That's part of what Ford Motor did some years ago, everyone was there 
together as a team. As distance as it seems, as the guy who handled the 
concrete foundation for a machine that say machines engine blocks, I was 
told to go see the machine people at a very early stage (barely beyond 
the sketch on a napkin). We reviewed their standard details, I discussed 
the standards that our plant had, and we came to an agreement what parts 
of the machine looked like. Other members of the team included the 
people that would be operating the machine, maintenance, union health 
and safety, cost accounting, management, and others. Those were some of 
the best outcomes that their were.

William "Chops" Westfield wrote:
> On Apr 2, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Vitaliy wrote:
>
>   
>>> And the poor person will also have to -
>>>
>>> Interface between Manufacturing and R&D to ensure new products are
>>> cost effective.
>>>       
>> I honestly don't see anything wrong with these requirements.
>>
>>
>>     
>>> OK, I have worked  for a company where designs were difficult for the
>>> assemblers to handle - but I'm not sure people intend to design
>>> products that are just pretty to look at.
>>>       
>> It takes a certain aptidute and some amount of experience to  
>> understand what
>> it means to "design for manufacturability". It's not all common sense.
>>     
>
> Indeed.  It almost sounds like this company had some sort of internal  
> battle between their manufacturing guy and their R&D engineer, and the  
> manufacturing guy turned out to be right, and they now want a new R&D  
> guy.  Don't design in lots of those lovely special-purpose maxim  
> parts!  I can picture it rather vividly...
>
> BillW
>
>   
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist