See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/274279787

Design for eXcellence in high tech companies

Conference Paper · December 2008

CITATIONS READS
0 751

5 authors, including:

Janne Harkonen Jarkko Hyysalo

University of Oulu University of Oulu
103 PUBLICATIONS   358 CITATIONS    27 PUBLICATIONS   85 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

INKA - Digital Biobanks View project

AMALTHEA View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jarkko Hyysalo on 20 May 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Design for eXcellence in high tech companies

Matti MOTTONEN1*, Tuukka MUSTONEN1, Janne HARKONEN1,

Pekka BELT1 and Jarkko HYYSALO2
1
University of Oulu, Department of Industrial Engineering & Management,
P.O Box, FI-90014 Oulu, E-mail*: [email protected]
2
University of Oulu, Department of Information Processing Science,
P.O Box, FI-90014 Oulu

Abstract

High tech companies have realised that acknowledging the needs of internal customers is a
necessity for successful new product development (NPD). It has been clear for product
development already for some time that manufacturability must be taken into account already
during the NPD process. Requirements for products typically change during product
development, and requirements management has become an ever greater challenge for high
tech companies. This challenge is accumulated by the fact that requirements are interpreted
differently in different parts of organisations. Design for excellence (DfX) is a potential way
for addressing internal customers and for harmonising practices. DfX cannot only be seen as
a way to collect internal best practices, but also as a means to disseminate information and
realise the implementation of these practices. This paper clarifies the historical background of
DfX to understand its origins. In addition, this study describes the structure of DfX by
analysing its interrelation with designer’s actual work, methods & tools, and organisational
aspects.

Keywords: Design for eXcellence, Product development, Requirements

management, DfX

1 Introduction

The information and communications technology (ICT) sector is facing continuous change in
its new product development (NPD) as products are getting increasingly complicated, and
customer segments more fragmented. These changes, together with pressures for shortening
development times, and severe price erosion, require multidisciplinary approaches.
Successful product development necessitates the integration of engineers, industrial designers
and marketing personnel. (Belt et al., 2008; Belt et al., 2009).
The early stages of product development are described by many authors (Bralla, 1996;
Gatenby and Foo, 1990; Yang et al. 2007). The ability to influence the success of a product

1
development programme is the greatest at the start of the project. The choices made in early
NPD, reduces both unnecessary changes towards the end, and total life-cycle costs even after
the end of the programme. Design for eXcellence (DfX) is an organised way to systematically
address the early involvement. Design for Excellence and Design for Six Sigma have been
two of the most popular concepts in quality management in recent years (Jiang et al., 2007).
Addressing the needs of internal customers has been identified as a key element for
successful product development (e.g. Cooper et al., 2004; Gupta et al., 2007).
Manufacturability has been the first internal customer aspect that has been addressed by DfX.
Requirements for products typically change during product development, and requirements
management has become an ever greater challenge for high tech companies. This challenge is
accumulated by the fact that requirements are interpreted differently in different parts of
organisations. DfX is a potential way for addressing internal customers and for harmonising
practices. DfX cannot only be seen as a way to collect internal best practices, but also as a
means to disseminate information and realise the implementation of these practices.
This paper clarifies the historical background of DfX to understand its origins. In
addition, this study describes DfX and its role in organisational context. This study is
theoretical in nature and addresses the research questions through academic literature. The
above mentioned can be condensed into the following research questions:

RQ 1 What is the development path of DfX?

RQ 2 What are the differences between traditional NPD and modern NPD utilising DfX with
respect to design work, methods & tools, and organisational aspects?

2 DfX History

There can be seen two main reasons for evolution of product development processes: (1)
market changes, and (2) in-house challenges. Market changes include, tightening competition,
changes in customer opinions and spending behaviour, and such. These market changes result
in demands to reduce costs and shorten time-to-market targets for NPD (Gatenby and Foo
1990; Pahl et al., 2007; Priest, 1988). In-house challenges relate to company functions and
processes, specifically to product development and manufacturing.
Designers have traditionally focused on three product aspects: performance, features, and
appearance. In other words, designers focus on the product itself and the value it can provide
to the end-user. (Bralla, 1996). Typically, designers do not consider the product realisation
through the entire life-cycle, including manufacturing, disposal, and such. In addition,
internal customers, such as packaging, maintenance, and distribution, have not been
acknowledged sufficiently. Only after the design is complete, these issues are addressed, and
are left for related departments to solve (e.g. Huang et al., 2001). This has resulted in
cumbersome processes that are time-consuming, inflexible, and prone to errors. In addition,
same mistakes are repeated due to information flowing only downstream, with no feedback to
designers. (Huang et al., 2001).

2
 The first attempts to address the needs of internal customers include manufacturing
considerations. The literature refers to designing manufacturability, already as early as in the
1940s through 1960s (e.g. Huang, 1996; Ziemke and Spann, 1993). Examples of the first
approaches to address manufacturability include value analysis, value engineering, and
produceability engineering. Value analysis was invented in the late 1940s by General
Electric, to become a systematic review of production costs for components/products, and
evaluation method for cheaper alternative designs/approaches. Value engineering compares
product functions to costs and aims to reduce them were possible. Produceability engineering
assures that the developed product is produceable with available tools & machines, in a cost
effective way. These methods share the same philosophical impetus as modern Design for X
(DfX) (Bralla, 1996; Huang et al., 2001).
Boothroyd & Dewhurst (1983) can be interpreted to be the first ones to utilise the term
design for excellence with their concept of design for assembly (DfA). DfA methodology
aims to simplify design by both, minimising the number of parts, and easing their insertion.
(Huang et al., 2001). This concept was later broadened into Design for Manufacturing (DfM)
to include a broader set of manufacturing aspects (Stoll, 1988). Bralla (1996) defines DfM as:
“DfM is primarily a knowledge-based technique that invokes a series of guidelines,
principles, recommendations or rules of thumb for designing a product so that it is easy to
make”. Methods, or tools, supporting DfM/DfA include: Assembly-Oriented Product Design
(Warnecke and Bassler, 1988), Hitachi’s Assembly Evaluation Method (AEM), and General
Electric’s Level 5 system (Bralla, 1996).
DfX methodology has expanded and is applied in new areas. Since 1990s environmental
issues have gathered attention in companies due to growing environmental concerns, new
regulations, and competitive advantage of selling ‘green’ products (Tichem, 1997).
Consequently, disassembly and recycling have become important product features for product
development to take into account. In addition, design for testability, design for usability,
design for safety, design for serviceability, and design for packaging, are since introduced, to
effectively consider versatile aspects during product development. DfX concept having
expanded to new areas, it now covers the entire product life-cycle. (Bralla, 1996; Gatenby
and Foo, 1990, Huang et al., 2001; Tichem, 1997; Cowan et al., 2000; Sheu and Chen, 2007).
Once starting to apply DfX/DfM, companies realised how following these principles
leads into enormous impacts in company procedures, and even in organisation (Sheu and
Chen, 2007). As a consequence, different type support systems and tools need to be utilised
(Bralla, 1996; Huang and Mak, 2003; Boothroyd and Dewhurst, 2008; Eversheim and
Baumann, 1991; Poli and Knight, 1984; Scarr, 1986).

3 What is DfX?

DfX aims to include the early consideration of desired issues in product development,
covering both design goals and constraints (Huang et al., 2001). Design goals are targets to be
met, such as, low cost, quality, efficiency and productivity. Constraints, on the other hand, are
issues such as, capability of manufacturing equipment, materials and market aspects.

3
 In practice, DFX is often formalised as guidelines that tell how designer should do the
design (Bralla, 1996). The process is often team-based and requires representation from all of
the parties (e.g. manufacturing, suppliers, customers, and even government) involved in
product’s life-cycle during the design process.
The Xs can be divided into two parts: (1) life-cycle phases (e.g. manufacturing,
environment, testing, and such) and (2) properties to be optimised (e.g. cost, quality, speed)
(Tichem, 1997; Tichem and Storm 1997; Huang and Mak, 1997). In addition, (Sheu and
Chen, 2007) splits Xs two-dimensionally into (1) process-oriented attributes (design for sales,
design for manufacture, design for environment) and (2) function-oriented attributes (design
for cost, design for quality, design for thermal).

3.1 DFX - Benefits and Drawbacks

The literature lists the main benefits of applying DfX as: reduced life-cycle costs, improved
quality, reduced lead-time, time-to-market, and enhanced customer satisfaction. The above
mentioned benefits are based on: more predictable products, quicker and smoother transition
to manufacturing, early prevention of defects, and product development flexibility, and such.
(Bralla, 1996; Gatenby and Foo, 1990; Huang et al., 2001; Tichem, 1997; Huang and Mak,
1997; Xie et al., 2004; Harjula et al., 1996).
Positive effects tend to accumulate through the product life-cycle. For
example, a removal of a single component from a product provides benefits throughout all the
later phases, resulting in reduced costs, faster manufacturing, simpler logistics, reduced
pollution, and smoother product data management, and so on (Bralla, 1996; Huang, 1996b).
Benefits can be divided into three categories: (1) competitiveness, (2) operational
efficiency, and (3) cost drivers. Competitiveness covers issues such as reduced costs, time-to-
market, improved flexibility, and customer satisfaction. Operational efficiency covers issues
such as improved communication, supplier involvement, project management and other
actual work within an organisation. Operational efficiency can be extracted into cost drivers,
which represent number of parts, reviews, and supplier visits, and such. (Huang, 1996b).
(Tichem, 1997) suggests a more technical view and presents relation between product’s
life-cycle aspects, process parameters, and product parameters. Competitiveness is affected
by life-cycle aspects, such as, assembly costs, ease of use. Competitiveness and life-cycle
aspects are the basis for considering process parameters, such as joining operations,
equipment, and fixtures. Product parameters are determined by engineering design, such as
number of parts, materials, join types, and assembly.
Figure 1 summarises the benefits mentioned above.

4
Fig. 1. Summary of benefits obtained by applying DfX methodologies.

The literature also presents some critics for DfX. Applying DFX in large organisations
poses difficulties due to complex organisational structures, and overwhelming number of
issues to be considered (Herrmann et al., 2004). There are also challenges with teamwork,
costs of organisational support, tools required, and so on.

4 DfX structure
When analysing DfX it can be roughly divided into the following three domains: (1) designer,
(2) methods & tools, and (3) organisation (see Figure 2). Designer typically is a skilled R&D
engineer, who applies DfX principles in practice. Methods can be seen as procedures and
guidelines that the designer follows. Typical tools include spreadsheets, software, design
structure matrices, morphological charts, and such. Organisational aspects cover issues, such
as teamwork, collaboration, communication, processes, company policies. (Eversheim and
Baumann 1991; Poli and Knight, 1984; Huang and Mak, 1997; Lang et al., 2002; Meerhamm,
1994).

5
Fig. 2. Illustration of the three identified DfX viewpoints

4.1 Designer

At the grass-root level, design engineer implements DfX, does design decisions, and produces
engineering drawings for products by utilising different tools (see Figure 3).

Fig. 3. Simplified illustration of designer’s work

Designing is essentially a decision-making process on product features and functions (Cowan

et al., 2000). Designer utilises various approaches and tools, however, the key is engineer’s
ability to produce documents on products and processes. (Lang et al., 2002) summarises
designer’s main activities as:
1. identification, analysis and clarification of problems and needs
2. information gathering
3. idea creation
4. generation of solutions
5. analysing solutions
6. solution optimisation

6
Iterations are required, and the designer must go through the steps listed above until a
satisfying solution is reached. Multitude of issues require consideration, resulting in an
overwhelming amount of alternatives. Often DfX requirements conflict and designer has to
decide which requirement to favour. However, sometimes a solution can benefit several
DfXs, for example a reduced number of parts results in both easier assembly, and higher
environmental friendliness (Harjula et al., 1996). In order to find an optimal value within a
solution space objective measurement, suitable tools and sound judgement are required. The
aim should be to make decisions early as possible, however, only when necessary
understanding has been gained. (Bralla, 1996; Morgan and Liker, 2006).
Table 1 presents the differences between traditional engineering design, and modern
design with DfX.

Table 1. Differences between traditional engineering design and modern design with DfX.

Traditional Modern with DfX

Consider functional requirements Consider life-cycle requirements
Address other aspects after design freeze As early as possible
Overwhelming number of alternatives Overwhelming number of alternatives
Iterations One-time-right
Heavy usage of tools Heavy usage of systems
CAD tools Knowledge-based systems
Responsibility over design Responsibility over whole life-cycle

4.2 Methods & Tools

The work to fulfil DfX objectives can be supported by various tools, which can automate and
guide the actual efforts (see Figure 4). Because DfX bases on tool-heavy engineering design,
and as a consequence DfX tools have gained a lot of attention (Tichem, 1997; Watson and
Radcliffe, 1998). Lately, the shift has been towards computerisation of tools, and knowledge-
based systems, allowing storing and reusing design knowledge (Nomaguchi and Fujita,
2007). In addition, these tools ease the cross-functional integration needed in modern product
development process.

7
Fig. 4. Illustration on how tools aid DfX realisation.

Tichem (1997) categorises DfX tools as: (1) design guidelines, (2) stand-alone design
evaluation tools, (3) CAD (computer aided design) integrated evaluation tools, and (4)
CAD/CAPP (computer aided process planning) based evaluation tools. Design guidelines are
lists of qualitative DOs and DON’Ts. Stand-alone design evaluation tools offer systematic
approach to evaluating design and redesign. CAD integrated evaluation tools use the power of
computerised modelling for analysing design and creating feedback to designer thus helping
evaluation (Eversheim and Baumann, 1991). CAD/CAPP based evaluation tools
automatically create process plans in addition to CAD output. (Tichem, 1997).
Table 2 presents different categories of DfX tools together with their features, benefits
and drawbacks.

Table 2. Categories of DfX tools

Features Benefits and drawbacks

Design ¾ Relies on designer and ¾ Easy to understand
guidelines his insight ¾ Overly simplistic
¾ Difficult to know which guidelines to
follow
¾ No quantified effects on decisions
¾ Stimulates creativity (Huang, Kuo et al.
2001)
Stand-alone ¾ Both qualitative & ¾ Quantitative evaluations give
design quantitative evaluations quantifiable results
evaluation ¾ Some tools are
tools computer-based
CAD ¾ Applied in the detailed ¾ Automates processing
integrated stages of design ¾ Enables interpretation via modelling
evaluation ¾ Best applied for DfM & design and extracting data from it
tools DfA (requires detailed ¾ Reduces need for user input

8
 design) ¾ Prevents user input errors
¾ Automatic fixes and analysis results
(Herrmann, Cooper et al. 2004)
CAD/CAPP ¾ CAPP developed for ¾ Process plan created automatically
based certain aspects of parts ¾ CAPP works as an expert
evaluation manufacturing & ¾ More accurate life-cycle evaluation can
tools assembly be achieved
¾ Integration of product & process
reduces lead-time and avoids all the
DfX problems

4.3 Organisation

Addressing DfX in practice requires acknowledging the entire organisation, not only an
individual designer (Herrmann et al., 2004). DfX implementation requires new procedures
and processes as well as organisational changes. In order to support DfX, different measures
are used to ease integration of people, processes and tools (see Figure 5).

Fig. 5. Illustration on how organisational support affects DfX realisation.

A successful implementation of DfX requires organisational reformulations, clear sharing of

responsibilities, and training, but also cultural changes (Herrmann et al., 2004). New practices
supporting DfX should be integrated into existing business environment (Huang et al., 2001).
Table 3 presents differences between traditional NPD and modern NPD with DfX.

9
Table 3. Table 3. Differences between traditional NPD and modern NPD with DfX.

Traditional Modern with DfX

Technical focus Organisational support
Business process re-engineering Continuous improvement
End-user as customer Downstream as customers
Communication between departments Collaboration between team members
Departmental knowledge Knowledge sharing
From upstream to downstream Both directions
Reviews in gates Less need for reviews
Technical aspects Organisational support
Bureaucracy Empowerment
Departments Cross-functional teams
Project Process
Direct communication Shared communication through systems
Processes on basis of product design Integrated design
Feedback after identifying problems Proactive information sharing

In the literature, various issues have been linked to DfX. These issues include cross-
functional teams, empowerment, design reviews, standardisation, knowledge sharing,
continuous improvement, and such. (Bralla, 1996; Gatenby and Foo, 1990; Tichem, 1997,
Cowan et al., 2000; Sheu and Chen, 2007; Huang, 1996b; Herrmann et al., 2004; Lang et al.,
2002; Wilkinson, 1998; Cooney, 2004; Aurich et al., 2006).
Due to the nature of DfX, single design engineer cannot sufficiently handle, and know
everything that is required during a design process (Bralla, 1996). In order to tackle this
problem, cross-functional teams, comprising participants from different life-cycle phases and
functions, are established (Huang, 1996a).
In DfX context, empowerment is important due to cross-functional teams combining
different employees from different parts of an organisation. Having clear roles and
management are essentially important to secure employee collaboration to organisational
goals (Cooney, 2004).
Standardisation reduces costs in development, training, mistakes, ramp-ups, quality
assurance, tooling, etc. (Bralla, 1996) encourages standardising everything, including
technical and organisational issues (e.g. engineering drawings, parts, materials, processes).
The role of design reviews at certain product development gates diminishes as these
issues are continuously addressed through DfX. DfX also benefits from knowledge sharing
and continuous improvement.

5 Conclusions

In traditional NPD, design work was in focus and the following phases, such as
manufacturing and service, had to adapt to designers’ work. Time-to-market, and cost

10
pressures have forced companies to streamline their processes, and to better address internal
customers. DfX has proved to be a successful way to address these challenges. The direction
is also towards considering the entire life-cycle of products instead of a single phase. DfX is
also a way to handle cross-functional integration, and multi-site, multi-cultural aspects.
The first attempts to address the needs of internal customers include manufacturing
considerations. However, the early solutions were typically based on iterations and internal
customers were addressed only after design freeze. The first DfX type approaches originated
from the 1980s, when design for assembly (DfA) and design for manufacturing (DfM) were
introduced. Since then DfX has expanded into new application areas, and in 1990s
environmental issues gathered attention. Currently DfX concept aims to cover the entire
product life-cycle.
DfX requires simultaneous addressing of numerous issues, resulting in prioritisation
challenges in decision making. Decisions ought to be made early during the NPD process.
DfX tools can be divided into four main categories: design guidelines, stand-alone design
evaluation tools, CAD integrated evaluation tools, and CAD/CAPP based evaluation tools.
However, it is a great challenge to unambiguously describe requirements for different Xs.
A successful implementation of DfX requires organisational reformulations, clear sharing
of responsibilities, and training, but also cultural changes. These issues include cross-
functional teams, empowerment, design reviews, standardisation, knowledge sharing,
continuous improvement, and such.
Even though DfX has proved to be a successful way to address NPD challenges, it
requires investments, for example dedicated owners. However, should the introduction be
conducted poorly, DfX will only increase bureaucracy. The purpose of this study was to
conduct a literature survey and further research with empirical data is required to adequately
cover the managerial implications of DfX.

References

Aurich, J.C., Fuchs, C. and Wagenknecht, C. (2006) 'Life cycle oriented design of technical Product-
Service Systems', Journal of Cleaner Production Vol. 14, No. 17, pp. 1480-1494.
Belt, P., Harkonen, J., Mottonen, M., Kess, P. and Haapasalo, H. (2008) ‘Improving the efficiency of
verification and validation’, International Journal of Services and Standards, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 150
- 166.
Belt, P., Haapasalo, H., Harkonen, J. Mottonen, M. and Kess, P. (2009) 'Improving product
development in different type of ICT companies', International Journal of Innovation and Learning,
Forthcoming.
Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst, P. (2008) 'DFMA cost reduction tools - last update', [Available online:
http://www.dfma.com 9/30, 2008].
Boothroyd, G. (1983) 'Design for Assembly', Boothroyd Dewhurst. Inc., Wakefield, RI.
Bralla, J.G. (1996) 'Design for Excellence', 1st edition, McGraw-Hill.

11
Cooney, R. (2004) 'Empowered self-management and the design of work teams', Personnel Review,
Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 677-692.
Cooper, R.G., Edgett, S.J. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2004) 'Benchmarking best NPD practices - III',
Research Technology Management, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 43-55.
Cowan, F.S., Marston, M. and Mistree, F. (2000) 'Design for Excellence: A Microworld, Game-
Theoretic Approach', Engineering Design Conference 2000: Design for Excellence', Wiley pp. 3-
24.
Eversheim, W. and Baumann, M. (1991) 'Assembly-oriented design process', Computers in Industry,
Vol. 17, No. 2-3, pp. 287-300.
Gatenby, D.A and Foo, G. (1990) 'Design for X (DFX): Key to competitive, profitable products', AT&T
Technical Journal, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 2–13.
Gupta, A., Pawara, K.S. and Smart, P. (2007) 'New product development in the pharmaceutical and
telecommunication industries: A comparative study', International Journal of Production
Economics, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 41-60.
Harjula, T., Rapoza, B., Knight, W.A. and Boothroyd, G. (1996) 'Design for Disassembly and the
Environment', CIRP Annals - Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 109-114.
Herrmann, J.W., Cooper, J., Gupta, S.K., Hayes, C.C., IshiI, K., Kazmer, D., Sandborn, P.A. and Wood,
W.H. (2004) 'New directions in design for manufacturing', Proceedings of the ASME Design
Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference,
ASME.
Huang, G.Q. (1996a) 'Implementing Design for X Tools. In: G.Q. Huang, ed, Design for X: Concurrent
Engineering Imperatives', 1st edition, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 130-152.
Huang, G.Q. (1996b) 'Introduction. In: G.Q. Huang, ed, Design for X: Concurrent Engineering
Imperatives, 1st edition, Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 1-17.
Huang, G.Q. and Mak, K.L. (2003) 'Internet Applications in Product Design and Manufacturing',
Springer.
Huang, G.Q. and Mak, K.L. (1997) 'The DFX shell: a generic framework for developing design for X
tools', Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 271-280.
Huang, S.H., Kuo, T.C. and Zhang, H.C. (2001) 'Design for manufacture and design for ‘X’: concepts,
applications, and perspectives', Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 241-260.
Jiang, J., Shiu, M. and Tu, M. (2007) 'DFX and DFSS: How QFD Integrates Them', Quality Progress,
Vol. 40, No. 10, pp. 45.
Lang, S.Y.T., Dickinson, J. and Buchal, R.O. (2002) 'Cognitive factors in distributed design', Computers
in Industry, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 89-98.
Meerhamm, H. (1994) 'Design for X - A Core Area of Design Methodology', Journal of Engineering
Design, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 145-163.
Morgan, J.M. and Liker, J.K. (2006) 'The Toyota Product Development System: Integrating People,
Process, and Technology', Productivity Press.
Nomaguchi, Y. and Fujita, K. (2007) 'Ontology Building for Design Knowledge Management Systems
Based on Patterns Embedded in Design-for-X Methodologies', Proceedings. of 16th International
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED ‘07).

12
 Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., Grote, K.H., Wallace, K. and Blessing, L. (2007) 'Engineering Design
- A Systematic Approach', 3rd edition, Springer-Verlag, London.
PoliI, C. and Knight, W.A. (1984) 'Design for forging handbook', Technical Report, Mechanical
Engineering Department, University of Massachusetts.
Priest, J.W. (1988) 'Engineering Design for Producibility and Reliability', New York: Marcel Dekker
Ltd.
Scarr, A.J. (1986) 'Product design for automated manufacture and assembly', Annals of the CIRP, Vol.
35, No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Sheu, D.D. and Chen, D.R. (2007) 'Backward design and cross-functional design management',
Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
Tichem, M. (1997) 'A Design Coordination Approach to Design for X', Delft University of Technology.
Tichem, M. and Storm, T. (1997) 'Designer support for product structuring—development of a DFX
tool within the design coordination framework', Computers in Industry, Vol. 33, No. 2-3, pp. 155-
163.
Warnecke, H.J. and Bassler, R. (1988) 'Design for assembly-part of the design process', Annals of the
CIRP, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 1-5.
Watson, B. and Radcliffe, D. (1998) 'Structuring Design for X Tool Use for Improved Utilization',
Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 211-223.
Wilkinson, A. (1998) 'Empowerment: theory and practice', Personnel Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 40-56.
Xie, S.Q., Tu, P.L. and Zhou, Z.D. (2004) 'Internet-based DFX for rapid and economical tool/mould
making', The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 24, No. 11, pp.
821-829.
Yang, C.C., Chen, S.H. and Shiau, J.Y. (2007) 'A DFX and concurrent engineering model for the
establishment of a new department in a university', International Journal of Production Economics,
Vol. 107, No. 1, pp. 179-189.

13

View publication stats