• No results found

THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF 3D PRINTING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF 3D PRINTING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY"

Copied!
43
0
0

Bezig met laden.... (Bekijk nu de volledige tekst)

Hele tekst

(1)

THE POTENTIAL ROLE OF 3D PRINTING FOR THE

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Master Thesis

MSc BA - Strategic Innovation Management Faculty of Economics and Business

University of Groningen

Student: Martijn Bakker Student number: S3523608 Email: m.h.bakker.4@student.rug.nl

Master thesis supervisor: dr. W.W.M.E. Schoenmakers Co assessor: dr. K.J. McCarthy

Word count: 13.409 Date: 24th of June 2019

Version: 1.0

(2)

ABSTRACT

The construction industry is a mature industry and therefore vulnerable for being disrupted. Currently, the innovation of three-dimensional printing (3DP) holds the potential to disrupt multiple industries. The purpose of this research is to assess the potential disruptiveness of 3DP for the construction industry and therefore, its strategic importance. This is done by qualitative assessment of the three main drivers of disruptive innovation and their respective indicators. To collect data, ten semi-structured interviews were held with experts in construction and 3DP from all over the world. The findings highlight that 3DP cannot be implemented for mainstream construction and the key challenges are distinguished. Nevertheless, there are niche applications that are already economically viable, highlighting the notable potential of 3DP for the industry. Moreover, a discussion is started about the current state of the industry by examining the role of 3DP as a construction mechanism and its challenges and obstacles. Furthermore, insights are presented on how to prevent disruption of the construction industry and capitalize on the potential value creation.

Key words: 3D printing, additive manufacturing, disruptive innovation, construction industry,

disruptiveness assessment

INTRODUCTION

(3)

to maintain profitability (Christensen, Kaufman, & Shih, 2008). Mature industry incumbents often have a (tight margin) profitable business and have developed resource advantages, brand recognition and market power over time (Christensen, McDonald, Altman, & Palmer, 2018). All current operations are in favour of continuing current practices, causing mature incumbents to neglect new entrants, especially with disruptive business models, making them vulnerable for disruption (Christensen, 1997). This implies a problem for firms operating in mature industries since disruption can heavily damage a firm, as seen in the Polaroid case.

Currently there is a new, breakthrough innovation on the rise with the potential to be disruptive in multiple industries: three-dimensional printing (3DP) (Campbell, Williams, Ivanova, & Garrett, 2011; Berman, 2012; Garrett, 2014). Implementation of 3DP, in literature also referred to as additive

manufacturing, has a lot of unforeseen future applications. Current developments range from printing

human organs to large structures like buildings and even construction projects in space (Venekamp & Le Fever, 2015; Garett, 2014; Spector, 2013). The ability to print buildings implies a problem for the construction industry which needs solving. The construction industry is a mature industry which still relies on traditional, labour-intensive and costly production mechanisms (Kothman & Faber, 2016). There is an increasing need for automation and increased efficiency due to health issues with an aging workforce and shortages in skilled staff (Buswell, Leal de Silva, Jones, & Dirrenberger, 2018). The implementation of robotics can deal with present challenges and also yields benefits. Implementation of automation will decrease production costs, labour intensity, increase the quality of the final product, and improve quality control (Ghaffar, Corker, & Fan, 2018). The implementation of 3DP could play a key role in solving challenges within the industry. It offers great advantages such as customizability and reduced labour costs. However, the industry leaders tend to neglect the technology while an increasing number of new entrants aims to capitalize on the innovation (Laubier, Wunder, Witthöft & Rothballer, 2018; Post, 2019). For example, the MX3D project which developed a 3DP bridge in Amsterdam (MX3D, 2018; Petrova, 2018) and Project Milestone, a project which aims on printing the first habitable houses (3Dprintedhouse.nl, 2018; Boffey, 2018; Eindhoven University, 2018). The examples of successful 3DP structures are developed with the intention of research and/or a prestigious incentive, not as an economically favourable production mechanism (Post, 2019). As described, 3DP holds the potential to be disruptive and the mature construction industry could be seen as a vulnerable one. Industry incumbents tend to neglect the 3DP innovation, probably due to their focus on sustaining innovation. This implies a problem since it is unclear what strategic role 3DP could play in the construction industry. It is key to understand the potential role of a potential disruptive innovation in order to respond if necessary (Wallsten, 2000; Nerkar & Shane, 2007). Therefore, the following research question has been formulated: “What is the potential (strategic) role of 3D printing in the construction

industry?”.

(4)

drivers of disruptive innovations and their indicators. The framework serves as a mechanism to systematically assess the disruptiveness of innovations and therefore their potential strategic role. The aim of this research is to increase the understanding on the potential strategic role of 3DP in the construction industry. This research also contributes to the literature stream of 3D printing by discussing its strategic role in an undiscovered industry with a strong necessity for innovation (Kothman & Faber, 2016; Buswell et. al., 2018). This research provides an additional emphasis on the need for additional research and provides new insights in economic opportunities. Increased understanding on the potential strategic role of 3DP will provide a better-informed discussion (Parvarandeh, 2014) which is needed since construction industry incumbents show signs of underestimation (Laubier et al., 2018; Post, 2019). This research will yield managerial recommendations on the potential role of 3DP for the construction industry. These recommendations will also give managers insight into how and to what extend 3DP can play a strategic role in the industry and suggesting proper responses to opportunities or threats. By providing practical insights incumbents can decide whether or not to invest in 3DP and potentially change their business model to be able to deal better with potential disruption (Chesbrough, 2007).

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, the literature on disruptive innovation as a concept and in relation to 3DP is explored in the Literature Review. After that, the research methodology is explained. This section describes how data will be collected and how this data will be analysed. Next, the results section will highlight the most interesting findings from this research which will be discussed in the following section. Finally, there is a section which provides recommendations for academics and the industry before finishing this paper with a section on the limitations of this research.

LITERATURE REVIEW

(5)

In his book ‘The Innovator’s Dilemma’ Christensen (1997) introduced the phenomenon of disruptive innovation. Innovations can be classified into two dimensions: sustaining or disruptive. Sustaining innovations are typed as innovations that only improve existing products and don’t alter industries, referring to innovations which are built upon an existing customer and product base (Christensen & Raynor, 2003). On the other hand, disruptive innovations do alter industries and redefine its dynamics and boundaries (Christensen, 1997; Christensen, Johnson, & Rigby, 2002; Ratto & Ree, 2012). Disruptive innovations are distinctive in terms of technological features and market dynamics and are altered by the external environment (Guo et. al., 2019). Disruptive innovations will have a broader impact, compared to sustaining innovation, by providing in a different need compared to what is considered as consumer demand in industries (Danneels, 2004; Sun, Gao, Yang, & Tan, 2008). Following Christensen & Reynolds (2003), there are two appropriate market conditions, to get a foothold from at which a potential disruptive technology may succeed. The two market segments are the market or the new, niche market. Disruptive innovation theory builds upon motivation asymmetries to explain why market incumbents may run away to high-end segments or face new threats. If incumbents recognize a potential significant role in time, they usually have sufficient resources to fight new entrants. If innovations create new, niche markets incumbents are likely to ignore them, because it isn’t an immediate threat to their existing business. Due to the likelihood of ignorance are incumbents usually at a disadvantage compared to entrants, creating the new niche.

Successful industry incumbents tend to over-focus on sustaining innovation in order to capitalize on their current business model. Leaving them vulnerable for missing out on new innovations and capturing value from them (Christensen, 1997). While well-established firms put a strong emphasis on sustaining and process innovation this provides a possibility for radical innovations to succeed. Over time, multiple innovations will be introduced from which some will succeed, and some won’t. The key element for a disruptive innovation is that it is inferior at first sight and that it’ll follow a multi-dimensional process since it requires continuous development in terms of market dynamics and technological features in order to potentially disrupt (Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006; Kothman & Faber, 2016; Hardman, Steinberger-Wilckens, & van der Horst, 2013). This will make mainstream technologies obsolete without the awareness of established industry incumbents, who have been over-focussed on sustaining and process innovation (Utterback, 1994; Christensen, 1997). The vulnerability of industry incumbents is explained by the subtle development of disruptive innovations, which is difficult to observe for even top management (Henderson, 2006). This could be due to a lack of expertise in innovation management (Christensen & Raynor, 2003).

(6)

functionality and market dynamics with an increasing number of start-ups 3DP application in construction shows ‘disruptive behaviour’ (Hang et al., 2011; Kothman & Faber, 2016). Even though 3DP holds the potential to disrupt the construction industry it remains difficult to understand its disruptiveness and therefore its potential strategic role for the industry (Levy, Schindel, & Kruth, 2003; Post, 2019). In a mature industry with a need for innovation a better understanding of the potential role of potential disruptive technologies is required (Kothman & Faber, 2016). For assessing the strategic importance an innovation, it is essential to analyse its drivers in a holistic manner (Gatignon, Tushman, Smith, & Anderston, 2002; Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006; Hang et. al., 2011). Several researches attempted to develop a holistic framework to assess the role of a potential disruptive innovation. Despite these efforts researchers often maintained a too narrow focus and assessed too little aspects of the seminal theory by Christensen (1997), this easily leads to misinterpretations and confusion for both academics and practice (Christensen, 2006; Yu & Hang, 2010; Christensen & Euchner, 2015). Gatigon et. al. (2002) provided a first attempt on a holistic assessment framework by providing valuable insight in describing the role of innovations and differences in importance regarding outcomes. Govindarajan & Kopalle (2006) increased the understanding on systematic innovation assessment by providing a clear measurement mechanism for disruptive innovation. Hang et. al. (2011) combined both Gatigon et. al. (2002) and Govindarajan & Kopalle (2006) in an attempt to develop a holistic framework for the systematic assessment of disruptive innovation. The framework of Hang et. al. (2011) is built around three main drivers of disruptive innovations, being: 1) Technological features, 2) Marketplace dynamics, and 3) External environment (Christensen et. al., 2015; Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Hardman et. al., 2013). However, their holistic aim resulted in a framework which was too vague, and therefore had a high chance of misinterpretation. Guo et. al. (2019) reasoned that in order to mitigate the risk of misinterpretation in the framework by Hang et al. (2011) it is key to assess the indicators affecting the three main drivers of disruptive innovation.

(7)

The fact that disruption follows a multi-dimensional process (Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006; Hardman et. al., 2013) suggests that there could be potential interconnectedness among indicators (Guo et. al., 2019). A table and a visual presentation provided by Guo et. al. (2019, p.255), which highlights possible interconnections and their explanation including literature support is shown in Appendix B. The interconnections remain rather potential than factual and provides a deeper explanation on the context of disruptive innovations. Neglecting interconnectedness would be insufficient for the assessment of disruptive innovations (Guo et. al., 2019). The framework is successfully tested on a selection of three cases of potentially disruptive innovations, being: successful disruption (WeChat), no disruption (Modular Smartphone), uncertain disruption (VR/AR). The model assesses the interplay between technological features and market dynamics and their immunity to the external environment. The framework provides a concise and inclusive structure for the assessment of the disruptiveness of innovations (Guo et. al., 2019).

Fig. 1: Disruptive innovation assessment framework (Guo et. al., 2019).

This multi-dimensional measurement tool assesses technological features, market dynamics, and the influence of the external environment, which is essential for a holistic assessment of disruptiveness in this research (Markides, 2006). Despite the fact that the authors suggest a quantitative approach, the framework is applicable for qualitative research (Guo et. al., 2019). This research follows a qualitative approach. The argumentation behind this will be further explained in the next section; Methodology.

METHODOLOGY

(8)

misunderstanding and oversimplification (Hüsig, Hipp, & Dowling, 2005), and provide a better-informed discussion (Parvarandeh, 2014), which is needed for these complex cases (Guo et. al., 2019).

This research follows an academic problem-solving approach in order to solve a practical problem which an industry is exposed to (Van Aken, Berends & Van der Bij, 2012). Academic experts and industry experts will be interviewed on a semi-structured basis (Hüsig et al., 2005; Guo et. al., 2019). The reason to do this is to get a better understanding of the usually not experienced and neglected risks of new developments.

Data Collection

This research is conducted by ten semi-structured interviews with five academic experts and five experts from practice, the aim is to on reflect the perception of the indicators affecting the drivers of disruptive innovation, as suggested by Guo et. al. (2019). The number of interviews is selected in order to ensure validity and eventually aim for theoretical saturation while keeping the feasibility of this study in mind, given the limited time frame. Among the practical experts are experts from large industry incumbents and experts from new entrants. Semi-structured interviews provide the ability to retrieve rich empirical data from respondents (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The semi-structured interview is guided by a interview protocol (See appendix C) to prevent a bias. This interview protocol is based on a questionnaire by Guo et. al., (2019, p.263). The author(s) have provided a list of ten questions that relate to the ten indicators in the framework. Initially the ten questions should be scored, ranging from extremely low (1) to extremely high (10), for their quantitative methodology. The higher the score on a question, the more likely the indicator is to positively affect disruptive potential and vice-versa (Guo et. al., 2019). In this research the central questions are qualitatively assessed, since this is better suitable for this research. This implies that each central question is answered with arguments explaining whether the degree is negative, positive or moderate, instead of simplifying it by scoring. This is done to mitigate the risk of misunderstanding and oversimplification (Hüsig, Hipp, & Dowling, 2005). The interviews are held through Skype or telephone. The reason for this is the large amount of distance which had to be covered for face-to-face interviews.

(9)

the respondent agreed to participate in the interview, an appointment was made, and the interview topics were send in advance in order to ensure mutual understanding on the topic of interest.

The interviews are conducted within a time frame of three weeks. Every interview is fully recorded with the approval and provided anonymity from respondents. When the interview was finished it was fully transcribed for later analysis. The process of data analysis and collection was an iterative process from which one can draw useful insights for the conduction of other interviews. One interview could yield such an interesting insight that it requires additional questioning during other interviews. It is important to allow for this while doing the interviews.

Data analysis

Coding is an efficient data-labelling and -retrieval methodology and is required for systematic processing of textual data (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Therefore, after transcribing the interviews, they were coded for a textual analysis of texts (Gephart, 2014). By making groups of statements and looking for connections an overview of all the retrieved data is achieved. After that, it possible to assess the impact of the indicators in relation to their respective driver and the interplay among these indicators (Guo et. al., 2019). Finally, this gives the ability to draw conclusions from processed data.

During the process of coding it is essential to avoid the trap of self-fulfilling prophecies, in order to assure the research validity. This is prevented by recording the interviews and transcribing them immediately. This gives the ability to properly remember the interview and take psychologic and cognitive factors into account (e.g. mood, setting etc.).

Immediately transcribing and coding takes the best advantage from the iterative process. This provides the ability to systematically interpret the results and information, which will help with building bridges from the empirical world towards solving the academic problem (Blumberg, Cooper, & Schindler, 2014).

The disruptiveness of 3DP for construction is assessed by subjectively determining the impact of the indicators. From the coding, insight has been achieved on the suggested impact of each indicator. After analysis and interpretation of all the findings the impact of each respective indicator is judged as negative, moderate or positive.

(10)

RESULTS

The results from the interviews are grouped by their respective indicator. As described, the interview protocol was based on the indicators affecting the disruptiveness of an innovation (Guo et. al., 2019). In this section citations from the interviews the interview respondents. These respondents are anonymised by used codes; A1 refers to academic one and P2 refers to practitioner two and so forth. After describing the findings there is a brief conclusion on each indicator and its suggested impact.

Technological features

Integration

Integration relates to the extent that an innovation merges with existing paradigms. Meaning that when there’s a higher integration rating an innovation can be more easily introduced or adopted.

3DP technology still must overcome multiple challenges before it can successfully be integrated for construction. The development in material for concrete printing (mortar) is immature and requires a lot of research, as described by academic 5 and academic 2:

“We have a robot but not the required material composition. We need material innovations. Architects are increasingly using parametric designs which increases the utility of 3DP. However, when translating the design to an actual product we face a lot of problems.” – A5

“printed concrete is very sensitive to environmental conditions such as temperature and humidity” – A2

Difficulties relating to mortar originate from the fact that 3DP has difficulties with absence of moulds and difficulties with the reinforcement in concrete structures, the robots cannot print around the reinforcements. Because of this, the printing mortar requires certain fibres that can enhance the strength of the printed structure. As described by academic 5:

“Reinforcement isn’t possible when printing, which makes strengthening structures more difficult. This implies that the mortar must be stronger, it must deal with the absence of reinforcement. Currently this is done by adding strengthening fibres, which is very expensive” – A5

(11)

construction mechanisms. The current integration of 3DP was best described by Practitioner 2 and Practitioner 3:

“I see a lot of potential in specific use cases like (…) complex shapes. For example, double curved wall panels that utilize the freedom of design.” – P3

“It is possible to place printers in a fabrication hall and let them continuously print complex structures which will be assembled on-site. Printing in series will yield scale advantages.” – P2

Globally there are only a few countries investing in 3DP. Practitioner 3 described what countries are investing in 3DP and Academic 4 provided an explanation for this.

“Globally there are mainly initiatives from UAE, Swiss, Singapore and the Netherlands.” – P3 “It is a young and undeveloped technology that only provides very little examples.” – A4

Because of the challenges, examples of successful 3DP application are scarce. Academic 1 describes the attitude of the industry towards innovations in general as follows:

“There is no consolidation in the industry. (…) Due to the relatively small size of the firms and individualistic nature of the industry there’s little investment in R&D and risk averse/cost driven behaviour. – A1

The nature of the industry results in little investment in undiscovered technologies. Traditional production is extremely economic which makes it hard for a more expensive technology (3DP) to be integrated, despite its evident potential.

All these reasons explain why there’s a very limited integration of 3DP in mainstream construction, the present challenges are perceived as crucial before it can be effectively integrated. Therefore, the suggested impact of the integration indicator is rated as negative. It doesn’t facilitate easy integration or adoption into mainstream production.

Leadership

The leadership indicator relates to the extend at which an innovation can lead to related technological development and potentially foster new markets because of this new technological development. Which eventually might create an innovation ecosystem (de Vasconcelos et. al., 2016).

(12)

software development and digital collaboration. Regarding off-site printing, the respondents acknowledge the big potential for serial off-site development of complex shapes such as double curved wall panels, as previously described in the section integration. The following statement was made by Academic 5 on the future of structure design and 3DP:

“the new generation of architects is very interested in 3DP. There is a lot of interest and there is a growing interest in parametric design. This is a sign to the industry that the new generation will be more conscious of the abilities 3DP provides.” – A5

This shift in structure design will open up a lot of opportunities for 3DP. It is expected that there is a lot of potential related tech development in software applications. Practitioner 4 made the following statements about related technological development in IT:

“A digital platform can facilitate the collaboration by sharing knowledge. architects and 3DP enthusiasts can share findings and start building databases that exist out of key knowledge on successful and unsuccessful projects.” – P4

The statement above highlights the big potential for IT related technological development. It can facilitate collaboration and enhance knowledge sharing, which will enhance the development of 3DP, as acknowledged by Practitioner 2. Another IT related technological development is in automation in design. Given the fact that 3DP yields freedom of design, there is also an increase in automation in design, as described by Practitioner 3:

“There is a rise in automation in design. The computer designs structures based on preferences without the need of an architect or calculator. (…) Users provide design specifications from the client and the system will automatically design several solutions. (…) The company called Avitas in Silicon Valley is already very close on achieving this as a successful business model. They'll probably have in time several robotic systems communicating with each other and provide an end-to-end service due to the associated complexity.” – P3

(13)

“For example; printing houses that automatically change shape is an amazing field of thought. For example, a house changing its shape to capture the maximum value from changing weather conditions” – A1

“I think that it is possible to have a storage full of 3DP and that you’ll rent them. Next, you’ll download your design from the internet and you’re able to print your structure the next day. “– P5

However, given the current challenges for 3DP, these suggestions remain highly speculative due to challenges in rules, regulations, safety issues and material challenges. Overall, the indicator leadership has a high potential of fostering new technological development and therefore its impact is judged as positive.

Maturity

The maturity indicator relates to the timing of the introduction of a new innovation and its fit with existing supporting technologies or related infrastructures. As proper supporting technology and infrastructure play a vital role in the adoption of innovations (Dijk et. al., 2016).

Overall, the supporting technology and infrastructure wasn’t that well appreciated. The discussion was mainly about software support for printable code and modelling software, Academic 4 stated the following:

“For robotic printing there is already a lot of software available (…). The challenge is building a bridge between the software that controls the printer and the software that is used for designing. (…) there’s a need for software that translates a 3D model from an architect to a model that the robotic printer can use.”– A4

Nevertheless, supporting software makes economically feasible production already possible. However, this is limited to off-site production, as described by practitioner 3:

“There are economically feasible solutions. The development in robotics, automation and computing power in general play a big enhancing role in the development of 3DP. I only see feasibility for off-site production. In general, going offsite will also help 3DP to further develop.” – P3

(14)

“we see that some programs have difficulties. We (…) are able to design anything in the way we want. (…) There isn’t an overarching software package. There are multiple robots with different codes and therefore it requires different software for translation of the code. Making transfer between software and printers very difficult and time intensive due to the absence of unified software and code” – P5

Another challenge is that there is no consensus on what the best code and software would be to collaborate in 3DP. Research with an effort to acquire such consensus is not available and would be a smart move according to Academic 2:

“There is a need for the development of standards for software, this would increase the speed of innovation significantly. I think that we’re not in consensus yet on what is the best code and software. (…) There hasn’t been systematic research in the collaboration between software programs for 3DP applications.” – A2

The development of universal applicable software gives the ability to continuously improve software and enhance the development of 3DP, since there is no longer a need for translation of code or debate on what software to use.

Overall, the main challenge is the communication between the various IT systems that are key for the utilization of 3DP software. Currently, it is possible to make economically viable solutions with current IT solutions. It is not optimal but possible, therefore the impact of the maturity indicator is judged as moderate.

Diffusivity

The indicator diffusivity relates to the foothold that an innovation has in its target market, the construction industry in this research. As an innovation spreads its foothold would become stronger (Guo et al., 2019). A strong foothold is a key element of a disruptive innovation (Hang et. al., 2011).

As described, the Netherlands have a leading position when it comes to 3DP in construction. This was also confirmed by most of the respondents. In the Netherlands, 3DP has quite good diffusivity and is currently the biggest player on the globe. Multiple incumbents and start-ups are investing in the technology. Practitioner 5 and Academic 2 made the following statements about this:

“The biggest market is in the Netherlands. Here is a lot of research going on and multiple

start-ups. The concentration is much higher compared to Dubai or Singapore.” – P5

(15)

“It is great that a lot of firms are looking into the technology. Experimenting and using the technology is beneficial. (…) For example, the cycling bridge in Gemert, it is a small bridge, but it is a bridge that is constructed with multiple partners and provides a lot of opportunity for research” – P5

There is an increasing hype around 3DP on the globe and by experimentation and research the examples of viable structures are slowly growing. However, there were also sceptic responses from the interviews. Practitioner 3 stated the following:

“There is no effort. There are some players that are doing something, but this is not systematic and it's not to the same extend as for example BIM or prefab has been pushed, while 3DP shows the same potential. (…) There is no systematic push for the adoption of 3DP. The only firms that go all-in on 3DP are start-ups, and they lack market power to make a serious impact.” – P3

Multiple experts suggested that an industry incumbent with sufficient resources should make a big move as otherwise a new entrant with sufficient resources could make a move (A1). Therefore, as soon as 3DP becomes economically viable, big industry players should be ready for the associated changes. Practitioner 3 made the following statement:

“A big player should make a serious move. Long term investment into the technology will force others to think about it more seriously. Then, from a 3DP expert view, like start-ups, should get focussed on very specific use cases. (…) They need to develop specific solutions to specific cases that have a high demand for 3DP” – P3

The respondents describe that the investment and diffusivity, especially globally, has been very limited. This is quite surprising as the potential advantages of 3DP are evident and acknowledged by respondents. This is expected to be due to the risk averse nature of the industry; incumbents don’t want to invest in the associated R&D costs, Practitioner 5 described this as follows:

“The number of early adopters remains very limited. In the Netherlands there are quite a few. However, in the remainder of Europe, Middle East or Asia they are holding back. They are afraid to invest into the technology and associated R&D. I think that it relates to the individualistic and risk averse nature of the industry.” – P5

(16)

the Netherlands. Therefore, its suggested impact is judged as positive as the technology can be pushed international. As shown by the Dutch presence countries like Singapore and UAE (P5).

Simplification

The indicator simplification relates to extend at which an innovation realises certain functions that simplifies the practices of users, compared to traditional methods. As simpler solutions are in favour for users (Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006).

All respondents were unanimous that 3DP isn’t able to overtake the mainstream market, Academic 4 described this as follows:

“In order to beat traditional production a miracle needs to happen. These practices are extremely efficient, and most buildings are well fitted for traditional production mechanisms. The applicability of 3DP will be in niche market and not in de main market.” – A4

“Traditional production is extremely cost efficient and heavily regulated due to decades of

incremental innovation. Mainstream market 3DP implies that there is a need for reinforcement in structures or mortar, this technology remains very immature. Also, it remains a costly process due to intensive collaboration, research and quality checks and the associated costs.” – P2

However, as acknowledged by the respondents, it does provide significant simplification for niche application due to cost reduction. When material challenges are solved it can be faster, cheaper and better for construction (A1). Currently 3DP only provides simplification for production of complex shapes or high time pressure projects, as described by Academic 1:

“Complex shapes and their moulds are very expensive. 3DP makes the use of moulds obsolete, which significantly decreases the associated costs. The development, usage, and removal of moulds is a time intensive process. So, by using a 3DP this process isn't needed anymore. There is a big achievement in terms of time. Therefore, it provides an immediate solution to high time pressure projects.” – A1

3DP also provides architects with new range of possibilities, they can design elements that are tailor made to their functionality, Practitioner 5 made the following statement about this:

(17)

It is evident that 3DP shows some niche application simplification advantages. However, as this research focusses on the strategic role of 3DP for the entire construction industry it does not provide significant contribution to the simplification of mainstream building due to the associated costs. Therefore, the impact of the indicator simplification is judged as negative.

Marketplace dynamics

Niche Market

The indicator niche market relates to the ability of an innovation to seize new markets. Which is one of the key characteristics of disruptive innovations. Tesla’s success could be attributed due to their focus on the high-end market instead of focussing on the mainstream market (Dijk et. al., 2016). And some respondents expect similar success for 3DP. As described before, most of the respondents expect 3DP to be successful in niche applications and not the mainstream market. Several niche applications are suggested by the respondents. For example, custom street furniture design, making optimal use of serial complex shape printing. As described by Academic 5:

“Benches don’t have to be rectangles anymore. It can be curvish, oval or something else creative”. – A5

Another interesting, high potential niche market is printing complex sewage system parts. According to Academic 4 there is already a start-up that aims on doing this. He described the following:

“Sewage junctions are always a one-of-a-kind job. (…) This firm has developed a system in which it can very precisely measure the sewage infrastructure and print a custom-made junction piece which perfectly aligns all the sewage pipes. This is an applicable business model for every place in the world.” – A4

This shows optimal utilization of the advantages that 3DP has to offer. Given the fact that 3DP can also produce faster than traditional production it is also suggested that it can be of value for demand with high time pressure, for example printing complex steel knots for large ships or oil platforms (P2). Rural area printing has been described before and remains attractive. Finally, also the high-end market is attractive. Following Academic 4, the high-end market could also be an interesting niche market.

(18)

Until now, systematic investments into niche applications remain limited. According to Practitioner 3: “firms should make a clear case and invest into specific niche application development”

- P3. The potential in niche market application is high and the first moves into the exploration of niche

markets are starting. The limitations of 3DP for mainstream production are often less severe for niche market application. Which makes niche application already economically viable. Therefore, the suggested impact of the indicator niche markets is judged as positive.

Value Network

The indicator value network relates to the benefits of collaborative efforts for the development of an innovation. Complex innovations affecting multiple complex knowledge field could benefit from a value network where they collaborate with each other (Guo et. al., 2019). The profitability of collaboration is acknowledged by all respondents, Academic 4 and Practitioner 3 provided the best explanation on the need for collaboration:

“Robotic printing requires inter-disciplinary work. Every partner should collaborate already from the initiation phase. It is key to know whether a, to-be-designed project is printable. This requires that the contractor, calculator and architect collaborate from the first moment. Additionally, there might be a need for more specialists.” – A4

“the power lies in alliances and collaboration. Successful 3DP requires very specific knowledge. You'll need very strong (…) robotic, construction, material, design, and production expertise.” – P3

There are still challenges for 3DP and collaboration will increase the pace of solving these challenges. Some Dutch respondents described how they’re already very focussed on their collaborative efforts, this is highlighted in the following statement of Practitioner 5:

“In the Netherlands we do a lot together with the constructor, universities and our firm as the contractor. This shows a nice triangle of parties that each have their own expertise.” – P5

The collaborative efforts are mainly between universities, constructors and contractors. However, there are a lot more parties involved in the environment of 3DP and those are willing to collaborate, for example architects perceive that they’re left out (A5). So, the perception of collaboration is right, but insufficient. Only start-ups seem to acknowledge the value of collaboration between multiple expert fields, as explained by Academic 5:

(19)

All respondents acknowledge the benefit of collaboration but remain heavily focussed on their own practices. An explanation for this was provided by Academic 3 and Academic 2:

“The architect designs, the constructor calculates, and the contractor assures that the building will be build. 3DP requires a fundamentally different and inter-disciplinary process.” – A3

“The industry has a clear distinction of responsibilities. If there is an increase in collaboration it will increase the pace of development. However, this is easier said than done. There has been a long history that explains the current way of doing. The individualistic nature of the industry is a deep and solid culture which is hard to change.” – A2

Despite the perception of collaboration among a few Dutch firms the suggested impact of these collaborations remains moderate, compared to other collaborative industries like healthcare and automotive (P5). There is very little systematic collaboration and proactive behaviour among industry incumbents and outside industry borders with for example other industries or the government (except for universities). Investments in collaborations are scarce and incumbents remain very individualistic and show little interest in inter-disciplinary collaboration. Despite the acknowledged benefit by respondents. Systematic sharing of rich, key knowledge is scarce. There is no collaboration between the schools that focus on different printing materials for construction (P5). Multiple respondents acknowledge the difficulties in aligning interests and the need for a facilitating party that orchestrates collaboration among parties (P3). Based on the story above the suggested impact of a value network is negative. Despite the acknowledgement of its potential, the actual efforts remain limited.

Cost Reduction

The cost reduction indicator assesses how the innovation reduces costs compared to mainstream technology. When an innovation offers a significantly cheaper solution it can cause a low-end disruption (Christensen et. al., 2015). Mainstream customers would favour new low-end products, given that these cheaper solutions offer sufficient quality (Schmidt and Druehl, 2008).

As previously described, 3DP is too expensive for mainstream production. Traditional production is extremely efficient due to decades of incremental development. Given the cost focussed nature of the industry it is very hard for 3DP to be attractive for mainstream application. Academic 2 described the higher costs in material as follows:

(20)

In addition to that, printing requires intensive testing and research due to absence of standards and inter-disciplinary process. As described by Academic 4:

“there is also a need for interdisciplinary collaboration and there is a need for intensive testing and research.” – A4

3DP has difficulties in dealing with reinforcement steel, which requires further material development. Practitioner 5 described reinforcement issues as follows:

“At this moment the material for a printer is very complex to make and very expensive. If we can use less expensive materials such as gravel it is possible to recede production costs. However, this also requires the development of a specialized pump system that can handle these new material compositions. There are so many aspects with very specific knowledge, making it very difficult.” - P5

Overall, it is currently impossible for 3DP to be attractive for the mainstream market. Academic 5 described how it is too early to look for cost advantages.

“When we enter the growth phase1 it gives room to significantly reduce costs. Currently it remains expensive as a lot of research is required” – A5

Again, cost advantages for niche application were acknowledged. For complex shape printing it can be cheaper and make capital turnaround faster, making investment more attractive (A1). Some firms are close on achieving economically viable niche production, as explained by Practitioner 1:

“3DP can be cheaper because it has less waste, can produce faster and has no need for moulds. By late 2019 we aim to achieve a break-even point. We expect that we can be profitable in 2020.” – P1

This statement highlights that significant cost reduction is possible in niche markets. Practitioner 3 provided the following statement on niche application:

“There are scale advantages for mass-printing complex shapes, it decreases in risk and the associated costs due to increased consistency in delivery. Serial printing of complex shapes for niche application is the sweet spot for cost reduction.” – P3

(21)

The cost structure for mainstream market application isn’t viable yet. This is due to high associated costs in material, testing, and research that must compete with an extremely economic traditional model. Therefore, the suggested impact of the indicator cost reduction is judged as negative. With the notion that it can be already an economically viable production mechanism in niche markets.

External environment

Policy

The policy indicator is one of the moderating indicators that impact the interplay between technological features and marketplace dynamics. It refers to the policy-related impact on the development and adoption of an innovation, positive and negative. The framework by Hang et. al. (2011) already touched upon ‘helpful legalisation’. For example, subsidies seem an effective stimulating mechanism (Huergo & Moreno, 2017) and industrial policies can both facilitate and harm the development of an innovation (Dijk et. al., 2016). Especially the government and their policies could play a key role in the adoption of an innovation (Ruan et al., 2014).

The indicator ‘Policy’ was the topic that received most attention in the interviews. Respondents explained the huge policy related impact on the development of 3DP for the construction industry. This was best explained by Academic 4, Academic 2:

“In the construction industry rules and regulations are built around decades of research and certification. For an innovation to be accepted within the overload of policies it is required to do a lot of research to prove the safety and durability of the structure. At this moment the available research on this isn’t enough. (…) The chemical structure and components of 3DP mortar are very different from traditional mortar. This provides reason for scepticism on topics such as safety and durability. The industry doesn’t know how to solve this problem. In this case the very strong rules and regulation decrease the rate of development. – A4

“We need to pioneer and test a lot. The industry fixed regulations. For printed concrete this is

completely unexplored. You continuously need to test the printed structures for safety. This is time consuming and expensive since it doubles costs.” – A2

(22)

“Flexibility from policy makers is required in order to solve this. Policies for the construction industry are built through years of commissions and experiments, this is a tedious process. It requires bureaucratic skills and strong evidence for the thing you want to achieve.” – A4

Also, the government plays a vital role in the development of 3DP (Ruan et. al., 2014). In the Netherlands the government shows a lack of interest in 3DP. Academic 4, Practitioner 3 and Academic 5 described this as follows:

“There is little attention for innovation in construction from the government. For example, sustainability or medical research receives more attention. Despite the leading position of the Netherlands. (…) There is little financial support from the government in order to increase the development of 3DP” – A4

“There is no effort from policy makers. (…) The effort is not systematic and it's not to the same extend as for example BIM or prefab have been pushed.” – P3

“The government should invest more into the technology. It is like we’re currently speaking in different languages. The government sticks to their traditional way of thinking and we’re talking in new paradigms”- A5

Respondents mention a strong need for governmental push, as described by Practitioner 4:

“EU tender procedures are built around traditional production and provide little room for 3DP. (…) The government isn't aware of their role in the future of 3DP.The government has the ability to start projects that could play a vital role in the development of the innovation.” – P4

However, some governments show serious interest in making 3DP a strategic topic. Practitioner 3 described this as follows:

“There is some push for off-site printing in the UK and Singapore, but not systematic. There is no systematic push for systematic adoption of 3DP, only in Dubai where 50% of construction should be done by 3DP by 2030.” – P3

(23)

Macroeconomics

Finally, the indicator macroeconomics is assessed. This indicator relates to the influence of macroeconomics on the interplay between technological features and marketplace dynamics. The respondents showed difficulties with this topic; this could be due to little macroeconomic knowledge. However, Practitioner 3 showed proper knowledge on the topic and provided a rich answer to the question:

“The whole industry is very typical, macroeconomics are very typical. If there's a downturn, investments stagnate. That is the main reason for the little investment in R&D in the industry. Currently, there’s a boom in construction demand across the globe which should benefit 3DP. However, the demand in 3DP solutions is sort of limited.” – P3

Construction tends to follow typical macroeconomics; however, this isn’t shown by the current investments. As there was only one respondent that showed enough expertise of macroeconomics it remains difficult to make strong statements about the impact.

The indicator macroeconomics is judged as moderate as there are some suggestions that explain how the development of 3DP is highly affected by macroeconomics, based on rationale. However, the results don’t provide any evidence to confirm this.

Summary

(24)

Category Indicator Impact Findings summary

Technological features

Integration Negative Negative integration because of challenges in printing material, high associated costs, scarce examples, little industry interest for innovation despite its potential. Currently only successfully integrated for off-site prefab production of complex shapes in a few countries.

Leadership Positive A lot of potential for related technological development, especially IT seems to have a lot potential. Development in digital collaboration platforms, parametric modelling, automation in design, and supporting IT is expected to be realised soon.

Maturity Moderate Maturity indicator mainly relates to software. Design software and 3DP software is already good and available. Key challenge is in collaboration between various systems. However, economical production is possible.

Diffusivity Positive Industry incumbents show interest in 3DP. The technology has the best foothold in the Netherlands. However, systematic investment into the technology is limited compared to BIM or prefab, despite similar potential. Overall, diffusivity is good, it is not difficult to push the technology internationally.

Simplification Negative There is little simplification in mainstream production, it does not provide significant contribution to the simplification of mainstream building due to the associated costs. Therefore, the indicator is judged as negative. However, there is significant simplification of practice in niche applications.

Marketplace dynamics

Niche market Positive There is a lot of potential in niche markets. Multiple markets have been suggested. The limitations of 3DP for mainstream production are often less severe for niche market application. Which makes niche application already economically viable.

Value network Negative There is some collaboration in the Netherlands. However, these initiatives remain insufficient. 3DP requires interdisciplinary collaboration and respondents acknowledge this. yet, the actual efforts from the industry remain limited, due to difficulties in aligning interest and the individualistic nature of the construction industry.

Cost reduction Negative 3DP must overcome high associated costs in material, testing, and research in order to compete with an extremely economic traditional production. Niche applications can be viable. However, 3DP cannot provide cost reduction in mainstream production.

External environment

Policy Negative The policy related impact on the development of 3DP is very high. The industry is heavily led by strong rules and regulations and these only allow for 3DP when the structure is tested and proven safe, which implies high costs. Also, the Dutch government doesn’t show a lot of interest in stimulating the development of 3DP. Governmental stimulation is only seen in the UK, Singapore and Dubai.

Macroeconomics Moderate Construction tends to follow typical macroeconomics; however, this isn’t shown by the current investments. There are some suggestions that explain how the development of 3DP is highly affected by macroeconomics. On the other hand, the results don’t provide any evidence to confirm this.

(25)

DISCUSSION

This study aims at providing insight into the potential strategic role of 3DP for the construction industry. This is done by acquiring insight into the vision of practical and academic experts on technological features and marketplace dynamics of 3DP technology and the impact of the external environment. In this section the most important implications for the construction industry, based upon the results, will be discussed. Next, there will be concluded upon the research question. After that, theoretical and managerial implications will be provided. Before finishing with the limitations to this research and a brief discussion on future research.

Key-Findings

In general, respondents mention interest in 3DP and acknowledge and industry-wide hype around the technology, which is in line with the research of Lim et. al. (2012). In this research, the respondents mention some collaborative efforts for the development of 3DP. But these efforts don’t seem comprehensive enough, despite the in literature acknowledged necessity for a comprehensive and inter-disciplinary approach, due to the multi-dimensional nature of innovation development (Govindarajan & Kopalle, 2006; Guo et. al., 2019). Which shows potential lack in innovation management expertise (Christensen & Raynor, 2003).

This research highlighted key challenges for 3DP in order to be a feasible construction mechanism. The assessment of 3DP in the framework of Guo et. al. (2019) highlights the reasons why 3DP is unable to be of economic value for mainstream construction and holds little disruptive potential. Literature and respondents both acknowledge the potential added value of 3DP. Therefore, one could argue that industry incumbents could capture value from the opportunity that 3DP provides. However, there are some key challenges for the technology and the industry which require solving.

(26)

on traditional industry standards. Respondents describe how they want the government to stimulate 3DP. Both in terms of subsidies and by changing tender procedures. The role of the government is underlined in literature, governments could play a vital role in the development of an innovation (Williams et. al., 2004; Huergo & Moreno, 2017). The previously mentioned individualistic and cost-driven nature of the construction industry explains why collaboration between 3DP enthusiasts, the construction industry and legalisation authority is limited.

Another key challenge for 3DP is material issues. Respondents explained how it isn't possible to integrate reinforcement into 3DP, robotics aren't able to deal with this. This makes printing large structures highly complex. Respondents explained that strengthening mortar would provide the best solution. 3DP mortar is currently too expensive and not strong enough to produce large structures. Material R&D is currently mainly done by research centres like universities. These research centres are trying to enhance the strength of 3DP mortar by adding strengthening fibres. Strengthening mortar is key for successful utilization of 3DP. Results highlight why there is little interest in investing in R&D, as also acknowledged in literature by Christensen et. al. (2008) and Laubier et. al. (2018).

The little investments originate from the individualistic nature of the industry, as mentioned by respondents and acknowledged in literature (Dorée & Holmen, 2004). Individualism is a key challenge for the construction industry as it is the opposite of what is needed for the development of 3DP. The results show that 3DP in construction requires multiple expert fields to collaborate. Respondents mention how it is key to invest into systematic collaboration for innovation. In this research the following experts were mentioned: design, material, robotics, software, management experts. Also, other parties like start-ups, research centres and policymakers were mentioned. Current collaborations are between a few industry incumbents and are not comprehensive enough. The positive perception of collaboration, which is not comprehensive, highlights the individualistic and too narrow vision of the industry. The research shows how incumbents are unaware of what effective collaboration for innovation implies. Industry incumbents don't seem to possess competencies to build these collaborative efforts. As suggested by the respondents, development or acquisition of collaborative competencies is required.

The three main challenges for 3DP from this research relate to one fundamental problem; the industry is unable to effectively collaborate. In literature the industry is typed as mature and separated (de Vries & Verhagen, 2016), but the impact on the development of radical innovations seems much bigger than expected. Especially those that require inter-disciplinary development, like 3DP. The individualistic incumbents limit their own value capture potential, which makes them vulnerable for harm by new entrants with sufficient resource power and collaborative competencies. Entrants could capture value faster due to a higher absorptive capacity, and therefore cause harm to incumbents (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).

(27)

standards can be more effective when policymakers and experts collaborate more intensive. The same counts for material issues, when expert fields and industry incumbents intensify their collaboration efforts in terms of commitment and resources the pace of development will enhance.

Niche market disruption

As mentioned, new entrants could cause harm to industry incumbents because of their ability to collect, assimilate and apply knowledge faster (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990). Nevertheless, new entrants are not likely to cause short-term disruption. The indicators from the framework by Guo et. al. (2019) highlight significant long-term challenges, e.g. policy related impact. However, results highlight profitable 3DP application in niche markets, which is a sign of a disruptive innovation (Christensen, 1997). The results show three viable niche applications;

1) Complex shape printing; 2) High time pressure projects; 3) High-end demand.

These niche markets are attractive since 3DP can be better, faster, and cheaper or the niche market is willing to pay for the associated costs. The suggested impact in the framework and results show that the biggest challenges in the mainstream industry are less severe for niche applications. For complex shape printing the indicators simplification, cost reduction and policy can be scored as positive or moderate. Complex shapes are not in favour of traditional production by moulds, and therefore 3DP offers simplification of practices. Which also positively impacts the integration of 3DP and cost reduction which are both scored as negative for mainstream production (Guo et. al., 2019). Furthermore, the impact of policy is weaker for complex shapes as they’re often parts of a larger structure and therefore easier to be proven as safe.

(28)

mainstream and niche players. If niche players manage to develop 3DP ability which is faster, cheaper and better than traditional production, without the awareness of mainstream incumbents, a performance overshoot would develop (Christensen, 1997; Christensen & Reynolds, 2003; Christensen, 2006). This gives niche players the ability to effectively enter the mainstream construction industry, which opposes a serious threat for the industry. It could make mainstream technologies and knowledge base obsolete without the awareness of established industry incumbents (Utterback, 1994), potentially causing mainstream industry incumbents to lose their competitive advantage (Barney, 1991).

CONCLUSION

This study assessed the disruptiveness of 3DP for the mainstream construction market in order to answer the research question: ‘What is the potential (strategic role) of 3D printing in the construction

industry?”. The used framework by Guo et. al. (2019) assesses the disruptiveness of innovations and

provides therefore insight in the strategic importance for an industry.

Based on the findings and presented challenges, it is evident that currently 3DP isn't viable for mainstream construction and inferior in comparison with traditional production mechanisms. However, the nature of the industry towards the technology does imply a threat. As mentioned, 3DP is a viable construction method for niche applications, which is a key characteristic of niche market disruptions (Christensen, 1997; Christensen et. al., 2015). Based on the discussion above, it is evident that 3DP should be considered as strategically important. This study and literature highlight the impact of disruptive innovations on the construction industry, it modifies R&D processes, changes technological standards, and redefines industry conditions. The evident risk implies that a change is required from the industry. Respondents acknowledge the potential of 3DP and compare the suggested added value with former key construction-related innovations like BIM and prefab production. However, the incentive from the industry to invest in the technology remains limited. Since short-term disruption is unlike to happen, there is no need for incumbents to completely change their business model. Nevertheless, incumbents should integrate 3DP into their strategy and systematically push the development of the technology. It provides incumbents with the ability to capture value and to protect themselves from potential niche market disruption. Incumbents can fight new entrants because of their superior market power, given that these incumbents acknowledge the threat/opportunity in time (Christensen, 1997).

(29)

THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS

Beside the strong managerial focus in an problem solving study, there are several theoretical implications. First, this study provides the first empirical application of the disruptive innovations assessment framework by Guo et. al. (2019). The framework has been quantitatively tested by the authors on three cases. The authors stated that a qualitative approach is more suitable for complex innovations, like 3DP in construction. This study provides the first qualitative application of the framework. The qualitative approach provides rich insight in the development of an innovation in relation the indicators of the drivers of disruptive innovation. It provides researchers the ability to retrieve key challenges and understand interconnectedness among indicators that affect disruptiveness. This study provides some empirical evidence for the acknowledgement of interconnections among indicators. The authors Guo et. al. (2019) state that the interconnectedness among indicators is rather potential than factual. However, the results acknowledge interconnectedness between the indicators integration – cost reduction and the indicators simplification – cost reduction. The results highlight how reduction in costs enhances the appreciation by incumbents in strong cost-driven industries like construction, which explains the interrelation between cost reduction and integration/simplification. With the notion that -in this study- cost reduction originates from improved technological ability.

A contribution in literature has been made on the impact of standardization in construction. The construction industry is typed as a 'loosely coupled system', which implies unique market conditions (Dorée & Holmen, 2004). These systems require a common body of knowledge which eases cooperation in the system, standardization provides in this (Dubois & Gadde, 2002). In literature there have been studies highlighting negative impact of standardization on innovation development in general (Shapiro & Varian, 1999; Blind, 2004; Blind 2012). However, there is little research on the impact of standardization on the development radical innovations in loosely coupled systems. This research suggests a negative impact of standardization on radical innovation development in loosely coupled systems.

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

(30)

study can also be interesting for new entrants as it stresses the potential of 3DP, highlights key challenges and provides an advice on what steps incumbents should take.

According to Van Aken et. al. (2012) problem solution should meet functional & user requirements, boundary conditions, and design restrictions. Functional requirements refer to a solution that actually solves the business problem. In this case this thesis fulfils this role, explaining the reasons for the strategic importance of 3DP. Additionally the recommendations provide an advice for industry incumbents on how to adapt to 3DP, given it’s potential for niche-market disruption (Christensen, 1997).

User requirements relate to the extend at which the people within the business system (industry) have the competences needed to work with the solution. And if these aren’t present; how to achieve the required competences. Boundary conditions refer to the condition that the solution should comply with legal requirements and policies. Finally, design restrictions refer to specified limits in terms of time and capital and that the realization of the solution should change as little as possible in the present business system (Van Aken et. al., 2012). On the topic of design restrictions specification of time, capital and changes in the present business system are not possible, as the proposed solution is industry wide and managers should decide for themselves to what extend they want to follow-up on the advice.

As discussed before, Investing in the technology implies investing in collaboration, as this is a key element for the development of 3DP. However, the industry doesn’t show the required competences for effective collaboration. Meaning that for industry incumbents should develop or acquire collaboration competences.

Changing from an individualistic to an collaborative culture is an complicated process. Managers should to invest in the acquisition or development of competences in collaboration for innovation. Other “collaborative industries”, like automotive and healthcare have a lot of expertise in this. For the industry it would be interesting to study e.g. the collaborative efforts of Toyota2, a global

example for effective collaboration. In order to develop or acquire collaboration competences managers can also consult professional third parties. Experts in collaboration for innovation and change management can help firms with the required transition and advice on how the collaborative efforts should be arranged. Results emphasized the need for an orchestrating party, third-parties can be this orchestrating player or help with finding one. In order to effectively collaborate for the development of 3DP managers should systematically collaborate with the following expert fields; design, material, robotics, software, management, start-ups, research centres and policymakers,

3DP technology is an accumulation of several highly complex technologies, one cannot provide an expert solution in all relevant fields. Investing into this development could provide a first-mover-advantage and head start in the technological learning curve. Another key party in the development of technologies are research centres, for example universities. These parties are willing to do a lot of high

Referenties

GERELATEERDE DOCUMENTEN

After this brief introduction on the motivation of higher order schemas I will comment on three specific issues concerning the use and motivation of such schemas in

snelheid en kwaliteit van medische hulp en de ove rle- vingskans , is vooral hetéér- ste uur na het ongeval van cruciaal belang. Daarbinnen sterft ongeveer de helft van de

My personal cause remains unchanged – to provide clarity about the true nature of transformation and to inspire people to become transformational leaders – to this.. I

The schemes of updating and downdating form in combination with this downsizing method a fast dominant eigenspace tracker algorithm that needs per step only O(nm 2 ) operations

As a result of a close textual reading of three hybrid documentaries, One Big Hapa Family (Jeff Chiba Stearns 2011), 2012: Time for Change (João G. Amorim 2010), and Camp 14:

Economics, 3) Environmental , 4) Social: Labour practices and decent work, 5) Human rights, 6) Society and 7) product responsibility. Hence, companies were asked,

The paintings that will be used as case studies will be scanned by using Colour, Gloss, Topography imaging (CGT) scanning developed by Delft University of Technology; the 3D prints

Specifically I expected that people in a low power condition would pay more attention to prevention cues and engage in a vigilance state and that this would relate to lower