Combinatory Manufacturing, Happening at Last?

In 2009, I introduced the concept of “combinatory manufacturing” while at Shapeways. This approach integrates 3D-printed components with conventionally manufactured ones to create end-use products. Unlike merely using 3D printing alongside traditional methods within a production chain, combinatory manufacturing explicitly combines these techniques. For instance, a lamp is created by pairing a conventionally manufactured LED light with a 3D-printed cover. This methodology has been applied to various products, such as 3D-printed earrings combined with conventional earring backings, necklaces with pendants, and lamps with fittings.

Examples like Materialise’s MGX design lamps have achieved sales in the tens of thousands. Companies such as FKM and FOC have been trailblazing in this space for years. Tens of thousands of jewelry pieces and other personal items have also been sold. In the early days, we spent countless hours wandering through IKEA, scouting for products to cannibalize and enhance with 3D printing.

Mass manufacturing thrives in producing high volumes of complex items with well-defined parts that combine to deliver new functionality, while 3D printing excels at creating specific forms at precise moments. Back then, we believed this combination would inevitably revolutionize the world. I still recall the taste of IKEA meatballs as we envisioned 3D-printed products becoming ubiquitous.

This vision has not materialized as expected. Fast forward a few years and I found myself presenting a 3D-printed lamp we created at Materialise to a group of children. When I asked them to estimate its cost, their guesses ranged from $3 to $5. We were chuffed that we could sell it at $100. The gap between production costs and consumer perceptions has been challenging to bridge.

3D-printed products remain too expensive and insufficiently profitable. Perhaps the issue lies in using the wrong technology. Powder bed fusion, while remarkable, excels at producing 10,000 high-quality parts. However, the cost per part remains steep due to material and machine expenses. It’s ideal for small, high-value custom objects or perhaps very high-value design items, where the product could absorb the costs. Even in those cases, though, profitability lags compared to competitors. Not a nice scene.

Covet not Find

We also made mistakes in positioning products where their primary appeal, real or perceived, was simply that they were 3D-printed. This approach limited our marketing creativity and made us complacent. Our focus on selling to a tech-savvy audience shaped our designs and mindset, often resulting in products that were more like souvenirs than well-crafted design objects.

The vast design possibilities of 3D printing overwhelmed us. Instead of innovation, we all ended up producing similar things, constrained by a playground so large it intimidated us. This led to years of Voronoi patterns, fractals, and the sterile, “clean-rendered” hospital aesthetic that often lacked character. While limited in color and surface finish, we were also paralyzed by the endless form possibilities. Certain CAD tricks made it easy to resurface or hollow out objects for a cool look, but they didn’t necessarily result in truly beautiful designs.

The emphasis on “interesting” often generated clicks but didn’t translate into enough sales. We didn’t dedicate enough time to creating beautiful, functional items that people would truly desire. Ironically, the products that sold well were either wildly edgy or highly specific to a niche customer base—a lesson we failed to fully embrace.

Maturity

Today, we see a more mature generation of designers, many of whom grew up with 3D printing. They are less captivated by the novelty of the technology or its boundless possibilities. Their focus has shifted toward creating products that are functional and profitable. Increasingly, these designers are leveraging desktop 3D printers to produce inexpensive yet high-value parts.

Take Dive Design‘s Harvi system for indoor vegetable growing in the picture above as an example. In 2008, we might have covered it with decorative holes or ornaments. In 2015, we’d have made it fractal and over-designed. Now, it stands out for its elegant, minimal aesthetic. Attempting to make a product like this with powder bed fusion would have led to water-related challenges and a $7,000 price tag. With desktop 3D printers, however, products like Harvi can be well-designed, functional, affordable, and profitable.

This marks a pivotal moment in our industry. Desktop machines enable the creation of real, human-scale products—a promising and scalable application for 3D printing. To me, the future is being written right now.