DETC04/DFM

PLASTICS PRODUCT AND PROCESS DESIGN STRATEGIES

Ruchi Karania & David Kazmer
Department of Plastics Engineering
University of Massachusetts Lowell

ABSTRACT
Plastic components are vital components of many
engineered products, frequently representing 20-40% of the
product value. While injection molding is the most common
process for economically producing complex designs in large
quantities, a large initial monetary investment is required to
develop appropriate tooling. Accordingly, injection molding
may not be appropriate for applications that are not guaranteed
to recoup the initial costs. In this paper, component cost and
lead-time models are developed from industry data for an
electrical enclosure consisting of two parts produced by a
variety of low to medium volume manufacturing processes
including fused deposition modeling, direct fabrication, and
injection molding with used tooling, soft prototype tooling, and
hard tooling. The viability of each process is compared with
respect to the manufacturing cost and lead time for specific
production quantities of one hundred, one thousand, and ten
thousand. The results indicate that the average cost per
enclosure assembly is highly sensitive to the production
quantity, varying in range from $243 per enclosure for quantity
one hundred to $0.52 per enclosure for quantity ten thousand.
The most appropriate process varies greatly with the desired
production quantity and cost/lead time sensitivity. As such, a
probabilistic analysis was utilized to evaluate the effect of
uncertain demand and market delays, the result of which
demonstrated the importance of maintaining supply chain
flexibility by minimizing initial cost and lead time.
INTRODUCTION
Plastic components are frequently used in engineered
products for a variety of reasons, including the wide array of
engineering polymers with performance characteristics
comparable to metals (often at a lower cost), the ability to form
these materials into very complex shapes, and capable
simulation and processing technology that ensure the
manufactured components are fit for purpose. The most
frequently used set of guidelines for plastic part design are the
Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) guidelines
advocated by Boothroyd and Dewhurst [1]. One significant
benefit of DFMA is the considerable savings in assembly cost
from fewer parts that need to be assembled.

Christoph Roser
Toyota CRDL
Nagoya, Japan

The consolidation of multiple components via the DFMA

process into fewer, more complex components tends to drive
designers towards the injection molding process, since this
process enables the manufacture of custom, arbitrarily complex
components of varying size and thickness. Yet, injection
molding requires the development of an injection mold.
Tooling costs typically vary between 10 4 and 106 dollars,
dependent of the size and complexity of the application, with
corresponding development times typically varying between
one month and one year. Accordingly, these costs and delays
may be inappropriate if production quantities are less than
100,000 or otherwise uncertain, if sales might be lost due to
extended tool development times, or if fixed costs must be
minimized due to liquidity concerns. In such cases, integrated
product and process design is required to select the proper
manufacturing process and then develop a suitable component
design that can be readily manufactured.
Process Selection
Systematic procedures for process selection have been
developed based on comparing the desired design attributes
(the required material, size, shape, precision and cost) with the
capabilities of a large number of processes [2, 3]. Typically, the
subset of feasible manufacturing processes is then ranked by
economic criteria, after which a process is selected and
appropriate detailed designs are developed. Such systems
provide some decision support for the novice designer, but
frequently do not provide a high level of fidelity regarding lead
time and cost estimation.
With regard to low and intermediate volume plastics
manufacturing, a wide variety of processes exist that may be
considered as alternatives to traditional injection molding.
Figure 1 plots the qualitative domains of several processes with
respect to required part complexity and production quantity. It
is observed that injection molding is generally accepted for
producing complex parts in large production volumes, and that
fused deposition modeling is accepted for producing complex
parts in very low quantities. Other processes may be acceptable
for applications of moderate complexity and production
quantities. The limits on part complexity for the various
processes on Figure 1 are limited by the fundamentals of the

Copyright 2004 by ASME

process while the lower and upper bounds of the production

quantity are respectively limited by the initial and marginal
costs of the process. As such, cost estimation is vital to
selecting manufacturing processes for various production
quantities.

in transforming a purchased mold base to a finished mold; the

sum of these times are then multiplied by an average shop rate
to estimate the tool construction cost. Fagade and Kazmer
developed and validated cost models for hard and soft tooling,
and found that the tooling cost was primarily driven by the size
of the component and the number of dimensions required to
uniquely define all its features [9, 10].
Based on this prior research and known industry practice,
it is well established that the cost, C, of manufacturing a batch
of plastic components of quantity, Q, is a function of the initial
setup and tooling cost, Cinitial, plus the aggregated marginal
cost, Cmarginal, that typically includes material, machine, and
labor costs per manufactured part:
C C initial C marginal Q .
(1)
Figure 2 plots the approximate initial and marginal costs for
the plastics manufacturing processes investigated in this study.
It is observed that the processes seem to form a Pareto optimal
boundary that would determine the process selection for a
given production quantity. The exact placement of these
processes will be subsequently established for an electrical
enclosure.

Figure 1: Plastics Manufacturing Processes Production

Quantities and Part Complexities
Cost Estimation
It has been proposed that between 70% and 80% of a
products lifecycle cost is locked in at the product design
stage [1, 4].
Design decisions made during product
configuration and detail design largely determine the choice of
material, process, product quality, and recycling method etc.,
all of which contribute to the product lifecycle cost. Early cost
estimates enable designers to search for design configurations
that minimize cost objectives while optimizing other design
specifications. Malstrom and Vernon [5, 6], distinguish
between the early and detail cost estimations that are done in
industry. Traditionally, the cost estimation department is
separate from design because cost estimation requires an
intimate knowledge of the relevant manufacturing processes
and specific process plans. Hence, cost estimation has been
the preserve of skilled technicians who are promoted to be cost
estimators after years of experience on the shop floor, or of
fresh graduates who have undergone training for two or three
years [6]. This separation of design and cost estimating
inevitably delays product development and hinders designers
creativity.
Cost estimation of plastic components requires an
estimation of initial tooling costs and also the estimation of ongoing processing costs. One of the earlier works in this area
[7] utilized a multiple regression formula that consists of the
following parameters: box volume; depth from split line;
perimeter, projected area; shape complexity that is based on a
simple coding determined by each individual company;
number of shape elements; number of side cores, inserts, and
their directions; and number of impressions. Similar work was
performed by Dixon and Poli [8] to estimate the relative
tooling, material, and processing cost of an injection molded
part from look-up tables based on comparisons to a standard
part. Boothroyd and Dewhurst (B-D) [1] suggest the use of
empirically derived formulas and scaled manufacturing points
to estimate the times for the different tasks that are carried out

Figure 2: Plastics Manufacturing Processes

Initial and Marginal Costs
Lead Time
Time-to-market determines to a large extent the profit
realizable from a high-tech product over its lifetime.
According to a McKinsey and Company study, a high tech
product that reaches the market six months late, even on
budget, will earn 33% less profit over five years. On the other
hand, finishing on time but 50% over budget will reduce a
companys profit by only 4%. [11] The application of DFM
guidelines is known to lengthen the concept development time
but helps to shorten the other stages of product development.
With respect to plastics manufacturing, Pearson [12]
developed a mold lead-time estimation tool and applied it to
the plastic parts in 19 consumer coffee makers. Part
complexity was defined as the sum of the complexities of the
regions of the part requiring simple, moderately simple,
moderately complex, and complex electrical discharge
machining (EDM) during mold making. Fagade and Kazmer
also developed and validated lead time models and cost models
for hard and soft tooling, and found that the lead time was

Copyright 2004 by ASME

primarily driven by the size of the component and the number

of dimensions required to define all its features, but highly
variable with the utilization of specific pieces of equipment in
the mold-making shop [9, 10].
While these studies are of academic interest, they provide
little practical guidance. The lead time predictions are typically
provided for a single manufacturing process derived from a
survey across multiple part geometries and vendors; these
studies do not provide accurate comparisons of lead times for
multiple processes in specific applications. Accordingly, it is a
goal of this paper to describe the lead time, T, as a function of
the initial tooling or setup time, Tinitial, and the marginal
production time per part, Tmarginal, multiplied by the production
quantity, Q:
T Tinitial Tmarginal Q .
(2)
Figure 4 plots the approximate initial and marginal production
times for the plastics manufacturing processes investigated in
this study. It is again observed that the processes loosely form a
Pareto optimal boundary that would determine the process
selection for a given lead time requirement. The exact
placement of these processes will be subsequently established
for an electrical enclosure.

Figure 3: Plastics Manufacturing Processes

Startup and Marginal Production Times
PROCESS SURVEY
The cost and lead time models of several plastics
manufacturing processes (including fused deposition
modeling, plastic part fabrication, prototype injection molding,
surplus injection molding, and conventional injection molding)
will be established for an electrical enclosure based on
competitive quotes from industry suppliers. The electrical
enclosure, shown in Figure 4, is approximately 100 mm in
length, 50 mm in width, and 15 mm in height with a 2.5 mm
wall thickness. The electrical enclosure is to be made of
general purpose ABS, with production quantities of 10 2, 103,
and 104. Since each process varies with respect to capability,
the product was specifically designed for each process to
achieve minimal lead times and production costs.

Figure 4: Electrical Enclosure

Fused Deposition Modeling
Fused deposition modeling (FDM) is a rapid prototyping
process developed and offered by Stratasys, Inc. Plastic parts
are manufactured by depositing a filament on a layer by layer
basis directly from 3D CAD data. Due to the deposition of a
finite filament diameter, the parts exhibit rough surface
finishes of approximately 500 in. Even so, the strength of
parts made from ABS and PC filaments typically achieve 75%
of the injection molded counterparts while dimensional
tolerances correspond to SPI commercial grades. Accordingly,
FDM is becoming a prevalent process for prototyping and low
volume manufacturing.
The cost structure and lead times of FDM are dependent
upon filament diameter, layer thickness, machine cost, and
machine availability. For standard conditions (ABS deposition
with diameter and layer thickness of 0.25 mm), the deposition
rate is approximately 30 cc/hour. For this process, the initial
setup time approaches zero while the marginal production time
is a function of the deposition rate, D, and the volume of the
part, V. It should be noted that V should include not only the
volume of the plastic used in manufacturing the part, but also
the volume of underlying support structures as needed. The
cost of parts produced on FDM is then a function of the
marginal production time and the hourly rate of the machine
and associated labor, R, plus the cost of the material per unit
volume, K, times the volume of the part, V. Stratasys has
quoted a $60,000 price for the purchase of a Prodigy Plus
FDM machine for ABS. Assuming 80% utilization, two-year
amortization, 35% maintenance costs, and 35% planning and
finishing labor cost, the hourly rate, R is $6.20/hour. The cost
of the ABS filament is approximately $0.05/cc.

Copyright 2004 by ASME

parts may require a slight increase in thickness to obtain the

structural integrity of a solid injection molded parts.

Figure 5: Electrical Enclosure Design

The FDM design is shown in Figure 5. The design has
been developed to eliminate one of the components while
enabling top down assembly per DFMA practice. The volume
of the base and top of the enclosure are 16.7 and 15.8 cc,
respectively. Accordingly, the marginal production time for the
two pieces is approximately 65 minutes, driving a marginal
cost of $8.35. For comparison, quotes of $243 and $268 per
assembly were also supplied from two independent rapid
prototyping services [13, 14], indicating a trade-off between
the $60,000 upfront investment to produce the parts internally
as opposed to an outsourcing approach with zero initial but
higher marginal costs. The lower marginal cost of the internal
FDM process is due to the significant recent reductions in the
cost of FDM equipment and the assumed 80% utilization rates.
If equipment is available, these low marginal costs support
related research [15] that FDM may become a common
production process for low volume manufacturing.
Direct Fabrication
As an alternative to both FDM and injection molding,
plastic parts can be fabricated by machining and forming
processes. In fact, the enclosure shown in Figure 4 was
fabricated by a Tool-Less process that utilizes a
combination of high-speed CNC routing and semi-automated
assembly [16-18].
The fabrication process allows the
manufacturer to produce parts and enclosures that rival
injection molded parts from standpoints of quality, appearance,
fit and functionality. The process was developed in Germany in
the early 1990s and has been in commercial use in Europe
since 1993. There are currently 14 companies licensed and
using this technology in the world today as an alternative to
competing manufacturing process include Pressure Forming,
Vacuum Forming, Injection Molding, and RIM. Fabricated
parts are claimed to be more expensive on a piece part basis
than those from injection molding, but can be less expensive
on a program basis for low to mid-volume production.
The enclosure shown in Figure 4 was produced via a
design and process more akin to stamping than injection
molding. In this process, a lay-flat design is developed as
shown in Figure 6 for the enclosure base. 2D NC paths are
then generated to provide the lay-flat geometry including
bending grooves. After machining is complete, the edges are
locally heated and bent into a 3D shape. This groove and
bending process does result in witness lines on the external
surfaces of the part (shown in the close-up of Figure 6) as well
as a reduction in strength and stiffness. Accordingly, fabricated

Figure 6: Electrical Enclosure Lay-Flat for Fabrication

The cost structure and lead times are dependent upon the
complexity of the product geometry that determines the lineal
distance of NC machining and grooving, the number of bends,
and the number of assembly operations required to provide
additional features such as bosses and ribs. Quotes were
provided for the fabricated design shown in Figures 4 and 6.
The initial lead time and tooling cost are 3 weeks and $500,
respectively, after which sample parts are provided for
verification. The marginal production time for the assembly is
approximately 1 minute with a marginal cost of $5.00 in 100
unit quantities and $4.00 in 1,000 unit quantities. It should be
noted that the fabricated design utilizes an end-piece to
provide for multiple electrical connectors across a family of
designs. Also, sculptured surfaces can be induced using local
thermoforming on the pre-assembled geometry.
Prototype Injection Molds
Prototype molds may be utilized in large commercial
applications to provide functional products for pre-production
validation and/or marketing purposes. However, prototype
molds are being increasingly utilized for applications with low
to medium production quantities. Prototype injection molds are
typically two-plate mold designs utilizing a straight pull for
ejection with no side actions. Prototype molds are typically
produced via high speed CNC machining in aluminum in lieu
of molds cast from patterns (such as Keltool). While certain
grades of aluminum can be highly polished, reduced surface
finishes are often specified to reduce lead time and cost. The
number of moldings that may be produced from a prototype
mold is highly dependent upon the material and process
conditions, and may vary from as little as 20 for a glass filled
resin injected at high pressure [19, 20] to hundreds of
thousands for a natural resin injected at low pressure [21].
Some prototype mold suppliers have automated the mold
quoting, mold design, and mold machining process utilizing

Copyright 2004 by ASME

3D CAD data and simple rules based on part volume, feature

aspect ratios, ejector pin spacing, draft angle, and others [22].
Accordingly, each step of the quote-design-build process is
automatically triggered by confirmation of the previous result
to generate queries for additional requisite information. This
automation significantly reduces time and cost by
standardizing business and manufacturing processes. Human
inspection of in-process data is typically utilized by the mold
supplier to evaluate the goodness of the quote, NC machine
paths, and ultimate suitability of prototype molds for a given
application.
Since the mold development process is highly automated,
the cost and lead time are mostly dependent upon the size and
shape of the product geometry that determines the removal
volume and associated cutting tool geometry. Some additional
costs include the purchase of aluminum stock, mold
components such as ejector pins, consumables such as end
mills, surface finishing, and engineering labor to specify the
ejector pin locations and feed system. Quotes were received for
the design shown in Figure 5 [23]. The initial lead time and
tooling cost are 15 days and $5,630, respectively. For this
supplier, it is also possible to reduce the lead time to 5 days by
paying a 50% tooling cost surcharge. In either case, the
marginal production time for the assembly is approximately 1
minute with a marginal cost of $15.80 in 100 piece quantities
and $5.78 in 1,000 piece quantities. It should be noted that
these costs are based on production by the prototype injection
mold supplier (who retains ownership of the mold), and may
be reduced by acquiring an injection mold for use at a custom
molder as discussed in the next two sections.
Surplus Injection Molds
Injection molding is commonly used to provide custom
molded products. However, many applications may not require
precise aesthetic forms or otherwise have flexibility in the use
of plastic parts. For such applications, a secondary market is
emerging for surplus injection molds to produce a wide variety
of components. Such surplus molds can usually be identified,
procured, and modified in a matter of weeks to provide
components with moderate initial costs but very low marginal
costs. Typically, surplus molds can be acquired for
approximately 20% of the initial mold development costs,
though additional costs are required to modify and verify the
surplus mold for fitness in a specific application.
For the enclosure application shown in Figure 4, a surplus
mold with 24 cavities was located [24] that could be modified
to permit simultaneous production of 12 assemblies similar to
that shown in Figure 7. The purchase cost of this mold is
$10,000. These parts molded from the surplus mold have
similar volume to that shown in Figure 4, but a different aspect
ratio. Accordingly, an additional $15,000 is required to modify
the product and mold design to accommodate the features
required for ventilation and electrical connections. The total
lead time required for procurement, modification, and
verification is approximately three weeks.

Figure 7: Parts from Surplus Mold as Electrical Enclosure

Once the surplus mold is modified, production would
commence at a custom molder. The production rates and cost
structures are well established in the industry. Since this was a
surplus mold, the cycle time was previously established at 22
seconds per 12 assemblies. Assuming an internal cavity
pressure of 80 MPa, the projected area of the cavities would
dictate a 550 ton molding machine. The national average rate
for this machine including labor is $60.68 [25]. Accordingly,
the marginal production cost per piece is $0.0154, or $0.031
per assembly. The material cost of general purpose, platable
ABS is $1.90/kg [26]. Knowing the weight of the assembly
and feed system, the material cost per assembly is $0.062 per
assembly. Accordingly, the total marginal cost per assembly is
$0.093.
It should be noted that the use of this specific surplus mold
with 24 cavities has resulted in relatively high initial purchase
and modification costs, but very low processing costs. It should
be understood that a wide array of design and cost issues will
arise with the use of surplus molds, and that the initial and
marginal costs will vary substantially with the characteristics
of available surplus molds.
Conventional Injection Molds
Conventional injection molding utilizes custom mold
designs and supply chains to procure custom injection molds
and molded plastic parts. Specifically, custom injection molds
strive to provide an exact fit between the mold design and
application requirements, providing many advantages
pertaining to cycle economics, surface finish, tolerances, and
cavity geometry compared to other plastics manufacturing
operations. Accordingly, conventional injection molds may be
preferable in applications where moderate lead times are
acceptable, and production quantities may require production
tooling capable of supporting one hundred thousand or more
moldings.
Mold makers have focused on reducing lead times in
response to the previously described processes as well, with
one study showing an 87% reduction in the number of design
decisions and an 86% reduction in mold making time [27].
While the conventional request for quotes has typically
required 30 days, electronic commerce systems such as [28]

Copyright 2004 by ASME

are becoming increasingly common to provide competitive

bids in a minimal amount of time, typically three to five days.
Mold cost estimates were obtained for a steel injection mold
containing two cavities, one for each side of the housing
shown in Figure 5. The resulting cost estimates varied from
$12,000 for an injection mold produced in Illinois and
delivered in four weeks to $2,200 for an injection mold made
in China and delivered in eight weeks. 1 Based on the mold
design, the cycle time was estimated as 30 seconds per
assembly. Assuming an internal cavity pressure of 80 MPa, the
projected area of the cavities would require a 60 ton molding
machine. The national average rate for this machine including
labor is established at $35.31 [25]. Accordingly, the marginal
processing cost per piece is $0.154, or $0.294 per assembly.
Knowing the material cost of general purpose, platable ABS is
$1.90/kg [26] and the material utilization, the material cost per
assembly is $0.0589 per assembly. Accordingly, the total
marginal cost per assembly is $0.353 irrespective of which
mold is utilized. It should be noted that the marginal cost of
the assembly is much higher than that for the previous 24
cavity mold due to the reduction in the number of cavities.
ANALYSIS
Table 1 provides a summary of the initial and marginal
lead times and costs for the electrical enclosure. As
qualitatively suggested by Figures 1-3, the processes exhibit a
very wide range of characteristics. In general, lower initial
costs are offset by higher marginal costs and vice-versa.
Similar trends are exhibited for lead times. For instance,
functional parts can be produced via FDM with zero initial
cost and lead time, but at a cost of $243 per assembly and a
maximum production rate of 22 assemblies per day. As a
counter-example, the use of a surplus mold requires an initial
$25,000 and 3 weeks of investment, but can produce
assemblies at a cost of $0.093 with a production rate of 48,000
assemblies per day.
Table 1: Process Characterization Summary
Cinitial C marginal Tinitial Tmarginal
($)
($/assy) (days) (min/assy)
FDM
60,000
8.35
10
65
(internal)
FDM
0
243.00
0
39
(external)
Fabrication
500
4.00
15
1
Proto
8,445
5.78
5
1
Molding
(rush)
Proto
5,630
5.78
15
1
Molding
(standard)
Surplus
25,000
0.093
15
0.03
Molding
Conventiona 12,000
0.353
20
0.5
l
Molding
(rush)

Conventiona
l
Molding
(standard)

2,200

0.353

40

0.5

The data of Table 1 again suggests the existence of a

Pareto optimal set trading off initial and marginal costs and/or
times. The data for this electrical enclosure application are
plotted in Figures 8 (a) and (b). It is clear from these figures
that certain manufacturing processes are sub-optimal with
respect to initial and marginal cost, or initial and marginal
lead times. However, the selection of the most appropriate
manufacturing process depends on the combination of
production cost and lead time, as well as the certainty of the
production quantity and time elasticity. More specifically,
higher levels of certainty regarding the production quantity
will tend to support a larger initial investment to obtain lower
marginal costs, thereby maximizing profit. As the production
quantity becomes less certain, and as extended lead times
erode the possible production quantity, then there is a tendency
to reduce supply-side risk by utilizing processes with lower
initial costs but higher marginal costs. This latter strategy can
reduce long term profitability if production quantities are
unexpectedly high, though a second round of manufacturing
process development can then be used to reduce marginal costs
while utilizing cash flow generated from the initial product
offering.

Figure 8: Trade-Offs between (a) Initial and Marginal Costs

and (b) Initial and Marginal Times
It is possible to reduce Figures 8 (a) and (b) to a single
plot showing the total lead times and costs for specific
production quantities, Q0, of 102, 103, and 104. As indicated in
Figure 9, the costs and lead times of each process are
represented by a curve with three data points corresponding to
increasing production quantity. It is observed that each of the
processes has varying intercepts derived from the initial cost
and initial lead time, and varying slopes derived from the
marginal cost and production time.

1
The mold quotes are significantly lower than those predicted by the
previously cited academic references, indicative of significant market changes
since the publication of these previous studies.
2
Assumes a production quantity of 1,000 assemblies. Marginal costs
typically vary with quantity discounts, which are reflected in subsequent analysis.

Copyright 2004 by ASME

Figure 9: Trade-Offs between Costs and Lead Times

Figure 10 provides an enlarged plot of the dashed region
of Figure 9, as well as the Pareto Optimal boundaries for
production quantities, Q0, of 102, 103, and 104. There are two
general conclusions that are drawn from this data. First, the
selected process is heavily dependent upon the preferences of
the decision maker. For instance, 100 assemblies are available
with lead times of 2.6 and 15.1 days at respective costs of
$24,000 and $1,000. These data correspond to a lead time:cost
ratio varying from 9,500 to 10 two full orders of magnitude.
As such, it would be expected that the decision maker would
select the process depending the application and market
requirements.

longer lead times are allowable. When even longer lead times
are allowable or a higher production quantity is needed, then
surplus and conventional injection molding become the
preferred processes. The specific observations support the
second general conclusion that no single process is dominant
for a given production quantity, minimal costs, or minimal
lead times. Accordingly, the decision maker will always have
to trade-off multiple performance measures to select a
manufacturing process.
To explore the effect of uncertainty on process selection,
assume that the actually demand, D, is normally distributed
with a mean equal to Q0 and a coefficient of variation of 0%,
10%, and 100%. This problem is similar in many ways to the
newsboy problem in operations research [29], in which a
vendor needs to determine how many perishable newspapers
should be ordered on a given day, knowing that papers not
purchased at the end of the day will lead to unrecovered costs
and that a shortage of papers will lead to lost revenue. Define
G(Q,D) as the total cost incurred when Q units are ordered and
D is the unknown market demand. If the order quantity
exceeds the demand, then an overage cost, co, will be incurred
due to the expense of manufacturing products that were not
sold. If the demand exceeds the order quantity, then an
underage cost, cu, will be incurred due to the lost profit on
units that could have been sold. The total cost is expressed as:
G Q, D co max 0, Q D cu max 0, D Q . (3)
The expected value of this function is:
G Q co

Q x f x dx cu Q x Q f x dx .

(4)
where f(x) is the probability density function of the demand.
The solution of this problem is well established in the
operations research literature and textbooks [29]. The
application of Leibnizs rule to the derivative of E[G(Q)]
provides:
Q

d G Q
co f x dx cu f x dx
0
Q
dQ
d G Q
c o F Q cu 1 F Q
dQ

(5)

where F is the cumulative probability of the demand. Further

inspection shows that the second derivative is positive and that
the costs can be minimized for an optimal order quantity Q*
such that:

cu
d G Q
0 F Q*
dQ
c o cu

Figure 10: Pareto Optimal Plots indicating Trade-Offs

between Costs and Lead Times
There are many specific observations drawn from Figure
10. First, FDM is preferred for very low production volumes
when low lead times are necessary, though the process high
marginal costs and low production rates will preclude its
selection for higher production quantities. Prototype molding
is a preferred process for moderate lead times and costs;
however, the prototype mold should utilize rush rather than
standard service otherwise other processes may be preferred.
Fabrication is preferred to achieve lower costs when slightly

(6)

This last quantity is known as the critical ratio, and

represents the proportion of satisfied demand. For applications
with higher profit margins and corresponding underage costs,
the critical ratio increases to better satisfy the demand.
Based on the above analysis, the expected total underage
and overage costs are calculated for each of the manufacturing
processes according to the allowable market times of 10, 100,
and 1000 days. The results indicate that if the allowable
market time is 10 days, then prototype injection molding with
rush service is preferred to quickly bring the products to
market. In this case, the higher marginal costs of this process
are compensated by incurring fewer underage costs associated
with the longer lead times of the other manufacturing

Copyright 2004 by ASME

processes. However, if a longer market time of 100 days is

allowable, then the fabrication process is preferred since its
longer lead times incur a 10% increase in underage costs but
drop the overage costs by 31% (from $5.78 to $4.00 per
enclosure). If a longer market time of 1000 days is allowed,
then conventional injection molding is preferred since the
effect of its extended lead time is insignificant with respect to
underage costs, but the lower marginal costs significantly
reduce the overage costs. The FDM processes have high
expected costs due to extremely higher underage (low
production rates unable to supply demand) and overage costs
(high marginal costs). Furthermore, the surplus molding is not
desirable due to relatively high initial costs that are not able to
be recovered with a maximum specified production quantity of
10,000 enclosures.

Figure 11: Expected Total Costs for

Each of the Manufacturing Processes
A few notes are warranted about the foregoing analysis
and discussion. First, the above analysis utilizes a cost basis
and assumes that all manufacturing processes provide identical
product functionality. Rather, the authors are aware that FDM
provides very rough surface finishes, fabricated parts utilize
planar surfaces, and surplus molding may not provide suitable
geometry. However, the affect of such phenomenon on part
pricing are truly difficult to quantify a priori so it is left to the
designer to verify which processes will provide functionally
satisfactory parts.
Second, the above analysis utilized actual quotes from
multiple suppliers. It is the authors opinion that the quotes are
useful for comparing the manufacturing processes. However, it
should be expected that the quotes would vary substantially by
application, negotiation and/or contract terms, dynamic plant
capacity at the manufacturers, etc. In particular, sensitivity
analyses not included in this paper indicated that the surplus
molding process is preferable for higher production process,
and that the FDM processes can become very competitive if
marginal costs are reduced. As such, the paper has attempted
to provide the underlying causality so that designers may apply
the methodologies to their own applications.

Finally, the authors support the design and supply chain

axiom that flexibility ought to be preserved. The results of this
paper and earlier research suggest that the higher marginal
costs of low volume manufacturing processes are more than
offset by their lower initial costs and reduced lead times.
Indeed, the desirability of these processes only increases with
uncertainty regarding the lead times or absolute level of
demand. For startup and small companies with limited
resources, such outsourcing is further desirable to minimize
cash flow and reduce drain on internal project management
and manufacturing resources. Two issues, however, require
further research. First, further work is required to develop a
multi-stage manufacturing methodology that utilizes low
volume processes during the uncertain product start-up phase
followed by higher volume processes to thereby maximize
profit and minimize risk over a product lifetime (somewhat
akin to [30]). Second, further work is also required to consider
the combination of high volume standard components and low
volume custom components to maximize profit and minimize
risk across a suite of products (somewhat akin to [31]).
CONCLUSION
A wide variety of processes are available for
manufacturing of plastic components in relatively low
production quantities. As could be expected in an efficient
market, all of the processes are competitive under certain
conditions. As such, the designer is thereby challenged to
determine the most appropriate process given their market and
application requirements. It is our experience that delays in the
selection of manufacturing processes can consume a
significant amount of the available development time, thereby
artificially forcing the development team towards expensive
manufacturing processes with very short lead times. To avoid
such delays and minimize uncertainty, it is suggested that
product developers of medium volume applications
consistently utilize the same manufacturing process. For an
electrical enclosure, the most suitable processes were prototype
molding and fabrication which have, respectively, been shown
to provide one thousand electrical enclosures of moderate
complexity in 1 and 3 weeks for $15,000 and $5,000. Using
the revenue earned from the sale of these products, a second
round of development could be subsequently performed, if
needed, to provide components with significantly lower costs
in greater production volumes.
REFERENCES
[1]
G. Boothroyd, P. Dewhurst, and W. Knight, Product
design for manufacture and assembly. New York, NY:
Marcel Dekker, Inc, 1994.
[2]
R. Raviwongse, V. Allada, and T. J. Sandidge, "Plastic
manufacturing process selection methodology using
self-organizing map (SOM)/fuzzy analysis,"
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing
Technology, vol. 16, pp. 155-161, 2000.
[3]
A. M. K. Esawi and M. F. Ashby, "Computer-based
selection of manufacturing processes: Methods,
software and case studies," Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal
of Engineering Manufacture, vol. 12, pp. 595-610,
1998.

Copyright 2004 by ASME

[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]
[14]
[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

[20]

[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]

J. G. Bralla, Design for excellence. New York, NY:

McGraw Hill, Inc, 1996.
M. Malstrom, What every engineer should know
about cost estimating. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker
Inc., 1981.
I. R. Vernon, Realistic cost estimating for
manufacturing. Dearborn, MI: Society of
Manufacturing Engineers, 1968.
M. J. Butler, "Mold costs and how to estimate
accurately," Plastic Polymers, pp. 60-61, 1973.
J. R. Dixon and C. Poli, Engineering design and
design for manufacturing, a structured approach.
Conway, MA: Field Stone Publishers, 1995.
A. A. Fagade and D. Kazmer, "Optimal Component
Consolidation in Molded Product Design," presented
at Design Engineering Technical Conference, Las
Vegas, Nevada, 1999.
A. Fagade and D. Kazmer, "Effects of complexity on
tooling cost and time-to-market of plastic injection
molded parts," presented at ANTEC '99, New York,
New York, 1999.
C. Charney, Time-to-market: Reducing product lead
time. Dearborn, MI: Society of Manufacturing
Engineers, 1991.
S. A. Pearson, "Using product archeology to identify
the dimensions of design decision making," in Sloan
School of Management and Department of
Mechanical Engineering. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992, pp. 60.
J. Dickman, American Precision Prototyping, LLC,
Tulsa, OK 2004.
"2004," Design Prototyping Technologies, East
Syracuse, NY.
N. Hopkinson and P. Dickens, "Analysis of rapid
manufacturing - Using layer manufacturing processes
for production," Journal of Mechanical Engineering
Science, vol. 217, pp. 31-40, 2003.
J. Hill, Tool-Less Technologies, LLC, Elm Grove, WI
2004.
J. Ogando, "Who Needs Toolin Anyway?," in Design
News, vol. 56, 2001, pp. 67-69.
J. Fowler and J. Hill, "Medical Plastic Enclosures
Made ithout Molds," presented at Society of Plastics
Engineers Annual Technical Conference, 2004.
T. C. Hicks, "Prototype mold material evaluation
using glass filled P.B.T.," presented at 49th Annual
Technical Conference of the Society of Plastics
Engineers, Montreal, Quebec, 1991.
D. T. Burns, R. A. Malloy, and S. P. McCarthy,
"Analysis of metal coating effects on
stereolithography tooling for injection molding,"
presented at 56th Annual Technical Conference of the
Society of Plastics Engineers, Atlanta, GA, 1998.
D. A. Sparks, "Aluminum tooling for short and
extended part runs," presented at Society of
Manufacturing Engineers Annual Conference, 1998.
J. Devries, "Plastics Molding: Real Parts, Real Fast,"
in Appliance Manufacturer, January, 2004.
C. Johnson, The Protomold Company, Inc., Maple
Plain, MN 2004.
P. Boyko, Toucan Gold Division, Mansfield, OH 2004.

[25]
[26]
[27]

[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]

M. H. Naitove, "Your Business: Hourly Rate Survey,"

in Plastics Technology, vol. 47, 2003.
D. G. Block, L. M. Sherman, and J. H. Schut,
"Engineering Resins Look Stable for Now," in
Plastics Technology, vol. 48, 2003, pp. 57-60.
M. Nakao, S. Yamada, M. Kuwabara, M. Otubo, and
Y. Hatamura, "Decision-based process design for
shortening the lead time for mold design and
production," CIRP Annals - Manufacturing
Technology, vol. 51, pp. 127-130, 2002.
J. Scoville, ManufacturingQuote, Inc.,, Atlanta, GA
2004.
S. Nahmias, Production and Operations Analysis.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2003.
C. Roser, D. Kazmer, and J. Rinderle, "An Economic
Design Change Method," ASME Journal of
Mechanical Design, vol. 125, pp. 233-239, 2003.
K. Ishii, C. Juengel, and C. F. Eubanks, "Design for
product variety: Key to product line structuring,"
presented at 9th International Conference on Design
Theory and Methodology, 1995.

Copyright 2004 by ASME