Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures

Martin, Michael R.; Ishii, Kosuke

doi:10.1007/s00163-002-0020-2

Cited by 500 publications

(360 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

350

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Alizon et al 2009;Jiao et al 1998), product platforms (e.g. Martin and Ishii 2002;Simpson et al 2001;Suh et al 2007), generic bills of materials (e.g. Hegge and Wortmann 1991;McKay et al 1996) and process platforms (e.g.…”

Section: Related Literature Research Motivation and Research Aimmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Veldman

Alblas

2012

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many capital good firms deliver products that are not strictly one-off, but instead share a certain degree of similarity with other deliveries. In the delivery of the product, they aim to balance stability and variety in their product design and processes. The issue of engineering change plays an important in how they manage to do so. Our aim is to gain more understanding into how capital good firms manage engineering change, design variety and process variety, and into the role of the product delivery strategies they thereby use. Product delivery strategies are defined as the type of engineering work that is done independent of an order and the specification freedom the customer has in the remaining part of the design. Based on the within-case and cross-case analysis of two capital good firms several mechanisms for managing engineering change, design variety and process variety are distilled. It was found that there exist different ways of (1) managing generic design information, (2) isolating large engineering changes, (3) managing process variety, (4) designing and executing engineering change processes. Together with different product delivery strategies these mechanisms can be placed within an archetypes framework of engineering change management. On one side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to open product delivery strategies, have some practices in place to investigate design reuse potential, isolate discontinuous engineering changes into the first deliveries of the product, employ 'probe and learn' process management principles in order to allow evolving insights to be accurately executed and have informal engineering change processes. On the other side of the spectrum capital good firms operate according to a closed product delivery strategy, focus on prevention of engineering changes based on design standards, need no isolation mechanisms for discontinuous engineering changes, have formal process management practices in place and make use of closed and formal engineering change procedures. The framework should help managers to (1) analyze existing configurations of product delivery strategies, product and process designs and engineering change management and (2) reconfigure any of these elements according to a 'misfit' derived from the framework. Since this is one of the few in-depth empirical studies into engineering change management in the capital good sector, our work adds to the understanding on the various ways in which engineering change can be dealt with.

show abstract

Section: Related Literature Research Motivation and Research Aimmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Veldman

Alblas

2012

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Concept Exploration Method (PPCEM) (Simpson et al, 2001), Design for Variety (DFV) (Martin and Ishii, 2002), and a design process for a product line design under uncertainty and competition (Li and Azarm, 2002). Gonzalez-Zugasti et al (2000) present a method for architecting product platforms, which are evaluated using a real options approach in Gonzalez-Zugasti et al (2001).…”

Section: Platforms and Flexibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating tradeoffs between performance, cost and flexibility for reconfigurable offshore ships

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates technical performance, acquisition cost and flexibility level for reconfigurable offshore ships. An offshore ship can be configured with various types of equipment; thus, its base structure constitutes a platform from which several end ship design configurations can be derived. A ship with equipment retrofit flexibility will typically have excess stability, deadweight and deck area to ensure physical compatibility. However, there are complex system interactions that need consideration, such as the effects of flexibility on cost and performance. The level of flexibility is quantified using filtered outdegree based on a tradespace network representation of the system. Technical performance is measured in terms of capability, capacity and operability, where a multi-attribute utility function is used to aggregate the total performance for comparison. Findings indicate that increased platform flexibility does increase capacity, but comes at a complex compromise with operability as resistance is increased, and roll periods become unfavorable due to high accelerations.

show abstract

“…To predict the amount of redesign effort for future changes, Martin and Ishii (2002) assessed the direct dependencies between components using a component-based DSM that 1 Biological and technological evolution processes are not exactly the same. One major difference is that technologies are indeed consciously ''designed'' by ''intelligent designers,'' whereas biology evolution relies on natural selection.…”

Section: Change Propagation Through Component Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Part of the measurement efforts is the development of indices, such as the Change Propagation Index (CPI) (Suh et al 2007) and the Incoming Change Likelihood (ICL), Incoming Change Impact (ICI) and Outgoing Change Risk (OCR) indices (Koh et al 2013), which are used to differentiate components that exhibit different propagation behavior, such as multipliers, absorbers, carriers and constants . In turn, knowledge about the differentiated change-related properties of components is useful to support design decisions, such as which components to standardize, modularize or embed flexibility to address design changes (Martin and Ishii 2002;Eckert et al 2004;Suh et al 2007;Cardin et al 2013;Koh et al 2013), as well as what change modes are most suitable (Rajan et al 2005;Keese et al 2009). …”

Section: Change Propagation Through Component Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, herein we are interested in the impact of component dependence cycles on product evolvability. Component interaction density denotes the number of dependences among a given set of components and has been used as a proxy of product modularity in the literature (Martin and Ishii 2002;MacCormack et al 2006;Sosa et al 2007Sosa et al , 2013. If a component is influenced by or dependent on fewer other components (implying a lower interaction density), it is more modular.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A simulation-based method to evaluate the impact of product architecture on product evolvability

Luo

2015

Res Eng Design

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Products evolve over time via the continual redesigns of interdependent components. Product architecture, which is embodied in the structure of interactions among components, influences the ability for the product to be subsequently evolved. Despite extensive studies of change propagation via inter-component connections, little is known about the specific influences of product architecture on product evolvability. Related metrics and methods to assess the evolvability of products with given architectures are also under-developed. This paper proposes a simulation-based method to assess the isolated effect of product architecture on product evolvability by analyzing a design structure matrix. We define product evolvability as the ability of the product's design to subsequently generate heritable performance-improving variations, and propose a quantitative measure for it. We demonstrate the proposed method by using it to investigate a wide spectrum of model-generated DSMs representing products with varied architectures, and show that modularity and inter-component influence cycles promote product evolvability. Our primary contribution is a repeatable method to assess and compare alternative product architectures for architecture selection or redesign for evolvability. A second contribution is the simulation-based evidence about the impacts of two particular product architectural patterns on product evolvability. Both contributions aim to aid in designing for evolvability.

show abstract

Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures

Cited by 500 publications

References 15 publications

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Managing design variety, process variety and engineering change: a case study of two capital good firms

Investigating tradeoffs between performance, cost and flexibility for reconfigurable offshore ships

A simulation-based method to evaluate the impact of product architecture on product evolvability

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About