Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

Elementary, Mr. Watson DFX—Basically a Basket of Crabs With Spreadsheets

One of the joys of living in San Diego is that I'm never far from the ocean. Aside from burying my toes in the sand at the beach, I particularly enjoy going down where the fishing boats come in. I once watched a fisherman standing beside several baskets of crabs. Most had lids tied on, but one was completely open. Curious, I asked why he wasn't worried about them escaping. It reminded me of a well-known story.

The Parable of the Crabs
In this story, as one crab begins climbing toward the top, pulling itself closer to freedom, another crab grabs it and pulls it back down. Then another attempt is made, and the same outcome occurs. The crabs aren’t merely grabbing each other; their legs are hooked and intertwined, so that when one moves, several others move with it. None is truly climbing alone. No lid needed,” says its fisherman. “They're all connected. They won't let each other out."

The same kind of reaction happens whenever you bring up any topic related to “design for X.” Mention design for manufacturing, design for innovation, design for test, or design for cost, or one of the hundreds of “design for X” principles to a room full of engineers, and you can almost feel the temperature change. Someone groans, others cross their arms, and before long, you get responses like, "Why are you making my job harder?"

In fact, there are now so many design-for-X considerations that managing them individually just isn't practical. Modern products can involve dozens of DFX priorities, and trying to track each one separately leads to conflicting feedback, review overload, and slow decisions. That's why many companies organize them into DFX domains, grouping related constraints such as manufacturing, reliability, electrical, business, and compliance into coordinated clusters so trade-offs can be managed efficiently rather than one rule at a time. These principles are not stand-alone; they're interdependent by nature, like crabs in a basket. Each design force influences the others, whether or not teams account for it.

After researching DFX for many years, I have clearly seen that each one is tied to the rest. This affects manufacturability and cost, shifts reliability and testability, and requires responses to changes in materials and compliance. They're interconnected even more tightly than those crabs, where one motion affects the whole group. The lesson is the same: You're never designing against a single constraint, but inside a system where everything is linked.

When I was asked to compare only two DFX principles and "pull them out of the crab basket" to examine them separately, something became clear immediately: They didn't come out alone. Every time I tried to isolate one, others came with it. What was intended to be a simple comparison quickly turned into a discussion of systems. It was like trying to lift a single crab without disturbing the others; you immediately saw they were all connected.

Setting Up a Fighting Match
This sets the stage for a clash between two titans of industry: design for innovation (DFI), the bold challenger pushing the limits of what's possible, and design for manufacturing (DFM), the reigning champion grounded in what's actually achievable.

In this analogy, the challenger's corner represents design for innovation, a fresh face on the scene who’s bold, fast, and boundary-pushing. DFI is a design philosophy focused on generating new ideas, achieving breakthrough performance, and creating differentiation. Its purpose is to explore what is technologically feasible before addressing production limits, cost optimization, or process constraints. It prioritizes creativity, new architectures, emerging materials, and unconventional approaches to discover solutions that don't yet exist in standard practice. It is state-of-the-art and lightning-fast.

This discipline operates at the front end of development, where the goal is vision rather than refinement. It thrives on “what if,” “why not,” and “has anyone tried this before?” Innovation accepts risk as part of progress and recognizes that many ideas will not succeed, but the ones that do can redefine an entire product category and industry for the future.

DFI is a powerful contender because it stretches boundaries, challenges assumptions, and constantly pushes designs beyond their comfort zone. It’s exactly why stepping into the ring with the long-time champion becomes such a compelling matchup.

In the other corner is our reigning champion: design for manufacturing. They’re battle-scarred and seasoned, disciplined, and grounded in reality. DFM is the design philosophy focused on ensuring a product can be built reliably, repeatedly, and cost-effectively at scale. While DFI seeks what's possible, DFM seeks what's practical. It evaluates whether materials are available, tolerances are achievable, processes are stable, yields are high, and production can run without surprises.

DFM has held the title for so long because, ultimately, every product must face it at some point in its lifecycle. A design can be brilliant on paper, but if it can't be fabricated, assembled, and tested consistently, it never leaves the lab. DFM is the long-time champion because it’s the real-world proving ground where ideas must stand up to physics, process capability, and production economics.

Why Fighting It Out Matters
With our “contenders” in the ring, the bell rings, and the ultimate showdown begins. At first, it appears to be a classic fight. DFI throws the first punches: bold ideas, new technologies, unconventional approaches. It moves fast, takes risks, and pushes limits. Then DFM counters with precision: Can it be built and scaled? Will it yield? Can it be repeated thousands of times without failure? Every strike from DFI is met with a grounded response from DFM. The match seems to go back and forth, neither side able to eliminate the other.

As the rounds go on, something becomes very clear: Neither fighter can actually win alone. If DFI dominates, you get brilliant designs that can't be produced. If DFM dominates, you get safe products that no one is excited about. Instead of the fight ending with a knockout, it ends with both realizing they've been training for the same outcome all along.

The Result: Everybody Wins
What appeared to be a fight between DFI and DFM is more like the crab basket. While it appears the crabs are competing, each pulling the other down and preventing escape, they aren’t. They are connected. Every movement from one affects the others. No crab moves independently, whether it is intended to or not.

DFI, DFM, and many other DFX principles behave similarly. Innovation seeks to climb, manufacturing seeks stability, and the motion of one immediately influences the other. They're not isolated forces taking turns; they're part of the same system, reacting in real time. What appears to be opposition is, in fact, interdependence.

So, the lesson from both the ring and the crab basket is the same: The goal is to understand how they move together. Because in real engineering, just like in that basket, nothing moves alone.

This column originally appeared in the April 2026 issue of I-Connect007 Magazine.