How to Organize for Additive Production: AM Radio #42

Succeeding with additive manufacturing from a technical perspective has to be followed by succeeding with AM from an organizational perspective. Additive is a different production process entailing different enterprise, workflow and costing considerations, not to mention different personnel, communication and cultural considerations as well. In this episode of AM Radio, Dr. Tim Simpson and I talk about all of this: how to organize for success when additive manufacturing is the production process. Listen to the episode above, find it on any podcast app, or read the transcript below. 

Transcript

Peter Zelinski  00:05

Succeeding with additive manufacturing from a technical perspective has to be followed by adopting the platform and using it on an ongoing basis, a different challenge. How does a company organize for additive manufacturing, that's on this episode of AM Radio.

Jodee McElfresh  00:29

This episode of AM Radio is brought to you by Formnext Forum, Austin, the first of a series of Formnext events coming to the United States, find more information at Formnextforum.com.

Peter Zelinski  00:43

Welcome to AM Radio, the show where we tune in to what's happening in additive manufacturing. I'm joined again by Tim Simpson of Penn State University. Hi, Tim.

Tim Simpson  00:51

Hey, Pete, thanks for having me back.

Peter Zelinski  00:53

Glad to. Here's what I want to talk about. And it's kind of a big picture topic, as big as the enterprises that are using additive. So we know additive manufacturing is not a plugin replacement for other manufacturing processes. And one consequence of that, one implication of that is additive is going to have its own facilities, operations that are built around additive, just like we've seen with other processes. You know, casting is done in foundries and machining is done in machine shops. And we're seeing all kinds of examples of this. I think of Keselowski Advanced Manufacturing as an example of a manufacturer built around additive and so organized differently, functioning differently, we're watching company Zeda is building a big additive facility close to where I am here in Cincinnati. And as we're recording this, we recently put out an issue of Additive Manufacturing Magazine that is about these new additive manufacturing factories built around proprietary processes. And in that issue, we covered Norsk Titanium, Seurat, VulcanForms, companies, facilities built around additive. So, what that kind of points to is the need for companies succeeding with additive as a next step to organize around additive, and it has become an enterprise organizational issue. And, and I wonder, Tim, where you start with that? Or what you've seen, like, is there an example you've seen of, of a company struggling through that? Succeeding with additive and making parts, but then having to make the next step to turn it into a more enterprise-wide, a more organized system for production?

Tim Simpson  02:40

Great question, Pete. And I think it's interesting, the couple of companies that you've mentioned there, right, these are sort of all new startups that can create entirely new factories all based around additive manufacturing. I've been following, working with VulcanForms for a while now and watching their capabilities grow, just are are phenomenal. Buying a warehouse, building machines from start to scratch, right, integrating everything in and shifting to, I think, they're really pushing this notion of digital production. Right. So if, you know, Henry Ford ushered in the era of mass production, right, are these additive companies now ushering in the area of digital production? I guess we will wait and see. As that comes in, of course, the previous episode there talking about the challenges of cybersecurity when we're digital, right? I mean, this all fits together. I think the counter example, or perhaps the more challenging example is how do you do this within an established firm? Right? And so do you tear down your whole factory and rebuild new, right? Do you just drop some additive machines on your factory floor? Do you have to have a whole separate space? And I think to the topic of this podcast, it's really about how do you organize, you know, ultimately, who's paying for what with inside a company? Right? And so you look at aerospace company, automotive and others. I'm seeing now in some of the trainings that we're doing, and the companies that we're talking to, is there is this evolution, right? It's sort of additive is moving from sort of the R&D, can we produce parts to now? How do we shift to production? And as we're doing that, uh-oh, is corporate funding this out of some R&D budget that's created a center of excellence that everybody can tap into? Or does, you know, one of the business units have to figure out how to make a viable business case to then justify the capital investment to get the ROI for X number of additive machines? And so that's often where companies struggle when they're shifting from say, one or two machines to do R&D and try it out to now, Oh, I need 20 machines, 30, 40, 50 machines. Where am I going to put them, how am I going to staff them, right, the operators, technicians, how am I going to fund these things? Awareness so that now all of my designers and engineers are thinking about designing parts for additive for these machines. And so that's often where I come into a lot with some of the training and workshops that I do is oh, if we want to increase the use of additive manufacturing within the company, we've got to start designing parts for additive manufacturing. Okay, well, now there's an awareness among all the engineers and designers, there's awareness among all the material and process folks, right. There's awareness, project managers, there's awareness, the operators and technicians, QA, QC, testing, so that's all organization. Right. That's people. I think, to your point here, we've, we've moved beyond the technology. Yes, is here, is ready. And now the question is, are the people ready? And if not, how are we going to get them ready?

Peter Zelinski  05:46

So yeah, there's a lot in there, we should say. So Tim, for, for our listeners who don't know, you are a professor of additive manufacturing, you're working with students, but in other capacities, you're working with companies, you're part of The Barnes Global Advisors, you're also a co-leader of the facility at Penn State, Center for Innovative Material Processes through Direct Digital Deposition, right, CIMP3D, got it. Maybe the longest standing institutional acronym in additive manufacturing.

Tim Simpson  06:20

I didn't come up with it. But I was stuck with it. And we're using it. And I'm just happy early on, people were pronouncing it CHIMP3D. So you know, we've come a long way with CIMP3D.

Peter Zelinski  06:30

With CIMP3D, you work with companies who are trying to walk this out. And some of that, a lot of that, of course, is proprietary, but I wonder to the extent that you can, have you seen an example of this that comes to mind of a company that was trying to make this transition, discovering they can succeed with additive manufacturing, and then organizing themselves for that success?

Tim Simpson  06:50

I think this has played out successfully at multiple companies across multiple industries over the past 6, 7, 8 years, right. And so I'll create a parallel here between what I'm seeing in companies and sort of what happened at Penn State in a bit is sort of like CIMP3D comes on board, right. And now we've, we've got a couple of metal 3D printers, powder bed fusion, and DED, well how does our facility then serve other researchers or their faculty, other labs across campus? The Learning Factory is our senior design, they've got some polymer 3D printers, you know, this capability over here, and this, so, so in many ways, our departments and colleges at Penn State, we're geographically distributed, are like within a lot of companies, right? I've got capabilities here. I've got capabilities there. They're funded by different business units. So, so how do you then start cross-pollinating because I think the worst thing you want to do, or maybe not the worst, but the most expensive thing to do is to recreate and duplicate all of these capabilities everywhere. And so I think the companies that are smart are figuring out, Hey, what do I have within my distributed network? And that's both what do I have internally right in house, but also who within my supply chain has capabilities in additive or, you know, some of the postprocessing stuff, that now you need to start thinking in terms of a network. And if you can invest and build a whole new factory and have 100 machines in there printing out parts, it's a network play. And so you need to think about all the things that then go into that in terms of the agreements, security, who's where, knowledge, et cetera, et cetera, to really bring that to fruition.

Peter Zelinski  08:33

I want to break out some of the issues that you've touched in on, on what you said there. And one of them was this question of the capacity you have internally versus what is in the supply chain. So if an existing manufacturer is going to scale up with production additive manufacturing, that's an initial choice that has to be made. Is the capacity internal in my facility, or am I relying on a supplier? I would argue there are good reasons to do either one of those choices. Let's talk that out just a little bit. The advantages of doing additive manufacturing externally, relying on a supplier, I guess one of the advantages of that, that comes right to mind is the classic advantage of outsourcing. Somebody has to own the machines, somebody has to own the capital equipment, it's to an OEMs advantage to allow a supplier to do that.

Tim Simpson  09:26

Yeah, it doesn't, doesn't cost them, right? They just pay for the parts. They don't have to pay for the machine, the facility, the upkeep, etc, etc, etc. So, you certainly, many times when companies are first dabbling in additive, they're gonna go external, that's go and just get some parts made. Some ways it's easier to do that, it's a lower barrier to entry now with again, all of the Protolabs, the Zoma trees, the service bureaus that are out there, of course, the others that you mentioned earlier, so I think that's that's certainly an advantage. The downside though, of course, is that there's a lot of knowledge in understanding the process, build orientation support structures, postprocessing implications, etc., etc., that the sort of service providers right that do it all, the company, then the, the engineers, designers, M&P folks are not able to then learn as quickly, they only see whether it printed right or wrong. They don't know all the trials and tribulations and struggles to get that part made successfully with additive.

Peter Zelinski  10:26

Yeah, now you're talking about the advantage of having the production capacity internally, the additive capacity. And that knowledge, I think, is just the start of it. Additive is a manufacturing process that inherently wants to be close to the designer, because a lot of the promise of it has to do with the ability to iterate designs quickly, change designs, even for parts that are already in production if the market asks for that change. And then some of that knowledge that's developed, both for part design and process development becomes pretty valuable. And I think of Collins Aerospace, they have a, an additive production facility that they established in North Carolina. And it's strictly for the Collins Aerospace, internal use. But the reason they wanted their own capability internally, instead of relying on a supplier, there are many reasons, but the one that kept coming up in my conversations with them is IP, just intellectual property. Some of their additive parts are very simple on the outside and very complicated on the inside. And they can protect a lot just by not letting suppliers have access to building them and seeing how they, how they're made. Otherwise, the only way to get the access to that design is to somehow intercept it from the customer and cut it open like it is really possible to protect the geometry. And then even if the part itself is pretty simple, you refer to the knowledge that's developed. Sometimes the unusual way you think about a support structure strategy or an orientation of the part, sometimes there's real efficiency or precision improvement that flows out of that that would be valuable intel to have and is valuable intel to protect. And all of that argues for doing additive internally, it's inherently a process that just manifests and creates a lot of value all in one build.

Tim Simpson  12:23

I agree. I've heard several companies, right, that their support structure strategy is there's a lot of IP tied up in that because not only does that ensure that it prints properly, but then also sort of reducing time cost and effort for postprocessing. So, if you've got a way of having breakaway supports that anchor your part down, so it doesn't work, but then snap poppets off, and you got a clean finish? Well, yeah, that gives you a competitive advantage, right? Because you've just saved a grinding operation, you saved the setup, you saved this, that or the other and so additive, I think naturally given the state of it, has been bringing design and manufacturing close together again, we've talked about that with design for manufacturing over the years, right, just throw it over the wall, you can run into all sorts of issues, if you just throw your CAD design over the wall to be made with 3D printing, even though, Oh, 3D printing can print anything. Well, yeah, but it can be very expensive if you don't know what you're doing. And so there's a benefit right of having those two close together. And you look at now the example with with Collins, for instance, right? Collins is a business within a larger company within Raytheon. You look at like Boeing, for instance, and how they've sort of reorganized over the years and now with the Boeing additive manufacturing relative to all of the distributed sites, that one's doing rotorcraft, something else is doing helicopters, they're doing space you know, they're doing airframes, etc, etc. And so how does a company then, like a Collins, share that knowledge internal within their specific business unit, but then across the organization? Versus what does you know, somebody's in the medical industry or the nuclear industry, for example, that these highly regulated industries where that, that knowledge is all the more critical to getting high quality, certifiable parts made?

Peter Zelinski  14:17

You mentioned in larger organizations now, and that sort of points to this other very nuanced, but also very important issue in organizing additive for production, which is just the fundamental question of who pays for it and how it's costed within an organization. This is an issue whether the capacity is internal or external, additive, even if the capacity is entirely on the inside serves different parts of the organizations in different ways that among other things, like yeah, they create knowledge development challenges, boy, they create accounting challenges, too. Is an additive manufacturing machine just a part making resource, like a machine tool like a molding machine? Or is there more going on than that, that sort of shapes the way we think about costing?

Tim Simpson  15:08

I think we're just starting to scratch the surface on that when I think certainly there are companies that have picked this way versus that and are doing it. I've been talking to a lot of colleagues in the business school looking at supply chain models and cost models and those sorts of things trying to figure out, right, what is a good? What's a model to help company make that decision, right, there's not necessarily a clearcut strategy this way, or that. There are a lot of if, then, elses that that go into that decision. But certainly, then how you account for it and cost it out, is certainly going to have an impact, I mean, amortizing the cost of the printer. So we have to actually think about powder bed fusion, right, we have to put enough powder into fill, say a 10 inch by 10 inch build volume, a certain height when we ran those numbers, six inches of height, titanium powder, that was about $50,000 several years ago, right? But if I'm only making one little part on that plate, am I allocating all $50,000 to that one little part? Or can I reuse the powder? Right? And so how do we depreciate the powder cost, let alone the machine cost, let alone the consumables, let alone the gas, let alone this, that and the other? And so I think our traditional accounting systems of fixed cost and variable cost are struggling in many ways with how to do this right for additive.

Peter Zelinski  16:28

Yeah, so here's the other, here's the other thing, that metal part made additively through laser powder bed fusion, say is the unit cost of that part, really expensive or really cheap for what it's doing. And it depends on the context you place it in. Compared to an established scale, ongoing production part, the unit cost is apt to be very high, but if additive is being used for bridge production, say, and we did a whole past episode of this podcast on bridge production that we'll link to. If it's being used for bridge production, and that lets you get to market way faster than you otherwise would. And command market share, therefore, that you otherwise wouldn't get, then additive in that case, is it strictly a production method? Or is it a corporate go-to-market enabler that perhaps belongs in overhead rather than belongs in straight production costs? It gets weird.

Tim Simpson  17:27

It gets weird fast. Right? And I think that's that's one of the challenges is sort of, well what, what and why are you using additive, right, the value proposition for additive, if it's, if it's manufacturing, then yes, it needs to go head to head in terms of unit costs, right? But if it is speed and or these other aspects, then you know, we need to think about perhaps costing it and or valuing it differently from what we've been doing.

Peter Zelinski  17:50

So we've been talking about machines, capacity, costs, accounting, there's a another huge, big important aspect of this, which is the people. Let's talk about that after the break.

Jodee McElfresh  18:02

This episode of AM Radio is brought to you by Formnext Forum Austin, a new Formnext event coming to the US this summer. The conference and expo is organized by Mesago Messe Frankfurt, AMT, the Association for Manufacturing Technology, and Gardner Business Media, the publisher of Additive Manufacturing Media. Formnext Forum Austin is designed for leaders and owners of manufacturing enterprises, including companies already advancing with additive and those getting ready to adopt it. It's also for engineers engaging with additive technology and researchers who are advancing what is possible for AM to do. The conference program offers three tracks: production, powered by The Cool Parts Show; Design for Additive Manufacturing powered by CIMP3D and technology powered by Additive Manufacturing Media. The event also includes an expo featuring AM technology, tours of local additive manufacturers, and plenty of networking opportunities. And don't miss the finalists of The Cool Parts Showcase, the contest highlighting innovative 3D printed parts. Join Additive Manufacturing Media for Formnext Forum, August 28 through the 30th in Austin, Texas. Find more information about exhibiting, attending or sponsoring this event at Formnextforum.com.

Peter Zelinski  19:18

Welcome back, Pete Zelinski, Additive Manufacturing Media. I'm talking with Tim Simpson, professor of additive manufacturing at Penn State University. We are talking about the challenge and opportunity of organizing for production once additive proves itself as an effective process. The technical and practical challenges are just the beginning. Then there's the organizational and enterprise challenges. Where that conversation brought us to is a consideration of the people and I guess a basic decision point there, Tim, with additive for production, there's the question of whether the additive manufacturing team members should be part of the larger production team, or do they belong in a separate group, separate bubble that's somehow distinct from that team? And I think again, there's a there's a case to be made for either way.

Tim Simpson  20:20

Yeah, I think if, if we could crack that nut right, I think that's what so many companies are struggling with right now. I think I'll give credit to John Barnes there for our training, you know, talks about additive as a team sport. And so you need the engineer, the designer, the M&P, the QC, QA, QC, etc, etc, right? You need all of these because there's so much expertise, so many different perspectives that we need, given the current state of additive, right, because we're learning as we go, and many cases here that you need those folks directly involved working alongside manufacturing, the, the engineers, the designers and those sorts of things. So it's tough to put all that knowledge in one person's head, let alone, you know, two or three individuals. And so how do you team them up? How long do they stay together? How long do they work alongside each other? I think these are all very important questions right now that a lot of companies are really struggling with.

Peter Zelinski  21:15

Right, I, in teeing that up, I described putting the additive team in a bubble, that was the wrong way to say it. But you're drawing out the distinctive challenge of additive, which is the need to interact more frequently and directly with all these other stakeholders in the process. Other production methods don't have that quite so much. Once production gets rolling, there is a system to it, a discipline to it, procedures to it that allow a production team to be a unified body doing that production. Additive loses a lot of its possibility and a lot of its mojo if it can't interconnect with designers, with logistics, because it's serving all of those needs, interconnecting with assembly in the way that additive frequently looks for opportunities to steer around assembly or minimize the impact of assembly and those conversations need to be happening. Plus, there's also the issue of additive is just dealing with considerations that the other production processes, the legacy processes that might be ongoing and succeeding in a facility just aren't dealing with all of that kind of argues for keeping additive separate, yet keeping additive separate introduces some cultural challenges.

Tim Simpson  22:32

So does production with additive make additive boring? Is that what you're saying, here, Pete? Is, by the time we get to that stage, that it's just cranking out parts, like any other process, because I agree with you, the fun stuff happens when we're, when we're trying to, you know, consolidate parts and lightweight parts and, and bring the designers and engineers together to, you know, do all the cool stuff that additive enables. But once we've done that, and then we go into production, does it get boring again?

Peter Zelinski  22:59

So that's a good question. So none of it is boring. And nothing about, nothing about production is boring. And these processes all draw on different kinds of expertise. But I think I'm saying, and it's a little different, additive manufacturing can't be allowed to be routine-ized in the same way that other processes can be. Additive manufacturing can be systemized, but part of the system has to be ongoing checking in and conversation with other stakeholders in the inner enterprise, because additive could respond in real time to feedback coming out of design, or coming out of processing needs downstream. Couldn't respond in real time to feedback coming out of machining. This feature is really hard to machine. Okay, let's rethink the design of the part and the support to ameliorate that. We can do that in additive, because we're not hard tool. And we're not following a routine and there's not a big price to pay for a design change. So there's, there is a system to additive, there's a routine to additive, but the routine has to look way different, and have communication opportunities built into it. And so that gets back to one of the earliest points we made in this conversation. It can't serve as a drop in, plug in replacement for other operations. It needs an entirely different way of organization around it.

Tim Simpson  24:30

Yeah, it needs it. It's a different way of thinking. And I think you've raised a good point there, right? If, with mass production, you're making that same part over and over again, right? It's all about volume because you're trying to amortize the tooling cost as long as possible, etc, etc. And so any change that you make is very expensive. And I think perhaps going back to what we said earlier, right as we shift from mass production to again, let's call it digital production. Now, the ability to respond and be flexible almost in real time on the production line there is is something that we can now do with additive, okay, let's, let's change this, let's tweak this, let's resize the file and do better process parameters and you know, change those support structures or whatever the case is. And so the ability to be more responsive, be more flexible, be more agile, I think is certainly an advantage to, to additive and creates new opportunities. I liked your characterization of sort of the routinized versus systematize. Right? I think certainly, it is production, right? And so you do need to be very systematic and very thoughtful about it, etc, etc. Let's tie that back to the people question, now, right is, who then are the individuals that are operating, you know, these additive manufacturing machines? And I think that's been one of the challenges with this transition to larger companies is who's, who's originally in, in their, say, a center of excellence that's funded by corporate. It's, let's say PhD students and metallurgists, right, that are there running the machines and learning and doing all of this, you're not going to have PhDs running things on a production line, we got to get down to operators and technicians and those sorts of things. It's a different skill set being on the line versus what you need in say in an R&D capacity there. And so I think that goes back to getting organized, Oh, well, we need to now hire different sets of individuals with different skill sets. And I think that's been a real challenge is where do we find these people? So a student coming out of university, for example, who's run some material extrusion systems and made some polymer parts, right, you're not going to put him or her on the line running a metal laser or powder based system with, you know, all the EHS and PPE and everything else, they haven't had any exposure to that. So we're going to start seeing more, more demand for and more specialization as we industrialize additive to having the right workforce to enable that.

Peter Zelinski  24:32

Listening to you describe that I think about the way that additive takes root and succeeds in some of these larger companies. There's, there's generally a very small team to start including one or a small number who act as evangelists for the technology and look for opportunities for it. And yeah, are oftentimes directly overseeing the machines and seeing to the actual part production. You're describing as part of the organizational effort, these very knowledgeable evangelists, at some point, production scales up to a point where they have to translate what they know into a training regime for technicians the company brings in to staff their additive production.

Tim Simpson  27:00

I think you're absolutely right. So yes, in terms of you, right, you have the center of excellence with a couple of folks that are in there, they then start evangelizing they have that knowledge now in their heads. And so how are they translating that? How are they sharing that? And so, we were fortunate one of my former PhD students, Jen Bracken Brennan was interning at Westinghouse a couple of summers ago, right. So she was as part of her PhD, was going in and was able to work with four or five different companies that were trying to implement, are in the process of adopting additive. And so in this case, there were a couple of folks at Westinghouse that were, that were the evangelists, right? And everybody was coming to them with questions. Should I print this? Should I print that? Should I do this, and they were like, all of a sudden, when, when people find out you're the evangelist and the additive expert, every ,everybody comes to you, I've seen this happen at other organizations, too. So actually, what she ended up doing was creating a worksheet with like, the top eight or nine pain points of things to check for if you're trying to use this part with laser powder bed fusion, you know, here's the key things to look at and put it in a simple Excel spreadsheet that now actually I've seen used at other companies, it's been very fulfilling and rewarding to, to go in and be doing a training at a completely different industry and be like, Oh, yeah, we use, saw that worksheet, we use that. So that's, that's phenomenal. But she ended up, and what Westinghouse ended up doing, was co-investing with Penn United, which actually runs and operates the laser powder bed fusion systems, and then Penn United can also use that for other jobs. Right. So, so, it was sort of this, it wasn't fully in house, but it wasn't fully, you know, outsourced either. It was sort of this integrated amalgamation that then was synergistic with everybody that was involved. But that was a fairly novel approach I thought for, for overcoming some of these hurdles from an investment standpoint, from a people standpoint and an expertise standpoint.

Peter Zelinski  27:46

Yeah, the people in expertise, so a minute ago, we were talking about training potential technicians, you're, you're illustrating with that DFAM worksheet example, training of the potential adopters has to come, come even earlier than that as as an interim step in the way toward greater production.

Tim Simpson  29:54

Yeah, using additive just because the other part is late or something else is late. You can get by with once or twice, but right, that's not a sustainable long term business plan. You know, seven, eight years ago, certainly it was right because that technology was so darn expensive. And so you're making, you know, a multimillion dollar commitment to buy a machine, get it in, get it installed, get it hooked up, get it trained, etc, etc. And so now you look at companies like Xact Metal and others that have lowered that barrier to entry, right, lowered the cost to get in there. And now, it's a little bit easier to sort of dabble in it without making that big investment. And then, of course, all of the service bureaus and external companies that we've talked about, make it accessible as well to try it out versus having to spend internal. And so I think that has shifted, and companies where it's clear, yet we've got a business case, let's go, they make the investment. But other companies that I've seen are still just as savvy, because they've, they've identified a partner a couple of parts, they've sort of run the numbers, and they know the sensitivities, right? Oh, if material costs come down this much, or oh, if my build rate goes up this much, or this factor comes down this much. Now it's time to go in. And so I think we understand the technology and the processes and everything else, we understand the cost well enough, we can't account for them. But we can understand, we can understand them enough to know when it makes sense. And or sit on the sidelines and sort of figure out when when's the right time to jump in. And I think that's much more clear than it was, you know, 6, 7, 8 years ago.

Peter Zelinski  30:03

Yeah, I guess there's one other aspect of this, I want to explore. And it's something distinctive to additive and where it is right now, which is that additive is still moving, the technology is still changing, there are plenty of manufacturers who have waited to adopt or are waiting to adopt to just kind of watch and see where the technology goes next. Is technology change a barrier to adoption, a, a reason to wait a significant period of time before advancing with additive? It's challenging right now, because additive is a new method of production. But it's then the challenge is increased because the numbers are changing. You mentioned Xact Metal, they do offer a way into laser powder bed fusion for a much lower price of entry than was possible before. And that that changes a lot. I guess I think of Eaton has an additive manufacturing facility in South Carolina that they established. And in talking to the leadership of that facility, that they're sort of moving forward with a deliberate open expectation of technology change. There are deliberately right now, various metal additive platforms and processes from different vendors. And they're, they're trying to get, develop real competence at all of them. But then part of the ongoing plan is they will focus in on one platform or process that seems to be the most cost effective for the class of parts they're making, recognizing that that might be a platform, perhaps from a vendor, perhaps that isn't even on the radar right now. Because of some significant technology change, say five years in the future.

Tim Simpson  33:21

Yeah. And we've certainly seen, you know, different approaches over the years, right, you look at like a Morf3D, 3DEO companies that are going to really hone in on on a process and a material and just and be the best at it. Right. And they've been successful in doing that. And they found their niche, versus, you know, what you're describing with, with Eaton and others say, and so yeah, again, that additive is not a one size fits all, right, I think that's been the challenge. We've got our seven different buckets based on ASTM, we've got tens to hundreds of different variations. I think of that chart, came out on LinkedIn a couple of weeks ago, I forget, I forget who was sharing that, right. But it was all the logos of all the companies and just, there's a lot out there. It's not just like pick one machine and go it's you got to pick a family and technologies and within that, within that, within that, within that, that, and the others and so that I think we're, those of us in additive don't appreciate how complex it is to others outside of the field. And so it's not just buy this machine and put this material in and go, because it depends so much on it goes back to that value proposition, right. What is it that you're trying to use when, where and how within that and that might be this reason today and a very different reason tomorrow.

Peter Zelinski  34:34

The chart you're describing all these different additive providers that was developed by Anwaa. We'll we'll link to that in the show description. Yeah, additive. Additive manufacturing is a broad, broad term describing a lot and describing a lot of areas where technology has advanced. There's an extent, too, though where the technology has begun to stabilize or is stabilizing. I think we both see that, Tim, and that in itself changes the adoption equation.

Tim Simpson  35:05

Yeah, I agree, I think and point to your comment from what was it Rapid or Formnext a couple of years ago, right? It was like, oh, there's not as many big wows, there's certainly big wows still that are out there. But it's, it's oh, you know, I'm gonna, I'm gonna add some more lasers, I've got a little better powder spreading, I've got better control of gas crossflow. Right. So we're sort of, we're sort of at the fine tune stage with a lot of these processes. Although that doesn't mean that somebody can't come out of left field with, you know, with an entirely different process, is going to transform everything. So we're getting to more stable architectures and solutions within the fundamental processes. But like any other technology, there's still going to be all sorts of new developments and new innovations sort of on the periphery in the perimeter that we certainly need to keep an eye out and watch out for.

Peter Zelinski  35:50

Yeah,getting to the point of incremental advances of these different technologies makes them look a lot more like established production processes. A lot to consider. Succeeding with additive manufacturing from a technical basis making parts successfully and consistently is just the beginning. Then there are all the questions around succeeding with it on an ongoing basis in production. I want to say thank you to Tim Simpson, who's joined us on several episodes as a team member now on AM Radio. This is the sixth episode he's appeared in. If you enjoy Tim's perspective, and this is the first time you've heard him on the show, we're gonna link to all of the other episodes he appeared in as well, give them a listen. If you enjoy the show, please subscribe. Tell a friend about it. Tell a coworker, give us a five-star rating, it really helps us. And if you want to learn more, read more, watch more about additive manufacturing, the technology, how it's being applied, how it's succeeding, subscribe to our newsletter The BuildUp twice a week we send it out. It's created by the team of Additive Manufacturing Media. And you can learn how to subscribe at additivemanufacturing.media. Thanks for listening. AM Radio is recorded with help from Austin Grogan. The show is edited by Jodee McElfresh and Stephanie Hendrixson. Our artwork is by Kate Schrand. AM Radio and Additive Manufacturing Media are products of Gardner Business Media located in Cincinnati, Ohio. I'm Pete Zelinski. Thanks for listening

Peter Zelinski