Mismatched Missions and Machines: Why Tinkering Labs and Maker Spaces Fail

Over the past 12 years of hands-on research and engagement in innovation and entrepreneurship education for school and university students, I have conducted over a hundred maker workshops and set up 24 maker labs and grassroots ecosystems worldwide. I have also visited and evaluated countless tinkering labs, maker labs, and fab labs in educational and community spaces. One consistent observation stands out: these labs are often over-provisioned and under-utilized.

Despite significant investments in infrastructure, expensive machines, and slick branding, these labs frequently fall short of their promise. Why does this happen? Let’s break it down.

Misplaced Purpose

The first question I usually ask when visiting a lab is: "What’s the mission of this space?" Almost always, the response involves enabling students or members to take product ideas and turn them into working prototypes using the lab’s 3D printers, CNC machines, and electronics kits.

That sounds admirable on the surface—but also wildly disconnected from the context.

Consider a typical school student or even a first-year engineering student. Most of them are not walking around with refined product ideas ready for prototyping. Instead, they’re still discovering basic concepts of physics, circuits, design, and creative problem-solving. Expecting them to build products out of the gate is unrealistic and sets the lab up for failure.

A product company like Apple or Tesla might need a state-of-the-art prototyping lab for its expert designers and engineers. But a school’s tinkering lab is fundamentally about learning and experimentation, not product development. It should be a space where students play, explore, fail, and try again—a zone of creative discovery, not product delivery.

In many schools, however, labs are filled with machines before clarity emerges on what students are meant to learn through them.

The Missing Ecosystem

A successful tinkering lab doesn't exist in a vacuum. It thrives when surrounded by a dynamic ecosystem—one that includes:

• Engaged and trained teachers who know how to guide exploration without dictating it

• A process of training students through a curriculum of exposure to the basics of design and engineering

• A core group of active students who return often, mentor peers, and build a culture of curiosity

• Regular challenges or themes to keep things fresh and relevant, such as hackathons or maker workshops.

• Integration with curriculum where possible, or at least alignment with broader learning goals through project-based learning

Most failed labs lack this ecosystem. Machines sit idle because teachers are untrained or uninterested. Students come in once or twice for a school project, take a selfie with a 3D printer, and never return. Without ongoing energy and engagement, even the best equipment cannot sustain excitement.

Once, I visited a school with about 700 students. They had a government-funded Tinkering lab used by seven kids, mainly because only their parents agreed to pick them up after the school buses left. The ecosystem was nonexistent. To kickstart the ecosystem, I ran a maker workshop for 40 students and trained ten teachers from various subject areas because the critical mass is vital for building an ecosystem.

In other words, it’s not just about the machines—it’s about building the maker community, the innovation culture, and the activity rhythm of the place.

The Flawed Revenue Model

Many community-based maker spaces and even some university labs have attempted to build revenue models centered on memberships, machine rentals, or training workshops. While this can work in some cases, it rarely creates a sustainable model in educational settings.

Here’s why:

1. Low frequency of use: Most students aren’t using the lab daily. If they come once a month or for a semester project, they aren’t going to pay recurring fees that cover operational costs.

2. High maintenance costs: Machines like laser cutters, 3D printers, and CNC routers need constant upkeep. If not used frequently, they degrade. If used heavily, they break. Either way, costs pile up.

3. Misaligned incentives: Schools and universities that partner with commercial vendors to run labs on a for-profit basis often end up prioritizing revenue over learning. This leads to overpriced “intro to 3D printing” workshops with little depth, or a focus on fancy equipment rather than meaningful engagement.

Instead of chasing profitability, schools should focus on value generation through learning. Tinkering labs should be treated as learning studios, not profit centers. Students may create things there that they could sell to support operating expenses, as we saw during the pandemic.

An ideal Tinkering lab must find projects from outside that would pay for products that students create while more students learn to design and make. It exposes them to the fundamentals of entrepreneurship. Showcasing these projects attracts more students to the lab, thus building a critical mass.

What’s the Way Forward?

To reverse the trend of failing maker spaces, we must reframe their purpose and rebuild their ecosystems. Here’s what that might look like:

• Start small: A few basic tools and a big whiteboard can go further than a room full of idle machines. You can start a lab with a few hundred dollars worth of materials.

• Define a mission around learning goals, not just prototyping outcomes. Breaking the fear of trying, failing, and learning is more important than any projects they will do.

• Train teachers as facilitators of exploration, not operators of machines. Teachers don't need to know much but must be willing to learn with the students.

• Encourage peer-led projects and a sense of community ownership. Student mentors learn fast and help spread the culture of innovation. The Culture is the flywheel that once put in motion will keep help the ecosystem grow.

• Celebrate process over product. Reward tinkering, curiosity, and creative risks. Run innovation challenges and competitions to fire up the student body.

Ultimately, the success of a tinkering lab lies not in the sophistication of its tools, but in the vibrancy of the minds it engages.