Why must South Korea's manufacturing industry move beyond “outsourcing production to China”?

 

The advancement of industrial 3D printing technology is no longer a distant dream. Right now, it has become a core technology that will determine the competitiveness and survival of our manufacturing industry.

However, at this critical turning point, there is a bitter piece of news. A talented young graduate from a prestigious university started a 3D printing business, but the business model is none other than a brokerage service for Chinese 3D printing companies.

 

 

It involves receiving design data from Korean companies and having it printed at Chinese factories, essentially a “brokerage-style outsourcing intermediary” model.

This case goes beyond a simple startup idea, raising a fundamental question: why are Korean talents now confined to roles connecting overseas production rather than developing technology?

This article accurately highlights the current state of Korea's 3D printing industry and the crisis of technological sovereignty, raising important issues about the industrial security risks and technological accumulation gaps that outsourcing technology could bring.

In this article, based on the aforementioned opinion piece, we will delve deeply into why South Korean manufacturing must resist the temptation of “cheap outsourcing” and secure sovereignty over 3D printing technology, using real-world examples to illustrate the reasons. We strongly recommend that practitioners seeking a reliable 3D printing company read this article in its entirety.

China's aggressive expansion and the dangerous strategy of “deficit exports”

China is openly pursuing manufacturing dominance through national projects like “Made in China 2025.” Backed by massive government subsidies, it has quickly taken over future industries like electric vehicles, batteries, and drones. This strategy closely mirrors the “deficit export” strategy South Korea once adopted to drive economic growth.

 

“Deficit exports” refer to

a strategy of selling products overseas at prices below production costs to secure market share. The intention is to monopolize the market by sacrificing short-term profits to eliminate competitors. The Chinese government is supporting this strategy by providing massive subsidies to domestic companies. For example, the practice of providing subsidies to companies for each electric vehicle produced has led to the emergence of hundreds of manufacturers, ultimately resulting in an oversupply and the ironic phenomenon known as the “electric vehicle graveyard.”

 

In this way, China is aggressively pursuing South Korea in advanced industries such as semiconductors, robotics, and 3D printing, backed by strong national support. Relying on China's production infrastructure while focusing solely on short-term costs is akin to becoming part of this massive strategy.

The trap of being a “technology intermediary nation”: What are we losing?

Let's return to the example of the young entrepreneur mentioned earlier. Developing industrial 3D printing equipment domestically, testing materials, and optimizing mass production processes requires years of time and billions of won in investment. On the other hand, by sending data to China, you can receive a prototype in just one day at less than half the cost of domestic production. At first glance, this seems like a reasonable choice.

However, this choice leads to fatal consequences. It completely eliminates the opportunity to accumulate technology. The process of completing a single product involves numerous trials and errors, failures, and the experience data accumulated through overcoming them. This constitutes tacit knowledge—the core know-how of a company—which is difficult to express in numerical terms.

Outsourcing to obtain only the “end product” is akin to handing over this valuable experiential asset to another country. If this “data de-Koreanization” accelerates, Korea could degenerate into a “subcontracting platform nation” that only draws blueprints and outsources all production to foreign countries. Once China begins to replicate design technology more quickly and efficiently, we will be pushed into becoming an OEM-dependent nation that merely sends orders.

The power to own the future, technological sovereignty beginning with 3D printing

3D printing is not merely a manufacturing tool. It is a “knowledge-based manufacturing technology” that operates based on digital design data. CAD/STL drawings, material composition ratios, laser intensity, process parameters—all this accumulated know-how can be transmitted in the form of “data,” and this is the greatest risk of 3D printing outsourcing. The technology itself is structured to flow across borders.

 

In particular, outsourcing 3D printing to China means that not only are parts being printed, but the entire design logic and manufacturing process are being transferred. This is equivalent to handing over “invisible technological assets” rather than labor.

 

For example,

• Thermal control design methods to prevent material deformation
• Specific content for 3D printing mass production
• Design for lightweight part manufacturing, etc.

Such tacit knowledge is not immediately visible but constitutes the core competitiveness of a company. However, if this data is stored on Chinese servers or replicated through reverse engineering analysis during the outsourcing process, the technology may no longer be “ours.” The bigger issue is that it is difficult to legally protect this or prove infringement. This is because know-how, trial and error, and process understanding are not documented but remain as experience. China can use this data to quickly release similar high-efficiency models to the market.

As a result, Korean companies may find themselves in a situation where the technology they have worked hard to develop is overshadowed by Chinese products in terms of price competition. In digital manufacturing, such as 3D printing, design technology and production technology are not separated. Once the data is transferred externally, everything, including why the design was created that way, is also transferred. Ultimately, the entire process can be reconstructed in China.

 

What is more serious is that there are intermediary agencies that pretend to be domestic companies even though they have no production base in Korea. Customers end up transferring sensitive data overseas without even realizing it. As outsourcing dependency increases, domestic technology internalization capabilities weaken, and personnel lose opportunities to develop technology directly. The industrial ecosystem stagnates, and the very foundation of “technological self-reliance” is shaken. Ultimately, when supply chain crises or geopolitical conflicts arise, we may find ourselves unable to exercise manufacturing sovereignty.

The costs saved by borrowing China's 3D printing infrastructure now could become the costs and risks we must pay in future manufacturing competitiveness.

Four survival strategies for the revival of a manufacturing powerhouse

So what should we do? To overcome China's fierce challenges and internal structural issues and regain our status as a manufacturing powerhouse, the following four strategies are urgently needed.

1. Investment in technology-independent R&D: We must move beyond the stage of imitating and assembling others' technologies. Bold investments are needed to secure core technologies such as 3D printing materials, equipment, and software.
2. Strengthening domestic production bases: The strength of manufacturing comes from domestic production bases. As GLUCK is expanding its automated 3D printing factory in Paju, Gyeonggi Province, the government needs to implement proactive reshoring policies and tax incentives to encourage companies to invest domestically and expand their production facilities.
3. Industry-specific talent cultivation: Technological competitiveness ultimately comes from people. It is necessary to improve working conditions so that science and engineering talents can work satisfactorily and to establish an education system that meets the needs of the industry.
4. Reestablishing the role of the government: The government must become a strong supporter of corporate innovation by relaxing regulations and providing customized incentives. It is important to create a fair market environment where the creativity and spirit of challenge of the private sector can be fully exerted.

Choosing the Future: The Journey Toward Technological Independence

Outsourcing 3D printing technology to China may offer short-term cost savings, but in the long run, it could become a poison that erodes the future of our manufacturing industry. The small costs we save today may become the expensive price of “technological dependence” that future generations will have to pay.

 

 

GLUCK is a domestic industrial 3D printing specialist service company capable of mass production.

 

 

 

If you are seeking a 3D printing company that goes beyond being a simple outsourcing provider and collaborates on achieving technological self-reliance, please contact GLUCK today.

 

 

 

📩 Production and Consultation Inquiries: support@glucklab.com