Independent report

Factors affecting adoption of 3D Printing by SMEs: The case of Greater Manchester

Published 22 August 2025

Executive summary

Advanced manufacturing, one of the 8 growth sectors listed in the UK’s Industrial Strategy, includes companies characterised by the use of innovative technologies and processes to increase production and productivity. Since 2020, the sector received private investment funding of £13 billion; and in 2023, recorded turnover of £75 billion and employed 227,000 people. The sector plays a vital role in the government’s growth mission as the average company growth is at 2% per year (Data City, 2025). Within this sector, Additive Manufacturing (AM), more commonly known as 3D Printing (3DP), was forecast to add over £3.5 billion a year to the economy creating 60,000 jobs and opening up new high-skilled career opportunities during the period 2017-2025 (AMUK, 2017). Currently, 3DP is reshaping production processes through 3 key applications: prototyping, customised manufacturing, and rapid tooling. Prototyping enables efficient product testing, customised production benefits businesses in various industries, and rapid tooling enhances traditional manufacturing processes. As a core Industry 4.0 technology, 3DP supports complex designs, cost-effective small-batch production, and streamlined supply chains, boosting both productivity and sustainability.

In the UK, the use of 3DP remains low, particularly among SMEs, with adoption rates lagging behind the EU and the USA, and often without utilising the technology at its full potential. The Technology Adoption Review explored the most significant barriers to technology adoption and proposed government actions to support delivery of the Industrial Strategy and the UK’s growth mission. This report provides a case study of a specific technology, 3DP adoption, in a localised context, Greater Manchester. By combining a literature review with qualitative and quantitative analysis, this report analyses the drivers, challenges, and enablers of 3DP and offers insights for a comprehensive understanding of 3DP technology adoption at a wider level.

Despite its increasing adoption, 3DP is still the least adopted advanced digital technology in the UK compared to AI, Big Data, Cloud Computing, IoT and Robotics (Massini et al., 2025). Interestingly, the North-West has the highest AM adoption rate in the UK outside London. With a 20% adoption rate, these levels are higher than the national average, which contrasts the typical regional disparity in adoption seen across other techs. This is largely due to the North-West’s strong technological capabilities and specialisation in 3DP. 17.1% of SMEs have adopted 3DP in the city-region, compared to the 11% average in the rest of the UK, but with the majority of them (77.7%) using the technology at a low or moderate capacity. This largely reflects the city-region’s strong manufacturing base and innovation ecosystem, supported by initiatives such as PrintCity, the Manchester hub of the Henry Royce Institute, and Made Smarter, which facilitate skills development, access to equipment, and industry collaboration.

Despite these enabling conditions, barriers to 3DP adoption persist, particularly for SMEs. The most cited reasons by firms for not adopting are that the technology is not applicable or that there are no barriers, suggesting demand and a lack of awareness of the technology and its benefits as key barriers. Non-adopters also cite a lack of awareness about the availability of resources and perceived benefits, while those considering adoption face financial constraints, skills shortages, and technical challenges. Adoption barriers are stage-specific and vary during the adoption process, evolving from initial investment challenges, talent shortages, and regulatory compliance issues to post-installation scalability and sustainability concerns.

Finally, the report highlights 3DP’s potential beyond manufacturing, demonstrating its role in accelerating innovation across most industries through rapid prototyping, customisation, and supply chain resilience, ultimately enhancing productivity and competitiveness.

Using the example of the 3DP ecosystem in Greater Manchester, the report details 4 general principles that could foster more robust, virtuous, and sustainable ecosystems to boost technology adoption that could be applicable across UK regions:

1. A place-based approach to digital adoption that aligns with regional technological capabilities to capitalise on existing strengths.
2. A human-centric approach to digital technology adoption where skills play a key role.
3. A comprehensive policy perspective that supports technology adoption at each stage of the adoption process.
4. Showcasing and demonstrating the usages and value of 3DP, and other advanced digital technologies, could encourage cross-sector adoption.

1. Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM), often referred to as 3D printing (3DP)^{[footnote 1]},  is a type of advanced manufacturing that is transforming production processes and organizational structures, and at the same time disrupting innovation, supply chains, business models, entrepreneurship, and work practices. At a global level, the AM industry generated approximately £13.7 billion in revenue in 2022 (Wohler, 2023).

Widely accepted to be one of the enabling technologies of industry 4.0 (Strange and Zucchella, 2017; Martinelli et al., 2021), 3DP exhibits 2 major technical characteristics that distinguish it from traditional manufacturing methods:

• Direct digital manufacturing. Objects to be 3D printed are first created as digital models using computer-aided design (CAD) software, which then seamlessly integrate with 3D printers to fabricate the entire object (Berman, 2012). This feature allows for rapid production, simplifies the manufacturing process, and enhances the freedom of design, as well as the richness and complexity of the final product (Pedota and Piscitello, 2022).
• Additive manufacturing (AM). Building up objects by sequentially adding layers of raw materials either in liquid or particle form, 3DP differentiates from traditional subtractive manufacturing approaches which mostly depend on the removal of material (Achillas et al., 2015). This characteristic means that 3DP is efficiently and cost-effectively suited to manufacturing needs of small size and quantity rather than mass production (Tsai and Yeh, 2019; Hahn and Massini, 2024).

Combined, these 2 characteristics make 3DP particularly well-suited for the manufacturing of prototypes and highly customised products (e.g., dental or orthopaedic implants in the healthcare sector or production-grade parts in aerospace like 3D-printed rocket engines and jet engine parts), which constitute the 2 primary applications of 3DP (Achillas et al., 2015; Laplume et al., 2016; Marak et al., 2019 ). Another widespread application is rapid tooling, which involves creating tools or components to support and enhance traditional manufacturing processes (Achillas et al., 2015).

As the cost of 3DP has significantly decreased over the past decade due to technological advancements and widespread adoption, it is revolutionizing product fabrication and enabling greater customization. Compared to traditional manufacturing, 3DP has been shown to enhance firm productivity through cost efficiency (Leal et al., 2017; Achillas et al., 2015) and more environmentally friendly processes (Ford and Despeisse, 2016; Marak et al., 2019). It also simplifies supply chains (Holmström et al., 2010; Felice et al., 2022) by redistributing production systems across global, national, local, and even household levels (Hannibal and Knight, 2018). Furthermore, it enables real-time control of distant production processes, facilitates in-house prototyping, and reduces the need for intermediaries (Cefis et al., 2023; Bordeleau and Felden, 2019).

Despite its increasing adoption, 3DP is still the least adopted advanced digital technology in the UK compared to AI, Big Data, Cloud Computing, IoT and Robotics (Massini et al., 2025). In a weighted survey of 3,175 UK firm respondents, representative of business size, sector, and regions, only 17% reported using 3DP at a low, moderate or high level (Massini et al., 2025). This figure remains slightly lower than the use of 3DP technologies in the EU (24%) or the USA (20.2%) in 2024 (EIBIS, 2024). Among adopters, small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are particularly lagging behind, with fewer than one in ten companies integrating 3DP into their operations.

Evidence indicates local disparities in adoption, particularly outside London, with a 19.9% adoption rate in the North-West but only 7% in the North East or East Midlands (Massini et al., 2025)^{[footnote 2]}. This study reveals that cost, the relative infancy of the technology, and a lack of access to skilled human capital are the most common barriers to 3DP adoption. Interestingly, these low adoption levels contrast with the North-West’s strong technological capabilities and specialisation in the development of 3DP (Massini et al., 2024).

The starting point of this report is a review of the academic literature on the drivers, barriers and enablers to 3DP adoption. The results of this literature review (summarised in Table 1 and fully presented in Annex II) suggest that adoption of 3D printing technology is driven by both internal organizational motivations and technological advantages.

Companies are increasingly leveraging 3D printing for prototyping, customisation in small-scale production, cost reduction, and improved production efficiency, with a growing emphasis on sustainability. Technological advantages, such as the ability to create customised designs, aesthetic appeal, reduced material waste, and the ease of sharing CAD designs, have also been found to promote adoption.

Drivers of 3DP adoption

• Prototyping. 3DP allows firms to generate prototypes in-house, directly from computer designs in considerably shorter time, reducing the time to market, facilitating a more iterative and creative development process and optimising the product development cycle (Gress and Kalafsky, 2015)
• Reduced production costs. For companies also utilising 3DP for final product manufacturing, the technology could further reduce the cost per unit of production. Consequently, companies aiming for product variety, rapid product updates, and customisation are increasingly adopting 3DP (Ancarani et al., 2019)
• Sustainability. Companies prioritising environmental sustainability benefit significantly from adopting 3D printing due to its energy efficiency, reduced CO2 emissions, simplified logistics, minimized inventory waste, and the use of recyclable materials in production processes. (Zhao et al., 2021)

However, several barriers hinder widespread implementation, including financial constraints, knowledge gaps, a lack of managerial readiness; as well as technological limitations, such as limited materials choice, concerns over product quality, production size constraints, and potential environmental risks. Additionally, external constraints like the absence of regulations and standardisation, and low customer awareness further slowdown adoption.

Barriers to 3DP adoption

• Limited technical or financial resources pose significant barriers to the adoption of 3DP. Firms lacking adequate technical infrastructure, e.g., hardware like 3D printers and related equipment and software like design and modelling programmes essential for creating printable objects (Ludwig et al., 2014) or integration capabilities face challenges in implementing 3DP (Yeh and Chen, 2018).
• Knowledge and skills gaps (both technical and soft skills)^{[footnote 3]}, especially among SMEs can hinder adoption due to the technology’s complexity, which requires knowledge across various fields, and new skills related to emerging materials, and production processes (Steenhuis et al., 2019; Ahmadpour et al., 2023). This complexity makes it difficult for companies to understand 3DP’s benefits, assess its viability, train employees, and establish teams, thereby raising acquisition and implementation costs (Berman, 2012; Hannibal and Knight, 2018).
• Managerial readiness. Companies need strong leadership and managerial capabilities, including new management processes, team structures, and collaboration with external partners, to successfully adopt 3D printing, but often face significant barriers due to organisational inertia and managerial scepticism about the benefits of the technology. (Cohen, 2014; Ahmadpour et al., 2023)
• Materials shortage. Most products made using 3DP require low-temperature melting plastics, metals, and various types of pastes for printing (Laplume et al., 2016), but there are shortages of these materials. Additionally, 3DP is unable to produce products from many natural materials, such as stone (Hannibal and Knight, 2018). The limitations of usable materials and the limited number of suppliers also result in high negotiating power by material suppliers (Gebler et al., 2014).
• The need for production at scale. For companies requiring mass production, 3DP can poses challenges due to longer production time and higher unit costs compared to traditional manufacturing methods (Ben-Ner and Siemsen, 2017; Hannibal and Knight, 2018). For example, in the construction industry, 3DP encounters challenges in large-size applications, where drawbacks include the restricted operational range of robotic arms, along with risks of defects at assembly interfaces (Ambily et al., 2024)
• Lack of regulation. The absence of comprehensive legislation may lead to legal issues for 3DP products or render them incompatible with regulatory frameworks for traditional products. Englezos et al. (2023) analysed a cutting-edge application case of 3DP techniques in the manufacturing of personalised medicine and noted there are currently no policies or guidelines tailored to 3DP specifically.
• A lack of standardisation. The lack of standardisation for 3DP technology can results in compatibility challenges, which may increase cost and time during the production phase, and hamper adoption (Martinsuo and Luomaranta, 2018). Also, the lack of standardisation raises public concerns about the safety, effectiveness, and reproducibility of 3D-printed products compared to traditional manufacturing methods.

Despite these barriers, key enablers can facilitate the integration of 3D printing, including access to financial and technical resources, management support, and strategic partnerships. Moreover, an evolving ecosystem with experienced 3D printing service providers and competitive market pressures further accelerates adoption, pushing businesses to embrace the technology to stay ahead.

Enablers

• Technical resources. Adequate technical resources are indicative of a robust technical infrastructure, essential for integrating and utilising 3PD effectively. Yeh and Chen (2018) emphasise the importance of technological integration – specifically, the degree of alignment between a firm’s back-end information system and its database – in facilitating the adoption of 3DP.
• Existing financial resources and fewer financial constraints are essential for companies to invest in and support technological advancements (Sealy, 2012; Tsai and Yeh 2019).
• Top management support has been identified as a key factor in a company’s acquisition and implementation of 3DP technology (Schniederjans, 2017; Yeh and Chen, 2018).  Top management’s decision to adopt 3DP is based on the technology’s perceived benefits and expected performance, regardless of how complicated or effort intensity it might be perceived to be (Schniederjans, 2017). Furthermore, these perceptions influence the speed at which 3DP is adopted.
• Partnerships and collaborations. Building internal competencies through strategic partnerships, collaborations, and industry associations into company operations (Mellor et al., 2014; Ford and Despeisse, 2016; Ukobitz and Faullant, 2022).
• Ecosystem support. The successful use of 3DP by firms is closely linked to the support provided by 3DP service providers who “offer a full spectrum of 3D-Printing services” such as designing and producing 3D-printed products, selling and maintaining equipment, and offering consulting and feasibility assessment services to ensure successful implementation (Chaudhuri et al., 2019).
• A competitive environment. Firms often adopt 3DP in response to competitive pressures to improve inventory management, supply chain visibility, data accuracy, and operational efficiency (Conner et al., 2015; Yeh and Chen, 2018). Adoption of 3DP by competitors can also increase a company’s perceived value of the technology, prompting further adoption (Ukobitz and Faullant, 2022).
• Government support. Governments worldwide are supporting the adoption of 3D printing through policies and initiatives like China’s “Made in China 2025”, the US’s “America Makes”, and in the UK, “Made Smarter”, (see Annex VI).

Annex II provides a more detailed review of the evidence on the drivers, enablers, and barriers of 3DP adoption.

Table 1. Key factors influencing firm-level 3DP adoption

Drivers	Internal organisational motivations	- Prototype applications - Customisation in small-scale applications - Cost reduction and production efficiency - Sustainability orientation
Drivers	Technological advantages	- Customised small-scale production capability - Aesthetic Appeal - Reducing material waste and promoting reusability - Shareable CAD designs
Barriers	Organisational gaps	- Cost/lack of technical or financial resources - Knowledge gaps from high technological complexity and learning curves - Insufficient management and attitudinal readiness
Barriers	Technological limitations	- Limited choice of materials - Quality of the end product - Quantity and size limitation - Potential high environmental problem
Barriers	Environmental / external constraints	- Absence of regulation - Lack of standardisation - Lack of customer awareness and acceptance
Enablers	Organisational capabilities	- Technical and financial resource availability - Top management support - Strategic partnership building capabilities
Enablers	Ecosystem	- 3DP service provider expertise - Competitive market pressures

Building on the insights in Table 1, this report contextualises them within the case of SMEs in Greater Manchester (GM), identifying firms’ place-based barriers to adopting 3D printing and reviewing key initiatives in the city-region that serve as enablers. SMEs are the focus of the study because they typically have fewer financial and human resources compared to larger firms. They also tend to be less aware of technological opportunities and often lack information about technology availability and potential, making them late adopters of new technologies. However, adopting 3DP would offer several advantages to SMEs, including a faster return on initial investment as costs decrease, and lowering barriers to market entry compared to traditional manufacturing. The main challenges for SMEs lie in limited access to information about the use and potential of the technology, as well as gaps in technical knowledge and skills.

2. A place-based approach to 3DP in the North-West: the case of Greater Manchester

This section presents a place-based analysis of the adoption of 3DP, identifying and discussing the main factors driving and hampering its implementation by SMEs in Greater Manchester, in the North-West of the UK. Empirically, it builds on 2 methodological approaches (see Annex II for details): a bespoke survey on technology adoption complemented by a qualitative analysis of interviews with company decision-makers at different stages of 3DP adoption: evaluation, set-up/installation and post-installation (Stornelli et al., 2024).

2.1 The N-ADITS survey

This section is based on the national survey on Adoption of Digital Technologies and Skills (N-ADiTS)^{[footnote 4]} and presents the motivations and barriers to adopting 3D-printers by 160 SMEs in the North-West (with fewer than 250 employees), including 13 firms in the manufacturing sector and 129 in the service sector. Results show that 17.1% of SMEs have adopted 3DP in the North-West, with the majority of them (77.7%) using the technology at a low or moderate capacity. This figure is higher than the adoption of 3DP in the rest of the UK where only 11% of the SMEs are using this advanced digital technology. Figure 1 presents a breakdown of adoption of 3DP by regions and SMEs. The greater adoption of 3DP in the North-West could be explained by the strong manufacturing expertise in the region (Corradini et al., 2023) as well as the city-region’s strong 3DP ecosystem, supported by initiatives such as PrintCity, the Manchester hub of the Henry Royce Institute, and Made Smarter, which facilitate skills development, access to equipment, and industry collaboration (see Annex VI).

Figure 1: 3DP Adoption rates by firm respondents in selected regions

Data table: 3DP Adoption rates by firm respondents in selected regions

Firms and regions	High use	Moderate use	Low use	Total
London	7.7%	14.0%	8.7%	30.5%
London SMEs	6.4%	8.4%	6.0%	20.8%
North West	6.9%	8.7%	4.3%	19.9%
North West SMEs	5.7%	7.6%	3.8%	17.1%
South East	4.8%	4.1%	2.4%	11.3%
South East SMEs	3.3%	4.7%	1.4%	9.4%
North East	1.4%	3.5%	2.0%	7.0%
North East SMEs	1.2%	5.1%	2.2%	8.5%
UK average (excluding North West)	5.5%	6.3%	4.0%	15.8%
UK SME average (excluding North West)	4.5%	3.9%	2.5%	10.9%

Figure 2 presents the motivations to adopt 3DP comparing the North-West with the rest of the UK. Improving the provision and quality of goods and services is the main motivation for adopting 3DP in the North-West by SMEs, specifically to provide higher quality products/services (62.6%) and to diversify via expanding the range of goods and services offered (43.9%). Reasons related to processes follow, with almost 40% of SMEs reporting improvement or upgrading of processes and methods. The use of 3DP to automate tasks has been indicated by 25.3% of companies while 21.5% use this technology to adopt standards.

Figure 2. Motivations to adopt 3DP by SMEs in the North West (vs rest of UK)

Data table. Motivations to adopt 3DP by SMEs in the North West (vs rest of UK)

Motivations to adopt 3DP	North West	Rest of the UK
To improve quality of the goods or service	62.6%	48.1%
To expand the range of the goods or service	43.9%	45.3%
To improve quality/reliability of processes or methods	40.1%	36.6%
To upgrade outdated processes or methods	39.6%	35.8%
To automate task performed by workers	25.3%	36.6%
To adopt standards and accreditation	21.5%	22.5%
Consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic	0%	7.7%

Figure 3 presents the barriers to adopting 3DP in the North-West compared to the rest of the UK. It is noteworthy that almost 55% of the companies consider this technology not applicable to their own business. If we split the data by sector, 39.6% of the SME manufacturing companies, 57.1% of the SMEs in services and 47.9% in other sectors consider this technology as not applicable to their business. This reflects a misalignment between technological capabilities and organisational needs, suggesting a lack of awareness of the potential of the technology. In addition, almost 23% of the companies reported no barriers for adoption, and yet, they are not using this technology, suggesting a lack of perceived needs or benefits. Other reasons for not using this technology include its cost and a lack of available talent (5%), the changes that would be required in the company operations (4%), concerns related to safety and security (3.5%), as well as a lack of capital (3%)^{[footnote 5]}. When geographically comparing the barriers (as well as motivations) reported by companies, there are no significant differences between the results reported by companies in the North-West compared to the rest of the UK, suggesting that barriers (and motivations) to 3DP adoption are not context specific^{[footnote 6]}.

Figure 3: Barriers to adopt 3DP by SMEs in the North West (vs rest of UK)

Data table: Barriers to adopt 3DP by SMEs in the North West (vs rest of UK)

Barriers to adopt 3DP	North West	Rest of the UK
Technology not applicable to this business	54.9%	54.4%
There are no barriers	22.1%	26.6%
This technology was costly	4.9%	6.9%
Lacked access to human capital, skills and talent	4.8%	3.6%
The technology required changes in my business	3.9%	2.5%
Concerns regarding safety and security	3.5%	1.3%
Lacked access to capital	3.0%	3.0%
Laws and regulations	2.1%	0.6%
Lacked access to required data	1.6%	1.3%
The technology was not mature	1.5%	1.7%
Required data not reliable	0.9%	0.6%

2.2 The decision-makers view towards 3DP adoption

We complement our quantitative analysis with a qualitative approach based on interviews with 5 SMEs in Greater Manchester that participated in the research experiment “3D Printers on the Road” (see Box 1). Annex V includes the interview protocol. This qualitative analysis provides more nuanced and fine-grained insights into the motivations, barriers, and experiences of SMEs adopting 3DP. The 5 participating SMEs (described anonymously in Annex IV) were each interviewed twice, with respondents including both a decision-maker (e.g., CEO, product innovation leader) and a hands-on 3DP user within the organization. Additional details about the methodology are available in Annex III. Section 2.2.1 and Section 2.2.2 present the main interview findings, with relevant interviewee quotes (Qx) linked to the results in Table 2 and Table 3.

Box 1. A research experiment enabling 3DP adoption by SMEs in the North- West

“3D Printers on the Road” was an interdisciplinary project designed as a research experiment to use the university-firms relationship as an enabler of 3DP adoption. It aimed to select SMEs that had not already introduced 3DP in their operations. The project offered firms free access to a 3D-printer for a 4-week period (February-June 2024). During the first 2 weeks, the 3D printer was made available on-site at the company with the support of an expert PhD engineer who worked closely with the company to help them learn how to use the technology, understand the design requirements, select the right materials and assess the quality of the final product. Therefore, the company needed to make a commitment to allow one employee to work closely with the expert engineer during the time they had the technology available to them, for a hands-on learning experience with the technology. For the next 2 weeks, each company had the opportunity of using the 3DP on their own and consult the expert if needed. At the end of the experimental period with the 3DP, the project provided the participating firms with a report on 3DP usage in their company as well as practical managerial recommendations for the adoption of the technology.

The technology selected for the project was an affordable mid-range priced 3D printer (approx. £800), high-performance, PLC multi-material fused filament fabrication printer known for its speed, precision, and advanced automation features including automatic bed levelling that dynamically adjusted the build platform, eliminating the need for manual calibration.

This approach allowed the company to learn about the technology in practice, on the job, with the support of the skilled expert, and consider the opportunities and impact that its adoption could have on the firm. The dedicated expert helped companies not only to print a currently used product or prototype, and understand the right material composition to use, but also assess the skills and technology gaps that the firm needed to adopt it as part of their innovation process.

2.2.1 The evaluation and set up/installation stages

The 5 companies involved in this research were at different stages of the 3DP technology adoption process; however, as a requirement for taking part in the research experiment, none of them were required to have fully integrated 3D-printers in their innovation process. 2 companies were in the evaluation phase: one was assessing the feasibility of using 3D printing to manufacture in-house specific components for medical devices (company M1), while the other was exploring its application for producing scaled versions of final products for marketing purposes (C1). The remaining 3 companies were in the initial implementation or setup phase. One had recently acquired a 3D printer and hired a skilled engineer to facilitate its adoption (F1). Another owned a 3D printer but lacked personnel with the necessary expertise to operate it effectively (A1). The third company owned an older-generation 3D printer that failed to meet expectations, prompting considerations for upgrading or optimizing its use (C2). In all cases, company participation in the ‘3D Printers on the Road’ project served as an enabler, fostering an effective university-firm collaboration that provided companies with access to technology and a skilled engineer, raising awareness of the technology and enabling its testing.

The next sections present the challenges and opportunities faced by these companies during the evaluation and set-up/installation stages of the adoption process. Table 2 includes a summary of the interviews, providing evidence through direct quotes.

Drivers

Among the main drivers for 3DP adoption, companies raised internal organisational motivations and external factors, as well as technological advantages.

Internal motivations - The adoption of 3D printing technology in SMEs in GM is primarily driven by internal motivations, particularly the founders’ awareness and technical curiosity. All the companies in our study indicated that their decision to adopt 3DP stemmed from a strong interest in the technology and an understanding of its potential. For instance, several interviewees highlighted how their personal or organisational curiosity and technical knowledge about 3DP significantly influenced their adoption decisions (quote Q1). The founder’s direct engagement and technical background played a significant role in driving the adoption process (Q2).

Another key internal motivation for adopting 3DP is its ability to enhance productivity and efficiency (time saving, cost reduction, and material savings). By enabling in-house prototyping and production, businesses expected to reduce lead times significantly, eliminate dependency on external suppliers, and cut the costs associated with traditional manufacturing methods. One interviewee (M1) pointed out that relying on external manufacturers means waiting for file processing, production, and delivery, which can cause inefficiencies and increase costs; while another (C2) explained how 3DP enables quick design testing (Q3, Q4).

The sustainability orientation, including reduction in material waste and enhancing reusability, is a key motivation for adopting 3DP technology (Q5). Multiple companies acknowledge the possibility of recycling used 3D printing material, further reducing waste, playing an integral role in sustainable manufacturing practices.

Technological advantages - 3DP can be integrated into different parts of the innovation process, from prototyping to marketing, helping companies meet specific customer demands efficiently. It enables quick, cost-effective customisation (Q6-Q9) and allows industries to produce tailored designs that traditional methods cannot match (Q10). Beyond customisation, 3DP improves product quality by giving companies greater control over the manufacturing process, reducing reliance on third-party suppliers (Q12). It also speeds up R&D, allowing SMEs to test and refine ideas in-house (Q11). As A1 noted, 3DP is essential for R&D. Additionally, 3DP can become a complementary asset enhancing a company’s competitiveness, for example, when utilised in sales, creating tangible models from digital designs, thus offering a more engaging experience for clients (Q13).

External factors - Among the external factors mentioned in the interviews, global crises, such as COVID-19, have disrupted supply chains, compelling companies to seek innovative solutions to maintain their operations (Q14).

Barriers

SMEs in GM face numerous challenges in adopting 3D printing technology that are related to organisational gaps, technological limitations and environmental constraints.

Organisational gaps - Within the organisation, financial constraints are among the most significant barriers, preventing the integration of advanced manufacturing technologies (Q15). The lack of skilled workforce and technical expertise also hinders the adoption of 3DP (Q16, Q17). The majority of the interviewees report only limited experience in CAD (Computer-Aided Design), machine operation, software settings, as well as post-processing techniques. Without these essential skills, businesses face operational inefficiencies.

Technological limitations - The technology presents limitations in the materials that can be used during the printing process as well as challenges related to scalability (Q18). Indeed, the availability and performance of raw materials represents a significant barrier to the effective adoption of 3DP in SMEs because some materials may be difficult to source, expensive, or unsuitable for specific applications. Similarly, product lifecycle-related challenges include technological complexity and scaling up production (Q19). The complexity of the technology exacerbates these issues, often resulting in difficulties among SMEs attempting to integrate 3D printing into their operations.

Environmental constraints - Among the environmental constraints, companies raised issues related to standardisation and regulation where stricter environmental regulations are driving businesses toward sustainability and compliance, but they also pose financial and operational challenges. Companies face increasing carbon costs due to the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), where they receive fewer CO₂ credits each year, forcing them to purchase more at higher prices, as mentioned by interviewee in C2 (Q20). Similarly, the interviewee in C1 mentioned that strict regulations on material certification and warranties limit the use of alternative and recycled materials in manufacturing and construction. Although 3DP can help reduce raw material consumption, companies have mentioned that material waste is still generated during the testing of different design iterations and production, and some materials, e.g. packaging, remain non-recyclable (Q21). Finally, the adoption of 3DP raises security concerns as well, particularly regarding data protection and intellectual property (Q22).

Table 2. Summary of the drivers and barriers for adoption of 3DP by SMEs in GM in early stages of adoption

Driver or Barriers	Factors	Evidence
Driver	Internal motivations: Founder’s Awareness and Congnition	(Q1) I am a little bit of a perfect tech fan…it was always an interesting thing for me. (C2) (Q2) We did have a 3D printer beforehand, but we bought it in 2020 more or less… One of the founders and I were the ones that were really using it over the last few years. (A1)
Driver	Internal motivations: Productivity and Efficiency	(Q3) Using the 3D printer significantly simplified my work in the lab and, in many ways, defined the tasks I performed … For instance, our previous setup for producing fibres involved equipment that was custom-built through acrylic welding, a process we were not familiar with. However, as a chemical engineer with some basic knowledge from my education, I was able to leverage the 3D printer … This allowed me to design and create custom parts for our equipment, which made my life so much easier. (C2) (Q4) If you are going out to a third party, you’ve got to send them the file, wait for them to finish, and hope it arrives on time. Some places do 24 hours … one of the items is very simple but can cost me through £33 and £40. (M1)
Driver	Internal motivations: Sustainability Orientation	(Q5) We try to bring more sustainability to the construction industry by cutting complexity, cost, and carbon alongside the entire value chain. (C1)
Driver	Technological Advantages: integration in different parts of the innovation process. Rapid Prototyping and Inhouse-Production	(Q6) I am making will be just test fits. I will make like a thing as like… Maybe I have to adjust like that dimension a little bit so we can fit that. So there is like quite a lot of material that you don’t even need to be strong. We just need them not to fall apart so you can see if something fits there. (C2) (Q7) The quicker we can see something physically, the faster we can try, reject it, or take it off…this becomes quicker (F1).
Driver	Technological Advantages: integration in different parts of the innovation process. Product Development and Customisation (including Customer Demand for Customisation)	(Q8) We have developed a personal isolation device which we have developed in line with the NHS… So we have completed all the R&D processes, and we have been using 3D printing and various other methods of prototyping throughout that. (M1) (Q9) There are ways to 3D print clay to make ceramic materials… We are interested, and we got this project ongoing to see if we can 3D print our material instead of making the flat tiles into 3D vases or whatever. (A1) (Q10) It kind of presents that to the client or to the customers. It gives us that image and that confidence (C1).
Driver	Technological Advantages: integration in different parts of the innovation process. Enhancing Innovation and R&D	(Q11) We are always trying to innovate, and a lot of the time, we use the 3D printer for mock-ups of things… saving people the handheld device, for example, and casing for electronic devices. (A1)
Driver	Technological Advantages: integration in different parts of the innovation process. Enhancing Product Quality Complementary assets to enhance company’s competitiveness	(Q12) Quality control in a sense…using a 3D printer also gives you more confidence about the quality compared to using a third-party supplier. (F1) (Q13) I actually like to use it as a tool for our sales process. You know, literally printing small models sounds weird in a digital world. Then cycling back to actually touching something…So for me, it really comes down to creating a completely different sales experience. (C1)
Driver	External factors Market and Supply Chain Disruptions	(Q12) Quality control in a sense…using a 3D printer also gives you more confidence about the quality compared to using a third-party supplier. (F1) (Q14) The idea of 3DP adoption came after COVID and the disruption of COVID… we decided to look at different ways, and making things ourselves was the other option. (F1)
Barrier	Organisational Gaps Lack of Financial Resources	(Q15) It is a financial cost to keep it running in terms of the person to do the design to do that. So you have got to think about those aspects. (M1)
Barrier	Organisational Gaps Knowledge Gaps and Skill Shortages	Q16) There is a new hire that is probably going to start very soon… mainly taking that work off founders and going to be doing a lot of the CAD work. (A1) (Q17) There are a lot of settings; there are a lot of buttons to press and things that twist to get things just right…we have a certain amount of experience with it, but that’s continually growing. (A1)
Barrier	Technological Limitations Material Limitation	(Q18) We switched from a white PLA to one that is a colour that we want to print with… but we found that coloured PLA did not print nearly as well as white PLA. (A1)
Barrier	Technological Limitations Scalability	(Q19) The advantage of the principle is that I can make a prototype and see if it works. But then I have to consider, can I scale this? How long will it take? How much material do I need? Will it require additional machines? (A1)
Barrier	Environmental Constraints Standardisation and Regulations	Q20) Big regulations are tightening, pushing industries toward greener and more sustainable practices. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is getting tighter. The Carbon costs go up each year as businesses receive fewer credits and must buy more at rising prices. Another regulation is the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which imposes tariffs on unsustainable imports, encouraging cleaner technologies (C2)
Barrier	Environmental Constraints Material Waste	(Q21) A major problem we have encountered is waste… When you are prototyping, you make version A, version B, and then version C, and you end up with a lot of plastic clips and waste material. It’s recyclable, but it is still a lot of waste. (C2)
Barrier	Environmental Constraints Security Concerns	(Q22) A significant issue we faced concerned the security of 3DP, primarily because of the origins and security of the component sources… I see what it means where the software and everything are needed as well. We have to clear that with our IT completely (F1)

2.2.2 The post-installation stage

The second-round interviews took place with 4 of the 5 SMEs that were interviewed in the first stage (one responded via e-mail) 8 months later. Among them, 3 have fully integrated 3DP in their innovation processes. Table 2 presents an overview of the evolution of technology adoption by these companies. The sections below describe the enablers that catalysed 3DP adoption in 3 SMEs, as well as additional barriers identified in the post-installation phase. A fourth company (C1) has not adopted this technology and has no immediate intention to do so. They were considering using 3DP as a complementary asset for marketing/showcasing their products and there was less immediate need to adopt. They have been occupied with other aspects of the fast-growing business.

Table 2.1 Evolution of technology adoption by SMEs in GM

Company acronym	Phase of the 3DP adoption during the first interview (June/July 2024)	Phase of the 3DP adoption during the second interview (February 2025)	Stage of the innovation process in which the company uses 3DP
C1	Evaluation	Not adopted yet	Complementary asset in Sales/Marketing
M1	Evaluation	Set-up/Installation	Prototyping/new product development of a key component in the final product
C2	Set-up/Installation	Post-installation	Tool, design and creativity aspect of prototyping
A1	Set-up/Installation	N/A	Aesthetic component of the final product
F1	Set-up/Installation	Post-installation	R&D process

Enablers

Organisational capabilities - the successful adoption of 3DP in SMEs in Greater Manchester has been primarily facilitated by organisational capabilities. SMEs with strong human capital, i.e., engineering or scientific background, found it significantly easier to adopt and integrate 3DP technologies. Employees with prior experience in 3DP, particularly those who have undergone training through local education providers (like PrintCity – see Annex VI), demonstrate reduced learning curves and enhanced operational efficiency. Proficiency in CAD design workflows further accelerates adoption. Notably, all firms utilising 3DP highlighted the critical role of human capital in facilitating this transition (Q23–Q25).

Technological capabilities also played a vital role, encompassing access to advanced manufacturing techniques and expertise in material testing. SMEs that strategically invest in technological upgrades—including high-end equipment, components, and process optimisation tools—report greater success in enhancing production efficiency (Q26–Q28). Furthermore, agility in R&D was crucial for sustaining innovation and leveraging 3DP effectively (Q29).

Table 3: Summary of the enablers and new challenges for adoption of 3DP by SMEs in GM during post-installation

Enablers or Barriers	Factors	Evidence
Driver	Organisational Capabilities: Talent and skills Availability	Q23) I’ve got somebody that works for the company now. He is a product design engineer who is used to using 3D printers. (M1) (Q24) A 3D printer is like a tool, if you have a tool and you buy the tool and you do not have anyone need to know how to use the tool. The tool that is not very useful, then better thing in that situation (C2) (Q25) If you can feed the technology with people that can use it from a staff, that is absolutely key. (F1)
Driver	Organisational Capabilities: Technological Capabilities	(Q26) For prototyping, PTE is worth to use. Then we use to enhanced products, PTE plus carbon fibre makes them better in terms of engineering properties. (F1) (Q27) We managed to test a wide range of materials on these printers, allowing us to determine which were best suited for different applications. (F1) (Q28) It is the prototype in stage. We’ve got a digital pressure monitor that we’ve used 3D print for, and in terms of small runs, we have, and we are looking at potentially using that because that’s not gonna be hundreds. (M1) (Q29) We visited another company, they were quite open to that as an idea in suppose that we could print those ends for them and send them to them. So they were quite surprised really how quickly we could do that. How beyond the agility that they come across in their RD department where things are really slow, takes a long time, people are resistant, all these things that we might have come across. (F1)
Driver	Organisational Capabilities: Access to External Funding	(Q30) I think the main enabler is money…We had seed investment from Green Angel Ventures and several grants including Innovate UK Fast Start grant; Innovate UK Biobased materials and manufacturing feasibility study grant; Henry Royce ICP grant; CEAMS grant participation, which included working with NPL and CPI. (C2)
Driver	Organisational Capabilities: Top Management Support	(Q31) In terms of the management of the company, they recognise the value, recognise that thousand pounds in terms of trading up products is nothing. So that was an easy decision to make by another printer. And already in in the longer term thinking is other machines, bigger machines, scalability.” (F1) (Q32) The management buy-in is absolutely key because we almost had to prove to them that it’s worthwhile. Yeah, and it has been recognised as worthwhile. So that has enabled us to even put money in this year’s budget. But we don’t know what yet, but We’ll put an amount of money in this year’s budget for other printing technologies. (F1) (Q33) One of the first things that I personally pushed for with the new funding was an upgraded printer. (C2)
Driver	Organisational Capabilities: Community Support and Partnership Building	(Q34) That is a lot of money for someone who only has an idea to obtain a space to develop it. Places like the hackspace exist, and there are actually quite a few people in the Manchester hackspace who have some sort of associated startup (C2) (Q35) We are part of something on site called the Health BIC. It’s an 18-month health incubator with a view to kind of de-risking projects… we get some kind of support, some links, some contacts, a bit of funding (M1) (Q36) We had already started our project when we were contacted by UoM but I’m sure we would not have been as far progressed if we had tried to do it all ourselves. (F1) (Q37) Although we already had some experience on the technology, without the project we would likely still be using a hobbyist machine, as it would be difficult to justify the expense of upgrading it without experiencing the capabilities of a better machine. (C2)
Driver	Organisational gaps: Financial limitations	(Q38) One of the barriers is the cost of 3D Printers themselves. Obviously, because we work with contagious, infectious and CBRN, which is chemical, biological, radioactive and nuclear, it is about being able to have the finance behind it to do the research into that right kind of plastic is another barrier. (M1)
Barrier	Technological limitations	(Q39) We are having some problems. It is a small issue, you know, but with the remote control of the printers. in terms of, because the printer is in another room, I have to go upstairs, downstairs (F1) (Q40) Research is currently being conducted to improve the breaking points of 3D printing, as the materials are more porous and weaker. Efforts are being made to enhance quality standards. We need to consider the environment in which we use it. For example, 3D printing might react in Amazonia, where it’s a lot more humid, to it in the middle of Saudi Arabia, the Australian outback desert or Africa wears a lot drier and dustier. (M1)
Barrier	External and environmental constrains: Threats to Intellectual Property	(Q41) We will always have a problem with people copying. The evidence is that most companies don’t use register designs, but those that do often struggle with legal issues as well. So I suppose it depends on the nature of the product. We almost accept copies; as a company, we are trying to appeal to the higher end of the market. there are always existing companies that do it for a more budget price. Trying to get into legal angles should not be worth it. (F1) (Q42) Now for us to do that in the material that we’re looking at, we apparently have to buy the IP licence or something along those lines. So that seems to be the way that 3D printing is going. We have to buy the licence to use the material, putting out 10 grand for a licence on some material, yeah, that becomes prohibitive. (M1) (Q43) I think it’s useful for this kind of technology to generally be shared. I think from an ideological perspective as well, because one of their selling points is that it is open source. About the concept of open-source in 3DP, with the biggest advantage to a user at my level of involvement being that the models for all their non-plastic parts are available for anyone to print. (C2)
Barrier	External and environmental constrains: Growing Concerns on 3DP Material Waste Management	(Q44) Approximately one-third of the material ends up being waste. Like I have a bucket and I put all the plastic waste and hopefully at some point might be recyclable…as a chemical engineer, there is no good reason why you wouldn’t be able to take that waste and kind of like blend it again and make it into a kind of like a lower quality material. And I think it’s just, the only reason is it’s so cheap that it’s not worth it. (C2) (Q45) We collect all the plastic waste, but there is no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to recycle it.” (C2)
Barrier	External and environmental constrains: Toxicity of Materials and Regulatory Constraints	(Q44) Approximately one-third of the material ends up being waste. Like I have a bucket and I put all the plastic waste and hopefully at some point might be recyclable…as a chemical engineer, there is no good reason why you wouldn’t be able to take that waste and kind of like blend it again and make it into a kind of like a lower quality material. And I think it’s just, the only reason is it’s so cheap that it’s not worth it. (C2) (Q45) We collect all the plastic waste, but there is no good reason why we shouldn’t be able to recycle it.” (C2)

Access to financial resources significantly accelerated 3DP adoption by mitigating financial risks and enabling experimentation prior to full-scale implementation. Firms that secured grants and external funding find it easier to integrate 3DP into their operations. For instance, C2, a start-up led by a university-affiliated scientist, has benefited from multiple grants, including the Innovate UK Fast Start Grant, the Innovate UK Biobased Materials and Manufacturing Feasibility Study Grant, the Henry Royce Industrial Collaboration Partnership Grant (see Annex VI), and participation in the Centre of Expertise in Advanced Materials and Sustainability (CEAMS) (Q30). More recently, a seed investment from a venture capital firm allowed C2 to upgrade its existing 3DP setup, transitioning from a DIY tool to more sophisticated technology that facilitates creativity in its component fabrication and enhances traditional manufacturing processes. Interestingly, this is the only firm in our study that acknowledged awareness of public initiatives like the Henry Royce Institute and, while this question was specifically posed to all interviewees, the presence of other stakeholders in the 3DP ecosystem in Greater Manchester went unrecognised.

Community-driven initiatives and incubator programmes have emerged as critical enablers of 3DP adoption in SMEs. For example, M1 relocated to the Health BIC incubator in the North-West, which specialises in supporting health sector firms for commercialising innovations and de-risking projects. Through this initiative, M1 benefited from business support, networking opportunities, partnerships, and some funding (Q35). Notably, the incubator provides access to a nearby 3DP hub, reducing the pressure for the company to invest in its own 3DP in an early stage while still allowing it to leverage the technology for prototyping. This model illustrates how community-driven initiatives lower entry barriers for SMEs by providing affordable access to 3DP technology, offering collaborative spaces, and facilitating peer learning. Another example of a community-led initiative is the Hackspace (see Annex VI), which supports entrepreneurs and startups in prototyping new ideas as a proof of concept (Q34). All in all, partnerships with universities via the participation of the companies in this research experiment has accelerated the adoption and understanding of the technology (Q36-Q37).

Finally, top management has played a pivotal role. Leaders who recognise the long-term strategic benefits of this technology are more likely to invest in advanced equipment, allocate financial resources, and foster an innovation-driven culture. Executive support enabled firms to scale their 3DP operations, either by acquiring additional printers or by expanding R&D initiatives to explore new applications (Q31–Q33). A notable example is F1, where strong managerial commitment to 3DP facilitated the acquisition of an additional printer. By leveraging top management’s support, decision-makers were persuaded to invest further in the technology. As a result, F1 now operates 2 3D printers running in parallel and is actively considering expanding 3DP applications to other ongoing R&D projects.

Barriers

Organisational gaps and technological limitations - Financial (Q38) and technological barriers (Q39-Q40), such as operational issues, still exist, but the most significant concerns remain around material waste and environmental issues (Q44-Q48). Companies moving into a post-installation phase are more aware of the environmental responsibilities they need to address when 3DP is integrated into their innovation process. While 3DP minimises raw material usage compared to subtractive manufacturing, issues surrounding waste generation, recycling, and emissions persist.

External and environmental constraints - The adoption of 3D printing has caused material waste management challenges, with the lack of recycling options posing a significant barrier. Respondents expressed concerns about the high volume of waste generated from 3DP, highlighting the lack of accessible and cost-effective recycling solutions. Similarly, while 3DP transforms the manufacturing process, it does not eliminate pollution or environmental concerns, shifting the responsibility onto the new users. Adopting companies now face challenges related to air pollution caused by, e.g., toxic materials that need to be addressed internally, while in the past it was the suppliers’ responsibility.

SMEs also expressed concerns about IP in 3DP. However, perspectives on the importance of IP protection vary depending on the type of product. While companies may not see strong value in protecting standard components, unique or high-value designs often require stringent IP safeguards. One company noted that copying is an ongoing issue, yet most businesses do not use registered designs (Q41). Those that do often face legal challenges, making IP enforcement a complex and sometimes impractical endeavour. Some businesses, particularly those targeting the high-end market, accept the presence of lower-cost imitations and choose not to pursue legal action (Q41). Others, however, face financial barriers when dealing with IP licensing, e.g., for using specific materials for 3D printing, where licensing costs can be prohibitive (Q42). On the other hand, some SMEs prefer to embrace open-source models of 3DP, valuing the accessibility and collaborative nature of shared technology. Open-source platforms allow users to access and freely print non-plastic parts, making innovation more inclusive and widely available (Q43).

Impact

All in all, qualitative evidence from the SMEs interviews suggests that the adoption of 3DP has significantly impacted our sample by:

1. Facilitating innovation: In the R&D process, 3DP has revolutionised prototyping and product refinement, enabling companies to iterate designs more efficiently and cost-effectively. Respondents emphasised the versatility of 3DP in reducing constraints in the innovation process, integrating it with other emerging technologies such as augmented reality, and streamlining training processes.

2. Transforming supply chains: 3DP has reshaped supply chains by reducing reliance on third-party manufacturers, allowing SMEs to bring production stages in-house and gain greater control over their operations. This shift minimises dependency on external suppliers while optimising sales and processing workflows.

3. Enhancing production scalability: 3D printing has enabled SMEs to scale production more effectively, facilitating diversification beyond traditional manufacturing models and supporting the development of customised product lines. Businesses have recognised its value, leading business to plan the expansion of production capabilities to accommodate larger components and broader applications.

3. Conclusions

This report contributes to the ongoing discussion as part of the Technology Adoption Review by providing evidence on how an ecosystem is uniquely positioned to drive technology adoption. Through an in-depth analysis of the 3DP ecosystem in Greater Manchester, it highlights how place-based technology adoption cases can offer valuable policy insights. By examining the key drivers, challenges, and enablers of 3DP adoption, this study reinforces the importance of a localised city-region approach to understanding technological change. 4 main conclusions and principles emerge:

1. This study underscores the importance of fostering a strong innovation ecosystem to accelerate technology adoption. Greater Manchester and the wider North-West region have established a strong presence in advanced digital technologies around 3DP and AM, showcasing their existing regional strengths. Adoption rates of 3DP are higher than in the rest of the UK - with 17.1% of SMEs using this technology, although at low or moderate capacity - offering insights into “what works”. The higher adoption rate is rooted in its historically strong manufacturing sector and the city-region’s specific ecosystem characteristics (see Annex VI) which fosters early adoption, offering an effective foundation for further growth and integration of the technology. These findings reflect the importance of path dependency (Martin & Sunley 2006) and that the innovation output of a region hinges upon the exchange and recombination of pre-existing local knowledge bases. Local initiatives documented in this report like PrintCity, the 3DP capacity at the Henry Royce Institute, Made Smarter and Hackspace, make the city-region a prominent innovation ecosystem for AM. By combining education, resource accessibility and industry collaboration, the ecosystem fosters innovation, reduces adoption challenges and helps overcome them, and accelerates the shift toward digital manufacturing in the city-region.

Principle 1: A place-based approach to digital adoption that leverages existing regional technological strengths and boosts contextualised specialisation

2. Addressing skills shortages remains critical for accelerating 3DP technology adoption. Skills shortages include hard skills in design, such as CAD, CATIA, processing AM materials, polymers, coating as well as soft skills, like project management, critical thinking^{[footnote 7]}. In Greater Manchester, universities, maker spaces, and specialised programs already provide hands-on training, workshops, and certification courses, equipping individuals and businesses with essential skills in digital design and AM. To build on these strengths, the adoption of digital technologies could follow a human-centric approach where skills play a key role in incentivising regional specialisation in 3DP and AM, where strong skills bases, and technological capabilities already exist. Embedding this approach within the UK’s Economic Growth Mission could create the right conditions to drive investment, strengthen local industrial capacity, and generate high-quality jobs.

Principle 2: A human-centric approach to digital technology adoption to strengthen the development of specific skills associated to advanced digital technologies where there is potential for its production and adoption

3. It is important to recognise a stage-based approach in the identification of the barriers and enablers for technology adoption. On the one hand, for non-adopters, the lack of awareness of the potential of the technology and lack of perceived need or benefit are key barriers to adopt. Instead, for those companies with the intention to adopt, some barriers vary in prevalence at different stages of the adoption process (Table 4). According to the results^{[footnote 8]}, during the early stages of adoption of 3DP faces there are several challenges. These include skills shortages, cultural resistance, technological limitations, regulatory challenges and industry standards, and financial constraints that arise from initial costs of software and hardware and the uncertainty of a return on investment.

Some of these limitations remain during the set-up and installation phase. In fact, cost and knowledge and skills gap are intensified in this phase. Technical expertise is a major hurdle, as companies struggle with software design proficiency and print optimisation, often relying on costly external services. Financial constraints persist, particularly when scaling up production. Barriers related to the technology remain and others are intensified, like waste management issues as well as safety and quality concerns over intellectual property and cybersecurity risks.

In the final post-installation phase, organisational gaps are no longer observed, and the remaining challenges primarily relate to technological barriers and external constraints. After implementation, companies continue to face issues that affect the effectiveness of 3DP, particularly material limitations and scalability concerns, which hinder its transition from prototyping to full-scale production. Interestingly, sustainability represents a double-edged sword present both opportunities and challenges. While environmental benefits - such as material reuse, reduced waste, and localised production—were key motivators for adopting 3DP, sustainability-conscious manufacturers identified waste management as a major concern in the post-installation phase, with up to one-third of materials becoming scrap. This suggests a shift in environmental responsibilities from suppliers to 3DP adopters, who may need to develop additional capabilities to comply with environmental regulations.

Principle 3: A comprehensive policy perspective for technology adoption should address challenges and leverage policy initiatives at different stages of the adoption process, ensuring sustained industry growth and innovation

The AI Opportunities Action Plan can provide inspiration for similar propositions for other advanced digital technologies, like 3DP. Initially, this approach could raise awareness of the applicability and opportunity of the technology, (e.g., industry case studies to highlight real-world applications and benefits of 3DP). Supporting educational programs and workforce training in AM are also important. Financial support mechanisms can be designed to support various stages of technology adoption, from initial implementation to scaling operations. Advice initiatives can offer tailored guidance and road mapping to help businesses integrate 3DP with other advanced digital technologies (e.g., AI, big data etc), ensuring a seamless and strategic adoption process. Environmental concerns can be addressed by promoting circular economy initiatives, e.g., supporting recycling programs, and the development of biodegradable 3DP materials. Strengthening legal frameworks could help to prevent unauthorized replication of 3D-printed products. These multifaceted initiatives could create a supportive ecosystem, fostering responsible, sustainable, and widespread adoption of 3DP technology.

Table 4. Staged-based barriers for 3DP adoption

		Evaluation	Set up and installation	Post-installation
Organisational gaps	Cultural resistance: lack of awareness	C1	M1	no data
Organisational gaps	Cost/financial constrains	M1 C1	F1 C2 M1 A1	no data
Organisational gaps	Knowledge gaps and skill shortages: High technological complexity and learning curves	M1 C1	F1 C2 A1	no data
Technological barriers	Materials: limited choice and combination	M1	F1 M1 C2 A1	F1
Technological barriers	Quality of the end product: quality of material and properties	M1	F1	F1
Technological barriers	Quantity and size limitation: scalability	M1 C1	M1 F1	no data
Technological barriers	Environmental problem: waste and recycling	no data	F1 C2 A1	F1 C2
External constraints	Absence of regulation	M1 C1	M1	no data
External constraints	Threats to IP	no data	F1 M1	F1
External constraints	External support	no data	A1	no data

4. 3DP is a versatile technology with cross-industry applicability that goes beyond the manufacturing sector, as it can be integrated into multiple stages of firms’ innovation processes (from prototyping to complementary asset to enhance competitiveness). 3DP drives innovation across industries by making product development faster, more flexible, and more efficient. It allows businesses to quickly create and test prototypes, helping them to refine designs and speed up decision-making. Businesses can also use 3DP to create a more interactive and personalised customer experience via sales. Crucially, 3DP enhances supply chain resilience, reducing dependence on global suppliers and fostering industry sovereignty in an increasingly uncertain global market. 3DP can show how advanced digital technologies can be adopted in a range of scenarios and sectors and promoting awareness of these amongst firms could result in wider technology diffusion and the associated productivity benefits.

Principle 4: Showcasing and demonstrating the usages and value of 3DP, and other advanced digital technologies, could encourage cross-sector adoption

For 3DP this could focus on product development, customisation, R&D, and developing shorter, resilient supply chains. Cross-sector research projects and partnerships between industries and academia can help spill over diffusion, and training programs can build multidisciplinary skills in diverse applications of the technology. Guidelines for integrating 3DP into different industries could help streamline its adoption and encourage its recognition as a transformative tool across the innovation process.

Annex

Annex 1. Evolution of the 3D-printing technology: an engineer perspective

The evolution of 3DP technology has transformed manufacturing from expensive, time-consuming prototyping and production to rapid, accessible, and versatile digital fabrication. Beginning in the mid-1980s, AM has undergone a series of groundbreaking innovations that have not only reduced production costs and lead times, but have also expanded the range of applications across various industries. A few examples are aerospace (Ford and Despeisse, 2016), automobile (Leal et al., 2017; Delic and Eyers, 2020), orthopaedic and dental implants (Ahmadpour et al., 2023), transportation (Chaudhuri et al., 2019), jewellery (Martinelli, 2019), eyeglasses (Laplume et al., 2016), footwear (Ukobitz and Faullant, 2022), among others. Concurrently, an industrial ecosystem centred around 3DP technology has emerged, encompassing 3DP manufacturing, support services, retail, design, education, software, and online digital sharing platforms (Achillas et al., 2015; Ford and Despeisse, 2016; Martinelli, 2019).

Early Innovations (1980-2000)

The evolution of 3D printing began with Stereolithography (SLA), for which Charles Hull was granted the first patent in 1986 (Chua and Leong, 2015). Hull later founded 3D Systems Inc., which remains one of the largest manufacturers of 3D printers today. SLA technology utilises a UV laser to cure a photo-reactive resin layer by layer, bonding each layer to the previous one until the part is complete. While this was a groundbreaking step in 3D printing, the machines remained expensive and complex to operate.

The next major advancement came with Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM) in the late 1980s and commercialised in the early 1990s (Turner et al., 2014). This method involves heating and extruding a thermoplastic filament through a nozzle, which moves along a programmed toolpath to build objects layer by layer. Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) emerged in 1992 and uses a laser to sinter powder materials, forming solid layers without the need for support structures. Though SLS allowed for higher-quality parts and a broader range of materials, the machines were still prohibitively expensive for less endowed companies and consumer use.

The Open-Source Revolution and Democratization (2000-2020)

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, 3DP technologies primarily served rapid prototyping applications. However, the landscape changed in 2005 with the introduction of the RepRap (Replicating Rapid Prototype) project by Adrian Bowyer (Bowyer, 2014), an open-source initiative aimed at making 3D printing more accessible and affordable. The project’s core idea was to create self-replicating printers capable of printing most of their own parts. RepRap designs were released under open-source licences, fostering a global community of makers, researchers, and entrepreneurs dedicated to developing low-cost 3D printers. The movement significantly contributed to the widespread adoption of 3D printing by reducing barriers to entry and enabling more people to access and innovate within the field. By enabling printers to fabricate many of their own parts, the RepRap project dramatically reduced costs and increased accessibility. This democratisation of 3D printing not only expanded the user base but also fostered a vibrant ecosystem of continuous innovation and collaboration in both hardware and software development.

Advancements in Materials and Feedstock

The evolution of materials in 3DP has been driven by open-source innovation, transforming the technology from its early reliance on PLA (Polylactic Acid) and ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene) filaments into a versatile manufacturing process capable of using diverse materials (Stansbury and Idacavage, 2016). Initially, 3DP was limited to rigid thermoplastics, restricting its applications. However, the introduction of flexible filaments such as TPU (Thermoplastic Polyurethane) and TPE (Thermoplastic Elastomer) since 2013 enabled the production of stretchable and impact-resistant components, such as phone cases, seals, and soft robotic grips (Minetola and Eyers, 2018). These elastomeric materials exhibit high elasticity and durability, distinguishing them from conventional rigid plastics.

Simultaneously, advancements in high-performance materials expanded the functional range of 3DP parts. Polycarbonate (PC), known for its heat resistance and impact strength, and nylon, valued for its toughness and flexibility, became widely adopted for engineering applications (Carneiro et al., 2015). PETG (Polyethylene Terephthalate Glycol-modified), an easy-to-print alternative, offered improved chemical resistance and durability compared to ABS while maintaining printability comparable to PLA (Wohlers and Gornet, 2016). Further developments led to the adoption of ultra-high-performance thermoplastics such as PEEK (Polyether Ether Ketone) and PEI (Polyetherimide), which feature exceptional thermal stability, chemical resistance, and mechanical strength, making them suitable for aerospace and medical applications (Berretta et al., 2017; Dizon et al., 2018).

Beyond pure polymers, the introduction of composite filaments significantly enhanced mechanical properties. By incorporating reinforcements such as carbon fibre, glass fibre, and metal powders, these materials exhibited superior stiffness, strength, and wear resistance (Ivanova et al., 2013; Ning et al., 2015). Carbon-fibre-reinforced filaments, for instance, offered high strength-to-weight ratios, making them ideal for drone frames and structural components, while metal-filled PLA allowed for metallic-looking prints that could be polished or oxidized for artistic and functional purposes (Matsuzaki et al., 2016). Conductive and magnetic filaments further expanded 3DP applications into electronics and sensor development, though their electrical conductivity remained limited compared to traditional circuit materials (Kwok et al., 2017).

Sustainability has also been a growing focus, with initiatives developing recycled and bio-based filaments. Recycled PET and PLA from consumer waste have provided environmentally friendly alternatives, while materials such as algae-based polymers and ceramic-based filaments have enabled new applications in sustainable design and art (Zhong and Pearce, 2018; Tofail et al., 2018). These materials, although sometimes challenging to process, reflect the broader shift towards responsible material sourcing in additive manufacturing.

Advances in FDM 3D Printing Systems (2020-Present)

Since 2020, advancements in 3D printing technology have greatly improved the quality, speed, and ease of use of printers. Key developments have made consumer-level printers more capable, while professional machines continue to focus on reliability and handling specialised materials.

One major advancement is the reduction of vibrations during high-speed printing, which can cause defects. New systems now measure and adjust to vibrations before printing starts, allowing for cleaner prints at faster speeds. This includes technologies from different manufacturers, such as vibration compensation and motion system improvements, which help produce sharper and more accurate prints (Klipper, 2021).

Speed has also been enhanced, with newer printer designs reducing moving parts to increase acceleration, allowing for faster printing without compromising on quality. This includes both consumer and industrial machines adopting faster motion systems like CoreXY, which enable impressive print speeds (BigRep, 2023).

Multi-material printing has seen significant improvements as well. New systems make it easier to switch between different filaments without wasting material, and advanced features like humidity control ensure that materials stay dry, reducing defects. This is especially important for materials like nylon, which are sensitive to moisture.

Additionally, artificial intelligence (AI) is being used more widely in 3D printers for real-time monitoring and failure detection. AI-powered cameras now automatically pause a print if it detects issues, such as tangled filament or extrusion problems. This makes the printing process more reliable and less hands-on for users. AI-driven solutions are also being integrated into cloud platforms to manage multiple printers remotely

Figure 4. 3D Printing history and polymer development for 3D printing

^{Source: Park et al. (2022)}

Expected technological advancements from 2030

After 2030, it is expected that 3DP will evolve into the choice for future manufacturing, moving well beyond its current use in prototyping or producing individual parts.  At the core of this shift will be the emergence of AI Manufacturing Agents, which are automated systems built into next-generation 3DP. These agents will use advanced imaging, real-time monitoring and data-driven design tools to oversee the entire production process. They will be capable of adjusting designs instantly, choosing suitable materials based on performance needs, and fine-tuning printing parameters automatically. This will lay the foundation for highly autonomous and efficient manufacturing environments reducing skill and knowledge barriers, while allowing for collaborative manufacturing. Another key development will be non-planar 3D printing, a technique that allows material to be deposited along curved surfaces rather than flat layers. This method will produce stronger and more complex parts and will be particularly valuable for developing advanced composite materials, where the alignment of fibres within the material can be precisely controlled to achieve specific strength or flexibility requirements. These technologies will come together in the form of all-in-one manufacturing cells, which are compact, self-contained systems that function as miniature factories. Equipped with multiple print heads, high-precision lasers, and robotic arms, these systems will manufacture fully assembled, multi-material products in a single, automated process. This marks a transformational step beyond printing parts into on-demand, localised production of finished goods that combine mechanical, electronic, and chemical elements. The integration of intelligent systems, advanced materials, and automation represents a paradigm shift in how products are designed and made.

Annex 2. Factors affecting adoption of 3DP by firms

This annex presents the results of a literature review which identifies motivations, enablers and barriers for the adoption of 3DP by firms, including a specific section about SMEs. Annex III provides further information on the methodology.

Drivers of 3DP adoption

Internal organisational motivations

The adoption of 3DP technology by organisations is primarily driven by rapid and cost-efficient prototyping. Prototyping, a critical phase in product development, traditionally suffers from slow turnaround times due to multiple iterations normally needed to refine structural and geometrical features (Berman, 2012). 3DP allows firms to generate prototypes in-house, directly from computer designs in considerably shorter time, reducing the time to market, facilitating a more iterative and creative development process and optimising the product development cycle (Gress and Kalafsky, 2015).

This rapid in-house prototyping reduces transportation, stock, material, and time costs compared to traditional methods. For companies also utilising 3DP for final product manufacturing, the technology could further reduce the cost per unit of production. Consequently, companies aiming for product variety, rapid product updates, and customisation are increasingly adopting 3DP (Ancarani et al., 2019). Ford and Despeisse (2016) provide an illustrative example with the Finnish electrical plug manufacturer Salcomp, which sought to improve its production efficiency after identifying cooling time in its injection moulding process as a critical bottleneck. Collaborating with EOS, a German developer of direct metal laser sintering AM technology, Salcomp engineers redesigned the vent structure of the moulds to allow quicker heat dissipation, benefitting from the cost-reduction capabilities of 3DP in manufacturing.

Another critical motivating factor for adopting 3DP is the opportunity to increase product customisation (Hannibal and Knight, 2018; Yeh and Chen, 2018; Ahmadpour et al., 2023). 3DP eliminates the necessity for tools and moulds, while granting designers and engineers freedom in CAD (Rosen, 2014). This advantage results in high flexibility in both manufacturing and prototyping, making 3DP highly suitable for customisation in critical, small-scale applications (Felice et al., 2022). Consequently, companies may need to adjust jobs or tasks, leading to changes in operational practices and organisational structure (Mellor et al., 2014). For instance, Ahmadpour et al. (2023) illustrate this through the case of orthopaedic surgeries, where senior surgeons form temporary teams to create personalised treatments and devices using 3DP. Martinelli (2019) illustrates how 3DP facilitates innovation in the Italian jewellery sector due to the “customer-centric” nature of the technology. This has led to the emergence of numerous SMEs that offer services and products aligned with the unique characteristics of 3DP.

More recently, in the era of the green transition, an environmental sustainability orientation in companies has become a key priority. Previous research indicates that companies with a higher sustainability orientation experience more substantial benefits from adopting 3DP, such as reduced energy demands and CO2 emissions (Zhao et al., 2021). This correlation is attributed to 3DP’s facilitation of more distributed, small-scale, and localised manufacturing, which simplifies logistics and shortens the supply chain (Beltagui et al., 2020). Moreover, it reduced the inventory of components and products, thereby minimising economic losses and environmental impact associated with unsold and obsolete components (Chen et al., 2015). Furthermore, companies are recognising the recyclable nature of 3DP materials and incorporating it into their sustainable production processes. For instance, Bewell Watches leverages wood byproducts, combined with binding agents, to create a wood filament for AM. This approach not only diverts material from waste streams but also generates value for both the company and its customers (Ford and Despeisse, 2016).

Technological advantages

As mentioned, the demand for 3DP in prototype production and customised products stems from its ability and flexibility to produce small-scale, customised items (Berman, 2012; Marak et al., 2019). Not only does it reduce reliance on energy-intensive manufacturing processes such as forging and casting, but it also provides higher speed, simplicity, and flexibility in the design and modification of products (Peng, 2016). A study on 3DP adoption among NHS trusts in the UK revealed that over 60% of surveyed trusts adopted on-site 3DP to customise patient-specific models and surgical guides in-house, primarily for pre-operative planning, intraoperative guidance, and educational purposes (Ul Azeem et al., 2024).

In some cases, the appeal of 3DP lies in its ability to generate specific, non-linear shapes automatically (such as hollow, twisted, or curved forms), facilitated by CAD and complementary technologies like generative design software (Pedota and Piscitello, 2022). Indeed, the reliance of 3DP on standard CAD software for preliminary design facilitates the transfer and sharing of the digital design files (Marak et al., 2019). Strange and Zucchella (2017) note that products created with CAD software have the potential to be produced globally as long as there is connection to a compatible 3D printer. This convenience enhances design communication between a company’s branches, as well as between the company, its suppliers, and customers. Ford and Despeisse (2016) illustrate the case of Kazzata, an online platform providing access to a variety of 3D CAD files for producing replacement parts, available for user download. Consumers can choose to either acquire the 3D CAD file for self-manufacturing or receive the completed spare part directly from Kazzata.

Moreover, 3DP presents substantial environmental and efficiency advantages. It contributes to material savings by reducing the need for traditional subtractive manufacturing processes, minimising the necessity for traditional tools, moulds, or punches (Schniederjans, 2017). Furthermore, many 3DP processes have the potential to be reversed, transforming final products back into raw material solutions for reuse (Strange and Zucchella, 2017).

Barriers to 3DP

Organisational barriers: resource and capability gaps

Limited technical or financial resources pose significant barriers to the adoption of 3DP. Firms lacking adequate technical infrastructure (e.g., hardware like 3D printers and related equipment and software like design and modelling programmes essential for creating printable objects) (Ludwig et al., 2014) or integration capabilities face challenges in implementing 3DP (Yeh and Chen, 2018). Moreover, the lack of comprehensive technical guidelines hinders non-expert users from optimising product designs and developing the necessary knowledge to utilise 3DP capabilities in product development (Weller et al., 2015). Similarly, financial constraints limit investing in 3DP technology (Sealy, 2012), as the technology entails substantial costs across various stages. The initial investment for adopting 3DP includes the fixed expense of purchasing machines, along with additional spending on hardware, software, and system integration (Baumers et al., 2016). Ongoing usage costs arise from material expenditures and further development efforts to improve efficiency (Tsai and Yeh, 2019), while maintenance costs cover machine depreciation and spare components (Chaudhuri et al., 2019). However, as 3D printer prices have rapidly declined in recent years – coupled with an increasing number of manufacturers and enhancements in services – concerns regarding high costs are expected to become less prominent in the adoption decisions (Martinelli et al., 2021).

The adoption of 3DP poses several challenges within organisations. A widespread lack of knowledge and skills about 3DP (e.g. hard skills in design –CAD, CATIA, processing AM materials, polymers, coating as well as soft skills –project management, critical thinking)^{[footnote 9]}, especially among SMEs, prior to the investment decision, is a strong barrier to the adoption of 3DP (Conner et al., 2015; Martinsuo and Luomaranta, 2018). Essentially, the complexity of 3DP requires expert knowledge across various fields, as well as new skills related to emerging materials, design paradigms, 3DP processes, and testing methods (Steenhuis et al., 2019; Ahmadpour et al., 2023). This complexity makes it difficult for companies to comprehend the technology’s benefits, assess its viability, train employees, and establish teams, consequently raising the costs associated with the acquisition and implementation (Berman, 2012; Hannibal and Knight, 2018). Furthermore, upon adoption, firms investing in 3DP must also develop or acquire sufficient expertise to install, operate, and maintain the equipment (Hannibal and Knight, 2018). This can explain why the early diffusion of 3DP is predominantly observed in advanced countries, with many industrial 3DP manufacturers emerging from large established companies (Steenhuis et al., 2019). For SMEs, this learning curve is highly costly and time intensive. This issue is compounded by general resistance to change and a preference for maintaining the status quo within organisations (Marak et al., 2019).

Companies need to equip themselves with the necessary managerial capabilities to adapt 3DP. This includes the necessity for new management processes, team structure, alignment across business units, interaction with specialised professionals, and collaboration with external partners. (Cohen, 2014; Ahmadpour et al., 2023). An integral part of these capabilities is strong leadership support, although it is often lacking in many organisations. Dwivedi et al. (2017) discovered that the lack of management and leadership support poses a significant barrier to the adoption of 3DP within the context of the Indian automotive industry. Besides, the difficulty in altering the mindset and attitudes of organisations towards embracing 3DP has been mentioned by multiple researchers (Ford and Despeisse, 2016; Dwivedi et al., 2017; Martinsuo and Luomaranta, 2018). Such managerial resistance underscores how organisational inertia and leadership scepticism can stall technological progress, despite its potential advantages.

Technological barriers

The limited choice of materials available for 3DP still represents a significant barrier to its adoption. While there is a limited, though growing, selection of raw materials suitable for 3DP, including a restricted range of colours and surface finishes (Strange and Zucchella, 2017), most products require low-temperature melting plastics, metals, and various types of pastes for printing (Laplume et al., 2016). Additionally, 3DP is unable to produce products from many natural materials, such as stone (Hannibal and Knight, 2018). The limitations of usable materials and the limited number of suppliers also result in high negotiating power by material suppliers (Gebler et al., 2014).

Plastics are frequently used materials in 3DP due to their versatility, ease of printing, cost- and energy-effectiveness, and the wide range of applications from prototyping to final product manufacturing (Berman, 2012; Punia and Kandasubramanian, 2025; Manoj Prabhakar et al., 2021). Most recently, multi-material AM has emerged as an advancement in 3DP technologies (García-Collado et al., 2022; Nazir et al., 2023). Presently, 3D printers capable of handling combinations of polymer and metal, as well as ceramics, glass, and wood, have been developed and commercialised. However, it still confronts challenges due to mismatches in thermophysical properties between materials, design software, and post-processing technologies (Nazir et al., 2023).

Products manufactured by 3DP still exhibit certain quality deficiencies like limitations in strength, resistance to heat and moisture, and colour stability (Thompson et al., 2016; Ambily et al., 2024) and lack of engineering precision levels of other manufacturing technologies (Strange and Zucchella, 2017). Nevertheless, with the significantly improved accuracy of 3D printers in more recent years, the gap in quality and precision between 3DP products and those produced by traditional manufacturing methods is gradually narrowing, offering new possibilities for their use in more demanding applications (Martinelli et al., 2021).

Against the aforementioned suitability of 3DP for producing products in small quantities and sizes, there is a disadvantage of 3DP when dealing with large volumes (Khorram Niaki and Nonino, 2017). For companies requiring mass production, this characteristic represents a disadvantage compared to traditional manufacturing. Not only does printing larger goods requires several hours, but the unit cost of the same product can be higher compared to mass production methods (Ben-Ner and Siemsen, 2017; Hannibal and Knight, 2018). For example, in the construction industry, 3DP technology encounters challenges in large-size applications, where key limitations include the restricted operational range of robotic arms, along with risks of defects arising at assembly interfaces (Ambily et al., 2024).

Although it has environmental advantages derived by additive methods and associated reduction of waste, as well as the shortening of supply chain due to in-house prototyping and small scale customised production, 3DP technology may pose some environmental negative impact (Schniederjans, 2017). For instance, the manufacturing process of 3D-printed items of equivalent weight consumes 50 to 100 times more electrical energy than injection moulding (Gilpin, 2014). Recent studies also highlight the high electric energy consumption of Fused Deposition Modelling, particularly during the initial warm-up phase, making it inefficient for mass manufacturing but more suitable for small-batch production (Chadha et al., 2022).

Additionally, 3DP could lead to unhealthy air emissions and an increased reliance on plastics (Gilpin, 2014).

Environmental barriers: regulatory and market challenges

At the regulatory level, the absence of comprehensive legislation may lead to legal issues for 3DP products or render them incoherent within the regulatory frameworks established for traditional products. Englezos et al. (2023) analysed a cutting-edge application case of 3DP techniques in the manufacturing of personalised medicine, noting that, internationally, there are currently no policies or guidelines explicitly outlining the role of 3DP in this sector. Pharmacists are left to reference frameworks that overview how to conduct on-site extemporaneous production of medicines. Another example cited by Schniederjans (2017) is the case of 3D-printed food utensils, which may contain empty spaces that facilitate bacterial growth. Due to the absence of regulation specific to 3D-printed food utensils, these quality concerns may result in legal challenges.

On the standards front, the lack of standardisation for 3DP technology results in compatibility challenges, which may increase cost and time during the production phase, and hamper adoption (Martinsuo and Luomaranta, 2018). Due to the absence of standardised guidelines, the dimensions and geometry of printed components are largely determined by the printer capabilities and material quality (Ambily et al., 2024). Even with standardised procedures or materials, solutions for high customisation and complexity can be offered at a premium, leading to increased costs (Ahmadpour et al., 2023). Also, the lack of standardisation raises public concerns about the safety, effectiveness, and reproducibility of 3D-printed products compared to traditional manufacturing methods. This issue is particularly critical in the medical industry, where regulation and industry-specific standards for design integrity, testing rigor, and quality management remain underdeveloped (Ul Azeem et al., 2024).

The limited customer awareness and acceptance of 3DP hinders its broader adoption. Scepticism about 3DP’s reliability, unfamiliarity with its capabilities, and perceived risks, compared to conventional methods, deter market penetration (Durach et al., 2017; Martinsuo and Luomaranta, 2018; Naghshineh, 2024). For example, a survey  of Malaysian construction firms indicated that awareness and adoption of Construction 4.0 technologies, including 3DP, are largely limited to semi-automation, especially among smaller contractors who persist in using traditional methods and approach advanced technologies with caution (Jaafar et al., 2024). However, Durach et al. (2017) found that most surveyed individuals expected this obstacle to diminish within the next 5 years, owing to the accelerated pace of 3DP technological advancement.

Enablers of 3DP adoption

Organisational capabilities

In assessing a company’s capability to adopt 3DP, organisational readiness emerges as a pivotal factor. Adequate technical resources are indicative of a robust technical infrastructure, essential for integrating and utilising new technologies effectively. Yeh and Chen (2018) emphasise the importance of technological integration – specifically, the degree of alignment between a firm’s back-end information system and its database – in facilitating the adoption of 3DP. Moreover, successful 3DP adoption is closely linked with not only a firm’s internal information systems, but also those of its trading partners. Furthermore, possessing adequate financial resources signals a strong capital foundation, essential for companies to invest in and support technological advancements (Sealy, 2012). Tsai and Yeh (2019) add to this perspective by observing that companies with fewer financial constraints are more inclined to adopt 3DP.

Also, top management support has been identified as a crucial factor in a company’s acquisition and implementation of 3DP technology (Schniederjans, 2017; Yeh and Chen, 2018). In an empirical study, Schniederjans (2017) conducted a survey to investigate the perspectives of 270 top-management representatives from manufacturing firms throughout the US. The findings reveal that top management’s decision to adopt 3DP is based on the technology’s perceived benefits and expected performance, regardless of how complicated or effort intensivity it might be perceived to be. Furthermore, these perceptions influence the speed at which 3DP is adopted.

Building internal competencies through strategic partnerships, collaborations, and industry associations also emerges as a critical factor for successfully integrating 3DP technology into company operations (Mellor et al., 2014; Ford and Despeisse, 2016; Ukobitz and Faullant, 2022). Research has revealed that 3DP adoption spreads through networks of trading partners, machine vendors, and their respective supply chains, suggesting a ripple effect whereby technology adoption propagates among suppliers and clients (Mellor et al., 2014; Yeh and Chen, 2018). Ford and Despeisse (2016) discuss case studies illustrating how companies like GE, Rolls-Royce, and Siemens built their competencies in 3DP through various strategies. GE acquired a partner AM company to tap into its tacit knowledge and skills, Rolls-Royce collaborated within an EU-funded consortium including other aerospace companies, universities, and AM equipment suppliers, and Siemens engaged directly with its equipment supplier.

Moreover, Ukobitz and Faullant (2022) show that involvement in industry associations markedly enhances the adoption of 3DP. These dynamics stem from the exchange of 3DP knowledge among trade partners and the formative activities provided by associations, which effectively highlight the advantages and significance of 3DP to their partners or members, culminating in a rise in the adoption and application of the technology (Ford and Despeisse, 2016; Ukobitz and Faullant, 2022).

Ecosystem support

The successful use of 3DP by organisations is closely linked to the support provided by 3DP service providers who “offer a full spectrum of 3D-Printing services” such as designing and producing 3D-printed products, selling and maintaining equipment, and offering consulting and feasibility assessment services to ensure successful implementation (Chaudhuri et al., 2019). Marak et al. (2019) found that ease of use and trialability are significant factors in a company’s decision to adopt 3DP. Similarly, Chaudhuri et al. (2019) identify key challenges in adopting 3DP include the limited availability of training and educational support. They argue that 3DP service providers can mitigate these challenges by developing a portfolio of services tailored to various stages of adoption. Furthermore, in their empirical study of Austria’s AM stakeholders, Maresch and Gartner (2020) concluded that service providers play a crucial role as catalysts for knowledge transfer, updating all participants in the innovation ecosystem on the latest advancements in the field.

A competitive environment serves as a significant catalyst for the adoption of 3DP. On one hand, firms often adopt 3DP in response to competitive pressures. The motivation behind this strategic move is to improve inventory management, supply chain visibility, data accuracy, and operational efficiency (Conner et al., 2015; Yeh and Chen, 2018). On the other hand, the presence of successful competitors who have adopted 3DP within an industry increases a company’s perceived value of the technology, prompting further adoption (Ukobitz and Faullant, 2022).

From a policy perspective, as a rapidly evolving breakthrough technology, 3DP has garnered significant attention from governments worldwide. Technological support from governments can facilitate the adoption of 3DP within companies (Tsai and Yeh, 2019). For instance, under the “Made in China 2025” strategy, 3DP has been identified as a key development area to elevate China’s standing in the global manufacturing arena. Specifically, government support primarily focuses on R&D over commercialisation, prioritising aviation and metal printing to reinforce China’s commitment to high-tech manufacturing. Between 2014 and 2016, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST) launched 51 R&D projects on 3DP, and by 2016, over 400 million CNY (£+40 million) was pledged for multi-year research initiatives (Wübbeke et al. 2016). Supported by favourable policies and increasing market needs, the 3DP sector in China has expanded rapidly (Qian, 2024). Another example of policy supporting 3DP adoption is the US “America Makes” government initiative launched in 2013 to stimulate the AM technologies (America Makes, 2023). America Makes fosters a collaborative ecosystem that drives innovation, research, and commercialisation of AM technologies (Birtchnell et al., 2017). By bringing together government agencies, private companies, universities, and research institutions, the program helps address industry-wide challenges such as material standardisation, quality control, and cost reduction. Additionally, its focus on workforce training and education supports the development of a skilled labour force, while public-private partnerships and funding opportunities encourage investment in US-based 3DP advancements, strengthening domestic manufacturing competitiveness. A similar strategy has been developed in the UK, “Made Smarter”, providing advice on digital technologies to SMEs in the manufacturing sector (see Annex VI).

Adoption of 3DP in SMEs

Early adopters of 3DP technology are often large enterprises, and over time, numerous SMEs have emerged as both adopters and suppliers of 3DP technology and services (Martinelli, 2019). Prior research has revealed that the future significance of SMEs in 3DP could be elevated, given their potential to evolve into direct digital supercentres – “facilities that concentrate low volume, customised, and high urgency production” (Sasson and Johnson, 2016, p.83) – upon adopting 3DP technology. In other words, by leveraging their inherent agility and localised expertise, 3DP-adopting SMEs can transform into flexible production hubs that efficiently fulfil niche, on-demand orders, thereby bridging the gap between traditional mass production and the rising need for customised, low-volume manufacturing (Sasson and Johnson, 2016). However, empirical research focusing specifically on SMEs as direct business users, revealing the determinants and impact of their adoption of 3DP technology, remains scarce.

Martinsuo and Luomaranta (2018) compile a list of factors that hamper adoption of 3DP in SMEs based on their characteristics. These include a short planning horizon, unawareness of the technology’s benefits, lack of financial and human resources, inadequate inter-organisational information systems, and a strong dependency on existing supply chain partners. Moreover, SMEs have limited bargaining power, i.e., a reduced ability to negotiate favourable terms with suppliers and customers, due to their lower purchasing volumes and limited market influence, which hampers their ability to secure better pricing, support, or long-term contracts.

This section will briefly discuss 2 studies that analyse SMEs, focusing on the challenges and impacts of 3DP adoption, to provide some insightful empirical findings.

Conner et al. (2015) argue that entry-level 3D printers serve as an ideal starting point for SMEs to assess and experiment with 3DP technology. Compared to professional-grade AM machines, entry-level 3D printers provide the essential features needed for printing basic plastic objects at low cost, ease of use, and limited quality and material choices, which are mainly designed for beginners, hobbyists, and educational activities. They conducted interviews with 4 small businesses in Ohio, USA, and found that while the primary use of these printers was for prototyping and modelling, they were also used selectively for tooling. Despite identifying some relative shortcomings in printing performance and reliability of entry-level 3D printers, these did not deter their use of 3DP technology. More importantly, SMEs gained experience and knowledge through entry-level 3D printers, facilitating a smoother transition to production-grade systems.

Khorram Niaki and Nonino (2017) surveyed SMEs in Italy and the USA to study the impact of implementing 3DP on competitiveness, energy consumption, and payback period. They revealed that the majority of SMEs with extensive experience in using 3DP for rapid manufacturing reported an increase in competitiveness. SMEs utilising metal as the raw material for 3DP experienced more efficient energy consumption and shorter payback periods compared to those using plastic materials or conventional manufacturing methods. This is attributed to the greater value of metal parts produced with higher complexity, enabling companies to sell their products at a higher price.

In summary, SMEs face greater barriers in adopting 3D printing than larger firms, despite some shared challenges. Financial and technical constraints, skill shortages, high costs, and limited material options are more acute for SMEs due to their smaller scale and lower financial flexibility. Unlike larger companies that invest in long-term R&D, SMEs operate with shorter planning horizons and have weaker bargaining power against suppliers. Dependence on existing supply chains and difficulty in integrating 3D printing into digital systems further hinder 3DP adoption. SMEs typically start with entry-level printers for prototyping, delaying widespread implementation compared to larger firms that adopt at scale.

Annex III. Methodologies used in this report

This report uses 3 different methodologies. First, the literature review is based on the Web of Science (WoS) database. This review systematically identifies relevant and timely scholarly works by applying the keywords “3D Printing” and “Additive Manufacturing”. The search is filtered within the “Business and Economics” and “Management” categories, to identify social science and economics research on firm-level adoption of 3DP technology while excluding technical publications, covering research published from 2014 to the present.

Second, the quantitative approach (section 2.1) is based on the data collected in 2024 using a bespoke national survey on Adoption of Digital Technologies and Skills (ADiTS). The questionnaire asked companies about their level of adoption of 3DP measured on a 5-point Likert scale: “did not use”, “tested, but did not use”, “low use”, “moderate use” and “high use”. For the purpose of this report, we define 3DP adopters as those using the technology at low, moderate or high use. Non-adopters are those that answered either of the first 2 options mentioned earlier.

3DP adopters were asked to consider 7 motivations to adopt this technology, each measured by a binary variable indicating “yes” or “no”. The motivations included “automation”, “product quality”, “product range expansion”, “upgrading outdated processes”, “improving process quality”, “adopting standards and accreditation”, “consequences of the pandemic”, and “other”. For non-adopters, respondents were asked about the barriers to adopting this technology, also measured by binary variables, including ten factors: “technology is costly”, “technology is immature”, “lack of access to data”, “data are unreliable”, “lack of access to human capital”, “laws and regulations”, “safety and security concerns”, “lack of access to capital”, “technology requires changes in my business” and “technology is not applicable”.

Finally, the qualitative part of the project (section 2.2) is based on interviews with 5 SMEs in Greater Manchester that participated in the research project called “3D printers on the road”, a 1-year interdisciplinary research experiment internally funded by the University of Manchester (August 2023-July 2024). It brought together researchers from the Additive Manufacturing and Materials departments at the Faculty of Engineering, and innovation management scholars from the Alliance Manchester Business School, combining their expertise and providing a comprehensive approach for studying the adoption of 3DP by SMEs in Greater Manchester.

To recruit companies for the project, researchers utilised multiple engagement channels. They collaborated with the Greater Manchester Chamber of Commerce, disseminating project information through its monthly newsletter and attending a breakfast business event in November 2023 to connect with potential participants. Additionally, they leveraged internal university networks, working with business engagement officers from different schools and faculties of the University of Manchester to reach out to SMEs interested in participating. Further efforts involved partnering with the Christabel Pankhurst Institute, a key hub within the Greater Manchester health innovation ecosystem that bridges the university, NHS, businesses, and local government. While information was circulated through these networks, no participants were recruited through these routes. Ultimately, participants were secured through inbound inquiries from companies connected to the Graphene Engineering Innovation Centre and the Henry Royce Institute at the University of Manchester.

The 5 participating SMEs (described anonymously in Annex IV) were each interviewed twice, with respondents including a decision-maker (e.g., CEO, product innovation leader) and a hands-on 3DP user within the organization. The interviews were conducted approximately 8 months apart to capture the evolving dynamics of the technology adoption process. The first interviews, conducted in June–July 2024, lasted between 45 and 60 minutes, either at the company’s premises or at the researchers’ workplace. The first round of the research experiment represented the “evaluation stage”, during which participants assessed the technology leading to its acceptance or rejection, or the “set-up or implementation stage”, which involves preparing activities for the technology deployment. The second follow-up interviews took place in February 2025 and were conducted mostly online using Microsoft Teams, lasting between 30 and 60 minutes. They focused mainly on the “post-adoption” stage and whether further adaptations have been required.

The development of the interview protocol was an iterative, collaborative process, involving several rounds of refinement. The project received ethical approval from the University of Manchester Research Governance, Ethics and Integrity (Ref: 2024-20219-35315) and all participants gave their written and verbal consent to participate in the interviews. The final version of each interview protocol (available in Annex V) was organised into 2 sections, with 6 (interviewees’ basic information, company information, motivations to adopt 3DP, complexity of the product printed, challenges of adoption and technological readiness) and 4 items (stage of adoption of 3DP, barriers, enablers and impact) respectively.

Annex 4: Characterisation of the companies involved in the interviews of technology adoption and participants of the “3D printers on the road” research experiment.

Company No.	Company basic information	Description of Companies	Interviewee information
C1	Field: Construction Founded: 2020 Employees: 7	This company offers a Cradle-To-Cradle approach through sustainable, modular, and affordable strategies for the construction of smart homes from recycled materials.	1. Founder/ Chief Operating Officer (COO) 2. Scientist
M1	Field: Medical devices Founded: 2015 Employees:1 (2024) (now<10)	This company aims to develop and commercialise a new medical device	1. Founder and CEO
C2	Field: Construction Founded: 2021 Employees: 3	This company aims to develop a new generation of biopolymer-inorganic composite ceramic tiles without the complicated and energy consuming process.	1. Founder and CEO 2. Chemistry engineer
A1	Field: Agri-food tech Founded: 2018 Employees: 12	This company develops digital tools to monitor crops and enable an agricultural metaverse. The goal is to prevent food waste and plant diseases and improve crop production.	1. Data Acquisition Engineer (electrical engineering, software engineering)
F1	Field: Furniture Founded: Original company 50 years old Employees: 30 factory; 20 office	This company designs and manufactures innovative furniture for use in science and educational settings (e.g., Universities, companies, etc.).	1. Engineering manager 2 .Engineer

Annex V. Interview protocol used during the interviews with SMEs.

The order of questions may change during the interview, and new questions are welcome based on interviewees’ responses.

Question types	Possible questions (first interview)
Consent	Do you agree to freely participate in this interview about adoption of 3D-printers in your company? Are you happy for us to record (only audio) the interview for research purposes? We confirm all information shared here will be treated anonymously and only be analysed for research purposes.
Interviewees basic information	How long have you been working in this company? What is your role in the company? What is your background? Do you have any experience using 3D-printers?
Company information	Does your company have any experience with 3D-printers (prior to this project)? Are you aware of any of your employees having knowledge about 3D-printers?
Motivation	Why would you adopt 3D-printers? Out of all motivations suggested, what do you think is the most important one for your company?
Product/ component	In which part of your process/product you want to use 3D-printers? OR In which phase of your innovation process will you use 3D-printers? How complex is the component where you use 3D-printers? How complex is the final product where you will use a 3D-printer (for the specific component, of the final product itself?
Challenges	What are the main challenges you faced? What do you need to change in your company to adopt 3D-printers? How are you doing things now for that specific product/component and how do you need to do it if you adopt 3D printers? How do you deal with these challenges?
Technological readiness level	How much do you think that technology is ready for adoption? What else do you need the technology does that is not currently doing yet? Do you think your company is ready to adopt the technology? If not, what do you need?

Question types	Possible questions (follow-up interview)
Update on adoption of 3DP	Around 8-months ago you participated in our project “3D-printers on the road” where we raised awareness of the 3DP technology. Since there have you started to (fully) use 3D printers in your companies? If so, how frequently do you use it, and in which parts of the innovation process have been incorporated? Are you planning to extend the use of the technology for different products/projects of the company?
Barriers	When we met the first time you mentioned your main barriers to adoption [Include here the barriers that each company mentioned], what of those barriers remain, and which ones are new to the specific phase of technology adoption where you are in? Are there any of those barriers context-specific (Greater Manchester), sector-specific or network-specific?
Enablers	[If adopted] What have been the enablers that helped you to adopt and use more intensive 3D printers? [If not adopted]What would be the enablers that could help you to adopt and use 3D printers? What of those enablers are specific to Greater Manchester?
Impact	[If adopted] What has changed in the innovation process if you are using 3D printers?

Annex VI. Stakeholders in the 3DP ecosystem in Greater Manchester and the North-West

1. Made Smarter: a catalyst for digital transformation in SMEs

Made Smarter is a government-funded program focused on accelerating digital transformation in manufacturing SMEs that was first piloted in the North-West. Its mission is to act as a “one-stop shop”, providing independent advisory services, leadership training, and grant funding, aiming to build foundational digital readiness to enable advanced technology adoption (including 3DP).

Manchester, historically recognised as the birthplace of the First Industrial Revolution, has lagged behind other regions in Europe and globally in the adoption of technologies associated with the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Currently, most manufacturers in the GM area are not digitally competent enough to fully integrate advanced digital technologies beyond basic, entry-level ones. According to insights from Made Smarter, this lag stems from a number of barriers including:

(1) Financial constraints: the high cost of advanced digital equipment limits adoption.

(2) Lack of in-house IT expertise: most manufacturers do not have dedicated IT teams or a department to manage complex, knowledge-intensive digital technologies.

(3) Low readiness for adoption, stemming from:
a) uncertainty about where to start,
b) limited market research knowledge,
c) insufficient foundational digital infrastructure, and
d) cybersecurity concerns.

To address these challenges in Greater Manchester, Made Smarter’s solutions prioritise establishing digital foundations with 55% of its projects focusing on data and systems integration, followed by robotics and process automation. There are few cases where the technology adopted has been 3DP (see for example the case study of a puppet–maker who used groundbreaking 3D printing techniques to create the star of the Oscar-winning film Pinocchio). Manufacturing-specific projects account for only 6%. The programme delivers fully funded services centred around 3 core actions:

(1) Roadmap: A structured action plan which includes a Digital Readiness Levels (DRL) assessment, identifies firms’ challenges and opportunities, suggests relevant digital solutions, incorporates cybersecurity programmes, and outlines short-, medium-, and long-term company objectives. It also connects businesses to funding, training, and external partners (e.g., universities, innovation hubs).

(2) Grant: Matched funding of up to £20,000 per firm, primarily for technology acquisition. Eligible businesses must submit a detailed business case or project plan, reviewed by an independent panel.

(3) Training: Leadership and management skill development to equip senior leaders and employees to navigate digital transformation effectively.

These solutions help reduce financial risk, provide clear starting points, and empower management teams with essential knowledge.

Furthermore, Made Smarter has forged external collaborations, works with universities and innovation hubs (e.g., PrintCity, part of the Manchester Metropolitan University) for specialised expertise. It also connects SMEs with regional technology suppliers through a technology directory. Local government involvement via funding from Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) ensures alignment with regional economic strategies.

So far, Made Smarter had a considerable impact on advancing GM’s digital transformation. Since 2019, the programme has awarded £7.1 million in matched funding, catalysing £25.2 million in business investments and completing 379 technology projects, with 1,729 jobs created and 3,179 roles upskilled. The programme has driven significant economic growth, delivering a £267 million increase in Gross Value Added (GVA) and an 8:1 return on government investment. A survey reveals that 84% of manufacturers report productivity gains and are satisfied, and case studies highlight positive outcomes like 25% export growth and carbon reduction (Made Smarter White Paper, 2024).

Building on its regional success, Made Smarter will expand to all 9 ITL1 English regions  from April 2025. The programme has a budget for FY2025/26 of £16 million which is double its historic figure. This funding is not only to on-board the 4 new regions (SW, EE, SE, London) but is also to provide an enhanced skills and knowledge package to manufacturing SMEs within the existing Service Lines. This skills and knowledge package sits within our framework offer of Digital Roadmapping and Intensive support from independent and expert advisers, and grant support for qualifying projects. This skills and knowledge package sits within the government’s framework offer of Digital Roadmapping and Intensive support from independent and expert advisers, and grant support for qualifying projects. The skills and knowledge package has 3 arms:

• Leadership and Management Training in Digital Transformation: Aimed at Owners and Leaders of SMEs to improve their understanding and their role in enabling the successful adoption of IDTs in their business.  This is normally provided by a regional University/Business School – with there being no fee to attend.
• Organisation and Workforce Development/Leading Change for Digital Champions: Previously for us, this has been provided in the North West only but is now being rolled out to all regions.  It is aimed at the workforce/shop floor employees, providing training in such areas as change management, teamworking, process mapping etc. to enable the successful adoption of IDT in practice and on an on-going basis.  This will also be provided by a regional University/Business School – with there being no fee to attend.
• Digital Internships/Student Placements:  Part of the Nort West Pilot this is being re-introduced to all regions following a recommendation from the IfM at Cambridge.  This is aimed at getting degree-level students into the manufacturing sector to help individual SMEs with IDT projects they are planning or are undertaking, with the larger aspiration of us getting more students to consider job opportunities in the manufacturing sector going forward.  All or the majority of the cost of the Internships will be borne by the government.

Print-City: an innovation hub led by the Manchester Metropolitan University

PrintCity is an innovative hub for additive and digital manufacturing based at Manchester Metropolitan University. Its core mission is to drive technology adoption, foster talent development specifically via its MSc in Digital Design and Manufacturing, support fundamental research, and engage with firms.

Launched in 2018, PrintCity provides industrial support and fosters regional innovation. Since its inception, it has evolved into a hub for additive manufacturing (AM). By the end of 2025, PrintCity will have invested close to £3 million in 3D printing and 3D scanning equipment and will have close to 100 machines. PrintCity specialises in polymer-based 3D printing, using materials such as filaments (PLA, PET, ABS, PA6), powders (PA11, PA12), resins for Stereolithography, Digital Light Processing, and PolyJet technologies. It also supports metal and concrete printing, including large-format polymer extrusion with industrial robotics. PrintCity has recently received funding for a new £1 million scanning lab, to support heritage and cultural digitisation using advanced technologies such as micro-CT, LiDAR, and hyperspectral imaging, as a member of the newly funded Centre for Digital Modelling and Analysis for Cultural Heritage (D-MACH) at Manchester Metropolitan University.

PrintCity actively supports GM-based businesses, particularly SMEs, by offering tailored consultation, process exploration, funding opportunities, and commercial services that facilitate businesses “go digital”. Over the years, PrintCity has secured funding to provide 1 to 1 support and cohort-based workshops on process evaluation, product redesign and material selection. It has assisted over 200 local businesses since 2020 in effectively accessing technology and determining the appropriate processes for product development.

PrintCity supports firms in adopting AM during all phases of the innovation process from initial exploration to full-scale implementation utilising funding programmes such as the Greater Manchester Investment Zone funded Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Innovation Centre (AMMIC), and the Business Growth Hub Innovation Voucher scheme. PrintCity helps businesses assess their needs, identify suitable technologies, and determine the best approach for integrating AM. It provides expert advice to guide companies in selecting the right equipment and training in its use. PrintCity also facilitates prototyping and product development, assisting with material testing, part optimisation, and design improvements. For instance, PrintCity played a pivotal role by assisting Gola to develop digital prototypes of their shoes, significantly reducing carbon emissions, costs, and production waste while driving sustainable innovation in the brand’s global operations. Beyond product development, it also helps businesses integrate 3DP into production workflows to enhance efficiency and reduce costs. Finally, by enabling informed decision-making and fostering talent development, PrintCity ensures companies can successfully adopt and sustain advanced manufacturing technologies.

PrintCity’s future vision focuses on scaling its impact, expanding access to advanced manufacturing across the UK, and ensuring long-term sustainability. Greater investment would enhance industry support, expand the workforce, and national reach beyond Greater Manchester. A key challenge is to ensure equitable access to resources, regardless of location. It advocates for long-term strategic investment for innovation programmes to maintain stability, retain skilled staff, and sustain cutting-edge equipment. As full financial self-sufficiency remains challenging, it envisions a sustainable funding model where public investment would continue to support SMEs and innovation.

2. 3DP at the Henry Royce Institute

The Henry Royce Institute is the UK’s national centre for advanced materials research and innovation. Royce’s mission is to address critical challenges and stimulate innovation in advanced materials research, thereby supporting sustainable growth and delivering significant economic and societal benefits as a result. With over £200 million in cutting-edge facilities, Royce fosters industrial collaboration, technology commercialisation, and workforce training in materials science.

At its Manchester hub, the Bioprinting, Materials Development for Multidimensional Printing, and Near Net Shape Manufacturing technology platforms together host an extensive suite of facilities supporting R&D and innovation in the field of AM for various sectors. As well as providing access to diverse AM facilities, the Royce hub hosts cross-cutting materials formulation labs, thermal and mechanical characterisation suites (rheology, thermal analysis, etc.), advanced microscopy techniques (SEM, confocal etc.) and biocompatibility testing to underpin the development, printing and characterisation of materials, supporting product development at every stage. The platforms are supported by technical experts who focus on the relationships between materials development, AM processing, structure, and post-printed properties. Key capabilities include:

(1) Direct Ink Writing (Extrusion Printing): Multi-material systems which extrude paste-like materials that can contain a range of solid particulate fillers and often undergo curing, sintering or drying processes post-printing to form the final product. Applications include silicone materials for MRI test objects, 2D materials for energy storage applications, printed hydrogels for vascular applications and silver particulate suspensions for printed electronics.

(2) Inkjet Printing: Enables micron-level high-resolution patterning for biomedical devices, flexible electronics and 2D material-based applications, accommodating diverse material requirements.

(3) Fused Deposition Modelling (FDM): Enables rapid, multi-material and high-precision production of thermoplastic models, for functional testing and validation, including custom filament materials.

(4) Stereolithography (SLA): Offers both prototype and scale-up options, producing intricate, high-resolution designs with diverse and custom developed resins, such as biocompatible, flexible, and high-temperature materials. 2-photon polymerisation, the highest resolution AM technology, allows for sub-micron printing with applications including photonics and microfluidic devices.

(5) Selective Laser Sintering (SLS): Enables detailed prototyping and scalable production of durable, complex parts, from a polymer powder feedstock, supporting functional prototype development and low-volume production.

(6) Bioprinting: Utilises extrusion-based and digital light processing techniques to fabricate complex 3D cell-laden structures using polymeric hydrogels (i.e., inks), cells or cell-loaded hydrogels (i.e., bioinks). Applications include tissue mimics, cell-material interaction studies, and developing models for drug testing and disease research. The integration of bioprinting with other AM technologies, such as melt electrowriting, SLS and SLA facilitates the creation of hybrid constructs that combine biological and synthetic materials, enabling the recreation of tissue gradients/interfaces in the body e.g., bone/cartilage or tendon/bone.

(7) Selective Laser Melting (SLM): Offers metal 3D printing, fusing metal powders into precise, complex geometries. Enables the fabrication of intricate prototypes, and medium-to-high volume production of metal parts.

The Henry Royce Institute supports industry collaborations through key initiatives aimed at advancing materials research and innovation. Furthermore, Royce is also supported by application scientists, and agile postdoctoral-level scientists with a diverse range of expertise based across Royce partners available to support project delivery in the form of project scoping, management, experimental work, data analysis, and reporting. To do that, different initiatives are in place:

The SME Equipment Access Scheme offers subsidised access to state-of-the-art materials science and engineering equipment for UK-based SMEs, spinouts, and start-ups. The scheme allows firms to specify equipment needs or consult Royce experts to design tailored experimental projects, targeting companies seeking cost-effective R&D derisking and technical partnerships.

The Industrial Collaboration Programme (ICP) funds collaborative sprint projects (£50,000–£130,000) focusing on translating advanced materials research into commercial applications. Projects must align with strategic scope areas, including sustainable materials, energy technologies and healthcare innovations. This initiative targets industrial partners and academics requiring cross-sector partnerships to scale technology solutions, emphasizing rapid translation over fundamental research.

Additionally, through the Analysis for Innovators (A4I) program, Royce partners with Innovate UK to resolve technical challenges via funded projects (£15,000–£100,000). Companies submit measurement or analysis problems linked to existing products/processes, engaging in brokerage consultations with experts before securing funding. This scheme prioritises productivity enhancements, leveraging Royce’s expertise in advanced materials to drive competitive gains.

Royce also provides training programmes across its research areas. A current example is the Biofabrication for Healthcare Research course – a £200 in-person programme at the University of Manchester designed for researchers, PhD students, biotech professionals, and junior doctors – teaching participants to use extrusion-based bioprinting and related techniques to create realistic 3D tissue models, while exploring current applications and future prospects in tissue engineering.

The Henry Royce Institute drives cutting-edge materials research using advanced facilities and partnerships with top UK institutions and industry. Its projects have tackled challenges like carbon-neutral steel production, hydrogen embrittlement prevention, waste heat energy recovery, and enhanced battery performance – turning research into commercially viable, sustainable solutions that boost industrial competitiveness. Over the past 2 years, 215 SMEs have interacted with Royce facilities across the partnership, of which 44 have accessed equipment in Manchester.

3. A community-led initiative: Hackspace Manchester^{[footnote 10]}

Hackspace Manchester is a community-run workshop and maker space in Manchester City Centre. Embracing a DIY culture, it combines coding, art, and fabrication under a “fix it, make it” mindset. In contrast to costly incubators, Hackspace offers affordable access to tools such as 3D printers and laser cutters, and it hosts a variety of workshops in wood, metal, crafts, and electronics, explicitly welcoming early-stage ventures, small companies and solo innovators. It adopts an inclusive membership approach with a recommended fee of £20 per month, but that could vary based on a member’s ability to pay. Additionally, Hackspace serves as a communal resource where members collaborate via topic-specific group chats, providing reliable advice more quickly than traditional online searches. Essentially, Hackspace bridges gaps between ideas and execution, fostering GM’s grassroots innovation culture.

Acknowledgement

The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful feedback provided by DSIT officials in the Strategic Evidence Team, which has significantly enhanced the focus and readability of this report. Special thanks are extended to all interview participants, whose perspectives and expertise on 3DP adoption have been invaluable in shaping the analysis and inspiring the recommendations offered here. Similarly, we express our gratitude to Claire Scott from Made Smarter, Alan Dempsey and Carl Diver from PrintCity, and Luke Davies from the Henry Royce Institute for their availability and openness during the interviews, which contributed to develop the case of the 3DP ecosystem in Greater Manchester. Finally, Murat Kilic and Wajira Mirihanage have been integral members of the technology expert board and have reviewed the final version of the report. Silvia Massini and Mabel Sanchez Barrioluengo also acknowledge funding from UMRI – University of Manchester and the Productivity Institute Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Any errors or omissions remain solely the responsibility of the authors.

References

Achillas C, Aidonis D, Iakovou E, Thymianidis M and Tzetzis D. (2015) A methodological framework for the inclusion of modern additive manufacturing into the production portfolio of a focused factory. Journal of Manufacturing Systems 37: 328-339.

Ahmadpour L, Leardini A, Fini R and Mascia D. (2023) Knowledge sharing in temporary teams: Exploring the use of 3D printing in orthopaedic surgery. Technovation 123: 102723.

Ambily PS, Kaliyavaradhan SK and Rajendran N. (2024) Top challenges to widespread 3D concrete printing (3DCP) adoption – A review. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering 28: 300-328.

America Makes (2023) Standardization Roadmap for Additive Manufacturing, Version 3.0.

AMUK (2017) Additive Manufacturing UK National Strategy 2018-25.

Ancarani A, Di Mauro C and Mascali F. (2019) Backshoring strategy and the adoption of Industry 4.0: Evidence from Europe. Journal of World Business 54: 360-371.

Baumers M, Dickens P, Tuck C and Hague R. (2016) The cost of additive manufacturing: machine productivity, economies of scale and technology-push. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 102: 193-201.

Beltagui A, Kunz N and Gold S. (2020) The role of 3D printing and open design on adoption of socially sustainable supply chain innovation. International Journal of Production Economics 221: 107462.

Ben-Ner A and Siemsen E. (2017) Decentralization and Localization of Production: The Organizational and Economic Consequences of Additive Manufacturing (3D Printing). California Management Review 59: 5-23.

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

Berretta, S., Evans, K. and Ghita, O. (2017) Processability of PEEK, a new polymer for high temperature laser sintering (HT-LS). European Polymer Journal, 105: 167-176.

BigRep (2023) Industrial FDM Printing: MXT Extruder Technology, BigRep GmbH, Berlin.

Birtchnell, T., Böhme, T. and Gorkin, R. (2017) 3D printing and the third mission: The university in the materialization of intellectual capital. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 123: 240-249

Bordeleau, F.È., and Felden, C. (2019) “Digitally Transforming Organisations: A Review of Change Models of Industry 4.0” Proceedings of the 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Stockholm.

Bowyer, A. (2014) ‘3D Printing and Humanity’s First Imperfect Replicator’, 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing, 1(1), pp. 4-5.

Cefis, E., Leoncini, R., Marengo, L. and Montresor, S. (2023) “Firms and innovation in the new industrial paradigm of the digital transformation” Industry and Innovation, DOI: 10.1080/13662716.2022.2161875

Carneiro, O.S., Silva, A.F. and Gomes, R. (2015) Fused deposition modeling with polypropylene. Materials & Design 83: 768-776.

Chadha, U., Abrol, A., Vora, N.P., Tiwari, A., Shanker, S.K. and Selvaraj, S.K. (2022) Performance evaluation of 3D printing technologies: a review, recent advances, current challenges, and future directions. Progress in Additive Manufacturing, 7(5): 853-886.

Chaudhuri A, Rogers H, Soberg P and Pawar KS. (2019) The role of service providers in 3D printing adoption. Industrial Management & Data Systems 119: 1189-1205.

Chen D, Heyer S, Ibbotson S, Salonitis K, Steingrímsson JG and Thiede S. (2015) Direct digital manufacturing: definition, evolution, and sustainability implications. Journal of Cleaner Production 107: 615-625.

Chua, C.K. and Leong, K.F. (2015). 3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing: Principles and Applications. 5th ed. Singapore: World Scientific.

Cohen DL. (2014) Fostering Mainstream Adoption of Industrial 3D Printing: Understanding the Benefits and Promoting Organizational Readiness. 3D Printing and AM 1: 62-69.

Conner BP, Manogharan GP and Meyers KL. (2015) An assessment of implementation of entry-level 3D printers from the perspective of small businesses. Rapid Prototyping Journal 21: 582-597.

Corradini, C., Morris, D., & Vanino, E. (2023). Towards a regional approach for skills policy. Regional Studies, 57(6), 1043-1054. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2022.2031950

Data City (2025) UK Advanced Manufacturing RTICS. Data accessed 07/04/2025.

Delic M and Eyers DR. (2020) The effect of additive manufacturing adoption on supply chain flexibility and performance: An empirical analysis from the automotive industry. International Journal of Production Economics 228: 107689.

Dizon, J.R.C., Espera, A.H., Chen, Q. and Advincula, R.C. (2018) Mechanical characterization of 3D-printed polymers. Additive Manufacturing, 20: 44-67.

Durach CF, Kurpjuweit S and Wagner SM. (2017) The impact of additive manufacturing on supply chains. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47: 954-971.

Dwivedi G, Srivastava SK and Srivastava RK. (2017) Analysis of barriers to implement additive manufacturing technology in the Indian automotive sector. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 47: 972-991.

Englezos K, Wang L, Tan ECK and Kang L. (2023) 3D printing for personalised medicines: implications for policy and practice. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 635: 122785.

EIBIS (2024) European Investment Survey. European Investment Bank. Available at: https://data.eib.org/eibis/graph [Accessed 15 March 2025]

Felice G, Lamperti F and Piscitello L. (2022) The employment implications of additive manufacturing. Industry and Innovation 29: 333-366.

Ford S and Despeisse M. (2016) Additive manufacturing and sustainability: an exploratory study of the advantages and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production 137: 1573-1587.

García-Collado A, Blanco JM, Gupta MK and Dorado-Vicente R. (2022) Advances in polymers based Multi-Material Additive-Manufacturing Techniques: State-of-art review on properties and applications. Additive Manufacturing 50: 102577.

Gebler M, Schoot Uiterkamp AJM and Visser C. (2014) A global sustainability perspective on 3D printing technologies. Energy Policy 74: 158-167.

Gilpin L. (2014) The dark side of 3D printing: 10 things to watch. Available at: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/the-dark-side-of-3d-printing-10-things-to-watch/.

Gress DR and Kalafsky RV. (2015) Geographies of production in 3D: Theoretical and research implications stemming from additive manufacturing. Geoforum 60: 43-52.

Hannibal M and Knight G. (2018) Additive manufacturing and the global factory: Disruptive technologies and the location of international business. International Business Review 27: 1116-1127.

Hahn, E. and Massini, S. (2024) Cross-border and domestic early-stage financial investment in 3D printing: An empirical perspective on drivers and locations. Journal of International Management. 16: Forthcoming.

International Organization for Standardization, ISO/ASTM 52900(en) Additive manufacturing — General principles — Terminology

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

Ivanova, O., Williams, C. and Campbell, T. (2013) Additive manufacturing (AM) and nanotechnology: promises and challenges. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 19(5): 353-364.

Jaafar M, Salman A, Ghazali FEM, Zain MZM and Kilau NM. (2024) The awareness and adoption level of emerging technologies in Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) by contractors in Malaysia. Ain Shams Engineering Journal 15: 102710.

Khorram Niaki M and Nonino F. (2017) Impact of additive manufacturing on business competitiveness: a multiple case study. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 28: 56-74.

Klipper (2021) Input Shaping Documentation, Klipper Firmware Project.

Kwok, S.W., Goh, K.H.H., Tan, Z.D., Tan, S.T.M., Tjiu, W.W., Soh, J.Y., Ng, Z.J.G., Chan, Y.Z., Hui, H.K. and Goh, K.E.J. (2017) Electrically conductive filament for 3D-printed circuits and sensors. Applied Materials Today: 167-175.

Laplume AO, Petersen B and Pearce JM. (2016) Global value chains from a 3D printing perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 47: 595-609.

Leal R, Barreiros FM, Alves L, Romeiro F, Vasco JC, Santos M and Marto C. (2017) Additive manufacturing tooling for the automotive industry. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 92: 1671-1676.

Ludwig, T., Stickel, O., Boden, A. and Pipek, V. (2014) Towards sociable technologies: an empirical study on designing appropriation infrastructures for 3D printing. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems: 835-844.

Made Smarter (2024) White Paper: Delivering Impact: How Made Smarter inspires digital transformation. Available at: Delivering Impact: How Made Smarter inspires digital transformation, Made Smarter

Manoj Prabhakar M, Saravanan AK, Haiter Lenin A, Jerin leno I, Mayandi K and Sethu Ramalingam P. (2021) A short review on 3D printing methods, process parameters and materials. Materials Today: Proceedings 45: 6108-6114.

Marak ZR, Tiwari A and Tiwari S. (2019) Adoption of 3D printing technology: an Innovation Diffusion Theory perspective. International Journal of Innovation 7: 87-103.

Maresch D and Gartner J. (2020) Make disruptive technological change happen - The case of additive manufacturing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 155: 119216.

Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4), 395-437. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbl012

Martinelli A, Mina A and Moggi M. (2021) The enabling technologies of industry 4.0: examining the seeds of the fourth industrial revolution. Industrial and corporate change 30: 161-188.

Martinelli EM. (2019) Customer centric innovation: adoption of 3D printing in the Italian jewellery sector. Piccola Impresa / Small Business 0.

Martinsuo M and Luomaranta T. (2018) Adopting additive manufacturing in SMEs: exploring the challenges and solutions. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29: 937-957.

Massini, S., Sanchez-Barrioluengo, M. and Yu, X. (2022) Adoption of Digital Technologies and Skills in Greater Manchester

Massini, S., Sanchez-Barrioluengo, M., Yu, X., Kim, M., Chen, P. and Velu, C. (2025) Adoption of Advanced Digital Technologies and Platforms: Insights from a UK national survey, Working Paper No. 049, The Productivity Institute.

Massini S., Sanchez-Barrioluengo, M. and Javaid H. (2024) What comes first? A co-evolutionary analysis of the development of digital technologies and skills in UK regions. Paper presented at the International Schumpeter Society Conference, Gothenburg.

Matsuzaki, R., Ueda, M., Namiki, M., Jeong, T.K., Asahara, H., Horiguchi, K., Nakamura, T., Todoroki, A. and Hirano, Y. (2016) Three-dimensional printing of continuous-fiber composites by in-nozzle impregnation. Scientific Reports, 6, 23058.

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

Melo, G., Chaves, M., Kolter, M., Schleifenbaum, J.H. (2024). Skills Requirements of Additive Manufacturing - A Textual Analysis of Job Postings Using Natural Language Processing. In: Klahn, C., Meboldt, M., Ferchow, J. (eds) Industrializing Additive Manufacturing. AMPA 2023. Springer Tracts in Additive Manufacturing. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-42983-5_21

Minetola, P. and Eyers, D. (2018) Energy and cost assessment of 3D printed mobile case covers, Procedia CIRP 69: 130-135.

Naghshineh B. (2024) Additive manufacturing technology adoption for supply chain agility: a systematic search and review. International Journal of Production Research: 1-33.

Nazir A, Gokcekaya O, Md Masum Billah K, Ertugrul O, Jiang J, Sun J and Hussain S. (2023) Multi-material additive manufacturing: A systematic review of design, properties, applications, challenges, and 3D printing of materials and cellular metamaterials. Materials & Design 226: 111661.

Ning, F., Cong, W., Qiu, J., Wei, J. and Wang, S. (2015) Additive manufacturing of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic composites using fused deposition modeling. Composites Part B: Engineering 80: 369-378.

Park, S.; Shou, W., Makatura, L., Matusik, W., Fu, K. (2022) 3D printing of polymer composites: Materials, processes, and applications. Matter 5(1): 43-76

Pedota M and Piscitello L. (2022) A new perspective on technology-driven creativity enhancement in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Creativity and Innovation Management 31: 109-122.

Peng T. (2016) Analysis of Energy Utilization in 3D Printing Processes. Procedia CIRP 40: 62-67.

Punia, R. and Kandasubramanian, B. (2025) Towards Circular Economy: Integrating Polymer Recycling and 3D Printing for Economic Regeneration. Polytechnica, 8(1): 2.

Qian L. (2024) Evaluating the Impact of 3D Printing Technology Innovations on Industrial Production Efficiency and Economic Growth in the Automotive Sector in China. Innovation in Science and Technology 3: 60-66.

Rosen DW. (2014) Research supporting principles for design for additive manufacturing. Virtual and Physical Prototyping 9: 225-232.

Sasson A and Johnson JC. (2016) The 3D printing order: variability, supercenters and supply chain reconfigurations. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 46: 82-94.

Schniederjans DG. (2017) Adoption of 3D-printing technologies in manufacturing: A survey analysis. International Journal of Production Economics 183: 287-298.

Sealy W. (2012) Additive manufacturing as a disruptive technology: how to avoid the pitfall. American Journal of Engineering and Technology Research 11.

Stansbury, J.W. and Idacavage, M.J. (2016) 3D printing with polymers: Challenges among expanding options and opportunities. Dental Materials 32(1): 54-64.

Steenhuis H-J, Fang X and Ulusemre T. (2019) Global Diffusion of Innovation during the Fourth Industrial Revolution: The Case of Additive Manufacturing or 3D Printing. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 17: 2050005.

Stornelli, A. Ozcan, S. and Simms, C. (2021) Advanced manufacturing technology adoption and innovation: A systematic literature review on barriers, enablers, and innovation types. Research Policy 50(6): 1-18.

Strange R and Zucchella A. (2017) Industry 4.0, global value chains and international business. Multinational Business Review 25: 174-184.

Thompson MK, Moroni G, Vaneker T, Fadel G, Campbell RI, Gibson I, Bernard A, Schulz J, Graf P, Ahuja B and Martina F. (2016) Design for Additive Manufacturing: Trends, opportunities, considerations, and constraints. CIRP Annals 65: 737-760.

Tofail, S.A.M., Koumoulos, E.P., Bandyopadhyay, A., Bose, S., O’Donoghue, L. and Charitidis, C. (2018) Additive manufacturing: scientific and technological challenges, market uptake and opportunities. Materials Today, 21(1): 22-37.

Tsai C-A and Yeh C-C. (2019) Understanding the decision rules for 3D printing adoption. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 31: 1104-1117.

Turner, B.N., Strong, R. and Gold, S.A. (2014). A review of melt extrusion additive manufacturing processes: I. Process design and modeling. Rapid Prototyping Journal, 20(3), pp.192-204.

Ukobitz DV and Faullant R. (2022) The relative impact of isomorphic pressures on the adoption of radical technology: Evidence from 3D printing. Technovation 113: 102418.

Ul Azeem R, Moghaddam SK, Kaye R, MacKenzie M, Di Ilio V, Umar Y and Cheong Y-K. (2024) 3D printing adoption in NHS trusts within the United Kingdom. Bioprinting 41: e00346.

Weller C, Kleer R and Piller FT. (2015) Economic implications of 3D printing: Market structure models in light of additive manufacturing revisited. International Journal of Production Economics 164: 43-56.

Wohlers, T. and Gornet, T. (2016) History of additive manufacturing. Wohlers Report: 1-34.

Wübbeke, J., Meissner, M., Zenglein, M.J., Ives, J. and Conrad, B. (2016) Made in china 2025. Mercator Institute for China Studies. Papers on China, 2(74):4.

Yeh C-C and Chen Y-F. (2018) Critical success factors for adoption of 3D printing. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 132: 209-216.

Zhao M, Yang J, Shu C and Liu J. (2021) Sustainability orientation, the adoption of 3D printing technologies, and new product performance: A cross-institutional study of American and Indian firms. Technovation 101: 102197.

Zhong, S. and Pearce, J.M. (2018) Tightening the loop on the circular economy: Coupled distributed recycling and manufacturing with recyclebot and RepRap 3-D printing. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 128: 48-58.

1. Annex I includes a summary of the evolution of the 3D printing technology. ↩

2. A possible reason for this difference is that the survey in Greater Manchester (Massini et al., 2022) was mainly answered by SMEs (85% of the sample) compared to the more equally distributed national survey (from which the Noth-West rate has been calculated) between SMEs (51%) and large firms (49%) (Massini et al., 2025). It is also important to note that the 2 surveys followed a different approach for data collection. The Greater Manchester survey employs a random sampling method by sending a large volume of emails. Instead, the national survey uses YouGov surveys that rely on a pre-recruited online panel where participants voluntarily sign up and adopt weights to achieve representativeness by region, sector and company size. ↩

3. For further details see Melo et al. (2024) who has analyse skills requirements of AM job postings using natural language processing algorithms. ↩

4. See Massini et al. (2025) for the full report including information about the data collection as well as adoption of other advanced digital technologies like AI, Big Data, Cloud Computing, IoT and Robotics. ↩

5. A similar analysis was carried out using data from Massini et al. (2022) for the case of Greater Manchester (92 SMEs participated, 8 adopted 3DP) and the results remain. In relation to motivations, those related to goods or services were considered as the main reason to use 3DP (although this survey did not include the option of “improving the quality of the product”) followed by those motivations related to processes or methods. In terms of the barriers, “technology not applicable” and “lack of barriers” were selected mostly, compared to “any other barrier” that was raised by less than 5% of the companies in the sample. ↩

6. The result is based on comparing the distribution of both sub-samples using the z-score statistic. ↩

7. For further details see Melo et al. (2024) who has analyse skills requirements of AM job postings using natural language processing algorithms ↩

8. It is important to note that, due to the nature of the convenience sample used for the qualitative analysis of this research, all companies already had in place the support from (at least mid-) managers and decision makers in their companies. ↩

9. For further details see Melo et al. (2024) who has analyse skills requirements of AM job postings using natural language processing algorithms. ↩

10. Although the Hackspace Manchester represents an interesting community-led initiative, it is difficult to evaluate its impact due to the lack of online data. ↩