The Pro-Ams are similar to what researcher Eric von Hippel (2005) calls “user-in-
novators”, lead users who get involved in the development and creation of their
own products, but without being production professionals but being users. In
these examples, from medical equipment to sports products, innovation happens
outside of the corporation, by consumers and end users, rather than in the manu-
facturing process (von Hippel 2005, Shah 2005). These types of users have always
been there, modding their cars or creating communities for “post-production”, for
example in sports equipment, changing their purchased products and creating
supporting communities, sharing their plans and models (Franke & Shah 2003).
These end-users have also been improving and inventing new everyday objects, yet
they have often been neglected in our economic system, or even suppressed and
tricked out of their innovations. The public image has been that it is the “white
coats” of the Research and Developments division that comes up with the bright
ideas, and not, as in many cases, amateurs in civil society organizations (Palmås
2005). von Hippel’s point is that small firms and individual users are increasingly
able to innovate, not only do they use a product or service but they become in-
volved to make it perfect and to benefit directly from their new innovation instead
of selling their idea to a manufacturer. What von Hippel proposes is to bridge the
gap between user and manufacture through production toolkits that closely link
production and use contexts, like advanced Lego parts directly applicable into
products that solve the immediate need of the user (von Hippel 2005: 147ff ). This
would be another form of designer led collaborative design practice, where the
designer makes technical toolboxes for the user to “scratch their own itch”, and in-
novate for themselves and by themselves. Examples of this arriving in the last few
years could be open source programmable microprocessors, such as Arduino, or
more Lego-like electronic building blocks, such as Buglabs. This type of adoption-
adaptation cycle forms the basis for a user-led design methodology which design
researcher Willem Horst calls Participatory Innovation (Horst 2008).
We can see in these examples of Pro-Ams and User-Innovators how the ideas of the
“amateur intelligence operations” by Critical Art Ensemble (1994: 23) can be real-
ized with citizen science, even if the user-innovation examples above are partly
initiated by professionals and with no emphasised critical edge. Still, it is an updat-
ing of the amateur position that through the example of the Linux project has be-
come a real possibility for advanced technical development projects that were pre-
viously preserved for big science – be it expert astronomers or research and
development laboratories.
Throughout this discussion I have chosen technology to illustrate my examples.
Most people think they cannot intervene into technical systems because they are
“too advanced”, yet the Pro-Ams have proved the difference. We can also see cul-
tural phenomena following similar lines. For example in film making, where pro-
fessionals make films with amateur-looking aesthetic such as the Dogma scene, but
where also amateurs makes blockbusters, such as the Blair Witch Project. Likewise,
the music scene is going through a major shift. Digital technology, sampling,
remixing and simple software tools have turned the computer to an advanced stu-
dio. This has met the possibility for file sharing that has created an explosion of
small scenes and micro-cultures.
So what does this mean to the way we practice design? In this case the designer role
is one of orchestrating symbiotic or mutualistic efforts made by many different
actors outside the traditional expert driven design process. It is not only a question