DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Industry Gap in Practice Executive Briefing 

Part 1: Executive Summary 

In this analysis, our key findings were: 

•  Insurability  

• Liability and threat haven’t yet been completely defined to insure products, ideas, or transfer of liability if variations are made by another company to our designs. 

•  Digital Business Models  

• Many companies have successfully developed a completely digital business model around 3D printing and additive manufacturing. Integrating this type of business model into being traditional models proves grueling, given the significant differences between digital and traditional manufacturing in colorful aspects of business development. 

•  Technological Legal Rights and Ramifications  

• Laws guarding the rights and regulations of products and designs aren’t yet completely established. The underdevelopment of liability, threat, and digital ramifications still leaves gaps in the legal priorities surrounding 3D printing and AM. 
• According to a recent cumulative manufacturing trend report by Hubs.com, a Protolabs company, the global 3D request grew by 21 percent in 2020 compared to 2019, reaching an estimated $12.6 billion industry, while numerous traditional manufacturing processes were negatively impacted by COVID-19 and its effects on global product and transportation. 
• It’s anticipated that the AM request will more than double in size over the coming five years, making its request value over $37 billion, with more than 73 of the finagled businesses producing or sourcing 3D-published corridors or accoutrements. 
• This was verified in the GE Additive interview in 2018, with companies like Carbon and Adidas exercising 3D printing to alter traditional business models and employ new processes to give cleaner, cheaper, and more personalized products for consumers. 

Part 2: Industry Context  

• According to Kapetaniou et al. (2017), robotization technologies like 3D printing are causing drastic changes in how traditional business models are prepared in terms of marketing, coffers, force chain, sustainability, and product development. 
• With cumulative accoutrements similar to the capability to use different polymers, essences, etc., the 3D printing elaboration has grown so fleetly that now effects like the smallest plastic part of an airplane

can be created for an entire house. According to a lecture by Martens in 2020, the ramifications of this new capability to produce endless product capabilities now allow for cheaper, domestic products but come with preliminarily unconceived issues that we must now or in the future contend with. 

• The wide relinquishment of 3D printing by large pots now gives the vacuity of personalized products and the capability for companies to drop precious mass products and develop a concession between the two. The GE Additive in 2018 gives the illustration that rather than Adidas mass-producing 4 million shoes and also putting tons of marketing and plutocracy behind that shoe, they can now publish a shoe on order and boat it to the consumer, which is inescapably cheaper for a better product. 

The Age of 3D Printing  

• $10.9 Billion in Market Value Increase Since 2014 
• 1983 Invention of SLA ⇒ 3D Printing 
• 1987 Invention of SLS ⇒ EOS 
• 1989 Invention of FDM Stratasys 
• 2005 Desktop 3D printing movement 
• 2007 Rise of 3DP service divisions 
• 2009-2011 Rise of consumer 3D printing 
• 2012-2013 Mass availability of 3D printing capabilities 
• 2013-2015: wide relinquishment of plastic 3DP for tooling, wiles & institutions 
• From 2015 to 2016, there was a widespread relinquishment of resin 3D printing in high-tech industries. 
• 2016-2018 Plastic 3DP for low-volume end-part product 
• 2018-Present: wide relinquishment of plastic low-volume end-part product 
• Relinquishment of advanced customization 
• Multi-market rigidity 

Part 3: Industry Gaps in Practice 

Industry Gap #1: Insurability  

•  Current State of Practice  

• According to Fauer and Li (2020), insurability has come with a significant gap with the recent increase in 3D printing. For example, with the 3D printing of a house, one of the criteria for insurability is generally the accoutrements used, which may bear different insurability due to varying rainfall conditions and climates. With some of the polymers or other accoutrements used in home 3D printing, there isn’t enough longitudinal data to support or deny their adaptability to certain climates, making it delicate to ensure. Another illustration is the automotive industry, which saw a huge supplement in the 3D printing corridor in 2013-2015. Still, liability becomes complex, involving the manufacturer, if a 3D-published part fails. This condition also determines what type of insurance is demanded. 

•  Desired State of Performance  

• Clear-cut insurability for each type of polymer and material used in 3D printing with applicable liability delineations so all parties involved in the development, manufacturing, and application of these accoutrements understand their threat and liability in the process. 

•  Gap in Practice  

• According to Fauer and Li (2020), a threat is insurable if it can be measured and liability can be assessed. Due to the lack of life in the mass application of 3D printing, threat and liability have yet to be completely defined. 

•  Decision to be Made  

• What factors will be employed to accept threats for product development and application of 3D published products? Disruptive Business Models
• Current State of Practice  
• Numerous business models aren’t set up to acclimatize to 3D printing and cumulative material technology. This was apparent during the COVID-19 epidemic, where diligence dependent on imported goods suffered from dropped importation as anchorages were limited and resource production halted. According to Braziotis et al. (2019), the current state of 3D printing deployment depends on the configuration a company uses, whether standalone or integrated with traditional warehousing and coffers. As most businesses aren’t completely digital, integrating a completely digital business model remains grueling. 
• In GE Additive, Carbon was noted as groundbreaking for its subscriptive 3D printing services. Still, the high incipiency costs for 3D printers discourage numerous companies from moving to this type of manufacturing. Holzmann et al. (2020) note that indeed with expansive study into developing business models, limitations persist, and incorrect application of 3D printing can lead to unborn issues. 

•  Desired State of Performance  

• Immaculately, a completely developed digital business model centered around a primary 3D printing product would be asked. 
• Gap in Practice  
• Companies not primarily using 3D printing for manufacturing find it delicate to integrate digital business models with their traditional models. 
• The company must make a decision.  
• Is the company ready to use 3D printing as the primary source of manufacturing and borrow a further digitally grounded business model, or will it stick with traditional models, or attempt to combine both? 

Technology Legal Rights and Ramifications  

•  Current State of Practice  

• Martens (2020) bandied a new dislocation in traditional business styles related to the legal aspects of exercising 3D printing services. Legal liability and digital rights aren’t completely defined. Questions arise regarding power, protection, and revision of designs. Also, regulating digital information, taxation, licensing, and other business structure rudiments must be addressed as 3D printing continues to grow. 

•  Desired State of Performance  

• The goal is to maintain the same level of regulation, liability, and power as traditional manufacturing businesses, while also ensuring the protection of associative rights and patents. 

•  Gap in Practice  

• Current laws on digital products, trade, and trade, as well as liability and transfer laws for digital designs and variations, aren’t completely developed. 

•  Decision to be Made  

• How will the company insure the protection and rights of their products, as well as the supposition of liability for produced goods? 

Industry Gaps in Practice—Summary 

Current State	Desired State	Industry Gap in Practice	Decision to Be Made
Insurability: Currently, there is no fully developed identification of liability on 3D printed modifications and manufacturing due to the inability to determine longevity of some productions.	To assign liability and risk to ensure proper insurability and liability of produced goods.	Insurability has not yet been fully defined in terms of 3D printing liability, modifications, and materials used in different markets.	What factors will be utilized to accept risk for production, development, and utilization of 3D printed products?
Digital Business Model: Few corporations have been able to move to a fully digital business model focused on 3D printing manufacturing. Integrating this model with traditional or mixed models is difficult.	Full development of a digital business model centered around primary 3D printing production. Is the company ready to use 3D printing as the primary source of manufacturing and adopt a more digital-based business model, or will it stick with traditional models or attempt to combine both?	Companies not primarily using 3D printing for manufacturing struggle to integrate digital business models with traditional models.

Part 4: Recommendations 

Capella University | Proprietary and Confidential. 12 

Grounded on the assiduity gaps linked, we recommend the following conduct:

Develop Clear Insurability Guidelines: 

• Establish a frame for assessing the threat and liability of 3D published products. This should include long-term testing of accoutrements, understanding the adaptability of products in different climates and conditions, and clear delineations of liability for all parties involved in the product and use of 3D published particulars. 

•  Adopt a Hybrid Business Model: 

• Transition towards a mongrel model that combines traditional and digital manufacturing styles. This will allow the company to gradually integrate 3D printing capabilities while maintaining the trustworthiness of its traditional product styles. Invest in training and technology to support this transition. 

• Legal Framework Development: 

• Work with legal experts to develop a comprehensive legal frame that addresses the unique challenges of 3D printing. This should cover aspects similar to digital rights, power, liability, and nonsupervisory compliance. Advocate for assiduity-wide norms and regulations to ensure a level playing field. 

DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 Assiduity Gap in Practice Executive Briefing 

• Invest in Research and Development: 
• Continue to invest in R&D to explore new accoutrements, product styles, and operations for 3D printing. This will help the company stay ahead of technological advancements and identify new openings for growth. 

The DB FPX 8415 Assessment 2 focuses on identifying industry gaps and provides an executive briefing.  

By enforcing these recommendations, the company can better navigate the challenges and influence the openings presented by the growing 3D printing industry.