Feature

Design for manufacture and assembly:

background, capabilities and applications
Robert Bogue
Associate Editor, Sensor Review
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the design for manufacture (DFM) and design for assembly (DFA) concepts and illustrate their
benefits and applications.
Design/methodology/approach Following an introduction, this paper provides an historical background to DFM and DFA. It then describes these
techniques, highlights their capabilities and benefits and provides some examples of their applications. Finally, brief conclusions are drawn.
Findings Software implementations of DFM and DFA are shown to yield significant financial savings by allowing products to be designed with
enhanced manufacturing and assembly characteristics.
Originality/value The paper provides an introduction to the DFM and DFA concepts which play a critical role in todays highly competitive markets.
Keywords Manufacturing, Assembly, Design for assembly, Design for manufacture, Computer software
Paper type Technical paper

if products are to be manufactured on time and to the

required quality and price. Some DFM/DFA proponents
argue that designing products with these techniques can
reduce costs to a point where domestic manufacture remains
economically viable; there are many examples of this. Benefits
of domestic manufacture include ensuring the security of
intellectual property, acquiring in-depth manufacturing and
process knowledge, nurturing the supply chain, maintaining
low inventory levels, reducing transport costs and achieving
more rapid production cycles.

Introduction
Design for manufacture/manufacturing (DFM) is a discipline
whereby products are designed so as to be as easy and costeffective to produce as possible. It is closely allied to design
for assembly (DFA) but whereas DFM is principally
concerned with making individual parts, DFA addresses the
means of asembling them. As most parts are incorporated into
more complex products, the ability to assemble them
effectively is equally critical and accordingly, these two
disciplines are often considered together, as design for
manufacture and assembly (DFMA). Whether involving an
inexpensive consumer product or a high-value, complex item,
the benefits of these concepts are obvious: without them,
products may be excessively costly due to manufacturing and
assembly difficulties and the time to market may be extended
because of the need to modify the production process or
initiate iterative designs. It is widely recognised that around
70 percent of a products manufacturing cost is determined by
decisions made at the design stage.
The DFM and DFA concepts are more important than ever
in todays highly competitive markets, particularly as an evergrowing number of companies are outsourcing component
manufacture and assembly to regions with low labour costs
but often limited technical knowledge. Such companies often
have little direct control over these processes and ensuring
that the subcontractor can conduct them effectively is vital

Historical background
Formal approaches to DFM and DFA emerged in the late
1960s and early 1970s and in recognition of their importance,
one of the first standards to address these issues was published
in the UK in 1975: PD 6470, The Management of Design
for Economic Production. In 1977, Geoff Boothroyd, then
at the University of Massachusetts, developed a DFA method
which could be used to estimate the time required for the
manual assembly of a product and the cost of assembling it on
an automated machine. Recognising that the most important
factor in reducing assembly costs was minimising a products
component count, Boothroyd introduced three criteria which
could be used to determine theoretically whether any of the
components could be eliminated or combined with others.
These criteria, together with tables relating assembly time to
various factors influencing part gripping, orientation and
insertion, could be used to estimate the total assembly time
and to rate the quality of a products design from an assembly
viewpoint.
In 1980 Boothroyd published Design for Assembly:
A Designers Handbook but written DFM/A guidelines were
soon replaced by software packages. In 1981, Boothroyd and
Peter Dewhurst developed a computerised version of the DFA
method and in 1983 Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc. (BDI)

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0144-5154.htm

Assembly Automation
32/2 (2012) 112 118
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0144-5154]
[DOI 10.1108/01445151211212262]

112

DFM and DFA: background, capabilities and applications

Assembly Automation

Robert Bogue

Volume 32 Number 2 2012 112 118

was founded. The company continues to play a central role in

this business. These packages allowed DFM/A concepts to be
adopted by a wide range of companies and found acceptance
by some of the worlds largest manufacturers. For example, in
1988, the Ford Motor Company credited DFMAw software
with overall savings approaching $1 billion. A notable, early
example of a good DFA is the Sony Walkman (Figure 1). The
Walkman product line was designed for vertical assembly
by a robotic system in which the parts were inserted entirely
by straight-down motions. Since these early days, many
software packages have become available and are the standard
tool for implementing DFM, DFA and DFMA techniques.
Note: when applied to software, the acronym DFMA is a
registered trademark of BDI.

and their benefits are shown in Table I. More specific

guidelines exist for particular products and processes, and the
below list shows examples of those for machining.
Guidelines for machining:
.
for high volumes, consider castings or stampings to reduce
machining effort;
.
use near-net shapes for moulded and forged parts to
minimise machining effort;
.
design for ease of fixturing by providing rigid mounting
surfaces and parallel clamping surfaces;
.
avoid thin walls and webs and deep pockets or holes so
parts can withstand clamping and machining without
distortion;
.
avoid tapers and contours as much as possible in favour of
rectangular shapes;
.
avoid undercuts or other features which require special
operations and/or tools;
.
where possible, avoid hardened materials or materials that
are difficult to machine; and
.
Locate machined surfaces on the same plane or with the
same diameter to minimise the number of operations.

The DFM/A concepts

Few design engineers have a detailed knowledge of all of the
different manufacturing and assembly technologies and
materials and tend to create designs based on those with
which they are familiar. Consequently, such designs are rarely
optimised and problems frequently arise when alterations are
made to the manufacturing process or the assembly method,
or when materials are altered (e.g. when a plastic component
replaces a metal part). DFM/A tools and principles provide a
structured approach to achieving simplified designs for
products that can be manufactured effectively. They help to
quantify manufacturing and assembly problems and identify
opportunities for innovative designs. Although they require
additional up-front effort when compared to more
conventional design stratagies, the overall effect is to yield
benefits which include significant cost savings and reduced
time to market. This is largely due to fewer engineering
changes being required; fewer parts to detail, document and
purchase; and a less complex product with enhanced
assembly and manufacturing characteristics.
There are three means of applying a DFM/A process. The
first, as used originally, is to follow a general set of rules or
guidelines. These are not quantitative and require someone to
interpret and apply them in each individual case. These
general, qualitative DFM/A guidelines are necessarily nonspecific, as they aim to encompass a diversity of products,
processes and materials and some of the key DFM/A issues

The second method, devised by Boothroyd and Dewhurst,

employs a quantitative evaluation of the design. Each part of the
design is rated with a numerical value depending on its
assemblability. The numbers are summed for the entire
design and the resulting value is used as a guide to the overall
design quality. The product is then redesigned using the
numerical values. By concentrating on areas of the design that
contribute heavily to the overall score, the effects of the redesign
can be maximised. However, this again requires insight and
knowledge on the part of the designer. The third, and most
recent development, is the automation of the entire process.
Using computer software, quantitative analysis can be applied
to the design. Then, by constructing an expert system
employing the general design rules, a system can be developed
that can first analyse a design and then optimise it by repeatedly
applying the rules and evaluating the quality after each iteration.
Figures 2-4 show examples of BDIs DFM/A software. Since the
early implementations of DFM/A, a number of new tools have
been developed which cover a greater proportion of the product
life-cycle, from DFM/A, through to Design for Service and
Design for the Environment. This last theme is reflected in
recent standards, such as BS 8887-2 (2009) Design for
manufacture, assembly, disassembly and end-of-life processing
(MADE). An example of BDIs design for the environment
software is shown in Figure 5.
In addition to the methods of Boothroyd and Dewhurst, allied
techniques have been developed by several other organisations,
including Hitachi (the AEM assembly evaluation method),
Lucas (the Lucas DFA method) and Fujitsu (the PES
productivity evaluation system). The main objective of the
Hitachi AEM is to facilitate improvements by identifying design
weaknesses at the earliest possible stage in the design process.
This is achieved through the use of two indices: the
assemblability evaluation score ratio, which is used to assess
design quality by determining the difficulty of the assembly
operations and the assembly cost ratio, used to project
elements of the assembly cost. It was employed originally to
refine the designs of tape recorder mechanisms to allow
automated assembly. The Lucas method resulted from a
collaboration with the University of Hull and differs from some
other methods in that it does not use a cost analysis. It involves

Figure 1 The Sony Walkman is an example of good DFA practice

Source: Wikipedia
113

DFM and DFA: background, capabilities and applications

Assembly Automation

Robert Bogue

Volume 32 Number 2 2012 112 118

Table I General DFM/DFA guidelines and their benefits

Guidelines

Benefits

Minimise the part count

Use standard, off-the-shelf parts rather than custom components
Minimise and standardise the use of fasteners/design for
efficient joining and fastening
Use as few dissimilar materials as possible
Minimise the use of fragile parts
Do not over-specify tolerances or surface finish
Design for ease of fabrication
Consider modular designs
Aim for mistake-proof designs
Design for simple part orientation and handling
Design with predetermined assembly technique in mind
Consider design for automated/robotic assembly

Improved reliability, reduced purchasing and inventory costs, simplified assembly

Reduced costs, lower purchasing lead times, potentially greater reliability
Reduced costs, simplified assembly, improved reliability, simplified repair and
maintenance
Simplified jointing, need for fewer manufacturing processes
Cost reductions due to fewer part failures, easier handling and assembly
Easier manufacture and reduced fabrication costs
Cost reductions from the elimination of complex fixtures and tooling
Reduced costs due to simplified assembly and test
Cost reductions by eliminating need to re-work incorrectly assembled parts
Cost reductions due to non-value-added manual effort or dedicated fixturing
Cost reductions from use of proven/known techniques
Potential cost reduction over manual methods

Figure 2 DFA analysis: part characteristics dialogue

Source: Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc.

reductions in the time and costs associated with a
products manufacture and assembly. Typical figures, based on
a large number of case histories, are: part count: 254 percent;
weight: 222 percent; assembly time: 260 percent; labour
costs: 243 percent; assembly cost: 245 percent; assembly
defects: 2 68 percent; and product development cycle
time: 245 percent.
The techniques have been applied to a diversity of products
and a ball valve illustrates their benefits in the context of a
seemingly simple item. The valve consisted of the body,
fittings, seals and the ball and was designed to be operated
with a separate actuation mechanism. The original design had
33 parts and the assembly process required some to be aligned

assigning and summing penalty factors associated with

potential design problems, similar to the Hitachi method but
with the inclusion of handling as well as insertion. Unlike other
DFA methods, the Fujitsu PES approach is not a refinement
procedure to be used after completion of the design but aims to
create a detailed design that is easy to manufacture and
assemble in the most cost-effective manner.

Applications
DFM/A techniques are used extensively by durable goods
manufacturers, whether in the form of software or written
guidelines, and have been shown to yield very significant
114

DFM and DFA: background, capabilities and applications

Assembly Automation

Robert Bogue

Volume 32 Number 2 2012 112 118

Figure 3 DFM concurrent costing analysis of a deep drawn part

Source: Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc.

Figure 4 DFM concurrent costing analysis of a sheet metal part, also showing process and material selection

Source: Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc.

115

DFM and DFA: background, capabilities and applications

Assembly Automation

Robert Bogue

Volume 32 Number 2 2012 112 118

Figure 5 Design for environment software being used to analyse the environmental performance of a motor assembly

Source: Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc.

with a fixture. DFA analysis indicated that the valve would
require 8.02 min to assemble. Labour costs were estimated at
$4.29/unit, material costs were $1,179.13/unit and fixture
costs were $0.13/unit, giving a total of $1,183.55 per unit.
The DFMAw software suggested the following design
improvements:
.
integrate two mounting brackets into the valve body;
.
integrate one of two fittings into the valve body;
.
eliminate five washers;
.
eliminate four threaded inserts;
.
eliminate two O-rings;
.
eliminate four hexagonal nuts;
.
reduce the length of the hex bolts to 0.5 in.; and
.
add a self-aligning feature to the fitting and valve body.

counterbalance spring was redesigned as a one-piece casting

which eliminated a bracket. This decreased the component cost
by 60 percent and also eliminated the need for three stamping
dies, one tapping operation, one screw-driving operation and
the tooling cost to build the fixtures. By redesigning the center
shaft that attached the counterbalance to the stamped housing,
it was possible to eliminate four fastening screws and several
other parts and simplify the two die-cast housings at either end
of the shaft. Performing FEA to this and a second redesign
revealed an opportunity to create a stronger hinge by splitting
the stamped housing into two (left and right) pieces and adding
extruded housing holes for the shaft in each piece. Although this
splitting added a part to the assembly, the final subassembly still
had an overall part count that fell from 29 to 23 and the
component costs were reduced by 28 percent. The redesigned
hinge is now in production and the total component count
dropped from 45 to 30 pieces. The number of assembly
operations fell from 14 to 5 and the overall cost of the hinge was
reduced by 53 percent.
Just redesigning parts of a larger product can yield significant
benefits and an example is the hydraulic cylinders used on forklift trucks manufactured by Raymond Corp. (Figure 6). In an
effort to offset rising material and transportation costs, the
company studied all aspects of the model 7400 trucks design
and decided that the hydraulic cylinders offered the greatest
prospects for improvement and potential cost savings. DFA and
DFM software was used to analyse the design of the cylinders,
leading to a number of changes. These inluded eliminating
machining operations on the cylinder housing by reducing
a traditional two-part design to one part. A combined end-cap/
manifold eliminated welding the existing manifold to the tubing

The result of these changes was that the part count fell by
55 percent, from 33 to 15; labour time is now 3.33 min/unit,
a decrease of 58 percent; the labour cost decreased by 59 percent
to $1.78/unit; and material costs fell by 24 percent, to $898.15/
unit. Fixture costs were eliminated entirely and in total, the cost
of the valve was reduced to $899.93, a 24 percent saving.
Another example of an apparently simple item that benefited
from DFMA analysis is a specialist hinge manufactured by
Southco, Inc. which is used on various medical products. The
hinge was a load-bearing counterbalance type, used to control
the opening and closing of heavy lids. The aim was to reduce the
hinges cost and although manufacture in India or China was
considered, a decision was made to continue with domestic
production. The company used DFMAw software from BDI
and in the interest of simplicity the analysis was applied
to several of the hinges separate subassembles. The center
housing subassembly which sits at one end of the
116

DFM and DFA: background, capabilities and applications

Assembly Automation

Robert Bogue

Volume 32 Number 2 2012 112 118

Figure 6 DFMAw software allowed Raymond to reduce the cost of the hydraulic cylinders used on its fork-lift trucks

Source: Wikipedia
side, removing machining from the tubing and reducing
welding time. The top end-cap was also changed to a screwon configuration instead of being retained by a snap ring,
further reducing machining effort. Using more common parts
between cylinders helped to optimise the design further. The
free lift chain anchors were changed from right- and left-hand
parts to a common component used on either side. Analysis of
the internal assembly also led to more common parts being used
on both the main and free lift cylinders. The use of common
bleed screws, rather than a variety of screws, helped reduce
inventory, which saved space and manufacturing time. It also
led to the bleed screws being located into the end-cap which
eliminated a further machining operation. As a result of using
DFMAw software tools on the 7400s cylinders, Raymond
reduced the overall part count by 10 percent and slashed the
total assembly cost by 18 percent. The greatest impact was on
the free lift cylinder: a 24 percent reduction in the part count.
While these examples all concern mechanical products,
DFMA techniques are also making an impact on the design of
electronic devices. Beijer Electronics, Inc. is a manufacturer
of mobile data terminals and human machine interfaces
(HMIs) and was under pressure from a key customer to
reduce significantly the cost of a custom-designed interface
terminal but was keen to retain domestic production. Using
DFMAw software to redesign the unit, the number of PCBs
was reduced, leading to fewer fasteners. Lug and tab features
were used to replace screws, eliminating the need for washers
and nuts. In addition, to avoid unnecessary reorientations
during assembly, a top-down method was adopted. Five
design iterations later, the number of parts had been reduced
by 50 percent, fasteners by 61 percent and the assembly time
fell by 70 percent, thus allowing the product to meet the
customers requirements. Following this success, the company
again used the software when starting design on a new HMI
product line. These units needed many new features and had
an ambitious cost target. Using the original HMI terminal as a

baseline, the company started to simplify the design and

resolve any inherent design and assembly limitations. Specific
solutions included a lug-slot fastening method for the back
cover, a bracket to hold vertically stacked PCBs and a speaker
held in place by a bayonet clamp, all of which eliminated
assembly difficulties. In addition, a plastic cage was used to
locate the LCD, which eliminated adhesives and tolerance
issues, making assembly and alignment easier. Ultimately,
fasteners were reduced by 43 percent and parts by 44 percent
and the assembly time was halved. Another electronics
company to have benefited from DFMAw software is Dell,
Inc., who applied this to the design of the chassis of its
OptiFrame computer family (Figure 7). The results were
impressive: assembly time was reduced by an average
of 32 percent; the purchased part count was reduced by
50 percent; throughput/h/ft2 in the factories increased from
0.009 to 0.016 units/h/ft2, a 78 percent improvement;
and throughput/hour/direct labour operator increased from
1.67 to 3.07, an increase of 84 percent. The reduction in
direct labour costs yielded estimated savings of close to
$15 million.
During the past 12 months, Design IV, BDIs panEuropean agent, reports that the most frequent enquiries
and applications in the UK and continental Europe have
involved companies manufacturing scientific and medical
products. An example is IDEXX Laboratories, a leading
supplier of diagnostic technologies for animal health
and water and milk quality. One of the companys
products, the Catalyst Dxe blood chemistry analyser,
recently underwent a redesign of a major subassembly, the
Maintenance Access Door (MAD), to improve reliability
and reduce the cost. A key design feature was that the new
subassembly needed to be retrofittable into the existing
instrument without requiring any changes to other
subassemblies. Using DFMAw software and by conducting
several design iterations, the company achieved a number
117

DFM and DFA: background, capabilities and applications

Assembly Automation

Robert Bogue

Volume 32 Number 2 2012 112 118

Figure 8 CAD images of the MADs components

Figure 7 One of the Dell Optiframe range of computers

Source: Courtesy of Dell, Inc.

Notes: Above: the original design; below: the new design
Source: Idexx Laboratories, Inc.

of very significant improvements: the part count fell from

183 to just 31 (283 percent, Figure 8); the assembly time
was reduced from 45 to 11 min (2 75 percent); the
assembly cost fell from $622 to $384 (2 38 percent); and
a 40 percent reduction in the weight was achieved.
A and DFMA tools, in particular software packages, have
allowed companies to design components and products with
superior manufacturing and assembly characteristics.
This has been shown to yield significant economic
benefits, arising from the use of fewer parts and reduced
manufacturing and assembly time. In some instances, these
cost reductions have allowed companies to continue with
domestic manufacture rather than transferring production to

offshore locations. The more recent software packages that

consider end-of-live and environmental issues will help
manufacturers comply with waste disposal and recycling
legislation.

Corresponding author
Robert Bogue can be contacted at: robbogue@aol.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

118