The industrial ‘revolution’ brought about by 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing technologies calls for an extensive rethinking of Economic Policies and Regulation. This talk will focus on three critical aspects: Industry Policy and support to innovation, Competition policy,
2. PROF.THIERRY RAYNA
• Professor of Economics, Novancia Business School Paris
• Affiliate Professor, Imperial College London
• Associate Editor, Int. J. of ManufacturingTechnology &
Management
• trayna@novancia.fr
• @ThierryRayna
16. TYPES OF ADOPTER
development
Introduction
Growth
Maturity
Decline
Innovators
early adopters
early Majority
Late Majority
Laggards
(Rogers)
Technology
Enthusiasts
Visionaries
Pragmatists
Conservatives
Skeptics
(Moore)
Resources,
desire and
willingness to
take risks to try
new things
Opinion
leaders: selective
about
technologies
they adopt
Willing to
embrace: look to
understand how
it fits with their
lives
Adopt with
skepticism: most
of the
uncertainty
must be resolved
Last to adopt,
have an
aversion to
change
21. CANTHIS HAPPENTO 3D
PRINTING?
• Possibly, because:
• It’s not just digital
• Ubiquitous fails
• Requires entirely different core competencies
• Network effect (virtuous/vicious circle)
• Segregated industry
25. INDUSTRY POLICY
• Aims to fill gaps left open by the market
• For 3D Printing:
• ‘Create the need’
• Help building networks to trigger virtuous circle
• Promote research in critical areas (materials, interface)
• Promote standards and safety
26. INDUSTRY POLICY INTHE U.S.
• National Network for Manufacturing Innovation (NNMI)
• National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute-America
Makes
• Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation (DMDI) Institute
• American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing Innovation Institute
(ALMMII)
• Next Generation Power Electronics National Manufacturing
Innovation Institute
27. IP INTHE U.S. (1)
• National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute – America Makes
• 40 companies (e.g. 3D Systems, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman,
GE, Stratasys) and 25 education/NGO. $70M / 5 years
• Ensure quality parts are produced and certified for use in products made by a
variety of industries and their supply chains.
• Emphasis on providing tools needed for additive manufacturing applications to
progress from prototype to market-ready.
• Improve and develop metal applications
• Determine international standards for safety and quality purposes (ASTM F42)
28. IP INTHE U.S. (2)
• Digital Manufacturing and Design Innovation (DMDI) Institute
• $70M / 5 year to University of Illinois Labs, over $250 million
committed by 41 companies (including GE, John Deere, Procter
& Gamble and Lockheed Martin), 23 universities and 9 other
organisations.
• Enable low volume, varying demand, complex systems, with a
combination of advanced materials, high performance computing
resources, modelling and simulation tools, and additive
manufacturing practices.
29. IP INTHE U.S. (3)
• American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing Innovation Institute (ALMMII)
• $70M federal funding + $78M from consortium partners /5y
• 30 companies (e.g.ALCOA, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, NanoSteel, Optomec,
PowderMet, RTI International Metals, Honda, GE)
• Numerous lightweight metals are not being effectively utilised because of
scale-up challenges and a lack of design guides and certifications.
• Will accelerate the introduction and expand the use of more affordable
products made with high strength-to-weight alloys that improve
performance and reduce energy consumption.
30. IP INTHE U.S. (4)
• Next Generation Power Electronics National Manufacturing
Innovation Institute
• $ 70M federal funding + $140 million from partners /5y
31. IP INTHE U.S. (5)
• Examples of funded projects:
• Post-manufacturing
inspection, process controls
• Thermal imaging
inspection; comparing
machines
• Optimising properties of
metal powders
• Research on very large
systems (19 feet large)
• Defect-free deposition in
metallic AM
• Hybrid manufacturing
system
36. COMPETITION POLICY
• Aims to prevent anti-competitive behaviour and abuse of
monopoly power
• But should still provide incentives to innovate!
• In the case of 3D Printing: lowering costs to foster adoption
• Open standards
• Access to IP
38. THE STORY SO FAR…
• Expiration of ‘FDM’ patents has led to the first ‘boom’ in 3D
Printing
• Other patents to expire soon
• But patenting activity has significantly increased over the past
few years
• Patenting around
• May block development and integration
39. ISTHERE A NEED FOR CP?
• Probably not at the moment
• CP often comes after IP
• But need to keep an open eye for blocking patents
• FRAND
• Need to promote standards
• Already many mergers and acquisitions
40. CONCLUSION
• Radical and transformative technologies seldom get adopted
by themselves
• Industry policy is a critical tool needed for 3D Printing
• H&S, standards, research in materials and interface,
equipment ➜ help to cross the chasm
• Competition policy required to help set standards and avoid
blocking positions.