AccScience Publishing / IJOSI / Volume 1 / Issue 2 / DOI: 10.6977/IJoSI.201007_1(2).0003
Submit to IJOSI
Cite this article
8
Citations
12
Views
Journal Browser
Volume | Year
Issue
Search
Forthcoming Issue
Current Issue
View All
News and Announcements
View All
ARTICLE

An Innovative Matrix-Based Approach for Designing Product Variety

Yao-Tsung Ko
Show Less
IJOSI null , 1(2), 27–43; https://doi.org/10.6977/IJoSI.201007_1(2).0003
Submitted: 4 May 2010 | Revised: 2 November 2010 | Accepted: 4 May 2010 | Published: 22 October 2010
© by the Authors. Licensee AccScience Publishing, USA. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution -Noncommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ )
Download PDF
Cite
XML
HTML
Abstract

New product development (NPD) and innovation are key factors that affect a company’s long-term survival and growth. The design process is an important stage in new product development (NPD). Based on graph theory and the weighting concept, this paper presents a Quantified Design Structure Matrix (QDSM) which is a systematic planning method of optimizing design priorities and product architecture for managing product variety from an informational structure perspective. Focusing on product variety and the design process in concurrent engineering (CE), the planning model is divided into two phases: global planning and local planning. The proposed method helps designers optimize the design planning and plan better design strategies for product variety. A case study is used to illustrate this method. The results verify that designers may concurrently create variant design solutions in a product family that can meet different market needs without extra effort being spent on redundant design loops.

References
  1. Blackenfelt, M., Profit maximisation while considering uncertainty by balancing commonality and variety using robust design – the redesign of a family of lift tables, In: Proc 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Baltimore, USA. 2000, ASME, New York.
  2. Claesson A ., H. Johannesson, and S. Gedell, Platform product development: product model – a system structure composed of configurable components, In: Proc 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, USA, 9 –12 September. 2001, ASME, New York.
  3. Cui N., R. Chen, a nd S. Ma, Structured modeling of business process of an enterprise, Journal of HuaZhong University of Science and Technology, 1997, 25 (2), 59-62, (in Chinese).
  4. Dahmus J . and Otto K., Incorporating life -cycle costs into product architecture decisions, In: Proc 2001 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, USA, 9 –12 September. 2001, ASME, New York.
  5. Dahmus, J., Gonzalez-Zugasti, P. and Otto, K ., Modular product architecture, presented at 2000 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, DFM -14021, Baltimore, MD, 10 –13 September 2000.
  6. Du, X., J iao, J. and T seng, M. M., 2001, Architecture of product family: fundamentals and methodology, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Application, 2001, 9, 309 –325.
  7. Erens F.J., The synthesis of variety: developing product families, Dissertation Eindhoven University of Technology, 1996.
  8. Fujita K. and K. Ishii, Task structuring toward computational approaches to product variety design, In: Proceedings of the ASME Design En gineering Technical Conferences, 1997, DETC97/DAC -3766.
  9. Fujita K., H. Sakaguchi, and S. Akagi, Product variety deployment and its optimization under modular architecture and module communalization, In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical C onferences, 1999, DETC99/DFM -8923.
  10. Halman, J.I.M., Hofer, A.P. and van Vuuren, W., Platform driven development of product families: linking theory with practice. J. Product Innovation Management, 2003, 20(2), 149 –162.
  11. Huang G.Q. and K.L. Mak, Re-engineerin g the product development process with “design for X”, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B, 1998, 212, 259-268.
  12. Jose A. and Tollenaere M., Modular and platform methods for product family design: literature analysis, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 2004, 16(3), 371-390.
  13. Kitamura T., A computer -aided approach to the structural analysis and modification of a large circulatory system mode l, IEEE Transaction on Biomedical Engineering, 1999, 46, 485–493.
  14. Ko Y .T. and T.L. Li, Product design: Multimedia AV Power Cable, Advanced studies catalogue, iF Yearbook Product 2007, iF international Forum Design GmbH press, Hannover, 2007, Germany: 820.
  15. Kusiak A. and J. Wang, Efficient organizing of design activities, International Journal of Production Research, 1993, 31, 753-769.
  16. Maier J . and G. Fadel, Strategic decisions in the early stages of product family design, In: Proc 2001 ASME Design Engineeri ng Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, USA, 9 –12 September, 2001, ASME, New York.
  17. Martin M.V. and K. Ishii, Design for variety: development of complexity indices and design chart, In: Proceedings of the ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, 1997, DETC97/DFM -4359.
  18. Pine B.J., Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, 1993.
  19. Roberts F.S., Discrete Mathematical Models, Prentice -Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976.
  20. Robertson D. and K.T. Ulrich, Plannin g for product platforms, Sloan Management Review, 1998, 39, 19–31.
  21. Rogers J., A knowledge -based tool for multilevel decomposition of complex design problem, NASA TP2903, May, 1989.
  22. Salvador F., Forza C. and Rungtusanatham M., Modularity, product variety, p roduction volume, and component sourcing: theorizing beyond generic prescriptions, 2002, Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), 549 -575
  23. Sharma H.D., A.D. Gupta, and Sushil, The objectives of waste management in India: a futures inquiry, Technolog ical For ecasting and Social Change, 1995, 48, 285 –309.
  24. Smith R.P., Development and verification of engineering design iteration models, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1992.
  25. Steward D.V ., The design structure system: a method for managing the d esign of complex systems, IEEE Transa ctions on Engineering Management,1981, 28(3), 71-74.
  26. Suh N.P., “The Principles of Design.”, Oxford University Press, NY.
  27. Ulrich, K. and E ppinger, S., Product Design and Development, New York: McGraw -Hill, 2000.
  28. Warfiel d J.N., On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form, IEEE -SMC3, 1973, 121–132.
  29. Warfield J.N., A Science of Generic Design: Managing Complexity Through System Design, Intersystems, Salinas, CA, 1990, l.1.
  30. Weinblatt H., A new search algorithm for fi nding the simple cycles of finite directed graphs, Journal of ACM, 1972, 19, 43-56.
  31. Xiao R.B., and Q. Fei, Application of the improved method in structural modeling to comprehensive management of the Mine Bereaus, System Engineering: Theory and Practice, 1997, 17(3), 57-62. (in Chinese).
  32. Xiao R.B., A new approach to modeling the complex system structure.”, Process in Natural Science, 2001, 11, 25–32. (in Chinese).
  33. Yassine A. and D. Braha, Complex Concurrent Engineering and the Design Structure Matrix Metho d, Concurrent Engineering, 2003, 11(3), 165-176.
  34. Yassine A. and R.S. Sreenivas, Managing the exchange of information in product development., European Journal of Operational Research, 2008, 184(1), 311 -326.
Next article in this issue
Share
Back to top
International Journal of Systematic Innovation, Electronic ISSN: 2077-8767 Print ISSN: 2077-7973, Published by AccScience Publishing
We use cookies on our website to ensure you get the best experience.
Read more about our cookies here
Accept