Changing customer requirements always poses a great challenge to designers in complex product design. Due to the complicated coupling relations between components, it is difficult to improve the efficiency of product reconfiguration. Therefore, this paper proposes a joint optimization model of complex product variant design responding to customer requirement changes. Based on synthesizing the advantages and deficiencies of “Scaled-based” and “Module-based”, a UB-BU hybrid approach is developed to improve the search efficiency and reduce conflicts. Then, a joint complex product variant design bi-level optimization to maximize customer satisfaction and minimum cost is established. As a solution, the genetic algorithm embedded double iteration comparison rules (GA-DICR) is developed based on canonical genetic algorithm. Finally, the method and model are proved to be effective in the Clutch variant design. The results can provide way of allowing the decision-makers to respond rapidly to customer rudiments changes request.
HamrazB., CaldwellN.H.M., WynnD.C. and ClarksonP.J., Requirements-based development of an improved engineering change management method, Journal of Engineering Design11 (2013), 765–793.
2.
LiY.L., ZhaoW. and HuL.C., A process oriented hybrid resource integration framework for product variant design, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering4 (2012), 041005
3.
SambhoosK., KocB. and NagiR., Extracting assembly mating graphs for asbly variant design, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering3 (2009), 034501.
4.
WangJ.K., AiX., ZhangJ.S. and WangZ., The application of product variant design based on case-based design in the development of stone equipments, Advances in Materials Manufacturing Science and Technology (2004), 577–581.
5.
EckertC.M., ClarksonP.J. and ZankerW., Change and customization in complex engineering domains, Research in Engineering Design1 (2004), 1–21.
6.
GeorgiopoulosP., FelliniR., SasenaM. and PapalambrosP.Y., Optimal design decisions in product portfolio valuation, Proceedings of 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conference 2002, Montreal, Canada, DETC2002/DAC-34097.
7.
FreuderECLC and Moret-TiM., Computing explanations and implications in preference based configuration, MLecture Notes Incomputer Science, Berlin, Springer, 2003, pp. 315–336.
8.
SimpsonT.W., MaierJ.R.A. and MistreeF., Product platform design: Methodand application, Research in Engineering Design1 (2001), 2–22.
9.
Kikuo FujitaH.Y., Product variety optimization simultaneously designing module combination and module attributes, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications2 (2004), 105–118.
10.
WeissB.A. and SchmidtL.C., Multi-relationship evaluation design: Formalization of an automatic test plan generator, Expert Systems with Applications9 (2013), 3764–3774.
11.
SuhE.S., de WeckO., KimI.Y. and ChangD., Flexible platform component design under uncertainty, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing1 (2007), 115–126.
12.
LoC.H., TsengK.C. and ChuC.H., One-Step QFD based 3D morphological charts for concept generation of product variant design, Expert Systems with Applications11 (2010), 7351–7363.
13.
KhajaviradA. and MichalekJ.J., A decomposed gradient-based approach for generalized platform selection and variant design in product family optimization, Journal of Mechanical Design7 (2008), 071101
14.
ChenC.Y., ChenL.C. and LinL., Methods for processing and prioritizing customer demands in variant product design, Iie Transactions3 (2004), 203–219.
15.
DuG., JiaoR.J. and ChenM., Joint optimization of product family configuration and scaling design by Stackelberg game, European Journal of Operational Research2 (2014), 330–341.
16.
JiaoJ.X. and ZhangY.Y., Product portfolio planning with customer-engineering interaction, Iie Transactions9 (2005), 801–814.
17.
KrengV.B. and LeeT.P., Modular product design with grouping genetic algorithm - a case study, Computers & Industrial Engineering3 (2004), 443–460.
18.
MartinM.V. and IshiiK., Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures, Research in Engineering Design-Theory Applications and Concurrent Engineering4 (2002), 213–235.
19.
SimpsonT.W., Product platform design and customization: Status and promise, Ai Edam-Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design Analysis and Manufacturing1 (2004), 3–20.
20.
GokpinarB., HoppW.J. and IravaniS.M.R., In-house globalization: The role of globally distributed design and product architecture on product development performance, Production and Operations Management6 (2013), 1509–1523.
21.
KristiantoY., HeloP. and JiaoR.J., Mass customization design of engineer-to-order products using Benders’ decomposition and bi-level stochastic programming, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing5 (2013), 961–975.
22.
Calad-AlvarezA., Mejia-GutierrezR., SaninC.M. and SzczerbickiE., Smart experience engineering to support collaborative design problems based on constraints modelling, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems2 (2014), 655–666.
23.
LiuH.T., An integrated fuzzy decision approach for product design and evaluation, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems3 (2013), 709–721.
24.
JimenezF., SanchezG. and VasantP., A multi-objective evolutionary approach for fuzzy optimization in production planning, Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems2 (2013), 441–455.
25.
BaoB., YangY., ChenQ., LiuA. and ZhaoJ., Task allocation optimization in collaborative customized product development based on double-population adaptive genetic algorithm, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing7 (2014), 1–14.
26.
WangG.M., GaoZ.Y. and WanZ.P., A global optimization algorithm for solving the bi-level linear fractional programming problem, Computers & Industrial Engineering2 (2012), 428–432.
