Abstract
Every company seeks competitiveness and reliability to survive in the business world. This is only possible when good product designs are made before the manufacturing process. The paper analyses two articles on design for manufacturability and later conveys its importance to modern manufacturing companies (Crow, 2006, p. 1).
Introduction
Modern technologies have enabled most manufacturing companies to address critical product issues while still in the design process. This is usually aimed at integrating particular manufacturing concerns that may help achieve quality products for easy manufacturing. Designs for manufacturability play an important role in achieving desired qualities and results in products for such companies. These designs are usually easy to manufacture, thereby reducing production cost and time spent, without affecting quality. This paper will try to summarize, compare and contrast two articles on design for manufacturability (Anderson, 2010, p. 1).
Review
Several articles on design for manufacturability have been written, with different authors giving their views on how it should work. In most cases, the basic principles are usually the same, except for a few contrasting views. The paper explores similarities and differences that exist between David Anderson’s paper on Design for manufacturability and Kenneth Crow’s article.
According to Crow, for the effective development of products to be sustained, manufacturers have to go beyond the normal steps of product acquisition, implementation, and design technologies. He believes that customers’ needs must be placed ahead of management practices, and argues that this conceptualization can lead to better design for manufacturability. Crow goes on to state that implementation of design for manufacturability during the design cycle may require more effort from the manufacturing company, but this should not sound difficult because the output would suit customers more. He also emphasizes that this cannot happen without the will to integrate product as well as process design by way of better business practices, technology tools and philosophies of management. He ends by stating that to be competitive in an equally competitive world, customer service and product design should be one’s priority as they will be the definitive way of distinguishing a company’s capabilities (Crow, 2006, p. 1).
According to Anderson, design for manufacturability constitutes a process of proactive design of products that guarantee the best cost of manufacturing and customer satisfaction among others. It also aimed at optimizing the entire manufacturing process. In addition, he talks of concurrent engineering, which to him, blends well with design for manufacturability. He claims that this can work out for any company irrespective of the size. He goes on to emphasize that when the two methodologies are applied, the duration for product development would be shortened considerably with a quick and smooth transition of products into the market, as well as minimizing the cost of production. Anderson also agrees that the only way to competitiveness is by implementing design for manufacturability which is the best way for product design (Anderson, 2010, p. 1).
Discussion
Anderson is a consultant for design for manufacturability among other specialties. He, therefore, commands an immense wealth of experience in Design for manufacturability and product manufacturing, which is essential to the credibility of his papers. Crow is also a management consultant who focuses on product development practices with irrefutable expertise in design for manufacturability. This authenticates their papers as essential to modern product design processes (Anderson, 2010, p. 1).
Similarities
Both authors credit improved production, reduced cost of manufacturing, and good product design as well as customer satisfaction to design for manufacturability. They both agree on the fact that design for Manufacturability is important for a company to gain an edge in this competitive world. Companies that do not implement good product designs find it difficult to satisfy their customers’ needs and may end up consuming a lot of time in production. The two authors also agree that attaining manufacturability is very difficult and requires the goodwill of management to improve their strategies for product designs, which should be aimed at customer satisfaction. Their understandings of design for manufacturability seem similar as they give converging points to support their arguments. Another similarity that emerges is the fact that they use their wealth of experience in product design to explain their views on design for manufacturability (Crow, 2006, p. 1).
Contrast
Even though there are major similarities in the paper, a number of differences can be observed within this context of design for manufacturability. While Anderson blends design for manufacturability with concurrent engineering (which he believes serves the best purpose in product design for manufacturability), Crow emphasizes the need for design for manufacturability based on the improvement of management practices with more focus shifting to satisfying customer needs. Moreover, even though these authors are both consultants in product design, they tend to follow different lines of emphasis; Crow, emphasizes improved management practices while Anderson emphasizes concurrent engineering (Crow, 2006, p. 1).
Key points
Design for manufacturability is essential to any company wishing to achieve a competitive advantage in this competitive world. Successful implementation of design for manufacturability leads to improved customer satisfaction, quality of products, reliability, reduced cost of production and time, as well as ease of manufacturing (Crow, 2006, p. 1).
Conclusion
Every company works towards maintaining customer satisfaction and minimizing the cost of production without affecting its quality, along with faster processing and transition into the market. To achieve this, they need a good product design, which can only be attained through design for manufacturability (Crow, 2006, p. 1).
Reference List
Anderson, D. (2010). Design For Manufacturability. Design4manufacturability.com. Web.
Crow, K. (2006). Design For Manufacturability. DRM Associates. Web.