Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Many-Objective Evolutionary Optimisation and Visual Analytics for Product Family Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimisation for Product Design and Manufacturing

Abstract

Product family design involves the development of multiple products that share common components, modules and subsystems, yet target different market segments and groups of customers. The key to a successful product family is the product platform—the common components, modules and subsystems—around which the family is derived. The fundamental challenge when designing a family of products is resolving the inherent trade-off between commonality and performance. If there is too much commonality, then individual products may not meet their performance targets; however, too little sharing restricts the economies of scale that can be achieved during manufacturing and production. Multi-objective evolutionary optimisation algorithms have been used extensively to address this trade-off and determine which variables should be common (i.e., part of the platform) and which should be unique in a product family. In this chapter, we present a novel approach based on many-objective evolutionary optimisation and visual analytics to resolve trade-offs between commonality and many performance objectives. We provide a detailed example involving a family of aircraft that demonstrates the challenges of solving a 10-objective trade-off between commonality and the nine performance objectives in the family. Future research directions involving the use of multi-objective optimisation and visual analytics for product family design are also discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Anderson, D.M. (1997). Agile product development for mass customization: How to develop and deliver products for mass customization, Niche Markets, JIT, Build-to-Order and Flexible Manufacturing. Chicago, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Galsworth, G. D. (1994). Smart, simple design: Using variety effectiveness to reduce total cost and maximize customer selection. Essex Junction, VT: Omneo.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ho, T. H., & Tang, C. S. (1998). Product variety management: Research advances. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Child, P., Diederichs, R., Sanders, F.-H., & Wisniowski, S. (1991). The management of complexity. Sloan Management Review, 33(1), 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ishii, K., Juengel, C, & Eubanks, C.F. (1995). Design for product variety: Key to product line structuring. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Theory and Methodology (pp. 499–506). Boston, MA 83(2)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Lancaster, K. (1990). The economics of product variety. Marketing Science, 9(3), 189–206.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Meyer, M. H., & Lehnerd, A. P. (1997). The power of product platforms: Building value and cost leadership, Free Press. NY: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Thevenot, H. J., & Simpson, T. W. (2007). A comprehensive metric for evaluating commonality in a product family. Journal of Engineering Design, 18(6), 577–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Robertson, D., & Ulrich, K. (1998). Planning product platforms. Sloan Management Review, 39(4), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Simpson, T. W., Siddique, Z., & Jiao, J. (Eds.). (2005). Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Simpson, T. W. (2005). Methods for optimizing product platforms and product families: Overview and classification. In T. W. Simpson, Z. Siddique, & J. Jiao (Eds.), Product platform and product family design: Methods and applications (pp. 133–156). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nelson, S. A., I. I., Parkinson, M. B., & Papalambros, P. Y. (2001). Multicriteria optimization in product platform design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 123(2), 199–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Michelena, N., Papalambros, P., Saitou, K., Ferez-Duarte, A., & Fenyes, P.A. (2002). A sensitivity-based commonality strategy for family products of mild variation, with application to automotive body stractures. Proceedings of the 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciphnary Analysis and Optimization, Atlanta, GA, AIAA, AIAA-2002-5610.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fellini, R., Kokkolaras, M., Papalambros, P., & Perez-Duarte, A. (2002). Platform selection under performance loss constraints in optimal design of product families. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fujita, K., Akagi, S., Yoneda, T., & Ishikawa, M. (1998). Simultaneous optimization of product family sharing system structure and configuration. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Paper No. DETC98/DFM-5722.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N., & Baker, J. D. (1999). 12–15 September. Assessing value for product family design and selection. Advances in Design Automation, Las Vegas, NV, ASME, Paper No. DETC99/DAC-8613.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gonzalez-Zugasti, J.P., & Otto, K.N. (2000). Modular platform-based product family design. Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Automation Conference, Baltimore, MD, ASME, Paper No. DETC-2000/DAC-14238.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Gonzalez-Zugasti, J. P., Otto, K. N., & Baker, J. D. (2000). A method for architecting product platforms. Research in Engineering Design, 12(2), 61–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Allada, V., & Rai, R. (2002). Module-based multiple product design, IIE Annual Conference 2002, Orlando, FL, IIE.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Simpson, T. W., Seepersad, C. C., & Mistree, F. (2001). Balancing commonality and performance within the concurrent design of multiple products in a product family. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, 9(3), 177–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tseng, M.M., & Jiao, J. (1998). Design for mass customization by developing product family architecture. ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences—Design Theory and Methodology, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Paper No. DETC98/DTM-5717.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chidambaram, B., & Agogino, A. M. (1999). 12–15 September. Catalog-based customization. Advances in Design Automation, Las Vegas, NV, ASME, Paper No. DETC99/DAC-8675.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nayak, R. U., Chen, W., & Simpson, T. W. (2002). 10–13 September. A variation-based method for product family design. Engineering Optimization, 34(1), 65–81.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Messac, A., Martinez, M. P., & Simpson, T. W. (2000). Introduction of a product family penalty function using physical programming. 8th AIAA/NASA/USAF/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Long Beach, CA, AIAA, AIAA-2000-4838, to appear in ASME Journal of Mechanical Design.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Khajavirad, A., Michalak, J. J., & Simpson, T. W. (2009). An efficient decomposed multiobjective genetic algorithm for solving the joint product platform selection and product family design problem with generalized commonality. Structural and Multidiscipilnary Optimization, 39(2), 187–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Messac, A., Martinez, M. P., & Simpson, T. W. (2002). Effective product family design using physical programming. Engineering Optimization, 34(3), 245–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldberg, D. E. (1989). Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Back, T., Fogel, D., & Michalewicz, Z. (2000). Handbook of evolutionary computation. Bristol, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Deb, K. (2001). Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms. New York: John Wiley & Sons LTD.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Coello, C. C., Van Veldhuizen, D. A., & Lamont, G. B. (2002). Evolutionary algorithms for solving multi-objective problems. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Fleming, P. J., Purshouse, R. C., & R. J. Lygoe (2005), Many-objective optimization: An engineering design perspective, in Evolutionary Multi—Criterion Optimization, ser. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg pp. 14–32.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kasprzyk, J. R., Reed, P. M., Kirsch, B., & Characklis, G. Managing population and 761 drought risks using many-objective water portfolio planning under uncertainty, Water Resources 762 Research, doi:10.1029/2009WR008121.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kollat, J. B., & Reed, P. M. (2007). A framework for visually interactive decisionmaking and design using evolutionary multiobjective optimization (VIDEO). Environmental Modelling and Software, 22(12), 1691–1704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Woods, D. (1986). “Paradigms for intelligent decision support,” Intelligent Decision Support in Process Environments, Springer, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  35. Keim, D. A., Mansmann, F., Schneidewind, J., & Ziegler, H. (2006). Challenges in visual data analysis. Proceedings of Information Visualization, IEEE Computer Society 9–16, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Russell, D. M., Stefik, M. J., Pirolli, P., & Card, S. K. (1993). The cost structure of sensemaking. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, April 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Qu, Y., & Furnas, G. W. (2005). Sources of structure in sensemaking. Proceedings of the SIGCHI ‘05 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ASM Press: Portland, OR, April 2–7.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Simpson, T. W., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (1996). 4–6 September. Conceptual design of a family of products through the use of the robust concept exploration method. 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Bellevue, WA, AIAA, Vol. 2, pp. 1535–1545. AIAA-96-4161-CP.

    Google Scholar 

  39. NASA. (1978). GASP—General aviation synthesis program, NASA CR-152303, Contract NAS 2-9352, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Simpson, T. W., Chen, W., Allen, J. K., & Mistree, F. (1999). Use of the robust concept exploration method to facilitate the design of a family of products. In U. Roy, J. M. Usher, et al. (Eds.), Simultaneous engineering: Methodologies and applications (pp. 247–278). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mistree, F., Hughes, O.F., & Bras, B.A. (1993). The compromise decision support problem and the adaptive linear programming algorithm, In: M. P. Kamat (ed.), Structural optimization: Status and promise, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  42. Jiao, J., & Tseng, M. M. (2000). Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices. Journal of Engineering Design, 11(3), 225–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kota, S., Sethuraman, K., & Miller, R. (2000). A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design, 122(4), 403–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Siddique, Z., Rosen, D.W., & Wang, N. (1998). On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality, Design Theory and Methodology—DTM’98, Atlanta, GA, ASME, Paper No. DETC98/DTM-5661.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., & Meyarivan, T. (2002). A fast and elitist multiobjective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 6(2), 182–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kollat, J. B., & Reed, P. M. (2005). The value of online adaptive search: A performance comparison of NSGA-II, ε-NSGAII, and εMOEA. In C. C. Coello, A. H. Aguirre, & E. Zitzler (Eds.), The Third International Conference on Evolutionary Multi-Criterion Optimization (EMO 2005). Lecture Notes in Computer Science 3410 (pp. 386–398). Guanajuato, Mexico: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Kollat, J. B., & Reed, P. M. (2006). Comparing state-of-the-art evolutionary multiobjective algorithms for long-term groundwater monitoring design. Advances in Water Resources, 29(6), 792–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Laumanns, M., Thiele, L., Deb, K., & Zitzler, E. (2002). Combining convergence and diversity in evolutionary multiobjective optimization. Evolutionary Computation, 10(3), 263–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Deb, K., Mohan, M., Mishra, S. (2003). A fast multi-objective evolutionary algorithm for finding well-spread pareto-optimal solutions. Tech. Rep. KanGAL 2003002, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Harik, G. R., Lobo, F. G. (1999). A parameter-less genetic algorithm. Tech. Rep. IlliGAL 99009, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Tang, Y., Reed, P., Wagener, T. (2006). How effective and efficient are multiobjective evolutionary algorithms at hydrologic model calibration? Hydrology and earth system sciences 10 (2).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Kollat, J., & Reed, P. (2007). A computational scaling analysis of multiobjective evolutionary algorithms in long-term groundwater monitoring applications. Advances in Water Resources, 30(3), 408–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Goldberg, D. E. (2002). The design of innovation: lessons from and for competent genetic algorithms. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  54. Purshouse, R. C., & Fleming, P. J. (2007). On the evolutionary optimization of many conflicting objectives. IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation, 11(6), 770–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Farina, M., & Amato, P. (2004). A fuzzy definition of “optimality” for manycriteria optimization problems. Systems, man and cybernetics, part A: Systems and humans, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 315 – 326, May 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Teytaud, O. (2006). How entropy-theorems can show that on-line approximating high-dim pareto-fronts is too hard. in PPSN BTP Workshop, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Laumanns, M., L. Thiele, K. Deb, & Zitzler, E. (2001), On the convergence and diversity-preservation properties of multi-objective evolutionary algorithms.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Inselberg, A. (1985). The plane with parallel coordinates. The Visual Computer, 1(1), 69–91.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The first and second authors were partially supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under CAREER Grant No. CBET-0640443, and the third author acknowledges support from NSF Grant No. CMMI-0620948. The computational experiments in this work were supported in part through instrumentation funded by NSF Grant No. OCI-0821527. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations in this chapter are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

    Ruchit A. Shah & Timothy W. Simpson

  2. Civil & Environmental Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA

    Patrick M. Reed

Authors
  1. Ruchit A. Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick M. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Timothy W. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Timothy W. Simpson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Virtual Systems Research Centre, University of Skövde, Skövde, 541 28, Sweden

    Lihui Wang

  2. , Virtual Systems Research Centre, University of Skövde, Skövde, 541 28, Sweden

    Amos H. C. Ng

  3. , Department of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, 208016, Uttar Pradesh, India

    Kalyanmoy Deb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Shah, R.A., Reed, P.M., Simpson, T.W. (2011). Many-Objective Evolutionary Optimisation and Visual Analytics for Product Family Design. In: Wang, L., Ng, A., Deb, K. (eds) Multi-objective Evolutionary Optimisation for Product Design and Manufacturing. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-652-8_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-652-8_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-85729-617-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-85729-652-8

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation