities, though not actually inside them. (Is there space in one of Hermann Hauser’s buildings in Cambridge? Could London Hackspace double in size?) I think it would be important to make sure that these stayed independent of the whole dismal university spin-out culture: this should be a world-changing toolkit for dangerous, practical people, not for academics per se. What the government desperately wants to bet on is that the UK still has such edgy, driven makers who will find a way of doing stuff. Well, speaking as someone who fits that category pretty damn well, I can tell you that such people now find themselves standing on air – there is nothing to support them. Nothing at all. And a manufacturing hackspace or two would be an unbelievably large, positive step in absolutely the right direction.

So, how about it, TSB? I suspect that you’re just as dissatisfied with your funding competitions as the poor saps currently reading and re-reading the applicant notes to rejig their pitches to finesse an extra 1% from the independent judging panel. Does such a process genuinely validate real development talent and ability to service customer need, or merely the ability to fill out the forms for a bureaucratically minded pitch?

From my perspective, the TSB has wearily followed this competition path more than long enough to know that it’s time for a change: it now needs to back interesting stuff that challenges the status quo and empowers new, crazy, unexpected, export-centred physical businesses. Stuff that changes the world, one good idea at a time.

So, off you go, then, TSB people. Talk with the ministerial, the great, and the good – James Dyson? Phil O’Donovan? – and find a way of setting up properly ambitious manufacturing hackspaces. Take some first steps along that road (however tentative), and I’ll be with you every inch of the way. Find a way of being brave… really, you know you ought to, and – if you just asked for it in the right way – you very probably can.

Comments on: "Manufacturer Hackspaces, the answer to everything…" (7)

  1. phil jones said:

    Yes. Agreed.

    In lieu of that, what do we have?

    One thing is James Hardiman’s project to build 50 fablabs : http://www.fablabsuk.co.uk/ Not sure how he’s thinking of funding it, though. But I like his “rep-lab” idea that you deliberately plan to have the machines in the first lab build the machines in the next, and so on.

    In a sense, my Future Manufacturing meetup is based on a particular hypothesis. That there is more of this manufacturing capacity around than we (me, at least) currently know about. Perhaps its hidden away inside light-engineering companies who have traditionally produced parts for larger industrial customers. Or in top-end architects / product design companies that use it for limited prototyping purposes.

    Those machine owners may now be suffering because of the recession. But currently don’t know that there is a tier of 22 year old noodle-eaters who DO have ideas for manufacturing.

    These two groups won’t find each other through the market (the sales-people at the engineering companies are looking for large customers and the typical cost is high) but if the traditional manufacturers can be brought into the habitat of social networking / meetups where the startup entrepreneurs are, then we may break this deadlock through informal arrangements, small experiments and minor investments by incumbent manufacturers in startup ideas.

    • Phil: having myself struggled to get 3d printed objects to function as hoped, I don’t really buy into the idea of self-replicating 3d printing machines, it’s a bit of a sci-fi conceit in my opinion. Machines need to be precise, long-lived and comfortable being driven by hot little motors, three things missing from 3d printed objects right now.

      I’m also a little skeptical that there’s a pile of fabulous equipment all around us going unused: if you happen to live next door to Maclaren and have a spare key, sure. :-) But there’s a huge trust issue with expensive equipment: the owners need to know you aren’t going to wreck it by being an enthusiastic idiot, which doesn’t have an obviously social solution. For me, the way to break this deadlock is by seeking out some kind of “curated middle ground”, where some government body (such as the TSB / NESTA / ESPRC / etc) owns and looks after its own pile of equipment on behalf of an entire generation of startups. But perhaps they’re both equally valid responses in different ways. :-)

      • I don’t think that a “self-replicating lab” really has to be as science-fictional as a full replicator. Nor is it just about 3D printing.

        I see it as more a social / business agreement. A kind of bootstrapping process where the first up-and-running lab helps make the stuff for the next etc. This may be much more about an understanding between owners (eg. first one to get support from the FabLabs UK understands its their obligation to help the next etc.)

        Still, you’ll have to talk to James for details.

        I also wasn’t thinking that owners of machines would let other untrained members use expensive and dangerous equipment unsupervised. I’m thinking more along the lines of the owner-operator of a machine meeting an aspiring designer through the social network and deciding to “invest” in the designer’s project “in kind” by donating otherwise unused time / work / material.

        Sure, if we can persuade the people with money to curate the middle-ground, so much the better.

      • Phil: all fair enough. I was actually thinking more about the quality of gears, hinges and other moving mechanisms, which really aren’t up to much when 3d-printed by almost any current means. Errors propagate and amplify!

  2. Excellently put Nick. Once again you have hit the nail on the head. If you bild the infrastructure to allow talent to build cool new stuff, it will get built. All that is needed is a forward thinking government willing to invest the huge capital upfront costs to kick start an industry.

    In this case, it is fairly easy process. Hardware to build stuff, somewhere to house it and engineers to look after/help the entrepreneur use it.

    Take a few basis points on all products built using it as an investment for the future. If you get even one success you have enough cash coming in to make the thing self funding forever.

    • Gerald: all very true. Also, renting the kit out as a service for one day per week at commercial rates should cover most of the costs. Finally, I’ve got another wild angle on this which I’ll throw up in the air very shortly… hi-tech manufacturing as performance art. Sounds a bit crazy at first, but… you’ll see. :-)

  3. [...] a comment In response to my last post on manufacturer hackspaces, Phil Jones (founder of the Future Manufacturing meetup group) left a comment mentioning [...]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 415 other followers

%d bloggers like this: