Improving cost effectiveness in an existing product line using component product platforms

International Journal of Production Research

Volumn 48, Issue 11, 2010, Pages 3299-3317

  Farrell, Ronald S ^a   Simpson, Timothy W ^a  

^a The Center for Nanotechnology Education and Utilization   (United States)

Author keywords

Activity based costing (ABC); Commonality; Product line redesign; Product platform

Indexed keywords

ABC MODEL; ACTIVITY BASED COSTING; COMPONENT PLATFORMS; CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS; DESIGN STRATEGIES; MANUFACTURING COST; MARKET SEGMENTATION GRID; PLATFORM APPROACH; PLATFORM STRATEGY; PRODUCT PERFORMANCE; PRODUCT PLATFORMS; PRODUCT-LINES; TOTAL COSTS;

COST EFFECTIVENESS; COSTS; ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL EFFECTS;

COST ACCOUNTING;

EID: 77951108052     PISSN: 00207543     EISSN: 1366588X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00207540802620753     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Anderson, D.M. and Pine II, B.J., 1997. Agile product development for mass customisation. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
2. Ben-Arieh, D. and Qian, L., 2003. Activity-based cost management for design and development stage. International Journal of Production Economics, 83 (2), 169-183.
3. De Weck, O., 2005. Determining product platform extent. In: T.W. Simpson, Z. Siddique and J. Jiao, eds. Product platform and product family design: Methods and applications. New York: Springer, 241-301.
4. Farrell, R.S. and Simpson, T.W., 2008. A method to improve platform leveraging in a market segmentation grid for an existing product line. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 130 (3), 11.
5. Fixson, S.K., 2005. Product architecture assessment: A tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions. Journal of Operations Management, 23 (3/4), 345-369.
6. Fixson, S.K., 2007. Modularity and commonality research: Past developments and future opportunities. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 15 (2), 85-111.
7. Fujita, K., 2005. Product variety optimisation. In: T.W. Simpson, Z. Siddique and J. Jiao, eds. Product platform and product family design: Methods and applications. New York: Springer, 186-224.
8. Galsworth, G.D., 1994. Smart, simple design: Using variety effectiveness to reduce total cost and maximise customer selection. Essex Junction, VT: Omneo.
9. Hernandez, G., et al., 2001. Robust design of families of products with production modeling and evaluation. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 123 (2), 183-190.
10. Hundal, M.S., 1997. Product costing: A comparison of conventional and activity-based costing methods. Journal of Engineering Design, 8 (1), 91-103.
11. Jiao, J., Zhang, L., and Pokharel, S., 2007. Process platform planning for variety coordination from design to production in mass customisation manufacturing. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54 (1), 112-129.
12. Khajavirad, A. and Michalek, J., 2007. An extension of the commonality index for product family optimisation. In: F. Liou, ed. ASME design engineering technical conferences - design automation conference, 4-7 September, Las Vegas, NV (ASME, DETC2007/DAC-35605). ASME.
13. Marion, T.J., Thevenot, H.J., and Simpson, T.W., 2007. A cost-based methodology for evaluating product platform commonality sourcing decisions with two examples. International Journal of Production Research, 45 (22), 5285-5308.
14. Mather, H., (1995). Product variety - friend or foe? In: Proceedings of the 1995 38th American production & inventory control society international conference and exhibition, 22-27 October, Orlando, FL. APICS, 378-381.
15. Maupin, A.J. and Stauffer, L.A., (2000). A design tool to help small manufacturers reengineer a product family. In: J.K. Allen, ed. ASME design engineering technical conferences - design theory and methodology conference, 10-13 September, Baltimore, MD (ASME, Paper No. DETC2000/DTM-14568). ASME.
16. Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A.P., 1997. The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
17. Michalek, J.J., et al., 2006. Balancing marketing and manufacturing objectives in product line design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 128 (6), 1196-1204.
18. Page, A.L. and Rosenbaum, H.F., 1987. Redesigning product lines with conjoint analysis: How Sunbeam does it. Journal of Production and Innovation Management, 4 (2), 120-137.
19. Park, J. and Simpson, T.W., 2005. Development of a production cost estimation framework to support product family design. International Journal of Production Research, 43 (4), 731-772.
20. Park, J. and Simpson, T.W., 2007. Toward an activity-based costing system for product families and product platforms in the early stages of development. International Journal of Production Research, 46 (1), 99-130.
21. Seepersad, C.C., Mistree, F. and Allen, J.K., 2002. A quantitative approach for designing multiple product platforms for an evolving portfolio of products. In: E. Fadal, ed. ASME design engineering technical conferences - design automation conference, 29 September-2 October, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (ASME, Paper No. DETC2002/DAC-34096). ASME.
22. Shirley, G.V., 1990. Models for managing the redesign and manufacture of product sets. Journal of Manufacturing and Operations Management, 3 (2), 85-104.
23. Siddique, Z. and Repphun, B., 2001. Estimating cost savings when implementing a product platform approach. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 9 (4), 285-294.
24. Simpson, T.W., 2004. Product platform design and customisation: Status and promise. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 18 (1), 3-20.
25. 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.