Robust product family consolidation and selection

Journal of Engineering Design

Volumn 19, Issue 6, 2008, Pages 553-569

  Dolan, Bryan ^a   Lewis, Kemper ^a  

^a University of Buffalo SUNY ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Knowledge representation; Multiattribute decision making; Multiobjective optimisation; Product families; Robust concept selection

Indexed keywords

EID: 56449128083     PISSN: 09544828     EISSN: 14661837     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09544820802126511     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Atkinson, A.C. and Doney, A.N., 1992. Optimum experimental designs. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
2. Boeing, 2008. About the 777 family. Available from: http://www.boeing. com/co.mm.erc.ial/777family/background.html [Accessed 25 January 2008].
3. Caffrey, R., et al., 2002. Product platform concepts applied to small satellites: a new multipurpose radio concept by AeroAstro Inc. In: 16th annual conference on small satellites, SSC02-X-8, Logan, UT.
4. Chen, W., Wiecek, M., and Zhang, J., 1999. Quality utility: a compromise programming approach to robust design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 121 (2), 179-187.
5. Das, I. and Dennis, J.E., 1997. A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems. Structural Optimization, 14, 63-69.
6. Gupta, A.K. and Souder, W.E., 1998. Key drivers of reduced cycle time. Research Technology Management, 41 (4), 38-43.
7. Gurnani, A.P. and Lewis, K., 2005. Robust multiattribute decision making under risk and uncertainty in engineering design. Engineering Optimization, 37 (8), 813-830.
8. Gurnani, A.P., See, T.K., and Lewis, K., 2003. An approach to multiattribute concept selection. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences, design automation conference, DETC2003/DAC-48707, Chicago, IL.
9. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H., 1993. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Kota, S., Sethuraman, K., and Miller, R., 2000. A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122 (4), 403-410.
11. Kulok, M. and Lewis, K., 2007. A. method to ensure preference consistency in multiattribute selection decisions. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129 (10), 1002-1011.
12. Marion, T and Simpson, T., 2006. Platform leveraging strategies and market segmentation. In: T Simpson, Z. Siddique, and J. Jiao, eds. Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. New York NY: Springer, 73-90.
13. Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A.P., 1997. The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.
14. Meyer, M.H. and Seliger, R., 1998. Product platforms in software development. Sloan Management Review, 40 (1), 61-74.
15. Miettinen, K.M., 1999. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
16. Nayak, R.U., Chen, W., and Simpson, TW, 2000. A variation-based method for product family design. In: ASME design technical conferences, design automation conference, DETC2000/DAC-14264, Baltimore, MD.
17. Paula, G., 1997. Reinventing a core product line. Mechanical Engineering, 119 (10), 102-103.
18. Riva, C and Del Rosso, C., 2002. Experiences with software product family evolution. In: Proceedings of the 6th international workshop on principles of software evolution, 0-7695-1903-2/02, Helsinki, Finland.
19. Rothwell, R. and Gardiner, P., 1990. Robustness and product design families. In: M. Oakley, ed. Design management: a handbook of issues and methods. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Inc., pp. 279-292.
20. Sabbagh, K., 1996. Twenty-first century jet: the making and marketing of the Boeing 777. Scribner, New York.
21. Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R.C., and Arroniz, I., 2006. The 12 different ways for companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management Review, 47 (3), 75-81.
22. Scott, M.J., and Antonsson, E.K., 2000. Using indifference points in engineering decisions. In: ASME design technical conferences, design theory and methodology conference, DETC2000/DTM-14559, Baltimore, MD.
23. See, T.K. and Lewis, K., 2002. Multi-attribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents. In: ASME design technical conferences, design automation conference, DETC2002/DAC-34079, Montreal, Canada.
24. See, T.K. and Lewis, K., 2004. A formal approach to handling conflicts in multiattribute group decision making. In: ASME design technical conferences, design automation conference, DETC2004-57342, Salt Lake City, UT.
25. See, T.K. and Lewis, K., 2005. A. decision support formulation for design teams: a study in preference aggregation and handling unequal group members. In: ASME design technical conferences, design automation conference, DETC2005-84766, Long Beach, CA.
26. See, T.K. and Lewis, K., 2006. A. formal approach to handling conflicts in multiattribute group decision making. Journal of Mechanical Design, 128 (4), 678-688.
27. See, T.K., Gurnani, A., and Lewis, K., 2004. Multi-attribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents. Journal of Mechanical Design, 126 (6), 950-958.
28. Simpson, T.W., 1998. A product platform concept exploration method for product family design, Thesis (PhD). Georgia Institute of Technology.
29. Simpson, T.W., 2004. Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 18 (1), 3-20.
30. Simpson, T.W., Maier, J.R.A., and Mistree, F., 2001. Product platform design: method and application. Research in Engineering Design, 13 (1), 2-22.
31. Thevenot, H.J. and Simpson, T.W., 2006. Commonality indices for product family design: a detailed comparison. Journal of Engineering Design, 17 (2), 99-119.
32. Thevenot, H.J., et al., 2006. A multi-attribute utility theory-based approach to product line consolidation and selection. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences, design theory and methodology conference, DETC2006/DTM99506, Philadelphia, PA.
33. Thurston, D.L., 2001. Real and misconceived limitations to decision based design with utility analysis. Journal of Mechanical Design, 123 (2), 176-182.
34. Van Vuuren, W. and Halman, J.I.M., 2001. Platform-driven development of product families: linking theory with practice. In: The future of innovation studies conference, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
35. Yamanouchi, T., 1989. Breakthrough: the development of the Canon personal copier. Long Range Planning, 22 (5), 11-21.