Here's how you can navigate conflicts between design specifications and manufacturing limitations.

It requires understanding manufacturing capabilities and constraints. Knowing what’s possible with materials, tolerances, and costs helps designers make practical decisions. Continuous learning and close collaboration between design and manufacturing teams ensure smoother transitions from concept to product, reducing revisions and delays and improving overall product quality

The first and foremost thing is to know your manufacturing ability. What can be done in the easiest way and provides value.With this in mind you can design great things.

A person should have good understanding of quality tools in oder to obtain better process capabilities over long term in production.

For resolving conflicts between design spec and construction/Manufactuuring limitation a detail technical query is required to be prepared for each case. In this TQ all cause of conflicts and site limitation to be clarified then design specification and site construction limitation to be reviewed by engineering team in detail and verified. If the Engineering specifications were strict for this scenarion,You might need to simplify design spec in order to make it more feasible for construction teams otherweise Construction limitation/restrictions should be removed.

Coordinate closely between design and manufacturing teams, prioritize manufacturability in design, prototype iteratively, analyze cost-effectiveness, and encourage collaborative problem-solving.

More than 80% of a product's manufacturing costs are committed during the design phase. Engaging early with manufacturers can help control manufacturing costs. It's easier and less costly to make changes early than it is during the production phase.

I always start a new project with asking at least 5 separate vendors to... 1) quote me, 2) explain their process, and 3) provide an ETA for a prototype. I do this as soon as I can to have a better ROI for my executive team. I have the same pool vendors and this process doesn't eliminate them entirely from my pool, but further refines my future project goals.

The sooner you can get a realistic perspective into a design the sooner you understand feasibility and cost of the product which is essential for success and the only way to do this is directly connecting with the people who do this day-in day-out.

YES! The original goal is what needs to be kept in mind. How to get there? That can always be improved upon. Not hundreds of iterations but a few. I've always explained it to my managers and project teams that a failed prototype is just "what not to do." All data is data. You just need to approach all problems with a sense of objective truth.

Creating a document like DFMEA will help us eliminate the issues we encounter in product designing and manufacturing. DFMEA is a tool by which potential failures are identified, analysed and documented.

Design feedback should be taken from cross functional team and customer so that we don’t face any risk or issue at later stage of project.

Receiving DFM reports is a key part of the development of a product, it can either consist of very small assembly recommendations or a huge list of changes needed to make your parts manufacturable. As soon as you start talking with the manufacturer the better, this process could be a continuous back and forth in order to keep your design as close as your original idea, but still possible to build.

In the tooling industry this is a must. How many tools do you need for a specific part? Can it be a progressive (one) tool rather than a transfer or tandem tool (several)? Is the cost savings of one versus the maintenance and fatigue life worth it? In the end the ultimate goal is quality of the product with high revenue. Speed isn't always the answer though. A robust and effective tool is, in my experience, a more cost effective option than a speedy one.

This goes back to ‘engage early’. Compromise doesn’t have to be negative and with early feedback it can help creativity, not hamper it. So the closer the Engineer and the Designer can be, the better the compromise can be which is actually the sweet-spot for design for manufacture.

I agree with above but you must understand that a organisation should have good back up of testing data to correlate with simulations.

Collaboration is key, but it’s much easier in theory than in practice because gathering the engineers and designers together regularly can create conflict and sometimes people will avoid this or consider it counterproductive. In reality it’s in these moments that the bare essences of a product can be exposed and from there a good project manager can help designers and engineers find that happy medium which is, in its purest sense, collaboration.

There must be flow of information from design team to manufacturing team via proper documentation. This information can contain or the critical parameter and process related information. This documentation should be completed before transferring of project from development phase to production phase.