A government report published on GOV.UK, Factors affecting adoption of 3D Printing by SMEs: The case of Greater Manchester, based on survey data, interviews with five companies, and analysis of regional institutions, finds that small and medium-sized enterprises in the region remain constrained in adopting 3D printing. The research shows that cost pressures, shortages of technical skills, material limitations, and regulatory gaps continue to limit uptake, even as regional infrastructure and government programmes expand access to equipment and training.
Greater Manchester records the second-highest adoption rate of additive manufacturing in the United Kingdom, behind London. Just over one in six SMEs in the region use 3D printing, compared with slightly more than one in ten nationally. Most of these adopters report limited use, with nearly four out of five describing their activity as low or moderate. Across the country, only 17 percent of firms report any adoption, placing the technology behind artificial intelligence and robotics.
Survey responses show that awareness and applicability are more substantial barriers than cost. More than half of Greater Manchester SMEs said that 3D printing was not relevant to their operations, almost identical to the national average. Just over one in five identified no barriers but still refrained from adoption, suggesting that incentives remain unclear. Fewer than five in 100 cited cost as a barrier, while a similar share pointed to the lack of skilled staff. Smaller numbers mentioned immaturity of the technology, unreliable data, legal constraints, or safety concerns.
Motivations for adoption were more specific among current users. Nearly two-thirds of Greater Manchester firms that apply additive manufacturing said they did so to improve product or service quality. Just under half aimed to expand product ranges, and around two in five reported improving processes or updating outdated systems. One in four listed automation as a reason, while none in the region cited the pandemic as a driver. Nationally, a small minority—3.7 percent—did link adoption to pandemic disruption.
Case studies from the “3D Printers on the Road” project show how five SMEs approached adoption at different stages. Participation required that none of the companies had fully integrated 3D printers into their innovation processes beforehand. Two firms were in the evaluation stage. M1, a medical device startup founded in 2015, assessed the feasibility of producing specific components in-house through 3D printing. C1, a construction company founded in 2020 with seven employees, tested the use of additive methods for producing scaled models of housing units for marketing.
The remaining three companies were in the initial implementation or set-up stage. F1, a 50-year-old furniture manufacturer employing around 50 staff, had recently purchased a printer and recruited a skilled engineer to accelerate adoption. A1, an agri-food technology company with 12 employees, owned equipment but lacked personnel with the expertise to operate it effectively. C2, a ceramic tile firm with three staff founded in 2021, worked with an older-generation printer that failed to deliver expected results, prompting considerations for upgrading or optimisation.
In each case, participation in the pilot served as an enabler. University researchers provided access to equipment and a specialist engineer, raising awareness of the technology, allowing firms to test applications, and building capacity for future adoption.
Participants identified clear economic advantages. C2 reported that outsourcing simple components to third parties cost between £33 and £40 per item and introduced delays, making in-house printing more efficient for low-volume parts. Another participant described the effect of printing in-house as having “made my life so much easier.” C1 pointed to the potential for recycling-based materials, while F1 emphasised time savings in prototyping.
Enablers varied across cases. C2 upgraded from improvised equipment to professional-grade printers using funding from Green Angel Ventures, Innovate UK, and a Henry Royce Institute access scheme. M1 benefited from support through HealthBIC, a regional incubator that provided access to technology and networks. Firms with staff trained in computer-aided design, such as F1, advanced more quickly. University collaboration through the pilot accelerated learning for all participants, allowing them to test applications and justify new investment.
Three firms subsequently integrated additive manufacturing into regular operations. M1 incorporated 3D printing into research and development workflows. F1 embedded printing in design processes, enabling customised product lines. A1 expanded its use of the technology for prototyping and visualisation of agricultural systems. One company now operates two machines with plans for further expansion, demonstrating how short-term exposure translated into permanent capacity.
Technical and environmental barriers remained evident. Plastics dominated as the most accessible material, but participants noted that prints often lacked strength, resistance to heat and moisture, or colour stability. Coloured PLA prints were described as low quality. Efforts to extend to metals, ceramics, glass, and wood faced challenges, including mismatched thermal properties and limited post-processing options. Supplier scarcity granted raw material providers strong negotiating power, raising costs. Construction-sector firms pointed to the restricted operational range of robotic arms and the risk of assembly defects when producing larger components.
Energy use proved another obstacle. The report noted that producing a 3D printed item of equivalent weight consumes 50 to 100 times more energy than injection moulding. Fused deposition modelling, widely used among SMEs, requires heavy electricity consumption during the initial warm-up phase, making it inefficient for high-volume production. Participants also highlighted plastic waste from repeated prototyping: although recyclable, the waste was bulky and difficult to manage. Companies reported higher carbon costs under the UK Emissions Trading Scheme and restrictions on recycled material usage, limiting sustainable approaches.
Regulatory and standards gaps hinder adoption further. In healthcare, no international guidance exists for personalised medicines produced through additive methods, leaving pharmacists to rely on frameworks intended for traditional compounding. Food utensils produced with 3D printing may contain voids that allow bacterial growth, but no regulations specifically govern their design. Without standardised controls, the dimensions and quality of printed parts vary by printer and material batch, undermining reproducibility in industries such as aerospace and medicine. One participant expressed concern about intellectual property risks but chose not to pursue legal protections, focusing instead on premium product positioning. Others raised security concerns about design file management and IT integration.
Regional institutions aim to bridge these gaps. PrintCity, a facility at Manchester Metropolitan University, has invested £3 million in polymer-based printers and scanning equipment, and since 2020 has supported more than 200 SMEs through prototyping and consultation. The Henry Royce Institute, the national centre for advanced materials research, offers laboratories covering polymers, metals, ceramics, and bioprinting, with subsidised access for smaller firms. Hackspace Manchester, a community-run workshop in the city centre, provides low-cost entry to 3D printers and fabrication tools, supporting early-stage ventures and individual innovators.
Policy support adds further momentum. Made Smarter, piloted in North West England, delivers advisory services, training, and matched funding. Since 2019 it has awarded £7.1 million, leveraged £25.2 million in business investment, supported 379 technology projects, created 1,729 jobs, and upskilled more than 3,000 roles. While only a fraction of projects directly addressed additive manufacturing, the initiative reduced risk and improved digital readiness among manufacturing SMEs.
Constraints remain sharper for smaller companies than for larger enterprises. SMEs often face weaker bargaining power, shorter planning horizons, and limited integration of digital systems. They depend on immediate cash flows and external funding rather than long-term research budgets, delaying adoption even when benefits are apparent. Dependence on existing supply chains and limited market influence make it difficult to secure favourable terms for equipment or materials.
Factors affecting adoption of 3D Printing by SMEs: The case of Greater Manchester concludes that successful adoption requires alignment with regional assets, investment in skills, stage-specific policy, and sector-wide demonstration of applications. In Greater Manchester, this means leveraging institutions such as PrintCity and the Henry Royce Institute while addressing skills shortages and regulatory gaps. Case studies of C1, M1, C2, A1, and F1 show how companies can progress from evaluation to integration, but wider diffusion will depend on sustained investment, workforce development, and clearer standards.
Limited spaces remain for AMA:Energy 2025. Register now to join the conversation on the future of energy and additive manufacturing.
Ready to discover who won the 2024 3D Printing Industry Awards?
Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn to stay updated with the latest news and insights.
Featured image shows 3DP Adoption rates by firm respondents in selected regions. Image via GOV.UK.
