Design for Variety

  • Mark Martin
  • Warren Hausman
  • Kosuke Ishii
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 10)

Abstract

Companies seek various methods to stay competitive; one possible method to gain customers and enhance competitiveness is to offer increased variety to the marketplace. However, increasing the amount of variety within a company has costs, which the company of course seeks to reduce. In this chapter we first discuss some specific challenges that companies such as Boeing, Denso, HP, and Seagate have with increased variety. We then present our Design for Variety (DFV) research. It focuses on methodologies that will help companies quantify the costs of providing variety and will qualitatively guide designers in developing products that incur minimum variety costs. Our proposed tools incorporate both quantitative indices and qualitative design charts.

Keywords

Commonality Modularity Late-Point Differentiation Supply Chain Design for Manufacturability 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Collier, David (1981). “The Measurement and Operating Benefits of Component Part Commonality?” Decision Sciences. Vol. 12, No. 1, January 1981, pp. 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Gupta, S. and V. Krishnan (1996). Working Paper: “A Product Family-Based Assembly Sequence Design Methodology for the Economic Attainment of Product Variety?” Management Department, The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
  3. Henkoff, Ronald (1995). “New Management Secrets from Japan — Really?” Fortune, November 27, 1995, pp. 135–146.Google Scholar
  4. Ishii, K., Juengel, C., Eubanks, C.F. (1995). “Design for Product Variety: Key to Product Line Structuring?” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference Proceedings, September 1995. Boston, MA, Vol. 2, pp. 499–506.Google Scholar
  5. Lee, H., C. Billington, et al. (1993). “Hewlett-Packard Gains Control of Inventory and Services Through Design for Localization?” Interfaces 23(4): 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. MacDuffie, J. P., K. Sethuraman, et al. (1996). “Product Variety and Manufacturing Performance: Evidence from the International Automotive Assembly Plant Study?” Management Science 42(3): 350–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Martin, M.V. and K. Ishii (1996). “Design for Variety: A Methodology for Understanding the Costs of Product Proliferation?” ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference Proceedings, August 1996, Irvine, CA.Google Scholar
  8. Mather, H. (1987). “Logistics in Manufacturing: A Way to Beat the Competition?” Assembly Automation 7(4): 175–178.Google Scholar
  9. Pine, B. Joseph II (1993). Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  10. Swaminathan, J. and S. Tayur (1995). Working Paper. “Managing Broader Product Lines Through Delayed Differentiation Using Vanilla Boxes?” Graduate School of Industrial Automation, Carnegie Mellon University.Google Scholar
  11. Ulrich, Karl T. and Steven D. Eppinger, (1994). Methodologies for Product Design and Development. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  12. Wackier, J.G. and M. Treleven, (1986). “Component Part Standardization: An Analysis of Commonality Sources and Indices?” Journal of Operations Management 6(2): 219–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Martin
    • 1
  • Warren Hausman
    • 1
  • Kosuke Ishii
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations