On-demand manufacturing is rapidly gaining traction across industries as a way to secure availability of legacy and other low-volume parts. These are often components with unpredictable demand and long lead times, making traditional stockholding inefficient and costly. For many OEMs, on-demand offers a more flexible, efficient way to meet customer needs without overcommitting to inventory.
The challenge lies in how to access the right capabilities while ensuring every part meets the same rigorous standards as those produced through conventional routes.
Most OEMs already have trusted, long-term supplier relationships. These suppliers are proven, vetted, and aligned with OEM quality expectations, but their operations are usually optimized for volume and stability, not for agility or sporadic demand.
Supply chains are typically built for scale or flexibility, rarely both. While existing suppliers may be willing to adapt, low-volume or one-off production often falls outside their normal operating model. As a result, they may charge a premium to accommodate such requests or, in some cases, decline the work entirely.
Another limitation is certification capability. Many suppliers are not set up to produce critical or class parts, where testing and certification by recognized bodies (such as DNV or ABS) are required. Managing such compliance across multiple suppliers becomes an additional layer of complexity for OEMs.
Even with trusted suppliers, OEMs often face higher costs, extended lead times, and significant internal coordination to manage these exceptional cases.
Upside: strong existing relationships, known quality standards, no need to requalify vendors.
Downside: limited agility, premium pricing for low volumes, inconsistent certification capabilities, and increased internal workload to manage each order.
To increase flexibility, some OEMs attempt to establish new relationships with suppliers capable of handling low-volume production. While this can broaden access to technologies and regional capacity, the process is slow and resource-intensive.
Each supplier must be identified, qualified, and tested. Ensuring that new suppliers also meet OEM and class certification standards adds even more complexity. Maintaining consistent documentation and traceability across multiple new suppliers becomes a full-time task, one that demands engineering oversight and quality management far beyond what most OEMs can dedicate to legacy or aftermarket parts.
Upside: potential to expand technological and regional coverage.
Downside: fragmented quality management, inconsistent certification standards, IP exposure risk, and high administrative overhead.
In rare cases, OEMs consider investing in their own additive or digital manufacturing equipment. While this offers complete control over IP and standards, it comes at a phenomenal cost, not just in equipment but also in training, certification, and infrastructure.
Even large OEMs find it impractical to invest in every process needed to serve the full range of materials, part types, and global locations.
Upside: full control, secure IP environment, complete integration with internal standards.
Downside: exceptionally high capital cost, long time-to-market, limited technology coverage, and slow scalability.
The partner model provides a single, structured route to adoption. Instead of managing dozens of individual suppliers, OEMs work through a qualified partner network that offers engineering oversight, certified suppliers, compliance frameworks, and a unified operating model for communication, quality, and traceability.
Crucially, partners are equipped to coordinate testing and certification for critical and class parts, ensuring compliance with both OEM and classification society standards. This gives OEMs confidence that on-demand parts meet the same assurance level as those produced through traditional routes.
This approach enables OEMs to retain control of their IP and standards while gaining the agility to produce any part, anywhere, without the burden of supplier management or the investment of building in-house capabilities.
Upside: access to a vetted, multi-technology global network; class-compliant certification capability; reduced risk; built-in quality assurance, traceability, and scalability, all through a single point of contact.
Downside: processes may differ slightly from existing supplier routines; trust and transparency are essential to success.
For OEMs, each option represents a trade-off between control, agility, and scalability. While traditional supplier models ensure reliability, they rarely provide the flexibility or certification coverage needed for low-volume, time-sensitive production. The partner route bridges that gap, combining agility, compliance, and oversight, making it the most practical path to adopting on-demand manufacturing at scale.
Here are the essential considerations when selecting a partner.
On-demand manufacturing is not a single process but a suite of technologies, from Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) and Laser Powder Bed Fusion to rapid casting, CNC machining, and more. Each has unique advantages and limitations.
A reliable partner takes a technology-neutral stance. Neutrality ensures every part is matched to the most suitable manufacturing route rather than being forced into the process an individual supplier happens to operate.
Aftermarket parts are both a revenue stream and an extension of an OEM’s brand. Any compromise on data security or customer relationships risks eroding that trust, and consequently, revenue.
A trusted partner must therefore operate under clear legal, ethical, and technical safeguards, including:
Non-disclosure and code-of-conduct compliance across the supplier base, binding every participant to the same standards as the OEM.
Data masking and controlled access, so suppliers only see the information needed to manufacture the part, and never the full portfolio or customer context.
OEM-first engagement: the partner acts solely as an enabler for IP owners, never bypassing the OEM to reach end users.
One of the greatest hurdles in adopting on-demand manufacturing is supplier management. This is where the partnership route becomes superior. A true partner assumes the burden of supplier management, providing OEMs with immediate access to qualified capacity across technologies and regions. With a global and regionally established network, partners give OEMs the agility to produce what is needed, when and where it is needed, without the delays and risks of building supplier relationships one by one.
A partner should therefore provide:
Independent engineering oversight: every part reviewed for manufacturability, not just priced and quoted.
Access to a broad, qualified network: reducing the burden of vetting suppliers individually.
A structured operating model: communication, quality, and traceability managed under one framework, rather than fragmented across dozens of suppliers.
By consolidating these functions, a partner reduces risk, accelerates adoption, and enables OEMs to scale supply without disrupting existing operations.
On-demand manufacturing doesn’t change what defines quality. Parts must still meet the same requirements as those produced through conventional methods.
The key question for OEMs is whether a prospective partner can demonstrate that these measures are built into their process, not added as an afterthought. Certification and inspection must align with existing OEM specifications and class requirements.
Traceability is essential, especially for safety-critical environments. A trusted partner should provide:
End-to-end logging of requirements, manufacturing steps, and test results.
Digital traceability built into a secure platform, ensuring visibility for repeat orders.
Documentation aligned with OEM and regulatory standards, so each part is delivered with a complete record.
This strengthens confidence not only in first delivery but also in future repeat production.
For OEMs, on-demand manufacturing offers a smarter way to sustain the availability of critical and legacy parts. But success depends on choosing the right partner.
Insights | 3 October 2025