A seemingly minor design decision-like specifying an unnecessarily tight tolerance or adding an undercut to a molded part-can add thousands in production costs. Implementing DFM best practices addresses these issues systematically, yet many companies still treat Design for Manufacturing (DFM) as an afterthought, missing significant opportunities to reduce costs, improve product quality, and streamline production from the outset.

DFM Best Practices Summary:

• Implement geometric dimensioning and tolerancing (GD&T) to specify critical features while allowing manufacturing flexibility on non-critical dimensions.
• Design parts for specific manufacturing processes by following process-driven rules for wall thickness, draft angles, and feature placement.
• Reduce assembly costs by incorporating self-locating features, minimizing fastener counts, and designing for top-down assembly.
• Use DFM analysis software early in development to identify and resolve manufacturing issues before they reach production.

---

Interactive DFM Best Practices

Click on any practice below to reveal implementation details. Discover how specific design choices, from tolerance strategies to fastener standardization, directly reduce production costs and improve manufacturing efficiency.

---

DFM Best Practices in Detail

1. Apply Process-Specific Design Rules

Each manufacturing process has specific constraints that directly impact part cost and quality. For injection molding, maintaining uniform wall thickness (typically between 2-3mm) prevents sink marks and warping while reducing cycle time. Adding proper draft angles (1-3° minimum) ensures parts release cleanly from molds. For sheet metal, designing bend reliefs prevents material tearing, while maintaining minimum distances between features (typically 2× material thickness) prevents distortion.

These aren’t theoretical guidelines-they’re hard requirements driven by physics and material properties. When designers violate these rules, manufacturers must either reject the design or implement costly workarounds. The most effective approach is creating process-specific design rule documents that engineers can reference during development.

2. Master Tolerancing to Control Costs

Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) provides a more manufacturing-friendly approach than traditional plus/minus tolerancing. By specifying functional requirements rather than arbitrary dimensional constraints, GD&T gives manufacturers flexibility in non-critical areas while ensuring critical features meet requirements. For example, specifying position tolerance with Maximum Material Condition (MMC) modifiers allows greater variation in hole location as hole size decreases, making parts easier to manufacture without compromising assembly.

Tolerance stacking analysis is equally critical. When multiple toleranced dimensions affect an assembly, their combined effect can create interference or excessive gaps. Using statistical tolerance analysis (RSS method) rather than worst-case analysis prevents over-specification and reduces manufacturing costs while maintaining quality.

3. Design for Automated Assembly

Assembly typically accounts for 40-50% of product cost. Designing parts with chamfers, lead-ins, and self-aligning features reduces assembly time and enables automation. A 45° chamfer on mating parts can reduce insertion forces by up to 75% and prevent jamming during automated assembly. Similarly, designing asymmetrical features prevents incorrect orientation during assembly.

Top-down assembly design-where parts are added from above rather than from multiple directions-significantly reduces assembly complexity and cost. This approach eliminates the need to reorient the assembly during production and simplifies fixturing requirements. When combined with self-locating features, top-down assembly can reduce assembly time by up to 60%.

4. Minimize and Standardize Fasteners

Every additional fastener type increases inventory costs, changeover time, and assembly complexity. Standardizing on a limited set of fasteners (ideally 20-30% of what’s currently used) reduces these costs while simplifying procurement. Where possible, eliminate fasteners entirely through snap-fits, press-fits, or other integrated features.

When fasteners are necessary, design for accessibility with adequate clearance for tools (minimum 25mm for power tools). Position fasteners to minimize assembly reorientation, and use self-threading screws in plastic to eliminate the need for separate threaded inserts where appropriate. These practices can reduce assembly time by 30-40% while improving reliability.

5. Leverage DFM Analysis Software

Modern DFM software can identify manufacturing issues early in the design process. Tools like Boothroyd Dewhurst DFMA, Siemens NX Manufacturing, and SolidWorks DFMXpress analyze designs against manufacturing rules and highlight potential problems. These tools can reduce engineering change orders (ECOs) by up to 75% by catching issues before they reach production.

Shoplogix’s manufacturing intelligence platform complements these design tools by providing real-time feedback on production performance. By monitoring cycle times, defect rates, and assembly efficiency, Shoplogix helps validate that DFM improvements actually deliver their intended benefits on the factory floor. This closed-loop approach ensures continuous improvement in both design and manufacturing processes.

6. Implement Design Reuse Strategies

Designing common platforms and reusing proven components across product lines dramatically reduces development time and manufacturing costs. Creating a library of standard features (like mounting bosses, snap-fits, and reinforcement ribs) ensures consistency and leverages proven manufacturing solutions. This approach can reduce design time by up to 50% while improving manufacturing quality through repeated use of validated features.

Feature-based design libraries should include not just the geometry but also manufacturing notes, tolerance specifications, and material requirements. This comprehensive approach ensures that manufacturing knowledge is captured and reused effectively across projects.

Final Thoughts on DFM Best Practices

Structured DFM reviews with cross-functional teams should occur at specific development milestones-not just before production. Early reviews (30% design completion) focus on concept feasibility, while later reviews (70% completion) address detailed manufacturing considerations. These reviews should include design engineers, manufacturing engineers, tooling specialists, and quality personnel.

Using standardized DFM scorecards with quantitative metrics ensures objective evaluation. Metrics should include part count, unique fastener count, assembly steps, and process-specific factors like draft angles or bend radii. Setting minimum score thresholds for design approval creates accountability and ensures manufacturing considerations aren’t overlooked.

What You Should Do Next 

Explore the Shoplogix Blog

Now that you know more about DFM best practices, why not check out our other blog posts? It’s full of useful articles, professional advice, and updates on the latest trends that can help keep your operations up-to-date. Take a look and find out more about what’s happening in your industry. Read More

Request a Demo 

Learn more about how our product, Smart Factory Suite, can drive productivity and overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) across your manufacturing floor. Schedule a meeting with a member of the Shoplogix team to learn more about our solutions and align them with your manufacturing data and technology needs. Request Demo