TWO

charging,” Kenik explained. While at Teton, Kenik helped to secure a partnership with Ultimaker, which included API access and joint marketing, and a partnership with Stratasys, which included API access, as well as one-way access to its sales channel and marketing content. The relationship with Ultimaker didn’t come with an upfront cost, but the one with Stratasys did.

“They’re providing services for those levels and that is worth something,” Kenik said.

“It really depends on what you’re giving back to your partner [as to whether it’s justifiable to charge a fee]. The other aspect of it is if we had a formalised partner programme, and we had 20 or 30 different partners, what you’re missing is quality control. If anyone has access to that, you run the risk of creating workflows and user experiences that aren’t up to the standards that you as the OEM expect. So, if I charge for that, it’s in your best interest to make sure that you are providing a valuable service and the user experience is up to par.”

Industry consultant Lee-Bath Nelson, meanwhile, suggests fixing bugs – of which the MES is dependent on the OEM – is another justification for charging an upfront fee. There is also an argument that says a company allowing an external outfit access to data generated by the use of its products should come at a cost, especially in a world where data is becoming increasingly valuable. But the counter to that – one which Wegner is about to put forward – is that it is merely short-term thinking.

“You should be thinking about the kind of market that we can grow together,” Wegner said. “Now, I do understand that you’re providing a service of data, [but] that actually belongs to your customers. Making it more accessible to your customers is maybe a service for which you may be able to charge a relatively small amount, maybe on an annual basis, and which they’re all doing, full stop. But then charging the developers too who are trying to help you, both sides of the coin, that’s just being nefarious, trying to make an extra quick buck.

“[Those companies] don’t see the partnership value. That data isn’t valuable until [we] make it valuable, until the software that we have ends up using that data to update the status of the build, and therefore the status of the order. And now fewer people get calls because they know where their part is at any given moment. That’s a very simple thing to do with the data, but it’s the value-add thing to do with the data.”

This debate shines a spotlight on the industry and its culture. To understand the clash of perspectives between technology providers is to understand a market still coming around to the idea that openness and collaboration are pivotal for the technology to be applied to the scales they are targeting.

“From my point of view, the AM industry very often lacks the capabilities around partnering,” Witter offered. “So, why is that a challenge, and where's it coming from? The AM industry is very much still dominated by innovators. If you're innovating something, you're trying to raise the business, you are very much focused on securing your IP. If this is mainly a fear to your business, you will never be able to partner because [for that] you need a certain openness. And it's not about being stupid or naive, you need to make good contracts and agreements, but you need to be able to share with partners.”

Witter added that the business models of AM companies need to be fair and need to be centered around the customer. After all, when business leaders lock horns over the varying business models within the industry, it is the end users, often not involved in such negotiations, that lose out. And if the end user can’t get what they want from the AM technology providers, they’re likely to look elsewhere.

Kenik, maintaining a balanced view, empathises with the MES providers, but like Witter, believes software and hardware companies should do all they can to find a deal that works for all.

“As an OEM,” Kenik said, “you are partnering with those companies to ensure your customers are successful, and you’re hoping that your customers come back and buy more material, more printers, anything like that. The partnership would definitely expand your total addressable market.

“At the end of the day, if my customers are asking for something that we are not going to build and we are not going to buy, and I have a partner who is willing to solve that problem, I’m going to work with that partner and figure out how to solve the problem. If my partner was coming back and saying, ‘you need to pay me a tonne of money,’ I would say, ‘no, but let’s find a solution.’ Each partnership is typically a tiny bit different. There are compromises that are made.”

“Integrations are in everyone’s interest,” agreed Nelson. “A compromise that seems fair to me is to offer API access for free – through a partner or API agreement – but charge an annual or quarterly fee for a package of support and supporting tools, such as a simulator or development sandbox. In addition, there is the matter of making sure that data is released legally by its owner in favour of the software partner and/or the OEM. This is one of several reasons for restricting or managing API access, even if it is free. Another model that has been explored in the past, but MES players don’t like much, is a revenue share model where the OEM want a piece of the MES revenues. This is a seemingly simple solution but executing it without having to open the company books for scrutiny is a difficult feat.”

Clearly, some compromise is needed, and several options are being put forward. But, right now, Authentise is steadfast in its refusal to work with companies who it deems don’t align with its own ideals.

“We’re going to continue to fight them on this topic,” Wegner concluded. “Hopefully, they’ll end up understanding the joint vision that we hold for the industry and work with us as partners, and not fight against us.”