Table 2

Cross-case analysis of AM added value

Case 1Old componentAM component
 
  • Difficult to manufacture (basically manually)

  • Easier to manufacture, 30% cheaper than old component

 
  • Low performance (bottleneck in its process)

  • Higher in performance, power loss decreased 70%, output volume increased 25%

 
  • Assembling required manual fitting every time

  • Parts consolidation: 3

 
  • Parts consolidation: 14

  • Easy design scalability for other configurations in the future

Case 2aOld partAM spare part
 
  • Low quality

  • High quality

 
  • No existing supply chain but the possibility to establish a new supply chain

  • Cost per spare part same (in a batch of four) compared to casted spare parts (in a batch of 100) resulting in substantial savings (as estimated needed spare parts somewhere between 10 and 30)

 
  • In potential new supply chain batch size too large for end-of-life maintenance of vehicle fleet

 
Case 2bOld partAM spare part
 
  • Obsolete spare part, no good blueprints existing

  • Ensures future availability of the spare part

 
  • No existing supply chain nor the potential for new supply chain

  • Viable solution to ensure availability of spare parts, as original spare parts could no longer be purchased or could not easily be sourced as manually custom-made spare part

 
  • Hard to manufacture and much manual welding and grinding would become costly

  • Quality and lead time great

 
  • Last spare part in the warehouse was very low quality

  • Cost acceptable

or Create an Account

Close subscription notice
Close access options