3D-Printing: The Future of Manufacturing1

Lim Jun Hao (junhao.lim.2013@business.smu.edu.sg), 1st Year Student, School of Business, Singapore Management University (SMU)

Executive Summary

Previously limited to hobbyists, 3D printing has gained traction over the past few years with new breakthroughs in its speed, portability and efficiency. Branching out from normal plastics, newer and more exciting materials have been used in 3D printing, and this would be key to 3D printing being able to solve the unsustainable nature of current manufacturing techniques.

This paper will examine the historical development of traditional manufacturing and 3D printing. Next, it will look into the reasons behind the current situation where 3D printing has become increasingly popular. Also, it will explain how 3D printing works, which is through ‘additive’ processes. After which, the paper will explore the future of 3D printing, where it can extend its capabilities and become a true disruptive technology. The paper will consider the possibility of 3D printing overtaking traditional manufacturing processes and transforming our economy into a ‘printed’ economy. The paper will then sought to address the potential problems that will arise from the transition to a ‘printed’ economy. In addition, the paper will cover the implications of 3D printing on various stakeholders and the notion of sustainability. Finally, the paper will evaluate the ability of such a ‘printed’ economy to be a sustainable option for future generations. In so doing, 3D printing can become the future of manufacturing.

The paper will not be addressing the prospects for 3D printing in new uncovered fields in the future. The chief focus of this paper would be the evaluation of 3D printing as a standard of manufacturing in the future.

Introduction

Sculpting, a ‘subtractive’ process has been the bona fide way of manufacturing since the prehistoric periods. When Michelangelo, the famous renaissance artist, was asked how he made the Statue of David, he replied, “It is easy. You just chip away the stone that doesn't look like David.” This in essence, sums up ‘subtractive’ manufacturing. You start off using more than required amounts of material and remove those that you do not need to end up with the product. Based upon the concept of such a ‘subtractive’ process, traditional manufacturing formed the basis of our first industrial revolution. Traditional manufacturing involves the use of various techniques and processes to which a piece of raw material is cut down into the desired product. This process involves the removal of material from the initial block. As a result, there are many waste produced in traditional manufacturing processes.

Traditional ‘subtractive’ manufacturing methods only uses roughly 5% of the total input materials used for production (Excell & Nathan, 2010). This means that nearly 95% of the input materials are discarded as waste products. This presents a myriad of problems, chief

1 This paper was reviewed by Edison Lim Jun Hao and Goh Kang Ming

being proper waste disposal. Improper waste disposals lead to pollution, which presents a huge setback to the eventual goal of sustainability.

Sustainability is defined as being able to ensure a decent living standard for everyone living today without compromising on the needs for future generations. There is a growing realisation that the current linear manufacturing methods are non-sustainable. We are using resources at a much faster rate than we can actually replace them. Hence, there is a paradigm shift in attitudes towards circular production chains whereby externalities are internalised. Ideally, a sustainable future would be one whereby resource regeneration is greater or at least equal to resource degeneration. This brings us to a new and exciting method of production, 3D printing, which is both more efficient in using materials and cost effective than traditional manufacturing. It holds the promise to truly revolutionise manufacturing.

A quick search on Google trends shows us that interest in 3D printing has increased by almost ten times over the past 2 years. 3D printing is a manufacturing process that is starkly different from traditional manufacturing processes. It is ‘additive’ in nature, meaning materials needed are added to the article with next to no waste produced (J. Brown, 2012). Hence, this drastically cuts down on the amount of waste produced through product manufacturing. This is in line with the notion of sustainability that has become increasingly important with more evidence showing that human actions are directly responsible for climate change and global warming (Nurse, 2014). 3D printing will certainly have a great positive impact on our environment as it reduces the wastage of materials, increases the lifespans of products via quick production of spare parts and altogether removes the need for transportation and inventory (Gilpin, 2014).

Also, the possibility of 3D printing within one’s household opens up a whole new world of possibility with regards to the distribution of products. Products of the future can be sold through the Internet and ‘manufactured’ through a household 3D printer (Gustafson, 2012). This eliminates the need for traditional supply chains. There is a move away from vertical integration for most companies, whereby most of the parts required for a product are produced by the same company; towards platform companies whereby most materials needed for products are outsourced to suppliers. The carbon footprint of a normal product will include all the fuel and energy expended to transporting the parts to various factories and also the final delivery of product to the consumer. As such, the amount of fuel required for transporting these parts and products will be greatly reduced. This eliminates a large polluting agent, furthering the goal of sustainability.

Digital manufacturing, which involves the use of 3D printing to manufacture products, could be the future of manufacturing. Much like how digital 2D printers have eliminated the ancient printing press, 3D printing can eliminate traditional methods of manufacturing. It will eliminate the need for factories, tooling and even inventories, introducing a much more efficient decentralised model based on custom manufacturing (Kor, 2012).

The need for customizability cannot be underestimated, as there is a shift in consumer attitude and favour away from uniformity towards something that is unique to them. Mass customization is seen as the key for growth in manufacturing and with the rise of 3D printer, this reality is set to materialize (Forrester, 2011). 3D printers holds the potential to radically shake up the manufacturing industry, allowing consumers to hold more freedom in production.

3D printing is slowly maturing into a disruptive technology that is capable of causing disruption within the manufacturing industry. This coupled with the significant reduction in costs incurred for 3D printer makes it a very interesting proposition to consider for manufacturing purposes. If one may be so bold, the rise of 3D printing could even mean the end of manufacturing, as we know it, signifying a shift to a ‘printed economy’.

Historical Perspective

Traditional Manufacturing

Modern manufacturing has remained largely unchanged over the last century with ‘subtractive’ type methods like machining remaining as the de facto manufacturing standard. Machining refers to the use of various machineries to process raw materials into desired shapes and sizes via a controlled setting (Michigan Technological University, n.d.). Currently, most products are produced by the combination of various small parts, made through machining. For the purpose of this paper, we will term such ‘subtractive’ methods as traditional manufacturing.

Traditional manufacturing has become synonymous with factories and large machineries after the industrial revolution. Henry Ford’s assembly line is a fine example of traditional manufacturing. There is a continual flow of assembly by human workers, fixing and attaching small parts produced by ‘subtractive’ manufacturing methods to form the final product (L. Goss, 2012). Presently, human workers have been largely replaced by automation in the assembly line. However, the nature of such manufacturing methods remains the same – to subtract materials from an initial block of material to achieve the desired form. The advantage from economies of scale is the main reason for the continued usage of traditional manufacturing (Gustafson, 2012).

The cost of manufacturing is greatly lowered through economies of scale. Through repetitive use of the machineries involved, the large sunk cost of such highly specialised machineries are spread throughout the final products produced. This means that products can now be priced at lower prices as the sheer volume of sales makes it profitable to sell them.

Base on this principle, traditional manufacturing processes have focused on increasing efficiency, allowing the production of larger volumes of goods in less time than before. However, the reduction of time and prices were done at the expense of customizability.

In addition, there are a lot of waste and externalities that results from such a production method. Firstly, the ‘subtractive’ nature by which most of the parts are produced produces large amount of waste. It is estimated that 95% of materials are wasted when traditional manufacturing methods are employed (Excell & Nathan, 2010).

Secondly, traditional manufacturing methods emits gases and dangerous dust, which are particularly harmful to the environment (Antoine, 2011), this results in air pollution. Every year, air pollution is responsible for 6.3 million deaths, which is more than the number of AIDs and malaria combined (Richard, 2013). Traditional manufacturing methods certainly have very serious disadvantages.

Hence, traditional manufacturing does not tie in well with our urgent need of sustainability. There is a need for us to look beyond traditional methods of manufacturing to continue producing goods, so as to further our goal of sustainability.

3D Printing

History

The idea for 3D systems first began in the 1960s (Jakab, 2014), where experiments were carried out on additive procedures for manufacturing purposes. However, the breakthrough was only made in 1984 where Charles W. Hull, invented the first 3D printer. He later went on to found 3D systems, which is one of the leading companies in additive manufacturing procedures (Tony, 2011). Unlike traditional manufacturing methods like machining, 3D printing is an ‘additive’ procedure. Instead of removing materials from a block of material to get the final product, materials are only added when needed to form the final product.

Fig 1: Timeline of 3D PrintingReproduced from Munoz, Kim & Armstrong, (2013)

How it works

The first 3D printer uses the technique of sterolithography.

Fig 2: How 3D printing worksReproduced from Thre3d (n.d.)

It involves the use of a laser, which will trace each layer a model into photopolymer resin. The photopolymer is a light reactive plastic. Each layer is cured before a beam of UV light

laser is projected onto a point of the resin, causing it react and solidifies. Subsequently, the laser will draw the cross-section of the model to be printed. This forms a layer of hardened material. After which, the printed layer is repositioned to make way for unhardened photopolymer, which will undergo the same process. Through the repetition of this process, a model is built up one layer at a time (Thre3d, n.d.).

Fig 3: Process of 3D printingReproduced from Strataseys (n.d.)

Factors that limited its growth in the past

Although the idea for 3D printing goods have been around for nearly half a century, the technique has never truly taken off in a way that it is capable of challenging traditional manufacturing standards. This is mainly due to a three reasons.

Firstly, the 3D printing solutions that were championed by many fledging start-ups were too complicated and slow (Lipson & Kurman, 2013). They were not able to match up to the efficiency and cost-savings that traditional manufacturing methods could bring to producers. Companies were more focused on producing uniform products at a low price so as to reap large profits, since there was little demand for customizability within consumers. As a result, the inefficient 3D printing solutions soon fell by the wayside, without truly being able to make an impact.

Secondly, the lack of materials was a limiting factor on how 3D printing could be used. While traditional manufacturing methods were able to call upon hundreds of materials, 3D printing was limited to a few types of plastics (Lipson & Kurman, 2013). This greatly limited the usefulness of the technology since most products are made of a combination of materials.

Third, the exorbitant cost of 3D printing prevented wide spread adoption by the mass market. Even in the past, 3D printing was already touted to be able to revolutionise the consumer market. However, 3D printers can cost upwards to $250,000 with the raw plastic costing around $800 per gallon (Crawford, n.d.).

The high price coupled with low efficiency and lack of materials was a death knell to 3D printing and it never truly took off as a manufacturing standard.

Prototyping

However, 3D printing survived through its usefulness in manufacturing prototypes (Filton, 2011). Prototypes are early samples or models of final products. Hence, it does not make sense to utilise traditional manufacturing methods to produce the prototype since specific moulds or tools may have to be produced specifically for the production of 1 model, which would normally be discarded anyway. 3D printing was able to present a cost-effective

alternative for firms to produce prototypes and this allowed it to linger in the background of the manufacturing industry.

However, with recent breakthroughs in 3D printing technologies, coupled with the expiration of many of the patents on 3D printing techniques (Templeton, 2014), there has been increased efficiency and cost reduction. As a result, 3D printing has gained traction and momentum with the increased attention given to it by producers and consumers alike.

Current Situation

3D printing

Currently, 3D printing represents almost 28% of the manufacturing sector (Munoz, Kim & Armstrong, 2013). According to a market survey by Lux Research, a global consulting firm, the market value of 3D printing in year 2012 stands at roughly $777 million. Moreover, based on their in depth research, they estimated that 3D printing pie could grow exponentially to $8.4 billion in year 2025 (Vesanto, 2013). This is just a conservative estimate of the potential of 3D printing. The newest estimate by Strategic Analytics states that 3D printing could be worth as much as $70 billion in 2030. They projected that by then, nearly half of all American households will owe a household 3D printer (PRNewsWire, 2014). It is evident that analysts are picking up the piqued market interest in 3D printing and this certainly means that 3D printing will become a key part of the household in the future.

3D printers are now able to produce any parts, tools and even whole appliances with the click of the button, provided that there is a valid 3D computer-aided design (CAD) file. This CAD file contains the dimensions and designs of the intended product. Basically it tells the printer what the final product is supposed to look like (Price, 2011). Such ease of printing greatly lowers the technical barrier towards 3D printing and allows many amateur hobbyists to fully utilise the potential of 3D printing. This certainly paves the way for 3D printing to become a part of the household since 3D printing is no longer limited to engineers and manufacturers.

Major companies have also caught onto the many benefits of 3D printing processes with many already incorporating 3D printing manufacturing methods to their production chain. Boeing used 3D printers to manufacture parts for its new Boeing 787 Dreamliner (Popular Science, 2013). Mattel uses 30 3D printers to produce parts for almost all of its toys in their line up (Boulton, 2013).

Key Drivers behind Growth

3D printing has remained dormant for the best part of 30 years, lying under the radar, all the while being used for prototyping purposes. However, over the past decade, there has been increase in attention brought onto 3D printing as a viable manufacturing standard. This is due these drivers of growth identified below.

Firstly, 3D printers have improved by leaps and bounds in terms of technical efficiency and time efficiency. Many companies have realised savings in both time and money, after they made the switch to 3D printing processes.

Take the case of Advanced Composite Structures, a company that deals with the repair of helicopter rotor blades and also produces composite structures for fixed-wing and rotary-wing aircrafts, as an example. Traditionally, they have depended upon tooling which is a traditional manufacturing process coupled with machining to produce most of the spare parts needed for it’s operations. After they made the switch to using Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), a type of 3D printing procedure, they managed cost savings of 79%. At the same time, they managed to reduce their lead-time for production to 2 days from 45 days, an improvement of 96% (Stratasys, n.d.).

3D printing is no longer the cumbersome or time consuming process it was in the past. These improvements have led to increased recognition in 3D printing as a viable manufacturing option, evident from the many time and cost saved by the pioneering companies that have chose it as their main production methods.

Secondly, the improvements in 3D rendering programmes were another major driver for growth. In the past, 3D printing was touted as having the ability to print anything that you can think of (Zolfagharifard, 2014). However, this dream was limited by the lack of viable tools to ensure that the 3D printer is able to print out objects of high complexity. However, with great improvements being made in the software department over the past decade (H. Choplin, A. Buckwalter, Rydberg & M. Farber, 2004), complex models can now be rendered on the computer and sent to the 3D printer in the form of a CAD file. This ensures that the 3D printer is able to faithfully replicate the ‘dream’ that the creator had in mind.

This means that 3D printers can now print products with high levels of internal complexity. Previously, it was limited to replicating only the exteriors portion of the product. This greatly enhances the usefulness of 3D printers in producing final products. This is especially so given the high level of sophistication of technological products nowadays. 3D printing was able to move from prototyping purposes to actual production of final consumer goods.

Further, the improvements in the software department were not only limited to increased complexity. The learning curve to such software has also decreased substantially (PixelBlast, n.d.), enabling more people to create 3D models of whatever they want. This has led to crowd-sourced websites, which collates many free to download 3D design templates for the masses to download, such as thingverse.com. These websites greatly increases the reach and prominence of 3D printed objects as it facilitates the process of home-printing.

Third, the drastic drop in prices of 3D printers coupled with increased variety of materials also drove forward the growth for 3D printing (IBISWorld, 2013). In addition to higher quality plastics, the material portfolio of 3D has grown to include metals, ceramic, wood, rubber-replacements and even organic tissues. The ease of developing composite materials (combination of two materials) also entices producers to use 3D printing. These composite materials allow the industries to explore new directions in product development.

The prices of 3D printers have drastically dropped, with the price of enterprise-class 3D printers forecasted to drop below the $2000 mark by 2016 (Burns, 2013). These two reasons have cumulated in 3D printing being a viable option for manufacturing in many industries, especially for those that do not traditionally enjoy economies of scale.

Lastly, changes in consumer expectations are another important driver of growth for 3D printing. In the past, large corporations dictated the wants and needs of the general public,

hence the focus was on the production of uniform products that look and act exactly the same. However, with the growing astuteness of consumers, the demand for customizability is growing (E. Needleman, 2010). 3D printing is able to satisfy such demand at a much lower cost than traditional methods of manufacturing (Gannes, 2014).

Many companies recognise this trend and are offering customizability to boost their sales. For example, Nike has started to offer custom-made football cleats, which are essential for optimising performance on the football pitch (Feinberg, 2014). Such service were previously only limited to professional football players due to the exorbitant costs involved. However, after Nike realised the potential that 3D printing holds, they were able to fully utilise the technology to enable mass customization for the general consumer market.

Crossroads

3D printers have reached the inflection point and are about to enter a rapidly rising upward trajectory in terms of their popularity and usage. It is predicted by a Gardner research that “the total number of consumer and enterprise 3D printer shipments will grow from 38,002 units in 2012 to 1,083,496 units in 2017, a compound annual growth rate of 95.4 per cent.” (Gartner, 2013)

The hype that has enveloped 3D printing has not gone unnoticed. This leads to opportunities for market-driven innovation to take place as hardware, software and even service providers are taking note of the opportunities that lie within the 3D printing industry. This increases the urgency at which engineers and software developers are working at to come out with the next big thing within the 3D printing industry. This has already taken effect with new and more efficient machines being produced and priced at attractive price ranges. On this evidence, it is not hard to envision the future whereby every household will own a 3D printer.

Evaluating the 3D Printing for the Future

Is 3D printing a disruptive technology?

The term disruptive technology was first coined by Clayton M. Christensen, a Professor at Harvard Business School. It describes a technology that disrupts or displaces an existing technology, making the older technology redundant (M. Christensen, 1997). Often such technology disrupts the traditional market by enabling the general population with little to no expertise to do something in a much more convenient and easy setting, at a lower cost. Usually, the process could only be done with great expertise with sophisticated technology (M. Christensen, Bohmer & Kenagy, 2000). The disruptive technology thus, disrupts the traditional market and makes the original process redundant, a thing of the past. So is 3D printing a disruptive technology? The answer depends strongly on the type of market in question.

3D printing has the potential to become a disruptive technology in industries that traditionally depends on large-scale manufacturing. Traditional manufacturing involves large machineries resulting in a sunk cost that is unbearable by the general masses. Hence, manufacturing is limited to large corporations with the resources to purchase such expensive machineries. This

results in the monopolisation of manufacturing with large companies, resulting in mass-produced consumer products devoid of any customisability.

Currently, the benefits accrued from economies of scale; enjoyed by traditional manufacturing methods such as injection moulding, still outweigh that of 3D printing (Bloomberg View, 2013), in industries that do not hold customisability at a premium.

The cost efficiency of 3D printing is more evident in industries whereby the products have to be personalised and customisability is key. Such industries operate without economies of scale hence, the flexibility of 3D printing leads to cost savings that previously could not be enjoyed via traditional methods of production. In a sense, the current state of 3D printing is optimised to the production of one.

With increases in the material palette available and the novel new methods to 3D printing being introduced, 3D printing has started to move towards post-product manufacturing and industries that has always used traditional manufacturing methods, such as the automobile industry. Interestingly, the first 3D fully printed car has already been produced in 2011, with a view on eventual mass production for the consumer market (Bates, 2011). The assembly line responsible for the previous industrial revolution could be a thing of the past once 3D printing gains widespread usage and by so doing, becomes a disruptive technology.

Can it replace traditional manufacturing processes?

Currently, 3D printing already accounts for 28% of the total manufacturing sector (Munoz, Kim & Armstrong, 2013). It has already been incorporated in many industries for the production of certain parts of the product. However, the technology is still far away from being able to replace traditional manufacturing processes for most goods.

The main reason for it being so would be that 3D printing processes do not enjoy economies of scale, meaning the cost of production incurred remains roughly level after the initial outlay for the machine is covered. This is the main limiting factor that hinders the widespread usage of 3D printing within industries that require an efficient method to produce large number of uniform goods. It does not make sense for such manufacturers to employ 3D printing as the sheer amount that they are producing at will increase their profit margins with each manufactured good.

Moreover, the price of the materials used in 3D printing remains exorbitant. The raw materials to be used have to be processed into polymers for use within the 3D printers and that incurs an extra cost. Currently, the cost of plastic polymers used in 3D printers starts from around $60 to $425 per kilogram. This is in contrast with the prices of plastic material used in traditional injection moulding which stands at only $2.40 to $3.30 per kilogram (Wohlers, 2011). This in essence captures the difficulty that 3D printing faces in replacing traditional manufacturing methods.

Currently, 3D printing will not replace traditional manufacturing processes. However, it may not always be the case in the future. The prices of 3D printers have dropped drastically over the years to a point whereby it costs almost the same as our normal inkjet printers. With the increased complexity and sophistication of 3D printers, there will come a point whereby the

benefits accrued from using 3D printing will outweigh the cost benefit for traditional manufacturing.

Democratising Manufacturing

Traditional manufacturing methods meant that the power to decide what goods to produce resided mainly in the hands of large corporations. Although there may be inputs from the consumer, the final recipient of the goods, the ability to make the final decision on what to produce and what not to produce still lies with the large corporations.

Although market forces go a long way in helping consumers express what products they require and want more of, there is still no maximisation of output to utility through traditional methods of production. In order for companies to decide what to produce, they would have to do a forecast for demand on their product. This can be done via surveys and market research and would depend very much on the assumption of perfect information. However, we all know that perfect information is near impossible to achieve, hence there will always be unmatched demand or over production of goods. Utility for the consumers and producers are not maximised in both cases.

Fig 4: 3D printing Reproduced from Gustafson (2012)

3D printing offers an alternative solution to such problems, by democratising manufacturing. The increase in computing power allowed the masses to enjoy computers cheaply. The advent of the Internet allowed the common man access to a pool of knowledge never before imaginable. These phenomenon led to the democratization of information technology, which were reserved for those with the ability to access them. What does it mean by the democratisation of manufacturing? 3D printing is able to democratise manufacturing, promising to allow the masses to print customised products at their own leisure, possibly in their own homes. As illustrated in the figure above, it removes the whole chain of events between idea generation and the end user.

As of 2012, industrial uses accounted for 95% of all usage of 3D printing (CM Research, 2013). This means that normal consumer usage accounted for only 5% of all usage; this represents huge potential for growth. Normal consumer adoption of 3D printing is set to increase exponentially, and the only relevant question would be when?

What is holding it back currently?

There are many factors that are still holding back the full-blown adoption of 3D printing within the producers and consumers sphere.

Possibility of Misuse

Fig 5: Man firing 3D printed gunReproduced from Gilpin (2014)

As with many technologies, the possibility of misuse is a very large concern. In 2012, Cody Wilson released a blueprint for a 3D printed gun on the Internet. He then demonstrated through video that the 3D printed gun actually works, after which his blueprint was downloaded over 100,000 times before it was finally removed (Cadwalladr, 2014). This event has significant ramifications on 3D printing as this meant anyone with the blueprint and a working 3D printer will be able to print a deadly weapon anywhere in the world. This undermines the many gun control laws around the world and threatens the safety of the general public.

In the wrong hands and intentions, 3D printers have the potential to cause significant harm.

Intellectual Properties

The hype regarding 3D printing from the consumer’s point of view is due to the promise that we can begin to print anything we want in the comforts of our home. This is premised upon the sharing of digital 3D CAD files from companies to the consumer via the Internet. However, manufacturing companies are reluctant to go down this route, citing precedent examples like the movie and music industry as reasons why. The rampant piracy of music and movie files, through popular file sharing websites, has seriously hampered the music and movie industries (Strauss, 2013). It is estimated that piracy costs studios $6.1 billion per year (Bialik, 2013).

Moreover, with the increase sophistication and widespread adoption of 3D scanners, which are able to scan any objects and produce a 3D rendering of the object conveniently, 3D printing itself could pose serious concerns to manufacturers. It is estimated by year 2018, 3D printing will result in $100 billion worth of losses through intellectual property rights (Gartner, 2014). If the digitalising of our consumer goods occurs, it would not be long before

piracy seriously curtails on the profitability of the companies. It is very apparent to see that things that can be copied will be copied.

In order for home 3D printers to truly take off, the number of product offerings have to hit a certain critical number, just as with digital application offerings in mobile app stores. The initial outlay for the purchase of a home 3D printer is still substantial enough, to warrant consumers to hold back from purchasing his or her own. However, the legal area on intellectual property rights for 3D CAD files are still murky and until there are relevant laws that are able to protect the interests of producers sufficiently, it is unlikely that there will adopt business models centred upon 3D printing.

Future Implications of 3D printing

3D printing is set to permeate almost every aspect of our lives in the very near future. This has implications and impacts on businesses, consumers and also the global state of economy

Increased Sustainability

Fundamentally, manufacturing is extremely energy intensive and dependent. Although there are alternative green sources of energy, the world is still very much dependent on non-renewable sources of energy which accounts for 91% of world energy usage. (Swift, 2008). Hence, a more sustainable mode of manufacturing will be one that uses less energy. 3D printing reduces energy usage by up to 50% (Cohen, 2013). As such, if all 3D printing becomes the de-facto manufacturing standard, we will likely see a drastic reduction in energy needs for production of goods.

Traditional manufacturing results in a lot of wastage, with only 5% of the total raw materials used for the production of the final product. This means that 95% of raw materials are discarded. At the same time, large amounts of energy are expended to process the raw materials into shape. 3D printing, being ‘additive’ in nature, produces by adding raw material only when needed (Cohen, 2013). This drastically reduces the amount of waste that manufacturing produces and ties it very well with the notion of sustainability.

Workforce

The factory floor has already seen the gradual replacement of workers with machines due to the rise in cost effectiveness and efficiency of machinery over human labour. This phenomenon is set to repeat itself with the rise of 3D printing.

Unlike traditional machining methods, 3D printers are able to work silently in the background with little to no human interference needed. This means that factories of the future may become completely unrecognisable from the factories of today. They will be filled with rows and rows of 3D printers silently printing out the products. All the automation occurs with a click of a button with only minimal supervision needed.

Conclusion

It is easy to overlook 3D printing as a fad, if we were to compare the current offerings to the highly efficient factories that have been refined for nearly a century. Although there have been substantial improvements on many fronts of 3D printing, the technology is still far away from being able to build an entire Boeing aircraft. This will mean that traditional manufacturing methods will still be used

However, just like the first mobile phones, which were large and cumbersome, 3D printing will require time to adapt and evolve to meet the various challenges that it faces now. 3D printing certainly has the potential to act as a disruptive technology to revolutionise the manufacturing industry. However, the companies involved have to first overcome the technical barriers like material costs, quality of offering, efficiency of output that still hinders 3D printing processes from overtaking traditional methods of production for supremacy. After which, industry barriers will also have to be overcome as entire industries have to be re-tooled and fitted with 3D printers. Business processes and supply chain models have to be re-evaluated, if home 3D printing were to catch on. There would be lesser need for inventory and transportation as consumers can potentially print all that they need through their home 3D printers. The traditional view on the life cycle of products could also be at risk as consumers could potentially print replacement parts for their products.

3D printing has taken up many new portfolios over the past decade, with its forays into medical and food manufacturing well documented and celebrated. Realistically, 3D printing will have the greatest impact on the production of goods but the current limitations on 3D printing means that it is limited to lower volume goods. That being said, it can certainly produce such goods at a higher quality than traditional manufacturing methods. Most importantly, it is able to produce goods without damaging the environment or producing more waste than needed. The growing pressure from the need to embrace sustainability means that 3D printing will be heavily researched on since it offers a greener alternative to traditional manufacturing methods.

One thing is for sure. 3D printing will shake off its label as a technology fan boy’s fantasy and will make its mark on mainstream manufacturing industries. It is only a matter of time before it changes our lives irrevocably.

Reference

1. Excell, J., & Nathan, S. (2010, May 24). The rise of additive manufacturing. Retrieved from http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/the-rise-of-additive-manufacturing/1002560.article

2. J. Brown, H. (2012, Jan 17). Additive versus subtractive manufacturing. Retrieved from http://www.dmass.net/2012/01/17/additive-versus-subtractive-manufacturing/

3. Nurse, P. (2014, Mar 17). Climate change: we've put off the difficult decisions for too long. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10701265/Climate-change-weve-put-off-the-difficult-decisions-for-too-long.html

4. Gilpin, L. (2014, Feb 12). 10 industries 3d printing will disrupt or decimate. Retrieved from http://www.techrepublic.com/article/10-industries-3d-printing-will-disrupt-or-decimate/

5. Gustafson, P. (2012). 3d printing and the future of manufacturing. Retrieved from http://assets1.csc.com/innovation/downloads/LEF_20123DPrinting.pdf

6. Michigan Technological University. (n.d.). Machining page. Retrieved from http://www.mfg.mtu.edu/cyberman/machining.html

7. L. Goss , J. (2012). Henry ford and the assembly line. Retrieved from http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/a/Ford--Assembly-Line.htm

8. Excell, J., & Nathan, S. (2010, May 24). The rise of additive manufacturing. Retrieved from http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/the-rise-of-additive-manufacturing/1002560.article

9. Thre3d. (n.d.). How stereolithography (sla) works. Retrieved from https://thre3d.com/how-it-works/light-photopolymerization/stereolithography-sla

10. Lipson, H., & Kurman, M. (2013). Fabricated: The new world of 3d printing. John Wiley & Sons. Retrieved from http://books.google.com.sg/books?id=IuOGAQP0CD8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CwgoU92GPMn9rAe134D4Dw&redir_esc=y

11. Munoz, C., Kim, C., & Armstrong, L. (2013, Nov). Layer by layer: Opportunities in 3d printing. Retrieved from http://marscommons.marsdd.com/3dprinting/tech-trends-new-applications/

12. Wohlers Report 2011: Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing State of the Industry, p. 242. Retrieved from http://www.wohlersassociates.com/2011contents.htm

13. Crawford, S. (n.d.). How 3-d printing works. Retrieved from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/3-d-printing6.htm

14. Filton. (2011, FEB 10). The printed world. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/18114221

15. Vesanto, J. (2013, Apr 16). A new study from lux predicting the future of 3d printing. Retrieved from http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/04/16/a-new-study-from-lux-predicting-the-future-of-3d-printing/

16. PrNewsWire. (2014, Feb 10). Retrieved from Providence Journal. (2014, Feb 10). Strategy analytics: Home 3d printers could drive $70bn in annual global market revenues. Retrieved from http://www.providencejournal.com/business/press-releases/20140210-strategy-analytics-home-3d-printers-could-drive-70bn-in-annual-global-market-revenues.ece

17. T.Rowe Price, T. R. P. (Designer). (2011, Dec 31). How 3D printer works [Web Graphic]. Retrieved from

http://individual.troweprice.com/staticFiles/Retail/Shared/PDFs/3D_Printing_Infographic_FINAL.pdf

18. Popular Science. (2013). The future of flight: 3-D printed planes. Retrieved from http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/future-flight-planes-will-be-printed

19. Boulton, C. (2013, Jun 5). Printing out barbies and ford cylinders. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323372504578469560282127852

20. Stratasys. (n.d.). Additive manufacturing reduces tooling cost and lead time to produce composite aerospace parts. Retrieved from http://www.stratasys.com/resources/case-studies/aerospace/acs

21. Zolfagharifard, E. (2014, Jan 21). Breaking out of the mould. Retrieved from http://www.theengineer.co.uk/channels/production-engineering/in-depth/breaking-out-of-the-mould/1017858.article

22. H. Choplin, R., A. Buckwalter, K., Rydberg, J., & M. Farber, J. (2004). Ct with 3d rendering of the tendons of the foot and ankle: Technique, normal anatomy, and disease. Retrieved from http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/full/10.1148/rg.242035131?view=long&pmid=15026585&

23. PixelBlast. (n.d.). New pixelblaster 3.0 print production software increases performance, throughput and ease-of-use. Retrieved from http://printfuture.com/archives/software/new-pixelblaster-3-0-print-production-software-increases-performance-throughput-and-ease-of-use/

24. IBISWorld. (2013, March). 3D Printing & rapid prototyping services in the US. IBISWorld Inc.

25. Burns, M. (2013, Mar 29). Enterprise-class 3d printers to drop under $2,000 by 2016, says report. Retrieved from http://techcrunch.com/2013/03/29/enterprise-class-3d-printers-to-drop-under-2000-by-2016-says-report/

26. E. Needleman, S. (2010, Aug 26). 'custom' is customary. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703447004575449402578594236

27. Feinberg, A. (2014, Jan 10). How 3d printing supercharged nike's new super bowl cleat. Retrieved from http://gizmodo.com/how-3d-printing-supercharged-nikes-new-super-bowl-clea-1498747670

28. Gartner, Inc. (2013, September 27). Forecast: 3D Printers, Worldwide. Gartner, Inc.29. Gannes, L. (2014, Feb 4). 3-d printing’s next frontier: Mass customization. Retrieved

from http://recode.net/2014/02/04/3-d-printings-next-frontier-mass-customization/30. M. Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator's dilemma : when new technologies cause

great firms to fail. Boston, Mass. : Harvard Business School Press.31. M. Christensen, C. M. C., Bohmer, R. B., & Kenagy, J. K. (2000). Will disruptive

innovations cure healthcare?. Harvard Business Review , Retrieved from http://hbr.org/web/extras/insight-center/health-care/will-disruptive-innovations-cure-health-care

32. Bloomberg View. (2013, May 14). How 3-d printing could disrupt the economy of the future. Retrieved from http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-05-14/how-3-d-printing-could-disrupt-the-economy-of-the-future

33. Bates, D. (2011, Sept 23). Rolling off the 3d printing press.. the world's first 'printed' car - and it actually works read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2041106/urbee-the-worlds-printed-car-rolling-3d-printing-presses-.html

34. CM Research. (2013). 3d printing: Who’s who and who’s impacted. Retrieved from http://www.cmresearch.co.uk/resources/Sync 60 3D Printing.pdf

35. Strauss, K. (2013, Jun 6). Tv and film piracy: Threatening an industry?. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2013/03/06/tv-and-film-piracy-threatening-an-industry/

36. Bialik, C. (2013, Apr 5). Putting a price tag on film piracy. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/putting-a-price-tag-on-film-piracy-1228/

37. Swift, G. (2008). Local energy sources. Retrieved from http://www.designmatrix.com/pl/ecopl/local_energy_sources.html

38. Cohen, M. (2013, May 27). Additive manufacturing: Printing a better and cleaner world. Retrieved from https://www.pangaeaventures.com/blog/additive-manufacturing-printing-a-better-and-cleaner-world