CHAPTER

DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE AND ASSEMBLY:

THE BOOTHROYD-DEWHURST EXPERIENCE

Geoffrey Boothroyd

This chapter explains how the Boothroyd-Dewhurst (B&D) Design for Manufacture and
Assembly (DFMA) works, discusses the experience and benefits of using DFMA by world-
class manufacturers, and highlights implementation issues.
It has been estimated that, in the US, manufacturing contributes about 23% of the gross
national product but, more importantly, about 70% of all wealth producing activities. Those
who complacently say that the US is changing to a service economy might eventually find that
they no longer have the means to purchase these services. The US has been losing $340
million per day to its foreign competitors and the national debt is now around $4 trillion!
Competitiveness has been lost in many areas, but most notably in automobile manufacture,
as highlighted by the results of the $5 million world-wide study of this industry that was
published in 1990 (Womack et al., 1990). The study, which showed that Japan has the most
productive plants, attempted to explain the wide variations in auto assembly plant productivity
throughout the world. It was found that automation could only account for one-third of the
total difference in productivity between plants world-wide and that, at any level of
automation, the difference between the most and least efficient plant is enormous.
Womack et al. (1990) concluded that no improvements in operation can make a plant fully
competitive if the product design is defective. However, they failed to make a direct
connection between product design and productivity. Whereas the author of this chapter
believes that, and as this chapter will help to show, there is now overwhelming evidence to
support the view that product design for manufacture and assembly can be the key to high
productivity in all manufacturing industries.

G. Q. Huang (ed.), Design for X

© Chapman & Hall 1996
20 The B & D DFMA Experience

1.1 DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURE AND ASSEMBLY

That designers should give attention to possible manufacturing problems associated with a
design has been advocated for many years. Traditionally, the idea was that a competent
designer should be familiar with manufacturing processes to avoid adding unnecessarily to
manufacturing costs.
However, for reasons such as the increasingly complex technology incorporated within
many products; the time pressures put on designers to get designs on to the shop floor; the
"we design it, you manufacture it" attitude of designers; and the increasing sophistication of
manufacturing techniques, this simple view of the product development process has become
invalid.
It is, therefore, becoming recognized that more effort is required to take manufacturing and
assembly into account early in the product design cycle. One way of achieving this is for
manufacturing engineers to be part of a simultaneous or concurrent engineering design team.
Within this teamworking, design for manufacture and 'assembly (DFMA) analysis tools
help in the evaluation of proposed designs. It is important that design teams have access to
such tools in order to provide a focal point which helps identify problems from manufacturing
and design perspectives. In terms of the 80/20 rule, teams spend 80% of the time on 20% of
the problems, and DFMA helps the team identify the right 20% to work on.
DFMA is a systematic procedure that aims to help companies make the fullest use of the
manufacturing processes that exist and keep the number of parts in an assembly to the
minimum. It achieves this by enabling the analysis of design ideas. It is not a design system,
and any innovation must come from the design team, but it does provide quantification to help
decision-making at the early stages of design.

Suggestions for simplification

f - - - - - - - - - . ! of product structure
L - , -_ _ _---'

Suggestions for more economi

I---II~ materials and processes

Detail design for minimum

I--------~ manufacturing costs
L-.----_ _ _ _---'

Figure 1.1 Typical steps taken in a simultaneous engineering study using DFMA.
 Designfor manufacture and assembly 21

Figure 1.1 summarizes the steps taken when using DFMA during design. The design-for-
assembly (DFA) analysis is conducted first, leading to a simplification of the product
structure. Then, early cost estimates for the parts are obtained for both the original design and
the new design in order to make tradeoff decisions. During this process, the best materials
and processes to be used for the various parts are considered. For example, would it be better
to manufacture a cover from plastic or sheet metal? Once the materials and processes have
been finally selected, a more thorough analysis for design for manufacture (DFM) can be
carried out for the detail design of the parts.
It should be remembered that DFMA is the integration of the separate but interrelated
design issues of assembly and manufacturing processes. Therefore, there are two fundamental
aspects to producing efficient designs: DFA and the early implementation ofDFM.

1.1.1 Boothroyd-Dewhurst DFA Method

Development of the Boothroyd Dewhurst DFA method started in 1977 with funding from the
US National Science Foundation (Boothroyd and Dewhurst, 1983). It was first introduced in
handbook form in 1980, with Salford University Industrial Centre producing a UK version of
the handbook authored by K. G. Swift (1981). These handbooks included analysis methods
and databases for both manual and high-speed automatic assembly. For each process, the
handling of the parts and their insertion were considered separately. The original procedure
for design for automatic assembly was the result of collaboration between the author and A.
H. Redford and K. G. Swift in Salford.
Since the initial work, the author and his colleague P. Dewhurst have developed, in the US,
a personal computer program for DFA which was introduced in 1982. In 1983, a new
handbook, based on the lessons learned in implementing DFA in industry, was introduced and
since then design for robot assembly and PCB assembly have been added (Boothroyd and
Dewhurst, 1983).
With DFA, the greatest improvements tend to arise from simplification of the product by
reducing the number of separate parts. In order to give guidance in reducing the part count,
the Boothroyd Dewhurst DFA methodology provides three criteria against which each part
must be examined as it is added to the product during assembly:

• During operation of the product, does the part move relative to all other parts already
assembled?
Must the part be of a different material than, or be isolated from, all other parts already
assembled? Only fundamental reasons concerned with material properties are
acceptable.
Must the part be separate from all other parts already assembled because the necessary
assembly or disassembly of other separate parts would otherwise be impossible?

If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then the part must be a separate item - a
critical part. The number of critical items is regarded as the theoretical minimum number of
parts for the design, since all the others can, in theory, be removed or merged with these
critical parts. Therefore, the DFMA team must have a good reason for a part being included
as a separate item in the design if it does not meet one of these criteria.
This assessment procedure leads to ideas as to how the product may be simplified. At this
stage, these are not cost or analyzed and some may be impractical, but, from this, viable ideas
come forward.
22 The B & D DFMA Experience

The next step is to estimate the assembly time for the product design, and establish its
efficiency ratings in terms of difficulty of assembly.
Each part in the design is examined for two considerations: how the part is to be grasped,
orientated and made ready for insertion, and how it is inserted and/or fastened into the
product.
The difficulty of these operations is rated, and from this rating standard times are
determined for all the operations necessary to assemble each part. The DFA time standard is a
classification of design features which affect part assembly. It is a system for designers to use
- similar to MTM (Methods-Time Measurement) standards for industrial engineers - which
has been developed through years of experimentation. Usage has proved the data to be quite
accurate for the overall times.
The total assembly time for the product can then be estimated and, using standard labour
rates, so can assembly costs. Also the efficiency of a design from an ease of assembly point of
view can be determined.
Based on the assumption that all of the critical parts could be made easy to assemble -
requiring only three seconds each - the minimum assembly time (MAT) equals theoretical
minimum number of parts times three. Assembly efficiency percentage equals MAT divided
by the estimated total assembly time times 100.
At this stage, part manufacturing costs are not brought into the analysis, but the efficiency
rating and estimated assembly times provide benchmarks against which further design
iterations, previous estimates for an original product design or a competitor's product can be
compared.

1.1.2 Boothroyd-Dewhurst Manufacture Analysis

After the DFA analysis and the simplification of the product structure, the next step is to
analyze the manufacture of the individual parts. Few design engineers have detailed
knowledge of all the major shapeforming processes and, consequently, they tend to design for
the ones with which they are comfortable. The purpose of the DFM cost estimating process is
to enable design teams to weigh alternative designs and production processes, quantify
manufacturing costs, and make the necessary trade-off decisions between parts consolidation
and increased material/manufacturing costs.

Table 1.1 DFM analysis of injection-moulded heater cover (Dewhurst, 1988)

Olddesill:n Newdesill:n
Cost of one cavity and core $ 8,032 $11,625
Cycle time (s) 42.8 13.3
Number of cavities required 6 2
Cost of production mould $ 36,383 $ 22,925
Cost per part (inc. 5 cents for material) 25.1 cents 16.8 cents

The DFM system provides data, based on experimental work, for the cost estimation of a
variety of processes. Although they may be rough estimates, they are ample for projecting
costs at this stage of the design process. In fact, some companies have utilized this
information for negotiating with vendors.
Since 1985, Boothroyd, Dewhurst and Knight have developed methods for designers to
obtain cost estimates for parts and tooling during the early phases of design. Studies have
been completed for machined parts (Boothroyd and Radovanovic, 1989), injection-moulded
parts (Dewhurst, 1988), die-cast parts (Dewhurst and Blum, 1989), sheet-metal stampings
 Designfor manufacture and assembly 23

Zenger and Dewhurst, 1988) and powder-metal parts (Knight, 1991). The objective of these
studies was to provide methods with which the designer or design team can quickly obtain
information on costs before detailed design has taken place. For example, an analysis
(Dewhurst, 1988) of an injection-moulded heater cover gave the results shown in Table 1.1. It
was evident that certain wall thicknesses were too large, and that, through some fairly minor
design changes, the processing cost could be reduced by 33%. If these studies had taken place
at the early design stage, the designer could also have considered the cost for an equivalent
sheet-metal part for example. In fact, the use of these analysis techniques is now allowing
designers and purchasing managers to challenge suppliers' estimates. In one example, it has
been reported that Polaroid Corporation has saved $16,000-20,000 on the cost of tooling for
an injection-moulded part (Kirkland, 1992).

1.1.3 How DFMA Works

By way of example, Figure 1.2 shows the requirements of a motor-drive assembly that must
be designed to sense and control its position on two steel guiderails. The motor must be fully
enclosed for aesthetic reasons, and have a removable cover for access so that the position
sensor can be adjusted. The principal requirements are a rigid base that is designed to slide up
and down the guiderails, and that supports the motor and sensor. The motor and sensor have
wires that connect them to a power supply and a control unit, respectively.
3.25 "
attached to
screw drive

_guide rails

connecting wires

I - motor driven
assembly inside
cover

Figure 1.2 Configuration of required motor-drive assembly.

A proposed solution is shown in Figure 1.3. The base is provided with two bushes to
provide suitable friction and wear characteristics. The motor is secured to the base with two
motor screws, and a hole in the base accepts the cylindrical sensor, which is held in place with
a set screw. To provide the required covers, an end plate is secured by two end-plate screws
to two standoffs, which are, in turn, screwed into the base. This end plate is fitted with a
plastic bush through which the connecting wires pass. Finally, a box-shaped cover slides over
the whole assembly from below the base, and is held in place by four cover screws, two
passing into the base, and two into the end cover.
 COVER SCREW (4) END PLATE
0.12 dia. x 0.3 I.c. steel, painted
4.5 x 2.25 x 1.3
/ BUSH (2)
PLASTIC BUSH
iI 0.7 dia. x 0.4
I

MOTOR SCREW (2)

0.2 dia. x 0.6

COVER 16 gage
I.c. steel, painted
soldered seams
4.5 x 2.75 x 2.4 /./
SETSCREW
0.06 dia. x 0.12

SENSOR
BASE STANO-OFF (2)
0.187 dia. x1
aluminum, machined
4 x 2.2 x 1

"-
"-

(dimensions inches) END PLATE SCREW (2)---~

0.2 dia. x 0.5

Figure 1.3 Initial design of motor-drive assembly.

 Design for manufacture and assembly 25

Two subassemblies are required, the motor and the sensor, and, in this initial design, there
are eight additional main parts, and nine screws, making a total of 19 items to be assembled.
The application of the minimum part criteria to the proposed design proceeds as follows:
The base is assembled into a fixture, and, since there are no other parts with which to
combine it, it is a theoretically necessary part.
• The two bushes do not satisfy the criteria, and can theoretically be integral with the
base.
The motor is a standard subassembly of parts which is a purchased item. Thus, the
criteria cannot be applied unless the assembly of the motor itself is considered as part of
the analysis. In this example, we assume that motor and sensor are not to be analyzed.
Invariably, separate fasteners such as the two motor screws do not meet the criteria,
because an integral fastening arrangement is always theoretically possible.
The sensor is a purchased item
The set screw is theoretically not necessary.
The two standoffs do not meet the criteria; they could be incorporated into the base.
The end plate must be separate for reasons of assembly.
• The two end-plate screws are theoretically not necessary.
The plastic bush can be of the same material as, and therefore combined with, the end
plate.
The cover can also be combined with the end plate.
• Finally, the four cover screws are theoretically not necessary.

From this analysis, it can be seen that, if the motor and sensor subassemblies can be
arranged to snap or screw in the base, and a plastic cover can be designed to snap on, only
four separate items will be needed, instead of 19. These four items represent the theoretical
minimum number needed to satisfy the constraints of the product design without
consideration of the practical limitations.
It is now necessary for the designer or design team to justify the existence of those parts
that have not satisfied the criteria. Justification may arise from practical, technical or
economic considerations. In this example, it can be argued that two motor screws are needed
to secure the motor, and one set screw is needed to hold the sensor, because any alternatives
would be impractical for a low-volume product such as this.
It can be argued that the two powder metal bushes are unnecessary, because the base could
be machined from an alternative material with the necessary frictional characteristics.
Finally, it is very difficult to justify the separate standoffs, end plate, cover, plastic bush
and associated six screws.
Now, before an alternative design can be considered, it is necessary to have estimates of the
assembly times and costs, so that any possible savings can be taken into account when
considering design alternatives. Using DFMA time standards and knowledge bases, it is
possible to make estimates of assembly costs, and then to estimate the cost of the parts and
associated tooling, without having final detail drawings of the parts.
First, Table 1.2 shows the results of the DFA analysis; the total assembly time is estimated
to be 160 s. It is also possible to obtain an absolute measure of the quality of the design for
ease of assembly. The theoretical minimum number of parts is four, as explained above, and,
if these parts were easy to assemble, they would take 3 s each to assemble on average. Thus,
the theoretical minimum (or ideal) assembly time is 12 s, a figure which can be compared
with the estimated time of 160 s, giving an assembly efficiency of 12/160, or 7.5%.
26 The B & D DFMA Experience

Table 1.2 .Results of DFA analysis for initial design of motor-drive assembly
Item Number Theoretical Assembly time Assembly cost
part count (s) (US cents)
Base 1 1 3.5 2.9
Bush 2 0 12.3 10.2
Motor subassembly 1 1 9.5 7.9
Motor screw 2 0 21.0 17.5
Sensor subassembly 1 1 8.5 7.1
Set screw 1 0 10.6 8.8
Standoff 2 0 16.0 13.3
End plate 1 1 8.4 7.0
End plate screw 2 0 16.6 13.8
Plastic bush 1 0 3.5 2.9
Thread lead - - 5.0 4.2
Reorient - - 4.5 3.8
Cover 1 0 9.4 7.9
Cover screw 4 0 34.2 26.0
Totals 19 4 160.0 133.0
[DesIgn efficIency = 4 x 3 /160 = 7.5%]

.....
.....
-=...,""'.,................ '~

Figure 1.4 Redesign of motor-drive assembly following DFA analysis.

The elimination of parts not meeting the minimum part-count criteria, and which cannot be
justified on practical grounds, results in the design concept shown in Figure 1.4. Here, the
bushes are combined with the base, and the standoffs, end plate, cover, plastic bush and six
associated screws are replaced by one snap-on plastic cover. The eliminated items entailed an
assembly time of 97.4 s. The new cover takes only 4 s to assemble, and it avoids the need for
a reorientation. In addition, screws with pilot points are used and the base is redesigned so
that the motor is self-aligning. Table 1.3 presents the results of a DFA analysis of the
redesigned assembly; the new assembly time is only 46 s, and the design efficiency has
increased to 26%.
 Results of DFMA applications 27

Finally, Table 1.4 compares the cost of the parts for the two designs. It can be seen that
there is a saving of $13.71 in parts costs. However, the tooling for the new cover is estimated
to be $5000 -- an investment that would have to be made at the outset. Thus, the outcome of
this study is a second design concept that represents a total saving of $14.66, of which $0.95
represents the savings in assembly time.

Table 1.3 Results of DFA analysis for redesign of motor-drive assembly

Item Number Theoretical Assembly time Assembly cost
part count (s) (US cents)
Base 1 1 3.5 2.9
Motor subassembly 1 1 4.5 3.8
Motor screw 2 0 12.0 10.0
Sensor subassembly 1 1 8.5 7.1
Set screw 1 0 8.5 7.1
Thread leads - - 5.0 4.2
Plastic cover 1 1 4.0 3.3
Totals 7 4 46.0 38.4
[DeSIgn effiCIency =4 x 3 / 46.0 =26.0%]

Table 1.4 Comparison of part costs for motor-drive assembly design and redesign
Proposed design Redesign
Item Cost $ Item Cost $
Base (aluminium) 12.91 Base (nylon) 13.43
Bush (2) 2.40* Motor screw (2) 0.20*
Motor screw (2) 0.20 Set screw 0.10*
Set screw 0.10* Plastic cover include tooling 8.00
Standoff (2) 5.19
End plate 5.89
End plate screw (2) 0.20*
Plastic bush 0.10*
Cover 8.05
Cover screw (4) 0.40*
Totals 35.44 21.73
[* Purchased m quantIty. Purchased motor and sensor subassemblies not mcluded. RedeSIgn:
Tooling cost for plastic cover - $5,000]

1.2 RESULTS OF DFMA APPLICATIONS

DFMA provides a systematic procedure for analyzing proposed designs from the point of
view of assembly and manufacture. This procedure results in simpler and more reliable
products which are less expensive to assemble and manufacture. In addition, any reduction in
the number of parts in an assembly produces a snowball effect on cost reduction, because of
the drawings and specifications that are no longer needed, the vendors that are no longer
needed and the inventory that is eliminated. All of these factors have an important effect on
overheads, which, in many cases, form the largest proportion of the total product cost.
28 The B & D DFMA Experience

DFMA tools encourage dialogue between designers and the manufacturing engineers and
any other individuals who playa part in determining final product costs during the early stages
of design. This means that team working is encouraged, and the benefits of simultaneous or
concurrent engineering can be achieved. The following selection of published case studies
illustrates the results of DFMA applications.

GE Automotive
Sorge (1994) reported that, around 1992, GE Automotive created two kinds of joint, cross-
functional teams. Productivity teams work on short term solutions while design for
manufacture and assembly (DFMA) teams are charged with getting long-term results. Their
job is to cut costs, improve efficiencies, add capacity, create new business, and produce better
qUality. Simply put, the challenge is to "minimize the agony and maximize the ecstasy of
reaching those goals" says A. J. Febbo, GE Vice President, Auto Industry.
Consisting of ten to fifteen members, the DFMA teams are cross-functional and often
include representatives from two or three companies plus a facilitator from GE. In early 1993,
GE invested $200,000 in a DFMA centre which houses the necessary software and an area
where vehicles can be dismantled.
When the DFMA team process works, spectacular results can be achieved, says GE. For
example, DFMA studies done in 1992 and 1993 showed the following:

• In a headlamp assembly project, the number of parts dropped from 67 to. 42; the
assembly cost fell from $11.81 to $6.96, and the total assembly cost was reduced from
$19.79 to $13.90. These figures are for each headlamp.
• In a structural instrument panel, the number of parts was whittled down from 178 to
107; the number of assembly operations declined from 245 to 172; and the total
assembly cost dropped from $13.51 to $9.46.
The number of parts in a front door fell from 327 to 307, while the number of operations
plunged from 696 to 522, and the total assembly cost shrank from $38.44 to $27.21.
In an accelerator pedal, the number of parts dropped from 13 to 2 while the number of
assembly operations plunged from 24 to 2, a whopping 92% decline. Total assembly
cost went down 93% to 9 cents from $1.28.

Those are just a few examples. In 1993, the DFMA teams had 21 projects, 14 still under
way, and another 7 are complete for a three-year projected saving of twenty million dollars.
Another 10 pending projects could save about thirty millions dollars. The average saving per
project is about $500,000 a year says Mr. Isaac.
Parts reduction alone can create substantial savings over time. Just keeping the drawings
for a specific part costs about $300 a year, says Mr. Isaac.

Brown & Sharpe

The need for a low-cost, high-accuracy coordinate-measuring machine (CMM) was the
impetus behind the development of the MicroVal personal CMM by Brown & Sharpe
(McCabe, 1988). The primary design consideration was to produce a CMM which would sell
for one-half of the price of the existing product. The CMM was to compete with low~priced
imports which had penetrated the CMM market to an even greater extent than imports had in
the automotive industry. Since the CMM customer is not driven by price alone, the new
 Results of DFMA applications 29

CMM would have to be more accurate than the current design, while also being easier to
install, use, maintain and repair.
Brown & Sharpe started with a clean sheet of paper. Instead of designing the. basic
elements of the machine and then adding on parts which would perform specific functions
required for the operation of the machine, it was decided to build as many functions into the
required elements as was feasible. This concept was called integrated construction. However,
until the DFA methodology was applied, the cost objectives could not be met with the original
design proposal. After DFA, for example, the shape of the Z rail was changed to an elongated
hexagon, thus providing the necessary anti-rotation function. As a result, the number of parts
required to provide the anti-rotation function was reduced from 57 to four. In addition, the
time required to assemble and align the anti-rotation rail was eliminated. Similar savings
were made in other areas, such as the linear-displacement measuring system and the Z-rail
counterbalance system. On its introduction at the Quality Show in Chicago, lL, USA, in
1988, the machine became an instant success, setting new industry standards for price and
ease of operation. The product has proved popular not only in the USA and Europe, but also
in Japan.

NCR
Following a year-long competition for the USA's "outstanding example of applied assembly
technology and thinking", Assembly Engineering magazine selected Bill Sprague of NCR
Corporation, Cambridge, OH, USA, as the PAT (Productivity Through Technology) recipient.
Sprague, a senior advanced-manufacturing engineer, was recognized for his contribution in
designing a new point-of-sale terminal called the NCR 2760. The DFA methodology, used in
conjunction with solid modelling, assisted NCR engineers in making significant changes from
the previous design. Those changes translated into dramatic reductions and savings, as
follows (Kirkland, 1988).

65% fewer suppliers

75% less assembly time
• 100% reduction in number of assembly tools
a total lifetime manufacturing cost reduction of 44% (translating into savings of millions
of US dollars).

Indeed, Sprague estimated that the removal of one single screw from the original design
would reduce lifetime product costs by as much as $12,500.

Digital Equipment
A multifunctional design team at Digital Equipment Corporation redesigned the company's
computer mouse (Digital, 1990). They began with the competitive benchmarking of Digital's
products and mice made by other companies. They used DFMA software to compare such
factors as assembly times, part counts, assembly operations, labour costs, and total costs of the
products. They also consulted with hourly-paid people who actually assembled the mice.
Gordon Lewis, the DFMA coordinator and team leader, stated that DFMA gives the design
team a "focal point so that [they] can go in and pinpoint the problems from a manufacturing
perspective and a design perspective." "It's the 80/20 rule", said Mr. Lewis. "You spend
80% of your time on 20% of your problems." DFMA is one of the tools that helps design
teams identify the right 20% of the problems to work on," he said.
30 The B & D DFMA Experience

Figure 1.5 shows the old and new mice. In the new DFMA design, 130 s of assembly for a
ball-cage device has been reduced to 15 s for the device that has replaced it. Other changes to
the product structure have also brought cost savings. For instance, the average of :;even
screws in the original mouse has been reduced to zero with snap fits. The new mouse also
requires no assembly adjustments, whereas the average number for previous designs was
eight. The total number of assembly operations has decreased from 83 in the old product to
54 in the new mouse. All these improvements add up to a mouse that is assembled in 277 s,
rather than 592 s for the conventional one. Cycle time, too, has been reduced by DFMA. A
second development project that adhered to the new methodology was finished in 18 weeks,
including the hard-tooling cycle. "That's unbelievable", admitted Mr. Lewis. "Normally it
takes 18 weeks to do hard tooling alone."

I I

1
i
i
BEFORE AFTER

Figure 1.5 Old and new designs of Digital mouse (Digital, 1990).
 Results ofDFMA applications 31

Motorola
DFMA methods have been used at Motorola to simplify products and reduce assembly costs.
As part of the commitment to total customer satisfaction, Motorola has embraced the six-
sigma philosophy for product design and manufacturing. It seemed obvious that simpler
assembly should result in improved assembly quality. With these precepts in mind, they set
about designing the new generation of vehicular adapters (Branan, 1991).
The portable-products division of Motorola designs and manufactures portable 2-way
Handi-TalkieTM radios for the landmobile-radio market. This includes such users as police,
firemen and other public-safety services, in addition to the construction and utility fields.
These radios are battery-operated, and are carried about by the user.

Table 1.5 Redesign of vehicular adaptor - Motorola (Burke and Carlson, 1990)
Old design New design Improvement %
DFA assembly efficiency, % 4 36 800
Assembly time (seconds) 2742 354 87
Assembly count 217 47 78
Fasteners 72 a 100

The design team embraced the idea that designing a product with a high assembly
efficiency would result in lower manufacturing costs, and the provision of the high assembly
quality desired. They also considered that an important part of any design was to benchmark
competitors' products as well as their own. At the time, Motorola produced two types of
vehicular adapter called Convert-a-ComTM (CVC) for different radio products. Several of
their competitors also offered similar units for their radio products. The results of the
redesign efforts were so encouraging (Table 1.5) that Motorola surveyed several products
which had been designed using the DFA methodology to see if there might be a general
correlation of assembly efficiency with manufacturing quality. Figure 1.6 shows what they
found. The defect levels are reported as defects per million parts assembled, which allows a
quality evaluation to be made that is independent of the number of parts in the assembly.
Motorola's six-sigma quality goal is 3.4 defects per million parts assembled. Each result in
Figure 1.6 represents a product with an analyzed assembly efficiency and a reported quality
level.
100000,------------------------------------,

10000+-~c_----------------------------------~

Defects 1000+---~~--~~-------------------------~
Parts/
Million
100+------------------~~~------------_4

10+-------------------------------~~------~

o 10 20 30 40 50 60
Manual Assembly Efficiency %

Figure 1.6 Product assembly efficiency correlation - Motorola.

32 The B & D DFMA Experience

Ford Motor Company

Ford leads the field as an aggressive user of DFMA tools. To date, they have trained
thousands of engineers in the DFA methodology, and they have contributed heavily to new
research programs, and to expanding the existing DFMA tools. Ford is now even requiring its
vendors to conduct DFA analysis prior to submitting bids on subcontracted products.
James Cnossen, Ford's manager of manufacturing systems and operations research, has
concluded that "it's part of the very fabric of Ford Motor Co." This is not surprising, when
Ford reports savings of over $1000M annually as a result of applying DFMA to the Taurus
line of cars.
DFMA has become part of the simultaneous-engineering environment, which supports
Ford's "Concept to Customer" theme. Using the DFMA software, teams made up from
product design, manufacturing, suppliers and other representatives regularly meet to review
not only the conceptual design of their future products, but also the products that are currently
being manufactured. Gains in productivity are shown not only in reduced manufacturing
costs, but also in the design lead-time required to bring new products to market. The adoption
of these types of engineering tool is allowing Ford to reap tremendous benefits in both quality
and customer satisfaction.
The Transmission and Chassis (T&C) Division of Ford is responsible for the design and
manufacture of automatic transmissions of Ford vehicles. The transmission is a complex
product, with approximately 500 parts and 15 model variations. The steps in the introduction
and implementation of DFA in the Transmission and Chassis Division (Burke and Carlson,
1990) are as follows:

• Provide DFA overview for senior management.

• Choose DFA champion/coordinator.
• Define objectives.
• Choose pilot program.
Choose test case.
• Identify team structure.
Identify team members.
• Coordinate training.
• Have first workshop.

During the workshop:

• Review the parts list and processes.

Break up into teams.
• Analyze the existing design for manual assembly.
• Analyze the teams' redesigns for manual assembly.
• Teams present results of original design analysis versus redesign analysis.
Prioritize redesign ideas: A, B, C, etc.
• Incorporate all the A and B ideas into one analysis.
• Assign responsibilities and timing.

The combined results of all of the workshops held in the T&C Division of Ford indicated
potential total assembly labour savings of 29%, a reduction in part count of 20%, and a
reduction in the number of operations of 23%.
 Results of DFMA applications 33

The cost benefits that have been gained since the introduction of the DFA methodology in
the T&C Division are nothing less than staggering. Even more importantly, the changes
resulting from DFA have brought substantial quality improvements. Moreover, the design
lead-time has been reduced by one-half, and is expected to be halved again. Reduced cost and
improved manufacturability was reflected in Ford's profits for 1988.

General Motors
A few years ago, General Motors (GM) made comparisons between its assembly plant for the
Pontiac at Fairfax, KS, USA, and Ford's assembly plant for its Taurus and Mercury Sable
models near Atlanta, GA, USA. GM found that there was a large productivity gap between its
plant and the Ford plant. GM concluded that 41 % of the producibility gap could be traced to
the manufacturability of the two designs. For example, the Ford car had many fewer parts (ten
in its front bumper compared with 100 in the GM Pontiac), and the Ford parts fitted together
more easily. The GM study found that the level of automation, which was actually much
higher in the GM plant, was not a factor in explaining the productivity gap.
Kobe (1992) explains that the result of the application of DFMA can be seen in selected
areas of the 1992 Cadillac Seville and Eldorado. For example, the new bumper system
reduces part count by half over the previous generation, and assembly time is about 19
minutes less than the pre-DFMA design. A further example is the Cadillac full console. In
this case a reduction of 40% in assembly time and a 33% reduction in part count was achieved
by employing DFMA from the concept stage, capitalizing on the real benefits of the
methodology by improving on the concept itself.

HewleU-Packard
It was reported by Colucci (1994) that Hewlett-Packard's Loveland, Colorado division
implemented a concurrent engineering program to produce its 34401A multimeter, which
reportedly has the performance of a $3-5,000 instrument at a $1,000 price. The
implementation program used DFMA software to encourage team input and quantified results
as the development process gradually evolved. Every part of the 34401A was analyzed using
DFMA. The most significant results: a complete redesign of the input connection scheme
and a front panel design that assembles with no screws.
Robert Williams, Manufacturing R&D engineer at HP, admits that many of the ideas for
these changes were conceived before the bulk of the concurrent engineering team met, but he
still attributes the success of the project to the team effort. "It took the efforts of the cross-
functional design teams to identify producible designs, materials, and the correct suppliers to
make the ideas work," he says. "The key deliverable of any DFMA effort is a significantly
reduced part count. The lower part count we achieved allowed us the freedom to try new
manufacturing processes."
The finished 3440lA multimeter has only 18 parts, compared to 45 parts for the previous
model. It can be assembled manually by one person in just over six minutes; much less than
the twenty minutes required for the unit it replaces. Says Williams, "the key point is the part
count drives virtually all downstream processing in manufacturing. Without development
tools, particularly DFMA, these competitive advantages could not be realized."

McDonnell Douglas Corporation

Weber (1994) explains that like many other companies, McDonnell Douglas Corporation
(MDC) has realized that to stay competitive it must reduce costs without compromising
34 The B & D DFMA Experience

product quality. This requires the careful consideration of manufacturing and assembly costs
during product design.
MDC has found that applying DFA reduces parts and fastenings, which in tum reduces the
opportunities for defects. Additionally, applying DFM to structure design further reduces
defects during production.
For fighter aircraft, MDC applies DFMA primarily to structure design done mostly in-
house. Secondarily, DFMA is applied to system design -- landing gear systems, controls,
electronics/electric, hydraulics; and environmental control systems.
Aircraft structure is very complex, typically requiring large quantities of parts and
fasteners. Because many components are used, assembly is labour intensive. Fighter planes
may require more than 100,000 structural fasteners, while large commercial aircraft may use
more than one million. The MD-ll wide body commercial aircraft, for example, has 1.3
million fasteners, 184,000 other parts, one hundred miles of electrical wiring (50,000
segments), 5,200 feet of hydraulic pipe with 2,765 joints and 400 control cable segments.
MDC has applied DFA to reduce parts and defects on a wide variety of fighter and
commercial aircraft. They have found that DFA benefits include:

• Fewer parts --lower inventory, and lower assembly costs

• Fewer fasteners -- high speed machining and high speed machining techniques are
replacing many traditional riveted sheet metal assemblies
• Reduced weight -- very critical to aircraft design
Fewer opportunities for defects -- a very significant benefit due to the large number of
fasteners in aircraft assemblies
• Improved reliability -- using fewer parts and fasteners enhances reliability
Less maintenance -- improves mean time between failures
• Fewer manufacturing operations -- assembling fewer parts/fasteners cuts manufacturing
operations
• Less tooling -- reduces tool design, fabrication, and maintenance. Important savings
when aircraft volume production is low
• Less analysis work -- strengths, loads, materials
• Fewer CAD models/drawings -- parts/fastener reduction means fewer CAD
models/drawings

According to Nelson Weber, too much time, two years, was spent investigating and
evaluating DFMA, instead of implementing DFMA. Such questions as "Does it really work?"
and "Is it really applicable to the aerospace industry?" had to be answered before DFMA
could be implemented. Hindsight shows we should have used it, instead of questioning it.
The primary DFMA application for large commercial transport aircraft was systems and
structure. Applying DFA reduced part count by 37 percent and fastener count by 46 percent
on average. DFMA is now being applied to new aircraft designs, and to selected existing
designs as resources allow.

Hasbro
According to Kirkland (1995), toy manufacturers today must comply with some of the most
demanding time-to-market schedules of any industry on the planet. With an average product
life cycle of only one year, toys are serious business for the development teams in the
promotional division of the largest toy company in the world, Hasbro, Inc. (Pawtucket, Rhode
Island).
 Roadblocks in implementation of DFMA 35

Hasbro uses DFMA to identify design and cost improvements at the earliest concept stages
of design. "Working for a toy company is a lot of fun," says Jim Tout, Hasbro's director of
design engineering. Toy retailers want products to reach their shelves right at the time
consumers are going to buy them adds Tout. The retailers do not want to carry inventories.
Because timing is so critical to Hasbro's success, the emphasis is on getting products shipped
on schedule. "DFMA is a big part of this movement, because it helps eliminate problems in
the debug production startup process by analyzing part counts, assembly times, and material
costs before a design concept is locked in and changes become too time consuming to
implement."
Hasbro's Tout can cite a number of cases where DFMA software has cut redesign time and
cost. One is the Talk n' Play Fire Truck, the most successful fire truck of the 1993 Christmas
season. A product of Hasbro's Tonka line, this fire truck, like other Tonka products, was
traditionally made of metal. After a DFMA analysis had been performed, it was evident that
there were significant opportunities for cost reduction if the product was redesigned in plastic.
"The team justified the changes by looking at assembly times, metal vs. plastic," Tout says.
The original ladder assembly was composed of 33 total parts and subassemblies, with an
assembly time of 198 s. The redesigned ladder brought the number of parts down to its
theoretical minimum of only five parts -- all plastic -- with an assembly time of just 22 s. "It
looks as nice as the metal assembly and it performs the same functions," boasts Egan. "Plus,
it's more reliable when subjected to abuse testing."
Hasbro is expecting to get a strong second year out of the product -- a remarkable
accomplishment in this industry. "If we had stalled on this project, we probably would have
missed our retailing window," Tout adds. "DFMA enabled us to come up with trade-off
information up front, so we could develop a high-quality, profitable product, and still fall
within our aggressive schedule requirements." Hasbro also has found that DFMA provides a
nonthreatening way to get team members talking about a design without anyone feeling as
though others are encroaching on his or her territory. And it allows Hasbro's tooling and
manufacturing engineers to get involved at the concept stage, eliminating any surprises.
In addition, DFMA helps teams quantify their design decisions, which can be beneficial in
getting changes actually implemented. After analysis, a product component not only can be
simplified or consolidated, but engineers can examine how that change will impact, say,
assembly time vs. a possible part cost increase, in dollars and cents. It can be done up front,
in about an hour.

1.3 ROADBLOCKS IN IMPLEMENTATION OF DFMA

As to the implementation of DFMA, the format for success varies from company to company,
but some major points stand out. Firstly, DFMA is a team tool and should be utilized as such.
Training is important. Today, most DFMA implementation efforts employ the software
system, and for this reason some companies believe it is, for example, like using Lotus 123.
This is not the case. It is important to train people in a workshop environment - a team using
the system on an on-going project with the company's "champion" or an outside system
consultant providing help. In this way, one or two days provides useful training plus, often as
not, real results.
Finally, it is important to remember that it is often not the target, but the journey through
the systematic procedure that matters. Experience has shown that there are many barriers to
the implementation of DFMA.
36 The B & D DFMA Experience

Within many companies, reasons for resisting the implementation of DFMA are put
forward, but all can be effectively argued against:

No Time
The most common complaint among designers is that they are not allowed sufficient time to
carry out their work. Designers are usually constrained by the urgent need to minimize the
design-to-manufacture time for a new product. However, more time spent in the initial stages
of design will reap benefits later in terms of reduced engineering changes after the design has
been released to manufacturing. Company executives and managers must be made to realize
that the early stages of design are critical in determining not only manufacturing costs, but
also the overall design-to-manufacturing cycle time.

Not invented here

Enormous resistance can be encountered when new techniques are proposed to designers.
Ideally, any proposal to implement DFMA should come from the designers themselves.
However, more frequently it is the managers or executives who have heard of the successes
resulting from DFMA and wish that their own designers would implement the philosophy.
Under these circumstances, great care must be taken to involve the designers in the decision to
implement these new techniques. Only then will the designers feel that they 'invented' or
'thought of the idea of applying DFMA.

The ugly baby syndrome

Even greater difficulties exist when an outside group or a separate group within the company
undertakes to analyze existing designs for ease of manufacture and assembly. Commonly, this
group will find that significant improvements could be made to the original design and, when
these improvements are brought to the attention of those who produced the design, this can
result in extreme resistance. Telling a designer that this designs could be improved is much
like telling a mother that her baby is ugly!
It is important, therefore, to involve the designers in the analysis and provide them with the
incentive to produce better designs. If they perform the analysis, they are less likely to take
any problems that may be highlighted as criticism.

Low assembly costs

The first step in the application of DFMA is a DFA analysis of the product or sub-assembly.
Quite frequently, it will be suggested that since assembly costs for a particular product form
only a small proportion of the total manufacturing costs, there is no point in performing a
DFA analysis. However, a DFA analysis might suggest the replacement of a complete
assembly with, say, a machined casting and might reduce total manufacturing costs by over
50%.

Lower volume
The view is often expressed that DFMA is only worthwhile when the product is
manufactured in large quantities. It could be argued, though, that use of the DFMA
philosophy is even more important when the production quantities are small. This is
commonly because reconsideration of an initial design is usually not carried out for low
volume production. Applying the philosophy "do it right the first time" becomes even more
important, therefore, when the production quantities are small. In fact. the opportunities for
 Roadblocks in implementation of DFMA 37

part consolidation are usually greater under these circumstances because it is not usually a
consideration during design.

The database doesn't apply to our product

Everyone seems to think tbat their own company is unique and, tberefore, in need of unique
databases rather than the ones incorporated witbin the DFMA system. However, when one
design is rated better tban another using the DFA database, it would almost certainly be rated
in tbe same way using a customized database. Remembering tbat there is a need to apply
DFMA at tbe early design stage before detailed design has taken place, tbere is a need for a
generalized database for this purpose. Later when more accurate estimates are desired, the
user can employ a customized database if necessary.

We've been doing it for years

When the claim, "We've been doing it for years" is made, it usually means tbat some
procedure for "design for producibility" has been in use in the company. However, design for
producibility usually means detailed design of the individual parts of an assembly for ease of
manufacture. It was made clear earlier that such a process should only occur at tbe end of the
design cycle; it can be regarded as a "fine tuning" of tbe design. The important decisions
affecting total manufacturing costs will already have been made. In fact, tbere is a great
danger in implementing design for producibility in this way.
It has been found that the design of individual parts for ease of manufacture can mean, for
example, limiting tbe number of bends in a sheet metal part. This invariably results in a more
expensive assembly where several simple parts are fastened together, ratber than a single,
more complicated part. Again, experience has shown tbat it is important to combine as many
features in one part as possible. In this way, full use is made of the abilities of the various
manufacturing processes. Therefore, when tbe claim is made tbat tbe company has been
implementing DFMA for some time, this should be taken with a very large pinch of salt.

It's only value analysis

It is true that tbe objectives of DFMA and value analysis (VA) are the same. However, it
should be realized that DFMA is meant to be applied early in the design cycle, and tbat value
analysis does not give proper attention to the structure of tbe product and its possible
simplification. DFMA has tbe advantage that it is a systematic step-by-step procedure, which
can be applied at all stages of design and challenges tbe designer or design team to justify tbe
existence of all tbe parts and consider alternative designs. VA, on the other hand, only looks
at major points; it is often tbe screws and washers - often not shown on drawings - tbat impose
tbe difficulty during assembly.
Experience has shown that DFMA can still make significant improvements even after
value analysis has been carried out.

DFMA is only one among many techniques

Since the introduction of DFMA, many otber acronyms have been proposed, for example,
design for quality (DFQ), design for competitiveness (DFC), design for reliability, etc. Some
have referred to this proliferation of acronyms as alphabet soup! Many have even suggested
that design for performance is just as important as DFMA. One cannot argue with tbis.
However, DFMA is tbe subject tbat has been neglected over tbe years while adequate
consideration has always been given to tbe design of a product for performance, appearance,
etc. The other factors, such as quality, reliability, etc., will follow when proper consideration
38 The B & D DFMA Experience

is given to the manufacture and assembly of the product. The earlier example from Motorola
(Figure 1.6) illustrates how DFMA can lead to higher product qUality.

DFMA leads to products which are more difficult to service

It has been claimed that DFMA leads to products which are more difficult to service. This is
absolute nonsense. Experience shows that a product that is easy to assemble is usually easier
to disassemble and reassemble. In fact, those products that need continuous servicing,
involving the removal of inspection. covers and the replacement of various items, should have
DFMA applied even more rigorously during the design stage. How many times have we seen
an inspection cover fitted with numerous screws only to find that after the first inspection only
two are replaced?

I prefer design rules

There is a danger in using design rules, because they can guide the designer in the wrong
direction. Generally, rules attempt to force the designer to think of simpler-shaped parts
which are easier to manufacture. In an earlier example, it was pointed out that this can lead to
more complicated product structures and a resulting increase in total product costs. In
addition, in considering novel designs of parts which perform several functions, the designer
needs to know the penalties when the rules are not followed. For these reasons, the systematic
procedures used in DFMA, which guide the designer to simpler product structures and provide
quantitative data on the effect of any design changes or suggestions, are found to be the best
approach.

I refuse to use DFMA

Although a designer may not say out loud that he refuses to use DFMA, if he does not have
the incentive to adopt this philosophy and use the tools available, then no matter how useful
the tools or how simple they are to apply, he will see to it that they do not work.
Therefore, it is imperative that the designer or the design team is given the incentive"and
the necessary facilities to incorporate considerations of assembly and manufacture during
design.
The main argument, however, against any reservations about adopting DFMA are the
savings in manufacturing costs obtained by the hundreds of companies world-wide which
have adopted the system. Some examples of these were described earlier.

1.4 SUMMARY

DFMA provides a systematic procedure for analyzing proposed designs from the point of
view of assembly and manufacture. It encourages teamwork and a dialogue between
designers and the manufacturing engineers, and any other individuals who play a part in
determining final product costs during the early stages of design.
This DFMA procedure often produces a considerable reduction in part count, resulting in
simpler and more reliable products which are less expensive to assemble and manufacture. In
addition, any reduction in the number of parts in an assembly produces a snowball effect on
cost reduction because of the drawings and specifications that are no longer needed, the
vendors that are no longer needed and the inventory that is eliminated. All of these factors
have an important effect on overheads which, in many cases, form the largest proportion of
the total product cost.
 Summary 39

Number of cases
10 ~~~------------------------------,

o
11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80 81-9091-100
Part count reduction %

Figure 1.7 Part count reductions when Boothroyd Dewhurst DFMA methods were used.

Table 1.6 Improvements due to DFMA applications

Category Number of cases Average reduction (%)
Part count 61 56
Assembly time 38 62
Product cost 21 50
Assembly cost 17 45
Assembly operations 14 57
Separate fasteners 12 72
Labour costs 8 42
Manufacturing cycle 6 58
Weight 6 31
Assembly tools 5 69
Part cost 3 56
Unique parts 3 57
Material cost 3 37
Manufacturing process steps 3 45
Number of suppliers 3 55
Assembly defects 3 68
Cost savings per year 6 $1,283,000

As we saw earlier, there are many widely publicized DFMA case studies to illustrate these
claims. By way of a summary, Figure 1.7 shows the effect of DFA on part count reduction
from published case studies and Table 1.6 presents details of other improvements from the
same case studies.
In spite of all the success stories, the major barrier to DFMA implementation continues to
be human nature. People resist new ideas and unfamiliar tools, or claim that they have always
taken manufacturing into consideration during design. The DFMA methodology challenges
the conventional product design hierarchy. It re-orders the implementation sequence of other
valuable manufacturing tools, such as SPC (Statistical Process Control) and Taguchi methods.
40 The B & D DFMA Experience

Designers. are traditionally under great pressure to produce results as quickly as possible and
often perceive DFMA as yet another time delay. In fact, as numerous case studies have
shown, the overall design development cycle is shortened through use of early manufacturing
analysis tools, because designers can receive rapid feedback on the consequences of their
design decisions where it counts - at the conceptual stage.
Overall, the facts are that DFMA is a subject that has been neglected over the years while
adequate consideration has always been given to the design of a product for performance,
appearance, etc. The other factors such as quality, reliability, etc. will follow when proper
consideration is given to the manufacture and assembly of the product. In order to remain
competitive in the future, every manufacturing organization will have to adopt the DFMA
philosophy and apply cost quantification tools at the early stages of product design.

REFERENCES
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. (1990) Product Design for Assembly, Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc.,
Wakefield, RI, USA, (First Edition 1983).
Boothroyd, G., Radovanovic, P. (1989) Estimating the cost of machined components during
the conceptual design of a product, Annuals of CIRP, 38 (1), 157.
Branan, B. (1991) DFA cuts assembly defects by 80%, Appliance Manufacture, November.
Burke, G.J., Carlson, J.B. (1990) DFA at Ford Motor Company, DFMA Insight, 1 (4),
Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc.
Colucci, D. (1994) DFMA Helps Companies Keep Competitive, Design News, November, 21.
Dewhurst, P. (1988) Computer-aided assessment of injection moulding cost - a tool for DFA
analyses, Report 24, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, University
of Rhode Island, USA.
Dewhurst, P. (1988) Cutting assembly costs with moulded parts, Machine Design, July 21.
Dewhurst, P., Blum, C. (1989) Supporting analyses for the economic assessment of due
casting in product design, Annuals of CIRP, 28 (1), 161.
Digital (1990) Digital builds a better mouse, Industrial Week, April 16, 50-58.
Kirkland, C. (1988) Meet two architects of design - integrated manufacturing, Plastics World,
Dec.
Kirkland, C. (1992) Design Watch, Plastics World, March.
Kirkland, C. (1995) Hasbro Doesn't Toy with Time to Market, Injection Moulding, Feb., 34.
Knight, W.A. (1991) Design for manufacture analysis: early estimates of tool costs for
sintered parts, Annuals of CIRP, 40 (1), 131.
Kobe, G. (1992) DFMA at Cadillac, Automotive Industries, May, 43.
McCabe, W.J. (1988) Maximizing design efficiencies for a coordinate measuring machine,
DFMA Insight, 1 (1), Boothroyd Dewhurst Inc.
Sorge, M. (1994) GE's ongoing mission: cut costs, Ward's Auto World, February, 43.
Swift, K.G. (1981) Design for Assembly Handbook, Salford University Industrial Centre, UK.
Weber, N.O. (1994) Flying High: Aircraft Design Takes Off with DFMA, Assembly, Sept.
Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., Roos, D. (1990) The Machine that Changed the World,
Macmillan, USA.
Zenger, D., Dewhurst, P. (1988) Early assessment of tooling costs in the design of sheet metal
parts, Report 29, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, University of
Rhode Island, USA.