3D Printing Technology

3D printing Informatics

The field of informatics coincides with both an expansive definition and many ‘subsets’ of specialized study.  At this point in our studies, we have all taken a few informatics-related course and have a working understanding of informatics. However, correlating how computational systems interact with other fields and specialties is sometimes challenging. 3D printing technology falls in line with this ‘difficult to define’ arena. This additive manufacturing process has potential to integrate itself within many professional fields but is not yet understood by enough people to have fully reached its potential. 3D printing has begun to see use in the automotive, medical, and even fashion industries.  when related to the medical field this technology may be associated with health or biomedical informatics (The Future (and Present) of 3D Printing 2015). When being utilized for rapid prototyping or product testing it often falls under the term ‘manufacturing informatics’. For clarification in how the technology is being referenced, I will simply discuss 3D printing technology as it relates to multiple informatic fields.

My adaption and experience

My initial experiences with 3D printing technology were enlightening but dismissive. If memory serves me correctly I was at a mall in Kansas City with my family as a teenager when my brother and his friend came back with a small 3D printed toy given to them by people at what I believe was an apple store. They told me that they had watched as a machine put together something for them by the salesmen there by gradually adding plastic until a small sword was made that would fit inside of the hand of an action figure. I was impressed with the technology but found it impractical and the machine was outrageously expensive.  Fast forward a decade and 3D printers have become affordable for consumers. I myself own a machine and busy myself making costuming props, household items and useful tools. In terms of my adaptation category, I am certainly in the Confirmation stage. I have been fascinated by this technology and read about its future implementation as well as current developments. My decision to continue pursuing this technology within the future leads me to conclude I have reached this stage. To clarify, I will point out that within ‘The Diffusion of Innovation’ Everett Rogers illustrates that “A decision to adopt or reject is often not the terminal stage in the innovation-decision process” and that “At the confirmation stage the individual (or other decision-making unit) seeks reinforcement for the innovation decision already made” (ROGERS, 1995). This essentially means that the confirmation stage differs from the implementation stage because the person/group has decided the innovation is for them. It should be noted that this is in regard to most of the technology. There are aspects of it (such as biomedical printing that involves printing human organs) that are still not accessible to me. This raises questions about the future of 3D printing. Is it ethical for someone to obtain designs and supplies to print these types of things? Who would regulate the use and implementation of these methods? However, this is a question for another time.

Adopter Categories

If I am trying to avoid personal opinions in defining my adapter category, then I would technically be a Innovator in terms of using 3D technology on a regular basis. This is the conclusion I reach when looking at the innovation mathematically.  The Congressional Research Service recently published a report outlining some relevant numbers. The report states that an estimated “140,000 industrial 3D printers and 2,000,000 consumer 3D printers have been sold worldwide.” (Sargent & Schwartz, 2019). Even combined this number does not exceed the 2.5% amount of the population needed to exceed the innovator category.  This number should be taken at face value however because it does not take into account how many people would need or want to utilize a 3D printer.  Additional factors should be considered as well that could put me into the early adopter category. As outlined in our required reading, innovators are close to scientific entities and high social status. I possess neither of these qualities in any measurable regard. I also point out how I am generally learning how to use my printer from other people within a community so I am not necessarily ‘spearheading’ anything. It seems to me as I could fit within either adopter category.

Other Innovations

I consider myself a technology enthusiast and often enjoy trying out new devices. One innovation I have yet to pursue is smart home and/or voice activated technology. My adaption stage for these types of technologies is definitely Knowledge/Awareness as I have been exposed to the technologies but have not pursued more information about them.  Although I would not be as concerned as some overly-cautious individuals, security concerns within this technology do exist. Security research analyst Colby Moore illustrates this by stating that “Right now, the Internet of things is like computer security was in the nineties, when everything was new and no one had any security standards or any way to monitor the devices for security (Craig, 2015).  Simply put, the regulation and minimum requirements to secure these devices are not put in place. I do think that this is a type of technology that is developing well however. New products are impressive and continuously being put out that have voice activated software and this will continue to be implemented within homes. Because I am continuing to monitor the evolution of the technology but will likely be late into adapting it, I will be a part of the laggard adopter category as of now.
 
 
 

References

 
Craig, C. (2015, March 6). Smart home or dumb security risk? InfoWorld. https://www.infoworld.com/article/2893600/smart-home-or-dumb-security-risk.html.