THE 3D PRINTING REVOLUTION
A scenario-based view on the industry from a value perspective
Sander Kock
5623103
Thesis Master Business Studies
combined with Master Information Studies
Program - Business Information Systems
University of Amsterdam
Faculty of Science, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam
Section Information Management
August 19th 2011
Supervisor: dhr. dr. M.P. Avital
Contents 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................5
2
Problem statement...................................................................................................................6
2.1
3
Technologies .............................................................................................................................7
3.1
4
Objective, research question and relevance ............................................................................... 6
Additive manufacturing............................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1
Stereolithography .................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.2
Ballistic Particle Manufacturing (Inkjet based) .................................................................... 11
3.1.3
Laminated Object Manufacture (LOM) ................................................................................ 12
3.1.4
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) ............................................................................................ 13
3.1.5
Fused Deposition Modelling ................................................................................................. 14
3.1.6
Inkjet Printing ....................................................................................................................... 15
3.1.7
Three Dimensional Printing .................................................................................................. 17
3.1.8
Laser Powder Forming .......................................................................................................... 18
Industry background ............................................................................................................20
4.1
Primary and secondary market ................................................................................................ 20
4.1.1
4.2
System Developers and Manufacturers.................................................................................... 22
4.2.1
4.3
Industry sales numbers .......................................................................................................... 24
Service providers ........................................................................................................................ 25
4.3.1
Ponoko .................................................................................................................................. 26
4.3.2
Shapeways ............................................................................................................................ 27
4.3.3
Autodesk 123D ..................................................................................................................... 28
4.4
5
Products and services growth................................................................................................ 21
Open source projects.................................................................................................................. 29
4.4.1
RepRap project ..................................................................................................................... 29
4.4.2
Fab@Home ........................................................................................................................... 32
4.4.3
MaketBot Industries .............................................................................................................. 33
4.4.4
Thingiverse ........................................................................................................................... 35
4.4.5
AdderFab .............................................................................................................................. 37
4.4.6
Universities ........................................................................................................................... 37
4.5
Design companies ....................................................................................................................... 38
4.6
Wrap up ...................................................................................................................................... 40
Theoretical background ........................................................................................................40
5.1
Open source and user communities .......................................................................................... 40
5.2
Different factors in open source ................................................................................................ 41
5.3
Open design................................................................................................................................. 42
5.3.1
Approaches to open design ................................................................................................... 43
5.3.2
Pitfalls to open design ........................................................................................................... 46
5.4
Mass production, mass customization and full customization ............................................... 47
2
6
7
Research Method ...................................................................................................................51
6.1
The Scenario-based Method ...................................................................................................... 51
6.2
Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 52
6.3
Data collection ............................................................................................................................ 53
6.4
Avoid common errors ................................................................................................................ 54
6.5
Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 54
Scenario 1 ...............................................................................................................................56
7.1
Price ............................................................................................................................................. 56
7.1.1
Business perspective ............................................................................................................. 57
7.1.2
Consumer perspective ........................................................................................................... 58
7.1.3
Lowering prices .................................................................................................................... 60
7.2
Quality ......................................................................................................................................... 63
7.3
Speed ........................................................................................................................................... 64
7.3.1
7.4
8
Increasing speed .................................................................................................................... 66
Limited materials ....................................................................................................................... 67
7.4.1
Multi-material printing.......................................................................................................... 68
7.4.2
Unlimited possibilities .......................................................................................................... 69
7.4.3
Material issues ...................................................................................................................... 71
7.4.4
Future materials .................................................................................................................... 71
7.5
Education .................................................................................................................................... 72
7.6
What’s next ................................................................................................................................. 74
7.7
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 75
Scenario 2 ...............................................................................................................................78
8.1
The killer app.............................................................................................................................. 78
8.2
Software ...................................................................................................................................... 80
8.3
The rise of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo ................................................................................... 82
8.3.1
PadPivot ................................................................................................................................ 82
8.3.2
Custom 3D printed iPad cases .............................................................................................. 84
8.4
Economics ................................................................................................................................... 85
8.4.1
New profitable processes ...................................................................................................... 87
8.4.2
Performance .......................................................................................................................... 88
8.4.3
Special uses ........................................................................................................................... 89
8.5
Business in 3D printing .............................................................................................................. 89
8.5.1
CloudFab ............................................................................................................................... 89
8.5.2
Jay Leno – The car industry story ......................................................................................... 90
8.5.3
Clothing bikini print .............................................................................................................. 91
8.5.4
FreshFiber ............................................................................................................................. 93
8.5.5
3Dock .................................................................................................................................... 95
8.6
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................... 97
3
9
Scenario 3 ...............................................................................................................................99
9.1
Hybrid Production Methods ................................................................................................... 100
9.2
Product design .......................................................................................................................... 100
9.3
Mass manufacturing versus 3D printing ................................................................................ 101
9.3.1
Utility .................................................................................................................................. 102
9.3.2
The environment ................................................................................................................. 103
9.3.3
Call for expert users ............................................................................................................ 104
9.4
10
9.4.1
Stratasys .............................................................................................................................. 105
9.4.2
Hewlett Packard .................................................................................................................. 106
9.4.3
3D Systems ......................................................................................................................... 108
9.5
Shaping the infrastructure ...................................................................................................... 109
9.6
Changing paradigms ................................................................................................................ 111
9.7
Brands and designers ............................................................................................................... 112
9.8
The future ahead ...................................................................................................................... 113
9.9
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 115
Discussion...........................................................................................................................118
10.1
11
Big Players in the field ............................................................................................................. 105
Future research ...................................................................................................................... 120
Conclusion .........................................................................................................................120
References...................................................................................................................................122
Appendix 1 – Additive Manufacturing processes ...................................................................126
Appendix 2 –Additive Manufacuring Processes Cont............................................................127
Appendix 3 – URL sources of figures used..............................................................................128
Appendix 4 – Product shopping guide .....................................................................................129
Appendix 5 – Interview questions ............................................................................................139
4
1
INTRODUCTION
3D printing has been around for over 20 years. Until recently, not many people had heard about 3D
printing. 3D printers were mainly used in labs and research groups at automakers, aerospace companies
and other design-intensive businesses. However, the last couple of years 3D printing has moved closer to
the mainstream, thanks to entrepreneurs and consumer-focused companies that are building businesses
around the machines (Guth, 2007).
The 3D technology combines computer software and specialized ‘printers’ (Guth, 2007). 3D printing is a
process for rapid and flexible production of prototype parts, end-use parts and tools directly from a
computer-aided design (CAD) model. The technology functions by building parts in layer-by-layer and
binding them together. So it is possible to create parts of any geometry and out of any material, including
ceramics, metals, polymers and composites (MIT, 2000). 3D printing has led the field of Rapid
Prototyping in the creation of functional parts and tooling directly from a CAD model. The technology
offers great flexibility and possibilities to manufacture structural components with unique microstructures
and capabilities. Because of the potential reduction in time to market for new products and lower product
cost by reducing development and tooling costs, 3D printing could have large implications in
manufacturing (MIT, 2000).
About two years ago, experts announced that 3D printing was going to create a second industrial
revolution. It would have major implications for the world, because people would create every product at
home with home fabrication. Within five years every household would have a desktop model 3D printer
and print out designs of jewellery, furniture, shoes and all kinds of utensils that we would download from
the internet (Lemereis, 2010, p.34).
The fab@home project also believes that the 3D printer is going to change the way we live. Fab@home is
a platform of printers and programs that can produce functional 3D objects. The most interesting part
about fab@home is that the project is supported by a global open-source community of professionals and
hobbyists that are ‘innovating tomorrow, today’.1 Open source is a concept in the literature that has been
very much related to software development only, but now we see a shift to the hardware industry.
Because of the specific characteristics of open source, von Krogh (2003) et al. question whether it is
applicable to other industries. The recent movement in 3D printing has given rise to several communities,
thereby implying that it can.
The possibilities of this technology seem endless, still there is only a slow steady growth. Certainly,
things have happened in the last two years, for example with Hewlett Packard entering the market with a
line of mainstream printers,2 but we can’t really talk about a revolution yet. With this research I want to
1
2
http://fabathome.org/
http://www.geek.com/articles/gadgets/hp-looking-to-make-3d-printing-mainstream-20100120/
5
contribute to a wider spreading and growth of the 3D printing technology. I do not regard myself as an
early-adopter; still I must admit that this technology intrigued me.
2
PROBLEM STATEMENT
2.1
Objective, research question and relevance
On the internet and within these communities, a lot is written about 3D printing. It is interesting to note
that all the players involved in the movement of 3D printing have visions about the future with regards to
this technology. However, there is not so much written about this subject in a scientific sense. This
research will serve multiple goals. When it comes to content, the aim of this research is to present an
overview of the existing technologies. Secondly, this research will present an overview of the current
situation of the 3D printing industry. It will do so based on an extensive survey of the industry based on
what consumers talk about. Thirdly, next to reviewing the current situation of 3D printing, the research
will also try to examine and review the implications that this technology will have for the future, making
use of the scenario approach. The fourth goal of this study is to make an insightful contribution to the
scientific field by providing more clarification on certain concepts and open paths for future research.
Fifth, I would like to direct more attention towards this topic and make it more accessible, since still not
many people know what this topic really entails. The topic is actually very easy to understand and not
technical at all. Therefore it is good to make it clear to the mainstream. A lot is happening already, but
more attention will cause more entrepreneurs and people to actually do something with it.
The technology has developed very rapidly over the last months. There are many people that believe that
3D printing is going to create a revolution in manufacturing and will change the ways how we design,
manufacture and experience products. The technology itself offers almost unlimited possibilities and
knows many applications. Within the field, different authors focus on different aspects of the technology.
The technology offers solutions for very diverse industries, ranging from automotive parts to bio-medical
organs (TED, 2011). Others believe that 3D printing will change mass production and will lead to more
mass customization (Beaman et al, 2004). According to Weinberg (2010) the 3D printing technology will
also have major implications for product design, and related issues like intellectual property rights.
It looks like 3D printing can create a lot of disruptions and uncertainty for the future. So it seems
impossible to predict how the future exactly will look like. Schoemaker (1995) and van der Heijden
(2000) agree that the future is uncertain, however they also believe that at least something in the future is
predictable. A way to predict the future can be done by using of scenarios. Scenarios are narratives that
provide us with a description of possible future states of affairs as well as a description of the
developments. The main question that I would like to answer with this research is: “What are plausible
scenarios on how the future of the 3D printing technology will unfold?” I will try to look at the
technology in different potential future states. The goals is not to forecast when the scenarios seem
6
probable, but under which conditions. Each scenario will entail a discussion and comparison of the
conditions that could lead to the selected scenario.
I will start by discussing the typologies of the different technologies. After that I will review the industry
by presenting some industry numbers, and highlighting the different machine manufacturers, service
providers and open-source communities. The following chapter will be a theoretical part in which I will
outline scientific concepts like open source, open design, and customization in its related forms. This part
is designed to provide more clarification on the different concepts that will be used later on in the study.
After the theoretical part I will explain the research methods used in this study, followed by the actual
results in the form of three pre-set scenarios. All three scenarios have their own individual summary.
After the scenarios I will present the conclusion followed by suggestions for future research.
3
TECHNOLOGIES
3.1
Additive manufacturing
Over the last 25 years, technologies have been developed to produce complex freeform solid objects from
computer models without part-specific tooling or knowledge. These technologies have different names,
but are often called ‘solid freeform fabrication’ (SFF) technologies. They have been applied to prototype
models and encompassed mostly additive or layered manufacturing techniques (Beaman et al., 2004,
p.ix). Beaman et al. (2004) argue that until recently these SFF techniques have mainly been applied to
prototype models and comprised mostly additive manufacturing techniques. However, the technologies
are now very much evolving and nowadays include more than just a layered process. Many SFF
techniques have developed into processes that encompass all kinds of related systems of material
addition, subtraction, assembly and insertion of components, which are normally made by other
processes. For these fabrication processes, Beaman et al. (2004) come up with the term
‘additive/subtractive processes’ (p.1).
ASTM, International Committee F42 on Additive Manufacturing (AM) Technologies, defines additive
manufacturing as: “the process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model data, usually layer
upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing methodologies.”3 Synonyms summed up by
Wohlers (2010) include additive fabrication, additive processes, additive techniques, additive layer
manufacturing, layer manufacturing and freeform fabrication. It is important to note that it is not just
about prototyping. AM includes all applications of the technology, like building physical models,
prototypes, patterns, tooling components and production of end-use parts in plastic, metal, ceramic or
composite materials in any preferred volume (one to thousands or more) (p.10).
A term that is synonymously used with additive manufacturing and in particular with machines that are
low end in price and/or overall capability is 3D printing. According to ASTM International Committee
F42 on Additive Manufacturing Technologies, 3D printing is “the fabrication of objects through the
3
http://www.timecompression.com/articles/additive-manufacturing-101-part-i
7
deposition of a material using a print head, nozzle, or another printer technology.” For now, 3D printers
are mostly used to produce concept models for the visual and tactile inspection of a proposed design.
However, since the materials and processes improve, the printers are also used for more application such
as fit and function testing (Wohlers, 2010, p.45).
So, additive manufacturing can be used as a tool to streamline and expedite the product development
process. Companies of all sizes rely on AM as a tool for rapid product development, since AM has the
potential to reduce time to market, improve product quality, reduce costs. AM can be categorized into
three uses of the technology: rapid prototyping, rapid tooling and rapid manufacturing. With rapid
prototyping, the additive processes are used as a visualization tool that helps companies reduce the
likelihood of delivering flawed products, which means the wrong products to the marketplace.
Methods, processes and systems for tooling are also developing. Recently, people have concentrated on
using AM to improve the performance of injection-mold tooling. There are concepts that involve the use
of an AM process that achieved results not even possible with machined tooling. Next to injection-mold
tooling, AM has been used to produce manufacturing and assembly tools, like jigs, fixtures and drill
guides. We call this Rapid Tooling, a process where Rapid Prototyping techniques are used to improve its
own processes.
Additive manufacturing is also having a significant impact on the way some companies manufacture
products. These companies are now using the technology to actually produce end-use product. Wohlers
(2010) believes that this will actually become the most important application of the AM technology. He
believes that in the future, many companies will use AM to manufacture a wide range of custom en
limited edition products and replacement parts, as well as short-run and series production in part
quantities ranging from one to thousands (p.11).
Beaman et al. (2004) as well as Hopkinson, Hague and Dickens (2006) state that rapid prototyping is
evolving into the next stage called rapid manufacturing. The need for tooling is here eliminated.
Hopkinson et al. (2006) use define Rapid Manufacturing as: “the use of a computer aided design (CAD)based automated additive manufacturing process to construct parts that are used directly as finished
products or components”. The additive manufactured parts still may be post-processed in some way by
techniques such as infiltration, bead blasting, painting, plating etc (p.1). The authors argue that many of
the current RP systems face problems like surface finish, accuracy and repeatability for example. At the
moment RP systems are being used for specialist, low-volume and customized products (the latter being
one of the most important features of RM). However, true manufacturing with sufficient speed, cost and
quality that is going to be accepted by the general consumer does not exist yet (p.2).
Rapid Manufacturing is currently facing a large reticence to accept it as a genuine possibility for
producing products. For every individual that sees the opportunities of Rapid Manufacturing, there is
another who prefers to focus on why it can or will not happen. People still compare this process too much
with existing processes and in this particular case as an extension of Rapid Prototyping, thereby
8
underlining that the process is not suitable for end use product. The only thing the people in the field can
do is keep showing the evidence of success and the benefits of the process. Hopkinson et al. (2006) define
the main three advantages of the technology as being:
1. Latitude of application
There doesn’t seem to be another technological discipline with such a broad range of potential
applications as Rapid Manufacturing. The latitude of application is for example reflected in the range of
materials that an be processed and the potential for functionally graded components
2. Design freedom
The processes are capable of creating mind-boggling geometries. An example such a digital creation can
be seen in Figure 1, with a marketing campaign launched the 5th of August for the energy-drink ‘Burn’
created by Janne Kyttanen. The processes have outstripped the capabilities of CAD. Interesting to see is
that we will now actually face a situation where visualizing and designing a product is actually harder
than making it. The biggest advantage from this technology does not come from the manufacturing
approach per se, but mostly from the big advantage that is possible in the area of design. Up until now,
designers have been educated to develop designs with restricted geometry so parts can be easily
produced. This is no longer necessary (p.6).
3. Economic for volumes down to one
This technology may facilitate the concept of widespread economic manufacture to a volume of one. It is
likely that the customer will be very closely involved in this process and manufacturing will be bough
close to the point of sale, in stead of the current drift of manufacturing from west to east (p.3). Because
the technology bypasses the need for tooling, it means that it’s not necessary to manufacture high
volumes to offset these tooling costs. This opens up pathways for affordable, highly complex, custom
parts (p.6). Since designers don’t need tooling anymore, they are now able to produce parts of any
complexity and geometry. Also, with conventional manufacturing there is a direct link with the
complexity of a part and its cost, with tooling being one of the most restrictive factors for today’s product
development. With RM, complexity becomes independent of cost (Hopkinson et al., 2006, p.5).
To provide more insight into the commercial rapid manufacturing processes, Beaman et al. (2004) argue
that these processes are mainly additive types that can be divided into four categories.
1. Stereolithography
2. Lamination
3. Inkjet
4. Powders
By examining commercial production sites in Europe, the layered powder process seemed most popular,
followed by inkjet deposition (p.7). Appendix 1 presents a historical chronological outline of the additive
9
(patented) manufacturing processes that been developed since 1986. Appendix 2 shows a distinction
between the different technology types as well as the developer of the technologies. In the next sections I
will shortly discuss every method. To avoid the overload of some pages, I have created Appendix 3 –
URL sources of figures used with the sources of the figures and pictures in this thesis that I don’t own.
Figure 1: 3D product design file. Courtesy of Freedom of Creation.
3.1.1
Stereolithography
The most commonly known SFF process is stereolithography, an
additive manufacturing technology, making use of a layered
photopolymer process. According to Nee, Fuh and Miyazawa
(2001), the stereolithography as one of the first commercialized
Rapid Prototyping processes is arguably the best established in
terms
of
accuracy,
controllable
parameters
and
in-depth
understanding of its mechanics. A large number of researchers
have taken the effort to perfect the technique, resulting in almost
unlimited geometry possibilities, fine geometric details and high
accuracy (Lukkassen and Meidell, 2007, p.238). There are many
parameters that determine the successful controllability and
operability of the stereolithography process.
Figure 2: 3D Systems ProJet 6000
SLA printer
10
Nee et al. (2001) categorize these parameters into three categories and these categories are constantly
subject to improvement.
1) The hardware – which means the construction and mode of operation of the machine
2) Software – that controls the hatching pattern, error compensation and part orientation
3) Material properties – the basic material is photo-polymer
This process requires a vat of liquid photopolymer and a UV laser to build parts layer by layer. The
process starts by scanning the surface of the photopolymer vat with a UV laser, according to the sliced
data. The laser then selectively hardens a portion of the top layer of the material in the vat. After the layer
is done, the platform is dipped into the vat and descends by a single layer thickness. Then a fresh layer is
created on top of the previous one, while being scanned with the laser. This process is repeated, until a
complete solidified 3-D part is fabricated. After production, the parts are cleaned and withdrawn from the
vat (Beaman et al., 2004, p.2).
Figure 4: Schematic overview of the SLA process.
Liquid photo-polymer is spread on the surface and
scanned by a laser for solidification (Beaman et al,
2004, p.2).
Figure 3: Systematic overview of the components of the SL process
(CustomPartNet, 2008)
3.1.2
Ballistic Particle Manufacturing (Inkjet based)
Ballistic Particle Manufacturing appeared in 1987 as one of the first technologies based on inkjets. Now
the inkjet technology has improved and is used as a way of printing electrical and optical devices,
especially where these involve organic components (Calvert, 2001). More on the inkjet technology in
section 3.1.6. The Ballistic Particle Manufacturing process produces objects by shooting drops of molten
material on top of each other, producing multiple cross sections. A part is created on an elevator plate. A
droplet gun moves in X and Y directions to create a layer. Every time a layer is formed, the elevator
moves downward, so that the new layer can be created on top of the previous one. The advantage of this
BPM is that different materials and colors can be applied within a single part (Kruth, 1991, p.605). Figure
5 shows a schematic representation of the process, derived from its patent document.
11
Figure 5: Ballistic Particle Manufacturing, US patent #4665492
3.1.3
Laminated Object Manufacture (LOM)
Laminated Object Manufacture (LOM), see Figure 6, is a technology that uses solid foils to form parts.
LOM bonds different sheets with an adhesive and then cuts the contour of the part with a laser. Again, the
part is built on a platform. A roll applies material to the part on the platform and bonds the material to the
previous layers by using a hot roller that activates a heat-sensitive adhesive that is attached to the
undersurface of this foil. A laser then cuts the foil following the contour of the layer. This laser is very
well tuned, as it will only penetrate to a depth of precisely one layer thickness. The unwanted material is
trimmed into rectangles but is only removed in the end after the building process, because during the
process it still works as supports (Pham and Gault, 1998, p.1276).
Figure 6: Laminated Object Manufacturing Process. Source: A
to Z of Material, 2011
12
The materials that are available for this technology are paper, plastic, metal or fiber reinforced glass
ceramic. This is also one of the main advantages of this technology, because these materials are relatively
cheap. The second advantage of this technology is the size; the manufactured parts can be quite large and
heavy compared to other Rapid Prototyping methods. Third advantage is the speed of this technology.
Since only the outlines of the parts needs to be traced, this method is about 5-10 times faster than other
processes (Pham and Gault, 1998, p.1277).
The technology also has several disadvantages. First, after the
manufactured part is finished, you need to pry the part off the
platform (table) and in this way the surface finish is affected.
Second, with this technology it is hard to make hollow parts
because it is difficult to remove the core of the finished part. Third,
this manufacturing process produces a large amount of scrap and
also drops of molten material (dross) form during the cutting
Figure 7: Cubic Technologies SD300
LOM printer
process. This means that the machine needs to be constantly
manned to remove the scrap and dross. Fourth, the parts need to be finished by hand. Fifth, the shear
strength of the part is adversely affected by the layering of adhesive and foil (p.1278). Lukkassen and
Meidell (2007) add that this technology is not suited for producing fine details (p.236).
3.1.4
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) is a layer manufacturing process that can create complex 3D parts by
consolidating successive layers of powder material on top of each other with a computer controlled laser.
The consolidation is obtained by processing selected areas using
thermal energy that is supplied by a focused laser beam (Kruth,
Mercelis, Van Vaerenbergh, Froyen and Rombouts, 2005). The
material that is used is a fine powder that adheres and fuses under
laser illumination. The advantage of SLS over stereolithography is
that this process does not require support structures, because nonsintered powders provide support during the building of the parts.
Most SLS models are opaque. According to Berry et al., in 1997
this method was still only using powder of nylon, polycarbonate or
wax, but the use of different materials was under research. In
2003, research of Das already showed that SLS was used for
producing fully dense, functional components in high performance
metals.
Figure 8: EOS Formiga P100 SLS
printer
13
In the building process (Figure 9), a roller
evenly distributes a thin layer of powder in
the build area. A laser then scans a selected
area of the powder, thereby consolidating the
powder and forming a new layer of the object.
Only the powder that is inside a cross-section
of the part is sintered. The new layer
automatically bonds with the previous layer at
overlapping parts. The model is then lowered
and the powder-feeding cartridge will supply
Figure 9: Selective Laser Sintering process
new fresh powder. So the powder delivery
piston goes one layer up all the time as the
fabrication piston goes one layer down. This process repeats until the model is complete (Berry et al.,
1997, p.91).
3.1.5
Fused Deposition Modelling
The Fused Deposition Modeling process does not require any
solvent like other SFF processes. Like any Rapid Prototyping
process, the FDM model creates three-dimensional objects from
computer-generated models. FDM uses a temperature-controlled
extruder to force out a thermoplastic filament material and then
places the semi-molten polymer onto a platform in a layer-by-layer
process. Two rollers move the filament and use it as a piston to
drive the semi-molten extrudate. After one layer is finished, the
platform lowers and the next layer is put on top. The object is
finished as a three-dimensional part based on the precise
deposition of thin layers of the extrudate. Depending on the
material used, fabrication conditions, application of the designed
part and preferences of the designer the deposition path and
parameters for every single layer are allocated and inserted into the
Figure 10: Fortus 360mc FDM printer
slicing software.
Processing parameters for filling the layers include the head speed, roller speed, slice interval and
direction of deposition within each layers. Every layer of the part is divided into ‘roads’ that are going in
a X- and Y-direction. The layer can thus be printed in a raster, a contour or a combination of both. The
layers of roads are fused together upon solidification to form a 3D structure (Zein and al., 2002, p.1170).
The technology is already well developed and it can build models using high performance engineering
14
materials, like polycarbonate and sulfones. Prototypes built with this technology, normally have great
impact strength and resist heat and corrosion (Lukkassen and Meidell, 2007, p.235).
Figure 11: Illustration of the Fused Deposition Modelling process. Source: Zein et al., 2002
3.1.6
Inkjet Printing
Inkjet printing refers to an entire group of machines that employ the inkjet technology, with the first of
them probably being Three Dimensional Printing (see section 3.1.7). Inkjet printing is commonly known
as the method for printing computer data like text and images onto paper or transparencies. Recently it
has been used as free-form fabrication method for building three-dimensional parts. With inkjet
technology, an object is built in a layer-by-layer process. There are many variants of this technology. At
this moment the technology works with ‘binders’, plastic and metal powder. The process basically prints
a liquid binder in a powder bed.
Kellner and Zaeh (2011) categorize the 3D inkjet printing technology into four principles, 1) recoating, 2)
printing, 3) lowering and 4) unwrapping (see also Figure 12). After solidification of one layer, the system
recoats a thin powder layer. The printing head then selectively prints the liquid in the powder layer, after
which the fabrication piston or platform is lowered. It can then take up to 24 hours until the device can be
removed that is completely wrapped with powder, but this depends on the printing process used (p.647).
With Z Corp 3D printers using inkjetprinting technology, the excess powder is easily removed at the
completion of the build. Intricate shapes can be built without having to remove support material at the end
of the build process. However, the part does need to be finished with infiltrants like wax, cyanoacrylate
(super glue) and epoxy materials that will give the parts the desired finish and increase the strength.4
4
http://www.alphaprototypes.com/Z-Corp-3d-Printing-Process.aspx
15
Figure 12: 3D inkjet printing principles. Source: Kellner and Zaeh, 2011
Yeong et al. (2006) model the inkjet printing process into three levels; 1) single droplet level, 2)
successive droplet deposition and 3) interaction of build-support material. A drop-on-demand printing
head sprays the droplets that impact the substrate and spread into spherical caps that define the resolution
of the produced part. The machine generates the appropriate conditions in order for the droplets to fuse
and make straight lines, while the printing head is turning across. The extent of the droplet spreading
determines the width of the lines. In this process the lines join together and form layers. By adding
multiple layers, the part is produced, see also Figure 13 (p.232).
This process involves two heated feeding lines that transport the materials that are stored in the material
reservoir to the individual printing heads. A driver with electrical and mechanical components activates a
sleeve in the printing head to start the spreading of acoustic waves in the ink chamber. When the pressure
wave at the nozzle is higher than the surface tension and ambient pressure, the liquid is pushed out to
form into a droplet and spread on the platform (p.232).
Figure 13: Representation of the 3D inkjet printing
process. Source: Yeong et al., 2006
16
3.1.7
Three Dimensional Printing
Three Dimensional Printing (3DP) is a process initiated at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 3DP is a solid
freeform
fabrication
technique
that
employs
powder
processing in the construction of parts in a layer-wise manner.
3DP is capable of manufacturing a part directly from a CAD
model and can handle complex features like internal walls,
tortuous channels, porosity gradients and multiple material
regions.
The CAD model of the desired part is translated into a slicing
algorithm with detailed information for each layer. The
production starts with the thin distribution of powder over the
surface of a powder bed (MIT, 2000). With a technology
Figure 14: Z Corp ZPrinter 450, 3DP
similar like inkjet printing, liquid binders are applied to join loose powders and form the 3D structure
(Lee, Dunn and Wu, 2005). The piston that is supporting the powder bed and the manufactured part is
lowered and a next power layer is spread on top to join the previous layers. The layer-by-layer process
continues until the part is completed. At the end the part undergoes a heat treatment, to remove unbound
powder (MIT, 2000). A 3DP machine is normally composed of a pair of horizontal X-Y axes that are
suspended over a vertical piston. This way, control over three directions of motion is provided (Katstra et
al., 2000, p.2). A schematic by additive3d of the process is shown in Figure 15. The inkjet head (A)
deposits a liquid adhesive onto the top layer of the object material powder bed (B). The fabrication piston
(C) then moves down by one layer and the powder delivery piston (E) moves up by a powder layer (note
that this is similar to the SLS process). The roller (D) then spreads and compresses the powder on top of
the build cylinder.
There are several advantages to this method. First, the process is very versatile. The 3DP process can
create parts of any geometry. While manufacturing the part, powder beds provide support, meaning that
overhangs, undercut and internal volumes can be created (if there is a hole for the loose powder to
escape). On top of that this method can process many types of powders, like ceramics, metals, polymers,
composites and hydrogels. Second, with this method you are able to control the spatial distribution of the
microstructure, material composition and surface texture and create internal device features (Katstra et al.,
2000). Different printing heads can dispense different types of materials. Materials can be in liquid form
or molten matter. By placing the droplets in the right way, any surface, texture and internal microstructure
can be produced, but it is also possible to locally tailor the material composition (MIT, 2000). Third, the
3DP process has a high degree of placement accuracy of the droplets. Fourth, 3DP reduces many postprocessing steps (Lee, Dunn and Wu, 2005).
17
According to MIT (2000), 3DP was the first technology to achieve the fabrication of ceramic parts, and a
leader in the creation of metal parts. Katstra et al. (2000) argue that 3DP is still in the pilot manufacturing
stage, but it is clear that the process is easily scalable to full-scale manufacturing of pharmaceutical
products (p.3).
Figure 15: Three Dimensional Printing System. Source: additive3d.com
3.1.8
Laser Powder Forming
The most commonly known process of LPF is Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENS). The process of
LENS is similar to traditional laser-initiated rapid prototyping technologies, like stereolithography and
SLS in a sense that it’s an additive layer fabrication technique to build physical parts directly from CAD
data. The CAD model is sliced into thin layers, and this slice data is translated into laser scanning paths to
create layers. The LENS process is derived from prototyping processes that create plastic prototypes and
casting patterns, but the big difference is that it fabricates metal parts. This way the technology is not only
used as rapid prototyping process, but also as a manufacturing process for production high quality metal
parts and injection mold tooling. The powder materials that are available for this LENS process include
titanium, nick-base superalloys, stainless steel and tool steel.5
The technology works with metal particles being driven into a focused laser beam. The laser beam then
creates a molten pool of metal on a substrate into which powder then is injected. At the same time, the
substrate where the deposition occurs is moved under the beam (or powder interaction zone). Now the
desired cross-sectional geometry of the layer is created. By adding consecutive layers a three-dimensional
part is created (Atwood, Griffith, Harwell et al., 1998).
5
http://www.optomec.com/Additive-Manufacturing-Technology/Laser-Additive-Manufacturing
18
Figure 16: Laser Engineered Net Shaping. Source: additive3d.com
The technology works as follows (see Figure 16). The laser melts the metal powder in the deposition head
(C), the X-Y table (D) moves in a raster fashion to fabricate each layer of the object. The head moves up
after completing each layer. The metal powders (A) reach the printing head by gravity, if not the carrier
gas (G) will pressure the powder to the head. The shroud gas inlet (F) can also let gas in. By doing so the
melt pool is shielded from oxygen and the object properties can be controlled better. Since this process
can provide fast localized cooling of the molten pool, parts can be created with this walls and high depthto-diameter aspect ratios. LENS can build complex internal shapes for specific applications. Another
unique aspect is the capability of selectively applying metal to existing parts or repairing broken parts
while maintaining the integrity of the parent material (Atwood et al., 1998, p.6). The materials
composition can be changed dynamically
and continuously, so objects can be
created that have properties that would be
mutually exclusive if classical fabrication
methods would be used (Lukkassen and
Meidell, 2007, p.238). Not surprisingly,
tests up to date even show that parts
created with the LENS process have
material properties that are equivalent or
even superior to that of wrought material
(Atwood et al., 1998, p.7).
Figure 17: Optomec LENS 750 system
19
4
INDUSTRY BACKGROUND
In this chapter I will outline the 3D printing industry. This section with industry numbers is mainly based
on the industry of Wohlers (2010). However, for the data of the other sections I surveyed the industry and
followed consumer leads. I didn’t have the Wohlers Report 2011 in my possession at the time of writing
this thesis, so I will base my story on the Wohlers Report 2010 that covers the state of the AM industry
for the year 2009.
4.1
Primary and secondary market
According to Wohlers (2010) the demand for products and services from AM technology has been strong
over the 22-year history of the industry. The compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of revenues produced
by all products and services in 2009 was 26,4%. The CAGR however, slowed to 3,3% over the past three
years, and 2009 has been the slowest in many years by far (p.35). The industry seems to have grown in
2010 also, with a CAGR of 24,1%.6
Wohlers (2010) makes a distinction between the primary AM market and secondary AM market. The
primary AM market consists of all product and services directly associated with AM processes
worldwide. Products include AM systems, system upgrades, materials, and aftermarket product like thirdparty software and lasers. Services include revenues from parts produced on AM systems by service
providers, system maintenance contracts, training, seminars, conferences, expositions, advertising,
publications contract research and consulting. The secondary market included tooling produced from AM
patterns, tooling produced directly using AM systems and molded parts and casting produced from this
tooling.
The primary market declined 9.7% in 2009 to $1.068, down from $1.183 billion the year before, but rose
to a total of $1.325 billion in 2010. Wohlers (2010) admits that these numbers are not large compared to
many other industries, or even some companies. However he argues that the overall economic impact
over the AM technologies is way bigger. Of the revenues of the total primary market, $409.3 million
comes from service providers worldwide from the sale of parts and patterns produced from AM systems
in 2009. The secondary market grew to $678.4 million, up 3.3% from the year before. When combing the
primary and secondary market segments together, service provider worldwide generated total revenues of
an estimated $1.088 billion in 2009, down 0.7% from the $1.096 the year before.
Table 1: Revenues AM market in 2009. Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.
Service provider revenue
Non-service provider revenue
(includes products, services, etc.)
Total
6
Primary market
$409.3 million
$658.7 million
Secondary market
$678.4 million
Total
1.087,7 billion
$658.7 million
$1.068 billion
$678.4 million
$1.746,4 billion
http://www.makepartsfast.com/2011/05/1909/wohlers-reports-3d-printing-industry-growth-of-24-1/
20
4.1.1
Products and services growth
In 2009, revenues from AM systems and materials were $530.4 million, a decline of 13.2% from the
$610.8 million in 2008. The system sales and upgrades were $312.6 million of the total sales in 2009, a
decline of 16.2% from the $372.8 million produced a year earlier. Also the services from AM declined
with 6.2% to an estimated $537.2 in 2009, down from $572.6 million in the year before. Until 2009, the
product revenues had outpaced service revenues for six consecutive years.
Table 2: Annual revenue growth percentages. Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.
Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Overall %
growth/decline
14.6 %
21.7 %
16.0 %
3.7 %
-9.7 %
Product %
growth/decline
10.0 %
20.0 %
14.7 %
0.0 %
-13.2 %
Service %
growth/decline
20.9 %
23,7 %
17.5
7.9 %
-6.2 %
The average selling price of AM systems dropped dramatically in 2009 (see Table 3). As a reason for this
large decline, Wohlers (2010) mentions the significant sales of low-cost open-source systems.
Table 3: Average selling price (ASP) Am systems in 2009. Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.
Year
2007
2008
2009
Price
$77,982
$70,740
$52,083
Wohlers (2010) also looked at the revenues for materials for AM systems. He estimated that $217.8
million was spent on materials, a decline of 8.5% from the $238 million for materials the year before. The
materials include liquid resins, powders, filaments, sheet materials, and all other materials used for AM.
Over all material sales, photopolymers represent the highest share (47.6%) with an estimated $103.7
million. Second largest seems to be the market for laser-sintered polymers, estimated at $62 million. The
worldwide LS material consumption is estimated to be about 775,000 kg for the year 2009 (Wohlers,
2010, p.38).
Unit sales for 2009 have been relatively strong. The 3D printer market segment grew 18% in unit sales,
but the segment experienced a sharp decline in revenues (p.35). The sales of AM systems worldwide
grew to an estimated 6,002 machines, an increase of 13.9%. The growth could be ascribed to the sales of
low-cost machines based on open-source developments (1,516 in 2009). As a prediction, Wohlers (2010)
states that unit sales are expected to grow over the coming years. He believes that by 2015, the annual
sales of AM systems will more than double to 12,000 units worldwide. Again, low-end systems will be
responsible for most of this growth. The average growth of unit sales over the history of the market since
1989 has been 34% (p.40).
21
4.2
System Developers and Manufacturers
Prominent players in the industry are the developers and manufacturers of commercial 3D systems and
service providers, that are sometimes even working together or part of the same entity. There are several
large players in the industry, with one of them listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange, namely Stratasys
and another, 3D Systems listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).
Stratasys (NASDAQ:SSYS) founded in 1990, is the inventor of the Fused Depostion Modeling
technology and led the development of 3D printing ever since. Stratasys has developed 3D printers and
3D Production Systems for digital manufacturing and precision rapid prototyping. Next to that, the
company operates RedEye on Demand,7 a digital manufacturing service that produces plastic parts out of
your own designed CAD file and mails it to you. Stratasys recorded annual revenues of $98.4 million in
2009. The most popular line, Dimension systems have a price range from $14,900 - $32,900 (Wohlers,
2010, p.78).
Stratasys has recently acquired Solidscape, leading manufacturer of high-precision 3D printers, materials
and software.8 The technology of the company produces patterns, used to cast highly precise metal parts.
Solidscape is in the industry widely recognized as a leader for casting applications in the jewelry,
medical, dental and industrial markets, that require high-precision, ultra-fine feature detail and a smooth
surface finish.9 According to Wohlers (2010) jewelry is the largest niche market for Solidscape, followed
by dental laboratory applications (p.77).
In 2010, Hewlett Packard (HP) the World’s largest printer company also entered the 3D printing market
with a manufacturing deal with Stratasys. Stratasys will serve as the manufacturer and HP as the
distributor. HP launched its DesignJet 3D printer for producing 3D plastic models, based on the FDM
technology. With a price of just under €13000, HP claims that this printer provides the lowest total cost of
ownership in its class. These machines are very suitable for fit and form testing in the design process.10
The idea is that Stratasys will not sell the same 3D printers into countries that HP is selling within
(Wohlers, 2010, p.78).
Z Corporation (founded in 1994) is a technology company that provides 3D printers, Prototyping
Systems, 3D scanners and 3D software. Their customers are product designers, engineers, educational
institutions and architects that want to create the right designs the first time. Z Corporation provides
solutions that cover the entire 3D CAD/BIM design process from concept through design verification and
focuses on higher-quality designs.11
7
http://www.stratasys.com/Footer/Corporate/Corporate/About-Stratasys.aspx
http://www.solid-scape.com/company.html
9
http://www.makepartsfast.com/2011/05/1818/stratasys-acquires-3d-printer-maker-solidscape/
10
http://www.business-advantage.com/iPRINT/iprint.php, HP Enters the 3D Printer Market
11
http://www.zcorp.com/en/Company/Overview/spage.aspx
8
22
3D Systems Corporation (NYSE:DDD) founded in 1986, invented the first 3D printing technology
(Stereolithography) 25 years ago. 3D systems has focused on three-dimensional part-building systems and
engineering materials. The machines are suitable for prototyping as well as end-use parts12 and have
changed the way people develop their products across marketplaces from transportation and recreation to
healthcare and consumer goods. 3D Systems has recently transferred the listing of its common stock from
the NASDAQ Global Select Market to the New York Stock Exchange. At the same time, the company
also revealed its new corporate identity. Abe Reichental, President and CEO of 3D systems has a clear
vision: “Similar to the ways that social media, mobile apps and the internet changed how we
communicate, publish, shop, travel and search; affordable 3D content-to-print solutions could transform
the way we design, communicate, game, market and manufacture. Our passions and purpose is
empowering professionals and consumers to create and make in 3D.”13 Company revenues in 2009 were
$112.8 million (Wohlers, 2010, p.80).
On the 5th of October 2010, 3D systems has acquired Bits From Bytes, a leading provider of affordable
3D printers and 3D printer kits that can print real plastic parts from a variety of materials in multiple
colors. The machines provide solutions for education, hobbyists and professionals. The company offers a
fully assembled printer for personal manufacturing for $3900 and a printer kit, based on the open-source
RepRap project, originated at the University of Bath for $1300.14 Bits From Bytes benefits from a British
secondary school program, aimed at introducing students to product design and prototyping, thereby
generating a loyal and growing community of customers. The fundamental process in the machines from
Bits From Bytes is similar in concept to FDM from Stratasys. Interestingly to note is that Bits From Bytes
has begun with inexpensive kits, still sees its future in more expensive, fully assembled and tested 3D
printers around several thousand British pounds (Wohlers, 2010).
EOS Electro Optical Systems, founded in 1989 in Germany is a world leader in laser sintering. The
company sells its systems in 32 countries and accounted for a turnover of 64 million euro in 2009/2010.
They develop systems for what they call e-Manufacturing, to manufacture products of any shape,
anytime, anywhere in a fast, flexible and cost-effective way.15 In 2009, the revenues of the company were
€58.5 million and 20 of the 72 systems sold in 2009 were for the production of dental restorations.
Delta Micro Factory Corporation is the founder of Personal Portable 3D Printer (PP3DP). The
company is specialized in the research and development, production and sale of PP3DP. The printer is
suitable for prototyping, functional tests as well as end-use parts and sells for $2690. The printer is
designed for the use of engineers, architects, educators and DIYers and should function as a micro factory
for anyone, anywhere, anytime.16
12
http://www.3dsystems.com/company/index.asp
http://www.3dsystems.com/content/news/releases/, 3D Systems Commences Trading On New York Stock Exchange, May 26th
2011
14
http://www.bitsfrombytes.com/content/about-bits-bytes
15
http://www.eos.info/en/about-eos.html
16
http://www.pp3dp.com/
13
23
Objet Geometries Ltd. was founded in 1998 and provides three-dimensional printing systems that
enable manufacturers and industrial designers to reduce cost of product development and shorten the
time-to-market of new products dramatically. The systems use a patented PolyJet polymer jetting
technology. The technology has been adopted primarily by Fortune 1000 companies worldwide in big
markets like automotive, heavy machinery & aerospace, consumer goods, toys, electronics & consumer
electronics, medical devises, universities & technological schools and others. Their own developed
materials create accurate, clean, smooth and highly detailed 3D parts.17
Optomec, originally founded in 1982, is a privately held company from Israel that develops next
generation technologies in electronics, aerospace & defense and biomedical manufacturing. Optomec is
the developer of the Laser Engineering Net Shaping (LENS) Technology and Aerosol Jet Systems.18 The
LENS system is widely used in the aerospace, military and medical implants industries. It can build up a
metal object in layers like other direct metal fabrication technologies, but also repair damaged surfaces or
apply features or surface coating to existing objects to produce unique material properties. The price of
the LENS systems range from $560,000 to $995,000 (Wohlers, 2010, p.71).
The Ex One Company, LLC was formed in 2005. The company holds the Rapid Manufacturing process
ProMetal for the solid freeform fabrication of metal, composite and engineered materials. The company
also own ProMetal RCT, a process used for the 3D printing of complex sandcasting cores and molds
direct from CAD data.19 In 2008, ProMetal established Metaltec Innovations, an online service to make
direct metal printing available to artists and others that want to print rapid metal parts to their designs
(Wohlers, 2010, p.63).
Cubic Technologies is the successor organization of Helisys. Helisys developed a rapid prototyping
system based on the Laminated Object Manufacturing process. The company succeeded Helisys in 2000
and is now a provider of parts, premier engineering, fabrication and integration services on old Helisys
machines. 20
4.2.1
Industry sales numbers
Wohlers (2010) also published the numbers of machines sold by large manufacturers up to 2009. Based
on these numbers, there are three companies that have sold over 3,000 systems. Through the end of 2009,
Stratasys has sold 13,284 FDM systems. Second largest is Z Corp. with 5,598 systems at customer sites.
Third largest in the market up to 2009 is 3D systems with an estimated 4,392 systems sold. The total AM
systems sold in the market by the large manufacturers surveyed totals 38,214. When talking about ‘3D
printers’ (difference explained in earlier sections), Wohlers (2010) estimated a cumulative total of 26,797
3D printers sold worldwide. Based on these numbers, the top three of 3D printer manufacturers is
Stratasys, Z Corp. and Solidscape.
17
http://www.objet.com/COMPANY/Company_Overview/
http://www.optomec.com/Company/Overview
19
http://www.exone.com/eng/technology/x1_technology.html
20
http://www.cubictechnologies.com/
18
24
Table 4: Total unit sales up to 2009. Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.
Stratasys
Z Corp
3D systems
Solidscape
Objet
Total AM systems
13,284
5,598
4,392
2,901
2,099
3D printers
10,452
5,598
1,640
2,838
2,107
3D printers account for 89.3% of all AM systems sold in 2009. The 3D printer unit sales grew 17.8% in
2009, again boosted by low-cost system producers. The trend shows that 3D printers have been
dominating the AM market from 1996 on. To illustrate, Stratasys sold 1,918 systems, but fewer higherpriced 3D printers. Low-cost systems sales from Bits From Bytes and MakerBot Industries (see section
4.4.3) were 1,015 and 476 respectively (p.44).
These numbers also indicate that U.S. based companies dominate the AM market at this moment in time.
All the big players mentioned in the table 4 except for Objet Geometries (Israel) are from the U.S. The
cumulative total of AM systems sold from each geographic region from 1988 through 2009 is as follows:
U.S. (73.7%), Europe (11.5%), Japan (4.7%), China (3.1%), Other (7.0%).
4.3
Service providers
Next to the large machine manufacturers, the industry also knows several service providers. In this
particular part I will use a different approach to service providers than Terry Wohlers. He in his study
refers to service providers as service bureaus that offer part-building services to design and manufacturing
organizations as an outsourced service. The service providers naturally emerged, since many
organizations could not afford the systems in the beginning, but still wanted parts. In the 1990s many
companies believed that ‘first to market wins and all other languish’, so this focus on time-to-market
reduction stimulated the growth in this sector. On top of that over the past few years the business climate
also started putting more emphasis on cost reductions. Service providers now had to deliver value to
clients with lower-cost AM systems. Nowadays however, many of the services that have been provided
by service providers in the past, like concept model are now largely done by in-house systems. The
development and rise of lower-cost machines can be seen as a reason for that (Wohlers, 2010, p.47).
My focus will be more on the consumer perspective and not the business perspective. In this section I will
refer to service providers as companies that can turn consumer designs into real objects and deliver them
at their house. This way, the people don’t have to invest in a large expensive machine straight away. To
get a better idea, I will highlight three companies by illustrating how they work and how their business
(model) looks like.
25
4.3.1
Ponoko
Ponoko, the World’s Easiest Making System, is an online
marketplace where creators, digital fabricators, material
suppliers and buyers meet to make (almost) anything. Ponoko
wants to reinvent how goods are designed, made and
distributed over the world. They believe that trade in product
designs is the key. Just like the trade in music (iTunes),
photos (Flickr), movies (YouTube) and software apps
(iPhone) that is happening on the Internet at the moment.
Figure 18: Make your things at Ponoko
Ponoko is the host of thousands of user generated product
designs. People can customize these designs and turn them into real objects. Furthermore, the site provides the
means for these product designs to be priced online and made locally. All this is part of producing ‘green’.
Firstly, because these products are made on demand, it reduces warehousing and wastage. Secondly, the
products are made locally, so the physical products don’t need to be shipped. The ‘traditional’ distributing of
goods is replaced by the ‘digital’ transportation of goods.21 Ponoko provides you with the following four
possibilities.
1) Make - Make it yourself (MIY) or file a request to let someone make it for you (Figure 18).
2) Share – People can share their work under free Creative Commons product design licenses.
3) Sell – People can sign up for a free Ponoko account, so there are no selling costs. On Ponoko you can
either sell products or product plans. If you are a seller, it’s a matter of preparing the product or
product files, listing the design or product, licensing it and offering it to others for download or order.
When selling, the designers make use of the paid Creative Commons product designs licenses (Figure
19)
4) Buy – In the showroom, people can buy free product designs, paid product designs or products. In the
shop you will find products any category, like homeware, lighting, jewelry, kitchen, office, furniture,
toys, electronics and everything else (Figure 20).
Figure 19: Sell things at Ponoko
21
http://www.ponoko.com/about/the-big-idea
Figure 20: Buy things at Ponoko
26
4.3.2
Shapeways
A second service provider is Shapeways, a place for people to buy, make and sell their own products.
People can print their own designs through service centers. Shapeways serves as a community for
designers or hobbyist to meet fellow users, share design-works and find inspiration. On the site you will
find the product gallery (Figure 21), a community section, a support section and your profile section. In
the gallery you will find several product categories, including art, gadgets, games, jewelry, hobby etc.
You can order products that others have designed or download some of the designs that others have
uploaded. You will also find a section for 3D parts and a section to personalize your product selection.
Core
of
fabrication
Shapeways
through
is
personal
3D
printing,
which works in four steps. The first
step is the ordering of the product on
the site. This can be a product you buy
from the shop as well as you own
design. The second step is the model
check. The servers at Shapeways
check the model to see if it can be 3D
printed and will send it to further
processing. If not, you will be
informed. The third step is the 3D
printing of the model. Shapeways
makes use of different 3D printing
machines and technologies, Selective
Laser
Sintering
Stereolithography
(SLA),
(SLS),
Figure 21: The gallery at Shapeways where people share designs
Fused
Deposition Modeling (FDM) and Laminate Object Manufacturing (LOM). The fourth and final step is the
shipping and delivery, ten working days after you ordered the product.22
Just like Ponoko, Shapeways provides its users with four options:
1) Buying stuff (gifts, gimmicks, art and design etc.),
2) Personalizing products from the gallery,
3) Making your own model, uploading it and having it delivered to you house within 10 working
days and
4) Selling and show casting your own designed stuff.
22
http://www.shapeways.com/about/how_does_it_work
27
Shapeways uses a variety of the
latest 3D printing techniques and
offers high quality materials. So
for
almost
every
project
Shapeways can provide the right
materials.23
On the right you see an example
of
a
product
offering
at
Shapeways (Figure 22). Here you
find a description of the product,
rating by others and designer
information, so you can easily get
in touch with him/her. You can
further select your materials and
size and order the product.
Figure 22: Example of product offering at Shapeways
4.3.3
Autodesk 123D
A third service provider I would like to highlight is Autodesk 123D. Autodesk 123D is providing access
to tools that help turning concepts into reality. Autodesk 123D is a growing and developing public beta
that mainly offers three crucial things for printing 3D.
1) Free 3D modeling software. Autodesk is a world leader in 3D design software for manufacturing,
building, construction, engineering and entertainment. Now they have created a free 3D modeling
software program based on their Autodesk technology. With this software people can design
precise and makeable objects. However, it also offers the possibility to start with simple shapes to
later edit them into more complex shapes.
2) Free content for creating your project digitally. Within their community they have people sharing
their designs. These free models can inspire others to start or finish their project, as well as
exploring new ideas.
3) Services for making your digital project into a physical object. 123D site gives access to their
partners that provide the tools to print the objects yourself or fabricate the design for you.
Partners include Ponoko and 3D systems. The advantage of the Autodesk 123D software is that
the design has the output of a high quality solid STL file, so it is concept is fully ready to be
printed.24
23
24
http://www.shapeways.com/about/
http://www.123dapp.com/about
28
4.4
Open source projects
Over the years, patents have protected the technologies described in earlier sections (also see Appendix 1
– Additive Manufacturing processes, Table 18). To better understand what is going on in this industry, it
is interesting to look into the terms and duration of the patents in the US. According to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) a patent is “a property right granted by the Government of the
United States of America to an inventor ‘to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or
selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States’ for a
limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.”25
The patents in the US generally last 20 years. According to Chapter 14, § 154 (a) and (c) of Patent Law
the term of the patent is 17 years from the issue date or 20 years from the filing date. The longest term
always applies.2627 Concluding from this, all the patents in the industry except for the one of the Laser
Powder Forming printing process (LENS technology) have come to an end (see Appendix 1). This has
some huge implication for the industry. Basically this means that anybody can have a go at the processes
and technologies and this is exactly what has been happening. Next to the manufacturers and service
providers, the industry is also characterized by a large open source and open design movement. There are
several successful projects going with people and users from all around the world. In the following
sections I will highlight a few of them.
Figure 23: The RepRap self-replicating printer
4.4.1
RepRap project
The first is the REPlicating RAPid (RepRap) project initiated in 2004 by Dr. Adrian Bowyer, a senior
lecturer at the University of Bath. RepRap was the first of low-cost 3D printers and claims to have started
the open-source 3D printing revolution.28 The goal of Bowyer is to create a self-replicating machine; a 3D
25
http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp#heading-1
http://www.uspto.gov/inventors/patents.jsp#heading-5
27
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/35/154%28c%29.html
28
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page
26
29
printer that is able to produce most of the parts needed to assemble another such machine, see Figure 23
(Raasch et al., 2009, p.385). The RepRap project started with a couple of people, but the movement has
grown explosively. Now ten thousand operators are involved in the RepRap-project, among which 3000
build printers. The amount of people involved doubles every six months (Lemereis, 2010, p.38).
The RepRap is a free desktop 3D printer suitable for printing plastic objects. Many parts of the RepRap
itself are plastic too, so it can print another RepRap. Apart from printing machines, you can print lots of
useful stuff and product designs. As a community project, sharing knowledge is very important. All the
users are welcome to edit the pages on the site or create new pages. There are blogs from the ‘core team’
and builders that share their experiences with other members. The core team, consisting of active
members that design parts for the machine, the software and run the server are looking after the releases
and review the documentation on the site. There is also a section for sharing object designs, but this
section is still very much under development. Within the project, four RepRap machines have been built
so far, called Darwin, Huxley, Prusa Mendel, Original Mendel (see Figure 24 and Figure 25).28
The RepRap community sourced its second machine, the Huxley to eMAKER, an internet web shop for
selling parts printed on RepRap printers. The mission of eMAKER is to make the 3D printing machines
available for the mass markt, not just at a realistic price but also with the guarantee of printing success.
The Huxley printer featured on IndieGoGo, an international funding platform on the web (see Figure 27).
The Huxley machine was offered to 100 backers to own one of the Huxley machines in return for
feedback on any aspect of the machine, from packaging, to assembly and ease of use. The goal of the
offering was $30,000, but due to the overwhelming success the company now offers a second round of
3D printers, after having teamed up with the most qualified RepRappers to increase the manufacturing
capacity. The first 150 beta kits will be shipped in August 2011. The program had a development plan for
the printer, so users will always have access to software updates and designs for upgraded parts.29
The Huxley 3D printer uses a Fused Filament Fabrication process (a term given to the Fused Deposition
Modeling technology by the RepRap community). The Huxley is said to be one of the smallest 3D
printers in terms of footprint, but not in terms of build volume (see Figure 26). The project had set some
primary design goals, which was to offers a printer 1) small enough to be portable, 2) fast enough to
replicate and 3) fast enough to assemble and commission. Like all the projects, the machines have gone
through rapid development and heavy testing. The best feature about these types of machines is that they
are ‘self-replicating’, meaning they print upgrades and replacement parts for themselves. eMAKER
provides its users with all kinds of information about parts that can be printed, features that can be
produced, as well as online support and full instructions.30
29
30
http://www.indiegogo.com/eMAKER-Huxley-3D-printer-kits
http://www.emakershop.com/blog/
30
Figure 24: The first RepRap: Darwin
Figure 25: The latest RepRap: Mendel. Source:
RepRap.org
Figure 26: Huxley, a RepRap printer, now sourced to eMAKER
Figure 27: eMAKER offering at IndieGoGo
31
4.4.2
Fab@Home
The second project is the Fab@Home project that started in 2006. The Fab@Home project is an opensource mass-collaboration developing personal fabrication technology aimed at bringing personal
fabrication to your home. Hod Lipson and Evan Malone from the Computational Synthesis Laboratory of
the Cornell University initiated the project. In 2007 the project received a Popular Mechanics
Breakthrough Award.31 The community of Fab@Home includes hundreds of engineers, inventors, artists,
students, and hobbyists across six continents.
The project is dedicated to make and use so-called ‘fabbers’ (Figure 28). Fabbers are machines that can
make almost anything, right on your
desktop. The people in the project
strongly believe in the technology, as they
believe it has the potential to transform
human society to a degree that few
creations ever have. The technology has
the potential to transform the way we
design,
make,
deliver
and
consume
products. Also it could redefine the
designer. Fabbers will eliminate barriers
like resources and skills that now prevent
ordinary inventors from realizing their
ideas. Speculating about the future, this
technology could create a new class of
independent designers or maybe a new
marketplace for printable blueprints or
Figure 28: Fab@Home Model 1 printer: a 'fabber'
just a new economy for custom products.
For now, the goal of this project is to create an open-source, low-cost personal Solid Freeform Fabrication
(SFF) system and to put the SFF technology in the hand of inventive, entrepreneurial citizens, instead of it
being controlled by big corporations. The biggest concern with the commercial 3D printers is that they are
very expensive and complex, focused on the production of mechanical parts and mostly used by corporate
engineers, designers and architects for prototyping. Also very important: they limit experimentation. All
these factors slow down the development of the technology. The technology is still too much reserved for
niche markets and the demand for machines is small. If there is little demand, the machines will always
remain costly and complex and limited to niche applications. The Fab@Home project’s contribution to
the industry is twofold. On one hand they try to deliver a simple and cheap system with which end users
31
http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Fab_@_Home:History
32
could invent products and application, on the other hand, they actually increase the market for SFF
machines.
All the information in the project, like designs of hardware and software are free of charge and opensource. Once you are in the community and you have your own fabber, you can download and print
various designs of items and products, try new materials and upload and share your own projects and
creations with other users. If you get more advanced you can even try to improve the fabber system itself.
32
The project has an online shop, the NextFab Store where people can buy parts for a Fab@Home system
or fully assembled machines. These machines range in the price from about $3,700 to $4,175 and can be
used for producing a wide range of objects, including structures in silicone rubber, conductive wiring
embedded in structural materials, batteries and elastomer strain gages. The machines have also been used
to produce food items in chocolate, cake icing and cheese (Wohlers, 2010, p.65).
4.4.3
MaketBot Industries
The third contributor is MakerBot Industries, a lively community with operators, ‘modders’, tinkerers and
hackers working on projects all around the world. The group meets in real life, trade tips and tricks and
print things together. They developed the open source printers MakerBot Thing-o-Matic, and CupCake
CNC. The Thing-o-Matic kit you can buy for $1299, or a custom fully assembled and tested version for
$2500.33
MakerBot is seen as a derivative of the RepRap project. The goal of MakerBot is almost similar to that of
RepRap, namely to build cheap, open source 3D printers. However, according to MakerBot the RepRap
project has a much stronger focus on self-replication. MakerBot strongly believes in self-replication, but
they don’t think it is reliable enough yet. So for now, they are more focusing on machines that work.
Although MakerBot is a hacker community, they have a fancy and attractive website, which looks
appealing even for ‘the average consumer’. The two machines can be seen in Figure 29 and Figure 30.
They both serve different goals.
The CupCake CNC is MakerBot’s pride and joy. The focus was to make a printer that as cheap, reliable
and easy to use/hack. With this machine they met all the requirements: the system is easy to build, easy to
run, easy to use and 100% open source. Open source means that all the CAD files used for parts and the
documentations are released under free licenses. The CupCake CNC comes at a price range of $750-950
and that’s where MakerBot wants the price to be (Wohlers, 2010, p.66). Compared with other printers in
the market, these are very affordable.
32
33
http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Fab%40Home:Overview
http://www.makerbot.com/community/
33
Figure 29: MakerBot CupCake CNC
Figure 30: MakerBot Thing-O-Matic
The Thing-o-Matic is the one of the first fully automatic, low-cost, do-it-yourself 3D printers. It’s called
the first personal factory that fits your desktop as it is able to handle back-to-back copies.34 In short the
key features of this printer are presented in Table 5. MakerBot offers white ABS filament at the cost of
$50 for 2.3 kg, similar in black, blue, yellow, green and red cost $80 for the same quantity (Wohlers,
2010, p.66).
According to Bre Pettis MakerBot has a community of over 3000 operators, with a lot of potential.35 Joris
Peels, the Community Manager of i.materialise takes a look at the potential of 3D printing and posted
eleven predictions. Two of these prediction featured MakerBot. First Peels believes that MakerBot will
sell more than 10,000 printers in 2011. To put it in perspective, in 2010 there were 26,797 3D printers
sold in total. Still Peels believes MakerBot can achieve this because they have a strong brand and loyal
following. “Together with some prime time TV coverage it should be possible”, says Peels. Secondly,
Peels predicts that Bre Pettis will appear on the cover of Bloomberg Businessweek magazine in 2011,
possibly holding a MakerBot.36
34
http://wiki.makerbot.com/thingomatic
http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2010/12/31/2011-3d-printing-predictions/
36
http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/31/3d-printing-prediction/
35
34
Table 5: Features of the MaketBot Thing-O-Matic37
Automatic
Reliable
Quality
Usability
Power
Hackability
Technical features
4.4.4
The printer has a fully automated build platform that allows for a
print queue. The machine will print object one after another.
The extruder has an unbreakable hot end and a filament drive system
that is one of the strongest in the market. It has run tests of thousands
of hours of trouble-free printing.
The better layer alignment results in better prints an higher resolution.
MaketBot has revised the drive system, thereby increased the position
accuracy. The stepper drivers on the motherboard are able to handle
1/8-step microstepping, making the system sound better and improve
the resolution.
It’s now possible to connect your printer to your pc with a standard
USB cable. An SD card slot is added, where you can run the builds
from (no computer needed). There is an endstop support, so you don’t
have to touch the XYZ axes. Also the electronics are all inside, so no
wires are coming out (unlike CupCake CNC)
A new transistor (MOSFET) is included for the extruder controller
that will control the heated build platform and heater block. A molex
power connector draws the power without sending it to a single cable.
The amount of pins on the motherboard has almost doubled, allowing
for room to modify and hack the system. More Flash and more RAM
allows for bigger, more complex programs.
Size: 12" W x 12" D x 16" H (roughly 300mm x 300mm x 400mm)
Build Area:
Automated Build Platform: 100mm x 100mm x 100mm
Acrylic Build Platform: 110mm x 110mm x 120mm
XY Positioning resolution of 0.02mm (20 microns or 0.0008")
XY Maximum Feedrate of up to 5000mm/minute (roughly 200 IPM)
Z Positioning resolution of 0.005mm (5 microns / or 0.0002")
Z Positioning Feedrate of up to 1000mm/minutes (roughly 40 IPM)
Works on 3mm polymer filament
Thingiverse
Another very important contributor in the open source 3D movement is Thingiverse, an online
community that is strengthening the printer communities by allowing people to share digital designs with
the world, so that all can benefit from them.38 The site offers hundreds of useful designs for physical
objects to download and print out on a 3D printer. Expert Neil Gershenfeld, director of Center for Bits &
Atoms, a research institution of the prestigious technical university MIT in Boston believes that real
innovations will only emerge when knowledge about the design and production of products is shared.
Only then consumers get full control over the supply of products. Products will then be much more
efficient and production oversupply will disappear. Eventually this will lead to an alternative economical
model with new production methods and distribution channels, even completely new companies and
products (Volkskrant, 2010). Thingiverse works closely together with MaketBot. Bre Pettis and Zach
Hoeken Smith are two of the people behind Thingiverse. In fact they are also the people behind the
MakerBot machines. Bre Pettis describes himself as a hacker, teacher, troublemaker and laser-lover. He
37
38
http://wiki.makerbot.com/thingomatic
http://www.thingiverse.com/
35
hopes that one day we will all have custom made objects with computer-controlled machines. Zach
Hoeken Smith is a dreamer, scientist, hacker and self-replicator who dreams that one day we can create a
world that even surpasses the futures portrayed in science fiction. Bre Pettis says that at the start, they
were most interested in what individuals would do with access to a 3D printer. The platform Thingiverse
has shown that amazing things are possible.32
Figure 31: Thingiverse webpage
By visiting the website (Figure 31), you will notice that the site is still very simple. It actually has a little
bit of a geeky vibe to it. By creating an account you can upload digital designs for physical objects. It’s
about the source files for your 3D designs, and not just the output. Most of the designs are shared under
the creative commons licenses. You will find a section for new, featured and popular designs, also a
section for tools and parts. Furthermore, the site offers a blog where they highlight interesting
developments and new and cool product designs and other stuff.
36
4.4.5
AdderFab
Finally I present the AdderFab project, part of Open 3D Printing (Open3DP), which is aimed at designing
and prototyping an open source, open architecture, powder-based three-dimensional printer for personal
use. So far, three different Capstone student design teams have worked on the project over four years and
improved the printer every time. The design constraints that were identified for the latest version #3 are
that the printer had to 1) cost less than $300, 2) have particular size constraints (28”l x 24” w x 28”h), 3)
be completely open source, and 4) utilize inkjet technology.39 The use of powder instead of heated
filament would make it the first for low cost printers.40 The printer is not available for the public yet, but
the next team has already been assembled to take the prototype and productize it to an open source 3D
powder printer available for everyone.
Figure 32: Adderfab machine, picture by Nicholas C Lewis.
4.4.6
Universities
Also universities contribute to the open source field with their research projects. An example is the
project at the Vienna University of Technology. They developed a printing device that is much smaller,
lighter and cheaper than regular 3D printers (see Figure 33).
The printer works like any other 3D printer. The object is print in a piston or tub with synthetic resin.
Then intense beams of light harden the resin precisely where it is illuminated. Layer by layer the light
radiates the resin exactly at the right spots until the object is finished. The resolution of the printer is
pretty good too, the individual layers are just a twentieth millimeter thick. So objects can be printed with
high precision. Applications for this printer that the team is thinking about are medical parts exactly
39
40
http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2011/03/adderfab-some-history/
http://blog.ponoko.com/2011/04/05/designing-a-cheap-open-source-powder-based-3d-printer/
37
adjusted to patient’s needs, like creating construction parts for hearing aids. But this machine can also
print special spare parts or your self-designed jewellery.
Another thing that the university is working on is new material. Project teams are working on making 3D
objects from eco-friendly biodegradable substances. Working together with biologists and physicians,
they believe that they can make artificial structure with this technology that can serve a scaffold to
support the natural growth of bone structure in the human body. This system is not designed to produce
large-scale bulk articles, but it is relatively cheap. When more machines are being sold, the price will
drop. And the quality will only get better too.41
Table 6: Printer features
Size:
Weight:
Cost:
Resolution
About the size of a milk carton
1.5 kilograms
1200 euro
0.05 mm
Figure 33: The world's smallest 3D printer
4.5
Design companies
Next to the growing hacker/hobbyist community, there are only a few companies doing consumer product
designs with 3D printing technology in the industry. These companies are Freedom of Creation,
FreshFiber, MGX Materialise, Future Factories and Nervous Systems. From what the company
descriptions tell, these companies are founded by or working with designers that want to challenge the
traditional way of product design to create innovative products as well as environments. The designers
want to abandon mass production, and make way for more mass customization, digital production and
creating unique and ‘impossible’ designs.42434445 Most of the time these products are not cheap, but often
they do have an added value. At FOC for example it’s easy to add some personalization to the products.
Customers can choose a product from the catalog and easily add a message to it, like ‘happy birthday’.
The level of customization that FOC can achieve is almost impossible for standard production methods.
FOC seems to have two types of customers. The everyday buyers that see something they like in the
41
http://www.tuwien.ac.at/aktuelles/news_detail/article/7009/
42
http://www.freedomofcreation.com/about
43
http://freshfiber.com/vision/
44
http://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/about_us.php
45
http://www.mgxbymaterialise.com/about
38
online catalog and order it. There are also clients who create their own design and commission FOC to
make it, or get the company to design it for them.46
The designs made by the companies with the 3D printing technology are appreciated by the design world
with several design awards and museums. Janne Kyttanen, founder and creative director at Freedom of
Creation has won design awards, like a Red Dot Design Award 2005 and Interior Innovation Award 2006
and his work has been purchased for numerous permanent design collections around the world, such as
MoMA, FIT, MAD, Holon and Vitra Design Museum.47 Also work of Future Factories is added in the
permanent Design Collection by MoMA. The designs products of MGX Materialise have received many
awards, including two Good Design and Red Dot Design Awards. They also feature in museums like
MoMA New York and the Centre Pompidou Paris and in magazines like Icon, Surface Magazine, Elle
Décor and Vogue Living.45 An examination of the web shops of these companies shows that the design
products of these companies can be divided into the categories shown in Table 7. An overview of
exemplary products created with the technology can be found in the product-shopping guide in Appendix
3.
Table 7: Product categories and design companies (with sources in Appendix 3)
Art
Accessories
Bags
Furniture/Home ware
Gadget cases
Jewellery
Lightning
Trays
Freedom of Creation
Future Factories
Nervous System
Freedom of Creation
FreshFiber
Future Factories
MGX Materialise
Freedom of Creation
Freedom of Creation
Future Factories
MGX Materialise
Nervous System
FreshFiber (designed by Freedom of
Creation)
Freedom of Creation
Future Factories
Nervous System
Freedom of Creation
Future Factories
MGX Materialise
Nervous System
Freedom of Creation
46
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20072236-52/3d-printing-creating-a-whole-new-world/
47
http://www.freedomofcreation.com/people
39
4.6
Wrap up
As the preceding sections show us, 3D printing has been around for over 25 years. However, it has mostly
been used in labs/industrial spheres and has been very low profile until recently. In general 3D printers
were seen as machines that are highly priced and provide low quality of the produced objects. Nowadays,
the prices of fully assembled 3D printers range from 2,100 to 17,000 euro, but it’s also possible to build
your own printer with numerous (open source) 3D printing kits for a couple of hundred euro.48 So 3D
printers have become more accessible, but also the technology development has improved. Large
manufacturers of 3D printers still focus on industrial machines but now also have product lines of highquality machines for personal use at significant lower cost (Lemereis, 2010, p.39).
Things are certainly changing. Next to the machine manufacturers, there is a growing attention on the
service providers and an ever-growing open source movement. 3D printing is not just limited to industrial
use anymore, as multiple geek and hacker movements all across the globe show. Developments make
printing devices more precise, but what’s more interesting is the changing view on manufacturing that is
occurring. This study will try to provide more insight in this process.
5
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
5.1
Open source and user communities
Open source in the scientific literature has almost always been related to software. The production of
open source software results in the creation of a public good that is non-rival; the users’ utility from the
software is independent, and non-exclusive; no individual or institution can be feasibly withheld from its
usage (von Krogh et al., 2003, p.3). In an open source project, a body of original material is made
publicly available for others to use, under certain conditions. In many cases, anyone who makes use of the
material must agree to make all enhancements to the original material available under these same
conditions. Many of the contributors to open source projects are unpaid. Open source projects are often
loosely structured, with contributors free to pursue whatever they feel most interesting (Lerner and Tirole,
2005, p. 99). Normally key actors in open source products are the individual contributor and for-profit
companies. Economists might not understand why people contribute in open source, because of
opportunity costs of time. Joining an open source developer community in software is often a very
knowledge-intensive activity that requires very high levels of domain knowledge, experience, and
intensive learning by those contributing to it (von Krogh, 2003, p.3). However, open source contributors
might find intrinsic pleasure if choosing a ‘cool’ open source. Also open source contributions may lead to
future job offers or future access to the venture capital market, but also to ego gratification from peer
recognition (Lerner and Tirole, 2005, p.103). Lakhani and von Hippel (2003) described three motives for
users to voluntarily work on basic tasks in open source, 1) a user’s direct need for the software and
software improvements worked upon, 2) enjoyment of the work itself or 3) enhanced reputation that may
48
http://www.3dprinter.nu/3d_printer_prijs.php
40
flow from making high-quality contributions to an open source project (p.923). The latter two motives
especially seem to be the most applicable in the field of 3D printing. You would say that because the
technology is still very much developing, there is no direct need for the users to use the technology. When
presented with these three motives, Bre Pettis founder of MakerBot said that for the users of a MakerBot
it feels good to see their designs getting built. He believes that for the people that participate in the
community it’s a mix of the three mentioned motives. His response also implies that there is actually a
need for the software and 3D printer, because that’s the whole idea behind making your own products.
The potential and opportunities of the technology, together with a strong vision of where the technology
will head in the future gives the users in the community not only enjoyment but also a sense of being part
at the forefront of something that is going to change the world. On top of that this technology is relatively
new, so reputation could play a role in a sense of ‘being a knowledgeable actor’ or as ‘being the first who
did something with the technology’. Most of these communities are working with Creative Commons
licenses, an alternative to the “all rights reserved” paradigm of traditional copyright.49 The idea is to
generate content that can be copied, distributed, edited, remixed and built upon. Basically, sharing,
learning from each other, improving and making it widely available is key in the communities around 3D
printing. It seems that hacker communities have a cooperative atmosphere, because that way tinkerers and
entrepreneurs can let their imaginations run wild.50
Jeppesen and Frederiksen (2006) in their study about user communities in Computer-Controlled Music
Instruments has shown that innovative users are likely to be hobbyists in the field in which they innovate.
Furthermore, because user communities merely extend an already existing product, these communities
increase the probability of incremental-type innovations (p.58). When you talk about 3D printing the
technology is there, but still relatively small. It’s now very much about incremental improvements that
everybody is working on to improve the machines and share with the rest of the community.
5.2
Different factors in open source
Von Hippel (2001) argues that products from user communities perform better than products developed
by manufacturers (p.84). Research from Lilien et al. (2002) has shown that products that have been
developed by collaborating with lead users perform several times better than in-house-generated products.
The reason for this is that manufacturers can’t know what users want as well as they know it themselves.
Such information is typically ‘sticky’: costly to transfer and users’ needs and habits change constantly
(p.85). According to Jeppesen et al. (2006) the performance level of the user developments can be
explained by the facts that innovations are often made by lead users; users who are ahead of the trend in
terms of demand and who have significant incentives to solve a given problem (p.47).
49
50
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131644649
41
Normally when innovations are embodied in a physical product that requires physical production and
distribution and involves economies of scale they can only exist in communities where user manufacture
and distribution can compete with commercial production and distribution. In that case, when it comes to
physical products, innovation can be carried out by users and within user innovation communities, but
production and the diffusion of product incorporated in those innovations is usually handled by
manufacturing companies (p.86). Although previous sections on economic factors, have shown large
potential of user communities, they don’t really apply to the communities on 3D printing because these
are not really involved in creating a commercial product. On top of that, in the field of 3D printing,
people are also building self-replicating machines, so a large distribution network is not always needed.
For now, the machines can very well compete with the machines of large manufacturers just in terms of
price. In section 2.4.3 the example of eMAKER Huxley (a RepRap machine) showed how the community
tackled the issues of production and distribution. First to gather capital they searched for potential backers
of the machine. Not only did they gather money for producing the machine, but they also created an
actual user base of the product, before selling it. The demand for the product was overwhelming at first,
so the eMAKER company called upon its own community for the most qualified users to increase
production capacity. For now, they make use of existing distribution channels, but the machines all ship
out from their factory in the UK.
Lerner and Tirole (2005) state that open source is shaped by the legal rules under which it operates. In
each case, the product originator gives users the right to employ the copyrighted code through a license.
As explained above, the 3D printing communities mostly make use of Creative Commons licenses, that
are written in three formats: for lawyers (the Legal code), normal people (Human Readable) and software
(Machine Readable). There are six licenses available that all contain different terms regarding
commercial and non-commercial distribution, accreditation, copying and future legal terms.
Sometimes even government commission and agencies propose and implement a variety of measures to
encourage open source developers. Analyses suggest that government support for open source is likely to
have an ambiguous effect on social welfare (Lerner and Tirole, 2005, p.111). An example of the political
forces involved in open source is shown in the example of Fablab. Gershenfeld has been lobbying with
president Obama to provide structural governmental support for his Fablabs (Volkskrant, 2010).
5.3
Open design
Lerner and Tirole (2005) in their research wonder whether the open source model, as it exists in software
communities can be transposed to other industries. Often, cooperation between commercial entities in the
form of for-profit or not-for-profit joint ventures exists. In many industries, the development of individual
components requires large-scale teamwork and substantial capital costs, as opposed to individual
contribution and no capital investment. Another obstacle is that in mass-market industries, users are
numerous and rather unsophisticated, and so deliver little peer recognition and ego gratification.
However, in 3D printing open source communities exist, and not only for software. And although there is
42
some investment involved, for about 400 euros you can build your own 3D printing machine, so you
cannot speak about ‘substantial’ costs. The great part about RepRap even is that with your initial machine
you can print parts to improve your next machine.
Raasch et al. (2009) are the first to look at the transferability of the open source model of development to
other industries. They propose a broader term of the Open Source model to a non-industry specific level.
First they come up with a definition of Open Source Innovation (OSI) that is characterized by the free
revealing of information on a new design with the intention of collaborative development of a single
design or a limited number of related designs for market or non-market exploitation. Then they introduce
the term open design. Open design describes open hardware as well as other physical objects being
developed in accordance with their OSI model. Because an increasing number of physical products are
becoming so data-centric, the physical aspects are simply executional steps at the end of a chain of digital
manipulation. A lot of the development work therefore can be accomplished virtually, but the ultimate
purpose is the design and production of a physical artefact (p.384).
Also Bauwens (2011) talks about a new form of value creation called ‘peer production’, in which
communities of volunteers create (open) content or (free) software that is usable and accessible by
everybody. Key thing for peer production is that the producers create products in such a form that they
form a ‘commons’ that can be used and modified by others. The idea is that these users then return in to
the same common pool in an improved manner.
He also admits that in the literature this has up till now been limited greatly to the field of immaterial
production, but the same production method that now dominates the world of open source software and
freely available content on the internet (which is often user-generated) is more and more influencing the
way we think about designing and making things. It is important to note that 3D printing involves at least
two kinds of communities, the communities that build the printer and secondly, the community that shares
designs. The community of printer building is of course strengthening the community of design. And, as
is for example shown in the case of Autodesk 123D, on top of these two types, there are also communities
involved in improving and developing the software needed for product design.
5.3.1
Approaches to open design
Since the concept is still relatively new, I want to explore the concept of open design further by outlining
three approaches that examine and highlight the crucial points of open design.
Atkinson (2011) defines the concepts of open design as being:
1. The collaborative creation of artifacts by a dispersed group of otherwise unrelated individuals
2. Individualized production
3. Direct digital manufacture of goods at the point of use
43
In product design in the 1960s, the opinion of the user grew in importance and ‘user-centered design
processes’ emerged. At first, the requirements of the user formed the starting point for the creative
product development, later this view progressed into a co-creation or co-design process in which the users
become fully involved in the creative process that leads to the products that they consume. In open
design, users take on the responsibility for creative and productive acts in their entirety. The recent
technology enables everyone to make. The cult of the connoisseur gives way to the cult of the amateur:
those who know themselves what is best for them (p.27). The technology has now moved the goalposts
from a position of co-creation to one where the users have the capability to completely design and
manufacture products by themselves. Atkinson (2011) states that although this may seem like a futuristic
fantasy, it is basically just a recurrence of past ways of doing things. We now go back to a cottage
industry model of production and consumption that has not been seen since the earliest days of the
industrial revolution (p.27).
Atkinson (2011) strongly believes in open development and argues that it’s just a matter of time for open
source machines to become more efficient, more accurate and able to use a wider range of materials. To
him there are two physical aspects to be considered in making the technology more acceptable to a wider
public.
The first is the development of more user-friendly interfaces, or more intuitive systems for creating threedimensional designs in the first place. Many current design systems still require fairly high-level CAD
modeling skills in order to produce designs in a digital form. The second is the distribution of materials in
forms suitable for use in such machines. Web-based supply-infrastructures will probably emerge naturally
when the demand for materials increases (p.27).
According to Bauwens (2011) open design (or peer production as he calls it) can be divided into three
distinctive processes:
1. Input side. Here we have voluntary contributors who do not have to ask permission to participate
and who use open and free raw material that is free of restrictive copyright so that it can be freely
improved and modified. If no open and free raw material is available, as long as the option exists
to create new material, then peer production is a possibility.
2. Process side. This is based on design for inclusion, low threshold for participation, freely
available modular tasks rather than functional jobs, and communal validation of the quality and
excellence of the alternatives (peer governance).
3. Output side. Here a commons is created, using licenses that insure that the resulting value is
available to all, again without permission. This common output in turn recreates a new layer of
open and free material that can be used for a next iteration.
There may exist incomplete variations on this model. Bauwens (2011) also outlines why this particular
production mode works. There are certain technical conditions created for immaterial production. First of
44
all, these ‘knowledge workers’ own and control their own means of production, brain, computer, and
access to the internet. Since they are the ones controlling their contributions, they are actually able to
voluntarily contribute to them. Second, content and software can be digitally reproduced at marginal
costs. This production mode therefore disregards the demand and supply tension of markets. Third, you
do not need centralized command and control hierarchies to coordinate a multitude of individuals and
small groups on a global scale. Finally, open design is based on passionate individuals and open
communities that strive for absolute quality and innovation. Actors in the market are driven by an
innovation for-profit system, which according to Bauwens is based only on the need to outcompete rivals,
causes them to look at their own interest, and only creates relative quality and innovation.
Avital (2011) explains the concept of open design by first diving deeper into the word ‘open’. According
to him, openness is a characteristic that refers to the degree to which something is accessible to view,
modify and use. Where ‘to view’ refers to sharing content, ‘to modify’ refers to sharing labour and
empowering changes/improvements and ‘to use’ refers to sharing ownership and enabling semi or
unrestricted reuse of the subject matter or parts. The application of openness has now turned into a
megatrend that he labels the ‘Rise of Open-X’. Megatrends are widespread trends that have a major
impact and are likely to affect all levels (individuals, organizations, markets, countries and civil society)
for a long duration. Avital (2011) classifies Open-X according to three archetypes: open innovation, open
source and open design. In his article, Avital (2011) juxtaposes the three archetypes on the basis of their
different respective value propositions and thrust, core openness orientation and prime actors involved
that can be seen in Table 8. He does argue however that the distinctions between the different archetypes
are more a matter of thrust and area of application, but that they are not mutually exclusive. They all
enclose core features of openness and overlap to some degree. Especially in open design it is not a matter
of re-use and distributed manufacturing, but also of sharing design blueprints and extensions thereof,
which basically implies distributing knowledge and development. Printer expert for IDC Keith Kmetz
believes that this might actually cause the 3D printer to cross over to the average consumer. It’s not about
constant improvement of the quality and features of the printers, but about opening up information about
the actual design of products and making them freely available (for example digital drawings of design
circulating on the internet). The implications this development will have for the future are still uncertain
(Daw, 2010).
Table 8: Archetypes of Open-X, derived from Avital (2011)
Value proposition and
thrust
Core openness facet
Prime Actors
Open Innovation
Distributed knowledge
View
Organizations
Open Source
Distributed
development
Modify
Developer
communities
Open Design
Distributed
manufacturing
Use
Consumers
45
To Avital (2011), open design means open-access digital blueprints that can be adapted at will to meet
situated requirements and that can be used by consumers to fabricate products on demand by commercial,
off-the-shelf production methods (p.52). The traditional vertical value chain is formed by designermanufacturer-distributor-consumer relationships. The open design model now offers an open web of
direct links between designers and consumers.
Open design can be classified into four interdependent conceptual layers (p.52).
1. Object layer. This refers to the design blueprints that enable and constrain the specification of the
design artifacts. It is about the design and distribution of configurable and extensible blueprints
(open design objects) that are available under open access license in online public repositories.
2. Process layer. In this layer it’s about the means of production that enable and constrain the
fabrication of the design objects. Open design fabrication is key here, which means the
application and operation of commercial, off-the-shelf machinery like printers, lasers cutters or
CNC machine tools to produce customized products with no custom-built moulds or machines.
3. Practice layer. This layer refers to the work practices that enable and constrain the conception of
design processes. Here you find an open design culture, which means the related nomenclature,
professional standards, craftsmanship, rules of the trade, code of conduct, rituals and normative
values.
4. Infrastructure layer. This pertains to the institutional and technical foundations that enable and
constrain the vitality of the design practices. What you will find here is an open design
substructure, which means the related legal system, market structure and technical architecture
that govern open design activities and future growth.
According to Avital (2011) the focus has mainly been on the first two layers and to a certain extent also
on the third layer, but the fourth infrastructure layer has virtually been ignored.
5.3.2
Pitfalls to open design
Open design does not come without any pitfalls. De Mul (2011) in his article outlines four problems
connected with open design and open source movements.
The first problem is that normally when having an immaterial project and there is a general infrastructure
for cooperation, plus open and free input available, then knowledge workers can work together on a
common project. However, the production of physical goods involves costs of raising the necessary
capital and these costs need at least be recovered. These goods are called rival goods, because if they are
in the possession of one individual, they are more difficult to share, and once used up they have to be
replenished. Luckily, with the rise of the 3D printer that is becoming cheaper every day, this problem
becomes less important. Bauwens (2011) adds that we need to bear in mind that everything that needs to
be produced, first needs to be designed. Designing a physical object is an immaterial software-based
46
process that depends on collaborating brains. The best thing to occur therefore would be collaboration
between open design communities and producing factories, something that is actually happening right
now.
The second problem is that many people will not be able or willing to join the open design movement,
because they do not have the skills, time or interest to design their own clothes, furniture, software etc.
The third problem is that we should not automatically trust those who think that they are able to design.
Crowd sourcing does not always result in wisdom; often it only produces ‘the folly of the crowds’. So
when the crowd starts sourcing in open design, the varied input might actually affect the reliability,
functionality or the beauty of the design.
Fourth, 3D prints and DNA printers will in the future probably not solely be used to design beautiful
vases and flowers, but could also be used to engineer lethal things, such as viruses or weapons. We should
therefore not underestimate the potentially dangerous pitfalls of open design, but invent new strategies to
face them.
5.4
Mass production, mass customization and full customization
The aforementioned concept of open design also has implications for how companies see their production
and even how the consumer will see production in the future. It was long thought that companies either
produced customized, crafted products or mass-produced standardized products. Companies used either a
push or a pull business model. Push business models are based on top-down value chains with a line of
mass-produced products being distributed broadly through value-drive downstream marketing techniques.
These models are based on economies of scale and focus on cost efficiency. Pull business models on the
other hand are based on bottom-up value chains with a line of customer-configured products that are
distributed individually through features-drive upstream marketing techniques. Pull models are based on
flexible manufacturing and focus on mass customization (Avital, 2011, p.57). Consumers have become
more and more centered in the marketplace; manufacturers are now trying to better meet consumer needs
by delivering low cost customized products. This is called mass customization: providing personalized
products at reasonable prices (Durray, 2002, p.314). Companies do so by using flexible processes and
organizational structures (Hart, 1994, p.36).
According to Frank Piller mass customization refers to “a customer co-design process of products and
services which meet the needs of each individual customer with regard to certain product features. All
operations are performed within a fixed solution space, characterized by stable but still flexible and
responsive processes. As a result, the costs associated with customization allow for a price level that does
not imply a switch in an upper market segment.”51 Broekhuizen and Alsem (2002) write that there are
four approaches to customize a product offering. Companies can change the ‘packaging’ of the product
(cosmetic approach), the product itself (transparent approach), both product and packaging (collaborative
51
http://www.mass-customization.de/glossary.htm
47
approach), or enable customers to customize the product during use (adaptive approach) (p.312). Hart
(1994) created a model of four key decisions that companies should consider before taking on mass
customization. The first pillar is customer sensitivity, e.g. do your customers care that you offer the
product? The second pillar is the process amenability, the multifaceted areas including marketing,
strategy, design, production and distribution. The third pillar is the competitive environment, e.g. the
competitive forces that the company can gain from mass customization. The fourth and last pillar is the
organization readiness, where you make an objective assessment of the organization’s attitudes, culture
and resources.
With companies we have seen a massive shift from push to pull business models. According to Avital
(2011), now open design will be the next iteration in the massive shift from push to pull business models.
The rise of the internet can be seen as the biggest driver. The internet offers an unprecedented variety of
products and personalization thereof. Personalization has so far been accomplished through pull business
models and upstream marketing that take advantage of automated fulfillment and logistics centers
supported by fast, wideband, many-to-many communication networks.
The accessibility (ability to view, modify and use) of the internet has enabled three phases that have now
resulted in this product variety and personalization. First, retailers have introduced consumers to the
ability to view up-to-date, rich and targeted information about off-the-shelf products, thereby enabling
them to make informed decisions. Second, manufacturers have introduced consumers to the ability to
modify base products, thereby enabling them to fine-tune a product offering according to their
preferences. In this particular industry, companies like Ponoko and Shapeways bring consumers closer to
the designers, providing them with more control over what they get (product features and materials), how
it is produced and how it is delivered. This is called full customization. Third, designers have introduced
consumers to the ability to use blueprints for self-managed fabrication, thereby enabling them to gain full
control over the features of the resulted product as well as its production process (Avital, 2011, p.57).
This is where the 3D printers come into place, preferably one at home. A new way of design has emerged
that complements new fabrication methods. ‘Do it yourself’ (DIY) now goes far beyond cost savings or
the joy of crafting. With personal / home fabrication, consumers can be fully in charge.
A small overview of the different production types in shown in Table 9, outlining the type of control over
production, target groups and examples of companies.
Although I distinguish here between four types, the distinction is not always so clear-cut. The transition
from mass production to mass customization seems clear, but the other three types are more interrelated.
Mass customization requires a front-end solution that allows the customer to configure their product. Full
customization still allows for choice on certain product features, and sometimes even gives the consumer
more control, as being able to design and upload image files, after which you can specify the materials
and have the result product sent to you. However, both customization/production types still require
specialized machinery to actually manufacture those designs. This is the feature that seems to set personal
48
/ home fabrication apart from the other production types. The fact that you can actually produce a whole
product yourself, from your imagination to design to actual development and manufacturing. But with
personal fabrication, just as with full customization you get the opportunity to design the product yourself
but it’s not a condition. With both types of producing, you can always use blueprints of other
designers/users, only with personal fabrication you actually produce the part yourself. Fab@Home
describes personal fabrication in terms of three concepts that are intertwined. It’s a combination of the
‘democratization of innovation’, ‘mass customization’ en ‘on-demand fabrication’, with the biggest
emphasis on ‘on-demand’, e.g. right from your desktop / click and print.52
Table 9: Four different approaches to production
Mass Production
Mass Customization
Full Customization
Allows
for
control
over
Product choice
(Atkinson, 2011)
Offers the consumer a few
set-choices about a core,
unchanging product along
specific, pre-defined
configurations53
Choice on
Product features / product
design
Materials
Delivery options
Target
group
Emerging
consumer market
eagerly purchased
lower-cost mass
produced items
(Lipson and
Kurman, 2010)
Consumer looking for
tailored solutions, a
product that fits their
needs better than the best
standard product (Piller,
2005)
Consumers who want to
be unique and express
themselves with
customized objects
(Lipson and Kurman,
2010)
Example
Ford
Dell
Ponoko
Shapeways57
Personal /
Home fabrication
Entire design process:
Product geometry
Product composition
Material structure
Types of materials
Cost
People who want the
same as full
customization, only right
from their desktop at
home.54
This group consists of:
Engineers, programmers,
technology obsessives,
DIY’ers, tinkerers,
hackers, geeks,
visionaries, studious
open-minded people5556
Fab@Home
RepRap
Makerbot
Thingiverse
Automake
In order to further clarify the previous section I also use the typology introduced by Kirsten Turner. She
talks about custom goods and customized goods (see Figure 34). She does not make a distinction however
between producing at home or through an online service provider. In both cases, goods can be produced
with a 3D printer, either at home or outsourced. The ‘customized good’ description is basically the same
as the ‘full customization’ description outlined earlier. Apart from that, personal fabrication leads to
custom goods, but these custom goods don’t necessarily need to be produced at home. Whereas the
52
http://www.fabathome.org/
http://coinnovative.com/part-5-the-evolution-of-mass-customization-and-personal-manufacturing/
54
http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
55
http://www.makerbot.com/community/
56
http://www.fabathome.org/?q=node/2
57
http://www.shapeways.com/about/how_does_it_work
53
49
emphasis of personal/home fabrication is on the ‘home-part’ of producing yourself with a DIY machine,
with custom goods people can totally design their own product, but still have it made by an outsourced
service provider. Furthermore, personal/home fabrication is more for personal use. According to Turner
(2011), custom goods can also be the ideas that people want to bring to the market for commercial use.
Figure 34: Custom versus Customized goods (source: Turner, 2011).
To conclude I will present a final production process which focuses more on the design part by
Automake, a research project at University College Falmouth. Automake is an online 3D generative
design software tool. The software is all about combining generative systems with craft knowledge and
digital production technologies to create a new way of designing. Following the description of Automake:
“The term generative system applies to any system in which a few basic rules are repeatedly employed to
produce varied, unpredictable and often complex results, with varying degrees of autonomy from the user
of the system. Generative systems have been used in many fields in an attempt to model and understand
existing natural phenomenon or as a tool to help find solutions to complex problems.”58
This results in the ‘Automake-process’ represented in Figure 35 that involves making objects that fade the
boundaries not only between maker and consumer, but also between craft and industrial production. The
team from Automake wanted to investigate the potential of generative systems to digitally design unique
one-off works and produce them using all kinds of RP/RM technologies, as well as CNC equipment. The
focus of Automake is on user-friendliness and to allow anyone to design their own work. This work can
of course be saved as output so that the design files can be physically printed.59
58
59
http://www.automake.co.uk/context/
http://www.automake.co.uk/about/index.html
50
Figure 35: The auto-make process related to mass and craft production. Source:
Automake.co.uk
6
RESEARCH METHOD
6.1
The Scenario-based Method
This thesis is designed to study the future of 3D printing and the impacts of this technology on the future.
Therefore this research has an exploratory and somewhat descriptive nature. Studying the future is not
easy. Researchers like van der Heijden (2000) and Schoemaker (1995) believe that it is undisputed that
the future is uncertain. So why do we study the future then? Because we believe that at least something in
the future is predictable. In order to separate this predictability from the uncertainty, researchers design
the scenario planning approach (van der Heijden, 2000, p.31). Scenario planning is a philosophy of
thinking about the future. The starting point of scenario-based methods is the understanding of
uncertainty (Burt and van der Heijden, 2003). If the future is uncertain, there are however multiple
equally plausible futures, and these futures, we call scenarios (van der Heijden, 2000). By developing
these future scenarios, we acknowledge the uncertainty and ambiguity in the contextual environment.
Decision makers and managers make use of these scenarios to develop their strategy, but they must be
aware of the fact that there is no one ‘best strategy’ (Burt and van der Heijden, 2003).
According to Börjeson et al. (2006) there is no consensus on scenario typologies in future research. Van
Notten et al. (2003) also assume that there is no correct scenario definition or approach. Instead, they use
a broad working definition of scenarios: “scenarios are descriptions of possible futures that reflect
different perspectives on the past, the present and the future” (p.424).
Scenario planning, as developed by Schoemaker (1995) is designed as a planning tool, with each scenario
telling a story of how various elements might interact under certain conditions. He believes that this
technique is applicable to any situation in which a decision maker would like to imagine how the future
51
might unfold. On top of giving descriptions of possible future states of affairs, a scenario can also give a
description of developments (Börjeson et al., 2006, p.723).
Simply put, a scenario is a series of events that we imagine to happen in the future. Nowadays, scenarios
are developed and used in a variety of ways (Van Notten et al., 2003). A total set of scenarios about the
future reflects our understanding of what in the system is predictable and predetermined and what is
considered substantially indeterminate (van der Heijden, 2000, p.31). Scenario planning is a disciplined
method for imagining possible futures that companies have applied to a great range of issues
(Schoemaker, 1995, p.25). This method attempts to capture the richness and range of possibilities,
stimulating decision makers to consider changes they would otherwise ignore. At the same time, it
organized those possibilities into narratives that are easier to grasp and use than great volumes of data.
So the scenario process consists of constructing several plausible narratives about the future. With its
focus on underlying driving forces, this method embraces qualitative aspects of the situation and can
potentially account for sharp discontinuities that econometric models can’t show (Burt and van der
Heijden, 2003, p.1014). By creating multiple futures, it provides us with the possibility to explore the
potential impact of these contextual driving forces in the market in more detail. Only doing one forecast
will not provide us with this opportunity (Burt and van der Heijden, 2003, p.1013).
6.2
Approach
Additive manufacturing consists of many different technologies and processes. In the literature and on the
internet, different terms are used. The technologies are referred to as additive manufacturing, (rapid
prototyping/rapid manufacturing), digital manufacturing or popularly 3D printing. For simplicity reasons
I will use the term 3D printing, which is also often used for the technology and machines that are entering
our homes.
A lot of the people involved in 3D printing have a say or a vision about what the future will bring. This
research wants to look at how feasible these ‘visions’ are. As told, there are several methods to study the
future, one of them is scenario planning. In this research I want to come up with several scenarios of what
the future might actually look like. Therefore I will outline three different scenarios. The scenarios will be
of the following states:
1) 3D printing will remain a marginal technology for rapid prototyping
2) 3D printing will become a viable production method in the marketplace
3) 3D printing will enter our homes and become a dominant production method
Organizing the scenarios this way allows me to discuss and compare the conditions that could lead to
each state. Because this research method is based on the assumption that we can’t foresee the future, I
will not focus so much on the time line of the scenarios. This study will not be concerned with forecasting
‘when’ these scenarios are probable, but ‘under which conditions’.
52
6.3
Data collection
In order to come up with these scenarios I will make use of two data sources, secondary and primary data.
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2007), secondary data consists of different types. First type
of data I use is documentary secondary data such as written materials and non-written materials (p.249).
The written materials mainly consist of scientific journals, blogs, organizations websites and newspapers.
Blogs (web logs) are websites that are maintained by an individual or organization to provide
commentary, descriptions of events or other material. The commentary or news can be on a particular
subject, but a blog can also function as a (personal) diary.60 Especially in the 3D printing communities,
blogs are used to share experiences with each other. There is not much written about this subject in a
scientific sense yet. Therefore I focus more on websites, blogs etc. However, I will always try to relate
these data to scientific concepts and go back into theories.
For the purpose of this study I created a Twitter-account to gather information, because I noticed that this
social media was very popular in this industry. Almost every manufacturing company in the industry as
well as the communities, designers and other related figures used twitter updates to communicate their
latest updates, like press releases, new findings, blog updates, discussions etc. So by following all the
users, I got updates every day. On a three-day basis I scanned the updates and categorized the updates. In
the end the useful updates were included in this research. The topic of 3D printing is currently happening,
expanding rapidly and very booming at the moment. Every day, new updates are published all over the
world wide web. Because of the time constraints of this study, I only used blogs and website information
until Sunday June the 26th. Any new information/data coming out after this date is not be included in this
study and can be used for further research. In order to ensure the reliability of the study I only use blogs
of whom the identity of the writer can be verified. Writers of the blogs in this study can be experts,
company employees, hackers, hobbyists or trend watchers. Finally I looked at several forums and scanned
relevant discussions. I saved the comment treads for later use in the data analysis.
The non-written materials included in this study are media accounts like video recordings or podcasts
published by organizations in the field or online communities. The videos can be broadcasted on
organization websites as well as on YouTube. I also make use of multiple-source secondary data in the
form of industry statistics and reports; one of these is the Wohlers Associates Industry Report. However
in order to not be too biased, I only looked into the Industry Report as a source of additional information
after having researched the industry myself.
The primary data for this study are collected on the basis of interviews with experts in the field. Data
from experts can be very helpful in envisioning the future. For the purpose of this study I used semistructured interviews. Semi-structured interviews are non-standardized and often referred to as qualitative
research interviews. In such interviews, I prepared a list of themes and questions to be covered based on
60
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog
53
every preset scenario. The big advantage of this kind of interview is the flexibility. The themes and
questions covered may vary from interview to interview. I can omit certain questions in particular
interview, but also vary the order of the questions based on the flow of the conversation. On top of that it
leaves room for additional questions to explore the research question further (Saunders et al., 2007,
p.312).
I conducted 8 interviews with different experts. These interview were taken face-to-face or through
skype. I asked for permission to audio-record the interviews and take notes during the interviews. Where
a face-to-face interview was not possible, I conducted asynchronous (offline) e-mail interviews (Saunders
et al., 2007, p.342). An electronic email interview consists of a series of emails each containing a small
number of questions rather than one email containing a series of questions (p.343). The interview
questions conducted in this study can be found in Appendix .
Furthermore I visited three companies to get a better view on their operations, work methods and
processes as well as their organizational culture. These companies are Freedom of Creation, Fresh Fiber
and start-up company 3Dock. During my visits I got a small tour, looked around, took pictures and made
notes of what I saw. At Freedom of Creation I got a small demo of the printing process of a machine from
Bits from Bytes.
6.4
Avoid common errors
There are two common errors in decision making that scenario planning is trying to compensate for:
under-prediction and over-prediction. Most people are guilty of the first error, but some futurists overpredict. Often these forecasters were scientists or entrepreneurs with an enormous faith in technology or
monetary success in science and business that lead to unjustified leaps of faith. Scenario planning is
charting a middle ground between this under- and over-prediction. It does so by dividing our knowledge
into two areas: 1) things we believe we know something about and 2) elements we consider uncertain or
unknowable. Examples of uncertain aspects of the future are rates of innovation, oil prices etc. Scenarios
depict possible futures, but it doesn’t show specific strategies to deal with them. Therefore it is advisable
to invite outsiders into the process, like major customers, key suppliers, regulators, consultants and
academics (Schoemaker, 1995, p.28).
Therefore to account for the error of under- and over-prediction, I made sure my sample consisted of a
broad range of different actors, like customers, major system builders, academics, entrepreneurs, and
pioneers.
6.5
Data analysis
After the interview I will transcribe the interview for analytical purposes. The biggest advantage of audiorecording the interview in this study is the possibility to re-listen to the interview and use direct quotes
(p.334). After transcribing, I will use NVivo to analyze and highlight the textual data. After that I conduct
54
four steps. First I will classify the data into meaningful categories, where I utilize terms that emerge from
the data or are used by the participants. Second, I will ‘unitise’ the data; attaching relevant units of data to
the appropriate category. Third I will develop the categories, by searching key themes and patterns in the
rearranged data (Saunders et al., 2007, p.482). Finally I will present these categories and themes in a
narrative manner, using the scenario method. On top of that I will provide visual figures to communicate
the richness of the data and clarify certain aspects in a simple way.
I also did a content analysis on the discussions about the subject on forums. After I saved the comment
treads I cleaned up the document, so that only the user names, dates and comments remained. After that I
used Microsoft Excel to classify the comments into categories. Just like with the interviews, I tried to
create key themes and patterns in the rearranged data to be able to present the data.
55
7
SCENARIO 1
This scenario is concerned with the question of 3D printing being more than a marginal technology in the
marketplace, used for rapid prototyping/rapid tooling and rapid manufacturing. In this chapter I will
describe and outline the current issues and constraints of the technology that limit the growth of it.
As shown earlier in this research, the technology has been around for years. At first the technology was
designed for the use of rapid prototyping, for companies to produce tangible prototypes. Recently, there
has been a shift to rapid manufacturing, where the technology is used for producing end products. So the
technology has evolved over the years and it’s expected that it will evolve even more. In the future it
should be possible to use the technology to manufacture normal consumer products.
Also I have shown some plain industry numbers of the market and the machines. Concluding from that
the 3D printing industry market is still relatively small and currently a few large players dominate the
market based on revenues. However, I believe that the economic value of 3D printing is not just in selling
machines. There is a lot more to it, like the economic value of content for example, as later chapters will
show. For now, the chapter here will outline the current restrictions and limitations of the technology
itself and discuss whether it’s possible to overcome these restrictions. Results will be presented by data
from users in the field as well as experts. Often the factors outlined here are interrelated, so it’s hard to
totally see them as separate parts.
Basically there are four critiques about the 3D printing technology that will be discusses in the next
chapters: price, quality, speed and materials. However another limiting factor with regards to this
technology is education.
7.1
Price
In this section I want to capture the lively debate around 3D printing and its prices. With the factor price,
there are three things to take into account, 1) the price for the 3D printing systems/machines, 2) the price
for the materials to actually make objects and 3) the price for production. Opinions about these things are
divided.
In 2008, Rachael King argues that the prices of 3D printers are an important factor. In that year, a printer
by Z Corp for example sold for $39,900 and that was no exception. However, less expensive printers
were finding their way to the market, and Desktop Factory announced to launch a 3D printer for $4,995 in
2009.61 With recent price reductions, any company can now afford to buy one and companies will start
using them more. In 2007, there were 2651 printers sold, but Wohlers Associates (2010) estimates
300,000 printers on the market by 2011. Lower-priced 3D printers could expand the market further into
places like design firms, architecture firms, high schools, and colleges, maybe even homes.
61
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2008/tc2008103_077223.htm
56
The 3D printer still has some sort of purchase barrier. Surely, a lowering price could help in overcoming
that barrier. But the notion that the use of a 3D printer itself could lead to some significant cost savings
for companies might be of more value. King shows that an architectural company for example uses the
3D printer to produce models at one-third the cost of a handcrafted 3D model. So when companies start
making frequent use of the machine, it can be seen as an investment with possibilities for the companies
to amortize the machine costs. While in 2008, King argued that 3D printers are behind locked doors in a
big department this is not the case anymore. Things have gone pretty quick in the meantime.53 In June
2011, the Ponoko blog published two offers for DIY 3D printer kits, selling for $455 and $500. So now
really anybody could own a 3D printer.62
7.1.1
Business perspective
Mark Cook, Vice President R&D of Z Corporation points out that when people talk about cost, they
sometimes only refer to the purchase price of the 3D printer. The real cost of a 3D printer however, can
be determined by taking into account some of the variable costs shown in Table 10. Businesses that want
to purchase a 3D printer should always assess these costs.63
Table 10: The 'real' costs of a 3D printer
Cost of printer components
Price of build material
Price of support material
Waste
Cost of post-processing
Maintenance cost
Some machines require expensive lasers, complex
thermal controls or special facility requirements
that can add costs.
Base the cost of volume rather than weight.
Some systems require building supports, and
these materials can be expensive.
Check whether unused build material can be
recycled for future builds.
Check if the process requires additional
equipment, chemicals, ventilation etc. in order to
post-process parts.
Depending on the technology.
Scott Harmon, VP of Business Development at Z Corp states that price will not be the key driver. He also
thinks that it’s unlikely to have a broad group of users to suddenly learn CAD and learn how to make cool
things from scratch. He believes we will be entering a world where people will soon be able to customize
or personalize basic 3D pieces to create uniquely interesting 3D printable content.64
Apart from the costs associated with 3D printing, it can also cause significant cost savings. ‘Valkyrie_Ice’
(on the NBF forum) states that 3D printers can put the costs of fabrication off on the end user and cut a lot
of costs associated with manufacturing, except for R&D and a web store. Costs savings can come from
not having to build a production line for every part and not having to assemble all kind of different parts.
A 3D printer could integrate everything. The best part for companies might even be its flexibility. During
62
http://blog.ponoko.com/2011/06/19/two-3d-printers-for-550-or-less/
63
http://mcad3dprintingandprototyping.blogspot.com/2010/12/six-steps-to-assess-true-cost-of-3d.html
http://mcad3dprintingandprototyping.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-needs-to-happen-before-theres-3d.html
64
57
a large volume batch run, still small changes can be incorporated to the product that would not be
practical or even possible with traditional manufacturing.
7.1.2
Consumer perspective
Christian Dijkhof, owner of Fresh Fiber says that nowadays consumers very much search for value, which
indicates that they will only buy products if the benefits outweigh the costs. And the fact is that products
and object produced with this technology still remain relatively expensive. At the moment, people in the
3D printing industry focus on design products, because that is what the customer wants to pay for.
However, not all products produced with this technology have to be really expensive and out of reach for
the average consumer. Fresh Fiber makes gadget cases for smart phones and they deliver a fashionable,
design product. The current sweet point in the market for these cases is around 19 to 25 euro. Fresh Fiber
sells its products for 29 euro so they are only five to ten euro more expensive but they do deliver unique
designs.
On the forum of The Straight Dope (founded by Cecil Adams), members (here: potential consumers) have
discussions about the price of printing objects. At 27-05-2011, ‘RaftPeople’ starts off the discussion by
stating that the costs for 3D printers at home depend on four different factors, namely: raw material costs,
the cost of the 3D printer, the cost of electricity to run it and the cost of labor time (for processing and
creating the 3D model). ‘Gazpacho’ adds that the production time for parts need to be added to the list.
The cost of the machine needs to be translated into the cost of a part, however since 3D printing is pretty
slow the cost can only be amortized over a low number of parts.
‘Dave.B’ calls from his experience and explained that in 2007 he printed a modeled aluminum jockey
wheel for his mountain bike, with a Z-Corps RP system at the cost of £350. According to him this price is
too high if you look at the amount of raw materials used and the fact that it was an unusable fragile part,
not even a finished component. Since that time things have changed and the machines are not just used
for rapid prototyping, but can be justifiably be called ‘Additive Layer Manufacturing’, says Dave.B.
However, you talk about a ‘one off’, so the jockey wheel would at this time still cost around the same
price. The technology still depends on economies of scale, because 100,000 parts of the things sintered
out of powdered titanium would probably have the same cost per unit as machines or cold-forged parts.
So the thing that is holding up the technology according to him is still the initial cost of the machines.
Other member on the site like ‘Francis Vaughan’ marks the machines as being expensive and slow.
According to him, machine time dominates and objects are charged by time to produce. He agrees that the
machines improved time-wise, but cost still remains high.
Shops seem to charge materials by the cubic centimeter. However, ‘Dr. Strangelove’ thinks that laser
runtime is proportional to volume of the material so this may also be a dominating factor. ‘Mangetout’
adds that next to the volume of material, the amount of finishing and overall maximum dimensions of the
object are components of the cost. Research on the site of Shapeways shows that their pricing model is
based on the factors presented in the Table 11 below. If you upload your product, you automatically get a
58
price calculation. What ‘Dr. strangelove’ and Shapeways give as advice is to create hollow designs where
possible, because then the product will be cheaper. You pay by the amount of material you use, so the
lesser material is in your design the cheaper the object will be. ‘Dr. Strangelove’ even talks about a
honeycomb-like structure that is strong enough for many purposes but a lot cheaper than solid fill.
Table 11: Influencing price factors at Shapeways65
Factor
Material use
Material type
Start-up cost
Order amount
Complexity
VAT
Price determined by
Actual amount of material used
Cubic centimeter
Examples:
Ceramics $0,18 / cm2
Full Color Sandstone $0.99
White Strong & Flexible $1,50
Alumide $1,99
Frosted Detail & Ultra Detail $2,39
Grey Robust $2,50
Transparent Detail $2,77
White Detail $2,89
Black Detail $2,90
Glass $5,99
Stainless Steel $10,00
Sterling Silver $20,00
Type of material
Independent of product price (range $1 - $1250)
Minimum amount: $25 per order
Complexity does not influence price
Amount of support material does not influence price
EU law
Dependent on country of residence
‘Swords to Plowshares’ on The Straight Dope argues that the manufacturers that are currently in the
market use their ‘monopoly position’ as they force their users to buy the plastic printing materials from
them or else you void the warranty; therefore he believes they can charge whatever they want. Catarina
Mota explains: “The high price of materials is not so much in the materials themselves, but in the
market”. Surely some materials are expensive in and of themselves, like UV-curable polymers and some
metals. Still at the moment, system manufacturers commercialize plastics for proprietary 3D printers in
cartridges, and these are expensive. She further explains that this business model is similar as with
document printers. “If your printer only takes a specific type of proprietary material, which in this case is
also packaged in a cartridge, that is bound to be more expensive. But if your printer works with any kind
of ABS, PLA, etc. in a filament form, then the price drops significantly. I'm not an economist, but I believe
this has much more to do with market forces and price setting than with how much the raw materials cost
to produce and distribute.” What the large manufacturers are doing is what Christian Dijkhof calls the
‘the Gillette effect’. When you buy Gilette, you get your razor pretty cheaply. Then when you buy the
actual blades, that is where they make money. It’s the same thing with the powders.
65
http://www.shapeways.com/support/pricing
59
However the price does not always have to be high. The open source printers like RepRap, MakerBot etc.,
use the same thermoplastics only in a roll form. And these stock materials are very cheap. The costs for
printing with a MakerBot are determined by three major factors: the amount of plastic, the printing time
and electricity costs.66
1) Plastic. Based on a price of $70 for 5 pounds of ABS and a density of 1.2 grams per cubic
centimeter, the cost of MakerBot ABS is around $0.03-$0.04 per cubic centimeter. After shipping
the price comes down to $0.04/cc.
2) Time. The MakerBot takes 85 minutes to print 19cc, which is 4.5 minutes/cc
3) Electricity. At $0.20/kWh, a MakerBot draws around $0.03 per hour.
That provides the following formula:
Cost = (V * $0.04/cc) + (V * 4.5 mins/cc * 1 hr/60 mins * $0.20/kWh)
Cost = V * ($0.04/cc + 4.5 mins/cc * 1 hr/60 mins * $0.20/kWh * 0.15kWh)
Cost = V * ($0.0425/cc)
So the cost with a MakerBot printer is $0.0425 per cubic centimeter, a significant difference with the
Shapeways printers.
7.1.3
Lowering prices
According to ‘Dr. Strangelove’ the price of the technology will not always remain high. “Consumables
should be cheap in the long run, because it’s basically just plastic.” About the machines he argues that
the printing units are not much more advanced than the inkjet printer technology. “The lasers are
probably fairly expensive, but diode lasers have come down tremendously in price in recent years, to a
point where you can already get a ‘laser-projector’ for less than $800 with 24 watts worth of blue lasers
in it. Near-UV lasers are already here, and although I don’t know if they’re good enough for curing use,
but I think the trend is obvious.”
When it comes to the material use specifically, then economies of scale are according to Bram de Zwart
(FOC) in the end what is going to bring down the price of the raw materials for the machines. One of the
reasons why the materials are still so expensive is because of the very low quantities that the powders are
purchased in. We all know the concept of economies of scale, implying that when the demand and the
quantities of these powders increase, the price will automatically lower as a result.
66
http://makerblock.com/2010/08/whats-the-cost-of-printing-with-a-makerbot/
60
Willem-Jan van Loon of 3Dock agrees, but states that there are more factors, including power and
political factors. He suspects the large companies of deliberately keeping the prices for the raw materials
high. As an illustration for this fact he pointed out to me a recent development he came across. At April
10th 2011, Grant Schindler, a Georgia Tech scientist launched an
iPhone application called ‘Trimensional’, which is basically a 3D
scanner for your iPhone 4 device.67 Although the application is built
as an application to capture 3D models of your face, it can also be
used for products. It works very simple, with the use of the screen
and front-facing camera, thereby detecting patterns of light reflected
off your face or off an object to build a true 3D model (see Figure 36
for the use of the application). You can then save image. With a 5dollar upgrade you can actually send files that can be opened with
3D software programs, but also print when you have access to a 3D
printer. This application doesn’t perform like a professional 3D
scanner, but for 99 cents it’s a funny application. It does however
Figure 36: 3D image of face
with the Trimensional app.
indicate what direction we’re going and it will only get better. It is
exactly these apps that are a threat for many companies and brands says van Loon. Imagine being in a
store and you see a nice pair of Ray-Ban sunglasses. All you have to do is make a picture with your
iPhone and the object is ready to print and then you have your own Ray-Ban sunglasses that you can even
modify to your personal preferences if you like. And for this reason they artificially keep the prices up.
“Because it doesn’t make sense. Now if you want to print a simple cup for example, if costs you 20
dollars because of the high price for the raw material, while in fact it should only be 20 cents.” Van Loon
believes Chinese printers will eventually enter the market that work on powder that you can create
yourself. It surprises him that the raw materials are much cheaper over there. “It probably has to do with
the fact that you can get the materials there locally. But in the end, with the powders... Metal is metal
right and gypsum is gypsum.”
User ‘Huntoon’ (NBF forum) is critical about the conclusion that 3D printing undermines economies of
scale because it will be as cheap to create single items as it is to produce thousands. He writes: “Yeah,
one printed part costs X, and ten printed parts cost 10X. Which sucks!” On top of that ‘Dave.B’ says that
a well-designed 3D model still needs a lot of processing from a professional. If all the time that is spent
on designing the model is used for one object only, it may not be very economical. ‘Silverthorn’ responds
by saying that the conclusion is correct, but only of we look at it entirely from the current paradigm. We
expect discounted pricing from volume production and build businesses and marketing plan around that
assumption.
67
http://trimensional.com/
61
However, there is more to it. ‘Silverthorn’ explains:
“The actual cost model for production is more like "C = F + m*N", where "C" is total cost, "F" is fixed
setup costs, "N" is the number of parts produced, and "m" is the marginal cost per part. The lower cost
per part when N is large is due to the fact that for conventional manufacturing, F is so large in relation to
'm' that it totally dominates the cost when N is small. 3D printing changes that by reducing F to
insignificance, leaving cost per unit dominated by just the actual marginal cost.”
According to ‘Silverthorn’ this cost model is bad under three conditions, namely when:
1) The marginal cost for a printed part is substantially higher than the marginal cost for conventional
manufacturing; and
2) You need enough of the parts to be able to amortize the manufacturing setup costs to relative
insignificance; and
3) The cost per part is the sole bottom line that you care about.
The 3D printing technology will likely have the most impact on condition 2) and 3). We should approach
it in a different way and look at it from a situation where we don’t need 10,000 parts and we don’t care
about the absolute minimal cost that you can get when ordering 10,000,000 parts.
Finally, a crucial thing that Rachel King points out is that designers could use the cheaper (desktop)
printers) for early iterations and then more expensive machines for the finished model.68 This is exactly in
line with what Janne Kyttanen believes. According to him, there will be all kinds of different levels of
markets in the 3D printing market. “I do believe that we will have printers at home. But it’s the same
thing if you want to print it book: you can print some small local things at home, but then if you want to
print a little better, then you go to the copy-center shops, and then if you really want to print a book, you
will go to a publisher. That’s basically the same thing for 3D printers: you can have desktop printers that
can print some things at your home, but for that low price it will not give you the quality of the larger
machines. Then you just go to an expert 3D printing store.”
68
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2008/tc2008103_077223.htm
62
7.2
Quality
Another often cited problem with 3D printing is the quality of the products. In 2008, 3D printing is still
perceived as a new technology that is not perfect yet. One of the challenges of 3D printing is the
improvement of the accuracy.69 About two year later we could say that the accuracy has improved. James
McBennett tells he disagrees with all the people that
keep on saying that the quality of the machines
needs to improve. He believes that for the majority
of objects 0.001mm accuracy does just fine, and that
is the level of accuracy we are on at the moment
already.
For example the open source printer RepRap
Mendel has a layer thickness 0.01inch and prints at
a 0.004inch resolution. The MakerBot Industries’
Thing-O-Matic already carves down to 0.005mm
resolution,70 although Bre Pettis believes there is
always room for improvement.
Here again, quality improvement is a matter of the
development of the technology. New forms of
processes have already emerged; take for example
the EOS Micro Laser-Sintering (MLS) technology,
Figure 37: Example of the accuracy that is possible
today with Micro laser-sintering. Courtesy of FOC.
very well suited for the production of micro parts. An example of the accuracy that this machine can print
in can be found in Figure 37.
Important to note is that there are different perceptions of quality. Quality for Janne Kyttanen for example
is completely different than Christian Dijkhof. Dijkhof more represents the average consumer and his
quality of the product is based on ‘the Chinese way of making things’, e.g. products that ‘just work’,
whereas the quality for Kyttanen is that people can interact with the products. For him it’s not about the
material, surface finish or color.
When we relate quality to end-use products, it all depends on what the end product is. Neil Gershenfeld
once wrote: “If the market is just one person, then the prototype is the product”71. According to Catarina
Mota, most 3D printers can produce nicely finished objects. Maybe they are not always as smooth as
injection molded ones, but they are used for ranging end uses. In aerospace, automotive and dental
industries the technology gets more and more used for end-product manufacturing. In terms of quality
69
70
71
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/oct2008/tc2008103_077223.htm
http://www.slashgear.com/thing-o-matic-is-inexpensive-star-trek-replicator-10118888/
http://www.researchnotebook.cc/
63
we’ve come a long way, certainly for the large/professional machines. And the personal 3D printers are
getting better by the day. In the future, the printers will only improve even more.
When producing its products Fresh Fiber always checks the available technologies and examines what
technology is best suited for the product use. When making the iPhone cases, not every printing process
can make products that are strong enough or even suited for producing large numbers. It’s dependent on
the machines as well as the people that service the machines. Dijkhof states: “The technology was
originally developed for RP. So when you make a prototype, it doesn’t matter. But if you want to make
1000, 2000 or 3000 items of one product or one type of product for retail then you want all your products
to be the same quality.” When you pick the right manufacturer, with some good experience, than you can
produce very accurate products.
‘Travis R’ (NBF forum), a frequent user of the technology also states that the quality is very much
depending on the process. SLS is very good, with a 0.005-inch accuracy for most axis and aesthetically
nice to look at when it’s finished with a post-operation. The disadvantage however is the price, which can
be $350 for a part the size of your hand. According to ‘Travis R’ the FDM technology has a 0.01-inch
accuracy on the x-y axes and 0.02inch on the z axe but is a lot cheaper, around $25 per part the size of
your hand. The parts created with FDM look horrible however, nothing aesthetic, just function. He sums
up: “In order to compete with injection molding per part after amortization the price needs to come down
per part by 350 times, go up in precision by a factor 2.5, and go up in strength by a factor of 3.”
7.3
Speed
Janne Kyttanen, as the visionary that he is, explains the factor speed as follows: “Look at the world like
this. If it takes one hour for me to make a pencil for example. What if there were let’s say a million
machines on the planet. And people would even have these machines at home. Then every hour you could
make a new thing. Then tell me, which way is quicker? Going to China and spending two years of making
an entire production facility and production plant to make all this. Then you will have to ship these things
all around the world, which will also take months. And now compare that to one hour.” Of course this
story is a bit extreme, since we haven’t reached this state yet. Still the bottom-line of the story is very
clear. On top of that, it’s just a matter of time before the machines will speed up. Basically the same thing
goes for when there are 50,000 machines in one city. If everyone would download that one file, it would
actually be possible to produce 50,000 items in one hour. This way the production is much quicker, only
the infrastructure is not there yet. That’s what companies as 3D systems and FOC are building, but this
will be explained in the later chapters.
Business-wise, Sam Green as part of the marketing team for Objet Geometries argues that the current
prototyping process is a throwback to the pre-industrial revolution: handcrafted models, flimsy materials
like wood/paper/clay, hand gluing and by-eye filling or sanding of parts. According to Green, prototyping
has been the Achilles heel for modern mass-production and rapid manufacturing. Now the 3D printing
64
technology provides a rapid and automatic way of producing one-of-a-kind parts. The printed objects are
a realistic representation that can be properly tested and checked early on in the design cycle and if
necessarily can easily be adjusted and printed again. Normally prototyping cycles take weeks or even
months. With the 3D printing technology it can be done within days even.72 Lemereis (2010) agrees and
shows that this technology offers great flexibility. He illustrates the case that just 3 days after the launch
of the iPad, the store of Shapeways already offered a cover for that. Normally a manufacturer would only
be able to do that in collaboration with Apple (p.39).
Still, the time difference between the creation of an initial design of a product for 3D printing and
traditional manufacturing probably will not be far apart. Dijkhof explains that the biggest time is spent on
making a mould out of the design, which can take up to weeks. But once the mould is made, you can’t
change anything anymore. With this production process you can constantly adapt, which gives you an
enormous flexibility. “Within a week we can make a new model, and any time make an adjustment to the
current model. If our case is a little bit too tight on the device, we just adjust it. Do we want to put a name
on it? We just do it within no-time.”
These are just three examples that show that this 3D printing technology can speed up the global
design/production process and thereby reduce the time to market. Catarina Mota explains that the existing
technologies are not fast enough for mass manufacturing yet. They seem more appropriate for small
production runs for the long tail, customized products, niche markets, small manufacturing business, etc.
But what exactly is mass-production? Van Loon for example needed to produce 600 give-away items. He
figures that the technology is not suited for producing 300,000 screws, however 600 items is still quite a
lot. Currently, a large Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) machine can produce 700 to 1000 iPhone cases for
Fresh Fiber within 48 hours. That includes the printing itself as well as the required finishing, an example
of the finishing of the part is shown in Figure 38.
However, from a consumer perspective, 3D printing is still regarded as quite slow. Eric Hart in his blog
describes his experiences with his open source MakerBot 3D printing kit. He explains that he was more
excited about building the machine itself than printing the 3D plastic pieces. From his experience: a) the
printer didn’t have that great a resolution, b) the printed parts required a lot of clean up, c) the developing
of the computer file took quite some time and was rather skillful, d) the printing process was rather slow
(a large piece would require running overnight) and e) when the piece was printed it still required
sanding and cleaning it up. Furthermore, when making a ‘bust of Mozart’ for a play for example, the
machine would only provide him with a prototype that still needed to be molded and casted. So when you
combine the time and money to fulfill all these steps and compare it to the sculpting and carving of an
artisan, you are probably better off going with the artisan.73
72
73
http://www.objetblog.com/2011/01/24/beyond-prototypes/
http://www.props.eric-hart.com/tools/thoughts-on-3d-printing-technology/
65
Isaac Dietz, support manager at MakerBot Industries thinks that the speed of the machines is appropriate,
but not yet “Star Trek type”. Just like others he highlights that 3D printing exceeds traditional
manufacturing techniques for speed-to-market.
Figure 38: The post-processing of a SLS machine
7.3.1
Increasing speed
‘Dr. Strangelove’ on The Straight Dope forum states that the solution for speed is a matter of doing things
in parallel. “More lasers in parallel, that all operate simultaneously will speed things up by about that
same factor.” Van Loon totally agrees and explains how. At the moment the vats for printing that he has
come across are approximately 20 x 30 x 20 cm, like a shoebox size. Once these vats get bigger, they will
fit more objects at the same time and then you can also print multiple objects. Still he admits that the
printing process is not fast yet, but that’s just a matter of development. “I’m a sales-guy, so from a
commercial perspective I always say ‘the machine just runs overnight’, but I think it’s about 23 cm per
hour that some printers can print.”
66
7.4
Limited materials
Another often-heard limitation for mainly the open source and home 3D printers on the market is the
materials that can be used. Machines for 3D printing at home rarely use anything but plastic, because of
its pliability and low melting point. However, we can’t say that 3D printing is only suitable for the use of
limited materials. The different 3D printing methods actually permit printing of dozen of different types
of materials.74 MIT (2000) explains that 3D printing can from any material that can be obtained as a
powder, which they say is just about any material. Materials include ceramics, metals, polymers and
composites. Shapeways offers materials like steel, sandstone, ceramics, glass and alumide (a blend of
50% Nylon (PA) and 50% aluminum.75 Shapeways also recently added the option to print your designs in
Silver.74 On top of the aforementioned materials RapidPrototyping.NL also shows possibilities for
printing products in nylon and rubber.76
The home printers just don’t really have the technologies yet that are required for non-plastic printing.
According to Janne Kyttanen it doesn’t really matter yet: “These machines for the home currently only
process plastics, but you got to start somewhere. The machines are here now, and they are affordable.”
This way however, the multitude of materials still remains out of the reach of the average consumer.
From a company perspective, in order to be
special in this market you need to offer
more than just plastic to those consumers.
From a business perspective, the start-up
company 3Dock figured that in order to be
successful in the market for consumers it
should at least offer all the materials
currently available. So now you will be able
to choose from printers of metal, silver, gold
or ceramics etc. Moreover, 3Dock wants to
create a system where every printer with
new material gets added to the website
straight away, so consumers can switch and
Figure 39: Examples of materials and finishes available for 3D
printing. Courtesy of FOC.
pick between all the different kinds of materials.
Catarine Mota, co-founder of openMaterials and PhD candidate says it’s not so much a question of
variety of materials, since you can print a variety of metals, ceramics, glass, resins etc. What she believes
is the main limitation for the moment is not being able to combine two or more of these materials in one
print. Then you can actually create complex objects without requiring separate construction. Mota
74
http://www.pcworld.com/article/212440/the_3d_printer_revolution_countdown_print_your_own_pc_coming_shortly.html
75
http://www.rapidprototyping.nl/content.php/nl/361
76
http://www.rapidprototyping.nl/content.php/nl/347
67
believes that with development more materials come and multi-material 3D printers will arise. Multimaterial printers do already exist, but are restricted to the commercial sector and extremely expensive
still.77 Just printing in color for example could already help in enhancing the appearance of printed objects
and can be used for making design prototypes more realistic, distinguishing parts of an assembly, texture
mapping, sales presentations, packaging, art and many more.78
Architect James McBennett says with all these options and possibilities of materials, we should not focus
on how to make things using 3D printing, but how to change things to achieve what was previously
impossible. The use of materials in 3D design is actually really innovative. Janne Kyttanen explains that
with almost all the products you see around you, there is too much materials than actually is needed in
order to hold the strength in it. So what he does basically is calculate the strength for the products and
design for internal structures, so he can actually diminish the weight of the product by 90 percent. “Any
product you see out here has too much material and we can save about 90% of material on these
products. That’s what I’ve been working on: creating products that have less material, but the same
strength.”
7.4.1
Multi-material printing
In 2011, Object Geometries introduced the Objet260 Connex (see Figure 40), labeled as a revolutionary
printer because it uses inkjet technology that can jet 2 materials at the same time. So now you can produce
models that contain a whole range of material properties that will represent you final product even better. The
multi-material technology can build up to 14 different material properties, textures and shapes into one part in
a single print job. Objet now has a range of over 60 materials available, that can all be used. An example of a
multi-material toy produced with this machine is shown in Figure 41. However, with this new technology the
machines are designed for functional prototyping and not for end-use products yet.79
Figure 40: Objet260 Connex multi-material printer.
Figure 41: Toy prototype with 11 different
materials. Source: objet.com
77
http://www.pcworld.com/article/212440/the_3d_printer_revolution_countdown_print_your_own_pc_coming_shortly.html
78
http://mcad3dprintingandprototyping.blogspot.com/2011/01/10-uses-for-color-3d-printing.html
http://www.objet.com/3D-Printer/Objet260_Connex/
79
68
7.4.2
Unlimited possibilities
With regards to materials, there is constant development going on. openMaterials is a research project
devoted is a research group dedicated to open investigation and experimentation with DIY production
methods and use of materials. Just like the open source software and hard, they also see materials as an
open source that should be researched and developed in a public and collaborative manner.80 The
possibilities for material use seem unlimited. According to Van Loon in order to become bigger, 3D
printing needs new materials to get the ‘wow-factor’ that will amaze the audience. Van Loon came across
a guy that is printing a wooden boat. “When that comes out, people will be like.. What? How? I thought
you could only print plastic cups, you know.” Some of the following examples will just show you that
‘wow-factor’.
The first example is from the research team of Open3DP students, part of the Mechanical Engineering
Department of the University of Washington. The team did an experiment and showed it was possible to
3D print in bone (see Figure 42). The bone mixture consists of Powdered Bone Meal, Powdered Sugar,
MaltoDextrin and urea formaldehyde resin as a binder. Of course it’s still early testing, but this clearly
shows the future potential of the technology.81 Next to that they worked on 3D printing in wood, using
wood flour (see Figure 43). Wood flour is fine sawdust, like powder-made from pulverized wood. The
team can now print in black walnut shell flour, pecan shell flour, wood bark flour & wood flour. The team
uses a powder-based system that is a hacked version of a commercial system.82
Figure 42: 3D printing in bone by Open3DP
Figure 43: 3D printing in wood by Open3DP
The second example is from a team of research at the University of Exeter. They have been working on a
3D printer that uses chocolate instead of ink or plastic (see Figure 44). Again, technology-wise there is
nothing special about it, just printing chocolate in a layer and when it solidifies print another layer on top
until the desired 3D shape is created. The printing process does require careful control of key parameters,
80
http://openmaterials.org/about/
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-in-bone-now-possible
82
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-in-wood-flour
81
69
like temperature. Since it’s chocolate, the possibilities on a commercial aspect are huge. The next step for
the team is to take their printer into cyberspace, with a chocolate-oriented website.83
Figure 44: 3D printing in chocolate
The third example is from a team of nanoengineers at the University of California that developed a new
biomaterial that mimics properties of native human tissue to repair damaged human tissue, like heart
walls, blood vessels and skin. The bio-fabrication technique uses light, precisely controlled mirrors and a
computer projection system to build three-dimensional scaffolds with well-defined patterns of any shape
for tissue engineering. Professor Chen hopes that future tissue patches will become more compatible with
native human tissues. Chen also advocates the versatility of the technology. “We just created this new
material, but it’s just a matter of time before people will find application for it in defense, energy and
communications for instance.”84
Figure 45: 3D printing of cells. Source: TEDtalks
83
84
Figure 46: 3D printing a human kidney. Source:
TEDtalks
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14030720
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110526091806.htm
70
The fourth example comes from surgeon Anthony Atala who talks about an early-stage experiment of a
3D printer that uses living cells to output a transplantable kidney. The field of regenerative medicine as
it’s called is working of technologies that use scaffolds, biomaterials, (stem) cells and specific materials
that can help your body regenerate. With the use of three-dimensional imagining analysis the researchers
have created biomaterials to grow an actual bladder. Now they make use of 3D printers to print new cells
into wounds (see Figure 45), but the real challenge remains printing solid organs. With the 3D printing
experiment it has been possible to print kidney structures as early prototypes that can now be studied
experimentally (see Figure 46). They are years away from functional and clinical use; still in the future
this technology might help to solve the problem of organ shortage.85
7.4.3
Material issues
With the development of material, there are also some issues involved. According to active user
‘GoatGuy’ on the Next Big Future forum, there are three issues to materials that get little attention and
actually constrain the universal adaptation of 3D printing. The first issue is safety. According to him,
there is a reason why many materials are not certified for 3D printing, because they can be flammable
(especially when finely divided), unusually toxic or emit toxic fumes, or specular reflectors of laser
energy. The second issue has to do with material properties. These are more significant than is currently
given attention too, so it should be looked into more, because the mechanical strength of 3D printed parts
is usually a lot less than conventional bulk-material fabrication. The third issue has to do with coatings
and surface treatments. A lot of printed parts still require extensive post-processing, like polishing, burr
removal, plating, hardening, etching etc. The 3D printers don’t have the ability to perform these
processes. ‘GoatGuy’ doesn’t think these surface treatments are significantly going to be challenged by
the 3D printing revolution.
7.4.4
Future materials
So based on the previous critiques, there is room for improvement in the field of materials. One of the
improvements could be the possibility of creating your own materials for printing. According to Catarina
Mota so far, very few people are working on this matter. So that is what she is trying to encourage at
openMaterials, but it will take time. She sees Open3DP as an excellent example of a group developing
more DIY materials. Although she hopes that in the future we will be able to create our own ceramic slips
and polymer filaments, she think we will be buying our materials at affordable prices from China in the
next stage of the evolution of digital fabrication.
With regards to the materials themselves, Catarina Mota believes that we will see an expansion of the
types of materials that we can print with. ‘Smart materials’ will probably be an important part of the
future of 3D printing.
85
http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html
71
7.5
Education
Leslie Langnau published a podcast with an interview with Jamie Milas, marketing manager of
Materialise. They discuss that education seems like a long-term plan to actually grow the market, still
there is only limited attention devoted to this technology. Getting into schools is the goal, but Jamie Milas
sees two trends in schools. First trend is that for the schools that actually have RP (Rapid Prototyping)
labs, little devotion is giving to these labs. It’s normal that in school students come in and out every four
years, but unfortunately most of the time only one class or so is devoted to that lab. What Milas sees is
that these students don’t get to play with the technology, but just submit a file and threat it almost like a
service bureau. The second trend is that not much attention is devoted to the 3D files. According to her,
preparing files is a tricky business. When you don’t understand the machines, the materials and how they
are built then it’s actually hard as a designer to design for a 3D printer. In schools, the students don’t
think about wall stiffness or supports and all the things that need to be part of it.86
Neil Gershenfeld, director at The Center for Bits and Atoms at MIT has a specific view on education
himself. He states that if personal fabrication is indeed the next big thing, the big question is how people
will learn to do it. With his fab labs he basically uses two tricks. First there isn’t a fixed curriculum that
can teach personal fabrication. It’s rather education on demand building on the work of himself and his
colleagues. “You can view a lot of MIT's instruction as offering just-in-case education; you learn lots of
stuff in case you eventually need it. What I'm talking about is really just-in-time education. You let people
solve the problems they want to solve, and you provide supporting material they can draw on as they
progress.” His second trick is to use education as a pyramid scheme. “Before people learn much they
can't help much, and once they really know how to use the stuff they're too busy doing something else. But
there's about a six-month window when they have just learned how to do something and really want to
tell anybody they can find. You can use those people to teach the next people coming through, cycling
through that window.”87
Education is crucial, still Janne Kyttanen does not totally agree with what they teach in design schools
nowadays. In 2000, his graduation project on 3D printing reflected a future that questioned the way
products are currently distributed, stored, designed and manufactured. However, because no one could
relate or believed him at that time, it almost led to him not graduating. The message he is sending to
design students is to make something groundbreaking and provoking, something that nobody is going to
believe. The 3D printing technology definitely provides upcoming designers with some handles for it. But
they should properly learn how to use the tools.
This is also one of the reasons why Bram de Zwart, collection manager at Freedom of Creation came up
with the ‘Talent project’, a global online network of talented, young and pre-selected designers. “When
we launched the project in January 2010, we didn’t know how it would evolve. However the first results
86
87
http://podcast.designworldonline.com/2011/06/13/what%E2%80%99s-lacking-when-working-with-3d-printers-in-education/
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gershenfeld03/gershenfeld_index.html
72
were kind of overwhelming so to say. This shows that the potential is huge, and we should follow this
track.” The thought behind the project is that the young, digital and international background of the talent
carries fresh ideas that will result in successful new products that represent cultural diversity as well as
the future archetypes for digitally created shapes. It works as follows: every quarter FOC sends out a
challenge, a design brief and then the Talents send in their CAD design based on the assignment
description. The designs that then match the design brief are produced and commercialized by either
Freedom of Creation or one of its partners.88
The three major factors that make this project to a success are the internet and its accessibility, the digital
background of 3D printing and the rapid evolvement of 3D software. On top of that the people at FOC
believe in decentralized manufacturing and their product development. “We are (one of) the first
companies that created a distanced network with the best designers from all over the world and we
provide them with a central place to commercialize their designs.” Bram de Zwart knows that the
potential of 3D printing is huge, but he also wants to fulfill an educative role for the designers. In a later
stage he hopes to find ways to educate the FOC talents about 3D printing design rules on top of their
superior Computer Aided Design skills so there are enough designers to fully utilize its potential.
3Dock is doing similar things on a local scale. Their strategy is trying to encourage young, fresh people to
come up with ideas and make designs. They try to become embedded in education by actively visiting
Dutch colleges (‘hoge scholen’) by doing presentations and after the summer they will start doing
workshops. 3Dock wants to link these people to their website and build a vivid community around it. “We
want to work with young people, because they are less skeptical, or have already seen what is possible.
We want to work with people to whom this technology almost sounds normal”, van Loon says. These
people will make a difference in the future and increase the adoption of the technology. And it doesn’t
even need to be hard, of course it takes time and effort, but the biggest advantage for van Loon is the
ability to talk to these young people, since he is one of them. The company communicates and interacts
with these people at the college presentations, but also at sports, in pubs etc.
With young people, Van Loon refers to the age of 18-25. Janne Kyttanen even goes one step further in
preaching to create tools for 6 year olds. He strongly believes that when you are 6-years old, you create an
emotional connection with the tools you play with. And if you learn them at a young age, you keep on
doing it for the rest of you live. Kyttanen, considered as a very creative designer in the 3D printing world
adds: “If I would have had these tools when I was six years old, F#*& man you have no idea what I
would have created.” At this stage, Kyttanen even believes that things will only change if we start to give
and create these 3D tools to ‘the ten-year-olds’. We will be amazed of what they will do with it. That
enabling kids at a young age is a good thing is also reflected in the words of Gershenfeld. “I've even been
88
http://www.freedomofcreation.com/talents/first-successes-foc-talents-program
73
taking my twins, now 6, in to use MIT's workshops; they talk about going to MIT to make things they think
of, rather than going to a toy store to buy what someone else has designed.”89
7.6
What’s next
A lot of people in the industry make a comparison with this technology and the rise of the personal
computer. James McBennett for example tells that the RepRap and MakerBot printers are the DIY
computers that Bill Gates and Steve Jobs played around with back in the days. The previous $500,000 3D
printers in the ‘80’s are the computers that used to take up the room. So if history is going to repeat itself,
it will take ten years before the 3D printer gets launched as a fully assembled mass-product.
Neil Gershenfeld says there is a tremendous historical parallel between the transition from mainframes to
PCs and now from machine tools to personal fabrication. Mainframes were expensive machines that
could only be used by skilled operators form limited industrial operations. The packaging then made them
accessible to ordinary people, which led to the digital revolution. Nowadays, the means to make stuff still
remain expensive machines that are used by skilled operators again for limited industrial operations. 3D
printing is going to change that. Research has shows to print semiconductors for logic, inks for displays,
three-dimensional mechanical structures, motors etc. So in the future we will not just have not just selfreplicating machines, but machines that can make machines, or personal fabricators as Gershenfeld calls
them. “Like the earlier transition from mainframes to PCs, the capabilities of machine tools will become
accessible to ordinary people in the form of personal fabricators (PFs). This time around, though, the
implications are likely to be even greater because what’s being personalized is our physical world of
atoms rather than the computer’s digital world of bits.”90 Currently, technologies for 3D printing are not
needed to solve immediate problems, because routine needs are already met. Students/hackers etc.
working with 3D printing don’t use it for survival or developing for companies. They use 3D printing to
create things that they desire rather than need. 3D printing is a perfect tool for those people to make the
world they want to live in.89
About the use of 3D printing, Klas Bolvie, senior research at SINTEF says: “There is no doubt in my
mind that products that have been produced by AM will be an important part of our technological future”.
He likes to think about AM in terms of the metaphor of firearms. Firearms did not reach the performance
of the bow and arrow in terms of fire range and rate of fire until around 1800, which is 500 years after the
introduction of the technology. During all this time and in particular the first 300 years, there were
actually one or two little advantages for special applications that justified further development, while the
technical development of the longbow was more or less completed during the Stone Age. To relate this to
the AM technology, we can draw several conclusions from this history. First of all it shows that
technology development could continue over hundreds of year, or at least a long period. Also, there a
numerous application to mention where AM has a clear advantage. However still a lot has to be improved
89
90
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/gershenfeld03/gershenfeld_index.html
http://www.researchnotebook.cc/?p=6#promise
74
about the current technology, implying a lot of development potential. If we talk about AM in terms of
production methods, even if it will not be used for mass production of standard components still new
applications and products will emerge and be developed, with some of them that we haven’t even
imagined that we need today.
7.7
Conclusion
Concluding from all this it should be argued that 3D printing currently still has some limitations that hold
back further adoption from outsiders or consumers. However, a lot of people that are actually in the field
don’t really see these limitations, or they just find ways to work with it. 3D printing has already evolved a
long way and will only continue to evolve further. The main question of this scenario is whether 3D
printing would remain only
a marginal technology
in the
marketplace used for rapid
prototyping/manufacturing. At the moment it is, but the technology also has a lot of potential. Therefore it
will only be a matter of time before 3D printing will be used on a larger scale. To conclude this scenario I
present a summary found in Table 12 with all the factors that are either constraining or stimulating the
growth of 3D printing. Some of the factors are two-sided, that’s why I sometimes distinguished between
different dimensions.
75
Table 12: Summary table for scenario 1, with constraining/stimulating factors.
Constraining/stimulating
factor
Price (-)
Dimension
Conclusion
Price of printer
It’s a matter of development, cheaper printers
already find their way to the market.
Manufacturing companies often deliver overpriced material-toners. Open source projects
show that materials don’t have to be
expensive at all. When market grows, prices
will probably drop.
Still relatively high, thereby decreasing
consumer’s perception of value for money.
Companies don’t need to invest money in a
production line process for every single
product.
Cost per object is fixed, so it is as cheap to
create a single part, as it is to create
thousands.
3D printing integrates the production process
into one machine, thereby decreasing costs.
Each printing process determines the price as
well as the quality of the product.
Unfortunately, better quality almost instantly
raises the price.
The objects don’t come out in the qualityform found in stores and often require
extensive post-processing. The postprocessing requires specific knowledge,
that’s not welcoming companies to start
using the machines.
The printing process is still rather slow. It’s
expected that over time, machines will speed
up.
Printing large quantities is time consuming.
When machines get bigger and start printing
in parallel the total time will decrease.
The technology provides companies a fast
and automatic way to produce one-of-a-kind
parts, whereas normal prototyping cycles
sometimes take months.
Technology provides flexibility in the design
process that allows companies to constantly
make changes in the model without having to
change entire production processes.
3D printing already offers a comprehensive
set of materials and the materials keep
developing.
Material other than plastic is often expensive.
Not every material is suited for every
purpose and some materials show weak
mechanical strength.
Material costs
Printed objects
Low-volume production (+)
Investment costs
Cost per object
Potential cost saving (+)
Manufacturing costs
Quality (-)
Pay for quality
Post-processing
Speed (-)
Machine runtime
Large quantities
Speed (+)
Prototyping
Adaptability
Materials (+)
Choice
Materials (-)
Price
Properties
76
Education (-)
Creativity
3D files
Not enough time is devoted to the FabLabs
and often the students don’t really get to play
with the technology and explore the
possibilities. 3D printing needs more people
to get on board.
Preparing 3D files is an art in itself, but
schools don’t seem to give enough attention
to it. If you master the art of 3D printing,
there will be almost nothing you can’t make.
77
8
SCENARIO 2
In the previous scenario I have outlined the current limitations of the technology that might keep the
industry from growing. However since I am reviewing the future I should look beyond these limitations.
The next step in the process is to look at the 3D printing technology and review how it can gather a bigger
position in the market space. In the end you might argue that it’s about the adoption of the people, the
consumer, producers etc. to make the technology work.
According to James McBennett, 3D printing is a platform that is going to lift all industries forward, just
like Gutenburg did with the book, or Ford did with mobility. Business will thrive in this age, however if
organizations fail to update and reset their business plans, it will put them out of business. To stick with
Gutenburg and Ford, he adds: “If you had business before the printing press and the mobility of the
masses, it certainly was not the same afterwards anymore.” This takes me to the pressing question. What
is actually needed for 3D printing to reach these ‘masses’? In this chapter I will provide information and
examples and outline what factors are important for the technology become a viable production method.
8.1
The killer app
Figure 47: Meaning of the word 'killer app'. (Source: New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005)
According to some, one of the things that could make or break the further growth of 3D printing is the
development of a so-called ‘killer app’: an idea with broad enough appeal to capture the attention of the
masses.91 James McBennett doesn’t like the term killer app, as he thinks it is a software term that
therefore is hard to apply. However, the definition clearly shows that it can be a ‘feature, function or
application’ of a new technology. So a killer app for 3D printing could give the 3D printing technology a
direction towards becoming more mainstream. With such a killer app, more people will get involved and
people are made aware of how to use it. After a while all these people will start thinking of other ways to
use this technology. So what is the killer app then?
Until recently, 3D printing has had a notion of being industrial and very little people knew anything about
it. However, that is changing. Open design projects and communities have put 3D printing in the hands of
geeks and hackers all over the world. They now come up with components to make the printing process
more precise. According to David Daw, the hacker movement is responsible for bringing 3D printing to
91
http://www.pcworld.com/article/212440/the_3d_printer_revolution_countdown_print_your_own_pc_coming_shortly.html
78
the fore. They have made home 3D printing become a growing segment of the population by offering low
cost 3D home printing kits. On top of that, community sites like Thingiverse for sharing useful 3D
printable designs all support the further growth and development of the industry.92
There is a debate going on about the question whether 3D printing needs a killer app, or 3D printing is the
killer app. There are a lot of developments and possibilities in the field that could turn out to be a killer
app, like multi-material printing, food printing or using 3D printing in the classroom, but it may also be
that the 3D printing killer app isn’t even on our collective radar yet. Jeff Lipton, the head of the
Fab@Home 3D printing project, who is developing multi-material printing for home use doesn’t think
that this particular purpose will be the industry’s killer app. He sees mainstream access to multi-material
printing as comparable to the development of integrated processors for personal computers. In order for
personal computing to become feasible, it needed an integrated processor. Lipton believes that multimaterial printing in this industry will enable the killer app, rather than being the killer app. “If you look at
personal computing, the killer app was video games, and no one could have predicted that from the
processor. You only find out the killer app once the machine is in enough hands and people start doing
cool and weird things that experts would never have predicted”.92
Proponents of the technology claim that 3D printing itself is the killer app. Anything you can imagine
within the capacity of a 3D printer can be built out of nowhere. With a machine, anyone can make things
that he or she is passionate about, and this is what makes the 3D printer a killer app for everybody
(Lemereis, 2010, p.38). This is in line with statements of Leslie Langnau. Although she believes that AM
is a fabulous technology without an apparent killer app93, she states that the great application that will
push 3D printing into a huge industry seems to be people who just want to make things.94 Ironically, web
application builder Nick Taylor thinks the killer app in this ‘hardware’ revolution will be software that
allows people to create things that look great, without having to be trained designers. According to him,
the money is not in the physical products, but massifying the tools that are needed to ‘do it yourself’ and
bringing it to the people.95
Christian Dijkhof agrees. Good, easy to use software is the killer app. When looking around he sees all
these kinds of people playing with and manipulating their pictures and movies. “They often put a lot of
time in it, so a next logical step is to do the same for objects. So if they have the tools or steps and
software that actually makes ‘making stuff’ easy enough and you don’t have to be a designer, then you
will create a huge market.” Janne Kyttanen also knows 3D printing has a lot of potential, but to him
‘empowerment’ is the killer app. “You have to make it accessible, and you have to empower the people. If
you’re going to empower the people, then you create a massive industry.” Just giving the people and
average consumers is not enough according to Christian Dijkhof. He adds that for now it’s important that
the output of a 3D printer matches the expectations of the customer, in terms of how the objects comes
92
http://www.pcworld.com/article/212440/the_3d_printer_revolution_countdown_print_your_own_pc_coming_shortly.html
http://www.makepartsfast.com/2011/05/1953/is-convenience-the-killer-app-for-additive-manufacturing-technologies/
94
http://www.makepartsfast.com/2011/05/1825/the-killer-app-for-3d-printing-people-who-just-want-to-make-things/
95
http://www.genomicon.com/2009/06/aesthetic-algorithms-the-killer-app-of-mass-customisation/
93
79
out, what kind of quality, what kind of finish/color and all that kinds of stuff. That is where the consumer
matches their expectations. “The way the objects roll out of the printer at this stage, they still need to be
tumbled by these ‘weird machines’, to make the finish smooth. What I’m saying is that you don’t get the
finish yet of the products you normally buy in the retail stores.”
Leslie Langnau makes a distinction between the “hobbyist” community (enthusiasts) and “professional”
community (engineers who use the technology in their day-to-day work). According to her, in the
hobbyist community the killer app for the people using the MakerBot (developed by Bits for Bytes) and
RapMan systems is the ability to just make things and do it relatively inexpensively. However, industry
advisor Todd Grimm questions whether the hobbyist development will lead to system sales.
The professional community still needs a killer app. Even though the technology offers an on-demand
nature of making objects and the ability to produce a small batch at reasonable price capability, Todd
Grimm doesn’t think it fills the killer app need. According to him, a potential killer app for professionals
will be the convenience that the technology delivers. To illustrate, he also refers to the early PC industry.
Only when convenience applications for users like spreadsheets and word processing came out, the PCs
became the ubiquitous devices that they are today. No one can image doing without them anymore,
because they have removed so many tasks from our everyday life. The convenience that the AM
technology can deliver to engineers is improved personal efficiency and productivity. Engineers and
designers can freely try out their design ideas, in the privacy of their office without involving other
departments until they are ready.96
8.2
Software
The software for designing 3D parts is a story of itself. Basically one company called Autodesk
dominates the market for 3D design and engineering software at the moment. Jokingly, Janne Kyttanen
calls them the ‘3D-maffia’.
The current attitude towards software is that it is too difficult. That needs to change in order to get to the
consumer into 3D printing. It’s not a matter of improving the software, but about become more userfriendly and for the mass audience. According to James McBennett good to use software already exists,
like Google Sketch-up. It took James less than two weeks to master working in 3D in architecture to a
much higher degree than Sketch-up. He says he can teach anybody to draw in 3D in an hour.
Janne Kyttanen took a little longer than two weeks and spent at least five years behind the computer with
his 3D software not to have it as a limited factor. He explains that software tools can be limited. In the car
industry in the 60s, all the cars and the tools were made by hand. Then in the beginning of the 80’s CAD
tools were introduced and then all the cars that came out became blocky in a sense. The reason for it is
that tools had to be industrialized to make money. Janne learned all his designs in really crude 3D
software, but now he can make anything. Christian Dijkhof talked to some design professors and they
96
http://www.makepartsfast.com/2011/05/1953/is-convenience-the-killer-app-for-additive-manufacturing-technologies/
80
showed him that it really requires a study design in 3D. He knows his consumers and he also knows that
the ‘average Joe on the street’ will not go through such a process. So only when the software becomes
really simple, fun and user-friendly, then it will have a future. Janne believes it’s just a matter of time
before people will make all kind of things with different 3D apps.
So, people in the world of software are working hard to make 3D modeling software more mainstream
and available for anyone. The MakerBot Industries blog introduced the world to the free modeling
software 3DTin (see Figure 48). Basically this software allows you to design 3D objects out of cubes. The
advantage is that it can be quick and easy. Disadvantage however is the rough texture as an end result.
The designer of 3DTin, Jayesh Salvi has been adding more functionality to the program, like new shapes
including cylinders, cones, wedges, spheres and several other variations that you can add to your
sketches. Some of the parameters for every component like radius or height can be specified too. Salvi is
constantly looking for further development of the program and actively asking for feedback from his
users.97 MakerBot regards the program as positive as it allows people to design more interesting and
detailed objects. However, the inclusion of the software in a browser-based program that can now export
files directly to Thingiverse is very highly regarded and even named ‘plain incredible’.98
From
my
experience
personal
it
resembles
‘Microsoft Paint’ to some
extent, only now this is a
3D
version.
And
who
doesn’t know Paint? The
software certainly needs to
develop further, but this
could be a first step in
making
software
user-
friendlier. Some of the
examples made by other
users that are shown on the
site
Figure 48: Overview of 3DTin.com
97
98
are
quite
amazing
already.
http://www.3dtin.com/
http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2011/05/25/3dtin-com-not-just-for-squares/
81
8.3
The rise of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo
3D printing is regarded as a ‘digital production method’, so a lot of things are happening over the internet.
In this section I want to highlight a trend on the internet that contributes to a large extent to the growth of
3D printing and its products. I’ve shown a product feature on IndieGoGo earlier in this study; here I will
outline the value of this site for the 3D industry together with Kickstarter. These sites are both two
international online funding platforms for creative projects all over the world. Basically it’s a new
‘digital’ form of commerce, with no investment or lending required and where the creators keep 100%
ownership and control over their work. It’s all happening online, with promotion being done as feature on
websites, in the press and very importantly through social media. For IndieGoGo for example it’s free to
sign up, create a campaign and contribute, but when your campaign starts raising money, they charge a
fee of 4%.99 Kickstarter collects a 5% fee from the project’s funding if and only if a project is successfully
funded.100
The technology we have today makes it possible for every person to turn his or her idea into a prototype
or product. And sometimes when it’s a good idea you might actually want to try to make a business out of
it. However, when trying to make a commercial business out of your idea or design you probably need
financial resources to actually execute your idea. Although the idea behind 3D printing is that anyone can
be a designer, the average hobbyist designer does not have this money. That’s exactly why you need those
sites. Not only do you raise money for you project, but you also create a first customer base, because the
people that back your project often purchase your products as well. Now I want to show two examples of
such projects.
8.3.1
PadPivot
The first project is the success story of PadPivot, ‘the ultimate lap and desk stand for you pad, tablet or ereader’, which an ingenious hinged design that can be folded up small enough to fit in a hip pocket (see
Figure 49). I would like to point out three key points: 101
The first remarkable point in this project is the collaboration between the makers, which you can actually
see as a new way of independent design. The PadPivot is the brainchild of the inventor Bernie Graham
from Canada. He worked together on the project with industrial designer Jim Young from Seattle. These
two man met, collaborated, shared files and resources and prototyped this project entirely over the
internet. This might sound strange to some project designers, but for Bernie and Jim it’s almost how it’s
supposed to be. They envision the world of small, connected partnerships that fuel design and creativity.
Because together, people can share and make great things.
Secondly, the success of the project can largely be assigned to the power of a good prototype and how 3D
printing contributed to that. The prototype needed moving hinges, rigid supports and rubber ‘overmolds’.
99
http://www.indiegogo.com/about/pricing
http://www.kickstarter.com/start
101
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jay-design/padpivot-lap-and-desk-stand-for-your-ipadtablet-or/
100
82
In the end the PadPivot prototype was created by an Objet Connex multi-material printer that was able to
create the complex dual-material prototype. According to Sam Green, using this technology the
overmolded parts were produced in half the time of conventional overmolding processes.102 This example
also illustrates that 3D printing can lower the cost of entry into the business of making things. It’s easy to
run one or two samples to see if your idea works and whether other will like it too. It was only after
having received the prototype that Bernie and Jim started effectively promoting their product design.
They created some videos, showing the benefit and use of the product and ended up on Kickstarter, the
rest is history.
The third point is the potential of these kinds of business challenges. What started as a simple idea of one
inventor and industrial designer that pledged a goal of $10.000 resulted in a project that received 4,823
backers and raised $190,352. Within two days they reached their initial goal. In order to create a durable,
high quality and cost-effective project, Bernie and Jim used the injection mould process. The money
raised on Kickstarter went into purchasing the tooling plus paying for parts, packaging and shipping the
PadPivots. Of course, without the help of Kickstarter they would not have been able to get so
successful.103
Figure 49: Kickstarter campaign for PadPivot
102
103
http://www.objetblog.com/2011/07/11/turn-invention-ideas-into-functional-prototypes-with-objet-multi-material-3d-printing/
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/jay-design/padpivot-lap-and-desk-stand-for-your-ipadtablet-or/
83
8.3.2
Custom 3D printed iPad cases
The second example is the case of FreshFiber.
Today, almost all products are manufactured in
massive numbers. All of those products are
identical, while the users are not. That’s why
FreshFiber wants to make products that are
personal, because ‘products can tell a story: a story
about
you’.
FreshFiber
With
wants
a
to
Kickstarter
create
a
campaign,
manufacturing
revolution by developing the world’s first online
tool by which people can make their products
personal and virtually sculpt their personal text,
Figure 51: The 97$ pledge for FreshFiber's
Kickstarter campaign: a customized iPad case with
built-in stand. Source: FreshFiber.com
logo, icon or drawing into 3D printed iPad cases
(see Figure 50). In order to contribute to the project, FreshFiber offered 7 different pledges ranging from
$1 (get an exclusive wallpaper) to $497 (co-design a custom iPad case with the designers of Freedom of
Creation). An example of a customized case is found in Figure 51.104
Figure 50: The start of a manufacturing revolution. Source: FreshFiber.com
Designing a high-end online customization tool costs money. Therefore FreshFiber called on all the
people around the world to help them raise the money to make it possible. However, as you can see in
Figure 52, the funding for this campaign was unsuccessful. FreshFiber posted a goal of $20.000, but only
received 80 backers and raised $5,255. Although it has been a disappointment, Janne Kyttanen says he
also has learned from it. The result basically shows that there is not an existing market for customization
(one of the biggest advantages of 3D printing) yet. “The current need for the customers is in a protection
case for the iPad, not in a 3D printed, customized protection case for the iPad. Thus 3D printing in itself
is not a product yet, nor is a customized iPad case. Hopefully things will change soon.” Things
104
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/freedomofcreation/custom-3d-printed-ipad-cases
84
FreshFiber should focus on at this moment is for example creating a customized name case for an iPad or
any other gadget (like they are doing at this time) and extending these offers. However, Janne adds that
unfortunately the steps are only small, because when you give customers too much freedom e.g. to design
their own case, they don’t know what to choose anymore.
Figure 52: Kickstarter campaign for FreshFiber
8.4
Economics
3D printing makes it possible to create product of virtually any design possible. The technology itself can
also have major impact on the design and production process. According to Christian Dijkhof the
technology is more expensive related to traditional methods, but the ability to prototype is a big
advantage. To have a physical prototype makes it easier for manufacturers to decide whether to go
through with the product and produce it with 3D printing, or even do a ‘knock-off’ and create a mould
after all. Injection molding might be cheaper, but often you always have to give up certain product
features. In the next sections I will look into the technology from a business perspective by first outlining
what some of the manufacturers in the market have to say, then I will outline some of the advantages of
the production process itself. I will conclude with some examples of businesses that are (successfully)
working with 3D printing.
Scott Crump, the inventor of the Fused Deposition Modeling technology from Stratasys reflects on the
benefit that companies can gain from the technology, gained from his experience during the recession. He
bases his argument on the proverb “measure twice, cut once”, a simple advise yet so easy to ignore.
85
According to Crump, second measurements can save money. However there is a risk involved in cutting
wrong, that exceeds the possible gain. In R&D terms, he translates ‘measure twice’ to ‘prototype early
and often’. Prototyping gives certainty that only one tool cut is needed, so no rework. Because certainly in
tough economic times, companies struggle and have to cut costs to increase productivity. Especially then
companies need to understand the value of prototyping, and don’t be tempted to skip design iterations.
And this decision is difficult for most companies as there is no direct correlation between the prototype
and the success of the product. Making prototypes doesn’t lead to problem-free designs or market demand
and profitable sales. Of course there are products that become successful without prototyping, on the
other hand when a design fault is discovered during the tooling process, the costs of fixing the design will
most likely be ten times higher than the $1,000 prototype savings.105
Another AM manufacturer company, Dimension also reflects on and discusses the financial reasons for a
3D printer. The company, just like Scott Crump, builds on the argument that changes in the design
process get more expensive once you get further in the design and engineering process. A 3D printer can
help because it enables companies to review many design iterations in the earliest stages and can provide
the product team with durable functional ABS concept models. If the product designers are not happy
with the design that comes out of the printers, they just adjust the digital design and print it again, until
the design is right and can be passed on to the next step in the production process. Figure 53 shows that a
change in the tooling or production phase can be 1000-10000 times as costly than in the concept phase.
Secondly, Dimension build on a study of McKinsey & co. that in their study suggest that when a product
is late to market by six months, it will lose up to 33% of its potential profit over its entire life cycle (see
Figure 54). So again, when companies make use of a 3D printer they can go through the initial design
process faster and more efficient, while still getting the best end product with no errors.106
Figure 53: Change costs through different
production stages. Source: Dimensionprinting.com
Figure 54: Cost of being late-to-market.
Source: Dimensionprinting.com
Figure 55: Cost per unit using the Optomec Aerosol
105
106
http://www.stratasys.com/Resources/White-Papers/Measure-Twice-Cut-Once.aspx
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/applications/financial-benefits.aspx
86
The research of a third manufacturer, Optomec states
Jet process (King and Renn, 2009, p.5).
that the Aerosol Jet printing process provides a cost
effective solution for low to moderate volume production runs or where mass customization is required.
In Figure 55 you can see the cost per unit for their Direct Write technology is fixed regardless of the
volume. What is also important to note is that the cost per unit has decreased in two years (although the
line of 2010 is still a prediction). King and Renn (2009) use similar arguments as Dimension. One of the
main drivers for cost reduction using this process is the elimination of physical tooling. The software that
comes with this process creates deposition tool paths direct from standard CAD data. This is a digital
tooling approach that offers manufacturing agility by allowing designers to efficiently and cost effectively
test new design alternatives and prototypes. As a result, designers can also quickly and cost-effectively
test new products and prototypes thereby eliminating delays and costs that are associated with tooling sets
as well as other capital requirements that conventional manufacturing techniques impose. The features of
the technology make it easier to validate design changes without needing to ‘re-tool’. So new products
can be produced at reduced cost with faster time-to-market (King and Renn, 2009, p.5).
Just like Dimension, the Optomec Aerosol Jet process can reduce the overall number of processing steps,
which can help reducing both capital and operating cost. However, another important cost-driver is
material efficiency. The technology enables very tiny droplets to dispense, so a very thin coating is
created, which allows for good interaction between differently applied layers. With a focus on electronics,
that normally uses expensive materials, the Aerosol Jet technology can reduce the cost per device by
reducing the material use and waste (King and Renn, 2009, p.5).
8.4.1
New profitable processes
At the Loughborough University the team developed the technology High Speed Sintering (HSS), a new
AM process that utilizes inkjet print head and infrared heating technology. The speed of the HSS process
offers potential for reductions in part cost, so HSS can compete with injection molding in low volume
applications.107 The HSS process is competitive with injection molding at production runs around 1,000
items. If further development could make the process competitive in runs of tens to hundreds of
thousands, then more manufacturers will look to adopt the technology.108 An example of the cost effective
production of HSS is proven in their association with Burton Snowboards. Research showed that a
snowboard buckle would cost 10 pence each using the HSS process. This rate is highly competitive with
injection molding, even when it was calculated at the current high material cost of AM. Sean Horning
Product Development Engineer of Burton Snowboards reports: “This price is astounding. With the
potential for improved cycle times and therefore further reductions to part cost I could see that the
benefits for using HSS may far outweigh those for using injection molding in the near future.”109
107
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/business/E2HS/technology/high-speed-sintering.html
http://www.economist.com/node/18114221
109
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/business/E2HS/technology/HSS/case-studies/process-speed-and-flexibility.html
108
87
8.4.2
Performance
The Next Big Future reports on the economics of 3D printing and they argue that it is not going to be
slightly cheaper components that provide enough reason to radically change a whole manufacturing
process. However they do believe that 3D printers could be included in some steps of a factory process
for example. The success of AM lies in the fact that it can create new products that could not be built
before, like things that have superior performance and critical features. They refer to the use of AM
technology for the aircraft industry.110
In making aircraft, lightness is critical. A reduction of 1kg of weight of an airline will save around $3,000
worth of fuel a year as well as cut carbon-dioxide emissions. With AM technologies that work with
titanium powders it is possible to print objects that require only 10% of the raw material that would
otherwise be needed. On top of that the process uses less energy than a conventional factory. Normally,
metal and plastic parts ‘are designed to be manufactured’, so they contain material surplus to the part’s
function but necessary for making it. With 3D printing, this is no longer needed as you only put material
where you need to have material. 3D printing eliminated the manufacturing constraints; therefore the
design and material use can be better optimized for its purpose. A printed part can be 60% lighter but will
still be as robust. So AM could help building greener aircraft. However the size of the parts is still limited
by the size of the 3D printers. Who knows when we see the first printer that fits on the 35-metre gantry
that is now used to build composite airliner wings?111
Another expert that reports on the superior performance of AM is James McBennett. As an architect he
has been looking at the possibility of printing mud bricks. Currently, mud bricks are made from casting or
extrusion and mass-produced in various shapes of cuboids. While the printing systems, the technologies,
software and materials get more advanced, we might be able to ‘print bricks’. With printing, higher
definition geometry can be made that can form a new type of interlocking between bricks, perform new
tasks and be controlled with a higher sophistication that currently possible. 3D printing would allow for
grooves and form to be designed into the bricks to that other composite components like pipe work or
reinforcement are better integrated with the brickwork. Also, the brick can be printed with voids in their
masses, thereby reducing their weight and used materials in the brick.
According to McBennett, the advantage of ‘customizing bricks with higher definition’ is that sites
becomes easier to build so less skilled labor in needed, but it also allows local people to build local
houses better. McBennett figures that a small house or even small apartment block will be no more
complicated than building a LEGO model in the near future. Within a week of training, people can gather
the skills to begin building adobe buildings, usually built in remote locations. “Therefore it can be said,
that pushing this limit a little further, a short training course could be used to teach a community how to
build an apartment block if the construction methods were simple enough. Construction is more
110
111
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/02/current-and-future-economics-of-3d.html
http://www.economist.com/node/18114221
88
complicated than it need be, printing can make that easier and simpler. The combination of animations,
videos and instructions provided through a website together with suitable hardware such a variation of
the RepRap printer will be able to used for the construction and instruction to build an apartment block.”
8.4.3
Special uses
Zain Jaffer blogs about his experiences at Singularity University. They use 3D printing in the construction
of prosthetic limbs. 3D copying combined with 3D printing make complex design production efficient,
affordable and environmentally friendly. In simple terms: if you miss your right legs, then you scan your
left leg, you flip the image on the computer and use the printer to print out a ‘new’ right leg. Jaffer is
especially intrigued with the 3D photocopier that they have built at the innovation lab that can be used to
scan objects. Normally this kind of 3D technology costs thousands of pound, but this ‘above-average
quality 3D photocopier’ costs about 150 pounds.112
The company Bespoke is also involved in selling limb coverings and printing entire customized limbs.
They have already printed test models of full legs with sophisticated features like body symmetry, locking
knees and flexible ankles. And the best part: the costs for a leg at $5,000 - $6,000 dollars only with
features that can’t even be found in the legs that cost $60,000 today.113
8.5
Business in 3D printing
I will end this chapter by showing some examples of businesses in 3D printing and will do so by
highlighting company profiles or specific uses of 3D printing for business purposes. The businesses
outlined in the following sections either have potential or already contribute to the growth of the 3D
printing industry.
8.5.1
CloudFab
First company is CloudFab, that evolved out of HackPittsburgh, a ‘hacking’ community-based workshop
devoted to deconstructing and understanding objects and repurposing materials for new and innovative
uses. The company now tries to contribute to a change in manufacturing. Just like many others, CloudFab
allows you to make custom objects from your digital design with 3D printing or helps converting your
sketches into printable files. However, Pinkston came up with a business model that is trying to distribute
the manufacturing of objects. In 2009, he has linked 600 printers that are scattered around the nation. So
when someone needs something, they can get it from a manufacturer near their house, how they want it.
This way CloudFab is doing a lot of stuff through local people, thereby getting efficiencies up and
transportations down (economic and environmental).114
Again, this model will still not be suitable for mass-production, but for a couple of hundred items it could
definitely work. The new model eliminates the need for assembly lines and energy expenditures. With the
112
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-07/6/singularity-university-3d-printing-and-prosthetics
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/14/technology/14print.html
114
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/10/on-demand-3d-printing-cut-waste-increase-efficiency.php
113
89
traditional model you have to do supervision of a million things, and CloudFab tried to make that more
efficient. Nick Pinkston, CEO of CloudFab explains that technically there is a gap between a prototype
and mass-manufacturing that typically involves sort of small-scale mass-manufacturing that is horribly
inefficient because you have to produce all kinds of things like assembly lines for only a couple of parts.
“What we let you do is have no assembly lines and we can just 3D print a couple of 100 or 1000 things,
much more efficient than the model we are currently using.”115116
8.5.2
Jay Leno – The car industry story
The possibilities of the technology are well shown in a feature on the show ‘Jay Leno’s Garage’. Here Jay
Leno visits the company Next Engine and explains the impact that the technology can have on the old car
industry. Leno explains: “How many old cars sit in their garage for the lack of one part and will sit there
for the next 50 years because there are just no parts available? That’s not a problem anymore, you can
make them yourself.”
Imagine the following situation: when you have an old car with a part that is unavailable, the chance of
finding one is probably going to be impossible. Then you basically have to options: 1) find a machinist
for >$100 an hour that is going to play with your missing part and hopefully get it right or 2) use the Next
Engine 3D scanner and Dimension 3D printer and create the part yourself.
According to Leno, this technology is going to be a lifesaver for the old car industry. He presents the Next
Engine 3D scanner shown in Figure 56. This machine is highly accurate, small, simple to use and comes
at a cost of only $2,995. Mark Knighton of Next Engine explains how it works in practice. The Next
Engine, three-dimensional scanner measures the size and shape of an object at 5000 points per second and
can capture a million points on an object within a minute. After scanning the object the scanner makes a
computer model of it that can then be adjusted if needed and sent to a 3D printer.
So what’s the benefit of this technology? With the scanned digital file you can easily produce a casting
out of ABS plastic. With the plastic part you can see if the part actually fits and works in you car, and if it
does, you can then put in a CNC machine to have a metal part build. The biggest benefit is that you don’t
need to waste time machining a part and then maybe even find out that you are way off in the end. And of
course if the 3D printing machines get better, you can manufacture the parts straight off a 3D printing
machine and have a factory at your own place. “Now you can keep old cars on the road forever, because
you can make anything”, says the excited Jay Leno. What maybe even excites him more is that this is an
American technology. Related to the Duesenberg cars he learned that all the gear cutters in America were
either out of business or tooling in Chine, Korea or India. So then you had to send the Duesenberg to
India or China to get them made, and they would return in poor quality. Now that’s not necessary
anymore, for now just scan your part in plastic, find yourself a good machinist and bring it to him. Mind
115
116
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4HcikoJCJY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU36bW7FwVU
90
you, Chinese companies are adopting the technology too. Still it seems obvious that some manufacturing
will return to the West from cheap production centers in China.117
Abe Reichental, CEO of 3D systems also
sees opportunities for recreating a reverse
flow and bringing manufacturing activities
and jobs back to the United States.
Employment and compensation costs in
China have increased rapidly over the last
few year. Reihental predicts that the cost
of outsources labor in emerging market
like China and India will keep on rising
with the growth of their middle class. If
costs for professional-grade machines keep
Figure 56: Next Engine 3D scanner. Source: Technovelgy.com
declining, it won’t be hard to see
thousands
of
entrepreneurs
or
even
customers have these machines installed in their home or garage. “Why buy cutlery and plastic cups if
you could just download the design and make it yourself?”118
8.5.3
Clothing bikini print
Another feature of the 3D printing technology that has received enormous attention on the internet and
featured on hundreds of blogs is the first ready to wear article of clothing, the N12 3D printed bikini
(named after the material its made out of Nylon 12, see Figure 58). Why is this so special?
First of all because the garment/fashion industry is one of the few remaining industries where massproduced items is still assembled almost entirely by hand. Design is often still done in the first world,
whereas the production is outsourced to the third world because of cheap labor. Shapeways preaches that
however this is just a small start, but it might actually represent a possible end to the ‘sweatshop’ with 3D
printed garment completely pulled out of a machine. With the current material properties it’s not possible
to print fabrics yet, but materials do get more complex, stronger and flexible. If the development
continues, Shapeways see 3D printed garments to become increasingly viable.119
Secondly this project has made innovative use of materials and software processes. “The bikini was built
in Rhino 3D CAD software and specially written algorithmic script to create the structure of the 3D
printed fabric. The algorithm uses a complex 'circle packing' equation on an arbitrarily doubly curved
surface (the bikini). The size of the circles responds to curvature and edge conditions of the form,
creating smooth edges and a responsive pattern.” The bikini features a very complex design. Thousands
117
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ggvzcGdZsTc
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24866
119
http://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/875-N12-3D-Printed-Bikini-Technical-Update.html
118
91
of circular plates are connected with each other by thin springs. According to Shapeways the Nylon 12 is
ideal for swimsuit materials as it is naturally waterproof. Also this is actually the first bikini that becomes
more comfortable when it gets wet. Continuum Fashion, the design studio that created the bikini also
adds: “One of the goals of the circle patterning system is to be able to adapt it to any surface, at any
size. This means that future articles of clothing can be produced using the same algorithm, this could be
taken a step further into absolute customization by using a body scan to make a bespoke article of
clothing, 3D printed to exactly fit that person only.”120
Figure 57: Parts for the N12 bikini
Figure 58: The N12 3D printed bikini made by Continuum
Fashion.
Mind you, the bikini isn’t cheap. Each component of the bikini can be bought separately, including cup
and straps. Each cup for example (see Figure 57) costs $90 and the back strap costs $40 so the price adds
up quickly.121
120
121
http://www.shapeways.com/n12_bikini
http://www.shapeways.com/shops/continuum
92
8.5.4
FreshFiber
Fresh Fiber is a company founded in 2009 by Christian Dijkhof and Jurjen Rolf that wants to create
fashion for successful electronics, like the iPhone, iPad and Blackberry. When you imagine the numbers
that these gadgets are sold in, you’ll probably expect the company to mass-produce theirs accessories too
with injection-molding technologies. Not true. “That’s the antique way of producing. Yes, it’s still the
cheapest method but it does come with a lot of disadvantages too”. Especially in design: injection
molding is very limited and can only produce flat shapes.
For Dijkhof, 3D printing is a way to distinguish yourself in a market where all Chinese manufacturers do
the same, in terms of design, features or built-in items that would normally be impossible to design or
require to be assembled. Of course, the 3D printing technology is not new. Yet, when the company
started, the technology was something unique for the consumer electronics market. Nowadays Fresh Fiber
is able to produce quality products, with unique designs at a reasonable price. An example is found in
Figure 59 Dijkhof explains: “Here we tried to mimic a cassette. I’ve seen some Chinese cases with the
same idea; only they made a picture of it trying to make it look cool. We can actually make the wheel
turn, at different heights. It almost looks like a real cassette.”
Figure 59: Cassette 3D printed iPhone case.
Courtesy of FreshFiber
Figure 60: Cassette injection-molding printed
iPhone case
According to Dijkhof, Fresh Fiber is currently the only company in the world that uses 3D printing for
mass-production and order in quantities of around 1,000 items. But they really had to find the right party
to collaborate with. At the moment they have an agreement with EOS. They not only have a lot of
machines, but also the most experience. However, they hadn’t really done mass production before. That’s
also adds to our exclusivity, Dijkhof says. Still, mass-producing 100,000 items wouldn’t be possible yet.
93
Fresh Fiber is a young company with a lot of ideas, but they don’t have the capacity to execute all of
them. The good thing is that the designs are all digital, so they can easily be stored but also adapted.
Another advantage is that 3D printing makes it easy to print a prototype that can be tested. Both
entrepreneurs come from the consumer electronics market so they know what it takes for products to be
successful. If they like it, the design will go into production. According to Janne Kyttanen, who does most
of the designs for the company they would be able to design and produce dozens of cool new cases every
day and there will always be one person that likes it. But that’s never going to work. According to
Kyttanen in a normal consumer environment it’s proven scientifically that three choices give people the
most satisfaction. Coming to the market with 100 different iPhone cases wouldn’t really improve the
sales.
Figure 62: The two parts of the double cap Pebbie case get
printed in one go. Courtesy of FreshFiber.
Figure 61: Double cap Pebbie case for
iPhone 4. Courtesy of FreshFiber
For Dijkhof the biggest advantage of the technology is the flexibility. He illustrates on the basis of a
product design, the double cap case shown in Figure 62. He explains that if you wanted to make the
product with injection molding it would require two moulds. However, Fresh Fiber prints the products for
almost the same price as one model, because the product is printed while the two pieces fall together. Of
course it requires some space in between, but the accuracy is great. So that’s a big advantage.
Another example of the flexibility of 3D printing is in the speed that Fresh Fiber can adapt to changes in
the market. In the smart phone market, every few months a new line of phones comes out. An accessory
maker like Fresh Fiber should be able to continuously deliver large amounts for all these different phones.
How they do it? “Well if a machine can produce 1,000 items, then we can decided whether we want a
different name on all of them or if we want let’s say 500 models for the iPhone, 200 for a Blackberry
bold, 200 for the Samsung galaxy etc.”
Fresh Fiber is more focusing on consumers that want to express themselves through their objects, like
lifestyle objects. In 2009, Fresh Fiber made concept plans to make personalized items, like a name, slogan
94
or logo on it. They now integrated this feature called NameMelt into their website. With a few simple
clicks and some extra money you can have your name melted on your case.
The future will be that customers will make their own products.
According to Dijkhof the market for concept design and customers
designing their own product is not big enough yet and he believes
it’s still going to take a while. “For now the tech-people will
design their own products, but not the people that buy stuff in the
Apple store. They are just not interested in that. At the moment
people really exaggerate this fact, but it’s just not true.” Unless a
website or platform will arise where all kinds of issues around
copyright, copying and security are taken care of. Such a site in
combination with affordable machines and ‘ass-kicking’ software
will make it big. But that’s still going to take years, says Dijkhof.
For Dijkhof the technology doesn’t have limitations. Just as a
company trying to be successful you face some trouble. There are
currently too few people that are really involved and want to be
part of it. Also there is a limited number of manufacturers so
Figure 63: FreshFiber Pebbie case in
use, with even customized side feature to
wrap your head-phones cord around
you’re still dependent on one or two big parties. For now, this causes FreshFiber still to assess the
following factors every time they want to create a new product.
1) The material of the machines, since not every material is suitable for every use.
2) The cost for processing the parts, because with 3D printed parts it’s hard to enter the market with
a too high price.
3) The speed, while some of the machines are slower than others or require extensive postprocessing.
The next step that the company is working on is finding manufacturers in America to make some good
agreements. That way the objects can be print locally. The advantage of that is that nothing needs to be
shipped when an order is placed and no import duties have to be paid.
8.5.5
3Dock
3Dock is a start-up company (still only 5 months old) of Ralph van Bemmel, René Smetsers and WillenJan van Loon that emerged out of the Amsterdam Center for Entrepreneurship (ACE) program of the
UvA, HvA, VU and INHolland. They reached the top 10 in the contest for Amsterdam Student
Entrepreneur Award 2011. The goal of the company is to stimulate the 3D printing market by bridging
consumers with the business side. It wants to do so by creating a website where customers can upload,
download and print 3D models. Van Loon admits that there are currently more companies doing this, like
Ponoko and Shapeways to name a few, but he also says they got nothing to lose. “Our strategy is
95
different, we don’t get our printers, we are trying to link the 3D printers in the field directly to our
website. So when for example a chocolate printer comes out, we want to have it on our website within a
week.”
From experience the company has learned that most industrial printers that were sold end up in the rear
corner of printing offices and don’t run too often. These are the machines that 3Dock wants to add to their
site. However since the site is not up and running yet, 3Dock is finding other ways to make money. One
way they currently make money is with selling 3D model of houses to real estate companies or produce
‘giveaways’ (see Figure 64).
Figure 64: Two examples of 3D models for real estate.
Courtesy of 3Dock.
However selling products like this is vulnerable, because in the end anyone can make these. Van Loon
presses that the ultimate goal will always be the site, but maybe they will split up into 3Dock consumers
and 3Dock business. The biggest concern for the company at the moment is their lack of technologies.
“You can’t just print a 3D file, you first have to convert it into a .STL file. When the software detects a
default in the design, you need to manually adapt your design. What we would like to see is software that
automatically fixes the default.” Because for Van Loon it’s all about creating user-friendliness; being able
to actually print your design in one go, within three clicks on the site.
3Dock still has a long way to go but seems to have a clear view of the road to take. The company is
currently working on their website, building a community and gathering content. Building the website has
the biggest priority for now, because 3Dock believes that if you want to make a difference in the current
market, you need to have a very good website, that is accessible to the average customer, user-friendly,
has ranking systems, commenting and is able to offer something special, like printers of metal, silver,
gold, ceramics anything. And when there is a new material add it to your site. A community and contentbase don’t come by themselves, but communities can emerge quickly on the web. 3Dock is now buying
3D models from India by thousands, to create a good content-base. But ideally 3Dock wants to link
designers directly to their site. They do so by visiting universities and providing workshops for students
with the idea of getting them to join the community. “We plan on giving the community a serious vote in
96
our website. If our users believe we need to change something on our site, we will do that.” What seems
very interesting from a consumer perspective is the rating system that the site wants to build in. It will
provide instant price quoting for every material possible. Next to that some changes need to occur in
people’s attitude towards ‘web shopping’.
Within a year 3Dock wants to be active in at least five countries and have partnership agreements with
‘all the printers’ that are around. Van Loon believes that we will have 3D printers in our homes in the
future, but the real home printers are far from good enough. With 3Dock he is now building the step in
between: an easy way to design something, order it and have it sent to you within a week.
8.6
Conclusion
This scenario was concerned with the question whether 3D printing could be more than a marginal
technology for rapid prototyping/manufacturing and actually become a viable production method in the
marketplace. Therefore I looked beyond the constraints of the technology itself and looked at the enabling
factors surrounding 3D printing, factors like improving software and the internet have positive effects on
the evolvement of 3D printing. Factors from a design and business perspective, like potential cost
reductions, convenience, efficiency and performance also have a positive effect. Again I present an
overview of the factors in Table 13.
97
Table 13: Summary table for scenario 2, with constraining/stimulating factors.
Constraining/stimulating
factor
Convenience (+)
Dimension
Conclusion
Office-based
Software (+)
Versatility
Software (-)
User-friendliness
Internet (+)
Accessibility
Cost reductions (+)
Design process
3D printing can deliver professionals more
efficiency and productivity, all from their
own work place.
With the software you can virtually design
any product you want. Traditional
production processes limit designers,
whereas with the 3D printing technology
anything is possible.
To really master the 3D software, it will
require an extensive study. Too much for
the average consumer/business.
The accessibility combines with the digital
nature of 3D printing opens new pathways
for anyone. The internet can play a role in
the raising of money, as well as in the
sharing of files and collaboration.
Prototyping contributes to companies
getting the desired product right at the
beginning without having to change
underway. Changes later in the production
process are more costly.
3D printing is very suitable for small-scale
manufacturing without having to create
entire assembly lines.
The technology allows to create things
that have not been possible before, like
critical features and superior performance.
There are cases where 3D printing can
make products specifically tailored to your
needs in a cost-effective way. Once the
technology comes more out in the open,
such cases will only increase.
Any object, with specific
shapes/form/features can be made while
you make sure that it actually fits.
3D printing can easily do up to 1,000
items in a short amount of time. Still
within the production process, you have a
certain flexibility of putting specific
orders in.
Assembly lines
Performance (+)
Features
Efficiency (+)
Tailoring/customization
Specificity
‘Mass production’
98
9
SCENARIO 3
This final scenario will be concerned with the question if 3D printing will ever become a dominant
production method. The chapter builds on the previous sections and will try to look further ahead in time.
When researching this question however, it soon looked like this was not the way to go with 3D printing.
The people in the field don’t seem to think about 3D printing as becoming a dominant production method,
but they do think the technology can have major implications for the way we are looking at objects.
The economist doesn’t believe that established mass-production techniques will be swept away by 3D
printing. It seems clear however that the factories of the future will have 3D printers working alongside
milling machines, presses, foundries and plastic injection-moulding equipment and taking on an
increasing amount of the work done by those machines.122
Also Janne Kyttanen is sure that mass manufacturing like injection molding will never go away. “Don’t
compare apples with pears. The future is more about creating your personal products, customizing your
products for you needs, for a particular day or even time frame. For example you go out to a bar one
night and you’re like: ‘Wow, I need a nice hat for the bar’. Then you just can make it yourself. So don’t
compare this with mass-produced bicycle wheels for example. It’s a total different story.” And then of
course when parts for bicycles becomes industrial available as 3D files then it will be fairly easy for
anybody to print it at their house.
Klas Boivie, senior researcher at SINTEF, the largest independent research organization in Scandinavia,
believes that Additive Manufacturing has little benefits for mass production. He also explains we should
not look at this technology in this way. The advantage of Additive Manufacturing is not about giving the
same things we already have faster and cheaper. And this will likely to be so for many more years. To
him, the biggest advantage of AM is the capability to produce complex products or products with great
individual variation. Additive Manufacturing offers the market the possibility to create products that seem
impossible to make or in its current form even too expensive to make. Klas Boivie continues: “Just like
the development in internet and mobile phones where the technologies are used for applications that were
not available yet to the consumer market, Additive Manufacturing is not there to replace something old,
but offer something that has not been available yet.”
122
http://www.economist.com/node/18114221
99
9.1
Hybrid Production Methods
Klas Boivie is now currently working on project HYPRO – Hybrid Manufacturing systems for next
generation tools and products. The aim of the project is to bring Additive Manufacturing technology in
practical use for industry. However, the hybrid manufacturing development of HYPRO is just one way to
make the advantages of Additive Manufacturing more accessible for real industrial application. He
explains that the industry does not want a new technology, but the industry wants the benefits of the new
technology. This way, by combining Additive Manufacturing with conventional manufacturing systems
into a hybrid manufacturing solution, you actually get the best of both worlds. For each application you
consider the best technology.
The focus of the HYPRO project is on metallic materials and the idea is to integrate the Additive
Manufacturing technology fully in the industrial process, thereby moving it away from the ‘Rapid
Prototyping’ past. Of course this can only occur under the condition that the Additive Manufacturing
System must be able to work together with the established manufacturing system to become part of it.
Combining two methods will actually be a chance of paradigm in how we will design our products in the
future. When building complex industrial parts, the geometry is normally put together from several
different parts. Critical issues are normally performance, weight, building time and costs. By combining
different methods you can build the principal geometry by AM and do CNC finish machining on critical
surface. As an outcome, with AM it’s possible to create hollow sections to save weight, without harming
the strength or performance. The hollow sections can later also be used to incorporate (new) functionality.
This way of producing also led to a significant reduction in the number of parts (Boivie, 2006).
9.2
Product design
3D printing is more than just a technology. Designer Kristen Turner describes how 3D printing is
changing product design. She points out what is going on in the world of B2C digital fabrication and how
digital fabrication is democratizing product design.123 It’s not only how the product is designed and
manufactured, but also how customers can become engaged in the creative process.
According to Turner (2011) the maker movement in 3D printing is changing our relationship to objects.
Companies within this maker movement now help people create their own ‘custom’ products. Essentially
there are four factors that make the democratization of design possible.
First of all there is the design. This design now consists of digital files that are edited on the computer.
And of course shared over the internet by different people that are sometimes not even related. They
fundamental change is that product are digital files.
123
http://blog.ponoko.com/2011/06/03/how-3d-printing-is-changing-consumer-products/
100
Second factor is production. Digital fabrication technology, among which 3D printing is now used as
rapid manufacturing process, that can make products on-demand. You either have your own machine,
more likely is that you go to a service provider like Shapeways.
The third factor is sales. Times have changed too and more attention is given to online marketplaces, ecommerce software and fairs where anyone can price and sell their own products. We see companies like
FOC having difficulties selling their own good in the beginning, because they had to use existing
channels of selling goods, like retail. With the internet came their online sales, but still they were selling
products that nobody knew about. Through all this communities, social media etc., they get more
attention but still it’s hard to sell products that nobody has seen before. Still probably the best example of
online sales outlined in this study is the rise of Kickstarter and IndieGoGo where anyone could raise
money for their product and even get feedback whether there is a market for it.
The fourth factor is community. At the moment, people with great ideas get support from tech and maker
blogs. Good examples here are the project features on Kickstarter en IndieGoGo again that reach their
funding goals within hours. However, because it’s digital and the internet is accessible for anyone you
could also easily reach out the ‘average people’ by making good use of social media, email etc. This can
make your marketing a lot cheaper.
9.3
Mass manufacturing versus 3D printing
To get back to the question of becoming a dominant production method I will present an essay by Joris
Peels, community manager at i.materialise. He has been observing the discussion about 3D printing
versus Mass production and explains his personal view on it. The argument in favor of 3D printing is that
‘localized individualized production’ will dissipate the current manufacturing paradigm with a third
industrial revolution. As a result, we all become manufacturers and we will make exactly what we want
using 3D printing. Peels would assume that 3D printing will bring a third industrial revolution, however
he believes that it will not be in term of the ‘dominant production method’. Happy Meal Toys and cheap
TVs will still be made in the traditional way.
The great advantage of 3D printing over mass-production is the ability to create unique things exactly
suited to their purpose. Examples here are unlimited, image a titanium hip replacement made to your
exact dimensions, a better fitting golf glove and all the things the previous chapters have shown. 3D
printing enables the manufacturing of ideas, opening possibilities for the industry to anticipate on and
respond to demand of any type of specific goods. According to Joris Peels people will not design things
that they don’t care about, also 3D printing will probably not be used by ‘everyone to make anything’.
However, the people that are ambitious for improving things will migrate to 3D printing. And if 3D
printing follows this path, it will eventually slow down mass production to some extend. 124
124
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-vs-mass-production-part-i-the-power-of-unique
101
Vijay Paul is a 3D modeler that made a business out of requests from the Shapeways community. He now
provides dynamic and effective 3D design solutions to help people realize their ideas. He agrees on the
part of people that 3D printing is for people making things that they really care about: ”I’ve worked on
mass manufactured products where processes are very corporate and profits are the only reason to exist,
there is a sense of dismay knowing that what you design will go through many people’s hands to be
produced and once used, the product will be out of fashion and have to be replaced. In contrast, working
with individuals, the products have a good personal story behind them, the process is fun and there is a
higher level of satisfaction in sharing their experience and happiness when the parts are modeled, printed
and delivered without costing the Earth.”125 The part about ‘costing the Earth’ Joris Peels also relates to.
He believes that mass production on one hand has placed a burden on our planet, but on the other hand
has also set a trap for itself: it has both over-delivered and failed to deliver on several key points. These
points are manufacturing complexity, marketing promise, the environment and wish fulfillment. I will
now outline the factors that will influence the growth of 3D printing in favor of mass-production.
9.3.1
Utility
According to Joris Peels, the mass manufacturing revolution is self-defeating because of its marketing
promise. Mass production is not focusing on increased utility for consumers, but rather on things like
increased complexity. 3D printing on the other hand can deliver you the highest utility, since it allows you
to create things that are really specific to your needs. He illustrates on the basis of the digital camera
industry. Every new line of cameras that comes out is featured with higher mega pixels. Camera
production companies keep increasing their resources in order to achieve current revenues. To Peels, the
search for search for ‘higher resolution’ in televisions, computers, computer games, consoles, phones and
cameras is “one of the single most environmentally destructive things we do as humans. It forces entire
industries to have to make more complicated things that eat up more and more of the earth’s resources.
And they do this because we by now expect every new thing to have a higher resolution than the thing it
replaces. That and increased megapixel is a nice easy thing to market to people. More resolution
translates into bigger storage and higher bandwidth usage and the knock on effects of higher resolution
permeate industry. But, why exactly do I even want a higher resolution camera? Will seeing the pimples
on my face really give me a better holiday snapshot?” Peels highlights that this is an example where mass
production makes it hard on itself by increasing the level of complexity to unsustainable levels, while
they still fail to deliver increased utility for consumers. On top of that, mass manufacturing is the most
staggeringly complex system that man has ever devised, with parts and materials coming from 10
different countries and raw materials sources from Australia to Saudi Arabia. People expect the total
production process to become cheaper and do more every few months. This again shows that the current
model is unsustainable.
125
http://www.shapeways.com/blog/archives/869-The-Business-of-3D-Modeling-Interview-with-Dot-San.html
102
Furthermore, Peels criticizes the marketing related to mass production, all brought to life by marketers to
create demand and sell products with promises. Nowadays, the marketing message is not centered on the
product anymore. “It’s incredible that we can go from 1 to 2 to 3 to 12 to 20 megapixel with falling prices
in cameras. But, instead of lauding that, the camera manufacturers promise us better birthdays, more fun,
more friends. Their lies and exaggerations will only increase in severity as time goes on. As they promise
more, mass production has to work harder to increase functionality but with the marketing promising
‘happiness for $99’ mass production’s best efforts are doomed to fall short. A camera manufacturer is
thus trapped into consuming more and more of the earth’s resources in a vain attempt to please a
consumer with a better camera while that consumer is waiting for their promised happiness. We must fess
up to the truth; a camera will never make us happy.”126
Luckily, it’s becoming clearer that the products are falling short of the promises made in their marketing.
Because unlike what marketers are trying to tell us, mass production is by design unable to give us the
‘best of anything’, because it’s meant for the many, not for one single person. Because they have to
appeal to the largest identifiable group, they cannot meet the precise needs of any one individual. The
moment when people realize that, they will be on their way towards 3D printing.
At this moment, the unit cost of a 3D printed object is still much higher, however you do gain an increase
in specificity of the design and corresponding high utility that offsets the price difference. It’s just a
matter of time before the cost gap between mass-produced items and 3D printed things will decrease.127
9.3.2
The environment
The other disadvantage of mass-production is the negative impact it has on our environment. And this
impact is only created by a small segment of the world’s population. Research shows that in 22 of the
richest countries (OECD) in the world 17.9 tonnes of ‘stuff’ is used each year per person (sum of total
materials extracted and used in an economy from biomass and metals to construction materials). The
numbers don’t even include China yet or the other 6 billion people on the planet. These numbers indicate
that the path mass production is on is clearly unsustainable, and according to Peels sounds actually more
like a ‘path to extinction’.
3D printing is more environment-friendly because products can be produced close to the consumer, so the
carbon emission will decrease. Also as outline earlier, 3D printing can make things with less material, so
we harm the earth’s resources less. Peels also believes recycle-bots will be developed that offer closedloop recycling. So then, if you’re tired of your plate you just throw it in the recycle-bot and you make a
new one. And on top of that, products will have a higher utility, so it should be possible that fewer higher
utility things could replace many mass-produced ones.128
126
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-vs-mass-production-part-ii-manufacturing-complexity-and-marketing-promise
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-vs-mass-production-part-iii-everything-you-own-sucks
128
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-vs-mass-production-part-iv-more-beautiful-landfill
127
103
Currently however, there are still RP processes that generate more waste than printed part material, in the
form of support material, dissolving chemicals etc. But again, the printing processes and technologies are
always in development. Z Corporation praises their own efficient 3D printers that require no support
structures, no cleaning material disposal, no disposable build platforms, no chemical waters, and recycles
100% of the build material.129
More efficient machines is always a good thing, but the advantage is not in the machines. The biggest
benefit for the environment is the way that 3D printing simplifies manufacturing that is now characterized
by a supply-chain with thousands of individually motivated suppliers in many countries. 3D printing will
only need one company making the central input: 3D printing material. Innovations in material could
even make 3D printing environmentally sustainable. Without an overload of suppliers, we could bring
pressure to 3D printer and material manufacturers to make environmentally friendly materials, like strong
and useful biodegradable materials.128
9.3.3
Call for expert users
Peels believes that 3D printing will develop in a concentrated manner with a focus on ‘Bleeding Edge’
consumers and 1% of all goods. 3D printing should not compete head on with mass production, but rather
attract all the consumers that want to create better and more perfect product and give them an outlet in 3D
printing. By diminishing the time and attention given to mass production, the growth will slow down and
3D printing will bloom.
Essential here is the move of consumer experts in different fields to move into 3D printing. In the end,
experts will always seek expertise and perfection. For that reason they will turn to perfecting their own
experience first and foremost. You talk about the early adaptors/adopters, the people always seeking
better things. If these experts turn to 3D printing, they will create a market for FabLabs, 3D printing
services, home and office 3D printers, 3D modeling tools etc. The market will then spread naturally and
then the most informed and wealthy consumers will enter the market too and boost the 3D printed
economy. Peels calls these the ‘Bleeding Edge consumers’, that are always on the forefront of new trends.
These are the only that would consider 3D printing for ‘that one specific use case’.130
It’s a selective group of people, interested in the technology itself or the things that we can make with this
technology. Those people don’t care about limitations in materials, because they are pioneers. They are
the same ones that bough the first DVD players for $1,000. It’s a small and selective group, probably
numbering less than 100,000 today is pushing the technology forward. For now these people are mostly
fulfilling their own wishes, but some of them are finding out that it is a vehicle for other person’s wishes
too so they can actually make money. By anticipating the product and process they will entice others to
join the 3D printing camp. Still 3D printing will very long bloom in the shadow of mass production, but
129
130
http://mcad3dprintingandprototyping.blogspot.com/2011/02/what-does-3d-printing-have-to-do-with.html
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-vs-mass-production-part-i-the-power-of-unique
104
eventually mass-production will lose its shine and then the creativity, innovation and effort will then be
directed to 3D printing.131
It might take years or even never be possible to equal the manufacturing capabilities of mass produced
camera, but Peels believes that mass market 3D printing services and 3D printers will drag more people in
so gradually the power-users of mass production will change over. It is this selective group that will make
1% of all things with 3D printing. “1% of everything doesn’t sound like much. I do however believe it to
be a realistic estimation of the annual revenue of the entire 3D printing industry by 2020. 1% of the 17%
of world GDP that is manufacturing would amount to a $100 billion a year market.”132
9.4
Big Players in the field
So far, the companies that founded the industry and have been running it have been doing well and
making money. But now the technologies are running out and everything has gone open source. So the
companies that have been doing well are now fighting for their survival. The only way to survive is to
grow. Here I will take a closer look at a few of the large companies in the market and their point of view
to grow.
9.4.1
Stratasys
Marc Cook, Vice President of Research and Development at Z-Corporation expressed his opinion about
consumer 3D printing and the premise of 3D printers someday being as prevalent in people’s homes as
color inkjet printers today. He argues that a lot of people state that the price needs to go down to make it
affordable to the average consumer. As a response he raises the question what people would do with it.
Surely 3D printing will be of value for design engineers and commercial enterprises. However, Cook
argues that the concept of a homeowner needing a 3D printer is based on the idea that they could print
end-use parts at a reasonable cost. He exemplifies his argument on the basis of manufacturing a missing
or broken part for you gas stove. The process would involve designing the part, checking the adequate
material properties, ordering the materials. For now, in the time it takes to locate, purchase, setup and
print the specific part it would still be easier, cheaper and faster to order the actual part from a local stove
repair shop.133 The only way to make it work is when industrial designers put the 3D files of all the parts
online, so you can just click, download and print.
Cook argues that especially the open-source 3D printers are not for the average consumers. Open source
does help 3D printing in becoming a consumer activity by lowering costs, increasing awareness and
advancing the printing technologies. The focus however is on the average person that is not a technical
person. In order for 3D printing to become the preferred method for replacing the missing knob on your
stove would probably look a bit like this: “At the very least it would have to be as easy as going to the
manufacturers website, picking out the replacement knob, placing an order with a credit card and waiting
131
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-vs-mass-production-part-iii-everything-you-own-sucks
http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/3d-printing-versus-mass-production-part-v-wish-fulfillment
133
http://mcad3dprintingandprototyping.blogspot.com/2010/12/consumer-3d-printing.html
132
105
a few days for the “original” knob to arrive in the mail. 10 to 15 minutes of time online, 2 days waiting,
and no technical experience necessary. Open source – and all commercial 3D printers have a ways to go
before they can compete with that.” The difficult thing is that most everything in the home, office, car has
been mass-produced. So most likely tools already exist that can turn our replacement parts by thousands
at very low costs. And we shouldn’t confuse 3D printing with this way of producing. 3D printing is
perfect for producing a single piece of a one of a kind object. And that’s the reason why it is used for
concept model and early design verification, art etc. Even if consumers want to use a 3D printer for one or
two particular parts, that part would most likely already exist by the thousands or even millions.134
9.4.2
Hewlett Packard
On January 19th 2010, Stratasys, the leading manufacturer of 3D printers and 3D production systems
announced a definitive agreement with Hewlett Packard (HP). The agreement states that Stratasys will
develop and manufacture an exclusive line of HP-branded 3D printers, based on their patented Fused
Deposition Modeling (FDM) technology.135
The company think that the time is right for 3D printing to become mainstream for a target group of
engineers, dental laboratories, schools and suchlike, but not the consumer yet (Lemereis, 2010, p.37).
Stratasys partners up with HP because of its unmatched sales and distribution capabilities. Together with
their patented FDM technology the two companies will be able to achieve a broader 3D printer usage
worldwide. HP has made a similar move in the printing market before, creating a dominant position in
large-format 2D printers. Now they want to do the same with 3D printers. According to Santiago Morera,
general manager of HP’s Large Format Printing Businesses, the market is already there and delivers an
untapped opportunity. “There are millions of 3D designers using 2D printers who are ready to bring their
designs to life in 3D”, he says. For example: designers often seek 3D printers that model with productiongrade thermoplastic when they want to best-predict performance of their plastic end product. On April
19th 2010, Stratasys announced the delivery of the first shipments of HP-branded 3D printers in five
European markets: France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK.136 HP entering the market might also be a
good thing for advertising and getting 3D printing out in the open. Willen-Jan van Loon says he would
like to see commercials out on the streets. That would help the growth too.
An article of 2010 states that Janne Kyttanen thinks that ‘home fabrication’ is getting one step closer with
big players like Hewlett Packard entering the arena of 3D printing. According to Kyttanen, HP is the first
big player that has the means and resources to bring the 3D printer to people’s homes (Lemereis, 2010,
p.37). Today it seems that Janne has changed his tone to some extent. “From my personal experience it’s
a stupid move, because they [HP] are not even from the 3D industry. They don’t really understand what
they are getting into.” Janne tells that the patents for their FDM technology process have run out two
years ago. Because of that cheaper machines with the same potential have come out. So Stratasys is
134
http://mcad3dprintingandprototyping.blogspot.com/2010/12/consumer-3d-printing-part-ii.html
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=61402&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1376346&highlight=
136
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=61402&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1414497&highlight=
135
106
selling machines for let’s say 100.000 euro where at the end of the day you could sell it for 5.000 euro.
The company has 3 lines of machines and they sold the cheapest line to HP. “So Stratasys is staying in
the high-end market making money and HP is selling machines for around 10.000 euro where you can get
a competitive machine for about 1.000 euro.”
Janne is a bit concerned of big companies wandering in the industry with money. Janne doesn’t see how
Stratasys can benefit from the sales skills and resources of HP, since there is no market for 3D people yet
where HP is selling so they would have to create the sales channels from scratch anyways. A lot of times
when large companies get into something new, they don’t put a lot of money in it the first few years and
they will just look around. So in two years they will realize if it’s worthy or not and if it is, they will
probably put a lot of money in it. Christian Dijkhof has also seen this tactic before, but he does believe
HP will have the power to put 3D printers in the market worldwide. He even believes HP might be buying
one of the big names in the industry like EOS or 3D systems (featured in next part). “If HP thinks the
industry is ready and they smell money, they just buy one or even both. And the business model of HP
makes sense. With 2D printer, they were very smart: they delivered good printers will good software for a
reasonable price. But they make tons of money with their toners.” If HP buys the powders in large
amounts, the price will automatically drop. With a large player like HP it will probably become more of a
consumer electronic product.
However, it seems like HP currently still regards the technology as very high-end. Dijkhof hopes that the
big names don’t take the wrong steps and don’t push too much. If the machines become a consumer
product, you will need retailers. So the manufacturers should introduce the machine the right way. “If you
for example go to a big retailer that has 1,000 shops and you show them that with the machines you’re
selling you could easily ‘just print any product’, well then you are a danger to that store. So you should
look at a way to collaborate, because if you pass them and don’t take them into considering you will
never become big.”
But even here, when the inkjet printer came out, some people had one at home. Still the better, bigger
machines were only in copy-centers. That could be a next phase too. There is a lot of potential in printing
‘personalized’ items so it’s a logical step to do something together with a high-end retailer. For a retailer,
shelf space is expensive. Now image a retail store where instead of having meters shelf space with iPhone
cases, you just place a machine and a screen where you can select a case, modify some features and print
a good quality product. This sounds like a win-win situation for both parties.
Dijkhof compares the ‘digitalization of products’ with the digitalization of music. When the mp3 came
out, not many people wanted to really invest in it because it was a threat: everybody could steal your
music. Then Apple came along and they made it look good, secured it and this way they became big.
107
9.4.3
3D Systems
Janne Kyttanen also blames investors for not always making the right decisions. He says the same thing is
happening that happened 15 years ago with the internet. If you had internet in your business plan, people
would put money in it. Of course one of those companies is going to work out. Janne believes Stratasys
has a ‘useless technology’, but they are the second biggest company in the stock market. It’s possible to
grow a company like Stratasys into a multi-billion company, even if it’s not going anywhere. In the stock
market they can raise money and buy their competitors so that in the end they have a whole portfolio of
technologies to survive.
But that’s not the way it should be. The development of another company on the stock market will
explain how it should be done according to Janne. It’s 3D Systems Corporation (NASDAQ: TDSC),
located in Rock Hill in the United States of America. The company was founded in 1986 with the
invention of the first Stereolithography Rapid Prototyping system. Since then the company has been a
dominant player in the field with its development on 3-D printing, Rapid Prototyping and Rapid
Manufacturing systems and materials specific for these systems. The company has continuously invested
in research and development, broadening their technology platform and demonstrating how the provided
solutions can transform the way we design, develop and manufacture products nowadays.137
What is noteworthy are the company’s acquisitions in the last two years. In chronological order, 3D
systems acquired the companies Express Pattern, Bits from Bytes Limited, Provel, National RP Support,
QuickParts, Accelerated Technologies, Sycode Software Solutions, Print3D, The3dStudio.com and
Freedom of Creation (see Figure 65).
As you can see, the company has expended its breadth in services quite largely in a short amount of time
and seems to be repositioning itself. The company has expanded its core tasks as ‘systems
developer/manufacturer’ with companies specialized in Rapid Prototyping, Tooling and Manufacturing,
but also with Software and Desktop Tools, Content Sharing & Sales and Product Design. The company’s
strap line is now: “a leading provider of 3D content-to-print solutions”. But what that could really mean
according to Al Dean is that we might reach a dramatic shift. RP has been around for 20 years, and now
3D printers are popping up every month, without a huge range of legal action that would have ensued 10
years ago due to all the patents running out. Until now, 3D Systems (and others) has survived by bringing
innovative products to the market, however it has done so in an industry with strict patent protection and
little competition.138
137
138
http://www.3dsystems.com/company/index.asp
http://develop3d.com/blog/2011/05/3d-systems-gearing-up-for-the-mainstreaming-of-3d-printing
108
Figure 65: Latest acquisitions by 3D Systems
Janne Kyttanen says that the big difference between 3D Systems and all the other companies like
Stratasys or EOS and Z-Corporation, is that the latter three focus on making the machines and the
materials and some software. They make their money by selling the machines to service providers where
customers can buy their parts or products. 3D Systems on the other hand sees that the economic value is
not only in selling the machines, but also in selling the content for the machines. Together with 3D
Systems, Janne Kyttanen wants to create a new consumer industry.
9.5
Shaping the infrastructure
As to the question of why 3D Systems is acquiring all the companies at this stage Janne Kyttanen replies:
“Because they have a very smart CEO and he is not from the industry”. Abe Reichental is the CEO of 3D
systems, he states: "The limiting factor today is not the cost of systems and materials. It's not the
performance of the end products. It's a lack of content.” That’s why 3D Systems is actively seeking ways
to reduce the level of expertise that is required to design for our machines. The company is now also
looking for ways to create exchanges and platforms for design to empower entrepreneurs to take part in
the digital manufacturing revolution.139 The platform will probably feature higher-end products from
Freedom of Creation, as well as the community built models from The3DStudio.com.
Janne Kyttanen doesn’t believe that everybody will be a designer. However everybody will have the
platform to do all those things. With the platform that they’re creating, people can go ‘absolutely crazy’.
139
http://bigthink.com/ideas/24866
109
“To mash it up, remix it, fuck it up, I don’t care. I might even get inspired by a ten year old that
downloaded my design and does something funky with it. I’m completely open to that.”
The platform will be a high-end designer community that will have ten thousands of designs immediately.
“It’s not going to be a gimmicky hacker community; but ready-products to be printed. A lot of these
designs are in the permanent collection of museums. It’s more like an iTunes rather than your local
snackbar.” And no, Janne Kyttanen doesn’t want to be disrespectful to the hacker communities. He
explains that with these kinds of technologies there are always different levels. At the bottom you have
the hackers, and they do it because they love the technology. Janne on the other hand uses the technology
to enable his creativity. Opposite of the hacker community you have the high-end community that want to
make the most high-end and difficult things. “It’s the same thing. You have fantastic tools and there is an
endless market for creativity. It’s like giving a person a pen. There are a million of people using the pen
in different kind of ways.” People in the industry shouldn’t try to keep things to themselves. It’s only a
small industry still, but has potential to grow to an enormous one.
Janne is not totally sure about the business model to take. It will probably resemble iTunes in a way
where there will be apps, where some of them will be free, but you can also buy designs for a euro, some
for 2 euro or five. With 3D systems Janne is now looking at the microeconomics. “Let’s see if we can sell
a billion of files, rather than 100 lamps.”
What 3D Systems is doing is creating an entire supply chain. Janne says: “If you own the materials, if you
own the machines, if you own the production, if you own the files, the designs, software, then you can
have a nice marketing.” 3D systems now pretty much owns all and they can make a new infrastructure. If
you want to make an iPhone case for example, it’s always the cheapest to make it with the source and no
hands in between. So what 3D Systems is doing is cutting out the middleman. In the future it shouldn’t
matter if you want to buy your product in New York, Tokio or Sydney, you can just produce it locally.
People can just produce the designs on 3D systems printers using the parent company’s materials.
“Historically, you sell your machines to a service provider. And then other companies buy service from
them. Well, if you sell the service, then basically you’re screwing the service providers. So they will not
buy your materials anymore, nor your machines. But now, 3D Systems is like, we just start selling the
service ourselves and we don’t give a fuck about them. Fuck them. So now 3D systems starts selling
everything to everybody. 3D Systems is just the only company with the balls to do it and nobody else.”
Along with the infrastructure, also revenue streams change. Image if a chocolate printer comes out. Then
you can download a file and go to the nearest café and print a chocolate cake. So then you basically have
revenues from your real products, from your files, the materials, the machines and the services. Janne
says he envisioned an infrastructure like this for 11 years now that should make production on a global
scale possible.140 But he has figured that the only way to make it is to really push it and do it yourself.
140
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13772_3-20072236-52/3d-printing-creating-a-whole-new-world/
110
It is very difficult for people to understand the economics of things that have never existed before.
Nobody can tell what the business model behind MySpace, Facebook or Napstar was. They are just
paradigm shifts.
9.6
Changing paradigms
To get a better theoretical understanding of what will potentially happen, I will shortly explain the term
paradigm shift. Father of the term, Thomas Kuhn believes that shifts in paradigm are disruptive; therefore
they will only occur when the number of unsolved problems in a field reaches crisis proportions and the
major figures in the field start focusing on these problems. However, resistance to change will probably
appear, even when there is growing evidence that the conceptual model doesn’t work. This is because
practitioners within the current paradigm have an intellectual and sometimes emotional investment in the
accepted view.
Most of the resistance to the
new paradigm will disperse
when proponents of the new
paradigm can demonstrate that
it will solve problems that the
traditional paradigm could not
Figure 66: Meaning 'paradigm shift'. (Source: New Oxford American
Dictionary, 2005).
solve. As a result, most of the
new generation of scholars in the field will adopt the new model and the older practitioners will gradually
come around to it. The practitioners that hold on to the old paradigm will lose influence in the field
because the leaders in the profession will end up ignoring their work. In this case, the paradigm shift is
complete: the theory that was once revolutionary becomes now conventional (Hairston, 1982, p.77).
One thing is for sure; the theory and ideas around 3D printing are revolutionary. It’s also very likely that
resistance to change is going to occur. From a manufacturing perspective, costs savings due to 3D
printing can be a goldmine, however for factory workers, 3D printing is a nightmare. In order to make this
technology happen, several paradigm shifts need to occur at different levels. From a manufacturing
perspective, people need to embrace digital manufacturing and consider it as a replacement for analogue
manufacturing. From a consumer perspective, three shifts should occur. The first one will be that people
are actually going to buy consumer products as 3D files, instead of physical goods. The second one is that
we need to go from a consumer to a maker community. So instead of being bound to the catalogues that
people buy their stuff from, they are actually going to make their own things. The third one is that
consumers will walk down the streets with fake bags and even be proud of it. Most likely, the field of
designers will have the biggest shift. The paradigm shift here will be from designers keeping all their
work protected of copying to a state where they actually want to share their work with others for free.
More about this in the next section.
111
9.7
Brands and designers
Janne Kyttanen has some strong criticism towards brands and towards designers. “Brands sell us 500
euro handbags, when it only takes just 20 euro to make one. This really is just asking for trouble and they
will lose the game.” Exclusivity is not related to money, but related to something that is tailor-made and
personal. Because there should be no added value when everybody has the same products. We are
brainwashed by brands. Hopefully in the future we can customize everything, and be proud of every
product we own.
Janne now wants to question an entire institution. Within the coming 3D Systems platform, he is going to
launch all his design files. Including his designs that are in the permanent collections of the MoMa and
other art and design museums in the world. “But if we are going to launch these digital designs as free
content. How permanent are they? Not permanent at all…” The attitude for designers towards copying is
not right, because according to Janne: “Copyright © law (1709) was a really really fucked up idea.”
(Kyttanen, 2011) Still, the fear of copying only came thirty years ago with Chinese, injection-molding
and mass-produced products, when it required big investments in molds etc. When you do all the
investments and somebody knocks off your design, it’s painful. But times have changed.
Janne Kyttanen criticizes designers that claim that it’s all their idea and want to patent it. These people are
not creative, they are running out of ideas and have lost touch with reality. With some sarcasm he says:
“Most of the designs I came about in my sleep or when I was intoxicated, so were they actually even my
ideas? I doubt it..” The development of products is so fast that he has lost emotional connection with his
designs from yesterday. Tomorrow he will just make a new thing. Maybe his ideas from yesterday inspire
others too.
So now Janne basically wants to question the paradigm in there and inspire others, by giving away his
work for others to co-create. “Let them copy it. I don’t care.” If you fundamentally look at copying, when
you have a child, the child learns by copying you: copying your actions and behavior. Also technology
exponentially grows by copying. It’s a natural movement. “Ideas are just in the air and nobody owns
them. Same as you listen to music. Do you really care who is singing? No, as long as it’s good. And the
same goes for photography, literature, sports etc.” The design field is running behind in accepting the
remix culture. Although Janne is a designer, he never focused on objects. His focus has been on the
industry and the objects are just a vehicle to get there.
The focal market is of consumer products, because it’s by far the biggest market. “It has 7 billion people.
So it’s massive and every other market is relatively limited. The consumer market is practically endless.”
It’s not about how many things you can sell of one product but the things you will sell in total or a total
line. Janne Kyttanen has never looked into mass markets, but has always been looking in the massive
niches of any kind, whether it be iPhone covers, watches, eyewear, flower pots. For him, it’s about
creating a 3D lifestyle with the playing field rather than focusing on making a million iPhone cases. We
should consider every file as a building block for something new. “So when I download a file of
112
whatever, than I can scatter it around and make your head out of it, or a helmet, anything. The digital
files are just building blocks for other things.”
In the market of consumer goods, products are mainly produced by hands and analogue tools. The idea
now is to grow that into digital tools; a similar development that has occurred in photography, music and
even social gathering through Facebook.
9.8
The future ahead
As said, Janne will launch his files rather soon on the market. By doing that he wants to encourage artist
and designers to open u and see the beauty in co-creation and sharing their ideas with others. Still he
knows that people [designers] coming after him and putting their work online it’s not going to happen
fast, because there are only a few people that are going to believe in it. “When someone would have asked
me about the files 2 years ago, I wouldn’t have done it.” So it takes a couple of years for people to get
over it. But hopefully he can be an example.
All the work that is going online Janne has been preparing for over a decade. According to Janne it’s not
about trying to change the people. It’s giving the tools to the ten year olds. Then things will change. The
next generation will give us things that we never thought possible. And the children will teach us thing
beyond our imagination. So we better give them the tools as early as possible. Janne has no idea where
it’s going to go and is just going to see what happens when this next generation starts to remix, mash-up,
destroy, distribute and share the files on sites like The Pirate Bay.
A lot of what Janne believes is also reflected in the short animation movie “Full Printed”, part of
Exposition “Laboratory of Manufacture” of Design HUB museum Barcelona that featured from 16-062010 until 29-05-2011. It’s produced by art studio ‘nueve ojos’ (nine eyes). The movie provides us with a
very interesting view on the future and also highlights the transition ‘from analogue to digital
manufacturing’. Although words will never clarify as much as the images in this movie, I still would like
to try to describe the three scenarios outlined in this movie. It basically starts with a glass breaking, after
that we get an insight in the options to replace the glass. The character plays the ‘old method’ in his head,
but then shows the ‘current method’. All is fine until at a certain time in the future, the glass breaks again.
Then the character’s son comes in and shows the future way of manufacturing the glass and even more. In
the table below you will find all the consecutive steps in each of the production methods.141
141
http://vimeo.com/12768578
113
Table 14: 'Old' versus 'current' production by 'nueve ojos'
Old
Idea
Measure/draw/design
Manufacture
Label
Packaging
Ship overseas with boat
Trucks to store
Soon to be ‘current’
Google: ‘glass cup + design’
Download file
Modify size/color/features on PC
3D design
Share and upload to the web
Save to disk on USB
Go to nearest FABLAB
Shop
Servant inserts file in machine
Start printing
Bring product to house
Table 15: The future according to 'nueve ojos'
Scan product
Share to the network all around the world
Work together on the cup design
Chose micro-structure and materials (pick
features like indestructible)
Go to nearest material shop
Bring Materials home
FABLAB home prints at amazing speed
Machine even does BIO Print for food
Chose ingredients
Print cake
Share files all around the globe
114
Time will tell whether they are far off or not. It seems very plausible if all the tools really become as easy
to handle as they show us. To conclude I will present Janne Kyttanen’s view on the future, as presented at
the DMY, International Design Festival Berlin 2011 (Kyttanen, 2011).
“Once upon time there was copyright... People were so afraid of others stealing their ideas, that they did
everything in their power to protect them...
Soon they realized, that nobody actually owned ideas, but they were just in the air and millions of people
shared similar ideas. People realized that sharing ideas would only propel human creativity and the entire
human race would benefit from it...
Through technology, innovation exponentially grew in all creative fields such as music, literature, film,
design and beyond. Designers became filmmakers, architects became fashion designers and musicians
finally became poor. Everything became blurred and even though it was crazy and scary for most,
eventually everybody joined the party...”
9.9
Conclusion
This third and final scenario was concerned with the question whether 3D printing would become a
dominant production method in the marketplace. The fact that 3D printing has a lot of potential is one
thing, how the technology will actually evolve is also depending on how the current production methods,
like mass-production will continue in the future. Data has shown that people in the field are working on
‘hybrid production methods’, thereby combining several traditional production processes with 3D
printing to get the best of both worlds. Another possible outcome is that we all start doing ‘home
production’ and produce our own product. However, almost all experts agree on the fact that traditional
production methods like mass-production, injection molding will probably never disappear, but it can be
used in all the cases that it has an advantage of it. Until then all the people in the field can do is enabling
other people to start using the technology as much as they can, by providing them the tools and handles
like ‘content’. Table 16 gives a summary of the constraining/stimulating factors.
115
Table 16: Summary table for scenario 3 with constraining/stimulating factors
Constraining/stimulating
factor
Personalization /
customization (+)
Dimension
Conclusion
Need fulfilling
The future can be in people designing
and producing their own products
specifically to their needs, whether it is
for one occasion or for daily use.
The digitalization of products has
positive effects on design, production,
sales and community support. In the end
these four factors ‘democratize’ product
design.
3D printing will offer products with a
higher utility, whereas mass-production
in the end delivers a higher complexity.
The specificity of the design and product
features will eventually offset the price
different between the two production
methods.
The technology allows for products to be
manufactured with less material.
3D printing will simplify the
manufacturing process and
corresponding supply-chain. The whole
production will be more centralized,
thereby decreasing the extensive
competition between separate parties all
trying to reduce costs.
Pioneers are the users that not only will
make 3D printing big; they also currently
keep mass manufacturing big. If they see
the benefits of 3D printing that can fulfil
their needs they will gradually move
over.
For home users, it’s not about the price
of the machines, but the time required to
design one single item for replacement.
You are better off ordering at a retail
shop or online.
In this specific case it is not always a
good thing when big players enter the
market, especially when they are not
from the industry.
Big players do have the money and
resources to make things happen.
Combined with the right vision it is
really possible to get things moving.
The spreading of high-quality content
will thrive the industry. Designers will
inspire each other and improve products.
They will also work together on a global
scale.
Digitalization (+)
Production process
Utility (+)
Specificity
Environmental awareness (+)
Resource consumption
Manufacturing process
Power-users (+)
Pioneers
Time and effort (-)
Home use
Big players (-)
Profits
Big players (+)
Resources
Content (+)
Global production
116
Existing paradigms (-)
Manufacturer perspective
Consumer perspective
Designer perspective
Manufacturer will need to embrace
digital manufacturing and adapt their
business models to it accordingly. They
should integrate the 3D printing
technology into their business.
In the future, consumers need to start
seeing products as 3D files. Consumers
should not just go a store, but start
designing their own products. On top
of that brand names should matter
anymore; consumer will be proud of
their own designed ‘fake’ bag.
The attitude of designers towards
copying needs to change dramatically.
In a future where products are digital,
designers will benefit the most when
they share with each other.
117
10
DISCUSSION
Since this research has been concerned with examining three possible future scenarios 3D printing, this
section will be devoted to comparing the three and discussing the findings that have come forward in the
data. Basically the scenarios have been developed in such a way that they build on each other as can be
seen in Table 17. This research has been looking at the conditions under which the scenarios are probable.
The year 2011 now is thee starting point of this study, so it should be possible that in some time the
conditions in scenario 1 situation are met. The same thing goes for the scenario 2 and 3 situations. The
transition from one scenario to the other seems only possible when the conditions are met and related
problems are solved.
The data in this research has shown that the conditions in scenario 1 and scenario 2 are to some extend
related. For the people in the field working with this technology, 3D printing is a viable production
method that has some clear benefits. However, since not many people are working with the technology
yet, 3D printing is still only used marginally for rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing.
Table 17: Comparison of the conditions in the three scenarios
Scenario 1 – marginal production
method
Price – needs to lower
Quality – needs to improve
Speed – needs to improve
Materials – choice
Scenario 2 – viable production
method
Lower price
Higher quality
Better speed
More materials
Software – needs to be made more
user-friendly and easy to use.
Convenience tools – need to be
easy-to-use and widely available.
Manufacturing approach – don’t
think in terms of mass-production,
but in terms of individualized
production.
Scenario 3 – dominant production
method
Lower price
Higher quality
Better speed
More materials
Easy software
Multiple convenience tools
New manufacturing approach
Infrastructure – The systems,
materials and content should be
accessible to everyone and flow
easily.
Content – All digital product files
should be available and shared
through the internet.
Mindset/attitudes – new paradigms
for manufacturers, consumers and
designers.
A potential first step to a wider adoption of 3D printing could be the overcoming of some of the basic
limitations of the technology, by lowering the price, improving the quality, increasing the speed and
developing more materials. Important to note is that the people currently working with 3D printing don’t
see these limitations or find ways to work with them. Some of the limitations also have to do with the
118
current approach to manufacturing. We are in a paradigm where we expect lower prices, because of larger
volume production. With 3D printing it’s not a matter of producing 100.000 items, but it can easily work
for 1.000 items or preferably even less and we should consider the value of that.
For outsiders however the limitations do matter and limit wider adopting by shaping the perception that
people have of the technology. For now it seems that the technology and 3D systems very much show
trade-offs of the limitations. Cheaper machines for example often go together with lesser quality of the
end products. Also difficult designs cannot be manufactured properly with cheaper machines. Proponents
of the technology believe that once 3D printing develops, the limitations automatically will be resolved.
Of course it’s true, for 3D printing to grow and get to a situation of being a viable or even dominant
production method, the technology needs to develop and more importantly keep developing. The wide
array of applications of 3D printing clearly shows the benefits and the potential of the technology, but we
have to keep in mind that the limitations shape the experiences of the (potential) users. When new users
try out 3D printing and they like what they get, they can become frequent users and spread the word. The
industrial machines available provide good quality, however they are still very expensive. The cheaper
machines still fail to deliver the right quality for the average user and are used mainly by hackers because
they love the technology. So in that sense, 3D printing is still used very much marginally and will
continue to do so.
Overcoming the technological limitations will lead the way to 3D printing becoming more adopted. But
for 3D printing to become really a viable production method in the marketplace, more is needed. New and
easy-to-handle tools need to emerge that will enhance the convenience of the technology. One of such
tools is user-friendly software, but also tools and platforms should be developed that make it possible to
customize basic 3D pieces in a simple way. Later on tools can be developed to even customize and
personalize complete products from scratch. Key is that these tools need to be massified and made
available to a wide audience; not only hackers and professionals should be able to use the tools, but also
the average consumer and even young children. These are the people that can play with the technology
from a young age.
Then, when the limitations are solved and all the tools are in place the biggest obstacle will probably be
overcoming the current mindset and attitudes towards manufacturing. First of all, a lot of mass-produced
products are made by analogue tools that require handwork. With 3D printing products are manufactured
digitally, so this method will make a big part of the mass-produced process obsolete. On top of that, the
utility of 3D printed objects should be a lot higher than mass-produced items because they can be
manufactured specifically to your needs. Also the mindset of designers with regards to copying need to
change drastically, since every piece of work can be copied very easily in the future.
An important condition to become widely used and adopted is the emergence of an infrastructure in
which machines, materials and content can flow easily. Next to machines and materials, content needs to
be made widely available by designers, but also large manufacturers and consumers, so people can share,
119
improve and personalize the digital products and have a large base to chose from. Objectively, in order
for 3D printing to become a serious threat for mass-production, it should make production quicker,
cheaper and better. However, the benefit of 3D printing is not in doing current production better, but it’s
about producing your own products of any shape and geometry possible, the ones you care about and
being proud of what you make. And fact is, 3D printing is still looking for its real purpose.
10.1
Future research
This research has provided a building block for future researchers. One lesson learned from the field is
that in order to make this technology work we have to keep showing evidence and examples of the cases
that are beneficial. Experts say that business will probably thrive in this age, but if companies don’t
update their business models it could put them out of business. Therefore, I would like to invite future
researchers to investigate the ways to integrate the technology into business models of not only small
companies, but also more of larger manufacturers or even mass-manufacturers. A comparison between
the three would even provide more insights on the ways that specific companies can benefit from the
technology. Most important is it to investigate the ‘real value’ of 3D printing. We are still looking at a
rather small industry, so it’s not about the number of machines that are being sold or the amount of
money that is involved. It’s about the value that is created and actually comes from bottom-up.
On top of that I think that the impact of this technology on Intellectual Property rights deserve special
attention in the future too. In the future, 3D printing should allow every object in the world to spread as
free content over the internet. Yet, what are the consequences for companies? How should companies
manage their content? Currently there is no system for the management of content. A lot of people
probably don’t even believe it is going down in that direction. Still, by the looks of it the first steps are
taken with the platform of 3D Systems and content from Freedom of Creation. Such a platform is surely
worth looking at from a content-management perspective and will maybe even provide inspiration for
others. Because it’s a new thing, researchers can play a guiding role in the process.
A final interesting thing to look at is the impact that this technology has on the ‘knowledge’ and ‘skills’ in
our society. What will happen when people that have never truly made something or experience in
making things start using a 3D printer? It seems like in the future anyone can make an imitation of a
complex product, but then the knowledge that was required to actually make that complex product is
likely to disappear. Maybe even ‘craftsmanship’ will disappear as well?
11
CONCLUSION
On the basis of the three pre-set scenarios the final conclusion will be that 3D printing will probably not
become a dominant production method. Some experts say we shouldn’t even look at the technology like
that. We are in a stage where 3D printing is used marginally for rapid prototyping and rapid
manufacturing. But this research indicates that it’s just a matter of development before 3D printings
moves forward and gains a larger share in the marketplace and not so much a matter of technological
120
constraints that will hold the technology back. Factors like a high price and low quality are normal for a
developing technology, so it’s very likely that 3D printing will become of valuable use in product
manufacturing. The advantages from a design perspective are clear: a large design freedom and the ability
to create any geometry desired. From a business perspective, data shows that 3D printing can exceed
traditional manufacturing techniques for speed-to-market, decrease design costs and reduce the costs for
low-volume saleable items. For now, traditional production methods like injection molding still win in
terms of cost and price, because of economies of scale. However, reducing the need for extensive
production and assembly lines on the other hand gives 3D printing a clear advantage.
Fact is that 3D printing itself hasn’t found its ultimate purpose yet and will probably never be limited to a
specific purpose. 3D printing should be regarded as a platform to lift all industries forward. What the
future will really bring is uncertain, but until that time the technology will keep evolving and attract more
people towards it.
The rise and evolvement of home fabrication is very interesting development to look out for. There are
enough experts that believe we might actually have a 3D home printer in a future state. This printer will
be used for consumers to design the products they really care about. People don’t seem to be waiting for
putting a lot of effort and time into creating a small replacement part of any kind. So in order to make the
technology for such use more convenient, at least industrial designs of parts should become available.
It is clear that the internet plays a crucial role in the 3D printing movement. Physical objects are now
turning into digital files, that can easily be shared over the internet. The internet already influenced how
some products are sold, but new sales channels and fund-raising opportunities keep emerging. What’s
new is that the internet now also contributes to a change in the way people design products. Examples
show that there are people working together on product project over the internet, while they have never
met in real-life.
Before we reach a state where 3D printing becomes ‘a given fact’, a lot of paradigms need to be broken.
Changing people’s minds towards the things that they take for granted is going to be accompanied by
resistance to change and from what the data tells 3D printing has the potential of becoming a disruptive
technology.
In order to change paradigms 3D printing needs pioneers that will pave the way to adoption. Luckily there
are enough pioneers in the field, who will show the possibilities and inspire others to follow them.
121
REFERENCES
Atkinson, P. (2011). Orchestral Manoeuvres in Design. in: Open Design Now! Why Design Cannot
Remain Exclusive. BIS Publishers, first edition, p.24-31
Atwood, C., Griffith, M., Harwell, L., Schlienger, E., Ensz, M., Smugeresky, J., Romero, T., Greene, D.,
Reckaway, D. (1998). Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENS(TM)): A Tool for Direct Fabrication of
Metal Parts. Conference report: 17th International Congress on Applications of Lasers and ElectorOptics, p.1-9
Avital, M. (2011). The Generative Bedrock of Open Design. in: Open Design Now! Why Design Cannot
Remain Exclusive. BIS Publishers, first edition, p.48-58
Bauwens, M. (2011). The Emergence of Open Design and Open Manufacturing. We_magazine, collective
action (http://www.we-magazine.net/we-volume-02/the-emergence-of-open-design-and-openmanufacturing/), viewed: 1 July 2011.
Beaman, J.J., Atwood, C., Bergman, T.L., Bourell, D., Hollister, S., Rosen, D. (2004).
Additive/Subtractive Manufacturing Research And Development in Europe. WTEC Panel Report
2004.
Berry, E., Brown, J.M., Connell, M., Craven, C.M., Efford, N.D., Radjenovic, A., Smith, M.A. (1997).
Preliminary Experience with Medical Applications of Rapid Prototyping by Selective Laser Sintering.
Medical Engineering Physics, Vol.19, No.1, p.90-96.
Boivie, K. (2006). Presentation: To Bring Additive Manufacturing Technology in Practical Use for
Industry: The HYPRO Project. SINTEF Raufoss Manufacturing AS.
Börjeson et al. (2006). A scenario can denote both descriptions of possible future states and descriptions
of developments (p.723).
Broekhuizen, T.L.J., Alsem, K.J. (2002). Success Factors for Mass Customization: A Conceptual Model.
Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol.5, p.309-330.
Burt, G., van der Heijden, K. (2003). First Steps: Towards Purposeful Activities in Scenario Thinking and
Future Studies. Futures, Vol.35, p.1011-1026.
Calvert, P. (2001). Inkjet Printing for Materials and Devices. Chemical Materials, Vol. 13, p.3299-3305.
Das, S. (2003). Physical Aspects of Process Controll in Selective Laser Sintering of Metals. Advanced
Engineering Materials, Vol. 5, No.10, p.701-711.
Daw, D. (2010). The 3D Printer Revolution Countdown: Print your Own PC Coming Shortly.
(http://www.pcworld.com/article/212440/the_3d_printer_revolution_countdown_print_your_own_pc_
coming_shortly.html). Published: 6 December 2010, Viewed: 8 December 2010.
De Mul, J. (2011). Redesigning Design. in: Open Design Now! Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive.
BIS Publishers, first edition, p.34-39.
Durray, R. (2002). Mass Customization Origins: Mass or Custom Manufacturing? International Journal
of Operations & Production Management, Vol.22, No.3, p.314-328.
Guth, R.A. (2007). How 3-D Printing Figures To Turn Web Worlds Real. The Wall Street Journal Online,
published 12 December.
Hart, C.W.L. (1994). Mass Customization: Conceptual Underpinnings, Opportunities and Limits.
International Journal of Service Industry Management, Vol. 6, No.2, p.36-45.
Hairston, M. (1982). Thomas Kuhn an the Revolution in the Teaching of Writing. College Composition
and Communication, Vol.33, No.1, p.76-88.
Hewlett Packard Company (2009). Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended October 31.
Hopkinson, N., Hague, R.J.M., Dickens, P.M. (2006). Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution for
the Digital Age. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. West Sussex.
Jeppesen, L.B., Frederiksen, L. (2006). Why Do Users Contribute to Firm-Hosted User Communities?
The Case of Computer-Controlled Music Instruments. Organization Science, Vol.17, No.1, p.45-63.
Katstra, W.E., Palazzolo, R.D., Rowe, C.W., Giritlioglu, B., Teung, P., Cima, M.J. (2000). Oral Dosage
Forms Fabricated by Three Dimensional Printing. Journal of Controlled Release, Vol.66, p.1-9.
Keller, I.N., Zach, M.F. (2011). Simulation Models for 3D Inkjet Printing – Material and Process Design.
Institute for Machine Tools and Industrial Management, Technische Universitaet Muenchen, p.646655.
122
King, B., Renn, M. (2009). Aerosol Jet Direct Write Printing for Mil-Aero Electronic Applications. White
paper assessed through: http://www.optomec.com/Additive-Manufacturing-Downloads/3D-PrintedElectronics, Viewed: 15 July 2011.
Kruth, J.P. (1991). Material Incress Manufacturing by Rapid Prototyping Techniques. Annals of the
CIRP, Vol. 40, No.2, p.603-614.
Kruth, J.P., Mercelis, P., Van Vaerenbergh, J., Froyen, L., Rombouts, M. (2005). Binding Mechanisms in
Selective Laser Sintering and Selective Laser Melting. Rapid Prototyping Journal. Vol. 11, No.1,
p.26-36.
Kyttanen, J. (2011). Presentation: Freedom of Copying. DMY International Design Festival Berlin.
Lakhani, K.R., von Hippel, E. (2003). How Open Source Software Works: “Free” User-to-User
Assistance. Research Policy, Vol.32, p.923-943.
Lilien, G.L., Morrison, P.D., Searls, K., Sonnack, M., von Hippel, E. (2002). Performance Assessment of
the Lead User Idea-Generation Process for New Product Development. Management Science, Vol. 48,
No.8, p.1042-1059.
Lipson, H., Kurman, M. (2010). Factory @ Home: The Emerging Economy of Personal Fabrication:
Overview and Recommendations. A report commissioned by the US Office of Science and
Technology Policy, December 2010.
Lee, M., Dunn, J.C.Y, Wu, B.M. (2005). Scaffold Fabrication by indirect Three-Dimensional Printing.
Biomaterials, Vol.26, p.4281-4289.
Lerner, J., Tirole, J. (2005) The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, Vol.19, No.2, p.99-120.
Lemereis, D. (2010). Zelluf doen. Bright, Vol.35, p.32-38.
Lukkassen, D., Meidell, A. (2007). Advanced Materials and Structure and their Fabrication Processes.
Book Manuscript. Narvik University College, August 23.
MIT (2000). What is the 3DP Process? (http://www.mit.edu/~tdp/whatis3dp.html). Maintained by Julie
Baars Kaczynski, last updated 28 june 2000. Viewed: 1 december 2010.
Nee, A.Y.C., Fuh, J.Y.H., Miyazawa, T. (2001). On the Improvement of the Stereolithography (SL)
process. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol.113, p.262-268.
Pham, D.T., Gault, R.S. (1998). A Comparison of Rapid Prototyping Technologies. International Journal
of Machine Tools & Manufacture, Vol.38, p.1257-1287.
Piller, F. (2005). Glossary: Mass Customization, Open Innovation, Personalization and Customer
Integration (http://www.mass-customization.de/glossary.htm), revised version October 2005, viewed
15 June 2011.
Raasch, C., Herstatt, C., Balka, K. (2009). On the Open Design of Tangible Goods. Research &
Development Management, Vol.39, No.4, p.382-393.
Saunders, M., Thornhill, A., Lewis, P. (2007). Research Methods for Business Students. Fourth edition.
Financial Times/Prentice Hall. Fourth Edition. London
Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1995). Scenario Planning: A Tool for Strategic Thinking. Sloan Management
Review, Vol. 36, No.2, p.25-40.
TED (2011). Anthony Atala: Printing a Human Kidney.
(http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html)_
Turner, K. (2011). How Digital Fabrication is Democratizing Product Design. RAPID conference
presentation.
Van der Heijden, K. (2000). Scenarios and Forecasting: Two Perspectives. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, Vol.65, p.31-36.
Van Notten, P.W.F., Rotmans, J., van Asselt, M.B.A., Rothman, D.S. (2003). An Updated Scenarion
Typology. Futures, Vol.35, p.423-443.
Volkskrant (2010). Reportage: De Opmars van de 3D-printer, door: Jeroen Jutte, 3 september 2010,
Kunst-bijlage.
Von Hippel, E. (2001). Innovation by User Communities: Learning from Open-Source Software. MIT
Sloan Management Review, Vol.42, No.4, p.82-86.
Von Krogh, G., Spaeth, S., Lakhani, K.R. (2003). Community, Joining, and Specialization in Open
Source Software Innovation: A Case Study. Forthcoming Research Policy Special Issue On Open
Source Software Development.
Weinberg, M. (2010). It Will Be Awesome if They Don’t Screw It Up: 3D Printing, Intellectual property,
and the Fight Over the Next Great Disruptive Technology. Public Knowledge Paper, November.
123
Wohlers, T. (2010). Wohlers Report 2010. Additive Manufacturing and 3D printing State of the Industry:
Annual Worldwide Progress Report. Wohlers Associates.
Yeong, W.Y., Chue, C.K Leong, K.F., Chandrasekaran, M., Lee, M.W. (2006). Indirect Fabrication of
Collagen Scaffold Based on Inkjet Printing Technique. Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol.12, No.4,
p.229-237.
Zein, I, Hutmacher, D.W., Tan, K.C., Teoh, S.H. (2002). Fused Deposition Modeling of Novel Scaffold
Architectures for Tissue Engineering Applications. Biomaterials, Vol.23, p.1169-1185.
Patents:
United States Patent #4575330 – Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by
stereolithography
United States Patent #4665492 – Computer automated manufacturing process and system
Unites States Patent #4752352 – Apparatus and method for forming an integral object from laminations
United States Patent #4863538 – Method and apparatus for producing parts by selective sintering
United States Patent #5121329 – Apparatus and method for creating three-dimensional objects
United States Patent #5136515 – Method and means for constructing three-dimensional articles by
particle deposition
United States Patent #5204055 – Three-dimensional printing techniques
United States Patent #5837960 – Laser production of articles from powders
Webpages:
http://www.sycode.com/index.htm
http://nextbigfuture.com/
http://www.freedomofcreation.com/
http://print3d.com/
http://www.the3dstudio.com/
http://www.bitsfrombytes.com/
http://3dock.com/
http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.kickstarter.com/
http://www.indiegogo.com/
http://www.additive3d.com/
http://www.stratasys.com/
http://www.solid-scape.com/
http://www.3dsystems.com/
http://www.zcorp.com/
http://eos.info/
http://www.pp3dp.com/
http://optomec.com/
http://www.exone.com/
http://www.cubictechnologies.com/
http://www.123dapp.com/
http://www.automake.co.uk/
http://www.fabathome.org/
http://www.makerbot.com/
http://www.thingiverse.com/
http://www.freshfiber.com/
http://www.n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/
http://www.mgxbymaterialise.com/
http://www.dimensionprinting.com/
http://www.rapidprototyping.nl/
124
Blogs:
http://blog.ponoko.com/
http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/
http://www.deelip.com/
http://www.makepartsfast.com/
http://blog.stratasys.com/
http://blog.cloudfab.com/
http://blog.3dsystems.com/
http://blog.3dtin.com/
http://i.materialise.com/blog/
http://www.shapeways.com/blog/
http://www.treehugger.com/
http://mcad3dprintingandprototyping.blogspot.com/
125
APPENDIX 1 – ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING PROCESSES
Table 18: Historical chronological outline of AM processes
Year
Method
Inventor
1986
Stereolithography
Charles W. Hull
US Patent
#
4575330
1987
Ballistic Particle
Manufacturing (BPM)
Laminated Object
Manufacturing
Selective Laser Sintering
(SLS)
Fused Deposition Modelling
William E. Masters
4665492
Michael Feygin
4752352
Carl R. Deckard
4863538
S. Scott Crump
5121329
Richard Helinkski
5136515
1993
Inkjet Printing (with second
support material)
Three Dimensional Printing
5204055
1998
Laser Powder Forming
Emanuel M. Sachs, John S.
Haggerty, Michal J. Cima, Paul
A. Williams
Gary K. Lewis, John O.
Milewski, David A. Cremers,
Ronald B. Nemec, Michael R.
Barbe
1988
1989
1992
1992
5837960
Patent
expiry
Aug 8,
2004
June 2,
2004
Apr 17,
2007
Oct 17,
2006
Oct 30,
2009
Nov 7,
2009
Apr 20,
2010
Nov 30,
2015
126
APPENDIX 2 –ADDITIVE MANUFACURING PROCESSES CONT.
Table 19: Different types of AM processes
Method
Stereolithography
Ballistic Particle Manufacturing
(BPM)
Laminated Object
Manufacturing
Selective Laser Sintering (SLS)
Fused Deposition Modelling
Inkjet Printing (with second
support material)
Three Dimensional Printing
Laser Powder Forming
Developer / vendor
3D systems142
BPM Inc. (collapse 1997)143
Type / Material
Liquid Photopolymer
Liquid
Helisys (collapse 2001),
Cubic Technologies144
EOS145,
3D systems146
Stratasys147, HP148, Bits From
Bytes149
3D systems, Solidscape150,
Z corporation151
MIT152,
Z Corporation153
Optomec154
Solid (Sheet Material)
Powder
Liquid (Polymer Filament)
Liquid (Thermo-plastic) and
powder
Powder
Powder
142
http://www.3dsystems.com/products/sla/index.asp
http://www.wohlersassociates.com/JanMar98pti.html
144
http://www.cubictechnologies.com/Helisys.htm
145
http://www.eos.info/en/about-eos.html
146
http://www.3dsystems.com/products/sls/index.asp
147
http://www.stratasys.com/Footer/Corporate/Corporate/About-Stratasys.aspx
148
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=61402&p=irol-newsArticle_print&ID=1376346
149
http://digfablab.wikispaces.com/RP+-+BFB3000
150
http://www.solid-scape.com/service/faqs.html#q2
151
http://www.zcorp.com/en/Products/3D-Printers/Spectrum-Z510/spage.aspx
152
http://web.mit.edu/tdp/www/whatis3dp.html
153
http://www.zcorp.com/en/3dp/spage.aspx
154
http://www.optomec.com/Additive-Manufacturing-Technology/Overview
143
127
APPENDIX 3 – URL SOURCES OF FIGURES USED
Figure 2 - http://www.insidedentalproducts.com/images/thumbs/7efe149f7950.jpg
Figure 4 - http://www.custompartnet.com/wu/images/rapid-prototyping/sla-small.png
Figure 6 - http://www.azom.com/work/xn691NUFcOxakOqFIOta_files/image003.gif
Figure 7 - http://www.cubictechnologies.com/sd300.jpg
Figure 8 - http://www.eos.info/typo3temp/pics/41df3d9443.jpg
Figure 9 - http://www.martello.co.uk/assets/images/gifs/sls_diagram.gif
Figure 10 - http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/rapid-prototyping-machine-by-fused-depositionmodeling-fdm-345310.jpg
Figure 14 - http://www.3ddt.co.uk/images/0025.jpg
Figure 15 - http://www.additive3d.com/3dp.gif
Figure 16 - http://www.additive3d.com/lens.gif
Figure 17 - http://www.optomec.com/images/photos/LENS_750_w_operator.jpg
Figure 18 - http://www.ponoko.com/images/public_website/template/big/for-creators-graph.gif
Figure 19 - http://www.ponoko.com/images/public_website/template/big/for-creators-graph.gif
Figure 20 - http://www.ponoko.com/images/public_website/template/big/for-consumers-graph.gif
Figure 23 - http://203.96.60.151/pub/Main/WebHome/pc-va-small.jpg
Figure 24 - http://203.96.60.151/pub/Main/PressPix/reprap.jpg
Figure 25 - http://203.96.60.151/pub/Main/PressPix/mendel.jpg
Figure 27 - http://www.shapeways.com/blog/uploads/eMaker.jpg
Figure 28 - http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/uploads/thumb/e/e8/IMG_0110.jpg/614px-IMG_0110.jpg
Figure 29 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/bre/3458247336/
Figure 30 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/makerbot/5245071105/
Figure 32 - http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5586959322_1d13077c30.jpg
Figure 33 - http://www.tuwien.ac.at/typo3temp/pics/c621931c31.jpg and
http://www.tuwien.ac.at/typo3temp/pics/d018bde095.jpg
Figure 35 - http://www.automake.co.uk/a/img/about/diagram.gif
Figure 38 - http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/freedomofcreation/custom-3d-printed-ipad-cases/posts/60963
Figure 40 - http://www.gadgetsservice.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Objet260-Connex-Compact-MultiMaterial-3D-Printer-440x337.jpg
Figure 41 -http://www.objet.com/Portals/0/LiveContent/8491/Images/ScreenHunter_08%20May.
%2029%2016.31.jpg
Figure 42 - http://i.materialise.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Juliana-Meira-Do-Valle_LR-Bones.jpg
Figure 43 - http://i.materialise.com/blog/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/Open3DP3Dprintingwood5578269933_6352b34fb0.jpg
Figure 44 - http://www.treehugger.com/3d-chocolate1.jpg
Figure 45 - http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html
Figure 46 - http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html
Figure 51 - http://kickstarter.freshfiber.com/images/pledge-teaser-5.jpg
Figure 50 - http://kickstarter.freshfiber.com/images/online-customization-tool.jpg
Figure 53 - http://www.dimensionprinting.com/images/applications/chart_concept_engineering.gif
Figure 54 - http://www.dimensionprinting.com/images/applications/chart_profit_loss.gif
Figure 56 - http://www.technovelgy.com/graphics/content07/nextengine1.jpg
Figure 57 - http://www.shapeways.com/topics/udesign/n12_bikini/n12_bikini_shapeways.jpg
Figure 58 - http://www.shapeways.com/topics/udesign/n12_bikini/n12_3d_printed_bikini_top.jpg
Table 7 – http://www.freedomofcreation.com/shop/
http://freshfiber.com/products/
http://www.mgxbymaterialise.com/principal-collection/
http://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/shop/concepts.php
http://www.futurefactories.com/
128
APPENDIX 4 – PRODUCT SHOPPING GUIDE
Accessories
Name
€47,00
K-Cord
Designer
Janne Kyttänen 2007
Type
Chain
Color
White / Black / Pink
Product description
Stylish key-chain to always carry your keys with you.
(Custom colors are
possible)
Material
Laser Sintered Polyamide
(Tumbled)
Name
€39,95
Wristband for iPod Nano
Designer/Brand
Janne Kyttänen 2010 /
Freshfiber
Color
Grey
Design
Wristband
Product description
Material
Stylish wristband in which to firmly click your iPod
Laser Sintered Polyamide
Nano. Listen to music with your iPod always within
reach. Or, just check the time on your new watch. 129
Name
HIDDEN.MGX
€350,00
Designer
Dan Yeffet
Type
Vase
Color
White
Material
Polyamide
Size
14.2 x 14.2 x 14.2 cm
Product description
Inspired by nature, the unique Hidden.MGX vase can be
seen at the Musée d'Art Moderne (MUDAM) in
Luxembourg, as part of their permanent collection.
Bags
Name
Punch-bag (large)
€297,00
Designer
Janne Kyttänen & Jiri
Evenhuis 2005
Type
Handbag
Color
White / Black / Purple
Material
Product description
Laser Sintered Polyamide
Punch-bag is based on the 1999 concept Jiri Evenhuis of
Rapid Manufactured (RM) textiles. The textile pattern
Weight
0.25 kg / 0.55 lbs
used for the design is inspired by flexible 'mobius-like'
links designed by Janne Kyttänen.
Custom materials
Any metal coating can be
applied
130
Furniture/Home ware
Name
€7997,00
Monarch Stools
Designer
Janne Kyttänen 2007
Type
Stools
Color
Product description
White
Monarch stools are a study for organic, but decorative lattice
structures for furniture. All the 5 stools are different in size, but
Material
stack over each other and are Laser Sintered in 1 production run.
Glass Filled Polyamide
The production of the 1 set of 5 stack of stools is limited to 10
Transport
units.
The price is excluding
transport and will be
organized together with
customer after order
Name
€2000,00
ONE_SHOT.MGX
Designer
Patrick Jouin
Type
Stool
Color
White
Product description
The One_Shot.MGX is a foldable stool which is manufactured
Material
by selective laser sintering as one complete piece; the stool
Polyamide
emerges from the machine in its final form, complete with
hinges that are concealed by the graceful structure of the stool
Size
itself. By virtue of gravity combined with a simple twist, an
Folded position H 65cm
array of rods transforms, in one flowing movement, into a small,
Seating position H 40cm
useful, strong seat.
131
Name
$80,00
Reaction plate
Designer
Nervous System
Color
White
Material
Product description
Porcelain
A set of four porcelain plates featuring an organic spiraling
pattern around its edges. The form is the result of a computer
Size
simulation of reaction-di-ffusion, a natural patterning process
8in diameter
that creates the dots and stripes seen on the skins and shells of
many animals from tropical fish to zebras and leopards. The
embossing creates a unique look as well as textural experience
when handling the plate.
Gadget cases
Name
€29.95
FreshFiber iPhone 4
Macedonia
Designer/Brand
Janne Kyttänen 2010 /
Freshfiber
Color
Grey
Material
Laser Sintered Polyamide
Product description
The Macedonia iPhone case is based on the structure of birds
bones giving it a stylish and lightweight appearance but strong
enough framework to provide complete protection.
132
Name
€29,95
Blackberry Bold 9700/9780
case - I heart downtown
Designer/Brand
Sam Abbott 2010 /
Freshfiber
Color
Grey
Material
Product description
Laser Sintered Polyamide
I Heart Downtown Blackberry 9700 phone cover is a collage
comprised of elements of any downtown city, cars, parties, litter,
skyline and even a miniature ?I Heart? symbol at the top. The
cover is intended for anyone who has love and pride for their
city, and wants to show that off in style.
Name
€99,95
FreshFiber iPad case+stand
Macedonia
Designer/Brand
Janne Kyttänen 2010 /
Freshfiber
Color
Grey
Material
Product description
Laser Sintered Polyamide
Watch video and browse the internet conveniently using the high
position built-in stand. Type conveniently using the low position
built-in stand.
133
Jewellery
Name
€347,00
Reality Check
Designer
Josien Pieters 2010
Type
3 rings sold as 1 product
Product description
The Reality Check ring consist of three pieces, that can be worn in
Size
17.5 mm - US 7 1/4
different configurations. Inspired on the historic Claddagh ring each item
of the "Reality Check" is a symbol for you romantic status, allowing the
wearer to communicate this to the outside world. However in order to
Material
Sterling Silver
incorporate today’s marriage reality, Josien also added a piece for
doubtful or less fortunate times: "The Reality Check" since almost 40%
of marriage end up in divorce. The first status is the butterfly. The
butterfly resembles the early stage of love, think happiness and freedom.
Packaging
Black box with cushion
inside
The cage symbolizes marriage: the butterfly settles down and finds a
place to stay. The pliers resemble divorce: the cage is cut open and the
butterfly is let out again.
Name
$30,00
Stainless steel 2-layer
center ring
Designer
Nervous System
Color
Steel
Product description
Inspired by the complex forms of radiolarians, where intricate pattern is
Material
Stainless steel
integral to structure, these shapes derive from a simulation of spring
meshes. We created interactive software to morph, twist, and subdivide
each design, transforming a simple mesh to a complex patterned
Size
Circumference 49mm
structure. The final design is built up layer by layer in stainless steel
using metal 3D printing.
Weight
134
0.2 ounces
Lightning
Name
€696,99
Dahlia (D32)
Designer
Janne Kyttänen 2005
Color
White
Shade material
Laser Sintered Polyamide
Mounting unit material
Laser Sintered Polyamide
Product description
Like the homonymous flower, Dahlia is a fascinating
arrangement of petals, cohering to a compact and gentle semisphere. Light penetrates the narrow gaps between the Dahlia
petals, creating surprising effects on walls and ceilings,
especially when mounting several Dahlia lamps in a sequence.
Dahlia is a striking decorative object and part of the collection of
240V version
Euro plug
Dimmer (VLM D1)
G9 Halogen, 40W (Osram)
Cable Transparent (SPT1, 2
Meters)
Vitra Design Museum.
120V version
Bi-polar plug (Japan/USA)
Rocker Switch (Und Lab)
G9 Halogen, 40W (Osram)
Cable Transparent (SPT1, 2
Meters)
Weight
0.6 kg / 1.4 lbs
135
Name
€452,00
Entropia ceiling
Designer
Lionel Dean, 2007
Color
White
Material
Laser-sintered nylon based
in 1200 layers with chromeplated metal fixture
230V version
Product description
G9 frosted, 25W
Launched at Light and Building, Frankfurt, 2006 as part of the
prestigious Kundalini 2006 Collection Entropia explores the complexity
120V version
that digital manufacture can offer, not through the use of geometric
G9 frosted, 25W
patterns/repeats but using the chaotic language of growth, mutation and
evolution. The design weaves the FutureFactories themes of growth and
evolution into a beautiful, bewildering, nouveau baroque complexity.
Name
Lotus.MGX
$380,00
Designer
Janne Kyttänen, 2004
Color
Terra Cotta
Material
Epoxy, with stainless steel
foot
Type
Product description
Table lamp
The Lotus lamp resembles a simple and elegant lotus blossom; belying
the complex mathematics and high-tech rendering techniques that are
Halogen
used to create these stunning pieces. The Lotus.MGX lamp series was
210-230V, G9, Max 40W
designed for Materialise. The truly unique aspect of every Materialise
12V, G6, Max 20W
lamp is that it was created through the use of rapid prototyping
technology. This 3-d material printing process allows for an unlimited
freedom of design far beyond the capacity of traditional manufacturing...
Weight
961 g
136
Name
$600,00
Hyphae Lamp
Designer
Nervous System
Color
White
Type
Table lamp
120V or 240V
3-watt 200 lumen LED
Product description
fixture
The Hyphae lamp is a series of organic table lamps based on
Three Cree LED’s
how veins form in leaves. Each lamp is a completely one-of-akind design 3D-printed in nylon plastic. The lamps are lit by
eco-friendly LED's and cast dramatic branching shadows on the
wall and ceiling. Hyphae is a collection of 3D printed artifacts
constructed of rhizome-like networks. Inspired by the vein
structures that carry fluids through organisms from the leaves of
plants to our own circulatory systems, we created a simulation
which uses physical growth principles to build sculptural,
organic structures. Starting from an initial seed and a surface, we
grow a hierarchical network where nodes constantly branch and
merge. The densely interconnected structure is at once airy and
strong.
137
Trays
Name
€347,00
Macedonia
Designer
Janne Kyttänen 2007
Type
Tray
Color
Grey
Material
Product description
Laser Sintered Polyamide
Macedonia tray is inspired by the formation of soap bubbles and
the structures they create.
Weight
0.30 kg / 0.65 lbs
In Spanish 'Macedonia' means fruit salad and the structure of the
tray once filled with fruits creates a kind of fruit salad where all
fruits have their own space one next to each other.
138
APPENDIX 5 – INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Introduction
Who are you?
What is your link with 3D printing?
How do you use the 3D printing technology?
What does 3D printing mean to you?
2. Scenario 1 – Rapid Prototyping
What are the (current) limitations of the technology?
a) Limitations you face
b) Limitations in general
On the internet five limitations come forward (price, quality, speed, materials, software), what are you
thoughts on that and how do you handle them?
3. Scenario 2 - Viability
What are for you the biggest benefits of the technology?
Do you think 3D printing will be able to compete with other production methods in the market place?
What does 3D Printing mean for your field of expertise?
4. Scenario 3 - Dominance
Where do you see 3D Printing go within your field of expertise?
Where do you see 3D Printing go in general?
Do you think 3D printing can be a dominant production method?
If so, what is holding back the development?
And what needs to change?
139