manufacturability

You are currently browsing articles tagged manufacturability.

In this dreary economy it’s natural for companies large and small to look for every way possible to cut costs. Organizational fat gets slashed, bill of materials (BOM) costs are scoured, vendors are beat up or replaced, and off-shoring is investigated.  Products can be redesigned to save costs; designs and process can be optimized for manufacturability (shameless plug: Zebulon Solutions offers such redesign and DFx services). And at one level, as long as one is looking at holistic cost of ownership with ROI or IRR factored in and appropriately adjusted for risk, these are good steps.

But it’s not all about cost.  At the product level its also about functionality, branding, reliability, performance–really the right metric is, pardon the cliche, bang for the buck. A poorly designed, cheap product will not sell just as surely as a good, overpriced product.

The right approach is that cost should be a factor in every decision, but not the only factor.  We’re working with a company right now whose 3rd party design house choose a cheap clone of a high performance IC for their new design.  The product functions, but it’s power dissipation, a key spec for this class of product, is way above marketing’s target. It may be solvable, with enough engineering thrown at it, but that also has a cost from an ROI / IRR perspective.  Or it may be that there is indeed a trade-off here of product cost vs a performance spec, in which case management will need to make a tough, yet informed decision of how to resolve.,  Maybe cost will win, but then again maybe not.

Cost is one element, a key one, but it’s not the only element.  Just as the days of cost is no object design are long since past, the days of low cost no matter the result are also numbered.

Chuck

Tags: , , , , , ,

Who wouldn’t want a second set of eyes? OK, it would double the cost of prescription eye glasses and designer shades, but still, being able to see things from two perspectives would be fantastic, if not a bit confusing.  For those of us with only the normal number of eyes, getting a second view on a vexing problem or even double checking one’s work can still be useful.

As a not completely irrelevant aside, in my copious free time I write fiction (as if writing business plans was something other than fiction…).  No risk that I will quit my day job—I’ve sold a total of three short stories over the past two years for a grand total that is in the low three figures.  One thing I have found about writing, however, is that it really helps to have someone else check one’s work—critique, edits, comments and the like. We get to close to our own work to see the flaws.  So like many writers I share “reads” with other writers—I critique their work and they critique mine.  And it works: no matter how good I think a story may already be, my writing buddies can always find flaws I’ve missed.

What is good for the goose is also good for the flock.  Teams and even companies also can benefit from a second set of eyes.  For years I’ve always insisted on bringing outside engineers into all my design reviews, engineers that are competent in the field but not on the project team.  In large companies we used to borrow engineers from another department /project team then repaid the favor in kind.  Smaller companies or smaller design teams often engage outside resources (warning—shameless plug) like Zebulon Solutions to participate in their design reviews or even conduct independent design assessments.  We’ve done more than a few of these over the past couple of years and frankly no matter how good our customer’s design team is—and many of them are world class—we always seem to find a few things that need changing. We’ve identified functional problems in RF and analog circuits, tolerance stackups that exceed specs, test gotchas, firmware goobers, manufacturability issues, and a whole  slew of cost down opportunities, just to name a few findings from such reviews over the past couple of years.

It’s not that we’re better engineers and we certainly don’t have the domain expertise, but being detached allows us the luxury of taking a fresh look, and to see the proverbial forest instead of trees. I suspect the same holds for almost any other competent independent reviewer. It’s a well proven technique Acropolis many industries, and the results more or less always more than covering the cost of the assessment or review.

Until we all master genetic mutation or eyeball grafting, this approach will have to do.

Chuck

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Had a chance to engage in a  little R&D work this past month. More R than D, even. Something I haven’t had the luxury of doing in quite a spell.   Came up with an idea over the holiday break, a new architecture for solving a key challenge of one of our customer’s. Did some concept drawing, bounced the idea off the brain trust, and pulled together a skunkworks project to test this out.  Too early to tell if this will really change the game for our customer, but early tests are yielding positive results.  We’re working on a patent application to nail down the IP, and should have some more definitive results in a few weeks. 

So one of the senior technical folks at this customer, a top shelf R&D type,  cornered me and asked, “What do you expect to get from this invention?  Better performance, higher accuracy, BOM (= Bill of Materials) cost reductions, what?”

I thought for a second and answered, no, none of those really were drivers although there may well be some performance enhancements.  The BOM cost will likely stay about the same, with puts equaling takes.  But the real benefits will be in terms of manufacturability: this R&D project was really about making their product easier–much easier I hope–to build.

Productization R&D.  I like the sound of that.

Chuck

Tags: , , , ,