Download
slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PENN S TATE PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
PENN S TATE

PENN S TATE

199 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

PENN S TATE

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 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