Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A methodology for portfolio-level analysis of system commonality

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

Abstract

Complex systems are increasingly being developed as part of portfolios or sets of related complex systems. This enables synergies such as commonality between portfolio systems that can significantly reduce portfolio life-cycle cost and risk. While offering these benefits, commonality usually also incurs up-front as well as life-cycle penalties in cost and risk due to increased design complexity. The resulting trade-off needs to be carried out during the architecting stage of the portfolio life cycle when there is maximum leverage to improve life-cycle properties due to degrees of freedom available in architectural and design decisions. This paper outlines a 4-step methodology for the identification and assessment of commonality opportunities in complex systems portfolios during the architecting stage of the portfolio life cycle. The methodology transforms a solution-neutral description of a portfolio of aerospace systems based on system functionality, requirements, and metrics into a set of preferred portfolio design solutions with commonality. The methodology is based on a 2-stage approach that identifies preferred architectures for each system in the portfolio individually prior to heuristic commonality analysis between systems based on a pairwise assessment of system overlap in functionality, technologies, operational environments, and scale. Application of the methodology is demonstrated with a retrospective analysis of NASA’s Saturn launch vehicle portfolio.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Belew LF (ed) (1977) Skylab: our first space station, NASA-SP-400. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell J (1967) An evolutionary program for manned interplanetary exploration. AIAA J Spacecr 4(5):625–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bilstein RE (ed) (1996) Stages to Saturn: a technological history of the apollo/saturn launch vehicles, NASA-SP-4206. The NASA History Series, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA History Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Boas R, Crawley EF (2007) Divergence: the impact of lifecycle changes on commonality, seventeenth annual international symposium of the international council on systems engineering, pp 24–28

  • Burgelman RA, Christensen CM, Wheelwright SC, Maidique MA (2003) Strategic management of technology and innovation, 4th revised edn. McGraw Hill Higher Education

  • Coan DA, Bell ER (2006) Essential commonality for effective future extravehicular activity operations, AIAA 2006–5953, space operations 2006 conference

  • Cooper RG, Edgett SJ, Kleinschmidt EJ (2001) Portfolio management for new products, 2nd edn. Perseus Books, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortright EM (ed) (1975) Apollo: expeditions to the moon, NASA-SP-350. Scientific and Technical Information Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahmus JB, Gonzalez-Zugasti JP, Otto KN (2001) Modular product architecture. Des Stud 22(5):409–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson MW, Thornton AC, Graves S (2001) Technology portfolio management: optimizing interdependent projects over multiple time periods. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 48(4):518–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dobrescu G, Reich Y (2003) Progressive sharing of modules among product variants. Comput Aided Des 35:791–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dori D (2002) Object-process methodology: a holistic systems paradigm. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Egbert NF, McKain TF (1994) Allison engine company, common core development approach for allison T406/AE family of turboshaft, turboprop, and turbofan engines, AIAA 94-2829, 30th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference, June 27–29, 1994, Indianapolis, Indiana

  • Ezell EC, Ezell LN (eds) (1978) The partnership: a history of the Apollo-Soyuz test project, NASA-SP-4209. The NASA History Series, National Aeronautics and Space Administration Scientific and Technical Information Office, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellini R, Kokkolaras M, Papalambros P, Perez-Duarte A (2005) Platform selection under performance loss constraints in optimal design of product families. ASME J Mech Des 127(4):524–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K (2002) Product variety optimization under modular architecture. Comput Aided Des 34(12):953–965

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Zugasti JP, Otto KN, Baker JD (2001) Assessing value for platformed product family design. Res Eng Des 13(1):30–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson RF (2007) Reuse and interoperability of avionics for space systems. AIAA pp 207–2918

  • Hoffman EJ (ed.) (1995) NASA systems engineering handbook. NASA-SP-610S, Washington

  • Hofstetter WK (2009) A framework for the architecting of aerospace systems portfolios with commonality, doctoral thesis according to the requirements of the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  • Hofstetter WK, Wooster PD, de Weck OL, Crawley EF (2007) The system overlap matrix: a method and tool for the systematic identification of commonality opportunities in complex technical systems, 9th international design structure matrix conference, DSM’07 16–18 October 2007, Munich, Germany

  • Kalligeros K (2006) Platforms and real options in large-scale engineering systems, doctoral thesis, engineering systems division, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

  • Kalligeros K, de Weck O, de Neufville R, Luckins A (2006) Platform identification using design structure matrices, sixteenth annual international symposium of the international council on systems engineering (INCOSE), Orlando, Florida, 8–14 July 2006

  • Khajavirad A, Michalak JJ, Simpson TW (2009) An efficient decomposed multiobjective genetic algorithm for solving the joint product platform selection and product family design problem with generalized commonality. Struct Multidiscip Optim 39(2):187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khalil TM (2000) Management of technology: the key to competitiveness and wealth creation. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson WJ, Pranke LK (eds) (2000) Human spaceflight: mission analysis and design. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Maier MW, Rechtin E (2000) The art of systems architecting. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Messac A, Martinez MP, Simpson TW (2002) Effective product family design using physical programming. Eng Optim 34(3):245–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer MH, Lenherd AP (1997) The power of product platforms: building value and cost leadership. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • NASA JSC (2007) Spacecraft/vehicle level cost model. http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/SVLCM.html

  • National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2005) Exploration Systems Architecture Study –Final Report, NASA-TM-2005-214062

  • Nayak RU, Chen W, Simpson TW (2002) A variation-based method for product family design. J Eng Optim 34(1):65–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orloff RW (ed) (2001) Apollo by the numbers: a statistical reference, NASA-SP-4029, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA History Division

  • Otto K, Hölttä-Otto K (2007) A multi-criteria assessment tool for screening preliminary product platform concepts. J Intell Manuf 18(1):59–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otto K, Wood K (2001) Product design: techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart O, Schaefer I, Fricke E (2001) Platform strategy in airship development, AIAA lighter than air convention

  • Sered Y, Reich Y (2006) Standardization and modularization driven by minimizing overall process effort. Comput Aided Des 38:405–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siddiqi A, de Weck O (2007) Spare parts requirements for space missions with reconfigurability and commonality. J Spacecr Rockets 44(1):147–155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simmons WL (2008) A framework for decision support in systems architecting. PhD thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smaling R, de Weck O (2007) Assessing risks and opportunities of technology infusion in system design. Syst Eng 10(1):1–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suh ES, de Weck OL, Chang D (2007) Flexible product platforms: framework and case study. J Res Eng Des 18(2):67–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas LD (1989) A methodology for commonality analysis, with application to selected space station systems, NASA-TM-100364, science and engineering directorate, space station project engineering office, NASA

  • Waiss RD (1987) Cost reduction on large space systems through commonality, AAA 1987–0585, AIAA 25th aerospace sciences meeting

  • Willcox K, Wakayama S (2002) Simultaneous optimization of a multiple-aircraft family, AIAA 2002-1423, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, 22–25 April 2002, Denver, Colorado

  • Zhang WY, Tor SY, Britton GA (2006) Managing modularity in product family design with functional modeling. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 30:579–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Prof. Dr. Olivier L. de Weck (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and Prof. Dr. rer. nat. Ulrich Walter (Technische Universität München, Germany) for their support and advice.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Boston Consulting Group GmbH, Görresstrasse 11, 80798, Munich, Germany

    Wilfried K. Hofstetter

  2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Massachusetts Avenue 77, Cambridge, MA, 02139, USA

    Edward F. Crawley

Authors
  1. Wilfried K. Hofstetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward F. Crawley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wilfried K. Hofstetter.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, and 8.

Table 6 Design parameters for the modeling of engines and propulsion stage fuselages
Full size table
Table 7 Morphological matrix of technology choices for the Saturn IB use case
Full size table
Table 8 Morphological matrix of technology choices for the Saturn I use case
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hofstetter, W.K., Crawley, E.F. A methodology for portfolio-level analysis of system commonality. Res Eng Design 24, 349–373 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0151-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-012-0151-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation