Difference between revisions of "Business Patterns"
m |
m (incorporated toc as list) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Since Fab7 there is talk (and questions) about the 7 "business models" we have identified -- I'd rather call them business design patterns, since they revole around some basic thoughts how a FabLab could generate enough income to sustain itself. The 7 patterns are: | + | Since Fab7 there is talk (and questions) about the 7 "business models" we have identified -- I'd rather call them business design patterns, since they revole around some basic thoughts how a FabLab could generate enough income to sustain itself. Labs typically use a mix of these models. The 7 patterns are:<br> |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
== grant-based == | == grant-based == | ||
Revision as of 20:16, 1 January 2012
Since Fab7 there is talk (and questions) about the 7 "business models" we have identified -- I'd rather call them business design patterns, since they revole around some basic thoughts how a FabLab could generate enough income to sustain itself. Labs typically use a mix of these models. The 7 patterns are:
Contents
grant-based
Main income stream: public (or private) funding
Main service provided: solving some problem the funding body has allocated money for
Main advantage: running costs covered typically for several years
Main disadvantage: dependent on goals of funding body which are outside the control of the lab
embedded in institutions
Main income stream: none, but running costs are covered by parent institution
Main service provided: adding to the (core?) activities of parent institution (e.g. education, providing a workshop, enabling certain activities)
Main advantage: if part of core business of parent institution a view to long-term sustainability
Main disadvantage: institutions and open access are often hard to combine
operating as a prototype shop
Main income stream: work for hire
Main service provided: building prototypes according to specification, ideally together with the customer
Main advantage: FabLab can play in the innovation field
Main disadvantage: helping "inventors" can absorb large portions of lab's staffing time
access fees
Main income stream: hourly, monthly or yearly access fees ("gym model")
Main service provided: access to workshop
Main advantage: stable income stream
Main disadvantage: possible conflict with open access principle
educational activities
Main income stream: course and workshop fees
Main service provided: (ideally: officially approved/accredited) educational activities, lead by FabLab instructors
Main advantage: stable income stream
Main disadvantage: relatively high barriers for entry into the market (accreditation), dependent on money avaliable for external activities in the education system
techno tourism
Main income stream: event or activity based fees
Main service provided: leasurely encounters with digital manufacturing technology
Main advantage: relatively stable income stream
Main disadvantage: dependent on tourism economy
gurus for hire
Main income stream: consultancy or support fees
Main service provided: access to knowledge, access to "official" cirquit of labs
Main advantage: relatively stable income stream as long as number of labs keeps growing
Main disadvantage: even with rapid growth there is only room for a small number of "gurus for hire" labs, potential accusation of creating a ponzi scheme
Main disadvantage:
