A1. Material A2. Sourcing A3. In-bound Quality B1. Dimensional B2. Alignment Ease B3.

l B2. Alignment Ease B3. Part Symmetry - C1. Part Damage - C2. Handling C3. Part Feed
Knowledge -Previous Difficulty - Ease of Control - Required Tolerance - Smallest - Ease with which Orientation Extra time and Difficulty - New Automation - Part
usage experience locating a reliable inspection to ensure dimensional part is aligned for symmetry of the effort to prevent procedures or feeding into
with this material source reliable quality tolerance for critical assembly part part damage devices for handling assembly machines
features of the part part will be
(0-1) Standard - (0-1) Inhouse (0) None (0-1) Easy - natural (0) Obvious from (0-1) None
Used now existing (1-4) Limited in- (0) +/- 0.01 inch resting key feature (2-5) Prevent (0-2) None required (0-2) Automatic on
(2-3) Speciality - (1-4) Inhouse first process (1-3) +/- 0.005 inch (2-4) Locator pins (0-2) Alpha or Beta tangling, scratches, (3-5) <50% change existing
Used now time (3-7) 5-10% (4-7) +/- 0.001 inch (5-7) Single peg Symmetric tears, etc. in present (2-5) Automatic
(3-6) Standard - First (0-4) Multiple known Sampling (8-10) +/- 0.0001 insertion (3-6) Alpha or Beta (3-8) Electronic (6-8) New procedure needs new
Use vendors (5-10) Significant - inch (8-10) Multiple peg semi-symmetric protection (7-10) New handling (4-8) Manual
(5-10) Speciality - (2-6) New vendor - High variance insertions (7-10) Non (5-10) Individual device assisted
First Use large pool Symmetric wrapping (5-10) 100% Manual
(4-10) New Vendor -
small pool

D1. Steady Yield D2. Process D3. Process Failure

D4. Fastening Type - D5. Output Rate - E1. Available E2. New Machine - E3. Process Control F1. New Tooling - F2. Complexity - G1. Setup Time -
Interval - Time for Experience - Modes - Number ofPrimary fastener Projected changes capacity - Ratio of Need for new Design - Time and Need for new tool Extra time and Projected time to
new batch to reach Existing experience new failure modestype used in this in current new required to machine due to effort required for due to design effort for tool complete setup
steady state with this process (process stop, slow,
step equipment output available capacity of design requirements process features configuration activity (internal)
etc.) rate process equipment implementation
(0-3) < 2% of batch (0-2) Mature in- (0-2) Integrated with (0) None required (0) None required (0-3) Standard, no (0-2) Less than 10
time house/vendor (0) None assembly (snaps (0) 10%+ increase (0) 0 to 70% (1-5) Retrofit of (0) Existing, minimal (1-2) <10% retrofit extra mins
(2-5) 2-4% of batch (1-5) Similar to (1-3) Between 1 and etc.) (1) No change (1-3) 70 to 100% existing effort of existing (4-7) Some extra (3-5) 10 to 15 mins
time existing 2 (3-5) Rivets, (2-5) 0 to 5% (3-7) 100 to 150% (4-8) Requires new (1-5) Moderate (3-5) <50% retrofit effort (6-8) 15 to 30 mins
(5-8) 4-6% of batch (4-8) Limited in- (4-7) Between 3 and staples,& adhesive decrease (8-10) More than operator training effort of existing (8-10) Significant (9-10) 30+ mins
time house/vendor 5 (5-7) Screws & Nails (6-7) 5 to 10% 150% (6-10) Requires new (6-10) (5-8) Existing extra effort
(8-10) > 6% of (8-10) New requires (8-10) More than 5 (8-10) Multi-pieces decrease purchase Complex/Skilled vendor purchase
batch time R&D (nut & bolt) (8-10) 10%+ effort (7-10) New vendor
decrease purchase
G2. Commonality - H1. Container - H2. Orientation - J1. Production J2. Work-in-Process - K1. Test Process K2. Inspections K3. Process
Setup process that Container Need/difficulty in Volumes - Batch Where to move for Experience - Specs - Number of Capability - The
is common to movement preserving assembly runs at end of year- next step Existing test process new critical to process potential
similar products frequency and orientation 1 are expected to be experience quality (CTQ) index (Cp) given by
equipment (0-2) To immediate features the allowable to
(0) 100% (0-2) None (0-3) 20+ hours vicinity (0-2) Mature actual spread ratio
commonality (0) Continuous, (3-6) Moderate (4-7) 10 to 20 hours (3-7) To (3-7) Reconfigure (0-2) None
(1-3) 80 to 100% conveyor (7-10) High (8-10) Less than 10 intermediate current (3-6) Between 1 and (0-2) Cp > 1.5
commonality (1-4) <15 min, hours storage (6-9) Limited - new 3 (3-7) 1.3 < Cp < 1.5
(4-7) 50 to 80% manual (8-10) Needs to be equipment (3-6) Between 4 and (6-9) 1.0 < Cp < 1.3
commonality (2-7) 15-60 stocked (8-10) None - new 7 (8-10) Cp < 1.0
(8-10) < 50% min,manual truck equipment (7-10) More than 7
commonality (6-10) 30+ min,
power truck
1. NPD/DFM ANALYSIS COVER PAGE

PRODUCT NAME Electric Pencil Sharpener

DESIGN NUMBER/VERSION EPS101-2005

DESIGN HEADER
NOTES This is an example for Pro-DFM.

NPD/DFM ANALYSIS START DATE 7/5/2005 16:08

PROJECT MANAGER Jeremy Schwartz

Design Team Kathy Burks, Joe Patel, Steve Smith, Martin Weinstock

NPD/DFM TEAM Manufacturing Team Mike Wills, Jose Alvarez

Marketing Team Sandy Cooper

Supply Chain Team Jennifer Cape

EVENT DATE NOTES

1. Pro-DFM Worksheet initialized for new design 7/5/2005 Kathy will be the central file keeper and track all the revisions

Mike attended the review from manufacturing team. Target for DFM
2. First Review of Part DFM Evaluation 7/16/2005
penalty cost is $0.65

Several actions items were identified and need to be discussed.

3. First Review Process DFM Evaluation 7/24/2005
Target for the direct assembly cost is $1.75

4. Manufacturing Team Review of Pro-DFM

PROJECT PLAN Manufacturability Report
7/29/2005 Jeremy & Kathy attended the review

5. NPD Team Review of Pro-DFM Executive Summary

9/15/2005 Planned date
Report

6. Final Review of Part and Process DFM Evaluations

7. Acceptance of Pro-DFM Executive Summary Report

2. DESIGN REVIEW DFM ACTION ITEM LOG

PRODUCT = #REF! REPORT DATE = 3/28/2017

LOG CLOSE PART/PROCESS

ITEM # LEAD PERSON PROBLEM/OPPORTUNITY HOW RESOLVED PROGRESS NOTES
DATE DATE EFFECTED

Change sensor design to improve

1 ### Kathy Burks Sensor Discussion on with supplier
manufacturability

Looking at possible change of

2 ### Joe Patel Possibility of eliminating this part Shaving Guard
other parts

10

11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
3. NPD/DFM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT

PRODUCT = #REF! PLANT = New Jersey REPORT DATE = 3/28/2017

ESTIMATED UNIT PRODUCTION (EUP) COST = #REF! TOTAL #REF! COST RISK #REF! DFM+INV PENALTY

ESTMATED DEVELOPMENT TIME (EDT) (Weeks) = 8.00 TIME TO LAUNCH 7.00 PARTS 8.00 PROCESSES

UNIT PRODUCTION COST SUMMARY

PARTS ANALYSIS ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS INDIRECT

NUMBER OF PARTS = #REF! RATIO TO EUP NUMBER OF PROCESS STEPS = #REF! RATIO TO EUP INDIRECT PART = #REF!

TOTAL UNIT PART COST = #REF! #REF! TOTAL UNIT ASSEMBLY COST = #REF! #REF!

TOTAL PART COST RISK = #REF! #REF! TOTAL ASSEMBLY COST RISK = #REF! #REF! INDIRECT PROC = #REF!

MAXIMUM PART COST = #REF! #REF! MAXIMUM ASSEMBLY COST = #REF! #REF!

PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TIME SUMMARY

PARTS ANALYSIS ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS

PART DEV TIME DURATION (Weeks) = 7.00 RATIO TO EDT PROCESS DEV TIME DURATION (Weeks) = 8.00 RATIO TO EDT

REQD. PART DEV TIME (Weeks) = 30.00 428.57% REQD. PROCESS DEV TIME (Weeks) = 17.50 218.75%

PART DEV TIME RISK (Weeks) = 8.25 117.86% PROCESS DEV TIME RISK (Weeks) = 8.00 100.00%

DFM EVALUATION SUMMARY

PARTS ANALYSIS MAX AVERAGE ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS FACTOR SUM COST PENALTY

PART DFM EVAL SCORES = #REF! #REF! DFM PART EVAL FACTORS = #REF! $0.402

PROCESS DFM EVAL SCORES = #REF! #REF! DFM PROCESS EVAL FACTORS = #REF! #REF!

PART REDUCTION OPPORTUNITY = #REF! PART INVENTORY EVAL FACTOR = 3.02 $0.385
PRODUCTION COST ANALYTICS

DFM Part + Inventory Penalty Cost

EUP Cost Roll-up

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

DFM Process Penalty Cost

Part Inventory
DFM Part Penalty
$0.39
$0.40
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT TIME LINE

PART DEVELOPMENT TIME (Planned + Risk)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PROCESS DEVELOPMENT TIME (Planned + Risk)

WEEKS

WEEKS
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
 4. ESTIMATED UNIT PRODUCTION COST REPORT

PRODUCT = #REF! REPORT DATE = 3/28/2017

ESTIMATED UNIT PRODUCTION (EUP) COST = #REF! TOTAL $1.443 COST RISK $1.320 DFM+INV PENALTY

DIRECT TOTAL PART COST = $3.131 DIRECT TOTAL ASSEMBLY COST = $2.196 INDIRECT PART RATE = 10%

INDIRECT TOTAL PART COST = $0.313 INDIRECT TOTAL ASSEMBLY COST = $0.549

INBOUND UNIT SUPPLY CHAIN COST = $0.470 COST RISK OUTBOUND UNIT SUPPLY CHAIN COST = #REF! COST RISK INDIRECT PROCESS RATE = 25%

TOTAL UNIT PART COSTS $3.914 $1.364 TOTAL UNIT ASSEMBLY COSTS #REF! $0.079

RELATIVE TO EUP COST #REF! #REF! RELATIVE TO EUP COST #REF! #REF!

PART & MATERIAL COST ESTIMATES

PART INVENTORY EVAL DFM PART EVAL INV+DFM ESTIMATED PART SUPPLY
PART/MATERIAL COUNT QTY UNIT PART COST
# FACTOR FACTOR COST PENALTY PART COST CHAIN COST

1 Top cover 1 $0.120 0.16 0.11 $0.032 $0.152 $0.02

2 Bottom Cover 1 $0.090 0.16 0.16 $0.028 $0.118 $0.02

3 Shaving Tray 1 $0.060 0.10 0.17 $0.016 $0.076 $0.01

4 Magneto 1 $0.320 0.15 0.17 $0.103 $0.423 $0.04

5 Long Screw 2 $0.040 0.17 0.23 $0.032 $0.112 $0.00

Fine thred phillips head
6 1 $0.030 0.15 0.21 $0.011 $0.041 $0.00
screw
7 1/2" phillips head screw 2 $0.010 0.17 0.15 $0.006 $0.026 $0.00

8 3/4" long phillips head screw 3 $0.010 0.17 0.22 $0.012 $0.042 $0.00

9 Washer 1 $0.010 0.13 0.24 $0.004 $0.014 $0.00

10 Electric twist caps 4 $0.020 0.08 0.13 $0.017 $0.097 $0.04

11 Inner Housing 1 $0.031 0.15 0.20 $0.011 $0.042 $0.05

12 Sensor 2 $0.380 0.17 0.20 $0.283 $1.043 $0.08

13 Electric Cord 1 $0.140 0.08 0.14 $0.031 $0.171 $0.04

14 Motor shaft brace 1 $0.060 0.15 0.12 $0.016 $0.076 $0.02

15 Motor 1 $0.320 0.24 0.13 $0.118 $0.438 $0.07

16 Big Gear 1 $0.060 0.17 0.15 $0.019 $0.079 $0.00

17 Small Gear 1 $0.040 0.17 0.26 $0.017 $0.057 $0.00

18 Thin Metal Shield 1 $0.010 0.13 0.19 $0.003 $0.013 $0.01

19 Shaving Guard 1 $0.040 0.15 0.13 $0.011 $0.051 $0.02

20 Cutter Assembly 1 $0.042 0.17 0.25 $0.018 $0.060 $0.05

TOTAL UNIT PART & MATERIAL COST = $0.788 $3.131 $0.47

ASSEMBLY PROCESS COST ESTIMATES

STEP PROD RATE / PROD BATCH PROCESS COST RISK SETUP BATCH SETUP QUALITY DFM PROCESS ESTIMATED
ASSEMBLY PROCESS PROCESS COST/HR
# HR SIZE RANGE (%) COST/HR TIME (hrs) REJECT RATE EVAL FACTOR ASSEMBLY COST

1 Plastic Injection 120 1200 2% $22.000 $16.00 0.50 2% 0.17 $0.225

2 Casting 120 800 2% $44.500 $20.00 0.75 3% 0.13 $0.450

3 Electrical Circuit Assembly 120 300 3% $44.467 $20.00 1.00 1% 0.21 $0.520

4 Cutter Set Assembly 90 800 5% $20.000 $30.00 0.50 2% 0.20 $0.292

5 Final Assembly 60 800 5% $32.467 $0.00 1.00 2% 0.29 $0.709

TOTAL UNIT ASSEMBLY PROCESS COST = $0.111 $0.040 $0.363 $2.196

5. ANALYSIS OF PRODUCTION COSTS BY PLANT

PRODUCT = #REF! REPORT DATE = ###

ALTERNATE PLANTS RELATIVE COST FACTORS PART COST ASSEMBLY COST SUPPLY CHAIN COSTS
ESTIMATED

PLANT LABOR PRODUCTI SETUP QUALITY INDIRECT INDIRECT UNIT PROD

PLANT LOCATION DIRECT INDIRECT DIRECT INDIRECT INBOUND OUTBOUND COST
# RATE VITY COSTS REJECT PRODUCT PROCESS

1 #REF! 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! $0.47 $0.13 #REF!

2 Nanjing, China 0.4 0.8 0.9 1.8 15% 23% #REF! #REF! $0.362 $0.083 $0.41 $0.21 #REF!
6. DFM EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT

PRODUCT = #REF! PART COUNT = 28 STEP COUNT= 5

MAXIMUM
CRITERIA AVERAGE SCORE ALERTS DESIGN TEAM NOTES
SCORE
PART EVALUATION ALERT SCORE LIMIT = 4 4

A. PROCUREMENT 2.21 9.00 16

B. PART GEOMETRY 2.92 9.00 22

C. HANDLING 2.50 9.00 20

PROCESS EVALUATION ALERT SCORE LIMIT = 4 4

D. PROCESS DIFFICULTY 2.12 5.00 1

E. EQUIPMENT 3.67 6.00 4

F. TOOLING 3.60 9.00 4

G. SETUP 3.30 8.00 3

H. HANDLING 2.30 8.00 1

J. INVENTORY 2.60 5.00 2

K. TESTING 3.00 5.00 3

DFM EVAL FACTORS (Used to calculate cost penalty)

FACTOR AVERAGE MAXIMUM FACTOR SUM

DFM PART EVAL 0.13 0.26 3.56

DFM PROCESS EVAL 0.20 0.29 1.00

 DFM PART ANALYTICS

Max DFM Part Eval Factor = #REF!

DFM Penalty Costs by Part
Highest Cost Criterion = #REF!
12

10

C. PART HANDLING 2

B. PART GEOMETRY
A. PROCUREMENT
0

PARTS

DFM PROCESS ANALYTICS

Max DFM Proc Eval Factor = #REF!

DFM Penalty Costs by Process
Highest Cost Criterion = #REF!

12

10
K. QUALITY & TESTING
J. INVENTORY
H. HANDLING 8
G. SETUP
F. TOOLING
6
E. EQUIPMENT
D. PROCESS DIFFICULTY
4

0
ASSEMBLY PROCESS
7. PART/MATERIAL DATA

PRODUCT = #REF! REPORT DATE = 3/28/2017

COUNT / NO. OF ORDER QTY DEV.

PART UNIT PART UNIT COST PART. DEV. DEV. TIME DEV TIME
PART OR MATERIAL NAME QTY PER PART MATERIAL (wks of START COMMENTS
# COST RISK TIME (wks) RISK (wks) END (wks)
UNIT VARIANTS supply) TIME (wk)

1 Top cover 1 2 HDPE plastic 8.0 $0.120 $0.100 3.00 0.50 4.00 7.00

2 Bottom Cover 1 2 HDPE Plastic 8.0 $0.090 $0.100 3.00 0.50 4.00 7.00

3 Shaving Tray 1 1 HDPE plastic 6.0 $0.060 $0.050 3.00 0.50 4.00 7.00

4 Magneto 1 1 Steel 10.0 $0.320 $0.150 3.00 1.00 4.00 7.00

5 Long Screw 2 1 Steel 12.0 $0.040 $0.020 1.00 0.25 1.00 2.00

Fine thred phillips head

6 1 1 Steel 10.0 $0.030 $0.030 1.00 0.25 1.00 2.00
screw

7 1/2" phillips head screw 2 1 Steel 12.0 $0.010 $0.020 1.00 0.25 1.00 2.00

3/4" long phillips head

8 3 1 Steel 12.0 $0.010 $0.020 1.00 0.25 1.00 2.00
screw

9 Washer 1 1 Steel 8.0 $0.010 $0.010 1.50 0.50 1.00 2.50

10 Electric twist caps 4 1 PP plastic 4.0 $0.020 $0.010 0.50 0.25 0.50 1.00

11 Inner Housing 1 1 PP plastic 10.0 $0.031 $0.150 2.00 0.50 3.00 5.00

12 Sensor 2 1 PP Plastic 12.0 $0.380 $0.100 2.00 0.50 3.00 5.00

13 Electric Cord 1 1 Rubber/Copper 4.0 $0.140 $0.020 0.50 0.25 3.00 3.50

14 Motor shaft brace 1 1 HDPE plastic 10.0 $0.060 $0.030 1.00 0.25 1.00 2.00

15 Motor 1 1 Steel 18.0 $0.320 $0.050 2.00 1.00 2.00 4.00

16 Big Gear 1 1 PP Plastic 12.0 $0.060 $0.020 1.00 0.25 1.00 2.00

17 Small Gear 1 1 PP plastic 12.0 $0.040 $0.020 1.00 0.25 1.00 2.00

18 Thin Metal Shield 1 1 Steel 8.0 $0.010 $0.010 0.50 0.25 2.00 2.50

19 Shaving Guard 1 1 PP plastic 10.0 $0.040 $0.020 1.00 0.50 1.50 2.50

20 Cutter Assembly 1 1 Steel 12.0 $0.042 $0.100 1.00 0.25 2.00 3.00

PART COUNT 28 22 TOTAL = $1.24 30.00 8.25 7.00

8. DFM PART EVAL DATA A. PROCUREMENT

PRODUCT = #REF! 3/28/2017 A1. Material Knowledge

Previous usage experience

with this material
(0-1) Standard - Used now
RESPONSE SCALE (2-3) Speciality - Used now
(3-6) Standard - First Use
(5-10) Speciality - First Use

DFM PART EVAL

PART PRIMARY FUNCTIONAL CRITICAL FEATURES AND NEW
PART OR MATERIAL NAME PART ELIMINATION QC REQUIREMENTS FACTOR 1.00
# REQUIREMENTS TECHNOLGIES
Weighted

(0.6) - Yes - Possible

1 Top cover
to Transfer FR
0.11 2

(0.6) - Yes - Possible

2 Bottom Cover 0.16 5
to Transfer FR

(1.0) - No - Provides
3 Shaving Tray
Primary FR
0.17 3

(0.7) - No - Assembly
4 Magneto
Restrictions
0.17 1

(0.7) - No - Assembly
5 Long Screw
Restrictions
0.23 6

(0.7) - No - Assembly
6 Fine thred phillips head screw 0.21 8
Restrictions

(0.7) - No - Assembly
7 1/2" phillips head screw
Restrictions
0.15 2

(0.7) - No - Assembly
8 3/4" long phillips head screw
Restrictions
0.22 5

(0.5) - Yes - Possible

9 Washer
to Reduce Count
0.24 5

(0.3) - Yes - Easy to

10 Electric twist caps
Transfer FR
0.13 5

(0.6) - Yes - Possible

11 Inner Housing
to Transfer FR
0.20 5
 (1.0) - No - Provides
12 Sensor
Primary FR
0.20 2

(0.8) - No - Material
13 Electric Cord
Restrictions
0.14 5

(1.0) - No - Provides
14 Motor shaft brace
Primary FR
0.12 5

(1.0) - No - Provides
15 Motor
Primary FR
0.13 1

(1.0) - No - Motion
16 Big Gear
Requirements
0.15 1

(1.0) - No - Motion
17 Small Gear
Requirements
0.26 5

(0.6) - Yes - Possible

18 Thin Metal Shield
to Transfer FR
0.19 1

(0.3) - Yes - Easy to

19 Shaving Guard
Transfer FR
0.13 1

(0.7) - No - Assembly
20 Cutter Assembly
Restrictions
0.25 1

TOTAL SCORE
0.374 69
(Column Sum)

MANUFACTURING
TEAM NOTES
 A. PROCUREMENT B. PART GEOMETRY C. PART HANDLING

A3. In-bound Quality B1. Dimensional

A2. Sourcing Difficulty
Ease of locating a reliable
source
(0-1) Inhouse existing
(1-4) Inhouse first time
(0-4) Multiple known
vendors
(2-6) New vendor - large
pool
(4-10) New Vendor - small
pool
1.00
B2. Alignment Ease B3. Part Symmetry C1. Part Damage C2. Handling Difficulty
Control Tolerance
Required inspection to Smallest dimensional Ease with which part is Orientation symmetry of Extra time and effort to New procedures or devices
ensure reliable quality tolerance for critical aligned for assembly the part prevent part damage for handling part
(0) None features of the part (0-1) Easy - natural resting (0) Obvious from key (0-1) None (0-2) None required
(1-4) Limited in-process (0) +/- 0.01 inch (2-4) Locator pins feature (2-5) Prevent tangling, (3-5) <50% change in
(3-7) 5-10% Sampling (1-3) +/- 0.005 inch (5-7) Single peg insertion (0-2) Alpha or Beta scratches, tears, etc. present
(5-10) Significant - High (4-7) +/- 0.001 inch (8-10) Multiple peg Symmetric (3-8) Electronic protection (6-8) New procedure
variance (8-10) +/- 0.0001 inch insertions (3-6) Alpha or Beta semi- (5-10) Individual wrapping (7-10) New handling device
symmetric
(7-10) Non Symmetric
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

3 1 2 5 0 1 2

1 3 4 2 4 3 5

4 5 6 7 0 1 3

3 2 4 2 1 6 5

2 1 2 5 5 6 7

7 9 2 1 3 5 1

4 1 5 2 4 3 5

1 4 8 7 2 3 6

1 7 9 8 7 3 2

1 2 4 2 3 1 2

1 2 4 7 8 3 5
1 4 8 7 9 2 1

5 1 2 4 2 1 2

1 2 4 2 1 3 2

2 4 2 3 4 6 1

2 4 2 3 4 5 2

1 4 7 5 3 6 9

5 4 2 1 3 4 8

2 4 3 5 4 2 1

2 4 5 8 7 9 8

49 68 85 86 74 73 77
NDLING

C3. Part Feed

Automation
Part feeding into assembly
machines will be
(0-2) Automatic on existing
(2-5) Automatic needs new
(4-8) Manual assisted
(5-10) 100% Manual

1.00

1
2

60
9. ASSEMBLY PROCESS DATA

PRODUCT = #REF! DATE = ###

PROCESS PROCESS DEV.

STEP PROCESS PROCESS SETUP DEV. TIME DEV TIME
ASSEMBLY PROCESS DESCRIPTION PROCESS TOOLING SETUP DEV. TIME START COMMENTS
# EQUIPMENT COST/HR COST/HR RISK (wks) END (wks)
TIME (hrs) (wks) TIME (wk)

Injection molding Plastic Injection

1 Plastic Injection Injection Mold $22.000 $16.000 0.50 3.00 1.00 2.00 5.00
of parts Machine

Create the metal

2 Casting Casting machine Metal Mold $44.500 $20.000 0.75 4.00 1.50 2.50 6.50
mold
Automatic
Electrical Circuit
3 Assembly the parts Assembly Assembly tools $44.467 $20.000 1.00 5.00 2.00 3.00 8.00
Assembly
machine
Automatic
Fabricate the
4 Cutter Set Assembly Assembly Assembly gripper $20.000 $30.000 0.50 3.00 2.00 1.00 4.00
cutter set
machine
Automatic
This is the final
5 Final Assembly alignment Alignment head $32.467 $0.000 1.00 2.50 1.50 2.00 4.50
step.
machine

TOTAL = 3.75 17.50 8.00 8.00

 10. DFM ASSEMBLY EVAL DATA D. PROCESS DIFFICULTY E. EQUIP

D1. Steady Yield D3. Process Failure

PRODUCT = #REF! D2. Process Experience D4. Fastening Type D5. Output Rate E1. Available capacity
Interval Modes
Time for new batch to Existing experience with Number of new failure Primary fastener type used Projected changes in Ratio of new required to
reach steady state this process modes (process stop, slow, in this step current equipment output available capacity of
(0-3) < 2% of batch time (0-2) Mature in- etc.) (0-2) Integrated with rate process equipment
RESPONSE SCALE (2-5) 2-4% of batch time house/vendor (0) None assembly (snaps etc.) (0) 10%+ increase (0) 0 to 70%
(5-8) 4-6% of batch time
(8-10) > 6% of batch time
(1-5) Similar to existing
(4-8) Limited in-
(1-3) Between 1 and 2
(4-7) Between 3 and 5
(3-5) Rivets, staples,&
adhesive
(1) No change
(2-5) 0 to 5% decrease
(1-3) 70 to 100%
(3-7) 100 to 150%
house/vendor (8-10) More than 5 (5-7) Screws & Nails (6-7) 5 to 10% decrease (8-10) More than 150%
(8-10) New requires R&D (8-10) Multi-pieces (nut & (8-10) 10%+ decrease
bolt)
DFM PROCESS
STEP # ASSEMBLY PROCESS PARTS ASSEMBLED EVAL FACTOR 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Weighted

1 Plastic Injection 0.17 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0

2 Casting 0.13 5.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 2.0

Electrical Circuit
3
Assembly
0.21 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 3.0 4.0

4 Cutter Set Assembly 0.20 2.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 6.0

5 Final Assembly 0.29 1.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 1.0 3.0

TOTAL SCORE
12.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 13.0 17.0
(Column Sum)

MANUFACTURING
TEAM NOTES
 E. EQUIPMENT F. TOOLING G. SETUP H. HANDLING J. INVENTORY

E3. Process Control

E2. New Machine F1. New Tooling F2. Complexity G1. Setup Time G2. Commonality H1. Container H2. Orientation J1. Production Volumes
Design
Need for new machine due Time and effort required for Need for new tool due to Extra time and effort for Projected time to complete Setup process that is Container movement Need/difficulty in Batch runs at end of year-1
to design requirements process implementation design features tool configuration setup activity (internal) common to similar frequency and equipment preserving assembly are expected to be
(0) None required (0) Existing, minimal effort (0) None required (0-3) Standard, no extra (0-2) Less than 10 mins products (0) Continuous, conveyor orientation (0-3) 20+ hours
(1-5) Retrofit of existing (1-5) Moderate training (1-2) <10% retrofit of (4-7) Some extra effort (3-5) 10 to 15 mins (0) 100% commonality (1-4) <15 min, manual (0-2) None (4-7) 10 to 20 hours
(4-8) Requires new effort existing (8-10) Significant extra (6-8) 15 to 30 mins (1-3) 80 to 100% (2-7) 15-60 min,manual (3-6) Moderate (8-10) Less than 10 hours
operator (6-10) Complex/Skilled (3-5) <50% retrofit of effort (9-10) 30+ mins commonality truck (7-10) High
(6-10) Requires new effort existing (4-7) 50 to 80% (6-10) 30+ min, power
purchase (5-8) Existing vendor commonality truck
purchase (8-10) < 50% commonality
(7-10) New vendor
1.00 1.00 purchase 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

5.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 5.0

2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0

2.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

5.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0

5.0 4.0 7.0 9.0 8.0 7.0 8.0 1.0 2.0

19.0 19.0 17.0 19.0 22.0 11.0 15.0 8.0 13.0

J. INVENTORY K. QUALITY & TESTING

K1. Test Process

J2. Work-in-Process
Where to move for next
step
(0-2) To immediate vicinity
(3-7) To intermediate
storage
(8-10) Needs to be stocked
K2. Inspections Specs K3. Process Capability
Experience
Existing test process Number of new critical to The process potential index
experience quality (CTQ) features (Cp) given by the allowable
(0-2) Mature (0-2) None to actual spread ratio
(3-7) Reconfigure current (3-6) Between 1 and 3 (0-2) Cp > 1.5
(6-9) Limited - new (3-6) Between 4 and 7 (3-7) 1.3 < Cp < 1.5
equipment (7-10) More than 7 (6-9) 1.0 < Cp < 1.3
(8-10) None - new (8-10) Cp < 1.0
equipment

1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 D. PROCESS DIE. EQUIPMENT F. TOOLING G. SETUP H. HANDLING J. INVENTORY K. QUALITY & TESTING

1.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

5.0 4.0 2.0 1.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

4.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!

13.0 16.0 18.0 11.0 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!
11. ASSEMBLY COSTCAL DETAILS

PRODUCT = #REF! LABOR COSTS

OPERATOR 1 OPERATOR 2 OPERATOR 3

TOTAL HOURLY NET HOURLY NET HOURLY

STEP TOTAL LABOR TOTAL SET UP PRODUCTI BUSY TIME PRODUCTI BUSY TIME PRODUCTI BUSY TIME
ASSEMBLY PROCESS EQUIPMENT RATE COST / RATE COST / RATE
# COST/HR TIME (Hrs) VITY (%) (%) VITY (%) (%) VITY (%) (%)
COST/HR ($/hr) HOUR ($/hr) HOUR ($/hr)

1 Plastic Injection $0.000 $0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2 Casting $23.500 $21.000 0.75 11.00 100.00 50.00 5.50 18.00 100.00 100.00 18.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3 Electrical Circuit Assembly $17.467 $27.000 0.50 18.00 100.00 60.00 10.80 20.00 90.00 30.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00

4 Cutter Set Assembly $0.000 $0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5 Final Assembly $22.667 $9.800 1.00 16.00 100.00 100.00 16.00 20.00 90.00 30.00 6.67 0.00 0.00 0.00
 EQUIPMENT COSTS

TOR 3 OPERATOR 4 EQUIPMENT 1 EQUIPMENT 2 EQUIPMENT 3

NET HOURLY NET

PRODUCTI BUSY TIME OPERATING UTILIZATIO SET UP NET COST / OPERATING UTILIZATIO SET UP NET COST / OPERATING UTILIZATIO SET UP NET COST /
COST / RATE COST /
VITY (%) (%) COST/HR N (%) TIME HOUR COST/HR N (%) TIME HOUR COST/HR N (%) TIME HOUR
HOUR ($/hr) HOUR

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.00 100.00 0.75 21.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 100.00 0.50 15.00 12.00 100.00 0.50 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.00 70.00 1.00 9.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
12. SUPPLY CHAIN COSTS

PRODUCT = #REF!

PLANT LOCATION 1 2

#REF! Nanjing, China

OUTBOUND UNIT SUPPLY CHAIN COST $0.13 $0.21

INBOUND UNIT SUPPLY CHAIN COSTS $0.47 $0.41

PART # PART OR MATERIAL NAME #REF! Nanjing, China

1 Top cover $0.020 $0.010

2 Bottom Cover $0.020 $0.040

3 Shaving Tray $0.010 $0.000

4 Magneto $0.040 $0.060

5 Long Screw $0.000 $0.000

6 Fine thred phillips head screw $0.000 $0.000

7 1/2" phillips head screw $0.000 $0.000

8 3/4" long phillips head screw $0.000 $0.000

9 Washer $0.000 $0.000

10 Electric twist caps $0.010 $0.000

11 Inner Housing $0.050 $0.020

12 Sensor $0.040 $0.070

13 Electric Cord $0.040 $0.020

14 Motor shaft brace $0.020 $0.020

15 Motor $0.070 $0.030

16 Big Gear $0.000 $0.000

17 Small Gear $0.000 $0.000

18 Thin Metal Shield $0.010 $0.000

19 Shaving Guard $0.020 $0.000

20 Cutter Assembly $0.050 $0.070

13. COMPARATIVE PLANT DATA

PRODUCT = #REF!

PLANT LOCATION #REF! Nanjing, China

LABOR RATE #REF! 0.4

PRODUCTIVITY #REF! 0.8

SETUP COSTS #REF! 0.9

QUALITY REJECT RATE #REF! 1.8

INDIRECT PRODUCT RATE #REF! 15%

INDIRECT PROCESS RATE #REF! 23%

TOTAL DIRECT ASSEMBLY COST = #REF! $0.362

STEP # ASSEMBLY PROCESS #REF! Nanjing, China

1 Plastic Injection #REF! $0.031

2 Casting #REF! $0.047

3 Electrical Circuit Assembly #REF! $0.094

4 Cutter Set Assembly #REF! $0.048

5 Final Assembly #REF! $0.142

14. HELP SHEET

A description of the various criteria and sub-criteria used in the Pro-DFM analysis is provided below, along with guidelines for selecting the applicable
response for each criteria in a given case. Note that the response scale is 0 (best) to 10 (worst).

The 0 score represents an optimal condition implying that no significant impact on the manufacturing cost and effort will be experienced. Conversely a score
of 10 implies the worst case where the maximum negative impact is expected.

PART EVALUATION

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION

Part/Material Will typically be a Bill of Material item retrieved from the product specifications.

Count Quantity / Unit Number of the part or material quantity used in each product assembly.

Where several variations (color, size, etc.) of the part are used depending on assembly model, list the number of
Number of Part Variants different SKUs.

Material Identifies the primary material of the part. Should be obtained from BOM or design specifications.

The quantity in which the part/material is ordered, as measured by the weeks of supply. For example if the order
Order Quantity quantity is 1000 and the average weekly demand is 100, then we have a 10 week inventory at order receipt.

An estimate of the base line part. For procured parts the costs is taken from and initial vendor quote, for in-house
Unit Part Cost parts the a plant quote is used.

An estimate of the maximum increase in the base line part cost. Causes of increase could be raw material prices,
Unit Cost Risk sourcing difficulty, or order quantity limits.

The time in weeks, required to develop the part (design, test, and source). For an existing part the time is zero.
Required Development Time This time provides a window for any DFM motivated changes.

Maximum Develop Time Risk An estimate of the maximum delay in completing the part development.

How many weeks into the NPD project is the development of this part likely to start. The end time is derived as the
Start Development sum of the start time plus the development time.

Functional requirements (FRs) describe what the part is supposed to do. For example, for a refrigerator door the
Primary FRs FRs are to keep cold air in, and allow inside access.

Critical Features & New Identifies design features which are critical to the functionality of the part and the final assembly. Typically, these
Technologies features will be of the highest priority in quality control activities.

Part Elimination An assessment of the likelihood this part can be eliminated and why. Select the most likely reason.

Primary part attributes to be evaluated and inspected before/after the part is assembled to the product. This
Quality Control Requirements provides guidance to manufacturing about what are the CTQs.

A1. Material Knowledge
A2. Sourcing Difficulty
A3. In-bound Quality Control
Refers to the primary part material. Evaluates the potential for manufacturing difficulties with this material on the
basis of previous experience. A specialty part is made to the design specs. A first use material is one which has
not actively been used
Refers to the difficulty in finding a reliable vendor source. In-house indicates the part will be made at our facility. A
known vendor is one with which the company has done business in the last three years. A large pool is 10+
vendors.
Effort to inspect parts before assembly. Limited in-process refers to visual inspection by the process operator.
Sampling refers to the inspection quantity using a tool or device. High variance indicates the part source is
unreliable and rejects could be

Select the smallest dimensional tolerance from the design specifications for this part. The scale is generalized, you
B1. Dimensional Tolerance may opt to adjust this scale based on the specific part fabrication process.

A part needs to be aligned or positioned prior to assembly. If the alignment is obvious select natural resting.
B2. Alignment Ease Where locator pins are provided than the alignment is facilitated. If the assembly is of the peg-in-hole type select
the appropriate scale.
 Alpha symmetry refers to symmetry about a part's "most repeatable" axis. Beta symmetry is perpendicular to the
alpha axis. An Alpha/Beta symmetric part can turn 180 about its axis and have the same orientation. Such parts
requires less orientation durin

B3. Part Symmetry

Refers to potential part damage during handling. This may include special containers, packing order,
C1. Part Damage environmental control (e.g. moisture control) or protective covers (e.g. sheets). Methods which are employed
simply for productivity should not be conside

Refers to any new part handling requirements. New would imply that currently this is not a requirement for
C2. Handling Difficulty manufacturing operations. An example would be that a new stacking container is needed, or that a new unload
tool is required.

Refers to how the part can be feed automatically into an assembly machine. The best case is where existing
C3. Part Feed Automation automatic feed machines can be deployed. 100% manual indicates that at that the part cannot be fed
automatically in a reasonable manner.

ASSEMBLY PROCESS EVALUATION

CRITERIA DESCRIPTION
The product will be manufactured by a series of assembly process steps, typically listed in the process plan.
Assembly Process Identify each process step, as each will be individually analyzed.
A brief description of the process including type (e.g., welding). This will allow members of the NPD team to
Description immediately understand what the process does and how it will be done.
List any new and existing equipment or production lines/cells that are expected to be used in this step. While all
Process Equipment details may not be readily available include all that is known.
List any new and existing tooling (molds, dies, etc.) that are expected to be used. No need to specify common
Process Tooling tools (wrench) or those that are dedicated to the process equipment.

There are two options to enter the process cost. If a reliable hourly cost is available enter the amount directly.
Process Cost / hr Alternatively you may use the ProDFM CostCalc. To do activate the CostCalc option and then click on the Calculate
Now button.

The estimated total time (internal plus external) to setup the machine for executing this step. Note that if CostCalc
Setup Time (hrs) is used this value will be automatically filled in.

Setup Cost / hr The aggregated plant cost per setup hour.

The time in weeks, required to develop the process (design, validate, and tooling). For an existing process the time
Required Development Time is zero.

Maximum Develop Time Risk An estimate of the maximum delay in completing the process development.

How many weeks into the NPD project is the development of this passembly process likely to start. The end time is
Start Development derived as the sum of the start time plus the development time.

Production Rate / hr The estimated output in units per hour from this assembly process step

An estimate of the average production batch size after the initial production launch phase (6 months). Where the
Average Batch Size line is dedicated then enter the weekly output and enter setup time as zero.

An estimate of the maximum increase in the hourly process cost. Causes of increase could be varainaces in abor
Max Process Cost Risk (%) times, output rates, and batch sizes.

The expected reject rate (1-yield) from the assembly process. For instance if we expect 25 in a batch of 1000 will
Target Quality Reject Rate (%) fail then the reject rate is 2.5%.

The CostCalc lets you specify the detailed labor and equipment requirements for this assembly step, including
CostCalc equipment setup times. After entering thhe data click on Calculate to derive the CostCalc summary. Confirm your
enetered data and then click on U

Enter for upto 4 operators. Hourly Rate - operator labor cost. Productivity - relative to the production rate (80%
Labor Details implies only 80% output). Busy Time - what % of time is dedicated to this step, if he operates 2 machines then
50%, if he works for10 mins i

Enter for upto 3 equipment. Hourly Rate - cost to operate the machine minus labor. Utilization - % of run time that
Equipment Details the machine is busy on this step, if a blender is needed for 5 mins in a 50 min step then 10%. Setup Time - time to
setup a batch run.
Parts Assembled List the parts that are added to the assembly in this step.

How long after setup an acceptable yield is reached. Will depend on the number of configurable factors and their
D1. Steady Yield Interval interrelationship. For example in injection molding we may need to adjust temperatures and pressure for the next
20 cycles to attain stability

Refers to our existing experience with the manufacturing process. Mature implies 5 + years of processing
D2. Process Experience experience, while limited implies 1+ years experience. Where the process knowledge is readily available from an
existing process then it is classified

Refers to process failure modes related to this specific design. A failure mode occurs when the process either
D3. Process Failure Modes stops, slows significantly, or has a drop in quality yield. For example a new geometry bottle label starts to misfeed
causing process halt.

The type of fastener used to complete this step. Where multiple fasteners types are used, select the highest
D4. Fastening Type applicable score. If the fastener is not listed use an approximation from the scale.

When assembly is done on existing equipment then this refers to any changes in the output rate. For example if
D5. Output Rate the new design requires the process rate be reduced by 5% this would imply higher production costs. If a new
press or equipment is be used selec

The available machine capacity is 100 minus the average utilization. The ratio between the required new and
E1. Available capacity available capacity is indicative of scheduling constraints. For example if the available capacity is 15 hrs/week and
the new requirements is 5 hrs/

When the new design cannot be produced on any existing machine then this may require the purchase of a new
E2. New Machine machine. When retrofit of an existing machine will bring in the capability then the retrofit option is selected. For
example we may need to add a he

Refers to the time and effort required by manufacturing to install this manufacturing step in the plant. For an
E3. Process Control Design existing process with no change select minimal. Select moderate when less than 10 man days or training will be
involved. For more than 10 man d

When the design cannot be produced with existing tooling then this may require the purchase of a new tool. Select
F1. New Tooling retrofit when a current tools can be adapted. When a new tool has to be purchased select the appropriate vendor
option.

This refers exclusively to the time and effort associated with tool setup and configuration for the new design. If the
F2. Complexity effort is the same as current equivalent tooling then we consider it as standard. If the effort is estimated as 25%
more then it is cons

Internal setup time consists of activities that must be done when the equipment is stopped. For example the die
G1. Setup Time cutter cannot be removed while the machine is running. The projected setup time is estimated and scaled. If no
reliable estimate is available s

Ideally if the setup for the new design is identical to an existing design this would imply little training. Here we
G2. Commonality evaluate the degree of commonality. For example if 2 of 4 steps are common then the commonality is 50%. Where
the setup is completely new

Refers to both the frequency and how the product is handled between steps. Longer frequencies imply higher WIP
H1. Container inventory, while handling equipment implies overhead. When the part moves automatically to the next step, select
continuous. If a fork lift is n

For parts with orientation an attempt must be made to preserve it during handling. For parts with no specific
H2. Orientation orientation (e.g. circle) select none. When orienting features are difficult to detect, select none. An example of
moderate would be a rectangula

This estimates the setup efficiencies associated with production step. Longer batch runs ensure better economics
J1. Production Volumes and less manual monitoring since the line is in steady state condition.

How the WIP inventory will be stored between steps. Immediate vicinity implies a short distance to the subsequent
J2. Work-in-Process machine. If moved first to a holding area and then moved again select intermediate. If moved to warehouse space
and then retrieved select nee

Refers to our knowledge and experience with the product testing process. Mature implies 5 + years of processing
K1. Test Process Experience experience, while limited implies 1+ years experience. A new process implies less than 1 year experience, while
none implies it is a new testin

Refers to the number of new critical to quality features. For example, in a current assembly operation inspection
K2. Inspections Specs focuses on two attributes, in the new product we may require that two additional attributes be inspected. Then
the selection would be betwee

The process capability index (Cp) is the ratio between the allowable and actual spread of key quality dimensions or
K3. Process Capability attributes (e.g., weight, color, etc.). Estimate the Cp from past process history and select accordingly. For a new
process use similar dat