Opinion: Why Design for Additive Manufacturing Shouldn’t Be the First Step

In the world of additive manufacturing (AM), newcomers are frequently told that their parts are not designed for AM (DfAM) and that before anything else, design modifications of their part are necessary. Well, this is true and to a certain extent not surprising: if one came with a casted part and wanted to mill it, design modifications would also have to happen. So, while this advice holds merit, it often becomes a significant barrier to entry for businesses exploring the potential of 3D printing. More critically, it sidesteps a fundamental question: Why is additive manufacturing being considered in the first place?

Before diving into DfAM, businesses should focus on understanding the value proposition of additive manufacturing for their specific use case. This approach not only demystifies the technology but also ensures that any transition to AM is driven by clear, measurable benefits.

Asking the Right Questions First

As the saying goes: if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it. And for any established manufacturing process, the same holds true. If a traditional production method reliably delivers quality, cost-effective parts, there’s little justification for switching to AM without a compelling reason. Too often, businesses are encouraged to jump into DfAM without addressing the core business drivers behind adopting a new technology. This creates confusion and frustration, ultimately limiting the adoption of 3D printing.

Instead of beginning with DfAM, organizations should figure out what is fundamentally motivating a production manager, with an often busy schedule and tight deadlines, to get out of their comfort zone and inquire on a different manufacturing technology. Surely there are some other pain points that need solving.

These are some questions that can be asked:

1. What is the specific value that AM can bring to this part?

   • Does it solve lead time issues?

   • Can it address supply chain bottlenecks?

   • Does it enable cost reductions for small batches or complex geometries?

   • Can AM improve the performance of the final product? 

2. Are there limitations with existing processes?

   • Are import tariffs making the parts too expensive? 

   • Is part availability becoming an issue with traditional suppliers?

   • Can AM reduce dependencies on tooling or streamline production?

By focusing on these questions, businesses can evaluate whether 3D printing aligns with their operational and economic goals. Without this clarity, DfAM risks becoming an expensive and time-consuming exercise with no clear payoff. Not to mention, AM is not the cheapest production technique, so cost has to be addressed early on.

The challenges with leading with DfAM

Design for AM emphasizes tailoring parts to the capabilities and constraints of additive manufacturing processes. This implies that the technology will require deep modifications to the current way of working. While this is critical for achieving the best results with 3D printing (and actually any manufacturing technique), it often feels confrontational for businesses already entrenched in traditional manufacturing paradigms. Asking engineers or designers to rethink established designs without a clear understanding of AM’s value can create resistance or skepticism.

Moreover, leading with DfAM puts the cart before the horse. If the underlying business case for AM is not well-defined, redesigning parts for an unproven technology can feel like wasted effort. This often results in projects stalling or being scrapped before they even begin.

Identifying the Value of AM First

To overcome these barriers, businesses should first identify the tangible benefits of additive manufacturing. When the value of 3D printing is clear, adapting designs becomes a logical and collaborative step rather than a contentious demand. Going beyond engineering and bringing a stakeholder with a P/L accountability is fundamental to understand the full picture.

Here’s a framework for evaluating the potential value of AM:

1. Economic Feasibility:

   • Compare the cost of producing the part via AM versus traditional methods. Does AM provide a cost advantage, particularly for small series or highly complex parts?

2. Lead Time Reduction:

   • Assess whether AM can shorten production timelines, particularly for urgent or on-demand parts. For industries like aerospace or healthcare, this can be a critical factor.

3. Supply Chain Resilience:

   • Determine if AM can mitigate supply chain disruptions or reduce dependency on external suppliers. For example, producing replacement parts in-house can eliminate delays caused by global logistics.

4. Design Complexity:

   • Identify if AM enables geometries that are impossible or prohibitively expensive with traditional methods, such as lightweight lattice structures or consolidated assemblies.

By framing the discussion around these tangible benefits, businesses can align their exploration of AM with strategic objectives. Once these advantages are recognized, adapting part designs to AM becomes a natural next step

DfAM as an Evolution, Not a Starting Point

When the value of AM is clearly understood, DfAM becomes less intimidating and more empowering. Instead of requiring a complete overhaul of existing designs, businesses can focus on incremental adaptations that maximize AM’s potential.

For example:

• Optimizing for Material Efficiency: Once the decision to 3D print is made, designs can be adapted to minimize material use, reducing costs further.

• Enhancing Functional Performance: Engineers can take advantage of AM’s design freedom to improve part performance, such as by integrating cooling channels or reducing weight.

• Simplifying Assemblies: Designers can consolidate multiple components into a single 3D-printed part, reducing assembly time and error rates.

These changes are far easier to embrace when they are backed by a clear business case. Rather than feeling forced to adopt a new way of thinking, teams are motivated by the opportunity to solve real-world challenges with AM.

A Collaborative Path Forward

Ultimately, the adoption of additive manufacturing should be a collaborative journey between engineers, production managers, and business leaders. Starting with a discussion about the “why” behind AM allows stakeholders to align on goals and expectations before diving into the technical details of DfAM.

This approach not only reduces friction but also fosters a culture of innovation. By focusing on value first, businesses can move past the barriers to entry and fully realize the potential of additive manufacturing.

Conclusion

Designing for additive manufacturing is an essential part of the 3D printing process, but it shouldn’t come first. Businesses need to start with a clear understanding of why they are considering AM, what value it can deliver, and what problems they are trying to solve. Once this foundation is established, Design for AM regains its rightful place next to design for milling, design for casting.

By reframing the narrative around AM adoption, we can lower barriers to entry and empower more organizations to embrace this transformative technology. The key lies in focusing on value first—because when the “why” is clear, the “how” becomes much easier to tackle.