Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
By Team F Trevor Boehm Maria-Isabel Carnasciali M. Elizabeth Douglas Marco Gero Fernndez Christopher Williams
Executive Summary
The Rapid Prototyping (RP) industry is made up of a series of technologies comprising automated processes that can quickly fabricate any given three-dimensional object for the purpose of testing the form, fit, and function of a design. As a layer-based additive manufacturing method, RP gives a designer the power to build almost any conceivable geometry. RP processes, in general, begin with a three-dimensional computer model of the part to be made. This digital representation of the part is sliced into virtual layers by computer software. Each layer, representing a cross-section of the desired part, is sent to the RP machine where it is built upon the previous layer. This process, building the part layer-by-layer from the ground up, is repeated until the part is completed as shown in Figure A.
3D CAD Model
Slice into crosssections Pass to Rapid Prototyping Machine Build one layer
Part Complete ?
3D Prototype
Figure A: Additive Fabrication Process of Rapid Prototyping RP systems can produce models from 3D CAD data, CT and MRI scans, as well as 3D digitizing systems. Using an additive approach, RP systems join liquid, powder or sheet materials to form physical objects on a layer by layer basis. RP machines process plastic, paper, ceramic, metal and composite materials from thin, horizontal cross sections of computer models. This report provides a comprehensive overview of all major players RP as well as some of the mid-range contenders and emerging start-ups which may disrupt the industry. The RP industry is on the brink of a monumental change. Although rapid prototyping has become ingrained into the product development process around the world, it seems that evolution is more likely than reaching full maturity. The industry finds itself deluged in new processes, materials, and systems that will eventually lead to open up new markets, characterized by new customers and novel applications. The purpose of this report is to analyze the businesses that encompass the RP industry as well as to evaluate the industry as a whole. This examination is broken down into four sections: 1) History of the Rapid Prototyping Industry; 2) Industry Analysis; 3) Future of the Rapid Prototyping Industry; and 4) Recommendations. First, a history of RP market genesis to a current macro-scale view of the industry is provided to give context to the subsequent analysis. The second section breaks down the RP industry analysis by company. Nine companies are evaluated based upon their status in the market. 3D Systems and Stratasys represent the proverbial gorillas in the industry while the remaining seven companies embody start-ups and future contenders. In an industry where newer, cheaper technologies could lead to a paradigm shift, leaving the gorillas with diminishing market share, knowledge of these companies is critical to understanding the market as a whole. The future of the RP industry is split into three primary technology and application areas: (1) 3D printing for concept modeling, (2) mainstream rapid prototyping for fit and function applications, and (3) rapid manufacturing for production-quality parts. With an understanding of the RP companies and how their respective technologies suit the future needs of the market, industry recommendations are proposed to conclude this report. These are supported by a Porters Five Forces Analysis (Appendix C), performed to determine the market sensitivities to possible changes in the industry, which could aid RP companies in developing strategies to remain not only viable as future contenders, but also to become/remain market leaders in an ever changing global economy.
Table of Contents
Section 1: History of the Rapid Prototyping Industry ............................................................... 1 Section 2: Industry Analysis....................................................................................................... 3 2.1 3D Systems ....................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Stratasys ............................................................................................................................ 5 2.3 Z Corp ............................................................................................................................... 7 2.4 Solidscape ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.5 Sony .................................................................................................................................. 9 2.6 EOS GmbH ..................................................................................................................... 10 2.7 Arcam.............................................................................................................................. 10 2.8 Objet Geometries, Ltd..................................................................................................... 11 2.9 Optomec.......................................................................................................................... 12 Section 3: Future of the Rapid Prototyping Industry............................................................... 13 3.1 3D Printing for Concept Modeling ................................................................................. 13 3.2 Rapid Prototyping for Fit and Function Applications..................................................... 13 3.3 Rapid Manufacturing for Production-Quality Parts........................................................ 14 Section 4: Recommendations .................................................................................................... 15 References ................................................................................................................................. 16 APPENDIX A: Exhibits............................................................................................................ 17 APPENDIX B: Financial Statements....................................................................................... 25 APPENDIX C: Porters Five Forces Analysis ........................................................................ 35
Other 7.5%
Other 8.9%
2001 2004 Figure 1: Industries being served (Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.)
Though the RP industry originated in the US, much user and vendor activity now takes place in Europe and Asia. Figure 2 shows that only 43.5% of the RP machines worldwide are installed in North America through 2003, where as North America accounted for 52.6% of this total in 1997. The overall share held by North America is expected to slowly decline further as China and other countries update their product development industry. A breakdown of unit sales by country over the last 8 years is provided in Exhibit A. In the past three years, the UK and US markets had strongest growth, with 43.9% and 32.5% respectively, among the large markets. Australia and Taiwan, on the other hand, showed the largest growth amongst the countries with smaller RP installations.
Ot her 1.9 %
Euro p e 2 4 .4 %
Figure 2: Cumulative totals of location of machines installed (Source: Wohlers Associates, Inc.) The demand for RP is being driven by a need to decrease time to market, coupled with an increase in new product development. RP models have had a huge impact on the number of products being introduced into the market as well as the success of those products. Physical models of a product allow individuals and investors to grasp ideas and better gauge market
potential. RP reduces communication problems between the parties involved in product development, and thus provides the ability to manage, control, and detect changes and required modifications. 3D printers are enabling companies to create quick and inexpensive models early in the design cycle, thus allowing for the testing of multiple concepts and avoiding drastic and expensive changes later in the design process. Advances in technology as well as materials have thus opened the door to functional testing of a concept designs using RP models. Industry is also beginning to use RP systems to directly produce parts which are functional end-use items on a low volume or customized basis. Besides cutting down time to market and product expense, this rapid manufacturing using RP provides an affordable way to uniquely manufacture a product for the individual costumer. The RP industry has had a number of ups and downs in the past couple of years. The US continues to be dominant on both the production and consumption of RP systems. Currently, only two of the US RP companies are public, namely 3D Systems and Stratasys. The economic slowdown of the last several years, coupled with a trend toward lower-cost systems resulted in a contraction of both revenue and unit sales for the RP industry compared to the levels of the mid1990s (see Exhibits B and C). 2003 showed a reversal in the downward trend. Sales of low-end machines soared, with 3D printers leading the way. 3D Systems remains today's RP market revenue leader; however, Stratasys is inching its way towards dominance. In 2003 Stratasys unseated 3D Systems as the cumulative installed base leader and has continued to be the leader in the number of units sold. During 2003, Z Corp. moved into second place. As the technologies change, the market leaders may change. A closer look into the gorillas, contenders, and start-ups is needed to fully understand the RP industry.
As of December 31, 2003, 3D Systems held 367 U.S. and foreign patents with 144 more pending. Despite this, over the past three years 3D Systems has been losing ground in the RP market, operating in survival mode. During those years, revenues and net income have plummeted, as seen in Figure 2.1.1. Financial reports are available in Appendix B. This is attributed to several factors including pending lawsuits. Fierce litigation between 3D Systems and EOS GmbH drained resources that could have been used in product development. In its 2003 Annual Report, 3D Systems listed another two cases: Hitachi Zosen v. 3D Systems, Inc. and 3D Systems, Inc. v. Aaroflex, et al. 2004 may be a major turning point year for 3D Systems. A new president/CEO was appointed in late 2003, refocusing the company on production of new products and changing the corporate strategy to offer low cost solutions to customers. Since mid-2003, two new RP products, both 3D printers, have been introduced: the InVision and a higher resolution, InVision HR. The current 3D Systems product line is listed in Exhibit D. Since 3D printing technology is the largest market sector, these new products could be a springboard for 3D Systems revival. In addition to the companys leadership/strategy change, the only disputes with EOS were settled in early 2004, and 3D Systems announced in October of 2004 the settlement of the Hitachi Zosen case and the dismissal of Aaroflex case. The 3D Systems current beta value is 1.268 (12/01/2004), which keeps it in line with high risk companies, such as airlines, but its diversified product line and settlement of all pending lawsuits keep this companys risk to a lower level than its main competitor, Stratasys Inc.
Figure 2.1.1: Chart of 3D Systems revenue and net income from 2001 to 2003 An indicator of the positive changes is the steep ascent of the return on sales (ROS) between 2003 years end and September 2004 quarterly report figures (Figure 2.1.2). Its current P/E ratio (12/01/2004) is 16.91, and, like its beta value, is more attractive than its main publicly-traded competition, Stratasys. Though third quarter 2004 and present day numbers are look promising for 3D Systems continued growth, only time will tell whether the companys change in strategy will pay off.
Figure 2.1.2: 3D Systems return on sales between 2001 and June 2004
2.2 Stratasys
Stratasys was founded in Delaware in 1989 based upon the fused deposition modeling technology. Stratasys sold their first machine (3D Modeler) in April 1992. Since then the company has increased its product line to nine offerings. Stratasys issued an initial public offering in 1996. Since then Stratasys was second in overall unit sales in 1999 and 2000. The sales growth of Stratasys was also relatively stagnant between 1999 and 2000 with a growth rate of less than 2% (293 versus 297 units respectively). Since 2001 though, Stratasys sales have increased to the point where they surpassed 3D Systems to become number one in cumulative installed units in 2003 (3,013 units). Stratasys sales grew by 50% between 2003 and 2002. Six hundred and ninety-one (691) units were sold by Stratasys in 2003. Stratasys CEO claims that they are on track to sell 1,200 units in 2004. Stratasys sales growth can be attributed to their Dimension 3D printing machine. This machine is marketed to the strongest sector of the RP market, 3D printing. Sales of the Dimension machine alone increased by 65% between 2002 and 2003. Stratasys entire product line is shown in Exhibit E. Stratasys greatly improved its financial numbers in the past year. Thanks to their great product offerings in the 3D printing sector, revenue and net income rose 29% and 98% respectively between 2002 and 2003. Stratasys revenue and net income are shown in Figure 2.2.1.
Figure 2.2.1: Chart of Stratasys revenue and net income from 2001 to 2003 Not only have revenue and net income grown, but Stratasys has found ways to increase their return on sales. Return on sales increases by 55% between 2002 and 2003. A chart of Stratasys return on sales over the past three and one-half years is shown in Figure 2.2.2. Financial reports are available in Appendix B.
Figure 2.2.2: Stratasys return on sales between 2001 and June 2004 These financial results are proof that Stratasys strategy and product offerings are working. These financial returns will also give Stratasys more financial strength to prepare for the future.
Research and development was increased in 2003 by over 6% to $5 million. Stratasys claims that they spend more than any other company on research & development. As Stratasys is investing more to develop the future technological innovations of the industry, they are also improving their already great position for the future. The 3D printing sector of the RP market is believed by Stratasys to be the key to near-term growth. Since there are millions of 3D CAD Solid Modeling machines, it is believed that there is a market for approximately 500,000 3D printing machines. To increase sales growth of 3D printing machines, the company has created a stand-alone 3D printing group (Dimension Printing -www.dimensionprinting.com). This group will have its own sales, distribution, technical support and administrative work force. For long-term growth, Stratasys believes in focusing on the development of technologies and materials for the Rapid Manufacturing (RM) sector of the RP market. Currently, Stratasys offers machines that use Fused-Deposition Modeling to perform RM. Stratasys is currently working on improving the speed, resolution, and working envelope of their FDM machines. Since the RM sub sector is in the early stages of development, it is too early to limit their offerings to one technology. Stratasys entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with Objet Geometries of Israel. Objet offers the Eden333 which uses Polyjet technology. Stratasys Inc. still has some ground to make up before fully surpassing the other gorilla in RP, 3D Systems. The 12/01/2004 beta and forward P/E ratios are 1.706 and 28.17, respectively, making 3D Systems more attractive to potential investors; however, Stratasys is positioned well for the current market and is still looking ahead. Stratasys great market position will give it the financial means to invest in the future of the industry. This will give Stratasys a better opportunity to remain on top of the industry.
2.3 Z Corp
Z Corporation manufactures and markets the worlds fastest 3D Printers based on MIT's 3D printing technology since 1994. The system uses a wide inkjet head to bond a starch or plasterbased powder with a binder into the form of an object. The accuracy and finish of the parts is somewhat poorer than the competition, but improvements in materials and post finishing have amended the situation. The company has filed over a dozen patents protecting the specifics of its own equipment, materials, and software in the US, Europe, and Asia. In 2001, an inexpensive color option was introduced. At the beginning of 2002, the company introduced a system with a selling price in the $30,000 range, directly meeting Stratasys' challenge. Further price reductions to $26,000 have kept the companies in tight competition. Z Corp. was listed among the top 100 fastest-growing companies in the US for both 2002 and 2003, according to Inc. Magazine. According to the companys website, Z Corp. has been profitable four out of the last five years. Revenue grew 12.9% from $14.7 million in 2002 to $16.6 million in 2003. This is a decrease compared to the growth of 28% experienced in 2002. Through its direct sales force and distributors, the company sells its products globally into a wide range of industries, including consumer products, defense and weapons systems, architecture, automotive and education.
According to a June 30, 2004 news release from the company, their unit sales went from 210 in 2002 to 349 in 2003, representing a growth rate of 66.2%. This put them ahead of 3D Systems, but behind Stratasys, on annual unit sales. Z Corp. has sold more machines than 10 other RP system manufactures that have had machines on the market longer than Z Corp.; cumulative machine sales surpassed 1,078 by the end of 2003. Based on its patents and proprietary know-how, Z Corp. has three advantages (speed, cost, and color) over its competitors that put the company in a strong position to penetrate the large market for CAD 3D output. The companys success demonstrates that its management and technical team have a clear vision and can effectively execute. According to the Wohlers Associates, Inc., Z Corp. has attended at least one prominent investor conference recently and may be setting the stage for an IPO within the next 1-2 years.
2.4 Solidscape
Privately held Solidscape, founded in 1994, produces inkjet-based machines. The Solidscape system is able to build small parts with excellent surface finish at a relatively slow rate. The companys proprietary, patented systems produce tooling grade master patterns for rubber tool making and direct investment casting. It uses a milling head to trim each layer, allowing greater accuracy and the ability to correct mistakes resulting from a failure of the inkjet. The company has found a successful niche in jewelry manufacturing and other markets where small, intricate parts are the norm. In July 2003, the company began selling its T612 system, which is smaller and 25% faster than its predecessor. However, it is $27,000 more expensive. Also in July of 2003, Solidscape and GeoDigm Corp. signed an agreement for the dental and orthodontic market. GeoDigm has ordered a total of 54 machines which will have a huge impact in the financial future of Solidscape. The past few years have been plagued with legal cases. In October 2000, the company switched names from Sanders Prototype in order to avoid confusion with Sanders Design International (SDI). Solidscape sued SDI, its founder Royden Sanders and its President Albin Hastbacka. In March 2003, the court granted a preliminary injunction against SDI. It ordered that SDI, and all those affiliated with it, be restrained from marketing or selling the Sanders 20/20 system. Since this system directly competes with Solidscapes, this ruling proves to give Solidscape a strong market advantage. Currently, Solidscape is seeking a permanent injunction against SDI for patent infringement, as well as compensatory damages, treble damages, and attorneys fees. In 2000, Solidscape fell to number 4th in annual unit sales and has remained there since. The next few years will be critical to its market position but depend primarily on the outcome of the court case as well as the success of their new international headquarters in the Netherlands. The company, however, must find a means to decrease prices if they want to maintain the control of their current niche market.
2.5 Sony
Sony Manufacturing Systems America (SMSA), operating within the Sony Precision Technology America (SPTA) division, is responsible for selling and servicing the stereolithography systems in the U.S. market, manufactured by Sony Manufacturing Systems in Japan. Both SMSA in particular and SPTA in general have additional sources of revenue, emanating from the sale of metrology equipment, ranging in price from $1,500 to $350,000, and CD/DVD mastering and replication equipment, priced in the multi-million dollar range, respectively. The SMSA group was charged with the sale of the Sonys SLA equipment (i.e., the Solid Creation System) in the highly competitive U.S. market largely because of its vast experience in the support of capital goods and marketing. However, due to an overall lack of familiarity with the RP industry and market, it took a considerable amount of time to develop a U.S. service organization and sales force, as well as attain sufficient market knowledge. Having taken charge of its first machine in April of 2003 and entering the market in June of that year, it took SMSA until February 2004 to make its first sale, a SCS-9000D at a price of $799,000. By the end of April no additional sales had been made. For an overview of Sonys complete RP product line, please refer to Exhibit F. SMSAs first SCS sale was to Prototypes Plus, a Menlo Park (CA) based RP service bureau. According to George Dukes, the company president, the SCS-9000Ds large build envelope (39.5 x 31.5 x 20), was one of the primary reasons for the purchase. This constitutes an increase in potential part size of approximately 260 %, when compared to 3D Systemss SLA7000 machine (20 x 20 x 24), sold for the same price. Additional reasons for switching to the Sony system include the double laser beam feature and its positive effect on overall build times. It is Prototypes Pluss intention to rely on the larger build envelope in order to better service the needs of clients such as Lockheed Martin, Loral Space Systems, Stanford University, Cisco, and Sun Microsystems. A February 2004 announcement by DSM Somos regarding the qualification of its resins for use with the Sony SLA systems is likely to have a positive effect on future SCS sales in the U.S. market. Currently, Sonys SCS base in Japan consists of approximately 220 machines installed with an average of 25 machines per annum being sold over the past 7 years, as indicated in Exhibit G. Sonys recent entry into the U.S. market is due to a licensing agreement with the US powerhouse 3D Systems, mandated by the Justice Department as part of an agreement following 3D Systems purchase of DTM Corporation. Having a strong presence of 17% in the Japanese market (where no single company has dominated unit sales in last four years) combined with an impeccable track record of success and persistence, Sony Corporation is likely to pose a formidable threat to 3D Systems domination of the worldwide stereolithography market in the years to come. Considering that the US market makes up 80% of the world market as compared to the 11.3% of the Japanese market, however, it will take time for Sony to establish its brand and leverage its reputation to yet another venture.
2.7 Arcam
Arcam is a Swedish rapid prototyping company with the focus of using additive manufacturing to create metal components. Similar to 3D Systems Selective Laser Sintering, Arcams technology is centered on creating metal parts via the selective melting of metal powders. Unlike the laser used by 3D Systems' Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Arcams proprietary technology uses an electron beam to selectively sinter the powders to create the metal part. According to the company, the use of an electron gun results in much higher energy efficiency (resulting in cheaper production) and a cleaner environment, which leads to better material
10
properties than competing methods. Although the company has only successfully created parts with two different materials (H13 tool steel and titanium), they believe that the use of the electron gun technology will allow them to produce parts with materials that their competitors cannot offer. The ability to additively manufacture metal parts provides a designer the opportunity to utilize the technology throughout the entire spectrum of the product design timeline from making prototypes, to making tooling for the creation of products, to the direct manufacture of actual parts. As such, Arcams technology has entered many different markets. From their press releases, one can observe purchases of their machines by companies in markets involving tooling, medical devices, aerospace (Boeing), automotive (Volvo), rapid prototyping service bureaus (Furth Innovative Technolgien), and universities (NC State, Warwick University). Last year, the company sold four of its machines to organizations in Europe and the U.S. Arcam sold one system in 2002 and two systems in 2001. Each machine, named the EBM S12, retails for $479,000. Although the commercialization of the companys technology is relatively young, it is publicly traded on the Nordic Growth Market. As a publicly traded company, we were able to retrieve some financial reports for this project. These reports were all in Swedish, however, so no financial information was able to be retrieved.
11
3D Systems as they commercially introduced a similar technology (a photopolymer-based inkjet system) in late 2003. Finally, in August 2003 Objet hired a new CEO with over 20 years of experience in sales, marketing, new business development, and management at U.S. and Israeli companies. Private investors from the US and Europe joined the founders of Objet to provide initial funding for the company. In June 2000, the private investors were joined by Scitex Corporation, a leader in industrial inkjet printing, and TDA Capital Partners, a venture capital fund headquartered in the US. From the agreement, Scitex holds approximately 19% of the issued shares in Objet, and has been granted additional warrants to invest further.
2.9 Optomec
Optomec is a 20-year old privately held company based in New Mexico. It offers another type of prototyping technology capable of making metal parts. This technology, named Laser Engineering Net Shaping (LENS), is a commercialized version of a similar technology developed by the Sandia National Laboratory. The LENS process involves the injection of metal powders into a pool of molten metal that is created by a high-powered laser the process is akin to three-dimensional selective welding. The process is capable of making various types of stainless steels, nickel-based superalloys, tool steels, and titanium alloys. Through the end of 2003, the company had sold a total of 18 LENS machines in six years of selling systems. Optomecs product line is given in Exhibit K. In November 2002, Optomec began a $2 million project with the Department of Commerces National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to improve the LENS technology. In April 2003, the company received approval from the Pentagon for a program with Rolls Royce, Boeing, Siemens Westinghouse, Collins & Aikman, and three military branches. NASA and five Department of Defense repair and overhaul depots representing the Army, Navy, and Air Force are also involved. The combined value of the work is about $5 million, including $1.3 million for the purchase of a LENS 850-R and related application development from Optomec. A new technology, Mesoscale Material Deposition (M3D), has received a lot of attention from Optomec due to a $9 million contract with DARPA. Since its inception, Optomec has sold three of these systems ranging in price between $325,000 to $555,000. Despite its privately held status, Optomec provided some financial information in Q1 of 2002. Specifically, Optomec reported a net income of $90K on revenues of $1.4 million for Q1 of 2002. This represented more than 50% growth over Q1 2001. Optomec has been listed as Industry Weeks Top 25 Technologies of the Year and was included in Inc. 500s list of fastest growing private companies.
12
13
missing constituent is a material that has properties virtually matching those of injection molded plastic. Creating this material seems to be the last and most difficult challenge. More importantly, the decision to purchase a RP machine for plastics requires a high level of commitment: the machines are expensive, require a skilled operator, are difficult to maintain, and cannot operate in an office environment. The market of users is thus saturated and likely to grow only as a result of dramatic decreases in cost and subsequent expansion into smaller businesses. An upside of the inherent level of commitment stems from the continued maintenance and service contracts accompanying the initial purchases. The decline of 3D Systems constitutes a major signal of the decline of this market segment. While 3D Systems continues to be the single largest revenue producer in the RP market, its overall market share is falling. Specifically, the company held 20.8% of the $528.9 million market in 2003, compared to 23.8% in 2002. 3D Systems was also the unit sales leader in 2001 by a significant margin with 415 machines sold. The company has since experienced a shocking decline and been surpassed by Stratasys as the company with the largest installed base of RP machines. Stratasys now has 3,013 machines in place, compared with an estimated 2,898 3D Systems machines. Without a major breakthrough in the realm of RP materials that can be processed (i.e. plastics or metals) using the technologies making up this market segment, continued shrinkage both in volume of machines sold and revenue is likely.
14
Section 4: Recommendations
The RP industry is on the brink of a monumental change. A Porters Five Forces Analysis (Appendix C) outlines the dynamics within this industry, and its sensitivity to various changes.. Rapid prototyping has become ingrained into the product development process around the world. Rather than reaching full maturity, it seems that evolution is more likely. The industry finds itself at the brink of a surge in new processes, materials, and systems that will lead to open up new markets with regard to new customers and novel applications. As a whole, the industry shows significant promise. This past year, the industry rebounded after two years of decline. In 2003, the worldwide market for rapid prototyping, consisting of products and services, grew 9.2% to $528.9 million. This stands in marked contrast to the 10% decline in industry revenues to $485.5 million in 2002 and a decline of 10.5% in 2001, as illustrated in Exhibit C. Annual revenues from product sales were especially strong in 2003. This segment of the market grew by 15.2% to $271.8 million. Worldwide sales of RP machines grew as well to 1,864 machines in 2003 (see Exhibit L). This constitutes an increase of 27.1% from the 1,467 units sold in 2002 and compares favorably to a growth of 12.8% in 2002. It is important to note that sales of 3D printers are credited for most of last years growth. The growth trend of RP unit sales worldwide is shown in Exhibit L. As indicated, Wohlers Associates forecasts annual unit sales to increase by 22% in 2004 and 21% to 2,755 units in 2005. Overall, the first 15 years of the RP industry have been strong compared to the growth of the now well established CNC and machine tool markets (which also started out as RP applications and have since progressed towards low volume, specialized manufacture) in their early years. RP revenues have grown by an average annual rate of 32% from 1988 to 2003. From 1970 to 1981, the CNC market by comparison grew at an annual rate of only 22%. It is our opinion that the rapid prototyping portion of the market segment will continue to decline. This change will occur due to the wide-acceptance of the 3D printer technology, which constitutes the most scalable technology. 3D Printing offers an engineer the ability to produce prototypes at costs much lower than any other currently available RP technology. It is likely that within the next decade or two, many homes around the world will have 3D printers next to their PCs. The Rapid Manufacturing segment, while showing a lot of promise, is much farther on the horizon with respect to both widespread acceptance and growth. This is due in part to much required (and significant) improvements in deposition technology, materials, and part resolution also being a few years away. After this is completed, companies will need to determine how, and when, these new machines should be incorporated into the overall value chain of engineering enterprise. This recommendation is supported by Exhibit M.
15
References
[1] [2] [3] [4] http://finance.yahoo.com http://www.3dsystems.com http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041013/135350_1.html Wohlers Report 2004 Rapid Prototyping, Tooling & Manufacturing State of the Industry Annual Worldwide Progress Report [5] http://www.zcorp.com/company/overview.asp [6] http://www2.rhino3d.com/ [7] http://home.att.net/~castleisland/ind_c.htm [8] http://www.solid-scape.com/releases.html [9] http://www2.rhino3d.com [10] http://home.att.net/~castleisland/ind_c.htm [11] http://www.manufacturingtalk.com/news/dsm/dsm116.html [12] http://www.sonypt.com [13] http://www10.dccafe.com/nbc/articles [14] http://www.newslettersonline.com [15] http://www.prototypesplus.com [16] http://www.wtec.org/loyala/rp/p1_eos.htm [17] http://www.hoovers.com/eos/ [18] http://biz.yahoo.com/ic/101/101265.html [19] http://www.de.finance.yahoo.com [20] http://www.mcadcafe.com/magazine [21] http://www.arcam.com [22] http://www.home.att.net/edgrenda [23] http://home.att.net/castleisland [24] http://www.2objet.com [25] http://www.scitex.com [26] http://www.optomec.com [27] http://www.ngm.se
16
APPENDIX A: Exhibits
Exhibit A
Country U.S. Canada Austria Belgium Bosnia Czech Rep Denmark Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Luxembourg Neatherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Russia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom Other European Cyprus Egypt Israel Iran Saudi Arabia Turkey United Arab Emirates South Africa Australia China India Indonesia Japan Korea Malaysia New Zealand Singapore Taiwan Thailand Vietnam Argentina Brazil Chile Colombia Uruguay Other S. America Costa Rica Mexico Accum total 4758 104 28 18 1 19 28 32 311 984 26 4 2 2 379 2 41 11 10 15 3 57 7 91 115 47 2 479 10 4 5 22 3 3 72 3 14 64 716 92 4 1917 242 62 3 55 158 47 7 4 45 2 8 2 2 1 17 Sold in 2003 803 19 3 5 0 4 5 4 40 135 4 0 2 0 59 0 0 1 2 4 0 9 0 14 12 9 0 82 1 0 0 5 1 1 25 0 2 19 183 21 1 235 54 14 0 7 50 11 4 0 7 0 5 0 0 0 5 Sold in 2002 606 10 4 1 0 2 1 1 37 120 4 3 0 0 48 0 5 2 2 0 0 10 3 7 12 13 1 57 0 2 4 4 1 0 16 0 2 7 160 7 2 216 46 12 1 3 22 12 2 0 7 1 3 0 0 1 1 Sold in 2001 466 7 6 1 1 5 7 2 50 134 7 0 0 0 60 0 11 2 0 3 1 8 1 17 8 7 0 62 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 2 7 83 20 0 219 29 14 1 4 26 6 1 1 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 Sold in 2000 492 12 2 3 0 1 5 3 44 117 1 0 0 0 52 1 2 1 2 1 0 6 2 23 12 4 1 65 1 0 1 2 0 2 10 0 1 6 120 10 0 251 29 6 0 4 13 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 5 Sold in 1999 487 7 6 2 0 3 3 7 42 112 0 0 0 0 35 0 12 1 0 4 0 5 0 11 12 2 0 64 0 0 0 3 0 0 9 1 1 0 64 5 0 238 30 4 1 6 9 2 0 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 Sold in 1998 431 17 3 0 0 1 2 4 22 103 1 1 0 0 39 0 4 1 2 2 0 0 0 11 15 4 0 35 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 3 31 7 0 208 9 1 0 5 6 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sold in 1997 451 19 1 1 0 3 2 5 21 24 4 0 0 0 38 0 4 2 2 1 0 7 1 5 6 3 0 56 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 2 7 42 13 0 187 13 9 0 8 13 5 0 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 1 Thru 1996 1022 13 3 5 0 0 3 6 55 169 5 0 0 2 48 1 3 1 0 0 2 12 0 3 28 5 0 58 8 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 4 15 33 9 1 363 32 2 0 18 19 5 0 0 5 0 1 1 2 0 2
17
6 11166
0 1864
2 1482
1 1299
0 1320
1 1195
0 983
0 1050
5 1973
Exhibit B
1200
1032 1000
800
0 1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
3D Printer Sales since 1996 Company Stratasys Z Corp. 3D Systems Objet Envisiontec Total 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total 90 1 14 105 40 7 113 160 60 48 90 198 75 105 155 335 115 170 227 512 95 188 182 24 489 305 210 88 51 2 656 497 1277 349 1078 53 922 94 169 39 41 1032 3487
(Wohlers Report, 2004)
18
600
500
400
300
200
100
0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
19
Exhibit D 3D Systems Product Line Machine Name InVision 3D Printer InVision HR 3D Printer Thermojet Printer Viper SLA System Viper HA SLA System SLA 7000 System SLA 5000 System Sinterstation HiQ Exhibit E Stratasys Product Line Machine Name Prodigy Plus Eden 333 FDM Vantage i FDM Vantage S FDM Vantage SE FDM Titan FDM Maxum Dimension BST Dimension SST Build Envelope 8x8x12 in 13.4x13x7.9 in 14x10x10 in 14x10x10 in 16x14x16 in 16x14x16 in 23.6x19.7x23.6 in 8x8x12 in 8x8x12 in Materials ABS plastic Proprietary UV plastic ABS or Polycarbonate ABS and Polycarbonate ABS and Polycarbonate ABS, Polycarbonate and Polyphenylsulfone ABS and ABSi plastic ABS ABS Technology Multi-Jet Modeling Multi-Jet Modeling Multi-Jet Modeling Stereolithography Stereolithography Stereolithography Stereolithography Selective Laser Sintering Build Envelope 11.75x7.3x8 in 3x3x2 in 10x7.5x8 in 10x10x10 in 5x5x10 in (HR) 4.7x9.64x2 in (dual) 10x10x2 in (single standard) 5x5x2 in (single HR) 20x20x23 in 20x20x23 in 14x12x17 in Max Scan Speed not available not available not available 5 mm/sec 5 mm/sec 2.54 m/sec (small) 9.53 m/sec (large) 5 m/sec 5 10 m/sec
20
Exhibit F Sony Product Line Machine Name SCS-6000 SCS-8000 SCS-8000D SCS-9000D Build Envelope 11.8x11.8x10.6 in. 23.6x19.6x19.6 in. 23.6x19.6x19.6 in. 39.3x31.4x19.6 in. Max Scan Speed 0.5-2mm/sec 3-10mm/sec 3-10mm/sec 3-20mm/sec Special Feature High Accuracy High Speed High Speed Dual Beam Large Build Envelope, Dual Beam Price $259,000 $599,000 $749,000 $799,000
Exhibit G
Sony Machine Sales
40
35
30
25 Machines Sold
20
15
10
0 1988
1990
1992
1994
1996 Year
1998
2000
2002
2004
21
Exhibit H EOS GmbH Product Line Machine Name EOSINT P 380 EOSINT P 700 EOSINT M 250 EOSINT M 270 EOSINT S 750 Exhibit I
EOS GmbH Machine Sales
60
Build Envelope 13x13x24 in. 28x15x23 in. 10x10x6 in. 10x10x8.5 in. 28x15x15 in.
Material Polystyrene, polyamide, glass-filled and aluminum-filled polyamide powders Polystyrene, polyamide, glass-filled and aluminum-filled polyamide powders Proprietary metal powders Proprietary bronze- and steel-based powders Resin-coated sand
50
40 Machines Sold
30
20
10
0 1988
1990
1992
1994
1996 Year
1998
2000
2002
2004
22
Exhibit J Objet Geometries Ltd Product Line Product Eden 330/333 Eden 260 Eden Exhibit K Optomec Product Line Machine Name LENS 750 LENS 850 LENS 850-R M3D System Exhibit L
3000 2755
Purchase Cost $ 440,000 640,000 $ 530,000 770,000 $ 830,000 1,400,000 $ 325,000 550,000
Annual Maintenance Cost $25,000 50,000 $25,000 50,000 $35,000 75,000 $25,000
(Wohlers Report, 2004)
2500 2275
2000 1864 1467 1500 1309 1300 1176 1000 791 525 500 320 34 0 1988 104 114 1990 82 111 157 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 1040 982
1992
23
Exhibit M
24
Gross Profit
43,142
46,621
53,375
Operating Expenses Research Development Selling General and Administrative Non Recurring Others 9,031 48,643 442 15,366 48,331 4,354 10,710 43,761 -
(14,974)
(21,430)
(1,096)
Income from Continuing Operations Total Other Income/Expenses Net Earnings Before Interest And Taxes Interest Expense Income Before Tax Income Tax Expense Minority Interest (14,974) 2,902 (17,876) 1,107 18,464 (2,966) 2,991 (5,957) 8,909 (1,096) 1,033 (2,129) (788) -
(18,983)
(14,866)
(1,341)
Non-recurring Events
25
(7,040) -
(26,023) (867)
(14,866) -
(1,341) -
($26,890)
($14,866)
($1,341)
26
31-Dec-03
31-Dec-02
31-Dec-01
Assets Current Assets Cash And Cash Equivalents Short Term Investments Net Receivables Inventory Other Current Assets 24,507 22,884 9,694 2,087 2,279 27,742 12,564 3,687 5,948 43,950 17,822 2,817
Total Current Assets Long Term Investments Property Plant and Equipment Goodwill Intangible Assets Accumulated Amortization Other Assets Deferred Long Term Asset Charges
Total Assets
131,465
132,233
166,005
Liabilities Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Short/Current Long Term Debt Other Current Liabilities 23,765 165 16,419 26,359 12,950 15,571 28,500 9,286 15,321
27
4,210 -
Total Liabilities
79,557
72,367
86,286
Stockholders' Equity Misc Stocks Options Warrants Redeemable Preferred Stock Preferred Stock Common Stock Retained Earnings Treasury Stock Capital Surplus Other Stockholder Equity 15,210 13 (47,442) (45) 85,588 (1,416) 13 (21,419) 84,931 (3,659) 13 (5,263) (1,540) 93,173 (6,664)
36,698
59,866
79,719
($21,150)
($7,197)
$14,055
28
31-Dec-03 (26,023)
31-Dec-02 (14,866)
31-Dec-01 (1,341)
Net Income
Operating Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In Depreciation Adjustments To Net Income Changes In Accounts Receivables Changes In Liabilities Changes In Inventories Changes In Other Operating Activities 9,417 11,344 6,801 (5,884) 2,345 3,182 9,902 (12,170) 12,839 (1,353) 7,088 (126) 7,704 299 2,151 (1,780) (2,047) 1,663
1,182
1,314
6,649
Investing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In Capital Expenditures Investments Other Cashflows from Investing Activities (874) (1,257) (3,210) (7,805) (3,317) (54,771)
(2,131)
(11,015)
(58,088)
Financing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In Dividends Paid Sale Purchase of Stock Net Borrowings Other Cash Flows from Financing Activities (641) 15,263 8,807 (1,200) 13,544 (7,701) 10,390 30,517 -
Total Cash Flows From Financing Activities Effect Of Exchange Rate Changes
22,229 395
5,843 189
40,907 (2,519)
$21,675
($3,669)
($13,051)
29
Stratasys
Income Statement: Stratasys
Gross Profit
32,782
24,366
23,001
Operating Expenses Research Development Selling General and Administrative Non Recurring Others 5,047 18,993 4,688 16,065 4,915 14,598 -
8,742
3,613
3,488
Income from Continuing Operations Total Other Income/Expenses Net Earnings Before Interest And Taxes Interest Expense Income Before Tax Income Tax Expense Minority Interest 526 9,269 124 9,145 2,989 467 4,080 178 3,902 791 306 3,794 271 3,523 1,010 -
6,156
3,111
2,513
30
6,156 -
3,111 -
2,513 -
$6,156
$3,111
$2,513
31
31-Dec-03
31-Dec-02
31-Dec-01
Assets Current Assets Cash And Cash Equivalents Short Term Investments Net Receivables Inventory Other Current Assets 44,544 1,348 15,934 6,424 2,810 14,194 10,766 6,537 921 10,211 12,379 6,878 559
Total Current Assets Long Term Investments Property Plant and Equipment Goodwill Intangible Assets Accumulated Amortization Other Assets Deferred Long Term Asset Charges
Total Assets
84,100
43,600
41,951
Liabilities Current Liabilities Accounts Payable Short/Current Long Term Debt Other Current Liabilities 4,940 5,264 4,142 62 4,474 3,736 185 4,511
10,204 -
8,677 2,157 -
8,432 2,216 -
32
Total Liabilities
10,204
10,834
10,648
Stockholders' Equity Misc Stocks Options Warrants Redeemable Preferred Stock Preferred Stock Common Stock Retained Earnings Treasury Stock Capital Surplus Other Stockholder Equity 120 11,064 (7,171) 69,924 (41) 65 4,908 (7,171) 35,025 (62) 61 1,798 (3,428) 32,944 (72)
73,896
32,766
31,303
$71,400
$29,813
$28,015
33
31-Dec-03 6,156
31-Dec-02 3,111
31-Dec-01 2,513
Net Income
Operating Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In Depreciation Adjustments To Net Income Changes In Accounts Receivables Changes In Liabilities Changes In Inventories Changes In Other Operating Activities 2,534 2,531 (5,148) 1,613 223 (3,418) 2,401 309 1,492 384 (486) (214) 2,280 349 (636) 200 1,464 75
4,490
6,997
6,244
Investing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In Capital Expenditures Investments Other Cashflows from Investing Activities (2,340) (1,575) (516) (603) (564) (3,928) (501)
(4,431)
(1,167)
(4,429)
Financing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In Dividends Paid Sale Purchase of Stock Net Borrowings Other Cash Flows from Financing Activities 32,524 (2,218) (1,658) (183) (413) 2,083 -
Total Cash Flows From Financing Activities Effect Of Exchange Rate Changes
30,306 (15)
(1,841) (8)
1,670 (11)
$30,351
$3,982
$3,474
34
Bargaining Power of Customers Competitive Rivalry within the Rapid Prototyping Industry
High within the RP industry in terms of trading off one technology for another based on performance and material properties Low with respect to other prototype technologies such as subtractive manufacturing (e.g., CNC) based mainly on geometric limitations in parts produced
35