top of page
seurat_page background 2_area-printing.jpg

WHITE PAPER · WITH AMPOWER

image.png

The Production Dilemma:
In-House vs. External
Parts Manufacturing

Decision factors for your metal additive manufacturing strategy

Published February 2025 · 21 pages

When a metal additive manufacturing part is ready for serial production, companies choose between buying printers and building expertise in-house or working with an external manufacturer. This guide, written with AMPOWER, sets out five decision factors and the pros and cons of each path. Its recommendation: build know-how in-house early, then qualify an external partner to scale.

​

Editor's note: Published February 2025. Figures and forecasts reflect that date. For current information, see Area Printing.

​

This guide was developed in partnership with the experts at AMPOWER

image.png

Matthias Schmidt-Lehr

Managing Partner of AMPOWER

AMPOWER is a strategy consultancy for industrial additive manufacturing, founded in 2017 and based in Hamburg, Germany. It advises investors, start-ups, suppliers and users of 3D printing and publishes the annual AMPOWER Report on the AM market. The guide opens with forewords by Matthias Schmidt-Lehr, Managing Partner of AMPOWER, and James DeMuth, Seurat's co-founder and CEO.

image.png

James DeMuth,

Co-Founder and CEO of Seurat Technologies

Key Findings

  1. Cost, upfront investment and ROI

    • A production-ready setup can top $1.5 million before the first print, and the average machine alone is over $600,000. In-house pays off only if the machines stay busy.

  2. Manufacturing flexibility

    • Volumes, materials and part sizes fluctuate, so one in-house machine is rarely fully used. Service bureaus can scale volume up or down more easily.

  3. IP sensitivity

    • Performance-critical designs push toward in-house. Outsourcing them takes a partner you trust, in a jurisdiction with strong IP protection.

  4. Quality and know-how

    • In aerospace and medical, companies usually build know-how in-house first so they can qualify an outside supplier later.

  5. Risk evaluation

    • In-house keeps control but ties up capital and risks backing technology that soon becomes outdated. Outsourcing trades that for supplier reliability, quality and IP risk.

In-house vs. External: Pros and Cons

In-house: pros
In-house: cons
Fast lead time, assuming available capacity
High upfront investment in equipment, personnel and associated risks
High internal know-how
High overhead cost
High degree of IP protection
Low flexibility for volume, technology platform, and choice of material
High control over quality
ROI risk; total cost of ownership is hard to plan upfront
Low supply chain interruption risk
Supply chain risk in case of machine failure
Lower hurdles for design changes
No external know-how and collaboration may hinder good solutions
Better integration with internal design and production
External: pros
External: cons
Scalable manufacturing capacity
Harder to build internal technology know-how
Low upfront investment and low associated risk
Potential IP risk
Technology obsolescence risk moves to the partner
Supplier qualification know-how needed
Predictable costs and ROI
Supplier management, ramp-up and partnership required
Knowledge transfer from the supplier's AM expertise
Higher cost at lower volumes
Access to more manufacturing and post-processing capabilities without major investment
Potential supplier switching costs

Related

bottom of page