Methodology

Decide whether the DFA is focusing on manual or automatic assembly, different aspect templates can be used in AVIX
Import MBOM (if only a EBOM is available a MBOM can be built in AVIX)

1. The parts in AVIX can carry/contain pictures to be used in the DFA
2. 3D models can be used in parallel with AVIX, e.g. Adobe Acrobat Reader
Decide the base object (set as N/A these will not be evaluated). E.g. a plastic casing containing other parts. This will typically be a sub-assembly containing other parts. The plastic casing is the base object.
Follow the MBOM
1. If a work instruction/decided work sequence is available, follow it
  1. If not, follow the MBOM starting with the sub-assemblies
2. Make the DFA evaluation according to the DFA aspects in AVIX
  1. Red and yellow (low score). Make a note in AVIX, assign responsible (do not fix the problem during the initial session)
3. Try making red parts yellow and yellow parts green by design changes
4. Make a copy/paste of the MBOM, then make changes/improvements and a new MBOM (this assures that we have a present/future state to compare in terms of DFA-score
Make a new DFA analysis on the copy/pasted MBOM
1. Compare if it became better/worse
2. Remember to compare not only total DFA-score, but also time. If a part is eliminated the total DFA score can go down making the result looking worse. But comparing the theoretical standard times will show a total assembly time reduction.
3. Remember also to compare the relationship: Total DFA-score/Theoretical total score = Agg % DFX score when comparing present vs. future state of the design.

There is a clear relationship between e.g. number of customer complaints (part errors) vs. the DFA score.
- - Why? E.g. less parts = less quality issues
This implicates that there is a larger gain increasing the DFA score from e.g. 50-55% rather than from 80-90%
This should be considered when choosing between different design improvements, maybe the 80-90% is not worth the investment…