No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
CONSTRUCTING A PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE STRATEGY AND EFFECTS (PASE) MATRIX FOR EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF PRODUCT ARCHITECTURES
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Product architecture decisions are made early in the product development process and have far-reaching effects. Unless anticipated through experience or intuition, many of these effects may not be apparent until much later in the development process, making changes to the architecture costly in time, effort, and resources. Many researchers through the years have studied various elements of product architecture and their effects. By aggregating observations on the effects of architecture strategies from a selection of the literature on the topic and storing them in a systematic data set, this information can be recalled in a matrix structure which allows for the identification, comparison and evaluation, and then selection of the most desirable product architecture strategies before expending resources along any development path. This paper introduces this matrix, referred to as the Product Architecture Strategy and Effect (PASE) Matrix, how to construct one, and a demonstration of its use.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Brusoni, S., Marengo, L., Prencipe, A. and Valente, M. (2007), “The value and costs of modularity: a problem- solving perspective”, European Management Review, Vol. 4, pp. 121–132, http://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave. emr.1500079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiarello, F., Melluso, N., Bonaccorsi, A. and Fantoni, G. (2019), “A text mining based map of engineering design: Topics and their trajectories over time”, Vol. 2019-August, Cambridge University Press, pp. 2765–2774, http://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K.B. (1989), “Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and supplier involvement on product development”, http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.10.1247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danese, P. and Filippini, R. (2010), “Modularity and the impact on new product development time performance: Investigating the moderating effects of supplier involvement and interfunctional integration”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 30, pp. 1191–1209, http://doi.org/10.1108/01443571011087387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eppner, C., Hofer, S., Jonschkowski, R., Martin-Martin, R., Sieverling, A., Wall, V. and Brock, O. (2018), “Four aspects of building robotic systems: lessons from the amazon picking challenge 2015”, Autonomous Robots, Vol. 42, pp. 1459–1475, http://doi.org/10.1007/s10514-018-9761-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, R.S. and Simpson, T.W. (2003), “Product platform design to improve commonality in custom products”, http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027306704980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackl, J., Krause, D., Otto, K., Windheim, M., Moon, S.K., Bursac, N. and Lachmayer, R. (2020), “Impact of modularity decisions on a firm's economic objectives”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 142, http://doi.org/10.1115/L4044914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, D.E., Snider, C., Kent, L. and Hicks, B. (2019), “Early stage digital twins for early stage engineering design”, Vol. 2019-August, Cambridge University Press, pp. 2557–2566, http://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattson, C.A. and Sorensen, C.D. (2019), Product Development: Principles and Tools for Creating Desirable and Transferable Designs, Springer Nature, http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-14899-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reich, Y. and Subrahmanian, E. (2022), “Documenting design research by structured multilevel analysis: supporting the diversity of the design research community of practice”, Design Science, Vol. 8, http://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2021.28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scupin, R. (1997), “The kj method: A technique for analyzing data derived from japanese ethnology”, Human organization, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 233–237, http://doi.org/10.17730/humo.56.2.x335923511444655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2000), “Designing modular and integrative systems”, http://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2000/DTM-14571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, R.B. and Wood, K.L. (2000), “Development of a functional basis for design”, http://doi.org/10.1115/DETC99/DTM-8765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, http://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Ellison, D.J. (1999), “Holistic customer requirements and the design-select decision”, Management Science, Vol. 45, pp. 641–658, http://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.5.641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Ellison, D.J. (2005), “Beyond make-buy: Internalization and integration of design and production”, http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-5956.2005.tb00027.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ulrich, K.T. and Seering, W.P. (1990), “Function sharing in mechanical design the concept of function sharing”, http://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(90)90041-A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wyatt, D.F., Wynn, D.C., Jarrett, J.P. and Clarkson, P.J. (2012), “Supporting product architecture design using computational design synthesis with network structure constraints”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 23, pp. 17–52, http://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-011-0112-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access
Open access