3D Printing And The New Economics Of Manufacturing

Forbes Leadership ^ | June 22, 2015 | Rick Smith

[2ndDivisionVet]

3D printing production is just scratching the surface of the multi-trillion dollar global manufacturing industry. But its dominance is already inevitable.

This is because modern manufacturing, despite numerous technological and process advances over the last century, is still a very inefficient global system. Today’s world of mass production is based on one simple rule: the more things you make, the lower the cost of each of those things. We have literally pushed this equation to its extreme limits.

This approach was dramatically accelerated by Henry Ford, arguably the most impactful character in the industrial revolution. For starters, Ford proved out the model of mass production. He wasn’t the first to create the assembly line, but he was the first of his time to perfect it. He built massive factories, and greatly standardized his product and processes. He once famously stated, “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, so long as it is black.” The quote may be familiar, but do you know why only black? It wasn’t due to Ford’s forward-thinking design sense, but rather because black was the only color that could dry fast enough to keep up with his assembly lines.

By 1915 he had reduced the time it took to build an automobile by 90%. By 1916, an astounding 55% of the automobiles on the road in America were Model Ts....

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"At the same cost and quality, companies will always choose the flexibility of 3D printing over mass production. At the same cost and quality, 3D printing irreversibly overtakes conventional manufacturing as the preferred method of production."

It seems to me they've ignored time in their cost equation. An injection mold can kick out dozens of widgets in a hour; how much time would it take for a 3D printer to print one widget? If your company needs several hundred widgets quickly, wouldn't this enter into your calculations?

I take it that you are assuming only one 3D printer. That won’t be the case when wonderful 3D printers are dirt cheap. Which is a necessary condition for 3D printers to deliver “the same cost and quality."

The theory, I take it, is that the 3D printers will self-replicate, driving down their cost toward that of the “ink” it takes to manufacture them.

[Flag_This]

"I take it that you are assuming only one 3D printer."

No, I assume any large facility would use multiple printers, but the 3D printer has to "draw" the widget and I don't see how that could possible be faster then molten plastic being shot into a mold and then kicked out as a finished piece. Don't get me wrong, I think 3D printers are fantastic and probably will dominate in many many areas; I just thought the article tried to make it sound like 3D printers will replace all the older production methods.

[discostu]

Probably most of their nuts and bolts and clamps. The little odds and ends that you can’t build anything without and over the long haul probably cost a company a lot of money to have shipped in, especially when you find out one load was out of spec. 3D printing that kind of stuff straight to the line probably saves a lot of nuisance.

[discostu]

Look at the picture of the 3D printed gun up thread. Imagine how many half inch nuts you can print out of that block. It’ll just be a steady stream of parts, all to spec, no shipping. 3D printers ARE replacing all the older production methods.

[crosdaddy]

Depending on the part you are trying to manufacture,they (3D) will absolutely be slower.Not good for high volume,again depending on what it is your trying to make.3D’s that can print in various metals are not cheap.
Multi 100K’s just like Cnc mills and lathes.Also,many of the machines(3D) have a relatively small work envelope,although now adapting robots will help with that issue.

[SamAdams76]

In 1973, Kodak invented the digital camera. They shelved it because they didn't want the new technology to interfere with their highly lucrative film and camera business. Of course, the first digital camera was very primitive, only .001 megapixels and it took nearly 30 seconds to process even that grainy image.

We all know how that turned out. Other companies exploited the technology and Moore's law eventually allowed them to market cheap digital cameras with high amount of megapixels. The technology became so cheap and miniaturized that they started building cameras into cell phones and tablets.

The same is occurring with 3D printing.

Many people are scoffing at it because it looks so primitive. But it is progressing rapidly and about to hit that curve where it becomes really disruptive.

For example, let's say you own a chain of auto parts stores. If so, I would be very worried. Because the time is soon coming where car repair shops can just print their own parts on demand.

For example, if you need parts like those pictured below, you simply have GM, Ford, Nissan (or whoever) email you the file, for a fee of course, and you print it out on your 3D printer. This cuts your auto parts store right out of the loop.

And this is just the beginning of the disruption about to occur.

Additive manufacturing is here to stay and it will be exploding exponentially.

[SamAdams76]

An injection mold can kick out dozens of widgets in a hour; how much time would it take for a 3D printer to print one widget? If your company needs several hundred widgets quickly, wouldn't this enter into your calculations?

You are stuck in the old business model of mass-producing a widget in a central location and then distributing it.

The 3D business model is the opposite in that the widgets are printed on demand by the end users (who have their own 3D printers).

So instead of making say 500,000 widgets at a factory and then shipping them to 40,000 customers, you now have 40,000 customers with their own 3D printers and you just send them the file and charge a fee for each widget produced.

Most of those 40,000 customers will only be printing a few of them so the speed is now not a factor. Others with high volume needs will likely have more than one 3D printer or they will outsource as needed.

[Wonder Warthog]

"That won’t be the case when wonderful 3D printers are dirt cheap."

3D printers capable of working with metals will NEVER be "dirt cheap".

Crude devices extruding plastic and/or photopolymerizable polymer precursors are the only types that will ever be "dirt cheap".

3D printing will be used where it has advantages, just like every other technique of manufacture, but it is just another tool. All this hyperventilation about "3D printing will change the world" is just silly.

3D printing certainly offers many opportunities for improving things, but it is NOT a panacea.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

3D printing certainly offers many opportunities for improving things, but it is NOT a panacea.

Yet.

[Tallguy]

Who’s responsible when some doofus uses the “wrong ink” or the part requires heat treating and it doesn’t get done? The whole part is compromised. What I’m suggesting is that the individual user will need more than a modicum of engineering & materials know-how to use this tool effectively.

3D printing will probably be the next EDM machine... a necessary tool in certain types of manufacturing shops.

I respect the point that you’re trying to make. And maybe my own manufacturing background is making me overly skeptical.