PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON PENN S TATE Timothy W. Simpson Professor of Mechanical & Industrial...
-
Upload
william-blankenship -
Category
Documents
-
view
220 -
download
0
Transcript of PENN S TATE © T. W. S IMPSON PENN S TATE Timothy W. Simpson Professor of Mechanical & Industrial...
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSONPENNSTATE
Timothy W. SimpsonProfessor of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering and Engineering DesignThe Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA 16802
phone: (814) 863-7136email: [email protected]
http://www.mne.psu.edu/simpson/courses/me546
Differentiation andPlatform ArchitectingDifferentiation and
Platform Architecting
ME 546 - Designing Product Families - IE 546
© T. W. SIMPSON
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Planning Product PlatformsPlanning Product Platforms
• Robertson and Ulrich (1998) advocate a three-step approach:1) Product plan – which products to offer when2) Differentiation plan – how products will be differentiated3) 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.
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Commonality Plan and Differentiation Plan
Commonality Plan and Differentiation Plan
Source: D. Robertson and K. Ulrich, 1998, "Planning Product Platforms," Sloan Management Review, 39(4), pp. 19-31.
Diff
eren
tiatio
n P
lan
for
auto
mot
ive
exam
ple
Com
mon
ality
Pla
nfo
r au
tom
otiv
e ex
ampl
e
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Product Family ArchitectingProduct 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.
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Platform ArchitectingPlatform 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
A
B
C
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Commonality/Variety Tradeoff Angle
Commonality/Variety Tradeoff Angle
• Within a given industry do companies tend to apply the same strategy: do they have the same trade-off angle, , 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
A
B
C
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Product Family Evaluation Graph (Ye, 2008)
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, , is dictated by strategic impact factors and a company’s competitive focus
idealtarget
realisticgoal for
company
targettradeoff
actual
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Strategic Impact Factors – Marketing
Strategic Impact Factors – Marketing
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Strategic Impact Factors: Others
Strategic Impact Factors: Others
• Each factor is scored and weighted: and is computed:
)(1
if
n
ii IwS
Sf
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Power Tool Case StudyPower Tool Case Study
Competitors CDIC CDIV
c S
Black and Decker® 0.424 0.576 53.67° 5
DEWALT® 0.324 0.676 64.42° 13
Skil® 0.438 0.562 52.10° 2Skil
®
w i I fi S i w i I fi S i w i I fi S i w i I fi S i
Stability and predictability of demand levels
6 -1 -6 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 6 -1 -6
Customer needs characteristics
1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1
Customer needs 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3
Price consciousness 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 9 -1 -9 9 -1 -9
Quality consciousness 9 1 9 9 1 9 9 1 9 9 1 9
Level of pre- and post sales service
6 1 6 6 1 6 6 1 6 6 1 6
Buyer power 9 1 9 6 1 6 6 1 6 3 1 3
Competitive intensity 6 1 6 9 1 9 6 1 6 6 1 6
Unique sets of customer requirements
1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 3 -1 -3
Development time 6 -1 -6 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 6 -1 -6
Product life-cycle length and predictability
1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1
Maintenance and service 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3
Automation level 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 1 -1 -1 3 -1 -3
Recycling 6 -1 -6 1 -1 -1 3 -1 -3 1 0 0
Financial condition 9 1 9 6 1 6 6 1 6 6 1 6
Distribution and supply channel
3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3 3 -1 -3
Sum = 5 13 2 -8
Delta®
Factor Dewalt® Black & Deck® Skil®
Black & Decker®
• Imagine you are designing Delta’s new power toolset
• The competition is existingtoolsetsmade by:
DEWALT®
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Determining for Delta – Ideal vs. Actual
Determining for Delta – Ideal vs. Actual
Company S target a b
Delta® -8 1.17 48.95 39.61° = -8×1.17+48.95 = 39.61
-10 -5 0 5 10 1535
40
45
50
55
60
65
c
S
Skil®
Black and Decker®
DEWALT®
39.6°
DeltaF DeltaF
0
1
CDIC
CD
I V
1
P̂
0.22
0.78
74.3°
®
®
39.6 , DeltaP
® °
CDIC CDIV
actual
ideal
Delta® 0.22 0.78 74.3° 39.6°
39.6174.3
• Use linear regression to correlate S and based on competition
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
PFEG DiscussionPFEG 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?
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Factors Affecting Platform Architecture
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.
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Generational Variety IndexGenerational Variety Index
Step 1:Determinemarket &
desired life for platform
Step 2:Create QFD
matrix
Step 3:List expectedchanges in customer
requirements
Step 4:Estimate
engineeringmetric target
values
Step 5:Calculate
normalizedtarget 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.
• GVI is an indicator of the amount of redesign required for a component to meet future market requirements
• Process for calculating GVI:
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
What is Quality Function Deployment (QFD)?
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.
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Customer Attributes Engineering Characteristics
Customer Attributes Engineering Characteristics
Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73.
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
House of Quality (HOQ)House of Quality (HOQ)
The “roof” identifies any relationships between the Engineering Requirements
Source: J. R. Hauser and D. Clausing, 1998, "The House of Quality," Harvard Business Review, 66(3), pp. 63-73.
The “basement” identifies specific targets for each
Engineering Requirement
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Generational Variety IndexGenerational Variety Index
Step 1:Determinemarket &
desired life for platform
Step 2:Create QFD
matrix
Step 3:List expectedchanges in customer
requirements
Step 4:Estimate
engineeringmetric target
values
Step 5:Calculate
normalizedtarget 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.
• GVI is an indicator of the amount of redesign required for a component to meet future market requirements
• Process for calculating GVI:
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
Example of GVI ComputationExample of GVI Computation
• Consider the design of a water coolerfor current and three future markets:
Waterbottle
Insulation
TEC
Heatsink Fan
Power supply
Water Cooler Chassis (side view)
Reservoir
Co
ol d
ow
n ti
me
(m
in)
Wa
ter
Te
mp
era
ture
(C
)
Co
ld w
ate
r vo
lum
e (
ga
l)
Po
we
r co
nsu
mp
tion
(W
)
Wid
th (
in)
He
igh
t (in
)
De
pth
(in
)
Vo
lum
e fl
ow
ra
te (
ga
l/min
)
MT
BF
(h
rs)
Co
st (
$)
Exp
ect
ed
ra
ng
e o
f ch
an
ge
o
ver
pla
tform
life
Fast cool down x MCold water x LHigh capacity x MLow energy usage x MCompact x x x LFill cup quickly x MReliable x LLow cost x M
Current Market 120 10 0.5 75 12.5 13 13 0.5 15,000 100Future Market 1 120 10 0.5 50 12.5 13 13 0.5 15,000 100Future Market 2 90 10 0.8 75 12.5 13 13 0.8 15,000 125Future Market 3 120 10 0.5 75 10 13 10 0.5 15,000 80 Apr-02
EM Target Values Sep-00 Jun-01 Oct-01
Source: Martin, M. V. and Ishii, K., 2002, "Design for Variety: Developing Standardized and Modularized Product Platform Architectures," Research in Engineering Design, 13(4), pp. 213-235.
PENNSTATE
© T. W. SIMPSON
GVI MatricesGVI Matrices
Fa
n
He
at S
ink
Th
erm
o-E
lec
Co
ole
r
Po
we
r S
up
ply
Ch
ass
is
Plu
mb
ing
Re
serv
oir
Insu
latio
n
Fa
scia
Cool down time (min) 3 6 3 1 6 1 6Water Temperature (C)Cold water volume (gal) 9Power consumption (W) 1 3 3Width (in) 6 6Height (in)Depth (in) 6 6Volume flow rate (gal/min) 9 1MTBF (hrs)Cost ($) 1 1 3 3 6GVI: 4 7 6 5 15 9 19 1 24
Fa
n
He
at S
ink
Th
erm
o-E
lec
Co
ole
r
Po
we
r S
up
ply
Ch
ass
is
Plu
mb
ing
Re
serv
oir
Insu
latio
n
Fa
scia
Cool down time (min) x x x x x x xWater Temperature (C)Cold water volume (gal) xPower consumption (W) x x xWidth (in) x xHeight (in)Depth (in) x xVolume flow rate (gal/min) x xMTBF (hrs)Cost ($) x x x x x
Co
ol d
ow
n ti
me
(m
in)
Wa
ter
Te
mp
era
ture
(C
)
Co
ld w
ate
r vo
lum
e (
ga
l)
Po
we
r co
nsu
mp
tion
(W
)
Wid
th (
in)
He
igh
t (in
)
De
pth
(in
)
Vo
lum
e fl
ow
ra
te (
ga
l/min
)
MT
BF
(h
rs)
Co
st (
$)
Fast cool down xCold water xHigh capacity xLow energy usage xCompact x x xFill cup quickly xReliable xLow cost x
Rating Description
9Requires major redesign of the component (>50% of initial redesign costs)
6 Requires partial redesign of component (<50%)3 Requires numerous simple changes (<30%)1 Requires few minor changes (<15%)0 No changes required
QFD Matrix IQFD Matrix I QFD Matrix IIQFD Matrix II
CustomerRequirements
Engineering Requirements
EngineeringRequirements
Components
GVI RatingsGVI RatingsGVI MatrixGVI Matrix
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