Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Framework for Evaluating Commonality

  • Conference paper
Design for Configuration

Abstract

The issue of product families and product platforms have gained an increased interest both in academia and industry. The concept of commonality is often mentioned within this framework. However, commonality may occur at different levels of abstraction, commonality of functions or parts, and at different levels of detail, commonality of modules or parts. This paper presents a literature survey of related research on product families, product structuring and measurements associated to those areas, in order to clarify what to consider when measuring commonality. The result is a framework for measuring commonality. Firstly, there is a need to clarify the kind of commonality measured, that is, on what architectural and structural level (level of abstraction and level of detail) is the commonality measured. Secondly, there is also a need to clarify what reference that is used for calculating the commonality. The concepts of product family commonality and product variant commonality are introduced to distinguish the reference for calculating the commonality.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Meyer, M.H. and Lehnerd, A.P. (1997), “The power of product platforms, Building value and cost leadership”, The Free Press, New York, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  2. Erixon, G., et al. (1994), “Modularise the product” (“Modulindela produkten” in Swedish), Industrilitteratur, Stockholm, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  3. Whitney, D.E. (1993), “Nippondenso Co. Ltd.: A case study of strategic product design”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 5, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bremner, R. (1999), “Cutting edge platforms” Financial Times, Automotive World, September, 1999

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (1995), “Product design and development”, McGrawHill, New York, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sanderson, S.W. & Uzumeri, M. (1997), “The Innovation Imperative: Strategies for Managing Product Models and Families”, Irwin, Chicago, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lee, H.L. & Tang C.S. (1993), “Modelling the cost and benefits of delayed product differentiation”, Management Science, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  8. Lehnerd, A.P. (1987), “Revitalizing the manufacture and design of mature global products”, in Guille, B.R. and Brooks, H., eds., “Technology and global industries”, National Academy Press, Washington, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  9. Rothwell, R. & Gardiner, P. (1990), “Robustness and Product Design Families”, Design Management: A Handbook of Issues and Methods (Oakley, M., ed.), Basil Blackwell Inc., Cambridge, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wortman, H.C. & Erens, F.J. (1995), “Control of variety by generic product modelling”, 1:st World Congress. on Intelligent Manufacturing Processes and Systems., San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  11. Erens, F. & Verhulst, K. (1996), “Architectures for product families”, 2nd WDKworkshop on Product Structuring, TU Delft, The Netherlands, June 3-4, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pahl, G. & Beitz, W (1996), “Engineering Design - a systematie approach”, Springer-Verlag, London, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kohlhase, N. & Birkhofer, H. (1996), “Development of modular structures: the prerequisite for successful modular products”, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 7, No. 3, Sept., p. 279–291, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. T. (1998), “Planning for product platforms”, Sloan Management Review, Summer, p. 19–31, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sundgren, N. (1998), “Product platform development - Managerial issues in manufacturing firms”, Doctoral thesis, Chalmers university of Technology, Dept. of Operations management and work organisation, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  16. Meyer, M. & Utterbeck j. (1993), “The product family and the dynamics of core capability., Sioan Management Review, Spring, p. 29–47, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  17. Meyer, M. & Lopez, L. (1995), “Technology strategy in software products company”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, p. 294–306,1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McGrath, M. (1995), “Product strategy for high-technology companies”, Irwin Professional Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Muffatto, M. (1997), “Enhancing the product development process through a platform approach”, Proceedings of the 10th International Conference in Production Research, Osaka, 4-8 August, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ericsson, J, et al. (1996), “Sharing parts aeross ear models: lessons from the manufactures”, Europe’s Automotive Components Business, 1st quarter, p. 150–171, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sawhney, M.S. (1998), “Leveraged high-variety strategies: from portfolio thinking to platform thinking”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 26, No. 1, p. 54–61, 1998

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Baldwin, C.Y. & Clark, K.B. (1997), “Managing in an age of modularity”, Harvard Business Review, September - October, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ulrich, K.T. (1995), “The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm”, Research Policy, Vol. 24, p. 419–440,1995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Fine, C.H. & Whitney, D.E. (1996), “Is the make-buy decision process a core competence”, MIT Center for technology, policy and industrial development, Feb. 1996

    Google Scholar 

  25. Collier, D.A. (1981), “The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality”, Decision Sciences. Vol. 12, No. 1, p.85–96, 1981

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Sanchez, R. (1994), “Towards a science of strategie product design”, 2nd International product development management conference on new approaches to development and engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden, p.564–578, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  27. Smith, P.G. & Reinertsen, D.G. (1995), “Developing products in half the time”, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1995

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fujita, K., et al. (1998), “Simultaneous optimisation of product family sharing system structure and configuration”, ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, September 13-16 1998, Atlanta, USA., DETC98/DFM-5722

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reinertsen, D.G. (1992), “Use product architecture to slash design time”, Electronic Design. Vol. 40, No.25, 3 Dec., p.59–62, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  30. Andreasen, M.M. (1995), “On structure and structuring”, Workshop Fertigungsgerechtes Konstruieren, Erlangen, Oct. 1995

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hubka, V. & Eder, W.E. (1988), “Theory of Technical Systems”, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  32. Slack, N., et al. (1998), “Operations management” Second edition, Pitman Publishing, London, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  33. Andreasen, M.M., et al. (1996), The structuring of products and product programmes, Proc. 2nd WDK workshop on product structuring, Delft, June 3-4, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ulrich, K.T. and Tung K. (1991), “Fundamentals of product modularity”, ASME winter meeting symposium on issues in designlmanufacturing integration, Atlanta USA,1991

    Google Scholar 

  35. Miller, T.D. & Elgaard, P. (1999), “Structuring principles for the designer”. the International CIRP Design Seminar, 24-26 Mar. 1999, University of Twente, The Netherlands”

    Google Scholar 

  36. Meyer, M.H., Terzakian, P. & Utterback, J.M. (1997), “Metrics for managing research and development in the context of the product family”, Metrics for managing research and development in the context of the product family, Management Science, Vol. 43 No. 1, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  37. Erixon, G. (1998), “Modular Function Deployment-A method for product modularization”, Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Dept. of Manufacturing system, Sweden, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pugh, S. (1991), “Total Design - Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering”, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, New York, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  39. Maier, T. (1993), “Similarity information through commonality analysis of a product program”, (in German), ICED, The Hague, The Netherlands, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  40. Martin, M.V. & Ishii, K. (1996), “Design for variety: a methodology for understanding the costs ofproduct profileration”, ASME, 18-22 Aug., Irvine, USA, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  41. Martin, M.V. & Ishii, K. (1997), “Design for variety: development of complexity indices and design charts”, ASME, 14-17 Sept., Sacramento, USA, 1997

    Google Scholar 

  42. Collier, D.A. (1982), “Aggregate Safety Stock Levels and Component Part Commonality”, Management Science, Vol. 28, No. 22, p. 1296–1303, 1982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kota, S. & Sethuraman, K. (1998), “Managing variety in product families through design for commonality”, ASME, 13-16 Sept., Atlanta, USA, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  44. Siddique, Z., Rosen, D.w. & Wang N. (1998), “On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality”, ASME, 13-16 Sept., Atlanta, USA,1998

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Manufacturing Systems Div. of Assembly Systems, Royal Institute of Technology, S-100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

    Roger B. Stake

Authors
  1. Roger B. Stake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratory of Machine Design, P.O. Box 589, 33101, Tampere, Finland

    Asko Riitahuhta  & Antti Pulkkinen  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2001 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Stake, R.B. (2001). A Framework for Evaluating Commonality. In: Riitahuhta, A., Pulkkinen, A. (eds) Design for Configuration. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56905-0_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-56905-0_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-63211-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-56905-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation