The premise is simple. To fit the square-pegged 3D printing process within the constraints of the round hole of established processes, something has to give. Either the corners of the square peg have to be removed – thereby losing much of what makes 3D printing unique and powerful — or the holes must be expanded, which means loosening or letting go of established requirements and assumed demands.
Where does the luck come in? Well, I am borrowing a page from Eli Goldratt’s (best known for a manufacturing novel called “The Goal: A Process of Ongoing Improvement”) book called “It’s Not Luck.” In one of many tales, Goldratt describes a printing house (2D printing) that is on hard times. It is being squeezed out by low-volume, on-demand, digital printers and ultra-high-volume production houses. Why? Because its printers are best for mid-range volumes.
In the end, the protagonist of the story breathes new life into his printing operations by deducing that many high-volume print jobs are based on bad assumptions that stem from classical economic order quantity calculations. Customers pay a fraction of a penny for each printed item when purchased in huge quantities. However, they fail to add in the cost of carrying all that inventory and the even bigger cost of scrap when the specs of the printed item change.
Success arrives when the mid-sized printer shows customers that it is more economical to order in smaller batches that are printed throughout the year.
In this tale, Goldratt’s square peg fits nicely in the newly created hole, one that has a different set of goals, requirements and expectations.
For 3D printing to realize its full potential, individuals, companies and industries must start with a clean slate (new holes). As long as the artificial, and oftentimes unnecessary, constraints of traditional processes are imposed, it will remain a niche solution.