IoT in Makerspaces - Review of Usage and Future Potential
2019
4th International Symposium on Academic Makerspaces
Rohan Banerjee , Leonard M. Ferron , Drew Bailey , Ramy Imam , and Amit S. Jariwala
1 2
Rohan Banerjee, School of Mechanical Eng, Georgia Institute of Technology; e-mail: rbanerjee36@gatech.edu
1
2
Leonard (Ivey) Ferron, School of Mechanical Eng, Georgia Institute of Technology; e-mail: iferron1506@gmail.com
Drew T. Bailey; School of Mechanical Eng., Georgia Institute of Technology; e-mail: dbailey49@gatech.edu
3
Ramy Imam; School of Mechanical Eng., Georgia Institute of Technology; e-mail: rimam@gatech.edu
4
Amit S. Jariwala; School of Mechanical Eng., Georgia Institute of Technology; e-mail: amit.jariwala@gatech.edu
5
I. Introduction
The Internet of Things (IoT) is an emerging technology
that enables the link between various sources of information
and physical objects [1]. ATMs are considered to be one of
the first IoT devices to go online in 1974, though the term
‘IoT’ wasn’t coined until 1992 by Kevin Ashton [2]. IoT has
proved to be an effective method of improving industrial sys-
tems by connecting and sharing data across various platforms
and systems. IoT is defined, by the International Telecommu-
nication Union (ITU), “as a global infrastructure, enabling ad-
vanced services by interconnecting (physical and virtual)
things based on, existing and evolving, interoperable infor-
mation and communication technologies” [3]. To date, IoT
has been successfully implemented in various industries in-
cluding healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, energy, trans-
portation, environment, and homes due to its ability to provide
real time data collection that can be used to identify and ad-
dress potential challenges to a system [4].
IoT technologies are being ubiquitously used across vari-
ous industry sectors, especially in manufacturing. Industry 4.0
refers to the revolutionized methods of how data can be col-
lected, used, and connected. Industry 1.0 and 2.0 both refer to
eras when industries started to collect data manually by count-
ing or making transactional reports. Industry 3.0 refers to the
industry development of automatic data collection methods
like sensors and automation control. Industry 4.0 began when
industries started to build a smart framework that incorpo-
rated IoT to improve performance and efficiency, revolution-
izing how companies operate [4]. Industry 4.0 is sometimes
termed ‘Smart Factories’, describing an environment where a
virtual replication of the physical world is created and decen-
tralized decisions are made. This can be achieved by incorpo-
rating cyber physical systems (CPS). Using IoT, CPS can
transmit and receive data in real time between various devices
and humans simultaneously. Not only can this data transmis-
sion be done internally but also across organizational services
and throughout the value chain [5].
Several makerspaces rely on manual monitoring methods
to collect data, which exhaust great amounts of resources and
can cause operational disturbances. For example, some data
collection methods used today can cause lags in operation and
hinder the culture of making [6]. Via implementation of IoT
and Industry 4.0 into makerspaces, real-time data collection
capabilities can be facilitated while supporting other adminis-
trative functions non-invasively. This paper presents a review
ISAM
Paper No.:
01
3 4 5
of the current state of the art of IoT technologies for data col-
lection and access control within and outside makerspaces as
well as inspiration for novel applications of the technology
within makerspaces.
II. Background
In the world of university makerspaces, there is little doc-
umented evidence or literature on a holistic implementation
of IoT based systems for makerspace management. Some uni-
versity makerspaces use IoT technologies in limited capaci-
ties for tool management and/or usage data collection. Aware-
ness of this technology and its benefits would help these
spaces to exploit the full potential of this technology, ranging
from remote usage tracking and scheduling downtimes to
monitoring machine and space performance. Additionally,
IoT technologies could be utilized to develop a centralized
source of information for makerspaces. Some universities
have built their own, in-house IoT systems that help adminis-
ter their spaces. There are also several commercially available
IoT systems designed for makerspaces management. The fol-
lowing sections present a review of these current solutions.
1) Review of Makerspace Built IoT systems
Several makerspaces have been developing their own
University specific IoT based solutions to track usage. Geor-
gia Tech’s makerspaces like the Flowers Invention Studio and
the Interdisciplinary Design Commons utilize a system called
SUMS (Shared User Management System) to assist adminis-
trators of the spaces with flow of tool usage through tool
queues, sign-in interface, and safety policy enforcement [7].
SUMS also collects data from users in the tool queues and
sign-ins through RFID scanning of student IDs. SUMS ena-
bles tool lockouts through internet enabled controllers linked
with touch screen based kiosks integrated with the SUMS
centralized network [7]. The Invention Studio has expanded
their SUMS tool to interface with a mobile app that makes
information regarding tools in the space available to those
logged into the app [8]. The app receives information through
the SUMS server and is linked with the tool kiosks set up
throughout the space. The app provides users with infor-
mation on tools, real time statuses on tool queues and availa-
bility, and also sends push notifications to users notifying
when it is their turn to use a tool or if they are next. This fea-
ture makes it highly convenient for a user to sign into a pop-
ulated tool queue and return to the Invention Studio when they
are next in line, alleviating potential angst and guesswork [8].
Fig. 1 shows a screenshot of the mobile app.
 Fig. 1: Screenshot of SUMS Invention Studio App [8]
The authors are currently working on a research project Fig. 2: MIT’s Mobius App [11]
to support the development of a ubiquitous sensor network to
gather information directly from any equipment within the 2) Review of Commercial IoT systems for Makerspaces
space. In one instance, an accelerometer was attached to the
body of a laser cutter to track whenever the machine was in Mirroring the development of makerspaces worldwide,
use. This method was demonstrated to generate accurate ma- emergent IoT services are helping manage different as-
chine usage data and the results are currently being quantified. pects of makerspaces. 3D printing’s growing massive
Future development of this platform involves integration of popularity earned approximately $3 billion in revenue for
additional sensors to gather high fidelity information on usage 3D printing service providers in 2017 and $2.17 billion in
and machine performance. 2016 [13]. Hence, 3D printers are receiving a lot of atten-
tion with regards to development of newer and efficient
Tufts University, in Massachusetts, has developed an IoT support technologies.
system for the Bray Lab (part of the mechanical engineering
department) to manage tool safety, training, and accessibility
[9]. Similar to SUMS in the Invention Studio, their UTEM
(Usage Tracking and Equipment Management) system uti-
lizes sign-in kiosks connected to several tools across the space
which have RFID capabilities for ID scanning. UTEM also
uses power interlocks connected to the tools with sign-in ki-
osks, promoting proper and more frequent UTEM usage, and
ensuring collection of accurate data [10]. Three other “Apps”
control the rest of UTEM’s backend: the home app, admin
app, and analytics app. The home app caters to users wanting
to use the space and its tools while the admin app is for staff Fig. 3: 3D Printer OS Globally [14]
to setup new kiosks, edit user permissions and info, and man-
3DPrinterOS.com is a service that allows owners of 3D
age training. Finally, the analytics app extracts collected data.
printers, namely makerspaces, to sync their printers to a cen-
MIT boasts a collection of over 40 makerspaces across tralized network. 3DPrinterOS is active around the world and
its campus and has developed an IoT for the institute’s maker works directly with higher education makerspaces at Georgia
system through an app called Mobius. Mobius offers students Tech, Yale, Duke, and others. 3DPrinterOS’s IoT based solu-
and faculty a way to traverse MIT’s maker system to find not tion allows users and administrators to access, monitor, and
only the right makerspace for a project, but also the right tools even operate arrays of 3D printers from a remote location
and the materials needed to complete the project. Users can through secure login [15]. These capabilities make managing
use a keyword search for tools and materials to get a list of a makerspace’s 3D printers very convenient. Fig. 3 shows a
possible makerspaces to use. Information on who a space is screenshot of the global dashboard showing the utilization of
open for use to, hours of operation, and if materials are pro- 3D printers across the world.
vided or must be purchased can be found for each mak-
In the past few years, companies like SafetySpot.com and
erspace. Users can even purchase materials ahead of time
FabMan.io have developed IoT services for makerspaces to
through the app. The app uses location services to identify and
manage areas like tool and user management. Both utilize a
provide navigation to the most ideal makerspace using any
type of online software that allows makerspaces to interlock
map service. Mobius uses IoT unconventionally. Instead of
any of their tools with FabMan’s API software or Safe-
connecting specific tools, Mobius connects makerspaces and
tySpot’s web based system [16], [17]. Next, using a module
provides users a hub to interact with MIT’s maker system[12].
such as the FabMan Bridge that acts as an interlock to a tool’s
power supply, administrators can add tools in a makerspace
to an IoT, creating a network of sensors that all send data
throughout the IoT. Through a simple WiFi connection, ad-
ministrators can control usage, set up schedules and training,
add billing, and collect data [16]. Fig. 4 shows the evolution
of the control bridges developed by Fabman used to remotely
interlock machines.
Fig. 4: Evolution of Fabman Bridges [18]
AutoDesk, Inc. is developing an IoT based platform to
support training, encouraging DIY projects, and reinforcing
safety procedures. AutoDesk’s Smart Makerspace platform
uses a smart workbench, which is an 84” display that users
can work on that assists users to complete their projects [19].
The bench is a web interface that allows users to manage their
projects in real time. Each section of the bench’s display pro-
vides information including materials required, tool operation
and safety information, tutorials, and even connections to
tools elsewhere in the space, which allows for file transferring
and shows tool availability [20]. Fig. 5 shows the schematic
of the AutoDesk’s Smart Workbench.
Fig. 5: AutoDesk® Smart Workbench [21]
III. INDUSTRY APPLICATIONS OF IOT: INSPIRATION
FOR NOVEL APPLICATIONS
In light of the increasingly vast technological intercon-
nectivity facilitated by IoT, sensor networks have started to
pervade industries spanning healthcare, education, security,
and countless others. In this section, such successful industry
applications of IoT outside of makerspaces shall be explored
in order to derive inspiration for novel innovation.
Popularity, as well as support for “smart schools” and
“smart classrooms” have been growing since the advent of
technological aids in education appeared heavily in the 1990s
[22]. Claims that IoT applications in education have the po-
tential to revolutionize the pedagogical process are bolstered
by findings that IoT in classrooms help student health moni-
toring, safety, and teaching/learning through providing a per-
sonalized student experience [23]. In fact, integrating weara-
bles (e.g. smart watches) with education has encouraged an
active learning environment and produced better and results
than in traditional classroom settings, as supported by [24].
Another industry on which IoT has made a large impact
is agriculture and food production. The tracking of metrics
such as soil quality, level of irrigation and humidity, as well
as fertilizer and pesticide use, among others, have increased
agricultural precision through the implementation of IoT and
Industry 4.0; as an added benefit, the use of such systems has
even been shown to reduce the usage of fuel and herbicides in
agricultural settings [25], [26].
Fig. 6: Data and IoT in Agriculture [27]
Integration of agricultural systems with Industry 4.0 ad-
ditionally combats and subverts a potential pitfall of data
driven decision making, “paralysis by analysis” (discussed in
further detail later on). Industry 4.0 allows for integration of
multiple data streams to provide informed suggestions to ag-
ricultural professionals rather than overwhelming them with
raw data.
Furthermore, RFID-enabled Wireless Sensor Networks
(WSNs) used in food tracking can improve shelf life predic-
tion, sales premiums, precision food production, and reduce
insurance cost [28], all while promoting nontraditional, yet
potentially more efficient supply chain logistics such as first-
expired-first-out (FEFO) rather than first-in-first-out (FIFO)
[29]. Additionally, to further improve customer satisfaction
and reduce labor costs, IoT allows for the use of RFID-
enabled smart shopping carts, allowing consumers the option
to purchase items without ever queueing in a checkout line
[30].
Yet another industry umbrella, which has developed on
the backbone of IoT Technologies, is the concept of a “smart
city.” As shown in Fig. 7, Smart cities can be broken down
into smaller, interactive components comprising of smart
transport, homes and security, as well as health/healthcare.
Fig. 7: The Integration of a Smart City [31]
 In the area of smart transportation, Srinivasan [32] inter-
faced between Raspberry Pi 3 and OBD-II (On board Diag-
nostics) devices, allowing vehicle owners to view a live diag-
nostic of the vehicle including metrics such as internal tem-
perature, battery and engine performance, tire pressure etc. on
their mobile phones. As pictured below, the diagnostic uti-
lized a machine learning (ML) algorithm to provide predictive
analysis and system health diagnostics to the user.
Fig. 8: Vehicular Health Diagnostic [32]
On the other hand, smart home technology, as described
by Lee at al. [33] allows for remote monitoring of domestic
features such as lights, door locks, interior climate control, se-
curity system etc.
Interestingly, IoT even has potential to affect the future
of criminal justice; for example, IoT networks could enable
criminal justice practitioners to remotely monitor persons of
interest, as well as provide necessary authorities with individ-
uals’ identities, histories, connections, reputations, etc. in a
packaged, easy to access manner, thereby avoiding additional
delays. In fact, IoT’s impact in criminal justice could go even
further by also interfacing with the smart city concept outlined
above. In a potential situation described by Jackson et al.
[34], an erroneously parked autonomous vehicle could recog-
nize a police officer’s authority and be re-parked remotely
while notifying the owner of the vehicle of the updated loca-
tion.
IoT’s impact on healthcare spans multiple domains, one
of which is the tracking of medical devices [35] throughout
hospitals to optimize inventory management and proper fore-
casting. From the perspective of the healthcare consumer, im-
plementation of the technology allows for remote EEG, ECG,
and EMG tests or even simple wearables to track metrics such
as blood pressure and heart rate [36].
While the above list in no way encapsulates the full ca-
pabilities of IoT, a notable use is in the integration of IoT and
prognostics and systems health management (PHM) [37], a
system which uses physics-of-failure (PoF) to assess the
health, value and rate of appreciation/depreciation of techno-
logical assets over time [38]. Similar to the previously refer-
enced smart transportation study [32], the PHM approach uses
machine learning in conjunction with machine diagnostics;
however, instead of simply providing a real time report of ma-
chine health, it is able to predict potential shortcomings of the
diagnosed machine, allowing for predictive maintenance by
the user or machine administrator.
Fig. 9: The PHM approach [38]
A beneficial aspect of IoT implementation is the facilita-
tion of user-machine interaction, as well as machine learning.
Nike’s integration of IoT devices with their commercial prod-
ucts exemplifies this idea. Nike connects their shoes and
wristbands (a variation of smart wearables) to the cloud to al-
low users to track various activities. This gathered data can
then be used to improve the athletic performance of the con-
sumer, and/or shared with a community via social media,
thereby indirectly serving as a marketing tactic for Nike. This
is also useful as this technology allows for further product and
service enhancements [39]. Another example of how IoT has
encouraged consumer traffic is epitomized in the example of
Netflix, an online streaming service. Netflix uses data to pre-
dict a users’ behavior and make suggestions on what the user
may enjoy watching. It also provides global data about which
shows or movies are popular amongst users. The data also im-
pacts Netflix, as it can affect the streaming service’s logistics
and marketing [39], [40]. In addition to Nike and Netflix, the
Amazon Echo is an example of a specific device rather than
an entire company that uses IoT to promote machine learning.
Machine learning is a “field of study that gives computers the
ability to learn without being explicitly programmed.” [41]
The Amazon Echo uses local and cloud computing to “inter-
face with various other systems, exchange information, pro-
vide e-services, playback music and news on demand, and
provide human to machine interface for a smart home.” This
device promotes autonomy, and allows for better machine
communication. [42] While the Amazon Echo uses machine
learning, machine to machine learning (M2M) is also a con-
tributor to the uses of IoT. Machine to machine communica-
tion is a system of communication that “enables ubiquitous
connectivity between one or more autonomous devices with-
out or with minimal human interaction.” [43] It is used in se-
curity, tracking, payment, smart grid, and remote mainte-
nance/monitoring. [44]
IV. RELEVANCE OF INDUSTRY IOT APPLICATIONS FOR
MAKERSPACES
1) Potential Benefits
Garnering ideas and inspiration from the various industry im-
plementations of IoT above may allow for novel applications
inside Makerspaces. From reviewing the applications of In-
dustry IoT, it is clear that data from Wireless Sensor Networks
(WSNs) could be utilized along with usage datasets, to con-
duct predictive maintenance of tools and machines. Usage
data for individual machines could also be broken down fur-
ther, much like in a smart car or home, to view real time di-
agnostic reports, thereby helping with maintenance and pos-
sible malfunction prognosis.
Another very interesting industry application which
could be brought to makerspaces, is the idea proposed by [38],
with respect to PHM. The potential of PHM to prognosticate
the health of tools and machines in a makerspace over time
through sensor networks and cloud computing could allow
not only for better maintenance, but for the tracking of value
depreciation over time based on machine performance. This
could better equip makerspaces to be able to buy and sell ma-
chinery and equipment at the right time based on trends in
performance data. Rather than traditional metrics such as
make, model, and production year, which ignore factors such
as wear and tear, storage conditions, and care when handling
the machine, decisions involving the dimension of perfor-
mance analytics, have potential to maximize return on invest-
ment and encourage smarter makerspace spending.
In terms of makerspace logistics, IoT can be used to min-
imize energy usage based on user engagement with machines
and motion detection technology can be used to immediately
alert appropriate authorities in the event of a physical security
breach. Additionally, machine usage data could be used to
simulate an ideal layout of the makerspace, i.e. most popular
tools and machines placed in easily accessible areas, etc.) to
decrease potential crowding and hence safety hazards during
peak usage times. Data could also help allocate and direct pro-
fessional personnel to high engagement areas in times of need
while real time usage data along with queue size for individ-
ual machines could be publicized to minimize congestion and
maximize user satisfaction.
With respect to the potential criminal justice applications
of IoT described earlier, a similar application could be
adopted by makerspaces seeking to improve user satisfaction
and decrease congestion. For example, if a machine/tool is ac-
cidentally left unmonitored by an individual for an extended
period of time, the unfinished project could be scanned into
storage by makerspace professionals, while simultaneously
notifying the user of the whereabouts of his/her project as well
as an explanation of the event. As the user’s information
would have been used when he/she “signed in” to the machine
or tool, this would be a relatively simple process, but could
greatly improve user satisfaction since such a situation may
otherwise be resolved by disposing of the user’s unfinished
project, leaving the user potentially very unhappy.
Another application could be, for example, using weara-
ble devices can help promote the “gamification” of a mak-
erspace, an environment which may otherwise strike new-
comers as complex and intimidating, and potentially unsafe.
While a conclusive verdict concerning the effectiveness of
gamifying education remains pending due to a lack of long
term research on the topic [45], the concept of gamification
has been shown to yield positive results in the past, and may
have carryover to marketing and business engagement metrics
[46]. Implementing wearables in a makerspace could increase
motivation for newcomers to interact with tools and ma-
chines, while providing important information concerning
safety, locations of makerspace personnel, emergency proto-
cols, introductions to tools, etc. These metrics could be sup-
plemented by a virtual point system to increase engagement,
allowing for potential increases in popularity and funding for
the makerspace.
One of the premier benefits of using IoT in a makerspace
is its ability to enable better data-driven decision-making. IoT
implementation allows for more data collection and therefore
more data analysis. This was exemplified in a case study using
a drone to inspect a bridge [47]. The program used a drone
equipped with a camera to observe less reachable parts of the
bridge, as well as providing footage of reachable parts of the
bridge without sending a physical inspector to the scene. The
study found that “the bridge inspection with the drone resulted
in less costs than a human inspection with the needed equip-
ment to access the areas of the bridge” thereby proving that
IoT can collect data cheaper and easier allowing for decisions
to be made more efficiently [47]. A direct translation of this
idea could be placing health-monitoring sensors within com-
plex CNC machines that could provide data to access the
health of the tool while the machine is in operation. Also, this
information could be used to provide direct feedback and
training to the users. Another case study used IoT to monitor
the health of a diesel engine in a Komatsu mining and con-
struction vehicle. The study modified existing remote moni-
toring software that already monitored pressures, fuel flow
rate, temperature, and the rotational speed of the engine. Re-
searchers utilized various algorithms to convert the engine
data into health data allowing them to better assess what
causes machine degradation and how to extend the lifespan of
a machine [48]. Making better data-driven decisions can be a
major player in increasing the efficiency of a makerspace. Per
the above, it is clear how similar applications of IoT have po-
tential to be used in conjunction with employees to better
maintain machines in a makerspace while inspiring increased
efficiency and cultivating an interconnected working environ-
ment.
A number of the potential applications reviewed above, as
well as their variations and subsidiaries, are currently being
developed for makerspace implementation. For example, one
of the authors is prototyping an inventory call button using a
Particle microcontroller and a popular applet making website,
IFTTT (If This Then That); the device, at the touch of a but-
ton, notifies staff of Georgia Tech’s Flowers Invention Studio
makerspace (via email or text) of potential inventory and/or
tool functionality shortages. A visiting researcher at Georgia
Tech is also using microcontrollers to develop an IoT solution
to a common makerspace issue. The project aims to create a
device equipped with gas and particulate matter sensors that
can be placed inside of a laser cutter exhaust system for ma-
terial detection, while also collecting usage data. A graduate
research team from Georgia Tech is developing another cut-
ting-edge application of IoT in makerspaces. This team is col-
laborating with the Autodesk Technology Center at Pier9 in
San Francisco to design and build non-invasive sensor packs
to monitor machining equipment in the [49]. The team is also
focused on demonstrating various ways to combine outputs
from CNC controllers with sensor data from machining pro-
cesses. This technology helps improve manufacturing
through preventative health and maintenance, advanced CAM
simulations and optimization. Given the recent rate of pro-
gress in makerspace IoT, it should come as no surprise if the
above technologies are soon recognized as makerspace sta-
ples, with even more ambitious IoT undertakings afoot.
2) Potential Risks/Limitations
One of the primary limitations to implementing IoT tech-
nologies within makerspaces is the cost involved with retro-
fitting the space and equipment with interconnected sensors
and interlocks communicating in sync with a central network.
Most equipment typically used in makerspaces are built to en-
able fabrication at the lowest cost possible to support custom
prototyping; and hence they are not typically embedded with
advanced sensors to support IoT implementation. To address
this limitation, the authors are developing a tool sensor mod-
ule that could be attached to existing machines, which would
enable low cost connectivity while providing higher fidelity
information and control. As IoT technology continues to gain
ground, manufacturers could embed such systems to make
their prototyping tools lucrative for the advanced makerspace
manager/administrator. However, these custom machine spe-
cific solutions would require to operate on a common infor-
mation protocol system such that it would allow seamless data
transfers to support meaningful makerspace-wide analysis,
planning and overall management.
While implementation of IoT could pose many benefits
to the efficiency and cohesion of a makerspace, it also enables
digital antagonists to gain access to sensitive information. In
the case of cybersecurity, IoT presents a gateway to violate
privacy, safety, or even company productivity [50]. In 2015,
IoT devices connected 4.9 billion things and will connect 25
billion things by 2020 [51]. While the idea of connecting all
machines and systems in a makerspace can inspire an inter-
connected workspace, it can also cause concern for cyberse-
curity. Fig. 10 demonstrates the threats that can attack an IoT
system, and the repercussions they can have. Access can be
gained through “less secure connected devices or systems”
and can “establish a foothold into the IoT architecture.” An
example of this is given in WIRED Magazine, where hackers
were able to remote hack into a Jeep through Chrysler’s Ucon-
nect dashboard. The hackers were able to take control of the
car’s sound system and the windshield wipers. These systems
also connect with the car’s electronic control units (ECUs)
which control other functions such as the vehicles transmis-
sion and brakes making the innocent entry into the speakers
of the car into a life threatening scenario [50], [52]. There are
ways around the issue of cybersecurity such as encryption, re-
mote security monitoring, or simply outfitting the device with
less vulnerable accessories; however, these methods are ex-
pensive and can be hard to implement [50].
Fig. 10: Threats when using IoT [49]
Another issue that arises when using IoT in makerspaces
is gaining the trust of the users. This issue is similar to the
issue of cybersecurity, however has an additional layer be-
cause of the involvement of the user. Users may feel as though
gathering data is intrusive [53]. A survey presented by the
PGP Research Report finds that about 86% of security
breaches involved the loss or theft of customer or consumer
information, and that more than 58% of respondents believed
the breach decreased their sense of trust and confidence in the
organization reporting the incident [55]. This supports the
claim that adding IoT to a makerspace may have the potential
drawback of discouraging users to enter the space for fear of
their personal data being compromised.
Extremely large data sets generated through intercon-
nected IoT devices can present its own host of problems and
lends itself to data paralysis. Data paralysis is the idea that one
can over analyze the data collected such that productivity is
lowered because they are unable to make a decision [54]. This
issue can be seen as less immediate when compared to per-
sonal security or privacy, however misinterpreting or mishan-
dling data can cause economic and productivity loss [39]. In
a survey by the Ponemon Institute it is it is estimated that a
data breach can cost a company up to $14 million per incident
[53]. Problems with big data management can be minimized
by “sophisticated and flexible data filtering, data mining and
processing procedures” [55].
V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The concept of connecting the world of things is growing
at a rapid pace thanks to development of IoT technologies and
the growth in interest for Industry 4.0 paradigm. Few higher
education makerspaces and commercial entities have started
pioneering the concept of connecting tools/equipment on a
digital framework to allow monitoring usage and control ac-
cess. However, the full potential of IoT technology remains
largely untapped for the makerspace community, as evident
by the review of novel applications currently under develop-
ment for Industry. Given the possibilities of this ubiquitous
technology, the smart makerspaces of the future look very ex-
citing – with an embedded and interconnected web of sensors
and controllers which provide real-time useful information to
stakeholders to help them make the best decision – whether it
is in terms of better management of the space, staff and tools,
or to enrich the user’s learning experience.
 REFERENCES
[1] F. Wortmann and K. Flüchter, “Internet of Things,” Busi-
ness & Information Systems Engineering, vol. 57, no. 3, pp.
221–224, Jun. 2015.
[2] B. Schechter, “The Evolution of IoT | Covisint,” Covisint,
31-Jul-2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.covis-
int.com/blog/the-evolution-of-iot/. [Accessed: 24-May-
2019].
[3] P. Kocovic, R. Behringer, M. Ramachandran, and R.
Mihajlovic, Emerging Trends and Applications of the Internet
of Things. IGI Global, 2017.
[4] M. Abdelhafidh, M. Fourati, L. C. Fourati, and A.
Chouaya, “Internet of Things in Industry 4.0 Case Study :
Fluid Distribution Monitoring System,” in Computer Science
& Information Technology (CS & IT), 2017, pp. 01–11.
[5] H. Mario, P. Tobias, and O. Boris, “Design principles for
Industrie 4.0 scenarios: a literature review,” Technische Uni-
versität Dortmund, working paper, vol. 1, 2015.
[6] Ramy Imam Leonard Ferron Amit S. Jariwala, “A Review
of the Data Collection Methods Used at Higher Education
Makerspaces,” 3rd International Symposium on Academic
Makerspaces, Aug. 2018.
[7] “029 - Development and Impact of a Data Collection Sys-
tem for Academic Makerspaces Paper.pdf,” Google Docs.
[Online]. Available:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4ZIatyug-
WjJcWZWWHJ6djMwRzQ/view. [Accessed: 24-May-
2019].
[8]“19_Rupert_Smartphone_Application_for_Mak-
erspace_Management.pdf,” Google Docs. [Online]. Availa-
ble:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ReIu9R_4EPe5wpSfjgin1K
pvHOU7QrRF/view. [Accessed: 24-May-2019].
[9]“Bray Lab.” [Online]. Available:
https://sites.tufts.edu/bray/. [Accessed: 23-May-2019].
[10]B. O’Connell, “Design and Analysis of an IoT Usage
Tracking and Equipment Management System Within a Uni-
versity Makerspace,” Tufts University, 2017.
[11]Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “MIT Mobile
Möbius.” 05-Mar-2016.
[12]“Mobius – MIT Project Manus.” [Online]. Available:
https://project-manus.mit.edu/mobius. [Accessed: 23-May-
2019].
[13] T. J. McCue, “3D Printing Service Bureaus On Growth
Path With Almost $3 Billion In Revenue,” Forbes Magazine,
Forbes, 31-Aug-2018.
[14] “How to Mend the 3D Printing Digital Divide |
3DPrinterOS.” .
[15] “Cloud 3D Printer Management Software.” [Online].
Available: https://www.3dprinteros.com/. [Accessed: 24-
May-2019].
[16] Fabman, “Fabman Help Guides.” [Online]. Available:
https://help.fabman.io/. [Accessed: 28-May-2019].
[17] “Safety Spot | Blog.” [Online]. Available: https://safe-
tyspot.com/blog. [Accessed: 28-May-2019].
[18] “Fabman (@FabmanHQ) | Twitter.” [Online]. Available:
https://twitter.com/fabmanhq?lang=es. [Accessed: 27-May-
2019].
[19] AutoDesk Research, Smart Makerspace: An Immersive
Instructional Space for Physical Tasks. 2015.
[20] G. Licks, A. Teixeira, and K. Luyten, “Smart Mak-
erspace: A Web Platform Implementation,” International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), vol.
13, no. 02, pp. 140–156, Feb. 2018.
[21] “Supercharge your makerspace with IoT power | Auto-
desk Research.” .
[22] M. W. Firmin and D. J. Genesi, “History and Implemen-
tation of Classroom Technology,” Procedia - Social and Be-
havioral Sciences, vol. 93, pp. 1603–1617, Oct. 2013.
[23] M. Bagheri and S. H. Movahed, “The Effect of the Inter-
net of Things (IoT) on Education Business Model,” in 2016
12th International Conference on Signal-Image Technology
Internet-Based Systems (SITIS), 2016, pp. 435–441.
[24] W.-Y. Hwang, H. S. Chen, R. Shadiev, R. Y.-M. Huang,
and C.-Y. Chen, “A Study of the Use of Wearable Devices for
Healthy and Enjoyable English as a Foreign Language Learn-
ing in Authentic Contexts, Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy & Society, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 217–231, Oct. 2018.
[25] J. M. Talavera et al., “Review of IoT applications in
agro-industrial and environmental fields,” Comput. Electron.
Agric., vol. 142, pp. 283–297, Nov. 2017.
[26] Vincent Bonneau and Bertrand Copigneaux, “Industry
4.0 in agriculture: Focus on IoT aspects,” Digital Transfor-
mation Monitor, 2017.
[27] “Digital Appetite in Rural America: Innovative Agricul-
tural Technologies and the Potential for USDA,” Accenture,
2017
[28] Z. Pang, Q. Chen, W. Han, and L. Zheng, “Value-centric
design of the internet-of-things solution for food supply
chain: Value creation, sensor portfolio and information fu-
sion,” Inf. Syst. Front., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 289–319, Apr. 2015.
[29] Z. Zou, Q. Chen, I. Uysal, and L. Zheng, “Radio fre-
quency identification enabled wireless sensing for intelligent
food logistics,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal So-
ciety A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,
vol. 372, no. 2017, pp. 1–16, 2014.
[30] R. Li, T. Song, N. Capurso, J. Yu, J. Couture, and X.
Cheng, “IoT Applications on Secure Smart Shopping Sys-
tem,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 1945–
1954, Dec. 2017.
[31] A. Gaur, B. Scotney, G. Parr, and S. McClean, “Smart
City Architecture and its Applications Based on IoT,” Proce-
dia Comput. Sci., vol. 52, pp. 1089–1094, Jan. 2015.
[32] A. Srinivasan, “IoT Cloud Based Real Time Automobile
Monitoring System,” in 2018 3rd IEEE International Confer-
ence on Intelligent Transportation Engineering (ICITE),
2018, pp. 231–235.
[33] I. Lee and K. Lee, “The Internet of Things (IoT): Appli-
cations, investments, and challenges for enterprises,” Bus.
Horiz., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 431–440, Jul. 2015.
[34] J. S. Hollywood, D. Woods, R. Silberglitt, and B. A. Work? -- A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gam-
Jackson, “Using Future Internet Technologies to Strengthen ification,” in 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on
Criminal Justice,” in Using Future Internet Technologies to System Sciences, 2014, pp. 3025–3034.
Strengthen Criminal Justice, RAND Corporation, 2015, pp. [47] P. Brous, M. Janssen, D. Schraven, J. Spiegeler, and B.
1–32. Can Duzgun, “Factors Influencing Adoption of IoT for Data-
[35] L. C. K. Man, C. M. Na, and N. C. Kit, “IoT-Based Asset driven Decision Making in Asset Management Organiza-
Management System for Healthcare-Related Industries,” In- tions,” in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
ternational Journal of Engineering Business Management, Internet of Things, Big Data and Security, Porto, Portugal,
vol. 7, p. 19, Jan. 2015. 2017, pp. 70–79.
[36] P. P. Ray, “Home Health Hub Internet of Things [48] J. Lee, H.-A. Kao, and S. Yang, “Service Innovation and
(H3IoT): An architectural framework for monitoring health of Smart Analytics for Industry 4.0 and Big Data Environment,”
elderly people,” in 2014 International Conference on Science Procedia CIRP, vol. 16, pp. 3–8, Jan. 2014.
Engineering and Management Research (ICSEMR), 2014, [49] “GT@SF Blog – EPICS: Enhanced Preparation for Intel-
pp. 1–3. ligent Cybermanufacturing Systems.” [Online]. Available:
[37] C. Boller, F.-K. Chang, and Y. Fujino, Eds., “Prognostics https://epics.me.gatech.edu/research/ubiquitous-sensing-net-
and Health Management of Electronics,” in Encyclopedia of works-for-advanced-manufacturing-at-autodesk/blog/. [Ac-
Structural Health Monitoring, vol. 41, Chichester, UK: John cessed: 17-Jul-2019].
Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009, p. 2. [50] L. Miller, “IoT Security For Dummies Inside Secure Edi-
[38] D. Kwon, M. R. Hodkiewicz, J. Fan, T. Shibutani, and tion.” 2016.
M. G. Pecht, “IoT-Based Prognostics and Systems Health [51] Y. Lu and L. D. Xu, “Internet of Things (IoT) Cyberse-
Management for Industrial Applications,” IEEE Access, vol. curity Research: A Review of Current Research Topics,”
4, pp. 3659–3670, 2016. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 2103–2115,
[39] S. Chains, “DECISION-MAKING AND THE Apr. 2019.
INTERNET OF THINGS.” [52] A. Greenberg, I. Lapowsky, Z. Tufekci, L. H. Newman,
[40] X. Amatriain, “Big & Personal: Data and Models Behind B. Barrett, and A. Sullivan, “Hackers Remotely Kill a Jeep on
Netflix Recommendations,” in Proceedings of the 2nd Inter- the Highway—With Me in It,” Wired, WIRED, 21-Jul-2015.
national Workshop on Big Data, Streams and Heterogeneous [53] J. Marshall and E. M. Heffes, “Data security; Surveys:
Source Mining: Algorithms, Systems, Programming Models data losses spur consumer flight,” Financial Executive, vol.
and Applications, Chicago, Illinois, 2013, pp. 1–6. 22, no. 1, pp. 10–11, 2006.
[41] A. L. Samuel, “Some Studies in Machine Learning Using [54] A. Langley, “Between ‘Paralysis by Analysis’ and ‘Ex-
the Game of Checkers,” IBM J. Res. Dev., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. tinction by Instinct.’”
210–229, Jul. 1959. [55] “Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart
[42] U. S. Shanthamallu, A. Spanias, C. Tepedelenlioglu, and Environments and Integrated Ecosystems.”
M. Stanley, “A brief survey of machine learning methods and
their sensor and IoT applications,” in 2017 8th International
Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems Applica-
tions (IISA), 2017, pp. 1–8.
[43] “Random Access for Machine-to-Machine Communica-
tion in LTE-Advanced Networks: Issues and Approaches.”
[Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/pro-
file/Monowar_Hasan/publication/260670310_Random_Ac-
cess_for_Machine-to-Machine_Communication_in_LTE-
Advanced_Networks_Issues_and_Ap-
proaches/links/54b7d9a40cf269d8cbf551ae/Random-Ac-
cess-for-Machine-to-Machine-Communication-in-LTE-
Advanced-Networks-Issues-and-Approaches.pdf. [Accessed:
29-May-2019].
[44] R. Ratasuk, B. Vejlgaard, N. Mangalvedhe, and A.
Ghosh, “NB-IoT system for M2M communication,” in 2016
IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference,
2016, pp. 1–5.
[45] C. Dichev and D. Dicheva, “Gamifying education: what
is known, what is believed and what remains uncertain: a crit-
ical review,” International Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy in Higher Education, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 9, Feb. 2017.
[46] J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa, “Does Gamification