Factory of the future is a misnomer

There is a real hype around the “of the future” nowadays (we write November 2017) in France. Everything seems to be “of the future” and it started with the factories supposed to soon buzz with the sound of toiling robots and frantic printing 3D printers.

“of the future” sounds great, full of promises of extraordinary technologies and unbelievable possibilities. A kind of science fiction world, full of flying cars by the year 2000, as we were told in my childhood…

>Lisez-moi en français

What bothers me is that the described factories of the future and their promises are based on  already available technologies. So what is left “of the future” then?

The “factory of the future” was probably an answer to the German “Industry 4.0”. As usual the national pride did not allow to rally a foreign initiative and prefers to reinvent the whole thing and rebranding it.

By naming the concept “factory of the future”, I fear that many decision makers understand that the technologies are not fully ready yet, that it’s still a concept for research and it will take a while until everything is mature and affordable for the medium-sized companies to pay closer attention.

What leaves the new manufacturing ways and the factory in the future is the postponed decision to go for it. I repeat: the necessary technologies are already available.

This false feeling of having time to consider and decide could have dire consequences, the risk of being disrupted by a more daring competitor is more likely for tomorrow morning than later in time.

As nice and promising as it sounds,  “factory of the future” seems to me an ambiguous misnomer.
Comments welcome.

Author Chris HOHMANN

Author Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Advertisements

Can Industry 4.0 rejuvenate Total Productive Maintenance?

In this post:

The youngest among my blog readers may not understand what I mean with Total Productive Maintenance, this pre-Lean management approach to maximize machines and equipment effectiveness and aiming to improve companies’ performances.

TPM in a nutshell

In a nutshell, Total Productive Maintenance or TPM in short, originated in Japan, 1971. It was a participative spin-off of the american Productive Maintenance (a mix of maintenance policies to maximize machines’ availability and effectiveness), aiming to minimize all kind of losses by involving every department and everyone.

TPM had its heyday in the 1985-1995s in the western companies and failed to get mainstream despite the efforts to rebrand it Total Productive Management. The original name and much of the content, even so transposable to almost any activity, was too much linked to industrial machinery maintenance.

Total Productive Maintenance gave way to Lean Manufacturing and somehow got absorbed by Lean. TPM brought Overall Equipment Effectiveness (OEE) indicator to the world, a still very popular KPI nowadays.

Industry 4.0 and Total Productive Maintenance 2.0?

My basic assumption for this prospective thinking is that industry 4.0 environments will be highly automated so that the human factor will have lesser impact on the machines / cells / lines /workshops performance. Conversely machines’ utilization will regain focus.

Performance is determined by market requirements, but it will continue to be a mix of responsiveness, speed (time to market, lead time… ) and quality, with a higher expectation for agility than today. Costs may come second when dealing with high customization.

Performance will be mainly driven by machines’ availability, speed and yield, the latter being roughly the right first time rate. In other words OEE.

Availability is key for agility and responsiveness. This stresses the need of preventive maintenance and quick changeovers. Preventive maintenance starts with daily cleaning and inspection in order to keep all equipment in operational state and detect any wear or damage early. Some equipment will probably also need periodic calibration and geometry checks to ensure accuracy e.g 3D printing.

These tasks may be passed to former operators now converted into level one maintenance technicians. Further more in-depth periodic inspection will also be required by more expert staff that can be either company’s own or third-party. This reminds of the ‘autonomous maintenance’ pillar of TPM.

TPM autonomous maintenance in 4.0 environment

Autonomous maintenance intent was/is to give operators greater “ownership” of their equipment in order for them to take care and use responsibly. By increasing operators’ technical knowledge of the equipment they use and entitle them to do the simple daily maintenance tasks, autonomous maintenance aim was/is to:

  • ensure equipment is constantly well-cleaned and lubricated
  • maintenance experts’ time is freed for higher-level tasks
  • emergent issues are noticed and identified before they become failures
  • enrich the job of production operators.

if operators showed interest and demonstrated capacities, they could be trained further and assist maintenance experts for more complex maintenance tasks and even take part in repairs and overhauls.

In a industry 4.0 environment, the content of this ‘autonomous maintenance’ pillar of TPM must be adapted to the new technologies. It could encompass data management, using the digital twin, simulate… and require digital literacy.

In a industry 4.0 environment the role of operators as machine feeder, unloader and tool fitter may be marginalized thanks to automation. The jobs for production operators as we knew them may diminish and new jobs will be created requiring different skills and abilities, but not as many.

I could imagine recycling some of the former production operators into ‘autonomous maintenance’ operators, but my guestimate is that one operator could take care of 5 to 20 3D printers. The operator-to-equipment rate compared to traditional manufacturing will surely shrink. Besides, everyone will not show the necessary capacity to evolve.

Can Industry 4.0 rejuvenate Total Productive Maintenance?

As for the autonomous maintenance my guess is that chances are good, even so it may need to be updated in a new 2.0 version fitting the new technical environment.

Focus will be on equipment because of the investment, because of managers in love with tech, because equipment performance will be the main driver for (a production) company’s performance, and for probably more reasons.

For the other 7 traditional pillars I am not sure. You’re welcome to share your own thoughts.

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

About the author, Chris HOHMANN

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

The cobot controversy part 2

The new robots arrive, the humans remain

This post is a personal reflection about a statement of German Labor Union “IG Metall” posted on the union’s Website https://www.igmetall.de/robotik-tagung-2015-17975.htm titled “The new robots arrive, the humans remain(Published November 26th, 2015 and still online June 2017).

From the original article, in short

The article opens on this statement: “A new generation of lightweight robots comes into the factories. IG Metall sees more opportunities than threats. Provided that the human being plays the leading role in the cooperation with the new robots, IG Metall chairman Jörg Hofmann emphasized at the robotics conference in Berlin. The new robots come: smaller, lighter and closer to humans (collaborative robots, i.e. cobots). IG Metall wants to take advantage of the opportunities created by the increasing use of lightweight robots and new forms of cooperation between man and machine in industry.”

The tone is set. The union is not opposed to see increasingly installing robots near humans, neither the idea of collaboration between humans and cobots, provided the human keeps the upper hand.

The union recognizes the opportunities the robots bring in: reduction of human exposure to monotone or health-endangering work and creation of new, qualified activities. It mentions nothing about extending the employability of aging workers though, like other authors highlight as an additional benefit.

In order to develop a new kind of cooperation between man and machine, new forms of work have to be encouraged with expanded job profiles and possibilities for action for the employees. For this, other qualifications are certainly necessary than today” explained Hofmann on the occasion of the meeting before works councils and representatives from science and politics.

At the same time, however, it is necessary to prevent people from being marginalized in the “ballet of lightweight robots“.

Ballet, I assume, is to be understood here as the choreography of man and cobot working together. For example: the cobots grabs a part, moves and present it to the worker and while the cobot is holding it, the worker can work on it. Once the human cycle done, the cobot will take the part away and grab a new one for a new cycle.

“Under the assumption that the exploitation potentials of the new robot generation are actually exhausted and the human robot collaboration is co-designed by works councils and trade unions”.

I am not sure about the meaning of the “assumption” but it is clear that the union wants to have a say about the future human-robot collaboration.

The article goes on with a warning:  in future, manless factories are not an option. While the worker teaches the robot, literally guiding him by hand thanks to ease of use, makes it possible to give the employees a new role.

The use of the new robots also offers opportunities to improve competitiveness and secure employment,” says the IG Metall chairman. It is a matter of intelligently combining the use of people and machines, which means that labor costs are, in sum, lower, while qualification and ergonomics are at a higher level. Added value creation and employment can therefore remain in Germany.

Article analysis: understanding the vantage point

In order to fully get the (underlying) messages of the speech, some premises should be reminded:

  • Labor unions in Germany are reputed as consensus-driven as compared to the traditional French unions which are more hard-liners, opponents and politically-ideologically driven
  • The hype around robot, automation, big data, machine learning and so on is not likely to fade soon
  • The rise of the robot in manufacturing, in whatever shape and size they’ll come, is an accepted fact
  • Beyond a government supported program, Germany developed a brand: Industrie 4.0
  • If Germany would refrain developing and using robots, cobots, etc. for the sake of safekeeping human jobs, another competing nation would take advantage of it
  • The development of those technologies and Germany’s leadership is key to ensure a future for German high-tech manufacturing equipment makers
  • Labor unions are primarily seeking to protect and improve workers’ conditions and benefits
  • Labor union’s existence makes sense as long as there is (human) labor and the union’s power is a function of their members count
  • The speech was delivered during a meeting before works councils and representatives from science and politics (not business)
  • The speech is a mixture of showing openness and ambition to play a key role in defining rules and use cases altogether. In order to maintain the union’s acceptance about robots, some (limiting) conditions must be accepted by the robots promoters / employers: the human workers keep the upper hand, should not be driven out (maneless factories) neither marginalized by automation.

It is suggested that all the automation frees the human worker from dangerous and mundane tasks, improves ergonomics (working conditions at large) and provides opportunities to enrich the job content and raise workers’ qualifications.

Beyond the stance, wishful thinking?

Let’s switch to investors’ and industrial engineers’ point of view. There is no point in systematically letting the humans have the upper hand when it comes to automation. It probably will not give an organization a competitive advantage nor systematically improve the process.

In some cases, unmanned factories are an option from the point of view of optimal investment and operations, so why should it be a taboo?

Why should investors and engineers agree to let the (probable) weakest link in the process (humans) have the upper hand? And why, if not because of threat, would they let works councils and trade unions co-design new processes?

Accepting those limitations while competition will probably not is accepting to join a race with self-inflicted handicaps.

It makes sense in politically correct parlance and for trying to avoid new luddites smashing the expensive new technology in anger.

Personal conclusion

My personal conclusion is that unions see the threat of losing their power as the number of workers will plummet, thanks to new technologies. On the other hand, fighting against new technology would endanger Germany’s leadership in the machine-tool and manufacturing equipment, right during the Industrie 4.0 hype.

Losing the leadership to foreign makers could also lead to lose jobs, hence weaken the unions’ importance.

Unions need to show their subscribers that they care to protect their interest in this uncertain working future and no one would benefit from a new luddites uprising.

I assume the German union goes the Realpolitik way and tries to find an acceptable compromise.

Comments welcome.

You may also like: The cobot controversy – part 1

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

 

The cobot controversy – Part 1

“The cobot controversy” is the title of a short article published by and on the Hannover Messe (“Hannover Fair”, the industry exhibition) website.

http://www.hannovermesse.de/en/news/the-cobot-controversy.xhtml

The article can be read in English as well as in German (assumed original version). This article proposes a “balanced” view about the impact of the collaborative robots (cobots) on the jobs in industry.

It caught my interest because most often the articles on those subjects, i.e. robots and future of jobs are single-sided.

  • On the one hand promoters of the factory of the future, industry 4.0 and robotics only highlight the alleged benefits of the new technologies.
  • On the other hands, prophets of doom predict nothing else than mass extinction of jobs.

Published by what can be considered the Mecca of Germany’s Industrie 4.0, the showplace of the most recent and finest developments in cyber physical systems, automation and more, it is fair (no pun intended…) to present the flip side of the coin.

Furthermore, some references to studies cited in the article are interesting. For instance the fact that “robots are replacing tasks, not jobs”. Digging deeper into this one, I read that usually analysts assume that the whole job is taken over by automation or robots when in fact only specific tasks are. This is mainly because the analysts remained on a macro level.

Now, can this invalidate the initial assumption: robots won’t replace humans at work?

When observing any person in its daily work, many of the tasks done are not described in the work instructions neither in the procedures and many tasks are not even part of the job description.

This can have several reasons:

  • people not sticking to the work instructions and taking liberties
  • reacting to unexpected situations that require decision and action on the spot
  • impossibility to describe every possible situation in work instructions and procedures
  • broad guidelines as instructions, relying on human know-how to carry out the tasks
  • etc.

The human workers defenders will argue that humans are irreplaceable when facing an unexpected situation, something that is likely to happen (very) frequently. They may be right, but with regards to old automation constraints and algorithm programming.

Until relatively recently, automation required accurate positioning and low variability for automated machines or robots to operate. Programming was linear and only capable to adjust on programmed variations. With the all the progress in various fields, objects positioning is no longer a hard constraint and systems are increasingly capable to adjust to unexpected situations.

Machines, in the broadest meaning of the word, are also increasingly capable to learn and adapt. Therefore, the assumption of the irreplaceable human is losing its validity as the machines’ abilities improve.

When observing humans work, is it also common to see them take deliberate liberties with the list of tasks, because of their inability to keep focused over time, because they are convinced to know better or because they lack the self-discipline to stick to instructions.

Humans introduce many variations and not always for good reasons, therefore praising the vast variety of tasks the human do must be considered with care. For the same reason, stating that “robots are replacing tasks, not jobs”, based on such observations without a critical discrimination of the necessity and added-value of the human tasks, might be wrong.

Why? When going for automation, the engineers will analyze the process and concentrate on the core activities. They may well ignore many special issues a human will take care of, but also ignore all the unnecessary or deviant activities human will add. More or less, this analysis will discriminate necessary from unnecessary tasks, value-added from waste.

Comments welcome.


View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

What is Industry 4.0 – Juergen Kanz

“Industry 4.0” was coined in Germany and is becoming the European name of what is also known as Smart Factory, Smart Manufacturing, Industrial Internet among others.

Note: German and French write “industrie” instead of “industry”

In this slightly more than one hour video, Juergen Kanz, Systemic Thinker and Theory of Constraints expert, introduces to the concept of Industry 4.0

You may jump to 4:55 to the explanations of 4th industrial revolution and how the German federal government came to encourage this initiative, and 12:40 for the presentation of the structure of the “platform industrie 4.0”.

Juergen takes the viewers deeper into the details and implications before linking the opportunities of Industry 4.0 to the Theory of Constraints (ToC) Body of Knowledge (around 49:00).  ToC provides several mindsets, principles, methods and tools that may help to install and get the benefits of industrie 4.0 based solutions.

Is 3D printing the ultimate postponement? Part two

In the previous post of this series, I used somewhat extreme examples to illustrate the benefits of postponement with additive manufacturing i.e. 3D printing (space exploration, ships amidst oceans and warfare). In this post I use more common examples about how the promises of these new techniques will disrupt existing businesses and bring new benefits to competitors and customers.

Spare parts for automotive industry, appliances, etc.

Spare parts are needed for mending cars or appliances for example. Until now, spare parts must be produced and kept in inventories in the eventuality someone needs a part. This happens eventually but it is hard guess to tell which parts, when and in which quantities parts will be required.

Therefore, spare parts production is launched according to complex and more or less scientific guessing, based on statistics. Once these parts are produced, they’ll go for various locations through the proprietary network or through  importers, distributors, retailers and repair stations.
Huge amounts of cash are kept frozen in inventories, scattered in many warehouses in various locations.

  • These inventories are likely to grow with each new specification change that affects a part, as the adequate replacement part must be provided
  • These inventories’ value will have to be depreciated when parts become obsolete and the probability of their sales diminishes

Storing and distributing spare parts is a business per se, but the value-added remains limited (which does not mean it is not profitable!), especially for the “players in the middle” who act more like cross-docking platforms taking their share of profits and risks.

Over time distributors and retailers slightly changed their business model and drift away from their original business: storage and retail.

In old days it was important to be the reliable parts provider and huge inventories were normality.

More and more those companies embrace a financial, more profit-driven purpose and keeping inventories is for them a necessary evil at best. Distributors and retailers try to get delivered at short notice in order to keep inventories – that is frozen capital and risk – low.

They push the problem upstream to manufacturers, the latter being required to reduce delivery lead time, which most often ironically means holding inventories to serve “off-the-shelf”. Distributors and retailers become a kind of post-office collecting orders, passing them over to manufacturers, who in some case have to deliver to the point of use, by-passing the distributor/retailer.

I worked in some industries facing this “problem” and the distributor / retailer channel in this way does not seem sustainable as manufacturers try to get rid of these “order collectors”.

Now with the rise of additive manufacturing techniques, new opportunities appear. Distributors and retailers may use them to become manufacturers themselves. What they need are competencies to use such equipments and managing CAD files from OEMs’ libraries, “print” spare parts at will: at the right moment, in the right version, without holding huge, costly and risky inventories of parts in huge warehouses, with high fixed costs.

Furthermore, customizing parts locally would yield additional revenue, as customers with specific and maybe urgent needs are willing to pay a premium.
So would scanning and redesigning no longer supported parts for which no CAD files are available.
This kind of service is an ultimate postponement because the manufacturing of parts is on hold until the very last moment, when the orders are confirmed or the parts paid!

This is one example about additive manufacturing (i.e. 3D printing) techniques can disrupt existing businesses and bring new benefits to (some) competitors and customers. The financial barriers to entry dropping significantly, OEMs could reconsider to re-integrate this kind of activity and keep the value creation all by themselves.

Bandeau_CH11
This post being a prospective analysis, I would be glad to read your comments.

If you liked it, please share it!

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

Is 3D printing the ultimate postponement? – Part one

Imagine the first habitable base on mars. Your challenge is to pack the first cargo spaceship with all the necessary for the staff to face all maintenance issues, until the next cargo spaceship can lift up, say three months later.

Chances are you’ll include a 3D printer and enough of printer’s raw material, simply because it would be the most efficient way to provide many things needed despite tremendous logistics constraints.

Now quit outer space and consider a tanker, an aircraft carrier or container ship amidst the ocean. In some aspects, these vessels share common traits with our base on mars:

  • storage space for spare parts, raw material and machines for maintenance purpose is scarce
  • they are far from everything, can be supplied only after some delay
  • supplying them is not without some risk (weather, enemies, etc.)
  • supplying them is not only risky but comes at (very) high cost

In these cases too, 3D printing is a good option to consider as printing what is needed at the very moment it is needed is the optimum solution and ultimate postponement.

What is postponement?

In manufacturing and supply chain operations, postponement means delaying the completion of a product or packaging products until a signal assigns specific customer or destination. This is useful when many variants would lead to possible misallocation if the completion would be based on forecasts.

Put simpler, postponement delays a decision until what is expected is clearly specified. The reason is most of transformation step in a process modify the product in such manner that returning to previous state is impossible.

Example: if you cut a piece of fabric to make a handkerchief, it cannot be returned to a piece of fabric for a trousers’ leg. (except it was a huge handkerchief or tiny trousers)

Materials usually lose flexibility along the transformation process. Once transformed there is no stepping back.

Postponement is used to delay the completion or manufacturing until a differentiation point from which the item loses its flexibility (e.g. pack in white box and add customized label latter).

Because postponement and later completion is no realistic option for our vessels or space base, they must embark spare parts for all possible cases, but under constraint of volume and in some cases weight.

The embarked mix is a set of items based on forecasts and tradeoffs about what could possibly happen and what is most likely needed, still carrying the frightening risk that what will really be needed will not be included in the cargo.

Printing at will

Now if you can trade the same finite volume and mass of many different spare parts selected through complicated statistical computation for a 3D printer and raw printer material, the risk drops to almost none as any required part (as long as material is suitable) can be printed when required, and even customized to some unexpected specification change.

This is why NASA, the navy or some private companies consider to embark 3D printers and train staff in order for the unit to be independent from its supply base for a longer period.


Bandeau_CH11

If you liked this post, share it!


Future of Lean and additive manufacturing

In a previous post titled “How much non-added value additive manufacturing can take out of actual processes?” my prospective thinking was all about technological disruptions and the impact on companies.

The same question is valid for the future of Lean. If as I assume much of the non-added value can be taken out of actual processes by additive manufacturing, what will be left for lean practitioners to work on?

Whole processes could be reduced to 3D printers or equivalent*, taking out lots of costs and non-value added. But what may be really shocking in near future could be to reconsider what we assumed being added-value in traditional manufacturing, e.g. cutting away material by lathing, milling, etc.

*3D printers stand here for a generic expression for additive manufacturing techniques and machines. 3D printers are already well-known from the public, therefore it makes it easier at present time to refer to additive manufacturing as 3D printing.

These processes transformed raw material in something of higher value, but at expense of a lot of energy, capital and material, like shavings, for example.

With the new perspective of additive manufacturing techniques, raw material will be used in just necessary quantity, most of the energy will really be used to “add” value and almost all of the manufacturing cycle time will be added value time.

Even the non-added value that cannot be suppressed – a former colleague of mine positively calls it “value enabling” – like all the fragmentation of the process between different techniques/machines, hand-offs, transfer, wip, etc. may simply disappear or at least seriously shrink.

Value Streams will become shorter and efficient, some Value Stream Maps limited to the order input and 3D printer!

While today about 2% of the lead time is usually added value, in near future it could soar up to 80% or more!

Future of Lean, Lean in the future, what is your point of view?

Bandeau_CH11You may share your opinion via a comment.

If you liked this post, share it!

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


Lean in digital age: sensors and data

In near future, technology and especially connected objects – smart things stuffed with sensors and so-called wearable devices – will supercharge Lean improvements.

One example of such already used device is given in a Mark Graban podcast about Hand Hygiene & Patient Safety. In this podcast (Episode #205), Mark’s guest Joe Schnur, VP Business Development at Intelligent M, explains how his wearable solution called smart band, (see video below) helps gather huge amount of accurate data compared to human observer with a clipboard.

You may listen to the whole podcast or skip to 13:30 and more specifically to 15:00 to hear about the wearable smart band, 21:50 about the data gathering.
http://www.leanblog.org/2014/07/podcast-205-joe-schnur-hand-hygiene-patient-safety/

Human observer has its limitations as to what information he/she can catch and how accurately it can be done. Think about fast events occurring often and/or tasks not easy to watch because of the layout. Human observations are therefore often limited to ticks on a pre-formated check sheet.

As human observers are high cost (compared to newer technology), they are used in limited number, during limited time and usually with sampling techniques.

Appropriate technology can gather many data for a single event: temperature, motions, duration, acceleration, applied force and what ever embedded sensors are designed for. These devices capture everything of each event, not only samples.

The cost per data point is obviously in favor of technology, not only because of quantity of data but also its quality (read accuracy). In near future the cost of these technologies will further drop, making automatic data collection available almost for free.

The mass of data captured allows using big data techniques, even so data scientists may smile at the “big” in this specific case. Nevertheless, with more smart objects and sensors everywhere (Internet of Things, Smart factories, etc.), the flood of data will grow really big and allow process mining, correlation search on a huge sets of parameters and more.

I am convinced that in near future, most of Value Stream Maps will be generated automatically and updated real time by such kind of devices/data sets, with ability to zoom in on details or zoom out for a broader view at will, and more.

The same systems will be able to pre-analyze and dynamically spot bottlenecks and sub-optimized parts in the process, make suggestions for improvements if not corrections by themselves.

  • Artificial intelligence with machine learning ability will suggest improvements based on scenarios stored in their literally infinite memory or on their predictions about potential problems.
  • The Internet of Things (IoT) will be made by objects communicating and interacting with each other.

What is likely to come are intelligent monitoring systems for any process, that build and maintain themselves, hence smart factories.

So, when Lean goes digital to that point, what will be left to humans?

This is a topic for a next post and an opportunity for you to give your opinion in a comment.

Bandeau_CH11View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn


You may also be interested by my series about What jobs in the factory of the future?

If you liked this post, share it!


How much non-added value additive manufacturing can take out of actual processes?

It is a well-known fact: the sequence of all activities required to bring a product to a customer is called a value stream and despite the name, value does not flow smoothly nor swiftly along streamlined processes. Value streams are cluttered with non-added value processes, tasks and steps, so-called wastes.

Traditional manufacturing processes aren’t very efficient especially when several different techniques are required e.g. cutting, lathing, milling, drilling, welding, deburring, assembling, painting, etc.

All these machines require energy and floor space. The more complex the process, the more energy and space is required.

This remains true even if the process is partly subcontracted, which adds more transportation and management costs, maybe additional quality controls.

In such processes there are many hands-off and transportations between machines and work posts, the different operation require different skills, thus a staff of qualified workers.

Production is launched in batches in order to have some economies of scale but with carryover costs and all the trouble related to WIP and inventories.

Of course lead time is dependent on the number of operations and the process’ efficiency. Measured in time ratio, the added-value time to total Lead time ratio is often around 2% (poor efficiency) and around 10% (?) at best.

Customers pay for all this as until recently there was no alternative. Yet a tremendous change will affect some industries / businesses with additive manufacturing.

With these new techniques, when relevant and possible, the part or product is created in a single process by adding (“3D printing”) material one thin layer after another.

So how much non-added value additive manufacturing can take out of actual processes?

Well, considering the examples given above, I’d say a lot of handling, storing, energy, floor space, capital frozen in inventories and WIP, manpower costs, a large share of overhead, capital for different machines, lot of floor space and related costs (heating, cooling, light, locker rooms and other “social” rooms).

For the industries and businesses that will be threatened by the rise of these new manufacturing techniques, the disruption can be tsunami-like. Think of all the barriers to entry suddenly disappearing for new challengers and the irony of established companies, if caught unprepared, being suddenly locked-out from their own markets!

Some companies may not be able to switch quickly from traditional to additive manufacturing. It will probably take them some time to get the new know-how, find a suitable business model and get rid of assets that became a burden; machines, buildings and… some of the workforce. If additive manufacturing techniques supersedes traditional ones, companies that couldn’t manage the turnaround will be pushed out of their markets.

For customers it should be good news: cost and lead time should drop significantly while customization makes a giant leap.

Sad for those who will lose.

Bandeau_CH12if you liked this post, share it!

View Christian HOHMANN's profile on LinkedIn

You may also be interested in reading more posts about the factory of the future, like How disruptive 3D printing can be or Will 3D printing revitalize strategic analysis?