Design for Manufacturing: How OEMs turn early integration into cost, speed and quality advantage
Design for Manufacturing has become a strategic discipline rather than a late-stage check. This approach is supporting OEMs and suppliers reduce lifecycle cost, accelerate launches and build vehicles that are practical to produce at scale
The pressures of electrification, shorter product cycles and rising capital costs have made it increasingly clear that design decisions cannot be separated from manufacturing realities. Design for Manufacturing (DFM), once treated as a technical discipline, has become a strategic requirement. When applied collaboratively, it determines whether a vehicle programme launches smoothly or struggles under the weight of late changes and escalating costs.
Across the industry, five areas consistently define how effectively an OEM or supplier applies DFM in practice.
Early cross-functional integration
The greatest value in DFM is created long before a single tool is cut. Decisions taken during the first phases of a vehicle programme – material choices, joining methods, module architectures and tolerance strategies – lock in most of the lifecycle cost and manufacturing complexity. For this reason, the most effective organisations involve manufacturing, quality, logistics and key suppliers from the earliest concept discussions rather than waiting until designs are nominally complete.
Early integration changes the character of product development. Instead of designers handing over drawings to plants and suppliers, teams work concurrently to evaluate alternatives. Manufacturing engineers can challenge assumptions about process feasibility, equipment capability and ergonomics while there is still freedom to change direction. Suppliers contribute knowledge of materials, tooling and industrial constraints that would otherwise surface only at prototype or pre-production stages.
We have studio engineers who are experts in everything around this [DFM] and can tell us right away whether what we are doing is more or less possible
This approach requires formal mechanisms. Programme gateways must include manufacturing sign-off, and cross-functional teams must share common targets for cost, weight and complexity. When these structures exist, potential problems are resolved on screen rather than on the shopfloor. The result is not only fewer late changes but also more creative solutions, as diverse perspectives are applied before designs harden into fixed commitments.
In practice, early integration means that industrial considerations shape vehicle architecture rather than merely adapting to it. Cable routings are defined with assembly access in mind. Body structures are conceived to minimise weld operations. Interfaces between modules are standardised so that multiple vehicle variants can be built on the same equipment. These are not incremental improvements; they are decisions that determine the long-term economics of a programme.
Speaking with Car Design News on how design teams can be supported, Xpeng’s Design Manager Alain Simon, who serves as the Chinese OEM’s official design spokesperson said: “We have studio engineers who are experts in everything around this [DFM] and can tell us right away whether what we are doing is more or less possible. Then when it comes to the details, later in the manufacturing process we go in closely and make things become reality”.
Shared data and digital collaboration
Collaboration depends on more than meetings and organisational charts. It requires common digital foundations. In a complex vehicle programme, dozens of teams must evaluate manufacturability simultaneously, often across continents. Without shared data environments, DFM becomes fragmented and inconsistent.
Modern collaborative DFM is therefore inseparable from digital tools. Virtual validation, process simulation and digital twins allow engineers to assess assembly sequences, reachability and quality risks before any physical prototypes exist. When OEMs and suppliers operate within common CAD and PLM platforms, design iterations can be tested rapidly and objectively. A proposed change to a component geometry can be analysed immediately for tooling impact, robot access and logistics flow.
Equally important is data governance. For collaboration to be meaningful, partners must agree what information is exchanged, at what stage and in what format. Clear rules on intellectual property and access rights encourage openness while protecting commercial interests. The most advanced programmes create real-time feedback loops in which manufacturing performance data from existing vehicles informs design choices for the next generation.
This digital integration shortens decision cycles. Instead of long chains of email and sequential reviews, cross-functional teams work from a single source of truth. Manufacturing constraints are embedded directly into design rules. Simulation results guide choices about tolerances and materials. The quality of decisions improves because they are based on shared evidence rather than isolated judgement.
Platform and architecture optimisation
DFM delivers its greatest gains when applied at system level. Optimising an individual bracket or panel is useful, but the real opportunities lie in rethinking how entire vehicle architectures are constructed. Part counts, joining strategies and module boundaries determine not only manufacturing cost but also supply chain complexity and automation potential.
A collaborative approach to platform design examines the vehicle as an integrated whole. Instead of asking how a particular component can be made more cheaply, teams ask how many components are truly necessary. Functional consolidation, standardised interfaces and common modules across multiple models reduce both investment and operational variability. Each reduction in part count eliminates not only a component but also the tools, fixtures, quality checks and logistics processes associated with it.
Such decisions cannot be taken by design departments alone. They require input from stamping, body engineering, paint, final assembly and suppliers of materials and systems. Platform-wide reviews provide the structure for these conversations. When conducted early enough, they allow organisations to choose materials, manufacturing methods and assembly concepts that work together coherently rather than being forced into compromise later.
System-level thinking also enables better use of automation. Robots and advanced manufacturing equipment deliver the greatest returns when processes are simplified and standardised. By aligning product architecture with process capability, companies can avoid over-engineering and create factories that are easier to operate, maintain and scale.
Manufacturing process co-design
Design for Manufacturing is most effective when product and process are developed in parallel. Too often, manufacturing planning begins only after product concepts are largely fixed. A collaborative approach reverses this sequence. Tooling strategies, automation concepts and logistics flows are defined alongside the components they will produce.
Co-design recognises that every product decision has a process consequence. The choice of a material affects stamping tonnage and cycle time. A tolerance requirement influences fixture design and quality control methods. Even seemingly minor styling features can add complexity to paint or final assembly. When manufacturing engineers and suppliers participate from the start, these interactions are considered openly rather than discovered by surprise.
Joint feasibility studies are a practical expression of this principle. Plants and suppliers evaluate proposed designs using real equipment constraints, not theoretical assumptions. Joining methods are selected based on robustness and maintainability. End-of-arm tooling is planned with changeover requirements in mind. The aim is not simply to make a design buildable but to make it buildable efficiently and reliably at scale.
This alignment becomes particularly important as product cycles shorten. The faster a vehicle must reach market, the less tolerance there is for late industrial changes. Co-design ensures that the production system is ready at the same time as the product itself, enabling smoother launches and quicker ramp-ups.
Lifecycle learning and continuous improvement
Design for Manufacturing does not end at start of production. The most advanced organisations treat each programme as part of a continuous learning loop. Data from running factories – cycle times, quality performance, maintenance issues and ergonomic feedback – is captured systematically and used to inform future designs.
Without such feedback, companies risk repeating the same mistakes. A bracket that is difficult to install, a tolerance that causes rework or a process that requires excessive adjustment may persist across multiple vehicle generations if lessons are not formally recorded. Collaborative DFM creates mechanisms to prevent this. Post-launch reviews, structured knowledge libraries and cross-programme engineering forums ensure that experience becomes institutional memory.
Digital technologies amplify this learning. Connected equipment and analytics platforms provide detailed insight into how designs behave in real production conditions. Predictive quality tools identify patterns that designers can address in subsequent revisions. When suppliers are included in these loops, improvements propagate across the entire ecosystem rather than remaining isolated within a single company.
Lifecycle learning also supports asset reuse. Understanding how existing robots, fixtures and lines have performed enables more confident decisions about upgrades and redeployment. Instead of designing every new programme from a blank sheet, organisations build on proven solutions, reducing risk and capital expenditure.
Turning principles into practice
The five areas described – early integration, shared data, system-level optimisation, process co-design and lifecycle learning – are mutually reinforcing. None delivers full value in isolation. Together they represent a coherent operating model for modern vehicle development.
Adopting this model requires cultural as well as technical change. Engineers must be willing to collaborate beyond traditional boundaries. Procurement must value long-term industrial efficiency rather than short-term part cost alone. Suppliers must be treated as development partners rather than transactional vendors. Digital infrastructure must support transparency rather than reinforce silos.
The rewards are tangible. Vehicles designed collaboratively for manufacturing reach market faster, cost less to produce and achieve higher quality from the first day of production. Plants operate with fewer disruptions and lower variability. Supply chains become simpler and more resilient. Most importantly, companies gain the agility to respond to new technologies and shifting market demands without excessive reinvestment.
As the automotive industry navigates electrification and increasing competitive pressure, DFM has moved from a technical afterthought to a central strategic discipline. Those organisations that embed collaborative DFM into their development DNA will be better positioned to deliver vehicles that are not only innovative to customers but practical to build at scale.
