Content uploaded by Ivo Kothman
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ivo Kothman on May 23, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management
How 3D printing technology changes the rules of the game: Insights from the
construction sector
Ivo Kothman Niels Faber
Article information:
To cite this document:
Ivo Kothman Niels Faber , (2016),"How 3D printing technology changes the rules of the game",
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 Iss 7 pp. 932 - 943
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-01-2016-0010
Downloaded on: 29 November 2016, At: 12:45 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 42 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 107 times since 2016*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2016),"Consumer additive manufacturing or 3D printing adoption: an exploratory study", Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 Iss 7 pp. 990-1012
(2016),"Guest editorial", Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 Iss 7 pp. 890-897
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by
Token:JournalAuthor:A8506028-E455-4694-8A9B-3413E87C8E56:
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
How 3D printing technology
changes the rules of the game
Insights from the construction sector
Ivo Kothman and Niels Faber
Lectoraat Business Development, Saxion University of Applied Sciences,
Deventer, The Netherlands
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to present several insights on how disruptive technologies
potentially impact the eco-performance of entire supply chains, by providing performance
improvements compared to existing technologies, enabling more efficient manufacturing methods
and affecting the entire structure of the supply chain.
Design/methodology/approach –To illustrate the authors’position, a case from the construction
sector is presented, for which the feasibility and impact of 3D printing technology has been studied.
The empirical study focuses on the effect of the use of 3D printing technology on the building supply
chain, aimed primarily at manufacturing companies in construction, but including suppliers, architects
and designers as well.
Findings –3D printing of concrete potentially provides several improvements in manufacturing
performance, such as a shortening of lead times, integration of functions and allowing for reduced
material usage, therefore possibly turning production steps within the construction supply chain
obsolete while also reducing logistical and production efforts.
Research limitations/implications –Whether disruptive technologies other than 3D printing have
a similar potential is unknown. Though the case study shows the potential of disruptive technologies
in impacting supply chains, the authors realize that more empirical work is needed to understand the
underlying mechanisms.
Originality/value –The originality of this paper lies in relating disruptive technological
advancements to manufacturing technologies and transitions of supply chains’eco-performance.
Keywords Environmental impact, 3D printing, Supply chains, Disruptive technology
Paper type Conceptual paper
Introduction
Technology has often been regarded as both panacea and root cause of society’s
problems from the perspective of sustainable development (e.g. Davidson, 2001; Dunn,
1979; Goldsmith, 1972; Lau, 2010). Proponents focus on the role technology plays in
solving sustainability problems humanity is faced with. For example under the
umbrella of eco-efficiency, many technological advancements have been realized that
provide improved eco-performance compared to the technologies they substitute.
Opponents zoom in on the undesired ecological and societal side effects of technologies
currently in place. They also see the problems of eco-efficiency solutions, only
providing an improvement instead of a real solution. Eco-efficient solutions still depend
on the use of limited natural resources, and do not structurally change the way these
are depleted or the way raw materials are (not) regained from waste material.
Furthermore, a focus on technology solely is considered to be insufficient to come to
actual solutions. A change in the way society, and in particular production chains, are
organized is needed.
There are technologies that however cannot easily be placed in either of the two
camps. They are of a disruptive nature and have the potential of changing the rules of
Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management
Vol. 27 No. 7, 2016
pp. 932-943
© Emerald Group PublishingLimited
1741-038X
DOI 10.1108/JMTM-01-2016-0010
Received 29 January 2016
Revised 29 June 2016
Accepted 8 July 2016
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm
932
JMTM
27,7
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
the game. Where many new technologies are replacements of obsolete ones, and
provide small to medium improvements (Anderson and Tushman, 1990), these
disruptive technologies have the potential to cause a transition of entire supply chains
and enable a far greater improvement in their eco-performance. Some technologies even
realize societal shifts in the way people organize themselves, for example with Web 2.0
technologies (Andriole, 2010; Belk, 2014; Bughin and Chui, 2010). Many people
maintain a reticent stance regarding disruptive technologies, as they challenge their
social and professional roles (Wheeler, 2011). But, this may cause people to miss the
way in which a disruptive technology can jump the boundaries of industries or markets
(Manyika et al., 2013), changing the rules of the game. We posit that by changing the
rules that it becomes possible to make a leap forward in eco-performance as well. When
considering sustainable production, there is a tendency for incremental improvements
(Hauschild et al., 2005). Design, methods for manufacturing and supply chain are
interlinked; a successful development in one dimension will require scoping all three
dimensions (Fixson, 2005, p. 346). With a disruptive technology like 3D printing comes
the opportunity to rethink the design and therefore the corresponding manufacturing
method. This enables a redesign of the supply chain. The disruptive nature implies a
change to the design, the manufacturing method and the supply chain at the same time,
giving far greater opportunity to improve eco-performance than would be possible
when making changes on just one area. Given the high rate of technological
advancement and the necessity to realize a far greater eco-performance of our society,
embracing disruptive technologies may hold the key.
In this contribution we share some insights in how disruptive technologies potentially
impact the eco-performance of entire supply chains, by providing significant
performance improvements compared to existing technologies, enabling alternative
manufacturing methods and affecting the entire structure of the supply chain, or the
larger system in which these operate. The former follows the traditional path of
technological substitution, bringing about only incremental improvements. The latter
form of impact however has larger implications. The question we aim to answer is which
causes and effects can be discerned that might determine a change in the structure of
supply chains and improve its eco-performance due to technological advancements.
The insights we provide originate from a study into the possible application of 3D
printing technology in construction. Although 3D printing technology has been around
for a while, its application in construction is still limited. Lim et al. (2012) mention the
use of the technology as a modeling tool, and the careful adoption for the production of
architectural components, particularly facades and walls. In spite of these exploratory
applications they remain fragmentary and full-scale use of 3D printing technology in
construction has not been observed so far (Wu et al., 2016). Additionally, Wu et al.
(2016) indicate that 3D printing technology may bring benefits to the construction
industry, but requires a better understanding in relation to building. The aim of the
project we studied was to determine the feasibility of 3D printing using concrete in
construction. Internationally, various parties have performed similar studies (Buswell
et al., 2007; Lim et al., 2012). Our focus has been on the effect of the use of 3D printing
technology on the building supply chain. The study was aimed primarily at
manufacturing companies in construction, but included suppliers, architects and
designers as well.
In the following three sections we develop our argument further. The next section
provides the background of technological change and what characterizes disruptive
technologies. The third section presents an illustrative case from the construction
933
Insights
from the
construction
sector
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
sector in which the possibilities and limitations of 3D printing technology have been
studied. Our last section provides a general discussion and presents several directions
for further research.
Background
The key concept of this paper is the term disruptive technology. Yet, what a disruptive
technology encompasses remains unclear. Is it the technology that presents a large step
forward when compared to other technologies? Or, do we need to judge its
disruptiveness on the possibilities the technology creates for applications? Or, does a
technology only receive the predicate “disruptive”based on its use? And, does it
concern a singular technology or is there more to it? In order to provide clarity on the
term we deem it necessary to address these questions first, and provide our stance,
before we are able to explore the implications a disruptive technology might have in
relation to the transformation toward sustainable supply chains.
The term “disruptive technology”is often posited as a technology that is able to
disrupt markets (Bower and Christensen, 1995). Organizations adopting a disruptive
technology gain such an advantage that they position themselves far ahead of their
competition. Adopting such a technology enables them to beat competitors that do not
use the disruptive technology, no matter how good these competitors perform.
Furthermore, a disruptive technology can incorporate a strong link between market
competition and customer needs (Christensen, 1997). Christensen describes disruptive
technology as a new way to fulfill the needs of customers, or a viable market strategy.
Other uses of the term disruptive technology focus for instance on technologies that
have disruptive and detrimental effects on the eco-environment (e.g. Holdren and
Ehrlich, 1974) or envision these as innovations that potentially change life, business,
and the rules that apply in a global economy (e.g. Manyika et al., 2013).
In this paper we apply a combination of the provided perspectives on disruptive
technologies. We see these as technologies that have a potential to profoundly change
business and the way the interactions and transactions with consumers and suppliers
are organized. In our case, a disruptive technology brings about new methods of
manufacturing, which allows for new ways of designing and a change in the
corresponding supply chain. All three domains, product, process and supply chain, are
interlinked in the concurrent engineering method (Fixson, 2005). Technological
developments affect the product architecture and therefore impact the architecture of
both (manufacturing) process and supply chain (Fixson, 2005). It can therefore be
argued that a disruptive technology will impose a disruption in all three architectures.
In this changing of the rules of the game some additional characteristics or side
effects are discernible. We consider that disruptive technologies realize an
improvement of the eco-performance of business. When considering business
performance, it is the other way round. A characteristic of disruptive technology is
that it initially offers lower performance than existing solutions, when measured on the
performance indicators used to measure existing technology (Christensen, 1997). We
consider a disruptive technology to evoke a redistribution of jobs among workers, as
well as a change of roles and shift in required skills (Manyika et al., 2013). Demand for
low-skilled workers is expected to decline due to automation. In contrast, demand
for high-skilled workers rises, particularly for those who are able to interact with the
technologies at hand. Another characteristic that is observed is a continuing
democratization of the use of and access to the disruptive technology. New IT
capabilities level the playing field as they become accessible to the smallest enterprises,
934
JMTM
27,7
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
or even consumers themselves leading to the emergence of prosumers (Ritzer and
Jurgenson, 2010).
A complicating factor in identifying disruptive technologies is that these often do
not come as single entities. Mostly, disruptive technologies concern a combination of
multiple technologies that, through combination, enhance each other (Manyika et al.,
2013). In this way, a disruptive technology may very well consist of a collection of
technologies that by themselves are incremental. It is in their combination that they
obtain their disruptive property. In the end, whether a technology or combination of
technologies will be disruptive depends strongly on the context in which it is
introduced. In manufacturing, the mentioned characteristics also have been observed
(Brettel and Friederichsen, 2014, p. 37).
The impact of a disruptive technology as we describe it can be directly related to the
business of manufacturing. A technology can be considered disruptive if multiple
effects are reflected in a single company. Over the years, many studies on the effects of
innovation, digitization and robots on manufacturing have addressed the possibly
disruptive nature of technology in relation to the way businesses operate (e.g.
Abernathy and Clark, 1993; Brettel and Friederichsen, 2014) linking to the
characteristics of disruptive technologies that we discern, they can all be directly
related to the way a company operates and the applicable manufacturing method.
When considering supply chains, the general view is that of multiple production
steps ranging from raw materials to the final product being purchased by the
consumer. Each step adds value to the product and requires workers with specific
skills. With a disruptive technology like 3D printing, the possibility arises of the
merging of consumer and producer roles into so-called prosumers (Ratto and Ree,
2012). When prosumers directly produce goods using the digital design and a 3D
printer, all steps between raw material and consumer become superfluous. The rules of
the game change as there is a shortening of the supply chain, possible de-specialization
of functions in the supply chain, integration of various value adding steps into one
highly complex function and a digitization of the production chain.
A supply chain can be defined as “multiple firms, both upstream (i.e. supply) and
downstream (i.e. distribution), and the ultimate consumer”(Mentzer et al., 2001).
Regarding the eco-performance of a supply chain, the performance indicators are
generally considered to be in accordance with Article 5 of EU-EMAS Regulation ( Jasch,
2000): Production output, raw material consumption, energy consumption, water
consumption, total waste, waste qualities, waste water and air emissions (Council of the
European Union, 2000). In general, performance indicators in literature match the
indicators as stated in ISO 14031 (Campos et al., 2015). Any improvement on one of
these indicators can be considered as an improvement in eco-performance. A supply
chain consists of multiple firms, which relates the eco-performance indicators to each
separate firm as well as the combination of firms. A true sustainable supply chain can
only be achieved if all parties involved in the supply chain collaborate in pursuing this
ideal (Chithambaranathan et al., 2015). Part of this collaboration is the sharing of
information (Fernando et al., 2016). Consequently, a shorter, less complex supply chain
with direct lines of communication instead of several brokers, is more eco-efficient.
An extensive case study conducted with Chinese automobile manufacturers has
shown that focusing on green supply chain management (GSCM) has only marginally
improved eco-performance (Zhu et al., 2007). Practices show that focusing on GSCM
results in small incremental steps to improve eco-performance, without any significant
changes to the structure of the supply chain (Bartlett and Trifilova, 2010; Zhu et al.,2007).
935
Insights
from the
construction
sector
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
Companies seem to focus most on performance indicators related to legal requirements,
as they are forced to meet certain regulations (Campos et al., 2015). This adds to our idea
that only disruptive technological changes have the power to change the way products
are designed and manufactured at the same time, and therefore the structure of supply
chains, in such a way that eco-performance is improved significantly.
In the next section we provide an example to illustrate the possible impact of 3D
printing as a disruptive technology. The technology of 3D printing is a combination of
various underlying technologies, e.g. digital design and production, materials to
synthesize end-products, additive manufacturing (e.g. Campbell et al., 2012). Many of
the production steps found in traditional manufacturing chains are digitized and
compressed. Roughly, the manufacturing process in 3D printing is limited to design,
manufacturing and finishing. The example we present is set in the construction
domain, where the feasibility of 3D printing of concrete and the implications for the
building process have been studied simultaneously.
Illustrative case: 3D printing in construction
To illustrate the potential effects of a disruptive technology, we present a case on 3D
printing of concrete in construction, developed in a two-year research program on this
technology. As the technology behind 3D printing is further developed, engineers and
designers come up with new ways and materials to use in a 3D printer. Today, many
materials can be “3D printed,”or used in an “additive production process”as it is
formally known (Gibson et al., 2010). Examples range from various kinds of plastics,
metal, glass, ceramics and food to even concrete. At this moment, 3D printing of
concrete is going through rapid developments, from proof-of-principles several years
ago to the first five-story apartment complex 3D printed using concrete by the Chinese
company Winsun early 2015 (Sevenson, 2015). There is still a long way to go before 3D
printing of concrete will be considered common household technology, but it holds the
promise of changing the landscape of construction.
The research fields of individualized production, end-to-end engineering in a virtual
process chain and production networks are related to Industry 4.0 (Brettel and
Friederichsen, 2014) or Smart Industry, Dutch Industry Fit for the Future (n.d.) as others
refer to it. With 3D printing, individualized products can be produced with (near) zero
marginal cost (Rifkin, 2014) and the construction is engineered in a virtual setting up to the
physical 3D printing process. As a result, production networks change and information is
spread in a digital form. Although Industry 4.0 currently lacks concise definition (Brettel
and Friederichsen 2014, p. 43), it is a widely used term for identifying the process and
effect of disruptive technologies on industrial activities. 3D printing fits all fields related to
Industry 4.0 and can therefore be regarded as a potential disruptive technology.
In construction in the Netherlands, the financial crisis of recent years has left its
mark. Although the residential market is expected to require one million additional
houses by 2040, construction companies are struggling to survive; prices are
increasingly under pressure. Often, houses are constructed using conceptual
construction techniques, where a predefined design is used on a large series. This
enables construction companies to construct many houses without having to adjust or
verify the design. Concrete pre-fab parts can be ordered in large quantities and allow
for quick construction on-site. Foundation, installation and creating the decorative
facade still require crafty workers. Many new districts are known as Vinex districts
(Vrom, 1988) and consist of entire streets facing identical residences, only distinguished
by house number and their front yard. Individualization of a house requires an
936
JMTM
27,7
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
architect, unique construction plans and materials, and specialized building plans.
The conceptual construction method is on average 42 percent faster than traditional
construction methods (Loman, 2015) and due to savings in hourly wages significantly
cheaper. The supply chain associated with traditional and conceptual construction
methods is visualized in Figure 1.
To analyze the potential of 3D printing of concrete, a two-year research program was
conducted at the Saxion University of Applied Sciences. Students of technical disciplines
have constructed a 3D concrete printer capable of printing roughly 1m
3
structures. On
the one hand, the printer was used to create repeatable results for testing the mixture,
technical properties of the printed concrete, and experiment with different, new forms of
constructing. These results are not within the scope of this paper. On the other hand, the
printer was built to be able to estimate the potential impact or disruptiveness of 3D
printing of concrete on the construction sector. Several companies were directly involved
with the project: architects, contractors, engineers and a specialist on mixing concrete
(Bussink, 2015; Hoek van Dijke, 2015; Loman, 2015). Several additional companies were
contacted for interviews and to discuss the results. Having an actual 3D printer to display
the technical possibilities was of great help in creating a lively discussion and supporting
the building of theory. Data were gathered in forms of technical data on the 3D printed
concrete, and through 15 interviews with involved parties.
When 3D printing of concrete reaches technological maturity, it can offer a way to
combine advantages of the conceptual construction techniques with those of traditional
building techniques while adding unique possibilities formerly unheard of with other
construction techniques. This can revolutionize the construction market and evoke
major changes such as individualization with minimum added cost, shorter time to
market, quicker and cheaper construction, and freedom of shape and integration of
functionality. Besides these market advantages, eco-performance of the supply chain is
improved as well. For both various underlying causes can be discerned.
First, an integration of roles enables the removal of various steps in the design
process. In the regular design process, according to the various interviews, up to five
different parties including architects, engineers, contractors, clients and executive parties
are involved in designing and detailing concrete constructions. Design decisions need to
be consulted with all parties, making it a complicated and slow process (Loman, 2015).
With 3D printing of concrete, the architect is not only responsible for the design and
layout of a building, the structural integrity can be calculated as well using simulation
techniques on the CAD model. After finishing the CAD model, the architect can create
Supplier
stock
Processing to
construction
Stock construction
materials Transportation
building contracter
Information exchange Information exchange
Physical distribution
Information exchange
Purchasing
Stock of materials
and supplies
Material management
Trading
stock Transport building
materials retailer
Transport building
materials wholesaler
Trading
stock
Processing as
part or product
Information exchange
Information exchange
Stock product
and part
Information exchange
Processing to
final product
Stock final
product
Figure 1.
Traditional supply
chain
937
Insights
from the
construction
sector
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
the complementing printing instructions. The next step is 3D printing the construction.
Many roles of the traditional design process combine into one with 3D printing of
concrete. Further, the consumer can use the visual representation of the construction to
evaluate the design. Any changes can be visually verified and directly implemented in
the design. The integration of roles allows for a shorter supply chain.
Second, on-site printing of elements results in the removal of several logistical
processes, as well as preparation tasks. With traditional construction, a house in the
Netherlands is usually built using brick-and-mortar or pre-fab concrete elements (Loman,
2015). Both methods require much preparation and logistical effort. With on-site printing
of concrete, the raw material is directly molded into a construction, not requiring wooden
molds as regular concrete would. Out of the parties which were interviewed, especially the
contractors where interested in on-site printing. They state that currently, using pre-fab
concrete elements, building parts always get damaged in transit (Loman, 2015). Damage
includes parts being chipped, cracked or marked. These damages have to be resolved
on-site and always result in additional labor for the contractor. Second, the contractors
explained that many parts need to be over-engineered to sustain transportation, giving
the need for more reinforcements than are required by the constructional specifications,
consequently adding costs. Third and last, secure transportation and hoisting requires
parts to have additional features, which necessitate post-assembly finishing works to be
carried out. On-site printing, the contractors imagine, can eliminate all these steps and
costs. The printing process and quality will need to be weather-independent to realize
on-site printing. Additional possibilities include 3D scanning of the building site and
automated printing of the foundation, removing the time consuming step of leveling and
measuring. Similar to the combination of roles, on-site printing reduces the number of
transportations needed for a build.
Third, the digitization of a large part of the production process gives rise to small
batches of complex products allowing for high levels of customization at minimal added
costs. It is estimated that with traditional building methods, individualizing the design of
a house can add up to 40 percent to its price (Loman, 2015). When building a complex
structure with many “non-standard”shapes and sizes, additional costs may increase
exponentially. The interviews revealed that especially architects are interested in the
possibility to customize designs without having to completely rethink construction
methods (Bussink, 2015; Hoek van Dijke, 2015; Loman, 2015). In the residential market,
constructing a house with the help of an architect is reserved for the richer part of the
population. According to architects and engineers, it is not necessarily the labor costs of
the architects that accounts for the increase in price. Moreover, this is caused by
adaptations to the construction methods. Removing that element from the equation could
possibly make an individualized house attainable for a far larger part of the population.
The architects think their role may change, giving them a relatively more important part
to play. With 3D printing of concrete, the actual shape that is printed is nearly irrelevant
to the costs. It would give many people the possibility to adjust the design of their
house to their individual requirements. In a way, this is a democratization of technology
potentially increasing satisfaction with the residents of 3D printed homes.
Fourth, the immediate integration of functions within printed elements reduces on-site
installation tasks. With regular construction, installation of heating systems, insulation,
running water and electricity require on-site installation tasks. With 3D printing of
concrete, some of these installation tasks may become superfluous as functions can be
directly integrated into the 3D printing process. Integrating pipes and wires was tested
during this research. However, these were integrated into the construction by hand in the
938
JMTM
27,7
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
actual printing process. It is realistic to assume this could be automated in the future.
Printing hollow constructions not only reduces the material that is required, it also offers
insulation. In the 3D printing tests, hollow walls were printed and tested. The structural
rigidity was found sufficient for application in houses with a 50-60 percent material
reduction in comparison to cast concrete. The actual increase in insulation was not
measured (Loman, 2015). 3D printed canals might be used to transport hot or cold water
to the desired part of the construction, allowing for heating or cooling of any part of the
building. This eliminates the need for separate installation of heating and cooling
systems. The transportation of fluids through canals in concrete was not tested and
remains hypothetical. Additionally, no materials are lost during installation implying a
reduction of waste. When 3D printing of concrete incorporates the integration of roles,
on-site printing, digital design and integration of functions, the corresponding supply
chain might look as is visualized in Figure 2.
Before reaching the potential future where it is possible to 3D print concrete houses,
several limitations need to be overcome. In this two-year research, some interesting
tests were conducted and actual results show it is technically possible to 3D print
concrete structures. Apart from technical discoveries, the most interesting insight
comes from the predicted impact on the construction sector and the respective roles of
the various companies that were involved. On the one hand, architects are very
interested in the technology and how it can increase their involvement in the residential
market. On the other hand, many employees of the contractors and executive parties
are skeptical and feel threatened by the technology, fearing construction will be taken
over by some engineers with laptops (Bussink, 2015; Hoek van Dijke, 2015).
In the light of sustainability, the effects of 3D printing of concrete are hard to judge
from the results of the research program. Sustainability in construction is often seen as
having the need to comply with regulations, instead of being a goal in itself (Loman,
2015). Rethinking the way the construction sector works, in order to improve
sustainability, will not happen without significant financial or technical incentives
(Hoek van Dijke, 2015). The disruptiveness 3D printing of concrete may hold could be
such an incentive.
When compared with traditional building techniques, 3D printing of concrete still
has a lower performance. This is typical for disruptive technologies (Christensen, 1997),
but we expect performance will gradually improve and surpass existing technologies
over time. When held against the ladder of technology readiness levels, 3D printing of
concrete is currently at stage 3: analysis and validation (Mankins, 1995). The quality of
the printed material needs to be improved, the accuracy is still insufficient and concrete
reinforcements need to be solved. Certification is a legal obstacle and one of the most
difficult obstacles that needs to be resolved (Loman, 2015).
Discussion
Disruptive technologies are technologies that bring about a leap in performance, in
comparison to technologies they aim to replace or complement. Even though such
Supplier
stock
Stock of materials
and supplies
Stock construction
materials 3D printed concrete
to construction
Processing to
printable concrete
Purchasing
Information exchange Information exchange Information exchange
Material management Physical distribution
Figure 2.
Potential supply
chain of 3D printing
of concrete
939
Insights
from the
construction
sector
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
technologies may consist of a collection of technologies that by themselves only
provide an incremental increase in performance. In the light of sustainability we deem
such leaps in performance improvement necessary, in order to make the changes that
are needed to turn around the problems of sustainability that global society faces. It is
the disruptiveness that allows or even forces companies to alter their methods for
design, manufacturing and the associated supply chains simultaneously. When given
the opportunity to improve eco-performance without too many limitations of existing
systems and methods, companies can move closer toward sustainability.
This position however is not shared by everyone. Critics strongly hold on to the
position that technology is the root cause of sustainability-related problems (e.g.
Davidson, 2001; Dunn, 1979; Goldsmith, 1972; Lau, 2010), and maybe rightfully so.
Although this position is understandable, it also withholds us from exploring the
potential of these technologies to actually provide an improvement of sustainability.
We think that the road ahead perhaps cannot do without the advancements these
disruptive technologies bring about.
Other authors have suggested alternate paths toward sustainable manufacturing,
including competitive sustainable manufacturing ( Jovane et al., 2009), including
environmental requirements throughout the design and development phase
(Kaebernick et al., 2003) and life cycle analysis (Hauschild et al., 2005). All three
methods transcend beyond manufacturing, including either the design phase, product
life cycle or extending design requirements. These approaches may deliver significant
increases in eco-performance of the product, manufacturing methods or indeed the
entire supply chain. They do not, however, suggest any structural changes to the way
products are designed, manufactured or the way supply chains are laid out. Therefore,
improvements in eco-performance will likely remain incremental. In comparison to
these traditional methods, disruptive technologies such as 3D printing may
revolutionize the supply chain, bringing about larger steps forward in eco-performance.
In this paper we posited that disruptive technologies have the potential to improve
the sustainability of supply chains. This may not be the case for all technologies
according to the original use of the term disruptive technology. For the technology of
3D printing we focus on in this paper, we have explored the potential to do so in the
construction industry. 3D printing fits the properties of a disruptive technology. 3D
printing is a combination of multiple technologies that have independently evolved,
and finally merged into one application. As shown in our case, it has the ability to bring
about an improvement of eco-performance of business. In our case, a construction
company may do with fewer transports, less use of raw material, and finally, reduce the
amount of waste of a build. Furthermore, a redistribution of jobs within the supply
chain is expected. Through digitization, many of the steps of the traditional chain
render obsolete. This digitization additionally creates the possibility for consumers to
personalize the designs in order to meet their desires. However, while 3D printing of
concrete for construction purposes is expected to have future potential, at this moment
the technology is at its infancy. Traditional technologies still outperform it. With the
necessity for sustainable development, further exploration of 3D printing of concrete, or
more generic, the application of 3D printing technology in construction will be
necessary to unleash its full potential.
The construction sector is an example of a sector were traditional methods linger
and old habits never die. Within manufacturing as a whole, companies tend to
stick to existing methods and principles. Improvements are made, but usually are
incremental and focus on being “less bad.”Arguments like “we cannot change our
940
JMTM
27,7
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
method of design overnight”or “there are limitations to our supply chain we have to
adhere”are often used to silence eco-critics. Instead of fearing the change disruptive
technologies may herald, manufacturing companies could embrace them and envision
the opportunity to revise the whole chain, from design to manufacturing to the supply
chain. The difficulty lies in recognizing the potential of technological advancements to
offer a patch toward sustainable manufacturing.
For future research, our initial thought that disruptive technologies are necessary to
create a sustainable development needs to be investigated more deeply. The case of 3D
printing in construction showed us some possible effects of a disruption in the whole
supply chain of construction. This effect however may be confined to this particular
technology. Whether other disruptive technologies have similar potential is unknown
and requires further research. In contrast, the alternative also needs further inquiry.
Namely, whether a similar effect in the eco-performance of supply chains could be
realized with incremental performance improvements. Based on developments that
have been observed so far, we can only hypothesize that the latter is not likely,
encouraging a further pursuit of research and technological development to realize a
sustainable society.
References
Abernathy, W. and Clark, K. (1993), “Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction”,
Research Policy, Vol. 22 No. 2, p.102, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)90040-O
Anderson, P. and Tushman, M.L. (1990), “Technological discontinuities and dominant designs:
a cyclical model of technological change”,Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 4,
pp. 604-633, available at: http://doi.org/10.2307/2393511
Andriole, S.J. (2010), “Business impact of Web 2.0 technologies”,Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 53 No. 12, pp. 67-79, available at: http://doi.org/10.1145/1859204
Bartlett, D. and Trifilova, A. (2010), “Green technology and eco‐innovation: seven case‐studies
from a Russian manufacturing context”,Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 21 No. 8, pp. 910-929.
Belk, R. (2014), “Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0”,Anthropologist, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 7-23,
available at: www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84905159275&partnerID=
tZOtx3y1
Bower, J.L. and Christensen, C.M. (1995), “Disruptive technologies: catching the wave”,Long Range
Planning, Vol. 28 No. 2, p. 155, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(95)91075-1
Brettel, M. and Friederichsen, N. (2014), “How virtualization, decentralization and network
building change the manufacturing landscape: an industry 4.0 perspective”,International
Journal of Mechanical, Aerospace, Industrial and Mechatronics Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 37-44, available at: www.waset.org/publications/9997144
Bughin, J. and Chui, M. (2010), “The rise of the networked enterprise: Web 2.0 finds its payday”,
McKinsey Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 1-6.
Bussink, J. (2015), Toepassingen 3D Printen in De Bouw, Saxion University of Applied Sciences,
Enschede.
Buswell, R.A., Soar, R.C., Gibb, A.G.F. and Thorpe, A. (2007), “Freeform construction: mega-scale
rapid manufacturing for construction”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 16 No. 2,
pp. 224-231, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2006.05.002
Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, O. and Garret, B. (2012), “Could 3D printing change the
world? Technologies, potential, and implications of additive manufacturing”, Strategic
Foresight Report, Washington, DC.
941
Insights
from the
construction
sector
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
Campos, L.M.S., de Melo Heizen, D.A., Verdinelli, M.A. and Cauchick Miguel, P.A. (2015),
“Environmental performance indicators: a study on ISO 14001 certified companies”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 99 No. 1, pp. 286-296, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2015.03.019
Chithambaranathan, P., Subramanian, N., Gunasekaran, A. and Palaniappan, P.K. (2015),
“Service supply chain environmental performance evaluation using grey based hybrid
MCDM approach”,International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 166, pp. 163-176,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.002
Christensen, C. (1997), “Patterns in the evolution of product competition”,European Management
Journal, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 117-127, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(96)00081-3
Council of the European Union (2000), “Common position (EC) No 21/2000 adopted by the council
on 28 February 2000 with a view to adopting regulation (EC) No …/2000 of the European
parliament and of the council of …allowing voluntary participation by organisations in a
community eco-manage”,Official Journal of the European Communities, Vol. C No. 128,
pp. 1-31.
Davidson, A. (2001), Technology and the Contested Meanings of Sustainability, SUNY Press,
New York, NY.
Dunn, P.D. (1979), Appropriate Technology: Technology with a Human Face, Palgrave.
Fernando, Y., Wah, W.X. and Shaharudin, M.S. (2016), “Does a firm’s innovation category matter
in practising eco-innovation? Evidence from the lens of Malaysia companies practicing
green technology”,Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 27 No. 2,
pp. 208-233.
Fixson, S.K. (2005), “Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process, and supply
chain design decisions”,Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23 Nos 3-4, pp. 345-369,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2004.08.006
Gibson, I., Rosen, D.W. and Stucker, B. (2010), “Additive manufacturing technologies”,Additive
Manufacturing Technologies, Vol. 54, pp. 17-40, available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-
4419-1120-9
Goldsmith, E.A.R. (1972), “A blueprint for survival”,The Ecologist, Vol. 2 No. 1.
Hauschild, M., Jeswiet, J. and Alting, L. (2005), “From life cycle assessment to sustainable
production: status and perspectives”,CIRP Annals –Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 1-21, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0007-8506(07)60017-1
Hoek van Dijke, L. (2015), Externe Omgeving 3D Printen Van Beton, Saxion University of Applied
Sciences.
Holdren, J.P. and Ehrlich, P.R. (1974), “Human population and global environment”,American
Scientist, available at: http://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/1974_
holdren_ehrlich_humanpopglobalEnviron.pdf (accessed January 22, 2016).
Jasch, C. (2000), “Environmental performance evaluation and indicators”,Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 79-88, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-6526(99)00235-8
Jovane, F., Westkämper, E. and Williams, D. (2009), The ManuFuture Road –Towards Competitive
and Sustainable High-Adding-Value Manufacturing, Springer-Verlag, Berlin and Heidelberg.
Kaebernick, H., Kara, S. and Sun, M. (2003), “Sustainable product development and
manufacturing by considering environmental requirements”,Robotics and Computer-
Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 461-468, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0
736-5845(03)00056-5
Lau, A. (2010), “Sustainable design: a new paradigm for engineering education”,International
Journal for Engineering Education, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 252-259, available at: www.ijee.ie.
ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/articles/HMUDD/Vol26-2/05_Ijee2255.pdf
942
JMTM
27,7
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
Lim, S., Buswell, R.A., Le, T.T., Austin, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F. and Thorpe, T. (2012), “Developments
in construction-scale additive manufacturing processes”,Automation in Construction,
Vol. 21, pp. 262-268, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.010
Loman, D. (2015), 3D-PRINTEN MET BETON, Saxion University of Applied Sciences.
Mankins, J.C. (1995), “Technology readiness levels”, white paper, April 6, available at: http://orion.
asu.edu/Additional Reading/Mankins_trl.pdf\n; http://ehbs.org/trl/Mankins1995.pdf
(accessed September 17, 2015).
Manyika, J., Chui, M. and Bughin, J. (2013), “Disruptive technologies: advances that will transform
life, business, and the global economy”, McKinsey Global Institute, May, p. 163, available
at: www.mckinsey.com/insights/business_technology/disruptive_technologies\n; www.
chrysalixevc.com/pdfs/mckinsey_may2013.pdf (accessed September 14, 2015).
Mentzer, J.T., Keebler, J.S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001), Journal of Business
Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25, available at: http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2001.tb00001.x
Ratto, M. and Ree, R. (2012), “Materializing information: 3D-printing and social change”,First
Monday, Vol. 17 No. 7, p. 20.
Rifkin, J. (2014), The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative
Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism, St Martin’s Griffin, London.
Ritzer, G. and Jurgenson, N. (2010), “Production, consumption, prosumption: the nature of
capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’”,Journal of Consumer Culture, Vol. 10 No. 1,
pp. 13-36, available at: http://doi.org/10.1177/1469540509354673
Sevenson, B. (2015), “Shanghai-based WinSun 3D Prints 6-Story Apartment Building and an
Incredible Home”, available at: http://3dprint.com/38144/3d-printed-apartment-building/
(accessed January 26, 2016).
Smart Industry, Dutch Industry Fit for the Future (n.d.), available at: www.smartindustry.nl/eng/
(accessed January 26, 2016).
Vrom, M.V. (1988), “Vierde nota over de ruimtelijke ordening Extra: (op weg naar 2015)”, The
Hague.
Wheeler, S. (2011), “The social impact of disruptive technology”, available at: http://steve-
wheeler.blogspot.nl/2011/01/social-impact-of-disruptive-technology.html (accessed
September 16, 2015).
Wu, P., Wang, J. and Wang, X. (2016), “A critical review of the use of 3-D printing in the
construction industry”,Automation in Construction, Vol. 68, pp. 21-31, available at: http://
doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2016.04.005
Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J. and Lai, K. (2007), “Green supply chain management: pressures, practices and
performance within the Chinese automobile industry”,Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 1041-1052, available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.05.021
Corresponding author
Ivo Kothman can be contacted at: i.m.h.kothman@saxion.nl
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
943
Insights
from the
construction
sector
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
This article has been cited by:
1. OrttRoland Roland Ortt j.r.ortt@tudelft.nl Roland Ortt (1964) is an Associate Professor of
Technology and Innovation Management at the Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands.
Before joining the faculty of Technology Policy and Management Roland Ortt worked as a
R&D Manager for a Telecommunication Company. He authored articles in journals like the
Journal of Product Innovation Management, the Market Research Society and the International
Journal of Technology Management and has won several best-paper awards. His research focuses
on development and diffusion of high-tech products, and on niche-strategies to commercialize
these products. Roland is the Research Dean of the European NiTiM network of researchers in
Innovation and Technology Management. Faculty Technology, Policy and Management, Delft
University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands . 2016. Guest editorial. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 27:7, 890-897. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Mr Ivo Kothman At 12:45 29 November 2016 (PT)
