Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 31–45 | Cite as

A taxonomy and decision support for the design and manufacture of types of product families

Article

Abstract

The realization that designing products in families can and does have significant technological and economic advantages over traditional single product design has motivated increasing interest in recent years in formal design tools and methodologies for product family design. However, currently there is no guidance for designers in the first key strategic decisions of product family design, in particular determining the type of product family to design. Hence, in this paper, first a taxonomy of different types of product families is presented which consists of seven types of product families, categorized based on number of products and time of product introduction. Next a methodology is introduced to support designers in deciding which type of product family is appropriate, based upon early knowledge about the nature of the intended product(s) and their intended market(s). From this information it follows both which manufacturing paradigm and which fundamental design strategies are appropriate for each type of product family. Finally, the proposed methodology is illustrated through a case study examining a family of whitewater kayaks.

Keywords

Product family Product platform Taxonomy Design 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson D.M., Pine B.J. II (1997). Agile product development for mass customization. Chicago, IrwinGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin C.Y., Clark K.B. (2000). Design rules: The power of modularity. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bremmer, R. (1999). Cutting-edge platforms. Financial Times Automotive World, September 1999, 30–38Google Scholar
  4. Chase A. (1997). Law and history: The evolution of the American legal system. New York, The New PressGoogle Scholar
  5. de Lit P., Delchambre A., Henrioud J.M. (2003). An integrated approach for product family and assembly system design. IEEE Transactions on Robotics and Automation 19(2): 324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fujita, K., & Ishii, K. (1997). Task structuring toward computational approaches to product family design. Sacramento, CA: ASME DETC/DAC.Google Scholar
  7. Gupta S., Krishnan V. (1998). Product family-based assembly sequence design methodology. IIE Transactions 30, 933–945Google Scholar
  8. Ishii, K., Juengel, C. et al. (1995). Design for product variety: Key to product line structuring. ASME DETC.Google Scholar
  9. Maier, J. R. A. (2000). Strategic decisions in the early stages of product family design. Master’s Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University.Google Scholar
  10. Maier J.R.A., Fadel G.M. (2006). Understanding the complexity of design. In: Braha D., Minai A.A., Bar-Yam Y.(eds) Complex engineering systems: Science Meets Technology. New York, SpringerGoogle Scholar
  11. Martin, M. V., & Ishii, K. (1996). Design for variety: A methodology for understanding the costs of product proliferation. ASME design engineering technical conferences – design theory & methodology conference. Irvine, CA: ASME, Paper No. 96-DETC/DTM-1610.Google Scholar
  12. Meyer M.H., Lehnerd A.P. (1997). The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership. New York, Free PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Mistree F., Bras B.A., Smith W.F., Allen J.K. (1996). Modeling design processes: A conceptual, decision-based perspective. Engineering Design and Automation 1(4): 209–221Google Scholar
  14. Mowery D.C. (2003). Fifty years of business computing: LEO to linux. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 12(4): 295–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. O’Grady P. (1999). The age of modularity. Iowa City, Adams and SteeleGoogle Scholar
  16. Pahl G., Beitz W. (1996). Engineering design: A systematic approach (2nd edn). New York, Springer-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  17. Pugh S. (1990). Total design: Integrated methods for successful product engineering. New York, Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  18. Sabbagh K. (1996). Twenty-first century jet: The making and marketing of the boeing 777. New York, ScribnerGoogle Scholar
  19. Sanderson S.W., Uzumeri M. (1997). Managing product families. Chicago, IrwinGoogle Scholar
  20. Simpson, T. W. (2003). Product platform design and optimization: Status and promise. ASME design engineering technical conferences – design automation conference. Chicago, IL: ASME, Paper No. DETC2003/DAC-48717.Google Scholar
  21. Simpson T.W., Maier J.R.A., Mistree F. (2001). Product platform design: Method and application. Research in Engineering Design, 13(1): 2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sekolec, R., Kunz, A., & Meier, M. (2003). Methodology for product structuring in the early stages of the design process. Proceedings of the international conference on engineering design, ICED ’03, Stockholm, Sweden, August 19–21, 2003.Google Scholar
  23. Sparke P. (2002). A century of car design. New York, Barrons Educational SeriesGoogle Scholar
  24. Stone R.B., Wood K.L., Crawford R.H. (2000). Using quantitative functional models to develop product architectures. Design Studies 21(3): 239–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Subrahmanyam S.R. (2002). A method for generation of machining and fixturing features from design features. Computers in Industry 47(3): 269–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Suzaki K. (1987). The new manufacturing challenge: Techniques for continuous improvement. New York, Free PressGoogle Scholar
  27. Ulrich K.T., Eppinger S.D. (2000). Product design and development (2nd edn). New York, McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  28. Wheelwright S.C., Sasser W.E. Jr. (1989). The new product development map. Harvard Business Review 67, 112–125Google Scholar
  29. Womack J.P., Jones D.T., Roos. D. (1990). The machine that changed the world: The story of lean production. New York, Harper-PerennialGoogle Scholar
  30. Zamirowski, E. J., & Otto, K. N. (1999). Identifying product portfolio architecture modularity using function and variety heuristics. ASME design engineering technical conferences – design theory & methodology conference. Las Vegas, NV: ASME, Paper No. DETC99/DTM-8760.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson Research in Engineering Design and Optimization (CREDO) LaboratoryClemson UniversityClemsonUSA

Personalised recommendations