Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

DECISION SCIENCES INSTITUTE

Additive Manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Mojtaba Khorram Niaki

Department of Computer, Control, and Management Engineering “Antonio Ruberti” at Sapienza
University of Rome, E-mail: mojtaba.khorramniaki@uniroma1.it

Fabio Nonino
Department of Computer, Control, and Management Engineering “Antonio Ruberti” at Sapienza
University of Rome, E-mail: fabio.nonino@uniroma1.it

ABSTRACT

According to the phenomenal changes that Additive Manufacturing (AM) has brought to
manufacturing industries and markets, most of the managerial approaches should be
restructured in order to adopt this emerging manufacturing technology. This revolutionary
technology is reasonable to dramatically change business models and innovations, shrink
supply chains, and alter the global economic. In production side, 3DP shifts production location,
leads to freeform product design and sustainable production. There are several researches in
the management research stream, so the aim of this article is to use systematic literature search
to identify the specific research domains of AM in the scope of management, business and
economic to understand the current state of progress and the future research directions.

KEYWORDS: Additive Manufacturing, Management, literature review

INTRODUCTION

Additive manufacturing (AM) is a process of joining materials to make objects from 3D model
data, usually layer upon layer, as opposed to subtractive manufacturing technologies (ASTM-
Standard). Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) and Fused Layer Manufacturing (FLM) of plastic and
metal are part of these ‘layer by layer’ based AM techniques, which are known as the next
industrial revolution. AM is a developing technology that has been launching from the 1980s
(Kruth et al., 1998); however, as regard to practical application, AM is currently an upcoming
foreside of the manufacturing, medicine, art, and so on. In recent years, additive technologies
have gone through a three evolution phases. In the first phase, product designers employed AM
technologies to make prototypes of new designs. The second evolutionary phase of AM includes
the application in creating finished parts (this step is referred to as ‘direct digital manufacturing’
or ‘rapid tooling’). In the third phase, 3-D printers are used by final consumers, like traditional
desktop printers (Berman, 2012).
With rapid, customized, and low cost products, 3D printing (3DP) is presumably to have huge
and far-reaching impacts on the industrial world. Some other fundamental advantages of AM
that should be considered are: product customization of complex parts, Minimum inventory cost,
Time-to-Market reduction, Maximum raw material saving, and gradual and controlled porous
structures, etc (Hopkinson, 2001; Petrovic, 2011; Reeves, 2008; Tuck & Hague, 2006). Current
limitations of AM include relatively slow building speed, limited object size, limited object detail or
resolution, high materials cost, and, in some cases, limited object strength (Berman, 2012; Tuck
et al., 2007). However, in recent years rapid progress has been made in reducing these
limitations, additive technologies must face some pending challenges in the near future. Some
of those are development and characterization of new materials for AM, change in the
designers’ way of thinking (AM has enabled a new “free form fabrication” that is free from
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

manufacturing constraints and must be introduced), automation design and process planning,
and introducing AM in the managerial approaches.
The advent of AM technologies as developing manufacturing technique presents a number of
opportunities for the researchers in different fields. There are various researches in the
management research stream, although they are still in the embryonic development. Therefore,
the aim of this article is to explore the specific research domains of AM in the area of operation
strategy and management, business, and economic to understand the current state of
development and the future research directions. Despite the all reviews of AM in different
sciences contributing to this new technology, there are no available researches that cover the
AM management dimensions and research directions. Therefore, the main reason that has
stimulated us is the absence of a literature review referring to this particular aspect and the
increasing interest of scholars, considering the rising number of papers on AM management in
different research subfields over the last years.
The paper explains the research methodology starting from the systematic literature search until
the subsequent co-citation analysis based on the factor analysis and multi-dimensional scaling
methods. Then the results of the analysis are presented. In the last section, we discuss the
findings of our study, and describe research limitations and future research directions.

METHODOLOGY

We implemented a bibliographic analysis as our research methodology. Bibliometrics provides

several analytical methods for understanding data among scientific literature. The basic
methodology of our research is the co-citation analysis, a bibliometric technique used to analyze
connexion among papers contributing to the research field by panoramic view of what was
written on the topic (Acedo et al., 2006) and determining its intellectual structure (Shafique,-
2013). The main ‘building block’ of co-citation is the relationship among publications. The
fundamental idea is that the more two articles are cited together, the more they should be linked
and treat the same aspects of a topic, even if they do not agree, so that we could presume that
they belong to the same research group. Co-citation analysis has been applied increasingly
across a variety of research fields for uncovering their underlying structure. As the applications
suggest, the method can be used to recognize patterns within a field of endeavour as they
emerge, and before they are widely discern and readily observable otherwise.” [(Di Stefano et-
al, 2012), p. 1189]
We started our research looking for articles that focus on AM in the all research subfields
relating to management, business, economic, and social science. After the identification of an
overall set of articles, we fixed two multivariate techniques to evaluate the intellectual structure
of the research field: Factor Analysis and Multidimensional Scaling. These have been extremely
used in management research (e.g., Ferreira et al., 2014; Nerur, 2008; Pilkington & Chai, 2008;
Walter & Ribiere, 2013). The factor analysis is a useful data reduction technique used also for
realizing a research fields’ underlying structure based on varying degrees of relationship among
the papers (Pilkington & Chai, 2008; Pilkington & Meredith, 2009). Factor analysis classifies the
articles in factors that represent groups of publications that may belong to fields, subfields, or a
core set of articles with commonalities among them. Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) exposes
graphically the conceptual proximity between the publications and is useful for a better
understanding of the topic and the state of literature (Ramos-Rodríguez & Ruíz-Navarro, 2004;
Holling, 1973).

Searching and selecting the articles

We started the literature search by looking for articles in four different databases: Scopus, Web
of Science, EBSCOhost and IEEE Explore. We selected only academic articles in English,
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

involving also articles derived from conference talk until the end of 2014. As mentioned before
the aim of this paper is to investigate AM, with a particular focus on impact of the technology in
management, business and economics. We did our systematic search as follows:
Scopus: we searched for “Additive manufacturing”, “3D printing”, “Rapid Prototyping”, “Layered
Manufacturing” OR “Free Form Fabrication” in article “title, abstract, keywords”, finding 19610
documents. After filtering on subject areas “Business Management and Accounting”, “Social
Science”, “Decision Sciences”, we obtained 865 articles, of which 665 were academic works in
English. Then, by title and abstract reading, we selected 122 articles most related to our
research topic.
Web of Science: We searched by the same phrases mentioned before, in “Topic and Title”,
finding 6579 documents, then we obtained 107 papers by filtering English publications in the
subject area of “Operation Research and Management Science” and “Business economics”.
Finally, we selected 22 works considering title and abstract.
EBSCOhost: We searched for specific phrases mentioned before, in Business Source
Complete, finding 54412 works, of which 113 were academic publications and in “management”,
“operations management”, “manufacturing system”, “industrial management”, and
“manufacturing” subject areas. Finally, we selected 27 articles based on title and abstract.
IEEE Explore: Searching for the same phrases, we found 223 articles, and then we filtered them
using other keywords in sequence; finally, we obtained two papers by abstract. Table 1 shows
the result of systematic literature search.

Table 1: Databases for paper selection

Number of Number of papers selected
Database database after title and abstract
returns reading
Scopus 665 122
Web of Science 107 22
EBSCO 113 27
IEEE 223 2

We achieved a set of 173 articles with this process and copies deletion. Furthermore, we
analyzed the papers cited by this selected set as well as hand searching to find every relating
work we may have missed in the first step. Accordingly, we achieved a set of 208 papers with an
extended searching. As a final point, we did a full text analysis in order to select only articles
about the specific research domains of management, business, and economics of AM. As a
result, we obtained a controlled set of 123 articles (see references).
Figure 1 shows that the topic is attracting greater levels of research interest as confirmed by the
dramatically growing trend of the number of articles Over the last 2 years. It demonstrates the
growing interest of scholars to this new topic.

Analyzing the structure

Co-citation analysis requires counting the frequency a selected pair of works is cited together in
articles published (White & McCain, 1998).
First, we created a citation matrix of the set of 123 papers, where the rows and columns report
respectively, the cited articles and the citing articles, so that we have an “x” in cell aij if j cites i.
With this matrix, we identified some papers in the set that were not cited by any other paper, nor
were citing any other paper, so we excluded them to reduce our set to 98 articles.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Then, we calculated co-citations frequencies and put them into a co-citation matrix. The rows
and columns represent articles in the set and the cells represent the number of times that each
pair of papers has been cited together.

Figure 1: Selected publications per year

Using co-citation matrix, we ascertained a group of papers that were not cited together with any
other paper. We excluded them in order to keep just those works cited together with at least
another paper. Consequently, we achieved a conclusive set of 59 papers as Table 2 shows.
In the next step, we created matrix of Pearson’s correlation coefficients from co-citation matrix,
demonstrating a better measure of similarity between two works, because they make it possible
to standardize data and provide a better basis for the statistical analysis. We then employed the
correlation matrix for two multivariate techniques, in particular factor analysis and multi-
dimensional scaling to analyse data.

Table 2: The core set of articles

# of
Authors Year Typology Methodology
citations
Empirical
Yoon, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Kim, H.S., et al. 2014 4 case study
Research
Empirical
Mellor, S., Hao, L., Zhang, D. 2014 6 case study
Research
Empirical
Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G, Devadasan, S.R., et al. 2009 14 survey
Research
Empirical
Lan, H., Ding, Y., Hong, J. Huang, H., Lu, B. 2004 36 case study
Research
Empirical
Mahapatra, S.S., Panda, B.N. 2013 1 case study
Research
Empirical
Lan, H., Ding, Y., Hong, J. 2005 14 case study
Research
Empirical
Munguía, J., Lloveras, J., Llorens., Laoui, T. 2010 3 case study
Research
Empirical
Anthony, R., Evans, M., Rennie, A., Kirkby, E. 2011 0 case study
Research
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Empirical
Di Angelo, B., Di Stefano, P. 2010 3 case study
Research
Empirical
Hanumaiah, N., Ravi, B., Mukherjee, P. 2006 28 case study
Research
Empirical
Kochan, D., Kai, C. C., Zhaohui, D. 1999 74 survey
Research
literature
Tuck, C., Hague, R.J.M., Burns, N. 2007 17
review
Empirical
Pal, D.K., Ravi, B., Bhargava, L.S. 2007 18 case study
Research
Empirical
Sharif Ullah, A.M.M. 2013 1 survey
Research
Empirical
Masood, S. H., Al-ALawi, M. 2002 6 case study
Research
Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, L., Rosamond, E., Empirical
2013 4 survey
Hague, R. Research
Empirical
Khrais, S., Al-Hawari, T., Al-Araidah, O. 2011 3 case study
Research
Empirical
Liao, S., Wu, M.J., Huang, C.Y, Kao, Y.S, Lee, T.H. 2014 0 case study
Research
literature
Lan, H. 2009 33
review
Empirical action
Ilyas, I.S. 2013 0
Research research
Empirical
Byun, H.S., Lee, K.H. 2005 67 case study
Research
Empirical
Atzeni, E., Salmi, A. 2012 13 survey
Research
Empirical action
Hopkinson, N., Dickens, P. 2001 56
Research research
Empirical
Huang, S.H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., Hou, L. 2013 5 survey
Research
Empirical
Khajavi, S.H., Partanen, J., Holmstro¨m, J. 2014 0 survey
Research
Empirical action
Paul, R., Anand, S. 2012 5
Research research
literature
Kruth, J. P., Leu, M.C., Nakagawa, T. 1998 175
review
Empirical
Tuck, C.J., Hague, R.J.M., Ruffo, M., Ransley, M., Adams, P. 2008 18 case study
Research
conceptual
Holmström, J., Partanen, J., Tuomi, J., Walter, M. 2010 8
study
Empirical
Le Bourhis, F., Kerbrat, O., ·Hascoet, J., Mognol, P. 2013 2 case study
Research
Empirical
Liu, P., Huang, S. H., Mokasdar, A., Zhou, H., Hou, L. 2013 0 survey
Research
Empirical
Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., Iakovou, E., Thymianidis, M., Tzetzis, D. 2014 0 case study
Research
Empirical
Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, o., Garrett, B. 2011 19 survey
Research
literature
Drizo, A., Pegna, J. 2006 17
review
Empirical
Birtchnell, T., Urry, J. 2013 3 survey
Research
Empirical
Reeves, P. 2008 survey
Research
conceptual
Walter, M., Holmström, J., Yrjölä, H. 2004 17
study
conceptual
Hasan, S., Rennie, A.E.W. 2008 1
study
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

conceptual
Weller, C., Kleer, R., Piller, F.T., Hinke, C 2014 0
study
Empirical
West, J., Kuk, G. 2014 0 case study
Research
Empirical
Xu, X., Meteyer, S., Perry, N., Zhao, Y.F. 2014 0 case study
Research
Empirical
Cruz Sanchez, F.A.C., Boudaoud, H., Muller, L., Camargo, M. 2014 0 case study
Research
Empirical
Roberson, D.A. , Espalin, D., Wicker, R.B. 2013 3 case study
Research
Pearce, J. M., Blair, C.M., Laciak, K.J., Andrews, R., Nosrat, A., literature
2010 12
Zovko, I.Z. review
Empirical
Di Angelo, L. , Di Stefano, P. 2011 5 case study
Research
conceptual
Sealy, W. 2012 0
study
Empirical
Rickenbacher, L., Spierings, A., Wegener, K. 2013 0 case study
Research
Empirical
Ruffo, M. , Hague, R. 2007 9 Case study
Research
Empirical
Kellens, K., Yasa, E., Dewulf, W., Duflou, J. 2010 7 survey
Research
conceptual
Mansour, S., Hague, R. 2003 23
study
Empirical
Rao, R.V., Padmanabhan, K.K. 2007 31 Case study
Research
Empirical
Mognol, P., Lepicart, D., Perry, N. 2006 21 survey
Research
Empirical
Tuck, C., Hague, R.J.M. 2006 18 survey
Research
Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, I., Rosamond, E., Empirical
2012 0 survey
Hague, R. Research
Empirical
Kengpol, A., O'Brien, C. 2001 51 Case study
Research
Empirical
Armillotta, A. 2008 19 Case study
Research
conceptual
Munguía, J., Ciurana, J., Riba, C. 2009 9
study
Empirical
Perez, M.A., Ramos, J., Espalin, D., Hossain, M.S., Wicker, R.B. 2013 0 Case study
Research
Empirical
Masood, S. H., Soo, A. 2002 32 survey
Research

FINDINGS

Findings from systematic literature search

In Appendix 1, we report the final set of the papers selected in systematic literature search.
These are the scientific core of the AM management.
We filtered our set of 123 articles in two steps: in the first step, with the citation matrix, we
excluded the papers that were not citing, nor were cited by another one. In the second one, with
the co-citation matrix, we left out papers that, even if citing or cited, have never been cited
together with any other paper in the panel. These are not contributed to our co-citation analysis.
Then, we distinguished articles by assigning them a class. Class A is the group of articles of the
final set of 59 papers, class B is the group of the papers that excluded at the second step of
filtration, but passed the first one. All the articles that have not passed the first selection were
grouped in class C.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

We listed the journals and conferences of the selected papers in appendix 1 where the assigned
class can be found. Moreover, each paper is classified in terms of typology as follow: conceptual
study; indicating those works with a theoretical content, which provide a conceptual framework,
literature review, and empirical researches. We then subdivided empirical researches by
differentiating the methodology used: survey research, case study or action research.
We reach the first result using qualitative analysis from appendix 1. The table shows that most
of the works (85) are empirical research whereas only (18) works are conceptual study and (20)
other are literature reviews. (47) Works (more than 55%) of empirical research are located in
class A, (24) works in class B and (15) in class C. In other words, empirical researches
constitute the 79% of class A, while conceptual studies and literature review are the 22%. Both
class B and class C, approximately constitute 60 % by empirical researches and 40% by
conceptual studies and literature reviews. Despite the core contains empirical research aimed at
theory building more than theory testing (the 60% of empirical researches in class A implement
the case study methodology) in class B the case studies are the 26% and in class C are only
13%.
We can affirm that the core set of our bibliographic analysis contains the majority of empirical
research and we can consider it the core of the intellectual structure about AM management. It
demonstrates that the knowledge about AM management is developing.

Findings from factor analysis

We employed Principal Components Analysis (PCA) as extraction technique to identify the

factors, in order to give a meaning to the analysis and clusters.
As shown in Table 3, we obtained a set of eight factors, including all 59 papers in the core set,
explaining 73% of variance.
Factor loading corresponding to each individual paper determines the correlation between the
paper and factors. In other words, factor loading is the degree to which the article belongs to
that group. According to the prior studies, (e.g., Di Stefano et al., 2012; Di Stefano et al., 2010;
Pilkington & Meredith, 2009) we decided to consider only factor loadings higher than 0,4.

Table 3: Results of the Principal Components Analysis

Factor Value Percent Cum %

1 19.2624 21.2 21.2

2 12.6111 13.9 35.0

3 8.8961 9.8 44.8

4 6.2738 6.9 51.7

5 5.7619 6.3 58.0

6 5.3625 5.9 63.9

7 4.4566 4.9 68.8

8 3.8654 4.2 73.1

 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

We identified the papers belonging to each factor starting from the factor loading(s) of each
article, then we gave the meaning of the eight factors for the similarities in subject as follow:

 AM technology process selection with decision making methods

 Supply chain management
 Product design and production
 Environmental aspects assessment
 Strategic challenges
 Manufacturing system framework
 Open-Source innovation & business, and social impacts
 Economics of AM

AM technology process selection with decision making methods

Factor 1 includes 11 articles (of 59) representing the use of operation research in AM
management. All the papers fitting to this factor include the problem of optimal AM process
selection considering the specific process and given product characteristics using different
decision-making approaches. Due to the rapid growth of AM technologies, the selection
procedure of the most appropriate technique among a number of AM processes became
increasingly important. Selection criteria’s mostly include strength, quality needed, limitations,
applications, defects, utilities, build time and cost. The most important and more cited papers in
this factor are Lan (2009); Rao & Padmanabhan (2007) and Kengpol & O'Brien (2001) that can
be considered the fundamental for this specific subject. We can affirm that the major differences
between these papers are the DM techniques they employed and the domain of cases.

Supply chain management

Factor 2 includes 12 of (59) papers, most of which exactly considered the impact of AM in
supply chain management, while others investigated this issue together with other societal and
production economics impacts (Hopkinson & Dickens, 2001; Huang et al., 2013).
AM provides a number of advantages such as: closing production location to end consumers,
dematerialized supply chain, high level of customization, low waste, low production lead time,
low logistic cost and minimum inventories (Tuck et al., 2007; Liu et al., 2013). Due to these
important impacts, some works evaluated the potential approaches for introducing AM in supply
chain management (Vinodh et al., 2009; Tuck et al., 2007; Reeves, 2008; Tuck & Hague, 2006).
Other works specifically studied the spare parts supply chain (Holmström et al., 2010; Liu et al.,
2013; Hasan & Rennie, 2008). We can verify the increasing interest of researchers in AM supply
chain management, considering the rising number of recent papers (e.g., Huang et al., 2013;
Liu et al., 2013).

Product design and production

Factor 3 includes eight papers, which we named “Product design and production”. We can
divide this group by the subtitle of “product design” and “production cost models”.
The former investigated the abilities that AM provides for product designers and latter typically
proposed models for production cost and time estimating. Mansour & Hague (2003) as an
oldest paper together with Tuck et al. (2008) is the most important paper in the first subfields.
The second subfield constitutes by Rickenbacher et al. (2013), Ruffo & Hague (2007) and
Baumers et al. (2012).
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Environmental aspects assessment

This factor includes nine papers all of which assessed the energy consumption and other
environmental aspects of AM technology. Inside the factor, some papers proposed the
optimization model of energy consumption according to the specific criteria’s of product and
process (Baumers et al., 2013; Paul & Anand, 2012; Xu et al., 2014; Kellens et al., 2010). Some
other works assessed all the environmental aspects of AM technologies (Sharif Ullah et al.,
2013; Le Bourhis et al., 2013; Drizo & Pegna, 2006) while, Yoon et al. (2014) and Mognol et al.
(2006) compared only the energy consumption between AM different technologies and
conventional manufacturing methods. Likewise, the factor 2, the rising number of the recent
papers shows us that this topic has attracted the scholars.

Strategic challenges

Factor 5 which we named “strategic challenges” includes four papers. They studied the
challenges ahead of the implementation and adoption of AM technology; whereas, Kruth et al.
(1998) is the oldest and more important paper of this group, Sealy (2012) proposed the
framework for identifying the challenges and threats ahead. Moreover, Ilyas (2013) evaluated
the combination of 3D machine vision and AM technology with strategic point of view.

Manufacturing system framework

Factor six which we named “Manufacturing system framework” includes five papers. Lan et al.
(2004), Hanumaiah et al. (2006) and Pal et al. (2007) studied on general framework for
manufacturing service system. Respectively, they are based on networked manufacturing
system, prioritizing framework for process parameters, and manufacturability framework for
evaluation of production feasibility.
Other two papers are less related to this subfield but they should be aligned important works.
One of them that could attract scholars predicted the evolution of AM in future based on shaping
science theory (Kochan et al., 1999). Finally, the last paper in this factor studied on evaluation
framework for selection and ranking of the 3D printers considering the specific requirements
(Liao et al., 2014).

Open-Source innovation & business, and social impacts

Factor 7, which includes six articles, is less homogenous comparing with the last factors. Two
papers studied the 3D printing in the open source conception (Cruz Sanchez et al., 2014;
Pearce et al., 2010). In addition, two other works investigated the 3D printers ranking model in
order to select the most appropriate printing machine (Roberson et al., 2013; Perez et al.,
2013). The last two papers considered the social impacts of this emerging technology
(Campbell et al., 2011; Birtchnell & Urry, 2013).

Economics of AM

Factor 8 which we called “Economic of AM” includes four articles. The ability to early estimate
cost of production is an indispensable requirement and one of the main issues for further uptake
of AM. Most of the papers among this factor proposed models for estimating the build time and
cost of production based on artificial intelligence (Di Angelo & Di Stefano, 2010; Di Angelo & Di
Stefano, 2011; Munguía et al., 2009). Another paper of this group investigated the economic
benefits of AM implications in both operational and market structure (Weller et al., 2014).
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Findings from Multidimensional Scaling

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) depicts a graphic that represents the conceptual proximity, or
similarity, between the publications. With Pearson’s correlation coefficients, MDS creates a bi-
dimensional map (Figure 2), in which the position of each paper depends on its relationships
with the other papers. Articles positioned near the centre of the axis have been co-cited most
frequently with the others of the panel than those positioned near the border.
As a result of the graphic analysis, we named the axes based on the position of factors on the
map as well as in depth investigation of the articles at the poles of the axes and their differences
so that we could give a meaningful interpretation.
Along with the x-axis, starting from the left side, we have papers that focus on operation
strategies of AM, while moving to the right side we can see a shift to the AM technology
selection problem. For example, on the left side there are some researches about the
examination of the potential supply chain approaches (e.g., Reeves, 2008; Liu et al., 2013), or
other papers about personalization of design through combination of reverse engineering and
AM (Tuck et al., 2008), and some other papers working on production optimization (e.g.,
Rickenbacher et al., 2013; Baumers et al., 2012). On the right side, the MDS positions the
researches belonging to the first factor and focuses on AM technologies selection (Lan et al.,
2005; Khrais et al., 2011; Byun & Lee, 2005; Armillotta, 2008; Masood & Soo, 2002).
The y-axis shows the manufacturing strategy and sustainability analysis in two sides. In the
lower section with the name of sustainability analysis, there are all the papers belonging to the
fourth factor about environmental aspects assessment nearby all the papers belonging to the
eighth factor about economic, both of which contain the concept of sustainability. In the upper
section, which we called manufacturing strategy, some papers proposing a manufacturing
structure for producing products based on the specific customers’ requirements are positioned
(Lan et al., 2004; Hanumaiah et al., 2006; Pal et al., 2007).

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of our research was to explain the research domains of this new research topic,
following the growing interest of scholars and practitioners about introducing additive-
manufacturing technologies in managerial approaches. Therefore, we employed a literature
search with two multivariate techniques such as factor analysis and multi-dimensional scaling.
The first result obtained from our analysis, is the management of AM separated from its infancy,
likewise the current situation of AM for producing end-use parts, so it is still in developing phase.
The number of researchers and articles discussing AM management are increasing and some
research subfields are being paid an increasing attention from scientific journals, but are not yet
clearly defined or consolidated. Consequently, it needs more effort to be reliable for theoretical
and practical foundations.
To explain the current state of research we employed factor analysis in which we extracted the
objective clusters they were looking for.
In the first factor, they answered the “Which AM technology could be more effective considering
the specific desirable requirements?”. There are a number of options with various
characteristics and a number of selection criteria’s such as dimensional accuracy, surface
quality, part cost, build time, and material properties, so, the best options should be identified for
producers. Possible future work can include a larger coverage of the AM technologies of
practical interest as well as well-defined categories of products.
Factor two outlined some of the key changes in current supply chain methodologies. They
answered to “How will RM change supply chain- management thinking?” and to “Which is the
efficient supply chain approach for AM implementation?”. For the latter they evaluated the
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

potential approaches such as centralized AM to replace inventory holding, distributed AM to

replace inventories and conventional distribution.
Findings show that the potential supply chain advantages in terms of simultaneously improved
service and reduced inventory makes the distributed deployment of AM very interesting for
spare parts supply chain. However, considering the trade-offs affecting deployment, it has been
suggested that most feasible is centralized deployment by original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) (Holmström et al., 2010). Many questions remain to be answered on how the
development of AM and full customization can be implemented (Tuck et al., 2007).

Figure 2: Multidimensional Scaling (circles on the map show where the eight factors)
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Operations Strategies

Manufacturing
Sustainability

Manufacturing strategy
Sustainability Analysis
Analysis

strategy

Technology Selection
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

The papers assessing the energy consumption and other environmental aspects belonging to
the factor 4 answered “How will AM technologies effect on environmental aspects?” and “Does
and to what extent, AM contribute to waste minimization?”. Although based on the results of
Yoon et al. (2014) the conventional manufacturing methods consume less energy, the study of
Baumers et al. (2013) approves the efficient energy consumption of AM technologies
considering the feasible design optimization. Data from different industrial fields should be
gathered to distinguish various manufacturing processes and aid decision-making concerning
environmentally responsible manufacturing practices in industry. For the future research, a
homogeneous procedure should be developed to consider detailed life cycle with various
manufacturing process, design, and material. In other words, evaluation should involve the facts
that AM allows design optimization leading to products with the same functionality with less
weight in comparison with goods producing, with conventional manufacturing, simpler supply
chain, and on-demand produced parts (Huang et al., 2013).
In the group of “strategic challenges” in factor 5, they took into account the development of AM
and challenges ahead for implementation. It is thus crucial that technologists and policy makers
begin a substantial dialogue in anticipation of these challenges to our current global economic
status. The main question is “When do Additive Manufacturing or any associate technologies
become disruptive to conventional manufacturing processes?” according to some researches
currently mainstream markets have little or no need for AM (Campbell & De Beer, 2005; Sealy,
2012). The compelling evidence from industry experts dictate AM is improving and may become
a disruptive technology to conventional manufacturing processes. Consequently, while the
future is certainly hard to predict, prescience and advanced planning are necessary in
preparation for the disruptive technology of AM.
The papers constituting factor 6 presented the systematic manufacturing framework for
implementing AM for prototype and end-use parts. For instance, Lan et al. (2004) presented the
architecture of the networked manufacturing service system. Further research in this topic could
be focused on the collaborative product commerce (CPC). Networked manufacturing based on
the Web is a new manufacturing method in term of mission, structure, infrastructure,
capabilities, and design process, which needs more detailed research and theory building (Lan
et al., 2004). Web services represent a step forward in enabling collaborations between various
entities on the web and in overcoming the interoperability problems that may appear. Web
services technique may provide a solution for this issue.
Inside the factor 7 the works on open source 3D printing conception, examine “How do open
source 3-D printers, such as the RepRap and Fab@home, enable the use of designs in the
public domain?”, which are easily and economically made from readily available resources by
local communities to meet their needs (Cruz Sanchez et al., 2014; Pearce et al., 2010). Based
on the study of Pearce et al. (2010) open source 3-D printing is currently in the development
stage that needs to be developed to the point in which they can be used reliably as an
appropriate technology.
As mentioned above, the papers inside the factor 8 are dealing with the framework for build time
and cost estimation of AM process. They proposed parametric approach analyses the
geometrical features, which typically affect the build time of the main layer manufacturing
technologies. As mentioned by Di Angelo & Di Stefano (2011), none of these methods
considered all the important components of build time, consequently they encountered with big
errors; even the smallest error in build time estimation can significantly affect build cost
estimation by producing a non-profitable or an excessive price estimation. So, the reliable cost
estimation model can only be achieved with a deep understanding of the whole process chain
and by specifically optimizing the most important cost drivers (Rickenbacher et al., 2013).
In summary, our findings suggest that prolific future research directions about AM management
be:
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

 Consolidating the decision making framework theories by larger coverage of the AM

technologies of practical interest
 Supply chain approaches for a different products and process categories
 Impacts of combination of AM technologies with reverse engineering in product design
 Application of AM in creative business
 Environmental aspects of AM are still disputed, more cases or new dimensions are
required
 Study on E-manufacturing as adaptive method for this emerging technology
 Focus on collaborative product commerce (CPC)
 AM technologies in open-source innovation and business
This research has also showed the limits of the review methodology based on bibliometric
techniques. The greatest limit emerged obviously from the multidimensional scaling analysis.
Two or more articles appear very close in the map generated if they have been co-cited, but the
articles can refer to different sub-fields or subjects even if retrieved based on a systematic
literature search.

REFERENCES

Achillas, C., Aidonis, D., Iakovou, E., Thymianidis, M., Tzetzis, D. (2014). A methodological
framework for the inclusion of modern additive manufacturing into the production portfolio of a
focused factory. Journal of Manufacturing Systems.

Ahmad, A., Mazhar, M. I., Jan, V. V. E. (2009, September). Strengthening smes through rapid
prototyping to meet future challenges why & how. InThe14th Cambridge International
Manufacturing Symposium on Configuring Manufacturing Value Chains-Responding To an
Uncertain World.

Anderson, P., Sherman, C. A. (2007). A discussion of new business models for 3D

printing. International Journal of Technology Marketing, 2(3), 280-294.

Anthony, R. W., Evans, M., Rennie, A. E. W., Kirkby, E. (2011). Opportunities offered by additive
manufacturing in creative businesses: informing designers. In DS 69: Proceedings of E&PDE
2011, the 13th International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, London,
UK, 08.-09.09. 2011.

Armillotta, A. (2008). Selection of layered manufacturing techniques by an adaptive AHP

decision model. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 24(3), 450-461.

Atzeni, E., Salmi, A. (2012). Economics of additive manufacturing for end-usable metal
parts. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 62(9-12), 1147-1155.

Bak, D. (2003). Rapid prototyping or rapid production? 3D printing processes move industry
towards the latter. Assembly Automation, 23(4), 340-345.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Balsmeier, P. W., Voisin, W. J. (1997). Rapid prototyping: State-of-the-art

manufacturing. Industrial Management-CHICAGO THEN ATLANTA-, 39, 1-4.

Bateman, R. J., Cheng, K. (2006). Extending the product portfolio with ‘devolved
manufacturing’: methodology and case studies. International journal of production
research, 44(16), 3325-3343.

Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, I., Rosamond, E., Hague, R. (2012). Combined
Build-Time, Energy Consumption and Cost Estimation for Direct Metal Laser Sintering. In From
Proceedings of Twenty Third Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium—An
Additive Manufacturing Conference (Vol. 13).

Baumers, M., Tuck, C., Wildman, R., Ashcroft, I., Rosamond, E., Hague, R. (2013).
Transparency Built‐in. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(3), 418-431.

Beevis, D., St Denis, G. (1992). Rapid prototyping and the human factors engineering
process. Applied ergonomics, 23(3), 155-160.

Berman, B. (2012). 3-D printing: The new industrial revolution. Business horizons, 55(2), 155-
162.

Bernard, A., Fischer, A. (2002). New trends in rapid product development.CIRP Annals-
Manufacturing Technology, 51(2), 635-652.

Birtchnell, T., Urry, J. (2013). Fabricating futures and the movement of objects. Mobilities, 8(3),
388-405.

Bogue, R. (2013). 3D printing: the dawn of a new era in manufacturing?. Assembly

Automation, 33(4), 307-311.

Byun, H. S., Lee, K. H. (2005). A decision support system for the selection of a rapid prototyping
process using the modified TOPSIS method. The International Journal of Advanced
Manufacturing Technology, 26(11-12), 1338-1347.

Campbell, R. I., De Beer, D. J. (2005). Rapid prototyping in South Africa: past, present and
future. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 11(4), 260-265.

Campbell, R. I., De Beer, D. J., Pei, E. (2011). Additive manufacturing in South Africa: building
on the foundations. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 17(2), 156-162.

Campbell, T., Williams, C., Ivanova, O., Garrett, B. (2011). Could 3D printing change the
world? Technologies, Potential, and Implications of Additive Manufacturing, Atlantic Council,
Washington, DC.

Chawla, O. S., Sukaran, J. P., Bihade, K. S., Modak, S. Z., AV, S. (2012). Additive manufacturing
and its impact on supply chains. International Journal of Industrial Engineering and
Technology, 4, 79-82.

Christopher, M., Ryals, L. J. (2014). The supply chain becomes the demand chain. Journal of
Business Logistics, 35(1), 29-35.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Chu, Y. T., Su, H. N. (2014, July). Understanding patent portfolio and development strategy of
3D printing technology. In Management of Engineering & Technology (PICMET), 2014 Portland
International Conference on (pp. 1407-1415). IEEE.

Chua, C. K., Chou, S. M., Wong, T. S. (1998). A study of the state-of-the-art rapid prototyping
technologies. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 14(2), 146-152.

Chuijie, Y. S. Y. Z. Y., Kaiwang, Z. (2001). Current Developments and Prospective Applications

of Rapid Prototyping [J]. Journal of Shandong Institute of Technology, 3, 003.

Cozmei, C., Caloian, F. (2012). Additive Manufacturing Flickering at the Beginning of

Existence. Procedia Economics and Finance, 3, 457-462.

Cormier, D., Harrysson, O., Mahale, T. (2003). Rapid manufacturing in the 21st century. Journal
of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers, 20(3), 193-203.

Cruz Sanchez, F. A., Boudaoud, H., Muller, L., Camargo, M. (2014). Towards a standard
experimental protocol for open source additive manufacturing: This paper proposes a
benchmarking model for evaluating accuracy performance of 3D printers. Virtual and Physical
Prototyping, 9(3), 151-167.

De Beer, D., Booysen, G., Barnard, L., Truscott, M. (2005). Rapid tooling in support of
accelerated new product development. Assembly Automation, 25(4), 306-308.

De Beer, D., Campbell, R. I., Truscott, M., Barnard, L. J. (2009). Client-centred design evolution
via functional prototyping. International Journal of Product Development, 8(1), 22-41.

De Jong, J. P., De Bruijn, E. (2013). Innovation lessons from 3-D printing. MIT Sloan
Management Review, 54(2), 43-52.

Di Angelo, L., Di Stefano, P. (2010). Parametric cost analysis for web-based e-commerce of
layer manufactured objects. International Journal of Production Research, 48(7), 2127-2140.

Di Angelo, L., Di Stefano, P. (2011). A neural network-based build time estimator for layer
manufactured objects. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 57(1-
4), 215-224.

Dickens, P. M. (1995). Research developments in rapid prototyping. Proceedings of the

Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 209(4), 261-
266.

Diegel, O., Xu, W. L., Potgieter, J. (2006). A Case Study of Rapid Prototype as Design in
Educational Engineering Projects. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2), 350.

Diegel, O., Singamneni, S., Reay, S., & Withell, A. (2010). Tools for sustainable product design:
additive manufacturing. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(3).

Dietrich, D. M. (2010). Emerging technology supply chain model for additive manufacturing.
Doctoral Dissertations. http://scholarsmine.mst.edu/doctoral_dissertations/30.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Dimitrov, D., Schreve, K., De Beer, N., Christiane, P. (2008). Three dimensional printing in the
South African industrial environment. South African Journal of Industrial Engineering, 19(1),
195-213.

Direction, S. (2009). The maturing of rapid prototyping: market for additive fabrication passes $1
billion. Strategic Direction, 25(8), 38-40.

Drizo, A., Pegna, J. (2006). Environmental impacts of rapid prototyping: an overview of research
to date. Rapid prototyping journal, 12(2), 64-71.

Eisenberg, M. (2013). 3D printing for children: What to build next?. International Journal of
Child-Computer Interaction, 1(1), 7-13.

Fawcett, S. E., Waller, M. A. (2014). Supply Chain Game Changers—Mega, Nano, and Virtual
Trends—And Forces That Impede Supply Chain Design (i.e., Building a Winning Team). Journal
of Business Logistics, 35(3), 157-164.

Folkestad, J. E., Johnson, R. L. (2002). Integrated rapid prototyping and rapid tooling
(IRPRT). Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 13(2), 97-103.

Ford, S. L. (2014). Additive Manufacturing Technology: Potential Implications for US

Manufacturing Competitiveness. Journal of International Commerce and Economics.

Garrett, B. (2014). 3D Printing: New Economic Paradigms and Strategic Shifts. Global
Policy, 5(1), 70-75.

Groenendyk, M., Gallant, R. (2013). 3D printing and scanning at the Dalhousie University
Libraries: a pilot project. Library Hi Tech, 31(1), 34-41.

Hämäläinen, M. (2014). Customer centric and value-based business model design: impacts of
the additive manufacturing technology on firm's business model. University of Jyväskylä 2014,
62 p. Master thesis.

Hanumaiah, N., Ravi, B., Mukherjee, N. P. (2006). Rapid hard tooling process selection using
QFD-AHP methodology. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17(3), 332-350.

Hanumaiah, N., Ravi, B., Mukherjee, N. P. (2007). Rapid tooling manufacturability evaluation
using fuzzy-AHP methodology. International Journal of Production Research, 45(5), 1161-1181.

Hasan, S., Rennie, A. E. W. (2008). The application of rapid manufacturing technologies in the
spare parts industry. Nineteenth Annual International Solid Freeform Fabrication (SFF)
Symposium, 4-8 August 2008, Austin, TX, USA.

Holmström, J., Partanen, J., Tuomi, J., Walter, M. (2010). Rapid manufacturing in the spare
parts supply chain: alternative approaches to capacity deployment. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management, 21(6), 687-697.

Hopkinson, N., Dickens, P. (2001). Rapid prototyping for direct manufacture. Rapid Prototyping
Journal, 7(4), 197-202.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Huang, S. H., Liu, P., Mokasdar, A., Hou, L. (2013). Additive manufacturing and its societal
impact: a literature review. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, 67(5-8), 1191-1203.

Ilyas, I. P. (2013). 3D Machine Vision and Additive Manufacturing: Concurrent Product and
Process Development. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering (Vol. 46,
No. 1, p. 012029). IOP Publishing.

Kellens, K., Yasa, E., Dewulf, W., Duflou, J. (2010). Environmental assessment of selective
laser melting and selective laser sintering. Going Green–CARE INNOVATION 2010:: From
Legal Compliance to Energy-efficient Products and Services.

Kengpol, A., O'Brien, C. (2001). The development of a decision support tool for the selection of
advanced technology to achieve rapid product development. International Journal of Production
Economics, 69(2), 177-191.

Kerbrat, O., Mognol, P., Hascoët, J. Y. (2010). Manufacturability analysis to combine additive
and subtractive processes. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 16(1), 63-72.

Khajavi, S. H., Partanen, J., Holmström, J. (2014). Additive manufacturing in the spare parts
supply chain. Computers in Industry, 65(1), 50-63.

Khrais, S., Al-Hawari, T., Al-Araidah, O. (2011). A fuzzy logic application for selecting layered
manufacturing techniques. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(8), 10286-10291.

Kleer, R., Piller, F. T. (2013, January). Modeling Benefits of Local Production by Users.
In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2013, No. 1, p. 14047). Academy of
Management.

Kochan, A. (2003). Rapid prototyping helps Renault F1 Team UK improve championship

prospects. Assembly Automation, 23(4), 336-339.

Kochan, D., Kai, C. C., Zhaohui, D. (1999). Rapid prototyping issues in the 21st
century. Computers in industry, 39(1), 3-10.

Kruth, J. P., Leu, M. C., Nakagawa, T. (1998). Progress in additive manufacturing and rapid
prototyping. CIRP Annals-Manufacturing Technology, 47(2), 525-540.

Lan, H. (2009). Web-based rapid prototyping and manufacturing systems: a review. Computers
in Industry, 60(9), 643-656.

Lan, H., Ding, Y., Hong, J., Huang, H., Lu, B. (2004). A web-based manufacturing service
system for rapid product development. Computers in Industry, 54(1), 51-67.

Lan, H., Ding, Y., Hong, J. (2005). Decision support system for rapid prototyping process
selection through integration of fuzzy synthetic evaluation and an expert system. International
Journal of Production Research, 43(1), 169-194.

Lan, H., Ding, Y., Hong, J., Huang, H., Lu, B. (2008). Web-based quotation system for
stereolithography parts. Computers in Industry, 59(8), 777-785.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Le Bourhis, F., Kerbrat, O., Hascoët, J. Y., Mognol, P. (2013). Sustainable manufacturing:
evaluation and modeling of environmental impacts in additive manufacturing. The International
Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(9-12), 1927-1939.

Liao, S., Wu, M. J., Huang, C. Y., Kao, Y. S., Lee, T. H. (2014). Evaluating and Enhancing
Three-Dimensional Printing Service Providers for Rapid Prototyping Using the DEMATEL Based
Network Process and VIKOR. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2014.

Lindemann, C., Jahnke, U., Moi, M., Koch, R. (2012, August). Analyzing product lifecycle costs
for a better understanding of cost drivers in additive manufacturing. In 23th Annual International
Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium–An Additive Manufacturing Conference. Austin Texas
USA 6th-8th August.

Liu, P., Huang, S. H., Mokasdar, A., Zhou, H., Hou, L. (2013). The impact of additive
manufacturing in the aircraft spare parts supply chain: supply chain operation reference (scor)
model based analysis. Production Planning & Control, 25(13-14), 1169-1181.

Lopes da Silva, J. V. (2013). 3D technologies and the new digital ecosystem: a Brazilian
experience. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Management of Emergent
Digital Ecosystem (pp. 278-284). ACM.

Luo, R. C., & Tzou, J. H. (2008). The development of desktop e-manufacturing

system. International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management, 14(1), 2-16.

Mahapatra, S. S., Panda, B. N. (2013). Benchmarking of rapid prototyping systems using grey
relational analysis. International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 16(4), 460-
477.

Mansour, S., Hague, R. (2003). Impact of rapid manufacturing on design for manufacture for
injection molding. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of
Engineering Manufacture, 217(4), 453-461.

Masood, S. H., Al-Alawi, M. A. Z. E. N. (2002). The IRIS rapid prototyping system selector for
educational and manufacturing users. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(1), 66-
77.

Masood, S. H., Soo, A. (2002). A rule based expert system for rapid prototyping system
selection. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, 18(3), 267-274.

Mellor, S., Hao, L., Zhang, D. (2014). Additive manufacturing: A framework for
implementation. International Journal of Production Economics, 149, 194-201.

Mognol, P., Lepicart, D., Perry, N. (2006). Rapid prototyping: energy and environment in the
spotlight. Rapid prototyping journal, 12(1), 26-34.

Moilanen, J., Vadén, T. (2013). 3D printing community and emerging practices of peer
production. First Monday, 18(8).

Munguía, J., Ciurana, J., Riba, C. (2009). Neural-network-based model for build-time estimation
in selective laser sintering. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B:
Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 223(8), 995-1003.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Munguía, J., Lloveras, J., Llorens, S., Laoui, T. (2010). Development of an AI-based Rapid
Manufacturing advice system. International Journal of Production Research, 48(8), 2261-2278.

Novak-Marcincin, J., Barna, J., Novakova-Marcincinova, L., Fecova, V. (2011). Analyses and
solutions on technical and economical aspects of rapid prototyping technology. Tehnički
vjesnik, 18(4), 657-661.

Onuh, S. O., Yusuf, Y. Y. (1999). Rapid prototyping technology: applications and benefits for
rapid product development. Journal of intelligent manufacturing, 10(3-4), 301-311.

Onuh, S. O., Hon, K. K. B. (2001). Integration of rapid prototyping technology into FMS for agile
manufacturing. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 12(3), 179-186.

Onuh, S., Bennett, N., Hughes, V. (2006). Reverse engineering and rapid tooling as enablers of
agile manufacturing. International Journal of Agile Systems and Management, 1(1), 60-72.

Pal, D. K., Ravi, B., Bhargava, L. S. (2007). Rapid tooling route selection for metal casting using
QFD–ANP methodology. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 20(4),
338-354.

Paul, R., Anand, S. (2012). Process energy analysis and optimization in selective laser
sintering. Journal of manufacturing systems, 31(4), 429-437.

Pearce, J. M., Blair, C. M., Laciak, K. J., Andrews, R., Nosrat, A., Zelenika-Zovko, I. (2010). 3-D
printing of open source appropriate technologies for self-directed sustainable
development. Journal of Sustainable Development, 3(4), p17.

Perez, M. A., Ramos, J., Espalin, D., Hossain, M. S., Wicker, R. B. (2013). Ranking model for
3D printers. In Proceedings of the 2013 Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium (pp. 1048-
1065).

Petrovic, V., Vicente Haro Gonzalez, J., Jorda Ferrando, O., Delgado Gordillo, J., Ramon
Blasco Puchades, J., Portoles Grinan, L. (2011). Additive layered manufacturing: sectors of
industrial application shown through case studies.International Journal of Production
Research, 49(4), 1061-1079.

Potstada, M., Zybura, J. (2014). The role of context in science fiction prototyping: The digital
industrial revolution. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 84, 101-114.

Pryor, S. (2014). Implementing a 3D printing service in an academic library. Journal of Library

Administration, 54(1), 1-10.

Rao, R. V., Padmanabhan, K. K. (2007). Rapid prototyping process selection using graph theory
and matrix approach. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 194(1), 81-88.

Reeves, P. (2008). How rapid manufacturing could transform supply chains. Supply Chain
Quarterly, 2(04), 32-336.

Rickenbacher, L., Spierings, A., Wegener, K. (2013). An integrated cost-model for selective laser
melting (SLM). Rapid Prototyping Journal, 19(3), 208-214.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Roberson, D. A., Espalin, D., Wicker, R. B. (2013). 3D printer selection: A decision-making

evaluation and ranking model. Virtual and Physical Prototyping, 8(3), 201-212.

Ruffo, M., Hague, R. (2007). Cost estimation for rapid manufacturing simultaneous production of
mixed components using laser sintering. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 221(11), 1585-1591.

Ruffo, M., Tuck, C., Hague, R. (2007). Make or buy analysis for rapid manufacturing. Rapid
Prototyping Journal, 13(1), 23-29.

Sharif Ullah, A. S., Hashimoto, H., Kubo, A., Tamaki, J. I. (2013). Sustainability analysis of rapid
prototyping: material/resource and process perspectives. International Journal of Sustainable
Manufacturing, 3(1), 20-36.

Sealy, W. (2012). Additive manufacturing as a disruptive technology: how to avoid the

pitfall. American Journal of Engineering and Technology Research Vol, 11(10).

Sun, H., Linton, J. D. (2014). Value of design for competitiveness–Introduction to the special
issue. Technovation, 34(11), 647-648.

Tay, F. E., Khanal, Y. P., Kuen Kwong, K., & Cheng Tan, K. (2001). Distributed rapid prototyping-
a framework for Internet prototyping and manufacturing. Integrated Manufacturing
Systems, 12(6), 409-415.

Tripp, S. D., Bichelmeyer, B. (1990). Rapid prototyping: An alternative instructional design

strategy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(1), 31-44.

Trygg, L. (1994). Rapid prototyping—the Swedish industry experience. International Journal of

Human Factors in Manufacturing, 4(3), 321-338.

Tuck, C., Hague, R. (2006). The pivotal role of rapid manufacturing in the production of cost-
effective customised products. International Journal of Mass Customisation, 1(2), 360-373.

Tuck, C., Hague, R., Burns, N. (2007). Rapid manufacturing: impact on supply chain
methodologies and practice. International Journal of Services and Operations
Management, 3(1), 1-22.

Tuck, C., Hague, R., Ruffo, M., Ransley, M., & Adams, P. (2008). Rapid manufacturing facilitated
customization. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 21(3), 245-258.

Vinodh, S., Sundararaj, G., Devadasan, S. R., Kuttalingam, D., Rajanayagam, D. (2009). Agility
through rapid prototyping technology in a manufacturing environment using a 3D printer. Journal
of Manufacturing Technology Management, 20(7), 1023-1041.

Waller, M. A., Fawcett, S. E. (2014). Click Here to Print a Maker Movement Supply Chain: How
Invention and Entrepreneurship Will Disrupt Supply Chain Design. Journal of Business
Logistics, 35(2), 99-102.

Walter, M., Holmström, J., Tuomi, H., Yrjölä, H. (2004, September). Rapid manufacturing and its
impact on supply chain management. In Proceedings of the Logistics Research Network Annual
Conference (pp. 9-10).
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Weller, C., Kleer, R., Piller, F. T., Hinke, C. (2014, January). Economic Implications of 3D
Printing: Market Structure Models Revisited. In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol.
2014, No. 1, p. 10947). Academy of Management.

West, J., Kuk, G. (2014). Proprietary Benefits from Open Communities: How MakerBot
Leveraged Thingiverse in 3D Printing. Available at SSRN 2544970.

White, G., Lynskey, D. (2013). Economic analysis of additive manufacturing for final products:
an industrial approach.

Wittbrodt, B. T., Glover, A. G., Laureto, J., Anzalone, G. C., Oppliger, D., Irwin, J. L., Pearce, J.
M. (2013). Life-cycle economic analysis of distributed manufacturing with open-source 3-D
printers. Mechatronics, 23(6), 713-726.

Wohlers, T. (1995). Future potential of rapid prototyping and manufacturing around the
world. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 1(1), 4-10.

Wohlers, T. (2011). Making products by using additive manufacturing. Manufacturing

Engineering, 146(4).

Xu, X., Meteyer, S., Perry, N., Zhao, Y. F. (2014). Energy consumption model of Binder-jetting
additive manufacturing processes. International Journal of Production Research, (ahead-of-
print), 1-11.

Yeh, C.C. (2014). Trend Analysis for the Market and Application Development of 3D
Printing. International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology, 4(1), 1-3.

Yoon, H.S., Lee, J.Y., Kim, H.S., Kim, M.S., Kim, E.S., Shin, Y.J.... Ahn, S.H. (2014). A
comparison of energy consumption in bulk forming, subtractive, and additive processes: Review
and case study. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green
Technology, 1(3), 261-279.

Zhang, W., Lin, H., Zhang, W. (2005). From virtuality to reality: individualized freeform model
design and rapid manufacturing. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service
Industries, 15(4), 445-459.

References (citations inside the paper)

Acedo, F., Barroso, C., Galan, J. (2006). The resource-based theory: Dissemination and main
trends. Strategic Management Journal; 27(7): 621–636.

Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., Verona, G. (2012).Technology push and demand pull
perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. Research
Policy; 41(8): 1283–1295.

Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: a

bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research
domain. Industrial and Corporate Change; 19(4): pp. 1187-1204.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

Ferreira, M.P., Santos, J.C., Ribeiro de Almeida, M.I. (2014).Mergers & acquisitions research: A
bibliometric study of top strategy and international business journals, 1980-2010. Journal of
Business Research; 67(12): 2550-2558.

Holling, C.S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology
and Systematics; 4: pp. 1-23.

Nerur, S.P., Rasheed, A.A., Natarajan, V. (2008). The intellectual structure of the strategic
management field: An author co-citation analysis. Strategic Management Journal; 29(3): 319-
336.

Pilkington, A., Chai, K. (2008). Research themes, concepts and relationships: a study of
International Journal of Service Industry Management (1990–2005). International Journal of
Service Industry Management; 19: 83–110.

Pilkington, A., Meredith, J. (2009). The evolution of the intellectual structure of operations
management – 1980–2006: a citation/co-citation analysis. Journal of Operations Management;
27: 185–202.

Ramos-Rodríguez, A., Ruíz-Navarro, J. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic

management research: a bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000.
Strategic Management Journal; 25: 981–1004.

Shafique, M. (2013). Thinking inside the box? Intellectual structure of the knowledge base of
innovation research (1988–2008). Strategic Management Journal; 34(1): 62–93.

Walter, C., Ribiere, V. (2013). A citation and co-citation analysis of 10 years of KM theory and
practices. Knowledge Management Research & Practice; 11(3): 221-229.

White, D., McCain, K. (1998). Visualizing a discipline: An author co-citation analysis of

information science, 1972–1995. Journal of the American Society for Information Science; 49(4):
327–355.
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 – Sources of selected paper after systematic literature search

Typology
Empirical research
Conceptua Action Literatur
l study Case Survey e review
Source researc Total
study
h
Class A 7 3 28 16 5 59
Academy of Management Review- Proceedings 1 1 2
American Journal of Engineering and Technology Research 1 1
Atlantic Council straTegic foresight report 1 1
Austrian Society for Systems Engineering and Automation 1 1
CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 1 1
Computers in Industry 1 2 1 4
Expert Systems with Applications 1 1
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education 1 1
International Conference on Logistics Research Network 1 1
International Conference on Materials Science and Engineering 1 1
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 3 2 5
International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 2 2
International Journal of Engineering Education 1 1
International Journal of Mass Customisation 1 1
International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing-Green
1 1
Technology
International Journal of Production Economics 2 2
International Journal of Production Research 4 4
International Journal of Services and Operations Management 1 1 2
International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing 1 1
International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium 1 2 3
Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2 1 3
Journal of Industrial Ecology 1 1
Journal of Manufacturing Systems 1 1 2
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 1 1 1 3
Journal of Materials Processing Technology 1 1
Journal of Sustainable Development 1 1
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 1 1
Mobilities 1 1
Production Planning and Control 1 1
Rapid Prototyping Journal 1 1 1 1 4
Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 1 1 2
supply chain [quarterly] 1 1
Virtual and Physical Prototyping 1 1 2
Class B 4 2 6 16 11 39
Annual Cambridge International Manufacturing Symposium 1 1
Assembly Automation 1 1 1 3
Business Horizons 1 1
CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology 1 1
Computers in Industry 1 1
Industrial Management (Norcross, Georgia) 1 1
Integrated Manufacturing Systems 2 1 3
International Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering
1 1 2
Management
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 1 1
International Journal of Agile Systems and Management 1 1
 Additive manufacturing management: A review and research agenda

International Journal of Automation and Smart Technology 1 1

International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction 1 1
International Journal of Production Research 2 1 3
International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium 1 1
Journal of Business Logistics 2 2
Journal of Engineering Manufacture 1 1
Journal of intelligent manufacturing 1 1
Journal of International Commerce and Economics 1 1
Journal of Library Administration 1 1
Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 1 1
Library Hi tech 1 1
Manufacturing Engineering 1 1
Mechatronics 1 1
Procedia Economics and Finance 1 1
Rapid Prototyping Journal 1 2 1 4
South African Journal of Industrial Engineering 1 1
Technovation, International Journal of Technological Innovation,
1 1
Entrepreneurship and Technology Management
University of Pittsburgh 1
Class C 6 1 2 12 4 25
Academy of Management Proceedings 1 1
Applied Ergonomics 1 1
Assembly Automation 1 1
Educational Technology Research and Development 1 1
First Monday 1 1
Global Policy 1 1
Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries 1 1
International ACM Conference on Management of Emergent Digital
1 1
EcoSystems
International Conference on Engineering and Product Design Education 1 1
International Journal of Engineering Education 1 1
International Journal of Human Factors in Manufacturing 1 1
International Journal of Industrial Engineering and Technology 1 1
International Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management 1 1
International Journal of Product Development 1 1
International Journal of Technology Marketing 1 1
Journal of Business Logistics 1 1
Journal of Shandong Institute of Technology 1 1
Journal of Sustainable Development 1 1
MIT SLOAN Management Review 1 1
Proceedings of PICMET '14: Infrastructure and Service Integration 1 1
Rapid Prototyping Journal 1 1
Strategic Direction 1 1
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1 1
Tehnicki Vjesnik 1 1
University of Jyväskylä 2014, 62 p, Dissertation 1 1
Total 17 6 36 44 20 123