Manufacturing the Future

Manufacturing the Future

3D printing, or additive manufacturing, refers to the process of making solid objects from a digital blueprint by applying the material in successive layers, and is believed to herald the dawning of a second or even third industrial revolution (depending on how you count industrial revolutions). Some commentators such as Foxconn founder, Terry Gou, don't believe the hype, downgrading the technology to nothing more than a gimmick. Whether 3D printing will represent a major chapter in the history of technological advance or a mere footnote is impossible to tell at this stage, but it is nevertheless crucial to anticipate how well it might suit society.

Helpfully, Kevin Kelly provides us with some ideas of what to look for in a technology in order to gauge what he calls 'conviviality'. He lists:

• Cooperation
• Transparency
• Decentralization
• Efficiency
• Flexibility
• Redundancy

At first it would appear that 3D printing scores highly against Kelly's criteria for a number of reasons. Firstly, its popularity among hacker and maker communities has led to a surge of 3D printers based on open source plans, with a large number of collaborators volunteering their computer and manufacturing expertise to invent and release products. RepRap is a notable project of this type. For this reason it might be said to support cooperation, transparency, decentralisation and flexibility.

Secondly, this initiative has pushed down prices so low that an entry level printer has recently been released for as little as $199. Low cost is another factor by which it may promote decentralisation.

Thirdly, 3D printers make products more customizable, as alterations no longer mean retooling, only reviewing the blueprint. The ability of 3D printers to produce customizable goods means that they are useful tools for collaborative forms of manufacturing. Firms such as Quirky and Shapeways invite users to submit ideas for prototypes and collaborate towards their final design, packaging, marketing and price. This feature of printing might foster cooperation and flexibility, but it has an even greater potential for decentralisation. Eliminating the advantage of economies of scale, it may become more cost efficient to produce some goods locally, cutting out the dependency on large, centralised factories. Ultimately, this might shift the imbalance of disproportionate production in Asian economies. Furthermore, if production is located closer to the site of consumption, this will promote efficiency, as parts and final products will not have to be shipped across land and sea, reducing transport, fuel and carbon costs

Finally, as 3D printing can manufacture complex objects in one step, it offers the potential to improve efficiency by cutting waste to near zero levels. The AMAZE Project, aspires to use this benefit to produce parts for planes, spacecraft and even nuclear fusion reactors with minimal wastage of raw materials.

For these reasons, the future relationship between 3D printing and society looks positive. Though there are other reasons why this may not be the case. It is too early to predict whether 3D printing will encourage redundancy of alternatives. If it becomes popular, more energy efficient, and able to work with a wider range of materials, it may spell the end for some traditional manufacturing jobs, but it may also create new ones. I have indicated the flexibility of 3D printing above with regards to its background in open source production and its ability to produce customisable goods. But how flexible will users be to freely abandon the technology if they become dependent on it? We may exploit the potential of near zero waste manufacturing and promote efficiency but we might also produce a mass of useless plastic objects which will quickly be binned.

There are shortcomings to Kelly's check-list; what appears to be a 'convivial' characteristic might produce undesirable effects. The decentralisation, flexibility and transparency of 3D printers have meant that people have been able to create products such as guns and ATM skimmers. A second order effect of these developments may be a strengthening of security and surveillance. Concerns also arise with regards to patenting and copyrights. Large manufacturing firms will not appreciate individuals or other companies cloning their products, and just as copyright law has influenced how we listen to music and watch movies, the legal system may determine how we use 3D printers. 3D printers may lean towards decentralisation and transparency but society may swing the opposite way in response. This raises the issue of how the public might govern a technology which, due to its decentralised nature, does not naturally yield to regulation.

If we know one thing it is that the future of 3D printing is uncertain. As with any widely used technology, as indeed with any human activity, it will offer opportunities which we must be open to, and risks which we must be mindful of. These will be unavoidable, unpredictable and subjective. We must be critical not just of the technology, but also of the way we use and respond to it.