Part 1: Executive Summary
DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Our key findings in this report were:
• Insurability
• Risk and liability have not been defined yet in order to safeguard products, ideas, or liability transfer in the event of another company modifying our designs.
• Digital Business Models
• Only a few companies have been successful in establishing a completely digital business model for 3D printing and Additive Manufacturing. Integrating such a business model with the conventional models is not easy, given the vast differences in conventional manufacturing and digital manufacturing across various domains of business development.
• Technological Legal Rights and Ramifications
Rights and product and design law are still in the process of being fully developed. Liability, risk, and online consequences are still underdeveloped, creating holes in legal precedent around 3D printing and AM.
• In a recent report on additive manufacturing trends from Hubs.com, a Protolabs subsidiary, the worldwide 3D market increased by 21 percent during 2020 over 2019 to an estimated $12.6 billion industry, as the majority of other traditional manufacturing processes were adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and its related effects on worldwide production and supply chain.”.
• The AM market is expected to expand over twice its size within the next five years, with its market value over $37 billion, and over 73% of engineered firms producing or purchasing 3D printed parts or materials.
• This was validated in the GE Additive 2018 interview, where companies like Carbon and Adidas utilized 3D printing to transform traditional business models and employ new ways of working in order to bring cleaner, less expensive, and more customized goods to customers.
Part 2: Industry Context
• Kapetaniou, et al. (2017) believe that automation technologies like 3D printing are provoking fundamental changes in the manner in which traditional business models are aligned in relation to marketing, resources, supply chain, sustainability, and product development.
• With additive material such as the application of different polymers, metals, etc., the revolution of 3D printing has grown so rapidly that today one can produce anything ranging from the smallest plastic part of an airplane to an entire house. As outlined by a lecture in 2020 by Martens, the consequences of this new ability to produce unlimited capacity now mean cheaper, home-made goods but introduce for the first time problems we either now or someday will have to confront.
• Global adoption of 3D printing by large companies now offers the choice of having customized products and the ability for companies to eliminate expensive mass production and find a middle ground between the two. The GE Additive in 2018 provides the example that rather than Adidas mass producing 4 million shoes and then spending tons of money and marketing into that shoe, they can now print a shoe on demand and deliver it to the customer, which is necessarily cheaper for a better product.
The Age of 3D Printing
• Market Value growth of $10.9 Billion since 2014
• Invention of SLA in 1983 => 3D Printing
• 1987: SLS invention => EOS
• 1989: FDM invention Stratasys
• 2005: Desktop 3D printing revolution
• 2007: 3DP service bureaus boom
• 2009-2011: Consumer 3D printing boom
• 2012-2013: General availability of 3D printing hubs
• 2013-2015: General acceptance of plastic 3DP for tooling, jigs & fixtures
• 2015-2016: General acceptance of metal 3DP in high-technology industries
• 2016-2018: Plastic 3DP for low-volume end-part production
• 2018-Present: Universal use of plastic low-volume end-part production
• Advanced customization use
• Flexibility across multiple markets
Part 3: Industry Gaps in Practice
Industry Gap #1: Insurability
• Current State of Practice
• According to Fauer and Li (2020), insurability is presently a significant gap due to the recent increase in 3D printing. For instance, with 3D printing of a house, one of the insurability factors is usually the materials, which may have different insurability depending on fluctuating weather and climates. With some polymers or other materials used for domestic 3D printing, there is not enough longitudinal data to establish or negate their immunity to specific climates, and therefore it is difficult to insure. Another example is the auto industry, which saw a huge explosion of 3D printed parts in 2013-2015. In the event that a 3D printed part malfunctions, there is complexity of responsibility, which may involve the manufacturer, designer, or automobile team using such parts. It also determines what type of insurance is needed.
• Desired State of Performance
• Transparent insurability for all types of polymer and material used in 3D printing with clear definitions of liability to ensure all stakeholders involved in the development, production, and application of such materials know their risk and liability in the process.
• Gap in Practice
• According to Fauer and Li (2020), risk is insurable when it is measurable and liability can be ascertained. Since there is not sufficient longevity in the mass application of 3D printing, risk and liability are not completely determined.
• Decision to be Made
• On what basis will risk be accepted for manufacturing, producing, and utilizing 3D printed products?
Disruptive Business Models
• Current State of Practice
• Some business models are not designed to take advantage of the innovations caused by 3D printing and additive material technology. In the context of COVID-19, businesses that depended on imported items were adversely impacted by reduced imports as a result of ports being restricted and production of materials grinding to a halt. According to Braziotis et al. (2019), the state of deployment of 3D printing also changes with the company’s configuration a firm adopts, i.e., stand-alone or integrated with traditional warehousing and assets. Owing to the fact that most firms are not entirely digital, integration of a fully digital business model is still not possible.
• In Carbon GE Additive, it was referred to as revolutionary for their subscriptive 3D printing services. Yet the cost of initial 3D printers is so exorbitant that businesses shun transition to this process of manufacturing. Holzmann et al. (2020) mention how even extensive studies into developing business models have no limitations, with misuse of the 3D printing leading to future issues.
• Desired State of Performance
• Ideally, a mature digital business model based on core 3D printing production would be ideal.
• Gap in Practice
• Companies that are not primarily using 3D printing for manufacturing find it difficult to integrate digital business models with their traditional models.
• Decision to be Made
• Is the company ready to use 3D printing as the central source of manufacturing and adopt a more digital-oriented business model, or will it stick with the conventional models, or attempt to combine both?
Technology Legal Rights and Ramifications
• Current State of Practice
• Martens (2020) spoke about an emerging disruption of conventional business practice pertaining to legalities of making use of 3D printing services. Digital rights and legal liability are still not clearly outlined. There is uncertainty about design ownership, safeguarding, and altering. Legal issues also crop up in connection with regulating digital information, tax, licensing, and other components of business infrastructure that need consideration as 3D printing proceeds.
• Desired State of Performance
• To ensure the same degree of regulation, liability, and ownership of standard manufacturing firms, along with association rights and patents.
• Gap in Practice
• Current legislation governing digital production, trade, and sale, liability, and transfer laws of digital designs and modifications are not yet established.
• Decision to be Made
• How will the company ensure the protection and rights of their products, as well as assumption of liability for goods produced?
Industry Gaps in Practice—Summary
| Current State | Desired State | Industry Gap in Practice | Decision to Be Made |
| Insurability: There is no fully established identification of liability on 3D printed modifications and manufacturing because it’s not possible to ascertain longevity of some productions. | In order to allocate liability and risk for proper insurability and liability of goods manufactured. | Insurability has so far not fully been defined for 3D printing liability, modification, and material utilized across different markets. | What are the considerations that would be utilized for accepting risk on production, development, and consumption of 3D printed goods? |
| Digital Business Model: Only a few corporations have transferred to an entirely digital business model founded on 3D printing production. Merging it with traditional or hybrid models is complicated. | Full development of the digital business model built on top 3D printing production. Is the company prepared to use 3D printing as the principal source of manufacturing and adopt a more digital business model, or will it keep traditional models or attempt to mix both? | Companies that are not primarily using 3D printing for manufacturing have difficulty balancing digital business models and traditional models. |
Part 4: Recommendations
10.14.20 Capella University | Proprietary and Confidential. 12
Referring to the industry gaps that we have identified, we recommend the following actions:
• Develop Clear Insurability Guidelines:
• Implement a system for assessing the risk and liability of 3D printed products. This would include long-term testing of materials, understanding the longevity of products in different climates and conditions, and clearly defined liability for all parties involved in creating and utilizing 3D printed products.
• Adopt a Hybrid Business Model:
• Transition to a hybrid approach merging traditional and virtual manufacturing methods. This will allow the company to add 3D printing capability progressively while not compromising on the predictability of traditional manufacturing methods. Spend on training and technology for this.
• Legal Framework Development:
• Work in coordination with law professionals to create a complex legal system to meet the new challenges that are raised by 3D printing. It should have attributes such as digital rights, ownership, liability, and compliance with regulation. Suggest rules and regulations that can be adopted by the entire industry so that everyone has an even platform to work.
DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Industry Gap in Practice Executive Briefing
• Invest in Research and Development:
Spend in Research and Development
• Continue investing in R&D to explore new materials, production methods, and applications of 3D printing. This will allow the company to stay abreast of technological advancement and identify new opportunities for expansion.https://sloanreview.mit.edu/
DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Industry Gap in Practice Executive Briefing
By adopting these recommendations, the company will be able to better handle the challenges and capitalize on the opportunities presented by the growing 3D printing market.https://www.shrm.org/
