SOS – subjective objective system for generating optimal product concepts

Concept design is the most critical step in product development. To a large extent, its quality determines the fate of the product. Support for concept generation is mainly intuitive. In this paper, we review and exemplify the importance of quality product concepts and the available literature on concept generation. Subsequently, we present a method – subjective objective system (SOS) – for generating optimal concepts in diverse disciplines. The method rests on four mathematical metaphors: it is composed of objective and subjective components, it allows varying degrees of precision in modeling, it works by decomposing a complex problem into smaller sub-problems, and it uses highly simplified evaluations. SOS not only structures the decision process but also outputs the optimal concept given the customer objectives, the company context, and the available constraints. This solution is obtained by quadratic programming that allows the method to handle very large problems and solve them in negligible time. SOS has been developed over years of practical experience and research, and has been used in numerous successful real projects. We illustrate the use of the method in a real project.

[1]  Avigdor Zonnenshain,et al.  Design quality metrics used as a quantitative tool for the conceptual design of a new product , 2001 .

[2]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  That is not the analytic hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not , 1997 .

[3]  C.-L. Lee,et al.  General framework for configuration design: Part 1—methodology , 1993 .

[4]  Altshuller.  Creativity As an Exact Science , 1984 .

[5]  Yoram Reich,et al.  Managing product design quality under resource constraints , 2004 .

[6]  Wynne Hsu,et al.  Current research in the conceptual design of mechanical products , 1998, Comput. Aided Des..

[7]  Dennis W. Shafer,et al.  Pioneering New Products: A Market Survival Guide , 1987 .

[8]  W. Gordon.  Synectics: The Development of Creative Capacity , 1961 .

[9]  Jacob Goldenberg,et al.  Special Issue on Design and Development: The Idea Itself and the Circumstances of Its Emergence as Predictors of New Product Success , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[10]  Andreas Günter,et al.  Knowledge-Based Configuration: Survey and Future Directions , 1999, XPS.

[11]  Li-Chieh Chen,et al.  Optimization of product configuration design using functional requirements and constraints , 2002 .

[12]  Yoram Reich,et al.  Topological structures for modeling engineering design processes , 2003 .

[13]  R. Verganti.  Planned Flexibility: Linking Anticipation and Reaction in Product Development Projects , 1999 .

[14]  Yoram Reich,et al.  A Framework for Optimal Product Concept Generation , 2003 .

[15]  Yoram Reich,et al.  Layered models of research methodologies , 1994, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[16]  E. Hippel,et al.  Lead users: a source of novel product concepts , 1986 .

[17]  I. Grossmann.  Review of Nonlinear Mixed-Integer and Disjunctive Programming Techniques , 2002 .

[18]  Yoram Reich,et al.  Progressive sharing of modules among product variants , 2003, Comput. Aided Des..

[19]  G. Boothroyd,et al.  Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, Revised and Expanded , 2001 .

[20]  Robert M. McMath.  What Were They Thinking? , 2019, That Sheep May Safely Graze.

[21]  Udo Lindemann.  Product innovation on demand - fiction or truth? , 2001 .

[22]  John P. McDermott,et al.  R1 Revisited: Four Years in the Trenches , 1984, AI Mag..

[23]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[24]  A. M. King,et al.  Development of a Methodology for Concept Selection in Flexible Design Strategies , 1999 .

[25]  Martin Weber,et al.  Remarks on the paper ‘On the Measurement of Preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process’ by A. A. Salo and R. P. Hämäläinen , 1997 .

[26]  F. Zwicky.  Discovery, Invention, Research through the morphological approach , 1969 .