A Conceptual Analysis of the Benefits of 3D Printing for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship

A Conceptual Analysis of the Benefits of 3D Printing for Enterprise and Entrepreneurship

Mohd Taufik Zulkefli¹, Nizar Nazrin^2*, Farah Merican Isahak Merican³

^1,2Faculty of Art and Design University Technology MARA Kedah, Kampus Sungai Petani, 08400 Merbok, Kedah, Malaysia

³Faculty of Business and Management, University Technology MARA Kedah Branch, Sungai Petani Campus

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90900082

Received: 24 August 2025; Accepted: 30 August 2025; Published: 30 September 2025

ABSTRACT

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has had extensive applications across many industries. This conceptual paper reviews evidence to articulate the business advantages of additive manufacturing (AM) and the contingencies that shape their realization. The findings across five advantage domains: (1) new venture creation and entrepreneurial agility; (2) cost, speed, and design-led value; (3) supply-chain resilience and digital inventory; (4) sustainable operations and localized production; and (5) emerging business models including 3D-Printing-as-a-Service (3DPaaS) and virtual warehousing. This paper proposes a framework that links venture stage and firm size to the appropriateness of AM use cases—rapid prototyping, bridge production, spare-parts fulfilment and low-volume end-use manufacturing—while highlighting enablers (DfAM, automation, and blockchain traceability) and constraints (economies of scale, qualification, IP/regulation). The analysis suggests that AM’s most robust business benefits arise when uncertainty is high, volumes are low-to-medium, customization is valued, and logistics or tooling costs dominate unit economics. Entrepreneurs benefit from reduced capital intensity and faster iteration; SMEs can internationalize digitally by offering on-demand, distributed production; and incumbents improve resilience via regionalized “print-near-use” networks and digital inventories of validated parts. It is concluded that with practical implications for managers and founders, a set of researchable propositions, and clear boundaries of generalization. While AM will not supplant high-volume conventional manufacturing, it is reshaping how value is created, captured and delivered in long-tail markets, spare-parts ecosystems, and innovation-intensive product categories.

Keywords: Additive manufacturing (AM), 3D printing, entrepreneurship, SME, sustainability

INTRODUCTION

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is a process that creates three-dimensional objects by building them up layer-by-layer from digital design data. AM is a broader industrial term, while 3D printing is a specific technology within AM that is often used interchangeably in everyday conversation. Even though AM is also known as 3D printing, in contrast 3D printing refers specifically to the layer-by-layer fabrication part of the entire workflow of an AM. AM has moved from an emergent technology to an integrated element of operations and strategy in many sectors. Pandemic-era disruptions accelerated adoption for prototyping and emergency production, and post-pandemic supply-chain volatility has sustained interest in regionalized, on-demand manufacturing models. Contemporary reviews and empirics converge on three observations: AM complements rather than replaces conventional processes; its business value concentrates in high-mix/low-volume and customization-intensive contexts; and organizational capabilities—especially design for AM (DfAM), digital inventories and quality assurance—mediate performance outcomes (Kunovjanek & Reiner, 2020; Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Priyadarshini & Chaudhuri, 2023).

As enterprises face rapid and technological advancement challenges, it is remarkable that many enterprises remain constrained by the endless triad of quality, speed, and cost. AM has reached new heights where it can complement conventional manufacturing and transforms business models across industries. Highly regulated industries like healthcare and automotive, have positioned themselves among those championing the strategic advantages of AM.

This paper summarizes current studies to highlight AM’s business and entrepreneurial benefits. This study articulates a conceptual model that links use cases to venture stage and firm size, discuss enabling technologies (automation and blockchain), and enumerate limitations and delimitations to guide managerial decision-making (European Patent Office, 2023; Chen et al., 2024; Ghasemi & Xu, 2024; Hu et al., 2025).

LITERATURE REVIEW

AM and Entrepreneurship

AM promotes entrepreneurship by lowering barriers to entry. It enables the creation of customized products, facilitating on-demand production, and allowing smaller, localized production. This technology drives innovation by creating more resilient, sustainable, and responsive opportunities for startups and new ventures to capitalize on emerging advantages (Lang, 2021). In addition, AM lowers barriers to entry by reducing tooling costs and enabling rapid design-build-test cycles—advantages that disproportionately benefit startups and micro-enterprises. Exploratory work indicates AM usage (prototyping, tooling, localized manufacturing) alleviates typical entrepreneurial constraints: capital scarcity, small scale and access to markets. (Rochet & Boutin, 2020). Comparative analyses across firm sizes show SMEs can realize agility benefits more readily than large incumbents, provided they invest in digital design skills and quality systems (Gkikas et al., 2023).

Business Models and Value Capture

Recent work maps how AM reconfigures value propositions and supply-chain architectures: mass customization, postponed differentiation and digital fulfilment of long-tail demand. New revenue models include 3DPaaS, distributed print networks and pay-per-use manufacturing capacity (Chen et al., 2024; Ghasemi & Xu, 2024). Patent analytics suggest accelerating innovation in materials, processes and application domains, expanding the feasible business model space while heightening IP strategy salience (European Patent Office, 2023).

Supply-Chain Resilience and Digital Inventory

Systematic reviews and new empirics show AM strengthens resilience by shortening lead times, enabling near-point-of-use production and reducing dependence on fragile global logistics. “Virtual warehousing” of validated digital part files supports on-demand production of spares, reducing working capital and obsolescence risk (Kunovjanek & Reiner, 2020; Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Uhrenfeldt et al., 2024; Hu et al., 2025; Farshchi, 2024).

Sustainability and Localization

Reviews attribute potential environmental gains to material efficiency, light-weighting and localized production that reduces transport emissions. Benefits are context-dependent: gains are strongest where AM consolidates parts, avoids tooling or eliminates overproduction (Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Al-Bashir et al., 2025).

Integrations: Automation and Blockchain

Automation elevates AM from a stand-alone process to a smart-factory node, improving repeatability and unit economics in low-to-mid volumes. Blockchain-enabled traceability is emerging in regulated sectors (e.g., aerospace), securing the design-to-print chain of custody (Santos et al., 2024; Bayram et al., 2025).

Emerging Constraints and Challenges

Despite advantages, challenges persist: scale economics vs. moulding/machining, certification and quality assurance (especially for end-use parts), workforce skills and integration costs. Recent studies quantify how “level of 3DP implementation” predicts economic performance and sustainability outcomes—improvements are not automatic but contingent on capability development (Li et al., 2025; Rahman et al., 2025; Zhao et al., 2025).

Objective

1. Synthesize 2020–2025 evidence on the advantages of AM for entrepreneurs and firms.
2. Develop a conceptual framework linking use cases to venture stage/firm size and market conditions.
3. Identify enablers (DfAM, automation, governance/traceability) and constraints (qualification, IP, scale).
4. Propose researchable propositions and managerial implications for adoption roadmaps.

Scope of Study

The scope of this paper looks at metal AM and polymer AM in business settings (startups, SMEs and incumbents) across manufacturing, aftermarket spares and selected sectors (aerospace, construction, marine) as vehicles for generalizable insights. It generally focuses on specific aspect of the technology, such as its application in industries. Medical and bioprinting are referenced only insofar as they illustrate business model dynamics, not clinical outcomes and focuses on peer-reviewed journals, authoritative reports and open-access studies.

Problem Statement

Managers and founders recognize AM’s promise but face fragmented evidence on where and how it creates business advantage amid evolving technologies, uncertain standards and uneven ecosystems. The central problem is to determine the strategic fit of AM use cases—prototyping, bridge production, spares and end-use parts—given demand uncertainty, volume, customization, regulatory conditions and supply-chain risk and to understand the complementary capabilities required to unlock value (Kunovjanek & Reiner, 2020; Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Li et al., 2025). AM offers agility, flexibility and quicker product development. Ultimately, AM helps to accelerate time-to-market and fostering business model innovation that maybe lacking for enterprise to understand and adopt. Insufficient acceptance of this technology needs thorough study to identify the challenges and benefits of deploying AM in enterprises.

LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS

Limitation

As a conceptual synthesis, this paper is not intended for quantitative meta-analysis. Heterogeneity in AM processes and materials limits generalizability of cost and environmental claims across contexts. Some sources are paywalled abstracts; however, triangulation with open sources mitigates bias (European Patent Office, 2023; Ader & Miroudot, 2022).

Delimitation

This paper has delimited to business and entrepreneurial advantages and focus on use cases with demonstrated commercial traction (rapid prototyping, digital inventory/spares, customization-driven end-use parts, and 3DPaaS) (Ghasemi & Xu, 2024; Uhrenfeldt et al., 2024).

Significance

This paper provides founders and managers with a decision logic for AM adoption by combining recent findings. It also explains how to set up business models that turn technical capabilities into financial advantage, which is particularly important for SMEs navigating long-tail demand and unstable supply chains. It also outlines researchable propositions to guide future empirical work in entrepreneurship and operations (Gkikas et al., 2023; Chen et al., 2024; Hu et al., 2025).

METHODOLOGY

This paper carried out a bibliometric analysis technique which comprehend the significant research themes by emphasizing reliable, peer-reviewed sources using terms including “additive manufacturing AND entrepreneurship,” “digital inventory,” “3DPaaS,” and “supply-chain resilience AM.” Inclusion criteria emphasized business/entrepreneurship relevance, recency, and sectoral diversity. Based on the researcher’s knowledge, cited studies has been published within the last five years. This is confirmed by running a Scopus database search of “3D printing” and “Enterprise and entrepreneurship” from 2021 to 2025. Several related research have adopted bibliometric analysis with data collected from articles indexed by Scopus (Ahmad et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Martínez-López et al., 2018; Merigó and Yang, 2017; Rey-Martí et al., 2016). The objective of the bibliometric analysis was to examine writing on 3D printing, development, opportunities, and future direction for research. Additionally, this paper classified benefits into five domains (entrepreneurship, cost/speed/design, resilience/digital inventory, sustainability/localization, business models) and identified enabling capabilities and constraints. then constructed a contingency-based framework linking use cases to venture/firm context. (Kunovjanek & Reiner, 2020; Ader & Miroudot, 2022; European Patent Office, 2023; Chen et al., 2024).

RESULT

The advancing understanding and adoption of AM tends to play out differently for startups and enterprises. AM offers means of achieving flexibility and cost savings. AM may reduce up-front tooling investment and lead time, enabling rapid market testing and iterative product-market fit searches. Startups can sell early versions (via small-batch runs) to validate willingness-to-pay without committing to molds or large purchase orders (Rochet & Boutin, 2020; Gkikas et al., 2023).

Facing rapid business and technological advancement, for low-to-mid volumes or complex geometries, AM can lower total cost by eliminating tooling, consolidating parts and reducing assembly. DfAM unlocks performance gains (light-weighting, lattice structures) that command price premiums or reduce lifecycle costs (Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Khalil et al., 2025). Achieving the right balance is complex and difficult to generalize, thus when firms deploy AM to “print-near-use,” the advantage may be to shorten and give lead times and lessen disruption risk. Digital inventories enable on-demand spares, cutting working capital and obsolescence while improving service levels especially in remote or legacy equipment contexts (Hu et al., 2025; Uhrenfeldt et al., 2024; Ader & Miroudot, 2022).

Analysis revealed AM’s environmental advantages are context-sensitive but material where it reduces transport, avoids overproduction and optimizes material usage. Sector-specific studies (construction, marine) indicate potential for lower embodied emissions and agile maintenance logistics (Al-Bashir et al., 2025; Demir et al., 2025). Besides, automated post-processing, robotic handling and MES integration increase repeatability and productivity. Blockchain and digital-twin approaches enhance traceability and compliance in regulated sectors (Santos et al., 2024; Bayram et al., 2025). AM rarely beats moulding/machining at very high volumes. Certification remains non-trivial for safety critical parts and IP/governance of digital files is a moving target requiring robust contracts and security. Data from multi-industry studies show performance gains track the level of structured AM implementation (Li et al., 2025; Rahman et al., 2025; European Patent Office, 2023).

Results also showed that, embracing digital technologies like AM will help enterprises as 3DPaaS providers monetize capacity and expertise, allowing customers to externalize capital costs. Virtual warehouses combine qualified digital part files with distributed print nodes, compressing order-to-delivery cycles for long-tail spares (Ghasemi & Xu, 2024; Uhrenfeldt et al., 2024; Farshchi, 2024).

DISCUSSION

Basic roots of AM have traditionally been in ideation, design, and prototyping. The transition is driven by both, value metrics and the growing of digital momentum. As enterprises open themselves to AM processes, they become more agile, collaborative, and streamlined. This is the advantages of AM. AM advantages are strongest when demand is uncertain, variants are many and customers value customization or fast lead times. Based on Kunovjanek & Reiner, 2020; Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Hu et al., 2025 and Uhrenfeldt et al., 2024, this paper position four archetypal use cases along two axes volume (low → mid) and uncertainty (high → low):

1. Rapid prototyping & validation (high uncertainty/low volume): Maximize learning speed; prioritize DfAM skills and customer co-creation.
2. Bridge production (high uncertainty/mid volume): Use AM until demand stabilizes; switch to conventional processes once tooling is justified.
3. Digital spares & virtual warehousing (medium uncertainty/low volume): Focus on part qualification and distributed quality management.
4. Customized end-use parts (low uncertainty/low-to-mid volume): Compete on performance (light-weighting, integration) and personalization.

Other than that, startups enterprises should exploit AM for speed and market exploration outsourcing to 3DPaaS partners to avoid capex until designs stabilize. SMEs gain from digital spares and small-batch customization, especially for export via distributed fulfillment. Large incumbents should deploy AM for resilience (regional nodes, tooling reduction) and high-value parts requiring weight savings or complex cooling (Gkikas et al., 2023; Ghasemi & Xu, 2024; Ader & Miroudot, 2022).

Enterprises decision makers should look at the AM’s capability stack. This highlights the winning configurations pair AM hardware with: (i) DfAM expertise; (ii) automated post-processing and QA; (iii) digital inventory governance; and (iv) data integrity/traceability (potentially blockchain) for compliance-heavy sectors (Santos et al., 2024; Bayram et al., 2025; Uhrenfeldt et al., 2024)

Also, enterprises have the duty to understand risk and governance. It is important to patent dynamics and digital file security require careful IP strategies and contractual controls when sharing designs across networks. Enterprises should treat design files as sensitive assets with access-controlled repositories and watermarking/traceability to deter misuse (European Patent Office, 2023).

FINDINGS

Several findings can be highlighted in this paper. AM has attracted increased attention to many industries. Firstly, due to its context-contingent advantage. AM’s business value concentrates in high-mix/low-volume, customization-intensive or geographically constrained settings. It is a need for product customization to increase flexibility for the variation in market demand (Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Hu et al., 2025). Secondly, AM offers entrepreneurial leverage. AM lowers entry barriers via reduced tooling, faster iteration and access to on-demand capacity (3DPaaS) (Rochet & Boutin, 2020; Ghasemi & Xu, 2024). It offers entrepreneurial enterprises ample opportunities to streamline operations, reduce costs, and enhance product offerings. Other than that, this paper found that AM is resilience through digital inventory. Virtual warehousing of qualified parts cuts leads times and inventory risk while improving service levels (Uhrenfeldt et al., 2024; Farshchi, 2024). The application of AM is sustainability potential, not guarantee since environmental benefits are strongest where AM avoids tooling/overproduction and consolidates parts and lifecycle assessment is essential (Ader & Miroudot, 2022; Al-Bashir et al., 2025). Lastly, this paper’s findings feature the execution of AM implementation. Enterprises’ economic and sustainability gains correlate with the maturity of AM implementation (process control, QA, DfAM, automation) (Li et al., 2025; Zhao et al., 2025).

CONCLUSION

AM is not a universal substitute for conventional manufacturing; rather, it is a strategic complement that unlocks value under identifiable conditions. For entrepreneurs and SMEs, it offers speed, flexibility and capital efficiency; for incumbents, it enhances resilience, supports spare-parts ecosystems, and enables differentiated performance through design freedom. Realizing these advantages requires a capability stack that spans DfAM, automation, digital inventory governance and trusted data infrastructures. Looking ahead, the diffusion of 3DPaaS platforms, sector-specific qualification frameworks and integration with supply-chain traceability tools will broaden the feasible frontier of AM-enabled business models—particularly for long-tail demand and distributed service networks. Future research should quantify the thresholds at which AM overtakes conventional processes in total cost of ownership and examine how IP, standards and platform governance shape competitive dynamics in distributed manufacturing ecosystems (Kunovjanek & Reiner, 2020; Ghasemi & Xu, 2024; European Patent Office, 2023; Hu et al., 2025).

This paper finally concludes that adopting AM is a choice likely to affect far more than just production. AM is already enabling unique and better ways for enterprises to serve their markets. Enterprises in the industry should accentuate the strategic benefits of AM.

REFERENCES

1. Ader, P., & Miroudot, S. (2022). Additive manufacturing for sustainability: A systematic literature review. Cleaner Logistics and Supply Chain. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666188822000326
2. Ahmad, P, Asif, JA, Alam, MK, & Slots, J 2020, ‘A bibliometric analysis of Periodontology 2000’, Periodontology 2000, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 286-297, https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12328
3. Al-Bashir, A., et al. (2025). Advances in sustainable additive manufacturing: A systematic review. Frontiers in Built Environment. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/built-environment/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2025.1535626
4. Chen, J., Li, Y., & Song, M. (2024). Business models and advanced AM strategies for manufacturing sustainability. Journal of Manufacturing and Materials Processing. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772427124000688
5. Demir, M., et al. (2025). A critical systematic scoping review on the applications of AM in the marine industry. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11723405
6. European Patent Office. (2023). Innovation trends in additive manufacturing: A global patent perspective. (EPO study). https://link.epo.org/web/service-support/publications/en-additive-manufacturing-study-2023-full-study.pdf
7. Farshchi, F. (2024). The influence of digital inventory and on-demand manufacturing on spare-parts management. Master’s Thesis, SINTEF/NTNU. https://www.sintef.no/contentassets/2b8ec8146d3c4de2a6b0ad8143aa6444
8. Ghasemi, M., & Xu, X. (2024). 3D Printing-as-a-Service: An economic analysis of pricing and capacity decisions. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/10591478241257660
9. Gkikas, D., et al. (2023). Comparative analysis of 3D printing in large, medium and small firms. Journal of Manufacturing Systems. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223001037
10. Hu, J., et al. (2025). Integrating 3D printing and inventory to manage multi-product demand uncertainties. International Journal of Production Economics. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925527325001355
11. Huang, Z, Chen, H & Liu, Z 2020, ‘The 100 top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses in central venous catheter research: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis’, Intensive and Critical Care Nursing, vol. 57, article 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iccn.2020.102803
12. Körner, C., et al. (2020). Systematic literature review: Integration of Additive Manufacturing and Industry 4.0. Metals, 10(8), 1061. https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4701/10/8/1061
13. Kunovjanek, M., & Reiner, G. (2020). Additive manufacturing and supply chains – a systematic review. International Journal of Production Research. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09537287.2020.1857874
14. Lang, M.A. (2021). Entrepreneurship and Innovation in Metal Additive Manufacturing. In: DelVecchio, S.M. (eds) Women in 3D Printing. Women in Engineering and Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-70736-1_8
15. Li, X., Wang, H., & Zhao, Q. (2025). Impact of additive manufacturing on supply-chain resilience. International Journal of Production Research. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/built-environment/articles/10.3389/fbuil.2025.1535626
16. Martínez-López, FJ, Merigó, JM, Valenzuela-Fernández, L & Nicolás, C 2018, ‘Fifty years of the European Journal of Marketing: A bibliometric analysis’, European Journal of Marketing, vol. 52, no. 1/2, pp. 439-468, http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/EJM-11-2017-0853
17. Merigó, JM & Yang, JB 2017, ‘A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science’, Omega, vol. 73, pp. 37-48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004
18. Merigó, JM & Yang, JB 2017, ‘A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science’, Omega, vol. 73, pp. 37-48, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.12.004
19. Priyadarshini, J., & Chaudhuri, A. (2023). Data-driven review of additive manufacturing on supply chains. Transportation Research Part E. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360835223006241
20. Rochet, C., & Boutin, N. (2020). Assessing the effect of 3D printing technologies on entrepreneurship: An exploratory study. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520313093
21. Uhrenfeldt, C., et al. (2024). Virtual warehousing through digitalized inventory and on-demand manufacturing of spare parts. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016636152400112X