Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-75dct Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T18:22:14.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DESIGN FOR FUTURE VARIETY TO ENABLE LONG-TERM BENEFITS OF MODULAR PRODUCT FAMILIES

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Erik Greve ,
Christoph Fuchs ,
Bahram Hamraz ,
Marc Windheim  and
Dieter Krause
Erik Greve*
Affiliation:
Institute of Product Development and Mechanical Engineering Design, Hamburg University of Technology;
Christoph Fuchs
Affiliation:
Siemens Advanta
Bahram Hamraz
Affiliation:
Siemens Advanta
Marc Windheim
Affiliation:
Siemens Advanta
Dieter Krause
Affiliation:
Institute of Product Development and Mechanical Engineering Design, Hamburg University of Technology;
*
Greve, Erik, Hamburg University of Technology, Institute of Product Development and Mechanical Engineering Design, Germany, erik.greve@tuhh.de

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

By developing and using modular product families, large savings can be achieved through reuse and combinability along the entire value chain of a company. Since these potentials often have a very long-term character, the lifetime of a modular product family should be as long as possible. Change drivers, such as changing customer and production requirements, however, result in changes having to be made to the initially developed modular product family, which not only causes a great effort but also prevents the long-term benefits from being fully exploited. With the Change Allocation Model, we introduce a tool that makes it possible to align the essential future changes to the product architecture and to identify and redesign the change-critical components taking into account the existing component variety of the product family. This enables future changes in variety to be considered in the product architecture and a future robust modular product family to be developed. The new visualization is illustrated using the example of a product family of pressure regulating valves and is finally discussed with regard to further potentials and challenges.

Keywords

Product familiesDesign for X (DfX)Product architectureModularityChange
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 993 - 1002
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Bauer, W. (2016), Planung und Entwicklung änderungsrobuster Plattformarchitekturen, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität München.Google Scholar
Cardin, M.-A. (2014), “Enabling Flexibility in Engineering Systems: A Taxonomy of Procedures and a Design Framework”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 136 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, P.J., Simons, C. and Eckert, C. (2004), “Predicting Change Propagation in Complex Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 126 No. 5, pp. 788–797. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1765117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cormier, P., Van Horn, D. and Lewis, K. (2009), “Investigating the use of (re)configurability to reduce product family cost and mitigate performance losses”, ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, San Diego, USA, pp. 1089–1100. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2009-87439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erixon, G. (1998), Modular Function Deployment: A Method for Product Modularisation, Ph.D. thesis, The Royal Institute of Technology, Department of Manufacturing Systems, Stockholm.Google Scholar
Fink, A. and Siebe, A. (2011), Handbuch Zukunftsmanagement: Werkzeuge der strategischen Planung und Früherkennung, Campus, Frankfurt a. M., Germany.Google Scholar
Fricke, E. and Schulz, A.P. (2005), “Design for changeability (DfC): Principles to enable changes in systems throughout their entire lifecycle”, Systems Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.20039CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, E. and Krause, D. (2018), “An Assessment of Methods to support the design of future robust modular product architectures”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 335–346. https://doi.org/10.21278/idc.2018.0249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, E., Rennpferdt, C., Hartwich, T. and Krause, D. (2019), “Determination of future robust product features for modular product family design”, ASME 2019 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Salt Lake City, USA, Nov 11–14. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2019-10497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greve, E., Fuchs, C., Hamraz, B., Windheim, M., Schwede, L.-N. and Krause, D. (2020), “Investigating the effects of modular product structures to support design decisions in modularization projects”, 2020 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering & Engineering Management, Singapore, Dec 14–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackl, J., Krause, D., Otto, K., Windheim, M., Moon, S.K., Bursac, N. and Lachmayer, R. (2020), “Impact of Modularity Decisions on a Firm's Economic Objectives ”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 142 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kipp, T. and Krause, D. (2008), “Design for Variety: Efficient Support for Design Engineers”, Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 425–432.Google Scholar
Krause, D., Beckmann, G., Eilmus, S., Gebhardt, N., Jonas, H. and Rettberg, R. (2014), “Integrated Development of Modular Product Families – a Methods Toolkit”, In: Simpson, T., Jiao, J., Siddique, Z. and Hölttä-Otto, K., Advances in Product Family and Product Platform Design - Methods & Applications, Springer Science+Business Media, New York, USA, pp. 245–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, U., Maurer, M. and Braun, T. (2009), Structural Complexity Management: An Approach for the Field of Product Design, Springer, Berlin, Germany.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K. (2002), “Design for variety: developing standardized and modularized product platform architectures”, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-002-0020-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morales, R. (2003), Systematik der Wandlungsfähigkeit in der Fabrikplanung. Ph.D. thesis, Leibniz Universität Hannover.Google Scholar
Mörtl, M.A. (2002), Entwicklungsmanagement für langlebige, upgradinggerechte Produkte, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität München.Google Scholar
Otto, K., Hölttä-Otto, K., Simpson, T.W., Krause, D., Ripperda, S. and Moon, S.K. (2016), “Global Views on Modular Design Research: Linking Alternative Methods to Support Modular Product Family Structure Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 138 No.7. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4033654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salvador, F. (2007), “Towards a product system modularity construct: Literature review and reconceptualization”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 54 No. 2. https://dx.doi/org/10.1109/TEM.2007.893996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuh, G. and Riesener, M. (2018), Produktkomplexität managen: Strategien - Methoden - Tools, Hanser, München, Germany.Google Scholar
Stone, R.B. (1997), Towards a Theory of Modular Design, Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas, Austin, USA.Google Scholar
Windheim, M. (2020), Cooperative Decision-Making in Modular Product Family Design, Ph.D. thesis, Technische Universität Hamburg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-60715-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar