A Decomposed Gradient-Based Approach for Generalized Platform Selection and Variant Design in Product Family

A core challenge in product family optimization is to jointly determine (1) the optimal selection of components to be shared across product variants and (2) the optimal values for design variables that define those components. Each of these subtasks depends on the other; however, due to the combinatorial nature and high computational cost of the joint problem, prior methods have forgone optimality of the full problem by fixing the platform a priori, restricting the platform configuration to all-or-none component sharing, or optimizing the joint problem in multiple stages. In this paper, we address these restrictions by (1) introducing an extended metric to account for generalized commonality, (2) relaxing the metric to the continuous space to enable gradient-based optimization, and (3) proposing a decomposed single-stage method for optimizing the joint problem. The approach is demonstrated on a family of ten bathroom scales. Results indicate that generalized commonality dramatically improves the quality of optimal solutions, and the decomposed single-stage approach offers substantial improvement in scalability and tractability of the joint problem, providing a practical tool for optimizing families consisting of many variants.

[1]  Kunihiko Fujita,et al.  Product Variety Optimiza-tion: Simultaneous Optimization of Module Combination and Module Attributes , 2001 .

[2]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Linking Marketing and Engineering Product Design Decisions via Analytical Target Cascading , 2005 .

[3]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  A Decomposed Genetic Algorithm for Solving the Joint Product Family Optimization Problem , 2007 .

[4]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  An efficient decomposed multiobjective genetic algorithm for solving the joint product platform selection and product family design problem with generalized commonality , 2009 .

[5]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Commonality indices for product family design: a detailed comparison , 2006 .

[6]  David W. Rosen,et al.  ON THE APPLICABILITY OF PRODUCT VARIETY DESIGN CONCEPTS TO AUTOMOTIVE PLATFORM COMMONALITY , 1998 .

[7]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Platform Selection Under Performance Loss Constraints in Optimal Design of Product Families , 2002, DAC 2002.

[8]  David A. Collier,et al.  THE MEASUREMENT AND OPERATING BENEFITS OF COMPONENT PART COMMONALITY , 1981 .

[9]  R. Choudharya,et al.  Analytic target cascading in simulation-based building design , 2004 .

[10]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  A Variation-Based Method for Product Family Design , 2002 .

[11]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  AN EFFICIENT WEIGHTING UPDATE METHOD TO ACHIEVE ACCEPTABLE CONSISTENCY DEVIATION IN ANALYTICAL TARGET CASCADING , 2005 .

[12]  Wei Chen,et al.  Lagrangian coordination for enhancing the convergence of analytical target cascading , 2006 .

[13]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Convergence properties of analytical target cascading , 2002 .

[14]  J. E. Rooda,et al.  An augmented Lagrangian relaxation for analytical target cascading using the alternating direction method of multipliers , 2006 .

[15]  Mitchell M. Tseng,et al.  Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices , 2000 .

[16]  Henri J. Thevenot,et al.  A comprehensive metric for evaluating component commonality in a product family , 2007, DAC 2006.

[17]  T. Simpson.  Methods for Optimizing Product Platforms and Product Families , 2006 .

[18]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  A comprehensive metric for evaluating component commonality in a product family , 2007 .

[19]  Patrick M. Reed,et al.  Multi-Objective Design Optimization for Product Platform and Product Family Design Using Genetic Algorithms , 2005, DAC 2005.

[20]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Platform Selection Under Performance Bounds in Optimal Design of Product Families , 2005 .

[21]  Rania Hassan,et al.  ARCHITECTING A COMMUNICATION SATELLITE PRODUCT LINE , 2004 .

[22]  Kazuhiro Saitou,et al.  Decomposition-Based Assembly Synthesis for Structural Modularity , 2004 .

[23]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Diagonal Quadratic Approximation for Parallelization of Analytical Target Cascading , 2007, Design Automation Conference.

[24]  Kevin Otto,et al.  MODULAR PLATFORM-BASED PRODUCT FAMILY DESIGN , 2000 .

[25]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Balancing Marketing and Manufacturing Objectives in Product Line Design , 2006 .

[26]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Optimal Design of Product Families Using Selection-Integrated Optimization (SIO) Methodology , 2006 .

[27]  Deepak Kumar,et al.  A Market-Driven Approach to the Design of Platform-Based Product Families , 2006 .

[28]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Introduction of a product family penalty function using physical programming , 2000 .

[29]  Michael P. Martinez,et al.  Effective Product Family Design Using Physical Programming , 2002 .

[30]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Digital Object Identifier (DOI) 10.1007/s00158-002-0240-0 , 2022 .

[31]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Assessing Variable Levels of Platform Commonality Within a Product Family Using a Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm , 2004, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[32]  Mark Treleven,et al.  Component part standardization: An analysis of commonality sources and indices , 1986 .

[33]  Kosuke Ishii,et al.  Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures , 2002 .

[34]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  Analytical Target Cascading in Automotive Vehicle Design , 2001 .