The foremost difficulty in making the transition to mass customization is how to offer product variety affordably. The answer to this quandary lies in the successful management of modularity and commonality in the development of products and their production processes. While several platform design techniques have emerged as a means to offer modularity and commonality, they are limited by an inability to handle multiple modes of offering variety for multiple design specifications. The Product Platform Constructal Theory Method (PPCTM) is a technique that enables a designer to develop platforms for customizable products while handling issues of multiple levels of commonality, multiple product specifications, and the inherent tradeoffs between platform extent and performance. The method is limited, however, by its inability to handle multiple design objectives and its reliance on the assumption that demand in the market is uniform for each product variant. The authors address these limitations in this study by infusing the utility-based compromise decision support problem and demand modeling techniques. The authors further augment the PPCTM by extending its use to a new domain: the design of process parameter platforms. The augmented approach is illustrated through a tutorial example: the design of a product and a process parameter platform for the realization of a line of customizable cantilever beams.
Anderson, D.M. (1997). Agile Product Development for Mass Customization, Chicago: Irwin Professional Publishing.
2.
McFarlane, D.C. and Bussmann, S. (2000). Developments in Holonic Production Planning and Control, Production Planning and Control , 11(6): 522—536.
3.
Mehrabi, M.G. , Ulsoy, A.G. and Koren, Y. (2000). Reconfigurable Manufacturing Systems: Key to Future Manufacturing, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 11(4): 403—419.
4.
Lehnerd, A.P. (1987). Revitalizing the Manufacture and Design of Mature Global Product, In: Guile, B.R. and Brooks, H. (eds), Technology and Global Industry: Companies and Nations in the World Economy , pp. 49—64, Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
Simpson, T.W. (2003). Product Platform Design and Optimization: Status and Promise, In: Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Computer and Information in Engineering Conference, Chicago, Ill , DETC2003/DAC-48717.
6.
Kalpakjian, S. (1997). Manufacturing Processes for Engineering Materials , New York: Addison Wesley.
7.
Ericsson, A. and Erixon, G. (1999). Controlling Design Variants: Modular Platforms , Dearborn, MI: ASME Press.
8.
Siddique, Z. and Rosen, D.W. (2000). Product Family Configuration Reasoning Using Discrete Design Spaces, ASME Design Theory and Methodology Conference , Baltimore, MD.
9.
Nayak, R.U., Chen, W. and Simpson, T.W. (2002). A Variation-Based Method for Product Family Design , Engineering Optimization, 34(1): 65—81.
10.
Simpson, T.W. , Chen, W., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (1999). Use of the Robust Concept Exploration Method to Facilitate the Design of a Family of Products, In: Roy, U. and Usher, J.M. (eds), Simultaneous Engineering: Methodologies and Applications, pp. 247—278, New York: Chapman-Hall.
11.
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.
12.
Simpson, T.W. (2004). Product Platform Design and Customization: Status and Promise, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 18(1): 3—20.
13.
Fujita, K. and Yoshida, H. (2001). Product Variety Optimization: Simultaneous Optimization of Module Combination and Module Attributes, In: Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, DETC2001/DAC-21058.
14.
Hernandez, G., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (2003). Design of Platforms for Customizable Products as a Problem of Access in a Geometric Space, Journal of Engineering Optimization, 35(3): 229—254.
15.
Nayak, R.U., Chen, W., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (1999). A Variation-Based Methodology for Product Family Design, In: Proceedings of the 2000 ASME Design Automation Conference, Baltimore, MD, DETC2000/DAC-8876.
16.
Seepersad, C.C. , Hernandez, G. and Allen, J.K. (2000). A Quantitative Approach to Determining Product Platform Extent, ASME Advances in Design Automation Conference, Baltimore, MD, DETC2000/DAC-14288.
17.
Nelson, S.A. , Parkinson, M.B. and Papalambros , P.Y. (2001). Multicriteria Optimization in Product Platform Design, Journal of Mechanical Design, 123(2): 199—204.
18.
Li, H. and Azarm, S. (2002). An Approach for Product Line Design Selection Under Uncertainty and Competition, Journal of Mechanical Design , 124(3): 385—392.
19.
Yu, J.S. , Gonzalez-Zugasti , J.P. and Otto, K.N. (1999). Product Architecture Definition Based Upon Customer Demands, Journal of Mechanical Design, 121(3): 329—335.
20.
Farrell, R.S. and Simpson, T.W. (2003). Product Platform Design to Improve Commonality in Custom Products, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 14(6): 541—556.
21.
Seepersad, C.C., Mistree, F. and Allen, J.K. (2002). A Quantitative Approach for Designing Multiple Product Platforms for an Evolving Portfolio of Products, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Advances in Design Automation , Montreal, Canada, DETC2002/DAC-34096.
22.
Jiang, L. and Allada, V. (2001). Design for Robustness of Modular Product Families for Current and Future Markets, In: Proceedings of the 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, Pennslyvania, DETC2001/DFM-21177.
23.
Hernandez, G., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (2002). Design of Hierarchic Platforms for Customizable Products, In: Proceedings of the 2002 ASME Design Automation Conference, Monteral, DETC2002/DAC-34095.
24.
Hernandez, G. (2001). Platform Design for Customizable Products as a Problem of Access in Geometric Space, PhD Dissertation, G.W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology , Atlanta, GA.
25.
Simon, H.A. (1996). Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
26.
Bejan, A. (1996). Street Network Theory of Organization in Nature , Journal of Advanced Transportation, 255(7): 85—107.
27.
Bejan, A. (1997). Advanced Engineering Thermodynamics, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
28.
Bejan, A. (2000). Shape and Structure: From Engineering to Nature , Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Carone, M.J., Williams, C.B., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (2003). An Application of Constructal Theory in the Multi-Objective Design of Product Platforms, In: Proceedings of the 2003 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Chicago, Ill, DETC2003/DTM-48667.
30.
Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York: John Wiley & Sons.
31.
Fernández, M.G. , Seepersad, C.C., Rosen, D.W., Allen, J.K. and Mistree, F. (2001). Utility-based Decision, Support for Selection in Engineering Design, In: 13th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Pittsburgh, PA, DETC2001/DAC-21106.
32.
Ferrari, E., Gamberi, M., Manzini, R. and Pareschi, A. (2003). An Integrated Optimization Process for the Production Planning and Control of a Flexible Manufacturing System, Advanced Simulation Technologies Conference, Orlando, FL.
33.
McAuley, J. (1972). Machine Grouping for Efficient Production, Production Engineer, February: 53—57.
34.
Hopp, W.J. and Spearman, M.L. (2001). Factory Physics, Boston: McGraw-Hill.
35.
Jiao, J., Zhang, L. and Pokharel, S. (2006). Process Platform and Production Configuration for Product Families, In: Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z. and Jiao, J. (eds), Product Platform and Product Family Design, pp. 377—402, New York: Springer.
36.
Williams, C.B. , Allen, J.K., Rosen, D.W. and Mistree, F. (2004). Designing Platforms for Customizable Products in Markets with Non-Uniform Demand, In: Proceedings of the 2004 ASME Design Theory Methodology Conference , Salt Lake City, UT, DETC2004/DTM-57469.
37.
Williams, C.B. , Allen, J.K., Mistree, F. and Rosen, D.W. (2006). Process Parameter Platform Design to Manage Workstation Capacity, In: Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z. and Jiao, J. (eds), Product Platform and Product Family Design, pp. 421—456, New York: Springer.
