It’s More Important than Ever to Keep New Ideas in Perspective

As the pace of technological change has increased so has our thirst for fresh, exciting innovations. One of the unfortunate corollaries, however, is that we are prone to fads and exaggerations about the impact of processes and technologies that are frequently touted as revolutionary. Examples of process fads include the quality movement, self-directed teams, and sensitivity training. Technologies that were expected to “change everything” but did not quite live up to this promise include audio-visual conferencing and radio frequency identification (RFID).

Clearly, one can think about technological breakthroughs that were indeed transformative. The unleashing of atomic power and the start of the nuclear age, the Internet, and the mapping of the human genome, are notable examples. In most cases, however, the process or technology is hyped by software companies, consultants, and universities looking for funding, but the new way of doing things simply finds a niche and joins the arsenal of management methods and other technologies used to accomplish tasks.

A current technology that is being hyped in this way is 3D printing. 3D printing is based on a computer-controlled process that adds successive layers of material to build a three-dimensional object. The technology has many promising aspects. The objects can be of almost any shape or geometry; little assembly is required; lead time is short since each production run can be for a unique single item; less waste is generated as compared with traditional machining processes. The implications for supply chains design are thought to be revolutionary – a factory in every home to make toasters and toys, the end of outsourcing to low labor cost countries, the eradication of large inventories, and on and on.

The truth, of course, is substantially more nuanced. But before we explore the future of 3D printing, let’s examine another technology that was thought to change supply chains as we know them – RFID. The promise of RFID was true supply chain visibility at the item level. In addition, the technology was supposed to deliver labor savings through automatic readings, elimination of human-based errors, and many other benefits. Countless conferences, scientific papers, software applications, and expensive implementations later, it became clear that the technology had several limitations. There were some accuracy issues in reading RFID tags affixed to metal surfaces and containers carrying liquids. More importantly, the cost of the tags was never low enough to allow RFID to compete with the (basically free) bar code.

RFID did find certain application areas where its shortcomings were less important. An example is tracking items that were used multiple times, such as kegs of beer, work uniforms, pallets, and containers. However, RFID was not cost-effective when used to track the movement of inexpensive items across the globe for a one-time use – which is the case for most manufactured products.

So what is wrong with 3D manufacturing? Well – nothing; it’s just not quite ready to fundamentally displace mass manufacturing. The reason is that the process is slow and in most cases printed objects require significant post-production work to finish them. In addition, the range of materials that can be used is limited and the waste left after a metal is processed can be unusable for other production runs (owing to the changed molecular structure of the material in the laser layering process). Furthermore, the cost and efficiency of mass manufacturing is such that it’s difficult to see how 3D manufacturing will be competitive in the foreseeable future.

My guess is that 3D manufacturing will also find its niche – areas where the technology’s shortcomings matter less or the benefits are overwhelming. This is already happening. For example, the technology is being used in the production of prosthetics – where accuracy is paramount and each item is unique – and for creating complex items and offering customer-driven product customization. I expect this to be the path forward with a few more application areas and improvements in speed and processing, but no massive replacement of current manufacturing systems.

Moreover, rather than being located in homes, most 3D manufacturing stations are likely to be housed in regional centers (local distribution centers for somewhat large items and retail centers for smaller items).

The lesson we should draw from examples like these is that before getting carried away by the hype, we should consider innovations – especially ones that claim to be ground-breaking – in a cold commercial light. In today’s fast-paced world, betting on the wrong technological horse can be extremely costly.