IMPROVING AN EXISTING PRODUCT FAMILY BASED ON COMMONALITY/DIVERSITY, MODULARITY, AND COST

As product life cycles become shorter and shorter, stakes are higher in terms of sales and profits, making it an imperative for companies to enhance existing product families as much as possible. In this paper, a methodology using the Design Structure Matrix flow, Value Analysis, and the Commonality versus Diversity Index is proposed to improve an existing family of products. These tools assess and improve commonality/diversity trade-off within the family, feature satisfaction through design, and definition of new modules/components and their interfaces. A case study based on a family of refrigerators is detailed in this paper to demonstrate the methodology.

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

[2]  Robert A. Lutz.  Guts: The Seven Laws of Business That Made Chrysler the World's Hottest Car Company , 1998 .

[3]  Henri J. Thevenot,et al.  Commonality Indices for Assessing Product Families , 2006 .

[4]  Tyson R. Browning,et al.  Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions , 2001, IEEE Trans. Engineering Management.

[5]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  The power of product platforms : building value and cost leadership , 1997 .

[6]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Assessing and improving commonality and diversity within a product family , 2009, DAC 2006.

[7]  Katja Hölttä,et al.  Comparing Three Different Modularity Methods , 2003 .

[8]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Product platform design and customization: Status and promise , 2004, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[9]  Lawrence D. Miles,et al.  Techniques Of Value Analysis And Engineering , 1961 .

[10]  John K. Gershenson,et al.  Product modularity: Definitions and benefits , 2003 .

[11]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Incorporating design effort complexity measures in product architectural design and assessment , 2005 .

[12]  赤尾 洋二,et al.  QFD : the customer-driven approach to quality planning and deployment , 1994 .

[13]  Sridhar Kota,et al.  A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families , 2000 .

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

[15]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  Reengineering of design and manufacturing processes , 1994 .

[16]  Zahed Siddique,et al.  Measuring Shape Commonality , 2006 .

[17]  Nam P. Suh,et al.  Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications , 2001 .

[18]  Kevin Otto,et al.  An empirical foundation for product flexibility , 2005 .

[19]  Hau L. Lee,et al.  Effective Inventory and Service Management Through Product and Process Redesign , 1996, Oper. Res..

[20]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures , 2000 .

[21]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Balancing Commonality and Performance within the Concurrent Design of Multiple Products in a Product Family , 2001, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

[22]  Daniel E. Whitney,et al.  Nippondenso Co. Ltd: A case study of strategic product design , 1993 .

[23]  Genichii Taguchi,et al.  Introduction to quality engineering. designing quality into products a , 1986 .

[24]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Development of a Functional Basis for Design , 2000 .

[25]  D. V. Steward,et al.  The design structure system: A method for managing the design of complex systems , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[26]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Platform Design for Customizable Products as a Problem of Access in a Geometric Space , 2003 .

[27]  John K. Gershenson,et al.  Product modularity: measures and design methods , 2004 .

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

[29]  Li Zheng,et al.  Re-engineering of the design process for concurrent engineering , 2000 .