provided by: 
Whether they recognize it or not, few manufacturing companies are not involved in product development.
Product development can include a formalized and dedicated department charged with introduction of new products or an informal approach often not seen as product development. The detailing of an architect's drawings to create fabrication and assembly drawings, or the development of custom cabinets or displays are examples of activities many do on a daily basis, but may not consider to be product development.
In any case, successful product development ensures the future of a company as well as creating a sense of renewal and excitement to the people within a company. Done poorly it can become both a financial disaster and a demoralizer.
Most companies acknowledge that successful product development must be a process that involves and incorporates the inputs of all facets of an organization. However, the development team needs to go beyond that to the vendor base and, most importantly, to the customer.
Building this integrated team is of value only if the individual inputs are heard and incorporated into the design. The team must stay in place and engaged through the entire development period. There will be times when specific disciplines have more or less involvement, but they must remain engaged throughout the process. There is a rather famous story of an aircraft manufacturer whose manufacturing people went off to prepare the production plant after the initial design phase only to find — after the fact — that the wing span had increased and the aircraft simply could not be assembled in the facility they had built.
Commonly, the development process seems to have two primary phases: the introductory phase followed by the cost reduction phase. While many seem to be resigned to that process, the sad fact of the matter is that once cost is designed into a product it is very difficult to remove it. To optimize the value of a product, the production cost must be established at the outset of the project and strictly maintained throughout the development process.
This cost minimization and value optimization will only come to fruition if the inputs of all disciplines, both internally as well as the vendor network, are sought out, understood and incorporated into the final design.
I need to insert a word about value before we continue with a focus on cost. The only true determiner of the value of your product is your customer. You can add all the enhancements imaginable, but unless the customer views them as representing value, you have only managed to add cost.
Define the features of the product at the beginning of the process and unless there is justifiable cause to change — meaning increased value to the customer — stick to the original scope. I refer to these "in process" enhancements as "feature creep." Allowing "feature creep" even for enhancements that appear to add value can introduce the aspect of affordability, and simply price the product out of the market.
DESIGNING FOR MANUFACTURING
It is the responsibility of the manufacturing team members to bring understanding to the designers of the capabilities and limitations of the manufacturing processes involved. This same requirement also extends equally to the vendor base. A designer might fervently believe he needs a 1/8-in. radius, but if a minimum radius of 3/16 in. is the smallest repeatable radius possible, does that 1/16-in. differential truly add value to the customer and justify probable manufacturing problems and cost?
It is the responsibility of the designers to adhere, whenever possible, to manufacturing tolerance limitations. Often tolerances are specified by designers that simply cannot be held consistently in normal production. Either the "need" of such critical tolerances must be designed out of the product or the manufacturing processes must be modified to a new level of capability.
It is the responsibility of the manufacturing engineers to respond to the justifiable needs of the designers to develop repeatable manufacturing processes when they are necessary to add reasonable value to the product. Obviously this is a risky area, and verification of the process capability is necessary.
Ongoing involvement of the manufacturing people in the design process will minimize potential production problems and will allow them to develop process improvements as required concurrently with the evolution of the design, thus reducing the development cycle and time to market.
Always keep it simple. Here is an example: If you have a part that will be produced on a router which incorporates multiple inside radii requiring different tools, this is easily achievable on machines with automatic tool changers — but why? Reduce the number of tool changes to a minimum, they add cycle time and therefore cost. Unless these multiple radii add value to the end product they add unjustifiable cost.
Standardize drilled hole sizes. You might have a drill head with 30 spindles, but if each has a different bit size, you have practically reduced that machine to a single spindle hunt and peck machine adding cost but possibly not value.
Design for the least number of components. When multiple components can be combined into one, do it. Each component in a product adds complexity and a point of potential "failure" in the manufacturing process.
Aggressively minimize the need to introduce new components into the supply chain. With dozens of screws already in your supply chain, is there true value being added to the product by yet another screw or is it simply satisfying some egocentric need?
The decision to add a new component or utilize an existing component must be based on a holistic evaluation of cost and value. These decisions must be made by the cross-functional team, with the full evaluation and input of each discipline. Do not lose sight of the fact that apparent cost and true cost are seldom the same. Always base decisions on true cost, which is the cost as incorporated into the final product as it leaves your plant.
In cases where an existing component "almost" works, can it be cost-effectively modified to fit multiple applications? Add additional SKUs grudgingly and objectively. I have to add here that in the effort to "commonize" components, it is easy to enter a slippery slope.
Adding cost can often result, and the process of "commonizing" can divert the focus of manufacturing away from effective lot size one production.
DESIGNING FOR ASSEMBLY
Determine the likely assembly methods concurrently with the design process. A product that will (or in the future might be) assembled using automation must be designed to allow the effective use of automation; for example, parts that might be automatically fed must be capable of automatic alignment.
Design components to be self-checking. Good design will not allow a defective part to be inserted into an assembly. Adhere to the principles of poka-yoke.
Components that will be delivered to the assembly line in bulk should be designed to not hang up or tangle with each other. Parts and packaging should be designed to assure parts arrive at the assembly line without damage from material handling. Vendor-supplied component deliveries must be designed and managed to assure quality product is delivered without incoming inspection and arrives at the assembly line with the absolute minimum of packaging in a "presentation" that allows minimum waste of time and labor to incorporate them into the assembly.
Minimize the amount of scrape packaging generated at the assembly lines. Design and utilize permanent packaging when cost-effective.
Minimize shipping packaging whenever possible. This is a key area to work with customers to incorporate their needs. If you have zero shipping damage you are possibly overpackaging.
IN SUMMARY
Product development is a core function to many businesses. The long term vibrancy and even existence of many companies depend on an effective development process. It is not necessary to dismantle what has been a "skunk works" atmosphere in the arena of product development. It is both possible and necessary to introduce a managed process to this area of the business to maximize the benefit.
For an excellent and detailed look at the entire process and methods to improve it read: Revolutionizing Product Development: Quantum Leaps in Speed, Efficiency, and Quality by Steven C. Wheelwright and Kim B. Clark.
Ed. note: Dave Grubb is a manufacturing consultant. David C. Grubb Associates, LLC offers a broad range of engineering and management support for the design and operation of cabinet, flat panel and furniture plants. He can be reached at (215) 397-8236 or via e-mail at dcg@grubbassoc.com.
author: By Dave Grubb