Modular product family design: Agent-based Pareto-optimization and quality loss function-based post-optimal analysis

The advent of mass customization and increased manufacturing competition has necessitated that many companies offer platform-oriented multiple product variants. Various design strategies such as Design for Variety and product family design have become critical in this respect. This paper provides a two-step approach to tackle the modular product family design problem. The first step performs a multi-objective optimization using a multi-agent framework to determine the Pareto-design solutions for a given module set. The proposed multi-agent framework is new and has built in flexibility to handle various constraints such as module compatibility during the optimization process. The second step performs post-optimization analysis that includes a novel application of the quality loss function to determine the optimal platform level for a related set of product families and their variants. The proposed method is applied to a product family design example to demonstrate its validity and effectiveness.

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

[2]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Optimal Configuration Design: An Integrated Approach Using Grammars , 1998 .

[3]  David W. Rosen,et al.  Product Family Configuration Reasoning Using Discrete Design Spaces , 2000 .

[4]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Agent-Based Synthesis of Electromechanical Design Configurations , 2000 .

[5]  P. Papalambros,et al.  A NOTE ON WEIGHTED CRITERIA METHODS FOR COMPROMISE SOLUTIONS IN MULTI-OBJECTIVE OPTIMIZATION , 1996 .

[6]  Tomoyuki Miyashita,et al.  Optimum design using search agents , 2001 .

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

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

[9]  J. Koski.  Defectiveness of weighting method in multicriterion optimization of structures , 1985 .

[10]  Marc H. Meyer,et al.  The Power of Product Platforms , 1997 .

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

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

[13]  Fred A. Spiring,et al.  A General Class of Loss Functions with Industrial Applications , 1998 .

[14]  Bert Bras,et al.  A DECISION SUPPORT MODEL FOR THE LIFE-CYCLE DESIGN OF A FAMILY OF OIL FILTERS , 1999 .

[15]  Kunihiko Fujita,et al.  Product Variety Optimiza-tion: Simultaneous Optimization of Module Combination and Module Attributes , 2001 .

[16]  Rahul Singh,et al.  A Model-Based Approach for Planning and Developing a Family of Technology-Based Products , 1999, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[17]  Rob H. Bracewell,et al.  Functional descriptions used in computer support for qualitative scheme generation—“Schemebuilder” , 1996, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[18]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  Recursive annealing: A computational model for machine design , 1995 .

[19]  William Y. Fowlkes,et al.  Engineering Methods for Robust Product Design: Using Taguchi Methods in Technology and Product Development , 1995 .

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

[21]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A-Design: An Agent-Based Approach to Conceptual Design in a Dynamic Environment , 1999 .

[22]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .