Why Additive Manufacturing Matters for Industrial Companies
Many industrial companies rely on external suppliers for spare parts, which often leads to long delivery times, higher costs, and risks to production continuity. One strategic way to address this challenge is by introducing in-house additive manufacturing capacity, especially industrial 3D printing and metal additive manufacturing, which enable in-house spare parts production with significantly shorter lead times. Establishing additive manufacturing not only brings cost savings but also strengthens supply chain resilience and creates opportunities for entirely new service models.
Common Challenges in Implementing Additive Manufacturing
Typical mistakes companies make:
- Focusing on machine acquisition without a clear business logic or usage model.
- Underestimating the complexity of software and process integration.
- Insufficient evaluation of the impact on existing supply chains and workflows.
- Failing to manage the full AM workflow complexity — from design to printing and post-processing.
- Missing digital thread and MES/ERP integration
👉 Result: Investments fail to deliver expected benefits, leaving equipment underutilized.
Where Additive Manufacturing Projects Go Wrong
Success in these initiatives does not depend solely on technology—it relies heavily on the business model and ROI justification.
Common weaknesses observed in the industry:
1. Lack of Business Logic & ROI Before Selecting AM Technology
-
Purchasing devices without defined business models, use-case scenarios, or ROI analysis.
-
Equipment remains underutilized since it is not integrated into the broader value chain.
2. Poor Software, CAD/CAM & Process Integration
-
Underestimating the complexity of connecting CAD/CAM software, PLM systems, and ERP.
-
Lack of digital data flow from design to production.
3. Underestimating Supply Chain & Spare Parts Impact
-
Unexpected issues with logistics, material storage, and supplier qualification.
-
Poor analysis of how additive manufacturing reshapes spare parts inventory dynamics.
-
Ignoring innovation potential—AM enables redesign of components to reduce weight, increase efficiency, and optimize performance.
-
Lack of collaboration between production and R&D teams, which limits opportunities for design-driven functional improvements.
4. No Pilot Phase Before AM Deployment
-
Moving directly to production without process testing, causing technical and organizational issues.
5. Lack of AM Skills, Training & Product Ownership
-
Operators and engineers remain tied to traditional methods.
-
No “product owner” to champion the change and lead transformation.
6. Missing Maintenance, Staffing & Operational Planning
-
AM systems require specific skills and regular maintenance, often missing from budgets and staffing plans.
7. Not Calculating Full TCO of Additive Manufacturing
-
Focusing only on machine prices without accounting for material, training, software, energy, and post-processing costs.
8. Treating AM as a Technology, Not a Strategy
-
Treating AM as an isolated initiative instead of part of a broader digital transformation strategy.
Lessons Learned from AM Implementations
Introducing additive manufacturing must be treated as part of a broader digital transformation strategy, not as a simple equipment purchase. Without clear ROI justification and project ownership, even the most advanced equipment may remain idle while expected benefits fail to materialize.
Moreover, industrial practice often shows parallel initiatives launched by different organizational units without coordination, leading to duplicated costs and fragmented objectives. Success requires coordination, ownership, and clearly defined business goals—because technology without strategy cannot deliver results.
Key Areas of an Additive Manufacturing Strategy
- Technology: machine selection (printers, CNC machines, milling, 5-axis), software, and supporting tools (3D scanners, fatigue testers, quality control, material testing), plus post-processing equipment (cleaning, sintering, surface finishing).
- Processes: integration with ERP/MES systems and ensuring seamless data flow from demand to delivery.
- Organization: workforce planning, training, new roles, and cross-functional ownership across R&D, production, and AM teams.
- Business Model: internal (MRO strategy – Maintenance, Repair, Operations) and external (on-demand B2B production).
- Standardization & Compliance: ensuring products meet industrial regulations.
My Approach: Designing an ROI-Driven Additive Manufacturing Lab
My approach to these projects combines ROI governance with digital process design:
- Validating through pilot projects and benchmarking with external suppliers.
- Preparing a business case with J and PI factors and TCO evaluation as part of ROI governance.
- Mapping implementation (technology, processes, organization).
- Defining scalability and service components.
- Managing risks by comparing alternatives (e.g., foundries or outsourcing).
- Ensuring organizational harmonization—preventing duplicated initiatives across departments.
- Establishing Change Management standards to secure user adoption and iterative improvements.
Case Study: Building an Additive Manufacturing Lab in Industry
During the development of a business concept for additive manufacturing in an industrial environment, pilot testing with external suppliers confirmed its economic feasibility.
The analysis evaluated whether shifting from external sourcing of metallic spare parts to in-house production could bring measurable benefits in cost, lead time, and operational flexibility.
Based on results, the concept proposed setting up an internal lab with digitally connected capacity, covering:
- Facility preparation and acquisition of equipment for scanning, modeling, material testing, production, and quality control.
- Introducing a software platform to manage the entire workflow—from request to delivery.
- Workforce planning, training, and new role definitions.
- Developing a B2B on-demand production service, creating a new revenue stream.
This approach reduced reliance on external suppliers, improved supply chain resilience, and opened opportunities for new B2B services. Evaluation with PI and J factors confirmed both financial and operational justification.
Expected Results & KPIs of an Additive Manufacturing Program
- Up to 50% reduction in external spare part sourcing.
- Lead time reduction from weeks to days.
- Stronger supply chain resilience and control over critical components.
- Creation of a scalable B2B on-demand production service.
- Positive J and PI factors → benefits outweigh complexity and initial investment.
- Faster and more flexible manufacturing process and simplified supply chain.