Mass production or just production of mass? – An AM Perspective (Part 3)

For a decade, the prevailing popular opinion seems to be that additive manufacturing “wins” by achieving a place in mass production. Listen to the statements of nearly all the companies in additive and you’ll hear the theme again and again. Perhaps it’s not what the AM companies want to say as much as what the investors want to hear, but regardless… The logic seems to be along the lines of: the manufacturing market will be disrupted by additive, the bulk of the manufacturing market is mass production, and therefore additive must disrupt mass production. They equate mass production with “moving 3d printing into manufacturing.” I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen a lot of manufacturing that isn’t at an injection molding scale. Why does that continue to be the benchmark for so many?

And while I see the logic, and I understand that we’re pretty much all geared toward achieving scale in the business world, I don’t share the opinion that high volume production is the only path to scale. Additive will have a massive impact on manufacturing not by replacing the stuff that already works well but by opening new avenues for new product designs and ways of making products that alleviate supply chain constraints. In some cases, when those new additively-enabled designs are in play, that may include mass production, but the "win" is the new design, not that mass production is achieved.

Why does my opinion diverge from the common wisdom here (and why am I sure I’m right nonetheless)? Three factors led me here: 1) Exposure to the Aerospace & Defense market and its characteristics, 2) Exposure to FDM and its properties first, and 3) my parent’s first microwave cook book.

I know you want me to start with #3, but we’ll get there.

The aerospace industry deals with very hard problems. That’s why the colloquialism, “it doesn’t take a rocket scientist,” exists, because we need rocket scientists to solve the hard problems in aerospace. These hard problems have driven many, if not most, major technology advances over the past century. We have velcro because we didn't want stuff floating around in the first space capsules. We have digital cameras because it was really hard to catch a film canister dropped from a satellite. We have composites because even aluminum is too heavy for efficient airplanes. So it is absolutely no surprise to me that the aerospace industry is the champion for 3d printing in production. Especially when we look at the values additive manufacturing brings (refer to Part 2). Additive can light-weight, building on the success of composites, and additive can efficiently meet low quantity needs – whether that is for a "high rate" 50-aircraft-a-month production line or a single part for a 50-year-old-aircraft. Each of the new technologies aerospace has nurtured, however, have been used to develop new designs fully leveraging the strength of the new technology - not simply introduced to replace other production technologies.

Also, in aerospace and defense, "mass production" numbers are much smaller than an automotive or consumer product equivalent. Somehow, so much of the additive industry ignores that the low volume manufacturing strengths of additive are a perfect fit for an industry whose “mass production" peaks at about 60 products a month. The aerospace industry recognizes this and has clamored for the AM industry to respond for decades. Why have so many decided its easier to chase larger markets with less value alignment? Does it take a rocket scientist?

Within additive, I learned FDM first. FDM is a slow technology that does its best making one part at a time. FDM is not a mass production technology for industries that produce at rates well above aerospace. On the metal side, wire-fed technologies have similar characteristics. Powder bed technologies and vat polymerization technologies are way better suited to batch volume production of small parts. I see those technologies (assuming some further material improvements) having a huge place in aerospace as well as other manufacturing industries, but, even then, unless you are seeking changes in design, the value is in small batch economics. Why do we as an industry continue to chase the volume play when the core values in additive aligns so well with low volumes? The answer to that brings me to the microwave cookbook.

In 1985, my parents bought a microwave. I was pretty young, so I have no idea if they were early adopters or late to the game, but I do remember distinctly that the talk was how this one little box was going to change how food is made (sound vaguely familiar?). This cookbook, I remember distinctly, went through how to make everything from a baked potato (not bad), to a hotdog in the bun (really?), to a (I wish I was joking) steak. The underlying assumption was that this new technology could obsolete the whole kitchen. 37 years later, I use the microwave for what it's best at – popcorn, leftovers, Hot Pockets, etc. My potatoes get baked in an oven and the hot dogs and steak go on the grill (even when it is -7°F here in Minneapolis). 

We use the best cooking technology for each application in our kitchens, and when additive is truly mature, we will be using it for the applications where it has the most impact – with new part designs unleashed or where low volume economics win. I’ve said it and I’ve heard it said, if you have a good way of making something today, keep making it that way. Additive is for solving problems and addressing gaps, not for replacing a perfectly good approach with novelty – just like a microwave. Yes you can microwave it, but should you?

To be clear, and I’ll touch on this more in a future post, the manufacturing equivalent of “steak” is what will be printed while the “hot dogs” will continue to fall to mass production.

While you are chewing on that, you have to check out this link: 30 Horrifying Recipes from a 1970s Microwave Cookbook. Nothing tops:

“I will concede that you probably CAN make grape jelly in a microwave. However, I question why the hell you would WANT to do so.”  - Jim Vorel

I will likely refer to bad 3d printing applications as grape jelly from here on out. To bring it back to the question at hand though, is 3d printing for mass production or should it be? The TLDR answer, for me, is that Yes, 3d printing is for mass production, as long as the part is designed for additive and can't be produced more efficiently any other way OR the targeted industry's definition of "mass" production is in line with the effective economics of the process.

Next time, we'll cover thoughts on the value difference between polymer and metal additive manufacturing.

#3dprinting #additivemanufacturing #aerospace #defense #aerospaceanddefense

Past Posts:

• Part 1 – Am I an Additive Manufacturing outsider yet?
• Part 2 – Where’s the real value in additive?