Hello 3DP community,
I’m trying to set up some depth interviews with some key industry players in the area of 3D printing, in order to commence some academic research in this particular disruptive technology and its effect on business and commerce. Can anyone recommend referent people for me to talk to…or alternatively, are you one of these people?
I thank you for any help you can offer me.
The moderators of this community are generally people you want to talk to. With the exception of me anyhow. They were all chosen because they have reputations in the reprap project or elsewhere (and are generally an actual part of the community, helping move it forward)
I can help you. I’ve been working with additive manufacturing (which includes 3D Printing) since 1996, and have written about stereolithography, sintering, as well as the six-types of 3D Printing and continue to research it extensively for my clientele in business, education, and the federal government. What do you need to know, how do you want or foresee it being applied, and why do you feel it is disruptive (I agree, BTW)??
Thank you so much, @Michael_Kirkland , @ThantiK , and @Frank_X_Sowa . I am preparing correspondences to all of the parties mentioned. I appreciate your help and participation a great deal.
@Frank_X_Sowa , you’re asking me how I see additive manufacturing changing the precepts of business moving forward? Well, I suppose my insights going into this research is that: 1) it is disruptive because it shifts the risks of production either onto the end user, or to a party that is much closer to the end user. And these parties would be willing to accept this risk because they have the ability to co-create a more customized solution. Also, 2) the efficiencies that have been touted as the cornerstone of all operations research to date could now, in the era of additive manufacture, could be eschewed in favor of low-capacity, short-run production, again acceptable because of the “as-needed” approach to production that would occur under a additive manufacturing approach. Finally, 3) I could foresee the network structure among firms currently operating under a paradigm of “division of labor” being upended in favor of an approach of “division of ideas” in the era of the 3D printer. That, and new issues in the way firms safeguard those ideas, and yes…I would think it’s quite disruptive.
Now those are just MY intimations. I’m going to want to discuss all this with you…all of you. Appreciate the consideration, everyone.
We produce then end product for many 3D printing projects. We have two 3D printers in house and a full prototype production facility for many metals. We have been in the Prototype business for 45 years and are the best at thin wall metals, which is perfect for unusual 3D printing investment castings.
I agree with your analysis, Joseph. It is already quite disruptive. But, I will also warn you that your view is only a model based on early iterations of this technology’s disruptive potentials. Currently, the model is only based on small and micro parts (because the leading OEMs have really only created pilot sized ‘prototyping’ production machines) – that is changing even now. Second, no one has yet mastered the systems and the processes needed for rapid production within traditional mass manufacturing floor operations – and yet additive approaches can and do already reduce the product cycle significantly (even when used as it is today as a out-line machine tech/fab shop custom shop). Think of how disruptive this can become when an inline synergistic and holistic knowledge-based approach that has yet to be created is applied to the assembly-line concepts. Finally, big data, enterprise systems, cloud computing, and other strategic 21st Century business changes WILL as you’ve indicated disrupt the whole organizational and business management culture of manufacturers moving forward. Now, beyond that – I also believe there will be a rapid and steady growth of garage inventors in the home and the smallest businesses using the 3D printer to create entirely new consumer and B-to-B industries as well. This second industry has been where all the media and institutional focus has remained focused on so far. It is also where the basis of components of Obama’s Advanced Manufacturing initiatives delve into additive manufacturing. But, these areas of opportunity I believe will not be the main driver of the disruptive change you wish to discuss.
I stopped at “an inline synergistic and holistic knowledge-based approach” – When people talk like this, it’s usually bullshit. It’s marketing/management speak…
Anthony. I’m glad that your reading capabilities are so narrow. That keeps you focused like many 20th Century traditionalist silo-based specialists. But, I’ll open up to you, so you and others can more comprehensively ponder this.
Provide me with your own replacement “non-marketing/management speak” terminology so we can continue, as it is just a semantical issue. (And, for those that would like to ponder a wider berth – I used what I used because such a process or system has not been ‘defined’ yet. I was attempting to be descriptive… thus: inline – “additive manufacturing machinery physically built into and fully-supported within the production floor assembly line.” synergistic – “attached as a part of the whole in a seamless, functional manner to the manufacturing processes functioning to make things at the facility.” holistic – “organizationally-managed from the enterprise-system level.” knowledge-based – “using the techniques applied to disseminate CAD, CAM, CNC and other programming commands internally, externally, and virtually through networked linkages, and performing deep data (semantical and other ontological as well as traditional and relational) analytics via high-performance computations.”) Provide for me Anthony, better and more optimal use of wordage that gets this concept across and for you, I’ll personally make a legitimate substitution. But, let’s not discount being involved in legitimate discussion over poor semantics, okay? Hopefully, that isn’t too much to ask you?
@Frank_X_Sowa Here’s a redacted, short, no marketing bullshit version of what you said, with all the repetitive, not-on-topic filler drivel cut out:
[I agree, Joseph. It is already quite disruptive. But, the technology is still very young. Currently, no one has yet mastered the systems and the processes needed for rapid production with these machines. Additive approaches can and do already reduce the product cycle significantly (even when used as it is today as a out-line machine tech/fab shop custom shop). Think of how disruptive this can become when these machines are integrated fully into the manufacturing chain. Now, beyond that – I also believe there will be a rapid and steady growth of garage inventors in the home and the smallest businesses using the 3D printer to create entirely new industries as well. This second industry has been where all the media and institutional focus has remained focused on so far. It is also where the basis of components of Obama’s Advanced Manufacturing initiatives delve into additive manufacturing. But, these areas of opportunity I believe will not be the main driver of the disruptive change you wish to discuss.]
How about next time, you use a little less filler in an attempt to make yourself look more important than you actually are. (Factual basis for this posted below)
As Blaise Pascal once said: Je n’ai fait celle-ci plus longue que parce que je n’ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.
Also, just so I have a little factual information regarding my prose here, I’d like to include an excerpt from wikipedia regarding what I like to call “Marketing drivel”:
“Marketing speak is a related label for wording styles used to promote a product or service to a wide audience by seeking to create the impression that the vendors of the service possess a high level of sophistication, skill, and technical knowledge. Such language is often used in marketing press releases, advertising copy, and prepared statements read by executives and politicians. Marketing speak is characterized by its heavy use of buzzwords, neologisms, and terms appropriated from specialized technical fields which are eventually rendered almost meaningless through heavy repeated use in inappropriate contexts.”
Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_jargon
So, yeah - Good fucking day to you, sir. Cut the marketing bullshit out and talk like a human being. You shove repetitive and incorrectly used verbiage in your posts, and it makes you look ridiculous. It gets really stupid when you end up with stuff like this: “functional manner to the manufacturing processes functioning”
Functional functioning 'eh? Wow.
I’m fairly sure @Frank_X_Sowa is actually just trolling…?
@Bracken_Dawson , nope - check out the company he is the CEO of: “Xavier Group Ltd.” - full of the same buzzword bingo. And his own domain: http://www.franksowa.com/Frank_Sowa/Default.html
He’d have to be going through a hell of a setup to be a troll. I rather find it sad that people like him exist at all tbqh.
Anthony – It’s sad both ways. Nice wasting my time in this thread with you, and the others supporting you Anthony.
Joseph, if you’re not wasting my time with your RIT research project, I have 33 years of hands-on experience that I am willing to share. Contact me privately, and we’ll continue this discussion directly. As I said, “I believe I can help you.” If you cannot do that, then I’m going to withdraw my assistance. Thanks.