Durham methodology like any other design procedures is concern on the good outcome thus they are highly motivated towards producing an improved designs by revising assembly process and following the same redesign procedure.
The intention is to find out which process need to change and to add good ideas to the redesign procedure. But to change a part or a process is not an automatic procedure. In Durham methodology, to effect a change in part or in a process, it “needs to add an appropriate star which might reveal the situation for later consideration.Appleton and Garside (2000) describe this portion of design process as design stage.
Apparently, the goal of Durham methodology and that of Boothroyd has been “bringing about the improvement of a design from an assembly perspective” (p. 162). The Durham methodology also recognizes the lack of structure which is the source of failures for designers. Thus, in the Dorham methodology, it “allows the design office to share their experience widely. The Durham methodology then is based on “practical experience in design assembly and in teaching widely accepted techniques that have been developed over the past thirty years.
”According to a document titled “The Durham ‘Post-it’ method for Manufacturing Improvement” Durham has developed a method to facilitate the teaching of these design principles to small groups. ” That is, the design is intended to work on by a team. Compared to Boothroyd’s methods, Boothroyd did not suggest change especially when there is a need for it, but he suggested that “two parts should be combined into single part. ” But Boothroyd asserted that it should follow the rules as follows• It is necessary for parts to be made from different.• Parts move relative to each other• Parts must be disassembled for manufacture or for maintenance.
Thus, comparing Durham methodology with Boothroyd’s methods, the obvious differences were that Durham utilizes change of part or process while Boothroyd do not suggest change rather he suggested the combinations of two parts into a single part. That is, there is no need of part replacement as according to Boothroyd, “It may seem obvious that the easiest part to deal with is one that has been eliminated because it is not needed, but how many times does a designer carryout a rigorous part-count reduction process” (p. 162).In his book, Boothroyd emphasized on the need of systematic understanding of material processing, which is obtained, “by defining and considering the elements in the structure” (p. 1). Contrary to Durham methodology which allows practical experience in the design assembly, Boothroyd methods were more concern on technical expertise.
According to Appleton and Gardise, “many of the problems of consistency and rigor in applying design rules have been overcome by the use of form filing or computer-based system” (p. 163).Thus, while Durham valued experience, Boothroyd relied on software regarding the outcome of the design process. For Boothroyd, using software design process “can quickly be recorded and a detailed summary report can be completed with only a few computer keyboard” (p.
163). But both methods admits that materials used has an important influence on the design process as materials react differently when subjected to mechanical, thermal, or chemical actions.They therefore suggested to carefully identifying the properties of each materials. In general, the difference and similarities of methodologies between Durham, Boothroyd, and others can be seen in the context of the use of materials, in the manner the methodologies were carried out and in the way they execute changes in the materials or programs.
Similarities however are seen in the way they value the right materials for the design process for manufacture and assembly.
