A Proactive Scaling Platform Design Method Using Modularity for Product Variations

  • Keith Hirshburg
  • Zahed Siddique


To be competitive in the current business environment, a company or engineering firm must be able to produce new products or designs in the marketplace with better quality and greater customization than both their national and international competitors. These business entities must also be able to accomplish this at a more strenuous pace than their competitors to capture the largest market share. In this chapter, a scaling, small product, p roactive p latform design method using m odularity (PPM) for product variations is presented to assist the company or firm in achieving the highest competitive result. In Chap. 30, we also present a case study to demonstrate how this method can be effectively instituted in a proactive product design. Even though this method and case study are directed to small product family development, any product family design with commonality can benefit from using these ideas to improve the design process.


Product Line Product Family Market Segment Product Life Cycle Design Team 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bower JL, Hout T (1988) Fast cycle capability for competitive power. Harv Bus Rev 66:110–118Google Scholar
  2. Campbell SK (1974) Flaws and fallacies in statistical thinking. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark BH, Montgomery DB (1999) Managerial identification of competitors. J Market 63:67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gonzalez-Zugasti JP, Otto KN, Baker JD (2000) A method for architecting product platforms. Res Eng Des 12:61–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hirsch B, Thoben KD (1997) Why customer driven manufacturing. In: Wortmann JC, Muntslag DR, Timmermans PJM (eds) Customer driven manufacturing. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 33–44Google Scholar
  6. Hollins B, Pugh S (1990) Successful product design. Butterworths, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  7. Jiao J, Simpson TW, Siddique Z (2007) Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 18:5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lu Z, Zuhua J (2006) A genetic algorithm for scale-based product platform planning. In: Jiao L et al (eds) ICNC. LNCS, vol 4221. Springer, Berlin, pp 676–685Google Scholar
  9. McGrath ME (1995) Product strategy for high- technology companies. Irwin Professional Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Maier JR (2008) Rethinking design theory. Mech Eng 130:34–37Google Scholar
  11. McDermott CM, Stock GN (1994) The use of common parts and designs in high-tech industries: a strategic approach. Prod Inv Manage J 35:65–68Google Scholar
  12. Mendenhall W, Sincich T (2007) Statistics for engineering and the sciences, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. Meyer MH, Lehnerd AP (1997) The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Robertson D, Ulrich K (1998) Planning for product platforms. Sloan Manage Rev 39:19–31Google Scholar
  15. Sanderson SW, Uzumeri M (1997) Managing product families. Irwin, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Schile T, Goldhar JD (1989) Product variety and time based manufacturing and business management: achieving competitive advantage through CIM. Manuf Rev 2:32–42Google Scholar
  17. Siddique Z, Rosen DW (1999) Product platform design: a graph grammar approach. In: ASME design engineering technical conference. ASME, Las Vegas, NV, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  18. Simpson TW (2004) Product platform design and customization: status and promise. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 18:3–20Google Scholar
  19. Simpson TW, Siddique Z, Jiao J (2006) Platform-based product family development. In Product platform and product family design methods and applications. Springer Science, New York, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  20. Stalk GJ, Hout T (1990) Competing against time. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Stobart P (1994) Brand power. NYU Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Ullman DG (2002) Mechanical design process. McGraw Hill, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
  23. Wheelwright SC, Clark KB (1992) Revolutionizing product development: quantum leaps in speed, efficiency and quality. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Aerospace and Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations