Talk:Design for assembly
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
I think it is important to point out that DFA is also a primary tool to increase product reliability and quality by assembly simplification. Often when a DFA program needs to garner management support, increased quality/reliability are key factors in a successful persuasion.
As written the article concentrates on cost reduction/avoidance, and yes, reliability and quality have cost factors (market share, scrap, rework, warranty costs, recall, etc) that are addressed via DFA. However, most readers will not make the link between reliability and costs intuitively, so I find that specific mention of the reliability benefits are generally helpful especially when trying to sell the concept.
It may also be appropriate to differentiate DFA from Poka-Yoke. DFA involves the actual product's design while Poka-Yoke (typically) involves the design of the assembly process. Poka-Yoke may reduce assembly errors by having the parts pre-arranged so that the correct fit is more intuitive and requires less manipulation, DFA would design the part with a built-in tab so that it physically cannot be inserted incorrectly. Poka-Yoke is a suitable backup plan when DFA cannot provide a truly robust assembly process, but generally speaking DFA is more reliable as a solution.
KLWhitehead 16:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
[edit]- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved to Design for assembly. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Design for Assembly → Design for assembly –
Per WP:CAPS and WP:TITLE: this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOS says that a compound item should not be upper-cased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Matches the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 13:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Support It is an acronym and general concept with no single definition or standard. Note that Design For Test should also be moved to Design for test. — Dgtsyb (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.