Introduction
Welcome to 2024. Autonomous fighter jets, rockets that land themselves, and robotic surgeons – technologies straight out of a George Lucas film – are all being made by product development teams who are pushing the limits of mechanical design. At the same time, the manufacturing processes that make these technologies possible are advancing at an unprecedented rate – multi-axis mill-turn, micro-molding, and combo 5-axis + SLS machines are no longer just university science projects; they’re likely being used in a factory near you! In today's fast-paced and competitive markets, successful product development requires a seamless integration of advanced design and manufacturing ideas. One essential, but severely unrecognized methodology that product-focused companies, like Apple, Lockheed Martin, and Anduril, use to achieve this harmonious synergy is Manufacturing Design. This iterative process optimizes both a product’s design & its manufacturing processes simultaneously, resulting in more robust processes that will continuously meet design, cost, and quality requirements with ease. In this blog post, we’ll walk through what manufacturing design is, in detail, and describe the 5 canons that make it great. I’ll share my personal experience and experiences from product and manufacturing organizations we’ve been able to work with here at mfg.parts.
Manufacturing Design: Much more than DFM
Most product design and manufacturing professionals are (or should be) familiar with the idea of design for manufacturability, or DFM. DFM as a whole refers to the process of optimizing design decisions for existing manufacturing processes. While DFM is a crucial subset of manufacturing design, it's important to recognize that the scope of manufacturing design extends far beyond DFM.
So, what is manufacturing design?
Manufacturing design is a product development framework with a hyper-focus on correlating manufacturing outcomes to product performance. It revolves around giving experts in all development areas a flexible system to iterate designs and processes from the first prototype through the start of production.
In the typical product development approach, design and manufacturing are often treated as separate, sequential stages. Designers focus on creating innovative product concepts, while manufacturing teams wait until the prototype stages are finalized to begin testing their production processes. This sequential process commonly leads to unexpected delays, quality issues that skew product prototype testing results, and induce unnecessary manufacturing complexity.
In contrast, with manufacturing design, the focus is shifted towards enabling simultaneous design and process development. By closely controlling and tuning both design and manufacturing variables during each prototype stage, product development teams can assess and refine the design's performance while simultaneously advancing its manufacturing processes towards maturity. This iterative approach revolves around individual responsibility for product requirements, fostering a collective commitment to enable the product, relying on manufacturing partners over vendors, establishing clear and flexible communication channels with those partners, and a never-ending focus on key manufacturing data to make decisions quickly.
Canons of Manufacturing Design
Canon 1: Individuals must set and be responsible for product requirements
For product development to be successful, it is imperative to set detailed requirements for the product’s form, fit, and function. Many popular development frameworks, such as Value Analysis and Value Engineering (VA/VE), explicitly require such a step. At most companies, this typically starts with a series of meetings between the marketing and product development management. Here, project scope, timelines, and overall deliverables are set. Once agreed upon, everyone pats themselves on the back and engineering starts hashing out the first prototype design.
Inevitably, as the design evolves, design or manufacturing constraints emerge that push back on the requirements set by those early pow-wows. Then, the finger pointing begins.
“This manufacturing change to accommodate that feature is going to be expensive.”
“That design change will make the product perform worse.”
The development team knows they need a tie breaking vote, so they bring in the marketing team.
“We don’t have any data to show how important this function is. We need time to evaluate.”
Meanwhile, timelines for design and manufacturing are slipping. Eventually, someone in design or manufacturing decides to make a call and the project moves forward. This song and dance is replayed at most companies – it is not acceptable in manufacturing design.
Manufacturing design methods can only be successful when an individual, armed with comprehensive decision-making power, firmly sets requirements for the product's function. This person must possess a deep understanding of both business objectives and technical requirements, enabling them to rapidly make informed decisions that balance constraints and opportunities.
This is so critical that the founder of Lockheed’s Skunk Works, CL “Kelly” Johnson, made it the first tenet of his famous 14 Rules.
Rule #1: The Skunk Works ® manager must be delegated practically complete control of his program in all aspects. He should report to a division president or higher.
Kelly knew that enabling an individual to make decisions, rather than delegating to a team, meant that decisions would be made quickly and with the best data available. That individual would have the best interest of the company at heart seeing as their job was on the line with every high-stakes call they made.
Another example of this can be found in the dynamic between Apple’s Industrial Design and product development teams. ID teams at Apple are known to be some of the best in the world. What most people don’t realize, though, is the level of responsibility and decision making power they have. When I worked on the iPhone product development team, a meeting with industrial design was like speaking with a deity. Unlike a marketing team at previous companies that gave vague answers after long periods of time in committee, a decision from an Apple ID was swift and final. We would present the manufacturing or design constraint, the business implications, and the options that were on the table. Decisions were typically made in that meeting, or, if more data was required, as soon as it was available. This enabled us to move quickly and without looking over our shoulder.
Canon 2: Everyone must share a relentless focus to enable the product
Once the vision for the product is laid out—requirements defined, features outlined, and goals set—the real magic of manufacturing design must flow down to every corner of the development team. The entire organization must align under a singular mission: enable the product. It's not just a phrase or mantra; it's a collective commitment that will bring the product to life.
A Collective Culture to Bring the Product to Life:
Every role on the team is more than just a job—it's a contribution to the larger goal. Whether it's designing a component, ensuring quality in the supply chain, or maintaining a clean environment, each team member leverages their particular expertise to propel the product forward.
This shared focus on enabling the product creates a powerful synergy where every individual, regardless of their specific role, becomes a vital player in the journey of bringing the product to life. An organization that successfully engrains this culture into their teams will be able to see the power of manufacturing design.
Example Scenarios
Design Engineer in Action:
Imagine a design engineer working on a thermal management system. Their role goes beyond simply selecting materials to meet thermal load requirements. Instead, they are the architects of a system that enables the product to perform a specific function, leveraging the thermal load requirement as a key player in the broader functionality of the product.
Supplier Quality Engineer's Role:
Picture a supplier quality engineer handling a marine drive shaft. Their responsibility extends beyond being a gatekeeper of incoming part quality. They ensure that the requirements communicated to manufacturing partners are crystal clear, well-understood, and ensure each part produced will transfer the necessary power to achieve a specific speed—a critical aspect of the product's performance.
The Unsung Hero:
Even the janitor, meticulously mopping an R&D area on a quiet Friday afternoon, plays a vital role. It's not just about cleanliness; it's about ensuring that extraneous variables, like foreign particulates, don't interfere with a shoulder encoder reliability study scheduled for the weekend. This seemingly mundane task contributes to the product meeting life expectations.
Canon 3: Rely on manufacturing partners, not vendors
Just as a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, a product is only as good as the manufacturers who produce its components. There are many words used to describe the external sources who produce part pieces; the word vendor is used quite frequently to describe every company from the one selling COTS hardware to the 5-Axis CNC machine shop milling critical components. What is a vendor, though?
ven·dor
/ˈvendər,ˈvenˌdôr/
noun
a person or company offering something for sale, especially a trader in the street.
Does that sound like a firm who you want to trust your most critical manufacturing to? Those that want to effectively implement manufacturing design principles certainly do not. Manufacturing design requires that the external teams who work on your product are not just a supplier or vendor on a list, but rather, viewed as a partner; a manufacturing partner. There is no one-size-fits-all set of steps for determining what firm is your best option. There are a few technical areas of expertise, however, that separates firms that can be true partners, from those who are really only suited to make your parts.
Swift and Proactive Feedback
As in marriage, partnering with a manufacturer requires great communication skills. The easiest way to weed out low-quality vendors from a list of prospective partners is to evaluate their responsiveness. When you reached out for a quote, did you get a response that day? This doesn’t need to be a completed quote; just a response from a living human via email or phone that lets you know they are working on it. Did you have to follow up to get a quote? If you have to constantly reach back out while they are quoting your business, it can only go downhill when handling the technical complexities of manufacturing design.
Providing Industry Insights
No one in the world knows everything about a particular manufacturing process. That said, you can quickly identify a potential manufacturing partner if they provide you with tangible advice based on their experience with other companies in your industry. We spoke with a process engineer at a tier-1 automotive supplier who provided a great example of how they were a true partner to a big-four design team.
“We received a design from this large automotive customer. We provided a quote, and with it, also provided some feedback: ‘With regard to the air tank design that you asked us to quote, your cost is pretty high because you're using a 30% thicker material than we use for very similar tanks for other, similar customers. So are you sure you want this?’”
He went on to explain that this design team was moving into electric vehicle technology and had not had experience with these types of systems yet. This process engineer, a real manufacturing partner, was able to steer them towards a solution that might have taken months of engineering to come to the same conclusion.
Internal Engineering Capabilities are a Must
Manufacturing design relies heavily on engineering support and recommendations from the manufacturing domain. The #1 tool that mechanical engineers have at their disposal is 3D CAD.
Firstly, a manufacturing partner must be highly proficient in 3D design. Very rarely is this negotiable.
Assuming they have this ability, they then also should be able to perform design + build activities as well. Perhaps your part will need a CMM fixture to inspect it. If you have a true manufacturing partner, they will likely provide a quote to both internally design and manufacture a fixture that can be used at their facility, in addition to yours, to inspect the parts they produce. A vendor will just ship you finished parts and hope that your internal quality control (if you have that set up) doesn’t find any discrepancies.
Manufacturability Feedback
Manufacturing design requires manufacturing partners provide real, actionable feedback on manufacturability. This does not mean a phone call where they vaguely describe the issues with your 2D drawing tolerances. They need to be able to provide proposals in the form of 2D markups, 3D CAD updates, and some form of reporting. None of these need to be ‘fancy’ but they do all need to be possible in order to efficiently collaborate.
While seasoned mechanical design engineers pride themselves on releasing ‘manufacturable’ designs that don’t need feedback, product designers who fully embrace the power of manufacturing design quickly realize the power of great manufacturability feedback from their partners.
When I started as a manufacturing design engineer on Apple’s iPhone Pro housing team, the design team released an early prototype design to a manufacturing partner. I was appalled! Sharp corners that would have machine burrs were everywhere, there were a multitude of faces that would surely lead to machining mismatches, and the cardinal rule of having internal corner radii was broken in most areas. Surely, these designers, who were some of the best in the world, wouldn’t purposely make such simple mistakes! I courteously pointed this out to one of the designers, David, and what he said stuck with me.
“We purposely leave these features ‘Blank’ wherever we can so the manufacturing partner can propose the most optimal geometry for their process steps. How would we know what ‘optimal’ is? We don’t make the parts!”
Keep this in mind when evaluating a potential partner. They are the expert in the process for your parts. Let them guide you when it makes sense to do so.
Canon 4: Create Clear and Flexible Channels of Communication
In the intricate dance of manufacturing design, where data reigns supreme, establishing robust communication channels with manufacturing partners is the linchpin for success. This external collaboration should mirror the ease of interaction within your own organization. Despite the physical distance, the workflows with these partners should feel seamless, as if they were working at a desk right beside you. Knowing who to contact, employing flexible communication methods for rapid idea exchange, and fostering a mutual understanding of information-sharing practices are the keystones to flourishing manufacturing design methodologies.
Directly Responsible Individual Transparency
In the intricate dance of product development, the seemingly minor detail of openly sharing the technical points of contact for any issue emerges as a critical but often overlooked step. Designating a Directly Responsible Individual (DRI) for each aspect of the project ensures that when questions or challenges arise, there's a designated go-to person. This transparency minimizes delays, streamlines decision-making, and enhances the overall efficiency of the project.
Throughout the development of mfg.parts, a recurring theme we've encountered is the tendency of many organizations to overlook this. In an attempt to optimize engineering time, some companies delegate procurement team members to liaise with manufacturing partners for things like quotes. While this strategy has its merits, a common pitfall emerges when procurement teams position themselves as intermediaries, standing between technical experts at the manufacturer and the design team. This inadvertent bottleneck introduces inefficiencies that should be avoided at all costs. When technical issues surface, open lines of communication are crucial. Team members from both organizations should have the ability to engage directly, discussing and resolving technical queries without unnecessary intermediaries. Designers talking with CAM programmers. Supplier quality engineers with inspection technicians. This not only expedites solutions but fosters a collaborative environment where expertise can seamlessly flow between the involved parties.
Simplify ‘ECN’ or ‘Design Release’ Processes
The old-school method of depending on lengthy Engineering Change Notices (ECNs) or official manufacturing release approvals contradicts the nimbleness needed in manufacturing design. Simplifying the process ensures that changes, even big ones, can be smoothly integrated without unnecessary bureaucratic roadblocks.
Balancing Flexibility and Clarity
This system must be flexible without sacrificing clarity. It's vital that both the product development team and manufacturing teams have a crystal-clear understanding of the 'latest' version of the design. They should also possess a fluid method for incorporating changes and optimizations, regardless of the stage of development.
Industry Struggles
Many companies, regardless of size, encounter significant hurdles in achieving this balance. We interviewed a project manager from a prominent automotive company in the big four who highlighted the complexity involved.
Let’s say I want to change the color of a wheel, for example. Three separate requests would be fired off in internal systems. After at least a week of approvals via these same systems internally, our manufacturing partner would have to be notified through these three different systems. Meanwhile, there could be tooling changes or longer-lead time actions that need to be halted or modified.
Obviously, this cumbersome process exists as a result of 100+ years of learnings, however, it illustrates how losing focus on flexibility to achieve perfect clarity can severely reduce the speed a team can move at.
A Lesson from Silicon Valley
Putting the automotive release process in context, the procedure employed by Apple for iPhone releases appears like a venture into the wild west.
The design team at Apple embraces a dynamic approach by releasing 3D designs almost daily. In a stark departure from traditional timelines, the next morning heralds the arrival of updated 3D models, now infused with manufacturability improvements seamlessly integrated by manufacturing partners. Designers, utilizing Siemens NX surface modeling, incorporate the acceptable modifications and discard requests that can't be accommodated. This joined version is then shared again to the manufacturer for thorough review and prototype production— all in less than 24 hours.
Striking the Right Balance:
This Silicon Valley paradigm illustrates the stark contrast in approaches. Every company, irrespective of industry, must evaluate and define its processes with their environment in context. Factors such as product complexity, legal regulations, and technological resources need careful consideration. Striking the right balance between speed and clarity becomes paramount, ensuring a process that fosters both agility and efficiency.
Have well defined structures for sharing product data
The last, and most critical piece required to establish clear communication is having a well-defined structure for sharing data. In the symphony of manufacturing design, product and manufacturing data serves as the conductor, ensuring every note resonates seamlessly. Achieving this harmony demands that everyone involved operates from the same sheet of music, sharing only the bare essentials to gather precisely the needed information.
Sharing Starts with a KISS
As usual with mechanical engineering, the old adage, "Keep It Stupid Simple" (KISS), takes center stage. Adding complexity where it isn’t needed will get in the way and make it harder to get important process data. Is that bulky 60-page supplier quality document really necessary? Is it genuinely serving a purpose, or will it be thumbed through by your manufacturing partner and become an overlooked artifact in the project archives? Start with what really matters, the data, and provide a streamlined way to extract it.
A prudent starting point for most companies is a straightforward first article inspection template. This serves as a foundational tool, streamlining the collection of essential inspection data without unnecessary embellishments. Your manufacturing partner, if selected properly, will already be familiar with providing reports in this format. You’ll receive the data you need and they don’t need a PhD in Mathematics to understand what you’re asking for. It exemplifies the KISS principle in action, providing a clear and accessible pathway for information exchange.
Stay tuned for an upcoming blog post where we delve deeper into the art of data sharing and how to leverage this data throughout your product development process.
Canon 5: Obsessively Identify and Collect Key Manufacturing & Product Performance Data
The earlier canons, much like a carefully crafted prelude, have paved the way for something that often seems elusive—a smooth integration of both product and process development. This Canon is about getting down to the nitty-gritty by meticulously collecting crucial data on how manufacturing and the product perform. This is where the rubber meets the road—making manufacturing design happen.
Less is more
Teams who are first trying to become data driven tend to fall into a trap of collecting as much ‘data’ as possible. Even with the best manufacturing partners and crystal clear communication channels, this leads to inflated costs, slower development, and frustrated manufacturers.
It is important to always tie data collection requests to key manufacturing and design requirements. This enables manufacturing teams to quickly filter extraneous data requests from critical ones and ensures design teams understand the data that actually influences their product.
A great example of wasted data collection is releasing fully dimensioned drawings with first article inspection requirements for early prototype parts. Why request that a manufacturer measure 100% of all features on a prototype part that, as an example, may have just a few functional requirements and is mostly a cosmetic part? Instead, leverage a reduced dimension drawing and define a small set of features that the manufacturer should be inspecting for to actually enable the function. Maybe there is a 3D scan they can provide, rather than a CMM inspection. Or perhaps there is a color inspection they can perform if matching anodization colors is a concern.
Getting hyper-focused on enabling the key functions of the product is where data reporting should start. As development progresses, adding additional data collection will surely happen, but the foundational inspection requirements will be well defined.
The Manufacturing Design Data Toolbox
So this sounds great, but how is manufacturing design different from generic ‘data collection’ or ‘product development?’ We’ll walk through, in detail, some of the most prominent methods leveraged in manufacturing design with additional blog posts. For now, we’ll summarize a few of the key methods teams like Apple, Stryker Medical, and Lockheed Martin use.
Brute Force Data Collection & Analysis
Sometimes, the age-old approach of rigorous number crunching becomes the key to unlocking valuable insights. Evaluating inspection data from early prototypes is an area that is commonly overlooked by development teams unless problems arise. First article inspection data is a great place to start. Leveraging SPC (statistical process control) data, if applicable to your prototype volumes, is even better. Overall, well defined templates and clear communication ensures data analysis, while repetitive at times, is straightforward.
Plan of Record vs. Alternative Design
Start by establishing a Plan of Record (POR), which is what the team thinks is currently the frontrunner for the production design. Once a POR is defined, both design and manufacturing teams can create alternative design and manufacturing combinations that provide a roadmap for iterative learnings. Many organizations already have a framework like this, but in manufacturing design, this approach encourages adjustment of variables in both design and manufacturing. Perhaps there is a new process idea for a critical component, or maybe the design team has two different ideas for a mechanism to meet a system requirement. Why not test them both, rather than waiting on the manufacturing updates? Although this is a simple mindset change, it is incredibly powerful and will empower manufacturing teams, both internally and and manufacturing partners, to get creative and work out process kinks that might otherwise go unnoticed.
Design of Experiment Methodology
Design of experiments (DOE) is one of the most under utilized optimization techniques in mechanical design. Commonly used in chemical processing and biology, the DOE methodology is a method of applied statistics that finds optimal combinations of variables by allowing experiment designers to pull multiple variable ‘levers’ at once. Traditional A/B testing methods taught in high-school science classes – changing just one variable at a time – are used by development teams that don’t know this method exists or are misinformed and think it will be too costly. The truth is, even in low-budget or early-stage projects, the power of statistics can be harnessed through the systematic use of the DOE methodology.
Conclusion
In conclusion, manufacturing design is vital for modern product-centric hardware teams, integrating advanced design and manufacturing seamlessly. The five key principles — individual responsibility, collective commitment, reliance on partners, clear communication, and data collection — drive this iterative process. From Kelly Johnson's decisive leadership to Apple's collaborative approach, manufacturing design enhances efficiency and delivers high-performance products. As technology advances, it remains a powerful force for turning innovative ideas into tangible realities.
