Using product family evaluation graphs in product family design

International Journal of Production Research

Volumn 47, Issue 13, 2009, Pages 3559-3585

  Ye, Xiaoli ^a   J Thevenot, Henri ^b   Alizon, Fabrice ^c   Gershenson, John K ^a   Khadke, Kiran ^a   Simpson, Timothy W ^b   Shooter, Steven B ^c  

^a Michigan Technological University   (United States)

^b The Pennsylvania State University   (United States)

^c BUCKNELL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Commonality index; Product family; Product family evaluation; Product platform; Variety index

Indexed keywords

COMMONALITY INDICES; DIVERSITY INDEX; ECONOMIES OF SCALE; ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS; EVALUATION GRAPHS; GRAPHICAL EVALUATION; INDIVIDUAL CUSTOMERS; LINEAR REGRESSION MODELS; OFF-ANGLE; PLANNING STAGES; POWER TOOLS; PRODUCT COMMONALITY; PRODUCT FAMILIES; PRODUCT FAMILY DESIGN; PRODUCT PLATFORMS; QUANTITATIVE ENGINEERING;

COMMERCE; COMPETITION; ECONOMICS; GRAPH THEORY; LINEAR REGRESSION; PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT;

PRODUCT DESIGN;

EID: 70449623046     PISSN: 00207543     EISSN: 1366588X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207540802183646     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alizon, F., Shooter, S.B. and Simpson, T.W., 2006. Assessing and improving commonality and diversity within a product family. ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, 10-13 September 2006, Philadelphia, PA, ASME, Papers no. DETC2006/DAC-99573.
2. Allada, V., et al., 2006. Product platform problem paxonomy: Classification and identification of benchmark problems, ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, 10-13 September 2006, Philadelphia, PA, ASME, Papers no. DETC2006/DAC-99573.
3. Anderson, D.M., 1997. Agile product development for mass customisation. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
4. Blecker, T. and Abdelkafi, N., 2007. The development of a component communality metric for mass customization. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54 (1), 70-85.
5. Collier, D.A., 1981. The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality. Decision Sciences, 12 (1), 85-96.
6. Erens, F. and Verhulst, K., 1997. Architectures for product families. Computer in Industry, 33 (2-3), 165-178.
7. Ericsson, A. and Erixon, G., 1999. Controlling design variants: Modular product platforms. New York, NY: ASME Press.
8. Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J., 1983. Game theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Jiao, J. and Tseng, M.M., 2000. Understanding product family for mass customisation by developing commonality indices. Journal of Engineering Design, 11 (3), 225-243.
10. Jiao, J., et al., 1999. Integrated product and production data management based on generic bill of materials and operations to support mass customisation production. ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, 12-16 September 1999, NV, ASME, Paper no. DETC99/EIM-9026.
11. Juuti, T., 2004. Efficient platform utilisation with configurable products - enabling factors illustration. 7th workshop on product structuring - product platform development, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 24-25 March 2004, 121-132.
12. 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.
13. Kristjansson, A.H. and Hildre, H.-P., 2004. A framework for evaluating platforms in product developing organisation. 7th workshop on product structuring - product platform development, date, Chalmers University of Technology, Goteborg, Sweden, 24-25 March 2004, 1-12.
14. Martin, M., 1999. Design for variety: A methodology for developing product platform architecture. Thesis. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University.
15. Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K., 1996. Design for variety: A methodology for understanding the costs of product proliferation. ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, 18-22 August 1996, Irvine, CA, ASME, Paper no. 96-DETC/DTM-1610.
16. Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K., 1997. Design for variety: Development of complexity indices and design charts. ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, 14-17 September 1997, Sacramento, CA, ASME, Paper no. DETC97/DFM-4359.
17. Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K., 2002. Design for variety: Developing standardised and modularised product platform architectures. Research in Engineering Design, 13 (4), 213-235.
18. Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A.P., 1997. The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership. New York, NY: The Free Press.
19. Porter, M.E., 1985. Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press/Collier Macmillan.
20. Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K., 1998. Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39 (4), 19-31.
21. Saaty, T.L., 1990. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48 (1), 9-26.
22. Siddique, Z., Rosen, D.W. and Wang, N., 1998. On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality. ASME design engineering technical conferences, 14-17 September 1998, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Paper no. DETC98/DTM-5661.
23. Simpson, T.W., 1998. A concept exploration method for product family design. Thesis. G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.
24. Simpson, T.W., Maier, J.R.A. and Mistree, F., 1999. A product platform concept exploration method for product family design. ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference. 12-16 September 1999, Las Vegas: NV, ASME, Paper no. DETC99/DTM-8761.
25. Simpson, T.W., Seepersad, C.C., and Mistree, F., 2001. Balancing commonality and performance within the concurrent design of multiple products in a product family. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 9 (3), 177-190.
26. Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z. and Jiao, J., 2005. Product platform and product family design - methods and application. New York, NY: Springer SciencepBusiness Media, Inc.
27. Suh, N.P., 2001. Axiomatic design: Advances and applications. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28. Thevenot, H.J., Alizon, F. and Simpson, T.W., 2007. An index-based method to manage the trade-off between diversity and commonality during product family design. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications - Special Issue on Managing Modularity and Commonality in Product and Process Development, 15 (2), 127-139.
29. Thevenot, H.J. and Simpson, T.W., 2006a. Commonality indices for product family design: A detailed comparison. Journal of Engineering Design, 17 (2), 99-119.
30. Thevenot, H.J. and Simpson, T.W., 2006b. A comprehensive metric for evaluating commonality in a product family. ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, 10-13 September 2006, Philadelphia, PA, ASME, Paper no. DETC2006/DAC-99268.
31. Ulrich, K., 1995. The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy, 24 (3), 419-440.
32. Wacker, J.G. and Trelevan, M., 1986. Component part standardisation: An analysis of commonality sources and indices. Journal of Operations Management, 6 (2), 219-244.
33. Ye, X., et al., 2005. An introduction to product family evaluation graphs. ASME international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference, 24-28
34. September 2005, Long Beach, CA, ASME, Paper no. DETC2005/DTM-85229.
35. Ye, X., et al., 2007. A quantitative representation of the trade-off between product commonality and variety in product family design. International Conference on Engineering Design, 28-30 August 2007, Paris, France, ICED Paper no. ICED'07/409.