With Additive Manufacturing (AM), manufacturing companies have the potential to develop more geometrically and functionally complex products. Design for AM (DfAM) has become an expression implying the need to design differently for the AM process, compared to for conventional, usually "subtractive" manufacturing methods. There is a need to understand how AM will influence the product development process and the possibilities to create innovative designs, from the perspective of the product development engineer. This paper explores the expected influence of AM on the product development process in a space industry context. Space industry is characterized by small-scale production, and is increasingly cost-oriented. There is a general belief that AM could pave the way for more efficient product development. Three companies have been studied through interviews, observations and workshops. Results show that engineers' expected implications of introducing AM in the space industry are: The involvement and influence of customers and politics on innovativeness; the need for process understanding and usage of new tools for DfAM-thinking; the need for qualification of AM processes.

While many argue that Additive Manufacturing (AM) opens up new possibilities in design due to its higher degree of design freedom, it is also suggested that it can increase creativity in product design. It has been further proposed that creative outcomes are limited by the imagination of the designer: designers are often asked to take full advantage of the new design potentials given by AM, yet without having the supports that are needed to increase their creativity. Current literature focuses neither on supporting creative perspectives in Design for AM (DfAM) nor on how to manage the higher degree of design freedom that can be present. As a consequence of this noticeable gap in the literature, this paper continue to explore what areas that need to be considered in creativity management, to fully support designers in utilising their creative abilities in relation to AM in design. The paper proceeds through a literature study on creativity in DfAM and presents a case study with experienced designers who are just starting to work with AM in their design practices. This paper contributes to the field with the notion of a creativity layer laid upon DfAM, visualized by three characteristics of creativity (expertise, creative thinking skills and motivation) drawn from previous research. This results in three concrete propositions of areas that need to be considered in future research on how to include a creativity management perspective in DfAM.

It is suggested that the space industry is an ideal case for Additive Manufacturing (AM), with a low production volume and need for complex geometries. However, few engineers have experience of AM design. One way to support design engineers with limited experience of AM is the use of design heuristics, to enhance variety, quality and creativity of potential designs. This paper is based on literature studies and observations of creative workshops with companies from the space industry. Results showed that heuristics assisted designers and 8/10 heuristics was utilised during the ideation phase. 

The advent of additive manufacturing (AM) in recent years have had a significant impact on the design process. Because of new manufacturing technology, a new area of research emerged – Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) with newly developed design support methods and tools. This paper looks into the current status of the field regarding the conceptual design of AM products, with the focus on how literature sources treat design heuristics and design principles in the context of DfAM. To answer the research question, a systematic literature review was conducted. The results are analysed, compared and discussed on three main points: the definition of the design heuristics and the design principles, level of support they provide, as well as where and how they are used inside the design process. The paper highlights the similarities and differences between design heuristics and design principles in the context of DfAM.

Additive Manufacturing (AM) is often considered to increase opportunities for creativity in design compared to traditional manufacturing methods. At the same time, it is suggested that regulated work can have a negative effect on engineers’ creative abilities, which are linked to three components of creativity (expertise, motivation, and creative thinking skills). Due to the ‘newness’ of AM, engineers need to broaden their expertise to fully exploit their creative potential while using AM. Previous research has presented support tools to assist engineers to understand the complexity of AM. A majority of such studies focus on novice engineers, rather than providing an understanding of how AM is involved in industrial practices. This paper follows three case studies from the space industry, a regulated industry, that aims to re-design a product for AM over a 21-month time period. The purpose is to explore how restrictions affect engineers’ opportunities to build AM expertise for creativity in a regulated industry. Results show the importance that case-specific aspects have on an engineer’s learning path for adopting AM. Engineers find themselves in a complex situation, with a conflict between being ‘safe’ or innovative, where innovation within such regulated industries is often compared to innovating ‘in a box’.