Designing Lines of Cars That Optimize the Degree of Differentiation vs. Commonality among Models in the Line: A Natural Intelligence Approach

  • Charalampos Saridakis
  • Stelios Tsafarakis
  • George Baltas
  • Nikolaos Matsatsinis
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 171)


The product life cycle of cars is becoming shorter and carmakers constantly introduce new or revised models in their lines, tailored to their customer needs. At the same time, new car model design decisions may have a substantial effect on the cost and revenue drivers. For example, although a new car model configuration with component commonality may lower manufacturing cost, it also hinders increased revenues that could have been achieved through product differentiation. This paper applies a state of the art, nature inspired approach to design car lines that optimize the degree of differentiation vs commonality among models in the line. Our swarm intelligence mechanism is applied to stated preference data derived from a large-scale conjoint experiment that measures consumer preferences for passenger cars in a sample of 1,164 individuals. Our approach provides interesting insights on how new and existing car models can be combined in a product line and suggests that differentiation among models within a product line elevates customer satisfaction.


Car line design differentiation vs commonality swarm intelligence conjoint analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albritton, M.D., McMullen, P.R.: Optimal Product Design Using a Colony of Virtual Ants. European Journal of Operational Research 176(1), 498–520 (2007)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beck, N.: Time-series-cross-section data: What have we learned in the past few years? Annual Review of Political Science 4, 271–293 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, N., Katz, J.: Random coefficient models for time-series–cross-section data: Monte carlo experiments. Political Analysis 15(2), 182–195 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belloni, A., Freund, R., Selove, M., Simester, D.: Optimizing Product Line Designs: Efficient Methods and Comparisons. Management Science 54(9), 1544–1552 (2008)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Desai, P., Kekre, S., Radhakrishnan, S., Srinivasan, K.: Product differentiation and commonality in design: Balancing revenues and cost drivers. Management Science 47(1), 37–51 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Green, P., Krieger, A., Wind, Y.: Thirty years of conjoint analysis: Reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31, S56–S73 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Heese, H.S., Swaminathan, J.M.: Product Line Design with Component Commonality and Cost-Reduction Effort. Manufacturing and Service Operations Management 8(2), 206–219 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hsiao, C.: Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1995)Google Scholar
  9. Jan, T.S., Hsiao, T.: A four-role model of the automotive industry development in developing countries: A case in Taiwan. Journal of the Operational Research Society 55, 1145–1155 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kennedy, J.: The Particle Swarm: Social Adaptation of Knowledge. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Evolutionary Computation, pp. 303–308. IEEE Service Center, Indianapolis (1997)Google Scholar
  11. Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.C.: A discrete binary version of the particle swarm algorithm. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Orlando, FL, USA, pp. 4104–4108 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. Kennedy, J., Eberhart, R.C.: Particle Swarm Optimization. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks, pp. 1942–1948. IEEE Service Center, Piscataway (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kohli, R., Sukumar, R.: Heuristics for product line design using conjoint analysis. Management Science 36(12), 1464–1478 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Nair, S.K., Thakur, L.S., Wen, K.: Near optimal solutions for product line design and selection: Beam Search heuristics. Management Science 41(5), 767–785 (1995)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Robertson, D., Ulrich, K.: Planning for product platforms. Sloan Management Review 39(4), 19–31 (1998)Google Scholar
  16. Steiner, W., Hruschka, H.: Generic Algorithms for product design: how well do they really work? International Journal of Market Research 45(2), 229–240 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. Western, B.: Causal heterogeneity in comparative research: A bayesian hierarchical modelling approach. American Journal of Political Science 42, 1233–1259 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charalampos Saridakis
    • 1
  • Stelios Tsafarakis
    • 2
  • George Baltas
    • 3
  • Nikolaos Matsatsinis
    • 2
  1. 1.Leeds University Business School, University of LeedsLeedsUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.Department of Production Engineering & ManagementTechnical University of CreteChaniaGreece
  3. 3.Department of Marketing & CommunicationAthens University of Economics & BusinessAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations