Take the Guess Work Out of Additive Manufacturing
By Wilderich Heising, Dominik Deradjat, Thomas Krüger, Max Lutter-Günther, and Daniel Küpper
By now, manufacturers know the benefits of additive manufacturing (AM), often referred to as “3D printing.” Even so, quite a few haven’t incorporated AM into their operations or relegate them to pilot projects.
But companies can’t hold off adopting AM much longer. Regulators and investors are pressuring businesses of all kinds to meet stiffer environmental, social, and governance standards. To respond, manufacturers must take steps to make their operations and products more sustainable. Auto and aerospace OEMs in particular are looking for ways to improve fuel efficiency by shaving weight off parts and end products, for performance improvement, customization or parts consolidation.
AM can do that – if manufacturers can overcome the challenges that have prevented them from adopting it until now. One challenge is to identify the right technology for a particular application or use.
?We’ve developed a part identification tool that streamlines the decision-making process. Companies can use it to screen a parts portfolio, match parts to relevant AM, and then automatically calculate the economics of using specific AM technologies for specific parts. Automation of this type is the first step in choosing the right technology and maximizing AM’s full potential.
Misperceptions About Cost
Although manufacturers appreciate AM’s value, the sentiment has yet to lead to widespread use. When BCG and the World Economic Forum polled close to 1,400 manufacturers about Industry 4.0 technologies, more than 70% gave medium or high importance to AM, and more than 65% said it had medium to high impact on their industry. However, only 18% had incorporated AM in their operations, and another 50% either weren’t using it or had implemented it only in small pilots.
One of the biggest misperceptions holding companies back from using it has to do with cost. AM is widely thought of as more expensive than traditional manufacturing methods. And indeed, this is often the case when we only consider the manufacturing cost as such. However, the economic decision will always be a use case specific one. There will be a multitude of use cases, where traditional manufacturing methods are the right answer. But for an increasing number of use cases, AM can be a powerful alternative, especially when looking beyond pure manufacturing cost but taking a total cost of ownership perspective instead: A recent survey of BCG among approx. 100 companies from a variety of industries showed, that in fact manufacturing cost might increase at start by around 30% when moving from traditional manufacturing to additive manufacturing, however using an AM process that’s well-suited to a specific use case can reduce the total cost of ownership and result in superior products or component parts, as we’ve seen in BCG’s work with clients from several industries like medical, aerospace or automotive. For example, Automotive manufacturers that were planning to switch to AM for certain use cases have reduced the weight of specific vehicle parts by 30% to 40%, significantly improving fuel/electricity consumption as a result.
Over time, overall AM costs have improved to the point where they now are competitive with the cost of traditional manufacturing processes for certain applications. The exhibit shows an example of how wider use of AM has seen metal powder bed fusion technology costs decline over time.
In addition, new technologies such as area printing, binder jetting, and improvements to existing AM processes, such as powder bed fusion (PBF) that uses multiple lasers, allow AM to be used in a wider variety of products than it had been in the past.
Complexity Also Keeps Manufacturers Away
Despite such advancements, AM remains a challenge for many companies. It’s a major undertaking for OEMs to determine which components could be made more efficiently using AM, especially for those that have hundreds or thousands of parts in their portfolios. Just conducting an inventory to identify the most promising candidates takes substantial time and resources. After that, a company still has to match parts with the most cost-effective of myriad AM methods that also meet required technical specifications.
However, as automakers and other manufacturers have expanded the number of unique products and parts they produce, they’ve held off adopting processes that could increase manufacturing costs. As a result, many shied away from AM, thinking it was too expensive to be cost effective. As previously mentioned, many don’t have the time or resources to conduct a full-portfolio inventory or to sort through the multitude of available AM processes. So even if they could reduce costs by switching processes, they wouldn’t know it.
?
领英推荐
Automating the Process
Automating the match-making process can help improve companies’ sustainability efforts while providing financial benefits and keep them ahead of the competition.
The tool we’ve developed helps automate the most time-consuming part of the AM decision-making process, specifically, calculating part costs. Companies deploying such a tool can gain a competitive edge by quickly identifying opportunities to add value, for example, where they could reduce the weight of an automotive part. Consumer goods makers can use it to produce spare parts on an as-needed basis, which cuts inventory costs.
BCG’s tool involves two steps:
Using such automated tools for individual steps of the decision-making process also improves overall costs by reducing the resources needed to perform the assessments. Clients can use the tool to perform the calculations described above in a matter of minutes, a task that it might have taken an in-house expert half a week to complete.
?
Things to Consider
To get the most out of automating the AM decision-making process, companies should consider:
Starting small. Use the automated approach we’ve described to evaluate a portion of the entire product portfolio. Then, and as personnel build experience and knowledge, scale it to the entire portfolio a little at a time.
Leverage AM design benefits: Take advantage of AM design freedom to optimize existing product shapes. Do not simply replace a conventional manufacturing process like for like with AM
Build quality assurance and approvals into assessments. When determining the feasibility of AM processes, don’t forget to account for the additional time and resources that manufacturing some parts might need in order to meet safety requirements, such the rigorous testing criteria mandated for aerospace and automotive parts.
Decide whether to bring AM production in-house, or work with outside vendors and partners. If after conducting an analysis a company identifies multiple parts that could benefit from AM, it might be financially beneficial to build the internal capabilities necessary to bring AM in house. Or based on the results of the analysis, it could be more beneficial to outsource production. If that’s the case, a company may be able to work with an existing vendor, or have to find a new partner. If a company is adopting multiple AM methods, creating an AM partner network could be the most beneficial choice. For any new vendor, do technical due diligence to ensure that they’re capable of performing the work.
**
A parts identification tool that streamlines the decision-making process eliminates one of the biggest challenges that’s prevented some companies from taking advantage of AM’s many benefits. By adopting it, companies can produce better products, gain a competitive edge, and appease stakeholders urging them to operate more sustainably.
Done-For-You Client Acquisition Machine - We help ambitious Coaches and Consultants 3x their revenue with our DFY system.
2 年Daniel, thanks for sharing!