Robust product family consolidation and selection

The design and development of effective product lines is a challenge in modern industry. Companies must balance diverse product families that satisfy wide-ranging customer demands with practical business needs such as integrative manufacturing processes and material and supplier selection. In a global marketplace, this is an increasingly difficult challenge. In this paper, the issue of consolidating an existing product family is addressed. Specifically, the hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents method (HEIM) is utilised in order to select an optimal product family configuration. In previous uses, HEIM has been shown to assist a decision maker in selecting design concepts when performance attributes conflict and trade-offs must be made. In the extension of HEIM presented in this work, the constraints of an optimisation problem are formulated using two different value functions, and common solutions are identified in order to select an optimal family of staplers. The result is then compared with the result found using a multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT)-based approach. While each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and MAUT provides a necessary first step for product family consolidation and selection, a robust solution is achieved through HEIM.

[1]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[2]  Teruo Yamanouchi Breakthrough: The development of the Canon personal copier , 1989 .

[3]  F. B. Vernadat,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1994 .

[4]  W. Näther Optimum experimental designs , 1994 .

[5]  P. Laycock,et al.  Optimum Experimental Designs , 1995 .

[6]  J. Dennis,et al.  A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems , 1997 .

[7]  Karl Sabbagh,et al.  21st century jet : the making and marketing of the Boeing 777 , 1996 .

[8]  Greg Paula,et al.  Reinventing a core product line , 1997 .

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

[10]  W. Souder,et al.  Key Drivers of Reduced Cycle Time , 1998 .

[11]  Kaisa Miettinen,et al.  Nonlinear multiobjective optimization , 1998, International series in operations research and management science.

[12]  M. Meyer,et al.  Product Platforms in Software Development , 1998 .

[13]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  A PRODUCT PLATFORM CONCEPT EXPLORATION METHOD FOR PRODUCT FAMILY DESIGN , 1999 .

[14]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[15]  E. Antonsson,et al.  USING INDIFFERENCE POINTS IN ENGINEERING DECISIONS , 2000 .

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

[17]  Johannes I.M. Halman,et al.  Platform driven development of product families: Linking theory with practice , 2001 .

[18]  Farrokh Mistree,et al.  Product platform design: method and application , 2001 .

[19]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis , 2001 .

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

[21]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Multiattribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents , 2002, DAC 2002.

[22]  Gary Mitchell,et al.  Product Platform Concepts Applied to Small Satellites: A New Multipurpose Radio Concept by AeroAstro Inc. , 2002 .

[23]  Ashwin P. Gurnani,et al.  An Approach to Robust Multiattribute Concept Selection , 2003, DAC 2003.

[24]  Claudio Riva,et al.  Experiences with software product family evolution , 2003, Sixth International Workshop on Principles of Software Evolution, 2003. Proceedings..

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

[26]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  A Formal Approach to Handling Conflicts in Multiattribute Group Decision Making , 2006, DAC 2004.

[27]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Multi-Attribute Decision Making Using Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents , 2004 .

[28]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  A Decision Support Formulation for Design Teams: A Study in Preference Aggregation and Handling Unequal Group Members , 2005, DAC 2005.

[29]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Robust multiattribute decision making under risk and uncertainty in engineering design , 2005 .

[30]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  A Multi-Attribute Utility Theory-Based Approach to Product Line Consolidation and Selection , 2006 .

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

[32]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Platform Leveraging Strategies and Market Segmentation , 2006 .

[33]  M. Sawhney,et al.  The 12 different ways for companies to innovate , 2012, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[34]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  A Method to Ensure Preference Consistency in Multi-Attribute Selection Decisions , 2007 .