Targeted Healthcare Production: Where is it needed most?

3DP-RDM is one of six re-distributed manufacturing networks that are running for the next two years, with each of these networks organising workshops and competitions for feasibility studies.

The Re-distributed Manufacturing in Healthcare Network (RiHN) is one of the other five networks. It is led by Dr Wendy Phillips at the University of the West of England, with Dr Dharm Kapletia acting as Network Coordinator.

Their first workshop, “Targeted Healthcare Production: Where is it needed most?”, is being run on 26th March in Bristol. The event features a keynote address by Professor Sir Mark Walport, the UK Government’s Chief Scientific Advisor, along with two sandpit sessions. Registration for the event is available here.

 

Advertisements

3DP-RDM Scoping Workshop – Discussion Activity 2 Outputs

The 3DP-RDM Scoping Workshop of 30th January 2015 featured two distinct discussion activities. The entire process is described in the presentation slides from the day and the output of the first discussion activity is provided here. This post summarises the process and outputs of the second discussion activity, which involved structured discussions around the selected priority research topics, and identification and development of concepts for potential feasibility studies.

A process for identifying and developing feasibility study ideas

Following the outputs of the prioritisation process, participants were invited to join in groups of 4-5 people to explore one of the prioritised topics. This resulted in the creation of the eight groups listed below. As one of the topics “How will value be created and captured in 3DP-RDM economy?” was so popular, it was determined that two groups would explore this in parallel.

Group Topic
1 Material supply chain
2 Standards + Compatibility + Regulation + Certification
3 Reconfiguring supply chain: will consumers become prosumers?
4 Software and conceptual infrastructure
5 How will value be created and captured in 3DP-RDM economy?
6 Who owns/shares designs in 3DP-RDM hubs?
7 How will value be created and captured in 3DP-RDM economy?
8 Business models

Once the groups were determined, each began to complete the template shown below. Through following the steps in this template, members of the group first got to know each other better and to understand each others’ research experience and interest, before beginning to explore what research could be conducted within the chosen topic. Having generated some ideas about possible research needs or research questions, each group then chose three to explore in greater depth, considering how these could be addressed though feasibility studies. A final step in the process was to decide which of these three feasibility studies was most important, with them being ranked 1, 2 and 3 in decreasing order of importance.

Activity 2

The template used in the second discussion activity, with Post-it notes to illustrate its use

Outputs of the second discussion activity

The raw data generated from each of these discussions is presented below. Using the template is a stimulus for discussion and only some of this discussion is captured on the Post-it notes. As such this data should not be considered as a complete picture of each group’s discussions but gives a flavour of what was discussed.

Group 1: Material supply chain
Participants Background and research interest
Ian Hutchings Materials science
Adrian Addison Manufacturing
Large metallic 3D printing
Alireza Tavakoli Manufacturing + logistics
Adam Ellis Polymers, high speed sintering
Material development

Areas of possible research

  • Dual sourcing of materials essential for robust process/business model
  • Security of supply
  • Effect of significant increase in demand on existing raw material supply chain
  • Exploration of new, cheaper sources of feedstock (currently very restricted)
  • Localised, small-scale production of feedstock
  • Local recycling of materials ‘in-process’ as feedstock for 3DP

Feasibility study idea #1
What should be investigated?
Analyse existing feedstock supply chain: who, where, how, why?
Why should it be investigated? To inform: policy, investment; To identify: weaknesses, security issues, opportunity
How should it be investigated? Create example situations and interview stakeholders: 3DP user, material suppliers, end product OEM, regulators, manufacturing process experts
Priority rank 1

Feasibility study idea #2
What should be investigated? Analyse techs for producing feedstock in small scale
Why should it be investigated? To enable distributed manufacture of feedstock and local recycling and reclamation of materials
How should it be investigated? Exploration of existing and potential processes to convert known waste/local material into desired quantity feedstock
Priority rank 2

Feasibility study idea #3
What should be investigated? Development of materials specifically for use in 3DP e.g. Alloys, composites, polymers
Why should it be investigated? Existing feedstock is not proven to be optimised for 3DP
How should it be investigated? In depth study of the material properties and microstructural models with practical validation
Priority rank 3

Group 2: Standards + Compatibility + Regulation + Certification
Participants Background and research interest
Jane Ho Standards innovation
Alex Price British standards in AM standards
Eujin Pei ISO technical committee, WG4
Peter Jarritt NIHR-HTC brain injury, medical devices, BSI Comm Chair

Areas of possible research

  • Not just standard, Good practice, Guides, Frameworks
  • Traceability
  • Product testing and validation for application
  • Risk + Health + Safety management
  • Ethics + liability
  • Materials compatibility (human)
  • Interoperability, Compatibility, Interface
  • International compatibility – FDA/MHRA etc

Feasibility study idea #1
Title
Design a testing chain to proof product verification
What should be investigated?
Agreed methodology
Why should it be investigated?
Support safety + risk management
How should it be investigated?
Industry led, best practice review
Priority rank
2

Feasibility study idea #2
Title
Risk + liability management model
What should be investigated?
Adequacy of existing frameworks
Why should it be investigated?
Enables adoption in ‘safe’ manner. Clarifies ethics
How should it be investigated?
Regulations, insurance
Priority rank
3

Feasibility study idea #3
Title
Interoperability of manufacturing + software
What should be investigated?
Can we write/agree a standard
Why should it be investigated?
Support digital manufacturing
How should it be investigated?
Tech committee
Priority rank
1

Group 3: Reconfiguring supply chain: will consumers become prosumers?
Participants Background and research interest
Rachel Andrews Healthcare
Personalised products
Tim Minshall Open innovation
3DP diffusion
Andrew Triantaphyllou MTC
Design for AM
Sophie Jones New supply chains
Economics

Areas of possible research

  • Differences between materials e.g. Polymers, metals
  • Define prosumer in e.g. Medical (prosthetics, splints), orthotics
  • What are the characteristics of SC for: consumer, prosumer, professional?
  • Business models; Do consumers monetise designs? Why would you do it?
  • Liability of consumer creation
  • Data ownership if consumer creates?
  • Economic effects of consumer involvement on materials, machine and software
  • Understanding impact of releasing data to consumers
  • Is QA needed in prosumer medical?
  • Skills

Feasibility study idea #1
What should be investigated?
What are the drivers of prosumer activity in medical devices? Social, economic and psychological
Why should it be investigated?
No one has done this!
How should it be investigated?
Devise specific case studies (e.g. Prosthetics)
Priority rank
2

Feasibility study idea #2
What should be investigated?
What are barriers in SC that prevent consumer involvement in 3DP-RDM (Pick sector e.g. Spare parts), SC = raw material extraction, materials processing, supply to prosumer, data to machine, manufacturing, distribution, use, end of life
Why should it be investigated?
To enable / what needs addressing
How should it be investigated?
Survey of manufacturers and users – before/now/future
Priority rank
1

Feasibility study idea #3
What should be investigated?
In prosumer market, “What is value of releasing data?”
How should it be investigated?
Jewelry case, movies/CGI
Priority rank
3

Group 4: Software and conceptual infrastructure
Participants Background and research interest
Oleg Fryazinov Geometric modelling
Software /tools/animation
Dominik Deradjat Production engineering
Technology management
Valery Adzhiev AM-adequate conceptual and software
Meurig Beynon Software and conceptual infrastructure
Phill Dickens AM processes

Areas of possible research

  • Research for AM-friendly modelling and manufacturing (methods, tools, software)
  • Need for a novel intermediate level format instead of the inadequate STL
  • Research the way we design things conceptually suitable for AM rather than subtractive technologies supported by conventional CAD
  • Customisation requires highly parameterised model to tune them for particular needs
  • Custom design: why, how?
  • Redistribution of “template design” parameterised model is available at home, shops, etc. To customise it
  • This is redistribution of design abilities, manufacturing capabilities etc –> Re-distributed infrastructure

Feasibility study idea #1
What should be investigated?
How do people interact with new CAD tools allowing volume modelling? How do these tools interact with the design world?
Why should it be investigated?
Gap between design world and manufacturing world
How should it be investigated?
Feasibility study for prospects of CAD based on volume modelling (internal structure with different properties)
Priority rank
2

Feasibility study idea #2
What should be investigated?
Is it possible to address the gap between manufacturing and design processes?
Why should it be investigated?
The gap between manufacturing and design on user side
How should it be investigated?
Comparative studies of various existing/new technologies. Case study: different situation in maker design, what effects will come given new technologies.
Priority rank
2

Feasibility study idea #3
What should be investigated?
What is the whole design infrastructure and how does it change given the users? Adaptive design infrastructure
Why should it be investigated?
Feedback between customers on the design side and on the manufacturing side
How should it be investigated?
Case study-based
Priority rank
1

Group 5: How will value be created and captured in 3DP-RDM economy?
Participants Background and research interest
Jonathan Edelman BG: Design, Design + manufacturing, Design theory + methodology; RI: Design driven entrepreneurship
James Tooze Design, Manufacturing (SME), Digital fabrication, Makespace, Circular economy
Adam Kowalski Improved functionality, Mass customisation, Low-cost high volume
Véronique Sauret-Jackson Medical applications (imaging, diagnostic, implants, surgical guides), Risk with changes on manufacturing methods, Economies or hype, Marketing value “it is 3D printed”, How do you differentiate your products (apart from design)

Areas of possible research

  • CYCLE: Process → Material or component → Product → Material of component → etc.
  • Models for creating value
  • Other? Production on High Street

Feasibility study idea #1
Title
Driver for RDM
What should be investigated?
What makes sense? Price / functionality, Urgency
Why should it be investigated?
Proximity, context, time. Durable or consumable product?

Feasibility study idea #2
Title
Supply & recovery chain
What should be investigated?
Manufacturer: Added value of production, Recapture material, Low/no stock
Why should it be investigated?
Less out-sourcing

Feasibility study idea #3
Title
Franchise production
What should be investigated?
The concept of franchise production
Why should it be investigated?
(1) End-user co-create: their choice/design, on demand. (2) More knowledge of material sourcing: warranty & authenticity. (3) Brand: direct relationship engagement with customers, parts/products. (4) Proprietary materials/parts: marketing value.

Group 6: Who owns/shares designs in 3DP-RDM hubs?
Participants Background and research interest
Margaret Haig IPO
Ludmila Striukova Innovation management, IP
Dinusha Mendis Intellectual property

Areas of possible research

  • Open source or free-sharing of design as business strategy
  • Line between inspiration and copying, 3D scanning (copyright AND design rights)
  • Does there need to be a new IP right?
  • Hubs + mass-customisation/modification/alteration
  • Different value chain & co-creation → co-ownership
  • Business model choice e.g. my little pony operating through shapeways →  IP management
  • Crowd-sourcing + co-creation
  • Hubs as part of new RDM
  • Business models working with IP
  • What business models complement IP? It should be an opportunity, not a barrier.

Feasibility study idea #1
What should be investigated?
IP implementations of mass-customisation enabling freedom: ownership + management
Why should it be investigated?
Liability – ownership/authorship, Revenues, IP management: protection/exploitation
How should it be investigated?
Analysing online platforms
Priority rank
3

Feasibility study idea #2
What should be investigated?
B2B co-creation
Why should it be investigated?
Ownership, impact on supply chain, quality and traceability
How should it be investigated?
Small-scale case study with legal & business/economic implications
Priority rank
2

Feasibility study idea #3
What should be investigated?
Crowd-sourcing as complement to IP
Why should it be investigated?
New business models (use crowds to create value, risks/costs, Facebook prob/losing control
How should it be investigated?
Analysing online platform for crowdsourced data for legal & economic evidence + business models
Priority rank
1

Group 7: How will value be created and captured in 3DP-RDM economy?
Participants Background and research interest
Pieter Knook Entrepreneurship opportunities
Jonathan Rowley Running an industrial 3D printing bureau
Letizia Mortara Understanding who will need/how they will need to change RM
Roger Maull Economic models in digital

Areas of possible research

  • Value of objects unique – is repeatable – possible counterfeit
  • Protection, verification and localised manufacturing
  • How could a multi-purpose machine lead to a variety of business models?
  • Useless, valueless trinkets
  • What types of “value”?
  • Personalised object
  • Skills: re-education to understand the variety of outcomes → items of value

Feasibility study idea #1
What should be investigated?
Parts manufactured locally. How would we configure a supply chain which makes the business model work? How can local economies/geographies take advantage of the 3DP tech?
Why should it be investigated?
Verification and trust of retail providers
Priority rank
2

Feasibility study idea #2
What should be investigated?
Quality value vs personal value
Why should it be investigated?
Understanding the limits of the value by quality vs personalised
How should it be investigated?
Case studies and archetypes
Priority rank
3

Feasibility study idea #3
What should be investigated?
Analysis of the economics of 3DP vs subtractive. Where is the threshold now? Where was it 10 years ago? How did it move? Why? What will 3D printing be worth?
Priority rank
1

Group 8: Business models
Participants Background and research interest
Paolo Aversa Business models, Network of firms, Innovation
Chander Velu Business model innovation research
Mark Wilson Potential business models in the pharmaceuticals sector
Thierry Rayna Digital economy, Business models, Ecosystems
Ben Earley Science & Public policy

Areas of possible research

  • How do the 3 uses of 3D printing affect BM design (rapid tooling, rapid prototyping, direct manufacturing)
  • How public policy could influence BM?
  • How setting targets influence BM development?
  • What new products & business skills will AM enable?
  • What BM will these require?
  • Near-term / Long-term
  • Other technology changes enabling new products (e.g. big data, genomics)

Feasibility study idea #1
What should be investigated?
Historical analysis of digitization and foresight on 3D & RDM
How should it be investigated?
Historical literature review → Theoretical framework
Priority rank
1

Feasibility study idea #2
What should be investigated?
The interplay between BM (firm) & economic policy on 3DP & RDM
How should it be investigated?
Analysis of scenarios using BM frameworks
Priority rank
2

Feasibility study idea #3
What should be investigated?
How do new 3D-tech enables new BM that are based on a reconfiguration of the supply chain?
How should it be investigated?
Theory + case studies (interviews) → Typology of possible scenarios
Priority rank
3

Acknowledgements

This workshop and its reporting could not have been possible without the work of many others. Special thanks go to Jo Griffiths for supporting the organisation of the event, to Samantha Selvini and Dominik Deradjat for photo and video documenting the workshop, and to Dr Mélanie Despeisse for assisting in the production of this report.

Creating the UK Additive Manufacturing Strategy

UK Additive Manufacturing National Strategy Event

“to maximise UK business growth and long term economic value in the successful industrialisation of Additive Manufacturing”

Would you like to influence the scope and shape of the UK Additive Manufacturing Strategy?

Representatives are needed from industrial sectors and supporting organisations to highlight their use of AM/3D Printing now, what their future use will be and what the barriers currently are.

To find out more about this event, please click here.

If you require additional information, please contact Donna Cope at donna@am-conference.com.

3DP-RDM Scoping Workshop – Discussion Activity 1 Outputs

The 3DP-RDM Scoping Workshop of 30th January 2015 featured two distinct discussion activities. The entire process is described in the presentation slides from the day. This post summarises the process and outputs of the first discussion activity, which concerned the identification of priority research topics.

A process for identifying priority research topics

On arrival at the workshop, participants were assigned to tables to create multi-disciplinary groups of 5-6. For the first discussion activity the seven groups created were given the task of answering the question: “What are the research issues at the intersection of 3D printing and re-distributed manufacturing?” They were given pens, Post-it notes and the template shown in the figure below to structure the discussion.

Activity 1The template used in the first discussion activity, with Post-it notes to illustrate its use

Towards the end of their discussions, the groups were instructed to identify the top five topics that they thought needed to be investigated. The groups then described these topics to the other groups as the Post-it notes detailing these  were placed onto a larger ‘landscape’ map that everyone could see. Where possible, similar topics were clustered together on the map. Then with each group having identified their top five topics, these Post-its were placed onto the map until all 35 were posted.

The final stage in the identification of priority research topics was to allow participants to vote for those topics they considered most necessary to be investigated through feasibility studies during this first year of the network. Each participant was given five dot stickers that they could place on five different topics on the landscape map.

Outputs of the prioritisation process

The following table summarises the list of 35 research topics that groups identified and the number of votes that each received during the prioritisation. Some of the topics were clustered prior to voting and the six clusters are also numbered.

Group

Comment Votes Cluster

2

Standards + compatibility + regulation + certification // avoidance + convergence?

12

1

6

How will value be created and captured in the 3DP-RDM economy?

12

4

7

To research gap between hardware (very advanced) and design methods and tools: there is no CAD conceptually suitable for AD

11

3

5

Reconfiguring supply chain: consumers becoming prosumers, ownership?

11

5

3

Software requirements and infrastructure in redistributed environment. How is it accessed?

11

5

Liability & IPR: traceability, certification

8

2

3

Material supply chain – how structured and delivered?

8

6

1

“Facebook problem” Who owns/shares design in re-distributed 3DP hubs?

8

6

Changing business models in response to changes in value chain

6

4

1

High volume customisation (e.g. Magnum ice creams made locally)

6

4

New products with enhanced capabilities

6

4

Trade off between localised and centralised? When? Why? Where?

6

7

Do we need a new IP regime to enable 3DP and distributed manufacturing?

6

4

3DP within the supply chain: before and after 3DP

5

6

2

Customer engagement and situational understanding of new technology for system adoption

5

2

Integration with complementary and enabling tech

5

4

Distributed contract manufacturing – business model

4

5

How do you define and construct a user-friendly interface design?

4

2

Government as broker, roadmaps (skills), convening, encourager

3

3

3

Waste, obsolescence management: what are environmental gains (if any)?

3

6

What are the headline challenges of 3DP RDM in terms of circular economy? Recyclability, material tracking, selection of materials, mixed material recycling

3

7

Who can additive and subtractive technology be complementary? Which complementary technologies are needed to enable redistribution

3

7

What hinders/barriers to enable 3D printing to redistributed manufacturing?

3

3

What are requirements of regulators? What related standards required?

2

1

2

Advanced/lost cost metrology/test technologies enable integration of above

2

3

3

How will patent/public be engaged in design of management risk?

2

6

What will the implications of RDM be in terms of: jobs, tax & subsidies, companies, sustainability? (Government focuses)

1

3

1

Re-engineering value chain -> where is the value? E.g. Where is stock kept? At home? At local hub? At retail?

1

4

5

Rethinking business and pricing models

1

4

7

When is RDM worthwhile and where is 3DP worthwhile for RDM?

1

4

1

Positives and negatives of design freedom (e.g. Skills)

1

5

How do we define groups of products most suitable for AM? Consumer parts – dispersed; high industry part – localised

1

1

Conformance + standardisation + liability (pharma)

1

4

Product verification: quality, IP

2

6

Home users with average expertise issues: incomplete products to complete at home; physical -> computer -> physical; software that helps estimate printability

5

Participants and groups
Participant Organisation Group
Adrian Addison Cranfield University 2
Valery Adzhiev Media School, Bournemouth University 7
Rachel Andrews Cambridge University Hospitals 1
Paolo Aversa Cass Business School, City University London 3
Meurig Beynon Department of Computer Science, University of Warwick 5
Dominik Deradjat Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge 2
Phill Dickens Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Research Group, University of Nottingham 3
Ben Earley Centre for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge 6
Jonathan Edelman RCA 2
Adam Ellis Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Sheffield 7
Oleg Fryazinov Media School, Bournemouth University 6
Margaret Haig Intellectual Property Office 2
Jane Ho Centre for Science, Technology & Innovation Policy, University of Cambridge 3
Matthias Holweg Saïd Business School, University of Oxford 4
Ian Hutchings Inkjet Research Centre, University of Cambridge 5
Peter Jarritt NIHR Health Technology Cooperative, CUHNHSFT 3
Sophie Jones Econolyst 4
Pieter Knook Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge 4
Adam Kowalski Unilever 1
Benn Lawson Judge Business School, University of Cambridge 5
Roger Maull University of Surrey Business School 6
Dinusha Mendis Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management, Bournemouth University 1
Tim Minshall Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge 1
Letizia Mortara Centre for Technology Management, University of Cambridge 6
Eoin O’Sullivan Centre for Science, Technology & Innovation Policy, University of Cambridge 2
Eujin Pei Brunel University 5
Alex Price BSI 4
Thierry Rayna Novancia Business School 7
Jonathan Rowley Digits2Widgets 7
Veronique Sauret-Jackson Cavendish Imaging 5
Ludmila Striukova Department of Management Science and Innovation, UCL 5
Alireza Tavakoli ThyssenKrupp 3
James Tooze RCA 6
Andrew Triantaphyllou MTC 1
Chander Velu Institute for Manufacturing, University of Cambridge 7
Mark Wilson GSK 4