3D printing (3DP) offers flexibility and reduced costs for customized, low-volume products which has driven disruption. However, its impact on supply chains and claims of environmental benefits are more controversial. While 3DP lowers prototyping costs and enables innovation, high machine/material costs and slow production rates must be overcome for widespread adoption. The document evaluates 3DP's established successes critically and determines that cost reductions are needed before 3DP can significantly extend its impact beyond niche applications.

1. ISYS90051 – The Impact of Digitisation, The University of Melbourne
1
3D printing extended impact: hype or value?
Keywords: 3d printing; additive manufacturing; supply chain; environment; innovation
Introduction
3D printing (3DP) or additive manufacturing (AM) is the “digital technology for producing physical objects
layer by layer from a three-dimensional computer aided design (CAD) file”(Khajavi, Partanen, &
Holmström, 2014, p. 51). Recently in the news, there is major discussion on how 3DP can extend its impact
to wider business world such as disrupting supply chain and offering environmentally-friendly
manufacturing (Kaltenbrunner, 2014). This essay aims to study 3DP’s established successes and critically
evaluate extended impacts with literature, in order to determine role of cost in 3DP’s impact and
disruptiveness.
Cost based disruptiveness on selected areas
As Christenson’s disruptive technology theory indicates, disruptiveness of 3DP on a specific industry
mainly depends on convenience and reduction of cost compared with traditional manufacturing method
(Christensen, 2012). For high value/customized and low volume products (e.g. invisible braces, medical
implant and aerospace parts), 3DP causes major disruption by offering great flexibility to share design file
globally and switch to new printing jobs with little human intervention(Kim & Robb, 2014, p. 21). From
the view of Total Cost of Ownership(TCO), these features substantially drives down cost and time to
manufacture these products on average even though 3DP has relatively slow production rate and high
acquisition cost of machine (Kim & Robb, 2014, p. 20; Manners-Bell, 2014, p. 252).
3DP also facilitates innovation by greatly reducing costs and time of prototyping and
commercialization(Fawcett & Waller, 2014, p. 159). 3DP enables rapid prototyping at relatively lower cost,
so companies can adopt agile manufacturing to stay competitive in ever-changing market(Fawcett & Waller,
2014, p. 159; Kim & Robb, 2014, p. 20). For individuals, combining 3DP technology and crowdsourcing
on design, traditional customers will transform to producers or co-producers of future products
(Rayna & Striukova, 2015, p. 11). Although costs of 3DP machine and material can be a potential barrier,
people can take their CAD files to 3DP service bureau to produce their design just like printing digital photo
in supermarket ( Biederman, 2013, p 9; Fawcett & Waller, 2014, p. 159). After validation of ideas and
designs, with 10 % economic of scale required by mass production, producers can make a profit with 3DP
and have a better chance to succeed in market place (Hessman, 2013, p. 14). Increased innovation is going
to intensify competition and causes further disruptions (Fawcett & Waller, 2014, p. 159;
Rayna & Striukova, 2015, p. 11 ).
Controversial disruptiveness on supply chain
3DP’s benefits for supply chains are less obvious and more controversial, as it is very difficult to quantity
its impact (Bhasin & Bodla, 2014, p. 74). It is argued that 3DP enables local manufacturing and eliminates
transport between manufacturers and consumers (Kaltenbrunner, 2014). However, with a recent case study
in which aligners are produced centrally and then shipped to destinations, Kieviet and Alexander (2015, p.
36) suggests consideration on costs versus customer value still makes business choose centralized 3DP
deployment. Such centralized 3DP deployment in R&D and prototyping doesn’t impact the supply chain
at all( Ye ,2015, p. 55).
Even for decentralized 3DP deployment, costs and production rate still remain major obstacles. Distributed
3DP appears to provide a solution for inventory management and transportation cost in spare part supply
chain (Fawcett & Waller, 2014, p. 159; Garrett, 2014, p. 71). However, Khajavi et al (2014, p. 58) used

2. ISYS90051 – The Impact of Digitisation, The University of Melbourne
2
stimulation in a case study and concluded that high AM machine acquisition price and personnel
intensiveness, together with slow production rate must be overcome for decentralized deployment of 3DP.
It is worth noticing that F-18 Super Hornet environment control system in this case study “is one of the
earliest deployment of AM technology for functional product deployment” (Khajavi et al., 2014, p. 58).
The lack of dominant design and decision framework cause more difficulties for companies to decide
whether to adopt 3DP in supply chain. Currently there are about ten AM processes and there is no dominant
process yet(Huang, Liu, Mokasdar, & Hou, 2013, p. 1197). This adds the risk of losing previous investment
on chosen AM process with corresponding supply chain once other processes become dominant, according
to Tushman’s technology lifecycle model (Tushman & Rosenkopf, 1992, p.317). This issue is further
complicated as the lack of decision framework exists (Kieviet & Alexander,2015, p.36). GE stated that
there is first mover disadvantage in 3DP as companies have to start from scratch by themselves (Hessman,
2014, p. 18). Mellor, Hao, & Zhang (2014, p. 196) and Kieviet & Alexander (2015, p.37) have provided
general guideline for companies to review strategy and consider factors such as strategic benefits, supply
chain performance and complexity level. However, lack of quantifiable measures in these guideline makes
decision-making processes largely subjective.
Misplaced environment implications
3DP is claimed to be environmentally friendly based on effective use of material and reduced carbon
emission in transportation (Garrett, 2014, p. 74; Khajavi et al., 2014, p. 51). Admittedly, 3DP compared to
subtractive manufacturing, can reduce material waste (Khajavi et al., 2014, p. 51; Kaltenbrunner, 2014).
However, energy used in manufacturing process of 3DP is often neglected or misplaced and 3DP can
consume 4 times more energy than crafting in one project (Huang et al., 2013, p. 1196). To reach firm
conclusion, energy consumption during the entire 3DP operation procedure (including warming-up and
cool-down stages) should be recorded and compared with that of conventional manufacturing (Huang et al.,
2013, p. 1196). Regarding to carbon footprint in transportation, it correlates to decentralized 3DP
deployment, which can hardly be achieved in near future.
Conclusion
Cost is the most critical factor for the established success of 3DP and decentralized deployment. Without
dramatic cost reduction to justify potential risks, it is not feasible for 3DP to extend its impact beyond
prototyping and manufacturing of high value products. This essay uses case studies on aerospace and
healthcare, in which 3DP has proven success, to clarify the hype of 3DP in the news. It also pointed out
that 3DP’s environment implications is misplaced because of mismeasured energy consumption, and
highlights the importance to quantify 3DP’s impacts in future studies.
(Word count: 999)

3. ISYS90051 – The Impact of Digitisation, The University of Melbourne
3
Reference
Bhasin, V., & Bodla, M. R. (2014). Impact of 3D printing on global supply chains by 2020 (Doctoral dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
Biederman, D. (2013). HYPE OR REALITY?. Journal Of Commerce (15307557), 4-11
Christensen, C. (2012). Disruptive Innovation. Clayton Christensen. Retrieved 14 September 2015, from
http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/
Fawcett, S. E., & Waller, M. A. (2014). Supply Chain Game Changers-Mega, Nano, and Virtual Trends-And Forces
That Impede Supply Chain Design (i.e., Building a Winning Team). Journal of Business Logistics, 35(3),
157–164. Retrieved from
https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN
=98256004&site=eds-live&scope=site
Garrett, B. (2014). 3D Printing: New Economic Paradigms and Strategic Shifts. Global Policy, 5(1), 70–. Retrieved
from
https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN
=94609631&site=eds-live&scope=site
Hessman, T. (2014). Will 3-D Supply Meet GE's Sky-High Demand?. Material Handling & Logistics, 69(2), 16-19.
Hessman, T. (2013). Reprinting the supply chain: within the next decade, additive manufacturing could make our
complicated global supply chain obsolete, replacing it with a new economy based on a high-tech system of
local, connected suppliers. Material Handling & Logistics, (7). 11.
Huang, S. H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., & Hou, L. (2013). Additive manufacturing and its societal impact: a literature
review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 67(5-8), 1191–1203.
Kaltenbrunner, H. (2014). How 3D printing is set to shake up manufacturing supply chains. the Guardian. Retrieved
13 September 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/25/how-3d-printing-
is-set-to-shake-up-manufacturing-supply-chains
Khajavi, S. H., Partanen, J., & Holmström, J. (2014). Additive manufacturing in the spare parts supply chain.
Computers in Industry, 65(1), 50–63. Retrieved from
https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN
=91952480&site=eds-live&scope=site
Kieviet, A., & Alexander, S. M. (2015). Is your supply chain ready for additive manufacturing?. Supply Chain
Management Review, (3). 34.
Kim, J., & Robb, D. (2014). 3D PRINTING. University of Auckland Business Review, 17(1), 16–25. Retrieved from
https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN
=101487945&site=eds-live&scope=site
Manners-Bell, J. (2014). Global logistics strategies : delivering the goods. London : Kogan Page, 2014.
Mellor, S., Hao, L., & Zhang, D. (2014). Additive manufacturing: A framework for implementation. International
Journal of Production Economics, 149, 194–201. Retrieved from
https://ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edselp&
AN=S0925527313003204&site=eds-live&scope=site
Rayna, T., & Striukova, L. (2015). From rapid prototyping to home fabrication: How 3D printing is changing
business model innovation. Technological Forecasting & Social Change,
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.023
Tushman, M. L., & Rosenkopf, L. (1992). Organizational determinants of technological-change-toward a sociology
of technological evolution. Research in organizational behavior, 14, 311-347.
Ye, M. (2015). The Impact of 3D Printing on the World Container Transport. TU Delft, Delft University of
Technology.