A comprehensive metric for evaluating component commonality in a product family

Journal of Engineering Design

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 577-598

  Thevenot, Henri J ^a   Simpson, Timothy W ^a  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Commonality; Diversity; Product family design

Indexed keywords

EID: 37049031231     PISSN: 09544828     EISSN: 14661837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09544820601020014     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alizon, F., Shooter, S.B. and Simpson, T.W., Assessing and improving commonality and diversity within a product family, in ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, ASME, Philadelphia, PA, 2006, Paper No. DETC2006-DAC99499.
2. Collier, D.A., The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality. Decision Sci., 1981, 12(1), 85-96.
3. Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M. and Papalambros, RY, Quantitative platform, selection, in optimal design, of product families, with application to automotive engine design. J. Eng. Design, 2006, 17(5), 429-446.
4. Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J. and Zhang, Y., Product modularity: definitions and benefits. J. Eng. Design, 2003, 14(3), 295-313.
5. Gershenson, J.K., Prasad, G.J. and Zhang, Y., Product modularity: measures and design methods. J. Eng. Design, 2004, 15(1), 33-51.
6. Goldberg, D.E., Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization, and Machine Learning, 1989 (Addison-Wesley Publishing Company: New York).
7. Jiao, J. and Tseng, M.M., Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices. J. Eng. Design, 2000, 11(3), 225-243.
8. Johannesson, H. and Claesson, A., Systematic product platform design: a combined function-means and parametric modeling approach. J. Eng. Design, 2005, 16(1), 25-43.
9. Kota, S., Sethuraman, K. and Miller, R., A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. ASME J. Mech. Design, 2000, 122(4), 403-410.
10. Krishnan, V. and Gupta, S., Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Manage. Sci., 2001, 47(1), 52-68.
11. Lukman, H., Shooter, S., Terpenny, J.P., Simpson, T.W., Stone, R.B. and Kumara, S.R.T., An Inter-university collaborative undergraduate research/learning experience for product platform, planning: year 2, in ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, ASEE, Chicago, IL, 2006.
12. Martin, M. and Ishii, K., Design for variety: a methodology for understanding the costs of product proliferation, in ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences-Design Theory and Methodology Conference, ASME, Irvine, CA, 1996, Paper No. 96-DETC/DTM-1610.
13. Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K., Design for variety: development of complexity indices and design charts, in ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences- Design, for Manufacturai lity Conference, ASME, Sacramento, CA, 1997, Paper No. DETC97/DFM-4359.
14. Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K., Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform. architectures. Res. Eng. Design, 2002, 13(4), 213-235.
15. McAdams, D.A. and Wood, K.L., A. quantitative similarity metric for design-by-analogy. ASME J. Mech. Design, 2002, 124(2), 173-182.
16. McAdams, D.A., Stone, R.B. and Wood, K.L., Functional interdependence and product similarity based on customer needs. Res. Eng. Design, 1999, 11(1), 1-19.
17. Messac, A., Martinez, M.P. and Simpson, T.W., A. penalty function for product family design using physical programming. ASME J. Mech. Design, 2002, 124(2), 164-172.
18. Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A.P., The Power of Product Platforms: Building Value and Cost Leadership, 1997 (The Free Press: New York).
19. Miller, S., VW sows confusion with common pattern for models - investors worry profits may suffer as lines compete. Wall Street Journal, 1999, p. A.25.
20. Nayak, R.U., Chen, W. and Simpson, T.W, A variation-based method for product family design. Eng. Optimization, 2002, 34(1), 65-81.
21. Nepal, B., Monplaisir, L. and Singh, N., A methodology for integrating design for quality in modular product design. J. Eng. Design, 2006,17(5), 387-409.
22. Siddique, Z., Rosen, D.W. and Wang, N., On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality, m ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences-Design Theory and Methodology, ASME, Atlanta, GA, 1998, Paper No. DETC98/DTM-5661.
23. Simpson, T.W., Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Artif. Intell. Eng. Design Anal. Manufact., 2004, 18(1), 3-20.
24. Simpson, T.W. and D'Souza, B., Assessing variable levels of platform commonality within a product family using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl, 2004, 12(2), 119-129.
25. Simpson, T.W. and Thevenot, H.J., Using product dissection to integrate product family design research, into the classroom, and improve students' understanding of platform commonality, in ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference-Design Theory and Methodology, ASME, Long Beach, CA, 2005, Paper No. DETC2005-DTM84639.
26. Simpson, T.W, Seepersad, C.C. and Mistree, F., Balancing commonality and performance within the concurrent design of multiple products in a product family. Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl., 2001, 9(3), 177-190.
27. Simpson, T. W., Siddique, S. and Jiao, J., Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and Applications, 2005 (Springer: New York).
28. Swift, K.G. and Booker, J.D., Process Selection From Design to Manufacture, 1997 (Arnold: London).
29. Thevenot, H.J. and Simpson, T.W., Commonality indices for product family design: a detailed comparison. J. Eng. Design, 2006, 17(2), 99-119.
30. Thevenot, H.J., Nanda, J. and Simpson, T.W., A methodology to support product family redesign using genetic algorithm and commonality indices, in ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Long Beach, CA, 2005, Paper No. DETC2005/DAC-84927.
31. Wacker, J.G. and Trelevan, M., Component part standardization: an analysis of commonality sources and indices. J. Operations Manage., 1986, 6(2), 219-244.