3D-Printed Jewelry and the Future of Customization in the USA

The empirical account shows that manufacturers of hearing aids addressed 3D printing in several different ways. Some companies, like Siemens, actively sought this possibility and had a very clear goal. Being an early adopter does not mean Siemens (or Phonak) had turned to 3D printing before to any of its rivals. This seems mostly due to the initial technological

uncertainties making it challenging to decide on what technology to apply. Uncertainty remained high until late 2002 when biocompatible material surfaced for SLA so, Siemens and Phonak followed the incorrect route for some years. Several companies also said at the same time that the slow, methodical approach implemented was a main success factor. Late

adopters like GN ReSound or Oticon could progressively increase the process without any reaction in the market and were less vulnerable to technical uncertainty. This remark advocates for caution; companies interested in using 3D printing should closely study the technology, create capacities to use it but avoid scaling down while uncertainty is still too

HighThis article aims to investigate how and why 3D printing

is embraced for manufacturing uses as well as how 3D printing has changed the competitive dynamics of an industry. By doing this, the paper contributes significantly empirically since few studies charting the full scale adoption of 3D printing. This paper also offers suggestive proof on under what conditions 3D printing could cause disruptions for established companies. Between 2000 and 2006, all six of the major producers of hearing aids started using 3D

printing. Although they tackled the technology in very varied ways, the primary justification has been rather similar throughout these companies. The goal was to industrialize the formerly erratic, labor-intensive and costly manufacturing of hearing aid shells. Hearing aid makers might not only drastically cut their cost by substituting 3D printing but also improve

quality and lower return rates. Since all scanned imprints are kept electronically, the technology also let them produce replicas quickly. Sometimes reports of cost cuts of up to 75% have been recorded. They consequently had great incentives to pursue 3D printing and this is most likely the reason adoption was quick and consistent throughout the sector.Hearing

Aid companies using 3D printing faced technological as well as

operational difficulties. All of them faced operational difficulties, mostly connected to the need of retraining for personnel to operate printers and software. Thus, albeit only to a limited degree, 3D printing can be considered as a competence-destroying technology. The ocular capacity and shell knowledge of the technicians stayed mostly unchanged. They still had incentive in favor of the new method since it was cleaner and allowed them to better do their

jobs. 3D printing has also allowed producers of hearing aids to innovate along new lines connected to fitting the electronics and using stored data to maximize hearing aid casings. Many companies, meanwhile, claim that this promise has stayed mainly untapped.Early adopters, mostly Siemens and Phonak, who started starting in 1999, faced especially great

technological obstacles. They were more unsure about which technology to use SLS or SLAor about how to find appropriate scanners and software. Sometimes this ambiguity led to issues when companies bought the incorrect technology and then had to change. These incidents stood in strong contrast to companies using 3D printing a few years later. By 2002

Sector Still it was sustaining rather than disruptive in that the market

needed this technology and that there were obvious financial incentives to explore it Competence-destruction occurred only at the component level while the rest of the hearing aid product stayed whole. The change to 3D printing has not generated any industrial upheaval. There are no new players in the sector, hence changes in market share among

anyone could now access biocompatible material for SLA and software and scanners from 3Shape. Late adopters like Oticon and GN ReSound therefore had less technological uncertainty and could scale the process with less risk.Drawing on the aforementioned, 3D printing can be categorized as a competence-destroying process innovation in the hearing aid

incumbent companies in recent years can be explained by other elements than 3D printing This result fits what theories on technological discontinuities would propose. Since there were clear financial incentives to make the move, incumbent competencies could be mobilized by 3D printing only destroyed fraction of which. Furthermore unaffected were important auxiliary

Conclution

assets including manufacturing and R&D linked to signal processing as well as market organizations. Since practically from the beginning of the technology, printers, scanners, and software have been available on the market; however, they have not given companies any notable source of uniqueness.Drawing broad conclusions from one case study is still

challenging even after an industry embraced 3D printing for production has been mapped and defined. Although this work implies that the advent of 3D printing would not produce significant competitive turbulence, it is not possible to extend from these results. Thus, further empirical studies on the shift of sectors to 3D printing are much appreciated.