DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2

Part 1: Executive Summary

In this report, our main findings were:

• Insurability

• Liability and risk have not yet been clearly defined to protect products, ideas, or transfer of liability in case another company makes changes to our designs.

• Digital Business Models

• Only a few companies have been able to successfully build an entirely digital business model for 3D printing and additive manufacturing. Merging such a business model with the traditional models is difficult, considering the profound differences between traditional manufacturing and digital manufacturing in different areas of business development.

• Technological Legal Rights and Ramifications

• Rights and product and design regulations are not yet fully developed. Liability, risk, and online consequences remain underdeveloped, leaving gaps in legal precedent regarding 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.
• The AM market is anticipated to grow more than twice its size in the next five years, with its market value exceeding $37 billion, and over 73% of engineered companies manufacturing or procuring 3D printed parts or materials.
• This was affirmed in the 2018 GE Additive interview, with firms such as Carbon and Adidas using 3D printing to change conventional business models and use innovative processes to deliver cleaner, lower-priced, and more personalized products to consumers.

Part 2: Industry Context

• Kapetaniou et al. (2017) assert that automation technologies such as 3D printing are triggering radical shifts in how conventional business models are geared in terms of marketing, resources, supply chain, sustainability, and product development.
• With additive materials like the use of various polymers, metals, etc., the 3D printing revolution has increased so fast that now one can make things from the smallest plastic component of an airplane to a whole house. As described by a 2020 lecture by Martens, the implications of this new potential for creating unlimited production capacity now enable less expensive, homegrown products but bring with them previously unimagined problems that we either currently or in the future will have to deal with.
• The global implementation of 3D printing by major corporations now provides the option of having individualized products and the capability for companies to reduce costly mass production and achieve a middle ground between the two. GE Additive in 2018 gives the example that instead of Adidas mass-producing 4 million shoes and then investing tons of money and marketing into that shoe, they can now print a shoe on demand and ship it to the customer, which is necessarily cheaper for a superior product.

The Age of 3D Printing

• $10.9 Billion in Market Value growth since 2014
• 1983: SLA Invention => 3D Printing
• 1987: SLS invention => EOS
• 1989: FDM invention by 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
• Use of advanced customization
• Multi-market flexibility

Part 3: Industry Gaps in Practice

Industry Gap #1: Insurability

• Current State of Practice
• As stated by Fauer and Li (2020), insurability is now a major gap following the recent rise in 3D printing. For example, with the 3D printing of a house, one of the factors of insurability is generally the materials, which can carry varying insurability based on changing weather and climates. With some polymers or other materials employed for home 3D printing, there is not sufficient longitudinal data to prove or disprove their resistance to particular climates, and thus it is challenging to insure. Another instance is the automotive sector, which experienced a massive surge in 3D-printed components during 2013-2015. If a 3D-printed component fails, responsibility becomes complicated, including the manufacturer, the designer, or the car team utilizing these components. This also dictates what kind of insurance is required.
• Desired State of Performance
• Transparent insurability for every category of polymer and material utilized in 3D printing with proper definitions of liability so that all stakeholders in the development, production, and use of these materials are aware of their risk and liability in the process.
• Gap in Practice
• As per Fauer and Li (2020), risk becomes insurable when it can be quantified and liability can be determined. Because there is not enough longevity in the mass use of 3D printing, risk and liability are not established fully.
• Decision to Be Made
• What criteria will be used in accepting risk for manufacturing, creating, and using 3D printed products?

Disruptive Business Models

• Current State of Practice
• Several business models are not designed to realize the changes brought about by 3D printing and additive material technology. During the COVID-19 pandemic, companies that relied on imported products were negatively affected by reduced importation due to ports being limited and the production of resources coming to a standstill. As per Braziotis et al. (2019), the state of 3D printing deployment also varies with the configuration a company adopts, i.e., stand-alone or connected with conventional warehousing and assets. Since the majority of firms are not totally digital, incorporation of a completely digital business model is still infeasible.
• In GE Additive, Carbon was described as revolutionary for its subscriptive 3D printing services. But the initial costs of 3D printers are so high that most companies avoid shifting to this form of manufacturing. Holzmann et al. (2020) point out that despite thorough research into creating business models, there are still limitations, and improper use of 3D printing may cause future problems.
• Desired State of Performance
• Ideally, a mature digital business model based on core 3D printing production would be preferred.
• Gap in Practice
• Businesses that are not mainly employing 3D printing for manufacturing struggle to merge digital business models with their conventional models.
• Decision to Be Made
• Is the firm ready to leverage 3D printing as the primary source of production and embrace a more digital-focused business model, or will it remain with the traditional models, or try to merge both?

Technology Legal Rights and Ramifications

• Current State of Practice
• Martens (2020) discussed a new disruption in traditional business methods related to the legal aspects of utilizing 3D printing services. Legal liability and digital rights are not fully defined. Questions arise regarding ownership, protection, and modification of designs. Additionally, regulating digital information, taxation, licensing, and other business infrastructure elements must be addressed as 3D printing continues to grow.
• Desired State of Performance
• In order to maintain the same level of regulation, liability, and ownership as traditional manufacturing companies, along with association rights and patents.
• Gap in Practice
• Existing laws governing digital production, trade, and sale, liability, and transfer laws of digital designs and changes are not fully established.
• Decision to Be Made
• How will the company ensure the protection and rights of their products, as well as the 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 the longevity of some productions.

To assign liability and risk to ensure appropriate insurability and liability of produced goods.

Insurability has not yet been completely defined under 3D printing liability, modification, and material used in various markets.

What are the factors that would be used to accept risk in the production, development, and usage of 3D printed products?

Digital Business Model: Not many corporations have made the transition to a completely digital business model based on 3D printing manufacturing. Merging it with conventional or hybrid models is challenging.

Complete formation of a digital business model based on main 3D printing production.

Is the firm willing to utilize 3D printing as the major source of manufacturing and embrace a more digital business model, or will it retain old models or try to blend both?

Firms that are not mainly relying on 3D printing for manufacturing find it challenging to harmonize digital business models with conventional models.

Part 4: Recommendations

10.14.20 Capella University | Proprietary and Confidential. 12

With reference to the gaps in the industry that we identified, we advise the following steps:

• Develop Clear Insurability Guidelines:
• Create a system for evaluating the risk and liability of 3D printed goods. This would involve long-term material testing, knowing the durability of products across various climates and conditions, and well-defined liability for everyone involved in producing and using 3D-printed goods.
• Adopt a Hybrid Business Model:
• Move towards a hybrid model blending conventional and virtual manufacturing techniques. This will enable the company to incorporate 3D printing functionality incrementally without sacrificing the predictability of conventional manufacturing techniques. Invest in training and technology for this purpose.
• Legal Framework Development:
• Collaborate with experts in the field of law to formulate an elaborate legal framework catering to the novel issues presented by 3D printing. It should encompass features like digital rights, ownership, liability, and compliance with regulation. Propose industry-wide rules and regulations so that everyone operates on an even platform.

DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Industry Gap in Practice Executive Briefing 

• Invest in Research and Development:
• Continue to spend on R&D to investigate new materials, production techniques, and uses for 3D printing. This will enable the company to keep up with technological innovation and find new areas of growth.

DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Industry Gap in Practice Executive Briefing 

Through the implementation of these suggestions, the company can more effectively manage the challenges and take advantage of the opportunities offered by the expanding 3D printing industry.