COLUMN
We Have to Talk
The additive manufacturing industry needs an open and honest discussion about the causes of its current malaise.
Written by Todd Grimm
In the spring and summer of this year, I attended a number of additive manufacturing (AM) events. At one, 14 leaders from the leading AM companies started each day with refreshingly honest assessments of AM’s current state and future prospects. In a series of executive perspective panel discussions, these leaders openly stated that the adoption of AM is slow and that printer manufacturers are not making money. They also acknowledged that many of the difficulties flow from self-inflicted wounds stemming from how they and the industry have conducted themselves.
That sounds as if it could be depressing, but I have to say that in spite of the industry’s present challenges, the vibe was upbeat and enthusiastic. And a big part of that vibe was due to the tone of transparency and trust the leaders brought to the subject. I would be worried if the leaders were simply cheerleading. Instead, while the leaders’ enthusiasm for AM’s bright future was palpable in the panel sessions, it was their acknowledgment that the road to widespread adoption will be a slow grind, taking years, that instilled a sense of confidence in the industry’s future.
Three key points resonated with me, in terms of root causes for the current AM condition. All three are crucial for us to understand and address.
OVERWHELMING, DISJOINTED, AND DYSFUNCTIONAL
First, AM is suffering from the backlash of being overhyped as a magical solution for all problems and applications. Upon discovering this is not true, the response to reality has been harsh and has hardened the resolve of many to stick with time-tested, conventional methods.
Second, AM is an echo chamber where we talk amongst ourselves (the believers) and ostracize all others. It is hard to make progress when you are “singing to the choir.”
Third, AM has made itself too difficult for interested parties to adopt.
In recent columns for this magazine, I have addressed the first two points, so I would like to unpack the third one. Why are AM solutions difficult to adopt? I think it’s because too often they are overwhelming, disjointed, and dysfunctional.
There is an overwhelming number of overlapping solutions with little in the way of clear distinctions when the marketing hyperbole is stripped away. This makes it difficult to identify suitable solutions and have confidence that a wise choice will be made.
CULTURAL DIFFERENCES
In the area of disjointedness, AM speaks too many “languages” and has too many “dialects.” Language is a colorful way to point out the lack of commonality amongst AM technology in everything from terminology to data architectures to workflows. Rather than working together, each solution has carved out its own isolated ecosystem.
AM can be dysfunctional when it comes to integration with traditional operations. The AM industry has attempted to force the status quo to accommodate its differences versus time-tested processes, procedures, and performance measures. But those “cultural differences” stand in the way of easy integration with a company’s legacy operations.
The bottom line for AM is that it tried too hard to be different and rather than building bridges to potential customers, forced anyone who was interested in adopting the technology to buy into this new view.
I am happy to report that the refreshingly honest discussion wasn’t only about self-criticism. The panel discussions also included many actions that need to be taken for AM to advance and grow.
For instance, it was a bit surprising but well received when a CEO stated that those representing AM need to be both humble and honest. Another suggested that AM players need to narrow their focus to applications or scenarios where they can add value, rather than trying to serve the needs of all industries for all applications. Trying to sell AM as the “jack-of-all-trades” has left potential customers wondering if it can master any.
“AM players need to narrow their focus to applications or scenarios where they can add value, rather than trying to serve the needs of all industries for all applications.”
AM IS HERE TO STAY
With a tighter focus on valuable applications, suppliers can drill down into all the necessary changes to make AM a better fit in production. The long list of necessary changes covered everything from cost and efficiency to workflow and KPIs.
Finally, the panelists noted the desperate need for collaboration within the AM industry to address the “language barrier.” Only through combining forces can the entire industry make progress. This work must also include collaborative efforts with those from the conventional processes world so that we can build on what is needed and what pain points need to be resolved.
There is a lot to do—and a lot is at stake. Yet the executives noted that AM is here to stay and poised for growth. However, they quickly pointed out that we should be prepared for a long, often boring grind toward acceptance as a team player in manufacturing. Simply stated, there are no quick fixes to pull AM out of the quagmire that the AM industry created.
While the future is bright and the enthusiasm remains high, delusions of “hockey-stick” growth have been displaced by pragmatic projections of gradual progress toward the envisioned future. From my point of view, that honesty is something to celebrate.
Todd Grimm is president of T.A. Grimm & Associates, an additive manufacturing consulting and communications company, and a 30-year industry veteran.
© 2024 The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. All rights reserved.