Thursday, April 23, 2015

3D Printing in a Globalized World

Housing Construction Industry
Today, in many parts of the Western world, building a house is a process that requires a tremendous amount of different materials. For instance, housing materials in New York, depending on one’s taste, can come from all over the world; things like Canadian lumber, Mexican rocks, Italian marble, Chinese plastics, and Floridian sand. These materials may all have their own unique aesthetic features, but they also all pose certain structural limitations. The possibility of truly curved windows and walls is very limited due to structural load limits or costs.
Impact of Globalization
Globalization has broadened the creative and innovative possibilities for constructing houses, particularly as new solar and wind technologies have entered the market. Now, in addition to your aesthetic materials being sourced all over the world, you may also have German solar technology built into your house to heat it in a green way.
3D Printed House
Impact of 3D Printing
A Chinese company called WinSun has recently begun building almost entirely 3D printed houses and small office buildings. These structures are not only revolutionary in their construction, but they are built from nearly entirely recycled materials. Furthermore, other technological institutes around the world have begun developing plans to create 3D printed houses that defy any current possible structures. As the access to new materials increases and large-scale 3D printing projects become increasingly possible, housing construction will likely start to take on a whole new shape. Innovation in the field is already underway, and once writ large, the industry will entirely transform.

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM)
OEM is an industry that provides infrastructure, man power to their clients to produce or help assemble products, according to their requirements. Most of the companies (manufacturers) are very are flexible in production because they are not taking orders from a single clients, they are mostly the manufacturers of different brands or industries simultaneously.
Impact of Globalization
The effect of globalization brings a heavy impact to OEM. Since the information cost is much lower due to globalization, also the innovation on the Internet. The gross profit of OEM must be affect because the clients of OEM are easier to compare the prices of different companies.
Also, the globalization not only affects their profit, but also the cost. The labour or supplier can easier to know their market prices. For example, in Zhujiang Delta, many employers have already been complaining about the increasing labour cost and the lack of labour supply.

Impact of 3D Printing
Although some of the OEM have high technology level with high flexibility, the flexibility of 3D printing is impossible for traditional OEM to reach. For example, a traditional OEM requires templates to process the manufacturing. However for 3D printing, only CAD file is needed and the CAD file can be edited and transferred, the costs of transportation and adjustment of the products are much lower, not to mention the higher flexibility. Besides the impact, the OEM can make good use of 3D printing by merging with this technology. The OEM can turn itself into a partner of 3D printing, like partially replacing its production process by 3D printing.

Dental care industry
Dental care is an industry that manufactures and customizes different kinds of products to assist licensed dentist to provide dental health care. The varieties of products are crowns, bridges and dentures etc.

Impact of globalization
The R&D cost for the dental care industry was high before as they have to develop a dental laboratory to do the research. The globalization can bring lots of dental laboratories together. They may share the information of their research to each other. The technology of dental care will become more mature.

Impact of 3D printing 
When the dental care company manufactures the dentures, they may face the problem that there are many intricate details for different people, such as a tooth's irregular grooves, crannies and valleys. 3D printing can help to reproduce the complete removable dentures in a faster and feasible way. This process can be able to custom manufacture the dentures with intricate details. For instance, if the patient would like to repair a cracked tooth, the dentist will scan the patient's teeth and then use a 3D printer to cut out the implant. With the scanner and 3D printer doing the work, the dentist can have more time to build customer satisfaction as they do not need to manually model the detail of the denture. Also, the CAD file can be saved as the patient's record, the dentist can assess the file when they do the review with the patient.

Supply Chain Management Industry (Prototype in R&D)
Now days, sourcing and trading is not competitive for international trading company duo to the mass competitor and transparent market. For trading company to keep growing, get involving with the whole supply chain is really important. Like what Li & Fung did in the past few decade, get into clients R&D and together with the traditional trading company functions like sourcing, trading and distribution can be the core competence for most big and successful trading company.
Impact of Globalization
Normally, clients’ work together with few suppliers and the speed of response to clients’ R&D become the key factor for a trading company. Globalization makes this game even more interesting and tough for those local players. Earth village become the hot topic due to the fast develop Internet and convenience for traveling and transportation.
Impact of 3D Printing


Most of the trading company has their own design team working closely with clients’ R&D department, to deliver sample for approval is the hard core, because this requires sample mold making and shipment time, especially the impact of globalization. 3D Printing is like the magic for this kind issue for trading company, it easy to send the design data and 3D print out by suppliers to double confirm how and if can be made and as well as clients for outcome sample to see the appearance.


Thursday, April 16, 2015

3D Printing On-board the ISS

ISS
“The first trillionaire is going to be made in space” – Peter Diamandis

Industry: International Space Station (ISS) Resupply

Emerging Technology: 3D printing

We'd like to take you on a little journey into Space. So please read on to see how you may, some day, be able to eat breakfast while watching the Earth rise over the horizon of your new home planet. 

Introduction: 

Dear reader,

What’s the fastest you’ve ever gone? If you’ve ever flown commercially, the answer is probably somewhere around 900 km/h. At that time, you were probably also the highest you’ve ever been off the ground at about 11 kilometers high. That’s awesome!

Now consider the International Space Station, the ISS. It flies around Earth at a speed of 27,600 km/hour or 7.66 km/second, and at an altitude (height) of up to 435 kilometers. Not only this, it has people living on it full time! Over 300 people have been on it since it was launched in 1998.

The ISS is a flying home to astronauts that are constantly performing science experiments to learn more about how our universe works. They are learning about everything from what happens to the human body in zero-G to how to deal with a fire when you’re trapped inside a space station with nowhere to go.

Thesis:


Getting objects into space is a Herculean task. It requires a supply chain involving a tremendous amount of planning and security measures; furthermore it requires a tremendous amount of tests and approvals at levels of NASA that us as normal people don't even know exist. This project will attempt to help the reader to appreciate just how difficult it is to get things to Space, and then will show that 3D printing, as an emerging technology, is just about primed and ready to revolutionise how we think about Space and what we can get there.

What They Might Accomplish:

The colonization of space– that is, permanently establishing a home for humans off of Earth– is a very important quest for top scientists and research institutes in the world. Not just because it would be SUPER COOL!!!! but also because of other reasons. For instance, if Earth were to be struck by another meteor like the one that killed the dinosaurs, we’d be in for a really bad day. Or what if we run out of pretty, shiny things like gold and diamonds? What the hell would we do? We would have to go somewhere else to look for them. Right?


Orbital Distances from Earth: Notice how close the ISS orbits.

Rocket Launch


So, What's the Problem?:


We've now seen that getting something into space is really, really expensive. It's also dangerous and violent. The other problem is that it's not always known what pieces need to go up. Which piece will break first? Which will never break at all? Which tool will they need? Which tool might also break. It's far too expensive to send up a backup piece for each and every part on the shuttle. So, right now, what they do is send the parts needed plus the vital backup parts. While this is expensive, it's still possible.

But what happens when humans decide to colonize Mars? The journey to Mars will take up to nine months one way. What happens when humans are on Mars and they need a new 'a' key on keyboard? It will take 9 months for it to get there! What if something even more vital breaks and they need it replaced? It will take 9 months to get there! Basically, the ability to colonize Mars will greatly depend on new technologies, especially ones that allow manufacturing on Mars rather than manufacturing on Earth and then launching the part to Mars.

3D Printing to the Rescue:


3D printing was first developed in the 1980s. It is a manufacturing process that is additive, meaning that material is added to the structure that is being build rather than subtracted, such as when someone carves a cabinet out of a piece of wood. The reason 3D printing is the way of the future for manned missions to other worlds is that manufacturing can take place on the spot rather than having to go through a long supply chain starting on Earth.


Let's assume that there's a new piece is required on the ISS but it has never been there. Today, what will happen is that the piece will be developed by a group of engineers, then manufactured, then tested for its ability to withstand the forces of launch, and then tested for its ability to not fail in microgravity. Then it will finally be launched on one of the few launches that happen per year. What this all means is that a part reaching the ISS in an emergency, whether it's a standard part or a new one, can take months.


Not all parts, however need to go through this process. This is where 3D printing comes in.



Strategic Approach of Made In Space, Inc

As Made In Space, Inc has a unique market position which is almost impossible to be replaced in a short time, its strategic approach will no longer be like others industries. Made In Space, Inc does not need to prey for competitive advantage, its strategic approach should be focus on how to maintain its monopoly position of being a long term supplier of NASA.

It is undeniable that the approach of maintaining the monopoly of space 3D printing is the best way to maintain its stable development. However, this could be a stumbling block for Made In Space, Inc to discover the unexplored market. In order to maintain its quality to its sole client, NASA, Made In Space, Inc’s products has to be more related to space, or even customized to NASA’s needs. So the diversity and flexibility of its products are bound to be limited or even decreased. Their products may not be as popular as others less precise 3D printing products in public markets.

The strategic approach of Made In Space, Inc is singular but high return. For the public market, the potential of its unique space 3D printing technology will become lesser and lesser. However, when focus on its monopolized market, the space 3D printing, the potential of its technology is close to unlimited. Since human is still having very little knowing about the outer space, the need stable 3D printing technology is still very strong. It is a must that many new innovations or existing equipments will be needed in space travelling, and Made In Space, Inc is definitely one of the largest parties who could be benefited from it.

The technology of space 3D printing is irreplaceable right now. Its strategic inflections point may not be able to be seen in the coming 5 years. Unless there is a breakthrough of space travelling technology, such as a cheaper and faster way of space shuttle fossil. So the importance of 3D printing will be affected because the cost of sending actual objects to space is lower.

Industry Analysis: 3D Printing for International Space Station Resupply
Opportunities
Contribute to the Resupply of ISS
The use of 3D printing technology can help the astronauts perform station maintenance, build tools, and repair sections of the station in case of an emergency. For example, repair of essential components, upgrades of existing hardware, installation of new hardware where time is too little to wait for the resupply from Earth.

Reduce Cost of Spaceflight in Long Term
The technology could lower the overall cost of spaceflight. Astronauts can use 3D printing technology to print delicate tools in space. It could reduce the number of times of resupply missions, as well as reduce the use of parts for spacecraft and space station.

Lower Time Cost of Resupply
The astronauts can use the 3D printing technology to print the tools or parts in the space. They do not always need to wait for the resupply from the earth. As the technology is under developing, the printing time may become shorter and shorter in the future.

Contribute to the Future of Space Exploration
The use of 3D printing technology in the space is a new technology. If the technology of 3D printing in the zero gravity environments becomes mature, 3D printing may play an essential role in the future of space exploration (Made In Space, 2015).

Pitfalls
The safety problem
3D printer may emit toxic gasses in printing process. The 3D printing in space stations is processing in a confined space. There is a possibility that the emitted toxic gasses will be remained even though the filter system is well developed there. After all that is not an open area likes Earth. If we need to use this technology in the space, we have to develop a perfect environmental control unit to filter the harmful gasses. The cost for use the 3D printing technology in the space may increase.

The cost for 3D printing is high
As 3D printing is relatively a technology with high cost of development, so the prices cannot be competitive like other tradition products. Also, the popularity of 3D printing is still under developing, so the existing industries with similar technologies are still able to compete with lower production costs, which means lower prices (Consestimate, 2014).

Who Are They?


Made In Space is a company that dreams of expanding the human horizons beyond our own planet and going further into space than we ever have as a species. Its goal is quite simply "enabling humanity's future in space." The company has been working closely with NASA to gain unprecedented and otherwise impossible access to research facilities, scientists, and most importantly, the ISS. Since 2010, Made In Space has been developing new ways of utilising 3D printing technology on Earth and in Space, and it has even developed a special 3D printer that operates in microgravity and is currently in orbit testing its capabilities. It is truly a company that embodies the principle "business innovation is is about new value, not new things" (Sawhney, Wolcott & Arroniz, 2006, p.76).

Zero-G 3D Printer
Why is Made In Space, Inc Important?

Made In Space isn't just important for NASA or for the the ISS. It's important for humanity. By taking 3D printing technology into space, a whole new industry is being pioneered, and it's one that we will certainly need in the future. 3D printing is a technology that democratizes manufacturing by putting manufacturing plants on anyone's desk that wants one. This means that DIY (do it yourself) engineers all over the world can create things that would otherwise unavailable to them. What this also means is that anyone that wants to create and spread a product of their making can do so without having to go through a regular supply chain. He or she can now just invent, manufacture, and sell anything he or she wants right from the comfort of his or her own home.


In their book Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World, Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler describe how 3D printing is not only able to change the world in reality, but how it is an innovative technology that is exponential in principle. What this means is that, as a manufacturing technology, there are no longer the limitations that exist in traditional manufacturing. An exponential amount of people can create at their desks, meaning that they can create products that reach an exponential amount of people as well.


What this means for Made In Space and for space innovation in general is that it's no longer a few NASA scientists that are sitting behind closed doors that are able to create projects for the ISS. Now, people can design parts themselves and share them with NASA. NASA can also design parts and share them with the general public to print on their on 3D printers and have the parts tested in a crowdsourced way, thus putting the parts through many more rounds of testing, and far more creative types of testing than ever before. What Made In Space holds as a foundational values are reflective of the ideas in (author)'s piece suggesting that businesses must focus on creating a clear purpose for the organisation – ie., creating technology that will change the way that future generations explore space – and ensure that you stick to those purposes at all times (van Hove, 2014).


Made In Space is creating an industry that leverages the scaleability of 3D printing as well as the necessity to do it in space as soon as possible.


Made In Space, Inc SWOT:


  • Strengths
Made In Space, Inc. has the technology of Space's Zero-G printer, a 3D printer which can perform the 3D printing stably in zero-gravity state. This is the absolute advantage of Made In Space, Inc. which is hard to be threatened by other company with similar technologies.
The unique technology of Space's Zero-G printer, also help establish a good and close relationship with NASA. The funding of SBIR, which is an award from NASA provides them sufficient capital to continue and develop their company.
As the budget of outer space related projects is high, which means the potential profit for Made In Space, Inc. is high too. With its close relation with NASA, the Made In Space, Inc. has high possibility to be the contractor of those projects when comparing with other companies which are not the frequent partners of NASA.
  • Weaknesses
Its close relation with NASA means Made In Space, Inc. is strongly relying on it. Its passive role can be a bad side of the business.
As the outer space related projects are mostly political driven, and politics can be an unstable and uncontrollable factor. Made In Space, Inc.’s growth is easily be affected by the authorities and global economics. For example when there is an recession, the public expenditure of America is decreased, outer space related projects of NASA with high cost are likely to be cut or even terminated in order to fulfil other immediate costs.
As a 3D printing company with high technology level, their cost of development is high. In other words, the space of error in research and development is smaller than other businesses’ because it is like a one-shot development. A failure product can cost them about their entire project fund.
  • Opportunities
Not only targeting on the high end customers like NASA, Made In Space, Inc. can also explore the market of low cost market. With their technology level, it can massively produce the 3D printing products with lower technology level and price. Since the trend is 3D printing is rising, the market is yet to be fully developed. As one of the pioneers of this industry, Made In Space, Inc. should start capturing the civil market of 3D printing.
Apart from civil usage, with its close relationship with the government, Made In Space, Inc. should also consider their products in military usage. As American’s military budget is huge, even much more than its space projects, their technology will be a potential and popular in modern warfare industry, for example applying 3D printing on ammunitions production.
  • Threats
As 3D printing is relatively a technology with high cost of development, so the prices cannot be competitive like other tradition products. Also, the popularity of 3D printing is still under developing, so the existing industries with similar technologies are still able to compete against Made In Space, Inc. with lower production costs, which means lower prices.



"The World's Biggest Problems are the World's Biggest Business Opportunities":


Conclusion:


3D printing technology is not a new idea, but putting it in space is. It's also a very risky one. We believe that the reason that this industry exists as a commercial endeavour rather than a government funded secret project, is because of how much more capable the general public is to advance this project exponentially as compared to a select few scientists and engineers.


Take for example the parts that have been 3D printed on board the ISS. Most of them up to this point are simply test pieces, but one is particularly cool. In December 2014, a ratchet wrench was emailed up to the ISS. Freakin' emailed!!!! How you ask? The plans were developed by an engineer at Made In Space over the course of a few days and then they were emailed up to the ISS. Then, on board the ISS, the wrench was printed and used. That's so cool, isn't it?


Emailing physical products to Mars rather than sending the actual thing is going to be the way of the future. There is no question. We've already seen that any other way is virtually impossible.

3D Printed In Space: Ratchet Wrench
Made In Space, Inc. is the first company to partner with NASA to develop 3D printing technology that is specifically designed for, and deployed in, outer space. The company has a very, very strong first mover advantage here, and it is either financially or publicly backed by some of the world's most innovative and successful entrepreneurs. As time goes on and the technology advances, new ideas are sure to come about that will allow other exponential entrepreneurs develop and launch new companies. The human race is getting closer and closer to outer space, and this 3D printing technology is likely going to prove to be one of the most important steps in that journey.

References:


Consestimate. 2014. Retrieved 16 April 2015 from http://www.consestimate.com/us/en/NewsExchange/Article/671168.


Diamandis, P. & Kotler, S. (2015) Bold: How to Go Big, Create Wealth and Impact the World. New York: Simon & Schuster.


Diamandis, P. Retrieved 25 March 2015 http://www.businessinsider.com/peter-diamandis-space-trillionaire-entrepreneur-2015-2


ISS. Retrieved 25 March 2015, from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/STS-134_International_Space_Station_after_undocking.jpg


Made In Space, Inc. 2015. Retrieved 16 April 2015, from http://www.madeinspace.us/projects.


Made In Space, Inc. Retrieved 26 March 2015, from http://www.madeinspace.us/#section-portal

NASA. Space Ratchet Wrench. Retrieved 26 March 2015, from http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/ratchet_pic1.jpeg.

Rocket Launch. Retrieved 25 March 2015, from https://compastro.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/rocket-launch.jpg

Sawhney, M. Wolcott, R.C. & Arroniz, I. 2006. The 12 different ways for companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review. Vol. 47 No. 3.


van Hove, M. 2014. Transformation through strategy and innovation. Available at Strategos. Retrieved 16 April 2015 from www.strategos.com/transformation-strategy-innovation/.


Zero-G 3D Printer. Retrieved 26 March 2015, from http://www.madeinspace.us/#section-portal  


Thursday, March 5, 2015

Concorde's Fate in the Troposphere


Concorde’s Fate in the Troposphere: a Brief Analysis of the Rise and Fall of World’s Fastest Commercial Jet

Majestic Concorde:

Concorde is one of the most recognizable airplanes in the world. It was the fastest and the highest-flying commercial jet in history. It flew at over two times the speed of sound (2,179km/h or 1,354mp/h). It was an absolute marvel of collaboration, innovation, and technology, and yet, in 2003, after only having a total of 14 planes ever to fly commercially, it was permanently retired. With only one short-lived exception– the Soviet Tu-144– the Concorde was the only commercial aircraft to ever maintain a cruising speed higher than the sound barrier. So, why did it fail?

Introduction:
           
The 1940s to the 1970s ushered in a new era of commercial aviation growth as the Second World War came to an end, which led a safer and more comfortable economic space in which to operate. In that time, what is often called the Jet Age emerged. The here, the turbofan engine started appearing on such notable aircraft as the Boeing 707, giving rise to an unprecedented form of transport that could foreseeably become a widely accessible transport system, particularly on such long journeys as trans-Atlantic routes.
Boeing 707
Europe and America was starting to become connected in a way that very few people had previously experienced. The safety and reliability of these new engines allowed airplanes to soar to new heights, with more passenger and cargo capacity, and could travel new distances, in less time, for less cost as compared to an ocean liner (Boeing, 2015, para. 6).
The dramatic increase in speed and efficiency, coupled with the relatively new concept of flying faster than the speed of sound engineers quickly began searching for a way to maximally shorten travel times, particularly on common long-haul routes such as from London to New York. The ambition to flying for prolonged periods of time at speeds exceeding the speed of sound –approximately 1,225 km/h, also known as Mach 1– posed many difficult challenges for engineers as the conventional shape of an airplane was built for generating lift, not maximizing speed. These challenges were not seen as limitations, but rather considered to be obstacles for engineers to overcome, and given the prospect that the first company to figure out how to overcome them could dominate this sector, aggressive and expensive supersonic transport (SST) projects were launched in the USA, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union. Ultimately only one project prevailed: Concorde, built by Aérospatiale-BAC, which was a joint project between French and British teams.
This project will address the many physical challenges that faced SSTs, and will examine the competitive atmosphere in which the SST projects were conceived. We will then attempt to explain why the Concorde project, one of the most expensive and safest commercial aviation projects ever conceived, ultimately failed.

The Faster You Try to Go, the Harder Mother Nature Tries to Hold You Back:
           
In order to properly understand the demise of the Concorde, one must have at least a superficial appreciation as to why an SST project is so ambitious and difficult to develop.
  1. Lift vs. Drag: in the 1960s it was already understood that there are two major factors that affect the aerodynamics of an airplane, namely lift and drag. The shape of a wing is very important in the how the airplane flies. The longer the wingspan, the more area, and thus the more lift (ability to fly) a wing can generate, but this is exchanged for the fact that a longer wing has more leading edge, meaning that there is more parts of the wing ‘hitting’ the air. The problem with this design is that the leading edge causes drag (air resistance), thus requiring more power to overcome it. So, a solution to this challenge is the Delta wing, which reduces leading edge, and instead increases surface area by making the wing longer along the fuselage of the airplane. (photo of delta wing) This design allows for significantly faster flight due to less drag, but it also requires significantly faster speeds, thus more power, in order to stay airborne because it does not generate as much lift as the first design (Hirschberg, 1997, p.1-6).
    Concorde as compared to the Boeing 2707. Notice the totally different wings (Hirschberg, 1997, p.2-2).
  2. Sound Barrier: Sound travels through air. The speed of sound is a physical phenomenon that is affected by the way that air molecules move. When an object moves through air slower than the speed of sound, the air can bounce off of the object and essentially gets out of the way. But when this object is travelling faster than Mach 1 the air cannot bounce away fast enough, thus forming a sort of invisible wall of air. In order to overcome this resistance, the airplane requires a significant amount of extra thrust as compared to an airplane flying slightly below Mach speed.
  3. Sonic Boom: Traveling at faster than the speed of sound also creates what is described as a sonic boom, which is generally by observers as either a physical rumble or a the loud shockwave of an explosion. The sonic boom created by Concorde could be felt and heard on the ground below the plane.

These three limitations are important in understanding why the Concorde was ultimately not feasible in the airline industry.

Industry Analysis of 2003: PEST

Political: French and British companies, Aérospatiale and the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC), jointly created Concorde in the 1960s-70s under an international political treaty that prevented either company country from abandoning the project. This project would foreseeably be extraordinarily expensive, but it was considered necessary in order for the countries to remain at the forefront of civil aviation, particularly with regards to the Americans and the Soviets (Johnman & Francis, 2002). Concorde entered service in 1976 and remained a symbol of innovation and prestige that was closely linked to the founding countries. The aircraft was retired in 2003. At that time, Richard Branson, CEO of Virgin Atlantic Airways attempted to revive the Concorde by purchasing the entire British Airways fleet. Due to the concerns that future legal issues could arise for Airbus, British Airways, and the UK government if the airplane continued flying, Branson’s offer was rejected and Airbus discontinued any maintenance services for the aircraft.

Economic: A decline in economic activity in the early 2000s caused many countries to curtail their civil expenditures. Meanwhile, conflicts were arising in the Middle East that were also projected to cost a tremendous amount of money caused some governments to redirect their spending focuses. This economic climate affected many developed countries, sending many into economic recessions, which in turn affected civil consumption of luxury products like travel on board the Concorde.

Social: On 5 July 2000, Concorde suffered its first and only fatal crash soon after it left Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France. All on board, plus four on the ground, were killed in the accident. Due to the perceived aging of the aircraft being associated with the crash, and a fall in airline travel after the 11 September 2001 attacks in New York, Concorde’s passenger numbers began to fall and remained at unsustainable levels for the remainder of the aircraft’s operational life. Furthermore, public concern over greenhouse gas emissions was increasing, meaning that grossly inefficient transport vehicles were inevitably going to decline in popularity.

Technological: Concorde ran on four low-bypass– inefficient– turbofan engines (contrasted against the high-bypass engines of most other airplanes) that required afterburners to be engaged for a prolonged period of time in order to reach the desired cruising speed. This combination meant that the Concorde burned fuel at a significantly higher speed than other trans-Atlantic planes, while carrying only one quarter of the passengers of the popular Boeing 747. These characteristics were required in order to overcome the physical barriers described above. In this sense, the Concorde simply could not compete with other modern airliners in terms of fuel efficiency.

Competitive Analysis: Porter’s 5-Forces

Threat of new entrants
The threat of new entrants was very weak. The aviation industry required huge capital investment to enter, which made the barriers to entry extremely high. Government support was a necessary factor for entering into this industry, particularly in the SST category. The US government supported Boeing, while the French, German, Spanish and English governments founded Airbus. Concorde, they entered service in 1976 while they started researching and developing their supersonic passenger airliner in the 1950s. During this period, the British and French government injected huge capital into the project. In addition, as the safely issue was the main concern for the aviation industry, the sophisticated technological knowledge and expertise were required to develop the airliner.

Threat of substitute products or services

The threat of substitute products or services was high. The potential substitute products for airliner were train, car, boats, or subsonic, long haul planes. For the short and regional flight, people may choose these substitute products. For the long and international routes, particularly between the Americas and Europe, the threat of these substitutes was nearly eliminated as distances were simply too great to allow convenient non-air travel. However, the threat of substitutes such, as subsonic airlines, increased dramatically as more and more entered service in the 1970s, including the Boeing 747.

Bargaining power of customers (buyers)
At the beginning of the Concorde project, customers had relatively weak bargaining power. Only a few companies dominated the aviation industry the 1950s-60s. It was difficult for the airline companies to choose the alternative airliner brands. Also, buyers were not price sensitive as their choices were few. Moreover, the costs were very high for the companies that were already operating the Concorde to switch. For example, they need to hire the new maintenance staff and pilot as the construction of the airliner was different.

Bargaining power of suppliers
The bargaining power of suppliers was medium. The development of passenger airliner required extremely high-tech capacities. Requirement for the parts and equipment were also very high. For example, the engine, the avionics, and hybrid circuits were all specialty items, meaning that the suppliers had increased bargaining power due to a lack of competition. However, what lowered the suppliers’ bargaining power was that the aviation industry was dominated by few companies, meaning that parts and equipment were very unique and had to be sold to these few companies.

Intensity of competitive rivalry

The intensity of competitive rivalry was low. The commercial aviation industry was not yet matured during the Concorde’s development period. Although there were other SST projects being created in the United States (Boeing 2707) and in the USSR (Tupolev Tu-144), neither project was anywhere near as successful as the Concorde. The 2707 was terminated before production and the TU-144 had limited routes and only few 55 schedule passenger flights.
Boeing 2707
Tupolev Tu-144


After doing the industry analysis, Concorde might estimate that the aviation industry was not in an intense competition and they could gain a lot once the supersonic passenger airliner could be successfully developed by them. In order to forecast new
technology adoption, we can apply the theory from Lawrence K Vanston. He stated
that the drivers and constraints could be used to assess new technology adoption.
For the drivers, Concorde’s airliner could provide high satisfaction for their
passenger. For example, passenger could save half time if they travel by supersonic
passenger airliner instead of other airliners. For the constraints, the research and the
manufacture for supersonic passenger airliner cost too much. Concorde needed to
consider whether the cost could be decrease or not. If not, it is difficult for them to
make profit.


Everybody Wants It, but No One Will Buy:

            In the 1950s and 1960s, the commercial aviation industry was very young. Analysts were still unsure of what the trends would be for the future of air travel, but they seemed to be going up. In fact, starting in the 1960s, 17 separate airlines had placed orders for 75 aircraft with the hopes that the service provided by Concorde would keep them competitive in the growing market. But test after test ended up making it the most tested airplane ever (British Airways, 2015, para. 3). This, however, ended up being both its blessing and its. What the extensive testing of the airplane proved was that it was extremely reliable and showed that all of its performance promises were possible to keep. The downside to all the testing was that it became abundantly clear to prospective airlines that there were going to likely be some strict limitations put on the plane due to its abysmal fuel consumption and its very disruptive sonic boom. They all began to grow worried that carbon dioxide emissions into the high atmosphere, coupled with the audible and physical nuisances caused by the sonic boom. One by one, airlines started cancelling their orders and left all of the 14 commercial jets produced to be split evenly between British Airways and Air France.

What Went Wrong?:

            If we look around today, we can see that airline companies pop up all over the place. What we may notice even before we notice those that are appearing is those that are disappearing. The civil aviation industry is notoriously competitive, has very thin profit margins, and many companies often spend a significant amount of time running at a deficit. This has a lot to do with customers wanting to pay lower and lower prices while operating costs continue to climb, particularly with the price of fuel.
            Concorde customers, both regular and new, that were willing to pay the first-class ticket prices, were abundant for the operating life of the airplane until the famous crash in 2000.
Moments before Concorde's first and only crash
 Even at that time, cost was not the real issue for the passengers, but it was an increasingly burdensome cost on British Airways and Air France, as operating costs continued to climb. Furthermore, passengers paying the Concorde prices had the alternative of flying for the same prices in the airlines’ first-class services on their regular jetliners.
            In our view, the thing that was the most troubling for Concorde was never its image or the costs of doing business, but was rather the physical limitations posed on the plane by Mother Nature. Moving at over the speed of sound requires a tremendous amount of energy that had no prospects improving the foreseeable future. Since the Concorde started flying in the 1960s until now, the technology has not really improved. The basic logic is: if you want to go faster, you have to push harder. To push harder, you need more energy.
Fuel needed to get a rocket to space
 The emission emitted by the Concorde, along with its low seat and weight capacity, and its disproportionately high consumption of jet fuel as compared to other planes meant that Concorde was not a technology that engineers could improve upon.
            These limitations were likely unforeseeable at the time of development as the engineers were not able to anticipate the innovations that would come. How could they have known that in 2015 there would still be no way to fly at those speeds, with that amount of weight, for that long, without burning a tremendous amount of fuel? To them, probably nothing seemed impossible. Consider that only about 50 years before they developed the Concorde, manned flight was an impossibility, and then during development, humans landed on the Moon and then safely returned to talk about it. As Robert C. Merton in the Harvard Business Review wants us to appreciate, there is always a risk when treading into new technological territories. There is no way to know how the technology will progress and how it will be used once you put it in the hands of public users (Merton, 2013). With airplane efficiencies trending downward since the 1960s, Concorde was simply not a product that could continue to do what it was doing without an inevitable fall in customers due to growing awareness about the connection between aircraft emissions and climate change.
Airplane efficiency trends
           
What Can We Learn?

            The Concorde was one of the most magnificent flying machines ever invented. It overcame every technological and physical barrier and showed the world what was possible. In the end, though, the technology failed. So what can we take away from this project? Perhaps the best thing that we can take away from it is that Mother Nature is an extremely powerful force. She grants no exceptions to anyone with regards to her rules. If you can’t compete by playing by her rules, you shouldn’t compete at all. We can always make things smaller or bigger; we find new and faster ways to acquire and store information; we can make buildings taller and elevators faster; what we can’t do is break Mother Nature’s rules. It is simply impossible.
            Air resistance, as an example, is something that we faced in the 1960s, and we face it today. It is one of the main contributors to why cars can’t go faster or drive further on a single tank of gas; it is why we have meteor showers at night; it is why parachutes work. Concorde’s designers couldn’t have foreseen that we wouldn’t have a sleeker way to deal with wind resistance today, but they could have known that it was always going to be there. If your innovation is not up to the challenge of playing by Mother Nature’s rules, your innovation is doomed to fail.




Reference
  1. Boeing. (2015). The Boeing Airplane Co. …The Jet Age Begins. Retrieved from http://www.boeing.com/boeing/history/narrative/n036boe.page
  2. Hirschberg, M.J. (1997). A Case Study by Aerospatiale and British Aerospace on the Concorde, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Retrieved from the ProQuest Ebrary. 
  3. Lewis Johnman & Frances M. B. Lynch. (2002). A Treaty Too Far? Britain, France, and Concorde, 1961-64, 20th Century British History. London, England.
  4. British Airways. (2015). About Concorde. Retrieved from http://www.britishairways.com/en-gb/information/about-ba/history-and-heritage/celebrating-concorde#6
  5. Robert C. Merton. (2013). Innovation Risk. Harvard, Massachusetts.
  6. Concorde. (2013) Retrieved Mar 9, 2015, from http://www.icare-aeronautique.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/concorde-wallpaper.jpg
  7. Boeing707. Retrieved Mar 9, 2015, from http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/1/7/4/1948471.jpg 
  8. Boeing2707.(2008). Retrieved Mar 9, 2015, from http://up-ship.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/boeing_2707-300_prototype.gif 
  9. Tu-144. Retrieved Mar 9, 2015, from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Aeroflot_Tupolev_Tu-144_1977_Volpati-2.jpg 
  10. Rocket launch. (2013). Retrieved Mar 9, 2015, from https://compastro.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/rocket-launch.jpg 
  11. Concorde on fire. Retrieved Mar 9, 2015, from http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vzbNlaLyWuA/maxresdefault.jpg
  12. AVweb. (2010). Supersonic Flight, Sonic Booms. Available from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWGLAAYdbbc