Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Flexible product platforms: framework and case study

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Research in Engineering Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Customization and market uncertainty require increased functional and physical bandwidth in product platforms. This paper presents a platform design process in response to such future uncertainty. The process consists of seven iterative steps and is applied to an automotive body-in-white where 10 out of 21 components are identified as potential candidates for embedding flexibility. The paper shows how to systematically pinpoint and value flexible elements in platforms. This allows increased product family profit despite uncertain variant demand, and specification changes. We show how embedding flexibility suppresses change propagation and lowers switching costs, despite an increase of 34% in initial investment for equipment and tooling. Monte Carlo simulation results of 12 future scenarios reveal the value of embedding flexibility.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This does not necessarily preclude market segments from partially overlapping.

  2. Prime candidates are change multipliers with CPI > 0 and/or elements with K switch >> 0.

  3. Actual manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) and transaction prices may not reflect this ‘optimal’ price due to discounts and other factors.

  4. Note that the revenue for the entire vehicle is taken into account in the NPV calculations, but that the costs only capture the components and assembly of the BIW.

References

  • Bremmer R (1999) Cutting-edge platforms. Financial Times Automotive World, September, pp 30–38

  • Busch J, Field F III (1988) Technical cost modeling. In. Rosato D (ed) The blow molding handbook. Hansr Publisher, New York

  • Clemen R (1996) Making hard decisions: an introduction to decision analysis, 2nd edn. Duxbury Pr., Belmont

  • Conjoint analysis: a guide for designing and interpreting conjoint studies (1992) American Marketing Association

  • Cook H (1997) Product management: value, quality, cost, price, product and organization. Chapman & Hall, London

  • Dunteman G (1989) Principal component analysis. Sage Publications, Beverly Hills

  • Eckert C, Clarkson P, Zanker W (2004) Change and customisation in complex engineering domains. Res Eng Des 15(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger S, Whitney D, Smith R (1994) A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Res Eng Des 6(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg D (1989) Genetic algorithms: in search, optimization, and machine learning. Addison-Wesley, Boston

  • Gonzalez-Zugasti J, Otto K, Baker J (2000) A method for architecting product platforms. Res Eng Des 12(2):61–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Zugasti J, Otto K, Baker J (2001) Assessing value in platformed product family design. Res Eng Des 13(1):30–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han H, Chen A, Clark J, Field III, F (1993) Material design sensitive costing of the body-in-white. In: Proceedings of the international body engineering, Detroit, MI, 21–23 September

  • Hauser J, Clausing D (1988) The house of quality. Harv Bus Rev 66(3):63–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull J (2002) Options, futures, and other derivative securities. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

  • Jajuga K, Sokolowski A, Bock H (2002) Classification, clustering and data analysis. Springer, Heidelberg

  • Kirchain R (2004) Cost modeling of materials and manufacturing processes. In: Encyclopedia of materials: science and technology, pp 1718–1727

  • Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt Jr. C, Vecchi M (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science 220(4598):671–680

  • Li H, Azarm S (2002) An approach for product line design selection under uncertainty and competition. J Mech Des 124(3):385–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin M, Ishii K (2002) Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architecture. Res Eng Des 13(4):213–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M, Lehnerd A (1997) The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers R, Montgomery D (2002) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments, 2nd edn. Wiley, Hoboken

  • Moses J et al, ESD Committee (2002) ESD symposium committee overview. In: The ESD Internal Symposium, MIT, Cambridge, MA

  • Motor Vehicle Dimensions (2001) Society of Automotive Engineers

  • Narayanan S, Azarm S (1999) On improving multiobjective genetic algorithms for design optimization. Struct Optim 18:146–155

    Google Scholar 

  • de Neufville R et al (2004) Uncertainty management for engineering systems planning and design. In: The second engineering systems symposium, MIT, Cambridge, MA

  • Pahl G, Beitz W (1996) Engineering design: a systematic approach, 2nd rev. edn. Springer, London

  • Papalambros PY, Wilde DJ (2000) Principles of optimal design-modeling and computation, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • Pine J (1993) Mass customization: the new frontier in business competition. Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge

  • SAE (2001) Motor vehicle dimensions, SAE standards J1100 (R), Society of Automotive Engineers

  • Sanderson S, Uzumeri M (1997) The innovation imperative: strategies for manufacturing product models and families. Irwin Professional Publisher, Illinois

  • Seepersad C, Hernandez G, Allen J (2000) A quantitative approach for determining product platform extent. In: ASME international design engineering technical conference, Baltimore, Maryland, September, DETC2000/DAC-14288

  • Seepersad C, Mistree F, Allen J (2002) A quantitative approach for designing multiple product platforms for an evolving portfolio of products. In: ASME international design engineering technical conference, Montreal, Canada, September, DETC2002/DAC-34096

  • Sheffi Y (2005) The resilient enterprise: overcoming vulnerability for competitive advantage. MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Simmons G (2005) U.S. Auto Market Splinters. In: The Detroit News, 31 January 2005

  • Simpson T, Maier J, Mistree F (2001) Product platform design: method and application. Res Eng Des 13(1):2–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T, Siddique Z, Jiao J (eds) (2005) Product platform and product family design: methods and applications. Springer, New York

  • Simpson T, Marion T, de Weck O, Holtta-Otto K, Kokkolaras M, Shooter S (2006) Platform-based design and development: current trends and needs in industry. In: ASME international design engineering technical conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September, DETC2006/DAC-99229

  • Suh E (2005) Flexible product platforms, Ph.D. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Engineering Systems Division

  • Suh E, de Weck O, Kim I, Chang D, (2007) Flexible platform component design under uncertainty. J Intell Manuf. 18(1):115–126. Special Issue on Product Family Design and Development

    Google Scholar 

  • Trigeorgis L (1996) Real options: management flexibility and strategy in resource allocation. MIT Press, Cambridge

  • Ulrich K, Eppinger S (1999) Product design and development. McGraw-Hill, New York

  • Womack J, Jones D, Roos D (1991) The machine that changed world. Harper-Collins Publishers, London

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by General Motors Research and Development under contract no. 40002716 from 2003 to 2005. Dr. Alan Taub and Jan Aase served as sponsors while Dr. David Chang, Chief Scientist Math Tools, served as project technical monitor. Mrs. Jennifer Craig and Mr. Michael Mack at MIT assisted in proofing the manuscript. Dr. Sangdon Lee at GM provided the Ingress/Egress and Roominess attribute translator models. Moreover, Dr. Zhihong Zhang, Ty Bollinger, Randy Urbance, Joe Donndelinger, and Dr. Peter Fenyes at General Motors provided specific data and general guidance for the automotive platform case study. Dr. Daniel Whitney, as well as Prof. Christoper Magee and Prof. David Wallace provided input and advice in developing the FPDP methodology. The assistance of all individuals named and unnamed who supported this work, including the journal referees is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering Systems Division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 33-410,77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Eun Suk Suh & Olivier L. de Weck

  2. General Motors R&D Center, 30500 Mound Road, Warren, MI, 48090, USA

    David Chang

Authors
  1. Eun Suk Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Olivier L. de Weck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Chang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Olivier L. de Weck.

Additional information

This research was supported by General Motors R&D under contract 40002716.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Suh, E.S., de Weck, O.L. & Chang, D. Flexible product platforms: framework and case study. Res Eng Design 18, 67–89 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0032-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-007-0032-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation