RINTING AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE USINESS ODELS OF UTCH OMPANIES 3D P B M D C

AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE

B

USINESS

M

ODELS OF

D

UTCH

C

OMPANIES

UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN,FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND BUSINESS MSC.BASIM

DOMINIK DÜR (S2938340)

KRANEWEG 43A,9718JGGRONINGEN,THE NETHERLANDS

SUPERVISOR:DR.W.SCHOENMAKERS CO-ASSESSOR:DR.J.DONG 23-01-2017 Word count: 16.314 Main text: 10.711 ABSTRACT

T

ABLE OF

C

ONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 3

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 5

2.1 3D printing 5

2.2 Business Model 6

2.3 Service Provider or Producer 8

1.

I

NTRODUCTION

The purpose of this research is to address the influence of 3D printing on business models. Researchers promise a huge potential for this technology by stating that the way firms do business, locations of production and whole supply chains will change (Berman, 2012; Garrett, 2014). Some expect it to be a disruptive changer for the way companies produce goods (Gartner, 2014; Murphy & Atala, 2014; Tucker, 2013; Utterback & Acee, 2005). The 3D printing technology is already used to produce high-tech parts for military jets or hearing aids (Lewis, 2014; The Economist, 2012). Companies started to explore the technology and are testing its potential for their industry (Nickels, 2014; Philips, 2016; Thryft, 2013). However, although firms already use the technology for customizing their products (e.g. Philips 3dshaver) or experiment on possibilities with this technology (Daunt & Romeo, 2016), the complete division of potentials has not been exploited. Desai and Magliocca (2014) argue that 3D printing could change the market for physical objects like MP3 files changed the music industry.

Whereas companies have started to experiment with 3D printing, researchers use a different focus by predicting its future. On the one side, researchers focus on the potential of 3D printing and predict major changes in the market (Prince, 2014). The technology is said to have the potential to be highly disruptive through rapid prototyping, rapid tooling, direct manufacturing and home fabrication (Rayna & Striukova, 2016). On the other side, researchers have focused on single use cases in order to describe the possible use of 3D printing (Jia, Wang, Mustafee, & Hao, 2016; Murphy & Atala, 2014). An approach to identify generalizable findings on the way companies adapt their business models to 3D printing, however, is omitted. A business model is the combination of the way a company makes money: what it offers, to whom it offers this, and how it can accomplish sustainability (Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2011; H. Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Drucker, 1994; Johnson, Christensen, & Kagermann, 2008; Schneider & Spieth, 2014; Zott, Amit, & Massa, 2011). So far, publications focus mainly on excogitating on the vast possibilities in connection with this technology or the presentation of single use cases to demonstrate what could be done with it. However, the influence on how business itself is done in connection with 3D printing is omitted. To address this issue, the following research question is explored:

“How does the introduction of the 3D printing technology influence the business models of Dutch companies?”

important to focus on the offer, the customers and competitive advantage. Therefore the three sub-questions are: (1) what does the company offer to its customers? (2) to whom does the company offer its 3D printed output? and (3) is 3D printing a source to accomplish sustainable competitiveness?

2.

T

HEORETICAL

B

ACKGROUND

In order to get an understanding of the underlying theory of this research, a number of theoretical concepts have to be explained. First, the 3D printing technology itself is presented so as to identify its potential for business models. In addition, it is important to define what a business model is. In order to get a clear understanding of it, different theories are explained before a final definition for this work is presented. Based on this definition three sub-questions were elaborated. Those sub-sub-questions focus on the customer, the offer and the way companies stay competitive. Therefore, theories on the offering of companies as well as how they stay competitive are presented. Since the customer base of a company is highly dependent on a company’s offer, this topic is also discussed in the chapter on offers.

2.1

3D

Chuck Hull is known to have invented 3D printing in the year 1986 (Hickey, 2014). A 3D printer functions similarly to a commonly known printer for paper. Nonetheless, there are some differences. For example, for a 3D printer the input has to be three-dimensional. Therefore, so-called CAD files, created with a 3D modeling program, are necessary (Nickels, 2014). Software uses these CAD files and renders them into a series of layers. These layers are then sent to the printer, which prints the medium by adding one layer onto another. There are different methods used in 3D printers: Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM), Polyjet Photopolymer, Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Stereolithography (SLA) and Syringe extrusion (Prince, 2014). The different methods differ not only in the way they produce the outcome, but also in the materials they can use. Furthermore, some create more waste than others. Nonetheless, 3D printing is said to produce less waste than traditional manufacturing methods (Thewihsen, Karevska, Czok, Pateman-Jones, & Krauss, 2016). Additionally, the different methods also differ in the price category (Bogue, 2013).

that is produced with a 3D printer (Desai & Magliocca, 2014). Furthermore, they could also sell the design for their product (Dolphin, 2012). Another possible business model could be to simply offer the use of a 3D printer (Prince, 2014). Some researchers even investigate the combination of service and production, so called ‘Servitization’ (Kastalli, Van Looy, & Neely, 2013). According to a study by Rayna and Striukova (2016), companies can use 3D printing for rapid prototyping, rapid tooling, digital manufacturing and home fabrication. Concluding, 3D printing is, although it has already existed for approximately 30 years (Hickey, 2014), still in an early stage regarding its business use. However, a huge potential for the future is predicted from different researchers (Rayna & Striukova, 2016). This technology provides a base for new business ideas and innovative ways of creating things. In order to understand how companies can make use of this technology, it is necessary to understand how a business works. Therefore, the following paragraph focuses on the literature on business models.

2.2

B

M

In literature we find many different definitions of what a business model is. The high number of different dimensions assigned to business models reflects the variety in the understanding of them (Schneider & Spieth, 2014). Researchers include multiple aspects into their definitions of a functioning business model. Drucker (1994), for example, describes a business model as a concept that answers the questions of who is your customer, what does the customer value, and how do you deliver value at an appropriate cost. Similar to the definition of Drucker (1994) is the one by Johnson, Christensen and Kagermann (2008), who specify the main characteristics of a functioning business model in their work with four elements. These elements are: a customer value proposition, a profit formula, key resources, and key processes. The three researchers agree with the definition of Drucker (1994) on two levels. First, in both publications the customer plays a major role. It is important to know who the customer is and in what way the product is of value to him. Second, being profitable is a necessity for a company’s economic survival. Therefore it is important to understand how value is delivered at an appropriate cost level (Drucker, 1994) or have a functioning profit formula (Johnson et al., 2008). Concluding, it can be said that it is important to know what a company sells and how they price it at an appropriate level as well as to whom they sell their offer.

into account, researchers invented the term ‘business model innovation’ (Gambardella & McGahan, 2010; Markides, 2006). With today’s fast changing environmental dynamics, a permanent guarantee of success is not given, not even with a long-time proven business model (Chesbrough, 2007; Schneider & Spieth, 2014). Consequently, a continuing update and change of a business model is necessary to stay competitive. Schneider and Spieth (2014) mention three distinct innovation types for business models in their work – (1) value offering innovation, (2) architectural innovation, and (3) revenue model innovation. Value offering innovation describes the process of creating a new value offering to meet a present but yet discouraged customer demand. This innovation requires no change of the existing competences and resources of a firm (Schneider & Spieth, 2014). When resources or capabilities are changed or combined in a new way, the researchers refer to it as architectural innovation type (Schneider & Spieth, 2014). They also mention exploration of innovative applications (e.g., 3D printing) as part of the second innovation type. Finally, in the innovation of the revenue model, a company’s core logic of earning money is changed (Schneider & Spieth, 2014). After examining research from various industries, Kim and Min (2015) came to the conclusion that two sources – imitative and original – can be the beginning of a business model innovation process. An imitative source is every occasion when a manager realizes that another firm has an advantage and therefore the incumbent firm has to change towards a similar business model. Original, however, is when the management realizes a chance for an innovation of the business model to be able to better satisfy the market and therefore gain competitiveness by itself.

Illustration 1 Theoretical Framework of this thesis

To get a better understanding of how changes regarding the offer, customer or competitiveness influence a business model, the following two chapters focus on literature from those fields.

2.3

S

P

P

When using a new technology for their business model, companies often forego a radical change. A new customer segment or new product offering are often the outcome of a change of the business model (Ramon; Casadesus-Masanell & Tarzijan, 2012; Euchner & Ganguly, 2014). Therefore, it is important to investigate the way companies make money in combination with the 3D printing technology; “What does the company offer to its customers?”.

Closely connected to the question about what is offered is asking to whom is the output offered. Therefore, an additional question derived from the definition of a business model is who the company’s customer actually is; “To whom does the company offer its 3D printed output?”. If the company is able to produce a finalized product with its 3D printers, the end customer is its target. However, it could also be possible that only a few parts of a product are printable, which would mean that the company in use of 3D printing acts as a supplier. With the previously mentioned option to offer the use of a 3D printer as a service, basically everyone could belong to a company’s target group (Thewihsen et al., 2016).

Services gained a lot of attention in the last decade since many companies changed their business model towards a service oriented one (Baines, Lightfoot, Benedettini, & Kay, 2009). There are of course different kinds of services; for simplicity reasons, however, a service is referred to as a value-co-creation of people, technology, value propositions and shared information in this research (Maglio & Spohrer, 2008). Services are seen as a key area for growth; this statement does not only apply to the service sector, but also to manufacturing firms (Jacob & Ulaga, 2008). Additionally, Nair et al. (2013) state that to succeed in the long run, new technologies (in the case of this work 3D printing) should be used as a means to increase the value for the customer by providing valuable services.

Since services have gained so much attention, manufacturing firms started to add services to Business Model: the way a company makes money

core product offerings in order to increase their customer’s satisfaction (Kastalli et al., 2013). Baines et al. (2009) refer to this strategy as ‘servitization’. Research in the field of servitization is still scattered. Researchers like Kastalli et al. (2013) state that the decision to implement a service is positive for the profitability of a firm if a critical mass can be achieved. It is also mentioned, however, that although a service offering is not always profitable for the company, it creates additional value for the product and especially the customer (Kastalli et al., 2013). The researchers refer to this situation where servitization adds value, but is not profitable as the so-called “servitization paradox”.

Although services gained importance, firms still rely on being producers too. Product centric firms have multiple ways to gain an advantage in the market. Today those advantages are often connected to technology diversification (Granstrand, 2004). Björkdahl (2009), for example, mentions the technological advantage as a source of increased value. For other researchers (e.g., Drnevich & Croson, 2013) the increased flexibility due to the use of new technologies is more relevant.

Concluding the previously mentioned findings, it can be said that there are multiple ways for firms to reach their customers. Some prefer the offering of a product and try to gain a competitive advantage in this field, whereas others try to stand out using salient services. The combination of offering a service as well as a product is referred to as servitization. With the decision to offer a service, a product, or both, the question about the customers is most likely also answered. Since companies cannot only focus on their current customer base and offer, but also have to think of how to stay competitive in the future, the following chapter is used in order to identify theories to better understand the concept of competitive advantage.

2.4

S

C

Not only is it important for a company to have a competitive business model and know what is offered to whom, but there is also the necessity to ensure sustainable competitiveness. Therefore, the final question “Is 3D printing a source to accomplish sustainable competitiveness?” is important for the longevity of a company. In research a number of different approaches are used to characterize sustainable competitiveness.

firm that cannot be explained with different industry conditions in the long run. A commonly used framework from the resource based view is the one from Barney et al. (2001). They state that in order to be a source of competitive advantage a resource has to be valuable, rare, inimitable and non-substitutable. A firm’s resource endowment, however, is not the only way to achieve competitive advantage.

A slightly different approach is taken by Greve (2009), who explains sustainable competitive advantage with a knowledge based perspective. In his investigation about the spreading of valuable innovations that give a competitive advantage to early adopters, he states the difficulty of decision makers to identify potential as a major reason for sustained competitiveness. Greve (2009) focuses on the visibility of advantages of knowledge as a necessity for slow diffusions. In his eyes, being an early adopter of an innovation, which is difficult to observe, is likely to end in a sustainable competitive advantage. An early competitive advantage combined with the 3D printing technology could lead to increased flexibility. Being able to adapt an output easily and with hardly any additional costs, to make it fit to the customers needs, can enhance the position in the market (Drnevich & Croson, 2013). Since the way a company uses the 3D printer is difficult to observe, the company could build a sustainable competitive advantage based on its flexible production method.

3.

M

ETHODOLOGY

3.1

D

S

In order to get an answer to the previously stated research question, it is important to find companies that already use the 3D printing technology. Since this is a rather broad research scope, it is narrowed down to companies, which are based in the Netherlands. One reason for choosing the Netherlands is of course that this study is conducted at the University of Groningen. However, another reason is that besides the US, the Netherlands can be seen as the top nation regarding the usage of 3D printing (Choudhry, 2016). Not only have existing companies started to use 3D printing for their production (e.g., Philips), but also new firms are developing their expertise in 3D printing (e.g., Food Ink.). As previously mentioned, researchers promise an outstanding future for 3D printing companies. However, it is unclear yet how the business models of these companies change due to the new technology. In order to find an answer to this question it is important to analyze companies in use of 3D printing. After the selection of the Netherlands for the analysis of this report, the next step is to define how the companies for the cases are selected. Although the 3D printing technology is already approximately 30 years old (Hickey, 2014), the commercial use of it is just at its beginning. Therefore the number of companies that use 3D printing is limited. As a result, one selection criteria is that a company uses 3D printing, since this is crucial for the creation of this report. In total six cases of companies from the Netherlands in use of the 3D printing technology could be motivated to participate in this research. Using multiple cases increases the external validity of this report (van Aken, Berends, & van der Bij, 2012). The higher the number of cases, the more generalizable the information gathered from them is. However, since a case study can also be conducted with a single case (Eisenhardt, 1989), the six investigated cases of this research are considered to be sufficient.

3.2

D

G

considered insufficient for a questionnaire approach, therefore the case study approach was selected.

To build a theory based on different cases, triangulation of different data sources plays an important role to ensure internal validity of the information (Eisenhardt, 1989; van Aken et al., 2012). The primary data was acquired through questionnaires, and secondary data was added from existing literature, newspaper articles and firm publications. For every company that responded, a background search was conducted in order to check for the validity of the response. Additionally, the background check was used to add complementary information to the various cases. This was the final preparation step before analyzing the given information. Prior to the acquisition of case specific information, it was necessary to develop an understanding for the phenomenon of business models and 3D printing. Therefore a literature review with databases (e.g. Google Scholar, World Cat, JSTOR, and Science Direct) was conducted. Search terms like ‘3D print’, ‘business model innovation’, ‘business model’, ‘service offering’, ‘product offering’ or ‘competitive advantage’ were used to gather more information about the relevant topics for this report. The findings of the literature review are presented in the theoretical background. Based on the information from the literature, the questions for the questionnaire could be elaborated. The supervisor then evaluated the developed questions in order to assure their quality. This was done in two iterations in order to have the final questionnaire that could be used. The decision to send questionnaires to strategic decision makers was made due to the fact that they are considered to have an in-depth understanding of a company’s business model as a whole.

In the previous section the selection criteria for the cases was described. The purpose of this research is to identify trends in the use of business models in combination with 3D printing. Based on the two main criteria; (1) based in the Netherlands and (2) involved in business with 3D printing, the following cases were investigated:

• MX3D • Multi 3D Print • NextDent B. V. • Ultimaker • Unilever • DSM

3.3

D

A

the business model, another one for the investigation of the offer and customer, and finally a group concerning sustainable competitive advantage. Since questions for the different dimensions are based on concepts from the three core integrative parts of a business model, the grouping was based on which part the underlying literature focuses on. The first group, business model, consists of the following dimensions: business sector, internal changes due to 3D printing and value chain. Business sector refers to one of the defined sectors of the economy by Kenessey (1987). Internal change is investigated by looking at company’s stakeholders, resources and cost structure prior to and after the implementation of 3D printing. Regarding the value chain, the dimensions from Porter’s value chain (Porter, 1985) are used to identify the most important tasks in the value chain of companies in use of 3D printers. These three dimensions fit to the business model group since they help to better understand a company’s business model. In the second group, offer, the dimensions customer and offer were combined. As explained in the theoretical background on service provider or producer, offer and customer are highly related to each other. Therefore, these two dimensions are combined in the second group. The first dimension focuses on the offer of a company and how it changed due to the implementation of 3D printing. The second dimension is related to the customer base and is also used to investigate the customer base prior to the implementation of 3D printing and afterwards. In order to identify if 3D printing can be considered as a source of competitive advantage, the following dimensions are used in the final group: stage of the technology, the importance of the technology, flexibility and the usage by competitors. The stage of technology is tested with two models: the product lifecycle model (Anderson & Zeithaml, 1984; Björkdahl, 2009) and the technology adoption model (Gartner, 2011; Song, Parry, & Kawakami, 2009). Competitor usage refers to the percentage of competitors in use of the 3D printing technology and flexibility refers to the perceived increase of flexibility due to the use of 3D printing. The following table can be used in order to get a better understanding of the grouping and dimensions:

Business Model Offer Competitive Advantage

Business sector Internal change Value chain Customer Offer Stage of Technology Importance of Technology Competitor Usage Flexibility

4.

R

ESULTS

As previously stated, a business model is defined as follows in this research: A business model is the combination of the way a company makes money: what it offers, to whom it offers this, and how it can accomplish sustainability (e.g., Galper, 2001; Gebauer & Ginsburg, 2003; Gordijn, 2003; Teece, 2010). According to this definition the cases have been compared (within case and cross-case analysis) in three different categories. Those categories are the business model in general, what the company offers and to whom it offers it as well as how it stays competitive. In the following three sections the results on how the introduction of the 3D printing technology changes business models of Dutch companies are presented.

4.1

B

M

In order to get a general understanding of how the use of 3D printing influences the business model of a company, three variables were investigated. Those variables are the business sector a company operates in, internal changes due to the use of 3D printing and how the value chain of a company has changed over time.

The investigation of the business sector that companies in use of the 3D printing technology operate in came to the conclusion that no clear preferred sector could be identified. Companies operate in sectors like manufacturing, services, consumer goods and as suppliers. The changes due to the use of 3D printing did not influence the sector operated in, however, internally the investigated companies did change. Especially young firms with less than 1.000 employees change internally in order to make their business model fit to the advantages of the 3D printing technology. Established, big firms, however, stick to their business model and use 3D printing mainly for prototyping and experimenting. For younger companies the technology plays a central role for the business model. An interesting development could be observed in the case of MX3D. The start-up faced an increased interest of external stakeholders due to the use of the 3D printing technology. Firms, which operate for a longer time, however, adapt their business models slower or not at all and use 3D printing on an exploratory level. In order to get information on how to use the technology, they tend to cooperate with other firms and universities.

welders and Robots. This indicates a clear trend towards more automation and less man-made work. In addition to that, networks seem to play a major role for young and small firms in the use of 3D printing, which is clearly visible on the example of 3D Hubs (www.3dhubs.com, 2016).

Whereas especially smaller and young companies tend to change internally in order to make their business model fit to the 3D printing technology, the changes in the market are not significant. There is a general agreement in the market that the technology is still developing rapidly. Therefore issues like an unclear market, uncertainty and investments to stay up to date are mentioned as negative aspects. However, some also see the unclear future as a possibility to grow and expand. In general, small and young firms value the growing market and interest in the technology as well as possibilities combined with these circumstances more. For older firms with more than 1.000 employees the 3D printing technology is not of high importance, since they already have functioning, large-scale business models. A major concern mentioned by big firms are quality standards. Nonetheless, they value the possibility to create prototypes faster, which does also increase their flexibility. DSM, an established company with the goal to be as environmentally friendly as possible, also mentioned the decrease of waste production as an important positive aspect for them.

The previously identified differences between young, small and established, big firms could also be identified in the value chain dimension. It seems like the younger and smaller a company is, the more willing it is to change internally in order to make the business model fit to the 3D printing technology. For companies with more than 1.000 employees research and development plays a major role. 3D printing, however, does not influence its importance. As previously mentioned, smaller firms are more willing to change. For Multi 3D Print, a start-up, a change from focusing on research and development as well as technology, on a more strategy oriented value chain was conducted. A slightly different case is NextDent B. V. The subsidiary was founded in order to use and explore the 3D printing technology right away. Therefore, no change in the value chain could be connected to the use of this technology. Although major changes in the value chain could be identified for cases of younger and small firms, these results have to be challenged. Some business models were designed for 3D printers initially, therefore, the changes to the value chain are not necessarily due to the use of 3D printing, but rather a result of a majoring business model.

of employees tend to stick to their business model, however, they explore the 3D printing technology in order not miss a possible chance to use and benefit from it.

4.2

O

In order to understand a company’s business model, it is important to know what it offers and to whom it offers it. The offer and customer play a major role in the theoretical framework of this thesis. Therefore, two sub-questions also focus on these topics; “What does the company offer to its customers?” and “Who does the company offer its output to?”.

Considering the customers of companies in use of the 3D printing technology, companies rather than private people seem to attract more attention. Five out of the six investigated cases responded that companies are the major part of their customer base. The only exception to this is Unilever with its products for private people, mainly between the age of 18 and 34. However, since Unilever is an established, big firm, this output is not produced with 3D printers. Whereas a clear trend towards companies as a customer could be identified for the one sub-question, the results for the question regarding the offer shows rather diverse results. Like in the business model section, a trend for small and young firms towards one direction and big, established companies to another one could be identified. Whereas smaller firms focus more on the production of supplies or offering a service, companies with more than 1.000 employees from this case study offer supplies or products for the final customer.

Concluding, it can be said that companies play a major role as customers for businesses in use of 3D printing, whereas private people and other institutions are mostly ignored. Regarding the offering a trend to service oriented business models from young and small companies could be identified. Companies with more than 1.000 employees tend to focus on products rather than services. The role as a supplier seems to play the major part in the 3D printing market though.

4.3

C

A

Since sustainable competitive advantage is a major part of the definition of a business model used for this research, it is also reflected in a sub-question; “Is 3D printing a source to accomplish sustainable competitiveness?”. In order to identify if the 3D printing technology can be seen as a source of competitive advantage, four dimensions were investigated.

Multiple selections were possible, therefore, two companies (NextDent and Ultimaker) stated that this innovative technology is on both, the introductory as well as the growth stage. Multi 3D Print stated the maturity stage as best describing its scenario for the usage of 3D printers. What all respondents do have in common is that they consider the stage of technology to move to the growth stage within the next five years. Two companies (Unilever and Ultimaker) are not entirely sure about their future perception of 3D printing (besides the growth stage they also picked the introductory stage respectively maturity stage). The general perception, however, is that competition will rise and more companies will use 3D printing on a competitive level.

The early stage of technology as well as the perception of an increase in usage can be seen as an indicator for the position of 3D printing companies on the technology adoption lifecycle. According to the questionnaire, half of the cases identify themselves as innovators (three out of six) and another one (Unilever) identifies as early adopter. This is not surprising since the use of 3D printing is not fully exploited yet. One start-up (Multi 3D Print), however, identifies itself as late majority and an established company (DSM with Somos) identifies as early majority. Since Somos focuses on the 3D printing market only, 100% of its competitors use it as well and in a similar way. Another company also indicated that 100% of its competitors use 3D printing. In addition to that one case identified 75% of its competitors as users of 3D printing. In addition to that, an additional company states that approximately 50% of its competitors use 3D printing. The results for competitor usage show high diversity. What is interesting to see is that the two big companies do not know about the 3D printing usage of their competitors.

Nonetheless, the majority of the investigated companies see it as likely (one out of the six cases) or very likely (four other cases) that the importance of 3D printing for their business model will increase within the next five years. A special case in this investigation was DSM with Somos. Whereas the importance of 3D printing for DSM overall is very likely to rise, for Somos it is not seen as likely nor unlikely since it is already very important. The general belief that the importance will increase within the following five years is a good indicator to see how high the expectations for possibilities in combination with 3D printing are.

A major positive aspect is a possible increased flexibility due to it (stated by five out of six cases). Due to the increase in flexibility companies expect to be able to adapt prototypes and develop new designs faster and cheaper (Dolphin, 2012; Tucker, 2013).

Concluding it can be said that 3D printing is of higher importance for smaller and young firms than it is for large, established corporations. The early stage of the technology combined with the expectation of increased importance can be seen as an indicator for it to become a source of competitive advantage. Especially the increase in flexibility seems to be interesting for the investigated cases. Therefore, companies are already using or at least experimenting with 3D printing in order to not miss an opportunity.

5.

D

ISCUSSION

The results from the conducted case analysis provided an in depth understanding of the way companies adapt their business models to the use of the 3D printing technology. Those results will now be discussed and compared with the previously investigated literature from the theoretical background section.

conduct radical changes in order to have a business model that works in combination with the 3D printing technology applies better to firms with less than 1.000 employees. Companies with more than 1.000 employees, however, have a stronger focus on their proven business models and are currently not as involved in the use of 3D printing. Therefore, it can be argued that the definitions of Durcker (1994) or Johnson et al. (2008), who both consider the current evaluation of a business model more important than the options for radical changes in the development of new ones (Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2011), are more suitable to describe the business models of large corporations in use of 3D printers.

Concluding the research question focusing on the influence of 3D printing on business models of Dutch companies can be answered as follows: An influence of the 3D printing technology on business models could be identified. Business models of smaller firms, which exist for a shorter period of time, are influenced to a higher degree than the ones of established firms.

Proposition 1: The younger and smaller a company is, the better its business model is adapted to the use of the 3D printing technology.

Concluding this discussion, the sub-question “What does the company offer to its customer?” can be answered as follows: Companies in use of the 3D printing technology tend to operate as suppliers. However, services and products are also offered. A tendency from small, young companies towards more service oriented business models, and established companies, with more than 1.000 employees, towards product-oriented business models could be identified. Regarding the sub-question on the customer base, a clear tendency towards companies as preferred customer group could be identified.

Proposition 2: Companies in use of the 3D printing technology operate as suppliers, with small and young firms focusing on services, and established firms, with more than 1.000 employees, focusing on products.

Proposition 3: Companies in use of the 3D printing technology focus on other companies as their main customer group.

In case of the competitive advantage due to the use of 3D printing, companies view the influence of the technology and their own way of using it generally positive. Most companies consider themselves in an early phase regarding the stage of technology (Anderson & Zeithaml, 1984; Björkdahl, 2009; Song et al., 2009). The common view is that the stage of technology is in the introductory stage. The majority of companies evaluates the current situation as introductory and expects it to move towards the growth stage within the next five years. Therefore it is also not surprising that companies identify themselves as innovators or early adopters regarding the technology adoption lifecycle (Gartner, 2014; Song et al., 2009). In the case of the importance of 3D printing for companies, a difference could be identified. Younger firms with less than 1.000 employees see the technology as more important for their business models than other companies. A common expectation though is an increase of 3D printing’s importance for business models within the next five years. Therefore, most companies see themselves in a good position for competing, since they are already in use or at least experimenting with the technology.

(2001), 3D printing can be seen as valuable. Companies in use of 3D printing especially value the increased flexibility due to the implementation of this technology into their business model (Drnevich & Croson, 2013). However, the rare and inimitable aspects do not apply. Furthermore, 3D printing cannot be seen as non-substitutable, since business models in use of 3D printing are still rare. This can be seen as a sign for other methods to still be able to substitute this technology. In order to respond to the final sub-question about 3D printing as a source of sustainable competitive advantage, it can be said that 3D printing is viewed as a positive aspect in the investigated cases, however, the identified indications show clear signs for it to not be source of a competitive advantage.

6.

C

ONCLUSION

After the findings of this report were discussed, they are concluded in this section. As previously explained the research question “How does the introduction of the 3D printing technology influence the business models of Dutch companies?” was divided into three sub-questions in order to get a better understanding of the topic. Those three sub-sub-questions are used in order to find a response to the different fragments of a business model: what a company offers, to whom it offers this, and how it can accomplish sustainability (Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Ricart, 2011; H. Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002; Drucker, 1994; Johnson et al., 2008; Schneider & Spieth, 2014; Zott et al., 2011). In general, it could be identified that the 3D printing technology plays a more important role for business models of young and small firms than for those of established companies with more than 1.000 employees. Whereas young firms actively innovate their business models in order to make use of 3D printers, established firms are not yet actively involved in business model innovation related to the 3D printing technology (Schneider & Spieth, 2014). This difference can be due to the higher number of employees and a business model, which already works on a large scale, from large companies. Those two facts can make it difficult, as well as not interesting to adapt the business model (Amit & Zott, 2012). For those cases, the definition of a business model from Drucker (1994) is more applicable, since it focuses more on the evaluation of a current situation than radical change. Considering the reasons for business model innovation identified in literature, the investigated cases, in which the business model was innovated, use an original approach rather than imitating other companies (Kim & Min, 2015). In addition to that, out of the three identified business model innovation types by Schneider and Spieth (2014), the architectural type seems to explain the identified business model innovations from this study best.

by Björkdahl (2009). Considering the customers of companies in use of the 3D printing technology, a clear trend towards companies as preferred customers could be identified. Only one case focuses on private people as target group. The reason why companies mainly neglect the market for private people, however, could not be identified.

Concerning the third sub-question, 3D printing could not be identified as a source of competitive advantage according to the criteria in the research by Almeida and Zemsky (2007) and Barney et al. (2001). The implementation of 3D printing does not result in competitive advantage (Barney et al., 2001). Nonetheless, the technology can be used as a means to create an advantage based on flexibility (Drnevich & Croson, 2013). In general companies expect an increase of importance of the technology for their business models within five years.

Concluding it can be said that the influence 3D printing has on business models of Dutch companies is diverse. It seems like large firms value their current business models and are not willing to conduct a radical change in order to make them fit to the 3D printing technology (Drucker, 1994). Therefore, the technology has small influence on them and is used in form of experimentation and prototyping. Small, young firms, however, conduct business model innovation (Gambardella & McGahan, 2010; Kim & Min, 2015; Markides, 2006; Schneider & Spieth, 2014) by implementing the technology to a higher degree into their business models. A general understanding in the market is that 3D printing increases flexibility (Drnevich & Croson, 2013) and will gain more importance within the next five years.

M

I

the increased flexibility due to the implementation of this technology into their business model (Drnevich & Croson, 2013). As a result, managers could focus on a business model, which has its strength in flexibility. Summarizing the previously mentioned findings, a business model in use of 3D printers should be built considering three major aspects: (1) since smaller companies are able to adapt their business models better to 3D printing, implementing the technology on a large scale seems to be risky, (2) since most cases in this investigation focus on companies as their customers and neglect private people, it could be beneficial to create a business model focused on private people, and (3) due to the reason that most investigated cases see the flexibility due to the use of 3D printing as a major benefit, managers could focus on this aspect and build a business model with flexibility as its core strength. The investigation of the cases from established firms revealed that 3D printing is not used for large-scale business models so far. Therefore, using it under these circumstances would be connected with high uncertainty. In addition to that, implementing 3D printing does not result in competitive advantage (Barney et al., 2001). Nonetheless, the technology can be used as a means to create a competitive advantage based on flexibility (Drnevich & Croson, 2013). Concluding it can be said that the 3D printing technology is still at an early phase regarding its use in business models. Its usability for large companies still needs to be proven. Small companies, however, have started to develop business models with the use of 3D printing. The investigated cases in this work could be used as role models for managers in order to make use of 3D printing themselves.

L

This research had several limitations. The major limitation is the small number of investigated cases. From only six cases it is difficult to ensure generalizability. Furthermore, the depth of the different cases varies due to the fact that less information was given for smaller firms in newspaper articles, research and on websites. On established firms, however, a lot of data could be collected. In addition to that, the questionnaires were filled out by only one person from each company, therefore, the information given could possibly be biased. In order to increase the validity of this study, the responses from the questionnaires were double-checked with secondary information.

F

study. This study identified that young and small companies use 3D printing to a higher extend than established firms, if and how profitable those start-ups are with their business models, however, has yet to be tested.

A

I would first like to thank my thesis supervisor Dr. Wilfred Schoenmakers of the Faculty for Economics and Business at the University of Groningen. The door to Prof. Schoenmakers office was always open whenever I ran into a trouble spot or had a question about my research or writing. He consistently allowed this paper to be my own work, but steered me in the right direction whenever I asked for feedback. In addition to that, I would also like to thank Dr. David J. Langley, who provided contacts, articles and helpful information for my work. Without his support this thesis would not have been the same.

7.

R

EFERENCES

Amit, R., & Zott, C. (2012). Creating Value Through Business Model Innovation. MIT Sloan

Management Review, 53(53310), 41–49. http://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1701660

Anderson, C. R., & Zeithaml, C. P. (1984). Stage of the Product Life Cycle, Business Strategy, and Business Performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 5–24. http://doi.org/10.2307/255954

Baines, T., Lightfoot, H., Benedettini, O., & Kay, J. M. (2009). The servitization of manufacturing: A review of literature and reflection on future challenges. Journal of

Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(5), 547–567.

http://doi.org/10.1108/17410380910960984

Barney, J., Wright, M., & Ketchen, D. J. (2001). The resource-based view of the firm: Ten years after 1991. Journal of Management, 27(6), 625–641. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(01)00114-3

Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business Horizons, 55(2), 155–162. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.003

Bertsimas, D., Mersereau, A., & Mittal, G. (2003). Unilever Data Analysis Project. Retrieved from http://ebusiness.mit.edu/research/papers/179_Bertsimas_Unilever.pdf

Björkdahl, J. (2009). Technology cross-fertilization and the business model: The case of integrating ICTs in mechanical engineering products. Research Policy, 38(9), 1468– 1477. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.07.006

Bogue, R. (2013). 3D printing: the dawn of a new era in manufacturing? Assembly

Automation, 33(4), 307–311. http://doi.org/10.1108/AA-06-2013-055

Bradshaw, S., Bowyer, A., & Haufe, P. (2010). The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing. ScriptEd, 7(1), 5–31. http://doi.org/10.2966/scrip. 070110.5

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Ricart, J. E. (2011). How to design a winning business model.

Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2). http://doi.org/Article

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Tarzijan, J. (2012). When One Business Model Isn ’ t Enough.

Harvard Business Review, (February-February), 1–6.

Casadesus-Masanell, R., & Zhu, F. (2013). Business model innovation and competitive imitation: The case of sponsor-based business models. Strategic Management Journal,

34(4), 464–482. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2022

Chesbrough, H., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in capturing value from innovation : evidence from Xerox Corporation ’ s technology spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555.

http://doi.org/10.1093/icc/11.3.529

Chesbrough, H. W. (2007). Why Companies Should Have Open Business Models. Sloan

Management Review, 48(2), 22–28.

Choudhry, T. (2016). Interior design trends in 2016: the rise of 3D printing. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/predictions/style/12052097/interior-design-trends-in-2016.html

Daunt, J., & Romeo, C. (2016). Everything inside this restaurant is 3D printed. Retrieved December 8, 2016, from http://uk.businessinsider.com/food-ink-3d-printing-restaurant-london-robot-2016-7?international=true&r=UK&IR=T

Desai, D. R., & Magliocca, G. N. (2014). Patents, meet napster: 3d printing and the digitization of things. In Georgetown Law Journal (Vol. 102, pp. 1691–1720). http://doi.org/10.1525/sp.2007.54.1.23.

Desyllas, P., & Sako, M. (2013). Profiting from business model innovation: Evidence from Pay-As-You-Drive auto insurance. Research Policy, 42(1), 101–116.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.008

Dikova, T., Dzhendov, D., Katreva, I., Pavlova, D., Simov, M., Angelova, Svetlana, Abadzhiev, M., & Tonchev, T. (2016). Possibilities of 3D printer rapidshare D30 for manufacturing of cubic samples. Scripta Scientifica Medicinae Dentalis, 2(1), 43–49. Dolphin, J. (2012). 3D printing: Piracy or Opportunity? Keeping Good Companies, 64(5),

300–303.

Drnevich, P. L., & Croson, D. C. (2013). Information technology and business-level strategy: toward an integrated theoretical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 483–509.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.099

Drucker, P. F. (1994). The Theory of Business. Harvard Business Review, 72(5), 95–104. http://doi.org/10.2307/2140493

Dutch News. (2016). Unilever to cut 240 jobs in the Netherlands. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2016/02/unilever-to-cut-200-jobs-in-the-netherlands/

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of

Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. http://doi.org/10.2307/258557

Euchner, J., & Ganguly, A. (2014). Business Model Innovation in Practice.

Research-Technology Management, o. Jg.(December), 33–40.

http://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5706013

Food Ink. (2016). Retrieved September 22, 2016, from http://www.foodink.io

Galper, J. (2001). Three business models for the stock exchange industry. The Journal of

Investing, 10(1), 70–78.

Gambardella, A., & McGahan, A. M. (2010). Business-model innovation: General purpose technologies and their implications for industry structure. Long Range Planning, 43(2– 3), 262–271. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.009

Garrett, B. (2014). 3D printing: New economic paradigms and strategic shifts. Global Policy,

5(1), 70–75. http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12119

Gartner. (2014). Gartner Says Consumer 3D Printing Is More Than Five Years Away. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2825417%5Cnhttp://3d-expo.ru/en/gartner-says-consumer-3d-printing-more-five-years-away

Gebauer, J., & Ginsburg, M. (2003). The US Wine Industry and the Internet: An Analysis of Success factors for Online Business Models. Electronic Markets, 13(1), 59–66.

Gioia, D. a., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2012). Seeking Qualitative Rigor in Inductive Research: Notes on the Gioia Methodology. Organizational Research Methods, 16(1), 15–31. http://doi.org/10.1177/1094428112452151

Gordijn, J. (2003). Why visualization of e-business models matters. In Business Models & the

Mobility Industry: Concepts, Metrics, Visualization & Cases.

Granstrand, O. (2004). The economics and management of technology trade: towards a pro-licensing era? International Journal of Technology Management, 27, 209.

http://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2004.003953

Greve, H. R. (2009). Bigger and safer: The diffusion of competitive advantage. Strategic

Management Journal, 30(1), 1–23. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.721

Hawkinson, K. (2014). DSM announces Somos partnership with Prodways to bring the latest developments to the 3D Printing industry. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from

http://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2014/11/2014-11-24- dsm-announces-somos-partnership-with-prodways-to-bring-the-latest-developments-to-the-3d-printing-industry.html

Hawkinson, K. (2015). DSM introduces Somos® Element for 3D Printing industry. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from

http://www.dsm.com/content/dam/dsm/cworld/en_US/documents/2015-11-17-dsm-introduces-somos-element-for-3d-printing-industry.pdf

Healy, J. C., & McDonagh, P. (2013). Consumer roles in brand culture and value co-creation in virtual communities. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1528–1540.

http://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.09.014

Helfat, C. E., Helfat, C. E., Peteraf, M. a, & Peteraf, M. a. (2003). The dynamic resource based view: Capability lifecycles. Strategic Management Journal, 24(10), 997–1010. Hickey, S. (2014). Chuck Hull: the father of 3D printing who shaped technology. Retrieved

December 19, 2015, from http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/jun/22/chuck-hull-father-3d-printing-shaped-technology

Hoy, M. B. (2013). 3D printing: making things at the library. Medical Reference Services

Quarterly, 32(1), 94–9. http://doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2013.749139

Jacob, F., & Ulaga, W. (2008). The transition from product to service in business markets: An agenda for academic inquiry. Industrial Marketing Management, 37(3), 247–253.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2007.09.009

Jia, F., Wang, X., Mustafee, N., & Hao, L. (2016). Investigating the feasibility of supply chain-centric business models in 3D chocolate printing: A simulation study.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 102, 202–213.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.026

Johnson, M. W., Christensen, C. M., & Kagermann, H. (2008). Reinventing your business model. Harvard Business Review, 86(12).

Kastalli, I. V, Van Looy, B., & Neely, A. (2013). Steering manufacturing firms towards service business model innovation. California Management Review, 56(1), 100–123. http://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2013.56.1.100

Kenessey, Z. (1987). The primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary sectors of the economy.

Review of Income and Wealth, 359–385.

http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4991.1987.tb00680.x

Kim, S. K., & Min, S. (2015). Business model innovation performance: When does adding a new business model benefit an incumbent? Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 9(1), 34–57. http://doi.org/10.1002/sej.1193

Laarman, J. (2015). MX3D Bridge - Joris Laarman. Retrieved from http://www.jorislaarman.com/work/mx3d-bridge/

Lewis, T. (2014). How NASA Is Launching 3D Printing Into Space. Retrieved from http://www.space.com/24599-nasa-launches-3d-printing-in-space.html

Maglio, P. P., & Spohrer, J. (2008). Fundamentals of service science. Journal of the Academy

of Marketing Science, 36(1), 18–20. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0058-9

Markides, C. (2006). Disruptive innovation: In need of better theory. Journal of Product

Innovation Management. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2005.00177.x

Molitch-Hou, M. (2015). Construction of World’s 1st 3D Printed Bridge Begins - 3D Printing Industry. 3D Printing Industry, (Oct 15th), 1. Retrieved from

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/10/16/construction-of-worlds-1st-3d-printed-bridge-begins-in-amsterdam/

Murphy, M. (2015). Unilever’s 3D printers cut prototype production by nearly half. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from http://www.techworld.com/news/personal-tech/unilever-cut-production-time-for-prototypes-with-3d-printing-3595254/

Murphy, S. V, & Atala, A. (2014). 3D bioprinting of tissues and organs. Nature

Biotechnology, 32(8), 773–785. http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2958

Nickels, L. (2014). 3D printing the world’s first metal bicycle frame. Metal Powder Report,

69(2), 38–40. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0026-0657(14)70083-9

Pacheco-de-Almeida, G., & Zemsky, P. (2007). The timing of resource development and sustainable competitive advantage. Management Science, 53(4), 651–666.

http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1060.0684

Peteraf, M. A. (1993). The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-Based View.

Strategic Management Journal, 14(3), 179–191. http://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250140303

Philips. (2016). 3dshaver. Retrieved June 27, 2016, from http://www.3dshaver.com Porter, M. E. (1985). Porter’s Value Chain.

http://doi.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Porter_Value_Chain.png

Prince, J. D. (2014). 3D Printing: An Industrial Revolution. Journal of Electronic Resources

in Medical Libraries, 11(1), 39–45. http://doi.org/10.1080/15424065.2014.877247

Change, 102, 214–224. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.023

Rotman, D. (2015). Who will own the Robots. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from https://www.technologyreview.com/s/538401/who-will-own-the-robots/

Schneider, S., & Spieth, P. (2014). Business Model Innovation and Strategic Flexibility: Insights From an Experimental Research Design. International Journal of Innovation

Management, 18(6), 1440009. http://doi.org/10.1142/S136391961440009X

Sher, D. (2015). Unilever embraces 3D printing, cuts prototyping time by nearly half. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/unilever-3d-printing-cuts-prototyping-time-40771/

Song, M., Parry, M. E., & Kawakami, T. (2009). Incorporating network externalities into the technology acceptance model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(3), 291– 307. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2009.00659.x

Stratasys. (2015). Unilever accelerates consumer product prototyping by 40% with 3D printed injection molds. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from

http://blog.stratasys.com/2015/01/20/unilever-3d-printed-injection-molds/ Teece, D. J. (2010). Business models, business strategy and innovation. Long Range

Planning, 43(2–3), 172–194. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2009.07.003

The Economist. (2012). Manufacturing - The third industrial revolution. Retrieved December 18, 2015, from http://www.economist.com/node/21553017

The Guardian. (2015). Dutch startup plans first 3D printed steel bridge to span Amsterdam canal. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jun/17/dutch-startup-plans-first-3d-printed-steel-bridge-to-span-amsterdam-canal

Thewihsen, F., Karevska, S., Czok, A., Pateman-Jones, C., & Krauss, D. (2016). If 3D

printing has changed the industry of tomorrow, how can your organization get ready today? Retrieved from

http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-3d-printing-report/$FILE/ey-3d-printing-report.pdf

Thryft, A. R. (2013). NASA Builds 3D Printer for Space. Design News, 68(8), p27-28. Retrieved from

http://0- web.ebscohost.com.mislibsrv.lit.ie/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=4613495b-cb50-4f5a-bac2-7e82b2a7105f%2540sessionmgr198&vid=7&hid=120

Tollefors, C., & Meland, A. (2016). Chair-side fabrication of customized interim protheses

using additive manufacturing - a descriptive study. Malmö University.

Tucker, R. (2013). Embracing 3D printing. Metal-Powder.net, March/Apri. Retrieved from www.metal-powder.net

Utterback, J. M., & Acee, H. J. (2005). Disruptive Technologies: an Expanded View.

International Journal of Innovation Management, 9(1), 1–17.

http://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919605001162

van Aken, J., Berends, H., & van der Bij, H. (2012). Problem solving in organizations: A

Van Der Meer, W. J., Vissink, A., & Ren, Y. (2016). Full 3-dimensional digital workflow for multicomponent dental appliances: A proof of concept. Journal of the American Dental

Association, 147(4), 288–291. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2015.11.018

www.3dhubs.com. (2016). 3D Hubs. Retrieved December 10, 2016, from www.3dhubs.com www.dsm.com. (2016a). DSM and Chemtrix to boost 3D printing for chemical industry.

Metal Powder Report, 71(5), 369.

www.dsm.com. (2016b). DSM partners with Nexeo boosting the market with 2 new, high-perfomance filaments for 3D printing. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from

http://www.dsm.com/corporate/media/informationcenter-news/2016/04/2016-04-04- dsm-partners-with-nexeo-boosting-the-market-with-2-new-high-performance-filaments-for-3d-printing.html

www.dsm.com. (2016c). Somos materials: From imagination to design. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.dsm.com/products/somos/en_US/home.html

www.dsm.com. (2016d). Stakeholder Engagement. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.dsm.com/corporate/sustainability/managing-sustainability/stakeholder-engagement.html

www.dsm.com. (2016e). Winning the race for more solar power. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.dsm.com/corporate/science/collaboration/tu-delft-nuna.html www.makezine.com. (2015). Here are this year’s winners from Make’s Digital Fabrication

Shootout. Retrieved December 5, 2015, from www.makezine.com

www.multi-3dprint.nl. (2016). Multi 3D Print B.V. Retrieved December 11, 2016, from www.multi-3dprint.nl

www.mx3d.com. (2015). MX3D. Retrieved December 3, 2016, from http://mx3d.com/about/ www.nextdent.com. (2016). NextDent - About us. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from

www.nextdent.com

www.nuonsolarteam.nl. (2016). Nuon Solar Team. Retrieved December 14, 2016, from http://www.nuonsolarteam.nl/?lang=en

www.ultimaker.com. (2016). About Ultimaker. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from https://ultimaker.com/en/about-ultimaker

www.unilever.com. (2016). About Unilever. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from https://www.unilever.com/about/who-we-are/about-Unilever/

www.vertexholdings.com. (2016). Vertex Holding. Retrieved December 5, 2016, from www.vertexholdings.com

Zott, C., Amit, R., & Massa, L. (2011). The Business Model: Recent Developments and Future Research. Journal of Management, 37(4), 1019–1042.

8.

A

PPENDIX

Q

G

I

1a.) In what year was your company founded?

1b.) How many employees work in your company?

1c.) Do you have strategic influence in your company? If yes, in what way?

1d.) In which field do you see your job? o Product Development

o Sales and Marketing o R&D and Reinvestment o Finance

o HR

o Other (please describe):

1e.) In which business sector does your company operate? o Primary sector: raw materials

o Secondary sector: manufacturing o Tertiary sector: services

o Quaternary sector: information services o Quinary sector: human services

2.)

B

M

2a.) Who were your key stakeholders before the use of 3D printing? (List the top 3) 1. .

2. . 3. .

2b.) Who are your key stakeholders now? (List the top 3) 1. .

2. . 3. .

2c.) What were the foremost resources you used before the use of 3D printing? (List the top 3)

1. . 2. . 3. .

2d.) What are the foremost resources you use now? (List the top 3) 1. .

2. . 3. .

2e.) Did anything change in your cost structure due to the use of 3D printing? If yes, name the two fields with the most positive and negative changes.

Positive:

2f.) If you take a look at the following value chain; what were your company’s two key processes before the use of 3D printing? (highlight them)

3.)

O

3a.) What does your company offer? o Supplies for other companies o Products for the final customer

o The service to use a 3D printer for companies o The service to use a 3D printer for consumers o Other (please describe your offering):

3b.) In which category does the majority of your customers belong? (If private people, can you roughly indicate the percentage of customers per age group?)

o Private people: o Age 0-18 o Age 18-34 o Age 35-54 o Age 55+ o Companies o Universities o Government

4.)

C

A

4a.) If you would have to categorize the 3D printing technology into one of the following four groups; which one would describe the current stage in your business sector best?

Introduction Stage: small market size, low sales (increasing potential), high costs for R&D + consumer testing + marketing + product launch

Growth Stage: strong growth in sales and profits, economies of scale, profit margin increases, investment in promotional activities

Maturity Stage: focus on maintaining market share, very competitive time, consider modifications and improvements in product and production to gain competitive advantage

Decline Stage: market is shrinking, saturated market, consumers might switch to other products, focus on cheaper market and less expensive production

4b.) If you would have to categorize the 3D printing technology into one of the following four groups; in which stage do you expect it to be in 5 years?

o Introductory stage o Growth stage o Maturity stage o Decline stage

4c.) In what position do you see your company regarding the use of 3D printing, when looking at the technology adoption lifecycle?

4d.) How many of your competitors are using the 3D printing technology for their business (in percent)?

4e.) Would you say that the use of 3D printing increases the flexibility for your company? If yes, in what way?

4f.) On a scale from 1 (not important) to 5 (very important), how important would you rank 3D printing for your business?

o 1 o 2 o 3 o 4 o 5

4g.) How likely do you consider an increase of the importance of 3D printing for your business? (1 = not likely at all, 5 = very likely)