When 3D printing becomes mainstream, it will have a major impact on many aspects of manufacturing and design processes. In the next weeks, I am writing a series of posts on how I think the 3D printing revolution will unfold and what impact it can have. In this first post, I am writing about the impact on supply chain.

So what is supply chain? Wikipedia defines it as:

A supply chain is a system of organizations, people, technology, activities, information and resources involved in moving a product or service from supplier to customer. Supply chain activities transform natural resources, raw materials and components into a finished product that is delivered to the end customer. In sophisticated supply chain systems, used products may re-enter the supply chain at any point where residual value is recyclable. Supply chains link value chains. (source: Wikipedia)

A typical supply chain for a product goes from product design to delivery to the customer. In the following graph is a simplified example of typical supply chain for a product. As many products, it is manufactured in Asia, and sold in one of the Western countries.

Now let us assume that 3D printing and personal fabrication become mainstream — either using a personal 3D printer or a local service. How does the same supply chain look like then?

As you can see, the supply chain is greatly simplified. The simplification is possible, because of a unique characteristic of 3D printing, which is the ability to manufacture different designs without building a complete production line for each and every product. It opens up the doors for localized production facilities close to consumer concentrations.

Another benefit is that there is no need for the production of large batches to offset the investments necessary for setting up the supply chain, tooling, production lines and transporting the product to the customer location. This reduces risks in the supply chain for product failures. With 3D printing, the production can take place in small batches or as one-offs, which makes it possible to adapt a product design almost immediately.

To summarize, the simplification of supply chain using 3D printing can lead to:

• Shorter lead times
• Reduced supply chain risk
• Reduction of transportation costs

Today 3D printed parts are still expensive compared to their mass-produced counterparts. But I am confident that gap will close in the coming years. The growth of the industry will lead to lower prices for machine and materials. Another caveat is that not every product can be 3D printed yet — either as a whole in one go or even in parts. That is a bigger gap to close. Though options exist to mix-and-match products sourcing both from 3D printed parts and off-the-shelf mass-produced parts. I expect that the transition will be more gradual than revolutionary.

I see significant benefits for 3D printing and personal fabrication for supply chain. It is not surprising that high-end manufacturers like Boeing, EADS and General Electric are already actively using or researching the options for 3D printing for the manufacturing of their products. As 3D printing further matures, the technology becomes within reach of a larger group of manufacturers. At some point, the manufacturers like we know today will vanish. Just like they did when all manufacturing moved to Asia.

An interesting aspect of design in relation to personal fabrication and customized design is fit for purpose. How do you determine a product is good enough for its intended purpose? And who is responsible that a product you buy is fit for the purpose you intended?

With fit to purpose, I mean that a design properly supports the intended function it was designed for. For example, a necklace should not break while wearing it, or a coffee cup should not break in the dishwasher. Manufacturing companies spent a lot of time and effort to test their products before they are manufactured and shipped to their customers. For them, it is risk mitigation to avoid returns and warranty issues down the line. No mass-producing manufacturer wants to risk losing large volume batches of products.

With personal fabrication and online creation, the relationship between designer, manufacturer and the customer is changing. Customers can make or manipulate their own designs and choose the materials they want to use for the fabrication of their product. But they are no experts. How do you make sure that their designs are fit for purpose? And how about designs made and sold by hobbyists or semi-professionals? Who is responsible when there is a problem?

When personal fabrication becomes more commonplace than product liability issues like fit for purpose can become a problem, as well. Liabilities are often shared in the supply chain, but that only makes sense when the liabilities are known. With personalized fabrication and customized design, the liabilities are unknown. How are we going to handle that?

A lot of product categories have mandatory regulations applied to them for instance children’s toys. But when you think about personal fabrication or customization, it is impossible to comply with those regulations when you do not control the design. Do these regulations need to be adapted?

I think there are lots of questions still to be answered in the areas of product liability, product regulations and fit for purpose in general. It is one of those essential preconditions to be tackled for personal fabrication and customized production to grow. There has not been a lot of traction around these topics yet, and I hope — no, expect — that will change soon. It is the reason for me to bring it up (again).

One of the appealing aspects of 3D printing is the freedom the designer has in his design. But even with 3D printing there are limitations to what a 3D printer can produce. These limitations are inherent to a specific 3D printing process. In this post, I go into one of these limitations which is structural strength.

Structural strength is one of the most important limitation to recognize when designing for 3D printing. It defines if a 3D printed part can survive the different steps involved in the manufacturing of the part — from printing to cleaning until shipping.

Structural strength is also almost impossible to assess. For that reason, the structural strength is translated into a minimum wall thickness requirement / design rule. The minimum wall thickness is an approximation of a structural strength analysis, but is far easier to assess by an operator, than the structural strength itself.

Since it is an approximation of structural strength, the minimal wall thickness requirements can differ from operator to operator. Also, the print orientation of the critical areas or features of a part can impact the minimal wall thickness.

Difference between wall thickness and feature size

A wall is a structural part of the design. A feature is a protrusion or extrusion on a part which is not a structural part of the design.

A feature is any part of the design where the cross-section of the feature is smaller than the required minimum wall thickness.

Wall thickness design requirements

When I think of wall thickness, there are three distinct design requirements. I call them:

1. Bridges
2. Wings
3. Spikes

A bridge connects two distinct larger features of part. A great example is the neck of a figurine. The neck bridges the head and torso.

A wing is a surface area with variable thickness. Some parts of the wall are adhering to the minimum wall thickness; other parts are not. An example is a surface area, which is thick enough on one end and too thin at the other end. Like the wing of an airplane.

Spikes are lengthy protrusions starting with a base, which adheres to the minimum wall thickness, and ends with a top not adhering to the minimum wall thickness. An example are the nose hears on a mouse.

Two examples

In the image on the top, you can see that the arm of the robot has broken off. This is a bridge problem. The critical part of the design is the connection of the arm to the shoulder. The connection is too thin to provide enough strength for connecting the heavy the lower part of the arm. In this case, the part was printed, cleaned and post-finished without problems. The part broke during shipment.

The image of the bottom shows a dragon with wings. The wings are actually solid planes in the 3D design, but they can out of the printer looking like this. The solid planes of the wings were too thin to be printed correctly. This is an example of the wing problem.

Other considerations

3D printing processes with a fragile green-state are an exception to the wall thickness requirements. With those processes, the wall thickness is a dynamic variable based on the design of the part. Green-state processes use a binder during printing and have a second process step to strengthen the part. I will explore this topic in more detail in another post. Examples of green-state processes are 3DP (ZCorp, Voxeljet and derivatives) and ProMetal. Non green-state processes are SLS, DMLS, SLA, Polyjet Matrix (Objet) and FDM (Stratasys, RepRap and derivatives like Makerbot).

Another exception is a large, thin surface or plane. Even though, it adheres to the minimum wall thickness, and has the required structural strength, it can still pose a problem for the printing process. Most printing processes use heat during the production of the part. This heat is not perfectly distributed over the build-area. When a large, thin surface is unevenly heated, it will warp and bend. This is also a topic for another post.

Structural strength is an important consideration during the design of a part for 3D printing. When adhering to the minimum wall thickness requirement for a specific process or even over-engineering the critical areas, than any problems can be avoided. Since the minimum wall thickness requirement is only an approximation of the structural strength requirements, it is possible to defy the rules in certain cases. But requires export knowledge on the process and close cooperation with the operator to ensure the right location, orientation and handling of the part during the production process.

The last couple of posts, I wrote about several factors, which I consider as key success factors for online creation in the context of 3D printing. This post is a summary of these posts.

To sum up I wrote about:

• Immediate Context
• Frictionless Creation
• Open-ended Creation
• Product Relevancy

Here is how I would define each of these factors:

Immediate Context
People want to grasp immediately the context on how a particular concept applies to them when they use or see a product for the first time. They need to be able to understand how to use it and what they can do with it. Even when it is only at a superficial level. It needs to answer questions like “What does it mean for me?” and “How would I use it?”. When a product (or service) has these attributes, it provides immediate context.

Frictionless Creation
Frictionless creation means that the level of effort to create is extremely low to (preferably) non-existent. A user who visits an internet service for the first time can immediately participate in the creation process if he wishes. The act of creation — and many times, interaction — is extremely simple. Services like Facebook and Twitter are excellent examples of frictionless creation. They user does not need a tutorial or watch a video to participate.

Open-ended Creation
Open-ended creation allows the user to create, but does not limit him in either form and/or function in the creation process. Open-ended creation allows for more elaborate, creative expressions compared to closed-ended creation.
An example is twitter. People use it for conversations, news notifications or link sharing. Twitter does not restrict the use cases and limits only the form. Not the function. You see a lot of creative expressions based on Twitter because of that design decision. It allowed the platform for creation to become greater than its creators could have foreseen.

Product Relevancy
There are three factors, which makes a product relevant in the context of 3D printing:

1. Design (form and function) — The product has an intended use, and it should support that in an optimal way. The form itself should be appealing to the target audience.
2. Material(s) — Material should be applicable for the design and support the intended function of the product. Often it needs to look and feel good. But also longevity, resistance to outside influences and sturdiness are important requirements.
3. Price — Price is a fluid definition with regard to relevancy. For instance a higher price for a particular product, can make it more relevant. The same applies the other way around. In the end, the price should be in line with expectations of the target customers.

All three product relevancy factors work together as a system. I mean with that better materials lead to higher price, which in turn can lower the product relevancy. It is a balancing act.

The combination of all four factors will create the killer application for 3D printing. At least, that is my current line of thinking. The advancement of 3D printing technology combined new novel approaches to create products online have to proof this in the coming years. I am sure we will get there. Somehow.

My last couple of posts on online creation, I wrote about frictionless creation, product relevancy and immediate context. I think all these factors are important to make online creation successful. In this last post of the series, I am writing about open-ended and closed-ended creation.

Let me explain what I mean with Open-ended and Closed-ended Online Creation. Closed-ended is online creation within limits, and the end goal or purpose of creating is clear. As a user, you can configure or modify but cannot fundamentally change the form and function of what the creation should be. Perfect examples are product configurators. It gives you freedom to express, but the end result keeps — more or less — the same form and function.

Open-ended creation allows you to create but does not limit either form and/or function. It is up to the user to determine what it shall be. Example is twitter. People use it for conversations, news notifications or link sharing. Twitter does not restrict the use cases and limits only the form. Not the function. You see a lot of creative expressions based on Twitter because of that design decision. It allowed the platform for creation to become greater than its creators could have foreseen.

Obviously, open-ended creation allows for more elaborate, creative expressions. The key to success though is to either limit the form or function to make it understandable and doable from a user’s perspective.

Designing content for 3D printing today is hard because of this. There are two options to create content; 3D design software and product configurators. 3D design software offers no limits, but adds lots of friction due to the complexity and steep learning curve. Or we have product configurators, which are only mildly successful because they limit too much — both form and function at the same time.

An interesting concept is Mineways in this regard. It is an extremely simple 3D editor which is open-ended in form and function. Another one, which comes to mind, is TinkerCAD, though I still feel it does not give enough context to make me excited.

The key for success for 3d printing is easy creation and modification of designs. My dream is to enable frictionless creation combined with strong open-ended abilities for expressing creativity. I hope we can get there!

In the last couple of weeks, I wrote about Online Creation. Things I am thinking about are, what makes a product relevant? What motivates people to create online? One of the striking aspects of creation is that when you give people a blank canvas, they have no inspiration on what to create. This is called the Blank Canvas Syndrome.

I think one of the major barriers to overcome for Personal Fabrication & 3D Printing for home users is solving the Blank Canvas Syndrome.

An important aspect of the online creation process is immediate context. People need to immediately grasp the context on how a particular concept applies to them. They need to be able to understand how to use it and what they can do with it. Even when it is only at a superficial level.

• What does it mean for me?
• How would I use it?

When looking at creation for 3D printing, there is, for example, TinkerCAD. TinkerCAD is an awesome 3D online creation tool. It is easy to use and simple to understand. But if you show it to somebody, they do know what to do with it. It is missing immediate context. The same applies to 3D printers as a whole. If you ask, they do not know.

If you look at Twitter and Facebook, it is immediately clear what the context is and how it would apply to the user. I regard Twitter and Facebook also as online creation services. I think their success is very much related to this.

If you look at 3D printing of products, one of the latest popular successes was printing of your Minecraft creations. Eric Haines wrote a software application to export Minecraft models and save them as readily 3D printable files. The power of this concept is that there is no need to explain the proposition to the users. It generated immediate excitement among the Minecraft community.

Now I do not want to say that Minecraft is the ultimate 3D printing proposition — far from it — but it does show that easy to understand concepts work way better than more free-form solutions. At least for the general public. I hope we see more examples popping up in the coming year, and I would love to hear ideas on how to improve immediate context for 3D printing.

In my post Reality Check for 3D Printing I wrote about a few critical blog posts and news items on 3D printing. The question on the table is: what is the killer application of 3D printing? It is an interesting question and I think there is none. Or at least no specific killer application. What is the killer application for an inkjet printer? What is the killer application for a computer? What is the killer application of the web?

In each of these cases, there is no killer application. When I first showed the web — using mosaic — to my mom and dad, they looked at me and had no clue what I was talking about. None. You could argue that the web is the killer application of the Internet. Or is it email? Or is it my Twitter mobile app? Or maybe Skype? Or all of the above?

Same applies for regular printers. Who can remember The Print Shop (version 23.1 — amazing!) from Broderbund? You could make endless banners with it or front pages for your own photo albums. All neatly printed on your dot matrix printer. Nobody is doing that anymore. The quality was low, to say the least, but still everybody made them. So why do you have a printer? I cannot think of a specific killer application for 2D printers. Though it is useful to have a printer.

When I think about the killer application of 3D printing, I think about personal fabrication. That in itself will mean different things for different people. It could be that an architect or designer want to print their professional designs. Or it can be the unique production of a cool dice for a Warhammer player. I cannot look into the future. But the prospect to design, customize and make your own things at home, design them exactly according to your own specifications while not going to a store, just sounds so appealing to me. What do you think?

Update: Fabricatis wrote down his thoughts on the killer application for 3D printing. Recommended reading!

On a regular basis, I hear people telling me that they do not know what to make with a 3D printer. Or that do not see the point of 3D printing or personal fabrication. In some cases, they take a look at the products available at Shapeways and do not find anything that interests them. They find it to be expensive or geeky or uninteresting. But it all boils down to relevancy! There is a lot of talk about the killer application for 3D printing. But how you look at it, it comes down to making things — making products. The challenge for 3D printing is to what you make relevant.

So what makes a product relevant? I see three factors, which makes a product relevant in the context of 3D printing:

1. Design (form and function)
2. Material(s)
3. Price

Design
The design is all about form and function. The product has an intended use, and it should support that in an optimal way. The form itself should be appealing to the target audience.

Material
Material should be applicable for the design and support the intended function of the product. Often it needs to look and feel good. But also longevity, resistance to outside influences and sturdiness are important requirements.

Price
Price is a fluid definition with regard to relevancy. For instance a higher price for a particular product, can make it more relevant. The same applies the other way around. If it is too expensive, than it is simply not worth it, and it will not sell. Obviously price should cover cost and margin. In the end, the price should be in line with expectations of the target customers.

All three factors work together as a system. I mean with that better materials lead to higher price, which in turn can lower the product relevancy. It is a balancing act.

For example, you find a vase and want to have it made. The material is glazed ceramics. It measures 5x5x12 inches. Sounds good, right? If I tell you, the price ia $300 and delivery takes 3 weeks. Still interested? Another example you find a beautiful lamp shade. It costs $350, but it is absolute you stunning. But then you read that you have to use a LED or other low temperature bulb. Are you still willing to pay $350 for that?

3D printing is quite popular in high-end design. High-end design is less sensitive to cost. Larger pieces are expensive but high-end design can live with that. They also have margin to spare on post-finishing the products to improve the look and feel of the material, as well.

With Shapeways, we try to lower the barrier of entry for relevant products custom made using 3D printing. By applying mass-production know-how, and adapting it to unique one-off production, we are reducing the cost of 3D printing. We also invest in offering of post-finishing options to improve the look and feel of 3D printed products. It is our continuing quest to raise the relevancy of our product portfolio. It is our goal to enable everyone to buy, make and sell cool and relevant products on Shapeways.

One of the major barriers for the success of personal fabrication is the ability to create or modify 3D models on your own. The current generation of 3D design tools are not easy to use, and require a substantial amount of investment of personal time to master. For real enthusiasts and hobbyists, this is not a barrier, but for the casual user the barrier insurmountable. The casual user market is where the big opportunities are for personal fabrication. Without them, personal fabrication will never get off the ground big time.

What does it take to get somebody to create? To me the major driver is frictionless creation. Frictionless creation means that the level of effort to create is low to non-existent. Internet users are creating content on the Internet all the time. Services like Facebook and Twitter are excellent examples of frictionless creation. Those services can engage huge communities and let them create content and interact with that content. The list of features offered by those services is very limited. For users, it is easy to understand and grasp the concept offered by these services.

The concept of frictionless creation not only applies to internet services alone, but also applies to software in general.

The current generation of 3D design tools and services has a high level of friction. They are complex, expensive and have a high learning curve. A possible solution is to make very specific and easy to use applications. An example is the Sake Creator at Shapeways. These applications are product configurators. They are easy to use, and let the user create meaningful and quality designs. But they have very narrow and explicit use cases. The number of variations are limited and will only appeal to certain users. Inspired users will be frustrated by these applications.

Characteristics of frictionless creation:

• extremely low barrier of entry
• instant sense of applicability to the user
• ability to see what others are doing to learn and be inspired
• extremely focused set of features
• wide range of variations & use cases to express user’s creativity

If we go back to making 3D models to drive personal fabrication, I do not think that most people will use 3D design software like we use word processors today. The opportunities lie in creating a frictionless creation platform. That will make a world of difference.