Investigating additive manufacturing

implementation factors using integrated

ISM-MICMAC approach
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
National Institute of Industrial Engineering (NITIE), Mumbai, India

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify various factors influencing additive manufacturing (AM) implementation from operational
performance in the Indian manufacturing sector and to establish the hierarchical relationship among them.
Design/methodology/approach – The methodology includes three phases, namely, identification of factors through systematic literature review
(SLR), interviews with experts to capture industry perspective of AM implementation factors and to develop the hierarchical model and classify it by
deriving the interrelationship between the factors using interpretive structural modeling (ISM), followed with the fuzzy Matrice d’Impacts Croisés
Multiplication Appliqués à un Classement (MICMAC) analysis.
Findings – This research has identified 14 key factors that influence the successful AM implementation in the Indian manufacturing sector. Based on
the analysis, top management commitment is an essential factor with high driving power, which exaggerates other factors. Factors, namely,
manufacturing flexibility, operational excellence and firm competitiveness are placed at the top level of the model, which indicates that they have
less driving power and organizations need to focus on those factors after implementing the bottom-level factors.
Research limitations/implications – Additional factors may be considered, which are important for AM implementation from different industry
contexts. The variations from different industry contexts and geographical locations can foster the theoretical robustness of the model.
Practical implications – The proposed ISM model sets the directions for business managers in planning the operational strategies for addressing
AM implementation issues in the Indian manufacturing sector. Also, competitive strategies may be framed by organizations based on the driving
and dependence power of AM implementation factors.
Originality/value – This paper contributes by identification of AM implementation factors based on in-depth literature review as per SLR
methodology and validation of these factors from a variety of industries and developing hierarchical model by integrative ISM-MICMAC approach.
Keywords Additive manufacturing, 3D printing, Interpretive structural modeling (ISM), Implementation factors, Fuzzy-MICMAC,
Indian manufacturing sector
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Nomenclature and notations
Additive manufacturing (AM) technology and its applications
AM = Additive manufacturing; are of growing interest in the modern era. Both academic
SLR = Systematic literature review; researchers, as well as practicing industrial worlds, are curiously
ISM = Interpretive structural modeling; anticipating the effective leveraging of AM toward the
MICMAC = Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication competitive success of the firm. AM enables the fabrication of
Appliqués à un Classement; complex parts (layer by layer) directly from a three-dimensional
RM = Rapid manufacturing; (3D) computer-aided design model without part-specific
AMIF = Additive manufacturing implementation factors; tooling or human intervention (ASTM, 2015). AM also
SSIM = Structural self-interaction matrix; referred to as rapid prototyping, layer manufacturing, 3D
GSCM = Green supply chain management; printing, direct digital manufacturing, free-form fabrication
AHP = Analytic hierarchy process; and tool-less manufacturing to express the characteristics of
ANP = Analytic network process; this technology from different aspects (Huang et al., 2015).
FDRM = Fuzzy direct relationship matrix; and Further, widespread adoption of this technology has led to the
BDRM = Binary direct relationship matrix. regular use of the term AM within the manufacturing industry and
3D printing by the general public (Campbell et al., 2012). AM
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1355-2546.htm The authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers and
Editor-in-Chief, Rapid Prototyping Journal for their constructive
comments and feedback.
Rapid Prototyping Journal
26/10 (2020) 1837–1851 Received 24 February 2020
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1355-2546] Revised 25 July 2020
[DOI 10.1108/RPJ-02-2020-0038] Accepted 23 September 2020

1837
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
supported the rapid market responsiveness and competitiveness as
a response to the need for strategies fo rapid and cost-effective
design and manufacturing (Chong et al., 2018; Despeisse et al.,
2017). The applications of AM are prevalent in complex and
intricate parts because of added advantages over traditional
manufacturing such as:
 reduction in production lead time with no tooling
requirements;
 feasible and economical smaller batch production
enabling greater variety;
 rapid design changes allowing customized designs; and
 simplified supply chains and lower inventories (Bogue,
2013; Conner et al., 2015; Gardan, 2016; Khorram Niaki
and Nonino, 2017).
Regardless of several advantages of AM over traditional
manufacturing, companies hindering AM technology
implementation because of shortcomings such as higher
investment, post-processing difficulty, limited production
scale, slow build rate and fragmented design knowledge.
Nowadays, rapid manufacturing has evolved as a subset
of AM (Karunakaran et al., 2012). According to Wohlers
(2018), there is a dramatic rise in metal AM system
installations, and global manufacturers are aware of the
benefits of metal AM. Metal AM also offers unrivalled
design freedom with the ability to manufacture parts from a
wide range of materials (Salmi et al., 2012; Strong et al.,
2017). The metal AM grew 41.9% in 2018 to an estimated
$260.2m, up from $183.4m in 2017. Besides, the global
AM and materials market is expected to reach a value of
$35.10bn by 2023, at a compound annual growth rate of
26.86%, during the forecast period (2018–2023) (Wohlers,
2019).
AM is gaining more attention, and high implementation
rates in a variety of industrial sectors, including architectural
design models (Chan and Kumar, 2014), embellishments
(Gibson, 2017), archaeology, medical including implants,
surgical guides (Campbell et al., 2011), prosthetics, orthotics,
splints, dental (Guo and Leu, 2013), aerospace (Uriondo et al.,
2015), automobile (Dwivedi et al., 2017), jewelry, tissue
scaffolds (Huang et al., 2015), bio-fabrication and bioimplants
(Ho et al., 2015) and repairing operations of damaged
mechanical components (Perini et al., 2020). Ruffo et al.
(2007) and Oettmeier and Hofmann (2016) summarized
significant challenges in the AM implementation concerning
supply chain management, logistics and distribution,
outsourcing, operations and product design and development.
Widespread implementation of AM is not evident in many of
the industries because of certain factors which need to be
identified and mitigated (Sonar et al., 2020). AM literature
reports sector-specific exploratory studies on understanding
enablers and barriers of AM implementation such as dentistry
(Deradjat and Minshall, 2017), automotive (Dwivedi et al.,
2017), small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) (Conner
et al., 2015) and engineering services (Mellor et al., 2014).
However, to the best of our knowledge, the business
applications of AM implementation from an operational
performance point of view and other potential sectors such as
aerospace, health care or consumer durables in the Indian
1838
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
context is relatively less explored research domain. On this
backdrop, the following key research gaps are summarized:
 Need for identification of AM implementation factors
aligning strategic requirement of the firm.
 Deriving relationship between AM implementation
factors and identify critical manufacturing tasks to
leverage AM implementation toward competitive success.
Recently, Mellor et al. (2014) proposed AM implementation
factors considering strategic, operational, organizational,
supply chain and technological aspects. Adopting Mellor et al.’s
(2014) framework, Deradjat and Minshall (2017)
demonstrated AM implementation in the dental industry.
Similarly, Dwivedi et al. (2017) identified barriers to
implement AM technology and analyzed interrelations among
them in the Indian automotive sector. This shows that
researchers have attempted to identify AM implementation
factors; however, they are based on either single case or single
domain, which makes it challenging to generalize successful
AM implementation factors. Also, the literature lacks a
comprehensive quantitative AM implementation factor
considering both academic and industry views as well as the
interdependence of factors that influences AM implementation
which may vary across the industrial sectors and thus, academic
and industry views on AM implementation can provide a
distinct perspective. Therefore, a systematic approach is
essential to identify factors and derive their interrelationship.
Currently, no such work is reported in the literature in the
Indian context.
This research is an attempt to fill this gap by exploring the
AM implementation factors considering both academic and
industry perspectives and establish the interrelationship among
them. The research objectives are set as follows:
RO1. To explore AM implementation factors considering
academic and industry views.
RO2. To establish the hierarchical relationship among AM
implementation factors.
In the first objective, initially, a systematic literature review
(SLR) is used to derive AM implementation factors from an
academic perspective. This is followed by semi-structured
interviews to capture the industry perspective on AM
implementation factors. The second objective is achieved by
using interpretive structural modeling (ISM) and fuzzy Matrice
d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliqués à un Classement
(MICMAC) analysis to establish the hierarchical relationship
among AM implementation factors.
The research contributes in several ways in identifying the
relationships of AM implementation factors concerning
operational performance measures. First, a comprehensive
list of all factors reported in the literature is summarized.
Second, it discusses an interpretation of industry experts by
developing a hierarchy of factors using ISM and fuzzy-
MICMAC analysis. Finally, this work contributes by helping
the decision-makers to develop strategies to simplify AM
implementation process.
The remaining part of this paper is structured as follows:
Section 2 explains the literature review. Section 3 provides a
detailed methodology followed in this work. Section 4
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
includes discussion and managerial implications. Finally, in
Section 5, the conclusion and areas of further research are
discussed.
2. Literature review
Choosing appropriate AM implementation factors is a difficult
task because of the intricacy of such technology. Several efforts
have been made in the literature to create a general framework
of AM implementation factors (Deradjat and Minshall, 2017;
Mellor et al., 2014). However, having too many factors is not
useful in practice. Measuring AM implementation factors
becomes even harder when different industry sectors, namely,
automobile, aerospace, medical and consumer goods are
considered, and the impact of these factors on respective
industries may have a different perspective that needs to be
evaluated.
In this section, we describe the procedure of literature search
and identification of potential AM implementation factors. The
primary objective of the research is to identify and develop a
hierarchical relationship between the essential factors. We first
start carrying out an extensive literature review on AM
implementation factors. A SLR methodology is used to search
the body of literature. SLR provides a comprehensive,
transparent search conducted over multiple databases, and the
available literature can be replicated and reproduced (Tranfield
et al., 2003). This methodology is commonly used by Durach
et al. (2017), Sansone et al. (2017), Wetzstein et al. (2016) and
Sangwa and Sangwan (2018) for identifying, selecting and
reviewing the literature relevant to the field of study. The steps
followed for the literature review are shown in Figure 1 and is
discussed next.
Figure 1 Steps followed for literature review
1839
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
2.1 Article selection
To identify implementation factors in the domain of AM and to
maximize the number of available resources, initially adequately
extensive set of keywords – “additive manufacturing,” “rapid
prototyping,” “3D printing”, “barriers,” “implementation factors”
and “success factors” – are used. In an initial exploratory search
phase and to provide a high level of rigorousness, the Scopus
database was selected and explored to identify the relevant
statistical data for bibliometric analysis. For the abstract and
citation analysis of journals, books and conferences, Scopus is
recognized as one of the largest databases (Caviggioli and Ughetto,
2019; Meho and Rogers, 2008). The combination of various
keywords (for example “additive manufacturing” and/or
“barriers”) was used for initial searching of the articles within the
titles, abstract and keywords of the publications. We included the
journal articles published between the year 2000 and 2020 when
the analysis was carried out.
The articles related to AM practices published after 2000
were considered because the significance of AM
implementation and identification of factors influencing AM
implementation is being accepted only recently. Also, the
analysis of the literature for the above period provides a clear
picture of AM implementation challenges faced by various
industrial sectors. This search resulted in 687 articles. To
ensure quality, Caviggioli and Ughetto (2019) proposed to
select only journal articles for the review process. Thus, we
focused only on peer-reviewed journal publications to ensure
the quality and consistency of the literature review (Thomé
et al., 2016). The document type selected was “article,” the
source type was “journals” and the publications written in
English language only resulted in 316 articles after elimination
of conference proceedings (253), book and book chapter (61)
and editorial materials (57).
Abstract analysis was carried out to retain the articles having
the phrases “additive manufacturing,” “rapid prototyping,”
“3D printing”, “implementation factors”, “success factors”,
and “barriers”. This resulted in the retrieval of 172 articles, and
the contents of these 172 articles were analyzed. The articles on
empirical models and conceptual models, including theoretical
framework only are included for further analysis. The articles
that lacked pertinence to the topic were excluded from the data
set. This resulted in 93 articles. We then identified the studies
related to the AM implementation factors in different industrial
sectors across the globe and the methodologies/tools adopted.
This analysis resulted in the retrieval of 51 articles which were
considered for review of the literature to identify important
factors.
2.2 Additive manufacturing implementation factors
From the extant literature review, 14 AM implementation
factors have been identified and are briefly summarized next.
2.2.1 Additive manufacturing technology
AM is no longer just about the physical creation of a part, but it
brings design and innovation to the forefront. Design freedom
in the production process by time and cost-saving is the
ultimate advantage of AM over traditional manufacturing
(Achillas et al., 2017). Also, it allows for real-time visibility to
production and receipt of parts and cost savings for original
equipment manufacturers (Khorram Niaki and Nonino, 2017).
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
However, there are specific issues related to the performance
and consistency of products, low production speed and low
throughput rate compared to traditional manufacturing and
limitation on part size or build volume (Lynch et al., 2020;
Tofail et al., 2018).
2.2.2 Top management commitment
A successful AM implementation needs to be supported by top
management is the most effective driving force for a company
to implement AM into their firm (Attri et al., 2017; Dewangan
et al., 2015; Mathiyazhagan et al., 2013). The top management
must give continuous and uninterrupted support for the
successful implementation of AM by effective knowledge
creation and sharing among the workers. It will also motivate
the people involved in AM implementation and will make them
understand the value of implementation which will ultimately
lead to firm competitiveness (Dwivedi et al., 2017; Gaikwad
et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2007).
2.2.3 Information sharing
Vasanthakumar et al. (2016) suggested that information
sharing is a necessary factor required for collaborative inter-
organizational relationships. Several studies (Gorane and Kant,
2015; Goyal et al., 2017) have suggested that there should be
asynchronous flow of information regarding product design,
design software, AM technology, processes and systems across
the value chain of the organization with the real-time effective
and efficient communication. The proper flow of information
within and outside the organization is of prime importance
(Attri et al., 2017; Dewangan et al., 2015; Rajagopal and
Ramasamy, 2020; Swarnakar et al., 2020).
2.2.4 Supply chain coordination
Supply chain coordination plays a central role in supply chain
management. Supply chain coordination focuses on enabling
agile and responsible supply chain operations toward leveraging
AM technology for competitiveness (Mohanty, 2018; Singh
et al., 2007). By proper coordination between the business
processes and activities, value chain performance and
effectiveness can be improved (Chowdhury et al., 2020; Kumar
et al., 2020; Vipul et al., 2013).
2.2.5 Organization capability and human resource
Developed capability and human resources are crucial factors
for the early implementation of AM (Kumar and Sharma,
2018; Vipul et al., 2013). Human resource team proactively
impart AM design, process and post-processing skillsets among
its workforce by developing favorable work culture and
environment toward AM implementation which ultimately
increases the productivity for accomplishing the organizations
strategic goals (Chaple et al., 2018; Goyal et al., 2017; Raut
et al., 2017).
2.2.6 Education and training
Organizational goals can be achieved by balancing the human
factors with the advancing technological requirements,
upgrading human skillsets toward effective AM
implementation with periodic education and training initiatives
across the value chain of the organization (Attri et al., 2017;
Khaba and Bhar, 2018; Ben Ruben et al., 2018). Top
management must initiate the training programs for the
1840
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
workers to impart advanced skills (Raut et al., 2017; Sheoran
and Kumar, 2020; Singh and Khamba, 2011)
2.2.7 Technological awareness
One of the key enabling factors is technological awareness
within the organization. If the employees within the
organization are not aware of recent technologies in the market,
then proper commitment will not be seen from the employees
toward the implementation program (Attri et al., 2017; Sharma
et al., 2020). Henceforth, enabling technological awareness
across the employees and a related task force to ensure the AM
implementation in compliance with prescribed standard levels
is an important factor to be considered before implementation
(Attri et al., 2017; Chaple et al., 2018; Kumar and Sharma,
2018).
2.2.8 Market support
Inadequate market support is a critical factor for AM
implementation. To study the business environment and
market structure supporting the implementation of AM is
necessary to enable proactive assessment of uncertainties
(Dwivedi et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2007; Vasanthakumar et al.,
2016). The proper market analysis must be done before
implementing this technology.
2.2.9 Customer and service management
Every product from its concept design until its end use is made
for the sake of the consumers. So, the cocreation and active
participation of customers in the various business facets of AM-
driven organization such as product ideation, product
designing, processing, customizing and post-delivery feedback
to improve operations further is an essential aspect for AM
implementation (Mohanty, 2018; Vasanthakumar et al., 2016).
There should be proper management between the
organization, customers and suppliers.
2.2.10 Process improvement practices
Leveraging AM processes with effective improvement
programs to achieve strategic and competitive goals in the
evolving market conditions is considered as a key factor
(Dewangan et al., 2015; Gorane and Kant, 2015; Mohanty,
2018). Organizational performance needs to be continuously
monitored at various stages of AM implementation to achieve
long-term competitiveness because of increasing breadth and
sophistication of AM applications.
2.2.11 Manufacturing flexibility
Because of fluctuating demand of the customers, the flexibility
of AM system to design and produce a variety of products to
meet customer requirements is a crucial factor in achieving
competitiveness (Chirra and Kumar, 2018; Singh et al., 2007).
Manufacturing flexibility may lead to improved performance at
the operational, tactical and strategic levels (Babu et al., 2020;
Chowdhury et al., 2020; Dwivedi et al., 2017).
2.2.12 Financial capability
Financial capability is also recognized as a key requirement for
successful implementation. The reliable and robust financial
support is required to develop, leverage and practice AM
technologies and systems (Attri et al., 2017; Khaba and Bhar,
2018; Shibin et al., 2016). Top management decisions toward
implementation programs are influenced by the financial
 Investigating additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851

conditions of the organizations (Mohanty, 2018; Vipul et al.,
2013).
2.2.13 Operational excellence
Operational excellence of any firm is the effective utilization of
organizational resources, manufacturing technology and
systems toward highly productive operations (Kulkarni et al.,
2014; Voss and Winch, 1996). Operational excellence may be
achieved by developing the capabilities starting from product
design and development as well as distribution.
2.2.14 Firm competitiveness
The performance of the organization toward competitiveness
depends upon its ability by the optimal usage of resources
(Momaya, 1998). Firm competitiveness is defined as the ability
of the firm to design, produce and market additively
manufactured products and services superior to national and
international competitors considering manufacturing outputs
such as cost, quality, delivery and flexibility (Ambastha and
Momaya, 2004; Bhawsar and Chattopadhyay, 2015; Kulkarni
et al., 2016).
3. Methodology
The objective of the present research is to identify and develop
a hierarchy of the essential factors in AM implementation
applicable to manufacturing industries. Initially, based on the
literature review, a set of 14 factors influencing AM
implementation have been identified. The process of validating
these AM implementation factors through industry experts
followed by ISM and MICMAC analysis is discussed next.
The first stage consisted of identifying companies that have
already implemented AM into their firms. The second stage
focused on selecting experts from the selected companies who
were willing to participate in the study. For this, we adopted a
non-probabilistic sampling method, including purposive
sampling, to select the companies for the study (Thakkar et al.,
2008). The purposive sampling technique also called
judgmental sampling, in which the researcher decides what
needs to be known and find the people who can and are willing
to provide the information by virtue of knowledge and
experience. We conducted internet searches to check sector/
domain-wise applications of AM in these companies. We
choose the Indian manufacturing sector as our unit of analysis.
We identified the initial list of 22 companies who have
already implemented AM into their firms, and experts are
contacted by e-mail and telephone to request their participation
in our research. The sample was selected to form a
heterogeneous group of experts to reduce biases to guarantee
the robustness of the model and generality of its findings in all
AM implementation levels. We selected experts across the
industry sectors from the areas such as research and
development (R&D), production planning, logistics and
service, with a minimum of five-year experience of AM
technology usage to get a better understanding of current and
possible factors to AM implementation. Companies that
turned down our requests cited shortage of time and data
sensitivity issues as reasons for their unwillingness to
participate. Our search resulted in 15 companies that agreed to
participate. The industry sector and expert profiles are
summarized in Table 1.
Because of the high heterogeneity of the panel of experts,
Murry and Hammons (1995) and Novakowski and Wellar
(2008) recommended a sample size of between 5 and 15
experts to obtain quality results. Therefore, the sample size
used in this work is found adequate. The discussion was carried
out in three phases:
1 factors identified from the literature were discussed and
verified for relevance and exhaustiveness through semi-
structured interviews;
2 pairwise comparison was carried out by all experts; and
3 discussion for validation of model and interpretation of
results.
In the first phase, we have conducted semi-structured
interviews with selected industry experts for understanding AM
implementation factors identified from the literature and
discussed its relevance. A similar method has been used by
Dwivedi et al. (2017) for AM implementation barriers in the
Indian automotive sector and by Romouzy-Ali et al. (2012) for
AM adoption barriers with ten SMEs. After a discussion with
industry experts, all factors are found to be relevant and

Table 1 Summary of industry experts participated

Sr. no. Industry sector Expert profile Experience in years
1 Automotive, jewelry and dental Special project manager 12
2 Automotive and health care Owner and managing director 15
3 Engineering services Technical expert 8
4 Manufacturer Assistant manager 18
5 Engineering services Marketing executive 7
6 Automotive Technical specialist 13
7 Service provider Application engineer 6
8 Engineering services Technical lead 5
9 Automotive and aerospace Technical specialist 11
10 Automotive and medical implant Senior product designer 14
11 Automotive, aerospace and artifacts Senior technical engineer 6
12 Automotive spare parts Assistant manager 12
13 Jewelry, automotive and dental Technical specialist 15
14 Application development Technical portfolio specialist 9
15 Automotive spare parts Owner and R&D head 20

1841
 Investigating additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851

important during AM implementation process. Thus, all 14 Figure 2 Steps involved in ISM
factors are considered for the next phase.
In the second phase, pairwise comparisons of all identified Literature Expert
factors were carried out by the experts to find out the Review Opinion

interrelationship between identified 14 factors. The first part of

the interview included questions about expert profiles. The Identification of factors influencing the implementation of Additive
second part contained structural self-interaction matrix Manufacturing
(SSIM) information to develop a hierarchy of factors using
ISM. Interviews with the chosen experts were performed Establish a contextual relationship among the different AMIF (i,j)
during November and December 2019. The detailed ISM
methodology is discussed next.
Develop a Structural Self-Interaction Matrix (SSIM) of the AMIF

3.1 Interpretive structural modeling technique and

model development Develop a reachability matrix from the SSIM
ISM is a tool proposed by Warfield (1973) in which a set of factors
influencing the implementation of an individual system is
Partitioning of the reachability matrix into different levels
represented in a structured manner (Govindan et al., 2012). It can
help to understand the direct and indirect relationships among the
factors affecting the system under consideration. The ISM method
focuses on expert opinions, which is very helpful for developing the Check for Yes
Conceptual
contextual relationship between the various factors. ISM Inconsistency
methodology has been used in this study to establish the
interrelationships between the identified factors for AM
No
implementation. It has been efficaciously applied in numerous
real-life applications such as analyzing interactions among the Representation of AMIF in ISM model

barriers of reverse logistics (Ravi and Shankar, 2005), deriving

interrelationship among the variables affecting supply chain agility Source: Mishra et al. (2017)
(Agarwal et al., 2007), structural model development for barriers
of green supply chain management (GSCM) (Luthra et al., 2011),
used for the type of relation between two AMIF under
modeling the drivers of GSCM (Diabat and Govindan, 2011),
consideration:
green lean six sigma implementation (Kaswan and Rathi, 2019)
V: factor i will help to achieve factor j;
and adoption on industry 4.0 in Indian manufacturing sector
A: factor j will help to achieve factor i;
(Kamble et al., 2018). ISM can capture complexities of the real-life
X: factor i and j will help to achieve each other; and
problem by establishing the “leads to” relationship between factors
O: no relationship between factor i and j.
as compared to the analytic network process (ANP) and analytic
All responses are collected and are correlated through the
hierarchy process (AHP). Thakkar et al. (2008) compared these
consensus of the individual’s judgment. The consensus method
three techniques, as shown in Table 2.
of correlation is the most effective in this type of analysis
An ISM approach has been applied to develop a structural
(Dwivedi et al., 2017; Kavilal et al., 2018). The experts provided
relationship among identified factors. Next sub-section
their opinion based on a complete understanding of the factors
provides detailed steps followed for ISM. Steps involved in
and their interrelationships. Hence, the inputs are found to have
ISM are as shown in Figure 2.
practical validity. The data were collected within a period of two
3.1.1 Structural self-interaction matrix months. The final SSIM is developed based on the highest
Initially, a pairwise comparison matrix, SSIM, is developed frequency assigned to V, A, X and O (Chirra and Kumar, 2018)
based on the contextual relationship between 14 additive and is shown in Table 3. For instance, if AMIF 01 leads to AMIF
manufacturing implementation factors (AMIF) by taking 11, the relationship between AMIF 01 and AMIF 11 is
inputs from 15 experts, as discussed above. Four symbols are represented by V. Similarly, if AMIF 12 leads to AMIF 02 then it

Table 2 Brief comparison between AHP, ANP and ISM

AHP
 The discipline of the hierarchy must be strictly
followed
 Assumes functional independence of an upper part
of hierarchy from its lower one
 Fails in complex real-life problems
 The moderate ability for capturing the dynamic
complexity
Source: Thakkar et al. (2008)
ANP
 Deals with loose networks
 Considers the interdependencies and
non-linearity
 Useful in real-life non-linear problems
 The lower ability for capturing the
complexity
ISM
 Involves a set of interconnected criteria
 Establishes the “leads to” relationships among
the criteria
 Captures the complexities of real-life problems
 The higher ability for capturing the dynamic
complexity

1842
 Investigating additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851

Table 3 Structural self-interaction matrix If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is O, then the (i, j) entry in the
reachability matrix becomes 0, and the (j, i) entry also
AMIF 14 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01
becomes 0.
01 V V A V V V V V V V V A A – In the next step, the final reachability matrix is prepared by
02 V V A V V V V V V V V V – – introducing the concept of transitivity. Transitivity can be
03 O O O V V O V V X V X – – – explained with the following example: if element “i” relates to
04 O V O O V X V V X V – – – – element “j” and element “j” relates to element “k,” then
05 V V A V V A X X X – – – – – transitivity implies element “i” relates to element “k” (Singh
06 O V A V V A O O – – – – – – et al., 2007). It also helps in maintaining the conceptual
07 V V A V X A X – – – – – – – consistency. After incorporating the transitivity, the final
08 V V X V O O – – – – – – – – reachability matrix is prepared (Table 5). The transitivity analysis
09 V V A V X – – – – – – – – – was performed using MATLAB (version: R2015b) program.
10 V V A V – – – – – – – – – –
11 V V A – – – – – – – – – – – 3.1.3 Level partitions
12 V V – – – – – – – – – – – – From the final reachability matrix, the reachability set and
13 V – – – – – – – – – – – – – antecedent set for each factor is found. The reachability set of an
14 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – individual factor consist of other elements and itself, which it may
help to achieve. Similarly, the antecedent set comprises of the
Notes: 01: AM technology. 02: Top management commitment. 03: factors itself and the other factors, which may assist in making it.
Technological awareness. 04: Information sharing. 05: Organizational Then, the intersection of these sets is derived for all factors. The
capability and human resource. 06: Education and training. 07: Supply factors for which the reachability and intersection sets are the
chain coordination. 08: Market support. 09: Customer and service same are the top-level factors in the ISM hierarchy. For example,
management. 10: Process improvement practices. 11: Manufacturing factor number 14 has the same reachability and intersection set,
flexibility. 12: Financial capability. 13: Operational excellence. 14: Firm and as shown in Table 6, it is considered as level 1 for the ISM
competitiveness model. Once the top-level element is identified, it is separated
from the other elements. Then, the same process is repeated to
is represented by A, if AMIF 09 and AMIF 10 are interrelated, find out the elements at the next level. This process is continued
then it is represented by X and if AMIF 03 and AMIF 14 has no until the level of each element is found (Table 7). These levels
relationship, it is represented by O. help in building the final ISM model.
3.1.4 Formation of interpretive structural modeling-based model
3.1.2 Reachability matrix The final ISM-based model formed from the levels of each
The initial reachability matrix is developed (Table 4) by factor is shown in Figure 3.
substituting V, A, X and O by values 1 and 0 in the SSIM. The
rules used for substituting 1 and 0 are given below. 3.2 Interpretive structural modeling-fuzzy Matrice
If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is V, then the (i, j) entry in the d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliqués à un
reachability matrix becomes 1, and the (j, i) entry becomes 0. Classement analysis
If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is A, then the (i, j) entry in the For developing the ISM model, the relation between the two
reachability matrix becomes 0, and the (j, i) entry becomes 1. factors is denoted by 0 and 1. However, the relation between
If the (i, j) entry in the SSIM is X, then the (i, j) entry in the these factors cannot always be equal. Some relations may be
reachability matrix becomes 1, and the (j, i) entry also very weak, weak, strong and very strong or no relationship. To
becomes 1.
Table 5 Final reachability matrix
Table 4 Initial reachability matrix AMIF 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
AMIF 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 01 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
01 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
02 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 03 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
03 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 04 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
04 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 05 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
05 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 06 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
06 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 07 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
07 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 08 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
08 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 09 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
09 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 10 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
12 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Note: 
Indicates transitivity

1843
 Investigating additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851

Table 6 Level partition – iteration 1

AMIF Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
01 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,6,8,12 1,3,4,6,8,12
02 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 2,8,12 2,8,12
03 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,12 1,3,4,5,6,9,12
04 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,9,10,12 1,3,4,5,6,9,10,12
05 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12
06 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
07 5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 5,6,7,8,9,10,12
08 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,12
09 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10
10 4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 4,5,6,7,8,9,10
11 11,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 11
12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12 1,2,3,4,5,7,8,12
13 13,14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 13
14 14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 14 1

Table 7 Identified levels of AMIF

AMIF Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
01 1,3,4,12 1,2,3,4,12 1,3,4,12 5
02 2 2 2 6
03 1,3,4,12 1,2,3,4,12 1,3,4,12 5
04 1,3,4,12 1,2,3,4,12 1,3,4,12 5
05 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 4
06 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 4
07 5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 5,6,7,8,9,10,12 4
08 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 1,2,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 4
09 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 4
10 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12 4,5,6,7,8,9,10 4
11 11 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 11 3
12 1,2,3,4,12 1,2,3,4,12 1,2,3,4,12 5
13 13 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13 13 2
14 14 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 14 1

cope with this pitfall in the ISM model and to provide a better
understanding of interactions among factors, the fuzzy-
MICMAC analysis is used. MICMAC analysis, a system of
multiplication of matrices, was developed by Duperrin and
Godet (1973). The MICMAC analysis is working on the
principle of multiplication properties of matrices (Govindan
et al., 2012). The detailed steps followed for MICMAC analysis
are discussed next.
3.2.1 Binary direct relationship matrix
A binary direct relationship matrix is derived from an initial
reachability matrix (Table 4). The transitivity is ignored, and
the diagonal entries are converted to zero, as shown in Table 8.
3.2.2 Development of fuzzy direct relationship matrix
The conventional MICMAC analysis considers the only binary
type of relationships, but in this paper, the MICMAC analysis
is complemented with the fuzzy set theory to capture the
vagueness in the responses and human judgment similar to
earlier studies such as Mishra et al. (2017), and Ben Ruben
et al. (2018). The possibility of interaction can be defined by
qualitative consideration on the scale ranging from no (0) to
complete (1), with intermediate possibilities of reachability
value as, very low (0.1), low (0.3), medium (0.5), high (0.7)
and very high (0.9) as given by Gorane and Kant (2015),
Mishra et al. (2017) and Khaba and Bhar (2018). The opinion
from 15 industry experts is collected again to rate the
relationship between two AMIF (as per Table 8). All responses
are collected and are correlated through consensus of the
individual’s judgment. The final fuzzy direct relationship
matrix (FDRM) is developed based on the highest frequency
assigned, as shown in Table 9.
3.2.3 Fuzzy Matrice d’Impacts Croisés Multiplication Appliqués à
un Classement stabilized matrix
The stabilized matrix is obtained by considering FDRM as a
base. The matrix is multiplied repeatedly by following the
principle of fuzzy matrix multiplication (Kandasamy, 2007)
until the hierarchies of the driver and dependence power
stabilize, as shown in Table 10. Fuzzy matrix multiplication is a
generalization of Boolean matrix multiplication. According to
the fuzzy set theory, when two fuzzy matrices are multiplied,

1844
 Investigating additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851

Figure 3 ISM-based model

Table 8 Binary direct relationship matrix Figure 4. For example, AMIF 01 has a driving power of 7.5 and
a dependence power of 1.9. Thus, AMIF 01 is plotted
AMIF 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 according to its driving and dependence power. Based on the
01 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 results of the fuzzy MICMAC analysis, the factors are
02 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 categorized into autonomous, dependent, linkage and
03 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 independent clusters (Figure 4). The objective behind the
04 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 classification of the factors is to analyze the driving and
05 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 dependency power of the AM implementation factors. The
06 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 inferences based on the factor classification are discussed next.
07 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1
08 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 4. Discussion and managerial implications
09 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 AM is gaining more attention and high implementation rates in a
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 variety of industrial sectors, including aerospace, automotive
12 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 components, injection molding, medical implants, jewelry, food
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 and pharmaceuticals. However, widespread implementation of
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 9 Fuzzy direct relationship matrix
AMIF 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14
the product matrix is also a fuzzy matrix by following the given
rule: 01 0 0 0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 0 0.7 0.9
C = A, B = max k [min (aik, bkj)] where A = [aik] and B = [bkj] 02 0.7 0 0.5 0.3 0.7 0.5 0.1 0 0.3 0.5 0.7 0 0.7 0.9
The driving power in fuzzy MICMAC is derived by summing 03 0.5 0 0 0.5 0.3 0.5 0 0.7 0 0.3 0.9 0 0 0
the entries of interactions in the rows, and the dependence 04 0 0 0.1 0 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.7 0.5 0 0 0.3 0
power is derived by summing the entries of interactions in the 05 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 0.5 0 0.5 0.3 0 0.3 0.7
columns (Table 10). For example, the driving power of AMIF 06 0 0 0.5 0.7 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 0
01 is obtained by taking the sum of all entries of the first row. 07 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.9 0.9
Similarly, the dependence power of AMIF 01 is obtained by 08 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.5 0.1 0.7 0.9
taking a sum of all entries of the first column. 09 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 1 0 0 0.5 0.7 0 0.3 0.9
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0.5 0 0.9 0 0.9 0.9
3.2.4 Classification of implementation factors 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0
The developed six-level ISM model is further analyzed based 12 0.5 0.5 0 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.3 0 0.9 0.9
on the driving and dependence power of the factors to create 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9
the clusters. Accordingly, driving and dependence powers of 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
factors are plotted on the x-axis and y-axis, as shown in

1845
 Investigating additive manufacturing Rapid Prototyping Journal
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851

Table 10 Fuzzy-MICMAC stabilized matrix

AMIF 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 Driving power
01 0 0 0 0.7 0.7 0.7 1 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 7.5
02 0.7 0 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0 0.7 0.7 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 8.3
03 0.5 0 0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0 0.7 0 0.7 0.9 0 0 0 4.9
04 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.7 0 0 0.9 0 5
05 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.3 0.5 0 0.7 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 4.7
06 0 0 0.5 0.7 0.5 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 0 4.4
07 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0.5 0 0.5 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 4.4
08 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0.3 0 0 0 0.9 0.1 0.9 0.9 3.8
09 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 1 0 0 0.7 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 5.1
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.5 0 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 4.2
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0.7
12 0.7 0.5 0 0 0.7 0 1 0.7 0.5 0.9 0.9 0 0.9 0.9 7.7
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.9
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Dependence power 1.9 0.5 1.5 3.5 5.2 3.1 6.4 3 3.1 6.5 9 0.1 9.7 8.1

Figure 4 Clusters of AMIF management commitment is placed at the bottom of the model
(level 6), which shows high driving power to achieve the firm
9 competitiveness. This is because continuous and uninterrupted
2
8 support is a must from the top management for the successful
12
1
Cluster 4
implementation of AM by motivating the people involved in the
7 Cluster 3
Driver Factors Linkage Factors implementation process. Researchers also highlighted that top
6 management commitment is an essential factor for the early
Driving Power

9 implementation of AM (Dwivedi et al., 2017) and any process

5 3 4 5
6
4 8
3
Cluster 1
Autonomous Factors
2 implementation. Dewangan et al. (2015) also revealed that top
1
0 technologies. The next level (level 5) constitutes four AMIF,
0 2 4 6
Dependence Power
AM is not evident in many of the industries because of certain
factors which need to be identified and mitigated. The literature
lacks a comprehensive AM implementation factor considering
both academic and industry views as well as the interdependence
of factors that influences AM implementation which may vary
across the industrial sectors and thus, academic and industry
views on AM implementation can provide a distinct perspective.
Strong interdependence exists among AMIF, and any decision
aiming to control/reduce any one of the factors may have a
positive or negative effect on others. Therefore, we need a
systematic approach to identify these factors and derive their
interrelationship.
This research is an attempt to fill this gap by exploring the
AM implementation factors in the Indian manufacturing sector
and establish the interrelationship among them. For this, a SLR
is used to identify AM implementation factors followed by the
semi-structured interviews to capture industry perspective on
AM implementation. The ISM-based model and MICMAC
analysis have been used to establish the relationship between
AM implementation factors with its driving and dependence
power. From the ISM model (Figure 3), it is seen that top
7
(Gorane and Kant, 2015; Mohanty, 2018; Singh et al., 2007).
The results presented by Dubey and Ali (2014) also implied
10
that management commitment has high driving power than
Cluster 2 other factors and is considered as the key enabler for technology
Dependent Factors
management commitment plays a key enabler to enhance the
13
11 overall competitiveness of the firm by implementing advanced
14
8 10 12
namely, financial capability, AM technology, information
sharing and technological awareness. Implementation of the
factors at level 5 will provide guidelines and paths for
implementing AM factors at level 4, leading to the
competitiveness of a firm. Factors, namely, manufacturing
flexibility, operational excellence and firm competitiveness are
placed at the top level (level 1, 2 and 3) of the model which
indicates that they have less driving power and organizations
need to focus on those factors after the implementation of
factors below their level. Figure 3 shows that the factors supply
chain coordination, customer and service management, process
improvement practices, education and training to workers,
market support, organization capability and human resource are
placed at level 4. These factors are responsible for achieving
manufacturing flexibility and operational excellence (level 2 and
3), leading to firm competitiveness (level 1).
The second objective of this work is to establish the
relationship among AM implementation factors with their
driving and dependence powers through MICMAC analysis. In
the MICMAC analysis, factors are classified into four clusters,
as autonomous, dependent, linkage and driver factors. The
analysis could not highlight any linkage factor for this work.
The key findings of these clusters are discussed next.

1846
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
4.1 Autonomous factors
The factors possessing weak driving and dependence power are
classified as autonomous factors that do not have much influence
on AM implementation strategy. In this work, two factors,
namely, education and training and market support are classified
as autonomous factors. These factors are mostly disconnected
from the implementation process and usually maintain a weak
relationship with other factors. This is counterintuitive given the
present thrust of the sector on professional training.
4.2 Dependent factors
Factors with high dependence and low driving power are
termed as dependent factors. These are the desired objectives
and are considered important for any organization. In this
work, manufacturing flexibility, operational excellence and firm
competitiveness are classified as dependent factors. The
success of these factors is strongly dependent on other factors.
4.3 Driver factors
Factors with high driving and low dependence power are
considered as driver factors. The analysis revealed top
management commitment, AM technology, technological
awareness and financial capability as driving factors. Further,
management considers these factors from a strategic perspective
to achieve the desired objective of AM implementation. The
analysis revealed that top management commitment is the most
important factor in AM implementation while information
sharing, organization capability, human resource, supply chain
coordination, customer and service management and process
improvement practices possess medium driving and medium
dependence powers.
4.4 Contributions to the theory
This study makes substantial contributions to the literature.
The identification of AMIF is in the exploratory phase because
AM technology is in the initial phases of commercialization
(Gibson, 2017). The literature review revealed that most of the
researchers focused only on recent trends and applications of
AM without investigating the implementation factors that are
important while adopting AM technology. However, literature
is scarce in the identification and classification of AMIF that are
important in the successful adoption of AM technology.
Recently, Mellor et al. (2014) proposed AM implementation
factors considering strategic, operational, organizational,
supply chain and technological aspects. However, the authors
used only a single case from the aerospace industry in Europe to
get an in-depth view of AM implementation. The single case
approach adopted by authors limits the generalization of AMIF
(Voss et al., 2002). Adopting Mellor et al.’s (2014) framework,
Deradjat and Minshall (2017) demonstrated AM
implementation challenges in six dental industries for mass
customization in which technological, operational,
organizational, internal and external factors are considered.
Further, the authors highlighted speed, way of AM
implementation and factors influencing implementation differ
from company to company. Similarly, Dwivedi et al. (2017)
identified barriers to implement AM technology and analyzed
interrelations among them in the Indian automotive sector.
Few recent studies available in the literature show that
researchers have attempted to identify AMIF; however, they
1847
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
are based on either single case (aerospace industry) or single
domain (dental or automotive industry), which makes it
difficult to generalize successful AM implementation factors.
The main contribution of this research is in the identification of
14 AMIF based on in-depth literature review as per SLR
methodology and validation of these factors from a variety of
industries such as automotive, jewelry, dental, engineering services
and medical implants in the Indian context, which is a vast and
heterogeneous market for manufacturing sector enabling multi-
industry perspective to generalize them. Therefore, by considering
the Indian manufacturing sector, this study adds to the literature
on a developing country context. Further, this research classifies
these AMIF based on driving and dependence power enabling
decision-makers in AM implementation strategy formulation. This
study also helps to recognize the early implementation of AM
technology to tackle changing market demands by revolutionizing
management of AM.
4.5 Managerial implications
The business applications of AM implementation from an
operational performance point of view is relatively less-explored
research domain. This research proposes a method to establish the
relationship between AM implementation factors considering all
aspects of AM technology. This work primarily used SLR followed
by inputs from a heterogeneous group of experts in the Indian
manufacturing sector. The analysis of results shows that top
management commitment is placed at the bottom of the model
with high driving power exaggerating other factors to achieve the
firm competitiveness. This helps the decision-maker to develop
strategies to simplify the AM implementation process. Important
managerial implications are as follows:
 First, the study identified 14 AM implementation factors.
The practitioners may focus on these important factors
toward minimizing the hindrance of successful
implementation of the AM technology in their organizations.
 Second, this study provided interrelationship between
identified AM implementation factors and categorized
them based on driving and dependence powers. This
helps practitioners and policymakers in understanding
AM implementation process to build a valid and effective
AM technology platform.
 Further, the ISM model can support practitioners to
generalize AM implementation factors which need to be
considered with more attention. It is also implied that
focusing on identified AM implementation factors would lead
to a better formulation of AM implementation strategy
leading to a competitive advantage over the long term.
 The novelty of this research is in identifying the
interdependence between AM implementation factors
from the operational performance by considering different
industrial sectors which can help organizations to
formulate better AM implementation strategies.
 Insights from the exploring and modeling AM
implementation factors proposed in this study can be helpful
for the managers in other similar industries to formulate
implementation strategies. Future research could also be
directed to explore how the interdependence of AM
implementation factors might differ across countries.
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
5. Conclusion and future research
The courtesy of AM and its advantages over traditional
manufacturing have realized companies to implement AM into
their firm to fulfill customers changing demands. Existing
literature on AM implementation is focusing on the advantages
of AM implementation, but the analysis of important factors
responsible for AM implementation is not explored in the
literature. This research has explored the AM implementation
factors from operational performance considering academic and
industry perspectives and to establish the hierarchical relationship
among them. A total of 14 key AMIF have been identified
through SLR followed with semi-structured interviews to
establish the relationship between identified factors. The ISM
methodology proposed in this paper provided the
interrelationship between the factors and identified the most
important factors which are the root cause during the AM
implementation process. For example, this study reveals that top
management commitment is the priority factor with high driving
power, which intensifies other factors.
The integrated ISM-MICMAC approach provides
academicians and industrialists with a macro picture of the
challenges posed by the AM implementation to formulate AM
implementation strategy to achieve long-term success and
remain competitive in the market with their peers. Thus, this
proposed ISM model set the directions for business managers
in planning the operational strategies for addressing AM
implementation issues. Management clearly understands the
hierarchy of the factors before the actual implementation of
AM into their firms, and accordingly, competitive strategies
may be framed by organizations based on the driving and
dependence power of various factors.
This study contributes to the existing knowledge base by
identifying 14 important factors influencing AM implementation
in India. However, other factors may be considered, which are
important for AM implementation from different industry
contexts. This allows for the generalization of the multi-industry
perspective on AM implementation factors and helps decision-
makers to formulate AM implementation strategy. However, we
do agree that sector-specific implementation of AM may vary at
the operational and tactical level. Further studies may be
conducted to derive contextual diversity in AM implementation
similar to Choudhari et al. (2010, 2013). In addition, ISM can
only give interrelationship of the factors; however, it cannot assign
any relative importance to factors. Other approaches can be
explored to assign relative importance to AM implementation
factors and prioritize them.
AM implementation challenges may vary in a different
industrial scenario, for example, mass customization (high
volume and high variety) such as dental industry vs one-off
parts/few parts (low volume and high variety) such as the
aerospace industry. Tuck et al. (2008) reported such variations
in AM implementation. Similarly, AM implementation
challenges may vary for the direct AM implementation
approach vs moving from traditional facilities to AM-based
facilities. This research contributes to identifying AM
implementation factors from a generic perspective. However,
context-specific AM implementation factors need further
investigation.
1848
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
References
Achillas, C., Tzetzis, D. and Raimondo, M.O. (2017),
“Alternative production strategies based on the comparison
of additive and traditional manufacturing technologies”,
International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 12,
pp. 3497-3509.
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R. and Tiwari, M.K. (2007), “Modeling
agility of supply chain”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 443-457.
Ambastha, A. and Momaya, K. (2004), “Competitiveness of
firms-review of theory, frameworks and models”, Singapore
Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
ASTM (2015), “Standard terminology for additive
manufacturing technologies”, ASTM F2792.
Attri, R., Singh, B. and Mehra, S. (2017), “Analysis of
interaction among the barriers to 5S implementation using
interpretive structural modeling approach”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 1834-1853.
Babu, H., Bhardwaj, P. and Agrawal, A.K. (2020), “Modelling
the supply chain risk variables using ISM: a case study on
Indian manufacturing SMEs”, Journal of Modelling in
Management, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-06-
2019-0126.
Ben Ruben, R., Vinodh, S. and Asokan, P. (2018), “ISM and
fuzzy MICMAC application for analysis of lean six sigma
barriers with environmental considerations”, International
Journal of Lean Six Sigma, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 64-90.
Bhawsar, P. and Chattopadhyay, U. (2015), “Competitiveness:
review, reflections and directions”, Global Business Review,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 665-679.
Bogue, R. (2013), “3D printing: the dawn of a new era in
manufacturing?”, Assembly Automation, Vol. 33 No. 4,
pp. 307-311.
Campbell, I., Bourell, D. and Gibson, I. (2012), “Additive
manufacturing: rapid prototyping comes of age”, Rapid
Prototyping Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 255-258.
Campbell, R.I., De Beer, D.J. and Pei, E. (2011), “Additive
manufacturing in South Africa: building on the
foundations”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2,
pp. 156-162.
Caviggioli, F. and Ughetto, E. (2019), “A bibliometric analysis of
the research dealing with the impact of additive manufacturing
on industry, business and society”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Vol. 208, pp. 254-268.
Chan, H.K. and Kumar, V. (2014), “Special issue - Applications of
reference models for supply-chain integration”, Production
Planning & Control, Vol. 25 Nos 13/14, pp. 1059-1064.
Chaple, A., Narkhede, B., Akarte, M.M. and Raut, R. (2018),
“Interpretive framework for analyzing lean implementation
using ISM and IRP modeling”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 9, pp. 3406-3442.
Chirra, S. and Kumar, D. (2018), “Analysis of SCF under sales
promotional schemes: an application of interpretive
structural modelling approach”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 56 No. 18, pp. 6015-6033.
Chong, L., Ramakrishna, S. and Singh, S. (2018), “A review of
digital manufacturing-based hybrid additive manufacturing
processes”, The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 95 Nos 5/8, pp. 2281-2300.
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
Choudhari, S.C., Adil, G.K. and Ananthakumar, U. (2010),
“Congruence of manufacturing decision areas in a production
system: a research framework”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 48 No. 20, pp. 5963-5983.
Choudhari, S.C., Adil, G.K. and Ananthakumar, U. (2013),
“Configuration of manufacturing strategy decision areas in
line production system: five case studies”, The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 64
Nos 1/4, pp. 459-474.
Chowdhury, N.A., Ali, S.M. and Paul, S.K. (2020), “A
hierarchical model for critical success factors in apparel
supply chain”, Business Process Management Journal, available
at: https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-08-2019-0323
Conner, B.P., Manogharan, G.P. and Meyers, K.L. (2015),
“An assessment of implementation of entry-level 3D printers
from the perspective of small businesses”, Rapid Prototyping
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 582-597.
Deradjat, D. and Minshall, T. (2017), “Implementation of rapid
manufacturing for mass customisation”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 95-121.
Despeisse, M., Baumers, M., Brown, P., Charnley, F., Ford, S.J.,
Garmulewicz, A. and Knowles, S. (2017), “Unlocking value for
a circular economy through 3D printing: a research agenda”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 115, pp. 75-84.
Dewangan, D.K., Agrawal, R. and Sharma, V. (2015),
“Enablers for competitiveness of Indian manufacturing
sector: an ISM-Fuzzy MICMAC analysis”, Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 189, pp. 416-432.
Diabat, A. and Govindan, K. (2011), “An analysis of the
drivers affecting the implementation of green supply chain
management”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 55
No. 6, pp. 659-667.
Dubey, R. and Ali, S.S. (2014), “Identification of flexible
manufacturing system dimensions and their interrelationship
using total interpretive structural modelling and fuzzy
MICMAC analysis”, Global Journal of Flexible Systems
Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 131-143.
Duperrin, J.C. and Godet, M. (1973), Methode de Hierarhisation
Des Elements D’un Systeme Economique Du, CEA, Paris.
Durach, C.F., Kembro, J. and Wieland, A. (2017), “A new
paradigm for systematic literature reviews in supply chain
management”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 53
No. 4, pp. 67-85.
Dwivedi, G., Srivastava, S.K. and Srivastava, R.K. (2017),
“Analysis of barriers to implement additive manufacturing
technology in the Indian automotive sector”, International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management,
Vol. 47 No. 10, pp. 972-991.
Gaikwad, S.K., Paul, A., Moktadir, M.A., Paul, S.K. and
Chowdhury, P. (2020), “Analyzing barriers and strategies for
implementing lean six sigma in the context of Indian SMEs”,
Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 1,
pp. 1463-5771.
Gardan, J. (2016), “Additive manufacturing technologies: state
of the art and trends”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 54 No. 10, pp. 3118-3132.
Gibson, I. (2017), “The changing face of additive
manufacturing”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 10-17.
1849
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
Gorane, S.J. and Kant, R. (2015), “Modelling the SCM
implementation barriers: an integrated ISM-fuzzy
MICMAC approach”, Journal of Modelling in Management,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 158-178.
Govindan, K., Palaniappan, M., Zhu, Q. and Kannan, D.
(2012), “Analysis of third party reverse logistics provider
using interpretive structural modeling”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 140 No. 1, pp. 204-211.
Goyal, G., Samalia, H.V. and Verma, P. (2017), “Interpretive
structural modeling for integrating quality management in
manufacturing and service counterparts”, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 34 No. 9,
pp. 1568-1591.
Guo, N. and Leu, M.C. (2013), “Additive manufacturing:
technology, applications and research needs”, Frontiers of
Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 215-243.
Ho, C.M.B., Ng, S.H. and Yoon, Y.J. (2015), “A review on 3D
printed bioimplants”, International Journal of Precision
Engineering and Manufacturing, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 1035-1046.
Huang, Y., Leu, M.C., Mazumder, J. and Donmez, A. (2015),
“Additive manufacturing: current state, future potential,
gaps and needs, and recommendations”, Journal of
Manufacturing Science and Engineering, Vol. 137 No. 1.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A. and Sharma, R. (2018),
“Analysis of the driving and dependence power of barriers to
adopt industry 4.0 in Indian manufacturing industry”,
Computers in Industry, Vol. 101, pp. 107-119.
Kandasamy, W.B.V. (2007), “Elementary fuzzy matrix theory
and fuzzy models for social scientists”, ProQuest Information
& Learning, (University of Microfilm International),
Automaton, Los Angeles, CA, available at: http://arxiv.org/
abs/math/0702144
Karunakaran, K.P., Bernard, A., Suryakumar, S., Dembinski,
L. and Taillandier, G. (2012), “Rapid manufacturing of
metallic objects”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 18 No. 4,
pp. 264-280.
Kaswan, M.S. and Rathi, R. (2019), “Analysis and modeling
the enablers of green lean six sigma implementation using
interpretive structural modeling”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 231, pp. 1182-1191.
Kavilal, E.G., Prasanna Venkatesan, S. and Sanket, J. (2018), “An
integrated interpretive structural modeling and a graph-
theoretic approach for measuring the supply chain complexity in
the Indian automotive industry”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 478-514.
Khaba, S. and Bhar, C. (2018), “Analysing the barriers of lean
in Indian coal mining industry using integrated ISM-
MICMAC and SEM”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 2145-2168.
Khorram Niaki, M. and Nonino, F. (2017), “Additive
manufacturing management: a review and future research
agenda”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55
No. 5, pp. 1419-1439.
Kulkarni, S., Verma, P. and Mukundan, R. (2016),
“Extending canvas of manufacturing strategy: 8Ps model”,
International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness,
Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 1-15.
Kulkarni, S., Dhake, R., Raut, R. and Narkhede, B. (2014),
“Achieving operational excellence through integrated
approach of lean manufacturing and TPM methodology in
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
mechanical cluster line: a case study”, International Journal
of Global Business and Competitiveness, Vol. 9 No. 1,
pp. 15-31.
Kumar, S. and Sharma, R. (2018), “Key barriers in the growth of
rural health care: an ISM-MICMAC approach”, Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 2169-2183.
Kumar, A., Singh, R.K. and Modgil, S. (2020), “Exploring the
relationship between ICT, SCM practices and organizational
performance in Agri-food supply chain”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 1003-1041.
Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S. and Haleem, A. (2011),
“Barriers to implement green supply chain management in
automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling
technique - an Indian perspective”, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 231-257.
Lynch, P., Hasbrouck, C.R., Wilck, J., Kay, M. and
Manogharan, G. (2020), “Challenges and opportunities to
integrate the oldest and newest manufacturing processes:
metal casting and additive manufacturing”, Rapid Prototyping
Journal, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 1145-1154.
Mathiyazhagan, K., Govindan, K., NoorulHaq, A. and Geng,
Y. (2013), “An ISM approach for the barrier analysis in
implementing green supply chain management”, Journal of
Cleaner Production, Vol. 47, pp. 283-297.
Meho, L.I. and Rogers, Y. (2008), “Citation counting, citation
ranking, and H-index of human-computer interaction
researchers: a comparison of Scopus and Web of Science”,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, Vol. 59 No. 11, pp. 1711-1726.
Mellor, S., Hao, L. and Zhang, D. (2014), “Additive
manufacturing: a framework for implementation”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 149, pp. 194-201.
Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2017),
“Interpretive structural modelling and fuzzy MICMAC
approaches for customer centric beef supply chain:
application of a big data technique”, Production Planning &
Control, Vol. 28 Nos 11/12, pp. 945-963.
Mohanty, M. (2018), “Assessing sustainable supply chain
enablers using total interpretive structural modeling
approach and fuzzy-MICMAC analysis”, Management of
Environmental Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 216-239.
Momaya, K. (1998), “Evaluating international
competitiveness at the industry level”, Vikalpa: The Journal
for Decision Makers, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 39-46.
Murry, J.W. and Hammons, J.O. (1995), “Delphi: a versatile
methodology for conducting qualitative research”, The
Review of Higher Education, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 423-436.
Novakowski, N. and Wellar, B. (2008), “Using the Delphi
technique in normative planning research: methodological
design considerations”, Environment and Planning A:
Economy and Space, Vol. 40 No. 6, pp. 1485-1500.
Oettmeier, K. and Hofmann, E. (2016), “Impact of additive
manufacturing technology adoption on supply chain
management processes and components”, Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 No. 7,
pp. 944-968.
Perini, M., Bosetti, P. and Balc, N. (2020), “Additive
manufacturing for repairing: from damage identification and
1850
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
modeling to DLD”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/RPJ-03-2019-0090
Rajagopal, G. and Ramasamy, R. (2020), “Modelling the
drilling crew induced process disruption factors using an
ISM – MICMAC approach”, International Journal of Services
and Operations Management, Vol. 35 No. 1.
Raut, R.D., Narkhede, B. and Gardas, B.B. (2017), “To
identify the critical success factors of sustainable supply
chain management practices in the context of oil and gas
industries: ISM approach”, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, Vol. 68, pp. 33-47.
Ravi, V. and Shankar, R. (2005), “Analysis of interactions
among the barriers of reverse logistics”, Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 72 No. 8, pp. 1011-1029.
Romouzy-Ali, A.M., Noroozi, S., Sewell, P. and Humphries-
Smith, T. (2012), “Adopting rapid prototyping technology
within small and medium-sized enterprises: the differences
between reality and expectation”, International Journal of
Innovation, Management and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 4,
pp. 427-432.
Ruffo, M., Tuck, C. and Hague, R. (2007), “Make or buy
analysis for rapid manufacturing”, Rapid Prototyping Journal,
Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 23-29.
Salmi, M., Tuomi, J., Paloheimo, K.S., Björkstrand, R.,
Paloheimo, M., Salo, J., Kontio, R., et al. (2012), “Patient-
specific reconstruction with 3D modeling and DMLS additive
manufacturing”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3,
pp. 209-214.
Sangwa, N.R. and Sangwan, K.S. (2018), “Leanness
assessment of organizational performance: a systematic
literature review”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 768-788.
Sansone, C., Hilletofth, P. and Eriksson, D. (2017), “Critical
operations capabilities for competitive manufacturing: a
systematic review”, Industrial Management & Data Systems,
Vol. 117 No. 5, pp. 801-837.
Sharma, M., Joshi, S., Kannan, D., Govindan, K., Singh, R. and
Purohit, H.C. (2020), “Internet of things (IoT) adoption
barriers of smart cities’ waste management: an Indian context”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 270, p. 122047.
Sheoran, M. and Kumar, D. (2020), “Modelling the enablers
of sustainable consumer behaviour towards electronic
products”, Journal of Modelling in Management, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-12-2018-0205
Shibin, K.T., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., Dubey, R.,
Singh, M. and Wamba, S.F. (2016), “Enablers and barriers
of flexible green supply chain management: a total
interpretive structural modeling approach”, Global Journal of
Flexible Systems Management, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 171-188.
Singh, H. and Khamba, J.S. (2011), “An interpretive structural
modelling (ISM) approach for advanced manufacturing
technologies (AMTs) utilisation barriers”, International
Journal of Mechatronics and Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 4
No. 1, p. 35.
Singh, R.K., Garg, S.K. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2007),
“Interpretive structural modelling of factors for improving
competitiveness of SMEs”, International Journal of
Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 4, p. 423.
Sonar, H.C., Khanzode, V. and Akarte, M. (2020), “A
conceptual framework on implementing additive
 Investigating additive manufacturing
Harshad Sonar, Vivek Khanzode and Milind Akarte
manufacturing technology towards firm competitiveness”,
International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness,
available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42943-020-00015-3
Strong, D., Sirichakwal, I., Manogharan, G.P. and Wakefield,
T. (2017), “Current state and potential of additive – Hybrid
manufacturing for metal parts”, Rapid Prototyping Journal,
Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 577-588.
Swarnakar, V., Tiwari, A.K. and Singh, A.R. (2020), “Evaluating
critical failure factors for implementing sustainable lean six
sigma framework in manufacturing organization a case
experience”, International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLSS-05-2019-0050
Thakkar, J., Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008),
“Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) of IT-enablers for
indian manufacturing SMEs”, Information Management &
Computer Security, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 113-136.
Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F. and Scavarda, A.J. (2016),
“Conducting systematic literature review in operations
management”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 27
No. 5, pp. 408-420.
Tofail, S.A.M.M., Koumoulos, E.P., Bandyopadhyay, A.,
Bose, S., Donoghue, L.O., Charitidis, C. and O’Donoghue,
L. (2018), “Additive manufacturing: scientific and
technological challenges, market uptake and opportunities”,
Materials Today, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 22-37.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D. and Smart, P. (2003), “Towards a
methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 207-222.
Tuck, C.J., Hague, R.J.M., Ruffo, M., Ransley, M. and
Adams, P. (2008), “Rapid manufacturing facilitated
customization”, International Journal of Computer Integrated
Manufacturing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 245-258.
Uriondo, A., Esperon-Miguez, M. and Perinpanayagam, S.
(2015), “The present and future of additive manufacturing in
the aerospace sector: a review of important aspects”, Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 229 No. 11, pp. 2132-2147.
Vasanthakumar, C., Vinodh, S. and Ramesh, K. (2016),
“Application of interpretive structural modelling for analysis of
factors influencing lean remanufacturing practices”, International
Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54 No. 24, pp. 7439-7452.
Vipul, G., Padmanav, A. and Manoj, P. (2013), “A strategic
and operational approach to assess the lean performance in
radial tyre manufacturing in India a case based study”,
International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management, Vol. 62 No. 6, pp. 634-651.
Voss, C.A. and Winch, G.M. (1996), “Including engineering
in operations strategy”, Production and Operations
Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 78-90.
Voss, C., Tsikriktsis, N. and Frohlich, M. (2002), “Case research
in operations management”, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 195-219.
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
1851
Rapid Prototyping Journal
Volume 26 · Number 10 · 2020 · 1837–1851
Warfield, J.N. (1973), “Intent structures”, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Vol. 3
No. 2, pp. 133-140.
Wetzstein, A., Hartmann, E., Benton, W.C. and Hohenstein,
N. (2016), “A systematic assessment of supplier selection
literature – state-of-the- art and future scope”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 182, pp. 304-323.
Wohlers (2018), “3D printing and additive manufacturing:
state of the industry”, Executive Summary of Wohlers
Report 2019.
Wohlers (2019), “3D printing and additive manufacturing:
state of the industry”, Executive Summary of Wohlers
Report 2019.
About the authors
Harshad Sonar is a Research Scholar at the
National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE), Mumbai. He holds an M.Tech
degree in Mechanical CAD-CAM and a B.E
degree in Mechanical Engineering. His
research area includes additive manufacturing,
manufacturing strategy, supply chain management and
business competitiveness. Harshad Sonar is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: harshad.sonar.2016@nitie.ac.
in
Vivek Khanzode is an Associate Professor at the
National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE), Mumbai. He has completed his M.Tech
and PhD from the Department of Industrial and
Systems Engineering at the Indian Institute of
Technology (IIT), Kharagpur. His research
interests are lean manufacturing, work system design and supply
chain and logistics management. Vivek Khanzode can be
contacted at: vkhanzode@nitie.ac.in
Milind Akarte is a Professor of Industrial
Engineering at the NITIE, Mumbai, India. He has
earned his master’s degree in IEOR and PhD in
Mechanical Engineering from IIT, Bombay. His
research areas include manufacturing strategy,
additive manufacturing and industrial engineering.
He is a recipient of a research grant from the SERC, DST for the
project “Benchmarking of hybrid tooling methods (Rapid Prototyping
& Tooling) for metal casting.” He has published more than 40
technical papers and guided 6 PhD and over 501 master’s
students. He has also carried out industry consulting and
executive training programs. Milind Akarte can be contacted at:
milind@nitie.ac.in