DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Industry Gap in Practice Executive Briefing DB-FPX 8415 Strategic Decision Making ​​​​​​​Part 1: Executive Summary In this analysis, our key findings were: Insurability

 

Liability and risk have not yet been fully defined to ensure products, ideas, or transfer of liability if modifications are made by another company to our designs.

Digital Business Models

Few companies have successfully developed a fully digital business model around 3D printing and Additive Manufacturing (AM). Integrating this type of business model into existing traditional models proves challenging, given the significant differences between digital and traditional manufacturing in various aspects of business development.

Technological Legal Rights and Ramifications

Laws protecting the rights and regulations of products and designs are not yet fully established. Liability, risk, and digital ramifications are still underdeveloped, creating gaps in legal precedence surrounding 3D printing and AM.

According to a recent additive manufacturing trend report by Hubs.com, a Protolabs company, the global 3D market grew by 21 percent in 2020 compared to 2019, reaching an estimated $12.6 billion industry, while many traditional manufacturing processes were negatively impacted by COVID-19 and its effects on global production and transportation.

It is expected that the AM market will more than double in size over the next five years, making its market value over $37 billion, with more than 73% of engineered businesses producing or sourcing 3D printed parts or materials. This was confirmed in the GE Additive interview in 2018, with companies like Carbon and Adidas utilizing 3D printing to alter traditional business models and employ new processes to provide cleaner, cheaper, and more individualized products for consumers.

Part 2: Industry Context

According to Kapetaniou et al. (2017), automation technologies like 3D printing are causing drastic changes in how traditional business models are prepared in terms of marketing, resources, supply chain, sustainability, and product development. With additive materials such as the ability to utilize different polymers, metals, etc., the 3D printing evolution has grown so rapidly that now things like the tiniest plastic part of an airplane can be created to an entire house. According to a lecture by Martens in 2020, the ramifications of this new ability to create endless production capabilities now allow for cheaper, domestic products but come with previously unconceived issues that we must now or in the future contend with.

The widespread adoption of 3D printing by large corporations now gives the availability of individualized products and the ability for companies to decrease expensive mass production and develop a compromise between the two. The GE Additive in 2018 gives the example that instead of Adidas mass-producing 4 million shoes and then putting tons of marketing and money behind that shoe, they can now print a shoe on order and ship it to the consumer, which is inevitably cheaper for a better product.

The Age of 3D Printing

• $10.9 Billion in Market Value increase since 2014
• 1983: Invention of SLA => 3D Printing
• 1987: Invention of SLS => EOS
• 1989: Invention of FDM Stratasys
• 2005: Desktop 3D printing movement
• 2007: Rise of 3DP service bureaus
• 2009-2011: Rise of consumer 3D printing
• 2012-2013: Mass accessibility of 3D printing hubs
• 2013-2015: Widespread adoption of plastic 3DP for tooling, jigs & fixtures
• 2015-2016: Widespread adoption of metal 3DP in high-tech industries
• 2016-2018: Plastic 3DP for low-volume end-part production
• 2018-Present: Widespread adoption of plastic low-volume end-part production
• Adoption of advanced customization
• Multi-market adaptability

Part 3: Industry Gaps in Practice

Industry Gap #1: Insurability

Current State of Practice

According to Fauer and Li (2020), insurability has become a significant gap with the recent increase in 3D printing. For instance, with the 3D printing of a house, one of the criteria for insurability is usually the materials used, which may require different insurability due to varying weather conditions and climates. With some of the polymers or other materials used in home 3D printing, there isn’t enough longitudinal data to support or deny their resilience to certain climates, making it difficult to insure. Another example is the automotive industry, which saw a huge uptick in 3D printing parts in 2013-2015. If a 3D printed part fails, liability becomes complex, involving the manufacturer, the designer, or the automotive team using these parts. This also determines what type of insurance is needed.

Desired State of Performance