Product platform design through sensitivity analysis and cluster analysis

Scale-based product platform design consists of platform configuration to decide which variables are shared among which product variants, and selection of the optimal values for platform (shared) and non-platform variables for all product variants. The configuration step plays a vital role in determining two important aspects of a product family: efficiency (cost savings due to commonality) and effectiveness (capability to satisfy performance requirements). Many existing product platform design methods ignore it, assuming a given platform configuration. Most approaches, whether or not they consider the configuration step, are single-platform methods, in which design variables are either shared across all product variants or not shared at all. In multiple-platform design, design variables may be shared among variants in any possible combination of subsets, offering opportunities for superior overall design but presenting a more difficult computational problem. In this work, sensitivity analysis and cluster analysis are used to improve both efficiency and effectiveness of a scale-based product family through multiple-platform product family design.

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

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

[3]  Erik K. Antonsson,et al.  Aggregation functions for engineering design trade-offs , 1995, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[4]  Mark V. Martin,et al.  DESIGN FOR VARIETY: DEVELOPMENT OF COMPLEXITY INDICES AND DESIGN CHARTS , 1998 .

[5]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Product Platform Design and Optimization: Status and Promise , 2003, DAC 2003.

[6]  T. Simpson.  A concept exploration method for product family design , 1998 .

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

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

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

[10]  Boris Mirkin,et al.  Mathematical Classification and Clustering , 1996 .

[11]  Kikuo Fujita,et al.  Optimal Design Methodology of Common Components for a Class of Products: Its Foundations and Promise , 2003, DAC 2003.

[12]  Michael J. Scott,et al.  Meaningful tradeoffs in product family design considering monetary and technical aspects of commonality , 2005 .

[13]  Panos Y. Papalambros,et al.  A Sensitivity-Based Commonality Strategy for Family Products of Mild Variation, with Application to Automotive Body Structures , 2002 .

[14]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Robust Design of Families of Products With Production Modeling and Evaluation , 2001 .

[15]  Srinivas Nidamarthi,et al.  A Systematic Method for Designing Profitable Product Families , 2003 .

[16]  Warren P. Seering,et al.  MODULARIZING PRODUCT ARCHITECTURES USING DENDROGRAMS , 2003 .

[17]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis , 1990 .

[18]  Michael Joseph Scott,et al.  Formalizing Negotiation in Engineering Design , 1999 .

[19]  Wei Chen,et al.  A Variation-Based Methodology for Product Family Design , 2000, Volume 2: 26th Design Automation Conference.

[20]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  Production Cost Modeling to Support Product Family Design Optimization , 2003, DAC 2003.

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

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