1 / 20

PENN S TATE

Differentiation and Platform Architecting. ME 546 - Designing Product Families - IE 546. Timothy W. Simpson Professor of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering and Engineering Design The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 phone: (814) 863-7136 email: tws8@psu.edu

chipo
Download Presentation

PENN S TATE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Differentiation andPlatform Architecting ME 546 - Designing Product Families - IE 546 Timothy W. Simpson Professor of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering and Engineering Design The Pennsylvania State University University Park, PA 16802 phone: (814) 863-7136 email: tws8@psu.edu http://www.mne.psu.edu/simpson/courses/me546 PENNSTATE © T. W. SIMPSON

  2. Planning Product Platforms • Robertson and Ulrich (1998) advocate a three-step approach: 1) Product plan – which products to offer when 2) Differentiation plan – how products will be differentiated 3) Commonality plan – which components/modules will be shared Source: D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, 1998, "Planning Product Platforms," Sloan Management Review, 39(4), pp. 19-31.

  3. Commonality Plan and Differentiation Plan Commonality Plan for automotive example Differentiation Plan for automotive example Source: D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, 1998, "Planning Product Platforms," Sloan Management Review, 39(4), pp. 19-31.

  4. Product Family Architecting • Based on the commonality plan and differentiation plan, an architecture must be developed for the platform and family of products • If everything is the same,then nothing is differentdespite cost savings • If everything is different,then costs skyrocket • Trick: how to find the best architecture to balance the two Source: D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, 1998, "Planning Product Platforms," Sloan Management Review, 39(4), pp. 19-31.

  5. Platform Architecting • The platform architecture will lead to a product family with a given level of commonality and distinctiveness • Option A has low commonality but each product is very distinctive • Option B has high commonality but products lackdistinctiveness • Option C has a good balance ofcommonality and distinctiveness C A B

  6. Commonality/Variety Tradeoff Angle • Within a given industry do companies tend to apply the same strategy: do they have the same trade-off angle, a, between commonalityand variety? • X. Ye & J. Gershenson(Michigan Tech) arguethat they do and havecreated the Product Family EvaluationGraph (PFEG) based on this idea to provide guidance for companiesin product family design C A a a B a

  7. Product Family Evaluation Graph (Ye, 2008) • Compares alternative product families to determine which family best meets a company’s strategic goals • Also good for product family benchmarking • The tradeoff angle, a, is dictated by strategic impact factors and a company’s competitive focus  ideal target  actual  realistic goal for company  target tradeoff

  8. Strategic Impact Factors – Marketing

  9. Strategic Impact Factors: Others • Each factor is scored and weighted: and a is computed:

  10. Power Tool Case Study  • Imagine you are designing Delta’s new power toolset • The competition is existingtoolsetsmade by: 

  11. Determining a for Delta – Ideal vs. Actual • Use linear regression to correlate S and a based on competition   39.61 74.3

  12. PFEG Discussion • Why the differences between estimated and actual? • How else could we use PFEG? • What do you think about the underlying assumption, i.e., companies within a given industry tend to use a similar commonality/variety strategy?

  13. Factors Affecting Platform Architecture • Customer requirements • Changing performance needs (including size, style, weight, etc.) • New environmental constraints (temperature, humidity, vibration, etc.) • New functions (due to new markets or new enabling technologies) • Reliability improvements • Reduce prices (cost reductions required) • Reduce amount of material • Change material type • Remove redundant components • Reduce assembly time • Use lower cost technology • Reduce serviceability requirements • Reduce serviceability time • Improve component manufacturing process • Regulations, standards, and so on • Changing government/industry regulations or standards • Competitor introduction of improved product (higher quality or lower price) • Obsolescence of parts Source: Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235.

  14. Generational Variety Index • GVI is an indicator of the amount of redesign required for a component to meet future market requirements • Process for calculating GVI: Step 1: Determine market & desired life for platform Step 3: List expected changes in customer requirements Step 2: Create QFD matrix Step 4: Estimate engineering metric target values Step 5: Calculate normalized target values matrix Step 6: Create GVI matrix Step 7: Calculate GVI Source: Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235.

  15. What is Quality Function Deployment (QFD)? • Developed by Japanese in 1970’s to provide a way to propagate customer needs through product, part, and process quality requirements using a series of maps • House of Quality helps translate “Voice of the Customer” into specific engineering requirements Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73.

  16. Customer Attributes  Engineering Characteristics Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73.

  17. House of Quality (HOQ) Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73. The “roof” identifies any relationships between the Engineering Requirements The “basement” identifies specific targets for each Engineering Requirement

  18. Generational Variety Index • GVI is an indicator of the amount of redesign required for a component to meet future market requirements • Process for calculating GVI: Step 1: Determine market & desired life for platform Step 3: List expected changes in customer requirements Step 2: Create QFD matrix Step 4: Estimate engineering metric target values Step 5: Calculate normalized target values matrix Step 6: Create GVI matrix Step 7: Calculate GVI Source: Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235.

  19. Example of GVI Computation • Consider the design of a water coolerfor current and three future markets: Water bottle T E C Heat sink Reservoir Fan Insulation Power supply Water Cooler Chassis (side view) Source: Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235.

  20. GVI Matrices Engineering Requirements Components QFD Matrix I QFD Matrix II Engineering Requirements Customer Requirements GVI Matrix GVI Ratings Note: Elements with higher GVI values will require most redesign for future markets; so, platform low GVI elements and embed flexibility into/for high GVI elements

More Related