Examination of Platform and Differentiating Elements in Product Design

The problems of mass customization, portfolio design, and platforming all pose a common challenge to the designer: knowing how to partition a set of product variants to maximize commonality and simultaneously achieve sufficient differentiation for purposes of customization. This research focuses on the particular issue of how differences between platform elements and differentiating elements are evidenced in the product layout or configuration. The premise of this research is that certain architectural properties, such as modularity, vary between platform and differentiating elements. In particular, certain measures of commonality offer an appropriate set of indices for evaluating these differences in a systematic and repeatable manner. Both function and physical solution commonality provide a descriptor with which to distinguish and rank platform and differentiating elements. By evaluating components of a product in terms of function commonality, physical solution commonality, and modularity, a comparison can be made between platforms and differentiating elements with respect to these indices. The hypothesis of this work is that platforms are integrated and the non-common differentiating elements are, relative to the platforms, more modular. While anecdotal evidence exists to support this idea, the purpose of this work is to evaluate two existing product families as a means for analyzing this hypothesized relation. The result of this research is a descriptive set of knowledge that illustrates the distinguishing factors between platform and differentiating elements. The data specifically demonstrate the differences in architecture between platforms and differentiating elements, thus suggesting how these design aspects can and should be addressed at the conceptual stage of design. While not the focus of this study, future research involving a more prescriptive approach to conceptual design can directly benefit from the results. The knowledge gained in this work serves as a foundation for addressing portfolio design where both customization and commonality are key issues.Copyright © 2004 by ASME

[1]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  Using quantitative functional models to develop product architectures , 2000 .

[2]  Kikuo Fujita,et al.  Product Variety Optimization Simultaneously Designing Module Combination and Module Attributes , 2004, Concurr. Eng. Res. Appl..

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

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

[5]  Javier P. Gonzalez-Zugasti,et al.  Modular product architecture , 2001 .

[6]  M. Meyer,et al.  Revitalize Your Product Lines Through Continuous Platform Renewal , 1997 .

[7]  David W. Rosen,et al.  PRODUCT PLATFORM DESIGN: A GRAPH GRAMMAR APPROACH , 1999 .

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

[9]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  Creating a platform-based approach for developing new services , 2001 .

[10]  Seçkin Polat,et al.  An integrated method for designing modular products , 2004 .

[11]  Robert Stone,et al.  A Customer Needs Motivated Conceptual Design Methodology for Product Portfolios , 2004 .

[12]  Javier P. Gonzalez-Zugasti,et al.  A Method for Architecting Product Platforms , 2000 .

[13]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development , 2000 .

[14]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  The Design and Development of Information Products , 1996 .

[15]  Ahmet S. Yigit,et al.  Optimal selection of module instances for modular products in reconfigurable manufacturing systems , 2003 .

[16]  E. Rechtin,et al.  The art of systems architecting , 1996, IEEE Spectrum.

[17]  Simon Szykman,et al.  A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts , 2002 .

[18]  James M. Utterback,et al.  The product family and the dynamics of core capability , 1992 .

[19]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  Integrated product and process design: A modularity perspective , 2002 .

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

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

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

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

[24]  Erik K. Antonsson,et al.  INFORMATION MEASURE FOR MODULARITY IN ENGINEERING DESIGN , 2004 .

[25]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  A Comparison of Commonality Indices for Product Family Design , 2004, DAC 2004.

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

[27]  Kristin L. Wood,et al.  REPRESENTING PRODUCT ARCHITECTURE , 2003 .

[28]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  The strategic issues with implementing open avionics platforms for spacecraft , 2002, Proceedings, IEEE Aerospace Conference.

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

[30]  Daniel A. McAdams,et al.  Developing design templates for product platform focused design , 2004 .

[31]  Mustafa Uzumeri,et al.  Managing Product Families , 1996 .

[32]  Adrian P. Hofer,et al.  Complex products and systems: Potential from using layout platforms , 2004, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[33]  Jianxin Jiao,et al.  Design for mass customization by developing product family architecture , 1998 .

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

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

[36]  Michael Blackenfelt.  Managing complexity by product modularisation , 2001 .

[37]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Product Architecture Definition Based Upon Customer Demands , 1999 .