Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T02:34:42.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A New Method to Assess Platform Changes Over Successive Generations of Product Variants from Multiple Design Perspectives

Part of: Product Architecture and Modularization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Foo Shing Wong  and
David C. Wynn

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.

This paper introduces a new method to help designers assess the impact of changes to a product platform when introducing a new variant. The method evaluates a platform design by investigating how changing some components will impact other platform design perspectives such as material, function, manufacturing processes and assembly time. To assess the usefulness of this method, it was applied to assess platform changes resulting from successive generations of scanner heads from two manufacturers. The method indicated that one manufacturer improved their scanner head design by improving the functionality of its components and assembly time. Whereas, the other manufacturer's new scanner head used more material and manufacturing processes without benefiting other design perspectives. Compared to existing product family evaluation methods which focus only on maximising commonality between product variants, the proposed method considers potential platform design improvements and assesses them from multiple design perspectives before deciding on reusing existing components or implementing the new design. The information from this method will also complement existing commonality indices.

Keywords

Platform strategiesProduct familiesEvaluationMultiple design perspectiveGenerational design change
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 2931 - 2940
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
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) 2019

References

Alizon, F., Shooter, S. B. and Simpson, T. W. (2006), “Assessing and improving commonality and diversity within a product family”, Paper presented at the ASME 2006 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99499Google Scholar
Alizon, F., Shooter, S. B. and Simpson, T. W. (2007), “Improving an existing product family based on commonality/diversity, modularity, and cost”, Design Studies, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 387–409. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99536Google Scholar
Bonvoisin, J., Halstenberg, F., Buchert, T. and Stark, R. (2016), “A systematic literature review on modular product design”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 488–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2016.1166482Google Scholar
Boothroyd, G., Dewhurst, P. and Knight, W. A. (2001), Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, revised and expanded, CRC press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780824741587Google Scholar
Collier, D. A. (1981), “The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1981.tb00063.xGoogle Scholar
Fujita, K., Akai, R. and Amaya, H. (2009), “Product Family Deployment Strategies under Different Types of Product Variety Design Circumstances”, Paper presented at the DS 58-4: Proceedings of ICED 09, the 17th International Conference on Engineering Design, Vol. 4, Product and Systems Design, Palo Alto, CA, USA, 24.-27.08. 2009.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N. and Baker, J. D. (2000), “A method for architecting product platforms”, Research in engineering design, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001630050024Google Scholar
Hölttä-Otto, K. and Otto, K. (2006), “Platform concept evaluation”, In Product Platform and Product Family Design, pp. 49–72, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-29197-0_4Google Scholar
Jiao, J. and Tseng, M. M. (2000), “Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 225–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/095448200750021003Google Scholar
Johnson, M. D. and Kirchain, R. (2010), “Developing and assessing commonality metrics for product families: A process-based cost-modeling approach”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 634–648. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_19Google Scholar
Kota, S., Sethuraman, K. and Miller, R. (2000), “A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 122 No. 4, pp. 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1320820Google Scholar
Liu, Y., Lim, S. C. J. and Lee, W. B. (2013), “Product family design through ontology-based faceted component analysis, selection, and optimization”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 135 No. 8, p. 081007. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4023632Google Scholar
Luo, X., Tang, J. and Kwong, C. (2014), “A QFD-Based Optimization Method for Scalable Product Platform”, In Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design, pp. 343–365, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7937-6_14Google Scholar
Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K. (1996), “Design for variety: a methodology for understanding the costs of product proliferation”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of The 1996 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers in Engineering Conference, California.Google Scholar
Meyer, M. H. and Lehnerd, A. P. (1997), The power of product platforms, Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Miller, T. D. and Elgard, P. (1998), “Defining modules, modularity and modularization”, Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th IPS research seminar, Fuglsoe.Google Scholar
Siddique, Z., Rosen, D. W. and Wang, N. (1998), “On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality”, Paper presented at the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences-Design Theory and Methodology.Google Scholar
Thevenot, H. J. and Simpson, T. W. (2006), “Commonality indices for product family design: a detailed comparison”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 99–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820500275693Google Scholar
Thevenot, H. J. and Simpson, T. W. (2007), “A comprehensive metric for evaluating component commonality in a product family”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2006-99268Google Scholar
Tseng, M. W., Yue, J and Jiao, Roger. (2017), “Mass Customization”, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35950-7_16701-3Google Scholar
Van Beek, T. J., Erden, M. S. and Tomiyama, T. (2010), “Modular design of mechatronic systems with function modelling”, Mechatronics, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 850–863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechatronics.2010.02.002Google Scholar
Wacker, J. G. and Treleven, M. (1986), “Component part standardization: an analysis of commonality sources and indices”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(86)90026-4Google Scholar