Scanning the press on the topic of Additive Manufacturing, there’s a lot said about the features and capabilities of equipment. Data shows the primary applications of additive manufacturing. The overwhelming use of the technology is in the form of prototyping/iterating. Of course, it makes total sense. Equipment performance is now to the point where we can iterate physical things almost as fast as we can iterate digital things.
However, AM manufacturers and pundits strive to see additive manufacturing take on a more prominent role in end-use part production. Adoption in this role would be a shot in the arm for the AM industry as a whole as unit sales and consumables would dramatically increase. AM sales organizations are intimately involved in sales activities on the ground. They are pressured by manufacturers to pursue implementation of their equipment at production levels and pressured by potential customers to resist these initiatives.
This blog asks, “Are We Asking the Wrong Questions?”
Minimum Viable Product (MVP) in Additive Manufacturing
Minimum Viable Product (MVP) – seeks to launch products that satisfy requirements without any ancillary features. In software, this could be something as simple as a website with a single button that just says, “buy”. It’s easy to pursue this in code as it’s “just” code. Changing is easy. Implementing this concept for physical products is a bit more challenging. Mechanical Engineers are challenged to let go of the perceived ‘industry practice’ that is considered the foundation of product development. Never mind that many of these perceptions are decades old and have never been put into question. Rather than accepting “This is how we’ve always done it”, MVP asks, “Do we need to do it that way?” For instance, take a device that has a number of injection molded parts. Several of these parts may exist internally. Things like fan brackets, routing clips, mounting fixtures, etc. may never see the light of day. Yet, it’s generally accepted that these components would be injection molded. In most instances, the choice of material is made with minimal consideration. Opting for PC-ABS is a common, effortless decision, as its capabilities usually exceed the necessary requirements. This material is readily available, and its affordability makes it an even more attractive option. An engineer’s time is expensive and taking a deeper look at such nominal components to see if other materials or processes could be used is not seen as valuable. In other words, seeing what the minimum viable design for this component is, may not seem viable in the grand scheme of the overall product.
Engineers are hesitant to dive into other possibilities not just because it may take more time to analyze but also because the downstream functions including testing, quality control/inspection, assembly, etc. are more familiar with the performance of these ‘traditional’ materials and methods. Not to mention that certain industries have rigorous criteria for conforming to regulatory requirements.
Capabilities of Additive Manufacturing
Manufacturers, industry press, and AM Sales organizations put a lot of effort into focusing on the features and benefits of their products. Rightly so. The AM product offerings today are staggering. Consider that there are over 2000 manufacturers of AM devices, many of which have very niche applications. The quality, accuracy, and performance of these machines rival (and sometimes exceed) traditional processes such as casting, injection molding, and machining. When someone makes the claim, “you can’t use 3D printed parts for production” they are likely basing their view on an experience they had with a consumer-grade solution and have not witnessed the capabilities that exist today in the commercial market.
Sales organizations lead with capabilities. They ask potential customers about their current equipment capabilities and happily report how much better the capabilities are of the latest and greatest. And customers are grateful to hear about this. They are astounded to hear how this will increase their ability to iterate faster during development. Or, how much better their jigs/fixturing will be when they implement these improved capabilities. This approach does nothing to address the desire to transform volume production by implementing this technology. That’s because it is no longer about capabilities.
A Shift in Additive Manufacturing
Sales and Marketing organizations need to re-tool their approaches. They need to take a more holistic approach to the industry to begin asking the right questions. Organizations that implement additive manufacturing see the benefits of their development efforts. The equipment is easily managed by a single person or a small team that doesn’t require full-time care. Small to medium-sized manufacturers may only print 10-15 parts/month. This is hardly fulfilling the promise of additive to be transformational.
When the conversation turns to using this equipment for production devices, there is immediate pushback. For good reason. The sales pitch promises the ability to produce on the same machine that you proof. The ability to manage quality in line. And the ability to change quickly if needed. None of that is appealing to a manufacturer who has spent months/years developing a product, making sure it meets all requirements and conforms to all regulatory needs.
When a product is developed, typically outside vendors are selected early in the process. These are vendors that appear on their “Approved Supplier” list. Getting on that list involved a great deal of effort on behalf of both parties. Often, manufacturers appear onsite with the vendor to ensure their processes and equipment are validated. Understanding their process control and inspection capabilities is important.
The AM Industry is asking customers to become their own suppliers. To do this, manufacturers will need to acquire the equipment, spend time qualifying the machines and processes, establish rigorous processes to maintain that qualification as well as ensure the equipment is maintained. This requires employees, facilities planning, and ongoing expenses that they never had to worry about when just selecting an approved supplier. Not to mention the increased overhead required in their ERP/MRP systems to ensure the process runs smoothly.
Addressing the entire ecosystem of Additive Manufacturing
Until the industry addresses the entire ecosystem around additive manufacturing and engineers become more comfortable with exploring contemporary alternatives to material and design, it’s going to be a challenge to fully adoption AM for production.
A key component to making this happen will be establishing partnerships with leading, innovative organizations that can guide manufacturers through consultation and assessment of their current state. From there, a trusted partner can ensure viable equipment selection and process improvement will result in future success.
