Yet there is another question that is discussed far less frequently, perhaps because it challenges one of the fundamental assumptions upon which modern innovation is built. While patents undoubtedly encourage invention, do they also delay the widespread adoption of that very invention? In other words, does society pay a hidden price for rewarding innovation through temporary exclusivity?

The additive manufacturing industry offers one of the clearest examples of this dilemma. During the 1990s and early 2000s, industrial 3D printers were capable of producing functional prototypes and end-use parts that were astonishing for their time. However, these systems remained prohibitively expensive and were largely confined to multinational corporations, research laboratories and a relatively small number of specialised service providers. For most businesses, educational institutions and individual engineers, owning a 3D printer was simply beyond reach.

The conventional explanation is that the technology itself had not yet matured. That is certainly true to some extent. Industrial machines were continuously improving, materials were becoming more reliable and software capabilities were expanding. However, there is another possibility that deserves equal consideration. Perhaps the technology was sufficiently mature much earlier than we realise, but the commercial environment prevented it from becoming widely accessible.

The original patents covering Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), developed by Stratasys, granted the company exclusive commercial rights to one of the most influential additive manufacturing technologies ever invented. For nearly two decades, those patents effectively limited direct competition in the marketplace. During this period, industrial systems continued to command premium prices, relatively few manufacturers entered the market, and desktop 3D printing remained more of a curiosity than a practical tool for everyday engineers.

Everything changed when those patents expired. The expiry of those foundational patents did not introduce a new technology. It did not result from a revolutionary engineering breakthrough or a dramatic scientific discovery. Instead, it simply allowed other companies to begin developing products based on technology that had already existed for many years. At almost the same time, the open-source RepRap Project demonstrated that affordable desktop 3D printers could be built using readily available components. Freed from many of the commercial restrictions that had previously existed, manufacturers across the world rapidly entered the market.

The pace of change that followed was remarkable. Companies such as Prusa Research, Creality, Anycubic and many others introduced increasingly capable machines at prices that would have seemed unimaginable only a few years earlier. Competition intensified, hardware improved, software evolved rapidly and prices continued to decline. Perhaps most importantly, entirely new markets emerged almost overnight. Schools began introducing 3D printing into classrooms, makerspaces appeared in cities around the world, startups incorporated additive manufacturing into product development, and countless engineers discovered that professional-grade prototyping was no longer reserved for multinational corporations.

The desktop 3D printing revolution, therefore, was not triggered by a new invention. It was triggered by the removal of barriers that had prevented others from commercialising an existing invention.

A similar pattern emerged several years later when key stereolithography patents originally developed by 3D Systems began to expire. Affordable resin printers quickly entered the market, bringing levels of dimensional accuracy and surface finish that had previously required industrial equipment costing many times more. Once again, widespread adoption accelerated not because the underlying science had suddenly advanced, but because competition was finally able to flourish.

This recurring pattern raises an uncomfortable question. If millions of users embraced these technologies almost immediately after the relevant patents expired, how many years of broader adoption had effectively been postponed? How many schools delayed introducing additive manufacturing into their curriculum? How many entrepreneurs chose conventional manufacturing methods simply because the cost of entry remained too high? How many innovative applications were never explored because the technology remained financially inaccessible?

None of this should be interpreted as an argument against patents themselves. Without patent protection, many groundbreaking technologies would almost certainly never be developed. Companies invest enormous sums in research programmes with no guarantee of commercial success, and society benefits greatly from rewarding those risks. The remarkable contributions made by pioneers such as Stratasys and 3D Systems fundamentally shaped the additive manufacturing industry and deserve the recognition they receive today.

However, patents inevitably create a trade-off. Society rewards inventors with temporary exclusivity in exchange for eventually placing that knowledge into the public domain. During that period of exclusivity, competition is limited, prices often remain high and adoption proceeds more slowly than it otherwise might. Once the patents expire, the focus of competition shifts away from ownership of the underlying concept and towards engineering excellence, manufacturing efficiency, software development, customer support and overall user experience. It is often during this second phase that innovation begins to accelerate most rapidly.

Interestingly, the original innovators rarely disappear when their patents expire. Companies such as Stratasys and 3D Systems continued developing increasingly sophisticated industrial systems, expanding into new applications and serving markets that demand the highest levels of reliability and performance. Their expertise, accumulated knowledge and engineering capability remained valuable long after their exclusive patent rights had ended. In many respects, this demonstrates that innovation itself extends far beyond the ownership of a single patent.

Perhaps this is precisely how the patent system was always intended to function. The initial period rewards invention, while the eventual expiry encourages competition, lower costs and broader adoption. Nevertheless, history suggests that some of the greatest periods of growth in additive manufacturing occurred not while the foundational patents were being actively enforced, but immediately after they had expired.

Whether this represents a weakness of the patent system or simply its inevitable consequence is open to debate. What is difficult to dispute, however, is that the expiration of a handful of patents transformed additive manufacturing from an industrial niche into a technology accessible to students, educators, entrepreneurs and small manufacturers across the globe.

The next time we celebrate the granting of an important patent, it may be worth asking another question. Are we witnessing the beginning of the next technological revolution, or are we simply beginning a twenty-year countdown until that technology finally becomes accessible to everyone?

Take Stratasys, one of the companies that helped define polymer 3D printing. In 2025, it generated US$551 million in revenue. Even in a difficult market, it maintained a gross margin of almost 47%, yet still reported a net loss of US$104 million.

3D Systems generated US$387 million in revenue during 2025. Although it reported a small accounting profit because of the sale of part of its business, its core operations still lost US$96 million.

These are not startups experimenting with new ideas. They are companies that have spent more than three decades developing technology, supporting customers and building one of the world’s most advanced manufacturing industries.

Now compare them with the industry’s newer stars. During the investment frenzy of 2020 and 2021, Desktop Metal became one of the hottest names in additive manufacturing. Investors valued the company at more than US$2.5 billion, despite annual revenues that were only a small fraction of that figure and losses that continued to mount. The story was irresistible. Metal 3D printing would transform manufacturing, and Desktop Metal would lead that revolution. Reality turned out to be rather different.

As investors became more interested in sustainable businesses than ambitious forecasts, Desktop Metal’s valuation collapsed. The company that had once been one of Wall Street’s favourites eventually disappeared as an independent industry leader, becoming another example of how quickly investor sentiment can change.

Markforged experienced a remarkably similar journey. Shortly after becoming a public company, it was valued at well over US$2 billion. Fast forward a few years and the picture looks very different. In 2025, Markforged generated approximately US$70 million in revenue, yet in 2026 it was acquired by Stratasys for just US$42.5 million.

Then there is Carbon, one of Silicon Valley’s favourite manufacturing startups. Backed by some of the world’s best-known venture capital firms, Carbon reached a private valuation of approximately US$2.4 billion. Its Digital Light Synthesis technology was genuinely innovative, and partnerships with companies such as Adidas generated enormous publicity. Yet even today, the company has never demonstrated the level of profitability that such a valuation implied.

Formlabs tells a similar story. By 2021, the desktop resin printer manufacturer had achieved a private valuation of roughly US$2 billion after multiple funding rounds. Formlabs has undoubtedly built an excellent business and remains one of the industry’s success stories. But its valuation, like many others during that period, reflected expectations of future growth rather than proven long-term profitability.

What explains this extraordinary contrast? The answer is surprisingly simple. Wall Street does not always reward good companies. It rewards compelling stories. For years, the story surrounding additive manufacturing was irresistible. Factories would become digital. Warehouses would disappear. Spare parts would be printed wherever they were needed. Traditional manufacturing would be replaced by fleets of industrial 3D printers. It was a vision that captured the imagination of investors around the world.

Unfortunately, manufacturing does not move at the pace of investor presentations. Real factories buy machines only after months of testing. Production engineers demand reliability before innovation. Maintenance teams expect spare parts to be available immediately. Finance departments want to see a clear return on investment before approving a purchase. Building a successful manufacturing business is a slow process.

The pioneers of additive manufacturing have spent decades learning these lessons. They invested in application engineering, customer training, service organisations, material development and global support networks. None of these activities generate exciting headlines, but they are exactly what customers need to succeed.

Ironically, these strengths are often overlooked by investors searching for the next revolutionary technology. I have seen the same mindset within our own industry Whenever a new technology appears, conversations immediately revolve around faster print speeds, artificial intelligence, larger build volumes or the latest buzzword. Very few people ask the simpler question. Does this help the customer manufacture better parts? Customers rarely buy technology because it is new. They buy solutions because they solve real problems.

The stock market often behaves differently. It rewards the possibility of future success far more enthusiastically than the steady execution of proven businesses. Investors are willing to overlook years of losses if they believe extraordinary growth lies just around the corner. Sometimes they are right. Many times they are not.

The additive manufacturing industry has now experienced both extremes. First came excessive optimism, when almost every startup was described as the future of manufacturing. Today we may be witnessing the opposite, where companies with decades of experience and hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue receive surprisingly little recognition from investors. I believe the truth probably lies somewhere in between.

The future of additive manufacturing will not be determined by the companies that once enjoyed the highest valuations. It will be shaped by those that consistently help customers reduce costs, improve quality and manufacture products that were previously impossible to produce. History has shown that markets eventually return to fundamentals.

When the excitement fades, customers still need reliable machines. They still need knowledgeable application engineers. They still need service technicians who answer the phone. They still need suppliers that will still be around ten years from now.

Technology creates excitement. Stories create valuations. But only customers create enduring companies.

While this approach may reduce the initial purchase cost, it frequently leads to disappointing results. The problem is simple: a successful 3D printing program consists of far more than a machine.

Schools should not think of purchasing a 3D printer. They should think of investing in a complete educational ecosystem built upon three essential components. Remove any one of them, and the entire initiative begins to lose its effectiveness.

The first component is a structured curriculum. A 3D printer without a curriculum quickly becomes little more than an interesting gadget. Students print a few decorative models during the first few weeks, but before long, the excitement fades because neither teachers nor students have a clear learning path to follow.

A well-designed curriculum changes everything. It provides structured lesson plans, classroom activities, practical exercises, project-based learning, assessments, and measurable learning outcomes. Rather than simply learning how to operate a machine, students begin to understand engineering principles, product design, manufacturing processes, problem-solving techniques, and creative thinking. The printer becomes integrated into science, mathematics, engineering, design, and even art classes, transforming it from laboratory equipment into an educational platform.

However, even the finest curriculum is of little value if teachers are not confident enough to deliver it. This leads directly to the second component: a comprehensive Train-the-Trainer programme. Most teachers are experts in education, not additive manufacturing. Expecting them to confidently operate a 3D printer after a short product demonstration is unrealistic. They need to understand not only how to use the equipment, but also how to teach with it.

An effective Train-the-Trainer programme should cover machine operation, slicing software, calibration, material selection, troubleshooting, routine maintenance, classroom management, and methods for integrating 3D printing into everyday lessons. The objective is not simply to teach teachers how to operate a printer. It is to give them the confidence to make 3D printing a regular part of their teaching.

When teachers become comfortable with the technology, students naturally become more engaged. The laboratory evolves into an active centre of innovation rather than a room that is opened only for occasional demonstrations.

Once the curriculum has been established and teachers have been trained, there remains one final component that determines whether the programme will continue to succeed for years to come. That component is a comprehensive maintenance and support contract.

Every 3D printer contains moving parts, electronic components, heated elements, sensors, and consumable items that require periodic attention. Like any precision machine, it will occasionally need servicing. This is not a sign of poor quality; it is simply the nature of the technology.

Without reliable technical support, a relatively minor issue can leave a printer unusable for weeks. Teachers gradually lose confidence, students lose interest, and the laboratory slowly falls silent. Unfortunately, this is a situation that many schools have experienced.

A comprehensive maintenance contract ensures that preventive servicing is carried out regularly, worn components are replaced before they fail, software remains updated, and technical assistance is always available when required. Teachers remain focused on education, while students continue to benefit from reliable access to the equipment.

These three components are not independent of one another. They work together. The curriculum defines what students should learn. The Train-the-Trainer programme ensures teachers know how to deliver that learning. The maintenance contract ensures the equipment continues to function so that learning never stops. Only when all three components are present does a school truly have a sustainable 3D printing programme.

Naturally, a supplier offering this complete package will almost certainly submit a quotation that is higher than one supplying only the hardware. At first glance, this may appear to be the more expensive option. In reality, it is almost always the wiser investment.

The true cost of a 3D printer is not measured by its purchase price. It is measured by how effectively it is used over the next five or ten years. A low-cost printer that spends most of its life sitting idle because teachers were never trained or because it stopped working after a minor fault is far more expensive than a complete solution that continues to educate hundreds of students year after year.

Technology alone does not transform education. People, knowledge, and sustained support do.

Before the match even begins, each player’s body is digitally mapped so that the system understands far more than just where the player is standing. It knows body proportions, limb positions and key skeletal points such as shoulders, knees, feet, hips and head. During the game, multiple cameras around the stadium track these points continuously, while sensors and AI help identify the exact instant the ball is played.

The players are only one part of the equation. The official match ball itself contains an inertial measurement sensor that continuously records its movement hundreds of times every second. This allows the system to identify the precise instant the ball leaves the player’s foot during a pass. That moment is critical because an offside offence is judged at the exact instant the ball is played, not when it reaches the receiving player. By combining the ball’s sensor data with the three-dimensional positions of every player on the field, the system can determine an offside position with remarkable precision, something that would be almost impossible using video footage alone.

This information is then used to build a three-dimensional recreation of the incident. The viewer may only see a clean animation with offside lines and player outlines, but behind that simple graphic is a sophisticated digital model of the players, the ball and the pitch at a precise moment in time.

This is where XR becomes important. VAR is no longer merely replaying video footage. It is using spatial computing to reconstruct reality, allowing referees to examine an incident from an artificial viewpoint that no physical camera may have captured directly.

The Iran incident against Egypt was one such example. Iran believed it had scored a decisive goal, only for VAR to disallow it for offside. The controversy arose because the goalkeeper had moved out, which meant the offside line was determined by the second-last Egyptian player rather than the last defender most viewers were watching. The 3D reconstruction made the decision clearer, even if it did not make it any less painful for Iran.

That is the strange power of XR-assisted VAR. It can remove ambiguity, but it can also remove some of football’s old romance.

For decades, football was enjoyed not only on the field but also after the match, in living rooms, offices, cafes and WhatsApp groups, where people argued endlessly over whether a goal should have stood. Now, technology is reducing many of those arguments to a matter of geometry.

So perhaps the real question is this: is XR-assisted VAR improving football by making it fairer, or is it quietly ruining the old pleasure of watching, arguing and disagreeing long after the final whistle?

Customers rarely wake up wanting to buy a 3D printer. They simply want to solve a manufacturing problem. They want a prototype delivered sooner, a production bottleneck eliminated, a lightweight component manufactured, a spare part produced on demand, or a product brought to market more quickly. The printer is simply a means to achieve those objectives. Unfortunately, our industry often behaves as though the machine itself is the product.

Product launches are filled with impressive technical achievements, yet remarkably little attention is given to the customer’s actual application. Can the machine reliably produce the required part? How quickly can it be integrated into production? What happens when something goes wrong? Is expert application support available? These are the questions customers care about, yet they are often overshadowed by discussions of specifications.

Throughout my career, I have conducted numerous sales training programs for channel partners across India. One of the first lessons I always emphasized was surprisingly simple: stop selling features.

Salespeople naturally enjoy talking about specifications because they know them well. They can describe build volumes, nozzle temperatures, print speeds, materials, and software capabilities in great detail. Unfortunately, customers are rarely interested in listening to a technical presentation before they have explained what they are trying to accomplish.

Instead, I encouraged every salesperson to begin with questions. What problem are you trying to solve? Why are you considering additive manufacturing? Where is your current manufacturing process falling short?

Only after understanding the customer’s challenge should the conversation shift towards the product. At that point, every feature has context. A heated chamber is no longer just another specification. It becomes the reason the customer can manufacture engineering-grade components reliably. High print speed is no longer an impressive number on a brochure. It becomes shorter development cycles and faster delivery. Automatic calibration becomes reduced operator dependency and greater production consistency. Features only become valuable when they are connected directly to customer outcomes.

Another lesson I learned over the years came from customer visits. Whenever I arrived at a prospective customer’s facility, the routine was almost always the same. I would be escorted into a conference room, offered a cup of coffee, and politely asked to begin my presentation. Most salespeople would happily connect their laptop and spend the next hour explaining every feature of their product. I rarely did.

Instead, I would make a simple request. “Before we begin, would you mind taking me on a tour of your factory?” That single request often changed the entire meeting.

Walking through the factory floor revealed far more than any discussion across a conference table ever could. I could see how components moved through production, where work accumulated, which processes were consuming the most time, where operators struggled, and which parts appeared ideally suited for additive manufacturing. More importantly, I asked questions throughout the tour. Why was this fixture machined instead of fabricated? Why were these components outsourced? Why did this assembly require so many iterations? Every answer helped me understand the customer’s business rather than simply preparing to talk about my own. Only after returning to the conference room would I open my presentation.

The slides themselves were the same presentation I had delivered dozens of times before, but the conversation was entirely different. Instead of explaining features in isolation, I related every capability to something I had just observed on the factory floor. Rather than saying, “This printer has a large build volume,” I would explain how it could manufacture the fixtures I had seen in the machining department. Instead of discussing engineering materials, I would relate them to the tooling challenges the customer had described during the tour. Every specification now had context because it addressed a real problem the customer recognized. The presentation was no longer about our product. It was about their business.

That philosophy has shaped my approach to sales throughout my career, and I believe it is equally relevant to the additive manufacturing industry as a whole.

Our responsibility as an industry extends far beyond building better machines. Customers need application engineering, process optimization, operator training, dependable service, readily available spare parts, and technical experts who understand manufacturing rather than simply machine maintenance. They are buying confidence as much as they are buying technology. Ironically, these are the qualities that rarely appear on a product specification sheet.

The future of additive manufacturing will not be determined solely by who builds the fastest printer or develops the next revolutionary feature. Those innovations certainly matter, but they are not what ultimately drives adoption. Adoption occurs when customers consistently achieve better business outcomes with less complexity and greater confidence.

The companies that lead the next phase of growth will be those that understand their customers’ businesses before discussing their own products. They will spend less time demonstrating features and more time solving problems. They will measure success not by the sophistication of their technology, but by the value their customers derive from it. Because customers were never really looking for another machine. They were looking for a better way to manufacture.

The additive manufacturing industry has spent decades refining the technology. Perhaps it is now time to devote equal attention to understanding the customer.

This reality presents an important question. If the technology is as capable as its proponents claim, why has adoption not accelerated at the pace expected by the market?

The answer, in my view, lies not in the technology itself, but in the manner in which it has been presented, sold, and supported. Three persistent challenges continue to impede broader adoption: (1) the prevalence of overpriced products, (2) an excessive focus on technical specifications rather than practical outcomes, and (3) a widespread inability among equipment suppliers to deliver comprehensive post-sale application support and dependable service.

The first and perhaps most visible challenge is the pricing of additive manufacturing systems. For many prospective users, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, educational institutions, research organizations, and emerging manufacturers, the cost of entry remains unnecessarily high. While advanced technologies naturally command a premium, the additive manufacturing industry has, in many instances, created pricing structures that bear little relation to the actual value delivered to the customer.

Far too often, potential buyers encounter systems whose prices are inflated by marketing narratives rather than justified by measurable productivity gains. In such circumstances, decision-makers struggle to establish a clear return on investment. When a technology requires substantial capital expenditure, customers naturally expect a proportional business benefit. If that benefit cannot be clearly demonstrated, hesitation becomes inevitable.

The consequences of this pricing approach extend beyond individual purchasing decisions. It creates an industry-wide perception that additive manufacturing is an expensive and experimental technology suitable only for large corporations or specialized research environments. This perception discourages exploration and prevents many organizations from even beginning their additive manufacturing journey.

The second challenge arises from the industry’s obsession with technical specifications. Product brochures and marketing presentations frequently devote enormous attention to laser power, print speed, layer thickness, build volume, scanning frequencies, motion systems, controller architectures, and a multitude of other technical parameters. While these specifications undoubtedly have their place, they often overshadow the more important discussion regarding what the customer is actually trying to achieve.

A manufacturing manager seeking to reduce lead times is rarely concerned about the number of microseconds required for a particular control loop. A product designer looking to accelerate innovation is seldom interested in comparing dozens of technical metrics whose practical implications remain unclear. An educational institution seeking to introduce students to advanced manufacturing technologies is generally focused on reliability, ease of use, and long-term support rather than theoretical performance figures.

Unfortunately, many sales processes within the additive manufacturing industry have evolved into competitions of specifications rather than conversations about applications and outcomes. Customers are frequently overwhelmed with technical data while receiving insufficient guidance regarding process selection, workflow integration, material suitability, production economics, or implementation strategies.

The result is confusion rather than confidence.

Organizations evaluating additive manufacturing technologies often find themselves comparing specifications they do not fully understand, attempting to distinguish between products whose practical differences may be negligible within their intended applications. Instead of simplifying decision-making, the industry has complicated it. Instead of helping customers identify the right solution, it has encouraged them to focus on technical distinctions that may ultimately have little bearing on their success.

Technology adoption accelerates when complexity is reduced. Yet much of the additive manufacturing industry continues to increase complexity at the point where clarity is most needed.

The third challenge, and arguably the most significant, concerns post-sale support.

Purchasing an additive manufacturing system is not merely the acquisition of a machine. It is the beginning of a journey that encompasses design methodology, material selection, process optimization, workflow development, operator training, quality assurance, and continuous improvement. Success depends not only upon the capabilities of the equipment but also upon the knowledge and support available to the user.

Regrettably, many organizations discover that the enthusiasm displayed during the sales process diminishes substantially once the purchase order has been issued. Equipment is installed, basic training is conducted, and the customer is then expected to navigate a complex technological landscape largely on their own.

When application challenges arise, responses may be delayed. When production issues emerge, support resources may be limited. When operators require advanced guidance, expertise may not be readily available. In some cases, customers find themselves owning sophisticated equipment that remains underutilized simply because they lack the practical assistance necessary to unlock its full potential.

This situation is particularly damaging because additive manufacturing is fundamentally different from many traditional capital equipment purchases. The technology is not simply a tool; it is an ecosystem. Hardware, software, materials, design principles, and manufacturing processes must function together seamlessly. A weakness in any one area can compromise the effectiveness of the entire solution.

Consequently, customers do not merely require machines. They require partners.

They require organizations capable of helping them identify suitable applications, optimize component designs, select appropriate materials, establish production workflows, train personnel, solve technical challenges, and achieve measurable business outcomes. They require service organizations that respond promptly and reliably. They require technical experts who understand manufacturing realities rather than simply product specifications.

In many industries, the quality of post-sale support has become a decisive factor in purchasing decisions. Additive manufacturing should be no different. Indeed, given the complexity and novelty of the technology, support should arguably be considered more important than the equipment itself.

The future growth of additive manufacturing will not be determined solely by faster machines, larger build volumes, more powerful lasers, or increasingly sophisticated software. Those developments will undoubtedly continue, and they remain important. However, technological advancement alone will not guarantee broader adoption.

The industry must also evolve in its approach to customer engagement.

Manufacturers and solution providers must focus on delivering value rather than merely selling equipment. They must simplify decision-making rather than overwhelm customers with specifications. They must build service organizations capable of supporting customers throughout their entire adoption journey rather than limiting their involvement to the initial transaction.

When products are priced appropriately, when discussions focus on outcomes rather than specifications, and when customers receive reliable long-term support, adoption naturally follows. Organizations gain confidence. Risks are reduced. Success stories multiply. The technology transitions from being perceived as an experimental capability to becoming a practical manufacturing tool.

The future of additive manufacturing will belong not merely to those who build the best machines, but to those who provide the most complete solutions.

I modelled the star’s core as an icosahedron, a polyhedron with 20 equilateral triangular faces. Each triangular face had a hole from which “ray” emerged. I modelled the ray as a lofted surface transitioning from a circular hole to a star profile. The ray had a threaded base so that it could screw into its hole in the core. The rays were designed so that they could slot into each other for easy storage after the Christmas season. The top triangular face didn’t have a ray. Instead, its hole was used to insert a bulb into the core of the star. If you take away the electrical fittings, the entire star was 3D printed. Even the threaded adapters used to secure the rays to the core were 3D printed.

Today I hung up the star to test it.

Maybe this year I should take part in our village’s Christmas Star competition. However, the rules state that the star should be handmade and not bought from a store. Well, although this star isn’t bought from a store, technically, it isn’t handmade. It’s made by a 3D printer. 

No need to spend time and money developing expensive tooling. Directly 3D print the eggshell mold and inject the material of your choice into it. Create same day prototypes or produce a short to medium batch of end use production parts in days instead of weeks.

During the 3D Systems training program, a couple of SMEs (Marathi Sankaralingam from Government ITI Pettai and Ramarajan L from Government ITI Kadayanallur) decided to put their newfound knowledge to use. A gas regulator key had gone missing which was impeding the usage of the Yashkawa industrial robotics system installed at the ITI.

So they designed a key by taking the necessary measurements and printed it using the Pro-BLK 10 material on the Figure 4 Standalone 3D printer. Pro-BLK 10 offers excellent strength and is used to 3D print end-use production parts.

Today the honourable Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, Shri Yogi Adityanath, addressed the audience at the MOU signing ceremony between Tata Technologies and the Government of Uttar Pradesh. As per the MOU, Tata Technologies will upgrade 150 Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) across Uttar Pradesh into technology hubs by deploying technologies like 3D printing, CNC machining, robotics, IoT, etc. along with teaching staff and curriculum as a turnkey project.

During his speech, the honourable Chief Minister mentioned an incident at an airport where he met a group of young men from Uttar Pradesh flying out to another country first to get trained in advanced manufacturing technologies after which they hoped to find jobs there. For decades Uttar Pradesh has been a labour-exporting state. The lack of manpower skilled in advanced manufacturing technologies discourages Indian and foreign companies from making it a preferred choice to expand their manufacturing operations.

The project costing Rs 5,473 crore ($67 million) entails an investment of Rs 4,283 crore ($52 million) by Tata Technologies led industry consortium and Rs 1,190 crore ($15 million) by the Uttar Pradesh state government. 3D Systems is honoured to be the Additive Manufacturing technology partner of Tata Technologies for this project.