 | This articlehas an unclearcitation style. The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style ofcitation andfootnoting.(September 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Design for excellence (DfX orDFX) is a term and abbreviation used interchangeably in the existing literature,[1][2][3] where theX indesign for X is a variable which can have one of many possible values.[4] In many fields (e.g.,very-large-scale integration (VLSI) andnanoelectronics)X may represent several traits or features including: manufacturability, power, variability, cost, yield, or reliability.[5] This gives rise to the termsdesign for manufacturability (DfM, DFM),design for inspection (DFI), design for variability (DfV), design for cost (DfC). Similarly, other disciplines may associate other traits, attributes, or objectives forX.
Under the labeldesign for X, a wide set of specific design guidelines are summarized. Each design guideline addresses a given issue that is caused by, or affects the traits of, a product. The design guidelines usually propose an approach and corresponding methods that may help to generate and apply technical knowledge to control, improve, or even invent particular traits of a product. From a knowledge-based view, the design guideline represents an explicit form ofprocedural orknowing-how-to knowledge. However, two problems are prevalent. First, this explicit knowledge (i.e. the design guidelines) were transformed from a tacit form of knowledge (i.e., by experienced engineers, or other specialists). Thus, it is not granted that a freshman or someone who is outside the subject area will comprehend this generated explicit knowledge. This is because it still contains embedded fractions of knowledge or respectively include non-obvious assumptions, also called context-dependency. Second, the traits of a product are likely to exceed the knowledge base of one human. There exists a wide range of specialized fields of engineering, and considering the whole life cycle of a product will require non-engineering expertise. For this purpose, examples of design guidelines are listed in the following.
DfX methodologies address different issues that may occur in one or more phase of aproduct life cycle:
Each phase is explained with two dichotomous categories of tangible products to show differences in prioritizing design issues in certainproduct life cycle phases:
Non-durables that are consumed physically when used, e.g. chocolate or lubricants, are not discussed. There also exist a wide range of other classifications because products are either (a) goods, (b) service, or (c) both (see OECD and Eurostat, 2005:48). Thus, one can also refer towhole product, augmented product, or extended product. Also the business unitstrategy of a firm are ignored, even though it significantly influences priority-setting in design.
Design to cost and design to standards servescost reduction in production operations, or respectively supply chain operations. Except for luxury goods or brands (e.g.,Swarovski crystals,Haute couture fashion, etc.), most goods, even exclusive products, rely oncost reduction, if these aremass produced. The same is valid for the functional production strategy ofmass customization. Throughengineering design physical interfaces between a) parts or components or assemblies of the product and b) the manufacturing equipment and the logistical material flow systems can be changed, and thus cost reducing effects in operating the latter may be achieved.
User focused design guidelines may be associated withconsumer durables, and after-sales focused design guidelines may be more important forcapital goods. However, in case of capital goods design forergonomics is needed to ensure clarity,simplicity, andsafety between the human-machine interface. The intent is to avoid shop-accidents as well as to ensure efficient work flows. Also design foraesthetics has become more and more important for capital goods in recent years. Inbusiness-to-business (B2B) markets, capital goods are usually ordered, or respectively business transaction are initiated, at industrial trade fairs. The functional traits of capital goods in technical terms are assumed generally as fulfilled across all exhibiting competitors. Therefore, a purchaser may be subliminally influenced by the aesthetics of acapital good when it comes to a purchasing decision. For consumer durables the aspect of after sales highly depends on the business unit's strategy in terms of service offerings, therefore generally statements are not possible to formulate.
Several other concepts in product development and new product development are very closely related:
Looking at all life stages of a product (product life cycle (engineering)) is essential for design for X, otherwise theX may be suboptimized, or make no sense. When asking what competencies are required for analysing situations that may occur along the life of a product, it becomes clear that several departmental functions are required. An historical assumption is thatnew product development is conducted in a departmental-stage process (that can be traced back to the classicaltheory of the firm, e.g.Max Weber's bureaucracy orHenri Fayol's administration principles), i.e., new product development activities are closely associated with certain department of a firm. At the start of the 1990s, the concept ofconcurrent engineering gained popularity to overcome dysfunctions of departmental stage processes. Concurrent engineering postulates that several departments must work closely together for certain new product development activities (see Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). The logical consequence was the emergence of the organisational mechanism ofcross-functional teams. For example, Filippiniet al. (2005) found evidence that overlappingproduct development processes only accelerate new product development projects if these are executed by across-functional team, vice versa.
Design for X references
Auxiliary references
