Progressive sharing of modules among product variants

Abstract Recent market transition from mass production to mass customization forces manufacturers to design products that meet individual requirements. In order to address the high cost of this practice, manufacturers develop product families with a common platform, whose variants are designed to meet different customer demands. Parallel to this transition, the dynamics of the market forces designers to develop products composed of modules that are standardized as much as possible across products, thus can be more resilient than complete designs in a changing world. Starting from an original set of different components, our method designs a modular common platform and additional modules, shared by subsets of the designs, from which variants are composed. We applied the method to the layout design of a set of products. Consequently, the geometric aspect of the product family optimization is emphasized, but functional aspects related to the product features and to customer needs are also addressed due to their manifestation in the layout. The design search space is explored using shape grammar rules that alter component geometry and therefore, functionality. The search for optimal design is performed using simulated annealing. Given different objective formulations or parameter settings, the method can be used to explore the solution space. A simple example problem demonstrates the feasibility of the method.

[1]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A survey of computational approaches to three-dimensional layout problems , 2002, Comput. Aided Des..

[2]  Adil Baykasoglu,et al.  A simulated annealing algorithm for dynamic layout problem , 2001, Comput. Oper. Res..

[3]  C. D. Gelatt,et al.  Optimization by Simulated Annealing , 1983, Science.

[4]  Juhani Koski,et al.  Multicriteria Design Optimization , 1990 .

[5]  David C. Gossard,et al.  Reasoning on the Location of Components for Assembly Packaging , 1991 .

[6]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Optimally Directed Shape Generation by Shape Annealing , 1993 .

[7]  Miyoung Jeong,et al.  Quality function deployment: An extended framework for service quality and customer satisfaction in the hospitality industry , 1998 .

[8]  Kevin Otto,et al.  MODULAR PLATFORM-BASED PRODUCT FAMILY DESIGN , 2000 .

[9]  Glynn J. Sundararaj,et al.  Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on Nonconvex Pareto Frontiers , 2000 .

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

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

[12]  Lester Ingber,et al.  Adaptive simulated annealing (ASA): Lessons learned , 2000, ArXiv.

[13]  Georges M. Fadel,et al.  CONFIGURATION DESIGN OPTIMIZATION METHOD , 1999 .

[14]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A simulated annealing-based algorithm using hierarchical models for general three-dimensional component layout , 1998, Comput. Aided Des..

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

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

[17]  G. Stiny.  Introduction to Shape and Shape Grammars , 1980 .

[18]  Simon Szykman,et al.  Constrained Three-Dimensional Component Layout Using Simulated Annealing , 1997 .

[19]  Kosuke Ishii,et al.  DESIGN FOR VARIETY: A METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING PRODUCT PLATFORM ARCHITECTURES , 2000 .

[20]  Meir J. Rosenblatt,et al.  The dynamics of plant layout , 1986 .

[21]  S. Kotha.  Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition , 1992 .

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