The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
JMTM
28,1
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)
56
Received 2 January 2016
Revised 1 August 2016
5 September 2016
Accepted 9 September 2016
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 28 No. 1, 2017
pp. 56-74
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-01-2016-0001
Impact of additive manufacturing
on business competitiveness:
a multiple case study
Mojtaba Khorram Niaki and Fabio Nonino
Department of Computer, Control and Management Engineering,
Universita degli Studi di Roma La Sapienza, Rome, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to identify the impacts of additive manufacturing (AM) in
manufacturing, business strategies and business performance and to determine the contingent factors driving
performance. Accordingly, this study also clarifies the relationship between these impacts and company and
product characteristics.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted an exploratory study using multiple case
research methodology, sampling 16 heterogeneous companies based on the theoretical replication approach.
The potential impacts of AM were identified by reviewing the previous literature. For the driving factors, the
paper follows the literature on AM, as well as the theories arisen from technology management literature.
The qualitative information was collected by means of semi-structured interviews and documentary analysis
to measure the effectiveness of AM in these aspects.
Findings – The paper derives and provides empirical insights regarding how this technology affects the
industry. This study reveals how the implementation of AM in the Rapid Manufacturing (RM) of products
made of metal has boosted productivity. These findings also demonstrate an increasing competitiveness of
the early adopter SMEs using RM.
Research limitations/implications – This empirical research has been conducted by means of qualitative
data. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the propositions by quantitative measures.
Practical implications – The paper provides insights for the adaption of AM and its impacts on business
strategies and performance.
Originality/value – This paper contributes to expanding the literature by depicting explicit links between
the implementation of this revolutionary technology and business strategies and performance.
Keywords Additive manufacturing, Multiple case study, Technology impacts
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Additive manufacturing (AM) is defined as “a process of joining materials to make objects
from 3D model data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing
technologies” (ASTM – Standard-F2792), such as traditional machining. This emerging
technology has been referred to as the next industrial revolution (Hopkinson et al., 2006).
AM is a developing technology that was launched in the 1980s (Kruth et al., 1998);
however, regarding its practical application, it is currently at the forefront in prototyping,
manufacturing, medicine, and arts. From the emergence of the first Rapid Prototyping
(RP) system in 1988, AM technology has been successfully introduced in many industries
such as automotive, aerospace, electronics, medicine, etc. The AM processes available for
companies include stereolithography (SLA), selective laser sintering (SLS), fused
deposition manufacturing (FDM), laminated object manufacturing, ballistic particle
manufacturing, and desktop three dimensional printing (3DP; Pham and Dimov, 2012; and
Jacobs, 1995). To those who have used AM for many years, some processes, such as SLA
and SLS, may be considered as an established rather than an emerging method.
In addition, according to the raw material used in the process, these technologies can be
divided into three categories: liquid-based system, powder-based system, and solid-based
system. SLA is widely considered as a founding process within the field of RP and in
liquid-based systems. In the second category, SLS was first invented and patented in 1979,
 and then commercialized in the 1980s. FDM in the solid-based category was the first Impact of AM
commercialized process in 1991. on business
Additive technologies have gone through three phases of evolution. At the beginning, competitiveness
product designers used AM technologies only for new product development (NPD).
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

The second evolutionary phase of AM includes its application in creating end-use parts; this
step is defined as “direct digital manufacturing.” The third phase involves 3D printers
which, similar to desktop printers, are used by end consumers (Berman, 2012). 57
AM’s technical progress also led to the development of new managerial approaches in
different fields, such as product design and development, production planning and
optimization, supply chain design, operations strategy, and as stated in (Khorram Niaki and
Nonino, 2016). Many scholars contributed to discovering a set of unrecognized phenomena
linked to AM and conducted empirical research to identify and evaluate its impact on
companies’ strategy and operations (e.g. Beaman et al., 1997; Hopkinson and Dickens, 2001;
Tuck and Hague, 2006; Morrow et al., 2007; Tuck et al., 2006; Reeves, 2008; De Beer et al.,
2009; Petrovic et al., 2011; Berman, 2012).
Even though recent studies have identified several potential impacts of AM, there is still
a lack of explorative studies measuring the effectiveness of AM in different environments
and industries, business strategies, business models and processes and, in general, as a
factor of companies’ competitive advantage. Therefore, this paper aims to take a step further
in understanding AM management in an effort to fill this gap. To the best of our knowledge,
explicit links between the impacts of AM and companies’ and products’ characteristics are
lacking in the literature. Consequently, the first research question is:
RQ1. How do AM technologies affect manufacturing and business strategy and business
performance?
To link these AM impacts with company and product characteristics, the second research
question is:
RQ2. How do strategic and organizational contingent factors drive AM performance?
To answer these questions, we first reviewed the relevant literature to find potential impacts
of AM on the industry, focusing on business strategy, customer, product, process and cost.
Second, we searched the literature of technology management as well as AM literature to
disentangle the most relevant contingent factors driving AM performances. Third, we
performed a multiple case study to re-examine and analyzed AM impacts as well as link the
impacts with companies’ characteristics, formulating a set of research propositions dealing
with the influence of driving factors.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 synthesizes the relevant literature and the
research constructs. Section 3 describes the research methodology and the selected case
studies. Section 4 discusses the results and formulates some propositions emerged from the
case studies. Section 5 presents the paper’s conclusions and discusses its research implications.

2. Literature review
Because of the significant benefits that AM brings to manufacturing and markets, this
disruptive technology has attracted the attention of several scholars of business strategy
and technology management. Previous literature investigated the potential impacts of AM
as well as significant drivers affecting the performance of AM in the industry, through the
use of different research methodologies such as the case study, survey and literature review.

2.1 Impacts of AM on business strategy and business performance

AM technologies are creating a world of possibilities that can lead an organization in new
directions and help launch new businesses and business models (Wohlers, 2012). AM brings
 JMTM high speed to the NPD process, shortening the time-to-market (Hilton and Jacobs, 2000;
28,1 Morrow et al., 2007; Petrovic et al., 2011; Achillas et al., 2015). Morrow et al. (2007)
demonstrated that this technology reduces tooling lead-time by 35 percent in comparison
with the conventional processes. Furthermore, AM has reduced waste and the number of
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

necessary manual operations (Tuck et al., 2008).

From the customer’s point of view, AM offers fully customized products (Berman, 2012;
58 Ford, 2014). Customer needs and requirements can be met by creating products that fit in
color, form and function because AM offers designers almost unlimited freedom of design
(Diegel et al., 2010). Thus, AM provides access to new markets and gives firms competitive
advantages, such as better quality product design, which results in the acquisition of a
broader range of customers (Dimitrov et al., 2008; Gibson et al., 2010). AM is a powerful tool
that offers new forms of competitiveness and can better satisfy the requirements of different
users (Yang and Xue, 2003), leading to a real mass customization of consumer goods and a
quick response to business opportunities (Lan et al., 2004).
An increasing number of studies demonstrated some important advantages of AM in
many industrial sectors, such as producing small size, small volumes and very complex
parts (Hopkinson and Dickens, 2001; Ruffo et al., 2007; Reeves, 2008; Lopes da Silva, 2013;
Achillas et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2014), with better functionality and aesthetic (Petrovic et al.,
2011), reducing the weight of parts and increasing the strength-to-weight ratio (Horn and
Harrysson, 2012; Yoon et al., 2014). AM is proved to be effective for low-volume production
of small-sized products (Achillas et al., 2015) but, in contrast, it has uncompetitive
production costs at medium and large volumes (Ruffo et al., 2007). In terms of product
quality, Reeves (2008) and Hopkinson and Dickens (2001) stated that AM increases product
quality but has several drawbacks in terms of poor surface quality and dimensional
precision (Drizo and Pegna, 2006; Petrovic et al., 2011). In addition, this technology facilitates
optimal design, leading to a decrease in material consumption of up to 40 percent (Achillas
et al., 2015) that can contribute to the lightweight design of the part (Yoon et al., 2014).
AM typically affects the production process. AM does not require tools, changeover, molds,
punches, or multi-functional team-based labor or multiple raw materials; thus, it offers high
flexibility in NPD (Dedoussis and Giannatsis, 2009; Rosen, 2014), manufacturing (Tuck et al.,
2006) and even in supply chain (Ruffo et al., 2007; Petrovic et al., 2011). Because AM uses only
the necessary material to create parts, it minimizes material waste (Campbell et al., 2011; Horn
and Harrysson, 2012; Lopes da Silva, 2013; Roberson et al., 2013). It also demonstrates waste
efficiency in waste recycling and disposal as well as water and fuel consumption (Reeves,
2008). However, limitations of materials (inaccessibility of a range of materials) could be
considered as one of the major disadvantages of the process (Egodawatta et al., 2004).
Several aspects of operating costs, including energy consumption (Mognol et al., 2006;
Kellens et al., 2010; Baumers et al., 2013; Huang et al., 2013; Yoon et al., 2014), inventory
turnover (Tuck et al., 2006; Holmström et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2014; Fawcett and Waller, 2014)
and material costs (Vinodh et al., 2009; Berman, 2012; Roberson et al., 2013), have been
investigated. In terms of energy consumption, Baumers et al. (2013) showed the efficient
energy consumption of AM, considering the feasible design optimization, even though other
studies (e.g. Huang et al., 2013; Yoon et al., 2014) demonstrated that its energy consumption
far exceeds that of conventional manufacturing. Regarding inventory costs, AM allows
producing on demand that can eliminate storage costs (Holmström et al., 2010; Fawcett and
Waller, 2014). Furthermore, the ability to produce locally has profound effects through the
removal of inventory costs (Tuck et al., 2006). However, high-material costs currently cause
the use of AM in fabricating parts with higher value, or in producing products whose
confidentiality is critical (Berman, 2012). According to Roberson et al. (2013), the material
costs of the sheet lamination process is approximately 26-times greater than that of the most
expensive material cost among the material extrusion processes.
 The above mentioned literature investigated the impacts of AM in different industries Impact of AM
and markets. Accordingly, we disentangled a set of 13 potential impacts categorized on business
in five macro-areas: business strategy, customer, product, process and cost as reported competitiveness
in Table I.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

2.2 Factors driving the performance of AM

Several researchers suggested that small businesses cannot be considered scaled-down 59
larger ones and that large enterprises might not be suitable for small business (Schubert
et al., 2007; Federici, 2009). Therefore, SMEs’ benefits of/barriers to AM adoption are likely
to be different from those of large companies. According to the European Commission’s
recommendation in 2003, SMEs are defined as having fewer than 250 employees, or less
than 50 million Euro in revenue; evidently, enterprises exceeding these numbers would be
considered as large. AM literature suggests that the main benefits for SMEs are the local
production of highly customized products, facilitations in logistics management, flexibility
and a potential decrease of production costs (Petrovic et al., 2011; Lopes da Silva, 2013;
Mellor et al., 2014). In contrast, the main barriers concern the cost of AM machines, which
are sometimes too expensive for SMEs, and the need for highly skilled personnel able to
master many techniques, such as 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) solid modeling,
RP process planning and free-form surface reconstruction. Therefore, sometimes it is
difficult for SMEs to take full advantage of these technologies in the product development
process (Lan et al., 2004).
In today’s dramatically challenging business environment, firms that are already
employing conventional manufacturing techniques fail to recognize the full potential of
advanced technologies (Kakati, 1997; Chiadamrong and O’Brien, 1999). This is mostly
triggered by the fact that companies usually lack tools that would allow them to make
educated decisions regarding the complex problem of selecting the optimal vector of
production strategies (Mohanty and Deshmukh, 1998). To that end, SMEs should evaluate
the costs and benefits from the introduction of advanced manufacturing technology (AMT)
alternatives in their production portfolio (Skinner, 1974).
Rapid Manufacturing (RM) is defined as the use of CAD-based automated AM process to
construct parts that are used directly as finished products or as components (Hopkinson
et al., 2006). Although most industries still use RP to produce functional and conceptual
prototypes, modern AM machinery is capable of transcending it (Achillas et al., 2015).
Studies on the cost-benefit analysis (e.g. Hopkinson and Dickens, 2001) have recognized that
RM can also be economically viable for low-volume production. Furthermore, Ruffo et al.
(2007) discussed the effectiveness of RM in the lower production volumes based on the cost-
volume diagram, due to necessary processes that demand considerable time. In a later
study, Ruffo and Hague (2007) confirmed that manufacturing different parts in one build
leads to cost reduction of each component.
As the structure of most manufacturing firms is evolutionary, the fit between technology
and structure leads to better performance of AMT (Ghani and Jayabalan, 2000). Small and
Yasin (1997) revealed that companies that had been using AMT for less than five-years had,
on average, marginally higher performance scores than earlier adopters.
Hopkinson and Dickens (2001) and Griffiths (2002) analyzed the economic convenience
of tool-less manufacturing of plastic parts and demonstrated that the development
of AM makes the production of small quantities of final plastic parts economically
more feasible. In addition, Atzeni et al. (2010) revealed the competitiveness of AM for the
production of small to medium volumes of plastic components. In a later study, Atzeni and
Salmi (2012) proved the efficiency of the small to medium batch productions
even of end-usable metal products. Type of material can influence the adoption and
performance of AM.
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

60

28,1
JMTM
the industry
performance in
business strategy and
The impact of AM on
Table I.

Area Impact Definition Findings References

Business (I1) Time-to-market AM enables rapid NPD process
strategy through shortening the duration
of time-to-market
(I2) New market AM is most advantageous in
market environments characterized
by demand for customization and
flexible parts, providing business
benefits like acquisition of broader
customer domain
(I3) Numerous advantages of AM lead
Competitiveness to enhance company’s and
products’ competitiveness
Customer (I4) Customization Since AM enables designers almost
unlimited freedom of design, it
provides a real mass customization
of consumer goods
AM can cut NPD process costs by up to 70% Waterman and Dickens (1994), Petrovic
and time-to-market by 90% (Waterman and et al. (2011), Pham and Gault (1998),
Dickens, 1994) Achillas et al. (2015), Morrow et al. (2007),
AM can reduce tooling lead times by 35% in Hilton and Jacobs (2000), Tuck et al. (2006)
comparison with conventional manufacturing
(Morrow et al., 2007)
That is, Nike offered a customizable Dimitrov et al. (2008), Gibson et al. (2010),
football cleat produced with AM in 2013 Berman (2012), Weller et al. (2015)
(Weller et al., 2015)
Developed countries’ industry has been Garrett (2014), Petrovic et al. (2011), Vinodh
encountering the challenge of losing competitiveness et al. (2009), Fawcett and Waller, 2014,
in mass production, while AM is a powerful tool that Yang and Xue (2003), Lan et al. (2004)
offers the necessary competitiveness (Petrovic et al.,
2011)
Quick response to business opportunity has been
considered as one of the important factors to ensure
company competitiveness (Lan et al., 2004)
AM can better satisfy the requirements of different
customers, therefore it provides better global
competitiveness of products (Yang and Xue, 2003)
In comparison with the existing methods of Tuck et al. (2008), Berman (2012),
products customization, AM reduces waste and Ford (2014), Diegel et al. (2010)
the number of necessary manual operations
(Tuck et al., 2008)
Mass customization is a significant driver as
well as a result of additive manufacturing
(Diegel et al., 2010)

(continued )
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

Area Impact Definition Findings References

Product (I5) Complex part Because of tool-less and
dematerialized nature of AM, it
leads to design and produce very
complex parts
(I6) Lightweight It leads reducing product’s weight
parts while increasing the strength-to-
weight ratio that is the key success
in many manufacturing
environments
(I7) Better quality A successful product will be one
that satisfies customer needs,
whilst providing superior value
Among the different AM technologies, the SLS Hopkinson and Dickens (2001),
process has gained traction in the manufacturing Lopes da Silva (2013), Liu et al. (2014),
industry due to its capability to produce complex Reeves (2008)
parts of any geometry
The production of complex or impossible geometries
is now possible overcoming regular production
processes (Lopes da Silva, 2013)
Because AM only requires 3D data and raw material
in order to produce a complex part, it will reduce
setup and changeover time, and the number of
assemblies (Liu et al., 2014)
AM enables direct fabrication of lattice structures Horn and Harrysson (2012), Petrovic et al.
with gradual and controlled porosity in order to (2011), Yoon et al. (2014), Achillas et al.
reduce its weight (Petrovic et al., 2011) (2015), Atzeni and Salmi (2012)
AM ables to produce a simplified part that can
contribute to the lightweight design of the part
(Yoon et al., 2014)
AM provides design optimization, resulting in
decreasing the material consumption, up to 40%
(Achillas et al., 2015)
Redesign offered by AM can result in an optimum
strength-to-weight ratio able to meet functional
requirements while minimizing material volume
(Atzeni and Salmi, 2012)
The main disadvantages of DFM are a poor surface Tuck et al. (2006), Onuh and Yusuf (1999),
quality with grainy appearance and poor dimensional Petrovic et al. (2011), Drizo and Pegna
precision (Petrovic et al., 2011) (2006), Reeves (2008), Atzeni and Salmi
AM application, driven by reduced cycle times and (2012)
increased product quality (Reeves, 2008)
AM has several disadvantages in terms of the quality
of the product, processing speed, and high cost (Drizo
and Pegna, 2006)
AM reduces cost, time and quality problems resulting
from assembling operations (Atzeni and Salmi, 2012)

(continued )

competitiveness

Impact of AM
on business
Table I.

61
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)
Table I.
Area Impact Definition
Process (I8) Material waste AM uses only the necessary
Material to create parts, therefore, it
leads to minimum material waste
(I9) Flexibility Because AM creates the part by
joining material layer upon layer,
without the needs for tools, molds
and punches, it offers high
flexibility in manufacturing and
prototyping
Cost (I10) Energy AM is perceived to have a positive
consumption effect on energy consumption;
however, it depends on the type of
technology and process
62
28,1
JMTM
Findings References
AM technologies can also save energy while Lopes da Silva (2013), Wohlers and Caffrey
minimizing material waste (Wohlers and Caffrey, (2013), Horn and Harrysson (2012), Reeves
2013) (2008), Campbell et al. (2011), Roberson
The waste efficiency of AM also minimizes waste (2013)
recycling and disposal, as well as water and fuel
consumption (Reeves, 2008)
AM offers the flexibility of producing thousands of Petrovic et al. (2011), Tuck et al. (2006), Liao
individual components from a 3D CAD data source, et al. (2014), Rosen (2014), Dedoussis and
and the production Giannatsis (2009), Ruffo et al. (2007)
of highly complex structures for race cars (Tuck
et al., 2006)
The capability of AM to fabricate geometrically
complex designs provides a greater degree of
design flexibility/freedom (Rosen, 2014)
This geometrical flexibility, which is mostly a
consequence of the AM, is the main reason that RP
technologies are increasingly used in non-industrial
applications (Dedoussis and Giannatsis, 2009)
The costs of stock do not necessarily apply to the
make option (Make/Buy Analysis), as the flexibility
afforded by AM (Ruffo et al., 2007)
Considering specific energy consumption (SEC), Mognol et al. (2006), Yoon et al. (2014),
injection molding is highly appropriate techniques Kellens et al. (2010), Baumers et al. (2013),
for production. However, considering the small Huang et al. (2013)
production volume, AM has a superior advantage
(Yoon et al., 2014)
Baumers et al. (2013) approved the efficient energy
consumption of AM technologies, considering the
feasible design optimization
AM has clear advantages in terms of
environmental impact, while its energy
consumption far exceeds that of casting (Huang
et al., 2013)
(continued )
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

Area Impact Definition Findings References

(I11) More High-material costs currently cause The material cost for the sheet lamination process Achillas et al. (2015), Vinodh et al. (2009),
expensive the use of AM in fabricating parts ($79.22 for the SD300 Pro) is about 26-times greater Berman (2012), Roberson et al. (2013)
material with higher value, or in somewhere, than that of the most expensive material cost
that privacy is critical (Berman, among the material extrusion processes ($3.08 for
2012) the uPrint) (Roberson et al., 2013)
(I12) Inventory Printing on demand can eliminate The ability to produce products locally will have Liu et al. (2014), Tuck et al. (2006), Fawcett
turnover inventory costs profound effects on the lead times as well as the and Waller (2014), Holmström et al. (2010)
removal of inventory costs (Tuck et al., 2006)
The use of AM allows reducing supply chain safety
inventory compared to the use of CM technology by
the OEM (Liu et al., 2014).
AM cuts he high-inventory holding and logistics
cost (Holmström et al., 2010)
(I13) Profitability of AM is perceived to offer a much The ROI for the RepRap compared to low-retail Wittbrodt et al. (2013)
investment better investment opportunity in costs is over 20 and 40%, respectively. For the high
comparison with conventional retail costs, the RepRap ROI is greater than 200%
manufacturing

competitiveness

Impact of AM
on business
Table I.

63
 JMTM Consistent with the above mentioned literature, we identified five key factors (KFs) driving
28,1 AM implementation and performance: objective of AM implementation (RP or RM), type of
material (metal or plastic), time of use, transition from conventional manufacturing to AM
and size of company (SME or large), as reported in Table II.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

3. Research methodology
64 This research aims to contribute to theory building on AM implementation and performance.
To this end, following prescriptions of Eisenhardt (1989), Yin (1994) and Meredith (1998), the
authors decided to use multiple case studies as a research methodology to identify and
describe the key variables, the links between them and why these relationships exist. In fact,
case studies are normally used to gain a more in-depth understanding of a phenomenon, often
in an effort to answer “how” and “why” questions (Eisenhardt, 1989) and to analyze the
dynamic nature of processes that is considered fundamental in building explanations.
The evidence from multiple cases is often considered more compelling, and the overall study is
therefore regarded as being more robust (Herriott and Firestone, 1983) and supports the
results’ external validity. As suggested by Yin (1994), we first reviewed the relevant literature
to identify the research concepts to be used to frame further investigation. The research
constructs are divided into two categories: those related to the impacts of AM on the industry
and those concerning the KFs driving AM performance. Furthermore, AMT adoption
literature was reviewed to cover all related literature.
The choice of a heterogeneous sample follows a theoretical replication approach (Yin, 1994)
aiming to explore different practices in terms of the company and product characteristics.
Therefore, more than 100-companies on the basis of KFs were selected by searching the

References
Definition AM literature AMT literature

(KF1) aim of use

The objective of the implementation of AM is Hopkinson and Dickens (2001),
usually divided into two main activities. RM Ruffo et al. (2007), Ruffo and Hague
for producing finished parts and RP for (2007), Achillas et al. (2015)
producing prototypes, which represent
different performance and features
(KF2) type of material
The economic justification of the Atzeni et al. (2010), Atzeni and
manufacturing of plastic with AM, is likely to Salmi (2012), Griffiths (2002)
be different as in metal construction
(KF3) time of use
Studies in the Advanced Manufacturing Ghani and Jayabalan
Technology (AMT) adaption reveal that the (2000), Small and Yasin
experience in AMT implementation leads to (1997)
higher performance scores.
(KF4) transition
Companies that are already employing Kakati (1997), Mohanty
conventional manufacturing techniques fail and Deshmukh (1998),
to recognize full potential of AMT Chiadamrong and
O’Brien (1999)
Table II.
The key factors (KF) (KF5) company size
driving AM Several kinds of researches cleared that the Lopes da Silva (2013), Federici (2009),
implementation and approach to adaption for SMEs is likely to be Mellor et al. (2014) Schubert et al. (2007)
performance different to that in a large company
 information presented on their website. Then, considering availability, 16-companies were Impact of AM
included in our analysis. This number of cases is generally considered acceptable to gather a on business
good understanding of the phenomena under investigation with a theory-building purpose competitiveness
(Eisenhardt, 1989; Voss et al., 2002). Companies are representative of the five key driving factors
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

(see Table II) found from the theories in AMT research streams and previous literature on AM
implementation and performance. To investigate the specificities of SMEs in evaluating the
effectiveness of AM, we selected large companies and companies having transitioned from 65
conventional manufacturing to AM, as well as, to compare the performance of those that
implemented AM only for RP, companies with the objective of RM. We also considered the time
of use and type of material as driving factors to analyze the AM performance.
The sample includes 16-companies mostly situated in Italy and three in the USA.
Most companies in the sample produce prototypes and components for other companies
operating in aerospace, automotive, motorcycle racing, car racing, educational institutions,
medical sectors, electronics, or architecture. They mostly adopted the variety of AM
technologies such as SLS, direct metal laser sintering, FDM, SLA, electron beam melting,
desktop 3DP and digital light processing (DLP). The representativeness of the sample is
guaranteed by the heterogeneity of the firms in terms of size (SME/large), experience in
implementing AM technologies, objective of implementation (RP/RM), and type of raw
materials (plastic/metal; see Table III). Four large companies were investigated to examine
the specificities of SMEs in evaluating the effectiveness of AM. Furthermore, we considered
not only RP as the objective of AM implementation but also eight cases in RM or rapid
tooling. Because the type of material influences the productivity of AM implementation,

KF1 KF3
aim of time of KF4 KF5
Company Industries AM technology use KF2 material use transition size

A Aerospace, automotive, SLS/DMLS RP Metal Former Yes SME

electronics
B Prototyping FDM RP Plastic Recent No SME
C Machinery SLA/DMLS/FDM RM Plastic/metal Recent Yes Large
D Prototyping SLA/SLS/FDM RP Plastic Former No SME
E Industrial components SLS RP Metal Recent Yes Large
F Aerospace, racing, DMLS/SLA/SLS/ RM Plastic/metal Former No SME
research institutions, EBM
automotive
G Aerospace, automotive, SLA/SLS/FDM/ RM Plastic/metal Former Yes SME
medical, architecture 3DP
H Automotive, medical, SLS/DLP/SLA/ RM Plastic/metal Former Yes SME
racing, electronics DMLS
I Consumer goods SLS RP Plastic Former Yes Large
J R&D in marine SLA/PolyJet RP Plastic Recent Yes SME
K Automotive, electronics, SLA/FDM RP/RT Plastic Former Yes Large
consumer goods
L Architecture, automotive, SLS/DLP RP Plastic Recent No SME
medical
M Racing SLA/PolyJet RM Plastic Former No SME
N Research institutions, DMLS RP Metal Recent No SME
aerospace, architecture,
automotive, electronics
O Aerospace, automotive, DMLS/EBM/ RP/RM Plastic/metal Former No SME Table III.
medical, racing SLM/SLS Sample companies’
P Automotive SLS RP/RM Plastic Former No SME information
 JMTM seven cases using metal as a raw material were included in the research sample in addition
28,1 to nine cases using plastic. The sample also involved different cases in terms of experience
(time of use). Companies with more than five-years of experience in AM were considered as
“former” and those with less than five-years as “recent.” Additionally, as eight companies
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

transitioned from conventional manufacturing to AM, we also investigated the potential

relationship between the impacts and this aspect. Furthermore, the companies that
66 transitioned from conventional manufacturing to AM currently use both techniques, while
those that started their manufacturing with AM (not transitioned) only use AM.
The data were obtained from a combination of primary and secondary sources. Data
from primary sources were collected by means of semi-structured interviews lasting from
one hour to one and a half hours and documentary analysis. The data reported in Table IV
were obtained from primary data, and the general information in Table III was collected
from secondary data. However, in some cases, secondary data were observed to verify
respondents’ perception. No pre-material was sent to the interviewees beforehand.
All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Generally, a telephone follow-up with the
respondents was conducted to assess the outcomes. In each company, interviewees were
operations managers or general managers. These subjects were selected as key informants
because of their involvement in AM management. The interviewees responded to questions
about the level of effectiveness and performance of AM implementation in the 13 potential
impact areas reported in Table I, in terms of highly effective “H”, relatively effective “M”,
ineffective “L” and no opinion or uncertain “N.” Data from secondary sources came from
internal documents supplied by managers and company archives.

4. Analysis of the results

The effectiveness of AM in 13-aspects was measured. AM is perceived to have conditional
impacts on three aspects, including competitiveness, energy consumption and duration of
return on investment (ROI). These impacts depend on the company and product
characteristics. Additionally, we found that only four KFs affected the IFs. These key
driving factors include aim of use (KF1), type of material (KF2), time of use (KF3) and
company size (KF5), while the fourth driving factor does not contribute to the results.
However, findings demonstrate that AM has unconditional impacts on ten other factors;
in other words, AM has similarly influenced other aspects in all cases.
In general, considering the columns, five aspects reached the most “H” scores.
This means that using AM has been perceived as a highly effective method in reducing
time-to-market in the NPD process, allowing full product customization, simplifying
production of parts with geometrical and design complexity, increasing strength-to-weight
ratio while producing lightweight parts, and reducing waste. Moreover, looking at the rows
could allow concluding which companies perceived AM as a more effective method,
considering the whole aspects and sum of the “H” scores. Using AM has been perceived as a
productivity booster in some cases such as “A”, “F”, “G” and “O”; however, it has the least
impact on others such as “B”, “D” and “I.” Producing parts made of metal is a common
characteristic among the successful cases, while the second group of companies only
produces with plastic material. This analysis demonstrates that general effectiveness of AM
tends to be greater in producing parts made of metal rather than of plastic.

4.1 Contingent factors impacting AM performance

According to the heterogeneous nature of the selected research sample (SMEs and large
companies, RP and RM, metal and plastic, former and recent adopter, and transitioned and
not transitioned from conventional manufacturing), we observed several discrepancies in
the respondents’ perceptions (see Table IV). It is reasonable to explain these discrepancies
by the driving factors differentiating the firms. The following analysis aims to identify the
 Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

Business strategy Customer Product Process Cost

Time-to- Access More Profitability
market to new Waste Less energy expensive Inventory of
Company reduction market Competitiveness Customization Complexity Quality Lightweight reduction Flexibility consumption material Turnover Investment

A H H M H H H H H H H H H H
B N N M H H H H N H L N H L
C H H M H H H M H N L H M N
D H N N N N N L H H N H H L
E H H N H H N H H H L H M N
F H H H H H H H H H H H N H
G H H H H H H H H H H H H H
H H N H H H H H H H H H H N
I H M L H H M H H M M H M L
J H H N M H H H H H M H H L
K H M L H N H H L M H L M H
L M M H H H M H H H L L H L
M M H M H H H H H M M H H H
N H N M H H H H H H L H H M
O H H H H H H H H H H H H L
P H H H H H H H H M M M H H

competitiveness

Impact of AM
Evaluation of AM
from interviewees

on business
impacts emerged

Table IV.

67
 JMTM links, where they exist, between the driving factors and the impacts of AM. The following
28,1 paragraphs explain three contingent impacts of AM: competitiveness, energy consumption
and duration of ROI.
4.1.1 Competitiveness. As illustrated in Table V, SMEs that implemented the AM
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

technologies more than five-years ago (former), with the objective of RM, affirmed that AM
highly enhanced their competitiveness. According to the perception of all the companies
68 belonging to this classification, AM is highly effective in enhancing competitiveness, except
in the case of company M, whose manager believes AM is only relatively effective in this
aspect. Managers trust in AM technologies because their characteristics allow the firms to
improve customers’ satisfaction, increase turnover and pursue a market expansion strategy.
Analysis of documents confirmed managers’ statements. Therefore, we concluded that
competitiveness obtained by AM technologies is mostly influenced by company size, time of
use and aim of use. Concerning competitiveness, the aggregate analysis of the case studies
allows us to formulate the following proposition:
P1. The majority of SMEs with long experience in AM operating for RM increase their
competitiveness.
4.1.2 Energy consumption. Table VI shows that all of the companies using metal as a raw
material and having implemented AM for more than five-years (former) with the objective of
RM have succeed in reducing energy consumption in comparison with those that used
conventional manufacturing. Adoption of and familiarity with the new technology are key to
achieving a high level of efficiency. As with any other innovative technology, gaining
experience is the way to earn total benefits from its features. “Learning by doing” may have
allowed firms that formerly introduced AM to optimize the application of AM in their processes.
In spite of two cases, “A” and “K”, which scored H, we concluded that energy consumption of
AM is mostly influenced by the type of material, time of use and aim of use. Concerning energy
consumption, the analysis of the case studies allows us to formulate the following proposition:
P2. Companies that formerly adopted AM and use metal for RM experience more
efficient energy consumption than those using conventional manufacturing.
4.1.3 Profitability of investment. As shown in Table VII, all the companies using plastic as a
raw material with the objective of RP perceived a longer payback period, even though one

Time of use
Former Recent Former Recent
Company’s size
Large Case: K Case: C Case: I Case: E
Table V. SMEs Cases: F; G; H; M; O; P – Cases: A; D Cases: B; J; L; N
Dimension of RM RP
competitiveness Aim of use

Time of use
Former Recent Former Recent
Type of material
Metal Cases: F; G; H; O Case: C Case: A Cases: E; N
Table VI. Plastic Cases: K; M; P – Case: I; D B; J; L
Dimension of energy RM RP
consumption Aim of use
 exception (case “O”) belonging to a different classification also perceived a longer payback Impact of AM
period. Companies belonging to other classifications (except companies using plastic for RP) on business
shortened their payback period while using AM. The higher value of the parts made of competitiveness
metal with the high level of complexity offered by AM gives companies the possibility to sell
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

the products at a higher price, influencing revenues in a positive way. This approach allows
a shorter payback period, even if the number of parts is less than those produced by
traditional manufacturing. Prototypes made of plastic are sold with a price inferior to that of 69
the same pieces made in metal, and so the margins obtained are less, implying a longer
payback period. Thus, we concluded that the payback period is mostly influenced by the
type of material and aim of use. Concerning ROI, the analysis of the case studies allows us to
formulate the following proposition:
P3. Companies using AM for RP with plastic material have a longer payback period in
comparison with conventional manufacturing companies.

4.2 Unconditional impacts of AM

The previous section discussed the impacts of AM driven by the contingent factors.
However, we found that some effects, identified through literature analysis or emerged from
interviews and data analysis, are generally valid. In the following paragraphs, general
impacts of AM, in spite of the differences in company and product characteristics, are
discussed. Furthermore, other interesting impacts arose from our interviews.
The first evidence, supported by most of the research sample, is related to the notion of
agility and is responsive supply chain. First, AM provides a significant time-to-market
reduction, a key capability for business success. Second, implementing AM technologies
allows the design and production of fully customized complex parts. Additionally, regarding
the quality, AM leads to products with better aesthetics and functionality. From the
production process perspective, AM allows less use of raw material in production by
minimizing material waste and allowing a high rate of recycling, and also in the product itself
by producing lightweight parts with a high strength-to-weight ratio. More importantly, AM
provides full flexibility in design due to the capability of constructing highly complex parts, in
supply chain management through the minimum required stock holding, and in production
because of tool-less operations without employing multi-functional skill-based laborers.
However, some internal challenges of this emerging technology should be taken into
account. Most of the AM technologies require use of sophisticated material generation
equipment, which demands higher priced raw material (i.e. 1 kg of metal powder, such as
titanium, could reach the price of 300 to 400 euro). Moreover, we found the presence of
“hidden” costs. One of these costs concerns disposal of the filters used in AM machines, which
work without oxygen. Additionally, the observations reveal potential toxicity of materials,
with hazardous particles that can provoke abrasions and eye irritations. In addition, according
to the empirical analysis, AM can economically produce small- and medium-sized products;
thus, producing large parts is currently not economically justified, even though some attempts
have been made to develop AM machines that eliminate this issue.
Furthermore, some impact areas provide market opportunities for AM adopters.
The first empirical evidence of the AM advantages, supported by all of the research

Type of material
Metal Cases: C; F; G; H; O Case: A; E; N Table VII.
Plastic Cases: K; M; P Case: B; D; I; J; L “Longer” Dimension of
RM RP profitability of
Aim of Use investment
 JMTM samples, is the possibility of pursuing a market expansion strategy by accessing new
28,1 demand segments whose products or services have to be tailor-made. The digitalization of
manufacturing allowed the business functions of the firms to expand and become active in
the market of consultancy, designing the part in collaboration with the customer.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

The demand for customized products is increasing; consequently, AM is becoming a

production method essential for competitiveness. The possibility of producing customized
70 and more complex products leads to consumers’ higher willingness to pay and also provides
less inventory turnover through a make-to-order environment and dematerialized supply
chain. Therefore, AM can positively affect turnover.
AM technologies are still in their embryonic stage, and further research is warranted to
determine how to gain effective use of them. The lack of technical standards, which allow
reaching the maximum qualitative level of the machines, represents an obstacle for a
company’s competitiveness. In addition, most of the machines are still patented, and this
exclusiveness hinders price reduction. In the raw material supply perspective, material cost
is significant because new shapes require expensive operations for realization; furthermore,
the shortage of material suppliers leads to high negotiating power for suppliers.

5. Conclusions
The research underlined several fundamental effects of AM on the industry, as well as
significant factors driving AM performance. Considering the potential driving factors in
terms of company and product characteristics on one hand, and discrepancies arisen from
the opinions of the research sample on the other, some explicit links are depicted.
Thus, the paper contributes to expanding the literature by including following novelties.
Regarding the first research question, the paper identifies and confirms the previous
studies on ten impacts offered by AM. Moreover, it reveals some new impact areas
of AM observed from case studies. Regarding the second research question, it identifies
the key driving factors affecting AM performance. Next, the paper depicts explicit links
among three impact areas obtained by AM and the factors affecting these areas. The data
were gathered from 16 innovative companies that provided the opportunity to study in-
depth the results of implementing AM in order to understand and identify the patterns
that link variables.
First, the significant impacts of AM on business strategy, customer, product, process and
cost have been identified and examined. As a result, we can affirm that AM brought not only
a process innovation (production mode in layers that increases flexibility, and less material
usage and waste) but also product innovation. This revolutionary technology allows
fabrication of creative products and construction of highly complex parts; sharing design
and collaboration with consumers with a low cost of modifications; enabling the full
customization of parts and more functionality and aesthetic appeal, which is impossible to
fabricate with traditional techniques. In addition to introducing new products, AM leads to
new markets. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a growing demand for AM as some firms
in the sample have found, as well as an increasing willingness of consumers to pay more for
the higher value offered. This higher value is influenced by the improvement of customer
service through time-to-market reduction and full customization and provides the
possibility to charge higher prices, especially for parts made in metal. Consequently,
it influences revenue in a positive way and is an attractive investment.
In contrast, our study reveals a number of disadvantages and challenges ahead of this
emerging technology. In terms of operational costs, any additional expenses, such as
depreciation of machines, maintenance cost and, more significantly, higher prices of the
material and machines, need further development to be efficient. In the perspective of
processing, potential health hazards caused by some raw materials, small production
platforms and the need for post-processing are the most challenging aspects. In addition, a
 limited range of available raw material and a shortage of suppliers lead to a high negotiating Impact of AM
power for AM material suppliers, in spite of efforts to develop new viable materials. on business
The paper also explores some impact areas of AM that are contingent upon some key competitiveness
driving factors. One of these is time of use, which is originated from AMT literature, while
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

three others (company size, material and aim of use) have been previously investigated by
AM literature. Our study concludes that former adopters among SMEs, while using this
technology in RM, gain more competitiveness. In addition, in comparison with conventional 71
manufacturing, former adopters of AM technologies with the objective of RM that use metal
consume less energy. Additionally, in terms of ROI, only companies using plastic as a raw
material with the objective of RP have a longer payback period, which demonstrates the
economic benefits offered by AM in the RM of parts made of metal.
Finally, several limitations of this research should be considered. According to the
available research sample, several drivers stated in the literature, including the performance
of AM in a variety of additive technologies, in large-scale products and in large volume
production have not been examined. In addition, some impacts of AM are not exclusive.
These impacts can be the same with other modern manufacturing technologies.
Furthermore, the impacts were measured by qualitative data. Hence, to overcome these
limitations, future extensions of this research will need to emphasize the potential drivers
with quantitative measures and add some non-AM companies.

References
Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., Iakovou, E., Thymianidis, M. and Tzetzis, D. (2015), “A methodological
framework for the inclusion of modern additive manufacturing into the production portfolio of a
focused factory”, Journal of manufacturing Systems, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 328-339.
Atzeni, E. and Salmi, A. (2012), “Economics of additive manufacturing for end-usable metal parts”, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 62 Nos 9-12, pp. 1147-1155.
Atzeni, E., Iuliano, L., Minetola, P. and Salmi, A. (2010), “Redesign and cost estimation of rapid
manufactured plastic parts”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 308-317.
Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, I., Rosamond, E. and Hague, R. (2013), “Transparency
built‐in”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 418-431.
Beaman, J.J., Barlow, J.W., Bourell, D.L., Crawford, R.H., Marcus, H.L. and McAlea, K.P. (1997), Solid
Freeform Fabrication: A New Direction in Manufacturing, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Norwell, MA, pp. 25-49.
Berman, B. (2012), “3-D printing: the new industrial revolution”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 2,
pp. 155-162.
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.
Chiadamrong, N. and O’Brien, C. (1999), “Decision support tool for justifying alternative manufacturing
and production control systems”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 60, April,
pp. 177-186.
De Beer, D., Campbell, R.I., Truscott, M. and Barnard, L.J. (2009), “Client-centred design evolution via
functional prototyping”, International Journal of Product Development, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 22-41.
Dedoussis, V. and Giannatsis, J. (2009), “Developing competitive products using stereolithography
rapid prototyping tools”, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Engineering Management, December, pp. 154-158.
Diegel, O., Singamneni, S., Reay, S. and Withell, A. (2010), “Tools for sustainable product design:
additive manufacturing”, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 68-75.
Dimitrov, D., Schreve, K., De Beer, N. and Christiane, P. (2008), “Three dimensional printing in the
South African industrial environment”, South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, Vol. 19
No. 1, pp. 195-213.
 JMTM Drizo, A. and Pegna, J. (2006), “Environmental impacts of rapid prototyping: an overview of research to
28,1 date”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 64-71.
Egodawatta, A.K., Harrison, D.K., De Silva, A. and Haritos, G. (2004), “Feasibility study on developing
productivity and quality improved layered manufacturing method for rapid prototyping/
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

tooling/manufacture”, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 149 No. 1, pp. 604-608.
Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
72
Fawcett, S.E. and Waller, M.A. (2014), “Supply chain game changers – mega, nano, and virtual trends –
and forces that impede supply chain design (i.e., building a winning team)”, Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 157-164.
Federici, T. (2009), “Factors influencing ERP outcomes in SMEs: a post-introduction assessment”,
Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 22 Nos 1-2, pp. 81-98.
Ford, S.L. (2014), “Additive manufacturing technology: potential implications for US manufacturing
competitiveness”, Journal of International Commerce and Economics, available at: https://ssrn.
com/abstract=2501065
Garrett, B. (2014), “3D printing: new economic paradigms and strategic shifts”, Global Policy, Vol. 5
No. 1, pp. 70-75.
Ghani, K.A. and Jayabalan, V. (2000), “Advanced manufacturing technology and planned
organizational change”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 1-18.
Gibson, I., Rosen, D.W. and Stucker, B. (2010), Additive Manufacturing Technologies, Springer,
New York, NY.
Griffiths, A. (2002), “rapid manufacturing: the next industrial revolution”, Materials World, Vol. 10
No. 12, pp. 34-35.
Herriott, R.E. and Firestone, W.A. (1983), “Multisite qualitative policy research: optimizing description
and generalizability”, Educational Researcher, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 14-19.
Hilton, P.D. and Jacobs, P.F. (2000), Rapid Tooling: Technologies and Industrial Applications, CRC press,
Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
Holmström, J., Partanen, J., Tuomi, J. and Walter, M. (2010), “Rapid manufacturing in the spare parts
supply chain: alternative approaches to capacity deployment”, Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 687-697.
Hopkinson, N. and Dickens, P. (2001), “Rapid prototyping for direct manufacture”, Rapid Prototyping
Journal, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 197-202.
Hopkinson, N., Hague, R. and Dickens, P. (Eds) (2006), Rapid Manufacturing: An Industrial Revolution
for the Digital Age, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Horn, T.J. and Harrysson, O.L. (2012), “Overview of current additive manufacturing technologies and
selected applications”, Science Progress, Vol. 95 No. 3, pp. 255-282.
Huang, S.H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A. and Hou, L. (2013), “Additive manufacturing and its societal impact:
a literature review”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 67
Nos 5-8, pp. 1191-1203.
Jacobs, P.F. (1995), Stereolithography and Other RP&M Technologies: From Rapid Prototyping to Rapid
Tooling, ISBN 0872634671, Society of Manufacturing Engineers, New York, NY.
Kakati, M. (1997), “Strategic evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 141-156.
Kellens, K., Dewulf, W., Deprez, W., Yasa, E. and Duflou, J. (2010), “Environmental analysis of SLM and
SLS manufacturing processes”, Proceedings of the CIRP International Conference on Life Cycle
Engineering, Hefei, pp. 423-428.
Khorram Niaki, M. and Nonino, F. (2016), “Additive manufacturing management: a review and
future research agenda”, International Journal of Production Research, doi: 10.1080/
00207543.2016.1229064.
 Kruth, J.P., Leu, M.C. and Nakagawa, T. (1998), “Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid Impact of AM
prototyping”, CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 525-540. on business
Lan, H., Ding, Y., Hong, J., Huang, H. and Lu, B. (2004), “A web-based manufacturing service system for competitiveness
rapid product development”, Computers in Industry, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 51-67.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

Liao, S., Wu, M.J., Huang, C.Y., Kao, Y.S. and Lee, T.H. (2014), “Evaluating and enhancing three-
dimensional printing service providers for rapid prototyping using the DEMATEL based
network process and VIKOR”, Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Vol. 2014, Article ID 73
349348, 16pp, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/349348
Liu, P., Huang, S.H., Mokasdar, A., Zhou, H. and Hou, L. (2014), “The impact of additive manufacturing
in the aircraft spare parts supply chain: supply chain operation reference (scor) model based
analysis”, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 25 Nos 13-14, pp. 1169-1181.
Lopes da Silva, J.V. (2013), “3D technologies and the new digital ecosystem: a Brazilian experience”,
Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Management of Emergent Digital
EcoSystems, ACM, Luxembourg, pp. 278-284.
Mellor, S., Hao, L. and Zhang, D. (2014), “Additive manufacturing: a framework for implementation”,
International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 149, pp. 194-201.
Meredith, J. (1998), “Building operations management theory through case and field research”,
Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 441-454.
Mognol, P., Lepicart, D. and Perry, N. (2006), “Rapid prototyping: energy and environment in the
spotlight”, Rapid Prototyping Journal, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 26-34.
Mohanty, R.P. and Deshmukh, S.G. (1998), “Advanced manufacturing technology selection: a strategic
model for learning and evaluation”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 55 No. 3,
pp. 295-307.
Morrow, W.R., Qi, H., Kim, I., Mazumder, J. and Skerlos, S.J. (2007), “Environmental aspects of laser-
based and conventional tool and die manufacturing”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15
No. 10, pp. 932-943.
Onuh, S.O. and Yusuf, Y.Y. (1999), “Rapid prototyping technology: applications and benefits
for rapid product development”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 10 Nos 3-4,
pp. 301-311.
Petrovic, V., Vicente Haro Gonzalez, J., Jorda Ferrando, O., Delgado Gordillo, J., Ramon Blasco
Puchades, J. and Portoles Grinan, L. (2011), “Additive layered manufacturing: sectors of
industrial application shown through case studies”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 1061-1079.
Pham, D. and Dimov, S.S. (2012), Rapid Manufacturing: The Technologies and Applications of Rapid
Prototyping and Rapid Tooling, Springer Science & Business Media, London.
Pham, D.T. and Gault, R.S. (1998), “A comparison of rapid prototyping technologies”, International
Journal of Machine Tools and Manufacture, Vol. 38 No. 10, pp. 1257-1287.
Reeves, P. (2008), “How rapid manufacturing could transform supply chains”, Supply Chain Quarterly,
Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 32-336.
Roberson, D.A., Espalin, D. and Wicker, R.B. (2013), “3D printer selection: a decision-making evaluation
and ranking model”, Virtual and Physical Prototyping, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 201-212.
Rosen, D.W. (2014), “Research supporting principles for design for additive manufacturing: this paper
provides a comprehensive review on current design principles and strategies for AM”, Virtual
and Physical Prototyping, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 225-232.
Ruffo, M. and Hague, R. (2007), “Cost estimation for rapid manufacturing simultaneous production of
mixed components using laser sintering”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, Vol. 221 No. 11, pp. 1585-1591.
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.
 JMTM Schubert, P., Fisher, J. and Leimstoll, U. (2007), “ICT and innovation in small companies”, ECIS,
28,1 pp. 1226-1239.
Skinner, W. (1974), “The focused factory”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 52, pp. 113-121.
Small, M.H. and Yasin, M.M. (1997), “Advanced manufacturing technology: implementation policy and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)

performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 349-370.

Tuck, C. and Hague, R. (2006), “The pivotal role of rapid manufacturing in the production of cost-
74 effective customised products”, International Journal of Mass Customisation, Vol. 1 Nos 2-3,
pp. 360-373.
Tuck, C., Hague, R. and Burns, N. (2006), “Rapid manufacturing: impact on supply chain methodologies
and practice”, International Journal of Services and Operations Management, Vol. 3 No. 1,
pp. 1-22.
Tuck, C.J., Hague, R.J., 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.
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S.R., Kuttalingam, D. and Rajanayagam, D. (2009), “Agility
through rapid prototyping technology in a manufacturing environment using a 3D printer”,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 20 No. 7, pp. 1023-1041.
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.
Waterman, N.A. and Dickens, P. (1994), “Rapid product development in the USA, Europe and Japan”,
World Class Design to Manufacture, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 27-36.
Weller, C., Kleer, R. and Piller, F.T. (2015), “Economic implications of 3D printing: market structure
models in light of additive manufacturing revisited”, International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 164, June, pp. 43-56.
Wittbrodt, B.T., Glover, A.G., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G.C., Oppliger, D., Irwin, J.L. and Pearce, J.M. (2013),
“Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D printers”,
Mechatronics, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 713-726.
Wohlers, T. (2012), Wohlers Report 2012, Wohlers Associates, Inc, Fort Collins.
Wohlers, T. and Caffrey, T. (2013), “Additive manufacturing: going mainstream”, Manufacturing
Engineering, Vol. 151 No. 6, pp. 67-73.
Yang, H. and Xue, D. (2003), “Recent research on developing web-based manufacturing systems:
a review”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 15, pp. 3601-3629.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications.
Yoon, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Kim, H.S., Kim, M.S., Kim, E.S., Shin, Y.J., Chu, W.Sh. and Ahn, S.H. (2014),
“A comparison of energy consumption in bulk forming, subtractive, and additive processes:
review and case study”, International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-
Green Technology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 261-279.

Further reading
ASTM (2010), “F2792-10e1 standard terminology for additive manufacturing technologies”, available at:
http://enterprise.astm.org/filtrexx40.cgi?+REDLINE_PAGES/F2792.htm (accessed May 2016).

Corresponding author
Mojtaba Khorram Niaki can be contacted at: khorram@dis.uniroma1.it

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
 This article has been cited by:

1. OrttJ. Roland J. Roland Ortt j.r.ortt@tudelft.nl Faculty of Technology Policy and Management
(TPM), Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands . 2017. Guest editorial. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management 28:1, 2-9. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITA DEGLI STUDI DI ROMA LA SAPIENZA, Doctor Mojtaba Khorram Niaki At 03:14 21 March 2017 (PT)