Additive manufacturing (AM) has gained prominence over the last 15 years and become a viable manufacturing option. Since there is great industrial interest to implement serial production of products using AM, the education of engineers in design for additive manufacturing (DfAM) is important today. DfAM extends on design for manufacturing to provide knowledge about the new design opportunities enabled by AM. A set of design heuristics for additive manufacturing (DHAM) to assist designers with conceptual-level DfAM has previously been proposed. In this paper, these DHAM are evaluated through workshops with 3 engineering companies and 19 engineers, in which the participants re-design existing company products for AM using the DHAM as an aid, and then give feedback. The DHAM are well received by the workshop participants, and they find that the DHAM are good for teaching others about the capabilities of AM, provide a checklist of items to consider to help avoid oversights, and encourage the generation of new ideas. Criticisms include the number of examples provided and the lack of information about how to implement the ideas concretely. It is also found that the DHAM fulfil 16 of 18 criteria for early design phase DfAM methods, identified in academic literature.

The concept of Design for Additive Manufacturing (DfAM) is gaining popularity along with AM, despite its scopes are not well established. In particular, in the last few years, DfAM methods have been intuitively subdivided into opportunistic and restrictive. This distinction is gaining traction despite a lack of formalization. In this context, the paper investigates experts' understanding of DfAM. In particular, the authors have targeted educators, as the perception of DfAM scopes in the future will likely depend on teachers' view. A bespoke survey has been launched, which has been answer by 100 worldwide-distributed respondents. The gathered data has undergone several analyses, markedly answers to open questions asking for individual definitions of DfAM, and evaluations of the pertinence of meanings and acceptations from the literature. The results show that the main DfAM aspects focused on by first standardization attempts have been targeted, especially products, processes, opportunities and constraints. Beyond opportunistic and restrictive nuances, DfAM different understandings are characterized by different extents of cognitive endeavor, convergence vs. divergence in the design process, theoretical vs. hands on approaches.