Sponsored Archives - Perfect 3D Printing Filament

How to Manage the Complexity of a 3D Printing Service

At first glance, most 3D printing projects look easy. To most of you, 3D printing is not complicated at all, but to customers, it can be quite complex. I can hear something that Calvin, in that old comic strip, Calvin and Hobbes, might say, “We just need to de-complexify this…”

You look at a customer’s CAD file, and you, as a 3D printer owner and operator, see a relatively easy part to print. It makes sense to you. Prospects ask if you can print with a specific material, but may not realize it will not work for their particular use case. You know this and spend time explaining it which leads to why your quote is different from another provider or details on how your machine works. But at all times, you are striving to make sure the customer does not get overwhelmed with all of the various options.

You need to build a process to “de-complexify” the quoting process in addition to educating prospects about how additive manufacturing works. After providing a quote, an internal process is needed to keep everyone informed and working from the proverbial “same page.” In essence, you need a communication hub, a command center, that lets you, sales, engineering, plus your clients, see your entire workflow at a glance. Instead of a flurry of emails, or a bunch of colorful sticky notes on a whiteboard, maybe migrate to a Kanban-style project board. You have probably seen these new, popular project management platforms, such as Trello, Asana, and how they help you keep projects organized.

Kanban got its start when an industrial engineer at Toyota in the 1940s, Taiichi Ohno, had an idea to keep inventory moving efficiently. This inventory control system, made up of colored cards to track production and shipments, is the visual cue that people need to keep work processes flowing. When you make these sorts of cues or cards available to sales, engineering, and clients, you remove complexity from the 3D printing process.

At the heart of MakerOS is a Kanban-esque approach so that you have a dashboard, just like in a car, that gives you all the mission-critical information you need about the situation at hand. This project dashboard provides a real-time look at everything related to a print job — all the communication, uploaded files, quotes, invoices, and details you want to track about it in one glance. These visual cards can be shifted around as the project changes or moves through your workflow updating the customer and everyone on the team.

As the company owner, a real-time dashboard gives a “just in time” snapshot of revenue, progress across all print jobs, the entire sales pipeline, when new projects are created, and other variables that you decide are mission-critical to helping you improve your business.

Conclusion: If you automate your quote process, in essence, you are “decomplexifying” it and one of the major stumbling blocks for the customer. After winning the job with a simple, but complete quote, providing transparency into the internal workflow and build process will create an open platform that builds trust with a customer. Ultimately, your 3D printing business and processes may grow more complex, but that does not mean your customer has to get confused by it. As you grow, at every step, strive to be like Calvin and keep decomplexifying.

MakerOS removes complexity so that you can remain focused on doing what you do best: running a 3D printing service and getting prints out the door to customers. Visit us today to schedule a demo of how our robust communication hub approach can help you streamline projects from quote to finish. We offer a 30-day free trial to help you see how much more you can get done with a real-time dashboard built around 3D printing.

About the Author:

Mike Moceri has deep experience in manufacturing, design, and software. In 2013, he co-founded the world’s first 3D printing retail service bureau in Chicago. In 2014 he founded Manulith, a 3D printing and product design agency, where his clientele included Fortune 500 companies within the aerospace, automotive, and medical industries. Mike is also a mentor at Stanley+Techstars Additive Manufacturing Accelerator, a mentor at WeWork Labs in NYC, and formerly a mentor at TechTown Detroit. He’s previously been featured on MSN, Make Magazine, NBC, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. D-Business Magazine called him the “Face of 3D printing.” Mike is currently the founder and CEO of MakerOS, an all-in-one collaboration platform for additive manufacturing services to efficiently work with clients throughout the entire lifecycle of a project.

The post How to Manage the Complexity of a 3D Printing Service appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

More Efficient Drug Screening with 3D Bioprinting

Taking a drug to market is a competitive, costly and challenging process involving preclinical laboratory and animal testing before the even more time-consuming and expensive four phases of human clinical trials, which can take as many as 7 to 15 years at price tags as high as $5.5 billion. Even if 10 viable drug compounds are identified for human trials, only 1 out of 9 will actually make it to market. Given this high attrition rate, can bioprinting save valuable time and resources by better identifying viable compounds in order to move only the most promising drugs to clinical trials?

The limitations of animal testing

During the initial stages of drug discovery, often referred to as preclinical trials, new chemical entities (NCEs) are monitored to determine the life cycle of the compounds inside and outside of the targeted system (pharmacokinetics) and their chemical reactions (metabolism). Because of the ethical issues surrounding human trials and their high costs, a significant number of these early tests are performed on animals.

While the transition from preclinical animal testing to clinical human trials has improved thanks to better research tools and the rise of artificial intelligence in target identification, there is still a real need for improved preclinical screening because animal testing often fails to recapitulate the complexity of the human metabolism, leading to false positives and negatives that do not accurately reflect the toxicity of drugs to human systems.

3D cell cultures are more relevant

Given the limitations of animal models, it is no wonder that scientists have turned to human organ models. But although human cells have long been cultured in 2D, in recent years, a paradigm shift has led more and more scientists to recognize the importance of working with human cells in the 3D environments afforded by bioprinting in order to produce more physiologically relevant models. Combining the automation of cell culturing in 3D bioprinting with carefully tailored biomaterials, known as bioinks, has made it possible to grow, feed and maintain human organ models in larger quantities and in a lot less time, reducing time and labor spent on these tasks. Laboratory robotics can also now pick and place cell culture reagents or other NCEs and liquid samples in high numbers, enabling higher throughput screening and running a variety of other laboratory tasks more efficiently.

Bioinks better mimic ECM

Bioinks are another powerful tool that help researchers advance their drug discovery research. Tissue-specific bioinks improve cell adhesion and differentiation, helping with the formation of human organoids. Proteins and other biological factors can also be added to more accurately recreate extracellular matrices (ECM), once again better simulating the in vivo microenvironments. Furthermore, with multiple methods of crosslinking (chemical, light, thermal), the stiffness of constructs can be modulated to better serve specific cell types, like cartilage or bone tissue.

Learn more

Bioprinting’s more relevant human organ models can save the drug industry time and money by more efficiently identifying viable compounds in the initial stages of drug development in order to move only the most promising compounds to costly human clinical trials. The technology’s growing influence means that scientists continue to validate more and more applications. Dive deeper into how the bioprinting industry is changing drug screening and development. Watch our webinar on 3D bioprinting for COVID-19 studies or read our application note, which discusses the effectiveness of testing drug efficacy in 2D and 3D.

The post More Efficient Drug Screening with 3D Bioprinting appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

5 Reasons You Should Continue Scaling Your 3D Printing Service During COVID-19, and How to Do So

Creating a scalable business is a phrase often heard in startups and new venture circles, but what does it mean? You could say growth, or perhaps, strong sales, and you would not be wrong, but scaling is much more than those two ideas.

Sell more. This is often touted as the complete solution for how to scale a business. Another is to simply add more machines or people to increase capacity.

The well-worn mantra of “selling more” does not always solve the problem, nor does adding more capacity. Scaling means you build efficient processes. If you have not built organized processes to handle and serve the customer, then you are not ready to scale your 3D printing service.

A scalable business includes the flexibility and versatility to expand your business in a cost-effective way. It involves expansion so increased workloads do not overwhelm your team or disappoint your customers. Scalability is delivering without destroying your company. Scaling your business is more than exponential growth.

You may be asking, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, why bother trying to scale during a potentially slower economy? Here are five reasons to consider:

Improved efficiency usually results in cost-savings.
By preparing for scalable growth, you can create more consistent plans for the ups and downs (and may discover new ways to weather this current “down”).
Scalability creates adaptability to roll with economic changes and pressure.
Businesses which carefully consider scalability are much more likely to survive
Streamlining internal processes, automating them as much as possible, will make you a much stronger competitor in the marketplace once the storm is over.

Realizing these benefits for your 3D printing business will not be easy if you are hacking together a variety of disconnected software tools to get the job done. All you’re doing at that point is creating separate instances of data with varied access within your team and increasing your software bloat.

You and I both know putting together a streamlined and in-sync workflow is not easy. There are a variety of platforms or desktop software that let you combine some of the processes that 3D printing companies need. You want to combine a customer-friendly front end (a quoting tool on your landing pages or home page), and then integrate some or all of your backend, internal processes so that you can track customer communications in a logical way (keeping them informed of job progress, for example), and keep the internal pipeline of work in one place so that everyone can get to it quickly and easily.

I learned these lessons early on in my career after founding multiple 3D printing services in Chicago and Detroit. I searched for a tool that solved for these problems, but none existed. That’s why I started MakerOS.

MakerOS is a web-based collaboration platform for 3D printing and digital fabrication companies to develop products faster, regardless of company size or stage. My team and I built this platform over the past few years, and already it’s been used in thousands of projects for 3D printing services with clients from around North America.

I sought out to create a business operating system for professional fabricators, engineers, designers, and makers, and together with my team that’s exactly what we’ve done.

If you feel like you need an operating system that’s specifically built for someone like you to help your 3D printing service scale, especially during this global pandemic, check us out. Or drop us a note and request a live demo to learn more about how we help you make more.

About the Author:

The post 5 Reasons You Should Continue Scaling Your 3D Printing Service During COVID-19, and How to Do So appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

The Fastest Way to Scale Your 3D Printing Business

Scaling a business is more than just adding customers and profits. Scaling includes having an easy automated process in place for new potential clients to start a project with you. Technology is certainly a big part of this, but more so it involves a mindset to give your customer the tools needed to get answers that move them along the path of doing business with you more often.

We know that prospective customers often just want to know, “how much will this cost?” so we must be able to have a quick answer for them, ideally one that’s automated but also inexpensive. Larger service bureaus are able to afford the front-end tools that prospects increasingly expect – notably, the ability to quote a project online in seconds.

Let’s cut right to it: You need a tool to quote projects faster and more completely, more comprehensively. Ideally, this “get a quote” calculator is built right into your website working 24/7 for you. You want to be able to quote the project without investing tons of your time, your top engineer’s time, or demanding more of the prospective customer’s time.

Perfecting the quoting process for 3D printing services is what pushed me to start MakerOS, and it’s one that we continue to solve. We’ve noticed that successful companies go beyond a robust quote methodology and website tool.

Ultimately, they start connecting internal processes (including sales and customer experience tools), and then link it to a healthy customer relationship management (CRM) process (one built specifically for 3D printing and additive manufacturing companies which dramatically help retention and future referrals).

Let’s look at these three areas to improve the customer experience and your profitability:

Start with the Quote

Convert more prospects into paying customers when you use a holistic quoting methodology. People are going to come to your website expecting they can enter some basic parameters, a copy of the file to be printed or made, and get a rough idea of the cost.
Capture relevant information for salespeople and engineers during the quoting process. Information that will close any gaps between sales and engineering will create better collaboration and optimized workflows for you and your customer. Relevant information might include specific instructions the customer shares with the sales person, but in many companies would not get transferred immediately to the engineer. The earlier you put information in front of key people, the sooner your customer realizes he or she is at the center.
You are not in the business of providing quotes; you are in the business of completing projects for clients.

Connect Your Processes to Set Yourself up for Success

Sync the sales process with engineering and product development to become more efficient
Automate a lot of the admin work to free up time to focus on the final product. Most CRM tools will allow you to send automated messages keeping customers up-to-date on what is happening with their project build.
Provide a professional experience for your customer

Retain Customers

Since receiving a fast quote is practically a requirement today, by doing so you will reduce attrition and build a client base. You will have more opportunities to converse with your prospect and win them over if you give them what they want – the quote – as fast as possible.
When you include clients in your workflow, give them access to data about what will happen or is happening with their job, they will see you as a trusted provider. A bit of a shameless plug here: we believe the MakerOS Client Portal and Communication Hub enables a level of client collaboration because it focuses on unique aspects of running a 3D printing service bureau — keeping you in production mode.
When you put the customer at the center, open up visibility into your production process, your clients will become champions of your business. They are more likely to give you referrals because of this transparency.

You’ll be better able to grow when you make it easy for your customer to do business with you via smart quote tools accessible on your website. After you have gained their trust with a fast and responsive quote, given them transparency into the workflow as the job gets done, you earn the right to keep in contact to encourage future business (using your customized CRM process). Keep scaling.

We built MakerOS with a holistic methodology to enhance your ability to quote 3D printing projects, taking into account all aspects of the business. You can test our 3D Printing Pricing Calculator that we developed to complement our new methodology.

MakerOS is a web-based, all-in-one collaboration platform for 3D printing and digital fabrication companies to develop products faster, regardless of company size or stage.

If you’re looking to ensure you’re pricing correctly, or how to scale your 3D printing business, contact us to learn more.

About the Author:

The post The Fastest Way to Scale Your 3D Printing Business appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Objectify and 3DPrint.com Partner to Launch Advanced Additive Manufacturing Webinar Series

Under the Objectify AddMics (derived: Additive Academics) initiative—from India’s largest additive manufacturing bureau—Objectify Technologies joins hand with one of the most followed 3D printing media houses in the world, 3DPrint.com, to launch a series of webinars to increase the outreach of additive manufacturing technologies. The series will start July 16^th and will feature a large number of industry leaders from around the world along with Objectify experts.

The webinar series aims to boost the adoption of the technology, inform buyers about the new technical advancements & selection of various processes, chart out various applications of AM, discuss pre- and post-processes, materials, and other topics.

Ankit Sahu, Founder and Director of Objectify Technologies.

“After successfully organizing three series of webinars, we got inquiries from various Indian and overseas companies to conduct training sessions for their engineers. We conversed with many experts and crafted session topics and kept it open for all to reach out to a wider audience. With this series, we aim to address some of the challenges that exist in the industry and inform engineers that 3D printing technology is ready to play a big role in mainstream production in the coming days,” says Ankit Sahu, Founder & Director, Objectify Technologies.

Topics for the webinar include:

How to Be an Informed AM Buyer
Pre- & Post-AM: Enabling design, quality and traceability
AM Materials: characterization, development and testing
Aerospace, Space and Defence Applications of AM

The target audience for these webinars are projects managers, design professionals, technical heads, plant managers, and 3D printing hobbyists, among others.

“3DPrint.com has been the voice of the global 3D printing industry and has played a huge role in spreading awareness about the technology. We are proud to partner with 3DPrint.com and I thank them for joining hands with us in this initiative. I am confident that, together, we will be able to update the industry with the latest technological advancements,” concludes Ankit.

The post Objectify and 3DPrint.com Partner to Launch Advanced Additive Manufacturing Webinar Series appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

The Sustainability of 3D Printing: Myth or Reality?

Historically, quality, cost and delivery have been the primary drivers for decision making within manufacturing. Today, another word is on the minds of executives: Sustainability.

Sustainability is increasingly important in consumer decision making, with younger consumers flocking to brand that are “greener” than their competition. Sustainability initiatives can blunt the effects of fluctuations in energy prices and availability of material resources. And tracking to sustainability KPIs enables companies to get ahead of regulation that will penalize their carbon footprints. Regardless of your sector, sustainability must be a core part of your business.

A common claim is that 3D printing enables a more sustainable supply chain: By enabling manufacturing at the point of use, 3D printing reduces the carbon footprint that would naturally occur due to part transportation. 3D printing is a low-waste process, requiring less raw material compared to subtractive manufacturing methods. A search of the literature has produced a limited number of studies accounting for the entire life cycle of 3D printed parts.

So, we actually tested this theory: we compared the life cycle of a mass manufactured injection molded part produced in China and a locally 3D-printed part.

Experiment Methodology

Using a generic car mobile phone holder as a case study, we developed a methodology to compare the carbon footprints of centralized and distributed manufacturing for cheap, mass-produced products.

We purchased a phone holder from a supplier in China through Amazon and analyzed the entire supply chain, from processing the polymer pellets in the injection molding machine to the part arriving at our doorstep. We also examined the entire process chain for the 3D printed counterpart, produced on a consumer 3D printer.

Figure 1: Final product (left), Injection molding components (middle) and 3D printing platform (right).

The results, as defined by the total carbon footprint, were as follows:

	Mass Manufactured (Kg CO2)	3D Printing (Kg CO2)
Material	1.035	1.260
Manufacturing	0.150	0.480
Transport	0.017	0.001
Life Usage	0.180	0.200
Total	1.382	1.941

While 3D printing required less energy in transportation, it used much more energy in production. This result is typical: Often, 3D printing machines require 10x the energy to process 1KG of material compared to injection molding and 100x compared to CNC machining.

A casual observer might note from the images above that the 3D-printed part required printing additional material that does not end up in the final part. These “support structures” are often a necessary part of the 3D printing process. Build errors can also be common (especially in consumer-level 3D printers) and our analysis takes that into account. With experience in 3D printing, both support structures and build risk can be reduced, but not eliminated entirely.

Reviewing the results of the carbon footprint during the transportation phase, the mass manufactured part travelled from a port in China to our location, while the 3D printed part travelled minimally (i.e. ABS from the factory to our office,) resulting in a significant difference.

Finally, the actual life usage carbon foot print was relatively similar between the two (50 vs 54g, respectively), simply because the weight of each part was within a margin of error.

So, 3D printing is not sustainable?

Clearly, the widely-accepted talking point that 3D printing is inherently more sustainable than traditional manufacturing is false. As we showed with the phone holder, often mass manufacturing is both more economically viable and more sustainable, especially for parts that require large volumes and can be produced by traditional manufacturing.

Our example exposes a wider problem with how engineers and organizations think about adopting new technologies. In our experiment, we took a common, mass-produced part that was designed for injection molding, “hit print” and analyzed the results. In an effort to show a relatable use case, we simplified too much, but in doing so we demonstrated a larger, more important point: 3D printing isn’t a drop-in replacement for traditional manufacturing, but we often treat it that way because we don’t know any better.

We’d go even further to say that, if you’re not planning on taking advantage of specific capabilities of 3D printing, you shouldn’t bother; 3D printing very rarely provides advantages as a drop-in replacement to traditional manufacturing.

If 3D printing isn’t a drop-in replacement, how do we start using it in ways that make sense? Using 3D printing to drive sustainability requires understanding what these tools can do, how to best deploy them, and where they can fill in the holes in your business model. We need to start Thinking Additively^TM.

First, consider the design freedoms available with 3D printing. Utilize the design freedoms of additive to optimize the part, whilst maintaining structural requirements and achieving an acceptable cost. By Thinking Additively, designers can unlock three primary benefits:

Less Material – Less raw material is needed to create the part and build support structures. The less material needed, the lower the fossil fuel consumption and associated energy.
Less Processing – Less material handling and post-processing directly correlates to less energy required to print the part.
Less Weight – Lighter weight parts directly reduce greenhouse gas emissions both during transportation and life usage.

In our case, after redesigning the phone holder, we found we could reduce the weight from 54g to 32g, resulting in a 40% carbon footprint reduction, or 15% lower carbon footprint than injection molding.

Second, explore what additive can do for the way you design and develop products. Thinking about additive as a drop-in replacement gets us prototypes, but truly Thinking Additively opens up many more possibilities to both iterate internally faster and to bring customers into the design process.

In traditional manufacturing, once design is finalized, tooling is created, production begins at scale, and iterating becomes vastly more expensive; any change can mean scrapping and recreating tooling, discarding thousands of already-produced pieces, or re-stocking warehouses across the globe.

Your early adopter customers are often the most critical, but also the most invested in your product, yet using traditional manufacturing means that the waste inherent in change grows exponentially just before you have access to the truest feedback on your product. This is not the case with additive; as lower economic production quantities mean that you can pivot quickly, with reduced waste.

Finally, start Thinking Additively about your business model. Additive can improve the sustainability of the entire lifecycle of your product. Some additional green aspects of 3D printing may include:

Reduced Inventory: While we have explained the financial benefits of spare parts, by not having warehouses full of inventory saves on raw material usage, storage energy and arguably saving on throwing away parts after sitting on shelves for years.
Material Processing: The arrival of global materials manufacturers in the 3D printing space (e.g. Solvay, BASF) will likely make material processing more efficient due to economies of scale.
Product Efficiency: The benefit doesn’t stop once the part is manufactured. Improving efficiency can make processes more sustainable (e.g. improved fuel nozzle designs equate to improved fuel efficiencies). Moreover, thanks to design freedoms, assembly can be manufactured with single parts in the same material making the product more recyclable.
Repair and Refurbishment: Because 3D printing works by adding material on top of a layer, it is well suited for repairing components. Parts can be fixed by adding material where needed; previously disposable parts can be economically repairable.
Waste into production materials: Because 3D printing can use recycled materials more readily than traditional manufacturing, it opens up the potential for circular economies, where waste can be reprocessed into entirely new products, such as recycling 3D printed prototypes back into feedstock for new prototypes.

In summary, 3D printing can be a green manufacturing method, but truly unlocking its potential as a sustainability enabler in your business requires Thinking Additively. As a user, you must understand when, where, and how to deploy the tool not only in product design, but throughout your product’s lifecycle. The business value of 3D printing is rarely in simply producing a cheaper part, but rather in a combination of lead time reduction, risk mitigation, and supply chain efficiencies. Similarly, with the sustainability of 3D printing, the environmental value of 3D printing is found in low volume manufacturing, reduced inventory, and reduced material waste.

The largest irony in this is that the 3D printer OEMs have a lot to learn about how the tools they created can drive sustainability within their own businesses. In many ways these companies see themselves as traditional manufacturers of industrial machinery and are consequently change-averse. Perhaps the biggest leap forward in using 3D printing as a sustainability enabler could be driven by the 3D printer OEMs themselves if they adopted sustainability as a core strategy and drove their business to sustainability KPIs. Often the best way to catalyze change is by leading by example.

Loïc Le Merlus (Manager)

Loïc focus on solving customer problems. Working closely with our clients, using data analysis, his proprietary software and algorithms, or reading research papers, he identifies the possible solutions and understand the economic impact that 3D printing and additive manufacturing could have on their businesses. Loïc has 10 years leading projects to quantify the impact of the technology, working with users and vendors across the additive manufacturing industry.

Kunal Mehta (Managing Director)

Kunal is responsible for leading the global business of Blueprint and focuses on driving adoption of 3D printing across start-ups, Fortune 500s and governments. With his extensive experience deploying numerous emerging technologies, Kunal possesses a unique perspective in helping organizations achieve high performance by designing and executing additive strategies to reshape their manufacturing processes – consistently providing customers with a differentiated, more profitable, and more satisfying experience.

[Feature image courtesy of Little Planet Factory.]

The post The Sustainability of 3D Printing: Myth or Reality? appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

The Real Cost of 3D Printing

After reading the now famous article about a ventilator valve that can be 3D printed for $1, compared to the traditionally-manufactured valve costing $11,000, I realized that the way 3D printing costs are calculated is still vastly oversimplified, which leads to reliance on two incomplete cost models. The most common says that unlike traditional manufacturing there are never economies of scale and that the cost per part stays constant, whether a single part or 100s of parts are printed. Another model is that 3D printing costs slightly decrease with the number of units as more parts are added to the build bed, and the average build time per part decreases.

Figure 1: Common models of 3D printing costs

Both of the above models provide a cost approximation and are often used by service bureaus, but they both have the same flaw: They don’t take the machine utilization into account.

For 3D printing, there are five main cost contributors:

Material cost: Material usage for the part, support material, and other material waste
Machine depreciation: Portion of the machine price attributed to a part due to the time the machine is being used to build the part
Consumable costs: The cost of consumables used for the build (build trays, argon gas, filters, printhead, etc.)
Labor costs: Personnel cost involved in the build (build file preparation, machine preparation, build monitoring, machine clean-up, and support removal)
Risk: Risk of failure involved in building this part. Usually comes in two different types, time risk – the longer the print, the higher the risk of failure, and geometry risk – certain geometries might have higher risk of failure for certain technology.

In this article we will take a deeper look at the machine depreciation cost and how machine utilization influences it.

Let’s start with a basic equation that is often forgotten or ignored but is essential to understanding the cost of 3D printed parts.

Figure 2: Machine Depreciation Calculations

The machine utilization is the percentage of the time during the year where the machine is producing parts. Because the utilization is in the denominator of the equation above, there is an inverse relationship between part cost and machine utilization. In other words, the part cost goes down as the machine utilization goes up.

Real machine utilization is very difficult to guess without having robust data available, so a lot of companies will use a fixed number for utilization. They often choose a number between 60% and 70%… a number that is often overly-optimistic.

Other companies with access to historical data will estimate machine utilization based on past figures. Many factors can influence the utilization figure, such as maintenance, down time, and build cleaning, but based on our experience the main contributors are staff availability to change builds and having enough parts to produce.

Staff availability is often forgotten because additive manufacturing is seen as an unmanned manufacturing process. While this is mostly true, staffing is still required for preparing and cleaning the machine between builds as well as monitoring if the build has failed. If a build finishes in the middle of the night with no staff available, a machine will sit idle, lowering utilization until the morning when a technician can prepare the machine for a new build.

To solve this, companies tend to schedule longer builds to complete outside of working hours. Scheduling builds in this way reduces the time a machine sits idle between builds.

Figure 3: Unoptimized build planning 62% utilization

Figure 4: Optimized build planning 79% utilization

We have seen companies updating to a faster machine expecting cost savings due to better part throughput, only for the machine sit idle because there are not enough parts to keep it busy. If the machine can produce parts twice as fast but the number of parts produced per year is the same, then the machine depreciation cost per part stays the same.

Taking this into account, it is important to match the machine throughput to the part demand as closely as possible:

Figure 5: Production equipment matched with part demand

These two points show that 3D printing is similar to traditional production methods, where it is necessary to get throughput, part demand, and production planning right in order to minimize part manufacturing cost.

When taking into account machine utilization and how most users of additive manufacturing adopt the technology, we come up with the model below, which takes into account everything we discussed in this article and shows how the per part cost of 3D printing changes based on the number of parts manufactured and the number of machines needed to produce them:

Figure 6: Realistic utilization-based cost per part

Based on the graph above we see that costs can be cut to a minimum if we can match the parts demand with the machine capacity. At Blueprint, when we create a ROI model for our clients, we often group many parts together to improve the machine utilization. Sometimes we will change the material of some parts or redesign a part so it can fit in a smaller build chamber. Knowing this, what should you do?

If you are looking into acquiring some production equipment, ask for real build time figures based on your parts, then plan what a typical week of builds will look like. This will help you to create a utilization-based ROI tailored to your specific conditions.

Once the machine is up and running, monitor its utilization. If it is low (below 60%,) identify the cause. Can you schedule builds better? If you don’t have enough demands for parts, invest into identifying and transitioning parts to additive; that investment will end up saving you money in the long run.

Also look at changing the design of your parts to lower build times. Getting training on design for additive manufacturing will lead to less material utilization and shorter build time which will improve your overall parts economics.

Regardless of the design changes needed, don’t be scared by the initial cost per part based on cost calculations on a limited number of parts. Keep in mind that any extra part you manage to identify and transition to additive manufacturing will lead to a part cost reduction on all your 3D printed parts. Keep monitoring your use of additive manufacturing and observe the costs are shrinking the more you use it and you are getting more expertise. Actively managing your machine utilization and investing in upskilling your workforce will be the keys to achieving the favorable economics of additive manufacturing.

Loïc LeMerlus

Loic leads the development of Blueprint’s algorithms that drive our proprietary analysis tools. He also works closely with many of our clients to analyze complex data and understand the economic impact that 3D printing and additive manufacturing could have on their businesses. In other words, he puts the numbers behind the hype. Loic has over 9 years leading projects to quantify the impact of the technology, working with users and vendors across the additive manufacturing industry.

Blueprint is an additive manufacturing consultancy, bringing together more than 16 years of knowledge and experience across the industry. As the world’s leading additive manufacturing consultancy, Blueprint regularly assists future-ready companies achieve additive success. Based in Eden Prairie, Minn., and Milford, U.K, the firm offers a unique, technology-agnostic perspective on all things additive, from strategic advice to design optimization services. More information is available online at www.additiveblueprint.com.

If you want to discuss this article or your additive manufacturing strategy, the team at Blueprint is here to help. Let’s talk.

The post The Real Cost of 3D Printing appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Making Injection Molding Cost-Effective: How Many Units Do You Need to Order?

Injection molding is typically described as a cost-effective manufacturing process… when ordering large quantities of parts.

The reason for this is simple: with injection molding, the initial tooling costs are very high, while the actual plastic molding costs are very low, which means the effective cost-per-unit becomes lower when more units are required.

For example, imagine that a stainless steel mold for a toy car costs $5,000, and each plastic toy car made with the mold costs $0.50. In this scenario, ordering 1x unit of the toy car would cost $5,000.50, ordering 2x units would cost $5,001, and ordering 1,000x units would cost $5,500.

In all of the scenarios, the mold accounts for the bulk of the cost, so the total cost does not vary greatly.

However, in these three scenarios, the effective cost-per-unit does vary greatly:

Scenario in which mold costs $5,000 and each molded part costs $0.50
Units	Total cost ($)	Cost-per-unit ($)
1	5,000.50	5,000.50
2	5,001.00	2,500.50
1,000	5,500.00	5.50

As you can see, there is a dramatic reduction in cost-per-unit when the unit quantity increases, since the extra units amortize the high cost of the mold.

Ordering more units of the toy car clearly represents better value for money. (In fact, ordering a single unit would appear to be a colossal waste of money.)

But just how “large” do we mean when we say that injection molding is suited to large quantities of parts? 100? 1,000? 10,000? A million? As a company deciding between multiple manufacturing processes for a medium-size order of prototypes or end-use parts, we want to know at what point injection molding becomes more cost-effective than the alternatives such as 3D printing.

And while there is no simple formula for determining the point at which injection molding becomes more cost-effective than 3D printing, there are certain factors we can take into account that will help us make the right decision.

3ERP, an expert in injection molding and other on-demand manufacturing services, here provides advice on choosing between injection molding 3D printing based on the required order size.

Injection molding vs 3D printing: First considerations

For companies looking to complete prototyping or production of plastic parts, both injection and 3D printing may seem like tempting options, and it may seem hard to weigh up the respective benefits of each.

However, before getting into any precise calculations, it’s worth pointing out some situations where one manufacturing process is clearly preferable to the other.

Let’s start with a scenario in which a company needs a very small number of prototypes (perhaps just one), and the material and aesthetic properties of the prototype(s) are of negligible importance. Perhaps the in-house R&D team simply wants to see, very loosely, how a yellow plastic casing looks on its new electronic device.

In such a scenario, 3D printing would be the obviously preferable choice: it would be significantly cheaper, and any technical deficiencies in the prototype would not matter.

Alternatively, imagine a scenario in which just a handful of prototypes (perhaps just one) are needed, but the company is looking to pitch its product to an investor, who needs to be convinced that the end-use part (to be made with injection molding during mass production) will function properly for its intended purpose.

In such a scenario, while 3D printing the prototype may be cheaper, it might still be worthwhile for the company to create an injection molded prototype in order to demonstrate the viability of its end-use product.

Key economic differences between injection molding & 3D printing

It is difficult to compare the costs of injection molding and 3D printing because the processes are fundamentally different — not just in terms of how they work, but in how their respective costs are determined.

In general terms, injection molding is a process with high startup costs: metal molds are expensive to make, and that preliminary step can be an insurmountable hurdle for some small businesses. However, once a mold has been fabricated, the cost of each injected “shot” of plastic is very low.

3D printing is different because, unlike injection molding, it is a one-step process. No tooling is needed, and the finished part comes straight out of the printer. This means there are no obstructive startup costs.

That being said, the cost of a single plastic 3D printed part is generally higher than a shot of injected plastic. This is because 3D printing filament (for FDM printers) is more expensive than plastic pellets, and because the sheer slowness of 3D printers means that service providers must charge more for their operation.

With that in mind, the most importance difference between the two processes is that the cost-per-unit of injection molding is dynamic: it decreases as the number of units increases. With 3D printing, on the other hand, the cost-per-unit is static: parts will usually cost the same amount whether you order one or 1,000 of them.

This means that 3D printing in small quantities is cheaper than injection molding, while injection molding in large quantities is cheaper than 3D printing. That also means, logically, that there is some specific quantity at which the “best value” option switches from 3D printing to injection molding.

Finding that quantity depends on several factors.

How many parts to be cost-effective: Factors to consider

The mold

When evaluating the potential costs of injection molding and 3D printing, it is worth starting with potentially the most expensive part of the project: the mold.

Molds can cost thousands of dollars, since they are machined from metal and need to last a long time — potentially hundreds of thousands of plastic shots. However, it is possible to drastically reduce the cost of molds through rapid tooling, the creation of prototype-grade molds with CNC machines or metal 3D printers.

The cost of molds can also be reduced by using aluminum instead of steel. Aluminum is less durable than tool steel, but is still capable of producing high-quality molded parts from non-corrosive materials.

If the cost of the mold can be reduced, the number of molded parts required to be cost-effective decreases.

As an example, imagine that a steel mold for a toy car costs $5,000, that an aluminum mold costs $1,000, and that the cost per plastic shot with either mold is $0.50. Imagine, also, that a 3D printed version of the toy car costs $20.

In this example, the potential costs of the project would be as follows:

	Steel mold IM		Aluminum mold IM		3D printing
Units	Total cost ($)	Cost-per-unit ($)	Total cost ($)	Cost-per-unit ($)	Total cost ($)	Cost-per-unit ($)
1	5,000.50	5,000.50	1,000.50	1,000.50	20	20
2	5,001.00	2,500.50	1,001	500.50	40	20
50	5,025.00	100.50	1,025	20.50	1,000	20
60	5,030.00	83.83	1,030	17.17	1,200	20
300	5,150.00	17.17	1,150	3.83	6,000	20

In this scenario, a 50-unit order is cheaper with 3D printing, but a 60-unit order is cheaper using injection molding with an aluminum mold. (Meanwhile, the more expensive steel mold becomes more cost-effective than 3D printing just above the 250-unit mark.)

Plastics

Another consideration that will affect the calculation is the plastic used to make the part, and there are several variables to consider here.

One factor to consider is that not all 3D printable plastics are moldable, and vice versa. Another is that 3D printing filament is by and large, more expensive than the plastic pellets used for injection molding, since it must be precisely shaped by the material manufacturer.

Importantly, the cost of plastics may not be consistent between pellet and filament formats: materials like Nylon and Polycarbonate, for example, remain relatively premium products in the 3D printing filament market, so a relatively small number of Nylon parts would be required to make injection molding more cost-effective than 3D printing. (A common 3D printing material like ABS, however, would require a much larger number.)

The type of plastic used to make the parts may therefore determine which manufacturing process is more economical for a given order volume.

Part shape and size

The design of the part may also affect its potential cost for injection molding and 3D printing. A part with overhangs, for example, may be significantly cheaper to 3D print, since injection molded parts with overhangs require more complex tooling.

In other words, if your part design is not suited to injection molding, you’ll probably need to order more parts to make injection molding cost-effective.

Manufacturing process

FDM remains the most common 3D printing process, but alternative options include Stereolithography and Selective Laser Sintering. These other processes are more expensive than FDM, which naturally affects their affordability in comparison with injection molding.

For example, 200 FDM parts may be cheaper than 200 equivalent injection molded parts, but 200 SLS parts may be more expensive than 200 injection molded parts.

Conclusion

Since the cost-per-unit of plastic parts is dynamic for injection molding and static for 3D printing, it can be difficult to assess which option is the best value for money for a given order.

Numerous factors, including mold creation, part material and part shape can affect the cost of the order — and to different degrees depending on the manufacturing process.

With that in mind, the best solution to the dilemma may be simply requesting a quote for both processes.

3ERP has expertise in both injection molding and 3D printing, and can assess projects on a case-by-case basis to see which represents the best value for money.

Get in touch and we’ll get your project up and running.

The post Making Injection Molding Cost-Effective: How Many Units Do You Need to Order? appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

3DHEALS2020: A Not So Lonely Planet

Only a few weeks away from 3DHEALS2020, and I just got off the phone with one of our speakers, Dr. Ho, from NAMIC Singapore. Our brief interview reminded me just how much I enjoyed Singapore—its start-up like government, incredible universities, and its beautiful modern architecture, chili crabs, and unpredictable rainstorms. Now, I’m on my way to some of the best meals in my life with another 3DHEALS community event in a foreign city. Looking back, there are many stories like that: in Detroit, Vigo, Paris, Shanghai, or Boston, my work with 3DHEALS communities has been a journey of adventures and friendships. 3DHEALS2020 is really a way to summarize my travels from the last two years. It is my version of Lonely Planet—the healthcare 3D printing version.

I really felt more alive when people have welcomed me into their cities; when they have showed off their latest innovations; when they have bantered enthusiastically with one another in a local pub till midnight after 3DHEALS events. And they felt the same way.

Sadly, however, this pandemic is putting old methods of human connection into question. Perhaps, a virtual summit is a stopgap solution for conferences, but, more likely, it is time for us to explore alternative and better ways to stay connected and informed.

The virtual 3DHEALS2020 summit will be a good start.

While we can’t serve you delicious San Francisco Blue Bottle coffee, there are three things we aim to do right with this conference:

1. Awesome live content

One upside about the virtual summit is that people who could not be available due to logistic barriers are now more available. We added 20+ speakers since the pandemic began and are still adding more parallel workshops to the existing program. Some of highlights include:

A. Biofabrication/Bioprinting Panels and Workshops:

Welcome to the holy grail of healthcare 3D printing applications!

These panels and workshops collect some of the brightest minds in the world of tissue engineering, biofabrication, and bioprinting. It includes the newest generation of startup founders. Names such as Stephanie Willerth, Adam Feinberg, Jordan Miller are already well-established and loved in the scientific communities and just founded their own startups within the last 12 months. More established startup founders whose companies are also critical to the eventual success of biofabrication, tissue engineering, and cell therapy at large will also join us live, including Melanie Mathieu from Prellis Biologics, Jon Rawley from Roosterbio, John O’Reily from Xylyx, Taciana Pereira from Allevi, and Kevin Caldwell from Ossium Health. Qrquidea Garcia (“Orchid”) from JNJ Innovation will also join us on this panel, discussing how an industry leader can work with innovators and startups in this exciting, burgeoning field.

B. Regulatory and Legal Landscape of Healthcare 3D Printing

For those who put their skin in the game, this is probably one of the most must-attend sessions. 3D printing in healthcare is a super new field, and legal experts in this field who have established track records and legitimacy are only a handful. This session will include the most comprehensive list of legal and regulatory concerns specifically for healthcare 3D printing, including intellectual property/patent issues, product liability, FDA pathways, manufacturing standards, and more. Steven Bauer, from FDA CBER, just joined the panel to directly address concerns related to cell therapy from the biofabrication and stem cell communities. The speakers are not just well-versed on how to interpret the law and policies, but also how to interact with scientists, policy makers, organizations, and standards bodies at this early stage of the industry, with practical, real-life examples.

C. Global Perspectives

One lesson from this pandemic is that globalization has consequences. Having a well-rounded worldview of the global healthcare 3D printing ecosystem is a requirement for future success. Our early morning sessions are reserved for international speakers all over the world to meet the audience and share their unique perspectives, needs, and hopes. Both America Makes director John Wilczynski and NAMIC director Dr. Chaw Sing Ho, along with experts from Turkey, India, and Taiwan, will share how healthcare innovations can thrive in both local and global environments. On day two (June 6^th), the audience will learn about how different countries are implementing the concept of 3D printing for Point of Care, which cannot be taken out of context of different healthcare systems and cultures. The audience will meet and learn from the leaders at UCSF, Stanford, Germany (Kumovis), India (Anatomiz3D), and developing countries.

2. Pre- and post-event networking opportunities

The attendees will have the opportunity to meet other attendees, speakers, and conference organizers as soon as they sign up the event using a dedicated conference app. They can send direct messages, post threads, share photos, host their own virtual events days before the conference. The app will be available to registered attendees for six months after the conference ends.

3. Entrepreneurship

One of the most exciting aspects of 3DHEALS2020 is its focus on entrepreneurship. Pitch3D has been a quarterly free and online pitch platform to selected early-stage startups in healthcare 3D printing and bioprinting spaces for the last two years, introducing 30+ startups from all over the world to institutional investors. 3DHEALS2020 also gathered some of the most experienced VCs and entrepreneurs in the space to share their stories, perspectives, and directly engage with the startups and the 3DHEALS2020 attendees directly during both pitch sessions and investor panels. There will be ten startups pitching each day at 5-6 PM PST. Interested startups can apply here.

This is the time of uncertainty and change.

Join us at 3DHEALS2020, connect with the world, and take control of your future. This is a Not So Lonely Planet.

The post 3DHEALS2020: A Not So Lonely Planet appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.

Formnext + PM South China Partners with Prominent Industry Groups for Debut Edition

Formnext + PM South China has confirmed official partnerships with the Aachen Center for Additive Manufacturing (ACAM) and the Verband Deutscher Maschinen-und Anlagenbau (VDMA), two of the most recognised advanced manufacturing groups in Germany. This strategic collaboration will bring benefits to the Chinese market by importing some of the most recent technologies and products in additive manufacturing, powder metallurgy and advanced ceramics from Germany.

Formnext + PM South China is a professional event for additive manufacturing, powder metallurgy and advanced ceramics, which will be held from 9 – 11 September 2020 at the Shenzhen World Exhibition and Convention Center. Located in one of the key cities of the Greater Bay Area, the show will put a strong focus on the Chinese market and cover an array of additive manufacturing solutions and materials, smart manufacturing technologies and equipment, powder metallurgy products, ceramic materials and forming technologies, post processing solutions and more.

With Formnext + PM South China’s mission to shorten the manufacturing cycle time with lower cost and higher quality by integrating advanced materials, equipment and technical solutions into the manufacturing process, the organisers are bringing this to the fore through the cooperation with ACAM and the VDMA. ACAM will co-organise the Discover 3D Printing Seminar during the fair, and showcase the latest additive manufacturing technologies and applications in Germany. VDMA will group their members in a pavilion to expand their overseas market, and to boost the development for enterprises in the Chinese manufacturing industry.

Dr-Ing Kristian Arntz, Managing Director and Partner of ACAM, and Dr Markus Heering, Managing Director of the Additive Manufacturing Working Group of VDMA expressed their excitement about the new fair. “ACAM are excited about Formnext + PM South China, and will offer our services covering further education for companies as well as consulting and developments in the relevant areas of additive manufacturing to Chinese and other Asian manufacturing industries. We expect it to be a great show as the market is emerging and additive manufacturing is becoming more and more important to many companies in this area,” stated Dr-Ing Arntz.

Dr Heering said: “For our 150 member companies, this new trade fair creates an interesting access to the important Chinese market and the growing markets of the region. At the same time it offers the perspective of assisting the cooperation with this important region. We also see the opportunity to strengthen Formnext in Frankfurt as the world’s leading trade fair for additive technologies through this event together with our partners.”

Founded in 2015, ACAM is a one-stop-shop for additive manufacturing which combines the expertise from world-class institutes, research centres and start-up companies. They offer access to innovative know-how, training and education, process, software and systems engineering as well as customised services covering all aspects of additive manufacturing technologies. Some of the members of the ACAM community include Danfoss, GE Additive, Linde, Oerlikon, Okuma, Stratasys, Toyota and more.

VDMA has a long history in the mechanical engineering industry since its establishment in 1892. With around 3,300 members, it is the largest network organisation for mechanical engineering in Europe. The Additive Manufacturing Association within VDMA offers a comprehensive platform designed to tie up all companies and research institutes participating in the value supply chain. They put a strong focus on the user perspective and the potential of the variety of methods in 3D printing.

Renowned Chinese industry alliances facilitate cohesion between powder metallurgy and 3D printing

Apart from the two well-known German industry associations, the China Powder Metallurgy Alliance (CPMA) and the China Ceramic 3D Printing Alliance will also be participating at the new show by taking part in the concurrent event programme. The former has been an important force in enhancing the development of powder metallurgy in China since 2010; the latter is supported by a number of top-rank academic institutes and 3D printing companies, and aims to foster the expansion of the Chinese ceramic 3D printing industry.

A number of leading brands have already confirmed their participation for the first edition. They include 3DCERAM, 3D SYSTEMS, Artec 3D, BMF Material Technology, CFINE, CNPC Powder, Evonik Specialty Chemicals, GF Machining Solutions, GKN Sinter Metals, Hujin, Longding, ONLY, Quick Beam Tech, Russell Finex China, Shenzhen Shunde Nuoen, Sinterzone, Sunshine Machinery Equipment, Shining 3D, SLM Solutions, Sympatec GmbH – System, Unique Injection Molding System, Visitech, Zhongdexiang, Z Rapid Technologies and more.

Formnext + PM South China is jointly organised by Guangzhou Guangya Messe Frankfurt Co Ltd and Uniris Exhibition Shanghai Co Ltd and forms a part of a series of international events including:

Formnext: 10 – 13 November 2020, Frankfurt, Germany
Formnext + PM South China: 9 – 11 September 2020, Shenzhen, China
Formnext Forum Tokyo: 24 – 25 September 2020, Tokyo, Japan
Asiamold: 2020, Guangzhou, China
Rosmould: 8 – 10 June 2020, Moscow, Russia

To find out more about the 2020 show, please visit www.formnext-pm.com or email formnext-pm@china.messefrankfurt.com.

– end –

Background information on Messe Frankfurt

Messe Frankfurt is the world’s largest trade fair, congress and event organiser with its own exhibition grounds. With more than 2,600* employees at 30 locations, the company generates annual sales of around €733* million. We have close ties with our industry sectors and serve our customers’ business interests efficiently within the framework of our Fairs & Events, Locations and Services business fields. One of the Group’s key USPs is its closely knit global sales network, which extends throughout the world. Our comprehensive range of services – both onsite and online – ensures that customers worldwide enjoy consistently high quality and flexibility when planning, organising and running their events. The wide range of services includes renting exhibition grounds, trade fair construction and marketing, personnel and food services. Headquartered in Frankfurt am Main, the company is owned by the City of Frankfurt (60 percent) and the State of Hesse (40 percent). For more information, please visit our website at: www.messefrankfurt.com

* preliminary figures 2019

Background Information on Uniris Exhibition Shanghai Co Ltd

Uniris Exhibition Shanghai Co Ltd is the first organisation to hold professional exhibitions and conferences for powder metallurgy and advanced ceramics in China. For years, it has focused on the exploration of the power metallurgy and advanced ceramics industry and market analysis, and spent over 10 years cultivating exhibitions and accumulating customers

The post Formnext + PM South China Partners with Prominent Industry Groups for Debut Edition appeared first on 3DPrint.com | The Voice of 3D Printing / Additive Manufacturing.