A Model-Based Approach for Planning and Developing a Family of Technology-Based Products

Krishnan, Vish; Singh, Rahul; Tirupati, Devanath

doi:10.1287/msom.1.2.132

Cited by 56 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Overlapping coupled development activities, often called concurrent design, involves the use of preliminary design information and is challenging to manage because of its ability to lead to development rework (Krishnan, Eppinger and Whitney 1997). Careful management of overlapping requires the detailed representation of the information exchanged between individual tasks and a deeper understanding of the properties of the information (Krishnan et al 1997, Loch andTerwiesch 1998).…”

Section: Project Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature

2001

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T his paper is a review of research in product development, which we define as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale. Our review is broad, encompassing work in the academic fields of marketing, operations management, and engineering design. The value of this breadth is in conveying the shape of the entire research landscape. We focus on product development projects within a single firm. We also devote our attention to the development of physical goods, although much of the work we describe applies to products of all kinds. We look inside the "black box" of product development at the fundamental decisions that are made by intention or default. In doing so, we adopt the perspective of product development as a deliberate business process involving hundreds of decisions, many of which can be usefully supported by knowledge and tools. We contrast this approach to prior reviews of the literature, which tend to examine the importance of environmental and contextual variables, such as market growth rate, the competitive environment, or the level of top-management support.

show abstract

Section: Project Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature

2001

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some of these attempts have generated theoretical discussions on the interdependencies between product design and manufacturing decisions in planning product families with multiple variants (Erens and Verhulst, 1997;Forza and Salvador, 2002a;Ishii et al, 1995;Shirley, 1990;Ulrich, 1995). Others have adopted a more quantitative orientation, developing algorithms and procedures for designing modular product families while considering manufacturing constraints (Garg, 1999;Gupta and Krishnan, 1999;He et al, 1998;Krishnan and Gupta, 2001;Krishnan et al, 1999;Raman and Chhajed, 1995). With the exception of Duray et al (2000), none of the published researches bridging product design and operations management issues attempted to develop insights on the implications of implementing different types of modularity on the product variety-operational performance trade-off.…”

Section: Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions

Salvador

Forza

Rungtusanatham

2002

J of Ops Management

398

281

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in operations management suggests that firms can mitigate the negative impact of product variety on operational performance by deliberately pursuing modularity in the design of product family architectures. However, modularity is not a dichotomous property of a product, as different types of modularity can be embedded into a product family architecture. The present paper explores how manufacturing characteristics affect the appropriate type of modularity to be embedded into the product family architecture, and how the types of modularity relate to component sourcing. The study is based on a qualitative research design involving a multiple case study methodology to examine six product families belonging to six European companies. The themes derived through case analyses are synthesized in the form of empirical generalizations. Insights from these empirical generalizations are subsequently developed into two propositions explaining why and under what conditions these empirical generalizations might hold for a product family outside of the original sample. The theoretical results formalize, first of all, a type of modularity (i.e. combinatorial modularity) not currently described in literature. Second, the theoretical propositions suggest that when the desired level of product variety is low (high) relative to total production volume, component swapping modularity (combinatorial modularity) helps to maximize operational performance. Finally, the complexity of component families outsourced to suppliers and the geographical proximity of component family suppliers affect the extent to which the product variety-operational performance trade-off can be mitigated through modularity.

show abstract

“…Ramdas and Sawhney (1998) empirically estimate the revenue and cost impact of component sharing decisions and model optimal product line management for holistic products. In research that is closely analogous to the component sharing problem, de Groote (1994) and Krishnan et al (1997) characterize product quality by a single attribute and assume that customers experience decreasing utility for a product as it deviates from their "ideal point. "…”

Section: Fisher Ramdas and Ulrich Component Sharing In The Managemementioning

confidence: 99%

Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: A Study of Automotive Braking Systems

1999

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Product variety in many industries has increased steadily throughout this century. Component sharing---using the same version of a component across multiple products---is increasingly viewed by companies as a way to offer high variety in the marketplace while retaining low variety in their operations. Yet, despite the popularity of component sharing in industry, little is known about how to design an effective component-sharing strategy or about the factors that influence the success of such a strategy. In this paper we critically examine component sharing using automotive front brakes as an example. We consider three basic questions: (1) What are the key drivers and trade-offs of component-sharing decisions? (2) How much variation exists in actual component-sharing practice? and (3) How can this variation be explained? To answer these questions, we develop an analytic model of component sharing and show through empirical testing that this model explains much of the variation in sharing practice for automotive braking systems. We find that the optimal number of brake rotors is a function of the range of vehicle weights, sales volume, fixed component design and tooling costs, variable costs, and the variation in production volume across the models of the product line. We conclude with a discussion of the general managerial implications of our findings.component sharing, product variety, commonality, product platform, product design

show abstract

A Model-Based Approach for Planning and Developing a Family of Technology-Based Products

Cited by 56 publications

References 13 publications

Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature

Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature

Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions

Component Sharing in the Management of Product Variety: A Study of Automotive Braking Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About