DfAM Consultant Q&A: The Eurowave Edition
DfAM Consultant Q&A: The Eurowave Edition
Exploring the European Wave of Design for Additive Manufacturing Consultants
The first wave of independent DfAM consultancies seem to be emerging out of Europe, so too, the first Q&A articles on the DfAM substack are with agencies based in Europe and the UK.
As mentioned in the previous post on The Rise of DfAM Consultancies, the fact that we are starting to see this type of independent consultancy, not tied explicitly to an existing hardware, materials or software vendor is a sign of a new level of maturity/immaturity of the adoption of additive manufacturing. (Though interestingly we are seeing them develop software that is informed by consulting, and used as a form of knowledge transfer to their clients.)
Common themes in the Q&A with the founders of these companies are:
Business case and engineering constraints equally weighed at the beginning of the consulting process.
A clean slate approach to DfAM yields the best results rather than just modifying an existing design for manufacturability.
The inability to share or talk about their most interesting projects and applications due to client confidentiality agreements.
Common misconceptions from clients on cost and quality based on previous experience and hype cycle disillusionment.
Optimisation, not optimization.
But first, below is a recap of the DfAM Q&A articles with Rhushik Matroja of Cognitive Design Systems, Marco Preziosa of Add+it as well as Manolis Papastavrou and Laurence Coles of Metamorphic AM.
Digging in on some of the common themes from the articles above:
Business case and engineering constraints equally weighed at the beginning of the consulting process.
Adopting any technology or manufacturing process to solve an engineering problem without simultaneously analyzing the entire cost of manufacture, post production and supply chain is a recipe for disaster, and additive manufacturing is no exception.
Some companies in the past have assumed that 3D printing is the magic bullet to all of their problems due to hyped up expectations based on deceptive marketing and misled journalists. The sticker shock of throwing an existing design at a 3D printer along with a lack of understanding of material properties has led to many broken AM dreams.
Using a consultant who has a deep understanding of the material and process constraints allows the cost, both financial and cognitive, to be considered at the very beginning of the assessment process. An agency that is agnostic of any particular material or process is free to advise engineering solutions without being incentivized to adopt a particular technology, or to recommend AM when it is really not the best solution.
Some consultants have developed internal and/or customer facing tools to help make the business case for adopting AM, and even allowing for an assessment and comparison of different materials and process to consider for a given application and engineering requirements.
In short, business case and engineering requirements are always considered in parallel based on the latest information.
A clean slate approach to DfAM yields the best results rather than just modifying an existing design for manufacturability.
There is a predilection to go for the most complex, critical component when adopting AM so that the internal champion can show their boss the massive impact AM can have in their organization so that they can get the approval and funding to continue to explore and employ AM. But these are also the hardest to execute and most likely to fail which could make it harder to get approval in the future.
I call it the Run, Fall, Crawl, Walk, Run method of AM adoption.
As Tim Simpson of Penn State has suggested, a layered approach to adopting AM is often the best way to proceed, and on the top layer, the clean slate, design for AM.
All of the consultants interviewed have been through many cycles of the layered approach, through numerous joyous failures that reveal much more about the limitations of physics of manufacturing that are not always evident on a data sheet.
This experience allows them to truly consider and engineering problem from first principles when given a clean slate to provide performance and value not possible when one is simply modifying an existing design to survive the manufacturing process. Sure, a lot can be achieved by light-weighting a component with an internal lattice structure or topology optimization, but this is not DfAM.
It is always best to start with a clean slate and abstract a lot of the design requirements into simple functions. This helps us challenge existing conventions and start broad when considering AM as a solution.
The inability to share or talk about their most interesting projects and applications due to client confidentiality agreements.
This is a common theme for consultants, as well as hardware, software and materials companies large and small, that their best work is never allowed to see light of day due to confidentiality agreements, trade secrets or (sadly) changes to budget allocation. It is a rare occasion when a company is willing to share their particular process or application unless it aligns with a specific marketing narrative.
Often it is early stage companies such as start-ups who are open to talking about their adoption of AM and expose their designs because it gives them the ability to better tell their story about being an early adopter of advanced and emerging manufacturing technology, while they are still small and agile enough that their speed allows them to stay ahead of competition who may have more stakeholders and bureaucratic hurdles.
SMEs are generally quicker and smarter than big corps, are used to sharp changes and more likely have the open-minded approach to the whole AM tale, they get the picture…
Common misconceptions from clients on cost and quality based on previous experience and hype cycle disillusionment.
Additive manufacturing machines, materials and processes have evolved a huge amount in the past 10 years. Those who were burnt by the initial hype cycle may be understandably reticent to risk returning to what was perceived as an immature, expensive and unreliable technology, even if they were only exposed to one process.
Millions of dollars and PhD hours have since been invested to mature the technology to the point that not every part will delaminate if you look at it wrong, shatter if you drop it or warp if exposed to any temperature fluctuation (ok, some still will).
The reliability of machines has improved with in process monitoring, parameter development and the serialization of machine production rather than each machine being unique.
Each of the interviewees role includes reeducation that some of the hype from 10 years ago might almost be true, except this time with actual data.
We use the real case studies from the industry leaders to show that additive can be a viable option. In other words, we provide them with our software Cognitive Additive, to do ‘fake news busting’ with some real data!
Optimisation, not optimization.
Also, the Metric system ;)
I would like to thank all of the consultants who took the time to answer my questions, it was interesting for me personally and I hope it was for you.
Thank you also for subscribing, please share with others who would be interested and please contact me if there is a DfAM topic you would like to see covered.
Oh, and check out some of the DfAM roles open at the moment.