In 2017, additive manufacturing continued to push companies in new directions. From aerospace and medical to automotive and energy, additive manufacturing took center stage as companies sought to realize its potential innovation, financial and efficiency benefits.

While experimentation and early adoption have garnered attention and created a buzz about additive manufacturing this past year, the reality is that companies are still slowly finding their way. Boston Consulting Group noted in a recent study only 34% of U.S.-based manufacturing executives have implemented additive manufacturing practices within their companies. And, according to a UPS report, additive manufacturing represents only 0.04% of the global manufacturing market.

The reasons for the low adoption rates vary by industry, company size and product type. Initially embraced for rapid prototyping, companies now recognize the value in additive manufacturing for final production parts. A complement to traditional manufacturing processes, additive manufacturing is empowering companies to create products previously thought too complex. Primarily utilized for low-volume part production, additive manufacturing is increasingly becoming a valued part of the production process as its reliability improves daily.

Despite the progress, there are still challenges that must be addressed prior to widespread adoption, including financial considerations, certification, repeatability and a skills gap.

Financial Considerations

The upfront capital expenditures for machines and facilities necessary to support additive manufacturing are considerable. And companies must justify these costs against traditional processes such as milling or injection-molding machines.

Determining the appropriate time to invest in additive manufacturing requires consideration of where the costs will manifest themselves in the process versus traditional manufacturing processes (e.g., tooling vs. machining), as well as the entire cost structure. Any assessment must consider whether the volume and type of products being manufactured justify the transition. Decisions, however, should not rely solely on present manufacturing cost, as the long-term impact will be an entire shift in the supply chain, as discussed in my previous Forbes article, with the financial impact felt throughout.

To start, companies should consider a pilot program where costs can be contained and value can be clearly measured. This would allow the development of a business case and would likely depend on service bureaus to improve the odds of pilot success while reducing the impact of capital expenditures.