3d printing for end products
TRANSCRIPT
Uppsala University, Sweden
Department of Business Studies
Master in Business and Management
Master Thesis, 30 credits
___________________________________________________________________________
3D Printing for end products
___________________________________________________________________________
- A case study of the Industry, its Capabilities and Value
Chain.
Authors:
Karina Morales Cantú & Erik Wisalchai Jonsson
Thesis advisor: Jukka Hohenthal
2
Gratitude of the authors
We would like to express our gratitude to Kraftwurx, I.materialise and Sculpteo that have
participated in this study. Without their help this thesis would not have been possible. We
would like to extend a special thanks to Marco Valenzuela of Kraftwurx for all the hours he
invested in providing answers for our research. We would also like to thank our thesis advisor
Jukka Hohental and our fellow master thesis students in our seminar group for their feedback,
which helped to make this thesis great.
3
Abstract
Title:
3D Printing for end use products
- A case study of the Industry, its Capabilities and Value Chain.
Authors: Morales Cantú Karina & Wisalchai Jonsson Erik
Thesis Advisor: Jukka Hohental
Research Objective: Our aim is to answer whether or not 3D printing is capable of achieving
mass customization and mass production, since answering this might help
predict a shift within manufacturing industries and the use that this
technology has had the past years. Further, our aim is to give an overall view
of the industry of companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through
an e-commerce marketplace and its value creating activities. The overall aim
is to contribute to fill the academic gap regarding research on 3D printing
within the field of mass customization and provide groundwork for future
research
Research Questions: Is 3D printing capable of achieving mass production?
Is 3D printing capable of achieving mass customization?
What does the current value chain look like for the industry of companies
offering 3D printed goods for end use through an e-commerce marketplace?
Theory: The theoretical framework consisting of the definitions for mass production,
mass customization and the value chain which we expanded with theory on
e-commerce and other necessary definitions to provide a strong background
to our research.
Method: To provide the current picture of the industry and thus analyze its
capabilities regarding mass production and mass customization, we present
the value chain with the involved value creating activities. We have
conducted three qualitative interviews to three out of four companies within
the industry complemented as well with an exhaustive research to the
websites of the companies.
Conclusion: The authors concluded 3D printing being capable of mass production, since
it fulfills most of its characteristics. It was also concluded that 3D printing
technology fulfills all the characteristics of the mass customization and that
the industry of companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through an
e-commerce marketplace consists of companies providing mainly a service.
This is to 3D print products designed by external designers, and sometimes
outsourcing some of their production to produce closer to the customer and
to serve customers worldwide. The authors concluded with the
representation of the value chain for the industry of companies offering 3D
printed goods for end use through e-commerce marketplaces, formed by five
primary activities and two support activities. Finally it was also concluded
that Internet plays an important role for these companies, helping them to
build a digital business network.
Keywords: 3D printing; Mass Customization; Mass Production; Value Chain; E-
commerce.
4
Table of Content
1. INTRODUCTION P. 5 1.1 The 3D Printing Technology & Industry P. 6
1.1.1 3D Printing Technology P. 7 1.1.2 Industry P. 8
1.2 Problem Background & Purpose P. 11
1.3 Limitations P. 12
2. THEORY P. 14 2.1 Mass Production & Mass Customization P. 14
2.1.1 Mass Production Definition P. 15 2.1.2 Mass Customization Definition P. 16
2.1.3 Similarities Between Mass Production and Mass Customization P. 18 2.2 The Value Chain P. 18
3. METHOD P. 22 3.1 Approach and Purpose P. 22
3.2 Strategy and Sampling P. 22 3.3 Techniques and Procedures P. 23
3.4 Operationalization P. 25
3.5 Reliability, Validity and Generalizability P. 26
4. RESTULTS & ANALISIS P. 28 4.1 The Value Chain. P. 29
4.1.1 Supply Chain P. 30 4.1.2 Operations P. 32
4.1.3 Distribution P. 33
4.1.4 Marketing P. 34 4.1.5 Service P. 35
4.1.6 Technology Development P. 36
4.1.7 E-commerce P. 38 4.2 Mass Production P. 39
4.2.1 Specialized Tasks P. 39
4.2.2 Standardization of Components P. 40
4.2.3 Development and Use of Specialized Machines and Tools P. 41 4.2.4 Engineer and Plan Total Production System P. 41
4.2.5 Sabel & Zeitlin Perspective P. 42
4.2.6 Mass Perspective P. 42 4.3 Mass Customization P. 43
5. CONCLUSIONS P. 46
6. LIMITATIONS & IMPLICATIONS P. 48
REFERENCES P. 49 APPENDIX P. 53
5
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the Industrial revolution many changes have occurred within the worldwide economic
sectors. These changes have been intensively studied by several economists like Ferguson,
Smith and Marx, among others, in order to deeply understand how productivity is related to
the efficient use or allocation of resources and thus analyze specific processes in order to
divide them into their intrinsic and most elementary activities. This was done with the
intention to build a device capable to automatically executing series of steps that fully or
partially could perform these activities without or with minimum human intervention; this
process is currently known as a mechanized process and thus was the beginning of the mass
production Era (Sabel & Zeitlin, 1985). During this period a homogeneous market of
consumer goods was served with standardized products characterized by low costs and low
prices. However, the system of mass production would soon be challenged by shifting
demand in the consumer market (Pine, 1993).
In the middle of the 1950’s people’s desire to have more customized products fragmented
the market, consequently business decisions were moved towards some degree of
customization to facilitate the demand of more tailored products (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006).
During 1987, the term mass customization was introduced in Stanley Davis’ book “Future
Perfect” to serve people´s desire of having customized goods without the increased
manufacturing prices of craftsmanship (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006). Later in 1993 Joseph Pine
contributed to mass customization theory, though it was not until Kaplan & Heinlein’s
research published on 2006 that a more homogeneous definition of mass customization was
given stating that all the needs and desires of the customers are transformed into product
specifications.
One technology which may be a possible option to achieve mass customization is 3D
printing. It is an innovative technology introduced in the 1980’s and was initially used to
more rapidly create prototypes (Kain et al., 2009), though recently has been considered as an
impending manufacturing technology of customized products for and by end consumers
(Print me a Stradivarius, 2011). The fully controllable parameters of the 3D printers enable a
high degree of customization on high quality products with an extremely detailed finish.
(Kain et al., 2009). Further benefits from this breakthrough technology are that production
6
does not need to be carried out in several different process steps, the whole process happens
inside the 3D printer with very little post- processing, and a second one is the reduced or
completely eliminated inventories and storage of work in progress and end products.
(Kraftwurx; I. materialise; Shapeways; Sculpteo, 2012.) This technology, is now starting to be
considered as a possible mean to obtain the level of customization that customers have
requested lately (Print me a Stradivarius, 2011).
The combination of using mass customization with e-commerce1 can create synergies
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006). 3D printing can make further use of e-commerce, since the 3D
models such a vital piece for producing physical items are digital and can easily be sold
and/or shared through online interaction. Also Internet facilitates to integrate a network of
producers, consumers and suppliers necessary to fully achieve mass customization (Kaplan &
Haenlein, 2006).
1.1 The 3D Printing Technology & Industry
By conducting a preliminary research, we tried to gather academic information about the
industry of “Companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through an e-commerce
marketplace”. Although is our intention give to the reader a preliminary overview of the
industry to the best of our knowledge before diving into the research (To further information
about the way this initial research was carried out go to method section 3.2 Strategy and
Sampling).
Based on Calori's (1989) definition of an industry2, the actors that should be considered to
define an industry are those actors who influence operations; for instance: technology, raw
material suppliers, the product, customers and competitors (Calori 1989). It is our intention to
define the industry of companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through an e-
commerce marketplace through the perspective of those companies. First we describe the 3D
1 E-commerce refers to “The use of computer networks to conduct business—that is, the buying and selling of
goods, services, and information—electronically with suppliers, customers, and competitors or among customers
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006). 2 Industry is defined as “ A group of economic and political actors: a group of companies which produce
and sell, which distribute, and a group of companies or families or individuals which consume the goods
and services” (Calori 1989).
7
printing technology followed by a description of the current industry using those related
actors to an industry mentioned by Calori (1989).
1.1.1 3D Printing Technology
3D printing is an evolution of printing technologies, capable to produce or reproduce
freestanding sophisticated structures in one piece. 3D Printing is one of the Additive layer
fabrication processes (Vojislav et al., 2011).
The 3D printing process happening inside the machine consists of two stages, (1) The direct
transfer from software data to printed structures, (2) by repeatedly positioning the print head
in all three directions in space in order to print layer by layer the whole object. (Lu et al.,
2008)
More in detail, Lu et al., (2008) mentioned how the printing process is carried out, first the
design is made by a CAD3 system, and then the areas are printed through a compilation of two
dimensional slices representing the 3D object to consequently print layer by layer until the
object is completed. The second stage of the manufacturing process can also be subdivided in
two basic steps “coating and fusing”, throughout these steps, the material is laid over a surface
and by the action of a source of energy the layers are created. The source of energy and the
raw materials vary depending on the used technology (Vojislav et al., 2011). Figure 1.1
illustrates the insight of a 3D printer.
Figure 1.1 Scheme of an additive machine (Adapted from Vojislav et al., 2011)
3 CAD System refers to Computer Aided Design Systems that “enables designers to use computers to analyze
and manipulate design data. Using a graphics workstation or computer terminal to display three-dimensional
figures, the designer can examine a proposed design from different angles, in various cross sections, and in
many sizes” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012)
8
Characteristics derived from printing technologies have great advantages; finish product is
highly customizable during the design stage; this because of its fully controllable parameters,
enabling a high degree of manufacturing flexibility with an extremely detailed finished
product (Kain et al., 2009).
Figure 1.2 is a compilation of images created to better illustrate the creation process of a
printed product, images are based on a video about NASA’s 3D printers (National
Geographic Known Universe S03E06 Print Tools, 2011) involving the software design(1),
software customization(2), printing process (3, 4), post processing (5) and the final printed
product (6).
Figure 1.2 Compilation of images showing a 3D printing process (Morales & Wisalchai, 2012)
1.1.2 Industry
As mentioned above, we use Calori´s definition (1989) for descriptive purposes to cover the
industry of 3D printed goods for end use through an e-commerce marketplace; this way to the
best of our knowledge we present to the reader the competitive intensity and therefore
attractiveness of this industry.
a) Suppliers
The main supplier for this technology regarding technology development and raw materials
provision is 3D Systems Corporation. Who is the ”leading global provider of 3D content-to-
print solutions including personal, professional and production 3D printers, integrated print
9
materials and on-demand custom parts services for professionals and consumers alike”
(3DSystems, 2012).
3D Systems has a worldwide network of 10 facilities in order to serve their customers’
operations in more than 80 countries. The company has offices in the USA where the HQ is,
Australia, Benelux and Italy.
b) Product
Nowadays 3D printing has demonstrated been able to fabricate products in a wide range of
materials like ceramics, plastics, metals, textiles, etc. but beyond those materials, there are
many research studies focused on testing more and new materials (Lu et al., 2008).
The industry of companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through an e-commerce
marketplace is mainly dedicated to print products in their range of fashion & jewelry, gadgets,
home decor and other arts. (Shapeways; Kraftwurx; Sculpteo; I.materialise, 2012)
Figure 1.3 is a compilation of some of the objects printed by the companies involved in the
industry.
Figure 1.3 Compilation of images of 3D printed products (Morales & Wisalchai, 2012)
c) Customers
Customers are commonly people with proficient designing skills who might or might not use
the marketplaces of the companies to offer and sell their 3D digital designs to be printed.
Although, it is not a requirement to be proficient in designing skills, customers can in most of
10
the companies buy products without being the designer of the product (Kraftwurx;
Shapeways; I.materialise; Sculpteo, 2012).
The customers have several choices when uploading their designs, they can upload it to be
printed one time or more without being public, they can print it and upload it to remain public
in case that someone wanted to print the object, or they can simply buy someone else´s design
(Kraftwurx; Shapeways; I.materialise; Sculpteo, 2012).
Customer really interacts with the companies through their websites and social media e.g.
Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc. Further we provide some reviews to show the customer
interaction with the companies and to give the reader an idea of the customer excitement
about this process (Kraftwurx; Shapeways; I.materialise; Sculpteo, 2012).
“Shapeways has got to be one of the coolest websites in cyberspace! This is the future of the
web right here... thank you guys!”
“The first 2 seconds I couldn’t believe my eyes, so I blinked and started living the dream! Thx
Shapeways ;vD”
“Incredibly addicted to finding things to make, to then print. Awesome results so far”
d) Competitors
Our preliminary research gave us the name of four main competitors within the industry of 3D
printed goods for end use through an e-commerce marketplace. These competitors are able to
serve the worldwide demand of these specific products enabling an electronic market place as
well. The companies are listed as follows based on their launched year.
1. Shapeways
2. I.materialise
3. Sculpteo
4. Kraftwurx
The present industry as we can observe has not so many competitors, the above as a
consequence of being an emerging industry, the company who has being active longer is not
11
even five years old. The following figure illustrates the companies’ launching year
(Kraftwurx; Shapeways; I.materialise; Sculpteo, 2012).
Figure 1.4 Timeline showing the launch year of the four competitors within the industry of 3D printed goods
for end use through an e-commerce marketplace (Morales & Wisalchai, 2012).
1.2 Problem Background & Purpose
Although 3D printing is a technology several decades old, it has been obscured and only in
recent years gained public attention (Print me a Stradivarius, 2011), which would be a
probable cause for the lack of academic research focusing on it. Research is lacking within
the academic field of mass customization regarding whether 3D printing is capable of
achieving mass customization according to the academic definition (iimcp.org, 2012). Neither
has any research been done whether the technology fits the definition of mass production nor
whether if it can achieve the goals it holds. Based on the above, we divide question number
one into the following two research questions.
Is 3D printing capable of achieving mass production?
Is 3D printing capable of achieving mass customization?
By answering these research questions it is our intention to fill the academic gap. The purpose
of doing this is to produce an academic groundwork answering whether this technology is
capable of achieving mass customization, mass production. To know it's capability in this
way might help to predict a possible shift in the manufacturing industries which is important
for all actors involved therein.
Also, there exist no research mapping the industry and its value creating activities of
3D printed goods meant for end use provided through an online marketplace. We argue that
this is important, since the true potential of 3D printing is not just rapid prototyping, but
production of goods for end use and the fact that the designs are digital make it interesting to
12
involve an electronic commerce marketplace due to the added capability to distribute, share
and modify the designs. Also to integrate customers with the companies, as a possible mean
to facilitate mass customization. And thus took us to the following research question.
What does the current value chain4 look like for the industry of companies offering 3D
printed goods for end use through an e-commerce marketplace?
The purpose of our research is to fill these gaps in the world of academic research by
answering our research questions we will provide a current picture of this innovative
technology, its possible relation with mass production and mass customization technologies,
and hopefully a useful groundwork for future research regarding 3D printing technology and
its capabilities.
1.3 Limitations
The major reason for excluding certain perspectives is due to the fact that our research
predominantly focuses on the technical aspects of the industry and foremost those activities
directly associated with 3D printing technology and the end product.
Since, human resources only indirectly affects the end product we will not include a
perspective in our research which focuses on such activities such as e.g. recruiting, hiring,
development, allocating compensation to personnel etc. The only exception is that we intend
to find out if workers require special skills or training to operate a 3D printer to determine if
3D printing technology fits within the mass production definition.
We will also not include most activities associated with the function of procurement. We
focus instead only on receiving the inputs going into the final product. Thus, excluding e.g.
purchase of 3D printers, spare parts for the printers, tools etc. as well as procedure for dealing
with vendors, since we focus on the processes directly associated with the production of end
product. Qualification rules and information systems usually associated with the function of
procurement will instead be mentioned within the support activity e-commerce.
4 The value chain was introduced in 1985 by Michael Porter and is a famous business strategy tool, which
disaggregates a firm into its strategically relevant activities (Porter, 1985). “The value chain illustrates all the
activities where the value of a product emerges, implied that the underlying purpose of all activities is to create
value for the customers” (Thompson et al., 2009).
13
Further, we will not explore the firm infrastructure of each company e.g. planning,
finance, accounting and legal since it is only indirectly affects the end product.
In this research we will disregard assembled products that might be produced by the
companies in this study where parts of the product are not 3D printed, e.g. lamps where light
bulbs and stands are included, since we will only focus on products fully produced with 3D
printing.
Further, due to the difficulty of attaining financial information regarding cost and prices we
do not aim to measure value creating activities quantitatively and thus excluding an analysis
of possible margin created for the company.
14
2. THEORY
In the theoretical framework we will present the relevant theory chosen to analyze our
research question. Section 2.1 briefly explain the definitions of mass production and mass
customization and clarify the similarities between. This will be used to find out if 3D printing
is capable of both. In Section 2.2 we present Porter’s value chain which will be used to
present a current picture of the industry chosen for this research. Also, we added theory on e-
commerce to the value chain theory.
Figure 2.1 relates the research questions to the part of the theory that will be used to solve the
research questions.
Figure 2.1 Relating the research questions with the theory (Morales & Wisalchai, 2012).
2.1 Mass Production & Mass Customization
In the following section we will introduce the concepts of mass customization, mass
production and how they are similar to each other in order to give a strong background to the
theoretical framework.
15
2.1.1 Mass Production Definition
Since the term mass production was introduced for the first time by the Encyclopædia
Britannica5 in 1925 several alternate definitions has been given which differ little between
them (e.g. Hounshell, 1984; Kotha, 1995; Pine, 1993 etc). We will mainly refer to the one
where everything started which is the definition in the Encyclopædia Britannica, due to its
enriched and in our opinion complete definition. Further, we will complement this definition
with definitions and highlighted characteristics presented by other authors.
The Encyclopædia Britannica (2012) defines mass production as the “application of the
principles of specialization, division of labour, and standardization of parts to the
manufacture of goods. Such manufacturing processes attain high rates of output at low unit
cost, with lower costs expected as volume rises”.
The following are the four basic principles to achieve mass production according to the
Encyclopædia Britannica (2012).
First, division of the total production into specialized tasks made up of relatively simple
repetitive motion patterns and minimal handling of the work piece to achieve human motion
patterns easily learned and a minimum of unnecessary motion.
Second, simplification and standardization of components to facilitate large production
runs and the use of other standards on all pieces of the product (e.g. material type) is also
included to further increase the economies of scale.
Third, development and use of specialized machines and tools as well as choosing
materials for each operation. This leads to minimizing the amount of human effort needed,
while also leading to economies of scale6 by maximizing the output per capital invested. This
also reduces the number of off-standard units produced and reduces raw material costs.
Fourth, systematically engineer and plan the total production process to create the best
balance between human effort and machines used, integrating all elements of the production
system to maximize productivity and minimize costs (Encyclopædia Britannica 2012).
5 Encyclopædia Britannica is the oldest English- language encyclopedia written since 1768
6 Economies of scale is “the reduction in the average cost of a product usually obtained when a factory
increases output” (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012)
16
Other definitions regarding mass production with complementary perspectives; are Sabel &
Zeitlin (1985) and Hounshell (1984). Sabel & Zeitlin (1985) described mass production as
“the combination of single-purpose machines and unskilled labour to produce standard
goods”. As we observe in Sabel & Zeitlin's definition (1985); standardization plays an
important role for mass production, throughout the manufacturing process as well as in the
end product. Another important characteristic of mass production worthy to highlight is the
“mass” perspective where Hounshell (1984) mentioned two feasible angles of the word; (1)
the approach to reach masses of consumers by producing a product affordable to nearly
everyone and (2) large quantity in terms of production meaning producing as much products
as possible in order to reduce production costs. Although, in the beginning the purpose was to
ensure product quality by eliminating unpredictable factors caused by unskilled human
interaction through automation of processes (Hounshell 1984).
2.1.2 Mass Customization Definition
While mass production holds the goals of producing goods at low prices so that nearly all
consumers will be able to afford to buy them, mass customization tries to deliver goods or
services with broad enough variety and customization so that nearly everyone finds exactly
what they are looking for (Pine, 1993).
However, due to a lack of a commonly accepted definition of the term mass customization,
Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) proposes a more parsimonious definition of traditional and
electronic mass customization. The definition of traditional mass customization is divided
into a working and a visionary definition by using Porter’s (1985) value chain7 to see in
which place of the value chain customer´s interaction occurs. The working definition is as
follows: “mass customization is a strategy that creates value by some form of company–
customer interaction at the fabrication/assembly stage of the operations level to create
customized products with production cost and monetary price similar to those of mass-
produced products.” The visionary definition is different by stating mass customization can
occur at “the design stage of the operations level to create customized products, following a
hybrid strategy combining cost leadership and differentiation.” Thus, Kaplan & Haenlein
7 Porter’s value chain will be explained later in section 2.2 The Value Chain
17
(2006) states that mass customization occur in the “operations” part of Porter’s value chain.
The hybrid strategy mentioned refers to a company following a strategy to achieve cost
leadership by reducing the cost so the company can offer low prices and achieving maximum
differentiation by offering a product customized to each customer’s preferences.
Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) argued that services should be excluded from the term mass
customization. Although, the term mass customization could be extended to include
customized services, they recommend instead the service environment be researched under
another term. The reason being the fact that mass customization was developing historically
to integrate the customer in the manufacturing process opposed to mass production, but with
services the customer is always needed to be the co-producer of the service. This also
excludes standardized goods with customized services surrounding it from their definition of
mass customization.
With the use of the Internet to integrate e.g. suppliers and customers with the company into
a business network and the development of e-commerce, Kaplan & Haenlein (2006)
introduced a special definition for mass customization involving e-commerce and named it
electronic mass customization. In order to make a distinction between mass customization and
electronic mass customization, they based their definition on Choi et al. (1997) work, using
their three market dimensions: players, products and processes8 and thus explain that in order
for commerce to be considered as e-commerce is necessary that at least one of these three
market components is digital. Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) define electronic mass
customization as “A strategy that creates value by some form of company-customer
interaction at the fabrication/assembly stage of the operations level to create customized
products with production cost and monetary price similar to those of mass-produced
products, where at least one of the three market dimensions-player, product, and process-is
digital”. Further they mention that when all the three market dimensions of players, products
and processes are digital then it is considered as pure electronic mass customization.
Achieving a stage of pure integration of the three market dimensions through the Internet
(Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006).
8 Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) refer to Choi et al. (1997) definition of three existing market dimensions (1) players
(sellers, buyers, intermediaries and other third parties), (2) products (are the commodities that are subject to the
market exchange) and (3) processes (the interactions between market players and include activities such as
product choice, purchase order, customization, production, payment, delivery and consumption).
18
2.1.3 Similarities Between Mass Production and Mass Customization
After presenting mass production and mass customization we would like to highlight the
similarities between the concepts. The main similarity is the goal to achieve low production
costs (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2012; Hounshell, 1984) for companies to be able to offer
products at low prices (Pine, 1993; Hounshell, 1984). There is a slight difference between the
two concepts regarding this point. Mass production is about achieving low production costs
and low prices, while mass customization is about achieving production costs and prices
similar to those of mass production.
Kaplain & Haenlein (2006) could not agree what is most important; “Is it more important to
actually reach masses of people or to produce customized products at prices affordable for
the masses?” and thus exclude the mass perspective from mass customization.
2.2 The Value Chain
The value chain is a strategic model introduced 1985 by Michael Porter in his book
“Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance”. It is a tool which
disaggregates a firm into its strategically relevant activities (Porter, 1985). The value chain is
seen as a way to illustrate the activities where the value of a product emerges, but also to
demonstrate how value becomes greater by the sum of previous valuable activities, implied
that the underlying purpose of all activities is to create value for the customers (Thompson et
al., 2009). Value is defined as “the amount customers are willing to pay for what a firm
provides them” (Porter, 1985).
The value chain is made up by two broad categories of activities: (1) the primary activities
which are most important for creating value for customers, (2) and the support activities that
facilitate and improve the performance of the primary activities (Thompson et al., 2009).
These are presented in Figure 2.2, which is the authors’ own adaptation of Porter’s value
chain. Here the primary activities are the blocks in the top of the figure and the support
activities are at the bottom. The illustration that the support activities run horizontally is due
to the fact that they can support all the primary activities in the bottom (Porter, 1985).
19
Figure 2.2 Image of the two main components of Porter´s (1985) value chain. Adapted by Morales and
Wisalchai 2012
The primary activities are supply chain management, operations, distribution, marketing &
sales and finally services, while the support activities that we will consider in our research are
technology development and e-commerce. All of these activities will be further developed
and graphically shown later in Figure 2.3.
Supply chain management are activities associated with attaining raw materials, parts and
components, merchandise from vendors; receiving, storing and disseminating inputs from
suppliers, inspection and inventory management (Thompson et al., 2009; Porter, 1985).
Operations are activities associated with transforming inputs into the final product form,
such as machining, assembly, equipment maintenance, quality assurance, and facility
operations (Thompson et al., 2009; Porter, 1985).
Distribution are activities associated with collecting, storing and physically distributing the
product to buyers, such as packaging, finished goods warehousing, material handling,
delivery vehicle operation, order processing, scheduling (Porter, 1985), establishing and
maintaining a network of distributors (Thompson et al., 2009).
Marketing & sales are activities associated with providing means by which buyers can
purchase the product and inducing them to do so, such as advertising, promotion, sales force,
channel selection, channel relations, pricing, (Porter, 1985), and dealer/distributor support
(Thompson et al., 2009).
Services are activities associated with providing service and assistance to buyers
(Thompson et al., 2009) to enhance or maintain value of the product (Porter, 1985), such as
installation, repair, training, spare parts and delivery (Porter, 1985) technical assistance, buyer
inquiries, complaints (Thompson et al., 2009).
20
The first support activity we consider is technology development which is a range of
activities that can be broadly grouped into efforts to improve the product and the process.
They are usually associated with the engineering department or development group. It may
support any of the technologies embodied in the value activities of the value chain and does
not solely apply to technologies directly associated with the end product. It may include
various forms, including that of product design (Porter, 1985).
The second support activity we have chosen to integrate into the value chain is e-
commerce, following Porter’s (1985) statement that support activities facilitate and improve
the performance of the primary activities. We argue that e-commerce fits this definition
following the reasoning that it is necessary to use e-commerce to facilitate mass customization
or else it would become too costly and unprofitable (Lee, Barua & Whinstone 2000). Similar
conclusions about mass customization being too costly without e-commerce are mentioned by
several researchers (Lampel & Mintzberg, 1996; Dewan, Jing & Seidmann, 2000). E-
commerce can thus be defined as conducting business through the use of computer networks
which is “buying, selling goods, services and information electronically with suppliers,
customers and competitors or among customers” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006). As we can see
from this definition e-commerce could be connected to improving the primary activities
supply chain management, production, marketing and after sales service. Conducting a
business through computer networks might help producers, customers and suppliers to be
integrated in the value chain which could facilitate the full achievement of mass
customization as stated by Kaplan & Haenlein (2006). Further, with the use of the Internet, e-
commerce also includes activities such as information collection and processing as well as
enabling communication and information flow from the customer-company interaction. The
interaction between the customer and company is needed and the fact that mass customizable
products are information intensive commodities regarding the customer’s preferences, the
development of e-commerce thus represents a great opportunity (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2006).
Though, there is criticism against Porter’s works on competitive strategy, there is little
regarding the value chain. The criticism against Porter’s value chain which can be found
states that the model excludes corporate culture, worker morale, level of communication and
team spirit according to Aktouf (2005). This is important since management leadership and
interpersonal skill brings out the maximum potential in employees (Aktouf, 2005). However,
21
this critique does not concern our research, since we are focusing more on the technology than
to internal actors inside the company as employees (Aktouf, 2005).
Klein (2001) mentions that calculating costs of the firm's own operations and of its
competitors is impossible. Some of this critique can be aimed towards the value chain, but is
not something we will put effort on overcoming, since we do not intend to quantify cost or
value in our research.
Figure 2.3 illustrate an adapted value chain from Porter´s (1985) that we will use as a base to
our research, analysis and conclusions.
Figure 2.3 The value chain adapted from Porter (1985), (Wisalchai & Morales, 2012)
22
3. METHOD
In this part we will present how we conducted our method for collecting empirical evidence
3.1 Approach and Purpose
We have addressed our study as a combination of both inductive and deductive research.
The former due to the identification, exploration and experimentation of the current literature
related to 3D printing, mass customization, mass production and the value chain (Saunders et
al., 2009).
Our research purpose is both exploratory and descriptive. The first because of the nature
of the current related information within 3D printing technology, as we mentioned above, the
present data is limited and we searched for more than the existent literature. We also expect
that by interviewing “current experts” we will get a reliable picture of the industry. The
second is complementary to the first, as Saunders et al. (2009) mention in their book, a
descriptive research purpose object is “to photograph a truthful image of certain event, people
or situation”. Thus, it was our intention to analyze the 3D printing industry, to have a clearer
picture of the current position of the technology compared to these two manufacturing
techniques. The above also justify our research study to be cross-sectional.
3.2 Strategy and Sampling
Since, our third research question was to present a current overview of the industry of 3D
printed goods intended for end use through an e-commerce marketplace, a case study was a
fitting strategy for our research question following Saunders et al. (2009) statement that a
case study is “a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigation of a
particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context using multiple sources of
evidence”. Thus, we chose to conduct a multiple case study, by collecting primary data from
multiple companies in the industry and complementing with secondary data from news
articles and company websites of the companies. This strategy also suits our other research
questions regarding whether 3D printing technology is capable of achieving mass
23
customization and mass production. The reason being that the companies in the industry were
able to answer our questions regarding the technology and the processes involved for us to
reach a conclusion regarding these research questions. Further, the fact that the industry is
rather small at the moment, as we will soon mention makes empirical data collection from
these companies sufficient
We have to the best of our abilities done a preliminary research identifying four companies,
which uses 3D printing as a production technology for a clear majority of their produced
items for end use as well as offering e-commerce marketplaces for people to buy and sell 3D
designs. The companies within the industry are Kraftwurx, Sculpteo, I.materialise and
Shapeways.
When performing the pre-research to find these actors we first used Google by typing in the
search term “Shapeways9 competitors”. This lead us to the following search engines;
moreofit.com, similarsites.com and venturebeatprofiles.com which categorizes websites or
companies possessing similarities with each other. We examined the companies and websites
we found through these search engines and selected the ones which could be categorized
within the industry we aimed to study.
To give an overview of the industry we chose to interview the main competitors inside the
industry, we were able to get interviews with I.materialise, Kraftwurx and Sculpteo. We argue
interviewing three out of four companies in the industry is enough to reveal its value chain
and also that these companies were involved in 3D printing enough to be able to provide
adequate information for us to analyze the impacts of the technology on mass customization
and whether it can combine it with mass production.
3.3 Techniques and Procedures
Due to the fact that the head office of each company is located in the US, France and
Belgium respectively, the cost of traveling to each location to perform the interviews face-to-
face is not justified. Therefore, we conducted the data collection from the companies
electronically using Skype and e-mail.
9 We assumed at this point of the pre-research that Shapeways was one of the largest actors within the industry
24
Our choice was to conduct semi-structured interviews with follow-up interviews as means
for collecting data, due to the fitting nature for an exploratory study according to Saunders et
al. (2009). Further, interviews was chosen due the rather large number of interview questions
needed to collect data to answer our research questions, but foremost due to their complexity
(Saunders et al., 2009). Semi-structured interviews provided us with the opportunity to probe
the answer where we would like the respondents to explain or build on their responses
(Saunders et al., 2009).
Based on our choice of research method we presented our wish to conduct Skype interviews
with respondents from the companies via e-mail and later sent an interview guide with
questions we had constructed. However, due to a high workload that the companies were
experiencing due to the increasing attention that 3D printing was gaining, the companies
chose the means of answering our questions which suited them best. I.materialise was the
only company that we conducted a phone interview with, while Kraftwurx chose to answer
the questions via Skype text chat. Sculpteo chose to answer our interview guide via e-mail.
The companies themselves selected the most fitting person to answer our questions and all
respondents were key people within the management staff of each company. The respondents
were Martjin Joris - the business development manager of I.materialise, Sandra Kammogne -
the marketing assistant of Sculpteo and Marco Valenzuela - the community manager of
Kraftwurx. We argue the respondents possessed an overall view of the activities performed
within the company. Since this criteria was fulfilled, we see it as acceptable that respondents
had different areas of responsibility within each company, which might otherwise have caused
more diverse responses from one another. Additionally, due to the fact that the staff size is
small10
in each company we see it as likely that the respondents all have a good overview of
the company’s activities.
The following figure illustrates the name position and date when the interviews took place
according to the authors selected research method.
10 The size of the company staffs are mentioned in section 4. RESULTS & ANALYSIS
25
Figure 3.1 Respondent matrix (Morales & Wisalchai, 2012)
The interview with I.materialise was recorded and the Skype text chat with Kraftwurx was
saved, giving us the advantage of capturing what the respondents were saying and how they
said it. It will not give us the option of capturing the respondent’s facial expressions and body
language. However, we did not deem this necessary since the interview questions did not
involve personal opinion, just descriptive responses regarding activities. (Saunders et al.,
2009).
3.4 Operationalization
In the interview guide we used open questions in order for the respondents to define and
describe the activities involving their firm, in accordance with Saunders et al. (2009) advice
on when to use open questions. Further, we used probing questions that were prepared
before the interview to go more in-depth into certain activities as well as use probing
questions that might arise during the interview in order to clarify statements by the
respondents. Closed questions were used in order to confirm or dis-confirm if a certain
activities are performed at all within the company e.g. advertising, assembly of products or if
the firm uses a sales force. However, often the respondents gave more than just a yes or no
answer, filling in the answer with a clarification.
26
3.5 Reliability, Validity and Generalizability
The measure of e-mailing the interview guide was to promote validity and reliability by
possibly increasing the respondent’s level of information by letting them collect information
regarding the questions before the interview (Saunders et al., 2009).
Concerning the interviews with Kraftwurx and I.materialise as well as Sculpteo, the possible
disadvantage of using semi-structured interviews is that other researchers replicating our
research may come up with different information, thus threatening the reliability of our
research (Saunders et al., 2009). Our response to this disadvantage is that our purpose
concerns a complex and dynamic area, aimed towards reflecting reality at the time the data
was collected, thereby it is unavoidable that our research will be difficult to replicate
(Saunders et al., 2009). To have chosen another method would undermine the strength of the
most suitable method for our research, due to the flexibility granted by semi-structured
interviews to explore (Saunders et al., 2009) the complex area of our research. A potential
problem with semi-structured interviews connected to reliability is that the respondent might
be sensitive to the unstructured exploration of certain themes (Saunders et al., 2009). To
overcome this problem, we aimed to make the respondents feel comfortable and try to address
the questions in a way where the answers seem easy and non intrusive, after all the
interviewees had already agreed to be interviewed and the information needed to our research
is not private or sensitive to the company.
The generalizability of research done through semi-structured interviews is generally weak,
since this research method does not allow for statistical analysis applicable to the general
population as it is needed to draw from only small samples (Saunders et al., 2009). However,
regarding our research question regarding the value chain, size of the industry we studied
currently has few actors we argue that our sample size was large enough and geographically
dispersed enough (Saunders et al., 2009) for generalization within the industry. Regarding our
research questions whether 3D printing is capable of mass production and mass customization
or not, we argue that our results are generalizable for the whole 3D printing technology.
The validity of conducting qualitative interviews is considered high due to the term validity
being referred to as to what extent we gain access to the respondents’ knowledge and
experience and infer a meaning that they intended from the language used by them (Saunders
et al., 2009). This is in line with our research, since we gained deep access to the respondents’
27
knowledge and could clarify the correct interpretation by probing their responses, thus giving
to our research high validity.
Except for the advantages and disadvantages previously discussed concerning semi-
structured interviews, the time limit could be considered as an obstacle when interviewing
I.materialise. However, this did not prove a problem, since we could get several answers to
our questions via their website thus reducing the number of questions having to be asked.
Additionally, this interview took place after our interview with Kraftwurx, thereby we had a
chance to identify which were the most important questions to ask and make them more
accurate. The result was that the time was sufficient to provide us with good adequate
answers.
As mentioned the interviews were conducted with Skype as communication tool, and during
the interviews we conducted them together. The disadvantage with using Skype without
video11
was be the lack of seeing the respondents full non-verbal behavior, which could have
affected our interpretation of how far we should have pursued a line of questioning (Saunders
et al., 2009). The possible disadvantage of interviewing Kraftwurx through a Skype text chat
was the inability to read the nonverbal language and possible reduction of spontaneous
responses by the respondent. However, we argue that the answers provided were sufficient for
our study and since the questions did not concern subjects highly personal to the respondent
the additional need for reading social cues and get spontaneous answers are less mentioned by
Saunders et al. (2009) regarding electronic chats. The advantage of the text chat interview
with Kraftwurx might have been its length of several hours that help to build up rapport with
the respondent (Saunders et al., 2009).
The possible disadvantage of using a self-administered internet mediated interview through
e-mail method with Sculpteo, might be that the time the respondents felt like applying to
answer the questions cannot be regulated in the same way as in an interview, neither have we
defined the length of the answer needed which may be a weakness in the way that they might
provide short answer, but also as a strength in the way that they may write long, detailed
answers. It was the marketing assistant who answered the questions, but that the answers were
reviewed by the marketing manager to make sure they were correct which increases validity.
11 Video was not used due to bandwidth
28
4. RESULTS & ANALYSIS
We will start analyzing the value chain first and then mass production and mass
customization second, to facilitate the understanding of the industry and this way perceive if
3D printing technology fulfill mass production and mass customization characteristics.
We have found that companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through an e-commerce
marketplace first of all are service providers. This is because the business model of the
companies is to produce goods for customers (I.materialise; Kraftwurx; Sculpteo, 2012),
which they either own internally or subcontract to bureaus12
(Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela,
2012). The digital 3D designs are mainly developed by external designers and the products
sold are the 3D printed items, which customers order from the websites of the companies
(Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). All companies offer online marketplaces for customers
to sell and buy 3D printed items and deliveries to the world wide with few exceptions
(I.materialise; Kraftwurx; Sculpteo, 2012). We start our analysis with a brief introduction of
the companies involved in this research.
I.materialise is a business unit within the company Materialise. They have their
headquarters in Leuven, Belgium and a software development team in Kiev, Ukraine. They
launched the I.materialise website as a private alpha version in 2009 and a public beta version
in January 2010 (Joris, 2012). Currently the business unit employs 15 people (Joris, 2012)
working to “offer all people with an eye for design and a head full of ideas the possibility to
turn these ideas into 3D reality” (I.materialise, 2012)
Kraftwurx is a company of nine people (Kraftwurx, 2012) with their headquarters located in
Houston, Texas in the US (Valenzuela, 2012). In November 2011 the company launched their
website (Valenzuela, 2012). “Kraftwurx empower the everyday person to invent, and
manufacture jewelry, art, machines, parts and more... Kraftwurx is your personal digital
factory (tm)” (Kraftwurx, 2012).
Sculpteo is a company of 12 people with its headquarters located in Vanves, France and
their production facilities in Arreau, France (Kammogne, 2012). Founded in 2009, Sculpteo
12 Bureaus are “those companies owning 3D printers and offering the service of 3D printing items for private or
company customers. It is common term within 3D printing community” (Valenzuela, 2012).
29
offers a fully online 3D Printing service to make this new technology easy and accessible to
all (Kammogne, 2012). “Innovative 3D printing service for creative people” (Sculpteo, 2012)
Of these companies only Kraftwurx features an online social community on their website in
addition to their marketplace (I.materialise; Kraftwurx; Sculpteo, 2012). Further, none of the
companies operates a physical store except for a sister division to I.materialise within
Materialise, named MGX. It runs a store in Brussels, Belgium for 3D printed goods (Joris,
2012). Kraftwurx stated that they might open a store front in the not so distant future
(Valenzuela, 2012) and Sculpteo offer the possibility for customers to see the products at their
office or production facility (Kammogne, 2012).
Kraftwurx currently offers 68 different types of materials (Kraftwurx, 2012) to be used like
plastics, metals, clears, acrylics etc. (Valenzuela, 2012) and 18 different finishes (Kraftwurx,
2012). They offer access to over 61 different kinds of printers, but only has a single in-house
printer used to produce items ordered from customer within the US. Production for order
originating outside the US is outsourced (Valenzuela, 2012). I.materialise own more than 60
3D printers, including some capable of the largest prints in Europe (Joris, 2012). They offer
prints in 20 different materials (I.materialise, 2012), but outsource production of everything
which is not made in plastic to other bureaus (Joris, 2012). Sculpteo offers 10 different
materials, owns two 3D printers in-house and can outsource production to bureaus in order to
provide customers with a solution in their own country or region (Sculpteo, 2012).
4.1 The Value chain.
As we mentioned before, the 3D designs are most of the time not owned by the companies,
but by external designers. The products are sold in a co-operation between the external
designer and the company, by allowing the designer to open a store on the company’s
website. Thus, the products are displayed on the company’s marketplace and the company
handles the rest to make sure the customer gets the requested printed product (I.materialise;
Kraftwurx; Sculpteo, 2012). In order to achieve this goal, the industry is formed by several
stages that we will present according to Porter’s (1985) value chain into five primary and two
support activities.
30
4.1.1 Supply Chain
According to our empirical findings we chose to divide the supply chain into three types. The
first one is the supply of materials for the companies’ in-house printers, the second is the
management of the production network of 3D printer bureaus and the third is the supply of
digital 3D designs uploaded on the companies’ websites by their members.
Regarding the first supply chain, all the companies state the need to supply their in-house
printers with materials such as powder mixtures, binder fluid and ink stored at their facilities.
These inputs are ordered from external suppliers (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). This
corresponds to the activity of purchasing raw materials as well as receiving and storing
inputs from suppliers mentioned by Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009). Valenzuela
(2012) stated that when it is time to start the 3D printing process the materials are loaded into
the printer which corresponds to the activity of disseminating inputs from suppliers mentioned
by Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009). Parts and components mentioned by Porter
(1985) and Thompson et al. (2009) are not needed for printed products, since 3D models can
be printed with moving functional parts in one build (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012).
Regarding the second supply chain, all the companies stated that they outsource a portion of
their production to external bureaus (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). Kraftwurx stated
that their website uses software called Digital Factory13
to coordinate a distributed production
network over 600 bureaus, meaning that most of the 3D printing happens in other companies
external to Kraftwurx (Valenzuela, 2012). It is our analysis that none of the activities
mentioned by Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009) regarding supply chain management
applies to Kraftwurx, I.materialise or Sculpteo when they outsource production, since those
activities are in these cases handled by the contracted bureaus. The activities they need to
perform are to manage their bureaus in order to send the design to the most suitable bureau
depending on the location and required printed material (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela,
2012). Kraftwurx state they perform this activity automatically through its Digital Factory
software, while I.materialise and Sculpteo manage this through e-mails (Joris; Kammogne,
13
Digital Factory is an in-house software developed by Kraftwurx. It can be described as a new approach to
Enterprise Resource Planning software which enables Kraftwurx to provide an open platform for 3D printer
providers. The software allows them to “track real-time work-in-progress, re-schedule work, re-route work to
another facility, conduct what-if scenarios, update work instructions” (Kraftwurx website, 2012).
31
2012). It is our analysis that handling the supply chain of bureaus would mean that all the
involved companies need to effectively manage the production network and channel orders
from their customers to the appropriate bureau; as Valenzuela (2012) mentions, managing
these activities in an effective way becomes crucial in order to efficiently fulfill the order.
Regarding the third supply chain, we argue that by uploading the 3D designs, the external
designers are as a matter of fact supplying the company with digital designs. All the involved
companies stated that the purchase of an uploaded design on the company website is what
triggers the whole production process (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). This, makes the
designs part of the supply chain according to Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009), since
the companies have to manage them as any other input. Once the design is received, first it
must be verified through an in-house developed software in order to check and sometimes
automatically correct the design to be printable (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). This
software also verify that the design fulfills the company’s policies (e.g. I.materialise stated
that they do not print models that are in conflict with their mission and value statement like
weapons or models for which they have ethical concerns) which equals inspection mentioned
by Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009). Secondly the design is stored on the company’s
server, this in line with Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009) theory regarding receiving
and storing inputs from suppliers, except that in this industry this inputs are digital and that
external designers become suppliers. Dissemination of the input as mentioned by Porter
(1985) and Thompson et al. (2009), would be equivalent to Kraftwurx sending the 3D design
to a contracted bureau (Valenzuela, 2012) or in the case of I.materialise and Sculpteo, sending
it to an in-house 3D printer (Joris; Kammogne, 2012). Finally, inventory management stated
by Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009) is done by the designers themselves through
their seller accounts on the Kraftwurx website or enabling their vendor account on
I.materialise and Sculpteo websites. By doing this, customers are able to manage what 3D
models they choose to publish (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012).
The above mentioned regarding the third type of supply chain does not include the optional
stage where the companies internally design products. This will be mentioned under section
4.1.6 Technology Development.
32
4.1.2 Operations
According to our empirical findings we chose to divide the operations into two parts. First,
according to production in-house and secondly according to production by bureaus.
Regarding production in-house, Kraftwurx, I.materialise and Sculpteo (2012) stated that the
3D printing process consists of two main stages. Then the first step in production is the actual
printing process performed by the 3D printer. The second step is the manual post-processing
of the printed piece (de-powdering, polishing, covering, etc). The type of post-processing
varies depending on what type of 3D printing process and the material used, meaning that
there are many kinds of post-processing (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). Mentioned by
all our respondents are that during the operations it is also important to make sure they
produce quality 3D prints (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). I. materialise mentioned that
they have an internal operational stage called “quality control” (Joris, 2012) which is in line
with quality assurance mentioned as an operations activity by Porter (1985) and Thompson
et al. (2009), while 3D printing process would equal machining also mentioned by Porter
(1985) and Thompson et al. (2009). However, assembly (Porter, 1985; Thompson et al.,
2009) is something hardly ever required with 3D printing, since Kraftwurx states that even
items with movable parts can be printed in a single piece. The post-processing mentioned by
the companies fall into the category of activities of operations following Porter’s (1985)
definition that operation stage are activities associated with transforming inputs into the final
product form. Equipment maintenance (Porter, 1985; Thompson et al., 2009) is also
performed on the 3D printers. Some 3D printers need maintenance for each print while others
only need maintenance once per year according to Kraftwurx (Valenzuela, 2012). Sculpteo
also stated that the machines need to be checked once per year, but if any problem occurs with
the 3D printer they immediately contact their maintenance provider (Kammogne, 2012).
Due to the fact that I.materialise owns over 60 printers in-house and Sculpteo also operates
their own production facility we can see that they conduct facility operations mentioned by
Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009). Further, based on this we argue that they are the
main operations activities of those two companies, since they do most of the production in-
house. According to our research, these activities are also carried out by Kraftwurx
(Valenzuela, 2012), but are not the main operations activities for the company, since they only
own a single printer and outsource most of the 3D printing to bureaus. They focus more on
33
their network of bureaus, and to supervise the whole production process even if this is
outsourced to external bureaus (Valenzuela, 2012).
Regarding the production by bureaus, operations include other activities from the companies
than previously mentioned. They involve ensuring their websites are up and running as a
marketplace, mainly to allow designers to upload their designs, for customer to buy these
designs, but also for bureaus to register themselves to a database. Further, order processing is
an activity for the companies to channel their received orders from customers to the most
appropriate bureau or internal facility, which is the closest bureau to the customer and with
the appropriate production capacity; Kraftwurx achieve the above through their Digital
factory software and according to our research I.materialise and Sculpteo also have developed
other software to manage automatically the verification and order processing stages (Joris;
Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012).
4.1.3 Distribution
All companies stated that packaging, mentioned by Porter (1985), of the printed items is done
manually. According to Kraftwurx “in a normal scenario no storage is necessary”
(Valenzuela, 2012). Thus, finished goods warehousing mentioned by Porter (1985) is
usually unnecessary, since according to all our respondents most of the time the products are
shipped directly after they are packaged (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). Material
handling mentioned by Porter (1985) is just manual handling of the packaged items directly
to distributors according to Valenzuela (2012).
According to information found on all the websites of the companies they all use UPS
delivery companies to ship the printed products to the address specified by the customers
(I.materialise; Kraftwurx; Sculpteo, 2012). As we can see this makes delivery vehicle
operation mentioned by Porter (1985) unnecessary and scheduling is only to decide when
during the day they will hand over the product to UPS, within the service hours of the
delivery company. Establishing and maintaining a network of distributors as mentioned
by Thompson et al. (2009) only consists of contracting UPS for delivery. Further, the order
processing mentioned by Porter (1985) is already performed when the customer orders an
item which will be printed.
34
According to our research, the distribution activities mentioned above are only relevant for
the companies when they 3D print internally and have to supervise that the products are
properly shipped to their destination. When outsourcing the production to bureaus, all these
activities becomes irrelevant for the companies, since the responsibility to make sure the
product is shipped is handled by the bureaus, who also use delivery companies(Joris;
Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012).
4.1.4 Marketing
I.materialise stated that 90% of their marketing is carried out through social media (Joris,
2012) and both Sculpteo and I.materialise state that word-of-mouth is very important for their
companies (Joris; Kammogne, 2012).
Promotion mentioned by Porter (1985) is used by all companies and are activities stated by
the companies such as press releases, publishing company blogs, attending meet-ups and
events to promote their services (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). Further, Kraftwurx
mentions that they send out newsletters to their members and encourage members to speak
out about their experience, posting comments and photos of their printed products on the
company blog, website or Facebook page (Valenzuela, 2012).
Advertising mentioned by Porter (1985) is used by the all companies in the form of banners
on their own website, social media accounts like Facebook and Twitter as well as on other
websites (Joris; Kammogne; Kraftwurx, 2012). Sculpteo states that they also use pamphlets
(Kammogne, 2012). Sculpteo also have an internal sales force which sell their products by
prospection with their potential customers (Kammogne, 2012).
I.materialise state that the channel relations they select and manage by providing CAD
packages to other websites and direct communication with their potential and actual
customers. These actors in their channels help to spread the word among the business (Joris,
2012). Sculpteo state they use partnerships to market themselves. E.g. 3D design software
created by other companies, like Tinkercard and Sketchup, include a button that allows the
user to order a 3D print on Sculpteo.com (Kammogne, 2012)
For all companies pricing is set depending on the size, materials and finishes of the printed
items (Kammogne, 2012; Kraftwurx and I.materialise, 2012).
35
Dealer support mostly applies to bureaus, which is mostly used by Kraftwurx, which they
provide it via phone and e-mail (Valenzuela, 2012).
Further, both Sculpteo and I.materialise stated that the designers and 3D printing community
play an important role to their company’s advertisement. These people know 3D printing
technology, are aware of new products and are the best customers, so a lot of focus is on them
(Joris; Kammogne, 2012). Though, from all the companies only Kraftwurx offers an online
social community, where they can market new offers and services (Valenzuela, 2012)
4.1.5 Service
As we stated the companies provides the service of producing goods, which has been treated
as operations and will not be mentioned under service activities by Porter (2004)
According to I.materialise and Sculpteo they keep in constant communication with the
customer during the whole production process up to and including the point where the
customer receives the product (Joris; Kammogne, 2012). This leads to little service needed by
customers after sales which is also stated by Kraftwurx (Valenzuela, 2012). Further,
Kraftwurx stated their wish for people to share their experience after receiving a product is a
way for the company to get feedback and improve their service (Valenzuela, 2012).
Installation mentioned by Porter (1985) is not done by any of the companies, since the
products do not require this kind of service. (I.materialise; Kraftwurx; Sculpteo, 2012).
Kraftwurx states that they offer a service where they can 3D print a new copy of a broken
item which the customers send to them. Also, if an item which is shipped to the customer is
broken during the shipment, Kraftwurx offers to produce a copy and send it again without any
extra charge. Both activities are close to repair which is mentioned by Porter (1985), but is
according to us not repair of an item, but replication of it. Further, all companies have
software that “repairs” the digital 3D designs, meaning that if a 3D design has parts which are
too thin to print the software is used to notify the designer of this and sometimes
automatically repair it (Joris; Valenzuela; Sculpteo, 2012).
Referring to training mentioned by Porter (1985) we found that Sculpteo offers video
tutorials for 3D modeling through their website (Kammogne, 2012), I.materialise and
36
Kraftwurx has not yet taken into consideration to create trainings, but offer support via phone
to bureaus and customers (I.materialise; Joris, 2012; (Valenzuela, 2012).
None of the companies offer spare parts delivery as mentioned by Porter (1985) for items
they have printed, but can as stated previously replicate an entire model. What the companies
can do is to print models uploaded by external designers that are as a whole spare part, e.g.
machine parts (I.materialise; Kraftwurx; Sculpteo, 2012).
Technical assistance, buyer inquiries and complaints mentioned by Thompson et al.
(2009) are definitely handled by all the involved companies, since they provide this by phone,
e-mail and their websites (Sculpteo; I.materialise; Kraftwurx, 2012).
4.1.6 Technology Development
According to both Sculpteo and I.materialise the respective companies develops only a few
3D designs in-house and the majority of 3D designs are developed by external designers
(Joris; Kammogne, 2012). For Kraftwurx the current scenario is different, Valenzuela (2012)
stated that at the present most of the designs in their marketplace are made by their in-house
designers, but only as a strategy to gain interest and hence new members and new designs. He
also mentioned that in a perfect scenario the development of 3D designs would disappear
from the company’s in-house activities or be reduced to just develop support designs14
. The
goal stated by all the companies was that all the designs would be uploaded by external
designers (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). E.g. I.materialise confirmed this by saying
that “the company focuses on being the perfect support partner” and that their main interest is
to have independent designers (Joris, 2012).
The development of 3D models corresponds to what Porter (1985) and Thompson et al.
(2009) stated about considering the product design as a technology development activity.
Kraftwurx also offers the option for members to collaborate with each other in developing 3D
designs. Anyone can post ideas for products on a section of the Kraftwurx website called
“Co-create” and see if an independent designer or an in-house designers at Kraftwurx will
develop it for them (Valenzuela, 2012). Sculpteo also offer the skill of their in-house
14
Support designs are 3D models available on Kraftwurx website called “Kickstarters” which can be
downloaded for free, customized and later re-uploaded by members to be printed allowing non-experienced
members to be involved in the customization process (Torres 2011, Kraftwurx website 2012, Valenzuela, 2012).
37
designers to external non-designing customers, according to Sandra Kammogne (2012)
“Sculpteo creates a relationship between their customers and their designers who are able to
model customer designs” enabling non-designers customers’ participation in the design
process. At the present moment I.materialise does not offer a website section which allows
people to post their design ideas, though designers can always ask for help from the company
via phone (Joris, 2012). It is our analysis that the options for collaborative creation is
corresponding to Porter (1985) and Thompson et al. (2009) statements to improve the product
and the processes concerning the company, by enables communication that facilitates the
production process through the customer involvement. This enables the company to produce
products exactly to the customer requirements.
A different focus on technology development is the actual development of the 3D printing
technology. Both Kraftwurx and I.materialise state that they develop new 3D printer
materials, as well as collaborate with 3D printer manufacturers to boost innovation regarding
the 3D printing technology (Joris; Valenzuela, 2012). I.materialise further stated that they
built some of their own 3D printers and most of the company’s software tools Joris (2012).
According to Valenzuela (2012), Kraftwurx is also in contact with all the major 3D printer
manufacturers in order to boost technology development. Kraftwurx also developed the
Digital Factory software facilitating integration of their bureaus into a network (Valenzuela,
2012). It is our analysis that the development of these software corresponds to Porter’s (1985)
and Thompson et al. (2009) statement that technology development support any of the
technologies embodied in the value chain, since these software are used by the companies to
efficiently integrate their production and bureaus with customers and external designers. It
also refers to the 3D printing technology development inside the companies, since the
industry of 3D printing technology is connected in order to boost technological research.
Further, regarding the designs mostly being developed by external designers is in line with
Porter’s (1985) statement that this development would be connected to a development group.
However, these designers are external to the company, not internal. On the other side, the
cases when the companies design internally, instead of going against Porter’s (1985)
statements, it goes against the goals of the industry itself.
38
4.1.7 E-commerce
“The digital part is the network that connects all the players, artists, printers, and buyers”
(Valenzuela 2012)
As mentioned by Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) producers, consumers and suppliers integrated
with each other facilitate full achievement of mass customization.
According to all respondents the Internet plays a very important role to fully achieve this
integration (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012), mainly since Internet enables their online
marketplace to integrate with their production capacity. This is done in the way that the items
purchased online by customers lead to the creation of orders to produce these items. The ways
the companies achieve this integration vary little. As mentioned earlier by Kraftwurx they use
the software Digital factory which integrates their bureaus, customers and designers through
Kraftwurx website. This enables order processing, communication and information flow
between the customers and the company (Valenzuela, 2012). I.materialise uses an in-house
software also to enable communication and information flow between the activities of the
company (Joris, 2012) and finally Sculpteo’s “3D Printing cloud engine offers an ambitious
new plane of service by giving companies the embeddable tools to develop and market their
own 3D-printed objects” (Ludwig, 2012). This leads to the benefit that e-commerce used by
all the respondents is indeed a value creating ally for this industry and a main base to enable
commerce as Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) and Lee et al. (2000), since as we can see it
integrates the company marketplaces with their customers, external designers, bureaus, their
internal production. Thus, some of the primary activities of the value chain (Porter 1985);
supply chain, operations, marketing and service is integrated and facilitated by e-commerce.
As we see, the delivering companies are not integrated through e-commerce, but is done in an
offline way. It is our analysis that Internet in this particular industry becomes a useful
integration tool, enabling communication and customization flow both inside and outside the
company. Thus, e-commerce creates an integrated network capable of achieving mass
customization without incurring high costs for the company due to the Internet as stated by
Kaplan & Haenlein (2004).
39
The next figure illustrates the resulted value chain from the industry analysis
Figure3. Value chain adapted from Porter’s (1985) after the industry analysis (Morales & Wisalchai, 2012)
4.2 Mass production
In this section we will account for the empirical evidence we collected and analyze it to reveal
what parts of the mass production term is applicable to 3D printing technology, by first
comparing the four basic principles of mass production mentioned in Encyclopædia
Britannica with the alternate definitions by Hounshell and Sabel. We have divided the theory
into what comprises mass production and what the purpose is.
4.2.1 Specialized Tasks
Kraftwurx (2012) stated that the 3D printing is an automatic process and that “the 3D printers
require a very human touch. It takes a skilled person to run the machines properly and
produce quality 3D prints” (Valenzuela, 2012). Both Kraftwurx and I.materialise stated that
the post-production after printing and item is done by skilled workers (Joris; Valenzuela,
2012).
40
The Encyclopædia Britannica (2012) mentions that repetitive motion patterns and
minimal handling of the work piece constitutes specialized tasks. It is our analysis that the
tasks involved in production are made up by relatively repetitive motion patterns based on all
the companies’ descriptions of the tasks involved. Also, we argue that the handling of the
piece is minimal, since most is done by machines (Joris; Sculpteo; Valenzuela; 2012).
Therefore, we can state that 3D printing is comprised of specialized tasks.
The purpose of dividing the total production into specialized tasks, was according to
Encyclopædia Britannica, to achieve human motion patterns easily learned and a
minimum of unnecessary motion. As all companies state that the whole production process
is simple and only divided into two steps (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012), meaning that
is already divided into highly specialized tasks necessary to achieve efficient human motion
patterns, which according to our research are relatively easy to learn, however some skills are
needed.
4.2.2 Standardization of Components
As mentioned in the Encyclopædia Britannica (2012), simplification and standardization of
components is the second principle of mass production. We argue that it is unnecessary and
impossible to apply standardization of components when mass producing with 3D printing,
due to 3D printers being able to be very flexible in what items they print, following the
statements of all companies that each item printed can vary greatly in design and materials
(I.materialise; Sculpteo; Valenzuela, 2012). Thus, we find no evidence that standardization is
a part of 3D printing. However, the underlying reasons for implementing standardization
stated in the Encyclopædia Britannica (2012) were to facilitate large production runs and
further economies of scale. Valenzuela and Joris (2012) stated that if several items are printed
simultaneously in the same 3D printer, we can argue that large production is possible. They
also state that in this case cost per piece can lower (Joris; Valenzuela, 2012) which we can see
is in line with the definition of economies of scale. Thus, the underlying purpose standardized
components is fulfilled, without actually needing to use this principle. We argue that the only
standardization fitting the second principle of mass production is the use standard 3D printing
materials, which Valenzuela (2012) states are purchased from suppliers.
41
4.2.3 Development and Use of Specialized Machines and Tools
We consider 3D printers as highly specialized machines, since it has a single activity to
handle which is to print and it is an automated process. Meaning that most of the
manufacturing process happens inside of the 3D printer. The overall process also included the
post-processing of the 3D printed item which varies depending on the printer and the
materials used (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). To perform these activities some
specialized tools used manually are necessary according to the companies (Joris; Sculpteo;
Valenzuela, 2012). Most of the whole production process is automated with the 3D printing
machine which makes it relatively in line with purpose of the third principle of the mass
production to minimize the human effort through the use of machinery as stated in
Encyclopædia Britannica (2012).
One underlying purpose of developing and using specialized machines according to the
Encyclopædia Britannica (2012) was to create economies of scale by maximizing the output
per capital invested, which can be reflected in Kraftwurx and I.materialise statements that
their cost per piece can be lowered by 3D printing in larger quantities (Joris; Valenzuela,
2012). According the Encyclopædia Britannica (2012) another purpose would be to reduce the
number of off-standard units or defect rate and raw material cost. We can see this criteria
fulfilled with 3D printing, since Kraftwurx states that the defect rate is as low as 0,0001 %
and is most of the time related to human error (Valenzuela, 2012). This is also supported by
I.materialise statement that the defect rate is low (Joris, 2012). Further, we can see that
material cost are lowered with 3D printers, since Kraftwurx state that the excess material does
not needs to be scrapped, but can be re-used (Valenzuela, 2012).
4.2.4 Engineer and Plan Total Production System
According to the Encyclopædia Britannica (2012) the fourth principle is to systematically
engineer and plan the total production. As stated earlier in connection with specialized tasks
the whole production process is simple and only consist of two steps (Joris; Kammogne;
Valenzuela, 2012). Therefore, we argue that systematic engineering and planning of the total
production process is not necessary. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica (2012), the
purpose of the fourth principle was to achieve the best balance between human effort and
42
machines, integrating all elements of production to maximize productivity and minimize
costs. We argue that this is already achieved, since according to all the companies the 3D
printer does most of the work and the post-processing is performed manually (Joris; Sculpteo;
Valenzuela, 2012), since according to Valenzuela (2012) currently there is no machines that
can perform all the post-processing. Thus, we can see that currently the total production
process can not entirely be done by several or a single machines, excluding manual work
which would maximize the output even further.
4.2.5 Sabel & Zeitlin Perspective
We argue that 3D printing follow Sabel & Zeitlin’ (1985) description of mass production
being comprised of single-purpose machines, since the 3D printers fit this description. Sabel
& Zeitlin (1985) statement that the machines are combined with unskilled labour is not true,
since all the companies stated that the workers operating the 3D printers and the post-
processing needs to be skilled (Joris; Valenzuela 2012). Also, according to Sabel & Zeitlin
(1985) the purpose was to produce standard goods. This is not the usual purpose of 3D
printers in the companies we studied, but they are capable of producing several identical items
simultaneously in the same 3D printer according to Joris and Valenzuela (2012). In other
words they can produce standard goods, but skilled workers and specialized machines are
needed.
4.2.6 Mass Perspective
The first angle on the “mass” perspective by Hounshell (1984) to reach masses of consumers
by producing products affordable to nearly everyone can become true for 3D printing. This is
if large quantities of items are produced simultaneously in the same machine, since it would
lower costs and prices according to Valenzuela (2012). Joris (2012) made a similar statement
that “sometimes it’s cheaper, most of the times 3D printing is more expensive and when
making pieces in highly complex shapes that can’t be built with standard technologies or
would need a lot of expertise and adaption, it’s cheaper”. We argue that the second angle of
Hounshell (1984) to reach large quantities in term of increasing production in order to reduce
production costs is definitely achievable through 3D printing. Even though it is possible, the
43
companies in our study do not necessarily do this. Both I.materialise and Kraftwurx stated
that the more they produce, the more they can lower the costs (Joris; Valenzuela, 2012).
Further, we argue that Hounshell’s (1984) statement that mass production was to ensure
quality by eliminating unpredictable factors caused by unskilled human interaction, by
automating processes is true for 3D printing. Since, the actual production is automated, but we
argue that the difference in 3D printing is that it does not use unskilled workers. However, the
final defect rate of the products is not a problem for 3D printing technology as stated by Joris
and Valenzuela (2012).
4.3 Mass Customization
In this section of the analysis we will use information from the companies to reveal what parts
of the mass customization definition are applicable to 3D printing technology. By revealing if
a business can achieve mass customization through the use of 3D printing, it would mean that
the technology itself is capable of achieving mass customization.
As mentioned by Pine (1993), mass customization tries to achieve broad enough variety and
customization so that nearly everyone finds exactly what they are looking for. For 3D printing
companies that is definitely not a problem to achieve; as mentioned by Kraftwurx, their
customers can create new product designs by making digital 3D models themselves, or co-
create them with other designers if they are not skilled enough (Valenzuela, 2012). Sculpteo
also mentioned the possibility to design a product from scratch or to change different options
through their workshops or online applications (Kammogne,2012). Also, I.materialise
encourages people to create their own products from the ground up, plus they have support
software mainly to help designers get involved in the design process (I.materialise, 2012).
This reveals that the customers have virtually an infinite variety of products which they can
create customized to their own preferences and choose from various materials and finishes to
further personalize even more their products.
Kaplan & Haenlein (2006) mentioned in all their mass customization definitions, the
creation of value and as we can observe the 3D printing industry creates value by serving their
customer’s need for customized goods. Sculpteo and I.materialise stated that their work
begins once a necessity of a product has emerged (Joris; Kammogne, 2012). For Kraftwurx as
44
we have mentioned before the current scenario is different because their present focus is to
attract designers to their market place (Valenzuela, 2012), though the long term goal is the
same for the three companies regarding this industry, where most of the value consists on
serve this necessity of people wanting to buy customized products. The above also enable the
companies to achieve a maximum differentiation of their products, which is mentioned in
Kaplan & Haenlein’s (2006) visionary definition of mass customization, since the companies
can create products customized to each customer’s preferences. Further, Kaplan & Haenlein’s
(2006) stated in the visionary mass customization definition a combination of differentiation
with a cost leadership strategy. We observe that this can be achieved through them lowering
costs by outsourcing product development to the customers and also through an increased
production they can achieve some degree of cost leadership. 3D printing technology may
achieve relatively cheap ways to produce products (e.g. having almost zero production waste,
almost no finished goods warehousing, few steps in the production, printing several products
with different designs but the same material at the same time). Although prices and costs are
still not comparable to mass production (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012).
Kaplan & Haenlein’s (2006) also mentioned customer-company interaction in all their mass
customization definitions. The difference between definitions was that for the working and
electronic mass customization definitions, the interaction happens in the fabrication/assembly
stage, while in the visionary definition it happens in the design stage. According to the
statements of all three companies they interact with the customer from the first contact with
the customer and if the customers want, they can be involved along the whole process from
design to delivery. All the companies want to enable and maintain this communication if
possible during the whole process (Joris; Kammogne; Valenzuela, 2012). According to our
research this particular industry fits all both the working and the visionary definition of mass
customization because the customer is involved in both the design stage and the fabrication
stage. Also, even more the companies expect the customer to contribute to their feedback and
needs. According to Sculpteo “we adapt our services to satisfy our customers even if the
service is not on our website”(Kammogne, 2012), Kraftwurx also mentioned that they “adjust
their website constantly to better suite how customers want to upload, buy and sell 3d
prints”(Valenzuela, 2012), and finally the same happens to I. materialize where they
mentioned that their customers are their “partners” (Joris, 2012). Kaplan & Haenlein’s (2006)
definition of electronic mass customization state that in addition to what is mentioned in the
45
working definition, at least one market dimensions - players, products and processes - need to
be digital. As stated earlier people buy and sell their items through the online marketplaces of
the companies (I.materialise; Sculpteo; Kraftwurx, 2012), thus making players digital. Even
though the design necessary to produce the item are digital, the product being sold is the
physically printed item according to the websites of the companies’ (I.materialise; Sculpteo;
Kraftwurx, 2012). Processes are also digital, since activities such as product choice, purchase
order, customization, production and payment are done online (I.materialise; Sculpteo;
Kraftwurx, 2012). Thus, we can observe that the players and processes are digital, which
fulfills electronic mass customization. However, the product is not digital and since not all the
three market dimensions are digital the companies’ does not fit the definition of pure
electronic mass customization.
The following table shows the characteristics of mass production and mass customization,
whether 3D printing fulfills those Action criteria or not. As well as if the characteristic is
made unnecessary by 3D printing, but can still fulfill its underlying purpose.
Table 1. Check list of 3D printing compared to mass production and mass customization
(Further detail of the table is available in a full version of the table attached under Appendix II)
46
5. CONCLUSIONS
The industry of companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through an e-commerce
marketplace consists of companies providing a service, which is to 3D print products
designed by external designers. By outsourcing some of their production they manage to
produce closer to the customer and thereby gaining access to more types of printers, materials
and to serve customers worldwide. According to our analysis the Internet plays an important
role for these companies, helping them to build a digital designers-company network where
sometimes even suppliers are involved.
3D printing is capable of mass production, since it fulfills most of its characteristics and
those not fulfilled are not needed to fulfill their underlying purposes. 3D printing technology
only successfully fulfilled five out of eight characteristics for mass production. We argue that
two characteristics which are not fulfilled, standardization of components and engineering &
planning of the production, are not necessary to fulfill to achieve their underlying purposes
that 3D printing do achieve. The third characteristic, combination of single-purpose machines
and unskilled labour, is only half fulfilled, since the workers involved in 3D printing are not
unskilled. However, the underlying purpose of this characteristic to produce standard goods is
fulfilled by the 3D printing technology.
According to our analysis it can also be concluded that 3D printing technology fulfills all
the characteristics of the mass customization. The visionary and working definitions as well
as the definition of electronic mass customization are fulfilled. However, 3D printing does not
fulfill characteristics of pure electronic mass customization due to the delivered product to the
customer is not digital and it is not consumed on a digital environment.
The value chain for the industry of companies offering 3D printed goods for end use through
e-commerce marketplaces consist of five primary activities and two support activities. The
first primary activity is supply chain activities which involve all the inputs to the company
and this industry; it is divided into three types depending on input. First, supply of materials
to the in-house 3D printers. Second the supply of items printed by external bureaus. Third,
supply of 3D designs from external designers to the websites of the companies. We consider
these designs as an external input to the companies which also triggers the whole operation if
they are purchased.
47
The second primary activities are operations which we divided this into two types of
operations depending on if the production takes place inside or outside the company. First,
when the production occurs in-house, the 3D printing process and any necessary post-
processing is carried out by the companies’ own printers and workers. Second, when
production is outsourced to bureaus the companies still has some internal activities to manage
like the supervision of the whole activity with its correct flow within their partner´s internal
process to ensure quality levels and the company’s brand name.
The third primary activity is distribution which mostly includes packaging for the
companies. However, the delivery of the products is outsourced to delivery companies.
The fourth primary activity is marketing and involves promoting and advertising the
services of the companies. What we found is that a large part of the marketing happens online,
specifically through social media.
The fifth primary activity are services, these refers to offering help to customers, by e.g.
advising them through the customization process, providing information, technical support
along the whole process and handling any possible complaints.
The first support activity is technological development. Here the companies work together
with 3D printer manufacturers and customer to enhance 3D printing technology and develop
new materials. It also includes development of 3D designs by the companies themselves. As it
was mentioned in the analysis, this stage would disappear in a perfect scenario of a 3D printed
goods industry for end use through an e-commerce marketplace.
The second support activity is e-commerce as an extremely value creating activity
responsible to connect the marketplaces of the companies with their customers, internal
production capacity and in the case of Kraftwurx their online social community and Bureaus
network.
48
6. LIMITATIONS & IMPLICATIONS
Limitations of the result of this study are the inability to gain information from all four
actors, though the current number of participants is sufficient to make the results strong and
representative to the whole industry. Further, another limitation of the results concerning the
state of industry, is that we show only a present picture, which may change in the next coming
years. Although, we consider the research to have shown an overview of the foundation for
the industry which will still be relevant and hopefully will be useful for future groundwork.
The implications of these conclusions for practitioners within this industry is that first of all
3D printing makes it possible to both mass customize goods, but also can be used to mass
produce goods. The current picture of the industry also shows that the use of digital designs
can be chosen to be produced by a bureau which may be local to the customer, thus making
the manufacturing more localized and helping to reduce some distribution and duty costs. It
also shows that companies like Kraftwurx are emerging and all of the companies are in
constant contact with 3D printer manufacturers to further improve the technology and
probably leading to an evolution of 3D printing technology in the coming years.
49
REFERENCES
Interviews
Valenzuela, Marco; Community manager of Kraftwurx. April 4, 9, 10, 24, 27, 2012
Joris, Martjin; Business development manager of I.materialise. May 14, 2012
Kammogne, Sandra; Marketing assistant of Sculpteo. May 18, 2012
Websites
Kraftwurx:
www.kraftwurx.com
http://www.facebook.com/Kraftwurx
Sculpteo:
http://www.sculpteo.com/fr/
http://www.facebook.com/sculpteo
I.materialise:
http://i.materialise.com/
http://www.facebook.com/i.materialise
Shapeways:
http://www.shapeways.com/
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Shapeways-3D-printing-community/288891469878
3D Systems:
http://www.3dsystems.com/
Encyclopædia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/
National Geographic:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com
The International Institute on Mass Customization & Personalization
http://www.iimcp.org/
50
Academic articles
Aktouf, O. 2005. “The False Expectations of Michael Porter’s Strategic Management
Framework”, Journal Academy of Management
Calori, R. 1989 “Designing a business scanning system”, Long Range Planning, Volume 22,
Issue 1, February 1989, Pages 69-82.
Dewan, R., Jing, B. and Seidmann, A. 2000. “Adoption of Internet-Based Product
Customization and Pricing Strategies”, Journal of Management Information Systems 17(2),
pp.9–28.
Kain, A., Mueller, C., Reinecke, H. 2009. “High aspect ratio- and 3D- printing of
freestanding sophisticated structures”, Procedia Chemistry, Volume 1, Issue 1, pp. 750-753.
Kaplan, A., & Haenlein., M. 2006, “Toward a Parsimonious Definition of Traditional and
Electronic Mass Customization”, Journal Of Product Innovation Management, 23, 2, pp. 168-
182
Klein, J., 2001. “A critique of competitive advantage” Critical Management Studies
Conference, July 2001, Manchester
Kotha, S. 1995. “Mass Customization: Implementing the emerging paradigm for competitive
advantage”, Strategic Management Journal, 16, pp. 21-42
Lampel, J., and Mintzberg, H. (1996). “Customizing Customization”, Sloan Management
Review 38, pp. :21–30.
Lu, K., Reynolds, W.T. 2008. “3DP process for fine mesh structure printing”, Powder
Technology, Volume 187, Issue 1, 8, pp. 11-18.
Petrovic V., Haro Gonzalez J.V., Jordá Ferrando, O., Delgado Gordillo, J., Blasco Puchades,
J.R. & Portolés Griñan, L. 2011. “Additive layered manufacturing: sectors of industrial
application shown through case studies”, International Journal of Production Research, 49:4,
pp.1061-1079
Sabel C., Zeitlin J. 1985. “Historical Alternatives to Mass Production: Politics, Markets and
Technology in Nineteenth-Century Industrialization” Past & Present No. 108 (Aug., 1985),
pp. 133-176
51
Other Articles
Mass Production, Based on the principles of specialization and division of labour as first
described by Adam Smith, 2009. The Economist
Retrieved February 20, 2012.
http://www.economist.com/node/14299820
Print me a Stradivarius, 2011.
Retrieved March 10, 2012.
http://www.economist.com/node/18114327
National Geographic Known Universe S03E06 Print Tools, 2011
Retrieved February, 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHnMj6dxj4
Ludwig, A. 2012. Sculpteo Takes 3D Printing to the Cloud
Retrieved on May 15, 2012
http://www.forbes.com/sites/techonomy/2012/02/07/sculpteo-takes-3d-printing-to-the-cloud/
Books
Choi, S., Stahl, D.O. and Whinston, A. B., 1997. “The Economics of Electronic Commerce”
Indianapolis: MacMillan Technical Publishing.
Davis M.S., 1987. “Future perfect”. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Hounshell, D.A. (1984). “From the American system to mass production, 1800-1932: the
development of manufacturing technology in the United States” Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
University Press
Pine, B.J., 1993. ”Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition”. Boston,
Mass.: Harvard Business School Press
Porter, M. 1985. “Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance”
New York: The free press.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2009. “Research methods for business students” 5.
ed. Harlow: Financial Times Prentice Hall
52
Thompson, A.A., Strickland, A.J., & Gamble, J. 2009. “Crafting and executing strategy: the
quest for competitive advantage concepts and cases”. 17 ed. Boston, Mass.: McGraw-
Hill/Irwin
53
APPENDIX
I. Interview Guide
Introduction questions
1. Could you tell us your full name and position at “Name of the company”?
2. Can you describe briefly your main activities as “position at the company”?
3. How long have you been working at the company?
4. Do you remember when the first time you heard about 3D printing technology was?
Questions regarding the company
1. Could you describe what “Name of the company” does?
2. Is 3D printing the only manufacturing technology in “Name of the company”?
3. Where are the company offices and production facilities placed?
4. How many people are currently working for “Name of the company”?
a. Is it necessary for the employees to have a certain training or level of
knowledge to be in their positions?
b. How long is this training and who give this training? I.e. employees or experts
in the technology?
5. Is the company divided into departments for an easier division of tasks? Could you
mention those areas?
6. Is “Name of the company” just a digital company? Meaning is there any physical store
or place where the customers could go to see the exhibition of products or the
technology itself?
7. What is the role of the customer inside the company?
Questions regarding the value chain
1. Do you think the division of areas was made according to those activities that bring
value to “Name of the company “?
2. In your opinion which are the key activities for “Name of the company “?
a. Are these activities related with each other?
54
3. In which part of the value chain is your personal role? (explain: development,
production, marketing & delivery)
Development
1. How the designs are developed for the items you print and who designs them?
a. Do non-designing customers and designers collaborate? If so, in what degree:
creating design from scratch or just customizing details?
2. Can you describe which options the customer has through your website? Is the
costumer always involved in the design of the items you print?
3. Is it often that designer buy large volume of items they design?
a. How often that happened?
b. Can you give examples of how large the quantities are?
4. Are there products that have been sold in large quantities?
a. To designers or to several independent customers?
5. If one person designs and prints a product, is this product automatically available for
other customers to purchase the product?
6. What design software do you use? Which ones do you recommend to user? Is it open
source software or is it a commercial one? Could you use both?
Production
1. What different types of 3D printing do you perform?
2. Could you describe for us what steps are involved in the production process in ”Name
of the company”? What is the first step, second step.... last step?
a. Ask follow-up question, whether the respondent should sub-divide the
activities he/she mentioned into additional activities.
3. Is it different between different types of 3D printing or materials? (For producing and
packaging processes)
4. Is there any assembly involved in making the items?
5. Is there any post processing after printing the products? If there is please specify and
give an approximate of the time it takes.
6. Is there any packaging of the item involved? How does the process look like? What
steps are involved? Is it manual? How long does it takes?
55
7. How are the items collected and taken from packaging to the next step? Is it automated
or done by manual labor?
8. Do the 3D printers require any periodic maintenance? How often?
a. If there is any other machinery involved the above question also include to
those machines
9. Is there any defect rate for the 3D printing production?
Marketing
1. In your opinion does the company market your printed products or your printing
services?
2. How do you market” Name of the company” services/products?
3. How can the consumer purchase the products/your services?
4. How do you promote your products/services?
a. Do you use advertising? If so, could you describe how and where you do it?
b. Do you have a sales force? If so please elaborate what it does.
5. What role does the online community play in marketing you products/services?
6. How do you decide are the products/services priced?
7. What marketing channels do you use and what relations do you maintain with them.
Delivery
1. Are there other ways of purchasing a 3D printed product other than through your
website? Can you mention the different ways a customer can buy printed products to
“Name of the company”?
2. What steps are involved in delivering the product to the consumer? (This would be
ALL steps after packaging)
3. Do you store the items after they are produced and packaged?
a. If the answer is yes, How do you store the items and how long?
4. How do you distribute the items to buyers? (Do they have third parties involved in this
process or is it internal distributors?)
5. Is it the same delivery process for every kind of printed materials?
6. Are there deliveries every day, do you consolidate products in order to lower costs?
56
Additional questions
1. If “Name of the company” has physical stores that customers can visit, is it possible
for the customers to go and semi-customized some products at your store?
2. Are the lead times fixed or is it possible to make them shorter in order to offer to the
customer an express service with an extra charge?
3. What do you earn money on? Do you charge for using the shops on your website?
4. Are there additional activities involved that was not mentioned earlier?
5. Are there any manufacturing proportion time-size, time-size-material?
6. Is technology developed inside the company or depends completely to 3d printers
companies?
7. To have a general idea of the company size, Can you tell us what the revenue of the
company is?
Thank you so much for your support and attention.
Karina Morales & Erik Wisalchai
57
II. The following file contains the table mentioned under section 4 to show the
characteristics of mass production and mass customization, whether 3D printing
fulfills those characteristics or not. As well as if the characteristic is made unnecessary
by 3D printing, but can still fulfill its underlying purpose. The file is presented here in
case the reader wants to deeply analyze the table.
3DP-MP-MC.pdf