DFMA Beyond the Hashtag: Lessons from Practice
Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DFMA) is a buzzword often used in architecture and construction—but what does it really mean in practice? Drawing from his experience as a structural engineer, manufacturer, and assembler, Nick Hewson, Director at Arboralis, shares key insights and lessons learned from projects across Australia. From mistakes to breakthroughs, his journey underscores why DFMA is as much about feedback and collaboration as it is about precision and efficiency.
What does DFMA mean in practice, beyond the buzzword?
DFMA stands for Design for Manufacture and Assembly, and it can’t be considered in parts—manufacture and assembly must be understood together. Too often, projects follow a linear downstream process, where information flows one way and lessons learned never make it back to designers. True DFMA requires creating feedback loops so each project informs the next, improving efficiency and design outcomes over time.
How did your personal journey in timber shape your understanding of DFMA?
When I arrived in Melbourne in 2010, I had some CLT experience from the UK and quickly became the office “timber guy.” Joining XLam in 2016 was an eye-opener—I realised how little I knew about timber manufacturing. Spending time in the factory gave me a crash course in the “M” of DFMA, showing me firsthand the importance of aligning design decisions with manufacturing realities.
What mistakes taught you the most about timber manufacture?
- Mistake #1: Too many small CLT panels, which were inefficient and not the right material choice.
- Mistake #2: Not optimising panel layouts and openings with architects—leading to poor CNC efficiency and handling challenges.
These errors highlighted the need for early collaboration between designers and manufacturers to ensure practicality without compromising design intent.
What challenges did you encounter during assembly on real projects?
On projects like Iron Creek Bay in Tasmania (19 buildings) and repeated pavilion structures, assembly issues became clear:
- Steelwork tolerances didn’t align with CLT performance.
- Pre-installed membranes were sometimes reversed during manufacturing or site installation.
- CLT fin walls designed as parapets left no room for error, resulting in gaps.
These challenges reinforced the importance of designing with tolerances and sequencing in mind.
Can you share an example of when DFMA really worked well?
On one restaurant project, the original roof concept with coffers was redesigned into a folded plate structure. This reduced material use, transport costs, and on-site labour while eliminating balcony columns. The DFMA-driven approach offered significant cost and time savings, proving that when done right, DFMA can elevate both design and delivery.
What are your top tips for designers, manufacturers, and assemblers to make DFMA successful?
- Designers: Get hands-on experience in factories and on-site. Maintain regular contact with suppliers, clarify scope, document for the right audience (manufacturer vs. installer), and establish tolerances early.
- Manufacturers: Offer open days, demos, and keep capability updates flowing to designers. Define what design responsibility you take in-house.
- Assemblers: Don’t just “grumble at the end”—close the feedback loop. Seek early engagement and consider offering design-install services.
