Can YOU help? --> Unanswered questions <-- (Other than Marcelo's Informational posts)

How to implement DFMA (Design for Manufacturing and Assembly)?

P

peacewong

#1
How to implement DFMA (design for manufacturing and assembly)? Who can provide a sample? Thanks a lot.
 

Jim Wynne

Super Moderator
#2
I must have missed this the first time around; you're right--it's one of those questions that entire books have been written about. If you want to know what DFMA is, first consider what it isn't, or why there was a need for it.

In times past, and in too many instances yet today, product design with regard to actual manufacturing requirements was done as a sort of abstract process, in isolation. Designs were/are done and then thrown over the wall to the manufacturing people, and figuring out how to actually make the product becomes their problem. In such cases the designers, once the design has been catapulted over the wall, settle in to work on new projects, and lack the time necessary to answer questions about their previous work.

At some point some forward-thinking person thought it might be a good idea for designers to actually work with manufacturing (and other downstream processes such as shipping) in order to assure that the products could actually be manufactured and delivered. Thus the idea that some design feature that is beyond the manufacturing state of the art--it looks good on paper but you can't actually make one--is corrected before it becomes a problem and customers get angry.

NDFMA (Not Designed for Manufacturing and Assembly) is unfortunately the prevailing practice in many instances, and there are long delays, gnashing of teeth and hurt feelings when designers are forced back to the drawing board in order to accommodate reality.
 

michellemmm

Quest For Quality
#3
I must have missed this the first time around; you're right--it's one of those questions that entire books have been written about. If you want to know what DFMA is, first consider what it isn't, or why there was a need for it.

In times past, and in too many instances yet today, product design with regard to actual manufacturing requirements was done as a sort of abstract process, in isolation. Designs were/are done and then thrown over the wall to the manufacturing people, and figuring out how to actually make the product becomes their problem. In such cases the designers, once the design has been catapulted over the wall, settle in to work on new projects, and lack the time necessary to answer questions about their previous work.

At some point some forward-thinking person thought it might be a good idea for designers to actually work with manufacturing (and other downstream processes such as shipping) in order to assure that the products could actually be manufactured and delivered. Thus the idea that some design feature that is beyond the manufacturing state of the art--it looks good on paper but you can't actually make one--is corrected before it becomes a problem and customers get angry.

NDFMA (Not Designed for Manufacturing and Assembly) is unfortunately the prevailing practice in many instances, and there are long delays, gnashing of teeth and hurt feelings when designers are forced back to the drawing board in order to accommodate reality.
Very Nice Post!!!! :thanks:

Look at the history of CNCs, according to MDC; CNCs were developed as a result of desire to meet the design criteria of aeronautical engineers. In this case, necessity was indeed the mother of invention. Design was not sacrificed to meet manufacturing capability.

My concern is the new "Supply Chain Management" phenomena. The science and art of "Manufacturing Engineering" is disappearing in this country. Therefore DFM/A is becoming abstract. Design integrity should not take a back seat to cost.
 
Y

Yew Jin

#4
IMO, we must generate the rules and procedure for generating the DFMEA or PFMEA. All the member in the team must well known how the process is going on then only the brainstorming session can be effective.
Flow chart is a must quality tool that can help us to identify each process that will be involved. Nominal group technique or any consenses may use to rate the serverity, occurances, and detection.

If there is no planning, it will end up waste time and resources for this FMEA generating.
 
A

AndyJP - 2012

#5
A view from the trenches here as I am up to my neck in this right now. Designers design to make their life simple and tend not to work laterally involving other people. They spec materials that enable them to do FEA simply and forget that it can be a real pain to machine / cast / forge and that leads to problems later.

If APQP is implemented corretly and the three stages used with tools such as DFMEA and PFMEA as well as robustness used correctly then desin for manufacture should happen by default as you have used all the people involved.

I did this rols in a large automotive OEM and we had several known issues from service and normally they did not involve the service teams ut when they did we got a etter product
 
P

player64

#6
Hi Guys,
I work in a surgical instrument manufacturing company as a production engineer. We have setup a team with reps from various departments to implement DFMA. At this stage we are not planning to implement any custom software. we will develop the guidelines etc inhouse by picking up knowledge from online sites. Our plan is to:
1. Design DFM guidelines and check lists for parts of various technologies eg..plastic parts, sheet metal parts etc.
2. Conduct pilot study on an under-design product and an existing product to get some comparisons.
3. Train the the team on the system and keep improving.

Can you guys point out any pitfalls etc while implementing DFMA. Please suggest any useful websites to get good examples of checklists and ways to measure the improvements DFA /DFM wise.

Thanks
 

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#7
It has been a while, but my Thanks in advance to anyone interested in a follow up to player64's post.
 

Top Bottom