There are probably many, but I would start with: 1. Ensuring that parts can be feasibly manufactured. 2. Ensuring that parts can be feasibly assembled. Taking the time to really think through the process of making the part, thinking where the artisan's hands/tools will be when they make the part or what technique would be able to manufacture the part to the required tolerances can save loads of time. (If it is difficult to do or uncomfortable, the workshop staff often don't do it or take short cuts) Sometimes it is as simple as moving a hole on a bracket 5mm up or changing it to a slot to compensate for fabrication errors. It can take you a matter of seconds to change a dimension, but it could save them hours of struggling and re-work. If you spend some extra hours on the design, and you can save just a bit of time in fabrication, you have done well- you likely only design the component once, but you manufacture it many, many times! Im sure there are many more points, would be interested to hear them...
Hi to all, continuiing the list: - ensuring the parts to be realiable - designing the parts reducing manufacturing costs and maintaining quality - ensuring the parts to be easily disassembled for periodic inspection (this point could appear similar to paulsteyn's point but is not the same thing)
CadMan I would have to agree with Paulsteyn and PierArg. Both have a good understanding and obviously a lot of experience. As a design engineer myself, I always try to include some of the manufacturing personnel to the design reviews to get their feedback during the design process. Also, the manufacturing folks will be quick to point out their capabilities and tooling available that you should take note of. ie; Why make a sheetmetal bend allowance something that the shop doesn't have a die to use if you don't have to.
I would say the responsibility depends entirely on what is being designed, how it's sustained, and what was negotiated with the manufacturer. In the least the DE needs to collaborate with the manufacturer to determine R&R, and continue to collaborate during the design process all while keeping the customer requirements in mind. I've worked on both sides of this. As a mfg I appreciated DE's that collaborated with me rather than toss a design at me to build. In low volume designs, the DE needs to understand the capabilities of the mfg and tailor the design to meet these capabilities. Yet the DE also must evaluate the tradeoff in costs of extra time to make a design change versus cost of mfg without the design change. I try to identify my mfg process and the manufacturing company(s) early in the design, such that I am not caught late in the process with DFM issues. High volume designs will generally involve more collaboration, since the manufacturing cost will be the largest component in the overall product cost and more tooling is typically used. In some situations, the original DE will rely on the manufacturer to provide some design work on the product. In this case the DE responsibility is completely open to negotiation.
I always like to watch the manufactures make something I designed. What do they do? Is there something they do over and over? Is there something they struggle with? Remember that you may have contact with the original manufacturer or even parts might be sent in for maintenance, but most likely a tech who you have never met and has never seen the part will be asked to fix it. Of course as has been said before. Just because in the cad model you can fit a bolt or screw does not mean that it can actually fit into the spot or even that someone could get a tool to it to tighten it down. A lot of this takes imagination of actually looking at an object and building it in your head, remove pieces add them where would your wrench go, can it turn? will you need a special tool that can reach, things like that.
