Resurrect Manufacturing 2009 DFMA Forum
-
Upload
mike-shipulski -
Category
Business
-
view
1.222 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Resurrect Manufacturing 2009 DFMA Forum
Mike Shipulski, Ph.D.
Director of Engineering
Hypertherm, Inc.
Systematic DFMA Deployment, it just Could Resurrect US Manufacturing
• We have lost our way• Working definitions• The savings• The problems• The learning• Systematic DFMA Deployment
– Comparison with other systematic methodologies• Lean, Six Sigma, DFSS
– Quadrants of DFMA Deployment– Five Milestones of DFMA Deployment Process (M1-M5)
• Big Finish
Outline
• We praised financial enterprises for driving economic growth knowing full well that moving and repackaging financial vehicles did not create sustainable growth
• All the while, manufacturing has taken it on the chin with:– Astronomical job losses– The thinnest capital investments– And, most troubling, a general denigration of Manufacturing as an institution and
profession• We can resurrect Manufacturing with a back-to-basics approach to
create sustainable economic growth.• Manufacturing creates value when it combines raw materials and
labor with thinking, which we call design, to create products that sell for more than the cost to make them, where
Profit per part = Price – Cost [1]
replacing Cost with Materials and Labor, eq. [1] becomes
Profit per part = Price – (Materials + Labor). [2]
We have lost our way
• Total profit is a function of the number of parts sold, so modifying eq. [2] for Volume
Profit = [Price – (Materials + Labor)] x Volume. [3]
• The Market sets price and volume• We are left only to with Materials and Labor to influence Profit.• At the most basic level, we must reduce Materials and Labor to increase Profit.• This is so important it must be written as a formula:
Increased Profits in Manufacturing result from reduced Materials and Labor costs. [4]
• How do we use the simple fundamentals of eq. [4] to resurrect US Manufacturing?
• I propose we must change our designs to design out Material and Labor costs using Systematic DFMA Deployment.
We have lost our way
Working Definitions
Working Definition 1. Design for Manufacturing (DFM)A methodology to change a design to reduce the cost of making parts while retaining product function.
Working Definition 2. Design for Assembly (DFA)A methodology to change a design by eliminating parts to reduce the cost of putting things together while retaining product function.
Both definitions include:1. Change the design2. Retaining product function3. Reduce the cost
• Part-by-part and feature-by-feature reduction of costs
• Hard work is required• Part count reduction of 20 – 50%• Labor time reduction of 20 – 60%• Cost savings of 20 – 50%• Savings achieved in all types of industries
– High volumes, low volumes– High tech, low tech– Big ones, little ones– Savings are possible with all types
• Downstream savings are significant
The Savings
1. Waste of overproduction (of parts)
2. Waste of time on hand - waiting (for parts)
3. Waste in transportation (of parts)
4. Waste of processing itself (parts)
5. Waste of stock on hand – inventory (of parts)
6. Waste of movement (from parts)
7. Waste of making defective products (using parts)
Cartoons from Suzaki, The New Manufacturing Challenge, 1987.Wastes from Ohno, Toyota Production System, Beyond Large-Scale Production, 1978 (Japanese), 1988 (English).
Breadth of Factory Savings is StaggeringIntroduce a low waste design to your lean folks
1. Waste of overproduction (of designs)
2. Waste of time on hand - waiting (for designs)
3. Waste in transportation (of designs)
4. Waste of processing itself (designs)
5. Waste of stock on hand – inventory (of designs)
6. Waste of movement (from designs)
7. Waste of making defective designs
Cartoons from Suzaki, The New Manufacturing Challenge, 1987.Wastes from Ohno, Toyota Production System, Beyond Large-Scale Production, 1978 (Japanese), 1988 (English).
Breadth of Engineering Savings is StaggeringFewer parts to design
Business Metrics - profit per square foot, warranty cost per unit
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Jan-03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan-06 Jan-07 Jan-08
No
rma
lize
d P
orf
it p
er
Sq
ua
re F
oo
t, $
/fo
ot2 , a
nd
Wa
rra
nty
Co
st
pe
r U
nit
, $/u
nit Normalized Profit Per Square Foot
Normalized Warranty Cost Per Unit
Expon. (Normalized Profit Per Square Foot)
Expon. (Normalized Warranty Cost Per Unit)
• The significance of the savings are a problem – most don’t believe
• Companies don’t know how to start• Companies don’t realize full savings
– Narrow implementation (e.g., one sub-assembly)• Low DFMA deployment factor, D
– Poor implementation• Projects run out of Manufacturing or Purchasing
– Poor project selection• DFM at the expense of DFA
– Poor organizational roles and responsibilities• Project resources unallocated
• Companies don’t know how to put all the pieces in place– It’s more than just DFMA tools– Infrastructure, organization, business processes, tools
The Problems
The Learning
• How to create a DFMA Deployment plan including– Business processes, tools, organization, and
infrastructure
• How to select, plan, and staff the projects• How to execute projects
– Analyze the baseline design– Create and track the right hard metrics
• How to manage, pace, guide the projects– Hard metrics– Low overhead report-outs
• How to formalize and share learning
Systematic DFMA Deployment
What is it?How to do it?
Systematic MethodologiesLean, Six Sigma, DFMA Deployment
Lean Six Sigma
Design forSix Sigma
DFMADeployment
Cost Quality
ManufacturingProcess
ProductDesign
Systematic MethodologiesLean, Six Sigma, DFMA Deployment
Lean Six Sigma
Design forSix Sigma
DFMADeployment
Cost Quality
ManufacturingProcess
ProductDesign
e.g., warranty cost reduced,fewer opportunities for defects
RTYno missing fasteners = (Yield for a single fastener) number of fasteners
Number of defects = probability of a defect x number of opportunities
• Clear goals – company profitability• Clear roles and responsibilities
– E.g., Lean Black Belts, Six Sigma Black Belts, DFMA Black Belts• Well established business processes and metrics
– Project selection, chartering, resourcing– Review mechanisms– Communication processes
• Clear accountability• All the supporting pieces, not just the toolbox
– Six Sigma is not Minitab– Lean is not value stream mapping– Systematic DFMA Deployment is not just DFMA toolbox
• All the Quadrants– Organization, infrastructure, business processes, tools
Systematic MethodologiesLean, Six Sigma, DFMA Deployment
Organization
InfrastructureTools
Company-wideSavings from
Systematic DFMADeployment
BusinessProcesses
Quadrants of Systematic DFMA DeploymentDesign Engineering leads the work
Experts within Design Engineering or on a separate team
How many DFMA Black Belts
How many DMFA Master Black Belts
How to define accountability
How to allocate resources
How to involve the supply base
How to start the initiative
How to select projects
How to plan and staff projects
How to execute projects
How to manage and pace projects
How to manage software licenses
How to share (and not share) DFMA analyses
How to share special processes
How to share the learning
How to track savings
How to start the initiative
How to select projects
How to plan and staff projects
How to execute projects
How to manage and pace projects
• M1 Goal Setting• M2 Project Selection and Planning• M3 Resource Allocation• M4 Project Execution
– M4.1 Signature of baseline product and process– M4.2 DFMA tools on baseline design– M4.3 Goals and design approach– M4.4 DFMA tools on new design– M4.5 Validation of product function
• M5 – Design Review
Systematic DFMA DeploymentProcess with 5 Milestones
M 1Goal Setting
M 2Project Selection & Planning
M 3Resource Allocation
M 4Project Execution
M 5Design Review
Example Project Portfolio
$150
$100$70 $60 $50 $40 $30
$300
$200
$650
$750
$820
$880
$930
$970$1,000
$500
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Project 7 Project 8 Project 9
Ind
ivid
ua
l Pro
jec
t S
av
ing
s (
in t
ho
us
an
ds
)
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Po
rtfo
lio S
av
ing
s (
in t
ho
us
an
ds
)
Savings Target
An Example Project Portfolio
Pareto Chart of Part Count by Part Type for your product
668
16169 61 34 24
0100200300400500600700800
Faste
ners
Connec
tors
Inte
rface
/Pro
tectio
n
Main
Par
t
Lable
s
Structu
ral
Nu
mb
er o
f P
arts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
HT2000LHF Primary Component Cost Pareto
1717.74
833.88 817.34 809.84 788.71
663.37
532.45
400.73
333.46 322.50288.12 285.75
197.03 192.22160.27
124.85 102.09 89.63 70.0037.73
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1600.00
1800.00
2000.00
Gas S
yste
m
PC Boa
rds
Main
Xfo
rmer
Chopp
ers (
2)
Sheet
Met
al (m
inus G
C)
Coolan
t Sys
tem
Non-S
/A L
abor
/Ove
rhea
d
PS Wiri
ng
Indu
ctors
(2)
Torch
Pow
er/G
as L
eads
Syste
m C
ables
Torch
Ass
y
Consu
m P
rtkt
PS Fas
tene
rs/E
lec.
HF Sta
rt Sys
tem
Contro
l Xfo
rmer
Fans
Torch
Bra
cket
Conta
ctor
On/Off
Switch
Co
st
($)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
% o
f T
ota
l
M 4.1Signature of
Baseline Product & Process
M 4.2DFMA tools
on Baseline Design
M 4.3Goals: Part Count, Assembly Time
Design Approach
Part Count: 60 (40% reduction) Labor Time: 30 minutes (50% reduction)
Cost : $650 (35% reduction)
Volume: 100,000 per yearEstimated Savings: $350,000 per year
Part Count: 100 parts Labor Time: 60 minutes
Cost: $1,000 Volume: 100,000 per year
Design Approach• Highest cost subassemblies first• Reduce fasteners• Reduce connectors• Stress analysis to reduce material• More injection molding• New materials• New manufacturing process
M 4.4DFMA Tools on
New Design
M 4.5Validation of
Product Function
0.49
1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Generation 2 Follow-on GasModule
Baseline Gas ModuleR
ela
tiv
e C
os
t
COST
Goal – 0.50(50% less than Baseline)
Part Count1353
717
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Generation 2 Baseline 1
Nu
mb
er
of P
arts
Goal – 675 parts(50% reduction)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baseline Design New Design
Estimated Savings$350,000 per year
Part Count By Part Type
Cost by Sub-Assembly
0
20
40
60
80
100
New Design Baseline Design
Product Function
Non-Value Added Labor
Parts, Labor Cost
Project Savings
Project Resources
DFA of existing sub assemblies
DFA of existing products
DFA/DFM in New Product Development20-50% savings
Purchasing
Suppliers
Manufacturing2% savings
5% savings
15% savings
10% savings
Purchasing, Engineering,
Manufacturing, Suppliers
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Almost Everyone
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Opportunistic
SystematicSystematic
Opportunistic
DFM for Target Costing, Cost Negotiation
DFM of existing parts (design change)
Savings and Resources
Jan Mar May July Sept NovDesign
ManufacturingPurchasing
Suppliers
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Pro
fits
CompanyProfitability
Goals
Feature CostDiameter over 2" Requires larger machineLength over 3" Requires a new value streamholes smaller than 0.010" high cycle time, low process yieldsmall radii high tooling cost
Features That Create Cost
Product Function
M1 – Goal Setting
Steering Team (or group that creates accountability)• Company profitability goals drive projects• Define desired savings and timing of savings• Align resource requirements• Give input to project selection – M2• Savings and resources differ among project types
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Pro
fits
Profitability Goals
Savings and Resources are Different for Project Types
DFA of existing sub assemblies
DFA of existing products
DFA/DFM in New Product Development20-50% savings
0.2 – 0.5 savings factor, S
Purchasing
Suppliers
Manufacturing 2% savings
0.02 DFMA savings factor, S
5% savings
0.05 DFMA savings factor, S
15% savings
0.15 DMFA savings factor
10% savings
0.1 DFMA savings factor, S
Purchasing, Engineering,
Manufacturing, Suppliers
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Almost Everyone
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Opportunistic
SystematicSystematic
Opportunistic
Target Costing, Cost Negotiation
DFM of existing parts (design change)
Savings and Resources
Savings = S x (labor + materials) x D
A contrived example of yearly savings for a range of deployment levels and project portfolios for and example company with
Total company Labor + Materials = $100 Million
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
D, deployment factor
Yea
rly
Sav
ing
s, in
Mill
ion
s
DFMA Savings Factor (S) = 0.110% savings
More DFM projects
DFMA Savings Factor (S) = 0.220% savings
DFMA Savings Factor (S) = 0.330% savings
More DFA projects
$15 Million Savings per yearDFMA Savings Factor = 0.3Deployment Factor, D = 0.5
Labor + Materials = $100 Million
Deployment of 100%Broad DFMA Deployment Across The Company
10% deploymentNarrow DFMA Deployment
Savings increase with DFMA savings factor. Three example savings factors are shown: 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3.DFMA savings factor is a function of types of projects in DFMA Deployment project portfolio.Savings increase as DMFA is deployed more broadly across the company (toward the right).
M2 – Project Selection
Engineering Leaders• Create project portfolio• Estimate savings• Estimate resource needs• Give input to resource allocation – M3
Example Project Portfolio
$150
$100$70 $60 $50 $40 $30
$300
$200
$650
$750
$820
$880
$930
$970$1,000
$500
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Project 7 Project 8 Project 9
Ind
ivid
ua
l Pro
jec
t S
av
ing
s (
in t
ho
us
an
ds
)
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Po
rtfo
lio S
av
ing
s (
in t
ho
us
an
ds
)
Savings Target
Savings and Resources Project Portfolio
DFA of existing sub assemblies
DFA of existing products
DFA/DFM in New Product Development0.2 – 0.5 savings factor
20-50% savings
Purchasing
Suppliers
Manufacturing0.02 savings factor
2% savings
0.05 savings factor
5% savings
0.15 DMFA savings factor
15% savings
0.1 DFMA savings factor
10% savings
Purchasing, Engineering,
Manufacturing, Suppliers
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Almost Everyone
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Opportunistic
SystematicSystematic
Opportunistic
DFM for Target Costing, Cost Negotiation
DFM of existing parts (design change)
Savings and Resources
M3 – Resource Allocation
Engineering Leaders• Define resource needs and timing
Steering Team• Secure commitment of resources (people, tools)• Time for training and redesigning the product
Jan Mar May July Sept NovDesign
ManufacturingPurchasing
Suppliers
M4 - Project ExecutionThe biggest phase
• M4.1 - Signature of baseline product • M4.2 - Evaluation of baseline product with DFMA tools• M4.3 - Set formal goals: Part Count, Assembly Time, Cost• M4.4 - Design new product, use DFMA tools new design• M4.5 - Validation of product function
Design Engineers• Formalize product functionality• Create Pareto of part count by part type• Create Pareto of cost by subassembly
Manufacturing Engineers• Define features that create cost
Pareto Chart of Part Count by Part Type for your product
668
16169 61 34 24
0100200300400500600700800
Faste
ners
Connec
tors
Inte
rface
/Pro
tectio
n
Main
Par
t
Lable
s
Structu
ral
Nu
mb
er o
f P
arts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
HT2000LHF Primary Component Cost Pareto
1717.74
833.88 817.34 809.84 788.71
663.37
532.45
400.73
333.46 322.50288.12 285.75
197.03 192.22160.27
124.85 102.09 89.63 70.0037.73
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1600.00
1800.00
2000.00
Gas S
yste
m
PC Boa
rds
Main
Xfo
rmer
Chopp
ers (
2)
Sheet
Met
al (m
inus G
C)
Coolan
t Sys
tem
Non-S
/A L
abor
/Ove
rhea
d
PS Wirin
g
Indu
ctors
(2)
Torch
Pow
er/G
as L
eads
Syste
m C
ables
Torch
Ass
y
Consu
m P
rtkt
PS Fas
tene
rs/E
lec.
HF Sta
rt Sys
tem
Contro
l Xfo
rmer
Fans
Torch
Bra
cket
Conta
ctor
On/Off
Switch
Co
st (
$)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
% o
f T
ota
l
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baseline Design New DesignBaseline Product
Product FunctionPart Count by Part Type
M4.1 - Signature of baseline product and process
Features That Create CostFeature CostDiameter over 2" Requires larger machineLength over 3" Requires a new value streamholes smaller than 0.010" high cycle time, low process yieldsmall radii high tooling costwelding high labor, cycle time, low yield
M4.2 - Evaluation of baseline product with DFMA tools
Design Engineers• Build the baseline design• Score the baseline design with DFMA tools
M4.3 - Formalize goals: Part Count, Assembly Time, Cost
Design Engineering Leaders
• Set formal part count goals
• Set formal labor time goals
• Set formal cost savings goals
• Estimate Savings
• Define Design approach (based on signature of baseline)
• Inform M4.4 design work
Formalized Goals Part Count: 60 (40% reduction) Labor Time: 30 minutes (50% reduction)
Cost : $650 (35% reduction)
Volume: 100,000 per year Estimated Savings: $350,000 per year
Design Approach• Redesign highest cost subassemblies• Reduce fasteners• Reduce connectors• Stress analysis to reduce material• More injection molding• New materials• New manufacturing process
M4.4 – Design Work and DFMA Tools on New Product
Design Engineers• Design the new product• Evaluate new product with DFMA tools• Present metrics
0.49
1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Generation 2 Follow-on GasModule
Baseline Gas Module
Re
lati
ve
Co
st
COST
Goal – 0.50(50% less than Baseline)
Part Count1353
717
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Generation 2 Baseline 1
Nu
mb
er
of
Pa
rts
Goal – 675 parts(50% reduction)
Baseline ProductNew ProductNew Product Baseline Product
Part Count Cost
M4.5 - Validation of product function
Design Engineers• Test new product to verify product functionality• Test new product to verify robustness
0
20
40
60
80
100
New Design Baseline Design
Product Function
Baseline ProductNew Product
M5 – Design Review
Design Engineers• Present product functionality data• Present product robustness data• Present metrics
– Cost, part count, labor time
• Present assembly sequence
Engineering Leaders• Recommend go-forward plan
Steering Team• Decide on go-forward plan
– Launch product, cut into production, do another project, stop
M 1Goal Setting
M 2Project Selection & Planning
M 3Resource Allocation
M 4Project Execution
M 5Design Review
Example Project Portfolio
$150
$100$70 $60 $50 $40 $30
$300
$200
$650
$750
$820
$880
$930
$970$1,000
$500
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5 Project 6 Project 7 Project 8 Project 9
Ind
ivid
ua
l Pro
jec
t S
av
ing
s (
in t
ho
us
an
ds
)
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
Po
rtfo
lio S
av
ing
s (
in t
ho
us
an
ds
)
Savings Target
An Example Project Portfolio
Pareto Chart of Part Count by Part Type for your product
668
16169 61 34 24
0100200300400500600700800
Faste
ners
Connec
tors
Inte
rface
/Pro
tectio
n
Main
Par
t
Lable
s
Structu
ral
Nu
mb
er o
f P
arts
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
HT2000LHF Primary Component Cost Pareto
1717.74
833.88 817.34 809.84 788.71
663.37
532.45
400.73
333.46 322.50288.12 285.75
197.03 192.22160.27
124.85 102.09 89.63 70.0037.73
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1600.00
1800.00
2000.00
Gas S
yste
m
PC Boa
rds
Main
Xfo
rmer
Chopp
ers (
2)
Sheet
Met
al (m
inus G
C)
Coolan
t Sys
tem
Non-S
/A L
abor
/Ove
rhea
d
PS Wiri
ng
Indu
ctors
(2)
Torch
Pow
er/G
as L
eads
Syste
m C
ables
Torch
Ass
y
Consu
m P
rtkt
PS Fas
tene
rs/E
lec.
HF Sta
rt Sys
tem
Contro
l Xfo
rmer
Fans
Torch
Bra
cket
Conta
ctor
On/Off
Switch
Co
st
($)
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
% o
f T
ota
l
M 4.1Signature of
Baseline Product & Process
M 4.2DFMA tools
on Baseline Design
M 4.3Goals: Part Count, Assembly Time
Design Approach
Part Count: 60 (40% reduction) Labor Time: 30 minutes (50% reduction)
Cost : $650 (35% reduction)
Volume: 100,000 per yearEstimated Savings: $350,000 per year
Part Count: 100 parts Labor Time: 60 minutes
Cost: $1,000 Volume: 100,000 per year
Design Approach• Highest cost subassemblies first• Reduce fasteners• Reduce connectors• Stress analysis to reduce material• More injection molding• New materials• New manufacturing process
M 4.4DFMA Tools on
New Design
M 4.5Validation of
Product Function
0.49
1.00
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
Generation 2 Follow-on GasModule
Baseline Gas ModuleR
ela
tiv
e C
os
t
COST
Goal – 0.50(50% less than Baseline)
Part Count1353
717
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Generation 2 Baseline 1
Nu
mb
er
of P
arts
Goal – 675 parts(50% reduction)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Baseline Design New Design
Estimated Savings$350,000 per year
Part Count By Part Type
Cost by Sub-Assembly
0
20
40
60
80
100
New Design Baseline Design
Product Function
Non-Value Added Labor
Parts, Labor Cost
Project Savings
Project Resources
DFA of existing sub assemblies
DFA of existing products
DFA/DFM in New Product Development20-50% savings
Purchasing
Suppliers
Manufacturing2% savings
5% savings
15% savings
10% savings
Purchasing, Engineering,
Manufacturing, Suppliers
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Almost Everyone
Purchasing, Engineering.
Assembly, Suppliers
Opportunistic
SystematicSystematic
Opportunistic
DFM for Target Costing, Cost Negotiation
DFM of existing parts (design change)
Savings and Resources
Jan Mar May July Sept NovDesign
ManufacturingPurchasing
Suppliers
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Year
Pro
fits
CompanyProfitability
Goals
Feature CostDiameter over 2" Requires larger machineLength over 3" Requires a new value streamholes smaller than 0.010" high cycle time, low process yieldsmall radii high tooling cost
Features That Create Cost
Product Function
• Clear goals – company profitability• Clear roles and responsibilities
– E.g., Lean Black Belts, Six Sigma Black Belts, DFMA Black Belts
• Well established business processes and metrics– Project selection, chartering, resourcing– Review mechanisms
• Clear accountability• All the supporting pieces, not just the toolbox
– Six Sigma is not Minitab– Lean is not value stream mapping– Systematic DFMA Deployment is not just DFMA toolbox
• All the Quadrants– Organization, infrastructure, business processes, tools
Big FinishSystematic MethodologiesLean, Six Sigma, DFMA Deployment
• Our children must learn how to do manufacturing if we are to have a secure economy
• Systematic DFMA Deployment is a credible approach to resurrecting a profitable US industrial base.
• I hope you take something from this work that helps you improve your part of the US industrial base.
The Future