A cost-based module mining method for the assemble-to-order strategy

The assemble-to-order (ATO) strategy is one of the most popular operations management approaches to achieve mass customized products while maintaining lower costs. In the ATO system, manufacturers keep inventory at the component and module level, and postpone product differentiation until the final stage of production. However, most research on modularity assumes that modules are already known in advance. In fact, in the ATO system, the determination of which components should be pre-assembled as modules mainly depends on the types and volumes of products ordered by customers. That is, module composition and volume should be derived dynamically from the product database based on updated customer orders. To bridge this gap, a two-stage cost-based module mining method for the assemble-to-order strategy is proposed. The first stage determines which sets of components can be formed (pre-assembled) as modules based on a list of customer orders. In the second stage, a cost-based selection approach is developed to evaluate the total cost of each module implementation project generated from the set of feasible modules. The module implementation project with the lowest cost is thus found and suggested to production managers.

[1]  B. Agard,et al.  Selection of modules for mass customisation , 2010 .

[2]  Bruno Agard,et al.  Module Selection and Supply Chain Optimization for Customized Product Families Using Redundancy and Standardization , 2011, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[3]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  Development of modular products , 1996 .

[4]  Victor B. Kreng,et al.  Modular product design with grouping genetic algorithm - a case study , 2004, Comput. Ind. Eng..

[5]  Melissa A. Schilling Toward a General Modular Systems Theory and Its Application to Interfirm Product Modularity , 2000 .

[6]  Chun-Bao Chen,et al.  Multiple-platform based product family design for mass customization using a modified genetic algorithm , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[7]  P. Cardona,et al.  Modularity, strategic flexibility, and firm performance: A study of the home appliance industry , 2002 .

[8]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  IMPROVING AN EXISTING PRODUCT FAMILY BASED ON COMMONALITY/DIVERSITY, MODULARITY, AND COST , 2007 .

[9]  Andrew Kusiak,et al.  Design for Cost: Module-Based Mass Customization , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering.

[10]  Kim Seng Lee,et al.  A manufacturing-oriented approach for multi-platforming product family design with modified genetic algorithm , 2011, J. Intell. Manuf..

[11]  Elias Olivares-Benitez,et al.  A metaheuristic approach for selecting a common platform for modular products based on product performance and manufacturing cost , 2008 .

[12]  Amy J. C. Trappey,et al.  Applying collaborative design and modularized assembly for automotive ODM supply chain integration , 2008, Comput. Ind..

[13]  Ali A. Yassine,et al.  Optimal platform investment for product family design , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[14]  Fang Guo,et al.  Discovering relationships between modularity and cost , 2007, J. Intell. Manuf..

[15]  Zahed Siddique,et al.  Product platform and product family design : methods and applications , 2010 .

[16]  Prakash Mirchandani,et al.  COMPONENT COMMONALITY: MODELS WITH PRODUCT‐SPECIFIC SERVICE CONSTRAINTS* , 2009 .

[17]  Bruno Agard,et al.  An experimental study for the selection of modules and facilities in a mass customization context , 2010, J. Intell. Manuf..

[18]  René V. Mayorga,et al.  Supply chain management: a modular Fuzzy Inference System approach in supplier selection for new product development , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[19]  Roger Jianxin Jiao,et al.  Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review , 2007, J. Intell. Manuf..

[20]  Kikuo Fujita,et al.  Mathematical model for simultaneous design of module commonalization and supply chain configuration toward global product family , 2013, J. Intell. Manuf..

[21]  Yasushi Umeda,et al.  Product modularity for life cycle design , 2008 .

[22]  Jean-Philippe Gayon,et al.  Using Imperfect Advance Demand Information in Production-Inventory Systems with Multiple Customer Classes , 2009, Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag..

[23]  Rakesh Nagi,et al.  On comparing bills of materials: a similarity/distance measure for unordered trees , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[24]  Gang Xiao,et al.  Identifying functional modules using generalized directed graphs: Definition and application , 2010, Comput. Ind..

[25]  Ramakrishnan Srikant,et al.  Fast Algorithms for Mining Association Rules in Large Databases , 1994, VLDB.

[26]  T.C.E. Cheng,et al.  Production planning and inventory allocation of a single-product assemble-to-order system with failure-prone machines , 2011 .

[27]  Chih-Hsing Chu,et al.  Mass customization in the product life cycle , 2013, J. Intell. Manuf..

[28]  Deyi Xue,et al.  Rapid identification of the optimal product configuration and its parameters based on customer-centric product modeling for one-of-a-kind production , 2010, Comput. Ind..

[29]  Yves Dallery,et al.  Optimal Stock Allocation for a Capacitated Supply System , 2002, Manag. Sci..

[30]  Gül E. Okudan Kremer,et al.  An investigation on the impact of product modularity level on supply chain performance metrics: an industrial case study , 2014, J. Intell. Manuf..

[31]  William J. Stevenson,et al.  Operations Management , 2011 .

[32]  Saif Benjaafar,et al.  Production and Inventory Control of a Single Product Assemble-to-Order Systems with Multiple Customer Classes , 2006, Manag. Sci..