Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Product family design and platform-based product development has received much attention over the last decade. This paper provides a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art research in this field. A decision framework is introduced to reveal a holistic view of product family design and platform-based product development, encompassing both front-end and back-end issues. The review is organized according to various topics in relation to product families, including fundamental issues and definitions, product portfolio and product family positioning, platform-based product family design, manufacturing and production, as well as supply chain management. Major challenges and future research directions are also discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agard B., Kusiak A. (2004) Data-mining-based methodology for the design of product families. International Journal of Production Research 42(15): 2955–2969

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad S., Schroeder R.G. (2002). Refining the product-process matrix. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22(1): 103–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Akundi S., Simpson T.W., & Reed P.M. (2005). Multi-objective design optimization for product platform and product family design using genetic algorithms. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2005/DAC-84905, Long Beach, CA.

  • Allen K.R., & Carlson-Skalak S. (1998). Defining product architecture during conceptual design. In ASME design engineering technical conference, DETC98/DTM-5650, Atlanta, GA.

  • Appelqvist P., & Heikkilä, J. (2003). A model for product, process and supply chain configuration in a build-to-order environment. The 4th Doctoral Colloquium in Industrial Engineering and Management, Espoo, Finland.

  • Ardissono L., Felfernig A., Friedrich G., Goy A., Jannach D., Petrone G., Schäfer R., Zanker M. (2003) A framework for the development of personalized, distributed web-based configuration systems. AI Magazine 24(3): 93–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Aydiny A.O., Gugor A. (2005). Effective relational database approach to represent bills-of-materials. International Journal of Production Research 43(6): 1143–1170

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker K.R., Magazine M.J., Nuttle H.L.W. (1986) The effect of commonality on safety stock in a simple inventory model. Management Science 32(8): 983–988

    Google Scholar 

  • Balakrishnan P.V.S., Jacob V.S. (1996) Genetic algorithms for product design. Management Science 42(1): 1105–1117

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin C.Y., Clark K.B. (2000) Design rules: The power of modularity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee P., & de Weck O.L. (2004). Flexibility strategy – valuing flexible product options. In INCOSE/ICSE conference on synergy between systems engineering and project management, Las Vegas, Nevada.

  • Bei Y., & MacCallum K.J. (1995). Decision support for configuration management in product development. In The 3rd international conference on computer integrated manufacturing (Vol. 1, pp. 278–286). Singapore: World Scientific.

  • Benjaafar S., Heragu S.S., Irani S.A. (2002) Next generation factory layouts: Research challenges and recent progress. Interfaces 32(6): 58–76

    Google Scholar 

  • Bi Z.M., Zhang W.J. (2001). Modularity technology in manufacturing: Taxonomy and issues. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 18(5): 381–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackenfelt M. (2000a). Profit maximisation while considering uncertainty by balancing commonality and variety using robust design – the redesign of a family of lift tables. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2000/DFM-14013, Baltimore, MD.

  • Blackenfelt M. (2000b). Design of robust interfaces in modular products. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC00/DAC-14486, Baltimore, MD.

  • Blackhurst J., Wu W., O’Grady P. (2005) PCDM: A decision support modeling methodology for supply chain, product and process design decisions. Journal of Operations Management 23(3–4): 325–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Blecker T., Abdelkafi N., Kreuter G., Friedrich G. (2004a) Product configuration systems: State-of-the-art, conceptualization and extensions. In: Hamadou A.B., Gargouri F., Jmaiel M. (eds). Intelligence Articielle (MCSEAI 2004). Génie logiciel & Soussee, Tunisia

    Google Scholar 

  • Blecker T., Abdelkafi N., Kreutler G., & Friedrich G. (2004b). An advisory system for customers’ objective needs elicitation in mass customization. In The 4th international ICSC symposium on engineering of intelligent systems. Funchal, Portugal: University of Madeira.

  • Bohm M.R., & Stone R.B. (2004). Representing functionality to support reuse: Conceptual and supporting functions. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2004-57693, Salt Lake City, Utah.

  • Bozarth C., McDermott C. (1998). Configurations in manufacturing strategy: a review and directions for future research, Journal of Operations Management 16(3): 427–439

    Google Scholar 

  • Brabazon P.G., MacCarthy B. (2004). Virtual-build-to-order as a mass customization order fulfilment model. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 12(2): 155–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Bramham J., & MacCarthy B. (2003). Matching configurator attributes to business strategy. In The 2nd world congress on mass customization and personalization, Munich.

  • Chakravarty A.K., Balakrishnan N. (2001) Achieving product variety through optimal choice of module variations. IIE Transactions 33(7): 587–598

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran B., Stone R.B., Mcadams D.A. (2004). Developing design templates for product platform focused design. Journal of Engineering Design 15(3): 209–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen L., Lin L. (2002). Optimization of product configuration design using functional requirements and constraints. Research in Engineering Design 13(3): 167–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi S.C., Desarbo W.S., Harker P.T. (1990). Product positioning under price competition. Management Science 36(2): 175–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi T.Y., Hong Y. (2002). Unveiling the structure of supply networks: Case studies in Honda, Acura, and DiamlerChrysler. Journal of Operations Management 20(5): 469–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Chong J.K., Ho T.H., Tang C.S. (1998). Product structure, brand width and brand share. In: Ho T.H., Tang C.S. (eds). Product variety management: Research advances. Kluwer Academic Publisher, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Claesson A., Johannesson H., & Gedell S. (2001). Platform product development: Product model – a system structure composed of configurable components. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC/DTM-21714, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Collier D.A. (1981) The measurement and operating benefits of component part commonality. Decision Sciences 12(1): 85–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett B., Rosen D.W. (2004). A configuration design based method for platform commonization for product families. AIEDAM, 18(1): 21–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa C.A., Young R.I.M. (2001). Product range models supporting design knowledge reuse. Proceedings of IMechE, Part B, Journal of Engineering Manufacture 215(3): 323–337

    Google Scholar 

  • Cutherell D. (1996). Product architecture. In M. Rosenau G. Griffin G. Castellion & N. Anschuetz (Eds.), The PDMA handbook of new product development. John Wiley & sons.

  • Dahmus J.B., & Otto K.N. (2001). Incorporating lifecycle costs into product architecture decisions. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2001/DAC-21110, Pittsburgh, PA, ASME.

  • Dai Z., & Scott M.J. (2004). Product platform design through sensitivity analysis and cluster analysis. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2004/DAC-57464, Salt Lake City, UT.

  • De Lit P.G., Delchambre A. (2003) Integrated design of a product family and its assembly system. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Massachusetts

    Google Scholar 

  • De Weck O.L., Suh E.S., & Chang D. (2003). Product family and platform portfolio optimization. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC03/DAC-48721, Chicago, IL.

  • Dobrescu G., Reich Y. (2003). Progressive sharing of modules among product variants. Computer-Aided Design 35(9): 791–806

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobson G., & Yano, C.A. (1994). Product line and technology selection with shared manufacturing and engineering design resources, Paper provided by Rochester, Business - Center for Manufacturing and Operations Management in its paper series with number (RePEc:fth:robuma:95-01), http://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/robuma/95-01.html.

  • Doran D. (2003) Supply chain implications of modularization. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 23(3/4): 316–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Du X., Jiao J., Tseng M.M. (2001). Architecture of product family: Fundamentals and methodology. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 9(4): 309–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Du X., Jiao J., Tseng M.M. (2002a). Graph grammar based product family modeling. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 10(2): 113–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Du X., Jiao J., Tseng M.M. (2002b). Product family modeling and design support: An approach based on graph rewriting systems. AIEDAM 16(2): 103–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Eppinger S.D., Whitney D.E., Smith R.P., Gebala D.A. (1994). A model-based method for organizing tasks in product development. Research in Engineering Design 6(1): 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Erens F., Verhulst K. (1997). Architectures for product families. Computers in Industry 33(2–3): 165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson A., & Erixon G. (1999). Controlling Design Variants: Modular Product Platforms, New York: ASME.

  • Erixon G., & Ostgren B. (1993). Synthesis and evaluation tool for modular designs. In International conference on engineering design (pp. 898–905). Hague, Netherlands.

  • Erlandsson A., Erixon G., & Ostgren B. (1992). Product modules – the link between QFD and DFA? The International Forum on Product Design for Manufacture and Assembly, Newport, RI.

  • Farrell R., & Simpson T.W. (2001). Improving commonality in custom products using product families. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2001/DAC-21125, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Feitzinger E., Lee H.L. (1997). Mass customization at Hewlett-Packard: The power of postponement. Harvard Business Review 75(1): 116–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Felfernig A., Friedrich G., Jannach D. (2001). Conceptual modeling for configuration of mass customizable products. Artificial Intelligence in Engineering 15(2): 165–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Fellini R., Kokkolaras M., Papalambros P.Y., & Perez-Duarte A. (2002a). Platform selection under performance loss constraints in optimal design of product families. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC02/DAC-34099, Montreal, Canada.

  • Fellini R., Kokkolaras M., Michelena N., Papalambros P., Saitou, K., Perez-Duarte A., & Fenyes P. (2002b). A sensitivity-based commonality strategy for family products of mild variation, with application to automotive body structures. In The 9th AIAA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, AIAA-2002-5610, Atlanta, GA.

  • Finch W. (1999). Set-based models of product platform design and manufacturing processes. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC99/DTM-8763, Las Vegas, NV.

  • Fine C.H., Golany B., Naseraldin H. (2005). Modeling tradeoffs in three-dimensional concurrent engineering: A goal programming approach. Journal of Operations Management 23 (3–4): 389–403

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher M., Ramdas K., Ulrich K. (1999). Component sharing in the management of product variety: A study of automotive braking systems. Management Science 45(3): 297–315

    Google Scholar 

  • Fixson S.K. (2002). Linking modularity and cost: A methodology to assess cost implications of product architecture differences to support product design, Ph.D. Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.

  • Fixson S.K. (2005). Product architecture assessment: A tool to link product, process, and supply chain design decisions. Journal of Operations Management 23(3–4): 345–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Forza C., Salvador F. (2002). Managing for variety in the order acquisition and fulfillment process: The contribution of product configuration systems. International Journal of Production Economics 76(1): 87–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson P. (2002). Modular assembly in the car industry – an analysis of organizational forms’ influence on performance. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 8(4): 221–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujimoto H., & Ahmed A. (2003). Assembly process design for managing manufacturing complexities because of product varieties. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 15(4): 283–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujita K., Sakaguchi H., & Akagi S. (1999). Product variety deployment and its optimization under modular architecture and module commonalization. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC99/DFM-8923, Las Vegas, NV.

  • Fujita K., Yoshida H. (2004). Product variety optimization simultaneously designing module combination and module attributes. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 12(2): 105–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Garg A. (1999). An application of designing products and processes for supply chain management. IIE Transactions 31(5): 417–429

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiopoulos P., Fellini R., Sasena M., & Papalambros P.Y. (2002). Optimal design decisions in product portfolio valuation. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2002/DAC-34097, Montreal, Canada.

  • Gerchak Y., Magazine M.J., Gamble A.B. (1988). Component commonality with service level requirements. Management Science 34(6): 753–760

    Google Scholar 

  • Gershenson J.K., Prasad G.J., Zhang Y. (2003). Product modularity: Definitions and benefits. Journal of Engineering Design 14(3): 295–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Zugasti J.P., Otto K., Baker J. (2000). A method for architecting product platforms. Research in Engineering Design 12(2): 61–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Green P.E., Krieger A.M. (1985). Models and heuristics for product line selection. Marketing Science 4(1): 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo F., & Gershenson J.K. (2004). A comparison of modular product design methods on improvement and iteration. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, Salt Lake City, UT.

  • Gupta S., Krishnan V. (1998). Product family-based assembly sequence design methodology. IIE Transactions 30(10): 933–945

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta S., Krishnan V. (1999). Integrated component and supplier selection for a product family. Production and Operations Management 8(2): 163–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halman J.I. M., Hofer A.P., van Wuuren W. (2003). Platform-driven development of product families: Linking theory with practice. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20(2): 149–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayes R., Wheelwright S. (1984). Restoring our Competitive Edge. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Hazelrigg G.A. (1998). A framework for decision-based engineering design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 120(4): 653–658

    Google Scholar 

  • He D.W., Kusiak A. (1996) Performance analysis of modular products. International Journal of Production Research 34(1): 253–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegge H.M.H., Wortmann J.C. (1991) Generic bill-of-material: A new product model. International Journal of Production Economics 23(1–3): 117–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson R.M., Clark K.B. (1990). Architecture innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly 35(1): 9–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez G., Allen J.K., Woodruff G.W., Simpson T.W., Bascaran E., Avila L.F., Salinas F. (2001). Robust design of families of products with production modeling and evaluation. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 123(2): 183–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill T. (1994). Manufacturing strategy: Text and cases. Irwin, Homewood, IL

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho T.H., Tang C.S. (1998). Product variety management: Research advances. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hölttä, K., & Salonen M. (2003). Comparing three modularity methods. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2003/DTM-48649, Chicago, IL.

  • Hölttä, K., Tang V., & Seering W. (2003). Modularizing product architectures using dendrograms. In International conference on engineering design, Stockholm.

  • Huang C.-C. (2004) A multi-agent approach to collaborative design of modular products. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 12(1): 39–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang C.-C., Liang W.Y. (2001). A formalism for designing with modules. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Industrial Engineers 18(3): 13–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang G.Q., Zhang X.Y., Liang L. (2005). Towards integrated optimal configuration of platform products, manufacturing processes, and supply chains. Journal of Operations Management 23(3–4): 267–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffman C., Kahn B. (1998). Variety for sale: Mass customization or mass confusion?. Journal of Retailing 74(4): 491–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Hvam L. (2004). A multi-perspective approach for the design of product configuration systems – an evaluation of industry applications. In International conference on economic, technical and organizational aspects of product configuration systems. Lyngby, Denmark: Technical University of Denmark.

  • Jiao R.J., Huang G.G.Q., Tseng M.M. (2004). Concurrent enterprising for mass customization. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 12(2): 83–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Lim C.M., & Kumar A. (2005a). Product family configuration design based on hybrid real options valuation. IIE Transactions.

  • Jiao J., Pokharel S., Zhang L., & Zhang Y. (2005b). Coordination of product and process variety in mass customization with data mining approach. In The 10th annual international conference on industrial engineering theory, applications & practice, Clearwater Beach, FL.

  • Jiao J., Tseng M.M. (1999). A methodology of developing product family architecture for mass customization. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 10(1): 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Tseng M.M. (2000) Understanding product family for mass customization by developing commonality indices. Journal of Engineering Design 11(3): 225–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Tseng M.M. (2004). Customizability analysis in design for mass customization. Computer-Aided Design 36(8): 745–757

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Tseng M.M., Duffy V.G., Lin F. (1998). Product family modeling for mass customization. Computers and Industrial Engineering 35(3–4): 495–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Tseng M.M., Ma Q., Zou Y. (2000). Generic bill of materials and operations for high-variety production management. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 8(4): 297–322

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Zhang L., & Pokharel S. (2003). Process platform planning for mass customization. In The 2nd interdisciplinary world congress on mass customization and personalization, Munich, Germany.

  • Jiao J., Zhang L., Pokharel S. (2005c) Coordinating product and process variety for mass customized order fulfillment. Production Planning and Control 16(6): 608–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Zhang L., Prasanna K. (2005d). Process variety modeling for process configuration in mass customization: An approach based on object-oriented Petri-nets with changeable structures. International Journal of Flexible Manufacturing Systems 16: 335–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiao J., Zhang Y. (2005). Product portfolio planning with customer–engineering interaction. IIE Transactions 37(9): 801–814

    Google Scholar 

  • Joglekar N., Rosenthal R. (2003). Coordination of design supply chains for bundling physical and software products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 20(5): 374–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannesson H. (1992). Computer aided modeling of families and family members of designed parts. Advanced Design Automation 44(2): 173–179

    Google Scholar 

  • Johannesson H., Claesson A. (2005). Systematic product platform design: A combined function-means and parametric modeling approach. Journal of Engineering Design 16(1): 25–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Kamrani A.K., Gonzalez R. (2003) A genetic algorithm-based solution methodology for modular design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 14(6): 599–616

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaul A., Rao V.R. (1995). Research for product positioning and design decisions: An integrative review. International Journal of Research in Marketing 12(4): 293–320

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim B., Leung J.M.Y., Park K.T., Zhang G., Lee S. (2002). Configuring a manufacturing firm’s supply network with multiple suppliers. IIE Transactions 34(8): 663–677

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim K., Chhajed D. (2001). An experimental investigation of valuation change due to commonality in vertical product line extension. Journal of Product Innovation Management 18(4): 219–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Klocke F., Fallbohmer M., Kopner A., Trommer G. (2000). Methods and tools supporting modular process design. Robotics and Computer Integrated Manufacturing 16(13): 411–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolisch R. (2000). Integration of assembly and fabrication for make-to-order production. International Journal of Production Economics 68(3): 287–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogut B., Kulatilaka N. (1994). Option thinking and platform investment: Investing in opportunity. California Management Review 36(20): 52–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Kokkolaras M., Fellini R., Kim H.M., Michelena N.F., Papalambros P.Y. (2002). Extension of the target cascading formulation to the design of product families. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization 24(4): 293–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Kota S., Sethuraman K., Miller R. (2000). A metric for evaluating design commonality in product families. Journal of Mechanical Design 122(4): 403–410

    Google Scholar 

  • Krishnan V., Gupta S. (2001). Appropriateness and impact of platform-based product development. Management Science 47(1): 52–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtadikar R.M., & Stone R.B. (2003). Investigation of customer needs frequency vs. weight in product platform planning. In ASME international mechanical engineering congress and R&D Expo, IMECE2003-42786, Washington, DC.

  • Kusiak A. (2002). Integrated product and process design: A modularity perspective. Journal of Engineering Design 13(3): 223–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusiak A., Huang C.C. (1996). Development of modular products. IEEE Transactions on Components, Packaging, and Manufacturing Technology. Part A 19(4): 523–538

    Google Scholar 

  • Lancaster K. (1990). The economics of product variety: A survey. Marketing Science 9(3): 189–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H., Billington C. (1994). Designing products and processes for postponement. In: Dasu S., Eastmen C. (eds). Management of design: engineering and management perspectives. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H.L., Sasser M.M. (1995). Product universality and design for supply chain management. Production Planning & Control 6(3): 270–277

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee H.L., Tang C.S. (1998) Variability reduction through operations reversal. Management Science 44(2): 162–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Li H., Azarm S. (2002). An approach for product line design selection under uncertainty and competition. Transactions of the ASME, Journal of Mechanical Design 124(3): 385–392

    Google Scholar 

  • Liang W.Y., O’Grady, P. (2000). A constrained evolutionary search formalism for remote design with modules. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 13(2): 65–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu S.C.-Y. (2004). F2B2C e-Commerce, http://www.f2b2c.com/.

  • Malmström J., & Malmqvist J. (1998). Tradeoff analysis in product structures: A case study at Celsius Aerotech. Proceedings of NordDesign’98 (pp. 187–196). Stockholm.

  • Männistö, T. (2000). A conceptual modeling approach to product families and their evolution. Ph.D thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Acta Polytechnica Scandinavica, Mathematics and Computing Series, No. 106, Espoo.

  • Markus A., Váncza J. (1998). Product line development with customer interaction. CIRP Annals 47(1): 361–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin M.V., & Ishii K. (1997). Design for variety: Development of complexity indices and design charts. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DFM-4359, Sacramento, CA.

  • Martin M.V., Ishii K. (2002). Design for variety: Developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures. Research in Engineering Design 13(4): 213–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Maull R., Hughes D., Bennett J. (1992). The role of the bill-of-materials as a CAD/CAPM interface and the key importance of engineering change control. Computing & Control Engineering Journal 3(2): 63–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez M.T., Favrel J., Fhodous P. (2000). Product family manufacturing plan generation and classification. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 8(1): 12–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Maupin A.J., & Stauffer L.A. (2000). A design tool to help small manufacturers reengineer a product family. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC99/DTM-14568, Baltimore, MD.

  • McAdams D.A., Wood K.L. (2002). A quantitative similarity metric for design-by-analogy. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 124(2): 173–182

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy I., Anagnostou A. (2004). The impact of outsourcing on the transaction costs and boundaries of manufacturing. International, Journal of Production Economics 88(1): 61–71

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McIvor R., Humphreys P. (2004). Early supplier involvement in the design process: Lessons from the electronics industry. OMEGA 32(3): 179–199

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay A., Erens F., Bloor M.S. (1996). Relating product definition and product variety. Research in Engineering Design 8(2): 63–80

    Google Scholar 

  • McKay A., Pennington A.D. (2001). Towards an integrated description of product, process and supply chain. International Journal of Technology Management 21(3/4): 203–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Medina J.F., Duffy M.F. (1998). Standardization vs globalization: A new perspective of brand strategies. Journal of Product and Brand Management 7(3): 223–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehrabi M.G., Ulsoy A.G., Koren Y. (2000). Reconfigurable manufacturing systems: Key to future manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 11(4): 413–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Messac A., Martinez M.P., Simpson T.W. (2002a). Effective product family design using physical programming and the product platform concept exploration method. Engineering Optimization 3(3): 245–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Messac A., Martinez M.P., Simpson T.W. (2002b). A penalty function for product family design using physical programming. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 124(2): 164–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M.H., Dalal D. (2001). Managing platform architectures and manufacturing processes for nonassembled products. Journal of Product Innovation Management 19(4): 277–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., Lehnerd A.P. (1997). The power of product platform – building value and cost leadship. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer M., & Utterback J. (1993). The product family and the dynamics of core capability. Sloan Management Review, Spring 1993, 29–47.

  • Michalek J.J., Feinberg F.M., Papalambros P.Y. (2005). Linking marketing and engineering product design decisions via analytical target cascading. Journal of Product Innovation Management 22(1): 42–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkola J.H., Gassmann O. (2003). Managing modularity of product architectures: Towards an integrated theory. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50(2): 204–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Mikkola J.H., Skjøtt-Larsen T. (2004). Supply-chain integration – implications for mass customization, modularization and postponement strategies. Production Planning & Control 15(4): 352–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Molina A., Rodriguez C.A., Ahuett H., Cortes J.A., Ramirez M., Jiménez G., Martinez S. (2005). Next-generation manufacturing systems: key research issues in developing and integrating reconfigurable and intelligent machines. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 18(7): 525–536

    Google Scholar 

  • Momme J., Moeller M.M., Hvolby H.-H. (2000). Linking modular product architecture to the strategic sourcing process: Case studies of two Danish industrial enterprises. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications 3(2): 127–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore W.L., Louviere J.J., Verma R. (1999). Using conjoint analysis to help design product platforms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16(1): 27–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan L.O., Daniels R.L., Kouvelis P. (2001). Marketing/Manufacturing tradeoffs in product line management. IIE Transactions 33(11): 949–962

    Google Scholar 

  • Muffatto M., Roveda M. (2002). Product architecture and platforms: A conceptual framework. International Journal of Technology Management 24(1): 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayak R.U., Chen W., Simpson T.W. (2002). A variation-based methodology for product family design. Journal of Engineering Optimization 34(1): 65–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson S.A. II, Parkinson M.B., Papalambros P.Y. (2001). Multicriteria optimization in product platform design. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 123(2): 199–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomb P.J., Bras B., & Rosen D.W. (1996). Implications of modularity on product design for the life cycle. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC96/DTM-1516, Irvine, CA.

  • Ng N.K., Jiao J. (2004). A domain-based reference model for the conceptualization of factory loading allocation problem in multi-site manufacturing supply chains. Technovation 24(8): 631–642

    Google Scholar 

  • Nobelius D., Sundgren N. (2002). Managerial issues in parts sharing among product development projects: A case study. Journal of Engineering Technology Management 19(1): 59–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak S., Eppinger S.D. (2001). Sourcing by design: Product architecture and the supply chain. Management Science 47(1): 189–204

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Grady P., Liang W.-Y. (1998) An object oriented approach to design with modules. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 11(4): 267–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen K.A., Sætre P. (1996). Managing product variability by virtual products. International Journal of Production Research 35(8): 2093–2107

    Google Scholar 

  • Oosterman B. (2001). Improving product development projects by matching product architecture and organization. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.

  • Oosterman B., Land M.L., Gaalman G. (2000). The influence of shop characteristics on workload control. International Journal of Production Economics 68(1): 107–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto K., Gonzalez-Zugasti J., & Dahmus J. (2000). Modular product architecture. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2000/DTM-4565, Baltimore, MD.

  • Otto K., Tang V., & Seering W. (2003). Establishing quantitative economic value for features and functionality of new products and new services, Chapter N, MIT PDMA Toolbook II, http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/3821.

  • Pagh J.D., Cooper, M.C. (1998) Supply chain postponement and speculation strategies: how to choose the right strategy. Journal of Business Logistics 19(2): 13–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Park B., Ghosh S., & Murthy N.N. (2000). A framework for integrating product platform development with global supply chain configuration. In National DSI conference, Orlando, FL.

  • Park J., Simpson T.W. (2005). Development of a production cost estimation framework to support product family design. International Journal of Production Research 43(4): 731–772

    Google Scholar 

  • Perera H.S.C., Nagarur N., Tabucanon M.T. (1999). Component part standardization: A way to reduce the life-cycle cost of products. International Journal of Production Economics 60–61(1): 109–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen K.J., Handfield R.B., Ragatz G.L. (2005). Supplier integration into new product development: Coordinating product, process and supply chain design. Journal of Operations Management 23(3–4): 371–388

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad B. (1998). Designing products for variety and how to manage complexity. Journal of Product & Brand Management 7(3): 208–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Raman N., Chhajed D. (1995). Simultaneous determination of product attributes and prices and production processes in product-line design. Journal of Operations Management 12 (3–4): 187–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramdas K., Fisher M., Ulrich K. (2003). Managing variety for assembled products: Modeling component systems sharing. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 5(2): 142–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramdas K., Sawhney M.S. (2001). A cross-functional approach to evaluating multiple line extensions for assembled products. Management Science 47(1): 22–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson D., Ulrich K. (1998). Planning product platforms. Sloan Management Review 39(4): 19–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Romanowski C.J., & Nagi R. (2002). A data mining and graph theoretic approach to building generic bills of materials. In The 11th industrial engineering research conference, Orlando, FL.

  • Rosen D.W. (1996). Design of modular product architectures in discrete design spaces subject to life cycle issues. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC96/DAC-1485, Irvine, CA.

  • Rothwell R., Gardiner P. (1990). Robustness and product design families. In: Oakley M. (eds). Design management: A handbook of issues and methods. Basil Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 279–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Rungtusanatham M., Forza C. (2005). Coordinating product design, process design, and supply chain design decisions, Part A: Topic motivation, performance implications, and article review process. Journal of Operations Management 23(3–4): 257–265

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabin D., Weigel R. (1998). Product configuration frameworks – a survey. IEEE Intelligent Systems & their Applications 13(4): 42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safizadeh M.H., Ritzman L.P., Mallick D. (2000). Revisiting alternative theoretical paradigms in manufacturing strategy. Production and Operations Management 9(2): 111–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sako M., & Murray F. (2000). Modules in design, production, and use: Implications for the global automobile industry, MIT IMVP Annual Sponsors Meeting, Cambridge.

  • Salhieh S.M., Kamrani A.K. (1999). Macro level product development using design for modularity. Robotics and Computer Integrated-Manufacturing 15(11): 319–329

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvador F., Forza C., Rungtusanatham M. (2002). Modularity, product variety, production volume, and component sourcing: Theorizing beyond generic prescriptions. Journal of Operations Management 20(5): 549–575

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez R. (1994). Towards a science of strategic product design: System design, component modularity, and product leveraging strategies. In The 2nd international product development management conference on new approaches to development and engineering, Gothenburg, Sweden.

  • Sanderson S., Uzumeri M. (1995). Managing product families: The case of the Sony walkman. Research Policy 24(5): 761–782

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawhney M.S. (1998). Leveraged high-variety strategies: From portfolio thinking to platform thinking. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 26(1): 54–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarze S. (1996). Configuration of multiple-variant products, Zürich: VDF ETH.

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

  • Sharman D.M., Yassine A.A. (2004). Characterizing complex product architectures. Systems Engineering 7(1): 35–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Schierholt K. (2001). Process configuration: Combining the principles of product configuration and process planning. AIEDAM 15(5): 411–424

    Google Scholar 

  • Shooter S.B., Simpson T.W., Kumara S.R.T., Stone R.B., Terpenny J.P. (2005). Toward a multi-agent information infrastructure for product family planning and mass customization. International Journal of Mass Customization 1(1): 134–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddique Z. (2001). Estimating reduction in development time for implementing a product platform approach. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2001/CIE-21238, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Siddique Z. (2005). Assembly process selection to minimize existing assembly system modification cost during new product family member design. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2005-85016, Long Beach, CA.

  • Siddique Z., Boddu K.R. (2004). A mass customization information framework for integration of customer in the configuration/design of a customized product. AIEDAM 18(1): 71–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddique Z., Repphun B. (2001). Estimating cost savings when implementing a product platform approach. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application 9(4): 285–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddique Z., & Rosen D.W. (1999). Product platform design: A graph grammar approach. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC99/DTM-8762, Las Vegas, NV.

  • Siddique Z., Rosen D.W. (2001). On discrete design spaces for the configuration design of product families. AIEDAM 15(2): 91–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Siddique Z., Rosen D.W., & Wang N. (1998). On the applicability of product variety design concepts to automotive platform commonality. In: ASME design engineering technical conferences, 98-DETC/DTM-5661, Atlanta, GA.

  • Simpson T.W. (2004). Product platform design and customization: Status and promise. AIEDAM 18(1): 3–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T.W., D’Souza B. (2004). Assessing variable levels of platform commonality within a product family using a multiobjective genetic algorithm. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 12(2): 119–130

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T.W., Maier J.R.A., Mistree F. (2001a). Product platform design: Method and application. Research in Engineering Design 13(1): 2–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T.W., Nanda J., Halbe S., Umapathy K., Hodge B. (2003). Development of a framework for web-based product platform customization. ASME Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering 3(2): 119–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Simpson T.W., Seepersad C.C., Mistree F. (2001b). Balancing commonality and performance within the concurrent design of multiple products in a product family. Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications 9(3): 177–190

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Singhal J., Singhal K. (2002). Supply chains and compatibility among components in product design. Journal of Operations Management 20(3): 289–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Sivard G. (2000). A generic information platform for product families. Doctoral thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.

  • Sosa M.E., Eppinger S.D., & Rowles C.M. (2003). The misalignment of product architecture and organizational structure in complex product development, INSEAD Working Paper, 2003/68/TM.

  • Stobaugh R., Telesio P. (1983). Match manufacturing policies and product strategy. Harvard Business Review 61(2): 113–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone R.B., Wood K.L., Crawford R.H. (2000). A heuristic method for identifying modules for product architectures. Design Studies 21(1) 5–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Su J.C.P., Chang, Y.-L., Ferguson M. (2005). Evaluation of postponement structures to accommodate mass customization. Journal of Operations Management 23(3–4): 305–318

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh N.P. (2001). Axiomatic design: Advances and applications. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundgren N. (1999). Introducing interface management in product family development. Journal of Production Innovation Management 16(1): 40–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Suzue T., Kohdate A. (1990). Variety reduction program: A production strategy for product diversification. Productivity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Takeishi A., Fujimoto T. (2003). Modularization in the car industry: Interlinked multiple hierarchies of product, production, and supplier systems. In: Prencipe A., Davies A., Hobday M. (eds). The business of systems integration. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 254–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Tarasewich P., Nair S.K. (2001). Designer-moderated product design. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 48(2): 175–188

    Google Scholar 

  • Tatikonda M.V. (1999). An empirical study of platform and derivative product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management 16(1): 3–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Thevenot H.J., Simpson T.W. (2005). Commonality indices for assessing product families. In: Simpson T.W., Siddique Z., Jiao J. (eds). Product platform and product family design: Methods and applications. Springer, New York, pp. 107–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Thonemann U.W., Bradley J.R. (2002). The effect of product variety on supply-chain performance. European Journal of Operational Research 143(3): 548–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Thonemann U.W., Brandeau M. (2000). Optimal commonality in component design. Operations Research 48(1): 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiihonen J., Lehtonen T., Soininen T., Pulkkinen A., Sulonen R., & Riitahuhta A. (1998). Modeling configurable product families. The 4th WDK workshop on product structuring, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands.

  • Tseng M.M., Jiao J. (1996). Design for mass customization. CIRP Annals 45(1): 153–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsubone H., Matsuura H., Satoh S. (1994). Component part commonality and process flexibility effects on manufacturing performance. International Journal of Production Research 32(10): 2479–2493

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich K. (1995). The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm. Research Policy 24(3): 419–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich K., Eppinger S.D. (1995). Product design and development. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich K., & Tung K. (1991). Fundaments of product modularity. In A. Sharon (Ed.), Issues in mechanical design international (pp. 73–79). New York: ASME, DE-39.

  • Van Hoek R.I. (2001). The rediscovery of postponement: A literature review and directions for future research. Journal of Operations Management 19(2): 161–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Veen E.A. (1992). Modeling product structures by generic bills-of-materials. Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wie M.J., Greer J.L., Campbell M.I., Stone, R. B., & Wood K.L. (2001). Interfaces and product architecture. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC01/DTM-21689, Pittsburgh, PA.

  • Van Wie M.J., Rajan P., Campbell M.I., Stone R.B., & Wood K.L. (2003). Representing product architecture. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC2003/DTM-48668, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Van Wie M., Stone R.B., Thevenot H., & Simpson T. (2006). Examination of platform and differentiating elements in product design. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing. Special Issue on Product Family Design and Development.

  • Wacker J.G., Trelevan M. (1986). Component part standardization: An analysis of commonality sources and indices. Journal of Operations Management 6(2): 219–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Wassenaar H.J., & Chen W. (2001). An approach to decision-based design. In Proceedings ASME 2001 design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, DETC2001/DTM-21683, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

  • Whitney D. E. (2003). Physical limits to modularity, Working paper, ESD-WP-2003-01.03-ESD, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

  • Wilhelm B. (1997). Platform and modular concepts at Volkswagen – their effects on the assembly process. In: Shimokawa K., Jürgens U., Fujimoto T. (eds). Transforming automobile assembly. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  • Willcox K., Wakayama S. (2003). Simultaneous optimization of a multiple-aircraft family. Journal of Aircraft 40(4): 616–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Wortmann J.C., Muntslag D.R., Timmermans P.J.M. (1997). Customer driven manufacturing. Chapman & Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Yano C., & Dobson G. (1998). Profit optimizing product line design, selection and pricing with manufacturing cost considerations. In T.-H. Ho & C. S. Tang (Eds.), Product variety management: Research advances (pp. 145–176). Kluwer Academic Publisher.

  • Yigit A.S., Galip-Ulsoy A.G., Allahverdi A. (2002). Optimizing modular product design for reconfigurable manufacturing. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 13(4): 309–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu J.S., Gonzalez-Zugasti J.P., Otto K.N. (1999). Product architecture definition based upon customer demands. ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 121(3): 329–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, T.-L., Yassine A.A., & Goldberg D.E. (2003). A genetic algorithm for developing modular product architectures. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, Chicago, Illinois.

  • Zamirowski E.J., & Otto K.N. (1999). Identifying product portfolio architecture modularity using function and variety heuristics. In ASME design engineering technical conferences, DETC99/DTM-876, Las Vegas, NV.

  • Zha X.F., Sriram R.D., Lu W.F. (2004). Evaluation and selection in product design for mass customization: A knowledge decision support approach. AIEDAM 18(1): 87–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J., Wang Q., Wan L., Zhong Y. (2005). Configuration-oriented product modeling and knowledge management for made-to-order manufacturing enterprises. International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 25(1–2): 41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Zinn W., Bowersox D.J. (1988). Planning physical distribution with the principle of postponement. Journal of Business Logistics 9(2): 117–136

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore

    Jianxin (Roger) Jiao

  2. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

    Timothy W. Simpson

  3. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Zahed Siddique

Authors
  1. Jianxin (Roger) Jiao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Timothy W. Simpson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zahed Siddique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jianxin (Roger) Jiao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

(Roger) Jiao, J., Simpson, T.W. & Siddique, Z. Product family design and platform-based product development: a state-of-the-art review. J Intell Manuf 18, 5–29 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10845-007-0003-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation