By Jeff Reinke, Editorial Director
One of my favorite musical groups is Aerosmith. And in one of my favorite songs by the group, Steven Tyler sings about life being “a journey, not a destination”. It’s an anthem not unfamiliar to the design engineer when looking at the product development process.
Boothroyd Dewhurst, a leading authority on Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA), recently unveiled a survey in which they discussed the benefits, challenges and overall nature of implementing this methodology. Those participating not only represented a select number of customers, but also some of the most innovative companies in their respective marketplaces.
Although there are a number of interesting findings throughout the report, here are a couple that jumped out at me in relation to how these company’s DFMA processes have addressed particular industry-specific critical issues, namely time-to-market and cost controls.
Nearly 90 percent of respondents cited production throughput as an area in which they would use DFMA analysis in working to lower product development costs. So basically, by taking the principles associated with a particular design and tailoring them to better mesh with manufacturing capabilities, the time it takes to get an item through the production process could be improved.
When posed with the question, “What method does your company use to track overhead costs related to product development?”, one-third of respondents admitted to not tracking such costs.
As we continue to operate and compete in an economy that’s more competitive and more global than ever before, the avoidance of this metric was quite surprising to me. When it comes to identifying ways in which to design or operate more efficiently, a reduction in overhead costs or the elimination of unnecessary steps should be a leading concern.
It’s tempting to try and address all of our cost and time-to-market challenges with lower-priced components or labor. However, the examination and implementation of effective DFMA principles, and like methodologies, might help to not only improve efficiency, but also increase the design engineer head count here in the States.
What’s your opinion? Send comments to jeff.reinke@advantagemedia.com.
RE: A Tough Lesson From An Unusual Source Jeff,
How very right you are on the issue of outsourcing production for the cause of financial growth! But as a manufacturer in LED lighting assemblies, I have a few observations that I would like to share with your readers.
We have been currently releasing RFQs around the world for comparative pricing. We really thought that we could reduce costs and become much more competitive with offshore sourcing. Not so as we are continually finding out. The real catch here is laborious procedures, as compared to fixed commodity pricing on electronic components.
It seems that pricing for electronics is not widespread around the globe. Indeed prices seem to be within tenths or hundredths of a cent between Asian and American soils. We found that what could be built here in the U.S. for $16 might cost $15.99 overseas! This being a process that utilizes high-speed, surface-mount, pick-and-place machinery that incorporates little to no labor value!
My point here is do we really wish to remove the “American Made” element from our manufacturing to only increase the bottom line? Are we so anxious, in product lines that are truly automated, to take the opportunity from Americans to be employed just to satisfy a corporate hunger?
I hope Americans realize that when they see the Made In The USA label on merchandise, a lot of effort and soul searching has gone into the choice to keep those products made here. Nebula Lighting Systems is proud to say our LED lighting Systems are made right here in America, and we would hope that Americans are willing to pay that extra couple of dollars for the quality.
Thomas R. Betty
Nebula Lighting Systems
Read the original article at www.pddnet.com by clicking here.
ADVERTISEMENT