In 2013, Barack Obama, in his State of the Union Speech, described 3D printing as the technology that could 'revolutionize the way we make almost everything'. In the last few years there has been a certain hype around 3D printing, especially since it has been used in applications that have large social impact, e.g. medicine and engineering. According to predictions, by 2023 25% of all medical devices in developed markets will make use of 3D printing (Basiliere et al. 2019). But how recent do you think that 3D printing is? Take the brief quiz below before you proceed to learn more about 3D printing.  

Quiz: When Was 3D Printing Invented?



A Timeline of 3D Printing

Was your answer to the quiz above correct? Although we tend to think that 3D printing is only a recent innovation, it goes back several decades. The invention of 3D printing technologies was the result of experimentation with different materials and prototypes. Many of the 3D printing inventors came up with the technology while tinkering; it is characteristic that Scott Crump, the inventor of Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM), one of the 3D printing technologies, came up with the method while trying to make a toy frog for his daughter using a hot glue gun. Definitely, he wasn't the only one. Browse the timeline below to explore some of the key moments and innovations in 3D printing in the last 40 years.   
 

From Additive Manufacturing to 3D and 4D Printing

Gartner Hype Cycle for 3D Printing, 2019. (click to enlarge the figure)

As you may have noticed in the timeline above, the term 3D printing was not originally used to describe this technology. The premise of 3D printing is that a physical object is generated by creating layers which are successively formed and deposited based on the directions of a computer software. The software provides this information by slicing the 3D model into layers, therefore allowing the 3D printer to manufacture the physical object by adding layers one on top of the other. The official, and more accurate name for 3D printing is 'Additive Manufacturing'.

In 2019, the well-known research and consultancy firm Gartner, released the Hype Cycle for 3D printing (Basiliere et al 2019). Gartner releases hype cycles every year for emerging technologies showing how they go through different phases of engagement over time. The interesting feature of the hype cycle graph is that it includes five phases; innovation trigger, peak of inflated expectations; trough of disillusionment; slope of enlightenment; and plateau of productivity. Each of the technologies included in the hype cycle has a timeframe during which they may reach the plateau of productivity. However, some of these technologies may also become obsolete before reaching the plateau. The predictions for 2019, show that e.g. 3D printing of dental devices, 3D printing in the automotive industry, and in electronics may reach the plateau of productivity in two to five years. On the other hand, 3D printing in retail, supply chain, aerospace, wearables and the classroom might take at least five to ten years. Similarly, 3D bioprinted organ transplants, drugs, and nonoscale 3D printing may take more than a decade. One of the most critical areas to be dealt with regarding 3D printing is the Intellectual Property of 3D printed products. According to Gartner, this may need five to ten years to be investigated and get established. Ratto and Ree, already in their 2012 paper 'Materialzing Information: 3D Printing and Social Change', where they discuss 3D printing and social change they highlight that intellectual property requires more thinking and research. The uncertainty around IP was also demonstrated by two participants in a critical making session that they organised for various stakeholders:

IP is really hard. I’ve published about a dozen software patents, but I don’t agree with them, so it’s a weird place to be ... We have a whole culture of kids growing up who have no concept of intellectual property. They take stuff of the Web, and mix and mash it together, upload it to YouTube, and that’s just the way things work. The tools are available, it’s easy to do, and they’re actually creating new things and new value, but not legally allowed to ... Policy always lags what’s actually happening in the world. (Ron, e–business consultant)

Like with small snap connectors, there’s patents all around that sort of stuff ... but all of a sudden, with 3d printing, you could just print one for free ... It’s a hard question; it’s hard to say what will become of it. It definitely would be a threat, for lack of a better term. (Mark, industrial designer)

Even after almost a decade since Ratto's and Ree's paper (2012), Intellectual Property issues in relation to 3D printing still remain (Bechtold 2016; Mednis et al. 2019; also see Lesson 4.4.3). Last but not least, future developments of 3D printing, such as 4D printing, ie. a 3D printed object is transformed into another object over time (and possibly serve a different function) due to the impact of light, temperature or other external stimuli, may also take more than 10 years to reach the plateau. In the video below you can watch a brief overview of 4D printing technology. 

Embracing 4D Printing Video produced by the Mechanical Engineering Magazine (YouTube)

Many researchers have discussed the potential of 3D printing for reconfiguring production (Birtchnell and Urry 2016) as well as democratising making processes since a larger population can experiment, share, participate, prototype, and ultimately invent without the need of advance knowledge and skills (Ratto and Ree 2012; Lupton 2016). The Open movement was definitely one of the reasons that 3D printing became so popular in the last few years. The expiration of patents filed in the 80s, allowed other companies to develop open and non-proprietary systems, therefore providing new opportunities for tinkering and experimentation. Also, since more and more people are involved into 3D making, online 3D warehouses (repositories and marketplaces), such as Thingiverse, Turbosquid, and Sketchfab enable them to both share their creations as well as to experiment, prototype, and remix, as well as to come up with new 3D fabrications. Ratto and Ree (2012) call this 'citizen empowerement' and highlight the collaborative aspects of creation. By physically engaging in the act of making, citizens make things which also serve as cultural probes; therefore, enabling not only making but also critical making (see #dariahTeach course Introduction to Design Thinking & Maker Culture). Such critical making approaches have also been encouraged by the establishment of Fab Labs, Maker spaces, and Hacker Spaces. Although these spaces bear slightly different meaning and have been developed within different cultural and social contexts in the evolution of make culture, they all enable certain demographics (school, library, communities, public) to use technology to experiment, prototype, innovate, and invent, while fostering entrepreneurial and digital skills (Striukova and Rayna 2019). The video below explains the slightly different meanings and history of maker spaces, hacker spaces, fab labs, and tech shops. 

Is it a makerspace, hackerspace, fablab or techshop?  Video produced as part of the Makerspace for Inclusion project (YouTube)

Quiz: Test your Knowledge on 3D Printing




References

• Basiliere, P., Shanler, M. et al. (2019). Hype Cycle for 3D Printing, 2019. https://www.gartner.com/en/documents/3947508/hype-cycle-for-3d-printing-2019
  
• Bechtold, S. (2016). 3D printing, intellectual property and innovation policy. IIC-International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, 47(5), 517-536. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-016-0487-4
  
• Birtchnell, T and Urry, J. (2016) A New Industrial Future?: 3D Printing and the Reconfiguring of Production, Distribution, and Consumption, London: Routledge
• Lupton, D. (2016). 3d Printing Technologies: Social Perspectives.http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2865290
  
• Lupton D and Turner B. (forthcoming). 'Both fascinating and disturbing': consumer responses to 3D food printing and implications for food activism, In Schneider, T. et al. (eds), Digital Food Activism Routledge. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2799191
  
• Ratto M and Ree R. (2012) Materializing information: 3D printing and social change. First Monday, 17. https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3968/3273
  
• Striukova, L., & Rayna, T. (2019, July). Fostering Skills for the 21st Century: The Role of Fab Labs and Makerspaces. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2019, No. 1, p. 16767). Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510: Academy of Management. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2019.16767abstract
  
• Wohlers, T. (2005). Rapid Prototyping, Tooling & Manufacturing State of the Industry. Wohlers Report 2005. Wohlers Associates. http://www.wohlersassociates.com/history.pdf 

Further Reading

• Mendis, D., Lemley, M., & Rimmer, M. (Eds.). (2019). 3D printing and beyond: Intellectual property and regulation. Edward Elgar Publishing.