Question 1: Select 2-3 companies profiled in the case and discuss the formulation of their respective strategies for commercializing the TDP Technology The three companies we would further discuss are the Soligen, Specific Surface Corporation (SSC) and Z Corp. Sloigen: Soligen Technology Inc. was founded by Yehoramo Uziel, it was incorporated in Delaware in October 1991, and commenced operations in April 1992. Soligen is a metal casting industry which produces fully functional 3-Dimensional cast metal components. Typically the lengths of time to make castings are approximately 6-12month.
However with Soligen’s unique technology known as DSPC (Direct Shell Production Casting) the length of production is reduced to weeks or even days. One of the main advantages that Soligen has was the founder Uziel had vast knowledge about metal casting before working with the 3DP process. He was the vice president of engineering at 3D system, a rapid prototyping firm. While he was at 3D systems, Uziel developed rapid prototyping machines based on streolithography for Ford Motors, General Motors and Chrysler Uziel knew that the need for making non-functional prototype parts would soon perish and be replaced by physical visualization.
Uziel also knew that automobile industries face problems in producing metal parts through investment casting, as this was not suitable for mass production. When Uziel came to know about the 3DP process it enlightened him as he realised all his problems can be solved. It became clear that the 3DP process was the only technology which can eliminate pattern making and can only allow for ceramic casting models directly from a CAD file. Uziel saw some gateway as metal casting was one of the industries in which no one tried to revolutionise.
Uziel went to MIT to license the 3DP process and acquired the license for the 3DP process only for metal casting as he wanted to create casting moulds with integral cores directly from the CAD file. He also wanted to reduce the lead time faced by many rapid prototyping firms, and the only solution was the 3DP process. Soligen was able to develop all the hardware and software for their own Direct Shell Production Casting and they were then able to develop cast metal parts with a much shorter lead time and lower investment costs than the existing technologies.
Another strategy that Soligen used to commercialize the 3DP process was their development method. Soligen 1st three years of operation focused only on the development of DSPC technology to ensure the company’s success and accuracy. Soligen used this method of development to ensure they earn high profits while they can still grow and dominate markets. They were able to reduce times on jobs hence this helped them in acquiring more customers and a name for themselves. Specific Surface Corporation (SSC): This company was founded by Mark Parrish and co-founded by Andrew Jeffery.
Specific Surface Corporation (SSC) specialised in manufacturing ceramic filters for the power generation market directly from computer drawings. They modified the Soligen Machine for focusing on the creation of molds and prototypes for making their filters. They also modified the machine MIT to be compatible with chemical binder systems to make the ceramic filters. The main reason which allowed Specific Surface Corporation in acquiring the license of the 3DP process for the manufacturing of ceramic filters was that both founders, Mark Parrish and Andrew Jeffery were experts on ceramics.
Mark Parrish held a B. S. in Ceramic Engineering from SUNNY College of ceramics at Alfred University and he also had his SM and Ph. D in Ceramics from MIT. Andrew Jeffery was no stranger to ceramics as well, he is a Chemical Engineer and was working with flexible fabric filters. These two men explored their knowledge and came up with the decision that they wanted to use the technology in creating something new which was the ceramic filters. Their goal was to reduce the number of steps from raw materials to finished product and to make filters more efficient.
They could achieve this by working on ridge structures to be more efficient and this could be done using the 3DP process. Specific Surface Corporation was then able to provide customers with filters that efficiently removed particulates from dirty hot flue gas streams hence providing customers with greater power generation efficiency. As Parrish and Jeffery brainstormed the problems on the already existing filter industry they arrived with two major issued that were going on in the industry. They were, one people no longer wanted to cool down gases at the source.
The other issue was that people wanted more compact filters, they wanted them smaller. However to get smaller filters one would have to get a larger surface area. Parrish went ahead to contact companies such as ABB and Westinghouse which used a lot of filters and were facing the similar problems. Parrish offered Jeffery the opportunity to join him and they pursued the opportunity together and licensed the technology created by Emmanuel Sachs and they worked on creating the smaller filters with larger surface areas. In early 1993 Mike Cima a professor of material science at MIT introduced Parrish to the 3DP process.
Cima showed Parrish how he used it to make ceramics, Parrish then inquired if anyone was using this technology to make filters and Cima’s response was “No, why don’t you do it”. This was a distinct advantage for Specific Surface Corporation as at the time there were no companies involved in the manufacturing of filters using the rapid prototyping technology. In order to establish their idea and development of their company Parrish and Jeffery estimated the market for industrial filter elements to be $800million per year. They estimated an investment of $1. 5million and believed they could generate sales of $31. 5million in their fifth year and their earnings before interest and taxes would be $13million in that year. Specific Surface Corporation also had a strategic advantage of writing up business plans and finding investors for an entire year before opening. This enabled them to have a good head start to begin their company’s life. Z Corp: Z Corp was founded by Marina Hatsopoulos, Walter Bornhorst, Jim Brecht and Tim Anderson in December 1994. Z Corp’s intention was to manufacture a fast, inexpensive, office-compatible machine.
They wanted to ensure it taped the $100million market for a 3-Dimensional concept models for engineering and architectural design. The Z Corp machines made rapid prototypes 20 times faster than existing rapid prototyping processes. Marina Hatsopoulos obtained a degree in mathematics in 1987 and her master’s degree in Mechanical Engineering at MIT in 1992. After graduating from MIT she decided that she wanted to start a business. She did some consulting and work with Walter Bornhorst on four major real estate rehabilitations where Bornhorst s his son would buy buildings, gut them or sell them as condominiums. Meanwhile Marian searched for a business she could buy. She spoke to old professor Woody Flowers who suggested her and Hatsopoulos to talk to the TLO at MIT (Jack Turner). He then sent Hatsopoulos to see Jim Brecht and Tim Anderson in the 3DP lab. Both men had knowledge on 3D printing and engineering and both showed interests in the 3DP processes. They made up a machine that combined a Macintosh computer with old ink jet printer parts. Then they proceeded to show their machine to Ely Sachs how their machine can make rocker arms and heads.
Ely told them they would have to get financing and have to know how to manage a small company with the technology. Marina and Bornhost visited the lab and realised that Brecht and Anderson’s machine would be beneficial and it could be used for demonstrating 3D designs. An advantage on Z Corp’s side was at that time, none of the other companies focused on just printing designs, they focused on extreme accuracy and looked at 3-Dimensional Printing from that point of view. Marina did extensive research and realised that people did not pay attention to the earlier stage of the design cycle.
She accessed the situation and also realised that there was a pull in the marketplace in which nobody was addressing, this was need for early stage design models that would be easy to make, cheap, non-toxic, office compatible and fast. She estimated that the company would generate a $2million EBIT in five years on sales of $10 million if it filled this niche. Another strategic advantage that Z Corp had was that they made the machines out of less expensive materials, reducing the cost of prototyping. This allowed for more design alterations. Z Corp used an off the shelf ink-jet head to deposit a water based binder as an inexpensive starch.
Hence their machine would be less than half the price of the high end unit of their major competition. Z Corp’s machine sold for $59,000 as compared to their competitor’s machines which ranged from $100,000 to $490,000 which also required the use of resins costing $70 per gallon.
Question 2: Discuss the similarities and differences between two company’s approach to utilizing the TDP technology and comment on why you think they differ. Be sure to consider both internal and external characteristics as appropriate. * Overview:
The two companies included in the analysis below are Soligen and Specific Surface Cooperation (S. S. C). The study comprises of internal and external characteristics generated through a SWOT analysis as well as using the methods of PESTEL and Porter’s Five Forces Model. SWOT Analysis: Also known as a SWOT matrix, the SWOT analysis is a situational or structured planning method that is used to determine internal strengths and weaknesses along with external opportunities and threats. The method can be used on a product place or person. Figure 1: diagram showing the SWOT analysis matrix
Taken from www. investopedia. com PESTEL: PESTEL involves the study of external characteristics that can affect a company. These include political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal characteristics. Porter’s Five Forces Model: this is an industrial analysis that determines the competitive intensity and as a result, the attractiveness of a company. The attractiveness of a company is referred to as the profitability of the company; hence an unattractive company is one with little or no profitability. Figure 2: diagram of the PESTEL format Taken from www. otesdesk. com SWOT Analysis of Soligen: Strengths: Firstly, Soligen was founded by Yehoramo Uziel, the vice president of 3D Systems which was a rapid prototyping firm. He had a solid background in the manufacturing of capital equipment which included the knowledge of design software such as Computer Aided Design (CAD). Owing to this, Soligen was already ahead in its mission to create ceramic casting moulds directly from a CAD file. Soligen had been given the rights to the 3-Dimensional printing (3DP) process by MIT, a process that no other casting industry had at the time.
The 3DP eliminated the need for prototyping tooling and hence decreased the time taken to make a ceramic and metal casting. As a result, production would be a lot quicker than competitive companies. In addition, Uziel estimated the casting market to be at least $20 billion. With the new technology of the 3DP process, the profit of Soligen entering this market would far outweigh any of their competitors. The licenced 3DP process was based on Direct Shell Production Casting (DSPC) which allowed for the development of the metals casts. Consequently, Soligen had an extensive market unlike their competitors.
Their primary markets included the automotive industry including special applications and motorsport racing, aerospace industry and ground transportation equipment markets. Uziel had developed 3D prototyping machines for automotive companies such as Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Chrysler. As a result, he was already known by the top automotive companies which made the target market of Soligen a lot easier to enter into. Weaknesses: Soligen was founded on Uziel’s Garage. There was not a lot of space to work which may have hindered productivity in the development of the metal and ceramics casts.
Additionally, this was the first attempt to use the 3DP process to develop products that can be placed on the market. Although the staffs of Soligen was well educated and experienced like Uziel, they all were, for the first time being introduced to something completely new without knowing how successful the process would be in rapid mold production. Opportunities: The greatest opportunity that Soligen encountered was that of moving form a labour intensive process to a computerised process. With the 3DP process, a benchmark was set for the rest of the competitive companies around the globe.
Secondly, the available markets for the application of Soligen’s 3DP process reached far beyond that of their primary markets. Molds for other applications such as bottle making can be developed by Soligen, lifting the restriction of the automotive market. Threats: As this new process emerges out of Soligen, other companies as well as individuals would become interested in such technology. As a result, persons with greater financial help in research and development would be able to develop the same process with the same or better results at a cheaper cost. This can put Soligen at risk in the market.
SWOT Analysis of Specific Surface Corporation (SSC): Strengths: SSC provided a new product to the market by using the same concept of eliminating prototyping tooling for the manufacturing process by using the 3DP technology. Their filters did not require tools dies or molds and were produced straight from a CAD drawing. This allowed for faster production of their power generation filters with geometries and performance that were impossible with alternative processes. The filters provided a greater power generation efficiency hence it proved useful in the market.
As a result, they had a high competitive advantage over other companies as they entered a multi-million dollar market owing to this new filter manufacturing process. The founders, Mark Parrish and Andrew Jeffrey were well educated in their fields of filters and ceramic engineering which placed the company at an advantage in terms of time taken for research and development. In addition, SSC used a modified Soligen machine so there was no need for the invention or building of a machine to complete the filter production. Weaknesses: SSC only provided filters for power generation systems.
The product range was limited and as a result, the market range was also limited to those customers who needed power generation filters. The process used to produce these filters could not b altercated to produce a different product. It was specifically for power generation filters. This, in addition, limited the expansion of the company in terms of new, innovative products. Their customers were also based locally. There was no defined global distribution channel that would allow for overseas trading thereby limiting further the consumer market. Opportunities:
A wider range of products can be manufactured by SSC. Different types of filters as well as other filtration technology for different situations would allow SSC to expand their market and capitalise on productivity and the technology they possess. Establishing global distribution channels would allow SSC to trade their products overseas and thereby increase their customer market. As a result, there would be an increase in profitability owing to foreign currency entering the company. Raw materials used to make filters can be obtained from waste products such as coconut shells/husks.
With the recycling of waste products, SSC can become part of the global initiative of a cleaner environment encourage other companies to take heed to their surroundings. This would also raise interest in environmental groups which may provide funds to help improve the company’s recycling process. Threats: The availability of raw materials may pose a threat to SSC. If the raw materials needed for the production of filters are not readily available, it may hinder the productivity of the company. Moreover, the less available the raw materials, the more expensive they become.
Hence the cost of raw materials would also increase in addition to the lack of availability. Other companies may see the opportunity to make multiple products using SSC’s process. There would then be a wider range of products to be obtained from one company putting SSC at a competitive disadvantage. PESTEL Analysis of Soligen: Political/legal: MIT gave rights to Soligen to the 3DP process, from which came the DSPC machine. As a result of their licence, external political threats would not affect their company.
Political and legal aspects seldom affect Soligen since they function well within their boundaries. Economical: There were no economic downturns during the establishment of Soligen. At the beginning of the company, they had little capital to reach their goal and consequently took a longer period of time to achieve it. However, after the establishment of Soligen, the profit far outweighed the time taken and money spent to create the company. Technological: Soligen became the pioneers of making casts directly from a CAD drawing. They introduced the technology and the machine for DSPC.
They can be considered to have the upper hand when it comes to the 3D printing technology and are shifting to online services whereby shareholders or customers can communicate with the company. Environmental: Soligen’s manufacturing process had little effect on the environment. PESTEL Analysis of Specific Surfaces Corporation (SSC): Political/legal: The problems that SSC may face in terms of political and legal aspects are the standards of the products they make. Different countries and areas in countries may require different standards in terms of the power generated filters that SSC produces.
As a result, if filters are being exported, they must be made in accordance to the standards and specifications of the destination country. Economical: SSC did not encounter any external financial obstacles during its establishment and development. Technological: With the discovery of Sloigen’s machine used for their manufacturing, SSC was able to begin production with modifications to Soligen’s machine to suit their needs of production. This was the technological advancement that brought about the manufacturing of ceramic filters for power generators.
Environmental: Recently, filters are being made with activated carbon, which is made from raw materials such as coconut shells and husks. This promotes a cleaner environment and may push a company as SSC to become a part of making filters with coconut husks. Environmental groups may target companies which they believe can take a more environmentally friendly approach to their production and as a result, may cause problems for such companies. Porter’s Five Forces Model of Soligen: Existing Rivalry: The existing rivalry of Soligen was the companies that used labour intensive operations for prototype making.
Owing to the new technology that Soligen possessed, the rivalry had little effect on the success of the company. Threats of new entrants: Soligen had the licence for both the 3DP process and the DSPC process. There was no greater efficient way of making ceramic and metal castings hence new entrants in the manufacturing of the same product would have either have to partner with Soligen to attain their technology or enter the market with the labour intensive manufacturing process. Hence there were little threats of new entrants.
A company using the 3DP process would have to enter the market with a new product or service. Threats of substitute products: Substitute products included the castings made for labour intensive processes. This process took longer that the DSPC process hence fewer products were made for the same time taken to make products at Soligen. As a result, the prices at Soligen would have been cheaper owing to the faster, more efficient production of casting without the need for a labour intensive prototyping system. In other words, there was little threat of the existing substitute products on the market to Soligen.
Bargaining power of customers: Customers had mediocre bargaining power. Although it didn’t take much capital to establish Soligen, which was also done in Uziel’s garage, they still had rights to all their processes. In addition, although there were several other companies producing ceramic and metal molds, Soligen provided a faster service at a cheaper price and was by far the leading company in technology. The customers had many sources to attain their molds however Soligen provided the best service at the best price. Bargaining power of Suppliers:
Soligen’s production of metal and ceramic molds needed the suppliers for the powder and binder for the 3DP process. There was no need for tools or any other material since everything else was done on a computer using the CAD software. This shows that the bargaining power of suppliers were very limited since the company needed little resources form other companies. Porter’s Five Forces Model of Specific Surface Corporation: Existing Rivalry: At the time of SSC, there was not any other company that was producing prototype filters using the rapid 3DP process. Hence, SSC had an instant advantage over other companies.
As mentioned before, if a company were emerge using the 3DP technology they would have to produce a different product than that of Soligen and that is exactly what SSC did. Therefore, like Soligen, SSC had little competitive rivalry. Threats of new entrants: Just as Soligen, Specific Surface Corporation had the upper hand in technology with respect to the production of power generation filters, however what they did lack was variety in products. New companies can emerge using similar technology that can manufacture different products in addition to power generation filters.
This can cause a certain amount of competitiveness for SSC. Threats of substitute products: There were very few companies that were undertaking the production of filters at that time hence there were very few substitute products. The ones that existed could not compete with SSC owing to the precision and efficiency that the products were made. Owing to the rapid production of filters, SSC would b able to sell their product at a lower price since a lot of money would have been saved owing to the lack of need of a labour force, similar to Soligen. Bargaining power of customers:
As mentioned above, there were litte production of filter systems which were in great need such as the power generation filters which improved efficiency. Owing to this, there were little bargaining power of customers since they had little options of attain a high quality filter at a reasonable price that would improve the efficiency of the power generator. Bargaining power of suppliers: As seen in the analysis of Soligen, there was also little bargaining power of suppliers. The only necessity for SSC was that of the powder and binder to create the filter required.
Everything else was done within the company on a computer using the CAD software. Since there was no need for a n extravagant amount of supplies or variety of supplies, SSC, like Soligen encountered little bargaining power of suppliers. Question 3: Using the companies in the TDP case for examples, define and discuss competitive advantage and support an argument suggesting that particular companies achieve competitive advantage and others do not. Reasons for success: The companies that achieved success applying the 3DP process were Soligen Specific Surface Corporation, Z Corp, Therics and 3D Imaging.
There are several factors that played a role in the success of these four companies, a few of which they had in common: Knowledge and experience: The founders of all four companies were both knowledgeable in the relevant fields of mechanical engineering and possessed a significant amount of experience to set up a company effectively and efficiently. Yehoramo Uziel was the vice president of engineering at 3D Systems which was a rapid prototyping firm where he worked for three years. He developed prtotying machines for well-known automotive companies such as Ford Motor Company, General Motors and Chrysler.
He also helped proliferated stereolithography which was initially a way to visualise design of 3D objects. It was through his knowledge and experience Soligen emerged. Mark Parrish was an expert in ceramics having his degree in ceramics engineering along with a Ph. D. in ceramics form MIT. He also had eight years of experience as the founder of CPS which manufactured high- performance electronic ceramics. He also founded a ceramics research and development company called Ceranova. His accomplice, Andrew Jeffery was a chemical engineer who worked in AIC, a company that helped Cerenova with ceramic projects.
He was specialised in flexible fabric filters. Together, they made the success of Specific Surface Corporation. Marina Hatsopoulas graduated from MIT with a degree in mathematics. She then worked with her husband, Walter Bronhorst who was a former executive at Thermo Electron, having worked there for twenty-five years. Jim Brecht was a Ph. D. student and had his B. S in materials science and engineering from MIT. Tim Anderson was a technician in the lab with Brecht and was a former database programming consultant for Staples, Inc and Carnbrex Group. He was also the first maker of PC clones.
These four individuals, with their combined knowledge and experience, developed Z Corp. Walter Flamenbaum was an entrepreneur who had twenty-five years of experience as an achademic and pharmaceutical industry executive. He also served as a consultant for several biotechnological, medical and pharmaceutical product firms. He also undertook hundreds of clinical research and product development projects. With his help, Therics was established. Lau Christianson and Todd Jackson founded 3D Imaging. Christianson was a Sloan MBA student who worked in pharmo-economics and health care consulting.
Jackson was a Ph. D. student at MIT was Lau’s high school friend. He focused on the design of the CAD interface program that would allow the new generation 3D printer to place differing material next to each other. With their skills, they formed a successful company. Market Potential: All five companies mentioned above, had the vision of their products being used all over the world. They developed products that were unique in all aspects and that served a great benefit to the industry such as the power generation filters that increased efficiency.
Owing to their imagination and inventions using the 3DP process, they each entered a multi-million dollar market, setting the standards for other companies to follow. More importantly, they made sure that their ideas and goals could be accomplished and made into reality using the technology that they possessed at the time. Although companies such as 3Dpartners had great ideas, the marketability of their future product was no as extensive as that of a company such as Soligen and as a result, the business opportunity was dropped.
Capital: The ability to attain funds to pursue the ideas and concepts that these great minds developed were of great importance for success. All five companies stated generated enough capital to attempt to develop their respective products. Some companies such as 3D Orthopedics was denied sponsorship from Johnson and Johnson consequently having to abandon the business opportunity. Technology: The five companies manufacturing processes were all using the latest technology, 3DP process which was licensed to them.
As a consequence, other companies did not stand a chance in the consumer market since this technology provided higher efficiency, lower lead time and a significantly less labour force. Reasons for failure: There were three companies out of eight that applied for the license for the 3DP process and were unsuccessful. These three were 3D Orthopedics, Conference Inc and 3D Partners. There were some common problems that prevented these companies from being successful and they were as follows: Little or no market research Performing a proper market research requires one to make an analysis of all he information about the product or service which is to be developed. Information of customers, competitors of the product or service should be gathered and ways for the company to successfully operate in the market to gain target market should be thought out thoroughly. In the three companies that failed, proper market research on the product or service to be developed was not done. The three companies decided to go into development of new products or services other than what they were familiar with and the proper research of the customers and buyers was not conducted.
Hence this may have been the reason why they were not granted the license from MIT. Choosing a field that was new to the founder In choosing a field that was new to the founder, this gave the three companies a disadvantage of not being able to play with their strengths. The five successful companies Soligen, Therics, Specific Surface Corporation, Z Corp and 3D Imaging all had founders who were experts in the required field of the products they developed. The companies that failed strayed a little from the founder’s expertise.
This gave them a disadvantage of where they had to spend extra time and money on to understand what they had to do exactly. No funding Because of these problems and flaws encountered by the three companies it was difficult to acquire investors for proper funding. This was not worth taking a risk as MIT thought. It can be noted that the arguments and cases presented by the proposed founders of these three failed companies did not deem to be convincing enough. Ten important aspects of the case study: Who are the main players? The main players are: Four MIT researchers – Emmanuel Sachs, John Haggerty, Michael Cima, and Paul Williams * Soligens Founder – Yehoramo Uziel * 3D Orthopedics – Stephen Campbell * Conferences, Inc. – Michael Padnos * Therics – Jean-Pierre Nagle and Walter Flamenbaum * Specific Surface Corporation – Mark Parrish and Andrew Jeffery * Z-Corp – Marina Hatsopoulos, walter Bornhorst, Jim Brecht and Tim Anderson * 3D Partners – Andrew Kelly * 3D Imaging – Lau Christianson and Todd Jackson What business and industry is the company in? The MIT Technology Licensing Office (TLO) is a body that manages the research’s done at MIT.
In this case study the research is on Three Dimensional Printing Process (3DP) invented by a team of four MIT researchers. What are the issues and problems facing the company? The TLO was in the business of attracting licenses in an effort to promote MIT inventions. However the inventors of 3DP were primarily motivated by academic research and not in starting a company to exploit the new technology. Why did this problem emerge? This problem emerged because the four researchers of MIT, Emmanuel Sachs, John Haggerty, Michael Cima and Paul Williams were only interested in academic research.
They only focused on inventing new methods, while the MIT TLO had to ensure companies that wanted to license their invention had good business ideas that could take their invention forward in the future. Are the apparent problems the real problems or only symptoms of the real problems? The real problem is the fact that the four inventors have no interest to exploit the technology by forming a new company. All they are concerned with is their academic research. What are the characteristics of the environment in which the company operates?
The company operates in an environment where there is a need to manufacture fast, inexpensive machines to produce concept models and functional prototypes. The need for three dimensional printing is in great demand in these respective fields. Some examples of these are, the need to create concept models was seen by the company Z Corp which acquired licensing from MIT to work on a machine to produce concept models for architectural uses. Soligen was a company that acquired licensing from MIT to pursue the manufacturing of metal casting parts by using the 3DP process
What are the characteristics of the industry that the company is in and how is the industry changing over time? The company is into the developing and manufacturing business industry. The company is developing and manufacturing a product, in this case the product is the three dimensional printer. After development the company is licensing the 3DP to other organizations where they can promote the product for MIT. Eventually the industry can change overtime allowing for MIT to offer services of 3DP processes as a business opportunity.
What is the firm’s strategy, in terms of the five strategy elements, for competing in this context? There are five (5) Strategy Elements, they are: * Technological Trends: The technological trends at this company were to try and make the prototyping industry more advanced. More advanced in the engineering design, medical and architectural fields of study. * Economic Trends: The economic trends were the various entrepreneurs in this case there were eight teams who were seeking to use the technology.
* Political / Legal Environment: There was no big importance of the Political and Legal Environment trends in this case. Global Environment: The Company wasn’t at a global level hence there was no Global Environment trend faced. * Socioeconomic Environment: There was a great demand for the 3DP technology in different fields of work, such as architectural design, engineering and medical fields. The biggest problem MIT encountered was that the researchers of MIT who invented the 3DP process was not at all interested in furthering the technology in a business nature, they were only interested in more academic research. If they were to be a little more concerned in furthering their technology in a business nature they could have used the funds back in their esearch and improved even more in the technology.
The solution presented in number 9 seems relatively good however, not all the inventors would be interested in pursuing their product in a business nature. Also another problem which they can encounter if this solution would be done is that the researcher’s worked very hard and the risk which accompanies business deals may be a problem for these inventors. Summary: brief description of case study. * Several companies were created form MIT’s 3DP process. * Chosen companies were analysed based on their strategies for commercializing. Chosen companies were analysed using stituational, external and competitive analysis strategies such as SWOT, PESTEL and Porter’s five. * The successful companies included Soligen, Specific Surface Corporation, 3D Imaging, Therics and Z Corp. * Their success was based on knowledge, experience, market potential, technology and capital. * Companies that did not succeed were 3D Orthopedics, Conference Inc and 3D Partners. * The factors that influenced failure to these companies were that of little market research, lack of funding as well as lack of knowledge in the relevant field.
