An additive manufacturing project can produce a successful part and still fail to deliver a useful business result.

That can happen when the part was a poor commercial candidate, the full production route was not considered, or nobody agreed what success would look like. The warning signs may appear gradually: the business case becomes harder to defend, the project loses its sponsor, or the team cannot decide whether to expand, change direction or stop.

This checklist is a way to test a proposed project before too much time and money are committed. It is not a ranking of the most common causes of failure. The risks that matter will depend on the part, its application and the organisation’s requirements.

1. Choosing a part because it is printable, not because it solves a problem

A part may be technically printable without being a strong AM candidate. Novel geometry can be interesting, but novelty alone does not show that printing is better than the current production route.

Warning sign: The project’s main success measure is that the part printed.

Ask: What problem would AM solve here? Is the current route creating a specific cost, lead-time, performance, tooling or supply risk?

Corrective action: Compare AM with the existing manufacturing option against the problem you want to solve. Consider the whole route, including material, build preparation, post-processing, inspection and delivery. If the problem is not clear, the project may not be ready to proceed.

📖 How Aerospace Leaders Use Additive Manufacturing: A Case Study Breakdown

2. Building a business case without a fair baseline

A claim that AM will be faster or cheaper needs a point of comparison. Comparing the printer’s build cost with the purchase price of a conventionally made part can leave out important costs on either side.

Warning sign: The business case relies on one attractive estimate, but the assumptions are not recorded.

Ask: What costs and time are included in the current route and the proposed AM route? Are tooling, engineering time, scrap, post-processing, inspection, inventory or supply risk relevant to this part?

Corrective action: Record the baseline and assumptions before the trial. Use like-for-like boundaries for both routes, and identify which costs are measured, estimated or still unknown. The purpose is not to make AM win on paper; it is to make the decision credible.

3. Carrying the old design across without testing alternatives

Printing an existing design can be a sensible first step, particularly when a project needs to preserve fit or function. But it does not test whether the design could be changed to take advantage of the selected process.

Warning sign: The team assumes a printed version of the existing part will prove the full opportunity.

Ask: Which requirements must remain fixed, and which design choices can be reconsidered? Could geometry, assembly, material use or performance change in a way that matters to the project?

Corrective action: Separate “can we make this part?” from “could a redesigned part deliver a better result?” Bring design and manufacturing expertise into the project early. Keep any redesign tied to a measurable requirement rather than treating complexity as a benefit on its own.

4. Discovering qualification or inspection needs late

Making a part is not the same as showing that it is acceptable for its intended use. Some applications need planned evidence about the process, material, part properties or inspection route. Requirements vary by industry and application.

Warning sign: The project team has a printed sample but has not asked who needs to approve the part or what evidence they will require.

Ask: What must be demonstrated before the part can be released? Which tests, inspections, records or approvals are required, and who is responsible for them?

Corrective action: Involve the relevant quality, engineering and customer stakeholders during project planning. Define the evidence plan and its likely effort before committing to a production target. ISO/ASTM 52920 sets requirements for industrial AM processes and production sites; it is a useful reference, not a substitute for application-specific requirements.

📖 Why AM Compliance Is So Hard — and How to Simplify It.

5. Treating the pilot as the finish line

A successful one-off build can answer an important technical question, but it does not automatically establish repeatability, production capacity or a viable route for future orders.

Warning sign: The project is called successful after one build, with no agreed next decision.

Ask: What will the team do if the trial succeeds? What will it do if the part works but the cost, inspection effort or production route does not?

Corrective action: Set decision gates in advance. For example: proceed to another trial, redesign, compare another process, prepare a production-readiness plan, or stop. Define what evidence is needed at each gate.

📖 How to Scale Additive Manufacturing from Prototype to Production.

6. Leaving ownership and decision-making unclear

AM projects can involve design, manufacturing, quality, procurement and business stakeholders. If no one owns the project’s decisions and next steps, actions can stall even when the technical work is progressing.

Warning sign: Different people have different ideas about who approves changes, resolves trade-offs or decides whether the project continues.

Ask: Who owns the business outcome? Who approves technical and quality decisions? Who is responsible for bringing unresolved issues to the project sponsor?

Corrective action: Name the project owner and decision-makers at the outset. Agree how changes, risks and requests for more evidence will be reviewed. This is project governance; detailed task handoffs and production workflow design belong in the workflow guide.

7. Measuring activity instead of the intended outcome

Build hours, printer utilisation and numbers of parts produced can be useful operational measures. They do not necessarily show whether the project solved the problem that justified it.

Warning sign: The project reports activity but cannot say whether the original business need has improved.

Ask: Which result would make the project worthwhile? For example, does the project aim to change lead time, part performance, tooling requirements or availability of a specific component?

Corrective action: Choose a small number of measures tied to the original problem. Record the baseline, measurement method and review point. If the project’s goal changes, document the change rather than continuing to report against the old one.

A short pre-project check

Before committing to a project, make sure the team can answer:

• What specific problem are we trying to solve?

• What is the current baseline?

• Why are we considering AM for this part or application?

• What does the full proposed production route include?

• What evidence and approvals are needed?

• Who owns the outcome and the key decisions?

• What result would justify continuing, changing course or stopping?

If several answers are unknown, that does not automatically mean the project should be rejected. It means those unknowns should become part of the project plan, with owners and decision points.

The point is to make the decision clearer

An AM project does not need to promise transformation to be worthwhile. A focused project can test whether a specific part, process or business problem is suitable for additive manufacturing.

The useful discipline is to define the problem, compare the full route, plan for the evidence required and decide in advance how results will guide the next step. That gives the organisation a fair basis to continue, adapt or stop.