ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Examines design for manufacturability (DFM) which has become of a paramount interest to academicians and practitioners as well. The emergence of advanced manufacturing and information technologies and recent managerial philosophies such as JIT, TQM have made it easier for manufacturing enterprises to carry out many of their activities concurrently. This new approach to business would no doubt result in increased efficiency, as measured by cost savings, and increased effectiveness as measured by improvements in quality, flexibility, and responsiveness. This new approach to manufacturing emphasizes that simultaneous improvement in these competitive priorities rather than trade-offs will be the norm in many manufacturing establishments. Design for manufacturability, as a time-based strategy, has been used by the Japanese for many years, and there is no reason to think that it will not work for Western manufacturers. However, if not planned for carefully, it can hurt rather than help manufacturing companies. In the cases that have been reported in literature so far, successes outnumber failures. Sheds light on the theoretical foundation of DFM as a time-based technology. Examines the different approaches to product and processes design and compares and contrasts the traditional and concurrent approaches to manufacturing. Examines a number of DFM definitions in an attempt to offer a more representative definition. Analyses the main pillars of DFM and explains the necessary characteristics for successful implementation of DFM. Elaborates the benefits of DFM as reported in literature. Explains some of the drawbacks of DFM and introduces the reader to Part 2 of this article.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Design for Manufacturability
and Time-to-Market
Part 1: Theoretical Foundations
Mohamed A. Youssef
Ithaca College, Ithaca, New York, USA
In the last ten years manufacturing industries have undergone a dramatic
change. A panoply of manufacturing philosophies and technologies that deal
with planning, designing, manufacturing and distributing products and
services have emerged. Design for manufacturability (DFM), continuous
process improvement (CPI), total quality management (TQM), quality function
deployment (QFD), just-in-time (JIT), are among a long list of time-based and
computer-based technologies that have recently received more attention from
academicians and practitioners.
The proper use of these technologies can help companies achieve multiple
advantages in terms of quality, flexibility, responsiveness and cost. It can also
foster total enterprise integration and enhance organizational performance.
Many practitioners and academicians (Schonenberger[1,2]; Ciampa[3];
Gunn[4,5]; Hall[6]; Hunt[7,8]; Huge and Anderson[9]; and Youssef[10-14]) view
these technologies as pillars of manufacturing excellence.
Product and Process Design
The design of products and processes is one of the most important decisions
in manufacturing organizations. It entails four basic decisions:
(1) what to design (the product);
(2) who is going to design it (the team);
(3) how is it going to be designed (the design method); and
(4) what technologies will be used in the design process.
These decisions are strategic in nature, affect almost all functions of the
manufacturing organization, and have a direct impact on manufacturing as
well as the financial performance of the firm.
Hayes, et al.[15] showed that:
…Firms that get to the market faster and more efficiently with products that are well matched
with the needs and expectation of the target customers create significant competitive leverage.
International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 14
No. 12, 1994, pp. 6-21. © MCB
University Press, 0144-3577
Received July 1993
Revised February 1994
Design for
On the other hand:
Firms that are slow to the market with products that match neither customer expectations nor
the products of their rivals are destined to see their market position erode and financial
performance flatten.
The report by National Research Council[16] concluded that “…firms using
design efficiently to turn business strategy into effective products must:
(1) Commit to continuous improvement both of products and of design and
production processes.
(2) Establish a corporate product realization process (PRP) supported by top
(3) Develop and/or adopt and integrate advanced design practices into PRP.
(4) Create a supportive design environment.”
The remainder of this article is organized in the following order. First, traditional
and modern approaches to manufacturing are compared and contrasted. Second,
various definitions to design for manufacturability (DFM) and concurrent
engineering (CE) are discussed; and a unique definition for DFM is proposed.
Third, the pillars of DFM are examined. Fourth, benefits of using DFM tools are
explained. Finally, some of the successful case studies reported in the literature
are summarized.
Traditional versus Concurrent Manufacturing
Traditional, otherwise known as serial or sequential manufacturing, is different
from concurrent or simultaneous manufacturing in many aspects. Each
philosophy has its own rationale and ramifications. New developments in
advanced manufacturing and information technologies (AMTs and IT) have
made the use of the concurrent manufacturing approach more practical than the
traditional one. To show the difference between these two philosophies, we shed
some light on each.
Traditional Manufacturing
The traditional approach to manufacturing, as projected by Vasilash[17], is
depicted in Figure 1.
According to Giffi, et al.[18], the traditional approach was formalized by
NASA in the 1960s. In this approach, projects are broken down into a series of
steps or activities. These activities are executed sequentially. They are also
assigned to departments or divisions that work independently most of the time.
The information flows among these divisions is also of a sequential nature. The
Figure 1.
Traditional Approach
to Manufacturing
analysis Product
design Production
design Manufacturing Sales
: [17]
use of this approach promotes specialization and functional job focus. One of
the drawbacks of this approach is that time-to-market is longer. Another
drawback is that manufacturing firms using this approach will find it difficult to
integrate their manufacturing activities. Therefore, enterprise integration as an
objective, will become difficult to achieve.
Whitney[19] described the conventional approach to design as follows:
…Engineers are given a technical oriented view that emphasizes determining the need,
preparing product, specifications, making trial design, prototyping for bench test, making final
design, and writing the manufacturing process plan.
According to Whitney, the process is self-contained with little if no outside
interference. The absence of manufacturing involvement, even in writing the
manufacturing process plan, increases the possibilities for redundant activities
and reduces the chances for getting the optimal design in shorter time.
Simultaneous Manufacturing
The simultaneous engineering approach looks at the design problem differently.
Activities related to product and process design interact in a multidirectional type
of network. Simultaneous manufacturing can impact on both process and product
design. Organizations adopting this philosophy may realize many tangible and
intangible benefits. The approach is depicted in Figure 2.
As Figure 2 shows, activities are executed collaboratively among divisions or
departments. Departments are in direct communication with each other and
information flows from and to each department. The use of this approach
promotes systems theory thinking. Enterprise integration, therefore, becomes
easier; global optimization becomes the norm; and synergistic results become the
target to shoot for. Whitney[19] noticed that this approach emphasizes the degree
to which decisions, made by other different parties, affect each other’s activities
and alter the product character. This strategic view of teamwork in product and
process design, as shown by Whitney[19], is depicted in Figure 3.
There have been many definitions of DFM. Stoll[20] viewed DFM as a process
Figure 2.
Modern Approach to
design Production
Design for
…is concerned with understanding how product design interacts with other components of
manufacturing systems and in defining product design alternatives which help facilitate
“global” optimization of the manufacturing system as a whole.
This definition takes a system theory approach to the manufacturing process
and emphasizes global optimization rather than sub-optimization.
At the simplest level, DFM means making a product design manufacturable
(Langowitz[21]). In a broader sense, Langowitz added, DFM may mean creating
a product design which meets market preferences, enhances manufacturing
learning, and creates superior firm performance. This definition addresses the
marketing-manufacturing concern in designing process and product, as well as
the overall performance of the firm.
Hiatt[22] indicated that the fundamental element of DFM is a product
development process that involves multi-function teams, working to design
marketplace winners, not simply products that are easier to assemble. Hiatt[22]
also showed that: “there is a correlation between the level of competitive
pressure in a given product marketplace and the level of DFM in product
development organizations”.
Based on empirical observations, Hiatt showed that when Hewlett Packard’s
competitors in the peripherals marketplace (Toshiba, American Inc., IBM,
Epson, NEC) turned to high levels of DFM and HP did not, the results were a
Figure 3.
Strategic Approach to
Product Design
needs Production
Domain of
strategic design
: [19]
less than competitive product and shrinking business. Hiatt was the first to
mention the concept of DFM level. However, he did not measure or even
operationalize it.
Conradson et al.[23] define DFM as “The Philosophy and practice of
designing a product for optimal fit to a particular manufacturing system”. As a
practitioner’s point of view, this definition emphasizes the engineering aspect of
the design of the product.
Miller and Sanders[24] define DFM as “a methodology which supports the
design of products that are inherently producible within a target manufacturing
environment”. According to them, in addition to physical product fabrication,
assembly, test and manufacturing, DFM also includes communication and
human resource involvement from marketing and programme management,
through to engineering and quality assurance. This definition goes beyond the
engineering aspect of DFM. It promotes the system theory thinking, where
teams from different departments integrate their efforts to attain increased
fabrication efficiency by increasing the accuracy of design. Emphasis on the
team work is depicted in the latter part of this definition. Miller and Sanders
explained further that the realization of a complete DFM relies on design tools,
statistically valid process models and effective mechanism to feed process
models and data back to the design centre. According to Miller and Sanders,
new technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), and expert systems (ES)
will facilitate efficient implementation of DFM.
The American Electronic Association survey on productivity[25] views DFM
as follows:
DFM refers to explicitly considering the problems, concerns and abilities of manufacturing
when designing a product.
The following findings of the survey were based on data collected from 248 high
technology companies.
High technology companies are getting manufacturing more involved
during the design process.
When manufacturing and design activities are integrated, companies
achieve higher gross margin, and inventory turns.
To achieve quality design, high technology companies need to adopt
approaches such as quality function deployment (QFD), design of
experiments and Taguchi techniques to improve manufacturability and
match functionality with user requirements.
DFM is a programme that any company can undertake and one that
pays significant dividends.
Design for manufacturability is also known by other names such as
simultaneous engineering (SE), concurrent engineering (CE), engineering for
excellence (EFE), concurrent product and process design (CPPD), design for
Design for
production (DFP), design for assembly (DFA), design fusion, producibility
engineering (PE), and system engineering (Zhang and Alting[26]).
Giffi et al.[18] define simultaneous engineering as:
…a nonlinear product or project design approach during which all phases of manufacturing
operate at the same time – simultaneously.
According to Giffi, Stoll has developed what he calls the four Cs of simultaneous
engineering. These are:
(1) Concurrence. Product and process design run in parallel and occur at the same time
(2) Constraints. Process constraints are considered part of the product design. This ensures
parts that are easy to fabricate, handle, and assemble and facilitates use of simple, cost-
effective processes, tooling and materials handling techniques.
(3) Co-ordination. Product and process are closely co-ordinated to achieve matching of the
requirements for effective cost, quality, and delivery.
(4) Consensus. High impact product and process-decision making involve full team
participation and consensus.
For successful implementation of CE, the four Cs must be integrated at both
macro and micro levels. As Zhang and Alting[26] indicated, the four Cs have to
occur between the manufacturing organization and its external environment.
This environment includes forces such as suppliers, customers, competitors
and other exogenous variables. On the other hand, the four Cs have to occur
between the internal components of the manufacturing organization. This
holistic approach to CE will no doubt produce synergistic results.
According to Zhang and Alting[26], two other definitions indicate that the
leadtime should be significantly reduced as a result of using SE. The first
definition is by McKnight and Jackson[27], and the second is by Winner et al.
The latter appeared in the IDA report[28].
McKnight and Jackson[27] define SE as:
…the concurrent development of project design functions, with open and interactive
communication existing among all team members for the purpose of reducing leadtime from
concept to production launch.
Winner et al.[28] view concurrent engineering as:
…systematic approach to the integrated, concurrent design of products and their related
processes, including manufacture of support. This approach is intended to cause the
developers, from the outset, to consider all elements of the product life cycle from concept
through disposal, including quality, cost, schedule, and user requirements.
The IDA report went on to explain two main aspects of CE. First, CE activities
take into consideration all elements of product life cycle from conception
through disposal, including cost, quality, schedule, and user requirements.
Second, since users’ requirements are considered in the early stages of
designing and developing the product, it will be easier to build quality into the
In the IEEE Spectrum report, Rosenblatt and Watson[29] view teamwork as
the key ingredient of CE. According to them, with CE, “no longer does
marketing give product specifications as fait accompli to engineering; no longer
does engineering’s design get ‘tossed over the wall’ to manufacturing. Instead,
both teams work together”. Shina, in the same report, explained that CE can
shorten the overall product development process because”…the steps along the
way are handled in parallel instead of serial, as is used”. Shina indicated that
the reduction in the number of iterations in the design process can shorten time
to market.
In an attempt to clarify some of the misconceptions about CE, Hunt[8]
explained what CE is not. First, CE is not a magic formula for success. It
requires hard and efficient work for all parties involved. Second, CE does not
eliminate any engineering function; it seeks a more all-encompassing, cost-
effective optimum design. Third, CE is not simultaneous or overlapped design
and production. “CE does not begin a high rate of production of an item that has
not completed its development phase.” Fourth, CE is not just design for
producibility, nor design for reliability, nor for maintainability. It is a process
that integrates all of these domains to achieve optimal design. Finally, CE does
not necessarily lead to conservative design. In most cases, it facilitates the
process of the product being tolerant to manufacturing variation and
incorporation of new technologies into the product. For successful
implementation of the CE technology, these issues must be clear to those
involved in the design process. A clear vision and understanding of how CE
works can minimize redundancies and non-value added activities.
In this article we view design for manufacturability as: a design philosophy
that promotes collective and integrated efforts of a number of teams involved in
planning, organizing, directing, and controlling all activities related to products
and processes from idea generation to a finished product or service such that:
available design, manufacturing, and information technologies are
efficiently utilized;
teamwork is emphasized;
redundancies and non-value-added activities are eliminated;
enterprise integration is promoted; and
customer requirements and quality are built in the design.
This definition is unique in many respects. First, it applies to all types of
organizations, manufacturing and non-manufacturing. Second, it emphasizes
efficient utilization of all available technologies as well as the elimination of all
redundancies. Third, it promotes teamwork and enterprise integration. Finally,
it emphasizes that quality and customer requirements should be matched and
quality must be built into the product or the service. All these aspects, if
considered, would lead to optimal design, reduction in lead times, shorter time-
to-market, higher market shares, and better financial performance.
Design for
Pillars of DFM
The two main components of engineering design are technological and
social[16]. The technological component includes:
knowledge about engineering science;
design methods;
manufacturing; and
On the other hand, the social component includes:
corporate and organization culture;
team design methods;
the nature of the design task, and of the designer;
customer attributes; and
employee involvement.
Manufacturing organizations tend to emphasize the technological more than
the social component of the design process. We argue that hardware, software
and social components of a DFM system are equally important. Our rationale is
that a manufacturing organization may have an arsenal of the most
sophisticated hardware technologies and fail to manage them properly. Unless
the proper environment for implementing these technologies is created, tangible
as well as intangible benefits will be very difficult to realize.
Successful implementation of DFM depends on two main factors. First, a
commitment and support from top management to bring about cultural
changes, establish goals and objectives, and determine the dimensions on which
to compete. Second, a set of computer-based tools and technologies that
facilitate the use of DFM philosophy. We consider the following cultural
changes of paramount importance for the success of DFM. First, the emphasis
should be on long-term rather than short-term results. Second, management
must institute continuous improvement programmes, monitor and evaluate
these programmes on a regular basis. Third, teamwork and global optimization
should replace individual efforts and sub-optimization. Fourth, smooth flow of
information between and among subsystems. Fifth, a company-wide database
that should be shared by all users. Finally, a close relationship with suppliers
and customers should always be maintained. The successful implementation of
these cultural changes will foster full integration of all activities and functions
involved in creating a product or providing a service.
The second factor for DFM success is a set of DFM tools. According to
Stoll[20], these tools may be categorized in three main activities:
(1) reliance on multi-functional teams;
(2) the use of computer-aided design; and
(3) the use of a variety of analytical techniques and methods to optimize the
product design.
In addition to these tools, Shina[30] discussed the importance of the following
activities for CE success:
Document the capabilities and constraints of the current production
process using structured analysis and data flow diagrams. The goal
would be to eliminate redundant tasks.
Review new parts and assemblies for manufacturability, serviceability,
testability, repairability.
Develop an integrated computer network for downloading computer-
aided design and engineering representations to the manufacturing
Develop software tooling whenever possible so that manufacturing
builds all prototypes.
Different industries, even different companies within the same industry, may
have different levels of success in CE implementation (Schrage[31, p. 540]).
According to Schrage, there are a number of characteristics that are necessary
for the successful implementation of DFM. These characteristics are
summarized in Table I.
DFM Benefits
Organizations implementing CE can achieve multiple advantages in terms of
better-designed, higher quality products with a shorter time-to-market. In
addition, a trouble-free product introduction often wins market share away from
competitors. In turn, these advantages can lead to better performance, and can
enhance the bottom line of an organization.
As cited by Keys et al.[32], the report by the Institute for Defense Analysis
(IDA) addressed the following benefits of DFM:
(1) improving the quality of designs;
(2) reduction in product development cycle time by as much as 40 to 60 per
(3) reduction in manufacturing cost by as much as 30 to 40 per cent; and
(4) reduction in maintainability/serviceability efforts and warranty costs.
Miller and Sanders[24] examined some of the motives and benefits of adopting
a DFM strategy. These may include:
(1) higher product yields through manufacturing;
(2) increased product performance;
(3) greater predictability of product yields;
(4) performance/yield tradeoffs by designers;
(5) reduced manufacturing cycle time;
(6) reduction in design engineering cycle time;
Design for
Table I.
Ten Characteristics
Required for Successful
Implementation of
Number Characteristics What is required
(1) A top-down design Top management support that is authoritative,
approach based on a but also participative to allow consensus
comprehensive system building
engineering process Development of a system engineering
management plan (SEMP)
A computer-integrated information environment
to allow automated configuration, management
and control
(2) Strong interface with Methods for translation of the voice of the
the customer customer into key product and process
Continuous feedback to the customer as the
process evolves
(3) Multifunctional and Team members from across the lifecycle product
multidisciplinary teams and process disciplines design, manufacturing,
and support
Management and peer acceptance of inputs from
all team members
Equal or near-equal analysis capability by all
team members
(4) Continuity of the teams Teams must be formed early in the design phase
Key team members should transition with the
Training, organizational acceptance and the
incentives for the team members who transition
(5) Practical engineering Methods for incorporating qualitative and
optimization of product quantitative optimization procedures
process characteristics Selection of optimization values for key product
and process characteristics based on parametric
sensitivity analysis
(6) Design benchmarking Design by features methods (DBF)
and soft prototyping Product definition and data exchange standards
through creation of
a digital product model
(7) Simulation of the product Distributed simulation capability
performance and Varying levels of simulation fidelity to support
manufacturing and product evaluation through the process
supporting processes
(7) fostering of increased levels of communication;
(8) increased confidence levels in engineering and manufacturing
communities; and
(9) positive impact on overall product quality.
Case Studies and Success Stories
Literature on CE and DFM is replete with success stories in implementing the
DFM philosophy. Empirical and case studies showed that proper
implementation of DFM does result in lower cost, higher quality, and shorter
development time.
Conradson et al.[23] reported that some of the benefits of using DFM tools at
Hewlett Packard include design improvements, cost savings, reduction in time
required to bring a product to the market, and flexibility in bringing about
changes in design, process or both.
Hunt[7,8] showed that several companies using CE have reported benefits
such as lower cost, higher quality and shorter development time. His findings
are summarized in Table II.
Four other case studies on successful implementation of CE were detailed in
the IEEE Spectrum report (No. 29). In the first case, Wheeler showed that
computer-based tools may be preferable but not required for the success of CE
implementation. He indicated that practising CE in designing and
manufacturing the 54600 Oscilloscope at the Colorado Springs division of
Hewlett Packard yielded remarkable results. First, from the idea to a finished
product it took them one-third the time to complete this project than it would
Table I.
Number Characteristics What is required
(8) Experiments to confirm/ Design of experiments (DOE) methods for
change high risk variability reduction of the high risk product
prediction found through and process characteristics
simulation Validation and verification of critical
components, parts and technologies
(9) Early involvement of Organizational decomposition to identify critical
subcontracts and vendors paths, schedules and required concurrency
Top management and peer acceptance of early
subcontractors/vendors participation
(10) Corporate focus on Methods for design tracking and feedback of
continuous improvement lessons learned
and lessons learned Shared computer knowledge bases with open
access for key team members
Source: [31]
Design for
Table II.
Benefits of DFM
Company Reported benefits
AT&T Quality improvements
(1) Fourfold reduction in variability in a polysilicon deposition
process for very large scale integrated circuits (VLSI)
(2) Fifty per cent reduction in surface defects by using Taguchi
Decreases in development cycle
Reduces the total processing time for the 5ESS programmed
digital switch by 46 per cent in three years
Boeing Quality improvements
(1) Engineering changes per drawing are reduced from 15 to 1
through improved teamwork and utilization of computer-based
(2) Inspection-to-production hour ratio was reduced from 1:15 to 1:50
Decreases in development cycle
(1) Ballistic system division reduced parts and material lead times by
30 per cent
(2) One part of design analysis was reduced from two weeks with
three to four engineers to four minutes with one engineer
John Deere Quality improvements
Number of inspectors is reduced by 66 per cent due to the fact
that process control was emphasized, and design and
manufacturing processes were linked
Decreases in development cycle
Product development time for construction equipment was
reduced by 60 per cent
ITT Quality improvements
(1) Robust design and robust manufacturing processes resulted in a
saving of $500,000 by reducing rejects, $125,000 in tool costs, and
$1,100,000 on a solder process
(2) 28 per cent improvement on power supply product losses
Decreases in development cycle
(1) Design cycle for an electronic countermeasures system was
reduced by 33 per cent
(2) Transition-to-production time for this product was also reduced
by 22 per cent
(3) Time to produce a certain cable harness was reduced by 10
per cent
have without CE. Second, the oscilloscope was produced in time at the price
they aimed for. These results are attributed to emphasis on teamwork.
In the second case study, Burnett showed how Cisco Systems Inc., benefited
from CE. Before the use of CE, the manufacturing department was never
involved in the design process. Problems related to product and processes
altered to mount. Burnett added, by 1989 it was clear that “toss it over the wall”
practice was no longer practical and could not continue. A need for CE then,
emerged. The CE technology was used in designing and manufacturing one of
Cisco’s complex products – dual-buss internetwork router for high-speed fibre
distribution data interface (FDDI). The results were: FDDI was shipped on time
and test time was reduced by almost 60 per cent. Overall, Cisco Systems Inc. has
undergone dramatic growth. Revenues went up from 27 million dollars in 1989
(before using CE) to 70 million in 1990, to 76 million in the first quarter of 1991
In the third case, Barton and Wang described Raytheon’s experience with CE.
The Raytheon approach to CE is a little bit different from what has been
reported in the other two case studies. First, Raytheon divides its CE into three
parts: system level design, module level design and system management level.
In either one of these parts, teamwork and integrating subsystems was
emphasized. Second, Raytheon uses life cycle cost modelling. The purpose of
this type of modelling is to estimate how much a missile system will cost the
customer from concept to deployment and maintenance. Since Raytheon moved
towards CE in the mid 1980s, the main focus has been total quality.
In the fourth case, Rosenblatt showed that even companies with one-of-a-kind
items can find value in CE. The case study Rosenblatt uses to prove his point
was ITEK Optical Systems, a division of Litton Systems Inc. The use of CE at
Table II.
Company Reported benefits
McDonnell Quality improvements
Douglas (1) Rework cost was reduced by 29 per cent
(2) Scrap cost was reduced by 58 per cent
(3) Nonconformances cost was reduced by 38 per cent
(4) Defects per units in a weld process was reduced by 70 per cent
Decreases in development cycle
(1) Redesign for a high-speed vehicle was reduced from 44 weeks to
8 hours
(2) Cycle time was reduced by 20-25 per cent as a result of using
CALS (Computer Aided Acquisition Logistics Support) instead
of paper document methods
Source: [8]
Design for
ITEK stemmed from the fact that the parent company decided to institute
continuous improvement programmes to achieve total quality and move
towards improving operations. In all cases, teamwork was an essential part of
the design process. ITEK was so successful in using teams to the extent that in
a span of one and one half-year the number of teams jumped from just four to
twenty-three. Rosenblatt mentioned that benefits in terms of quality,
productivity, better design, and even the bottom line were reported by Fausto
Molinet, the assistant director for total quality management.
Although there are many benefits of DFM tools that have been reported by
academicians and practitioners, some drawbacks of these tools have also been
mentioned. Conradson et al.[23] mentioned the following drawbacks:
(1) Current DFM tools do not take into account many manufacturing
(2) Current DFM tools do not take tolerancing considerations into account.
(3) Most do not take into account the cost of fabricating an assembly part.
(4) It is not clear that available DFM tools are accurate enough to help
designers make correct design decisions when a product’s profit margin
is low.
(5) Many of the computer-based DFM tools nearly complete designs. When
the design is finally analysed there are a number of barriers that prevent
substantial modification of the design.
(6) Current DFM tools also give the designer little feedback upon which to
base design modification.
If incorrectly applied, DFM could hurt a company rather than help it
(Bancroft[33]). Bancroft mentioned some of these shortcomings. First, DFM
promotes uniaxis assembly, which might not be the best technique that should
be applied. Second, DFM suggested reducing the number of parts used in an
assembly so that more functionality is incorporated in one part. While this
might sound practical, Bancroft argued that it is sometimes easier to add
several simple steps rather than one complicated one. Third, DFM causes a shift
in decision-making power. Bancroft also argued that manufacturing will have
considerable influence over product design, and product design will have
greater influence over the choice of manufacturing method. Although
Bancroft’s claim may have some validity, in some cases, creating the proper
environment by top management should foster the integration and harmony of
the team effort.
In the new dynamic manufacturing environment design, for manufacturability
as a time-based strategy has been proven to have a significant positive impact
on time-to-market. Successful implementation of DFM can also result in better
quality, higher product and process flexibility, and faster response to customer
needs. However, successful implementation of the DFM strategy requires
cultural changes that allow for better communication among all subsystems,
promote team work, and integrate the efforts of those involved in product and
processes decisions. This new strategy promotes time as a new dimension on
which a firm may compete. In the second part of this article, we will investigate
empirically the impact of DFM on time-to-market.
1. Schonberger, R.J., Japanese Manufacturing Techniques: Nine Hidden Lessons in Simplicity,
Free Press, New York, NY, 1982.
2. Schonberger, R.J., World-Class Manufacturing: The Lessons of Simplicity Applied, Free
Press, New York, NY, 1986.
3. Ciampa, D., Manufacturing’s New Mandate: The Tools for Leadership, John Wiley & Sons,
New York, NY, 1988.
4. Gunn, T.G., Manufacturing for Competitive Advantage: Becoming a World-Class
Manufacturer, Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, 1987.
5. Gunn, T.G., 21st Century Manufacturing: Creating Winning Business Performance,
Harper Business, New York, NY, 1992.
6. Hall, R.W., Attaining Manufacturing Excellence: Just-In-Time, Total Quality, and Total
People Involvement, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1987.
7. Hunt, V.D., Computer Integrated Manufacturing Handbook, Chapman & Hall, New York,
NY, 1988.
8. Hunt, V.D., Enterprise Integration Sourcebook: The Integration of CALS, CE, TOM,
PDES, RAMP, and CIM, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1991.
9. Huge, E.C. and Anderson, A.D., The Spirit of Manufacturing Excellence: An Executive’s
Guide to the New Mind Set, Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1988.
10. Youssef, M.A., “Advanced Manufacturing Technologies, Manufacturing Strategy, and
Economic Performance”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York,
NY, 1991.
11. Youssef, M.A., “Getting to Know Advanced Manufacturing Technology”, Industrial
Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 2, 1992, pp. 18-21.
12. Youssef, M.A., “Agile Manufacturing: A Necessary Condition for Competing in Global
Markets”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 24 No. 12, 1992, pp. 38-41.
13. Youssef, M.A., “The Impact of Computer-based Technologies on Flexibility”, International
Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 8 No. 3/5, 1993, pp. 355-70.
14. Youssef, M.A., “The Impact of the Intensity Level of Computer-based Technologies on
Quality”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 14 No. 4,
1994, pp. 4-25.
15. Hayes, R., Wheelwright, S. and Clark, K., Dynamic Manufacturing: Creating the Learning
Organization, Free Press, New York, NY, 1988.
16. National Research Council, Improving Engineering Design; Design for Competitive
Advantage, Manufacturing Study Board, Committee on Engineering Design Theory and
Methodology, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1991.
17. Vasilash, G.S., “Simultaneous Engineering”, Production, July 1987, pp. 36-41.
18. Giffi, C., Roth, A. and Seal, G.M., Competing in World-class Manufacturing: America’s 21st
Century Challenge, Business One Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1990.
19. Whitney, D.E., The Strategic Approach to Product Design: Use of Product Design Teams in
Manufacturing, in Cleland and Bidanda (Eds), Automated Factory Handbook, TRP, 1990.
Design for
20. Stoll, H.W., “Design for Manufacture: An Overview”, Applied Mechanics Review, Vol. 39 No.
9, 1986, pp. 1356-64.
21. Langowitz, N., “Becoming Competitive through Design for Manufacturing”, IM, July-
August 1991, pp. 29-31.
22. Hiatt, D., “Design for Manufacturability: Multifunctional Teams at Hewlett Packard”, CIM
Review, Summer 1990, pp. 63-5.
23. Conradson, S.A., Barford, L.A., Fisher, W.D., Weistein, M.J. and Wilker, J.D.,
“Manufacturability Tools: An Engineer’s Use and Needs”, IEEE Transactions, 1988, pp.
24. Miller, W.H. and Sanders, T.J., “Design for Inherent Manufacturability of Electronic
Products”, International Semiconductor Manufacturing Science Symposium, IEEE, 1989,
pp. 85-91.
25. American Electronic Association, 1989 Productivity Survey, KPMG Peat Marwick, San
Clara, CA, 1989.
26. Zhang, H.C. and Alting, L., “An Exploration of Simultaneous Engineering for
Manufacturing Enterprises”, The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, Vol. 7 No. 2, 1992, pp. 101-8.
27. McKnight, S. and Jackson, J.K., “Simultaneous Engineering Saves Manufacturing
Leadtime, Cost, and Frustration”, Industrial Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 1, 1989, pp. 25-7.
28. Winner R.I., Pennel, J.P., Bertrand, H.E. and Slusarczuk, M.M.G., “The Role of Concurrent
Engineering in Weapon Systems Acquisition”, IDA Report R-338, Institute for Defense
Analysis, Alexandria, VA, December 1988.
29. Rosenblatt, A. and Watson, G.F., “Concurrent Engineering: A Special Report”, IEEE
Spectrum, July 1991, pp. 22-37.
30. Shina, S.G., “Concurrent Engineering: New Rules for World-class Companies”, IEEE
Spectrum, Vol. 28 No. 7, 1990, pp. 22-6.
31. Schrage, D.P., “Concurrent Design: A Case Study”, in Kusiak, A. (Ed.), Concurrent
Engineering: Automation, Tools, and Technologies, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY,
32. Keys, L.K., Rao, R. and Balakrishnan, K., Concurrent Engineering for Consumer, Industrial
Products, and Government Systems, IEEE/CHMT, 1991 IEMT Symposium, pp. 44-7.
33. Bancroft, C., “Overlooked Aspects of Design for Manufacturability”, IEEE Circuits and
Devices Magazine, Vol. 4 No. 6, 1988, pp. 15-19.
Further Reading
Blackburn, J. (Ed.), Time-Based Competition, The Next Battle Ground in American
Manufacturing, Irwin, Homewood, IL, 1991.
Cronbach, L.J., “Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16,
1951, pp. 297-334.
Nemetz, P., “Flexible Manufacturing Organizations”, unpublished PhD dissertation, Washington
University, 1990.
Sharma, D., “Manufacturing Strategy: An Empirical Analysis”, unpublished PhD dissertation,
Ohio State University, 1987.
Stalk, G. and Hout, T., Competing against Time: How Time-based Competition Is Reshaping
Global Markets, Free Press, New York, NY, 1990.
... Unlike the traditional linear manufacturing approach, properly implemented DFM in organisations enables activities to be executed collaboratively and concurrently among divisions and departments [32]. ...
... Adequately captured learnings from this phase of the development in the form of manufacturing or design guidelines enable feedback to the design phase through the DFM activities and enhance the chances of "right first time" manufacture, but also form input into the manufacturing phase and, in conjunction with automation and digital technologies, enable manufacturing adaptability and quality repeatability. The two main components of DFM are technological (knowledge base, manufacturing, computing, etc.) and social (corporate organisation culture, employee involvement, customer attributes, etc.) [32,33]. Amongst the synonyms for DFM are simultaneous engineering, concurrent engineering, and systems engineering [34]. ...
... Amongst the synonyms for DFM are simultaneous engineering, concurrent engineering, and systems engineering [34]. An example of a generic DFM teamwork in product and process design can be seen in the publications of Whitney [35] and are also depicted in the paper by Youssef [32]. ...
Full-text available
This paper aims to propose an Industry 4.0 implementation model relevant to the composite manufacturing industry and offer it to academia and manufacturing practice in order to aid successful change and adoption. The research scope is defined at an intersection of challenges within the composites industry, as well as Industry 4.0. A critical review of relevant papers was used to establish key trends and gaps in professional practice. Exposed challenges and opportunities were then synthesized to propose a conceptual framework for implementing Industry 4.0. Findings suggest that the predicted growth of the composites sector depends on the paradigm shift in manufacturing. Industry 4.0, including automation, and horizontally and vertically integrated business models are seen as enablers. However, the value proposition or organizational resistance in establishing such integration is not sufficiently addressed or understood by the industry. Achieving a successful design for manufacturing (DFM), or, more generally, design for excellence (DFX0), is identified as the target performance objectives and key business process enablers used to introduce Industry 4.0 technology. The identified key gap in professional practice indicate the lack of a model used for structuring and implementing Industry 4.0 technology into composite businesses. The existence of an identified gap, evidenced by the lack of literature and available knowledge, reinforces the need for further research. To enable further research, and to facilitate the introduction of Industry 4.0 in composite manufacturing firms, a conceptual implementation framework based on the systems engineering V model is proposed. The paper concludes with topics for further investigation.
... For instance, Gao et al. [6], Ginting et al. [7], and Wasim et al. [8] proposed a review of DFMA methods in the building sector which shows different features compared with the mechanical products considered in this review. Regarding mechanical products, four reviews were focused on DFM methods [9][10][11][12], six on DFA methods [13][14][15][16][17][18], and four on DFMA methods [19][20][21][22]. By the analysis of these works, three main limitations have been identified. ...
Full-text available
The design for manufacturing and assembly (DFMA) is a family of methods belonging to the design for X (DfX) category which goal is to optimize the manufacturing and assembly phase of products. DFMA methods have been developed at the beginning of the 1980s and widely used in both academia and industries since then. However, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no systematic literature reviews or mapping has been proposed yet in the field of mechanical design. The goal of this paper is to provide a systematic review of DFMA methods applied to mechanical and electro-mechanical products with the aim to collect, analyse, and summarize the knowledge acquired until today and identify future research areas. The paper provides an overview of the DFMA topic in the last four decades (i.e., from 1980 to 2021) emphasizing operational perspectives such as the design phase in which methods are used, the type of products analysed, the adoption of quantitative or qualitative metrics, the tool adopted for the assessment, and the technologies involved. As a result, the paper addresses several aspects associated with the DFMA and different outcomes retrieved by the literature review have been highlighted. The first one concerns the fact that most of the DFMA methods have been used to analyse simple products made of few components (i.e., easy to manage with a short lead-time). Another important result is the lack of valuable DFMA methods applicable at early design phases (i.e., conceptual design) when information is not detailed and presents more qualitative than quantitative data. Both results lead to the evidence that the definition of a general DFMA method and metric adaptable for every type of product and/or design phase is a challenging goal that presents several issues. Finally, a bibliographic map was developed as a suitable tool to visualize results and identify future research trends on this topic. From the bibliometric analysis, it has been shown that the overall interest in DFMA methodologies decreased in the last decade.
... To avoid not solderable solder joints according to IPC-A610 [7] during design stage, the thermal aspects of design for manufacturing have to be evaluated. Proper design allows short time-to-market and significantly reduces nonconformity costs (NCCs) in manufacturing [8,9]. This paper presents an analytical approach to estimate the temperature development in the solder joint during soldering depending on the multilayer stack and component. ...
... However, concurrent engineering goes much further. The classical literature has dem-onstrated its role in achieving successful innovations (Blackburn, 1991;Stalk and Hout, 1990;Clark and Fujimoto, 1991;Nayak, 1990;Youssef, 1994;Toni and Meneghetti, 2000). Concurrent engineering leads to overlapping problem-solving cycles that shorten times by performing different tasks simultaneously (Koufteros et al., 2002). ...
... Agility is a dynamic, context-specific, aggressively changeembracing, and growth-oriented system (Goldman, Nagel, & Preiss, 1995). It goes beyond speed and requires massive structural and infrastructural changes (Youssef, 1994). According to Conboy (2009) the definition of agility in information systems is "the continual readiness of an information systems development method to rapidly or inherently create change, and learn from change while contributing to perceived customer value (economy, quality, and simplicity), through its collective components and relationships with its environment." ...
Full-text available
The purpose of this study is to understand how the cultural aspects of organizational agility affect digital innovation capability. In the context of increasing demand for fast-paced digital innovation, organizational agility becomes strategically crucial for large incumbent companies to increase their competitiveness. The literature on organizational agility shows that incumbents, with their vast access to resources, still can have limited ability to innovate and respond to change. This is in sharp contrast to startups, who sometimes are impressively innovative despite their very limited resources. Sometimes the incumbents are even outcompeted and disrupted by startups because of their ability to embrace change, and rapidly seize new business opportunities. However, we know little about why some incumbents are not able to use their resources efficiently for digital innovation and why some smaller startups can transcend these resource limitations. In this context, we find that cultural aspects are especially crucial as enablers for organizational agility in digital innovation. We designed a comparative study to investigate the differences in the influence of culture on organizational agility; and how it hinders or enables digital innovation, at both incumbent firms and startups in the automotive industry. We applied a qualitative research approach and selected semi-structured interviews as our main research method. The Competing Values Framework was used as a tool to categorize different cultures that affect organizational agility, but also to identify how and when tensions between values supported or hampered the organizations' ability to innovate. Our findings show that, while a blend of Hierarchy and Market cultures inhibited the innovation capability, Clan and Adhocracy cultures promoted innovation. In our sample, the incumbents predominantly adhered to the first two cultures, while the startups typically belonged to the second group. The most successful startups were even able to create a combination of Clan and Adhocracy cultures-a concept we here term 'Agile culture.' This culture allowed them to reach a beneficial state of digital innovation growth. When it comes to the implications for research and practice, we found the need to analyze the role of culture for organizational agility; and how to utilize culture as an asset to enable digital innovation growth. One contribution is the identification of 'Agile culture' that is an amalgamation of Clan and Adhocracy culture. The value agile culture creates when applied, enables organizational agility, which can enhance digital innovation capability.
Full-text available
A circular economy is a systemic approach to economic development for the benefit of businesses, society and the environment. Contrary to the linear model of "take, do, waste", the circular economy aims to decouple economic growth from resource consumption. Circular product design plays a key role in a systemic transition to a circular economy. However, the complexity emerging from the transition to the new socioeconomic paradigm seems to be too complex to be managed by one or a limited number of disciplines. Similarly, many scholars argue that there is a need for additional frameworks and tools to allow companies to organize and manage the design process. Therefore, this research was guided by the hypothesis that the design process must be better coordinated and implemented from multiple design perspectives to increase the ability of the products to be maintained longer and for multiple life cycles, thus bringing environment and economic benefits. Therefore the challenge is to understand how to manage, support and guide designers to achieve this hypothesis. Starting from the multiple design levels of the anthropic system, this thesis analyzed the case study of the bike-sharing system to provide a first extended picture of the interconnection between the aspects and phenomena of the systems. However, the research focuses only on two of four design levels of the anthropic system, namely that of the Product and Product-Service System, and the convergence of the multiple design perspectives involved. In this regard, the research revised and analyzed the main reference frameworks with the aim of connecting the design correlations and role interrelationships between the different phases of the product life cycle. Together with these, the research also analyzed, extended and intertwined, through the circular economic lens, the definition of circular design strategy, Design for X (DfX) and the hierarchization of DfX based on material flows. This led to the formulation of a new theoretical framework to hierarchize multidimensional design goals to enables more extensive collaboration and better management of design strategies between systems, designers and time. The framework, named Multi-hierarchical DfX framework, was initially validated through a combination of interviews with experts and scholars from various sectors, and later through the analysis of three case studies of different bike-sharing systems available in Milan. The second evaluation showed more specifically how the framework can be used to connect strategies between the different phases of the product life cycle, in particular between the business model and the product design (functionality, aesthetics and symbolic aspect of the product). Consequently, two tools have been developed on the basis of the multi-hierarchical DfX: Circular Cards (“deck-based cards”) and Circular Design Tool (digital and open-source tool). The purpose of circular cards is to provide a practical approach to research and design by integrating different circular strategies when conceiving and using circular products. While the purpose of the Circular Design Tool is to organize different DfX strategies to help designers create sophisticated circular product design strategies. All tools were tested through the Sprint workshop model, which was then added and adapted to the research needs. What led to the creation of a new Sprint workshop model, the Circular Design Workshop. The purpose of this design tool is to support designers in their process of improving and managing products for a circular economy. Finally, the research presented the main conclusions, reported and suggestions for future investigations.
Two problems in designing and developing a product are directly tied into effective management of the marketing/operations interface. We first consider technological incompatibility between pairs of alternatives for different components to identify feasible product designs at various stages of product‐development, from screening to the final design. We then consider experts’ judgment on compatibility between pairs of alternatives for different attributes to generate product ideas and to perform a preliminary screening. This expert‐based approach can be used in conjunction with other expert‐based approaches or consumer‐based approaches to identify potentially desirable product ideas. The methodology developed here includes explicit simultaneous consideration of product, process, and supply chain development and it is applicable to the entire spectrum of product novelty, from radical to incremental innovation. We also describe a real‐world application.
The thesis of this article is that new product manufacturability (NPM) is influenced by certain challenges inherent in new product development (NPD), and by efforts to integrate manufacturing and other functional concerns into the product design process. This research tests the direct and interacting effects of these influences via a survey of 91 completed NPD projects representing a variety of manufacturing industries. While most hypotheses were supported, the analysis also provides some surprising findings. Project complexity and increased levels of design outsourcing are associated with poorer NPM. Product newness and project acceleration are associated with better NPM. All the measured aspects of development team integration are associated with better NPM, including intense manufacturing involvement, a collaborative work environment, supplier influence on the product design, and strong management support in the project. Furthermore, certain integration variables exert moderating effects on relationships between technological uncertainty, product newness, design outsourcing, project acceleration and NPM. By exposing these relationships this research extends the theory of product development influences on manufacturability beyond a focus on engineering‐oriented approaches (e.g., design‐for‐manufacture). The results suggest that larger managerial issues must be addressed and that more contingency‐oriented research is needed to explore the benefits and limitations of development team integration processes.
Full-text available
“Company culture eats strategy for breakfast,” according to Peter Drucker (cited in Kesterson, 2015, p. 56). Therefore, this issue of the Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation (JEMI) entitled “Company culture matters” presents studies that extend the current body of knowledge regarding company culture pattern recognition, promotion, implementation, and execution. The main inspiration for all of the studies included in this issue was the assumption that most of a company’s challenges in present times are rooted in company culture.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the past, many frameworks have been conceived in order to support companies and their designers to develop sustainable products. In the circular economy, however, these frameworks no longer appear to be sufficient, due to the difficulty in identifying multiple design strategies for the different product life cycles across time dimensions. By adopting a Design for X (DfX) approach, this paper develops a multi-hierarchical DfX framework that allows designers to incorporate different strategies to better address product life cycles. This framework could facilitate the further development of a more comprehensive and interdisciplinary DfX tool. A key part of the method deployed is an interview guide approach, where five experts from across academia and industry, were interviewed. This qualitative research draws on their diverse expertise and generates an intersectoral link between different fields. Moreover, the DfX tool can be used to highlight relationships between different circular economy strategies, by providing insights into how interdisciplinary design decisions influence each other. Such an approach could allow designers to effectively visualize a bigger picture and positively influence the application and acceleration of the circular economy.
Manufacturing has entered the early stages of a revolutionary period caused by the convergence of three powerful trends: • The rapid advancement and spread of manufacturing capabilities worldwide has created intense competition on a global scale. • The emergence of advanced manufacturing technologies is dramati­ cally changing both the products and processes of modern manufac­ turing. • Changes in traditional management and labor practices, organiza­ tional structures, and decision-making criteria represent new sources of competitiveness and introduce new strategic opportunities. These trends are interrelated and their effects are already being felt by the u.s. manufacturing community. Future competitiveness for manu­ facturers worldwide will depend on their response to these trends. Based on the recent performance of u.s. manufacturers, efforts to respond to the challenges posed by new competition, technology, and managerial opportunities have been slow and inadequate. Domestic markets that were once secure have been assailed by a growing number of foreign competitors producing high quality goods at low prices. In a number of areas, such as employment, capacity utilization, research and development expenditures, and capital investment, trends in u.s. manufacturing over the last decade have been unfavorable or have not kept pace with major foreign competitors, such as Japan. There is substantial evidence that many u.s. manufacturers have neglected the manufacturing function, have overemphasized product development at the expense of process improvements, and have not begun to make the adjustments that will be necessary to be competitive.
Smart robots by themselves will not provide the full range of productivity enhancement possible with current manufacturing technology. Only when combined as part of a production system, a computer integrated manufacturing system, will the economic and productivity enhancements offered by smart robots be fully used. This chapter provides an introduction to computer integrated manufacturing and shows the integration of smart robots with other systems.
Since the early days of consumer solid-state electronics products, Japanese companies have used a team-oriented integrated product/process development process to dominate the development of new multidisciplinary electronic, mechatronic, and other sophisticated technology products. The power of this dynamic project management methodology is now behind all major new product development, including telecommunications, automobiles, aircraft, computers, etc. It has begun to be adopted by many industries and businesses in the US and the rest of the world. This integrated team multidisciplinary dynamic project management development process is known as concurrent engineering (CE). Recent Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) reports, NSF workshops, and other current efforts and publications addressing CE are reviewed and their findings are discussed in detail
Responses of 150 IEEE members to a telephone survey sponsored by Nihon Keizai Shimbun, a Japanese counterpart to The Wall Street Journal, are reported. The interviews were conducted by the Gallup Organization Incorporated. The respondents-50 each from government, industrial, and academic facilities-answered more than two dozen questions, some of which were suggested by the IEEE, regarding the relative position of the US and Japan. The survey showed, among other findings, that US engineers believe the US holds a technological edge over Japan in many areas. The majority also believe that the US lead will continue into the next century and that the Japanese should not be credited with being technological innovators since they have been using basic technology developed in other countries
Design for manufacture (DFM) is concerned with defining product design alternatives which facilitate optimization of the manufacturing system as a whole. Recognized as being essential to productivity improvement, interest in the DFM approach has risen dramatically as the result of recent experience with deployment of advanced manufacturing technology. This article critically examines the broad range of activities which are embodied in the DFM approach. Discussion is divided into consideration of DFM principles and rules, quantitative evaluation methodologies, and computer-aided DFM. Underlying organization issues are also discussed.