Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity
Product family design offers a cost-effective solution for providing a variety of products to meet the needs of diverse markets. At the beginning of product family design, designers must decide what can be shared among the product variants in a family. Optimal design formulations have been developed...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Research in engineering design 2018-10, Vol.29 (4), p.547-563 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 563 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 547 |
container_title | Research in engineering design |
container_volume | 29 |
creator | Baylis, Kyle Zhang, Guanglu McAdams, Daniel A. |
description | Product family design offers a cost-effective solution for providing a variety of products to meet the needs of diverse markets. At the beginning of product family design, designers must decide what can be shared among the product variants in a family. Optimal design formulations have been developed by researchers to find one optimal component sharing solution based on commonality, cost or technical performance of a product family. However, these optimization methods may not be able to apply in consumer product design because some metrics (e.g., visual appeal and ergonomics) of a consumer product cannot be formulized. In this paper, we suggest a tradeoff between commonality and the quality of the modular architecture in product family platform selection. We introduce a method for designers to identify multiple component sharing options that lie along a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity. The component sharing options along the Pareto front can be evaluated, compared, and further modified. We demonstrate the method using a case study of product family platform selection of high-end and low-end impact drivers and electric drills. In the case study, the quality of the modular architecture is evaluated using a design structure matrix (DSM) for each of product variants. Three architectures along the Pareto front with maximum commonality, optimal modularity, and a balanced solution of the two metrics are highlighted and further examined to validate the effectiveness of our method. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00163-018-0288-5 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2262543587</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2262543587</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-851d45c6ba1b06afd65be5df3b32a6d80e02113db6f5411cc34b0fbba5a19ce13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LxDAURYMoOI7-AHcB19WXpMmkSxn8ggFnoeuQpsnQoWnGJAXn3xup4EpXb3HPvTwOQtcEbgnA6i4BEMEqILICKmXFT9CC1IxXAoQ4RQtoWF01kjXn6CKlPQAIxukCuW0M3WQydtr3wxEfBp1diB4nO1iT-zDiKfXjDmu81dHmgF0MY8bBYa8_ez95bIL3YdRDn49Yjx1OOepsd73BvkwPOpbgEp05PSR79XOX6P3x4W39XG1en17W95vKMLnKleSkq7kRrSYtCO06wVvLO8daRrXoJFighLCuFY7XhBjD6hZc22quSWMsYUt0M-8eYviYbMpqH6ZYnkuKUkF5MSJX_1IEGDC6ElAoMlMmhpSideoQe6_jURFQ39LVLF0V6epbuuKlQ-dOKuy4s_F3-e_SF6DzheQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2262543587</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity</title><source>SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings</source><creator>Baylis, Kyle ; Zhang, Guanglu ; McAdams, Daniel A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Baylis, Kyle ; Zhang, Guanglu ; McAdams, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><description>Product family design offers a cost-effective solution for providing a variety of products to meet the needs of diverse markets. At the beginning of product family design, designers must decide what can be shared among the product variants in a family. Optimal design formulations have been developed by researchers to find one optimal component sharing solution based on commonality, cost or technical performance of a product family. However, these optimization methods may not be able to apply in consumer product design because some metrics (e.g., visual appeal and ergonomics) of a consumer product cannot be formulized. In this paper, we suggest a tradeoff between commonality and the quality of the modular architecture in product family platform selection. We introduce a method for designers to identify multiple component sharing options that lie along a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity. The component sharing options along the Pareto front can be evaluated, compared, and further modified. We demonstrate the method using a case study of product family platform selection of high-end and low-end impact drivers and electric drills. In the case study, the quality of the modular architecture is evaluated using a design structure matrix (DSM) for each of product variants. Three architectures along the Pareto front with maximum commonality, optimal modularity, and a balanced solution of the two metrics are highlighted and further examined to validate the effectiveness of our method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0934-9839</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-6066</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00163-018-0288-5</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Springer London</publisher><subject>Architecture ; CAE) and Design ; Case studies ; Commonality ; Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD ; Design ; Designers ; Drills ; Engineering ; Engineering Design ; Ergonomics ; Formulations ; Modular design ; Modular structures ; Modularity ; Optimization ; Original Paper ; Product design</subject><ispartof>Research in engineering design, 2018-10, Vol.29 (4), p.547-563</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Science & Business Media 2018</rights><rights>Research in Engineering Design is a copyright of Springer, (2018). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-851d45c6ba1b06afd65be5df3b32a6d80e02113db6f5411cc34b0fbba5a19ce13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-851d45c6ba1b06afd65be5df3b32a6d80e02113db6f5411cc34b0fbba5a19ce13</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-7077-9385</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00163-018-0288-5$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00163-018-0288-5$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Baylis, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Guanglu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAdams, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><title>Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity</title><title>Research in engineering design</title><addtitle>Res Eng Design</addtitle><description>Product family design offers a cost-effective solution for providing a variety of products to meet the needs of diverse markets. At the beginning of product family design, designers must decide what can be shared among the product variants in a family. Optimal design formulations have been developed by researchers to find one optimal component sharing solution based on commonality, cost or technical performance of a product family. However, these optimization methods may not be able to apply in consumer product design because some metrics (e.g., visual appeal and ergonomics) of a consumer product cannot be formulized. In this paper, we suggest a tradeoff between commonality and the quality of the modular architecture in product family platform selection. We introduce a method for designers to identify multiple component sharing options that lie along a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity. The component sharing options along the Pareto front can be evaluated, compared, and further modified. We demonstrate the method using a case study of product family platform selection of high-end and low-end impact drivers and electric drills. In the case study, the quality of the modular architecture is evaluated using a design structure matrix (DSM) for each of product variants. Three architectures along the Pareto front with maximum commonality, optimal modularity, and a balanced solution of the two metrics are highlighted and further examined to validate the effectiveness of our method.</description><subject>Architecture</subject><subject>CAE) and Design</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Commonality</subject><subject>Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD</subject><subject>Design</subject><subject>Designers</subject><subject>Drills</subject><subject>Engineering</subject><subject>Engineering Design</subject><subject>Ergonomics</subject><subject>Formulations</subject><subject>Modular design</subject><subject>Modular structures</subject><subject>Modularity</subject><subject>Optimization</subject><subject>Original Paper</subject><subject>Product design</subject><issn>0934-9839</issn><issn>1435-6066</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LxDAURYMoOI7-AHcB19WXpMmkSxn8ggFnoeuQpsnQoWnGJAXn3xup4EpXb3HPvTwOQtcEbgnA6i4BEMEqILICKmXFT9CC1IxXAoQ4RQtoWF01kjXn6CKlPQAIxukCuW0M3WQydtr3wxEfBp1diB4nO1iT-zDiKfXjDmu81dHmgF0MY8bBYa8_ez95bIL3YdRDn49Yjx1OOepsd73BvkwPOpbgEp05PSR79XOX6P3x4W39XG1en17W95vKMLnKleSkq7kRrSYtCO06wVvLO8daRrXoJFighLCuFY7XhBjD6hZc22quSWMsYUt0M-8eYviYbMpqH6ZYnkuKUkF5MSJX_1IEGDC6ElAoMlMmhpSideoQe6_jURFQ39LVLF0V6epbuuKlQ-dOKuy4s_F3-e_SF6DzheQ</recordid><startdate>20181001</startdate><enddate>20181001</enddate><creator>Baylis, Kyle</creator><creator>Zhang, Guanglu</creator><creator>McAdams, Daniel A.</creator><general>Springer London</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7077-9385</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20181001</creationdate><title>Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity</title><author>Baylis, Kyle ; Zhang, Guanglu ; McAdams, Daniel A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c387t-851d45c6ba1b06afd65be5df3b32a6d80e02113db6f5411cc34b0fbba5a19ce13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Architecture</topic><topic>CAE) and Design</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Commonality</topic><topic>Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD</topic><topic>Design</topic><topic>Designers</topic><topic>Drills</topic><topic>Engineering</topic><topic>Engineering Design</topic><topic>Ergonomics</topic><topic>Formulations</topic><topic>Modular design</topic><topic>Modular structures</topic><topic>Modularity</topic><topic>Optimization</topic><topic>Original Paper</topic><topic>Product design</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Baylis, Kyle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhang, Guanglu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McAdams, Daniel A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering collection</collection><jtitle>Research in engineering design</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Baylis, Kyle</au><au>Zhang, Guanglu</au><au>McAdams, Daniel A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity</atitle><jtitle>Research in engineering design</jtitle><stitle>Res Eng Design</stitle><date>2018-10-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>547</spage><epage>563</epage><pages>547-563</pages><issn>0934-9839</issn><eissn>1435-6066</eissn><abstract>Product family design offers a cost-effective solution for providing a variety of products to meet the needs of diverse markets. At the beginning of product family design, designers must decide what can be shared among the product variants in a family. Optimal design formulations have been developed by researchers to find one optimal component sharing solution based on commonality, cost or technical performance of a product family. However, these optimization methods may not be able to apply in consumer product design because some metrics (e.g., visual appeal and ergonomics) of a consumer product cannot be formulized. In this paper, we suggest a tradeoff between commonality and the quality of the modular architecture in product family platform selection. We introduce a method for designers to identify multiple component sharing options that lie along a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity. The component sharing options along the Pareto front can be evaluated, compared, and further modified. We demonstrate the method using a case study of product family platform selection of high-end and low-end impact drivers and electric drills. In the case study, the quality of the modular architecture is evaluated using a design structure matrix (DSM) for each of product variants. Three architectures along the Pareto front with maximum commonality, optimal modularity, and a balanced solution of the two metrics are highlighted and further examined to validate the effectiveness of our method.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Springer London</pub><doi>10.1007/s00163-018-0288-5</doi><tpages>17</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7077-9385</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0934-9839 |
ispartof | Research in engineering design, 2018-10, Vol.29 (4), p.547-563 |
issn | 0934-9839 1435-6066 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2262543587 |
source | SpringerLink Journals - AutoHoldings |
subjects | Architecture CAE) and Design Case studies Commonality Computer-Aided Engineering (CAD Design Designers Drills Engineering Engineering Design Ergonomics Formulations Modular design Modular structures Modularity Optimization Original Paper Product design |
title | Product family platform selection using a Pareto front of maximum commonality and strategic modularity |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T09%3A41%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Product%20family%20platform%20selection%20using%20a%20Pareto%20front%20of%20maximum%20commonality%20and%20strategic%20modularity&rft.jtitle=Research%20in%20engineering%20design&rft.au=Baylis,%20Kyle&rft.date=2018-10-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=547&rft.epage=563&rft.pages=547-563&rft.issn=0934-9839&rft.eissn=1435-6066&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00163-018-0288-5&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2262543587%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2262543587&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |