Өнімділік сапасын жобалау: «X-ке арналған жобалау» тұжырымдамасы

Design for excellence (DfX or DFX) is a term and abbreviation used interchangeably in the existing literature, where the X in design for X is a variable which can have one of many possible values. In many fields (e. g., very large scale integration (VLSI) and nanoelectronics) X may represent several traits or features including: manufacturability, power, variability, cost, yield, or reliability. This gives rise to the terms design for manufacturability (DfM, DFM), design for inspection (DFI), design for variability (DfV), design for cost (DfC). Similarly, other disciplines may associate other traits, attributes, or objectives for X. Under the label design for X, a wide set of specific design guidelines are summarized. Each design guideline addresses a given issue that is caused by, or affects the traits of, a product. The design guidelines usually propose an approach and corresponding methods that may help to generate and apply technical knowledge to control, improve, or even invent particular traits of a product. From a knowledge based view, the design guideline represents an explicit form of knowledge, that contains information about knowing how to (see Procedural knowledge). However, two problems are prevalent. First, this explicit knowledge (i. e., the design guidelines) were transformed from a tacit form of knowledge (i. e., by experienced engineers, or other specialists). Thus, it is not granted that a freshman or someone who is outside the subject area will comprehend this generated explicit knowledge. This is because it still contains embedded fractions of knowledge or respectively include non obvious assumptions, also called context dependency (see e. g. Doz and Santos, 1997:16–18). Second, the traits of a product are likely to exceed the knowledge base of one human. There exists a wide range of specialized fields of engineering, and considering the whole life cycle of a product will require non engineering expertise. For this purpose, examples of design guidelines are listed in the following.

Design to cost and design to standards serves cost reduction in production operations, or respectively supply chain operations. Except for luxury goods or brands (e. g., Swarovski crystals, Haute couture fashion, etc. ), most goods, even exclusive products, rely on cost reduction, if these are mass produced. The same is valid for the functional production strategy of mass customization. Through engineering design physical interfaces between a) parts or components or assemblies of the product and b) the manufacturing equipment and the logistical material flow systems can be changed, and thus cost reducing effects in operating the latter may be achieved.

Design for manufacturability ensures the fabrication of single parts or components that are based on an integral design in mechanical engineering terms. Every production technology has its own specific design guideline that needs to be consulted depending on the situation. Design for assembly addresses the combination of single parts or components to subassemblies, assemblies, modules, systems, etc., that are based on a differential design in mechanical engineering terms. An important issue is how the embodied interfaces within a product are designed (mechanical engineering, electrical engineering). Contrary, software or respectively firmware interfaces (software engineering, electrical engineering) are not significant for assembly operations, because these can be easily flash installed within one production step. That is a cost efficient way to enable a wide range of product variants. Design for logistics covers issues along supply chain partners (i. e., legally independent firms) but is by its means closely related to the design for assembly guidelines. In academic research, design for logistics is tangent to the strategic alliances, supply chain management, and the engineering part of new product development. For example, Sanchez and Mahoney (1996) argued that product modularity (i. e., how physical sub systems of a product are sub divided through interfaces; also called product or system architecture), and organizational modularity (i. e., how organisational entities are structured), depend on each other. Fixson et al. (2005) found that the relationship between product architecture and organisational structure is reciprocal in the contexts of early supplier involvement during system design and the concept phase of the product development process.

User focused design guidelines may be associated with consumer durables, and after sales focused design guidelines may be more important for capital goods. However, in case of capital goods design for ergonomics is needed to ensure clarity, simplicity, and safety between the human machine interface. The intent is to avoid shop accidents as well as to ensure efficient work flows. Also design for aesthetics has become more and more important for capital goods in recent years. In business to business (B2B) markets, capital goods are usually ordered, or respectively business transaction are initiated, at industrial trade fairs. The functional traits of capital goods in technical terms are assumed generally as fulfilled across all exhibiting competitors. Therefore, a purchaser may be subliminally influenced by the aesthetics of a capital good when it comes to a purchasing decision. For consumer durables the aspect of after sales highly depends on the business unit's strategy in terms of service offerings, therefore generally statements are not possible to formulate.