What do you do if your industrial design conflicts with the manufacturer's production capabilities?

A design that cannot be manufactured or does not work well, regardless of how nice it looks, can hardly really be considered a design. Sculpture, maybe, but design implies a manufacturable, useful product by definition. If the client’s manufacturing processes are incapable of producing an acceptable product, the designer needs to explain this clearly and understandably, and if necessary, walk away. If, on the other hand, the designer just has in mind a design that is not compatible with the client’s processes, then it’s the designer’s responsibility to go back to work and develop a good design within the client’s restraints.

Product design in the modern era needs to deeply engrossed with manufacturing capabilities of the organisation. Design for Manufacturing is being considered even at concept stage of development and remains a major stakeholder throughout the development lifecycle. As one of the authors below mentioned, it is pointless designing a product that cannot be made or needs significant investment. Having said that, it is still important to engage closely with Manufacturing Engineering and Operations management to determine trends in design that would enable manufacturing innovative solutions and drive Capex planning. Strictly constraining product development to the manufacturing capabilities could also restrict out of box thinking and creativity.

The easy answer is, you don't know what your are doing as a designer. I am with with you all in terms that, DFM/A is critical during the initial phases of product development to ensure design to product feasibility. But also, in order to evolve in the market field and gain competitive advantage, it is necessary to venture in the exploration of new ideas, out of the box thinking and/or adoption of new technologies that most times result in designs that no longer suit the existing/stablished MFG process. In such cases, a feasibility, capability and cost to benefit analysis in adapting and/or evolving to a new MFG process should be considered to drive direction and inform a decision. Cheers!

First, I will say that a design that conflicts available manufacturing capabilities should not be considered as final design. There is really nothing you can do, except to keep the product and develop the manufacturing process before embarking on manufacturing. I don't know how this is possible. Action: 1. Evaluate the inhouse design processes, procedures, and standards to discover where the conflicts were introduced. Designing with the manufacturing in mind helps to resolve this. 2. Emplyoy system approach when designing. This help to figure out exactly how each aspects of the design affects the manufacturing process and how the available manufacturing process/technologies/capabilities affects each aspect of the design.

It is very much important that design should be manufacturable and also reliable to build the confidence level of CFT. Our ultimate aim should be production friendly products, But yes we can also check for alternate process

Always discuss designs with manufacturing people. Your design is only as important as the plants ability to manufacture it. Poke yoke mechanisms can assist the end product. Remember you are part of a team.

The birthing pains of product development always bring out a better design. An industrial designers first sketches rarely look as good as the finished article after it’s been iterated to meet the compromises of “physics”, manufacturing constraints and cost aswell as all the other fingers in the pie. Refinement and focus, hones the details and whilst it’s often a hard relationship, ultimately the customer needs to win rather than any of the contributors.

One improvement oportunity I have seen in design teams is the lack of communucation or review with the actual manufacturing process (voice of process). Always do a gemba activity and review the current assembly process at least once. Ask questions to the assembly operator about constrains and possibly improvement of the part before designing a prototype for trials.

It pays to be receptive to manufacturing feedback and not be too attached to the artistic elements of a products design. This ensures repeatability in manufacturing and also sustainable, robust designs. This DFM applies to most light & heavy equipment designs and industries and to a lesser degree for FMCG products. Exceptions are of course the custom, luxury product segments. Personally, i prefer designs that don't look like much, but quietly do a good job for years beyond their guarantee period. This runs counter to the planned obsolescence that is designed into certain products nowadays, for profit reasons.

Maybe it's a tolerance issue and modifying it and making a new one. And making good use of machinability and making the previous one to estimate the modelling.

Talk with the manufacturer/vendor to see what part of the design (part features) needs to change based on their current tooling or manufacturing capabilities, along with the tolerances they can hold on features. Aligning with the manufacturer on what they can and cannot do is helpful in understanding how they can help get a successful design manufactured. The best approach is being able to manipulate the manufacturing process to accomplish your goals. In example, using slides or side pulls on injection molding to eliminate undercuts, or simplifying part features to simplify the tool.

Never, ever design products your company can't make. Always suggest new equipment that can assist the company enhance the bottom line.

In my experience as a mechanical design engineer, basics and communication play a vital role in the designing part of the manufacturing process. A design engineer can develop a model right out of his head, but the question is will that be a manufacturing one? so, the Er requires strong fundamental manufacturing process limits as well as clear disclosure from manufacturers regarding their limitations.

It all depends on the volume of your production, and it's not immediately obvious. Early quotes on parts can give you an idea of the most suitable manufacturing methods for your needs. For instance, depending on your production volume, an injection-molded part could be much more cost-effective than a machined part.

As someone with only an academic understanding of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), I see prototype iterations as key in solving design-manufacturing issues. Integrating LCA into this phase aids in a thorough environmental impact review at each design stage, such as carbon footprint & resource usage. Early sustainability assessments in materials/processes can highlight alternatives that diminish environmental impacts & slash costs related to energy use, material waste, & disposal. Additionally, applying design for manufacturing principles during iterative prototyping cuts production expenses, reduces waste, & smoothens assembly, making the leap to mass production both cost-effective & environmentally sound.

This part is crucial, as if you're able to understand and manufacture problematic parts, your manufacturer should be too! When working with a CM (contract manufacturer), it's often just a matter of talking with your CM and asking for alternative suppliers. Sometimes what seems impossible to one supplier is an everyday task for another.

Prototype has many meanings. Start simple and work your way closer to the final process. Be sure to understand the challenges if you are using a prototype house that is not the final manufacturing location. Keep all parties engaged in the process and review. It can save a lot of time and money by learning and iterating early. Prototypes do not all have to be physical. First could be the virtual analysis of the manufacturing process; stress, warping, distortion and cooling simulation has all come a long way. Keep it in mind during the early development stages.

It is more than open communication, it is relationship building. Remember that everyone has a job to do and the easier we make it for each other to talk and discuss, the faster we complete the work with a better outcome. We are all human beings and we are doing the best we can with what we have. So, yes, communication is where the breakdown almost always happens, but it is often because we let emotions cloud our hearing and understanding. Be sure to relay things back and forth to make sure what you said is heard the way you want and vice versa. It is a two way street and empathy can go a long way to building trusting and reliable relationships.

1- Open Dialogue: Initiate a conversation with the manufacturer. Share your design vision and understand their production processes. 2-Identify Constraints: Evaluate the specific limitations posed by the manufacturer’s capabilities. 3-Prioritize Features: Determine which design features are non-negotiable and which can be adjusted. 4-Iterate and Refine: Be prepared to iterate on your design. Refine it while keeping the core concept intact. Look for alternative materials or manufacturing methods 5-Simplify Complexity: Complex designs may pose challenges during production. 6-Prototyping. 7-Cost-Benefit Analysis

Actually need to check all the aspects of design + limitations and costing + manufacturing process then go for prototype to sort out the real time problem

I should say this is pretty common scenario where there is no standard process used like APQP or PPAP when introducing new design to manufacturing compare to a company who have established procedures. The procedures doesn't completely eliminate the conflict but it sure minimized the impact like cost, safety, loss or damage to equipment. There is no perfect design when introduced in manufacturing first hand I have seen in my 2 decades of being a designer that is why we usually do multiple design freezes and design changes along every milestone of the process. 3 aspects to consider -design to cost, design for safety and design for manufacturability, these at least ensures the product will be safe to use as a sample before mass production.

Presumably your manufacturer is producing your current products. If you're being presented with a new design which is incompatible with your manufacturer's capabilities, I'd ask: does this design work alongside the existing product lineup? Has the designer considered this? If not, then this is not just a problem for your manufacturing, but for your brand as well. If the design is in line with where the brand wants to go, then consider how the concept might impact future product designs - maybe sketch up some "refreshed" versions of existing product to flesh out the new design direction. Then you can talk it through with the manufacturer, making it clear that you are committed to this design direction, and see if they rise to the challenge

We'll need to assess the feasibility of modifying the design to align better with their capabilities without compromising our vision too much. This might involve iterative discussions with the manufacturer, adjustments to the design, or seeking alternative production methods. Collaboration and compromise are key.