Managing Variety for Assembled Products: Modeling Component Systems Sharing

Component sharing--using the same version of a component across multiple products--is an approach adopted by many assembled-product manufacturers to achieve high final product variety with lower component variety and cost. This paper presents a methodology for determining which versions of a set of related components should be offered to optimally support a defined finished product portfolio. We develop optimization models that determine which versions of each component should be introduced and which of these versions each product should use to minimize design and production costs. This approach is appropriate for components with a relatively low impact on consumers' perceptions about product differentiation, which can be shared across a set of products if they meet the most stringent performance requirements in the set. We illustrate our procedure on automotive braking systems, but also discuss its applicability to other components and industries. We identify three conceptually different organizational approaches to component sharing: a coordinated projects approach that requires higher-level organizational echelons above the individual project, a project-by-project approach that does not, and a hybrid partially coordinated approach. We use our model to examine how the gain from the coordinated projects approach relative to the project-by-project approach varies with the number of component versions in consideration, warranty costs, complexity costs, and demand variability. Further, we use our model to highlight the risk of using simplistic heuristics to determine design sequence within a component system in a partially coordinated approach.

[1]  Kamalini Ramdas,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: A Cross-Functional Approach to Evaluating Multiple Line Extensions for Assembled Products , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[2]  Rahul Singh,et al.  A Model-Based Approach for Planning and Developing a Family of Technology-Based Products , 1999, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[3]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[4]  Marshall L. Fisher,et al.  Strategies for Product Variety: Lessons From the Auto Industry , 1995 .

[5]  David P. Rutenberg,et al.  Design Commonality to Reduce Multi-Item Inventory: Optimal Depth of a Product Line , 1971, Oper. Res..

[6]  Dilip Chhajed,et al.  Simultaneous determination of product attributes and prices, and production processes in product-line design. , 1995 .

[7]  Kannan Srinivasan,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: Product Differentiation and Commonality in Design: Balancing Revenue and Cost Drivers , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[8]  K. Lancaster The Economics of Product Variety: A Survey , 1990 .

[9]  Candace Arai Yano,et al.  Product Line and Technology Selection with Shared Manufacturing and Engineering Design Resources , 1995 .

[10]  G. Dobson,et al.  Profit-Optimizing Product Line Design, Selection and Pricing with Manufacturing Cost Consideration , 1998 .

[11]  Kamalini Ramdas MANAGING PRODUCT VARIETY: AN INTEGRATIVE REVIEW AND RESEARCH DIRECTIONS , 2003 .

[12]  Leslie O. Morgan,et al.  Marketing/Manufacturing Trade-Offs in Product Line Management , 2001 .

[13]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: a Study of Automotive Braking Systems , 1999 .

[14]  Carliss Y. Baldwin,et al.  Managing in an age of modularity. , 1997, Harvard business review.

[15]  K. Ulrich,et al.  Planning for Product Platforms , 1998 .