Eng2Mfg

A good article over at DezignStuff where they talk about the overused term “design intent”…

I notice that the folks at DISCUS Software Company have updated their web site and released a new version of their namesake software…  It’s worth taking a look to see their offerings for manufacturing engineers and quality assurance technicians.

If you’re a reader of this blog, you’re probably familiar with the acronym DFM (Design for Manufacturing).  However, depending upon your background, you may not be accustomed to seeing the ‘e’ (electronics) or ‘m’ (mechanical) prefix. 

The reality is that mDFM has been mostly a pipe dream in the world mechanical parts.  Many companies aspire to apply DFM processes to mechanical design, but it is a very small portion of companies that actually use it a part of the design process.  Meanwhile, eDFM is a core process in the design of electronic components such as semiconductors and printed circuit boards.  The vast majority of companies that design chips use a DFM tool before releasing the design to production.

You can read about a recent adoption of DFM for electronics over here.

For those of you tracking the SpaceClaim “direct modeling” CAD tool, the Novedge site has an interesting first-hand review.

We like the notion of SpaceClaim — namely, give engineers other than just the designer access to the model during the early design stages. However, it’s interesting to see if the complexity of the tool is accessible to the broad ranks of engineers.

An interesting article in Desktop Engineering about Design for Manufacturing.  A DFM approach that leverages a knowledge engine and mechatronics as a means for getting manufacturing companies to adopt laser-sintering manufacturing.

Aberdeen recently published a research report entitled “Jumpstarting Production Planning and Preparation.”   This research is timely because it focuses on design for manufacturing and activities related to process planning in the world of the model-based enterprise.  A few key extracts from the document:

“The creation of work instructions is another area the Best-in-Class approach concurrently with product development… They facilitate this approach by leveraging existing 3D CAD models to avoid recreating work. This also enables these manufacturers to start sooner by developing
Instructions as the design progresses.”

It was also insightful to discover that design for manufacturing (DFM) is still having a tough time getting a toe-hold in many engineering organizations:

“… despite the popularity of ‘design for manufacturability’ approach to product development, engineering’s inattention to the manufacturability of parts is the third most often reported challenge to manufacturing process planning”

Aberdeen published a research report entitled, “Design for X: 3D as the Collaborative Medium“.   For those of you not aware the name ‘Design for X’ is talking about Design for Manufacturing, Design for Testing, Design for Maintainability, etc.   While the report was likely underwritten by some of the PLM companies, it really focuses on the notion of collaboration on the 3D model. A few of the key extracts (this will give you an idea what the “analysts” are saying):

“Design for X initiatives also stand to create additional and unnecessary complications for product development.  The widening accessibility to the 3D designs can easily devolve into “too many cooks’”

[...]

“CAD itself, however, is too hard to use for non-engineering employees… 3D viewing tools provide a ‘total view’ of a design needed by downstream organizations to gain an understanding of the product.”

I found an interesting whitepaper entitled “5 Secrets for Making the Model-Based Enterprise a Reality“:

Leading aerospace and defense companies are aggressively pursuing the Model-Based Enterprise as a means to accelerate product development… there are enough prominent examples of problems to lead to the conclusion that the vision is not delivering on the promise.