Design For Excellence

DESIGN
FOR
EXCELLENCE
James G. Bralla
Manufacturing Consultant
North Jackson, Pennsylvania
Technicraft Publishers
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-PublicationData
Bralla, James G.
Design for excellence / James G. Bralla
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-07-007138-1
1. Design, Industrial. I. Title.
TS171.B69 1996
745.24~20 95-21927
CIP
Copyright 0 1996 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Copyright reverted 2008 to James G. Bralla.

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under
the United States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced
or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data base or retrieval system,
without the prior permission of the author, James G. Bralla.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOCDOC 9 0 0 9 8 7 6 5
ISBN 0-07-007138-1
The sponsoring editor for this book was Robert W.Hauserman, the editing
supervisor was David E. Fogarty, and the production supervisor was
Donald Schmidt. It was set in Century Schoolbook by Cynthia L. Lewis
of McGraw-Hill's Professional Book Group composition unit.
Books published by Technicraft Publishers are available at special discounts

to be used as premiums and in sales promotions, or for use in corporate training
programs. For more information, please write to the Director of Special Sales,
Technicraft Publishers, 692 Deer Ridge Road, North Jackson, Susquehanna,
PA 18847-9301.
Information in this book has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable.
However the author does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any in-
formation published herein, and shall not be responsible for any errors, omissions
or damages arising out of the use of this information. This work is published
with the understanding that Technicraft Publishers and its authors are supplying
information, but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional
services. If such services are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional
should be sought
Preface
“The best design is the simplest one

that works.’I
ALBERT EINSTEIN
This book h a s grown from my experience as a manufacturing engineer,

manufacturing executive, and consultant. The design for manufac-
turability (DFM)approach has provided tremendous benefits to indus-
try in furnishing product designs that are simple and economical to
produce. The technique has produced strong competitive advantages to
the companies that have used it. However, low cost in manufacturing
is only one objective of a sound product design. There are many other
desirable objectives-quality of product being one of them. It has
become obvious to many DFM practitioners that the same kind of
approach used in DFM could be used in a broader way so that not only
ease of manufacture but also many other desirable goals of a sound
product design could be achieved.
The goal of this book, then, is to explain how the DFM technique is
evolving a n d how it must evolve into an approach that more strongly
and more specifically addresses the broad series of important objec-
tives of sound product design. These objectives include: quality and
reliability, safety, serviceability, user-friendliness, environmental-
friendliness, and short time-to-market.
They can b e served through the same knowledge-based technique
that works s o effectively in improving manufacturability. A suitable
name for this expanded approach is DFX, where X indicates all impor-
tant attributes and, thereby, product excellence.
This book reflects my viewpoint of what DFM and DFX are. It may
not conform, in some cases, to the viewpoints of others. Where I take
the view that DFM refers primarily to that knowledge-based approach
that utilizes the knowledge of experienced manufacturing engineers
(as expressed in design guidelines or rules of thumb) as a means of
xi
xii Preface
improving the ease of manufacture of a product, others advocate that

DFM encompasses anything and everything that fosters easier manu-
facturability. I don't really fault that definition, since there is nothing
wrong with it. However, for clarity of content in this book, particularly
with the broader objectives of DFX, it seems preferable to use my more
specific definition. However, let us remember that we all have the same
objectives: better products that are easier t o produce, incurring the
lowest possible costs to the manufacturer, customer, and society
throughout the product life.
This book is intended to complement an earlier one which I edited,
t h e Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing. That book is a
handbook containing guidelines for DFM, which improve the manufac-
turability of product assemblies and a wide variety of component parts.
However, it devotes only minimal space to important goals of product
design other than improved manufacturability. It does not cover the
management of the DFM process, the organization of it, and the train-
ing requirements to make it effective.
This volume addresses these issues. It also explains DFM and how it
works. Paramount is coverage of these other desirable objectives of
sound product design, objectives which complement manufacturability.
The book also addresses how these objectives are sometimes comple-
mentary and sometimes in conflict. However, with a well-managed pro-
gram t h e y can be harnessed to provide a product and its components
that are both easily manufacturable and highly competitive in regard
to all important objectives.
This book is composed of four parts. Part 1is devoted to a review of
the background and basic concepts of DFM and its further develop-
ment, DFX.Chapter 1reviews what DFM-design for manufacturabil-
ity-is, explains why it is needed, and gives its history. Chapter 2 cov-
ers the expansion and evolution of DFM to DFX, the addition of factors
other t h a n manufacturability as desirable objectives of sound product
design. Some of the more important of these objectives are quality and
reliability, serviceability, user-friendliness, environmental-friend-
liness, a n d short time-to-market. Chapter 3 discusses how some other
management approaches to improved design and manufacturing are
related to DFX and how the various DFX objectives may sometimes be
in conflict and sometimes in concert. In Chapter 4, basic principles of
DFM and DFX are explained further and some guidelines to implement
them in a product design are stated.
Part 2 is devoted to the task of managing a transition to DFM and
DFX from the approaches previously prevalent. Chapter 5 reviews the
product realization process, the sequence by which a new or improved
product is developed and brought to market. In Chapter 6 , we discuss
the task of getting DFM/DFX started in a company where it is not yet
Preface xiii
an active technique. Chapter 7 reviews concurrent engineering, the

organizational approach sometimes called simultaneous engineering,
wherein product and process are designed and engineered at the same
time and where related organizational functions participate in the
product design process. In Chapter 8, we discuss the problem of imple-
menting changes of the magnitude of replacing traditional systems
with DFM and concurrent engineering. Such modifications of project
organization involve cultural changes. Chapter 9 deals with a number
of other important issues involved in running a DFM/DFX program,
the choice of a leader and the team, motivating the team, and technical
approaches for maximizing the effectiveness of the team’s DFX efforts.
Chapter 10 addresses the need for training the participants in a DFX
project and others in the organization. Chapter 11 deals with the
important issue of evaluating various design proposals so that the one
that will, in t h e long run, most adequately meet the various objectives
of the product design can be selected.
Part 3 provides more details on the workings of DFX. It provides
how-to guidelines for the design of a product in order to achieve the
objectives of DFX. Also included is a discussion of the value of such
guidelines, h o w they apply, a n d when they apply. Chapter 12 is
devoted to the application of DFM and DFX to mechanical assembly
operations, which are important in the manufacture of many products.
It includes guidelines on the design of the components to facilitate their
assembly. Chapter 13 provides DFM guidelines for the design of indi-
vidual parts such as castings, plastic moldings, and stampings.
Chapters 14 through 20 are devoted to specific means to provide a
product design that meets the other objectives of DFX. Chapter 14 pro-
vides guidelines and discussion on meeting the objective of high prod-
uct quality. Chapter 15 provides similar information related t o product
reliability. Chapter 16 involves designing for easy service and mainte-
nance; Chapter 17, designing for safety; Chapter 18, environmental-
friendliness; Chapter 19, user-friendliness; and Chapter 20, short
time-to-market. Chapter 21 is devoted to DFX as applied to the pro-
duction of electronics products, a n industry which has some special
characteristics. Chapter 22 covers how the DFM/DFX approach should
be altered when the product involved is produced in other than mass-
production quantities.
Part 4 is devoted to a review of past successes in applying DFM and
DFX, with some success stories in Chapter 23 and an analysis of the
probable future directions of the technique in Chapter 24. Finally, I
have included a summary statement about what DFX is and where it
fits into present and future product design activities.
James G. Bralla
Contents
Preface xi
Acknowledgments xv
Part 1 Background and Basic Concepts 1
Chapter 1. The Forerunner-Design for Manufacturability 3

How DFM Works 4
The Need f o r DFM 6
The Economic Importanceof Manufacturing 8
The History of DFM 10
Eli Whitney 10
Henry Ford 11
Value Analysis 12
Formulation and Documentation of DFM 13
Producibility and DFM-Origin of Terms 13
Design for Assembly 13
Objective Means of Evaluating Designs 15-
Current Interest in DFM 16
Continuing Development 16
References 16
Chapter 2. DFX-The Need for It and the Nature of It 18

The Attributes of a Good Design 18
What Then Is DFX? 22
References 23
Chapter 3. DFMlDFX Approaches 24

Controlled Experiment Methods 24
The Taguchi Method of Robust Design 26
Product Costs 27
Definitions o f Related Approaches 27
The RelationshipBetween Manufacturability and Other Desirable
AttributeMonflicting Guidelines 31
V
vi Contents
Guidelines for Manufacturability That May Conflict with Quality

and Reliability 32
Reliability versus Manufacturability 33
Complementary Guidelines 34
Guidelines Where Quallty/Reliability and Manufacturability
Objectives Coincide 36
References 36
Chapter 4. Basic Principles of DFM/DFX 38

A Secret of Recent Success: Simplify and Improve the Assembly! 38
Minimize the Number of Parts 39
Standardize! 41
Use Processible Materials 42
Fit the Design to the Manufacturing Process 42
Fit the Design to the Manufacturing System 43
Design Each Part to Be Easy to Make 43
Design for the Expected Production Quantity 44
Maximize Compliance 44
Reduce Adjustments 45
Eliminate MachiningOperations 46
Manage the Project Proprly 47
Evaluate Design Alternatives 48
References 49
Part 2 Managing DFM/DFX 51
Chapter 5. The Product Realization Process 53

Steps in the Process 53
Obstacles Faced by Design Engineers 57
References 58
Chapter 6. Getting Started 59

Management’s Role 59
Planned !Sequence 61
References 62
Chapter 7. Concurrent Engineering 63

Redirectionof Design Efforts 63
Use ConcurrenVSimuItaneousEngineering 64
The Team 66
Some Comments on Team Building 68
The Risks of Concurrent Engineering 69
References 70
Contents vii
Chapter 8. Cultural Change 71

TeamworWCooperation Between Design and Manufacturing Engineers 71
Resistance t o C h a n g d t a t u s Issues 73
Company Culture 75
Overcoming Resistance to the Change to Concurrent Engineering 76
References 80
Chapter 9. Managing the New System 81

The Leader 81
Motivating and Managing the Team 82
Steps in the Design Process 83
Standardization 84
Brainstorming 87
Benchmarking 89
Desirable Sequence of DFM Activities 91
References 92
Chapter 10. Training and Indoctrination 93

Nature of the Training Needed 94
Levels of Training 96
Who Gets Trained 97
On-the-Job Training 97
Sources of Instruction 98
Scheduling t h e Training 100
Training Site 101
Training Methods 101
Written Material 102
Individual or Group Training 102
Evaluation and Follow-up 103
Technical Expertise Needed 103
Sources of Technical Expertise 104
References 105
Chapter 11. Evaluating Design Proposals 106

Evaluating Manufacturability 107
Assembly Evaluation Systems 108
Manufacturability Evaluations of Individual Parts 110
Evaluating DFX Attributes 110
Other Indices of DFX Attributes 113
Who Should Make the Evaluation? 116
Weighted Matrix Rating Systems 116
Testing Design Proposals 118
FoIIow-UP 122
References 123
viii Contents
Part 3 The Dimensions of DFX 125

Chapter 12. ImprovingAssemblies 127
Minimize the Number of Parts 128
Other Major Guidelines for Assembly Improvement 132
References 136
Chapter 13. ImprovingIndividual Components 137

Attributes of Improved Component Parts 138
Evaluatingthe Design of Component Parts 140
Production Quantity 140
Design Principles for Improved Component Parts 141
The Role of Plastics 146
References 148
Chapter 14. Designingfor Higher Quality - 149

What Is Quality? 149
The Management of Quality 151
How Can Design Unfavorably Affect Product Quality? 156
Evaluating a Product Design for Quality 156
Guldelines That Promote Quality 158
References 164
Chapter 15. Designingfor Reliability 165

Reliability Concepts 166
Reliability and Other Design Objectives 167
Some Measures of Reliability 167
Evaluating a Product Design for Reliability 170
Reliability Calculations 171
Reliability Improvement 175
Guidelines for Advancing Reliability 175
Summary 180
References 180
Chapter 16. Designingfor Senriceability/Maintainability 182

Availability 184
Testability 184
Guidelinesfor Serviceability 185
References 194
Chapter 17. Designing for Safety 195

Definitions 196
Potential Dangers 196
Contents ix
Product Liability 197

The Designer’s Response to Product Liability 200
Design Documentation 202
Hierarchy of Hazard Control 203
Managing Product Design for Safety 204
Suggested Guidelines 206
References 210
Chapter 18. Designing for the Environment 211

Hierarchy of EnvironmentallyFriendly Product Design 215
The Scope o f Environmental-Friendliness 218
Achieving an Environmentally Friendly Design 220
Recycling Material 221
Recycling Metals 224
Recycling Plastic Materials 224
Design Guidelines for DFE 225
Scoring Systems for DFE 234
References 236
Chapter 19. Designing for User-Friendliness 237

The Effect of Microelectronics 239
Methodology of User-Friendly Design 240
Principles of User-Friendliness 242
Evaluating User-Friendliness 253
Summary 254
References 254
Chapter 20. Designing for Short Time-to-Market 255

An Example of Speed-to-Market 265
References 266
Chapter 21. DFX in Electronics 267

Printed Circuit Boards 267
Solder Joints 271
Testability 272
Evaluating Electronic Assemblies 273
Guidelines 273
References 278
Chapter 22. DFX for Low-Quantity Production 280

Factors to Consider 281
Guidelines Applicable to Low-Quantity Production 283
References 288
x Contents
Part4 DFXat Work 209
Chapter 23. Some Success Stories 291

The IBM Proprinter 292
The Aluminum Beverage Can 293
Bobbin Cases for Singer Sewing Machines 294
Baskets for Industrial Sewing Machines 296
Pipette Assemblies by Medical Laboratories Automation 297
Storage Technology's Power Supply for Disk-Array Data Storage Devices 300
AT&T's System 3000, Model 3600 Computer 302
References 304
Chapter 24. The Future of DFX 305

The Future 305
Computer-AidedDFX, integral with CAD 306
Recent Advances in Merging CAD with DFX 308
Computer-Assisted DFWDFX Not integrated with CAD 311
References 314
Summary 316
Index 319
Part
1
Background and Basic
Concepts
Chapter
1
The Forerunner-
Design for
Manufacturability
DFX has evolved and is evolving from DFM, an approach that has had
dramatic success in recent years in facilitating the design of sound
products which can be produced at a low cost. An understanding of
DFX requires, first of all, a n understanding of DFM.
Definition. Design for manufacturability (DFM) can have t.wo defini-
tions. In the broadest sense, DFM includes any step, method, or system
that provides a product design that eases the task of manufacturing
and lowers manufacturing cost. In a somewhat more specific sense, and
the one used in this book, DFM is primarily a knowledge-based tech-
nique that invokes a series of guidelines, principles, recommendations,
or rules of thumb for designing a product so that it is easy to make.
These guidelines tend to aid many common product attributes-for
example, proper function, reliability, good appearance, serviceability,
etc.-but their primary objective is to improve manufacturability. By
manufacturability we mean the ease with which a product or compo-
nent can be produced, its simplicity, the straightforwardness of its con-
figuration, t h e degree to which it minimizes labor, materials, and over-
head costs, and the freedom that its design has from inherent quality
and processing problems. All these factors are manifested as a lower
manufacturing cost.
W h y design for manufacturability rather than for function, quality,
reliability, etc.? Because, historically, manufacturability has been
overlooked, primarily in favor of designing for features, function, and
appearance. I n fact, there is a gold mine of cost benefits to be tapped if
manufacturability is addressed when a product is designed.
3
4 Background and Basic Concepts
How DFM Works

DFM is a n analytical and, as we have defined it, a knowledge-based
technique involving the application to product design of a series of
guidelines or rules of thumb, proven from prior experience. In the
application of these rules of thumb, careful analysis and sound judg-
ment m a y be required, but the procedure may also be quite simple. In
essence, it merely involves the application of principles learned from
experience of manufacturing engineers in putting other products into
production. This differs from Taguchi’s and other designed-experiment
techniques, which, while having much the same objectives as DFM, are
much more mathematical and experimental. (See the comparison of
DFM and Taguchi methods later in this chapter.)
However, it should be noted that the testing of designs proposed
from DFM analyses, an important step in the development or improve-
ment of product designs, can be highly mathematical and laboratory-
based. Product testing on the limited scale that is often dictated by
cost a n d development time constraints must be done on some kind of
sample basis. To extrapolate laboratory and field sample test results
properly, some sophisticated mathematical approaches are advisable.
In the a r e a of product reliability, a sophisticated body of techniques
have been developed to predict product life, failure rates, and how reli-
ability can be improved by incorporating redundancy in the design of
the product. Chapter 9 of this book briefly discusses these mathemat-
ical approaches. However, in the basic process of developing a product
design t h a t conforms t o DFM guidelines, the procedure has been
essentially qualitative and unsophisticated, involving the application
of a broad series of design rules that may or may not be applicable to
the specific case on hand. The procedure is fairly simple but the appli-
cation o f it requires broad knowledge (or a broad database) and sound
engineering judgment to weigh the beat alternative from a series of
choices. Increasingly, however, more quantitative approaches are
being developed.
At some universities and elsewhere, research is being conducted to
put DFM guidelines on a more quantitative basis. As such systems are
developed and implemented, design engineers will be able to see how
much cost benefit will result in their designs from the adherence to
each guideline. (This quantification of guidelines will be discussed later
in this chapter and in Chaps. 11and 24.)
Figure 1.1~ through c illustrates, through a simple example, the
results that can be achieved with DFM. In this case, a product, which
was already low in cost, was nevertheless greatly simplified after a
DFM analysis. The redesigned product, shown in Fig. 1 . 1 has ~ ~ one
component part which performs all the functions performed by 10 parts
in the original design, thus greatly reducing manufacturing cost.
The Forerunner-Design for Manufacturability 5
(b)
Figure 1.1 Industrial identification badge and clip. (a)Original design.
( b ) Exploded view of the industrial identification badge clip, original
design. Note that 10 parts are required for the complete assembly. This
suggests that the assembly should be analyzed to see if the number of
parts c a n be reduced. ( c ) Improved clip design (lower right). All functions
of the original 10-piece design have been incorporated in the new one-
piece clip. By varying the wall thickness, flexible, rigid, and spring ele-
ments are incorporated in the single nylon part.
(c)
Flgure 1.1 Continued
The Need for DFM

It has been commonly reported Lat a high portion of a product’s life-
cycle cost” is “lockedin“ at the design stage. In other words, it is not pos-
sible to produce a product with a low life-cycle cost if it is not designed
successfully against such a n objective initially. The ‘Westinghouse
cU17re”l (see Fig. 1.2)+illustratesthis principle. It shows what percent of
the cost is determined at each stage of a product’s initiation. Note that
over half of the cost is already fxed as soon as the product concept is for-
mulated; 75 percent of its cost is determined when the concept is vali-
dated and over 80 percent is fured when full-scale product development
is completed. Swift2is somewhat more conservative but very much of
the same mind. He states that 70 percent of the product cost is deter-
mined in the design phase.
As a n example of how cost is determined at early design stages, con-
sider a product design that incorporates a die-cast housing. This neces-
sitates a die-casting die (rather expensive), a trimming die, a certain
amount of material suitable for die casting (usually aluminum or zinc),
some machining where the die-cast dimensional tolerances or surface
*Life-cycle costs are defined in Chap. 3. They are composed of all the costs borne by
the owner of the product and others, including society as a whole, throughout the pro-
duct’s life and in its disposal afterward.
?Note: This curve was shown at some internal meetings at the Westinghouse
Corporation,but has since been widely reprinted.(See Ref. 1.)
Figure 1.2 The "Westinghouse curve"' illustrates how the life-cycle cost of a typi-
cal product is strongly affected by the decisions made during the early stages of
product design. According to the curve, by the time a product concept is validated,
well before development is completed, 75 percent of the ultimate costs have
already been fixed.The curve illustrates the importance of providing manufac-
turable designs from the outset of a project, even during the concept stage, and the
limited benefits of trying to make significant cost reduction after the product is in
production.
finish require upgrading as may be necessary for bearing surfaces,

parts mating, etc. Surface polishing and other treatments such as
painting, with its inherent material and labor costs, may also be
required. The costs of these operations, tooling, equipment, and mate-
rials are ordained once the decision has been made to use a die-cast
housing. Similarly, if other approaches had been decided upon, the
operations, materials, and indirect costs made necessary for that choice
would be inherent in the product's cost.
Note also in Fig. 1.2 the relatively small portion of the product costs
that a r e determined, and thereby potentially controllable, during the
manufacturing phase. Yet industrial engineers from the time of
Frederick Taylor have concentrated their efforts on improvements to
be implemented, for the most part, during the manufacturing phase.
They have overlooked the benefits that could be achieved if they par-
ticipated in t h e concept and design phases and introduced improve-
ments at that time.
Regardless of the source of the data, the general conclusion is
inescapable: total product costs are established very early in the prod-
uct realization process. Therefore, it behooves manufacturers to mini-
mize these life-cycle costs when they can do so most effectively-during
the design process for their products.
The Economic Importance of Manufacturing

Wealth, in this world, springs essentially from one of three sources:
1. What is removed from the ground-for example, minerals, metals,
and oil.
2. What is grown from the ground-foods, including grains, fnrit’and
vegetables; nonfoods such as cotton, lumber, and natural rubber.
3. What is manufactured.
All other activities, such as retailing, fast-food restauranting, and
the services of lawyers, governments, police, social workers and rail-
road transportation, provide the means of distributing or redistribut-
ing the wealth that has already been created. (These activities may
also be a means t o preserve the system that allows wealth to be dis-
tributed.)* Manufacturing, not government, is a key element in the
wealth of nations and individuals. In recent years, as manufacturing in
the United States has declined and more and more produds are
obtained from foreign sources, the US. standard of living has also
declined. Real family earnings have been less than in earlier periods
even though many families have two wage earners instead of one. It is
no coincidence that, as of July 1992 the number of employees in manu-
facturing in the United States has been exceeded by the number of gov-
ernment employees (all levels), 18.58 million to 18.21 m i l l i ~ n . ~
The American situation can be contrasted to that of Japan. Japan has
become a wealthy nation since World War I1 almost wholly as a result
of its manufacturing activities. There are few mineral deposits in
Japan. Its agricultural output is very limited because, among other fac-
tors, land available for agricultural use is limited by the mountainous
nature of the terrain and the high population density. However, its
manufacturing prowess has created enough wealth that Japan is now a
rich nation. The Japanese have been able to purchase real estate,
objects of art,motion picture companies, and other important assets in
the United States and elsewhere.
Dornbusch, Pterba, and Summers4report statistics that support the
essential role of manufacturing in providing a high standard of living.
Manufacturing in the United States provides the overwhelming bulk of
funds for research and development; manufacturing wages in the
United States are significantlyhigher than those for the service indus-
try and for other nonmanufacturing jobs; and shipments by manufac-
*It can be argued that some services, like medical care, really do create wealth. There
also is t h e question of intellectual property. Books, computer programs, and other intel-
lectual creations are certainly of considerable value, especially when reproduced, i.e.,
when copies are manufactured.
$380
$370
$360
$350
$340
$330
$320
$310
$300
1969 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989
Figure 1.3 The average real wages of U.S. full-time employees during the
period, 1969 to 1990 (using 1982 to 1984 dollars).Note that real wages have
declined. The decline is due to a number of causes but one of the most
important is the decline in manufacturing in the U S . during this period.
(Source:U.S. Department of Labor, Statistics, Employment and E ~ r n i n g s . ~ )
turing companies equaled about 60 percent of the 1986 U S . gross

national product.
Figure 1.3 shows the average real wages of U S . full-time employees
during the period 1969 to 1990. In the latter portion of that period,
when manufacturing in the United States was declining, the chart
shows a concurrent decline in real U S . wages. Undoubtedly, there are
a number of factors that may contribute to this unfavorable trend (for
example, a high portion of women in the workforce at wages generally
lower than those of men). However, the decline in manufacturing is
undoubtedly a significant cause.5
The decline of manufacturing in the United States in the last two
decades has given rise to a general awareness that manufacturing is an
essential element in the nation’s economic well-being. Less recognized,
perhaps, is the importance of product superiority to manufacturing
prosperity. In today’s market, cost, quality, reliability, and other fea-
tures must b e internationally competitive if the product is to succeed
and t h e manufacture of it is to prosper.
DFM is important, even essential, for success in this international
marketplace. Companies which do not design their products for eco-
nomical manufacture will suffer higher product costs than their com-
petitors who do. Unless their products are clearly superior in quality,
features, appearance, or some other characteristic, they run the risk of
being eclipsed by those of lower cost.
T h e importance of DFM as a factor in productivity has been demon-
strated by a recent study of the McKinsey Global Institute, a unit of
McKinsey a n d Company.6The study compared manufacturing produc-
tivity in Germany, the United States, and Japan in a number of indus-
tries, including automotive assembly and parts making, electronics,

machine tools, a n d other heavy metalworking. These are the industries
in which Japan leads the other two countries in productivity. (In the
processed food, beer, and detergent industries, Japanese productivity
lags behind that of the United States.) The study cites as a major fac-
tor in those industries where Japan leads the use of design for manu-
facturability. The study report states:
We have seen the decisive role played by “design for manufacturing” and
the “organization of functions and tasks” in the efficient production of
autos and auto parts, and the important role they play in explaining pro-
ductivity differences also in the consumer electronics and metalworking
industries....An important source of productivity advantage for many
companies has been their ability to create product designs that are less
complex, use fewer parts and are easier to assemble, without producing
products that are different from the customer’s perspective. Innovations
in this area have usually been introduced first in manufacturing opera-
tions in Japan.
The History of DFM

The principles of DFM and its application are not really new. However,
the use of the term design for manufacturability and the recognition of
it as a worthwhile engineering approach and the development of an
organized DFM methodology are more recent. Awareness of the impor-
tance o f designing a product for easy manufacture has existed in clever
design and manufacturing engineers since product design and manu-
facturing activities originated.
Eli Whitney
Eli Whitney is a person from a n earlier period, some of whose work is
notable as an example of the use of some DFM approaches. Whitney
was engaged in design for manufacturability over 180 years before the
term for it became widespread. His DFM advances were subtle but
real. At the turn of the nineteenth century he developed, for the U.S.
federal government, a system for manufacturing muskets that incor-
porated the concept of interchangeable parts. Prior to his innovation,
all U.S. muskets were handmade by individual craftsmen who each
made a complete product. They used saws and files to shape each part
and fit them together. No two muskets were ever exactly alike: parts
from o n e musket could not fit into another. The craftsmen who fabri-
cated t h e muskets shaped each part to fit only the mating parts of the
same gun. Production rates were very low. They depended on the avail-
ability of skilled craftsmen and their degree of skill.
Whitney’s contribution was to “redesignn each part to a specific
dimension with a limited tolerance. (He aiso developed manufacturing
processes that depended on fmtures, machinery, and gages, rather

than the skill of a particular worker, to control the dimensions of each
component.) Whitney made other design and process changes too. He
changed one part from a sand-mold casting to a forging to gain the
greater accuracy that production with a steel forging die provided. “The
procedure enabled him to forge the guards of the locks quickly ‘and so
they will require less work in fitting up than could be cast in brass after
a perfect pattern by an experienced foundeF” (Note: Whitney’s
approach differed from what is now sometimes advocated, the loosen-
ing of dimensional tolerances where feasible. This is advocated in order
to eliminate the need for some manufacturing operations necessary to
meet a tight dimensional tolerance but not really necessary for the
proper functioning of the product. Whitney went in the other direction.
He tightened tolerances that were far too loose. This enabled him to
organize and utilize a system of mass production that was far more eco-
nomical, per unit of product produced, than the previous handcraft
approach.)*
Henry Ford
Ford is undoubtedly most famous among engineers (as well as econo-
m i s t s and social scientists) for his advanced and extensive use of the
assembly line. This involved dividing manual assembly operations into
short-cycle repetitive steps that could be carried out at high efficiency.
However, t h e design concepts of his Model T, the car that revolution-
ized t h e auto industry, probably were of equal or greater significance to
the success i t achieved. From Burlingameg (p. 289): “...costs had been
lowered by concentrating on the fewest possible standard parts and
designing machines to turn them out-them and nothing else-auto-
matically if could be.” From p. 292: “He had been studying parts, sim-
plifying, estimating production methods, performance.”
Fords own book, My Life and Work,lostates that his objectives in the
Model T included simplicity in operation, absolute reliability and high
quality in materials used. He also had the objective of providing easy
serviceability. From p. 68:
The important feature of the new model ...was its simplicity. All [compo-
nents] w e r e easily accessible so that no skill would be required for their
repair or replacement...it ought to be possible to have parts so simple and
*While Whitney’s advance, conceived in 1798, provided the basis for later mass pro-
duction industries in the United States, it should be noted that LeBlanc, a Frenchman,
ten years earlier than Whitney, developed a similar system for the production of muskets
in France. Whitney apparently did not know of LeBlanc’s approach, which was actually
broader than Whitney’ssince it encompassedthe barrel, mounting, and stock of the mus-
ket, while Whitney’s involved only the lock. After LeBlanc’s death, the system in France
deteriorated and was abandoned.s
so inexpensive that the menace of expensive hand repair work would be

entirely eliminated.. .it was up to me, the designer, to make the car so com-
ple tely simple...the less complex the article, the easier it is to make, the
cheaper it may be sold.. .the simplest designs that modern engineering can
devise.. ..Standardization, then, is the final stage of the process. We start
with the consumer, work back through the design, and finally arrive a t
manufacturing.
John B. Rae writes that durability and simplicity were “achieved in
1907 with the Model T.. ..Its 20 H.P., 4-cylinder engine was a marvel of
mechanical simplicity, as was its planetary transmission.. ..”ll It can be
seen that much of what Ford accomplished is now referred to as DFM.
Value analysis
This approach first appeared in the late 1940s at General Electric,12
and got its largest impetus in the 1950s and 1960s.“ It is similar to
DFM in that it involves a systematic review of the cost of producing a
component or product and the evaluation of design alternatives that
could produce the desired results, the desired “value”at the lowest cost.
Initially, it was applied t o existing products and in fact, Miles states:
“the importance of value [analysis] work increases as the complete
product cycle advances.. ..year by year, there is also a n expanding list
of matured products, and so value work has become of great importance
for the successful operation of most businesses.” However, Miles and
others recognized the advantages of performing the analysis during the
design stage of a product rather than after it had been introduced or
matured. The term value engineering was applied when the technique
was used during the design phase of a product.
However, even in the full-fledged application of value engineering,
the emphasis has not been on such an early involvement of manufac-
turing-knowledgeable people in the design process as we now advocate
in DFhllconcurrent design approaches. In addition to the fact that it is
typically used later in a product’s development cycle, value analysis
has differed from DFM in that the use of an organized knowledge base
has n o t been quite so well refined as it is with DFM. However, the
philosophical approach of value analysis-questioning and comparing
the value and cost of each feature and each element of a product’s
design-is compatible with the whole methodology of DFM. The brain-
storming approach, frequently part of a VA project, is another worth-
while technique. All in all, value analysis is a good adjunct t o DFM or,
if the broader DFM definition is used, a good tool of DFM.
*Priest reports that the approach was originated at GE during World War n by
Lawrence D. Miles.I3
The Forerunner-sign for Manufacturability 13
Formulation and documentation of DFM

In 1941, t h e Metals Engineering Division of the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers conducted a survey which revealed the need for
a reference for mechanical engineers and designers on the properties
and characteristics of metals. A series of handbooks was published and
one of them, published in 1958, contained information on various man-
ufacturing processes from the product designer’s point of view. The
book, Metals Engineering Processes, l4 provided a series of guidelines to
aid the designer in enhancing the manufacturability of metal compo-
nents made with a number of manufacturing processes such as casting,
forging, extrusion, machining, joining, finishing, etc. The book was
edited by Roger W. Bolz.
Bolz was actually one of the first persons to organize DFM method-
ology, though he didn’t use the term. In the 1940s as associate editor of
Machine Design magazine, he prepared a series of articles summariz-
ing the capabilities of various manufacturing processes from a product
designer’s viewpoint. Included in these articles were design guidelines
for components made with each process, dimensional tolerance recom-
mendations, and data on characteristics of the parts produced. His arti-
cles were combined and supplemented to form a book, Production
Processes-the Producibility Handbook,l5 first published in 1947 and
updated in at least five editions through 1981.”
Producibility and DFM-origin of terms

The terms producibility and manufacturability began to be used in the
1960s to indicate the ease with which a product or component could be
manufactured. In 1960, the General Electric Company developed for
internal use i n the company a Manufacturing Producibility Handbook.l6
The term producibility is still widely used, particularly by the U.S.
Department of Defense. The term manufucturability gradually became
ascendant among those interested in the approach and, about 1985, the
term design for manufacturability and its shortened form DFM came
into wide use.
Design for assembly

Geoffrey Boothroyd has been one of the moving forces in the develop-
ment of DFM as it is now known. Boothroyd began his work with stud-
ies of automatic assembly which led him to considerations of product
*The title of Bolz’s book was changed by the publisher after the first edition to The
Productivity Handbook. Apparently, it was felt that the term, producibility was too
obscure to allow widespread sales of the book.
and parts design to facilitate assembly. Both automatic and manual

assembly are facilitated when the components are configured for easy
orientation and insertion, but these characteristics are much more crit-
ical when the assembly operation is mechanized. This is because
mechanical equipment normally lacks the broad capability of the
human assembler to recognize the correct orientation of a part and to
insert i t even when the insertion conditions are not optimum. Therefore,
design of parts and products for easy assembly is much more critical
when t h e assembly process is automatic.
Boothroyd's book, Mechanized Assembly, written with A. H. Redford
and published in 1968, contains in one chapter a series of design guide-
lines for facilitating assembly. It is noteworthy that even a t that rela-
tively early stage in the development of DFM, Boothroyd and Redford
recognized that the element of design is far more important than the
use of mechanization in reducing the cost of assembly, as the following
passage confirms:
Experience shows that it is difficult to make large savings in cost by the
introduction of mechanized assembly in the manufacture of an existing
product. In those cases where large savings are claimed, examination will
show that often the savings are really due to changes in the design of the
product necessitated by the introduction of the new process. It can proba-
bly be stated that in most of these instances even greater savings would
be made if the new product were to be assembled manually. Undoubtedly,
the greatest cost savings are to be made by careful consideration of the
design of the product and its individual component parts."
It should be noted that the emphasis on design for assembly as advo-

cated b y Boothroyd and his colleague, Peter Dewhurst, has provided
some o f the most dramatic and significant product cost reductions of
the DFM approach. Much of the impetus to the success of DFM comes
from significant product simplifications including a reduction in the
number of parts resulting from analyses made to simplify assembly. If
there is one focal point on which the success of the DFM technique has
hinged, it has been the reduction in the number of parts utilized in
product designs after DFA analysis. Savings accrue, not only in direct
labor and in the materials required for parts, but also in all the manu-
facturing and design overhead factors that typically make up the cost
of a manufactured product. (See Chap. 12 for more on this.)
Over the years, but especially in recent years, various trade associa-
tions a n d vendors of parts have issued booklets which provide, for prod-
uct designers, a series of design guidelines and tolerance and materials
recommendations for parts made with processes of interest to the asso-
ciation or vendor. These kinds of publications have provided valuable ,
and authoritative assistance to product designers.

The Forerunneraesign for Manutacturability 15
Objective means of evaluating designs

DFM involves the application of a series of design recommendations or
rules that m a y improve the manufacturability of the product. These
rules may b e contradictory at times. For example, one guideline is to
eliminate adjustments whenever possible. This may conflict with the
rule of thumb that advises the use of the most liberal dimensional tol-
erances possible. Use of liberal dimensional tolerances in parts manu-
facture may make it necessary to make an adjustment to get the
needed accuracy when the parts are assembled together. Sound engi-
neering judgment is often needed to choose between alternative guide-
lines and alternative designs. What can be very helpful to the designer/
DFM practitioner is some objective means of evaluating design alter-
natives so t h a t the best approach can be easily chosen with the assur-
ance that it truly is the best one.
The proof of whether one design is superior to another in manufac-
turability is i t s manufacturing cost compared with that of the alterna-
tive design. Many companies have an organization, normally part of
manufacturing engineering or accounting, whose function it is to pro-
vide estimates of product manufacturing costs. These are utilized in
the company’s standard cost accounting system and as a basis for prod-
uct pricing. When such a function is available, it can provide a highly
useful measure of which design alternative is preferable, i.e., which one
has the lowest combination of labor, materials, and overhead costs.
However, such a procedure is somewhat cumbersome since information
has t o be transmitted from the product designers to the cost estimators.
Some delay may be encountered in awaiting the completion of the cost
estimate, a n d there is a chance of some misunderstanding of product
specifications between the designer and the cost estimator. Much more
convenient would be an approach that permitted designers to make the
comparative evaluations themselves.
There are a number of such systems currently available to the prod-
uct designer. Some of the more noteworthy ones are discussed in Chap.
11. The systems discussed include:
1. The Assembleability Evaluation Method (AEM) developed by

Hitachi and later utilized in the United States by General Electric.
2. The Boothroyd-DewhurstDFA method. The firm has also developed
and issued various computer programs to facilitate design-oriented
cost estimating for parts made with other manufacturing processes
such as injection molding of plastics, die casting, and metal stamping.
3. General Electric’s “Level 5” system, a library of product-specific
design rules for appliance products and general application rules for
metal starnpings, injection molded parts and mechanical assemblies.
4. The Poli-University of Massachusetts system for assembly design

evaluation.
5. Assembly View, a system that utilizes Macintosh computers.
The advantages of these and other similar approaches is that they

make t h e choice of design alternatives more objective, and less subject
to the judgment of the designer. They also provide, in the computer’s
memory, an organized, weighted, value for each design guideline that
is included in the system. The designer does not have to learn and
remember so many guidelines-the computer does this for him.
More recently, others have made progress in developing systems,
with t h e use of personal computers, which provide designers with the
cost implications of various design alternatives and provide designers
with redesign suggestions and the cost reduction implications of these
suggestions. One example is work on the design of metal stampings
being carried on at the University of Massachusetts by Mahajan, Poli,
Rosen, and others.18 (Additional recent developments in this area and
some probable future developments are discussed in Chap. 24.)
Current Interest in DFM

DFM has been accepted by industry as a valid element in the product
design process. Seminars, conferences, and short-term training courses
are frequently scheduled on the subject; ASME has a Design for
Manufacturability Committee and many universities have added the
subject to their engineering curriculum. A number of books are available
that describe the process. (See References 1,2,13,24,25,27,and 28).
Continuing Development
Happily, DFM is not a fixed system. This system is continually being
developed, in university research projects, by a number of consultants,
and within companies. The objective of almost all these developments
is to make guidelines more accessible to designers and more easily
applied. Additionally, and more important, evaluations are put on each
guideline so that the designer can determine how much cost gain can
be achieved if the guideline is incorporated. All of these advances
depend on the use of computers. Computerization is the developing
movement in DFM. Further discussion of this and examples of what is
being done are included in Chap. 24.
References
1. Improving Engineering Design-Designing for Competitive Advantage, National
Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1991.
2. K. G. Swift,Knowledge-Based Design for Manufacture, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, N.J., 1987.
3. J. C. Miske, “Reversing the Decline of Manufacturing in America,” in Foundry:
Management and Technology, September 1992.
4. Dornbusch, Pterba, and Summers, The Case for Manufacturing in America,
Eastman Kodak Communications and Public Affairs, Rochester, N.Y., 1988.
5. From the summary volume of the report, Competing Economies: America, Europe,
a n d the Puczfic Rim was published by the Office of Technology Assessment in
October 1991 and reported at a Sloan Foundation conference in December 1991 by
R. K. Lester of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
6. McKinsey Global Institute, Manufacturing Productivity, Washington, D.C., October
1993.
7. J. Mirsky and A. Nevans, The World of Eli Whitney, Macmillan, New York, 1952,
1962.
8. C. Green, EZi Whitney and the Birth of American Technology, Little Brown, Boston,
1956.
9. R. Burlingame, Backgrounds of Power, The Human Story of Mass Production,
Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, 1949.
10. H. Ford, M y Life and Work, Ayer, Salem, N.H., 1922.
11. J. B. Rae, .The American Automobile-A Brief History, The University of Chicago
Press, 1965, p. 59.
12. A. E. Mudge, Value Engineering-A Systematic Approach, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1971.
13. J. W. Priest, Engineering Design for Producibility and Reliability, Marcel Dekker,
New York, 1988.
14. R. W. Bolz (zed.),Metals Engineering Processes, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1958.
15. R. W. Bolz, Production Processes-the Producibility Handbook, 5th ed., Industrial
Press, New York, 1981.
16. General Electric Company, Manufacturing Producibility Handbook, Manufacturing
Services, Sehenectady, N.Y., 1960.
17. G. Boothroyd and A. H. Redford, Mechanized Assembly, McGraw-Hill, London, 1968.
18. Mahajan, Poli, Rosen, and Wozny, “Design for Stamping: A Feature-Based
Approach,” ASME paper, DE-vol. 522,1993.
19. W. A. Simonds, Henry Ford, His Life, His Work, His Genius, Bobbs-Merrill,
Indianapolis, Ind., 1943
20. R. Burlingame, Engines of Democracy, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, 1940.
21, R. Burlingame, March of the Iron Men, Chapters 12 and 22, Ayer, Salem, N.H., 1938.
22. J. J. Kaufinan, Value Engineering for the Practitioner, North Carolina State
University Indl Extension Service, Raleigh, N.C.
23. L. D. Miles, Techniques of Value Analysis and Engineering, McGraw-Hill, New York,
, 1961.
24. D. M. Anderson, Design for Manufacturability, CIM Press, Lafayette, Calif., 1990.
25. J. Corbett, M. Dooner, J. Meleka, and C. Pym, Design for Manufacture, Strategies,
Principles and Techniques, Addison-Wesley, Workingham, England, 1991.
26. H. Trucks, Designing for Economical Production, 2d ed., SME, Dearborn, Mich.,
1987.
27. E. Bakejian (ed.), Design for Manufacturability, vol. 6: Too2 and Manufacturing
Engineers Handbook, SME, Dearborn, 1992.
28. J. Bralla (ed.),Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1986.
29. “Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly,” presented by Geoffrey Boothroyd,
London, 1993.
Chapter
DFX-The Need for It

And the Nature of It
The Attributes of a Good Design

What does a customer expect when he purchases a product? For both
consumer and industrial products, the answers are very nearly the
same. Function, performance, and the low price that can result from
successful DFM are important to customers. However, their expecta-
tions a r e not limited to these factors. Customers also want benefits
that last as long as the product is owned and used. In the broadest
sense of the word, they want products of high lasting quality. In this
sense, the word quality defines the attributes that an ideal product
should have.
David A. Gamin’s classic paper, ‘What Does Product Quality Really
Mean?”l lists “eight dimensions of quality.” These form a good starting
point f o r a list of desirable attributes for a product design. Gamin’s list
includes the following:
1. Performance. How well the product functions.

2 . Features. How many secondary characteristics the product has to
enhance its basic function.
3. Reliability. Defined by some as quality in the time dimension; how
well the product maintains its quality.
4 . Conformance. How well the product conforms to the specifications
or standards set for it.
5. Durability. How long the product lasts in use.
6 . Serviceability. How easy the product is to maintain.
7. Aesthetics. How attractive the product is.
18
DFX-The Need for It and the Nature of It 19
8. Perceived quality. How high the users believe the product's quality
is; i.e., t h e product's quality reputation.
To these desirable attributes, we would certainly add manufactura-
bility, how easy and economical the product is to make. Other desirable
characteristics, not mentioned by Garvin, are the following:
1. Safety. How much the design reduces risk to individuals in con-
tact with it. A sound design from the safety standpoint is one whose
manufacturing process does not involve hazards to workers. It is one
whose operation poses the minimum risks to the user and those in the
vicinity; it is one which, when the product is discarded after its useful
life, does not entail hazardous waste.
2 . Environmental friendliness. This is closely related to safety and
covers three phases: (1)the manufacture, (2) the use, and (3) the dis-
posal of the product. The manufacturing process should be one that
generates minimum pollution. The product itself should be nonpollut-
ing and, as noted above, nonhazardous in its operation and disposal.
Even if nonhazardous, are its components configured so that they can
be easily recycled? Design for the environment (DFE) has been used as
a term to describe this approach. Design for disassembly is the name
given to the system of product design which emphasizes recyclability of
components. Primarily, this involves designs that ensure that recy-
clable components can be easily separated from the rest of the product.
DFE also involves the avoidance, as much as possible, of the use of com-
posite materials and others that may not be recyclable.
3. User friendliness or ergonomics. How well the product fits its
human users, and and how easy it is to use. (Human factors engineer-
ing was previously a common term for the discipline that this involves.)
4. Short time-to-market. How suitable the design is for short lead-
time production. This normally means whether the design is one that
requires unique long lead-time tooling for some of its components.
Short time-to-market has important implications in the current era
where product designs change rapidly and where commercial success
often hinges on being the first supplier to market a product with par-
ticular features.
5 . Upgradability. How easily the product can be modified in the
future to incorporate improved or additional features.
Historically, designers have tended to underemphasize or overlook
these factors and have concentrated their efforts on only three factors:
the function (performance),features, and appearance of the product that
they develop. They have tended to neglect the "downstream considera-
tions" that affect the usability and cost of the product during its lifetime.
T h e real objective should be to minimize the total cost of the product
over its life. This includes costs incurred by both the manufacturer and
20 Backgroundand Basic Concepts
user of the product, as well as those involved in its distribution. This is

a concept that is inherent in the Taguchi* approach to qua1ity.l In my
opinion, it is part of the rationale that has provided the Japanese with
such dramatic success in marketing manufactured products through-
out the world. With this approach, the manufacturer does not rest with
simply optimizing manufacturing, but considers the costs incurred by
the customer and the public from the time the product is initiated until,
and including, when it is discarded after its useful life. The effects of its
characteristics are expressed in terms of costs and these costs are min-
imized, regardless of who is obliged to pay them. Thus, a product
should have:
Minimum manufacturing costs
Minimum quality costs
Minimum operating costs
Minimum costs from safety defects
Minimum maintenance costs
Long life (minimum depreciation)
Minimum environmental costs
Less enlightened manufacturers have concentrated on costs within
their own operations,primarily manufacturing and distribution costs and
quality costs for which the manufacturer was directly responsible. They
did not consider the costs of safety defects, short life, expensive mainte-
nance, or disposal. There is often the temptation, not always resisted, to
design a product so that after-sale maintenance will be required, increas-
ing the profit to the manufacturer because of the sale of spare parts.
After reducing all these factors to one list, the following design objec-
tives a r e recommended as being most important-the factors that
should be optimized-for a sound product design from an enlightened
management:
Function and performance. These are still vital. the product must
perform the task for which it is designed. The automobile must run,
the lawnmower must cut grass cleanly, the telephone must transmit
and receive messages clearly, and the computer must compute, accu-
rately and consistently.
Safety. Those involved in the manufacture, sale, and use of the
product and other persons must be protected from physical injury
and illness. An interesting current example is the cigarette, where
*Taguchi’squality loss function and his robust design approach are described in Chap. 3.
DFX-The Need for it and the Nature of It 21
recent studies have shown that not only the smokers but also persons
in their proximity are more likely to contract certain diseases than
the general public.
Long-term quality, that is, quality, reliability, and durability. The
customer tends to group these objectives together; the designer
should also. Will the product continue to provide its desired function
over a period of time? Will it retain its appearance, its accuracy, its
ease of use, etc.? Quality and reliability result from care and atten-
tion at a number of stages, but perhaps the most important stage is
the design stage. Quality and reliability cannot be built-in if the
basic design is not conducive to them.
Munufacturubility. Including testability, shippability, and all the
objectives of DFM.
Environmental friendliness. Closely related to safety but affecting
all living creatures and plant life. Will the product, its manufactur-
ing process, and its disposal avoid the release of pollutants and other
environmental hazards?
Serviceability. (Involves maintainability and repairability.) The
ease with which the product can be returned to use after some fail-
ure has occurred, or the ease with which it can be attended to to avoid
future failures. This objective is closely related to reliability. Easy
serviceability may compensate for what otherwise would be a relia-
bility problem. For example, a circuit breaker provides easy resump-
tion of electric power after there has been an overload; replacing an
easily replaceable shear pin in an outboard boat motor is preferable
to replacing a bent or broken propeller.
User fi.iendliness. Is the product easy for the user to install and
operate? Are all functions and controls clear? User unfriendliness
can lead to safety and reliability problems and well as making the
product less functional. Sometimes, user friendliness affects primar-
ily convenience as in the case of the digital clock with a backup bat-
tery. It maintains its timekeeping function and does not have to be
reset if electric power fails, in contrast to the typical VCR clock that
seems to b e constantly flashing and in need of resetting because of
power interruptions.
Appearance. (Aesthetics.) This is the attractiveness of the product,
which may be a very important factor in its salability, particularly
with many consumer products. Automobiles, for example, are often
purchased b y individuals for their sleek, stylish look which may be a
more important point to the buyer than their fuel economy, driving
comfort, o r safety.
Features. The accessories; attachments; and peripheral functions
like the stereo, air conditioning, and cruise control in an automobile
may be more important to the buyer than its basic firnction. In the
case of an automobile, its basic function is transportation.
S h o r t time-to-market. How quickly manufacturers can design,
develop, tool-up and manufacture their new or improved products.
This has become a key element in product success in some industries.
In t h e personal computer industry, including computer software, for
example, there are very rapid product innovations. The company
that puts an innovation on the market first often reaps ongoing ben-
efits in the form of increased market share for its product.
Again, this is only a partial list of what I consider to be the most

important objectives. Hereafter in this book, they will be referred to as
“DFX attributes” or “DFX objectives.” Other objectives such as znstal-
lability, testability, shippability, upgradeability, and easy customizing
may also be important in many cases.
W e need guidelines, methodology and training for these other design objec-
tives in the same way that we need guidelines and training in manufac-
turability.
What Then Is DFX?

AT&T Bell Laboratories recognized the need to satisfy these objectives
and used the term DFX t o designate designing for all desired factors2
DFX was described as a design procedure in which the objective broadly
covers the cost-effective “downstream” operations: distribution, instal-
lation, service, and customer use. Reliability, safety, conformance to
environmental regulations, and liability prevention are also objectives.
These are in addition to low manufacturing costs. DFX is “the process
where the full life-cycle needs of the product are addressed during the
product’s design. The goal of DFX is greater customer satisfaction
through improved quality and reduced life cycle C O S ~ S . ” ~DFX is stated
to be complex. DFX knowledge can be communicated verbally, by writ-
ten guidelines, and by digital encoding (computerized databases).
AT&T made note of the value of incorporating DFX knowledge into
C A E E A D (computer-aided engineeringkomputer-aided design) tech-
nology. Education was stated to be essential. At Bell Laboratories,
product teams already active in DFA and DFM are including DFX
issues to increase customer satisfaction, to anticipate regulatory pres-
sure (chiefly environmental), and to reduce product life-cycle costs
(manufacturing, service, repair, and disposal, e t ~ . ) . ~
Definition. DFX,then, can be defined as a knowledge-based approach

that attempts to design products that maximize all desirable charac-
teristics-such as high quality, reliability, serviceability, safety, user
.
ness of design. (Box 2.1)
BOX 2.1
DFX-The
DFX = design for all desirable characteristics
DFX = design for excellence

Need for It and the Nature of It
friendliness, environmental friendliness, and short time-to-market-in

a product design while, at the same time, minimizing lifetime costs,
including manufacturing costs.
Achieving these objectives constitutes excellence in product design.
The X i n DFX, therefore, can have two meanings: X = all the desirable
factors that a product should have; and X = excellence and complete-
In summary, we can say that a limited series of design objectives-

function, features, and appearance-even when manufacturability is
added, is not enough to provide the best, most competitive design, nor
the one that is most economical and beneficial to society over the long
run.The designer must design for all worthwhile objectives. DFX is the
knowledge-based approach that is intended to provide the designer
with a means to achieve all these and other desirable objectives.
References
1. M. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1989.
2. D. A. Gatenby, "Design for X' (DFX): Key to Efficient, Profitable Product
Realization," AT&T, Chap. 45,Productivity and Quality Improvement in Electronics
Assembly, J. A. Edosomwan and A. Ballaku, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989.
3. R. A. Layendecker and B. Suing Kim, "From DFMA to DFX: An AT&T Example," 1993
DFM Conference,National Design Engineering Conference,Chicago, March 1993.
4. D. A. Gamin, W h a t Does 'Product Quality' Really Mean?" Sloan Management
Review, vol. 26, no. 1,Fall 1984.
5. J. G.Bralla, "Present and Future Trends in DFM," presented at SME clinic, Design
23
for Improved Manufacturability and Profitability, Dearborn, Mich., Sept. 11, 1990.
6. J. J. Kaufman, Value Engineering for the Practitioner, N.C.State U., Industrial
Extension Service, Box 5506, Raleigh, N.C., 27650.
7. J. L. Nevins and D. E. Whitney, Concurrent Design of Products and Processes,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989.
8. M.S.Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1989.
9. R. W. Garrett, "Eight Steps to Simultaneous Engineering," Manufacturing
Engineering, November 1990.
10. H. L. Hales, "Producibility and Integration: A Winning Combination," CIM
Technology, August 1987.
11. R. T. Anderson, Reliability Design Handbook, IIT Research Institute, Rome Air
Development Center, G S i s s Air Force Base, New York 13441,March 1976.
Chapter
3
DFMlDFX Approaches
DFM/DFX is a tool of product design improvement, but it’s not the only
tool a n d is not necessarily o r in all cases the best one. There are other
approaches currently in use which can be quite effective as a means of
enhancing the desired properties of product designs. Many of these
approaches overlap DFM/DFX to some degree. Others are complemen-
tary to DFX and to each other. There is seldom only one way to solve as
broad and complex a problem as that involved in the development and
design of a new or improved product. The purpose of this chapter is to
review some of these approaches and to review how they relate to DFX
as we have defined it.
Controlled Experiment Methods

One of the most significant approaches to design problems (and also to
process problems), particularly when there are a number of variables
each of which has some effect on the production process or the product’s
composition and specifications, is the use of controlled experiments. In
this approach, the engineer conducts a series of tests to evaluate the effect
of those factors believed to be significant in influencing the process or
product that is being designed. Design of Experiments (DOE)-controlled
experiments, directed experimentation, orthogonal arrays, statistically
designed experiments,factorial experiments-are all terms for essentially
the same approach. This approach allows a number of variables to be
evaluated at one time.
Traditionally, when engineers have wanted to optimize some process
or design variable, they have conducted experiments in which all other
variables are held constant while various levels of the variable being
tested are evaluated. For example, in conducting tests to set the opti-
mum feed and speed values in a machining operation, the engineer
24
DFMlDFX Approaches 25
would be careful to hold other factors like material hardness, coolant

flow, tool sharpness, tool material, etc., constant during several tests of
different feeds and speeds. With the Taguchi and other controlled
experiment methods, many process variables can be tested simultane-
ously. By mathematical analysis, the engineer determines which set-
ting of each variable is optimum. The number of test runs needed for
full optimization is thus greatly reduced compared to what it would be
in the traditional “one variable at a time” method.
All possible levels of each variable do not have to be tested because
the mathematical analysis identifies the significant causes from those
that are not significant. The factors tested can be based on theory, expe-
rience, guesswork, or a systematic approach to evaluate all factors.
There does not have to be an engineering explanation for the tested
change. These methods seem to work best when there are a great num-
ber of variables and the effect of each may not be known. The methods
are not limited to product design; they are also applicable to process
improvement, maybe more so than to product improvement. Process
operations can have process conditions optimized. Products with a num-
ber of ingredients can have the mix optimized. Various terms involved
in controlled experiment methods are defined later in this chapter.
On the other hand, DFM as we have defined it utilizes existing
knowledge, originally from manufacturing engineers and other pro-
duction people with years of shop floor experience who have learned
which factors in a product design help and which factors hurt shop-
floor productivity. For example, the manufacturing engineer knows
that a too-small punched hole in a sheet metal part (the hole diameter
compared with the stock thickness) results in short punch life and
reduced parts production. The Taguchi engineer may learn the same
thing or confirm it in a controlled experiment that tests, among other
factors, punch life at several ratios of hole-punch diameter to sheet-
metal thickness. DFM is knowledge-based. Taguchi’s methods are
more experimental.
One might ask why it is necessary to conduct an experiment. Can’t
competent engineers use analytical and computational methods to set
levels of key variables so that their system is optimized? The answer is
that many systems have relationships between variable factors that are
not reducible, at the present state of the art, to mathematical analysis.
Often, the effect of a particular variable is not fully understood. Years
ago, Charles ‘CBOSS” Kettering, the famed product developer from the
earlier days of the General Motors Corporation, explained his develop-
ment of an improved diesel engine as follows: “The engine was a better
engineer than the engineers. It told us what kind of piston rings it liked!
We just ran errands for it, bringing it a variety to choose from.”l The
same situation is true of almost all manufacturing processes and prod-
ucts. The best way to optimize a particular factor may be to run an
experiment or series of experiments to find out which setting, or which

choice, i s truly optimum.
Ronald A. Fisher was one of the early developers of these statistical
methods of experimental design. He first developed his methodology in
England in the early 1920s. He continued his work while on the faculty
of the University of London and then at Cambridge. Much of the early
work i n experimental design involved agriculture and biological sci-
ences. Fisher’s ideas were quickly adopted, particularly in the United
States, and some authors attribute the high efficiency of American
agriculture to the use of Fisher’s approach in designed agricultural
experiments.2The first industrial applications were in the British tex-
tile i n d u ~ t r yA. ~notable contributor to the field is G.E.P. Box who has
been active in the field since the early 1950s. Other contributors to the
development of the technique are W. Yates and J. S. Hunter. Statistical
design h a s been widely adopted in Japan to develop improved products
and processes, but has not been widely used in U.S. industry.2 Perhaps
the foremost practitioner of statistical experimental methods today is
Genechi Taguchi of Japan. His work has involved the design of prod-
ucts and processes so that they are robust to the adverse effects of
external conditions and component variations.
The Taguchi Method of Robust Design

Taguchi’s methods have gained prominence in recent years because of
the successes achieved by Japanese and other firms in improving prod-
ucts and processes with this method. Taguchi’s methods are a variety
of controlled experiments and have been given the name, robust design.
They have the purpose of providing a product or process which is more
“robust” or less susceptible to variations in material, manufacturing
processes, and operating conditions. Although his approach is widely
considered t o be one for quality improvement, Taguchi, himself, gives
it a surprisingly different emphasis:
The main task of a design engineer is to build in the function specified by
the product planning people at a competitive cost.4
In this respect, guideline-based DFM and Taguchi objectives are
identical, despite the differences in their methodologies. By emphasiz-
ing low cost in the above statement, Taguchi illustrates the close over-
lap of cost and quality as design objectives. But Taguchi is not referring
only to manufacturing costs. When he uses the term “competitive cost,”
he refers t o the life-cycle cost of the product including the post-manu-
facturing cost factors mentioned in Chap. 2.
It should be noted that Taguchi’s method of designed experiments is
a “rough cut,” simplified approach. He utilizes fractional factorials and
typically assumes that no interactions exist between variables. His
DFMIDFX Approaches 27
method is easy to use, but, if the assumptions are not correct, can yield
incorrect results. Critics have stated that his methods are best suited
for initial studies of processes and product designs that have consider-
able room for improvement. For process and design refinements, full
factorial methods with no assumptions should be ~ t i l i z e d . ~ , ~
Product Costs
Taguchi has made another significant contribution to the state of the
art of manufacturing and design: His concepts of product quality
include life-cycle product costs. His concept of life-cycle costs (see defi-
nition in next section) is consistent with present thinking about the
nature and control of manufacturing costs.
Traditionally in the United States, factory cost measurement and
control has concentrated on direct labor. It has considered such factors
as equipment depreciation, engineering, quality control, production
control, product service, and administration as overhead to be
accounted for by applying a factor to direct labor costs. This was fine a
hundred years ago when factory operations were primarily manual and
overhead costs were far less than they are today. Now, high mecha-
nization and other improvements have greatly diminished the labor
content of factory operations. As a consequence, depreciation charges
are spread over fewer direct labor hours. More highly developed staff
functions like manufacturing engineering, quality control and engi-
neering, human resource management, and data processing, also
result in increased overhead costs.
It is no longer accurate, therefore, to simply allocate these costs as a
factor applied to direct labor.” The main point, however, is the fact that
these overhead factors make the cost of a complex or poor quality prod-
uct design much more disadvantageous over its full lifetime than tra-
ditional costing systems would imply.
Definitions of Related Approaches

The following terms describe management systems which are either
part of DFM/DFX, related to it, or provide alternative means of improv-
ing product designs and manufacturing operations:?
Design for assembly (DFA) refers to product design aimed specifically

at simplifying a product and its overall assembly. Assembly operations
*The accounting approach that remedies this situation is called activity based costing
and is described in Robert S. Kaplan’s paper, “Management Accounting for Advanced
Technological Environments,”Science, vol. 25, August 26, 1989.
tTools of DFM to those who use the broad definition of the technique.
are often the most expensive in a manufacturing sequence when all

the overhead costs of stocking and handling the parts to be assembled
are considered. They are potentially the most lucrative to simplify.
Design for manufacturability and assembly (DFMA)is the term used
by Boothroyd-Dewhurst for what others, including this book, refer to
as design for manufacturability.
Manufacturability is the ease with which a product or part can be
produced, as defined in Chap. 1.
Prod ucibility is another term for manufacturability. With some prac-
titioners, the term refers only to the ease of manufacture of parts and
components rather than to assemblies of them.
Design to cost is a term which originated in the federal defense pro-
curement establishment. As defined in the Reliability Design
Handbook, design to cost includes design efforts to reduce operating
costs including maintenance as well as the acquisition cost of a prod-
uct. Its purpose has been to offset the constantly increasing costs of
defense equipment and to respond to pressures to decrease military
spending for “hardware.” Balanced design, considering field failure
costs and total production unit costs, was important. ”To achieve a
total balanced system design, a cost vs. reliability trade-off must be
perf~rmed.”~
The approach, as described by Michaels and Wood6is applicable to
civilian as well as military products. It has the purpose of “enhanc-
ing t h e affordability of products, systems and services over their life
cycle ,”reducing lifetime costs to the purchaser without compromis-
ing quality or essential function. It utilizes a variety of analytical and
goal- setting and control methods to achieve this, including value
analysis, cost estimating, design simplification, work simplification,
pare t o analysis, etc.
Concurrent engineering is the name of the approach that brings
together in a team both the design and manufacturing engineers
(often along with product managers, quality controllers, production
people, service, safety, accounting and other personnel) throughout
the design sequence. The product and the manufacturing process are
engineered at the same time and adequate attention to all important
design objectives, including DFM, is facilitated. The approach can
also speed the product realization cycle.
Simultaneous engineering and concurrent design are other names
that have been given to concurrent engineering.
Value analysis, value engineering are defined in Chap. 1.
Life-cycle costs, are all the costs involved, not only in the manufacture
and distribution of a product, but also those incurred in its ownership,
its operation, and its disposal at the end of its useful life. This is a
notable aspect of Taguchi’s concept of product quality. Service and
repair costs; warranty costs; energy costs for its operation; medical
costs of persons injured by it, if any; and any other such costs are
included. Costs borne by persons other than the buyer or user of the
product a r e included, as are costs to the general public for environ-
mental damage, etc. Taguchi referred to this effect as the total societal
loss. The highest quality product is the one that has the minimum life-
cycle costs. Historically,manufacturers have tended to disregard some
of the life-cycle costs since they have been borne by others.
FractionaZ factorial experiments are factorial experiments in which
not all levels of all variables are tested in combination with all levels
of all other variables. A sample, or fraction, of all theoretical combi-
nations a r e tested. This approach is taken when a full series of fac-
torial experiments would require a prohibitively large number of
runs.2Taguchi’s methods use fractional factorials.
Benchmarking is “a continuous, systematic process for evaluating
the products, services and work processes of organizations that are
recognized as representing best practices for the purpose of organi-
zational impr~vement.”~ The procedure had its origins and early
development at Xerox Corporation when, around 1982, Xerox com-
pared itself with its competitors in various key areas.
The approach came into fairly widespread use in the middle and
late 1980s. Almost any organizational activity can be the subject of a
benchmark study: broad functional areas like quality control, ser-
vice, manufacturing, etc.; or narrow factors within the broad areas
such as the method used for a specific operation, production yields,
mean time to failure of products, cycle times, sales territory assign-
ments, etc. Some factors and functions that have been benchmarked
are: capital costs, product features, product service, product quality,
company image, manufacturing, distribution, sales, data processing,
human resources, and finance.
Comparison studies can be made of different branches of an orga-
nization, o f competitors, and of a company unrelated to the one mak-
ing the study but one which performs some function in an outstand-
ing manner. For example, L. L. Bean, the mail-order company, was
studied by Xerox because of its highly efficient warehousing and
order-handling capabilities, even though the products of Xerox and
L. L. Bean were drastically different.6
Statistical process control (SPC) is a form of quality control which
uses statistical methods to help control dimensions and other char-
acteristics of manufactured products. Its purpose is to ensure that
variations in dimensions and other characteristics remain within
acceptable limits so that the product’s quality is ensured.
Quality function deployment (QFD) is a systematic approach for

improving product quality by concentrating on what the customer
wants and will continue to buy in the product. The approach utilizes
the skills within the organization on a team basis to design, manufac-
ture, and market products that incorporate the customer's desire^.^
Quality loss function, a Taguchi concept, is the relationship between
undesired variations in some characteristic of a product and the
financial loss that is borne by society as a result of it. Society's finan-
cial loss includes the cost of service, repair, warranty, and lost good-
wi1l.l" (Seethe definition of life-cycle costs in this section.) The greater
the deviation in a quality characteristic, the greater the financial loss.
Synchronized manufacturing is a system of manufacturing advo-
cated by Eliyahu Goldratt that involves small lots of production, run
on a s continuous a basis as possible by supplementing bottleneck
operations where necessary, balancing production to customers
orders, and avoiding stocking of work-in-process. When imple-
mented, it may greatly reduce factory throughput time, providing
both customer service and manufacturing advantages.
Continuous improuement is a philosophy that is inherent in a num-
ber o f currently used management approaches such as total quality
management (TQM). It emphasizes that industrial competitiveness
does n o t come from one massive improvement that simply has to be
maintained after implementation. Rather, competitiveness comes
from making an ongoing effort to install a series of improvements
that may be incremental but which are part of an improvement
process that is ongoing.
Total quality management is a managerial approach that empha-
sizes product and service quality improvement. Its elements include
full company organizational involvement in promoting quality, qual-
ity measurement, a focus on customers' wants, the use of teams,
thorough training, and continuous improvement.
Failure mode and effectsanalysis (FMEA) is a quality analysis tech-
nique usehl in improving product designs and manufacturing
processes by eliminating or minimizing real and potential quality
problems. The approach prioritizes problems by considering the seri-
ousness of the problem, its frequency, and the probability of its being
undiscovered. The combined effect of these three factors determines
the priority of corrective action.ll
Group technology is a production arrangement wherein parts are
grouped together in families with similar characteristics and pro-
duction equipment is laid out in the sequence needed for the parts
to progress from operation to operation with minimum transport
distance.
The production unit for the parts family is then self-contained and is
sometimes called a cell. This differs from the traditional job shop fac-
tory layout in which equipment of each type is grouped together in
various departments and each part moves from department to
department for processing. The advantage of group technology is
much reduced throughput time, simpler production control, reduced
material handling, and better operator understanding of quality
requirements.
The Relationship between Manufacturability

and Other Desirable Attributeeonflicting
Guidelines
The desirable objectives of a sound product design were discussed in
Chap. 2: function, safety, long-term quality, manufacturability, envi-
ronmental friendliness, serviceability, user friendliness, appearance,
features, a n d short time-to-market. These and the minimum lifetime
cost objectives that were mentioned don’t come automatically with
DFM, although some DFM advocates have stated that they do.
The most common claim by these DFM advocates is that quality and
reliability improvements are automatic with the reduction of the num-
ber of parts in an assembly. This claim may be explainable by the well-
known reliability diagram from Fig. 3.1. This diagram illustrates the
reliability of a product or an assembly in terms of the reliability of the
components t h a t compose it. The chart also applies to the quality level
0 = Iroction 01
good parts
0
- 30
m
9
ppm 2 parts
O M per million bad
10
0 0 = 0.99 (lO.Oa, ppm)

0 4 80 t20 160 2W 240 280 320 360
a = 0.9 (I00.ooo Ppm)
400
Number 01 essential parts in the product
Figure 3.1 This c h a r t illustrates the relationship between the number of

parts a n d the reliability of the product which they compose. The curves
assume and are dependent on the fact that all parts must operate for the
entire product to function correctly. They also assume, for simplicity,
that the reliability of each part is the same. Note how strongly the prod-
uct reliability declines when there is a large number of necessary parts
(serially dependent on each other) in the product.
32 Backgroundand Basic Concepts
of a product in terms of the yield or quality level of the component

parts. I n this chart, the smaller the number of parts with a given reli-
ability, the better the yield of acceptable assemblies and vice versa. By
reducing the number of parts, the yield of acceptable assemblies rises.
The graph is based on the assumption that the failure of any one com-
ponent will cause the total assembly to fail. Less critical to its validity
is the assumption that all parts in the assembly have equal reliability,
i.e., an equal failure rate.
These assumptions are close to being accurate for some assemblies
especially if each part has a single function. They are inaccurate, how-
ever, for assemblies where some parts have multiple functions and
where the importance of each part t o the operation of the total assem-
bly m a y or may not be critical. If critical, its failure could cause the fail-
ure of t h e assembly. If not critical, its failure may not have any notice-
able effect at all or may result only in some inconvenience or the
diminishment of some subsidiary function of the product. When parts
counts of products are reduced, it is often a result of incorporating mul-
tiple functions into some more complex parts. The reliability of the
assembly is more the result of the number of parts functions than a
result of the number of parts. A single part incorporating a spring, a
bearing, and a hinge may cause the product t o fail if any one of those
three functions failed. Therefore, we cannot assume that a reduction in
the number of parts in a product will automatically improve its quality
and reliability.
This guideline also contradicts one standard guideline for reliability
that calls for duplication of components (redundancy) in order to gain
reliability.
The same kinds of limitations may apply to other guidelines that
have t h e purpose of reducing product costs or, in other ways, improv-
ing manufacturability but which may not enhance quality, reliability,
or other desirable attributes. For example, note the following:
Guidelines for manufacturabilitythat may

conflict with quality and reliability
1. Use free-machining metals for machined parts.

2. Use the most liberal tolerances possible.
3. Use stock or as-cast or as-molded surfaces instead of machined sur-
faces whenever possible.
4.Eliminate adjustments as much as possible.
5 . Reduce the number of fasteners and other parts in the assembly.
Free-machining alloys achieve their machinability at some expense
of mechanical properties. The reduced mechanical properties (e.g.,
DFMIDFX Approaches 33
lower tensile strength and reduced fatigue strength) must be evaluated

in terms of their effect on performance and reliability. Another factor
to be balanced is the higher unit costs of free-machining alloys.
Using liberal tolerances has obvious advantages in the production of
parts. Costly secondary operations may be eliminated. Expenses for
tool maintenance and quality checks are reduced and higher speeds
and feeds may be employed. But more liberal tolerances mean more
variation in components which could cause variations in product per-
formance, quality, and reliability.
Stock or as-cast surfaces tend to be less accurate and less flat than
those produced by machining. They are, of course, less costly because
they avoid the cost of a machining operation or operations. However,
their use could impair the smoothness of operation and, in other
respects, t h e quality of the product where they are utilized. The effect
of these factors must be evaluated by the design engineer and, some-
times, steps must be taken to ensure that their less precise character-
istics are not a detriment to the product’s performance and quality.
In the matter of eliminating adjustments, these are usually incorpo-
rated whenever the dimensional control of individual components does
not “stack up”to the accuracy needed for some element of the product.
Adjustments tend to be very time-consuming. They are a source of
potential error and, thereby, potential quality problems. Reliability
problems may arise from slippage of the adjustment. It is desirable to
eliminate adjustments, but it must be determined that the dimensional
control of t h e components is close enough so that the adjustment is not
needed. In many cases, however, when the adjustment is eliminated
there is a risk of more dimensional variation and more variability in
the output characteristic that the adjustment is designed to control.
Then, the “cure”would be worse than the “disease.” The product’s per-
formance would be impaired.
In summary we can say that few manufacturability guidelines can be
considered a s individual hard-and-fast rules. Few of them can be
applied automatically and thoughtlessly. Sound engineering judgment
must be applied to every proposed design change. For example, con-
sider the following:
Reliability versus manufacturability

These reliability guidelines conflict with the objective of low manufac-
turing costs:
1. Use redumdancy (duplicate components) to provide continuing oper-
ation of t h e product in the event that the component fails.
2. Use deruting of components. (Specify components of higher capacity
t h a n the application demands.)
The redundancy rule is illustrated by the four-engine airplane which

can fly even if one, two, and sometimes three of the engines are nonop-
erative. Also consider which braking system you would prefer for your
car-one with only one brake for both regular stopping and emergen-
cies or one with separate stopping and emergency systems?
All engineering consists of compromises or trade-offs and product
design is no exception. Various objectives must be weighed and priori-
tized. Then, design decisions are made in order to accommodate the
objectives. Rarely does any one step optimize the achievement of all
objectives. No rule can be applied thoughtlessly and automatically. A
decision, then, must be made whether the decrease in one characteris-
tic is balanced by the improvement in another.
Complementary Guidelines
There a r e many cases, however, in which function, quality, reliability,
durability, serviceability, and manufacturability are served by the
same design change. Many of the DFM guidelines, particularly with
detailed components, made to reduce in-plant quality problems also
reduce field reliability problems.
An interesting example of multiple benefits is a paper feed roller
used in the IBM Proprinter and by Xerox in some copying machines.
The particular design of the roller provides for assembly from the side
of the shaft that it is mounted on, rather than from the end. Thus the
shaft can be in place i n the machine when the roller is installed. This
not only facilitates assembly in the factory, but greatly simplifies field
service i n the event that the roller needs to be replaced. (See Fig. 3.2).
There is a high correlation between manufacturability improve-
ments a n d serviceability improvements. As in the feed roller example,
a design change to facilitate initial assembly of a product often
improves the task of repairing or replacing components in the field.
Figure 3.3 illustrates an interesting case where this correlation did
not hold. It shows a subassembly consisting of a nylon bevel gear and
steel shaft which were part of the mechanism of a household sewing
machine. The sketch illustrates the initial design concept. When the
assembly was analyzed from a DFM viewpoint, the suggestion put
forth w a s to eliminate the steel insert from the assembly. This could be
done b y molding the gear directly onto the shaft instead of onto the
steel insert. The shaft would be knurled at this point to hold the gear
securely. Both the insert and the set screw to hold it to the shaft would
be eliminated.
The cost calculation showed a very worthwhile savings from such a
change a n d the author, among others, vigorously promoted the adoption
of the simplified design. The only problem was that those advocating the
Figure 3.2 These business machine feed rollers can be assembled to a shaft after it
is in position. They do not have to be fed over the end of the shaft. They contain slots
on either side so that the roller fits into place if presented to the shaft in the right
orientation. This simplifies factory assembly but is even more advantageous in the
event that it h a s to be replaced in the field.
Nylon gear is molded

on steel insert.
Both are then fastened
to the shaft with
the set screw.
Milled flat
for set screw
- Shaft
/
/@!screw
I
Steel insert Nylon
bevelled
gear
Figure 3.3 A case where manufacturability conflicted with serviceability. Eliminating
the steel insert in the gear and the set screw simplified manufacturing but made field
service much more time-consuming. The change had to be rescinded.
change did not sufficiently investigate the effect of such a design on the
serviceability of the product. In the event that the gear had to be
replaced in the field, the changed design required that the whole shaft
be removed, upsetting the timing of the sewing machine. With the orig-
inal concept, the gear could be slipped off the shafi and replaced without
upsetting the machine’s timing. The proposed design change was imple-
mented, but had to be rescinded about a year later after complaints from
service people in the field. In this case, life-cycle product costs were
increased by a design change which reduced manufacturing costs.
Another example where guidelines for different design objectives are
not necessarily in conflict are design rules intended to avoid in-plant
processing problems. These very often aid in enhancing quality and
reliability in the finished product. For example:
Guidelines where quality/reliability and

manufacturability objectives coincide
1. Avoid sharp corners in castings, molded parts and machined parts.
2. In molded parts and castings, avoid abrupt changes in wall thick-
ness.
3. In assemblies, design parts so that they cannot be assembled incor-
rectly. (Figure 12.5 shows a n example.)
4. Utilize standard, off-the-shelf parts of proven quality and reliability.
Sharp corners cause tooling wear and component quality problems

during manufacturing and component reliability problems when the
product is in use. Abrupt changes in wall thickness, in many processes,
promote distortion and dimensional problems that can impair the qual-
ity and reliability of the product. The quality consequences of the third
and fourth guidelines should be relatively obvious.
All in all, we see that the DFM guidelines are rarely absolutes. Each
case must be analyzed on its own merits and sound judgment must be
applied. The designer’s job is a complex one.
In conclusion, DFM doesn’t have to impair other attributes; when
done properly, it can enhance them. However, the mutuality is not
automatic. Engineering judgment may be needed when compromises
and trade-offs are involved.
References
1. T. B. Barker, Quality by Experimental Design, Marcel Dekker, New York, and ASQC
Press, Milwaukee, 1985.
2. G. Box and S. Bisgaard, “The Scientific Context of Quality Improvement,”(paper),
University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1987.
3. D. C. Montgomery, Design and Analysis of Experiments, John Wiley, New York,
1991.
4. M. S. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, N.J., 1989.
5. E. E. Sprow, “What Hath Taguchi Wrought?” Manufacturing Engineering, April
1992.
6. M. J. Spendolini, The Benchmarking Book, Amacon Div. of American Management
Association, New York, 1992.
7. M. A. Moss, Designing for Minimal Maintenance Expense, Marcel Dekker, New
York, 1985.
8. J. V. Michaels and W. P. Wood, Design to Cost, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1989.
9. J. Hauser and D. Clausing, T h e House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review,
M a y J u n e 1988.
10. S. Ashley, “Applying Taguchi’s Quality Engineering to Technology Development,”
Mechanical Engineering, July 1992.
11. S. Choka, “Failure Mode and Effects Analysis,” internal IBM paper.
12. W. Skinner, “The Productivity Paradox,” Harvard Business Review, July-August
1986.
13. J. G. Miller and T. E. Vollmann, “The Hidden Factory,” Harvard Business Review,
September-October 1985.
14. M. K. Andreasen, S. Kahler, and T. Lund, Design for Assembly, U K IFS
(Publications) Ltd., 1983.
15. K. G. Swift, Knowledge-Based Design for Manufacture, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1987.
16. G. Lewis a n d H. E. Trucks, Designing for .Economical Production, 2d ed., S M E ,
Dearborn, Mich., 1987.
17. D. M. Anderson, Design for Manufacturubility, CIM Press, Lafayette, Calif., 1990.
18. National Research Council, Improving, Engineering Design: Designing for
Competitive Advantage, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1991.
19. R. S. Kaplan, “Management Accounting for Advanced Technological Environments,”
Science, vol. 25, August 25, 1989.
20. R. Levi, “Cautions for Taguchi Lovers,” Manufacturing Engineering, March 1993.
Chapter
4
Basic Principles
of DFM/DFX
The three previous chapters have defined and explained DFM and
DFX, summarized their history, argued the need for them, and
reviewed a number of selected approaches. It probably is apparent
that achieving all the product design objectives incorporated in the
company’s strategic product plan, with proper weighting of each, rep-
resents a significant accomplishment. There are, however, some car-
dinal principles-major guidelines-that somewhat ease the task.
This chapter explores these principles.
As w e have defined them, DFM and DFX are techniques that involve
the application of a series of design guidelines or rules of thumb to the
configuration of a product, its major subassemblies and its individual
parts. There are literally hundreds of these guidelines which direct the
product designer to a more satisfactory design. Some are more impor-
tant t h a n others. Keeping the major principles in mind aids the
designer in understanding, utilizing, and prioritizing them. The fol-
lowing are some of those major principles.
A Secret of Recent Success: Simplify and

Improve the Assembly!
There have been many reports in the popular technical magazines in
recent years of dramatic improvements in product design attributable
to DFM. One theme that is evident in most of these stories is design sim-
plification for assembly. The improvements reported involved major
reductions in the number of parts in the product. Fasteners were elim-
inated i n favor of snap fits, press fits, tabs, and hooks. A series of sim-
ple, single-function parts has been combined into a single more complex,
multifunctional part, usually one injection-molded of thermoplastic.
38
Basic Principlesof DFMlDFX 39
BOX 4.1
Notable Achievements
The most significant DFM advances have been made by simplifying product assem-
blies:
By eliminating parts, especially fasteners
m By using plastics to provide snap fits and combine parts which would be otherwise
separate
By using parts such as integral hinges, springs, cams, and bearings
By designing to eliminate machining operations
Sometimes, die or investment castings, powder metal parts, or stamp-

ings are used t o produce these complex, multifunctional parts but most
are designed to be injection-molded of plastic. The sum total of the
changes in these reports has been a major design simplification and a
tremendous reduction in assembly time and cost. (See Box 4.1.)Figure
1 . 1through
~ c illustrates a simple example of the principle involved.
The largest cost reductions usually accrue from this kind of analysis
of the overall assembly. Benefits are far superior to those of analyses
intended to improve the manufacturability of individual component
parts. There a r e several reasons for this:
1. The maximum savings accrue when a part is eliminated or com-
bined with another, rather than just being simplified.
2. Final product assembly is often a high-labor-cost element in a typ-
ical company’s cost structure and assembly support is a high-overhead
item. By simplifying product assembly, significant cost benefits are
derived.
Henry Stoll has the same view. He says, “the greatest single oppor-
tunity for product design improvement using the concept of DFM has
been in the area of assembly.”’ Chapter 12 discusses design for assem-
bly in more detail.
As Einstein said, “The best design is the simplest one that works.”
The simplest design; that is, the one with the fewest number of parts,
the most straightforward arrangement, the fewest number of adjust-
ments, the fewest number of interconnections and interdependencies,
and the maximum use of modules is the one that is most reliable, least
costly, easiest t o service and usually the quickest one t o market.
Minimize the Number of Parts

It is good DFM/DFX practice to eliminate separate fasteners or reduce
their number. This can be achieved if the mating parts are designed to
use snap fits, press fits, tabs, etc. Fasteners are inexpensive in them-
selves but the purchasing of them and the stocking, handling, and
assembling of them is not. Loose fasteners are also a source of poten-
tial quality and reliability problems. If the assembly process is auto-
matic, parts feeders for fasteners are expensive and subject to operat-
ing downtime. When threaded fasteners are required, the types that
are self-tapping with integral washers are preferab1e.l 1 Sharply
pointed screws can be a safety hazard to the person who services the
product if the points protrude beyond the parts being joined. Figure 4.1
illustrates how two mating parts can be joined with integral snap-fit-
ting elements.
Other parts can be eliminated by making parts multifunctional by
incorporating hinges, springs, guides, etc. into the design instead of
using additional components to get the desired function. A single com-
plex part, incorporating several functions, is usually, but not always,
greatly- preferable to the use of separate components. See Fig. 4.2 for an
example of this.
/Plastic cover
Figure 4.1 This product utilizes snap-fit princi-

ples to attach the cover, eliminating the need for
screw fasteners. Since the cover is molded from
plastic material and because of the taper of the
snap-fit elements, it also illustrates compliance.
Spring Spring feature

Figure 4.2 A multifunctional part. By incorporating a spring function in
this lever, the need for a separate coil spring is eliminated.
Basic Principles of DFMlDFX 41
There are powerful reasons for reducing the number of parts in a

product assembly. Stoll explains:
Fewer parts mean less of everything that is needed to manufacture a prod-
uct. This includes engineering time, drawings and part numbers, produc-
tion control records and inventory; number of purchase orders, vendors,
etc; number of bins, containers, stock locations, buffers, etc; amount of
material handling equipment, containers, number of moves, etc; amount
of accounting details and calculations; service parts and catalogs; number
of items t o inspect and type of inspections required; and amount and com-
plexity of part production equipment and facilities, assembly and train-
ing. Put another way, a part that is eliminated costs nothing to make,
assemble, move, handle, orient, store, purchase, clean, inspect, rework,
service. It never jams or interferes with automation. It never fails, mal-
functions, or needs adjustment.l
Standardize!
Major benefits are normally realized when individual parts, complete
products, modules, subassemblies, components, manufacturing
processes, systems, engineering drawings, operation sheets, etc. all are
standardized. Similar parts should all be shaped and dimensioned the
same. When two parts differ in some respect, the portions that do not
have to be different should be exactly the same. The company should
include in its design manual a list and description and/or drawing of
preferred parts. When the company’s product line involves a series of
similar products, it is advisable to establish families of components,
each configured and processed very similarly. This is compatible with
the “group technology” or “family of parts” approach to product design
and production. Designers should attempt, as much as possible, to uti-
lize as many of the existing parts and components as possible in sev-
eral places instead of using components of a special design in each por-
tion of a product and in each product. In other words, they should strive
for a reduction in part numbers or varieties as well as a reduction in the
number of actual parts used. By reducing the number of component
variations, longer production runs are ensured. This provides a better
opportunity t o amortize tooling and equipment costs and aids in justi-
fying more efficient manufacturing processes. Also, many of the advan-
tages listed by Stoll for the reduction of the number of parts also accrue
when the number of part numbers in the company’s product line is
reduced.
Use of standard catalog components, those that are available from
commercial sources, is even better than the use of company-standard
components, for many reasons. Such parts are normally readily avail-
able. Prices for them are normally lower than for special items manu-
factured in-house. Quality and reliability are proved from previous use.
Lead time is shorter. When repair is required, the spare part is more
readily available and is considerably less expensive.' Standardization
is discussed furthnr in Chap. 9.
Use Processible Materials

Most suppliers of basic metals and plastics and vendors of many other
materials have grades of material which are formulated for easy pro-
cessibility. The most common example of this approach is the free-
machining alloys that are available for screw machining and other
machining operations. Another example is deep-drawing quality steel
for use in applications which require severe metal flow, as in automo-
bile body parts. However, a grade of steel, brass, aluminum, or other
metal suitable for machining is not optimum for forming. The grade of
material must fit the process. These special grades of material may be
slightly more costly on a per-kilogram basis but often result in a less
costly a n d higher-quality component part.
Fit the Design to the Manufacturing Process

The best results from a cost, function, and quality standpoint are most
likely when the product design is developed for the particular manu-
facturing processes to be used. Conversely, the manufacturing process,
if its selection and design are involved, should be engineered to fit the
particular component t o be produced. This is just another area in
which, and another reason why, a concurrent design approach is supe-
rior in t h e product realization process.
It could be argued that it is possible to find a vendor or purchase
equipment to carry out any desired manufacturing process within the
state o f the art. This is, of course, true. However, the best manufactur-
ing economy, the best product quality and reliability, and the shortest
time-to-market usually are realized when the product utilizes the facil-
ities, equipment, tooling, and know-how that already exists, either
within the company's factories or with a regular vendor. For example,
fine blanking provides a means for making metal stampings with
enhanced properties. A company that has that facility would be advised
t o use it for parts that otherwise might be some combination of stamp-
ings and machined parts. A company with skill in compression-mold-
ing housings from glass-reinforced polyester sheets, and needing a
housing for a new product, might better stay with that approach rather
than injected-molding thermoplastic if speed-to-market and initial-fit
quality are important. A firm with good computer numerical control
machining equipment and a need for speed-to-market of a new product
perhaps should design some key parts for machining from solid stock
rather than from a forging or some type of casting which could other-
wise show a lower eventual cost. Designing new parts to fit existing
tooling and holding fixtures has obvious benefits in both cost and lead
time. Speed-to-market, quality and reliability, and component cost are
factors which could be affected by the choice of a process not already in
operation. The question of whether a product should be designed so
that some components require a new process also depends, in many
cases, on the justifiability of a n investment in new equipment, tooling,
and start-up for the new process.
Fit the Design to the Manufacturing System

The system used to organize production and support operations may
have a bearing on design. Systems that could be significant are group
technology, flexible manufacturing cells, particular methods of materi-
als handling, quality control procedures, production line layout, the
order-filling system, etc. For example, components to be produced by a
group technology system should have standardized dimensions for all
portions t h a t are fixed or are scaled for different varieties. The mater-
ial-handling method may dictate the need for parts that can be nested
together or fit a standard handling container. The use of certain test-
ing equipment for quality control may be facilitated by the standard-
ized location of test points. If these advanced manufacturing systems
are t o achieve their potential benefits, the design of components in the
factory must be compatible with them.2
Design Each Part to Be Easy to Make

Each manufacturing process has its own capabilities and constraints.
From these follow the design guidelines, design rules, rules of thumb,
and design standards that aid in fitting a part’s design most optimally
to the process. Success in adapting the part’s configuration to the
process provides economies of manufacture, quality improvements,
shorter production start-up times, and other advantages. For maxi-
mum cost advantage, the designer should allow as much tolerance as
the primary manufacturing process provides, avoiding the necessity for
secondary operations like grinding, lapping, etc. which provide greater
precision b u t at a high cost penalty.
Economical materials should be chosen, but material processibility
must also be considered so that the part requires the minimum total of
materials cost, labor, and overhead. Some of the processes that produce
parts t o near-net-shape are advisable because they minimize sec-
ondary operations. Some of the near-net-shape processes are powder
metallurgy, investment casting, fine blanking, and die casting.
It is also advisable to design parts so that finishing operations are
not required. Painting, polishing, plating are costly. If the part can be
hidden or can be made of precolored material (e.g., molded from pre-

colored plastic or formed from precoated sheet), labor and overhead
costs c a n be reduced significantly. (Chapter 13 provides examples and
additional information on the guidelines involved. The Handbook of
Product Design for Manufacturing3contains complete process capabil-
ity information and manufacturing guidelines and tolerance recom-
mendations for a full range of types of manufactured parts.)
Design for the Expected Production Quantity

The designer or design team must take into consideration the quantity
of production anticipated for the product. Production volume has a
large bearing on the choice of manufacturing process and that, in turn,
affects the product design. The design and the process must be com-
patible with the production quantity that is expected. Most manufac-
turing processes have a natural, advantageous quantity level at which
costs a r e minimized. Processes with short production cycles but with
high tooling costs are advantageous for mass production; processes
with minimal tooling but longer direct cycles are advantageous at low
quantity levels, when high tooling costs cannot be amortized. Some
processes may be suitable for a wider range of quantities, depending on
the sophistication (and cost) of the tooling and equipment involved.
The point is that the design configuration of each component should
be compatible with the process that is most economic at the expected
level o f production. (This subject is also discussed further in Chap. 22,
which includes a number of illustrations.)
Maximize Compliance
This is Stoll's' term for the procedure of designing parts so that they fit
together easily even if the fit and other conditions of assembly are not
optimum. It involves such steps as putting chamfers on holes, bullet-
noses on parts to be inserted, and tapers on mating surfaces to provide
more room at the point of engagement. It involves using slots instead
of holes if the holes of two parts do not exactly line up due to manufac-
turing variations. Most importantly, perhaps, it involves using the flex-
ibility or springiness of the parts themselves or separate springs to
enable the mating parts to fit together even if the alignment is not
exactly correct. These steps are advisable because there is some varia-
tion in the dimensions of all parts, no matter how carefully their qual-
ity is controlled.
Misalignments can and do occur. However, even if the parts are
exactly t o the specified dimensions, assembly is easier, faster and more
reliable if the parts are compliant. This approach is equally beneficial
for easing the assembly of parts to fmtures as well as to each other.
Basic Principles of DFM/DFX 45
Figure 4.3 shows some examples of compliant parts. There are other
steps that can be taken to aid in assembling component parts under
actual production conditions. These are summarized in the Handbook
of Product Design for Manufacturing3 and other references.
Reduce Adjustments
Adjustments are frequently necessary in the assembly of components
and products. They are needed when the output requirements of the
assembly are finer than can be provided from a straight assembly of
component parts; that is, when the dimensional or other characteristic
variations in the component parts “stack up” to a greater variation
allowable in the finished assembly. Adjustments are costly since they
are time-consuming and are a source of reliability problems. Assemblies
can “get out of adjustment” over time due to movement of parts or
changes in their properties. Lewis states, “If you have manufacturing do
settings, you have a quality pr~blem!”~ Eliminating adjustments is
Panel mounted
component clip
Box lid
Edge board connector Board-to-board interconnect Door latch
(a)
Figure 4.3 Some examples of compliance.Mating parts that are designed to provide clear-
ance at the point of engagement or which provide flexibility reduce the need of precision
in alignment during assembly and allow for some dimensional variation in the mating
parts. [Parts shown in ( a )are from Nevins and Whitney, Concurrent Design of Products
and P r o c e ~ s e sParts
.~ shown in (b) are from Bralla, Handbook of Product Design for
Manufacturing?]
Tube within a tube
Sheet-metal cover Sheet-metal cover

(for permanent assembly) (removable)
Electrical bayonet connection
(b)
Figure 4.3 Continued
desirable, but it usually involves a tightening of tolerances for the com-

ponent parts of the assembly. The cost of such tightened tolerances
must be balanced against the advantages of eliminating the adjust-
ment. Nevertheless, this is an area that must be addressed by design
engineers who wish to optimize their product’s cost, quality, service-
ability, and reliability. Sometimes, adjustments can be eliminated by
changing the manufacturing process or tooling for the parts involved. If
critical surfaces are identified and used as locating points for subse-
quent operations or if tooling is modified so that critical dimensions are
produced in one operation, adjustments may be eliminated.
EliminateMachiningOperations
Though the most dramatic achievements in DFM have come by improv-
ing overall assemblies (and not just by simplifying the components or
parts that make them up) the second most notable improvements have
come from designs that eliminate machining operations. Machining
operations are expensive. (Reasons for this are discussed in Chap. 13).
(See Box 4.2.)They involve labor costs, tooling and equipment amorti-
zation, tooling maintenance costs, etc. and often necessitate secondary
operations like deburring. They are, therefore, expensive and worth
eliminating whenever possible. (This is despite the fact that machined
BOX 4.2
I
1
Why are machined parts expensive?
Relatively slow processes (slowerthan injection molding, stamping, and die casting)
High overhead
Equipment depreciation
Tool amortization
Tool sharpening
High QC requirements
Coolants and other supplies
Often skilled labor
Multiple operations for complex shapes
m Secondary operations, e.g., deburring
$025mm
(0002 in) (0010~1n)
/
Costly I Rrttor I
Best, i f
01 lowoble I
Figure 4.4 Parts which use as-cast, as-extruded, or as-molded
surfaces instead of machined surfaces provide a significant
reduction in manufacturingcost.
metal parts are usually rugged and can enhance quality and reliability.)
Use stock dimensions and as-cast, as-molded, and as-formed surfaces
as much as possible instead of machined surfaces. (See Fig. 4.4.)Also
specify tolerances within the capability of the primary operation to
avoid secondary machining operations such as grinding and h ~ n i n g . ~
Manage the Project Properly

Although it i s possible for an enlightened designer, working indepen-
dently, to produce a product design that obtains high achievement of
a number of important attributes, this is the exception. No matter how
knowledgeable the designer is and how available design references are
that provide guidelines and process capability information, results in

many companies emphasize over and over that the best results are
achieved when the design project utilizes the knowledge of a number
of functional specialists and is carried out by a team rather than an
individual.
Realistically, it should be obvious that one designer cannot be
expected to be knowledgeable about manufacturing processes, quality,
reliability, service, etc. as could specialists in those areas. The team
must include specialists with knowledge and experience in the func-
tional areas corresponding to design objectives. For example, quality,
reliability, safety, service, manufacturing, and other specialists should
participate in the design. Hand in hand with this team approach is the
need for a full product management strategy that defines what objec-
tives t h e product must have. The strategy must be actively supported
and l e d by the company’s management. This important subject is cov-
ered in Chaps. 5 through 10.
Evaluate Design Alternatives

As indicated in preceding sections, the choice of any design alternative
involves a great number of trade-offs between various objectives. The
design that has high reliability may be very expensive; the design that
provides safe operation may give a product that is unduly heavy; the
user-friendly approach may necessitate a product with unattractive
styling, and so forth. It is difficult for the designer or the design team
to decide which alternative for all the product’s components and for the
product itself is the best.
One approach that can aid the designer in making design decisions
is one that evaluates a proposed alternative against a particular objec-
tive. Most systems in use at present deal with manufacturability and
do so using the factor that is most significant in measuring manufac-
turability-manufacturing cost. The systems facilitate making cost
comparisons for alternative designs. Some are computerized, thereby
providing easier and more attractive usability. Many of these evalua-
tion systems also provide a design efficiency rating, giving the designer
another means of comparing one alternative with another quantita-
tively. They constitute a systematic, step-by-step means of making the
evaluations and also have the advantage of stimulating the designer to
make improvements and making it easier for him or her to do so, since
design guidelines are implicit in the systems. They are usually a good
teaching too1.l
Chapter 11explains a number of the currently available systems and
a few that are still under development. The development of these
design evaluation methods is currently quite active. Systems to evalu-
ate environmental friendliness, serviceability, and recyclability are

becoming available. The most notable evaluation systems currently in
use are those that evaluate various assembly designs.
References
1. H. W. Stoll, “Design for Manufacture: An Overview,”Applied Mechanics Review, vol.
39, no. 9, ASME, September, 1986.
2. J. Corbett, M. Dooner, J. Melika, and C. Pym, Design for Manufacture, Addison-
Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1991.
3. J. G. Bralla, ed., Hanilbook of Product Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1986.
5. G. Lewis and H. K. Connelly, Product Design for Assembly, the Methodology Applied,
private training manual, 1990.
6. D. M. Anderson, Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Chap. 1, “Design for
Manufacturability,” Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Dearborn, Michigan, 1992.
Part
Managing DFM/DFX
It can be said that there are two basic aspects to DFX: The first
aspect involves the principles of D m , the design
recommendations, and guidelines. This is the technical aspect.
It deals with how the product designers actually modify their
product designs to incorporate manufacturabilty and the other
desirable objectives of DFX.
The second aspect of DFX is its management. How should a n
organization, a company, responsible for the design and
manufacture of a product, and wishing to maximize its
conformance to the objectives mentioned earlier in this book,
manage the design process?
Most papers and articles on the subject of DFMIDFX deal
with its management. A far smaller number deal with the
technical aspect of this approach. This probably indicates that
the managerial aspect is the more critical and of the most
concern to managers. Though both aspects have their
complexities, the management aspect is probably not as
straightforward as the technical aspect. There are also
differences among various authorities as to how this system
should be directed. The following chapters represent my
viewpoint, based on much current expert opinion and my own
experience, a s to how this important approach should be
managed in a n industrial concern.
Chapter
The Product Realization

Process
We will now review the normal procedure by which a new or improved

product is brought to market. This process, which involves the devel-
opment, design, tooling, production, market launch, and sales is
referred to b y some as the product realization process.
The process can be a complex and lengthy one and can vary consid-
erably from company to company. Priest has condensed it to five criti-
cal steps:'
1. Requirements definition
2. Conceptual design
3. Detailed design
4. Test and evaluation
5. Production and sustaining engineering
Steps in the Process

The following is a more detailed summary of the process involved in
some companies when a new or improved product is brought into pro-
duction:*
1. Information about the competitiveness of the present product
line comes from various sources, such as sales and service personnel
*This is not necessarily an ideal sequence but is included to illustrate a common, basi-
cally sound approach and to show the breadth of activities involved in the sequence. It is
based on my personal experience in several companies.
53
54 Managing DFM/DFX
and data, study of competitor’s products, competitor’s advertising, and

trade shows. This information all funnels to the product manager.*
2. After analyzing this information, the product manager decides
what design changes are needed to improve the current product, or
may decide that an entirely new product is needed.
3. I n either case, the design implications of the proposed product
are discussed with research and development or product engineering
personnel. In an ideal arrangement, manufacturing engineering, qual-
ity control, service, safety, and other functions all are represented in a
review of what is needed in the new product.
4. After some study, R&D reports back to the product manager with
a recommendation as to what product features or design improvements
are feasible. Whether or not a given feature can be incorporated in a new
or redesigned product depends on its technical complexity and the diffi-
culty of change, the time available to develop the necessary changes, the
cost of such a development, the availability of facilities to produce the new
features, how it affects the product’s pricing, and many other factors.
5. After further back-and-forth discussion, the product manager,
with R&D help, formulates the new product concept. Ideally, manufac-
turing and other functions also participate in these discussions. A ten-
tative o r preliminary manufacturing plan reflecting the proposed
product design is formulated, as are any special steps required for
items such as service, safety, and quality control.
6. The product manager, often with the assistance of managers of
other functions, particularly product development, presents the new
product proposal to management. At this stage, the proposal is only to
obtain authorization for further design work. (The full,final proposal and
appropriation request comes after the design is more fully formulated.)
7. After management approval, the design work commences.
8. During the design process, manufacturing engineering and other
functions work closely with the product development people. Long lead-
time tooling and equipment that depend on the product design can be
planned for early ordering to avoid delays in the project later. Often,
manufacturing engineers can also contribute to the formulation of the
new product concept because of their knowledge of what is and what is
not feasible from a manufacturing viewpoint. Cost estimating person-
nel can work with designers to develop estimated product manufactur-
ing costs at an early enough stage so that they can aid in the develop-
ment of the design and the choice of product features. (However,
*The product manager is the person, usually reporting to the sales or marketing
department, who has the responsibility for developing and implementing strategy for a
product or product line. He or she investigates and defines what features the product
should have, such as its appearance,its name, and its price. The product manager coor-
dinates t h e steps that bring such a product to market and oversees advertising and pro-
motional activities after the product goes on sale.
The Product Realization Process 55
historically, in too many companies, the manufacturing engineers and

others have not been involved until the design concept is complete and
often when the product design is far more advanced.) If a true team
approach is followed, a full team with personnel representing quality,
service, sales, production, and other functions, also participates.
9. Design of long lead-time facilities, equipment, and tooling may
commence a t this point, as needed to meet planned product availabil-
ity dates.
10. When the product concept has firmed up and actual product devel-
opment is fully in process, a formal appropriation request is prepared.
This is the document which outlines the complete product plan in detail,
including such things as product description, product strategy as to place
in the product line, competition expected, and pricing. Most importantly,
it includes a request for funds necessary to bring the product to market.
This includes finds for the tooling, equipment, and facilities necessary
to produce t h e new product as well as requests for funds to complete
R&D. Testing, advertising, and other product launch expenses including
initial inventory, sales training, and service training are estimated and
included in t h e request. The appropriation request includes sales and
profit estimates. Presumably, there will be expected incremental profits
to justify the investment required to realize the new product.
Various functional departments participate in the preparation of
this document. Marketing provides information about the product strat-
egy, the product's expected place in the market, its pricing, and name.
Product development supplies estimates of the costs involved in fully
developing t h e product, including internal costs and charges for outside
specialists such as industrial designers. It provides renderings or pho-
tographs showing what the product will look like.
Manufacturing engineering supplies estimates of tooling, equipment,
and facilities costs and lead times. Quality control provides data on the
quality plan and the gaging and equipment that will be required.
Package engineering develops a packaging plan for the product. The
cost department supplies estimates of the product's cost. Purchasing,
with manufacturing, develops and supplies expected make-buy deci-
sions, and the purchasing strategy. "he distribution organization sup-
plies data on the inventory levels needed to support sales of the product.
Production control supplies figures on in-plant inventories. The service
organization provides information on proposed service training and the
costs of any special service equipment required, if any. The finance
department may provide information about the source and cost of
investment funds required to finance the project. The accounting
department assembles all the cost data to develop total investment fig-
ures, return-on-investment estimates, and profit projections. All func-
tional departments participate in the development of an overall time
schedule for the project.
56 Managing DFWDFX
11. The appropriation request is presented to top management

including, if the project and investment are sufficiently sizable, the
company’sboard of directors. Marketing and the product manager take
the lead in this presentation.
12. Design work continues while the appropriation request is being
considered and, in due course, the appropriation request is approved by
management.
13. Production equipment and facilities expansions may be ordered
at this point along with tooling which requires a long lead time. Close
coordination is required between product engineering and manufac-
turing engineering on product configurations and dimensions that
affect such tooling. Some dimensions may have to be frozen before the
product design is completed in order to ensure that project schedules
are met.
14. The product and process design phase continues. Facilities con-
struction, if needed, proceeds. Long lead-time tooling is under con-
struction. As product design draws to a close, prototypes are built and
tested. At this point, testing will be chiefly in the development labora-
tory. Testing is primarily for function (performance tests) and reliabil-
ity (life tests).
15. Periodic meetings are held with all interested parties. These are
normally led by the product engineers who report how well the pro-
duct’s design will meet the previous plan. The effect of any engineering
changes on areas such as tooling, gaging, product strategy, and cost are
discussed. A key item at these meetings is a review as to how the pro-
ject is meeting its time schedule.
16. As designs for components are finalized and released to manu-
facturing, the balance of the production tooling is designed and ordered
and final details on long lead-time tooling, previously ordered, are
released to tooling suppliers. More tooling, gaging, materials, packag-
ing, and other needed items are ordered.
17. If the project is a major one, periodic formal reports may be pre-
pared a n d presented t o upper management. Key elements are whether
the product will meet earlier specifications, whether the costs are falling
within previous estimates, and whether the project is on schedule.
18. Concurrently, field and life testing of prototypes proceeds. In
some quarters, this is referred to as beta testing. Potential customers
are allowed to try the product and their reactions and comments are
solicited. Prototypes are photographed for advertising material and
advertising and promotional strategy are finalized.
19. Facilities (for example, buildings), if involved, are completed.
Production equipment and tooling are installed and tried out.
20. Complete engineering drawings and bills of material are released
by product engineering. (Up to this point, much production and pur-
chasing activity has been carried out from preliminary drawings.)
The Product Realization Process 57
21. A pilot production run is made and tested. (Field tests and life
tests continue.) Quality control is intimately involved in evaluating
early production for fit of components and performance of assemblies
and the product. Quality control performs process capability studies to
verify that specified dimensions can be met on an ongoing basis.
Further field and laboratory testing is carried out using pilot produc-
tion units. The units are also used for sales and service training which
is under way at this point.
22. Engineering changes are often made as a result of experience
with pilot production and from product test results. These are released
to production on an as-soon-as-possible basis. Coordination and meet-
ings are needed, sometimes on an emergency basis, if engineering
changes affect tooling or inventories of parts already made. Sometimes,
a rework procedure for existing components must be developed and
implemented.
23. Regular production is commenced. Products are shipped to ware-
house and other stocking locations.
24. When sufficient stocks of the new product are on hand, the new
product is officially launched with much fanfare-press releases, adver-
tising, and special promotions often accompany a new product launch.
25. In a well-managed company, the process of continuous improve-
ment of such things as methods, materials, and design immediately
commences.
26. A postproduction project review is made with the participation of
all participants. Surveys may be taken to determine how well cus-
tomers regard the new product. Paramount is the issue of whether
costs, selling prices, and sales levels all indicate that share-of-market
and profit projections will be met. A report is made to top management
summarizing the results of the postproduction review.
Note: This is a somewhat condensed listing. All kinds of other deci-
sions and activities may be involved before a new product reaches the
market. Some of these are: pricing strategy; location of production;
sourcing of components; hiring and training of personnel for manufac-
turing, sales, and service; the adoption of new manufacturing processes;
vendor selection;product styling, colors, and names; quality control pro-
cedures; service and spare parts requirements; advertising strategy;
and product distribution strategy.
Obstacles Faced by Design Engineers

There are many obstacles faced by design engineers as they attempt to
play their p a r t in the above process. One of them is that there is almost
never enough schedule time allotted to refine and verify the design to
the degree t h a t would be preferred. Priest mentions that “schedule and
58 Managing DFM/DFX
cost constraints are a fact of life. There simply never seems to be

enough time or money to complete a design as one would wish.”l
Although some might say that too many product design engineers are
loathe t o release their designs and that they will spend endless time
refining and perfecting a design before releasing it, in actual practice
deadline pressures prevent this. Sales and upper management execu-
tives, anxious to get the sales and profit stimulation which new prod-
ucts can bring, exert considerable pressure for short project schedules.
It is also difficult for those setting the schedule to visualize, in advance,
all the delaying factors that affect a major design project. Therefore,
due to both of these factors, schedules tend t o be tight.
References
New York, 1988.
2. R. Gornory, “Fromthe ‘Ladderof Science’to the Product Development Cycle,”Haruard
Business Review, Nov.-Dec., 1989.
Chapter
Getting Started
Management’sRole
Strong management support is a minimum prerequisite for successful
application of DFX. For truly good results, however, more than just s u p
port is required. (See Box 6.1.) Passive approval is not sufIicient.
Management’s role should be an active one. Top management involvement
and leadership will serve to ensure that the fundamental organizational
differences that DFX implies are treated with the necessary decisiveness.
The need for management leadership and support is not unique to
DFX. Any drastic departure from previous organization and methods
requires the active involvement of the executives responsible. One rea-
son why upper management direction is essential in this case is the
interfunctional nature of the concurrent engineering approach that
should accompany DFX. The company staff responsible for product
design and t h e manufacturing organization must not only cooperate in
a successful DFX project, they must also overlap and combine functions
to a substantial degree. In addition, successful operation of simultane-
ous engineering requires the participation of other functions which
may report to other company executives. These functions include mar-
keting and product management, product service, safety, quality and
reliability, a n d purchasing. This type of cross-functional operation is
BOX 6.1
What is needed from a management standpoint
.. to successfully apply DF’X?

Management commitment
Redirection of design efforts (training usually required)
.TeamworWcooperation between design and other functions

Technical leadership
59
60 Managing DFMlDFX
not feasible without the direction of the executive having responsibility

for all o f these functions, usually a top corporate or divisional officer.
Such organizational changes require a planned and organized
sequence of managerial steps to help overcome the human resistance
that is almost inevitable when such drastic revision of duties and respon-
sibilities is undertaken.
Additionally, a simple decision that these functions will work together
is not sufficient. There must be discussions and decisions as to just how
these functions will participate in a joint project and what their project
responsibilities are. Announcements, explanations, and training are also
important. Some participating executives may have to be convinced that
the cross-functionalapproach is in their best long-term interest.
How does it come about that top executives of a firm become convinced
to implement such a drastic change in organization and procedures?
Most industrial top executives are hard-nosed. They don’t accept major
changes, especially those which requires expenditures for training and
other items, on faith alone. They want evidence that the change will be
beneficial to their company’s operations and that the expenditures
involved will constitute a sound investment. One powerful tool in con-
vincing them is the review of case studies from other firms that have suc-
cessfully utilized DFM, DFX, and concurrent engineering. Presently,
there are many examples of success in this respect from firms of Fortune-
500 size to those that are small. The engineering leader interested in
having his or her firm use DFX should gather examples for the firm‘s
executives to review. Ideally, the examples should involve firms whose
executives are known to those in the company and who can be contacted
to answer any questions that the firm’s management may have.
Once convinced that DFM/DFX is a desirable course for the company,
the responsible executive should follow a carefully planned series of
steps to ensure that the key members of the organization understand
what is being done and to ensure that the new system is implemented
in a logical and productive manner.
Majchrzakl proposes the following sequence of managerial aware-
ness a n d action to make a change of the magnitude required on a
planed and controlled basis:
1. Resistance to change. Management must expect that there will be
resistance to change. When job duties and responsibilities are
altered, employees’ sense of security is affected. There is some fear,
offen not necessarily recognized by the individual involved, of the
unknown future. (Resistance to change is discussed in Chap. 8.)
2. Management response. Steps should be taken to counter the
expected resistance. These include the following:
Training. Education of all people involved and affected by the
change. (Training aspects are discussed in Chap. 10.)
Getting Started 61
Persuasion. In addition to training, the top executive may have to

exercise his or her persuasive powers to convince key people in the
organizations that the concurrent engineering approach should be
taken.
Participation. The top executive and his or her st& should
actively participate in training sessions and attend and participate
in enough team or task force meetings so that their endorsement of
the program is unquestioned.
Empathy. Upper management must have understanding of the
threat t h a t a major organizational change like this may pose to the
team members’ sense of job security. The design engineer, for exam-
ple, may need reassurance that sharing design decisions with the
manufacturing engineer and others does not indicate any weakness
in management’s appraisal of the designer’s competence.
4. Team management. This is the preferred way, not only from an
organizational efficiency standpoint, but also from a human rela-
tions standpoint, for the changed design emphasis of DFX to be put
into effect. This subject is discussed in Chaps. 8 and 9.
5 . Implementation steps. A planned series of implementation steps is
recommended. The top executive should approve these steps prior to
their inauguration.
Planned Sequence
A typical planned series of major steps that are recommended are in
the following list developed at Ford Motor Company:2
1. An overview of the DFX methodology, organization, benefits, and
costs should be prepared and presented to the senior management
group. Key individuals are the heads of manufacturing, engineering,
and marketing but the whole top management staff should be included.
This should not be construed to imply that a single overview presenta-
tion should suffice to convince these people that the changed system is
advisable. They should be given the opportunity to investigate the pro-
posed change as much as they deem necessary. Meetings with repre-
sentatives from or visits to successful DFX operations should be
encouraged. Additional written material should be supplied to them, as
appropriate.
2. A DFM/DFX/concurrent engineering champiodcoordinator should
be appointed. This individual can be the one who takes on the task of
ensuring that all members of the top management organization-as well
as all others in the organizatidn-are properly indoctrinated in its work-
ings. The champiodcoordinator can conduct the overview and arrange
meetings and visits for senior management personnel.
62 Managing DFMlDFX
The choice of the coordinator is a key step which is discussed in detail

in Chap. 9. The person chosen must be a salesperson, engineer, and
diplomat-not a n easy combination to find in one person.
3. With the chief executive’s concurrence, the objectives of the
changed procedure should be carefully defined and promulgated.
4. I t is advisable to choose a pilot program, a test case,to determine how
the new system wiU fit into the company’s product realization process.
5 . Appoint and organize a team to carry out the pilot program. The
team makeup and organization are critical factors that are discussed
further in Chap. 9. At this point, it is enough to say that the top execu-
tive should participate in, or at least approve, the selection of the team
personnel and their assignment for this first project.
6. Train key people. These are the team members, their supervisors,
and other people having a functional interest in the pilot project.
Again, the chief executive does not conduct the training personally, but
must sponsor and endorse it and, ideally, participate in it as a trainee.
7. Carry out the pilot project. The project can involve a new product
or a product improvement that would be scheduled even if there were
no DFX program. However, it can also be a special review of some exist-
ing product, similar to a value analysis review, during which design
improvements are developed by the team. The chief executive, again,
should promote and endorse the project and can ideally participate in
it, even minimally since his or her time will be limited. The pilot pro-
ject should preferably be a modest one so that design improvements
can be developed, tested, and implemented relatively soon. The bene-
fits of t h e DFX approach can be demonstrated quickly.
8. Management follow-up to ensure implementation of the product
changes from the pilot project is important.
9. A t the conclusion of the pilot project, the chief executive should
announce the results to company employees personally with comments.
Endorsing the project with compliments to the team members for their
contribution will provide a strong impetus for further success of the new
approach.
In summary, a new DFM/DFX program requires the same thing from
the company’s chief executive as any other major change in operating
procedures or organization would require: leadership, not just passive
acceptance.
References
1. A. Majchrzak, The Human Side of Factory Automation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1988.
2. G. J. Burke and J. B. Carlson, “DFA at Ford Motor Company,” DFMA Insight, vol. 1,
no. 4, Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc., 1990.
3. G. Boothroyd, Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, London, March, 1993.
Chapter
7
Concurrent Engineering
Redirectionof Design Efforts

A major obstacle to design engineers at the present time is the fact that
we now require them to be experts in many disciplines. In addition to
the usual factors of concern: new product features, proper function, and
quality of t h e product, we now, with DFM, ask the designer to ensure
manufacturability. DFX further expands the scope of needed skills dra-
matically. For many designers, this involves a complete redirection and
refocus. It is no longer satisfactory to develop a product that simply
functions well and has desirable features.
With regard to this expansion in skill requirements, Swift observes,
The problem facing the designer if he is to design for economic manufac-

ture and optimum functionality, is that he needs to assimilate information
of considerable breadth and complexity and have the necessary experience
a n d judgmental skills to make the correct design decisions from a range of
possibilities. In short, he needs to have expertise in a wide range of fields,
including the specialized topics of manufacturing engineering, if he is to
make the necessary economic and technological assessments-and it may
take very many years to accumulate such know1edge.l
The designer’s job is not easy and good DFX/DFM makes it even
more difficult. Donald Norman for example, comments:
Pity the Poor Designer. Designing well is not easy. The manufacturer
wants something that can be produced economically. The store wants
something that w i l l be attractive to its customers. The purchaser has sev-
e r a l demands. In the store, the purchaser focuses on price and appear-
ance, and perhaps on prestige value. At home, the same person will pay
more attention to functionality and usability. The repair service cares
63
64 Managing DFMlDFX
about maintainability; how easy is the device to take apart, diagnose, and
service? The needs of those concerned are different and often conflict.
Nonetheless, the designer may be able to satisfy everyone.’
Use ConcurrentlSimultaneousEngineering
How c a n we manage DFX when the focal point is the product designer
who must have expertise in many disciplines. It should be obvious at
this point that to expect one design engineer-r one design engineer-
ing department-to be sufficiently expert in all these areas is not real-
istic. The one obvious and logical solution is to enlist expertise from
others in the organization. In current parlance, this means concurrent
engineering.* Clearly, with DFX/DFM, concurrent engineering is a
must!
Effective DFX requires concurrent or sjmultaneous engineering, that is, that the
design project is carried out by a team composed of representatives of product design;
manufacturing engineering; and functions such as service, quality, safety, and envi-
ronmental engineering.
-The kind of teamwork inherent in concurrent engineering was not-

and still in too many cases, is not-a normal part of the product real-
ization process for many companies. The following summarizes three
possible levels of interaction showing degrees of progress in
designer-manufacturing engineer teamwork:
1. Traditional approach: “Over the wall. Designers and manufactur-

ing engineers don’t communicate about the design. Design docu-
ments are transmitted to manufacturing without any prerelease
review by manufacturing engineers.?
2. An improvement: The sign-offprocedure. Manufacturing engineers
approve and accept the design after it is completed but before it is
released to production.
3. Current thinking: Concurrent engineering. Designers and manufac-
turing engineers work together on the design as a team.
*Other terms for the same procedure are simultaneous engineering or concurrent
design. IBM has called it, early manufacturing involvement. Others use the term cross-
functional design teams.
+Anextreme example is the former practice of some multiplant companies with a cen-
tral product design department which would complete a product design before a decision
was made as to which factory would be assigned to manufacture the product.
Concurrent Engineering 65
StolP lists four key elements of concurrent engineering:

Concurrence. Product and process design take place at the same
time.
Constraints, The limitations and capabilities of the available man-
ufacturing processes are considered during the design phase and the
product design is compatible with them.
Coordination. Product and process requirements and other objec-
tives are closely coordinated during the design process.
Consensus, The full concurrent engineering team participates and
agrees with major product design decisions.
The advantages of concurrent engineering in providing a more man-

ufacturable design as well as one-if the necessary other functions are
involved in t h e process-with better safety, serviceability, quality, and
reliability a r e fairly obvious. A less obvious, but equally significant
advantage according to the practitioners of this approach is that the
entire product design cycle is accelerated. This comes about because the
design can b e correct initially. Designing is a creative process and, as it
progresses, changes in concept and configuration are inevitable. By hav-
ing a variety of viewpoints participate, these changes can occur early in
the process where their delaying effect is much less. Later engineering
changes made to correct manufacturability, quality, reliability, service-
ability, and safety problems can be avoided. Team assessment of alter-
natives in t h e very early stages reduces development time?
The other advantage is that a superior product can result. When
people with different viewpoints and broader goals interact closely,
fresh, original approaches may result, producing products with inno-
vations that may otherwise not be conceived
Another advantage of concurrent engineering is a greater assurance
of compatibility of the product design with production process capabili-
ties. Constraints in the existing facilities, equipment, and tooling can be
considered during the design phase. This helps ensure that parts and
assemblies a r e easy to fabricate and assemble and that the advanta-
geous capabilities of the existing processes are more apt to be utilized.
Ingersoll Rand reports5 the following results from one concurrent
engineering project, the design and fabrication of an engine block
transfer machining line: a reduction in engineering changes from 62 on
a previous similar project to 7, documented cost reductions of $750,000,
and a reduction in project time of 23 weeks. There are many other dra-
matic results being reported. For example, a 30 percent reduction in
the cost of developing new construction equipment at John Deere and
a 50 percent reduction in development time of one key switching sys-
tem at A T ~ Z T . ~
66 Managing DFMlDFX
The Team
One k e y decision is how broad a charter to give to the concurrent engi-
neering design team. Is the team’s responsibility solely to provide the
design for the proposed product such that it meets all prescribed objec-
tives? Or does the team have a longer-lasting charter? Should it func-
tion as a team for the life of the product, performing tasks such as mon-
itoring and coordinating customers’ reactions to the product, studying
field service problems, competitor’s counter strategy to the new or
improved product, and reviewing reliability and product safety statis-
tics? In other words, should the team assume a responsibility consistent
with Taguchi’s concept of minimizing the lifetime costs of the product?
The development of a sound design demands a certain amount of
postproduction follow-up by the designer. The design team should be
directed to be involved in follow-up. However, it may be more economi-
cal to t h e company to allow the staf‘f departments normally involved to
do the bulk of the postproduction monitoring of the product during its
life. For example, the product manager, in his or her normal job duties,
keeps track of what competitors are doing and the factors such as prod-
uct features, pricing, and appearance they introduce to counter the com-
pany’s product line. The key question is how formalized the team’s fol-
low-up responsibility should be. Current thinking, however, is that the
team should retain its responsibilities throughout the product’s life.
In addition to the important product design and manufacturing engi-
neering members, the optimum design team should have representa-
tion from other functions which are important in the lifetime of the
product. Ideal participants include purchasing and key vendors, safety
engineering, reliability engineering, quality control, representatives of
the manufacturing line organization, product service, environmental
engineering, production planning and control, and product manage-
ment. Hence the term, cross functional design teams.7
Some persons advocate including a diversity of personalities and
even a wider spread of functions; for example, lawyers and physicists
as well as the design and manufacturing engineers and marketing peo-
ple. T h e idea is that a team that is diverse, potentially stressful, and
not so comfortable will be more apt to come up with more significant
improvements than would a homogeneous team. Not all these mem-
bers of the team need to be active at all times. They can proceed with
their normal job duties most of the time. But they must be available to
participate periodically and especially when some question is being dis-
cussed that involves their field of responsibility. Purchasing personnel
should be regularly in attendance at team meetings as long as pur-
chased components are a significant factor. Certain vendors should be
called in whenever the component supplied by the vendor is critical to
the design or the cost of the product. (There is good reason for the ven-
dor’s participation on the team. It is very unlikely that the company’s

own personnel can know as much about the process used by the vendor
and how design modifications may affect the vendor’s operation. The
vendor’s expertise is often very important and should not be excluded
from the project.)
It should b e noted that a team can be too big to be able to operate effec-
tively, so t h e roles of some staff functions may have to be limited.
Peripheral members of the team (e.g., line production or product safety
representatives) don’t necessarily have to be present for all team meet-
ings. The bulk of the team interaction will be between product designers
and manufacturing engineers. Others should have the opportunity to
review what the core team members have decided and what they have
developed and their comments and input should be solicited. A joint
group decision on all issues can be too unwieldy and time-consuming.
A systematic method for handling the too-large concurrent engineer-
ing team is t o create a team that is two-tiered. The active core can con-
sist of the most important participants: design and manufacturing
engineers and, probably, qualityh-eliability representatives and the
product manager. This group would meet frequently and work together
to develop t h e design. The second tier can include service, safety, line
production, and environment. Purchasing could be in either tier,
depending on the importance of purchased components in the product;
vendors would normally be in the second tier.
The second tier would have more of a concurrence and approval role
rather than a n active design and development role. It would join with
the core group at some meetings particularly when there is some tenta-
tive design decision to consider. Second-tier members may also work
with the core team as needed when questions arise as to how the pro-
posed design can meet objectives of interest to the second-tier members.
The product manager is a key and frequent participant. This team
member provides the input from the market and the company’s sales
force, and as such, represents the customer’s viewpoint-the most vital
one to be considered if the product design is to be successful. At times,
the viewpoint of the line sales organization should be sought. Safety
and service people should provide input and review the design for con-
formance to the objectives of their functions. Quality and reliability
personnel must verify that the design meets broad quality and reliabil-
ity objectives, that the design permits easy gauging and other quality-
control operations and that proper and sufficient testing is performed
on prototypes.
Pick the very best people for the first try at concurrent DFM-the
most talented, most motivated people. However, it is wise to provide as
much assurance as possible that any initial use of this approach is not
jeopardized b y people who will not or cannot strongly represent their
functions. It should be noted that conspicuously handpicking the team
68 Managing DFMlDFX
from prominent members of the organization could create some resent-

ment on the part of others in the mainline organization not involved in
the project. The initial team members must not only be good perform-
ers, they should also be respected by others in their groups and should
have some ability t o communicate the benefits of the team approach to
their colleagues.
Some Comments on Team Building

It should be apparent at this point that developing a concurrent engi-
neering team is not a simple task. A series of key management deci-
sions is needed, only part of which deals with which individuals are
assigned. Introducing the team process requires considerable ground-
work; careful consideration must be given to a number of factors that
should b e decided when a concurrent engineering approach is contem-
plated?
I Where and when to begin the concurrent engineering activity.
I How far ahead to plan the project.
I How t o manage the participant’s and management’s expectations of

what the project will yield.
I How heavily to rely on outside-the-company expertise to organize
and start the project.

I How t o evaluate project results when the design work is completed
and manufacturing and sales of the new or improved product com-
mence; how to evaluate each team member’s contribution.
I What training is needed to prepare team members to work as a
group, rather than individually.

I To whom in the organization does the team report? It would be
expected, since the primary purpose of the team is to produce a prod-
uct design, that a product engineering or product development exec-
utive should be the person to whom the team reports. However, due
to t h e multifunctional nature of the team’s responsibility, it may be
acceptable to have it report to an executive with other responsibili-
ties. It is important that the team works in a truly cross-functional
mode, so that the objectives of all the diverse team members get ade-
quate consideration. Much depends on the capabilities and other
responsibilities of the executives who are potentially involved. In the
case of a major project, it may even be advisable for the team to
report to the chief operating officer or chief executive.
What will happen to the team members when the project is com-
pleted? Are there other products for them to develop? If not, are there
jobs waiting for them in their home departments?
Will team members all move to a central team location and work
together full-time or will they just meet periodically?
How to properly weigh conflicting objectives and incorporate the best
trade-off i n the final product design.
How to ensure that the team is productive and does not get bogged
down with disagreements over conflicting objectives.
The Risks of Concurrent Engineering

Though it is the recommended approach, the questions posed in the
preceding section should illustrate that concurrent engineering is not
a surefire method of ensuring superior product designs. There are some
risks to the approach. Consider the following:
1. Teams a r e more difficult to manage than individuals. Team meet-
ings can take excessive time if not managed well. Achieving teamwork
may require a delicate and diplomatic approach.
2. Not all good designers and engineers are team players. Some of
the best designs historically have come from brilliant individual
achievements.
3. DFM and DFX can be practiced without a concurrent engineering
team. Good designers may get fully satisfactory results by consulting
with others and by studying and applying design guidelines them-
selves. Computer programs like Boothroyd-Dewhurst’s DFA Toolkit
aid designers in considering assembly factors themselves.
4. The cost of bringing team members together may not be insignif-
icant, particularly if product design, production, and key staff functions
are located at different facilities.
5. The cost ofremoving team members from their home departments
to be part of t h e CE team must also be considered.
6. There is the important factor of resistance to change, which can
arise when C E is implemented, and which must be allowed for and
overcome. This factor is discussed in Chap. 8.
Despite these factors, concurrent engineering is nevertheless the
best way, and i n the opinion of some, the only practical way to gain the
benefits of DFM and DFX.The preceding risks, though they are real
and may cause problems, are manageable.
Some tools a r e available to the manager to aid in this management.
They minimize the problem of bringing team members together and
can greatly improve communication when the whole team is not phys-
ically at the same location.
One such tool is a good CAD/CAM system, part of a system of com-
puter-integrated manufacturing. A central design database, accessible
by manufacturing engineers and other team members, can ensure that
70 Managing DFM/DFX
all team members are working with identical information. This implies
that a workable computer network is also needed and, if the team par-
ticipants are located some distance from one another, a wide-area net-
work is required. Such facilities reduce the need for team members t o
carry out all team business face-to-face at the same location.
There are a number of CAD systems, each with different programs,
and they are not all compatible. Solids modeling systems may not be
usable for directly programming computer-controlled production equip-
ment. F e w different CAD systems can talk to C A M systems that were
not developed with them as a single package. The U.S. Department of
Defense has established a program to develop improved computer sup-
port to concurrent engineering of defense products. The objective is t o
allow a l l product development team members to communicate with one
another instantly by computer network, accessing and sharing up-to-
date information from a single database. The further objective is to
achieve this even if the computer programs used by different team
members are, on the surface, incompatible and if there is M e r e n t com-
puter equipment and geographical separation of participants. Such an
objective is an ambitious one and a number of universities are conduct-
ing research to aid its de~elopment.~
References
1. K. G . Swift, Knowledge-Based Design for Manufaeture, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, N.J., 1987.
2 . D. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, Doubleday Currency, New York, 1989.
3. R. Stauffer, “Simultaneous Engineering: What Is It?,” Manufaeturing Engineering,
September, 1988.
4. T. R. Welter, T h e Genesis of F’rodud Design,” Industry Week, October 16,1989.
5 . R. N. Stauffer, “Converting Customers to Partners at Ingersoll,” Manufacturing
Engineering, September 1988.
6. G. Watson, “Concurrent Engineering, Special Report,” ZEEE Spectrum, July 1991.
7. A. H. Higgins, “Installing a DFM Culture: Education and Teamwork at Storage
Technology Corporation,” SME Design for Zmproved Manufacturability and
Profitability Conference, Southfield, Mich., 1990.
8. J. R.Hackman and G. R. Oldham, Work Redesign, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.,
1980
9. S. Ashley, “DARPAInitiative in Concurrent Engineering,” Mechanical Engineering,
April 1992.
10. A. Majchzrak, The Human Side of Factory Automation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1988.
11. C. H. Deutsch, Teamwork or Tug of War,” New York Times, August 26,1990.
12. Storage Technology Corp., Cross-Functional Design Teams, Louisville, Colorado,
1990.
13. J. W. Dean and G. I. Susman, “Organizing for Manufadurable Design,” Hurvard
Business Review, Jan.-Feb., 1989.
Chapter
8
Cultural Change
The change t o concurrent engineering involves substantially different

duties and responsibilities for manufacturing and design engineers than
they are accustomed to. The new emphasis is on teamwork rather than
individual effort. Responsibilities are shared. Such changes involve more
than a simple reassignment of duties. They may involve a fundamental
change in t h e basic manner that responsibilities, duties, job titles, objec-
tives, and rewards are structured. Some have emphasized that such
changes really involve a cultural change in an 0rganization.l
TeamworUCooperationbetween Design and

Manufacturing Engineers
Establishing a team composed of both design and manufacturing engi-
neers is the best way to ensure that both functional and manufactura-
bility considerations are considered at the outset of the design process.
And to ensure that other worthwhile downstream considerations are
properly considered, the design team should include representatives
involved in other functions. The company’s safety engineers, quality
and reliability representatives, a service specialist, and the company’s
human factors or ergonomics specialist can all participate.
These different perspectives, if considered early in the product real-
ization cycle, will increase the potential for a truly advanced product.
Differences in experience and viewpoints, if properly balanced and
incorporated i n the product design, will yield a product with more desir-
able characteristics. Having a team of specialists participate in the
product design is superior to directing that the designers themselves
become sufficiently knowledgeable of these other factors so that they
adequately incorporate them in their products. The knowledge that the
71
72 Managing DFMlDFX
BOX 8.1
I H o w a Productive CE Team Works I

Open communication
Heal thy conflict
Low levels of conflict
Cooperation
Clear and accepted roles of team members
Clear and agreed-upon goals
Positive relationships
Well-defined process and procedures
Effective leadership
I SOURCE: Courtesy of C. Oltrogge.?

I
specialists possess from their day-to-day duties must be much superior

to that which could be attained by a product designer even if he or she
would b e highly insightful.
However, building teamwork and cooperation between design and
manufacturing engineers and others is not easy. The differences in their
perspectives and experience can cause friction in the team’s operations.
For example, designers and manufacturing engineers often come from
different backgrounds. Consider the following:
Manufacturing engineers are often up-from-the-ranks factory personnel,
sometimes not college educated, very process knowledgeable, but perhaps
not very articulate. They may be less creative and more conservative than
design engineers.
Design engineers are more apt to be college educated,perhaps younger,
very product-function-oriented,with little shop floor experience. They may
be more creative and less conservative than manufacturing engineers.
Equally or more important in developing a common approach in the

execution of a new product project is the fact that design and manufac-
turing engineers are normally part of separate organizations with dif-
ferent roles and objectives. They report to separate executives, each of
whom also has different functions, different personalities, and differ-
ent objectives. There may be rivalry between these executives, a factor
which can further impede the effectiveness of a team.
Another factor is the personalities of the individuals who would nom-
inally be expected to comprise the teams. For example, if the design
engineer who would be assigned happens to be a proud, individually
creative, lone-wolf type, he or she may not be able to work on a team
basis with others. Hackman and Odham2ask, “Would...work groups fit
with t h e people and the context?. ..work groups are a social form that
Cultural Change 73
may or may not fit with the people who would compose them and with
the organizational context in which they would function.””
Boeing Aircraft, which is using simultaneous engineering in the
design of its 777 plane reports on some of the problems of having cross-
functional teams.
Boeing concedes that togetherness has its problems. Some teams lack
needed resources or skills; some people were adamantly opposed a t the
start to sharing data; and some team leaders were inexperienced a t run-
ning interdepartmental meetings. “Working together is not an esoteric
warm and fuzzy thing. It takes a lot of management and care and nurtur-
ing,” says the vice president in charge of the design p r ~ j e c t . ~
It is important that management make the team objectives very

clear. For example, how drastically should the new product differ from
the existing products. Feedback from the team and communication
with it may be necessary before a final decision is made on this point.
Lead time and investment limitations may be the determining factors.
At any rate, it is important that the team understands what is expected
of it and what the limitations of its project responsibilities are.2
One key question is how much autonomy the team should be given.
There are two possible extremes of choice in determining this: the con-
sultive approach and the full collaboration approach.2 In the consultive
approach, management makes all the decisions about the duties,
responsibilities, and organization of the concurrent engineering team
and informs the team accordingly, but solicits advice from the team. In
the collaborative method, the team participates in joint decisions about
these factors. Which approach is used, or whether some middle-of-the-
road approach is used, depends on factors such as the organization and
the people involved, the relative strength of the organizations that are
participating, and the trust that exists between their managers.
Probably, especially for a first CE team, management’s role should be
strong. Too much group decision making at the outset may prove t o be
a too-many-cooks situation.
Resistance to Changetatus Issues

Consider t h e effect that a decision to adopt concurrent engineering has
on design engineers. That attitude is affected by the potentially favor-
able factors of having broader responsibility, more task variety, and
the opportunity to gain broader knowledge. On the other hand, design
*Hackman and Oldham are referring to self-directed work groups. Although a con-
current engineering team may or may not be self-directed, the points that they make, in
the author’s opinion, are applicable to concurrent engineering teams.
74 Managing DFMlDFX
engineers may be concerned that they will have to defer to other spe-
cialists in a team environment, that they may need to interface more
closely with others who possess technical knowledge which, in some
areas, is superior to theirs. The design engineer’s security may be
threatened by this change in the system, creating anxiety that others
may learn more easily of his or her weaknesses.
This apprehension may not be confined to the designer. Executives
should consider the possible attitudes of managers whose authority is
apt to be changed, especially when diminished, by the concurrent engi-
neering approach. For example, will the manager of manufacturing
engineering want a subordinate to be part of a project team that takes
over some of the responsibilities of the manufacturing engineering
manager? The same could be said for the heads of safety engineering,
quality assurance, environmental engineering, and other departments
whose functions may be incorporated in a team management arrange-
ment rather than an individual departmental arrangement. Managers
who help the project teams achieve a high degree of responsibility for a
project will somewhat diminish their own authority. In extreme cases,
they could be working themselves out of a job.2
Some of the factors that can cause resistance to a change to concur-
rent engineering on the part of managers and engineer^:^
The basic conservatism and cautiousness of many managers; a pref-

erence for traditional rather than innovative approaches. For exam-
ple, t h e manager may think, “Our present system of product design
works all right. Why change it?”
The natural fear that people tend to have of the unknown.
A lack of understanding or lack of clarification as to what job respon-
sibilities each will have after the change is implemented.
The need for team members to learn new job skills. They may not rel-
ish t h e prospect of training or may fear not being able to perform
their changed duties well enough.
The possibility of a loss of authority or status on the part of people
affected by the changed system. For example, design engineers may
fear loss of design authority to all the other team members who have
different objectives than they. Service departmental managers may
fear t h a t the team will usurp some of their prerogatives.
Fear that one’s job may be classified at a lower salary rate as a result
of t h e changed system, and, in the more extreme case, a fear of even-
tual loss of one’s job.
The change to existing working relationships which may be comfort-
able ones. For example, the design engineer may feel that he or she
has a good working relationship with or can handle the manufactur-
Cultural Change 75
ing engineer who normally receives his or her designs, but may be
apprehensive about the same person in a team environment or the
possibility that a less amenable person may represent manufactur-
ing engineering on the project team.
m Hierarchical estrangement, the fact that managers and senior engi-
neers may not be as well versed in the workings of the project sys-
tem-concurrent engineering-as others in the team. They may also
face difficulties in learning the new system, both with respect to its
technical aspects such as design guidelines and the changed
approaches involved in working as part of a team instead of as a n
individual.
rn Concern over loss of job satisfaction. It may be more satisfying for
engineers t o work individually than as part of a group, or they may
think that this is the case.
rn Team members and others may have experienced or may have heard
of similar team projects with other companies that may not have
worked to the employees’ satisfaction.
rn Concerns that higher management may not manage the project
properly.
An approach by those implementing the change that does not utilize
the know-how and experience with the functions involved by those
involved i n the change or affected by it.
The underlying source of resistance has been stated by some to be a

lack of information about the ~ h a n g e . ~
Another very interesting viewpoint about the underlying basis for
resistance is made by Lawrence in a Hurvard Business Review a r t i ~ l e . ~
He states t h a t employees do not resist technical change, as such. They
resist social change, the change in their human relationships that usu-
ally accompanies technical change. He states that staff specialists, the
persons who generally implement technical changes, tend to concen-
trate on technical matter and to be blind to the human needs of the
individuals involved.
All these factors may add up to a potentially serious level of resis-
tance on the part of some key people involved in or affected by the use
of concurrent engineering with DFX.
Company Culture
The second point made by Hackman and Oldham: in which they men-
tion the need t o fit the organizational context in which they function, is
more subtle. The organizational climate must be one that accepts and
even nurtures a team approach. Presumably, the path will have been
76 Managing DFMlDFX
established by management in preparing the organization to be recep-

tive to the use of a concurrent engineering team. However, if the com-
pany is one which previously has stressed individual accomplishment
rather than teamwork, or one which has encouraged conflict as a
means of arriving at the best decisions, the path may not be so easily
established.
Overcoming Resistance to the Change to

Concurrent Engineering
Some resistance to a change to concurrent engineering with DFX is
inevitable, even if it is not evident. It must be planned for and overcome
if the chances for success of the new approach are to be maximized.
To reorganize product design on a concurrent engineering basis
“involves a great deal of prework, planning and negotiating. Key stake-
holders must be identified and appropriate relationships with them
negotiated.”2The amount of preliminary work involved should be rec-
ognized by management, but such work should not be allowed to take
so much time that the onset of the design project is excessively delayed.
Majchrzak lists four actions that can be taken to overcome manage-
ment resistance to broad changes of this type.4Although her comments
are concerned with supervisors and managers, the same principles
seem t o apply to engineers and professional and technical personnel.
Her four actions are: educatiodtraining, involvement/participation,
information sharing, and role clarification.
Training can help overcome resistance stemming from job insecurities
by making the participants more confident that they can perform their
jobs under the new system. Another approach is to provide periodic
meetings or reports to interested parties. These reports can also be in the
form of published material as well as verbal presentations. Informal
progress sharing by managers actively involved in the project can also be
useful- It is recommended that this communication and training com-
mence early in the project, not only after significant progress has been
made t o develop the new design^.^
Participation is another strategy for providing information to
affected employees. Having affected persons take part in planning ses-
sions t h a t might otherwise have included only a small nucleus of peo-
ple can provide some significant advantages: (1)participants may iden-
tify otherwise unforeseen problems and may provide solutions, (2)
superior knowledge is gained about the CE system if the people
affected actually participate in its development, (3) research studies
have indicated that there is a higher level of satisfaction when affected
employees parti~ipate.~
There is a drawback t o widespread participation in the establish-
ment of a new organizational system like concurrent engineering. It is
Cultural Change 77
time-consuming and cumbersome to arrange meaningful participation

for a wide group of persons who may be involved or affected by the sys-
tem. Almost all actions carried out to overcome resistance of affected
persons are time-consuming to some degree. Management must bal-
ance the benefits gained by training, participation, and other steps
with the costs of achieving them.
Lawrence also strongly emphasizes that resistance to changes can be
overcome b y getting the people involved in the change to participate in
making it.5H e states that the participation must be real, that the opin-
ions and suggestions of the participants must be respected. Participation
should not be just a tkchnique to get the team members to accept what
management directs, but the wishes and needs of the participants
should be honored, with the expectation that they may alter the nature
of the project system. Participation provides a means to offset or elimi-
nate the threats to human relationships that may be perceived by those
involved in or affectedby the concurrent engineering/DFXsystem. It also
provides a means to improve the project by utilizing constructive sug-
gestions advanced by the participants.
Role clarification is important when there is a possibility of job inse-
curity on t h e part of team members and others. They may have appre-
hensions t h a t their job responsibilities will be less important under the
team approach or that successful teamwork may diminish or eliminate
the need for their jobs as they know them. If management can definejob
responsibilities clearly for the team and for others involved in related
work, both during the team project and after its completion, much of
this apprehension will disappear. According to Majchrzak:
The researchers found that the workers were more favorably disposed
toward technological change if they felt that management was concerned
about their welfare, communicated openly with them, and ran the opera-
tions efficiently. The most important aspect of management concern was
open, two-way communication....The implementation process should pro-
vide workers with this information so their resistance can be alleviated.*
Those responsible for implementing concurrent engineering should

ensure that they understand, in detail and in depth, the specific social
factors that will be affected by the change and the way that it is put into
effect. The outlook of technically oriented people should be broadened
so that they are aware of and able to deal with human relations factors.
They should recognize the need for the input of the operating people
who will make up the concurrent engineering team.5
Management people should be alert to signs of resistance as early in
the implementation as possible so that they can deal with it before it
hampers t h e project. It is necessary to identify the root cause of the
resistance, to explore it carefully, and to take whatever corrective
action is indicated.
78 Managing DFMlDFX
Hackman and Oldham emphasize that Kthereare numerous contex-

tual factors that can and do affect work group performance, ranging
from mundane items such as the ambiance of the workplace to more
significant features such as the relationships between a self-managing
group and other groups with which it must deal.”2This would indicate
that one way that management can help a concurrent engineering
team get started effectively is to provide it with a prestigious ambiance,
for example, the use of an important conference room, so that the
importance of the project is recognized by others in the organization
and t h e team members can gain the prestige that comes from being
part of a project which is regarded as important by the company. Other
steps that management takes that encourage or reinforce “the devel-
opment of a positive group identity that is valued by members and con-
sistent with their needs and goals” will overcome natural apprehen-
sions that may exist.2
Providing special training to the team members in team interaction,
interpersonal skills, and sensitivity may be advisable, though this train-
ing may not transfer from the training environment to the work setting.2
Consideration should be given to what will happen to team members,
especially those fully occupied on a team basis, after the project is com-
pleted. Will their responsibilities return to the preprojed status quo? Will
they accept their old roles again? There may be some anxiety on the part
of team members and their managers about this and management should
be aware of this factor and attempt to minimize anxiety by longer-range
planning and by informing team members of longer-range plans.
The famous experiments at the Hawthorne plant of Western Electric,
emphasizing how well people respond when they believe that they are
part of something important and that their contribution to it is impor-
tant, provide a lesson for those planning a concurrent engineering pro-
jecL6 Top management should consider this when implementing a
DWconcurrent engineering project. By emphasizing the importance of
the step to the company and the importance of each team member’s con-
tribution, some of the natural resistance that some persons may have to
the project may be more easily overcome.
If t h e tasks of team members are established properly and if the team
members accept team achievement as a significant element in their job
satisfaction, concurrent engineering can generate substantial job satis-
faction. The following job characteristics, identified by Oltrogge as
important in providing job sati~faction,~ can be part of a concurrent
engineering system:
Skill variety. The degree to which a job requires a variety of differ-

ent activities and skills in order to perform the work. CE certainly
meets this requirement, at least for the key team members.
Cultural Change 79
Task identity. The degree to which the job requires completion of a n

identifiable, whole piece of work. The CE team’s task is the complete
design effort, normally a n easily identified and complete assignment.
Task significance. The degree to which the job has importance to
the company, its employees, its customers, and possibly others in the
population. A major product design project with true DFX attention
to life-cycle product cost factors meets this requirement for the com-
pany and a wide group of people and, therefore, can involve a poten-
tially high degree of job satisfaction.
Autonomy. The degree to which the assignment allows indepen-
dence and discretion in carrying out the work. This can exist at a sat-
isfying and satisfactory level if the CE system is set up so that the
team has a high level of autonomy in performing its assignment.
Job feedback. The degree to which the CE team members get clear
information about the effectiveness of their work and their design
decisions. Some of this may require some time before feedback is
received o n the product’s success in the marketplace, though indi-
vidual team members can gain satisfaction if the product character-
istics for which that they are responsible (e.g., safety, serviceability,
reliability, and manufacturability) are clearly provided for by the
new design.
It should be clear that one of the advantages of the concurrent engi-

neering process is that it is capable of supplying the aforementioned
necessary job satisfactions.
Lewin describes three stages of a change process. He states that
these are essential stages to the type of organizationalhystem changes
that involves replacing a n existing design system with concurrent engi-
neering, that every successful change process involves these. They are:
unfreezing, moving forward, and refreezing.a
Unfreezing is the stage i n which the people involved release their
preference for the status quo. This can be as a result of an educational
process, convincing the people involved that a change is n e ~ e s s a r yIt
.~
can be assisted if people with leadership abilities or people who are oth-
erwise respected by others are assigned to the team. It is facilitated
also by statements from management of support for the new system
with clear information about how it will work. However, a more dras-
tic approach such as a change in managers or a relocation to another
workplace c a n have the effect of opening the way for employees to
accept changed systems.
The moving-forward stage is the period during which the change, as
a change to CE, is actually put into effect. In this stage, the team begins
to meet and work together on the design project.
80 Managing DFM/DFX
Refreezing is the stage during which employees accept the new sys-
tem a n d begin to use it on a routine, normal-procedure basis. An eval-
uation of the new system with a report of positive results can be a pow-
erful stimulus to freezing the new procedures.
References
1. A. H. Higgins, “Installing a DFM Culture: Education and Teamwork at Storage
Technology Corporation,” SME Design for Improved Manufacturability and
Profifability Conference, Southfield, Mich., 1990.
2. J. R. Hackman and G. R. Oldman, Work Redesign, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass.,
1980.
3. “Boeing Knocks Down the Wall Between the Dreamers and the Doers,” Business
Week., October 28,1991.
4. A. Majchnak, The Human Side of Factory Automation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1988. pp. 127-129.
5. P. R. Lawrence, “How to Deal with Resistance to Change,” Harvard Business Review,
May-June, 1954.
6. E. Mayo, The Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization, McMillan, New York,
1933.
7. C. Oltrogge, material provided, Polytechnic University, New York, 1991.
8. K. Lewin,Field Theory and Social Science, Harper and Row, New York, 1951.
Chapter
Managing the New System
The Leader
To be successful, a concurrent engineering project should be guided by
a person having authority, at least within the project, for all team par-
ticipants: design, manufacturing, and those representing other hnc-
tions. The role of the leader of a DFX design project is most critical to
the project’s success.
The qualifications needed by the leader are not easy to find. In addi-
tion to having the leadership and human relations skills needed to
direct persons with varied skills, backgrounds, and attitudes, the
leader must have sound technical judgment in matters of design, man-
ufacturability, and the other key attributes wanted in the product. He
or she must b e a good manager and must be sound technically. As indi-
cated earlier, much design engineering involves a delicate compromise
in which conflicting objectives must be balanced. Knowledge and expe-
rience in the various functions involved in the realization and sale of
the product are also important. On top of this, the leader must nurture
and sustain the creative climate that fosters innovative changes and be
results-oriented and able to imbue the same attitude in the team. The
person chosen must have persuasive powers, an ability t o influence
others both inside and outside the team. This individual should not be
a dictator, but at the same should not be too easygoing about actions
that are not consistent with the team’s objectives. The combination of
capabilities needed by the leader are not common.
It is important that the leader have authority over the design func-
tion. Anderson advises that “Engineering should eventually own the
program and be responsible for the manufacturability, because the con-
trol over the designs is really with the designers. Ownership in engi-
neering is much more effective than the perception that DFM is being
shoved down their throats (a common fear) by manufacturing.”l
81
82 Managing DFMlDFX
Anderson’s comments apply equally to the other DFX functions such as

service, quality assurance, and safety.
Motivating and Managing the Team

Management’s task with respect to a concurrent engineering team,
once formed, is twofold: (1) to clearly define the team’s task, its objec-
tives a n d its limits; and (2) to ensure that the participants function well
as a team, that the reservations or anxieties of team members and their
managers are overcome and that true productive cooperation occurs.
Ideally, a team’s productivity is synergistic, the results of the team’s
efforts surpass what could have been done on a n individual, step-by-
step, back-and-fill basis. The work of the team must also be balanced.
The responsibilities of all team members should be reflected in the
resulting design. The objectives of manufacturability, safety, quality,
reliability, environmental friendliness, etc., must all be realized, as
much a s possible, by the finished product design.
Concurrent engineering for DFX may be drastically different from
the product design process that was previously used. Positive team
spirit is necessary if the project is to have favorable results. Attitude is
actually more important than adherence to specific guidelines. It is
wise to provide a means to reinforce the objectives of the project and to
stimulate the participants to full cooperation and achievement. There
are a number of actions that can be taken to provide this motivation:
1. G e t everyone in the team participating. Ask for suggestions from

all team members.
2. G e t feedback from production personnel on manufacturability of
existing products.
3. G e t quality feedback on existing products.
4. Arrange for publicity in the company media.
5. U s e frequent measurements of design progress such as cost esti-
mates, parts counts, or design efficiency ratings for the various pro-
posals. Develop target values for the team’s agreed-upon design.
Measurements, reviewed by the team, will provide motivation for fur-
ther a n d continued improvement.
6. Move the team together physica1ly.l
7. Have frequent team meetings (though the meetings must be
guided t o keep them productive and not too time-consuming).
8. Keep the team intact for the life of the pr0duct.l Give the team
interest in the long-term reliability, the serviceability, the safety, and
the sales success of the product.
9. After the product goes into production, give additional recogni-
tion a n d , if original‘company objectives have been met, an award to
the team.l
Managing the New System 83
Note. It should be mentioned that there is some evidence that grass-

roots teams, those not given high visibility and not given extra com-
pensation, tend to perform better than those promoted with extensive
top-management fanfare and large budgets.2 Perhaps the reason may
be that the less visible, grass-roots teams may be smaller and more
manageable. However, this finding may indicate that it is wise not to
overdo the publicity and visibility aspects of the team’s mission.
Steps in the Design Process

The concurrent engineering team must progress through the steps out-
lined in Chap. 5, and the team should have responsibility for all the
functions involved in the process that is summarized. These include a
definition of what the product characteristics and features should be; a
conceptual a n d then a detailed design; and an evaluation of the chosen
design and sustaining engineering through the production phase and,
as necessary, when the product is in the market.
The definition of what is needed in the new or improved product is a
critical step. It should involve the following:
1. A review of the existing products in the market including sum-
maries of their features. Benchmarking (discussed later in this chap-
ter) may be included at this point. Perhaps even more important would
be a list of potential features that are not available in the market but
which would b e desirable.
2. A statement about the deficiencies of the company’s existing
product. Where is its performance inferior to those of competitors?
What features that the market values does it lack?
3. A statement as to what general approaches should be considered
in the design of the improved product. For example, if the existing
product is a mechanical one, would the addition of a microprocessor
control enable desirable features to be added and would that approach
be feasible from a product cost standpoint?
4. A final summary statement of the requirements of the proposed
product is t h e last step of this investigation. The team must arrive at a
consensus on this. When achieved, such a statement approximates and
leads to the next major step: the conceptual design of the new product.
Information from a variety of sources, including customers, will be
necessary to develop the kind of information needed for the product def-
inition study.
From this information, the next step, conceptual design, can proceed.
This requires creative work on the part of the team and its members.
Brainstorming (see discussion later in chapter) and other steps to stim-
ulate innovative concepts are advisable. Normally, a series of different
concepts may be advanced and the team must make a feasibility analy-
84 Managing DFMDFX
sis of each approach. A concept may involve only one proposed feature
for the product or it may involve the integration of a series of product
features. In any case, there should be a feasibility analysis of each to
review the practicality of the concept, including the cost of manufactur-
ing it in terms of both investment and unit costs and its ramifications
to all t h e objectives of the design such as quality, serviceability, safety,
and environmental friendliness. The analysis should also consider how
well t h e concept satisfies the definition of what the product needs.
From the feasibility analyses of the various features or product sub-
systems, a conceptual design for the whole product can take shape.
Much analysis and review on the part of the team is required, to ensure
that all product objectives are satisfied by the concept. This is a critical
phase of the design process.
Once the team has arrived at a decision on the conceptual design
(and, if some lengthy evaluation sequence may be required for some
product feature-a sequence that requires some development, proto-
type building and testing-there may be more than one conceptual
design j, the team should prepare a product proposal with ballpark cost
and investment estimates. The proposal is the basis for management
approval of continuing development work on the product.
The other steps in the design process will require a similarly detailed
approach. The team should outline all the necessary steps that will be
required for each step and should assign team members to carry out
investigations and development, as appropriate.
Standardization
It is important to standardize not only fasteners and other parts but as
many elements as possible of the systems used to control engineering
and production. In other words, standardize everything! For example,
the drawing system used to represent parts; the various systems,
forms, reports, and procedures involved in engineering changes; qual-
ity reports; shop orders; and the formats for as many documents as pos-
sible should all be handled in a uniform way. The number of varieties
i n each of these areas should be minimized; variations from the norm
should not be permitted without justification.
Standardization has many advantages. Development costs are elim-
inated if existing components can be used. Training costs are reduced
because, when employees learn a procedure once, it is applicable to
other situations. The need for additional training for other products,
other locations, or other projects is eliminated. Mistakes are fewer
because employees have developed the knowledge and skills that min-
imize mistakes. Start-up costs are reduced because of the familiarity of
workers, supervisors, and support personnel with the systems already
i n place. Quality is higher, lead time is shorter, and productivity is bet-
ter because debugging has already taken place, at least partially.

Tooling costs may be reduced because tools are already available from
the manufacture of prior similar parts. Production quantities are
higher, permitting the many economies of scale including the justifia-
bility of investments in automated or otherwise more productive equip-
ment and tooling. Just-in-time arrangements are easier because sup-
pliers can concentrate more easily on scheduling and stocking the
component involved, due to its larger usage quantity and greater
importance. Consider the following:
Engineering drawings. Standardize the arrangement of views; the

dimensioning system; the drawing sizes; the system of notation; the
drawing a n d parts numbering system; the conventions for representing
screw threads and other detailed features; the identification of the
designer, checker, and approver; and any other parts of the system that
may lend themselves to standardization.
Design features. Use standard hole sizes, slot widths, filet radii, cham-
fer dimensions, groove dimension, bend radii, surface finishes for cer-
tain applications, snap-fit tabs, and reinforcing ribs. More importantly,
design like parts so that they are as identical as possible, so that only
those portions that need to be different are different. The advantages
of this are discussed elsewhere in this chapter.
Parts. New part designs should never be made ifthere is an existing part
that performs the function well and meets other requirements of the part,
such as appearance, cost, and durability. When new parts are required,
they should always be designed, as much as possible, with features iden-
tical or similar to existing parts. Then the minimum amount of equip-
ment and tooling changes will be required, allowing a reduction in setup
times. Reduced setup times provide better equipment utilization.
The total number of parts varieties used should be held to the small-
est practicable number. Parts that have already been purchased or
gone into production have proven functionality, quality, cost, and reli-
ability. They should be cataloged in a database that makes it easy for
designers to know of them and get full information about them. For
example, if a die or forming tool already exists for the production of
some previously used part, the design team may be able to gain a n
advantage in cost and lead time by using the tool for a new, somewhat
different part. With full information available, the designer may be
able to configure a new part so that existing tools can be utilized and so
that setups don’t have to be changed between production runs. Ideally,
the designer should be able to consult a CAD database using a variety
of avenues for retrieval: the part number, the part description, or infor-
mation about the function and/or configuration of the part.3
86 Managing DFMlDFX
Having too many varieties of parts usually indicates that many of

them a r e not used in sufficient quantity to take advantage of purchas-
ing- or manufacturing-scale economies and such advances as just-in-
time deliveries are more difficult. Purchasing, inventory control, and
quality control expenses are greater also.
Fasteners. Have a list of preferred fasteners but limit the varieties as

much a s possible. Incorporate in the list of acceptable fasteners those
with desirable features such as built-in washers and locking thread.
Materials. There is a bewildering array of materials available to the prod-

uct designer, many with only very slightly different properties from oth-
ers. If t h e designer chooses the exactly optimum material for each appli-
cation, t h e company may be saddled with the need to purchase and stock
many varieties in small quantities each. The economies of larger-scale
purchase and storage can outweigh list price differences in the different
varieties. The enlightened company will maintain preferred materials
lists for common applications, reducing the number of materials on the
list to t h e minimum practicable. For example, product housings could be
made of a certain grade of ABS plastic, metal-stamped levers from a cer-
tain thickness, or temper and alloy of sheet steel.
Commercial parts. The use of parts from catalogs provides an auto-

matic degree of standardization that is even broader than company-
wide standardization. Advantages exist to even a greater degree than
with in-house standard parts because of higher production volumes;
convenient stocking; and a more thorough, proven history of satisfac-
tory quality and reliability. If service is a factor, it is made much more
convenient since the replacement parts will be more widely available.
Of course, the company may not get the revenue benefit from sale of the
catalog part if it is purchased elsewhere, but the goodwill effect of an
easy repair should more than outweigh that factor.
Linear materials. Anderson recommends that wire, tubing, cable, rope,

chain, a n d other materials that can be supplied by length should be
standardized in diameter and material; but not by 1ength.l It can then
be cut to the length needed for production or product service.
Modules. When parts are grouped in modules that are easily installed
or substituted, advantages of standardization can result. First, the use
of modules is a kind of standardization since the modules normally are
intended to provide a certain necessary function and when an altered
function is needed, the whole product does not have to be modified, only
the module. The module itself can be designed with standardization in
mind, extending the benefits to its materials, components, and assembly.
Design organization and procedures. As design projects are undertaken

for other products, it is advisable that standard operating procedures
for the design teams be developed. For example, the responsibilities
and duties of different team members can be defined; the team organi-
zation, in such respects as whether there is a core team and a full team,
can be made the norm with the degree of participation of secondary
team members; and meeting schedules and procedures can be stan-
dardized to avoid excessive use of time in meetings. Standard proce-
dures can be developed concerning the use of computer-aided design
and the ability of nondesigners to access and modify CAD/CAM files.
Processes. Manufacturing process and tooling standardization goes

hand in hand with parts and materials standardization. Similar parts
should almost always be manufactured from parallel production meth-
ods. The 2-in valve shouldn’t be made from a forging, while the 2%in
is made from a green sand mold casting, and the 3-in from a shell mold
casting unless there is a sound basis for justifying the differences.
Similar parts should have, for example, the same sequence of opera-
tions, the same fixturing, the same cutting tools, the same feeds and
speeds, and t h e same inspection points. Sometimes it pays to make a
special part from a standard part, modifying it as necessary with sec-
ondary operations. In that way, less new tooling will be required and
the advantages of the existing process and tooling can be utilized.
When parts are standardized, the manufacturing organization can
more easily adopt the useful group technology approach in manufactur-
ing (asdiscussed in Chap. 3) with major benefits in workflow, inventory
reduction, quality, and productivity. Flexible manufacturing cells also
operate more effectively when the parts process is more standardized.
When such standardization is applied in the design project, quality
control, manufacturing engineering, and other functions (particularly
training and communications) are facilitated and errors are reduced.
Training is enhanced because the users of the system can learn it more
easily; communications are facilitated because persons in other functions
are already at least partly indoctrinated. Standardization of manufac-
turing processes has similar, but powedul, beneficial effects in the shop.
Standard parts need not only be listed in a preference list. They can be
tested, qualified, and placed in stock prior to use. By prequalifjmg com-
ponents, lead time is saved and quality and reliability are better assured.l
Brainstorming
Brainstorming is a technique for enhancing creativity. It may seem
strange, in this chapter, to follow a section on standardization, with its
emphasis on the continued use of previous items, with one on creativity,
which emphasizes fresh, new approaches. Actually, both standardiza-
88 Managing DFMlDFX
tion and creativity are important aspects of a sound design project. For
one thing, creativity may be required to use and adapt existing design
elements innovatively. Additionally, in a new product there is no limit on
the need for creativity in conceiving and designing improved elements of
an existing product or in developing a new one. Standardization does not
preclude innovation.
Often an integral part of a value analysis project, brainstorming also
can be worthwhile in a DFX project. It is most useful in the early stages
of the project when the design concept for the product is being devel-
oped. I t s value lies in the fact that it can generate highly inventive
solutions that may not be evident if design is performed in the usual
manner by an individual designer.
The procedure involves the meeting of a group of persons, both those
directly involved in the project and others. Having a group is an essen-
tial p a r t of the procedure since it is based on the face-to-face interac-
tion of ideas from a number of people. Participants are encouraged to
put forth, in a group meeting, suggestions for the design of the compo-
nent o r product under review. All ideas, even if they seem silly, are to
be mentioned. Participants are encouraged to respond to suggestions of
others with further suggestions, perhaps built on one just voiced. A
paramount rule in the procedure is to prohibit negative comments on
any suggestion, no matter how impractical it may sound to some of the
participants. (The meeting leader must police this strongly.) The idea
is that even silly ideas may stimulate a similar, but more practical,
idea from someone else. The objective is to create a free flow of ideas-
to break away from existing patterns of thought that may limit inno-
vation. The procedure originated in the advertising industry in the
1940s." It has been used for many different applications since then.
To b e effective, certain procedures for the meeting must be strictly
f ~ l l o w e dSome
. ~ basic rules are:
1. During the meeting, no negative comments are permitted about

any idea expressed. In fact, all ideas should be praised to ensure a
receptive atmosphere for further ideas.
2. T h e freest possible flow of suggestion is expected. Silly, wild,
humorous, or crazy statements are expected since they may contain the
germ of a sound innovation.
3. A large number of suggestions are desired. A greater quantity of
suggestions is expected to increase the possibility that a useful pro-
posal will come from the meeting.
4. Participants are encoyraged to use the statements of others as the
basis for further suggestions. Building on others' ideas or combining
several concepts may also lead to a sound design proposal.
5. T h e group should consist of people with diverse views in order to
stimulate thoughts not bound by usual paradigms.
6. Evaluation of the ideas expressed in the group meeting does not

take place until after the meeting is over.
The composition of the brainstorming group is critical. Most critical

is the leader or facilitator, who must act somewhat like a cheerleader,
urging the team members on to further ideas. However, the leader
must also exert control, particularly if inhibiting comments or actions
come from some group members. Additionally, the group must have
some representatives of the function most directly involved; in this
case, design engineers. With a full CE/DFX project, personnel from the
functions involved in' the planned attributes of the product (e.g.,
safety, service, quality) should also participate. It is also often recom-
mended t h a t persons outside the project but with appropriate skills,
such as technicians or engineers in this case, be included. Last, it can
be useful to have complete outsiders participate, persons with no
involvement in the project and with a different employment function
from that of any of the team members. Including outside people who
happen t o h a v e a creative bent can also be a plus for a successful
brainstorming session.
Only aRer the flow of ideas has subsided does the evaluation of the
ideas expressed take place. This can be done by a subgroup from the
CE/DFX team. Members are assigned t o sort through the ideas listed
during the creative phase, selecting those that show promise for fur-
ther investigation. The subgroup may request clarification on a pro-
posal before rejecting it. Nevertheless, the subgroup does decide which
suggestions merit further investigation or action. Further investiga-
tion may involve discussion with responsible designers or other per-
sons to explore the merit and workability of the suggestion.
Frequently, the evaluators report their findings to another meeting
of the full brainstorming group. This can be worthwhile in case there is
some misunderstanding about any of the suggestions made. Following
this, a decision is made by the team leaders as to what actions will be
taken. Some suggestions should be run through a full test which
involves design, prototyping, and testing.
The procedure, if successful, will provide design avenues that would
not have been conceived of by designers working on their own or under
a more conventional structure.
Benchmarking
Many manufacturing engineers seem to enjoy busman's holidays, tour-
ing factories other than the one in which they are employed. This is evi-
dent from t h e relatively large attendance at engineering society chap-
ter meetings when a plant tour is on the meeting program. Probably
this is due to the fact that there is always something to be learned from
90 Managing DFMIDFX
seeing how some product is made. It has been the author’s experience
that all factories, even the inefficient ones, are worth touring. At the
efficient ones, there is no question that there is something worthwhile
to learn; at the inefficient ones-no matter how poorly run-there is
always some operation, some method, some tool, or some managerial
arrangement that is superior.
The same kinds of conclusions can be drawn from an examination of
some other company’s products. The competitor’s product, even if infe-
rior to yours, usually has some feature or some design aspect that is
superior to yours. It may have a more manufacturable configuration,
some desirable feature for customers, a more reliable arrangement, or
a serviceability advantage.
No one design engineer or design team can think of every possible
improvement or can optimize every facet of design. Design engineers
also tend to be somewhat egocentric and proud of their designs (though
they a r e not necessarily narrowminded). They simply don’t consider
exploring what competitors are doing. However, the fact remains that
a review of a competitive product will almost always uncover some
potential design improvements.
Benchmarking is a procedure for making major improvements in some
aspect of a company’s operations: its product, system, process, method,
organization, or procedure, by comparing it with the best-known exam-
ple elsewhere. Normally, the leader in the function being examined is
selected, even if that leader is another company, either a competitor or
noncompetitor. This procedure is a sound one for product design as well
as for developing operational improvements.
Aspects that could be compared by benchmarking include but are by
no means limited to the following:
The competitor’s product or some aspect of it, such as its power sup-
ply, braking system, noise reduction system, or electrical efficiency
m A company’s product realization process and its speed-to-market
Some attribute of another product, such as its serviceability, relia-
bility, or environmental friendliness
Some manufacturing process; for example, a printed circuit board
assembly line
Some specific engineering procedure or system, such as how injection
molds are designed
A company’s customer service operation
A competitor’s product line strategy
A design organization’s engineering change procedure
A CAD/CAM system
The operation selected for comparison should be the best in its class.
It can be in a competitor, an unrelated company, another division or
plant of the company making the study, a nonprofit organization, or a
foreign company. The only requirement is that the operation selected
for study should offer a fresh perspective and have potential for pro-
viding improvement for the corresponding one in the organization
doing the benchmarking. The amount of potential improvement should
be sufficient to justify the cost and time required for the study.
Ideally, objective indicators of performance should be used as a basis
for comparison of the operation studied. Indexes such as product devel-
opment time, the number of customer complaints in the first year after
product introduction, process yield, and fuel consumption per operat-
ing hour are examples.
There are many sources for information needed to conduct the bench-
marking analysis. They include published data such as in newspaper
and magazine articles, product brochures, testing of a product pur-
chased from normal sources, semipublic data (e.g., credit reports), and
governmental filings. The capability of estimating critical data that is
not directly supplied may be a crucial factor in the success of a study.6
Most useful are visits to the operation being studied and interviews
with employees. This may not be feasible with direct competitors. For
this reason, it is often most useful to visit a noncompetitive company.
If the company has a superior operation in the function under study,
the effect c a n be quite productive, even if the industry is a different one.
Before any such visit, however, there should be a planned agenda, cov-
ering what is to be observed and what information is sought during the
visit. It is also important to analyze one’s own operation before visiting
the one t h a t is the benchmark. Often, this will point the way for some
improvements even before the best-in-class operation is visited, and, at
least, it will help prepare the observation team to direct their inquiries
to the most important factors.
Most important, the benchmark study, after it is made, must have a
conclusion with an action plan. The plan, then, must be implemented
in order to gain the benefits of the information accumulated. Specific
quantitative targets and time schedules should be part of the imple-
mentation plan!
Desirable Sequence of DFM Activities

Effective D F M involves two aspects: (1)a n analysis of the complete
product in order to simplify its design (e.g., reduce the parts count)
and (2) an analysis of each individual part to maximize its manufac-
turability.
It makes sense to perform the overall product analysis first-before
individual components are analyzed-for several reasons:
92 Managing DFM/DFX
1. Final assembly is often the major operation in a factory, the one

with t h e most cost for the company. The project, therefore, will often be
more effective simply because the highest-cost area is attacked first.
2. T h e configuration of the overall assembly, decided on after a DFA
analysis, will determine whether certain parts exist and what configu-
ration they must have. It does not make sense to analyze the compo-
nent parts until their existence and configuration is determined.
3. D F A seems to provide a greater potential return-probably due to
opportunities to simplify the whole product and eliminate parts-than
does analyzing individual component parts.
When analysis of the overall assembly is completed and the improved
overall design is at least tentatively settled, the next logical step is to
analyze the proposed major component parts. The design of each and
every part in the assembly should be reviewed and simplified as much
as possible, roughly in order of its cost or importance to the product.
References
1. D.M. Anderson,Design for Manufacturability, CIM Press, Lafayette, Calif., 1990.
2. A. Majchzrak, The Human Side of Factory Automation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1988.
3. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, “ComputerAided Technologies,”Chap. 7 in Tool
and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, Dearborn, Mich., 1992.
4. Society of Manufacturing Engineers, “Creative Problem Solving Techniques,
Preliminary Design Issues,”Chap. 9 in Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook,
5. society of Manufacturing Engineers, ‘Wsing Quality Tools in DFM” and “Concurrent
Engineering,” Chaps. 2 and 6 in Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook,
6. A. F. Osborn,Applied Imagination, Scribner, New York, 1957.
7. R.Bolz, Production Processes, the Productivity Handbook, Industrial Press, 1981.
8. M. J. Spendolini, The Benchmarking Book, Amacom Div., American Management
Association, New York, 1992.
Chapter
10
Training
and Indoctrination
"he word training in this chapter refers not only to training in the tra-
ditional sense of the word as implied from a classroom environment,
but also in a less formal approach. It includes information sharing,
advising, informing, or indoctrination of the people involved so that
they understand the company's strategy, plans, priorities, and proce-
dures in a product-design project. It includes the encouragement, the
promotion, a n d the development of the teamwork that is so essential
for successful product realization with DFX.
Training is an essential part of a successful DFX program. Unfortu-
nately, U.S.companies tend to underestimate training needs and rely
excessively o n informal, unstructured, on-the-job 1earning.l However,
a number of studies have shown that the implementation of new tech-
nology and new systems is more successfid if structured training for
the persons involved is part of the pr0ject.l For a successful design pro-
ject with a broad list of objectives, a somewhat formal indoctrination of
the persons involved is requisite. Training and education of at least two
types is needed:
1. Attitudinal training. The major change in approach embodied in
DFX and the tremendous difference in working methods and relation-
ships required by a team endeavor necessitate attitudinal training for
participants. It is needed to redirect design efforts, to incorporate the
many objectives of DFX, to promote and facilitate a team approach to
product design, and to help participants adapt to their new responsi-
bilities. It is important that the group members have a team orienta-
tion a n d team spirit. Training to aid participants in their change from
individual effort to teamwork is vital.
93
94 Managing DFWDFX
2. How-to training. Development of the know-how needed to intel-

ligently apply applicable DFX tools and guidelines is also essential.
Depending on the assignment of responsibilities in the team, not all
team members will require this training. Some DFX know-how may
already reside in some key team members but supplementary training
is almost always needed, especially for those on the team that may not
have t h e experience or skills required.
Nature of the Training Needed

The total indoctrination and training requirements for a new concur-
rent engineering team can be quite considerable. The extent of the
training needed depends largely on the amount of familiarity and expe-
rience of the team members with the product design function and with
DFX methodology. A full list of the training that may be required for a
product design project utilizing DFX and concurrent engineering
includes the following subjects:
Product line familiarity. Product designers with some company .

expe-
-
rience may already beknowledgeable a b u t the functions &d features

of the current product line. Others on the design team probably will not
be sufficientlyknowledgeable. One element of training for a CE team is
familiarization with the workings of existing products since existing
products normally form the basis for improved or new models.
Plans for the new product. The design project is undertaken fkom the
realization that new attributes are needed in the company’s product
offering. The design team should be fully apprised by product manage-
m e n t of the goals of the project, i.e., what features, functions, appear-
ance, etc. are wanted in the new product. Goals in a broader sense may
be explained by management. For example, if management wants
product leadership as evidenced by a leading share of the market, such
an objective should be explained to the team members, and their will-
ingness to undertake such a responsibility should be confirmed.
Priorities ofproduct attributes. The team also needs to be informed
of management’s choice of priorities in the objectives of the design.
Since trade-offs normally are required, some statement of relative
importance is advisable. For example, is designing for recycling a
major management objective in the new product or just a desirable
attribute? Is short time-to-market essential? If so, it may preclude
the use of some innovative construction that would require more
development time.
Competitive product review. If there has been a benchmarking
study of a competitive product or products, the results should be pre-
sented to the team. If not, some kind of competitive product review is
Training and indoctrination 95
advisable and the team should be apprised of the results, particu-

larly any features or attributes that the competitive product has that
are superior to the company’s present offering.
= Concurrent engineering team concept. This is a major item. There
needs to b e a review and explanation of what each member of the
team is expected to contribute and how each team member’s duties
fit with others. There must be an explanation about how the team is
expected t o function and about schedules and procedures for meet-
ings, project schedules, etc. The sessions must be as thorough as
needed to help overcome resistance of the kind discussed in Chap. 8.
Systemsltools for DFX It is likely that the team or some of its
members may be involved in value analysis, benchmarking, brain-
storming, computerized evaluation systems for DFM or other DFX
attributes, design of experiments, Taguchi methods, quality function
deployment, FMEA, or other techniques. If so, training to the extent
needed for the assigned member to develop necessary skills in the
techniques to be employed is needed.
= Design principles and guidelines for various attributes. The most
critical element of the project may be to incorporate in the design
those attributes that enable the product to meet the objectives set for
it. Utilizing design guidelines to create a physical product involves
the application of expert knowledge. The fact that some team mem-
bers represent some functions that correspond to the attributes
wanted does not ensure that the expert design knowledge is avail-
able. For example, the fact that a safety engineer is part of the CE
team does not ensure that the product will be safe. The safety engi-
neer must know how to design a product so that it is safe. Similarly,
the environmental engineer in a design team must know how to
design a product for environmental friendliness. If the functional
representatives do not have the kind of expert know-how needed,
training is necessary. (Having the functional specialist, however, is
still far better than expecting the design engineer to learn the prin-
ciples of each specialty. Proper DFX design utilizes guidelines, but
requires f a r more-the knowledge of persons who have the experi-
ence of providing and maintaining some functional attribute. That is
why CE can be such a productive approach. There is no substitute for
experience.) Other members of the team should have at least an
appreciation of design principles and guidelines that facilitate each
attribute. Providing the training that assures this is a substantial
task. If the design team does not have someone highly knowledgeable
in each area, there must, at least, be people with the ability to refer
to sources of the recommendations and enough knowledge of them to
u s e the referenced information. (Sources of information are included
later in t h i s chapter.)
96 Managing DFMlDFX
Engineering design procedures. Since the CE team will contain

members who are not part of the design engineering department
and, i n many cases, in positions where they are not closely associated
with it, it is advisable to educate them in the special procedures
involved in product design. These will include an explanation about
how specifications for parts and assemblies are formalized, who cre-
ates engineering drawings, who checks and approves them, the nor-
mal procedures for making prototypes and testing them, etc. If CAD
is involved, they should learn the system for accessing and reviewing
CAD files. Team members should receive enough training so that
they can review applicable drawings and specifications. Support ser-
vices available to design engineering (for example, cost estimating)
should be included in this training.
Software tools. The project plan may include other uses of comput-
ers i n addition to CAD, for example, to run programs which evaluate
product design for ease of assembly, recyclability, serviceability, etc.,
or in support of some other tool such as design of experiments. The
team members who could profitably use the programs should be
trained to do so.
Team relations. It may be desirable to address team member respon-
sibilities and other organizational aspects of the team approach (as
discussed in Chap. 8)in training sessions for the project participants.
Levels of Training
Majchrzak describes two levels of training.l Education refers to intel-
lectual accumulation of knowledge, information, and concepts. Train-
ing normally refers more to the acquisition of skills for performance of
some tasks. Both of these concepts apply to the typical DFX project,
though in general usage and in this chapter, training is a general term
covering both levels. Team members and others must be educated to
understand the philosophy, organization, and procedures of the pro-
ject. Some must develop skills in the specific techniques and methods
that may be used in carrying out the project. The term appreciation
training is used in some quarters and in this book to describe the
knowledge-gain or education appropriate for persons who must under-
stand a n d appreciate the workings of the project or some phase of it but
who don’t particularly need operating skills.
This attitudinal or appreciation training should be directed to per-
sonnel from all functions participating in the project and others whose
actions could affect the success of the project. Upper management,
sales, service, purchasing, industrial relations, and accounting, as well
as the key design, manufacturing engineering, and product manage-
ment functions should be involved.
Training and Indoctrination 97
A third level of training noted in the Tool and Manufacturing Engi-

neers Handbook is ability.2 This does not refer to native, inborn capa-
bility but acquired abilities encompassing both knowledge and skill, as
the situation requires. Certainly, such ability is a necessity in a well-
functioning CE team.
Who Gets Trained

Obviously, t h e CE team members should be the primary recipients of
indoctrination and training. They must receive enough information so
that they are hlly knowledgeable of the program objectives. They must
be schooled in how they can work together on a team basis. They should
get as much of the technical, how-to-do-it instruction as is practical for
them to absorb and, some of them, at least, will need to acquire skills
in some of t h e tools or methods used to support the project.
There is also a need for some information sharing or appreciation
training for others in the company’s organization. Most importantly, the
mangers of t h e functions who will be supplying team members must be
included in t h e indoctrination sessions. Full information should be pro-
vided to them about team members’ duties and responsibilities and
team procedures. If a free flow of information about the project and the
roles of team members and their originating departments is not pro-
vided, resistance and less-than-needed cooperation are inevitable.
On-the-Job Training
It is desirable, but very time-consuming and costly, to provide on-the-
job manufacturing exposure for design engineers as well as working
exposure to the other DFX functions. Unfortunately, many designers
have little or no experience in manufacturing or applicable staff
departments - Their exposure may be limited to a college course in man-
ufacturing processes and a few plant tours. A deeper understanding of
manufacturing is perhaps the prime prerequisite if the necessary
DFM/DFX guidelines are to be understood thoroughly enough to be
applied properly.
It has been reported that several years of experience in the manu-
facturing organization is a prerequisite in Japan for assignment as a
product designer. Such an approach makes a lot of sense, for the expe-
rience of actually facing some manufacturing problems is invaluable in
understanding and appreciating the manufacturing effects of various
design alternatives. Actual shop floor troubleshooting or supervisory
experience o r work as a manufacturing engineer in the types of opera-
tions likely to be involved in the company’s products is very valuable,
if not essential, in properly grounding the designer in the background
understanding that will make DFMDF’X principles meaningful. Simi-
98 Managing DFWDFX
larly, if the designer is to give adequate weighting to other factors such

as quality, reliability, serviceability, or the environment, there is no
better way to ensure this than to provide him or her with working expe-
rience i n these functions.
Again, that not normally being feasible, the alternative approach for
ensuring adequate design attention to these factors is to create a
design team that includes representatives from all pertinent functions.
Hence, this is the logic for concurrent engineering. Additionally, train-
ing for the team in principles and guidelines for maximizing the
desired attributes in a product is also advisable.
Sources of Instruction
Training instruction can come from the company’s own personnel, from
vendors, consultants, or educational institutions. Each choice has its
pluses and minuses. The company’s own personnel will always be the
first choice. An in-house instructor is often a technical expert but sel-
dom a professional instructor. This individual may be a manager or spe-
cialist i n some aspect of the system to be exp1ained.l Company person-
nel are preferred in most cases, especially when they have personal
knowledge of the material being taught. This is the case for much of the
subject matter mentioned earlier in this chapter, such as product plans,
design procedures, or company priorities, that is explained to the team.
Other advantages of using in-house personnel as trainers is that
they are more apt to know the people involved, to understand the spe-
cial conditions of the company, and to relate the material they are
teaching to specific company situations. However, the reality is that
the very people who would be the best to present the training are not
always available. Additionally, training takes considerable prepara-
tion and the person may not have the necessary time available. When
considering the use of in-house personnel as instructors, the following
factors are applicable:
1. The time available by the instructor for the project

2. The person’s instructional ability (as indicated by up-front presen-
tation skills)
3. The importance of the training compared t o other company work the
instructor would otherwise be doing
Vendors can be useful for instruction if the subject matter concerns

the vendor‘s product: for example, use of CAD equipment or use of a
particular computer program or system for evaluating some aspect of
the product design. The advantage of vendor-sourced instruction is a
normally superior, authoritative indoctrination on the equipment or
system involved; the disadvantage may be a weaker adaptation of the

training to the special conditions that exist in the company. The train-
ing may tend to be too specific to the product and too much from the
vendor’s point of view. However, if the vendor has had long-term con-
tact with t h e company, this area may not be so weak. Managers con-
sidering t h e use of a vendor for training should consider the vendor’s
ability to deliver the training, the ability to adapt material to the com-
pany’s conditions, and the availability and commitment of the vendor
to the company’s needs.
Consultants are another source of instruction. They can be profes-
sional instructors or technical experts. They usually have the advan-
tage of being well versed in the material presented and skilled at train-
ing methods, but their material, like that of the vendor, may not be
fully adapted to the company’s conditions. Adaption of training mater-
ial to the company is mandatory. Long-term relationships with consul-
tants, including retainer fee arrangements, can lead to better focused
training. Consultants may be somewhat expensive but, when in-house
personnel a r e unavailable, a consultant can be a sound alternative.
Local educational institutions may be good sources if the courses
offered happen to coincide with needs of the company for the project.
For example, courses in designed experiments, cost estimating, and
similar techniques may be applicable to the project. Again, such train-
ing may be generalized and not closely tuned to the conditions of the
company. It may be more academic in nature and not sufficiently prac-
tical in its orientation. In recent years, many educational institutions
have begun partnerships with businesses. This type of ongoing rela-
tionship c a n be very satisfying, resulting in more highly targeted, bet-
ter planned training material.
Usually, some combination of teaching sources is advisable, with
company-specific material best taught by company people and with
specialized techniques best taught by outside agents most knowledge-
able of the techniques involved. In general, the more use that can be
made of company instructors, the better. It is more convenient, and it
may be more economical, and more directly tuned to the company’s con-
ditions. The company’s own managers, supervisors, and specialists
usually know their students and the conditions under which they must
carry out their duties and, conversely, the trainees will know the
instructor a n d be more comfortable with him or her. However, a n eval-
uation must be made about whether using company personnel for the
training constitutes the best use of their time and talents.
The best people to instruct and advise the team members and others
are t h e managers and specialists who have the most knowledge and
familiarity with the material being presented. For example, some top
management person should conduct the session that emphasizes man-
agement’s support of the project and advises the team of management’s
100 Managing DFMlDFX
priorities for design attributes in the new product. To delegate this to an

instructor or other person lacking significant management authority
greatly weakens the message to the team. Similarly, information about
design engineering procedures should be provided by either a design
engineering executive or the person assigned to lead and coordinate the
team’s project (assuming that the leader is from the product design
function, as will normally be the case.)
Information about various support functions and their corresponding
design attributes should be provided by the team members responsible.
For example, safety considerations in design should be conveyed by the
safety representative on the team; serviceability considerations should
be presented by the service representative; manufacturability consid-
erations should be presented by the leading manufacturing engineer on
the team; and so on. A n exception to this would be if the team member
representing a function is not the most knowledgeable available person
for that subject or, perhaps, not the best qualified from a n instruction
or explanation standpoint. In these cases, the function manager, if
there is one, may be called upon.
When it comes to more highly technical details, such as the explana-
tion of design guidelines for various attributes, it may be worthwhile or
necessary at that point to enlist the use of a technical specialist to pro-
vide t h e instruction. For example, the service function representative
on the team may know what serviceability results are wanted in the
product but may not be expert in the subject of designing for service-
ability. The same situation could exist with other design objectives
such as environmental friendliness, reliability, or user-friendliness. In
these cases, other resources and specialists are available and should be
tapped.
Scheduling the Training

Once the project gets under way and team members are involved in the
activities assigned to carry out the project, it will be difficult to get the
team together for extended periods of time. For that reason, and to
ensure that all questions are answered at the start and that team
members are fully aware of their roles and the tools available to them,
the most important information sharing and training must be sched-
uled to take place at the very start of the project. The first week of pro-
ject activity could and should be devoted to the information and train-
ing sessions described here.
It is essential that there exist in the team as high as possible a level
of expertise in DFX methodology; that is, that the team is able to shape
a design to achieve DFX attributes. Developing such a level of expertise
cannot take place in a short training session-it is really a prerequisite
for sound DFM and DFX. If this level of specialization does not exist
before the start of the project, some key team members should receive
training in these principles prior to the start of the team’s activities.
Some follow-up training and information sessions may well be
required as t h e project progresses. These can be scheduled by the team
leader, normally as part of a regular team meeting. Additionally, there
is no reason why some basic training course for the team members, one
for their general knowledge enrichment and education but not a pre-
requisite for some team activity, cannot be carried out over a period of
time, for example, one evening per week. Examples of subject matter
for such a course could be “statistics for engineers,” or “principles of
product reliability.”
Training Site
Almost all t h e information and training sessions probably can be con-
ducted right in the meeting room used by the team. Special skills devel-
opment for subgroups or individuals will best take place at some other
location so a s not to disrupt the team’s work. Appreciation training for
larger groups of nonteam personnel will probably require some larger
meeting area.
Training Methods
A variety of techniques can and should be used during the training ses-
sions. Information can be presented most rapidly when a one-way lec-
ture approach is used. However, the trainee’s degree of retention may
not be satisfactory with this approach. Most training experts strongly
recommend a participatory, two-way approach. Studies have shown that
absorption of training material is much better when this takes place.
Therefore, even in the management-led sessions on policy and priorities,
one of the ground rules should be to encourage questions and discussion
and to allow trainees to participate as much as possible. Other sessions
should have a similar format, even to the point of assigning trainees to
present some portion of the material being reviewed. Training in partic-
ular skills used in the project, such as computerized design rating,
should also definitely be of the hands-on variety.
The use of training aids should be encouraged also. Overhead and 35-
mm slide projectors, and other projection equipment for computer
screens such a s CAD screens, should be used if possible. Films, video
cassettes, and VCRs can be invaluable adjuncts, even if the material so
presented is generalized and not strictly to the point of the conditions
that the team will face. When product plans are being discussed, pro-
totypes and competitive products should be on hand so that the team
members can actually see what is involved. Other samples and kits and
computer simulations or software that support the training should be
freely used, if available. If any CD-ROM, interactive training programs

on the applicable subjects are available, they could provide a powerful
learning tool.
The use of DFM computer programs as a training vehicle should not
be overlooked. Many programs, discussed in Chaps. 11 and 24, can
impart valuable guideline information to the designer. In using the
program, designers gain the knowledge that they would otherwise
accumulate from contact with experienced manufacturing engineers
and other sources. Another benefit of these programs is that they tend
to be interesting and, often, enjoyable to use. This, obviously, facilitates
the learning process.
Written Material
Lectures and discussion are an integral part of a training process of the
kind needed for a D W C E project. However, verbal communication is
not a n d should not be the only media for transmitting material to the
attendees. Written passouts, memoranda, standard procedures, design
manuals, and other documents should be provided for the team mem-
bers and others for much of the material covered.
For example, a letter from the chief executive which outlines the com-
pany’s product line objectives would be advisable for each member of the
design team. The product manager should prepare a product specifica-
tion t h a t outlines the features and attributes of the proposed product. A
copy o f this should be given to the team members. Additional documents
would include such items as the design engineering procedures manual,
if any; applicable manufacturing process specifications with process
limitations; statements or memos covering various design attributes
such as serviceability, safety, etc. Last, but perhaps most important, the
design manual, if any, for the product line involved, should be available
to the team. Ideally, this will include standard materials such as fas-
teners, and other components; standard designs for frequently used ele-
ments like snap fit appendages; electrical standards; drawing stan-
dards; and typical tolerance requirements.
If complete copies are not given to persons outside the team who play
a supporting role in the project, these documents should be accessible
to such persons for their reference as needed.
Individual or Group Training

Almost all the information and training sessions for DFX and concur-
rent engineering will be on a group basis. The whole rationale of con-
current engineering, a team approach, precludes having much seg-
mented or individual instruction. The exception may be some particular
skill needed in some aspect of the project, but not needed by all team
members. Statistical analysis of test results could be an example. In

cases such as this, only a subgroup or possibly an individual needs to get
the training.
When the entire team is together for a training session, the instruc-
tor’s role can be supplemented by other team members who may have
some informative comments or be able to share the task of informing the
team about a particular aspect of the project and the support available.
Evaluation and Follow-Up

To ensure that the training is meeting its goals, some evaluation is
desirable. This may be in the form of a questionnaire for the attendees
at the end of a series of training sessions. It could ask what they felt was
successful and what was not successful in the training. No one knows
better than the students, themselves, if the instructional material is
being absorbed as planned. Another approach is to ask the functional
managers to talk to the team members after the training sessions end
and to report any significant comments received to the team leader.
The evaluation should be early enough in the program so that cor-
rective action can be taken, if needed. If, for example, team members
state that they did not understand the material in some session, addi-
tional sessions, perhaps with a different instructor or from a different
perspective, could be scheduled.
Of course, the prime measure of the value of the training will be in the
results of the design project. If the project meets its schedule and if the
product developed has the attributes considered necessary for market
success, it can be concluded that the training, among other factors, was
successful. However, some more immediate evaluation such as with the
methods just noted would probably be advisable. There should also be
an economic evaluation, albeit, perhaps only an informal one. Training
costs money. Whether or not the expenditure provided a good economic
return is a question that the team leader and his or her superiors should
consider.
Technical Expertise Needed

There are two kinds of guidelines that incorporate the knowledge base
applicable to DFX. The first are general guidelines, applicable to prod-
uct assemblies or to parts made from a particular manufacturing
process like injection molding, metal stamping, or sand-mold casting.
The second a r e guidelines applicable to a specific type of part which may
be used in a particular industry or company; for example, the machin-
ing of valve stems for a valve company or the injection molding of com-
puter keyboard components. There is likely t o be a series of guidelines
governing the design of such parts, perhaps in writing, perhaps in the
104 Managing DFWDFX
unrecorded knowledge of design and manufacturing engineers who

work with such parts.
Sources of Technical Expertise

Traditionally, the knowledge base of manufacturability principles, the
guidelines and rules of thumb that facilitate low-cost production, comes
from the experience and expertise of the manufacturing engineer. Man-
ufacturing engineers, perhaps from years of factory-floor troubleshoot-
ing, installing equipment, and tooling and cost-reduction efforts, know
what design conf;gurations are troublesome for the processes they are
familiar with, and what configurations facilitate the smooth operation of
these processes. The manufacturing engineer is the best and perhaps the
find judge of what is easily manufadurable. Similarly, quality engi-
neers, from their experience, have learned what product elements and
configurations are apt to cause quality problems. Service technicians
have ideas from their experience that must be incorporated in the pro-
duct’s configuration to ensure easy serviceability, etc.
Another good source of practical guidelines can be found in manu-
facturers’ and trade associations’ bulletins. These are often published
by such groups to promote business for group members and to facilitate
trouble-free, economical production. Booklets with objectives other
than manufacturability are also often available; for example, booklets
and other literature from materials suppliers which give assistance in
designing parts so that they can be recycled more easily.
“he company’s own design manuals often have useful information for
families of parts common to the company’s products. Many of these
guidelines deal with factors that affect reliability and serviceability as
well a s manufacturability. Of course, many companies do not have
design manuals. However, larger companies, and those that have some
years ofinvolvement in the design and manufacture of a particular kind
of product, generally develop manuals and standard procedures that aid
their product designers in avoiding problems that have occurred in the
past. This approach is invaluable in helping achieve the objectives of
DFX. Companies should develop and catalog guideline data peculiar to
their own operations. This can take the form of an internal DFX man-
ual for the company.
A fourth source of guideline information is more formal publications,
handbooks like the Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing4
and others which catalog a wide series of rules of thumb and other rec-
ommendations for parts and assemblies made from a broad schedule of
manufacturing processes.
Computer programs that evaluate the design of product assemblies
are another source of guideline information. In these programs, the cat-
egorization of constituent parts by the designer using the program gives
him or her implicit information as to what characteristics of parts are

desirable a n d what characteristics are not. The guidelines are in some
cases subtly expressed but are nevertheless resident in the programs.
(See Chaps. 1,11, and 24 for additional discussion of these programs.)
Finally, there is still another factor operating in this field of knowl-
edge-based guidelines for manufacturability: human creativity. Some
practitioners of DFM will tell you that ingenuity is the most important
factor-a person with a creative outlook and with good common sense,
even without extensive knowledge of or exposure to written guidelines,
may produce the most effective product designs.
References
1. A. Majchrzak, The Human Side of Factory Automation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
1988.
2. "Team Building and Training,"chap. 4, Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Hand-
book, vol. 6, SME,Dearborn, 1992.
3. L. Kelly (ed.), ASTM Technical Skills and Training Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1994.
4 . J. Bralla (ed.),Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1986.
Chapter
11
Evaluating Design
Proposals
‘‘ I s a y that when you can measure what

often
you are speaking about, and express it in
numbers, you know something about it; but
when you cannot measure it, when you can-
not express it in numbers, your knowledge is
of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
LORD KELVIN
Chapter 2 of this book outlined a n w b e r of important attributes that a

product should possess. Other chapters include some direction to the
designer to aid in achieving these attributes. But how does the designer
know how well the product conceived or developed really will achieve
the objectives desired? Is the product really as safe as the designer
wants i t to be? Is it as easy to service, as user-friendly? Designers need
some method for measuring the product’s capabilities, for knowing that
the product will meet the objectives set for it. They need this during the
design phase, ideally, as early in it as possible, Finding how well these
attributes are met after the product is on the market is too late. The
designer’s general judgment may be very sound in weighing the design’s
conformance to planned design attributes, but a n objective measure-
ment will almost always be better. Every design variation has conse-
quences in the properties of the product, including its cost.
Evaluation is needed not only so that the design team or designer can
know if the product’s objectives have been met but also so that alterna-
tive designs can be compared and the most effective alternative selected.
Preferably, the design team should be able to carry out an evaluation
early in the design process, ideally at the concept stage. Then the time-
consuming and expensive development and detailed work does not take
place unless it is verified that the proposed approach is really effective.
106
Evaluating Design Proposals 107
The procedure should be one that can be applied easily and routinely
by the product designers. It should employ some numerical rating,
index, or cost so that as objective a comparison as possible can be made
between alternative designs.
More and more, systems are being developed in academic institu-
tions and by consulting firms that permit the designers to objectively
evaluate design proposals. The development of more quantitative bases
for their effect on manufacturing costs is gradually taking place. How-
ever, systems for the less-quantitative product design attributes are
still limited at present. For example, systems that measure a product’s
user-friendliness, speed-to-market, or environmental effects are very
rare. The most progress to date has taken place in evaluating manu-
facturability. Other attributes are not yet well covered.
Evaluating Manufacturability
Most progress has taken place with design for assembly. Providing an
evaluation o f assembly designs is somewhat simpler than evaluating
the manufacturability of individual parts where such factors as tooling
cost, yield, and production quantity all weigh more heavily than they
do with assemblies. Assembly evaluation systems can provide a rapid
and easy comparison between several alternatives. Common measures
are parts count, design efficiency, and assembly time. However, sys-
tems for DFM of individual parts require a more complex analysis. One
exception, however, is to count the number of manufacturing process
steps needed to make the part. This is a rough but useful method of
comparing two designs of a part and is somewhat comparable to parts
count in assembly analysis.
Manufacturability can be expressed in terms of total cost or can be
approximated with some major cost element such as direct labor time.
The cost can be evaluated or estimated for alternative designs or design
concepts. Manufacturing cost is the prime measure, almost the sole
measure, of manufacturability. Direct labor time is a straightforward
indicator of manufacturing cost and is usable by itself in a large num-
ber of cases. (Exceptions are cases in which materials costs, labor rates,
and overhead costs also vary significantly with different design varia-
tions.) Therefore, in many cases, manufacturability of a series of design
choices can b e evaluated by estimating and comparing the direct labor
time required for production of each design. Eventually, however, a
full-cost estimate is the ultimate guide to the designer in knowing how
well the product design has been engineered for manufacturability.
Conventional cost estimates are made by evaluating the materials
content of a design and the labor content of the production operations
involved. This is a valid, accurate way to estimate the manufacturing
cost of a particular design, and hence its manufacturability, though it

may b e time-consuming. The time element can be reduced by using
computer assistance.
Assembly Evaluation Systems

What are most interesting and useful to the DFX engineer are cost esti-
mating computer programs developed specifically for DFM use. The
longest standing-and, in many ways, the most useful for DFM-are
those applicable to assembly evaluation. Currently, the most notable are:
1. T h e DFA TOOLKIT system provided by Boothroyd-Dewhurst,Inc.
is available in both manual and computerized forms. In the computerized
form, t h e program asks a series of questions about the size, shape, com-
plexity, and fastening method for each part to be assembled. Based on the
responses to these questions, it selects appropriate time values for han-
dling and inserting the parts. It calculates a total standard time for the
particular design, based on a database of average time values. It also cal-
culates a design efficiency based on the ratio of the computed assembly
time for the product to an idealized assembly time if all parts were
designed for optimum assembly and if the minimum possible number of
parts existed in the design. The evaluation can be calculated manually
from tabulated time data if the computer program is not used. First
issued as a handbook method in 1980,the approach was developed for use
with personal computers and introduced in that form in 1982.l Since
then, t h e system has periodically been upgraded.
2. The HitacWGeneral Electric system was developed by Hitachi in
Japan and purchased and utilized by General Electric in the United
States and further developed for GE products. It applies to the designs
of mechanical and electrical assemblies.
The system, described in 1986, was called the Hitachi assembleability
evaluation method (AEM). Like the TOOLKIT, it enables the designer
to calculate the labor time for an assembly. It also provides a percent-
age score which is an index of the ease of assembly of the design. Alter-
native designs can be compared to determine which one has the high-
est rating. *
General Electric has also developed, with the help of a software com-
pany, Information Builders offNew York, a second generation system
which they call Level 5. This program contains a library of design rules
for sheet metal, injection molding, and parts assembly. It also covers
some design elements of particular GE appliance products such as refrig-
erators. The program presents a series of questions to be answered by the
designer. The program then scores the design, providing a rating on a
scale of 1 to 100 for conformance to manufacturability, cost, and GE
design standards. The data in the program are in several levels which
explain the rules and illustrate them. The system is intended to aid in the
design process and to provide training to design engineers in manufac-
turability. Rules and guidelines in the program come from the combined
recommendations of senior and retired GE manufacturing engineers.
3. The PoliNniversity of Massachusetts system (for manual appli-
cation as well as for VAX minicomputers and PCs) provides compara-
tive assembly time data for product designs depending on the ease of
handling and ease of insertion of the parts involved. It is most suitable
for comparing design alternatives and selecting the one with the mini-
mum assembly time.
4. The ASSEMBLY VIEW system for Macintosh computers devel-
oped by Sapphire Software, Menlo Park, California, has been used by
Motorola, among others. This system calculates both standard assem-
bly time and a design efficiency rating. It utilizes an assembly diagram
with standard icons representing components of the assembly and cer-
tain processes like painting or inspection. Insertion and fastening are
indicated b y linking the icons. Assembly times for nonstandard parts
can be inserted into the program.
It should b e noted that these programs evaluate the labor content of

an assembly design, not the materials costs. Sometimes there are trade-
offs between materials and labor costs of design alternatives. For exam-
ple, a complex part made by combining several simpler parts will reduce
assembly costs, but the cost of the complex part could conceivably be
higher than t h e cost of several simple parts. Fortunately, however, mate-
rials costs are easy and straightforward to estimate from per-pound or
per-square-foot data. Materials cost differences can be combined with
the labor cost difference of alternative designs to arrive at a more nearly
total cost comparison.
There is one other quite useful method t o evaluate the manufactura-
bility of assemblies: simply count the number of parts that the design
entails. Assemblies with fewer parts normally can be assembled in less
time and have higher design efficiency ratings.
One powerful advantage of these computer programs and the parts
count approach is that they can be used by designers themselves. They
provide an easy way for them to gage the effectiveness of their efforts.
They help to eliminate we-versus-they feelings that can arise when
manufacturing people are doing the evaluation and pressing the
designer to simplify his or her designs. They also have guideline infor-
mation implicit in their tables of time data that designers, in working to
improve the rating of their designs, will apply to promote that objective.
In this sense, they are also useful in training the designer in principles
applicable to better, more easily assembled products.
ManufacturabilityEvaluations of
Individual Parts
As just discussed, one simple way to compare the manufacturability of
alternative designs of a part is to count the number of process opera-
tions that each requires. Other factors being equal, the part with the
fewest number of operations will be the simplest to manufacture and
the lowest in cost. Of course, tooling complexity and materials cost
must be considered also. Nonetheless, this metric is often a useful one
for comparing parts from a DFM standpoint.
Boothroyd-Dewhurst and others have developed systems to facilitate
the manufacturability evaluation of piece parts in a product. They are
somewhat more complex than the assembly systems described above
in that there are separate methods for each manufacturing process
involved. For example, die castings, injection molded plastic parts,
machine parts, powder metal parts, and metal stampings each are eval-
uated with separate systems since design principles, rules of thumb,
and manufacturing costs are different for each process. Current sys-
tems simplify and ease the task of making an estimate of the manufac-
turing cost for a part. They consider tooling cost and amortization,
process labor, and materials costs. As in the case of assembly evaluation
systems, comparisons can be made for different design concepts. The
Boothroyd-Dewhurst systems are computerized and are programmed to
request the input data needed to develop a cost estimate.
Evaluating DFX Attributes

All of t h e systems described in the preceding section deal with manu-
facturability and not the other DFX attributes that have been dis-
cussed. Evaluating designs for DFX requires different, more complex
methods such as:
1. Express the attribute being evaluated in terms of cost or some
other monetary factor. This is difficult because of the intangible nature
of many of the DFX attributes, but is discussed below. The most intan-
gible factor is the financial benefit that can accrue when a company
incorporates desirable attributes in a product and gains additional
sales, larger profit margins, or both. For instance, speed-to-market is
emphasized in order to enhance product sales. How much additional
profit margin can be generated if the product realization time is
reduced by three months? Providing an accurate estimate for such a
factor is difficult, but remains a possible avenue for someone estab-
lishing an evaluation system for improved speed-to-market. Similarly,
estimated cost or profit amounts could be related t o different design
concepts when evaluating a design for such attributes as safety, ser-
viceability, reliability, etc.
2. Use a scoring system which rates or ranks design alternatives

against some criteria. Ideally, it should provide a design efficiency or
other numerical rating of the extent of the attribute. Normally, sys-
tems of this type must be somewhat generalized and rely quite heavily
on the experience, knowledge, and judgment of the person making the
evaluation.
3. Test t h e design. This involves making at least one prototype of the
proposed product and subjecting it to whatever tests are appropriate
for the objectives being evaluated. For example, if reliability is one of
the design objectives, life tests are called for; if user-friendliness is an
objective, a number of user tests of the product with feedback informa-
tion from t h e test users is needed.
Almost all DFM and DFX guidelines are still qualitative in nature
and often conflicting. It would be ideal if the effect of any one design
alternative, considered in respect to some DFX recommendation, could
be evaluated. For example, one guideline for metal-stamped parts
states that punched holes should not be closer to the edge of the part
than the thickness of the sheet metal. (See Fig. 11.1.)How much effect
on the product’s manufacturability or its quality and reliability will
there be if t h i s rule is violated? It can be seen that developing an objec-
tive system for measuring the effects of each guideline on a part or
product would be extremely difficult.
There is one way that the DFX guidelines can be related to cost and
thereby given quantitative evaluation. That is through the use of the life-
cycle cost concept-Taguchi’s concept of overall product quality. (See def-
inition in Chap. 3.) The lower the life-cycle cost for such factors as service,
safety, repair of quality defects, etc.; as well as the initial cost, the better
the DFX performance. As noted above, however, many of the life-cycle
cost factors a r e highly intangible and not well suited to quantification.
How, for example, can one predict the cost (or profit effect) of sales that
are lost due to a poor reliability reputation? How can one predict the cost
of product liability lawsuits resulting from safety defects? Broad overall
projections of such costs may be possible, but relating them to specific
design changes, such as changing a sharp corner in a part to a radiused
corner (sometimes a safety and sometimes a product reliability factor), is
not really feasible. Even calculating the manufacturing cost effect of such
a change may be somewhat lengthy and uncertain.
The following is a list of the DFX objectives considered in this book
with a statement of how lifetime costs may be affected by the degree of
conformance t o the objective:
Quality and reliability. The costs of quality defects and poor relia-
bility will consist of repair costs for the owner of the product; scrap,
rework, lost yield, and warranty costs for the manufacturer; and lost
revenue to t h e manufacturer as a result of reduced sales because of
Not this 7 This
t
Not this
Figure 11 -1 This is an illustration of design recommendations

for the size and location of punched holes in sheet metal stamp-
ings. The recommendations aid in manufacturability, quality,
and probably lead-time of the parts involved. However, the
example helps illustrate how difficult it would be to evaluate
the effect of conformance to the recommendations shown. It is
difficult to weigh even the manufacturing cost effeds of com-
pliance Dr noncompliance with the recommendations. Assess-
ing the effects on product quality or speed-to-marketare much
less tangible. We know that adherence to these design sugges-
tions is beneficial, we don’t know quantitatively the extent of
the benefit. (Source:J. G. Bralla, Handbook of Product Design
for Manufacturing,McGraw-Hill, New York, 1986.)
a poor-quality reputation. Another cost to the purchaser may be a

reduced trade-in value when the unit is disposed of because the poor-
quality reputation reduces the demand for a used item.
Seruiceability. Poor serviceability raises the service and repair
charges for the buyer and warranty costs for the manufacturer. It
may- also affect further sales and trade-in values.
Safety. Poor safety in a product manifests itself as medical and
other costs for the user of the product, possible product liability costs
for the manufacturer, and the value of lost sales resulting from the
poor reputation of the product.
Environmental-friendliness. Environmental defects can lead to
costs t h a t must be borne by a widespread group of the population.
Atmospheric, water, and soil pollution may result from factors inher-
e n t in t h e product design. Health costs and other costs may also be
generated as a result. Another factor is the cost of disposal of the
product. However, this is offset in part by the degree to which com-
ponents can be recycled.
User-friendliness. The lack of user-friendliness may affect the rep-
utation o f the product, adversely affecting its sales and the profits
a n d the financial condition of the manufacturer. It could lead to extra
costs for t h e user due to incorrect or unsafe use or lack of usability.
Speed-to-market. The lack of this can be very costly to the manu-
facturer if it means that competitors arrive at the market sooner and
capture market share, reducing the manufacturer’s profits from both
reduced margins and lost sales.
It can be seen that costs such as these, particularly those that result
from lower sales, lesser market share, or less profitable pricing are dif-
ficult to estimate in general and almost impossible to ascribe to partic-
ular design recommendations. This makes it problematic to evaluate
the long-term cost effects of having the product conform to a particular
design guideline.
One approach that can put these design objectives on a more objec-
tive basis is an indexing system that rates a design from the standpoint
of a particular objective. For example, a system that analyzes a design
from the serviceability standpoint and gives it a serviceability index
rating could be useful to the designer and could facilitate creating a
design that is more serviceable. The same kind of approach could be
used for evaluating a product’s conformance to the other design objec-
tives. Such a n approach, though necessarily somewhat arbitrary, will
be much better than no system at all. Some such systems are currently
under development in various academic quarters but no finished sys-
tem is known to the author at the present time. One example is Dads
design for quality manufacturability approach at the New Jersey Insti-
tute of Technology. This will provide a quality rating for product
designs and eventually, Das hopes, will be computerized.2
Other Indices of DFX Attributes

Life-cycle costs may be the best theoretical measure of the degree to
which an attribute exists in a product but, from a practical standpoint,
other measures may be more useful. The following is a review of factors
that could be used to evaluate DFX objectives with the exception of

manufacturability, which was covered earlier in this chapter.
Quality. There are many existing in-plant measures of quality, many

of which can be the basis of quality evaluations of proposed designs or
design concepts if their magnitude can be estimated for the proposed
design. One is yield, the percentage of a product or component that con-
forms to specifications. This can be estimated for a new product or a
product concept, as is done in the U S . Navy producibility tool #2,if
data are available about the yield percentages of the component parts.
Another interesting quality statistic, one used by Ford and the other
automotive companies, is the rate of customer quality complaints.
Ford, among other automotive manufacturers, tracks the number of
complaints per 100 vehicles within the first months of ownership.
Rework and repair costs in the factory are another potential measure
of the quality inherent in a product design. To use such a measure to
evaluate proposed designs, a method would have to be developed to pre-
dict or estimate the rework and repair costs attendant to each design
variation, should the product design go into production. This certainly
would not be a simple task.
Warranty costs are another valid measure of product quality, albeit
one t h a t would be difficult to predict for a proposed product design.
An additional measure could be based on SPC data for component
parts already in production.
Reliability. Predicting the reliability of a product before a reliability

history develops is a well-developed science. The study of product reli-
ability has grown in recent years, under the impetus of U.S. Depart-
ment of Defense requirements for military weapons and support equip-
ment. College courses are offered on the subject and a variety of
textbooks and other books outlining reliability calculations are avail-
able. Some of the indices used to evaluate reliability such as mean time
between failures (MTBF), mean time to failure (MTTF), failuresper bil-
lion operating hours (FITS), etc. are discussed in Chap. 15. All depend
on a base of reliability data for the product’s components. If such data
are available, the expected reliability of a product design can be fairly
readily calculated.
Serviceability. One factor in serviceability is testability, the ease with

which faults can be isolated. As indicated in Chap. 16, several firms
have developed testability rating systems for printed circuit board
assemblies. The major factor in serviceability, however, is the ease
with which the product can be disassembled to provide access to the
components to be replaced and the ease with which they can be
replaced. The analysis for this is similar to that required to evaluate

ease of assembly. There is at least one design-for-service evaluation
system commercially available that helps the designer make this kind
of analysis.
Safety. Liability costs are one measure of product safety, but a some-
what erratic one since a few large liability settlements, which may
depend at least in part on some factors other than the safety of the
product, can strongly affect the overall cost. Costs for recovery from
injuries, but not from legal action, can be a measure of the safety fac-
tor. The problem is that estimating the extent of such costs as a result
of certain design choices is difficult, if even possible.
Environment. Chapter 18describes several systems under development

for evaluating the effects of a particular design on the environment. Two
of the major efforts, however, have not yet resulted in workable com-
puterized systems for evaluating the environmental effects of a product
design. One incipient system is based on series of cost factors involved
in recycling and is designed to aid in decisions about recyclability of a
potential product. The other system deals with rating factors rather
than costs and will provide an overall environmental-friendliness rating
based on the extent of hazards in the materials used in the product and
the projected ease of recycling, etc.
User-friendliness. As indicated above, the quantifkation of this

attribute is difficult since it seems to be inherently intangible.
Speed-to-market. Some factors which affect the speed-to-market of a

new product and which can be predicted from a design concept are: (1)
lead time for fabricating the critical path tooling, (2) equipment and
facilities lead time if a new manufacturing process is employed in the
product’s design, (3)testing requirements if these are part of the crit-
ical path, a n d (4) estimated development time if the product concept
includes some innovation that requires development and verification.
In summary, it can be seen that the estimated time required for any
project item that is on the critical path (that is, when the time required
for its completion requires other activities to wait for its completion),
is a factor in the length of time required to bring the product to mar-
ket. Other factors that can be limiting are materials procurement
time, training time for production people, prototype fabrication time,
etc. However, as long as the lead time for each of these critical path
factors can be estimated for each design concept, it is possible to com-
pare the concepts from the standpoint of their ability to be brought to
market quickly.
116 Managing DFWDFX
Who Should Make the Evaluation?

Who should make the evaluation of the design? In many cases, partic-
ularly when manufacturing cost is the medium for measurement, the
estimate can be made by someone other than the designers. For exam-
ple, a specialist in cost estimating or a manufacturing engineer could
make t h e estimate. Some rating systems are also best carried out by
someone expert in the attribute being evaluated, rather than by the
prime product designers. However, the best approach, when possible,
is to have the designers themselves make the evaluation. This certainly
has speed and accuracy advantages in that there is no need to transfer
information about the design from one person to another. The time t o
prepare documentation and to explain the design concept to the spe-
cialist is avoided.
One of the advantages of some of the current evaluation systems,
particularly those involving assembly or other aspects of manufactura-
bility, is that they make it relatively easy for the designers, themselves,
to carry out the evaluation. In addition to the convenience and time
advantages of this, there is also the learning factor that benefits the
designer. Designers who conduct an evaluation with a prepared system
tend to learn the design principles that underlie the system.
Weighted Matrix Rating Systems

Designers have commonly used matrix methods to systematize the
evaluation of a product or component concept against various objec-
tives, particularly the less tangible one^.^,^ Such an approach could be
used to evaluate a product design with respect to DFX attributes. In
this approach, a number of factors are selected to be the criteria for
evaluation. A numerical rating is assigned to each level of each factor.
The numerical rating for each factor can be added to that for the other
factors t o provide a numerical rating for the full product. The factors
can also be given separate weightings when some are more critical to a
desired objective than others. As an example, in a product safety rating
system, the weighting of a potential high voltage hazard, which could
cause death, would be much higher than a sharp corner hazard, which
would cause only a scratch or cut to the hand.
The normal manner of laying out an organized evaluation matrix is
to provide columns on the matrix sheet for each design alternative to
be evaluated. Criteria for evaluation are placed in rows and identified
on the left-hand side of the sheet.
When the sheet is used, alternative designs or design concepts are
rated against each factor. The concepts that are judged to satisfy the cri-
teria best are given the highest ratings; those that do not satisfy the cri-
teria are given a lower rating. Normally, the ratings are shown in terms
of a numerical scale from either 1 to 5 or 1to If the factors are

given different weightings, each rating is multiplied by the criteria’s
weighting factor t o give a total score for each criteria for each design
alternative. That product is entered on the sheet in the appropriate
place. Figure 11.2 shows a matrix rating form for evaluating equip-
ment, projects, e t ~Another
. ~ example of a matrix rating system used
for a generalized evaluation of design concepts for a brush-making
machine is shown in Fig. 11.3.3 Figure 11.4 shows an example of how
the matrix approach could be used to evaluate the user-friendliness of
a product design.
Suggestedintanglbiesand study form

(Weighting rating scheme should be dswlopd by
the participantsto be mutuallyBgrwaMe
Notes
Figure 11.2 A sample evaluation matrix form for intangible design factors. (SOUFW:
J. L. Neuins and D. E. Whitney, Concurrent Design of Products and Processes,
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989.)
118 Managing DFWDFX
_-
Make20M I 0
brushesper 4
8-hour shift
~ -_
______. --
Endof
brush 5
safety
Ease of
manufacture 3
of machine
R e l i i l i of
operatins 5
Overallsize
of machine
Figure 11.3 A sample evaluation matrix used to evaluate three proposed

design concepts for a brush-making machine. Evaluation factors are listed
on the left side of the form. Each design concept can receive a rating from 0
to 5 for each factor, depending on the rater's evaluation of how well the
design concept confonns. The factors deemed more important are given a
stronger weighting in the total than other factors. The totals on the bottom
of the form represent the numerical ratings for the four different design con-
cepts. The same kind of approach could prove useful in evaluating the con-
formance of various less-tangible DFX attributes in different products or
product design choices. (Source: S. Pugh, Total Design-Integrated Methods
for SuccessfulProduct Engineering,Addison-Wesley,Reading,Mass,1991.)
Testing Design Proposals

Despite the tremendous technological progress made in refining design
methodology with advanced CAD systems and sophisticated systems
for engineering calculation, design engineering remains an imperfect
science. It doesn't seem possible for the engineer to predict exactly how
the product will perform, exactly how easy it will be to manufacture, or
how reliable it will be. In the real world, each component and each
product must be tested to verify that it meets its predicted objectives.
Testing provides invaluable information for the designer on such
things as how well the features of the product operate, how durable and
reliable the product is, whether the materials chosen perform as
Matrix Chart Evaluation of User-friendliness
I I 11 I
__
Ratings....._._.__.__. . Weighted Ratings...______..
._.___.
Factor Weight Alternative ]Alternative Alternative /Alternative
#l I
#2 #I #2 I
I I
Is in the won
anticipate human errors in
Total weighted ratings:
Note: Rate each factor on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being the highest rating.
I I 1
Figure 11.4 A sample evaluation matrix developed to rate the suitability of a product
design or product concept for user-friendliness.The concept with the highest rating is
the one deemed t o have the best user-friendliness.
expected, whether the product is as easy to operate as the engineer

visualizes, a n d many other factors.
One vital element of the design process, therefore, is the capability to
produce prototypes which reflect, as accurately as possible, the charac-
teristics inherent in a production item. The facilities of a capable pro-
totype shop, close at hand to the designer, is an invaluable aid to the
designer’s DFX efforts.
Methods of Evaluating Product Designs for DFX

Method: Parts count.
Applicability: DFA.
Advantages: Simplest and fastest method, easiest to understand.
Disadvantages: Does not consider the cost of parts or cost of assembly. The best
assembly may not be the one with the fewest parts. Considers only manufacturabil-
ity (ease of assembly).
Method: Assembly time and cost.
Applicability: DFA.
Advantages: With some systems, it can be relatively quick and easy, especially when
the system is computerized. Standard time values for different characteristics of
parts assembled provide guidance to the design engineer who uses the system.
Disadvantage: Does not consider parts cost.
Method: Design efficiencyrating for assembly.
Applicability: DFA.
Advantages: Gives another index in addition to parts count or assembly time. Easy
to compare different alternatives.
Disadvantages: Calculated rating may not accurately reflect cost factors. Does not
consider parts cost.
Method: Estimated life-cycle product costs.
Applicability: Full range of DFX.
Advantages: Gives the most meaningful and thorough evaluation of the combined
effect of the various attributes wanted in the products.
Disaduantages: Almost impossible to carry out in practice, primarily because of the
difficulty in estimating the life-cycle costs of such factors as environmental effects,
safety, or user-friendliness.Additionally, the manufacturer may not want to consider
all life-cycle cost factors.
Method: Formal product cost estimate.
Applicability: Full DFM including assembly. Quality and some other factors can be
included.
Advantages: Gives the best measure of manufacturability.
Disaduantages: Time-consumingand expensive. May be too costly and time-consum-
ing to be applied at the concept stage of design. However, computerized estimating
system may reduce the preparation time and cost.
Method: Producibility assessment (PA),U.S.Navy ProducibilityMeasurement Tools,
Tool #1.
Applicability: DFM for product components and products.
How used: Each component is rated on five elemen-esignhandling, process/
method, inspection, tooling, and design-to-cost with fixed numerical values for each
possible grade of each element. The producibility rating is the total of the values. By
averaging the values for the components of a product, an overall rating for the whole
product can be calculated.
Advantages: Relatively quick to prepare. Provides a numerical rating.
Disadvantages: Factors are very generalized and may not reflect subtle differencesin
product design. The method requires a knowledgeable, experienced person to make
the analysis, and the results are subject to this individual’s interpretation.
Method: Producibility assessment (PA), US.Navy ProducibilityMeasurement Tools,

Tool #2.
Applicability: Design for quality and reliability, although the term producibility is
used.
How used: Yield data of each component is obtained. The percent yield of the product
is obtained b y multiplying the yield percentages of all the components. An example
is shown in Chap. 14.
Advantages: Provides a percent yield for the product based on yield data for its com-
ponents.
Disadvantages: Its accuracy is only as good as the data on component yield. Its mea-
surement is based only on whether the component or product meets specifications,
not on other quality factors, nor on performance variations within the acceptable
range. Needed yield data for parts may not be available.
Method: Disassembly time data.
Applicability: Design for serviceability or recycling.
Advantages: Provides disassembly and teardown time and a serviceability rating
for the product. Useful data, relatively easy to develop when the computerized sys-
tem is used.
Disadvantages: For serviceability and recycling, it requires the input of cost data for
full results. Does not cover environmental fadors other than recyclability.
Method: Design for quality manufacturability system (DadNJIT system).
Applicability: Design for quality.
Advantages: Provides numerical quality rating for proposed product designs. (Rating
is based on quality history of various kinds of parts.) Ratings are easily understood
and compared.
Disadvantages: Products covered are limited to those with parts for which there is a
quality history.
Method: Producibility index (developed at Xerox Corp.).
Applicability: DFM of mechanical assemblies.
How used: The designer analyzes the assembly operation for a product or subassem-
bly and assigns ratings based on the ease of assembly of each part. An average rat-
ing for the assembly is then calculated based on the rating for each part.
Advantages: Simple and easy to use.
Disadvantages: Does not provide an estimated assembly time or product cost.
Method: Weighted factor matrix.
Applicability: Any aspect of a design. In DFX analyses, it may be best suited to
evaluating a product for attributes that are less tangible; e.g., user-friendliness,
safety, etc.
How used: (Seedescription above.) A knowledgeable person selects a numerical rat-
ing level for each factor listed on a prepared form. Each level of each factor has a pre-
determined value number. The sum of these numbers is the total rating for the com-
ponent or product being evaluated.
Advantages: Perhaps the best system available at present to evaluate a design or
design concept for various less tangible attributes.
Disadvantages: Less objective since it depends on the knowledge and experience of
the person who makes the rating. The use of numerical data may imply a greater
level of accuracy than is inherently achievable with this approach.
122 Managlng DFWDFX
Prototypes should be subjected to a variety of tests:

1. Use tests to verify that the product functions as it was designed to
function.
2. Life tests to determine the reliability and useful life of the prod-
uct and its components.
3. Environmental tests, usually at various temperatures, humidi-
ties, and other conditions to confirm the product’s performance under
any extreme conditions that the product may face in use.
4. Field tests to confirm the successful operation of the product
under customer-use conditions. Another purpose of field tests is to ver-
ify t h a t customers will understand and be able to use the product eas-
ily and as intended.
5. Shipping tests to verify the effectiveness of packaging and the
sturdiness of the product.
Good testing is a powerfbl and essential step in perfecting the design
and in ensuring that it meets the varied objectives of the program.
Follow-UP
Even with thorough testing, no project ever proceeds or succeeds
exactly as expected. Manufacturing processes may not work exactly as
planned; some design features may not be understood by the user as
easily as expected; quality problems may pop up in unexpected places;
or servicing may be more difficult than planned. Sometimes, some
aspects of the product are more successful than expected: a tricky man-
ufacturing process may operate much more smoothly than anticipated;
some run-of-the mill product feature may be very well received by cus-
tomers; some project step, expected to delay the completion, may be
completed much faster than expected.
In a n y case, since all results may not be readily apparent, after each
project it is desirable to make a careful postdevelopmental analysis to
see how well the project’s objectives were realized. This is particularly
important if one of the objectives of the company, as is frequently the
case a t the present time, is to implement continual improvements. The
review should evaluate how successfully all project objectives were met,
including quality, reliability, time-to-market, customer satisfaction,
service, etc.; as well as cost objectives. Such reviews are invaluable in
pointing the way t o future product and operational improvements.
Evaluating Component Parts for Manufacturability

One simple method is to count the number of manufacturing operations needed to
complete the part.
In addition, the purpose of this review is to recommend changes for

the next project, such as to make more field tests to avoid a particular
problem; make more use of certain components, certain processes, or
certain materials; or redirect product feature emphasis. Information
feedback is an essential element of effective management and continu-
ing further improvement.
References
1. G . Boothroyd,"ProductDesign for Manufacture and Assembly,"London, 1993.
2. S. Das, Design for Quality Manufacturability, NJIT,June, 1992.
3. S.Pugh, Total Design-Integmted Methods for Successful Product Engineering, Addi-
son-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1991.
5 . J. W. Priest, Engineering Design for Producibility and Reliability, Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York,1988.
6 . D. E. Carter and B. Stilwell Baker, CE-Concurrent Engineering, the Product Devel-
opment Environment for the 199Os,Addison-Wesley,Reading, Mass., 1992.
Part
3
The Dimensions of DFX
Chapter
12
improving Assemblies
Typically, a full DFM/DFX analysis of a proposed or existing product

involves an analysis of the overall product as well as an analysis of its
individual components. The overall assembly is analyzed primarily
to see if components can be eliminated or combined; individual com-
ponents are analyzed to lead to a lower cost, improved configuration
of each.
Experience has shown that the most significant benefits come from
the improvement of the overall assembly. This is probably the result
of the fact t h a t eliminating parts is a source of major savings. Labor,
materials, and overhead for the part are eliminated. An additional fac-
tor is that final assembly labor is often the largest single item of cost
in the manufacture of a product and if final assembly can be simpli-
fied, substantial savings result. However, lower cost isn’t the only
advantage of having a simplified assembly, one with fewer parts. Ser-
vice and recycling are facilitated when a product is simplified; one that
is easy to assemble in the factory is normally easier to disassemble
when maintenance, repair, or disassembly for recycling take place.
Simpler assemblies can often be brought to market sooner because of
fewer parts t o design, procure, inspect, and stock with less probability
that a delay will occur. Products with fewer parts have an opportunity
for better quality and reliability, though these attributes are not
guaranteed
From this, it can be seen that the most advantageous sequence of
analysis of a product or an assembly is to attack the overall assembly
first. When this is done, it will be known which parts will remain and
what their functions and general configurations will be. We need to
know which parts are retained and their general shape before they are
analyzed for DFM/DFX improvements.
127
128 The Dimensions of DFX
Minimizethe Number of Parts

Reducing the number of parts is the prime approach in the DFX
improvement of an assembly, far overshadowing in impact any other
changes in design that improve manufacturability and further other
important design objectives.
There are a number of design approaches that lead to a reduction in
the number of component parts in an assembly. The important princi-
ples are as follows:
1. Cornbineparts. Integrate the functions of several parts into one.
For example:
a. Incorporate hinges. Hinges can be incorporated in many
plastic parts if the plastic material is flexible and the wall sec-
tion is thin. This eliminates the need for a two- or three-part
hinge and the fasteners required to attach it to two other
parts. Many storage containers for consumer products are
made with integral hinges. Both injection molding and ther-
moforming permit this design approach. Figure 12.1 illus-
trates a typical example, a container for a spare key, whose lid
is held with a "living" hinge of the same material as the con-
tainer and lid.
Minimize the Number of Parts

(TheMost Important Guideline)
1. Combine parts.
2. Make an outright reduction.
3. Make a full redesign.
4. Use a different technology.
Figure 12.1 An example of an

integral, 'living" hinge. The box,
cover, and latch of this container
for a spare automobile ignition
key are all elements of one injec-
tion-molded plastic part. The
flexibility of polyethylene pro-
vides sufficient hinge action for
the thin wall section which con-
nects the box and the lid.
Improving Assemblies 129
b. Use integral springs. Springs can be incorporated in metal

and plastic parts and, sometimes, those made of other materi-
als like fiber. The result is a simpler, faster assembly. Separate
springs are often troublesome from a handling standpoint
because they can tangle easily and because their flexibility
makes them difficult to handle and insert in the assembly. The
integral hinge, therefore, provides very significant assembly
advantages. Figure 4.2 illustrates this principle.
c. Use snap fits. Replace screw-type and other separate fasten-
ers with integral snap-fit elements, tabs, or catches. Figure
12.2 illustrates the kind of element which, when incorporated
in a plastic part, snaps into place into an undercut in the mat-
ing part to hold the two together.
d. Incorporate elements such as guides, bearings, and covers.
With some manufacturing processes, these elements can be
incorporated in the basic part at a tremendous reduction in the
number of components. Many plastic materials have natural
lubricity which makes them quite suitable for applications
involving bearing surfaces, particularly if the velocity and
pressure involved are low. For more demanding applications
where elements such as bearings, slides, cranks, etc. are
needed, powder metal parts can be made with sufficient preci-
sion for these functions and with porosity so that lubricating
oil is retained in the part itself:
e. Put electrical and electronic components in one location and
consoliclate components as much as possible. For example,
one combination printed circuit board is preferable to several
Figure 122 Sketch of a typical

snap-fit fastening. In this case, a
cover is held by mating elements
of the base piece. The lower view
shows the snap-fit elements
Section view when when the cover is in place.
cover is lotched.
in separate locations; a light switch and ventilation switch on

the same mounting plate is preferable to locating them sepa-
rately, each with its own mounting hardware.
Some processes permit very complex parts that result when separate
parts a r e combined into one. Injection molding, die casting, and invest-
ment casting are examples. With these processes, a complex part, as
would result from the combination of several simpler parts, primarily
requires only a more complex mold or die. The extra complexity adds
only marginally to the cost of the part made by the tooling.
Some other specific guidelines for combining parts are:
a- Use bent tabs or crimped sections instead of separate fasteners.
b. Use combined fasteners; i.e., those with integral washers.
C. Instead of using nuts or threaded holes in mating parts, use
self-tapping screws. This eliminates costly machining opera-
tions otherwise needed to provide a precision hole with inter-
nal screw threads.
d. Use cast or molded-in identification instead of attached labels.
Such identification is more reliable because it is more perma-
nent. It completely eliminates the costs involved in purchas-
ing, stocking, and &Xing a separate label.
e. Use integral locators, hooks, or lips to replace some of the fasten-
ers holding one part to another. (See Fig. 12.3for an example.)
f: Press fits, integral tabs, or rivets can sometimes be used to
replace threaded or other fasteners which may be more complex.
Press fits with flexible or grooved components are normally less
expensive and as effective as precision-machined parts.
Figure 12.3 Example of a part (an access panel) with integral

hooks to simplify its fastening. Two hooks and one screw provide
the same holding power as three screws,with easier assembly
and easier removal for maintenance of the internal parts.
Use the following guideline questions to evaluate the feasibility of

combining parts:
a. When the product is being used, does the part move with
respect to mating parts?
b. Must adjacent parts be made of different materials?
c. If parts were combined, would assembly of other parts or field
service be made more difficult or unfeasible?
If the answer to any of these above question is yes, then it is proba-
bly not feasible to eliminate the part, but if the answers to all are no,
the part is a good candidate to be combined with others.
Figure 12.4 illustrates an example of an everyday product, a finger-
nail clipper, that actually embodies quite a number of combined parts,
as well as a sketch of what such a product could look like if the parts
were not combined.
Figure 12.4 Two designs for a fingernail clipper. Top: with sin-
gle function elements. Bottom: with function-sharing ele-
ments. (Courtesy ofprof.Karl Ulrich 0fM.I.T.)
132 The Dimensionsof DFX
Parts can be combined

with other parts when:
They do not move relative to other parts in the assembly.
m They do not have to be made from a different material.
Their combination would not affect the assembly of other parts.
Field service does not require their disassembly.
2. Make an outright reduction in the number ofparts. Sometimes a

designer, not tuned to manufacturability, will incorporate more fas-
teners or other elements than the product really needs. (This is some-
times evident when a value analysis is made of an existing product and,
with t h e benefit of hindsight, it is seen that there are more fasteners or
other elements than needed to meet all reliability and other perfor-
mance objectives.) Sometimes, the number of elements can be reduced
by increasing the size of those that remain; e.g., replace a series of
small machine screws with a smaller number of heavier ones. In other
cases, a planned or existing redundancy can be eliminated by upgrad-
ing t h e performance capability of the primary component.
3. Make a major or fill-product redesign. This occurs when an assem-
bly is redesigned so that the function supplied by a separate component
is achieved by another method. One example would be the replacement of
a flanged and bolted pipe system with a threaded pipe system.
4. Use a different technology. Sometimes great benefits can be
achieved when a drastic design change enables a product function to be
performed in a completely different manner. This occurs, for example,
when a mechanical device is replaced by an electronic microcircuit.
Other Major Guidelines for Assembly

Improvement
The following are some of the more important additional guidelines
which, when implemented for a specific case, will lead to a simpler,
more effective, design. (These recommendations have the primary pur-
pose of improving manufacturability; however, some of them improve
other product attributes as well.)
1. Standardize designs. Use standard fasteners and other parts.
Reduce the total number. Create a preferred parts list and minimize
the number of varieties on the list.
2 . “Once a part is oriented, never lose that orientation.” Assem-
ble it, move it, or ship it to the assembly operation with its orienta-
tion retained.4
3 . Use subassemblies. Use modular subassemblies, in particu-

lar, especially if the subassembly process is different from the final
assembly process (e.g., a PC board in a electromechanical product.)
Modular assembly provides quality and reliability advantages (when
the module i s used previously and pretested) as well as serviceability
advantages.
4. Avoid the use of too many levels of subassembly at the same time.
Extra subassemblies add overhead in such forms as manufacturing
specifications, floor space, and inventory, and they tend to reduce man-
ufacturing throughput time.
5 . Design parts so that they cannot be inserted incorrectly. This
aids in manufacturability but is particularly important for quality rea-
sons. Figure 12.5provides an example.
6. Avoid the use of flexible parts, i f possible. It is more time-con-
suming to handle and place them into position. Such parts are also sus-
ceptible to tangling. One common example is the replacement of con-
Not This
Slot should be on the

right, but plate can
be fastened with it on
the left.
This
Raised section prevents

part from being fastened
backwards.
Bent raised
section
Figure 12.5 Design parts so that they cannot be assembled incorrectly. The lower
plate has a raised section that prevents it from seating securely to the base if it is
turned incorrectly.
necting cables for electronic circuit boards with a design that provides
a plug-in connection from a board to another element.
7 . U s e layered, top-down assembly. In other words, design the
product so that each successive part can be added to the assembly from
above rather than from the side or bottom. This approach is virtually
essential for robotic assembly and has been found to be very beneficial
for manual assembly as well. In addition to the benefit of having robotic
motions standardized, there is a benefit from gravity assist to the
assembly. (See Fig. 12.6.)
If parts cannot be assembled from the top down, an effort should be
made to ensure that simple straight-line motions can be used during
the insertion of the part. Parts which must be inserted by snaking them
around other parts make the assembly operation more costly.
Parts should also be designed so that each part acts as a nest for the
part that follows. Avoid designs that require reorientation of assem-
bled parts or some subassembly in order for an additional part to be
added.
8. Avoid designs that add and align several parts. Avoid designs
that require the simultaneous addition of several parts that must be
kept in alignment as they are added to the main assembly, particularly
when space is limited.
9. Design parts to be self-aligning. (SeeFig. 12.7.)
10. Eliminate adjustments as much as possible. One way to do this
is to u s e resilient parts to take up the slack when the natural fit
between components is not exact and an adjustment of position would
otherwise be necessary.
11. Use funnel-shaped openings and tapered ends. This facilitates
insertion of parts being assembled.2(See Fig. 12.8.)
Figure 12.6 The sketch on the left shows undesirable fiom-the-

side assembly. The other sketch shows the desirable top-down
assembly as well as a snap fit for the shaR.
Not this This

Figure 12.7 Design parts to be self-aligning as in the assembly on
the right.
I n Press-formed
funnel shape
I
Tapered end
Square end \
r molded
shape
Not this This
Figure 12.8 Use funnel-shaped openings and tapered ends to

facilitate insertion of parts. (Source: J. G. Bralla, Handbook
of Product Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1986.)
12. Use fasteners that lend themselves to strip feeding. This reduces
handling labor and increases assurance of correct placement.
13. Design parts so that they are easy to handle. This may involve
adding a grasping element or projection to very small or highly irregu-
lar parts. In the case of parts that are automatically fed, it may involve
having them fastened to a feeding strip.
14. When mating parts, have through holes for shafts, fasteners, etc.
Use slots or oversize holes on one of the parts to allow for possible mis-
alignment. (See Fig. 12.9.)
15. Avoid use of parts that must be held in place manually. As
much as possible, avoid assembly designs that require parts to be
manually held in place until other parts are inserted. This kind of sit-
uation has some risk of quality problems as well as additional assem-
bly time and cost.
Screws
Not this
Round holes
This
Oblong or
oversize hole
Figure 12.9 Use oblong or oversize fastener holes to reduce the

need for accurate alignment when two parts are fastened together.
This reduces tolerance requirements of the mating parts and sim-
plifies assembly.
References
1. D. M. Anderson, Design for Manufacture, CIF Press, Lafayette Calif., 1991.
2. J. Bralla (ed.), Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1986.
3. G. Boothroyd, C. Poli, L. Murch, Automatic Assembly, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1983, chap. 8,pp. 255-274.
4. G. Boothroyd and P. Dewhurst, Design for Assembly, U. of Rhode Island, 1983.
5. G. Lewis and H. Connelly, Product Design for Assembly, the Methodology Applied,
privately published, 1990.
Chapter
13
Improving Individual
Components
Component parts cannot be designed properly without both a thorough

understanding of their function and consideration of the manufacturing
process used to fabricate them. In this respect, their design differs from
that of designing for assembly and presents more problems to the
designer. Assembly design may depend to some degree on the assembly
method, particularly whether it is automatic or manual, but generally
assembly design depends more on other factors than the process used.
However, the design of detailed parts cannot be independent of the
manufacturing process. Design principles and guidelines for a part
that is made with one process may not apply if another process is used.
For example, if a part is to be die cast, the materials suitable, the wall
thickness, shape, complexity, size, dimensional tolerances, and other
characteristics will be significantly different from those applicable to a
metal stamping or a part made from metal powder. Such factors as
strength, temperature resistance, and corrosion resistance may also be
different. The knowledgeable product designer who wishes to maxi-
mize the manufacturability and other attributes of the component
parts of the product must understand the capabilities and constraints
of the likely manufacturing processes involved. The selection of the
manufacturing process to be used, at least tentatively, is a first step in
the design of a component part.'
There are two corollaries to this rule of compatibility of component
part design and manufacturing process:
1. If some change in manufacturing process is indicated by the ten-
tative design of some new part, both the part and the process can be,
and should be, designed at the same time.
2. T h e development and design of a new product provides the oppor-

tunity for the development of new, improved manufacturing processes.
For example, when the Singer Company designed new models of
sewing machines for production in its Brazilian factory several years
ago, t h e new machines were designed to use a number of powder metal
parts which have properties quite advantageous for use in sewing
machine mechanisms. The Brazilian factory simultaneously undertook
to develop and install the facilities, equipment, and know-how needed
for the production of such parts.
Attributes of Improved Component Parts

The design of a n individual component can have a strong effect on the
attributes of the product in which it is used. Some of the important
attributes and the way that the part's design affects them are:
Munufucturability. Designing component parts for easy manufac-

turability contributes greatly to that characteristic in the full prod-
uct. Ease of manufacture of parts is reflected in more favorable com-
ponent and product costs, improved product quality and reliability,
and other desirable characteristics.
Quality. As noted in Chap. 11,the yield of a product can be calculated
from the product of the yields of the component parts. Yield, in this
sense, refers to the percentage of units from a process that meet spec-
ified requirements. As such, it is a measure of product quality,
though not the only nor necessarily the best measure. Just as qual-
ity cannot be manufactured into a product that is not designed for
quality, a product cannot be made to be of high quality from assem-
bly improvement alone. "he component parts must be of high qual-
ity if the product is to have that attribute. In fact, component quality
is probably the most important single factor in product quality.
Taguchi's quality loss function deals with how deviations from opti-
mum dimensions and other characteristics lead to unwanted costs to
the manufacturer and society. (The concept is defined in Chap. 3.) It
behooves designers to develop component part designs that facilitate
manufacture of parts with as little deviation from optimum values as
possible. Chapter 14 discusses some of the approaches that aid the
designer in doing this. They include designing for processes in which
critical dimensions are controlled by tooling rather than by individual
workmanship, the use of standard proven parts, clear dimensioning,
easy gaging, and soundly chosen tolerances.
Reliability. Product reliability is a direct function of component relia-
bility. If a component is not redundant; i.e., is not included as a dupli-
cate, spare, or backup, its failure will result in the malfunction or fail-
Improving Individual Components 139
ure of the product. In fact, the reliability of the product cannot be

greater than that of its least reliable necessary part. This relationship
between component reliability and product reliability is discussed in
Chap. 15. §&ice it to say that at this point it is necessary to provide
components that are reliable if the total product is to be reliable. Reli-
able component parts result, among other factors, when the design of
the component is compatible with the manufacturing process used.
Safety. Product safety results in part from the inherent safety of the
product’s components, although other factors, especially the total
effect of the product on the users and others who come in contact with
it, are probably more important. How component parts interact and
how the product functions are vital factors in determining the safety
of the product.
The environment. Environmental-friendlinessis a direct result of the
environmental impact of the parts involved, though design for disas-
sembly c a n provide more benign effects on the environment by facil-
itating recycling. To be environmentally friendly, the product must
have components that are favorable to the environment. This
involves t h e use of materials that are nontoxic and nonhazardous,
materials that can be easily recycled and designs that permit easy
disassembly for recycling. Of course, the product’s function must also
be benign. An automobile or truck that spews air pollution is envi-
ronmentally unfriendly even if its components are not. See Chap. 18
for more information on designing for the environment.
Time-to-market. The designer striving for speed-to-market can do
much to aid in this objective. The use of standard, already available
components; manufacturing processes that do not require lengthy
tooling lead times; and a careful and thorough initial design so that
later changes are not needed all aid in achieving speed-to-market.
User-friendliness.This is a product attribute that depends essentially
on how the product is designed to function; how simple and obvious
the operation of the device is; how well that control information is fed
back to t h e operator; and how clearly the control information is dis-
played. These are considerations for the product as a whole, not so
much for how well the individual components are designed. Compo-
nent designers can contribute to user-friendliness if they are working
on such cornponents as control levers, displays, etc. to make them as
clear, easy-to-use, and unconfusing as possible. Otherwise, user-
friendliness is furthered simply by designs that promote high quality
and reliability. More on user-friendliness can be found in Chap. 19.
Serviceability. Component designers can contribute significantly to
the serviceability of the products that use their components. First of
all, designers can ensure that all parts are as reliable as possible. As
140 T h e Dimensions of DFX
many commercial parts as possible should be utilized so that if

replacement is ever required, procurement will be easy. Clear identi-
fication of high mortality parts can be provided with cast, molded, or
embossed part numbers or other permanent marking. Lastly, parts
can b e grouped in logical modules for easier repair of complex ele-
ments of a product. Chapter 16 covers serviceability in more detail.
Evaluating the Design of Component Parts

As noted in Chap. 11,there are a number of methods available for eval-
uating how well a part contributes to the attributes of the product in
which it is a part. Measuring manufacturability is primarily a matter
of determining its manufacturing cost, although a count of the number
of manufacturing operations involved is also a useful index. Measuring
other attributes such as quality, reliability, safety, time-to-market, etc.
in a component is discussed in Chap. 11 and in the chapters of this book
on specific attributes.
Production Quantity
One critical factor that is sometimes overlooked by the designer is the
relationship between the anticipated production quantity for each part
and t h e manufacturing process that will be used to produce it. The pro-
duction process used should, and does, affect the design of the part.
Each production process has a natural economic production quantity.
At the economical production quantity, the total production cost-the
sum of both direct costs for materials, labor, and direct overhead and
the amortized costs for tooling, equipment, and facilities-is a mini-
mum. Some processes are most economical for mass production, others
for small quantities. Others have a broader range of economic advan-
tage, depending on the complexity of the part and the degree of
automation of the process.
For example, die casting and injection molding are high production
processes. Arc welding, unless automated, is generally more economic at
lower production quantities. Lay-up and spray-up fiberglasdplastic mold-
ing is normally economic at low quantities. Sand-mold casting can be eco-
nomic at small or mass-production quantities, depending on how auto-
mated the process is. Machined parts made on manually controlled
machines are economic only at low quantities, but if highly automated as
in the automobile industry, machined parts may be economic at high pro-
duction levels. (Machinedparts tend to be expensivein all cases, however.)
The key factors that determine the economic production quantity for
a particular type of part are the cost of tooling and the unit cost of the
part. High tooling costs mean that large quantities are needed to amor-
tize such costs.
Design Principles for Improved Component Parts

There are many guidelines for the design of individual parts. Most of
these are dependent on the manufacturing process used. Normally, the
guidelines have such purposes as simplifying tooling, reducing the
number of manufacturing operations needed to complete the part,
avoiding quality or reliability problems, simplifying the manufacturing
process, or utilizing material more effectively. A comprehensive refer-
ence volume like the Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing is
a source of these guidelines and knowledge about whatever manufac-
turing process is applicable.2 There are, however, some design princi-
ples which can be applied to component parts regardless of the process.
Some of the more significant ones for general application are:
1. Simplify the design of each part as much as possible. Use simple
shapes instead of complex contours, undercuts, and elaborate append-
ages. This simplifies tooling and has other advantages. Parts of simple
shape have less opportunity to be defective; simpler parts normally
incur less direct cost and less overhead cost. A simpler design may also
reduce the number of operations required. Reducing the number of
manufacturing operations should be an important design objective.
Simplifying the part may involve changing it to a design that is pro-
duced by another manufacturing process. A completely different alter-
native concept may be advisable. Examples are the redesign of a
machined p a r t so that it is made by injection molding or powder met-
allurgy, or other near-net-shape process. (Near-net-shapeprocesses are
those that produce a part to or near final dimensions with a limited
number of operations, particularly minimum machining. Investment
castings and lost foam castings are two other near-net-shape methods.
The engine block for the Saturn automobile is made with the lost-foam
casting process. The greater part intricacy and improved precision of
this process results in reduced machining and reduced scrap metal.I3
Fewer manufacturing operations to complete the part normally means
lower direct costs, lower overhead, and less chance for quality prob-
lems. Critical dimensions are controlled by the tooling and do not
require extra care on the part of the production worker or extra opera-
tions. Further examples are injection-molded plastic parts, which can
have all final dimensions, identifying nomenclature, finish, and color
provided in one operation. A powder metal part can be complete with
precision bearing surfaces after only two or three high-production oper-
ations. See Fig. 13.1 for a n illustration of this.
2. Try to avoid designs that require machining operations. Machining
operations are expensive. They should be minimized or, ifpossible, elim-
inated. Often another process can be substituted for one that primarily
involves machining with sigdicant savings. For example, sheet metal
processes can be used to provide parts with bearing surfaces, holes, rein-
Machined forging
or casting
Powder metal
1-i-1 I .
I ,
Fiure 13.1 Two alternative designs for a small machine

crank a r e illustrated. In the upper view, a forged or cast
blank is machined by drilling and reaming shaft holes and
milling flats adjacent to the holes. In the lower view, a pow-
der metallurgy is used for the same application. In addition
to absence of machining operations, it provides reliability
advantages in that permanent lubricationis possible. This is
due to t h e fact that powder metal parts can be manufactured
with a porous structure that retains lubricants.
forcing ribs, etc. Extruding, precision casting, cold rolling, or the other
near-net-shape processes mentioned above may provide the precision
needed for elements and surfaces that otherwise would require machin-
ing. Use stock shapes of material ifthis will eliminate machining or other
sizing operations. (See Figs. 13.2 and 13.3.) When machining is neces-
sary, t r y to design the part so that all operations can be performed in one
setup. Modern automatic screw machines and computerantrolled
milling machines with tool changers can often make all the machining
cuts that a part requires in one operation. This has a number of advan-
tages in quality and throughput time as well as labor and overhead costs?
3. Use materials formulated for easy manufacture; for example,
free-machining alloys for machined parts, or high-ductility materials
for drawn parts.
4. Use the most liberal tolerances possible, consistent with the
quality and functional requirements of the part and with the capabili-
ties of the manufacturing process involved. Tolerances appropriate to
the primary operations eliminate the need for costly secondary opera-
tions to control dimensions and refine surface finishes.
5. I n most processes, it is advisable to avoid sharp corners, both
internal and external. There are several reasons for this. I n cast or
molded parts and blanked sheet-metal stampings, for example, exter-
Not this
Figure 13.2 ! b o parts with differ-
ent manufacturing processes but
with the same function.The upper
view shows a part machined from
solid stock the lower view shows
an equivalent part made with less
material and reduced labor from
a sheet metal stamping. [Source:
J. G. Bralla (id), Handbook of
product Design for hbnufadming,
McGmw-Hill,New Yark,1986.1
nal sharp corners require an internal sharp corner in the die or mold.
This internal corner is a n area of stress concentration and a site for
possible early failure of the die or mold due to stress cracking. Sharp
internal corners in the part require sharp external corners on the pro-
duction tool, die, or mold which again are a source of tooling problems.
They also are a focal point for crack propagation in the part. From a
manufacturability standpoint, exceptions to this recommendation are
cases where t h e sharp external corner is produced by the intersection
of two machining cuts or shearing operations. From the safety stand-
point, of course, sharp external corners are undesirable. (Fig. 13.4
shows some examples of undesirable and desirable practice.)
6. Standardize parts features and minimize their number. Fea-
tures like hole sizes, screw threads, materials, raw material stock
sizes, radii, slots, grooves, holes, chamfers, and keyways should be the
Design Guidelines-Sand-MoldCastings
1. Allow for shrinkage, typically 1 to 2 percent.
2. Try to put the parting lines on a flat plane.
3. Allow generous draft, !4 to 5".
4. Minimum wall thickness: approximately % in.
5. Allow stock for machining where necessary: % to % in.
6. Avoid sharp corners.
7. Allow generous tolerances (typically + or -K6 to YS in) and a rough surface'finish
(typically 500 to 1000 microinches).
8. Undercuts require separate core pieces. Avoid if possible.
1 1
Round stock
Machined
Rol:
selection
Hexagonal stock
Not these These
T
0.350"
1.
Steel pinion rods
Nickel silver electrical contacts

Figure 13.3 A variety of parts made from cold finished stock.
Because the shape is produced by forming, material usage i s
reduced and less costly machining is required. Grain structure
and strength may be improved as well.
same for all parts as much as possible. Also, design parts so that stan-
dard tools can be used rather than specially designed and fabricated
cutters, dies, etc. The number of different sizes of fasteners and parts
in families should be minimized. Design parts in families when various
sizes or degrees of complexity are required in the product line. In other
words, use group technology. (The subject of standardization, including
group technology, is discussed further in Chap. 9.)
Produced by bbnking die
Q& urners
Shorp
Not this This

'/2 moremin.
Radii = withT0o(8mm
for thin stxk
R24T
Not this This
Not this This

-
@o""*ed corners R 0s Iorpe

as possible
R minimum 0.00 mm
(0003 in1
Fwure 13.4 A variety of parts which illustrate the undesirabilityof hav-
ing sharp internal and external corners. [Source:J. B. Bralla (ed.), Hand-
book of Product Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1986.3
7. Follow Anderson's law: "Never design a part that you can buy out
of a catalogv5Use commercially available parts whenever possible.
Examples are fasteners, bearings, springs, gears, pins, handles, knobs,
casters, electrical parts, containers, and labels. Using a catalog part
saves design time and cost, provides proven designs, and oRen saves
money because the supplier has the benefit of higher production levels.
Therefore, manufacturability, quality, reliability, speed-to-market,
and serviceability can all be advanced.
Design Guidelines-Die Castings

1. Since intricate parts are possible, combine separate parts, if possible.
2. Undercuts are feasible but require a retractable die member. Avoid if not needed.
3.Allow draft angles of % to 6" for outside walls and double that for inside walls.
4. Avoid sharp corners.
5. Keep wall thickness uniform and always less than K in.
8. Avoid the design of parts that are difficult to handle. Handling

difficulty may be due to the fact that the part is fragile and subject to
damage or that it is difficult to handle because it has sharp protruding
points or because it is excessively heavy. If special packaging is
required to compensate for this condition, that, in itself, is a source of
extra cost. One solution for many cases is to combine the part with
another s o that the delicate portion is protected.
9. If existing parts cannot be used for a new product, design the
new parts so that they can be manufactured from existing parts.
10. Avoid special finishes on parts, if possible, since these tend to be
costly. Additionally, hydrogen embrittlement from electroplating oper-
ations can impair the reliability of a part. However, coatings that
improve corrosion resistance can aid reliability and durability of the
product. Prefinished material, available already painted, plated, or
textured, may be a simpler method of providing the color, finish, or
other surface condition desired.
The Role of Plastics

Some of the most significant product design improvements have been
made by replacing a series of individual parts-sometimes costly
machined parts-with a more complex injection-molded plastic part.
The intelligent use of plastics has been a powerful tool of successful
DFM.There are a number of reasons for this:
1. Very complex parts can be produced in one operation especially with
injection molding. Undercuts, intricate shapes, thin and thick walls,
flexible and rigid sections, hinges, springs, ribs, appendages, bear-
ing surfaces, textured surfaces, and raised or depressed lettering are
all feasible in the molding operation. As long as a mold can be built
to t h e configuration wanted, the plastic material can be made to flow
during molding to fill it and the part will take the shape of the mold
cavity. One interesting example of this is a case in which cooling fan
blades were designed with a more efficient and quieter-running pro-
file when the blades were injection molded instead of being stamped
from sheet metal.6 As a result of the capability for complexity with
Plastics-The Advantages
1. Very complex parts can be produced in one operation.
= Parts can be combined easily
Moderate undercuts can be incorporated
2. Rigid and flexible elements can be incorporated in one part, for example, integral
hinges and snap-fit elements.
3. Color and finish can be molded in.
4. Many plastics have natural lubricity-bearing surfaces can be incorporated.
injection molding, parts can be combined quite easily. Other plastics

processes have similar advantages. For example, hollow shapes and
containers can be made by blow molding or rotational molding.
2, While complex injection molds may be expensive and require high
production quantities to be economical, other processes like thermo-
forming and casting can produce components economically when
mass production is not involved. Parts from these processes may not
be so intricate but can have the built-in color and texture advan-
tages of injection molding.
3. Rigid and flexible elements can be incorporated in one part; for
example, integral hinges and snap-fit elements.
4. Color and finish texture can be molded in.
5. Many plastics have natural lubricity so bearing surfaces can be
incorporated.
6. Plastics are normally considerably lighter in weight than most metals.
7. Plastic parts transmit less noise and vibration than sheet metal
parts.
But plastics do not always yield favorable results, as any parent

whose child has received some toys made of plastic can testify. Plastics
can have disadvantages in the area of quality and reliability. Note the
following:
1. Although some plastics, particularly when reinforced with glass,

graphite, or other fibers, are stronger than some metals, plastics, in
general, are not as strong as metals and this must be allowed for by
the designer.
2. Plastics have a high coefficient of thermal expansion-typically 10
times t h a t of most metals. This can result in fit problems, particu-
larly when plastic and metal parts are mated and when the product
is subject to temperature variations. (One notable example of a prod-
uct reliability problem involving plastics is the past use of plastic
Plastics-The Limitations
1. They are generally not as strong as metals.
2. They have a very high coefficient of thermal expansion-typically 10 times that of
most metals.
3. They have limited service temperatures, especially thermoplastics.
4. They have less resistance to creep.
5. They have high shrinkage when solidifying in the mold.
and metal elements in the radiator of an automobile made by a n

European manufacturer. Unfortunately, because of the temperature
cycling inherent in the operation of automobiles, the junction of the
plastic and metal had a tendency to fail, causing leaks of coolant.
The manufacturer was forced to recall its models that had this
design and adopt an all-metal alternative.)
3. They have limited service temperatures, especially thermoplastics.
Applications may be restricted in locations where heat is generated.
4. They tend to have relatively poor resistance to creep, i.e., they are
more apt than metals to flow slightly under prolonged loads.
5. They have high shrinkage when solidifying in the mold. This makes
the t a s k of setting close tolerance dimensions more difficult.
6. Although generally very good from the standpoint of corrosion resis-
tance, each plastic has some material or environment that attacks it
or affects it adversely. Corrosion resistance is not perfect.
These disadvantages are not fatal. As in many other questions of

design, designers must weigh the advantages and the disadvantages of
potential materials for their products. The design should be configured
so that t h e disadvantages are overcome and the advantages are capi-
talized upon; for example, integral hinges, snap fit elements, and fewer
total parts.
References
1. R. Bakejian (ed.), Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, vol. 6: Design for
Manufacturability, SME, 1992.
2. J. G. Bralla (ed.),Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New
York,1986.
3. J. A. Koelsch, “WasteNot, Want Not,” Manufacturing Engineering, March 1993.
4. Corbett, Dooner, Meleka, and Pym, Design for Manufacture-Strategies, Principles
and Techniques, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1991.
5. D. M. Anderson, Design for Manufacturubility, CIM Press, Lafayette, Calif., 1990.
6.R. J. Babyak,‘More Clamor for Less Racket,”AppZianceManufacturer, October, 1992.
Chapter
14
Designing for
Higher Quality
“One-third of all quality control problems

originate in the product’s design.”‘
DR. JOSEPH JURAN
The U.S. consumer has come to expect high quality and dependability
in manufactured products. Competitive pressures with respect to qual-
ity are stronger that they were in prior years, perhaps thanks to Japan-
ese competition in many product lines (most notably in automobiles).
Therefore, designed-in quality is a vital facet to current product design.
What Is Quality?
Chapter 2 lists Garvin’s “eight dimensions of quality” which provide a
number of potential answers to the question “What is quality?” Per-
haps Garvin’s eighth dimension, perceived quality is the most impor-
tant, provided the perception is based on ownership experience. In
other words, quality is whatever it is judged to be by the customers of
the product in question. Quality is whatever the customer wants. But
this must not be interpreted to mean that quality is whatever sells the
product in the store or showroom. It is more a result of how satisfied
customers are with the product after they have owned it for some time
and have h a d a chance to weigh its features: ease-of-use, freedom from
maintenance, ease of regular service, economy of operation, safety, and
other attributes; and, overall, whether the product has met the cus-
tomers’ expectations.
If customers are satisfied with the product after, say, a year of own-
ership and at least moderate use, and would recommend it to other
potential buyers, then perhaps we can say that the product is of high
149
quality. Other measures, like whether it conformed to some specifica-

tions, whether it had an acceptable reject rate, whether it was made
under IS0 9000 conditions, or whether the company producing it got
the Malcolm Baldrige award are less meaningful, in my opinion, than
the customer’s evaluation. Customer satisfaction is the prime measure
of product quality.
Taguchi’s approach to quality evaluation is more quantitative than
Garvin’s. The highest quality, he contends, is that which minimizes the
life-cycle costs of the product. These life-cycle costs include the acquisi-
tion cost by the purchaser, which is normally, but not always, closely
related to the manufacturing cost. They also include the cost to operate
the product, the maintenance expenses for it (including the cost for reg-
ular service, repair, and use of a substitute product during mainte-
nance), the cost of any injury resulting from safety flaws, the cost of
overcoming any defects it has-including safety defects, and the
expense of disposing of it. These life-cycle costs may not all accrue to the
same person but, ultimately, are paid by some member or members of
society. In summary,Taguchi’s quality cost function measures quality
in terms of the cost to any and all members of society who have expen-
ditures resulting from the manufacture, sale, ownership, and disposal
of the product. The lower such cost, the higher the product quality.”
Phadke’s approach is from a different direction but perhaps it is no
less meaningful. He says that ideal quality means that the product
delivers its target performance:
Each time it is used

Under all intended operating conditions
Throughout its intended life
I With no harmful side effects2
There may be a conflict between quality and cost, but the conflict is
in the initial manufacturing cost, not the life-cycle cost as Taguchi
defines it. Many managerial steps taken to enhance quality require a
significant initial expense in training, organization, and redirection of
systems, procedures, and operating philosophy. Also, corrective action
in the product design to solve quality problems often requires an
investment in engineering time, new tooling, gaging, or equipment.
Many DFM changes, implemented to reduce manufacturing costs,
improve quality; however, some may impair quality. One example is
*Taguchi’smeasure excludes costs due to misuse of the product. For example, an auto-
mobile repair due to careless driving is not part of the quality cost of the automobile; an
accident due to poor brakes, sloppy steering, or a horn that is awkward to sound would be.
Designingfor Higher Quality 151
the use of free-machining metals for machined parts. They ease and
speed up manufacturing operations but generally have slightly less
favorable physical properties than the standard grades so the resulting
product may not be quite as strong. Another example is the use of thin
walls in injection-molded plastic parts. These speed the molding cycle
and save material but may result i n a less-rigid part than one with
thicker walls. Another example is the elimination of adjustments,
advocated to improve assembleability . Such an elimination can have
strong beneficial effects on quality, if engineered correctly, because
incorrect adjustments are a source of quality defects. If the engineering
carried out to eliminate the adjustment is not done soundly, or if spec-
ifications on components are not held in production, the lack of capa-
bility to adjust may result in a product slightly off in some characteris-
tic, ie., a defective product. Adjustments are normally specified when
the designer believes that this is the best way to achieve some precision
in dimension or setting as a result of variations in parts or other fac-
tors. Eliminating the adjustment may cause the variation to get
through to t h e operation of the product, reducing its quality. Care is
required in deciding which approach is best overall.
On the other hand, there are many DFM guidelines that facilitate
improved quality. For example, DFM specialists advocate keeping wall
thickness in injection-molded plastics parts as uniform as possible.
This improves the molding operation and also prevents the formation
of unsightly sink marks and distortions which impair the fit and qual-
ity of plastic parts. In metal stamping, standard DFM guidelines to
make bends across the grain of the metal rather than along it, and to
space punched holes adequately from the edge of a workpiece have the
primary purpose of avoiding quality problems.
The Management of Quality

Even though initial product design is a strong determinant of eventual
product quality, it is far from the only factor. The quality improvement
task is dependent on a wide range of factors including company objec-
tives; management and employee attitudes; training; systems and pro-
cedures used; the condition of tools, equipment, and facilities; the con-
trol exercised by vendors; and many other factors. In short, product
quality is heavily dependent on how well the company is managed. J.
M. Juran h a s said, “The most important thing to upgrading quality is
not technology, but quality management.”3 And the management of
quality is a broad and complex task.
American industry awoke to the need for improved quality in the
1980s, when Japanese and other international suppliers made large
inroads in t h e U.S. markets for many consumer and industrial products.
Analysis showed that quality cost, the cost of inspection; scrap; rework
warranties; field service due to quality problems; product call-backs;

and most importantly, lost sales due to a poor quality reputation, was a
major part of the operating cost of a manufacturing concern. Crosby and
others claim that these expenses amount to 25,30,or even 40 percent of
a company’s cost ~ t r u c t u r e The
. ~ corollary is that by spending more
money “up front” in quality assurance provisions, manufacturing costs
could actually be reduced because scrap, rework, and all the other costs
of poor quality would be reduced and sales, market share, and produc-
tion volumes all would increase when quality was improved.
The up-front costs may be considerable and the journey from
mediocre to superior quality may be a long one. The prioritizing of qual-
ity must permeate the whole organization and considerable careful
communication and training will usually be required to obtain it. If all
this is done correctly, the savings from reduced quality costs should
provide a good return on the up-front investment. The U S . automobile
industry has learned how long it takes to change. Ford Motor Company
began i t s quality improvement program in the early 1980s and, by the
199Os, it is still in progress, not only at Ford but in the rest of the U.S.
automobile industry.
A first essential step in managing quality improvement is a firm, sin-
cere commitment by management that quality is a prime priority. The
word sincere is used advisedly. If management preaches quality, but
ships substandard products at the end of the month to meet its monthly
billing quota, workers and others in the organization will get the mes-
sage t h a t quality is not as important to the company as it is touted to
be. “Employees are pretty clear on reading signal^."^ Management
must lead the way, but all employees must share a determination to
exercise great care in ensuring that all company activities lead to the
production of high-quality products.
A prime tool of quality improvement, advocated by Deming and oth-
ers, is statistical process control (SPC).5(See definition in Chap. 3.)
This is a procedure, using statistical mathematics, which signals that
some extraneous factor is affecting the output of a production process.
The signal alerts production and quality personnel that some process
fault should be looked for and eliminated. In this way, the procedure
aids in identifying and correcting the causes of product component
defects, Because there are natural random variations in the results of
any manufacturing process, the ability to differentiate between these
random variations and those caused by some change in process condi-
tions is a critical part of maintaining good control over specified char-
acteristics and dimensions. Broken or worn cutting tools, slipped
adjustments, leaks in a pressurized system, and an accidental change
t o a less-active solder flux are some examples of the kinds of process
changes that might otherwise not be noticed but which may cause a
quality deterioration which would be detected by SPC analyses.
Designing for Higher Quality 153
Deming also states that 85 percent of quality problems are caused by

systems, procedures, or management and only 15 percent by bad work-
m a n ~ h i pBlaming
.~ workers is not his way to cure quality problems.
Incidentally, the 85 percent attributable to management includes prob-
lems traceable to weaknesses or errors in the product design.
Current thinking on the best managerial approaches to control and
improve quality involve heavy worker participation in both the moni-
toring of quality and the corrective actions taken to solve quality prob-
lems. One approach that encompasses worker involvement and
includes worker empowerment is total quality management (TQM).
Total quality management is more a broad management philosophy
and strategy than a particular technique. Referred to earlier as total
quality control, it originated in Japan. It involves the following:
1. A strong orientation toward the customer in matters of quality.

2. Emphasis on quality as a total commitment for all employees and
all functions including research, development, design, manufacturing,
materials, administration, and service. Employee participation in
quality matters is standard at all levels. Suppliers also participate.
3. A striving for error-free production. Perfection is the goal.
4. Use of statistical quality control data and other factual methods
rather than intuition to control quality .
5. Prevention of defects rather than reaction after they occur.
6. Continuous improvement.
TQM programs usually stress that quality must be designed into the
product rather than tested for at the end of the production process.
Another well-known quality technique is quality function deploy-
ment (QFD). This is a system that reflects the belief that the customer’s
viewpoint is the most important element in product quality. QFD is a
technique “for translating customer requirements into appropriate
company requirements at each stage--from research and product
development through engineering and manufacturing, to marketing,
sales, and distribution.”6 The objective of the approach is to ensure that
the customer’s preferences are incorporated in all facets of the product.
A matrix chart, as shown in Fig. 14.1, is prepared. Customers’ prefer-
ences for product attributes (what the customer wants) are listed on
the left-hand side of the sheet. Product design features intended to sat-
isfy the customers’ requirements are listed across the top of the same
sheet. Where a product feature satisfies a customer preference, a mark
is placed in t h e matrix chart. Normally, the mark is coded to indicate
the degree to which the customers’ preference can be satisfied by the
design feature. The objective of this matrix and the whole QFD proce-
dure is t o ensure that customers’ preferences are satisfied by the prod-
uct design.
0 Weak relaticmhip
8 Strong relationship
0 VerystrqrWonship
flgure 14.1 The quality finction deployment (QFD) method of helping

ensure that customers’preferences for product capabilities are considered
in a product design with proper weighting. Customer requirements are
listed on the left-hand side of the sheet. Design features, intended to satisfy
customer requirements, are listed across the top of the form. Markings in
the chart indicate how well the design feature listed on the form satisfies
the customer preference. (From Corbett et al., Design for Manufacture,
Addison- Wesley,Reading, Mass., 1991.)
The strong worker-participation aspect of total quality management

is one of its most important components. If workers are given the task
of monitoring the quality of their own output, especially by plotting
their o w n SPC charts, and are then encouraged to recommend systems,
layout, or workplace changes, quality has the best chance of being
improved. Workers know more about the details of their operations
than anyone and normally care about the quality of their workman-
ship. If their knowledge is properly channeled, the best results can be
obtained. Utilizing worker suggestions tends to give workers owner-
ship of the quality improvement project and helps to keep them more
quality conscious.
Training is a necessary part of a quality improvement effort. The train-
ing will encompass not only a n appreciation of the quality philosophy but
also, for many people, specific statistical and charting know-how. The
installation of SPC procedures throughout a factory will take time.
There is much to be said for small-scale incremental improvements
in processes, methods, and systems. This is in contrast to the historical
pattern in the United States wherein large-scale, capital-intensive
automation projects are used as a means to reduce costs and improve
quality, There is nothing wrong with such an approach if the changes
are technically and managerially sound and economically justifiable.
However, sometimes a series of grass-roots, incremental improvements
may yield the same results i n the long run with much less investment
and upheaval. The continuous improvement approach, a major element

of TQM, has much to be said for it.
Other worthwhile tools for quality improvement are the design of
experiments methods discussed in Chap. 3. Called design of experi-
ments (DOE), controlled experiments, orthogonal arrays, or Taguchi
methods, the approaches are most often noted as quality improvement
tools, but they are also quite useful for raising process yields and mak-
ing other manufacturing and product improvements.
As indicated earlier, the right way to implement DFX is through a
team approach. To ensure that high product quality is incorporated in
the design, an experienced quality person should participate actively in
the design process as a member of the project team. This person can
supply information about which characteristics, dimensions, and other
specifications are likely to be critical to product quality and can make
recornmenda tions for testing and testability. Experience with the prod-
uct line involved or with similar products is obviously important.
Principles of a sound approach to quality management can be sum-
marized as follows:
Management leadership to better quality must be strong and sincere.

A steady series of small incremental improvements may be prefer-
able to a few major changes.
Worker involvement is necessary if quality is really going to be
improved. I n fact, the whole organization must be quality-minded
and involved.
m Statistical controls are invaluable in identifying when corrective
action needs to be taken.
Training i n statistical methods and quality philosophy are essential
elements of a quality improvement program and should be provided.
Designed experiments are a useful tool, where appropriate.
Production people should be given the responsibility for quality and
the tools a n d authority to carry out that responsibility.
w It should be remembered that high quality means meeting customer
expectations. All kinds of audit approvals are useless if the customer
is not satisfied that the product is good. The customer is king.
m Experienced QC analysts and engineers should participate as team
members in the design project.
Be aware of the costs of poor quality including the costs of such items
as inspection, screening, rework, scrap, production downtime,
delayed deliveries, warranty costs, product returns, lost market
share and sales, and lost margin in product pricing.
Product a n d process design should take place at the same time.
m Quality faults should be prevented rather than corrected. In other

words, quality should be built into manufacturing processes, and not
achieved by inspection.
m Quality requirements of each product should be well defined.
If quality problems arise, it is best to concentrate on the most impor-
tant ones, the ones that Juran calls the vital few rather than expend-
ing the organization’s energy and time on minor problem^.^
m Sound product design from a quality standpoint must start with
some understanding of the actual customer requirements for the
product.8
How Can Design Unfavorably Affect

Product Quality?
As indicated, proper design is a prerequisite for high product quality.
Designers must optimize the quality potential of their products.
(Proper design doesn’t guarantee high quality, however, since poorly
managed manufacturing can turn even a n optimum design into a
defective product.) The following are common causes of inadequate
designed-in product quality:
1. Separation or isolation of the design activity from production and
other support functions.
2. Failure to consult with or have the participation of experienced
quality personnel during the design process.
3. Failure to address customer wants and needs in the product.
4. Failure to match the design, particularly the dimensional preci-
sion needed, with the capabilities of the manufacturing processes used.
5. Insufficient thoroughness in initial design efforts, leading to late
design changes which tend to cause quality problems in manufacturing.
6. Insufficient testing of prototypes and pilot production units.
7. Too great a tendency to reinvent the wheel; i.e., not utilizing exist-
ing, proven components and designs.
8. Failure to make the product design simple enough; for example,
failure to make the product easy to assemble, potentially leading to
assembly and adjustment errors.
Evaluatinga Product Design for Quality

Granted that design is a major determinant of product quality, how
does t h e designer evaluate a prospective design to judge whether it has
the intrinsic high quality that is wanted? Having an objective method
of evaluating the product design in terms of quality would be very
desirable. Unfortunately, little methodology for this exists as yet. Some
systems were discussed in Chap. 11.One of them, The U.S. Navy pro-
ducibility tool #2, is a means of evaluating product quality as indicated
by the yield of acceptable components from the manufacturing
processes t h a t are used to make them. The product’s quality rating
(yield) is t h e product of the yields of each of the parts.
For example, a product composed of five components which have
yields of -99, .98,.99, .95 and .97 would have a yield of .99 x .98 x .99 x
.95 x .97 = .88.This rating is based on the assumption that the product
is defective if any of the five components in it are defective. In other
words, the effect of defects in the parts is cumulative. The mathemat-
ics applicable is identical to that commonly used to evaluate the relia-
bility of a product in terms of the probability that it will perform for a
certain period. If the probabilities for the components operating satis-
factorily for the same period are known, the resulting probability of
successful operation of the product can be calculated.
The limitation of this method is that it applies only to rejectable
defects in components. Sometimes there is a combined effect that is not
satisfactory when “good” components are assembled. Usually, compo-
nents apt to be defective are inspected and sorted before use. Some-
times, also, good components are improperly assembled causing the
total product to be defective. The measure also deals with characteris-
tics’ conformance to specifications, not with whether customers accept
the product. The mathematics in the system is correct, but the basis for
the calculation may not correspond to true quality measurement from
the customer’s viewpoint. A further limitation, perhaps the most
important one, may be the lack of reliable data on the yield of each com-
ponent of the product, particularly newly designed parts.
Sanchoy Das at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) is
working on another evaluation system that could provide projected qual-
ity yield for new parts based on their configuration. The system is still in
the initial stages. The fact that product quality is a result of so many fac-
tors, many design related but many more manufacturing related, com-
plicates the problem. F’igure 14.2 illustrates Das’ interpretation of the
spectrum o f sources of product quality problems. Das’ system also is
intended to provide data on assembly as well as individual parts quality.
He has analyzed factors that can result in assembly errors, even if the
parts assembled do not have defects; for example, part misalignments,
misplaced o r missing parts, or part interferences. His system is designed
to aid the designer in evaluating the potential quality of particular con-
figurations before the design is finalized.
The third potential approach for quality evaluation of a proposed
design is the matrix method as described for other attributes in Chap.
11.A matrix for quality evaluation could include managerial as well as
technical factors. Figure 14.3 illustrates a proposed matrix that could
aid the designer in ensuring that his or her new component has high
Determines Determines
Design Quality MamtfachuedQualitY
Focus of the DFQM
Methodology
Figure 14.2 Das’s summary of the various sources of product quality prob-
lems. Bad design refers to fundamentally inappropriate design concepts of
configurations.Designperturbation refers to minor weaknesses in the design
that are capable of correction. Design to manufaturing interface refers to
potential sources of quality problems in manufacturing, although the prod-
uct design is basically sound. Manufacturing perturbation refers to areas
where there are weaknesses in the manufacturing process but not full inad-
equacies. These weaknesses may require improvement to enhance yield, etc.
Bad material, perhaps, is more obvious-defects in materials or components
purchased. Bad manufacturing refers to errors in workmanship, inadequate
training of manufacturing personnel, and defects in equipment andor tool-
ing due to initial inadequacies or poor maintenance. (From s.Das, Design for
Quality Manufacturability?)
quality potential. Please note that this kind of evaluation is quite sub-
jective, depending on the knowledge, experience, and judgment of the
person making the evaluation. It may not be so suitable for differenti-
ating between subtle differences between two design concepts, an
application that is perhaps most important. On the other hand, the pro-
cedure lends itself to easy modification so that factors that are partic-
ularly important to a particular product line can be included and
emphasized, as deemed important.
Guidelines That Promote Quality

The following design guidelines are intended to help provide products
with a potential for higher levels of quality:
1. Design the product, its major subassemblies, and other components
so that they can be easily tested. Generally, this means providing space
and access for testing devices. me
testing should be performable when
the component is in process, before its installation in the product. This is
when corrective action can be taken most easily and before additional
operations or components, not involved in the test, have been added.
What kind of test to allow for depends on the product and its specifica-
tions. Printed circuit boards often are designed with accessible points for
electronic testing. Mechanical components may be tested for the position
or adjustment of parts; completeness of assembly; freedom from con-
Are proven, existing mmponents and design

approaches used in all possible instances? 4 -I_
Do the design specifications and dimensional

tolerances conform to the normal capabdities
of the process to be used? .-
I
Did knowledgeable quality personnel
participate in the design process for this item?
Has the item been adequately tested?

4
31
U
Is the item easy to test or inspect for all critical
specifications? 3
I
Is dimensioning clear and consistent with prior

practice? 3
1
Are critical dimensions controlled by tooling
rather than individual workmanship or machine
set up? 4
Is assembly easy and straightforward with

visibility of assembly locations, easy fits,
prevention of missing parts, incorrect sequence
or incorrect positioningof parts? 3

I I I I / I I I I
Figure 14.3 A sample matrix evaluation system for aiding designers in rating the suit-
ability of a product design concept for potential high quality. The component or prod-
uct with the highest score is deemed to have the best potential quality.
taining extra, loose parts like dropped fasteners; leaks; actuating force;
color, or sound level or other acoustic property. Electronic products are
tested primarily for proper function. Testing may be automatic in the
case of products manufactured at high production levels. In all cases, the
component to be tested must have space for the test device and the prod-
uct must be properly supported so that the test can be valid.
Not only must the design provide a product that can be easily tested,
the designer must also ensure that there is thorough testing of the
design before it is committed to production. Many product quality prob-

lems a r e due to unexpected, unforeseen reactions or interactions or
unexpected operating conditions in the product. The more thoroughly
the proposed product is tested, the better the chance of detecting poten-
tial problems before the product reaches the user.
2. Utilize standard, proven parts whenever possible, ideally, proven
commercial parts. If standard parts cannot be used, use parts from
standard, proven manufacturing processes and proven existing quality
control procedures and equipment. If newly designed parts are
required, the less the new design departs from existing designs, the less
chance there will be for problems that lend to quality deficiencies. Exist-
ing, standard mechanisms and circuits should always be employed in
favor of new approaches unless there is some specific need for a new
approach. In other words, don't reinvent the wheel!
3. U s e clear, standardized dimensioning of drawings. Dimension
as much as possible from the same reference plane. Try to use rectilin-
ear, not angular dimensions. Don't dimension from theoretical points
i n space but from specific points on the component. (See Fig. 14.4.)
4.Design parts and set tolerances to reduce or eliminate adjust-
ments. These, aside from being costly, have been found to be potential
sources of quality problems. (This applies to both mechanical and elec-
trical adjustments.) Adjustments also necessitate extra parts in an
assembly to provide for both movement and locking. Eliminating the
adjustment usually eliminates some parts. Eliminating adjustments
lc-2 .004
300
Not this
Figure 14.4 Dimensions should

be made from points on the part
itself rather than from points in
space. It is also preferable to
base as many dimensions as pos-
sible from the same datum line.
These steps help avoid errors
when the parts enter production.
(FromBralla, Handbook of Prod-
uct Design for
normally requires greater precision in some dimension but often this

can be obtained with a process or tooling change. Use of parts with com-
pliance (see Fig. 4.5) may also, in some cases, eliminate the need for
incorporating adjustments in a n assembly. (See Fig. 14.5.)
5. Design parts so that critical dimensions can be controlled by tool-
ing, rather than by the setup of production equipment or by individual
workmanship. (This requires designing for a particular process, always
a sound design principle.) Examples of processes in which tooling can be
used to control critical dimensions include injection molding, progressive
die stamping, die casting, lost-foam casting, and powder metallurgy.
6. Be careful of dimensional tolerances. The assignment of toler-
ances can be a critical element that justifies considerable attention from
the product designer. Looser tolerances in component parts almost
always result in lower parts cost but may cause trouble in assembly and
in the performance of the finished product if they result in parts fits that
are too loose or too tight or in misalignment. Excessively tight toler-
ances require additional operations or additional care that can dramat-
ically increase costs. However, tight tolerances are generally better
from a quality standpoint. Additionally, the Taguchi quality philosophy
calls for the closest adherence to nominal dimensions. This implies that
close manufacturing control over dimensions is valuable from a total-
product-quality standpoint. The designer should specify what dimen-
sions and other specified characteristics are important to the product
Critical dimension
controlled by
odjustrnent.
Not This
Criticol dimension
controlled by
controllifla the
head of the
This
Figure 14.5 An example of a design change made to
eliminate an adjustment operation. The assembly in
the upper sketch is adjusted to set the distance that
the pin protrudes from the vertical surface. In the
lower view, the adjustment is not needed but the pin
is manufactured with a controlled head height. This
design has one less locking nut.
and should tighten tolerances for these. Noncritical dimensions and

other specifications should be more liberally toleranced. Overall,
accordingto Anderson, "The best procedure is to optimize tolerances for
a balance of function, quality, safety and manufacturability."'
7. Minimize the number of different but similar part designs. In
other words, standardize on the fewest number of part varieties in
order, among other things, t o prevent the wrong part from being inad-
vertently assembled in a product. If this cannot be done, make sure
that similar but slightly different parts cannot be accidentally inter-
changed. Make them very obviously different or, better still, not able to
fit into each other's application. (See Fig. 14.6.)
8. Use modular construction. Modules usually can be tested eas-
ily and in other ways have their quality verified. (The use of modules is
discussed in Chap. 16 and illustrated in Fig. 16.6.)
9. Thoroughly analyze quality ramifications of engineeringchanges.
If engineering changes are made, make sure that their quality ramifi-
cations are thoroughly analyzed since quality problems sometimes stem
'12 in
"0" hole
"D" Hole Hole with

(One flat) two flats.
Figure 14.6 This illustration shows two pulleys used in a product, each of a slightly dif-
ferent size. In the upper view, both pulleys use the same design D-hole for mounting
on a shaft and it is possible to put the wrong pulley on a shaft. In the lower view, each
pulley has a different mounting hole with different end configurations on the mount-
ing shafts so that the wrong pulley can not be assembled to each shaft.
from incompletely engineered design changes. Changes should be

clearly a n d promptly transmitted t o manufacturing and promptly
implemented.’ The earlier that the change is made the less chance there
will be to encounter quality problems and the lower the cost of the
change will be.
10. Develop more robust components and assemblies. Use Taguchi
or other designed experiment methods to develop components and
assemblies that are less sensitive to process variations and variations
of other conditions. (See comments in this chapter and in Chap. 3.)
11. Design for ease of assembly. There are a number of recommen-
dations concerning how’parts should be designed to fit together that
can have a strong bearing on product quality. Some of these are noted
in Chap. 12 which concerns designing for ease of assembly. Ease of
assembly and freedom from quality problems tend to go together. A
simple, easy-to-assemble product design is more apt to provide higher
product quality. Some assembly recommendations that bear particu-
larly on product quality can be summarized as follows:
a. Design parts so that they can be assembled only in the correct
way. (See Fig. 12.8.)“his normally involves incorporating
some feature that prevents the component from fitting its
mating part if it is not oriented correctly. One other possible
approach is to make the parts symmetrical, so that there is no
feature that can be misp1aced.l
b. Design parts so that if they are omitted in assembly, it will be
visually or otherwise obvious. (For example, make it a differ-
ent color than the surrounding parts or design it so that sub-
sequent parts will not fit correctly if it is omitted.)
c. Design parts so that they cannot be assembled out of sequence
or in the wrong place or so that they can get damaged during
assembly. This may involve some change in shape such as an
added boss, arm, or other element or a change to make the
part’s mounting surface curved or angled.
d. Design parts so that they nest into the previously assembled
part. This may obviate the need for additional fixtures and
will help ensure that parts are assembled correctly. (See Fig.
12.10.)
e. Design parts so that access to them in the product and vision
of them is un~bstructed.~ (This is a design for service guide-
line as well.) This will promote correct assembly and will help
verify that it is correct. It will facilitate testing and replace-
ment of parts, if necessary. (Some examples are described in
Chap. 16.)
Chapter 15 includes some quality-enhancing guidelines for printed

circuit-board assemblies.
References
1. D. M.Anderson, Design for Manufacturability, CIM Press, Lafayette, Calif., 1991.
2. M. Phadke, Designing Robust Products and Processes Using the Taguchi Approach,
video presentation for NTU, National Technological University, July, 1990.
3. “Product Quality-Special Report,” Business Week, June 8,1987.
4. P.Crosby, Quality is Free, Mentor Books, 1980.
5. W. E.Deming, Out of the Crisis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986.
6. Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, vol. 6:Design for Manufacturability,
chap. 6, “Using Quality Tools in DFM,” SME Dearborn, Michigan, 1992.
7. J. M.Juran, Juran on Planning for Quality, Macmillan, New York, 1988.
8. Brown, Hale, and Parnaby, “An Integrated Approach to Quality Engineering in
Support of Design for Manufacture,” chap. 3.3,Design for Manufacture, Corbett, et
al., Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass,1991.
9. S. Das, Design for Quality Manufacturability, NJIT, Newark, New Jersey, 1992.
10. J. Bralla (ed.), Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing, New York, 1986.
11. S. Godin and C. Conley, Business Rules of Thumb, Warner Books,1987.
12. J. R.Dixon and M. R. D u e , “Quality Is Not Accidental, It’s Designed,” New York
Times, June 26,1988.
13. T. P.Huizenga and E. D. Dmytrow, ”Total Quality Management,” chap. 1 of sec. 11,
Maynard‘s Industrial Engineering Handbook, W . K. Hodson (ed.), McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1992.
14. J. Hauser and D. Clausing, “The House of Quality,” Harvard Business Review,
MayJune, 1988.
15. P. Barkan and M. Hinkley, “The Benefits and Limitations of Structured Design
Methodologies,”Manufacturing Review, Sept. 1993.
Chapter
15
Designing
for Reliability
“Reliabilityhas been defined as quality in the

time dimension.”’
Another definition of reliability is “the probability that a product will

perform satisfactorily for a specified period of time under a stated set
of use conditions.”2The definition of product quality is complex and
somewhat arbitrary, as discussed in Chaps, 2 and 14.The definition of
reliability is even more complex because it adds the dimension of time
and there is a provision of expected operating conditions. Products may
have quality without reliability if they perform well and have desirable
attributes when new but fail later. However, they cannot have reliabil-
ity without q ~ a l i t yThey
. ~ must perform well initially (i.e., have high
quality) and must maintain full operation over a long period if they are
to be considered reliable.
Quality without reliability is not satisfactory for products in compet-
itive markets. The consumer tends to group quality and reliability
together; if a product is prone to early failure of some function or fea-
ture, it is regarded as not being of high quality. Reliability is a n impor-
tant factor in lifetime product costs, the concept set forth by G.
Taguchi. (See Chap. 3.) Of those lifetime costs borne by the purchaser
of the product, reliability is a major factor. If service and repair costs
are low during the useful life of the product and if it has had a low
depreciation at the time the buyer chooses to replace it, then the buyer
will consider it of high reliability.
Like quality, reliability cannot be added to a product by inspection
and sorting. Proper planning at the design stage and careful develop-
ment and design are needed if reliability is to be adequate. Reliability
165
must b e inherent in the design and the manufacturing process. Qual-

ity and reliability can be designed into the product but they can be lost
in manufacturing. If not inherent in the design, even the soundest,
most careful manufacturing cannot add them. Conversely, even if qual-
ity and reliability are well provided for in the design, but manufactur-
ing is not under control, the product will not be reliable. Reliability
must b e maintained by vigorous quality control in the manufacture of
the product and its component parts. And although maintenance and
operating conditions are also important in affecting reliability, the ini-
tial design is probably the most vital determinant.
The definition of reliability stated in this chapter has four implications:
1. The expected level of operation must be clearly understood and spec-

ified.
2. Some time period must be specified.
3. The reliability is a function of some operating conditions that also
should be defined.
4. Reliability can be expressed quantitatively as a probability percent-
age or its decimal equivalent.
Reliability Concepts
The concept of product reliability gained ascendancy during World War
11. One factor that accelerated it was the finding that for certain high-
altitude bombing missions, more US. aircraft were being lost from
mechanical failure than from enemy action. The theory on reliability
had been synthesized by the end of the war and reliability as a disci-
pline h a s developed since then. Reliability engineering is a tool of prod-
uct design. It involves prediction in the form of a statement of the prob-
ability that the product will perform its stated function for a specified
period under specified conditions.
Reliability specifications began to be included in product specifica-
tions in the late 1950s when military procurement contracts for
weapons systems specified a minimum probability of successful oper-
ation over a stated period of time or number of missions. Prior to the
recognition of the need for reliability as a n important design objective,
the emphasis was on performance, often to the detriment of reliability
and cost.4
Requirements for reliability vary considerable from product to prod-
uct, depending on the product’s application and the conditions under
which it must operate. Though often set by the designer, reliability
requirements and specifications really reflect the customer’s prefer-
ences or requirements and, sometimes, those of an outside party such
as an insurance underwriter or governmental a g e n ~ y . ~
Designing for Reliability 167
Reliability and Other Design Objectives

There is a strong overlap between the objective of product reliability
and other desirable design objectives. Serviceability and safety are two
examples. Easy serviceability can often compensate for lesser reliabil-
ity. If some component is prone t o failure but it can be easily replaced
or repaired, then the consequences of the failure are much less severe
than otherwise would be the case. In military procurement, the term
availability has come into use. It combines the concepts of reliability
and serviceability and recognizes the fact that perfect reliability is not
feasible. High availability means that the product is ready for full use
a high percentage of the time because failure of components is rare or
because replacement is rapid if failure does take place, or both.
Interestingly, military reliability engineers have discovered that
logistic and managerial factors are more important in the availability
of a military device than the pure technical factors. The training of ser-
vice personnel, the quality of maintenance or repair that they do, the
availability of spare parts and diagnostic equipment, and the trans-
portation of the device or needed replacement parts to the place where
service can b e performed usually outweigh the pure repair time as a
factor determining the availability of the device for service. For exam-
ple, a component of critical navigation equipment for a combat aircraft
may require only 30 minutes replacement time but a week may be
required to get the replacement to the location of the aircraft needing
it. Nevertheless, a product design that combines high reliability and
ease of maintenance provides the best chance for high product avail-
ability under a given set of operating conditions.
When safety is an issue, reliability becomes much more important,
even critical. For example, in the case of aircraft, reliability failures
will endanger passengers and population on the ground over which the
aircraft flies. The emphasis, in such a case, is to provide designs that
avoid catastrophic failures, even if cost and manufacturability may be
compromised.
Some Measures of Reliability

Since product reliability is defined as a probability, it follows that it is
quantifiable. The probability is normally expressed numerically as a
decimal factor between zero and one, representing the mathematical
probability of success. The greater the number, the higher the reliabil-
ity. Zero reliability would indicate a certainty of failure and a reliabil-
ity of 1would indicate a certainty of success throughout the measure-
ment period. Neither figure is actually seen; certainty of operation is
not possible. Normal reliabilities are more typically on the order of .90
to .999 for the stated period. A reliability of .95 would indicate that the
product has a 95 percent chance of being able to perform its function for
the stated period.
Mean time to failure (MTTF) is another measure of reliability. It is
the average or mean lifetime for a population of the products. This is
the average time the product can be expected to function before some
component failure renders it inoperative. For example, a standby elec-
trical generator may be stated to have a mean time to failure of 3000
operating hours. Mean time between failures (MTBF) is sometimes
used instead of MTTF.
A further measure is failuresper billion operating hours (FITS). This
is the reciprocal of MTTF. Sometimes it is more convenient to express
expected product life in this manner.
The bathtub curve is a curve that illustrates the differing rates of
failure during the life of a product. It is illustrated in Fig. 15.1. In a typ-
ical product, the failure rate is high early in the product’s life, due to
assembly errors or defects in components. Then, there is, typically, a
period of low failure rate where random probabilities pertain. This is
the bottom of the bathtub. Then, as parts begin t o wear out, the failure
rate rises and is no longer purely random. This stage is represented by
the right-hand portion of the bathtub curve.
Some manufacturers use run-in or burn-in periods to eliminate reli-
ability problems due to the “infant mortality” conditions shown in the
left-hand portion of this curve.
Failure Modes Analysis (FMA)i s a method of analyzing product fail-
ures with the objective of correcting adverse conditions that impair
reliability. The procedure is sometimes referred to as failure modes and
effects analysis (FMEA) or failure modes effects and criticality analysis
(FMECA). In all variations, the purpose is t o make an analysis that
anticipates where failures are most apt to occur so that corrective
design action can be taken. This technique is a tool of reliability engi-
neering, rather than a measure of it.
A
m
Infant mortality
region
Wearout
region
S“
r Random failure region
-
Time, log scale
Figure 15.1 The well-known bathtub curve showing the typical relia-
bility history of a product. Failures are high initially, usually due to
manufacturing defects; then they level to a low rate until the third
stage when components begin to wear out.
The Germans, developing ballistic missiles at Peenemunde during

World War 11, provided dramatic evidence from repeated missile fail-
ures that the reliability of a system was the product of the individual
reliabilities of its components. This is particularly evident in the case
of such missiles, since they are very complex and the failure of any one
component very often will cause the failure of the entire missile. The
pattern is the same for all products. The failure of any component that
is needed for the operation of the system will cause the system to fail.
The probability of some assembly failing is the product of the probabil-
ities of failure of each such component. (The underlying probability the-
ory actually dates to the work of Pascal and Fermat in the seventeenth
century.) A curve illustrating this is shown in Fig. 3.1. The reliability
of the product can be improved if there is a smaller count of such nec-
essary parts, i.e., if the design is simpler. Also, the use of components
with higher individual reliabilities will improve the overall reliability
of the product. For some types of components, notably electronics
devices, reliability data are available on a device-by-device basis.
Controlled experiment methods, as reviewed in Chap. 3 (controlled
experiments, design of experiments, and robust design), can be very
useful in advancing product reliability. Product design and manufac-
turing processes which are more robust can result from such experi-
ments. Normal process and materials variations will have less adverse
effects and the product will have higher reliability.
Life testing, in either a normal or a n accelerated mode, is the stan-
dard means for testing a product’s long-term reliability. Typically, a
product is operated until it either fails or exceeds its designed lifetime
operation. An analysis is then made of the failure to determine what
changes, if any, would be advisable. In accelerated testing, environ-
mental or operating factors are made more intense so that a n approxi-
mation of lifetime effects can be obtained in a shorter testing period.
Such testing is invaluable; the problem is that product development
and market-launch schedules for most new products seldom allow suf-
ficient time for the amount of testing that would be ideal from a purely
reliability-enhancement ~ t a n d p o i n t . ~
Because of the lengthy testing cycle that may be required t o deter-
mine the useful life of a product, accelerated testing is normally
employed. This involves operating the product at extremes of operating
and environmental conditions. Subjecting the product to higher oper-
ating speeds, temperatures, humidity, voltage, and vibration; and
extreme variations in environmental conditions, all applied to the
product test on a controlled basis, can provide data that can lead to sig-
nificant reliability improvements and accurate prediction of the prod-
uct life under normal operating conditions. The science of interpreting
test results can be complex, using Weibull and other mathematical
analysis, but can be very worthwhile to the product engineer.
Strife testing is an interesting variant of life testing that can be used

to enhance the reliability of a product and its components. In this
approach, environmental and operating conditions are exaggerated to
force failure of the product during testing. Factors such as tempera-
tures, pressures, humidity, operating speeds, and loads are increased
to a level higher than that normally experienced by the product. The
purpose of strife testing is not to determine how long the product will
last in normal service but to determine which components are the
weakest link in the product’s reliability. Exaggerating operating con-
ditions forces some element of the product to fail. The designer is thus
informed as to what components should be strengthened in order t o
improve reliability under normal conditions.
Evaluating a Product Design for Reliability

Providing a numerical reliability rating for a proposed product design
differs from the equivalent step for other attributes in that the practice
has been long standing. A very considerable body of knowledge has
been developed in the field, college undergraduate-level and graduate-
level courses are offered on the subject, and military contractors and
other large manufacturers have specialists employed for this purpose.
The reliability formulas below are but a small sample of the mathe-
matical procedures available to develop a projection of how well and
how long a particular product will continue to operate when put into
service. All these calculations, however, depend on a set of data that
often is not available to the degree of accuracy desired-statistics on
the reliabilities of the component parts that make up the product.
These a r e in the form of either the percentage reliability for a given
period, the failure rate, or the expected life of the component.
Fortunately, a large volume of data of this type is available about
components, especially in the electronics industry. Manufacturers of
military hardware customarily maintain records of component life for
use in reliability projections for new products. When necessary, esti-
mated values are used. Often, the estimated component life data are
quite accurate because of experience with similar parts. For example,
the failure rate of integrated electronic microcircuits, regardless of
their complexity, tends to be a constant from a particular manufacturer
or production facility. A few years ago, approximately 50 FITS per chip
was a common figure. More recently, manufacturers have improved the
reliability of their integrated circuits. Motorola, Texas Instruments,
and other manufacturers commonly achieve a reliability of about 10
FITS for their integrated circuits (ICs). Such a value is usable for cal-
culation in many practical applications. (The fact that the integrated
circuits exhibit this same reliability regardless of the number of circuit
elements they contain is an exception t o the rule that increasing the
number of parts in a system decreases its reliability. The difference

must be due to the integrated nature of the circuit and the fact that all
elements a r e produced in one manufacturing process. The reliability of
a complex chip is better than that of several simpler chips connected
together because the interconnections between chips are less reliable
than those within the chips.)
Another method of evaluating reliability for a new product, perhaps
the most accurate method, is to make accelerated product life tests of
prototypes or pilot production units. As previously noted, such tests are
normally made under severe operating environmental conditions to
increase t h e stress of the product and shorten the testing time
required. Life of the product under expected customer-use conditions
can then be projected.
The advantages of such a testing approach are obvious: it is much
more practical and incorporates the effects of all factors, even those
that may be missed in a reliability calculation. The major disadvantage
of this approach is that it requires actual products to be tested. There-
fore, it cannot be used at the concept stage to evaluate alternatives
unless effort and time are expended to design and make product sam-
ples. Another disadvantage is the lead time required to make the tests.
Even accelerated tests may require several weeks, and when the test
results indicate that changes are needed, these require additional time.
Nevertheless, this approach is strongly recommended to at least con-
firm that calculated reliabilities are valid. The information obtained
from a test is also invaluable in strengthening weaker elements of the
product.
Matrix evaluation, of the type shown in Chaps. 11 and 14, is more
usable as a means of evaluating the reliability engineering h c t i o n
than it is f o r projecting the life of a specific product. The matrix can
serve as a checklist to confirm that necessary design steps vis-a-vis
reliability have been carried out. It has the advantages and drawbacks
of matrix calculations for other attributes. The advantages are easy
evaluation, applicability at the design concepts stage, and easy modifi-
cation to specific product line considerations. The disadvantages are a
greater chance of being subjectively biased and less usefulness in eval-
uating subtle differences between design concepts. Figure 15.2 shows
a n example of a matrix evaluation method for product reliability.
Reliability Calculations
Mathematics for evaluating reliability involves both probability and
statistics. A s indicated above, reliability is normally expressed as a
mathematical probability that the product will operate successfully for
some specified period. The probability that a device will fail is 1minus
the probability that it will operate.
Ratings Weighted Ratings

Alternative Alternative 1
Factor Weight I 1 112 #l 1#2 I
I I I
How well h a s the design been simplified.
especially w i t h respect t o the reduction in the
I
number of parts? 4
I
and design approaches being used in all

possible instances? 5
/ I I I
I 1 I I
ted against environmental

moisture, etc. that could
I
tHas derating [we of generous factors of I I I i i I
safety) been employed for those components

likely to affect the product's useful Me? 5 I
similar protective devices been incorporated in
Has maintainability of the product been

improved so that failure of critical elements
can be delayed or, if necessary. they can be
easilv reolaced?
Figure 15.2 A sample matrix-evaluationsystem to help designers rate the suitability of

a product design concept for potential high reliability. "'he component or product with
the highest score is deemed to have the best potential reliability.
1
Is the product designed to minimize the
possibility of h u m errors that could cause a
shorter product life? 4
I
Is the product designedto minimize the effects
Of COrrOSiOn? 3
I

1 I I 1 I 1 I 1 I
Figurn 15.2 (Continued)
When a product has a number of conlponents and all must be opera-

tive for the device to operate, the reliability of the device, that is, the
probability that it will operate, as noted above, is the product of the
reliabilities o f its components. The general formula can be expressed as
RP=nRI or R p = R 1 . R 2 . R B4...R,
-R
Reliability engineers often show this diagrammatically as illustrated
in Fig. 15.3. If there are a large number of parts whose operation is
essential to the operation of the product, the reliability of the product
may be low unless the parts are extremely reliable. For example, a
product with 300 necessary parts, each having a reliability of .99, will
have a reliability of only .049 or about 5 percent. This is .9g3Oo.For a
product to have a reliability of .99, each of the 300 parts must average
.99997 in reliability. In other words, 99,997 such parts out of 100,000
should survive and only 3 should fail during the period of operation.
The term Defectsper MiZZion (DPM) is sometimes used to describe qual-
ity and reliability levels of this magnitude; 30 DPM would be another
way of expressing a component reliability of .99997.
When the product has some parallel (redundant) components such
that the product can operate if any one is working, the reliability of the
c1 c2 c3 c5
Figure 15.3 Illustration of a series relationship of product components. compo-

nents, representedby boxes C1 through C6, must be operational if the product is to
operate.
product, as far as those components are concerned, is equal to 1minus

the product of the probabilities that all such components will fail. For
example, consider an electrical device that has two transformers, one
being necessary for operation, the second being in place for backup pur-
poses. If the reliability of each for the anticipated product life is .90, the
reliability of them when connected in parallel would be
1-[(1-.9)(1- .9)]
or 1-I.lX.11
or 1-.01
or .99
The general formula would be
Rp=1 -n( 1-Ri)
or R~=l-(l-R~)(l-R~)(l-~~)
...(l-R~)
Figure 15.4 diagrammatically shows a parallel arrangement of some
components along with a series arrangement of others.
If we took the example above in which the product or system had 300
components and put a spare unit in parallel with each of the 300 com-
ponents, so that, if any of the 300 prime units failed, a spare unit would
take over, the reliability of each pair would be
1- 1- .99)(1- .99)=.9999
C3A
c1 c2 c4 c5
C3D
Figure 15.4 Illustration of both series and parallel relationships among

components of a product. The relationship is in series in that compo-
nents C 1 through C5 must all be operational if the product is to operate.
However, component C3 includes four units in parallel. The diagram
represents the case in which the product will operate if any one of the
four C 3 units is operational. Such an arrangement is used if component
C3 is particularly subject to early failure so that the product can con-
tinue operation even if three of the four C3 units fail.
Designing for Reliabillty 175
The reliability of the whole system of 300 such pairs of units would be
.9999300 or .97. This is much better than .049 but still may not be high
enough for a high-reliability product. If the number of interdependent
parts could b e reduced, for example, to 100 from 300, the product relia-
bilities would rise to .37 for the system of individual units or .99 if each
unit were paired with another. It can be seen that both redundancy
(standby units) and design simplification (fewer parts) may be needed
to bring a product whose reliability is critical up to the proper level.
Reliability Improvement
Steps available to the design engineer, if reliability is to be optimized,
are limited to six general categories of improvement:
1. The design can be simplified as much as possible. If the design pro-

vides for full operation under the specified conditions, the design
with the least complexity will generally be the most likely to exhibit
reliability of operation. (This excludes, however, designs which are
more complex due to redundant elements.)
2. The reliability of the individual components that make up the prod-
uct can be improved.
3. The product can be designed with redundancy, duplicate or backup
systems t h a t continue the operation of the product if a primary
device should fail.
4. Component derating (see below) can be used to improve the ratio of
load to capacity of the components used.
5. Steps can b e taken to reduce the adverse effects of the environment
in which the product must operate.
6. The system can be designed for easier service, both regular mainte-
nance and repair. This will either enhance the reliability of the prod-
uct or make failures of some component less critical to the product’s
~ p e r a t i o n,7. ~
Guidelinesfor Advancing Reliability

The most important element in advancing reliability of a product is the
knowledge and experience of those responsible for the product’s design.
Because the time and cost involved in reliability testing limits its use, the
experience and knowledge of the designers and design managers is a vital
element in providing the new product with the reliability that it requires.
The following design guidelines have the objective of enhancing relia-
bility. They a r e intended to be used hand in hand with the quality
improvement guidelines in the previous chapter, all of which will tend to

increase product reliability by aiding in the attainment of higher quality:
1. Simplify the design. In general, “if the product can be designed
to be more simple without compromising its performance, its reliabil-
ity will be enhanced.’” Parts count is one measure of simplicity.
2. Design to counteract environmental factors:
a.Provide insulation from sources of external heat.
b. Provide seals against moisture.
c. Shield and make the product rugged against shock. Use shock
absorbing mounts, ribs and stiffener^.^
d. If applicable, provide shields against electromagnetic and
electrostatic radiation.
3. Use standard parts and materials or proven parts from other
products to aid reliability as well as quality. Parts with verified relia-
bility ratings can be selected to provide better assurance that the final
product will meet reliability objectives. Sometimes parts are screened to
select those with characteristics most vital to a long-lasting reliability.
4. Use a heavy standard part rather than a light special part.
5. Design to avoid fatigue .failures including corrosion fatigue.
Stress concentration poifits are most prone to fatigue failures. Design-
ers should endeavor to minimize such points. Sharp internal corners
are one example of stress concentrators (see Fig. 15.5).
6. If threaded fasteners are used, consider lockable types. Desirable
types are those with a lock washer trapped on the fastener or those
with an incorporated locking device, as contrasted to fasteners held
with separate lock washers.
Figure 15.5 Sharp internal corners

can be a source of stress coneentra-
tion and early component failure.
In the sketches, sharp internal cor-
ners are indicated by the arrows.
7. Do not use self-tapping screws in PC boards since they can

induce cracking of the boards.2
8. Use redundancy. Provide duplicate components, assemblies, and
systems where they are most critical to the operation of the product
and/or most susceptible to failure. Arrange the redundant elements in
parallel or otherwise provide for the automatic engagement of the dupli-
cate component if the prime component fails. (The latter is sometimes
referred to a s standby redundancy.? In extreme cases, three, four, or
more critical components may be employed in a parallel or standby
arrangement. One example of redundancy is the design of early
hydraulic brake systems in U S . automobiles. They were backed up with
a mechanical system for use in case the hydraulic system failed. In pre-
sent-day automobiles, the parking brake is usually mechanical rather
than hydraulic so that it can serve as a backup to the foot-operated
braking system. The use of standby redundancy is common in the
design of integrated circuits which may incorporate hundreds of thou-
sands of electronic devices. If one device does not function, the circuit
automatically reroutes the signal to a duplicate device.
The arrangement of redundant elements is not a particularly simple
procedure. For example, look at Fig. 15.6. It shows, with a schematic
diagram, two examples of redundant systems. The parallel arrange-
ment of components provides a second path for the function of the
device to be carried out in the event that the primary path experiences
a failure. For illustration, each path in this example has three compo-
nents all of which must be operable for that path to be operable. To pro-
vide additional paths in the event that individual components fail, the
designer has provided some interconnections as illustrated schemati-
cally by the diagonal lines in the diagrams. Which system, that
depicted by Fig. 15.6a or that depicted by Fig. 15.6b, provides the
greater reliability, that is, the higher probability that the system can
operate in t h e event that some component or components fail? It is not
easy for the inexperienced person to ascertain this by looking at the
diagrams. T h e effects are too subtle. However, it can be shown mathe-
lol (bl
Figure 15.6 Two different arrangements of series and parallel components in a product.
Determining which design gets maximum benefit from the parallel components is not a
simple process though experienced reliability engineers may be able to do so from only
an inspection of the diagram. Mathematical analysis of each system will show that sys-
tem ( b )will provide slightly higher reliability than system ( a ) .
matically that the system shown in Fig. 15.6b will provide a slightly
higher probability of continued operation when some component(s) fail.
9. Use derating. “Derating can be defined as the operation of a part
at less severe stresses than those for which it is rated.”4 More simply,
it means providing a generous margin for error or a large safety factor.
For electronic devices this means running them at lower power or volt-
age levels than they may be capable of at maximum stress levels. It also
involves lowering the operating temperature of the circuit or the
device. The US.Department of Defense has charts of acceptable, ques-
tionab le, and restricted application conditions for electronic devices:
Capacitors. Can have voltage limitations.
Resistors. Can have power limitations.
Semiconductors. Can have current limitations.
Inductors. Can have current limitations.
Mechanical devices can also be treated similarly. For example, bear-
ings c a n be designed with greater load and velocity capabilities than
the product may demand. Most structural elements are designed with
some factor of safety, i.e., they are designed to withstand a stress sev-
eral times the anticipated stress for the application and environment
expected. Generous factors of safety should be applied in areas of
potential reliability weakness.
10. Protect sensitive components and adjustments from accidental
change.2 This involves protection from accidental damage during ship-
ping, service, or repair as well as during the operation of the product.
11. Provide protection to the product with fuses, shear pins, circuit
breakers, etc2 These protect critical components from damage and
simplify maintenance by substituting simple replacements or resets for
costly and complex repair operations. An example is a shear pin for the
propeller of an outboard motor. The sheer pin fails so that the propeller
is not seriously damaged should it strike some hard object like a sub-
merged rock. A collapsible automobile bumper is another example. Its
frame collapses and absorbs impact energy that would otherwise cause
damage to the more important and expensive chassis, body member, or
other component of the vehicle.
12. Pay attention to thermal expansion rates. “Thermal design is
often as important as the circuit design in obtaining the necessary per-
formance and reliability characteristics of electronic e q ~ i p m e n t . ”It~
may also be important in mechanical products as the auto radiator
example noted in Chap. 13 would indicate.
13. ”Equipment of proven and reliable perf‘ormance should be
selected in preference to starting completely new design^."^ This is a
very important principle but one that runs against creative human ten-
dencies. The best test of a component’s reliability is its performance in
other products. The designer attempting to enhance product reliability

should make maximum use of proven components.
14. Identify the weakest components of the product and give priority
to improving them rather than other parts. Increase their strength
(e.g., use derating) and reduce the stress on them. This will give more
benefit per unit cost than an across-the-board improvement of all parts.
15. Overheating is a prime cause of reduced service life of electronic
products. Designers must provide adequate means such as ventilation
or heat sinks to prevent damaging overheating. (See Box 15.1.)Though
usually less likely, overheating can be a reliability deterrent in
mechanical assemblies as well, especially when materials with lower
service temperatures are involved.
16. Improve maintainability. This may not improve reliability, per
se, but can make the consequences of failure less severe; that is, it will
improve t h e availability of the product. Preventive maintenance can
improve reliability by finding incipient failures in a system before they
occur or by delaying them. By making internal components easily
accessible for inspection, lubrication, and/or replacement and by pro-
viding test points for problem diagnosis, the chance for a longer work-
ing life of the product will be greatly enhanced.
17. Anticipate human errors and human misuse of the product and
design the system to (1)make such errors less likely, and (2)make such
errors, when they do occur, less critical to the continued operation of
the product. Sometimes such errors are the most likely cause of relia-
BOX 15.1
Design Guidelines to Reduce Component Overheating

1. Locate sensitive parts (semiconductors, capacitors) remote from high temperature
parts.
2. Insulate sensitive parts from heat sources.
3. Specify larger area conductors in printed circuit boards where practicable.
4. Provide cooling fins a n d heat sinks where possible and position heat sinks with
fins positioned in the direction of air or coolant flow.
5. Locate resistors, transformers, and other heat producing parts favorably for con-
vection cooling.
6. Provide mechanical clamping and other good heat paths for transfer of heat from
these devices to heat sinks.
7. Use short leads on resistors.
8. Minimize thermal contact resistance between semiconductor devices and their
mountings by using large area, smooth contacting surfaces and specifying thermal
gaskets o r compounds as required.
SOURCE: R. T. Anderson, Reliability Design H ~ n d b o o k . ~
bility weaknesses. Chapter 19 provides design recommendations to

avoid a n d lessen the effect of human errors.
18. Design the product and its components for easy testability and
test them thoroughly, particularly with accelerated life tests (testsmade
with severe operating conditions and maximum or excessive load on the
product.) In this way, data will be obtained about the weakest elements
of the product so that improvements to them can be engineered.
19. It is also advisable for the designer to review and analyze any data
that may be available about field failures of existing similar produds in
the company’s product line. This should provide invaluable evidence
about what components and what systems in the new product may be
vulnerable to causing a reduction in the product’s operating life.7
20. In electronic products, move interconnections from the circuit
board to an integrated circuit, if possible, where they are shorter, less
costly to produce, faster-acting, and much more reliable.
Summary
Designers should keep the following in mind?
1. Initial manufacturing costs may increase, sometimes substantially,

as t h e reliability is improved. However, overall life-cycle costs can
decrease.
2. The ideal designer’s objective is t o achieve operating reliability
while limiting the impact on manufacturing cost.
3. The designer can control reliability by a n appropriate combination
of sound concept, carehl detailed design, high-capacity and high-
quality levels of components, redundancy of critical elements, and
ample safety factors.
4. The designer needs some means of determining the reliability of
design alternatives and can use life testing and FMA procedures to
help provide this.
References
1. J. A. McLinn, “Product Reliability: Extending Quality’s Reach,” Manufacturing
Engineering, September, 1988.
3. J. A. McLinn, “Product Reliability: Extending Quality’s Reach,” Manufacturing
Engineering, September, 1988.
4. R. T . Anderson, Reliability Design Handbook, IIT Research Institute, Rome Air
Development Center, Griffiss Air Force Base, New York 13441, March 1976.
5. E. E. Lewis,lntroduction to Reliability Engineering, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1987.
6. C. 0. Smith, Introduction to Reliability in Design, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1976.
7. S. M. Alexander, “ReliabilityTheory,”part 1, chap. 4 of Maynard’s Industrial Engi-

neering Handbook, 4th ed., W. K. Hodson (ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.
8. M. A. Moss, Designingfor Minimal Maintenance Expense, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1985.
New York, 1988.
10. H. R. Heideklang, Safe Product Design in Law, Management and Engineering,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1991.
11. Engineering Design Handbook, U.S. Army Material Command, Design Guidance for
F’roducibility, 1971.
12. Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, vol. 6 , chap. 16, “Designfor Reliabil-
ity,’’SAE, Dearborn, Mich., 1992.
Chapter
16
Designing for
ServiceabiIity/
Maintainability
The design of a product for easy maintenance is another oft-over-

looked objective. Henry Ford achieved it long ago with the Model T
(see Chap. l), but manufacturers since his day have seldom followed
suit, probably because of their emphasis on product features and
appearance. These are factors which may preclude the kind of design
simplicity that the Model T had; -however, even a complicated prod-
uct can be easy to maintain if it is designed to be so. Unfortunately,
product service, particularly if it is under warranty, is often regarded
as a necessary evil, an unavoidable operating cost. Providing easy
maintainability is often a n afterthought in product design. Providing
it properly requires attention to this objective throughout the design
process.
The disassembly and reassembly of a product undergoing repair in
the field can be more difficult than the corresponding operations in the
factory because tooling and facilities in the field are normally limited.
However, many design simplifications made to ease assembly in the
factory tend also to aid serviceability, and vice versa. Such synergism
is not always the case, however. The initial manufacturing cost may be
lower for some configurations that are not so suitable for being main-
tained, requiring considerable disassembly before components to be
replaced can be accessed. Consumer Reports Magazine, in a n article
about the repair of small and large household appliances and other con-
sumer products, notes that some of the design and manufacturing
methods that have provided better, cheaper, and more durable prod-
ucts have made it more difficult or not feasible to repair them.' This is
particularly true of small appliances which may cost more to repair
182
ServiceabilitylMaintainability 183
than replace and which most of their readers replace when a malfunc-
tion occurs. The article also reports a high user dissatisfaction with the
quality and cost of repair service on all household appliances, a condi-
tion that can be blamed, at least partially, on product designs that do
not lend themselves to easy repair.
The problem is not limited to small appliances. As another example,
consider automobiles that require removal of an engine or rear power
train before the clutch facings can be replaced. Such a design cannot be
said, in that instance, to be designed for easy service. A more extreme
example is an automobile that requires removal of a body panel to
access the oil filter. The optimum design is the one that considers both
manufacturing costs and lifetime maintenance costs (and other life-
cycle costs), and minimizes the total of all such costs. As with so many
design questions, trade-offs may be necessary. Balancing a number of
objectives with different design approaches may require keen engi-
neering judgment. Minimizing the total of maintenance and manufac-
turing costs is consistent with the Taguchi concept of quality which
proposes that the best design is the one that minimizes life-cycle costs,
including service costs. At Storage Technology Corporation, DFM
activities are called DFMM t o indicate that both manufacturability and
maintainability are prime objectives.
In the pressure to design products with plenty of features, with a
pleasing appearance, and with other objectives including manufac-
turability, it is easy to overlook maintenance. In a sound concurrent
engineering project, “...it is imperative that field service personnel be
included on the project development team. Since the field service activ-
ity is typically far removed from the engineering department, both geo-
graphically and organizationally, it is easy to lose sight of what service
actually encompasses.”2
Experienced practitioners maintain that proper attention t o service-
ability can be achieved only by going through probable field service pro-
cedures during the design stage of a product. Ideally, the design team
should have serviceability/maintainability objectives as part of the pro-
ject plan.2 These objectives should be clearly understood and accepted
by the design team. The team must anticipate what service will be
required and what repairs are likely and must engineer the design so
that all such operations are facilitated.
It should be noted that maintenance and service can be classified as
one of two kinds:
1. Regular or routine service required to prevent operating failures.
This is sometimes called preventive maintenance and includes such
tasks as checking and changing lubricants, and verifying that fluid
reservoirs are adequately filled and that tires are inflated properly, etc.
It also includes inspection and checking to ensure that wear has not
been excessive or that some functions have not deteriorated. For exam-
ple, checking a n automobile’s exhaust can be an inspection of whether
or not its fuel and ignition systems are operating properly, even before
the driver notices a deterioration of performance.
2. The second type of maintenance is repair service after some fail-
ure or decline of function has occurred, sometimes called breakdown
maintenance.
Good design for serviceability should provide for ease of both of these
kinds of maintenance.
Serviceability and maintainability can be considered equivalent
terms. “Maintainability has been designated as that element of prod-
uct design concerned with assuring that the ability of the product t o
perform satisfactorily can be sustained throughout its intended useful
life span with minimum expenditure of money and effort.”2
Availability
The definition of maintenance does not address only ease of mainte-
nance b u t emphasizes the reduction of cost and effort to sustain opera-
tion. Implicit in this definition is the fact that a product that does not
require maintenance, in other words, one with high operating reliabil-
ity, has t h e minimum service cost. For example, the automobile battery
that is maintenance-free is superior to the one that requires occasional
replenishment of electrolyte, no matter how easy that may be. The elec-
tric motor with sealed, prelubricated bearings is better than one that
requires periodic lubrication even if equipped with very accessible
lubrication points. The best products are those that have both high reli-
ability a n d easy serviceability.
Availability, described in Chap. 15, represents the combined effect of
both factors. The armed services have adopted availability as a mea-
sure for their equipment, presumably after deciding that high reliabil-
ity alone was not sufficient if the repairs, when eventually needed, kept
the equipment out of use for a protracted period. For optimum results,
the factors considered in this chapter and in Chap. 15 should both be
considered when a product is designed. Some guidelines which tend to
promote reliability (such as the use of standardized components) also
aid in serviceability.
Testability
Testability can be defined as the ease with which faults can be isolated on
defective components, subassemblies, and systems. It is also a measure of
the ease with which comprehensivetest programs can be written and exe-
~ u t e d Testability
.~ may be an important design issue, particularly in
printed circuits and other electronic components. Designers of printed cir-

cuit boards a r e normally urged to provide a means by which the operation
of critical components and subsystems on the board as well as the total
circuit can b e verified. Testability ratings are sometimes used to compare
circuit boards in this respect. Several firms have developed testability
rating systems. As is the case with other objectives, design compromises
may be required. There may be trade-offs between h c t i o n a l perfor-
mance, manufacturability, and testability. Testability, however, is a fac-
tor in manufacturability and in designing for quality.
Guidelines for Serviceability

There are many steps that the designer or design team can take t o
facilitate effective and economical service. Consider the following
guidelines:
1. As indicated, "...the first and most effective way to reduce service
requirements is to increase the reliability of the product."2
2. Design the product so that components that will require periodic
maintenance and those prone to wear or failure are easily visible and
accessible. Make them handy for inspection, testing, and easy replace-
ment when necessary. This involves making covers, panels and hous-
ings easy to remove and replace, ideally having only one such cover. It
involves locating maintenance-prone components in accessible loca-
tions. It may involve having all such maintenance-prone components
on the same side of the product. It may entail designing the product so
that the most reliable parts are assembled first and in a lower, less
accessible position and the high-mortality parts are assembled last so
that they a r e closer to the cover and in an exposed, accessible position
when the cover is removed. Replacement of defective parts should
involve the removal of the least possible number of other parts.
The Saturn automobile was named the low-maintenance car of the
year i n 1991 by Home Mechanix magazine, largely because of easy
accessibility t o many components which may require service. The old
Volkswagen Beetle was also outstanding in this regard. (See Figs. 16.1,
16.2, 16.3, 16.4,and 16.5.) Whirlpool Corporation has modified its
washing machines so that the cabinet can pop off, allowing access to
critical components that may require ~ e r v i c e . ~
3. Design all high-mortality parts, or those that may need replace-
ment or removal for service to other parts, for easy detachment and
replacement. Basically, this guideline is a DFA guideline, because ease
of insertion affects both assembly and service. However, for service,
easy removal is also required. Use quick disconnect attachments and
snap fits of t h e type that are designed for disassembly. This means that
the orientation of the hooking element should be visible and it should
Figure 16.1 This is the engine compartment of the Saturn sedan. A number of mecha-
nisms t h a t may require service are located for easy accessibility. For example, the power
steering module is located at the top of the engine instead of underneath as it is on other
cars; the water pump, also located low in many other cars, is also at the top; and the fuse
box, dip sticks for lubricating oil, and transmission fluid are very accessible. The latter
are brightly colored for easy visibility. The timing chain is also high on the engine and
can be accessed when the valve cover is removed after loosening eight machine screws.
be easily retractable.2 Press fits, adhesive bonding, riveting, welding,

brazing, or soldering of such parts should be avoided. Funnel openings
and tapered ends and plug-in or slip fits are advisable. A common
example is the way most electrical fuses are inserted. Some types can
be easily screwed into position by hand and others can be inserted with
a simple snap fit. Figure 18.3 illustrates how snap fits of plastic parts
are designed to be removable.
4. Design high-mortality parts so that they can be replaced without
removing other parts or disturbing their adjustment. Figure 3.2 illus-
trates a roller design used by IBM and Xerox. The roller is critical to
feeding paper in their machines and may require replacement after
some time. The design shown allows the roller to be removed and
replaced without removing or disturbing the shaft on which it is placed.
5. Design with field replacement in mind. When tools are required,
they should be standard, commonly available types. Designs that
Figure 162 The standard time to remove and replace the engine on a Volkswagen Bee-
tle is only one hour.As a result, the engine is very easily worked on when it must be ser-
viced, one of the reasons this automobile was so successful.
require the fewest different varieties of such tools are preferred. The
ideal might be a product that could be repaired with one screwdriver.
The ideal of the screwdriver-only repair, or its equivalent, has
another aspect. The product may then be user-repairable rather than
specialist-repairable. Although owners may actually utilize a repair
service, if the design is simple enough so that owners could repair it
themselves if they chose to, the manufacturer’s service expense will be
greatly reduced. A specialist service staff may not be needed; service
will consist only of stocking spare parts; training costs will be reduced;
problems of improper repair will be less likely; and customers will be
more likely to be satisfied.
6. Consider the use of modules-assemblies containing all compo-
nents needed for a particular function-which are easily replaced when
necessary and easily tested to verify their operability.2 A module is a
group of components and subassemblies which are all involved in some
particular function and which are packaged together in a self-con-
tained unit so that they all can be installed or replaced as one unit at
the same time. Testing and other maintenance is also facilitated, espe-
cially when i t is advantageous to do this when the module is removed
from the basic product. Modular design makes it easier to isolate faults.
If spare modules are available, the defective one can be removed and
repaired while it is replaced with a spare; thus putting the product
(b)
Figure 16.3 (a) The IBM Proprinter. ( b ) The Proprinter with the cover removed. Notice
that almost all components are clearly visible and readily accessible, facilitating easy
replacement. "he author attempted to get a Proprinter to demonstrate its outstanding
DFA to his students. He told his colleague, an IBM employee, that a unit that was no
longer i n working condition would suffice because only the assembly aspects were to be
demonstrated. It was found that the IBM facility did not have any nonworking units
around, because the units were so easy to repair, if necessary. The easy assembleability
of the Proprinter's design also made it easy to replace parts, if necessary. The open acces-
sibility of all components was another advantage.
Serviceability/Maintainability 189
Figure 16.4 This plastic side door panel on the Saturn automobile can be unbolted,
removed, and replaced easily if necessary. However, the plastic material is resilient and
will withstand bumps that would cause dents in a sheet metal panel.
back in service much more q ~ i c k l yFigure .~ 16.6 schematically illus-

trates a module for an electronic product. The use of the module elimi-
nates long circuit paths and crossovers, simplifying the analysis that
may occur during equipment failure when circuit paths must be traced
to identify t h e source of a p r ~ b l e r n . ~
Modules, particularly in electrical and electronic products, can often
be designed so that they plug in, further improving the ease with which
they can be removed for testing or replacement.
The use o f modules, however, is not always preferable. There is a
trade-off between the cost of the parts in the module that may not be
defective versus the simplicity of easy testing and replacement of the
module; i.e., a labor savings versus added parts costs. Modules are
effective when testing and replacement are rapid and when the accom-
panying parts in the module are not expensive. The alternative of keep-
ing individual parts that are likely to need replacement easily and
independently replaceable may, in some cases, be preferable.
Figure 16.5 In most automobiles, when the window or door mechanisms require repair,
the inner door liningmust be removed, normally a somewhat difficultjob that may cause
appearance defects in the lining. With the Saturn cars, the outer panel can be easily
unbolted and removed, and this is the approach used should the door or window mecha-
nisms need maintenance.
7. Design the product for easy testability. This is a DFM guideline

as much as a design for service (DFS) guideline. Easy testing facilitates
manufacture and quality as well as service. Some testability principles
a r e as follows:
a. As much as possible, design the product and its components
so that these tests can be made with standard instruments.
b. Incorporate built-in test capability and, if possible, built-in
self-testing devices in the product.6
c. Make the tests themselves easy and standardized, capable of
being performed in the field.
d. Provide accessibility for test probes; for example, make test
points prominent and provide access ports or tool holes. This
may help production as well as service.6
e. Make modules testable while still assembled to the product.6
(See Box 16.1.)
These
I I
I I
L I
I I
I I I
I
I
I
I
I
Ji ' ,J= I
I I
I -;I
I
Module A Module 6
Figure 16.6 A schematic illustration of a modular approach to electronic circuit design.
The devices are represented by blocks; the wiring by solid lines connecting the blocks. In
the lower view a conventional design has been changed to utilize two modules. Device (5)
has been placed i n one of the modules, close to the other components to which it is con-
nected. The new design reduces from five to two the number of wires extending across
the product. This arrangement facilitates service by permitting a plug-in replacement of
a module should some component fail i n service.
8. Use standard commercial parts as much as possible to further

ensure their interchangeability and to simplify the problem of field
stocking of replacement parts. If the parts are not commercial, they
should, as much as possible, be common for the company's products.
The fewer t h e number of different sizes and varieties, the better the
chance that they can be available for field repair.
9. Provide malfunction annunciation; i.e., design the product so
that there a r e indicators which inform the operator that the equipment
BOX 16.1
Design Guidelines for Test Points

1. Test points should be provided for the input and output of each line-replaceable or
line-repairable assembly, circuit, item, or unit; these points should be immedi-
ately available.
2. Ground points should be provided as necessary, particularly when a painted sur-
face would otherwise prevent good electrical contact.
3. Test points and their associated labels and controls should face the technician for
best visibility. Consider use of color-coded test points for each location.
4. Combine test points, where feasible, into clusters for multipronged connectors,
particularly where similar clusters occur frequently.
5. Arrange test points in a test panel or other surface according to the following cri-
teria, listed in order of priority:
a. T h e type of test equipment to be employed at each point.
b. T h e type of connector used and the clearance it requires.
c. T h e function to which each point is related.
d. T h e test routines in which each point will be used.
e. T h e order in which each test point will be used.
6. Label each test point with the tolerance limits of the signal, and a number, letter,
or other symbol keyed to the maintenance instructions.
7. Locate routine test points so that they can be used without removal of cabinet
cover or chassis.
8. Label each test point with the in-tolerance signal.
SOURCE: Courtesy of Marcel Dekker, New York; from M. A. Moss, Designing for Minimal
Maintenance Expense, 1985.
is malfunctioning and indicate which component is malfun~tioning.~

The low cost of microprocessors has made such an approach far less
expensive than it was previously. Current examples are devices on
automobiles that provide a dashboard warning when some service is
necessary or desirable; for example, a signal after 60,000 miles of oper-
ation to change a timing belt or a warning when the engine coolant is
sensed t o be low, even if the engine has not yet overheated.
10. Make sure that parts that may require replacement during ser-
vice are clearly identified with part numbers or other essential refer-
ence designation^.^
11. Design replacement parts to prevent their incorrect insertion
during rnaintenan~e.~ Make parts such as fasteners and connectors,
mistake proof. (This recommendation is standard for design for
assembly in the factory, for quality and other reasons. See Figs. 12.5
and 14.6.)
12. Design for fault isolation (provide traceability of fault^).^
13. Provide anticipated spare parts with the product. Examples are
fuses, shear pins, and light bulbs.
14. When access covers are not removable, they should be self-sup-
porting when open.6An example of this is automobile hoods.
Serviceability/Maintainability 193
15. “Make sure repair, service or maintenance tasks pose no safety

hazards.”6 Sharp corners and burrs inside the product, which may be
acceptable from a product-operation standpoint, are unacceptable if they
pose a hazard to the repairman working inside the product. Hazardous
fumes, electrical shocks, and mechanisms that can pinch or catch fingers
or clothing a r e other examples of what must be protected against.
16. Incorporate automatic timing or counting devices in the product
to signal t h e need for replacement of high-wear or depletable parts.6
(See the comments with guideline 9.)
17. Provide clear and complete preventive maintenance manuals or
instructions as part of the engineering specifications for the product.2
If preventive maintenance procedures are well engineered, they will
reduce the need for or will delay more costly and difficult repair work.
For preventive maintenance to work satisfactorily, however, instruc-
tions must be understandable by the product owner or others who may
not be completely familiar with the workings of the product.
18. Provide room for drainage of fluids that must be periodically
changed. Make sure that drainage plugs are accessible. The Saturn
automobile provides an interesting example. Following one service-
man’s complaint, a cast-in feature was added to the crankcase of these
BOX 16.2
~ ~~
Ease of Maintenance Guidelines

Failure diagnosis, identification, and replacement are facilitated by:
Using modular design techniques
Use of special built-in circuits for fault detection, e.g., error warning lights.
Designing for replacement at higher levels
Increasing depth of penetration of localization features
Utilizing t e s t indications which are less time-consuming and/or less difficult to
interpret
m Designing for minimum diagnostic strategies
Making accessible and obvious both the purpose of the test points and their rela-
tionship to t h e item tested
Improving quality of technical manuals or maintenance aids
Designing access for ease of entry
Reducing t h e number of access barriers
Reducing t h e need for isolation access by bringing test points, controls, and dis-
plays out to accessible locations
Reducing t h e number of interconnections per replaceable item
Using plug-in elements
Reducing requirements for special tools
SOURCE: Courtesy Marcel Dekker, New York; from M. A. Moss, Designing for Minimal
Maintenance Expense, 1985.
cars. It prevents oil from dripping on service personnel when the oil fil-
ter is changed. Residual oil now drains away from the filter opening
and toward the proper ~ p e n i n g . ~
19. Ensure that components that are apt t o be replaced or are adja-
cent to those that are, are not too fragile. Parts that are fragile or sub-
ject to damage during service should be protected or reinforced.
References
1. “Getting Things Fixed,” Consumer Reports, January 1994.
2. Tool a n d Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, vol. 6, Design for Munufactumbility,
SME, Dearborn, Mich., 1992, chap. 8, pp. 8-13 to 8-15 and chap. 10, pp. 10-67 to 10-
70.
3. “The Push for Quality-Special Report,” Business Week, June 8, 1987.
4. “Design’s New Trend-Concun-ent Engineering,”Design News, July 8,1991.
5 . M. A. Moss,Designing for Minimal Maintenance Expense, Marcel Dekker, New York,
1985.
6. D. M. Anderson, Design for Manufucturability, CIM Press, Lafayette, Calif., 1991.
7. “Design for Repairability,” Machine Design, June 26, 1969.
8. R. T. Anderson, Reliability Design Handbook, IIT Research Institute, Rome Air Devel-
opment Center, G f l i s s Air Force Base, New York 13441, March 1976.
9. G. P. Carter, “Improving Testability: Total Quality Management and Concurrent
Engineering,” Circuits Assembly, December 1991.
17
Designing for Safety
Safety is a vital issue. From a human standpoint and probably from a

cost standpoint as well, it may be the most important consideration of
all in product design. Safety during the manufacture, safety during use,
and safety after the disposal of the product are all important. Safety,
however, isn’t a particularly popular subject. There are relatively few
papers on t h e subject in engineering publications and at conferences.
Design executives seldom make it a major issue, although the essential
time to provide for the safety of a product is during its design phase.
Safety is no accident. It must be provided for by careful consideration
and analysis on the part of the designer. Product safety, quality, and
reliability all have a considerable amount of overlap in that a quality
or reliability weakness may tend to cause hazardous conditions. None
of these attributes can be achieved if not designed into the product; all
can be lost or depleted if manufacturing is not adequately controlled.
Additionally, safety concerns can invalidate an otherwise well-
designed product. Some products have been forced from the market
because of unforeseen safety hazards.
Accidents a r e costly. While the cost may not be borne by the manu-
facturer of t h e product involved, it will be borne by the customer, dis-
tributor, bystander, or the general customer population through such
expenses as medical costs and insurance premiums.l The safety issue
provides a perfect example of the Taguchi concept of quality. Product
life-cycle costs include all costs incurred by society during the lifetime
of the product, including costs resulting from safety hazards, and the
highest quality product is the one that minimizes these and other life-
cycle costs. T h e costs of an accident can be tremendous to the persons
injured. With the current product liability climate in the United States,
these costs-frequently with some punitive premium-are often even-
tually transferred back to the manufacturer.
195
There is no such thing as absolute safety. It is not possible to elimi-

nate all accident risks from a product. Variations in conditions of use,
user understanding and actions, and wear and tear on the product
itself can all lead to an accident with a product that may be basically
safe, The task of the designer is to strike a sound balance between man-
ufacturing cost, other attributes desired, and the probability cost of a
safety defect. All recognized or foreseeable hazards should be con-
trolled through the use of safety devices like guards, electrical discon-
nects, and the like. Thorough testing of new designs for accident haz-
ards, as well as for such factors as reliability and function, is essential.
Providing an additional safety margin may, in many cases, substan-
tially increase the manufacturing cost of the product. However, if the
product is made safe though sound design and is carefully manufac-
tured, the long-term, lifetime costs can be minimized.
Definitions
Maynardk Industrial Engineering Handbook defines some terms
applicable t o product safety.2 They are:
Accident. An unexpected event that interrupts the use of the prod-

uct and potentially causes damage or injury
Hazard. A condition that carries the potential for injury, damage,
or other loss
Danger or risk. The possibility or degree of exposure to a hazard
Safety. The absence of hazards or the minimization of exposure to
them
Tort. Legal term for a wrongful act which results in injury to
another person or damage to property from which the injured party
can initiate court action
Fault tree analysis. A study of the possible consequences, including
accident risk, from the failure of any component in a manufactured
product
Potential Dangers
Potential dangers can be a number of types and include the following:
B Cuts or lacerations from sharp corners and edges or from product

components like cutters
More serious body injuries such as broken bones or head injuries,
sometimes due to entrapment in rotating or reciprocating parts by
catching hair, clothing, fingers, or other body parts or accessories
Designing for Safety 197
w Electric shock
Potential adverse health effects from electromagnetic and nuclear
radiation
Eye and other injuries from flying objects or debris
w Health hazards from gases, vapors, or liquids given off by the prod-
uct or its manufacturing process
rn Hearing impairment due to excessive noise
rn Other injuries from miscellaneous causes such as explosives, falling

objects, muscle strains, etc.
m Fire hazards
w Ingestion of poisons or other harmful substances or objects
Products intended for children require much higher safety standards

than products that will be used by adults. The U.S. Consumer Products
Safety Commission may prevent the distribution of products deemed to
be apt to cause injury to children.
The design team’s safety responsibilities include providing protec-
tion not only to the customer but also to manufacturing personnel, dis-
tributors a n d sellers of the product, product service personnel,
bystanders, and the general public from all of the above potential risks.
The engineer must be responsive to developments such as prototype
failures, field incidents, and complaints.’
Designers must also meet all safety specifications set by government
bodies and must consider what the courts are apt to decide is a defec-
tive product -
Product Liability
“Product liability describes a n action (such as a lawsuit) in which the
plaintiff (injured party) seeks to recover damages for personal injury or
loss of property from the defendant (seller or the manufacturer) when
it is alleged that the damage was caused by a defective pr~duct.’’~ There
is no way t h a t a manufacturer can guarantee that it will not eventually
be subjected t o product liability litigation. No matter how carefully the
designer guards against safety hazards in the product, there is some
possibility of accident and injury. The eventual occurrence of some acci-
dents is inevitable. Unfortunately, the society that we live in has
become highly litigious.5aFurthermore, because of the very large finan-
cial settlements that sometimes are given to the plaintiff and the plain-
tiffs attorneys when serious accidents occur, “the law of products lia-
bility has a n institutional bias promoting litigation even where the
plaintiffs claim of defective design is dubious.”5d
This does not mean that the risk of litigation cannot be reduced or
that steps cannot be taken to reduce the chance of excessive awards.
Current liability law imposes significant responsibility upon the prod-
uct designer. It goes beyond providing a product that is designed as
much as possible to be safe to users and others. The designer must also
carry o u t the design work in a manner that minimizes the chances of
becoming involved in product liability litigation and increases the
chance of a successful defense. This only adds further to the task of the
designer which already requires high achievement against a broad list
of objectives.
The issue of legal liability, when accidents occur with a product, has
become an important aspect of product design. In addition to personal
injury from a product accident, there is the possibility of property dam-
age for which the employer or the designer could be liable. Product lia-
bility is a broad and complex subject with legal issues involving war-
ranties of the manufacturer and seller, including implied warranties,
salesmen’s statements, and advertising copy as well as the function of
the product itself. Instruction manuals and other printed material for
customers, especially with respect to safety warnings, are another area
of potential contention.
Full coverage of the subject of product liability is beyond the scope of
this chapter and can be found in other sources (see references). This
chapter concentrates on aspects of product liability of concern to the
product designer, manufacturing personnel, and most others who may
be on a product development team.
Product liability suits can arise when accidents occur from both
design defects and manufacturing defects. However, most liability
cases arise from the former.5dFailure to warn of inherent hazards is
another source of suits.
Much of the awareness of the need for high levels of product safety
stems from designers’ awareness of the potential problems of product
liability. Publicity about large product liability lawsuit settlements and
significant increases in the cost of liability insurance for manufactur-
ers have driven home the importance of managing and minimizing the
risk of liability. Liability costs are believed to be rising in almost every
industry and in some (ladder, light aircraft, and helmet manufactur-
ing) these costs have risen to the point where they now exceed direct
development or manufacturing costs.6 This situation will have benefi-
cial effects if it leads to safer products, but it adds to the burden on the
designers. They must not only design a fully satisfactory product from
many standpoints, including safety, but must prepare for the possibil-
ity t h a t their company may have to defend itself in court.
The fact that product liability shifts the costs of product defects back
t o the manufacturer is consistent with the concept of life-cycle quality
costs. Historically, manufacturers have tended to disregard some of the
life-cycle costs since they have been borne by others. Product liability,
at least in part, changes this. To this extent, product liability settle-
ments are a positive force in that the possibility of avoiding such
charges provides an incentive to manufacturers to improve the safety
of their products. Manufacturers who produce defective products pay
the price. Conversely, under current conditions, the manufacturer of a
product can save money by making it as safe as possible.
Traditionally, the grounds for tort liability (when a wrongful act
interferes with the interests of others who then initiate court action)
have grown from English law. Among the grounds for tort liability are
intentional o r negligent actions which cause injury t o others, Cur-
rently, strict tort liability, which does not necessarily imply any fault,
now applies i n the United States. It focuses solely on the performance
of the product, not on any negligence of the manufacturer or seller of
the product. If the product itself is defective, even if the defect was
unintentional, the manufacturer is liable. Under strict liability, man-
ufacturers have become increasingly responsible for their designs and
their products. They cannot even assume that their product will be
used safely and correctly, or only for the purpose for which it was
intended.4
The plaintiff in strict tort liability cases must establish all of the fol-
lowing:
1. The product is defective.

2. The defendant is legally responsible for the defect.
3. The defect caused harm t o the lai in tiff.^
Note that there is no question of whether or not the manufacturing com-
pany or its designer was negligent. This matter does not even have to be
addressed in court if the product can be demonstrated to be defective.
The courts have defined three types of defects:
1. Those occurring from the design of the product

2. Those occurring in manufacturing
3. Those caused by inadequate warning of safety hazards
Implicit in strict tort liability is the concept that there is a reason-

able expectation that the product will perform safely. The act of offer-
ing the product for sale implies that the product meets safety require-
ments. Under the law, it is, in effect, a n implied warranty that the
product will not cause injury or damage after it is purchased. Of
course, a product may also have a n express warranty that states that
the product is suitable for a particular use. Such an express warranty
may be either written or oral.
The Designer’s Response to Product Liability

The implications for the designer as a result of a n awareness of prod-
uct liability factors are as f01lows:~
1. The first job of the product designer is to develop a product that
avoids, as much as possible, the possibility of accidental injury and
damage. The best way to avoid product liability litigation is to avoid the
accident. Designers should incorporate in their designs all economi-
cally a n d technically feasible safety devices.5b
2. Designers should recognize that future product liability litiga-
tion is a possibility. They should assume, during the design process,
that their work will eventually be challenged during l i t i g a t i ~ n Pre-
.~~
vention of product liability losses should be a concern of the designer.
3. Designers must recognize that users of their product may not be
safety conscious and may actually use the product incorrectly. Such
misuse should be anticipated and allowed for in the design or warned
against in the instruction manual.
4. A design that is not state of the art from a safety standpoint is
much more vulnerable to product liability losses. If competitors’ prod-
ucts have superior hazard protection, the product is vulnerable to being
considered defective.
5. It is important to foresee every conceivable way that the product
will be used and misused. This includes the transportation, storage,
maintenance, and repair as well as operation and observation of the
product. Then, provisions must be made in the design to minimize the
hazardous effects attendant on these uses.
6. Careful records should be maintained of all internal tests, all
field problems, all customer complaints of factors that could affect
product safety, and the corrective action that was taken to correct these
problems. This will indicate a strong commitment to product safety
which could be helpful in the event that litigation occurs. Additionally,
thorough documentation of the steps of the product development
process is essential. This includes all written records such as corre-
spondence and meeting minutes, if they show that the design was care-
ful a n d thoughtful of safety issues. These can be part of a stronger
defense if a liability action goes to court. (See the next section on design
documentation.)
7. If certain hazards cannot be designed out of the product, the
manufacturer has a duty to provide safety warnings. These and any
safety directions should be permanently affixed to the product, if pos-
sible, a n d otherwise must accompany the product along with operating
instructions, warranties, and disclaimers. All must be prominent and
clearly written. They should be reviewed by legal counsel knowledge-
able in both product liability and the potential problems of the partic-
ular industry. Warnings should also be tested on lay persons (con-
sumers) likely to use the product to verify that they are understood.
Warnings a n d disclaimers are no substitute for making the product
inherently safe for both correct use and misuse. If there is some ques-
tion of the necessity of including a warning notice about some hazard
that may not be very likely, the current liability climate dictates that
it is better for the manufacturer to be extra cautious and include the
warning notice. If the warning notice can prevent an injury, even if the
probability for it is remote, the warning notice should be included.
8. The completed design must be carefully reviewed to ensure that
safety provisions are adequate and state of the art. The review, a haz-
ards analysis, should be made by someone other than the designer.
However, in a properly organized concurrent engineering team, there
will be a safety representative who can perform this function while the
design is being developed. Then, little or no additional lead time will be
consumed in providing assurance of adequate product safety.
9. Designers should not only design to minimize the possibility of an
accident with their product, but should also design the product in such
a way that, if an accident does occur, the chances of injury are mini-
m i ~ e dAs. ~a~ somewhat simplistic example, the designer can design a
vehicle with safe brakes but also with airbags and seat belts so that, if
the brakes fail, the vehicle occupants will not be seriously injured.
10. The instruction manual that accompanies the product should
provide clear and well-highlighted warnings against any safety haz-
ards that m a y be inherent in the product design. This is important
from both a liability-protection standpoint and from the viewpoint of
good safety practice. Warnings should cover factors that apply to both
normal and incorrect operation of the product.
Safety engineers practice their craft by attempting to identify and
eliminate or control hazards attendant to products and processes with
which they a r e involved. In conducting reviews of safety hazards, they
use fault tree analyses, safety checklists, and industry and government
standards, a s well as their own knowledge. They compare the condi-
tions under investigation with those that are optimum from a safety
standpoint. Studies have found that design engineers and others
responsible for the creation of a new design tend not to be knowledge-
able o r cognizant of these approaches.'j The use of concurrent engi-
neering, w i t h safety personnel as part of the new product team, tends
to ensure t h a t safety concerns are given the attention they need. The
particular organization or procedural approach that is used, however,
is secondary. The important point is that a safety analysis be made
when new and improved products are developed.(j
Probably t h e most difficult part of the designer's job with respect to
protection of t h e company against product liability litigation is how far
to go in designing safety into the product. There are limitations
202 T h e Dimensions of DFX
imposed primarily by cost but also by appearance, time-to-market,

function, ease of use, and other factors. No gain is achieved if a product
has a very high safety potential but is so costly that it must be priced
far above that of competitive products. Most courts have found that the
product must be reasonably safe and that an alternative design to solve
one safety problem but which creates other dangers or hampers func-
tion a n d increases cost are not e ~ p e c t e dNevertheless,
.~ the designer
should make every effort to justify why the safer alternative was not
chosen. Admittedly, however, if litigation arises, this can be very diffi-
cult to justify.
Design Documentation
The likelihood of becoming involved in product liability litigation, espe-
cially when the charges are unfounded, can be minimized and the
chances of winning such a suit can be enhanced if the design team
maintains careful records of all transactions and all decisions made
. ~thorough record is vital since a record
during the design p r o c e ~ sA
that is incomplete can be stated by the plaintiffs attorney to be evi-
dence of sloppy engineering. Additionally, litigation, if it occurs, is apt
to take place years after the design is completed when the designer’s
memory of the details of reasons for design decisions may be lessened.
Thorough and detailed records of design decisions are important in
the event of a court trial. The manufacturer must be able to convince
the j u r y that it has made careful, reasoned design judgments, giving
full weight to the need for safety. The manufacturer may have to do
this in an atmosphere which is apt to favor the plaintiff who may have
suffered serious injury, a fatality, or property damage. Despite the saw
that you are innocent until proven guilty, the manufacturer must, in
effect, prove that it is innocent of negligence. In many cases, the record
of design decisions, or the lack of it, is the critical factor in determining
the outcome of a product liability court action. If design decision docu-
mentation is poorly written, sketchy, or nonexistent, the plaintiffs
attorney may use this as evidence to charge that the design process
itself was not sufficiently careful. The manufacturer must employ a
“defensive approach to record keeping.”5dComplete documentation is
the manufacturer’s best proof that the gravest concern was exercised in
regard to safety during the design phase.
The following should be kept in mind in regard to records of product
design decision^:^
1. All design decisions and the reasons for choosing the alternative
selected over other alternatives should be recorded, especially if the
rejected alternative may have safety advantages over the one selected.
The documentation should demonstrate that the designers anticipated
potential hazards and made every effort to protect individuals from

these hazards. A chronological log book of design steps and decisions is
a good way t o organize design records. Sketches, drawings, and notes
should be signed and dated.
2. All documents should be assumed to be destined to be involved in
litigation a n d should be prepared accordingly. Current rules allow the
plaintiffs attorney to access all documents such as records, correspon-
dence, notes, drawings, and test reports.5b
3. The documentation should include the following: (a)design deci-
sions and the reasons for them, as indicated; ( b ) description of tests
made and their results; (c) a summary of the advantages of the design
approach selected, especially regarding safety; (d)a description of the
design alternatives rejected and the reasons for doing so; ( e )safety fac-
tors applied t o various components and design elements; and ( f , nota-
tion that the product met safety tests.
4. Documents should be honest and clearly written.
5. A certain sensitivity about human injury should be demonstrated,
especially in consideringtrade-offs between cost and injury prevention.
Remember that the plaintiff's attorney will find it advantageous to call
any apparent callousness to the attention of the jury.
6. Records must be carefully maintained after the product has gone
to market a n d for some years afterward, even after the product has
been superseded by others in the company's product line. Note that
some companies have records-retention policies that require such doc-
uments to b e destroyed aRer a certain-period. It may be necessary to
classify engineering design records for extended-time r e t e n t i ~ n . ~
Hierarchy of Hazard Control

Safety engineers have developed a listing of preferred approaches to
the problem of eliminating or controlling safety hazards. The listing or
hierarchy is i n order of preference. Approaches higher on the list are
preferred over those listed lower because they have proven more effec-
tive in preventing safety problems and accidents. The preferred hier-
archy, in descending order, is:
1. Eliminate the hazard from the product's design.
2. When the hazard cannot be eliminated, prevent exposure to the haz-
ard by providing guards or other protections.
3. If accidents are possible, make the product so that serious injury or
damage resulting from it is much less likely. Provide protective
devices such as goggles and air bags.
4. Warn the user about the presence of the hazard.
5. Train the user to avoid the hazard in the use of the product.'j
Hazard elimination (for example, the use of manual operation or low-

voltage power to eliminate electrical shock hazards), is the ideal way to
enhance product safety. The use of guards and other safety devices may
be fully satisfactory if the hazard cannot be eliminated but there is
always the possibility that the guard will not be used or will not be main-
tained. Warning labels are subject to the vagaries of human understand-
ing. They may come off the product, may be obscured by dirt or deterio-
ration, or may simply be ignored by the operator of the device. Training
in avoiding hazards in a particular product should be provided, if applic-
able, b u t is often problematic and costly. It is difficult if not impossible to
have assurance that all persons who use the device or are endangered by
its hazardous aspects can be trained properly to avoid the hazard.
Managing Product Design for Safety

Managing products for safety involves care during both the design and
the manufacturing phases. Both are important. In the manufacturing
phase, defective components or defective assembly can result in mal-
functions that can, in some cases, cause the product to be hazardous.
However, care in manufacturing cannot ensure safety if the design has
inherent safety weaknesses.
Some principles for managing design for safety are:
1. The safety goals of each product to be designed should be clearly

spelled out and endorsed by company management. They should be as
specific as possible.
2. Active participation of safety specialists in the design process is
a vital step. Every design must be evaluated from a safety viewpoint
and corrective actions taken whenever some questionable facet is
uncovered. If the degree of product safety knowledge of the designers
and safety specialists is sparse, additional training before the start of
the design project or in its early stages, is advisable.
3. During all testing phases, designers must be on guard for evidence
of safety hazards and must be responsive to failures of tested prototypes.
Tests should be conducted with the express purpose of uncovering poten-
tial safety weaknesses. This may involve extended field testing with
users rather than laboratory testing alone. Simulation tests, to provide
the kinds of failures that could lead to accidents, may be very informa-
tive a n d useful. One example is a rollover or crash test of a vehicle.
4. Problems and defects reported by salespersons and customers
after the product has gone into the field must also be followed quickly
with corrective action.
5. Technical guidelines for safety, such as those listed in the next sec-
tion, must be known and understood by those responsible for the design.
In other words, safety training for designers is an essential requisite.
6. The designers should consider all possible uses of the product and
try to anticipate possible dangerous or destructive misuses to determine
those which should be designed out of the product, if at all possible. For
example, a wine bottle was designed with a twist-off cap with a heavy
metal band seal which was perforated to break when the cap was
twisted. If a person did not realize that the cap was of the twist-off type
and attempted to cut the metal seal with a knife, a jagged metal edge
would be leR, potentially cutting the user. A better design would be to
make the seal of thin flexible plastic that would not present a cutting
hazard. Alternatively, hazards that cannot be designed out should be the
subject of warning notices on the product, in the owner’s manual, or both.
7. Although design and safety standards of professional engineer-
ing and standards organizations represent only minimum require-
ments, they should be reviewed for applicability and the product must
be verified to comply with them. Failure to comply with such standards
will constitute proof of inadequacy of design if the product should ever
be the subject of a product-liability action. It should also be noted that
full conformance to government and industry standards does not
ensure a successful defense in product-liability litigation. This includes
regulations stemming from the Federal Consumer Products Safety Act.
8. Failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) and its variations, as
discussed in Chap. 15, are useful in analyzing a product design from
the safety standpoint as well as the standpoint of reliability. These
techniques c a n identify critical product failure modes that could cause
accidents. During their use, the emphasis is on the safety effects of the
potential failures.
9. The manufacturer has a continuing responsibility under the
Consumer Products Safety Act for defects discovered after the product
is manufactured and on the market. Warnings to past customers and
recalls may b e required in some circumstance^.^
10. The product should be designed to meet the safety standards of
the state with the most strict safety standards, regardless of where the
manufacturing takes place. This is because attorneys typically enter
the lawsuit in a jurisdiction that gives them a better chance of winning
a court case.5
11. The company’s legal counsel should review all documents
attached to or accompanying the product, particularly warranties and
warning notices. This is to ensure that proper legal language is used
and that the company is otherwise protected as much as possible from
a liability standpoint.
12. Providing a specific safety review of the design by the design
team and persons additional to the team may be advisable. Ideally, this
should occur at the concept stage, before much time and expense is
committed to any one design concept. It may be advisable also at later
stages of the design p r o ~ e s s . ~
Suggested Guidelines
The following recommendations for the designer are intended t o aid in
the creation of a product that is as free as practicable from safety hazards:
1. Design products to be fail-safe. Design mechanisms and features
so t h a t if there is a failure in the mechanism, an accident will not be the
probable result.l (The classic example of this could be the automotive
power steering system that will still steer the car in the event of a fail-
ure somewhere in the power-assist system. Another is the self-propelled
rotary lawn mower that stops moving when the handle is released.)
2. Allow for human error. Customers and others can and will, at
least occasionally, make mistakes in the operation of a product. When
such human errors happen, the results should not cause an accident.l
There is a high degree of overlap between user-friendliness and safety.
Products should be designed t o be user-friendly to minimize the possi-
bility o f human error that can cause accidents. (See Chap. 19.) Figures
17.1 and 17.2 show examples of user-friendliness affecting safety.
Figure 17.1 The styling of this automotivesteering wheel and horn are typical of
current automobiles. The use of flexible vinyl to provide a smooth cover over the
horn button is quite attractive, but where does the operator press to sound the
horn? This could be serious for a driver not used to the particular car. Figure 17.2
shows a somewhat better approach from a safety standpoint.
Products should also not exceed the human capabilities of the range of
people apt t o use them. The range of strength and knowledge of poten-
tial users may be quite broad; for example, children have different
capabilities and safety needs than adults.
3. Avoid sharp corners. Sharp external corners are an injury haz-
ard to operating and maintenance personnel. Generous radii should be
incorporated wherever possible. Parting lines of molds may have to be
located away from corners and edges although this may be undesirable
from a mold-cost standpoint.'
4. Provide guards or covers over sharp blades and similar elements.
Guards are required over power transmission mechanisms and other
moving parts, including both rotating and reciprocating motions.
Guarding i s essential to shield cutting, shearing, punching, and bend-
ing apparatus.
Guards must have the following characteristics:
a. They must prevent contact between persons and the moving parts.
b. They must be firmly attached to the product.
c. They must prevent the insertion of foreign objects.
d. They must provide protection during maintenance as well as
operation.2
Figure 17.2 This pickup truck horn has a distinctive area where the driver should push
to sound the horn. The horn sounds if the round button is pushed anywhere within its
area. It may not be as attractive as the horn button shown in Fig. 17.1, but it is superior
from a safety standpoint.
5 . “Make sure repair, service or maintenance pose no safety haz-

ards.”*Parts that may require service should be freely accessible and
easily repairable or replaceable without interfering with other compo-
nents o r assemblies and without posing hazards to r e ~ a i r m e nFigure
.~
17.3 shows an example of a condition that could cause minor injury to
maintenance personnel.
6. Provide clearances between moving parts and other elements to
avoid shearing or crushing points in which hands or other parts of an
operator’s body might be caught or injured.1° This means that the space
should b e either too small to admit a child’s fhgers or should have
enough clearance so that an adult’s finger or hand would not be pinched.
7. Arrange controls so that the operator does not have to stand or
reach them in an unnatural, awkward position. Provide ample clear-
ance from hand levers to other machine elements that the operator
could scrape or strike.
8. The designer should anticipate the environment in which the
product will be used and provide safeguards against those environ-
mental factors which could create safety hazards. These include corro-
sive environments and the dangerous effects of corrosion on product
component^.^ It also includes such things as vibration, pressure
changes, radiation, and fire and electrical hazards. If these environ-
mental effects are substantial, the design should be made robust to
withstand them. Heideklang indicates that the Challenger space shut-
tle disaster was due to a joint design that was not sufficiently robust to
withstand the vibration, temperature changes, and lift-off stresses t o
which i t was ~ubjected.~
9. Electrical products should be properly grounded. Those operat-
ing on household current require a grounding (three wire) system or
T m B SCREW
Figure 17.3 Two designs of self-tapping screws. The first screw,

with a sharp point, has the advantage that it is more easily driven
if the parts being joined do not line up exactly, but it has the draw-
back of having a sharp point that can cut someone who reaches
across it. Although it is not a danger to the user of the product
because t h e screw point is internal, it may provide a scratch or cut
hazard to the serviceman who works on the product. The screw on
the right, having a more blunt point, does not have this hazard.
double insu1ation.l Utilize the electrical insulating properties of plas-

tics to reduce shock hazards.
10. Utilize electrical interlocks in circuits with potentially injurious
voltage so that unless a guard is in proper position the circuit is open
and no current will flow.1°
11. Make small components (those that can be separated from the
product) bulky enough so that they cannot be accidentally swallowed
by children.'
12. Make the product from high-impact or resilient materials so that
if the product is dropped or otherwise broken, neither sharp edges,
sharp points, nor small fragments that are potentially swallowable by
small children will resu1t.l
13. Give careful attention to the strength of all parts whose failure
might result i n injury to the operator.1° Allow reasonably generous fac-
tors of safety for stressed or otherwise critical c0mponents.l
14. Do not use paints or other finishing materials with more than 6
percent content of heavy metals such as lead, antimony, arsenic, cad-
mium, mercury, and se1enium.l
15. Incorporate warning devices which become actuated if any haz-
ardous materials in the product are released or if dangerous compo-
nents are e x p ~ s e d . ~
16. Point-of-operation guards should be convenient and not interfere
with the operator's movement or affect the output of the product.1°
17. Plastic bags used in packaging must not be too thin. The minimum
wall thickness for bags large enough to cause suffocation is .0015 in.l
18. Minimize, as much as possible, the use of flammable materials
including packaging material^.^ Many materials that normally do not
burn will burn if the section is thin enough. Avoid paper-thin sections
of plastics and other potentially flammable materials.'
19. Cuts from paper edges can be eliminated by serrating the edges.l
20. Markings, especially safety warnings, should be clear, concise,
and long-la~ting.~
21. Avoid the use of hazardous materials including those that are
a hazard when burned, recycled, or discarded. The physical and
chemical contamination and hazard properties of all potential conta-
minants should be known and disclosed as is required by current
federal law.
22. Products that require heavy or prolonged user operation should
be designed to avoid the kinds of user actions that can lead to cumula-
tive trauma disorders like carpal tunnel syndrome. Examples of what
should be avoided are awkward positions of the hand, wrist, arm, and
other body members; the need for the user to apply heavy forces; repet-
itive motions; and vibration of the objects handled.ll
23. Do not design parts with unguarded projections that can catch
body members or clothing.l2
Designing a product to be effectively free from safety hazards and

product liability risks is a highly complex, challenging, and difficult
task. However, it is possible to do so if suEicient diligence is exercised.
References
1. W . Chow,Cost Reduction in Product Design, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York,
1978.
2. W. K. Hodson (ed.), Maynard‘s Zndustrial Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1992.
3. H. R. Heideklang, Safe Product Design in Law, Management and Engineering,
Marcel Dekker, New York, 1990.
4. S. S. Rao, Reliability-Based Design, App. D, Product Liability, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1992.
5. Product Liability and Quality, SP-586, SAE, Warrendale, Pa., 1984. ( a )Product Liu-
b i l i t y S o m e Ounces of Prevention, B. R. Weber; ( b )The Role of the Engineer in Prod-
uct Liability Litigation, C. A. Blixt; (c) Engineering Considerations on Litigation
Avoidance, W. J. Lw; ( d )How to Avoid (or Win) Products Litigation, J . R. Dawson
and R. L. Binder; and (e) Review of the Uniform Product Liability Act by G.A.
Libertiny.
6. B. W. Main and A. C. Ward, “ h a t Do Engineers Really Know About Safety,”
Mechanical Engineering, August 1992.
7. C. 0. Smith and T. F. Talbot, “Effects of Product Liability on Design,” ASME Winter
Annual Meeting, Anaheim, Calif., November 1992.
9. C. E. Witherell, How to Avoid Products Liability Lawsuits and Damages, Noyes
Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1985.
10. Marks’ Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 7th ed., T.Baumeister (ed.),
11. P. M. Noaker, “The Curse of Carpal Tunnel,”Manufacturing Engineering, May 1993.
12. S. Pugh, Total Design, Addison-Wesley, Workingham, England, 1990.
13. T. A. Hunter, Engineering Design for Safety, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.
14. J. Kolb and S. Ross, Product Safety and Liability. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
15. Code ofFederal Regulations, Commercial Practices, Subchap. B, Consumer Product
Safety Act Regulations, U. S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, Jan. 1993.
18
Designing
for the Environment
One of the hallmarks of the later part of the twentieth century is the
awakening of the world’s population to the importance of protecting the
earth’s environment. People have bixome aware of the destructive
effects of pollutants to the atmosphere, water supply, soils, and food-
stuffs. We a r e now concerned about the probable decline in the state of
the earth’s environment and the risk to mankind that this presents. As
part of this awakening, increasing focus is being placed on how manu-
facturers and others can act to prevent this decline and ensure that the
environment will renew itself. With an increasingly dense population,
we are beginning to realize that we must produce products that mini-
mize the load that the manufacture, use, and disposal of these products
places on t h e environment. It is clearly preferable to avoid the creation
of polluting materials in the first place, rather than attempting to treat
or otherwise clean up polluted waste after it is generated and dis-
charged.l
Product designers and others who participate in the product realiza-
tion process should choose designs and manufacturing processes that
minimize the amount of toxic waste and provide recyclability of the
product. The awareness of this fact and the design steps that must be
taken to comply with it have been called green design or design for the
environment (DFE).’ Its objective is to minimize adverse environmen-
tal effects from the manufacture, use, and disposal of the product. Note
the use of the word minimize. It would be ideal to eliminate all adverse
environmental impacts but such an ideal is not realistic. What is real-
istic is a design compromise that gives sufficient weighting to environ-
mental factors.
211
Some Common Pollutants from Manufactured Products

Automotive and truck motor oil
Cleaning solvents
Lead-bearing solder
Automotive radiator coolant
Radioactive materials from power plants and hospitals
Exhaust gases from combustion processes in products; in the manufacture of prod-
ucts;in power generation; and from mining, refining, and cleanup activities.
Refrigerant gases
Electrical batteries of all types
Ingredients of household cleaners
Lead-bearing paints
Presently, we seem to live in a throwaway society. Product designers

and marketing people have put a premium on short-term convenience
and our regard for the long-term effects of this approach are minimal.
We use throwaway soft drink bottles, throwaway razors, throwaway
ballpoint pens, throwaway cigarette lighters, and even throwaway
cameras. In earlier times, before the age of plastics, we were satisfied
t o return soft drink, milk, and other bottles for reuse (Fig. 18.1). We
replaced the ink in the pen, the blade in the razor, and the fluid in the
cigarette lighter. Now, we don’t want to be bothered with these things.
The environmental cost of the items that are to be disposed of is viewed
as someone else’s problem.
Part of the problem may be the fact that manufacturers are under
competitive pressure to reduce initial costs and to provide some edge of
short-term convenience for the user. The cost of manufacture is paid by
the manufacturer. The cost of the environmental damage that the prod-
uct m a y generate is paid for by someone else (maybe society as a whole).
Competitive pressures may inhibit the manufacturer from making up-
front expenditures so that later expenditures by others can be avoided.
However, designing for the environment really involves effects over the
entire life of the product, not just its manufacturing phase.
This situation has been recognized in many governmental jurisdic-
tions, where laws have been passed controlling the discharge of pollu-
tants a n d mandating certain recycling. Perhaps the most stringent
laws are in effect in Germany where the manufacturer of a product is
now responsible for the collection and recycling or disposal of its pack-
aging. The law calls for a n average of 80 percent of packaging materi-
als to be recycled by mid-1995. France and Austria have similar laws.
Another pending German law will require many manufacturers to
accept a n d recycle the products themselves (for example, automobiles)
Designing for the Environment 213
Figure 18.1 Two soft drink bottles are shown. The bot-
tle on the left is the more recent design. It has some
desirable features but is not so suitable for recycling.
The cap is the e a s y twist-off variety; no tool is required.
The ring attached to the cap provides proof that the
contents of the bottle have not been tampered with.
Unfortunately, the material of the ring, either alu-
minum or polypropylene, is not compatible with the
glass of the bottle and must be removed before the glass
bottle is recycled. In addition, the label is made not of
paper but of vinyl film, probably to aid in fitting the
curvature of t h e bottle. It also must be removed before
the glass is recycled. So,a design that has some user-
friendly features does not lend itself to environmental-
friendliness. The older bottle on the right, on the other
hand, is composed of only one material (except for the
printing ink used to print the Coke name) and is easily
recycled. This bottle incidentally can be used as is; that
is, it can be cleaned and refilled and sold again. There
is no need to melt and remold the glass into a new bot-
tle. This is still a better design for recycling!
after their useful life ends. This law is expected to take effect in 1995.
The proposed law concentrates on the recycling of the product and not
the hazardousness of its content. It does recognize that 100 percent
recycling is n o t feasible. The objective appears to be to extend the life
of critical landfill space and provide a usable stream of raw materials
in a country that has limited natural resources. The German laws also
apply to foreign-manufactured products that are sold in Germany.
A major social change in the United States in the 1980s was an
awakening ofthe public to the high cost of disposal of waste materials.
The discovery of polluted groundwater supplies from seepage of mixed
wastes and the disease effects of industrial pollution as exemplified by

the Love Canal problem in New York State have awakened the public’s
awareness to the dangers of environmental contamination. Residents
of almost all areas have resisted the creation of nearby landfills. As
landfill space has become more scarce and garbage disposal costs have
greatly increased, various municipalities have instituted waste recy-
cling programs. Chiefly, these have involved such items as newspapers,
aluminum cans, and various glass containers. In some localities, plas-
tic containers have also been included.
Environmental legislation is an increasingly important factor in the
design and recycling activities of industry throughout the developed
world. The expectation is that, in the future, laws will get tougher
Materials That Are Normally Recyclable

Metals
Iron
Steel
Copper
Brass
Aluminum
Lead
Thermoplastics
D Polypropylene
ABS
Polyethylene
Nylon
Acrylic
PVC
Polycarbonate
Thermosetting plastics
Polyurethane (foam or RIM)
SMC (sheet molding compound-polyester resin and glass fibers)
Other materials
Glass (except laminates)
Felts
Wood Products
Fluids
Paper, including corrugated cartons
SOURCE:Ford Motor Company, “Ford Worldwide Recycling Guidelines.”
Note: Economic factors may prevent actual recycling of materials listed above. Ther-
mosetting plastics are recyclable only to a limited degree as fillers in new plastic parts.
rather than easier and they will tax the technical and managerial capa-
bilities of t h e companies that are affected.
Recycling of discarded products and materials is a significant step
but, t o date, has still had only a relatively minor impact on the volume
of waste material placed in landfills. The need to extend recycling to a
greater number of products and other materials has become apparent.
More companies have recently begun to design their products so that
their components and materials can be reused, refurbished, or recy-
cled. (See Fig. 18.2, for example.)
The balance between the cost of recycling-including the cost of col-
lecting and separating recyclable materials-and the value of the
material salvaged is a delicate one. If the cost of collecting, separating,
and handling the material to be recycled is high, the recycling process
may not be economically justifiable even though the material salvaged
is theoretically usable. The feasibility of recycling depends in part on
how easily and how quickly each recyclable material can be removed
from the product and segregated.
Design for recycling and design for disassembly (DFD) are two names
for the approach that facilitates the removal of recyclable materials. It
can be defined as the methodology that is intended to provide products
with easy disassembly and separation of materials so that components
can be reused and materials reprocessed. European firms have taken the
lead in this technique. Electrolux and BMW are two firms that already
have products on the market that were designed with recycling in mind.
Hierarchy of Environmentally Friendly

Product Design
Design for recycling and design for disassembly are not the only aspects
of design for the environment. Serviceability/maintainability, refur-
bishability, and reusability are all attributes in a product’s design that
are preferable to recycling.2 Serviceability/maintainability improve-
ments and enhanced reliability and durability can prolong a product’s
life, delaying the time when it must be disposed of and, in effect, reduc-
ing the overall attendant load that product disposal puts on the envi-
ronment. Making products easily repairable and reusable has the same
beneficial effect. There is less environmental distress and more value
provided when a product is repaired, remanufactured, or reused than
when it is disposed of and replaced by a n ~ t h e rRecycling
.~ allows the
materials in the product to be reused, but the materials cost of a typical
product is only part of its cost, often only a minor part.
Perhaps more important, however, is to design the product without
major environmental hazards. Designs that minimize harmful effects
during manufacture and operation are also more environmentally
friendly. For example, the automobile engine with advanced emission
Wrgn material
Dred rqding
I. ldatied
applicdim
Figure 18.2 The recycling process for a business machine

housing. The part can be reground and used for another
housing or in a totally different application with similar per-
formance requirements.(Courtesy of GE Plastics.)
Materials That May Not Be Economical to Recycle

Laminated materials such as plastics and glass, plastic foam material and vinyl,
plastics and metals, and dissimilar metals
Galvanized (zinc coated) steel
Thermosetting plastics like phenolic, urea, or melamine
Ceramic materials
Parts with glued or riveted or otherwise fastened identification labels made of a dif-
ferent material than the part (for example, paper labels impair the recyclability of
glass and plastic containers)
controls is more environmentally friendly than the one with none; and the
motorcycle or truck with an effective muffler minimizes noise pollution.
The ranking of objectives should be:
1. First choice. If possible, eliminate environmentally unfriendly

materials from the product and manufacturing process.
2. Second choice. If elimination is not possible, reduce the quantity of
such materials.
3. Third choice. Design the product so that components can be reused
with or without refurbishing.
4. Fourth choice. Design the product so that such materials can be
easily recycled.
Unfortunately, choice number one is seldom fully achievable since toxic
materials often provide unique and needed physical properties. Current-
day competitive pressures for desirable product functions and features
and the state of the manufacturing art make it dimcult or unfeasible to
eliminate such materials. Designers are normally limited to reductions
Sources of Environmental-Unfriendliness
Noxious or poisonous fumes or gases
Excessive noise
Hazardous liquids including acids, alkalies, and solvents
Hazardous solid materials, including heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and
arsenic
Safety hazards such as sharp corners or mechanisms that can crush body members
or cause electrical shock
Radioactive materials
Bacterial contamination of food, drink, or materials that will be used in their prepa-
ration
in the amount of pollutants involved and to designing for easy reuse or

recycling. As in all other design matters, trade-offs must be made.
The Scope of Environmental-Friendliness

Environmental effects can originate from every phase of a product's
life. True environmental-friendliness means freedom from or mini-
mized occurrence of effects from the following:
Raw materials
Air, water, and ground pollution from mine tailings and from by-
products of the refining or ore-reduction processes that may affect
workers involved in these operations and residents of the surround-
ing areas
During manufacture
Air, water, and ground pollution from gases, liquids, and solid mate-
rials used in the manufacturing processes and from scrap materials
Similar effects from by-products that may have polluting properties
Noise pollution in the factory
Other safety" or health hazards in the factory, for example, dermati-
tis from machining coolants, electrical shock hazards, or exposure to
strong acids
During distribution and sale

Pollutants and hazards during shipment and handling, including
noise, fumes, or other emissions from the transport equipment used
to move the product from the factory
Potential injury to personnel from the weight of the product, if it is
heavy and if adequate handling devices are not provided
Packaging that is uneconomical to recycle and costly to dispose of in
landfills
During use
Discharge of fumes during its operation, for example, automobile and
truck exhaust
Note: Although safety hazards are enough of a factor in themselves to justify separate
review {see Chap. 17), they are noted here because environmental violations can
adversely affect human safety. The line of demarcation between environmental and
safety hazards is an uncertain one. Environmental hazards may have a slower-acting or
milder effect though they cause human health and other problems, sometimes over a
period o f time, while safety hazards can cause immediate injury or death.
Leakage and discharge during service of fluids and gases such as

refrigerants, coolants, lubricants, and fuel
Safety hazards from the use (or possible misuse) of the product
Noise pollution if the sound level is high during operation
Energy inefficiencies leading to greater power generation and trans-
mission w i t h resulting environmental effects
Disposal after product’s useful life
The consumption of landfill space which otherwise could be put to

productive or recreational uses. If landfills are not used; i.e., the
product is simply dumped somewhere, its unsightly appearance and
greater exposure of any hazards it contains must be considered.
Discharge of polluting fluids and gases in the product, for example,
solvents, refrigerants, and acids.
Hazardous materials within the product which pass to the environ-
ment as the discarded product deteriorates, for example, heavy metals.
Safety hazards inherent in the product. These may be particularly
problematic if the product is disposed of improperly. One unfortu-
nate example is the case of the highly radioactive containers which,
after they were discarded in Mexico, were picked up and played with
by children.
Sometimes the environmental harm is subtle. For example, old rub-
ber tires collect water that becomes a breeding place for mosquitoes.
At best, t h i s is a nuisance for people in the area. At worst, it may be
a source of disease.
Throughout the product cycle
Air, water, and land pollution from the generation of electric power
used during the extraction of raw materials for the product and the
manufacture, distribution, sale, use, and disposal of the product
It can be seen from this discussion that product design is a very
important factor in determining the extent of potential environmental
contamination and that the manufacturing process used is almost as
much a factor. It can also be seen that the life-cycle cost concept of
Taguchi certainly applies to environmental factors since much of the
environmental effect of a product occurs after its manufacture.
Environmental-friendliness, like other DFX objectives, is a factor
that must be addressed up front in the product’s design project. Con-
current engineering can be an effective means to ensure that the design
is environmentally friendly. The CE team should have the active par-
ticipation of an environmental specialist, if possible, to ensure that

environmental issues are not overlooked.
An important part of this early design effort is to select materials
that pose a minimum potential hazard t o the environment, both in the
product itself and in the production process used to make it. An exam-
ple of this is the paint used for finishing the product. If a water-based
paint system is employed, problems from the release of hydrocarbon
fumes will be avoided. These decisions must be made for each compo-
nent of the product. The early design should address the question of
recyclability. For example, can single-component, more easily recy-
clable materials be used instead of composites which may have slightly
better mechanical properties? Can components be designed for easy
disassembly or separation during recycling?
Achieving an Environmentally Friendly Design

The normal need for compromises between conflicting objectives in
product design applies to environmental factors also. In some cases, for
example, easy disassembleability for recycling may involve greater
tooling complexity. More environmentally friendly manufacturing
processes may be less efficient. If a company is to pursue an environ-
mentally friendly approach with its products, there must be some pol-
icy statement to this effect. Management must establish the relative
importance of DFE as a design objective for the product or products
undergoing development and design. This may be easier at the present
time t h a n in the past since consumers have become environmentally
aware. Environmentally friendly products have appeal in the market.
Following this statement of priorities, managing the design of an
environmentally benign product has parallels with the task of design-
ing a product for other desirable attributes. Support must be provided
during the product realization process to ensure that this objective is
sufficiently addressed.
A first requirement, the establishment of a body of knowledge cover-
ing how this objective can be achieved, is under way, and information
is now available from a number of sources. A number of guidelines are
summarized in this chapter. There is room, however, for further devel-
opment in this area, including company-specific guidelines and proce-
dures t o ensure that the company’s product designs are sufficiently
green. This kind of development will tend to occur as the company
undertakes green product design. Guidelines and rules of thumb spe-
cific to the company’s product and operations will arise.
A second requirement is to ensure that such a body of knowledge
becomes available and known to those who will make product design
decisions. This implies training for designers and others who partic-
ipate in a design project. The easiest way to inject a particular con-
sideration into a team design project is to appoint to the concurrent

engineering team an individual who has the particular knowledge
needed. In the case of environmental matters, the company’s envi-
ronmental specialist, if it has one, may not be personally knowledge-
able of the necessary product design guidelines. So, in any case, edu-
cation and training will be called for. If other training is part of the
process of establishing a concurrent engineering effort, environmen-
tal training, particularly involving how product design affects the
environment, is an essential part. Designing for the environment
also must b e an integral part of the stated task objectives of the
design engineering team.
Trade-offs. As noted in the preceding discussion, the achievement
of designs favorable to the environment may involve some compromis-
ing of other objectives. An important part of the CE team’s charter
should be t o make careful judgments in deciding which design or
process alternative to choose when a n environmentally friendly design
alternative has disadvantages for other objectives. Awareness of man-
agement’s stated policy; knowledge of benefits and drawbacks of vari-
ous alternatives; and careful, open-minded judgment must be inherent
in the team’s handling of such decisions. Decisions between major
design and process alternatives should be made, or at least approved,
by the team as a whole.
Recycling Material
According to studies at the Argonne National Research Laboratories,
50 percent of metals in the United States come from re~ycling.~ One
strong advantage of this approach is that it reduces energy consump-
tion in addition to the more obvious advantage of reducing the volume
of material deposited in landfills.
The third advantage, of course, is that it conserves natural resources.
Recycling aluminum uses only 5 percent of the energy required to pro-
duce aluminum from ore. With iron and steel, recycled material
requires only 25 percent of the energy required to produce virgin mate-
rial. Already, about 75 percent of present-day automobiles made in
America are recycled and it is the metal content-steel, cast iron, and
aluminum-that forms the bulk of the recycled material. Because the
costs of recycling of some materials will exceed their value and because
some materials deteriorate over time from such factors as wear and
corrosion, 100percent recycling is not feasible. Recycling plastics is not
as easy nor as economical as recycling metals. There are approximately
250 lb of plastics in 20 varieties in a present-day automobile but, in
many cases, the cost of the separating, cleaning, and recycling opera-
tions for a recycled material exceeds the cost of the corresponding vir-
gin material,
Another commonly recycled component is the catalytic converter

because of its content of platinum and rhodium. If the whole converter
is not remanufactured for use as a replacement part, these precious
metals a r e salvaged when old converters are chopped up and remelted.
Normally, they are used in the manufacture of new converter^.^
Lubricants such as engine oil and transmission fluid can be repro-
cessed into same-as-new materials. The oil in these liquids does not
deteriorate in use; reclaiming involves removing contaminants and the
aged and worn-out additives by distilling the mixture and replacing the
additive^.^
Textiles, glass, and electrical wiring in automobiles are not yet fre-
quently recycled, instead ending up in landfill^.^ The accompanying
table presents information on the past, present, and future condition or
location of automobile parts.
The question of recycling of plastics should become increasingly impor-
tant as automobile manufacturers make a greater portion of each car
and truck’s parts from plastics. One major reason for more plastics is to
gain the operational (and environmental) advantages that come from a
lighter weight. (A lighter weight vehicle tends to use less fuel. Hence, it
reduces the amount of harrnfd emissions.) Plastics recycling may get a
Recycling of Automobile Materials

Present Past Future
Tires Malaysian rubber tree Waste dump
Aluminum wheels Bauxite ore Melted and cast into a new wheel
or other product
Engine block Iron ore Remelted and cast into some cast
iron or steel part.
Engine oil Arabian crude oil Landfill contamination or oil
recycled for use again as lubricat-
ing oil
Windshield Silica sand Waste dumps, Glass containers
Upholstery Virgin polyurethane Shredded for use as auto sound-
resin proofing or toy stuffing.
Platinum in Platinum in catalytic Platinum in catalytic
catalytic converter converter converter
Plastic valve cover Plastic intake manifold Shredded and remolded into
another valve cover
Dashboards Vinyl and urethane Waste dumps
resins
SOURCE:Data from R. Jerome and M. Jaegerman,“The Ultimate Used Car,” The New York
Times Mugmine, October 31,1993,and other sources.
boost if current projects intending to develop pyrolysis processes are suc-

cessful. Pyrolysis involves heating the plastics to a high temperature
(760to 1400°F)in the absence of oxygen. The material decomposes into
base materials that can be reacted and polymerized again into plastic
materials equivalent to those made from raw materials.6
Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors
Corporation have established a three-way research partnership with
the purpose of improving and developing technology to improve the
reuse, recovery, and disposal of plastics and the other nonmetallic con-
stituents, t h e flufi of automobiles. Its goals are to provide means to
increase the portion of these materials that are recycled by improving
materials selection, joining methods, finishing systems, and d e ~ i g n . ~
There a r e a number of phases in a well-functioning recycling pro-
gram, especially if plastics are involved. The steps are:
1. The collection of worn-out products

2. The disassembly of the product and removal of noncompatible
materials
3. The sorting of different materials
4. Cleaning and grinding of materials as necessary
5. Quality checking and upgrading of materials
6. Conversion into quality-consistent, usable materials
The following factors will have a favorable effect on the economic via-
bility of recycling:
1. An effective, economical system for gathering worn-out products
2. Rapid disassembly of these products and easy separation of materi-
als, which is a function of whether and how well the product has
been designed for recycling
3. Non-labor-intensive sorting of materials to be recycled
4. Low-cost cleaning processes
5. Increasing costs of the alternatives to recycling-the prices of virgin
material and the costs of deposition of waste material into landfills
or of incinerations
Composite materials are a problem in recycling because the con-
stituent materials may not be economically separable and the minor
material m a y contaminate the base material. For example, the lead
content of brass and bronze impairs the recovery of copper and brass.
Antimony in scrap aluminum is also a problem as is phosphorous in
copper alloys. Zinc coating of steel is tolerable if the percentage of zinc
is low but if it is too high, the steel is not usable for standard applica-
tions. (This is posing a serious problem in the recycling of automotive

materials. Zinc plating and galvanizing has come into increasing use in
the automotive industry as a means of increasing corrosion resistance
and extending the operating life of automobiles; however, the increased
zinc content that this produces in the scrap material is an obstacle to
its recycling. There is, therefore, a conflict between design for reliabil-
ity of this material and design for recyclability. Processes are under
development to aid in the removal of excess zinc from scrap steel. Cur-
rent practice is primarily limited to dilution; that is, zinc-free steel
scrap is blended with zinc-containing steel scrap.)
Recycling Metals
Metals a r e and have been for some time the most heavily recycled class
of materials. Recycling of iron and steel scrap started in the United
States in 1642 when the first iron furnace was built in Massachusetts.
On the average, 70 percent of the iron and steel currently produced in
the United States is made from scrap material, including home scrap
(scrap generated inside the mill) and 30 percent is made from ore.*
Nearly 6 5 percent of aluminum cans is currently being recycled,
amounting to approximately 1.7 billion lb per year.g
Many other metals have similarly high recycling rates. Metals can be
more easily separated from other materials by melting and in the case
of ferrous materials, by magnetic separation. Metals tend to be conta-
minated less than other materials by the recycling process. Recycled
metals a r e normally indistinguishable from those from virgin sources.
Recycling Plastic Materials

Plastic materials are not as easily recycled as metals for several rea-
sons. They are lighter in weight and often hollow or semihollow in
shape ,making them bulky to store and transport. Additionally, where
metals, upon being melted, are or can be treated to have exactly the
same properties as their virgin metal equivalents, there may be some
degradation of properties of recycled plastics due to process and envi-
ronmental factors.
Heating and reheating, especially if overheating takes place, may
diminish the mechanical properties of thermoplastics. Exposure to
ultraviolet light; solvents; aggressive cleaning compounds; or certain
paints, adhesives, or other plastics, as well as exposure to various envi-
ronmental hazards, may have the same effect. Often, when plastics are
recycled they are made into components used in less stressful applica-
*From US.Department of Mines data, 1989-1993.

tions than the original part faced prior to recycling. However, with
“optimal processing and clean recycling procedures, resins can be recy-
cled in excess of three or four times without losing more than 5 1 0 %of
their original strength and cosmetic properties.”s
Unfortunately, however, only about 3 percent of discarded plastic
materials are currently recycled. This is despite the recycling symbol of
the Society for the Plastics Industry that appears on most plastic con-
tainers (a triangle of three chasing arrows with a number from one to
seven in t h e center which indicates the type of plastic). The higher
priced engineering plastics (e.g., polycarbonate, nylon, or acetal) have
more favorable economics for recycling because of a greater difference
between the price of virgin material and the cost of recycling. The more
common commodity plastics (e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, or poly-
styrene) do not provide as high a comparative price for virgin material
to allow for recycling costs. However, certain high-use items like poly-
ethylene milk bottles are being successfully recycled. According to data
from the Plastics Recycling Foundation, currently about 10 percent of
water, milk, and juice bottles is being recycled as is 25 percent of poly-
ethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. lo
The recycling of rubber products, especially automobile tires, would
benefit greatly from the development of a good use for the shredded
material the process produces. Shredded rubber is now being tested as
an additive for asphalt paving material.
Plastic automobile bumpers are a prime item for recycling with Ger-
man-made cars since they are normally easy to separate from the rest
of the car and contain a large amount of plastic. Reclaimed material
can be molded into new bumpers5 or interior panels.ll
Recycling modes for plastics can be ranked as follows:
1. First choice. Recover materials which have properties equivalent to

that of virgin material.
2 . Second choice. Recover materials which have lesser properties and
which are suitable for production of products having less demanding
requirements.
3. Third choice. Recover usable chemicals and fuels from the recycled
plastics.
4. Fourth choice. Use the plastics as fuel for the generation of heat or
electricity. lo
Design Guidelines for DFE

Much overlap exists between the principles that can guide design for the
environment and those that guide design for other desirable attributes
such as ease of assembly (DFA) and ease ofservice (DFS). Parts that are
easy to separate for recycling usually are also easy to remove for replace-
ment or to provide access for service of other elements of the product.12
Much of what the designer can do to aid the environment involves pro-
viding easy disassembly for recycling. Products that are easily assem-
bled following good DFA practice will oRen prove to be more easily dis-
assembled for recycling. However, in some cases designs that are
environmentally compatible may have drawbacks from the standpoint of
cost, appearance, quality, or other objectives. There is both overlap and
conflict with other objectives in some of the guidelines below. Care must
be taken in evaluating the effects of any design change.
Some guidelines that particularly emphasize the environment are
presented here.
1. Make sure that everyone involued in the product design fully
understands DFE principles and design guidelines. (If concurrent engi-
neering is involved, the whole product realization team should have
this understanding.*) DFE and other environmentally friendly
approaches should be invoked in the product concept and early design
phases when changes are more easily made and at lower cost.2
2. Avoid as much as possible .the use of toxic materials in the prod-
uct and in its manufacturingprocess. This is a simple rule to state and
a difficult one to implement, since competitive market forces dictate
certain product performance and price standards that make it uncom-
petitive for a company to choose a less effective but more environmen-
tally suitable alternative. Sometimes the development of a suitable
alternative can require a major research project. For example, the
replacement of freon refrigerant with a material that does not reduce
atmospheric ozone is a monumental industry-wide project. Searching
for or developing an effective substitute for chlorinated cleaning sol-
vents involves a similarly major upheaval in industries, like printed
circuit board manufacture, that require effective cleaning or degreas-
ing agents. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunities in some
products for designers to replace a toxic material with one that is more
benign, with little or no loss of effectiveness.
3. Design the product and its components to be reusable, refurbish-
able, o r recyclable.1Most importantly, design the product so that it or
its major components can be recycled as a whole, not just for the recla-
mation of the materials it contains. In other words, design it to ease
eventual refurbishing or remanufacture. Common examples of this are
the automotive components that have been rebuilt for use as spare
parts for years. Carburetors can be made as good as new if the unit is
disassembled and the wearable parts and seals are replaced. Similar
rebuilding takes place with automatic transmissions and engines at a
great benefit to the environment because not only is disposal delayed,
but the environmental effects of manufacture of replacement compo-
nents i s avoided.
Most German automobile manufacturers have established plants for

rebuilding mechanical assemblies: for example, engines, rear axles,
water pumps, starters, and generators. The rebuilt units are then sold
as replacement p a r k 5 Again, adherence to this rule is no minor matter
since it probably will involve a major strategic change for the company's
product management. However, such a change should be considered
when the potential environmental cost reduction is significant. With
current emphasis on environmental matters, such an approach may
turn out to have marketing advantages. Computer printer cartridges
are now being rebuilt by Cannon and Xerox to as-new ~0ndition.l~
4. Minimize the number of parts. The fewer the parts, the easier it
is to sort materials for recycling. Avoid designs that use separate parts
of dissimilar materials, such as metal hinges fastened to plastic hous-
ing members rather than integral hinges. When a number of parts are
combined into one more complex part, both factory assembly and dis-
assembly for recycling are aided.
5 . Minimize the amount of material in the product. This is a guide-
line that is so obvious that it can easily be overlooked. However, the
less the amount of material involved, the simpler the eventual disposal
problem when the product has reached the end of its useful life, and the
less pollution generated from the energy required to make it and the
process required to make it. Less material also means that eventually
it will need less landfill space. If the product is mobile, less energy is
required to move it if it is not so heavy. If it is handled manually, there
is a reduced possibility of injury to the person who handles it if it is not
so heavy and, probably, a reduced possibility of damage to it and other
objects and less packaging to protect it. By designing for processes that
minimize material scrap, designers can achieve comparable benefits to
designing smaller and lighter parts. Designing for processes that pro-
vide near-net-shape is one approach."
Particular benefits can be obtained if packaging materials are mini-
mized. Studies have shown that packaging material is one of the major
elements of waste material now placed into landfills. Often, a fancy or
elaborate package may be wanted for marketing purposes, but the mar-
keting benefits may, in such a case, conflict with the objective of sim-
plifying the disposal of the packaging after the product has reached the
consumer. As an example of what can be accomplished, it is reported
that the German affiliate of Whirlpool Corporation reduced the num-
ber of appliance packaging materials from 20 to 4 and thereby reduced
disposal costs by more than 50 percent.l*
6. Avoid the use of separate fasteners, i f possible. Some portions of
these fasteners may be retained in basic parts and contaminate them
for recycling. Snap-fit connections between parts are preferable
*Near-net-shapeprocesses are defined in Chap. 13.

This
Figure 18.3 Avoid separate fasten-
ers if possible. Use snap fits. These
have both assembly and environ-
Screwdriver mental advantages. Note that this
to release snap-fit design permits easy disas-
upper part. sembly if necessary.
U
because they do not introduce a dissimilar material. Also, they are
often easier to disassemble with simple tools.s (See Fig. 18.3.)
7. Utilize the minimum number of screw head types and sizes used
in fasteners in one product or portion of the product. This is so that the
recycler does not have to change the tool used to loosen and remove fas-
teners. The objective is to be able to disassemble in one area (such as
the interior of a vehicle) with only one t00l.l~
8. Use the fewest number of fasteners so as to reduce the disassem-
bly time. If possible, make the fastener and the part to be salvaged from
the same material.I5 (See Fig. 18.4.)
9. Design parts so that fasteners are easily visible and accessible to
aid in disassembly. (It must be recognized, however, that this objective
may conflict with the desire to hide fasteners for aesthetic reasons.)
Since, a t the time of disassembly, the product may not be operative,
designers should endeavor to make the fasteners accessible even if the
mechanisms of the product cannot be moved. (See Fig. 18.5.)For exam-
ple, the motor which drives a powered window or other accessory of an
automobile should be accessible in any window position, recognizing
that t h e window may not be moveable when the car is being disassem-
bled f o r re~yc1ing.l~
10. Design the product to be easily disassembled, i f possible, even i f
some parts are corroded. The designer should recognize that the prod-
uct m a y be subject to outdoor exposure or other corrosive environments
prior to disassembly and should design it, if possible, to be easily dis-
assembled even if some parts have become corroded.15
11. Minimize the number of different materials in a product. This
will reduce the sorting of parts necessary for recycling. Standardize
Feasible Better
Figure 18.4 Use the fewest number of fasteners possible.
Again, this has both assembly and environmental advan-
tages. (From the Handbook of Product Design for Manufac-
turing, McGraw-Hill, New York.)
Not this
This Figure 18.5 Ensure that fasten-

ers are easily visible to facilitate
disassembly for both service and
recycling.
materials as much as possible, consistent with performance require-

ments. If possible, avoid the use of multiple colors in a part or any paint
on a plastic part. Avoid dissimilar materials that cannot be separated
or are difficult to separate from the basic materials. Examples are ther-
mosetting adhesives, paint, and other nonmelting materials. Thermo-
plastic materials are preferred to thermoset materials since the latter
cannot be recycled by remelting. Solvent, friction, or ultrasonic welding
of plastics is preferable to adhesive bonding. If adhesive bonding is to
be used, it is advisable to find a n adhesive material that is compatible
when the components are recycled.* Water-soluble adhesives for labels
and other items facilitate separation during recycling. Welded joints in

metals are preferable to brazed or soldered joints.
Minimizing the variety of materials may run counter to the practice
of using lower-cost materials for less-stressed or less-critical parts.
There may be a conflict between initial manufacturing cost objectives
and the lifetime cost of the product, including recycling.
12. Choose materials that are compatible and can be recycled
together, if the number of different materials cannot be reduced for rea-
sons of manufacturing economics or other reasons. This can reduce or
eliminate the amount of disassembly required during recycling.8
13. Avoid the use of composite materials like glass or metal-rein-
forced plastics. This is recommended because the separation of the
reinforcement from the basic material is not feasible. Also avoid metal-
plated plastics for the same reason. However, these are cases where
design compromises may be necessary. It should be noted that rein-
forced materials typically have high strength-to-weight and strength-
to-stiffness ratios, very desirable properties in many cases. Similarly,
plated plastics provide an economical way to provide the attractiveness
of bright plated surfaces. In a competitive marketplace, aesthetics and
other characteristics are not frivolous. An uneducated consuming pub-
lic may demand features that are not environmentally friendly. The
designer will have to decide which objective is most important for the
application and be guided accordingly. Maximum environmental
friendliness may not be possible.
14. Standardize components to aid in eventual refurbishing of prod-
ucts. If major elements are standardized, they can be salvaged and
reused more easily when similar product models are remanufactured.
For example, if several varieties of agricultural equipment use the
same hydraulic cylinders and valves, a component from one model may
be interchanged with another available from a different model when
the equipment is being refurbished.
15. Use molded-in nomenclature rather than labels or separate
namepzates for product identification. If a separate label must be used
on a plastic part, choose a label material and adhesive that are com-
patible with the material of the base part.
16. Use modular designs. These simplify disassembly as well as
assembly. For example, put all controls in one module to facilitate sep-
aration of control components from structural or functional members.
17. Wherever feasible (e.g., in molded and cast parts) identify the
material from which the part is made right on the part. This is now a
standard practice at Ford Motor Company for all plastic parts.* Both
Ope1 a n d Mercedes-Benz use standard designations like PUR for
*Personalcommunicationduring my visit to Ford's Milan, Michigan,plastics molding

plant on October 6, 1991.
polyurethane to identify plastic ~omponents.~ It is an economical step

for cast or molded parts since the identification can be incorporated
into the mold and no additional part operations are needed. Whirlpool
Corporation has also begun to identify the material in plastic parts
weighing more than 50 g (1.8 O Z ) . ' ~ Whirlpool has chosen the Society of
Automotive Engineers designation system. (See Fig. 18.6.)Figure 18.7
illustrates standard Society for the Plastics Industry (SPI) symbols for
Symbols for Marking Plastic Parts

ABS Acrylonitdehutadiene/styrene
CAB Cellulose acetate butyrate
EP Epoxide; epoxy
EC Ethyl cellulose
PA6 6 Polyamide (Nylon 6)
PA11 11Polyamide (Nylon 11)
PB Polybutane-1
PC Polycarbonate
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
UP Polyester, thermoset (unsaturated) (SMC,BLC, Tn
PE Polyethylene
PE-LLD Polyethylene, linear low density
PE-HD Polyethylene, high density
PE-UHMW Polyethylene, ultra-high molecular weight
PMMA Poly (methyl methacrylate) (Acrylic)
POM Polyoxymethylene; polyformaldehyde (Acetal)
PP Polypropylene
PS Polystyrene
PSU Polysulfone
FTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
PUR Polyurethane, thermoset (unsaturated)
PVAC Poly (vinyl acetate)
PVAL Poly (vinyl alcohol)
PVC Poly (vinyl chloride)
PW Poly (vinyl fluoride)
PVDC Poly (vinylidene chloride)
SI Silicone
SAN Styrene/acrylonitrile
TPUR Polyurethane (thermoplastic elastomer)
Figure 18.6 The Society of Automotive Engineers Plastics Identification Sys-

tem (Courtesy of the Society ofdutomotiue Engineers. From SAB Specifica-
tion J1344.)
Coding System for Plastic Containers

to Identify Material Type
&J Polyethylene terephthalate
PETE
&J High density polyethylene
HDPE
Polyvinyl chloride (Vinyl)
L
& LOW density polyethylene
LDPE
9
LJ Polypropylene
PP
&+A Polystyrene
PS
all other resins
OTHER
Figure 18.7 The Packaging Materials Identification
System of the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI).
(Courtesy ofthe Society of the Plastics Industry.)
Designingfor the Environment 233
identifying plastic container materials. Other recognizable symbols are

specified in standards VDA 260, DIN 6120, and IS0 1043.8
Bar coding of material designations is a potential improved method
that is under development. If the bar code is incorporated in the mold
or die from which the part is made and if read automatically by a scan-
ning device, the separation and classification of reclaimed material will
be facilitated.'
Color coding of parts, especially plastic parts where color can be
incorporated in the material, may also be a useful means of material
identification, at least of the materials in one product.8
18. Make separation points between parts as clearly visible as possi-
ble. This is s o that, when the product is disassembled for recycling, it
can be done by persons unfamiliar with it. (See Fig. 18.8.)
19. Avoid designs that require spray-painted finishes. Use powder
coating, roll-coated stock or dip painting to avoid the need for environ-
mentally damaging solvents. Better still, if the parts are plastic, use
molded-in color which is solvent-free and more compatible with the
base material when recycling takes place.
20. Provide predetermined break areas, i f needed. In those cases
where fasteners or other parts are not easily removable (as in the case
of tamper-proof, nonloosenable fasteners), it is advisable to provide
predetermined break areas so that the contaminating fastener can be
separated from the material to be recycled. Figure 18.9illustrates this.
21. Use a woven-metal mesh instead of metal-filled material for
welding thermoplastics. Some processes for welding thermoplastics
involve the use of metal-filled material as a means of concentrating
electromagnetic melting energy. Designs involving this approach are
generally not desirable for recycling. When metal is used, the preferred
approach is the use of a woven metal mesh that can be removed from
the recycled product by the application of electric current.8
This
Actess point for
s w t i n g twl
/
Figure 18.8 Make separation points clearly visible and
accessible to separation tools. The use of friction, spin
welding, or solvent adhesives is also preferable from a
recycling standpoint since noncompatible materials will
thereby not be introduced.
Figure 18.9 Predeterminedbreak points allow for easy separation of fasteners

that may be incompatible with the recycling stream. (Courtesy of GE Plastics.)
22. Design the product to utilize recycled materials from other

sources. If usable in the application contemplated, recycled materials
normally will be lower in cost than virgin materials.
Scoring Systems for DFE

The task of the product designer or design team can be aided if a sys-
tem is available that allows alternative designs to be evaluated in
terms o f their effect on the environment. A DFE scoring system can
allow t h e greenness of the design and its components to be quantified.
The scoring system can consider such factors as the environmental
merit o f the materials used, the ease of separation of various materials,
t h e relative weight of recyclable material and nonrecyclable material,
and whether the components are marked for easy identification of the
material in a recycling center.
AT&T Bell Laboratories is developing such a system for AT&T prod-

ucts. The system, when complete, will provide a numerical score or rat-
ing, w i t h the higher score indicating a design that is more friendly from
the environmental standpoint. An interesting aspect of the system is
that i t will advise the designer where scoring points were lost so that
deficient components can be reexamined and possibly impr0ved.l Thus,
the designer will be able to improve the product design further and can
evaluate how much improvement was made.
The Boothroyd-Dewhurst design-for-service (DFS) software pack-
age c a n also enable the designer to evaluate the disassembly time for
the product when it is recycled. It can also provide a n ease of disas-
sembly score as well as a n estimate of disassembly time. Both can be
used t o compare designs and stimulate the designer to provide an
improved design. The package, however, does not rate the environ-
mental hazard or consider recyclability of various materials as does
the AT&T system, but Peter Dewhurst has described a formula, not
part o f this program, for calculating a recycling efficiency index for
manufactured products. The following data must be developed and
entered into the formula: the value of reclaimed parts from a product;
the cost of disposal of the product; the time required to disassemble it,
at least partially, for recycling; and the theoretical maximum reclaim
value i f all materials and components were re~yc1ed.l~ All of these
affect the recycling efficiency index.
&Star is a computerized design-for-environment tool developed at
. ~ program is intended to aid the engi-
Carnegie-Mellon U n i ~ e r s i t yThe
neer when making a trade-off between recycling cost and the benefits
that arise from reduced environmental distress. Environmental dis-
tress i s reduced if the product is partly or completely recovered, reman-
ufactured, or recycled. The program aids the designer in determining:
Timing and cost of disassembly for recycling

Best choice of materials for compatibility in recycling
Best method of joining parts
How far to go in disassembly
The recommendation as to how far to go in disassembly may be the

prime feature of the program. It balances the revenue (and/or savings)
to be expected from recycling with the costs of recycling. The revenue
would result from the sale of recycled parts and materials and from
savings in landfill costs. The cost of recycling is primarily the labor cost
of disassembling the product for recycling. For most products, 100 per-
cent recycling is not economically feasible. Some parts may be reusable
or recyclable; others must be disposed of in landfills. The program aids
i n determining how much of the product can be feasibly recycled.
References
1. W. J . Glantschnig, Design for Environment (DFE):A Systematic Approach to Green
Design in a Concurrent Engineering Environment, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Prince-
ton, N.J.
2. S. Ashley, “Designing for the Environment,” Mechanical Engineering, March 1993.
3. D. Navin-Chandra, ReStar, a Design for Environment Tool, Carnegie-Mellon Uni-
versi ty, Pittsburgh, Pa.
4. “Design for Disassembly,” Session 8 8 ,National Design Conference,Chicago, March
9,1993, Fred Dudek, Argonne National Laboratories; Roy Watson, GE Plastics; Dr.
Louis T. Dixon, Ford Motor Company.
5. B. Siuru, “From Scrap Heap to Showroom,” Mechanical Engineering, November
1990-
6. “Composites Recycling Heats Up,” Manufacturing Engineering, May 1993.
7. ”Auto Plastic Recycling,” Mechanical Engineering, May 1992.
8. Design for Recycling (booklet), GE Plastics, Pittsfield, Mass.
9. J. R. Luoma,““rash Can Realities,” Audubon, March 1990.
10. Design for Recyclability and Reuse of Automotive Plastics, various authors, SAE
publication SP-867, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa., 1991.
11. F. Protzman, “Germany’s Push to Expand the Scope of Recycling,” The New York
Times,July 4,1993.
12. “Built to Last-Until It’s Time to Take It Apart,”Business Week, September 17,1990.
13. “Design for Recycling,” Appliance Manufacturer, May 1993.
14. S. Ashley, “Designing for the Environment,”Mechanical Engineering, March 1993.
15. “Ford Worldwide Recycling Guidelines,” Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Mich., 1993
(aonepage summary).
16. J. Constance, “Can Durable Goods Be Designed for Disposability?” Mechanical Engi-
neering, June 1992.
17. P. Dewhurst, “Disassembly by Design,” Assembly, April 1993.
18. J. Holusha, “Making Disposal Easier, by Design,” New York Times Business Day,
May 28,1991.
19. T. J. David and P. Siebert, “Design and Environmental Responsibility,” Product
Design and Development, February 1992.
20. D. Kimball, Recycling in America, ABC-Clio, 1992.
21. The McGraw-Hill Recycling Handbook, New York,1993.
22. J. R. Koelsch, “Waste Not, Want Not,” Manufacturing Engineering, May 1993.
Chapter
19
Designing for
User-Friendliness
“Designing an object to be simple and clear

takes at least twice as long as the usual way.
It requires concentration at the outset on how
a clear and simple system would work, fol-
lowed by the steps required to make it come
out that way-steps which are often much
harder and more complex than the ordinary
ones. It also requires relentless pursuit of that
simplicity even when obstacles appear which
would seem to stand in the way of
simplicity. T. H. NELSON,
T h e Home Computer Revolution
This chapter covers subject matter that could also be titled, Designing
for Human Factors or Designing for Ergonomics. (These designations
are, in many cases, really interchangeable. Ergonomics and human fac-
tors engineering have largely the same meaning.?
Human factors engineering, according to an NCR corporation report,
is “designing products that are easy t o understand, safe, and in proper
scale to the human form. Most important, designing products that com-
plement the way people think and act is the keystone to constructing
design e~cellence.”~ Ergonomics has been defined as the discipline that
attempts to provide harmony between people and the products they
use, to make products fit people we11.4 Emphasis is on physical factors
of the product user: reach, strength, cardiovascular capability, cogni-
tion, and cumulative musculoskeletal i n j ~ r y It. ~attempts to get the
best possible performance from the user while avoiding unnecessary
strain or injury to the user!
User-friendly, as we define it, means the same thing but it includes,
more specifically, ease of operation, reliability of results in the initial
use and repeatedly thereafter, and user satisfaction with the operation
237
of the product. Operational information and control factors are impor-

tant, for example, the presentation of operational data, the user’s per-
ception of it, and how it correlates with the product’s operation.
All products have some degree of human-product interface, both in
operation and maintenance. Therefore, the subject of integrating the
two is a n important one in product design. User-friendliness should be
considered at the concept stage of design, since changes to improve ease
of use may be expensive or not feasible later in the design cycle. The
best way to ensure adequate attention to user-friendliness is to include
a human-factors specialist in the design team.
In t h e Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, the SME
reports that “good human factors design of the product and process will
reduce errors and accidents in manufacture and use. In some industries
(like electronics), most service calls are to correct customer setup and
operation error^."^ User-friendly design is particularly important when
the user of the product is not a specialist in operating it. However, many
designers have only scant cognizance of user-friendly principles.
User-friendliness should be a prime objective of product design since
all products are intended to fulfill some need of users.7 A good product
enhances or extends human ~ a p a b i l i t yUser-friendliness
.~ maximizes
the utility of a product, improving its efficiency, safety, and comfort.
Products that are most successful in providing ease of use will normally
have greater value and be most successful commercially.
The following are the major measurable human factors goals of a
product or system as expressed by Shneiderman:
1. Short learning time for operation or use of the product
2. Speedy performance
3. Low rate of errors by users
4. Subjective satisfaction
5. Retention of operating skill over time’
Gross’s goals are similar and somewhat overlapping:

1. Accommodate all customers
2. Maximize ease of use
3. Increase customer satisfaction4
The goal of avoiding physical problems for the users could be added
t o these lists. These problems would include muscle strains or other
trauma due to awkward work positions, repetitive stresses, or the need
t o apply extreme force.
Good user-friendliness is particularly vital in life-critical systems
like “airtraffic control, nuclear reactor operation, power utility control,
Designing for User-Friendliness 239
medical intensive care or surgery, manned spacecraft, police or fire dis-

patch, and military operations.”l For less critical operations, user-
friendliness is still important.
A successful human factors design must accommodate human diver-
sity in physical size and capabilities, cognitive and perceptual abilities,
and personality differences. Considerations of psychology and educa-
tion as well as human physical factors are normally involved.6 The
design must also allow for the casual user as well as the regular, fre-
quent operator.
The approach will become increasingly important in the United
States as its population gradually ages. By 2020, approximately one-
third of the population will be over 55. Designing products so that they
can be used by the visually impaired and those with limited mobility
and strength will become essential. The population of older and
impaired persons will become a market that will be large enough to jus-
tify special attention from manufacturers of consumer products.8 Prod-
ucts suitable for the elderly as well as others are sometimes referred to
as transgenerational. Another term, coined by Whirlpool Corporation,
is universal design to denote products designed for persons with lim-
ited capabilities but usable with ease by a n y ~ n e Figure
.~ 19.1 illus-
trates one such product.
The Effect of Microelectronics

The use of microelectronics can drastically change the user-friendli-
ness of a product. On one hand, it permits inexpensive addition of auto-
matic controls and other functions so that greater user-friendliness can
be designed into a product. Electronic circuits can take over functions
that previously required operator attention and decision. The designer
can often increase the ease of use of the product by incorporating items
such as signal lights, buzzers, or chime sounds. On the other hand, the
Figure 19.1 This vegetable peeler

has a large, soft, comfortable han-
dle intended especially for elderly
and other persons with limited
gripping capability. However, it
is also more convenient for all
persons. (Courtesy of Good Grip
Products, 0 x 0 International.)
use of microelectronics tends to hide the operation of the product from

the user. With mechanical and electromechanical products, the func-
tions tend to be somewhat obvious: linkages and connections may be
visible and traceable and more easily visualized, even if covered. There
is often an audible clue, a click or a thump, that indicates that the con-
trol change has been made.
With microelectronics, the control functions may be hidden in a tiny
circuit. Consider the wristwatch. A mechanical watch is quite straight-
forward in its operation and in setting. The user knows from prior expe-
rience with other watches that the stem controls the positions of the
hands. A digital, electronic watch may have a number of added fea-
tures, for example, calendar and stopwatch, that are very easy to incor-
porate because they require only additional circuit elements. But the
electronic watch may not be so easy to set. Which unlabeled push but-
ton resets the watch? All the easily added features may actually make
the product user-unfriendly. Figure 19.2 illustrates an electronic
pocket watch with this problem.
Methodologyof User-Friendly Design

The t a s k of achieving user-friendly design in a product is not signifi-
cantly different in method from the task of achieving other desirable
attributes. The designer must understand what is needed, conceive
various ways in which the objective can be met, evaluate the different
alternatives, and detail the conceptual design chosen. As with other
attributes, it is difficult for one designer to have all the knowledge and
ALARM CARD
Figure 19.2 This pocket digital alarm watch has five

functions: time, date, hourly chime, second hand, and
alarm. However, only two control buttons set them or
cause them to be displayed! "he design may have
manufacturabilityadvantages but user-friendliness
suffers. Complicating the process of operating the
watch is the fact that the button marked mode is
used to s e t the time or date while the button marked
set changes the mode displayed!
experience needed to optimize the particular attribute. As noted previ-

ously, a team approach with a user-friendliness specialist as part of the
team is the best way, perhaps the only really effective way, to ensure
that ease-of-use principles are incorporated in the new product.
User-friendly design requires a full understanding of the users.
What are their expectations, abilities, backgrounds? It is not possible
to design a user-friendly product without this knowledge. Gaining
such an understanding is the first step of user-friendly product design.
The user of a product is not only the person who purchases it. Others
may operate it. Still others may have some operating contact with it:
the salesman who demonstrates it, the person who purchases it but
may not be the regular user, the person who installs it and probably
tests it, the serviceperson who maintains or repairs it, even the person
who disposes of it after it has finished its useful life, all come in con-
tact with the product and may have to operate it to some degree. There
may even be a need for emergency use of the product in the event of a n
accident or disaster of some kind. (For example, the use of a pay tele-
phone in the event of a fire or crime when the user may neither have
the proper change for the telephone call nor know the number of the
fire or police station. The 911 system has been designed as a user-
friendly approach to such use.) All such uses of the product should be
considered when it is designed.
Casual use of a product by others who are not the regular users
places an additional burden on the designer since such persons do not
have the opportunity to be trained in the product's operation; much
more in the product-user interface must be obvious. If the designer can
design the product to be friendly to the casual user, the problem with
the regular user will be simplified.
Methods applicable to user-friendly design include user analysis,
task analysis, and biomechanics.
User analysis. This involves an investigation to learn who will have
interest in the operation of the product, both primary users and occa-
sional operators. Consideration is given to how each of these users
will interface with the product so that it can be designed to be
friendly to each of them. Some priorities may have to be established
between t h e interests of different kinds of users.
Task analysis. This involves a review of the human actions neces-
sary for t h e operation of the product. The operation is divided into a
series of tasks and subtasks and each is analyzed in terms of the
muscular forces required, the frequency of application, the posture
required, t h e information needed by the users, the mental processes
gone through by the users, the action taken by them, and the envi-
ronment involved. Environmental factors are noise, illumination,
motion a n d vibration, and climate (temperature, air velocity, and
humidity). Designs are then made to optimize these factors and min-
imize their adverse effects.
Biomechanics. This is an interdisciplinary field that combines
physics, engineering, and medicine to analyze forces acting on body
members and joints. It is applicable during an activity and while the
user i s at rest between elements of an operation. Biomechanics is a
quantitative procedure that utilizes principles of statics and dynam-
ics. I t involves the following: quantifying motions, measuring body
forces, quantifying body stresses, measuring accommodation and fit,
quan tifymg fatigue, and evaluating ~omfort.~
Testing user-friendliness is fully as important as testing other design

attributes. It is essential, for test validity, for the testing to take place
under actual customer use conditions. Field testing of prototype units
by persons who are potential customers is necessary. Laboratory test-
ing may not be sufficient, particularly if the testers are technical per-
sonnel somewhat familiar with the product’s operation. If testing must
be performed at a laboratory, potential customers should be brought in
to use t h e product so that a fresh viewpoint is obtained. Operating con-
ditions during the lab test should, as much as possible, duplicate con-
ditions in the customer’s setting.
In any case, users’ reactions during testing should be careMly
recorded and summarized so that maximum advantage can be obtained
from them. If there are questions about specific alternatives relating to
user-friendliness, for example, the location of displays, controls, or
other elements, it may be advisable to survey the test users of the prod-
uct for their preferences.
Principles of User-Friendliness
Often, there is overlap between user-friendliness and other desirable
product attributes; for example, user-friendliness correlates with safety.
The product whose operating system is obvious and straightforward is
less prone to operator errors that could cause accidents. (See Fig. 17.1.)
The product that is easy to service is often easy to operate. Easy service-
ability a n d easy operation often go hand-in-hand. High reliability also
provides a form of user-friendliness. However, user-friendliness objec-
tives may conflict with manufacturability and other attributes. Figure
19.3illustrates an example with a simple product, a box of matches.
Box 19.1 and the following list give some key principles of user-
friendliness.
Fit the product to the users. The operation of the product should con-
form to the users, both physically and mentally. It should accommodate
the user’s background and make use of the user’s knowledge and
Figure 19.3 The box of matches has a cover that is fine from a
DFA standpoint. The cover can be assembled in one of two
ways; this minimizes the positioning motions that the assem-
bler must make. The only problem is that the user can’t tell
whether the box is right-side up or upside down and has a 50-
50 chance of spilling matches when the box is opened. This is
a good example ofhow ease of assembly can sometimes conflict
with user-friendliness.
BOX 19.1
Eleven Principles of User-Friendly Design

1. Fit the product to the user’s physical attributes and knowledge.
2. Simplify t h e structure of the user’s tasks.
3. Make the controls and their functions obvious.
4. Use mappings.
5. Utilize constraints to prevent incorrect actions.
6. Provide feedback.
7. Display operating information clearly.
8. Make controls easy to handle.
9. Anticipate human errors.
10. Avoid awkward and extreme motions for the user.
11. Standardize!
Based primarily on material in The Design ofEueryday Things by Donald Norman.’o
habits. This includes specialized knowledge that the user may have
but, preferably, general knowledge that many people in the population
possess. Norman calls this “knowledge in the wor1d.”loAn example of
this general knowledge is the fact that red traffic lights mean stop and
green ones mean go. Another is clockwise motion. Higher readings of
dial instruments are almost always-and always should be-in a clock-
wise direction. Knobs almost always tighten by being turned in the
clockwise direction. Sound user-friendly design utilizes this common
knowledge to improve the usability of a product.
Similar relationships exist in the specialized knowledge that certain

persons acquire as a result of their occupations, hobbies, and other activ-
ities. Product controls and operations that follow the pattern of com-
monly known relationships will be easier to use and less prone to error.
The designer should also allow for different levels of skill and knowl-
edge among the product's users. The occasional user may not have the
skill and knowledge of the regular operator.
Products should also fit the user in the physical sense. Product
dimensions should be compatible with human dimensions; activating
forces required should be compatible with human strength; the direc-
tion of motions should be consistent with the natural movement direc-
tion of the human body. Postures and operating positions should be
comfortable and not awkward. Figure 19.4 illustrates a design which
did not provide a particularly good human fit.
Simplify tasks. Control operations should have a minimum number of

steps, and they should be straightforward. They should minimize the
amount of planning, problem solving, and decision making required.
The designer can use technology to simplify tasks, particularly if the
task involves the processing of information.l" (One simple example, in
personal computers, is the use of macro commands to combine a more
complex series of keystrokes into one requiring only a single stroke or
a short sequence.) From a user-friendliness standpoint, products must
have perceived simplicity even if they are not fully simple internally.
Perceived simplicity exists when the product looks simple to operate.
This may be because of a minimum number of controls and indicators
Figure 19.4 These stairs may be architecturallyattractive,but they

are not particularly user-friendly.The wide spacing between these
steps does not fit the normal stride of most people and they are
forced to use the same leg for each lifting motion instead of alter-
nating legs as is the case with standard steps. Though perhaps less
attractive, standard steps followed by a level path would be more
comfortable for most users.
Designingfor User-Friendliness 245
and when those that exist are clear in their function and straightfor-
ward to operate.
If the operating sequence for a product is simple and straightfor-
ward, the users can readily learn it and can retain the knowledge of it
longer. This speeds their operating ability and enhances the reliability
of their actions. The most important and most frequently used opera-
tional procedures should be the ones given the highest priority to be
made simple and brief.
Make things obvious. Norman calls this visibiZity.l0 Make the controls
simulate the arrangement of the actual mechanism. He cites an example
of a household refrigerator freezer with a single thermostat and single
flow control that divided the flow of cold air between the freezer and the
refrigerator sections. This is a fairly simple arrangement but, d o r t u -
nately, the control system did not reflect this. Instead, it had a dial con-
trol for each compartment, which implied that there were two indepen-
dent thermostats, one for each compartment. The operation of these
controls was difficult and confusing. The fact that the second control was
a diverting valve was not visible. There should be a very clear relation-
ship between the control device and the result of a change in its setting.
If there are a number of M e r e n t controls, the control logic for all should
be consistent so that the user will understand it and remember it. Sepa-
rate control functions should have clear-cut, separate procedures.
Figure 19.5 illustrates a product without obvious operating rela-
tionships.
A good suggestion is to place the controls for a function adjacent to
the device that is controlled. (Controls are the parts such as levers,
knobs, dials, switches, buttons, pedals, or slides, that change the oper-
ational mode or level of the product.) For example, in a stereo system,
put the control knobs for the tape player next to the tape-cartridge
mechanism. Centralizing controls in a neat row may provide a pleasant
aesthetic effect, but usually is not as user-friendly. Other comments on
control placement are included below.
Use mapping. Norman’s other term for visibility is mapping. Have the
control reflect, or map, the operation of the mechanism. His example
for a desirable control is a seat position control for the Mercedes auto-
mobile. It is in the shape of a seat. Pushing the seat control upward
raises the seat. Pushing the backrest portion backward moves the
backrest backward. What could be easier? Another example could be
light switches for a room arranged in the same pattern as the light fE-
tures they control.
Instructions posted on the product or in the owner’s manual can be
helpful. Instructions can be a valuable adjunct to ensure that the user
fully understands each phase of operation of the product. Designers
Figure 19.5 This bathroom vanity cabinet has clean styling

because of the absence of knobs or handles, but how does the
casual user open the drawers or door? Ease of use has been sub-
jugated t o styling.
should ensure that instructions are clear and understandable. How-

ever, the designer should still strive to make the operation clear
enough s o that it is not necessary to refer to nameplates, signs, stick-
ers, or t h e manual to operate the product correctly.
Utilize constraints. Design controls so that an incorrect movement or

sequence is not possible. This is common in computer programs that
require certain keystroke sequences for particular operations but which
often will not operate or will question the user if the sequence is entered
incorrectly. Another example is the automobile transmission that will not
go into reverse when the car is moving forward. Still another is the auto-
mobile door lock that will not work unless the door is closed with the han-
dle depressed. These kind of constraints help to ensure correct operation
of the mechanisms involved and to prevent costly errors.
Provide feedback. At all times, the product must provide the users
with a response to any actions taken, informing the users how the
product works. The effect of each action should be immediate, obvious,
a n d clear. Nothing is more puzzling-and, in some cases, more dan-
gerous-than a control that does not have an indicator signaling that
it has been activated. Common feedback examples from automobiles
a r e the turn signal that indicates by its periodic clicking sound and
dashboard flashing light that it is in operation and the blue signal light
that tells the driver that the high headlight beams are on. The most
common feedback mechanism is the warning light but others are
sounds, displayed information, and obvious motion of the mechanism

involved. Another example can be found in electrical switches. A push
button switch that changes between off and on each time the button is
pushed does not provide feedback. The only way that the user knows
that the switch is on is from the operation of the device it switches. A
sliding or lever switch with obvious off and on positions provides the
desired feedback.
Provide good displays. Good displays are important to ease of use.

Some guidelines for displays are as follows:
Displays should be clear, visible, interpretable, and consistent in
directi0n.l
Display indicators should be as distinctive as possible.2They should
be legible, intelligible, visible, maintainable, and standardized.l2
w Data displays should be large enough for easy readability.
m Analog displays are preferred for quick reading and to show chang-
ing conditions.2 They should be very legible. Avoid multiple and non-
linear scales. Use familiar conventions.2
Digital displays, however, are more precise.2
Representation displays should be simple, logical, and should omit
irrelevant detail.2
w Locate displays where viewing would be expected.12
Design controls carefully. Controls and displays should be matched and

should move in the same direction.2However, they must also be differ-
entiated so that the wrong one is not used. Shape knobs and handles
differently so that they are distinguishable by look and by touch; have
controls fit t h e shape of the hand.2 (See Fig. 19.6.) Organize and group
them to minimize complexity.''
Don't require large force for controls unless they are used only in
emergencies or they are otherwise used only occasionally. Provide feed-
back on the effect of each.2
In designing controls, consider their speed, accuracy, force, and range
requirements. What is good for one factor may not be good for another.2
The location of controls should represent the location of the display
involved or t h e element of the product being controlled.12They should
be well placed and easy to reach, with obvious direction of motion, and
should be protected against accidental movement or activation.l1
Control placement. There are other systems of control placement that
may facilitate user-friendliness, depending on the product and how it
is to be used. For instance:
Before
Tool Redesign
After
Tool Redesign
Figure 19.6 The handle on the right is much more user-friendly for a
lever or tool that must be pushed with considerable force. [From May-
nard’s Industrial Engineering Handbook, W. K. Hodson (ed.),sec. 8,
chap. 1, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.1
1. It is often desirable to put the controls in the same sequence as they

are used, for example, from left to right in a reading direction.
2. Key controls are often best located close to the user’s normal hand
position. Otherwise, they should be located where it is convenient
and comfortable to reach them.
3. Often controls should be placed in accordance with their frequency
of use, the most commonly used controls being closest.
4. Controls should also be placed in the ergonomically most advan-
tageous position so that necessary action and force can be applied
easily.
5. Sometimes it is advisable to place controls in accordance with the
nature of the expected user. For example, controls needed only dur-
ing setup or maintenance may be located in a separate location,
sometimes one that is protected from access during normal opera-
tion of the product.6
Anticipate human errors. Human errors are unavoidable. The

designer should recognize that, sooner or later, some user of the prod-
uct will operate it incorrectly. The transmittal of instructional infor-
mation i s never perfect. Distractions, habits from elsewhere, or just
plain human variability ensures that people may change their activ-
i t y pattern in a way that may not be logical or predictable. Many
users simply will not read the product’s operating instructions or may
not be able t o if the instructions are in a different location than the

product. Even if instructions are available and are read, they may not
be followed. The wise designer will allow for all of these factors, mak-
ing the product fail-safe as much as possible for all conceivable mis-
takes in operation.
These guidelines relate to operator errors:
1. When planning the design of a product, anticipate that errors will

occur when it is operated."
2. Understand the cause of potential errors and design to minimize them.
3. Make it possible to reverse or undo an error easily.
4. If the error cannot be easily reversed without difficulties (for exam-
ple, accidentally shutting off power to a computer after data have
been entered but before the file is permanently stored), design the
equipment so that it is harder to commit such an error.
5. Provide warnings to the user before the erroneous command is actu-
ated. For example, use an alarm sound or flashing light if the wrong
control is actuated.
Avoid awkward and extreme motions for the user of the product. This
includes controls and readouts in inappropriate positions, twisting or
lengthy hand and arm motions (especially if repetitive), awkward pos-
ture, poor lighting, or other poor conditions. Any of these can cause
fatigue and errors on the part of the user of the product, making injury
and accidents more likely. One type of injury that has been recognized
relatively recently is cumulative trauma disorders, where repeated
stresses cause nerve and other injuries. Carpel tunnel syndrome is one
such disorder. Specificbody-position and body-motion objectives for the
designer to keep in mind are the following:
Keep wrists straight.

Keep elbows in a lower position (see Fig. 19.7).
Minimize bending and twisting.
Minimize movements of the spine.
Provide adjustments if awkwardness in the product's operation can-
not be e1irni11ated.l~
*One common error that all who have worked in an office must be familiar with is the
all-too-common human tendency to forget to remove the sheet being copied from a copy-
ing machine. The authorwonders if the Xerox Corporation has statistics on the percent-
age of the time that the person using a Xerox machine fails to remove the master sheet.
Perhaps they do, because recent Xerox machines spew out the master after the selected
number of copies are completed.
MCORRECT CORRECT
Figure 19.7 The preferred position of the elbow when holding a
device with which force or weight are involved. [From Maynard's
Industrial Engineering Handbook, W.K. Hodson (ed.),sec. 8, chap.
1,McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.1
Some design guidelines that will aid designers in avoiding awk-

wardness in the use of their products are as follows:
1. Group product elements that may involve reaching by the user so
t h a t forward reaches are short in length.
2. Design operating controls and other elements to provide the force or
power needed rather than relying on human power.
3. Design handles and tools with smooth edges and to provide high fric-
tion so that gripping is easy. Handles should be large enough and
shaped so that forces are distributed over a large area. Their sur-
faces should be flexible and nonconductive. (See Fig. 19.8.)
4. Design controls and tools so that the wrist of the operator does not
have to bend. The wrist should be in a neutral position throughout
its range of use, especially when movement or force is required. Most
wrist injury is caused by high forces, vibration, repetitive motions,
or awkward position^.'^
Figure 19.8 Power drill with grip handle that fits the
shape o f the hand. [From Maynard's Industrial
Engineering Handbook, W. K. Hodson (ed.),see. 8,
chap. 1, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1992.1
Figure 19.9 When a tool or control has to be closed and then opened as is the case
with a pair of scissors,it is preferable to have the opening provided by a spring
rather than by hand or finger manipulation. (Courtesy Good Grip Products, 0 x 0
International. )
5 . Closing tools like scissors should have a spring-loaded mechanism to

lessen muscle forces and provide better tool control. (See Fig. 19.9.)
6. Design tools to be used by either hand.
7. Design equipment and machines to accommodate the body mea-
surements and capabilities of the potential user population. If criti-
cal, provide an adjustment since no one size will be optimum for all
users.
8. If vibration is present in the product, control handles should be iso-
lated from the vibration as much as possible.
9. Forces required to activate triggers and levers should be minimi~ed.~
Box 19.2 summarizes strategies for minimizing wrist injuries from

product operation.
The Danish Design Center has a similar, but more generalized
checklist for good ergonomics:
1. Does the product conform to the measurements of the human body?

2. Does the u s e r of the product have a comfortable working position?
Can the product elements be seen, reached, gripped?
3. Are the user's senses (hearing, sight, touch) utilized properly and
without excessive strain?
BOX 19.2
Recommendations for Minimizing the Possibility of Wrist Injury
Problem Recommendations
Repetitive motions 1.Enlarge the task content so that the repetitive
motion is a smaller portion of the total.
2. Rotate operators
3. Mechanize or automate the operation
Large force application 1.Provide more leverage
is required 2. Mechanize or provide power assist
3. Optimize handles’ shape and surface
4. Decrease weight of item moved
Poor posture required 1.Change elevation of operating elements
Vibration 1.F’rovide damping
2. Improve dynamic balance
3. Change machine speed
4. Isolate the vibrating member
Based on “ErgonomicIntervention Strategies for Wrist Injury hevention”

SOURCE:
in American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Lewis Publishers,
1987.
4. Are handles and levers positioned so that the required force can be
applied from the normal working position?
5. Does the product provide an improved, comfortable working envi-
ronment?
Standardize!
One way to make use of user knowledge and knowledge in the world is
t o utilize standardized arrangements and systems. If it is not possible
t o use nationwide or industry-wide standards, it may pay to create a
company standard. Even if the standard is awkward and arbitrary, if
it is known by the user and if it fits the user’s habits, it will provide ease
of use. Once the standardized approach has been learned by the user,
it becomes user-friendly. For example, the typewriter keyboard; the
use of red and green traffic lights; the English system of measure-
ments; and the location of brake, clutch, and accelerator pedals in an
automobile are all arbitrary and not necessarily the most efficient sys-
tems for doing what they do. However, they are familiar to all who use
them and, thus, are friendly to use.
If the standard approach adopted by a design team for a product line
is new, it must be learned by all users of the product. Once learned,
however, it can be applicable to all products in the line. A new product
which follows the pattern of existing ones is easy to learn to use. Stan-
dardization may not be necessary if the operation of the device is

already obvious; making the operation obvious is the preferred
approach. Standardization is invaluable when the product’s workings
are not obvious, which is apt to be the more common case.
An interesting example is automobile windshield wiper controls.
Recent models use a lever on the steering column, but there is no stan-
dardization of direction of lever motion. In some cars, an upward
motion starts the wipers; in others, it is a downward motion. This is
normally only a minor inconvenience, but there could be cases where
an accident could be prevented if all automobile makers agreed to stan-
dardize one motion direction.
Evaluating User-Friendliness
The achievement of user-friendliness in a product design is subjective
because it depends almost wholly on how the user reacts to the prod-
uct. One user, familiar with the type of control system employed, may
be enthusiastic about a product which completely confuses another
user. One person may place great stress on physical factors like hand
grips and lever placements; another may put maximum emphasis on
ease of learning the operation of the device.
For example, in computers, ease of learning the operation of the com-
puter and its programs is a paramount issue. Much is written about
ease of use o f personal computers from .the standpoint of being able to
have the computer perform the functions desired including ease of
manipulation of data, ease of printing, saving and retrieving files, etc.
On the other hand, much less is found in print about the location of
keys i n a keyboard or other ergonomic factors.
Unlike manufacturability that can be measured in terms of cost or
reliability t h a t can be measured in terms of a mathematical probabil-
ity of success, user-friendliness depends on how well the human oper-
ators, maintenance persons, or other casual users feel that the product
has conformed to their needs.
An example in Chap. 11 (see Fig. 11.4)illustrates the subjective
nature of one method of evaluation of user-friendliness. This user-
friendliness rating depends on an individual evaluation to determine
the degree to which certain key principles and guidelines have been
invoked in the design of the product. Two different evaluators probably
will arrive a t somewhat different results. However, such an approach
is probably better than nothing and can aid in comparing design alter-
natives. It is also possible to minimize individual biases by having sev-
eral persons perform the evaluation independently.
The form in Fig. 11.4is only a proposed arrangement. Different fac-
tors a n d different weightings may be more appropriate in many cases.
It may be better for a manufacturer to develop a similar form but one
more closely tailored t o the company’s particular product line. How-

ever, the approach it embodies is probably the best way to provide some
objectivity, particularly if independent persons make the evaluation.
Summary
In summary, if the product is properly designed with user-friendliness
objectives fully considered, “the result will be a product that is simple
to operate, comfortable to use and appropriate for the user and the con-
ditions of
References
1. B. Shneiderman, Designing the User Interface, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.,
1987.
2. I. Galer, (ed.), Applied Ergonomics Handbook, Butterworths, London, 1987.
3. J. Jancsurak, “Human Factors,” Appliance Manufacturer, August, 1993.
4. C. M. Gross, “Advances in Ergonomics for Product Design,” satellite television
lecture from National Technological University, June 11, 1991.
5 . W. K. Hodson (ed.), Maynards Industrial Engineering Handbook, 4th ed., McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1992, sec. 8, chaps. 1and 2.
6. J. Buur and J. Windum, MMI Design-Man Machine Interface, Danish Design Cen-
ter, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1994.
7. Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, vol. 6 , Design for Marzufacturability,
SME, Dearborn, Mich., 1992.
8. T. Welter, T h e Genesis of Product Design,” Industry Week, Odober 16, 1989.
9. N. C. Ftemich Jr., “Universal Design,”AppZianceManufacturer, July 1992.
10. D. A. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things, Doubleday Currency, New York,
1988.
11. J. Kolb and S. Ross, Product Safety and Liability, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
12. G. Salvendy (ed.), Handbook of Human Factors, Wiley and Sons, New York, 1987.
13. J. A. Dosomwan and A. Ballakur, Productivity and Quality Improvement in Elec-
tronics Assembly, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989.
14. C. Gross, “Ergonomics,”NTU lecture, June 11, 1991.
Chapter
20
Designing for Short
Time-to-Mar ket
Time-to-market can be defined as the elapsed interval between the

decision to improve a product or develop a new one and the point when
it is available for sale i n the market. It is the time required for the
product realization process as described in Chap. 5. Short time-to-
market has become a vital factor in successful product realization.
Charney quotes a McKinsey and Company study that concluded, ua
high tech product that reaches the market six months late, even on
budget, will earn 33% less profit over five years. On the other hand,
finishing on time but 50% over budget will reduce a company's profit
by only 4%."l
The rise in importance of the necessity of timely and early introduc-
tion to the market of new or improved products was a major develop-
ment in the industrial world in the 1980s. During this period, the pace
of product improvements i n many fields accelerated. Product life, that
is, the time a particular product was in production and on the market,
tended to get shorter. Market share and profit advantages went to the
companies t h a t were first to market with significant product innova-
tions. This t r e n d was perhaps most notable in the computer industry
where product improvements were introduced at record rates and
where product lines that did not match competitive developments
quickly fell to obsolescence.
Stalk and Hout, in their book Competing Against Time,emphasize
the tremendous profit and growth advantages that accrue to the com-
pany that c a n respond more quickly to customers' needs (and ordersX2
Also, short delivery lead times, product innovations, and shorter time-
to-market are all important factors.2 Companies that can achieve such
gains typically outperform their industry. Responsive, short-lead-time
255
companies can charge more for their products or services and gain
higher profit margins because customers will pay more for novel prod-
ucts and superior service.
Further advantages of shorter product development time or fast
innovation, reported by Stalk and Hout are as follows:
B Reduced product development costs because less funds are devoted
to late engineering changes, rework, and delays while approvals are
awaited
rn Quicker implementation of design-related cost reductions
rn Increased market share from being the first to introduce significant
product improvements, not only from customer acceptance of the
product, but also by capturing distributors and retail outlets that
want t o offer innovative, salable products.
rn A better chance and more opportunity to develop a product that is
successful because it meets customer needs and preferences.
The reduced chance, with a short development time frame, of
encountering situations that sometimes further delay product devel-
opment:
Changes in market conditions during the project that necessitate
design changes
Changes in personnel in the product development group that neces-
sitate delays for training and delays caused by group members’ unfa-
miliarity with aspects such as the product or the company’s proce-
dures, etc.2
Charney lists the followingmajor components of a time-based strategy:
Planning and evaluation. Evaluate where the company is now and
where it wants to be.
Goal setting. Develop specific, attainable, measurable time-to-mar-
ket goals.
SimuZtaneous engineering. Use a team and develop the product and
the process at the same time.
Reduced bureaucracy. Eliminate excess organizational layers and
trust lower-level people to make decisions.
World-class manufacturing techniques. Use just-in-time, statistical
process control, group technology, and other advanced techniques to
improve manufacturing operations and reduce throughput time.
Use of computers in design and manufacturing. Use computers to
speed up the otherwise tedious drawing process and enable design
varieties and engineering changes to be made much more quick1y.l
Designing for Short Time-to-Market 257
To Charney’s list, I add one more component:

Product design that does not require long lead time for design, tool-
ing, and t h e manufacturing process. This chapter is devoted primar-
ily to this aspect.
Designing for short time-to-market, however, is probably more a

matter of management and systems than one of product design.
Although there are design approaches that can be followed to facilitate
speed-to-market and these approaches are defined by appropriate
design guidelines, the way the design project is organized and man-
aged, its underlying philosophy, and the procedures and equipment
used to carry out the design project have more bearing on the lead time
required t h a n the design configuration does.
A prime management approach included in Charney’s list and to
which speedier time-to-market has been attributed by others is con-
current engineering. Using a team to perform the product realization
project enables steps to be taken in parallel rather than sequentially.
Proponents of concurrent engineering have reported dramatic shorten-
ing of the cycle with this approach. With concurrent engineering,
design changes (which are inevitable in any new product design) are
compelled to occur earlier in the design cycle, ideally during the con-
ceptual-design phase of the project. In that way, they do not necessitate
changes in materials, tooling, and equipment already ordered or on-
hand. It is t h e late-occurring engineering changes that add tremen-
dously to t h e lead time required for many new products, since such
changes can force repetition of various managerial, planning, purchas-
ing, a n d fabrication steps that have already been taken. Sequential
rather than concurrent product development fosters the introduction of
conflicting objectives and attendant design changes later in the cycle.
However, short time-to-market is not an automatic by-product of
concurrent engineering. It must be planned for and must be a stated
and agreed-upon objective of the product development project. It is only
one aspect of an effective new product development p r ~ g r a m . ~
Procedures and systems must sometimes be streamlined to facilitate
faster decision making during product development and design. Some
companies have new product procedures that require lengthy
approvals and mandatory meetings that may be time-consuming in
themselves a n d may require formal presentations, the preparation of
which is also a drain on lead time. Speed-to-market cannot be obtained
by accelerating these steps: the unnecessary ones must be eliminated
from t h e critical path.* The project team must be given the authority to
make decisions and proceed with the project.
Giving the design team authority to make decisions involved in man-
aging the project may be the most important single factor in accelerat-
ing the design process. Decisions by higher management or outside-

staff functions can cause considerable delays, not only by virtue of the
delay involved in presenting the information to the decision maker, but
also in waiting for the decision to be made and transmitted back t o the
team. A l s o , bringing outside people into the decision process may
increase the chance that decisions could be delayed by insistence on
incorporating some objective which may conflict with others. The
team’s decision-making authority should include such factors as the
project schedule, the assignment of tasks, the choice of vendors, the
choice of the manufacturing processes, and design details. When the
team is organized on a closed-loop basis, that is, when it is empowered
to make technical and business decisions, the most efficient and fastest
results are achieved.2
Higher management review of the project is essential, but these
should not be made too frequently, lest the project be saddled with
time-consuming changes. The advantage of a short development
cycle is that another new project can be undertaken soon, if manage-
ment wishes to follow some path other than that agreed upon by the
CE team.
Another key factor to a short development cycle is the freezing of the
design fairly early in the project. There is continuing pressure to add
features to a product after the design concept has been settled. This
pressure, when not resisted, is called feature creep by some.2Late addi-
tions and changes to the design can defeat the objective of speed-to-
market, because they necessitate revisions and repetition of work
already completed, sometimes involving long-lead-time items.
It should be noted again that every product design is the result of a
series of compromises. Various objectives must be balanced; trade-offs
must be made. In order to achieve speed-to-market, it may be prudent
t o allow other product design attributes to be less than optimum. The
team must understand the significance of short time-to-market and
must evaluate design alternatives accordingly.
Shorter product life in the market forces manufacturers to ensure
that new products are sound and free from bugs because there is less
time to correct design errors or improve borderline conditions.
Incremental product improvements rather than design break-
throughs are more appropriate to the shorter product development
cycle. This approach is consistent with the continuous-improvement
philosophy noted in Chap. 3. In the long run, more may be gained by
making innovations on a gradual but repeating basis rather than with
a smaller number of wholesale modifications. Smaller-scale product
improvements can be engineered more quickly with less need for exter-
nal controls and decisions. The result in both cases is greater through-
put (of production or of product designs) and lower costs because the
system tends t o run itself efficiently.
Designing for Short Tirne-to-Market 259
Rosenthal and March of Boston University, report the following con-

clusions about necessary speed-to-market action steps from the 1991
University Roundtable on speed-to-market :
Extra resources must be allocated to the project's early phases. During
this phase, customer needs are identified, project targets are set,
design concepts are explored and issues of technical feasibility are
addressed. Providing extra attention during these early phases of a
project will tend to reduce or even eliminate the need for subsequent
changes to the product's specification which can extend development
time and cost.
Top management must commit to the project and its short lead time
and must b e involved in the early stages.
Targets for product performance, quality, cost, and development time
should be separate from actions taken to meet the targets and must be
set and prioritized at an early stage.
Collaborative, cross-functional teams should be used to carry out the
project. The schedule should provide for compressing and overlap-
ping the many actions and decisions involved in product and process
design, development, and t e ~ t i n g . ~
Well-managed companies have followed at least some of these proce-

dures long before the terms concurrent engineering, simultaneous
engineering, or speed-to-market were employed. Particularly applica-
ble was a kind of informal cooperation between design and manufac-
turing personnel on components that required long lead times.*
One of the major aspects of lead time in new product realization is
the time required to design and fabricate tooling and any specialized
equipment t h a t is required. My experience with companies that did not
really practice DFX,DFM, or concurrent engineering was that manu-
facturing and design engineers often cooperated on those components
that required long-lead-time tooling. For example, the drawings for
these long-lead-time components were the first ones to go over the wall.
Even if the design was not complete, approximate dimensions were
supplied early in the project so that the concept design and basic ele-
ments of the long-lead-time tooling could be procured.
*The author met an engineer retired from a large company who described a situation
that existed at that company some years previously. The situation retarded speed-to-
market. Manufacturing engineers were evaluated on how well they could improve
designs released by product development and design people. If designs could be changed
to be more manufacturable,the manufacturingengineerswere rewarded. "his approach,
while possibly productive in the short run, engendered competition rather than coopera-
tion between the design and manufacturing people and could not have had anything
other than an delaying effect in bringing a new product to market.
One specific example was automatic hole drilling and reaming equip-
ment for Singer sewing machines. These, being special, required long
lead times. Although the final, exact hole locations and diameters could
change during the various stages of the sewing machine’s development
and design, definitive-enough information was supplied so that a basic
machine layout could be made, the equipment designed, and major com-
ponents fabricated. By the time these major components were ready for
finishing, the final hole dimensions were available and significant lead
time was saved. These hole dimensions were frozen before the overall
design of the sewing machine was completed, so that the long-lead-time
equipment could be fabricated. Much design and development could pro-
ceed on other details that did not change the frozen dimensions.Although
major lead-time benefits were achieved with this approach, they were of
less magnitude than those attainable with full concurrent engineering.
For t h e best results in speed-to-market, the company’s systems must
go beyond collaborative,concurrent engineering. There are a number of
procedural and technical advances that facilitate a reduction in the lead
time needed for new product development and production. Computer-
integrated information and control systems can be an important factor.
For example, computer-aided design and computer-aided manufac-
turing (CAD/CAM) may provide a significant lead time advantage by
permitting commencement of production without the need to expend
the time required to prepare full engineering drawings. Parts can be
made directly from CAD/CAM data and the lead time required to make
drawings, check them, print them, etc. can be avoided. (However, at
this writing, few if any companies have gone so far with their computer
integrated manufacturing (CIM) to eliminate drawings on paper.)
When manufacturing engineers have access, through computer net-
working, to design data, engineering changes can be incorporated in
manufacturing immediately. It is the engineering changes during a
project more than the initial delays in providing design specifications
that extends the time-to-market of many new products.
The real advantage of CAD comes when it is part of a wide database
that includes information about previous designs, manufacturing
processes and tooling, bills of material, and numerical control pro-
grams, and information about when such data are available to manu-
facturing engineers and others including, when necessary, vendors. If
the designer has complete CAD/CAM data from previous designs, these
can be utilized to ensure that the new or revised product utilizes the
highest portion of existing assets available. This reduces lead time by
eliminating the need to engineer, procure, tool, process, and debug new
components. By having manufacturing information in the database,
the designer can evaluate how a proposed design change will impact
manufacturing and can tailor the design to minimize process changes.
When t h e system is open to others in the CE team via a computer net-
Designingfor Short Time-to-Market 261
work, key information is instantly transferred and available to those

who can use it to shorten the lead time for their steps in the product
realization process. This approach, utilizing a broad database, is some-
times called direct engineering.
Computer simulation is an approach that, in many cases, can elimi-
nate or reduce trial and error work that often greatly increases the
time to make physical changes. For example, Moldflow and other injec-
tion molding simulation programs, as described in Chap. 24, enable
injection-mold designs to be fine-tuned before the mold fabrication
begins. This eliminates or minimizes the need for tests and time-con-
suming mold modifications that have historically been a part of the
process of mold making and have accounted for a large part of the lead
time required for fabricating molds. Simulation of tooling performance,
manufacturing processes, factory layout, and other physical manufac-
turing changes can be a powerful tool to aid speed-to-market.
Another technique that facilitates short time-to-market is rapid pro-
totyping, sometimes referred to as desk top manufacturing or concep-
tual modeling6This is a technique for producing prototype parts auto-
matically a n d directly from CAD data.* It is advantageous in reducing
the time to make prototypes, and it also enables more parts prototypes
to be made because of greater ease and reduced cost. This increases the
chance of early detection of a problem that might otherwise require
costly and time-consuming last-minute tooling changes. Design weak-
nesses such a s fit problems, difficult-to-manufacture or unfeasible-to-
manufacture configurations, and potential problems of other kinds can
often be revealed by a physical prototype sooner and easier than they
can be from a n analysis of engineering drawings. Any system that pro-
vides prototypes more quickly reduces the time required to complete
the design project.
Three-dimensional computer solids modeling is practically a prereq-
uisite for computerized rapid prototyping. If the CAD program is not
three dimensional, a conversion program is required for the rapid-pro-
totyping equipment to operate. Three-dimensional modeling is also the
most effective approach in other respects in providing the design infor-
mation and shape visualization that facilitates the lead time advan-
tages that CAD can provide. Sometimes, three-dimensional CAD can
highlight a design weakness that otherwise would not be seen until a
*Some of the specific rapid prototyping techniques are steriolithography,laser sinter-

ing, fused depositionmodeling, ballistic particle manufacturing,optical fabrication,and
laminated object All of these techniques work by depositing or solidify-
ing successive layers of material. As the layers are built up, the part takes shape. Each
successive layer may differ somewhat from the preceding layers, providing shape
changes in all three dimensions. The technique is most useful when the prototype part
has a complex shape. Most techniques produce parts in plastic, but metal castings can be
made from rapid-prototypedplastic patterns.
prototype part were fabricated, thus saving the prototype fabricating

time o r the rework time that would be required. Standard orthographic
drawings require a certain amount of human interpretation. Mistakes
in interpretation can permit design errors that will require time-con-
suming downstream correction. Three-dimensional and solids-model-
ing CAD programs can reduce such interpretation errors. Conse-
quently, they also reduce the need for prototypes.
Electronic data interchange, often referred to as EDI, the electronic
transfer of design data on a digital basis, is another systems tool that
aids in faster development of new products. When CAD/CAM data can
be transferred from the designer to the vendor or to the mold or die
shop without the necessity of waiting for drawings to be made, or for
mail service, lead time can be saved.
The use of group technology or a family-of-parts manufacturing sys-
tem c a n reduce the preparation and training time necessary in the fac-
tory when new or revised parts are introduced. Group technology
involves a product-oriented plant layout wherein the items of equip-
ment needed to produce a part or parts-family are grouped together.
(For example, for the production of connecting rods, milling, drilling,
boring, tapping, and grinding machines are grouped together in one
location in the sequence needed for connecting rods. This is instead of
locating them in separate departments for each process.) The advan-
tage of this approach is that machine operators are already familiar
with t h e dimensional requirements and other requirements of such
parts. The training and documentation inherent in production of a
newly designed component of the same family is significantly reduced.
An improved and reoriented management system, therefore, is one
dimension of a system for shortening time-to-market. Another dimension
is the tailoring of the product design so that it inherently requires less
lead tirne. Some product design guidelines for doing this are the following:
1. Use standard components rather than ones specially designed for

the application. This eliminates tooling lead time, time for inventory
buildup, and at least some of the testing that otherwise would be
required. This is an important guideline, probably the most important
tool that the designer has to speed time-to-market. The use of standard
parts has tremendous advantages-not limited to product lead t i m e
and t h e designer should resist the temptation, if it exists, to improve the
design of existing or catalog-procurable parts that already perform sat-
isfactorily in existing products. Charney reports that General Electric’s
circuit breaker business, which was experiencing severe competitive
pressures, was able to dramatically reduce delivery times through a
number of strategic improvements. Prominent among them was a reduc-
tion from 28,000 Merent parts to 1275.Even with that much reduction,
all product variations wanted by customers could be pr0vided.l
2 . Use standard and existing systems, procedures, and materials.

Use existing vendors, equipment, and processes as much as possible
since the use of new ones entails a certain amount of indoctrination and
testing which are time-consuming processes. A commitment at the
beginning t o particular vendors of tooling and parts can save the time
that otherwise would be required for selection and negotiation. Also,
for example, if the company’s products are normally made with sheet-
metal housings and the company has, in its plant or with a reliable ven-
dor, good sheet-metal fabricating equipment and tooling, a change to
an injected-molded plastic housing would require tooling fabrication
and vendor selection that could add considerably to the manufacturing
lead time. Also avoid designs that involve processes that could cause
conflict with environmental regulations since there may be delays
while compliance steps are being taken.
3. Use modules, especially i f they are from existing products. Incor-
porate all the new features in the same module, if possible. Leave the
other modules unchanged. Putting the innovative features in a sepa-
rate module that can be designed and tested individually may reduce
the chance for unexpected interactions and ensure that previously
tested systems are still operative on a reliable basis.
4. Don’t redesign more than necessary. In other words, “If it ain’t
broke, don’t fix it!” Designers sometimes want to create, to perfect. It
often is better to stay with the proven, workable component as long as
it fits the application. Change only those portions of the product that
are needed to be changed to provide the new or redesigned feature that
the new product encompasses. Sansone and Singer of AT&T report on
earlier conditions at that company: “Another source of instability was
that each product-development cycle, instead of deriving from an exist-
ing-and therefore reusable-design, often represented a completely
new design.” They advise that “invention is inherently unpredictable”
and prone to delays that can impede the p r o j e ~ t . ~
Key Tronic of Spokane, Washington, reported very fast development
of several new products, having prototypes ready for a trade show in
ten weeks by, among other things, utilizing as much of the existing
products as possible: “We were able to meet the Comdex dates by mak-
ing use of 95 percent of the TrakMate design.. ..All we did was add a
new button panel and electronic circuit b0a1-d.”~
5 . Design conservatiuely. If lead time is critical, the fewer major
departures from previous practice that the new design incorporates,
the less prototyping and testing that will be required and the less
chance there will be for a design error or weakness to find its way into
the design. T h e highly innovative design normally requires consider-
ably longer to develop and test and is more prone to manufacturing
and other problems that will delay its market introduction. The con-
servative product with less dramatic innovations can normally get to
market sooner, though it may not be as attractive as the highly inno-

vative one. Sound judgment is required to know what objective is most
important. A safe ground is to avoid changing those components that
do not have to be changed to provide whatever new features the new
product incorporates.
6 . Design to do it right the first time! As noted above, the most time-
consuming aspects of a product development project are the revisions
and design changes that come about when the initial product design
requires some modification. Modifications may be needed to solve prob-
lems in the fit of parts, in manufacturing processes, in functions. There
may be deficiencies in the product in meeting serviceability, safety,
ease-of-use, quality, and other objectives. The more care that can be
exercised in ensuring a n optimum design at the beginning (for exam-
ple, by following DFM guidelines more explicitly and ensuring that all
CE team members' input is reflected by the initial design), the more
that these time-consuming engineering changes can be avoided. Fol-
lowing DFM guidelines strictly helps ensure conformance to the con-
straints of the manufacturing processes involved.
Reducing engineering changes is only part of the necessary product
design system. The engineering changes that are found to be necessary
must be discovered and implemented as early in the product realiza-
tion process as possible. "he cost and delay caused by a n engineering
change increases the later in the realization process that it is made.
Late changes may require notification of manufacturing and cus-
tomers, rework of inventory, and tooling changes, all of which can rob
the product of valuable lead time. On the other hand, changes caught
before processes are designed may require only simple computer-key-
board entries to correct the components involved.
7. Design for processes that do not require long tooling lead times or,
better still,could be made with standard available tooling. For exam-
ple, tooling for a die casting normally is a long-lead-time item. If a prod-
uct that would normally require a die casting could be redesigned so
that some metal stampings would replace the die casting, tooling lead
time would probably be reduced. More time could be saved if standard
turret punch and press-brake tooling could be used. Generally, at
higher production quantities, more specialized and complex tooling is
justifiable, but it requires longer lead time. Therefore, one way to
reduce lead time is to design so that less-sophisticated tooling can be
used. This may raise process time and labor costs but that may be
acceptable if speed-to-market is critical.
One approach could be to use simpler tooling initially and then later,
afier t h e product has been introduced, provide tooling (and a design
change correspondingto the tooling change) that is more economical at
the high-production level. For example, a plastic part could initially be
thermoformed and later replaced with an injection-molded part. Other
M e a n s for Reducing Time-to-Market

Maximize Minimize
Management commitment to and Management indifference
involvement in speed-to-market
Simplicity of design Long-lead-time parts and tooling
Use of standard parts Number of new, unique parts
Use standard systems,procedures, Use of a variety of different design and
forms manufacturing procedures
Use of CAD/CAM with broad database Use of hand-drawn engineering drawings
Easy and broad access to CADICAM Limited or restricted communication
data between different functions involved in
the project
Concurrent engineering Sequential, over the wall design process
Parts that can be made with simple, Parts that require complex, long-lead-
available tooling time tooling
Strict adherence to DFM guidelines Failure to consider manufacturability
Conservative designs Radical, highly innovative designs
Doing it right the first time Lack of concern that engineering changes
will be required
Design of parts for production on Design of parts requiring long-lead-time
computer-controlled equipment special tooling
similar dual designs as implied by the differences between mass pro-

duction and low-quantity production could be employed. (See Chap. 22,
Fig. 22.3.)
Designing for processes that use computer control is also advisable.
Usually, such equipment does not require special tooling but, instead,
utilizes standard available tools. If CAD/CAM is involved, the pro-
gramming of the equipment may be fully automatic. Historically, com-
puter-controlled equipment, though highly flexible, has been some-
what slower than special-purpose equipment and economically limited
to shorter production runs or job-shop conditions. However, as technol-
ogy of such an apparatus has developed, this has become less and less
so. In some cases, notably, the populating of electronic printed circuit
boards, computer-controlled equipment is fully as fast as that con-
trolled by more traditional methods.
An Example of Speed-to-Market
The IBM line of Thinkpad laptop computers provides an interesting
example of speed-to-market. A series of improved laptop units was
introduced to the market by IBM in 1993 after a very short lead time.
This w a s particularly noteworthy for IBM, a company with a deserved
reputation for introducing products well after the competition, with less
desirable features and a higher price. IBM is a large company and its
personal computer product line, especially laptops, suffered from the
sluggishness and inertia to which large-company operations with a
bureaucratic organization may be prone. However, with the new line,
the company was able to include some new, very competitive features: a
truckpoint to move the cursor, a large screen, and very light weight. All
of this was with quite competitive prices. One major difference between
the management of this series of products and previous ones was the
team approach used. In the new IBM PC Company, multidisciplinary
teams were assembled and given responsibility for specific product
groups such as desk top units for business, laptops, or home units. Each
team included marketing, manufacturing, research, and other functions
and were assigned full-time on the team products. The objective was to
provide the speed and responsiveness often typical of a small company.
No longer could one individual, as was previously the case with IBM,
say in a meeting, “Inonconcur,” and delay a project considerably. In the
case of the Thinkpad computers, the new approach, which eliminated
that phrase and other procedural delays, was successful in greatly
reducing the time needed to bring the product to market.
References
1. C. Charney, Time to Market: Reducing Product Lead Time, Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, Dearborn, Mich., 1991.
2. G. Stalk Jr. and T. M. Hout, Competing Against Time, Macmillan, New York, 1990.
3. S. Rosenthal and A. March, “Speed to Market-Disciplines for Product Design and
Development,” Boston University Manufacturing Roundtable, 1992.
4. F. R. Sansone and H. M. Singer, “AT&T’s 3-Phase Plan Rings in Results,”AppZiance
Manufacturer, February 1993.
5 . “It’s Time for the OMNI Engineer,” Manufacturing Engineering, June 1993.
6. K. Nutt, “Designto Market Speedup, Rapid Prototyping for an ‘Instant’Part,”AppZi-
ance Manufacturer, June 1992.
7. J. Jancsurak, “Ten Weeks to Product Launch,” Appliance Manufacturer, February
1993.
8 . D. M. Anderson,Design for Manufacturability, chaps. 1and 2, CIM Press, Lafayette,
Calif., 1990.
9. R. E . Gormory, “From ’the Ladder of Science’ to the Product Development Cycle,”
Harvard Business Review, August 1989.
10. S. Lohr, “Notebooks May Hold the Key for IBM,” The New York Times, June 23,1993.
11. J. T. Vesey, “Meet the New Competitors: They Think in Terms of Speed-to-Market,”
Industrial Engineering, December 1990.
12. ”Concurrent Engineering,” special report, IEEE Spectrum, July 1991.
13. E. M. Goldratt and J. Cox, The Goal, North River Press, Croton-on-Hudson, New
York, 1986.
14. B. King,Better Designs in Half the Time, Goal-QPC, 1989.
Chapter
DFX in Electronics
The electronics industry involves three kinds of products: consumer

electronics products such as television sets, stereo equipment, and
camcorders; industrial electronics such as computers, lasers, and
instruments; and military products such as radar and navigation
equipment. T h e industry is characterized by relatively short product
lives, a high rate of design changes, high material and overhead costs,
and low labor c0sts.l
The DFM/DFX philosophy seems more ingrained in electronics than
in other industries. It appears to have originated with the advent of the
integrated circuit. The reason may be that cost improvements are more
obvious in integrated circuits as more and more elements are incorpo-
rated into each chip. Similarly, the benefits are obvious when more
devices (such as resistors, capacitors, and integrated circuits) are
crammed onto a printed circuit board. One of the benefits of more com-
plex integrated circuits is reliability. The constant reliability of inte-
grated circuits, no matter how many individual transistors and other
devices the circuit contains, has also spurred their use. Since individ-
ual components and their interconnections have a higher failure rate,
the reliability of an electronic product is actually improved when more
circuit elements can be placed in an integrated circuit.
Printed Circuit Boards

The printed circuit board (sometimes called either the printed wiring
board or the printed wiring assembly and often referred to as PCB or
PWB) has become the standard design approach for electronic circuits,
even when production quantities are small. The board provides both a
mounting surface for electronic devices, resistors, capacitors, and semi-
conductors, and a wiring path between them and the external circuit.
267
A PCB is a reinforced-plastic board (typically glass-reinforced epoxy)

on which a thin coating of copper is electroplated and etched to provide
the w i r e pathways. The economic and quality advantages of this
approach are quite powerful. Although the approach was originally
developed for mass-production applications, computer-controlled
methods and equipment also enable automation for small quantities.
Boards can be singled-sided, double-sided, or multilayered; e.g., they
can have wiring paths on one side, both sides, or on both sides and
buried on inner layers. These are called, respectively, single-sided,
double-sided, and multilayered. Electrical connections between sides
andor layers are achieved by means of vim-holes drilled through the
board and conductively plated.
Technological advances are very rapid in this industry, with the
thrust of the advances being achieved with integrated circuits, where,
according to Noyce’s law,the number of circuit elements (such as indi-
vidual resistors, transistors, capacitors, etc.) incorporated into the
microchip’s circuit approximately doubles every two years. Advances
with printed circuit boards are also rapid, but apparently not to the
same extent as with microcircuits. The direction, however, is the
same, providing ever-increasing density of devices per unit of area of
board surface.
One advance of recent years with printed circuit boards is the use
of surface-mount technology (SMT). This involves the attachment of
electronic devices to circuit boacds by direct soldering onto circuit
pads rather than by inserting connecting wires through holes in the
board before soldering. Figure 21.1 illustrates the two types of board
construction. Hybrid boards with some devices surface-mounted and
others assembled with the through-hole technique are also used. SMT
allows boards t o be smaller which provides both compactness and
faster circuit response due to shortened wire distances between
Solder
Hole with Figure 21.1 The two types of

Solder metal plating printed circuit boards shown in
cross section. (a)The conventional
through-hole attachment of devices
to a board. (b)The more recent sur-
face-mounted construction. The
Component advantages of the latter approach
PC Board is a greater density of devices per
unit of board area and a conse-
quently faster operation of the elec-
tronic circuits. There are also
hybrid board designs, those which
include both through-hole and sur-
face-mounteddevices.
DFX in Electronics 269
devices. For further compactness, some circuit boards have devices

attached to both sides of the board. This requires some design differ-
ences to permit soldering of both sides of the board while still holding
all devices i n place. Not only are boards being made more compact
and integrated circuits more dense, but discrete devices are being
miniaturized as well. Circuit boards using SMT with a dense layout
are sometimes referred to as fine pitch boards. Fine pitch typically
refers to leads on component edges spaced linearly 25 ml or less, cen-
ter t o center.
Many of t h e design approaches for these high-density circuit boards
are quite sophisticated. The design requirements for SMT boards, par-
ticularly those with fine pitch, are much more demanding than those
for the traditional board assemblies. Panel and component layout are
critical elements. So is the geometry of components. A full treatise on
designing them is beyond the scope of this book and the author's field
of specialization. Material included in this chapter is limited to the
more basic aspects which should be of interest to the general-product-
design engineer. Both electronic and mechanical factors are involved in
the design o f a typical board.
One other interesting aspect to the use of printed circuit boards is
the fact t h a t automatic assembly provides both quality and cost
advantages over manual assembly. Automatic assembly of devices to
a board is faster and has less labor content than manual assembly.
Placement accuracy has also proven to be better. Current machines
use machine vision to locate devices more accurately. Currently avail-
able equipment can test each component, bend and trim its leads,
insert it in t h e board, and then crimp the leads at speeds as high as 25
pieces per minute.2 Machines for assembling devices to SMT boards
have much higher speeds--over 80 devices per minute. Variations in
device dimensions, bent leads, and board distortions all complicate the
task of locating the device accurately on the board. One important
principle for PC board DF'M, therefore, especially when fine pitch is
involved, is t o provide a design that facilitates automatic assembly of
components t o the board.
Conditions vary, of course, from company to company, depending on
its product line and policies, production facilities, and other factors. It
makes good sense for a company to develop a standard design manual
for its products. This can be keyed to the requirements of the product
line a n d can have standards for such items as printed circuit board
material, thickness, hole diameters, and component spacing, as well as
preferred components and component tolerances. Most of this informa-
tion c a n be incorporated in CAD data libraries and the path routing
then can be performed automatically. Manual CAD touch-up then is
needed to route about 5 percent of the paths. If company-applicable
DFX guidelines are also incorporated, further advantages can be
' Manufacturing Sequence for a Typical Printed Circuit

Board Assembly
1. Solder paste is silk screened onto the bare boards.
2. SMT components are placed on the solder paste. The solder paste is then dried.
3. Solder paste is heated to its flow temperature by infra-red or vapor phase methods.
4. Various nonsoldered components (dips or other similar devices) are inserted
automatically.
5. Components that are not suitable for machine insertion are placed by hand.
6. "he board is masked to prepare for wave soldering.
7. The board is inspected.
8. Wave soldering takes place. This includes flux application, preheating, the solder
wave, and air knife application to remove excess solder.
9. Flux is removed by vapor degreasing.
10. Install after-solder components, inspect, and touch up.
11.As necessary, remove flux locally.
12. Inspection.
13. Circuit testing.
14. Environmental testing.
15. Separate boards from panel.
16. Inspection and alignment.
17. F i n a l defluxing.
18. M a s k for conformal coating.
19. Apply conformal coating.
20. Remove masking.
21. F i n a l inspection.
SOURCE: From T. J. Day.16
achieved. Maximum benefits are realized when designs are standard-

ized a n d when production equipment and tooling are keyed to the
design standard values.
It should be noted that, when designing electronic products for ease
of maintenance and repair, electronic faults are usually not as obvious
or easily diagnosed as mechanical failures are on other product^.^ Cur-
rent circuit boards normally include many electronic devices, perhaps
several hundred. Diagnosing problems requires more expertise, and
often, u s e of sophisticated equipment. Sometimes, quality problems
result from the interaction of components that individually may be
within allowable specified t o l e r a n ~ e sReplacing
.~ one failed component
on a printed circuit board is difficult. Typically, repair is a factory oper-
ation but, if performed in the field, an entire printed circuit board is
replaced when one component on the board fails.
Solder Joints
By far the most common method for securing a sound electrical connec-
tion between diverse circuit devices is by soldering. The solder joint
becomes one of the most critical elements in the h c t i o n , quality, and
reliability of an electronic product. One product may have hundreds or
thousands o f solder connection^.^ Thorough wetting with solder of the
surfaces t o b e joined is essential. The shape of the solder fillet, the amount
of material it contains, and its freedom from voids are also important.
Common failure modes of solder joints are shown in Figure 21.2. Pads for
surface-mounted devices should be large enough so that the entire solder
fillet is visible, even if the component has a shape that makes this dBi-
cult, so that inspection of the solderjoint is possible. Many circuit devices
are sensitive t o heat, so the amount of time that they are subjected to tem-
peratures above the melting point of solder must be minimized (less than
15to 20 seconds). This limitation makes it more difficult to achieve good
soldering, so other design and process steps must be taken to enhance the
solderability of the components to the board. Heat sinks incorporated in
the board assembly to prevent overheating of circuit elements during the
product’s operation may make it more dBicult to obtain high-quality sol-
der joints since they tend to limit the temperature of adjacent soldering
points when the board is heated.
Cleanability of flux must be provided to avoid performance and reli-
ability problems from current leakage due to flux contamination.
a A Open connection
a_/.- Solder balls
I
LfiInsufficient
I
solder
\Short circuit- Solder

flow from one pad
to another
Figure 21.2 Common faults with
electronic solderjoints.
Flux contamination
Cleanability requires access for cleaning solvents during the flux-

removal step of the manufacturing process. Easy cleaning under each
component device is necessary and room must be provided for flushing
action ofthe solvent. The exception to this is the design of board assem-
blies t h a t uses a no-clean solder flux. Use of no-clean fluxes is a design
for the environment issue because it reduces the volume of contami-
nated waste solvents that need to be handled and disposed of.
TestabiI ity
Testing is another important part of the manufacturing process for cir-
cuit boards to ensure quality and to avoid conditions that will adversely
affect reliability. Testing does not produce quality, but it provides the
opportunity to uncover faults that may exist. The extreme complexity
of many electronic circuits increases the possibility of faults some-
where i n the circuit. A fault in one device or subcircuit may mask a
problem in another. Sometimes rework to replace a defective compo-
nent, solder joint, or other part can create another quality defect.
Defect isolation may be a time-consuming p r o c e d ~ r eThe . ~ short prod-
uct life of many electronic products is another complication. These fac-
tors also make testing for defects both difficult and essential.
Design for testability is one of the responsibilities of the electronic prod-
uct designer. Providing boards with easy testability is an important part
of providing a manufacturable design. Design for testability has gained
much attention as a worthwhile endeavor in the electronics i n d u ~ t r y . ~
The designer may have to allow for circuit hnction testing, module test-
ing, electromagnetic interference (EMU testing and environmental testing
t o ensure that the product is ~ o r r e c tRadiographic
.~ (x-ray) inspection of
solder joints may be used to complement circuit testing.
The designer must visualize how and where in the manufacturing
process the board will be tested. Sufficient test points must be provided.
The testing system and device should be designed concurrently with the
design of the circuit itself. Testability considerations should be addressed
at the design concept stage and thereafter. Otherwise, proper testing may
not be possible or the product’s introduction may have to be delayed while
the test apparatus is constructed. Paying attention to testability can
enhance product quality and reliability, aid in reducing time-to-market
by reducing the time lost due to the late discovery of product problems,
and reduce manufacturing and service costs.
Incorporating self-testing circuitry in an electronic product is another
approach to testability that is sometimes advisable, particularly as indi-
vidual components become more complex. Other approaches are the
partitioning of the circuit into smaller, more measurable blocks and the
provision of connection points that make it easier to connect test devices
t o the board.
Evaluating Electronic Assemblies

Manufacturing AdvisorRCB is a computer program designed to aid the
manufacturability of printed circuit board assemblies. Upon the entry
of certain data, it provides a manufacturability rating for the assembly
design. The designer can test various design alternatives to determine
which is best. It also monitors the space available on the circuit board.
If the available space is exceeded, it will identify components that can
be mounted in a way that uses less board space. It also evaluates a
board assembly design for automatic insertion of components.6
Guidelines
Concurrent engineering is fully as applicable to electronic products as
it is to other kinds of products. The contributions of manufacturing
engineers and others can enhance the manufacturability and other
attributes of electronic products. The following are some of the more
important guidelines that the CE team should consider.
1. The most economical and most reliable electronic products are
normally those with the fewest number of circuit boards and the fewest
number of components on the boards. Using integrated circuits to per-
form the function of discrete devices that would otherwise be on a cir-
cuit board should be a design objective. Use integrated circuits as much
as possible and put as much circuitry in the integrated circuit as pos-
sible. The cost advantages of such an approach stem from the fact that
manufacturing operations are much the same no matter how complex
the chip may be; the reliability advantages are noted previously in this
chapter.
2. Minimize or eliminate adjustments. Components that require
adjustments or tuning after assembly in the PCB should be avoided if
at all p ~ s s i b l eMechanical
.~ adjustments of potentiometers and other
elements are a source of potential error and are labor-intensive. Con-
sideration should be given to eliminating the need for adjustment by
utilizing electronic circuits-phase-lock loops, feedback loops, voltage
regulators, nonvolatile memories, and autoconfiguration registers-or
by tightening specifications of components. Positional adjustments of
components is also costly and a potential source of quality problems.
Footprint designs for SMT boards should provide space for a good sol-
der joint even if the part shifts slightly or is not positioned preci~ely.~
3. "Make sure that the component selection and placement conforms
to the design guidelines of the equipment."* This involves designing the
printed circuit board with the clearances and spacings needed by the
automatic insertion equipment. This improves soldering results by
spacing components more widely and reduces the kinds of errors to
which manual assembly is more prone. Specifically, the components
should be compatible with the handling capability of the equipment

and must be spaced regularly and liberally.
Note: The objective of wide spacing of components for manufactura-
bility conflicts with the objective of closely spaced, “fine pitch,” circuit
elements for faster-operating digital equipment. High-speed computer
or microprocessor operation needs closely spaced circuit board devices.
This poses a challenge t o manufacturing. Design trade-offs are usually
involved.
4. Design electromechanical parts for automatic assembly (han-
dling, aligning, inserting).
a. Specify parts in connected form for easier, more positive, and
accurate automatic feeding.
b. If advantageous, leave an extra portion on each part to aid in
assembly. The extra portion can be removed after the insertion,
though typically it is not worth the effort required to do SO.^
5, Avoid the use of connecting cables. Substitute direct plug-in cir-
cuit boards or combine several boards into one. Because of their flexi-
bility and possibility of tangling, cables are costly to handle and insert.
6. “Avoid switches or jumpers; configure instead with software.”*If
switches are retained, use rubber-dome or other types partially built
into the circuit board, rather than separate switch subassemblies.
7. Standardize circuit board sizes and dimensions. Make them all the
same size as much as possible (24 by 18 in is a standard size for bare-
board manufacture). When smaller boards will suffice, design them so
that multiple quantities can be cut from a standard-size board without
waste. The board can then run in standard fixtures in wave soldering,
cleaning,and other operations. Use interlockingboard shapes if this facil-
itates multiple-board processing. This will reduce fixturing time and fix-
ture expense. Also standardize the size and location of tooling holes and
board thickness. Figure 21.3 illustrates some of these recommendations.
8. When raised bosses or brackets are required to hold certain com-
ponents on a printed circuit board, consider molding such elements into
the circuit board as one piece rather than using raised brackets. (Make
the board a three-dimensional, injection-molded part.)
9. For mechanical elements in an electronic product (such as the
housing, hinges, clips, and fasteners), use the same approaches as are
used in mechanical products. For example:
Reduce the number of parts.
Eliminate the need for costly machining.
Reduce or eliminate fasteners.
Design for easy top-down assembly.
10. Utilize standard components. Minimize the number of varieties of
resistors, capacitors, and semiconductor devices used in circuits by stan-
I Standard
~~~ ~~
size circuit board 1
Figure 21.3 Make PC boards of standard sizes or to fit, without waste, in a
standard size. Making several smaller-size boards from a larger board pro-
vides the advantages of multiple processing.
dardizing on certain sizes, values, and tolerances. The standard list of

components can concentrate on those that have established quality and
reliability r e ~ o r d sThe
. ~ use of parts of proven quality and reliability is a
first step in providing these attributes in the product. Fewer varieties
provide better opportunities for larger-quantity procurement at favorable
cost. Equally important, when automatic component insertion is avail-
able-with i t s quality and cost advantages-the standard devices can be
loaded in the automatic assembly equipment. Nonstandard devices may
have t o be subjected to the less-satisfactory manual assembly. The
greater the use of standard components, the greater the benefits.
11. Designers should be aware of the stack up of positional toler-
ances. Deviations can be due to fixture clearances and tolerances,
board size variations, machine positioning variations, deviations in the
dimensions of drilled holes, inaccuracy of tooling holes, and variations
in lead-wire diameter. Holes must be large enough for insertion of
leads. However, holes too large cause soldering problems.1°
12. Minimize the use of sockets. Mechanical connections have dimin-
ished reliability compared with soldered connections.8
13. Components that require a press to install should be avoided, if
possible. “Press fits can cause irreparable damage to circuit boards and
are time-consuming in themselves.”8
14. Standardize the orientation of devices on circuit board^.^ They
should be oriented at 0” or 90”from the edge of the board, preferably in
one direction only.1° When components have polarity, it should be
maintained i n the same direction for all such components and the
polarity should be printed on the board. “For maximum component
density, lay out the components in the most geometrically systematic
” ~ layout should also be on a grid compatible with
array p o s ~ i b l e . This
the CAD system in order to simplify design steps.
Quality problems due to misorientation of components can be mini-

mized if consistent orientation is followed. Some soldering problems
may also be avoided. Individual parts should be made so that uniform
orientation is facilitated. Product markings on individual devices
should b e such that they conform to the board layout (all readable from
the same direction) and facilitate placement of the parts.
15. When flexible circuit boards are used, avoid bends that are sharp
so as not to crack copper conduction paths. A bend radius of 30 to 40
times t h e board thickness may be required for boards subjected to flex-
ing or for multilayer boards; while in other cases, when flexing is not
involved, 3 to 6 times the board thickness may be adequate. Where flex-
ible boards are bent adjacent to a stiffener, it is advisable to use a
rounded edge, rubber filet, or a foam-rubber pad between the board and
the stiffener to prevent the bend from being too sharp.ll Maintain a
uniform hole density over the entire board.
16. The number of different hole sizes on the printed board should be
minimized.8 Different hole sizes require different drill sizes, necessi-
tating drill changes during board fabrication. Such drill changing may
not be automatic, adding to the labor content of the operation. Design
mounting holes of such diameter that they cannot be confused with
tooling holes. Also limit the hole sizes to standard wire drill sizes.5
17. The location of identification labels on components should be
standardized.8 This ensures their readability and, if bar code labels are
used, simplifies the fixturing of the bar code reading device.
18. Designers should allow for some variations in the properties and
dimensions of the components used. Lead lengths, widths or diameters,
and positions can vary somewhat from part to part and the board lay-
out should allow for this as much as possible.
19. Consider the environment in which the product will be manu-
factured and used. Components that cannot withstand solder bath or
reflow temperatures or cleaning processes require hand assembly. The
temperature, humidity, vibration, electrostatic charges, dirt, dust,
vapors, and other variables in the product's environment all can have
a tremendous effect on its function, its reliability, and its product life.
The product must be designed to withstand any adverse conditions to
which i t may be subjected.
20. Provide for easy testability of the product and its key subassem-
blies. Provide access for test probes and engineer the product so that
key elements lend themselves to suitable testing at major points of the
production process. Test pads should be incorporated into the artwork
for circuit boards at the design stage. Such test pads should not be too
close to tall components (not closer than 10 mm).lo
21. T h e following are additional guidelines from Anderson, all pro-
viding potential means to improve printed circuit board quality:
a. Adequate spacing should be maintained between leads, vias

(plated holes providing connections between multiple layers), and
traces (wires on the circuit boards). This is to avoid solder short
circuits between these elements.
b. Traces and components should be far enough from the edges of the
circuit board so that shorting does not take place to exterior con-
ductors -
c. Vias should not be placed under metal components. This is to
avoid having solder flow through vias and short circuit metal com-
ponents.
d. For through-hole boards, most traces should be on the component
side of the board and the fewest on the solder side. This is because
solder-side traces are most prone to damage and shorting.
e. It is preferable to use an even number of circuit board layers to
reduce the possibility of the circuit board warping when the heat
for soldering is applied.
f: To avoid shorting, solid metal layers used for power and ground
planes should be on symmetrical layers.
g . Positive locating means should be used to ensure that polarized
symmetrical devices are oriented properly.
h. Utilize polarized cable connectors to ensure proper connections.
i. If vacuum test furtures are used, make sure components are not
placed o n the board where they will interfere with the rubber vac-
uum seal.
j . Placing components under soldered or socketed components
makes it difficult to test and repair the device that is hidden.
k. When component labels are used to aid in testing and diagnosis,
they should be printed on the board with a standard orientation
next to the component.
1. Use antistat packaging of electronics products to minimize the
possibility of electrostatic damage during shipping.8
22. If radiographic (x-ray) inspection of solder joints is used, SMT
pads on the top and bottom sides of the circuit boards should not overlap,
nor should radiologically opaque devices (some capacitors and trans-
formers) be located directly opposite pads to be inspected by x-ray.12
23. SMT boards require proper size and spacing of mounting pads.
Pads should be designed to match the components being used. Suppli-
ers of circuit devices should be consulted for the nominal dimensions
and tolerances of their leads. Adequate pad-to-pad and pad-to-trace
space must also be provided to prevent voltage leakage between traces
and components and to allow sufficient room for coverage of mask
material if t h e process calls for it.13
24. Consider the following guidelines for through-hole boards that
receive wave or drag soldering:
a
II
Component
Lead wire diameter

circuit board
1 / D to%D
Hole diameter, D
Figure 21.4 Lead wires in through-hole connections to printed cir-

cuit boards should occupy from !4 to % of the hole diameter; other-
wise, soldering problems may result.
a. Provide even spacing of components to minimize heat-sink effects.

b. Reduce ground planes to a minimum size to minimize unwanted
heat-sink effects on soldering.
c. Leads in plated through holes should be no more than % the hole
diameter nor less than y3 t o avoid soldering pr0b1ems.l~(See Fig.
21.4.)
25. I t is advisable to simplify the assembly design as much as possi-
ble, utilizing only one placement method for circuit components. A
design using SMT alone is more easily manufactured than a design
using hybrid through-hole and SMT approach; one-sided boards are
preferable to two-sided boards. This is not to imply that the more com-
plex configurations should not be used. The point is t o avoid the com-
plexity unless it provides demonstrable advantages that offset the
additional manufacturing steps required.
References
1. W. K. Hodson (ed.), Maynard’s Industrial Engineering Handbook, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1992, chap. 15-2 “Electronics.”
3. “Getting Things Fixed,” Consumer Reports, January 1994.
4. J. A. Edosomwan and A. Ballakur,Productivity and Quality Improvement in Elec-
tronics Assembly, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989.
5. T. J. Day, Troducibility-Design Considerations for Printed Circuit Board Assem-
blies,“ SME EAssembly Conference, Anaheim, Calif., 1986.
6. “Software Exchange,” Mechanical Engineering, May 1992.
7 . Tool and Manufacturing Engineers Handbook, vol. 6, Design for Manufacturability,
chap. 16, “Design for Electronic Assembly,“ various authors, Society of Manufactur-
ing Engineers, Dearborn, Mich., 1992.
8. D. M. Anderson, Design for Manufucturability, CIM Press, Lafayette, Calif., 1990.
9. M. Hirabayashi, K. Bito, and K. Nakanishi, “Design for Manufacturing and Its
Implementing Production Facilities,” 1989SME International Conference and Expo-
sition, Detroit, Mich., 1989.
10. F. Riley (ed.),The Electronic Assembly Handbook, IFS Publications, Ltd., United
Kingdom.
11. J. Fjelstad, “Design Considerations for Surface Mount on Flexible Circuitry,” PC
FAE Magazine, October 1989.
12. T. W. Stroebel, “Designing PWB Assemblies for Automated Inspection,” Circuits
Assembly, July 1992.
13. R. Daniels and P. Waddell, “Design for Assembly,” Circuits Assembly, July 1991.
14. B. J. Cunningham, “The Return of Drag Soldering,” Circuits Manufacturing, Decem-
ber 1988.
15. M. Hirabayashi, K. Bit0 and K. Nakanishi, “Design for Manufacturability and Its
Implementing Production Facilities,” SME International Conference, Detroit, May
1989.
16. T. J. Day, “F’roducibility-Design Consideration for Printed Circuit Board Assem-
blies,” presented at the SME Essembly Conference, Anaheim, Calif., May 1986.
17. A. K. Mason and A. Young, “Strategies for Improving the Manufacturability of PCB
Design,” presented at Autofact ‘88,sponsored by SME, Chicago, October 1988.
18. B. S. Matisoff, Handbook of Electronics Packaging Design and Engineering, Van
Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1990.
19. J. E. Traister, Design Guidelines for Surface Mount Technology, Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, San Diego, 1990.
20. P. P. Marcoux, Fine Pitch Surface Mount Technology, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, 1992.
DFX for
Low-Quantity Production
Many of the most dramatic design improvements that have been

made with the DFM approach involve mass-produced products.
When a series of parts is replaced with a single complex part, possi-
bly involving both flexible and rigid sections and snap-on attach-
ments, very sizable benefits can be realized. However, the resulting
component is normally complex in shape and usually requires
sophisticated and expensive tooling. If, for example, the part is injec-
tion-molded, considerable development may be involved in refining
t h e design of the product and of the tooling. The injection-mold may
involve some complex core pulls. This kind of change may require a
substantial production volume for the engineering and tooling
investments to be amortized. As a result, such changes are limited to
products produced in very large quantities, normally hundreds of
thousands or millions per year.
However, all products worked on by the design engineer may not
enjoy such large volumes. Sometimes, it is desired to produce a prod-
uct in pilot quantities in order to test such features as its mar-
ketability, functionality, or reliability. Many products, notably equip-
ment, machines, devices for industrial use, or products for niche
markets, are inherently limited in production volume. A question
arises as to whether it is worthwhile, or even possible, to successfully
apply DFM techniques to products that are manufactured in these
limited quantities. The answer is yes, but the approach and the
improvement guidelines in such cases will vary from that used in
high-production applications.
280
DFX for Low-Quality Production 281
Factors to Consider
The cost of tooling is perhaps the most important factor in choosing a
design suitable for lower-quantity production, but it is not the only fac-
tor. Others a r e the cost and lead time for development of the manufac-
turing process, the selection of production equipment, and the selection
of material. These factors may be compounded if the design is innova-
tive. Tooling cost is significant because it must be amortized over the
production life of the product. High tooling costs mean high manufac-
turing costs unless the production run is long enough so that the unit
amortized cost is no longer a major factor. The same is true of any
development costs for production equipment, materials, or other design
characteristics. Development of new production equipment and of inno-
vative materials and designs requires time and cost. If these innova-
tions apply only to one product, that product must bear the cost. Lower
production volumes limit the amount that they can be amortized.
When expected production quantities are not large, as in the manu-
facture of much machinery and equipment, tooling, and many other
specialized products, designers cannot afford to utilize components or
configurations that require high-cost tooling or extensive process or
product development. They must concentrate on simpler components
or those that are already in production and available elsewhere-from
other products already in production in their firm or from commercially
stocked components available from vendors.
Another interesting point is that design for speed-to-market and
design for low-quantity production have much in common. Often, it is
desirable to u s e low-quantity methods for the initial production of a
new product. This minimizes the lead times that would be required for
procurement of high-production tooling and equipment, enabling the
product to b e brought to market sooner. Later, if the product is suc-
cessful, higher production tooling can be utilized, with worthwhile sav-
ings in manufacturing cost.
Figure 22.la, b, and c depicts an interesting case of an appliance-
fluid manifold. For mass production, the zinc die casting of Fig. 2 2 . 1 ~
provided a low-cost, quality connection for the various hoses in the
equipment. For earlier pilot production, the machined manifold block
shown in Fig. 22.lb was used. It had a higher unit cost than the die
casting but avoided the need to invest in a rather expensive die-casting
die before t h e product design was fully finalized for mass production.
Another approach that would be suitable for prototypes and possibly
pilot production is shown in Fig. 22.l c where inexpensive catalog-avail-
able PVC plastic fittings were bonded together to provide the same
function. Figure 22.lb and c, then, represents designs suitable for low-
quantity production. Figure 22.la shows a mass production design.
(b)
Figure 22.1 (a) This zinc-die-cast appliance fluid mani-

fold provides a low-cost, quality design for mass-pro-
duction conditions. Note that the die-casting process
allows screw threads to be cast into the part, avoiding
expensive machining operations. This design is much
less costly than the approaches shown in parts (b) and
(c) but requires a complex die-casting die, the cost of
which cannot be easily amortized unless production
quantities are high. (Courtesy of Chicago White Metal
Casting, Inc., Bensenuille, 111.) ( b ) This machined and
mechanically assembled appliance fluid manifold pro-
vides a workable component with low tooling cost. It is
a suitable predecessor of the die-cast manifold in part
(a) during prototype or pilot production conditions.
(Courtesy of Chicago White Metal Casing, Inc.,
Bensenville, Ill.) (c) Assembled and bonded manifold
made from inexpensive, commercially available PVC
plastic pipe fittings. This is another possible approach
t o the design of the manifold of part (a) for prototype
production conditions.
(C)
Figure 22.1 (Continued)
Guidelines Applicable to Low-Quantity

Production
The recommendations that follow are intended to provide more
detailed guidance to the designer in complying with the principles dis-
cussed previously in this chapter.
1. An important rule for design and manufacturing managers is
standardize, standardize, standardize!
Standardization is even more important for limited-quantity produc-
tion than it is for mass production because, in the former, there is not
the opportunity to amortize the additional cost of special items.
Standardization is discussed at length in Chap. 9. All of the items
mentioned-product drawings, design features, fasteners, all other
kinds of parts, materials, organization, procedures, and processes,
when they follow repetitive, predictable patterns, provide much more
powerful benefits at lower production levels than they do when mass
production is involved. They eliminate all the one-time costs that
accrue when something new is started. In the case of component parts,
these one-time costs include the tooling investment required. For other
items such a s engineering drawings and procedures, they include the
training, setup, defect prevention, and other expenses involved in
starting something new.
Manufacturers should allocate engineering resources to set up and
control company standards. Then they should insist that only the stan-
dardized items are to be used in the company’s products. Achieving
standardization requires an investment and continuing attention, but
these will normally be amply repaid. When existing components are
utilized, there is little or no process development or initial training

required. There is no tooling or gage cost or lead time. Potential qual-
ity problems have already been solved and an additional inventory may
not be needed. Similar benefits follow the standardization of systems
and procedures.
2. “Never design a part that you can take out of a catalog.”l Catalog-
standard parts often have advantages beyond that of company-stan-
dard parts in that they are made by the supplier in large quantities
with efficient production methods, providing favorable costs. In addi-
tion, quality and reliability are already established and field service, if
ever needed, is facilitated.
Figure 22.2 shows the frame of an industrial fixture assembled from
pipe components of the type used to make fencing and railing. These are
off-the-shelf, available commercial components. This design replaced a
previous one that required the welding of square steel tubing. With the
off-the-shelf pipe and fittings, relatively low-skilled assembly labor
replaced that of a higher-skilled welder. Secondary operations that often
occur with welding (slag removal, filling, straightening) were eliminated
and appearance was improved.
3. Design for manufacturing processes that are suitable for low pro-
duction levels, i.e., those with low tooling costs. Examples are assem-
Figure 22.2 The legs for this movable fixture were made from commercially available
railing pipe and fittings. This compares with a previous design that used welded tubing
which required several secondary operations. The new design is preferable, especially
consideringthe limited production run involved. (Courtesy of PowerHouse Exhibits.)
blies that a r e mechanically assembled, soldered, welded, brazed, or

adhesively bonded. For smaller quantities this is often more economi-
cal than using castings or molded parts or performing intricate
machining. Thermoforming is a desirable approach for parts that
would otherwise be injection-molded in mass production. Thermoform-
ing tooling i s almost always inexpensive and has short lead times.
Sometimes, wooden forms are suitable. Figure 22.3 shows a thermo-
formed housing that, in mass production, would probably be injection-
molded. Injection molding provides opportunity for more design com-
plexity that, when production volume permits, can be advantageous in
reducing parts count and providing useful features. However, for short-
run production or for speeding a product to market, the thermoformed
approach is quite satisfactory.
For machined parts, if the company possesses computer-controlled
machine tools, it is desirable to design parts so that they can be
processed o n such equipment rather than on production equipment
that requires special cutting tools and holding fixtures. Providing the
proper configuration electronically is less costly for shorter runs than
by providing it with hardware. Machining centers with tool changers
can perform a whole series of operations in one setup. Such equipment
is particularly advantageous when it is part of a CAD/CAM system.
Figure 22.3 This thermoformed plastic housing provides attractive appearance

and utility to the product, a color printer, but does not require a sizable tooling
investment nor the lead time that would be required if it were injection-molded.
It is, therefore, a favorable design alternative for a product made in low or mod-
erate quantities. It was fabricated for pilot production. When the product was suc-
cessful, an injection-molded enclosure took its place. (Courtesy of Profile Plastics
Corporation.)
4. It may prove advantageous to hog the part solely from solid-stock

material rather than to produce a sand-mold casting or other casting
and machine-finish it, particularly when computer-controlled machin-
ing equipment is available. Sand-molding and other casting processes
require some tooling investment for patterns and molds. This can be
avoided if a purely machining approach is used.
5. When plastic injection-molded parts would be favorable for the
product but production levels are not high enough to justify the tool-
ing cost, consider the use of short-run injection-molded parts. These
are more expensive per unit than high-production molded parts, but
have low tooling costs. Walls of such parts are usually thicker than
those made from high-production tooling. This simplifies molding
somewhat, since lower pressures can be used and mold filling is eas-
ier. Aluminum molds are often used because of their easier machin-
ability b u t cast or cast and machined molds may also be used. These
may require disassembly between shots to avoid the need for core pulls
and ejector pins. The labor content as well as the materials content of
such parts may be rather high, but the total cost including mold amor-
tization is far lower than would be the case if more sophisticated injec-
tion molding were employed.
Another technique is to use cast plastic parts. Urethane material can
be cast in a variety of flexibilities with or without a foaming effect.
Other materials such as polyester, epoxy, acrylic, and nylon can also be
cast. One advantage of casting, when silicone rubber or other rubber
molds a r e used, is that large undercuts can be incorporated in the con-
figuration of the part. The flexibility of the mold allows the cast part to
be removed from the mold despite the existence of substantial under-
cuts. Most silicone molds can withstand from 100 to 250 shots, depend-
ing on t h e material and the complexity of the part.
Figure 22.4 shows a cast urethane block in a fmture used in the pro-
cessing of golf clubs. The illustration also shows the silicone rubber
mold used to cast the block. The mold was also cast from a wooden pat-
tern of the part. In this example, the previous design relied on
machined plastic blocks for the same application. Machining was
expensive but the quantity involved was too low for amortization of the
cost of injection molds. The cast blocks were far less costly than those
made by machining. Because of the casting process-pouring liquid
resin into rubber molds-undercut and sidewall draft limitations of
injection molding could be bypassed.
6. If machined components are used (which is more likely at low pro-
duction levels),utilize materials with good machinability ratings. When
machining at high production levels, the development of optimum
machining techniques such as tool grinding angles, coolants, feeds, and
speeds, can aid in the use of lower-cost but less-machinable materials.
However, when runs are short, such developmental cost cannot be
Figure 23.4 This cast urethane fixture block replaced an earlier part that was machined
from solid stock. Note the silicone rubber mold. This type of casting is a desirable process
for low-quantity production levels. (Courtesy of PowerHouse Exhibits.)
absorbed and the designer is advised to select materials that can be eas-
ily processed, even if the material cost rises somewhat as a result.
7. For other processes, try to utilize materials that are formulated
for easy processibility. For example, for stampings or other formed
metal parts, use metal alloys or grades that are specifically intended
for easy formability, e.g., certain grades of brass which bend and flow
easily without problems. The brass may be more expensive per unit
weight or unit volume than mild steel, but, when quantities are low,
the added materials cost may be negligible in comparison to the over-
head costs t h a t can be saved.
8. If metal stampings are used, design parts suitable for short-run
methods such as those involved with turret punches, nibblers, and
press brakes rather than punch presses with complex dies. This means
that operations such as deep drawing and complex forming should be
avoided in favor of simpler bent and joined surfaces.
9. Use stock material shapes as much as possible to avoid machin-
ing. This is a good DFM rule for all levels of production, but it may be
particularly beneficial if production runs are short since, in such cases,
setup times are a larger portion of the total manufacturing cycle.
(Figure 13.3 shows some examples.)
The savings priority in your design of a product produced in low

quantities should be the following:
1. Save tooling costs.

2. Save other overhead costs.
3. Save labor costs.
4. Save materials costs.
Normally, for high-production manufacture, direct labor and materials

costs are more important and it is justifiable to expend a greater invest-
ment in tooling and engineering in order to reduce them. This, how-
ever, will not normally be true at low production levels since the higher
investment cannot be amortized.
References
1. D. M. Anderson, Design for Manufacturability, CIM Press, Latayette, Calif.,1990.
2. J. G. Bralla (ed.),Handbook ofProdmt Design for Manufacturing, McGraw-Hill, New
York, 1986.
Part
4
DFX at Work
Chapter
23
Some Success Stories
DFM has been with us long enough and has been successful enough
that there have been many instances of companies using it to make
substantial improvements in the design of their products. These have
been well reported in technical periodicals and in some books. I will
repeat some here and also attempt to cover some cases where the ben-
efits extend beyond manufacturability to some of the other important
attributes that a product should have.
The most significant single step made by many companies that
implemented major DFM improvements was:
They eliminated parts from assemblies.
They often did this by intelligent use of plastics. The companies
replaced a series of screw fasteners and other parts with a small num-
ber of more complex injection-molded plastic parts. This kind of
improvement is described in Chap. 12. As indicated, the tremendous
capability of present-day plastics materials to incorporate complex con-
figurations including such elements as hinges, bearing surfaces,
springs, integral colors, and surfaces, enables, for many products, a
large series o f component parts to be combined into one single part.
Probably t h e next most significant steps that improved manufac-
turability in the successful applications of DFM were design changes
that reduced the number of manufacturing operations, especially
machining operations. (This approach is discussed at greater length in
Chap. 13.) Although machining operations provide the precision that is
often needed in current products, particularly when there are moving
parts, it is surprising how often the components can be redesigned so
that the machined surfaces are not needed.
Most of the cases that have been reported to date emphasize manu-
fucturability benefits. Design improvements with a prime benefit in
291
292 DFXat Work
some other attribute are not as common. Except for the first case to be
discussed in this chapter (the IBM Proprinter), the objective of this
chapter is to report instances in which companies have gained advan-
tages i n quality, reliability, time-to-market, environmental-friend-
liness, or other attributes as a result of a design improvement project.
The IBM Proprinter'

The design of the IBM Proprinter has become a classic case in illus-
trating the benefits that can accrue to a company that employs creative
DFM. Though no longer a new story, it bears repeating because of the
magnitude of the benefits the new design provided and the important
place it held in the competitive position of the company.
Japanese companies were quick to capitalize on the personal computer
boom i n the United States in the 1980s, supplying inexpensive dot matrix
printers which could quickly print output data from the computers.
IBM, a major producer of personal computers, relied on printers sup-
plied by Epson in Japan t o satisfy the needs of customers of the IBM
personal computers. The Epson MX80 was imported and marketed by
IBM under the IBM name. A concurrent engineering (early manufac-
turing involvement)/DFM project was undertaken to design and man-
ufacture an IBM-produced replacement for the Epson unit. The objec-
tives were to have a simple design that could be assembled with
minimum labor and would be suitable for robotic assembly.
Perhaps the most dramatic design change was the incorporation of
numerous snap-fit connections between parts and the consequent elimi-
nation of all 74 threaded fasteners in the Epson design. Additionally, the
Proprinter could be assembled in a layered, top-down fashion, while the
MX80 required numerous instances of complex side-assembled compo-
nents that had to be held in place before they were secured with screw
fasteners. Soldered connections were replaced with plug-in connections,
which are faster and reliable. Spring action, where needed, was incorpo-
rated in the plastic parts. Adjustments were also eliminated.
The results of all the changes were dramatic and can be summarized
as follows:
Epson MX80 Proprinter

Total parts (includingsubassemblies) 152 32
Number of threaded fasteners 74 0
Standard assembly time (min) 31.1 2.8
Number of assembly operations 185 32
One interesting result of the IBM design is that the planned robotic
assembly turned out t o be of questionable need, given the rapid assem-
bly that could be achieved manually. However, robotic equipment was
Some Success Stories 293
in place for the new design and was utilized by IBM. The Proprinter
design not only achieved economical factory assembly but was advan-
tageous from a service standpoint as well.* The product has also
achieved good reliability performance. Figure 16.3 provides an illus-
tration of the Proprinter.
The Aluminum Beverage Can

The familiar aluminum beverage can, with its integral, easily opened
pouring panel, is a very common product that we have come to take for
granted. Almost 100 billion of them are made each year in the United
States. This simple product, which is sold to beverage companies for
just a few cents, is actually the manifestation of a high level of achieve-
ment in the manufacturing engineering art.It is the result of very close
cooperation between product design and manufacturing engineering
functions over an extended period. The design has evolved over several
years, with a gradual reduction in the amount of material required and
the development of defect-free factory yields. The can also has many
desirable DFX attributes, such as:
User-friendliness. It can be opened by the user without a separate tool.

Safety. It replaces a can which, when opened, produced a small
sharp-edged, detached metal tab that could cut the user or possibly
be swallowed with significant injury. It has less potential for injury
t h a n a glass bottle that may present sharp edges when broken.
Environmental-friendziness. Aluminum cans have a high rate of
recycling, nearly 65 percent. A can made from recycled material uses
only 5 percent of the energy of a new can and costs only 20 percent as
much.2 The can is much lighter than a glass bottle, saving energy in
shipment and making handling ergonomically preferable for those
who deliver and handle crates of beverages.
Manufacturubility. The basic can is drawn from one sheet; the top is
drawn from another. The pour panel and the rivet that holds it are
made from the same sheet. Earlier tin cans were made from plated
steel, tin solder, and a separate bottom. The use of material in the cur-
*In attempting t~ get a Proprinter for my DFM class at Polytechnic University, to

demonstrate snap-fit, top-down assembly of this product, I indicated my interest to per-
sons at IBM in getting an old Proprinter, one that they no longer needed because it was
inoperative (and, I assumed, easier to get for that reason). It turned out that all the old
Proprinters on hand at the company’s New York facilities were still working well. The
unit is so easy to disassemble and reassemble that users in the IBM ofices had gotten
into the habit of furing any disabled units themselves simply by replacing any inopera-
tive component with another from stock and reassembling the printer!
294 DFXat Work
Figure 23.1 The mundane aluminum beverage can is actually

an example of a high level of achievement in manufacturing
engineering and product design. The current can has signifi-
cant advantages in safety, user-friendliness, quality, recycla-
bility and manufadurabilitycompared to earlier designs.
rent design is minimized due to very thin walls. The deep drawn and
ironed can body and the partially separated (scored)pour panel at the
top require very precise manufacturingcontrol. "he consistency of such
operations and the high speed of the operation-well over 1000 cans
per minute-testlfy to the high level of engineering that is exhibited.
Quality and reliability. The drawn and ironed can is much more free
from defects than the earlier soldered can. The earlier design yielded
approximately 5 to 10 defects per 10,000 units while the current can
designs yield only 1to 3 defects per million units.
Figure 23.1 illustrates the cans described.
Bobbin Cases for Singer Sewing Machines

Figure 23.2 shows three parts that are very similar. They are all bob-
bin cases for a particular series of household sewing machines manu-
factured by the Singer Company. The parts are interchangeable and all
perform the same function. They hold a small bobbin of thread under
the bed slide of the machine, supplying the thread that creates a lock
stitch in the fabric being sewed.
Figure 23.2 Three bobbin cases for household sewing machines. The one on the left was
machined from solid bar stock with many operations. The center one was redesigned as
an investment casting and the one on the right was molded from a special alloy of phe-
nolic plastic. Each design improvement provided cost advantages, but the newest design
provides improved function as serviceabilityand reliabilityadvantages.
The part o n the left was machined from solid steel stock. Because of
the complex contours and surfaces required, the part required approx-
imately 60 manufacturing operations to convert material in bar form to
the finished part shown. These operations were primarily machining
operations (metal removal), the kind of operations that are costly
because of the high overhead expense that they entail. In addition t o
the major operations, primarily machining, there was a considerable
number of deburring, polishing, and other secondary operations
involved. The fact that sewing thread has to pass over many of the sur-
faces of the part necessitated a smooth, polished finish for these sur-
faces. Singer invested the necessary funds t o put these machining and
finishing operations on a highly automatic and, considering their
extent, low-labor-cost basis. Even so, the part was costly and redesign
possibilities were investigated.
The part in the center of the illustration was made with a slightly dif-
ferent design and a different process. The basic part was designed for
investment casting rather than machining. Investment casting is a
process that can produce parts of high complexity to relatively precise
dimensions. It is best suited to small, complex parts like this one.
Singer changed its design and process to make the bobbin case in this
way. A number of machining operations, perhaps 15, including finish-
ing operations, were still required, because some surfaces and dimen-
sions required precision beyond the capabilities of the investment cast-
ing process. Nevertheless, the reduction in cost and throughput time
were consider able.
The part on the right-hand side of the illustrations shows the Apollo
bobbin case, currently the ultimate design. This version of the part was
molded from a thermosetting plastic material. An engineering-grade
plastic was used, an alloy of several polymers that provides the prop-
erties oflubricity and wear-resistance that is required. The new part is
296 DFXatWork
superior from several standpoints. It is lower in cost because of the

greatly reduced operations required. (Note: All the parts shown are
assemblies, requiring a screw-held tension spring. This portion of the
design is the same for all three varieties.) The molded part is virtually
complete as it comes from the molding machine, except for some light
finishing.
In addition to its cost advantages, the newest design is superior from
several DFX standpoints. Perhaps most important, its plastic material
ensures lightweight and quiet operation, a significant fador in sewing
machines. The lighter weight makes it easier for thread to pass over it,
a sequence that takes place once for each stitch that the machine pro-
duces. Sewing performance is improved a small but worthwhile amount
in that thread tension can be reduced and puckering of stitches is less
likely. Th e new part has serviceability advantages as well. The change
in material eliminates the necessity of Zapping-in the bobbin case, a
time-consumingoperation, should the bobbin case have to be replaced in
service. With the earlier designs, if the bobbin case required replace-
ment, it was also necessary to replace the mating part (the hook body)
and to l a p the two parts together to ensure a smooth fit. The newer
design eliminates the necessity to do this, since the bobbin case has suf-
ficient complianceto fit the existinghook body. Thus,the new design has
cost, manufacturing lead time, performance, reliability, and serviceabil-
ity advantages. The durability of the newer design has also proven to be
well within the lifetime specifications formulated by Singer.
Baskets for IndustrialSewing Machines

The same kinds of advantages, but in greater degree, accrue when a
corresponding change is made for industrial sewing machines. Bakron
Corporation has developed a new basket, as the bobbin case for indus-
trial machines is called, which has significant advantages over the pre-
vious design. Like Singer’s Apollo bobbin case, this component, with
the new design, is molded rather than machined. In this case the mate-
rial is a more advanced thermosetting polymer. Manufacturing opera-
tions were reduced in number by approximately 60 percent compared
with the previous steel part.
The component is used in straight-stitch machines that typically run
at speeds up to about 6000 stitches per min, far faster than household
machines. Because of the high speed of industrial machines, the advan-
tages of the new design exceed those attained by the change in Singer’s
household machine. A major advantage of the new design is that it does
not require oil lubrication with its attendant oil pump. There was a ten-
dency, with the older design, for the lubricating oil to get on and spoil
the garment being sewed. Another advantage is that the lubricity of the
plastic material allows the sewing machine to run faster. Stitch per-
formance also improved because, like the Singer Apollo bobbin case,
the new basket is lighter in weight, allowing the thread to pass around
it more easily on each stitch, thus allowingthread tension to be reduced
and lowering the possibility of puckering of the fabric being sewed or
the thread breaking.
There is also a safety improvement with the new basket. It can be
handled even after sewing at 6000 stitches per min; the steel predeces-
sor tended to heat above the handling temperature because of friction
from the high-speed machine operation. Additionally, as in the Apollo
bobbin case (but more so, because of the greater precision of industrial
sewing machines) the basket, if replaced, can be dropped into position.
The steel predecessor had to be mated and lapped to the holding device,
the hook of t h e machine. A $6 part now replaces the basket when nec-
essary rather than a $20 combination of parts. Servicingtime is greatly
reduced. The new basket is shown in Fig. 23.3.
Pipette Assemblies by Medical Laboratories

Automation
Medical Laboratories Automation (MLA) is a company in Pleas-
antville, New York, that manufactures a number of laboratory devices.
Pipettes, instruments for extracting and dispensing liquids, form a
part of the company’s product line. Normally used in laboratories, they
are similar to syringes or small turkey basters except that they mea-
sure small volumes of liquid to the high degree of precision needed for
laboratory work.
One device that the company makes is a selectable pipette. This is one
that is usable for several different volumes of liquid. The operator can
select which volume to handle by turning a top button on the pipette to a
specific volume setting. A selectable pipette is illustrated in Fig. 23.4.
Different liquid volume capabilities are built into the device by incor-
porating several stops to control the travel of the metering piston that
controls the amount of the liquid handled. Turning the top button
changes the stop used to control the piston stroke. With the previous
pipette design, these stops consisted of small pins fitted into the assem-
bly. The length of the pins controlled the length of the piston travel.
Figure 23.5 illustrates a button and pin assembly with three different
pin lengths for three different metering volumes.
The weaknesses with this design were several. A significant amount
of machining of component parts was needed to provide mounting holes
for the pins in a part called the button and to provide clearance holes
for the pins in the adjacent part. The pins themselves were also
machined and ground to control their length and diameter. These
machining operations were followed by a relatively labor-intensive
assembly and adhesive-bonding operation. When pipette assemblies
298 DFXat Work
Figure 23.3 This bobbin case basket for high-speed industrial

sewing machines is iqjection-molded of a composite ther-
mosetting plastic material and is similar to the bobbin cases
in Fig. 23.2, However, it represents a still more sophisticated
design. T h e advantages of this design are severalfold: it is
much more easily manufactured than an earlier steel version
which required many machining operations; this version
requires only two. It also offers quality advantages to the gar-
ments o r other items being sewn since, because of the materi-
al’s lubricity, it does not require oil lubrication which, with the
steel basket, sometimes produces oily spots on the fabric being
sewn. It offers maintainability advantages as well since when
it wears out (at approximately the same rate as the steel ver-
sion), the mating part does not have to be replaced. This is due
t o the compliance of the thermosetting material. The steel
variety requires the replacement of two parts which must be
lapped together for optimum fit.
were returned to the company for repair, the common problem was
bent o r displaced pins.
A new design was developed as a result of a DFM project. This new
design utilized a series of steps in the bonnet instead of the pins to con-
trol the piston travel, as can be seen in Fig. 23.5. Four pins, the adhe-
sive, and the assembly operation are eliminated. There is a net reduc-
tion in the amount of machining required; milling additional steps and
clearance in the adjacent part is simpler than the machining required
to prepare for the pins in the previous design. The design change pro-
vides a net reduction of 39 percent of labor and material costs, a very
worthwhile improvement.
Figure 23.4 This pipette assembly, used in laboratory analysis, can extract and dispense
a precise amount of liquid.
Figure 23.5 Two methods of controlling the stroke of the liquid

metering piston in the MLA pipette shown in Fig. 23.4. In the
assembly shown on the left, pins of different lengths, inserted and
bonded t o the mating part, controlled the piston stroke. In the
improved design, shown on the right, steps machined in the bon-
net control the stroke. Both cost and reliability advantages
resulted from the change.
More important, however, are the reliability, ease of use, and service
improvements. The reliability is extended greatly, since bent and loose
pins h a d been the prime cause for service and repair on these devices.
Since the design change was implemented, customer service calls and
complaints have disappeared. Pipettes have not been returned to MLA
for repair of metering piston stops.
300 DFXat Work
Analysis of the cause of the incidence of bent and displaced stop pins
indicated that damage to the pins could be caused by inadvertent
errors o n the part of the users of the pipettes. If the user depressed the
button while turning it to a different volume setting, the stop pin could
be engaged and bent. The new design precludes such errors.
The new design has other user-friendliness advantages. The button
is larger and easier to handle. The new design places the volume num-
bers o n a different surface where the numbers can be larger and more
easily read.
The new design also offers quality advantages. The new, larger-volume
numbers now can be engraved with computer-controlledequipment while
the previous design used smaller numbers below the capacity of the auto-
matic engraving machine. The quality of the computer-controlledengrav-
ings is superior and parts are no longer lost due to defective engraving
during setup.
In summary, MLA gained advantages in manufacturing cost,
improved reliability, reduced need for customer service, ease of use,
and product quality as a result of this redesign project.
Storage Technology’s Power Supply for Disk-

Array Data Storage Devices
A concurrent engineering team was assembled at StorageTek to
redesign an existing power supply for use on a new redundant array of
independent disks (RAID) data storage device. Design objectives
included shrinking the size of the existing power supply by 30 percent;
providing safety features; incorporating easy testability; and, highly
important, providing a simplified, more easily manufactured compo-
nent. The size reduction was particularly important because it permit-
ted standardized use of the power supply in two different devices. The
team’s success in achieving its objectives is demonstrated by the fol-
lowing summary.
~
Old design New design

Weight o f the power supply (lb) 14 11
Overall s i z e (in3) 634 432
Total number of parts 75 41
Threaded fasteners 49 10
Assembly operations 138 105
Assembly time (min) 27 15
Progress was also made in achieving a number of DFX objectives. The

following specific improvements are identified by number in Fig. 23.6.
1. Safety and ease of use. Component mounting screws were replaced
b y formed features in the sheet-metal chassis. In addition to a parts
2 3
4
New Design Old Design,
Cover Installed Cover Installed
New Design, Old Design, Cover Removed

Cover Removed
Figure 23.6 This illustration shows elements of the previous and the improved power
supply for disk array storage devices. (See the text for an explanation of the numbered
changes.) (Courtesy Storage Technology Corporation.)
count reduction and easier assembly, the elimination of these protrud-

ing screws resulted in improved ergonomic handling of the completed
assembly. The risk of snagging clothes, cutting skin, and scratching
work surfaces or adjacent parts is gone.
2. Safety. Some power connectors are not always used, based on the
specific power requirements for a given machine. Safety caps were
302 DFX at Work
added t o reduce shock hazards from unused connectors. Incidentally,

the need for this enhancement was recognized only after a product
safety engineer was included in the design team. Despite the added
safety caps, the total parts count in this device, as indicated above, was
considerably reduced.
3. Safety. This jumper is used to configure the machine for specific
power levels. It plugs into connectors identical to the output connectors
on the t o p panel. Accidental misplugging into one of these connectors
would result in a direct short circuit of high voltage lines. This hazard
was recognized by the product safety engineer who joined the team. A
keying pin was added to the jumper to preclude the possibility of mak-
ing an incorrect connection.
4. Testability and quality. This connector was added at the request
of the test engineer who was added to the design team. It simplifies fac-
tory testing of the machine power system which would otherwise have
required partial disassembly of the power cabling.
5. Serviceability. Two surfaces were removed from the chassis and
included as part of the cover. This allowed much better access to other
portions of the power supply during both assembly and service.
6. Seruiceability. The old design used all black wires. The new design
uses color-coded wires for easy identification and tracing.
AT&T's System 3000, Model 3600 Computer

This computer, used for on-line transaction processing and database
inquiry applications, is of the massively parallel type. From two to hun-
dreds of Intel 486 and PentiumO microprocessors divide computing
tasks a n d provide rapid computation. The computer is a recent design
by AT&T and represents some significant improvements from the ear-
lier model it replaced. A number of important objectives were
addressed in the design: manufacturability, upgradability, serviceabil-
ity, user-friendliness, reliability, and safety.
It w a s developed, among other factors, for easy user servicing and
component replacement. Classified as a mainframe type by its power
and size, it has a series of plug-in circuit boards, similar in concept to
those of a typical personal computer. If the customer desires to upgrade
the unit, additional circuits can be added with a simple plug-in and
latch approach. The circuit boards were designed with integral electro-
static protection so that customer handling will not damage the elec-
tronic components. If a failure takes place, the computer has built-in
circuitry to identify the location of the cause. The faulty circuit board
can be replaced easily by the computer user. Other user-friendly design
attributes are the standardization of features such as marking and
latches, and an overall design that provided access to areas that may
need user attention.
Figure 23.7 This mainframe computer was designed for user-servicingand user-upgrad-
ing. Plug-in modules are visible in the photo. Circuits can be repaired, if necessary, by
replacing the appropriate module. Plugging in the proper additional module increases
the capacity of the computer system. (Courtesy of AT&T Global Information Solutions.)
DFM was also used in the design of the computer in all components
including printed circuit boards, other electronic components, and
mechanical parts. The computer has a sheet-metal housing which was
designed to u s e standard press-brake and punch-press tooling. Rivet-
ing was adopted instead of welding because of the distortion that is
inherent in welding. Additionally, the use of rivets permitted the sheet-
304 DFX at Work
metal parts t o be plated prior t o assembly and still have full plating
coverage. This would not have been possible with a welded design with-
out the housing vendor’s investment in a larger plating tank. All in all,
the DFM changes in the housing design reduced lead time for this com-
ponent from 10 to 3 weeks. Wire harnesses were avoided in the design
in favor of board-to-board plug-in connections between circuits. Con-
siderable manufacturing economies were obtained by incorporating as
much circuitry as possible into microcircuits.
Strife testing (see Chap. 15) was used to test the design for reliabil-
ity. For the attribute of safety, the design avoids high internal voltages
and sharp edges. ‘Sourcesof electromagnetic radiation were minimized.
Housing ventilation slots were designed to prevent the escape of radi-
ation from sources that could not be eliminated. Figure 23.7 is a pho-
tograph of the computer cabinet and the easily replaceable, plug-in
modules.
References
1. G.Boothroyd and P. Dewhurst, “Designfor Assembly in Action,”Assembly Engineering,
January 1987.
2. N. Grove, “Recycling,”National Geographic, July 1994.
The Future of DFX
The Future
There seems t o be a certain faddishness in management techniques,
as there is in such things as clothing styles, house architecture, col-
ors, and even political movements. Interest in certain new methods
and systems seems to rise rapidly if there is some promise that it will
be of significant benefit. "hen, later, one reads and hears less and
less about the technique, and it is reduced to only historical signifi-
cance. For example, matrix management, an organizational approach
popular with American corporations in the late 1970s now seems to
be almost unheard of. Likewise, little is currently written about
PERT charts. (These approaches still have value in certain situations
but are not t h e cure-alls they were touted to be at the height of their
popularity.)
A valid question then is, Will the same thing happen to DFIWDFX?
Will this approach which, at this writing, is enjoying a surge of inter-
est, tend to fade into history as something management focused on
back in the early 199Os?
I don't expect so.
Perhaps some emphasis will change and perhaps some of the termi-
nology will change, but the benefits of DFX are too powerful for the
approach to become passe. As long as there is competitive pressure to
provide desirable qualities and low cost in manufactured products, it
will be essential to incorporate in their design the desirable character-
istics furthered by DFX.
Therefore, i n the future we expect more DFM/DFX, not less. The
number of college courses on this subject, which has increased rapidly
in the last few years, will surely continue to grow and these courses will
undoubtedly be retained as part of the curricula for product engineering
305
306 DFXat Work
programs.* Most probably, the use of knowledge bases to provide assis-

tance to designers in ensuring that all desirable design objectives are
met will become a normal, accepted part of product design.
Computer-Aided DFX, Integral with CAD

Another trend that seems certain for the future is the further merging
of computers and DFX. As indicated previously, computer evaluation of
the labor content of assembly involved in design alternatives is becom-
ing widespread. Computerized cost estimating is also useful in evalu-
ating t h e cost of the component parts of a product. There have been
advances, also, in the use of expert computer systems to provide guid-
ance to the designer in improving the reliability, quality, and manu-
facturability of the design.
A basic problem in utilizing D F W F X , as the system now exists, is
that there are a great number of design guidelines that a designer must
have access to and consider. The effects of some of them are quite sub-
tle, but should be evaluated for any design that is to be optimized. If
this kind of information can be put into a computer program, the need
for the designer to understand and remember so much detailed knowl-
edge a n d the need for time-consuming cost estimating work can be
vastly reduced. Therefore, systems that take the expert knowledge of
the manufacturing engineer and other specialists and put it in the
hands o f the designer in a way that-the designer can utilize easily, must
be the wave of the future. This is especially true if the computer system
can provide cost data and other systems to evaluate the effect of the
implementation of each guideline or design principle.
It is in this last arena (expert systems) that future progress will take
place. I t seems inevitable that eventually CAE/CAD and DFX will
merge. Designers need the computer and CAD system to maximize
their design effectiveness. They are increasingly using the computer to
provide and evaluate design guidelines. The natural trend is to com-
bine these two systems. When the combined approach reaches its full
extent, designers using CAE/CAD will either automatically get DFX
advice as they proceed with their design or will be able to activate a
DFX audit of the design as it progresses. The expert system program
will analyze the design, compare it with the guidelines and rules
stored i n its memory, and call discrepancies to the attention of the
designers. In some cases, it may also proceed to provide corrections to
* S U N ~by~ the
S ASME Design for Manufacturability Committee indicate that, at pre-
sent, there are at least 20 colleges offering courses in DFM or courses with a substantial
DFM content. These include Polytechnic University;h d u e ; Brigham Young; Stanford;
Auburn; Rensselaer; and the Universities of Tennessee, Cincinnati, Rochester, Massa-
chusetts, and Rhode Island.
The Future of DFX 307
the design. For example, it might suggest rounding off some sharp cor-
ners or moving holes farther apart (to avoid tooling problems). It
might call attention to design features that require mold or die core
members, which increase mold cost. It could, i n addition, suggest man-
ufacturing tolerances for dimensions of the part. It could question the
use of screw fasteners if the parts involved are the kind that can uti-
lize snap-fit elements.
It should be noted again that most DFX guidelines are just that-
guidelines, not hard rules-and judgment and compromise are an
essential part of every design. It probably will not be feasible to expect
the expert program to be able to weigh the importance of conflicting
guidelines and objectives. This must be done by the designers them-
selves. There are too many interactions and overlapping objectives in a
design project and in the guidelines themselves to permit the existence
of one exactly correct alternative. The expert system program can, how-
ever, call to the designer’s attention those features which, on a surface
evaluation, appear to have potential for improvement if overall objec-
tives are to b e met. The program, then, will function in a manner sim-
ilar to the way a spelling checker or grammar checker operates in a
word processing program. When activated by the operator, these pro-
grams point out apparent rule violations for the operator to accept or
reject, as is seen fit.
Such a system involves complex computer programming and is not
easily accomplished. In 1990, Ramalingam pointed out some of the
problems and concluded that “automated assessment of design for com-
patibility with a particular production technology, using an appropri-
ate expert system tool is not yet feasible.”‘
Zucherman also presented information on the difficulty in integrat-
ing expert systems into CAD and reported on some preliminary
research done on this at Hughes Aircraft Company.2 He used a n avail-
able artificial intelligence program, HICLASS, to codify and organize
expert system manufacturability guidelines so that they could be
retrieved a n d used with a CAD system. He pointed out that an expert
system knowledge base can be very complex and difficult to manage.
Also, the knowledge base is dependent on the production equipment
available and therefore must be revised and developed as improved
equipment becomes available to the production unit. Although Zucher-
man concluded that manufacturability data can be incorporated into
an expert system, he felt that advances in hardware and software per-
formance would be necessary before any integrated CAD and expert
system could become interactive.
Nevertheless, much progress has been made. The following section
describes some recent advances. It should be noted that some of the sys-
tems described are the result of research at academic institutions and
that t h e programs described may not be available for commercial use.
308 DFXatWork
Recent Advances in Merging CAD with DFX

A computer program, now available, that integrates CAD with DFM is
the Aid to Harness Engineering and Design (AHEAD) wire harness
software developed by E-Systems, Inc., for wire harness assemblies.
(Figure 24.1illustrates a typical wire harness assembly of the type cov-
ered by the program.) The CAD part of the program provides output
that is typical for a computer-aided-design program. This includes a
three-dimensional model of the harness, a bill of materials for the wire,
terminals, binding, or other enclosure devices including total wire
length for each type and size wire.
What is most interesting from the DFX standpoint, however, is the
fact t h a t the program, upon command, advises the designer if certain
design-for-manufacturabilityrules have been broken by the design.
For example, there are practical limits to the number of breakouts
(branches) and their spacing. (The allowable spacing depends on the
thickness of the bundle and its binding.) There are limits to the num-
ber of wires per pin and the minimum length of the legs at a breakout,
depending on the diameter of the leg bundle. The designer is thus
advised if the design is not manufacturable in accordance with normal
guidelines.
The program is compatible with the Unigraphics CAD system and
runs on DEC and Sun workstation computers. The system applies to
a relatively simple situation in which there are relatively few design
rules t h a t do not conflict with another, so that design trade-offs are
not normally required. However, it is a pioneering instance of incor-
porating DFM design rules into a CAD program, which, perhaps,
illustrates a pattern that may be applicable to more complex DFM
a n d DFX situations.
m
Figure 24.1 A typical wire harness assembly.
Another project involving wire-cable harnesses is the computational

support project, called First Link, being carried out at Stanford Uni-
versity by Lee and Cutkosky with participation by Park of Lockheed
Missiles a n d Space Company. The system under development involves
a number of agents, each of which covers the computations required to
support some aspect of cable harness design. The agents in the system
are the environment editor, the free space manager, the cable editor, the
component selector, and the cost comparator. The system is similar to
E-Systems’ wire harness software described above in that it does pro-
vide notification if local design constraints are violated. The system is
not yet complete, but preliminary versions of several of the agents have
been developed to the functional level.3
There are several programs that provide a simulation of material flow
in a plastics injection-molding operation. These programs do not
directly provide design change suggestions to the designer. They do,
however, highlight problem areas before the design is finished so that
designers, using their knowledge, can make changes that refine the
design. By studying the simulated flow the design engineer can make
significant improvements in the design of both the part and the mold.
Mold design can be improved with respect to gates, runners, vents, cool-
ing channels, and the balance of material flow to different cavities. The
part design can be improved by optimizing wall thickness, relocating
ribs, relocating and minimizing sink marks, and making the part less
susceptible to quality defects such as warpage and other distortions.
These programs also aid in reducing cycle time and minimizing the
amount of material in the part. One supplier of such programs is Mold-
flow, Inc., which has a series of programs. Another is AC Technology
which provides C - m ~ l dThe. ~ use of these programs starts with a CAD
design of t h e part. The CAD data on the part is then converted to an
IGES file form that the programs can process. (With one CAD program
from MSC/Aries and the Moldflow programs, this conversion is auto-
matic.) The simulation of the material flow, including its temperature,
as the mold is filled and packed, demonstrates for the design engineer
what fill problems may be encountered. The engineer can repeat the
simulation after making modifications in the design of the part or the
mold and c a n see how the operation or the part is improved by these
modifications.
Moldflow h a s related programs that provide additional information
to aid in the design of the part and the mold. These include a program
that provides more accurate information about shrinkage so that the
design of the mold can be more accurate, programs that provide inter-
nal stress information for both warpage reduction and design of the
part for load-carrying capability, and a program that provides temper-
ature information to aid in the location of cooling channels in the mold.
These simulations provide major time-to-market benefits since they
310 DFX at Work
demonstrate problems before the mold is machined, reducing the num-

ber of mold modifications that otherwise might be required.
Swift describes a system developed at the University of Hull in con-
junction with a British engineering firm and the Science and Engi-
neering Research Council (SERC).5The system provides DFM guide-
lines b y computer for parts intended for use in automatic feeding
apparatuses as part of automatic assembly. The program uses an
expert system to provide manufacturability guidelines for such parts.
The language PROLOG was used in the program. The program pro-
vides tooling time estimates as well as direct assistance in developing
the configuration of the parts. It also, partially at least, has been inte-
grated into a CAD system so that the program can evaluate the suit-
ability of the design for automatic feeding without the need for specific
questions from the designer. Swift also mentions a similar expert sys-
tem being developed to aid in tribological coatings selection.
A reliability checking system in use at several General Dynamics
installations has been described by Harbater and Tonelli.6 The system
they describe is applicable to electronic components. It incorporates an
expert-system-based rule checker that automatically identifies poten-
tial reliability and performance problems. It does this concurrently with
the computer-aided design process. The system is similar in concept to
one which would check for manufacturability. It is called Computer-
Aided Reliability Diagnostic System (CARDS).When actuated by a cir-
cuit board designer, it automatically compares the circuit elements with
those exemplifying a series of design rules. If any of the rules are vio-
lated by the design, the designer is notified on the CAD screen.
The system provides computerized access to knowledge that the
designer may not otherwise possess. Among its advantages is the fact
that t h e reliability review happens as the design is developed, not
after. Previously, reliability specialists became involved only aRer the
circuit design was completed.
There are some other notable marriages of expert-system computer
programs and CAD. Two Boston companies, Aries Technology, Inc.,
and Cognition, Inc., have developed CAE programs that aid mechani-
cal designers in evaluating the performance and reliability of their
design concepts even before the design details have been finalized. The
systems are called mechanical computer aided engineering (MCAE).
Designers can get an initial evaluation from on-screen sketches. Cog-
nition has also developed a similar program called cost and manufac-
turability expert to help designers gage some DFM factors in the con-
ceptual design. Similar systems are under development at Battelle
Memorial Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, and General Electric
C~rnpany.~
Mason and Young have reviewed the task involved in incorporating
DFM and process planning capabilities in a CAD program for printed
circuit design8(Printed circuit boards tend to be relatively more stan-

dardized than many other product components and thus may offer a
somewhat simpler environment for integrating CAD and DFX.) In the
system they visualize, rules for manufacturability and maintainability
of a circuit board are incorporated in the CAD program. Their review
covers ongoing research at Northern Telecom, Inc. They point out:
1. DFM r u l e s forprinted circuit boards (PCBs) should be differentiated

on a facility-by-facilitybasis, since manufacturing facilities differ in
the equipment they have available for PCB manufacture and many
of the rules depend on equipment capabilities.
2. Computer-aided circuit board design continues to be one of the most
successful applications of CAD to product design.
3. The principal CAD systems for PCB design contain rules that con-
trol how t h e board is laid out.
4. The design rules address maintainability as well as manufactura-
bility.
5. Rules can be invoked on a n automatic basis, i.e., to have the CAD
program refuse to accept design segments that violate rules; or on
an advisory basis, to tell the designer that a DFM rule will be vio-
lated by some element of the proposed design. In fact, both
approaches are appropriate, depending on the severity of the rule
violation and the nature of the rule.
6. A good system must allow for updating and addition of design rules.
7. Computer-aided process planning can also be incorporated in the
CAD system relatively easily since most CAD systems for PCBs
already incorporate a design database that includes bill-of-material
data used in the development of process plans. Mason and Young
advocate that the program should actually generate the plan from
the design data and resident data on materials. The plan generated
must take into consideration the expected yield of the design and the
process since this is often a critical factor in PCB production.
Computer-Assisted DFM/DFX Not Integrated

with CAD
There are a number of developments of computer systems which,
though they are not integrated with a CAD system, do facilitate man-
ufacturability or other DFX objectives. Most computerization of DFX
relates to manufacturability rather than other product attributes. As
discussed in Chap. 11,this is probably due to the fact that manufac-
turability c a n be reduced to numerical terms, namely operation time or
cost. Other attributes are not so easily expressed quantitatively.
312 DFX at Work
Nonetheless, this section provides a partial listing of the computerized

systems that are available to aid in improving product designs.
The design-for-assembly Toolkit, Assembly View, the HitachU
GE AEM method, the PolVCJniversity of Massachusetts system, all
described in Chap. 11,are very useful in evaluating assembly time for
various designs. Most also provide an assembly design efficiency rating
which gives another measure of ease of assembly. Manufacturing Advi-
sor/PCB, described in Chap. 21, is a useful manufacturability guide for
PCB assemblies. It operates on a number of workstation computers.
In the area of computer-aided formability analysis, General Motors
Research Laboratories has been developing a series of computer simu-
lations of sheet-metal forming processes. These have proven worth-
while in increasing the manufacturability of sheet-metal parts and in
avoiding quality problems. The programs are of two types: (1)specialty
analyses of narrow areas of sheet-metal forming, for example, spring-
back analysis, forming flanged sheets, and punch progression; and (2)
an all-inclusive analysis of metal movement in sheet-metal-forming
operations. The first approach has seen most development and benefits
because it has proven to be simpler and more manageable. The second
overall approach has been more difficult because of its complexity and
large computing requirements. The conclusions of the General Motors
team include the belief that computer-aided formability analysis is pos-
sible and worthwhile to improve manufacturability, the recommenda-
tion t h a t it should take place early in the design cycle, and the conclu-
sion t h a t further development of the overall complex analytical
programs is j ~ s t i f i a b l e . ~
The design for injection molding and die-casting programs under
development at the University of Massachusetts will aid the designer
in determining the relative part cost, processing cost, and tooling cost
for these parts. They are applicable to IBM-compatible personal com-
puters. Parts are classified by means of a question-and-answer routine.
The answers to the questions determine which cost factors from the
programs’ database will apply and thereby provide a n estimate of the
total cost. The programs can suggest means for reducing the parts cost
a n d displays a relative cost summary corresponding to each redesign
suggestion. These programs follow an earlier computerized assembly
cost program developed by C. Poli at the University of Massachusetts
a n d described in Chap. 11.
Poli a n d Rosen of the University of Massachusetts and Wozny of
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have also developed a system for eval-
uating a n d guiding the design of metal stampings. Data are entered in
t h e personal computer program in accordance with the design features
of the part. The program calculates a relative part cost based on these
features. However, what is most interesting is that the program offers
suggestions for design improvements to reduce the manufacturing cost.
It provides data on the savings that could be realized if the design sug-
gestions were implemented.
Gary Gabriele and James P. Baum, of RPI, have developed a pro-
gram for improving the assembly of aircraft structures. It operates in a
manner similar to the injection-molding and die-casting programs
developed a t the University of Massachusetts. Their program, called
HyperDFA, works with an Apple Macintosh personal computer and the
Hypercard programming system. Like the University of Massachu-
setts injection-molding and die-casting programs, the approach is to
get a qualitative analysis, primarily for training purposes, but also to
help direct t h e designer to an improved design. The developers point
out that t h e quantitative approach, as exemplified by the Toolkit,
Assembly View, and Hitachi programs require a reasonably complete
design, at least in the concept stage, so that an evaluation can be made.
With the qualitative approach, the questions asked by the program can
guide the designer in the best direction even earlier in the design
process. The program provides supporting information with respect to
the questions and the guidelines they are based upon, with graphical
examples as well as explanations. It considers part justification, part
handling, part insertion, and fastening, and provides feedback infor-
mation as to whether the answers, which are based on the designer’s
planned approach, are positive in providing a manufacturable design.
As presented at a casting seminar at the University of Wisconsin,
there are several casting programs that present information on manu-
facturability from C A D data. Gedit and Swift provide information on
solidification of castings which is useful in preventing voids, locating
the parting line, and configuring casting and core shapes t o facilitate
the casting operation.1°
Level 5 is a manufacturability advising and evaluation system in use
in the General Electric appliance operation at Louisville, Kentucky.
The PCs a n d workstations, on which the system is based, contain
design rules formulated by a panel of GE engineers. The system has
two primary functions:
1. It evaluates the manufacturability of a design by asking the

designer a series of questions about the design and then providing a
score of 0 t o 100 based on the answers.
2. O n request from the designer, the computer displays, illustrates,
and explains design rules that apply to the kind of part involved.
The system is applicable to sheet-metal parts, injection moldings,

mechanical assemblies, and some specific kinds of parts such as the
door liners t h a t are used in appliances. The system can be used in
training design engineers as well as a tool for improving manufac-
turability.ll
314 DFXatWork
In summary, it can be said that there are a number of worthwhile

computerized systems which enhance the manufacturability of a prod-
uct as well as other desirable DFX attributes. However, most of these
programs require computer operation which is additional to and sepa-
rate from the CAD system used to formulate the component’s design.
Though these programs are very useful and represent sound process,
the ultimate benefit will be realized when there are widespread sources
of CADI’DFX programs that integrate and utilize DFX design guidance.
They must also provide an evaluation of alternatives during the basic
design process itself. However, to achieve such an integration repre-
sents a difficult programming challenge. As programming techniques
advance and as computer equipment increases in capability, these
advances should eventually become available to product designers.
References
1. S.Ramalingham, Expert Systems for Manufacturing: Examples of Tools to Assess
Manufacturability, Productivity Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minn., 55455.
2. M. I. Zucherman, “A Knowledge Base Development for Pmducibility Analysis in
Mechanical Design,” Hughes Aircraft Company, Ultramech-Artificial Zntelligence
Conference,SME, Long Beach, Calif., September 1986.
3. H. Park, S. Lee, and M. Cutkosky, “Computational Support for Concurrent Engi-
neering of Cable Harnesses,” CDR Technical Report 19920219, Computers in Engi-
neering Conference, San Francisco, Calif., 1992.
4. M. Puttre, “Computer-Aided Injection Molding,” Mechanical Engineering, June
1993-
5. K.G. Swift, Knowledge-Based Design for Manufacture, Department of Engineering
Design and Manufacture, University of Hull, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs,
N.J., 1987.
6. S. Harbater and W. Tonelli, “A CAD-Based Electronics Design Rule Checker to
Imprave System Reliability,“ Proceedings, 1990 Annual Reliability and Maintain-
ability Symposium.
7. 0. Port, “How to Make It Right the First Time,” Business Week, June 8,1989.
8. A. K Mason and A. Young, “Strategies for Improving the Manufacturability of PCB
Design,”Autofact ‘88, Chicago, October 30, 1988.
9. M. R. Tharrett, “Computer-Aided Formability Analysis,” General Motors Corpora-
tion, Die and Pressworking Tooling Conference,SME, Dearborn, Mich., August 1987.
10. Computer Applications in the Design and Analysis of Castings and Casting Solidifi-
cation, seminar, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis., December 1990.
11. J. Jancsurak, “Expert Advice Without Consulting,”Appliance Manufacturer, Sept.
1991.
12. R. D. Hof, “Design Software That Covers All the Data Bases,” Business Week, Sept.
3, 1990.
13. M. R. Tharrett, “Computer-Aided Formability Analysis,” SME Die and Pressworking
Tooling Conference,Dearborn, Mich., August 26-27, 1987.
14. M. I. Zucherman, “A Knowledge Base Development for Producibility Analysis in
Mechanical Design,” Ultratech-Artifxial Intelligence Conference, Long Beach,
Calif., Sept. 22-25, 1986.
15. E.Kroll, E. Lenz, and J. Wolberg, “A Knowledge-Based Solution to the Design for
Assembly Problem,” Manufacturing Reuiew, ASME, vol. 1,no. 2, June 1988.
16. S. Kim,S.Horn, and S. Parthasarathy, ‘Design and Manufacturing Advisor for Tur-
bine Disks,”Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing, vol. 4 , nos. 3 and 4,
Pergamon Press.
17. K. Swift, M. Uddin, M. Limage, and M. Bielby, “Production-Oriented Design: A

Knowledge-Based Approach,” Advanced Manufacturing Engineering, Butterworth
Ltd., vol. 1, January 1989.
18. “Software Squeezes Injection Molding Costs,” Manufacturing Engineering, March
1991.
19. J. Baum and G. Gabriele, “Design for Assembly of Aerospace Structures: A Qualita-
tive, Interactive Approach,” Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Robots in Aerospace
Manufacturing Conference,Irvine, Calif., February 1989.
20. M. Andreasen, S. Kahler, and T. Lund, Design for Assembly, JFS Publications, UK,
1988, (chap. on expert system CAD).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
James G. Bralla is a manufacturing consultant and noted
authority on manufacturing and design with more than 40
years of experience in the field. He has served as Industry
Professor at Polytechnic University in New York Vice
President, Operations for Alpha Metals Inc.; and Director of
Manufacturing, Asia for the Singer Company. Mr. Bralla is
editor of the Handbook of Product Design for Manufacturing,
available from McGraw-Hill.
Summary
DFM alone-that is, designing with the sole or prime objective of

improving manufacturability-is not sufficient to achieve the best
product design results in current competitive market climates. Full
DFX is required. The full range of important design objectives-safety,
quality, reliability, serviceability, environmental- and user-fiend-
liness, and short time-to-market-must also be part of a product design
project. These DFX objectives cannot be expected to be met as a by-
product of a standard DFM approach and yet they are essential if the
product is to take a strong position in the market.
All this, however, places an even stronger burden on the beleaguered
design engineer. DFM complicates the design engineer’s job; DFX geo-
metrically increases its complexity. However, there are specific guide-
lines to help focus design efforts in each of these areas. The task of
training and equipping the designer to carry out DFX is formidable.
The t a s k of organizing a product realization project that incorporates
representation of all the functions inherent in a DFX approach is also
sizable. There are no easy answers. Careful, dedicated, well-planned
management of a design team is a requirement. Education is another
prime element, both formal education of design engineers in all facets
of D F X and appreciation training of company participants in a new
product project.
A major hope for the future in simplifylng this task is the computer.
Integration of the technical details of DFX,specifically, the rules and
guidelines needed, into CAE/CAD programs will supplement the per-
sonal knowledge of the designer with a knowledge base stemming from
the best expert experience available. This will go a long way toward
making the DFX process doable. Such integration of CAD and DFX has
started. Many computer programs that approach the problem are
available. As computer technology and the art of programming
advance, full integration of DFX and CAD will be achieved. This should
enable the companies that practice enlightened product engineering to
compete successfully and to prosper. More power to them!
316
Summary 317
Summary
DFM is not enough!
We must design for all desirable attributes.
We must have guidelines and an organizationalsystem for DFX.
This requires training and a strong team approach.
Ultimately, when guidelines for DFX are part of our CAD systems, the task will be
somewhat simpler.
INDEX
Index Terms Links
Accident, defined 196

Accounting department 55
Adhesively bonded assemblies 285
Adjustment reduction 45
Aesthetics, as a design objective 21
Air pollution 218
Anderson’s law 145
Appreciation training 96
Assembly:
and adjustment reduction 45
design guidelines for 132
evaluation system 108
importance of improving 39 127
improvement 127
guidelines for 132
layered 134
parts, minimized 39
simplified and improved 38
standardization 41
Assembly view system 109
AT&T, System 3000,Model 3600
Computer 302
Automatic assembly 14 269
Automotive components rebuilt 226
This page has been reformatted by Knovel to provide easier navigation.
Index Terms Links
Availability 167 184
Bakron Corporation 296

Bathtub curve 168
Bearings 129
Benchmarking 83 89 95
defined 29
Beta testing 56
Biomechanics defined 242
Board of directors 56
Boeing Aircraft 73
Boothroyd and Dewhurst 14 235
Brainstorming 83 87 95
Brazed assemblies 285
CAD/CAM system 69 90 96 260

261 285
Capacitors 178 274
CARDS (see Computer-aided reliability
diagnostics system)
Carpal tunnel syndrome, defined 249
Cast plastics 286
Catalytic converter 222
Change:
resistance to 60 73
overcoming resistance 76
three stages of 79

Index Terms Links
Chief executive 62
Chrysler Corporation 223
Circuit board 301
manufacturing sequence 270
(See also Printed circuit boards)
Coding of plastics 231 232
Commercial parts 86 160 191
Company culture 75
Competitive cost 26
Competitive product review 94
Complementary guidelines 34
Component parts 137
consolidation 129
design evaluation 140
design guidelines to reduce
overheating 179
design principles for improvements of 141
improved, attributes of 138
improvement 137
production quantity 140
selection 309
Composite materials 220 223 230
Computer-aided design (CAD) 260 261 306 314
recent advances 307
systems 285
Computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) 260
systems 285
Computer-aided reliability diagnostics
system (CARDS) 310
Computer simulation 261

Index Terms Links
Conceptual design 53 83
Conceptual modeling 261
Concurrent design 28
Concurrent engineering 28 59 63 71
201 219 221 257
273
defined 28
design team 66 95
building the team 68
indoctrination and training of 94
personality characteristics of 72
risks of 69
Consumer electronics products 267
Consumer Products Safety Act 205
Continuous improvement:
approach 155
defined 30
Controlled experiment methods, defined 24
Controls 247
Coordinator, of DFM/DFX/concurrent
engineering 61
Corrosive environment 208
Cost comparator 309
Cost department 55
Cost determination in design phase 6
Cost estimating personnel 54
Covers 129
Cross-functional design team 66
Cultural change 71
Cumulative trauma disorders 209 249

Index Terms Links
Danger:
defined 196
examples 196
Deburring 46
Derating 33 178
Design:
alternatives, evaluating 15 48 106 156
170
and appearance 183
for assembly 13
benchmarking 89
brainstorming 87
decisions 202
documentation 202
for ease of assembly 163
for easy testability 190
evaluation:
objective means of 15
personnel involved 116
of proposals 106
for quality 156
for reliability 170
Design (Cont):
for expected production quality 44
fit with manufacturing system 43
guidelines that promote quality 158
guidelines for test points 192
organization as an aspect of

Index Terms Links
Design (Cont)
standardization 87
positive attributes 18
principles and guidelines for various
attributes 95
process 83
product 47
proposals:
evaluating 106
testing 118
redirection of efforts 63
simplification for reliability 176
standardization 41 84 132 283
steps in process 83
and unfavorable product quality 156
Design engineeds):
cooperation with manufacturing
engineers 71
obstacles faced by 57 63
Design for assembly (DFA) 39 92 96 107
120 137 185 188
192 229
defined 27
Toolkit 108
Design for disassembly (DFD) 185 215
defined 19
and environment 139
Design for the environment (DFE) 211 271
scoring systems 234

Index Terms Links
Design for excellence (DFX) 18 62 63 69

88 93 95 97
111 314 316
analysis of product 127
approaches 24
related approaches, defined 27
attributes of:
evaluation 110
good design 18
other indices 116
basic principles 38
computer-aided 306
computer-assisted 311
defined 22
in electronics 267
features 85
future 305
for low-quantity production 280
Design for excellence (DFX) (Cont):
managing 51
overview, management’s role 59
requirements for effectiveness 64
systems tools for 95
testability 272
Design for manufacturability (DFM) 3 39 46 60
61 62 63 69
97 111 183 291
292 304 316
activities, desirable sequence 91
analysis of product 127

Index Terms Links
Design for manufacturability (DFM) (Cont)

approaches 24
basic principles 38
current interest in 16
and computerization 16 108 306 315
continuing development of 16
defined 3 28
desirable sequence of activities 91
economic importance of manufacturing 8
formulation anddocumentation 13
history of 10
how it works 4
and international marketplace success 9
need for 6 18
notable achievements of 39
origin of terms 13
and producibility 13
and quality improvement 149 156
quantitative approaches 4
related approaches, defined 27
Design for recycling, defined 215
Design guidelines:
anticipating operator errors 249
assembly (other major guidelines) 132
avoiding awkwardness of operation 250
combining parts 130
displays 247
electronic products 273
environmental-friendliness 225
improved component parts 141

Index Terms Links
Design guidelines (Cont)

low-quantity production 283
quality 158
reliability 175
safety 206
serviceability 185
speed to market 262
Design of experiments (DOE), defined 24
Design proposals:
evaluating 106
purpose of evaluating 106
testing 118
Design prototypes 56 119 122 171
Design simplification for assembly 38
Design to cost, defined 28
Designer’s response/Product Liability 200
Desktop manufacturing 261
DFA (see Design for assembly)
DFD (see Design for disassembly)
DFE (see Design for the environment)
DFM (see Design for manufacturability)
DFX (see Design for excellence)
Die casting 130
design guidelines 146
Different technology 128
Direct labor time 107
Directed experimentation 24
Displays, design guidelines for 247
DOE (see Design of experiments)

Index Terms Links
ED1 (see Electronic data interchange)

Education, defined 96
Electrical hazards 208
Electromagnetic interference (EMI) 272
Electronic assemblies, evaluating 272
Electronic data interchange (EDI)
defined 262
Electronic products, design guidelines for 273
EM1 (see Electromagnetic interference)
Empathy, by management 61
Energy consumption in recycling 221
Engineering:
concurrentkimultaneous, use of 64
design procedures 96
drawings 85
plasticdrecycling 225
Environment 115 139
designing for 211
trade-offs 221
Environmental editor 309
Environmental-friendliness 19 31 49 90
113 293 315
achieving successful design 220
hierarchy of design for 215
scope 218
Environmental legislation 214
Environmental specialist 221

Index Terms Links
Environmental-unfriendliness 217
Ergonomics 19
defined 237
Evaluation systems 48 106
Factorial experiments 24
Fail-safe 206
Failure modes analysis (FMA) 168
Failure modes and effects analysis
(FMEA) 168 205
Failure modes effects and criticality
analysis (FMECA) 168
Failures per billion operating hours
(FITS) 168 170
Family-of-parts 262
Fasteners 86 135 227
Fault tree analysis defined 196
Feasibility analysis 84
Features 21
Federal Consumer Products Safety Act 205
Feedback loops 273
Field testing 56
Finance department 55
Fire hazards 208
FITS (see Failures per billion operating
hours)
Flexible circuit boards 276
FMA (see Failure modes analysis)

Index Terms Links
FMEA (see Failure modes effects and

analysis)
FMECA (see Failure modes effects and
criticality analysis)
Follow-up in design evaluations 122
Ford, Henry 11
Ford Motor Company 223 230
Forming flanged sheets 311
Fractional factorial experiments 26
defined 29
Free space manager 309
Function as design objective 20
Funnel-shaped openings 134
Galvanizing 224
Garvin, David 18
General Motors Corporation 223
Ground pollution 218
Group technology 87 262
defined 30
Guidelines (see Design guidelines)
Guidelines for manufacturability 31
Guidelines, quality/reliability 36
Guides 129
Harvard Business Review 75

Index Terms Links
Hazard:
analysis 201
control, hierarchy of 203
defined 196
elimination 204
Hierarchical estrangement 75
Hierarchy of hazard control 203
Hinges 128 291
Hitach/General Electric System 108
Human errors 179 248
Human factor specialists 238
Human factors engineering, defined 237
IBM Proprinter 1 292

Indoctrination (see Training)
Inductors 178
Industrial electronics 267
Injection mold 280
Injection molding 130 147
Instructional manual 201
Integral springe 40 129
Integrated circuits. 267
Investment casting 130 295
Job satisfaction characteristics 78

Index Terms Links
Labor cost 46
Landfill 219
Leader 81
Level 5 evaluation system 108
Liability law 198
defined 199
Life-cycle cost 6 7 27 219
defined 28
Life testing 169
Linear materials 86
Long lead time tooling 56 257
Long-term quality 21
Machine operations, elimination of 46

Machined parts 47
McKinaey Global Institute Report. 9
Maintainability (see Serviceability)
Maintenance:
breakdown 184
guidelines for ease of 193
routine 183
Malfunction annunciation 191
Management:
of DFX 51
follow-up 62
leadership 59 81
and motivation 81

Index Terms Links
Management (Cont)
of project 47
of quality 151
role of 59
system 81
Managing for safety 204
Manufacturability 19 48 65 291
component parts 122 138
detined 3 28
evaluation of 107
individual parts 110
Manufacturability relationships/
conflicting guidelines 31
Manufacturing cost 15 107
decline of, in United States 8 9
economy 42
economic importance of 8
engineering 54 55
process:
and design fit 42
and standardization 87
system, and design fit 43
Manufacturing Advisor/PCB defined 272
Manufacturing engineers’ cooperation
with design engineers 71
Mapping 245
Marketing 55 56
Materials, processible 42
Matrix chart:
of intangible design factors 117

Index Terms Links
Matrix chart (Cont)

of potential reliability 172
of quality 159
rating systems (weighted) 116
of user-friendliness 119
Matrix management 304
Matrix method of product design
evaluation 116 157
Maximize compliance 44
MTBF (see Mean time between failures)
Mean time between failures (MTBF) 168
Mean time to failure (MTTF) 168
Medical Laboratories Automation (MIA) 297
Metal-plated plastics 230
Microelectronics 28
effects of 239
Military products 267
Minimum lifetime cost 31
MLA (see Medical Laboratories
Automation)
Modular construction 162
Modular designs 230
Modules 86 187 190
defined 187
Mold design 309
Molded-in nomenclature 230
Moldflow 261
MTTF (see Mean time to failure)

Index Terms Links
New product plans 94

Nibblers 287
Noise pollution 218 219
Nonvolatile memories 273
Noyce’s law defined 268
Operation, avoiding awkwardness in,

Operator errors, anticipating, design
guidelines for 249
Optimum machining techniques 286
Optimum process variable settings 25
Organizational climate 75
Orthogonal array 24
Package engineering 55
Packaging 212 227
Participation, by management 61
Parts:
combined 128
component (see Component parts)
designed for:
adjustment reduction 160
ease of manufacturability 43

Index Terms Links
Parts (Cont)
expected production quantity 44
tooling-controlled critical dimensions 161
easy to handle 135
flexible 133
high mortality 186
incorrect insertion 133
mating 135
minimization of number 39 128 162
multifunctional 38 40
Parts (Cont):
outright reduction in number 132
self-aligning 134
standardization of 85
PCB (see Printed circuit boards)
Perceived simplicity 244
Performance as a design objective 20
Persuasion, by management 61
PERT charts 305
Phase-lock loops 273
Pilot project 57 62
Pipettes production 297
Plastics:
advantage of 147
limitations of 148
role of 146
Plug-in modules 304
Polarized symmetrical devices 277
PolVUniversity of Massachusetts system
for assembly evaluation 109

Index Terms Links
Pollutants 211
common 212
Powder coating 233
Press brakes 287
Pressure changes 208
Printed circuit boards (FCB) 267
manufacturing sequence 270
Printed wiring assembly 267
Printed wiring board 267
Processible materials 42
Pmducibility
defined 28
origin of term 13
Product:
attribute priority 94
concept 55
costs 27
design:
managing for safety 204
methods of evaluating 120 156
development 55
liability:
defined 197 198
designer's response to 200
life 255
line familiarity 94
manager 54 56 67
quality 42
realization 53 90
defined 53

Index Terms Links
steps in process 53
reliability 4 42 165
testing 4 57 111 171
Production:
control 55
low-quantity 280
factors 281
guidelines for 283
Project properly managed 47
Prototypes 111 156 171 197
242 261 281
Punch progression 312
Purchasing 55
PVC plastic 281
QFD (see Quality function deployment)

Quality 48 65 111 114
138 316
and agreement with manufacturability 36
and conflict with manufacturability 32
control 55 57
cost 150
defined 149
designing for 149
guidelines for 158
improvement and training 154
loss function defined 30
management of 151
principles of 155
Index Terms Links
Quality (Cont.)
promoting, guidelines for 158
and reliability 294
Quality fundion deployment (QFD) 153
defined 30
Radiation 208
Radiographic (x-ray) inspection 272
Rapid prototyping, defined 261
Raw materials with respect to the
environment 218
Recyclability 49
Recyclable materials 214
automobile 222
not 217
Recycling 212
efficiency index 235
fasteners 234
materials 221
metals 224
modedplastics 225
plastic materials 224
program 223
symbols for plastics 231 232
welded thermoplastics 233
Redundancy 33 177
Refurbishability 215
Refurbishable products and components 226

Index Terms Links
Reliability 48 65 90 111
114 138
and agreement with manufacturability 36
calculations of 171
concepts of 166
and conflict with manufacturability 32
defined 165
designing for 165
evaluating product design for 170
guidelines for advancing 175
improvement 175
versus manufacturability 32
measures of 167
and other design objectives 167
problems 33
requirements for 166
specifications of 166
Research and development 54 55
Resistance to change 60
status issues 73
Resistors 178 274
ReStar, defined 235
Reusability 215
Reusable products and components 226
Riveting 303
Role clarification 76 77
Roll-coated material 233
Rubber-dome switches 274
Rubber products, recycling of 225

Index Terms Links
Safety as a design objective 19 20 65 112

115 139 293 300
316
defined 196
designing for 195
engineers 201
hazards 196 218
and reliability 167
warnings 200
Sand mold casting 286
design guidelines 143
Saturn automobile 185 186 189 190
SDE (see Statistically designed
experiments)
Semiconductor 178 274
Service 48 55
Serviceability 21 31 49 65
90 112 114 139
301 316
of automobiles 183
availability 184
Serviceability (Cont):
designing for 182
and reliability 167
of small appliances 183
testability 184

Index Terms Links
Serviceabilityh/Maintainability 215
designing for 182
Sewing machines 294
bobbin cases for 294
industrial, baskets for 296
Singer 294
Sheet metal forming 311
Short time to market 19 22 31 42
designing for 255
Simplified assembly, advantage of 127
Simultaneous engineering 28 259
(See also Concurrent engineering)
SMT (see Surface mount technology)
Software tools 96
Solder joints 271
Soldering:
drag 277
wave 277
SPC (see Statistical process control)
Speed to market 113 115 257 281
example 265
Springs 291
Standard commercial parts 86 160 191
Standardization 41 84 252 283
Standardized 252
components 85 86 230
dimensioning of drawings 85 160
Standby redundancy 177

Index Terms Links
Statistical methods of experimental

design 26
Statistical process control (SPC) 152
defined 29
Statistically designed experiments (SDE) 24 26
Storage technology 300
Strife testing 170 303
Subassemblies 133 159
Surface mount technology (SMT) 268
Surfaces 46 47
Synchronized manufacturing, defined 30
Synergistic productivity 82
Taguchi 25 26 30 195
219
concept of quality 111 150 183
method 95
method of robust design, defined 26
Tapered ends 134
Task analysis, defined 241
Team 48 66 98
building, comments on 68
consultive approach 73
full collaborative approach 73
management 61
motivation and management 61 82
personality characteristics of members 72
relations 96

Index Terms Links
Teamwork:
and company culture 75
cooperation between design and
manufacturing 71
resistance to change 73
test product designs 4 57 111 171
Testability 184 272 302
Thermal expansion 178
Thermoforming 285
Thermosetting plastic 295
Time-based strategy 256
Time to market 139 255 316
defined 255
guidelines 262
reducing 265
Tooling maintenance costs 46
Tort, defined 196
Total quality management (TQM) 153
defined 30
Toxic materials 217 226
waste 211
TQM (see Total quality management)
Traces 276
Trade association publications 14
Training 60 62 76 93
appreciation type 96
attitudinal 93
defined 93 96
evaluation of 103

Index Terms Links
Training (Cont)
“how to” 94
individual vs. group training 102
instruction sources 98
on the job 97
levels of 96
methods 101
nature of 94
Training (Cont):
and quality improvement 154
scheduling 100
site of 101
technical expertise needed for 103
sources of 104
written materials for 102
Transgenerational, defined 239
Turret punches 287
United States Department of Defense 70

Up front costs 152
Upgradeability 19
User analysis 241
User-friendliness 21 31 113 115
139 237 254 293
300 316
defined 237
designing for 237
methodology 240
evaluating 253
Index Terms Links
User-friendliness (Cont)
principles 243
User repair 187
Value analysis 12 28 88 95
Value engineering 12
Vias 276
Vibration 208
Visibility 245
Warpage reduction 309

Water pollution 218
Weighted matrix rating system 116
Welded assemblies 285
Welding 304
Welding of plastics 229
Western Electric, Hawthorne Plant 78
Westinghouse Curve 6
Whirlpool Corporation 239
Whitney, Eli 10
Wrist injury, minimizing,
recommendations 252
Zinc plating 224

Design For Excellence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design For Excellence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DESIGN

Copyright 0 1996 by McGraw-Hill, Inc. Copyright reverted 2008 to James G. Bralla.

Books published by Technicraft Publishers are available at special discounts

“The best design is the simplest one

This book h a s grown from my experience as a manufacturing engineer,

improving the ease of manufacture of a product, others advocate that

an active technique. Chapter 7 reviews concurrent engineering, the

Part 1 Background and Basic Concepts 1

Chapter 1. The Forerunner-Design for Manufacturability 3

Chapter 2. DFX-The Need for It and the Nature of It 18

Chapter 3. DFMlDFX Approaches 24

Guidelines for Manufacturability That May Conflict with Quality

Chapter 4. Basic Principles of DFM/DFX 38

Part 2 Managing DFM/DFX 51

Chapter 5. The Product Realization Process 53

Chapter 6. Getting Started 59

Chapter 7. Concurrent Engineering 63

Chapter 8. Cultural Change 71

Chapter 9. Managing the New System 81

Chapter 10. Training and Indoctrination 93

Chapter 11. Evaluating Design Proposals 106

Part 3 The Dimensions of DFX 125

Chapter 13. ImprovingIndividual Components 137

Chapter 14. Designingfor Higher Quality - 149

Chapter 15. Designingfor Reliability 165

Chapter 16. Designingfor Senriceability/Maintainability 182

Chapter 17. Designing for Safety 195

Product Liability 197

Chapter 18. Designing for the Environment 211

Chapter 19. Designing for User-Friendliness 237

Chapter 20. Designing for Short Time-to-Market 255

Chapter 21. DFX in Electronics 267

Chapter 22. DFX for Low-Quantity Production 280

Part4 DFXat Work 209

Chapter 23. Some Success Stories 291

Chapter 24. The Future of DFX 305

How DFM Works

The Need for DFM

finish require upgrading as may be necessary for bearing surfaces,

The Economic Importance of Manufacturing

turing companies equaled about 60 percent of the 1986 U S . gross

tries, including automotive assembly and parts making, electronics,

The History of DFM

processes that depended on fmtures, machinery, and gages, rather

so inexpensive that the menace of expensive hand repair work would be

Formulation and documentation of DFM

Producibility and DFM-origin of terms

Design for assembly

and parts design to facilitate assembly. Both automatic and manual

It should be noted that the emphasis on design for assembly as advo-

and authoritative assistance to product designers.

Objective means of evaluating designs

1. The Assembleability Evaluation Method (AEM) developed by

4. The Poli-University of Massachusetts system for assembly design

The advantages of these and other similar approaches is that they

Current Interest in DFM

2. K. G. Swift,Knowledge-Based Design for Manufacture, Prentice-Hall, Englewood

DFX-The Need for It

The Attributes of a Good Design

1. Performance. How well the product functions.

user of the product, as well as those involved in its distribution. This is

Again, this is only a partial list of what I consider to be the most

What Then Is DFX?