Most additive manufacturing conversations start with the technology. The panel discussion on resilience by distribution at the ASTM 16th Workshop started with a more practical question: what happens when a critical part is needed now, and the supply chain says weeks or months?
That question, and the trust problem behind it, shaped the entire discussion.
The case for additive manufacturing in MRO and spares is well discussed by now: long OEM lead times, the ability to modify parts for unique operational needs, and a chance to reduce stockpiling and warehousing costs.
AM is not a replacement for traditional manufacturing. The right process depends on the part, the volume, and what is needed at that moment. And in sectors like defense, cost discipline and quality assurance are crucial. Every dollar spent must be justified, and reliability and repeatability across prints matter as much as speed.
That emphasis on repeatability is what pulled the conversation toward a harder question: how do you prove a part is reliable to everyone who needs to trust it?
If there was a single thread running through the panel, it was trust: specifically, how do you transfer trust across a distributed manufacturing network?
The answer, unsurprisingly, is data. Trust in a print supplier has to rest on a verified data package that spans incoming information from OEMs and suppliers, in-process monitoring, and outgoing verification, starting with the feedstock itself. Certification and classification societies add a second layer, applying independent scrutiny against industry requirements. Together, these are what allow a part and its repeatability to meet industry standards.
Capturing all this data consistently, rather than as one-off verification, is what the panel described as the next step: the digital part passport.
Image: The panel line up for 'Resilient by Distribution: Digital Inventory, MRO, and Point-of-Need Manufacturing', 16th AM COE Snapshot Workshop, 2026
This is where the conversation turned toward standardization. Parts, especially safety-critical ones, need a consistent format for capturing part data before that data can be stored in a digital inventory. The panel pointed to a standardized way of capturing the manufacturing process plan, drawings, feedstock data, and agreed test methods, referencing frameworks like API 20S and DNV-ST-B203 for energy applications. As the panel suggested, the more this data accumulates, the testing required for each new part may actually decrease over time.
A passport built on shared drawings and process data only works if the ownership behind that data is protected too.
Protecting OEM intellectual property is a growing priority as parts move through a distributed network of print suppliers. One practice already in use is white-labeling drawings, stripping out identifying details so a design can be shared and produced without exposing its origin or ownership.
A drawing alone does not capture how a part is meant to function within its larger application, and that context is important. Building out stronger IP management systems, ones that protect the design while still giving print suppliers what they need to produce the part correctly, is essential to keeping OEMs comfortable handing work into the ecosystem.
The panel's future vision centered on a concise, standardized way to capture part quality evidence, alongside clearer guidance on the time and cost of testing across AM's many layers. There was a shared vision that AM could eventually be treated less like a special case and more like any other manufacturing standard, once the industry has enough shared data and trust to support it.
The panel's discussion made one thing clear: resilience by distribution is less about the printer itself, and more about the trust, data, and IP structures built around it. Getting those foundations right is what will determine how quickly on-demand manufacturing moves from a promising alternative to a standard part of the industry's supply chain.
Insights | 15 September 2026