Manufacturing Cost Modeling for Product Design

  • Angela Locascio


The process of product design is driven toward achieving design specifications while meeting cost targets. Designers typically have models and tools to aid in functional and performance analysis of the design but few tools and little quantitative information to aid in cost analysis. Estimates of the cost of manufacture often are made through a cost multiplier based on material cost. Manufacturing supplies guidelines to aid in design, but these guidelines often lack the detail needed to make sound design decisions.

A need was identified for a quantitative way for modeling manufacturing costs at Motorola. After benchmarking cost modeling efforts around the company, an activity-based costing method was developed to model manufacturing cycle time and cost. Models for 12 key manufacturing steps were developed. The factory operating costs are broken down by time, and cost is allocated to each product according to the processing it requires. The process models were combined into a system-level model, capturing subtle yet realistic operational detail.

The framework was implemented in a software program to aid designers in calculating manufacturing costs from limited design information. Since the information tool provides an estimate of manufacturing costs at the design prototype stage, the development engineer can identify and eliminate expensive components and reduce the need for costly manufacturing processing. Using this methodology to make quantitative trade-offs between material and manufacturing costs, significant savings in overall product costs are achieved.


Product Design Manufacturing Engineer Print Wiring Board Wiring Board Factory Setup 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Boothroyd, G. and Dewhurst, P., “Design for Assembly: Manual Assembly,” Machine Design, pp. 140–145 (December 1983).Google Scholar
  2. Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P., and Knight, W. A., “Selection of Materials and Processes for Component Parts,” Proceedings of the 1992 NSF Design and Manufacturing Systems Conference, pp. 255–263 (1991).Google Scholar
  3. Otto, K. N. and Antonsson, E. K., “Trade-off Strategies in Engineering Design,” Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 3, pp. 87–103(1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Park, C. S. and Prueitt, G. C., “Evaluating a New Technology Alternative: Case Study,” The Engineering Economist, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 31–54 (Fall 1990).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Santina, P., “DFM Meets ABC,” Circuits Assembly (September 1996).Google Scholar
  6. Sullivan, W. G., “A New Paradigm for Engineering Economy,” The Engineering Economist, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 187–200 (Spring 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Thurston, D. L. and Locascio, A., “Decision Theory for Design Economics,” The Engineering Economist, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 41–72 (Fall 1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Wilhelm, M. R. and Parsaei, H. R., “‘Irreducible” Analysis by Use of Fuzzy Linguistic Variables,” First Industrial Engineering Research Conference Proceedings, Chicago, pp. 37–39 (May 20-21, 1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Locascio
    • 1
  1. 1.Supply Chain Operations GroupMotorola

Personalised recommendations