It is interesting to note that the Olsson block was developed by the Ultimaker ..... Sie, G. (2015), âThe Olsson Block - a community invention by Anders Olssonâ, ...
Technology Strategy and Developments in Consumer 3D Printers Harm-Jan Steenhuis, Tolga Ulusemre and Xin Fang Department of Business, College of Business, Hawaii Pacific University, Honolulu, USA
Abstract The 3D printing technology originated in the early 1980s and work on early consumer-level printers started in 2004. By 2018, although hundreds of companies worldwide are active in this industry, the overall level of worldwide adoption of the technology is limited. The one millionth consumer-level 3D printer was only recently sold. Whether a new idea will get adopted or not is difficult to predict and even more so for high technology situations where the technology is uncertain and related to this it is also not clear how technical performance relates to what customers value. The purpose of this study is to explore this issue further by examining the technological developments in the consumer-level 3D printer technology. A desk research methodology was used and a main source of data was several years of consumer-level 3D printer tests from the “maker space” which, as the innovators adoption category, has an orientation on technology. Six main technological characteristics with underlying dimensions and values were identified. It is recommended to do more research on how the technology characteristics relate to technical performance and for instance the attributes of innovation (relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, triability and observability) and how these relate to the value that consumers perceive.
Introduction It is said that Digital Equipment Corp. founder Ken Olsen's commented in 1977 that "There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home."(Lai, 2008). By 2014, the U.S. Census showed that 84% of U.S. households own a computer (Rainie and Cohn, 2014). This quote is now considered among the seven worst tech predictions of all time (Strohmeyer, 2008). Similar stories can be found that highlight the pessimistic predictions for customer demand for other technology oriented products such as the telephone and TV. At the other end of the spectrum are the predictions that are too optimistic. An example is the flying car (Silver, 2010) which for example featured in the year 2014 in the movie Back to the Future. Although companies such as Terrafugia (www.terrafugia.com) and Moller International (moller.com) by 2018 have prototypes of flying cars, they are certainly not mainstream as forecasted. This optimistic expectation is captured by the Gartner hype cycle. The Gartner Hype Cycle is related to bold promises of new technologies and distinguishing the hype from what is commercially viable (https://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp). An example of a current technology for which bold predictions are made is 3D printing, in particular related to consumers. 3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing, is a process whereby an object is created by starting with nothing and adding material a layer at a time until you have a completed object (Horvath, 2014: 3). This method of creating objects has been part of science fiction, for example through the replicator device on the TV series Star Trek (Budmen and Rotolo, 2013: 11). Additive manufacturing is quite different than traditional fabrication methods such as machining and using a CNC. In these latter instances, the object is created by starting with a block of metal and material is removed until you have the final object (Ostwald and Muñoz, 1997). Furthermore, in many instances, the final product has to be assembled from different components. 3D printing dates back to at least 1980 when a Japanese lawyer called Dr. Hideo Kodama of the Nagoya Municipal Industrial Research Institute (NMIRI), was the first person to file a patent for Rapid 1
Prototyping technology but because he missed a deadline, he was not granted the patent (Flynt, 2018). A few years later patents were awarded in the U.S. for example for the Vat Photopolymerization technology, US Patent 4575330 in 1984, material extrusion technology, US Patent 5121329 in 1989, and powder bed fusion technology, US Patent 4863538, also in 1989. Since then, industrial applications have been expanding and the market value is expected to be well over $10 billion by 2018 (Columbus, 2015). Consumer applications for 3D printing are much more recent. Several consumer 3D printers such as Ultimaker have their origins related to the RepRap project1. The RepRap project started in 2004 by Adrian Bowyer, a professor at the University of Bath (de Bruijn, 2010). A goal was to have an affordable printer to households which are capable of replicating (Pearce et al., 2010). By 2008 the first reproduced RepRap machine was made (Jones et al., 2011). The RepRap can fabricate roughly 48% of its own components and is thus on the path of becoming a self-replicating rapid prototype (Pearce et al., 2010). These developments led to high expectations for consumer 3D printing. For example Lipson and Kurman (2013) describe a future household with food printers, bio-printed body parts, a printer used for printing toothbrushes at home etc. (Lipson and Kurman, 2013: 1-5). However, the adoption of consumer 3D printers has been limited. By July 2013, consumer 3D printing hit the highest levels of inflated expectations on the Gartner hype cycle (Rivera and van der Meulen, 2013). 3D printing has been termed as the next gold rush (Winnan, 2012) and it is expected to rock the world (Hornick, 2015). Despite this, worldwide sales have not been that high. Nevertheless, consumer 3D printer sales have continued to increase but according to 3D industry experts Wohlers Associates, in 2015, only 278,000 desktop printers (< $5,000) were sold worldwide (McCue, 2016). Recently, worldwide roughly 1 million desktop 3D printers are estimated to have been sold (Anderson Goehrke, 2017; Wohlers, Associates, 2017). And, some of these desktop printers, such as the Ultimaker have been sold to industrial customers including Volkswagen (de Vries, 2017). This is far below the expectations and assuming a world population of 7.5 billion people the penetration level for individual consumers or households is rather low. Obviously, not everyone can afford a printer, but when looking at for example the population of relatively wealthy consumers in Europe and the U.S. it is clear that far less than 1% of the population currently owns a 3D printer in their household. The purpose of this study is to contribute to the understanding of the challenges for selling consumer 3D printers.
Adoption of innovation One of the most well-known theories on the adoption and diffusion of innovations is Rogers (1995). He found that five perceived attributes of an innovation are an important explanation of the rate of adoption of an innovation: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability (Rogers, 1995). Additionally, variables such as 1) the type of innovation-decision, 2) the nature of communication channels diffusing the innovation at various stages in the innovation-decision process, 3) the nature of the social system in which the innovation is diffusing, and 4) the extent of change agents’ promotion efforts in diffusing the innovation, affect an innovation’s rate of adoption (Rogers, 1995). In terms of the attributes, a relatively slow adoption rate of 3D printers is likely. This is because for most people the relative advantage is unclear. That is despite the studies that have demonstrated the economic value of owning a 3d printer (Wittbrodt et al., 2013) and despite the availability of many designs through websites such as Thingiverse (West and Kuk, 2016). Furthermore, 3D printers may be perceived as relatively complex, consumers have
1
From an interview with Erik de Bruijn, co-founder of Ultimaker. Available at: https://www.mixcloud.com/allthings3d/interview-with-erik-de-bruijn-co-founder-of-ultimaker/
2
few opportunities to experiment with a 3D printer, and the degree to which the results of the 3D printer innovation is visible to others is limited. These attributes all negatively affect the rate of adoption. Rogers (1995) also found that there are adopter categories, that is, the classification of members of a social system on the basis of innovativeness. Members of each of the adopter categories have a lot in common. There are five adopter categories: innovators (2.5%), early adopters (13.5%), early majority (34%), late majority (34%), and laggards (16%). Despite the theory from Rogers (1995) as well as additional theories and models for the adoption of innovations, see e.g. the Bass model in Lilien, Kotler and Sridhar Moorthy (1992), predicting whether an innovation will be adopted in the market remains difficult (Langley, Pals and Ortt, 2005). Part of these difficulties may relate to the type of technology that is diffused. For example, Rogers (1995) model is a general model that applies to many instances of innovation diffusion. For instance, he describes the failure to diffuse the idea of boiling drinking water for safety purposes in a Peruvian village (Rogers, 1995: 1) but for breakthrough technologies the process of innovation diffusion may have specific circumstances that play a role. For instance, Ortt and Schoormans (2004) point out that for many breakthrough technologies the introduction is often postponed or, once introduced, they are quickly withdrawn from the market after the first disappointing results. Even experienced innovator firms seem to blunder in commercialization (Aarikka-Stenroos and Lehtimäki, 2014). Furthermore, while methods to study the adoption of innovation in three categories, i.e. consumer, expert, and data analysis, may lead to valid conclusions for minor innovations, they do not deliver results for major innovations (Langley, Pals and Ortt, 2005). Similarly, Gardner et al. (2000) found that high technology has different characteristics from low technology, e.g. a higher degree of turbulence, and consequently requires a different approach towards the market. Similar conclusions were reached by (Barlow Hills and Sarin, 2003; Mohr and Sarin, 2009; Chiesa and Frattini, 2011; Aarikka-Stenroos and Lehtimäki, 2014). Cho, Mathiassen and Gallivan (2009) provide an illustration of challenges faced with the adoption of a telehealth innovation in the healthcare industry. It can be concluded that high technology industries are characterized by high levels of technological and market uncertainty (Barlow Hills and Sarin, 2003), and that these uncertainties represent a risk for adopters which can take various forms including but not limited to social risk, time risk, financial risk, and performance risk, see for example Hirunyawipada and Paswan (2006). The issue goes back to the adopter categories that were identified by Rogers (1995) and in particular the difference in decision making to adopt a new and uncertain technology for innovators, early adopters and the early majority categories. For example, previous research concluded that current adopters of consumer 3D printing fit the innovators adopter category (Steenhuis and Pretorius, 2016). The innovator adopter category consists of people who are venturesome and this interest in new ideas leads them out of a local circle of peer networks and into more cosmopolite social relationships. The early adopters on the other hand are people who are a more integrated part of the local social system. The early adopter category, more than any other, has the greatest degree of opinion leadership in most systems. Potential adopters look to early adopters for advice and information about the innovation. The early majority adopter category adopts new ideas just before the average member of a system. They interact frequently with peers, but seldom hold positions of opinion leadership in the system. They may deliberate for some time before completely adopting a new idea. They don’t want to be the first to adopt so that something is being tried, but don’t want to be the last to put old things aside either (Rogers, 1995: 263). Thus, for high technology, core issues to deal with are on the one hand the uncertain technology characteristics which are often subject to change due to an emphasis on the technology, and on the other hand how these technology characteristics interact or fit with the perceived value of the goods by the 3
customer (Bender, 1989; Aarikka-Stenroos and Lehtimäki, 2014). Cho, Mathiassen and Gallivan (2009) provide an illustration of this challenging situation as they describe many technical issues early in the commercialization process and how for instance the software was later reengineered for a better customer fit. Their case also describes how the software was upgraded to allow two-way video streaming to overcome barriers to full insurance reimbursement (Cho, Mathiassen and Gallivan, 2009). In other words, while the technology may ‘work’, it is a necessary but not sufficient condition and one of the ‘tricks’, therefore, is to figure out how changes in the technology affect the perceived value. For instance Ortt and Schoormans (2004) note for communication technologies that the applications directly after their introduction are totally different from the more wide-scale and well-known applications. The purpose of this article is to explore this further by delving into the technology side of this issue for consumer-level 3D printers. In particular, the main question posed for this study is: how are the technology characteristics for consumer-level 3D printers changing?
Methodology Verschuren and Doorewaard (2005) provide a comprehensive view of research methodology. They identify five main research strategies: survey, experiment, case study, grounded theory approach and desk research. Since the purpose of the research in combination with the research question posed is of an exploratory nature, the desk research strategy was selected as appropriate. At this stage in the research, a major advantage of the desk research is that it provides access to data from a variety of fields. It allows the ability to effectively use existing sources which also allows the gathering of data from a variety of sources (Verschuren and Doorewaard, 2005). A distinct disadvantage of desk research is that the material used is typically gathered for a purpose different than the purpose in the current study. However, this was not deemed a significant drawback since the purpose was to search for general information. Sales of many consumer-level 3D printers are non-traditional and difficult to track (Wohlers Associates, 2014), and it is believed that there are hundreds of small startup companies around the world (Wohlers Associates, 2017). Because of this, it is difficult, if not impossible, to track the technology characteristics for all consumer-level 3D printers. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate to use a sample of consumer-level 3D printers. The decision was made to use material extrusion consumer-level 3D printers that have been evaluated by Make Magazine. These tests have been conducted for several years and included 10 printers (France, 2013a), 21 printers (France, 2013b), 21 printers (France, 2014), 18 printers (Stultz, 2015), 17 printers (Stultz, 2016) and 19 printers (Stultz, 2017a). The tests include descriptions of the 3D printers that were tested which also mention several technology characteristics. There are several advantages to this approach. First, the set of 3D printers is limited and, therefore, can be overseen. Second, the evaluations sometimes include technical information about the 3D printers which helps with the identification of technical characteristics. Third, and related to the previous point, the Make Magazine evaluators can be considered amongst the earliest adopters of the technology. Hence, they are likely to have insight into the technology characteristics. However, they are also testing the 3D printers with a view towards consumers (particularly makers) adopting this technology. Therefore, although not a main purpose of the study, some information could also be gathered on the value for customers side. Additional information was sought from company websites and from (online) industry new sources such as for instance 3Dprint.com and www.Fabbaloo.com.
Data and discussion
4
The research question posed was: how are the technology characteristics for consumer-level 3D printers changing? Answering this question essentially requires delving into the technical characteristics. Examples of studies that have carefully measured a technology are Bowonder and Miyake (1988) who measured technology at the industry level, Ramanathan (1988) who measured technology at the firm level, and Sood and Tellis (2005) who measured technology at the platform level. These studies require knowledge of for example a technology primary dimension. While these mentioned studies, because they studied historical or established technologies, contained such primary dimensions, the identification of a primary technology dimension is non-trivial in the current study. This is exactly due to the high technology nature of the topic area and the key issue, i.e. uncertainty in terms of technology. To say it differently: the purpose of the study is to explore the development of technological characteristics of a current technology (consumer 3D printing). In an area of high technology such as consumer 3D printing, the technology is under-going change and so it is unclear what the primary or even most important technological characteristics are or will become. There is, therefore, somewhat of a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. In order to move forward, based upon experience with 3D printing as well as combined insight from the literature by looking at for instance what upgrades that end up becoming more or less standard, it was decided to focus on the following technology characteristics. “Form” of the printer Although some of the companies that sell consumer-level 3D printers are established companies that diversified or expanded their product range into consumer-level printers, e.g. Sindoh and Print-Rite, many of the companies have their origin in the ‘maker space’. This is connected to the open design RepRap project mentioned earlier which formed the roots for companies such as MakerBot, Ultimaker and Prusa. The purpose of the RepRap project was to create a machine that could replicate itself. It was difficult to build and thus new initiatives such as MakerBot led to kits that were based on the RepRap designs but that were easier to build (Dougherty, 2013). These early consumer 3D printer kits were often build out of wood, but buyers still needed special skills and patience to make them work correctly (Dougherty, 2013)2. For example, 3D printers required dialing in which is the process of tuning the machine to perform well and reliably so by optimizing the over 100 separate parameters that govern the movement and behavior of the tool head on a filament-based desktop 3D printer (Stevenson, 2017). In 2012 companies started offering fully assembled printers and although some can still be purchased as a kit (at a discounted rate) by 2018 consumer 3D printers tend to be built out of plastic and metal and come fully assembled (Schutz, 2017a). They also require limited dialing in. For example, this statement can be found on the Tinkerine website for its Ditto Pro printer; “It is fully assembled and ready for action right out of the box.” and this is what Monoprice states on its website for its MP Select Mini 3D Printer V2: “This printer not only comes fully assembled, it has already been calibrated at the factory. All you have to do is perform a quick check to verify that the print bed is still leveled, in case it shifted during shipping, then load the included MicroSD™ card, load some filament, and start printing the preloaded model. Nowhere else will you find a 3D printer ready to print out of the box at such a low price!”
2
Some of these can still be purchased from the manufacturer (such as the wooden Ultimaker Original) or from other sources (the Printrbot Simple is often available on Ebay), and some consumer 3D printers are still available in kit form (such as the 2018 Prusa i3 MK3).
5
Printer frame Out of the 10 printers included in France (2013a) all but one of them was open, i.e. for 90% of these 3D printers air could freely move around the print. By 2018, four of the 17 printers3 that were discussed in Schutz (2017a) were closed, i.e. almost 25%. There are pros and cons for either technological approach. An advantage of a closed 3D printer is that there is better control of for example the temperature. An advantage of the open 3D printer is that there is more space available to remove prints from the build platform. Printer build platform The printer build platform is an important technology characteristic for 3D printers. There are several technical aspects of the build platform that play a role in the 3D printing process. One aspect is the build volume. On the one hand, some of the manufacturers of consumer 3D printers have increased the build volume, see table 1. On the other hand, some manufactures have introduced smaller (and cheaper) models, see table 2. Another feature of the build platform is whether it is heated or not. While several years ago in some instances a heated build platform was an upgrade, e.g. for the Printrbot Simple metal, by 2018, 14 of the 17 printers have standard heated platforms, i.e. over 80% (Schutz, 2017a). The material out of which the build platforms are made has also changed. For instance more printers are offered with glass platforms (35% in 2018, see (Schutz, 2017a) and a relatively new technology characteristic is a removable flexible build platform so that printed objects can more easily be removed from the build platform, e.g. the Prusa i3 MK3. Another aspect of the print bed is leveling. An un-level build platform creates problems for 3D printing (Aranda and Feeney, 2017). 3D printers often have to be initially calibrated and after that checked for leveling although, leveling isn’t the correct term since the bed isn’t made horizontal, rather it is made sure that the nozzle is the same height above the print bed at all points (Bell, 2014: 199). Newer consumerlevel 3D printers have auto-leveling features. Table 1: Illustration of increasing build volume Manufacturer Build volume in successive model Ultimaker Ultimaker (original) Ultimaker 2 Ultimaker 3 extended 210x210x205mm 230 x 225 x 205 mm 215 x 215 x 300 mm Felix Felix 1.0 Felix 2.0 Felix 3.0 260x200x200 255 x 205 x 235 cm 255x205x235mm Solidoodle Solidoodle (original) Solidoodle 2 Solidoodle 3 100x100x100 150x150x150 200x200x200 Printrbot Printrbot Simple Printrbot Simple Metal Printrbot Simple Pro 102x102x102 150x150x150 200x150x200mm
3
Nineteen consumer 3D printers were covered but three of them were similar models, i.e. the Prusa i3 MK2S, i3 MK2/S multi material, and the i3 MK3.
6
Table 2: Illustration of decreasing build volume Manufacturer “main” model Lulzbot TAZ 5 298x275x250mm Printrbot Printrbot Simple Metal 150x150x150mm Ultimaker Ultimaker 2 230x225x205 mm XYZprinting Da Vinci 200x200x200mm
“smaller version” Lulzbot Mini 152x152x158mm Printrbot Play 100x100x130mm Ultimaker 2 Go 120x120x115mm Da Vinci 1.0 Jr. 150x150x150mm
Hot end and extruder The extruder is the part that feeds the plastic into the hot-end. The hot-end/nozzle is where the material is heated and then squirted out. There are different types of extruders. For example, the extruder may be integrated into the hot-end such as on the Printrbot Simple Metal. Another option is that the extruder is remote, i.e. on the printer frame, and in that situation, the filament is pushed through a tube into the hot end, i.e. a Bowden cable. Ultimaker uses this latter approach because with this being remote, and on the frame, it allows for faster material pushing, i.e. printing, it also allows more room on the printhead, i.e. it becomes more compact which allows for printing bigger things, and the printhead is lighter which means that it can be controlled more accurately, i.e. better quality of print, and can print faster4. The hot-end is another important technical element of a 3D printer that affects the capabilities. The size of the nozzle, i.e. diameter, determines the maximum layer height and the minimum feature size. Nozzles are typically 0.4mm but a relatively new feature on consumer-level 3D printers is the ability to swap nozzles. For instance, in January 2016 Ultimaker upgraded its Ultimaker 2 to the Ultimaker 2+ and part of this upgrade included the ability to swap nozzles (Dent, 2016). This ability comes in the form of an Olsson block which allows the user to easily change nozzles for example with different diameters or made out of different materials (Sie, 2015). It is interesting to note that the Olsson block was developed by the Ultimaker community, not by the company. This new ability of companies to tap into the design skills of people who are not on its payroll, and therefore reduce its design cost, has also been described by Anderson related to a company that 3D prints cars, i.e. Local Motors (Anderson, 2012). One frequent problem that occurs with 3D printing is a nozzle that gets clogged (Aranda and Feeney, 2017: 65). This typically has something to do with filament contamination (Bell, 2014: 255) but can also be caused by debris that blocks the small nozzle hole such as from dust or plastic that got too hot and scorched or burned (Horvath, 2014: 142). The material used, in combination with the nozzle can also create problems, for example using nylon blends with a standard nozzle can damage the nozzle (Stultz, 2017b). There are now custom nozzles, i.e. stainless steel, hardened steel or ruby, which are harder than the standard brass and resist wear from more abrasive materials (Stultz, 2017b). The temperature of the nozzle is also important. A ‘traditional’ material used in 3D printing is PLA which can be printed at 160-220°C. Nylon, however, requires 240-250°C (Deutsch, 2013). Of the consumer 3D printers that were tested in 2017 all but
4
From an interview with Erik de Bruijn, co-founder of Ultimaker. Available at: https://www.mixcloud.com/allthings3d/interview-with-erik-de-bruijn-co-founder-of-ultimaker/
7
2 could reach 260°C, while 71% could reach 275°C or more, and 35% could reach 300°C or more (Stultz, 2017a)5. Some 3D printers come with more than one extruder and hot-end. An advantage of this type of set-up is that the printer is capable of printing more than one material. For instance, it can print support material that dissolves in water. Another possibility is to use this feature for printing two colors. A disadvantage of this set-up is that two extruders take up more space thus limiting the build volume. Another disadvantage of using two (or more) nozzles is that nozzles tend to slowly ooze material which gets embedded in the printed product. The technology to print in color, by using just one print head, is something that several manufacturers are experimenting on. For example Something3D announced in February 2015 that it had developed a full color desktop 3D printer, i.e. the Chameleon (Halterman, 2015). Their Chameleon technology prints objects with CMYBW (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black and White) filaments through a single, proprietary, patent-pending nozzle. However, it didn’t seem fully developed and in January 2017 a similar announcement was made (Atwell, 2017), while in February 2018 the Chameleon 3D printer was still stated as “coming soon” on the Something3D company website. In May 2017, it was announced that Prusa was going to be offering a multi-color upgrade for its MK2 printer (Szczys, 2017)6. The technology used is one that consists of four extruders, which means four colors. The four extruders lead into one hotend. There is no mixing of colors so only four colors can be printed and the process is somewhat wasteful as it needs to clean the nozzle before it can move to another color. Another example is that at the end of August 2017, XYZprinting introduced the da Vinci Color that has color printing capabilities (Jackson, 2017). They combine inkjet printing with the extrusion. Cyan, Magenta, yellow and key, i.e. black, (CMYK) color cartridges are used to add color to layers that are printed. This therefore has capabilities to mix colors as well. Movement The combination of the print head and the build platform have to move in three dimensions. So, another technical characteristic is what moves in which dimension? The original RepRap machine, the Darwin, used a bed that moved in the Z axis and the hot-end moved in the X and Y axes. Other movement versions were developed from this such as the Mendel, i.e. hot-end moving in the X and Z axes the bed moving in the Y axis, and the Rostock, i.e. the hot-end moving in the X, Y and Z axis (Campbell, 2015). When assuming that the X and Y axis, i.e. those making up the build platform, are interchangeable, this means that there are theoretically six options. Table 3 provides an overview of the consumer-level printers that were included in the 2017 test (Stultz, 2017a).
5
Prior to the 2017/2018 consumer 3D printers test, this information was not reported or to a very limited extend in the tests. This is probably due to the more standard nozzle in earlier years and less availability of exotic filaments. 6 By the end of 2017 this multi-color upgrade was being shipped to customers.
8
Table 3: Consumer-level 3D printer moving parts Movement Movement Printers from France bed hot end (2013b) Does not X, Y and Z Openbeam Mini Kossel move Y X and Z Printrbot Simple Bukito TAZ Bukobot 8v2 Printrbot Plus Mendelmax 2.0 Airwolf AW3D XL
Z
X and Y
X and Y Y and Z
Z X
X, Y and Z
Does not move
Ultimaker 2 Replicator 2 Ditto+ Type A Machines Series 1 Builder Solidoodle 3 MBot Cube II Leapfrog Creatr
Printers from Stultz (2017a) Hacker H2 Prusa i3 MK2S, MK2/S multimaterial and MK3 Printrbot Simple Pro Monoprice Select Mini v2 TAZ 6 Lulzbot Mini Printrbot Smalls Vertex Nano Makeit Pro-L Raise3D N2 Ultimaker 3 Craftbot XL Dremel 3D45 Zortrax M300
--Felix 3.1 Felix Pro 2 Makergear M3
Up Plus 2 Cube 2 Up Mini Felix 2.0 Afinia H-series
---
Table 3 illustrates that not all of the six options appeared in the latest test. In particular, the hot end only moving in the Z axis (up and down) and the hot end not moving at all are not currently applied. Note, however, that the initial MakerBot printers, e.g. MakerBot Cupcake had the bed moving in the X and Y direction and the hot-end in the Z direction. Also, it appears that by 2017 slightly more consumer-level 3D printers use a bed that moves in the Y direction (47.1% versus 33.3% in the 2013 test) compared to for example fewer printers where the bed moves in the Z direction (29.4% versus 38.1% in the 2013 test). It also appears that the manufacturers mainly stick to their approach. Connected to pc or not The last technology characteristic that will be analyzed is how the printer is ‘connected’ to the computer. Software is required to create the program, i.e. G-code, which directs the printer. In the 2013 test (France, 2013b), 73.3% of the printers could operate disconnected from a computer. This was through an SD card initiated from the computer, by sending files from a computer and for a couple of printers by wifi. In the 9
2017 test (Schutz, 2017a) all but one of the printers was able to operate disconnected from a computer, almost half (47%) can operate via wifi, and a couple of printers offered protection from a power outage, i.e. the printer would resume instead of having to start all over.
Conclusion The purpose of this study was to contribute to the understanding of the challenges of selling consumer-level 3D printers. While the 3D printing technology is more than 30 years old and has been applied to consumerlevel printers for about 10 years, the overall level of adoption by consumers is limited. Previous studies have shown that the adoption process of high-technology is challenging, e.g. Ortt and Schoormans (2004). A key issue among the challenges is the difference between on the one hand the technological characteristics, which are undergoing changes, and on the other hand how these technological characteristics fit with what customers value (Bender, 1989). This study delved into this aspect by focusing on the technology side. The following research question was posed: how are the technological characteristics for consumer-level 3D printers changing? It was found that there are six main technological characteristics: the “form” of the printer, the frame, the build platform, the extruder and hot-end, the movement, and the computer-printer interface. Each of these six technological characteristics has dimensions which have values, see table 4. Table 4: The consumer-level 3D printing technology Technological characteristic Dimensions Materials for frame “Form” of the printer Work needed Need for dialing in Printer frame Controlled climate Build volume Heated Printer build platform Material Removable (flexible) Leveling Placing extruder Hot-end diameter Hot-end material Extruder and hot-end Hot-end swappable Number of extruders and hot-ends Ability to print color Bed movement and hot-end Movement movement Untethered or not Printer-computer interface Power outage protection
Values Wood, plastic, metal Kit or assembled Limited to much Open, closed Volume No, yes (coated) metal, PEI, glass No, yes Manual, automatic Integrated with hot-end or remote mm Brass, stainless or hardened steel, ruby No, yes Number No, yes X, Y and Z axes USB, SD card, wifi, LAN No, yes
Some developments over time were noted. For example the initial consumer-level 3D printers were often made of wood and came in kit form but the newer models are often made of plastic and metal and come 10
pre-assembled. Changes are on-going and no standard (Gallagher and Park, 2002) or dominant design (Soh, 2010) has yet been established. This is indicative of the high-technology nature of the 3D printer and of the difficulties with the consumer adoption of 3D printers. As the 3D printer technology is changing, consumer expectations regarding the technology is changing which affects the developments in the 3D printer technology etc. Most of the developments in technological characteristics have improved the capabilities of the consumerlevel 3D printers by delivering better quality of prints or making the printers easier to use. However, related to the Bender (1989) it is not exactly clear how the customer will value the technological changes and whether it will lead to higher rates of adoption. For example, while the technology is under-going changes which now offers options for color printing, it is not clear whether the consumer cares about the underlying methods to print in color. It is more likely that the consumer simply values a printer that can print in color. Similarly, it is unlikely that the consumer cares which parts of the printer move (bed or hot-end) or whether the extruder is integrated with the hot-end or whether it is remote. The consumer probably just wants to have a well-functioning printer. Nevertheless, the position of the extruder is a technology choice that affects a 3D printer’s capabilities. In a similar way, while the Make tests for consumer-level 3D printers have improved in their methods and objectivity of assessing 3D printers, this may not work for consumers. Much of what these tests are looking at are detailed technical performance characteristics, such as whether the printer performs in the horizontal or vertical plane. This may be of interest to the innovators and earlyadopters categories of adopters (Rogers, 1995) but early majority adopters are unlikely to become adopters based on these characteristics. Overall, it appears that the technological developments have been related to relative advantage, compatibility and complexity, see (Rogers, 1995). In addition to the changes in consumer-level 3D printing technology, changes have also occurred in related areas. For example, the availability of the range of printing materials has been expanding and now includes nylons etc. Dedicated suppliers have also become part of the scene. For instance Fleks3D and PrintinZ are specialized in manufacturing flexible build platforms that make it easier to remove printed objects. There has also been an increase in available files for printing through websites such as Thingiverse and Youmagine. There are also many usable things for households, for example a measuring cube for the kitchen or a sound amplifier for a cell phone (Yusuf, 2018). While this research has shed some light on the technology characteristics side, it is recommended that future research focuses on the link between the technology characteristics and what the consumer perceives as valuable. This may include an intermediary step, i.e. first, how the technology characteristics influence the technological performance. Second, how this performance relates to consumer perception. For example by determining what attributes of innovation it influences, i.e. relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trailability, and observability. This should also be connected to the adopter categories identified by Rogers (1995). Limitations of this study included that the study was only oriented on the technological characteristics. Therefore, the insights gained are limited in terms of explaining adoption of consumer-level 3D printers. Furthermore, the sample of printers used and the technological characteristics included were mainly derived from the Make Magazine tests of consumer-level 3D printers. Since this is aimed at the maker-space, it is not representative of the entire population or, for example, the early-majority adopter category.
11
References Aarikka-Stenroos, L. and Lehtimäki, T. (2014), “Commercializing a radical innovation: probing the way to the market”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 43, pp. 1372-1384. Anderson, C. (2012), Makers, The new industrial revolution, New York: Crown Business. Anderson Goehrke, S. (2017), ‘3D printing milestone: world’s millionth desktop 3D printer sold’, 3Dprint.com. Available at: https://3dprint.com/196465/millionth-desktop-3d-printer/ Accessed: January 26, 2018. Aranda, S. and Feeney, D. (Ed.) (2017), 3D printing failures, How to diagnose & repair all desktop 3D printing issues, San Bernardino, CA: No publisher stated. Atwell, C. (2017), “Something3D Has a Full-Color 3D Printer (and Big Plans For the Tech)”, Solidsmack, January 23. Available at: https://www.solidsmack.com/fabrication/something3d-fullcolor-3d-printer-big-plans-tech/ Accessed February 2, 2018. Barlow Hills, S. and Sarin, S. (2003), “From market driven to market driving: an alternate paradigm for marketing in high technology industries”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 13-24. Bell, C. (2014), Maintaining and troubleshooting your 3D printer, New York: Springer Science + Business Media. Bender, H.O. (1989), ‘Marketing technologically advanced products’, European Management Journal, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 159-165. Bowonder, B. and Miyake, T. (1988), “Measurement of technology at industry level: a case study of the steel industry in India and Japan”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 249-269. Budmen, I. and Rotolo, A. (2013), The book on 3D printing, San Bernardino: TheBookOn3DPrinting.com.
Campbell, C. (2015), “A RepRap family tree”, MAKE, Vol. 48, December 2015/January 2016, pp. 56-57. Chiesa, V.and Frattini, F. (2011), “Commercializing technological innovation: learning from failures in high-tech markets”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 437-454. Cho, S., Mathiassen, L. and Gallivan, M. (2009), “Crossing the diffusion chasm: from invention to penetration of a telehealth innovation”, Information Technology & People, Vo. 22, No. 4, pp. 351366. Columbus, L. (2015), ‘2015 Roundup Of 3D Printing Market Forecasts And Estimates’, Fortune, March 31. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/louiscolumbus/2015/03/31/2015-roundup-of-3dprinting-market-forecasts-and-estimates/#5cefa2351b30 Accessed: January 25, 2018. De Bruijn, E. (2010), On the viability of the open source development model for the design of physical objects, Lessons learned from the RepRap project, Thesis for the degree of Master of Science, Tilburg University. De Vries, C. (2017), ‘Volkswagen Autoeuropa: Maximizing production efficiency with 3D printed tools, jigs, and fixtures’, Ultimaker. Available at: https://ultimaker.com/en/stories/43969-volkswagenautoeuropa-maximizing-production-efficiency-with-3d-printed-tools-jigs-and-fixtures. Accessed: January 26, 2018.
Dent, S. (2016), “Ultimaker's latest 3D printers let you swap the nozzles”, Engadget, January 5. Available at: https://www.engadget.com/2016/01/05/ultimaker-2-plus-3d-printer/ Accessed February 3, 2018.
12
Deutsch, S. (2013), “Plastics for 3D printing”, Make special issue: ultimate guide to 3D printing, A supplement to MAKE magazine, not dated, pp. 36-37. Dougherty, D. (2013), “A brief history of personal 3D printing”, Make special issue: ultimate guide to 3D printing, A supplement to MAKE magazine, pp. 8, not dated. Flynt, J. 2018), “A detailed history of 3D printing”, 3DInsider. Available at: http://3dinsider.com/3dprinting-history/ Accessed: January 25, 2018.
France, A.K. (2013a), Make: 3D printing, The essential guide to 3D printers, Maker Media, Sebastol. France. A.K. (2013b), “3D printing buyer’s guide”, Make special issue: ultimate guide to 3D printing, A supplement to MAKE magazine, not dated. France, A.K. (2014), “3D evolution”, MAKE, Vol. 42, November, pp. 30-71. Gallagher, S. And Park, S.H. (2002), “Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: a historical analysis of the U.S. home video game market”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 67-82. Gardner, D.M. et al. (2000), ‘A contingency approach to marketing high technology products’, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, No. 9/10, pp. 1053-1077. Gartner (2018), “Gartner Hype Cycle” Available at: https://www.gartner.com/technology/research/methodologies/hype-cycle.jsp Accessed January 25, 2018. Halterman, T.E. (2015), “Something3D's 'Full Color' ST3D Chameleon 3D Printer Is On Its Way”, 3Dprint.com, February 5. Available at: https://3dprint.com/42740/something3d-full-color-fffprinter-is-on-the-way/ Accessed February 2, 2018. Hirunyawipada, T. and Paswan, A.K. (2006), “Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: implications for high technology product adoption”, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 182198. Hornick, J. (2015), 3D printing will rock the world, North Charleston: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform. Horvath, J. (2014), Mastering 3D printing, New York: Springer Science and Business Media. Jackson, B. (2017), ‘XYZprinting combines inkjet and FDP: the da Vinci Color 3D printer pricing and technical specifications’, 3DPrintingindustry.com, August 31. Available at: https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/xyzprinting-combines-inkjet-fdm-da-vinci-color-3d-printerpricing-technical-specifications-120704/ Accessed: February 2, 2018. Jones, R. et al. (2011), ‘RepRap - the replicating rapid prototyper’, Robotica, Vol. 29, pp. 177-191. Lai, E. (2008), “The '640K' quote won't go away -- but did Gates really say it?”, Computerworld, June 23. Available at: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2534312/operating-systems/the--640k-quote-won-t-go-away----but-did-gates-really-say-it-.html Accessed: January 25, 2018. Langley, D., Pals, N. and Ortt, J.R. (2005), ‘Adoption of behavior: predicting success for major innovations’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 56-78. Lilien, G., Kotler, P. and Sridhar Moorthy, K. (1992), Marketing models, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Lipson, H. and Kurman, M. (2013), Fabricated, The new world of 3D printing, Indianapolis: John Wiley & Sons. McCue, T.J. (2016), ‘Wohlers Report 2016: 3D Printing Industry Surpassed $5.1 Billion’, Fortune, April 25. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tjmccue/2016/04/25/wohlers-report-2016-3d-printerindustry-surpassed-5-1-billion/#4e8636d419a0 Accessed: January 25, 2018. 13
Mohr, J.J. and Sarin, S. (2009), “Drucker’s insights on market orientation and innovation: implications for emerging areas in high-technology marketing”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 37, pp. 85-96. Ortt, J. R. and Schoormans, J.P.L. (2004), ‘The pattern of development and diffusion of breakthrough communication technologies’, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 292-302. Ostwald, P.F. and Muñoz, J. (1997), Manufacturing processes and systems, ninth edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Pearce, J.M. et al. (2010), ‘3-D printing of open source appropriate technologies for self-directed sustainable development’, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 17-29. Rainie, L. and Cohn, D. (2014), “Census: Computer ownership, internet connection varies widely across U.S.”, Factank news in the numbers, September 19, Pew Research Center. Available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/19/census-computer-ownership-internet-connectionvaries-widely-across-u-s/, Accessed: January 25, 2018. Ramanathan, K. (1988), “Measurement of technology at the firm level”, Science and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 230-248. Rivera, J. and van der Meulen, R. (2013), ‘Gartner's 2013 Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies Maps Out Evolving Relationship Between Humans and Machines’, Gartner, August 19. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2575515 Accessed: January 25, 2018. Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of innovation, 4th edition, New York: The Free Press. Sie, G. (2015), “The Olsson Block - a community invention by Anders Olsson”, Ultimaker, November 4. Available at: https://ultimaker.com/en/stories/17982-the-olsson-block-a-community-invention-byanders-olsson, Accessed: February 3, 2018. Silver, A. (2010), “Top 10 failed futuristic predictions”, Time, Octoaber 12. Available at: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2024839_2024845_2024855,00.htm l Accessed: January 25, 2018. Soh, P.H. (2010), “Network patterns and competitive advantage before the emergence of a dominant design”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31, pp. 438-461. Sood, A. and Tellis, G.J. (2005), “Technological evolution and radical innovation”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 152-168. Steenhuis, H.J. and Pretorius, L. (2016), ‘Consumer additive manufacturing or 3D printing adoption: an exploratory study’, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27, No. 7, pp. 9901012.
Stevenson, G. (2017), ‘Dialing in a 3D printer? What’s that all about?’, Fabbaloo, November 15. Available at: http://www.fabbaloo.com/blog/2017/11/8/dialing-in-a-3d-printer-whatsthat-all-about Accessed: February 1, 2018. Stultz, M. (2015), “Fab factory, Everything you need to know about digital desktop fabrication”, MAKE, Vol. 48, December 2015/January 2016, pp. 24-87. Stultz, M. (2016), “5 FAB(ulous) years”, MAKE, Vol. 54, December 2016/January 2017, pp. 21-45. Stultz, M. (2017a), “The fine print”, MAKE, Vol. 60, December 2017/January 2018, pp. 28-59. Stultz, M. (2017b), “Pick your nozzle”, MAKE, Vol. 60, December 2017/January 2018, pp. 64. Strohmeyer, R. (2008), “The 7 Worst Tech Predictions of All Time”, PCWorld, December 31. Available at: https://www.pcworld.com/article/155984/worst_tech_predictions.html Accessed: January 25, 2018. 14
Szczys, M. (2017), “Josef Prusa; Multi material extruders for amazing color prints”, Hackaday, May 23. Available at: https://hackaday.com/2017/05/23/josef-prusa-multi-material-extruders-for-amazingcolor-prints/ Accessed: February 2, 2018. Verschuren, P. and Doorewaard, H. (2005), Designing a research project, Utrecht: LEMMA. West, J. and Kuk, G. (2016), ‘The complementarity of openness: how Makerbot leveraged Thingiverse in 3D printing’, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, Vol. 102, pp. 169-181. Winnan, C.D. (2012), 3D printing, The next technology gold rush, San Bernardino. (self published, ISBN: 9781494213961). Wittbrodt, B.T. et al. (2013), ‘Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with opensource 3-D printers’, Mechatronics, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 713-726. Wohlers Associates (2014), Wohlers Report 2014, 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry, Annual worldwide progress report, Fort Collins, CO: Wohlers Associates, Inc. Wohlers Associates (2017), Wohlers Report 2017, 3D printing and additive manufacturing state of the industry, Annual worldwide progress report, Fort Collins, CO: Wohlers Associates, Inc. Yusuf, B. (2018), “50 Cool Things to 3D print which are actually useful”, All3DP.com, available at: https://all3dp.com/1/useful-cool-things-3d-print-ideas-3d-printer-projects-stuff/ Accessed: February 3, 2018.
15
