An integrated approach to product family redesign using commonality and variety metrics
Tóm tắt
Redesigning a product family entails carefully balancing the trade-offs between commonality and differentiation that are governed by the underlying platform architecture. Numerous metrics for commonality and variety exist to support product family and product platform design; however, rarely are they used in concert to help redesign platforms and families of products effectively. In this paper, we introduce an integrated approach that uses multiple product family metrics to establish an effective platform redesign strategy. Specifically, we present a detailed procedure to integrate the generational variety index, product line commonality index, and design structure matrix to prioritize components for redesign based on variety and commonality needs in a family of products. While all three of these tools exist in the literature and have been used extensively to support product family design, the novelty in our work lies in their integration to establish a redesign strategy for platform architectures that achieves a better balance between the commonality and variety within a product family. To demonstrate the proposed approach, case studies involving two generations of wireless computer mice and two families of dishwashers are presented. Ongoing and future work is also discussed.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alizon F, Moon SK, Shooter SB, Simpson TW (2007) Three dimensional design structure matrix with cross-module and cross-interface analysis. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences—design automation conference, Las Vegas, NV, ASME, paper no. DETC2007/DAC-34510
Alizon F, Shooter SB, Simpson TW (2009) Assessing and improving commonality and diversity within a product family. Res Eng Des 20(4):241–253
Asikoglu O, Simpson TW (2012) A new method for evaluating design dependencies in product architectures. In: 14th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Indianapolis, IN, AIAA, AIAA-2012-5660
Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2004a) Information flow structure in large-scale product development organizational networks. J Inf Technol 19:244–253
Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2004b) Topology of large-scale engineering problem-solving networks. Phys Rev E 69(1):016113
Braha D, Bar-Yam Y (2007) The statistical mechanics of complex product development. Manag Sci 53(7):1127–1145
Browning TR (2001) Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(3):292–306
Chan L-K, Wu M-L (2002) Quality function deployment: a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 143(3):463–497
Clarkson PJ, Simons C, Eckert C (2004) Predicting change propagation in complex design. ASME J Mech Des 126(5):788–797
Collier DA (1981) The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality. Decis Sci 12(1):85–96
Dobberfuhl A, Lange MW (2009) Interfaces per module: is there an ideal number? In: ASME design engineering technical conferences—computers and information in engineering, San Diego, CA, ASME
Eckert C, Clarkson PJ, Zanker W (2004) Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Res Eng Des 15(1):1–21
Engel A, Reich Y (2015) Advancing architecture options theory: six industrial case studies. Syst Eng 18(4):396–414
Eppinger SD, Browning TR (2012) Design structure matrix methods and applications. MIT Press, Cambridge
Eppinger SD, Chitkara AR (2006) The new practice of global product development. MIT Sloan Manag Rev 47(4):22–30
Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2003) Product modularity: definitions and benefits. J Eng Des 14(3):295–313
Gershenson JK, Prasad GJ, Zhang Y (2004) Product modularity: measures and design methods. J Eng Des 15(1):33–51
Green PE, Srinivasan V (1990) Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J Mark 54(4):3–19
Hauser JR, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harvard Bus Rev 66(3):63–73
Hölttä KM, Otto KN (2005) Incorporating design effort complexity measures in product architectural design and assessment. Des Stud 26(5):463–485
Hölttä-Otto K, de Weck O (2007) Degree of modularity in engineering systems and products with technical and business constraints. Concurr Eng Res Appl 15(2):113–126
Hölttä-Otto K, Chiriac NA, Lysy D, Suh ES (2012) Comparative analysis of coupling modularity metrics. J Eng Des 23(10–11):790–806
Hsiao S-W, Liu E (2005) A structural component-based approach for designing product family. Comput Ind 56(1):13–28
Jiao J, Tseng MM (2000) Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices. J Eng Des 11(3):225–243
Kano N, Seraku N, Takahashi F, Tsuji S (1984) Attractive quality and must-be quality. J Jpn Soc Qual Control 14(2):147–156
Kota S, Sethuraman K, Miller R (2000) A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. ASME J Mech Des 122(4):403–410
Krause D, Beckmann G, Eilmus S, Gebhardt N, Jonas H, Rettberg R (2014) Integrated development of modular product families: a methods toolkit. In: Simpson TW, Jiao RJ, Siddique Z, Hölttä-Otto K (eds) Advances in product family and product platform design. Springer, New York, pp 245–269
Kumar R, Allada V (2007) Function-technology-based product platform formation. Int J Prod Res 45(24):5687–5714
LG (2006) LG dishwasher service manual (model: LD-1426T, LG-1416T, LD-1415M, LD-1403W, LD-1204W/1204M)
LG (2007) LG dishwasher service manual (model: LD-1403W1)
LG (2009) LG dishwasher service manual (model: LD-1415M1/LD-1415T1/LD-1415W1)
LG (2009) LG dishwasher service manual (model: LD-1420W2 (D1420WF)/LD-1421W2 (D1421WF)/LD-1420T2 (D1420TF)/LD-1421T2 (D1421TF)/LD-1420B2 (D1420BF)/LD-1421B2 (D1421BF))
LG (2010) LG dishwasher service manual (model: LD-1419W(L,M,T,B,C,D)2)
Li Y, Tang J, Luo X, Xu J (2009) An integrated method of rough set, Kano’s model and AHP for rating customer requirements’ final importance. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):7045–7053
Luh D-B, Ko Y-T, Ma C-H (2011) A structural matrix-based modelling for designing product variety. J Eng Des 22(1):1–29
Martin MV, Ishii K (1997) Design for variety: development of complexity indices and design charts. In: Advances in design automation, Sacramento, CA, ASME, paper no. DETC97/DFM-4359
Martin MV, Ishii K (2002) Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Res Eng Des 13(4):213–235
Michalek JJ, Ceryan O, Papalambros PY, Koren Y (2006) Balancing marketing and manufacturing objectives in product line design. ASME J Mech Des 128(6):1196–1204
Nadadur G, Kim W, Thomson AR, Parkinson MB, Simpson TW (2012) Strategic product design for multiple global markets. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences—design theory and methodology conference, Chicago, IL, ASME, paper no. DETC2012/DTM-70723
Nadadur G, Parkinson MB, Simpson TW (2013) Application of the generational variety index: a retrospective study of iPhone evolution. In: Simpson TW, Jiao RJ, Siddique Z, Hölttä-Otto K (eds) Advances in product family and product platform design: methods and applications. Springer, New York, pp 737–751
Simpson TW, Siddique Z, Jiao J (eds) (2005) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. Springer, New York
Simpson TW, Bobuk A, Slingerland LA, Brennan S, Logan D, Reichard K (2012) From user requirements to commonality specifications: an integrated approach to product family design. Res Eng Des 23(2):141–153
Simpson TW, Jiao RJ, Siddique Z, Hölttä-Otto K (eds) (2013) Advances in product family and product platform design: methods and applications. Springer, New York
Sosa ME, Eppinger SD, Rowles CM (2007) A network approach to define modularity of components in complex products. J Mech Des 129(11):1118–1129
Steward DV (1981a) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 28(3):71–74
Steward DV (1981b) Systems analysis and management: structure, strategy and design. Petrocelli Books Inc, New York
Thevenot HJ, Simpson TW (2006) Commonality indices for product family design: a detailed comparison. J Eng Des 17(2):99–119
Thevenot HJ, Simpson TW (2007a) A method for benchmarking product family design alternatives. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences—design automation conference, Las Vegas, NV, ASME, paper no. DETC2007/DAC-34494
Thevenot HJ, Simpson TW (2007b) Guidelines to minimize variation when estimating product line commonality through product family dissection. Des Stud 28(2):175–194
Thevenot HJ, Simpson TW (2007c) A comprehensive metric for evaluating component commonality in a product family. J Eng Des 18(6):577–598
Wacker JG, Trelevan M (1986) Component part standardization: an analysis of commonality sources and indices. J Oper Manag 6(2):219–244
Yassine A, Braha D (2003) complex concurrent engineering and the design structure matrix method. Concurr Eng Res Appl 11(3):165–176
Yassine A, Joglekar N, Braha D, Eppinger S, Whitney D (2003) Information hiding in product development: the design churn effect. Res Eng Des 14(3):145–161
Yu T-L, Yassine AA, Goldberg DE (2007) An information theoretic method for developing modular architectures using genetic algorithms. Res Eng Des 18(2):91–109
Zhou W, Wu D, Ding X, Rosen DW (2010) Customer co-design of computer mouse for mass customization without causing mass confusion. In: International conference on manufacturing automation (ICMA), 2010. IEEE, pp 8–15