Performing modularization of a product family with multiple brands is a complex task that must integrate and balance a wide range of contradicting and ambiguous aspects, such as product performance, customer expectations, supplier alliances, and corporate business strategies. Furthermore, decisions on balancing these aspects that also change with time have to deal with a high degree of uncertainty. No general methodology for modular branding has currently been published. A methodology with that aim is proposed and prototyped in a real but anonymized industrial case. The presented task is to select standard original equipment manufacturer engines for six brands of self-propelled walk-behind lawn mowers. Selection is based on a set of calculated utility scores and known costs. The utility of an engine with a certain performance level and set of features is specific to each brand. This article presents a first step in developing a general methodology for modular branding and the organizational learnings of using the proposed methodology in an industrial setting.
AkaoY (1990) Quality Function Deployment. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.
2.
BalakrishnanNRChakravartyAK (2008) Product design with multiple suppliers for component variants. International Journal of Production Economics112(2): 723–741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jipe.2005.11.011.
3.
BlackenfeltM (2001) Managing complexity by product modularization—balancing the aspects of technology and business during the design process. PhD Thesis, Department of Machine Design, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
4.
CaoYLuoXGKwongCK. (2012) Joint optimization of product family design and supplier selection under multinomial logic consumer choice rule. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications20(4): 335–347.
5.
DolanBLewisK (2008) Robust product family consolidation and selection. Journal of Engineering Design19(6): 553–569. DOI: 10.1080/09544820802126511.
6.
ErixonG (1998) Modular function deployment—a method for product modularisation. PhD Thesis, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.
FernandezMGSeepersadCCRosenDW. (2005) Decision support in concurrent engineering—the utility-based selection decision support problem. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications13(1): 13–27. DOI: 10.1177/1063293X05050912.
9.
GuadagniPMLittleJDC (2008) A logit model of brand choice calibrated on scanner data. Marketing Science27(1): 29–48. DOI: 10.1287/mksc.1070.0331.
10.
HauserJRClausingD (1988) The house of quality. The Harvard Business Review, May–June, No. 3, pp. 63–73.
11.
HölttäK (2005) Modular product platform design. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Machine Design, Helsinki University of Technology, Helsinki.
12.
Hölttä-OttoKChiriacNLysyD. (2012) Comparative analysis of coupling modularity metrics. Journal of Engineering Design. Epub ahead of print 16July2012. DOI: 10.1080/09544828.2012.701728.
13.
KeeneyRLRaiffaH (1993) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KimKChhajedD (2000) Commonality in product design: cost saving, valuation change and cannibalization. European Journal of Operational Research125(3): 602–621.
15.
LuoXGKwongCKTangJF. (2011) Integrating supplier selection in optimal product family design. International Journal of Production Research49(14): 4195–4222.
16.
LymanD (1990) Deployment normalization. In: Transactions from a second symposium on quality function deployment, Novi, Michigan, 18–19 June 1990, pp. 307–315. Northville, MI: American Society for Quality Control, American Supplier Institute, GAOL/QPC. Automotive Division-ASQC.
17.
MalmqvistJ (2002) A classification of matrix-based methods for product modeling. In: Proceedings of international design conference—design 2002, Dubrovnik, 14–17 May, paper no. 214, pp. 203–210. Somerset, UK: The Design Society.
18.
MeredithLMakiD (2001) Product cannibalization and the role of prices. Applied Economics33(14): 1785–1799.
19.
MorrowWRLongMMacDonaldEF (2012) Consider-then-choose models in decision-based design optimization. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2012 international design engineering technical conferences & computers and information in engineering conference IDETC/CIE 2012, Chicago, IL, 12–15 August, DETC2012-71176.
20.
NagamachiM (1995) Kansei Engineering: a new ergonomic consumer-oriented technology for product development. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics15(1): 3–11. DOI: 10.1016/0169-8141(94)00052-5.
21.
OlewnikATLewisK (2005) On validating engineering design decision support tools. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications13(2): 111–122. DOI: 10.1177/1063293X05053796.
22.
PowerJD (2009) 2009Syndicated walk-behind lawn mower customer satisfaction survey. J.D. Power Associates, The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Available at: http://www.jdpower.com/
23.
SanchezR (1991) Strategic flexibility, real options, and product-based strategy. PhD Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/13205
24.
SellgrenUAnderssonS (2005) The concept of functional surfaces as carriers of interactive properties. In: Proceedings of international conference on engineering design (ICED’05), Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 15–18 August.
25.
ShortTDGarsideJAppletonE. (2009) Matching the voice of the engineer to the voice of the customer: an evolution of QFD. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on engineering design (ICED ’09), vol. 6, Stanford, CA, 24–27 August, pp. 123–134. Somerset, UK: The Design Society.
26.
SimpsonTWBobukASlingerlandLA. (2011) From user requirements to commonality specifications: an integrated approach to product family design. Research in Engineering Design. Epub ahead of print 19August2011. DOI: 10.1007/s00163-011-0119-4.
27.
SrinivasanSRRamakrishnanSGrasmanSE (2005) Identifying the effects of cannibalization on the product portfolio. Marketing Intelligence & Planning23(4): 359–371.
28.
StewardDT (1981) The design structure system: a method for managing the design of complex systems. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management28(3): 71–74.
29.
StoneRB TWoodKLCrawfordRH (1998) A heuristic method to identify modules from a functional description of a product. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences, Atlanta, GA, 13–16 September, DTM-5642.
30.
SudjiantoAOttoN (2001) Modularization to support multiple brand platforms. In: Proceedings of DETC: ASME design engineering technical conferences, Pittsburgh, PA, 9–12 September, DETC2001/DTM-21695.
31.
TakaiSKalapurackalRM (2012) Sensitivity analysis of relative worth in quality function deployment matrices. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications20(3): 195–202. DOI: 10.1177/1063293X12442411.
32.
UlrichK (1995) The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy24(3): 419–440. DOI: 10.1016/0048-7333(94)00775-3.
33.
ZamirowskiEJOttoKN (1999) Identifying product portfolio architecture modularity using function and variety heuristics. In: Proceedings of the 1999 ASME design engineering technical conferences, Las Vegas, NV, 12–15 September 1999, DETC99/DTM-8760.
