Whats suprising about that? Its always better to eliminate ANY unneeded cost, even a quarter in a $30,000 car but that's about pure cost reduction while maintaining or improving the design features and performance, not removing key features or degrading performance, that's not cost reduction, that's new lower level model.. jco
-----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:25 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Camera engineering (was Re: Rename request) I've heard that automobile engineers sometimes eliminate parts worth $0.25 because a million or more cars are going to be built with a particular design, thus saving $250,000 or more, and justifying his salary. rg Mark Roberts wrote: > "Mark Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Anyone here with manufacturing engineering background care to actually >>make some estimates? Say in the number of engineering hours, broken >>down into design, development, integration, and test? > > > I have a little background in this area, having worked in the > Components Engineering department for an electronics manufacturer. I > won't give exact estimates but I will say that anyone who's never > worked in the business has no idea how zealously cost reduction is > pursued. The design engineers count every part that goes on a circuit > board, regardless of cost, and strive to reduce the number of part > placements (even though these placements are performed by > lightning-fast robotic equipment). Every part placement contributes > just a fraction of a cent to overall cost, but it's counted. > > Selection of the parts themselves is scrutinized thoroughly. I had a > friend who was a sales rep for HP Semiconductor (before it was spun > off to become Agilent Semiconductor... and when they still *had* field > sales > reps) who told me that a *half cent* per component price difference > could decide whether he won or lost a bid. > > In addition to the cost of the part itself, there are also any other > parts associated with it. One voltage regulator I.C. might require > three external resistors and two capacitors to function, while another > may require six resistors and one capacitor. So besides considering > which I.C. is cheaper, they figure in the cost of the external > components. Capacitors are generally cheaper than resistors, but the > cost varies with value so the one that requires two capacitors *may* > still be cheaper... for some designs, but not necessarily for others. > Then the cost of the extra component placement is figured in. > > Components that have to be hand-placed are anathema: Any engineer who > puts one in his design will have to justify it to high levels of > management. Trim potentiometers are to be avoided if at all possible. > Potentiometers and electromechanical devices in general are to be > avoided wherever possible. (Simply from a manufacturing standpoint, I > have concluded that the existence of the potentiometer alone in the > old Pentax K-mount makes its return in the 21st century a complete > non-starter: You can stick a fork in it, it's done.) > > The scary part to me is that the company I worked for was in a much > less competitive business segment than mass-market consumer goods > (they enjoyed profit margins on each product that Pentax, Canon, Nikon > can only *dream* of). In Asian electronics manufacturing plants I have > no doubt that they're even more fanatical than the environment in > which I worked. > >
