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: tws8@psu.edu

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