There has been yet another tweak to the additive manufacturing (AM) lexicon. If it weren’t for my review of the news released over the past six months, in preparation for keynotes and presentations, I may have overlooked this trend. But when you read hundreds of news items back to back, it becomes glaringly obvious. What am I referring to? The liberal use of the word “industrial.”
After the hype over consumer 3D printing died down, machine suppliers had to carve out new markets. And the obvious choice was in the engineering and design departments within companies that created new products. To be recognised as a potential solution, 3D printing companies latched on to a simple word, “professional”. For many of these suppliers, nothing changed with the machines, there was just the substitution of the word “professional” for “consumer”.
So now that “professional” has become ubiquitous, suppliers have adopted “industrial” as the word of the day. The other motivator for this word choice is that engineering and design applications are so passé...so 2015. While the bulk of AM use continues to be in this application area, suppliers now are hungry for a piece of the manufacturing tool, mould and die, and production markets.
The issue I had with “professional” and now have with “industrial” is that the words serve two purposes. One is to convey who should be interested in the product. I can live with that. The other purpose is to convey that the machine performs to the standards expected for a professional-grade or industrial-grade printer. This is where I have an issue.
Dictionaries state that “industrial” is defined as “of or relating to factories.” Therefore, AM suppliers can legitimately claim that they supply industrial machines if they are placed within a factory setting. As previously stated, I am fine with that. The problem arises when “industrial 3D printer” is assumed to mean industrial-grade or when suppliers explicitly state “industrial-grade 3D printers.” This is misleading and often a blatant mistruth.
In the context of industrial-grade, one would presume operational capabilities that make the machine a dependable workhorse, on par with the 10-year-old 3-axis mill that has been churning out parts with low scrap rates. Rugged, tough, repeatable—and a whole host of other adjectives—could be presumed to be characteristics of the industrial 3D printer. Although we are moving towards these characteristics, I believe that most 3D printers would not meet these expectations.
When assessed against a company’s chosen metrics for industrial equipment, for example overall equipment effectiveness, I believe the results will not be favorable for most, if not all, AM solutions. If it is found that the AM machine doesn’t measure up, the effects can be damaging. If discovered during an evaluation, progress may be halted. If discovered during implementation, someone will be held accountable. And if discovered by those that are resisting change, they have evidence that AM isn’t all that it is claimed to be; evidence that AM isn’t on par with traditional manufacturing solutions; evidence that AM should not be considered.
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.
To protect your interests, first ask the AM supplier how it was determined that the product is industrial-grade. Without a satisfactory answer, strike the word industrial from your thought process. Simply evaluate it as an AM solution without any qualifiers. With a satisfactory answer, proceed to put the AM machine to the test and measure it against your performance metrics. Alternatively, you can do what I have now done: ignore the word industrial unless a supplier proactively offers proof of this claim.
In the not-too-distant future, the word of the day will once again change. It will be interesting to see what marketing types come up with when AM is generally established as an industrial solution but the word has lost its luster. Perhaps they will follow in the footsteps of the automotive industry to give us “heavy-duty” solutions followed by “super-duty” machines.
