"I never got around to 2D processing" is one of your well-known quotes. You make it sound like it is a necessary evil to enter the third dimension.

It is. I never wanted anything to do with 2D processing. But customers who order 3D parts want to obtain all of their components from a single source if possible. So 2D cutting is a step in the process chain that we have to offer. That's why we started up our business with machines for both processing methods. While we were pushing hard for 3D processing, surprisingly, we received an increasing number of requests for 2D components, which shows that the two complement one another nicely. At all three of our facilities, next to 3D processing cells we have flat-bed machines that are used for large-batch processing, particularly for parts for convertible car tops. But we do not want to expand 2D technology. There are specialized companies for those jobs - I don't necessarily want to compete with them. Our strength is and remains large-batch 3D laser material processing.

How do you define "large batch"?

These days, we define it as up to 350,000 units per part. We have built up a production capacity that enables us to produce 50,000 parts monthly. When it all began in 1994, we didn't foresee this volume. At that time 3D laser processing was only used for prototype construction. In large-batch processing, parts were mechanically separated. Then came thermoformed car body parts. Serial production first emerged when automobile manufacturers made the transition to it. Now we mainly cut B-pillars, sills and side paneling for the automotive industry, but also parts for home appliances, commercial trucks, farm machinery and equipment and profiles for doors and windows.

Although you have specialized in large-batch production, you still continue to produce prototypes. Does that pay off?

Yes, it pays off for us. We have a sophisticated system to complete these types of orders fast. The standard equipment for a prototype part costs only about 250 Euros. One day is enough to construct a prototype device and to ramp up production. In Harsewinkel, prototype production makes up about 40 percent of the total production capacity; in Drolshagen, it's 25 percent. At our facility in Lohfelden, it is only 1 percent. Currently serial production is the strongest part of our business. But to keep up we always have to work with the most modern machines, otherwise we don't need to bother at all. To keep up with the pace of technological change, we replace our machines every 48 months. If we didn't, our machine fleet would be obsolete, the machines too slow, and we would no longer be competitive.

Recently you began using your first high-end 3D machine with a disk laser, the TruLaser Cell 7040. What tipped the scales in favor of the solid-state laser?

The low power consumption was a major deciding factor for me. The machine may be more expensive than the CO2 model, but in the long run it will pay off. TRUMPF quotes a power savings of 40,000 Euros per year. But even if I only save 30,000 Euros annually per machine and add the total savings together for 10 machines, that comes to 300,000 Euros in savings. In addition, unlike the CO2 model, which had to be serviced at regular intervals, the laser requires no maintenance. We just have to replace the air filter units once in a while. This means no downtimes. Another benefit is improvement in the quality of the parts produced. With the solid-state laser, there is less burr formation, so that we hardly have to do any touch-up work. Lastly, the machine is extremely fast.