Many libraries today provide 3D printing service. But not all of them can afford to do so for free. While free 3D printing may be ideal, it can jeopardize the sustainability of the service over time. Nevertheless, many libraries tend to worry about charging service fees.
In this post, I will outline how I determined the pricing schema for our library’s new 3D Printing service in the hope that more libraries will consider offering 3D printing service if having to charge the fee is a factor stopping them. But let me begin with libraries’ general aversion to fees.
Service Fees Are Not Your Enemy
Charging fees for the library’s service is not something librarians should regard as a taboo. We live in the times in which a library is being asked to create and provide more and more new and innovative services to help users successfully navigate the fast-changing information landscape. A makerspace and 3D printing are certainly one of those new and innovative services. But at many libraries, the operating budget is shrinking rather than increasing. So, the most obvious choice in this situation is to aim for cost-recovery.
It is to be remembered that even when a library aims for cost-recovery, it will be only partial cost-recovery because there is a lot of staff time and expertise that is spent on planning and operating such new services. Libraries should not be afraid to introduce new services requiring service fees because users will still benefit from those services often much more greatly than a commercial equivalent (if any). Think of service fees as your friend. Without them, you won’t be able to introduce and continue to provide a service that your users need. It is a business cost to be expected, and libraries will not make profit out of it (even if they try).
Still bothered? Almost every library charges for regular (paper) printing. Should a library rather not provide printing service because it cannot be offered for free? Library users certainly wouldn’t want that.
Determining Your Service Fees
What do you need in order to create a pricing scheme for your library’s 3D printing service?
(a) First, you need to list all cost-incurring factors. Those include (i) the equipment cost and wear and tear, (ii) electricity, (iii) staff time & expertise for support and maintenance, and (iv) any consumables such as 3d print filament, painter’s tape. Remember that your new 3D printer will not last forever and will need to be replaced by a new one in 3-5 years.
Also, some of these cost-incurring factors such as staff time and expertise for support is fixed per 3D print job. On the other hand, another cost-incurring factor, 3D print filament, for example, is a cost factor that increases in proportion to the size/density of a 3d model that is printed. That is, the larger and denser a 3d print model is, the more filament will be used incurring more cost.
(b) Second, make sure that your pricing scheme is readily understood by users. Does it quickly give users a rough idea of the cost before their 3D print job begins? An obscure pricing scheme can confuse users and may deter them from trying out a new service. That would be bad user experience.
Also in 3D printing, consider if you will also charge for a failed print. Perhaps you do. Perhaps you don’t. Maybe you want to charge a fee that is lower than a successful print. Whichever one you decide on, have that covered since failed prints will certainly happen.
(c) Lastly, the pricing scheme should be easily handled by the library staff. The more library staff will be involved in the entire process of a library patron using the 3D printing service from the beginning to the end, the more important this becomes. If the pricing scheme is difficult for the staff to work with when they need charge for and process each 3D print job, the new 3D printing service will increase their workload significantly.
Which staff will be responsible for which step of the new service? What would be the exact tasks that the staff will need to do? For example, it may be that several staff at the circulation desk need to learn and handle new tasks involving the 3D printing service, such as labeling and putting away completed 3D models, processing the payment transaction, delivering the model, and marking the job status for the paid 3D print job as ‘completed’ in the 3D Printing Staff Admin Portal if there is such a system in place. Below is the screenshot of the HS/HSL 3D Printing Staff Admin Portal developed in-house by the library IT team.
Examples – 3D Printing Service Fees
It’s always helpful to see how other libraries are doing when you need to determine your own pricing scheme. Here are some examples that shows ten libraries’ 3D printing pricing scheme changed over the recent three years.
- UNR DeLaMare Library
- NCSU Hunt Library
- 2014- uPrint 3D Printer: $10 per cubic inch of material (ABS), with a $5 minimum
- 2014 – MakerBot 3D Printer: $0.35 per gram of material (PLA), with a $5 minimum
- 2017 – uPrint – $10 per cubic inch of material, $5 minimum
- 2017 – F306 – $0.35 per gram of material, $5 minimum
- Southern Illinois University Library
- 2014 – Originally $2 per hour of printing time; Reduced to $1 as the demand grew.
- 2017 – Lulzbot Taz 5, Luzbot mini – $2.00 per hour of printing time.
- BYU Library
- University of Michigan Library
- The Cube 3D printer checkout is no longer offered.
- 2017 – Cost for professional 3d printing service; Open access 3d printing is free.
- GVSU Library
- 2014 – $0.35 per gram with a $6.00 minimum
- 2017 – Free (Ultimaker 2+, Makerbot Replicator 2, 7, 2x)
- University of Tennessee, Chattanooga Library
- 2014 – 2017 – Makerbot 1th, 5th – $0.10 per gram
- Port Washington Public library
- 2017 – Makerbot 5 – $1 per hour of printing time
- Miami University
- 2014 – $0.20 per gram of the finished print; 2017 – ?
- UCLA Library, Dalhousie University Library (2014)
Types of 3D Printing Service Fees
From the examples above, you will notice that many 3d printing service fee schemes are based upon the weight of a 3D-print model. This is because these libraries are trying recover the cost of the 3d filament, and the amount of filament used is most accurately reflected in the weight of the resulting 3D-printed model.
However, there are a few problems with the weight-based 3D printing pricing scheme. First, it is not readily calculable by a user before the print job, because to do so, the user will have to weigh a model that s/he won’t have until it is 3D-printed. Also, once 3D-printed, the staff will have to weigh each model and calculate the cost. This is time-consuming and not very efficient.
For this reason, my library considered an alternative pricing scheme based on the size of a 3D model. The idea was that we will have roughly three different sizes of an empty box – small, medium, and large – with three different prices assigned. Whichever box into which a user’s 3d printed object fits will determine how much the user will pay for her/his 3D-printed model. This seemed like a great idea because it is easy to determine how much a model will cost to 3d-print to both users and the library staff in comparison to the weight-based pricing scheme.
Unfortunately, this size-based pricing scheme has a few significant flaws. A smaller model may use more filament than a larger model if it is denser (meaning the higher infill ratio). Second, depending on the shape of a model, a model that fits in a large box may use much less filament than the one that fits in a small box. Think about a large tree model with think branches. Then compare that with a 100% filled compact baseball model that fits into a smaller box than the tree model does. Thirdly, the resolution that determines a layer height may change the amount of filament used even if what is 3D-printed is a same model.
Charging Based upon the 3D Printing Time
So we couldn’t go with the size-based pricing scheme. But we did not like the problems of the weight-based pricing scheme, either. As an alternative, we decided to go with the time-based pricing scheme because printing time is proportionate to how much filament is used, but it does not require that the staff weigh the model each time. A 3D-printing software gives an estimate of the printing time, and most 3D printers also display actual printing time for each model printed.
First, we wanted to confirm the hypothesis that 3D printing time and the weight of the resulting model are proportionate to each other. I tested this by translating the weight-based cost to the time-based cost based upon the estimated printing time and the estimated weight of several cube models. Here is the result I got using the Makerbot Replicator 2X.
- 9.10 gm/36 min= 0.25 gm per min.
- 17.48 gm/67 min= 0.26 gm per min.
- 30.80 gm/117 min= 0.26 gm per min.
- 50.75 gm/186 min=0.27 gm per min.
- 87.53 gm/316 min= 0.28 gm per min.
- 194.18 gm/674 min= 0.29 gm per min.
There is some variance, but the hypothesis holds up. Based upon this, now let’s calculate the 3d printing cost by time.
3D plastic filament is $48 for ABS/PLA and $65 for the dissolvable per 0.90 kg (=2.00 lb) from Makerbot. That means that filament cost is $0.05 per gram for ABS/PLA and $0.07 per gram for the dissolvable. So, 3D filament cost is 6 cents per gram on average.
Finalizing the Service Fee for 3D Printing
For an hour of 3D printing time, the amount of filament used would be 15.6 gm (=0.26 x 60 min). This gives us the filament cost of 94 cents per hour of 3D printing (=15.6 gm x 6 cents). So, for the cost-recovery of filament only, I get roughly $1 per hour of 3D printing time.
Earlier, I mentioned that filament is only one of the cost-incurring factors for the 3D printing service. It’s time to bring in those other factors, such as hardware wear/tear, staff time, electricity, maintenance, etc., plus “no-charge-for-failed-print-policy,” which was adopted at our library. Those other factors will add an additional amount per 3D print job. And at my library, this came out to be about $2. (I will not go into details about how these have been determined because those will differ at each library.) So, the final service fee for our new 3D printing service was set to be $3 up to 1 hour of 3D printing + $1 per additional hour of 3D printing. The $3 is broken down to $1 per hour of 3D printing that accounts for the filament cost and $2 fixed cost for every 3D print job.
To help our users to quickly get an idea of how much their 3D print job will cost, we have added a feature to the HS/HSL 3D Print Job Submission Form online. This feature automatically calculates and displays the final cost based upon the printing time estimate that a user enters.
Don’t Be Afraid of Service Fees
I would like to emphasize that libraries should not be afraid to set service fees for new services. As long as they are easy to understand and the staff can explain the reasons behind those service fees, they should not be a deterrent to a library trying to introduce and provide a new innovative service.
There is a clear benefit in running through all cost-incurring factors and communicating how the final pricing scheme was determined (including the verification of the hypothesis that 3D printing time and the weight of the resulting model are proportionate to each other) to all library staff who will be involved in the new 3D printing service. If any library user inquire about or challenges the service fee, the staff will be able to provide a reasonable explanation on the spot.
I implemented this pricing scheme at the same time as the launch of my library’s makerspace (the HS/HSL Innovation Space at the University of Maryland, Baltimore – http://www.hshsl.umaryland.edu/services/ispace/) back in April 2015. We have been providing 3D printing service and charging for it for more than two years. I am happy to report that during that entire duration, we have not received any complaint about the service fee. No library user expected our new 3D printing service to be free, and all comments that we received regarding the service fee were positive. Many expressed a surprise at how cheap our 3D printing service is and thanked us for it.
To summarize, libraries should be willing to explore and offer new innovating services even when they require charging service fees. And if you do so, make sure that the resulting pricing scheme for the new service is (a) sustainable and accountable, (b) readily graspable by users, and (c) easily handled by the library staff who will handle the payment transaction. Good luck and happy 3D printing at your library!
In Fall of 2016, the city of Los Angeles held a 2-week “Innovate LA” event intended to celebrate innovation and creativity within the LA region. Dozens of organizations around Los Angeles held events during Innovate LA to showcase and provide resources for making, invention, and application development. As part of this event, the library at California State University, Northridge developed and hosted two weeks of coding challenges, designed to introduce novice coders to basic development using existing tutorials. Coders were rewarded with digital badges distributed by the application Credly.
The primary organization of the events came out of the library’s Creative Media Studio, a space designed to facilitate audio and video production as well as experimentation with emerging technologies such as 3D printing and virtual reality. Users can use computers and recording equipment in the space, and can check out media production devices, such as camcorders, green screens, GoPros, and more. Our aim was to provide a fun, very low-stress way to learn about coding, provide time for new coders to get hands-on help with coding tutorials, and generally celebrate how coding can be fun. While anyone was welcome to join, our marketing efforts specifically focused on students, with coding challenges distributed daily throughout the Innovate LA period through Facebook.
Here’s a list of the challenges and their corresponding badges earned:
Note the final three challenges – editing a Wikipedia page, creating a 3D model, and experimenting with Google Cardboard or other virtual reality (VR) goggles are not coding challenges, but we wanted to use the opportunity to promote some of the other services the Creative Media Studio provides. Conveniently, the library was hosting a Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon during the same period as the coding challenges, so it made sense to leverage both of those events as part of our Innovate LA programming.
The coding challenges and instructions were distributed via Facebook, and we also held “office hours” (complete with snacks) in one of the library’s computer labs to provide assistance with completing the challenges. The office hours were mostly informal, with two library staff members available to walk users through completing and submitting the challenges. One special office hours was planned, bringing in a guest professor from our Cinema and Television Arts program to help users with a web-based game making tutorial he had designed. This partnership was very successful, and that particular office hour session had the most attendance of any we offered. In future iterations of this event, more advance planning would enable us to partner with additional faculty members and feature tutorials they already use effectively with students in their curriculum.
We needed a way to both accept submissions documenting completion of coding challenges and a way to award digital badges. Originally we had investigated potentially distributing digital badges through our campus learning management system, as some learning management systems like Moodle are capable of awarding digital badges. There were a couple of problems with this – 1) we wanted the event to be open to anyone, including members of the community who wouldn’t have access to the learning management system, and 2), the digital badge capability hadn’t been activated in our campus’ instance of Moodle. Another route we considered taking was accepting submissions for completed challenges was through the university’s Portfolium application, which has a fairly robust ability to accept submissions for completed work, but again, wouldn’t facilitate anyone from outside of the university participating. Credly seemed like an easy, efficient way to both accept submissions and award badges that could also be embedded in 3rd party applications, such as LinkedIN. Since we hosted the competition in 2016, the capability to integrate Credly badges in Portfolium has been made available.
Credly enables you to either design your badges using Credly’s Badge Builder or upload your own badge designs. Luckily, we had access to amazing student designers Katie Pappace, Rose Rieux, and Eva Cohen, who custom-created our badges using Adobe Illustrator. A Credly account for the library’s Creative Media Studio was created to issue the badges, and Credly “Credits” were defined using the custom-created badge designs for each of the coding skills for which we wanted to award badges.
When a credit is designed in Credly and you enable the credit to allow others to claim the credit, you have several options. You can require a claim code, which requires users to submit a code in order to claim the credit. Claim codes are useful if you want to award badges not based on evidence (like file submission) but are awarding badges based on participation or attendance at an event at which you distribute the claim code to attendees. When claim codes are required, you can also set approval of submissions to be automatic, so that anyone with a claim code automatically receives their badge. We didn’t require a claim code, and instead required evidence to be submitted.
When requiring evidence, you can configure which what types of evidence are appropriate to receive the badge. Choices for evidence submission include a URL, a document (Word, text, or PDF), image, audio file, video file, or just an open text submission. As users were completing code challenges, we asked for screenshots (images) as evidence of completion for most challenges. We reviewed all submissions to ensure the submission was correct, but by requiring screenshots, we could easily see whether or not the tutorial itself had “passed” the code submission.
Credly gives the ability of easily counting the number of badges earned by each of the participants. From those numbers, we were able to determine the top badge earners and award them prizes. All participants, even the ones with a single badge, were awarded buttons of each of their earned badges. In addition to the virtual and physical badges, participants with the greatest number of earned badges were rewarded with prizes. The top five prizes were awarded with gift cards and the grand prize winner also got a 3D printed trophy designed with Tinkercad and their photo as a Lithopane incorporated into the trophy. A low stakes award ceremony was held for all contestants and winners. Top awards were high commodity and it was a good opportunity for students to meet others interested in coding and STEM.
Our first attempt at hosting coding challenges in the library taught us a few things. First, taking a screenshot is definitely not a skill most participants started out with – the majority of initial questions we received from participants were not related to coding, but rather involved how to take a screenshot of their completed code to submit to Credly. For future events, we’ll definitely make sure to include step-by-step instructions for taking screenshots on both PC and Mac with each challenge, or consider an alternative method of collecting submissions (e.g., copying and pasting code as a text submission into Credly). It’s still important to not assume that copying and pasting text from a screen is a skill that all participants will have.
As noted above, planning ahead would enable us to more effectively reach out and partner with faculty, and possibly coordinate coding challenges with curriculum. A few months before the coding challenges, we did reach out to computer science faculty, cinema and television arts faculty, and other faculty who teach curriculum involving code, but if we had reached out much earlier (e.g., the semester before) we likely would have been able to garner more faculty involvement. Faculty schedules are so jam-packed and often set that way so far in advance, at least six months of advance notice is definitely appreciated.
One small bit of feedback that was personally rewarding for the authors: at one of our office hours, a young woman came up to us and asked us if we were the planners of the coding challenges. When we said yes, she told how excited she was (and a bit surprised) to see women involved with coding and development. She asked us several questions about our jobs and how we got involved with careers relating to technology. That interaction indicated to us that future outreach could potentially focus on promoting coding to women specifically, or hosting coding office hours to enable mentoring for women coders on campus, modeling (or joining up with) Women Who Code networks.
If you’re interested in hosting support for coding activities or challenges in your library, a great resource to get started with is Hour of Code, which promotes holding one-hour introductions to coding and computer science particularly during Computer Science Education Week. Hour of Code provides tutorials, resources for hosts, promotional materials and more. This year, Hour of Code week / Computer Science Education Week will be December 4-10 2017, so start planning now!
The movie, Robot and Frank, describes the future in which the elderly have a robot as their companion and also as a helper. The robot monitors various activities that relate to both mental and physical health and helps Frank with various house chores. But Frank also enjoys the robot’s company and goes on to enlist the robot into his adventure of breaking into a local library to steal a book and a greater heist later on. People’s lives in the movie are not particularly futuristic other than a robot in them. And even a robot may not be so futuristic to us much longer either. As a matter of fact, as of June 2015, there is now a commercially available humanoid robot that is close to performing some of the functions that the robot in the movie ‘Frank and Robot’ does.
A Japanese company, SoftBank Robotics Corp. released a humanoid robot named ‘Pepper’ to the market back in June. The Pepper robot is 4 feet tall, 61 pounds, speaks 17 languages and is equipped with an array of cameras, touch sensors, accelerometer, and other sensors in his “endocrine-type multi-layer neural network,” according to the CNN report. The Pepper robot was priced at ¥198,000 ($1,600). The Pepper owners are also responsible for an additional ¥24,600 ($200) monthly data and insurance fee. While the Pepper robot is not exactly cheap, it is surprisingly affordable for a robot. This means that the robot industry has now matured to the point where it can introduce a robot that the mass can afford.
Robots come in varying capabilities and forms. Some robots are as simple as a programmable cube block that can be combined with one another to be built into a working unit. For example, Cubelets from Modular Robotics are modular robots that are used for educational purposes. Each cube performs one specific function, such as flash, battery, temperature, brightness, rotation, etc. And one can combine these blocks together to build a robot that performs a certain function. For example, you can build a lighthouse robot by combining a battery block, a light-sensor block, a rotator block, and a flash block.
By contrast, there are advanced robots such as those in the form of an animal developed by a robotics company, Boston Dynamics. Some robots look like a human although much smaller than the Pepper robot. NAO is a 58-cm tall humanoid robot that moves, recognizes, hears and talks to people that was launched in 2006. Nao robots are an interactive educational toy that helps students to learn programming in a fun and practical way.
Noticing their relevance to STEM education, some libraries are making robots available to library patrons. Westport Public Library provides robot training classes for its two Nao robots. Chicago Public Library lends a number of Finch robots that patrons can program to see how they work. In celebration of the National Robotics Week back in April, San Diego Public Library hosted their first Robot Day educating the public about how robots have impacted the society. San Diego Public Library also started a weekly Robotics Club inviting anyone to join in to help build or learn how to build a robot for the library. Haslet Public Library offers the Robotics Camp program for 6th to 8th graders who want to learn how to build with LEGO Mindstorms EV3 kits. School librarians are also starting robotics clubs. The Robotics Club at New Rochelle High School in New York is run by the school’s librarian, Ryan Paulsen. Paulsen’s robotics club started with faculty, parent, and other schools’ help along with a grant from NASA and participated in a FIRST Robotics Competition. Organizations such as the Robotics Academy at Carnegie Mellon University provides educational outreach and resources.
There are also libraries that offer coding workshops often with Arduino or Raspberry Pi, which are inexpensive computer hardware. Ames Free Library offers Raspberry Pi workshops. San Diego Public Library runs a monthly Arduino Enthusiast Meetup. Arduinos and Raspberry Pis can be used to build digital devices and objects that can sense and interact the physical world, which are close to a simple robot. We may see more robotics programs at those libraries in the near future.
Robots can fulfill many other functions than being educational interactive toys, however. For example, robots can be very useful in healthcare. A robot can be a patient’s emotional companion just like the Pepper. Or it can provide an easy way to communicate for a patient and her/his caregiver with physicians and others. A robot can be used at a hospital to move and deliver medication and other items and function as a telemedicine assistant. It can also provide physical assistance for a patient or a nurse and even be use for children’s therapy.
Humanoid robots like Pepper may also serve at a reception desk at companies. And it is not difficult to imagine them as sales clerks at stores. Robots can be useful at schools and other educational settings as well. At a workplace, teleworkers can use robots to achieve more active presence. For example, universities and colleges can offer a similar telepresence robot to online students who want to virtually experience and utilize the campus facilities or to faculty who wish to offer the office hours or collaborate with colleagues while they are away from the office. As a matter of fact, the University of Texas, Arlington, Libraries recently acquired several Telepresence Robots to lend to their faculty and students.
Not all robots do or will have the humanoid form as the Pepper robot does. But as robots become more and more capable, we will surely get to see more robots in our daily lives.
Alpeyev, Pavel, and Takashi Amano. “Robots at Work: SoftBank Aims to Bring Pepper to Stores.” Bloomberg Business, June 30, 2015. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-30/robots-at-work-softbank-aims-to-bring-pepper-to-stores.
“Boston Dynamics.” Accessed September 8, 2015. http://www.bostondynamics.com/.
“Finch Robots Land at CPL Altgeld.” Chicago Public Library, May 12, 2014. https://www.chipublib.org/news/finch-robots-land-at-cpl/.
McNickle, Michelle. “10 Medical Robots That Could Change Healthcare – InformationWeek.” InformationWeek, December 6, 2012. http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/10-medical-robots-that-could-change-healthcare/d/d-id/1107696.
Singh, Angad. “‘Pepper’ the Emotional Robot, Sells out within a Minute.” CNN.com, June 23, 2015. http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/22/tech/pepper-robot-sold-out/.
Tran, Uyen. “SDPL Labs: Arduino Aplenty.” The Library Incubator Project, April 17, 2015. http://www.libraryasincubatorproject.org/?p=16559.
“UT Arlington Library to Begin Offering Programming Robots for Checkout.” University of Texas Arlington, March 11, 2015. https://www.uta.edu/news/releases/2015/03/Library-robots-2015.php.
Waldman, Loretta. “Coming Soon to the Library: Humanoid Robots.” Wall Street Journal, September 29, 2014, sec. New York. http://www.wsj.com/articles/coming-soon-to-the-library-humanoid-robots-1412015687.
Cool or Useful? A guide to incorporating hobby projects into library work
Sometimes I have trouble creating a clear line between geeky hobby projects I do on my own time and professional tasks for MPOW (my place of work.) This time, the geeky-thing-I-think-is-cool is a LibraryBox. LibraryBox is a hardware hack created by Jason Griffey. What I’m currently trying to work out is, is this project a viable solution to a practical work-place problem? Of course, I have to watch out for Maslov’s Law of the Instrument which can be paraphrased: “To a person with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” These days I’m seeing a lot of LibraryBox-shaped nails. I’m eager to find potential applications for my new
toy tool. My project in today’s post is to describe the LibraryBox project and describe a method of determining whether or not it has a work-related application.
What is a LibraryBox?
A LibraryBox is a very portable pocket-sized device that serves up digital content to wifi devices. It is designed to provide free ebooks to readers with wifi devices but without access to reliable Internet or power. The best introduction to LibraryBox may be found on the LibraryBox site. Jason Griffey has done an excellent job with the site’s design and has written comprehensive instructions for building and deploying LibraryBoxen. The site describes the project as: “an open source, portable digital file distribution tool based on inexpensive hardware that enables delivery of educational, healthcare, and other vital information to individuals off the grid.”
The LibraryBox project was designed to solve a very specific kind of problem. It is useful in scenarios involving all of the following conditions:
- Either no access or sporadic access to Internet and electrical utilities
- a need to distribute digital content
- users that have wifi enabled devices
In order to meet these objectives, the LibraryBox
- uses inexpensive parts and hardware.
- runs off of batteries and is highly portable.
- uses open source software. (The code is both kinds of free; both libre and gratis.)
Building the LibraryBox was fun and easy. I bought the necessary parts: a mobile router, a large usb flash drive, plus an optional battery. (I’m using a Sony Cycle Energy CP-EL I found on sale at the grocery store for $13). Then I went through the instructions. The process is easy and straightforward. A friend of mine completed them while his baby daughter was down for a nap. I took a little longer because I didn’t read the instructions through before starting and did some steps out of order. If you more diligent with following directions than I am, Jason’s instructions will get you from start to finish easily and without a hitch. Once I had my LibraryBox up and running, I filled the flash drive with some free and creative commons licensed content. I tested it out and was happy to see that I could use it to download ebooks onto my phone, laptop, and tablet. Once I demonstrated that it worked, I began to look for practical applications where it could be more than just cool, I wanted my hobby project to be useful. To keep myself honest and keep my project enthusiasm in check, I’m using a series of questions to help determine whether I’m being blinded by the new shiny thing or whether it is, in fact, an appropriate tool for the job at hand. These questions help with the tool/toy distinction, especially when I’m under the spell of the law of the instrument.
- Does this tool or technology offer a solution to an existing problem?
- If the answer to #1 is yes, does it solve the problem better (more efficiently, cheaply, etc.) than alternate solutions?
- Does this tool or technology introduce unintended consequences or side-effects that are worse than the original problem?
Applying the Questions:
There are two ready applications for a LibraryBox at MPOW. Neither directly involve the library, both involve faculty projects in our Creative Media and Digital Culture (CMDC) program. Both are interesting projects and both project leads have indicated interest in using a LibraryBox to solve a problem. The first case involves using a LibraryBox to allow visitors to a remote historical site the ability to download and install a mobile app. My colleague Brett Oppegaard is leading development of a mobile app to provide visitors to a historic site access to interpretive materials. The location is somewhat remote and mobile broadband coverage is spotty at best and varies depending on the cell provider. My thought was to provide visitors to the site a reliable method of installing and using the app. Applying the three questions from above to this project, I learned that the answers to the first two questions are an unqualified yes. It solves a real problem by allowing users to download a digital file without an active net connection. It does so better than alternate solutions, especially due to its ability to run off of battery power. (There are no utilities at the site.) However, the third question reveals some real difficulties. I was able to successfully download and install the app from its .apk file using the LibraryBox. However, the steps required to achieve this are too convoluted for non-technical end users to follow easily. In addition, the current version of the app requires an active Internet connection in order to successfully install, rendering the LibraryBox workaround moot. These issues may be able to be resolved with some hacking, but right now the LibraryBox isn’t a working solution to this project’s needs. We’ll keep it in mind as the project develops and try new approaches.
Fortunately, as I was demonstrating the LibraryBox to the CMDC faculty, another colleague asked me about using it to solve a problem he is facing. John Barber has been working on preserving The Brautigan Library and re-opening it to submissions. The Brautigan Library is a collection of unpublished manuscripts organized in the spirit of the fictional library described in Richard Brautigan’s novel The Abortion. The Brautigan Library manuscripts currently are housed at the Clark County Historical Museum and we tested the LibraryBox there as a source for providing mobile access to finding aids. This worked, but there were speed and usability issues. As we tested, however, John developed a larger plan involving a dedicated tablet kiosk, a web-app template, and a local web server connected to a router in the building. While we did not choose to use LibraryBox to support this exhibit, it did spark useful conversation that is leading us in promising directions.
After learning that the LibraryBox isn’t a turn-key solution for either project, I still have some productive work to do. The first step is to install a light-weight web server (lighttpd) on the hardware currently running LibraryBox. (Fortunately, someone has already done this and left directions.) It’s possible, but unlikely, that will meet our needs. After that we’re going to test our plans using more powerful hardware in a similar setup. I’ve acquired a Raspberry Pi to test as a web server for the project and may also try running a web server on a more powerful router than the TL-MR3020 LibraryBox is based on. (Some open-WRT capable routers have as much as 128mb of RAM, which may be enough.) There is also work to do on the Ft. Vancouver project. The next steps there involve working on-site with the design team to more clearly articulate the problem(s) we are trying to solve.
In both cases my hobbyist tinkering is leading to practical and productive work projects. In both cases the LibraryBox has served as an excellent kluge (jury-rigged temporary solution) and has helped us see a clearer path to a permanent solution. These solutions will probably not resemble my early amateur efforts, but by exercising a little discipline to make certain my
toys tools are being employed productively, I’m confident that my hobby tinkering has a place in a professional workplace. At very least, my leisure time spent experimenting is benefiting my professional work. I also think that the kind of questions used here have application when considering other library toys fads innovations.
Considering adding a 3D printer to the array of technology your library offers to meet your members’ needs?
The DeLaMare Science & Engineering Library at the University of Nevada, Reno, recently added two 3D printers, along with a 3D scanner and supporting software, to its collection. In the spirit of sharing the tremendous excitement involved in providing a 3D printer to our community, we hope our successful experience may be of use to others as you make the case for your own library. We’ll cover the opportunities libraries can embrace with the potential 3D printing brings, what exactly 3D printing is, how 3D printing, making, and fabrication enhances and perhaps changes learning, and to illustrate we’ll talk about what we’re doing here in DeLaMare.
What’s a 3D Printer?
In a manner similar to printing images on paper, a “3D printer” is a type of additive manufacturing: a three-dimensional object is created by laying down successive layers of material that adhere to one another, creating a three-dimensional output.
What the material is composed of varies from one manufacturer to the next including:
- fine cornstarch held together by “watered-down superglue”
- ABS plastic (think Legos!) with each layer literally melted onto the other
- high-end photopolymer printers where each layer is “printed” by flashing a 2-D image of the layer onto a thin film of a photoreactive layer deposited on the growing surface of the object, the process is similar: the three-dimensional object is constructed by printing and adhering one layer at a time.
Although the technology has been around for well over a decade, the cost for reliable printers has dropped to the point where it is now becoming widely accessible to hobbyists and the education market. Fair warning: don’t be surprised (like we were!) to find that your local high schools may already be years ahead of you in this arena. You can learn a great deal by talking to the high school teachers that may already be on their second or third iteration of the equipment. This makes sense: with the ability to rapidly produce detailed precision parts, such a device is by its very nature a rapid prototyping tool; it has a rightful place next to those CNC routers and milling machines in the shop.
But… the academic library? We would argue that the DeLaMare Science & Engineering Library and academic libraries in general are about knowledge creation, and “rapid prototyping represents the kernel activity of knowledge creation through action.” Spraggon & Bodolica, 2008.
Think of it this way: a laser printer enables students to create a tangible product of their creative writing, enabling further refinement and creation as it is marked-up and shared with others. A 3D printer can play a similar but more broadly-based role in the lives of research and learning – producing tangible models of theoretical constructs, acting as the springboard of new ideas. The ability to go from a two-dimensional model on a computer screen to a real-world object that can be handled, is potentially transformative; immediately accessible, it will not only promote but accelerate knowledge creation and innovation.
But… a 3D printer in the library?
Not everyone can easily understand the connection between libraries and 3D printing. Sometimes stakeholders need to have the “dots connected” to better understand what it is, the value it provides in academia, and why a library is a prime location for this technology.
First consider technology that has become commonplace in today’s library:
- copy machines, recently expanded to include scan to email functionality
- desktop computer workstations and software
- laptops and tablets
- supporting equipment such as laser printers and scanners
- audio and video production and editing equipment and staff
- large-format (poster) printers and scanner
There is serious potential here
UNR Libraries and many academic libraries across the country already strategically deploy technology to enable knowledge creation across departmental boundaries. We are actively building an environment that nurtures creativity while stimulating and supporting learning and innovation across the university landscape.
The library is in a unique position to be able to leverage the wealth of learning and opportunities for knowledge creation that access to such technology can provide in a way that most individual departments are not. Because the library exists for everyone in the academic community, we are well equipped to provide open support for all. By its very nature the library is an active inter-disciplinary hub, where communities of practice cross paths regularly; rather than relegated to isolated departmental “silos” on campus, library technology explicitly enables learning and knowledge creation across disciplines. Science, Technology, Engineering & Math projects can be augmented by insights from the Arts and Humanities, and vice-versa. Regardless of academic discipline, “imagination begets fabrication, fabrication begets imagination.” (Doorley & Witthoft, 2012)
How is Rapid Prototyping a match for libraries?
Rapid Prototyping technology enables the active construction of new knowledge in a way that may be a good match for the library; beyond simply an opportunity to continue to be seen as leading the way technologically, the addition of the resource might enable your students and faculty to leverage the multidisciplinary skills and competencies needed to innovate and compete in today’s rapidly changing environment. In our case, liaison/outreach opportunities abound; currently identified needs that would be supported include:
• Chemistry Department – production of 3D chemical models and lattice structures in support of ongoing research being performed by graduate and undergraduate students working closely with teaching and research faculty. To date, the department has been required to outsource such production needs at a significant cost – both for the cost of the printing, and a lag time on the order of weeks to months for turnaround.
• Mechanical Engineering – development of custom piecework as-needed to support various projects throughout the undergraduate curriculum: from gears and structural work associated with robots and hovercraft to bridges and other structures; the students are already making heavy use of the equipment and software to meet unforeseen needs.
• Computer Sciences & Engineering – in addition to significant prototyping needs identified with several department flagship Senior Projects courses, more routine work will include the production of custom case enclosures to house prototype systems.
• Mining Engineering – production of 3D models of ore bodies and other mine structures immediately enabling learning on a level that is difficult to approach from a strictly two-dimensional print standpoint.
• Geography – structural modeling of geographic terrains, including 3D models based on traditional maps combined with other data to create tangible models of concepts being considered both in the classroom and as faculty research.
Potential support could include:
• BioSciences – examples could include production of body parts models from CT or other scans; producing tangible 3D replicas of actual case studies. [ Editorial note: a research team from the Psychology department on campus has already announced their intention to print 3D models of each team member’s brain from MRI scans.]
• Business/Engineering/Physical Sciences – production of custom parts needed to prototype development in support of patent applications without overly costly outsourcing of work.
• Seismology – active production of 3D models of fault boundaries in an area of study as based on field sampling and collected data.
• Arts – need more be said? Imagine the creativity documented in Lawrence Lessig’s “Remix” extended to the world of 3D objects…
In short, rapid prototyping is a new multidisciplinary literacy that is poised to boost learning and knowledge creation across the Sciences, Engineering, and Arts across the academy. The need for rapid prototyping support is real, and the library is an appropriate place to maximize both the investment and return on the equipment.
So what kind of 3D printer to get?
As of this writing, RP publications hosts a pretty thorough comparison chart of “Comparison Chart of All 3D Printer Choices for Approximately $20,000 or less” at http://www.additive3d.com/3dpr_cht.htm. Its authors make the important points up-front:
• there’s no such thing as the “best” 3D printer, and
• the most important thing is to ask yourself what you and your community will be doing with the machine; balance current needs and future potential.
What will we be doing with a 3D printer?
In identifying needs strongly in line with robust, droppable output; we needed to be able to print 3D models of gears, robot parts, and models that could be handled with a minimum of breakage. Stakeholders across the disciplines were quite clear that they would rather hand-paint a part made of “real” (ABS) plastic if need be than deal with pretty but fragile output.
We chose 2 printers for our maiden voyage along with supporting hardware and software:
- Production 3D printer: Envisioned as the production engine for reliable output of precision parts, the Stratasys uPrint+/SE appeared to be the optimum choice given the demands of a production environment. The combination of reliable precision output, along with the relatively low cost of materials, promises to be a good entry point, at roughly $4.50/cubic inch of printed volume. Although the Stratasys uPrint/SE is somewhat less expensive, the “+” option adds the capability of printing in multiple colors – a feature that is likely to be key in the adoption and use of the equipment.
- Hobbyist 3D printer: The 3DTouch printer was selected to serve both as an active display and an entry point for users experimenting with 3D print output; although the printer lacks the precision of the recommended production machine, the cost of materials with the 3DTouch are dramatically lower than for the production machine at approximately $0.60/cubic inch. The idea is that the 3DTouch can serve as a testing ground for first-round prototypes that would otherwise be printed at a significantly higher cost on the production machine.
- Supporting hardware and software: Purchases include a single NextEngine 3D Laser Scanner, along with a single license of the supporting software RapidWorks. Capable of scanning extended real-world objects at up to 160,000 points per inch, producing a highly-detailed digital representation that can be immediately opened and manipulated in popular modeling software such as SolidWorks or AutoCAD. The educational lab license (30 floating licenses) of the Rhino 3D Modeling Tools for Learning was purchased to meet the needs of customers less comfortable with the SolidWorks software available through a partnership with Engineering on campus.
Connecting the Dots
It should be mentioned that the equipment identified for purchase already has a successful track record – it continues to be the choice for installation in high schools across the country for the same reasons detailed here.
The introduction of the new service already speaks loudly to the students and faculty as to UNR Library’s commitment to the continuing support of combining new with traditional technologies in support of the depth of learning that could not otherwise be obtained. In addition to directly supporting learning and innovation across disciplines at the University, the addition of rapid prototyping services may provide opportunities to introduce those that may not currently think of themselves as “library users” to the wealth of supporting resources that the library already provides. Production use of the 3D printers will build on the already well-established model of large-format printing support, developed over many years; the adoption of the new technology will not require substantial modification to existing procedures.
The great news is we are seeing both printers get use from students and faculty from a variety of departments, even through the summer. Many students have been early adopters, often spreading the news by word of mouth and bringing their work to their peers and faculty. Interestingly, the students are helping each other with the 3D scanning, manipulation and building using 3D software, as well as sharing files. The printer is available to all within the UNR community and we are also looking forward to working with a number of faculty as they add 3D printing as part of their courses and curriculum starting this fall.
Edited to add the official press release from University of Nevada, Reno: http://newsroom.unr.edu/2012/07/18/university-of-nevada-reno-library-first-in-nation-to-offer-3d-printing-campuswide/
Doorley, S., & Witthoft, S. (2012). Make space: How to set the stage for creative collaboration. (1 ed., p. 79). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Spraggon, M. and Bodolica, V. (2008). Knowledge creation processes in small innovative hi-tech firms, Management Research News, 31(11), p. 879-894.
About Our Guest Author: Tod Colegrove holds the degree of Master of Science in Library and Information Science with a concentration in Competitive Intelligence and Knowledge Management from Drexel University which complements additional advanced degrees held in Physics, including the Ph.D.; over 14 years experience as senior management in high-technology private industry. Actively involved in the academy across multiple scientific and engineering disciplines, and keenly aware of the issues and trends in scholarly communication in the sciences; active member of the Association of College and Research Libraries, Science and Technology Section (ACRL/STS), as well as the Library and Information Technology Association (LITA) division of the ALA. At the University of Nevada, Reno, where I served multiple years as manager of the Information Commons @One at the opening of the Mathewson-IGT Knowledge Center, and currently serve as the Head of the DeLaMare Science & Engineering Library.