Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3D Printings Imminent
Impact on Manufacturing
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Foreword
p3
II.
Methodology
p6
p9
Benefits
Challenges
Attitudes
Preparations for the Future
IV. Future State of 3D Printing
p15
Whats Next
p24
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
FOREWORD BY
JOE ALLISON
it. Thats just one example that you can apply across a
asked: How will they use 3D printing over the next three
from them that hold the greatest value. With this research
II
METHODOLOGY
II
METHODOLOGY
Qualified Respondent
Currently uses or is considering additive manufacturing in the next 3 years
Has some role in either the selection or management of manufacturing service providers
Uses or foresees using (within the next 3 years) at least one additive or traditional manufacturing process
*Note: The terms additive manufacturing (AM) and 3D printing were used interchangeably in this study.
II
METHODOLOGY
47%
FIGURE A
Engineer
47%
15%
14%
13%
9%
Top 5 Industries
Engineer
Designer
Executive
Other
Project Manager
26%
Consumer Products
15%
Medical
11%
Aerospace
8%
Automotive
6%
Energy
Annual Revenue
40%
77%
Functional prototyping
68%
Manufacturing engineering
40%
37%
Sourcing/procurement
29%
Management
Other
25%
4%
number of industries.
III
CURRENT STATE
OF 3D PRINTING
III
BENEFITS
FIGURE B
Top 4 Benefits of AM
79%
76%
42%
20%
expertise (47%).
The responses validate that AM users find the benefits
73%
60%
53%
47%
10
III
11
III
CHALLENGES
FIGURE C
63%
58%
to weigh in.
54%
38%
40%
46%
39%
34%
Equipment
costs
CURRENT
Manufacturing
costs
Post-processing
requirements
Limited
materials
FUTURE
12
III
ATTITUDES
Some survey questions were developed specifically to allow us to compare and analyze the difference in attitudes held by decision-makers and
influencers whose companies are currently using AM against those that are considering using AM within the next three years. Our hypothesis
was the attitudes would vary depending upon where companies are along the spectrum of AM adoption, which the findings proved to be true.
Here are the most interesting differences between the two groups:
Businesses currently using AM are more likely to say they have started to rethink product design to fully leverage the design capabilities
of AM than those who are considering AM.
When compared to those already using AM, people who are considering AM are more likely to believe manufacturing service providers
will play an increasingly important role in the future of manufacturing.
Other significant attitudinal differences are highlighted in Figure D.
FIGURE D
25% / 45%
If the benefits of AM were better understood by our company, I believe we would be doing more of it.
32% / 49%
40% / 7%
We are now doing more AM in-house that we used to outsource in the past.
40% / 28%
We have already started to rethink product design to fully leverage the design capabilities of AM.
50% / 61%
I believe that manufacturing service providers will play an increasingly important role in the future of manufacturing.
USING AM
CONSIDERING AM
13
III
40%
40%
34%
19%
Funding research/investing
Recruiting employees
manufacturing service
in the development of
experience/familiar with
additive manufacturing
providers
additive manufacturing
additive manufacturing
The most common steps taken include: training designers and engineers specifically for AM (40%) and
partnering with AM service providers (40%). Based on these responses, its clear companies have been
focusing on shoring up gaps in internal expertise. Companies are investing in the future by training
employees specifically for AM and encouraging professional development through educational classes
and seminars. Partnering with a service provider not only gives users access to equipment and materials
they may not have experience with, but also consultative expertise.
14
IV
FUTURE STATE
OF 3D PRINTING
15
IV
FIGURE F
Cost of equipment
20%
Mechanical properties
16%
Materials available
Slow equipment
10%
8%
Cost of materials
5%
Volume constraints
5%
Design accuracy
5%
Respondents were asked what one issue they feel will have
the greatest impact on the AM market. Interestingly, no one
issue stands out significantly more than another.
16
IV
36
36%
Increase
24%
Decrease
32%
8%
Unsure
73
73%
Increase
3%
Decrease
21%
3%
Unsure
We asked respondents whether they expect their companys in-house AM production to increase, decrease or stay
the same over the next 3 years. We asked the same question relative to their companys outsourced AM production.
It stands to reason that in-house AM capabilities are
not because they have to, but because they want to.
equipment.
17
IV
18
IV
APPLICATIONS
FIGURE H
41%
38%
18%
Concept
models
1%
1%
Functional
prototypes
% Change in End-use
Parts by 2018
+24% Outsource
part production.
+3% In House
Manufacturing
tools
Tooling and
patterns
Trial/Bridge
production
End-use
parts
19
IV
20
IV
MATERIALS
FIGURE I
84%
Metals
focused on properties.
Decidedly, metals are most highly-coveted across
Rubber-like materials
61%
60%
Carbon fiber
52%
Conductive-filled/circuitry
42%
Bio-based polymers
29%
Soluble materials
Other
20%
Medical is interested in
bio-based materials
7%
Respondents were asked which materials theyd like to see further developed
21
IV
22
IV
PROCESSES
FIGURE J
67%
FUTURE
81%
75%
65%
53%
71%
48% Outsource
54%
33%
18% In House
23
WHATS NEXT
24
WHATS NEXT
BY JOE ALLISON,
CEO OF STRATASYS DIRECT
MANUFACTURING
So what do the surveys findings reveal about the future of
that growth over the next three years will largely come in
processes.
25
WHATS NEXT
26
TREND FORECAST
3D Printings Imminent
Impact on Manufacturing
2015 Stratasys Direct, Inc. All rights reserved. Stratasys, Stratasys Direct Manufacturing, Stratasys Direct Manufacturing logo, FDM, Fused
Deposition Modeling, and PolyJet are trademarks or registered trademarks of either Stratasys or Stratasys Direct, Inc. and/or their subsidiaries
or affiliates and may be registered in certain jurisdictions. Other trademarks are property of their respective owners.