An hour into the second of three Executive Perspectives Keynote panel sessions at RAPID + TCT, there was a tap on my shoulder.
The CEO of an additive manufacturing (AM) software firm leant in, with a hushed voice, and remarked how refreshing it was to see someone staunchly express a controversial opinion.
Up on stage were five AM business leaders, providing their perspectives on a range of industry trends and talking points. Though it may be convention for the participants of such panels to be diplomatic, to be tactful and to skirt the edges, this one was different.
As DMG Mori General Manager Nils Niemeyer grappled with the realities of distributed additive manufacturing, covering the real-world challenges but emphasising the theoretical upside, Materialise founder Fried Vancraen uttered the rarely heard phrase: “Allow me to disagree.”
“I think,” he went on to say, “that distributed manufacturing is one of the most false narratives of our industry.” Leveraging his near 40 years of experience in the AM sector, Vancraen went on: “If you look at what has really worked in this industry, it is the bigger centres where a lot of competence is built up in a certain application, not shifting from medical implants to aerospace engines.” He was pulling no punches: “It is simply not working. It’s a different environment. It’s different post-processing. It’s a different mindset. I’ve seen every decade of this industry, entire companies betting on distributed manufacturing and going bankrupt, time after time.”
It hasn’t, though, deterred others from taking on the challenge of setting up distributed manufacturing networks in the hope of proving the exception to the rule.
There are many ways to stand up a distributed manufacturing model. A ‘flexible network’ approach, as referenced by a recent ACAM Aachen Centre for Additive Manufacturing and Boston Consulting Group report, consists of independent plants that can produce a similar product range, helping to balance capacity between sites. The ‘hub and spoke’ model sees core production steps concentrated at one or a few locations, with final production steps done closer to the point of consumption, while ‘local for local’ is essentially local production for local markets.
Each flavour of distributed manufacturing is made up of a dispersed network of facilities and promises reduced inventory, potential cost savings, resilience against supply chain disruption, and the flexibility to produce parts where it most makes sense. But more than that, according to 3YOURMIND VP, North America William Cuervo, they give manufacturers the initiative to take control.
“Given how long leads times are and how delicate the supply chain is, the biggest advantage is not having to wait around for an update [from your suppliers],” he told TCT. “They can tap into industry-ready services and capabilities that are at their disposal, whether that be internally, through an academic institution, or through a contract manufacturer.”
Get your FREE print subscription to TCT Magazine.
Exhibit at the UK's definitive and most influential 3D printing and additive manufacturing event, TCT 3Sixty.
When you add it all up, it is no wonder that so many companies over the years have championed the potential of distributed AM, and set up their businesses to adopt such approaches. Vancraen would suggest that most of these outfits have failed to achieve much success, but is that down to idea, execution or hype?
Dr-Ing Wilderich Heising, Partner & Associate Director at Boston Consulting Group, suggests the communication around distributed AM can’t be ignored, while Cuervo has thoughts on their implementation.
“AM is not a panacea to solve the world’s problems, and distributed manufacturing is not that miracle cure either,” Heising said. “What we’ve seen with AM over the last ten years was a really big hype; we were exaggerating the possibilities and that might have happened with the decentralised narrative too.”
Cuervo added: “Decentralised and distributed manufacturing could be a false pipe dream, but so can AM if you’re not doing it for the right reasons and you’re not in touch with the how and the why you’re looking at this in the first place.”
This is the first big hurdle for manufacturers trying to implement distributed additive manufacturing networks and there are more down the track. A decentralised approach won’t get off the ground without deep thought into why and how, but even once that’s figured out, there is still the investment in capital equipment, identification of partners and suppliers, and, if you’re working in certain industries, regulatory constraints and knowledge transfer. A supply chain that revolves around one fixed production site is complex, let alone one that serves multiple facilities in multiple regions.
There are opportunities though. Markforged CEO Shai Terem wasn’t shy in making that point at RAPID + TCT (see our featured case study below for more) and Replique can point to several examples. One of which is a collaboration with MAN Truck & Bus, where Replique produced several spare parts for a marine diesel engine. The original manufacturer was no longer available, but Replique was able to quickly identify a suitable production partner to fulfil the order with minimised downtime. Alstom, Miele and RehaMedPower are others that Replique has supported with a decentralised approach, noting how many customers demand the production of parts close to the point of need.
When Vancraen made his comment about companies failing to make a success of distributed AM approaches that catered for a variety of industries, companies like Replique were brought to mind. Decentralisation and distribution are core to Replique’s approach, while its tagline – trusted parts for everyone, everywhere – suggests there is no industry the service provider won’t serve.
At a high level, they seem the kind of company at risk of suffering the same pitfalls as those Vancraen has seen rise and fall over the last four decades. But when you dig into how its process works, it reveals a company that has likely learnt from the mistakes of others. Replique has assembled a range of specialist manufacturers in various industries (250 across six continents), rather than manufacturing sites that ‘have a lot of competence in everything,’ with its framework identifying the best partner for whatever job has presented itself. The company’s software platform also documents the digital twin and history of every part to ensure quality assurance and process stability.
“We don’t view distributed manufacturing as a simplistic approach,” Replique CEO Max Siebert said. “For us, it’s about having decentralised capacities while centralising expertise. When done right, this approach enables companies to scale efficiently without sacrificing quality.”
This kind of set up might be where Vancraen would be willing to bend on his assessment of distributed AM. As counter points were made, he conceded there would be grey areas where companies were achieving success. And it’s a good thing too. Although Covid-19 was probably the biggest supply chain disruption of the last century, they haven’t exactly slowed down since 2020. Blockages in the Suez Canal, Typhoons in Shanghai and ongoing international conflicts have only underscored the importance of supply chain flexibility.
Just as well then that there are promising signs from the likes of Replique.
“As product variety continues to grow and the demand for parts increases, the importance of decentralised and on-demand manufacturing will rise to maintain flexibility for diverse production needs,” Siebert finished. “While AM won’t be the only manufacturing method, it is undoubtedly becoming a go-to approach for parts where its benefits are most evident.”
Supply chain case study - Vestas
Vestas/Markforged
For three years now, wind turbine manufacturer Vestas has been working with Markforged and Würth to build out a distributed additive manufacturing network. The company’s distributed manufacturing infrastructure includes a digital inventory of more than 5,000 Vestas parts and a fleet of Markforged machines operating across several manufacturing sites.
Previously, Vestas was relying on external suppliers to manufacture essential parts like top centre marking tools and lightning tip receptors, enduring the weeks-long lead times and risking the potential for components to fail final inspection. Now, Vestas has brought the production of these parts in-house, allowing any individual with the right permissions to scan a part code or search the ERP system and send print files to the most suitable Markforged machine. Control is centralised, but manufacturing is decentralised.
“Distributed manufacturing is already starting to happen,” Markforged CEO Shai Terem said at RAPID + TCT. “Point of need production, when you can, is great, and when you cannot, you have a centralised location. Vestas has 8,000 tools required to [manufacture’ these big wind turbines, and 5,000 of them are on a digital library now, printed at the point of need. Printers are being controlled from some central place, they control the library, control the process of how to certify, how to upload them to the digital library, and then they’re printed where needed by the most efficient way to do it.”
This article originally appeared inside TCT Europe Edition Vol. 32 Issue 6 and TCT North American Edition Vol. 10 Issue 6. Subscribe here to receive your FREE print copy of TCT Magazine, delivered to your door six times a year.
