Balancing Commonality and Performance within the Concurrent Design of Multiple Products in a Product Family

Abstract

Product family design involves the concurrent design of multiple products based on a common product platform to satisfy a variety of markets. The success of the resulting product family relies heavily on properly balancing the commonality of the product platform with the individual product performance within the product family. To help resolve this tradeoff, we present the Product Variety Tradeoff Evaluation Method for assessing alternative product platform concepts with varying levels of commonality. Two examples are presented to demonstrate the proposed method at both the detailed and the early stages of design. The redesign of a planetary gear transmission for a family of four cordless drills demonstrates the use of the method in the detailed stages of design, while the design of a family of three General Aviation Aircraft demonstrates the use of the method in the preliminary stages of design. The emphasis in this paper is on the effectiveness of the proposed method in evaluating this tradeoff and not on the results of the examples, per se.

Keywords

product platform product family design product variety commonality.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Conner, C.G. , DeKroon, J.F. and Mistree, F. (September 12-15, 1999). A Product Variety Tradeoff Evaluation Method for a Family of Cordless Drill Transmissions. Advances in Design Automation , Las Vegas, NV, ASME, Paper No. DETC99/DAC-8625.

Kota, S. Sethuraman, K. and Miller, R. (2000). A Metric for Evaluating Design Commonality in Product Families, Journal of Mechanical Design, 122(4): 403-410.

Martin, M. and Ishii, K. (August 18-22, 1996). Design for Variety: A Methodology for Understanding the Costs of Product Proliferation. In: Wood, K. (Ed.), Design Theory and Methodology—DTM'96, ASME, Paper No. 96-DETC/ DTM-1610, Irvine, CA.

Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K. (September 14-17, 1997) Design for Variety: Development of Complexity Indices and Design Charts. In: Dutta, D. (Ed.), Advances in Design Automation, Sacramento, CA, ASME, Paper No. DETC97/ DFM-4359.

Mistree, F. , Hughes, O.F. and Bras, B.A. (1993). The Compromise Decision Support Problem and the Adaptive Linear Programming Algorithm. In: Kamat, M.P. (Ed.), Structural Optimization: Status and Promise . Washington, D.C.: AIAA, pp. 247-289.

Nasa (1978). GASP—General Aviation Synthesis Program, NASA CR-152303, Contract NAS 2-9352. Moffett Field, CA: Ames Research Center.

Prasad, B. (1996). Concurrent Engineering Fundamentals: Integrated Product Development. Vol. II. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning Product Platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39(4): 19-31.

Siddique, Z. and Rosen, D.W. (September 13-16, 1998). On the Applicability of Product Variety Design Concepts to Automotive Platform Commonality. Design Theory and Methodology—DTM'98, Atlanta, GA, ASME, DETC98/ DTM-5661.

10.

Simpson, T.W. (1998). A Concept Exploration Method for Product Family Design. Ph.D. Dissertation, G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.

11.

Simpson, T.W. , Chen, W. , Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (September 4-6, 1996). Conceptual Design of a Family of Products Through the Use of the Robust Concept Exploration Method. 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, WA, AIAA, Vol. 2, pp. 1535-1545. AIAA-96-4161-CP.

12.

Simpson, T.W. , Chen, W. , Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (1999a). Use of the Robust Concept Exploration Method to Facilitate the Design of a Family of Products. In: Roy, U. , Usher, J.M. et al. (Eds.), Simultaneous Engineering: Methodologies and Applications. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers. pp. 247-278.

13.

Simpson, T.W. , Maier, J.R.A. and Mistree, F. (2001) Product Platform Design: Method and Application . Research in Engineering Design, 13(1): 2-22.