Advertisement

Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 59–75 | Cite as

A multi-criteria assessment tool for screening preliminary product platform concepts

  • Kevin OttoEmail author
  • Katja Hölttä-Otto
Article

Abstract

Platform concept evaluation is a more challenging task than evaluating a single product concept since a platform must effectively support multiple product variants over a prolonged period of time. Existing platform methods develop specific criteria in depth, yet an evaluation of alternative platforms should be based on a broad set of criteria. Based on expert interviews, personal experience, and a literature search we propose a platform assessment tool consisting of 19 criteria for platform evaluation. The criteria are group into six categories: customer satisfaction, variety, after-sale, organization, flexibility, and complexity. The tool is focused on the early platform architecture phase, before proof-of-concept prototyping. However, it can also be used subsequently for platform refinement when more data becomes available. We demonstrate our platform assessment tool through an example with a cordless drill platform.

Keywords

Modularity Platform Concept selection System engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Association of National Advertisers. (1984). Prescription for new product success. New York.Google Scholar
  2. Baldwin C., Clark K. (2000) Design rules: The power of modularity design. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Bass, L., Clements, P., & Kazman, R. (2003). Software architecture in practice (2nd ed.). Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Black and Decker corporate website. http://www.bdk.com/environment/environmental_affairs.htmGoogle Scholar
  5. Blackenfelt, M. (2001). Managing complexity by product modularization. Doctoral Thesis, Dept. of Machine Design, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  6. Dahmus, J., & Otto, K. (2001). Incorporating lifecycle costs into product architecture decisions. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh. DETC2001/ DAC-21110.Google Scholar
  7. De Weck, O., & Chang, D. (2002). Architecture trade methodology for LEO personal communication systems. AIAA 20th Intl Comm Satellite Systems Conference, Montreal.Google Scholar
  8. Boothroyd G., Dewhurst P., Knight W. (2002) Product design for manufacture and assembly (2nd ed). Marcel Dekker Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Ericsson A., Erixon G. (1999) Controlling design variants: Modular product platforms. ASME press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Papalambros, P., & Perez-Duarte, A. (2002). Platform selection under performance loss constraints in optimal design of product families. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Montreal. DETC02/ DAC-34099.Google Scholar
  11. Fine, C. H., Vardan, R., Pethick, R., & El-Hout, J. (2002). Rapid response capability in value-chain design. Sloan Management Review, Winter 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Ferdinand, A. (1993). Systems, software, and quality engineering, Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
  13. Fredriksson P., Araujo L. (2003) The evaluation of supplier performance: A case study of Volvo Cars and its module suppliers. Journal of Customer Behavior 2(3): 365–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fujita, K., & Nishikawa, T. (2001). Value-adds assessment method for product deployment across life stages through Quality Function Deployment. International Conference on Engineering Design, Glasgow.Google Scholar
  15. Fujita, K., Sakaguchi, H., & Akagi, S. (1999). Product variety deployment and its optimization under modular architecture and module communalization. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas. DETC1999/ DFM-8923.Google Scholar
  16. Gershenson J.K., Prasad G.J., Allamneni S. (1999) Modular product design: A life-cycle view. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 3(4): 13–26Google Scholar
  17. Gonzalez-Zugasti, J., & Otto, K. (2000). Modular platform-based product family design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore. DETC00/DAC-14238.Google Scholar
  18. Graedel T., Allenby H., Comrie P. (1995) Matrix approaches to abridged life cycle assessment. Environmental Science and Technology 29(3): 134A–139AGoogle Scholar
  19. Hauser, J. R. (2001). Metrics thermostat. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 3.Google Scholar
  20. Holtta, K., & Otto, K. (2003). Incorporating design complexity measures in architectural assessment. Design Studies, to appear. Also in ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Chicago. DETC2003/DTM-48648.Google Scholar
  21. Hölttä, K., Tang, V., & Seering, W. (2003). Modularizing product architectures using dendrograms. International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  22. Kota, S., Sethuraman, K., & Miller, R. (2000). A Metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. Journal of Mechanical Design, 122, 403–410.Google Scholar
  23. Martin M., Ishii K. (2002) Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Research in Engineering Design 13(4): 213–235Google Scholar
  24. Martin, M. V., Kmenta, S., & Ishii, K. (1998). QFD and the designer lessons from 200+ houses of quality. World Innovation and Strategy Conference, Sydney.Google Scholar
  25. Nayak, R., Chen, W., & Simpson, T. (2000). A variation-based methodology for product family design. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore. DETC00/DAC-14264.Google Scholar
  26. Nelson S., Parkinson M., Papalambros P. (2001) Multicriteria optimization in product platform design. Journal of Mechanical Design 123: 199–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newcomb P., Bras B., Rosen D. (1998) Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. Journal of Mechanical Design 120: 483–490Google Scholar
  28. Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2001). Product Design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  29. Raiffa H., Keeney R. (1993) Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Rajan, P., Van Wie, M., Campbell, M., Otto, K., & Wood, K. (2003). Design for flexibility – measures and guidelines. International Conference on Engineering Design, Stockholm. Also to appear in Design Studies.Google Scholar
  31. Saaty, T. (1988). The analytic hierarchy process.Google Scholar
  32. Siddique, Z., & Rosen, D. (2000). Product family configuration reasoning using discrete design spaces. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore, Maryland. DETC00/DTM-14666.Google Scholar
  33. Simpson T., Maier J., Mistree F. (2001) Product platform design: Method and application. Research in Engineering Design 13(1): 2–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, J., & Duffy, A. (2001). Modularity in support of design for re-use. International Conference on Engineering Design. Glasgow.Google Scholar
  35. Sosa M., Eppinger S., Rowles G. (2003) Identifying modular and integrative systems and their impact on design team interactions. Journal of Mechanical Design 125: 240–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sudjianto, A., & Otto, K. (2001). Modularization to support multiple brand platforms. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh. DETC2001/DTM-21695.Google Scholar
  37. Suh N. (2001) Axiomatic design: Advances and applications. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanaka, M. (1989). Cost planning in the design phase of a new product. In Y. Mondem & M. Sakurai (Eds.), Japanese management accounting. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  39. Ulrich K., Eppinger S. (2000) Product design and development (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. www.consumerreports.comGoogle Scholar
  41. Zamirowski, E., & Otto K. (1999). Identifying product family architecture modularity using function and variety heuristics. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Las Vegas. DETC1999/DTM-8760.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Robust Systems and StrategyTauntonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthDartmouthUSA

Personalised recommendations