Design For

Manufacturing

Design for
Design
for Manufacturing (DFM) is a methodology aimed at
Manufacturing
improving the manufacturability or productibility of a single
product by reducing manufacturing costs

Ulrich and Eppinger (2000) advocate a 5 step approach

Proposed
Design

Estimate
Manufacturing
Costs

Reduce
the Costs of
Components
Reduce
the Costs of
Assembly
Reduce
the Costs of
Supporting
Production

No

Consider Impact
of DFM Decisions
on Other Factors

Re-Compute
Manufacturing
Costs

Good
Enough?
Yes

Acceptable
Design

Step 1: Estimate the Manufacturing

Costs
Manufacturing Cost

Components

Standard

Custom

Raw
Material

Processing

Assembly

Labor

Tooling

Equipment
and Tooling

Overhead

Support

Indirect

Step 1: Estimate
Manufacturing Costs

Estimate the costs of standard and custom components

Estimating the Cost of Standard Components:
compare each part to a substantially similar part the firm is already
producing or purchasing in volumes or
solicit price quotes from suppliers or vendors (must estimate
production quantities as this will greatly affect price)

Estimating the Cost of Custom Components:

Raw materials mass of part and scrap allowance times cost per
unit mass of material
Processing cost of operator(s) for equipment plus cost to use
equipment itself (typically $25/hr for stamping to $75/hr for CNC
milling)
Tooling costs incurred for design and fabrication of cutters,
molds, dies, and/or fixtures used to fabricate the component

Step 1: Estimate Manufacturing

Costs (cont.)

Estimate the assembly costs

This includes labor costs to assemble a product as well as tooling cost
and equipment cost
Production quantities of less than several hundred thousand per year
are usually performed manually
Manual assembly costs can be estimated by summing the estimated
time of each assembly operation and multiplying by the labor rate

Estimate the overhead costs

Support costs (e.g., material handling, quality assurance, purchasing,
shipping, receiving, facilities, maintenance of equipment and tooling)
Indirect allocations which cannot be linked to any particular product
but which must be paid for by the manufacturer to be in business (e.g.,
building and grounds maintenance, janitorial supplies, electricity)

Step 2: Reduce Component

Costs

The cost of purchased components will often be the most significant

factor driving manufacturing costs

General rules of thumb are used to reduce component costs:

Reduce tolerances on non-critical dimensions

Reduce the number of parts

Choose materials wisely

Choose processes wisely

Eliminate extra processing steps:

employ net shape fabrication techniques such as molding,
casting, forging, and extrusion whenever possible to produce
parts with the final geometry in a single manufacturing step

Step 2: Reduce
Component Costs
Chose
the appropriate scale for the part process
(cont.)

realize economies of scale by amortizing fixed costs over

more units and lowering variable costs through use of
larger and more efficient processes and equipment

Use standardized parts and processes whenever

possible

Adhere to black box component procurement

designate what the component must do and its interfaces,

not how it should be achieved

gives suppliers freedom to design or select minimum cost

components, and reduces your design effort

Step 3: Reduce Assembly

Costs

For most products, assembly contributes a relatively small fraction to

the total manufacturing cost of the product

However, by emphasizing Design for Assembly (DFA), many indirect

benefits are often realized since the overall part count, manufacturing
complexity, and support costs are usually reduced in addition to the
assembly costs

Boothroyd & Dewhurst have developed a systematic approach to

facilitate DFA analysis:
Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst, P. (1989) Product Design for
Assembly, Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc., Wakefield, RI.

Boothroyd & Dewhursts DFA

Analysis

B&D offer eight rules or guidelines which are important during design for
manual assembly (listed in decreasing order of importance):
1. Reduce part count and part types
2. Strive to eliminate adjustments
3. Design parts to be self-aligning and self-locating
4. Ensure adequate access and unrestricted vision
5. Ensure the ease of handling parts from bulk
6. Minimize the need for re-orientations during assembly
7. Design parts that cannot be installed incorrectly
8. Maximize part symmetry if possible or make parts obviously
asymmetrical

Boothroyd & Dewhursts DFA

Analysis (cont.)
Step 1: Obtain information about the product or assembly from drawings,
prototypes, or an existing product
Step 2: Take the product or assembly apart and assign an identification
number to each item as it is removed
Step 3: Begin to reassemble the product beginning with the highest
identification number and add the remaining parts one-by-one
Complete one row of the DFA worksheet for each part
Never assume that parts are grasped one in each hand and then
assembled together before placing them in a partially-completed
assembly

Step 4: Complete DFA worksheet, computing total manual assembly

time, cost, and design efficiency

N a m e o f P a rt

P a rt ID #

3
4

m a n u a l in s e rtio n tim e
p e r p a rt

tw o -d ig it m a n u a l
in s e rtio n c o d e

m a n u a l h a n d lin g tim e
p e r p a rt

tw o -d ig it m a n u a l
h a n d lin g c o d e

# o f tim e s th e
o p e ra tio n is c a rrie d o u t
c o n s e c u tive ly

DFA Worksheet
o p e ra tio n tim e , s e c ,
(2 ) x [(4 ) + (6 )]

TM

o p e ra tio n c o s t, c e n ts ,
0 .4 x (7 )

CM

e s tim a tio n o f
th e o re tic a l m in im u m #
o f p a rts ,
0 or 1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
NM

Obtained
from B&D
Manual
Handling
Worksheet

Obtained
from B&D
Manual
Insertion
Worksheet

Design Efficiency
EM = (3 x NM)/TM

Design for Assembly Index

(Theoretical minimum number of parts) x (3 seconds)

DFA index =
Estimated total assembly time

Estimating Theoretical Minimum

Number of Parts
First Part;
Add a part

Theoretical #
of parts = 1
Yes

Is there a need for significant

movement between parts?
No

Is there a need for interfacing

parts to be isolated?

Yes

No

Would assembly or disassembly of the

product be prevented by combining two parts?

Yes

No

Combine the two parts

Keep the two

parts separate

Add zero to the

minimum theoretical
number of parts

Add one to the

minimum theoretical
number of parts
Add next part

Step 4: Reduce Overhead

Costs
Reduced
overhead costs is often an indirect benefit

Reducing part count reduces inventory and material handling

costs...
also reduces assembly content which reduces the number of
workers required, reducing the costs of management and
supervisors

Minimize the complexity of the manufacturing process as much as

possible since everything must be tracked, monitored, managed,
inspected, handled, inventoried, and maintained
Simplest process would be to take raw material and transform it
into a single part via one manufacturing process.

Step 4: Reduce Overhead Costs

(cont.)

Monitor such things as:

Number of new parts introduced
Number of new vendors introduced
Number of custom parts introduced
Number of new major tools introduced
Number of new production processes introduced
as a result of a new design or modification

Also, try to error proof the product as best as possible

anticipate failure modes of the product and production system,
taking appropriate corrective actions early in the development
process

E.g., eliminate confusing parts (e.g., screws of the same diameter

but with different threads, or screws with right-hand

hand threading).

vs. left-

DFM Example

Step 5: Evaluate DFM Impact on

Other Factors

Finally, evaluate the impact of DFM decisions on:

Product and process development time and costs
Product quality
Other external factors, e.g., component re-use in future designs, life-cycle
costs
E.g., Volvo
E.g., Delco Modular Door
Once Steps 1-5 have been completed:

Re-compute Manufacturing Costs

Are results of DFM good enough?
If YES: you have acceptable design
If NO: back to the drawing board

Impact of DFM on Delco Modular

Door
Total Number of Doors per Year:

No.

Material Cost
Direct Labor in Vehicle Plant
Indirect Labor at Vehicle Plant
Material Handlers
Maintenance for assembly equipment
Supervisors for line workers
Structural Cost
Supplier Quality Engineers
Purchasing Agents
Engineers
Designers
Change Management
Plant Benefits
Floor Space
Line Length
Off-Line Storage of Parts
Ergonomics (medical claims costs)
Increased Build Rate (through put)
Reduced in Plant Inventory
Reduced Work-In-Process
Cost for Part Numbers in System
Value of Mass Reduction
Value of Warranty Reduction (10 IPTV)
Value of reduced in plant repair
Value of reduced returned parts (RPPM)
Value of serviceability improvement

Unit

1 operator
0.5 operator
1 operator

400,000
Rate per unit Cost/Savings
$6.00
-$3.00
$60,000
$60,000
$60,000

-$0.15
-$0.08
-$0.15

eng.
agent
eng.
designers
staff

$100,000
$100,000
$100,000
$80,000
$100,000

-$0.25
-$0.50
-$0.75
-$0.80
-$0.25

1600
1600
40
1000

Sq. Feet
Sq. Feet
Claims
Cars

50
0.5
1000
1
1
2000

Numbers
Kg
Claims
repairman
inspector
Claims

$200
$200
$500
$500
$50,000
$200,000
$5,000
$1
$100
$60,000
$60,000
$20

-$0.16
-$0.16
-$0.05
-$1.25
-$0.13
-$0.50
-$0.63
-$0.50
-$0.25
-$0.15
-$0.15
-$0.10

Total Value of Building with a Door Module

-$3.95

1
2
3
4
1

Note
loss

Note
savings
per door