Executive Summary

3D printing is a disruptive innovation that holds the future of manufacturing. Disruptive innovations encompass the process of establishing a service or product within the bottom tier market and later dominating the upper markets. The use of 3D printing has equally been touted as a disruptive innovation owing to its potential to present an alternative to conventional forms of manufacturing. It encompasses the production and generation of tangible products by using machine tools that are digitally controlled. Although 3D printing is relatively new in application and theory, its use dates back to the first application of polymers. The use of 3D printing currently dominates a wide array of industries to enhance the processes of manufacturing and production. The findings of this report point to the fact that 3D printing is a disruptive innovation largely because of its potential to upset traditional methods of manufacturing.

PART 2A

Introduction

Background Information

The term disruptive innovation was coined by Christensen to describe the process through which a service or product is established within the bottom sphere of the market and later dominates the upper market through displacement (Markides, 2006, p. 21). The concept is facilitated by an overreliance on faster innovations by existing producers thus developing highly sophisticated and expensive products for their high end customers. Because of the sophisticated nature of the products, producers can maintain high profitability while assuming the bottom niche of the market. Nonetheless, the focus on highly profitable products leaves a gap within the bottom markets by making the available products to be affordable to only a small section of the market (Daneels, 2004, p. 253). In this sense, the producers leave a door of opportunity for disruptive innovations to take root and later compete with the existing products. The new disruptive innovations allow a larger access of historically inaccessible products to large populations of consumers at the lower markets.

Purpose

One of the best examples of disruptive technologies is the emergence of 3D printing in recent years. While the technology has been in existence for many decades, its use and integration has widened in the recent past owing to, among other things, the decrease in costs. The purpose of this report is to explore the disruptive nature of 3D printing as an emerging business trend in the market. The use of 3D printing has been touted as an alternative to traditional forms of manufacturing by allowing for personal manufacturing of products either at home or in industries (Sauramo, 2014, p. 42).

Scope

The scope of the report is limited to the prospects of 3D printing as a disruptive innovation. The report only explores the literature with regard to the concept of 3D printing and the characteristics of disruptive innovations. Data used in this report is sourced from literature related to the subject under evaluation. In addition, the insights of both Christensen (1997) and Markides (2006) are incorporated into the report with specific emphasis on the characteristics of disruptive innovations.

Outline

The report is structured to include an introduction, body, conclusion and recommendations with reference to the disruptive innovation of 3D printing.

PART 2B

Body

Background Information

According to Aitken (2015, p. 12), 3D printing encompasses the generation and production of tangible products through the use of machine tools that are digitally controlled. The beauty of using 3D printing is in the addition of materials selectively in layers as opposed to the traditional machining of materials. In recent years, the concept has gained ground among personal and industrial production processes. The establishment of 3D printing as an alternative to traditional manufacturing processes makes it a disruptive innovation as it allows for people to make their own products at home affordably (Schimdt & Druehl, 2008, p. 349). Indeed, there is consensus among practitioners and scholars on the prospects of 3D printing to disruptively change the course of manufacturing. The very nature of the concept allows for customization of products to fit the varying tastes across different customers thus making it even more attractive to consumers. The concept is only emerging and is therefore exploited by a smaller segment of the society (Weller et al, 2015, p. 61). It is expected that the uptake of the concept will increase in coming years following positive developments in pricing and usability of the technology.

Literature Review

Although 3D printing is relatively new in application and theory, its use dates back to the first application of polymers. However, the concept proliferated with the integration of other material including metals, chocolate and bio products gaining momentum in later years (Chia & Wu, 2015, p. 4). The concept has been touted as a magical, revolutionary and disruptive technology owing to its various attributes. It simply uses the combination of software and creativity to produce physical objects in three dimensions structured through a digital blueprint (Yu & Hang, 2010, p. 441). Consequently, 3D printing can be used to customize production at both personal and industrial levels of manufacturing. According to Hahn et al, (2014, p. 12) the first concept of 3D printing involved the layering of plastics to design models in a method known as fused deposition modeling. In recent years, however, selective laser sintering has been employed through the use of powdered materials including titanium and aluminum (Rengier et al, 2010, p. 337). Currently, most 3D printing technologies use polymers although there is a potential for the development of metallic use. Today, the use of metals in 3D printing is increasing faster as compared to that of polymers of yesteryears (Bak, 2003, p. 345).

The use of 3D printing currently dominates a wide array of industries to enhance the processes of manufacturing and production. For instance, architecture, food, medicine and military industries take up a huge portion of the 3D printing technology with applications in various departments (Lipson & Kurman, 2013, p. 32). Accordingly, the use of 3D printing is predominant in the medical field with applications in the customization of medication, hearing aids as well as implants (Gross et al, 2014, p. 58). Further, 3D printing can be incorporated in the processes of bone and tissue engineering to facilitate the current production (Boose et al, 2013, p. 501). With the growth in awareness coupled with maturity of the technology, 3D printing is increasing in popularity to include many more industries. The open sharing of designs among communities and programs of 3D enthusiasts further helps in the improvement of the concept. Applications include the formulation and printing of a new hand for a soldier who lost their hand in the battlefield. According to Campbell et al, (2011, p. 27) the use of the concept not only affects the production of products but also the functioning of the organizations.

The use of 3D printing is expected to make supply chains even more flexible through a shift in focus towards design, raw materials, consumer production and localized productions (Perez et al, 2013, p 1052). In this system, there will be new challenges as well as opportunities for supply chain management rather than ruling out the process entirely. Essentially, businesses and companies involved in manufacturing of products must redefine their value streams to maintain their competitive edges in the long run. The concept of 3D printing bestows numerous benefits upon the manufacturers and consumers by availing an alternative to traditional systems of production (Ladd et al, 2013, p. 5082). Despite the anticipated benefits of 3D printing, the concept is associated with a number of issues including a lack of supportive framework and funding. That notwithstanding, however, the prospects of 3D printing as a disruptive technology cannot be undermined.

 

Methodology

The report is based on a thorough review of literature and available material regarding the different aspects of 3D printing. Information in this report is drawn from across different disciplines such as management, engineering and social sciences in coming up with a holistic conclusion. The literature used was selected through a search of keywords related to 3D printing terminologies using Google Scholar. The majority of search results emanated from sciences including the medical fields thus implying the growing interest of the concept in these areas (Ventola, 2014, p. 708). The range of dates of publication was not limited although emphasis was given to materials published within the last five years. The search was also kept broad to include as many applications as possible thus facilitating the identification of different characteristics of 3D printing as a disruptive innovation. In total, 20 articles and books were reviewed and used for the formulation of this report.

Findings

The findings of this report point to the fact that 3D printing is a disruptive innovation largely because of its potential to upset traditional methods of manufacturing. In addition, research shows that 3D printing identifies a new population customer base while encroaching on the already available high end customers. In fact, it is expected that 3D printing has the potential of reaching out to the personal producers through the customization of products for immediate use. Currently, a large population of citizens has a tendency of doing things on their own thus forming a huge client base for 3D printers. It is expected that the continued decrease in the price of 3D printers will increase the uptake of the technology thus proliferating the usage within a very short span of time. Consequently, 3D has been regarded as a highly feasible technological alternative to the traditional forms of manufacturing. Based on its characteristics, the concept is highly regarded as a disruptive innovation.

Studies have approximated that 3D printing will witness an annual growth rate of over 14% in the years preceding 2020 (Klein et al, 2013, p. 234). In other industries, the rate ids even higher including the automotive industry which is expected to witness rates of up to 27%. It is not surprising, therefore, that researchers have asserted that the first 3D printed car should be in operation before the end of 2025.  Besides witnessing increase in adoption, 3D printing technologies will create far more disruptions than already anticipated through indirect effects. For instance, the concept has the advantage of eliminating the costs for tooling and setup that dominate conventional methods of production. In the year 2025, it is expected that more than 5% of the total consumer products will be manufactured through 3D printing technology.

Discussion

The results of this report are clearly in support of the feasibility of 3D printing in manufacturing processes. In addition, there is enough evidence to identify the concept as having the attributes of a disruptive technology. Not only does the technology disrupts the turbulence especially among the bottom segment of the market but also creates a new customer base. Further, the employment of the technology allows for businesses to shift from mass production to a state of mass personalization. Products are now customized to suit the different needs of consumers thereby increasing the reach of the products among the customers. In the past, production of cars was for instance a reserve of the affluent in society. However, with the increased adoption of 3D printing, it is becoming easier for less affluent people to produce automotives.

In the next few years, the purchase of 3D printers is expected to hits a record figure as more people rush to produce customized and personalized products. By allowing for quick production processes, the concept of 3D printing reduces the necessity for physical inventory. In so doing, companies have the opportunity for reducing their costs of production while maximizing the efficiency of production. In this regard, therefore, 3D printing is disruptive in that it disrupts conventional ways of production (Jain & Sharma, 2017, p. 12). The expansion of 3D printing is a base technology for future developments in production processes. It is expected that the concept will lead to the development of new sectors of manufacturing and production. In the future, the technology is touted to continue expanding through integration into the current sectors of manufacturing. Also, the expansion of 3D printing is expected to result in the development of 4D printing and its integration into actual production processes.

PART 2C

Conclusion

About 100 millenniums ago, the processes of manufacturing were largely based on the scraping of objects. People of the time would scrape rocks against each other until they were sharp enough for use as tools and weapons. Today, the most disruptive technology in manufacturing is 3D printing with 4D printing anticipated to take over in the coming years. Ideally, disruption in manufacturing is not a new thing and has been happening for thousands of years. The concept of 3D printing is rather complex thus resulting in the need for reengineering of the existing production processes. The current technology of 3D printing produces an actual thing raging from automotives to small buttons. Through its processes, the concept has all the attributes of a disruptive innovation as it allows for widespread access of the process of manufacturing.

3D printing is an additive process of manufacturing that is different from conventional processes of manufacturing. The concept integrates digital blueprints and prints the same layer by layer to come up with a final actual product. The printers use modifiable content to mould the desired products into shape before hardening the product. The disruptive nature of the technology makes it an ideal fit and an alternative to the conventional methods of production. It is true that the technology can be used in a wide array of industries thus facilitating the development of new industries of manufacturing in the process. The concept has applications in sectors such as the military, medical fields and food manufacturing and is a viable option in the current world (Schubert et al, 2013, p. 42). Despite the benefits of having 3D printing technology, it is faced with numerous technological issues including lack of funding and absence of requisite support framework.

Recommendations

1. The government should encourage companies to adopt the technology through funding and tax subsidies. In addition, the governments should fund research into the concept of 3D printing.
2. There is also a burgeoning need to set industry standards that can be used as a base to provide consumers and producers with assurances of high quality.
3. The 3D printing technology provides for increased infringement on user property rights. The government should thus come up with better ways of ensuring the respect of property and intellectual rights of innovators.
4. There is a need for a new generation of machines to ensure that production speeds are at par with the conventional speeds of manufacturing. This is especially the case with mass production of similar products.
5. The technology is further compounded by the high cost of acquiring 3D printers. There is a need for governments to subsidize the purchase of these printers to make them more affordable to the general public.
6. The government should also address the demand for better materials. Currently, the polymers in use have as lower degree of recyclability as opposed to the metals.

NB: Word Count 2,486 words excluding title page, content’s table, references and appendix

References

Aitken-Palmer, W., 2015. A market-based approach to 3d printing for economic development in Ghana.

Bak, D., 2003. Rapid prototyping or rapid production? 3D printing processes move industry towards the latter. Assembly Automation, 23(4), pp.340-345.

Bose, S., Vahabzadeh, S. and Bandyopadhyay, A., 2013. Bone tissue engineering using 3D printing. Materials Today, 16(12), pp.496-504.

Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, O. and Garrett, B., 2011. Could 3D printing change the world. Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Additive Manufacturing, Atlantic Council, Washington, DC.

Chia, H.N. and Wu, B.M., 2015. Recent advances in 3D printing of biomaterials. Journal of biological engineering, 9(1), p.4.

Danneels, E., 2004. Disruptive technology reconsidered: A critique and research agenda. Journal of product innovation management, 21(4), pp.246-258.

Gross, B.C., Erkal, J.L., Lockwood, S.Y., Chen, C. and Spence, D.M., 2014. Evaluation of 3D printing and its potential impact on biotechnology and the chemical sciences.

Hahn, F., Jensen, S. and Tanev, S., 2014. Disruptive Innovation vs Disruptive Technology: The Disruptive Potential of the Value Propositions of 3D Printing Technology Startups. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(12).

JAIN, A.K. and SHARMA, N., 2017. Characteristics of Disruptive Innovations-Revisited. International Journal of Scientific Research, 5(10).

Klein, G.T., Lu, Y. and Wang, M.Y., 2013. 3D printing and neurosurgery—ready for prime time?. World neurosurgery, 80(3), pp.233-235.

Ladd, C., So, J.H., Muth, J. and Dickey, M.D., 2013. 3D printing of free standing liquid metal microstructures. Advanced Materials, 25(36), pp.5081-5085.

Lipson, H. and Kurman, M., 2013. Fabricated: The new world of 3D printing. John Wiley & Sons.

Markides, C., 2006. Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of product innovation management, 23(1), pp.19-25.

Perez, M.A., Ramos, J., Espalin, D., Hossain, M.S. and Wicker, R.B., 2013, August. Ranking model for 3D printers. In Proceedings of the 2013 Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (pp. 1048-1065).

Rengier, F., Mehndiratta, A., von Tengg-Kobligk, H., Zechmann, C.M., Unterhinninghofen, R., Kauczor, H.U. and Giesel, F.L., 2010. 3D printing based on imaging data: review of medical applications. International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 5(4), pp.335-341.

Sauramo, H., 2014. The proliferation of a new-market disruptive innovation: case personal 3D printers.

Schmidt, G.M. and Druehl, C.T., 2008. When is a disruptive innovation disruptive?. Journal of product innovation management, 25(4), pp.347-369.

Schubert, C., Van Langeveld, M.C. and Donoso, L.A., 2013. Innovations in 3D printing: a 3D overview from optics to organs. British Journal of Ophthalmology, pp.bjophthalmol-2013.

Ventola, C.L., 2014. Medical applications for 3D printing: current and projected uses. PT, 39(10), pp.704-711.

Weller, C., Piller, F.T. and Wentzel, D., 2015. Economic perspectives on 3D printing (Doctoral dissertation, Dissertation, RWTH Aachen University).

Yu, D. and Hang, C.C., 2010. A reflective review of disruptive innovation theory. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(4), pp.435-452.

 

Appendix 1

PART 3: Managing the Assignment

The group assignment involved an evaluation of 3D printing as a disruptive innovation. The potential of the technology in upsetting the current conventional method of manufacturing is explored with regard to future developments. In undertaking the assignment the group reviewed past literature on the concepts of 3D printing and disruptive innovations. In total, 21 literature materials were reviewed including scholarly articles and books. Being a group assignment and considering the bulkiness of the report, we allocated different roles to each member. At first, everyone was required to read and review available literature selected through Google Scholar. Further, the sections of the report were divided among the members with each of us tackling a key area of the report. The review of literature was highly prioritized thus requiring that each member handles the same. There were regular weekly meetings to evaluate the performance of the group as well as that of the individuals to ensure timelines were achieved.

Overall, the group performance was nothing short of exceptional. Each of the members managed to complete their sections in time allowing for a timely compilation of the report. Despite the smooth sail in the execution of the group assignment, there were challenges regarding time and availability. For instance, some of the members were not available on the set meeting dates prompting for occasional virtual meetings. Perhaps, the perfect execution of the group assignment is attributable to the possession of different skills. Leadership skills of time management and communication skills were most prevalent allowing for better organization of the group. Following the completion of the assignment, I have become a better time manager and I can also work under minimal supervision and immense pressure. In future, I would change the assignment of roles through a focus on individual strengths. For instance, the allocation of roles to members should be voluntary and should match the strengths of each member.

Do you need an Original High Quality Academic Custom Essay?