2006
DOI: 10.1080/09544820500275693
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Commonality indices for product family design: a detailed comparison

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
69
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 138 publications
(70 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
1
69
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A generalized commonality formulation avoids this restriction and allows for component sharing within subsets of the variants. The restricted definition is a simplifying assumption that is typically employed to decrease computational complexity; however, it imposes significant limitations that are often not observed in product family design practice (Thevenot and Simpson 2006). Therefore, there is a need for an approach capable of solving the joint problem using generalized commonality (box 6) for practical product family applications with a reasonable computational cost.…”
Section: Classification: Product Family Optimizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A generalized commonality formulation avoids this restriction and allows for component sharing within subsets of the variants. The restricted definition is a simplifying assumption that is typically employed to decrease computational complexity; however, it imposes significant limitations that are often not observed in product family design practice (Thevenot and Simpson 2006). Therefore, there is a need for an approach capable of solving the joint problem using generalized commonality (box 6) for practical product family applications with a reasonable computational cost.…”
Section: Classification: Product Family Optimizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This phenomenon appears to affect platforms across industries, ranging from automotive to semiconductor capital equipment as summarized in Table 2.4. There is a large body of work on developing commonality metrics (Wacker and Trevelan 1986, Siddique et al 1998, Jiao and Tseng 2000, Thevenot and Simpson 2006), but descriptive studies tracking commonality indices over time are just beginning to emerge (Fixson 2007). A widely-cited example is the Joint Strike Fighter, a military aircraft designed with three variants, which was intended to share 80-90% parts commonality across all three variants.…”
Section: Planning For Divergencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…This includes the degree of commonality index (DCI, [2]), the total constant commonality index (TCCI, [16]), the commonality index (CI, [17]), the component part commonality index (CI (C) , [18]), the product line commonality index (PCI, [19]), the percent commonality (%C, [20]), the generational variety index (GVI, [21]), the functional similarity index (FSI, [22,23]), and measures for the degree of variation [9,24,25]. An extensive comparison between many of these commonality indices and their usefulness for product family design (and redesign) can be found in [10], and a comprehensive list of existing commonality indices can be found in [26,27].…”
Section: Existing Metrics For Product Family Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The optimal level of commonality is obtained by minimizing the non-value added variations across the products within a family without limiting the choices for customers in each market segment. From a more general view, the idea is to make each product within a family distinctive in ways that customers notice and is identical in ways that customers cannot see [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%