[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Examination of platform and differentiating elements in product family design

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The problems of mass customization, portfolio design, and platform design all pose a common challenge to the designer: knowing how to partition a set of product variants to maximize commonality and simultaneously achieve sufficient differentiation for purposes of customization. This research focuses on the particular issue of how differences between platform elements and differentiating elements are evidenced in the product layout or configuration. The premise of this research is that certain architectural properties, such as modularity, vary between platform and differentiating elements. In particular, certain measures of commonality offer an appropriate set of indices for evaluating these differences in a systematic and repeatable manner. Both function and physical solution commonality provide a descriptor with which to distinguish and rank platform and differentiating elements. By evaluating components of a product in terms of function commonality, physical solution commonality, and modularity, a comparison can be made between platforms and differentiating elements with respect to these indices. The hypothesis of this work is that platforms are integrated and the non-common differentiating elements are, relative to the platforms, more modular. While anecdotal evidence exists to support this idea, the purpose of this work is to evaluate two existing product families as a means for analyzing this hypothesized relation. The result of this research is a descriptive set of knowledge that illustrates distinguishing factors between platform and differentiating elements. The data specifically demonstrates the differences in modularity between platforms and differentiating elements, thus suggesting how this design aspect can and should be addressed during design. While not the focus of this study, future research involving a more prescriptive approach to design can directly benefit from the results. The knowledge gained in this work serves as a foundation for addressing portfolio design where both customization and commonality are key issues.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
£29.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (United Kingdom)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aboulafia R. (2000). Airbus pulls closer to boeing. Aerospace America 38: 16–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, K., & Carlson-Skalak, W. (1998). Defining product architecture during conceptual design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC1998/DTM-5650.

  • Asan U., Polat S., Serdar S. (2004). An integrated method for designing modular products. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 15: 29–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin C., Clark K. (2000) Design rules: Volume 1, The power of modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackenfelt, M. (2001). Managing complexity by product modularisation. Doctoral Thesis,Department of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.

  • Bremmer, R. (1999). Cutting-edge platforms. Financial Times Automotive World, Sept., 30–38.

  • Caffrey, R., Simpson, T., Henderson, R., & Crawley, E. (2002). The strategic issues with implementing open avionics platforms for spacecraft. IEEE Aerospace Conference, IEEE-434–02.

  • Chandrasekaran B., Stone R., McAdams D. (2004) Developing design templates for product platform focused design. Journal of Engineering Design 15: 209–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier D. (1981) The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality. Decision Sciences 12: 85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbett B., Rosen D.W. (2004) A configuration design based method for platform commonization for product families. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering, Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18: 21–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahmus, J., Gonzalez-Zugasti, J., Otto, K. (2000). Modular product architecture. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2000/DTM-14565.

  • Fujita, K., Akagi, S., Yoneda, T., & Ishikawa, M. (1998). Simultaneous optimization of product family sharing system structure and configuration. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1998/DTM-5722.

  • Fujita K., Yoshida H. (2004) Product variety optimization simultaneously designing module combination and module attributes. Concurrent Engineering 12: 105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershenson K., Prasad G., Zhang Y. (2003) Product modularity: definitions and benefits. Journal of Engineering Design 14: 295–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gershenson K., Prasad G., Zhang Y. (2004) Product modularity: Measures and design methods. Journal of Engineering Design 15: 35–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Zugasti J., Otto K., Baker J. (2000) A method for architecting product platforms. Research in Engineering Design 12: 61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, F., & Gershenson, J. (2003). Comparison of modular measurement methods based on consistencey analysis and sensitivity analysis. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2003/DTM-48634.

  • Hernandez G., Simpson T., Allen J., Bascaran E., Avila K., Salinas F. (2001) Robust design of families of products with production modeling and evaluation. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 123(2): 183–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirtz J., Stone R., McAdams D., Szykman S., Wood K. (2002) A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design 13: 65–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofer A., Halman J. (2004) Complex products and systems: Potential from using layout platforms. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18: 55–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtta, K., & Salonen, M. (2003). Comparing three different modularity methods. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC2003/DTM-48649.

  • Jensen, T. (2000). Function integration explained by allocation and activation of wirk elements. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2000/DTM-14551.

  • Kobe G. (1997) Platforms – GM’s seven platform global strategy. Automotive Industries 177: 50

    Google Scholar 

  • Kota, S., & Sethuraman K. (1998). Managing variety in product families through design for commonality. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DETC1998/DTM-5651.

  • Kurtadikar, R., Stone, R., Van Wie, M., & McAdams, D. (2004). A customer needs motivated conceptual design methodology for product portfolios. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC04/DTM-57289.

  • Kusiak A. (2002) Integrated product and process design: A modularity perspective. Journal of Engineering Design 13: 223–231

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M., & Ishii, K. (1996). Design for variety: A methodology for understanding the costs of product proliferation. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1996/DTM-1610.

  • Martin, M. & Ishii, K. (1997). Design for variety: Development of complexity indices and design charts. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1997/DTM-4359.

  • Martin, M. & Ishii, K., (2000). Design for variety: A methodology for developing product platform architectures. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2000/DFM-14021.

  • Messac A., Martinez M., Simpson T. (2002) A penalty function for product family design using physical programming. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 124: 164–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M. (1997) Revitalize your product lines through continuous platform renewal. Research Technology Management 40: 17–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., Dalal D. (2002) Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for nonassembled products. The Journal of Production Innovation Management 19: 277–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., DeTore A. (2001) PERSPECTIVE: Creating a platform-based approach for developing new services. The Journal of Production Innovation Management 18: 188–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., Lehnerd A. (1997) The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., Lopez L. (1995) Technology strategy in a software products company. Journal of Product Innovation Management 12: 294–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., Utterback J. (1993) The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Management Review 34: 29–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., Zack M. (1996) The design and development of information products. Sloan Management Review 37: 43–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Naughton K., Thornton E., Kerwin K., Dawley H. (1997) Can Honda build a world car?. Business Week 7: 100

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak R., Chen W., Simpson T. (2002) A variation-based method for product family design. Engineering Optimization 34: 65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Grady P. (1999) The age of modularity. Adams and Steel Publishers, Iowa City, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, R., Kalyan-Seshu, U., & Bras, B. (1999). A decision support model for the life-cycle design of a family of oil filters. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1999/DTM-8765.

  • Otto K., Wood K. (2001) Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajan, P., Van Wie, M., Wood, K., Otto, K., & Campbell, M. (2004). Empirical study on product flexiblity. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2004/DTM-57389.

  • Rechtin E. (1997) The art of systems architecting. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell R., Gardiner P. (1990) Robustness and product design families. In: Oakley M. (eds). Design management: A handbook of issues and methods. Basil Blackwell Inc., Cambridge MA, pp. 279–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabbagh K. (1996) Twenty-first century jet: Making and marketing of the Boeing 777. Scribner, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanderson, S., & Uzumeri, M. (1997). Managing product families. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

  • Siddique, Z., & Rosen, D. (1999). Product platform design: A graph grammar approach. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference DETC1999/DTM-8762.

  • Siddique, Z., Rosen, D., & Wang, N. (1998). On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1998/DTM-5661.

  • Simpson T. (2004). Product platform design and customization: Status and promise. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 18: 3–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T.W., Maier J.R.A., Mistree F. (2001) Product platform design: Method and application. Research in Engineering Design 13: 1–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, R., Wood, K., & Crawford, R. (1999). Product architecture development with quantitative functional models. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1999/DTM-8764.

  • Stone R., Wood K., Crawford R. (2000a) A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies 21: 5–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone R., Wood K., Crawford R. (2000b) Using quantitative functional models to develop product architectures. Design Studies 21: 239–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thevenot, H. (2003). A comparison of commonality indices for product family design. MS Thesis, Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Penn State University, University Park, PA.

  • Thevenot H., Simpson T.W. (2006) Commonality indices for product family design. Journal of Engineering Design 17: 99–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, M., & Jiao, J. (1998). Design for mass customization By developing product family architecture. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1998/DTM-5717.

  • Ulrich K. (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24: 419–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Wie, M., Rajan, P., Campbell, M., Stone, R., & Wood, K. (2003). Representing product architecture. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2003/DTM-48668.

  • Wang, B., & Antonsson, E. (2004). Information measure for modularity in engineering design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC2004/DTM-57515.

  • Yigit A., Allahverdi A. (2003) Optimal selection of module instances for modular products in reconfigurable manufacturing systems. International Journal of Production Research 41: 4063–4074

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu J., Gonzalez-Zugasti J., Otto K. (1999) Product architecture definition based upon customer demand. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 121: 329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zamirowski, E. & Otto, J. (1999). Identifying product portfolio architecture modularity using function and variety heuristics. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, DETC1999/DTM-8760.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interdisciplinary Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, USA

    Michael Van Wie & Robert B. Stone

  2. Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering, Penn State University, University Park, USA

    Henri Thevenot & Timothy Simpson

Authors
  1. Michael Van Wie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert B. Stone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Henri Thevenot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Timothy Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert B. Stone.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van Wie, M., Stone, R.B., Thevenot, H. et al. Examination of platform and differentiating elements in product family design. J Intell Manuf 18, 77–96 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0005-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0005-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation