Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • About
    • Adam Bahret
    • Alex Williams
    • Andre Kleyner
    • Anne Meixner
    • Arthur Hart
    • Ash Norton
    • Carl Carlson
    • Chris Jackson
    • Chris Stapelmann
    • Dennis Craggs
    • Dev Raheja
    • Doug Lehr
    • Doug Plucknette
    • Fred Schenkelberg
    • George Williams
    • Gina Tabasso
    • Greg Hutchins
    • James Kovacevic
    • James Reyes-Picknell
    • Joe Anderson
    • John Paschkewitz
    • Katie Switzer
    • Kevin Stewart
    • Kirk Gray
    • Les Warrington
    • Mike Konrad
    • Mike Sondalini
    • Nancy Regan
    • Perry Parendo
    • Philip Sage
    • Ray Harkins
    • Rob Allen
    • Robert (Bob) J. Latino
    • Robert Kalwarowsky
    • Ryan Chan
    • Shane Turcott
    • Steven Wachs
    • Tim Rodgers
    • Usman Mustafa Syed
  • Reliability.fm
    • Dare to Know
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Masterminds in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
    • Asset Reliability @ Work
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Plant Maintenance
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The RCA
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside FMEA
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
      • Reliability Reflections
  • eBooks
    • Reliability Engineering Management DRAFT
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Groups
    • Reliability Integration
    • Mastermind
    • Study Groups
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) Online Course
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • 5-day Reliability Green Belt ® Live Course
    • 5-day Reliability Black Belt ® Live Course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home
Don’t show this message again.

Cookies

This site uses cookies to give you a better experience, analyze site traffic, and gain insight to products or offers that may interest you. By continuing, you consent to the use of cookies. Learn how we use cookies, how they work, and how to set your browser preferences by reading our Cookies Policy.

by Fred Schenkelberg 1 Comment

DFX as an Approach

DFX as an Approach

Design for X as an approach

When products were crafted one at a time, the design and manufacturing process was often done by the same person. The craftsman would design and build a chest of drawers or carriage.

Some trades would employ apprentices to learn the craft, which included design. Larger projects may include an architect or lead designer along with a team of engineers.

Yet the shop or site for the railroad engineer or bridge was not far allowing close communication between the ironsmith and design team.

With the rise of production systems came the rise of production facilities specializing in the mass production of an array of designs. Clothes, home appliances, and consumer products are examples of products that separated the designer from the day to day manufacturing experience.

The advent of mass production gave rise to the necessity for product design teams to learn about the capabilities and limitations of a production system.

The early design for X systems focused on design for production. A 1952 British report on advances in American design for production, as far as I know, pointed the term “design for production”.

British Specialist Team on Design for Production. 1953. Design for Production: Report of a Visit to the U.S.A. In 1952 of a British Specialist Team on Design for Production. London: British Productivity Council.

Proliferation of Design for X Requires some Definitions

Watson and Radcliffe (1998) notes the increased popularity of “design for” approaches.

In their paper, they attempt to provide a definition and framework for management teams to evaluate and select a suitable design for x method for their particular situation. Plus the framework will assist developers of DFX tools to ensure they are efficient and achieve the desired outcomes.

A DFX methodology is a systematic way to communicate a set of knowledge focused on the successful product design with a desired set of characteristics. For example, design for production includes a set of rules or constraints the design had to incorporate or meet to permit production with the given factory. Design for assembly (Boothroyd, 1994) provides a set of scoring algorithms that guided a design to minimize assembly steps and costs.

Watson, and Radcliffe. 1998. “Structuring Design for X Tool Use for Improved Utilization.” Journal of Engineering Design 9 (3): 211-223.

Watson and Radcliffe notice the range of approaches for design for advice. Some were a set of guidelines while others provide scoring and tradeoff or optimization algorithms. The suggested should include design guidelines and an analysis tool.

DFX Design Guidelines

The guidelines are a set of recommended design practices that include broad design rules and specific implementation strategies.

The idea is to inform the design team of ways to optimize a design or to minimize costs for the life cycle phase under consideration.

The guidelines serve as an input to the design process as a set of constraints. They also provide a means to evaluate a design against a set of rules. In some cases, the guidelines provide unique information that increases awareness of specific desirable design characteristics.

With a design for assembly, for example, the strategy may include creating a tool-less assembly method. A specific implementation element might be the use of snap fit attachment solutions.

DFX Analysis Tools

A DFX method should also include a means to evaluate or judge the design.

This provides the design team with feedback and information concerning the existing design and options to improve the specific DFX set of goals. The analysis tools use the guidelines to form a rubric and in some cases a scoring as part of the output. The analysis could be accomplished in conjunction with the design work, or during a design review process.

Design for manufacturing tools exists to check design guidelines for electronic circuit boards. The design checkers evaluate a design for clearances, dimensions, and other specific guidelines using the design files.

In some cases, the design rules are built into the design tools and provide immediate feedback when a guideline is violated.

DFX Effectiveness

A critical aspect of any DFX method is its effectiveness. The structure, the applicability, and the feedback all matter.

  • Does the method assist the design to achieve the desired results?
  • Does it guide design decision making with timely feedback?
  • Does it apply to specific elements of a design and/or the overall system design?
  • Does it lead to effective solutions?

The intent of a DFX approach is to become part of the design process with a focus on the specific topic of the DFX method.


Related:

Understanding the Design Process (article)

Descriptive Models of the Design Process (article)

Reliability as Part of Every Decision (article)

 


Also published on Medium.

Filed Under: CRE Preparation Notes, Reliability in Design and Development Tagged With: Design for X (DFX)

« 5 Steps to Building a Reliability Culture
Open Trickle Chutes for Damp Bulk Product »

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CRE Preparation Notes

Article by Fred Schenkelberg

Join Accendo

Join our members-only community for full access to exclusive eBooks, webinars, training, and more. It’s free and only takes a minute.

Get Full Site Access

Not ready to join?
Stay current on new articles, podcasts, webinars, courses and more added to the Accendo Reliability website each week.
No membership required to subscribe.

Get Weekly Email Updates


Subscribe to Weekly Updates

Get updates on the latest content added to the site, including: articles, podcasts, webinars, live events and assorted other reliability engineering professional development materials.






We care about your privacy and will not share, leak, loan or sell your personal information. View our privacy policy.


  • CRE Preparation Notes
  • CRE Prep
  • Reliability Management
  • Probability and Statistics for Reliability
  • Reliability in Design and Development
  • Reliability Modeling and Predictions
  • Reliability Testing
  • Maintainability and Availability
  • Data Collection and Use

© 2021 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy